Page images

dividuals in 52 communities of northwest Arkansas, southwest Missouri, and northeast Oklahoma urges every possible consideration of immediate construction of Table Rock in view of the economic needs of this area.


MOUNTAIN HOME, ARK., March 3, 1954. CHARLES FAIN, 1303 New Hampshire Avenue NW.,

Washington, D. C.: Local economic results from construction of Norfork, 55,000 acres taken off tax rolls 1942: Taxes on this 1942 was $3,126: 1952 engineers paid Baxter County over $12,000 in lieu of taxes. Bank deposits, Baxter County 1941, were $645,000; 1952, $3,093,000; Fisher liscences sold Baxter County 1941 were 1,600 ; 1952, 67,508; 1941 Baxter County bad 98 tourist court accommodations; 1952, 92 courts with 1,792 accommodations; post office receipts $4,800 1941 to $28,942 in 1952: total assessed property in Baxter County 1941, $1,884,661 : 1952, $3,273,437. Baxter County had 300 REA members in 1941 with 1,823 members in 1952.

ToM TINNON. Senator KNOWLAND. Proceed, Mr. Fain.


Mr. Fain. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this point to say something about the land which is being taken in the Table Rock Reservoir area. Actually, there are about 16,000 acres of land in the total reservoir area which have been classified by the Corps of Engineers as farming land. Even of the 16,000 acres, there are only about 6,000 acres that land which could be cultivated. At this time, I would like to introduce into the record a telegram from Mr. Dolphus Howe, from Branson, Mo., concerning the type of land which is being taken into the reservoir area, also several others in support of Table Rock Dam.

Senator KNOWLAND. They may be printed in the record. (The telegrams referred to follow :)

BBANSON, Mo., March 3, 1954. Mr. CHARLES FAIN, 1303 New Hampshire Avenue NW.,

Washington, D. O.: According to official survey 85,100 acres of land will be included in Table Rock Reservoir. Sixteen thousand two hundred acres are bottom land of which only 25 percent is cultivatable. Twenty-five percent is pasture and meadow, and the rest is bush and wasteland. Eighty percent of a!! land covered is bench and hillside land. Empire District owns 6 000 acres of best farmland, and practically none of this is in production. When contrasted with the more than 1 million acres of fertile farmland downstream in Arkansas that would be protected from the devastating floods of the White River should Table Rock be built, the loss in agricultural production from the lands inundated by Table Rock backwater would be infinitesimal.

DoLPHUs HowE, Chairman, Agriculture Committee.

GAINESVILLE, Mo., March 4, 1954. CHARLEY FAIN, 1303 New Hampshire Avenue NW.,

Washington, D. C.: The Gainesville Chamber of Commerce strongly recommends that the Table Rock Dam be approved and construction started at once because we feel before it can be finished there will be a shortage of power in this region and it is needed for flood control, Also it would go far toward relieving a critical situation

caused by the prolonged drought by furnishing widespread employment. We
believe these are the sentiments of all citizens in this Ozark region.

HOWARD WADE, President.

BRANSON, Mo., March 3, 1954. Mr. CHARLES FAIN,

1309 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.:
The farmers of this area are overwhelmingly in favor of the construction of
Table Rock Dam. Land to be inundated consists of very small proportion that is
in production due to mountainous type of terrain. Due to long drought in this
area, immediate construction of Table Rock Dam would be of invaluable help
to farmers who could work on this project and make enough to buy feed and
maintain their livestock.

Manager, Taney County Group, Missouri Farmers A880ciation.

BRANBON, Mo., March 3, 1954. CHARLES FAIN,

1303 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.: Referring to damages and land losses from Table Rock:

The bottoms that will be flooded are narrow compared to the areas on lower White River that floodwaters will be held off of.

The use of electric power on dairy and poultry farms of this region has hardly
gotten well started. Many more people stand to gain, than stand to lose by the
building of Table Rock Dam at this time.

Operator of 6,000 acres of Taney County land, member of Board of

Directors of Branson Farmers Exchange, member of Board of Direc-
tors of Springfield Producers Produce Co., Secretary of Taney
County Farmers Association under Missouri Farmers Association

[ocr errors]


Mr. Fain. I would also like to say for the benefit of the committee that I am very familiar with that land which is being taken. I have visited all of those people in that area, I have been on those farms, I have campaigned on them, so I know the type of farmland that is being taken. I would like to state to the committee that of all of the farmland that is being taken, I know of only one farm—that is a farm owned by Mr. Lester Lofte—that is improved to such an extent that it has modern plumbing facilities. That is the only one I know of, of that entire 6,000 acres that has that at the present time.

That is the type of lands that would be taken in this area.

Also I would like to state that a large part of that 6,000 acres of land is owned by Empire District Electric Co. It was acquired by them many years ago when they thought that it would be feasible for them to build this dam, and also they have acquired a great portion of that land through delinquent tax sales in our area.

That means that a big portion of that 6,000 acres is not owned by the people who live on it and occupy it. Rather, they are merely renting it on a year-to-year lease from Empire District Electric Co. There has been very little development of that land in the area. There is very little improvement on it. Actually, the main two issues here, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, are these:


We want the control of floods on the White River. Living there, I have seen the White River come up time and time again, and from a very small stream get to be one a half mile wide. I have lived practically within a stone's throw of the river and I know what has happened on it. I would just like to point out 1 or 2 examples for you.

The town of Hollister, Mo., was at one time a thriving community; it had a bank, and was the center of farm trade in the area. But because of the recurring floods which have completely inundated the business section of that town, Hollister, Mo., stands today practically vacant and will remain so until flood protection is given to the area.

The School of the Ozarks is a private institution which is located on the banks of White River. In years past, the school has acquired a large bottom farm of about 90 acres, which is located approximately 10 miles below the dam site. This farm was acquired to furnish vegetable production to a canning factory, which the School of the Ozarks built at a cost of $50,000. And yet, because of these recurring floods over that land, this production has been wiped out entirely.

Very recently I spoke to Dr. R. M. Goode, the president and founder of the school, as to what this meant to him as a loss to the school annually, and he stated to me that on that field alone, it is costing them over $10,000 a year because of no flood protection from that river.


Very recently, he has been planning to put in an irrigation system. The cost of materials alone on this system in irrigating that 90 acres of field will be $35,000. They cannot put in that system until flood protection is given to them. That is material which will come from far away from the Ozark area. It is material which will be produced largely here in the eastern part of the United States. And yet they cannot go ahead until given that protection.

These examples will just simply show you, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of times, why we want flood protection on the lower White River. It will protect approximately 1,064,000 acres on the lower White River, swapping this 6,000 acres of land which is not even cultivated in the reservoir area.

Senator KNOWLAND. Thank you very much.





Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Robinson, do you have a statement?

Mr. ROBINSON. I would like to file a statement for the record, and summarize it orally.

Senator KNOWLAND. That will be filed for the record and will be printed in full at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)


OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN MULTIPLE-PURPOSE PROJECTS Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is the national service organization of more than 90 rural electric systems in the United States and Alaska, representing over 3, million farm families and rural establishments. About 92 percent of the systenas are members.

We are here in support of several multiple-purpose projects that are important to the rural-electrification program. Our people have, by resolution and throu:h their national association board of directors, gone on record as having asked your favorable consideration of the projects I shall mention.

During fiscal year 1953, the rural electric systems throughout the United States distributed 13.1 billion kilowatt-hours of energy. This represents an increase of 15 percent over the same figure for fiscal 1952, and indicates that the electrical loads in the rural areas are growing rapidly and have not ceased to grow even though in most areas upward of 90 percent of all farms are now electrified.

Our total power requirements cost us over $97 million for fiscal 1953. During fiscal year 1953, we purchased 6.45 billion kilowatt-hours, or 19.3 percent of our total requirements, from private utility companies. We purchased 3.50 billion kilowatt-hours, or 29 percent of the total, from Federal power marketing agencies. We generated 1.82 billion kilowatt-hours, or 14 percent of the total ourselves, and the remaining 7.7 percent we purchased from other miscellaneous sources.

The most significant fact revealed by the energy figures for 1953 is that although the national average cost of our wholesale power was 7.8 mills par kilowatt-hour, we were able to purchase from the Federal power marketing agencies at an average rate of less than 5.7 mills per kilowatt-hour, while for our major source of supply, the commercial utility companies charged us an average 8.4 mills per kilowatt-hour.

Relatively speaking, the more heavily populated areas served by our systems have already been electrified and now our people are reaching out to serve the very thin areas in accordance with REA's policy of area coverage wherever possible. Naturally, in the thinner areas, the unit construction costs are higher botn because there are fewer farm families per mile of line built and because generally the terrain is more difficult where the people are few.

Our systems pay approximately 32 percent of their total power sales revenue for wholesale energy on the average. This is the largest single item of our operating expenses, and represents a potential means of serving the thin areng Ly a reduction in wholesale power costs. If we can even slightly reduce our total outlay for wholesale energy, we are in a better position financially to undertake service to marginal sections of our operating areas.

The greater part of our expansion, like that of the power companies, however, is vertical and will doubtless continue indefinitely. Our need for more and more power will continue to expand rapidly.

We are, therefore, vitally interested in and affected by construction of multiple purpose projects by the Corps of Engineers for the production of porter. We do not now, nor did we ever advocate that the Federal Government should take over and operate as an exclusive monopoly the generation of power through out the country. Conversely, it is our opinion that the influence of those proje erts which have been already constructed and which are producing power has been of inestimable value to us, not only because it has enabled an unbelievably fast development of the economy in the area of which the projects are located. but because it has meant to us substantial savings in the money we paid for wholesale energy.

Not only do the rural electric cooperatives and power districts benefit from the power and energy actually delivered to them from the Federal projerts, but it is our experience that the mere existence of these projects in a givea section of the country invariably brings about rate reductions and improrements of service from other power suppliers as a natural consequence of their desire to hold the farmers systems as satisfied customers.

We have divided the zroup of multiple purpose projects for which funds have been requested in the President's budget for the fiscal year 1955 into four pa rate categories: (a) Projects under construction for which funds are fren; Projects under construction for which new money is asked; (c) Projects ring complettion for which carryover funds only are asked; (d) Projects for ich planning funds only are requested.

Projects under construction for which funds are frozen ble Rock Dam, White River, Mo.-Ark: Capacity in kilowatts..

100, 000 Programed for fiscal year 1955---

$2, 349, 546 Cable Rock Dam on the Misouri-Arkansas border is the only power facility [ which funds have been frozen after construction was already initiated. This particular dam was strongly supported by the rural electric systems of e area who have, on at least two occasions, testified before committees of the ingress that without Table Rock, the rural electric systems of the Southwest id the other preference customers would be unable to secure adequate supplies low-cost energy from the system of the Southwestern Power Administration. any of them fear or believe that without Table Rock, they will not be able obtain adequate power from any source. You may recall that during the Korean crisis, the Federal Government diverted 50,000 kilowatts of Bull Shoals Dam capacity to serve an aluminum company i Arkansas under a long-term contract in order to increase aluminum producOn. Rather the Federal Government had to turn over 150,000 kilowatts of ower to the Arkansas Power & Light Co. in order to get the company to eliver 110,000 kilowatts to the aluminum plant. In spite of claims to the ontrary by the power companies in the area, and notwithstanding rumors and eports that indicate there is no need for Table Rock power, there was, noneheless, no other source of low-cost power supply available for aluminum production in the United States. Bull Shoals power had been previously comnitted to the rural electric cooperatives throughout much of the SPA area. 'urthermore, these G.-T. cooperatives have built generation and transmission Cacilities from their load centers, to the north and to the west, to the Bull Shoals busbar in order to be able to absorb the power into their systems and integrate it with their steam generating facilities. For these reasons, there was a definite understanding that Table Rock Dam would be begun and constructed on an accelerated schedule in order to replace the power that had been sold out from under the cooperatives.

Members of Congress, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, the then chairman of the Senate Civil Functions Subcommittee, and other members of the Government, participated in the promise and agreement. Congress appropriated the first construction funds for the project 2 years ago and the dam was started a year ago last fall.

The dam has been supported by 2 of the 3 major power companies operating in the area. The third company has made no public statement against the project that we know of. Last year, Congress approved $1 million of funds for continuing construction of the project during tiscal 1954, but at the same time, adopted the conference committee's report freezing the funds pending further action by the Appropriations Committee. The conference report stated

"It is the desire of the conferees that a study be made of the projects by the Corps of Engineers as to the need for power in the area, the ability of present governmental facilities and private power utilities to meet any future need that might exist and the adequacy of the present estimated cost of the project. Such study should be presented to the above-mentioned subcommittee not later than January 1954.”

As you all know, the study has been completed by the Corps of Engineers, and was presented to the Appropriations Committees on December 16, 1953. It shows a need for power in the area, that the power facilities will be selfliquidating, that the cost will be lower than from other alternative sources of generation, and that the present estiinated cost of the project is adequate. The new budget requests for fiscal 1955 does not seek any new funds for the Table Rock Dam, but the $2,349,546 of carryover funds now frozen by the committees was not withdrawn in the budget recommendations.

Generating facilities at Table Rock will include an ultimate 200,000 kilowatts of capacity and will make an additional 123,000 kilowatts of dependable capacity available downstream in addition,



« PreviousContinue »