Page images
PDF
EPUB

actual and the future, and I don't know why else they use the years alongside their figures, then you will see that this is very irregular. In some places their estimate is less than 50 percent, even, of the actual; sometimes, 100 percent. There is no regular difference, so far as I can detect.

(The exhibit referred to appears on p. 230.)

Mr. REAVLEY. The IBWC report at page 64, as I understand it, indicates the dry years which reduce us to 81 percent of dependable 75,000-kilowatt capacity. As I read the statement on page 64 these dry years were, or will be in the corresponding years in the future: 1912, 1913, 1918, and 1919.

I don't understand that, because the actual record shows 3,269,000 acre-feet of flow in 1912, and the figure they have estimated for 1912 or the corresponding future year is less than half of that.

In 1913 it was 2,249,000.

And in the years 1918 and 1919, there were not any official records kept.

I not only know that from the bureau of water commissioners in Texas, but the IBWC report has said so except it indicates a record during some months in 1919, when I believe there was a flood.

The actual average annual flow, as I said, has been 2.9 million-plus, but the IBWC predicts 2.2 million-plus. Their prediction is only 76.8 percent of the actual. Why? What is the basis for these predicted decreases? I am sure there is an explanation, but as yet I have not seen it.

This problem of no dependable supply of water for generation exists at Falcon even more than at Amistad, yet the Federal Government has put its own plant at Falcon.

At Falcon, we were told (on p. 52 of the Commission's report) that capacity is available only 68 percent of the time, but with the help of Amistad the lower dam will be raised to 79 percent. Yet the FPC found Falcon feasible, and the prediction was made that, over 100 years of operation, the power installation would pay not only for itself, but 47 percent of the cost of construction of the entire dam as well. (See H. Rept. 1299, 81st Cong., 1st sess.)

I think also there has been a curious lack of detailed information about the cost of the Falcon powerplant, and about the detailed revenues received from the sale of the power at Falcon. Commissioner Hewitt says Falcon is not amortizing its costs, but Assistant Commissioner Bennett of the Bureau of Reclamation says they cannot tell yet.

I predict Falcon will prove to be a profitable investment to the Federal Government.

But more than this, the part of this package which seems most conspicuous and untenable to us is the insistence that a powerplant would not be feasible for the Federal Government while, on the other hand, we are assured that Central Power & Light Co. is prepared to build that plant for itself and pay enough extra to help defray the Government's cost of conservation storage. If that company would build the plant and pay for the fall of the water, why would it not have need of power produced there by the Government?

Forget for a moment these municipal powerplants and the farms and ranches served by the cooperatives. How can the Government

say only dump power will be available at Amistad, while at the same time waving the proposition of Central Power & Light which expressly assumes the power is to be 100-percent peaking power? I suppose Central Power & Light would have no more control over the release of the water for power purposes than the Government would permit its own plant. Perhaps Central Power & Light has made an assumption that will not fit the facts. The Commission seems to think this is all scientific and solid. Colonel Hewitt has told the committee he thinks this is a reliable proposal upon which the Commission can act, and in his report, this $337,000 amount for falling water rental is treated as assured to the Government. This flat statement is made at page 65:

Therefore, the total direct hydroelectric power-producing benefits of the Diablo Reservoir to the Government would amount to $340,000 annually on the average.

Perhaps such an arrangement is assured, but it surely takes something more than the letter of April 14, 1958, to assure it. No legal background is required to see that the president of that company by this letter on that date only discusses some aspects of a future project surrounded with uncertainty.

If this letter tells the whole story and if Central Power & Light has made inaccurate assumptions, then what happens to this reliance upon that company to pay the incremental cost of conservation? Does it mean either the falling water will bring the project less money, or perhaps that there will be no powerplant constructed at all at Diablo or Amistad?

I suspect that it does not mean the latter. I believe Central Power & Light knows the future needs of this developing area of Texas, and knows that a powerplant is feasible and will be put there by

someone.

The issue remains, then, as to who that someone will be. Who will control this sale of power, and how many of our people will enjoy its widest benefits?

In conclusion, we think the second paragraph of section 2 of H.R. 8080 cannot be justified. Certainly we don't believe the record yet. justifies it. We believe it should be stricken.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you, Mr. Reavley. In your statement you have made your position very clear.

Are there any questions by members of the committee? Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. I am very much interested in your statement, Mr. Reavley, and appreciate your help in clarifying the situation.

You state in the event the bill stands as it is now worded, that in effect it amounts to a gift of this facility to the private utilities company; is that your statement?

Mr. REAVLEY. Well, I think in practice the only thing that could result will be a powerplant by the Central Power & Light Co. on the Amistad Dam, and I think that will probably be on an advantageous basis for Central Power & Light Co.-some gift, therefore; yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Are you fearful that the price at which water is furnished the cooperatives will be excessive?

Mr. REAVLEY. You mean waterpower?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Waterpower.

Mr. REAVLEY. We have had this experience recently: The cooperatives who buy their wholesale power from our friend, the Central Power & Light Co.-and we hope they are our friends, they are good citizens of Texas-but the contracts were about to expire between the Central Power & Light Co. and a number of those electric cooperatives. We were advised by Mr. Bates that the rates that would be used for the new contracts woud be considerably higher. They varied from 30 percent to a raise for Mr. Hurd's co-op of 36 percent. However, fortunately, one change has come into the picture, and this is the source-limited, but a source of steampower from Mr. Shepperd's new plant, now under construction. Mr. Shepperd testified here the second day. That changed the picture and our contracts have been changed so we are able to buy that power at something like a 5-percent increase. I think Mr. Hurd is having to pay 16 percent more, but still that is a saving of more than half, to him. In other words, when there is only one supplier of power, it makes a lot of difference.

Mr. O'HARA. As I understand your statement, you have no public utilities commission in Texas.

Mr. REAVLEY. None at all. No regulation.

Mr. O'HARA. How does that happen?

Mr. REAVLEY. I do not know that I can explain. I think we need some expert rate advice for the consumers of the State that we do not have. But for whatever reason, political or philosophical, we do not have any.

Mr. O'HARA. In Illinois, as long ago as 1913, we created a public utilities commission. That was in keeping with the trend at that time. I was surprised to learn from you that Texas never fell in line with the trend.

When you are competing with a private utility company, what do you have to back up your requests for reasonable rates? Do you have to take the rate dictated by the private utility?

Mr. REAVLEY. Well, not quite, but almost that, Congressman.

Mr. O'HARA. There is a difference between "not quite" and "almost.” Mr. REAVLEY. I suppose there are rates beyond which the Central Power & Light Co. would not go regardless of what they might think about the electric cooperatives and the areas they serve. There is always the matter of public relations; there is always the matter of making a record that might bring forth rate regulation; and then again there is under the present situation the possibility that a loan would

become feasible from REA to build the cooperative's own source of

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BURLESON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Fisher? Mr. Kilgore.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE M. KILGORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I will join with Mr. Reavley in the request that the table he has put into the record be submitted to the Boundary Commission for their comments. It is my recollection that the International Boundary Commission studies in which they project the flows of the river for a future period of years take into consideration the additional structures in the area of the watershed of the Rio Grande which have been built since the actual flow data was computed in the years of the study, so that such matters as the current runoff per acre-foot of water or per inch of water that falls on land as compared to the runoff experience at the time of those flows that such factors have been taken into account so their figures for the future indicate what may be expected under present conditions, very much as Mr. Reavley indicated in his statement, might be the explanation.

It would be well to have that information in the record.
Mr. REAVLEY. That may be.

Mr. Chairman, by the time we get down to one point in the report, the statement is made that the only water that will be available for generation at Amistad will be 1.1 million acre-feet. I do not know where all this has gone.

Mr. KILGORE. I am not familiar with the source of that figure. I think this information would be well.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Kilgore, without objection, exhibit 1 of Mr. Reavley's statement will be included as part of the record, and comments of the Boundary Commission on this chart will be included, also.

(The exhibit, and comments of International Boundary and Water Commission thereon, follow :)

[blocks in formation]

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION,
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO,

Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr.,

U.S. SECTION,

El Paso, Tex., March 29, 1960.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SELDEN: Pursuant to the request in your letter of March 21, 1960, I am glad to submit the following comments for inclusion in the record on H.R. 8080, the Amistad project, relative to exhibit 1, attached as page 10 to the statement by Mr. Tom Reavley, representing the Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.

Exhibit 1 is found to be substantially correct and, as described by Mr. Reavley, consists of a table listing in the first left-hand column, the annual "Historic (actual) Flows of the Rio Grande at Del Rio," (totals-United States and Mexico) as published by the State board of water engineers; in the second column, the "Year" corresponding to the historic flows; in the third column, the "IBWC Estimated Future Flow at Amistad Site" (from table 2, p. 72 of the Amistad report), and in the fourth column, the "Percent of Actual"; i.e., percent which the estimated future flows bear to the actual.

The answer to the question posed by Mr. Reavley in his testimony, on page 522 of the transcript, relative to the bases for estimating future flows at the Amistad

« PreviousContinue »