Mr. WILSON. It is being temporarily polluted because of the overloading by the Twin Cities and St. Paul plants, yes, but that is going to be pured by the completion of the construction of those plants next year, and then the Mississippi River and Lake Pepin will be restored to a good condition. I doubt that there is very substantial pollution reaching Lake Pepin. In any event, you have this problem, here again it is a question of economic strategy and allocation of resources. I think without doubt the company could meet the thermal pollution standards that have been set or will be set by the commission on the Mississippi River in the Twin City area. That would add to the already quite heavy burden that that river must bear. Even with the best treatment of sewage from the big metropolitan area there is going to be some effluent go into that river that requires the use of oxygen in the recovery area of the river. Every time you put hot water in that you add a load to the capacity. Someday the ultimate capacity of the river will be reached. I don't think it would be reached by the construction of this plant. I don't think that is an objection to the location of the plant on the Mississippi River. I think they could undoubtedly comply with the requirements for using water downstream. If they got an alternative site down there, from that standpoint I don't know how there could be any objection to it. They want to locate the plant here for other reasons, which I think Mr. Ewald explained. Naturally the people here would like to get some benefit of their long-delayed hopes of some economic value gained out of all the expenditure that was made for putting this territory on the 9-foot channel.

Senator NELSON. Judge McDonough, did you wish to make a comment?

Judge MCDONOUGH. I had one statement that will take just a few seconds.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE JOHN T. MCDONOUGH

Judge MCDONOUGH. We have no intentions of reviewing the testimony of Mr. Humphries or Mr. Mertes or these other people who testified relative to air and water pollution. This will be done with great particularity mostly through scientific studies that will be presented through the Minnesota water pollution in joint hearings with the department of water pollution. We don't know the veracity of the statistics, whether or not they have made any mistakes in putting their material together. They will have the opportunity also of presenting that to the hearings that will be held here in the State of Minnesota.

I would like also to add that before this plant is built I am quite certain that the State of Minnesota will have an adequate air pollution law. I know one will be introduced at the next session of the legislature. I am quite certain they will set up standards, and they will be strict standards, before this plant is even in operation. Before 1 ton of coal is burned, we will have an air pollution law in the State of Minnesota.

Do they have one in Wisconsin?

Senator NELSON: No.

Judge MCDONOUGH. Second, your purpose for being here, gentlemen, is to determine from our experience, our problems here, whether

or not you would need national standards. I think it is highly out of order and I think it is quite irrelevant to make a determination, if this is your purpose in being here, where this plant should be located, whether it is on the St. Croix River or Mississippi River. That is beside the point.

Senator NELSON. I would like to have it clearly understood that this committee is making no determination about anything. We seek only information that may be of value to our legislative committee. I do not have a position as to where it should be built or whether it should be built at all. If I seem to ask some sharp questions, it is only for the purpose of seeking information.

Judge MCDONOUGH. In the past 2 days many of the questions of specifically yourself, Senator, have been on the question of recreation on the St. Croix, this wonderful resource. We feel they are not mutually exclusive terms, the plant, one or the other. At the most, six over a 40-week period are not going to this company will certainly try to see to it that these tows are not on Saturdays and Sundays. They will not interfere in that regard with the use of this river. That is about all we do have to say.

We want to thank you for coming to our valley. We welcome you in this valley and we hope you have enjoyed the short stay in this valley.

Senator NELSON. I was born and raised in the valley, and I am glad to come back for a visit.

Senator METCALF. Would you supply for the record, Judge, the various acres of acquisition of different plots over here. Yesterday you testified that there had been longtime planning for the plant and cited that the acquisition of land had gone back, I believe, as far as 1928. Would you put behind those dates the amount of acres, area of land, acquired?

Judge MCDONOUGH. It is 3,280 feet; isn't it? How many acres, 180 acres of swamp?

Senator METCALF. I understand there were several different acquisitions.

Judge MCDONOUGH. Yes. The latest was 2 years ago but the bulk of it was picked up during this period of time.

Senator METCALF. Would you just put that in the record, as to the amount? (Included in N.S.P. additional statement on pp. 97 ff.)

Judge MCDONOUGH. We can get the exact dates the land was acquired and mail it to you. We can do that from the courthouse, as to each plat.

Senator METCALF. The second thing, I would like to have the information as to the amount of power in the system of Northern States Power, that is, hydropower, and the amount that is interruptible gas power, and the amount that is coal generally. Some comment was made by a stockholder of Northern States Power about the midcontinent area power project, and that was on, quite probably, an irrevelant matter, and I am very much interested and concerned with it, as the officials of Northern States Power know, and I would like to have some information as to how this was generated. It seems to me it would be important to this hearing, too, because, as Mr. Wilson testified, if an occasion arose where the whole flow of the river were taken you might have to close the plant down.

Judge MCDONOUGH. When you talk about the flow of the river, this is a big lake, you should discuss pool levels.

Senator METCALF. When you discuss pool levels and increase the temperature of the water 5°, 10°.

Judge MCDONOUGH (interrupting). May I make a suggestion? Senator METCALF. Yes.

Judge MCDONOUGH. I don't know why your committee shouldn't receive a transcript and filings of the joint hearings of the joint commissions, and I am quite certain every one of these questions will be answered by men competent to answer.

Senator METCALF. I don't believe the Northern States Power Co. would want to supply me with information I requested, and that is the information as to how much power

Judge MCDONOUGH. I have these questions. The other question relative to the utilization will come out of our hearings.

Senator METCALF. Would you supply those two questions?

Judge MCDONOUGH. Amount of hydropower, amount of interruptible gas, and the amount of coal, we will do that and give you the information of the fact.

Senator NELSON. Perhaps the power company would rather answer, Judge, but is the power company doing any research so they will be prepared to comment on how much water there is in that lake and what would happen if it used the whole flow, that sort of question? Judge MCDONOUGH. Absolutely.

Senator NELSON. They will be prepared January 13?
Judge MCDONOUGH. Absolutely.

Senator NELSON. There was testimony on the record this morning which I have no way of evaluating, but it would cost something like 10 cents a family or a penny a kilowatt.

Judge MCDONOUGH. Each year they have savings, I think, of about $10 million a year to their system up here. If they had to put on cooling towers, there would be no problem there at all. You wouldn't have to increase the rates, it would be a question of they wouldn't be decreased. We get a decrease as of this year 10 cents a month, 15 cents a month, because of the savings last year. There would be no problem with cooling towers. Whether or not a cooling tower or cooling towers should be placed there is for determination by the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission based on the temperatures, which they have been taking down at this plant, not at the mouth of the river, they take them all over the river, as has been testified to by Mr. Pemble.

I mention the name Pemble and I forget the question. [Laughter.] Senator NELSON. The cooling tower.

Judge MCDONOUGH. If they feel from this they should have cooling towers, there will be cooling towers, but if the evidence shows there is no necessity for cooling towers, that is something else again. I don't think we should jump to the conclusion as a matter of law in order to get this permit they should have to put up cooling towers. Maybe they will have to put up cooling towers.

Senator NELSON. Could we get for the record a response as to what is the feasibility of the cooling towers, would it add to the cost to the consumer, and, if so, how much, and what would it do in terms of cooling?

Judge MCDONOUGH. The statement I gave you would be the statement they would give, that for all practical purposes, what were the savings last year, at least $10 million, the cooling tower is an insignificant cost.

Senator NELSON. Could you answer as to how effective is the cooling tower?

Judge MCDONOUGH. As I told somebody else, we could have the biggest ice cream factory in the St. Croix River so the luxury boats could get their ice cream right away. That would be very expensive, but they can lower the temperature of that water down to 32° scientifically.

Senator NELSON. We would like to have something in the record as to that, if you would.

I have a statement here I will place in the record presented to the committee by a very distinguished conservationist of the State of Wisconsin, an old friend of mine, Bill Ruth, who is president of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, which is a very fine organization in our State. I ask that be put into the record.

(The statement is as follows :)

STATEMENT OF THE WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WILLIAM RUTH, PRESIDENT

The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation is a statewide federation of conservation clubs and is the Wisconsin affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation.

We are greatly concerned as to the effect a powerplant such as the one proposed will have on the St. Croix River—one of the few rivers left that is reasonably free of pollution-and the esthetic value of the area.

We are concerned about the following, which we have no positive assurance will not happen:

(1) We know that water used for cooling the plant will warm the water in the river at the outflow and will change the ecology of the water over a large area. (2) Traffic on the river will be increased tremendously and as a result will interfere with recreational and esthetic use of the resources.

(3) The increased traffic will increase organic pollution proportionally. (4) Air pollution will be increased tremendously and settling residues will scar and deface the area for miles around.

At the present time and within available knowledge we oppose further polluting of air and water both by organic pollution and indirectly by warming the water which this proposed plant would apparently cause.

On the basis we request of the departments of the U.S. Government or the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin that may have jurisdiction over this proposal, that a permit be not granted until such time as it can be shown that detrimental effects from the plant on recreational resources, water resources, and other public interests are minimal and acceptable.

If they can set up standards that will leave the river and the area in its present condition-that we would call acceptable.

We are not as optimistic as some that the States' pollution control departments will be able to deal with our pollution problems as they need to be dealt with. This is not a reflection on the departments of either Wisconsin or Minnesota. We have confidence in their ability, but recognize their limitations due to a lack of needed laws and funds to do the job.

As an example-with present funds it takes 7 years for the staff of the Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution to cover the State.

It is not possible to clean up our waters as they should be under these conditions.

We should all insist to the legislatures of the States that the pollution control departments be given an adequate budget and authority.

We support the concept of using water-quality standards as a base for intelligent use of our water resources. Senate bill 649 of the 88th Congress which provided for the setting of water-quality standards by the Federal Government was a good measure and one which the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation supported.

We believe that legislation of this type should be reintroduced into the new Congress.

If a water-quality standard had been established for the St. Croix River which provided for no reduction in the present river condition, there might not be a need for this hearing.

That is to say, if the NSP plant were to lessen water quality in the river below its present level with this standard, the plant obviously would not be built.

Further, we feel that this problem is one which is a land-use problem as a water problem.

We need more comprehensive land and water planning.

It appears that we do not have such planning in this basin. Otherwise there would be no problem. To achieve such a goal is complicated here by the fact that we have two States and several counties.

How then can we make sure that planning on one side of the river or the other side, by county, by regional planning commissions or the States is truly comprehensive and complements each other in place of conflicting?

I understand that there is a metropolitan planning commission for the Twin Cities area which includes this portion of the St. Croix.

I wonder what plans they have prepared for this area? On the Wisconsin side I understand there is no planning commission.

It may be desirable in situations of this type for some type of Federal-State planning which would insure development programs of advantage to people from both States.

I understand that Federal legislation has been suggested to deal with problems of this type. We will support similar legislation if this subcommittee wishes to have it introduced into the new Congress.

Senator NELSON. Did you want to make a response, Mr. Thuet?

Mr. THUET. I would like to say this, Senator. I was going to submit a statement. I would ask your indulgence for 5 minutes and this will be our rebuttal.

Senator NELSON. You may submit something for the record if you have anything further, Judge.

STATEMENT OF PAUL THUET

Mr. THUET. After Mr. Wilson testified I felt I should bring to the committee's attention certain facts.

In this case there are two bodies authorized to hear this matter, and those are the commissioner of conservation, who is an executive appointed by the Governor, and the water pollution control system, which is a quasi-judicial body charged with the protection of water for public use. In order to get into the other facets which we talked about today and yesterday we must actually strain their duties under these laws to the absolute utmost. When you say protect the public, for public use, when you get into various matters, we have to strain them. Then the people, like ourselves, who are interested parties, have to come in by the side door, so to speak, before these various commissions, the commissioner of conservation, and the water pollution control commission, for the reason that there is no law whereby John Q. Public can start an action against the Northern States Power Co., all he can do is come in as a witness and testify at these hearings.

At that point the real problem comes into play. Here you have a huge industrial utility that comes in, all of these commissions with all their expertise, all the facilities, with limited jurisdiction and little or no funds. Frankly, as you can tell by the testimony, Senators, if it hadn't been for the Federal Government in this case the citizenry would be lost. For example, in the State of Minnesota we are looking in the next 4 months for a hundred million dollars just to sustain life,

40-957-65-13