Professor LORD. The second committee deals with recreation and navigation. It covers the facilities in barge traffic required to supply coal to the proposed development and the effects of such facilities and traffic on the recreational use of the river. This also includes the nature and costs of any improvements to navigation which might be required to make this traffic possible.

The third subcommittee or work group deals with air pollution and covers the effects of stack acids and any associated or particular matter on human, plant, or animal communities, together with the nature and costs of measures appropriate to eliminate or reduce such effect, if any. The fourth subcommittee or work group deals with fuel and power and covers the electric power needs of the Twin Cities area, together with alternative sources and methods of meeting such needs and the competitive costs of resorting to such alternatives.

The fifth subcommittee or work group, and the last one, deals with the economic impacts of the proposed developments. It covers the extent and incidence of any increases in employment, tax base, and associated economic activities attributable to the proposed develop

ment.

We anticipate that the reports of the several subcommittees will be assembled and made available to all interested parties during the month of February 1965.

As chairman, I would like to acknowledge the splendid cooperativeness in our first task force meeting by virtually all the agencies involved and by the Northern States Power Co.

I hope our findings will be of value to the meeting, to the regulatory agencies, and to the general public.

I wish to thank the committee for making it possible for me to give my testimony.

Senator NELSON. On what date do you expect to have this report? Professor LORD. Senator, we have asked the individual subcommittees to report to the overall committee by the 10th of February. We will then assemble these with brief introductory and summary material and make it available by the end of the month of February.

Senator NELSON. It is my understanding that the hearing will be on January 13 before the Conservation Commission and the Water Pollution Control Commission of Minnesota. I don't know whether I understand correctly that they are required to make a decision within 60 days. Can anybody answer that here?

Mr. THUET. I am Paul Thuet, representing the Save the St. Croix, Inc.

It was agreed—at least a general understanding was reached-that if there were any reports after the testimony on the 13th and 14th of January, any reports that would be made available would be incorporated into the record.

Senator NELSON. My question is of the Minnesotan people who can speak as to the law on whether or not there is a 60-day deadline on making a decision after hearing.

Mr. VAUBEL. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. Will you identify yourself, sir?

Mr. VAUBEL. Lawrence Vaubel, special assistant attorney general of the State of Minnesota.

The commissioner of conservation is required by chapter 105 that has been submitted to the subcommittee to make his findings, conclusions, and orders within 60 days following the conclusion of his public hearing.

Senator NELSON. It would seem to me the task force report, though it may be very valuable, will not be of much value if it isn't available. When do you think, February?

Professor LORD. By the end of February.

Senator NELSON. By the end of February, which might give the commission 2 or 3 days to look at it, in which time-I am just wondering, has your task force group considered or will you be considering requesting that they set a little later date on the hearing in Minnesota so they will have the benefit of the information that your group compiled?

Professor LORD. We have made no such request, Senator. Our function, as we interpret it, is strictly information gathering. I think that would be up to the Minnesota agency if they wished to delay the hearing a short time so our findings could be incorporated into the procedures, that would be up to them.

Senator NELSON. It would seem to me that some of the factors in the findings by your task force will be the only facts of that kind available for consideration and might very well be of compelling value in making the decision.

I am wondering if I might ask the representative of Minnesota, the deputy attorney general, whether or not there is any chance the hearings might be set at a somewhat later date.

Mr. VAUBEL. Regardless of the day the hearing is set, the commissioner of conservation may recess this hearing from time to time if he finds that further information is necessary or may be available.

Senator NELSON. So he could conduct the hearing and not conclude it on the 13th, but recess it to await the submission of further materials?

Mr. VAUBEL. That is right.

Senator NELSON. I would assume, then, that the joint State-Federal task force would be the appropriate group to request the agency to hold the hearing record open until they can present their material?

Mr. VAUBEL. Yes, indeed. The commissioner solicits any such recommendations from any agency that may wish to be heard or may be conducting any study that would provide help to the commissioner in reaching his final decision.

Senator NELSON. I assume the joint task force may request it of the commissioner?

Mr. VAUBEL. Yes, they may.
Senator NELSON. Thank you.

Was that the conclusion of your speech?

Professor LORD. That concludes my prepared remarks.

Senator NELSON. I have no questions.

Senator METCALF. I have no questions.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Professor Lord.

Professor LORD. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. Does that conclude the witnesses representing governmental units?

(There was no response.)

Senator NELSON. As I stated earlier to Judge McDonough, if you have a question of the Government witnesses, if you would submit it in writing, we will see to it that they get the question. If you want to cross-examine the Government witness, I would ask you to do it outside. I am sure that they will respond to any questions you might have. If you will get them to Mr. Spring or one of the staff members here, we will be happy to get them distributed.

We will recess until 1:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator NELSON. The subcommittee will resume its hearing.

I understand that Judge John T. McDonough, of Stillwater, the Washington County probate juvenile judge, will be in charge of the presentation.

Judge McDonough.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE JOHN T. MCDONOUGH, STILLWATER, MINN.

Judge MCDONOUGH. Senator Nelson, Senator Metcalf, members of the staff of the subcommittee, the Senate Public Works Committee, we have listened to the testimony this morning with great interest, and during the period of time that this controversy or this issue has been raised, it has been the position of the committee which I represent, the Committee of Organizations of the St. Croix Valley for Progress, in the St. Croix Valley, that determines as to water pollution and air pollution cannot be determined in debates in open halls, it cannot be determined in hearings such as this. They have to be determined by duly constituted quasi-judicial administrative quasis established under the laws of the State of Minnesota. It has been our position all along that the laws of the State of Minnesota actually will not only protect the interests of the people of the State of Minnesota but the people of the State of Wisconsin. It has been our position, and many of us are lifelong residents of this valley for two, three, five generations, that we know this river, that we would not permit the river to be polluted to the detriment of wild life, to the detriment of the recreational facilities that we do have within the river, stretching not only from Prescott but up to Taylors Falls and into the wild regions north of the Taylors Falls Dam. However, this has become an issue which seems to be subjected to debate outside of the duly regulatory bodies that have been established by law in the State of Minnesota, and, as such, we are appearing on behalf of the committee of organizations.

Now, this afternoon we will have four speakers. The first really needs no introduction throughout the country as far as being a conservationist is concerned, as far as being a man who is cognizant and knowledgeable in the field of water pollution, in the field of water conservation, and in the field of conservation itself. He is not a young man. He is at least 70 years old. He has been in this field for many, many years. I am certain that he will qualify himself before you and in many respects he is not appearing as a proponent either for or against this plant. He is one of the charter members of the

St. Croix River Association, which is one of the organizations which has attempted to maintain the St. Croix as a type of river you gentlemen have seen this past 2 days. He has been a lifelong resident, his father and grandfather before him, of this valley, and I am quite certain his statement, as lengthy and thorough as it is, will be of great interest not only to you but the people in this audience.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to this committee my very good friend, my very qualified friend, Mr. Chester Wilson, former conservation commissioner of the State of Minnesota and an attorney practicing in the State of Minnesota, as an independent witness. Mr. Wilson.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Wilson, the committee is pleased to have an opportunity to hear your presentation.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER S. WILSON, STILLWATER, MINN.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the courtesy of the proponents of this project in yielding to me some of their time, for I wish to make it clear, as Judge McDonough has already indicated, that I do not appear at this hearing either for or against the Northern States Power Co.'s powerplant project, nor as the representative of any special interest or organization. I am speaking entirely on my own responsibility as a private citizen, in the interest of the general public. In that regard I attempted to follow what is commonly known as the "golden rule" for conservation and management of natural resources; that is, the achievement of the greatest good to the greatest number of people in the long run.

My position on this project, at present, is the same as that taken by the St. Croix River Association, composed of members from all the communities along the river in both Wisconsin and Minnesota from St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls to the mouth. I have been a member of that organization for a long time, and have taken an active part in its efforts to protect and improve the river for navigation, recreation, and other purposes of public interest. Acting upon my advice, this association has refused, thus far, to take a stand for or against the powerplant project and, instead, adopted a resolution requesting the Governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota to see that a thorough investigation of the project was made by the appropriate public agencies and, in the meantime, the association is reserving judgment on the project until the results of those investigations are made known.

As a basis for my comments on the problems at hand, I will give a summary of my background and qualifications, as should be done by any witness who assumes to testify or express an opinion in a case like this.

I was born in Stillwater on the St. Croix River and have spent most of my life here except for temporary absences in military or public service. I am now actively engaged in the general practice of law in Stillwater, specializing in land and water cases.

I have made much use of the St. Croix River for recreational purposes during the past 70 years, beginning with the time when, as a boy, I swam in the river off the log and lumber rafts which then occupied a large part of its surface and, continuing through subsequent years,

with canoeing, boating, fishing, camping, and related activities. For some years, beginning in 1911, I was a scoutmaster, and made much use of the river for these purposes with the boys of my troop.

In view of the special interest of this committee in water pollution, I may say that for several years, after I was appointed an assistant attorney general of Minnesota in 1925, I served (among other assignments) as legal counsel to the State board of health in the administration of its regulations relating to water pollution, long before the passage of our present Water Pollution Act. I continued to counsel the board on legal matters, as far as my other duties would permit, after I was appointed deputy attorney general in 1939.

For 12 years, beginning in 1943, I served as commissioner and sole head of the State department of conservation, having charge of administration of the State's water resources and water conservation laws, State lands and minerals (including iron mines), State forests, State parks, and game and fish, and serving ex officio as a member of the State soil conservation committee, also as a member of the State water pollution control commission after its creation. I cooperated with the State board of health and other interested State departments in securing the enactment of the original State Water Pollution Control Act in 1945, and served as chairman of the water pollution control commission thereby created for the first 7 years of its existence. During that period, I was called to Washington by the U.S. Public Health Service to serve on the Board of Consultants, representing different State water pollution control agencies, who assisted in framing the model State Water Pollution Control Act which was published and distributed by the Public Health Service in 1950, with the endorsement of the Council of State Governments. This manifested a recognition by the Public Health Service of the merits of the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Act and the progress which our commission had made thereunder.

In 1956, after the end of my service as commissioner of conservation, I was retained by the U.S. Public Health Service as special consultant on water pollution control matters and am still on their staff in that capacity, subject to call when needed, though not continuously engaged.

In that connection, I served as chairman of the hearing board for the first case of application of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act on interstate waters in Arkansas and Louisiana in 1957 and, again in the same capacity, for hearings on pollution of the Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa, in 1959, and at Kansas City, Kans., and Missouri, in 1960.

I made a study of the water pollution control laws of the various States for the U.S. Public Health Service and presented the results through a paper on "Legal Aspects of Water Pollution Control," delivered at the National Conference on Water Pollution called by President Eisenhower at Washington in December 1960.

In 1961, at the request of the U.S. Public Health Service, I prepared and delivered a paper on legal problems of ground water contamination at the national conference on ground water pollution held at Cincinnati, Ohio.

In 1961, I served as consultant on water pollution control provisions in connection with the drafting of a complete code of water laws for the new State of Alaska.