Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

194

140

Hanson, Martin:

"Who Owns a River-The St. Croix" article from the Nation, Decem- Page
ber 21, 1964..

201

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ST. CROIX RIVER DISPUTE

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Stillwater, Minn.

The Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Hon. Gaylord Nelson presiding.

Senator NELSON. This hearing will now come to order.

I presume that most of you have noticed that there are no-smoking signs posted here for the school. They are attempting to avoid some air pollution of the lungs. [Laughter.]

Senator NELSON. I want to welcome you all here to these hearings of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.

With me on my left is Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana, with whom I serve on this Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee in Washington. I am Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. Senator Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine, is the chairman of this subcommittee and has designated me as acting chairman for these hearings.

For the next 2 days we shall be taking the testimony on a local and interstate controversy with important implications for Federal law. Before the hearings get underway I would like to take just a few moments to sum up the controversy over the proposed construction of a powerplant on the St. Croix River at Oak Park Heights, Minn., and to make clear the objectives of these hearings.

We are advised that the Northern States Power Co. proposes to build a 550,000-kilowatt, coal-operated steam-electric powerplant on its 180-acre site at Oak Park Heights. It is understood it plans to build an additional 750,000-kilowatt unit at a later date.

The village of Oak Park Heights and civic and commercial organizations in Washington County are enthusiastic about the proposal. Aside from the large payroll during construction the plant would mean a more than 60-percent increase in the local school district's assessed valuation.

The additional electric power is needed for the growing MinneapolisSt. Paul area. The company points out that the cool, clean waters of the St. Croix are excellent for the efficient and economical condensing of steam.

The first unit at the site would use a maximum of 660 cubic feet per second of river water for steam condensing. The water would be returned to the river slightly chlorinated and heated some 10 to 17 degrees.

A group of Minnesota and Wisconsin Valley residents and river users incorporated themselves in August into Save the St. Croix, Inc.

1

We are advised that they fear that this thermal pollution may kill fish, encourage the growth of green alga, and disrupt aquatic ecology. They also fear air pollution from ash and sulfur dioxide gas. They fear that barge traffic will disrupt pleasure boating on the river, and perhaps most of all they fear that the construction of the plant will open the clean and beautiful lower St. Croix to heavy industry, spelling the end of the river's usefulness as a prime natural recreational

resource.

The company has denied each of these assertions, pointed to its own excellent record as a conservation-minded utility, and pledged to do whatever is necessary to prevent the pollution of the river. It has maintained, however, that the lower St. Croix is a commercial river already, as well as a recreational area.

At previous committee hearings on water use controveries it was found very helpful to adopt a kind of adversary proceeding.

These hearings have been designed to give both sides in this controversy equal time to present their cases.

This afternoon those who favor locating the plant at the Oak Park Heights side will have 3 hours to present their case. They will be led by Washington County Probate Judge John T. McDonough.

Friday morning Save the St. Croix, Inc. will have an equal amount of time. Friday afternoon there is reserved time for rebuttal.

The controversy over the St. Croix is interstate because the St. Croix is an interstate river. It marks the boundary between Wisconsin and Minnesota for some 100 miles north from Prescott, Wis.

The problem of planning the use of interstate waters is not limited to the St. Croix Valley. It is a national problem. As our supply of clean water grows shorter and our realization of the need for adequate planning grows more acute, the need for new ways of coping with interstate water use problems becomes clearer.

This morning we shall be taking testimony on the exact legal status of the problem as it relates to this specific situation from officials of Federal agencies involved and from representatives of both Minnesota and Wisconsin.

This committee is specifically charged with legislative responsibility in the area of air and water pollution. While this hearing will not be confined to whatever pollution aspects may be inovlved in this particular situation, the controversy has raised a specific question of great interest to us, the question of whether Federal statutory authority is needed to set water quality standards in appropriate instances to prevent interstate water pollution before it occurs.

Many of you will recall the great damage done to wildlife and recreational resources on the Mississippi River in 1963 as a result of two accidents involving huge quantities of oil.

Thousands of ducks were lost to us, and miles of shoreline were coated with oil along the Minnesota and the Mississippi because of a preventable catastrophe.

In two separate instances oil drums collapsed beside a tributary of the Minnesota River spilling some 3 million gallons of oil onto the ice. If the Federal Government had had the power to take preventive action, it could have prevented any serious damage to natural resources. But it apparently did not have that authority and it does not today. It can only act after interstate pollution has taken effect, when it is usually too late.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »