U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–169 PDF 2017

REVIEWING THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY’S 

PROHIBITION ON HOUSEBOATS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 

Serial No. 114–167 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

ANDREW DOCKHAM, General Counsel 

MARY DOOCY, Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 23, 2016 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. William (Bill) D. Johnson, President and CEO, Tennessee Valley Authority 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Laura Sneed, Founder, Fontana Families for Floating Houses 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. David Monteith, Vice Chairman, Swain County Board of Commissioners 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 71 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 73 

Mr. Michael T. Wilks, President, Tennessee Valley Floating Home Alliance 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 75 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 79 

Mr. Michael Butler, Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Wildlife Federation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 117 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 119 

APPENDIX 

Response from Mr. Johnson TVA to Questions for the Record ............................ 150 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

REVIEWING THE TENNESSEE VALLEY 

AUTHORITY’S PROHIBITION ON HOUSEBOATS 

Friday, September 23, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Walberg, Buck, 

Grothman, Connolly, Maloney, and Plaskett. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare a recess at any time. 

I want to start out by saying good morning and welcome, and 

thanking my colleagues. This is one of those days where when the 

schedule was changed, obviously, Mr. Walberg, who is the vice 

chair of the subcommittee, and Mr. Connolly, who is the ranking 

member of this subcommittee, adjusted their schedules to remain 

here, and so on behalf of myself and all those that I represent, I 

want to acknowledge that, and I thank you. 

I also want to make a welcome to all those that not only have 

traveled so far and are here today to testify and come and be here 

on this important issue, but those on a Webcast, that we probably 

had more calls about how to view this particular hearing than others that would maybe make the headlines of The Washington Post. 

So it is refreshing to see that so many people are wanting to get 

involved. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority, or the TVA as it’s known, is a 

Federal corporate agency of the United States, and in May of this 

year, the board of directors of TVA actually proposed a policy to 

prohibit all new floating homes on the 49 reservoirs in the seven 

southeastern States. This proposed policy also required the removal 

of all floating homes after a 30-year sunset provision. For the hardworking homeowners in the TVA’s jurisdiction of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, this proposed policy would be devastating. 

Now, I’ve said this before and I will say it again, this is yet another example of the Federal Government getting involved without 

seriously evaluating the consequences placed on taxpaying families. 

And as we will hear in testimony today, those impacted, some of 

whom have lived on these reservoirs for generations, feel genuinely 

outraged and misled. For example, many were promised in 1978, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

when TVA put forth a rule that it would subsequently really never 

enforce for nearly 40 years, that existing houseboats would be 

grandfathered in, and yet, here we are today. Those that are owners of the grandfathered houseboats are being told to start packing 

their bags. What’s more, the number of floating homes that have 

increased over the decades and the homeowners in the Tennessee 

Valley have invested tens of thousands, and, indeed, tens of millions of dollars into new or existing floating homes. 

You know, in my home State of North Carolina, hundreds of families will be forced to move from their homes, many of whom who 

have enjoyed those and lived there for years and years and years, 

if not decades. This policy would be also detrimental financially to 

the impact on the region, and will become nearly impossible for 

those families, now that we have this sunset provision, to sell their 

floating homes when you look at it, not to mention the fact that it 

will dampen the thriving houseboat tourism communities that are 

in many of some of the most difficult, economically-challenged 

areas in the southeast. 

Today, we will also hear whether or not those purported improvements, the removal of the houseboats, will have on the environment, and is that accurate and is this an infringement that’s worth 

taking on to invade the personal liberties and freedoms to live 

where one chooses? 

Instead of focusing on this policy, the TVA, in my opinion, should 

focus its energies on its critical priorities. I don’t know that I’ve 

ever been more clear in my position to leadership of an agency or 

subagency, or in this case, a Federal corporation, in terms of my 

disapproval of a particular decision than this. For example, providing electricity for businesses and customers and the local power 

distributors of some 9 million people in the southeast, instead of 

displacing the homeowners, perhaps TVA should focus on its current efforts to sell a nuclear plant, which, by some public accounts, 

is being sold for $36 million after investing $5 billion. $5 billion, 

and you’re going to sell it for $36 million. Or perhaps you need to 

look at continuing to work on the cleanup of the Kingston plant 

coal ash dump that actually contaminated drinking water of over 

a million people. 

So I guess my concern here today is, what is the priority? Is the 

priority affecting the property rights of so many people that are 

here and watching, or is it what TVA was originally designed for, 

and that was, to produce energy and to do flood control? 

So I’m anxious to hear some of the testimony today. I look forward to, what I would say, a robust discussion as we look to hopefully resolve this particular issue. And again, I thank the witnesses 

for their participation. 

And I recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

your concern about this very discrete issue, and for the remove— 

on the subject of the removal of all nonnavigable houseboats and 

floating houses from the reservoirs within the jurisdiction of the 

TVA 30 years from now. 

Most are familiar with the TVA, which, by the way, was a great 

success story of government investment in an underperforming region during very difficult economic times, and, by and large, a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

great success story about what—the power of government to do 

good, and to stimulate economic activity and create jobs, and rescue 

a region that otherwise would have been left behind. 

And I think—I think it’s important, in an era where all too often, 

we hear rhetoric about the hobnail booted government on our 

necks, and government can’t do anything right, that’s not true, and 

it’s not true in a very important part of the country, part of which 

encompasses my State of Virginia. 

TVA is now a self-funded agency, supplying 9 million Americans 

and businesses with low cost electricity across seven southeastern 

States. The agency has a long history of supporting the economic 

development and prosperity of residents and businesses in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, 

and Virginia, areas where, at least if I had my chance, I’d be reminding people about the good government can actually do. Don’t 

get too carried away with that smaller government thing, because 

that’s not how your region advanced. 

And it attracts $7.8 billion of direct investment alone last year. 

I think that’s a pretty important and impressive track record. 

Today’s hearing on floating houses highlights a lesser-known responsibility of the TVA. In 1933, when Congress created the agency, it provided TVA with broad jurisdiction to regulate obstructions 

that affect navigation, flood control of public lands across, along, or 

in the Tennessee River or any of its tributaries. 

Privately-owned nonnavigable houseboats and floating houses 

have been located on agency reservoirs since at least the 1950s. 

And despite a ban on new construction since the 1970s, these structures have proliferated, numbering over 1,800, with only half of 

them holding a permit, according to TVA. 

Now, many have asked why TVA has not enforced its own prohibition for nearly 40 years, but Mr. Chairman, I’m encouraged that 

since his appointment in 2012, Mr. Johnson, TVA’s CEO, has acknowledged the problem and has now moved to try to address what 

he perceives as a problem. 

The new rule would impose an eventual ban on existing nonnavigable houseboats and floating homes in 30 years. It would also require new environmental and safety standards until that time. I 

guess I would propound two principles from my perspective. One 

is, that the status quo’s unacceptable. There are inherent safety 

problems, inherent pollution problems. You know, people—we have 

to strike a balance, but—that’s the second point, we have to strike 

a balance. There are people who live and are where they are, and 

we’ve got to take that into account and we’ve got to be sensitive, 

as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, to their plight, their condition, 

their assumption that they were grandfathered in. And on the 

other hand, we also have a broader responsibility to the public 

that, you know, you don’t get an ear infection when you go in the 

lake or the river because of uncontrolled waste coming from these 

structures; you don’t put yourself at risk of electrical shock because 

we’re not being as careful as we could be about how wiring is connected to these structures. 

So, you know, we have a genuine challenge, but I think we have 

to proceed in a balanced way, and I think we—certainly the chairVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:45 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26169.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

man has done, I think, an eloquent job of advocating for those who 

will be affected directly, and that’s not a trivial matter. 

And so I look forward to this hearing, Mr. Chairman, especially 

to hear from the TVA about how are they approaching that balance, how are we making sure that we are caring for all of our citizens, including those who will be directly affected some time over 

the next 30 years by this rule, and the challenges you face in trying 

to implement that. So I’m glad we’re—I’m glad we’re having a 

hearing that tries to do both, look at the rule as objectively as we 

can, but also advocate on behalf of our constituents, who certainly 

will be affected, some of them very adversely by this rule, when 

and if it goes into effect. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. And I will make an open 

invitation that the next hearing will actually be a site hearing on 

one of these beautiful reservoirs. How about that? We’ll look at 

that. 

So I’d like to hold the record open. We’ll hold it open for 5 legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. 

We’ll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I’m pleased to welcome Mr. William Johnson, the President and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Welcome, Mr. Johnson; Ms. Laura Sneed, 

founder of the Fontana Families for Floating Houses. Ms. Sneed, 

welcome; Mr. David Monteith, the vice chairman of the Swain 

County Board of Commissioners, welcome, Commissioner; Mr. Michael Wilks, president of the Tennessee Valley Floating Home Alliance. Welcome, Mr. Wilks; and Mr. Michael Butler, chief executive 

officer of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation. Welcome, Mr. Butler. 

Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify, so if you would please rise and raise your right 

hand. 

You can tell a lot about an individual by his phone ring, so—— 

Do you—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. It wasn’t me. 

Mr. MEADOWS. No. I know it wasn’t. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

All right. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered 

in the affirmative. We thank you. 

In order to allow time for discussion, I would ask that you try 

to please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but your entire 

written statement will be made part of the record. 

So, Mr. Johnson, we’ll recognize you for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM (BILL) D. JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, 

members of the committee, good morning. I’m Bill Johnson, the 

president and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and I appreVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:45 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26169.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

ciate the opportunity to be here this morning to talk about this policy. 

I’ve been in TVA about 4 years. Prior to that, I was in the utility 

business for many decades in North Carolina, and I have a great 

fondness for that State and the people who live there. Still consider 

myself a Tar Heel. 

You know, TVA is a unique organization. In many respects, it’s 

like a traditional investor-owned utility, but it has some differentiating responsibilities. Our statutory mission has three priorities: 

the first is, deliver affordable, reliable power; to create sustainable 

economic growth; and then to steward our region’s natural and cultural resources. And over the last 83 years, we’ve had a number 

of legacy issues that we’ve had to deal with, and the TVA board 

is starting to deal with those issues. 

The issue of floating homes didn’t develop overnight, it can’t be 

fixed overnight, but TVA and the TVA board have a responsibility 

to deal with issues like this. 

So a little bit about TVA. We provide electricity to more than 9 

million people in seven States, including the chair and the ranking 

member’s home States. We receive no taxpayer funding, but we do 

make tax equivalent payments, and last year, we provided about 

$1.5 million in equivalent payments to Swain and Graham County. 

Now, we never actually encouraged the construction of floating 

homes or nonnavigable houseboats. What we did do in the 1970s 

was recognize the fact that we had them. We grandfathered existing structures after the fact by issuing about 900 permits, so these 

structures didn’t have to be removed immediately. We also, at 

times, prohibited new structures. We did this in the form of a regulation that has been published in the Code of Federal Regulations 

since 1978. These permits gave no right to remain on the reservoir 

in perpetuity, and TVA believed these structures would actually 

disappear over time. And I don’t know how that assumption was 

made, but it was obviously an incorrect assumption. 

Many of the 1970-era structures have been now transferred to 

new owners or modified. And the problem was compounded by inconsistent or lax enforcement of the TVA policy, with the result 

that the number of floating homes actually doubled. 

Several years ago, we got very concerned about some environmental and operational problems with these houses, and also about 

the proliferation of them. We actually found some marketing data 

about a 200 floating-home subdivision to be built right in Knoxville, Tennessee, and we saw a couple of things like this, so we 

began a thorough policy review, public input process under the National Environmental Policy Act, and we identified, we had about 

1,800, I think 1,836 exactly, floating houses on the reservoirs. We 

took great care to consider all perspectives during the public input 

process. A lot of people urged us to remove the houses immediately. 

They argued that if a citizen built a house in a national forest or 

a hunting lodge in a national park, these would be removed immediately. 

Others expressed concern about safety and environmental issues, 

gray water, anchoring, electrical connections. Structure owners and 

marina operators were generally receptive to better regulation, but 

obviously wanted the structures to remain. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

We estimated in the NEPA process that if we did nothing, the 

number of floating houses would, again, double over the next 30 

years. We got input from the Federal Advisory Committee on Natural Resources, FACNR, which has a gubernatorial appointment 

from each of the States we are in. That board advised a 20-year 

sunset period. So I think there’s a general consensus by all parties 

that health, safety, and environmental standards have to improve 

for these houses. So after the review, the TVA board approved a 

policy to establish new safety and environmental standards for existing structures. 

As had been noted, the policy also prohibits new floating houses, 

which technically have been prohibited since 1978. It requires all 

floating houses to be removed from the reservoirs within 30 years. 

So we believe the extensive sunset period helps mitigate, helps balance the impact on the floating homeowners. I do want to note that 

concerns that Chairman Meadows expressed actually helped move 

that sunset from 20 to 30 years. 

For us, alternatives to the sunset provision imply indefinite personal property rights for a select few on a public resource. And neither TVA nor the TVA board believe it has the authority to create 

personal property rights in publicly-owned resources, and we think 

the Congress is really the only body that has the right to do that. 

So with that, I’ll look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26169.001
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26169.002
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26169.003
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26169.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26169.005
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26169.006
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26169.007
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26169.008
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26169.009
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26169.010
17 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Ms. Sneed, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA SNEED 

Ms. SNEED. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on 

the impact of TVA’s decision to sunset floating homes. I’m Laura 

Sneed, and I’m the cofounder of Fontana Families for Floating 

Houses, and I’m also a member of the Tennessee Valley Floating 

Home Alliance. I’m also a wife and a full-time working mother of 

two boys and two grown step-children. 

Prior to moving to Cherokee, North Carolina, I grew up in Minnesota with memories of time spent at the lake. All I wanted was 

for my children and future grandchildren to have similar life experiences, and floating homes allowed us to do that. 

As we were an expanding family, my husband, Eric, and I purchased two modest grandfathered pre-1978 nonnavigable houseboats on Fontana Lake. In February 2006, the TVA announced 

they were recommending a 20-year sunset provision based on their 

recently completed Environmental Impact Statement. This was an 

involuntary removal of 1,836 floating homes from the TVA reservoirs, and included the 918 previously grandfathered homes. I 

was completely shocked and devastated, as I never expected my 

family would lose our homes. Ultimately, the TVA board voted for 

a 30-year sunset, but the financial and emotional impacts have 

been felt immediately. 

This decision has created pain and anxiety from so many U.S. 

citizens with varying income levels, races, ages, and political party 

affiliations. These homeowners are not only from North Carolina 

and Tennessee, but also travel from Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. On Fontana Lake, many homeowners are also enrolled members of the eastern band of Cherokee Indians, including 

my husband and my children. 

As responsible homeowners and frequent users of the lake, most 

of us are not against reasonable regulations. The majority of homeowners are worried about the proposed annual fee of $0.50 per 

square foot for nongrandfathered and modified homes. If the fees 

were to apply to our homes, there would be a 50 percent increase 

in our costs to legally moor them. 

According to the TVA, up to 20 to 30 percent of the homes will 

be removed after these go into effect. That’s up to 550 families who 

are going to lose their American dream. 

The sunset will also have a negative impact on all our local 

economies, and may destroy the family-run businesses of our marinas. According to the Alarka boat dock owner, Tony Sherrill, homeowners make up to 50 percent of his revenue. 

When one couples the loss of income with the extreme annual 

drawdown of Fontana, which puts the marinas and homes actually 

on the ground for several months, they may not be able to diversify 

and survive. Without the marinas, the already-limited lake access 

will significantly decrease, and that will be a huge detriment to the 

public. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

The TVA has cited concerns in their EIS justifying the removal, 

including homes moored on the marinas and electrical and water 

quality issues. In reality, only about two homes are not moored in 

the marina limits. At Fontana, homeowners don’t have shore 

power. We do, however, pay monthly mooring fees and have contracts to pump our raw sewage. Ironically, the TVA did not conduct 

or include any water quality studies in their report. Fortunately, 

in 2006, an extensive study was performed on Fontana showing 

that the water quality was generally excellent. As a steward and 

user of the lake, I care deeply about our environment. And as a 

protective mother, I would never allow my babies to swim in the 

lake if it was not safe. 

The most recent concern raised by the TVA officials involve the 

private use of a public resource. This implies the ownership of a 

floating home is somehow a social concern of fairness driven by 

privilege. In Swain County, there are 171 houseboats with a taxable value of $3.5 million. That averages out to less than $21,000 

per home, which is less than a brand-new pontoon boat. Technically, everyone who uses the lake is privately using a public resource. Should the TVA also ban boats, as everyone cannot afford 

one? We worked hard and bought our homes. Should we all lose 

them because someone else didn’t get the exact same opportunities? 

We know life isn’t fair, but everyone is just trying to live the American dream. If everything in this country was regulated in an effort 

to balance wealth and property, we’d be another failed communist 

State, which is not the principles this Nation was founded on. 

The TVA also claimed that they’re sunsetting floating homes in 

the interests of the people. Prior to the TVA board meeting, we 

started an iPetition that received over 3,700 signatures and 900 

comments. In addition to public support, Congressman Meadows, 

and Senators Burr and Tillis, have introduced legislation to allow 

them to stay. Seven Congressmen and women from Tennessee sent 

the TVA a joint letter in favor of the homes. The eastern band of 

Cherokee Indians, the Tennessee State legislature, and numerous 

local counties have all passed resolutions opposing the TVA’s sunset. The TVA board has chosen to ignore all of these public officials, in spite of the fact they are voted in by the people and serve 

the interests of the people. 

In conclusion, the recent actions of the TVA board are a clear example of government overreach that will have a negative impact on 

our local economies, small businesses, and American families. My 

family followed the rules, paid the fees, have our permits, and 

brought our homes up to decent standards, yet we too are being unfairly punished and going to lose something we legally have the 

right to own. 

Although the TVA is a government entity, I ask, who is overseeing their actions and who is holding them accountable? The 

TVA reservoirs are built for the people of the United States, and 

as citizens served by that mission, we just want to continue to 

enjoy them as we have done for decades. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Sneed follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26169.011
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26169.012
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26169.013
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26169.014
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26169.015
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26169.016
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26169.017
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26169.018
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26169.019
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26169.020
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26169.021
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26169.022
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26169.023
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26169.024
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26169.025
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26169.026
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26169.027
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26169.028
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26169.029
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26169.030
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26169.031
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26169.032
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26169.033
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26169.034
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26169.035
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26169.036
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26169.037
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26169.038
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26169.039
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26169.040
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26169.041
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26169.042
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26169.043
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26169.044
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26169.045
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26169.046
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 26169.047
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 26169.048
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 26169.049
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 26169.050
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 26169.051
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 26169.052
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 26169.053
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 26169.054
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 26169.055
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 26169.056
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 26169.057
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 26169.058
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 26169.059
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 26169.060
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 26169.061
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 26169.062
71 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ms. Sneed. 

Commissioner Monteith, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MONTEITH 

Mr. MONTEITH. Congressman Meadows, committee members, 

thank you for the opportunity to letting us come today and testify 

of how important houseboats are on Fontana Lake. I would like to 

thank you, Congressman Meadows, for this opportunity, especially. 

This is very, very devastating to Swain County if we have to lose 

these. 

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is David Monteith. I’m a Swain 

County Commissioner. I’m here today to let you know how the removal of houseboats from Fontana lake would affect the health of 

Swain County and Graham County. I also chair the Fontana Lake 

Waste Recovery, which wrote the ordinance not only for Swain 

County, but for seven States for TVA. I also went with TVA and 

presented to 47 other States this ordinance to make this work everywhere, because it does work. 

Fecal coliform went from over 12,000—or 1,200, down to less 

than 35. But in 1943—we’re going to talk about in 1943, a national 

park was added to Swain County. This took an additional 44,000 

acres of land. Over 3,000 citizens then lost their homes. Today 86 

percent of Federal land is—is owned by the Federal Government. 

Only 14 percent is taxable for Swain County. Folks, that’s hard to 

exist and work with with a 14 percent, and taking these houseboats off the lake would be devastating for that. 

In the midst of World War II, TVA took more than 11,000 acres 

of land from Swain County and Graham County to build Fontana 

Lake. It was to be helped to use as a war effort. The people of 

Swain County were told the power was needed to help end the war 

and to build a bomb which would help end the war, yet the Swain 

County citizens were forced to leave their lands. 

Legal actions was taken that said they have to do so. If they 

don’t want to, they’ve still got to do so, they will take and condemn 

land, but we have Judge Yates Webb held in the district court back 

in the 1950s, that this was illegal, against the Constitution of the 

United States, to take and condemn land, but we lost schools, we 

lost cemeteries, we lost Simmons grave, we lost settlements, 

churches, post offices, hotels, boarding houses, grocery stores, train 

depots, side tracks, ferries, hunting lodges, doctors, midwives, hospitals, blacksmith shop, orchards, grist mills, gas stations, sawmills, spice dens. 

These are things that Swain County lost. And, again, we lost because of not only the TVA part of this, an additional 44,000 acres, 

we had already lost from the first national park the same thing 

again. We lost over 6,000 people because of what’s going on today, 

and we just—we need—enough is enough. It don’t need to be continued. 

As you plainly see, the efforts for changing have been served. 

Houseboat owners are asked to be forced off. This would lose Swain 

County over $3 million of valuation, $12,000 just to the economy 

of Swain County. And that, again, is devastating when you only 

have a 14 percent tax base to work with. If Swain County loses 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

houseboats on Fontana Lake, we will lose, as I said, $12,000 in 

taxes and over $3 million in valuation. And that don’t count the 

other side of the lake, Graham County. They will double the same 

thing that we do. So that’s how much the western North Carolina 

area will lose. 86 percent, as I’ve said, of Swain County is Federal 

land. 

Fontana Lake Waste Recovery has cleaned the human waste out 

of Fontana Lake. We have brought it down from 1,400 CC’s down 

to less than 35. This was written because, you know, local doctors 

told us how filthy Fontana Lake was because of houseboats, but 

there was nothing there to enforce it, so we wrote an ordinance to 

make it enforceable and got houseboat owners involved in doing 

just this one thing, and it’s brought it down to less than 35. So 

that’s how clean the lake is today, and we’re very proud of it. TVA’s 

proud of it, because they adopted it to other States and other lakes, 

so they know the effects of what has happened to Swain County. 

So I do appreciate the consideration of this committee to help us 

to keep Fontana Lake clean; not only Fontana Lake, but other communities. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Monteith follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 26169.063
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 26169.064
75 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr. Wilks, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. WILKS 

Mr. WILKS. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, 

ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and a privilege to sit here before you this morning representing the Tennessee Valley Floating 

Home Alliance. We’re a group of floating homeowners, marina operators, renters, and people who enjoy the recreational resources of 

the Tennessee reservoirs. 

On May 5th, 2016, the TVA officials recommended the so-called 

alternative V2 to the TVA board of directors for adoption from 

among several other options outlined in the Environmental Impact 

Statement. TVA commissioned for the purpose of dealing with 

floating homes—the floating home issue. Under alternative V2, 

TVA would approve existing floating houses that met new minimum standards and would allow for the mooring with permitted— 

within permitted harbor limits, but also would establish a future 

sunset date, at which time all existing floating homes must be forcibly removed from the TVA reservoirs, including previously permitted nonnavigables. 

Based on its officials’ recommendation, the TVA board adopted 

alternative V2, but in doing so, extended the sunset period from 20 

to 30 years. 

Why now, after almost 40 years of inactivity, did the TVA want 

to take such a Draconian approach to the issue? Why harm the 

people who believed that they were in compliance? Why harm local 

economies that rely on tourism dollars? Why not regulate and allow 

marina owners, who the TVA has entrusted to be stewards of the 

harbors, to monitor these structures? Why hasn’t the TVA done its 

job? 

Based on inaccuracies and exaggerations, the TVA painted a picture to the public that floating homeowners represented a basket 

of deplorables, squatters, polluters, and those taking the waters as 

their own, all to justify the removal of floating homes. TVA officials 

failed to inform the public and, to some extent, the board, that 98 

percent of all floating homes are moored within the confines of marina harbors in waters leased by the TVA. Floating homes do not 

represent an unacceptable taking of public waters for private use, 

as TVA actually leases these waters, in which these vast majority 

of floating homes are moored, to marina owners. Marina owners 

pay TVA a fee to lease these waters, and floating homeowners, in 

turn, pay marina owners to sublease a mooring space. In order to 

be moored in a marina harbor, floating homeowners must contract 

with either the marina owner itself, or a qualified wastewater disposal company for the proper disposal of wastewater. 

The TVFHA represents many stakeholders in this issue, not only 

from Tennessee and North Carolina, but also from States such as 

Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Arizona, Kentucky, and 

Virginia. Floating homeowners travel to reservoirs for weekends, or 

a week or two of vacation. 

Many local people believe that the TVA would do nothing as 

usual. The TVA makes rules that they never follow or enforce, was 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

the sentiment of many. The TVA was mandating this forced removal, and this time the TVA apparently meant it. 

In an April 2016 meeting of the TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council, Ms. Rebecca Tolene, TVA vice president of natural resources, stated that she was, quote unquote, ‘‘hellbent on removing 

floating houses.’’ During the scoping process involved in the EIS, 

there were many comments related to the inconsistencies of the 

TVA. Marina operators, like Debbie Samples, stated on a June 24, 

2014 public meeting that she spoke to a TVA official around 1997 

and was told it was okay to build a floating home in her marina, 

and that the TVA was going to allow marinas to do what they 

wanted within the harbors. There’s many—there are stories like 

Maryanne and Tom Lefker, who built a floating home after talking 

with a TVA official, who led them to believe that the TVA was not 

regulating these structures anymore. Others reiterated hearing the 

same sentiments from the TVA. 

Now these owners and others are to be levied fees, and at the 

end of 30 years, would be required to pay for the forced removal 

of their floating home from the lake. 

Marina owners stand to lose 40 percent or more of their revenues, which will be difficult to recover, forcing many to close. 

Revenues to counties in Tennessee would suffer significantly 

from the sunset. Campbell County, with 11 marinas, which collectively generate an estimated $33 million of the total 54.24 million 

in tourism dollars spent in the county. Personal estimates of over 

$8,000 per year for basic floating home costs, which over a conservative estimate number of 400 units, brings $3.2 million to the 

Campbell County economy alone. 

This is an exclusive—this is exclusive of the purchase of fuel, 

groceries, dining, and other items. Tourism is the only growth industry in the region since 2008, and now jobs would be lost. Campbell County Mayor E.L. Morton states, ‘‘This is a slap in the face 

to the citizens of the county, which has lost jobs in the mining industry as a result of the TVA not buying coal mined in the region.’’ 

Our family made a choice to purchase a floating home on Norris 

Reservoir because of the cleanliness of the water, the beauty of the 

mountains, and the heritage and the friendliness of its people, 

bringing truth to the term ‘‘southern hospitality.’’ This is not the 

only story of its kind, as evidenced in the public comment sections 

at two TVA board meetings, letters to State and Federal legislators, and over 600 comments in a petition presented to the TVA. 

While some on the TVA board believe that the additional time 

the board granted to floating homeowners would significantly mitigate the lost value suffered by owners, the real impact is today. 

TVA staff has belabored the point of floating homes, not unlike 

boats, depreciate in value over time, but if they are well-maintained or improved, they are likely to maintain or increase their 

value. Those that have sold have done so at values often below 

cost. Retirees like Janet and Gary Benzinger or Ray and Hazel 

Beal, a retired couple in their 80s, either lost thousands of dollars 

on the sale, or couldn’t sell it at all. 

TVA staff wrongly assumed that these structures were built and 

handed down for generations into perpetuity. Our findings show 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

that these structures are bought and sold on an average of 5 to 8 

years as financial demands and family situations change. 

Marina owners have commented in meetings with the TVA that 

they have complied with the regulations regarding sewage and 

blackwater. Marinas or private contractors that pump out these 

vessels required by the TVA to keep records, including gallons 

pumped and where the waste is disposed of. These records are 

rarely, if ever, inspected by the TVA. 

After approximately 40 years of what has been essentially regulatory neglect and often conflicting regulatory guidance from various TVA officials, the TVA apparently made the internal decision 

that it would be easier to force off all floating homes from the lakes 

than to create fair, regulatory policies and maintain effective compliance programs to enforce them, and if floating homeowners, marina owners, local governments lost tens of millions of dollars in 

uncompensated home value and tax revenue in the process, it was 

no concern to the TVA. 

Apparently, in an effort to build its case for the decision, the 

TVA commissioned an EIS that was heavy on conclusions to justify 

the removal of floating homes, but light on the research to back up 

those conclusions. For example, the EIS concluded that floating 

homes hurt the water quality of TVA lakes, but did not include any 

real research to back up those conclusions, and, in fact, left out 

water quality research that showed excellent water quality on Fontana Lake. 

Those not from the Tennessee Valley are unaware of the contradictions that TVA has created. Is the TVA a government agency 

or a private corporation responsible for driving profits from the sale 

of electricity? They’re also unaware that the board is comprised of 

presidential appointees and that millions of dollars in salaries are 

paid to the executives of this Federal corporation. 

The board realized that it had a real decision to make, which required more thought than usually needed. They didn’t fathom that 

over 50 floating homeowners, marina owners, and others would 

travel some 8 hours to State the position that the vast majority of 

floating homes are not as they are described in the EIS. We give 

much credit to Chairman Joe Ritch, and especially Directors Michael McWherter and Marilyn Brown, for their attention. Directors 

McWherter and Brown held a position of holding off a decision, and 

directing the staff to further investigate the matter. This would 

allow time to correct the admitted blundering the TVA had done 

in the past. 

We can all agree that there needs to be a registration or inventory of existing structures, including mooring systems, waterlines, 

electric cables in the various marinas. There needs to be—this 

needs to be done in conjunction with the marinas and organizations 

such as the TVFHA. Concise and sensible safety requirements 

must be developed, including a plan for future recreational use of 

structures like these. 

Where we have a difficulty in reaching a meeting of the minds 

of the TVA is in the notion that floating homes represent an unresponsive, unacceptable private taking of public waters. You see, 

marinas on Norris Reservoir represent only 1.9 percent of the total 

surface area of the reservoir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

At the suggestion of the board, we and other groups have met 

with the staff to work on proposed regulations and develop a plan 

moving forward. The TVA recognizes the TVFHA as a voice and a 

mechanism to communicate new requirements and work towards 

better stewardship. We have asked the TVA to be included as a 

representative from our organization on the RRSC, so there can be 

a fair and balanced discussion on stewardship matters. We have 

also committed to an ambassador program with marinas and homeowners to help communicate the standards and assist in the registration and compliance measures, thus reducing costs for the 

TVA. 

The TVA has an opportunity to turn its negative perception into 

a positive means for persons of the United States to utilize the resources in a positive and sustainable manner without removing 

those structures within compliance. Like the floating home associations in California and Washington, where floating homeowners 

and their government regulators have learned how to peacefully coexist, there is an opportunity to work together here in a nonpartisan manner if the TVA would just avail itself of it. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wilks follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 26169.065
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 26169.066
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 26169.067
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 26169.068
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 26169.069
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 26169.070
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 26169.071
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 26169.072
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 26169.073
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 26169.074
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 26169.075
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 26169.076
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 26169.077
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 26169.078
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 26169.079
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 26169.080
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 26169.081
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 26169.082
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 26169.083
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 26169.084
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 26169.085
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 26169.086
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 26169.087
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 26169.088
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 26169.089
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 26169.090
105 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 91 here 26169.091
106 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 92 here 26169.092
107 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 93 here 26169.093
108 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 94 here 26169.094
109 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 95 here 26169.095
110 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 96 here 26169.096
111 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 97 here 26169.097
112 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 98 here 26169.098
113 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 99 here 26169.099
114 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 100 here 26169.100
115 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 101 here 26169.101
116 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 102 here 26169.102
117 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Wilks. 

Mr. Butler, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. BUTLER 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and members of the committee for allowing me to address this important issue. I’ve spent a large portion of my life on 

the reservoirs that TVA manages, traveling across the entire river 

valley, and spending a lot of time on most of the reservoirs out of 

the 49, witnessing firsthand the importance of the public resources 

and the values they bring to the entire State of Tennessee, where 

I live. 

In my capacity as CEO of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation, I 

have sat across the table from TVA and challenged them hard on 

taking care of our public resources, but I’ve also sat on the same 

side of the table with them in helping them accomplish the same. 

The issue of nonnavigable floating houses on public reservoirs is 

not new, as well spoken here by the other testimony. We find that 

in 1971, the first prohibition was placed on new, nonnavigable 

floating houses in the Federal Register. But what’s remarkable to 

us is that out of the 1,836 floating homes on the reservoirs, 930 of 

them occurred after the second prohibition was placed on the construction and location of these on our public reservoirs. 

Today we are here to review a new prohibition on floating houses 

once again. This new chapter builds on previous ones, apparently 

catalyzed by discussions of plans to insight entire new subdivisions 

of floating homes on our public reservoirs. 

The public reservoir system in Tennessee is the backbone and attraction of a strong outdoor recreation economy, and their conservation is why we support the recently approved TVA board policy. 

Public resources only have value inasmuch as they are available 

to the public. What makes this possible is rational use provided by 

law, and TVA manages these public resources under Section 26(a) 

of the TVA Act. As such, we believe these public resources should 

not be made—should not be impeded or made de facto private property by allowing permanent floating houses on public waters. Floating houses exclude the public from being able to utilize the water 

they occupy in particular, and can negatively impact public uses of 

the larger public reservoirs as a whole. 

While some argue against this policy, saying that these structures help the local economy, which they do, the reality of the economic impacts of floating houses is much more dynamic than just 

that simple analysis. As stated in the 2016 EIS, floating houses 

may work to depress shoreline property values and negatively impact surface recreational opportunities. Add to this that floating 

houses are being used as rental properties, and this further exacerbates these negative impacts. 

Generally speaking, our federation is not opposed to businesses 

operating on public waters or lands, as long as the activities or 

services being offered do not degrade the natural resources involved, and that they do not exclude other legitimate uses of these 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
118 

public resources. In our opinion, floating houses do not pass either 

of these tests. 

Waste, navigation, and electrical safety issues as stated are also 

well-identified concerns. I cite the recently completed EIS again, 

which says, ‘‘An increase in the number of floating homes is expected to exacerbate water pollution problems, adding to the cumulative wastewater loading to surface waters.’’ Leaking of human 

and household waste into public reservoirs is a hazard to aquatic 

life and recreational users as well. 

Who is responsible for this compliance? And if the new policy is 

removed, is this removal effectively an unfunded mandate to the 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to enforce these measures? 

So while some will argue that wastewater and electrical safety 

can be regulated, the sheer fact that hundreds of these structures 

have been placed on our public reservoirs without permitting or 

oversight over a handful of decades in direct violation of Federal 

rules makes a clear statement that the rules and standards designed to protect the public’s interest, and these resources are not 

being followed. What evidence do we have that this will change? If 

past history is a predictor of future performance, it won’t. 

Lastly, and of great importance to millions who love to fish our 

public reservoirs, we believe the presence of floating houses diminishes the experience of and deters use by anglers who seek to use 

these public waters and fisheries resources, especially when they 

are occupied. In Tennessee, these anglers have a constitutional 

right to hunt and fish. And with allowing de facto private ownership of these reservoirs, it is arguable that this is in direct conflict 

with these activities and arguably this right. 

We believe that no citizen should have a presumption of ownership of public waters, especially when it comes at the expense of 

other citizens with equal claim to ownership and use. There are 

good reasons why we cannot build a home in a national park, and 

there are equally good reasons why these structures were prohibited and regulated starting in 1971. 

I would like to close by noting that we believe this policy is 

squarely aligned with TVA’s 26(a) authority. This is a tough issue, 

no doubt, but we find that TVA addressed it comprehensively and 

professionally, choosing a policy that protects the greatest public 

interest and our public reservoirs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Connolly, for 

this opportunity. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
119 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 103 here 26169.103
120 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 104 here 26169.104
121 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 105 here 26169.105
122 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 106 here 26169.106
123 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 107 here 26169.107
124 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Butler, for your testimony. And 

I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize your daughter, who is here 

out of school for a civics lesson, so I want to recognize her. 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And we’ll give you that letter that you requested 

so that it’s an excused absence. 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I assume you’ll also 

give a selfie opportunity with the young lady to make sure that it’s 

accurate. 

I appreciate the panel being here today. I must admit, as a— 

when I left high school and majored in forestry and land management, I didn’t end up in that field, but I love the outdoors, love 

stewardship of our resources, but I also—I also, as a patriotic citizen, understand that this country is ours, including the waterways. And too often, we get a mind-set that appears that government will control that, it’s government lands that we give, at times, 

back to the use of people. I don’t like that idea at all. 

I live in the beautiful Irish Hills area of Michigan, beautiful waterways, lakes, and we have some houseboats on some of those 

lakes. We also have residences that surround these lakes that go 

right up to the water in times. We found ways the deal with it. We 

found ways of taking septic systems out, putting grinder pumps, 

pumping up to municipal sewage systems, dealing at times with 

taking out wells and putting in public water, but we tried to keep 

people on the lakes and using the lakes as well. 

We have a public entity here with the TVA. And, Mr. Johnson, 

I appreciate the fact that you want to carry out regulation appropriately, but the TVA has a staggering amount of debt, which is 

a Federal Government corporation and connected to the Federal 

deficit as well. Taking this into account, wouldn’t you consider compensation packages worth millions of dollars for TVA executives excessive? We’re talking about the fact top executives at TVA being 

paid nearly 15 times as much as the salary for President Obama 

and nearly 30 times the salary of the U.S. Secretary of Energy. Is 

it really necessary? 

In context now, talking about controlling water resources that, as 

Mr. Monteith explained, took away a lot of land, a lot of resources, 

a lot of buildings and structures from people. And while providing 

a service, certainly, yet the excessive costs here, and we’re talking 

about concerns about people living on houseboats. So let me ask 

that question again. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Well, actually the compensation of people at 

TVA is specified in a Federal statute. It’s in the TVA Act, measures 

how it is to be constructed, and it was a recognition in 2005 that 

TVA is actually the largest utility in this country, I think. We operate seven nuclear plants. It is like running a large IOU. And if you 

need to get the talent and skills of people to do that, you need to 

pay them. And we make about half or less of peers in private industry. So compared to other government employees, we are better 

paid; compared to industry, we are not. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, you’re not private industry. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
125 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. WALBERG. You’re government employees. And here we’re 

talking about families, families that have put up a houseboat for 

a purpose in life that really comes with the reality of life, liberty, 

and prosperity—or happiness, as it was put. And we have regulatory agencies that continue to expand while being in huge debt. 

And we’re concerned about this particular issue, and not finding a 

way to address the values and lifestyles of these people. 

Let me go to Ms. Sneed. In your testimony, you recount how you 

followed the rules, you paid thousands of dollars in fees, you received Section 26(a) permit from TVA. How’d you feel when the 

board announced its policy to remove all floating homes from the 

TVA reservoirs within 20 years, and now 30 years? 

Ms. SNEED. Well, when I received my postcard in the mail, I was 

kind of going through my mail, and I read it, and I was just—just 

taken aback. And I was shocked, because, I mean, we were—we did 

it—you know, we did it right. These houses—our houses have been 

there probably since the 1950s, and the fact that they’re taking 

those away too, and just taking them all away, it’s just—it’s devastating for us, and then getting to know everyone else, you know, 

the people that aren’t grandfathered. It’s hurting a lot of people. 

And at first, I didn’t even know what to do, and so it took us, like, 

a month and a half to get going, but—you know, that we needed 

to fight this, but I just—it was devastating. And, I mean, we’ve— 

Fontana is kind of a cash, you know, lake, so our house values are 

not as high as others. So we put a lot of money in our—from our 

savings account into these houses, you know, to replace the black 

floats and, you know, to make our sinks pump into a septic tank 

and, you know, to make them, you know, more environmentally 

friendly and safe for our children, because there was a beaver that 

lived under our house and ate our floor. And so to, you know, basically lose a lot of money from your savings account and everything, 

it just—it was—it was devastating. 

Mr. WALBERG. And future plans as well. 

Ms. SNEED. Well, yeah. I mean, I wanted my kids to be able to 

swim on the lake. You know, North Carolina is very different than 

Minnesota. You can’t just buy a cheap cabin and, you know, bring 

your family up and just walk down to the lake. And, you know, we 

looked at properties, but it’s really expensive. It’s very limited on 

Fontana. Most of the land is either Forest Service or national park. 

There are some private opportunities, but they’re very expensive 

compared to, you know, buying land in Swain County normally, 

you might be able to buy, what, an acre for $10,000. A quarter, half 

acre is $500,000 on the lake, so it’s not proportionate to what the 

people make in the area and it’s—so, I mean, the floating homes 

allow normal people to actually use the lake. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Mr. Wilks—— 

Mr. WILKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. —you argue that floating homes do not represent 

an unacceptable taking of public waters for private use. Could you 

explain that further? 

Mr. WILKS. The marinas are—pay a lease fee to the TVA. Contrary to their accusation, or their assumptions out there that— 

there’s over 98 percent of these floating homes or these structures 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
126 

are within marina confines. They’ve already leased an area to a 

private entity, to a private marina. 

Mr. WALBERG. Define ‘‘marina confines’’ for me, if you would. 

What’s that look like? 

Mr. WILKS. They’re within a harbor or set harbor limits by the 

TVA. 

Mr. WALBERG. And that’s already leased to the owners of the marina? 

Mr. WILKS. Yes, it is, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. So the marina really decided what they want to 

do with their space, correct? 

Mr. WILKS. Correct. 

Mr. WALBERG. And they’ve given that to floating homes—— 

Mr. WILKS. They’ve given—— 

Mr. WALBERG. —houseboats. 

Mr. WILKS. —some of that area to floating homes, some of it to 

their own docks for, you know, private slips for—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Fishing purposes. 

Mr. WILKS. For fishing purposes, for, you know, storage of boats, 

for storage of production houseboats. You know, they’re docked all 

along—or within those harbors. 

Mr. WALBERG. And so that’s, you said, 90 percent—— 

Mr. WILKS. Yes. 

Mr. WALBERG. —generally speaking. 

Mr. WILKS. Yes. Actually by TVA estimates, it was 98 percent. 

Mr. WALBERG. Of all—— 

Mr. WILKS. Roughly—— 

Mr. WALBERG. 98 percent of leased property—98 percent of the 

houseboats are on already leased property. 

Mr. WILKS. Yes. 

Mr. WALBERG. That isn’t taking away anything that wasn’t given 

by TVA already. 

Mr. WILKS. Correct. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing. This is illuminating for me to some degree, but I appreciate 

your efforts to move forward on this and try to find a suitable answer to make sure that resources are cared, we want that, but also 

that personal choices and personal liberty and the opportunity for 

doing something with your lifestyle on remaining lands that aren’t 

controlled somehow, some way, by the Federal Government, that 

seems to be getting more and more, that we’re given these opportunities. So thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend, the chairman, and I thank 

him for this hearing. 

I must take issue with Mr. Walberg. I mean, unlimited, quote, 

‘‘personal liberty,’’ you want to see where that can lead, let’s look 

at the Detroit River that poisoned the people of Flint, Michigan. 

There is a role for Federal Government, there is a role for government regulation. It protects people. And I cannot abide the assertion of a philosophy that virtually leads to unlimited pollution of 

waterways. 

Mr. WALBERG. Would the gentleman yield? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
127 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Briefly. 

Mr. WALBERG. Briefly. I’m not asking—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Only because I have 5 minutes. I’m sorry. I 

didn’t mean that to be rude. 

Mr. WALBERG. I’m not asking—I’m not asking for unlimited—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

Mr. WALBERG. —at all, but I’m asking for some type of reasonable care for that personal liberty that we all believe in. And I 

don’t see this here, and especially when I see an entity that is so 

huge in debt. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Reclaiming my time, I say to my friend, I agree 

with that. In fact, I said that in my opening statement. I think is 

a matter—we have to strike a balance here between that and the 

need to protect public waterways or semipublic waterways, but I 

think we have to be careful in how we express that, because, at 

least on our side of the aisle, we get off—I mean, and the people 

you’re trying to protect, if we frame it in such stark terms, I think 

we lose support we otherwise might get, because, certainly, this 

member with a strong environmental record is not unsympathetic 

to the plight, nonetheless, of the individuals who are affected here, 

who thought they were making decisions that would be protected 

or not challenged, and I’m totally sympathetic with that plight. So 

anyway. 

Ms. Sneed, I want to make sure I understand your testimony. 

How long have you lived on this floating house? 

Ms. SNEED. We bought the first house in 2014, and then the second house we bought in 2015. So the first house, we actually 

bought from a family that their real house burned down, and they 

used it as an asset. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. So you’re relatively new? 

Ms. SNEED. We are. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And where did you come from? 

Ms. SNEED. I’m from—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh. You said Minnesota. 

Ms. SNEED. From Minnesota. I met my husband working on a 

project. He’s from—he’s from Cherokee, North Carolina, and—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

Ms. SNEED. —married and moved down here. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. Now, do you have a permit? 

Ms. SNEED. We do. We have two. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You do. Okay. Would you agree that anyone 

who’s on the lake, or the reservoir, ought to have a permit, because 

that’s what’s required by law? 

Ms. SNEED. We do. And so in North Carolina, the houses that 

don’t have TVA permits are registered as North Carolina boats, 

and a lot of them have steering wheels and they can actually drive 

them around. So in our first spot, the previous neighbor actually 

would take theirs out and drive the lake like a houseboat. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So I understand, but I’m trying to get at sort of— 

I was in local government, like Mr. Monteith. 14 years I did rezonings, a lot more than you probably have done in a lifetime, because it’s Fairfax County, right? So I did thousands of re-zonings. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
128 

And it is not up for opinion whether the government has a right 

to insist on permitting and licensing and certain regulations with 

respect to lot size and what you can build and if you can build and 

sewer lines and all that stuff. I mean, that’s what we did for a living to protect the public. 

Ms. SNEED. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Now, sometimes opinions can clash about how 

far government goes? And do you really need to be doing that? And 

I found myself on both sides of that as a local elected official. Sometimes I saw government at its worse, and sometimes, thank God, 

I saw it at its best. And all I’m trying to get at here is you certainly—because I don’t want to misconstrue your testimony. You 

agree that it is within the purview of TVA to issue permits, that 

you—if you’re going to have a floating house, you’ve got to have a 

permit? 

Ms. SNEED. Yes. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. And you heard Mr. Johnson’s testimony 

that unfortunately when they grandfathered it in, even those that 

previously before you got onto the reservoir, that were without a 

permit, they finally decided, let’s make them all legal and we’ll 

grant 900-and-something permits and start over so that nobody’s illegal. That’s our solution. In the past, that’s what they did. You 

heard that? 

Ms. SNEED. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And what happened? 

Ms. SNEED. People continued to build, because it was not regulated. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That’s right. 

Ms. SNEED. But other people—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, it was technically regulated, but they didn’t 

enforce it. 

Ms. SNEED. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. So we went from 900 to 1,800, which 

would suggest that half the homes, floating homes were or are illegal, that is to say, without a permit. Is that correct, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is, in fact, correct, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So a lot of your neighbors are there illegally. 

Ms. SNEED. Sort of, because they have—they’re registered as 

boats on our lake. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So there’s a sort of getting around the permit requirement. 

Ms. SNEED. I mean, they can drive them around as boats, so, we 

chose to get permits. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Ms. SNEED. Other people—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But you—at least you know—— 

Ms. SNEED. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —TVA, that is the governing authority here 

under law—— 

Ms. SNEED. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —considers them illegal, right? 

Ms. SNEED. We just went out of our way to make sure that—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
129 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. I know. You’re clean with the Lord. Good, 

good. All right. But I think you would agree as a citizen, right, we 

can’t have people exercising illegal options, right? We all want to 

be within the law. 

Ms. SNEED. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. And within the law is our protection. It’s 

your protection. You’re legal. I can’t do anything. 

Ms. SNEED. But they are taking us off. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Hold that in abeyance. I’m talking about day-today stuff. Whereas, if I operate outside the law, not only am I at 

risk, but so is the public, because I may be leaking or violating 

other things that you have gone to great trouble not to do. You 

got—from what I understand from your testimony, you have gone 

to great extent and expense to make sure that you are an environmentally-sensitive floating home. So you’re not polluting the waterway you are situated in. Is that correct? 

Ms. SNEED. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would that be a fair—okay. 

So, now, Mr. Butler. Going to balance, I know you conceded that 

this is a tough decision, but can’t we find some middle path between ‘‘you’re out of here in 30 years’’ which instantly has an impact on not only psychology, but on home values and protecting a 

natural resource, which I agree with you, has to be protected and 

it’s the responsibility of TVA. And we heard from Mr. Wilks. Part 

of the problem here is the inconsistency of TVA’s enforcement and 

that is as bad as a bad law. 

If it is on the books and it’s the law, it needs to be enforced consistently so that everybody understands. The expectations are uniform across the board. And TVA hasn’t done that, according to Mr. 

Wilks, and no one has gainsaid that testimony. And I think that’s 

a very fundamental problem. Because, Mr. Johnson, one of the 

problems here is, once you’re gone, will your successor enforce this 

or care? Are we once again going to be up in the air about what’s 

expected, wink, blink and what is the law and all that? 

So all right, Mr. Butler, my time is up, but I would like you to 

at least help address the balance because I didn’t hear a lot of sympathy in your testimony. I mean, I heard passionate advocacy for 

the environment, which I share. But there are human beings who 

are going to be affected here, most of whom, through no fault of 

their own, find themselves caught in this conundrum. And they 

may not want to leave. They may not—they certainly don’t want 

that cloud hanging over their heads of uncertainty. And can’t there 

be a middle way that allows us to have an environmental solution 

while still allowing people to stay in their homes, and exercise the 

personal liberty Mr. Walberg talked about? 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, we are certainly empathetic to the plight of 

the folks that have invested their hard-earned dollars into those 

structures. We would look at this in a couple of different ways. One 

is, we find it remarkable that there would be a presumption of permanent residency on public resources. In other words, we understand that TVA didn’t follow up on their ’78 policy and enforce it, 

per your points. But we also think the citizens have a responsibility 

to make sure that they are registered. When I buy a car, I have 

a responsibility to go get it registered. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
130 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We have established that, and Ms. Sneed doesn’t 

take any issue with that. She agrees. She has done that. 

Mr. BUTLER. But the problem is, Mr. Connolly, is that half of 

these facilities ignored that and took no responsibility. And if that 

is the historical context, we are concerned that the future context 

could be similar. Now, having said that, we responded in our testimony and in our response to TVA in their EIS process, the NEPA 

process, around the alternatives that they gave. There are other potential alternatives that could be based around ownership of the 

bottom of the reservoirs, in our opinion. Potentially, you could look 

at areas where flowage easements were purchased. They are private property rights arguably owned by individuals where TVA has 

the right to flood, but they don’t own the surface or subsurface 

right under the water. 

If you anchor to that, then there might be an argument made 

that that could be a different situation, versus if there are public 

lands underneath those waters that were taken in any other manner. And I think you could find some potential alternatives there, 

although we have not examined those, and we have not discussed 

those with TVA. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I’m glad you clarified that because when 

you started talking about the solution being at the bottom of a reservoir, I got really nervous for Ms. Sneed and everybody else. 

All right. Thank you, and I hope your daughter got a bit of a 

taste of the wondrous democracy we have and being able to express 

our opinions and not worry about it. Mr. Chairman, over to you. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the ranking member. Commissioner 

Monteith, did you want to comment? I saw you—you looked like 

you wanted to jump in on that before I start my series of questions. 

I will recognize myself for asking questions, but I’ll let you comment if you wanted to do so. 

Mr. MONTEITH. TVA, they determined, first of all, how many 

houseboats can be put in a harbor. You can’t just go down and 

throw in 10,000 in a harbor. They tell TVA, they tell the dock owners how many they can put, and that’s all they can put. Okay. Also, 

the TVA law on houseboats, you know, they’re navigable, these are 

navigable laws are NC navigable laws that they told you. You’ve 

got TVA numbers and you’ve got NC numbers. Those NC numbers 

that Ms. Sneed talked about, they have a motor on it, it can view 

180 degrees. You can see it. It can be moved around because, that’s 

the way North Carolina law requires it. The other ones at TVA 

don’t. They stay put, solid. But, again, how many is in a harbor is 

what it is. And TVA determines what goes on that lake. And we 

abide by that, not only with the harbor, but cleaning the lake up 

and keeping it clean to where it is clean on that lake. I mean—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Go ahead. Sure. Go ahead. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just following up on what. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’ll yield to you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, because we didn’t give Mr. Monteith an opportunity because I think it was pretty dramatic when you said you 

brought the pollution levels down—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
131 

Mr. MONTEITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —from 1,400 to 35. 

Mr. MONTEITH. Yes, sir. Exactly right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And if the chairman is—I think we would love 

to hear a little bit, how did you do that? 

Mr. MONTEITH. We have done it because we got grants from TVA, $90,000. We got in grants from Western Carolina University 

at $20,000. We got grants from DENR of $340,000; grants from 

RC&D, State again, of $345,000. We got these grants together. We 

took that money and we bought Fontana Lake Waste Recovery, because there was no ordinance enforcing the lake. We wrote the ordinance so it could be enforced. Okay? We took the grant money 

and we bought each boat dock a pump-out boat. We built each boat 

dock a floating platform that would hold 1,000 gallons of waste. 

They could take their dock, go in, pump out her houseboat and 

take it over and put it into the holding tank, and then the State— 

or not the State, but the county would come by on the banks and 

pick it up and haul it out, just like a sewage on Bryson—in the 

county. That’s what we done to make the lake clean. That’s why. 

And not only that, but as I said, TVA sent me to other States 

to present what we done so they can do the same thing, and these 

other seven States are doing the same thing. We don’t have private 

land to where they are running sewer lines and water lines and 

power lines under the lake. That’s not on Fontana Lake. It’s Federal on one side, Forest Service, TVA and you are in a harbor and 

limited to how many you can put in that harbor and they mandate 

that to us. Okay. Did that clear that up? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It does. Thank you. 

Mr. MONTEITH. Good deal. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So thank you. 

Mr. Butler, let me come to you, because you said you have traveled on most of the 49 reservoirs. So you have enjoyed it. You 

fished—I assumed you fished. Your testimony was that you have 

enjoyed the reservoirs. Is that correct? 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So in doing that and enjoying those, 

when was the last time you were on Fontana? 

Mr. BUTLER. It would have had to have been probably in the late 

1990s. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you haven’t been there for over 20 

years? 

Mr. BUTLER. Around there. Maybe a little less. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But so you just prefer not to come to North Carolina. That’s okay. You’re from Tennessee. I got that. So you’re enjoying the reservoirs in Tennessee? 

Mr. BUTLER. Primarily, yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I say to both of you, Virginia is gorgeous. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. You ought to see Michigan. I can hear it. 

We can see where this is going. So Mr. Butler, if you have been 

enjoying it, and so at this point, you would say that recreation on 

TVA reservoirs is pretty good. Right? 

Mr. BUTLER. I think it is. I think we have some challenges. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me ask you. Let me cut you off. I have only 

got limited time. If it’s good, how has the 1,826 floating homes afVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:45 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26169.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
132 

fected your enjoyment, your private enjoyment? Because your testimony, your sworn testimony is you’ve enjoyed it. 

Mr. BUTLER. Sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I want to know how these 1,826 floating 

homes has affected your private enjoyment, Mr. Butler. 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, they haven’t, but I’m not here—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, okay. So they haven’t. So then your concern 

is not with the 1,826 boats that we have there, or floating homes 

that we have there. It would be if we increased it. Is that correct? 

Mr. BUTLER. My concern is with the people I represent, with the 

Wildlife Federation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, okay. All right. 

Mr. BUTLER. And their use of the reservoir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it is not really about private enjoyment as 

much as it is your official capacity? 

Mr. BUTLER. Their private enjoyment. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh. So you are saying you can enjoy it, but they 

can’t. 

Mr. BUTLER. No. I’m saying that the private enjoyment of those 

people that I represent, like the Tennessee Striped Bass Association that recreates primarily on Norris Reservoir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I’m a fisherman. I’m an angler. Do you 

know where I catch most of the fish? Under docks and under floating homes. Wouldn’t you agree with that? You know, you are a 

wildlife guy. 

Mr. BUTLER. That’s why in my testimony, I particularly stated 

the impact of when they are occupied, because when they are occupied, people don’t like—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, you scare the fish away when they are occupied? 

Mr. BUTLER. No. They don’t like—they don’t like getting in the 

personal space of the people that are on the docks. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Butler, this is sworn testimony, so I—how 

many fish have you talked to? 

Mr. BUTLER. Zero, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So let me make a point. This is sworn testimony, and here’s what I’m asking you to do. 

Mr. BUTLER. Sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Let’s identify the barriers to fixing this problem, 

and let’s dispense with the pontification of what may or may not 

happen in the future. I’m willing—in fact, Mr. Johnson, wouldn’t 

you agree that I spoke to you and your chief of staff on numerous 

occasions? You once, your chief of staff on numerous occasions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s more than accurate. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. All right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’ve heard a lot from you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You’ve heard a lot from me. Did I not tell you 

that I was willing to put in some reasonable restrictions in permitting and actually find a process? In fact, I said we ought to use Mr. 

Monteith’s model and make that a requirement for all of the reservoirs in terms of working that over; that I wanted to find some 

common ground. Did I not tell you that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely you did. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
133 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So if we’re looking, and Mr. Butler’s private enjoyment hasn’t been affected to date. In fact, I guess, Mr. 

Butler, since you’re saying this is a private taking—is that what 

you’re saying? That was what your sworn testimony was, this was 

a private taking? I heard that. 

Mr. BUTLER. I don’t know if I used that exact word, but it’s possible. Yes, we would say this is a private exclusion of other public 

uses. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So would a marina be a private of other 

public use? 

Mr. BUTLER. If it goes through the processes that TVA—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Would a dock, would a dock be? Because it is. You 

know, here is the thing is, we are talking about floating homes, 

and your testimony would be inconsistent if that was the premise 

of what you are talking about because all of those would be private 

takings of a public entity. Would they not? So you’re saying get rid 

of everything on the lake? 

Mr. BUTLER. No, sir, we’re not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, then, why make the decision—— 

Mr. BUTLER. Because these are being established as residences—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, okay. 

Mr. BUTLER. —versus day-use boats that are typically for—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many people live there 365 days a year? 

Mr. BUTLER. I have no idea. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. I can tell you, because I don’t normally ask 

questions that I don’t know the answers for, and the answer is 

zero. So it’s not a residence. So are you saying that we need to get 

rid of docks and marinas too? Is that your testimony? 

Mr. BUTLER. I definitely would believe that we need to be smart 

about locating docks and marinas so they don’t impede upon these 

values that I mentioned in testimony. 

Mr. MEADOWS. What values is that? 

Mr. BUTLER. Access, navigation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. But we haven’t heard any—Mr. Johnson, in fact, I think in his testimony, has said that there is not an 

access problem or a navigation problem. Isn’t that correct, Mr. 

Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t believe I said that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you have public statements to that effect. 

So is there a navigation problem? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. There are, at some of these marinas, navigation problems. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me ask you this: I want to go 

here because is it harder to move around a floating home that is 

stationary than a bass boat that is going 40 miles an hour? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I was not a physics student, but harder to move 

a houseboat. They are moored. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is it easier to avoid a houseboat that is stationary 

than a moving boat that’s going 40 miles an hour? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Typically, yes, but—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Typically yes, what? It’s easier to go around a 

floating home. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
134 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, it’s easier to avoid a standing object than a 

moving object. Yes, but the anchorages of some of these do pose 

navigation problems. I have some pictures here if you would like 

to see. 

Mr. MEADOWS. When was the last time you were on Fontana? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Within the last 6 weeks. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And so do you see any anchorage problems 

on Fontana? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would say Fontana is probably the best in terms 

of quality, environmental safety, anchorage. I think that’s—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So why would the board not take what we are 

doing in Fontana and make it applicable for the other 49 reservoirs 

as a good example of good regulation, like my good friend from Virginia is talking about. Why would you not do that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that is part of the plan to do that, 

which is to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You mean, in the next 30 years—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. —until we get rid of them? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are two points here. Yes, we need to improve our enforcement of standards, set standards, health, environmental standards. The reason I got interested in this a couple of 

years ago is we had people in one of the reservoirs get so sick from 

swimming in sewage that they had to go to the hospital. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Was that in Fontana? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Wasn’t Fontana. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Didn’t I request that we just exempt some of the 

ones where you are not having problems? Didn’t I tell you that? 

Why don’t we just exempt it if we are not having a problem? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My second point, which I actually do believe a permanent right to be there, if we have no sunset ability, we have created a permanent property right in public resources and I’m not 

the only one who thinks this. Federal District Court in Western 

North Carolina, the Honorable Woodrow Jones, said even a single 

houseboat moored to Federal land interferes with the government 

ownership rights. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you saying this is Federal land? Is that 

your testimony? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, it is. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what part of water is Federal land? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the land under—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I only know of one person who walked on water. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The land under it, certainly. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is it land or is it water? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The land is Federal land. The water is entrusted 

to the care of TVA under the TVA Act and, of course, public owns 

the right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what role does the EPA have in cleanliness? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m not sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do they have any role on TVA waters? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the water quality is a matter of State law 

and State enforcement, I believe. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, State and Federal. Okay. Okay, so, when 

you look at that, are they monitoring the cleanliness of the lake? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
135 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think everybody who draws water out of any 

lake or any river monitors it routinely, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so is this environmental problem 

on Fontana? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, Fontana has led the way here in environmental standards and other things. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So was it your staff that recommended 

to the board to take this action? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And they did that based on what? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Two years of study, a number of public hearings, 

comment periods. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And they did that why? Why? I mean, you don’t 

just have a public hearing unless you have an outcry from the public, generally speaking. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many complaints did you have? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can’t tell you the number. We had a—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, this is important to you, isn’t it, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is important to me. It is really important. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And you have got all kinds of staff here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So do you not know how many complaints you 

had? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I can’t—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Can you get that to the committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m sure we can. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But we had two issues. We had two issues. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Did you have over 3,700 complaints? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because we’ve got a petition of over 3,700 people 

who say that they are going the other way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, and I have a survey—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Again, I’m putting on my old local government 

hat. I mean, and we are a big county. I have got 1.2 million people 

I represented. Yeah. Bigger than seven States. But we are a complaint-based system. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you don’t know how many complaints you got 

about this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m sure somebody does. I don’t particularly know. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I think that’s pretty material. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If it turns—bad policy decisions get made if we 

overreact to a handful of complaints. If, on the other hand, you 

have got lots of substantive complaints and concerns that were expressed, and I know you had a fact-finding period. Right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But I think that’s a pretty material figure to get 

back to us on. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
136 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Because I’d hate to think that all of this is about 

making three people happy. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. It’s not about making three people happy. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But that’s the risk of what you’ve just done in 

answering the chairman. You should know that answer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right, well—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —coming here, testifying before the United 

States Congress. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The second part of this, though, is the proliferation of new floating homes that we are starting to see in marketing 

materials from developers from other places. And that’s really the 

other factor here. As I said, if we do nothing—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you’re saying is, is that your primary 

concern is that we don’t make it any worse than it is now. Is that 

your sworn testimony? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, one primary concern is that we don’t proliferate this. Another is that we have the right standard, and the 

third is that we don’t created private property rights in public resources because we dont think we have the power to do that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Which is it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. All three. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because we can address two of those. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you saying that you don’t want floating 

homes on your lakes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the floating homes, for a reasonable period, 

is good, but I think if you say they can never be sunset; that this 

is a perpetual right, that is creating personal property interest in 

public resources. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you say it’s not fair. Is that what 

you’re saying? You’ve had your vice president of natural resources 

say it’s not fair. I heard that. So is that your testimony too, it’s just 

not fair? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. My testimony is, it is not right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So it’s not right. Is it right to condemn 

the property of landowners and Graham and Swain County, and 

then take it and then try to manage it and make sure that they 

kept—because, literally, what happened in Graham and Swain 

County is you had patriotic Americans who said they were going 

to give up their homes to allow you to produce energy to win a war. 

And now all of a sudden, you’re the fairness guru? 

I mean, is that fair? You took their land. Now you’re trying to 

tell them to get off of what you took originally. Is that fair? 

Mr. JOHNSON. So I wasn’t around when that happened. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Johnson, I know you weren’t and neither was 

I. But you read, don’t you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes, I read a lot. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Did you condemn the land and did you take it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. Absolutely took it to help win World 

War II. There’s no question about that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I’m glad we did. And you know what? The 

people of Graham and Swain County are glad you did. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
137 

Mr. MEADOWS. And all they want to do is get a little bit of it 

back; all they want to do. 

Now, here is what I want to ask you, Mr. Johnson: Is the board, 

and are you willing to recommend to the board a reasonable compromise where we can keep floating homes there? Are you willing 

to do that? Yes or no? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m willing to talk to them about that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not my question. That’s a great—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that’s my answer. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m saying—no, I’m asking you a question and it 

can be answered yes or no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you and your staff willing to recommend to 

the board a reasonable compromise that would allow floating 

homes to remain? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I say no. I think we have reached a reasonable 

compromise. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, why would you say that? I mean, if this is 

such an unbelievable priority for TVA, why don’t you get rid of 

them tomorrow? If it’s such an unbelievable—I mean—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. So we have the authority today to remove half of 

them without—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. I have the authority today to do a lot of 

things, too. And so I’m going to go to the gentleman from Wisconsin, allow him to ask some questions. But we will come back. 

Because here is what I’m concerned about, Mr. Johnson. It’s a double standard. It’s a double standard. You know, really, when we 

start to look at all of this, we want to talk about fairness, and you 

are a federally mandated corporation. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when you look at the TVA Act, what part of 

it was actually in 1933, what, is that when the TVA—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. 1933. 

Mr. MEADOWS. What part of that actually gave you the authority 

to really manage this particular aspect? Because in your opening 

testimony, it was interesting, you talked about what we are supposed to do, power generation, and we are supposed to manage natural resources. That was part of your opening statement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not in the Act of 1933. It talked about flood 

control and it talked about power generation. It talked about fertilizer and weapons. And it talked about the environment, but it 

was really about reforestation of really a place that had all of their 

timber cut and it never contemplated this. I mean, I have read it. 

I was up until 2 a.m. Reading the entire, every jot and tittle, so 

it’s not in there. And so your testimony is not in keeping with the 

TVA Act of 1933. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I actually think it is entirely consistent with it 

under section 26(a). 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, we will agree to disagree. I’m going to go 

to the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. We will give Ms. Sneed a chance to 

say a little bit. 

How much does your family currently pay in annual fees, about? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
138 

Ms. SNEED. So between the taxes, the pump fees and mooring 

fees, it’s a little over $2,000 a year. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And under their new rules, what do you think 

it’s going to be about? 

Ms. SNEED. It’s going to be a little over $3,000. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So about a 50 percent increase in one shot? 

Ms. SNEED. It is. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Whew. That’s a lot. 

Ms. SNEED. For our family. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. How does that affect your family? A lot, 

huh? 

Ms. SNEED. It will, but not as much as some people. I mean, 

there’s some people that just have no money and this is—it’s going 

to kick them off the lake. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Wow. You attended a meeting in August a little 

while ago with a floating homeowners and the TVA. And they revealed they will lose up to 20 to 30 percent of the homes after the 

proposed regulations and fees go into effect. Would that be 4- to 

500 families? Is that—that many people are going to leave, you 

think? 

Ms. SNEED. Well, there’s going to be the initial permitting fees. 

I think it’s either $250 or $500 depending—and they still haven’t 

published the regulations, so this is still what we are trying to negotiate, too. But so there’s that initial permitting fee, and then 

there’s going to be the annual fee. 

So between the two, I mean, there’s some families that just don’t 

have expendable income beyond what they already have that will 

lose their homes. And then there’s some homes that just won’t be 

able to come up to compliance. There are homes that are abandoned and that they haven’t been paying their mooring fees and 

they are kind of just off to the side. So those need to go. We agree 

with that. I mean, they have pictures of them. But there are starving families that this will affect. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. My paper here says 360 to 550 families. 

That’s a lot of people. 

Ms. SNEED. Correct. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. It is almost like a village. I have a lot of villages 

that aren’t that big in my district. 

Kind of big stuff. Can you just give me in general how you feel 

it impacts the sense of community that you have over there? 

Ms. SNEED. Yeah. The community on the lakes are, I guess, of 

a time past. I, being from Minnesota had a condo in northeast Minneapolis, and I couldn’t even tell you the names of my neighbors. 

But on Fontana, I mean, everyone—you just get to know your 

neighbors. I don’t know some of them yet, because I haven’t been 

to their houses. But, you know, like, our neighbors lent us eggs. I 

was making meat loaf and they had chickens. And like, you know, 

being a city girl it is like, wow, you just—we even had a group of 

fishermen come up to our boat and they needed a tool, and we happened to have it. And it was just me and my baby at that time, 

so I was kind of a little leery because they had a gun on their boat, 

but we—you know, they just needed help. I gave them help. I gave 

them the tool and they fixed it. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
139 

And, you know, it is a really strong sense of community and this 

event has actually brought a lot of people together. So that’s one 

good thing; meeting other people from other lakes and then meeting people on our own lakes that would have taken a while from 

different marinas. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Neat stuff. I will ask Mr. Monteith a question 

as well. They spelled your name is different on my sheet than your 

thing, but I guess Monteith is the thing. 

Okay. In your testimony, or in his testimony, TVA President William Johnson testified that quote, ‘‘TVA’’ gives—‘‘believes giving 

compliant homeowners until 2046 to continue enjoying their homes 

during the extensive sunset period helps mitigate the impact on 

floating homeowners.’’ 

As an affected homeowner, what do you feel about that statement? 

Mr. MONTEITH. It is devastating to the homeowner because, you 

know, hypothetically, just say you own a home and you’re wanting 

to sell that home and nobody is wanting to buy that home as you 

get older, because it’s going to have to come off. What is that homeowner going to do as he is up 60, 70, maybe 80 years old and their 

family and they want to get rid of that home and they can’t afford 

to? Do you know what is going to happen to that home? Lightning 

is going to mysteriously hit that home and it’s going to burn and 

sink in the bottom of Fontana Lake, and float all over the place. 

What are they going to do? Who are they going to sue? A dead 

man? I mean, get serious. You cannot do something like that. It 

don’t even make sense. That’s what going to happen to them. 

I mean, I’m just telling you. I mean, you know—let me come 

back and add a statement if I can. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Sure, absolutely. They said I should ask you 

question. I said they’re right. 

Mr. MONTEITH. In the 1950s, in the 1960s, TVA had houseboats 

all over Fontana Lake. They were not on what we call the State 

side tied up in harbors. They were on Hazel Creek, Eagle Creek, 

Forney Creek, Chambers Creek, tied up all over the lake. What did 

the National Park Service and TVA do? They got together and 

made them take them all off and take them all into harbors. And 

you know, people complied with that, because they said it’s better 

to put them in harbors. The dock owners can take care of them and 

they are not scattered all over the lake to mess up the fishermen. 

And everybody was happy with that. And that’s been working well 

since that time. 

And you know, and it works. And it’s again, what I said, limited 

to how many you can put on that lake. Because you can only put, 

if you own a harbor, you can only put so many. The only way you 

put another one is somebody has got to take it off, sell it, or do 

whatever. And occasionally that happens, and somebody new will 

put a new one in. But most of the time, they do like Ms. Sneed did, 

they just buy one and remodel it, and that’s what they do. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, well, I’d like to thank Mr. Meadows for 

holding this. I have got to go back to my other subcommittee, but 

keep your thumb on them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
140 

We are going to go into a second round and actually—but I will 

be very brief in light of my good friend from Virginia. I do want 

to clear up a few things as we look at this. 

One, Mr. Monteith, the proposals that you put forth to clean the 

lakes up in North Carolina that is being used, would you say that 

it’s been effective? 

Mr. MONTEITH. Very effective. Very, very effective. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Would you see any barriers to allowing 

that to be used as a model for the other 48 reservoirs other than 

Fontana? Any barriers? 

Mr. MONTEITH. I think it should be used as a model. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Mr. Johnson, do you see any barriers 

to being able to use that in any of your other 48 reservoirs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just the execution and enforcement, but the idea 

and the standards are good. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So if a county of jurisdiction was willing 

to handle the enforcement of that policy, as Graham and Swain 

County have both agreed to do on Fontana in our area, if a county 

was willing to take on that responsibility from TVA, do you not see 

that as a reasonable compromise because you have a government 

entity willing to enforce regulations for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, which they have as a primary responsibility already. Do you not see that that is something that TVA could actually transfer to the local governments within the counties to maintain and protect? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will have to say a theoretical yes to that. I really 

hadn’t thought about that hard, but—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I suggested that originally. I said, you 

know, if I have got Graham and Swain County willing to take on 

the responsibility, let me just—Mr. Johnson, let me be clear. They 

already do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. They already do. So how many game wardens do 

you have on your lakes and reservoirs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We don’t have game wardens. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. How many law enforcement officers do you 

have on Fontana? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Depending, time to time, a couple. 

Mr. MEADOWS. When was the last time they were on Fontana? 

Mr. MONTEITH. I have not seen them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Monteith, have you seen—— 

Mr. MONTEITH. I have not saw them in years. 

Mr. MEADOWS. In years. So are they just sleeping under a tree, 

or are they going to some other reservoir? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They are no longer in uniform so you might not 

be able to see them because—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, so we have got undercover law enforcement 

officers? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They are not undercover. They are not undercover. 

They just don’t wear police uniforms. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many citations have they given on Fontana? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know, but they don’t write health citations. 

These are—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
141 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what do they do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Protect property. These are Federal—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. How do they do that without writing citations? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I just said, they don’t write health citations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many citations have your law enforcement guys written on Fontana in the last 4 years since you’ve been 

there? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know, but we can find out. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you have got a staff. You’ve got your chief 

of staff behind you. I’m sure he knows. You can turn around and 

ask him. I’ll give you time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You’ve dealt with him. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t 

know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. He doesn’t know? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, he won’t know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, he won’t know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you telling him not to know, or are you—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. Oh, no, I don’t have to tell him that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. He legitimately doesn’t know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So since, you know, we—Ms. Sneed was worried 

about guns. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I hope you understand how that just came 

across? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I mean, if I said that to my chief of staff, he 

would fire me. Don’t ask him. He don’t know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So Mr. Johnson, let me ask you this: What kind 

of firearms do they carry? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Nine-millimeter Glocks and carbines in their vehicles. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so they use those so they don’t 

write citations. They just use their firearms. 

Mr. JOHNSON. They never use their firearms. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they just—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m aware of no discharges of a weapon by a TVA 

policeman in my time there. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. I think you’re getting my point. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. My point is the—is the county not better suited 

to manage the health, safety and welfare of the reservoirs that are 

within their jurisdiction than you are? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, and certainly, I should say this, most of our 

property, the primary law enforcement is the local sheriff. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, I know that. I talked to Sheriff Cochran of 

Swain County. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right, so—yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. He has already told me that. And so—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. —is it not a reasonable request that we do this 

for the benefit of the floating homeowners? Or do you have such 

a burr in your saddle that you want to get rid of them no matter 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
142 

what, that a reasonable compromise is not something that you are 

willing to look at? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. First of all, to the first question, is this a good 

idea to have local enforcement? I think I said yes to that. I would 

like to ponder the exact execution, but yes, I do think that putting 

in standards, all of those things is good. I, and the TVA board especially, thinks this idea of permanence is just something they cannot 

do. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But they got that recommendation from staff. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, they got a whole bunch of recommendations 

in the EIS. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So have they heard from more people that are in 

favor of floating homes or against floating homes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They have heard, in the public listening sessions, 

they have heard from more people who are in favor of floating 

homes. Survey—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. And in terms of the complaints and petitions, 

have they heard from more people that are in favor of floating 

homes or against it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Actually, in the comment period in the EIS, in the 

comment period in the land policy, we heard from many, many 

more who are opposed to any residential development. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, that’s because you have got your good 

friend, Mr. Butler, from the Federation, that sends out a mass 

email to all of their activists that say that they do that, or are they 

actual local constituents? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They are all people who live in the Tennessee Valley. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So what you’re saying is you got more 

responses from that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But yet, I asked you a question about how many 

complaints you had originally, you couldn’t answer that. But you 

know, for a fact, your sworn testimony is this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. So I don’t know exactly how many complaints we have. I do know when we do surveys, when we do EIS, 

when we do land policy, much stronger opposition to any residential development on or around the water than support for it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me ask you this: What’s your primary responsibility and main mission at TVA? What’s the primary, 

the number one thing, if the—if I’m asking you a number one 

thing, what would it be? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’d say we follow the statute. There are three priorities in the statute. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Of which managing natural resources is not one 

of those. I’ve looked and I would challenge you to give that statute 

to me. If you go to TVA.gov right now, you can look at what your 

statutes are. Environmental is at the very last part. What is the 

number one? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Probably the number one is low-cost, reliable electricity. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Exactly. Why is that? Because in the TVA Act, 

didn’t it kind of stipulate that the CEO had to have some kind of 

utility background? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
143 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. And so that’s your number one priority 

focus. So why are we spending so such time on floating homes if 

that’s your number one—are you making a profit? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, we make no profit. We make no profit. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how much do you get paid? 

Mr. JOHNSON. About $4.5 million a year. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, with bonuses, and other things, what’s 

your total compensation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. About $4.5—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So $4.5 million to make no money. Are 

you losing money? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. No, we are actually in very good financial 

shape. The cochairman said the debt is high—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities do you have for retirement? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how can you say that you have $6 billion in 

unfunded liabilities for retirement, and that you are in good financial shape? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’ve taken the debt down $1 billion in the 

last—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t say the progress. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, no—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m saying, how can you say that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, because we are in good financial shape. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Only because you have what? Could you sell your 

company if you didn’t have the backing of the Federal Government? So if you didn’t have a $500 million credit line that just got re- newed 2 weeks ago, or a $1.6 billion credit line from the Federal 

Government, could you sell your corporation to a private entity? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We couldn’t, but you could. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But assuming that President Obama and I agree 

that that would be a good idea, because as you know, you pointed 

it out to me, that he wants to do that. So assuming that we both 

agree that that’s a good idea, would somebody buy it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. He—the administration—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Without—with the current liability? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Every entity has unfunded liabilities that go 

well into the future. Ours is no different than anybody else’s. And 

if you look at our financials—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, it is different. I have looked at your financials, Mr. Johnson. You know that I have. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So tell me about this nuclear plant that you have 

invested $5 billion and you now have an offer, I guess, of what, $38 

million? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We don’t have an offer. We have a minimum bid 

price. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Minimum bid price. So you have no offers on it 

at this point? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The period to receive offers hasn’t ended yet. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you have invested $5 billion and you are wanting $38 million for it? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
144 

Mr. JOHNSON. So a little history. That plant was started in 1974. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Don’t need the history. I know the history. I understand it started before your time. I don’t need that. And let me 

just—I’m trying to show that what you got here, is you’re focusing 

on 1,826 floating homes when you should be focusing on something 

else. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will tell you, I’m entirely focused on running 

TVA. And if you actually look at the record and look at the last 

couple of years, you are going to see tremendous improvement. I 

will put our performance up against any utilities in the country. 

We have reduced our debt. We have reduced or spending by 25 percent. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I—you know, I’m an old utility guy and I understand that. I understand where you were. I understand where you 

are, and as I look at that, embarking on selling off this asset that 

you have $5 billion invested in, and you are going to sell it off, 

what is your return on investment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There is none. If you—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Exactly. All right. So who is Scott Fiedler? Is it 

Fiedler, or Fielder? Do you know him? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Who is your spokesperson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have a bunch of them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I have got a quote here from a Scott Fiedler. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Could be. We have—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Does he work for you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If he is a spokesperson for us, he does. We have 

a lot of spokespeople. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So he speaks for TVA? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If he is one of ours, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, turn around and ask him if he is one of 

yours. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is he one of ours? 

Mr. MAIERHOFFER. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. He’s one of ours. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m glad your chief of staff knows something. All 

right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank God. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me ask you, here is what is concerning me. 

Here’s a quote from your spokesperson. And it has to do with the 

$5 billion nuclear power plant that you are selling off there that 

has, what, 1,600 acres along the river? Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sixteen hundred acres along the river. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yep. 

Mr. MEADOWS. TVA says, it isn’t particularly concerned about 

what the purchaser does using the site for power production or industrial manufacturing or recreation, or even residential. It’s not 

particularly concerned about it. 

How do you reconcile not particularly concerned about what happens with 1,600 acres along a river with being very concerned with 

what happens with 1,826 floating homes on 49 reservoirs? 

How do you reconcile the two? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
145 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, so actually, the sale of that property, which 

will be done in open bid, has a buffer along the river. The property 

along the river is not going to be sold, to avoid this very problem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So what you’re saying is that you’re not 

going to let them do anything with the river? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. Keeping a buffer. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But they can do all kinds of manufacturing there, 

right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. We hope they will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So in terms of the environment, are you going to 

put restrictions on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are restrictions on that as a matter of Federal and State law. We will enforce that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. That’s exactly my point. There are restrictions on the waters of every single reservoir you have that are Federal and state laws. Why do we need you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have a different reading of the statute. 

But as I read the statute, we are responsible for the Tennessee 

River and its tributaries. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So your spokesman went on to say that really, his 

primary goal was just to sell the property. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are holding—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Was that accurate? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. Well, what we are trying to do is to put it 

to productive use since we are never going to build that plant and 

never going to need the power from it, so if there is a way to return 

it to productive use, that would be a good idea. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Have you lobbied Members of Congress 

and Senators up here as it relates to floating homes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. We do not lobby. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Have you had meetings with Senators and 

Congressmen as it relates to floating homes, other than me? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m unaware of any. I think we have answered 

some questions from various offices. I think that’s the extent of it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so your sworn testimony here today, is that 

you did not initiate any contact with any other Member of Congress other than myself? Is that your sworn testimony? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My testimony is—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I would suggest that you check with your government affairs folks. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m about to. My testimony was I have not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So may I? 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m assuming that it is not you, so has anyone 

done that? 

Mr. MAIERHOFFER. No, we have had conversations. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have had conversations, but we certainly 

haven’t lobbied on it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, that is just a definition of lobby. I mean, 

conversations are lobbying, and I mean, I’m not saying you are federally a lobbyist. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you have initiated responses, right? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
146 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, my chief of staff says we haven’t, and I certainly don’t know of any, but we have been asked questions, obviously by members of the delegation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. And so the members of the delegation, are 

they supportive of your new policy? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Some are not, and some are not involved. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So there’s no one who is supportive. 

There’s some who are saying they are not go to take a position, but 

the others are against it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that’s fair, yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you don’t care what Members of Congress or Senators really have to say about this. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, that’s not correct at all. I do care. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you are saying that everybody is against it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. The difference is I think you all are engaged 

in serving your constituents, as you should. I think we are on a little different mission here, which is public resource stewardship. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Here is what I would like for you to get 

back to this committee. In the priority of public resource stewardship—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Give me the statutes which puts that at the same 

priority as the rest of it. Now, on anything on TVA.gov, does it give 

you the ability to revoke these permits? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think when the permits were issued, they said 

there is no property right created here, so—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Anything on TVA.gov? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t think there is a specific revocation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I can tell you, there’s not. I have read every single word, and there is not anything, not one mention of revoking 

anything. In fact, just the opposite. It says if you get a permit, you 

got a permit. Now, in the 26(a) application permit, I’ve looked at 

that, you have got some language there. But in terms of notice to 

the public, there is nothing on your Web site even today that would 

suggest you can do what you’re doing. In fact, it says that we are 

going to grandfather everybody in from 1978 and before. Would you 

agree with that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. Correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you’re going to get some of these 

things back. We have got a number of questions that are there. I’m 

going to let the gentleman go. Here is my request of all of you. 

You’ve been writing notes. You’ve got that. And here’s what I 

would ask you to do, and those that are watching via Webcast. If 

there’s questions that you have that weren’t asked, submit them to 

the committee. We will be glad to ask those questions. 

Mr. Johnson, I want to make it very clear. I am very concerned 

that with the public outcry that I’m hearing, that other Members 

of Congress are hearing, that you have seen, that this was an arbitrary decision that was not based solely on the number one priority 

that you have, to produce low cost energy for the region, to create 

jobs. If anything, this is a jobs killer. And what you’ve done is 

you’ve taken one priority to make it higher than the other. And I’m 

discouraged that Mr. Monteith has given you a solution, and your 

board is not even willing to look at that, to use that. It seems to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
147 

me to be very poor decisionmaking when you have a solution that 

would address it right here. You have a solution. And your testimony says that Fontana is doing well, right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, I think I said that part of the solution is 

good. It doesn’t address the other issue of permanent property 

rights and public resources. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so what in the statute gives you the ability 

to control that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. So we lean on 26(a) in the statute. We have some 

other things. We will get you all of those statutory references. But 

you know, we do a lot of stewardship things. We are a Native 

Americans remains repatriation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, it’s funny you mention that, because I know 

that, and actually, I think you had promised some support for the 

eastern ban, that you would get them support for a piece of land 

in Tennessee, and yet, you haven’t really followed up on that, Mr. 

Johnson. No, they don’t have the letter. I checked this morning. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I will check when I get back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you will get them the letter? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yep. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just, if I could parenthetically, Mr. 

Chairman, I’m with you all the way, Mr. Johnson, on the assertion 

that nobody has any permanent squatting rights on public land. 

I’m sorry. You don’t. And anyone who asserts otherwise is wrong, 

and the implications of conceding that across the country, I mean, 

so what, I get to build my dream house on the rim of the Grand 

Canyon, or in the middle of Yellowstone? I mean, where is that at? 

Public land is public land. However, so let us stipulate that. And 

let’s assert it properly. But, meanwhile, we have got a human problem with 1,826 homes. Can we work out a solution, I think the 

chairman is suggesting, stipulating your principle, without unnecessarily discommoding and harming those individuals who are 

there. They are here now. Is the only solution to make the point 

about, no, you cannot exercise that right on public land, we have 

to evict you. You all have to go away by X period in history. And 

I think that’s really the question here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, I agree. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I share the chairman’s frustration that there 

has to be some kind of middle way that allows us to, you know, 

assert that principle while also not harming innocent people who 

were trying to be right with the law. Now, if they are operating illegally, that’s a different matter, and, Mr. Monteith, I know you 

would share that, as you are sworn to uphold the law, as am I, as 

is the chairman. And in local government, that’s what we have to 

do, right, but we also exercise common judgment while we are 

doing it, and that’s really I think the challenge here. So, no one, 

I think, would take issue with your assertion, but on the other 

hand, we got a lot of Ms. Sneed here who, in good faith, have chosen a lifestyle and a place to live to raise their families and don’t 

want to be evicted arbitrarily. And so we got to find a middle way 

to make both work. 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I can make one point here, and I agree with 

that and this is hard. It was not arbitrary and capricious, it was 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
148 

hard-thought and took a long time. At the end of the sunset period, 

the youngest floating house that got a permit there be 70 years old. 

And the oldest will be 100. And so I don’t know what the period 

is that you can exert occupancy and some right, but 70 years is a 

pretty long time. So it’s not just 30 years. It’s, remember those permits were issued in 1978. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I assure you it is not as long as you think. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. All right, if—I want to thank all of the witnesses, and I’m looking forward to the follow-up. I’m looking forward to resolving this in a way that doesn’t harm the families that 

are here, doesn’t harm the economy that we see. And we didn’t put 

a lot of emphasis on this, but I can tell you there are marina owners, there are people that truly make their living, and, Mr. Johnson, since you have been there, you know, Graham and Swain 

County have been in the depression for a long time. And so when 

we look at that, when we talk about jobs, we are talking about, you 

know, some of the folks that honestly in Graham County, the population doesn’t grow because there’s no new jobs, and you are about 

to take some of them away. And when that happens in my backyard, let me tell you what you have experienced today is just the 

beginning. Because I’m—and I have told you that personally and 

you know, that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And it is not a threat. I have got to stand up for 

the people that I represent. And I don’t own a floating home, don’t 

plan to own a floating home. They will get real cheap, you know, 

as it gets closer, so I could probably buy, a half dozen of them. So, 

you know, as we look at that, I guess you all are going to compensate all of these floating homes owners because you didn’t enforce your own regulation, so when you do that, you are going to 

actually compensate them, right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I doubt that that’s the case. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah, I doubt it too. If there’s no further business 

before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(149) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
150 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 108 here 26169.108
151 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 109 here 26169.109
152 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 110 here 26169.110
153 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 111 here 26169.111
154 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 112 here 26169.112
155 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 113 here 26169.113
156 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 114 here 26169.114
157 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 115 here 26169.115
158 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 116 here 26169.116
159 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 117 here 26169.117