GOVERNMENT

Storage

JBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

y * ,

. Ap

f H E A R IN G S

BEFORE THE

SUBC OMM ITTE E OE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGH TY -EIG HT H CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H .R . 1 1 5 7 9

MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN CIVIL FUNCTIONS 

ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFE NSE, THE 

PANAMA CANAL, CERTAIN AGENCIES OF THE DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR, THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, THE 

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND THE DELAWARE 

RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 

JUNE 30, 1963, AND FOR OTHER PURPO SES

ATOMIC ENER GY COMMISSION 

TE NN ESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations.

PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

H E A R IN G S

BEFO RE TH E

SUB COM MITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGH TY -EIGHT H CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H .R . 1 1 5 7 9

MAK ING APP RO PR IA TIO NS FO R CER TA IN CIV IL FU NC TI ON S 

A D M IN IS TERED BY T II E DEP ARTM EN T OF D EFEN SE, T II E 

PAN AMA CAN AL. CER TA IN AGEN CIE S OF T H E DEP ARTM EN T 

OF T H E IN TER IO R , TH E ATOM IC EN ER GY CO MMI SS ION, T H E 

ST. LA W REN CE SEAW AY DEV EL OPM EN T CO RP OR AT IO N, TH E 

TEN N ESSEE VALLE Y AUT HO RI TY . AN D T H E DE LA W AR E 

R IV ER BA SIN CO MM ISS ION, FO R T H E FIS CA L YE AR ENDIN G 

JU N E 30, 1905, AN D FO R O TH ER PU RPO SE S

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 

TE NN ESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

P ri nte d fo r th e use o f th e Co mmitt ee on A pp ro pr iatio ns .

35-381

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

WAS HI NG TO N : 1964
SUBCO MMIT TEE OF TIIE COM MIT TEE ON APPRO PRIATIONS

ALLEN J. E LL E N D E R , Louisiana, Chairman

CA R L H AYD EN , Arizona

RI CH ARD B. RU SS ELL , Georgia

JOH N L. M cC LELLA N , Arkansas

A. W IL LI S ROBERTSO N , Virginia

LI ST ER HIL L, Alabama

W AR RE N G. M AG NUS ON, Washington

SP ES SA RD L. H O LL AN D, Florida

JOH N ST ENNIS , Mississippi

A. S. M IK E M ON R O N EY, Oklahoma

AL AN BIB LE , Nevada

R O BERT C. B Y R D , West Virginia

JOH N O. PA ST O RE, Rhode Island

RO MAN L. HRU SK A, Nebraska 

M IL TO N R. YO UN G, North Dakota 

K A R L E. M UNDT, South Dakota 

M A R G A R E T CH AS E SM IT H, Maine 

GO RD ON ALLO TT , Colorado 

TH OM AS II. KUCH EL , California 

NOR RI S CO TT ON, New Hampshire

GA LE W. M cG EE, Wyom ing

Kenneth J. Bousq uet, Clerk to Subcommittee

Army C iv il F u n ctio n s

E N T IR E SU B C O M M IT TEE

EX Officio Members F rom Public Works C ommittee

PA T MCN AM AR A, Michigan JOH N SH ER M AN CO OPE R, Ken tuck y

JE NNIN GS RA NDOLP H , West Virginia

Kenneth J. Bousq uet, Clerk

Ato mic E ner gy C omm is sion— T e n n e s s e e Vall ey A u th orit y

LI ST ER HIL L, Alabama, Chairman

ALLE N J. E LL E N D E R , Louisiana 

CA R L H AYD EN , Arizona 

RIC HARD B. RU SS EL L, Georgia 

JOH N ST EN NIS , Mississippi 

ALA N BIB LE , Nevada 

JOHN O. PA ST ORE, Rhode Island 

Also on atomic energy items:

CLIN TON P. AN DERSO N , New Mexico 

A L B E R T GO RE , Tennessee

Earl W. C oop er, Clerk

RO MAN L. HRU SK A, Nebraska 

K A R L E. M UNDT, South Dakota 

M A R G A R E T CH AS E SM IT H, Maine 

TH OM AS II. KU CH EL, California 

BO URKE B. H IC KEN LO OPE R, Iowa

B u rea u o f R ec la m ati on an d I n t er io r P o w er M a r k etin g A gen cie s

CA R L H AYD EN , Arizona. Chairman

ALLE N J. E LLE N D E R , Louisiana 

W AR RE N G. MAG NUS ON, Washington 

RI CH ARD B. RU SS EL L, Georgia 

JOH N L. M cC LELLA N , Aikansas 

SP ES SA RD L. HOLL AN D, Florida 

AL AN BI BLE , Nevada

GALE W. M cG EE , Wyoming

K A R L E. M U N DT, South Dakota 

M IL TO N Ii. YO UNG, North Dakota 

GO RD ON ALLO TT , Colorado 

RO MAN L. HRU SK A, Nebraska 

TH OM AS U. KU CH EL, California

P aul R. E aton, Clerk

11
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 19C5

FRIDAY, JU NE 26, 1964

U.S. S e n a te,

S ub co mmit te e of th e C om mit te e on /Vppr o pk ia tio n s,

Wa shington, D.C .

The sub co mmitt ee m et a t 2 p.m ., purs uan t to n otice , in roo m S-128, 

U.S. Ca pitol, Ho n. Li ster Hill, ch airm an of th e su bc om mitt ee , pr esiding.

Pr esen t: Se na tors Hill an d Ellen der.

T e n n e sse e Val le y A uth orit y

STATEMENT OF A. J. WAGNER. CHAIRMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY

A. R. JONES, VICE CHAIRMAN; FRANK E. SMITH, DIRECTOR;

G. 0. WESSENAUER, MANAGER OF POWER; LEWIS B. NELSON,

MANAGER OF AGRICULTURAL AND CHEMICAL DEVELOPMENT;

CHARLES J. McCa r t h y , GENERAL COUNSEL; MARGUERITE

OWEN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE; E. PH ILIP ERICSON,

ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER (BUDGET AND PLANNING) ; AND L. E. ELLIS, CHIEF, BUDGET STAFF.

Sum mar y o f B u dg et E stim ate

Se na tor H il l. The su bc om mitt ee will come to ord er.

M r. Wa gner, yo u may pro ceed an y wa y yo u see fit.

We are glad to ha ve yo u with us, Mr. Jo ne s, M r. Sm ith . Nice to 

ha ve you gentlem en wi th us. A su m m ar y of yo ur bu dg et es tim ate 

will be placed in th e record at thi s po int.

C onse rvati on an d D ev el o pm en t o r T e n n e s s e e Vall ey R eso urces

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a corporation wholly owned by the Federal 

Governm ent. It is an ind epen dent agency u nder a Board of Directors responsible 

to the President and the Congress. It was created by the Congress in 1933 for 

the unified conservation and development of the resources of the Tennessee Valley. 

TVA is charged with the responsibility for developing the Tennessee River for 

navigation, flood control, and the generation of electric power; for chemical 

research, the introduction of experim ental fertilizers useful in agriculture, and 

production of related materials needed for n ational defense; and for encouraging, 

in the national interest, the comprehensive resource development and economicgrowth of the Tennessee Valley region in cooperation with the States and their 

subdivisions and agencies.

1
2 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

A comparative summ ary of the budget program described on the following 

pages is shown below:

1963

actu al

1964

es ti m at e

1965

est im ate

A ppro pri at io ns (new ob ligat io na l au th o rit y )..................................

E xpenditure s (a cc ru ed ):

A ppro pri at io ns............. ......... . .......................... ...........

$35,071,00 0 $47,1 42,000 $50 ,915,000

33,177 ,300

272,990 ,937

28,2 52,318

51,146,738

309 ,039 ,000

28,183,000

53,262 ,00 0

319 ,437,000

25,384 ,00 0

Pow er p roce ed s an d bor ro w in gs ............... .............

N on po w er p ro ce ed s..................................... .............

T o ta l, b u d g et........ ....... ................................................ 334,420,55 5 

48,87 4, 543

388,3 68,738 

50,206, 000

398 ,083,0 00 

P ay m en ts to th e T re asu ry ............................................. 52,200 ,000

Summary of 1965 budget financed from appropriations:

Continuing construction of Nickajack Dam and Reservoir near Chattano oga, Tenn. (p. 42)_______________ _______ $9, 800, 000

Beginning design of multipurpose wa ter control system for

Bear Creek, Ala., and Miss. (p. 4 4)_____________________ 215, 000

Continuing construction of the Beech River multipurpose

water control system, Tennessee (p. 47 )............ ........... ..... .. . 3, 005, 000

Continuing construction of a new lock at Guntersville Dam,

Ala. (p. 16)_____________________________ ___________ 5,687,00 0

Continuing construction of flood protection facilities for the

cities of Bristol, Tenn.-Va. (p. 23)______ _____ _________ 1, 724, 000

Reh abilitation of and additions to chemical facilities at Wilson

Dam, Ala. (p. 65)------------------------------------------------------ 6, 300, 000

Continuing Land Between the Lakes demonstration, Kentucky

and Tennessee (p. 1 2 4 ) . ------------------------ ------------------ 6, 000, 000

Additions and replacements of other facilities; and investigations for fu ture facilities______________________________ 3, 284, 000

Program expenses: Navigation o perations______________________________ 573, 000

Flood control o perations____________________________ 530, 000

Multipurpose reservoir operation s____________________ 3, 592, 000

Surveys and studies for river development_____________ 267, 000

Fertilizer, agricultural, and munitions d evelopmen t_____ 7, 301, 000

Cooperativ e valley development__________ ____ ______ 2, 213, 000

Land Between the Lakes dem onstration_______________ 209, 000

General service activities_____________ ____ ____ ____ 215, 000

Total, program expenses__________________________ 14, 900, 000

Total proposed app rop riation.................................. ......... 50, 915, 000

Summary of 1965 budget financed from power proceeds and borrowings:

Continuing construction of:

Widows Creek steamplant unit 8 (A la ba m a) .................... 2, 977, 000

Paradise steam plant units 1-2 (Kentuck y)________ 2, 609, 000

Bull Run stea mplant unit 1 (Tennessee)_______________ 37, 943, 000

Construction expenditures for a new steam unit at a location

not yet determ ined__ ________________________________ 23, 448, 000

Transm ission system facilities___________________________ 65, 900, 000

Completion of Melton Hill projec t; additions and replacements

of other power facilities; investigations for future pow'er 

facilities; acquisition of coal land and righ ts; and changes

in inventories and deferred charges_____________________ 6, 943, 000

Power o pera ting expenses_______________________________ 179, 617, 000

To tal.............................. .............................................................. 319,437 ,000
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 3

Proceeds from power operations in 1965 are estim ated at $294,728,000; proceeds from borrowings at $75 million; and other proceeds a t $986,000. Payments 

to the Treasury are estim ated at $52,200,000—$42,200,000 as a dividend (return 

on the appropriation investment in the power program) and $10 million as a reduction in the appropriation investment in th e power program.

Summary of 1965 budget financed from nonpower proceeds;

Fertilizer program operating expenses_____________________$18,396,000 Reimbursable services------------------------- -------------------------- 6,584, 000 Multipurpose reservoir operating expenses recovered------------ 404,000

To tal.................. ....... ............... - - - - - ................. - - - ................. 25,3 84,0 00

Nonpower proceeds for the year are estim ated at $25,035,000, of which $17,- 

675,000 is from the fertilizer program; $6,584,000 represents reimbursement from 

other agencies; and $776,000 other miscellaneous recepit items.

B u dg et R e q u e s t, 1965

Mr. Wagner. Tha nk you, Mr. Ch airma n.

TV A’s approp ria tio n req uest which is before this comm itte e is for 

$50,915,000. Ab out $36 million of this is for con struction act ivities 

and ab ou t $15 million for our opera ting program s.

The de tai ls of the proposed expenditures a re in the bud get pro gra m 

which y ou have a nd I will not go int o de tai l on those except briefly.

Senator Hill. You might sum ma rize the m for us.

Mr. Wagner. Th an k you.

N ic k a ja c k P r o je c t

The largest item in the appro priat ion request is $9.0$ million to 

continue const mctio n on the Nickaja ck proje ct which is a mu ltipurpose dam and res erv oir project on the main stem of the Tennessee 

River to replace the Ha les Ba r Dam. The p roj ect will be com pleted in 

the fall of 1967. Const ruc tion is now und erway.

Senator H ill. Excuse me one minute.

J am glad to see our friend, Senator E llender, has come in.

Sup pose y ou s ta rt rig ht a t the beginning .

Mr. Wagner. I shall be glad to.

The approp ria tio n requ est befo re y our com mittee is for $50,915,000. 

About $36 million of th is is for c onstruct ion and $15 million for o pe rating programs. Th e details are spelled out in the budget program 

which is before you and 1 won’t detai l the m. I will briefly give you 

some of the hig hlights and, of course, we will be glad to anw er any 

questio ns.

The lar gest item in this appro priation req uest is for $9.08 million to 

con tinu e con struction of the Nickajack pro ject. This is a mu ltiplepurpose dam and rese rvoir pro ject on the main stem of the Ten nessee 

Riv er dow nstream from t he H ales Ba r Dam which it will replace.

H ale s B ar D am

You will recall th at las t year we advised the com mittee th at the 

Hales Ba r Da m which was bu ilt ju st aft er the turn of the ce ntur y on 

uncer tain fou ndation had deve loped ma jor prob lems, an d th at it 

would be more economical to replace it than to try to con tinue furth er 

repairs.

Senator E llende r. Is th at dam being bu ilt under ap prop ria ted 

funds?
4 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Mr. Wagner. The funds we seek here are appro pri ations, Senator 

Ellend er. The que stio n of financing the portio n of this pro jec t th at 

will be allocated to powe r is one which we are discussing with the 

Bu rea u of the Bud get.

Th e pro ject replaces a multiple-p urpose proje ct and it would hav e 

a com parable power inst allation. We think t her e would be reason for 

ini tially financing the power portio n with ap propria ted funds as has 

been done on oth er multiple-p urpose d ams on the ma in stream . That 

>question is at the mo me nt uns ettled .

P o w e r, N a v ig a tio n, an d F lo od C ontrol

Senator H ill. In additio n to your power, i t has t he othe r f eatures of 

nav iga tion and flood control.

Mr. Wagn er. Yes; thi s is a vital link in the nav iga tion channel. 

Unless very expensive rep airs were mad e at Hales Ba r, or this dam is 

built, there would be a bre ak in the nav igation channel betw een the 

mou th of the river and the head of nav igation at Knoxville. Tha t 

nav iga tion channel is one of the prima ry purposes of the Tennessee 

River develop men t.

L oc k at G untersvil le D am

Th ere is also in the bu dg et $5,687,000 esse ntia lly to complete 

constru cti on of the second lock at Guntersville Da m, which is scheduled for service in Ju ne of 1965. Traffic con tinu es to increase on the 

Tennessee River. La st yea r, there was a total of 14.4 million tons, 

which is a new record, and traffic has incre ased about 100 pe rcent in 

the last 10 years. Th e Tennessee is one of the fastest growing rive rs 

in the United State s from the sta nd po int of its use by comm ercial 

traffic.

C hem ic al P la nt at M us cl e S hoals , Ala .

Our appro pri ation req uest includes $6,300,000 to con tinue rehabi litatio n of the chem ical plan t at Muscle Shoals, Ala. You will recall 

th at much of the equip me nt the re was orig inally bu ilt during World 

War I, and is now an tiq ua ted. In order to opera te efficiently and to 

produc e the modern fertilize rs which TV A’s pro gra m requires, much 

of the plan t has to be rehabilitate d. This pro gra m has been going on 

for a couple of years, and $6,300,000 will con tinue reh abilitation of 

some of those facilities.

f e r t il iz e r resea r c h an d dem on stra tio n an d a g r ic u ltu r a l a c tiv it ie s

Also, there is $7,300,000 for chem ical fertilizer research and for the 

fertilizer demo nstration and agricultura l dev elo pm ent activities. 

T rib u ta ry Area D ev elo pm en t P ro gr am

Th ere are also funds for con tinuing our trib ut ar y are a development 

pro gra m, including a little over $3 million for con tinuing con stru ctio n 

of the mu ltip urp ose wa ter con trol system in the Beech Rive r watershed .

Se nator Hill. Le t me ask you this before you leave the fertilizer.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 5

S ale of F e r t il iz e r s

You have some income from the sale of fertilizers?

Mr. Wagner. Yes; we do and the income is used to operate the 

plant which produces TVA fertilizers. The $7,301,000 is required in 

addition to tliis income because of the fact tha t this is also a research 

and demonstration activity. It is not a commercial operation although, as we distribute the fertilizers in educational and demonstration programs, we do get payment for them which helps defray the 

cost of the entire program.

Senator Hill. 1 believe you distribute now in some 42 different 

States.

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.

Senator Hill. Demonstration projects.

Mr. Wagner. Fertilizer is distributed in most of our States now in 

cooperation with a great number of private fertilizer distributors and 

dealers and in programs that are concurred in and arranged in many 

instances with the land-grant colleges.

Senator Ellender. What is the difference between the fertilizer 

tha t you make and the commercial fertilizer tha t is purchased by 

farmers?

FE R T IL IZ E R PR ODUCTIO N AND D E VELO PM EN T

Mr. Wagner. Generally, Senator Ellender, the fertilizers tha t we 

produce are more concentrated than are generally available. Some 

of them have special qualities to be used on certain soils. There are 

also new process developments; the processes which we develop are 

patented, and those processes are available at no cost to the private 

fertilizer manufacturers.

As we introduce new fertilizers in demonstration programs, farmers 

come to understand their use and develop a demand for them; and 

ultimately that demand is met by private industry. After a new 

fertilizer is accepted and produced in this way, TVA moves on to 

something more advanced.

Senator Ellender. I notice here your estimate for that, 6 

million-----

R E H A B IL IT A T IN G TH E PL A N T

Mr. Wagner. Six million three. That is for the work in rehabilitating the plant which I mentioned earlier.

Senator Ellender. You say the operation-----

R esea r c h F a c il it ie s an d D em o n str a tio n E d ucati on Ac t iv it ie s

Mr. Wagner. The estimate is $7,301,000 for research activities 

and the cost of the demonstration and education activities over and 

above the receipts from the sale of fertilizer.

Senator Ellender. But how much did it cost the Government 

over and above what you received?

Mr. Wagner. The operating cost is $7,301,000. The capital cost 

this year which will provide some new facilities is an additional 

$6,300,000.

Senator E llender. Out of Federal funds?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
6 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

PLA N T R E H A B IL IT A TIO N

Senat or Hill. But you do n’t conte mp late this $6,300,000 as an 

annual cost? Th at gets yo ur pl an t ren ovate d or reh ab ilitated or 

mod ernized. Th at is the end of th at expense?

Mr. Wagn er. Th at is correc t.

Mr. Smith . They were built in World Wa r I.

Se nator Hil l. Yes.

TR IB U TA R Y A REA D EV ELO PM E N T PR OG RA M

Mr. Wagner. There are fun ds for con tinuing ou r trib ut ar y area 

dev elopment program, incl uding a little ove r $3 million to su bs tantially com plete construc tion of the wa ter con trol facilities in the 

Beech River waters hed . This program is proceeding very well with 

substan tia l local particip ati on and a very nice impro veme nt in the 

economy of th at area.

LO CA L PA R T IC IP A TIO N

Senator H ill. You speak of local partic ipa tion. W ha t are the y 

doing locally?

Mr. Wagn er. The local pa rticip ati on includes work on improving 

the agr icu lture and forest resources, the dev elopment of indu str y and 

ind ustrial sites , and deve loping incom e from recreation. As to the 

wa ter con trol system in the Beech River area, local inter ests will, 

as the benefits from this proje ct develop over a period of time, pay 

bac k to the TVA and we in tu rn to the Treas ury ab ou t $2 million of 

the cost.

W a ter C ontr ol Syst em D e s ig n , Bea r C r e e k , Ala .

There is $215,000 to bemn the design of a wa ter control system for 

Bear Creek in northern Alabam a, and there is $1,724,000 to continue 

con struction of a couple of small flood control reservoirs which will 

help prote ct Bristol, Tenn. and Va. Tho se cities are also com mitted 

to pa rticip ate in this pro gram in a numb er of ways, and pri vate 

intere sts are going to do some work to help floodproof some of the 

buildings in the two towns.

L an d Be t w e e n t h e L a k es R ec r e a t io n Ar ea

The re is also an item of $6 million for con tinuing the dev elopment 

of the Land Betw een the Lakes recreation demo nstration pro ject. 

I described our plans for this pro jec t for your comm itte e in considerable detail last year. I think I would only rep eat now th at we intend 

to develop this area so as to provide a new kind of rec rea tional resource suited to the needs of our people a s the N ation becomes more and 

more ind ustrial. As more and more people live away from the land 

and earn the ir incomes in the factories and offices an d municipalities, 

I think it is generally recognized th at we are going to need more 

opportu nities for them to get into the out-of-doors for recreation 

and for relaxation.

This facility is located relatively near to our large pop ula tion 

concentrations. Abo ut 70 million of o ur people live within 500 miles 

of Land Betw een the Lakes.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 7

O UTD O O R C O N S E R V A T IO N CLA SS ROOM

We would propose also to operate this area as a great outdoor 

conservation classroom. We believe tha t as the Nation becomes 

more and more industrialized and people’s ties with the land become 

less direct, unless we deliberately create opportunities for them to 

see trees planted, to participate in the planting of trees, to see a 

forest managed by modern methods, to see erosion scars healed, and 

to see and understand wildlife in its natural habitat, then we will 

in a relatively short time lose understanding of our dependence on 

the land.

So, for this reason, we propose to try a number of new ideas in this 

area to help foster a better understanding on the part of our people 

and of coming generations of their dependence on the land. This is 

a project of national importance and national scope.

Senator Ellender. How much land is involved?

Mr. Wagner. A little over 170,000 acres in total.

T U IT IO N O R A T T E N D A N C E C H A R G E S

Senator Ellender. You conduct tha t in the nature of a school. 

Are the participants paid anything for attending?

Mr. Wagner. Well, the funds for this project were made available 

to us only the first of January this year, so we have been working only 

6 months. As to the educational activities, we would expect to 

develop areas to which people could bring classes from schools in the 

neighborhood or from schools from over the Nation. People have 

told us they would bring groups from as far away as New York, to 

study the botanical and biological sciences, or to get training in the 

managing and operation of outdoor camp facilities and recreation 

facilities of this sort.

D e v el o pm en t P la n s of U se of A re a

We have, Senator, a statement which we prepared which describes 

rath er completely our plans for development of the use of this area tha t I would like to file with the committee if you would like to have it.

Senator Ellender. I notice last year you were requesting $4 million 

and you are asking for $6 million this year. Would this be a continuous appropriation, or are you using this money that you are asking 

for this year to prepare for what you intend during the future? 

D e v el o pm en t C ost

Mr. Wagner. The developmental cost of this project is estimated 

at between $32 and $35 million, Senator.

Senator Ellender. Does all th at come from the Treasury?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir; tha t would be appropriated funds.

Senator Ellender. What is the value of this?

Mr. Wagner. This is an idea which the TVA proposed to the President in 1961. The President referred it to the Department of the 

Interior for study, and in 19G3 the Department of the Interior recommended that TVA undertake this project. The President so recommended to Congress and requested an appropriation for $4 million for 

1964 and the appropriation was made by the Congress.
8 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

B arkle y R e ser v o ir

Now, work is well underway. It is proceeding well, we believe. 

One of the problems here is t hat t he area lies betw een the Barkley and 

the Ke ntu cky Reservoirs and Barkley Res ervoir will be filled some 

time next yea r so we m ust co mplete con struct ion t ha t need s to be done 

in the dry before the Ba rkl ey rese rvoir is filled.

F am ily C ampi ng

We also ha ve c omp leted one area for family cam ping accomm oda ting 

250 families. It w as opened th e first of J une, and p eople are now using 

it.

Senat or Ellen der. This cam ping: Will this cam ping be free of 

charge to the people who come ther e, or will they have to pay a 

stip end ?

C H A R G ES

Mr. Wagner. We conte mp late, Sen ator, th at where facilities are 

provided for exclusive use there would be a charge. This yea r, we 

are still construc ting in the area, so we have no t made charges. 

We con tem pla te th at ultim ate ly there will be charges for exclusively 

used facilities.

Senator E llende r. You think this is in keep ing with wh at we 

intended to hav e when TVA was established?

Mr. Wagn er. Yes, sir. Th is project, besides providing a recrea ­

tional outle t------

Senator Ellender. We have them all over the cou ntry, you know. 

We build them in every dam th at we have. Ev ery place where 

wa ter is retain ed or wherever the re are dikes, why, we have facilities 

for the people to use. It costs quite a bit of money, for a pro ject of 

this kind, merely to show things off. Why------

Mr. Wagn er. It is more than to show things off. It tries some 

new ideas.

PA Y M E N T S FR O M P R O C E E D S O B T A IN E D FR O M TV A

Senator E llende r. I know it is new ideas, bu t it strikes me as 

though new ideas ought to be paid ou t of t he proceeds th at you o btain 

from TVA. Tha t was our intention way back, as I und erstood.

We are spendin g now how much at TVA ? W ha t money are you 

asking us to allocate?

Mr. Wagner. We are asking for a total appro pri ation of $50.9 

million.

Senator E llender. Yes.

Now, how much will you spen d aside from th at from moneys th at 

you will obtain thr ough the sale of bonds?

E x pe n d it u r e s, S o urces of E x p e n d it u r e s, an d P o w er P rocee ds

Mr. Wagn er. Our tot al exp end itures including paym ent s to the 

Treas ury will be ab ou t $450 million; ab ou t $372 million will come 

from borrowings an.l pow er proceeds, ab ou t $53 million from appro ­

priatio ns, and about $25 million from non pow er pro cieds.

Inc ide nta lly, Sen ator, we will pay into the Treasury from our 

power proceeds somewhere betw een $52 and $53 million.

Senator E llender. Tha t is the money you owe the Gov ernment?
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 9

Mr Wagner. Tha t includes both a return on the investment in 

the power facilities and a return of part of the investment.

Senator Ellender. Tha t is what I mean.

Mr. Wagner. Yes.

Senator Ellender. It is payment of interest and payment of 

principal.

Mr. Wagner. It is payment in accordance with the 1959 amendment to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.

Stea m pla n t R e pa y m en ts

Senator Ellender. Yes. And tha t includes repayments for 

steamplants that were constructed and purchased, as I remember.

Mr. Wagner. Yes; and the power investment in the hydro, too.

Senator Ellender. I understand. The power from the hydros 

is what, about 28 percent of your output?

Mr. Wagner. Now about 27 or 28 percent; tha t is correct.

Senator Ellender. And the rest of it is generated from the steamplants?

Mr. Wagner. That is correct.

Senator Ellender. Financed by the Government?

Mr. Wagner. Originally, appropriations were made for steamgenerating plants but the appropriations made on tha t account are 

being repaid, as you said, with interest. We would say with a 

dividend because the Federal Government continues to own the 

system. Future expansions except as the Congress might appropriate funds for them, will be financed through the sale of bonds and 

from power revenues.

S E L F -S U S T A IN IN G FA C IL IT IE S

Senator Ellender. Tha t is a mighty big facility down there and I 

hope some day to come t hat it will be self sustaining.

Mr. Wagner. We believe that it is now self sustaining.

Senator Ellender. Not if you spend $50 million a year of the 

Government’s money.

Mr. Wagner. The power program sustains itself, Senator. The 

appropriation we are requesting is for navigation, for flood control, 

forest development, and for agricultural work. These are the kinds 

of programs tha t are supported by appropriations all across the 

Nation. It happens that in this area they are performed by TVA.

It was never intended, to my knowledge, that the power program 

should pay for the cost of the other programs.

Be n e f it s o f P ro po sed R ec r ea tio n Ar ea

This Land Between the Lakes project is being undertaken under the 

provisions of section 22 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act which 

authorizes demonstrations which will be of use and interest to the 

surrounding States and the Nation. One of the purposes of the 

project is to provide the kind of recreational facility, which will serve 

the requirements of industrial workers. We find more and more 

people who are interested in locating new industries in an area are 

concerned about a recreational outlet for their employees.

Senator Ellender. In other words, these will be an added attrac ­

tion to bring industry to the area; is that it?
10 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

Mr. W agnek. It will utilize the unique opportunity created by the 

two Federal reservoirs in the area and will benefit the employees of 

the industries which will develop and which are developing in the 

region because of their need for water and so on, and accessibility to 

markets. As this area becomes more prosperous, its markets increase and the growth of industry is stimulated by tha t expansion.

W IL D L IF E H A B IT A T

We have had a number of discussions and conselings with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. A part of this area is now under their jurisdiction and we have talked with them about arrangements to increase 

the usefulness of the area for wildlife habitat, and to expand the areas 

for waterfowl feeding. This is on the fly wav for geese and ducks. 

We plan to make arrangements with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

for the transfer of this land to TVA for operation as part of the total 

area next year.

We have been in communication too, with groups from many 

parts of the Nation to find how they can use this kind of an area to 

meet their requirements. Just last week, for example, we received 

about 40 faculty members from schools in the surrounding States and 

from the Midwest. Their official organization is the American 

Association of Health, Physical Education & Recreation, and we 

wanted them to see the area. We wanted their ideas, as to how this 

development might help them to convey to their students some of 

the ideas that I mentioned and some of which are in this statement 

which I have given you.

L an d Acq uis it io n

Our land acquisition is moving along rapidly. This has been a 

major occupation during the brief time that we have been working. 

As you will readily recognize, there is a great deal of preliminary work 

tha t has to be done before an agenev can buy an area of this kind, 

this size. There is surveying to be done; maps have to be prepared; 

records of ownership have to be sought out and there is the problem of 

contacting the owners, and so on. We have worked at tha t as 

diligently as we could.

We have now bought about 150 tracts in this area which is the 

extent of the funds that we had available for land purchase. We 

have not been able to keep up with the demand of land owners who 

have come to us to say, “We would like you to complete negotiations 

with us and to buy our land as quickly as you can.” We have, as a 

matter of fact, about 400 unfilled requests of this sort from landowners in the area and we are getting more each week.

RELO C A TIN G SELLER S

1 am sure you recognize that buying an area of land this size, 

whether it is for a reservoir project, or a housing development, or a 

recreational project, presents some very difficult problems, and some 

that arc extremely painful to us as well as to the landowners. In 

many instances, people do not want voluntarily to sell their land and 

we can all understand that. At the same time, we will compensate 

these people fairly for their land. We will give them as much help 

as we can in finding new locations suitable for their use.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 11

Now, these people who have come to us and asked tha t we buy 

from them as quickly as we can have said that they want to get new 

locations to which they can move and get reestablished. VVe shall 

buy their land and pay them as soon as the transaction is completed. 

If they are unable to find other land immediately or want to postpone 

moving, most of them can continue in possession of their land and 

live in their homes until 1968. We will be as considerate as we can. 

If they want to move their homes, they can. If they want to move 

parts of them, they can. We will be just as flexible as we possibly 

can be.

Senator Ellender. When did you start this land purchase program?

Mr. Wagner. On the 1st of January, we received the first appropriation this year.

N E E D FO R LA ND A C Q U IS IT IO N

Senator Ellender. Is tha t land necessary to operate your facility 

now?

Mr. Wagner. The land is part of the area to be-----

Senator Ellender. I understand that, but it is not necessary to 

your facility.

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.

Senator Ellender. In what respect?

Mr. Wagner. Well-----

Senator Ellender. You have easements on all of the property tha t 

you own, don’t you?

Mr. Wagner. No; we don’t. We generally purchase the land tha t 

we overflow in fee. If this is to be an area in which the public has 

general use of the land and if it is also to be operated as a wildlife 

refuge the land would have to be in one single ownership.

Senator Ellender. I thought tha t was the function of the Interior. 

Now you are taking that over in th at area?

Mr. Wagner. As I say-----

CONTEM PL ATED LAND PU R C H A SE S

Senator Ellender. How much land do you contemplate purchasing? I was not here when this thing started. I am sorry. I 

had other appointments.

Mr. Wagner. In this map, Senator, the blue area nearest to you 

is the Kentucky Reservoir. The water area here will be Barkely and 

the land area between them is the area tha t we are talking about. It 

is a unique piece of land, almost entirely surrounded by water, it has 

300 miles of shoreline and it is quite heavily wooded now. This dark 

area is an area which the Fish and Wildlife Service now owns.

Senator Ellender. You mean under the Interior Department?

Mr. Wagner. Under the Interior Department; yes.

Senator Ellender. How many acres do you expect to purchase 

under this plan in addition to what you now have?

Mr. Wagner. About 103,000 acres.

LAND CO ST PE R AC RE

Senator E llender. What does that land cost you per acre?

Mr. Wagner. I don’t have fully representative figures at the present time, Senator, because the land that has been bought to date has
12 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

generally been land on which people have built cottages or in areas 

where they had intended to build cottages. In fairness to them, when 

they came in and said they would like to find another location on the 

west shore of Kentucky or east shore of Barkley where they could 

build, we bought those areas first. So, dollars per acre do not mean 

very much when you are buying an acre lot or half-acre lot.

We estimate that the total cost of the land will be about $12 

million.

Senator E llender. Then, all that will come out of the Treasury? 

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir; there will be an appropriation requested. 

Twelve million dollars would buy 100,000 acres, so this is $120 an 

acre, if my arithmetic is correct.

P U R C H A S E S FR O M L A N D O W N E R S W A N T IN G TO S E L L

The $6 million that is requested in the budget before you for fiscal 

year 1965, is the minimum needed to do an adequate job, particularly if we are to try to buy these tracts as rapidly as the people want 

to sell. We estimate tha t we can buy about 720 additional tracts 

with that, as well as do necessary construction work. We made this 

estimate of our needs in this budget quite early in our planning 

activities. Tf we were to make it today, we would estimate an 

amount more than $6 million in order to meet the needs we now see. 

I think that the least tha t can be done for the landowners in that area 

is to get their land purchased as quickly as we can so they have the 

money and have time to make plans for moving to other sites.

B A R K L E Y R E S E R V O IR F IL L IN G

Another problem, of course, is tha t the Barkley Reservoir will fill 

next year and construction that needs to be done in that area on developments of certain kinds can be done at a great saving if it is done 

before the reservoir fills. For both these reasons, the million-dollar 

reduction tha t was proposed in the action of the House would be 

detrimental. T think that it would be especially detrimental to those 

landowners who would like to be able to sell their land promptly and 

to make plans for relocating.

Senator Hill. You mean for the landowners?

Mr. Wagner. For the landowners, themselves; yes, sir, because 

the reduction would mean that we could buy less land; some purchases 

would have to be deferred, and the landowners would be uncertain 

as to when they would have funds to relocate.

Now, we have done our very best to keep the people of the area 

informed as to what our plans are and we will continue to do our best. 

We recognize th at there are problems here. We have met with local 

officials; members of our staff have met with the county judges and 

others and T met with the county judges a few weeks ago, and we 

have met with many other people who have direct and substantial 

interests.

P r esb y ter ia n C h urch C a m psit e

For example, the Presbyterian church has a campsite. Tn 1963, 

before the appropriation had been made to begin work, we inquired 

of them as to how they would be affected. We have a letter from the
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 13

administrator of the Presbyterian Conference Center in tha t area 

at the time. If I may read a couple of sentences:

We do not want to expand the facilities there if it is to be included in the 

development program of TVA. However, we would not object to any plans that 

you may have in the development of this area and we will be happy to concur 

in your plans, because we can secure a camp and conference center in some other 

place th at will not be surrounded by many commercial interests th at have developed since we began the development of our own center. We are not as p riva te 

as we would like to be; so you can understand why we would be in favor of your 

development of this area into a recreational area and stop some of this unplanned 

commercial development. We are in favor of your plans whether we stay or 

whether we have to leave. In your proposed plans would a church camp and 

conference center be allowed to remain a priv ate interest within the park or 

recreational area? This is my main question. If not, we will not object.

REL OCA TI N G IN A N O TH ER ARE A

Just last week we talked with the gentleman who is chairman of the 

committee designated by the Presbyterian Church Conference Center 

to handle negotiations with TVA in this connection. He advised us 

tha t the conference did not wish to retain or remove any improvements. He advised us tha t they would like to see TVA make use 

of these facilities if they could, and we will do tha t if we can.

He has told us th at the church has not by any official action opposed 

the land between the lakes project and tha t the opinions of individual 

church members in opposition would not represent official action or 

position of the church.

Now, we are proceeding as fast as time and funds will permit to 

purchase this conference center in order tha t the church can have the 

funds to do some definite planning for another facility which 1 believe 

they intend to get in the nearby area, and we will help them in any 

way we can with their plans.

E S T A B L IS H IN G O F F IC E S TO K E E P LO CA L P E O P L E IN F O R M E D

I am afraid tha t some of the people in the area think we have not 

tried hard enough to talk with them, but we have tried to let the 

people know what our plans were as soon as we have any definiteness 

about them. For instance, beginning early this spring, we set up 

offices in the area, first temporary offices and then permanent offices. 

We advised the people through the press that we would have representatives there to answer their questions if they would like to come 

in and about 300 of them did come in with questions which were 

answered to the extent of our ability to do so.

We have within the last 3 days completed a survey of the families 

in the entire area. Twelve schoolteachers from nearby the area did 

this for us. We found there are 866 households in the area. This 

is an area that is 40 miles long and 6 or 8 miles wide, so you can see 

it is rather thinly populated; 154 of those 866 households are occupied 

•only seasonally. We got a better understanding of what the problems of the people are in the area, and this will give us a better opportunity to see if we can help them in any way in their relocation problems.

L E T T E R TO P R O P E R T Y O W N E R S

Now, in addition to that, early this spring the head of our landbuying organization sent a letter to each property owner tha t he 

could find a record of and explained our land-buying procedure so
14 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 10 65

they would know what to expect. We have also made about 30 

news releases in the area and we have visited with the editors of local papers and county papers. Members of the Board and members 

of the staff have met and talked with over 40 groups in the area, 

civic clubs and other citizens’ groups in the surrounding area. We 

have not had meetings with civic groups and so on within Land 

Between the Lakes, because there are no such groups in the incorporated towns of the area. But we have done the best we could. We have tried to get information out by word of mouth and by 

meetings in the surrounding areas.

CO M PL A IN TS AN D EX P R E S S IO N S OF APP RO VA L

While some complaints about the job we are doing have been 

indicated, we have also had some warm expressions of approval both for the project as a whole and for the efforts we have made to use 

consideration in dealing with people. 1 want to assure you we will 

continue to give them every consideration we can.

The House also reduced the total appropriation to TVA by an 

additional $2 million. The committee report reads:

A general reduction of $2 million has also been made which should be readily 

offset by unobligated balances at the end of the current fiscal year.

C arryover o f F und s

We have just completed a very careful reexamination of our posi­ tion with respect to funds, and I can assure you there will not be 

any large carryover of funds at the end of this year. We will have about $700,000 unspent but this is committed to work now underway 

and which will have been completed in 1965 and is in addition to the work provided for by the $50.9 million appropriations request. For example, $600,000 of tha t $700,000 is being used to complete some 

dredging on the Hiwassee River. We had hoped tha t tha t would be 

spent during fiscal 1964, but there were some problems about the 

availability of equipment, and, consequently, we got started a little 

late, but it will be completed in 1965, and we will use those funds.

U N O BLIG A TED BALA NCE

The other $100,000 also is needed for projects that are underway, and it is not surplus. Consequently, the $2 million reduction which 

is proposed can only impair work on vital projects. The assumption that there will be a $2 million unobligated balance just has not 

materialized. There may have been some uncertainty about this in April at the time of our House hearings, but if there was, then there 

certainly is not now as we reach the end of the fiscal year.

Senator Hill. In other words, you do not have tha t unobligated 

balance left?

Mr. Wagner. No, sir; we will not have a large balance. The 

assumption on which the reduction was made by the House has not 

materialized. There is one additional item that I would like to mention.

Senator Hill. Let me ask you this: To go back to your Land Between the Lakes, have you had any expression from any officials of 

Kentucky on that?
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 15

K EN TU C K Y AN D T E N N E S S E E EN D O R SEM EN TS

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. The Governor and the Legislature of Kentucky have expressed their approval of the proiect and have adopted 

resolutions endorsing it.

The then Governors of both States endorsed the plan before we submitted the report to the President in 1961.

Senator Hill. You say both States. You mean Tennessee and 

Kentucky?

Mr. Wagner. Tha t is right; Tennessee and Kentucky.

Senator Ellender. You would not expect him to do otherwise, 

would you?

Mr. Wagner. Senator, this is a good project for the Nation.

Senator Ellender. Certainly, it is.

Mr. Wagner. And for the State.

Senator Ellender. Certainly, it is.

Mr. Wagner. We would not propose it if we did not believe it to 

be a good project.

Senator Ellender. There is no doubt about it being a wonderful 

project, b ut I think you are trying to expand too much.

You have got how many acres tha t is owned by the Government 

now?

Mr. Wagner. About 75,000 acres, sir.

Senator Ellender. Is th at shown in the area of the map?

Mr. Wagner. Yes.

P R O P O S E D P U R C H A S E S

Senator Ellender. And you propose to buy where? Here?

Mr. Wagner. From the water area here on down.

Senator Ellender. I think it would make a wonderful area with 

the land you have got there now. You could make it very attractive. 

You have all the waterfront you want but why you should do this at 

Government expense is something I can’t fathom, particularly with 

the condition of our Treasury now.

Mr. Wagner. The need for this kind of area will be in the future— 

not next year—some years ahead. The population is expanding. 

Industrialization is increasing. Unless we deliberately take areas of 

this kind now and make them available for places where city dwellers 

can get to the land and have some understanding of its importance, 

1 am afraid we are going to lose something very precious.

ROAD C O N S T R U C T IO N

Senator Ellender. We are building now any number of dams in 

Kentucky. I am sure tha t wherever we retain water we have facilities tha t the public can utilize. This huge area tha t you are trying 

to obtain now, as I said, is not so accessible. The purchase of tha t 

land is just a beginning. You are going to have to build roads 

through this and I suppose you are going to come to the Government 

for tha t purpose, won’t you?

Mr. Wagner. The construction of roads will be financed by 

appropriations.

Senator Ellender. Sure.

Mr. Wagner. However, Senator-----

35 -3 81 — 64------ 2
16 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Senator Elle nder. It is a very severe and ambitiou s program . 

Very ambitious.

Mr. Wagn er. Those who have studied the need s of the Na tio n, 

the Outdo or Rec reation Resources Review Commission, for example—

Senat or E lle nde r. We hav e millions of acres thr ou gh ou t this 

cou ntry.

U N IQ U E G E O G R A P H IC P R O P E R T IE S

Mr. Wagn er. Th e problem which the Commission has pointed ou t 

is th at most of the are a th at is available for recr eation is not where the people are. Th e large open areas are in the west; the population is in the east. Th is are a lias particular attra ction because of its uniqu e geographic properties. It is isol ated by water and at the 

sam e time easily accessible by highways. As I pointed out, it is with in 500 miles by modern expressways of 70 million people. Now, this will m ake this kind of facility available in a region where it is b adly needed. It tak es a considerable am ount of land, if you visualize the numb er of people who will use the area and the k inds of uses th at a re envisioned for the area. As I ind icated 

earlier, for example the re will be wildlife in its na tural ha bit at. The are a is wooded and is v ery sparsely populated. There is some 

cultivate d land, bu t very little. While I am sure th at it is home to the people who live there, at the same tim e there are few places in the east where you can find an are a this large, pa rticular ly with its unique qualificati on, th at is thinl y 

populated a nd with so few people to discomm ode. Now, Mr. Chairma n, there is one othe r item th at I would like to 

mentio n unless there are fur the r questions.

Senator Hill. Any furth er questions, Senator?

Senator E lle nder. No.

R E Q U E S T E D A U T O M O B IL E P U R C H A S E S

Mr. Wagner. Our appro priation req ues t included funds for 258 

automobiles—208 for replacement and 50 for addition to our fleet. 

Now, the bifl as it was passed by the House prov ides only for the 208 auto mobiles to be replaced . The addition of 50 units to the 

fleet was eliminated b y the House.

Senator E lle nder. How ma ny altogeth er?

Mr. Wagn er. We now have ab ou t 800 auto mobile s in the fleet.

The elim ination of 50 add itio nal units will cause an increase in our opera ting cost and we hope th at it can be reconsidered. The size of the pre sen t fleet has been the s ame since 1958. In the 6-year period 

since 1958, th e am ou nt of w ork th at we do and the are a in which we 

work has increased.

IN C R E A S E D PROG RA M S

For exam ple, our generating capa city has incre ased ab ou t one- third in those 6 years an d we have some new pla nts to be operated and our people hav e to go back and forth to them. We have add ed the Melton Hill mu ltip urp ose pro ject to our system. The Land Between the Lakes pro ject is new. I men tioned our trib ut ar y are a
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 17

development program. In 1958, we were working intensively in three 

areas, we are now working in 13.

RE NTAL AUTOMO BIL ES

As a consequence, this requires more travel by automobiles. We 

are now utilizing our automobiles about 9 percent more intensively 

than the average Government agency. The only way we can presently carry on our work is to use automobiles, to rent them if we are 

unable to buy them. Rental automobiles cost us 10 cents more a 

mile to operate than our own vehicles. In the year ahead, it would 

cost us $70,000 more to rent cars than it would if we were adding 50 

units to our own fleet.

Looked at another way, we could buy the needed 50 additional 

automobiles for $75,000. At the end of the year, they would be worth, 

after normal depreciation, about $64,500, so we would spend $75,000 

and have $65,000 worth of automobiles at the end of the year.

If we don’t make this addition to our fleet, we will spend $70,000 

and have a bunch of receipts for rentals. Now, I know th at suggestions to reduce fleets are often made in the interest of economy. 

I bring these figures to your attention to point out that in this instance 

the result of the reduction of 50 units would not be economy but a 

waste of funds.

A uto m o bil e P u rchase s F ro m T V A F un ds

Senator E llender. Could you tell us how many of these 800 

automobiles tha t you own were purchases from funds of TVA?

Mr. Wagner. These automobiles are all purchased with funds 

appropriated to TVA. As they are used in the power program, power 

funds are used to pay a rental into our general fund so tha t those 

automobiles which are used in the power program are fidly paid for 

by the power program.

PAYM ENT OF COST OF OPER ATING AUTOMOBILES

Senator Ellender. The next question would be how much of the 

cost of operating these 800 automobiles is paid for by the TVA and 

not the Government.

Mr. Wagner. From power funds?

Senator Ellender. Yes.

Mr. Wagner. I don’t have that figure but ws can supply it.

Senator Hill. Would you get tha t figure for us?

Mr. Wagner. It would be a fairly substantial percent. In fiscal 

year 1963 the operating costs of the automotive fleet totaled $759,527. 

Approximataly 50 percent of this total was charged to the power 

program and paid for from power funds.

ALLOCATING COSTS OF DAMS AND RESE RVOIRS

Senator Ellender. Could you tell me who evaluates the portion 

of the construction of the multipurpose dam where you charge so 

much for flood control, so much for navigation and so much for the 

development of the water? Who evaluates that?

Mr. Wagner. The TVA makes the original allocation and submits 

it to the President for his approval.
18 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Se na tor E lle nder. Well, does the Corps of Engineers have an ything to do with that?

Mr. Wagn er. No, sir. I would say, however , Senator, th at the 

me tho d which TVA has used in allocating the cost of the dam s is 

essent ially the same as the corps uses.

Se nator E lle nde r. Since you have been autho riz ed by the Congress to constru ct facilities for the generation of e lec tric ity, how ma ny 

dam s have you con structed ?

M el to n H il l D am

Mr. Wagn er. Melton Hill is the only one bu ilt since the 1959 

bond am endm ent was adopted . Since 1933 TVA h as constru cte d 21.

Se nator E lle nder. Now, hav e you, for the record, the am ount 

disc harged to nav iga tion or for flood control an d to pow er development?

Mr. Wagn er. The costs of Melton Hill will be allo cated as pa rt of 

the system , Senator, bu t rou ghly $20.2 million is to be allo cated to 

pow er and ab ou t $17.8 million to nonp ower purposes.

Senator E llende r. So th at , of the $38 million cos t of thi s dam , 

you get ou t of the Treasury $17.8 million and the rest ou t of bon ds 

th at you p ropose to sell or you have sold.

Mr. Wagn er. Yes; o r from power reve nues.

Senator E llende r. Yes.

CONSTRUCTION OF STEAMPLANTS BY BOND SALE

Now, in the construction of y our ste am pla nts , how many have you 

bu ilt since you were autho rized to sell bon ds? Do you know?

Mr. Wagn er. Since we were authorized to sell bonds, we hav e 

sta rte d two new ste am pla nts . The new ones are Parad ise and Bull 

Ru n. In add itio n we hav e add ed some un its at othe r plants.

Senator Ellende r. Th e cost of all those add itio ns as well as the 

new ones were paid ou t of moneys th at you obtained from the sale 

of bond s?

Mr. Wagn er. Bon d proceeds or powe r reve nues.

Se nator H ill. You be tte r check and furn ish th at for the record.

Se nator Elle nde r. I am sure he will do th at.

Mr. Wagn er. Th e figures are corr ect.

USE OF RE VE NUES

Senator Elle nder. A while ago, in answer to a question, you said 

th at aside from the $50,915,000 th at you had budgete d for 1965, you 

had $400-some-odd million more.

Mr. Wagn er. Actua lly about $397 million, from revenues and 

borrowings.

Senator E lle nder. What will th at money be used for?

Mr. Wagn er. Fo r the con stru ctio n of power gen erating and tran smission facilities and for ope ration of the powe r system. Inc luded in 

th at also is some of the m oney that would be used from reve nues from 

the sale of fertilizer to opera te the fertilizer program .

The tot al would also inclu de the $52 million for pay me nts to the 

Treas ury .
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 19

A M O R T IZ IN G P A Y M E N T S

Senator Ellendek. Amortize your payments to the Government?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.

We will pay $10 million a year for 5 years, $15 million for another 

5 years and thereafter $20 million a year. Within a little over 50 

years $1 billion will have been repaid. Dividends would be in addition to this.

Senator Ellender. What is the interest rate? Is it the going rate?

Mr. Wagner. We pay a return at whatever rate the federal 

Government has to pay on all of its marketable obligations as of the 

end of the preceding year.

Senator Ellender. Tha t is the going rate; yes.

Mr. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, there is one other item.

P R O P O S E D S T E A M PL A N T C O N S T R U C T IO N

Senator Ellender. How many more plants, if any, do you expect 

to construct, steamplants?

Mr. Wagner. Our loads are growing at the rate of 800,000 kilowatts per year and this demand for power will have to be met. I 

can’t say how many plants we will ultimately have to build, Senator.

Senator Ellender. You must have plans to construct some in the 

future?

Mr. Wagner. We have purchased some additional sites and will 

build on them as the demand develops. Some of it can be met by 

adding new units to existing plants. In other cases, we will have to 

build new plants.

F IN A N C IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N

Senator Ellender. And all of those can be financed, sale of bonds 

on the TVA?

Mr. Wagner. That is correct.

Senator Ellender. Do you contemplate constructing any new 

dams from which electricity would be generated?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir; over a period of years, we would expect 

to build some.

Senator Ellender. You don’t have any as of now?

N ic kaja ck P ro je c t

Mr. Wagner. The Nickajack project which I mentioned earlier 

is under construction now. This is a replacement for the existing 

Hales Bar project and does not add to our power supply.

Senator Ellender. This Nickajack is a dam and reservoir. Now, 

you are asking for $4,215,000 and tha t you asked last year.

Mr. Wagner. Our estimate for 1965 is $9,800,000.

Senator Ellender. Howt much of this do you pay? When I say 

“you,” I mean TVA.

Mr. Wagner. A decision regarding financing the total cost of the 

project has not been reached yet.

Senator Ellender. As to the proportion?

Mr. Wagner. Tha t is right; as to the source of funds to be used 

after 1965.
20 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

DAM AN D R E SE R V O IR CO ST

Senator E llende r. Ha ve you an est imate of wh at th at dam and 

rese rvoir cost?

Mr. Wagn er. What it will cost?

Senat or E llende r. Yes.

Mr. Wagn er. The tot al cost of Nicka jack is estim ate d at $70 

million, including dual nav igation locks.

Sen ator E llende r. $70 million. All right. How much of th at 

will be allo cate d to power?

Mr. Wagn er. I do no t know at thi s time.

Senator E lle nde r. You do n’t know?

Mr. Wagn er. I do no t have an estimate.

Senator Elle nder. Bu t mo stly i t would be nav igation?

Mr. Wagn er. I would be reluctan t to give you a figure. We have 

no t arrived at a firm estimate.

Senator Elle nder. How do you come to ask for this Government 

money? T am wondering if we might no t be giving a little more than 

we should. Do n’t you think th at ought to be decided before we 

sta rt?

Mr. Wagn er. Ce rtainly before completion of con struction .

Senator Elle nde r. $9,800,000 is quite a chu nk of mon ey, you 

know.

Mr. Wagn er. Yes.

Senator Elle nder. And you spen t las t year $4,214,000, all 

Gover nment money.

M O N EY FR OM S A L E O F B O N D S O R TV A R E V E N U E

Now, how much of th at money th at has been spent on this pro jec t 

came from the sale of bonds or from any TVA revenue?

Mr. Wagn er. None in 1964.

Senator E llender. None at all?

Mr. Wagn er. None for 1964 or bud geted for 1965.

Senat or Ellender. W hat you are doing now is all Government?

Mr. Wagn er. Tha t is r ight.

Senat or Ellender. Well, we be tter look into th at a little bit,. 

Mr. Chairm an.

H ale s B ar D am

Mr. Wagn er. I should expla in th at thi s is a pro ject which we have 

not much choice about building . The foundations und er the Hales 

Ba r Da m which the Nicka jack pro jec t will replace were very poor at 

the time it was built at the turn of the cen tury. The dam leaked 

badly from the time the rese rvoir was bu ilt and its priva te owners 

made extensive bu t unsuccessful efforts to stop the leaks.

REC O N ST RUCTIO N AL LO CA TIO N

Senator Ellender. In the reconstruct ion , I hope th at wh ate ver 

the cost is th at the re would be allo cate d to this dam that is paid by 

TVA w hatev er pro portio n------

Mr. Wagn er. I can assure you th at this pro ject will be allo cate d 

to it in pro per pro portio n to its benefits, Sen ator.

Senat or Ellend er. I sav it o ught to be done now. In other words, 

in order to prepare yourselves for Congress, it seems to me an estim ate
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5 21

should be made of the entire cost of this and tha t allocation should be made for navigation, for flood control and for power development 

before we even appropriate.

Mr. Wagner. We will prepare such an allocation but I do want 

to make the point tha t all our projects, including those financed 

entirely by appropriated funds, are allocated to the purposes for which 

they serve. Nickajack is simply a replacement for Hales Bar and 

we believe that it should be financed entirely from appropriations. 

The investment will be allocated to navigation, flood control, and 

power, and if the power par t is financed from appropriations, TVA will 

of course pay a return to the Treasury on this part of the investment.

Senator Ellender. It ought to be done if you stand on firm ground.

BONDS SALE

Now, I wonder if you would get for the record the amount of bonds 

tha t you have so far sold?

Mr. Wagner. $145 million.

Senator Ellender. And the most of that has been used to construct 

steamplants?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir; steamplants and additional generating units 

in existing steamplants and hydroplants.

Senator Ellender. Anything tha t you are doing on the TVA 

grounds-----

SHORT-TERM LOANS

Mr. Wagner. Mr. Jones points out we also have outstanding $120 

million in short-term loans in addition to the long-term revenue bonds.

Senator Ellender. That is $260 million?

Mr. J ones. $265 million altogether.

Senator Ellender. Now, are the expenses of it, TVA power operation rather than the amortization of bonds, paid out in your operations 

of the entire TVA setup?

P o w er R ev e n u e s

Mr. Wagner. Out of the power revenues, we pay all of our poweroperating costs and part of the cost of financing the construction 

program.

Senator Ellender. And it is restricted solely to power?

Mr. Wagner. Yes.

Senator Ellender. And you are able to allocate that?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. The power program is shown separately 

in our accounting records.

Senator Ellender. And the rest of it comes from development?

R e v e n u e s F ro m N o n po w er O per a tio n s

Mr. Wagner. In addition to power revenues we have some income 

from nonpower operations, the largest source being from the sale of 

experimental fertilizer materials.

Senator Ellender. Where do those funds go? To the treasury 

of TVA, or to the U.S. Treasury?

Mr. Wagner. We are permitted to use them in our operations and 

they appear as a part of the financing structure of the total budget 

program. If we were not permitted to use our revenues from the sale
22 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

of fertilizer, the appropriation-financed estimate for operating the 

fertilizer program would have to be larger.

Senator Ellender. All other Government agencies, whenever they 

do sell th at way, pay the funds into the Treasury so that the Congress 

can keep up with what is going on.

Mr. Wagner. We hope tha t the Congress can keep up with what 

we do, sir. We spell out in detail in these documents which are submitted to you the complete financing picture and we are willing to 

supply whatever additional information you need.

Senator Ellender. The great trouble is th at most of us are occupied here, particularly in my case, as chairman of the Public Works 

and chairman of Agriculture. Some of this stuff is new to me because 

I was not able to come here before. We had to depend on my good 

friend from Alabama here.

Senator Hill. Mr. Smith I think wants to say a word here.

P o w er P ro gr am

Mr. Smith. I would like to provide supplementary information 

concerning our power program.

This allocation of cost to power goes so far as to include a portion 

of the salaries of the Board of Directors. Every possible device 

that might save new construction is used. For instance, a new construction start on the equivalent of a new plant, perhaps even larger 

then any we have now, was made unnecessary by negotiating an 

agreement for expanding power-exchange agreements with power 

companies to the southwest, including companies serving parts of 

Louisiana. We are now building heavy transmission lines to points in Mississippi and on the Tennessee-Arkansas boundary in the 

Mississippi River to provide capacity for these exchanges.

L O U IS IA N A SER V IC E

Senator Ellender. You won’t extend in my State?

Mr. S mith. Yes, sir.

Senator Ellender. Where?

Mr. Smith. These exchanges increase the power supply available 

to the participating Louisiana public service companies, and-----

Senator Ellender. You mean form a big grid?

Mr. S mith. Yes. That saves us the cost of a new generating 

plant and also results in savings for the companies tha t belong to the 

interconnected system.

Senator Ellender. A privately owned company?

Mr. Smith. Yes. I point out the savings as a result of this agreement.

R efo r esta tio n

Senator Ellender. Now, you stated a while ago tha t you were 

spending some money for reforestation. Now, th at bill for reforestation comes out of the Federal Treasury?

Mr. Wagner. Yes, appropriated funds are used to finance TVA’s 

forest development activities.

Senator Ellender. Where do the proceeds of sale from timberland 

go to?

I was trying to make the point tha t sooner or later this whole TVA 

should be self-sustaining. That is the goal we ought to shoot for.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 23

GO AL OF S E L F -S U S T A IN M E N T

Mr. Smith. Well, certain activities, Senator, like flood control apd 

navigation tha t we perform in the Tennessee Valley are similar to 

what other agencies do elsewhere in the Nation using appropriations 

by the Congress.

Senator Ellender. Insofar as those two are concerned, tha t is all 

right. But for recreation and for timber development, for using it 

as a laboratory, for geese and ducks in their wild habitat, it strikes 

me tha t ought to be done by the TVA even though they have to 

charge a little fee for a person to go see a wild duck.

Mr. Smith. Part of our experimentation will be in the direction of 

determining what charges should be made.

Senator Ellender. I imagine tha t this land is in time to produce 

enough timber to perhaps pay for itself.

F O R E S T LA N D S IN H A N D B E T W E E N T H E L A K E S

Mr. Wagner. We propose to operate the forest lands in Land 

Between the Lakes on a sustnined-yiehl basis, not only to get a return 

from the forest, bu t as part of this feature of keeping people cognizant 

of the importance of lands and forests; they would see forests, see the 

harvest.

Senator Ellender. It would seem to me tha t the only portion of 

the money tha t is appropriated here by the Federal Treasury should 

be to do the two things tha t you have stated; that is, for flood control 

and for navigation. Those two features belong to all the people.

A SSET TO A R EA

In respect to the management of the land and the purchase of it, 

some ways and means ought to be put forward to let TVA assume the 

cost because it will be an asset to TVA. Tha t is what they said about 

TVA, you know. It is an asset to the area, to parts of Alabama, to 

parts of Mississippi, and to all of Tennessee which, of course, we like. 

I am not against that. As a matter of fact, I supported TVA until 

the TVA spread itself so that money was asked in order to construct 

steamplants far beyond the amount of electricity necessary to firm 

the power that was developed in 1951, and today, as you have just stated, about 47 percent of the electricity generated there is from 

dams and the rest of it from the steamplants.

Mr. Wagner. You recall, Senator, tha t the Atomic Energy ('onmission program was very substantially expanded back in the early 

fifties and placed a heaw burden on us.

Senator Ellender. I know, but you know what my idea was, that 

the Atomic Energy Commission construct it. 1 lost out, so I have 

nothing more to say.

V alu es of TV A

Mr. Wagner. We would hope tha t TVA has substantial values 

for the whole Nation, Senator.

Senator Ellender. There is no doubt about that, bu t the recipients, 

of course are about three or four States.

Mr. Wagner. The Valley includes portions of seven Stat?s, but 

our program serves the Nation.
24 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

Sen ator Ellen der. One thing tJiat I di dn ’t like very much was 

to have a lot of Louisiana money spen t to develop ind ustry in Te nnessee.

Mr. Wagner. I thi nk we have ind ustry developing in your own 

State and in the Tennessee Valley.

Sen ator Ellen der. Not through Fed eral financing. Th at is w ate r 

under the bridge.

Mr. Wagner. There is iu st one oth er item, Mr. Chairm an, in this 

power field th at I would like to men tion to you.

N o r r is Ce n t e n n ia l R ate

You will reca ll very well, I believe, th at you were presen t ab ou t 

3 years ago at S en ato r Nor ris ’ 100th bi rth da y, the 11th of Ju ly, when 

we were in the office of the President and TVA ann ounced the availability to its distrib utors of a new lower resale power rate. In Senato r 

to r No rris’ honor, we calle d it the Norris cen tennial rate. I thi nk 

you will be glad to know th at since th at tim e 63 of our 150-odd distribu tor s have m ade one or more reduc tion s in the ra tes for which they 

sell power to the ir consum ers and 11 of them hav e gone to this lowest 

Norris rat e. These red uct ion s have produced ann ual savings of 

nearly $4% million dollars to the power consumers in the area. We 

believe th at Senator Norris would have been pleased with this.

FIN A N C IN G po w er pr og ra m

Sen ator H ill. Now, as I under stand it, Mr. Wag ner, I wa nt to 

make this clear, the re is no money in this bu dget at all for power 

facilities. All the power facilities is coming ou t of you r budget; is 

th at right?

Mr. Wagn er. There is the unresolved question of Nicka jack bu t 

essentially all of the funds th at are used by the power program are 

from power proceeds and borrowings.

Sen ator H ill. An yth ing furth er you wa nt to add?

I ndust ria l D ev elo pm en t in T e n n e s s e e V alley

Mr. Wagn er. Pe rhaps I should no t go on with this, Sen ator, bu t 

on the question of ind ustrial dev elopment, in the Tennessee Valley 

one of the fast-grow ing complexes has been the chemical industries . 

These people get subs tan tia l am ounts of raw ma terials from the gulf 

coa st and Louisian a.

Senator Ellende r. You see, th at is wh at is hap pen ing. We give 

you the raw ma terial and you produc e it the re and get the profit. 

Th at is w hat I hav e been com plaining about. You are using a lot of 

Fed eral money to get our gas and our oil to produc e this chem ical 

indu str y which will make millions of dollars there, and we are ju st 

going to be the furn isher of raw pro ducts. T hat is what I hav e been 

com plaining about and practically every Se nator in Congress from 

othe r State s has been com plaining ab ou t it, also.

Now, you won ’t hear Senator Hill com plain about it. Probably 

Ke ntu cky remained mu te on the sub ject. Bu t when you get money 

from New York, from Pen nsy lvania , and t ake their raw pr oducts—why 

you see, we have a nice chemical indu str y grow ing in Louisiana 

because we have the raw pro ducts there. Bu t it could grow by leap s
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 25

and bounds if it were not for the fact that the Government has created with its own funds areas like this that produce a lot of electricity very 

■cheaply. We in the past have suffered a little hit from that, as you 

know, and the whole south has suffered, as you remember.

CHA NG E OF EC ON OM Y OF AREA

Mr. Wagner. The total change in the economy of the area will 

give you one measure of what is being accomplished in the Tennessee 

Valley, although more than TVA activities alone are responsible. 

In 1933, the per capita increase was 45 percent of the national average; 

it is now 67 percent of the national average.

Senator Ellender. 1 am surprised it is not more.

Mr. Wagner. This has been an area of difficult problems, bu t the 

difference between those two figures means tha t people in this area 

now have $3% billion more to spend each year than they would 

have if we still only had 45 percent of the national income. A great 

deal of this is spent for products that are built or manufactured in 

many other parts of the Nation. We believe tha t both Louisiana 

and the Tennessee Valley States should be prosperous and have 

decent incomes for their people and plenty of jobs for the Nation.

Senator Ellender. I am not complaining now. Don’t misunderstand me. That is all water under the bridge, as far as I am concerned. 1 had my chance to fight the matter before Congress and I 

lost out, so we all join together and hope that it will continue to 

prosper.

M A K IN G TVA S E L F -S U S T A IN IN G

My hope is that as the TVA develops and becomes more and more 

prosperous that you will be able to take from the revenues that are 

produced in that area the burden of paying for these things that you 

-are now asking us to pay for. Tha t is what I am saying.

Senator Hill. Mr. Jones, is there anything you would like to add?

Mr. J ones. 1 have nothing.

Senator Hill. Mr. Smith, anything you would like to add?

Mr. Smith. No.

Senator Hill. You want to keep tha t Mississippi rolling, don’t you?

Senator Ellender. Oh, yes.

Senator Hill. Anything else you would like to add, Senator 

■Cooper?

Senator Cooper. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Hill. We are very happy to have Senator Cooper and 

Representative Stubblefield.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

L an d B e t w e e n th e L a kes Ar e a

Senator Cooper. Congressman Stubblefield is from the First 

District of Kentucky, in which the Land Between the Lakes area is 

located, and there are some witnesses from tha t area which you very 

kindly agreed to hear.

Before that, if the chairman will permit me, I would like to make a 

short statement.
26 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Senator H ill. Proceed.

Senator Cooper. The sta temen t is directed solely to the proje ct 

th at falls between the lakes area. I will tak e ju st a few mi nutes to 

give some inform ation ab ou t the backgro und of this pro jec t, and 1 

hope th at Mr. Wa gner and the othe r mem bers of the Boa rd will 

correct any necessary deta ils, because I cann ot hav e as much information ab ou t it as they do.

D EV ELO PM E N T O F AREA

This proje ct came to my attentio n, and to the attention of Senator 

Mo rton, my colleague, about 3 years ago. At th at time the re was 

con side ratio n being given in the Dep artm en t of the Inter ior , and in 

con sultati ons with the Tennessee Valley Au thority and the Co rps of 

Eng ineers, as to the dev elopment of this area.

As Chairm an Wa gne r said, the re were about 70,000 acres in this 

are a between the Tenn essee River ami the Cumb erland Riv er, und er 

the jurisdiction of the De pa rtm en t of the Int erior in the wildlife 

refuge. ;;cm

TV A JU R IS D IC T IO N O F A REA

In March 1963, Secre tary Uda ll recommen ded that jurisdicti on be 

tur ned over to the Tennessee Valley Au thority . Althou gh discussions ab ou t th at decision were held, I can not com pare the conferences with Members of the Congress w ith the m eetings th at were held 

betw een the TVA and the De pa rtm ent of the Interior and oth er 

agencies.

On several occasions meetings were held in which I was present, as 

were Senator Mo rton, Congressman Stubble field, rep res entative s of 

the De partm ent of the Inter ior and TVA , and this porposal was 

discussed. I can say th at I sup ported it; Senator Morton sup ported 

it; and I kno w Congressman Stub blefield can speak for himself, th at 

he sup ported it.

In Jun e of last y ear, Pre sident Ke nne dy made the decision to t ran sfe r 

jurisdictio n from the De pa rtm en t of the Interior to the Tennessee 

Valley A uth ority . Some time a fte r th at , I began to receive communications from people in the area, raising question s with which I had not 

been acq uainted before, though perhap s th at was my own fault.

P U R C H A S E O F A D D IT IO N A L A C R EA G E

Th e first que stio n, the crux of the matter, was raised because 

evi dently they were not aware, and I was not aware myself, th at it 

was intend ed to purchase an addit ion al 100,000 acres. Pe rhaps I 

was told, bu t I do not rem ember th at I was aware that this much 

add itio nal acreage would need to be purchased. I do not say that fact 

alone would change my opinion tow ard the pro ject, because the TVA 

has testified th at it needs this area to com plete this project.

D IS P L A C E D F A M IL IE S

Then othe r que stions were raise d ab ou t the affect on the app rox ima tely 1,000 families that live in this area, and the 3,000 people th at 

would eventua lly be displaced, and ab ou t the 100,000 add itio nal 

acres the TVA said it needed to acquire. I thi nk I am correct in
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 27

saying tha t the greater part of that lies in Tennessee, in Stewart 

County, and the remaining part in two counties of Kentucky—Trigg 

and Lyon.

I think there should be information given by the TV A to the 

Congress respecting these questions, and respecting the concern of 

people in the area.

P A Y M E N T S IN L IE U O F T A X E S

The officials of these two counties, Trigg and Lyon, in Kentucky, 

communicated with me and with Senator Morton and with Congressman Stubblefield, regarding certain problems with which they had to 

deal when the land in this area was acquired bv the TVA. They 

dealt, of course, with such questions as roads, schools, and the loss of 

taxes. As I understand the situation, TVA does make compensation 

in the form of payments in lieu of taxes.

1 was informed, however, by the officials of these counties, and by 

the former attorney general of Tennessee, tha t it was not clear 

whether these payments in lieu of taxes would be made to the State 

or to the county. Tha t may have been cleared up by this time, but 

in my last communication, which was several weeks ago, 1 was informed that the question had not yet been settled.

IN FO R M A T IO N TO CO UN TY O FFIC IA LS ON PA YM EN TS

So, my first proposition is that, if it is possible, the Tennessee 

Valley Authority should make known to the officials of these two 

counties just how this question of payments in lieu of taxes would be 

made. If the counties do want and need to receive these payments, 1 

think they are going to be in a very difficult plight; land has been 

taken by the TVA and by the Interior, land taken by the Corps of 

Engineers; and this would be the third take.

D is pl aced F a m il ie s

The second question arises about the individuals who will be displaced. Some of them, according to what they have told me, have 

been displaced before by takings of the TVA and of the Corps of 

Engineers, and for some this will be the third time. They have been 

moved, and on each occasion that the land was taken, they have been 

required to purchase new land, sometimes at higher prices, and build 

new homes.

EX C H A N G ES

In talks with the TVA and with Mr. Wagner, on one occasion I was 

told that, as the TVA owned land near this Between the Lakes area, it 

might be possible to make exchanges of land with these people so that 

they would not suffer loss. I do not know whether that is contemplated or not, but if it is, I think these people should know it.

Those two problems are the ones tha t concern me. As I said, I 

support this project but I believe these counties and these people 

have the right to have this information because it is a matter of life 

to them, and they should receive information and should be treated 

with justice.
28 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

D IS C U SSIO N S W IT H O FFIC IA LS

I also wa nt to say, because I have talked ab ou t this pro cedure with 

the TVA officials, th at 1 reco mmended th at before going into the area 

they mee t with the officials to discuss these matt ers fully so th at the 

facts would be know n and question s could be answered. I understa nd th at some ste ps in this direction were tak en, but I also recommended th at public meetings be held in these cou nties, so th at the 

people would know wh at was intended, and 1 un de rst an d th at the y 

have not been held. I have come before this com mittee as one who 

has sup ported this pro ject, bu t with the req uest, and I ma y say with 

the insistence, th at these problem s be work ed ou t with the officials 

of these towns and with the citiz ens of this area.

D ev el o pm en t Area

There is one othe r que stio n ab ou t which I hope th at the TVA will 

supply inform ation. 'The people of this area had hoped to keep an 

are a of ab ou t 8,0 00 acre s for dev elopment which would mean a great 

deal to the are a in the future . TVA say s th at it is im po rta nt th at 

they tak e this 8,0 00 acres. Some of the people of the area and some 

of the officials, wh eth er justified or no t 1 cann ot say, have said th at 

the TVA plans to hold this for long-ra nge commercial development. 

If th at is in ten ded, I think the y should say so, because it seems to me 

th at if the re is to be such a com mercial dev elopment, it might be set 

aside a nd, und er the p rop er con ditions , he de vtlo ptd for the btn ef itof 

the people in th e are a and no t only for the bene fit of the TVA.

These are the q uestions abou t which I would like info rma tion to be 

supplied by the TVA. We all r espect t he TVA , and it is a big a gency 

and an im po rta nt agency , bu t people, too, have their rig hts to be 

informed and to be pro tec ted . I am here for th at purpose.

Senat or H ill. We will brea k here for a few min utes.

Senat or H ill. Th e com mittee will come to order.

Sen ator, had you finished?

Senator Cooper. Yes.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD. A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

K en tu cky I n ter e st s

Senator H ill . Congres sma n Stubblefield .

Mr. Stu bb lefie ld. In the interest of y ou r time, I thi nk you spoke 

of K ent uck y. I would like to say a word , with yo ur permission.

Senat or Hill. All rig ht, proceed.

Mr. Stubb lefie ld. I think Mr. Wa gne r had some com ment he 

wanted to make. Are your people in a hurry ?

Senator H ill. We would be happy to hear from them . Is th at 

agre eable with you, sir?

Mr. Stubblefie ld. Yes.

T V A L an d Ac q u is it io n P la ns

Mr. Wagner. Senator Cooper, concern ing the seve ral points th at 

you hav e discussed, let me say, first, th at if there has been any un ­

ce rta inty in your mind as to what the TVA pla ns were for the amo un t
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 29

of land to be acquired, I am sorry. I think we made it quite clear in 

the report to the President in 1961 we were proposing to acquire the 

area generally as it is now defined and the approximate acreage 

figures were given at tha t time. There never has been any atte mpt 

on our pa rt to do anything but make it very clear that the entire area 

in this peninsula generally north of Highway 79 would be purchased. Now, tha t was in the report tha t went to the President in 1961 and it has been a part of our plans ever since then.

I n fo rm atio n on T a xes an d Sch oo l S u ppo r t

On the matters of tax replacement and support of schools, and so 

on, we can supply more information later if you would like to have it, 

but let me say at this point tha t it is an extremely complex question. 

We are working on this intensively with the officials concerned; some 

of them are Federal officials and some of them are State officials. We 

have been through this same kind of a problem many, many times in 

the acquisition of reservoir areas and we believe we have always been 

able to work them out satisfactorily.

I have assured the county judges tha t the TVA Board has determined tha t TVA will do everything within our power to see tha t no 

financial hardship is worked on the local government as a consequence of this acquisition. As a matter of fact, we believe at the 

moment tha t in relation to the remaining needs, the financial positions of the counties will be improved.

R eloca tio n P ro bl em

On the question of finding other land which you mentioned, I 

do recall th at we discussed the relocation problems of people who had 

bought lots on Kentucky Lake or on what will become Barkley Lake 

in the Land Between the Lakes Area, intending to build homes or 

summer residences. Some of them have already been built. I 

said that we would help these people to find alternate locations 

to the very best of our ability, on the west shore of Kentucky or 

east shore of Barkley if they wanted them. Many of them have 

pointed out tha t land values are going up in these areas. I pointed 

out the land values in the area are a factor in the appraisal process 

which determines what TVA will pav for land it buys.

For emergency cases, the cases of people who cannot find alternate places to build their summer cottages, I pointed out that TVA 

has some land which possibly we could subdivide so tha t there would 

be lots available if lots are not otherwise available. However, 

since 1 have talked to you we have made a survey of available lots 

in the area and find there are a thousand of them available for sale 

on the western shore of Kentucky Lake alone. Tha t is probably 

more than are needed by people in the Land Between the Lakes 

Area.

I nfo rm atio n in Area

On the matter of information in the area, staff people of the TVA 

have met the local officials in many ways. These nave not been new 

employees of TVA; they are people who have had long experience 

with us and are in responsible positions. I mentioned earlier tha t 

we have talked with literally hundreds on an individual basis about
30 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

their problems in the area. I had one joint meetin g, as you know, 

with th e three county judges concerned. Ad mittedly I could not 

answer all the ir questio ns because we do n’t hav e answers to all their 

question s yet. I men tion ed earlier this afternoon th at we were au ­

tho rize d to go ahead with thi s pro jec t only 6 mo nth s ago. Since 

then we h ave me t on som e 30 or 40 occasions w ith pub lic groups in the 

imme dia te surrou nding a rea and in nearb y citie s to explain our plans 

for the are a, and to answ er questions. We have done as complete a 

job informing the people as we are able.

L an d P urchase and R esa le fo r C o m m er cia l P u r po ses

Now the last po int you mentioned, Senat or, was th at some people 

said t h at TVA in ten ded to b uy 8,000 acres of t his land and then resell 

it for commercial purposes. Such a sta temen t is ju st a plain lie, 

Senator Cooper, and let me say it irrita tes me very much. We have 

made it clea r from the beg inning th at we thou gh t th at for this area, 

to fulfill the purpose which we believe it can serve to t he benefit of th e 

people of this Na tio n, it mus t be com pletely in pub lic ownership and 

used for recreation within the boundaries th at we have described.

We have nev er had an y idea th at we w ould resell an y of th at land 

for private use, or for industrial dev elopment as I have read somewhere. There is just nothi ng to this rum or at all.

Se nator Coop er. May 1 ask a question there?

Senator Hill. Surely.

Senator C ooper. Mr. Wag ner, I am glad you have come here and 

answ ered these question s because they shou ld be answ ered , and now 

perha ps they have been answ ered.

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. 1 hope the y have, sir.

P u r c h a se of Ad dit io nal Ac rea g e

Senator C oop er. As f ar as the area to be purch ase d is concerned, I 

said in my statem en t th at if I didn ’t know the TVA was going to 

buy anoth er 100,000 acres, it may hav e been my own failure, bu t I 

do know* that in the mee ting s we held, Se nator M orton and Congressman Stubblefield and oth ers have also rem ark ed th at this figure was 

not known. I rem ember t ha t, beginning with the f irst proposal made 

by TVA in 1961, the questio ns as to the exa ct boundaries to be set 

and the exact numb er of acres to be acq uired were left open. I also 

rem ember in the hearing s las t yea r th at nothing was said then abou t 

the purchase of all of the add itional 100,000 acres betw een the lakes, 

althou gh reference was made to using the whole are a to benefit the 

demo nstration pro ject.

Mr. Wagn er. I think the hearings will spe ak for them selves, bu t 

I thi nk the am ount of lan d we prop osed to purchase was mentioned.

P aym en ts in L ie u of T a xes

Se nator C ooper. If so, I will s tan d corrected.

Now, in lieu of taxes, have you worked ou t with the State wh eth er 

the paym ents in lieu of taxes will be made to the State s or to the 

counties?

Mr. Wagner. In general, under the st at ute the bulk of the in-lieu 

tax paym ents are paid to the State s. A portio n may then be redistr ibu ted by the Sta tes .
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 31

Senator Cooper. Have you discussed this ma tter with the Governor or the Attorney General in order to confirm to see if this goes forward 

tha t the State would be willing to distribute these payments to these 

counties?

Mr. Wagner. We have discussed the matter with State officials. 

I would be glad to submit a further s tatement on tha t for the record 

rather than trust my memory, but let me say tha t this is a question 

which we have had under consideration and discussion. The whole 

question of in lieu payments and of tax replacement has not been 

completely worked out. We have looked at it enough to be satisfied 

tha t there is going to be no harm done.

Senator Cooper. If I recall correctly, the Tennessee Valley Authority does own acreage adjacent to the acreage proposed to be acquired, 

or to this area which is proposed to be developed.

EXCHANGE OR PURCHASE OF TVA-OWNED LAND

Mr. Wagner. We own some strips of land along the Kentucky 

reservoir side; yes. They will become a part of the development.

Senator Cooper. That land is near this acreage, but not included 

in it?

Mr. Wagner. It is included in the total 270,000 acres or so.

Mr. Smith. I believe Senator Cooper is referring to the west side 

of Kentucky Lake.

Mr. Wagner. Oh, on the west side of Kentucky, excuse me, 

Senator. I was talking about land we own on the east side of Kentucky Lake within the Land Between the Lakes area.

Yes, TVA owns some land on the west side of Kentucky Lake. 

■Over years past, we have combed this over quite carefully and we 

have sold almost all tha t is surplus to our needs bu t there is one tract 

which if we should find it necessary can perhaps be subdivided and 

sold for lakefront sites.

Senator Cooper. The reason I raise tha t question is because we 

have received some queries on this subject. I must sav tha t these 

queries may be based on rumors which may be untrue. We also have 

heard that people are coming in and purchasing land near this between the lakes area at very high prices, which are being driven up 

by speculation. If tha t is true, tha t would make it very difficult for 

the people being displaced to find places and sites to replace those 

that they sell.

That is the reason I ask if it is possible t hat arrangements could be 

made involving the acreage you already own near this area, in order 

to exchange or to make sites available to present residents facing the 

difficulties of moving and getting scalped by the rising prices.

FAMILY RELOCATIONS IN AREA

Mr. W agner. This is the question on which I have commented. Of 

course I am sure tha t you understand tha t we don’t own 100,000 

acres to replace all the acreage involved here.

Senator Cooper. I understand, but there are only around a thousand families, many of whom would not want to locate in the vicinity.

Mr. Wagner: I think actually less than a thousand, Senator.

Senator Cooper. Several hundred of them might want to relocate.

35 -38 1— 64------ 3
32 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Mr. Wagner. We will try to help them find places tha t will suit, 

them.

Senator Cooper. I ask these questions because I represent these 

people and I want them to have that information. I want them to 

know tha t they can have it, and tha t they will be treated fairly and 

justly. I know’ tha t tha t is your purpose, b ut sometimes they have 

had other feelings.

O w n e r s h ip of Land s B e t w e e n t h e L a k es

Senator E llender. I have been studying this map which was given 

to me. I notice here that you have some lines to the Kentucky Woodlands Wildlife Refuge. Th at is the Interior, I assume, and then Tennessee Valley Authority. Will you give for the record the number of 

acres tha t are owned by each of these different departments of Government?

The Corps of Engineers, how many acres do they own between the 

lakes? Just between the lakes now?

Mr. Wagner. In the Land Between the Lakes area, 11,850 acres are 

owned by the Corps of Engineers; 58,940 acres are owned by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service; and 4,112 acres by TVA.

Senator Ellender. Now the bulk of the land owned is in the shaded 

area.

Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. By the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Senator Ellender. Yes. Now is this land to the south farmland 

or ju st what kind of land is it?

Mr. Wagner. It is generally wooded land, Senator. As you look 

at the map the green areas are forested, the white areas are cleared, 

so you can see it is mostly wooded area.

H ig hw ay 79

Senator Ellender. Now it is your intention to purchase the 

highway?

Mr. Wagner. Our purchase line will generally parallel Highway 79, 

but leaving at this point [indicating].

Senator Ellender. I notice you have another highway bordering 

on the land tha t is owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Why 

would you not be so ambitious and let tha t be your boundary line 

and exchange lands tha t are owned by private individuals here and 

lands you own here and be satisfied with this amount? If you don’t 

do that, you are going to have a little trouble I believe before the 

Congress. I am going to do all I can to try and do what I can about 

it. But here is an instance where you are taking away from property 

owners property tha t is worth quite a bit, put it in the hands of the 

Government, and the first thing you know somebody is going to make 

a lot of money on tha t.

Mr. Wagner. Who?

Senator Ellender. The individuals who own it. You are never 

going to get tha t land for $120 an acre. Now you said you sold a 

lot of land or sold some land-----

S al e of L an d by T V A

Mr. Wagner. The land we referred to is land along the west bank 

of Kentucky Lake.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5 33

Senator Ellender. How many acres of tha t did you sell? Do 

you know?

Mr. Wagner. I don’t recall how many acres were sold in tha t 

particular area.

Senator Ellender. Could you furnish it for the record?

Mr. Wagner. Yes.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Land sold by TVA on the west side of Kentucky Reservoir totals 10,707 acres. 

Land tran sferred by TVA to other public agencies totals 9,577 acres.

Senator Ellender. Did you sell any in large blocks to anybody in 

this area?

Mr. Wagner. We don’t own any of that.

Senator Ellender. The only land you own-----

Mr. Wagner. The land we own over there was sold generally in 

small tracts. Much of it was sold in individual lots. It was sold at 

public auction.

L an d Alo ng K en tu ck y L ake

Senator Ellender. Now the land tha t is along this Kentucky Lake, 

that is along the lake itself, who owned that? Is it the Tennessee 

Valley?

Mr. Wagner. The portion in the dark shading is owned by TVA.

Senator Ellender. What do you do with tha t land? What is the 

purpose of it?

PU R PO SE OF L A N D O W N ED BY TV A

Mr. Wagner. Parts of it are held for the needs of the navigation 

program, such as safety harbors. Some of it is for general reservoir 

operating purposes. You understand tha t the Kentucky reservoir 

is a key flood-control feature for protecting the lower Mississippi 

River.

Senator Ellender. The which?

Mr. Wagner. The lower Mississippi.

Senator Ellender. I didn’t know that.

FL OO D R E D U C T IO N IN M IS SIS S IP P I VALLEY

Mr. Wagner. We can reduce floods in the lower Mississippi Valley.

Senator Ellender. Of course, we do tha t with the construction 

of the dams from North Dakota on down.

Mr. Wagner. Kentucky is a very im portant flood storage reservoir 

for that purpose.

Senator Ellender. Isn’t tha t water used by you to develop 

electricity?

Mr. Wagner. Yes. But the point I want to make is tha t this 

reservoir has 16 feet of flood storage above its normal level, so we 

own some land on which we can store water if needed to control floods.

P r iv a te O w n e r s h ip of L an d

Senator Ellender. I express the hope that some way can be worked 

out to do what you intended to do but not be so vulgar as to take all 

of this fine land out of private ownership and put it in the hands of 

the Government where you are going to have to pay taxes on it and 

deprive these people who own tha t now of what 1 would term a very
34 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

valuab le piece of real est ate . I just think th e Federal Go vernme nt 

now owns too much land . I have been sa ying th at all the time. Th e 

mi lita ry owns a lot and much more th an th ey need . It proceeded 

and acquired more and more of thi s land, and all th at oug ht to be 

lef t in the han ds of th e individ ual, in m y opinion. I ma y be narrow 

ab ou t th at , bu t it would seem to me you have over here—n orth with 

this roa d I am speaking of—p rob abl y you would have as ma ny as 

100,000 acres. Would th at be about rig ht?

Mr. Wagn er. Less th an th at .

Senator E lle nder. How much? Take all this in from here to 

here [indicating!.

Mr. Wagn er. I do n’t know. Ju st looking at the map, perha ps 

75,000 acres.

Let me say th at the feasibility of this proje ct to perf orm the ser vices—

Senator E lle nde r. I know, it is bea utiful. Th e next thing you 

are going to do is build som eth ing on it th at private enterp rise ought 

to build.

D E V E L O P M E N T OF A R EA

Mr. Wagn er. Le t me say we think th at the whole area is requ ired 

for this kind of a pro jec t, and technician s in this field have looked at 

it and agreed with us. As far as priva te enterprise is concerned, we 

believe on the basis of our experience th at the re will within a relatively short period of tim e be $25 million of pr ivate mon ey invested 

on the shorelines opp osit e the west shore of Ke ntuc ky , and the east 

shore of B arkley. We think the re will be indu str ial s ites the re which 

will be used and jobs in those p lan ts for the peop le in the general area.

Senator E lle nder. Wh y do n’t you let the m deve lop it on this 

side, too?

Mr. Wagn er. It would make impossible the kin d of pro jec t th at 

we think can otherwise be accomplished.

V A L U E O F LA N D

Se na tor Ellende r. I have ju st gotten inter ested because I didn ’t 

know a thing a bo ut i t before now. I know I voted for it when it was 

brou gh t up before, but in looking to thi s and stu dying it, I find I 

didn ’t. But I hav e been looking at this thi ng since I came in here, 

since you rais ed the que stio n, and here is an instan ce where you are 

going to deprive a lot of people of very valua ble propert y. If I had 

pr op erty in th at area, you w ould n ot get it for a ny $120 an acre, I can 

gu aran tee you. You would no t get i t for $500 an acre.

M r. Wagn er. Th e thi ng th at lias made th at prop erty unique and 

valua ble is th at the Feder al Go vernm ent has inv ested $300 million 

in the se dam s and reservoirs.

Se na tor E llende r. Le t the m bene fit by it, and keep the land .

Mr. Wagn er. We thi nk the general pub lic should hav e the benefit 

of us ing this unique a rea th at the y have cre ate d by this public inv estme nt.

Se nator Elle nde r. Th ey will have a unique facility to use as 

75,000 to 100,000 acres which is now owned by the Government, 

won’t the y?

Mr. Wagn er. No, the y won’t.
leed toMmys

I Corps of Cng*n««rs

I Kentucky Woodlands Wildlife Refuge

I Tennessee Valley Authority
marker (sign po st) and identification

7 IM S -4 5 3 E 5 0 4

35 -381 0 - 6 4 (F ac e


PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 3 5

Senator Ellender. You want more. That is, the Government ownership.

Th at is all I have, Mr. Hill.

Senator Hill. Let’s hear from Mr. Smith.

R ec r ea tio n Are a

Mr. Smith. This is going to be a recreation area, primarily designed 

to serve young people, families. The whole purpose of trying to keep 

the recreation area exclusively in the ownership of the operating 

agency is to deny to tha t area the type of facilities th at destroy the 

family-type recreational purpose. This is the same reason such 

facilities are not allowed in the public parks and in the national parks 

or anything like that. Unless the whole area is acquired it would be 

just a m atter of time before you would have real estate developments, 

commercial establishments including honky tonks, springing up all 

over the recreation area. That would be the result.

Senator Ellender. The recreation area, Mr. Smith, is almost 100,000 acres surrounded by water. What else do you want? The 

100,000 acres would take care of thousands of people. Then, as 

Mr. Wagner said, you have people that will have facilities across 

the lake. I really believe tha t you could do well by letting this 

road be a southern boundary and whatever line you have here exchange it.

A T T IT U D E O F LO CAL P E O P L E

Mr. Smith. If there were any change, I don’t think this would 

be the change which is satisfactory to these people who are presently 

on the lake—this [indicating] is the area that is being talked about 

which local people want to take out so as to allow for commercial 

development.

Senator Ellender. You say you purchased most of this already.

Mr. Smith. No, we have purchased some of it.

Senator Ellender. It seems to me tha t it would be reasonable 

for you to buy this so tha t you will own everything from the water’s 

edge and then make this your southern boundary. Such land as you 

may have south of tha t boundary exchange it for land tha t you 

have here. That would be a little more reasonable, and keep the 

Government out of more landownership. That is what I am trying 

to do, leave it in private hands where it belongs, where it should be.

Senator Hill. Anything else you gentlemen would like to say?

Senator Ellender. Mr. Chairman, I ask tha t this map be filed.

Senator Hill. All right.

(The map referred to faces this page.)

Go v er n m en t O w n e r s h ip o f L an d in A re a

Senator E llender. Now can you give us an accurate amount of land tha t is owned by these three agencies?

Mr. Smith. We will check it.

Senator Ellender. That is in between those lakes.

Senator H ill. Give us that information.

(The information requested is as follows: Total land area owned by 

the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and TVA in 

the Land Between the Lakes area is 74,902 acres.)
36 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Anything else you want?

Senator Ellender. And, also, if you can, the accurate acreage of the land between that road tha t I mentioned on this map and clear 

on down to the water’s edge, the north part. (The information requested is as follows: 95,000 acres are within tha t pa rt of the Land Between the Lakes area lying south of Highway 

No. 68.)

Senator Hill. Anything you want to add, Congressman Stubblefield?

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Spec u la tio n in A rea

Representative Stubblefield. Senator, I would like to speak one 

word. As you know, my county is located adjacent to this project, particularly the southern end of it, and I happen to know something about the activities that are going on down there. There has been some speculation taking place. I understand the syndicate is located in Evansville, Ind. This is secondhand! information and may be hearsay on my part, but I know people have been approached down there, the landowners, to purchase their whole farms, their whole tracts, and they want fancy prices for their acreage.

EX CHANGES

Tha t is the reason I was hopeful, Mr. Wagner, that some exchange could be made where these syndicates are able to hold this land off the market. If some exchange could be made, th at people within the area who would desire to relocate but were unable to on account of the inflated prices, it may be the land would even be unavailable to them.

Mr. Wagner. As I have indicated, I think we can find either in private hands, or else in lands tha t we own, alternate locations for people who have lots and are planning to build. Now, as I also indi­ cated, we cannot expect to replace 100,000 acres of land or to supply 

it by sale.

Representative Stubblefield. I was talking about reasonable exchange tha t maybe could be effected because if these people do acquire these large tracts, it is going to be very difficult for them to relocate because cither the land won’t be available or the price will be such tha t 

you can’t pay. I am hopeful that you really give that consideration because I know 

this activity is going on.

Senator Ellender. Congressman, where is this going on?

Representative Stubblefield. Buying at the periphery.

Senator E llender. What?

Representative Stubblefield. The east side of Barkley Lake and 

the west side of Kentucky.

Senator Ellender. Not between?

Representative Stubblefield. No; not between, around.

Senator Ellender. Let me ask you this. Are you familiar with 

the land in tha t area?

Representative Stubblefield. I live there.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 37

Senator Ellender. You live there?

Representative Stubblefield. Yes.

CO ST O F LA N D

Senator E llender. Would it be possible for the Government to 

buy this land for $120 an acre?

Representative Stubblefield. I don’t know, Senator. I don’t 

know. It would not be possible in most cases. These people have 

to relocate at a good price. The other day, 60 acres of land, a fellow 

asked $40,000 for it, and it was just farmland, no improvements on it.

Senator Ellender. How far?

Representative Stubblefield. Marshall, not even on the lake.

Senator Ellender. How many?

Representative Stubblefield. $40,000 for 60 acres.

Senator Ellender. As I said a while ago, I have looked at this 

map, the land surrounding the dam. If I had it, I certainly would not 

sell it for any $120 an acre, and I am sure you would not be able to 

buy it for that.

Mr. Wagner. Senator, tha t is an estimate tha t was made-----

Senator Ellender. I know, a few years ago.

LA N D D E S C R IP T IO N

Mr. Wagner. The larger part of the acreage is just woodland with 

scrub timber on it and soil that is some of the poorest soil in the Tennessee Valley. For this land prices will be at one level. For the 

waterfront area the price is going to be higher.

Senator Ellender. There is no doubt it is a wonderful area but. as I 

said, I hate to see the Government get any more of this. We have 

enough lakes in your State, Senator Cooper, your State and not my 

State, because we don’t have any, they are too level, wherein we are 

spending millions of dollars each year to construct facilities to afford 

recreational facilities for all the people.

H A R D S H IP A ND E M E R G E N C Y CA SE S F O R R E L O C A T IO N

Senator Cooper. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I hope it is 

clear that I was talking about exchanges of property on which people 

live. I know tha t you cannot exchange 90,000 acres or 100,000 acres, 

much of which is undeveloped land. I also understand the Corps of 

Engineers owns the areas on the waterfront, or part of it, which would 

make this interior section inaccessible without construction. I was 

talking about the 1,000 families which would find themselves in hard 

circumstances, and may suffer from or be subject to speculation. I 

would hope you could exchange lands for them, as closely as possible, 

and make the fairest deal possible. Also, I would hope that you would 

deal in the same manner with the counties, which are going to be in 

tough shape regarding revenues and their whole structure.

Mr. Wagner. We will help those hardship and emergency cases 

to get relocated, I assure you, Senator.

Mr. J ones. I think it should be understood, Mr. Chairman, tha t 

we will do everything we can to help as Mr. Wagner says, but there are 

legal limitations on what we can do in exchange of property.
38 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Senator H ill. An yth ing else?

Senator Coop er. No.

Se nator H ill. Mr. Powell.

Mr. Stubblefie ld. Are y ou speakin g for all?

Mr. P owell. No; Judge Utley would like to spe ak and Mrs. 

Wh itehea d and Mr. Bleidt.

Senator H ill. Pro ceed in an y ord er you wish.

STA TEM ENT OF JUDGE FRA NCIS UTLEY , EDDYVILLE, KY. 

I n t e r e st s of L yon C ounty

Judg e Utle y. I am going to ma ke min e very, very brief. I am 

Francis Utley, coun ty jud ge in Lyon Co unty, Ky . He re is a much mo re com prehensive ma p than I hav e seen. This 

is no t blocked out. I wan t to say t his t o you g entleme n on beh alf of my co unty: I have no person al interest in any of this busin ess at all. 1 am a real estate developer a nd pro mo ter b ut I own all of m y pro pertie s on the eas tern side of Barkley La ke and I have never owned an acre of lan d or lo t 

in Lyon Co un ty and I nev er will, because I am an old man .

Senator Hill . Wh ere is your land?

Judg e Utley. Ri gh t here, sir. This is on the east side of Ba rkley 

Lake; yes. Sen ator, I would like to sav thi s: T have a hundred acres of lan d 

there th at I sold $5 0 lots ou t of and I would no t tak e $100,0 00 for. 

Th e wa ter is no t in the re. This land is extrem ely valuab le. It is ut te rly priceless. My interest in this whole thing, as I say, is for my cou nty. We have lost 53 perc ent of our lan d are a in my c ou nty to various Go vernm ent age ncy developers, every one of th em legitim ate un til this th ing cam e along, every one of the m, a nd I was in favor of it. Naturally I was on the executive com mittee in getting thi s program 

developed, Barkley Lake.

L an d fo r P r iv ate E n t e r p r is e

Now w ith th at b ehind me, I wa nt to say thi s to you : All this stuff ab ou t this havin g creek s bound by wa ters is an ab surdity on the face of it, regardless of an yth ing th at could be argued . Here is an art eri al highway runnin g between the two lak es, Eas t an d We st is a multimillion dollar roa d, the re are multim illion-dollar bridges and th at can no t be closed. Th ey are going to hav e these two built. There has got to be a fence bu ilt down to the south end of this thing some where and there is not th e slightest reason why one could no t be built here, pu t it rig ht across there, for less money than you could buy pa rt of th at lak e here. It is an ab surdity on the face of it to let th at ou t of Six Lakes and leave i t to the deer a nd buffalo. It should belong to people, 

it should be in priva te enterprise.

Senator H ill. I s t hat all in priva te hands now?

Mr. Utley. It is all in pri vate han ds. I do n’t think the re is an y 

of it owned by the Gover nment . TVA ma y hav e some small piecesdown there.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

K en tu c k y D am I n c r ea sin g Land V alu es

39

Actually I was at my clerk’s office the day I got the call to come 

up here—I forgot what tha t was, 3, 4, 5, days ago—but I went into 

the clerk’s office. They have a few spotted pieces in there and they 

have acquited and paid for a total of about 43 pieces in there as of 

now. With a couple of exceptions they are all outside lot owners 

tha t come in there and some of them were overextended, got scared, 

bluffed out, but the natives down there don’t want to leave,they 

want to stay there. This represents the original amount tha t wTas bought in WPA days and called resettlement administration. It was 

a pauperized country and it still is. That is your reservation. Those 

people out there moved down there and moved up over here, some of 

them, some out of county, some out of the State. Then when Kentucky Dam was built all this beautiful stuff here and absolutely 

gorgeous and utterly priceless, was bought by the TVA and kept off 

the market. TVA has retarded relatively tha t entire area 10 or 12 

years.

F A M IL IE S M AN Y M O V ES

I have been in the real estate business and I know it upside down 

and backward. These people moved down there. TVA bought 

this land here and they had to get up and go. They come over here 

and they went here or they went out of the county. That was their 

second move to come out of here.

When Barkley Dam was built people moved for the third time. 

So they moved, a great many of them, down here, and they are 

going to live down there. If this is bought, they are going to leave 

for their fourth time. They literally have their furniture loaded on 

trucks and lose money on every move. Now, another thing about 

that is this-----

Senator Hill. Where is your home, sir?

S P E C U L A T IO N

Judge Utley. My home is right in the middle, right here. I have 

never owned a dime’s worth of property and I never will own a dime’s 

worth of property there, never have and never shall. I know friends 

that are speculators in there. Speculators is a dirty word. I am 

a speculator and I have made a lot of money. I never stole anything 

from anybody and as a result that is tax money. I have to pay for 

those dams, everybody else has. This is an absurdity, the fact tha t 

the Government spent tax money building those things, tha t stuff 

belongs to the public. They have a water line all the way up and 

down tha t the public can use.

T A X E S

Now I want to say just one little thing about taxes, and then I am 

going to stop. My countv is a pauper county, it has always been a 

pauper county. For the first time in our lives we see an opportunity 

to become reasonably independent in spite of the fact we have lost 

every acre of river bottom. We have never had any industry, we 

have none there now. We have no industry in the county. For
40 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 6 5

example, we hav e a 160-people county school system . We hav e 

$550,000 as a res ult of land acquisition by Go vernm ent agencies in 

the Go vernm ent where we didn ’t get enough money to replace so 

we could con tinue ope ration. So we are $550,000 in debt on schools. 

We g et $1.50 a d ay for 180 days on 160 pupils th at com e to our schools 

from here down through here to int o the main par t of our cou nty. 

Regardless of anyth ing th at is presen ted to you, and I know wh at I 

am talkin g abo ut, we will lose at lea st 120 and I think 140 of those 

pupils, and when we do, we lose 5 scho olteachers ou t of the county, 

the ope ration of 3 school buses, the opera tors of tho se school buses, 

and gas and oil and ma int enance of those buses th at are a pa rt of 

our small econom y.

P A Y M E N T IN L IE U OF T A X E S

I asked Mr. Wagne r ab ou t th at at a meetin g and I got a neg ativ e 

answer. Th ey had no t even conside red it. This is in lieu of taxes. 

That has no t been conside red and ye t in our school sys tem we are 

going to lose five teac hers, we are going to lose three buses and the 

driv ers. We hav e a fine school sys tem the re and we are cred ited. 

We lose yo ur acc red itation.

In lieu of taxe s th at does no t mea n anyth ing in my case. I don’t 

care wh at it said to the co ntrary, there is anoth er law on the books 

in which the State is req uir ed to turn over any money to us in lieu 

of taxes.

Now the St ate of Ken tuck y only this las t year took wh at little 

mon ey cam e to us in lieu of taxes, TVA , and p ut it in the general fund. 

If the Governor had been a gen tlem an the y would have ke pt i t. All 

the Governors are not, and one of thes e day s there is going to be one 

get a job up the re and say we need the money worse, we are going to 

keep it, and the y will ke ep it. Th e day they do th at we a re s unk completely.

This is an indece nt thi ng to do with a b unch of people, it is indecent, 

imm oral. We wa nt this, at lea st th at much.

P R O P O S E D B O U N D A R IE S

T hat is the line there th at goes across from Ba rkley L ake and over 

to Moss Cre ek Fe rry , ove r to rig ht down here and into there. If we 

have th at , we will hav e our 25, 35, 50 million po ten tia l and we will 

get along as a county. Those people will no t be discouraged. Tha t 

will tak e care of the people in thi s area.

Se nator E llende r. Judge, have y ou any idea of the acres?

Judge Utley. Appro xim ately 8,000 acres.

Senator Ellende r. Eig ht tho usand acres?

Judg e Utley. Yes.

LA N D V A L U E S

Senator E llende r. Can th at be bought for $120 an acre?

Judge Utley. If I owned it —well, here ma y I say this : On this 

side of this peninsu la, I own th at prop erty and I would no t even 

consider $150,000 for the residu e th at 1 have got in 100 acres there. 

I would no t even consider it. I would no t consider it at all.

I have a piece of land alon g here, this same situatio n, paid $400 an 

acre for it, bu t I paid the price th at the ma n asked for it. He came
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 41

and asked for it and I said I paid for that. That is not a crime, it is 

not a sin. It is not here, it should not be.

Senator Ellender. Tell us about the land here from this road.

Judge Utley. I am going to leave th at alone.

Senator Ellender. That 8,000 acres?

Judge Utley. That approximately 8,000 acres there tha t I want 

in my county because i t is our birthright, and it is nobody’s birthright but ours.

Acr ea ge Own ed by TV A

Senator Hill. How many of tha t 8,000 acres is owned now by 

TVA?

Judge Utley. Very little. It will show here, sir. Now they have 

got worked up a lot of it. Five days ago my county clerk told me 

there had been 42 or 43 parcels closed, or paid for in there and Mrs. 

Whitehead has a list, and with 2 exceptions they are all outside, 

the lots th at people want. One or two people are happy to sell to the 

TVA or go bankrupt. Others sell to TVA and they are bankrup t and 

are going to be worse bankrupt after this.

1 thank you, gentlemen, very, very much.

Senator Hill. Excuse me.

Mr. Wagner, you said you had a very important engagement and 

you had to catch a plane.

Mr. Wagner. I do have to leave. Miss Owen will stay here, 

however. She is familiar with this project and can comment on it.

Senator Hill. Glad to have seen you, gentlemen.

All right. Now who is your next witness?

STATEMENT OF LEE F. POWELL, PADUCAH, KY.

Vie w s of B us inessm an

Mr. Powell. Gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, I am Lee F. Powell, and 

I reside in Paducah, Ky. I own and operate the Old Hickory Clay 

Co. in Mayfield, Ky., and have some 45 employees working in Kentucky and Tennessee mining operations. My purpose for coming 

before this Committee on Public Works is to give my views as a 

businessman in the area in question.

I have never held a public office except I did serve 20 years on the 

Paducah Board of Education. I know some of the problems tha t 

you people have in solving and making decisions of this kind.

D E V E L O P M E N T O F R EC R E A T IO N A L A REA

We are not opposed to the development of the national recreational 

area by the TVA—I want to make tha t clear—however, we feel that 

the 103,000 acres now under their possession and control is completely 

adequate for all the recreational purposes tha t they want to satisfy. 

It will take a couple of generations to develop the 103,000 acres or 

approximately 100,000, as they say. What we are likewise concerned 

with is jobs for our people, industrial and commercial development 

for the people of the Jackson Purchase area, and private residence.

I was very interested a couple moments ago in Mr. Wagner’s 

statement when he said th at the development of this area would be an 

added attraction for industry, but, gentlemen, we are going to have to
42 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5

leave some land for industry to develop if we are going to attract 

industry, and tha t is what we are asking you to do today.

E D U C A T IO N A L F A C IL IT IE S

I was interested in Mr. Wagner’s discussion of the educational 

facilities that this recreational area would produce, and the more I 

think about it, it came to my attention a few days ago, someone, I am 

not able to say who, in the TVA has proposed a TVA university for the 

purpose of educating without cost boys and girls who want to study 

forestry, geology, engineering, anything tha t concerns TVA.

U N E M P L O Y M E N T

In regard to the unemployment—I just would like to cite each day 

when I go to my office there are people there wanting jobs. Just a 

few days ago—I would like to cite this because it will bring home what 

I am talking about—1 had an individual who had been in to see me for 

about the fifth time. He came into my office one morning at worktime, and I said, “Sit down in my office a minute.” He sat down and 

said, “Mr. Powell, do you have a job for me?” I said, “Well, I don’t 

have.” The man broke down and cried and said, “Mr. Powell, I 

have a 6-months-old baby tha t I can’t buy milk for. I have a 2- 

year-old child. I can’t pay my rent. All I want is a job.”

1 got on the telephone and I called my superintendent and said, 

“Can you take one more man? We have a man up here who is 

desperate, he wants to work.”

1 sent him down and put him to work. If you want his name for 

the record, I have that.

C R E A T IN G JO B S IN JA C K S O N P U R C H A S E

Now, not long ago our First Lady, Mrs. Johnson, personally viewed 

some of the area of eastern Kentucky. I believe, gentlemen, tha t 

this very, verv thing could well apply to western Kentucky, and I 

believe it would be in line with President Johnson’s poverty program. 

In other words, what we do, what we need to do is create jobs for our 

people in Jackson Purchase.

Now Mr. Wagner mentioned a few minutes ago tha t it was only 

a day’s drive for some 60 or 70 million people to come into this area. 

We are happy to have these people, but I can say it is only a 20- or 

30-minute drive for some of our people who want to build homes and 

who want to live in the area.

R E L O C A T IN G D IS PLA C ED P E R S O N S

No. 3. Where are the 2,500 to 3,000 displaced persons going from 

within Trigg and Lyon Counties? Tha t is a question tha t 1 want 

to propose. It has already been brought out tha t several syndicates 

are buying or have purchased land on the eastern shore of Barkley 

and on the western shoreline of Kentucky Lake even down to Blood 

River. We recited some of the people. I won’t take time for that.

Now, Mr. Wagner is right, there are lots available. I suppose 

there are several hundred lots available on the western side of the 

Kentucky area and on the eastern side of Barkley Lake, but, gentle-
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 43

men, they are selling for $5,000 and $6,000 a lot. When these people 

get the money from their farms, they will be lucky to get $120 an 

acre. If they have a 50-acre farm, they will be trading a farm for a lot.

PL A N N IN G AN D ZO NIN G

No. 4. Proper planning and zoning would preclude interference with 

recreational area and would also provide adequate homes within the 

general area of Paducah, Mayfield, Murray, Benton, Princeton, and 

so forth. The development of industry and the construction of homes 

in the area would provide essential revenue for the operation of the 

county and municipal governments, as has been pointed out by our 

judge.

I would like to say, gentlemen, tha t there is very little revenue that 

is produced from campsites. If they are going to pay revenue in lieu 

of taxes, it can’t come from campsites and from recreational areas.

SU M M ER OR R ET IR EM EN T HO ME S

No. 5. I personally feel tha t the citizens of the Jackson Purchase 

should have the opportunity to build summer homes or retirement 

homes in this area rather than allocate all of the land for campsites. 

Gentlemen, I feel tha t the people north or south in the population 

areas who want to utilize the camping grounds would have adequate 

facilities within the 103,000 acres already under the TVA control. 

Likewise, wo feel tha t the residents in the Jackson Purchase should 

be entitled to the remaining area for purposes of private homes, 

summer homes, and for the development of business and industry.

SE VEN TO EIGH T MON TH FA C IL IT Y

No. 6. Notwithstanding the contentions of the TVA, this area at 

the most would be utilized by campers possibly 7 to 8 months out of 

the year; the reason I say this, they propose to make it a 12-month 

facility. For the remaining part of the year the weather elements 

and the complete shutdown of all facilities at the Kenlake Hotel, 

the Village Inn at the Kentucky Dam, and Paris Landing, Tenn., 

and all other private facilities, definitely evidence the fact that this 

cannot be a year around operation.

In other words, if people are not going to stay in steamheated 

rooms, they are not going to stay in a sleeping bag or a tent. This 

year I have checked on several occasions at these hotel resorts, and 

expect for maybe Friday or Saturday night, there are plenty of 

facilities in the places I have named, even at this season of the year.

AG RE EM EN T ON DISC USSIN G PR OJ EC T

No. 7. I had a long telephone conversation this morning with Mr. 

Wagner, and he agreed tha t I am to write him or telephone him as per 

the discussion for an appointment whereby he and his Board will sit 

down with Senator Cooper and Judge Utely and Representative 

Stubblefield, along with some business people and people of the area 

and discuss this thing. He didn’t promise anything, but I finally, 

after a great persuasion, got him to agree to let ’s sit down and talk 

about it over the table.
44 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5

In accordance with the TVA release of February 6, 1964, TVA 

states:

TVA will offer help to sellers in finding suitable properties on which to relocate.

Gentlemen, in my conference with Mr. Lupfer, TVA representative at Paris, Tenn., he stated to me on May 1, 1964, that this policy of helping landowners and residents relocate on similar properties has been changed and tha t they no longer will sell or exchange any prop­ erties for the purpose of relocation of residents and landowners in 

the acquisition area. Now, Mr. Wagner did assure me today tha t he would talk about this.

EX CH AN GE PR OP ER TY

In the TVA office at Paris, Tenn., when I told him tha t several of us would like to exchange property, he said: “Mr. Powell,” and he is very kind and very gracious, “ all this land has been earmarked for TVA on the west side of Kentucky Lake.” I said: “What do you mean?” , and he said: “Well, you have some 29,000 acres of land.” He said: “10,000 acres is available to other Federal agencies, 6,000 acres is earmarked for public recreation use not identified”—I don’t know what that means—“12,000 acres is allocated for the TVA program such as navigation, steamplants, forestry,” et cetera.

W IL DLI FE RE FU GE

Now, on down they talk about the wildlife, Mr. Wagner did a few minutes ago. There are still some 10,000 acres on the west side and on down below Paris Landing in Tennessee there are some 10,000 acres that is in the wildlife refuge there tha t has not been mentioned.

Senator Ellender. You mean not connected?

Mr. Powell. No. It is Highway 79, yes, some 10,000 acres; geese and duck. They have a crew of people watching after it, and I suppose it is a fine facility, but I was there the other day.

Senator Ellender. Who did you say owns that?

Mr. Powell. The Wildlife people.

That is a lot of acres, 10,000.

PR OPE RTY IN BLOOD R IV ER ARE A OF KEN TU CKY LA KE

Now I am still on No. 7. In the conference held in Knoxville on December 19, 1963, between Mr. Wagner, Chairman of the TVA, and his entire Board witli our counsel, Michael Avedisian, Mr. Wagner stated tha t the TVA has several thousand acres in the Blood River area of Kentucky Lake, that is on the west side, and possibly in other areas which the TVA may open up for purposes of exchange with displaced residents and landowners in the Between the Lakes area. However, according to Mr. Lupfer’s statement this policy now has been changed. On May 1 he said, “tha t is earmarked.” I have tried 

to point tha t out to you.

CO NV EN IE N T BO UN DA RY

No. 8. Let us suppose the area that you have there, Senator, between the lakes, let us suppose tha t would stay 25 or 50 miles wide.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 45

Would Mr. Wagner and his TVA Board still demand the entire 50-mile 

or 25-mile strip simply to have a convenient boundary?

May I ask you this question? Is this adequate justification for 

the entire acquisition?

Senator Ellender. You heard me offer the suggestion that there 

is a road here, No. 79, and another road here, No. 68. My idea would 

have been instead of trying to gobble all tha t up, jus t take from 

there to here, bu t the Judge states tha t this landing is very valuable.

Judge U tley. Tha t is our sole-----

Senator Ellender. I know. As I said before, the Government 

owns enough land now I think.

IN F L A T E D CO ST S

Mr. Powell. Gentlemen, I would like to sav this since I am in 

the line of business, tha t I used to buy a bulldozer or caterpillar 

tracto r for $9,000, and tha t same tractor today costs $40,000.

Senator Hill. From $9,000 to $40,000?

Mr. Powell. Yes, bought in 1939.

Senator Hill. From 1939 to now?

Mr. Powell. Yes, same tracto r. Now TVA pioposes to buy our 

Land Between the Lakes. You can remember this, Senator, when 

this dollar bill right here was as big as a wagon wheel. Do you 

remember that?

Senator Hill. Off the record.

Mr. Powell. Now we have this dollar right here, Senator. Mr. 

Chairman, this is the 40-cent dollar that we now use, but TVA 

proposes to buy our land with this dollar. The shrunk half of this 

dollar. Now does tha t point out what I am trying to get across?

Senator Ellender. I think you are mistaken there about the 

shrinking part. He wants to get it lor much less than that. If I 

had property there, you would no t get it for that.

Judge Utley. How would you keep it from him?

Senator Ellender. By not giving him the money.

C O N F E R E N C E C E N T E R

Mr. Powell. No. 9, gentlemen, d on’t be too sure tha t the conference center, which comprises 8,000 members, is willing to move its 

location between the lakes. I have just communicated with some of 

them, and I know that they are not unless they are forced to do it. 

If you want to refer to that, if you will refer back to the hearing before 

this committee on November 19, you will find an attorney represented 

tha t meeting November 19, 1963.

In my concluding statements I would like to conclude my testimony 

by quoting Mr. Wagner’s statement in the St. Louis paper not long 

ago stating in essence tha t this project is so important tha t homes, 

businesses, churches, and schools must give way to the greater public 

need. We have a clipping if you want to see that.

Gentlemen, what is more important than homes and churches and 

schools and businesses? I than k you.
46 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

STATEMENT OF MRS. CORINNE WHITEHEAD, KUTTAWA, KY.

L ea v in g L ocal P eo ple Alo n e

Mrs. Whit ehe ad. Th an k you, sir. I wan t to preface my st at emen t by say ing we are not oppo sed to the natio nal rec rea tion are a. 

We do feel like really there should be room for the local peop le to be 

left alone.

Mr. Chairma n, distinguished comm itte e mem bers, my nam e is 

Cor inne Whitehead . I am a res ide nt and pr op erty owner between 

the rivers in Lyon Co unty, Ky. I respectfully req uest th at y ou vo te 

again st the $6 million appro priation for the Tennessee Valley Au thority , for the pur pose of developing a na tio na l rec rea tion are a between 

the Cumb erland -Te nne ssee Riv ers in Ke ntu cky, or th at an y ap propriat ion be restricte d to exclude pr ivate land s n orth of Bran don C hapel 

Road in Lyon Co un ty and along the Highway 68 corr idor in Trigg 

Co un ty from purch ase by con dem nation.

N at io na l P ark Se r v ic e P la n

We feel that TV A’s decision to tak e all pr iva tel y owned land betwee n 

the rivers is unr eas onable and un just. Th e Na tio nal Pa rk Serv ice

f

)lan pub lish ed in 1961 met with the appro val of the majority of the 

ocal people. Tha t pla n left the local comm itte e and the coun ty tax 

base intact. We know th at in ma ny areas of the Un ited St ates 

com munities have been le ft w ithin t he perime ter of national rec rea tion 

areas to the m utua l a dvantag es of all concerned. Our people between 

the rivers have been moved two, three, and four times due to Federal 

pro jects. Th e pro jec ts have been (1) the Re settlem ent Ad mi nis tra ­

tion, (2) TVA for Ke ntuc ky Da m, (3) the Dep artm en t of Inter ior , 

(4) the Corps of Engin eer s for Ba rkley Da m, and now TVA again. 

Hom es in ma ny instanc es have been haule d ove r the roads un til they 

are well worn. The cu rre nt TVA acq uisitio n for cam psites and a 

pla ygrou nd for a 10-year period is, to mo st na tiv es faced w ith disp laceme nt, a supreme in ustice.

SELLING PRICE OF LOTS

In tes tim ony before the House Subcom mittee on Public Wo rks,

Mr. Aubre y Wagner, Chairma n of T VA, on pag e 88 sta ted :

There are literally thousands of lots available on the opposite shores of Barkley 

and Kentucky Lakes.

Th e selling price for a nice lake shore lot is app rox imately $5,500 

for less than 1 acre—w ith ou t impro veme nts such as pav ed roads, 

wa ter, or in ma ny instan ces even electricit y. Ma rshall Co unty at 

TV A’s suggestio n prop oses to zone the west shore of Ke ntu cky Lake 

from Ke ntuc ky Da m to Highwa y 68 for indu str y. Such action 

au tom ati cally elim inates miles of Ke ntuc ky Lake shore for hom es. 

Some disp laced ind ividuals who hav e asked to swap lan d with TVA 

say they hav e been rebuffed.

A sto ry wr itten by Bish Tho mpson and carried in the Ev ansville 

Press, Ju ne 11, 1964, quote s a TVA official:

There are abo ut only a dozen homes th at are worth more tha n $10,000; the rest 

are mostly places like t ha t. It is probably worth $200.

In the face of t his at titu de our most prec ious rig ht—the r ight to trial 

by jury—is den ied under th e Tennessee Valley Au thor ity Enablin g Ac t.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 47

IN DUST RIA L PLAN T SITE S

Mr. Wagner has just stated tha t the following information is completely untrue, and I certainly do not propose to contribute to untrue 

rumors, but we have been informed by Judge Utley and Mr. Bleidt 

and numerous other people who are interested in this area and by 

high officials in the State of Kentucky tha t industrial plant sites have 

been mapped and pinpointed by TVA in the north section of Lyon 

County. We are convinced t hat TVA proposes to take our land and 

homes under the guise of recreation and ultimately sell it for industrial 

use.

F E D E R A L O W N E R SH IP OF L A ND

The land between the rivers is a narrow peninsula approximately 

40 miles long by 8 miles wide. Approximately 100,000 acres of land 

is already in Federal ownership. I have for the Department of 

Interior a figure of 67,600 in Kentucky Woodlands National Wildlife 

Refuge. The balance is in TVA and Corps of Engineers ownership. 

Accounts in national newspapers indicated tha t July 1, 1963, KerrMcGee Oil Industries, Tulsa, Okla., took over the ownership of 80,000 

acres in Kentucky and Tennessee. County records show tha t the 

holdings are adjacent to Barkley Lake, adjacent to and within the 

proposed recreation area.

Senator Ellender. When was that purchased?

Mrs. Whitehead. July 1, 1963.

Senator Ellender. 80,000 acres?

Mrs. Whitehead. 80,000 acres.

Shown on the accompanying map is the concentration of people 

in Kentucky in two small areas. The map also designates TVA 

Corps of Engineers and D epartment of Interior holdings.

TVA subdivided land in Lyon County as did private interests 

several years ago. As a result, people from 36 States own property 

in Lyon and Trigg Counties. Some are willing to sell to TVA since 

they have no emotional or heieditary ties with the land between the 

rivers. However, hundreds of native residents, as well as others, are 

deeply and unconsolably disturbed and bitter.

CAM PI NG FA C IL IT IE S

We question TVA’s projection of figures for the use of the camping 

area. Camping facilities within the immediate area are provided at 

Kentucky Dam State Park, Kentucky’s Pennyrile Park, Lake City 

Camping and Trailer Park, Shawnee National Park is within 50 miles, 

Mammoth Cave National Park approximately 100 miles, as well as 

others such as Camp Currie on Kentucky Lake and the Scout camps.

TVA’s argument tha t the land between the rivers is unique due to 

the expenditure of $300 million in taxpayers’ moneys for the development of Kentucky Dam and Barkley Dam and merits the $35 million 

expenditure in the recreation area is not valid. The land between 

the rivers has been a green-timbered island for centuries surrounded 

by the waters of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. TVA and 

the Corps of Engineers have only widened the rivers. Our people 

have been native to the area since long before the Revolutionary 

War days.

35- 381— ------4
48 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

S PE C U L A T O R S

Mu ch has been wr itten, allegedly at TV A’s beh est, ab ou t lifelong residents being spe culators. It is ridiculo us. We are plain 

peop le with no access to congressio nal lobbies. Surely TVA and 

Congress can dist inguish betw een a na tiv e pr op erty owner who only 

has 1 to 100 acres to his nam e and n ati onal corporation s th at own and 

con trol tho usa nds upon tho usands of acres of lan d in the rec rea tion 

are a and on the opp osit e shores of Lake Barkley and Ke ntuc ky L ake .

P R O P E R T Y O W N E R S

I wish to subm it a list of people who have been paid by TVA for 

pro perty . There are 2 n atives ou t of 40 sales. I also wish to subm it 

pictures and a statem en t from a prop ert y owner who feels th at TVA 

has be en mo st unfair in their offer of compen sation for his c omm ercial 

res ort pro perty . M ay I subm it for the record a statem en t by a 

prop erty owner who res ents the tres pas sing of TVA pers onnel upo n 

his lan d; also I have clipp ings from new spapers perta ining to the 

natio nal wildlife refuge.

Th e prop ert y owner who asks th at the attentio n of the com mittee 

be bro ught to res t on reside ntial prop erty insists th at the re is a grea t 

dispar age me nt betw een some of the prices paid on th at list and the 

price offered him. Really he accepted TV A’s oile r to survey his 

pro perty . These are new spaper clippings.

(The inform atio n referred to follows:)

N am e

Jas. R . T om er ll ne...........

Thos. S. S m it h ................

V irgi l S m it h .....................

R ic h ard L. M as sa m ore .

Je ss R iloy ...........................

Virgi l S m it h .....................

R ay m o n d W . A sh by__

M al co lm B ugher ..........

S ty li e V an V ac to r_____

R o y L o v ell ...... ......... .......

L aw re nce F u g ate ............

A lb ert W il li am s_______

M au ri ce A . Lew is _____

M arv in P ogro ts ky_____

Jam es A . G il ii n_______

C has. E . P ro th o ............ .

L . W . In g h am .................

R ic h ard Johnso n.............

A . C . A le xander ..............

N el so n R ay B ow er m an

B . A . D av id so n _______

E v e re tt B . C re ase y____

M ab el Sn ow W il li am s. . 

R u b y E a rl K ir k w o o d ...

C hes te r E . B ec k..........

Jera ld B. M an io n .......... .

L ela n d C . Pow el l............

G eo . O. D av id so n _____

R o b ert B . D e rb y ______

R ollie H e n s o n .................

L lo yd L. W h ip k ey ____

C arl W atk in s, lo ca l____

D . P . E v a n s............ .........

Jas. B. C o n ra d .................

H . P au l T e rry _________

J . E . L ay m an _________

J . E . L ay m an _________

M arv in J . H u n t . . . ........

W . H . H u b b ard , lo c al. . 

Li zz ie T il le r___________

P la ts Ac rea ge

1 0.77

1 .36

1 .36

1 .21

1 .44

1 .52

1 .24

1 .25

1 .22

1 .19

1 .30

2 1.16

2 .94

4 5.06

1 .20

1 .20

1 .26

1 .23

1 .30

2 .46

1 .29

1 .24

3 .72

1 .24

23 .94

7 2.3

1 .22

6 6.10

2 2.42

1 .24

1 .36

3 .80

1 2.1 8

2 .42

3 .52

11

1

4 3.7 8

3.3 0

1.06

Price

$16,500

8,00 0

4.900

6.500 

3,650

850

3,025

7.250

2.500 

1,000 

1,000

2.2 50 

4,000

10,950

2.50 0

3.2 00

8.200 

1,200 

1,000 

1,600 

2,200 

1,750

4.500

1.900

8.250

33,600

800

60,000

19,500

5,00 0

1,075

35,400

17.200 

11,800

2,400

11.200 

800

22,2 50 

8,700 

6,30 0

N o t e.—As of Ju n e 17 ,1964. B uyin g p er io d w ill b e ov er a p er io d of 4 y ea rs . O nly h av e 100 ab str acts ru n 

re ad y to c onta ct pe op le a n d o iler o pti on. F ro m C o u n ty C o u rt C le rk .
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965 49

D og woo d L od ge R eso r t, O w n er J am es B ec k an d W if e

TVA tract No. 4D N- I-L B- I.

Contract for purchase and sale of land called for a total price of $31,250.

The prop erty consists of seven resort cottages—pumphonse and storehouse all

were constructed in 1949. The property has 830 feet of frontage on a black top 

Highway Ky. 453; 7.95 acres of land all developed.

Facilities include 1%-inch copper w ater pipes as well as a piped gas system. 

Facilities include three State board of health approved sanitary facilities.

The cottages are constructed of sawed oak logs, planed on thre e sides. The 

interior is sheet rocked and some cottages have fireplaces and stone chimneys. 

TVA time of occupancy until 1966.

E d dyvil le , K y., Jun e 24, 1964:

This is to certify th at on several occasions TVA surveyors and personnel have 

trespassed on my prop erty after I have specifically asked them to stay off my land. 

I have removed TVA survey stakes from my prop erty and marking ribbons from 

trees. Con trary to TVA’s state ments to congressional committees and to newspapers th at only hard ship cases have been surveyed or where property owners ha ve 

requested TVA t o survey their property, they have deliberately trespassed.

H ol lo way T r a v is .

[From Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky ., Apr. 12, 1964]

TVA T h r ea ten s L ast N a tiv e T u r k e y F lo ck

(By Burt Monroe)

The Tennessee Valley Authority is headed for some bad public relations. Its 

approach in acquiring all priv ate properties between Kentuck y Lake and Lake 

Barkley in Lyon and Trigg Counties was tactless enough to arouse th e ire of many 

sportsmen and conservationists alike. As a result, these groups challenge some of 

the actions and statem ents of th e TVA spokesmen.

For example, its tre atm ent of the Kentuck y Woodlands National Wildlife 

Refuge leaves much to be desired. One of the most important factors in this 

State ’s game restoration programs has been this refuge. The area is primarily 

an integral unit in an inte rnational system of waterfowl refuges within the Mississippi flyway providing a feeding area and sanctuary for migratory waterfowl. 

It has been the focal point for th e waterfowl m anagement program with 20,000 to 

25,000 geese and 60,000 to 70,000 ducks using the refuge annually. The refuge is 

also managed for the production of white-tailed European fallow, and English red 

deer and wild turkeys.

When Lake Barkley is impounded, some wildlife habitat on the Ke ntucky Woodlands Refuge will be lost. The har des t hit will be the waterfowl when abo ut 

4,400 acres of refuge-owned, river bottom land is flooded. And it may be necessary 

to establish other similar areas along the shores of Lake Barkley to attrac t these 

geese and ducks.

With the impoundm ent, the unique fallow deer which prefers the wetter Cumberland River bottoms will be forced to higher ground. The same is true for the 

English red deer bu t there are those authorities who believe enough available 

acreage would be left in the refuge to ta ke care of the c urre nt needs of these herds 

as well as those of the native white-tailed deer.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has announced th at the U.S. Fish and VVildlife Service’s 65,000-acre refuge “is going out of business as such.” It has indicated th at the wildlife program would be greatly expanded thro ugh out the 173,000- 

acre recreation area bu t its method of doing so is far from convincing.

dep ortatio n pr ogram in vo lv ed

One part of the program involves trap pin g the presen t supply of wildlife and 

deporting it to Tennessee. Even if such a project was feasible (and th at is highly 

questionable), it certainly would be undesirable. It would mean the complete 

deportation of the last rem nant flock of Kentu cky ’s native wild turk ey. These 

famous gamebirds have been guarded religiously for more t han 80 years, not only
50 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

by game authorities but by private families as well. The Nickell family, pioneer 

residents of Grand Rivers, watched over them closely prior to 1912.

Not only would the region lose many valuable forms of wildlife but it would 

lose also the finely trained and skillful personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, together with all of their years of hard work, earnest efforts, and exceptional accomplishments.

The TVA states th at its plan for development of the area is a new concept for 

camping, nature studies, wildlife handling, and the like and th at “this won’t 

be one of those parks where the signs say don’t do this and don’t do that. It will 

be a spot where you can cut a tree if you need firewood, and pick a flower if you 

want to.”

Such a philosophy is not only a new concept but an extremely shocking and 

dangerous one. 'Phis giant tourist-drawing development is within 500 miles of 

70 million people and it is estim ated th at some 22,000 people will be camping 

overnight at prepared individual and group campsites and many more will be 

able to find ten t space at more primitive sites.

If this vast horde of humanity begins to “cut a tree for firewood or pick a flower,” 

not to mention the dead certainty tha t without restrictions of some sort such acts 

as breaking off redbud and dogwood limbs, pulling up shrubs, and a myriad other 

forms of vandalism are sure to follow, it wouldn’t be long before the contemplated recreation area would look as if it had been devasta ted by a severe plague 

of locusts.

In .June 1958, the League of Kentucky Sportsmen was intereste d enough in th e 

area “Between the Lakes” top ass a resolution regarding the handling and disposition of wildlife to be affected by the creation of Lake Barkley. It should now 

be interested enough to reappraise th at resolution in the light of what is happening 

today and to evaluate the situation before i t is too late.

W il d l if e R e f u g e T o B e T a k en Ov er

The Tennessee Valley Authority today said the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

66,000-kcre game refuge in the Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area "is 

going out of business as such,” but th at the wildlife program would be grea tly 

expanded by TVA throughout the 173,000-acre recreation area.

Paul Evans, Director of Inform ation for TVA at Knoxville, told the SunDemocrat th at “our plan will provide many more things in the way of wildlife 

than the refuge now h as.”

He said the wildlife refuge restricted to acreage in Lyon and Trigg Counties 

simply would be expanded to “blend into the entire are a?’

Evans said the present holding by the Fish and Wildlife Service is being done 

away with because it could n ot exist as such in the area being developed by TVA.

TO B E EX PA N D ED

“We feel th at our plan will a ctually expand it, on a much broader base,” he 

said. “We thin k the refuge idea is a fine th ing .”

Evans said game areas would be accessible only by trail but th at the wildlife 

will be “where people may see it.”

Plans, he said, allow far more wildlife facilities tha n the refuge—the National 

Woodlands Wildlife Refuge—now offers on its 65,000 acres.

Some areas will be shifted, he said. Feeding grounds for ducks and geese 

which are the keys to congregation of waterfowl in t he refuge area must be moved, 

for example, to Stew art County, Tenn.

This became necessary before TVA took over development of the huge recreation area between Barkley Lake and Kentuck y Lake, Evans pointed out. 

GROUNDS E L IM IN A TED

“ This became necessary,” said Evans, “after the Barkley Lake Reservoir 

eliminated choice feeding grounds in Kentucky .”

The visitor center-museum being built on the wildlife refuge ne ar the rem ains 

of old Center Furnace—a rem inder of the days when an iron ore industry flourished 

between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers in Kentucky and Tennessee—will 

be used by TVA, but also in its own way, said Evans.

Technical equipment already purchased for use in the center-museum will be 

shipped to Matt am uskett National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina. The
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 51

equipment includes thousands of dollars worth of audiovisual equipment, display 

cabinets, projectors, and a public address system.

TV A will pu t its own plan into operation at the center. Evans said the program would be elaborate.

“The visitor center-m useum will be even more useful than it would have been 

under the original plan ,” said Evans.

A ROU SE D IR E

Elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service and transfer of refuge personnel 

into other areas has aroused the ire of some between-the-rivers people at a time 

when there is widespread dissatisfaction over TVA’s plan for sweeping land 

acquisition for the area.

To be acquired is all of the privately owned land between the Barkley LakeKentucky Lake Canal and Highway 79 in Tennessee.

Wiped out as settleme nts will be Twin Lakes and Golden Pond in Kentucky 

and Model in Tennessee. The places have populations of abo ut 100 each, but 

Twin Lakes is a mushrooming lakeside development.

(It was reported reliably this week, however, th at the Golden Pond post office 

and another post office in the sprawling area will be main taine d for use by the 

throng of tourists and campers who are expected to use the area.)

Said one Lyon Countian who has been fighting the land acquisition:

“boiling mad”

“Residents of th e area between the rivers who are already boiling mad because 

TVA proposes to tak e over all of the priv ate property and move them out, are 

further enraged at TVA’s plan to also move the deer and turkey. Evid ently 

TVA is catering to the Tennessee politician by moving our deer and turkey and 

th e waterfowl down the re.”

The sources said the plan to “move the deer, turkey and thousands of waterfowl down there” was explained by TVA officials on a television program.

The last flock of wild turk ey in th e United S tates is the forebears of the present 

•wild turk ey population at Kentucky Woodlands National Wildlife Refuge.

The birds are native to the between-the-river area and have been protected 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which took over the area in 1938.

LA RG E D E E R POPU LA TIO N

Kentucky Woodlands also has one of the largest English fallow deer populations 

in the United States. The fallow deer first were placed in the area by Hillman 

Land & Iron Co. many years ago.

The large herds of Virginia white tail deer also are nativ e to the area. Uncontrolled hunting had reduced th e number of native deer to less tha n 100 prior to 

establishm ent of the refuge.

For m any years deer from Kentucky Woodlands have been trapp ed for stocking 

other refuges. A large herd of English stag or red deer is from the original stock 

of Kentucky Woodlands.

Hun ters also have complained about moving of the ducks and geese w ithin the 

refuge area to Tennessee.

M IS SIS SIP PI FL YW AY

As many as 30,000 Canadian geese and 80,000 ducks have wintered in the area 

in one season. Hem atite, Honker, and Empire Lakes are seeded with aquatic 

foods for feeding t he birds. The refuge is in the Mississippi flyway.

The museum to be vaca ted by the Fish and Wildlife Service will cost abo ut 

$100,000. The original plan called for display of historic items from the area. 

The building is veneered with aged brick from historic buildings in Lyon Cou nty— 

buildings which were torn down to make way for Barkley Reservoir.

Bricks are from LaClede Hotel and the William Kelly (inventor of what became known as the Bessemer process for steel) home in Eddyville, the Henry 

Lady home across the Cumberland from Eddyville and the home of Gov. Charles 

Anderson in Kuttawa.

Anderson founded Kuttawa.

TVA will spend $35 million on the recreation area. Already 50 men—mostly 

veterans—are at work star ting on the project.
52 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

The area is expected to rival the Great Smoky Mountains in drawing power— bringing some 5 million people a year to the carefully planned “wilderness” stretching from Barkley Lake, soon to be impounded, and Kentucky Lake.

D EV ELO PM EN T OF N A TIO N A L R EC R E A T IO N AREA

Mrs. Whitehead. We respectfully request tha t unless TVA agrees 

there is room for us to remain in our homes, th at the development of the national recreation area be taken away from TVA and placed in the hands of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Those agencies are eminently qualified to make such a development. They originated the project, did the original planning and command the respect and good will of the people in the area. They have been cognizant of the national and regional interest and at the same time showed respect for the welfare and interest of the local people and the county governmental units. We implore you on behalf of the hard-pressed people between the rivers to please be mindful of the grief and injustice which the heavy hand of Government can inflict. It should be the concern of every American when anywhere 

an American is treated unjustly.

N ation al P ar k Ser vi ce P ro po se d Plan

May I also submit a copy of the National Park Service proposed 

plan for this area, the planning begun in 1958. This plan was published in 1961.

Senator Hill. 1961?

Mrs. Whitehead. Yes.

Senator H ill. All right, we will put that in with the other material 

you have supplied for the record. SJ

(The TVA concept brochure has been retained in the subcommittee 

files.)

Mrs. Whitehead. This plan was generally acceptable to all of the 

people in the area.

Senator Hill. Is that the National Park Service of the Department 

of the Interior?

Mrs. Whitehead. Yes.

Senator Ellender. Has the TVA changed?

A C Q U IS IT IO N O F A D D IT IO N A L LAND

Mrs. Whitehead. Yes, sir. I assume tha t is the reason tha t our 

good Senator Cooper and Senator Morton and our Congressman were not aware tha t the extra land would be acquired because this plan has been discussed for years and they have known tha t the people were generally familiar with it and approved of it. We are sure 

that tha t is where the misunderstanding arose.

Thank you, sir, for the privilege of appearing.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

T ri-C ounty O r g an iz a tio n fo r C o n stit u t io n a l R ig h t

53

STATEMENT OF GEORGE BLEIDT, GOLDEN POND, KY.

Ac q u is it io n o f L an d B e t w e e n t h e L akes

Senator H ill. Mr. Ble idt.

Mr. Bleidt. Mr. Ch air ma n and mem bers of the com mittee , I am 

George Ble idt, secre tar y of the Tr i-C ou nty Org anization for Constitutio na l Right, which has concerned itself with opposin g the arbi tra ry 

decision of the Tennesse e V alley A utho rit y to acquire all priva te p roperty in the are a known as Betwee n the Lakes. I am a res ide nt and 

landowner in this are a and my home is in Golden Pond, Ky.

Senator H ill. Where is your home?

Mr. Ble idt. I t is over here on the map. My hom e is the re. I 

own lan d down here and I own lan d up in thi s are a here [indic ating]. 

I hav e a subdivi sion here, subdivi sion down here, which was la nd th at 

has been in my family for ab ou t a hu nd red years, so I am n ot a speculat or.

Senator E llen der. How man y acres hav e you altogeth er?

Mr. Bleidt. Sev enty -seven acre s in one tra ct , sixty-five acre s in 

anoth er prop erty. My wife and I have an oth er trac t of 200 some 

acres.

V ALUE O F LA ND

Senator E llender. From your knowledge of the lan d in th at area, 

do you think the TVA c ould buy it for $120 an acre?

Mr. Bleidt. Th ey won’t buy mine, sir, for th at . How ever, I 

may be at a disadvantag e because I hav e no reco urse in co urt before 

a ju ry according to the TVA law, bu t I will b attle it to the death before 

I will sell mv la nd for $120 an acre, an y of it, any whe re, anytime .

Senator H ill. W ha t are you?

Mr. Bleidt. I am the postm ast er.

Senator H ill. You have been appoint ed by the Sen ate?

Mr. Bleidt. Yes, sir; I sure hav e. I have been po stm aster 22 

years.

On June 14, 1963, t he announcem ent was made th at TVA h ad been 

given the responsibility for the develop me nt of the rec rea tion area.

At th at tim e there was little opposition to this decision, because 

TVA enjo yed the res pect and su pp ort of ma ny people in the area and 

it w as assu med th at special care would be tak en in their proceedin gs.

M E E T IN G B E T W E E N TVA R E P R E S E N T A T IV E A ND LO CA L O F F IC IA L S

Last Ju ly th e Cadiz -Tr igg Cou nty Ch am be r of C omm erce requested 

th at TVA send a rep resentati ve to me et with officials and citizens 

groups to discuss their plans. Mr. Wagner advised th at someone 

would be sen t. Now 11 mo nth s lat er, no me eting has been held.

Using TVA fig ures, th is a rea is 40 miles long by 8 miles wide—a to tal 

of appro xim ate ly 205,000 acre s. Using TVA figures of 103,000 acres 

in private ownership , this leaves at lea st 100,000 acre s un de r Fe deral 

ma nag em ent .
54 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

C A M PE R S

According to TVA estimates, the area will accommodate 20,000 

campers daily. This will provide each camper with 5 acres on which 

to pitch his tent or park his trailer, or double th at if private property 

is acquired.

TVA feels that leaving private homes and lands in the area will 

spoil its “natural, unique charm.”

LO SS F R O M TA X R O LLS

Trigg County has lost from its tax rolls since 1930, due to Federal 

acquisition, 97,412 acres of land. The acquisitions have been by 

TVA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior, 

Department of Defense, and Resettlement Administration.

Senator Hill. What was the activity of the Department of 

Defense?

Mr. Bleidt. Fort Campbell.

The average tax yield on privately owned acreage is 72 cents per 

acre. The average yield on federally owned land is 0.065 cents per 

acre. This project is n ot only costly from a U.S. taxpayer’s standpoint, it is costly in tha t 170,000 acres of land is to be irrevocably 

dedicated to nonproductivity. It has been estimated tha t $10 

million per year will be needed to operate the recreation area.

TVA U L T IM A T U M AND Q U E S T IO N IN G

One week after funds were granted, TVA issued the ultimatum 

tha t all privately owned property would be acquired. On the same 

day a representative of TVA began to call on residents of Golden 

Pond asking to be shown deeds and property lines.

The prime method of gaining information has been in insidious 

questioning of residents about their neighbors’ business affairs. We 

have also been alarmed at other highhanded methods used. Entry 

was made on much of the property, not only without the owner’s 

consent, but without affording him the courtesy of asking permission, 

and they are still doing that today.

The National Park Service, in its study, had agreed tha t private 

property left in the area would not be a hindrance to the successful 

operation of a recreation area. If this project is to be ultimately 

turned over to the Department of Interior, we know that it will be a 

total and direct violation of a commitment made to the people of 

Lyon and Trigg Counties by the Departm ent of Interior in 1957, and 

which is of record.

Senator Hill. What was tha t commitment?

Mrs. Whitehead. The commitment was in the replacement of lands 

for those lands furnished by Barkley Reservoir.

N O V IC E IN F IE L D O F R E C R E A T IO N

Mr. Bleidt. Since TVA is a novice in the field of recreation, we 

respectfully request tha t the appropriation of funds be restricted to 

the development of land already under their management. Our 

people and counties can ill afford to be the subject of an experiment of 

TVA for a purpose which is not vital.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 55

We are intensely interested in the welfare of our area, the regional 

and national interests; however, we feel tha t those interests can be 

magnificently served and still accommodate the destiny and happiness 

of the residents between the rivers.

We subscribe to the theory tha t this arrogant decision by TVA is 

nothing more than a land grab accomplished behind the cloak of the 

enabling act tha t denies property owners a trial by jury.

1 would like to show you the area we have discussed just a moment 

ago.

A R EA P U R C H A S E D BY S Y N D IC A T E S

Senator Ellender. Would you be able to point up the area that has 

been bought bv some syndicates, a lot of the land around there? Is 

that in this area here?

Mrs. Whitehead. Some of it is.

Mr. Powell. Some of tha t was last year.

Senator Ellender. Just a minute. All four of you are talking at 

one time.

Mr. Bleidt. They have not purchased any land between the lakes.

Senator Hill. Why?

Mrs. Whitehead. In Stewart County, Tenn. Also on the east 

bank. I would not call it a syndicate, the 80,000 acres. The 80,000 

acres is in several tracts or blocks. There is 4,191 acres in our county 

on the east side of Barkley Lake. There are 800-some acres in 

Trigg County on the east side of Barkley Lake. There is 57,000- 

some-hundred acres listed in Stewart County, Tenn.

Senator Ellender. How much of it is in between the lakes, any?

Mrs. Whitehead. Yes, sir. I cannot give you the exact acreage.

Senator Ellender. 86,000 acres?

Mrs. Whitehead. 80,000 acres. Some of it, sir, is south of Highway No. 79, but they are not the only large holders.

P U R P O S E O F LA N D P U R C H A S E

Senator E llender. Was tha t purchased for the purpose of developing oil?

Mrs. Whitehead. I have no idea, sir.

Senator Ellender. How long have they had it?

Mrs. Whitehead. Since July 1, 1963, according to the newspaper. 

Senator Hill. Is there any oil in there?

Mrs. Whitehead. I don’t know.

Judge Utley. I think not.

B U IL D IN G A CITY

Mr. Bleidt. We would like to retain this area right along here to 

here, an area tha t comes back here and an area right in here. V e 

have a syndicate in Illinois who would like to come here and build 

a city. We figure that this city that they would build would return 

to the county an assessed valuation of $5 to $10 million. We also 

say that this area left here an assessed valuation of $25 million.

Senator Ellender. What would those people do there?

Mr. Bleidt. This city here would be built, and they were figuring 

on bringing two industries there; one was an industry to manufacture posts, the other was to manufacture skis. They were planning
56 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

to use some timber. They were planning this city to take care of 

people who wanted to come there and live away from their jobs. 

We have about 1,200 people living in this area. I live there. I 

serve those people from my post office. If anybody knows how many 

people live there, I do.

LA N D V A L U E

Now, this price situation, this is a unique area, as they say, and 

they say tha t $120 would be their average. The first price they had 

was $150. It has come down $30 an acre in the last 2 months. Tha t 

was on the first appropriation, they figured out $150. The question 

in my mind is, If tha t is a unique area—and they say i t is, and it is 

not known, there is nothing in the world like i t—how in the world 

are they going to arrive at any fair price on the thing? They don’t 

have any more like it.

I say to you tha t if tha t land is going to bring an average of $120 

an acre, somebody is going to get about $20 an acre because they have 

purchased land in an area tha t has brought more than a thousand 

dollars an acre already.

There is only one other question I would like to present to you.

Senator H ill. All right, sir.

P R O P O S E D LA N D A C Q U IS IT IO N A ND D E V E L O P M E N T

Mr. Bleidt. TVA made the statement it would take 5 years to 

acquire this land, take 5 years to develop it, it would he 10 years. 

At the end of the 10 years, they have no need for it. What are we 

going to do with it? That is their statement. Who are we going to 

give th at to?

Senator E llender. You want to preserve that, raise a lot of 

turkeys and geese.

Mr. Powell. It is a lot of campsites, gentlemen.

Mr. Bleidt. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Senator H ill. The subcommittee and individual Senators have 

received several communications with reference to this subject which 

will be placed in the record at this point.

The Paducah Sun-Democrat,

Paducah, K y., July 3, 1964.

Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Hill: The Governor of Kentucky, Edward T. Breathitt, Jr., 

asked th at we make known to you his wholehearted supp ort of the Tennessee 

Valley Authority’s Between the Lakes National Recreation Area development.

Governor Breathitt felt th at the best expression of his views was sta ted in a 

story carried in this newspaper during the Governor’s visit here April 10, 1964.

A copy of tha t article is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Bill Powell, Executive News Editor.

[From The Paducah Sun-Democrat, Apr. 10, 1964]

Breathitt Is F ully Behind TVA P roposal

Gov. Edward T. Breathitt, in a statem ent to the Sun-Democrat today, threw 

the support of his administration behind development of th e Between the Lakes 

area as a national recreation area.

He urged TVA to give the landowners concerned in the 103,000-acre acquisition 

“complete consideration” in determ ining “eq uitable” prices for their land and
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 57

pledged th at S tate officials will work with the people in encouraging TVA autho rities to be “as hopeful to the people as is possible.”

Bre athitt noted th at b oth houses of the State legislature have approved resolutions in support of the project and said the Kentucky congressional delegation is 

on record as being for the program.

“The benefits we will receive in all w estern Kentuck y will be so great to all th e 

people we would be derelict in our duties if we did not support this pro ject,” 

he said.

The Governor was in the city for ribbon-cutting ceremonies this afternoon to 

dedicate the new Market House “Knotte Hole” gift shop to aiding the State 

economy. He also is scheduled to address the annu al Jackson-Jefferson Day 

dinner here tonight.

During a visit to the newspaper office, he said:

“ We must not lose sight of the fact th at full development of western Kentuck y 

would never have been possible w ithout TVA.

“I believe th at responsible officials of TVA should continue to meet and work 

with the landowners of the area Between the Lakes in order to acquire the land 

in the most equitable manner.

“One of the unfortu nate aspects of a ny public acquisition of land is the effect 

it has on the people of th e area.

“It is the responsibility of all government officials to do everything possible to 

assist these people by seeing t ha t they receive a fair price for their prop erty.

“I feel tha t complete consideration m ust be given the landowners in determ ining 

th at price.

“Their lives are inconvenienced certainly by the acquisition of the ir homes and 

their businesses. I want to assure the people of the area th at I will cooperate 

with them and I will encourage the TVA authorities to be as helpful to these 

people as is possible.

“I am directing all agencies of S tate government to assist the people in the area 

during this tran sition period.

“The benefits we will receive in all of western Kentuck y will be so great to all 

the people we would be derelict in our duties if we did not supp ort this project.”

Breathitt pointed out th at both the State senate and house of repre sentatives 

passed resolutions in support of the project. lie also noted th at Kentucky ’s 

congressional delegation is in support of the development of th e area.

Breathitt noted that real property value in Marshall County alone has increased 

10 times in the p ast decade, in large pa rt because of TVA’s Kentucky Dam.

“And certainly all other counties in western Kentucky have benefited.”

At 1:30 p.m. the Governor participated in ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the 

grand opening of the Market House gift shop. The shop will feature handmade 

prod ucts of Kentucky, especially those produced in the economically depressed 

Appalachian Mountains region.

The Governor was accompanied at th e dedication ceremony by Miss Katherine 

Peden, State commissioner of commerce.

The grand opening was preceded by a luncheon in the Governor’s honor given 

by the chamber of commerce an d civic beautification board a t the Cobb.

The shop will be managed by the junior woman’s club with proceeds going for 

various charities of the club.

Items to be placed on sale include pieces of furniture, and smaller items such 

as handwoven baskets, stoles, baby scarves, etc.

Many of th e articles are made by studen ts at Berea College.

Paducraft, local ceramics producer, also is a supplier of some of the merchandise.

Breathitt will come back to western Kentucky next Tuesday for a speech at 

the annual membership meeting of the Associated General Contractors of W estern 

Kentucky. The meetings will be held at Kentucky Dam Village P ark’s theate r 

building.

Statement by Hon. Edward T. Breathitt, Governor of the State

of Kentucky

Recreation Center in Land Between the Lakes

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcomm ittee: The Commonwealth of 

Kentucky is vita lly inte rested in the TVA proposal for establishing a national 

recreation area in the land between Ken tucky Lake and Barkley Lake and I
58 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

would like to put my administration on record as endorsing strongly the action 

of TVA in this operation and as urging an appropriation th at will enable it to 

proceed with all possible speed in making thi s area a reality.

It is my belief th at this national recreation area will draw visitors from throughout America. Because of its central location it will be of special benefit to the 

eastern two-thirds of the N ation, a large pa rt of which is less tha n a d av’s driving 

distance from the two lakes.

As our Nation grows within the next few years and as th e recreation time and 

the recreation money of our people increase, space for recreation is going to be 

a crying need. The Between the Lakes recreation area not only offers vast acreage 

for outdoors lovers and for those who prefer to vacation away from the trappings 

of civilization, it offers it at a convenient place for most Americans.

Ease of tr ave l to the area has been increased greatly during the last few years 

by highway improvements in th e western part of K entucky and it will be increased 

even more under plans now being made.

Last year Kentucky opened the Western Kentucky Parkway—a 127-mile 

superhighway from Elizabethtown to Princeton. The parkw ay, which ties into 

the Kentucky Turnpike at Elizabethtown, is another link in a system that will 

make it possible to travel the entire length of Kentucky on modern, safe, highspeed highways within a short while.

Next year the Central Kentucky Parkway, a 76-mile link between Eliza bethtown and the Versailles-Lexington area will be opened. This parkway will be 

linked to eastern Kentucky by the Intersta te System and by the Moun tain 

Parkw ay, a turnpike that provides fast, easy transportatio n into the Appalachian 

area of Kentucky.

Less th an a week ago the Kentucky Turnpike Commission voted to study the 

feasibility of a toll road in far western Kentucky that will run from the Western 

Kentucky Parkway at its present terminus near Princeton to the Tennessee line 

near Fulton.

This highway would greatly ease travel from the Memphis area into the lake 

region and it would provide easy access from the entire Southwest once a new 

bridge across the Mississippi n orth of Memphis is opened as a pa rt of the Inter ­

sta te System.

I would like to point out th at the turnpikes I have mentioned: the Western 

Kentucky Parkw ay, the Kentucky Turnpike, the Central Kentucky Parkway, the 

Mountain Parkway and the proposed turnpike through the Jackson Purchase 

area of Kentucky are entirely State projects—no Federal money has been used 

in them and they are dependent on tolls paid by users to retire the bonds that 

paid for them.

The State has made other investments in the area around Kentucky Lake and 

Barkley Lake and is prepared to invest even further. Kentucky has three State 

parks on Kentucky Lake, where recreation facilities of a high type are maintained 

and a major p ark costing well in excess of a million dollars is planned for Barkley 

Lake.

I believe that this is evidence th at Kentucky has no idea of leaving the entire 

job of providing recreational space up to the Federal Government.

An orderly approach to utilizing the area around Barkley Lake is planned by 

the State of Kentucky working with TVA and the recreation area immediately 

west of the lake is an integral pa rt of this plan. Other sections of the lan d around 

the lake will be zoned for priv ate ownership and for indu stry under a zoning 

program which is shortly to get underway.

The TVA has done a commendable job in western Kentucky and it is my 

sincere belief that it will do an equally outstanding job in developing the Between 

the Lakes area. I confidently predict th at if TVA is given the means to proceed 

we will shortly have a vacation and recreation spot in which all Americans will 

be intere sted and in which all America will take pride.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 59

R esolu tio n in Sen a te of Leg is la tu r e of t h e Sta te of K en tu ck y R el ati ng

to N ati ona l R ec r ea tio n A rea B e t w e e n t h e L a kes

I n Sen a te R eg u la r Se s s io n , 1964 

S en a te R es olu ti on N o. 33—M ond ay, M ar ch 2, 1964

Senator Tom Ga rre tt introduced the following resolution, which was’ ordered 

to be printed.

A R ES OL UT ION requesting and petitioning the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Governors of Ken ­ tucky and Tennessee to proceed with the esta blishment of a national recreational area Between the Lakes.

Whereas t he President of the United States has announced th at the Tennessee 

Valley Authority will develop a natio nal recreation area in the 170,000 acre area 

between Kentucky Lake and Barkley Lake, two-thirds of the land being in 

Kentucky and th e remainder in Tennessee; and

Whereas much of the area is already owned by the Federal Government; and

Whereas the Tennessee Valley Authority has indicated an expenditure of 

approximately thirty-five million dollars during the next five years on development 

of the area; and

Whereas it has been indicated by the National Park Service and Bureau of 

Outdoor Recreation th at development of this area would provide one of the finest 

internal recreation areas in the United States; and

Whereas development of the project will demonstrate how an area with limited 

timber, agricultural, and indu strial resources can be converted into an asset th at 

will stim ulate economic growth of the region and provide for the prosperity of th e 

inhabitants therein,

Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of

Kentucky:

Sectio n 1. Th at the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Governors of Kentucky and Tennessee are hereby urged to proceed immediately with all actions 

necessary to assure development of this area as a natio nal recreation area as 

directed by the President of the United States.

Sectio n 2. The clerk of the Senate of the GeneraL’Assembly is directed to transmit copies of this resolution to th e Tennessee Valley A utho rity and the Governors 

of K entuck y and Tennessee.

T eleg ram s R el atin g to L an d B e t w e e n t h e L a k es P r o je c t

P aducah, K y., Ju ly 6, 1964. Senator Lis t e r H il l ,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

We request your earn est consideration for support of the Between the Lakes 

Park appropriation bill as supp orted by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

W alt er B . B r o w n ,

President, Local 3550, Oil Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union.

Hon. P aducah, K y., July 6, 1964. L is ter H il l,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

res olu ti on

"Whereas the program for development of the Between the Lakes area as 

announced by Tennessee Valley Authority is being atta cke d by certain individuals and groups who purpo rt to speak on behalf of "citiz ens” organized for 

various purposes, etc.; and

"Whereas such opposing individuals and groups and the purposes by which 

they are motivated do not represent the interests and will of the vast majo rity 

of the people of western Kentucky; and

"Whereas such facts should be communicated to the appropriate interested 

individuals, bodies, and agencies: Now be it

“Resolved by the Paducah-MeCracken Development Council, Inc., as follows:

"1. The program for development of the Between the Lakes project should 

proceed according to the plan announced by Tennessee Valley Authority;
60 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

“2. The entire area should be owned or controlled by TVA and developed 

exclusively by it; “3. While the council champions private enterprise and development on 

private property it is believed th at such independ ent development within the confines of the Between the Lakes area would not be in keeping with the spirit and purpose for which this vast public project was originally conceived and 

designed; “4. Tennessee Valley Authority and/or other appropriate Government agencies should make every effort to deal fairly and justly and to adequ ately and justly compensate owners whose prop erty is taken for this project and to assure th at they get all assistance and benefits authorized or permitted by law; “5. This resolution shall be forwarded to appropriate persons and agencies 

and widely publicized.” The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Paducah-McCracken Development Council on the 6th day of July 1964. Ralph “P ete” Watson,

Executive Director.

H opkinsville, K t., July S, 1964-

Hon. Lister Hill,

U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.’.

Strongly urge your supp ort of inclusion of bill Between the Lakes acreage in the TVA budget. This land necessary if the project is to provide its full pote ntial without distracting influences of joints and motels.F. E rnest Lackey, Mayor.

Paducah, Ky., July 8, 1964.

Hon. Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.’.

The members of the E lectric Plant Board of th e City of Paducah, Ky., wish to notify you that the y collectively and individually favor the development of the Between the Lakes area by TVA, in its entirety as originally planned, and urge your supp ort in thi s to afford the fullest development of western Kentucky.

Leon T. Searles,

Chairman.

E rnest Mitchell.

J erome Harris.

J ohn Oemlschlaeger. 

R aleigh Brockman.

Harris Funeral Home, 

Paducah Ky., July 8, 1964.

Hon. Lister H ill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.’.

I respectfully urge your supp ort for the fullest development of the Between the Lakes area by TVA in its e ntirety as originally planned.

H. Jerome Harris.

Paducah, K y., July 8, 1964.

Hon. Lister H ill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your support for the fullest development of the Between the Lakes area by TVA in its entirety as originally planned.

Lloyd C. Emery, Attorney.

Mitchell Machine Shop,

Paducah, Ky., July 8, 1964-

Hon. Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.’.

I respectfully urge your support for the fullest development of the Between the Lakes area by TVA in its entirety as originally planned.

Ernest P. Mitchell.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 61

Paducah Power System, 

Paducah, Ky., Ju ly 8, 1964. Hon. Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your support for the fullest development of the Between

the Lakes area by TVA in its entire ty as originally planned.

Arthur P. Brazelton, General Manager.

Hopkinsville, Ky., July 3, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Your efforts to save Land Between the Lakes TVA project are appreciated. If

we can be of help to you in gathering any inform ation please call on us. Your 

continued support urged.

Hopkinsville Chamber of Commerce, 

W. W. Bryan, Executive Secretary.

Benton, Ky., July 3, 1964. Hon. Lister Hill,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Ninety perc ent of people in Marshall County support TVA acquisition of 

Between Lakes Area as planned.

J ohn Rayburn, County Judge, Marshall County.

Murray, Ky., July 3, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

The city of Murray has a vital interest in the complete and speedy development

of th e Land Between the Lakes. Our economy has become depende nt upon the 

tourist business. A stoppage of this project will do damage beyond repair. We 

urge you and your committee to give full sup port to this project. All bu t a few 

are in favor of this vital development.

Holmes Ellis, Mayor.

Murray, Ky., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

As a lifelong resident of west Kentuck y I strongly urge the development of the

Between the Lakes Recreation Area. The imp act of TVA on this section of 

America has been great. We feel that the proposed project will be of even greater 

importance. The grea t majo rity of the people in this area are excited about the 

project. Any opposition is localized and is selfishly motivate d.

Wilson Gantt.

Mayfield Messenger, 

Mayfield, Ky., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Strongly solicit your support of bill financing Between the’ Lakes Recreation

Area. Loss of project would be tremendous blow to area.

J ess G. Anderson, Editor.

Paducah, K y., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Marshall County, Kv., favors appropriation for purchase of land by TVA for

recreational area in western Kentuck y and west Tennessee.

W. J. Brien, Jr., 

Clerk, Marshall County Court.
62 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Murray State College,

Murray, Ky., Ju ly 2, 1964.

Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

No doubt the development of the area between Kentuck y Lake and Barkley 

Lake will improve the economy of the en tire Southland. This will afford millions 

of people in mid-America recreational adva ntages. We cannot afford t o let pressure or minority groups hinder progress in this area.

Charles L. Eldridge, 

Director of Field Services.

Paris-Henry County Chamber of Commerce,

Paris, Tenn., July 2, 1964.

Sen ator ^Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Development of the L and Between the Lakes project is vital t o our full community development in furthering our tourist business. We urge jyour full support of this project.

James Huffman, President.

Murray, Ky., July 2, 1964.

Hon. Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Failure to appropriate funds for Land Between Lakes development will be

serious economic catastrophe. Respectfully urge favorable support for worthwhile project.

It. H. Woods,

President, Murray State College.

Murray, Ky., July 2, 1964.

Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

It has been called to my atte ntion th at an att em pt is being made to cut down 

the national recreation area between Kentucky and Barkley Lakes. We feel 

th at this would be detrimen tal to this area and the entire Nation. The recreational area is within a day ’s drive of half the population of the United States. 

We hope you will do the best you can for us in this area and the entire Nation. 

Best regards.

Hiram Tucker.

Paducah,’ Ky., July 2, 1964.

U.S. Senator Lister Hill,

Washington, D.C.:

Please support TVA fund appropriation for Between the’ Lakes Wilderness 

Park as planned. M

Gabe McCandless,

County Court Clerk, Livington County, Ky.

Paducah, K r .’ July 2, 1964.

Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I strongly urge continuance of the TVA’s program for development of the 

land Between the Lakes W’ilderness Area as presently planned by TVA. It 

would be a shame to allow commercial activities to remain in the park area and 

most of the criticism of th e TVA’S plan has come from speculators who hope to 

become rich at the taxpayers’ expense. For the interest of future generations 

the entir e area between the lakes should be developed for public use only.

E. J. Paxton, Jr.,

Editor, the Paducah S un Democrat.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 63

Paducah, Kt., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Urge your supp ort of TVA appropriation for development Between the Lakes

Recreation Area. Failure to gain approval of funds for continued development 

would be a serious blow to western Kentucky and the Nation as a whole.

William Edmonds,

County Judge, Christian County.

Murray, Kt., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Consider the development national recreation center between Kentucky and

Barkley Lakes essential to the welfare of the people of the United States.

H. Glenn Doran,

President, Peoples Bank of Murray.

Mayfield, Ky., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We respectfully urge th at you do all within your power to facilitate the Land

Between the Lakes project.

J oe Wood,

Executive Vice President,

Mayfield, Graves County Chamber of Commerce.

Mayfield, Ky., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We respectfully urge th at you do all within your power to facilitate the Land

Between the Lakes project.

J ohn Edd Walker,

Manager, West K entucky Rural Electric Co-op Corp.

Murray, Ky., Ju ly 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We hope th at you can support the appropriation for TVA for the Between

the Lakes area.

George P art, 

President, Bank of Murray.

Murray, Ky., Ju ly 2, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Strongly urge you to support app ropriation for Land Between Lakes for

recreation and wildlife area.

P. W. Ordway.

Murray, Ky., July 2, 1964. Senator Lister H ill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The full development of the Land Between the Lakes project is urgently needed

by this entire area. Of course some will suffer some inconvenience by relocation, 

bu t the advantages to the entire State cannot be placed beneath the selfish 

motives of a few who desire grea t profits. The help of your committee is vitally

35 -3 81 — 64------5
64 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

important at this point. We urge you to fully restore th e requested a ppro priation 

as soon as possible.

W est K en tu ck y P r o d u c tio n s, I nc., 

M a x B. H u r t, President.

M u rray, K y., July 2, 1964-

H o n . Lis t e r H il l ,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We urge you to provide all assistance to the TVA appropriations bill. The Land Between the Lakes proposal is absolutely vital to this community. Please do not bow to the wishes and half-truth as advanced by the handful of objectors who have opposed everything progressive. We are pulling ourselves from a depressed area to a stable economy, based largely upon the travel trade. We 

will appreciate your helping us.

M u rray C h am ber o f C o m m er c e,

J am es L. J o h n so n, Executive Secretary.

M urray, K y., July 2, 1964.

Senator Lis t e r H il l,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The complete development of the Land Between the Lakes will mean much 

to America. Selfish interests should not be permitted to cripple or destroy this 

project.

M urr ay Sta te C o l l e g e,

M. O. W r a t h e r, Public Relations.

Sta te Au to m o b il e M u tu a l I n su r a n c e C o .,

Princeton, Ky., Jun e 27, 1964-

Re Land Between the Lakes, western Kentucky .

Hon. L is t e r H il l ,

Senator from Alabama, Washington, D.C.

D ea r Sen a to r H il l : I am Kelsey Cummins, former mayor of Prin ceto n, Ky., 

who during his administration helped inaugurate the proposed recreational area between Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. I have a small cabin in this area which is used by our four families a nd which affords much pleasure to us during the summer months. However individual rights must yield to public righ ts and 

thu s I helped promote the program. For 4 years I supervised schools in the area. They are all gone now. I know 

the physical setup. Most of the land is hilly, some barren, and will not ever “sp rout peas.” During prohibition days it was a rendezvous for moonshiners 

and bootleggers. However the scattered population is a fine people. Only yesterday I went through its entire length of the subject area and was agreeably surprised to find th at the recreational program was acceptable to most of the natives. I also found that very few of them approved of the dissension th at is led largely by Judge Utley and Mrs. Korine Whitehead, whose motives 

many question. This lett er is writte n to you following a report by Robert Riggs, from Washington, th at a hearing was held with your subcomm ittee yesterday and th at you perhaps were concerned about the project. Since we are on wheels and recreationally inclined we are interested in the de­ velopment of the subject prop erty. We feel th at because of its location and its proximity to the heart of America th at millions of visitors w ill be brought our wav 

yearly and consequently a boosted economy.

Sincerely yours,

K elsey C um m in s.

P.S. Gene Williamson, my personal friend, and w’ho is chairman of the Prince­ ton Electric TVA Pla nt Board tells me th at there is only one Liste r Hill, I am 

thusly writing you this letter.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 65

Kentucky New Era, 

Hopkinsville, Ky., July 3, 1964. Senator Lister H ill,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Hill: Inform ation reaching us is th at the Land Between the 

Lakes recreation project between Kentucky and Barkley Lakes is in serious 

danger of being sabotaged.

As a public official with your experience m ust know, it is possible for a vociferous 

mino rity opposing any project to make more noise tha n a numerically greater 

force favoring the same program. This seems to be happening in the Land Between the Lakes situation.

Only 1 perc ent of the people in the First Congressional Distric t of Kentucky 

live in the proposed area to be taken over by the Government. It is doubtful 

if many of these would be h urt to an y great extent, since marginal land would have 

more value as a n ational park t han it could ever have under present use.

The project would offer gre at benefit to other residents of west Kentuck y and 

west Tennessee.

Chief opposition to the projec t appears to be coming from speculators who have 

boug ht up land in the area between the lakes in the hope of making big financial 

killings. We fail to see how their quick-profit ideas can be allowed to jeopardize 

a p roject with such a terrific potential.

The loss would be an economic blow to an area th at sorely needs development, 

for the park would create a tourist industry that would be the biggest west of 

Louisville. If the handful of land speculators have their way, the area will be 

ruined by cheap commercial joints and tou rist courts.

The Nation needs your support to make this project a reality.

Sincerely yours,

A. Walker Wood, Copublisher.

Office of County J udge, Lyon County,

Eddyville, Ky., July 1, 1964. Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Hill: On behalf of Mrs. Whitehead, Mr. l’owell, Mr. Bleidt, 

and myself, I want to thank you and each member of the subcommittee for your 

patience, courtesy, and understa nding in permitting us to appear in opposition 

to the proposed TVA campsite acquisition.

To boil this down to the issue, on one side you have from 3,000 to 5,000 people 

who reside in the area who would be forced to seek residence elsewhere against 

their will. Property is not available in the area, for since this acquisition has 

been proposed speculators have optioned or purchased all available property 

in the area hoping to sell to these displaced persons at a greatly accelerated price. 

This acquisition also upsets th e fiscal policy of mine and other counties by removing thousands of acres of taxable land and other properties from the tax rolls.

The other side of the picture is w hat we thin k is a wild dream on the pa rt of 

Chairman Wagner and TVA to acquire an additional 100,000 acres of campsites. 

The cost of this would be excessive and the upkeep would be more excessive. 

Mr. Robert Howes, the project manager, in the atta che d newspaper story says 

th at the TVA is no t in the recreational business and admits tha t it is experimental 

and might take 16 years to develop. Chairman Wagner testifies th at this land 

could be acquired a t an average cost of $120 an acre. The record shows tha t the 

first 40 tracts consisting of a total of less tha n 100 acres purchased in Lyon County 

by TVA cost $344,700. On one side you have Government economy and on the 

other side you have Government extravag ance for experimental purposes. Chairman Wagner himself has stated that in the destruction of countless churches, 

schools, and businesses, it is his view in a quoted newspaper statem ent th at 

churches, schools, and businesses must give way to the greater need. It is 

inconceivable th at there is greate r need in our civilization than churches, schools, 

and businesses.

We think this sums up minutely his general philosophy, and we hope you 

share our views in the matter. The hearings before your subcommittee and 

particularly Senator Ellender’s comments are very timely. Presently, there 

are in excess of 30 States and National parks available in Kentucky for camping
66 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

purposes, which does n ot include hundreds of commercial campsites; nor does this include approximately 100,000 acres in the area involved and under control of the TVA in the immediate area between Kentuck y and Barkley Lakes. These are the unrefuted facts involved in this proposed appropriation. We rest our case on your sense of good judgment and fairness, and we are sure that you will base your final decision on what you consider best for the people involved 

and the economy of our State and Nation.

Very sincerely, Francis W. Utley,

County Judg e of Lyon County.

Kuttawa, K y., Ju ne SO, 1964.

Hon. Lister Hill,

Senate Office B uild ing, Wash ington, D.C.

Dear Senator Hill: I deeply appreciated the opp ortu nity to appear before the TVA-AEC Subcommittee on Appropriations the 26th. In behalf of the people between the rivers may I thank you for your patience, your understand­ ing. and cooperation in allowing us to present our side of the story with respect 

to TVA’s recreation area. We sincerely tru st th at TVA will be restricted in their objective of acquiring 

all privately owned lands between the rivers.

With kindest regards and best wishes.

Sincerely, Corinne Whitehead.

T he Tribune-Democrat,

Benton, Ky ., Ju ly 6, 1964,

Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office B uild ing, Washington, D.C.

Dear Honorable Sir : It seems somewhat alarming to notice the continued publicity being given the actions of a small organized group seeking to block the development of the Land Between the Lakes area. Of course, it is a known fact, at least in our area, that this is entirely a selfish interest. The majority of Marshall County, the site of Kentucky Lake, feel t ha t it will be a horrible mistake to even hinder the TVA development of this vast section of land. Geographically, this area is so centrally located th at it is within a day’s driving distance of something near a hundred million people who could enjoy something even better than this section has to offer. Being so nearby, and almost neighbors, it seems th at those people could see the advantages that TV A develop­ ment could bring along with the progress and revenue that will flow into th at 

part of the country.

Very truly yours. William Nelson.

Benton Rotary Club,

Benton, Ky ., Ju ly 6, 1964-

Senator Lister Hill,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Hill: Being somewhat concerned at the continued publicity being given to the action s of a small organized group seeking, for reasons of their own, to torpedo the grand concept of a National Between the Lakes Recre­ ational Area between Kentucky and Barkley Lakes, our members at our regular meeting held Friday, July 3, 1964, in Benton, Ky., unanimously voted in favor of the TVA concept for this area and instructed the writer to respectfully convey 

their sentiments to you. We feel it would be a grave disservice to the taxpayers of the entire Nation (whose tax money created these lakes) and to the 80 million Americans living within a 1-dav auto trip from this area, if narrow, selfish interests were permitted to obstruct or defeat the orderly development of the Land Between the Lakes 

as proposed by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Respectfully yours, F. E. Richards, Secretary.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 67

U.S. Senate, Ju ly 6, 1964.

Hon. Lister Hill,

Chairman, Subcommittee on AE C and TV A,

Committee on Appropriations,

New Senate Office Building.

Dear Senator Hill: Since th e hearing of June 26 before the Appropriations 

Subcommittee for TVA and AEC, on the fiscal 1965 TVA budget requests, I have 

received a number of communications from individuals and organizations favoring 

the Between the Lakes project. Mr. E. J. Paxton, Jr., editor of the Paducah Sun 

Democrat at Paducah, and Mr. A. Walker Wood, publisher of the Kentuck y New 

Era at Hopkinsville, have also written to state again their supp ort of th e project 

planned by TVA.

I am atta ching some of the brief communications received, and I would appreciate it if the subcommittee will include them in the appendix of the printed record 

of testimony.

With kind regards, I am,

Sincerely,

J ohn Sherman Cooper.

[June 29,1964]

Land Between the Lakes—TVA To Test Recreation Concepts

(Some residents of Lyon and Trigg Counties, Kv., are fighting the Tennessee 

Valley Authority ’s plan to buy their property for Land Between the Lakes. 

This story sums up TVA’s goals for the project.)

(Copyrighted New York Times)

Golden Pond, Ky.—A 170,000-acre Federal laboratory testing new concepts 

in outdoor recreation is being developed bv the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

(The Government owns 70,000 acres and TVA plans to buy the other 100,000.)

TVA’s object is to open the outdoors to groups not served, or poorly served, by 

organized camps and to demonstrate how recreation and education can be effected 

at th e same time.

The Autho rity expects completion in abo ut 5 years. The area would be th e first 

national park created expressly for recreation. Other parks, primarily for preservation or conservation, cater to tourists only as they fit in with the prima ry aim.

The new park, called Land Between the Lakes, would be a 38-mile-long and 

6- to 8-mile-wide peninsula of rolling woodlands, open valleys, and cove-studded 

shoreline on the western Kentucky and Tennessee border.

It is bounded by Kentucky Lake on the Tennessee River and the soon to be 

completed Lake Barkley on the Cumberland.

FACILITIES FOR 20,000

Officials estimate that its facilities for 20,000 family campers and 2,000 group 

campers would be available to 70 million people living within a 500-mile radius— 

or a day’s drive away.

The area of grea test innovation would be with group camping.

“Our ideas on new facilities,” Roger M. Howes, project manager, said in a 

recen t interview, “include ada ptin g camping to specific groups—and, in some 

instances, providing them with facilities, programs, and direction.”

In addition to Boy and Girl Scouts and other outdoor-oriented organizations, 

the special groups being considered include the elderly, school dropouts, delinquent youths, the handicapped, mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed 

children, and young diabetics.

“No one group would have exclusive use of the facilities,” Howes said. “The 

object would be for local chapters or paren t national organizations to come here 

and learn. And if the program works, the y can decide whether they wan t to 

build their own camps on the basis of their experience here.”

The group campsites will be constructed for use on a year-round basis.

In his remarks to the Board of the TVA, Milton A. Gabrielson, director of 

recreation and camping education at New York University, who is planning 

consultant on the Land Between the Lakes project, observed:

“I t is in school camping th at the project may best exten d its program into 

year-round use. Literally thousand s of schoolchildren could utilize the facilities
68 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

for enrichm ent of their education. Schools both locally and as far away as Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, and St. Louis could be served.

D IR EC T E X P E R IE N C E

“Here,” he continued, “the stud ents would have the opportu nity for dire ct 

learning experiences in na ture’s own classroom.”

Innovation would not be limited to group camping, however. New facilities 

and new material for standard equipment will be tested in the family camp area.

There would be accomm odations for trailer camping and added frills such as 

electric outlets and showers.

Primitive campsites would also be available.

For all, there would be controlled hun ts of geese, duck, deer, and tur key; 

hiking, horseback riding, nature studies, fishing, swimming, boating, and water 

skiing.

it’s experiment

“The TVA is not in the recreation business,” Howes said. “This is an experiment in outdoor recreation utilizing natural resources. It is a demonstration 

project th at may take , including the 5-ycar construction period, 10 years to 

complete, maybe 8 or 12 or 16.

“At the end of the demonstration period,” he went on, “Kentu cky and Tennessee might, set up an inte rstate agency to operate the park, or it might go to 

the National Park Service, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Bureau, or the Tennessee Valley Authority Act might be amended, putting us more actively in 

recreation.”

TVA economists estim ate th at Land Between the Lakes, which would cost 

abo ut $35 million, would generate $25 million in private investme nt and create 

as many as 1,500 new jobs.

Greater Paducah Industrial Development Association,

Paducah, K y., July 6, 1964.

Senator J ohn Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

“Be it resolved by the Greater Paducah Industrial Association Jnc., consisting

of 360 individuals and business stockholders, Th at (1) this organization which is 

dedicated to the promotion of industrial growth in this area ask your support in 

the effort of the TVA to develop the Between the Lakes Recreational Area in 

its entirety as now planned; (2) We know recreational facilities are imp ortant 

to industrial growth, therefore our organization supports the TVA in this development in this area .”

R. E. F airhurst, President.

IBEW, Local 816, 

Paducah, Ky., July 6, 1964.

Senator J ohn Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Urge your support and influence for th e development of the Land Between the 

Lakes as planned by TVA.

John W. Gilliam, Business Manager.

P aducah, Ivy., July, 3,1964.

Senator John Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The mayor and city commissioners wholeheartedly sup por t the TVA-proposed 

recreation area between Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. We strongly urge 

you r support of the project.

Tom Wilson, Mayor.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 69

City of Hopkinsville, 

Hopkinsville, Ky ., July 3, 1964.

Hon. John Sherman Cooper,

U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.: .

Strongly urge your support of inclusion of bill Between the Lakes acreage in the

TV A budget. This land necessary if the project is to provide its full pote ntials 

without distracting influence of joints a nd motels.

F. Ernest Lackey, Mayor.

Paducah, K y., July 2, 1964.

Senator J ohn Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Urge your suppor t of TV A appropriation for development of Between the 

Lakes Recreation Area. Failure to gain approval of funds for contin ued developm ent would be a serious blow to western Kentucky and the Nation as a whole.

William Edmund,

County Judge, Christian County.

Murray, K y., July 2, 1964.

Hon. J ohn Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Hope you will use all your influence to see th at appropriation is not cut for 

development of the Between the Lakes Natio nal Recreation Area of west

Ken tuck y. _

Buford Hurt.

Murray, Ky., July 6, 1964.

Hon. J ohn Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

We urge th at you give full support to the Land Between the Lakes proposal. 

This project is absolutely vital to the full and complete development of this area. 

Any slowdown now could mean a loss of this great asset to the Nation. We are 

counting on you to implement it in every way.

Don Keller.

Donald Robinson. 

Ed Fenton.

E. W. Riley. 

Preston Perry.

Paducah, K y., July 2, 1964.

U.S. Senator J ohn Sherman Cooper,

Washington, D.C.:

Please support TVA fund appropriation for Between the Lakes Wildness Park 

as planned.

Gabe McCandless,

County Court Clerk, Livingston County, Ky.

Murray, Ky., July 2, 1964.

Senator J ohn S. Cooper,

U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We hope th at you can support the appropriation for TVA for the Between the 

Lakes area.

George Hart, 

President, Bank of Murray.
70 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

P ad uca h, K t ., Ju ly 2, 1964.

J ohn Sher m an C o o per,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.:

Employees of G. & O. Rexall Drugs and the Apothecary Shop urge you to do 

your utmost to make the Between the Lakes area available for recreation purposes. It will mean a great deal to us of Apothecary Shop.

J ohn II. Oeh la c h la eo er. 

R o bert H. G r e e n .

P ad uca h, K y., July 2, 1964.

Senator J ohn Sh er m an C o o per,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The entire Nation will enjoy the Between the Lakes Park. We strongly support 

TVA’s efforts to acquire and develop all lands within the area free from islands of 

commercialism. We ask th at you help prevent selfish interest from destroying 

this great opportu nity for Kentucky.

Cly de B oyles .

L anel le B oyles . 

B eu la h F utr el l.

F in is P h elps.

N ettie G il l is p ie . 

N an cy F u tr en n . 

P atr ic ia T r ev a r th e.

P adu ca h, K y., July 2, 1964.

J oh n S her m an C o o per,

Washington, D.C.:

For continued growth and support of western Kentucky area appreciate any 

supp ort can give TVA project Between the Lakes. This appears greates t recreational program in our Nation at the present.

L a w r en c e Alb rit to n,

President, Paducah Association of Retail Druggists.

M a y fie l d , K y., July 2, 1964.

Senator J oh n S. C o o per,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Strongly solicit your support of bill financing Between the Lakes Recreation 

Area. Loss of project would be tremendous blow to area.

J ess G. A n d er so n,

Editor, Mayfield Messenger.

P aducah, K y., July 2, 1964.

Senator S h er m an C o o per,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We are in full s upport of the TVA developm ent of the Land Between the Lakes 

National Recreation Area in accordance with TVA’s proposal and encourage full 

support for the development of the p ark.

P aduca h R e t a il M er ch a nts Asso c ia tio n,

_ T „ P aducah, K y., July 6, 1964. Senator J ohn S h er m an C o o per,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We request your earnest consideration for support of the Between the Lakes 

park appropriation bill as supported by the Tennessee Valley A utho rity.

. # Wa lter B. Br o w n ,

President, Local 3550, Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 71

P aducah, Kt., Ju ly 6, 1964- Hon. J ohn S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

“resolution

“Whereas the program for development of the Between the Lakes area as 

announced by Tennessee Valley Auth ority is being attack ed by certain individuals and groups who purpo rt to speak on behalf of ‘citizens’ organized for 

various purposes, etc., and

“Whereas such opposing individuals and groups and the purposes by which 

they are motivated do not represent the interests and will of the vast majority 

of the people of western Kentucky, and

“ Whereas such facts should be communicated to the appropriate interested 

individuals, bodies, and agencies, now

“Be it resolved by the Paaucah-McCracken Development Council, Inc., as follows:

“ 1. The program for development of the Between the Lakes project should 

proceed according to the plan announced by Tennessee Valley Authority;

“2. The entire area should be owned or controlled by TV A and developed 

exclusively by it;

“3. While the council champions private enterprise and development on private property, it is believed that such independ ent development within the confines of the Between the Lakes area would no t be in keeping with the spirit and 

purpose for which this vast public project was originally conceived and designed;

“4. Tennessee Valley Authority and /or other appropriate Government agencies should make every effort to deal fairly and justly and to adeq uately and 

justly compensate owners whose p roperty is taken for this project and to assure 

th at they get all assistance and benefits authorize d or perm itted by law;

“5. This resolution shall be forwarded to appropriate persons and agencies 

and widely publicized.”

The foregoing resolution was adopted by th e P aducah-McCracken Development 

Council on the 6th day of July 1964.

R alph “P ete” Watson,

Executive Director.

Murray, Ky., June SO, 1964. Hon. F rank A. Stubblefield,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The M urra y Cham ber of Commerce adop ted the following resolution in Janua ry 

relative to the Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area and wish to make the 

following recommendations: 1. The Murray Cham ber of Commerce endorses in 

full the concept of overall development of the area, for recreational purposes. 

2. We recommend th at provisions be made th at would exclude any undesirable 

or detractive elements from the area. 3. We urge th at each prop erty owner of 

the area be tre ate d fairly, and each owner be reimbursed in full for any losses 

incurred due t o the estab lishm ent of th is area. 4. We pledge our support to th is 

program and full development of th e travel program in Kentucky. We feel t ha t 

this resolution is fully supp orted by th e majority of people of thi s area, and urge 

th at you represent us w ith th is view in mind.

J ames L. J ohnson,

Executive Secretary, M urray Chamber of Commerce.

Hopkinsville, Ky., July S, 1964. Congressman F rank A. Stubblefield,

New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Indication th at accelerated effort needed to save Land Between the Lakes* 

Your help apprecia ted.

W. W. Bryan,

Executive Secretary, Hopkinsville Chamber of Commerce.
72 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Resolution

Whereas the Paducah Chamber of Commerce has long realized the importanc e 

of the tourist industry in general: and

Whereas the im pact of the Kentucky Lake tou rist industry, in particular, has 

stimulated business growth throughout all western Kentucky; and

Whereas the development of the Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

will add tremendously to the economy of western Kentucky; and

Whereas a majority of the citizens of western Ken tucky will benefit materially 

from its successful development; and

Whereas nationwide attentio n will be focused on th e development; and 

Whereas the area is destined to become the outd oor recreation area in midAmerica; and

Whereas long-range benefits of the developm ent will far outweigh the tem porary 

inconveniences, loss of ta x revenue and incomes of some persons living and doing 

business in the project area: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, Th at the Paduc ah Chamber of Commerce contact all persons concerned with the project and urge its speedy completion; and

Resolved, Th at the Paducah Chamber of Commerce urge the Tennessee Valley 

Authority to bend over backward to be fair in its tre atm ent of all who must 

relocate outside the area.

Passed by board of directors on April 20, 1964.

Paducah Chamber of Commerce, 

Marvin Orgill, President.

Crounse Corp., 

Paducah, Ky., July 3, 196/f

.

Hon. J ohn S. Cooper,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator C ooper: This is to urge you to use your influence to encourage 

the Public Works Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee to 

appropriate the entire amount requested by the Tennessee Valley Authority to 

carry out their plans in regard to the Between the Lakes Recreation Area in 

western Kentucky.

I feel th at not only the people in this immediate area, but also over 50 million 

people within a 500-mile radius will ultim ately derive great benefit from a recreation area of this type. I have jus t returned from a 6,000 mile trip through the 

Far West and know th at recreation facilities such as we are discussing are providing the people of th at area with a much needed opportu nity for relaxation 

and pleasure.

I have sent the following night letter to Senator Ellender: “Urge your committee vote appropriation for Between the Lakes Recreation Area as outlined 

by TVA. Vast majority of people in this area are in favor of the proposal as 

presented. Several million people outside this immediate area would benefit 

greatly from such a recreation facility.”

Very truly yours,

Neville Stone,

Vice President.

(Additional information on Land Between the Lakes project 

appears on p. 113.)

SUBC OM MITTEE recess

Senator Hill. We will stand recessed.

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., Friday, June 26, 1964, the subcommittee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.)
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 19G5

W EDN ESDA Y, JU L Y 1, 19 64

U. S. Sen ate ,

Subco mm itt ee of th e C om mi tt ee on App ro pr ia ti ons,

Wa shi ngton , D.G.

The su bc om m itt ee m et a t 10 a. m ., purs uan t to call, in room 1318, 

Ne w Se na te Office Building, H on . Jo hn O. Pas to re te m po ra rily 

presidi ng .

P re se nt: Se na to rs Pa stor e, Hill, an d El lend er.

U.S. Atomic E ne rg y C omm ission

STATEMENTS OF DR. GLENN T. SEABORG, CHAIRMAN; DR. MARY I.

BUNTIN G, COMMISSIONER; JOHN G. PALFREY, COMMISSIONER;

DR. GERALD F. TAPE, COMMISSIONER ; A. R. LUEDECKE, GENERAL

MANAGER; DR. SPOFFORD G. ENGLISH, ASSISTANT GENERAL

MANAGER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; BERTRAM H.

SCHUR, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL; JOHN P. ABBADESSA,

CONTROLLER; R. L. FAULKNER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RAW

MATERIA LS; FRANK P. BARANOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF

PRODUCTION; BRIG. GEN. D. L. CROWSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION

OF MILITARY A PPLIC AT ION; DR. FRANKK. PITTMAN, DIRECTOR,

DIVISION OF REACTOR DEVELOPMENT ; DR. PAUL W. MCDANIEL,

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RESEARCH; DR. JOHN R. TOTTER,

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH, DIVISION OF BIOLOGY

AND MEDICINE; DR. RUSSELL S. POOR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION

OF NUCLEAR EDUCATION AND TRAIN ING; EDWARD J. BRUNENKANT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION;

EDWARD R. GARDNER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPECIAL PR OJECTS; E. E. FOWLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ISOTOPES

DEVELOPMENT; WILLIAM L. OAKLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

DIVISION OF PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES: MYRON B.

KRATZER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL

AFFA IRS; ARTHUR L. TACKMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF

PERSO NNEL; J. A. DERRY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CONSTRUCTIO N; VICTOR CORSO, ASSISTANT CONTROLLER FOR BUDGETS 

P r e sen t a tio n or L etter

Se na tor P as to re. The su bc om m itt ee will be in orde r. I ha ve a 

le tt er for th e rec ord da te d Ju ne 30, ad dressed to Sen at or H ay de n. 

The le tt er is as follo ws:
74 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,

Washington, D.C., Ju ne SO, 196^.

lio n. Carl Hayden,

Chairman, Committee on App ropr iations,

U.S. Senate.

Dear Senator Hayden: The House of Representatives on Jun e 16 passed

H.R. 11579, a bill making appropriation s for certain civil functions administered 

by the Department of Defense, the Pan ama Canal, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energ y Commission, * * * for the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes.

As passed by the House, the bill makes c ertain reductions in the appropriations 

requested for the atomic energy program. We have made a careful review of the 

areas affected by the House bill and propose an amendment the reto for consideration by your committee.

Tra nsm itted herewith are 15 copies of the amendment proposed by the Atomic 

Energy Commission to H.R. 11579, toge ther with the reasons therefor.

Sincerely yours,

Glenn I. Seaborg, Chairman.

Senat or P astore. The am endm ent will be made a pa rt of the 

record at this point.

(The am endm ent referred to follows:)

Proposed Amendment to the Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1965 

Atomic Energy Commission (H.R. 11579)

(As passed by the House of Representatives)

Estimate subm itted to the House:

Operating expenses............. .......................................... . ......... $2, 323, 000, 000

Plant and capital equ ipm ent-................................................. 370, 000, 000

To tal .............................. .............................................. ......... 2,6 93,000 ,000

Bill as passed by the House:

Operating expenses__................................ ............. ................. 2, 261, 073, 000

Plant and capital equ ipm ent-.................. ......... ..................... 363, 000, 000

To tal............. ......... . .......................... ............................... 2, 624, 073, 000

Change by House:

Operating expenses......... ........................................ ................. —61, 927, 000

Plant and capital equipment______________ ____ ______ —7, 000, 000

To tal............. ......................................................................... -6 8, 92 7, 00 0

PRO POS ED AMENDM ENT TO BILL

(1) Page 22, line 1, strike out “$2,261,073,000” and insert in lieu thereof

“$2,279,008,000”.

H.R ept. 1479, Public Works Appropriation Bill, 1965, Atomic Energy

Commission

Operating expenses

Appropriation, 1964_............................................ ...........................$2 ,342 ,669,000

Esti mate, 1965........ ...................................... .................................. 2, 323, 000, 000

Recommended, 1965__ 2,261,073,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 1964------------------------------ —81,596,000

Estim ate, 1965..................... —61,927,000
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 Zo

Funds provided under this heading are distribu ted as shown in the following 

table:

P ro g ra m

R a w m a t e r i a l s . .. __________ ______________________________

S p ecia l n u c le a r m a te ria ls _________________________________

W e a p o n s.......... .........................................................................................

R e a c to r d e v e lo p m e n t................ .........................................................

P h y sic a l re s e a rc h .................. ........................... ............ .......................

B io lo gy a n d m e d ic in e ................................................ .........................

T ra in in g , e d u c a ti o n , a n d in fo rm a tio n .......................................

Is o to p e s d e v e lo p m e n t p r o g r a m ...______________________

C iv il ia n a p p li c a ti o n s of n u c le a r e x p lo siv es.......................... ..

C o m m u n ity p ro g ra m ..........................................................................

P ro g ra m d ire c ti o n a n d a d m in is tr a tio n ..................................

S e c u rit y in v e s ti g a ti o n p ro g ra m .....................................................

C o st of w o rk fo r o th e rs ......................................................................

C h a n g e in s e le c te d re s o u rc e s .................. ........................................

R e v e n u e s a n d re im b u rs e m e n ts fr om n o n -P e d e ra l

so u rc e s............................ .......................................................................

U n o b li g a te d b a la n c e b ro u g h t fo rw a rd .......................................

T o ta l.

B u d g e t

e s ti m a te

R e c o m m e n d e d 

b y th e 

c o m m it te e

$2 67 .455 ,000 $2 67 ,455 ,000

40 1, 50 0,00 0 39 5, 00 0,00 0

77 1,74 7,00 0 76 5, 00 0,00 0

49 7,90 0,00 0 49 0, 00 0,00 0

22 2, 00 0,00 0 210, 000, tXX)

80 ,0 00 ,000 78 ,0 00 ,0 00

17, 70 0,0 00 15 ,7 00 ,000

10 ,300 ,000 9,3 00 ,0 00

11,00 0, (XX) 11, (XXI, 000

9,0 35 ,0 00 9,03 5, (XX)

76,780,1X10 76 ,0 00 ,0 00

7, (XX), 000 7,0 00 ,0* X)

5,10 0, (XX) 5, 100, (XX)

-1 8 ,4 5 1 ,0 0 0 -2 1 ,4 5 1 ,0 0 0

- 3 6 , (X56,000 -3 6 ,0 6 6 ,0 0 0

—20, (XX), 000

2,3 23 ,0 00 ,0 00 2,2 61, 073, 00 0

C h a n g e fr om 

b u d g e t 

e s ti m a te

—$6,5 00 ,0 00

-6 ,7 4 7 ,0 0 0 

—7 ,9C 0,000 

-1 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

-2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

-2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

-1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

-3 .0 0 0 ,0 0 0

-20. ooo’ 666

-6 1 .9 2 7 ,0 0 0

-7 8 0 ,0 0 0

The tota l reduction of $61,927,000 recom mended by the committee includes a 

net reduction of $7,965,000 made by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in its 

action on the authorizing legislation.

Special nuclear materials.—The reduction of $6,500,000 made by the committee 

in Inis item is based on recents years’ experience which show considerable underruns in costs as compared with the estim ates in the budget presentation. For 

example, cost underruns were $41 million in 1962, $31,200,000 in 1963, and are 

estim ated at $8 million in 1964. The comm ittee is confident tha t the reduction 

made here will not impair the program and can be reasonably anticipated on the 

basis of th is underrun experience.

Weapons.—The reduction of $6,747,000 made in this program is based on 

underrun experience similar to th at in the special nuclear materials program. 

In the current year costs will underrun appropriations by $9 million, or more.

lleactor development.—In its consideration of this program, the comm ittee has 

effected all of the changes made by the authorizing committee which result in a 

net increase of $35,000. A reduction of $1,500,000 was made by the Joi nt Committee in the PLUTO program. The committee has applied an additional 

$5,500,000 reduction in this program. The Atomic Energy Commission announced a successful full-powered ground tes t of the TORY 1I-C reactor, the 

second in th e PLUTO program, on May 22, 1964. It is the committee’s opinion 

th at this amply demonstrates the successfulness of the ram jet propulsion reactor 

powerplant. Since the re is still no military system or requirement for this powerplant and no engine system or vehicle to carry it has been developed up to this 

time, the comm ittee sees no reason why further development and testing work is 

necessary. The $1 million which has been allowed for this program is for the 

purpose of “m othb alling” the project u ntil such time as there is a military system 

and requirement for it. The additional reduction of $900,000 made by the committee will be readily absorbed on the basis of past experience with estimate

underruns.

Physical research.—The reduction made by the comm ittee in this program includes $4 million recommended by the authorizing committee and an additional 

$8 million, representing approximately the increases in the budgeted programs not 

affected by th e J oin t Committee, exclusive of increases necessary for the operation 

of new accelerators and related activities. The amount provided includes the 

additional $500,000 authorized by the Join t Committee for the Midwestern 

Universities Research Association.

This program has grown from $121 million in 1960 to $210 million allowed for 

1965, approximately $20 million per year. For the third consecutive year the 

committee would like to reiterate the admonition tha t there be a tig htening up 

in the process of selecting areas and subjects of research u ndci^ jfla m^ S& S^rea ter 

emphasis on overall usefulness of the potential results.

with the position of the Joint Committee as expressed in i 

ing bill with respect to the high-energy physics program
76 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Biology and medicine.—The reduction of $2 million made by the committee 

in this program represents approximately one-half of the increases budgeted 

for actual program activities. It includes the $1 million reduction made by the 

authorizing committee. The so-called cost-of-living increases have been 

allowed. Experience with cost underruns in the past would indicate that mucu 

of this reduction will be readily absorbed without serious ('fleet on the piogram. 

This program has increased from $45,700,000 in 1960 to $78 million recommended 

for 1965.

Training, education, and information.— The reduction of $2 million in the 

budget estim ate tor this program includes $1,500,000 effected by the authorizing 

committee. In addition, the committee has made a reduction of $500,000 including $300,000 of the proposed increase for the information program and 

$200,000 for the Argonne, Ill., school. The information program reduction is 

taken in light of the President’s directive to all agencies to increase efforts to 

restrict and limit the ir reporting activities. The $200,000 at the school is made 

on the basis of testim ony th at this is no longer an ins titu te for training foreign 

nationals. Further it is the comm ittee’s opinion that the growing capabilities 

in our regular educational institutions are putting them in position to meet the 

requirements for training U.S. citizens.

Isotopes development program.—The reduction in this item includes $500,000 

made by the authorizing committee. The additional reduction of $500,000 recommended brings the total reduction to approxim ately one-half of t he increase 

requested. The committee is in complete accord with the position of the Joint 

Committee on Atomic Energy to the effect tha t there appeals to be a number of 

projects of a continuing nature in the program which could well be carried out by 

private indu stry.

Civilian applications of nuclear explosives.—The funds provided for this program 

together w ith $1,080,000 provided to the Corps of Engineers should be adequate 

to continue this program at a reasonable rate .

Program direction and administration.— The minor reduction of $780,000 made 

in this item should be readily absorbed in a piogram of the magnitude being 

considered.

Change in selected resources.—The reduction in this item effects a $2 million 

reduction made by the Joint Committee in the authorizing legislation and an 

additional $1 million reduction made by the committee.

Unobligated balance.—The additional general reduction of $20 million is based 

on the lates t analysis of th e anticipated fund situation as of th e end of th e current 

fiscal year.

Plant and capital equipment

Appropriation, 1964............... ........................................................ . $400,000,000

Estim ate, 1965............. . ................. ........... . ..................................... 370, 000, 000

Recommended, 1965................ ............................................ ............. 363,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 1964.................................... ............................... —37,0 00,0 00

Estim ate, 1965.................. .......................................................... - 7 , 000, 000

The reduction of $7 million in this item includes a $3 million reduction in the 

authorization bill which w’as based on the reductions made by the authorizing 

committee. The comm ittee has applied an additional $4 million in the item 

“Capital equipment not rela ted to constru ctio n” to conform in general with the 

additional reductions it has made in the operatin g programs.

Amendment (1): Increase of $17,985,000 in the appropriation for operating expenses

The Commission requests restoration of $17,935,000 of the reduction made by 

the House of Representatives. The following table summarizes the reductions 

made by the House and the amount requested for restoration.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Summ ary of operating expenses

77

AE C request House change Restoratio n

requested

Raw mater ials------------------- --------------------------------

Special nuclear materials----- ----------------------------------

Weapons_______ _______________________________

Reactor development_____________________________

Physical research________________________________

Biology and medicine.........................................................

Training , ed ucation, and info rmation_______________

Civilian applications of:

Isotopes............................ ...............——........... ...........

Nuclear explosives____________________________

Comm unities------------------------- ----------------------------

Program direction a nd adm inistra tion____ _________

Sec urity investigations___________________________

Cost of work for others___________________________

Change in selected resources_________ ____ ________

Revenues and reimbursements from non-Federal sources. 

Unobligated balance brought forward.............. ..............

$2 67 ,455 ,000

40 1, 50 0,00 0 

77 1,74 7,00 0 

49 7,90 0,00 0 

22 2, 00 0,00 0 

80 ,0 00 ,000 

17 ,700 ,000

10 ,300 ,000 

11 ,000 ,000 

9,0 35, 000 

76 ,780 ,000 

7,00 0, 000 

5,1 00, 000

-1 8 ,4 5 1 ,0 0 0

-3 6 ,0 6 6 ,0 0 0

-$ 6 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

-6 ,7 4 7 ,0 0 0 

-7 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0 

-1 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

-2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

-2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

-1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$3 ,5 00 ,0 00

6,4 35,0 00 

8,0 00,0 00

-7 8 0 ,0 0 0

-3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

-2 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

T ota l......................................................................... 2,3 23, 000 ,0 00 -6 1 ,9 2 7 ,0 0 0 17 ,9 35 ,000

The reasons for the requested restoration are given below:

S pec ia l N u c lea r M a teria ls

The $395 million included in the House bill is $6,500,000 below the Commission 

request of $401,500,000. The House comm ittee report recommended the reduction based on recent years’ experience which shows considerable underruns. The 

comm ittee believes th at the reduction made would not impair the program and 

can be reasonably anticipa ted based on prior vears’ u nderrun experience.

Of the House reduction of $6,500,000, th e Commission is requesting restoration 

•of $3,500,000. In previous years, the special nuclear materials productio n complex has operated under a philosophy which placed primary emphasis on maximum production. In fiscal year 19*65 the productio n complex will place less 

emphasis on maximum productio n which will result in greater economy of operations. A full year of special cost studies was devoted to developing the most 

economical modes of operations for th e e ntire production complex and the studies 

resulted in operating cost reductions estim ated at $13,500,000 in fiscal year 1965 

beyond the reductions directly attrib uta ble to the production cutbacks.

After the cost studies were completed, the Commission directed its operations 

•offices, in December 1963, to implement an austere program under which costs 

would be held to a minimum consistent with production schedules and the requirements of public health and safety. The savings under this directive n ot only contributed to the cost underrun estimated a t $8 million in fiscal year 1964 b ut were 

taken into account in developing the fiscal year 1965 budget estim ates. Thus, 

the AEC budget estimate of $401,500,000 has already considered cost reduction s 

th at might otherwise contribute to underruns of the magnitude approved by the 

House.

Based on a recen t comprehensive analysis of o perating requirements for fiscal 

year 1965, it is felt that no more than $3 million of the House reduction can be 

absorbed.

R ea cto r D e v el o pm en t

The budget request for this program was $497,900,000. The authorizing 

legislation would provide a total of $497,935,000, with several changes in amou nts 

for the various activities within the program. The House Appropriations Committee report indicated acceptance of the changes made in the authorizing legislation but made a reduction of $7,900,000, bringing the program total to $490 

million.

Of the $7,900,000 reduction, the House applied $5,500,000 to the PLUTO program, allowing only $1 million for “moth balling” the project until such time as 

there is a military system and requirement for it. It is the House committee’s 

opinion th at the successful test of TORY II-C , which took place on May 20, 1964, 

amply demonstrates the successfulness of the ram jet propulsion reactor powerplant. The committee further went on to sta te th at there is no military system 

or requirement for the powerplant and no engine system or vehicle to carry it
78 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

has been developed up to this time and, therefore, the committee sees no reason 

why further development and testing are necessary.

The successful test conducted on May 20, which further demonstrated the 

feasibility of nuclear ram jet propulsion, was the beginning of a test series expected 

to continue into September 1964. Additional tests of the same reactor and full 

evalu ation of results would have been conducted to realize the maximum benefits 

of the past 7 years of development effort. Tests to determine the reactor’s 

ability to achieve fast startups and to operate at higher than design conditions 

were planned to determine the rea ctor’s full capabilities.

In addition to the $1 million provided by the House for “mothballing” the 

TORY 1I-C reactor experiment, the Commission is requestin g restoration of 

$4 million to provide for the investigation of special applications utilizing this 

very high te mperature gas-cooled reactor technology an d to perm it a more orderly 

phaseout of personnel and resources of the project. Restoration is requested in 

light of the AEC investment of $135 million 1 in PLUTO technology, the Commission responsibility for the design of new systems which show promise of bringing 

abo ut major advancements in reac tor technology and the continued utilization of 

trained tal ent at the Livermore weapons laboratory.

In addition to the reduction made in the PLUTO program explained above, the 

House also made a n overall reduction of $960,000, which is really an actual general 

overall reduction of $2,435,000 after providing for changes made in the authorizing 

legislation. The Commission in its review of the reactor development program 

for fiscal year 1965 made reductions in many parts of the program, including naval 

and rocket propulsion, civilian and army power reactors, and merchan t ship 

reactors, and reduced the fiscal year 1965 program total by $10.4 million below 

the fiscal year 1964 level. Changes made in the authorizing legislation further 

reduced certain activ ities of the reacto r development program and made it necessary to absorb $14,600,000 in order to provide for a flight tes t of SNAP 10-A, 

leaving minimal increases in the nuclear safety and general reactor technology 

programs. It is the Commission’s belief, in light of the reductions already made 

and a provision for a flight test of SNAP 10-A, th at a generalized cost underrun 

of $2,435,000 will not materialize in fiscal year 1965 as experienced in prior years 

when many of the activities in reacto r development were expanding. The reduction would have to be applied to activities which have already been cu t below the 

fiscal year 1964 level. Accordingly, restoration of $2,435,000 is requested.

P h ysi cal R esea rch

The budget submitted to Congress included $222 million for the physical 

research program. The authorizing legislation provides $218 million, a reduction 

of $4 million. The House action would reduce the program by another $8 million, 

to $210 million, for a to tal reduction of $12 million below th e AEC request.

The House Appropriations Committee in its report, reiterated its position th at 

there be a tightenin g up in the process of selecting areas and subjects of research 

undertakings with greater emphasis on overall usefulness of the potential results. 

The committee also alined itself completely with the position of the JCAE as 

expressed in its repo rt on the authorizing bill with respe ct to the high-energy 

physics program.

Restoration of $8 million is requested. As stressed in previous years, the 

scientific investigations conducted under the physical research program are aimed 

at the discovery of knowledge. Physical research, then, is predominantly basic 

research. This program has contributed significantly to man’s understanding of 

nuclear structure, the interaction of nuclear particles, and the very nature of ma tter 

itself. Thus by definition there are no clearly defined immediate practical applications emanating from the research efforts supported under this program. The 

Commission has been selective in the past, and the pressures generated by the 

need to operate the newer facilities, have made it necessary to be even more 

selective in acceptance of any new programs as well as in th e process of evaluating 

existing programs.

If the reduction were to be applied to those areas not reduced by the authorizing 

legislation, the programs in low-energy physics, metallurgy, and materials and 

controlled therm onuclear research would perforce be reduced below th e fiscal year 

1964 level. Therefore, to maintain some degree of program stab ility and balance 

as well as to partially recognize commitments to operate new major research tools, 

the additional reduction of $8 million would be allocated to high-energy physics, 

low-energy physics, chemistry, and metallurgy.

1

 I ncl udes $110,000,000 of oper at in g f un ds a nd $25,000,000 of f ac ility fu nd s.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 79

In both high-energy and low-energy physics, the ability to make effective use 

and/or preparation for operation of such major facilities as the Stanfo rd accelerator, 

the improved bevatron, the AGS at Brookhaven, the ZGS at Argonne, the Cambridge and Princeton-Pennsylvania accelerators, the Michigan cyclotron, the 

isochronous cyclotron at Oak Ridge, a nd the tandem Van de Graaff accelerators at 

the Universities of Texas and Washington would be materially reduced. Such 

action, while necessary to live with the House action, is inconsistent with the 

comm itmen t to and investment made in these facilities as well as the need to 

vigorously support low energy physics, an area of research central to the interests 

of the Atomic Energy Commission.

The additional reduction in the chemistry program budget would have to be 

absorbed by the national laboratories, since the JCA E reduction has already 

materially reduced the university research programs. Expensive research 

facilities a t the laboratories would n ot be available as needed by scientists because 

of lack of operating funds, and so would further increase the backlog of experimental programs. Specific facilities th at would be affected include the new ANL 

hot laboratories, the Ames research reactor, the 88-inch cyclotron, and fthe 

11 IL AC at LRL. This reduction would cause further delays in meeting the 

established schedules for production of californium and other transplu tonium 

elements needed for fu rther research.

In metallurgy and materials research this reduction would also force less tha n 

optimum use of new research facilities such as the Ames research reactor and the 

high flux beam reactor and the dynamitron at Brookhaven. In addition, planned 

programs in imp ortant areas of research, including superconductivity, mechanical 

properties, radia tion damage, plutonium metallurgy, cryophysics, and neutron 

diffraction and scattering, would necessarily be reduced or deferred. Expansion 

in these areas is essential to gain the understanding of materials necessary to the 

effective exploitation of nuclear technology. Fur ther, the Commission’s commitment to the supp ort of the interdisciplinary laboratory program would be adversely affected.

G e n e r a l Sta t e m e n t fo r O per a tin g E x pe n s e s

ESTIM A TE O F A PP R O P R IA T IO N

This book conta ins the budget estimates for the appropriation “Operating 

expenses” for fiscal year 1965. The estimates provide for tota l obligations of 

$2,359,066,000 to be funded by (1) a new appropriation of $2,323 million and 

(2) an estim ated $36,066,000 to be received as revenues from non-Federal sources 

during the fiscal year.

ESTIM A TES OF CO ST S AN I) O B LIG A TIO N S

The budget estimates for this appropriation are stated in terms of accrued 

costs for each of the AEC’s operating programs. “Accrued costs” denotes the 

actual application of labor, materials, and services to the program during the 

year, but excludes depreciation of facilities used in the operations. The AEC 

does, however, maintain accounts for depreciation for the purpose of determ ining 

tota l costs of production and for use in establishing prices for services rendered 

or p roducts sold to others.

The costs of operation are reconciled to the total obligations to be incurred 

during the year by estim ating the buildup or decrease during the year of the 

resources that are to be applied to future yea rs’ operations. These estim ates 

are included in the section titled, “Increase or Decrease in Selected Resources” 

and include inventories a nd undelivered orders.

From total obligations are deducted the revenues estimated to be obtained 

from non-Federal sources in order to arrive at the amount of appropriations 

required. These revenues are obtained from AEC-owned comm unity and 

housing operations, from the sale of p roducts, from services performed for others, 

and from other miscellaneous sources. These revenues are identified and summarized under the tab “Revenues Applied.”

The following table summarizes the accrued costs for each program, and the 

total obligations for 1963, 1964, and 1965, except that accrued costs and obligations pertaining to capital equipment not related to construction in 1963 have 

been omitted to provide comparability with 1964 and 1965, since the estim ates 

for those years include such equipment under the appropriation “ Plant and

35- 381—<64------6
80 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

capital equipment.” The detailed justifications, beginning on page 12, present 

the programs in the same order as the y appe ar on this summ ary table:

Summ ary of accrued operating costs by program reconciled to net obligations

Ac cru ed costs by progr am:

Ra w m aterials_________________________________

Special n uclea r ma ter ial s________________________

Weap ons______ ____ ___________________________

Reactor d ev elop m en t.__________________________

P hysica 1 resea rch ....................................... . ............ ........

Bio logy a nd m edicine________ ____________ ______

Train ing, education, and Inform ation ..........................

Civilia n applicatio ns of—

Iso top es____________________________________

Nu cle ar e xplosives__________________________

Com m un ity _______________ ___________________

Prog ram d irection a nd ad m in istrat io n...................

Se cu rity in vest ig at io ns. .________________________

Co st of w ork for o th ir s ..___________ _____ ____ _

A dj us tm en t to p rio r yeai cost;:___________________

Tota l accrued pro gra m costs.......................................

Inc rea se or decrease in selected re sou rces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ota l o blig atio ns for ope ratin g ex penses_________

Less re ve nu es a pp lie d. __ ____ _______________________

N et o blig atio ns (financed by a pp ro pr iated fu nd s).

Actu al, 

fiscal ye ar 

1963

Estim at e, 

fiscal year 

1964

Es tim ate, 

fiscal ye ar 

1965

$477,718,862

477,925,734 

650,631,055 

462,427,377 

182,833,050 

65,106,642 

13,995,196

$320,000,000

475,440,000 

782,904,000 

508,300,000 

197,337,000 

71,330,000 

16,165,000

$267,455,000

401,500,000 

771,747,000 

497,900,000 

222,000,000 

80,000,000 

17,700,000

6,142,665 

9,536,325 

8,905,115 

64,987,263 

6,930,130 

5,571,573 

-3,296,8 83

8,360,000

13,500,000

9,655,000

72,625,000

6,950,000

5,800,000

10,300,000 

11,000,000 

9,035,000 

76,780,000 

7,000,000 

5,100,000

2,429,414,104 

119,982,629

2,488,366,000

36,305,617

2,377,517,000 

-18,451,000

2,549,396,733 

32,635,305

2,524,671,617

31,574,000

2,359,066,000 

36,066,000

2,516,761,428 2,493,097,617 2,323,000,000

FINA NCIN G OF OBLIGATIONS

The financing of the estim ated total obligations of $2,359,066,000 proposed in 

the budget estim ates for 1965, to geth er with comparable data for 1963 and 1964, 

is summarized in the following table:

Summ ary of finan cing

Ac tua l, fiscal 

year 1963

Es tim ate, 

fiscal year 

1964

Es tim ate, 

fiscal year 

1965

Fun ds av ailabl e for obliga tions:

Uno bligated b alance, beg inn ing of yea r....................... $17,697,504 

2,872,224,000

-19 3,2 73 

32,635,305

-222 , 538,186

$150,428,617 

App ro pr iatio n.......... .......................................................... 2,342,669,000 $2,323,000,000

Transfer to “Op era ting expense s, Pu bl ic Bu ilding 

Serv ices,” General Serv ices Adm in istra tio n (76 

St at . 728)..........................................................................

Re ve nu es received from n on-Federa l sources.............

Com pa rability transfer to “ Pla nt an d c ap ita l eq uipm en t,” Atom ic En ergy C om miss ion_______ ____

31,574,000 36,066,000

To ta l fun ds available for obligation.......... . ..........

Less unobligate d b ala nce , e nd of y e a r ____________

2,699,825,350 

150, 428,617

2,524,671,617 2,359,066,000

To ta l obliga tion s in curre d _ ...................... ................ 2,549,396, 733 2,524,671,617 2,359,066,000
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 81

E X PE N D IT U R E S FOR O PE R A T IN G E X P E N S E S

Expenditures from the “Operating expenses” appropriation for 1965 are estimated at $2,300 million. The estim ated amo unts available for expenditure in 

1963, 1964, and 1965, the expenditures for each year, and the remaining unexpended balances are shown in the following table:

Expenditure analysis

Ac tual, fiscal 

year 1963

Es tim ate, 

fiscal year 1964

Es tim at e, 

fiscal year 1965

Fun ds available for ex pen diture :

Unexp end ed balanc e, begin nin g of year:

Obligated ____ . . _____ ___ ___ ____ _______ $836,726,453 

17,697,504 

2,872,224,000

-19 3,2 73

$1,068,729,772 

150,428,617 

2,342,669,000

$1,053,046,342 Un obligate d balanc e___ __________ _____ ____

Ne w ap pr op ria tio n......................................... ...............

Tr an sfer to “ Op era ting expenses, Pu bli c Bu ilding 

Services,” Gener al Serv ices Adm inist ratio n (76 

Sta t. 728)................. . . . . . .

2,323,000,000

Tr an sfer of un pa id obligations for equipm en t to 

“ Pla nt an d ca pi tal eq ui pm en t,” Atom ic En erg y 

Co mmissio n.............. . ...... .......... . .................. -143,781 ,047

Tot al fu nd s a va ila ble for ex pe nd itu re...................

Less ex pe nd itu res........... . ..................... .......... ... ........ . ..

3, 726,454,684 

« 2,507,296,295

3,418,046,342 

2,365,000,000

3,376,046,342 

2,300,000,000

Un expen ded balan ce, en d of year:

Obl ig at ed ... ____________ __________ ___________ 1,068,729,772 

150,428,617

1,053,046,342 1,076,046,342 Un obligate d balanc e..................................................... .

Un expen ded balan ce, end of year.............................. 1,219,158,389 1,053,046,342 1,076,046,342

1

 T his am ou nt is no t comp ara ble to the ex penditu res es tim ate d for 1964 an d 1965 in th at 1964 an d 1965 

expenditu res do not Include am ou nts relate d to o bligations for c apita l eq uipm en t not relate d to constru ctio n which are now show n un de r th e Pla nt an d ca pital eq uipm en t ap prop ria tio n ra th er th an th e 

Op era ting expen ses ap prop ria tio n as is the case for 1963. The am ou nt of $155,521,810 should be su bt ra ct ed 

from t he 1963 expe nd itu res t o arriv e at an a mou nt c om parab le with the 1964 a nd 1965 ex penditu res .

H ig h l ig h ts of O p e r a tin g P ro gr am s

There follows a brief description of each of the programs set forth in the summary on page 2.

1. Raw materials program.—Operating costs for the raw materials program are 

estim ated at $267.5 million in 1965, compared with 1964 estimated costs of $320 

million and 1963 actual costs of $477.7 million. The raw materials program 

provides for procurement of uranium concentrates from foreign and domestic 

sources. The decrease in quantities of uranium concentrates to be procured in 

1965 is principally the result of (a) reduced deliveries from Canadian and South 

African sources in accordance with the provisions of the contracts, and (6) deferral of domestic deliveries as a result of the stre tchout program announced on 

November 17, 1962.

2. Special nuclear materials program.—Operating costs for the special nuclear 

materials program are estim ated at $401.5 million in 1965, compared with 1964 

estim ated costs of $475.4 million and 1963 actual costs of $477.9 million. Special 

nuclear materials are produced to meet weapons production schedules and requirements for other programs. Uranium concentrates are processed into feed 

materials from which plutonium and other prod ucts are produced in the reactors 

at Richland, Wash., and Savannah River, S.C., and the isotope uranium 235 is 

extracted in plants at Oak Ridge, Tenn., Paducah, Ky., and Portsmouth, Ohio. 

Production of special nuclear materials will decline somewhat in 1965. Work 

will continue on process improvements to assure continuity and safety of operation 

and more economical methods of production.

3. Weapons program.— Operating costs for the weapons program are estimated 

at $771.7 million in 1965 compared with 1964 estim ated costs of $782.9 million 

and 1963 actual costs of $650.6 million. The weapons program encompasses 

the production of atomic weapons; the main tenance of stockpiled weapons in a 

sta te of constant readiness; the design, development, anti underground testing of 

new weapons types; prep aration for and maintenance of a short-term readiness 

capability to resume atmospheric testing; and participation w ith the Department 

of Defense in the development of test detection methods.

4. Reactor dei'elopment program.—Operating costs for the reactor development 

program are estim ated at $497.9 million in 1965 compared with 1964 estimated
82 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

costs of $508.3 million and 1963 actu al costs of $462.4 million. Emphasis will 

continue to be placed on advancing power reactor technology in order to achieve 

large-scale generation of economic electrical energy from atomic reactors. Cooperative endeavors will be continued between the Commission and industrial 

groups, as well as with the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom ), 

Canada, and West German authorities.

The estimates provide for research and development in advanced systems 

such as direct conversion and high tem perature reactor experiments, as well as in 

many current reacto r designs and programs of reactor, environmental and aerospace nuclear safety.

Work will also be continued on developing reactors to propel merchan t and 

naval vessels. Development of nuclear reactors for propulsion of rockets for 

space applications (ROVER program) will be continued. Also reactors are being 

developed for missile propulsion, to meet power requirements for remote areas, 

and to provide electric power and hea t for satellites. Radioisotope power sources 

development will also be continued.

Operation of tes t facilities and experimental reactors will be continued at the 

National Reac tor Testing Station in Idaho, and at other locations.

5. Physical research program.—Operating costs for the physical research pro ­

gram are estim ated at $222 million in 1965 compared with 1964 estim ated costs 

of $197.3 million an d 1963 actu al costs of $182.8 million. The physical research 

program consists of theoretical and experimental investigations required to suppo rt the Commission’s immediate and long-range objectives for utilizing nuclear 

energy. Advances achieved in the pa st can be traced back to similar laboratory 

investigations. In the atomic energy program, research plays a relatively more 

important role than in other industrial operations of comparable size. The 

phenomena dealt with are at the forward boundaries of scientific knowledge. 

Unusual materials are employed and their nuclear, as well as their chemical and 

physical properties, must be determined. The tempera tures and radiation densities at which these materials are used are outside the range of previous experience 

in indu strial technology.

6. Biology and medicine program.—Operating costs for the biology and medicine 

program are estimated at $80 million for 1965, compared with estim ated costs of 

$71.3 million in 1964 and a ctua l costs of $65.1 million in 1963. Primary emphasis 

will continue to be placed on the protection of the health and safety of atomic 

energy pla nt workers and the general populace from the hazards of atomic energy 

operations. Research on radioactive fallout problems and related research in 

the biological hazards of radiation will be expanded with increasing atte ntion 

given to large-scale studies of chronic effects of radiation. Continued emphasis 

will be placed on research efforts of pertinence in the field of industrial uses of 

atomic energy. Close liaison will continue to be maintained with other agencies 

perform ing functions interrelated with Commission biomedical interests. Research is carried on by Commission laboratories, universities and other independent in stitutions.

7. Training, education, and information.— Operating costs for the training, 

education, and information program are estim ated at $17.7 million in 1965 

compared to 1964 estimated costs of $16.2 million and 1963 actual costs of $14 

million. Primary program emphasis will be placed on broadening the base of 

nuclear technology at home and abroad. Program efforts are directed toward 

provision of assistance to colleges and universities in establishing nuclear curriculums; provision of assistance to States for training in radia tion control; operation, 

through contract, of schools and the conduct of specialized courses; administration of cooperative program between universities and AEC laboratories; offering 

of gradua te fellowships in the nuclear energy field; including a new traineeship 

prog ram; presentation of international conferences, studies, and exhibits; and 

development and dissemination of technical information.

8. Civilian applications of—

Isotopes: Operating costs for the civilian applications of isotopes program 

are estim ated at $10.3 million in 1965 compared to 1964 e stimated costs of $8.4 

million and 1963 actual costs of $6.1 million. The program consists of research 

and development activities required to accelerate realization of the potentially 

vast uses of radioisotopes and radiation technology. The program will provide 

for expanding the technology and utilization of isotopes with particu lar attention 

to civilian applications; and developing, through research and development 

activities, application of high level or massive radiation, large-scale economic 

uses of fission product wastes, and methods and technology for preservation of 

foods by irrad iation. An increasingly important area is the development of 

isotopic power and hea t sources for space and terrestrial needs.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 83

Nuclear explosives: Operating costs for the civilian applications of nuclear 

explosives program (plowshare) are estim ated at $11 million for 1965 compared 

to estim ated costs of $13.5 million in 1964 and actual costs of $9.5 million in 

1963. The 1965 program provides for the investigation and development of 

peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. Curren t emphasis is on the development 

and testin g of “clean” devices for use in large-scale excavation projects and of 

high-flux devices for future use in scientific experiments.

9. Community.— Operating costs for the community program are estimated at 

$9 million in 1965 compared to 1964 estim ated costs of $9.7 million and 1963 

actual costs of $8.9 million. Although legislation has been enacted to termin ate 

Government ownership of the town of Los Alamos, N. Mex., over a period of the 

next few years, the program estim ate of $9 million includes $6.7 million for the 

Los Alamos community, of which $0.2 million is for assistance paymen ts to the 

hospital and $6.5 million is for operation of the town because the Atomic Energy 

Commission will continue to operate the community through 1965. The remaining $2.3 million is for assistance payments to the former AEC communities of 

Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Richland, Wash., in accordance with the Atomic Emergy 

Comm unity Act of 1955, as amended. Operating revenues at Los Alamos 

(budgeted under revenues applied) are estim ated at $5.2 million.

10. Program direction and administration.— Operating costs of $76.8 million will be incurred in 1965 for program direction and administration compared with 1964 

estimated costs of $72.6 million and 1963 actual costs of $65 million. The 

estim ates provide for maintaining employment in 1965 at the Ju ne 30, 1964, level 

of 5,469. Under the general heading of “Program direction and adm inistration” 

are grouped together the salary costs and other expenses of Commission personnel 

engaged in general management, executive direction, and technical supervision of 

program operations; the negotiation and administration of contracts; other 

related administrative activities; and the discharge of regulatory functions.

11. Security investigations.—Costs of investigations performed by the Civil Service Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the request of 

the Commission, of persons to be employed on work involving access to restricted 

data , under th e provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in 1965 

are estim ated a t $7 million compared with 1964 estimated costs of $7 million and 

1963 a ctual costs of $6.9 million.

12. Cost of work for others.—Cost of work for others are estim ated to be $5.1 million in 1965, compared with $5.8 million in 1964 and $5.6 million in 1963. 

This program includes costs incurred by the Commission in furnishing materials 

and services to industrial organizations and other priv ate parties apart from 

those which it provides normally for its own basic program. The costs are 

incurred only upon the request of others. Charges are made for these materials 

and services and the revenues derived are included under “Revenues applied.”

13. Increase or decrease in selected resources.— This program covers changes in inventory stocks held by AEC and its contracto rs, collateral funds, and goods and 

services on order under contract. The appropriation requirements for these 

items are based on the changes in balances from the previous fiscal year. Balances 

at end of 1965 are estim ated at $912.2 million as compared with $930.7 million 

at the end of 1964, or a decrease of $18.5 million in 1965. Balances at the end of 

1963 were $894.4 million.

14. Revenues applied.— This program includes income from sale and lease of 

prod ucts and from services rendered, revenues from communities, and other 

miscellaneous income items. These revenues are applied against Atomic Energy 

Commission appropriation requirements. Revenues are estim ated at $36.1 

million for 19S5, compared to an estimate of $31.6 million for 1964 and actu al 

revenues in 1963 of $32.6 million.

EXPL ANATION OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES----OPERATING EX PE NSES

The proposed change in language is indicated as follows: Language enclosed in 

black brack ets indicates proposed deletion; language in italic indicates proposed 

insertion.

1. “[$2,342,669,000] $2,323,000,000, and any moneys (except sums received from disposal of property under the Atomic Energy Comm unity Act of 1955 (42 

U.S.C. 2301)) received by the Commission, notwithstanding the provisions of 

section 3617 of the Revised Sta tutes (31 U.S.C. 484), to remain available until 

expended:” .

To reflect the fiscal year 1965 appropriation amount.
84 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

E X P L A N A T I O N O P P R O P O S E D L A N G U A G E C H A N G E S — G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S

The proposed changes in the language for the administrative provisions are 

described below. Language enclosed in black brack ets indicates proposed deletions; language in italic indicates proposed insertions.

1. “Any appropriation available under this or any other Act to the Atomic 

Energy Commission may initially be used subject t o limitations in this Act during 

the fiscal year [1964] 1965 to finance the procurement of materials, services, or 

other costs which are a part of work or activities for which funds have been provided in any other appropriation available to the Commission: * * *”

This change makes the provision applicable to fiscal year 1965.

2. “Not to exceed 5 per centum of appropriations made available for th e fiscal 

year [1964] 1965 for ‘Operating expenses’ and ‘Plant and capital equipment’ 

may be transferred between such appropriations, bu t neither such appropriation , 

except as otherwise provided herein, shall be increased by more th an 5 per cen tum 

by any such transfers, and any such transfers shall be repo rted prom ptly to the 

Appropriations Committees of th e House and Senate.”

This change makes the provision applicable to fiscal year 1965.

G e n er a l St a te m e n t fo r P la nt an d C a pit a l E q u ip m en t

S U M M A R Y O F R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R F I S C A L Y E A R 196 5

The budget estim ates for the appropriation Pla nt and capital equipment for 

1965 provide for estim ated obligations of $370 million to be funded by a new 

appropriation. Of the estim ated tota l obligations, $151.3 million is required for 

construction projects for which authorization is being requested in the 1965 

authorization bill, $28.9 million is required for construction projects previously 

authorized, and $189.8 million is required for capital equipment not related to 

construction.

A summarization of estimated 1965 obligations by program follows:

Summ ary of fiscal year 1965 obligations

Fu nd in g for 

pro jects 

au tho riz ed 

in p rio r 

yea rs

Fu nd in g for 

pro jec ts 

inc lude d in 

the 1965 

Au thorizatio n Ac t

Cap ita l 

eq uipm en t 

no t r ela ted 

to construc ­

tio n

To tal

Ra w m aterials............... . ........................

Special nuclea r materials............. .........

Weap ons_________________________

Reactor d ev elop men t............................

Ph ysica l research ________ _________

Biolo gy an d me dic ine ______________

Tr aining , education, and info rm ation 

Civil ian applic ati on s of:

Iso top es______ ____ ___________

Nu clear exp losive s_____________

C om m un ity ____ __________________

Adm in istra tiv e____________________

Co nstru ction pla nning a nd d esi gn....

To tal obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$ 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 

2 4 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 4 5 ,0 0 0 

1 9 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 

4 6 ,1 2 0 ,0 0 0 

2 9 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 

4 3 ,9 4 0 ,0 0 0 

6 ,8 6 3 ,0 0 0 

9 0 ,0 0 0

2 ,9 9 0 ,0 0 0 2, 24 0, 00 0

9 0 ,0 0 0

3, (XX), (XX)

$25 ,0 0 0 

2 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

7 2 ,6 3 0 ,0 0 0 

4 7 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0 

3 9 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0 

4 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0

660 ,0 0 0

1 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0

400,0 00

9 0 ,0 0 0

667,0 00

$ 7 0 ,0 0 0 

4 1 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 

1 1 8 ,7 5 0 ,0 0 0 

78 , 000 ,0 0 0 

107, 7 4 0 ,0 0 0 

1 1 ,4 6 3 ,0 0 0

750 ,0 0 0

1 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0

4 0 0 ,0 0 0 

5 ,3 2 0 ,0 0 0

7 5 7 ,0 0 0

3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

28,890,000 151,338,000 189,772,000 370,000,000

S U M M A R Y O F O B L I G A T I O N S

The following table summarizes the total obligations for each of th e program s 

for 1963, 1964, and 1965. The data for 1963 has been adjusted to include obligations by program for capital equipment not related to construction (budgeted 

under operating expenses in that year) to provide comparability with the da ta 

for 1964 and 1965. This comparability adjustment totals $222,538,186 in 1963. 

The detailed justifications beginning on page 11 present the programs in the sameorder as they appe ar on this sum mary table.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 85

Sum ma ry of obligations by program

R aw m ate ri als ______________________

Spe ci al nucl ea r m a te ri als ___________ _

W eap ons___________________________

R ea ct or d ev elo p m en t_______________

P hysi cal re se ar ch___________________

Biology a n d m edic in e.......... ....... ........... .

T ra in in g , ed ucat io n, a n d in fo rm at io n 

C iv il ia n ap pli ca ti ons of—

Is o to p es________________________

N u cle ar ex pl osi ve s............ . . . ......... .

C o m m u n it y ________________________

A d m in is tr ati v e____ ____ ____________

C onst ru ct io n p la n n in g a n d d e s ig n .. .

T o ta l o bli gat io ns___ ____ ______

A ct ual, E sti m ate , E sti m ate ,

fis ca l y ea r fis ca l vea r fis ca l yea r

1963 1964 1965

$53,036 $37,000 $70,000

111,613,517 73,315 ,77 2 41,85 0,0 00

125,601,304 140,903,000 118 ,750,000

115,215,093 186,1 17,000 78,00 0,0 00

116,055,389 124,323,000 107,740,00 0

9,3 25, 520 8,1 51, 000 11,463 ,00 0

581,007 693,000 750,000

1,70 4,595 2,83-1,000 1,9 00,00 0

385,535 292,000 400,000

1,484,088 7,336, 000 5,32 0,00 0

749,116 670,000 757,000

5,000, 000 3,0 00 ,000

482,768,200 549 ,671 ,772 370,0 00,00 0

FIN A N C IN G OF O BLI GATIO NS

The financing of the estimated total obligations of $370 million proposed in th e 

budget estimates for 1965, together with comparable data for 1963 and 1964, is 

summarized in the following table:

Summ ary of finan cing

A ct ua l, fiscal 

ye ar 1963

E st im ate , 

fisc al ve ar

196-1

E st im ate , 

fiscal yea r 

1965

F u n d s a va ila bl e:

U nob ligat ed ba la no e a t be gi nn in g o f y ea r________________

Rec ov er y of p ri or- yea r obligat io ns............................... . ............

A pp ro p ri ati o n _____________ ____________ _________ _____ _

C o m p ara b il it y tr ansf er from “ O per at in g exp en se s, A to m ic

E nerg y C om m is si on ’’_________________________________

N et am o u n t av ai la ble for obl ig at io n_________________

U nobligate d ba la no e a t e n d o f y ear__________________________

T o ta l obligat io ns.......... ............... .................................................

$135.722,786 

8,059,000 

262,745,000

222,5 38,186

629,064,972 

146,296,772

482,768, 200

$146,296,772 

3,375,000 

400,0 00,000 $37 0,000,000

549 ,671 ,772 370 ,000,000

549 ,671 ,772 370 ,000,0 00

E X P E N D IT U R E S FOR PL AN T AND CA PI TAL E Q U IP M EN T

Expenditures from the Plant and capital equipment appropriation for 1965 

are estim ated to be $435 million. The estim ated amounts available for expenditur e in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the expenditures for each year, and the remaining 

unexpended balances are shown in the following table:

Expenditure analysis

A ctu al, fis cal 

ye ar 1963

E st im ate , 

fiscal y ea r 

1964

E sti m ate , 

fiscal yea r 

1965

F u n d s a vail able for ex pendit ure :

U nex pen ded bal an ce , begin nin g of y e a r.. ............... ................. $382,905,733

A p p ro p ri ati o n ...................................................................................... 262,7 45,000

Tra nsf er of esti m ate d u n p aid ob liga tion s for eq u ip m en t

from “ O pera ti ng ex pe ns es , A to m ic E nerg y C om m is ­

si on ” ......... ............. ............. ..........................................................................................

T o ta l fu n d s av ail ab le for ex p en d it u re ________________

Le ss: E x p e n d it u re s .. .......... ............. ......... .............................................

U ne xpe nde d b ala nce , en d o f y ear......... ......... ............. ...........

645,650,733 

> 250,647,763

395,002,970

$395,002,970

400.0 00,000

143,781,047

938,7 84,017 

435, 000,000

503,784,017

$50 3,784,017 

370 ,00 0.0 00

873,784 ,017 

435 ,000,0 00

438 ,784,0 17

' T h is am o u n t is n o t co m par ab le to th e ex p en d it u re s esti m ate d for 1964 an d 1965 in th a t 1964 a n d 1965 

ex penditure s in clu de am o u n ts re la te d to eq u ip m en t obligat io ns w hi ch ar e now sh ow n u n d er th e P la n t 

an d ca p it al eq u ip m en t ap p ro p ri ati o n rath er th a n th e O p era ti n g ex pe ns es ap pro pri ati on as is th e ca se 

for 1963. T h e am o u n t of $155,521,810 sh ould be ad d ed to 1963 e xpenditure s to ar ri ve a t a n am o u n t co m ­

p ara ble to t he 1964 a n d 1965 ex pen diture s.
86 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

HIG HLI GHTS OF PL ANT AN D CAPI TA L E Q U IP M E N T

There follows a brief description of each of th e programs set forth in the summary on page 2.

1. Haw materials.—Obligations for raw materials plant and capital equipment 

in 1965 are estimated at $70,000. This includes $45,000 for minor modifications 

and improvements to existing plant or installatio ns and $25,000 for capital 

equipment not related to construction.

2. Special nuclear materials.—Obligations for special nuclear materials plant 

and capital equipment in 1965 are estimated at $41.9 million of which $19.9 

million is necessary to provide for new construction projects proposed for authorization, and $22 million is estim ated for capital equipment not related to construction. The $19.9 million proposed for new construction projects includes 

$9 million for an isotopes production plant at Richland, Wash., $0.3 million for a 

radiosurgery facility at Richland, Wash., and $10.6 million for general plant 

projects.

3. Weapons.—Obligations for weapons p lant and capital equipment in 1965 are 

estim ated a t $118.8 million of which $46.1 million is necessary to provide for new 

construction projects proposed for authorization and $72.7 million is estim ated 

for capital equipment not related to construction. The new construction projects 

include $30.1 million for additional production, development, and supporting 

facilities, and $16 million for general plant projects.

4. Heactor development.—Obligations for reactor development plant and capital 

equipment in 1965 are estimated at $78 million, of which $29.1 million will provide 

for new construction projects proposed for authorization, $1.5 million will complete 

funding on prior years’ authorized projects, and $47.4 million is estim ated for 

capital equipment not related to construction. The new construction projects 

include $8.1 million for a safety engineering power burst facility, $3 million for a 

zero power plutonium reactor, $3 million for a support project for Project Rover, 

$3 million for a supp ort project for modification to reactors, and $12 million for 

general plant projects.

5. Physical Research.—Obligations for physical research plant and capital 

equipment in 1965 are estim ated at $107.7 million, of which $43.9 million is for 

new construction projects requiring auth orization , $24.4 million is to complete 

funding on projects authorized in prior years, and $39.4 million is for capital 

equipment not rela ted to construction. The construction projects include $25 

million for an Argonne advanced research reactor, $5.5 million for accelerator 

improvements at various sites, $2.8 million for general plant projects, and $10.6 

million for other research facilities. Additional obligations of $24 million for the 

Stanford linear electron accelerator and $0.4 million for the U niversity of Chicago 

high-energy physics building are included to complete the funding for these projects 

which were authorized in prior years.

6. Biology and medicine.—Obligations for biology and medicine plan t and capital 

equipment in 1965 are estimated at $11.5 million of which $6.9 million is for new 

projects to be authorize d, and $4.6 million is for capital equipment not related 

to construction. The new projects include $6 million for supp ort of biomedical 

research projects in atomic energy and $0.9 million for general plant projects.

7. Training, education, and information.— Obligations for training, education, 

and information plant and capital equipment in 1965 are estimated at $0.8 million. 

This includes $0.1 million for general plant projects at the Puerto Rico Nuclear 

Center, and $0.7 million for capital equipm ent not related to construction.

8. Isotopes development.—Obligations for isotopes development in 1965 are 

estim ated at $1.9 million for capital equpim ent not related to construction.

9. Civilian applications of nuclear explosives.—Obligations for civilian applications of nuclear explosives will provide $0.4 million for capital equipment not 

related to construction.

10. Community.— Obligations for Izis Alamos comm unity plant and capital 

equipment in 1965 are estimated at $5.3 million. This includes $2.2 million for 

new projects proposed for authorization in 1965, $3 million for additional funding 

of a previously authorized community disposal project, and $0.1 million for 

capital equipment not related to construction. The $2.2 million estim ated for 

new projects in 1965 will provide for the following: $0.3 million for an additional 

water distribution system , $0.3 million for additional junior high school classrooms, $0.3 million for additional elementary school classrooms, $0.6 million for 

a sewage disposal plan t, and $0.7 million for general pla nt projects.

11. Administrative.— Obligations for improvements and modifications of 

administrative facilities at the Commission head quarters in Germantown, Md., 

and for procurement of capital equipment to sup port the operating program in
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 87

1965 are estimat ed at $0.8 million. This includes $0.1 million for new general 

pla nt projects and $0.7 million for cap ital equipm ent not related to construction.

12. Construction planning and design.—Obligations for engineering and design for complex construction prior to proposing projects for authorization are estimated at $3 million in 1965.

EXPLAN ATION OF PROPOSED LAN GU AG E CHANGES----PLANT AND CAP ITAL EQ UIP MEN T

Proposed changes in language are indicated as follows: Language enclosed in 

black brackets indicates proposed deletions and italic indicates proposed insertion 

of new language.

1. “purchase [ ( ] of not to exceed [fo ur hundred and tw enty- thr ee] five hundred and twenty-two of which three hundred and eighty-four are for replacement °

n

ly [• ] (including [tw o] three at not to exceed $3,000 each) and hire of pas­ senger motor vehicles; and purchase of one aircraft]".

This change provides for authorization of the procurement in fiscal year 1965 

of 522 passenger motor vehicles of which 384 are for replacement of older vehicles 

and 138 would be additions to the fleet. The change also provides authorization 

for the procurement of the aircraft being leased for research in aerial radiological 

survey measurements and for support of emergency operations involving a nuclear 

incident.

All vehicles to be replaced will meet or exceed the GSA replacem ent stan dards. 

The additional vehicles requested include 128 automobiles, 3 station wagons, and 

7 buses. Of this increase, 120 automobiles will be required at the Nevada Test 

Site to offset a like number of commercial rentals in view of the continuing 

program at th at location. In line with crite ria recently established for Government agencies, one additional medium weight sedan will be required at headquarters to replace a rented heavy sedan. (Two other medium sedans for 

headqua rters are included in the 384 replacements.) Also required are seven 

automobiles, four buses, and three station wagons for the National Reactor 

Testing Station to meet new and expanding program requirements. Finally, 

thre e additional school buses are required at Los Alamos to meet a projected 

increase in public school enrollment.

Contractors are assigned passenger moto r vehicles as Government-furnished 

equipment and operate them in carrying out the Commission’s program. With 

the net addition of 138, the passenger vehicle fleet will number 2,564 a t the end 

of fiscal year 1965.

2. “[$400,000,000] $370,000,000, to remain available until expended”. This change provides for deletion of the amou nt appropriated in fiscal year 1964 

and insertion of the amount of th e fiscal year 1965 appropriation request.

3. "Provided, [T hat the obligated balance as of June 30, 1963, of amounts included in appropriations to the Atomic Energy Commission for ‘Operating expenses’, for capital equipment not related to construction, shall be merged with 

this appropriation: Provided further, Th at the unexpended balance as of June 

30, 1963, of th e appropriation ‘Plant acquisition and construction’ shall be merged 

with this appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed $30,000,000 for a spectral shift power reactor may be transferred from this appropriation to the 

appropriation for ‘Operating expenses’, if the Commission determines such tra nsfer to be necessary to carry out such cooperative power reactor demonstration 

program as may be authorized by la w.]”

This change provides for deletion of language not required in the fiscal year 

1965 appropriation.

4. "That not to exceed $9,000,000 of the amount appropriated herein for an isotopes

production plant may be transferred to the appropriation for 'Operating expenses’,

if the Commission determines such transfer to be nceessary to enter into an arrangement for construction of all or a part of such plant by private industry.”

This change provides for the transfer of funds for th e isotopes production plant 

to the “Operating expenses” appropriation in the event the Commission enters 

into an agreement for private industry to participate in the construction and 

operation of these facilities with private capital.

P ro gr am s an d B u dg et E st im ates

Senator Pastore. Do you have a prepared statement, Dr. Seaborg?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Pastore. You may proceed.
88 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Dr . Seaborg. I am pleased to appear before yo ur com mittee to 

discuss the Atom ic En erg y Com mission ’s pro gra ms and bu dget estimates. With me are other mem bers of the Commission and staff. 

We are especially pleased to hav e the newest member of the Com mission with us at these hearings. Dr . Mary I. Bu nting was ju st sworn 

in on Mo nda y, June 29, so this is her first ap peara nce before yo ur committee; th at is, this com mittee, as an AEG Com missioner. As you 

know, Dr. Bu nting has been pre sid ent of Radcliffe College and has a 

rich bac kgroun d of experience in science and admi nis tra tio n. I tak e 

great plea sure in introd uci ng her to this com mittee.

Senator P astore. If I may interru pt, I notice th at Dr. Bu nting 

was before the Jo int Co mm itte e yeste rda y. I did no t have an 

op po rtu nity to welcome her. I do have th at op po rtu nity exclusively 

thi s morning .

Com missioner B unt ing. Tha nk y ou very much.

A U T H O R IZ IN G L E G IS L A T IO N

Dr. Seabo rg. This ye ar for the first tim e, ou r en tir e req uest for 

ap prop ria tio ns —opera tin g expenses as well as pl an t and capital 

eq uip me nt—has req uir ed aut horizing legi slation. This legislation, 

repo rte d ou t by the Jo in t Co mm itte e on Ato mic En ergy has been 

approv ed by bo th the Hou se of Re presentat ives and the Sen ate and 

was signed by the President yeste rda y.

The Pr esiden t’s budget inclu ded an approp ria tio n for the Atom ic 

En ergy Commission for the fiscal year 1965 in the am ou nt of $2,693 

million—of which $2,323 million is for op era tin g expenses an d $370 

million for pl an t and cap ital equ ipm ent.

Th e autho rizing legislatio n would provide for an appro pri ation of 

$2,682 million, of which $2,315 million is for opera tin g expenses and 

$367 million is for plan t and capit al equip me nt.

Th e ap pro priat ion bill passed by the House on Ju ne 16 (H.R. 

11579), would fu rth er reduce the am ou nt of the appro priation to 

$2,624.1 million, of which $2,261.1 million is for opera ting expenses 

an d $363 million is f or pl an t an d cap ital equ ipm ent.

H O U S E A C TIO N

In total the am ount reco mmended by th e House is $68.9 million 

below the am ount proposed in the Pr esiden t’s budget with $61.9 

million of the red uct ion applicable to the op era tin g expenses appro ­

priat ion and $7 million applica ble to the plan t and capital equ ipm ent 

appro priat ion .

We have m ade a ve ry careful review of o ur program s and the reductio ns made by the House. Takin g into accou nt th e recognized need 

for reduci ng costs whe nev er possible, we are no t req uesting a bla nk et 

resto rat ion bu t ra th er we have mad e a con certed effort to be highly 

sele ctiv e in the item s for which we are req uesting th e res tor ati on of 

funds.

A P P E A L IN G R E D U C T IO N S

Th us, while we are n ot app ealing the red uctions m ade b y t he H ouse 

in ou r biology and medicine, info rma tion , and isotopes pro grams, this 

decision did no t come easily, since as you well know, the C ommission
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 89

considers these activitie s of treme ndous importance . However, we 

mu st emphasize th e seriousness with which we view the red uctio ns 

made in the opera tion of our special nucle ar ma terials, reac tor developm ent, and phy sica l research pro gra ms for which we are rec om ­

men ding resto ratio ns tot ali ng $17.9 millio n.

Senator P ast ore. As again st a cu t of how m uch?

Dr. Seaborg. Of ab ou t $61 million.

Senat or P asto re. $61.9 million.

Dr. Seaborg. $61,927,000 to be exact. I would like to com me nt 

briefly on the majo r AEC p rog ram s a nd the budget estima tes for these 

prog rams.

R aw M aterial s

Raw ma terials pro gram: The $267.5 million req ueste d for the raw 

ma terials pro gra m is $52.5 million less than the budget appro ved for 

fiscal year 1964 and pro vide s for p rocurem ent of 15,677 tons of uranium 

co ncentra tes in fiscal year 1965.

Procure me nt of ura niu m concentra tes from foreign so urces co ntinues 

to decline. Deliveries under the co ntr acts with Ca na da and South 

Africa will be com pleted by the end of calen dar year 1966. Procure ­

men t from dom estic pro duc ers is also declining in accordance with 

co ntr actual com mitments. Th e dom estic str etch ou t pro gra m is 

proceeding in accordance with announced plans.

Senator Pasto re. Ins ofar as the raw ma terials pro gra m is concerned, the re is no questio n ab ou t the Hou se action.

Dr . Seaborg. No que stio n. Th ey acc epted the pro gra m as we 

pre sen ted it.

Spe ci al N uc le ar M at er ials

Special nuc lear ma terials program: The Com mission ’s bu dget for 

fiscal year 1965 inclu ded $401.5 million in opera ting costs for the 

pro duction of special nuc lear and othe r special ma terials for the 

military pro gra ms and for peacefu l app lications of ato mic energy. 

This am ount is $73.9 million below fiscal year 1964 opera tin g costs 

for thi s pro gra m and reflects red uctions in pro duction of enriched 

ura niu m and plu ton ium tog eth er with oth er opera ting economies. 

The majo r facilities opera ted un der thi s pro gra m include the production rea cto rs at Ric hland, Wa sh., and Savannah River, S.C., used 

for the production of plu ton ium and tritiu m, and the gaseous diffu ­

sion casc ades at Oak Ridg e, Tenn., Pa du cah, Ky ., and Po rts mou th, 

Ohio, used for the pro duction of enriched uraniu m.

HOUSE ACTION

The House appro pri ation bill redu ces the am ount req ueste d for 

th is pro gra m to $395 millio n, a $6.5 million reduct ion . In repo rti ng 

ou t the bill the com mittee s tate d th at the re duction is bas ed on recent 

years un derru n experience. Th e Commission is req uesting restor ation of $3.5 million of the $6.5 million cut. Bas ed on a recent compreh ensive analysis of opera tin g req uir em ents for fiscal y ear 1965, it is 

felt th at no more than $3 million of the $6.5 million red uctio n can be 

absorbed.

There hav e been underru ns in rec ent years. However, ou r bu dg et 

reflects a decrease in thi s pro gra m there by e lim ina ting the likelihoo d
90 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

of underruns which occur in an increasing pro gram resulting from 

lags and slippages. Moreov er in this pro gra m, in alm ost eve ry case 

the und erruns were pri ma rily the res ult of act ion s tak en within AEG 

to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of operation s. These 

efforts, as one example led to subs tan tia l emplo yment reduct ions, 

especially in the U235 p rod uct ion pla nts .

R e v ie w o f P roducti on P ro gr am

Each sucee ding year it becomes more difficult to mak e furth er 

red uct ion s in pers onnel and other cos ts; as noted above, add itio nal 

red uct ion s in cost of opera tions were assu med in the b udget s ub mi tte d 

for fiscal year 1965. In thi s connection subsequent to our de term ination to app eal for restor ati on of $3.5 m illion of the H ouse reduction, 

we have been reviewing furth er the productio n program in extensive 

detail w ith o ur field offices, p art icu lar ly at Richlan d, and on the basis 

of these review s I con sider it esse ntial th at $3% million of the $6^ 

million reduction be restored.

Sen ator Past ore. Is this all in the weapons program?

Dr. Seaborg. Th is is all in the pro ductio n of special nuclear materials, mo st of which goes for weapons.

Senator Pastore. W ha t would hap pen if you did no t get the $3.5 

million th at you are asking for? Th e arg um ent th at is u sually ma de 

in conference is th at after all the a mou nt allowed is $395 million aft er 

they c ut yo u $6.5 million and you are asking for res toration of half of 

th at , $3.5 million th at v ery la rge a mo unt of $395 million. Especially 

in view of the experien ce of the underru ns, why can’t you possibly 

absorb t he $3.5 million an d wh at would b e t he ca tas tro ph e if we d idn’t 

give it to you ? T hat is wh at I would like to ge t dra ma tiz ed and 

emp hasized so th at you will have some a rgum en t in conference in the 

event we h ave to go back. I thi nk wha t you have to do, in view of the 

action of the H ous e, is to point up wha t th e res ult will b e in the e vent 

this is no t restored.

E F F E C T O F H O U S E A C TIO N

Dr. Seaborg. I t is an extremely tig ht budget. We reduce d it 

$73.9 million ourselves and con side red it very tig ht at th at point. 

I thi nk th at if we didn ’t hav e the $3.5 million restored, and began to 

run short of funds, we would hav e to do som ething like sh ut down 

one of the Ha nfo rd rea cto rs earlier than we had planned.

Senator Pasto re. In oth er words, in this category, you ran ou t of 

money it would necessa rily mean you would have to shut down one 

of the reactors?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes, we would, perha ps, have to shut down one 

of the rea cto rs earlier tha n we hav e now scheduled to shut down. 

We have scheduled the shutdow n of three rea cto rs at Ha nfo rd.

Senator Pasto re. W ha t was the am ou nt for thi s pa rticular ca tegory in the fiscal year 1963? Can you give me th at figure?

Mr. C orso. Yes, sir, $477,963,000.

Senator Pasto re. How much more than you asked for thi s yea r?

Mr. C orso. That would be $76 million more tha n we asked for 

fiscal year 1965.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 91

19 64 E stim a te an d Appr o pr ia t io n

Senator P astore. What was it th at you asked for in 1964 and 

wha t were you given in 1964?

Mr. C orso. We were given $475.4 million. I do n’t have with me 

wh at our original r equest was for fiscal 1964.

Senator Pastore. Which is how much less than wha t you asked 

for this time or more?

Dr. Seaborg. The 1965 requ est is $73.9 million below the 1964 

budget.

Senat or P astore. Y o u hav e sha rpened your pencil down to wh at?

Dr. Seaborg. Tha t is wh at sha rpe nin g our pencil res ulted in.

Senator P astore. $401 million.

Dr. Seaborg. $401.5 million.

R ESTO RA TIO N R EQ U EST

Senator Pastore. The Ho use gave you $395 million and you are 

asking for res tor ati on of $3.5 million?

Dr. Seaborg. Tha t is righ t.

Senator Pastore. If you ca n’t abs orb thi s it necessarily means 

th at y ou will hav e to shut down some place?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes, earlier than scheduled. T hat is, pro bab ly. 

P o ssib il it y of Sh u t tin g D ow n H a nfo rd R ea c to r

Senat or Pastore. That is all to do with militar y purp oses?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes. Th is is pri ma rily for the pro duction of fissionable ma terial for milita ry purposes, for weapons.

Senator Pastore. The fact of the m at te r is t h at is one of t he alternative s th at might res ult. It doesn ’t necessa rily mean th at you 

could n’t do som eth ing else. Le t us no t get into a position here th at 

it necessa rily means th at you hav e to sh ut down the reac tor sooner 

th an you thou gh t. You might hav e to do som eth ing else ins tea d of 

sh ut d own the re actor . Do I make my p oint clear on this?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes.

Senator Pastore. In oth er words, I wa nt to go into the facts. It 

might mean the s hu tti ng down of the reac tor or it might mean somethi ng else, too.

Dr . Seaborg. There might be othe r way s of curtailin g activ ity .

Senator Pastore. Give me a run down on wh at those othe r ways 

might be.

O T H E R P O S S IB L E A C T IO N S

Mr. Bara now ski. As the budget is s et up for 1965, we hav e tak en 

a ha rd look and have tak en a lot of cost red uction ste ps con sistent 

with a minimum bud get. The only wa y we see toda y in meeting the 

levels th at would be e stablis hed a t $395 million is to reduce personnel. 

Mo st of ou r budget is made up of p erso nnel. Therefore, if we hav e to 

meet the proposed dollar level we would h ave to g et involved in laying 

off pe rsonnel in the p rod uct ion sy ste m.

The only place th at we see now th at would no t be a majo r change 

in our program would be to accelerate the shu tdown of the rea cto rs 

as app roved by the Pre sident.

There are oth er places we can look at such as def erral of pro jects, 

bu t all of these cost redu ctions r equir e personnel reduct ion s.

Senator Pastore. That is the answer I wa nte d. Th an k you.

Dr. Seaborg. The $398.5 million budget, assu min g resto rat ion
92 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1965

of $3.5 million, is considered to be a min imu m am ount for carryingou t this program .

Wea po ns

Weapons program: The budget estim ate for weapons pro duction, 

develop men t and testing activities in 1965 is $771.7 million. Th is 

pro gram provides for produc tion of the ato mic weapons req uired to 

meet stockpile objectives recommen ded by the Dep artm en t of Defense and app rov ed by the Pre sident. I t also provides for the opera tion of the laborato ries engaged in t he developm ent of new we apons, 

con tinuation of the under gro und wea pons test program , and the 

atm osp heric test readin ess activities, all of which are necessary to 

meet our resp ons ibilities for the lim ited nuc lear test ban trea ty 

safeguards.

The House action would reduce the Com mission ’s est imate bv $6.7 

million. This red uction is no t being app ealed. We are now able to 

proj ect sa vings as a r es ul t of rece nt favora ble cost experience in certain 

activities in the w eapons program.

O F F S E T T IN G R E D U C T IO N S

On the other han d, as a result of a rec ent review of the fiscal year 

1965 estimates, we find th at the proje cti on of $186.3 million for 

weap ons tes tin g must be increased by app rox imately $23 million. 

We can accommodate thi s increase bec ause of the offs etting red uction s in other activ itie s of the weapons pro gram resu lting from the 

savings I mentioned above, wi tho ut in any way red ucing the scope of 

thes e activities.

Senator P astore. The refo re, you are rea dy to accept the House 

cut in this case?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes, sir ; we are rea dy to accep t the Hou se cu t in 

this case.

Senator P astore. Very well, sir.

Reacto r Dev el op men t

Dr. Seaborg. Re actor d eve lopment pro gra m: The fiscal ye ar 1965 

bu dg et estim ate subm itte d to Congress for this pro gram included 

$497.9 million, a $10.4 million red uction from fiscal year 1964.

Th e princi pal ob jec tive of this prog ram is to develop nuclear pow erplants for civilian, mi lita ry, and space uses. Under the act ivities 

for civilian power rea cto rs, cooperativ e powe r rea cto r demo nstra tio n 

pro gram, and Eu ratom, the Commission tog eth er with indu str y is 

pur suing a pro gra m aimed at demo nstra tin g th at nuc lear powe r 

rea cto rs can be com pet itiv e with fossil fuel pow erp lan ts in su bstan tia l 

areas of the Un ited State s and othe r pa rts o f the world.

In this bu dg et and fut ure bud gets, thes e activities will be concerned primarily with the dev elo pm ent of the advanced convert er 

and bree der reac tor techn olog y to conserve the Nation’s sup ply of 

fissile m aterials and to mak e possible more efficient use of our supplies 

of fertile ma terial.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

M il it a r y and Spa ce Uses of N u c lea r E ner gy

93

The military uses of nuclear energy for power are being developed 

under the activities for Army power reactors and Navy propulsion 

reactors.

The space uses of nuclear energy are being developed under the 

activities for rocket propulsion reactors (ROVER) and satellite and 

small power sources (SNAP devices). The activities for general 

reactor technology, advance systems research and development, nuclear safety, and operational services are not systems oriented but 

furnish basic technical data needed by the system-oriented civilian, 

military, and space programs.

Although the authorizing legislation approved the total amount for 

this program, $497.9 million, the amount requested by the Commission, a number of changes were made in the JCAE report with respect 

to amounts for the various activities. The House Appropriations 

Committee report indicated acceptance of these changes b ut made a 

reduction of $7.9 million, bringing the program total to $490 million.

P lu to

Of the $7.9 reduction, the House committee report applied 

$5.5 million to the PLUTO program, allowing only $1 million for 

“mothballing” the project until such time as there is a military 

system and requirement for it.

All agree th at the TORY II- C tests have been eminently successful 

in demonstrating the PLUTO reactor technology. In the absence 

of support of the DOD for a flight program under this joint undertaking, the Commission is not in a position to support a flight demonstration. However, the Commission is requesting restoration of 

$4 million of this reduction to provide for the investigation of special 

applications utilizing this very high temperature gas-cooled reactor 

technology and to permit a more orderly phaseout of personnel and 

resources of the project.

Restoration is requested in light of the investment of $135 million 

in PLUTO technology, the Commission’s responsibility for the design 

of new systems which show promise of bringing about major advancements in reactor technology, and the continued utilization of trained 

talent at the Livermore weapons laboratory.

I consider th at last to be very important.

M O T H B A L L IN G

Senator Pastore. The members of the Joint Committee have 

always been quite impressed with the work that has been done on this 

PLUTO activity. They use the word “mothballing,” does tha t 

necessarily mean all they are allowing you is $1 million to bring this 

to an end?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes, sir; tha t is correct.

Senator Pastore. That would be really a major policy decision, 

wouldn’t it?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes.

Senator Pastore. Do we intend to bring this to an end? Does 

the AEC intend to bring this to an end?
94 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Dr. Seaborg. We have no choice un der the circ umstance s, bu t 

we would like to go in a more orderly manner and keep some of the 

technolo gy alive.

Senator P astore. I would like to have you ela borate upon th at 

because th at is the point 1 am try ing to m ake a t this ju ncture. Sometimes, if you do n’t live with some of these programs, it is pre tty 

ha rd to un derst and th at som ething is going to die. W ha t difference 

does it make if it tak es a ye ar or if it tak es a day ? If som eth ing is 

going to come to an end, the quicke r the be tte r. Why do you need 

the $4 million? I would like to ge t the record very clea r on this 

beca use this is going to be a ha rd one in conference.

H ig h-T em per a tu r e T ec hnol og y

Dr. Seabo rg. Th e Commission feels th at this pa rticular hightem perat ure technology has so much promise th at we would like to 

con tinue to su pp ort it.

Senator Pastore. Ha s prom ise in wha t regard?

Dr. Seaborg. Promise with regard to possible future use in some 

phase of mi lita ry technology ; prom ise in reg ard to possible future use 

in the civilian nuclear power program an d various asp ects of it; 

possibly, small portable rea cto rs; and possibly more efficient hightem perat ure r eac tors.

Senator P astore. In other words, if this pro per ly pha sed ou t in a 

more gradu al fashion, we will ge t the ad va ntag e of v ery, very p en et ra ting and basic research developments; is th at corr ect?

Dr. Seaborg. T hat is r igh t, upon which the $135 million has been 

spent to date.

P er so n n e l

Senator Pastore. H o w ma ny people are engaged in this program 

at this time?

Dr. Seaborg. Ab out 350 in the level of scient ists and engineers 

in the dir ect efTort.

Senator P asto re. Le t us g et this accurat ely in the reco rd, Do cto r

Dr . Pittman. Mr. Pas tore, the dir ect emplo ym ent on the rolls as of 

tod ay is a total of 321 people.

Se nator Pastore. How ma ny of these are scientists?

Dr. Pittman. These are all of the dir ect scientific personnel.

Senator Pastore. If you cu t this back to $1 million, wh at happens 

to this personnel?

Clo se out ok P lu to E ff ort

Dr. Pittman. The program we are a sking for is to cu t this back so 

th at the re would be 171 people rem ain ing on the closeout of wh at is 

now called the Pluto effort. The se would be the people th at would 

be necessary to do the ter minatio n of the prese nt Plu to exp erim ent, 

an d to carry ou t the studie s and labo ratory dev elopmental pro grams 

th at will show us how this tech nology can be applied to the futur e 

of th ese other pro grams t he chairma n is ta lki ng ab out. That numb er 

of personnel would go down dur ing the ye ar to app rox imately 135 a t 

the end of the fiscal ye ar for this pa rtic ul ar effort.

Se nator P astore. Are you saying, then, th at unless we apply the 

technology th at we have acquired, and the know ledge th at we hav e 

acq uired in this proje ct and we do it in pro per fashion th at much 

of the inv estm ent th at has here tofo re been made might be lost?
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 95

P lu to T ec h n olog y an d C os t

Dr. Pittma n. I think so. Th e Pluto tech nology was deve loped 

for a h ighly specialized app lication. It was developed for the nuclear 

ram jet . No at te m pt was made during th at dev elopmental pro gram, 

because of the urgency of th at pro gram, to determ ine how or where 

the tech nology inv olving one of the best high tem pe rature m odera tors, 

used with a va rie ty of gases, air, oxygen, CO2

, helium, neon , and other 

possible gases, in a very high tem perat ure, very com pac t a nd hopefully 

cheap and long-lived rea cto r could bes t be explo ited.

For instan ce, the cost of thi s rea cto r th at we hav e deve loped 

for Plu to has been much high er than might be necessa ry if the condition s of opera tion were droppe d down considerably. In other word s, 

it was deve loped as a high ly specific device.

The refo re, we do not know how it can be used in these othe r areas. 

Tf we do n’t expend this kind of effort during the next year, we will 

nev er know wh eth er this $135 m illion was lost.

Senator P astore. Plus $60 million of th e Defense Dep artm en t.

Dr. Pittman. Yes, sir. How ever, $135 million has been on the 

rea cto r itself. That is w hy T used th at figure.

Senat or P astore. There is no question at all bu t th at there will be 

a mo thb alling of this project.

Dr. Pittma n. Our proposal th at we have presented to you tod ay 

is to mo thball the Plu to proje ct and to do every thing we possibly can 

to mak e th at tech nolo gy available.

A PPLY IN G TECHNOLO GY AN D K N O W L ED G E E L S E W H E R E

Senat or P asto re. Th e resto ratio n of the $4 million is merely to 

apply the tech nology and knowledge we have gained from this pro jec t 

in oth er areas.

Dr. Pittma n. To find ou t where it can apply. We think it is 

applicable in ma ny differen t area s, sir. It is a very good technolo gy.

Dr. Seaboro. In add ition, we think t o phase it out as f ast as w ould 

be required und er the $1 million budget would hav e a very adverse 

effect on thi s lab orato ry. We would hav e to let scientists and 

engineers go overnight, which we feel might even react de trime nta lly 

to the weapons program, to hit a lab orato ry th at hard .

F lig h t T est E le m e n t

Senat or P astore. How ab ou t the flight tes t elem ent of this? 

General L uedecke. A numb er of system s or app roache s to flight 

test hav e been exam ined, Mr. Ch airma n, ran ging from some $400 or 

$500 million down to possibly $230 to $240 million, depend ing upon 

the objective s esta blis hed for the flight tes t. I thi nk it is ind icated 

th at it is feasible to do a lim ited fligh t tes t in a research vehicle and 

get inform atio n at least on the reactor and engine com pon ent for 

ab ou t $225 to $230 million. Th is is prima rily . 1 think, a resp onsibility of the De pa rtm en t of Defense and I understand they have 

exam ined such a plan.

Senat or Pastore. They hav e rule d aga inst it.

General Luedecke. Yes, sir; we hav e been informed that the y 

do not plan to go forw ard with such a flight tes t program at this time.
96 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

M OTHBALL IN G

Com missioner T ap e. Mr. Chairm an, before we leave this, I believe 

the word “m othb all ” needs a little discussion.

Se na tor P astore. 1 think so, too.

Com missioner T ap e. T o me, the word “m oth balling” was derived 

from the procedure of taking a finished prod uct which had been in 

opera tion, a ship or an airp lane , which was the n excess to the needs, 

and pu tti ng it aside in such a condition th at it could be rea ctivated 

for service at some futur e date. This is the rea cti va tio n of a piece 

of hard wa re. It is not a re activation of te chnolog y. The tech nology 

here does no t reside ju st in th at pa rticular reac tor sys tem which has 

been tested, no t j us t in the hardware. To me, the technolo gy resides 

in the lab ora tory, in the engineers, and so on.

If we tr y to implem ent the program as sug gested in the Hou se a ction, 

I think we could mo thball the reactor. I do no t think we can mo thb all 

the technology. It is in th at connection th at 1 would like to supp ort 

Dr . Pittm an ’s rem arks. W ha t we would like to do here is to carry out 

a pro gram in which the technology is examined and preserved in a 

wa y in which we can hav e a technological option, no t ju st on the 

militar y side, b ut for other a pplications in the futur e. This is n ot don e 

by cu tting a $10 million effo rt on the 1st of Jul y to a $1 million effo rt 

for the fiscal y ear 1965.

Senator Pastore. Then, on the othe r hand, wha t hap pen s next 

year?

Com missioner 'Pap e. This is wh at ws would have to determ ine , 

M r. Chairm an. Bu t in the meantim e, we will have exam ined the 

technology so th at we will make a deter mi natio n of futur e programs 

with the facts in fro nt of u s and not jus t an arbi tra ry cutofr.

Senator Pastore. Very well.

Ot h e r R ea cto r D ev elopm en t Ac tiv it ie s

Dr . Seaborg. We are also asking res tor ation of the $2,435,000 

general reduction in the rea cto r program made by the House. Th e 

Commission in its review of the rea cto r dev elopment program for 

fiscal year 1965 made reduct ions in man y pa rts of the program and 

reduce d the program total by $10.4 million below the fiscal year 

1964 level. Changes effected in the aut horizing legislation furth er 

redu ced certain activities of the rea cto r dev elopment program for 

fiscal year 1965 and required the Commission to abso rb $14.6 million 

for a flight test of SNAP-10A. It is the Com mission’s belief, in 

lig ht of the red uct ion alread y made and a provision for a flight tes t 

of SN AP-10A, th at a generalized cost underru n of $2.4 million will 

no t materialize in fiscal ye ar 1965 as experienced in prior years when 

many of the activities in rea cto r develop men t were expanding.

Therefo re, this reduct ion would have to be applied to act ivities 

which have alread y been cut below the fiscal year 1964 level.

M er ch a nt S h ip R ea ct ors

I would like to call special att en tio n to plans for our me rchant 

ship rea cto r program . The authorizing legislation would provide 

$1,935,000 for this ac tiv ity in fiscal yea r 1965, of which $235,000 

would be for closeout costs associated with a new rea cto r concept, th e
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 97

630-A, under development for the Commission by the General 

Electric Co.

The Commission now has under review a proposal submitted by 

the General Electric Co. for a cooperative program for a prototype 

reactor using this 630-A concept. In the interim period, it would be 

desirable to maintain the present research and development effort. 

The Commission, therefore, proposes to allocate within the operating 

appropriation amount provided for the merchant ship activity of the 

reactor program, $970,000 for this work.

An additional $230,000 for equipment would be allocated from 

within the equipment funds provided for the reactor development 

program, for a total of $1,200,000. In addition, the General Electric 

Co., during this period, would expend $300,000 on the project from its 

own funds.

This revised program plan has been approved within the past few 

days by the Bureau of the Budget.

B U D G E T E S T IM A T E A ND R E D U C T IO N S

Senator Pastore. What was the cut on this again? What was 

the budget estimate on the reactor development program.

Mr. Abbadessa. In the original request, sir, for the merchant ship 

reactor?

Senator Pastore. For everything.

Mr. Abbadessa. $497,900,000.

Senator Pastore. What did the House give you?

Mr. Abbadessa. The House gave us $490 million, sir, a reduction 

of $7,900,000.

Senator Pastore. Did they specify where the cut would be?

Mr. Abbadessa. Yes, sir. The language of their report accepts the 

changes t hat were made in the authorization bill, sir. In addition, 

they reduced the PLUTO program by $5.5 million, on which we are 

appealing $4 million. They also made an undesignated reduction in 

the amount of $2,435,000, on which the Commission is requesting full 

restoration.

EF FE CTS OF RED UCTI ONS

Senator Pastore. What happens if you don’t get that?

Dr. Pittman. In general, of course, a discussion of how $2.4 million 

out of $490 million hur ts you is a very difficult thing. But I would 

like to point out certain factors.

In the original request tha t was approved by the Joint Committee 

we were asked to absorb, and did absorb, $10 million for the SNAP 

10A flight test. When you take out all of those programs that we 

are committed to carry out for other agencies of Government, or in 

connection with other agencies of Government, such as the naval 

propulsion program where we really are budgeting to meet a rather 

specific request on the part of the Navy to do a job and to meet requirements, and when we look at the fact that a large fraction of our 

budget is for such things as the ROVER program wfiere, again, it is 

a joint effort between two agencies and the program is geared to the 

activities of the two, any cut really has to be taken from those 

activities tha t are general in nature and necessary for the development of new information tha t is to be used for the future.
98 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

Civ il ia n P o w e r an d N ucle ar S af et y

Where the $2.4 million cu t would come would certainl y, therefor e, 

be in such areas as the civilian power program , where we h ave alread y 

go tte n ourse lves down to the po int where the dev elo pm ent of the 

adv anc ed concepts and the breeders is at wh at we consider a bare 

min imu m. Anoth er area would be nuclear saf ety , because it is, 

again, no t something that has to me et an end-d ate requir em ent. I t is 

in those area s th at we would hav e to tak e the cut s. In other words, 

those area s th at are pu tti ng the Comm ission in a position to meet 

futur e requirements. The cu t of $2.4 million on top of the very sharp 

pencil th at we have alread y applied to those area s, in each case 

som ewhat below the previous levels of effort, is a ra th er severe blow, 

sir.

Senator Pasto re. The a mo unt you sou ght orig inally in th is p rogram 

was $497.9 million; is t hat r ight?

Mr. Abbadessa. Tha t is righ t.

Senator P astore. Th ey cu t you $7.9 million?

Com missioner T ap e. $497.9 million was with ou t a SN AP 10A 

flight test at th at time. So, as Dr. Pi ttm an has ind ica ted , there has 

been a reprog ram ing within the total where red uct ion s have alread y 

been tak en. So, when one looks at specific elem ents of the pro gram, 

one finds th at the ne t effect on thes e oth er elem ents of the program 

is more drastic than $7.9 million.

RESTORATION REQUEST

Se nator P astore. But the fac t of the m at ter is th at yo u are asking 

for $4 million res tor ation on the Pluto proje ct; is th at rig ht?

Dr . Seaborg. Yes.

Se na tor P astore. Plus $2,435,000 on the rea cto r pro ject?

Com missioner T ap e. 2\.cross the board.

Se na tor P astore. You are asking for an appro pri ation of a req uest 

of $497,900,000, you were cu t $7.9 million and seeking res torat ion of 

$6,435,000.

S N A P 10 A F li ght T es t

Dr . Seaborg. That is r ight in the face of absorb ing wh at am ounts 

to a cu t beca use of the repro gra ming of funds for the SNA P 10A flight 

tes t.

Se nator P astore. Did your original req uest of $497.9 million include the flight test?

Dr . Seaborg. No, it did not. It inclu ded the allocati on of funds 

for other purposes in the rea cto r program . So, in ord er to rea lloc ate 

fun ds for the flight tes t, we, in fact, have the cu t the program .

Senator Pastore. I wan t to make th at clear. In oth er word s, the 

$10 million, plus, for the flight te st was n ot contem pla ted in the origina l estim ate of $497 million plus?

Dr. Seaborg. That is ri<jht.

Se nator Pastore. So, it is n ot a question of the difference betw een 

$7.9 million and $6,435,000. You have to add to th at the flight tes t 

money, too.

Dr. Seaborg. That is rig ht.

Senator Pasto re. Very well.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 99

P hysica l R esea r c h

Dr. Seaborg. I will go on to the physical research program. The 

physical research program is directed toward discovering and understanding natural laws relevant to the Commission’s responsibilities 

for the development, use, and control of nuclear energy.

It involves important basic research in the field of physics, chemistry, mathematics, metallurgy, and materials and controlled thermonuclear reactions. The program is aimed, not at quick specific results, 

but at providing a needed base of fundamental knowledge.

The budget submitted to Congress included $222 million for this 

program. The authorizing legislation would reduce the requested 

amount by $4 million, to $218 million. The House appropriation 

bill reduces that amount by another $8 million, to $210 million, for a 

total reduction of $12 million below the AEC request.

This reduction of $12 million would require tha t the high energy 

physics, low energy physics, chemistry, and metallurgy programs be 

curtailed seriously. To reduce these programs below the level to 

which they were cut bv the authorization legislation would necessitate 

a reduction in the planned operations of and the preparation for 

operation of many new facilities. Our ability to use these facilities 

effectively would be materially reduced. For example, the effective 

preparation for operation or utilization of the high energy machines, 

such as the Stanford accelerator, and the improved Bevatron, and 

the AGS at Brookhaven would be materially affected.

R esea r c h F a c il it ie s

Expensive research facilities, such as the new ANL hot laboratories, the Ames research reactor, the 88-inch cyclotron, and the 

HILAC at LRL, would not be available as needed by scientists 

because of lack of operating funds, and so would further increase the 

backlog of experimental programs.

This reduction would also cause further delays in meeting the 

established schedules for production of californium and other transplutonium elements needed for further research. This is not consistent with the investment of millions of dollars in these facilities.

We believe th at these new facilities and the facilities of the national 

laboratories should be used in the most efficient way possible. This 

is particularly true since the backlog of necessary and worthwhile 

experimental programs continues to increase. We are therefore 

requesting tha t $8 million be restored.

Senator Pastore. Which would bring it up to the authorization 

amount?

Dr. Seaborg. That would bring it up to the authorization amount; 

yes, $218 million.

P er s o n n e l

Senator Pastore. Would the loss of the $8 million reflect itself in 

personnel?

Dr. S eaborg. I would like to call on Dr. Paul McDaniel to respond 

to that.

Dr. McDaniel. Yes, sir. When the House action was made 

available to us about 2 weeks ago we were quite upset by this rathe r 

large reduction, so I made a very special review of its effect on our 

program. The review is not completed. It has only been 2 weeks
100 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

since th e House action was made ava ilab le to us. I have been dealing 

with the Oak Ridge National La bo ratory, with the Brook hav en 

Na tional La borat ory , and with the Argo nne Na tio nal La bo ratory as 

well as with the people in my own office responsible for the off'-site 

rese arch pro gra ms in the u niversities.

C U T B A C K S R E Q U IR E D

We have meetings scheduled soon with the Oak Ridge people on 

the effect of the financial plan on personnel. The answer to your 

question is: The House red uctio n will res ult in some term ination— 

unless the re is a res tor ati on. In ord er to m eet t he hig h-p rio rity commitments which we have in some pro gra ms—the allowance bv the 

House does not give us sufficient funds to tak e care of these highprior ity item s—we will h ave t o cut back m ore on other item s in ord er 

to tak e care of suc h prog rams as the Stanfor d line ar acc elerator at a 

minimum op erating level; the tra ns pluton ium pro gram at O ak Ridg e, 

the high-flux r eac tor s there and at Brookh ave n, and the t rans uran ium 

facilities at OR NL .

The a nsw er to your q uestion , then, is we will hav e to cu t back. It 

is n ot known all the places where the cutba cks would be made, bu t in 

some areas the re would be pers onnel r edu ctio ns. In other areas, there 

are sufficient funds for the minim um opera tion. The overall allowance was only a 6-pe rcent increase ove r las t year. I could go into 

more detail, sir, on the actua l im pact in each of the categories, in each 

of the lab oratories.

Senator P astore. How soon will you get that?

Dr . McD an iel. I could subm it it for th e rec ord t od ay or tomorrow.

Senator Pastore. Th at is fine. Will you do th at?

Dr. M cD an iel. Yes, sir.

(The analysis referred to follows:)

T e n ta tiv e A n alysi s o f t h e I mpa ct o f t h e H o u se o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s

B il l on t h e P h ysi ca l R esea r c h P ro gr am

I . I n troducti on

Immediately upon receipt of the report of the action taken on the fiscal year 

1965 budget by the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, an 

analysis of its impact on the fiscal yea r 1965 financial plan for physical research 

was initiated .

Table I shows the ten tative allocation of the $210 million allowed for fiscal year 

1965 for physical research operations. (Current estim ates of the costs for fiscal 

year 1964 are included for comparison.)

T a b le I

Op erating expenses

"»»!■ B Fiscal year 

1964

es tim ate d

Fiscal year 

1965 

allo wed

High-ene rgy p hysi cs. .............................. . .............. $81.8 $89.0 Low -energy physics ............ ......................... 25.4 26.8 M at h and co mpu ters............... . ................................................. 4 6 5.2 C he m istry.......................................... 43.7 46.0 M etallurgy an d materials...............................................

Co ntrolled th ermon uc lear........................ .................. 20.8

21.0

21.5 

21. 5 Bas ic nu cle ar engin eer ing ........... ....................................... 0 0

Tot aL .............................................................................................. 197.3 210.0
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 101

In arriving a t the specific allowances for the activities in table I, the expressed 

directives of the JCA E and the House Appropriations Committee, as contained 

in their respective reports, were followed. In addition—to the extent practical— 

the potentialities and capabilities of the individual scientists and laboratories 

involved and the need for additional costs to operate recently completed or soon 

to be completed research facilities are taken into account.

The laboratories were furnished with the restrictions implied by the House bill 

when the initial financial plans for fiscal year 1965 were prepared and they are 

in the process of evaluating the impact of these financial plans on their operations. 

Although their analyses are not completed, they have progressed far enough to 

realize th at unless the $8 million reduction by the House of Representatives is 

restored, there will be a serious and im mediate impact on their research programs.

The following sections of this report include discussions of the current situation .

II. High E nergy Physics

A. G E N E R A L E FFE C T S OF H O U SE R ED U C TIO N

The House bill, while allowing an increase of som ething over $6 million, would 

require a reduction in this program of $3.7 million from the amount approved 

by the Join t Committee on Atomic Energ y. High energy physics is a relatively 

new program and the completion and construction of authorized accelerators 

requires a substantial increase in operating support. The JCAE authorization 

recognized this fact, but the House allowance would require us to adopt measures 

which will seriously affect the program. High energy physics is in the forefront 

of physics research and has great promise of exciting and imp ortant discoveries 

th at will revolutionize our entire understanding of all the physical sciences. 

Most of high energy physics is carried out a t energies above 1,000 million electron 

volts. The oldest high energy machine in this region (the cosmotron) has only 

been in operation 12 years and even it is an appreciably different and improved 

machine over what it was 12 years ago, or even 5 years ago.

The House allowance would be only an 8.4-percent increase above the fiscal 

year 1964 financial plan in a program where for the upcoming fiscal year:

1. The ZGS will have its first full year of operation.—The fust experiment was started on Jun e 22, 1964. This machine is expected to supply most of the 

da ta for the large and highly qualified group of capable high energy physicists in 

the Midwest.

2. Preoperational buildup fo r the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.—Detailed studies of the prospective experimental use of SLAC have been made during the 

past several years. Fiscal year 1965 is next to the last year before scheduled 

completion of construction of th e facility. The p oint has now been reached where 

the results of these studies should be translated into definite designs and fabrication and procurement of equipment—this involves large expenditures. In view 

of th e very large investmen t in this facility, it would be most unfortunate, if not 

irresponsible, to be unable to proceed with the majo r experimental programs 

immediately at completion of construction.

3. The Bevatron will have its first full year of operation after completion of the

major Bevatron improvement program.—This machine’s capabilities and versatility, by virtue of the improvement program, have been greatly increased. Its present 

operating intensity, in term s of protons per pulse, is grea ter than th at of any other 

multibillion-electron-volt machine anywhere in the world.

Budgetary limitations in fiscal 1964 kep t this machine from going on a full 21- 

shift week operational basis until March 1964. Budg etary reductions which are 

required by the House action would again force a retrea t in fiscal 1965 to fewer 

shifts. Unfortunately, as the level of activity is cut back with these machines, 

the loss in scientific p roductivity decreases considerably more rapidly than does 

the cost of operation.

4. The Princeton-Penn accelerator will have its first full year of productive activity.— The first set of experiments (seven) with this machine was begun in the 

middle of fiscal year 1964 and has ju st recently been completed. The machine is 

becoming more and more productive and useful as th e minor “bugs” in the facility 

are being worked out.

5. The Brookhaven Natio nal Laboratory’s AGS is still the highest energy 

accelerator in the world and research with it sta rted ou t relatively slowly. The 

machine’s capabilities have steadily been improved by increasing the intensity, 

adding new experimental areas, etc. This unique research facility would be 

operatin g considerably below its capabilities.
102 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

6. The Cambridge electron accelerator will have its second fu ll year of productive

activity.—This accelerator which has an especially active and capable group of 

experimenters has been producing data which is giving most interesting results. 

The demand on the services of this machine is very high, and it would be highly 

desirable to increase the number of shifts of operation. This machine which was 

the highest energy electron accelerator in the world now has a competitor in the 

form of its German counterpart, the DESY accelerator which first came into 

operation this spring. The CEA is, of course, still well ahead of the new group 

in that Cambridge is moderately well equipped both in experimental equipment 

and experienced capable personnel.

7. Data handling facilities, automatic and semiautomatic, required to handle the

output of the new accelerators listed above, are just beginning to come into activity.—

These devices with their greatly enhanced capabilities do cost more to operate, in 

large p art because of the on-line use of computers, and also because of the greater 

demand for computers to make the arith metic computations on the many more 

events which will be analyzed a t th e higher event rate.

8. The “old” accelerators of th e high-energy physics program (the cosmotron 

and the th ree synchrocyclotrons supported by the AEC) would be anticipa ted as 

probably operating below the fiscal 1963 level even if the entire $3.7-million 

reduction is completely restored. This is not because these machines wouldn’t 

operate productively at a considerably higher operating level, but the order of 

priorities and the budg etary restrictions leave insufficient funds to operate them 

at a higher level.

B . SPE C IF IC EFFECTS OF H O U SE RED UCTI ON 

Argonne National Laboratory

1. Curtailment of advanced accelerator design study participation by ANL. —

Collaboration with MUItA on this program is considered by ANL the most 

imp orta nt for Midwest high-energy physics.

2. Eliminate or defer superconducting magnet development.—ANL has conducted 

some of the most advanced research and development in this very promising 

field toward higher magnetic fields.

3. Eliminate or defer work on the development of new experiments.—The amount 

allowed in the original budget request is less than the cost of one new experiment.

4. Eliminate or defer several A NL experiments now in the advanced development

stage.—In each of these the total investment is already greater than $300,000.

5. Reduce operating time of ZGS below the present 5-day-per-week schedule.—

No clear estimate of the decrease in the budget requirement can be made here 

since the main result would be a cutback in the amount of high-energy physics 

th at could be performed in the Midwest within the fiscal year.

6. No increase permitted in AN L staff of Ph. D. physicists.— An urgent need 

at Argonne, is to obtain a staff of Ph. D. physicists large enough to provide continuit y and a nucleus for a strong program at the ZGS. The present number is 

inadequate. The budg et allowed by the House bill will permit no increase. 

Brookhaven National Laboratory

The budget allowed by the House bill would seriously impede proper research 

utilization of the AGS. Curtailment of the operation of large beam handling 

and detection equipment such as bubble chambers is probable.

The cosmotron would probably have to be reduced in the number of shifts of 

operation. This effects a much larger percentage reduction in the prod uctiv e 

research than it does on the operating costs and thereby would considerably 

decrease the efficiency of operation of this facility.

Cambridge electron accelerator

This very productive machine is much in demand. A sufficient number of 

operators and technicians will be trained by the coming September to perm it a 

7-day per week operation. The portion of the House action CEA would be required to absorb, would probably prohibit this desired increase in a ctiv ity. The 

operational increase would effect an even greater improvement in th e prod uctiveness of the accelerators research ou tput because of the rapid increase in the 

efficiency of operation with round-the-clock operation in a machine of this type. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The previously exacting financial restrictions placed on this productive contra ct would already produce some reduction in their research activity because of a 

built-in requirement for more computer activity. The further reduction this
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 103

organiz ation would be required to absorb in the proposed budget would not only 

have a damaging effect, but a disorganizing effect on the remainder of the program 

thereby decreasing its productiv ity by an additional factor.

The biggest effect of a cut here would probably be the inability to provide the 

necessary computing capability required for the experimentation carried out at 

MIT. The experimental and theoretical program which has been so heavily 

invested in over the past 5 to 6 years will be grea tly weakened if it cannot be supported with the necessary computing capability.

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Upon completion, the SLAC accelerator will be uniquely qualified to undertake 

imp ortant experiments in major areas of particle physics research. However, 

this capa bility cannot be fulfilled without the availability of the required experimental equipment and personnel.

Detailed studies of the prospective experimental use of the SLAC accelerator 

have been made during the past several years for the major areas of particle 

physics research. The point has now been reached where the results of these 

studies should be tran slated into definite designs and fabrications and procurement of equipm ent. This phase, therefore, involves large expenditures and, in 

this next to the last year before th e completion of construction, it is urge nt th at 

it be properly carried o ut without further delay.

To slow' down all of the research preparation work in order to meet the budget 

reduction would mean that none of the experimental programs would be ready 

by the time the accelerator comes into operation and in light of the very large 

investme nt in the accelerator facility would be most irresponsible.

The other alte rnative is to cut out entirely one or more of the five separate 

research groups established within the SLAC research division to prepare for 

initial exploration of the major fields of physics considered imp orta nt. This also 

would be most unfortu nate in th at it would mean that one or more of the major 

areas of research which the SLAC accelerator was inten ded to explore could not 

be exploited at all during the early phases of research operations.

The House allowance for SLAC jeopardizes an orderly tran sition from construction to operations which has already sta rted. The plan for this transition 

has been worked out in detail to minimize inefficient use of technical skills and 

also to minimize the number of skilled engineers, trai ned to supp ort SLAC 

scientists, who would have to be dismissed.

Training of research support personnel would be upset, probably resulting 

in the dismissal of engineers already trained.

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley

Fiscal year 1965 will be the first full year of operation of the improved bevatron 

with its greatly increased capabilities and flexibility of operation. This obviously 

involves a considerable increase in opera ting expense both as a result of the greater 

number of simultaneous experiments t ha t can be conducted, and of th e increased 

capability to provide beams adequa te for more complex, advanced experiments. 

In addition, it should be recalled that the bevatron did not go on a 21-shift-perweek operational basis in fiscal year 1964 u ntil March 1964, p rimarily because of 

insufficient funds.

LRL will be getting much of the computer capa city in fiscal year 1965 tha t 

it has been in such dire need of in fiscal year 1964; however, the shortness of 

funds is even more emphasized by the extra funds required to operate this ad ditional computer capacity.

III. Low-E nergy Physics

This area of research, central to the AEC’s mission, is similarly affected in 

increasing measure by the cost of operation of major new research tools; e.g., 

Van de Graaff accelerators, cyclotrons, and research reactors. The fiscal year 

1965 budg et, as presented to the Congress, represented little more tha n the 

amoun t required to provide for the effective use and operation or preoperational 

buildup required for recently completed or nearly completed devices such as t he 

Ames research reactor, the Oak Ridge isochronous cyclotron (ORIC), the Brookhaven high-flux research reac tor (HF BR), the new Van de Graaff accelerators at 

the Universities of Texas and Washington, and the Michigan cyclotron.

To live with the House allowance, we have tentati vely allocated a reduction 

of $1,400,000 to low-energy physics.

If this is sustained, provision must still be made for these new machines but to 

a lesser degree of effectiveness. For example, at Ames the cost of reactor operation will be met but research personnel may well be held to the fiscal year 1964
104 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

level thereby preventing the exploitation of the isotope separator and the 

beta ray spectrometers.

At Argonne, it would be necessary to limit the program to present staff as well 

as defer any effort on a promising approach to a high-voltage electron microscope. 

Further it appeared that, until a recent failure of the CP-5 heat exchanger, 

needed repairs at this reacto r would necessarily be postponed. The failure of 

the heat exchanger (June 25) has been too recent to permit any assessment of 

its financial impact on the program. Likely actions also include, at Argonne, the 

shutdown of the Jugg ernaut reactor and the 4.5-million-electron-volt Van de 

Graaff. Some operating personnel would be terminated.

At Brookhaven, we were proposing an increase of $700,000 in this category. 

However, the Brookhaven program must decrease since $750,000 is required for 

HF Bl t operating and fuel costs. Salary and wage increases, as well as increased 

costs of supplies, further diminish the effort th at can be obtained within the funds 

requested. The House reduction makes this problem more severe and prevents 

any significant redistribution of funds aimed at alleviating the financial picture 

at Brookhaven. Operation within the House allowance will probably require 

some reduction in the BNL low-energy physics staff.

The situation is equally austere a t the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and full 

utilization of th e ORIC must of necessity be postponed. Other retre nchment in 

program supp ort will be necessary. It is too early t o state exactly what the effect 

will be on laboratory employment in this area although there is indication th at 

some termin ation s are involved.

In view of the foregoing, it is impossible to avoid a su bstantial c utback in existing low-energy physics programs. This would be most unfo rtunate especially 

since there is general agreement th at this area of research should proceed with 

vigorous support.

IV. Chemistry

The serious impact upon the chemistry research program of the House reduction 

of the fiscal year 1965 budget by $900,000 would result primarily from the fact th at 

a number of new research facilities are jus t coming into operation or are approaching 

operational status. It would be impossible to provide adequately for the operation of, and for chemical research using, these facilities witliin the reduced fiscal 

year 1965 levels. Productive going programs, not using th e new facilities, would 

nave to be cut back to alleviate but not solve the problems of the new facilities. 

In addition, these pressures would lead to continued erosion of the university contra ct research program. A tentati ve assessment and illustrations of these effects 

are summarized in this report.

At the Ames Laboratory provision will have to be made in fiscal year 1965 

for the preoperatio nal buildup and initial operatin g costs of the Ames Laboratory 

research reactor. Unless the requested increase is granted, the Laboratory will 

have serious difficulty in maintaining existing chemistry research programs and 

in providing the additional scientific staff needed for nuclear an d neutron diffraction research with the reactor.

The House bill would lead to serious loss of efficiency and productivity, in the 

chemistry research program at the Argonne National Laboratory. The new hot 

Laboratory facility was brought into operation during fiscal year 1964; budget 

restrictions, however, required the deferral of hiring necessary additional operating 

personnel, shop work, and other services, which are needed to make efficient use 

of this major investme nt. An increase is required in fiscal year 1965 over fiscal 

year 1964 in order to pu t the hot Laboratory into full operation. The entire 

chemistry research program at Argonne was maintained in fiscal vear 1964 a t an 

abnormally low level of materials and services expenditures. Continuation of 

these subnormal levels could cause perman ent damage to the program. The 

proposed reduction migh t require the term ination of several scientists and tech ­

nicians in addition to the above-mentioned curtailment of services.

The chemistry program at the Brookhaven National Laboratory would have 

to undergo reduction in effort since it expects to utilize'and therefore suppor t 

about 25 percent of the high-flux beam reactor. Existing manpower, the plan ned 

IIF BR use, and the increased cost of doing research will lead to serious problems 

in maintain ing the present level of effort.

At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, financial restrictions caused by the 

House redu ction would require a slowdown in the preoperational preparations 

rela ted to sta rtu p of th e high-flux isotope reactor, and would cause a 3- to 6-month 

delay in the date at which initial critacality is attained . The Oak Ridge Natio nal 

Laboratory chemistry programs other than the transplutonium productio n program would be adversely affected.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 105

At the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, the restriction on funds would limit the 

use of the 88-inch cyclotron and the heavy ion linear accelerator below their 

optimum levels, and would restrict the research in important areas of inorganic 

and high-temperature chemistry, representing vital segments of this country’s 

basic materials research effort.

The situation with respect to the contract research program is summarized in 

tables II and III which give information on operating funds available since 1962 

for this program and the number of research contracts in effect. Other requirements of the chemistry research program in times of limited budgets have led to 

decreases in the level of effort in this program. In viewr

 of the decrease in this program which resulted from the JCAE actions in the fiscal year 1965 authorization bill, it w’ould be unwise and damaging to make any further reductions in the 

university program in order to meet the $900,000 requirements at the national 

laboratories.

T able II .— Support of chemistry research at universities

Fis cal y ear Costs (in 

million s)

Chang e from 

previo us 

ye ar (in 

million s)

Pe rcen t

cha nge

Num be r of 

co ntracts en d 

of year

1902 .......................................................................... $8.9 300 1963.............................................................................. 9.2 $0.3 3.3 288 1964.............. ............................................................... 9.2 0 0 261

1965...................................... ....................................... 8.7 -0 .5 -6 .4 i 245

■ Es tim ated .

Table I II. —Chemistry research programs at universities

Fiscal yea r

Num be r of propo sals Num be r of co ntracts

Received Declined

In effect 

at s ta rt 

of ye ar

Te rm ina ted

New

contracts

issued

In effect 

at end 

of year

1962.......... .................................... 127 66 291 25 34 300

1963................................................ 137 100 300 29 17 288

1964................................................ 133 102 288 40 13 261

V. M eta llu rg y an d M a teria ls

PR OG RA M M IS SI ON

The metallurgy and materials programs of the Division of Research has the 

responsibility of aiding the advancement of materials science in areas of interest 

to the AEC. The continuing objective of the program is to insure that research 

is conducted which furthers the body of fundamental knowledge to be used in 

coping with the broad spectrum of materials problems facing civilian and military 

nuclear technology. The direction taken is to investigate material structure, 

properties, and phenomena, in such a manner so th at the results of the investigation may be interpreted in terms of fundamental laws of nature. Moreover, 

the knowledge gained from analysis of the research results is used directly to 

advance our understanding of these laws.

The research is performed in two major types of laboratories—the AEC-owned 

laboratory (on site) and the university laboratory (off site). In addition, a 

small portion of the program is conducted in private laboratories where very 

special capabilities can only be found. The AEC laboratories provide highly 

specialized experimental and support facilities not available elsewhere, such as 

high flux research reactors and facilities for handling and studying toxic or highly 

radioactive materials. Also, at the AEC laboratories concentrated efforts of 

groups of mature scientists representing many disciplines may be devoted to 

important problem areas for extended periods of time without unnecessary diversion. Approximately 60 percent of the funds allocated to the metallurgy and 

materials programs are directed to the AEC laboratories for these purposes
106 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

The contract research program, which is largely conducted in universities, 

provides breadth and flexibility to the overall program. By supp orting such 

university research, the AEC obtains the benefit of t he capabilities of scientists 

who prefer the academic environment. As a further benefit to the AEC and to 

the national scientific effort, the placing of research contracts in universities aids 

in the advanced training of materials scientists which will ente r the techn ical 

manpower pool of the Nation. This is particula rly imp orta nt to the AEC since 

the major problems stand ing in the way of advanced, high power density nuclear 

devices are materials limitations.

Materials science is an especially dynamic field toda y. There are several 

divergently oriented sources of this dynamism. First, the needs of technology 

provide a powerful stimulus for research aimed at improving our understanding 

of the stru cture and behavior of materials. Second, the background of theory 

and empirical knowledge th at has been building up over the past decade has, in 

addition to solving many questions, revealed critical problems which must be 

attacked. Third, imp ortant questions which had been formulated years ago 

could not be explored when the needed financial supp ort was lacking bu t are now 

ready for stud y. This last is expecially relevant to the AEC metallurgy and 

materials programs. The availability in th e coming year of new reac tor facilities, 

new particle accelerators, and new research materials sources makes it possible to 

contemplate atta cking imp orta nt problem areas. The House cut of the 1965 

budget deals a staggering blow to these plans. The impact of this cut will be 

discussed in the following paragraphs.

IM PA C T O F T H E H O U SE CU T

As a result of the House action we have tentatively allocated a reduction of $2 

million to this program, providing a dollar increase of less than 4 percent over the 

fiscal year 1964 program. In like manner, the increase in operating funds in the 

M. & M. programs was less tha n 5 percent from fiscal year 1963 to fiscal year 

1964. How did this near leveling off affect th e fiscal year 1964 program and how 

serious would a similar reduction in effort be in fiscal year 1965? The answer to 

this question is, first, th at it seriously handicapped the research effort at our 

national laboratories by diminishing the research capability of existing manpower 

through the loss of supporting services. Another imp ortant effect was a loss of 

morale among dedicated scientists who were frustrated and restrained from 

normal experimental endeavors by forced economies.

Th at the severe reduction in the requested increase in program funding for 

fiscal year 1964 caused undue hardship in one of our AEC laboratories is strikingly 

evident from the following economy measure they adopted:

1. Chemical analytical services were postponed.

2. Computer services were postponed.

3. Travel funds to scientific meetings were withdrawn even afte r laboratory 

scientists had already submitted abstracts to the appropriate technical journals.

4. Purchase of everyday opera ting items were postponed.

5. Temp orary postdoctoral and thesis summer appointments were curtailed 

as well as consulta nt services.

6. Overtime authoriza tions were canceled in reactor experiments where continuous operation was im portant.

It should be noted that many of the economy measures listed above were po stponements. Continued financial restrictions in fiscal year 1965 will force a 

change from deferral to cancellation with an attendant loss of program vitality.

One probable result of a similar level of funding in fiscal y ear 1965 would be the 

departure of key scientists from their national laboratory positions. The loss of 

these scientists would not only disrupt imp ortant programs but would also deter 

gifted young scientsists from engaging in research at our national laboratories. 

These effects are especially deleterious now when our on-site facilities are acquiring 

high flux reactors and accelerators th at have been eagerly sought. It would be 

extremely wasteful if these new a nd expensive devices were not fully exploited in 

the nation al interest.

Perhaps it is not always fully realized th at we are faced with continually rising 

costs due to equipment obsolescence, the increased sophistication of equipment 

and procedures, salary rises, and the usual inflationary pressures. Since research 

is pushing at the barriers of knowledge, programs must have the flexibility to 

exploit fully new ideas and discoveries as they arise. Examples of this would be 

in recent advances in s upercond uctiv ity where materials have been developed to 

carry superconducting electric currents in magnetic fields as high as 80 kilogauss.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 107

Estimat es have been made th at this critical field strength may be pushed as high 

as 250 kilogauss, but th is requires the combined efforts of teams of physicists and 

metallurgists toge ther with the necessarily expensive cryogenic equipment, high 

field magnets, and heavy operational costs. Although the responsibilities of the 

metallurgy and materials programs in this area are to uncover the fundamental 

principles governing the material's behavior, the knowledge gained from this 

research will be invaluable for future use of these materials in magnets, power, and 

comm unication devices, and could aid the Nation ’s space effort.

At the opposite end of the tem perature scale our natio nal laboratories are 

increasing their efforts in research in the high-temperature body-centered cubic 

metals (stru ctural) and alloys with the hope of unraveling the sources of high 

tem perature stre ngth and the ductile-brittle transition so imp ortant to these 

technological materials. Any blun ting of this effort through insufficient funding 

could do serious harm to a difficult area of research where advances are badly 

needed.

In the c ontract program in fiscal year 1964 it was found necessary to give final 

notice to 21 contractors ($450,000) th at their contracts could not be renewed in 

fiscal year 1965. In addition, our reduced funding in fiscal year 1964 forced the 

reduced funding of nearly every other contract and caused considerable hardship 

in the university community which is reflected in loss of research prod uctivity, 

both long range and immediate.

It is starkly evident th at an other aus terity year in fiscal y ear 1965, if as severe 

as in fiscal year 1964, would result in the waste of large national facilities and the 

dep artu re of key scientific personnel from vital positions in our national laboratories. In the off-site program it is also clear that materials research would lose 

the momentum it has gained, possibly even retrogress. Gifted young studen ts 

will be deterred from en tering these scientific fields. In both th e on-site or off-site 

programs, it is plain th at drastic fund reductions will adversely affect our natio nal 

interests in retaining world leadership in these research fields.

In the following paragraphs, the effects of the cut on the majo r programs 

supported by M. & M. will be detailed.

ADD ED R ESP O N S IB IL IT IE S OF M. & M. PR OGRAM S IN FIS C A L Y EA R 1965 

Ames Atomic Laboratory

At Ames Laboratory the largest portion of the needed increase is associated 

with the new Ames Laboratory research reactor. New programs are to be 

initiate d on th e effects of neutron irradia tion on mechanical properties of materials, 

inelastic neutron scattering, and Mossbauer experiments using artificially produced radioactive elements from the reactor. This year is the first vear that 

costs of reactor oriented experim ents at Ames must be borne by the M. & M. 

programs. Another imp ortant program to be initiated is on the relationship 

between imperfections and superconductivity. This is m otiv ated by the numerous 

findings of an increase in residual superconductivity at high fields with increased 

plastic deform ation. A third majo r area where an increase is planned is the 

dete rmin ation of electronic stru ctures of the tran sition metals. A major breakthro ugh occurred in this field last year when Ames Laboratory detected the De 

Haas-Van Alphen effect for the first time in an iron, a ferromagnetic metal. The 

De Haas-Van Alphen effect is a major technique used in the study of electronic 

stru cture of metals. It was planned to expand the program to exploit this 

finding in fiscal year 1965.

If no restoration of th e House cut is made, the productivity of this program will 

suffer since it will be necessary to curtail services, supp ort, materials acquisition, 

and grad uate and postgraduate student participation . After meeting a proportion ate share of the minimum operating costs of the new reactor, insufficient funds 

will remain to initiate efficient research programs utilizing the reactor.

Argonne National Laboratory

It had been planned to increase research on Pu metallurgy by 2 to 3 SMY 

(scientific man-years) in fiscal year 1964. The necessity for this increase has 

definitely been established by Commission staff stud y. However, this has had 

to be delayed to fiscal year 1965 because of budget cuts in fiscal year 1964. The 

House cut of the fiscal year 1965 budget means th at this work will have to be 

delayed again until fiscal year 1966. Other areas where needed strengthening 

will have to be delayed are low-temperature irradiation damage studies, a program 

of prime Commission importance. Also, needed stren gthenin g in theory of alloy 

phase study must be deferred. These alone account for about $250,000 in needed 

new programs.
108 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

In the area of solid-state physics it will he necessary to delay again buildup of 

the neutron scattering program and associated theo ry—about $150,000.

Severe economy measures were taken at Argonne during fiscal year 1964 to live 

within the stringently cut budget for that year. These measures have had a 

visibly adverse effect on the metallurgy and solid-state programs there. It was 

hoped, however, th at a satisfactory budget in fiscal year 1965 would preve nt these 

effects from leaving serious scars and prevent a perm anent deteriora tion of the 

program. This can easily come a bou t in this and the other programs because the 

best researchers, who can always find employment elsewhere, will leave if they 

become sufficiently frustrated.

Brookhaven

The House of Representatives allowance would provide an amount $200,000 

less t han the going ra te for this activity, assuming prudent use of new facilities. 

The full amount requested is needed for utilization of th e high flux beam reactor 

for neutron diffraction and scattering and the new dynamitron electron accelerator 

for radiation damage studies. A new program on the effects of radiation on 

superconducting materials was begun in fiscal year 1964, and was to have been 

brought up to strength in 1965. If the House cut holds, build up of these programs will have to be delayed until fiscal year 1966. Another new program 

which was to be built up was on the structure and physical properties of liquid 

metals. This also will have to be delayed. The House of Representatives 

allowance will force curta iling of activities or initiation of a forced manpower 

reduction.

L RL-Berkeley

The LRL believes it needs $1,500,000 to operate in fiscal year 1965. While 

the amount in the President’s budget for LRL-B is only $1,350,000. the House 

cut would require th at this be further reduced, giving them very much less than 

their projected needs. The result would prevent the increase in postdoctoral 

supp ort necessary for the overall strengthening of the theoretical aspects of the 

program. It would prevent the buildup of the number of grad uate stud ents 

planned, thereby hampering the productivity of the program and hindering 

A EC’s part of the Government effort to increase rate of Ph. D. production, as 

recommended by the Federal Council. Full and effective utilization of the new 

Inorganic Materials Laboratory, scheduled for completion in September 1964, 

would not be possible.

Specific new programs th at would have to be delayed or slowed down would be 

work on transport properties of solids, diffusion in solids, kinetics of solid gas 

reactions at high temp eratures, and the structure sensitive properties of superconducting and magnetic materials.

ORN L

At OR NL the requested increases for 1965 over 1964 are approximately $500,000.

Many of the programs are so interrelated that severe cutbacks in one are certain to adversely affect other programs. For example, the research in superconductiv ity and superconducting materials spreads over several groups and 

includes magnetic, specific heat, metallurgical, theoretical and cryogenic techniques. Fundamental inform ation gained is important to controlled thermonuclear research and to space.

The House financial cut will also restrict the important studies of radiation 

effects in imp orta nt nuclear materials such as BeO, and in the refractory and 

structura l metals and alloys in studying the ductile-brittle transitio n so importa nt to reactor pressure vessels.

The financial cut will also strongly restrict the development of cryogenic techniques capable of temperatu res as low as 2.5° K. in nuclear reactors, a field in 

which the United States excels at present.

If the increase proposed is no t granted, these programs will be hu rt seriously and 

many others will fall badly behind.

Contract research program

An increase in the con trac t program is needed to explore new lines of research 

and to provide for the increasing costs of programs underway. The increase is 

also needed to provide for prior comm itments on this program falling due in 

fiscal year 1965. To help provide for these necessary increases, many contracts 

were serve d term ination notices in fiscal year 1964. These economy measures 

are still insufficient to meet the increased responsibilities of the contract program 

in fiscal year 1965. For example, in fiscal year 1965 an increase is committed in»
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 109

the University of Illinois contract where the materials science program has been 

increasing to help provide the Nation with scientists trained specifically in the 

materials field. Increased effort will begin at Illinois in such areas as superconduc tivity, magnetic resonance, and tran sforma tion s in metals. Increased efforts in ceramic materials are expected because of newer developments in this 

field.

Unless the requ ested increase is granted, the mortgages, which exist for fiscal 

year 1965, will become exceedingly crucial. It is prac tically certain th at not 

only would no exciting new investigations be initiated, but that existing good 

work would be drastically curtailed if not entirely dropped. As a secondary 

but equally important effect t he House allowance would result in the disorientation of many capab le scien tists from the atomic energy field.

B io lo gy an d M e d ic in e

Dr. Seabo rg. Biology and med icine program: The budget estimates for thi s pro gra m for the fiscal ye ar 1965 am ounte d to $80 

million as com par ed to $71.3 million ava ilab le for 1964. Th e Hou se 

appro pri ation bill would allow $78 millio n. Of the $2 million red uction, $1 million was effected in autho riz ing legislation and an additional $1 million reduct ion was made by the House.

In studie s of rad iat ion effects pa rti cu lar att en tio n will be given to 

dose rate dep end ency stud ies, especially with respec t to low 

dosage rates req uir ing long-term studie s of genetic and cytologic 

effects. Mo lecula r and cellular level studie s providing bac kgroun d 

for interpretat ion of genetic and soma tic effects will be strength ened.

En vir onme nta l conta mination and problems of atm osp heric rad ioactiv ity and fal lou t will be given addition al emp hasis, with some 

expansion in the fallo ut research pro gra m at the Lawrenc e Ra diati on 

La bo rat ory , Livermore.

After care ful conside ration, the Com mission, while no t necessarily 

agreeing with the basis for the Hou se reduct ion , has determ ine d th at 

the red uct ion will no t be app eale d.

T r a in in g , E duca tio n, an d I nfo rm ati on

Tra ining, edu cation , and inform ation program: The 1965 budget 

estimate s include $17.7 million for opera tin g costs for the training, 

edu cation, and inform atio n pro gram. Th e House appro priat ion bill 

would allow $15.7 million. Of the reduction of $2 million, $1.5 

million was effected in the autho rizing legislation, and an addition al 

$0.5 million red uction was mad e by the House.

This pro gra m inclu des the conduct of specialized courses; the g ra nt ­

ing of fellowships in nuc lear fields; assistance to colleges and un iversities, includ ing equ ipm ent gran ts; ope ration of the Pu ert o Rico 

Nuclear Ce nter; and dissemination of technical inform atio n, includin g 

pa rticip ati on in inter natio nal conferences and exh ibits on nuc lear 

science and technolo gy.

The Com mission is no t req uesting res tor ation of the bu dget 

reduct ion for this program.

I sotope s D ev elopm en t

Isotopes dev elo pm ent p rog ram : Costs for the isotopes dev elo pm ent 

program are estim ate d at $10.3 million in the budget for fiscal vear 

1965.

The House appro priation bill would allow $9.3 million. Of the 

$1 million red uction, $0.5 million was effected in the autho rizing
110 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

legislation and an addition al reduct ion of $0.5 million was made by 

the House. No res tor ation is being requ ested.

'Tlie p rogram inclu des the dev elopment of isoto pic powe r and he at 

sources for specific app lications researcli and dev elopm ent to provide 

new and improve d powe r and the rm al sources for futur e application s, 

work on the rad iation paste uriza tio n of food pro gram to exte nd the 

shelflife of fruits and fish and the researc h and dev elopm ent of new 

and improved pro ductio n process tech nolo gy for radioisotopes fission 

pro ducts, and rad iation sources.

Th e prin cipal objectives of the pro gram are (1) advance me nt of 

radioisotope and rad iat ion tech nology to the point of p rod uctive and 

economically meaningful usos, a nd (2) enha nce ment of the overa ll peaceful uses of atom ic energy.

Civ il ia n Appl ic atio n of N ucle ar E xpl osi ves— P lo w sh are

Civilian app lica tions of nuclear explosives program-—Plowsh are: 

The $11 million p rovided in the H ouse appro priation bill for ope rating 

costs for the Plowstiare pro gram, while $1 million less t ha n the a mo unt 

authorized for this program , reflects the am ount of the budget estimate, and would allow us to con tinue to make im po rta nt progress in 

the dev elo pm ent of peaceful uses for nuc lear explosives. In particu lar , 

we would expect to make furth er reduct ions in the am ount of radioac tiv ity produced by nuclear explosives, and impro vem ents in techniqu es of emplacing them. To gethe r with pa st imp rovements, 

this could res ult, in time, in a 100-fold reduct ion from the alre ady 

low levels involved in the Proje ct Sed an deton ation of 1962.

Likewise, we do expect to con tinue our progress in deve loping and 

assessing the technology of using nuc lear explosives for excavation 

which may hold im po rta nt advantag es in large scale co nstruc tion projects like a sea-level canal across the American Isthm us. Also, we 

would expect to explore othe r promis ing uses for nuclear explosives in 

scientific rese arch work and in the na tura l resources field.

C omm uni ty

Co mm unity pro gram: The com mu nity program provide s for the 

ope ration and adminis tration of the com mu nity at Los Alamos, 

N. Mex., and for assistance paym ents to AEC coin n unities. We are 

making substan tia l progress in carry ing ou t the program for disposal 

of the Los Alamos com munity . Es tim ated costs for this pro gram in 

fiscal year 1965 are $9 million.

P ro gr am D ir ec t io n an d Ad m in is tr ati on

Program (lirection and admi nis tra tio n pro gram: The fiscal year 1965 

budget estimates include $76.8 million for program direction and 

admi nis tration. Th e House bill would allow $76 million, a red uct ion 

of $0.8 million. The Comm ission is not reques ting res tor ati on.

I his pro gra m covers sala ries and othe r costs of Fed eral employees 

at the Washington headqu art ers and field offices who are engaged in 

executive direction, general ma nageme nt, and tech nical supervision 

of the AEC pro gram: negotiaton and adminis tration of co ntr acts; 

est ablishm ent and enforcement of regula tions for civilian uses of 

ato mic energy; and other relate d ad ministrativ e act ivities.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 111

P la nt an d C a pit a l E q u ip m e n t

Plan t and capital equipment: The House bill includes $363 million for this appropriation, which is $7 million less than the estimate 

of $370 million included in the budget presented to Congress.

The reduction of $7 million includes a $3 million reduction in 

the authorizing legislation for capital equipment for the special 

nuclear materials program and an additional reduction of $4 million 

in capital equipment which the House Appropriations Committee 

report states is to conform in generul with the reductions made in 

the operating programs. The $363 million approved by the House 

includes $148.3 million for 37 new construction projects; $3 million 

for construction planning and design, $182.8 million for capital 

equipment not related to construction, and $28.9 million for construction projects included in prior years authorization acts.

The $363 million provided in the House bill is commensurate 

with the program levels approved by the House.

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. 1 would 

be pleased to answer any questions you or any members of your 

committee may have.

R ev e n u e s and R eim b u r se m e n t s

Senator Pastoke. The House did not effect the item for revenues 

and reimbursements from non-Federal sources; is tha t correct?

Dr. Seaborg. Tha t is right.

Senator Pastoke. This is $36,066,000?

Mr. Corso. Tha t is right, sir.

Senator Pastore. The Joint Committee did act on an omnibus 

bill which allows us, if it is passed and signed by the President, to 

sell this nuclear material to the Euratom countries; is tha t correct?

Dr. Seaborg. Yes.

Senator Pastoke. Which anticipates the sale of about $11 million 

next year. If tha t bill is passed and the sale is made, what harm 

would it be to raise that figure of $36,066,000, by $11 million?

Mr. Corso. Tha t could be accommodated, sir.

U n o b lig a ted B a la nces

Senator Pastoke. Could we have an explanation of the $20 

million on the unobligated balances brought forward?

Mr. Corso. Yes, sir. As a result of reviewing our fiscal year 1964 

cost estimates and where we are likely to come out in total in utilization 

of the funds appropriated for operating expenses in 1964, we now 

estimate that about $20 million of tha t appropriation will be unobligated at the end of the year and will be free in that it will not be 

earmarked for specific purposes such as Euratom or the cooperative 

power demonstration program. Therefore, these moneys could be 

carried over and applied to reduce our appropriation request for 

fiscal year 1965.

Senator Pastoke. Is it proper and workable to do it tha t way?

Mr. Corso. Yes, sir; it is.

Senator Pastore. Do the members of the Commission or the staff 

want to add anything further to this testimony?

Dr. Seaborg. I believe not, Mr. Chairman.

35- 381—64 ------8
112 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5

Senator P astore. Are you satisfied tha t you had a full and fair 

hearing?

Dr. Seaborg. I am satisfied th at we had a full day in court.

Thank you.

Senator Hill. Senator Fong is with us today and wishes to make a 

statem ent concerning the appropriation request for a food irradiator 

for Hawaii. You may proceed, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. HIRAM L. FONG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF HAWAII

F ood I rradia to r fo r H a w a ii

Senator F ong. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I deeply appreciate this opportunity to submit a statement urging 

approval of the Atomic Energy Commission’s request for $350,000 

for a food irradiator for Hawaii.

These funds are included in the 1965 budget request of $370 million 

for plant and capital equipment.

Last September, an AEC team visited Hawaii to meet with officials 

of the University of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

to evaluate the opportunities for initiating a research and development program to demonstrate the practicability of using radiation 

on a commercial scale to eliminate insect infestation in agricultural 

products of the State of Hawaii.

This would open up U.S. mainland and other markets to such 

tropical fruits as Hawaii mangoes, which now cannot be exported 

because of the seed weevil, and papayas, which now have a heavy loss 

rate because of rapid deterioration in shipment and on the shelf.

R E S E A R C H AND D E V E L O P M E N T

Following the joint conferences, it was concluded tha t radiation 

treatm ent had sufficient promise, both technically and economically, 

to justify research and development. Therefore, the Atomic Energy 

Commission requested funds for a large irradiator in the 1965 budget.

Meantime, the State of Hawaii recently appropriated $49,000 to 

install a small research irradiator to permit a prompt sta rt on needed 

preliminary research. This will provide the technological basis to 

enhance the utility and benefits to be derived from the lajge-scale 

irradiator.

P R E L IM IN A R Y R E S E A R C H

The irradiator requested will consist cf an appropriately shielded 

superstructure, housing approximately 400,000 curies of cobalt 60. 

It will have the capacity to expose to radiation, and thereby disinfect, 

2,500 pounds of fruit products per hour. The housing wifi include 

a small laboratory and space for handling products before and after 

irradiation. An elevator and conveyor system will move the product, in boxes, through the irradiation process. It is intended to locate 

the irradiator at the University of Hawaii. The piogram will be a 

joint effort of the AEC, University of Hawaii, and the USDA experiment station at the University.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 113

IN SE C T D E S T R U C T IO N

It is expected the irradiator will provide means of destroying insects 

immune to fumigation, such as the mango seed weevil and will prolong the life of very perishable foods, such as papayas.

By destroying the seed weevil in mangoes and by preserving the 

life of papayas and other fruits and vegetables, irradiation would 

permit greatly expanded commercial export of these farm commodities 

from Hawaii.

Agriculture is Hawaii’s mainstay industry, but it needs to be 

strengthened and diversified. In view of increasing domestic and 

international competition, there is little prospect for significant expansion in the near future of sugar and pineapple, our two leading 

crops. We are, therefore, trying to diversify agriculture production 

by raising other commercial farm crops.

M angoes

Mr. Chairman, this is very important to the State of Hawaii because 

we are unable to ship our mangoes to the mainland here because of the 

weevil infestation. We feel with this irradiator we will be able to ship 

a lot of mangoes to the mainland and it will create a very large industry. It is very important. You prevent the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture from shipping in a lot of fruits because they are afraid that 

infestation will be taking place, so this is a protection for the mainland 

fruits.

Senator Hill. I understand the amount you request is in the budget.

Senator Fong. Yes.

H O U SE AC TION

Senator Hill. Did the House approve it?

Senator Fong. The House knocked off $4 million but I have been 

advised by the Department tha t this will not affect it.

Senator Hill. The amount tha t you are requesting now.

Senator Fong. Will not affect it.

Senator Hill. It is in the budget and as far as the Department is 

concerned it is in the bill as passed by the House, is tha t correct?

Senator Fong. Yes, sir.

Senator Hill. Any questions, Senator?

Senator Ellender. No.

Senator Hill. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Fong. Thank you.

L an d B e t w e e n -t h e-L a k es P ro je ct

(Ins ert referred to on p. 72)

U.S. S e n a t e,

Se l e c t C o m m it tee on Smal l B u sin e s s,

Ju ly 10, 1964.

Hon. L is t e r H il l,

Chairman, Subcommittee on AE C and T V A ,

Committe on Appropr iatio ns,

New Senate Office Build ing.

D ea r Sen a to r H il l : Earlier this week, I asked th at the prin ted record of 

testim ony on the Between-the-Lakes proiect include communications. I had 

received in supp ort of the project. Since that time, I have received the enclosed 

telegrams. They are not long, and I hope they may be included in the record.
114 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65

I would like to note for the record th at I have also'received lette rs and telegrams from the following, expressing more fully their support for the Betweenthe-Lakes project:

Mr. F. E. Richards, secretary, Benton Rotary Club;

Mr. William Nelson, the Tribune-Democrat, Benton;

Mr. Joseph H. Coulter, Phillips Chevrolet Co., Benton;

Mr. A. Walker Wood, copublisher, Kentucky New Era, Hopkinsville;

Mr. Tom Webb, station WHOP, Hopkinsville;

Mr. Frank A. Yost, president, Hopkinsville Milling Co.;

Mr. Max B. Hurt, Murray;

Mr. George D. Edwards, manager, Credit Bureau of Paducah;

Mr. Avery H. Green, Paducah, Ky.

With kind regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

John Sherman Cooper.

Hopkinsville, Ky., July 3, 1964.

Senator John Sherman Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Urge you read Courier-Journal lead editorial July 2, concerning land Betweenthe-Lakes. Accelerated effort needed to save this priceless asset. Your help 

appreciated.

W. W. Bryan,

Executive Secretary, Chamber of Commerce.

P aducah, Ky., July 8, 1964-

Hon. John S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your supp ort for the fullest development of the Betweenthe-Lakes area by TVA in its entirety as originally planned.

Arthur P. Brazelton, 

General Manager, Paducah Power System.

P aducah, Ky., July 8, 1964.

Hon. J ohn S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The members of the Electric Plant Board of the city of Paducah, Ky., wish 

to notify you th at they collectively and individually favor the development of 

the Between-the-lakes area bv TVA, in its entirety as originally planned, and urge 

your supp ort in this to afford the fullest development of western Kentucky.

Leon T. Searles, Chairman.

E rnest Mitchell.

J erome Harris.

J ohn Oehlschlaeger.

Raleigh Brockman.

Paducah, Ky., July 8, 1964-

Hon. J ohn S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your supp ort for the fullest development of the Between-theLakes area by TVA in its entirety as originally planned.

Lloyd C. E mery, E mery & Carroll, Attorneys.

P aducah, Ky., July 8, 1964-

Hon. J ohn S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your support for the fullest development of the Betweenthe-Lakes area by TVA in its entirety as originally planned.

H. J erome Harris, Harris Funeral Home.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 19 65 115

Paducah, Ky., July 8, 1964- Hon. Senator J ohn S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your support of the development of the area Between-theLakes in western Kentucky in its entirety.

J erome Harris.

Paducah, Ky., July 8, 1964-

Hon. J ohn S. Cooper,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

I respectfully urge your sup port for the fullest development of the Betweenthe-Lakes area by TVA in its entirety as originally planned.

Ernest P. Mitchell, Mitchell Machine Shop.

WHOP,

Hopkinsville, Ky., July 6, 1964.

Hon. Lister H ill,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Hill: We join hands editorially with the Nashville Tennessean 

and the Courier-Journal of Lousiville in urging supp ort for our Between-theLakes Park.

Not ta kin g gift figures from the TVA or the Tri-Cou nty Organization for Constitutiona l rights, we conducted our own survey. The atta che d editorial was the 

result of th at study.

The tricoun ty group is made up of about 350 mem bers, less than half of which 

are homeowners in the area.

A minority cannot be allowed to ruin a facility th at would serve the entire 

midsection of th e United States, from the South to the North.

WHOP begs you to supp ort the TVA proposal for the national recreation 

facility.

Sincerely,

Tom Webb, News Director.

[Editorial comment from WH OP radio, Hopkinsville, Ky., July 5-6, 1964]

“ A P u sh fo r a P a r k ”

Last Thursday the Courier-Journal editorially said if someone doesn’t stand 

up and be counted for the land Between-the-Lakes, we are going to lose it. Viewpoint would like to echo th at statement.

Down Between-the-Lakes struggle is going on th at affects all citizens of midAmerica, every Kentuckian and Tennessean in general and in particular each west 

Kentuckian.

The fight concerns t 'e acquisition of private lands between the two lakes for a 

national wilderness park. The park looms as one of the majo r recreational ad ­

vances in this century, but political tossing and turning is endangering it.

There is really no right or wrong side in all this turmoil. In our opinion the 

only wrong thing is with the Senators from Indiana and Louisiana who have seen 

fit to turn it into political hay as self-styled watchdogs of the Trea sury and individual bodyguards to the few who are fighting the land acquisition.

And i t is only a handful of those who live in the area that are sincerely against 

the acquisition of homelands. The rest of the opposition comes from eith er the 

minor political powers around it and the out-of-State people who purchased 

speculative land on Barkley Lake.

This station cann ot say a man is wrong to wan t to keep his homeland and not 

be forced into sale to a Federal agency. We are quick to agree the Federal Government takes too much latitude and too much responsibility in many of its dealings.

Yet the fact remains the expanding population of the United States is quickly 

taking over all the remaining open expanses of land. Such developments as the 

land Between-the-Lakes will soon be all th at ’s left to break the monotony of one 

big stretch of concrete and asphalt from coast to coast and bord er to border.

For someone such as Senator Allen J. Ellender of Louisiana to say TVA should 

develop the park on its own 70,000 acres in the area is nothing short of sheer 

frivolity.
J16 PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5

In such a central location, how much of mirl-America could the park serve with 

only 70,000 acres? A tenement house would seem roomy by comparison.

And what about commercial development? Does Senator Ellender approve of 

TVA building a park so an>a landowneers could construct a huge tourist business? 

Th at certainly would be the Federal Government serving a minority, a precept 

surely Senator Ellender opposes.

Senator Vance Hartke has been publically quoted as saying his interest in the 

park was brought about because some of his constituents owned land there. He 

wanted to bring public hearings into the area. But aside from the Trigg and 

Lvon County political interests that are so vocal and the few sincere landowners 

who would have testified? In all probability the Indiana interests Senator Ilartk e 

so pompously defends.

TVA published a concept statem ent saying what it hopes to do in the area. 

To the west Kentuckian who knows what the garish land between the rivers 

looks like today, th e TVA statem ent reads like a thrilling glimpse of a sportsm an’s, 

naturalists’, or camper’s heaven.

So far, TVA has forced no one to sell their holdings. Yet the number who 

have already sold or indicated they are ready to sell is approaching half the total 

number of landowners. And more have sat down to talk about selling. When 

the time comes th at forced land sales are necessary, only about 10 percent will 

be left to fight.

Another traves ty is the apparen t lack of willingness on the part of Kentucky 

Congressmen and Senators to publically take a side and to forcefully defend 

that side.

To opponents of the development they have given halfhearted and shadowy 

state ments of support. They have given the same to those who are in favor of 

the park.

Gentlemen, the time is coming when you must take a stand one way or the 

other. If you wan t Kentucky to lose it, you are following an effective path. 

But if you are opposed then openly say so. If you are in favor, then between 

now and July 20 you had better be puttin g some pressure on t ha t House Appropriations Subcommittee where Senator Ellender promises to bottle up the TVA 

funds.

This holds true for Governor Breathitt and other Kentucky officials as well.

Yes, WHOP is in support of the land Between-the-Lakes as proposed by TVA. 

And we do not feel sympathy for the county officials who are crying about lost 

revenue, although not too loudly because TVA might be right abo ut increased 

taxpaym ents more tha n making up for the losses.

We do not feel badly about the Indiana interests who have bought land for 

speculation in the area for Barkley Lake. We are not in sympathy w ith Senator 

Ellender and his public watchdog-protector stand on something he obviously 

knows little or nothing about.

The people we do feel sorry for are those in the area who are honest and sincere 

in not wanting to give up their homelands. There are no comforting words to 

someone who has invested his life in something and then has to give it up.

But let not the opportunists play on the heartstrings of the public about these 

people ju st to further selfish gains.

The park represents progress Ken tucky hardly can afford to lose. And progress, 

as long as civilization exists, is going to continue a t the expense of some individuals.

Nothing is permanent. Relocation will begin soon and the surrender of homelands may be easier if the people will realize their fight is hopeless and begin 

now’ to make plans to settle in new lands.

Phillips Chevrolet Co.,

Benton, Ky., July 7, 1964.

Senator Allen Ellender,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Ellender: This is to urge you to give active suppor t to the 

development of the Between-the-Lakes area by TVA. I am positive th at if a 

poll w’ere taken, it would indicate overwhelming supp ort of the project. As 

is usually the case, the minority opposition is so demonstrative that it could 

easily give a distorted picture.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 196 5 117

Please consider this in your evalu ation of the problem. If you could visit the 

area, or have someone do so, I am sure you would find this to be an accurate 

appraisal of the conditions.

Thanking you, I am,

Very tr uly yours,

J o seph H. C o u l t e r.

SUBCOMMITTEE ADJO URNM ENT

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Wednesday, Ju ly 1, 1964, the subcommittee hearings adjourned.)

IN D E X

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Face Atomic Energy Commission.--------- 73 Amendments proposed_______________________________________ 74

Authorizing legislation------------------------------------------------------------ 88

Chairman, letter from________________________________________ 74

Chairman, opening statem ent of_______________________________ 88

Senator Fong, statem ent o f___________________________________ 112

Food irradiator for Hawaii________________________________ 112

General provisions, language changes___________________________ 84

House action________________________________________________ 88

Operating expenses__________________________________________ 7!)

Amount requ ested_______________________________________ 75

Appealing reductions_____________________________________ 88

Biology and medicine___________________________________ 82, 109

Civilian applications of nuclear explosives—Plow share_________83, lit)

Com munity___________________________________________ 83, 110

Isotopes development___________________________________ 82, 109

Language changes_______________________________________ S3

Physical research_____________________________________ 78, 82, 99

Analysis of impact of House of Representatives bill_______ 100

Chemistry______________________________________ 104

High-energy physics______________________________ 101

Low-energy physics______________________________ 103

Metallurgy and materials_________________________ 105

Cutbacks required___________________________________ 100

Facilities, research___________________________________ 99

Personnel___________________________________________ 99

Program direction and adm inistration______________________83, 110

Raw ma terials__________________________________________ 81, 89

Reactor development__________________________________ 77, 81, 92

Budget estim ate and re duc tion s________________________ 97

Civilian power and nuclear safety______________________ 98

Merchan t ship reac tors_______________________________ 96

Military and space uses of nuclear energy________________ 93

Other reactor development activitie s____________________ 96

Pl uto______________________________________________ 93

Applying technology and knowledge elsewhere_______ 95

Closeout of effort________________________________ 94

Flight test elem ent_______________________________ 95

High-temperature tech nology______________________ 94

Mothballing____________________________________ 93, 95

Personnel_______________________________________ 94

Technology and cost_____________________________ 95

Reductions, effect of_________________________________ 97

Restoration request__________________________________ 98

SNAP 10A flight t est_________________________________ 98

Revenues and reimbursem ents____________________________ S3. Ill

Special nuclear materials_______________________________ 77, 81, 89

Effect of House acti on ________________________________ 99

Estimate and appropriation, fiscal year 1964_____________ 91

House a ction________________________________________ 89

Other possible actions_________________________________ 91

Production program, review of_________________________ 99

Restoration request__________________________________ 91

Shu tting down Hanford reactor, possibility of_____________ 91

X
II INDEX

Atomic Energy Commission—Continued.

Operating expenses—Continued. P ag e

Training, education and information-----------------------------------82, 109

Unobligated balances_____________________________________ 111 Weapons_______________________________________________ 81, 92

Offsetting reductions_________________________________ 92

Plant and capital equipm ent_________________________________ 84, 111

Amount requested_________ 76

Program highlights_______________________________________ 86 Language changes_______________________________________ 87

Programs and budget estim ates________________________________ 87
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Pate Tennessee Valley Authority_______________________________________ 1

Allocation of common costs of dams and reservoirs____________ 17, 18, 20

‘Melton Hill Dam________________________________________ IS

Nickajack pr oj ec t.. .____ _________________________________ 20

Appropriation requ est_____ ___________________________________ 3

Summary of budget for 1965____ 2

Effect on programs of appropriation reductions proposed by

House----------- -------------------------------------------------------- 12, 14, 16

Chemical plant at Muscle Shoals, Ala__________________________ 4

Plant rehabilitation___ ____ _____________________________ 4, 5, 6

Fertilizer use, etc .____ ___________________________________ 4

Fertilizer distributio n____________________________________ 5

Flood control for Bristol, Ten n.-V a_____________________________ 6

Guntersville lock____________________________________________ 4

Hales Bar Dam .................................................................... ............. . 3, 19, 20

Industrial development in Tennessee Valley______ 24

Land Between the Lakes_________________________________ 6, 9, 15, 25

Cost___________________________________________________ 7

Description____________________________________________ 6, 7, 16

Land acquisitio n___ _____________________________________10, 28

Land ownership_________________________________________ 32, 35

Presbyterian Church campsite_____________________________ 12

Push for a park_________________________________________ 115

Relocation................................ ...................................... .. 10, 13, 29, 31, 37

Stateme nts relating to Land Between the Lakes by:

Bleidt, George_______________________________________ 53

Bre athitt, Hon. Edward T ____________________________ 57

Cooper, Hon. Joh n Sherman_________________________ 25, 114

Coulter, Joseph H ___________________________________ 117

Powell, Lee F _______________________________________ 41

Stubblefield, Hon. Frank A___________________________ 36

Utley, Judge Francis _________________________________ 38

Whitehead, Mrs. Corinne_____________________________ 46

Tax replacements________________________________________ 20, 30

Telegrams relatin g to Land Between the Lakes______________ 59, 114

Navigation, growth in use of channel___________________________ 4

Nickajack project_______________________________________3, 18, 19, 20

Power program:

Exchange agreements____________________________________ 22

Financing of steam generating facilities_____________________ 18

Load grow th____________________________________________ 10

Norris centennial rate____________________________________ 24

Paym ents to Tre asury________________________________ 8, 9, 18, 19

Revenue bonds sold and short term loans outstanding_________ 21

Use of proceeds_________________________________________ 18, 21

Request for additional automobiles_____________________________ 16, 17

Paym ent for automobile use from power proceeds____________ 17

Results of economic growth in region___________________________ 25

Total estim ated expenditures, including borrowings and proceeds__ 8

Tribu tary area development program___________________________ 4, 6

Bear Creek_____________________________________________ 6

Beech River____________________________________________ 6

o

III