Henderson daily dispatch., 1939-01-13

is, of course, no difficulty on this
score; but in the case of such projects
as were presented to the State board
this week, it becomes of extreme i'm
portance.
In brief, here was the situation:
Federal REA officials came before
the State board with a number of pro-
jects about which Mr.. Bagley and
his associates kne absolutely nothing
whatever. The State officials had not
been consulted in preparation of the
projects; had had absolutely no
chance to make the feasibility" in.
vestigation required by law. Yet the
Federal folks sought immediate and
unconditional approval of them Their
plea was that delay would enable
power companies to go into the ter
ritory affected, skim the cream and
thereby make the coop PROJECTS i'm
possible.
The State board answered that It
cannot, under the law, give it's ap-
provas without having studied the
projects and determined that they
are feasible. 1t offered to keep the
power companies out of the territory
completely, make a survey of it's own
and give a decision on the projects
all within II days.
Whereupon the project sponsors Of
three counties announced that thew
would mot withdraw their petitions
but would ask the board not to take
any further action on them, indicat-
ing at the same time that they would
go ahead under a different North
Carolina lCw-the so-called Mutual
act. One project-from Randolph
county--was left with the State board
for action. Mr. Bagley said the boards
decision will be rendered within -
days.
Throughout the long hearings.
which, attracted some 200 farmers
from the counties affected (Randolph.
Arson, Davidson and Davie) there
were frequent indications of the
clashing views of federal and State
REA officials.
Time and again the Federal men
REA Attorney Moore; c. o. Falken-
valid, supervisor of projects, initiation
division; and field man E. E. Harms
said in effect that North Carolina has
allowed the private utilities to cripple
rural projects.
They pleaded for more "libera"
treatment of cooperative projects and
defended methods used by Federal
field men in making the projects at :.
tractlve to farmers. They contend that
even though Federal funds for the
projects are loans and not outright
grants, there is small likelihood of
any rural project failing over the long
pull. They pointed out that even if
the projects do not "pay out" an.:
even if the coop is unable to begin
repayment at the end of the 81
months period of grace. there is au-
thority for Federal operation under
supervision" for from five to six
!ears.
The fundamental difference as to
feasibility appeared to be that the
Federal men look at all prospects
through rose colored glasses, estimate
costs at the very lowest possible sum
and figure a project can pay out on
two customers to the mile The State
REA doesn't think this quite possible
But underneath the whole ruction
appears to lie the Federal REA's de-
sire to have absolute and complete
control of all the projects, free from
| any and all limitations imposed by
State law or State boards.
However, Mr.. Moore summed up the
State REA's attitude as wholly co.,
rect: Your law is unique and VIZ
could operate better under another
but there is no doubt that you are en-
forcing your law and living up to it
just as you believe you should"
Mr.. Bagley said he preferred not to
comment at any length, but did say
hat the hearings had given the State
e2EA a chance to "show the farmers"
it is operating inst as the law re.
; hires it to operate.