The people's voice., 1959-06-26

expensive than the lower route.
dept. "guesstimate', upper route,
between Billings and Livingston, $685.
$50, 1000; lower route, $21, ,450,000.)
A. That, "cost-wise", grazing land
along the upper route, assessed at
So to So an acre would have saved
considerable right-of-way cost when
compared with bottom land assessed
at $40 an acre.
Quinnell, defending his depart
ment's failure to run an on-the-
ground preliminary cost estimate
of the upper route, said they based
their figures on 'best" national
practices and procedures in arriv-
ing at the $25, ,35O,00O figure for
that route.
Further questioning of Quinnell re-
vealed that the million dollar over
pass in Billings was not considered
a part of the cost estimate of the
lower route because, and in spite of
his departments efforts, the Bureau
of Public Roads has yet to see fit to
designate that overpass as part of
Interstate system. The Laurel over
pass and the two bridges across the
Yellowstone needed to complete the
lower route, he said, were part of
the $21 100000 figure for that route.
(The $1.O million change order
granted on Livingston-Springdale sec
tion, obviously, was not part of the
estimated cost of lower route.)
Pointing out that had the depart
ment (and Highway Commission) To-
Gated the road along the upper route
there wouldn't have been the expen-
sive outlay for relocation of utility
lines, telephone lines, pipe lines, etc.,
Chairman Bradford elected from
Quinnell that he didn't know how
much relocation would cost the state.
This brought from Bradford an
other question: "How can you tell
the southern 0ower) route will
cost less than the northern route if
you don't know how much removal
of utilities is going to cost? Quin-
nell answered that he doesn't know
which route would be the cheaper.
Having secured that admission
Bradford then surmised "You did
mt do very good job, did you", in
taking all cost factors into consid-
Grafton before making final route
location. To this Ouinnell replied
simply, "No sir"
MISSION DAM
Advised of the fact that last year
he possibility of a federal dam at
1ission Canyon had been called to
he attention of the Highway Com
nission in letter from Leonard Esp,
resident of Yellowstone Protective
association, Quinnell told the COM
1ittee he had never heard of either
he proposed dam or the Esp letter.8
A copy of the letter is in the Off
lal transcript of the committees
caring conducted January 23)
That dam would flood consider
able of the Yellowstone valley be-
tween Livingston and Springdale
resulted in extended questioning of
the chief engineer; brought out,
if the dam were built at least $9.5
million worth of interstate highway
would be inundated.
Further evidence that the Mission
anyon site has been under considera-
on for a number of years (since
342) and such consideration is
after of public record was brought
It by committee counsel Lee Over
1T when he produced a U. S. Geo
gical survey map showing the site
location for potential multiple
lrpose dam across the Yellowstone.
end of reprint from Feb. 13 VOICE)
Official report of Bradford Commit
tee states Mission Dam authorized by
federal "5S Stat. S81, under Sec. 9 of
Flood Control Act