The people's voice., 1959-02-20

ship, PUDs, etc.
McGarvey also called attention to
the much higher rate schedules Pacific
Power & Light is permitted to charge
in the Flathead area than the COM
pany dares to seek approval of in
Washington where the threat of es-
tabiishment of public utility districts
always hangs over PP&L's corporate
head. Finally, he recalled several
years ago before PP&L took over
Mountain States Power Co., MSP, he
said "thumbed it's nose" at the people
of Kalispell and area over protests
against its extremely high rates. until
business, labor and other people be-
gan to seriously discuss ways and
means to set up a municipally-owned
power system. Rates came down to
some extent very soon thereafter.
BUTTE UNIONS BACK PUD
Rep. Powers spoke very briefly in
favor of the bill and the increased
industry and job opportunities lower
cost power would mean to Montana.
Powers stated that the 48-union Sill
yer Bow Trades & Labor Council
has announced it's solid support
for enactment of a public utility
district law in Montana.
Rep. Bardanouve said that if he
didn't have any other reason to be
proud of himself that he does "feel
proud for not having yielded to the
pressure put on me :" to oppose
this bill. GIVE heard about PRESSURE"
he continued, "but never anything like
this, before kilograms, letters
like case of measles, have been
coming in to me from all over the
state.
Seems like lot of people in a
lot of places got the idea of pro-
testing this bill at the same time,"
and he said, "Some of these tele-
grams and wires were quite abusive
called me a socialist in
some instances, a communist :"
Continuing, the Blaine county fresh
man asserted that if HB PIT "does |
nothing else, if no PUD is ever
the rates charged by private utilities
than the Public Service Commission
will ever do. PUBS have forced pri-
vate power companies in Washington
to bring rates down -
Bardanouve also took exception to
growth rate of Montana
with Washington, saying such COM
parisons are foolish" since there is
no base for comparison.
Concluding, he questioned "all this
fuss about our water where"
ne asked, "were these same people
Who oppose this bill when we gave
away some of our finest power sites
Ton the Clark Fork of the Columbia)
% Washington Water Power 2"
And, he pointed the finger squarely
It an earlier legislature which per-
nitted itself being steam-rollered
nto giving the Cabinet Gorge reser-
'oir to WWP. (SB 9, 1851 session,
'assed in record time and signed into !
aw by the then Gov. John w. Bon
ler.)
Rep. Parker, concluding debate on {
he bill, recalled opponents fears !
oncerning the power of a PUD to /
ondemn, and he asked if the eminent !
oman provision in HB PIT was any {
1ore restrictive than that in Sub. {
lB 179 of the 1853 session which was +
ushed through by the power-oil-min- !
1g lobby. That bill, some of you may !
ecall, put landowners at disadvan- I
age in attempting to protect their
lights against eminent domain pro-
eedings by private utility or COM
ION carrier.
PLACED IN BILL Il
Before HB 217 was reported out 1
of committee several important j
were placed in it's :
context. One of these specifically
forbid any PUD seeking condemna- I
ton proceedings against any REA i
or irrigation district. Another re- Z
inforced the already existing pro- &
viso in 217 protecting waterrights l
of individuals and others. A third r
made it mandatory that any dis I
trict pay local and county taxes
or make in-lieu payments at least
equal to what such an electric sys-
tenn would pay if privately owned. :