APPENDIX 3.-Maine water utilities-Continued

[A-Chlorination; B-Other chemicals; C-Filtration; D-Coagulation; E-Sedimentation]

APPENDIX 3.—Maine water utilities-Continued

[A-Chlorination; B-Other chemicals; C-Filtration; D-Coagulation; E-Sedimentation]

STATEMENT OF PAUL W. BEAN, AGENT AND ENGINEER FOR UNION WATER POWER CO., LEWISTON, MAINE

Mr. BEAN. My name is Paul W. Bean. I am employed by the Union Water Power Co. of Lewiston, Maine.

As to my work I am engaged with the determination of regulation and flow on the Androscoggin River.

I believe the answer to your question is the initial installation contemplated in the High Errol project indicates no hydroelectric power at the time it may be built, if it is presently feasible to be built. Senator MUSKIE. Is there any hydro potential there?

Mr. BEAN. There is potential, yes. It would be, I believe, some years in the future before it will be installed. Initial plans indicate the provisions will be made for future hydroelectric installation. Senator MUSKIE. What is the size of the potential?

Mr. BEAN. I cannot say without referring to the NENYIAC report.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the project to which you refer a private project or public project?

Mr. BEAN. As far as I know, sir, the present plans are involving private developments.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you Mr. Bean.

It is a fair statement, is it not, that probably outside of these sites that we have already discussed that future electrical energy in this State must come from either conventional or atomic thermo plants.

Mr. NEWDICK. I think that is the plans of the utilities in the area that I heard. There are possibly some small ones or redevelopment of existing ones from which they can get a few more kilowatts. But that is about it. It would come from steam in the developments that we have. We have had no atomic development or atomic plant at the University of Maine.

There was hope to get in some of the program of education at the University of Maine a small reactor.

There was a plant that the power company had on Wayman Lake last year. They went into the legislature and received the authority to take the water out of the lake and pump it back up to another one with reversible turbines and generate a few more kilowatts. It looks like steam or thermo or some type in the State of Maine.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the principal fuel used in the steamplant? Mr. NEWDICK. Oil.

Senator MUSKIE. Could we get in the record at this point also a statement indicating the extent of hydro development in this State and also the thermo capacity in this State?

Mr. NEWDICK. Yes, we could. We will submit it. [Hydro development in Maine, as of Nov. 30, 1959, was 351,533 kw-hr, and thermo capacity was 382,705 kw-hr.]

Senator HART. This is the question raised in my mind, and I am not in a position to give the answer. I made the assumption that your commission does not regulate power and public power utilities in this State, or does it?

Mr. NEWDICK. We regulate the private ones on rates, tariffs and securities and matters of service. We only have three cooperatives

here in the State of Maine and the only thing we regulate or get involved in is when they will not go out and make an extension; then they, under the statute, can petition for permission for a hearing and the co-op will explain the reasons for not going out and making the extension, and the commission will order them to make an extension. in the area. But that is the only way we get involved with them. Senator HART. The municipal utility is not subject to any jurisdiction of yours.

Mr. NEWDICK. No. We regulate all municipal companies.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe they have any municipally owned power distribution system, do you?

Mr. NEWDICK. Yes, we do.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what the Senator referred to.

Mr. NEWDICK. As to distribution systems we have possibly three or four of them.

The CHAIRMAN. They own their generating facilities.

Mr. NEWDICK. No, sir. They buy from the companies.

Mr. COBB. I will present next. Mr. Chairman, the Honorable Ronald W. Green, commissioner of the Sea and Shore Fisheries.

STATEMENT OF RONALD W. GREEN, COMMISSIONER, SEA AND SHORE FISHERIES, STATE OF MAINE

Mr. GREEN. Senator Kerr, Senator Moss, Senator Hart, Senator Muskie, and Congressman Oliver, the primary responsibility of the Maine Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries is to the State's commercial fishing industry. We are, therefore, concerned with problems relating to the utilization of salt water rather than fresh. We believe that because of the importance of our $75 million commercial fishing industry and of our coastal bays and estuaries, our inlets and harbors, and of the sea itself, that any study of the State's water resources should be broad enough to include some consideration of our vast tidewater areas.

In brief, we have three problems connected with our coastal waters which might be of interest to this committee.

(1) Excessive fresh water runoff following heavy storms has an adverse effect on live lobsters held in pounds located in areas where a sharp reduction in salinity may result, and it may also adversely affect shellfish such as the soft-shell clam when such runoff flows over clam beds or flats.

(2) The redistribution of sediments on flats areas resulting from heavy storms and excessive runoff of rainwater likewise is also damaging to clam flats areas since deposits of silt and clay eroded from Coastal and inland areas are left to blanket previously productive tidal flats.

(3) Pollution of shellfish growing areas by sewage and industrial waste is a problem which may be expected to become more serious as the population increases and the State becomes more highly industrialized. At present 45,972 acres of flats are closed to diggers because of pollution. This represents a 13 percent increase in closures in the past 10 years. Other thousands of acres are classified as borderline, requiring only a small amount of additional pollution before they, too, will have to be closed.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it possible that this rate of pollution might get to the point where it would destroy your commercial fishing industry? Mr. GREEN. It could very well come to just that.

The CHAIRMAN. You do contemplate that that would be a problem which your States would readily need to solve, do you not?

Mr. GREEN. To some degree, yes. I qualify that in a later sentence, Senator, and it may be an answer to your question.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. GREEN. In our opinion, no elaborate flood control program would be required to correct conditions described in (1) and (2). Improved forestry and agricultural practices in the affected areas should help prevent excessive runoff and erosion. The pollution problem, however, mentioned in item (3) is more complex, and we believe any solution will depend on a cooperative effort at Federal, State and local levels.

The CHAIRMAN. Is any of that pollution in connection with interstate streams?

Mr. GREEN. I did not get your question.

The CHAIRMAN. Is any of that pollution resulting from interstate streamflow?

Mr. GREEN. We have just one-two to some degree, one in particular in the Kittery and Portsmouth area.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are talking about one of the most important things that this committee has received information on, and we are tremendously interested in being advised wherever practicable of the efforts being made by the States in connection with their own sovereignty in meeting the pollution problem and also your recommendations as to how the Federal Goverment can assist in expediting the abatement of pollution.

Mr. GREEN. Senator, it will be an educational program, more or less. The mechanics have already been established as far as the Federal. Federal money has been available to some degree.

The CHAIRMAN. That has to be with local and municipal sewage disposal plants.

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the pollution you are talking about, is it primarily from community sewage disposal?

Mr. GREEN. Domestic sewage mostly, affecting the clams; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not have any problem with industrial pollution?

Mr. GREEN. Industrial would be secondary as far as clams are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. But not limiting it to clams.

Mr. GREEN. Limited to the fisheries itself, I would say that. The domestic sewage was a great deal more our present problem than industrial sewage.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are very fortunate, very fortunate.

Mr. GREEN. I am talking now of the commercial fishery. I hope I made myself clear that it was strictly the commercial fishery.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of information to the committee, does the same situation apply to fish and wildlife generally?

Mr. GREEN. No; I think it would be in reverse if you would encompass both inland and coastal.