For when the reports of the division of light and power of the city are examined it is revealed that the depreciated present value of the property is not seventeen and a half million but rather some eight and a half million. And when these are examined further it develops that most of this apparent worth is owed to the city of Cleveland, and through it to the citizens of the country. The subsidy contributed by the public to the plant is shown by the two accounts, "City investment account" and "Current transactions of the plant with the city," which are set up in accordance with the city-charter requirement that the accounts of the utility conform to the uniform classification of accounts of the Public Utility Commission of Ohio. These accounts show that the plant owes the city some eight and three-quarter millions, representing taxes unpaid, money due the city, and interest thereon. Much clamor is heard about the money owed the light plant by the city. But actually the light plant owes more to the city than does the city to its light plant. And were this debt of the plant to the city paid, the present situation of the city being devoid of funds and the light plant in funds, would be completely reversed and the light plant would find itself in extreme financial difficulties, but the relief and operating expense problems of the city would be well on the way to being solved. So let us exercise caution in discussing the Cleveland municipal plant, lest we be swayed by its proponents without checking the record. Following are some data condensed from the balance sheet of the division of light and power as of September 30, 1937: 1 Substantial portion owned by city of Cleveland for street-lighting and municipal services. 2 Includes taxes which would have been paid if privately owned. This represents the public's true share in the property after 23 years' operation. (Letter from the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, furnishing information requested in the hearings:) Hon. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Chairman, Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR JUDGE MANSFIELD: During my testimony before your committee on December 16, with reference to H. R. 7635, a bill to provide for the regional conservation and development of the national resources and for other purposes, the committee requested information as to whether the Engineer Department had prepared reports on that bill or any similar bills providing for the regional conservation and development of the national resources, or the creation of conservation authorities and, if so, what action had been taken with reference to these reports. As stated in the letter of the Secretary of War to you dated November 22, 1937, this Department did not prepare any report on H. R. 7635. However, it did prepare reports on S. 2555 and H. R. 7392, the so-called Norris and Rankin bills, which are bills to provide for the creation of conservation authorities and for other purposes, and which two latter bills are very similar in nature. The reports prepared by the Department on these two bills were therefore likewise very similar. The reports prepared by the Department on S. 2555, dated June 17, 1937, and on H. R. 7392, dated June 25, 1937, recommended against the enactment of those bills on the grounds that the effect of the legislation would be to establish small departments throughout the United States with no provision centralizing their control or supervision. With reference to navigation, the reports pointed out that ships plying between the ports of the nations must have facilities of the same standards at all harbors at which they call, and that all river improvements must be carried out with this end in view; that navigation facilities on our inland waterways, particularly where these waterways are interconnected, should be of uniform standard, and all rules and regulations established for navigation on the streams of the United States should also be of uniform applicability. Responsibility for enforcing the rules and regulations governing the operations of the waterways of the United States and for the operation and maintenance of these waterways is now placed in a single agency of the War Department. The establishment of joint responsibility between the War Department and other agencies would impair the successful commercial use of these waterways. Similarly, it was the view of the Department that the question of flood control is essentially national and not regional. The prevention of flood distress on the rivers of the Mississippi River system could not be secured if the work were entrusted to separate organizations, each with its own responsibilities. The reports pointed out that the War Department recognizes the desirability for the proper utilization of surplus water in the dams and reservoirs, but is convinced that existing laws permit the use of such waters for hydroelectric power incidental to the construction of such dams and reservoirs required for navigation and flood-control purposes. The reports further pointed out the importance of planning and the coordination of activities of the several agencies of the Government charged with planning and construction activities, but stated that this Department was now in close cooperation with the other departments and Federal agencies where there may be a common interest in any project. It was the view that the granting of administrative and executive responsibilities to regional planning commissions might result in an undesirable decentralization of responsibility with inadequate supervision and control, and would duplicate and conflict with the work of the established public agencies. The reports stated that the War Department is now engaged in the execution of an extensive and well-considered plan for the protection of the lower Mississippi River from floods, and has attained substantial progress in the preparation of plans and specifications for the many meritorious flood-control projects authorized in the act of June 22, 1936. The reports also stated that the establishment of these regional authorities to undertake this work would inevitably result in confusion, delay, and disorder. The reports outlined above on the two bills were referred to the Acting Director of the Budget with a request that the Department be advised as to whether or not the proposed reports would be in accordance with the program of the President. In both instances, replies were received from the Acting Director of the Budget, dated July 8, 1937, and July 3, 1937, that there would be no objection on his part to the presentation to the committee of such report on the proposed bills as would not be inconsistent with the President's message of June 3, 1937, on flood prevention and drought emergencies (H. Doc. No. 251, 75th Cong.). The Department reviewed carefully the two reports and studied the President's message referred to, and it appeared possible that the reports might be considered to be inconsistent with the message and therefore they were not submitted. Very truly yours, J. L. SCHLEY, Major General, Chief of Engineers. (Thereupon, at 4: 40 p. m., the committee adjourned.) INDEX Page Acts of Congress-- Aiken, Hon. George D., Governor of Vermont, statement of--. 677 613 Barrett, O. Slack, president, Ohio Valley Improvement Association, letter_ 561 535 Brand, Charles J., executive secretary, National Fertilizer Association, 737 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, referendum vote- 834 Collisson, C. E., manager, Denver Chamber of Commerce, letter. 562 463, 469, 471, 482, 531, 538 Colorado, State of___ 581, 667 Colorado Water Conservation Commission, report of. Connecticut River and tributaries, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 616 Engineers, Corps of, United States Army----- 539, 560, 567, 574, 603, 629, 735, 836 |