August 1, 1974
Page 26336
THE DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to address my colleagues on the importance of the $800,000 which is included in the Public Works appropriation bill before us today, for continued planning of the Dickey-Lincoln project in Maine.
The project is familiar to many of my colleagues, I am sure – a major hydroelectric facility designed to provide 1.2 million kilowatt hours of electric power to Maine and the Northeastern States. Dickey would increase the peaking power capacity in New England by 18.7 percent when completed and would thus represent a major contribution toward the task of meeting the energy demands of our region. Of equal significance, the project would not depend upon expensive fuel oil now used for the bulk of New England's present and peaking power facilities.
In large measure because of the high cost of fuel, the private electric utilities which opposed this project in prior years withdrew their opposition this year. Yet, new voices have been raised in opposition and questions have been posed by a number of concerned citizens' organizations regarding the environmental effects of the project and its economic justification.
I believe these questions can be answered. Many already have, I believe, on the basis of information now available. But additional information concerning the impact of the project is required and that is precisely the purpose of the $800,000 appropriation which we consider today.
I would remind my colleagues, however, of two significant historical facts about Dickey-Lincoln which ought to be considered. First, Dickey-Lincoln was born out of a concern for the environment. In the late 1950's, a major study of the feasibility of the Passamaquoddy Bay tidal power project on the Maine-Canadian boundary led to the recommendation of a supplemental hydroelectric facility in northern Maine. During the same period, the National Park Service completed separate study of the recreation potential of New England and recommended a major wilderness area for the same location.
In view of the importance of the environmental and recreational considerations pointed out by the Park Service, the hydroelectric project was shifted to its present site at Dickey, Maine, with a reduction in power values, and the Allagash Wilderness Waterway was established to preserve the river for its scenic and recreational value.
I point this out, not to claim that all the environmental concerns involving the Dickey-Lincoln project have been set to rest, but to dispel the apparent notion held by some that this project is being imposed upon Maine with no environmental consideration at all.
In fact, years before the National Environmental Policy Act came into existence, State and Federal officials – on their own initiative – conducted a series of evaluations of the environmental and recreational aspects of the project. The first such evaluation took place in 1963-64 as part of the Interior Department's study and later, during 1966-67, further studies were conducted by the Army Corps as part of its preparatory efforts.
The funds I urge that we appropriate today will provide the means of preparing a detailed environmental impact statement to continue this prior work. This will give us an opportunity to reevaluate our earlier conclusions in light of environmental standards which have evolved since the mid-1960's. I welcome this. Second, another aspect of the objections which have been raised recently against Dickey concerns the economic justification for the project.
Over the years, the favorable economic basis for the project has been determined, confirmed and reaffirmed by no less than three Federal agencies and by independent analysis.
As a member of the Senate Public Works Committee for 15 years, I have reviewed hundreds of projects which have been authorized by the Congress. I can think of no other project which has been the subject of such intense scrutiny for so long a period. And throughout this time, the benefit-cost ratio of DickeyLincoln has consistently been shown to surpass that of the majority of public works projects approved by the Congress.
I note, for example, that during debate on this project in 1967 the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior advised me that, of 170 Federal power projects ever constructed or under construction, Dickey's benefit-cost ratio was better than 75 percent of them. This information was included in a thorough review of the economic aspects of the project which may be found on pages 31950-31961 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; November 7, 1967, to which I would refer those who wish to explore this aspect in depth.
My point in repeating this information is not to claim that Dickey should be subject to no further scrutiny. Rather, it is to point out that Dickey-Lincoln has been subject to the same tests and the same standards which every other public works project has been for many years. And it has consistently met them. To come in at this late date and seek to apply a different standard – one not applied to other projects – is not only discriminatory but destroys the basis for a meaningful comparison with other comparable projects.
Ultimately, the Dickey-Lincoln project must stand on its own. I believe it will. With the funds included in this measure, we will obtain the information necessary to support a spirited public debate on the project and a reexamination of its value in light of changed circumstances.
I am confident, on the basis of what has gone on before, that Dickey-Lincoln will meet this test and will continue to merit the support of Maine people.