October 20, 1977
Page 34642
SUPPORT FOR THE DICKEY-LINCOLN PROJECT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator HATHAWAY and myself, I submitted testimony today to an Army Corps of Engineers public hearing in Fort Kent, Maine, reaffirming our support for the Dickey-Lincoln School hydroelectric power project. I ask unanimous consent that our testimony be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE AT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL LAKES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, OCTOBER 20, 1977
I appreciate greatly this opportunity to add my comments on the draft environmental impact statement on Dickey-Lincoln and to do what I can to help focus the issues before the people of Maine and the U.S. Government as we approach the time when we must decide whether to begin construction on this project. I do so on behalf of Senator Bill Hathaway and myself.
I find myself wearing a number of hats as I review the draft environmental statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers: First and foremost as a Senator from Maine and former Governor; as Chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee; as ranking member of Senate Public Works Committee; as the sponsor of provisions in the National Environmental Policy Act which created the process in which we are now participating; as one of those who together with President Kennedy, Secretary of Interior Udall, Senator Hathaway, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, and others first focused federal attention on the resources of northern and eastern Maine: as a supporter of the development of hydroelectric power in the St. John and the preservation of the Allagash Waterway; and as one who has devoted his political life to balancing our need for economic opportunity with our need to protect the environmental values Maine people cherish. I feel comfortable in each of these roles today as I reassert my strong conviction that the Dickey-Lincoln School Hydroelectric Project remains one of the most valuable energy resources available to Maine and our region. I find no major arguments in the draft environmental impact statement to dissuade me from my conviction that it is the most attractive alternative available to us.
Some press accounts of the draft environmental impact statement suggest that major new adverse impacts are revealed in that document. On the contrary, there are no surprises. Certainly, there are human, environmental, and economic costs associated with the project. But there are also great benefits. I am convinced that most objective analysts would conclude that the trade offs associated with Dickey-Lincoln are more acceptable than those the alternatives would force upon us.
Opponents of Dickey-Lincoln say that Maine public opinion has turned against the project. I will not enter a battle of the polls. There is no doubt that the relentless attack on this project has had an impact and has succeeded in raising questions in people's minds. That result may be healthy. Any major project should be scrutinized with a good deal of skepticism.
What is not healthy however, and what will not contribute to an informed and rational approach to this project, is the irresponsible approach of many who oppose it — an approach which refuses to weigh the real alternatives before us — which focuses on and exaggerates admittedly adverse consequences while ignoring steps to avoid or lessen those impacts, and which minimizes the major benefits available to Maine and the Country.
I have kept silent on Dickey-Lincoln for some time now — perhaps too long — because I felt it essential that the processes of the National Environmental Policy Act be permitted to work.
Those who actively oppose the project, purportedly out of concern for environmental values, have not shared my respect for the environmental impact process. Their minds were made up before the process began. They opposed funding to complete the review we are now undertaking and they urged President Carter to kill the project on the basis of half truths, distortions and misstatements. Bill Hathaway and I were able to reach the President and on the basis of a full briefing on Dickey-Lincoln he reversed his position and supported the appropriations to continue studies on the project. It appears we now face the task of balancing the record Maine people have to review on this project.
I welcome the challenge. I have confidence in the fairness and judgment of Maine people and I am confident that after careful reexamination Dickey-Lincoln will be accepted on its merits.
Let us look at what the draft environmental impact statement tells us about impacts associated with the project, compare them with the problems of alternatives and examine the benefits.
Perhaps the first step is to ask ourselves what values are implied by the arguments against Dickey-Lincoln. Do the people of Maine share those values? Are they willing to have those values dictate major decisions for our future?
As I read through the Draft Environmental Impact Statement I find some curious statements which reflect the values of the unknown author. I was surprised and disturbed by the implications that new jobs and higher wages create problems for a community and are to be avoided. I was surprised to learn that new and better housing can be "expected to create a sense of real loss in the occupants" and, thus, is a major adverse impact. I was surprised by the suggestion that it is better for thousands of Maine citizens to be forced into major changes in their lifestyle and standard of living than for a few privileged canoeists to lose access to the St. John River for a few days each summer. These and others we encounter throughout the debate on this project do not reflect the values on which I base difficult decisions about the best use of Maine's resources. I do not believe they are the values of Maine people.
The first impact listed in section five of the draft statement is the flooding of 88,000 acres of Maine woods as the river behind the dams backs up to form a man made lake. The loss of forest land is never welcomed but certainly this impact should be no surprise. Maine is a state of 20 million acres of which nearly 90% of 17,700,000 acres are forested. So we are talking of a lake which will flood less than one half of one percent of the forest land in Maine — 0.49% to be more precise. The timber loss is a significant consideration in a state whose economy is based on forest resources but not so dramatic as to dissuade us from proceeding. For comparison let us recall that Baxter State Park removes 200,000 acres of forest land from routine production. The Allagash Wilderness Waterway sets aside 23,000 acres. The referendum vote last year by the people of Maine to create the Bigelow Mountain Preserve set aside 40,000 acres of forest land as a public preserve. The successful recapture of 40,000 acres of public lots will permit the state to preserve additional acres. None of these are precisely comparable to the action proposed for Dickey-Lincoln, but they do provide some perspective. Maine people have indicated in these cases and others their willingness to allocate major portions of our forest lands for preferred uses. The choice before us is not dramatically different.
We can replace 2.3 million barrels of oil or 16.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas on an annual basis by flooding less than one half of one percent of our forest lands. It would be unrealistic and irresponsible for us to turn away from that choice in the absence of a better alternative. And no better alternative has been offered.
Much has been made in the press of reports that after the year 2,000 demand for wood may exceed the growth rate and the acres lost from production might cost millions of dollars in lost economic activity. I don't have to remind people in Northern Aroostook that the economic benefit of wood cut in these forests is too often enjoyed across the border in Canadian mills and too seldom by Maine citizens. But the real failure of that argument is exposed when one projects the value of oil after year 2,000. We will have to buy an additional 2.3 million barrels per year if Dickey-Lincoln is not built.
We have all seen reports of plans by our paper companies to construct hydro plants as an energy source for the 1980's and beyond. I find their willingness to trade timberland for reliable power as a better indication of the actual tradeoffs involved than the hyperbolic speculation of those who grasp at any argument to denigrate Dickey-Lincoln Certainly the value of our forest resource will increase. But, if Maine people are going to benefit from the resource, we need energy to drive the industries which provide the jobs. We can no longer depend on oil alone for that energy.
The alteration of ground water levels presents a concern which needs further amplification. But the draft itself points out on page 42 that the relocation of resident ground water demand in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir would be limited.
Fog during the early morning hours in late summer is listed as an adverse impact. But anyone familiar with Maine lakes can appreciate the minimal inconvenience this phenomenon will present, particularly in the remote area in which it is located.
The relocation of 161 households from the impounded area presents a problem which is troubling on a personal level. As a principal sponsor of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, I worked to assure that families whose homes are taken through government action — whether for highway construction, urban renewal or as here, a major public works project — would be provided replacement homes as good or better than those they had to leave. The federal government is authorized to provide substantial payment above the fair market value of the property taken, to assure that all are treated fairly. I have inquired directly of the Corps of Engineers on this matter and have been advised that solutions are being sought for the relocation of each affected resident. No insurmountable problems are expected. I assure you that if this project goes forward I will personally work to guarantee that all the families concerned receive the benefits under the law. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Congress intended all individuals displaced by the project to be generously treated in restoring them to a comparable dwelling and standard of living.
The impact on the timber resources in the area of the reservoir is a legitimate and anticipated concern but the impact is clearly manageable. The construction and filling period would provide opportunities to harvest the timber in the impoundment area and to adjust woods management plans.
The loss of tax revenues to the towns and the state on lands covered by the impoundment cannot be avoided but will almost certainly be mitigated and offset through increases in tax revenues to the towns and state from property taxes on development and improvements in the area and significantly higher taxes associated with the jobs and incomes related to the project.
The loss of white water canoeing on the St. John River is implicit in the conversion of the river into a manmade lake. It is not a loss which any of us take lightly but it is an essential tradeoff involved in any hydroelectric development. The balance was struck in the 60's when we adjusted the project site to preserve the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. It is a regrettable loss but we cannot save every river and in a state such as Maine, with vast expanses of forests, lakes and rivers, but scarce energy resources, Dickey-Lincoln may be one of the best bargains we can strike.
Recreational opportunities will become available on the reservoir after Dickey fills and there is every reason to expect that fishing and boating on the lake will provide considerably greater recreational opportunity than the river now offers. Appendix G to the draft in Exhibit II anticipates greater recreational use of the area if Dickey-Lincoln is built with recreational facilities than if the dam is not built and the river left undisturbed. For 1995, ten years after the impoundment would occur, the study projects that the area would experience 65,300 visitor days of recreation as opposed to 31,400 visitor days if the project is not built and to a current load of 17,800.
As was clearly anticipated, the wildlife population of the reservoir area will have to migrate or will be lost. The draft notes that the area of Northern Aroostook may be able to accommodate members of many displaced species. Other species will decline in numbers during construction and impoundment as hunting pressure mounts and habitat is lost.
The impact on downstream waters of construction activities is a concern inherent in the construction of any hydroelectric project. We have a responsibility to minimize the impact and to preserve water quality. But the long term benefit of the project is to avoid the devastating floods and erosion that has accompanied spring runoffs with disastrous consequences for river communities on both sides of the border.
The exposure of shoreline following draw on has been attacked for years as the "bathtub"ring of Dickey-Lincoln. Those who use this argument against Dickey conveniently ignore the fact that during a normal year the pool would drop only 1.5 feet from June to October with minute daily fluctuations of only 2 to 3 inches. The phenomenon is not uncommon in other Maine lakes and not generally disruptive to the recreational use of the lake. Those who are familiar with the St. John know that ice sheering and flood erosion regularly expose strips down each side of the river that may exceed the area exposed on the shores of Dickey lake during summer draw on.
I cannot believe that deer and moose will find the ice on Dickey reservoir any more difficult to manage than the ice on Eagle Lake and while I sympathize with their plight there is little we can do short of providing them with studded shoes or snowmobiles. And I am more concerned with the homeowner or businessman down river who faces an invasion of ice flows and river water during spring floods.
Similarly the disruptions in tax planning of those who enjoy a major net return on their investment in land flooded by Dickey-Lincoln fail to arouse my sympathy. The tax exposure of any major land holder is determined by myriad developments and while they might wish governmental decisions to be influenced by their private tax considerations, we have an obligation to the broader public interest.
The purported loss of $206 to $311 million in direct and indirect costs over the next 100 years is a new twist on old arguments about the value of the wood resource in the flooded area. The assertion certainly raises more questions than it answers, including, initially, the accuracy of the projections involved. If one wishes to pursue this approach one might more legitimately ask what the value of our forest resources will be if we do not have the energy necessary to process our wood. What are the opportunity costs if a mill closes due to the lack of oil or high energy costs? We could ask again what will be the value in 100 years of the 2.3 million barrels of oil Dickey-Lincoln will save annually? At today's cost per barrel it projects out to over $3 billion, but I do not expect today's cost to hold for 10 years and certainly not for 100 years.
There are adverse consequences associated with Dickey. There do not seem to be any that we did not anticipate when we began this process. And there seem to be balancing or mitigating elements associated with most of the negative impacts.
Let us turn to the benefits which Dickey-Lincoln will produce. Let us consider the energy potential. Let us ask how we might maximize the energy benefits associated with the project. Let us consider the economic benefits to the area and the state — jobs in the short term, and in the long term, improvements in the economic climate which a reliable source of power can offer. Let us consider the flood control benefits to the people of the St. John Valley who have experienced devastating floods twice in this decade.
It is now estimated that it will cost the federal government $533,000,000 to build Dickey-Lincoln School dams. Add to that construction costs, operations costs, maintenance costs, and transmission costs. Charge interest either at the authorized rate of 3¼ or the prevailing rate of 6¾%. Add them up. And still, the project will pay for itself from the power generated and yield a dividend.
That's a good deal for the federal government. As a member of the Senate Public Works Committee I can testify that it is better than the great majority of power projects we have built and as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee I can assure that it yields a very favorable direct and indirect return from the dollars invested. I suspect that few public investments at the local, state or federal level could meet the test which has been applied to Dickey-Lincoln and yield the results which Dickey promises.
With Dickey the tax dollars invested in the project are returned to the government with interest and Maine and the country receive a bonus — an energy resource which is completely renewable, non-polluting, free from the pressures of international oil politics and inflation. Given the opportunity and the capital, what consumer would hesitate to buy the next 100 year supply of oil at today's price? Dickey-Lincoln gives us that opportunity with the federal government providing the capital. And it gives us more. It gives us jobs for Maine people building the facility and supporting those who build it. Those construction jobs will not last forever. No construction job does. Construction workers don't expect them to. But while the facility is being constructed Maine men and women will have opportunities for hundreds of well paying positions that otherwise would not be available. At the peak of construction over 1800 workers will be directly employed on the project, 500-600 support positions would be available.
We are wise to anticipate potential problems associated with a boom-bust cycle but federal programs are available to help communities adjust to these demands and careful planning and assistance can help make the transitions in and out of the construction phase orderly.
Of the 900,000 kilowatts of capacity which will be available from Dickey-Lincoln — including downstream energy from Canadian plants — 200,000 kw will be marketed in Maine and 700,000 kw as peaking power in New England outside of Maine. Dickey's uniquely valuable capabilities as a peaking power facility enables it to provide approximately 17 of New England's projected peaking power needs when it comes on line in the 80's, helping to eliminate the projected shortage in peaking capacity in the Northeast.
The foremost question on the minds of all of us here today is the benefit which Maine people will derive from this project. Of the 900,000 kilowatts available from Dickey-Lincoln 200,000 would be directly available for sales in Maine and 700,000 kilowatts are proposed for sale outside of Maine. All of us would like to see the benefits to Maine maximized and increased shares might ultimately be made available to customers in Maine. There are indications that private industries and utilities in Maine would like additional access to the power produced by Dickey. That, of course, would be something to pursue. But let us understand that, even with the present distribution breakdown, and under present pricing formula, the Eastern Maine Coop has been able to project annual savings to Maine consumers of over $12,280,000 each year. If the pricing formula is adjusted to more accurately reflect the fact that the energy which powers Dickey-Lincoln — falling water — is free, then the savings to Maine consumers would be even greater and the price of peaking power sold out of state would remain extremely favorable.
I believe Bob Clark from the Eastern Maine Coop will elaborate on this point but let there be no question in anyone's mind that this project offers Maine consumers a major source of electrical energy that is renewable, reliable, and inflation proof. Dickey-Lincoln will not roll back electric rates for consumers around the state. I don't believe Dickey-Lincoln, Passamaquoddy, and small hydro sites development altogether would produce that effect. We are talking about whether we will have a dependable source of power immune from the pressure of declining oil supplies. Dickey-Lincoln offers us that in spades.
Although our first concern is Maine I do not agree with those who ignore the benefits to other states in our region. I have always considered my position as a U.S. Senator from Maine to include responsibility not only for my state but also to our region and the country. Dickey-Lincoln serves all three interests and in serving all three serves the people of Maine again as New Englanders and Americans.
The press has given considerable attention in recent months to some apparent disparities in federal expenditures among various regions of the country. The sun belt/frost belt controversy has focused most directly on defense spending and the favored position enjoyed by the South and West in that regard. The Maremont contract and the proposal to reduce Loring Air Force Base have been elements in that debate.
The most striking disparity one can point to in the regional expenditure of federal dollars with direct regional economic consequences is the federal development of electric generating facilities. If one took a map of the United States and blocked out regions of the country which enjoy federal power services the only area unserved would be the Northeast. Anyone who has watched the development of regions following the introduction of federal power understands the tremendous impetus to economic growth provided. A comparison of regional electric rates reveals the penalty we pay in utility rates. Dickey-Lincoln will not provide complete redress but it is the only site in the Northeast suitable for federal hydro development and it will make a significant contribution.
Another rebuttal to those who argue that we should look exclusively to the direct benefits to Maine as we evaluate this project was eloquently stated by Professor Hill on Maine Public Broadcasting Networks — "Maine Things Considered." Professor Hill is an engineering professor at the University of Maine-Orono who has been closely involved in the search for alternate energy sources. I believe he is widely respected by people on both sides of this issue. Speaking to concerns about the Balkanization of our country over the energy issue Professor Hill responded:
"There will be some decent power availablefor the rest of the state, but it is true that the bulk of the energy would go to Massachusetts and to Southern New England. This as a reason for not doing it is, to me, the reason for doing it.
"The United States is going to become wracked with a regional tension over energy. Massachusetts, for example, has 700 million tons of hard coal in the so-called Narragansett Basin. The governor of Louisiana has asked his chief of energy office to examine the constitutionality of the holding of petroleum products within Louisiana and not shipping them out of the state so he can protect jobs in Louisiana.
"And here we're doing the same thing. We're saying that we've got a resource that is endless; that is non-polluting; that is renewable, etc.; but is going to mess up a little bit of our way of life and frankly, 'no thank you we're not interested.'
"And also there is considerable discussion of our participation in a power system that might be developed in the Bay of Fundy. Well, of course, there are 350 million kilowatt hours of energy available to the Canadians on the down river St. John if we should pond the headwaters of Dickey. That energy is not now available to the Canadians because of the rapid fluctuations in flow in the St. John.
"I have not yet really come to a conclusion as I'm going to have to as a member of the Governor's Committee as to whether the St. John Dam should be built or not built but the one thing that does disturb me is I don't think the issues are being looked at and I don't think the alternatives are being properly considered."
Professor Hill also discussed possible alternatives to Dickey-Lincoln. His words summarize well my understanding of the choices before us. Let me quote him once again in response to an interviewer's recitation of environmentalist challenges that the alternatives to Dickey-Lincoln have not been well considered.
"Well I have the EIS in front of me here. They list 24 alternatives which they analyze in some detail and show why each one has been rejected. Well one of the alternatives they looked at was conventional pumped hydro. Here a reservoir is constructed on top of a mountain and a lower reservoir is constructed in the valley and during periods of low energy use, a pump is used to raise the water from low elevation to high elevation. Then when the peak power demand is upon us we reverse the pump and make it a turbine and get the energy back.
"These things can be highly insulting to the environment. These things are very expensive of energy because you must build big base loading machines in order to supply the energy for the pumped hydro. Sites are quite difficult to come by — that have the capacity — and by and large the Army Corps of Engineers did not see fit to consider a conventional pumped hydro as an alternative to Dickey.
"Although the proposal for Dickey would include some pump capacity, the Army Corps contractor also looked at lead acid storage batteries as a possibility for storing offpeak energy to be used again during peak periods. This was analyzed in some detail and rejected. They looked at flywheels, at superconducting magnets, at thermal storage, at underground compressed air storage, and this is one, Bill frankly, I never heard of. The idea is that during the times of low power consumption we find an abandoned mine or a big hole in the ground and simply pump it full of compressed air then when the peak demand comes you open the hole and let the compressed gas come back through a turbine and get the energy back that way.
"They also looked at underground pumped hydro to see whether or not that system might be applied. Well it goes on for pages and pages and the whole EIS is about 35,000 pages of documentation.
"I read quite carefully the areas dealing with power alternatives and I, of course, haven't plowed through all of the 35,000, pages. But I'm convinced the Army Corps has done a proper job in saying that at the moment there seems to be no alternative to Dickey except simple cycle gas turbines."
This statement has consumed much of the hearing's time and has not yet begun to detail my reactions to the tactics and arguments of those who oppose Dickey-Lincoln, but I will stop now and reserve my remaining comments for subsequent hearings. If I have today succeeded in conveying the message that there are no easy decisions in our energy future, that we can no longer afford the luxury of unrestrained attacks on every energy proposal without serious balancing judgments; if I have caught the attention of Maine people enough to convince you that Dickey-Lincoln is being given the bum's rush and deserves a more responsible approach, I have accomplished my purpose for today. There is much more to be told and I will be back to tell it.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY ON DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL LAKES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FORT KENT, MAINE,
OCTOBER 20, 1977
I welcome this opportunity to present some brief thoughts at the first public hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Statement on Dickey-Lincoln. A statement has been presented on behalf of Senator Muskie and myself, and I would like to submit these remarks on our behalf as well.
I am confident that this hearing process will provide the information necessary to ensure that a balanced judgment is made on the benefits and costs of the Dickey-Lincoln project. I continue to feel that its benefits are substantial, and that they must be carefully weighed against the environmental impacts outlined in the draft EIS. Recent intense coverage of the newly released draft has resulted in a somewhat distorted focus only on those adverse impacts, both real and imagined, to the detriment of a discussion of the benefits which will accrue to Maine and New England.
Development of Dickey-Lincoln is the development of a native energy resource which can replace the equivalent of 2.3 million barrels of oil per year. The need for energy resources alternative to oil is apparent; at present the U.S. imports over 40 percent of its oil needs, and petroleum accounts for nearly 50 percent of our overall energy consumption. New England, and Maine, are particularly dependent upon oil and oil imports. Our national dependency upon the less secure foreign oil sources has grown steadily since the embargo of 1973-4, and with it our vulnerability to severe supply interruptions.
Dickey-Lincoln represents a clean and renewable alternative source of energy. The waters of the St. John are a fuel resource whose cost will not rise in response to economic and political pressures; the economic cost of a hydroelectric project is in the initial construction. Fuel costs thereafter will be stable, and maintenance relatively simple and inexpensive.
Maine will be a primary recipient of this energy resource, with 44 percent of the energy allocated for use within the state. The peaking power which will be available in the rest of New England as well as that in Maine represents a minimum of 17 percent of. New England's overall peaking power needs in the mid-1980s. Peaking power is necessary to ensure that maximum power demands are met at the time of day or year when the highest demand is put upon the electrical system. It is ordinarily one of the most expensive components of a generating system.
Hydroelectric power, however, is one of the more desirable sources of peak energy, with its quick startup time, flexibility and cost free fuel supply.
In addition to this peaking power, there will be baseload power available to the State of Maine from the project. 100 percent of Maine's projected public power needs can be met in the mid-1980s from Dickey-Lincoln at costs considerably below other available alternatives.
In simplest terms, Maine's share of the Dickey-Lincoln power is the amount of energy which could supply over 60,000 average households per year.
As a secure energy resource, Dickey-Lincoln represents economic development for the state of Maine. In the short term — some 7 or 8 years — there will be direct construction jobs from the project. The Corps of Engineers estimates that there will be a peak labor force of some 1,900 people and approximately $100 million in direct payrolls for men and women of this region. Several millions of dollars of additional economic activity will in turn be generated by such an economic stimulus.
Much has been said in the state about the potential socioeconomic impact of such an infusion of funds and jobs into the Valley. The draft EIS in one brief section raises the possibility of increased social problems such as alcoholism and prostitution. This brief reference has resulted in fears of a boom and bust cycle which would devastate the cultural and social structure of the Valley. This has been exaggerated. Maine is not thousands of miles of frozen tundra; people are not going to be coming from all over the world to work on the Dickey-Lincoln project as they did the Alaska pipeline. Any such analogy, as has been suggested, is simply inappropriate. And as the draft EIS points out, the vast majority of the workers will be from the state, and I would expect that nearly all will come from the New England region.
Finally, the social, cultural and economic impact of longterm unemployment such as that experienced in all of Maine, and more particularly in northern Maine. must be weighed against these more remote possible adverse impacts which might result from raising the economy of this area. To someone who is unemployed, prosperity may indeed be an "adverse"impact which would be welcomed.
As a federal project, the economics of Dickey-Lincoln have been extensively analyzed. No other federal programs undergo such rigorous economic analysis. The traditional cost benefit analysis of the Corps of Engineers weighs the financial costs and benefits of the project, using a discount factor to bring the future stream of benefits and the immediate costs into the same time frame. The discount factor has been the subject of much controversy. Opponents allege it is artificially low, resulting in a more favorable cost benefit ratio than is justified. It should be remembered, however, that this economic analysis is not the only possible onewhich could be used; and that the discount factor relates to when benefits and costs occur. The higher the discount factor in general, the greater the emphasis upon more immediate benefits as opposed to benefits which will be forthcoming in the future. With that understanding, perhaps no discount rate at all should be used on a project involving development of a renewable energy resource, which cannot help but become more valuable in future years.
In any case, Dickey-Lincoln has a favorable cost benefit ratio under any of the various economic analyses used by the Corps.The Corps may also do a life cycle analysis of Dickey-Lincoln, comparable to that which has recently been started for the Quoddy tidal power project. Under life cycle analysis, Dickey's benefits may be even more substantial.
Further, the public investment in the project is in fact repaid over a 50 year period through the rate schedule. Since nearly all of the costs of the Dickey project are allocable to the generation of hydro power, nearly all of its costs will be repaid. At the same time, those rates will be at or below the current electrical rates for New England. Current projections for rate increases indicate that these savings will become increasingly substantial in future years. One estimate is that Dickey-Lincoln can save consumers in Maine alone some $12,000,000 annually from the projected power costs for other energy resources. Simply expanded over the 100 year life of the project, that represents a savings of 1.2 billion dollars. That should be compared to the potential economic loss from timber over the life of the project which the draft EIS places at maximum at $311,000,000.
This is a savings in power costs which is 4 times the maximum estimated potential loss of economic benefit from the inundation of the forested acres.
There are several points which should be made to place some of the adverse impacts into better perspective. For example, the loss of forest from the project represents approximately 1/2 of 1% of the state's forested area, and only 2% of that of Aroostook County alone. The 278 miles of streams and brooks which will be flooded are only 14 % of all the streams and rivers in the St. John River Basin above the dams. In relationship to all of Maine's streams and rivers, this amount is only a fraction of a percentage point.
That does not reflect the quality of the river, however, and the loss of whitewater canoeing on this river is an unavoidable impact. This loss should be put into perspective too; the river is available for whitewater canoeing only a short period of the year; there were only 2,328 canoeing visitor days in 1975; and only 19% of these were from the State of Maine itself. It has been asked why Maine should develop an energy resource to benefit the rest of New England; perhaps, it is just as fair to ask why we should preserve it so that our wood can be cut for Canadian sawmills, and our river be canoed by nonresidents.
This is not to imply that there are not major environmental tradeoffs which must be made should Dickey-Lincoln be constructed, nor to downgrade the significance of the choices which present themselves. There is no doubt that a balancing must be made between which energy resources we will develop for the future.
All of our most readily available choices involve environmental risks, from oil spills to air pollution to nuclear waste disposal.
The more exotic energy resources are promising but will not provide any significant energy supplies until well after the turn of the century.
Conservation must continue to be emphasized. But the reality is that Maine's electrical growth rate has increased again from the low of 1975. In the first 9 months of this year alone, Central Maine Power Company had a 7.8% growth rate, well above the 5.4% annual rate of growth now projected for New England. 1976 also showed a high growth rate, well above the rate preceding the oil embargo. Conservation can bring down our rate of growth; it cannot, however, prevent growth in demand itself. Conservation and economic development must also be brought into balance; recession is an effective conservation tool, but it is clearly not a desirable one.
Dickey-Lincoln at its simplest represents a valuable domestic energy resource, which in turn represents secure and stable economic development and jobs for people. That is the basic context in which the debate on the draft EIS should be placed. Dickey-Lincoln would be the largest single public investment in the future of New England which has ever been made. It is an investment once made which will not be withdrawn or closed as a result of later policy changes. It is an investment in the future of the State of Maine, and of New England. It is an investment in a stable and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. It is an investment in energy, jobs, and freedom from devastating floods. It is an investment which involves risks, and which will necessarily involve some irreversible commitments of resources.
It is an investment, most of all, which needs to be viewed in the perspective of our present resource use, and our projected resource needs.
The people of Maine deserve no less than such a balanced judgment on a project of this significance, and I am confident that they are capable of rendering no less than such a balanced judgment.