Natural Resources

Here in Salt Lake City, concern for our natural resources is basic to our existence. Mrs. Esther Landa, Housewife, Member of the Board of Education, at active in the League of Women Voters, feels that cooperation of all agencies is essential in this field. Dr. L. Roy Nelson, Economist, Vice President of the First Security Banking System, feels that somehow rather the Republican Party has a vital role to play. Here in Michigan, the Water Wonderland, we have more water per square mile than any other part of the country. But the fact is, in this area, richly endowed with so many great natural water resources, we don't have an adequate supply of water. Hart Mark feels the elimination of water pollution in Michigan, pollution caused by automobile production, should be paid for by the nation's taxpayers, not by Michigan taxes alone. Charlie Davis, a Michigan farmer, disagrees.

He contends that because Michigan derives the profits from auto production, Michigan taxpayers should therefore pay their own bill and not expect the whole country to pay it for them. This is Ted Higgins, at National Educational Television. The question of how to best use our natural resources is a regional question. But the control of using the resources is a national function. The voters in Utah and the voters in Michigan do not agree on where the national emphasis should be placed. The issues are local, but the vote is national. And wherever you live, they affect you, the grassroots voter 1960. N-E-T National Educational Television presents grassroots voter 1960, an evaluation of issues facing the American electorate between now and November 8th. This program, on our natural resources development, originates in Salt Lake City at K-U-E-D and

at W-M-S-B-T-V in East Lansing, Michigan. Now speaking for National Educational Television, TFX Higgins. The vast United States is blessed with abundant natural resources, but the question of how best to use them has been an issue for each generation. Our nation filled with land-hungry people. They tilled the fields, fell the forest, sunk wells were oil, and the land seemed endlessly bountiful. But it wasn't, not quite. As we went west, we learned of the need for water. The key resource in the west is water. Unlike most of the rest of the country, the west must move water to crops. In the wetter east and the hotter humid south, the square foot of land will grow crops with the water that falls on that square foot of land. But west of a line through Dodge City, it's a fair bet that water from 2 or 3 or 2,000

or 3,000 square feet must be gathered together to bring in crops on one square foot of land. And water flows downhill, thus over state boundaries. In the state's west of here, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Oregon, there is a general agreement that there ought to be a water policy that isn't just statewide, but rather is region-wide. The problems of a dam too big for a state to build are, for that state, the problems of getting a fair share of the water, but not of federal involvement. Significantly, both the Democrats and Republicans agree that there must be a federal policy. Where they disagree is on what the policy ought to be. And that disagreement is a spectrum of involvement. With the Democrats favoring more, the Republicans less federal action in the area. The power potential is so big that it can't always be handled on the state level. Land so vast and so hard to use, but a great deal of it remains to this day, federal

land. Land just simply not distributed in the great effort to fill the west. In the rest of the country, as in the west, there is a wide spectrum of natural resources and of opinion on how best to use them. In the southeast, one, world fame has been the organization of the waters of the Tennessee and its tributaries into the powerful Tennessee Valley Authority. And in the whole country, the role of the federal government is less well-defined, less accepted. For the west, for 1960, the land and what to do with it, water and how to use it most effectively. This is the issue. To learn more of this issue and the way it appears to men of the west, we switch to Salt Lake City, any T-affiliate K-U-E-D-T-V. Our correspondent there, G. Homer Durham. Ted here in Salt Lake City, we live in the part of the world called the part of scenic America.

But we're also part of that great series of western land states, west of the 110th Meridian, which constitute one of America's vast resources and we're very much interested in concerned and natural resources. This is Esther Landa, a housewife, a member of a Board of Education and active in the League of Women Voters, feels that these things are essential to our very way of life of cooperation here in the west. Dr. L. Roy Nelson, an economist, vice president of the first security banking system, sees also in our natural resources the means of the American way of life under private enterprise with cooperation from the governmental authorities. Dr. Osborne Harleen, who is director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Utah, also trained in the field of economics, is inclined to look at these things with the eye of the economic scientist to weigh the facts and from them glean the policies upon which this field depends. Now Mrs. Landa and General One, Esther, if I can call you Esther, for this discussion.

Here in the public land states in the west, we have this vast region which is actually owned by the United States government. It's a form of socialism if we were to be perfectly correct, I suppose, technically. But how do you, as a housewife, feel about this vast area and what the national government to Congress, for example, should be called upon to do with respect to our resources here in the west? Well, Homer, I think that you've touched on a very important point right at the outset of our discussion. The fact that the federal government does still own so much of the land in our part of the country may make it seem that a different policy might be in order here than otherwise. We are greatly under the influence of federal policy and have been for many years. And I think that it becomes necessary for us then to look at what each level of government can contribute to the development of our national resources. We know that we take pride in our pioneers and what they did locally, by themselves.

What my friend Roy here will talk about is private enterprise. But we know that as times change, that a local unit of government can't solve all its problems and that we do need cooperation between local, state, and federal levels of government if we are to make the best use of our natural resources to develop this area and the national interest as well. Roy, I know that you and Osmond Harleen have discussed these matters before many groups here in the West, mining associations, grazing associations, cattlemen, and many others. Now you have often mentioned the role the Republican Party has played in developing this land. The land was here, but the land wasn't any good until you had water on the land. Now, what do you think about the future development of the West and the natural resources in this part of the country? We have just begun the development of our water resources, despite the long background history. For example, it was under Theodore Roosevelt that the Reclamation Bureau was established

in 1992. We have in Utah an example of an early development, the Strawberry River Project. That project will be paid off within the next three or four years. Every penny borrowed from the federal government will have been repaid. After all, for the annual property tax take from that project, each year is equal to three times the total cost of the regional project. Now, would you advocate that in the future, shall we take the Central Arizona project, for example, which involves thousands of acres of dry, thirsty land? We should necessarily follow this pattern of gearing it to pay as you go or mustn't the federal government step in and actually expend millions, even billions of dollars outright. A new Reclamation Project means that power and water used for culinary purposes or for irrigation will repay. At least the principle, only that for flood control is written off, probably 99 percent

would be repaid to the people of the United States. And of course, it would develop Arizona and the country. By a Reclamation Project, which is sponsored primarily by the Republican Groups. Now, Osmond, I can see you wanting to get in this, what's your rejoinder to this? I, of course, being a Westerner would agree that there are certain projects in the West that must have a federal sponsorship. It's been remarked here that what is needed is more of these developments and the statement has been made that these projects in the end pay for themselves. I think, however, only a few people might agree with this nationally. In fact, you think the taxpayers in Pennsylvania might object to contributing to the development of the Central Arizona Project or something in Nevada? Well, if the past is any indication, I'm sure this is true. And it seems to me that we've talked about what we need in the nation is a great debate

on foreign affairs. I think as far as domestic policy is concerned, what we need is a great debate as far as water policy is concerned and natural resource development to let the other areas of the nation become better informed about the natural resources that are here in the West and how they can best be developed and that it's not something that is a giveaway as far as the West is concerned. But this debate is not as simple as it Roy. Aren't the natural resources problems of the State's West, of the 110th and Rideon, and quite different from the natural resources problems of the Middle West, or the Northeast or the South? Gold was important in history. Water is much more important today than gold ever was in the West. And really, there's all both political parties in this whole region are devoted to reclamation development, water development, and water use. However, the efforts locally and nationally have pointed out that the real, the most important development comes through the Republican administration.

For example, the compact in 1922, construction of the Hoover Dam Republicans. And really, we haven't done a great deal since then until the Eisenhower administration came in and approved the development of the upper Colorado River projects. That's an interesting point because isn't it true that the most ardent devotees and advocates of our private enterprise system, when they live in the West, are also very ardent devotees and advocates of the national government helping finance the development of water resources in the West? Well, I was just going to break in here a moment, Homer, to say that it's been my observation and answer to what Roy says that out in this part of the country, they say the important thing is the water, not the politics. And although he may point out that one part or the other may have played a leading role in developing some of these things, it's been my observation that both parties, and as you say, all segments of the population out in the West, when it comes to going to Washington to talk about water matters, you'll find both parties and the governor and the local officials

at everybody. They're more or less willing to unite when it comes to making a presentation of what is best for the West and the development of our resources. Quite correct. Both parties locally have worked for reclamation development. The big question is, which has done the best job or the better job? Well, particularly when tied to the National Administration. As I think we know how you feel on that, Roy, and I think you're entitled to that conviction because certainly the act of 1902 was very significant in the development of the West and the role of the National Government in it. But I think we would all agree with we not that largely in the West, all parties are concerned about water development because you have to have water. But it's a cooperative venture that we have experienced in the West. And I suppose we can look forward to cooperation in the future. Wouldn't you say so, Osmond? As you scan it from the standpoint of your bureau? I should think so, certainly in the West.

I think there is a question whether the East fully realizes the importance of natural resource, including water development in the West. You pick up the magazines or articles and hear that the federal government is giving away subsidies to bring new lands into the West. I think you can argue that this is certainly not the case. For example, the Upper Colorado River project, about $1 billion will be spent on that project. Only about one half of 1% will not be repaid. About 70% of it will be paid fully with interest, 30% of it will be paid without interest. But here again, we're talking about the development of water to establish a natural resource base for the area. Excuse me, Homer. I just like to add something. I thought of as Osmond was making that point when he speaks about the necessity for education of people outside the West, making the people in the East realize the nature of our needs out here.

I think we also have a problem here at home of educating our old people as to the changing nature of the needs of this Western area. So we've got a double barrel job in that respect. Anticipating the future. That's right. Because our population is changing, our economy is changing. We have different uses for our natural resources than we did say 50 or 100 years ago. But we all agree that the land here, even though it does hold the country together, it holds California to New York, has something to be something in between. To make this land most beneficial for our national economy, water is the fundamental, but after water has been supplied, then we have other questions. How do you develop the mining resources? I wonder if we could turn to the question of mining as a segment of the natural resources field for just a moment. Mrs. Landai, I think you have some points of view about the way this relates to our foreign policy. Well, when I was active in the League of Women Voters, which is you know as a nonpartisan organization, one reason I'm not getting any arguments with my friend here on the right,

we made quite a study of our natural resources in relation to foreign policy, and particularly of course foreign trade. And we found that maybe in view of the overall national interest in regard to foreign trade policies, that sometimes local economies might have to suffer, in other words certain segments of economy, and this or that part of the nation might have to suffer so that the all over national interest could be served. And we found that that was true here in Utah, that our mining interest were suffering, and they were suffering because the policy in Washington thought that we needed to trade and develop the resources of other countries around the world so that they in turn could buy our products and so forth and so on, and we found that that was a very unpopular view. And we held it a few years ago, but we've also noticed in recent years that more and more people are coming around to the position that perhaps we have to look at the problems of this country as a whole and what will best serve the national interest.

And perhaps the mines in Utah will suffer at one time, and I think it was close pin manufacturers up in New England, we're suffering at another time and so on, but that's a little difficult to do when you're on a local scene, but sometimes it has to be done. There's a question here, however, of the resources themselves. For example, led zinc, which is a problem within the West, from Missouri West, in our mining states. We can produce lead and zinc cheaper in foreign countries. Our problem is, when we need it, we can't get it. As we do, let our lead zinc mines die, in other words, fill with water. We've lost a resource forever. And when we need that lead zinc, we can't have it cobalt, in case a point, Harleen, has that report? I think that's a very good point, Roy. The Clare a mining company here in the West operating in Idaho and Utah, formerly produced cobalt at a Salt Lake refinery. The government ceased purchasing for domestic stockpiles cobalt from this company that refinery

was closed down. They started to purchase from Cuba and Africa, now these two trouble spots of the area. If they seriously hamper, this source of supply means that this strategic mineral will not be available to the United States. That is a major problem. Now, in this case, the Clare a mining company operations will not necessarily fill with water as would be the case of lead zinc. But when we want the metal, we can't have it. We can't afford, in this day, of controversy with Russia, to be without a basic supply of every one of those strategic minerals. That must determine our tariff policies, our foreign trade. Roy, I imagine some of our viewers will be saying, why don't we let those mines fill with water and help solve our water problem here in the West? Difficulties they'll fill with water and the water will not come down to the valleys. That water is a result of pumping out of the mines. Of course, we would lose the lead zinc forever. We couldn't afford to reopen those mines if we don't continue them in operating today.

Well, now, would you approach to be, we must have a balanced policy in this area. We must keep the lead zinc industry, as an example, healthy. But at the same time, we must keep our eye peeled to the foreign trade situation. Are you one of those people who are going to take care of the lead and zinc problem first and let Japan and the free world take the hindmost? Certainly not. We want the local operation and also the foreign trade. We wouldn't, for a moment, suggest that we produce all the lead zinc locally regardless of the price. But at the same time, we do not want to kill off an industry and then find ourselves lacking when we needed it. It must be an industry that's developed here. What about the synthetics in this field, Oz? So now we have the world growers for a long time, and with the sheep population in the west was, I suppose, five or six times what it is today, 30 years ago. But now we've gone into the field of textiles, synthetic fibers, and so forth, and we don't miss the sheep grazing on the public domain.

I'd like to go back to another point before we leave this question of foreign sources of raw materials. It seems to me that I tend to agree with the Esther here that we should certainly consider foreign policy. But when you take a look at our own park city up here that used to be a thriving mining town, when you remember that we used to have almost eight times as many people employed in our lead zinc mines here in Utah as we have now, and look at the ghost towns that exist now, it seems to me that if the certain people in the United States, certain interests are going to benefit from cheap lead zinc abroad, or if we're going to improve the political situation abroad, we certainly should develop some program, retraining movement of the people out of the mining areas, that this is a real cost as opposed to money cost that isn't recognized, and those who benefit ought to be responsible for redevelopment of areas that are left behind.

What about federal subsidies in this picture? That might be one way of doing it. Certainly the consumers of cheap metal, if metal is cheaper, may be through a special advalorant tax on the metal, might take care of the problem. This is something that seems to me that is ignored and not to be considered. Can I add just a point on that, too, if we have another minute? I would agree with that, hardly, is that certainly we are just not going to leave park city sitting there or any other community or segment of the population that might be so to speak put out of business by our national policy, but it has to be part of our national policy and all wisdom to look ahead and to develop techniques and, as you say, retraining new resources, new products, and so on to keep all our people employed. And I think this same thing will be true in water. It's not that we want to preserve the status quo and have water always used for the same things that it was used for in days past, but that we look ahead and change with the

times, change our techniques and policies so that we can, if possible, encourage trade with the rest of the world and still maintain a strong economy here at home. Maybe that's too high a ideal to aim for. You're in both center and left field at the moment. Your little item of resumption to those people is relatively minor question, because they are finding employment at other industries, at least those that have been replaced in the park city or in the Wallace area of Idaho or in various other areas of Colorado and Arizona. That isn't the important point. They can find jobs elsewhere. The question is national defense. And the development of that, that is the real question we can't afford not to have. Some production of those important metals locally. Now the Paley Commission about 10 years ago showed up this very eloquently, Roy, in indicating it by 1975 at the rate of consumption we were then expanding our natural resources.

We would be running short of many strategic materials. Does this suggest to your mind that we should reduce the trade barriers and get more of the materials abroad into our country for fabrication or how do you balance this thing out? Does it economist? Yes, and we have done, not because of, but of the Paley report, but we also, we have developed the resources of foreign countries and we brought more of those metals in. We haven't killed off yet our own industries and we hope we won't kill them off because of strategic purposes. In the meantime, since the Paley report came out, we have increased our resources by technical developments, being able to produce lower grade copper. You might check one of the new developments in Arizona, connection with this. That is, since the Paley report, we've increased the resources. Of course, this suggests that one of our fundamental resources are people and the development of science and education and technical process in our labor force and management in our whole

community will be a very essential part of this program. But I wonder if we could direct our attention for a moment to the question of the timber, the grazing, the ecology of this land as it makes for our good recreation facilities for the nation and the wilderness area problem, preserving something of value in the romance of the West for the national community. Is this part of the picture also? Well, I think so. I think that the clue here is the question of multiple use. I think the nation can no longer afford to, for example, take a reservoir site for recreation only. It must be for multiple use. I think this is true of our other resources. Would you spell out what you mean by multiple use, Oz? Recreation, certainly flood water, irrigation, cattle grazing, these are just three minerals. It's an important fourth one.

With our limited resources, the policy it seems to me should be against single use and a policy of multiple use. But we have developed a great deal of multiple use. Look at the Forest Service land, federally owned, the Taylor grazing land, federally owned. But we can develop the resources on that. We do not want a wilderness bill which would put that particular property into a single use, in other words, recreation. We can't afford to it. We go back to a period of time with the increase in the dinosaur national monument, simply by an edict some 12 years ago, that closed that area to mining and to grazing. The wilderness bill, as it's been publicized, would do that thing that is not multiple, that is not use, that is not development of resources. As a housewife, how do you feel about this, Ms. Landa? Well, on this particular problem, I think it's just another instance of what my main thesis is and what we've discovered in most of our studies, even though we may be way

out in left or center field. I'll try only to go as far as 30 base, Roy. But we have found that the tremendous necessity for coordination among the various levels of government, the federal, state, and local. And I think if they could get together as difficult as this is with the many, many agencies because you have many agencies on the federal level, many on the state level, many on the local level, all conserved with the same problem. But our studies have shown the tremendous need for cooperation in planning among these various government agencies. And then we would hope that we could have proper, multiple use with proper repayment, proper administration, and so on. In other words, who bears the cost is very important. The factor of this, who gets the benefit. So all these things have to be figured into it. Also, who bells the cat? Who exercises leadership? That's right. I'd like to have each one of you take just a few minutes, not a few minutes, but a little time remaining. And say who you think should take the leadership in developing this multiple use concept as

national policy. Is it up to the federal civil servant, the Congress, the Western senators, the governor's conference in the West, or what body, everybody's business, there's nobody's business. Somebody's got to take the lead in these things. Roy. Frankly, I'd like to see the governors take the leadership in this because they can bring the municipalities in. And the cooperation among the governors in the West has proved this. However, the forest service people, the Taylor grazing people, the general land office people, cooperate very excellently with the state bodies. And those are federal bodies cooperating with the local. We do not incidentally need a new agency for this development. I would certainly agree with that. We don't need a new agency because we have charts showing that there are too many agencies in the field altogether. But I think our studies have shown that we like local initiative where it's a small local project.

We think that the states can take a great deal more leadership than they now take. And where several states or a region basin is concerned, then we have to turn to the federal government for cooperation and assistance. Os, do you want the Western governors to take the lead or the directors of economic bureaus and universities? I think it must be locally, but I also think that there are certain problems that are so complex that there's no alternative for the federal government to take the initiative. Thank you. This is G. Holmer Durham in Salt Lake City, now back to Ted Higgins National Educational Television. Natural resources. Salt Lake City voters think the rest of the country needs to become better informed on natural resources. Dr. Harling used the term, a great debate on the resource that looms big in the dry west water. Some of the debate has already begun. The parties gave considerable attention to the problems of natural resources. Measured in simple inches of type, the Republicans gave more space to their natural resources

plank than they did to government finance. The Democrats, more space than they did to civil rights. And to both parties, water policy is critical to the future of the nation. In the party platforms, it's hard to find where they disagree on water policy. But the disagreement in the panel is very much the place where the parties disagree. The Republican platform says they'll give support to preserving the integrity of the several states to govern water rights, and the Democrats say that they'll cooperate with state and local governments and interested private groups to develop water plans. One of the great problems of resources is what to do about the mining industries that grow sick. Foreign ledons ink, cheaper than our own, may well close minds. Colvains that are mined out may leave men without a way to make a living. To Salt Lake City, this problem is a local problem. But for all the nation, it's there even when we don't see it. The iron ore pits of Minnesota's Misabi still send ore to our steel mills, but so does

Venezuela, and the Venezuelan ore is richer and cheaper. The coal mines of West Virginia, with so many unemployed or under-employed miners, gain national attention during the primary campaigns. From a nation that used to rely almost entirely on our own domestic resources, we have become a nation whose survival is increasingly dependent on raw materials, resources from abroad. For need to handle well and carefully, the resources we do have has become a matter of national survival. Now, let's look east of the Rockies where most Americans live. There are mines, but they're not so widespread as in the West. Rain falls frequently, and irrigation agriculture isn't a necessity. But even in the east, natural resources get increasing attention. When a simple farm life prevailed, it was water, enough and to spare. But industry with its huge needs for water has begun to change the picture, and some good water has been lost.

When an industry or a city dumps waste into a stream, it may well pollute the stream, destroy good water. To learn how some of the people in Michigan think about resources, and to see which resources get their special attention, let's go to East Lansing, Michigan, and any T affiliate, WMSB TV. Our correspondent there, Bob Warhol. Ted here in Michigan, we have many problems which revolve around the conservation and development of our natural resources. One of the greatest problems here, as probably in the rest of the nation, is apathy. The failure of the American voter to treat resource development as a significant issue. Natural resources is a creeping issue. It's the slow erosion of a farmer's field. The gradual pollution and ultimate destruction of a beautiful river. It doesn't go up like a rocket, nor does it make the front paper's pages of a newspaper, but its significance as an issue may be as great as that of defense policy. One day we may awake to find the fields denuded.

The river is polluted beyond repair. We as citizens and voters must give ourselves a sense of urgency. Michigan's most important natural resource is water. Industrial use of water is increasing, and with this increase comes pollution. A common by-product of industry. Agricultural irrigation is just getting a good start here in Michigan, yet we have no legislation regulating the use of water for irrigation. More leisure time is increasing the demand for the use of our lakes and streams by sportsmen and others. Now, even though we have 11,000 inland lakes, are bounded by four of the five great lakes, and boasts the longest shoreline of any state in the Union except Hawaii and Alaska, we along with our western friends have a water problem. That problem simply stated is, how can we get the right kind of water in the right place at the right time and at a reasonable cost? Now we have reason to believe that Michigan doesn't face these problems alone.

That competition for the use of water is a national problem, which should become an issue as important as those which make the newspaper headlines every day. Some people in the Midwest here feel that water problems are being ignored, while the federal government spends millions of our tax dollars on expensive reclamation and flood control projects in the West. They feel some of this money could be spent more profitably right here in the Midwest. Now with me here, our group of Michigan taxpayers, they're anxious to talk over this issue. First, I'd like to introduce Art and Mark, who's a university professor, and Mrs. Lloyd Rusink, who is a farmer's wife, and Charlie Davis, who is a farmer and a dairy farmer here in Midwest Michigan. When our folks started off with, we've alluded to this before, but what do you feel are the implications of the government building huge irrigation dams out in the West? And do they really affect us here in the Midwest? Bob, as a professor at Michigan State University, I'd like to reflect a little bit on the conflict

they're involved in this kind of a thing. Of course, one of the big conflicts in my mind is the short run aspect compared to the long run. You see in the short run, I take a pretty dim view of spending my hard earned money and tax dollars to subsidize some big project out in the West, where maybe I'll never see it, have anything to do with it. And I recognize you see also as, I have an interest in the agriculture in Michigan. Here we are paying a subsidy to increase the competition for Michigan farm products. Now again, when I get thinking about it, you see, a little longer run, I have to say, well, I, if this is not just an irrigation project, if they use this big dam out there for hydroelectric power that makes possible an atomic energy plant on the West coast for my protection. So I'll be here to enjoy these things that we're going to get in future years. I look at it a little differently, and also I reflect too that maybe they're going

to increase the purchasing power of some laborers out there so they'll buy more cars made in Michigan. So it isn't just black and white, you see, if we've got to look at a few other viewpoints. Now I wonder if Charlie feels that this really is competition with agriculture here in the Midwest. Well, as a farmer, I take somewhat of a dim view of the government spending money in these reclamation projects at a time when agricultural commodities are in the amount of surplus, which we have at the present time. Farmers income is down, and bringing new land into production seems to me as if it would be a little advised right at this time. I think that there may be some long range benefits to a thing of this kind, but in view of the position that the American farmer is in, I would like to see this put off for a little time in the future.

I have a publication here that says that all of the irrigated land in the West would only if it were taken out of irrigation, but only decrease our agricultural production by 3%. It seems to me you're getting excited over something that really isn't too important. Well, 3% of agricultural production in this country means quite a bit to the farmer as far as his profits are concerned. Perhaps his profit might even be 10% higher than it is if we had 3% less agricultural production. So I feel that any move to increase the production of agricultural commodities through this sort of thing at the present time is ill advised in the life of the economic condition which farmers are in at the present time and the amount of money which we were paying to take the land out of production and support prices and face storage costs on all of these extra greens. Mr. Sink has had pretty much in line with what you and your husband might add to this.

I think both Art and Charlie are going to have to give up the East and West idea. By the year 2000 the population of the world is going to double. Also there are 2-thirds of the people of the world hungry now and it's the case of more people wanting more and more and getting less and less. We won't have to face the situation that more landed Michigan is going out of production. We are one of the urbanization spots in Michigan. I'd like to take the view of the western art too here for a little bit and say that you folks in Michigan may not have faced the problem of poor land. Land that really doesn't have a lot of potential and maybe you're not as up on the problem as we are. What about this Art? Well I think if you really have too strong notion there because I can take your statement and point out that I agree with you see that this is relatively poor land and if we want

to get the most for our tax dollar instead of using our money for irrigating that poor land we'll spend it on tiling some of Charlie's land and putting more fertilizer on. We've got other technological devices to get production increases much cheaper and going out of a way reclaiming some land out in the West. But I think we're kind of begging the issue here a little bit because really this irrigation thing is pretty much a byproduct. I don't know of any project that you Charlie of where we've gone out and said now we're going to build a great big dam out in the West some place for irrigation. Don't we talk usually about flood control or power or something of that kind and just happens of course that there's water in this and it just happened to the water and also it was very useful for irrigating crops and so we want to spread the cost over as much territory as we can so we here get some land with it.

Yes but I'd like to support Mrs. Rusing's point of view here and that is we're not always going to have agricultural surpluses and why isn't it in the national interest to develop all possible land that we can regardless of its original value and original potential and so on so that the given time we might be able to press it into service as much land as possible. Well we don't need to we can develop but have it there as potential. When I say develop I mean have it available. We don't have to pour the water on it at the moment when one as Charlie points out our problem is too much production at this particular time and if we need that additional power or flood control out there well let's face it let's use it for that and just forget about pouring the water on that extra land and getting the increased production. Well now we have a president in this country let's talk about the TVA for a little bit. TVA as I understand it was a vast demonstration to show the use of multiple purpose dams not

so much for irrigation but for power and flood control. Now do you feel at all of you that federal expenditure of money for these purposes could better be spent for these kinds of multiple purpose river developments or what should be done with it. I'd like to hear what a wire housewife thinks of that. I wonder if the government doesn't have more multipurpose uses of such a project than a private enterprise or private enterprise would be mostly devoted to power winded for its purpose monopolizing it for power. Well now the TVA idea has been criticized as socialistic here is a case where the government gets in and competes with private industry as I pointed out it was a demonstration and I think we could justify perhaps the development of Tennessee Valley authority as a huge demonstration

of an entire river development for purposes not only of power but raising the whole economic base of that valley. I think we can of course overwork that term socialistic or socialism and I just want to remind you that our public schools are also socialistic and our post office and our highways and things of that kind and what we argue about here really is what degree of socialism we want, what shade of gray and if you look at the platforms of both political parties I'm sure that you'll see in there that they're an agreement. If you take the weasel words out that you can interpret any way you want in agreement that we need development of these things. They disagree in how we're going to get them, how fast we're going to get development and both and the Republican Party will say for example I'm sure if you read it as I read it at least that we ought to put the emphasis on private development where we

can. Then if they, after they go as far as they can then the government should step in. I think the Democrats don't put maybe quite so much emphasis on that private aspect. One that the chips are down and they're both operating we may not find as much difference as it appears in what they say. Now if we were to wait for a private enterprise to put the last electric power line out the last farm on the last end of the road you know we'd still be waiting it seems to me. The government got in and saw that the electricity got out there. Now it seems to me the same thing is true in the west and other parts of the country. If we wait for government we wait for private enterprise say to develop some of these river valleys they're going to wait a long time because they're only as you say Mrs. Resink interested in the power the profit motive. Well I think we're getting to this matter of teamwork there too a little bit Bob and that if we think of building a big project damn question arises as to how big should it

be how high should it be and they're the private enterprise would think in terms of how little expenditure I can get by with and to get the power that I'm after. And they wouldn't take the lines out very far either necessarily the public is concerned with using that particular dam to perhaps arrest floods and primarily or for recreation purposes or otherwise. Well how do you decide how much of that should be paid for by private enterprise how much it'd be paid for by the government this is one of the another one of the conflicts we get into and I'd like challenge Charlie here a little bit on how you're going to figure that out. Well I've always felt that in matters of this kind that it's a pretty good policy for the government to assist and do for individuals or states those things which they're unable

to do for themselves and I would feel that this word teamwork has been pretty well used. Private enterprise is interested in these projects solely for the profit end but the public have an interest over and beyond that and it seems to me that when these dams are built which require tremendous sums of money that not only private enterprise but the well-being of the people itself should be explored. There are many of these recreational uses to which private enterprise is not particularly interested there's no particular profit in the dam is such for that. All facilities hunting and all of these other things which interest a large group of people in this country and so it seems to me that if the government is going to be in

one of these projects that it should be a multi-purpose deal and one which the people themselves may derive some benefit or enjoyment from it. Well why wouldn't it then be better for the government to with tax money to build this particular project that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to operate. In other words they can operate the flood control aspect of it and even the perhaps the irrigation although they would make cellar water and then they could lease the power end of it to private enterprise. There's no reason why the government has to administer some of these things once they build it. I've heard you yourself say that you can't this is a little bit ridiculous perhaps but you can't have private enterprise building the lower half of the dam and the government building the top half of the dam is it's not practical because the same purpose that you have for flood control that does not operate for the sportsman's benefit nor do the

two operate for power. It's going to be any good for flood control you're only going to have to have it about half full and that means a pretty high dam because you got to have a certain height for the power and that's why I just proposed that since you can't separate the bottom half from the top half in this case very well you've got to have the public pay for the whole thing and then rent out the bottom half to some power company if that's the way to do it. Charlie's raised a question here about states rights and I'd like to ask you Charlie we've got a big pollution problem here in Michigan because we're a heavy industrial state getting more so all the time. Now you say federal government should only do those things which the state governments can't do better for themselves shouldn't the federal government get in here and help us with our pollution problem well it seems to me that pollution is somewhat of a local problem which a state should be able to handle and I would feel it in the matter of pollution

generally speaking within a state that they could and should handle that and I might say that I think the pollution is becoming more of a problem and people are becoming more aware of it as time goes on. But now you're saying pollution is a local problem or a state problem or a best or regional problem which benefits the solution to benefits only those people and yet a power enterprise outweigh some place the power from which might benefit only group of people in the region should be federally supported. If it's a more the purpose deal it seems to me that you have more reason for the government to subsidize or assist in that kind of a project. Now I haven't thoroughly agreed yet with you and I that we've got to have all of this expansion of these large government dams and so forth that taxpayers expense and maybe

this is going back a little bit but when you were speaking about this population explosion let me say that the population has been increasing through a period of years and so far that agricultural technology has more than kept pace with the increase in population and I don't think that the time is right here at the present time when we're going to need any more agricultural land than we do right now and when we do need it then I think that it's time to go ahead with it but I would want to be pretty certain as a taxpayer at the present time that we actually have a very worthwhile need of all of these projects before they're starting and you haven't convinced me yet that that's that we've got to have it. Well I wasn't trying to convince you Charlie that we ought to have a lot of extra building of a multi-purpose project at this moment.

I was trying to point out that if somebody decided we had to have them if the experts say that this is needed for atomic energy or for water supply for the west coast cities or something of that kind that it just seems to me that it's pretty difficult if it is a multi-purpose deal for private enterprise to do it and that maybe the public ought to do it and then lease out the private enterprise part of it to someone else. I wasn't the one that raised his population exposing questions anyway so I'm going to ask Mr. Rusek defend that. Well I think we've spent quite a little time dealing with the large projects like dams let's take a watershed, a small watershed and see how that influences our natural resources seems to me that's very pertinent more than the large projects right in some of our areas where we are living. Seems to me that all of us tend to take such a selfish viewpoint here aren't these comprehensive watershed projects here maybe are not to describe what is meant by comprehensive

watershed project but aren't they pretty much provincial they're limited to us here in the Midwest I can't see how they could do the same thing out west. Well I of course I'm feeling about watershed and as I feel watershed it's the entire area that's drained by any particular waterways such as the Mississippi or the Ohio or whatever it might be and those watersheds or rivers I know are a specter of county lines and state lines at all or even national lines because they go into Canada and we have St. Lawrence Seaway and so on we have to deal with Canada when we're talking about a watershed there and I think the same thing is true Charlie of pollution whether it's water pollution or whether it's air pollution or whatever kind it is. Now if I'm going to have to pay here in East Lansing for all of the pollution and the Red Seater and the Grand River here that have been caused by the people who are manufacturing

cars which are sold in Utah and Georgia and Mississippi and New York and ever place else I want to tell you I'm going to resent this I think maybe that cost ought to be spread to the folks who are getting the benefit of the cars not just to the folks who are living at Lansing and East Lansing. Well listen to true that you as a citizen derive some of the benefits from the fact that you live in a state that manufacture and sell these automobiles. It's a benefit to the economy perhaps if you get the profit from the sales of the automobile in this state then we ought to be able to take air of a pollution which those automobiles create. Somebody in a state of Michigan may be getting a profit but I don't feel I'm participating in it very much. I'm a consumer of automobiles rather than a seller of automobiles and I'm out of taxpayer though when it comes to taking care of the drainage and the sewage disposal and all those things. However, don't you feel that the state of Michigan really is on the receiving end of anything like what you refer to as the automobile business therefore a pollution is a byproduct

of it. Why should you expect the customer who patronizes you to pay for the thing which has made you a profit in the first place? I think that's part of the cost of building a car and I think the user of the car ought be well I'd like to just like to add nothing here and that is that I question whether in terms of flood control these watershed developments are effective. Are they as effective as those big dams in the west? Well I think a small farmer whose grounds are flooded by somebody 40 miles upstream if he cannot make a living he's not going to buy the cars and he's not going to buy anything from the west coast that's produced. He can't afford to he's got to control it on a small area now in Leonard Wood County in the southern part of Michigan there are seven small watersheds in one county one of the 87 is 87 counties of Michigan and this is important to the individual that he must recognize the small watershed can make a living for him rather than even a big dam.

Some matter of living in economy. Do you think that maybe we get a better job in the total watershed that we might not need some of those big dams down at the other end or not? Well I think it's the technical question that only engineers can answer and I don't think is an engineer in the crowd here and all we can speculate on is if they decide that they are necessary what what a amount of public funds should go into the building a little check-down planning timber up the upper end someplace and and maybe that will be of no avail unless we have a big reservoir down below. So our problem is really who's going to get the benefits and who's going to pay for it and I just been saying that unless I get some of the benefits I take a pretty dim view of putting very much money in the thing. Well I know we can't summarize anything as important as this issue here and I but I do know that we all agree it should be an issue and with that this is Bob Whirl and

he's glancing now back to Ted Higgins at National Educational Television. Liberal Resources is a creeping issue the slow erosion of a farmer's field the gradual pollution and ultimate destruction of a beautiful river and Bob Whirl and East Lansing urges us to give our close attention to the issue. There's a whole spectrum of resources that got the attention of the grassroots voters the worn out minds the polluted rivers the problem of irrigated land are some of these. In the early days of the United States the problem seemed hardly worth our attention when a farm wasn't rich anymore the farmer headed for the west and fresh land there is no more fresh land. When a mine played out the mine owner opened another or dug a little deeper but now for the United States the mines are called on to provide more and more minerals each year for an economy that gives each of us more and more material goods each year item by item we tapped the underground well and year by year we find the supply gets a little less

for some resources there is a limited supply but for some others the frontiers of science are opening new hope the west can look to the research laboratory for more water ocean water can be desalted and industry can change the kind of power it uses. The grassroots voters we heard in Michigan and Utah looked also at the intangible resource of our land its beauty in the west the word was wilderness in Michigan its water wonderland and both party platforms count this a value this is far-sighted thinking for bit by bit the United States is filling with people today there are 180 million Americans by 1976 there will be 240 million Americans where today there are three Americans then there will be four but there will be not one single mile more of river no new lakes no added beach line we can add beauty to what we have or we can destroy it and in an America that

gets more urban every day this resource the beauty of our land must grow with each year when we care for our land beauty will be a byproduct natural resources is the issue the land we walk on the air we breathe the soil it grows the crops to feed us the minerals beneath and the water these few things are at the base of the nation's greatness the issue affects you each day and you have a chance to affect it each election election day is November 8th you influence the outcome only if you vote produced for the National Educational Television and Radio Center this grassroots voter program on natural resources development originated in Salt Lake City

at KUED and at WMSB TV in East Lansing Michigan commenting for National Educational Television was TFX Higgins This is National Educational Television