Power Policy, Dr. Philip J. Funigiello suggests Roosevelt had not paid close attention to the bill and may not have been aware that private utilities supported the bill and public power opposed it. Actually Roosevelt endorsed a different bill in each of 3 years. None went to hearings in 1935.

The bills before Congress that year served to polarize the transmission issue between advocates of a Columbia Valley Authority at one extreme and proponents of the sale of power by the Corps of Engineers at the generator bus or bus bar, or from two short trunk lines to Portland and Vancouver, at the other. The President asked Pope to shelve his CVA bill, saying there was "plenty of time" to consider a CVA.

While preparing the requested report for the President, the PNWRPC held public hearings September 5-30, 1935 at Helena, Spokane, Boise, Pocatello, Pendleton, Portland, and Seattle. Opinions were garnered on structuring an organization to plan, build, and operate major Federal public works in the Pacific Northwest. Chamber of Commerce witnesses dominated the hearings, generally to oppose a Columbia Valley Authority. Many witnesses assumed the Corps would market power from Bonneville Dam and the Bureau from Grand Coulee Dam. On the other hand statements from the Washington State Planning Council, Tacoma Chamber of Commerce, and Professor Magnusson urged establishment of a new unified Federal power marketing agency.

The hearings caused the PNWRPC concern because they disclosed that the public was unaware of the transmission grid issue, the uniform rate question, and the necessity for a regional approach. As in the case of the bills presented to Congress, the hearings stimulated public awareness and polarized proponents of differing viewpoints.

PNWRPC sent its monumental report to the National Resources Committee (successor to NPB) December 28. In effect, the report became a government "White Paper," supporting regionalism and establishment of a Federal regional power agency. It also made a strong case for regional planning. The mimeographed appendix of staff studies entitled Columbia Basin Studies was a valuable backup. The main report identified and evaluated five alternative kinds of power marketing organizations:

- both constructing agencies market power;

- select one existing agency to generate and market;

- create new agency to generate and market;

create a Columbia Valley Authority; or,

establish a Federal power corporation to generate and Sources of the Columbia River include market power.

It recommended instituting a power corporation. Thus, by the end of 1935 the Administration had a carefully evaluated proposal and supporting arguments, but it was not published until May 1936.

1936 Events. On March 5, 1936 Washington Senators Homer T. Bone and Lewis B. Schwellenbach introduced S. 4178, and Oregon Representative Pierce introduced the same bill as H.R. 11658, to permit the Federal Power Commission to market power from Bonneville Dam. April 29 Senators McNary and Steiwer introduced S. 4566, a bill similar to S. 4178.

The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

many lakes, both natural and artificial, which gather and store water and provide recreation, wildlife and scenic values. At lower left is Jackson Lake in

Wyoming with the Teton Range. At lower right is Lake McDonald in

Glacier National Park in Montana.

The former is a Ray Atkeson photo

conducted the first hearings on Bonneville power marketing May 7, 8, 9, and 13. The Committee was sympathetic because it had fought the long battle for TVA. It included Senator George Norris of Nebraska as chairman, and Senators Pope, McNary, Wheeler, and Schwellenback from the Pacific Northwest. The hearing focused on the PNWRPC report and the recommendation for establishing a Pacific Northwest power corporation.

Witnesses included Marshall Dana, PNWRPC chairman; Charles McKinley, PNWRPC consultant; Frederic A. Delano, chairman, and Charles W. Eliot II, executive director National Resources Committee; representatives of state planning boards; and James Delmage Ross, formerly of Seattle City Light and then Securities and Exchange Commission commissioner. The Committee also heard from W. D. B. Dodson, Portland Chamber of Commerce executive vice president, and Colonel Thomas M. Robins, Corps of Engineers North Pacific Division Engineer.

The 251-page Senate hearing transcript is a convenient reference, as it includes many documents such as the December 10, 1932 report of the Super Power Committee of Oregon, the December 29, 1934 report of the Bonneville Commission to the Oregon Legislature, and several useful PNWRPC memoranda outlining concepts for a regional power corporation.

The May 7 hearing opened with Delano's suggestion that Congress enact provisional legislation that year, leaving the next Congress to determine a more permanent law and organizational structure. This eventually led to the Bonneville Project Act becoming a provisional law.

On May 26 the four Oregon and Washington Senators cosponsored S. 4695 as a reconciled bill. It then went to the Senate Commerce Committee which reported it out with minor amendment June 5, 1936. The report included President Roosevelt's May 29 endorsement of the bill. Under the compromise bill the Corps of Engineers would sign power sales contracts subject to FPC approval.

Four representatives introduced S. 4695 in the House as almost identical bills, William A. Ekwall - H.R. 12873 and Pierce H.R. 12875 on May 27 and Martin Smith - H.R. 12895 and Hill - H.R. 12899 on May 28. The House Committee on Rivers and Harbors held brief hearings on the four bills June 3, 4, and 8, and reported the bill June 8. The House and Senate bills died in the legislative logjam as Congress adjourned for the national political conventions and campaigns.

Meanwhile, early in 1936 the National Resources Committee reviewed the December 28, 1935 PNWRPC report

and wrote a strong endorsement April 21, 1936. It then published the report and endorsement in May under the title Regional Planning Part I - Pacific Northwest.

Its publication was too late to influence the 1936 legislative process. Under the circumstances, the Pacific Northwest delegation could only try to secure passage of the old S. 4695. The busy Senate took up the bill June 6 and passed all the Senate Commerce Committee amendments. It was on the brink of final passage when objection was raised to inclusion of the Boulder Canyon project in it.

The City of Los Angeles and other Boulder Canyon Project power purchasers wanted a rider on the Bonneville Project Act which would reduce their power costs. In turn, this involved states in the Colorado River Basin. The controversy killed the bill for 1936.

1937 Events. Heartened by his election victory, President Roosevelt went to work on the matter of marketing Bonneville power. On January 18, 1937, he appointed an informal Committee on National Power Policy headed by Secretary Ickes. He asked for a report in two weeks, which Ickes, according to his diary, thought was "a pretty tall order."

Ickes called a meeting of his Committee and the Oregon and Washington Senators for January 25. He announced that the Committee felt the McNary Bill, which all four Senators had introduced, should be the basis for discussion. Ickes then explained to Senator Charles L. McNary his deep concern about the Corps of Engineers attitude on power. Ickes saw danger in allowing the Corps to have complete control. He asked McNary if he would insist on putting the Corps in charge of power marketing. McNary relented. That ended the stalemate.

The President received the Committee's report February 9, including a draft of the bill. Then he invited the congressional delegations from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to the White House on February 18. The Committee on National Power Policy had endorsed the report of the National Resources Committee and the PNWRPC. Instead of a corporation, however, it preferred a bureau within the Department of the Interior under Ickes' jurisdiction. The Committee recommended the new bureau be in charge of operating the generation as well as building transmission lines for power marketing. The President explained that the controversial uniform rates question could remain open for the future administrator to resolve.

The next day, Representative Martin Smith of Washington introduced the bill as H.R. 4948. On January 5 he had introduced the 1936 bill as H.R. 92. On February 24