Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Ten bills proposing the establishment of “valley authorities” comparable in some degree to the Tennessee Valley Authority are now before the Seventy-ninth Congress, and it is likely that others of the sort will be introduced in this Congress or later ones. Whether any will be adopted during the present session is problematical, but it seems almost a certainty that within a few years the regional authority idea which has received so much publicity as a result of the success of the TVA will be given further impetus by the enactment of additional valley authority laws. The end of the war and the consequent search for opportunities to cushion the shock of reconversion lend weight to this view.
Since the debate over valley authorities seems in no danger of ending immediately, it should be fruitful to analyze the contents of the pending bills, to compare them with the act establishing the TVA, and to point out some of the issues involved. No attempt will be made to appraise the bills or to indicate conclusions as to their worth or lack of worth.
The chief issues are, of course, whether any more valley authorities shall be established, and, if so, where. The range of thought on these issues is underlined by the diversity of the proposals. Two of the bills which are identical—S. 555 and H. R. 2203—provide for the establishment of a Missouri Valley Authority. Four more—S. 460, H. R. 2923, and two more identical bills, S. 1716 and H. R. 5083—would set up a Columbia River Authority. H. R. 2540 would establish an Ohio Valley Authority, and S. 737 would provide a Savannah Valley Authority. H. R. 1824, titled “The Conservation Authorities Act,” would apportion the entire country among nine “conservation authorities” by enlarging the area over which the TVA has jurisdiction and by setting up eight new authorities—an Atlantic Seaboard Authority, a Great Lakes-Ohio Valley Authority, and Missouri Valley, Arkansas Valley, Southwestern, Columbia, California, and Colorado Authorities. A tenth bill, formulated by the Department of the Interior, and presented to the Congress at hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, would establish a Missouri Valley Authority and would facilitate the establishment of other regional authorities.
1 An eleventh bill, H.R. 2548, introduced by Representative J. Percy Priest of Tennessee, would enlarge the area over which the TVA has jurisdiction by including the Cumberland Valley.
2 Introduced Feb. 15, 1945, by Senator James E. Murray of Montana.
3 Introduced Feb. 15, 19.45, by Representative John J. Cochran of Missouri.
4 An amendment to S. 555 was introduced by Senator Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado on Apr. 23, 1945. The amendment would confine the jurisdiction of the authority to the Lower Missouri Valley, defined as “all parts of the drainage area of the Missouri which lie below the Platte River and east of the 98th meridian.”
5 Introduced Feb. 5, 1945, by Senator Hugh B. Mitchell of Washington.
6 Introduced Apr. 17, 1945, by Representative Walt Horan of Washington.
7 Introduced Dec. 20, 1945, by Senator Hugh B. Mitchell of Washington.
8 Introduced Dec. 20, 1945, by Representative Henry M. Jackson of Washington.
9 Introduced Mar. 8, 1945, by Representative George H. Bender of Ohio.
10 Introduced Mar. 14, 1945, by Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia (for himself and Senator Burnet B. May bank of South Carolina).
11 Introduced on Jan. 29, 1945, by Representative John E. Rankin of Mississippi.
12 Filed with the Senate Commerce Committee on Apr. 18, 1945.
13 H.R. 2540 (Sec. 4) prohibits members of the board from engaging in any other business, but does not prevent them from having an interest in such businesses.
14 The office of Representative Rankin (the author of this bill) states that the reference to the National Resources Committee was inadvertently put in the bill by the legislative draftsmen as the result of using an earlier bill as a model, and that when and if the bill is considered it will be amended to omit reference to that “committee.”
15 Abolished by Congress as of Jan. 1, 1944 (57 Stat. 169; 5 U.S.C. 133t note).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.