The Washington herald., 1910-02-13


is a bulletin bearing the title: The Pub
lie Utility of Water Powers and Their
Government Regulation
1t presents a discussion of the present
status of water powers and of the ten
dency in the United States and in Europe
| toward the concentration of ownership
| in water power and the monopoly of this
natural resource by capitalistic interests.
/ The report IS written by the chief engi
! neer of the department of public works
| of France. NJ Rene Tavenier. and the
Chief Hydrographer Of the United States
Geological Survey Marshall 0. Leighton.
European Countries Advance.
NJ. Tavernier's contribution IL a dis
cussion Of the advance made during the
past ten years by the governments OF
France. Switzerland, and Italy toward
the solution of the water power problem
and Of present and proposed legislation
necessitated by the rapidly changing
conditions IN Europe, due 10 the recogni-
ton of flowing water as an energy pro-
Queer and TO recent Improvement in
methods of electrical transmission
making possible the conveyance Of power
TO points hundreds of miles distant from
the seat Of production.
In these countries. NJ. Tavernler says. |
water power is now generally recognized
as a public utility while the political
and economic problems growing out Of
hydroelecrical development have reached !
a stage necessitating q national con-
sideratiOn OF the entire question Of water
rights. In some instances notably In
Switzerland and Italy. advanced action !
in the matter Of federal regulation has
already been taken. These European
countries are thus with respect to the !
water power problem far ahead of Amer !
lea, where the public utility Of water |
power has been barely perceived.
His Facts Suggestive.
NJ Tavernier presents facts which |
should be Of value more in treating a |
problem which, practically unrecognized, !
has within a few years grown to domi- /
nant proportions. One Of the striking I
features Of his discussion, which is en- /
tirely applicable TO our own conditions /
is the universal appreciation in the coun- !
tries mentioned, of the fact that the !
question has two sides.
Corporate abuses, past, present, and |
prospective, are fully recognized. and the
need for restrictive legislation is prac- /
tically undisputed; but on the other hand, /
even the most Jealous Of the foreign ad- !
vocates Of governmental control admit /
that Intervention should not entail re |
preston.
Situation In America.
In his preface 10 the bulletin. Mr. Leigh |
ton states impsrtially the situation as it /
exists in this country. Modern water /
power development. in the United States. /
he says, has hardly passed it's expert |
mental stage. yet the problem before /
the country looms large with a com /
pleXity of entanglements. Hydro-eIec- |
trio properties have not yet. as a class. |
returned to the investor a succession of |
swollen dividends The industry is sub /
ject 70 the same eXigencies as are other /
industries and except in few cases, /
Notwithstanding the testimony of many
popular magazine articles, it bears no /
resemblance to AIaddin's lamp as a reve-
nue. producer.
On the other hand, Mr.. Leighton says. |
there is a real menace IN the present I
situation. Certain great consultations /
Of water power interests have taken .
place during the last few years. and /
these, with the appearance Of the names
of a few persons among the officers or
in the directorate Of a large number Of |
companies operating water power plants,
making new installations, or manufac-
turing or marketing water power or cleo
trio machinery. point Enthusiastically to q
concentration Of ownership in several
groups which might consolidate or at
least effect a community of agreement
Menace in the Situation.
The menace in the prospect lies not so
much in this probability as in the power
which such a combination would possess
to manipulate unrighteouSly the public
interest. The menace while thus far only
speculative. does not obviate the necessity
for legislation
But what kind of legislation? Con-
soiidation is inevitable Water power is
a natural monopoly by reason of the
natural law Of stream flow. There is no
virtue in preventing consolidation If
economy in maintenance and operation
Is thereby prevented; and consolidation
does secure distinct and unusual econo-
mics, so that If the consumer receives
the benefits. he gains by the consolida-
ton. Therefore. the solution Of the prob
lem lies IN legislative regulation of water
power development and maintenance to
the end that the consumer shall pay
only a fair and reasonable price for
power
In the Old World it has been decided a
proper function of the government to
declare water powers of public utility
and to place them under appropriate
laws, the assumption being that the pub
lie has a dominant interest in the de-
velOpment of this great natural resource.
Government Control Inevitable.
Several States, Mr.. Leighton notes.
have already begun to realize the need
for legislation and have enacted laws
of good purpOrt, if not entirely compre-
hensive, notably New York, Pennsylvania. !
and Oregon but these examples are not
sufficient TO establish common policy.
The country cannot afford TO be wise
merely in spots and the need for con-
certed State or national action is one {
Of the present moment Delay in accent
ance of this fact by the American people
will be at enormous cost, for ultimate
governmental control is inevitable.
Mr.. Leighton cites opinions pro and j
con relative 10 the right of the Federal /
government to control water power on
navigable streams and their contribu-
taries. and to make charges for water
power. He mentions instances in which
power generated at government dams in
the Ohio Valley is sold at an annual /
e