Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-01-16
Difference in Estimated Ex'
pense of Harvesting Great
Falls PerpIexes Officials.
DEBATE Of THE QUESTION
is BASED ON ECONOMY
Regarded as Unwise to Ask for Ap-
preparation Until the Issue
Is Determined.

Congress may be asked to appoint d
board of expert engineers to pass upon
the economic practica bility of harness
ing the water power al Great Falls.
This suggestion is being considered in
certain official circles. following the
development of radical differences of
opinion between Col. Langftt of the
Engineer Corps of the United States
Army. who has reported the project to
be a practicable one. and Francis X.
Weller. consulting engineer of Wash
ington. who declares that the improve
ment will call for an unjustfable ex-
penditure and for economic reasons
should be abandoned.
Owing to the difference of opinion, il
is suggested by some OF those who are
taking the initiative in the Great Falls
matter that it would be unwise to ask
Congress for an appropriation until it
has been definitely determined that the
proposed development will justify the
expense.
II Mr.. Weller's view of the situation
is correct that fact had better be deter
mined now than later, it is pointed
out. The suggestion for board OF ex-
perts is based the theory that a
study could be made of the points in
dispute in the Langftt and Weller con-
clusons and other information gather
ed which would give more dehnite
idea of the cost that would be involved
and the saving. il any, the government
would derive from operating a plant
of this character.
Economic Factor Presented.
Mr.. WelIer's criticism of the Langfitt
report, in his address before the Amer
lean Institute of Electrical Engineers
stanchest advocates of the Great Falls
plan to do considerable thinking. His
statement that 1t would cost approx
mately $435 per horsepower to build
a power plant at Great Falls as COM
pared with a cost of not more than $50
per horsepower to build a steam plant
in Washington has injected an
economic factor into the situation which
is assured of being given serious con-
sideration.
Col. Langftts estimated cost of the
project is $15.000.000. Mr.. Weller gives
a number of expense items which he
declares have not been taken into ac-
count in the report of the yzAdls.
ciaf ana piaccB the total ultimate cost
at $24.00O.00O.
The District Commissioners who have
been in favor of the Great Falls prof.
them the Norris bill for this improve
ment In view of the conflicting con-
clusions of Col. Langfitt and Mr.. We'll
ler il is possible the District heads
may make a recommendation of some
character looking toward further in
vestigation of the merits of the prob
lem.
Whatever the Commissioners may do,
they will have the benefit of the advice
of Col. kutz. member of the board who
already has given considerable study to
the Langfitt report. AS he has had
wide experience in engineering mat
ters. his suggestions undoubtedly will
go far in enabling his colleagues to de-
termine upon the character of report
to be made on the Norris bill.
Probable Subject of Discussion.
The relation of the central power
plant in Washington, upon which work
has recently begun. to the Great Falls
project is a matter likely to be dis
cussed in Congress when the question
Of making available certain moneys for
continuing the work on the central sta
| ton comes up. IT has been suggested
that the local plant could be utilized
eventually as an auxiliary of the Great
Falls plant.
| Congress has authorized an appropri-
alton of sl50,000 for the Washington
plant, and the question has arisen as to
whether this would be useless asset
| if the Great Falls development goes
| through.
| According to Mr. Weller, an auxiliary
| to the water power plant will be re-
Falls would cost about $4,000. 900.
| whereas to enlarge the central plant
| in Washington so that it could serve
as an auxiliary probably would cost