Evening star., 1920-05-28
GREAT FALLS PLAN
LOSES IN SENATES
WATERPOWER VOTE
Further Investigation Is Rec.
commended Before Financ-
ing Project.

~ nave thN ''h
ate send the waterpower bill back 70
conference today because tho confer
ence report failed to carry s25, 100000
for the development of the proposed
Great Falls waterpower project.
The conference report was adopted
by vote of As to 81.
In place of the appropriation for
the waterpower project at Great FAILS.
to supply light and power to the Dis
Irict of Columbia the conference re-
port carries Sa5.o00 for a further in
vestigation of that project The
watcrpower commission established
under the bill is directed to make the
investigation and report 10 Congress
next January.
Senator Norris argued today that
sufffcient investigation had been made
and that Congress should authorize
the development of the Great Falls
project without delay:
Investigations Favorable.
Senator Norris said the Great Falls.
project had been Investigated more in
detail than any other waterpower de-
velopment in the whole world. and that
the result in every investigation of mag
nitude had always been favorable 1t
was time now, he added. for the govern
ment to go ahead with the work. He
said it was his judgment that some per-
cations in the hope of getting an un-
favorable report at some time which
might always be used to block the es-
tablishment of power site on the Po-
ton,ac. &.
The Senator said that George Wash
fBgton was probably the first man to
consider the Great Falls project. but he
recited eleven Investigations tlat' had
been made since 1894. The most COM
prehensive, in his opinion, was that Of
Col. Langfitt. now general. made in 1913,
with an appropriation Of $50 300 Set
aside for that purpose in 1912.
Would Enhance Beauty.
This report is one that considers the
development of water power below
Great Fails, and would form a reser-
voir in the river nine miles long and
With maximum depth of Is. feet
senator Norris said such a body of
water, In addition to its practical
value. would add much to the beauty
Of the surroundings of.Washngton.
Senator Nelson interrupted to ask if
the Langfitt report contemplated the
erection of subsidiary dams above
Great Falls. Mr. Norris .repIied that
the report proper does not take up that
question, but that Col. Langhtt had
later Investigated such suggestions and
said such dams could. be. made ap .ad-.
5unct to the larger proposition
farther up the river and by using the
falls proper we could have twice As
much power as would be needed to
s.furn every Wheel and light every
house in the District of Columbia"
animation of this development. it has
been Investigated for years and years
and years.
TT is an economic sin to let this
power go to waste. If the work rec
commended in 1918 had been pushed we
would not have suffered from a coal
shorts ge during the war or last winter,
nor with the present water shortage"
Interests Reported Opposed. =.
At this point Senator Nugent inter-
rupted to ask why Col. Langfitt's re-
port and recommendations had not
been followed.
In my opinion. the first reason is
pany." said Senator Norris. 1.-THE sec
ond reason is the Potomac Electric
Power Company, and the third reason
is the Potomac Electric Power Com
pany- There were certain other out
side interests opposed to il also
Here is an illustration of what the
government could do. 1t nses more
electric power than any"other Gus
toner in the District of Columbia, and
il could develop this at small expense
We have had a whole corps of inves-
tigators who have been almost uni
versally in favor of such action"
Says Efforts Are Blocked.
Senator Nugent asked if it was not
a fact that the railway and power
corporation here have blocked every
effort of Congress to develop the
power plant at Great Falls.
"Yes, that is my opinion replied
Senator Norris.
Senator Norris said that when
Secretary Baker came in as Secre-
tary of War he had thought that an
u-Nr 6a SfpI,r fta.t fzr
development of the waterpower prof.
ect at Great Falls.
Il went to see the Secretary" said
Senator Norris. "and ! handed him a
copy of Col. Langftts report Later
he appointed committee himself
that made an unfavorable report on
the project. There was no money
appropriated for this investigation
not think thatsit was deep report
think that what the comm ssion did
really was to examine into other re-
ports.
pers at the time ] thought that the
report had been favorable. But Sec
reIary Baker on October s. 1916, wrote
me letter in which he pointed out
that until further investigation
could be made. and in view of the
Increased cost of materials and Ia
Dor. he concurred in the conclusions
OF tnc DOdTu.
Conflicting Statements In Report.
Senator Norris said that the report
of the board appointed by Secretary
Baker had made conflicting state
ments and that he did not regard il
in any way as offsetting the thorough
report made by Col. Langftt.
Il replied tothe Secretary's letter"
said Senator Norris. 'and told him
that l did not how new investi-
CATION could throw any more light on
the situation, and that il was not nee
essary to spend Inorr of the public
money on investigations. | wrote to
him that If yoar uaccry is correct the
government would never undertake
any power developn.- mt. but that these
Investigations would go on during the
lifetime of the present and the next
generation. 1 toid him that the peo-
pie here are paying exorbitant prices
for light and power and that the
power at Great Falls is going to
waste. / told him that ] thought ,he
would support the plan. but that with
his opposition had given up hope"
Favors Reflection of Report.
Senator Norris said that he hoped
the conference report would be re-
jected. He said that if the conferees
believed that on account of the pres
ent cost of materials il IVES urwise
to make this development now at
least the bill should carry authoriza-
tion for the project. and the actual
development could come later.
Senator Jones of Washington de-
ciaPed thai the conferees of the Sem
ale had done their best to have the
Norris amendment agreed to. but that
the House conferces had objected on
the grounds that it was not proper
to put in individual project in
general power bill and because no