The Miller press. [volume] (Miller, S.D.) 190?-current, 1920-12-30
HYDRO-ELECTRIC
POWER FOR STATE
Arguments In Favor OF Mobridge As
Site For Plant

In development progress, and i'm
fact the very science of living, light,
1eat and power are three of the mos,
important ess entails. Nature supplies
all three in the raw state, and COM
Glaint is often heard that private cap
'tal secures unfair rights in develop.
ing these essentials, and sell them to
the people at unfair profits.
South Dakota as a State must i'm
port the raw materials for these es>
sentials, neither coal or fuel oil being
found in the State to any considerable
degree. But the mighty Missouri Riv-
.er, sweeping across the State carries
the power to deliver all three elements
to the people The question is when,
md by whom will il be developed.
Far seeilg South Dakotans, ~realiz-
ing the needs of the State, believe that
the State itself is the proper agency to
develop this power, for this benefit OF
the people of the State. They point
out that power delivered on a fiat bas-
is to the entire state at a minimum
cost will develop industries, will great
ly simplify transportation, and make
the State less dependent on the dimin-
isbing coal supply, that light delivered
over the State at a minimum cost will
effect a saving over the present rats
sufficient to pay the cost of develops
ment and that power delivered to the
farms cf the State at a disable rate will
save a man 20 the farm per year.
The Legislature of 1919 created a
Hydro-Electric Commission, and ap-
pTopriated $50 1000, to investigate
Hydro-Electric power development in
South Dakota. The commission en-
rloyed the best engineers they coulo
find. Messrs Mead and Seastoue OF
Madison, Wisconsin. Exhaustive
study was made Of the Missouri River
across the entire State. This Commits
sion will submit it's report, and the
engineering report TO the 1921 session
g! the South Dakota Legislature. A
synopsis Of their report can be secur.
Cd from the Mobridge Commercial
Club, of Mobridge, South Dakota. 1t
is IN brief:
1. That Hydro-Electric develop
ment in South Dakota is feasible, fin,
ahcially sound, and physical condi-
tons adaptable.
2. That there are a number of sites
capable of development, the site neal
Mobridge offering the best, most econ
omical and safest first development.
8. That at the Mobridge site an an.
nual output of 81, 800 900 kilowatt
hours can be secured at a cost of 1.6.
per kilowatt hour, including cost or
transmission system, this power fig
ured at a bat rate owe the entire
State.
4. That the cost of the headworks
construction complete at Mobridgc
would be $4,000, 900. and the cost or
transmission system $7,044,000.
5. That there is now a market in
South Dakota for 10000, 900 killowat
hours, now produced by coal. With
the full power of the Missouri River
utilized. a saving of 1900, 900 tons OF
coal annually would be effected.
6. That with the present market 70,
power, and an estimated increase OF
10 per cen yearly due to the lower
rate, the Plant will pay for it's con-
struction, carrying and maintenance
charges, and not a cent need be paic
by taxation, the credit of the State
alone being sufficient.
The ben3tits accruing to the State
many. letter living conditions,
material j. crease in property values,
labor savi.E on farm and in factory,
industrial development, conservation
Of fuel, etc, etc. Anyone of them is
a story in itself. And with all of
these is the enormous saving in the
cost of power which in itself would
pay the entire cost of development.
The Hydro-Electric Commission con
sists OF the Governor, Secretary OF
State. Chairman of Railway Commits
State Engineer, and the Secre-
taTy of the Department of History.