ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL

POWER COMMISSION.

PART I.

1. INTRODUCTION.

The approval of the Federal Water Power Act on June 10, 1920, marked the end of the period of discussion and controversy which for more than a decade had waged both in Congress and outside over a national policy with respect to water powers under Federal control. The laws previously governing the administration and disposition of water powers had been passed, the one in 1901 and the other in 1910, at a time when there was little appreciation of the rôle which electric power would play in transportation and in industry, or of the safeguards which, in the disposition of this national resource, would be required in the interests of the investor as well as of the public. For many years Federal laws had been wholly unsuited to prevailing conditions. The rights granted were so insecure and the liabilities imposed so uncertain that only in occasional instances could waterpower development which required Federal authority be financed; with the result that the development of the inexhaustible waterpower resources was largely blocked and recourse was had to steam power with its consequent use of coal. The flood of applications which has followed the passage of the act of 1920 and the projects on which, notwithstanding the industrial depression and the uncertain financial situation, construction has already started under license issued by the Federal Power Commission is abundant evidence both of the extent to which former legislation stood in the way of power development, and of the generally satisfactory character of the present legislation.

No definite data are available concerning the number of permits issued on the public lands and reservations under the act of 1901. A report on developed horsepower made by the Department of Agriculture in 1915 indicated that projects aggregating approximately 700,000 horsepower occupied in some degree lands of the United

5

States under authority granted under the act of 1901. Probably not less than 100,000 horsepower more were constructed under the act subsequent to the date of the above report. Difficulties were met, however, in financing projects under the act of 1901, and there is no doubt that greater development would have taken place under a form of tenure more secure than that act afforded. It was on the navigable streams, however, that the provisions of Federal legislation exercised the most serious effect on power development.

Grants upon public lands and reservations under the act of 1901 were made by the executive departments. Grants upon navigable streams required in each instance a special act of Congress. The act of June 23, 1910, which superseded an act of similar tenor approved June 21, 1906, merely fixed the general conditions under which the special grants were made. From data submitted at the hearings before the Committee on Water Power of the House of Representatives during the Sixty-fifth Congress, second session, as revised by data supplied by the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, it appears that 38 special acts of Congress were passed prior to the enactment of the act of 1906, of which 8 were subsequently amended; that in 15 of the remaining 30 cases the projects were constructed and that the aggregate horsepower developed was 328,850. Between June 21, 1906, and June 23, 1910, 29 special acts were passed. Of these only 5 progressed to the point of approval of maps by the War Department and only 5, with an aggregate capacity of 89,400 horsepower, were constructed. Subsequently to June 23, 1910, 23 special acts or amendments of earlier acts were passed. In 12 cases maps and plans were presented to and approved by the War Department. Five projects, with a combined horsepower of 63,300, were constructed. The acts of 1906 and 1910 had proved practical failures.

The histories of three projects affecting navigable waters-the Coosa River project, the Connecticut River project, and the Niagara Falls project-well illustrate the comparative value of present and former legislation in the means afforded both for expediting action and for handling special problems in individual cases.

COOSA RIVER PROJECT.

Navigation improvements had been undertaken on the Coos? River by the State of Alabama as early as 1823. Appropriati were made by Congress in 1828. These early improvements we however, merely temporary in character. Later on, permanent co struction was undertaken in the upper river between Rome, Ga., a Wilsonville, Ala., and the Alabama River, into which the Coos flows, was improved from the mouth of the Coosa to the Gulf. Be

ons

1

tween these improved sections was a stretch of 116 miles abounding in shoals and rapids and so costly of improvement that the Government hesitated to undertake the work. Private interests thereupon proposed to undertake the improvement by building dams which would produce consecutive stretches of navigable waters, eventually opening the entire section to navigation and which would produce sufficient water power to justify the total cost of the improvement. An act authorizing the construction of a dam and power plant by the Alabama Power Co. at "Lock No. 12" was approved on March 4, 1907, and the plant was constructed and placed in operation in 1913. In 1912 a bill for the construction of a second dam and power plant to be located in the vicinity of "Lock No. 18" passed both Houses of Congress, but was vetoed on August 24, 1912, by President Taft because it failed to make provision for adequate compensation for the privilege to be granted. No further progress was made until after the passage of the Federal Water Power Act.

On November 3, 1920, the Alabama Power Co. filed with the Federal Power Commission a partial application for a license for power development at Duncans Riffle on the Coosa River. Its completed application was submitted on May 5, 1921. The application was advertised, hearings were held, both locally and before the Commission, examination was made and report submitted by the district engineer, Engineer Department, U. S. Army, and license' was issued on June 27, less than two months after the filing of the complete application. Preliminary work was started four days later. Construction is now fully under way and it is expected that this project, which had been delayed for 10 years for lack of Federal authorization, will be completed and in operation within 18 months.

CONNECTICUT RIVER PROJECT.

Since Revolutionary days the Connecticut River has been used for navigation purposes, and improvements, more or less permanent in character for these purposes, date from that time. In 1824 the Connecticut River Co. was given a charter by the State of Connecticut, under the terms of which a dam was erected at the head of the Enfield Rapids, 16 miles above Hartford. Locks and a 5-mile canal were built, thus affording navigation around the rapids. The Connecticut River Co. gradually passed from a navigation company to a water-power company and has been selling water for some years past for the operation of mills located between the lower end of the canal and the river.

The improvement of the river from Long Island Sound to Hartford was carried out during the period from 1800 to 1836 by private

1 For text of license in full, see p. 204.

corporations chartered by the State of Connecticut. The Federal Government began its improvement of the river in 1836. Operations were carried on for a period of seven years, were then discontinued, and were not resumed until 1871. Since that time they have been prosecuted with but brief interruptions until the channel has gradually been deepened to 12 feet.

Many reports pertaining to the improvement of the river above Hartford have been submitted to Congress. In all of these reports the development of water power at the Enfield Rapids was considered as an integral part of any plan to improve navigation. It was, however, deemed desirable that the development of such water power be undertaken by private interests and not by the Government. Several unsuccessful attempts were made by power companies to securo the necessary legislation authorizing the construction of the dam and power plant. Finally, in conformity with tentative agreements between the Connecticut River Co. and the Secretary of War, a bill was introduced in the Senate in the third session of the Sixty-second Congress proposing that the assent of Congress be given to the company to relocate its existing dam and, in connection with such relocation, to build a power house and locks near the foot of Enfield Rapids. The bill was amended and passed the Senate on February 17, 1913, but appears to have had no further consideration by Congress.

After the passage of the Federal Water Power Act interest in the project was revived, and application was filed by the Connecticut River Co. on February 9, 1921. The plants operating along the old canal were built many years ago and the general plan of operation fails to produce the amount of power that is practicable under modern methods of development. The correction of the situation will, however, require adjustments of old water rights, and the character of the development may depend to a certain degree upon such adjustments. The Connecticut River Co., therefore, made application for a preliminary permit for a period of two years for the purpose of making the necessary adjustments of rights and of preparing final plans. On account of conflicting applications, hearings were held at Springfield, Mass., by the district engineer of the War Department and report submitted by him on August 27, 1921. Permit was authorized by the Commission on October 6 and a project which has been awaiting Federal authorization for many years, which will provide for navigation past Enfield Rapids and which will make available to an industrial community a power development of 30,000 horsepower, gives promise of early construction.

NIAGARA FALLS PROJECT.

The first diversions from the American side of the Niagara River in the vicinity of Niagara Falls were made by predecessors of the