OCR Text |
Show In several recent instances private companies have applied for licenses to develop projects which are important elements in comprehensive Federal river basin programs. Thus, a subsidiary of the Georgia Power Co. applied for a license to con- struct and operate the Clark Hill project, one of the most important projects in the Federal mul- tiple-purpose program for the Savannah River. Similarly, a subsidiary of the Arkansas Power & Light Co. sought a license for the Bull Shoals project, a key part of the Federal program for the White River in Arkansas. Both of these applica- tions were denied by the Commission because Congress h.ad already appropriated funds for construction. The Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has applied for a license for development in the North Fork of the Kings River in California. Similarly, the Virginia Electric & Power Co. has applied for a license to develop the Roanoke Rapids site on the Roanoke River in North Carolina. These appli- cations are still awaiting final action by the Federal Power Commission. A review of private applications for licenses now pending before the Federal Power Commis- sion suggests the importance of the issue. De- velopments totaling 2,492,750 kilowatts would be authorized if such applications were granted. Eliminating one for the St. Lawrence develop- ment, totalling 940,000 kilowatts, approximately two-thirds of the remainder, or 1,005,000 out of 1,552,000 kilowatts would be in projects in con- flict with one or another of the comprehensive Federal programs. Issuance of such licenses to private power in- terests would have far-reaching effects upon Federal water resources programs, and more especially upon power policy, an important factor in such programs. Power values created by Federal investment in multiple-purpose programs would be utilized for private profit, instead of bringing about reductions in electric rates and expanded use of electricity. Sound development of hydroelectric power is almost always associated with other water re- source development purposes, many of which are outside the interest of local or private develop- ment. The maximum utilization of our national resources requires comprehensive development which includes not only low-cost power, but such other benefits as watershed management, flood control, navigation, irrigation, and contributions to fish, wildlife, and recreation. Thus it is increasingly clear that there should be some link between Federal responsibility for power development in connection with basin programs and the authority to license private developments on the same streams. The link between the two, which prevailed in the first decade of the Federal Power Act, when the Secretaries of War and the Interior were members of the Federal Power Commission, no longer prevails. Refusal to license private power development on any river where Federal agencies are plan- ning or constructing a comprehensive program without approval of the responsible river basin agency, would accord generally with views ex- pressed by President Taft as early as 1912, in two of the veto messages previously referred to. These messages dealt with bills passed by Congress authorizing non-Federal power development which would have interfered with Federal plans for development of the rivers in question. The first message applied to a bill authorizing a non-Federal dam at a point on the White River (Arkansas), a short distance upstream from a point where certain Federal navigation improve- ments had been completed and others were con- templated. President Taft stated that, since the dam was "capable of becoming a part of this general improvement," he objected to a pro- vision of the bill which would have permitted the dams to become the property of the State of Arkansas upon expiration of the Federal permit. He said: "To introduce a diversity of title into a series of dams which may all become eventually a part of a single improvement directed at the same end (navigation) would, in my opinion, be highly objectionable." He pointed to the conflict between this pro- vision respecting title and the policy of the Gen- eral Dam Act of 1910 which would vest con- trol and title in the Federal Government at the expiration of the permit. 238 |