Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Mr. RAKER. And if a plant could be so constructed—a dam so constructed that you could get the full amount for power purposes, and it could be raised 20 feet more at a reasonable cost, whereby you could supply many acre-feet of water, the plant ought to be so arranged that you could get the full flood flow and hold back all the water for irrigation as well as power purposes.

Mr. BRITTON. Yes, sir; that goes without saying.

Mr. RAKER. Now, I call your attention to what you said on pages 14 and 15, in subdivision A:

That the project adopted, including the maps, plans, and specifications, shall be such as in the judgment of the commission will be best adapted to the comprehensive scheme of improvement and utilization for the purposes of navigation and water-power development.

Now, right there I want to suggest if it would not be advisable, after having specified navigation and water-power development, to make it primally important that the word "irrigation" should also be included and then, incidentally, all other beneficial public uses.

Mr. BRITTON. If that phrase "other beneficial uses" would not cover irrigation. I rather think it would.

Mr. RAKER. But what I am getting at now, you have gotten navigation as one of the primal things. You designate water power as one of the primal things. Now, my point is that irrigation is as important as the water power or navigation, and by specifying the two you leave some doubt as to irrigation; but if you put irrigation in you are then working with the three always in view, and if you get it in, the incidental use of it, you are all right.

Mr. BRITTON. Speaking of California alone, with which condition I am very familiar-I know nothing of any other State's conditionspeaking of California alone, I think it a very good thing to put that

word in the bill.

Mr. RAKER. That is all I care to ask.

Mr. LEVER. Just one question, following out Judge Raker's line of questioning. It would be quite possible, I take it, that the off-run of these powers, the water, might affect lands in the way of drainage. Don't you think so? The overflow might overflow lands below the dam, inundating quite large areas, and if you propose to make irrigation a primal proposition of the bill it would be very well to make drainage a primal proposition as well.

Mr. BRITTON. We have no condition in California that would be affected in that way.

Mr. LEVER. Well, I can conceive of conditions in the East where it might be.

Mr. BRITTON. I am not familiar with the eastern conditions. I am speaking now of California alone, that there would be no objection to making irrigation a primal condition or consideration. As to anything else I am unable to answer.

Mr. LEVER. My thought was that the language of the bill thoroughly covered it and Judge Raker's proposition. By stringing out the primal things you may get yourself into difficulty.

Mr. BRITTON. It strikes me that that phrase "other beneficial uses" covers all of it.

Mr. Escн. There is another part of the bill that covers the same purpose. It is on page 13, section 7:

And as between other applicants, the commission may likewise give preference to the applicant the plans of which it finds and determines are best adapted to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interests the navigation and water resources of the region.

That is pretty broad language.

Mr. BRITTON. Yes; it is, Mr. Esch.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Britton. about that property tax, was that a property tax or a franchise tax, or was it in lieu of all taxes?

Mr. BRITTON. It was in lieu of all taxes and licenses of every kind. and description, whether municipal, district, county, or any other. Mr. TAYLOR. That includes the whole thing?

Mr. BRITTON. Yes, sir; everything. It was even contested on the question of whether they had a right to tax our automobiles, and the supreme court of the State decided that they could not.

Mr. TAYLOR. When you create this tax that is mentioned here-the question brought out by the chairman-that covers everything; it covers every possible tax that can be levied?

Mr. BRITTON. That is in lieu of all.

The CHAIRMAN. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Britton, for your very illuminating statement.

Amendments suggested by Mr. John A. Britton, of California, to proposed House substitute for Senate bill 1419.

I.

Amend paragraph (d) of section 10 as follows:

[ocr errors]

Page 16, line 9, after the word “cents,” strike out the words “per horsepower per annum and insert: “not more than 50 cents per horsepower year, based on the power generated."

Page 17, line 8, at the end of paragraph (d), section 10, insert the following: "In all cases in which the area of the land occupied by a project on nonnavigable waters is in part only land of the United States, the charge for such use shall be proportionate: Provided, however, That where not more than five per centum of the total area of land required in connection with any project heretofore or hereafter constructed is land of the United States, the commission shall, for the purpose of securing the largest and most economical development of power by said project, authorize the occupancy of the necessary tract or tracts of land for any of the purposes herein specified, during the period or periods for which licenses are authorized to be issued hereunder, upon the payment annually by the licensee of a rental charge for said land, which rental shall be fixed and determined by the commission."

As amended said paragraph would read as follows: "(d) That the licensee shall pay to the United States reasonable annual charges in an amount to be fixed by the commission. A schedule of annual

rates of charge, which rates shall in no case be less than 10 cents nor more than 50 cents per horsepower year, based on the power generated, shall be set forth in each license. Such schedule of rates shall be fixed by the commission under general methods to be prescribed in the regulations; and in fixing such schedule the commission shall give due consideration to any benefits accruing to the licensee through the construction, operation, or maintenance by the United States of any navigation structures or headwater improvements, and shall also give due consideration to and due credit for the annual interest, maintenance, and operation costs to the licensee on account of any lock or locks or other aids to navigation constructed, maintained, or operated at the expense of the licensee: Provided, That licenses for the development, transmission, or distribution of power by States or municipalities solely for State

or municipal purposes may be issued without charge; and that licenses for the development, transmission, or distribution of power for the utilization by the licensee of national forest timber to the extent that power developed under license is so used, and for domestic, mining, or irrigation use in projects of not more than fifty horsepower capacity may be issued without charge; but in no case shall a license be issued free of charge for the development and utilization of power created by dams or other works constructed and owned by the United States for the improvement of navigation. In all cases in which the area of the land occupied by a project on nonnavigable waters is in part only land of the United States, the charge for such use shall be proportionate: Provided, however, That where not more than five per centum of the total area of land required in connection with any project heretofore or hereafter constructed is land of the United States the commission shall, for the purpose of securing the largest and most economical development of power by said project, authorize the occupancy of the necessary tract or tracts of land for any of the purposes herein specified during the period or periods for which licenses are authorized to be issued hereunder, upon the payment annually by the licensee of a rental charge for said land, which rental shall be fixed and determined by the commission."

II.

Amend section 13 as follows:

Page 19, lines 15 and 16, strike out the words "as the commission may direct, and within such reasonable time as may be specified by it so.”

As amended said section should read as follows:

SEC. 13. That the licensee shall commence the construction of the project works within the time fixed in the license, shall thereafter in good faith and with due diligence prosecute such construction, and shall within the time fixed in the license complete and put into operation such part of the ultimate development as the commission shall deem necessary to supply the reasonable needs of the then available market, and shall from time to time thereafter construët such portion of the balance of such development as to supply adequately the reasonable market demands until such development shall have been completed. The periods for the commencement and completion of construction may be extended by the commission when not incompatible with the public interests. In case the licensee shall not commence actual construction of the project works, or of any specified part thereof, within the time prescribed in the license, or as extended by the commission, then, after due notice given, the license shall, as to such project works or part thereof, be terminated upon written order of the commission. In case the construction of the project works, or of any specified part thereof, have been begun but not completed within the time prescribed in the license, or as extended by the commission, then the Attorney General, upon the request of the commission, shall institute proceedings in equity in the district court of the United States for the district in which any part of the project is situated, for the revocation of said license, the sule of the works constructed, and such other equitable relief as the case may demand, as provided for in section twenty-six hereof.”

III.

Amend section 14 as follows:

Page 21, line 8, after the word license," insert the words ** in accordance with the provisions of this act": lines 8 and 9, strike out the words, "with the approval of the commission."

As amended said section would read as follows:

SEC. 14. That upon not less than two years' notice in writing from the commission the United States shall have the right, upon or after the expiration of the original license or of any license subsequently issued, to take over and thereafter to maintain and operate any project or projects, as defined in section three hereof, and covered in whole or in part by the license, or the right to take over upon mutual agreement with the licensee all property owned and held by the licensee then valuable and serviceable in the development, transmission, or distribution of power and which is then dependent for its usefulness upon the continuance of the license, together with any lock or locks or other aids to navigation constructed at the expense of the licensee, upon the condition that before

taking possession it shall pay the net investment of the licensee in the project or projects taken, plus such reasonable damages, if any, to property of the licensee valuable, serviceable, and dependent as above set forth, but not taken, as may be caused by the severance therefrom of property taken, and shall assume all contracts entered into by the licensee in accordance with the provisions of this act. The net investment of the licensee in the project or projects so taken and the amount of such severance damages, if any, shall be determined by agreement between the commission and the licensee, and in case they can not agree, by proceedings in equity instituted by the United States in the district court of the United States in the district within which any of such property may be located."

Amend section 16 as follows:

IV.

Page 23, line 11, after the word "thereto." strike out the word "such"; lines 12 to 14, after the word "property," strike out the words "as may be fixed by the commission upon the basis of a reasonable profit in time of peace." As amended said section would read as follows:

SEC. 16. That when in the opinion of the President of the United States, evidenced by a written order addressed to the holder of any license hereunder, the safety of the United States demands it, the United States shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of any project, or part thereof, constructed, maintained, or operated under said, license, for the purpose of manufacturing nitrates, explosives, or munitions of war, or for any other purpose involving the safety of the United States, to retain possession, management, and control thereof for such length of time as may appear to the President to he necessary to accomplish said purposes, and then to restore possession and control to the party or parties entitled thereto; and in the event that the United States shall exercise such right, it shall pay to the party or parties entitled thereto just and fair compensation for the use of said property and the cost of restoring said property to as good condition as existed at the time of the taking over thereof, less the reasonable value of any improvements that may be made thereto by the United States and which are valuable and serviceable to the licensee."

V.

Amend section 22 as follows:

Page 28, line 18, strike out the word "joint" and the words "of the commission and.”

As amended said section would read as follows:

"SEC. 22. That whenever the public interest requires or justifies the execution by the licensee of contracts for the sale and delivery of power for periods extending beyond the date of termination of the license, such contracts may be entered into upon the approval of the public-service commission or other similar authority in the State in which the sale or delivery of power is made, or if sold or delivered in a State which has no such public-service commission then upon the approval of the commission, and thereafter in the event of taking over the properties at the termination of the license the United States or the new licensee, as the case may be, shall assume and fulfill all such contracts."

Amend section 23 as follows:

VI.

Page 29, lines 8 and 9, strike out the words lawfully granted."

under authority heretofore

As amended, said section would read as follows: "SEC. 23. That the provisions of this act shall not be construed as revoking any permit or valid existing right of way heretofore granted, or as revoking any authority heretofore given pursuant to law, but upon application of any person, association, corporation, State, or municipality, which is now constructing, maintaining, or operating any project on the public lands or reservations of the United States, or across, along, or in any navigable waters of the United States, the commission may issue to any such applicant a lincense in accordance with the provisions of this act, and in such case the provisions of this act shall apply to such applicant as a licensee hereunder.”

STATEMENT OF MR. HARRISON B. FREEMAN, OF HARTFORD, CONN., REPRESENTING THE CONNECTICUT RIVER CO.

Mr. FREEMAN. The Connecticut River Co. is rather an old corporation. It was chartered by the Connecticut General Assembly in 1824-May, 1824-to improve boat navigation on the Connecticut River; and in 1831 it finished a dam across the Connecticut River at the head of the Enfield Rapids. That is a place about 20 miles above Hartford. It built a canal from the head of those rapids to the foot, coming out just below the town of Windsor Locks, Conn., and it gave all the transportation there was, furnished all the transportation there was, between Hartford and Springfield and Holyoke up to 1847, when the railroad from New Haven to Springfield was built. The English novelist, Charles Dickens, in his American Notes, described very interestingly a trip that he took from Springfield to Hartford in the boat, which drew 34 feet of water, running down through the canal.

In 1847, when the railroad was built, it practically put the Connecticut River Co. out of business, as far as its being a transportation company was concerned, and from that time until a few years ago the Connecticut River Co. earned no dividends and paid none for over 50 years. It meanwhile built up a business of selling the water that ran through the canal for power purposes, and there are a number of manufacturing concerns on the canal bank at Windsor Locks which now take water and use it for power purposes from the canal. They use from eight to ten thousand horsepower for that purpose.

In 1909 the Connecticut Legislature gave the Connecticut River Co. the right to build a dam across the Connecticut River at the foot of the rapids instead of at the head of the rapids-that is, 5 miles down the river-and it gave them the right to sell and distribute the electric power generated from that dam throughout certain portions of the State of Connecticut, the northern part of the State of Connecticut. That is not a monopoly, however. If they sell this power they will be in active competition with four or five large power companies. I will go into that a little more later on.

In 1909, after the company secured this right from the Connecticut Legislature, it bought up all the land on the east side of the river which it did not own, from Windsor Locks to Thompsonville, a distance of about 6 miles, which will be flowed by the new development. It previously owned all the land on the west side of the river where the canal was situated and the flowage rights to Holyoke, Mass., a distance of about 26 miles. Its old dam, built in 1831, had flowed land from the town of Thompsonville, in the State of Connecticut, where the dam was situated, right up to the foot of the dam built by the Holyoke Water Power Co., in Holyoke, Mass. So it has about 26 miles of flowage rights that it owns, as well as the land for 6 miles on both sides of the Connecticut River. It also came to this Congress and attempted to get the grant to build its new dam, to relocate its dam at the foot of the rapids, and we have been trying ever since 1909 to get that right. The building of that dam will accomplish two things. It will develop 40,000 additional horsepower. The Connecticut River has at that point a drainage area of

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »