Electric Power Development in the U. S. 



Review of a Report of Secretary of Agriculture Houston to tlie Ihiited States Senate 



Bv H. H. Chapman 



THE policy of the nation with regard to its pubHcly- 

 owned waterpowers is now under consideration 

 l3y Congress. The many technical difficulties sur- 

 rounding the subject and the absence of authoritative 

 information have led to misstatements and misunder- 

 standings. This report is peculiarly welcome. Setting 

 forth, as it does, a summary of statistics dealing with 

 the total amount of power of all classes a\-ailable and 

 utilized, l)y regions, the rate of development and its rela- 

 tion to demand, it will do away with much superfluous 

 discussion. 



The total available waterpower for the United States, 

 owing to dependence on fluctuations of stream flow, is 

 calculated as minimum, representing the capacity during 

 two weeks of minimum flow, and the maximum, given 

 as the average for six months of maximum flow. These 

 figures are, respectively, 27,900,000 horsepower and 

 53,900,000 horsepower. (Jf this quantity ;>1 per cent 

 is located on lands owned by the United States within 

 National Forests in the West. Seventy-two per cent of 

 all waterpower lies in the western or "National Forest" 

 States and of this total, 43 per cent is on national for- 

 ests. The regulation of publicly-owned waterpower sites 

 is, therefore, a question which intimately concerns the 

 Forest Service. 



By far the most interesting facts brought out are the 

 summaries which show the relation of waterpower to 

 the total present developed power from all sources in 

 different States, including steam and gas power. In 

 1912, power, including steam, water and gas, totalled 

 .'30,1.")0,000 horsepower, of which steam generated 24,3-40,- 

 000 horsepower or SO ])er cent, and water 4,870,000 

 horsepower, or lli per cent, a proportion of 1 to ■"). 

 Waterpower in the last three years has developed more 

 rapidly than steam. The increase in primary power for 

 municipalities, street railways, and commercial purposes 

 using in T.)12. 11.190,000 h.p., or :!(i.8 per cent, added 

 2,770,000 h.j). by 1915, of which 1,(U)S,000 h.p. was 

 waterpower, and but 1,100,000 h.p. steam. But it appears 

 that in every group of States except the western moun- 

 tains and Pacific coast (containing 72 per cent of all 

 waterpowers ) the present total combined power installa- 

 tion already exceeds the minimuui capacity of all the 

 ivaterpoiver sites, and in five out of seven (/roups of 

 States it exceeds the inaxiniuiu capacity of all liHiterpoxcer 

 that can be developed. This excess, due to steam, and 

 dependent on coal, amounts in New England, the Middle 

 Atlantic States, the North Central and the West South 

 Central States, to 171 per cent of waterpower capacity. 

 Two points are at once clear : waterpower can never 



236 



supersede steam power as a whole, and waterpower must 

 always compete with steam in the power market. 



Claims have been boldly and repeatedly made that 

 the policy of regulation in force on the National For- 

 ests has produced complete stagnation and prevented the 

 development of the waterpowers on these lands. The 

 facts are as follows: In the decade 1902-1912, total com- 

 bined power installation increased in the eleven western 

 States by 240 per cent, as against 9,S per cent elsewhere. 

 I'.lectric power in the entire country increased by 22() 

 per cent, Init in the West, by 440 per cent, which was 

 two and a half times as rapid as a per capita increase as 

 the average. Waterpower increased for the country by 98 

 per cent, and for the West by 451 per cent, the per capita 

 installation now being four times as great as for the rest 

 of the country. In the three years since 1912, in the West, 

 primary installation has increased 47 per cent, or at the 

 rate of 29(1,000 liDrsepower per vear, of which three- 

 fourths is waterpower, the additional annual ihstallation 

 being twice as great as for the fi\e jirevious vears. 



Instead of stagnation, overdevelopment of power exists 

 throughout these western States. Especiallv in Cali- 

 fornia, Washington and (Jregon installation is far in 

 excess of demands. There is more developed power than 

 can lie disposed of, and the need is for more markets. 

 Instructive figures are given showing that b\- contrast 

 with munici])al ]ilants, private waterpower corporations 

 are capitalized for at least twice the cost of develop- 

 ment and that the so-called "cost" of these plants is, as 

 usual, merely the "\alue as an investment" on the basis 

 of ])robable income. 



With reference to naticmal forest lands, it is shown 

 that out of 1,SOO,()(IO h.p. nf waterpower alone, represent- 

 ing the development in 1915 in the West, 30 per cent 

 is in plants located ivholh' or in part on National Forests. 

 while an additional 12 per cent depend in part on National 

 Forests for their storage reservoirs. Fourteen per cent 

 are on other public lands. This makes a total (exclusive 

 of plants touching national property by transmission 

 lines alone) of 56 per cent of the total developed water- 

 |)owers of the W'est which has been installed under per- 

 mits issued by the Forest Service or the Interior Depart- 

 ment and in spite of these facts, we have heard reiterated 

 claims that the present system of permits and regulations 

 has made develo])ment impossible. In addition, there is 

 under construction on National Forests, plants aggregat- 

 ing 123,000 h.p., while final permits are issued for 420,- 

 000 h.p. additional, and ])reliminary permits for 354,000 

 h.p., a total of 897,000 h.p., equalling 50 jier cent 

 of all waterpower now in use in the West. That this 



