Conservation Commission 39 



of the State favor the construction, control, maintenance and 

 operation of such reservoirs through the agency of the State 

 itself. 



Cost to Be Borne hy the State and by the Owner 



We feel, therefore, that the proper policy to adopt is for the 

 State to construct, control, maintain and operate reservoirs in- 

 tended for stream regulation, and that the cost thereof be borne 

 in part by the State and its municipalities benefited thereby, and 

 in part by the owners of water power sites upon some basis of a 

 just and equitable division thereof. 



With regard to the payment to be made by the mill owners, 

 serious and difficult questions arise. How shall such payment be 

 made and provided for ? Many divergent views are entertained 

 with respect to these questions. All practically agree that the 

 beneficiaries should be required to pay therefor. Some maintain 

 that the real beneficiaries are the owners of power sites already 

 developed. This view is predicated upon the proposition that 

 undeveloped sites have no use for an increase of power which 

 will result from stream regulation. It is also claimed, in some 

 cases, that the owners of developed sites should not be required 

 to contribute toward the cost of the construction, maintenance or 

 operation of such reservoirs, for the reason that some power 

 owners have no need for additional or increased power. These 

 views are, of course, erroneous, for the reason that any increase 

 in the capacity of a water power site, whether developed or un- 

 developed, enhances its potential value. Moreover, while the as- 

 sessment of cost upon developed powers alone might possibly 

 answer the needs and be practical for a river like the Black, where 

 more than 85 per cent, of its available power is developed, it 

 would utterly and absolutely fail to secure any regulation on 

 rivers like the Raquette, where less than 25 per cent, of the avail- 

 able power is developed. 



A glance at the foregoing table shows that the regulation of 

 the Raquette could not and would not be made if the developed 

 sites alone were required to pay the cost for the evident reason that 

 the owners of such sites could not afford to bear the burden. For 

 example, if the reservoir at the Oxbow on the Eaquette river were 



