To the Editor: Concerning the discussion which took place yesterday at a joint meeting of the committee on city affairs and the committee on taxation of the New Chamber of Commerce about the proposed development of power from Cedar river water shed I wish to state:

There has been a great deal of disconnected discussion about the advisability of proceeding with the construction of the works as proposed by the city and now under way.

It is evident that the public does not understand the situation, and as this matter involves the expenditure of somewhere between $7,000,000 and $10,000,000 of the city's money on a commercial enterprise of doubtful advisability, I wish to contribute my views on the matter, to the end that the public may be at least a little better informed than now.

The board of engineers employed by the city, who made a report last May, convered the whole subject in a very comprehensive and lucid manner, and theat report showed conclusively that no further work should be done toward actual construction until more complete investigations were made. The reasons given deductible from that report, that further data should be secured, are as follows:

First-- That it is extremely doubtful from a standpoint of business prudence whether this city should engage in a development of power from Cedar river at all. That the cost per K. W. for power generated in the manner designed by the city is about $750 for continuous H. P. delivered to the city substations.

If this estimate of cost is correct (and an analysis of their estimates shows that is probably even too low), then it is evident that the city should abandon the project entirely unless a more economical design of construction can be found, because of the fact that the city can purchase current in large quantities on continuous load for very much less per annum than the interest on this sum would be.

Besides this saving in interest and the risk attending the construction and maintenance of the plant, the city would have to pay the expense of operation. This means that if the city wishes to engage in the business of distributiong power to its citizens, it could buy this power in large units from some private corporation at substations in the city, distribute it to the public and save several hundred thousand dollars per annum and still be in control of its own public utility.

Assuming the report of the board of experts employed by the city to be substantially correct, this deduction is sufficient to warrant the abandonment of devleopment of power from Cedar river entirely.

Further reason why additional investigations should be made is made apparent from the discussion yesterday and from the report of the board of engineers showing that at least two other projects involving the general design are very much more economical from every standpoint--that is, first cost, economy of operation and efficiency of the water--than the project as now designed.

Mr. Ober, a member of the board of public works who dissented from the expressed opinion of that body that the construction of the dam as designed should be proceeded with, explained his reasons in the discussion yesterday and outlined another scheme of development which would cost the city about $2,000,000 less and bring about better results than the project now under consideration.

It is evident from the data presented by Mr. Ober yesterday that his scheme of development is the correct method of gettng power from Cedar lake, providing his data is correct.

Two million dollars is ordinarily considered to be a sum of money worth conserving, even for a city of unlimted possibilities like Seattle, and as Mr. Obers's scheme is referred to by the expert engineers in their report, it evidently has some basis of fact and should be thoroughly investigated before work is done on any other project.

Taking it altogether, the facts presented by the report of the board of engineering experts and the facts presented at the discussion yesterday seem to show conclusively that the city is proceeding now on the construction of work under a plan which is not the best that could be devised, but which will involve the city in an expenditure of a sum probably reaching $10,000,000 before it is through with the work.

The city of New Yourt built a dam in the Croton water shed which did not equal the dimensions or importance of this dam, as now desgined by this city.

This dam cost the city of New York about $8,000,000, and the city only decided upon that expenditure after spending about eight years in exhaustive investigations and after getting the opinion of three separate boards of experts, composed of the best hydraulic engineers obtainable.

While I am a believer in the public ownership of public utilities, I believe that those things should be brought about in a business manner and should be accomplished on a basis of sound business economoy, such as would be exercised by a personal or corporate investor. There can be no question but that this city is now proceeding in the wrong way to accomplish any end it may desire, and that the work on the Cedar river dam should be stopped until further procedure is warranted by thorough investigations, followed by a complete analysis made under the supervision of and by the best experts obtainable.

I wish to say that I am writing this letter as a citizen, and not in a professional way, and I feel warranted in doing it because of the fact that I was invited to make a statement to the committees of the Chamber of Commerce on this matter yesterday, but was not able to do so because of the objections of the chairman to entering into an engineering discussion. Inasmuch as this question is essentially and entirely an engineering problem, no intelligent discussion can be made of it without considering the engineering features, and no intelligent conclusion can be arrived at except one which is based on a complete knowledge of the engineering features involved.

Respectfully yours,

                    H. K. Owens

November 21, 1912.