Saga - 1975, Blaðsíða 109

103
INNILOKUN EÐA OPINGÁTT
SUMMARY
The article discusses certain aspects of the socalled „waterfalls-
affair“ which was much publicised in Iceland in the first quarter
°f this century. The affair embraced many matters, all of which
were connected with the plans for Icelandic hydro-electric schemes
and foreign industry in Iceland. Opinions were divided on the af-
fair, and these were most pronounced during the years 1917—19,
when a government committee sat, the „waterfalls committee“,
whose frame of reference was to make a comprehensive review of
the waterfalls affair and to put forward plans for future develop-
ment on behalf of the Government. The article studies the wide-
sPread interest in the waterfalls affair in the beginning of 1917,
its subsequent development and the waterfalls committee’s appoint-
ment at the end of the same year. The affair began early in 1917
when parliament agreed that the Government should investigate
the renting or selling by certain parishes of water rights in common
land and the central highlands. Such acts were considered com-
pletely invalid as only the state possessed the rights to rent or
Sell. The question of the property rights to water-power later gave
rise to the greatest disputes of the whole affair.
Many other factors helped to publicise the affair. As the price
oí' coal had risen during the war the Reykjavík town council was
mterested in obtaining electric power for the town and had begun
Plans for a hydro-electric scheme, either on Elliðaár, a short dis-
tance from the town, or on Sog, in the south-west of Iceland. A
large part of Sog was in the control of a limited company, the
waterfall company „Island“, which was an Icelandic company by
law but was owned by Danish capitalists in fact. The company had
had plans for using Sog to produce saltpetre before the war but
n°thing had become of them. In the summer of 1917 however the
CornPany applied to the Government for legal rights for these plans,
and there seem to be especially two reasons for this: the increased
Pfofitability of such projects due to the war, and the considerable
aniount of uninvested capital in the Nordic countries due to their
special war-time economic and financial conditions. In addition
another similar company, the waterfall company „Titan“, was at
tlhs time preparing to apply for permission to work Þjórsá, in
s°uth Iceland, as it considered itself the owner of the rights to that
Hver after having supported research into it for some time. These two
c°mpanys’ projects were enormous by Icelandic standards and it
'vas thus most unlikely that the authorities would support both
°í them.
The Government, a coalition government of three parties — the