Mr. MILTON ADAMS. Well, the only thing I could say, you might get a significant dissolved oxygen number where now you get zero. Mr. SCHERER. But you said that is not going to cure that. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. But the point is to really be significant, all of these sources of contamination should be removed and then see what the situation is and if you want to make a trial diversion then it is time enough to come to it. Mr. SCHERER. All right, you suggest that the survey or the study be made first to determine what, if anything, should be done to correct the present sanitation facilities of the city of Chicago and after that study has been made it may be necessary and it may not be necessary to go further and have a diversion of additional waters. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. Well, Mr. Scherer, my view is this, and I so told the Senate committee last July, that I think this whole problem of the collection and treatment of sewage and the handling of industrial wastes should be reviewed at a high level to see whether the present method now used and continued on reversing this river is best that Chicago ought to be following and pursuing for the future. Now, that is one big survey. Chicago is at this time satisfied with their present situation, they are satisfied in that they are doing everything that should be done, the only way they can relieve the situation for the people downstream is to have more water. Now, there is an issue that you people will have to resolve. Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SCHERER. In just a moment. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. Do I still evade your question; I don't mean to. Mr. SCHERER. I can't possibly see, then, how the addition of a thousand cubic feet at this time prior to such a survey or study could assist in arriving at a proper conclusion. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. I think my statement so states. I have set that forth in there. Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Dooley? Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Adams, I think your suggestion that an overall survey or study be made is a very good one. In the light of what I have observed throughout the country, but as an engineer, now, do you know of any city anywhere that does not pollute its own river, degrade it by putting effluents in it? Detroit, for example, or Chicago which has spent a half a billion dollars on a sewage plant. It can't beat the situation because of the growing population and the amount of excreta it has to handle. But every city I know of uses its river as the way to get rid of the excreta. Down through the South where they have no rivers they use the open fields, pollute the wildlife by permitting it to go through the open fields. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. Subject, Mr. Dooley, subject to the requirements of a State pollution control board or State health department the rivers available to a municipality or waters available are used to the maximum limit to assimilate and dispose of final effluent following treatment. The day of raw sewage discharge and raw waste to the public waters, I think, is pretty much over. Mr. DOOLEY. Yes; except in times of flood where they have to bypass Mr. MILTON ADAMS. During time of flood your water quality goes down. Mr. DOOLEY. The best engineering talent in New York, as I mentioned in my own situation, is available to the sewage problem. They have built five or six disposal plants at a tremendous cost, $150 million, yet they have not beaten the problem. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. We are always going to have these problems with us, Mr. Dooley, as our cities and industries keep growing. We have got to try to keep ahead of them if we can, or even with them. Mr. DOOLEY. What purpose then would this survey which you mentioned serve? I would like to see an overall survey of the sewage conditions of the country, in the main cities, but I wonder if it would serve a real purpose. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. Well, I will have to say that we are approaching, I think, this thing, if we can, through the auspices of the high court. We hope it will; our case will be convincing enough to result in the court's calling for a special master and a survey to be made, Mr. DOOLEY. I hope so. Thank you. Mr. SCHERER. Do you think that is the way it should be done rather than through the legislation now pending before the committee? Mr. MILTON ADAMS. When it comes to pollution, unless it is interstate pollution, there is no authority, is there, in the Federal Government to take action then on that unless it is an impediment to navigation? Mr. SCHERER. I agree with you. Your last statement I just wanted to be sure that I understood it correctly. You said that the solution of this problem should come through the action of the high court, didn't you say that? Mr. MILTON ADAMS. Well, that is the only way I know that it can come now if it can come at all. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Did I understand you to say a moment ago, Mr. Adams, that Chicago and its sewage problems were exempted in the act of the State legislature from any control by any State water pollution control authority? Mr. MILTON ADAMS. That is true. Mr. BALDWIN. It seems to me that in itself is an indication there has been a laxity on the part of the State legislature in taking proper action. They have exempted the city of Chicago from the same regulations they feel should apply elsewhere. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. There is a fine record of sanitary district throughout Illinois, but I believe the Chicago Sanitary District is the only one with a population in excess of 500,000 and at that figure any sanitary district with a population greater than a half a million is not subject to the Illinois Department of Health nor the Illinois Water Board in what it does or does not do. Mr. BALDWIN. It seems to me that is certainly no justification for the United States bearing the burden of a survey when the State itself has failed to apply the regulations that it applies to all its other cities. Mr. MILTON ADAMS. We have other differences with the State of Illinois, maybe that is one of them. Mr. BLATNIK. Any further questions? (No response.) Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. Our next witness is Mr. John R. Davison from the Power Authority of the State of New York, presenting a statement by the Honorable Robert Moses, chairman of the Power Authority of the State of New York. Mr. Davison, will you please take the seat. Mr. Davison, we express our appreciation to you, too, for being on hand all day yesterday for deferring to other persons who had to leave yesterday and for agreeing to stay over in order to be able to give us your testimony this morning. Will you proceed, Mr. Davison? STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MOSES, CHAIRMAN, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AS PRESENTED BY JOHN R. DAVISON Mr. DAVISON. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted to the clerk of the committee, copies Mr. BLATNIK. Would you give your title and your official capacity with your name for the record? Mr. DAVISON. My name is John R. Davison, and I appear here as a legal consultant to the Power Authority of the State of New York. As I started to say, I have submitted copies of a statement of Robert Moses, chairman of the power authority, to the Committee of Public Works of the House of Representatives in opposition to H.R. 1. I would ask that the statement in its entirety be made a part of the record of this hearing and I would like to, at this time, summarize that statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The complete statement follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT MOSES, CHAIRMAN, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK We are opposed to this bill for the following reasons: 1. It would deprive the Power Authority of legal and essential rights and put an unfair burden on the consumers of Niagara and St. Lawrence power. 2. It would set a precedent for actions which would unquestionably adversely affect the Power Authority's interests as well as those of the Nation. 3. It is unnecessary. 4. It is questionable whether Congress has the power to enrich as this bill would do, the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago at the expense of all other interests in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system, including the interests of the Power Authority, its bondholders and its customers. 5. It would nullify decisions of the International Joint Commission which have been approved by the Governments of the United States and Canada, and, therefore, is a matter which should be referred to that Commission pursuant to article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. I. The Power Authority as licensee of the Federal Power Commission for the construction of the St. Lawrence and Niagara power projects is entitled to use all of the United States share of the waters of the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers available for power. This means that the Power Authority has the right to use one-half of the available water of the St. Lawrence and one-half of the available water of the Niagara, less 5,000 cubic feet per second. On the basis of its licensed right to use such waters the Power Authority has constructed the St. Lawrence power project at a cost of $350 million borrowed from private prudent investors and is in the process of constructing the Niagara project at a cost of more than $700 million, $200 million of which it has already so borrowed, preliminary to the issuance of revenue bonds. Both projects are being financed without State or Federal credit. The Power Authority, a nonprofit public corporation, is dependent entirely upon the revenue from the sale of power to pay off its bonds. Any reduction in the amount of water available reduces the power which can be generated and sold and such loss of revenue must be borne by the power users. In accepting its licenses, in financing these projects and in fixing the rates for the sale of power to cover the costs, the Power Authority relied on the decree of the Supreme Court of April 21, 1930, limiting the amount of water that can be diverted from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system at Chicago to 1,500 cubic feet per second in addition to domestic pumpage (Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 696) on its licensed right to use the U.S. share of the water available for power and on the legal right of the State of New York as a downstream riparian State to the natural flow of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. The full effect of the additional diversion at Chicago which this bill would authorize would not be experienced in the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers for at least 41⁄2 to 5 years. Under this bill there would be no increase in diversion for 18 months after it becomes law and it takes about 3 to 31⁄2 years for a temporary diversion to reach its maximum effect after which the effect gradually diminishes over a period of 15 years. By the time such a diversion would reach its maximum effect both of the Power Authority's projects will be in full operation. Moreover, under this bill the diversion is not required to be uniform. The only limitations are that the total annual average diversion shall not exceed 2,500 cubic feet per second and no water shall be allowed to be diverted during the dry season just so long as the total annual average does not exceed 2,500 cubic feet per second and that the maximum effect of such diversion will be felt in the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers 3 years later in the dry season when water is most needed for power development. If, as made plain in the aide memoire dated January 6, 1958, setting forth Canadian views with respect to this additional diversion, the effect of the diversion is to be offset by diversions into the Great Lakes Basin from the Canadian Long Lac-Ogoki works but such additional water diverted into the Great Lakes system is to be available only to Canadian interests, the Power Authority will suffer the full loss of the additional water diverted at Chicago. The Power Authority has based its marketing arrangements on this historic flow of the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers and on the sale of virtually all of the firm kilowatts produced in any 1 month. If the Power Authority is deprived of the historic flow of these rivers by a 1 year additional diversion at Chicago of 1,000 cubic feet per second and Canadian power interests do not share the loss it will suffer a total revenue loss of $1,038,000, as shown by the following table: TABLE I.—Loss of energy, capacity and revenue from "Temporary" diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second for 1 year (beginning Dec. 1, 1960), Authority's Niagara and St. Lawrence plants Total revenue loss to Authority if Canada accepts one-half of loss-- Total revenue loss to Authority if Canada does not accept one-half of loss--- 170 percent load factor. 114, 200 $2.67 $304.533 1 171,500 * 52, 900 214, 400 $1.00 $214, 400 $518, 933 $ $1,037, 866 Total__ 285 percent load factor. Approximate. This bill is, of course, designed to open the door to a permanent additional diversion at Chicago of 1,000 cubic feet per second. The following table shows what this will mean to the Power Authority in terms of loss of energy and capacity and revenue: TABLE II.-Loss of energy, capacity, and revenue from permanent diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second-Authority's Niagara and St. Lawrence plants Annual energy loss (1,000 kw.-hr./yr.): Niagara St. Lawrence_ Total Cost (per 1,000 kw.-hr.). Annual capacity loss (kw.-yr.) : Niagara. St. Lawrence_. Total___. Cost___. Revenue loss___. Total annual revenue loss if Canada accepts one-half of loss---Total annual revenue loss if Canada does not accept one-half of loss.. Total revenue loss during term of licenses if Canada accepts onehalf of loss___. Total revenue loss during term of licenses if Canada does not accept one-half of loss-- 96, 426 27,000 123, 426 $2.67 $329, 547 16,500 3,623 20, 123 $12/kw.-yr. $241, 476 $571, 023 $1, 142, 046 $25,700,000 $51, 400, 000 For every lost kilowatt in a month the authority will lose $1 of revenue which will have to be made up by the power authority's customers and its customers will have to purchase such lost kilowatts from private utilities at substantially higher cost. There can be no question that this bill would deprive the power authority of substantial legal rights and impose upon the consumers of the power which it would otherwise be able to generate and sell unwarranted additional costs amounting to millions of dollars. II. The reason the U.S. share of the waters of the Niagara River is one-half the water available for power, less 5,000 cubic feet per second is that in the Niagara Diversion Treaty of 1950 with Canada there is a provision that the waters being diverted into the Great Lakes system from the Longlac-Ogaki Works in Canada (5,000 cubic feet per second) shall remain available solely to Canadian interests at Niagara and that those waters shall not be included in the waters allocated under the treaty. As the aide memoire shows, if there is any additional diversion at Chicago, Canada will use that diversion as a basis for urging that it have the full benefit of the diversion into the Great Lakes system through the Longlac-Ogaki Works not only on Niagara, as provided in the 1950 Treaty, but also on St. Lawrence. This has already been suggested by General McNaughton, Chairman of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission, despite prior understandings that the St. Lawrence power project is a joint international enterprise, the cost of which is to be shared by the two partners undertaking it, the Power Authority of the State of New York and the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the power produced is to be shared equally. (Submitted herewith are excerpts from the minutes of the meeting of the international joint commission in Montreal, July 14, 1958, at which that suggestion was made.) In addition, Canada would undoubtedly use any additional diversion at Chicago to justify its claim that it is entitled under article 2 of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty to divert all the water from the Columbia River in Canada so that none of it would flow into the United States and that it need only give persons in the United States thereby harmed, such right of action to recover damages as a Canadian would have if similarly harmed. The position of Canada in respect to the Columbia River diversion and the fact that it will use the Chicago diversion as supporting its position are shown in the following excerpts from the testimony of Mr. H. M. Wershof, Legal Adviser, Depart |