I note particularly the request in this application for the appointment of a permanent master to maintain surveillance over the operation of facilities by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. In this connection, I am impressed by the willinguess of the involved Great Lakes States, other than Illinois, to participate in a conference "for the purpose of discussing this total problem and attempting to see if some amicable solution can be worked out." It is my understanding that this suggestion has been persistently rejected by the State of Illinois. It seems to me that the already established findings of the Supreme Court are adequate in this matter; that the enactment of this legislation would not alter the facts as to the established damage done through a lower rate of diversion even than that proposed in this bill; that this legislation would, in effect, arbitrarily brush aside proper findings and decrees of the Court, and that the effect of this legislation would be to confirm the attitude and position of intransigence on the part of the State of Illinois. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCES P. BOLTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me an opportunity to present a statement in opposition to H.R. 1, a bill to require a study to be conducted of the effect of increasing the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway. As you know, this subject has been debated in practically every session of Congress since 1937. The Great Lakes Harbors Association, the port cities of the Great Lakes, the Lake Carriers' Association, and the governments of the States bordering the Great Lakes have always been united in opposition to the demands of Chicago for permission to divert additional water from Lake Michigan. While we realize that the measure presently under consideration (H.R. 1) is deemed to be a study bill, we feel that its enactment will be a detriment to the best interest of all areas in the Great Lakes other than Chicago. In Ohio our industries have a great need for additional water for industrial use, however we oppose diversion of water where there is no means provided for returning water to the lakes. The diversion of water from Lake Michigan will lower the natural level of that lake and the other Great Lakes, their connecting and tributary waters and the St. Lawrence River, thereby reducing the carrying capacity of ships and leading to higher transportation costs. At this time we in the Midwest are anticipating the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway to large oceangoing vessels. When the Federal Government is spending large sums to deepen the Great Lakes connecting channels and improve the harbors on the Great Lakes to accommodate these deepdraft vessels, it would be most inconsistent to permit this measure to pass which will eventually result in lowering the lake levels. It is my hope that the committee will table H.R. 1 and all other bills which would permit additional diversion of water into the Illinois Waterway. STATEMENT OF HON. T. J. DULSKI, A REPERESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, and members of this distinguished Committee on Public Works, duties within my district prevent my personal appearance as a witness at your meeting this morning when you will consider H.R. 1. I would like to state for the record that I am unalterably opposed to the diversion of one single drop of water from the Great Lakes Basin through the Chicago Sanitation District into the Illinois Waterway, either under the guise of sanitation or navigation benefits through the subterfuge of a so-called study which would require the stealing of this additional water for a considerable period of time to the great detriment of shipping, recreational, and industrial purposes along the Niagara Frontier. I firmly believe that any waters taken from a basin for any purpose whatsoever, as a matter of public policy, should be returned to the same basin. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 16, 1959. Chairman, Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Committee on Public Works, 1304 New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am very much concerned about the proposal before you again at this time to provide for a further divergence of waters from Lake Michigan for use in sewage disposal at Chicago. I urge that every consideration be given the opponents of the legislation who feel that further diversion of Lake Michigan waters will, among other evils, constitute a dangerous precedent, jeopardize the St. Lawrence Seaway activities, violate certain treaties between the United States and Canada, and, in view of the growing demand for water for domestic and industrial uses, will create a general menace. Thank you for your attention to these arguments in opposition to the proposal before you, I am Sincerely, CHARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HENRY S. REUSS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to make a statement in opposition to H.R. 1 and related measures that provide for the diversion of additional water from Lake Michigan by Chicago. The problem raised by H.R. 1 is not a new one, but it is no less critical because we are all familiar with it. The waterways that are the mainstream of commerce between the Great Lakes region and the world cannot but be adversely affected by the proposed diversion plan. To impair the flow of commerce by lowering the water level of the Great Lakes is to cause irreparable harm to the economy and well-being of this great segment of America's heartland. This consequence must follow regardless of the merits of the proposition that the water to be diverted could be put to good use elsewhere. We have testimony, for example, that the supplemental study being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers into the effects of diverting an additional 1,000 cubic feet per second will show that this diversion could decrease the carrying capacity of the United States and Canadian merchant fleets on the Great Lakes by as much as 1,500,000 tons per year, with a corresponding loss of income. To fully appreciate the harmful effects of the diversion plan, it is essential to understand that any diversion of water from Lake Michigan naturally lowers not only the level of that lake but also the levels of Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, their connecting and tributary waters and the St. Lawrence River. This combination of consequences, it seems to me, underscores the basic weakness of the diversion proposal. Just as we are about to substantially increase the cargo-carrying capacity of the Great Lakes fleets by opening the St. Lawrence Seaway, we find ourselves confronted with a proposal to siphon off the Seaway's capacity. 1 urge that H.R. 1 not be favorably reported. Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BUCKLEY: I am writing this letter to you because I would like to make clear some of my views on the Great Lakes diversion bills which are being considered by your committee. I believe there is some question as to the effect of diversion of waters in the study recently made by the Corps of Army Engineers. Their study showed that a 3-year diversion would definitely affect navigation and hydroelectric generation while a 1-year diversion would have, it is true, a practically unmeasurable impact in lowering the levels on the waters on the lakes. From this it can be seen that a permanent diversion of waters would be disastrous. This study shows that the efforts of the proponents of the plan to 37981-59- -14 take waters out of the Great Lakes to help Chicago for a 1-year diversion, completely misses the point of what would happen to the level of waters if a 3-year period or a permanent diversion were made. I am sure that your committee will want to study further reports that are now in the process of being made by the Corps of Army Engineers before any decision is reached in regard to these bills. I had hoped to appear before your committee in strong opposition to these bills but a very important meeting of the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee scheduled at the same time makes my visit impossible. Very sincerely yours, STEPHEN M. YOUNG, U.S. Senator. Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 16, 1959. Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: I have received the notice of the meeting on H.R. 1, a bill to require a study to be conducted of the effect of increasing the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway for navigation and for other purposes. I cannot appear before the committee in connection with this bill, but I do want you to know that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is opposed to H.R. 1 and enclose, for your information, a letter dated February 9 from Anne X. Alpern, attorney general, department of justice, Harrisburg, Pa., setting forth the reasons for opposition to this proposal. I will appreciate it, if this communication has not been made a part of the record, that it be included therein. Thanking you, I am, Sincerely yours, FRANCIS E. WALTER. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I wish to call to your attention the very serious adverse effects upon Pennsylvania of H.R. 1, introduced into the House by Mr. O'Brien of Illinois and referred to the Committee on Public Works. This bill would permit the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago to divert out of the Great Lakes 2,500 cubic feet per second of water for a period of 12 months. At the present time, the metropolitan sanitary district diverts 3,500 cubic feet per second from the Great Lakes Basin pursuant to a decree of the U.S. Supreme Court, in addition to diverting an unknown quantity of water for domestic pumpage. The right to divert domestic pumpage is now being tested before the U.S. Supreme Court by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the other Great Lakes States. The additional diversion which would be authorized by this bill would lower the level of Lake Erie 12 to 2 inches. While this may appear to be but a slight matter, it would affect adversely all riparian landowners and seriously interfere with the operations of the port of Erie. Much effort and money have been expended to maintain a deep channel at this port. The lowering of the lake level vitiates this work. Moreover, the lowering of the lake level would result in a loss of 1 to 12 million tons of shipping each year for each inch by which the lake level is lowered. The Great Lakes barges, which carry so much of the commerce of this region, are loaded to the nearest inch. Consequently, the maintenance of lake levels is of utmost importance to the shipping industry and the commerce of the Great Lakes area. This commerce is a significant factor in Pennsylvania's economy. The lowering of the lake level also affects the power potential at Niagara. Since a large section of Pennsylvania will be among the preferred users when the hydroelectric power is developed, this potential loss of cheap power also affects Pennsylvania adversely. The diversion of water, one of our most precious natural resources, out of its watershed area in order to benefit some other area, constitutes a new and dangerous principle of law. Very sincerely yours, ANNE X. ALPERN, Attorney General. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to express my gratitude to this committee for permitting me to appear, with my collagues from the Chicago area of the State of Illinois, in support of H.R. 1. As you know, I introduced in the current Congress a companion measure to this bill, identical in form and seeking only-in the face of conditions which we know require remedy-to authorize the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to test the effect of increased diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway. This is my first opportunity to appear before the members of this committee in support of this measure. We in Illinois know the need of our State for this proposed legislation, and I express the appreciation of my district for the previous approval given this legislation in prior sessions of Congress. You are so thoroughly familiar with the details of this legislation that I shall not take the committee's valuable time to again analyze the bill. May I point out to you, however, the growing need in the Chicago area, as our population has grown, for prompt congressional action on this water diversion measure. I express the need for increased water supply to protect the health and life of the growing population of the entire Chicago area. At the present time, authorized diversion from Lake Michigan, recently increased temporarily through emergency action, is again restrained to only 1,500 cubic feet of water per second. This is the amount which has been authorized since 1933, despite the fact that in the past 20 years there has been a population increase of over 1 million in the area along the Illinois Waterway. At the time that the 1,500-cubic-foot limitation was set in 1933, it was stated in the report as follows: "It does not appear possible to arrive at a conclusive determination whether this flow will afford suitable sanitary conditions on the waterway after the sewage purification plants at Chicago have been completed and placed in operation." Since that report was made, the Sanitary District of Chicago is now, and has been since 1950, providing complete treatment for substantially all of its sewage; but still the sanitary district testifies that there is serious pollution in the upper 50 to 60 miles of the Illinois Waterway and that there can be no marked improvement until more fresh water is available. Competent authorities feel that the desired increase in water diversion that might be granted after the test period would further benefit the entire State of Illinois. It would undoubtedly serve to provide a clean stream. It would also better meet the needs for river traffic on the Illinois Waterway, which has increased from 200,000 tons a year to over 17 million tons a year. With the growing need for commercial development following the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, an increase in water along the waterway greater than that now provided by the 1,500 cubic feet of water diversion would be a magnificent boon to the entire Chicago metropolitan area. There is universal acceptance of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the present 1,500 cubic feet of water diversion is no longer adequate. I would repeat that the millions of citizens of Chicago and its suburbs, as well as those living along the waterway, join me in urging the increased diversion as a safeguard to their health and as necessary to handle the increased commerce already in evidence. In closing, I would state that we are not now seeking enactment of this bill as a permanent measure. This legislation provides only temporary relief for the immediate need and allows the Corps of Engineers ample opportunity to study the effects of such increased diversion on navigation, sanitation, and on flood control. It is an honor for me to join the dean of the Illinois delegation, Mr. O'Brien, in urging your favorable consideration of this legislation. It is with a great source of pride that I point out to you that our Illinois Representatives stand united in their support of this measure. We are hoping, and definitely expecting, that this year all objections will be withdrawn; and that the legislation, once it is passed by both Houses of Congress, will obtain the necessary Presidential approval. As a first step, I would again respectfully ask for your own prompt approval of H.R. 1. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN VICTOR A. KNOX, REPUBLICAN, OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to again appear before your committee so I may extend my views into the record relative to H.R. 1, which provides for a study to be conducted of the effect of increasing the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway for navigation and for other purposes. Since the notice from your committee requests that the testimony to be received by you today be limited to new material I ask that you refer to my testimony before this committee in March of 1957 and before the Senate Public Works Committee in July of 1958 on H.R. 2 of the 85th Congress. I call to your particular attention that the 11th Congressional District of Michigan, which I have the honor to represent, is surrounded by three of the Great Lakes; namely, Michigan, Huron, and Superior. The Federal Government spends millions of dollars annually in maintaining adequate depths in the connecting channels and shallow areas of these Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway route. The ports and cities of my district spend large sums of money for the same purpose. Isn't it illogical to spend money on one hand so that proper depths can be maintained and then allow a diversion on the other hand that affects the maintenance of such depths, particularly when this could be stopped by requiring the Sanitary District of Chicago and the State of Illinois to return the water to Lake Michigan? This is done by all other industries and municipalities on the Great Lakes, and the Sanitary District of Chicago should be mandated to do the same. We are all aware that the levels of the Great Lakes are governed by the amount of rain and snow that falls in the areas which contribute to the connecting channels, outlet rivers, and all the inner harbors, bays, inlets, and river mouths along the respective shorelines of these Great Lakes waters. During the last week I had the occasion to visit my district in Michigan and found again, as I did in 1957, and which I reported to your committee at that time, that the water level of Lake Superior is down. I want to emphasize again to you at this time, Lake Superior is the natural area of feeding the lower lakes, and if the level of Lake Superior is down it's just commonsense that the levels of the other lakes are down. The Federal Government has entered into a firm contract with industry in my howntown of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., for the use of the water from Lake Superior and again I stress that after this water is taken from Lake Superior, it is returned to the St. Marys River which flows on down into the lower lakes. The Federal Government has been unable to fulfill its part of the contract with this industry because of the severe cutback in the cubic feet per second as provided in the contract. This directly affects the production of power upon which the industry is dependent. Right at this moment this is presenting a serious problem and it is going to be necessary for the industry to request the Federal Government to renegotiate the contract in order to relieve the burden of the cost involved for water usage. This is going to have a direct effect upon the Treasury of the United States. In my district alone the Federal Government is going to spend $23 million on the connecting channels of the Great Lakes in fiscal year 1960. The artificial lowering of the levels of the Great Lakes caused by any diversion at Chicago for domestic pumpage from Lake Michigan will continue to nullify these costly improvements made by the Federal Government under direct authority of Congress, and the costly improvements made by the State of Michigan, local governments, private industries, and individuals. Previous large and substantial losses have cost, and will continue to cost, the Government many millions of dollars in extra dredging and maintenance work |