required to maintain the proper navigable depth of 27 feet as directed by Congress for the St. Lawrence Seaway project.

Again I ask, Is it logical to spend money on one hand to follow the directives of Congress in maintaining the depth of the St. Lawrence Seaway and then allow diversion on the other hand? This could be stopped by requiring that the water be returned from its original source, Lake Michigan, and returned to that lake.

The waters in all the Great Lakes Basin belong there, and the best policy to follow is to have all waters taken for use from the basin returned to it. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, CONGRESSMAN FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, we who are members of the House Committee on Public Works have a relatively simple problem before us in the matter of an additional 1,000cubic-feet-per-second diversion of water from the Great Lakes into the Illinois

River.

The question is whether we are going to keep our bucket filled after we have punched a hole in the bottom.

All of us agree that a full bucket-in this case the Great Lakes-is a desirable state of affairs, not only for our vast Midwest region surrounding the Great Lakes, but for our neighbor, Canada, as well.

From this year on, we are going to need an especially full bucket. We on this committee are well aware that the St. Lawrence Seaway, our dream in the Midwest for more than a half century, will become a full-fledged working reality later this year.

Now we are going to try to pull the plug.

We in the Great Lakes region have been bothered by inadequate channel depths for a number of years, and we will continue to be bothered in the future when the larger ocean-going ships start plying our waterways in ever-increasing numbers. The proposal before us today is to make these channels even shallower and narrower by the diversion of additional water from the Great Lakes.

We are asked to approve a 1-year test of this extra diversion which will bring the total to an average of some 2,500 feet per second, and much more when peak volumes are drained off Lake Michigan. We can only conclude that most of the water will be diverted during the heights of the already short Great Lakes shipping season.

May I point out to my colleagues that there is no reason for a 1-year test of this added diversion plan under existing circumstances. Such tests can only bring harm to the Great Lakes States and Canada.

First of all, we have the U.S. Corps of Engineers' report from last year stating that the full effects of such diversion would not be felt for a 3-year period at the very earliest. So, next year we will be faced with the prospect of these same people coming in here and asking for a continuation of the extra divergence so they can give this plan a fair test.

But this same Engineers' report points out another fact which seems to have been grossly overlooked by some of the members of this committee. That is that it will take some 15 years for the Great Lakes to build up enough water to completely dissipate all effects of the temporary diversion. We are asked, therefore, to give this plan a 1-year trial. Then we will be asked to give another 2-year trial period.

But if the calculations of the Engineers are not correct and more damage is done to our lake shores, our channels, and our harbor depths, then it is going to take us 15 years to correct the mistake. In my opinion, that is too great a chance for our Nation to take in a matter which has such grave consequences to the economy of such a vast portion of our country.

Now, it has also been indicated in the newspapers that some of our committee members have said that Canada has no objections to this diversion. After checking, I find that such is not the case. Members of the Canadian Parliament not only continue to object to this extra diversion, but Canadian opposition has, in fact, stiffened on this plan during the past few months. As yet, the Canadian Government has not taken a formal stand on this matter. However, a statement of Canadian policy is expected within the next 30 days. Canada has as much at stake in this matter as we have. off the Great Lakes belongs as much to our great ally as it does to us. We

The water we drain

should have absolute assurance that Canada has no objections and no reservations to this extra diversion before we take any action whatsoever.

Finally, we have been told that this hearing will be on the basis of facts alone. One of the facts in this matter, gentlemen, is that those States which are opposed to this extra diversion were not given enough time to prepare their cases before this committee hearing.

Because of the lack of time afforded by the committee to the gathering of new facts and the short notice given on the start of these hearings, I would recommend to my colleagues that we continue to take testimony from the gentlemen present and then give them an opportunity to be heard before this committee at a later date during this session of Congress.

Chairman of the House Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUCKLEY: In behalf of the people of Racine, I wish to express our opposition to the above legislation which would authorize increased diversion of water from Lake Michigan, which will be given a public hearing by the House Committee on Public Works on February 17, 1959.

On July 28, 1958, I appeared before the Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate and expressed this city's opposition to H.R. 2. My statement of that date fairly represents the views of the people of Racine and is applicable to H.R. 1.

The city of Racine is presently in a period of the lowest water it has experienced in 25 years. To give you and the committee an idea of what this means, I request that you refer to the photograph marked "D-1" which follows page 5 of my July statement hereunto annexed. At that time there was 2 inches of water over the curb of our municipal boat ramp, which was originally designed to keep trailers from going too far into the lake. That curb originally was well underwater. In the last week of November, 1958, the time of our last water level readings, the entire curb was out of water. In November the lake level at Racine was 1.1 feet below the July reading made at the time the picture D-1 was taken. In comparison to water levels at Racine for similar periods in November in recent years, I point out that the 1958 reading was approximately 1.1 feet below 1957; 1.9 feet below 1956; 1.8 feet below 1955; 2.8 feet below 1954; 0.9 feet below 1953; 3.4 feet below 1952; 3.6 feet below 1951; 1.5 feet below 1950; 0.5 feet below 1949; and 1.5 feet below 1948.

Present water levels are already at the harmful stage. Any increased lowering because of diversion at Chicago will only add to the problem. We recognize the desire of the city of Chicago to improve sanitary conditions through increased diversion. We do feel, however, that sanitary conditions should be improved through construction of sewage disposal facilities and not resorting to flushing its waste matters down the Illinois Waterway and ultimately the Mississippi River.

The Wisconsin communities have gone to great limits to build all necessary sewage disposal systems to protect other communities neighboring on the Great Lakes. We feel that it is only good neighborliness on the part of Chicago to take care of its sanitary problem in such a way that harm will not be brought upon us. If Chicago is unable to finance the necessary construction, we earnestly suggest that steps be taken to supply funds for construction, whether it be by means of rates, loans, or Federal grants.

Since it is impossible for me to personally appear before your committee, I respectfully request that this letter, together with the annexed statement of

July 28, 1958, in re H.R. 2, be made part of the committee's record of the city of Racine's opposition to H.R. 1.

Respectfully submitted.

JACK H. HUMBLE, Mayor, City of Racine, Wis.

JULY 28, 1958.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: My name is Jack H. Humble. I am mayor of the city of Racine, Wis. Racine is a heavy industrial community located on the west shore of Lake Michigan between Milwaukee, Wis., and Chicago, Ill., and is important to the industrial might of the United States because of our hard goods manufacturing. We are vitally interested in our port, the preservation of water transportation on the Great Lakes, and the elimination of unsanitary conditions presently caused by low water in Lake Michigan. Racine opposed H.R. 2 and has steadfastly opposed all similar legislation.

The bill as proposed will grant to the Chicago Sanitary District the special privilege of exploiting the waters of Lake Michigan and of the Great Lakes for the purpose of flushing sewage all the way to the Gulf of Mexico without regard for harmful effects to all persons and communities located upon the Great Lakes.

The Chicago Sanitary District has a problem which can best be solved by the construction of additional facilities and the use of improved methods and controls for the handling of sanitary waste. The use of Lake Michigan waters for the purpose of flushing sanitary waste from the Chicago Sanitary District into the Mississippi River to the detriment of all communities bordering upon the Mississippi is no solution. The rivers and canals of this country are too important to permit their use as open sewers whether the city be as large as Chicago or as small as Sturtevant, Wis.

The level of waters in the Great Lakes is cyclic. We have opposed diversion even at times of high waters with full realization that diversion would not be terminated during periods of low water. The force and drive of the proponents of the present legislation during the current period of low water in Lake Michigan is indicative of the unconcern of the people of the Chicago area for the welfare of all other communities on the Great Lakes, whether they be in the United States or Canada. The increased diversion of Lake Michigan waters at Chicago can only have the effect of enforcing low-water conditions for longer periods of time. In other words, we will experience lower and longer periods of low water. We cannot quarrel with results due to conditions permitted by God, but we can and certainly do quarrel with the results of conditions created by man. The situation at Chicago is man made.

For the purpose of assisting this committee to make a determination in re H.R. 2, I will point out some of the effects of low water at Racine, Wis. I am sure other communities are encountering similar situations. For the purpose of clarifying my remarks to the committee, I brought with me an official map of the city of Racine, together with several photographs which are keyed to the map by alphabetical symbols. It is my intention to leave this material with the committee for its further study and consideration.

Racine is bisected by the Root River, the level of which river is controlled by the waters of Lake Michigan. Root River has a bore which causes water to flow alternately upstream and then downstream. During periods of low water in Lake Michigan, Root River in part becomes malodorous due to stagnation. (The above referred to material follows:)

(The photographs mentioned will be found in the committee files.)

Photograph A is a view of Root River looking southeast at the Kinzie Avenue Bridge and the location is marked on the official map by the letter "A." You will note a man standing in the shadow of the bridge, who happens to be our city engineer. His position marks the normal point at which the water flows in the stream. When the river is at this normal height, conditions are pleasant, healthy, and conducive to the enjoyment of the people of our community.

Photograph B, which is located on the official map by the letter "B," is a view of the west channel of Root River looking northward from Rupert Boulevard. Please note the shore protection standing high and dry and the presence of small islands in the streambed, as well as stagnant conditions on the surface of the water.

Photograph B-1 is a closeup view of the river at the point marked "B."

Photograph C, which is marked on the official map by the letter "C," is a view of Root River looking in the direction of Cedar Bend, a large municipal recreation area. I direct your attention to the small amount of open water. The light portions of the picture which appear to be light sand are not sand at all; that is thick offensive-smelling scum. This particular picture is taken from a point near a residential district immediately adjacent to the public park.

Photograph D is a view of our municipal small boat launching facility located at the lake front at a point marked "D" on the map. It is within the harbor. Please consider that although this facility was constructed only 3 years ago, we have already had to lower the finger piers twice to follow the receding water level. The finger piers when originally constructed rested atop the wooden piles. The amount we have had to lower them is readily apparent.

Photograph D-1 should forcefully display to the committee the effect of low water on our boat ramp. Our city engineer has placed a carpenter's extension rule at the low end of the boat ramp. It shows 2 inches of water over the curb which was built originally to keep trailers from going too far into the lake. When originally constructed that curb was well underwater. The usefulness of the boat ramp has already been impaired by low water.

Photograph E is a view of a portion of the harbor area on the south side of Root River. Note the wooden piles which are exposed which will hasten their deterioration. These piles were designed to protect and make useful this section of our water front owned by our public utility and formerly used as a coal dock. For the purpose of demonstrating that low water causes stagnation at points in our community other than in the river itself. I offer three photographs. Photograph F is a view taken at Shoop's Park showing contaminated water at the shoreline between jetties. Shoop's Park is a municipal golf course and picnic area owned and operated by the city of Racine at the point marked on the official map by the letter "F"

Photograph F-1 is a view of the beach at the same area showing crusted matter deposited upon the beach and left because of continued low water.

Photograph F-2 is a close-up view of the same material. This condition does not exist during periods of normal water when the area is scoured by wave action.

The reason I have taken the time to demonstrate to the committee the fact that low water results in unsanitary conditions in the Racine area is to point up the fact that while the Chicago Sanitary District desires additional water to clean up its unsanitary condition, it aids in the creation of similar conditions up and down the shores of the Great Lakes for other communities. Continued low water, which is in part contributed to by diversion in Chicago, has a far more serious effect upon the Great Lakes ports.

As a nation we have gone to great lengths together with Canada to build the St. Lawrence Seaway, to deepen the connecting channels of the Great Lakes and to deepen major lake ports to serve ocean shipping. Racine is one of the ports recently deepened. Are the benefits of these programs to be thrown away by the legalization of the lowering of lake levels at this time?

The attitude of the people of our Nation toward the waters of the Great Lakes, the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence Rivers is well set forth in the Ordinance of 1787, enacted by Congress which constituted the laws for the Government of the Northwest Territory. Article IV of the Ordinance provided in part:

"*** The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory, as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor."

The 1836 Enabling Act admitting Wisconsin as a Territory provides in section 3 as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That the said State of Wisconsin shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the Mississippi and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said State of Wisconsin, so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said State and any other State or States now or hereafter to be formed or bounded by the same: and said river and waters, and the navigable waters leading into the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to all other citizens of the United States without any tax, duty, impost or toll, therefor."

It is to be noted that the aforesaid waters have been considered and dealt with as highways, nowhere do you find reference to the rivers being used as

public sewers, which is in part Chicago's use of the Mississippi River. If the lake ports are to derive any substantial benefits from the St. Lawrence Seaway they will be dependent upon the maintenance of adequate channel depths to enable ocean-going vessels to come into port. Constant dredging to new depths and reconstruction of dock facilities because of ever-reducing lake levels is economic insanity.

The city of Racine is presently doubling the capacity of its waterworks. From necessity we must raise the waters of Lake Michigan into our system. Reducing lake levels means greater pumping operations. We are presently pumping, plus or minus, 20 million gallons per day. A 1-foot drop in the level of Lake Michigan means that the city of Racine daily must supply the energy to pump the water an additional foot of height. This means we will have to supply 160 million foot-pounds of energy per day (20 million gallons per day times 8 pounds the weight of 1 gallon of water).

The State of Wisconsin has long been conscious of the obligations of our people in the field of public health. As per the Honorable Vernon W. Thompson, Governor of our State, the Wisconsin State Committee on Water Pollution in recent years has issued orders to 117 property owners discharging waste to the Rock River and its tributaries for the purpose of abating pollution. The State of Wisconsin, fully conscious of the value of clean unpolluted streams, is pursuing an energetic program. The Rock River and its tributaries ultimately empty into the Mississippi River.

At the end of World War II, the city of Racine in cooperation with the State department of public health, undertook a gigantic program for the purpose of separating storm and sanitary waters. Our city was then over 100 years old. Our sanitary system was built upon then considered proper engineering standards. During storm periods our sewage disposal plant was not able to handle the flow and of necessity some unsanitary material was being discharged directly into Lake Michigan bypassing the plant. Our separation program is almost complete. After the expenditure of approximately $9 million in the immediate postwar years we are now in position to state that the city of Racine is discharging into the waters of Lake Michigan and effluent which is considered from the standpoint of health as being safe. The solids we retained in our own sludge beds.

The adequacy of our program can best be gaged by the fact that our intake pipe for bringing drinking water into the city system is located in Lake Michigan approximately 2 miles from the point of discharge of the effluent from our sewage disposal plant. The financial limits to which the city of Racine is willing to go to improve sanitary conditions in Lake Michigan can best be gaged by the simple statement of the fact that we have borrowed approximately $9 million for sewer construction out of a potential borrowing power of about $30 million.

The little village of Sturtevant, located 7 miles west of Racine, having a population of less than 2,000 people, has undertaken the complete reconstruction of its sewage disposal system in order to assure that its effluent which ultimately discharges into the Pike River and then into Lake Michigan, is safe.

What the people of Wisconsin are doing in the Racine area is exemplary of the conduct of people throughout the State. We understand the value of water. We do not propose to render it useless by contamination. We are fully aware of the fact that bad practices of the Wisconsin cities would seriously endanger Chicago and other communities on the lower end of the lake.

Concerned as we are with the welfare of the people in the entire Great Lakes area we cannot understand how the Chicago Sanitary District can have the temerity to seek special privilege from the Congress of the United States for the benefit of Chicago to the disadvantage of every other community bordering the Great Lakes.

I urge you to carefully weigh this matter. H.R. 2 and S. 1193 are legally, morally, and economically wrong. The rights of the various parties to the dispute of water diversion were settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1930. That decision should not be altered by a legislative act. Congress and the President of the United States have rejected similar proposals in almost every session since 1937. It would not be well to nullify this commendable record of public interest by affirmative action on this unfortunate legislation. If the Chicago Sanitary District is economically unable to stand the cost of building facilities and instituting improved methods and controls for the handling of its raw sewage without the resort to flushing with Lake Michigan