water, I honestly request this committee to consider ways and means of giving economic assistance to the Chicago area for the purpose stated as an alternative to the granting of the request for increased diversion. Annexed hereto and made a part of this report for the committee's consideration are two documents. The first is a resolution expressing the attitude of the chamber of commerce of the city of Racine, and the second is a resolution of the common council of the city of Racine expressing its view in regard to the pending legislation. I want to express personally and in behalf of the people of Racine, Wis., appreciation to this committee and its chairman, Senator Dennis Chavez, for the opportunity to appear before you and express the attitude of our people in regard to this pending legislation. Respectfully submitted. (The above-mentioned documents follow :) Hon. JACK H. HUMBLE, Mayor of Racine, Racine, Wis. JACK H. HUMBLE, Mayor of the City of Racine, Wis. RACINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, DEAR MAYOR HUMBLE: It is our understanding that you have been given the opportunity to appear before the Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate on July 28, 1958, in opposition to H.R. 2-water diversion bill. We are attaching to this letter a resolution pertaining to water diversion which was adopted by the board of directors of the Racine Chamber of Commerce on June 3, 1957, and request that you include the resolution as a part of your testimony during your appearance before the Public Works Committee. Be it noted also that this letter authorizes you to speak for the Racine Chamber of Commerce as its representative before the said committee. Very truly yours, DARRELL WRIGHT, Manager, Racine Chamber of Commerce. RESOLUTION OF RACINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, RACINE, WIS. Whereas it has come to the attention of the Racine, Wis., Chamber of Commerce that the House of Representatives has approved a bill to authorize increased diversion of Great Lakes waters at Chicago, Ill.; and Whereas the bill is now pending before the U.S. Senate; and Whereas the city of Racine, Wis., and other port cities and maritime interests on the Great Lakes have expressed interest in and supported wholeheartedly the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway, including the deepening and improving of connecting channels of the Great Lakes, all of which have been endorsed by the Racine, Wis., Chamber of Commerce; and Whereas a number of port cities have made substantial improvements and investments in harbor facilities and others, including Racine, are making surveys and laying basic groundwork for a realistic approach to permit maximum use of present and expanded facilities, all of which are predicated on the maintenance of adequate channel depths; and Whereas further diversion of Great Lakes waters at Chicago could seriously affect and reduce channel depths, and thereby adversely affect the economy of the Great Lakes ports, including Racine, by tax reduction of benefits to be gained from the St. Lawrence Seaway: Be it Resolved, That the board of directors of the Racine Chamber of Commerce do hereby oppose legislation which would cause further waters to be diverted from the Great Lakes at Chicago, and do hereby urge Wisconsin Senator Alexander Wiley to oppose any such legislation; be it further Resolved, That the mayor of the city of Racine or a representative of the city, appointed by him, should it be advisable, be authorized to appear before the appropriate Senate committee, expressing the opposition of the Racine Chamber of Commerce to the proposed legislation; and be it further Resolved, That the secretary be authorized and directed to send copies of this resolution to Senator Alexander Wiley, Claude Ver Duin, executive secretary, Great Lakes Harbors Association, Mayor Jack H. Humber, William D. Stansil, executive secretary, Manufacturers' Association of Racine, and to other interested parties. Dated June 3, 1957. (Signed) DARRELL WRIGHT, Manager, Racine Chamber of Commerce. A RESOLUTION Whereas the House of Representatives has adopted a bill authorizing increased diversion of Great Lakes waters at Chicago, Ill., which bill is now pending before the U.S. Senate; and Whereas the city of Racine and other port cities and maritime interests on the Great Lakes have long supported the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway, together with the deepening and improving of the connecting channels of the Great Lakes, with particular reference to the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, the St. Mary's River, and some shoal spots in the Straits of Mackinac; and Whereas some of the aforesaid port cities have already undertaken substantial port development and other cities are planning improved facilities to permit handling of large vessels, all of which are dependent upon maintaining adequate channel depths; and Whereas increased diversion of Great Lakes waters at Chicago will gradually lower lake levels, reduce channel depths, and substantially interfere with the full realization of the economic benefits to be derived from the St. Lawrence Seaway and connecting channel projects; and Whereas the benefits to be derived in the Chicago area through increased diversion are minimum when compared to the substantial damage to all of the communities bordering upon the Great Lakes; and Whereas the ultimate solution to the Chicago Sanitary District problem is the construction of additional facilities and the use of improved methods and controls, other than simply flushing with the waters of Lake Michigan, which in itself is merely passing the Chicago Sanitary District problem on to the other communities bordering upon the Mississippi watershed; and Whereas with particular respect to the city of Racine the proposed increased diversion of Great Lakes waters will substantially interfere with the Racine harbor and facilities already constructed as well as the proposed development of the entire south shore of the city: Be it Resolved, That the mayor and Common Council of the City of Racine do hereby go on record opposing legislation the purpose of which is to authorize increased diversion of Great Lakes waters at Chicago, and we do hereby urge Senator Alexander Wiley to oppose said legislation; and be it further Resolved, That should it be deemed advisable, the mayor or some other representative of the city selected by him, be authorized to appear and testify before the Senate committee expressing the opposition of the city of Racine to the proposed legislation; and be it further Resolved, That the city clerk be and hereby is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to Senator Alexander Wiley. STATE OF WISCONSIN, County of Racine, ss: I, Frank J. Becker, city clerk of the city of Racine, Racine County, Wis., do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a meeting of the common council on June 4, 1957. Dated this 25th day of July 1958. Hon. CHARLES BUCKLEY, FRANK J. BECKER, City Clerk. [Western Union telegram] BUFFALO, N.Y. Congressman, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, The Council of Lake Erie Ports hereby registers its opposition to H.R. 1 which is presently pending before your committee. We believe this to be in derogation of the water rights and treaty obligation of the United States of America. Council takes a strong position in opposition to diversion of water from the Great Lakes watershed when the diversion of said water is not designed to return said water to the Great Lakes watershed. We urge this committee to defeat this COUNCIL OF LAKE ERIE PORTS, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUCKLEY: Attached is a statement of the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce regarding increased water diversion from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway. Our organization has consistently opposed any increased diversion of water from the Great Lakes, and the statement reiterates that position. We should appreciate having it made a part of the record of your hearings relative to H.R. 1. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, [S] C. C. Fichtner, CHARLES C. FICHTNER, STATEMENT OF THE BUFFALO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS IN OPPOSITION TO INCREASING THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE GREAT LAKES AT CHICAGO Since the opening of the 86th Congress several bills, including H.R. 1, have been introduced on the floor of the House calling for a study of the effects of increased water diversion from the Great Lakes at Chicago. Such action is not new to the annals of congressional history for similar efforts have been made for many years to increase the flow of water from the Great Lakes to the Illinois Waterway. Countless proposals have been submitted to Congress calling both for studies of diversion and actual diversion itself. The Buffalo Chamber of Commerce has consistently objected to these proposals for two reasons: (a) The adverse effect of water diversion upon the volume of water that will be available for hydroelectric power purposes in the Niagara River; and (b) Its adverse effect upon the water levels required at lake ports, and especially at Buffalo, for safe navigation of lake freighters and the deep-draft vessels which will use the St. Lawrence Seaway beginning this year. The effect of increased diversion on water levels and on hydroelectric power was dealt with at considerable length in a recent study of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That study clearly illustrated the progressive annual effect that would result from increased withdrawal over a period of 15 years. It indicated that the effect would be so gradual that it would be relatively negligible at the end of the first 3 years. The full impact would not be realized until at least 15 years had elapsed. Thus, it is evident that a 3-year study would be meaningless insofar as the effect of diversion upon waterborne commerce and hydroelectric power production is concerned. The St. Lawrence Seaway will become a reality in a matter of months. Millions of dolars have been spent in the construction of this project which is aimed at opening the Great Lakes to world commerce. Likewise, millions of dollars have been, are being, and will be spent to deepen the connecting lake channels and the lake ports themselves. As an example, this year's Federal budget includes more than $2 million for further deepening work in Buffalo's harbor. Any lowering of lake levels will add to these costs, if the projected depths of connecting lake channels and lake ports are to be realized. Work is now progressing rapidly on the construction of a new $720 million hydroelectric Niagara power project. Despite the tremendous generating potential of this new project there will not be enough power to satisfy the needs of all those who feel they are entitled to its use. Thus, it seems obvious that the full benefits of this huge investment will not be realized if increased water diversion becomes a reality. In conclusion, we submit that the weight of evidence, as outlined in this statement, is strongly against any proposed study of increased withdrawal, and we urge the defeat of any and all such measures, including those contained in the bill, H.R. 1, presently under consideration. Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC., Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY: Thank you for your notification of February 6, informing the American Waterways Operators, Inc., of the proposed meeting of the Committee on Public Works, Tuesday, February 17, 1959, to consider 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. As you no doubt know, the American Waterways Operators, Inc., which is the official spokesman of the barge and towing vessel industry, has consistently supported the principles enunciated by H.R. 1 when similar legislation was previously considered during the 82d, 83d, 84th, and 85th Congresses. On behalf of the American Waterways Operators, Inc., we would like to go again on record in support of these principles, and HR. 1 and other similar legislation being considered by the 86th Congress, which we feel are in the public interest. Since the committee is restricting its hearings this year to the receipt of only new engineering and economic data, specific in nature and directly bearing on the purposes of the pending bill, may this letter serve as a request to be informed of the material which the committee receives so that we may have the benefit of giving you our views on this new information in the event it is appropriate. I would appreciate your incorporating this letter reemphasizing our position in support of. H.R. 1, and similar legislation, in the official transcript of the House Committee on Public Works' hearings on this subject. Sincerely yours, BRAXTON B. CARR, President. THE LAKE ERIE WATERSHED CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, Congressman CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, DEAR MR. BUCKLEY: It is my understanding that the Committee on Public Works will meet on February 17, 1959, to consider H.R. 1, which would authorize an increas in the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway. It is requested that this letter be made a part of the record of that meeting. The Lake Erie Watershed Conservation Foundation is a nonprofit educational organization incorporated under the laws of Ohio. It is dedicated to the development of the Lake Erie watershed in the territory of northern Ohio. This foundation recognizes that the greatest asset that this region and the State of Ohio has is the water of the Great Lakes and that any attempt to increase diversion at Chicago, or to allow future diversion in any other place, is a step toward interfering with the great resource and with dangers to the Great Lakes region that no one today can estimate. One does not have to be a political expert to know that if one area is allowed to divert, many other areas will make similar demands. You may be interested to know that the Province of Ontario a few years ago became interested in the program of this foundation and adopted a provisional water and sewer system for the use of the Province, but only within the watershed of the Great Lakes basin. There is good reason to believe that the interest of Ontario in the use of Great Lakes water may have influenced Canadian shipping companies when they re cently adopted a resolution opposing all diversion of Great Lakes waters. They were joined in this resolution by Great Lakes shipping companies of the United States. Two years ago spoke before a meeting of the Great Lakes Commission in which I stated that this foundation is unalterably opposed to any diversion of water outside the Great Lakes Basin. This decision was made after a long study of facts, including the potential danger not only to shipping but to all who live in the region. We are not representing any special interests but we represent everybody. We continue to have that opposition and urge that no action be taken to adopt H.R. 1. Sincerely yours, Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, JOHN H. BYRNE, FEDERAL ENGINEERING CO., Milwaukee, Wis., February 11, 1959. Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, DEAR CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY: May I ask you to insert the enclosed statement in the record of the first hearing on the O'Brien Chicago water diversion bill next week. I am particularly sorry that previously made plans prevent my being present. The bald fact is that never before was the record so bad for the consideration of any bill by your committee. The actual fact is that the water level of Lake Michigan was down to 577.69 last month as compared with the official figure of 578.5-and that unofficial soundings taken this month show the level at 577.33, which is 0.2 lower than the figure of 577.35 as of February 1926, which was the lowest level in the long history of Lake Michigan. Accordingly, will you kindly place the enclosed statements in the record because they so clearly show why your committee ought not to approve the Chicago request at this time. Regretting my inability to be present next week, and trusting the enclosed data will be informative to your committee in deferring consideration of Chicago's unfortunate request, I am, Very truly yours, R. F. MALIAN, Harbor Consultant. LAKE MICHIGAN FAST APPROACHING NEW LOW LEVEL The lowest monthly mean level of Lake Michigan was recorded in February 1926 when it dropped to 577.35 feet. An unofficial reading of the lake level this week recorded a new low level of 577.33. This new record low level will not become official until adjustments are made at the end of the month. However, the monthly mean level last month was 577.69-nearly a foot below the average monthly mean of last year. Thus, in view of the past history of February levels it is expected that this month there will be set a new low level in Lake Michigan. The highest level was set in June of 1886 when the monthly mean hit 583.68. The closest in this century-to date-came in 1952 when the level reached 582.04. The 98-year record of mean surface levels-from 1860 to 1957-was 580.58. Thus, the 1958 average monthly mean was nearly 3 feet lower than the 98-year average. The monthly mean levels since 1955 were also lower than the 98-year average. The official level for January 1959 was 577.69-the lowest level in the 50year period since the turn of the century. Lake Michigan levels are established at 578.5 feet above mean tide at New York City. Thus, this February which unofficially has reached a new low level, may break the longstanding record of low water established in February of 1926 at |