which, in the very near future, will become not only a local, but a national asset, for waterborne transportation and for transfer of goods and cargo to other forms of transportation at the crossroads of America.

With respect to navigation, the Corps of Engineers has stated that the effect upon lake levels of diverting an additional thousand cubic feet per second is so small that it is impractical to evaluate it in monetary terms.

We would oppose any action that would adversely affect the great economic assets of the Great Lakes. We sincerely believe-on the basis of all the facts-that there will be no practical economic loss with the additional diversion of 1,000 cubic feet as proposed by the bill.

The people who live in the region of the Great Lakes have been blessed with a great natural resource. In Chicago and Cook County the use of this precious water has been devoted primarily to the welfare of people-not for economic interests. Chicago has one of the finest water distribution systems in the world, serving not only the city but 58 suburbs at a cost identical to residents of the city. A few years ago we built the largest filtration plant in the world and we are now building another three times as large.

All of Chicago and the suburbs will have filtered water.

It was to protect the health of the people that more than half a billion dollars have been invested in the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.

The flow of the Chicago River was reversed so that our drinking water would not be polluted and so that our lakefront could become a magnificent recreational area. This has been called one of the engineering wonders of the world.

Our lakefront has 28 miles of beaches-a recreational area used by millions of people from every walk of life.

It can be truly said that the people of Chicago have willingly spent more than a billion dollars in utilizing this great natural resource for health, recreation, and commerce.

The bill you are considering-H.R. 1-is a simple, direct bill. There are no grounds for misinterpretation.

Its requirement of a study to be conducted of the effect of increasing the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway for navigation and other purposes will allow only an additional 1,000 cubic feet per second for a 12-month period.

Objective studies would be conducted by two agencies of the Federal Government, eminently capable of such studies; namely, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Department of the Army.

The Congress, upon completion of this study, will receive a report and recommendation from the Secretary of the Army. The passage of H.R. 1 and the completion of the studies and recommendation required therein, will shed the calm light of truth upon any controversy. Then the Congress-and the Congress alone-will decide.

The people of Chicago and the State of Illinois have faith and trust in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. DAVIS. A very comprehensive statement, Mr. Mayor. Any questions on the part of any member of the committee?

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mayor Daley for his wonderful statement. But Mayor Daley, the main op

position to this legislation is the shipping interests on the Great Lakes such as the Lake Carriers' Association. Don't you agree with me that if we pass this legislation and diverted this extra 1,000 cubic feet per second and if it would harm the shipping interests or the shipping industry; then you would be opposed to the extra 1,000 cubic feet per second?

Mr. DALEY. We have said time and time again, Congressman, that the people of Chicago are not interested in hurting any other people in any other State or the shipping interests of the Great Lakes. If, as you say, the experiment proved it was harmful, I would not be here advocating the passage of such legislation.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I feel the same as you do, Mr. Mayor. We want to help the shipping industry. I have no further questions. Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. I would like to ask Mayor Daley a question. I understand from your testimony and others who have been here this morning, that the Supreme Court some 30 years ago had put a restriction on the amount of diversion from the Great Lakes to the city of Chicago. What is the purpose behind this bill? Why don't they go to the Supreme Court instead of trying to circumvent the Supreme Court?

Mr. DALEY. I don't think, Congressman Broomfield, we are trying to circumvent. I think there is adequate provision under our law to come to the Congress on questions that are before the Supreme Court on problems that the Supreme Court has grappled with and this study that we are asking, we feel it is within the province of this distinguished Congress to conduct such a study, and I don't think we are trying to circumvent in any way the Supreme Court but on the contrary appealing directly to the representatives of the people who within their wisdom authorized this study, can direct it be made and then forever we will shed light and truth on this question that is being debated.

As we said a moment ago, I don't know--I am very honest-whether this would harm or whether it would injure anyone; but I say to you in all sincerity, if this would create any undue burden to the lake carriers, any other city, I would not be here advocating it.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mayor Daley, don't you also believe that this study should also go into the effects it will have on the St. Lawrence seaway, in other words, the cost of deepening the channels and things of that nature?

Mr. DALEY. I should think it would be comprehensive. I would think that would be done by the Corps of Army Engineers as well as other governmental agencies.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Scherer?

Mr. SCHERER. I understood you to say, Mr. Mayor, on two or three occasions that if this study should prove to be harmful to the shipping interests and the lower lake areas that you would be opposed to making the additional diversion permanent.

Mr. DALEY. I would think so; yes.

Mr. SCHERER. In other words, is the 1-year diversion that is proposed in the O'Brien bill, is that sufficient to enable the Army Engineers to determine what permanent damage would be done if the diversion is made permanent.

Mr. DALEY. Congressman, in all due respect I don't feel I am qualified technically or expertly to answer that question. I think the one that would do that would be the Army Corps of Engineers, I would say this as a layman, we surely would be in a lot better position than we are today because we would have at least the benefit of 12 months of study and on that 12 months, as you asked the question, could we project or translate it into what it would mean in the future years?

Mr. SCHERER. I think the 12-month study of the additional diversion would certainly help the city of Chicago with its problem and you have a very real problem, there is no question about that.

Mr. DALEY. With the expansion of our metropolitan area along with the city, as you know, comes the aggravated and increased problem of handling this.

Mr. SCHERER. The only question that is now in my mind and I think what this committee and the Congress must eventually determine is whether the 1-year diversion would be sufficient for the Army engineers to determine what the damage would be if the diversion was made permanent.

Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the testimony you have given. Mr. Spencer, the president of the Lakes Carriers Association, reports that a study of the Corps of Engineers indicates to him-this in his judgment, it is only theory-that the diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second for a period of 1 year would reduce the tonnage of shipping on the Great Lakes by 1,500,000 tons, at a great cost to the Canadian and U.S. shipping interests.

Do you agree with that?

Mr. DALEY. I think again it is a conclusion, Congressman, that has been drawn by many people who can naturally draw what conclusions you might from facts that would be unproven and I think the experiment we are trying to prove is to give the answer to what you are saying as compiled by people who have not a selfish interest, I would say, but a self-serving interest in the conclusion, and that we are trying to say on the contrary that this will do not any damage to the waterborne carriers and, therefore, we would like to have some study made.

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mayor Daley, I would like to ask you one further question.

You are presently receiving a diversion right now. Has there ever been a study made of the present amount that you are receiving, what effects it would have on the Great Lakes?

Mr. DALEY. Well, as you recall prior to the decision we were receiving a diversion of approximately 8,500 cubic feet.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. I recognize that, but now you are asking for an additional thousand.

Mr. DALEY. Well, the diversion we could say, answering it in the same way that much of this is answered and not to be evasive, during the high waters of 1951 and 1952, we were taking the diversion and millions of dollars of property damage was done along the lake, as recorded by the Congressman from Indiana, because of the high waters, when their diversion was taking place.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. My question was you have been receiving this since 1930, approximately?

Mr. DALEY. Thats' right.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Has there ever been a study made of that amount of water taken from the Great Lakes?

Mr. DALEY. Whether it would damage in any way?

Mr. BROOMFIELD. That's right.

Mr. DALEY. I couldn't answer that; I think it would be the Corps of Engineers that could do that.

Mr. McFALL. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, Mr. McFall.

Mr. McFALL. Mr. Mayor, you refer in your testimony to the effect of the additional stormwater drainage on the amount of water which you are permitted to divert under the terms of the 1930 decision. Would you discuss that again, sir, in a little more detail? That is the first time I have heard that.

Mr. DALEY. I would like to clarify that.

You see our gages lower down in the canal, Rockport, as a matter of fact, and is, and this runoff takes place into the canal. Therefore, when the water is calculated the runoff from the different sections of Chicago it is not taken from the lake, it is calculated in this 150 cubic feet per second and what we are trying to say is that when we need the water most in the dry periods we have the least because of the accumulation of this runoff which formerly went into farmland or into the ground; now because of the fact that it has been built up and we have streets and pavements it is running off into the canal.

Mr. McFALL. Let me ask you a series of questions, maybe I can clarify it for myself. In the decision of 1930 you were authorized how much diversion from the lake? How many cubic feet per second? Mr. DALEY. Fifteen hundred.

Mr. McFALL. And then in that same decision that was made they said that the amount of storm drainage water from the city of Chicago that went into the canal would reduce that amount?

Mr. DALEY. That's right.

Mr. McFALL. Is that correct?

Mr. DALEY. That's right.

Mr. McFALL. And as the years have gone by your city has built up with more paved areas so that you yourself put more water into the canal which reduces the amount you are privileged to withdraw from the lake so that actually, by this increase in this bill you would be getting less water than you were withdrawing back in 1930 because of the increase in storm waters.

Mr. DALEY. Yes, sir. The figures I don't know exactly, but it is conceivable that there is considerable water.

Mr. McFALL. Your problem is now that because of the increase in storm-water drainage which is approximately four times I gather from your direct statement that this reduces the amount of flow which you are privileged to take from the lake in dry seasons to the point of where you are actually in trouble.

Mr. DALEY. That is one of our problems, yes.

Mr. McFALL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MUMMA. Mr. Mayor, what is the distance between where this water from Lake Michigan comes in and this runoff occurs?

Mr. DALEY. The distance?

Mr. MUMMA. Is it 2 or 3 miles down the canal?

Mr. DALEY. Considerably, approximately 36 miles.

Mr. MUMMA. Well, it seems to me they should not reduce the amount of water you take out of the lakes because you don't do any good 36 miles down the river.

Mr. DALEY. Congressman, it is measured 36 miles down the waterway, that is where the diversion is measured. Do I understand you? Mr. MUMMA. That seems to me mixed up.

Mr. DALEY. It has me at times.

Mr. MUMMA. It seems to me, to do you the good you wanted, it ought to come in practically the same place. I know it is impossible if it is 36 miles.

Mr. DALEY. That is an engineering problem again.

Mr. MUMMA. I am looking at it from that point of view.

Mr. DALEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Wright, will you please leave a little early and go to the House and get permission for us to sit this afternoon?

Mr. WRIGHT. It is a great pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS. We can't possibly complete the hearing this morning but it has been suggested that we now hear from the metropolitan sanitary district of Greater Chicago and then that will conclude all of the witnesses who are in favor of the bill. So I would like to call Mr. Frank Chesrow, the president of the sanitary district. Mr. Kluczynski, this is your president.

STATEMENT OF FRANK CHESROW, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

Mr. CHESROW. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of this committee, I would first like to introduce my colleagues, the trustees of the sanitary district here present: Trustee Casimir Griglik, Vincent Garrity, trustee of the sanitary district, J. G. Henneberger, and William S. Nordburg, trustee of the sanitary district.

In addition we have William A. Dundas, our general superintendent, Horace P. Ramey, our chief engineer, Lawrence G. Fenlon, principal assistant attorney, George A. Lane, our chief attorney, and-

Mr. DAVIS. Excuse me, will those visitors and representatives from the House please give us a little bit better order so we can hear the witness. We will appreciate it.

Mr. CHESROW. In addition to those officials of the sanitary district we have Mr. Preston Pedon of the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry and Mr. Abraham Feldman, president of the Chicago District Waterway Operators Association, and the representative of the Mississippi Waterways Association. They will be available to you for any questions you may wish to ask.

Mr. DAVIS. Will they desire to make statements?

Mr. CHESROW. No, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. They will be available for questions?
Mr. CHESROW. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. All right, sir.

Mr. CHESROW. H.R. 1 was introduced in the House, in this session of the 86th Congress, by Congressman O'Brien of Illinois on January