We are fearful that any temporary diversion, as proposed under this legislation, would be the forerunner of permanent diversion. That would encourage other communities in the vicinity of the Great Lakes but outside the Great Lakes watershed to expect similar consideration. Lowering the levels of the Great Lakes affects navigation and waterfront dock facilities. The future industrial development of the Cleveland area depends to a large extent on low-cost transportation by water. This cost is bound to increase if the steamship companies serving Great Lakes ports are forced to operate their vessels at less than full capacity due to lower levels of the Great Lakes and the connecting channels. Diversion of Great Lakes water to another watershed would defeat the very purpose of deepening the Great Lakes connecting channels which is costing the United States some $140 million. This channel deepening project is to be completed in 1962. These deeper channels are of the greatest importance in connection with the operation of bulk material carriers on the Great Lakes as well as vessels operating to and from ports in the United States and Canada and to ports of the world by way of the St. Lawrence seaway. We urge, therefore, that H.R. 1, which pertains to the further diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes at Chicago, be disapproved. Mr. FALLON. The Chamber of Commerce of Toledo, Ohio, Mr. Arthur C. Kochendorfer. Mr. Kochendorfer, do you have a prepared statement with you? STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. KOCHENDORFER, EXECUTIVE MANAGER, AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, TOLEDO, OHIO; PRESENTED BY LESLIE THAL, CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, TOLEDO AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, TOLEDO, OHIO Mr. THAL. First, Mr. Chairman, I am not Mr. Kochendorfer; he sent the letter asking that I be given time and it was set up properly, the telegram returned but not on your schedule. I am Leslie Thal, chairman of the industrial department of the Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce, appearing for Mr. Kochendorfer, and I have two very short statements here I would like to read and file with the clerk. Mr. FALLON. Please proceed. Mr. THAL. As you gentlemen probably know, Toledo, from the standpoint of tonnage, is the first port on Lake Erie, third port on the Great Lakes, and among the top 12 in the Nation. Consequently, we have a great interest in our water facilities. I am here today representing the Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce and the Toledo-Lucas County Port Commission. Two short statements and I will conclude: The Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the proposal which calls for increased diverting of water from Lake Michigan. The Toledo chamber for years has had a position in opposition to increased diverting of Lake Michigan water. The latest official action by the chamber board was taken May 16, 1958. At that time, the Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce, through its board of trustees, joined with other Great Lakes cities in protesting the enactment of national legislation which would permit further diverting of water from Lake Michigan. Our position today remains unchanged. Signed, "Arthur C. Kochendorfer, executive manager." This statement is in behalf of the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority: This agency, created by act of the State legislature and supported by a tax levy voted by the residents of Toledo and Lucas County, is charged with the responsibility of increasing and developing commerce through the port of Toledo. The St. Lawrence Seaway which opens this spring offers unlimited potential benefits to the population of Ohio and its surrounding States. Toward achieving the maximum benefit from the St. Lawrence Seaway, it is vital and necessary that the channels being created by the construction of the seaway function for many years as planned. The diversion of water from the Great Lakes can only result in lowering lake levels thus having a substantial and injurious effect upon the carrying capacity of vessels using the Great Lakes and the seaway. This lowering of levels will in effect deprive navigation and commercial interests of facilities which they would otherwise enjoy in commerce on the Great Lakes. I have been authorized by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority to appear before this committee and urge that the committee refuse to recommend any bill which would permit the diversion of water from the Great Lakes. As a public agency charged with the responsibility of developing the port of Toledo, we believe that such diverison is not only not in the public interest but is detrimental thereto. This statement was approved by Mr. E. O. Jewell, general manager, Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority. From those two statements, gentlemen, you can see that Toledo puts itself on the side of those States and cities opposing House bill 1. Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Next, representing the State of Michigan, the Honorable Paul L. Adams, the attorney of the State, accompanied by Mr. N. V. Olds, assistant attorney general. We would like to have a former member of this committee, Congressman Thaddeus Machrowicz, make the introduction. Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Chairman, before we leave the witnesses appearing on behalf of the State of Ohio may I ask leave to insert in the record two letters I have from the senior Senator from Ohio, Frank Lausche, opposing this legislation and then make this request which appears in the first paragraph of his letter of February 16. He said: I urge that your Committee on Public Works, with respect to H.R.1, the Great Lakes water diversion bill, conduct new and complete hearings as distinguished from your announced purpose, only to accept new evidence pertaining to engineering and economic data. On behalf of the Senator from Ohio I join with him in that request. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection it is so ordered. It will be included in the record following the last witness from the Ohio delegation. (The letters are as follows:) In re H.R. 1 and S. 308, Great Lakes diversion bills. Member, Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. FEBRUARY 13, 1959. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SCHERER: I write you this letter because I believe that last year when the Great Lakes diversion bills were being considered in the House and the Senate, there was not had a clear understanding (1) about the position of Canada; (2) the impact that a 1-year 1,000-cubic-feet-per-second diversion would have respectively on each of the lakes below the point where the diversion occurred; and (3) the impact that would result from a 3-year diversion. The Corps of Army Engineers stated that a 1-year diversion would have a negligible and practically unmeasurable impact in lowering the level of the waters on the lake involved; and that a 3-year diversion would definitely affect navigation and hydroelectric generation. The Corps of Army Engineers further stated that to measure what a permanent diversion would do required tests connected with not less than a 3-year diversion. To divert 1,000 cubic feet per second for 1 year would in no manner disclose what a permanent diversion would do. 37981-59- 5 Manifestly, for the purpose of argument, for instance either a 6-month or 3-month diversion would still less reflect the impact of a permanent diversion.. The Canadian Government did indicate that it would not object to a 1-year diversion; however, on the 1958 bill it made no mention of what its position would be if a 3-year or permanent diversion occurred. I suggest that contact be made with the State Department to insure the availability of a definite statement from Canada as to what its position will be now and in the future on any diversion that will result in a measurably adverse impact on the navigational and hydroelectric generating capacity of the Great Lakes below Chicago. In my judgment the proponents of the plan to take water out of the Great Lakes to help Chicago in its sewage disposal, navigation, and hydroelectric aims have decided upon a 1-year diversion knowing that in that period, as distinguished from a diversion of either 3 years or more, it would not at all tell the honest story of the impact that a permanent diversion would make. Information has come to me that the Corps of Army Engineers are now in the process of making a supplementary study; it will be completed in the near future. It will be essential that that study be fully explored so that every aspect of it will be made clear in the record. On the basis of the foregoing, I respectfully suggest that every effort ought to be made by the Members of Congress from Ohio, especially of those districts which are in the Great Lakes watershed in whole or in part, that we do not allow the diversion, intended to economically benefit Chicago at the expense of the economic detriment of Ohio and other States, to occur. If it is to happen, it ought to come about only after a most vigorous assertion of our legitimate rights. Sincerely yours, FRANK J. LAUSCHE. FEBRUARY 16, 1959. Hon. GORDON H. SCHERER, Member, Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SCHERER: Supplementing my letter addressed to you on February 13, I urge that your Committee on Public Works, with respect to H.R. 1-the Great Lakes water diversion bill-conduct new and complete hearings, as distinguished from your announced purpose, only to accept new evidence pertaining to engineering and economic data. Ohio is one of the 49 sovereign States of the Union. It became a part of the Union with the understanding that its sovereign rights would always be protected. Based upon natural, common, and international law it is vested with the right always to have the benefit of the water supply that naturally flows within and contiguous to its boundaries. Ohio, as a sovereign State, never expected that the U.S. Congress would try to take from it that which naturally and legally belongs to it, and give it to a sister State. Ohio asks for itself only that to which it is entitled by natural, common, and international law. It definitely feels that its rights will be trespassed if the Congress of the United States attempts to give to Chicago water rights that do not belong to Chicago, but belong to Ohio and the sister States in the Great Lakes Basin east of Chicago. The common and international law definitely prohibits anyone, whether an individual, State, or Nation, from changing the quantity of the natural flow of waters either upward or downward to the economic disadvantage of a riparian owner downstream or upstream. Chicago is asking an increase in its capacity to dispose of sewage, generate hydroelectricity, and to water carry cargoes between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River and beyond at the economic disadvantage of the States in the Great Lakes Basin east of where the diversion will occur. Should this Congress take from Ohio, other States, and another nation in the Great Lakes watershed, rights to water flow which belong to them, especially dealing with navigation, and give them to Chicago and Illinois, a plaguing insoluble precedent will be established. What will be the answer of the United States in the event that Canada decides to divert waters out of the watershed of the Columbia River for the purpose of increasing the cargo and passenger-carrying capacity, and the hydroelectric generating capacity of the waters situated in Canada and forming a part of the Columbia River watershed? This contingency can develop into a definite reality if, in dealing with the waters of the Great Lakes watershed, we lower them to a point harming economigenerating enterprises, and the Canadian facilities for the disposal of sewge. generating enterprises, and the Canadian facilities for the disposal of sewage. Moreover, what will be the future answer of Congress in the event one State in a specific watershed asks that water be diverted to its benefit at the expense and without the consent of sister States in another watershed? The issue involved on an interstate and an international basis is far too grave for the Public Works Committee of the House not to conduct full and complete hearings on the bill; and for it to take the position that the hearings which were conducted in the 85th Congress are generally ample to advise the Members of the 86th Congress of the full nature of the affirmative and negative evidence dealing with the issue. In conclusion, I repeat that the Congress of the United States has neither the moral nor the legal right to take from Ohio and other States in the Great Lakes watershed water rights which belong to them and to give them to the city of Chicago, and that no individual State or Nation has the right to divert the natural flow of waters in a manner that will bring perceptible economic damage to a riparian owner either above or below the place where the diversion or impoundment occurs. The Corps of Army Engineers is now making a supplemental study of what the impact will be in the event Chicago is granted a permanent diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second of the waters out of the Great Lakes Water Basin. It is my understanding that that supplemental study is now at the point of completion. On the basis of the foregoing, I respectfully submit to you that the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives should conduct full and complete hearings on H.R. 1. Sincerely yours, FRANK J. LAUSCHE. Mr. Cook. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert a telegram from Mr. Lambros, the city manager of Ashtabula expressing their opposition. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection it is so ordered. (The telegram follows:) Congressman ROBERT COOK, ASHTABULA, OHIO, February 16, 1959. New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please submit objection of the city of Ashtabula to any increased diversion of Great Lakes waters to Illinois waterway system. The city of Conneaut, the city of Geneva, and the village of North Kingsville have previously presented objection to diversion of water. We do not feel that a testing period should be allowed by legislation. We feel that the matter should be left in the jurisdiction of the courts. C. D. LAMBROS, Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman Machrowicz. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to appear before the committee of which I have been a member and to introduce to the committee a man who is very highly respected for his ability and thoroughness, within and without the State, Mr. Paul Adams, the attorney general and his assistant who will appear with him here, Mr. N. V. Olds. Before Mr. Adams proceeds, however, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for their cooperation with me in my efforts in the past few days and I hope that the committee will do what the Chairman has indicated is the intention of the committee to do, namely, to furnish all the oppor tunities possible to the parties who appear before the committee to present all the evidence that they can. The attorney general for the State of Michigan, Mr. Adams, has informed the committee that the time was so short he was not able to secure the engineering data and other information which he feels, and probably rightfully so, should be a part of the record. Now, I know that this committee has always been very lenient in permitting much latitude in the evidence submitted on this issue and as a former member of this committee I know that the record is already very full for the proponents and opponents; nevertheless, there have been certain new matters which have come up which I feel should be brought to the attention of the committee and there are several members who disappeared before and therefore I think it was very proper for the committee to agree that this hearing be adjourned for two weeks at which time Mr. Adams will be in a position to present further evidence to the committee of such a nature that he feels should be in your possession. in I want to sincerely thank the committee for its cooperation with me my efforts to having that postponement made. Mr. BLATNIK. We appreciate the explanation and it was a very ac curate one. Mr. Adams and the other witnesses, it was not the intention at all of the committee in any manner whatsoever to try to limit or make too rigid the area which it wished to cover. Our hope was that this subject which has perhaps been heard of at as great a length if not as great a length as any matter that has been before this committee, we were hoping to minimize or reduce as much as possible any repetition of previous material and hoping to confine ourselves as much as possible to new areas and new testimony and new facts which may be able to support whichever case you are presenting. I appreciate your explanation, Congressman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Before we start with this testimony, I want to say to the Honorable Attorney General of Michigan you have just been introduced by a former member of this great committee, and we all highly respect Mr. Machrowicz. He played a big part in the passage of the St. Lawrence Seaway legislation. Our friend, Mr. Fallon, was the chief opponent. I remember those hearings when they made the statement the St. Lawrence Seaway would put the railroads out of business. Now I find the railroads are building up with the seaway, thanks to the gentlemen who had the foresight and helped pass the St. Lawrence Seaway legislation. Mr. FALLON. I might say to the gentleman who mentioned my name, in connection with this great piece of legislation, and the one that you mentioned that passed some time ago, that I was surprised that the legislation now under consideration was with us along about the same time we were having hearings on the seaway, but never at any time did the proponents or the opponents of the seaway say anything about creating diversion that was going to wreck the program. Mr. BLATNIK. Off the record for a moment. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BLATNIK. On the record. Our friend and former member of the committee, distinguished member, colleague, from Michigan, Mr. Dingell is here, too, to join |