with Congressman Kluczynski in getting this further time for hearings. Congressman, won't you take the chair? Do you have a preliminary statement before the attorney general from your State proceeds?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to wait until our attorney general has completed his statement. I have very little to say except for a few remarks.

I would like to say that the remarks of our distinguished attorney general and the assistant who is with him today carry a lot of weight with me. I am sure they are experts on this subject of the water of the Great Lakes and the problems we on the Great Lakes have. I am sure the committee will find their statement very helpful. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Adams, will you please proceed.

STATEMENT OF PAUL L. ADAMS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; ACCOMPANIED BY N. V. OLDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. PAUL ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, my name is Paul Adams; I am the attorney general of the State of Michigan, and first of all I would like to thank the chairman and the members of the committee and the Congressman from Michigan for their courtesy in extending these hearings for a period of at least 2 weeks in order that we might have further opportunity to prepare ourselves.

I intended to make a protest at the shortness of the notice that was given to us and the indirectness of the notice which we received, but in view of the action which I understand is going to be taken by the committee, let me assure you that the State of Michigan will do everything it can to expedite this matter and to present its case.

A great deal of public interest has been aroused in my State over the so-called Chicago diversion controversy. Our people have now become alerted and alive to its implications as well as to its dire consequences to their welfare.

Herewith is a copy of a full-page article entitled "New Round in Chicago Water Steal," which appeared in the Detroit News on Monday, February 9, 1959. This is the first instance that I know of in which a major metropolitan newspaper has done a comprehensive piece of writing on this tremendous subject.

I would ask permission that this article from the Detroit News of Monday, February 9, 1959, be made a part of the record of these hearings.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI (presiding). Without objection it is so ordered. (The document is as follows:)

[From the Detroit News, Feb. 9, 1959]

NEW ROUND IN CHICAGO WATER "STEAL"-THE STORY BEHIND SEVEN-STATE BATTLE AGAINST DIVERSION

(By Stoddard White)

Without its water-surrounding seas, inland jewels, lifegiving underground reservoirs-what would the water wonderland be?

Alarm over new plans to "steal" more of one of Michigan's most precious and famed resources has caused State officials to marshal their allies around the Great Lakes in a new battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

So important is the problem of water supply to the whole Nation that J. Lee Rankin, Solicitor General of the United States, has called a conference for the early part of March.

He will invite Illinois to tell its future plans in the historic Chicago water diversion from Lake Michigan and the other seven Lake States to state their opposition to what has happened and what might happen.

Led by Wisconsin, the other States have been fighting for almost 40 years to check Chicago's system of turning Lake Michigan water westward without returning any of it.

Chicago uses lake water for its sewage system, sending the result westward toward the Mississippi—and to maintain tugs on the Illinois waterway.

MARCH SHOWDOWN

For almost the first time, Illinois' opponents have been placed on the defensive. In March they must reply to a suit by that State, acting for a small water authority centered at Lombard, one of Chicago's western suburbs.

That water authority proposes to draw water-though only a tiny fraction of of that taken at Chicago-from the big lake and, after using it 25 miles inland, send it down the Mississippi side of a watershed.

Michigan and the other States contend that, after purification in a sewage disposal system, the water should be returned to the Great Lakes.

Their protests cast a cloud over the Lombard bond issue. Now Illinois, on behalf of the Lombard authority, is suing for a Supreme Court order to make Michigan and the others stop these tactics.

Nicholas V. Olds, assistant Michigan attorney general in charge of the water case, calls the Lombard plan "only the precursor of a flood of such demands." "Lombard wants to grow at our expense," he says. "Its area is running out of well water for homes, commerce and industry. So it is in the position of being in danger of overdrawing your bank account and going to another bank for money."

WORLD'S GREATEST

Olds and Attorney General Paul L. Adams head a fight to protect every drop of water in the Great Lakes Basin-the largest fresh-water basin in the world. If they do not protect it, they say, the Lake States will lose invaluable quantities of water, and Federal and local governments will lose the millions of dollars they have spent to maintain navigation channels, beaches, recreation areas and water supplies.

Other water-thirsty communities, behind the divide and watching their own wells dry up, view the lakes with longing eyes. They would like to pump lake water over the divide-whence it never would be returned.

By virtue of its position in the center of the basin, Michigan is the only State which can abstract water from the lakes and automatically return most of it to them. Any other community, except a small one on the very lakeshore, would send it down the outside of the divide, never to return.

Other States are not being dogs in the manger, however. A proposal by Youngstown and other communities in southeastern Ohio to take Lake Erie water for their own use was slapped down by their own State government.

NO EXCEPTIONS

Every important municipality-American or Canadian- on the lakes, except Chicago, returns to the lakes the water which it has extracted, used and purified through treatment plants.

"We see no reason why Chicago should not be made to do likewise," Adams and Olds told the State Department, which must consider the damage to Canadian areas.

Chicago's only excuse is that it would cost money to do so. But, by using Lake Michigan water, its per capita cost for sewage treatment is well below that of much smaller communities.

"It has such a large revenue-collecting base that it could well afford to construct and operate the works necessary."

What are the objections to Chicago's water diversion? The State lawyers say these are the principal damages:

1. To navigation and commercial interests:

Taking more than 1,800 cubic feet a second for domestic use has lowered Lakes Michigan and Huron 2 inches and Lakes Erie and Ontario an inch each. Harbors and channels are affected correspondingly.

THE BIG INCH

An inch of water permits a large Lakes freighter to load nearly 100 tons of cargo. It increases the annual tonnage of the whole Lakes fleet by 1,500,000 gross tons. Lost water levels cost the fleet $4 million in annual revenue and increase transportation costs on the cheapest transportation system in the world.

The Federal Government dredges 100 of the 400 lakes harbors. Diversification nullifies costly Federal improvements, as well as mostly improvements by local governments and individuals-many millions of dollars.

Value and utility of the huge bulk freighters is impaired; accordingly, the welfare and prosperity of the population of the complaining States are injured. Additionally, yachtsmen, fishermen and other small-boat owners operate their boats only with difficulty during low-water periods.

2. To riparian (waterside) property: Hundreds of miles of shoreline in Lakes States has been "substantially" damaged. Large investments have been hurt in commercial and private summer properties. Extensive damage has been caused to fishing and hunting grounds, spawning beds and open marshes.

3. To the rights of the States themselves: These States suffer damage to parks, camps and fish hatcheries on the lakeshore. They suffer as consumers of lakeborne coal for public buildings and State institutions.

4. Specifically, to New York State and its citizens for power losses in the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers: New York citizens lose a potential revenue of $1,027,841 a year because the water goes west instead of east and over Niagara Falls or down the St. Lawrence to hydroelectric powerplants. This figure is doubled if Canada's equal share is considered.

THE ISSUE

Illinois' opponents among the Lakes States ask the Supreme Court to halt the discharge of treated sewage into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and to require that it be returned, purified, to the Great Lakes Basin.

They suggest that the court appoint a "special master"-a powerful investigator for itself to take testimony and report on Chicago's compliance with an order to return its water to the lake.

(Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes was such a "special master" in 1929. The High Court affirmed his findings of great loss to the other States. In 1930 it ordered the diversion held down to 1,500 cubic feet a second, in addition to "domestic pumpage," that water ordinarily needed for home, commercial and industrial use. This order still stands.)

Solicitor General Rankin, at his March hearing, will attempt to inquire how Chicago is coming with its sewage treatment program.

Chicago's opponents contend that the efficiency of the treatment plants has dropped in 6 years from about 95 percent to about 85 percent.

Missouri and other States into whose waters Chicago's treated sewage is discharged, complain that treatment is inadequate. A leading engineering publication says that of 700 to 750 tons of solids to dispose of daily, Chicago's plants can handle only 450 to 500 tons.

CITIES OBJECT

This means, according to the engineers, that 200 to 250 tons of solids a day must be disposed of "by other means." Many of these are flushed down the Chicago and Illinois Rivers.

Smaller communities along these rivers between Chicago and the Mississippi object to the sewage. Their alternative is a greater flow from Lake Michigan, which often floods their towns. The third proposition is that of the opposing States that Chicago be made to spend the money to purify its sewage and return it to Lake Michigan.

International complications enter the picture. Ontario, at least, has asked its Federal Government to protest to the United States against Chicago diversion. "There certainly is real ground," Michigan's lawyers told the State Department, "for fearing that Canada will use (Chicago diversion) against us in case

we get into a disagreement with Canada over its intentions to divert the waters of the Columbia River."

(The Columbia passes through both Canada and the United States. The right of Canada to use some of the water before it gets to this country and empties into the Pacific Ocean is a subject of current controversy and study.)

The opposing States also worry about the growth of Chicago and its water problems. It already has the world's largest sewage treatment system.

HUGE GROWTH SEEN

In 1930-when the present court order was issued-the Sanitary District of Chicago covered 450 square miles. By 1957 this had grown to 920 square miles— and it had become known as the metropolitan sanitary district.

Chicago has bragged that it will grow to supply filtered water to 3,000,000 people not now receiving it. This figure does not even consider industrial demand.

Chicago serves not only itself, but 85 adjoining suburbs. Estimates are that within our time its population will exceed 15,000,000 people. In 17 years, the opponents say, the ordinary diversion of water for domestic pumpage will double and lower the lake another 2 inches.

Michigan and the other contestants worry lest they are not moving fast enough. Sovereign States are exempt from what lawyers call the doctrine of "laches"the doctrine that it is the complainant's fault if he fails to protest against a wrongdoing.

Olds says this is something like publishing the banns in a church-in effect, "speak now or forever hold your peace," pushed beyond its capacity.

MUST ACT NOW

But courts, from time to time, have refused relief to municipal or other sovereign entities which failed to assert their rights.

"We insist that we might wake up 20 years hence and find the Supreme Court convinced that we did not protest enough and therefore are not entitled to relief," Olds says.

Another ancient doctrine is that of riparian (shoreside owner) rights. That doctrine says that only the riparian owner has the right to take water-and that the right even then belongs only to the land user and the benefit must go to the land itself.

To answer this argument, Chicago argues that the whole State of Illinois is the riparian owner of Chicago's waterfront.

Michigan's lawyers say, however, a basic doctrine of riparian rights is that the user must return a "reasonable amount" of what he has taken from the stream or lake.

The first bill in the 1959 Congress called for an extra 1,000 cubic feet a second at Chicago for "other improvements," including navigation and sanitation.

TWO VIEWS

Chicago argues that 1,800 cubic feet for domestic pumpage is needed to sustain navigation on the Sanitary-Ship Canal. This is one of America's most important inland waterways, connecting Chicago with the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico.

But Gen. Emerson R. Itschner, chief of the Army's Corps of Engineers, says that the present 1,500 cubic feet is ample.

The canal is what is known as "slack water," and water is needed only to open and close the locks to permit the passage of boats.

It is worse than "slack water," Michigan authorities declare. They call it a "cesspool," and say that its use as a dumping area for sewage only postpones the day when Chicago will be compelled to adopt Michigan's solution-treating the water and returning it to Lake Michigan.

"The canal has become a fetid mess," Adams and Olds say. "As long as the Sanitary District insists on using it as a cesspool for untreated industrial wastes and inadequately treated sewage, there will be clamor for more diverted water from Lake Michigan."

MILLIONS SPENT

General Itschner says that even if duplicate locks were built in the future to handle increased traffic on the busy waterway, 1,750 cubic feet of water a second would be ample.

"The Federal Government spends millions of dollars annually in maintaining adequate depths in connecting channels and shallow areas of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway," the Michigan attorneys told Rankin. "Our ports and cities spend large sums for the same purpose.

"It is illogical to spend money on one hand so that proper depths can be maintained and then allow a diversion which militates against the maintenance of such depths-particularly when the diversion can be stopped by requiring (Illinois) to return its treated effluent to the lake."

The big basin-The world's largest fresh water reservoir is the Great Lakes Basin, down whose watersheds flow rivers to help fill more than 95,000 square miles of water surface. The basin provides water for many purposes, including navigation, electric power, recreation, drinking, sewage treatment, and commercial and industrial use. It directly serves eight American States and two Canadian Provinces. On this U.S. lake survey map the heavy broken lines show the divide between the lakes basin and other drainage basins. All the water of the lakes flows eastward through the 10 States and Provinces except at (1), where Chicago diverts Lake Michigan water for its own uses. Once used, this goes westward over the divide and is forever lost to the lakes from which it came. Canada diverts water, too-but into the lakes. (2) the Ogoki River and Long Lake, which formerly flowed toward Hudson Bay, were reversed to provide local power. But, by treaty, Canada is entitled to take for navigation and power at (4) and (5) an amount equal to that poured into Lake Superior. At the Soo locks (3) the level of Lake Superior is governed by an international control dam and water is taken (though later returned) for power purposes. Outside Buffalo (6) water is diverted for navigation and power purposes into the New York State canal system.

At