Mr. PAUL ADAMS. February 11, 1959, there appeared in the Detroit News the following editorial concerning this controversy, and I should like to read this one editorial out of the many that we have in our files because I think it does represent a new approach and yet shows a great concern that the people of our State have with this problem. editorial is entitled, "Water Leakage."

This

Any great natural resource invites exploitation, so it's understandable that many communities eye the seemingly endless waters of the Great Lakes with longing. It's natural, too, that they want to get and use the water as cheaply as possible.

But exploitation without protection for the rights of others with an interest in that water is injustice. Exploitation without conservation is waste of a kind seen too much already on this continent.

That's the kind of exploitation the Great Lakes Basin is headed for if Chicago and others are allowed to use huge volumes of lake water in homes and factories, then flush it down the Mississippi. It's the cheap way for them; others pay the difference in lost lake boat cargo capacity and lost hydroelectric power.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court curbed Chicago's diversion somewhat, it has never ruled on a number of central questions. They are now brought to a head by the growth of Chicago's suburbs, some of which want to do the same as their big brother. The amount they want is small, but if they succeed, others will follow and the trickling leakage will become a flood.

Michigan and the other riparian States have no choice but to fight the specter in the courts, on an all-or-nothing basis. But for the arrogant attitude of Illinois it might not be necessary. The water is there, and it could be a godsend for many communities outside the Great Lakes Basin.

And this is the part I would particularly like to direct to the attention of the committee:

It is quite possible that the engineers could devise means to keep channel depths stable, however much water is diverted out of the lakes. It is possible to calculate precisely how much diversion costs in lost hydroelectric power.

It would not be unreasonable to ask communities which use lake water and do not return it to bear the cost of such compensatory arrangements. Payment for damage done to others is surely a proper charge upon the economic benefits these communities would derive from water they can get nowhere else.

This might be done by compact among all the interested States and Canadian provinces, but it will not be done as long as Illinois persists in its intention of taking whatever it pleases, and the Devil take the rest of us. We see no hope for such a mutual-benefit arrangement until Illinois is slapped down in the courts.

Gentlemen, I don't propose this editorial as a stand for the sovereign State of Michigan but I do want to bring it to your attention as evidence of the thinking that is going on in a great metropolitan newspaper and the fact that the minds of the people are not closed to this problem, that they are willing to look at new approaches and new solutions.

Coming down to the ramifications of this present bill there are several items which I would like to direct to the attention of the committee.

Item 1: Pending litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States.

In December 1957, the complainant States-namely, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York-filed an application in the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to the terms of the open-end decree of April 21, 1930, to amend that decree in order to require the State of Illinois and the new Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago to return the domestic pumpage of Chicago to Lake Michigan. The quantity of domestic

pumpage has varied but at present it amounts to between 1,700 and 1,800 cubic feet per second. This is the water which the city of Chicago pumps out of Lake Michigan for domestic and commercial uses and which later finds its way into the sewers as sewerage and industrial wastes, thence to the sewage disposal plants of the sanitary district, which after treatment is discharged into the sanitary canal and irretrievably lost to the Great Lakes Basin.

At the time the Supreme Court considered the terms of the decree in 1930, Chicago was faced with the tremendous job of constructing sewage disposal plants. The Court therefore permitted temporarily the discharge of this domestic pumpage into the sanitary canal but left the matter open for further consideration at a later date. Because of the great growth in population and the industrial developments in and around Chicago the other Great Lake States have been fearful that unless Chicago is compelled, at this time, to return its treated water back to Lake Michigan the day would soon be here when the quantity of so-called domestic pumpage would double and triple in size. The Supreme Court on March 3, 1958, denied our application, but with leave to renew it with allegations made more definite and certain as a basis for the relief which we were seeking.) Consequently in October 1958, the complainant Great Lake States filed in the Supreme Court an amended application and a brief in support of this new application.

Mr. SCHERER. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman, and ask the witness a question at this point.

What is the domestic pumpage per year of the city of Chicago now? I have a recollection it's 400 billion gallons a year.

Mr. PAUL ADAMS. Well, Mr. Scherer, that is a question that I can't answer in gallons. The amount in cubic second-feet of the domestic pumpage, as I stated, is somewhere between 1,700 and 1,800 cubic feet, but I can't reduce that for you.

Mr. SCHERER. Per second?

Mr. PAUL ADAMS. Per second, yes.

Mr. SCHERER. Well, I read some place this morning it is a little over 400 billion gallons a year.

Mr. PAUL ADAMS. I will be happy to provide that information for the committee but I don't have it at present.

The Supreme Court has not yet acted upon our application and I will not act until after it has received a brief from the Solicitor General of the United States advising the Court of the position of the Government of the United States with respect to the national and international implications involved in this new phase of this longstanding litigation. A few days ago we filed a motion to allow us until March 31 to file our reply brief, in which we advised the Court: Complainant States show that the reasons for requiring additional time to file a reply brief are that certain important information and data needed for the benefit of the Court will not be available for some time. This information relates to a further study now being made by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, concerning damages to navigation and shipping suffered by the complainant Great Lakes States by reason of diversion of domestic pumpage water at Chicago by defendants; and to data relating to the efficiency of operation of other sewage disposal plants in the Great Lakes area which will show that (in our opinion) the operations of defendant Chicago Sanitary District sewage disposal plant at Stickney are not in compliance with the recommendations of Special Master

Charles Evans Hughes, nor in conformity with a judgment and decree of this Court.

Mr. SCHERER. May I interrupt so the record is clear. I have before me a minority report filed by the Senator from Michigan, Senator McNamara, in which he says that the annual domestic pumpage for the city of Chicago is 425,636 million gallons per day, which is about 425 billion gallons a year according to the Senator's report.

Mr. PAUL ADAMS. I wish to advise this committee that Mr. J. Lee Rankin, the Solicitor General of the United States, has scheduled a meeting in his office of all of the Great Lake States including Illinois for March 2, 1959, at which time he proposes to discuss with us the ramifications and complexities of this litigation, and that is one of the reasons why I am grateful to this committee for having adjourned the hearings until after this conference, because it will enable us to report to you the results of our conference with the Solicitor General.

At this time I would like to make a part of the record in this case the amended application of the Lake States for a reopening and the brief which we have presently filed with the Supreme Court because I think that the amended application and the brief will be helpful to the committee as setting forth the position of these States.

Mr. BLATNIK (presiding). Without objection, it is so ordered. (The documents are as follows:)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM A. D. 1958

STATES OF WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO and PENNSYLVANIA,

V.

Complainants,

STATE OF ILLINOIS and the SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, Defendants.

STATE OF ILLINOIS and the SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, et al.,

Defendants.

STATES OF MISSOURI, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI and ARKANSAS,

No. 3 Original

Intervening Defendants.

STATE OF ILLINOIS and the SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, et al.,

AMENDED APPLICATION OF THE STATES OF WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN AND NEW YORK FOR A REOPENING AND AMENDMENT OF THE DECREE OF APRIL 21, 1930 AND THE GRANTING OF FURTHER RELIEF