And so, when they use that excuse as one of the reasons for the diversion, I think they should be ruled out entirely because, believe me, it doesn't mean a thing.

As to diversion for raising the additional water to handle the navigation as an aid to navigation, I will agree with them that it does. There will be additional opportunities for navigation because of this water, but we too have a problem of our own up in Cleveland and all the Great Lakes at the present time. Of course, if this is diverted to Chicago we will have additional problems in my opinion, and I base that statement on the report made by the engineers a year ago when they said that in 3 years there would be a decided change in the water level of the Great Lakes outside of the Illinois area.

May I say this to you: At the present time in Lake Erie-and these figures were just given to us by the Army Engineers-the elevation of Lake Erie now is 570.2 above sea level, where in 1952 it was 5744 or 6. Four feet difference in elevation; and that means that the taxpayers of Cleveland, in order to accommodate the shipping that will be engendered by the St. Lawrence seaway, will have to spend some money. We will have to do considerable dredging in order to take care of these large boats of the future, and probably we will also have to rehabilitate some of the other facilities that we have there for loading and unloading and for mooring docks and taking care of the other cargo that comes in and out of the port of Cleveland.

What is true in Cleveland is true, I believe, all over the Great Lakes. If there is a lowering of the water level of Lake Erie then, of course, we must take care of it by lowering on the bottom part. Where we subsidize Chicago and their needs there, we are making it mandatory for the people of Cleveland to take care of this additional cost by the spending of money for this dredging and for other purposes. It has already been touched on by Admiral Spencer and others what the loss will be because of an inch of water. I don't know what it will eventually be. However, I do know there will be a considerable difference because of what the engineers said a year ago.

And so, gentlemen, basing my arguments against those that have been submitted by the opposition, I think it is both morally and legally wrong for the passage of this bill. It would work a hardship not only on Cleveland and the cities on Lake Erie, but on all the Great Lakes ports.

So, for that reason, in behalf of the people of Cleveland, I ask that this measure be turned down by this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

Any questions?

Now we will hear from Ralph S. Locher, also from Cleveland.

STATEMENT OF RALPH S. LOCHER, DIRECTOR OF LAW, CLEVELAND,

OHIO

Mr. LOCHER. I should like to thank the chairman and the members of the Committee on Public Works for this opportunity to present the position of the city of Cleveland, Ohio, relative to certain legal questions raised by H.R. 1.

For many years Cleveland has vigorously opposed increased diversion of water from Lake Michigan at Chicago. Last year, it was my

privilege to testify before a subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works of the U.S. Senate with respect to H.R. 2 and S. 1123, which bills sought to authorize the State of Illinois and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago to increase the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway.

Ohio cities on Lake Erie and those communities located on streams which are tributary to Lake Erie have at great expense and by dint of considerable sacrifice built modern sewerage systems. And these plants were built pursuant to the requirements of State law and at the instance, in many cases, of the Ohio Water Pollution Board.

These facilities were built without benefit of Federal subsidy, either a water subsidy or a monetary subsidy. To permit Chicago, or any other municipality, to extract large quantities of water from the Great Lakes watershed would constitute a subsidy just as surely as though Chicago were being handed a sum of dollars. To the degree that Chicago is benefited, others down the line will be injured to the same extent. Consequently, we strenuously object to the granting of a water subsidy to the city of Chicago.

You will hear, or have already heard, presented for the record the objections of William J. Rogers, the highly regarded director of port control of the city of Cleveland, as well as the presentations on behalf of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce and the Lake Carriers Association and other political entities concerned with the proposed legislation you are now considering.

There is a further facet to this problem which involves the consideration of certain obvious legal propositions.

In the first place, to permit diversion by Chicago is to acknowledge the right of any other community to remove water from the Great Lakes watershed and to divert it to other watersheds to which it would not naturally flow. The effect of allowing Chicago to divert great quantities of water must be considered in connection with present and future proposals of others. If Chicago properly has this right, so then do the other communities bordering on the Great Lakes. References have been made to the desire of Youngstown and other cities for the transportation of Lake Erie water to a point outside the Lake Erie watershed, as well as the proposal by some cities in Illinois to also abstract water from the Great Lakes and send it down into another watershed.

Although the present proposals to divert water at Chicago may not necessarily according to the Corps of Engineers' report-severely affect levels in Lake Erie, if limited to only 1,000 cubic feet per second for 3 years, nevertheless the combined effect of several of such diversions may and probably will critically affect the levels in the Great Lakes system. I feel that what is fair for one is fair for all, and that some formal regulation must take place to recognize the balance of convenience as between the interests concerned.

All diversions of water from the Great Lakes system should be viewed jointly, recognizing the total effect and apportioning such rights equitably or limiting such rights for the common good. Careful consideration should be given to the necessity for so diverting water in view of the benefits which are to be achieved in other watersheds, as compared with the burden which is automatically inflicted upon the Great Lakes system.

Finally, it is of the utmost importance to take cognizance of certain well-established rules of law which prohibit the diversion of water out of one great watershed into another, when such diversions are sufficient to damage the quasi-sovereign and proprietary rights of the Lake States, or the proprietary rights of its citizens.

In this connection, we may very well be allowing upper riparian or littoral users the right to divert substantial quantities of water, subjecting such riparian or littoral users to liability which could be enforced by lower riparian or littoral users who would have received the benefit of such water had it not been diverted or abstracted from its natural watershed.

In summary, before Chicago should be permitted to divert additional water, the rights of other communities and other users, whether governmental or private, should be carefully considered, so as to achieve the best result for all the parties concerned.

We urge your honorable committee, therefore, to give no preference to any community at the expense of other Americans who happen to live and earn their livelihood downstream from the point of the proposed diversion. Consequently, we urge your committee to disapprove H.R. 1.

Mr. FALLON. We have a representative of the Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Reynolds, do you have a prepared statement with you?

STATEMENT OF OLIVER A. REYNOLDS, VICE PRESIDENT, CLEVELAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CLEVELAND, OHIO

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FALLON. Would it be possible, Mr. Reynolds, to make an oral summary of the new aspects of your testimony.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I would like to do that, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I would like to present this prepared statement. I would like to say that the business interests of Cleveland, the chamber of commerce, have long been opposed to any further diversion of water outside of the Great Lakes watershed.

We see a great industrial development coming to the Lake Erie section and other sections of the Great Lakes and we know that all the water that is available in the Great Lakes watershed will be needed in a few years in that particular territory and we would oppose any diversion outside of the watershed.

We are basing our claim of no diversion on the fact that we feel that if this bill is enacted that it will only encourage other cities that are outside of the watershed to ask for similar treatment and we feel that that would hurt all of our cities on the Great Lakes. We come to you today and ask that H.R. 1 be disapproved.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, and your statement will be incorporated with your oral remarks.

(The statement is as follows:)

The Cleveland Chamber of Commerce-a business and community development organization with some 5,000 members in the Cleveland, Ohio, area—is opposed to H.R. 1, the subject of this hearing. The citizens of Cleveland would be concerned about any proposal to divert water from the Great Lakes watershed into another watershed because of the ever-increasing demand for water due to population increase and industrial expansion in the territory along the shores of Lake Erie in Ohio.

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.
Hon. GORDON H. SCHERER,

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