Mr. MACK. Mr. O'Brien, your statement was a very comprehensive and informative one. One question: The changes in your proposal is that it should be a 1-year diversion instead of a 3-year diversion of water. Would that decrease the estimated cost of this legislation or not? Mr. YATES. To the best of my knowledge, I think the cost will be the same, because the studies will still continue over the 3-year period. Mr. MACK. I recognize that. Thank you. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Scherer. Mr. SCHERER. Mr. O'Brien, is a 1-year diversion sufficient to determine the needs of the Chicago area? Mr. YATES. Mr. Scherer, we made inquiry on that point of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which, with the Department of the Army, would have jurisdiction of conducting this experiment. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare thought that the 1-year diversionary period would be adequate coupled with the studies that would take place before the actual diversion and after the diversion. Mr. SCHERER. You no doubt are more familiar with this legislation or the facts surrounding the situation there in Chicago. Do I recall correctly that the Army Engineers have said that it would take at least a 3-year diversion in order to determine definitely whether or not Mr. YATES. To the best of my knowledge the Army Engineers have not said this. The Army Engineers were asked to estimate the damage which a 3-year diversionary experiment, that is the water being diverted over the 3-year period would have upon lake levels, upon shipping interests, and upon power interests. That was the subject of a report that was filed by the Corps of Engineers approximately 2 years ago and some of the statements in Mr. O'Brien's statement this morning are taken from that report in showing what the Corps of Engineers' estimate of the damage would be, but to my knowledge at no time did the Corps of Engineers ever say that the minimum period which should be undertaken for the diversion should be 3 years. Mr. SCHERER. Would the 1-year diversion be sufficient to show what damage would be done to the lake areas below the point of diversion? Mr. YATES. It would give the estimate of the Army Engineers as to what the damage would be for a 1-year diversionary period. This is not a permanent thing, Mr. Scherer. This is just a proposed experiment with diversion for 1 year. The Army Engineers have already calculated what that proposed damage might be and they have put that estimate in before the Senate Committee on Public Works last year. I assume they will do the same here. Mr. SCHERER. As I recollect, the diversion for 1 year would be practically negligible; is that right? Mr. YATES. That is correct. Mr. SCHERER. But is my recollection correct in that the Army Engineers have said that a 3-year diversion would be detrimental both to navigation and hydroelectric power? Mr. YATES. In their report, Mr. Scherer, as Mr. O'Brien pointed out in his statement, it was indicated that the damage for a 3-year diversion for the lake levels for Lake Michigan and Huron would be that they would be lowered by five-eighths inch Over a period of 39 months for Lake Erie the maximum lowering would be three-eighths inch, for Lake Ontario the maximum lowering would be three-eighths inch. This is for a 3-year diversion. This bill seeks only a 1-year diversion. So you could see that the damage would be infinitesimal. Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SCHERER. Yes. Mr. DOOLEY. They said the full impact wouldn't be felt for 15 years. Mr. YATES. They said that the time for recovering from the 3-year experiments would be over a 15-year period to restore the lake levels to the level of what they would have been if the diversion had not been undertaken. It would take 15 years to do this to recover the five-eighths inch or three-eighths inch they said would be hurtful. Mr. DOOLEY. I don't recall reading anything about the water that would be diverted for 15 years. Mr. YATES. They said it would take 15 years for the lake to recover the levels if the 3-year diversion had not been continued. Mr. DOOLEY. If it were continued for 3 years it would have a deleterious effect on the New York power project and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Mr. YATES. We don't know until this project is undertaken. They did give some comments of what might happen if it were undertaken. That is for the future. We are seeking here to see what the effects would be. Mr. DOOLEY. If the corps said the 3 year would be meaningless and negligible in its effect as far as power is concerned Mr. YATES. No; as far as impact in damaging the interests that are concerned with the diversion. Mr. DOOLEY. One-year diversion would be less effective; is that correct? Mr. YATES. That is correct. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. What is the estimated cost of this survey? Mr. YATES. To the best of my knowledge I think it is around $240,000. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Mr. DAVIS. Any other questions? No questions. Thank you. Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if we may proceed just slightly out of order? Senator William Proxmire has an important committee meeting on the Senate side and would appreciate being heard now. We would also like to hear, at this point, our colleague, Mr. Ray Madden of Indiana, as he has an important Rules Committee meeting this morning. May I ask further, Mr. Chairman, that their testimony be arranged in the body of the record of the hearing to follow in sequence, and Mr. Proxmire's testimony be included with the opponents of the bill, who will be heard later today. Mr. DAVIS. We will hear Mr. Madden first. STATEMENT OF HON. RAY J. MADDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Mr. MADDEN. Thank you. This legislation, sponsored by Congressman Thomas J. O'Brien and the Illinois delegation, passed the House and Senate in the 1st session of the 85th Congress and was vetoed by the President. In the 2d session of the 85th Congress, this legislation passed in the House but was lost in the legislative jam over in the Senate the last day before adjournment of Congress. This legislation now before your committee is similar to the legislation which passed the House last session. It seeks to give Chicago permission to drain 1,000 cubic feet of water from Lake Michigan for 1 year as part of a 3-year program. Chicago has been drawing approximately 1,500 feet a second for sewage purposes since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1939. This legislation merely calls for an experimental test extending over a 3-year period and if it is determined at the end of this time that this small water diversion would affect the shoreline of Lake Michigan, of course this diversion process would no longer be permitted. Lake Michigan is not on the boundary line between Canada and the United States and of course the southern shores of the lake would have a very minor effect upon waterlines in the upper part of the lake or on the other bodies of water making up the Great Lakes chain. I represent the industrial Calumet region along the south shore of Lake Michigan in Indiana. During recent years great damage has resulted in property along the south shore of Lake Michigan in northern Indiana. When violent storms sweep down from the north and northwest, buildings and property along these south shores suffer greatly from water flooding over the coastline and doing great damage to the buildings and property adjacent to the south shore of the lake. The Corps of Engineers stated that lowering of the lake level from three-eights to five-eights of an inch that would result from a 3-year trial diversion would tend to be beneficial in lessening possible damage to property located on the south shore. The large steel industries in my district who depend upon millions of tons of lake shipping have not protested to me that this small diversion of water would in any way affect shipping on the Great Lakes. Mr. Chairman, I have a meeting of the Rules Committee at 10:30 and I will not take up the time of the committee and I have a statement that I wish to submit. I might say that my congressional district adjoins Chicago. I represent the industrial area and the Calumet industries in Indiana and I have received a great many complaints from people who have homes along the south shore of Lake Michigan in years past where their homes and their buildings had been damaged by reason of the terrific overflow of water up to the south shore there in Indiana whenever there is a storm or a heavy wind blowing from the north. Now, I have learned what the Army Engineers have stated. Of course, we know that this is just a temporary trial as to this water diversion for the city of Chicago. In my area I have not received any complaints in opposition to my area in Indiana on making this trial diversion. Now, of course, I have just listened to some speculation regarding the Army Engineers. Well, I heard Congressman Clarence Brown on the floor of the House the other day or it was in the Rules Committee, state that in his area they have been trying to get a flood situation remedied and the Army Engineers about 15 years ago made a prediction that there would not be another flood for 15 years. There have been four floods since that prediction. So I don't have much confidence in some of the prediction and surveys they make. We have plenty of water in Indiana, all over, not only on the south shore there when the wind blows off Lake Michigan but we have it down through Indiana; I think there has been a great deal of unnecessary speculation as to the damage this is going to do to the others in the chain of the Great Lakes and up on the Canadian border; we are 400 miles south of the Canadian border and this legislation passed the House last session, got tied up in a legislative jam over in the Senate a day or two before adjournment so I think this year we ought to give this legislation a trial. I would thank you for your consideration and I would like to submit my statement. Mr. DAVIS. Any questions to be asked of Mr. Madden before he goes to his committee? No questions, thank you. Mr. MADDEN. Thank you. Mr. DAVIS. Senator, we are glad to hear you out of order, but your testimony will appear as one of the opponents later in the official record. We are glad to hear from you because we recognize that you also have a meeting. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator PROXMIRE. I very much appreciate it. We have one of those rare opportunities on the Senate Agriculture Committee to question Secretary Benson and my turn is coming up very shortly so I do appreciate your accommodating yourselves to my convenience. H.R. 1 should be rejected because in the 6 years this kind of measure has been before the Congress there has never been a showing that the study which is the only authorized purpose of this bill is necessary. The study is unnecessary for these reasons; 1. The Corps of Engineers has already testified (pp. 193, 194 in hearings before Senate Public Works Committee, July 28, 29, and August 7, 1958) that they are fully satisfied that additional diversion will not improve navigation on the Illinois waterway, and will have an adverse effect on navigation on the Great Lakes (p. 18057 in 1958 Congressional Record). In 6 years of consideration there has never been a showing that a study would contribute any useful information to a better understanding of navigation consequences. I challenge the author to show that this bill would provide any useful information on navigation although the effect on navigation is the only stated purpose of the bill. And I invite the attention of the committee to a statement that was made by the distinguished author of the bill before the Senate Public Works Committee last year describing very well how the study was to be conducted. It is to be conducted as I understand it, by taking samples of a space of 169 miles of the Illinois Waterway of the water and submitting those samples to chemical analysis before and during the period when the diversion is taking place. Now, obviously this will permit perhaps an analysis of the sanitation quality. It would permit no analysis of the impact on navigation. In the second place the Corps of Engineers has also testified to certain knowledge of the effect of additional diversion on power generation that it would be favorable at Lockport but far more unfavorable on the St. Lawrence-with a total net loss of power. There is no indication in 6 years of consideration that the study authorized in this bill would contribute even one fact necessary to a better understanding of the consequences of diversion on power. Again I challenge the author to show that this bill would provide such information. Three, the only remaining purpose the study authorized in this bill could serve is the effect of additional diversion on sanitation. Although similar study bills have been introduced in three successive Congresses, there has never been a finding by the Public Health Service, the Illinois Board of Health, the Chicago Board of Health, any public health group of any kind, or even of a single competent or for that matter incompetent public health authority that increased diversion would be necessary for improved sanitation or public health or even desirable. On the other hand the most competent public health survey ever made of Chicago (the Chicago and Cook County) health survey by the U.S. Public Health Service) called for a series of other recommendations to improve sanitation in Chicago. It specifically considered additional diversion and failed to recommend it. That is a most exhaustive study of the whole sanitation problem in Chicago. It is a magnificent job. The people are the most eminent public health authorities in America, including the Director of the U.S. Public Health Service, the senior surgeon, U.S. Public Health Service; outstanding citizens of Chicago, Dr. Bundesen of the Chicago Board of Health and a number of others. The result of this ChicagoCook County health study was as I have indicated that they specifically considered diversion and they failed to recommend that it would be helpful. It is true that this study was made 12 years ago, nevertheless, there have been no contrary findings by the Public Health Service since the publication of this book. It would seem to me that since improved sanitation is the only possible beneficial consequence of this bill-that the Public Health Service should be requested to furnish the Congress with a report on the public health justification, if any, for this study. Four, this bill is unnecessary because the Supreme Court has established jurisdiction over diversion by Chicago for some 50 years. Everything provided in this bill could be granted by the Supreme Court. The Court has been willing to grant Chicago temporary increases in diversion in the past. It did so as recently as 1956. It would do so again if the Court deemed such increase merited. Through the appointment of special masters the Court has built up a record of great |