~×
≡" .， .* #aae … ）
&~~æę º ºrº º .
·، ſºſ
**wºw！*®
∞∞

sº Y - * *.
ETNUUUU|||||||||||||W gº ſº
-. ſº
-, $º || Fº º
(j)
T
§
W
º
§
º
... " "ºsN k
:
f
º
º
*
: E → -ºš
=; Fiſſllſ||||IIIHITIIITITIIITſº
& Cº º Aº Aº º ºſ º º sº º º Rºº tº sº & sº º º ºs º º ºs º º sº º ºs s sº sº gº º sm º sº
\ ||||||||ſ||
3. ;* E
gºor THE
tº ºzº º T. Tº sº º º Aº TE Tº Tº º :-}
lw.
s
N
E
|
i
É
#
inſiſtºriº
|
.

























To
#23, 3
, Å 5 . .
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, AND DIVERSION
OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
HEARINGS
ON THE SUBJECT |
OF
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI
RIVERS, AND THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM
LAKE MICHIGAN INTO THE ILLINOIS RIVER
H E LID BE FOH E THE
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
CONSISTING O Hº
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, New York, Chairman.
RICHARD P. FREEMAN, Connecticut. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, Texas.
NATHAN L. STRONG, Pennsylvania. JOHN McDUFFIE, Alabama.
CLEVELAND A. NEWTON, Missouri. JOHN J. KINDRED, New York.
JAMES J. CONNOLLY, Pennsylvania. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
M. A. MICHAELSON, Illinois. JOSEPH. T. DEAL, Virginia. .
WALTER F. LINEBERGER, California. DANIEI, F. MINAHAN, New Jersey.
WILLIAM M. MORGAN, Ohio. WILLIAM E. WILSON, Indiana.
WILLIAM E. HULL, Illinois. WILLIAM H. BOYCE, Delaware.
GEORGE N. SEGER, New Jersey. JAMES O'CONNOR, Louisiana.
HUBERT H. PEAVEY, Wisconsin.
THADDEUS C. SWEET, New York.
JOSEPH H. MCGANN, Clerk.
ELLA. F. PHALEN, Assistant Clerk.
MARCH 17, 18, 19, AND 20, 1924
HPART 1
nºr
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
9.1739 1924
To.
i 39 g”
ºw? *) *R, º:
- ** *- : *.x:
tºº.
. A b ,
a H 2-
e” . . ;
_> *-* | P . l
º, & ‘’
& " " .
CONTENTS.
BILIS, LAWS, AND OFFICIAL IREPORTS. P
ago.
H. R. 5475, by Mr. William E. Hull----------------------------------- 1.
H. R. 6822, by Mr. Raincy-------------------------------------------- 222
H. R. 6873, by Mr. Michaelson___________... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 225
IH. R. 7044, by Mr. Macklen--__________ - - - - - - - - -––––––––––––––––––––––– 226
The act of the Illinois Legislature creating the Sanitary District of
Chicago :
Section 23–––––––––.------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * - - - - - - - - - - - - 193
Section 24------------------------------------------------------- 193
Section 19–------------------------------------------------------ 259
Ordnance adopted by the Sanitary District of Chicago. --_______________ :
Heport of the International Waterways Commission, May 3, 1906, upon
the preservation of Niagara Falls - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 228
~. . ()F{AI, STATEMENTS.
~ Hon. William E. Hull, M. C––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5
* Hon. Edward Voigt, M. C--------------------------------------------- S
* , Mr. C. S. Ferris, Water Power Commission, State of New York___ 11, 82, 88, 99
Mr. W. C. Rippin, Mississippi Valley Association______________________ 13
~ Mr. J. P. Haynes, Chicago Association of Commerce___________________ 22 to 34)
S. Mr. F. J. Quinn, Peoria (Ill.) Association of Commerce________________ 22
ºf Mr. F. J. Macy, State engineer, New York-------------- 21, 22, 58, 101, 154, 156
& Hon. Guy L. Shaw, Association of Drainage and Levee Districts of
Illinois------------------------------------------------------------ 26, 37
Mr. H. D. Pixley, Of Carson-Pirie-Scott & Co., Chicago --_____________ 30, 107
Mr. R. M. Field, Peoria (Ill.) Association of Commerce_________________ 30, 43
Mr. P. J. Grant, Erie (Pa.) Chamber of Commerce______________________ 33
Mr. R. I. Randolph, Chicago ASSOCiation of Commerce________ 49, 64, 70, 85, 100
Mr. Edgar B. Thomas, Cleveland Chamber Of Commerce________________ 59
Mr. Frank H. Keefer, Province Of Ontario__________________________ 60, 87, 89
Mr. C. A. Livingston, Illinois Manufacturers’ Association_______________ 62
Mr. Thomas Spratt, Ogdensburg (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce_________ 67
Mr. Louis L. Behan, Chicago, Ill--------------------------------- 69, 173, 190
Mr. George F. Barrett, Chicago, Ill-----____ - - - - 75, 92, 163, 178
Judge Franklin Velde, Association of Drainage and Levee Districts of
Illinois--------------------------------------------------- 78, 119, 150, 164
Hon. Henry T. Rainey, M. C–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 79
Mr. Edmund D. Adcock, Chicago, Ill----------------------------- 80, 123, 164
Hon. Andrew B. Daugherty, atttorney general, State Of Michigan---____ 82
Mr. William George Bruce, Great Lakes Harbors Association____________ 84
Mr. Arthur V. White, Hydroelectric Power Commission, Province of 4
Ontario ----------------------------------------------------------- 88
Mr. Eugene Brown, Peoria (Ill.) Drainage and Levee District________ 102, 152
Mr. H. G. Legon, Chicago Shippers' Association------------------------ 107
Mr. Ray Williams, Cairo (Ill.) Association of Commerce________________ 11.2
Mr. I’. W. Coyle, St. Louis Chamber of Commerce______________________ 114
Mr. M. G. Barnes, chief engineer, division of waterways, State of Illinois– 124
Mr. J. P. Kerr, Association of Drainage and Levee Districts of the State
of Illinois-----------------------------–––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 151
Hon. L. A. Jarman, Association Of Drainage and Levee Districts of the
State of Illinois--------------------------------------------- 101, 158, 180
Hon. James C. McLaughlin, M. C _____ 170
Mr. L. A. Dumont, Chicago, Ill-––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 189
Mr. Edward Boyle, Eldred (Ill.) Drainage and Levee District__________ 222
Mr. William S. Ardern, Milwaukee, Wis-------------------------------
IV CONTENTS.
PRINTED AND WRITTEN ('OMMUNICATIONs.
Page
List Of persons appearing at the hearings_____________________________ 11, 12
Membership of the traffic committee, Mississippi Valley Association_____ 14
List of Shippers Who testified before the special committee of the Senate
as to the need for a 9-foot Waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf 27
Letter from the Rutland-Lake Michigan Transit Co--_________________ 32
List Of Organizations favoring development of inland waterways as a
relief for present shipping conditions_______________________________ 34
Memorandum on Chicago's harbor problem, by Maj. Rufus W. Putnam,
Corps of Engineers, United States Army___________________________ 39
Amendments proposed to the Hull bill by the Peoria (Ill.) Association
of Commerce________ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -— — — - —- - - - - - - - - -— — — — — — —- - - - - - - - - 104
Statements of Shippers of St. Louis as to prospective use of waterway
to Chicago-------------------------------------------------------- 114
('lassified statement of shipments handled by railroads operating be-
tween Chicago and St. Louis--------------------------------------- 117
IResolutions of the Illinois Valley Protective Association____________ 120, 122
Sections 23 and 24 of the act of the Legislature of Illinois which created
the Sanitary District of Chicago------------_______________________ 193
Memorandum of information by drainage and levee districts of Illinois 194
Statement by Hon. L. A. Jarman------------------------------------ 20S
Letters from Mr. J. P. Haynes--------------------------------------- 230
Statement of tonnage handled by the Mississippi Barge ſline_-________ 232
Address by Mr. Halleck W. Seaman on “Transport troubles of the
Middle West "----------------------------------------------------- 232
Statement by the Ottawa (Ill.) Chamber of Commerce________________ 236
Statement by Mr. W. M. Corbett, [ansas City Terminal Railway Co -- 238
I,etter of Mr. John H. Camplin, president Illinois Chamber of Commerce 23%
Resolutions of the Illinois Valley Manufacturers’ Club________________ 240
I,etter from the Sycamore (Ill.) Chamber of Commerce_______________ 241
IResolution of the Conaghan Motor Co., Pekin, Ill-----________________ 241.
Tesolution of the New York Water POW'er Commission-----___________ 241.
Resolution of the Buffalo (N. Y.) City Council_______________________ 242
Letter of Mr. Frank A. Whiteside, Carrollton, Ill------________________ 244
Editorial from the Plain Dealer and Leader, Cleveland, Ohio____________ 245
Article from the Fulton Democrat, T_ewiston, Ill--------------------____ 246
Resolution of the Pennsylvania State Park and Harbor Commission____ 247
I letter of the Marshall Putnam Farm Pureau, Henry, Ill - _ 247
Article from the Henry (Ill.) News-Republican_______________________ 247
Letter of Mr. Joseph P. Kerr, president, Association of Drainage and
Levee Districts of Illinois––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2:50
Letter of the Milwaukee Civic Council------__________________________ 250
Letter from Hon. Melton Moore, mayor, Naples, Ill--__________________ 25()
Resolution of the Niagara Falls (N. Y.) City Council__________________ 251
Telegram from Mr. Geo. W. Knox, corporation counsel, Niagara Falls,
N. Y-------------------------------------------------------------- 252
Telegram from Ogdensburg board of water commissioners_____________ 252
Resolution of the Ogdensburg (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce__________ 252
Letter from Mr. Ralph Dempsey, Pekin, Ill--------------------------- 2.5:3
Resolutions of the Peoria and Tazewell County (Ill.) Wild Life Associa-
ition----------------- - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - sº- a-- *- - - - - - - - - - - 254
Letter from Mr. Claude U. Stone, Peoria, Ill--______________________ 254
Letters from Mr. Shelton F. McGrath, Peoria, Ill - - 256, 257
Letter from Mr. Roy W. Davis, Secretary St. Joseph (Mich.) Chamber
of Commerce------------------------------------------------------ 2:58
Resolution of directors of WatertOwn (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce___ 25S
Telegram from Mr. William Livingstone, president Lake Carriers' Asso-
Giation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:59
Letter from Mr. Franklin L. Velde----------------------------------- 259
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, AND DIVISION OF
WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN,
CoMMITTEE on RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House OF REPRESENTATIVEs,
Monday, March 17, 1924.
The committee this day met, Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chairman)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hull, you have introduced a bill on the sub-
ject which the committee is considering this morning, H. R. 5475,
for the improvement of commerce and navigation and to authorize
appropriations for the construction of certain public works in the
Illinois River, and for other purposes. -
The bill reads as follws:
[H. R. 5475, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session.]
A BILL For the improvement of commerce, and navigation, and to authorize appropria-
tions for the construction of certain public works in the Illinois River, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to create a navigable
Waterway nine feet in depth in the Illinois River, suitable and sufficient to
carry the commerce of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley through the
State of Illinois, the same to extend from Lake Michigan at Chicago, Illinois, to a
connection with a nine-foot channel in the Mississippi River at or below the point
where the Illinois River discharges its waters into the Mississippi River, the
Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to improve the Illinois
Hiver from the terminus of the Illinois waterway at or near Utica, Illinois, to its
confluence with the Mississippi River, so as to provide therein a navigable chan-
nel of nine feet in depth and of a width of not less than two hundred feet Such
improvement being based upon an increment of not exceeding ten thousand
cubic feet per second of water from Lake Michigan through the main channel
of the Sanitary District of Chicago and the Illinois waterway, and to include
the removal of all thereof or part of the locks and dams heretofore constructed
by the Federal Government in the Illinois River at La Grange and Kamps-
ville, Illinois, and also the removal of all thereof or part of the locks and dams
heretofore constructed in said river by the State of Illinois at Henry and
Copperas Creek: Provided, That the said State of Illinois will (as authorized
by an act of the general assembly of said State, approved June 21, 1919) con-
vey to the United States its full rights and title to the said locks and dams
at Henry and Copperas Creek, to permit the removal of such parts as may be
deemed unnecessary by the said Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers
of the United States Army.
SEC. 2. There is authorized to be alppropriated, out of ally money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $5,700,000, to be expended
under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief
of Engineers, for the removal of such parts of Said daims and such parts of
said locks as may be necessary and for the construction of said nine-foot
navigable channel from the terminus of the Illinois WaterWay at, or Inear,
Utica, Illinois, to connect with the Iline-foot channel in the Mississippi River
at, or below, the mouth of the Illinois River. All othfer Federal projects for
the improvement of the Illinois River between the last referred to points are
hereby modified to conform to the provisions of this act.
1
2 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
SEC. 3. The State of Illinois is hereby authorized, at its sole cost and ex-
pellse, to improve the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers from the terminus of
the main channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago at Lockport, Illinois, to a
Connection at, or near, Utica, Illinois, with the Federal improvements above
authorized, and to construct such channels, locks, dams, and other improve-
ments as will secure, based on increment of ten thousand cubic feet of water
per second, through the said main channel of said sanitary district, a navigable
Channel of a depth of not less than nine feet of water, with a minimum
depth of fourteen feet on all miter sills of all locks constructed by it, as a part
Of Such improvement, and is further authorized to modify its plans for the
Illinois waterway, heretofore submitted to and approved by the Secretary of
War and Chief of Engineers, so far as may be necessary to conform to the
general Scheme for a nine-foot waterway : Provided, That work done in
pursuance of Said plans shall be subject at all times to the inspection and ap-
proval of said Chief of Engineers and Secretary of War.
S'EC. 4. The State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago (a munic-
ipal Corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, owning and
Operating certain canals which are navigable channels of adequate depth, con-
necting through navigable waterways with Lake Michigan) are hereby
authorized, jointly and/or severally, to construct at their own expense, and
Without cost to the United States, at or near the present terminus of the main
Channel of said the Sanitary District of Chicago, at or near Lockport, Illinois,
a Suitable lock connecting said Sanitary District channel with the Illinois
WaterWay , Said lock to be of a minimum width of not less than one hundred
and ten feet, a minimum usable length of not less than six hundred feet, the
minimum depth on miter sills of Said lock to be not less than fourteen feet,
ai) (1 Said the Sanitary District of Chicago, or its legal successors, is hereby
authorized to withdraw from Lake Michigan, through the Chicago and Calumet
Rivers and through artificial channels which have been heretofore or may
hereafter be constructed and to discharge same into said Illinois Waterway;
an amount not to exceed an average of ten thousand cubic feet of water per
Second per day.
SEC. 5. The amount of water hereby authorized to be withdrawn shall be
inclusive of and not in addition to the amount of water which has been here-
tofore or is inow being withdrawn from Lake Michigan by the said Sanitary
District of Chicago, for the purpose of diverting sewage and drainage from Ilake
Michigan, and keeping the waters at the south end of said lake free from
pollution.
The conditions upon which said withdrawal of water by the Sanitary District
of Chicago from Lake Michigan, i. e. hereby authorized, are as follows:
(a) That said the Sanitary District of Chicago shall pay into the Treasury
Of the United States, as and when directed by the Secretary of War, such sum
or sums of money as may be estimated by the said Chief of Engineers as here-
in after provided to be its reasonable share of the cost of constructing, com.
pensating, and/or regulating works in the Saint Clair River and/or in the
Niagara River and/or in the Saint Lawrence River at or above Rapide Plat.
to compensate and COntrol the Water levels in Said Great Lakes and their
appurtenant rivers, as full and complete compensation for any lowering of
water levels of the Great Lakes systems resulting, or to result, from such
withdrawal at Chicago.
The said Chief of Engineers shall cause to be prepared, within eighteen
months from the passage of this act, at the cost of said the Sanitary District of
Chicago, plans and Specifications for, and an estimate Of the reasonable cost
of constructing such compensating and/or regulating works. Such plans,
Specifications, and estimated cost shall be subject to the approval of the Sec-
retary of War.
Such works shall be designed and built as speedily as is practicable under
the direction of the Secretary of War, or jointly by the United States and the
Dominion of Canada, and the money furnished by the Sanitary District of
Chicago, as hereinbefore provided, shall equal the total cost of such work and
Shall be applied and used in payment for the same.
The said the Sanitary District of Chicago, and/or any other agency upon
which the functions now performed by said the Sanitary District of Chicago
may hereafter devolve, is hereby prohibited from withdrawing from Lake
Michigan a greater average amount of water than is above specified, regardless
of any increase in the population of said the Sanitary District of Chicago.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 3
(b) The said the Sanitary District of Chicago is required to continue with
all pOSSible Speed the installation, operation, and maintenance of sewage puri-
fication works, in accordance with the ordinance adopted August 7, 1919, by
the board of trustees of said the Sanitary District of Chicago, in order that
any affluent discharge into said Illinois waterway, or into the Des Plaines
River, or Illinois River, through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers, or through
any artificial channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago, shall not be, or
become, a nuisance or a menace to the health of any of the people of the
United States. Said ordinance is as follows:
“BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD of TRUstEEs OF THE SANITARY DISTRICT OFW
CEIICAGO.
SECTION 1. To supplement the works of the Sanitary District of Chicago
now constructed or in the process of construction for the diversion of sewage
Or drainage, and to aid said works in better accomplishing the purpose for
which they were constructed, the sanitary district does hereby lay out and
adopt a program for the construction and operation of works for the purifi-
Cation of Sewage and the removal of trade wastes and other wastes and for
the carrying on of such work at such a rate as continuously after the lapse
of four years to diminish the amount of sewage including all wastes pass-
ing into the Des Plaines River by way of the main channel of the Sanitary
District of Chicago, so that within the period of twenty-five years such puri-
fication works shall be constructed and in operation, that the amount of such
raw sewage and wastes so passing into the said Des Plaines River shall be at
least 50 per cent less than that passing now.
“SEC. 2. The chief engineer and the attorney Of the Sanitary district are
hereby directed to take such steps as may be necessary to carry forward the
foregoing program, and the chief engineer is directed to report to such officers
Of the United States and the State of Illinois as may be interested the progress
made from time to time in carrying out said program. -
“SEC. 3. The foregoing preamble to this ordinance is hereby adopted and
made a part of Same.
“SEC. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
paSSage and adoption.”
Provided also, that said Sanitary District of Chicago shall prior to its formal
acceptance to this act pass an ordinance supplemental to and explanatory of its
Said ordinance of August 7, 1919, therein pledging its agreement that in the
development of its said scheme for the treatment of the sewage (which prior
to January 1, 1924, it avers it has developed to where it now is diluting sewage
discharged into its main canal to the amount estimated to arise from one hun-
dred and thirteen thousand of the population of said district), and pledging
that it will develop its such plans to at least reach the following results: *
In 1924 to treat sewage arising from one hundred and eighteen thousand of
its population ; -
In 1925 to treat Sewage arising from one hundred and twenty-three thousand
Of its population ; ! -
In 1926 to treat sewage arising from one hundred and twenty-eight thousand
of its population ; - , - -
In 1928 to treat sewage arising from one million two hundred and ninety-one
thousand of its population ; - -
In 1930 to treat Sewage arising from one million four hundred and eighty-five
thousand of its population ;
In 1932 to treat sewage arising from two million six hundred and seventy-
nine thousand of its population ;
In 1935 to treat sewage arising from two million eight hundred and twenty
thousand of its population ;
In 1938 to treat sewage arising from two million nine hundred and fifty-five
thousand of its population ;
In 1940 to treat sewage arising from three million five hundred and sixty-two
thousand of its population ; 3.
In 1943 to treat sewage arising from three million seven hundred and twelve
thousand Of its population ;
In 1945 to treat sewage arising from four million two hundred and fifty-two
thousand of its population.
(c) To compensate landowners whose have constructed, or who in the future
do construct, or reconstruct, levees, On either bank of the Illinois River, to
4 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
prevent the overflow of their adjacent lands, for the cost of such levees and/or
the reconstruction thereof, and also to compensate those who will operate
pumping plants to overcome seepage into the lands So sought to be protected
by levees in each of such instances, to the extent and as hereinafter set forth
in this section and in Section 6 hereof. -
The said Chief of Engineers shall prepare, at the cost of said The Sanitary
District of Chicago, an estimated amount of the same to be fixed by the said
Chief of Engineers and paid in advance into his hands by said Sanitary District
of Chicago, plans to be followed in the different stretches of the Illinois River
for the standardization of levees and embankments which may be constructed
or reconstructed on either bank of said river for the protection of adjacent or
Configuous lands, and for pumping plants to be maintained and Operated in
GOnnection there with.
When such plans are approved by the Secretary of War, no levee or embank-
ment Or pumping plant shall be constructed or reconstructed on either bank of
said river not in conformity with such plans, and not until a permit to con-
struct or reconstruct the same shall be first secured from said Chief of Engi-
neers and from the State of Illinois.
Said Chief of Engineers shall, in preparing the such plans, estimate, fix, and
Certify, as nearly as he can, comparing all available data concerning costs of
labor and material, and the elevation of floods or highest waters in the different
Stretches Of the said river before and since January 17, 1900 (the date upon
which said Sanitary District of Chicago turned water from Lake Michigan into
the Illinois River) :
(a) The added depth of water in the Illinois River, its flood or highest water
stages attributable to the water coming through the works of said the Sanitary
District of Chicago.
(h) The added present-day cost per lineal foot and/or cubic yard of con-
structing levees or embankments of the determined standardized type, made
necessary by the present there in said river at its natural floor Or highest
water stages of the water coming through the works of said sanitary district.
(c) The average annual added cost of pumping operations by Owners of
lands protected by levees and embankments since January 17, 1900, to Jan-
uary 1, 1924, to overcome seepage, compared with the such costs prior to
January 17, 1900.
(d) When such report is approved by the Secretary of War the said Sani-
tary District of Chicago shall forthwith pay, into the hands of said Chief of
Engineers, the money by him computed to be sufficient (a) to reimburse all
levee and drainage district, and/or individuals, who have built or constructed
the aforesaid standardized levees and embankments, Or who have COnStructed
levees or embankments equal to such standardized type for the such additional
cost of building, or rebuilding or reconstructing their such levees or embank-
hankments, so determined to be attributable to the water discharged into Said
river, at its natural flood Or highest water stages, by the Sanitary District
of Chicago; (b) to reimburse all levee and drainage districts, and/or in-
dividuals, the total additional cost Sustained by them for pumping Seepage from
their lands, as may be found as aforesaid, to be attributable to the presence
in said river of the water discharged therein, by the said the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago up to, and including the year 1924.
The said Chief of Engineers shall promptly distribute from the funds So de-
posited with him, to those entitled thereto, such amounts as may be due them,
for the such added cost of constructing and/or reconstructing such levees and
bmbankments, and the Such added cost of their pumping operations down to
and including the year 1924.
Should the amount of money, so in advance deposited with him, not equal the
cost of the services rendered, or caused to he rendered, hy said Chief of Engi-
neers, in making his said investigations and reports, and also the amount due
as aforesaid, to those who have constructed and/or reconstructed such levees
and embankments and/or for the added costs sustained by them as aforesaid in
operating their such pumping plants, the Sanitary District of Chicago shall,
upon his demand forthwith, pay to said Chief of Engineers sufficient money to
comply with his demand for the same.
SEC. 6. If after the approval by the Secretary of War of the report of the
("hief of Engineers (by which the type of levees and embankments to thereafter
he constructed on either bank of the Illinois River shall be brought to a stand-
aré!) any person or persons and/or Organization constructing levees or em-
bankments of Such determined Standard type on either bank of the Illinois
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 5
River shall be compensated in cash by the Sanitary District of Chicago for the
added cost of such levees or embankments made necessary by reason of the
discharge into Said river in its natural flood or highest water stages of water
attributable to the Sanitary District of Chicago. When any such levee shall
have been completed as aforesaid those constructing the same may apply to the
Said Chief of Engineers to fix and state the amount of such added cost occa-
Sioned as aforesaid. This the said Chief of Engineers shall do at the sole cost
of the Sanitary District of Chicago. Upon his report to said Sanitary District
of Chicago Of his charges in this behalf and his estimate of such added costs
as aforesaid the Sanitary District of Chicago shall at once pay to said Chief of
Engineers the amounts so fixed by him, and he shall forthwith, after deducting
the Costs and charges due to his department, distribute the balance to those
SeVerally entitled to receive the same.
SEC. 7. To the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers is reserved the right.
and it is hereby made their duty to compel the Sanitary District of Chicago to
SO construct, and/or operate its controlling works, that should the Illinois River
reach a flood stage which, in the opinion of the said Chief of Engineers will be
imminently dangerous to life and/or property in the valley of the Illinois River,
aS to be able to promptly reduce the flow of water in the main canal of the
Sanitary District of Chicago, to that amount which will not allow the waters
of the said Sanitary District of Chicago to be diverted into Lake Michigan.
The Said Sanitary District of Chicago shall fully comply with an order that
may be issued by said Chief of Engineers and at once regulate its such discharge
in obedience to any request made by said Chief of Engineers as contemplated in
this Section : *
SEC. 8. That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall at all times keep available
to the inspection of said Chief Engineer, and/or his representatives, and the
Officials of the State of Illinois, in its offices and stations in Cook County,
Illinois, and/or elsewhere all of its records, data, and reports of its officers and
employees, showing the quantity and character of water by it carried through
its canals and works, and upon request of said Chief Engineer, and/or his
representatives, and/or the officials of the State of Illinois, shall forth with furish
him and their representatives with such details and reports as may be requested,
and also it shall from time to time, as directed by said Chief of Engineers,
furnish him, and/or his representatives, and/or such State officials, with
Samples of water running through such parts of its canals and works as shall
he designated.
SF.C. 9. The concessions herein made and the permission hereby granted unto
the Sanitary District of (‘hicago, relating to the with (irawal of wate; fron) tº ke
Michigan, are each extended and granted, upon the considerations herein fixed
and designated being fully observed and complied with, and nothing herein
contained limits or abrogates the power of the Federal Government, and/or its
proper officer, and/or the officials of the State of Illinois, in maintaining un-
impaired the navigability of the Illinois IRiver, and/or in preserving the purity
of the water therein, and/or of controlling the same so as to prevent its con-
tamination to the extent of its becoming a nuisance or menace to the health of
ally of the people.
SEC. 10. This act shall not he in force or effect until the same shall be formally
accepted without reservations within sixty days after its passage by an
ordinance of the board of trustees of the Sanitary I)istrict ºf (‘hicago, duly
passed and promulgated. -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hull, I suggest that you be heard first.
STATEMENT OF HON, WILLIAM E. HULL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I was
elected to Congress as a business man. I was really importuned by
15,000 voters in my city to run for Congress, or else I would not
be here.
Since I have entered Congress I have felt that it was my duty to
try to do something while I was here that would be for the best in-
terests of all.
6 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Therefore, as we have, running down through the middle of the
United States, a body of water—-a stream leading from Lake Michi-
gan to the Gulf of Mexico—that lies there idle, it has seemed to me
that the proper thing to do for the man who wanted to do something
for the benefit of the people, would be to try to put that water into
use by Securing a harmonious project connecting the Great Lakes
with the Gulf of Mexico.
Many of you gentlemen who are here in this audience to-day
know that out in that western country we have a remarkably fertile
soil, which is really the producing part of this country.
We all know to-day that if a waterway should be completed from
Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico it would benefit a great por-
tion; in fact, practically all of the States of the United States. It
certainly would be a great advantage to every State west of Pitts-
burgh, all the way to California. It certainly would be a great
advantage to every southern State, and it would also be an ad-
vantage to those States along the Atlantic coast. -
That is true for this reason: That the fertile soil of that great
producing area out there produces foodstuffs for practically the
entire country; and because of the high transportation charges that
are in existence to-day, labor in the New England States, in New
York, and other States is subjected to the continuous high cost of
living, a great deal of which is caused by high transportation charges.
The western part of the country is very largely made up of farm-
ers, and we all know that a very intensive study of the problems of
the farmer is being made to-day for the purpose of giving him relief,
and his greatest obstacle at the present time is the matter of transpor-
tation.
The railroads, as you gentlemen realize, are far behind, and it is
necessary to do something to relieve this great farming district of
this serious situation. - -
If we can get together and form some amicable agreement by
which we can connect Lake Michigan with the Gulf of Mexico so
that barge lines can go down that stream of water, we will reduce
the freight charges on commodities produced by the farmers on an
average of 10 cents a bushel. You know what that would mean to
the farmers in that great western country.
So I say to you to-day that is one of the main objects in introduc-
ing this bill, to provide a deep waterway.
We have other things in mind, of course, and especially in con-
nection with the Illinois River. We have the sanitary district propo-
sition to contend with. I am advocating in my bill a way to deal
with this situation.
Years ago the State of Illinois granted to the Sanitary District of
Chicago a basis that would naturally allow them probably to
divert into the river 10,000 cubic feet per second. They also allowed
them to operate the Chicago River so that it threw their sewage into
the Illinois River. That is a situation which has caused a good deal
of trouble, and it has caused great inconvenience to all of us along
the river from Chicago to Cairo, because of this sewage that was
allowed to go into the river.
So in preparing this bill I have tried to act unselfishly; I have
tried to be fair to everybody, not only to the people of Chicago but
to the people along the river and to the people along the Great
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 7
*...*. well, by putting in the bill provisions that will not injure
anybody.
I § if you gentlemen will read the bill carefully you will come
to the conclusion that fairness has been displayed upon my part in
reference to this great connecting link of this waterway.
I have done this earnestly and have gone through the matter so
thoroughly that I think you will find nobody will be injured.
I have taken the sanitary district into consideration in connection
with draining this water where they have overflowed lands.
I have provided in this bill, as you will see as I go along, that they
shall increase the levees both as to width and height to such an extent
that they will protect the farm lands, protecting the farmer as well
as the city man. - -
In addition to that, I have provided in this bill—and I have gone
through it thoroughly—that they shall build treatment plants in
Chicago to take care of their sewage. That can not be done, in my
judgment, in less than a term of from 15 to 20 years. I have given
them the benefit of the 20-year period and provided that they shall
do . least 5,000,000 every year to take care of that proportion of
people.
The sanitary district are doing what they can to get relief, I think,
and I want to be fair with the people down in that district. What
they are trying to do is to get this thing molded out, and I believe
you will find in the long run that they will be able and willing to
do º the things I have provided for in this bill. They must have
relief.
You can not afford, gentlemen, to shut off water from those people
up there because it is going to be a dangerous proposition to take
water at the present time out of that river on a basis of 10,000
cubic feet, or about that amount, because you would injure health
and property in the city of Chicago. ;
And you would not only injure the health and property of people
in the city of Chicago, but also the health of all the people along
down that valley.
So, until such time as these treatment plants can be provided, some
relief must be given these people.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a speech. I do not want
any particular favors shown to me; I want you to listen to all the
testimony which will be presented to the committee, and I want
you to study it. I do not want any friendship shown me as your
colleague on the committee. I am simply one of you. I would not
ask you to pass upon any bill, and I would not urge any one of you
to do something that I thought was not right. I do hope, however,
that during this week as this hearing goes along that you will be here
in your places and listen to the testimony and pass on this matter
fairly on the facts as they are presented to you.
I have no desire to shut anybody out. This is an open forum, and I
want everybody to be heard.
In my opinion, this is the most important project in the whole
United States to-day, and it is one that must be acted upon sooner
or later.
I am going to say to you in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and gentle-
men, that all of you have an invitation from me to come to Chicago
8 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
at some later date and study this situation yourselves. We will be
glad to take you on a trip down this ribbon of water that runs
through the most fertile soil in this country, down to New Orleans,
and we will prove to you that what we say is true.
STATEMENT OF HON, EDWARD VOIGT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.
Mr. Voigt. Mr. Chairman, might I make a brief statement at
this time !
The CHAIRMAN. I understand you appear against the bill.
Mr. VoIGT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest to the proponents of the bill
that the following matters have occurred to the chairman as being
subjects upon which it would be desirable that testimony should
be given at as early a day as the proponents find it advisable.
The bill provides for a depth of 9 feet in the Illinois River. There
has been a survey recommending an improvement to a depth of
7 feet, and with a view of ultimately providing a depth of 8 feet.
It has been the unbroken custom of the committee and of the Con-
gress for over 20 years not to authorize an improvement until there
has been a survey which has passed in regular course from the local
to the division engineer, then to the Board of Engineers and finally
to the Chief of Engineers, and so to Congress.
The bill, in that respect, seems to be in conflict with that pro-
vision. There may be some explanation for it, and the committee
should have that preliminarily.
Then the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet is in this project. That
is a most important project, and it has never been referred, so far
as a survey is concerned, to the engineers, and no report is before
the committee on that question.
Then we come to another question, upon which I am not at all
clear. I have only given it a very cursory examination, and that
is the question as to whether or not the proposed bill would be in
conflict with the treaty between the United States and Great Britain
regarding boundary waters between the United States and Canada,
which treaty was proclaimed on May 13, 1910.
In regard to that question as to whether or not it is in conflict
with the treaty, I would call the attention of the proponents of the
legislation to Articles I, II, III, and VIII of the treaty.
In the next place, there has been called to my attention by those
who oppose the bill the fact that there have been two cases tried
in the Federal courts regarding proposed diversions, and I under-
stand that a decree has been entered in at least one of those cases.
It should be made to appear whether or not those cases have any
bearing upon the provisions of this bill. *
No doubt all these questions have been studied by the proponents
of the legislation. They have simply been called to my attention
by those who oppose the legislation, and they are preliminary ques-
tions. And because they are preliminary questions it would seem
to me that they are important. While I want to leave you a free
hand and the committee wants to leave you a free hand to proceed
as you are advised, it would seem to me it would be highly advisable
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. - 9
to deal with these questions in the early part of the hearings so
that the committee may know what are the answers to these ques-
tions.
Mr. VoIGT. Mr. Chairman, I have received a telegram from Mr.
Fkern, the attorney general of my State, saying that he could not
be here for a day or two, at least, and asked me to represent him here,
or rather speak for the State of Wisconsin in his absence.
I have met with certain gentlemen not only from our own State
but from other States who are interested in opposing this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. May I say this, that these questions have been
directed to my attention particularly by the Lake Carriers' Associa-
tion and by the president of that association, Mr. Livingstone.
Mr. VoIGT. I can clear that matter up, Mr. Chairman. I want to
say that there are five interests in opposition to this bill. We have
tried to group them, and there are five groups of interests that wish to
appear here in opposition to this bill.
We want to oppose this bill and some others, so far as diversion
of water from Lake Michigan is concerned.
We have no quarrel with the general proposition to build a water-
way from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi; and, so far as I am
informed, the building of that waterway only—that is, the supplying
of water for that waterway—would not meet with any opposition
from the people who propose to oppose this bill.
Now, I would like to inquire, to start with, whether the chairman
of the committee has requested the War Department or the Army
engineers to appear here and give their opinion in reference to this
Imatter.
The CHAIRMAN. Such a request has not been made as yet, but of
course they would be heard before the hearings are concluded.
It has seemed to the chairman of the committee that the orderly
procedure would be to have those interested in the passage of this
bill present their case first, and then probably have the opponents
present their side of the matter, and then hear the Army engineers.
It might be advisable, however, to have the Army engineers come in
between the presentation of the two sides of the case. That. I think,
the committee will find it advisable to take up and decide for itself.
Mr. VoIGT. The opponents will leave that to the decision of the
committee. We have no choice in the matter.
But we do request that the committee ask the Army engineers to
present such information or opinion as they have with reference to
this bill. There is a great deal of information in the engineers'
office respecting this project and our opposition to it on that point.
I want to say this, that these five interests that oppose this bill,
and some others who oppose it on the one point of the diversion of
water from Lake Michigan, may be grouped as follows: -
First, there is the Great Eakes Harbors Association, of which Mr.
William George Bruce, of Milwaukee, is the president. He is present
here to-day. -
The second group is the Lake Carriers’ Association.
The third group is the attorneys general of five States—Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. I am informed that some-
body will also be here to speak for the State of Pennsylvania,
although I have no definite knowledge on that at the present time.
10 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The fourth group will be the Association of Drainage and Levee
Districts of Illinois, who are represented in this case by ex-Con-
gressman Shaw of Illinois.
Also, Some one will appear here in behalf of the Canadian Govern-
ment, and that will bring up the question in connection with the
treaty, to which the chairman has referred. -
So far as I know, Mr. Chairman, there will be probably 20 or 25
people who will wish to be heard in opposition. May I inquire now
how much time the committee will give to each side?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that now, at any rate, there should
be any limitation of time. We may find it necessary later to limit
the time. But as the question is a most important one, the committee
will want to be most liberal in allowing time to both sides.
Mr. VoIGT. I have conferred with the people who are opposing
this bill on the point of the diversion of water, and, of course, we
want to save the time of the committee as far as possible. I want to
say I think the people who are in opposition to the bill would want
about eight hours of time to be heard by the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. You will probably find it will be more than that.
Mr. VoIGT. I think, considering the way in which the case of the
opposition will be presented, we can get through in eight hours.
The CHAIRMAN. The disposition of the committee will be to be
very liberal and there will not be any ruling, I take it, limiting the
time, at least not until after we have proceeded far enough to de-
termine whether it is necessary.
Mr. VoIGT. I suppose the proponents of the bill will put in their
case first.
The CHAIRMAN. So far as they can conveniently do so. We want
to make it convenient and easy for everybody. If they have not all
of their witnesses present we will go on with the other side. But I
think the orderly way to proceed would be the way that you suggest.
But we will make the procedure subject to the convenience of those
who are here. o
Mr. VoIGT. There appear to be four bills before the committee,
H. R. 5475, H. R. 7044, H. R. 6822, and H. R. 6873. Each one of
these bills contemplates the diversion of water from Lake Michigan
in large quantities. I would like to ask, is the committee going to
hear these four bills together?
The CHAIRMAN. I should think that if their purpose is substan-
tially the same—and I take it that it is—there could be no objection
to doing that, and if there are any respects in which they differ we
could very easily hear the testimony separately. But I can not see
any objection to combining them, so far as the hearing is concerned.
Mr. VoIGT. We would like very much to have the committee con-
sider our opposition as directed to these four bills. These people
who will appear in opposition come from some distafice and it would
be unfair to them to have them appear separately on each one of
these bills, and to make them come here and appear before the com-
mittee when each one of these bills comes up.
The CHAIRMAN. There will be no disposition on the part of the
committee to be at all technical in the matter. I am sure the com-
mittee wants to get at the facts in the case and consider the merits
of the proposition.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 11
Mr. VoIGT. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the
people representing these five groups I referred to, for the present
have agreed upon Mr. Bruce as their spokesman. He will control the
time of the opponents of these bills.
Mr. Sweer. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Voigt), has
registered the names of the groups who will appear in opposition.
Are we to understand that the five groups will include all those who
are in opposition, and that any who may appear later in opposition
will come under some one of those five heads?
Mr. VoIGT. That is my understanding, that any man who comes
here and opposes these bills must group himself with one of these
five groups.
Mr. SweBT. Then should we not have notice of the appearances
for the proponents also at this time so that we will know who is
to appear in favor of the legislation and who is to appear against it?
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a good suggestion.
Mr. KINDRED. The statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Voigt) that he assembled all the parties opposing this bill
into five groups would not exclude any other opponents, if they
wanted to come in 2
The CHAIRMAN. No; I think the committee is agreed that we will
not be technical. We want simply to get at the merits of this propo-
sition. We will be most liberal in time and in our treatment of the
matter. What we want to do is to get all the information possible
from both sides. That is the way we want to treat the proposition.
STATEMENT OF MR. C. S. FERRIS, REPRESENTING THE WATER
POWER COMMISSION OF THE STATE of NEW YORK.
Mr. FERRIs. Mr. Chairman, I have come here with the attorney of
the Water Power Commission of the State of New York, and I have
no doubt that we will be able to agree with the gentleman who just
spoke and who suggested that there has been some arrangement into
groups, so far as the matters to be treated are concerned.
But I do not know very many of these gentlemen, and if it is not
asking too much of the committee I would like to have the appear-
ance of everybody noted here, so that we could have a list of those
appearances, and thus I might be able to confer with Some of these
gentlemen and in that way help to save the time of the committee.
I think perhaps we will agree with Wisconsin and that group of
States in the opposition which they have taken. But there are rea-
sons which the State of New York desires to present as to why the
diversion at Chicago of 10,000 second-feet at least should not be
continued indefinitely, which we think perhaps do not apply to the
other States. -
I do not know whether you will agree with me that it would be a
good idea to have all the appearances noted, so that we could have a
list of them before we go on presenting the case.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that would be a good idea.
(The following appearances were noted:)
Mr. Ray Williams, traffic manager Cairo (Ill.) Association of
Commerce and member Cairo Board of Trade; also appearing for
the city of Cairo, Ill. -
Mr. Frank H. Keefer, representing the Province of Ontario.
I2 ILLENOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
P Mr. J. K. Shields, representing the Chamber of Commerce of Erie,
3.
Mr. Edgar B. Thomas, secretary the Watson Co., architects and
engineers, Cleveland, Ohio, representing the Chamber of Commerce
of Cleveland, Ohio.
Maj. D. W. Hoan, Milwaukee, Wis., representing the Great Lakes
Harbors Association.
Mr. William George Bruce, Milwaukee, Wis., representing the
Great Lakes Harbors Association.
Mr. Arthur V. White, representing the Hydro-Electric Power
Commission of the Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.
Mr. Hilts, representing the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. Maguire, representing the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. J. P. Daly, traffic manager of the Donner Steel Co. (Inc.),
Buffalo, N. Y., representing the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. C. S. Ferris, representing the Water Power Commission of the
State of New York.
Mr. E. Griffin, representing the State of New York.
Mr. F. H. Macy, representing the State of New York.
Mr. H. D. Pixley, of Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., Chicago, Ill.
Mr. H. G. Legan, representing the Chicago Shippers Conference
Association, Chicago, Ill.
Mr. J. P. Kerr, president of the Association of Drainage and Levee
Districts of Illinois, Versailles, Ill. r
Mr. Charles A. Livingston, representing the Illinois Manufac-
turers’ Association, 1424 Fort Dearborn Bank Building, Chi-
o, Ill.
g Mr. P. J. Grant, Erie, Pa., representing the Erie Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. D. W. Harper, Erie, Pa., representing the Erie Water Board.
Mr. N. R. Buller, Harrisburg, Pa., commissioner of fisheries of
the State of Pennsylvania.
Hon. Guy L. Shaw, Beardstown, Ill., representing the Association
of Drainage and Levee Districts of Illinois.
Hon. L. A. Jarman, Rushville, Ill., representing the Association of
Drainage and Levee districts of Illinois.
Mr. A. D. Millard, Beardstown, Ill., representing the Association
of Drainage and Levee Districts of Illinois.
Judge Edward J. Boyle, of Chicago and Eldred, Ill., representing
the Association of Drainage and Levee Districts of Illinois; also
representing local owners.
Mr. Schram, Hillview, Ill., representing Association of Drainage
and Levee Districts of Illinois; also representing local owners.
Judge Franklin Velde, Pekin, Ill., representing the Association
of Drainage and Levee Districts of Illinois.
Mr. PEAvKY. May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman? I under-
stand that Attorney General Daugherty, of the State of Michigan, is
already here, representing the five or six States which have been
mentioned, or at least he will be here some time to-morrow to speak
for the attorneys general of those different States. May it not be
possible for this gentleman to associate himself with Mr. Daugherty
and have him appear, either in unanimity or separately, after they
have conferred ?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 13
Mr. FERRIs. I will be very glad to do that, so far as the reasons
which they present may extend. But we think we have reasons to
present which are peculiar to the State of New York, because they
affect a water-power proposition which does not affect the rest of the
States. The other States are affected in a different way.
The CHAIRMAN. You are all affected, as I take it, or you all claim
that you are affected by the lowering of the water, so you would be
in unison on that.
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, you would each have peculiar reasons,
probably, growing out of your locations along the Great Lakes.
Mr. FERRIs. I would be very glad to associate myself with the
other gentlemen, so far as we cover the same ground, and agree with
them in connection with the matters with which the State of New
York would have to do.
Mr. Boy CE. Why could not the proponents as well as the opponents
of the bill meet separately after we adjourn to-day and make their
own arrangements looking toward the saving of time? *
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ferris, I think your suggestion is a good one,
but I think it is a matter which will straighten itself out a little
later. I think it is going to appear who the representatives of the
proponents are, and it has been suggested, in a general way, who will
be the opponents.
I think in the course of the hearing this morning it will develop
very fully who appear for the proponents. Of course, you would
not care to consult with the proponents.
Mr. FERRIs. I might like to talk with them, too.
Mr. Hull, we will be glad to have you proceed. "
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to hear first
Mr. W. C. Rippin, of St. Louis.
STATEMENT OF MR. W. C. RIPPIN, ST. LOUIS, MO., CHAIRMAN OF
THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE OF THE MISSISSIPPI WALLEY ASS0-
CIATION.
Mr. RIPPIN. Mr. Chairman, I am the traffic commissioner for the
Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, which is a credit exchange of
that city. But I am appearing here this morning as the chairman
of the traffic committee of the Mississippi Valley Association, which
is an organization of people between the Rocky Mountains and the
Alleghenies, organized for the purpose of promoting business pros-
perity in that valley. Mr. James E. Small is the president of that
association, and he appointed this traffic committee from the com-
mercial organizations in that association.
The CHAIRMAN. May I make a suggestion right here? My under-
standing of the situation is this. We have a report before us in
favor of an 8-foot channel in the Illinois River. We have nothing
further than that. We have nothing favorable to a 9-foot channel.
There has been no survey, and I take it that what St. Louis and
the Mississippi Valley are interested in is a channel in the Illinois
River connecting with the Mississippi.
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, sir. I was going to talk to you about the trans-
portation end of the matter only.
91739—24—PT 1
2
14 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RlvKRS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. The question here is, whether we have not gone
as far as we can go now. As I understand the rules of the com-
mittee, we could not consider at all the 9-foot channel, but we can
consider the 8-foot channel, and the question is whether we shall
adopt that report and legislate for the 8-foot channel.
Mr. RIPPIN. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with
the engineering features of this matter as between the 8-foot and
the 9-foot channel. But I do know that the people in that territory
are very anxious to get some sort of a channel established, which
will give them transportation on the river from the Lakes to the
Gulf, and I was going to represent their sentiment in reference to
that subject.
I am not going to take the time to read the names of the members
of this committee, but there are 24 of those men representing various
organizations from Pittsburgh on the east to the Missouri River on
the west, and from St. Louis on the north to the Gulf cities on the
South.
(The following is a list of the members of the committee above
referred to :)
Mr. Charles Rippin, chairman, traffic connmissioner, Merchants' Exchange
Of St. Louis, MO.
Mr. C. S. Bather, commerce counsel, Rockford Manufacturers' and Shippers’
Association, Rockford, Ill.
Mr. R. G. Cobb, traffic manager. Mobile Chamber of Commerce, Mobile, Ala.
Mr. P. W. Coyle, traffic commissioner, Chamber of Commerce of St. Louis,
MO.
Mr. James S. Davant, commissioner, Memphis Freight Bureau, Memphis,
Tenn.
Mr. R. M. Field, business manager, Peoria Association of Commerce, Peoria,
III. -
Mr. Carl Giessow, general manager, New Orleans Joint Traffic Bureau, New
Orleans, La.
Mr. C. W. Hayward, secretary-manager, Meridian Traffic Bureau, Meridian,
Miss.
Mr. J. P. Haynes, traffic director, Chicago Association of Commerce, Chicago,
Ill. º ..]
Mr. L. M. Hogsett, manager transportation department, Chamber of Com-
merce Of HOUISton, Tex.
Mr. L. LaCroix, traffic manager, Chamber of Commerce of Evansville, Ind.
Mr. L. G. Macomber, traffic commissioner, Chamber of Commerce Of TOledo,
Ohio. O
Mr. Roy Miller, active vice president, Intracoastal Canal Association of
Louisiana and Texas, COrpus Christi, Tex.
Mr. Donald O. Moore, manager traffic bureau, ("hamber of Commerce of
Pittsburgh, Pa. •
Mr. Herman Mueller, traffic director, St. Paul Association of Public and Busi-
ness Affairs, St. Paul, Minn.
Mr. A. L. Reed, commerce couisel, Chamber of Commerce of Dallas TeX.
Mr. F. M. Renshaw, manager traffic department, Chamber of Commerce of
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mr. J. H. Tedrow, transportation commissioner, Chamber of Commerce of
Ransas City, MO.
Mr. A. F. Vandergrift, manager traffic department, Louisville Board of
Trade, Louisville, Ky.
Mr. J. C. Whiteford, traffic manager, Chamber of Commerce Of Natches,
Miss. ".
Mr. Ray Williams, traffic manager, Board of Trade of Cairo, Ill.
Mr. H. C. Wilson, commissioner traffic bureau, Chamber of Commerce of
Sioux City, Iowa.
Mr. E. G. Wylie, commissioner Greater Des Moines Committee, Des Moilles,
IOWa. º
Mr. J. A. Kuhn, traffic manager, Omaha Grain Exchange, Omaha, Nebr.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 15
... Mr. RIPPIN. The rail charges are so high that the shippers are
looking around and trying to find a way to get their shipments out
at a lower cost. That applies to the domestic shipments as well as
others, and also to those from the interior of the valley to both
coasts and between both coasts and the Mississippi Valley, and it ap-
plies to foreign traffic, where they want to get to the Ocean with the
least possible cost, on the best possible cost basis, so that they can
meet their foreign competitors on the best possible basis.
The CHAIRMAN. Could you tell us what the local and through
traffic is from Chicago to New Orleans and intermediate points, and
then give us an estimate of what percentage of that traffic would be
carried by an 8-foot channel?
Mr. RIPPIN. No ; I could not give you the percentage that that
would carry.
The CHAIRMAN. That would give us some measure of the relief.
Mr. RIPPIN. When the McCormick committee was investigating,
it took the individual testimony of shippers throughout the valley,
and you will find in the record of those hearings a great deal of testi-
mony on that subject which is available.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not any doubt but that everyone knows
that all over the United States there is an excess of tonnage over
transportation facilities. But it seems to me what the committee
is interested in as to the necessity for a waterway is the total amount
of traffic existing, and the amount of traffic which will be carried by
the proposed waterway.
Mr. RIPPIN. I could file that data with you later, taking it from
the records already made on that subject. I have not got it with me,
but that is available from the other records, where the individual
shippers put the figures in the record. If you say so, I will undertake
to have that compiled and filed with you.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. RIPPIN. This committee represents the territory in which
there are joint rail and water rates in existence by the barge line of
the Mississippi River, which is now in operation from St. Louis to
New Orleans.
The barge line asked for through rates as far as New England
when they went before the Interstate Commerce Commission, but the
Interstate Commerce Commission told them in effect that they had
better work on what they had for a while, and the rates are therefore
limited to Pittsburgh on the East and the Missouri River on the
West; and to St. Louis on the North. They apply in both directions.
They also apply to the interior of the Southern States, to Texas on
the West and Mississippi and Alabama on the East, in both direc-
tions.
I would like to demonstrate the saving accomplished by the present,
operation of the barge line. Take, for instance, a commodity on
which the rate is $1 a hundred from St. Louis to New Orleans by
rail. The barge-line rate would be 80 cents. Or, we could take the
same commodity on which the rail rate from Chicago would be $1.30,
and the barge line would apply the same differential on that $1.30
rate in connection with the railroad from Chicago and St. Louis,
and the barge line south, and they would take off the St. Louis to New
I6 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Orleans rate, which is 20 cents. Therefore, the rail and water rate
from Chicago would be $1.10 in the case of the $1.30 by rail.
But there is a further saving by extending the water haul; by mak-
ing a longer water haul there will be a greater saving. On that same
operation to Chicago it would be 80 per cent of $1.30, which would be
$1.04, and you would have a saving of another 6 cents a hundred.
which, on 60,000 pounds of grain, would be $36, which would be a
very considerable item. This committee I referred to has been mak-
ing a study of the barge-line operations to see whether it would be
desirable to extend it, and if so, how far, and what will be helped
by doing that. We are firmly of the opinion that, so far as the inte-
rior is concerned, waterway development is a thoroughly practicable
matter that will be a great benefit to the people in the valley between
the two mountain ranges, not only because of the cheaper transporta-
tion, but because it will enable them to reach markets which they
can not reach on an all-rail basis, giving them additional transporta-
tion facilities which will be provided by means of the operation of
the barge line. We have observed, as traffic men everywhere have
from time to time, the inadequate railroad facilities and service.
About a year ago Vice President Lee, of the Pennsylvania Rail-
road, in an address in Philadelphia recognized the fact by saying .
that railroad officials appreciated the fact that when we have a real
resumption of business in this country the rail facilities will not be
sufficient to handle it. We are trying to have these facilities pro-
vided so that we can help out and provide more transportation. The
ability of the transportation plant of the country will be increased
by the amount that we can put on the waterways in the way of
freight.
Some people have the impression that this waterway development
is only for the cities on the rivers, but that is not true. More than
half the business last year originated away from the river and was
hauled by the barge line.
At this point I would like to show you a blue print prepared from
the barge-line records, which shows the tonnage, by States, which
they handled, and the saving made by hauling that tonnage over
the barge line under what it would have cost had it gone by rail.
This blue print covers the period ending November 30, 1923.
I also wish to submit to the committee another blue print. The
first blue print makes this showing by States and the second one
makes the showing by congressional districts, and if it is agreeable
to the committee I would like to file those prints for your informa-
tion so that the members of the committee may consult them if they
wish to do so.
We were informed, as a committee, that some of the Representa-
tives in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were not
familiar with this operation and they did not appear to take any in-
terest in it because they said their people were not making use of it,
and it was with that idea in mind that this map was prepared, and
also following that idea we addressed letters to all users of the serv-
ice during the past year and we received 140 answers, which were
filed with the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in
connection with the Denison bill, H. R. 6643.
But I have here a list of the names of the writers of those letters
who expressed themselves as favorable to the development of water-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 17
ways for transportation, and who said they were satisfied with the
service and wanted it extended.
They were particularly strong, some of them, in desiring to have
the service extended to Pittsburgh on the east, St. Paul on the north,
Kansas City on the west, and to Chicago on this waterway you are
considering now.
This is the list of those names, and I would like to file that for the
record. I have the original letters on file with the other committee,
which we propose to get and file with your committee as soon as
they are released by the other committee.
The CHAIRMAN. I see no particular reason why this list should go
in the record, but it will be kept on file with the committee.
Mr. RIPPIN. This line last year saved $850,000 on freight charges,
under what the shippers would have paid out if they had shipped
the same freight by rail.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say as to the financial outcome for
the barge line?
Mr. RIPPIN. I expected Col. T. Q. Ashburn to make a statement
in regard to that, but he is ill. It has not yet made a profit in all
the years for the time it has been in operation.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean for the period as to which you are speak-
ing. You say it made a gain to the shippers of $850,000.
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Did it make a profit or loss to the Government;
and if so, how much'
Mr. RIPPIN. I do not remember what the figures were last year, but
taking it from the beginning they have lost.
The CHAIRMAN. We can not properly credit as a gain to the ship-
pers what would be a loss to the Government. --
Mr. RIPPIN. I understand that. The reason I said Colonel Ash-
burn is sick and could not be here was because he compiled a com-
plete record of that, and I think he proposed to file it with the com-
mittee. It gives a record of six-month periods, which shows times
when they had profitable periods at the rate of from two hundred to
three hundred thousand dollars a month. He analyzed that, and
shows that the losses occurred when the river was not usable, but
when the river was right the operation was able to show a profit.
Mr. KINDRED. A large profit?
Mr. RIPPIN. I can not give you those figures now, although I
understand they will be filed with you before you complete this hear-
ing. There is already an exhibit prepared in reference to that mat-
ter, but the officer in charge is sick in bed right now. But he will
probably be here later; at least, if he is not here I will get that data
for you and file it later.
I would like to say a few words with reference to this Panama
Canal competition, which has bothered some people quite a good
deal. There has been such a development of coast to coast traffic
since the canal has been open that people in the center of the country,
manufacturers particularly, are very much alarmed because they are
threatened with the loss of business on that account, because there
is no way of meeting that situation unless they have water transpor-
tation from the center of the country to supply that deficiency and
enable them to compete with the transportation between the coasts.
l8 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. '
I will not spend any more time on that, except to call attention
to it and to say it is very important that they should have this relief.
The United States Chamber of Commerce, through its section on
transportation, has been working on the question of transportation
improvement for about eight months, and recently they called a con-
ference here, which was called in the name of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, and which was referred to as the national
transportation conference. º
At that meeting the waterway committee of that organization pre-
Sented a report favoring the development of interior waterways,
and particularly calling for the continuation of this barge line op-
eration for another five years in order to demonstrate what could
be done in the way of establishing permanent internal-waterway
transportation. • ,
About the same time there was a meeting in Washington of the
executive committee of the National Industrial Traffic League, which
is an organization of about 1,000 shippers from coast to coast of
this country. That meeting was on January 8, and they approved a
report which was favorable to the continuation of the barge line.
I just mention those facts to show you that those two organizations
have gone on record in favor of that development going ahead. A
study of these traffic matters, comparing the possibilities here with
what other countries have done, shows that it is entirely feasible
to continue this development and that it can be made a brilliant
SUICCéSS. . . . .
Mr. KINDRED. That is, the barge line?
Mr. RIPPIN. I mean the operation on this river to Chicago and
the development of the line to Pittsburgh, St. Paul, and Kansas City.
Of course, this particular bill refers to Chicago. We want to de-
velop a trunk-line system of waterways, and this is one of the con-
necting lines. It also will furnish the means of an exchange of
commodities between the lake cities and the other territory reached
by means of the river system.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you in that connection studied the question
of the present rates on the barge line as compared with the rates
on the Great Lakes?
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes; the rates at present on the barge line, generally,
are higher than the Great Lakes rates. They have not gotten down
yet to a compact basis of operation. The line has not been organ-
ized on a compact basis, with sufficient volume so that it can be com-
pared with the business on the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. The question that is passed here by the Lake
Carriers’ Association is the endangering of what they claim is the
largest volume of transportation business in the world, amounting
to 120,000,000 tons,
It is important in considering that to compare the rates on the
Great Lakes with the rates on the barge line. I mean in considering
this bill.
The average rate of transportation on the Great Lakes is 1 mill
per ton-mile. I do not know what the rate on the barge line is.
Mr. RIPPIN. I think the barge line operation has a rate of betwen 2
and 3 mills at present. That is my recollection. But those statistics
are available from Colonel Ashburn, who is in charge of the actual
operation. He can give you all those figures. I did not attempt
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 19
to Secure them to furnish them to you because I expected he would
be here to do that. He has been in charge of that operation for
two years. -
I think I have covered the principal things I desired to say.
There are about half a dozen members of the committee I referred
to a while ago who are present, and I believe you have arranged
to give them an opportunity to say a few words on their own
account, as they desire to present some special features to you.
Mr. PEAVEY. Supposing it should be found by the committee at
a later time that the engineers, after obtaining sufficient engineering
data and authority, would fix the volume of water at, say, 1,000
cubic feet per second at Chicago as being sufficient to sustain the
barge line; would that not meet your interest in this bill?
Mr. RIPPIN. We are shiping wheat from St. Louis to New
Orleans, 75,000 bushels to a barge drawing 7 feet of water. That
is a pretty heavy load, and it is about as much as the grain carriers
O]] ſhe Great Lakes carry. I think 75,000 bushels is the average
load. e -
Mr. PEAVEY. Let me put my question in a little different way.
You are directly interested in the amount of diversion that occurs
at Chicago? º
Mr. RIPPIN. As a traffic committee we would be interested in try-
ing to get transportation. We want to ship our goods on the best
possible basis. -
Mr. PEAvey. My first question was directed to this point: , Sup-
pose the engineers would find that 1,000 cubic feet of water per
second would be sufficient to support a barge line; would that meet
all your objections?
Mr. RIPPIN. I do not know about the diversion matter; I am talk-
ing from the transportation point of view. If that depth of water
would be sufficient for barges, we would make use of it.
Mr. PEAVEY. You are not interested in the amount of diversion.' '
The CHAIRMAN. I think perhaps the question has been answered
because he says that they carry their heaviest load with 7 feet, and
I think the report to which you refer is one that says 8 feet would
be furnished by the amount you specify.
Mr. MoRGAN. The grain you ship by barges from St. Louis and
other points is very largely for export, is it not? -
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, sir; it has been up to this time.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I inquire as to what the difference is in rates
at the harbor for export between the barge line and the railroads?
Mr. RIPPIN. The base rail rate from St. Louis to New Orleans
is 18 by rail and 114 by the barge line, a difference of 6% per hundred
in favor of the barge line. I would like to add that I have observed
that when there is active bidding for grain for export the price is
enhanced and the man in the country gets a better price because the
grain can be sent to the ports on a cheaper basis.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is what I wanted to get at. That would be
applicable to all products shipped for export, would it not?
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, to the agricultural products. g
The CHAIRMAN. Let me understand this. Really, you are talking
about bidding for shipments in Chicago or St. Paul'
Mr. RIPPIN. I was talking about our market.
The CHAIRMAN. At St. Louis?
20 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, sir. Does not that answer your question?
The CHAIRMAN. In Chicago, of course, at 2 to 3 mills per ton, you
could not compete with the Great Lakes at 1 mill per ton.
Mr. RIPPIN. Of course, we have a shorter haul from St. Louis to
New Orleans than from Chicago to Montreal, thence all water
route.
The CHAIRMAN. You have not carried any grain because you
have not had any channel to carry it on from Chicago.
Mr. RIPPIN. From St. Louis by water?
The CHAIRMAN. Chicago.
Mr. RIPPIN. No, not from Chicago.
Mr. MoRGAN. What would apply to St. Louis would be applicable
to Chicago?
The CHAIRMAN. That would depend entirely on this—that if
the Great Lakes carrier bid 1 mill and your present rate is 2 to 3
mills, you would not expect to get the traffic on that competitive
bidding, would you? j
Mr. RIPPIN. It would have to be on a competitive basis.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. Let me answer that. The majority of
the grain raised would not go to Chicago. It would be diverted
along the Lakes and the Mississippi River. In that way you would
save the freight rate from a destination like Des Moines, which
would not go to Chicago but would go straight to the Mississippi
River, thus saving that expense.
The CHAIRMAN. That would not be involved in this question at
all. We are talking exclusively here about the waterway from
Chicago to the Mississippi. We are not talking about the Mis-
sissippi proper.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. I will answer that by saying first, that
you can not have the Mississippi proposition conducted without
this. You get the water to carry the Mississippi traffic through
this river and through Lake Michigan, if you put in 10,000 cubic
feet to get that water and increase the available flow down the
Mississippi River, that makes your canal.
Mr. MoRGAN. Is it not a fact that if this waterway is developed
through the great bread basket of the United States, where the
great volume of grain is produced, that the shipment would go
by way of the river to New Orleans?
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, sir; it would certainly use the water haul as
much as it could.
Mr. MoRGAN. Did I understand you to say that you carried
72,000 bushels of grain from St. Louis to New Orleans by barge?
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. In a 7-foot channel?
Mr. RIPPIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. STRONG. Did I understand you to say in a barge or a fleet
of barges? * º
Mr. RIPPIN. One barge load. There are times when they can
be loaded that much, and at that time the river was in condition
to take it. 4
Mr. MoRGAN. How much water is required to take that much?
Mr. RIPPIN. When you draw 7 feet. you have to have more depth
than that. You have to have some play between 7 feet and the bot-
tom. That would mean at least 8 feet depth there.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 21
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. To show you this proposition, Mr. Morgan,
starting at Chicago, through the Illinois River, thence the Mississippi,
Ohio, and Missouri, you make a channel of 9 feet in depth and 200
feet in width, and that is necessary to carry on a barge line !
Mr. RIPPIN. The deeper it is the better the operation. You can
put heavier loads on it.
Mr. PEAvLY. Is it your position, Mr. Hull, that 10,000 cubic feet
per second is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of a project like
this barge line !
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. I can answer it in this way: That the
10,000 cubic-feet flow, which gives you a satisfactory channel, not
only does that but it decreases the expense of building the canal
almost five times. In other words, if you would try to make the flow
without any flow from Lake Michigan, then the expense would be
enormous, and I do not believe that you could have the channel satis-
factory to carry those barge lines. With the 10,000 cubic-feet flow
you get everything you want as far as making this channel a success
is concerned.
Mr. PEAvKY. In other words, you are going to reduce the cost of the
construction of the barge canal at the expense of those on the Great
Flakes?
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hu LL. I would not say that, because I do not think
it would affect the Great Lakes. It has not so far, and it has been
going through for 10 years.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the flow from Lake Erie into the barge
canal in New York? That is 12 feet in depth?
Mr. MACY (department of State engineering, New York). I can
answer that question. About 1,200 cubic feet per second. It varies
from that up to as high as 1,700.
The CHAIRMAN. I was just comparing the discharge into the barge
canal of the State of New York.
Mr. MoRGAN. What is the width and depth?
The CHAIRMAN. The barge canal is 12 feet deep. What is the width
at the top 4
Mr. MACY. The lock section is 94 feet wide and 12 feet deep. Just
above the locks the average width is 125 feet at the top; about 1,200
to 1,400 square feet.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. The Erie Canal is fed by water from the
Lakes, is it?
Mr. MACY. It is fed by water from the Great Lakes, from Lake
Erie and the Niagara River.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. How much is the flow :
Mr. MACY. Eastward to Rochester Ž
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hui.L. How much is the flow from the Lakes into
the canal?
Mr. MACY. It is 1,200 second-feet.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. More than we are asking in this? It is
not one-tenth.
Mr. MACY. It is 1,200.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. For a canal 12 feet deep :
Mr. MACY. The United States engineer has been making recent
measurements as to that flow.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. That is a canal where you only use one
barge at a time, a single barge? Do you load them together?
22 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. MACY. They are towed in tows.
Mr. O'ConnoR. Did I understand you to say the flow varies from
1,200 to 1,700 feet?
Mr. MACY. It has varied within those limits.
Mr. O'ConnoR. What would be the average flow :
Mr. MACY. The requirement is one of obtaining a level in the sec-
tion extending east of Lockport, and the hydraulic functions of that
portion of the channel are such that they require about 1,200 cubic
feet per second flow east from Lockport. There are variations in the
demand influenced by the amount, of traffic carried. Some water is
wasted necessarily because it can not be gauged exactly. In addition
to that requirement, there has been permitted by the Government to
be diverted 500 feet per second of an allowance made under the Bur-
ton treaty for power development at Lockport. That is in addition
to the navigation use.
STATEMENT OF MR. J. P. HAYNES, TRAFFIC LIRECTOR, CHICAGO
ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, CHICAGO, ILL.
The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. J. P. Haynes.
Mr. HAYNEs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is J. P.
Haynes; I am traffic director of the Chicago Association of Com-
merce, appearing here in behalf of manufacturers, shippers, and
commercial organizations throughout the State. What I will have
to say will deal with commerce and transportation only.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me make a suggestion, if you will. I do not
intend to limit you at all, but I am going to leave you to choose
your own way. I would say that, generally speaking, this com-
mittee, I believe, to a man is in favor of water transportation,
So you do not need to say anything to us about that. We hear
that from the beginning to the end of the year, and we are con-
vinced of it. Now, as I understand the technical situation here,
we can not consider anything except an 8-foot channel. That is
all we have a report on. There are two sides involved here, as I
understand it. One is an 8-foot channel in the Illinois River and
the other is the sanitary district. If you would direct your remarks
to how much water we need for the 8-foot channel, that is one sub-
ject, and the other is how much water you need for sanitation. I
take it that you would cover the two subjects that the committee
really has before it. That is all there it to it, as I understand it.
Mr. HAYNES. I am not an engineer.
STATEMENT OF MR. F. J. QUINN, REPRESENTING ASSOCIATION
OF COMMERCE, PEORIA, ILL.
Mr. QUINN. I represent the Association of Commerce of Peoria,
and incidentally I am interested in this subject, if we are to be
limited to the discussion
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I am not going to limit you. I
am making that as a suggestion, not a limitation.
Mr. QUINN. If we are to discuss these disadvantages between the
8-foot and 9-foot channels, I take it that we are not prepared to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. No; you are not to discuss that at all. That
is not the suggestion. You have a report in favor of the 8-foot
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 23
channel, and the question is whether it shall be adopted, and that
is all there is before the committee on that question of the channel.
You have another interest; you have your sanitary district. -
Mr. QUINN. I am not talking about that at all. I want to keep
to the question of depth of channel and these reports separate. I
understand that there are reports on the 9-foot channel. I will
send for the document. w
The CHAIRMAN. If that is so, I will be glad to hear it.
Mr. QUINN. And on the 14-foot-channel, and on nearly every
depth of channel conceivable from Chicago to the Mississippi River.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you are entirely mistaken.
Mr. QUINN. All right. I will call your attention to House Docu-
ment No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, addressed to your-
self, and No. 7, Šiº. Congress, Second session.
The CHAIRMAN. What is it?
Mr. KINDRED. What is the report?
Mr. QUINN. A letter of the Chief of Engineers, addressed to
Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey, with report of the Board of Engineers
on Rivers and Harbors.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that the report in favor of the 8-foot channel?
Mr. QUINN. And this second document is No. 7, referring to an
8-foot channel, which gives estimates of a 9-foot channel. Also
House Document No. 1374, Sixth-first Congress, third session, and
House Document No. 50, Sixty-first Congress, first session, in which
is developed the 9-foot project. -
Mr. SweFT. Do those reports recommend anything but 8 feet?
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. QUINN. I will say information, not recommendation.
The CHAIRMAN. All I stated at the outset of the hearing was this,
that it had been the uniform, unvarying custom of the committee
for 20 years and more to deal with projects only after there had
been first a survey and that survey had gone the course through the
local engineer, district engineer, board of engineers, and chief of
engineers, and was then submitted to us with their recommendation, .
and that the only recommendation we had was for an 8-foot chan-
nel. Now, I do not think it so material from the standpoint of the
merits whether it is an 8-foot, or 9-foot channel. I am talking
purely about the technical situation and how the committee is bound.
We might be very glad, every member of the committee, to con-
sider a 9-foot channel or more, but we are not in position to do it
because we have not a favorable report on anything except an 8-foot
channel. It is purely the technical situation.
Mr. QUINN. I appreciate that. If you are not going to consider
anything but what has been reported or recommended by some
board, then those gentlemen who base their statistics on this matter
are not in position to do anything at all, because they have not con-
sidered their propositions on the basis of any certain depth of chan-
nel and have not so analyzed them.
The CHAIRMAN. That was purely a suggestion. What we all want
to do is to get what is helpful, and I am not going to attempt to
limit you. I simply made the suggestion that testimony along that
line would probably be more helpful then any other matters.
Mr. HAYNEs. Mr. Chairman, my statement is directed toward the
commercial and transportation phases, and the direct statement will
24 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
only take a few minutes. We feel in Illinois, and we hope that this
committee will not confine themselves to the technical flow of water.
The subject is far bigger than that.
Mr. O'Connor. It occurs to me that the gentlemen are very much
interested in your statement and would hear better if you moved to
the other side of the table. r
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with the permis-
sion of the committee, to give at the outset the interests that I am
appearing for. First, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, compris-
ing approximately 118 commercial organizations of that State;
second, the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, embracing practi-
cally all of the manufactures of Illinois; the Chicago Shippers' Con-
ference Association, the Peoria Association of Commerce, the Joliet
Association of Commerce, the Bloomington Association of Commerce,
the East St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, the Cairo Association of
Commerce, the Kankakee Chamber of Commerce, the La Salle Cham-
ber of Commerce, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, the Pekin Asso-
ciation of Commerce, the Champaign Chamber of Commerce, the
Decatur Association of Commerce, the Moline Business Men’s Asso-
ciation, the Quincy Chamber of Commerce. the Morris Chamber of
Commerce, the Sterling Association of Commerce, the Jerseyville
Chamber of Commerce, the White Hall Chamber of Commerce, the
Chicago Heights Chamber of Commerce, the Rockford Chamber of
Commerce, and the Lockport Merchants' Association.
The statement presented by the traffic committee of the Mississippi
Valley Association is heartily concurred in by commercial interests
of Illinois, but we wish to point out in more detail further reasons
showing the commercial necessity for this development as relating
particularly to the territory served by the Illinois Waterway from
Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River.
Experience has shown that our American transcontinental com-
merce has been completely revolutionized through the building of the
Panama Canal. This great project has had a tremendous affect upon
industrial enterprise in the great State of Illinois and in adjoining
territory in that many products manufactured and produced in this
State and the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and
Indiana have been restricted in distribution through failure to meet
competition of centers on and adjacent to the Atlantic coast where
cheaper transportation is available through the canal.
It is possible to ship many articles from these Middle Western
States by rail to Atlantic seaboard and thence by water through the
canal to Pacific coast markets more cheaply than by rail direct or
by rail to St. Louis then to New Orleans and then by vessel through
the canal.
We have seen instances where electric motors from Beloit Wis.,
plumbers’ goods from Sheboygan, Wis., corn sirup, glucose, etc.,
from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, farm implements from Waterloo, Iowa.
pianos from Rockford, Ill., and a multitude of articles from various
Illinois points, were moving eastward to Atlantic seaboard to be re-
shipped by vessel to Pacific coast markets because transportation
costs were much less than the all-rail routes.
In many instances it is impossible to meet the competition of
eastern manufacturers and producers, and in those cases business
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 25
is entirely lost to the Central and Middle Western States only
because they do not enjoy cheaper transportation routes such as the
Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway should provide. Business is forced to
relocate, and as specific cases I refer you to Crane & Co., Butler
Bros., the Sefton Manufacturing Co., and various others, which I
would be very glad to go into in more detail. if the committee so
desires.
Illinois and her sister States should be given an equal opportunity
to distribute their products in the domestic markets, and in foreign
fields through an equalization of freight rates which would be pro-
vided by the development of cheaper transportation facilities, the
solution of this problem being an adequate waterway system such
as is being considered by your honorable committee.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say is an adequate waterway ?
Mr. HAYNES. I am not qualified to speak on that except I did
hear Mr. Theodore Brent, manager of the barge line, state that in
his opinion 9 feet would be necessary.
A more compelling reason why the Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway
project should receive the support of the people of the great Missis-
sippi Valley is because their business activities are becoming more
and more circumscribed by various elements, including a keener
competition by industries more favorably situated to water trans-
rtation and by the administration of the fourth section of the
interstate commerce act. By way of illustration, we can take the
steel industry of Chicago and show that it is steadily losing its
markets in the South. Southwest, and the Pacific Coast States due
to the ability of eastern mills to lay their products down in some
of these markets at from $1 to $7 per ton less than the Chicago
mills.
The Pittsburgh steel mills are making intensive use of water
transportation through the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, which
enables them to lay their products down at New Orleans at a trans-
portation cost of about $6 per ton, while the all-rail transportation
cost is $10.30 per ton, and because of these conditions we say that
Chicago mills and other industrial enterprises should be given an
equal Opportunity to secure its share of the business in these impor-
tant markets.
The same can be said of many other lines of industry—canned
goods from Indiana. Iowa, and Wisconsin, which compete with New
England products: machinery from Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.,
against Atlantic Seaboard territory, and so on.
The CITAIRMAN. Of course, nothing from Iowa would go toward
Chicago and go down the Illinois River: it would go down the
Mississippi if it came by water route direct. -
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes: but it would go from Iowa by that channel to
Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. You are talking about Chicago consumption?
Mr. HAYNEs. No. Chicago, if domestic consumption, and through
Chicago to export markets through Montreal. I will touch on that
later.
Mr. MANsfiFL.D. You said the steel rate from Pittsburgh to New
Orleans was $6 per ton by the barge line and $10.30 per ton by all
rail.
26 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
º HAYNEs. Yes. Machinery from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Pacific
CO8:S - ; : - . - . . .
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). From what point to what point are
those rates given 2 - - -
Mr. HAYNEs. The ones I just referred to, from Pittsburgh to New
Orleans. i -
The CHAIRMAN. That is one rate. Is that the double rate?
Mr. HAYNEs. The $6 rate from Pittsburgh to New Orleans is all
water. The $10.30 rate is from Pittsburgh to New Orleans, all rail.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that it is an enormous volume of tonnage
moving that way to-day.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes: we have had testimony in another matter on
that question.
Mr. HAYNEs. Machinery from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Pacific
coast—and I will say that the Pacific coast includes all of the port
cities from Vancouver to Los Angeles—by rail takes a rate of $2.28.
a hundredweight, while the Atlantic seaboard can obtain rates rang-
ing from 90 cents to $1.25 via the Panama Canal.
Mr. SweFT. How is that relevant in this matter? From Iowa,
machinery does not go into Chicago to be reshipped.
The CHAIRMAN. No. Generally speaking, I take it the committee
is thoroughly convinced that water transportation is, perhaps, 20.
per cent cheaper than transportation by rail, and yet with the Erie.
Canal, 12 feet deep, through the State of New York, and a free canal,
we do not seem to be able to get the transportation away from the
railroads. -
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. These gentlemen are trying to show you
what can be done by a water route. You can not have a water route.
without having this continuous water flow from Chicago down to
the Mississippi. w
Mr. SweFT. In other words, you want to feed the Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HuDL. There will be another bill connected with
this bill, the Newton bill, that you will hear the last of this
week, that takes care of the upper Mississippi, the lower Mississippi,
the Missouri, and the Ohio, but this particular bill takes care of
the Illinois River. It makes all of them come in together, so that
you would have to have this channel with water enough to make
the barge line run, whether it is the Illinois or Mississippi; they all
come in in a general bill. o
The CHAIRMAN. The argument is that it does not affect the
waterway. Your real consideration for argument is that water
transportation is cheaper than rail, and that you must have a flow
through the Illinois River to maintain navigation for the Iowa
oints.
p Mr. GUY L. SHAw. In speaking of shipping from Iowa, have you
taken into consideration the Hennepin Canal in the Illinois, which
is already in existence?
Mr. HAYNEs. That is correct.
Mr. SHAw. I do not mean to say it would take the balance of
the Illinois water. d
Mr. HAYNEs. That is correct.
Mr. SHAw. But the idea is to bring the Hennepin Canal in there
and shorten the distance from Iowa points.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 27
Mr. HAYNEs. In answering Mr. Sweet direct, what I am saying
from Iowa points does not relate to the interchange through Chi-
cago by any means. Cedar Rapids in this gets an interchange at
Peoria at a tremendous saving, leaving the existing industries at
Cedar Rapids able to compete in a better measure.
Mr. SweBT. In order to maintain the Mississippi navigation you
have got to feed the water down this way.
Mr. HAYNEs. You can not separate the two. Cedar Rapids can
at present ship this machinery to Baltimore all rail and thence
steamer through the Panama Canal at a rate of $1.96 to $2.15 a.
hundredweight, much cheaper that they can go direct by rail.
There are large movements of freight from Middle Western States
to the Atlantic Seaboard for reshipment by vessel through the
Panama Canal, and we consider that such, instances result in the
economic waste of transportation and facilities. It takes many
western line cars into a very congested territory from which in-
sufficient return loadings are available, thus necessitating the return
of many cars empty after long delays, sometimes extending beyond
months—and yet we wonder why shippers can not get cars at times.
We desire to impress upon the committee that the manufacturer
in the Middle West, who is forced by high all-rail rates to the
Pacific coast to ship his product to the Atlantic seaboard and
thence by water, is at a disadvantage against a similar manufacturer
located on the Atlantic seaboard by just the amount of his rail rate
from the West to the Atlantic seaboard, which condition would be-
obviated if an all-water route were available for the western shipper.
In discussing the waterway project now before us with the vice
president of a large western road some six or eight months ago,
a member of our committee was surprised to learn that he favored
it. Upon asking his reason, he stated that he believed the water-
way would increase the business of his line because it would bring
tonnage to his rails and that the car supply would be greatly in-
creased due to the release of equipment upon his own rails on such
tonnage delivered to the waterway.
In the general presentation of the Mississippi traffic committee
by Mr. Rippin, it is recited that many shippers testified as to the
practical need and use which could be made of the 9-foot channel
from Great Lakes to the Gulf at hearings before the Senate Special
Waterways Committee (S. 4428). We would like to furnish the
committee with a list of the shippers among those whose testimony
is included in the record of hearings before the McCormick special
committee and is available to your committee, as follows:
C. T. Bradford, manager traffic department, International Harvester Co.,
Chicago ; Frank T. Bentley, traffic manager, Illinois Steel Co., Chicago ; C. L.
Lingo, traffic manager, Inland Steel Co., Chicago ; R. C. ROSS, traffic manager,
JOS. T. Ryerson & Son, Chicago; H. D. Pixley, traffic manager, Carson Pirie
Scott & Co., Chicago; Gordon L. Pirie, Carson Pirie Scott & Co., Chicago;
J. J. Wait, chairman freight traffic committee, Chicago Association of Com-
merce; T. H. Eddy, Marshal Field & Co., Chicago; Ezra J. Warner, president,
Sprague Warner & Co., Chicago; Joy Morton, Morton Salt Co., Chicago;
G. L. Sweeney, chairman special committee of Peoria Association of Com-
merce; William F. Gilman, president Peoria Grain & Barging Co., Peoria ;
J. Wachenheimer, president the Commercial National Bank, Peoria ; C. C.
Block, Block & Kuhl Co., Peoria ; S. H. Altorfer, president Altorfer Bros. Co.,
Peoria ; Geo. Ainsworth, secretary Peoria Malleable Castings Co., Peoria ;
J. R. Blackhall, president Joliet Association of Commerce ; Fred A. Mudge,
28 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
farmer and Stock raiser, La Salle ; S. A. Kidd, La Salle Portland Cement
Co., La Salle; J. B. McCafferty, manager La Salle & Bureau County Railroad;
A. F. Schoch, banker and representative of shippers, Ottawa; J. C. Aydelotte,
grain dealer, Pekin ; R. H. Garm, banker. landowner, and shipper, Beards-
town : Louis Lowenstein, land, owner and shipper, White Hailſ; Henry T.
Rainey, Congressman, landowner and shipper, Carrollton; Joseph Leiter,
president Ziegler Coal Co., Chicago; W. K. Kavanaugh, president Southern
Coal, Coke, & Mining Co., St. Louis; C. B. Fox, president Aluminum Ore Co.,
East St. Louis; S. W. Allender, traffic manager Monsanto Chemical Works,
East St. Louis; E. A. Smith, president Cairo Association of Commerce, banker
and Shipper.
The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, Chicago has grown very
rapidly from 1890 to 1922? -
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the population in 1890, approximately 7
Mr. HAYNEs. I do not recall, but I think I put it in the McCor-
mick hearing.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you realize that Chicago had in 1890 7,000,000
tons of freight, and º with all its growth from 1890 to 1922 it
had less than 3,000,000 tons of freight by water in 1922? Do you
know that to be the fact?
Mr. HAYNES. I know that we are landlocked, if that is what you
Iſle?..I.
The CHAIRMAN. You are on Lake Michigan?
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about your transportation by the
Great Lakes. You had 7,000,000 tons in 1890 and you had less
than 3,000,000 tons in 1922?
Mr. HAYNES. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that every other port on the
Great Lakes of any considerable size has steadily and rapidly in-
creased in water transportation on the Great Lakes?
Mr. HAYNEs. There is quite a history back of that.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not that the fact?
Mr. HAYNEs. I accept your statement of that.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me finish my line of inquiry. Is it not con-
ceded that transportation by the Great Lakes is the cheapest trans-
portation of any kind in the whole history of the world?
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes, sir; very cheap.
The CHAIRMAN. And Chicago, so far as I can find, is the only port
on the Great Lakes which has not steadily, continuously, and rapidly
increased its traffic. . Now, why, if you have gone down from over
7,000,000 tons on this cheapest of all waterways, how can you as-
sume, with less than 3,000,000 tons in 1922, that you are likely to use
a new waterway to any considerable extent?
Mr. HAYNEs. In the first place, you must remember that the com-
mittee must consider this, that prior to Congress declaring a policy
in section 500 of the transportation act of 1923 of the coordina-
tion of rail and water transportation at Chicago the Lake lines oper-
ating out of Chicago were practically dominated and controlled in
the main by rail transportation agencies. º
The CHAIRMAN. But in spite of that you had three times as much
water transportation as you have to-day, and your total transporta-
tion in Chicago to-day must be between ten and twenty times what
it was in 1890. º
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 29
Mr. HAYNEs. But do not lose sight of this, Mr. Chairman, that
since the Esch-Cummins Act, whereas all the rail eastern trunk lines
used to control in a large measure what the service would be on the
Great Lakes, that is not a factor to-day as it was prior to that act.
The CHAIRMAN. What year was the Esch-Cummins Act passed 2
Mr. HAYNES. 1920.
The CHAIRMAN. What time did it take effect in 1920 !
Mr. HAYNES. The 1st of March.
The CHAIRMAN. You had practically all of 1920?
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. For that year your transportation was a little less
than the preceding year. In 1921 it grew from one and a half million
to two and a half million, approximately, and in 1922 was nearly
3,000,000?
Mr. HAYNEs. That is all very true, Mr. Chairman, but please do
not forget this, that the amount of transportation in and out of
Chicago by the Great Lakes is a very, very small per cent of the
territory that can be served by that center for the reason that the
tendency of development is westward, and 75 per cent of the manu-
factured products to-day out of Illinois, is in a westward direction
and not back into the East, so as the population goes westward the
consumption naturally goes that way, and in that respect we are
land controlled exclusively.
The CHAIRMAN. In that connection I would call your attention
to a comparison with Milwaukee, which has over five and a half
million tons in 1922, on the Great Lakes. Now, let us take Cleveland.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Are you referring to the Chicago River harbor
or Chicago and Calumet harbor! a
The CHAIRMAN. I will give you Calumet separately. I am refer-
ring to Chicago.
Mr. SweFT. What is the tonnage for the same period that you
state as to Chicago, in Milwaukee : Has it decreased or increased ?
The CHAIRMAN. It has decreased, a very small decrease, from
7,000,000 to 5,600,000 tons, in Milwaukee.
Mr. SweFT. As compared with 7,000,000 to 3,000,000 tons.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SweBT. How do you answer that, the movement of freight
westward with the growth of population?
Mr. HAYNEs. You must bear in mind when you are referring to
Chicago and Milwaukee, the tonnage that is referred to here, a
very small per cent of it is from Milwaukee or Chicago properly,
and I think you will find that a great percentage of the tonnage
through Milwaukee does not have its origin there. It has grain
products of southern Minnesota mills eastward.
Mr. SweBT. With regard to your statement of the growing popu-
lation affecting the tonnage, why would not that be as true of
Chicago as of Milwaukee ?
Mr. HAYNEs. It is, and the flow of traffic from Milwaukee west-
ward bound is very small.
The CHAIRMAN. Answering the question about Calumet harbor
and river in Chicago, Indiana, and Illinois, in 1907 it had nearly
6,500,000 tons of traffic, and in 1922 it had over 9,500,000 tons.
There was an increase there. Of course, the suggestion that the
9.1739—24—PT 1 8
30 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
trend for manufactured products from Chicago is westward and
not eastward would have only a very indirect bearing on our question
here, because this is southward not westward.
Mr. HAYNEs. That does affect the Southwest and Oklahoma. This
rate applies to St. Louis and Memphis water and rail.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true.
Mr. SwºrT. By the route down you would eventually get to
Panama and the West.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. D. PIXLEY, REPRESENTING CARSON-
PIRIE-SCOTT & CO., OF CHICAGO.
Mr. Pixi.E.Y. We are large shippers of Chicago, and I want to
state right here in connection with what you are discussing that one
of the contributing factors in decrease of tonnage may result from
this very thing which has happened with us. We are serving
Pacific coast territory to-day, and have been for some years back,
from the eastern Seaboard, freight that formerly moved to Chicago
by water and was distributed from Chicago to the Pacific coast, and
this freight is now moving by water directly from the Atlantic sea-
board. That would have a very direct influence in reducing your
tonnage by water into Chicago, because we are only one of many.
But our diversion from New York has been very large.
The CHAIRMAN. But do you not think you will find, just as Mr.
Haynes has agreed with me is probably the fact, that your total
tonnage is from ten to twenty times what it was in 1890? There is
your own tonnage. It is distributed somehow over rail and water
and at one harbor you have lost three-fourths of it, and at the other
harbor you made a very slight increase, and the rest of it must go by
rail. There is not any other solution.
Mr. PIXLEY. Just what the percentage would be, I do not know,
but I do know as far as our own industry is concerned there has been
a very large diversion taken place from the Atlantic seaboard by
water to the Pacific coast territory.
Mr. MANs|FIELD. Is that on account of the Panama Canal?
Mr. Pixley. That is because it is uneconomical for us to distribute
to the territory from Chicago. We have got to use a cheaper trans-
portation from New York and distribute directly from the Atlantic
Seaboard. -
The CHAIRMAN. Via the Panama Canal &
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes.
STATEMENT OF MR. R. M. FIELD, PEORIA, ILL.
Mr. FIELD. With reference to this Chicago situation that prior to
1919 and 1920 practically all the lake boats running into Chicago
outside of cargo carriers were controlled by eastern railroads, as Mr.
Haynes told you, the eastern railroads did not allow any other com-
petition on that lake business. They only carried such freight by
lake as they wanted to carry, enough to keep out other competition,
and that was the situation for years. Business dwindled and
dwindled because the railroads had it right in their group. About
1919 and 1920 the Interstate Commerce Commission decided that it
was no longer proper for eastern railroads to continue operating
lake lines and ordered them to divorce the lake lines. They sold their
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 31
boats and cleaned out the business, but in the meantime it called off
the other competition so there was no business. Then the Great
Lakes Transit Co. and one or two others came in and had to build
lake tonnage in Chicago from the bottom up, so that accounts for the
situation that you are describing.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see if it does.
Mr. FIELD. And under the transportation act that same thing could
not occur again.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see if it explains it. Chicago operated un-
der it the same as the cities of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, and
all the other great ports operated. Now, there was not the decrease in
tonnage at any of those other ports at all. You will find on exam-
ing every one of them that that was not true except with Chicago.
If it was the fact that the boats were railroad controlled, if it was
the sºcret of the decrease, that would operate equally at Buffalo,
Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Duluth. It would not operate at Chicago
alone because it was a law which was in force at all ports, or it was
a condition in force at all ports. So I can not see how that is an ex-
planation. Take Cleveland here. In 1907 it had 12,872,448 tons and
10,925,692 tons in 1922. There was practically no deterioration, prac-
tically the same tonnage, and you take the figures between those two
dates and you will see the figures continued practically the same, and
how can you say that the condition which prevailed at all ports oper-
ated to the disadvantage of commerce at one port and not elsewhere?
That is not possible.
Mr. HAYNEs. I do not see the practical illustration of it at all,
Mr. Chairman, from your illustration. In the first place, Chicago
and Milwaukee made a desperate effort to get lake service at a time
when it was in Lake Erie and Lake Superior plying from Duluth
to Buffalo, when there was a clearing out of the Lake Michigan
service because those boats claimed they made more money at Duluth
than Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. That would relate simply to economic returns
and not to ownership.
Mr. HAYNEs. To the boat lines.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. HAYNEs. Another reason is that you must bear in mind that
all this lake traffic reaches its saturation point sooner or later. When
you referred to Chicago
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It has been steadily, increasing.
Last year there was the largest traffic in the history of the Great
Lakes, 120,000,000 tons.
Mr. HAYNEs. Taking the lakes as a whole.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I have a telegram here from Mr. Living-
ston this morning and he told me personally that they had the
largest traffic last year that they ever had in the history of the lakes,
more than 120,000,000 tons.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HuDL. If they are having such a traffic there,
why would not that be an incentive for good argument to use for
more waterways?
The CHAIRMAN. It might be and might not be; I am not saying.
All I am talking about is the question as to Chicago. */ .
32 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hu LL. This is not a Chicago bill. This is for
the Mississippi Valley. I do not think it is fair to lay all this on
Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no effort to do that.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hui,L. Because the people in the valley I belong
to are looking after the interests of the farmers in the valley, and
they are the ones interested in this deep waterway. Of course, it
is true that manufacturers in Chicago are largely handicapped on
account of competition in the East, but what I am fighting for is a
deep waterway to give the farmer relief and that has nothing to do
with what Chicago shipped or did not ship. It is what the farmer
wants to do in reducing the transportation cost of his grain and
that is what we are fighting for.
The CHAIRMAN. We all sympathize with any effort to reduce
transportation costs and we are all in favor of a waterway which
will help solve the problem to reach that end. To get back to that
end of it, we get back to a question about which there is no dispute
here. We all agree that waterways—practical, feasible waterways—
are desirable. So far as the waterways is concerned, your question
is how much water do you need? That is all there is to that aspect
of the matter. º
Mr. HAYNEs. I think we ought to leave it this way at this point,
with your persimmion, Mr. Chairman, and I have a letter here from
the president of the Rutland-Lake Michigan Transportation Co.,
plying between Lake Michigan ports and Montreal. I would like
to read it into the record. I think all these lake ports on any of
the Great Lakes will have an additional flow of traffic via any of
the lakes to Chicago for interchange with this water route on the
south. Therefore, all of these lake cities—Buffalo, and elsewhere.
clear on to Ogdensberg on the St. Lawrence River—will have a
direct water route and indeed are using it to-day as far east as
Buffalo and as far west as the Missouri River via St. Louis and
Texas points.
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty there, as I understand it from the
representatives of Milwaukee and all of the other ports who disagree
with Chicago in that view, is that it will not benefit them. They
think it will injure them and injure lake transportation.
Mr. HAYNEs. That is not true as far as shippers are concerned who
have investments at these cities. Their letters are in the record as
put in by Mr. Rippin. The people that have investments do not take
that view unless it is some others you have in mind.
Now, with the permission of the chairman, at this point I would
like very much, because it seems to me to fit in right at this point,
to file with the committee a letter from the Rutland-Take Michigan
Transit Co. addressed to Mr. Dempsey, from President A. C. Sulli-
W3T).
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
RUTIAND-TAKE MICHIGAN TRANSIT Co.,
Chicago, Ill., October 15, 1923.
Hon. S. W.ALL AGE DEMPSEY,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : This company has been asked to express its ideas in reference to
the proposed improvement in the Illinois waterway, looking toward 9-foot stage
of water between Chicago and the Gulf.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 33
We are operating ships in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, general cargo
trade, touching Ogdensburg, N. Y., and Montreal, and do a considerable business
in westbound freights from New England, interchanged at Ogdensburg, and
also import business by way of Montreal. A considerable proportion Of Our
freight is destined to St. Louis and other points in that vicinity on or adjacent
to that waterway. In our opinion the improvement contemplated would be of
very great benefit in reducing freight costs on the freight we handle to St. Louis
and those other points by transshipping the freight at Chicago into barges OT
other lighters. At the same time it would afford an outlet to St. Louis millers,
manufacturers, and others engaged in the export trade, in the way that it would
give them an additional outlet in the way of a cheap all-water transportation
to the seaboard.
A considerable part of our eastbound traffic is grain and grain products.
The improvement of the waterway would loring to all points on the Waterway
a direct outlet to terminal markets, such as Buffalo and Montreal, for all grains
and grain products.
Very truly yours,
RUTLAND-LAKE MICHIGAN TRANSIT CO.,
By A. C. SULLIVAN, President.
I might say that Mr. Sullivan and his company are experienced
seamen and have been in the lake business for many years.
STATEMENT OF MR. P. J. GRANT, REPRESENTING ERIE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE.
Mr. GRANT. They have not been in the package freight business
very long, only this past year, and operate only four canal-sized
boats, 262 feet long—only four of them.
Mr. HAYNEs. Their investment exceeds over a $1,000,000 and they
are holding themselves out to handle all traffic.
Mr. GRANT. Not on package freight.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the largest shipping agency of the Great
Lakes?
Mr. GRANT. The Great Lakes Transit Co. is the largest package
freight carrier.
Mr. HAYNEs. I might say at this time, at the opening of navigation
this year, the Rutland Lake Michigan Transit Co. has already an-
nounced a service three times a week both eastbound and westbound.
Their investment in boats exceeds over a $1,000,000. They are
arrying joint rates from all of New England and New York.
The CHAIRMAN. Do they have any boat that could navigate over
a 8 or 9 foot channel?
Mr. HAYNEs. I could not answer that.
Mr. Sweet. Fourteen feet?
Mr. WILLIAM. S. ARDERN (Milwaukee, Wis., vice president and
general superintendent Milwaukee Western Wisconsin Fuel Co.,
president Milwaukee Harbor and Rivers Association. None at all.
Mr. HAYNEs. I think their interchange would have to be at
Chicago with the barge line. I might say that everything east, north,
and east of Pittsburgh, drawing a line from Pittsburgh to New York
to the Canadian border, working in connection with this line, the
Great Lakes Transit Co. through Buffalo, through Ogdensburg,
through Oswego, in connection with lake lines and movements from
the textile and big manufacturing interests of eastern territory rail
and lake and rail beyond, fans out clear into Montana and Wyoming.
The CHAIRMAN. Where do they run from rail to rail : What are
their terminals?
34 - ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HAYNEs. The biggest boat goes from Duluth.
The CHAIRMAN. Duluth to where?
Mr. HAYNEs. Between Duluth and Buffalo, in the main.
Due to the loss of business by the change in the currents of traffic
occasioned by the low rates and increase of intercoastal steamship
service via the Panama Canal a number of conferences of middle
western shippers were held during 1923. -
It is the conviction of commercial interests throughout the Missis-
sippi Valley that existing ocean competition has come to stay and
will continue to place out of reach of the transcontinental rail car-
riers the business which originates at the Atlantic seaboard and in
territory adjacent thereto and will make it increasingly difficult to
regain that tonnage now moving via the Panama Canal from the
Middle West. The following organizations have given serious con-
sideration to canal competition and look for relief through develop-
ment of our inland waterways:
Chicago Association of Commerce, ('hicago ; Burlington Shippers' Associa-
tion, Burlington, Iowa , Davenport ("hamber of Commerce, Davenport, Iowa ;
Cedar Rapids Chamber of Commerce, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Sterling Manufac-
turers’ Association, Sterling, Ill. : Quincy Freight Pureau, Quincy, Ill. : St.
Paul Association, St. Paul, Minn. ; Minneapolis Traffic Association, Minneapo-
lis, Minn. ; Springfield Chamber of Commerce, Springfield, Ill. ; Fort Smith
Traffic Bureau, Fort Smith, Ark. ; Memphis Freight Bureau, Memphis, Tenn. ;
Omaha Chamber of Commerce, Omaha, Nebr.: Duluth Chamber of Commerce,
Duluth, Minn. ; Peoria Association of Commerce, Peoria, Ill. ; Rockford Manu-
facturers and Shippers' Association, Rockford, Ill. ; Kansas City Chamber of
Commerce, Kansas City, Mo.; St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce, St. Joseph,
MO. : Sioux City Chamber of Commerce, Sioux City, Iowa ; East Side Manufac-
turers’ Association, Granite City, Ill.
I might say in passing that all the principal cities in Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa. Missouri River cities, and as far east as
Buffalo and Pittsburgh, participated in those conferences. It is not
really with our manufacturers and shippers; it is a condition grow-
ing very acute, and we believe that if it continues with possibility of
distributing manufacturing enterprises and the ability to produce
over a more widespread area, it will concentrate around the shore
lines with this cheaper water transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. That is distribution on the two shores?
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. If such would be the case, would not it in
time practically discontinue the growth of the western cities from
Pittsburgh to the California line? If what you say is true, it would
discontinue the growth of Peoria and Des Moines and that class of
cities, because if we can not compete with our manufacturing indus-
tries we can not grow.
Mr. HAYNEs. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The only trouble is that all statistics up to the
present time contradict that, because there has been a steady growth.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. You did not have the Panama Canal until
lately.
The CHAIRMAN. How long have you had it?
Mr. HAYNEs. Since the war.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. Only recently:
Mr. HAYNEs. This situation has been growing more acute. To-day
we have, according to the last figures, 151 ships plying in the trade
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 35
between the intercoastal service, and that is working back, the back-
wash is working back into the interior as far from New York as the
Missouri River. In other words, you can take freight from the Mis-
souri River in many cases and send it all rail to New York and put
it on the ship there and send it through the Panama Canal to the
Pacific slope at a cheaper cost than you could go overland direct.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HuDL. Is it not true that some of the manufac-
turers from Chicago have moved a portion of their plant to eastern
points like Bridgeport in order to compete with the eastern coast !
Mr. HAYNEs. That is correct, and I would like to give one example
at this point. I will give on specific example. Crane & Co. are
manufacturers of pipe fittings, valves, and plumbing goods in gen-
eral. They established plants before the Civil War in the Chicago
district. These plants were built and designed to supply the terri-
tory west of Chicago to the Pacific coast. At the same time, or soon
thereafter, they built a plant at Bridgeport, Conn., for the purpose
of supplying New England and eastern territory with supplies.
In the last three years 52 per cent of the production of the Chicago
plant has been allocated to Bridgeport, thereby taking those men and
deteriorating the plant to that capacity of production by making it
necessary to enlarge by a capital expenditure at Bridgeport for the
purpose of supplying the territory west of Salt Lake City, Utah.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose that Crane & Co., instead of enlarging
their works at Bridgeport, had built a new plant at St. Louis, Mo.,
on the present route of the barge line, could the St. Louis plant have
competed with the Bridgeport plant on shipments to the Pacific
coast? -
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes; and they are to-day competitors at St. Louis.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not the rate higher from St. Louis by barge
line and including the transfers to the Pacific coast than it would
be from the Bridgeport plant; considerably higher?
Mr. HAYNEs. I am told by Mr. Coyle, traffic commissioner of the
St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, that he has to-day all-water rates
from St. Louis to the Pacific coast on the same basis as all-water
rates from New York. I have not checked them up, but I am told
that by their traffic commissioner.
The CHAIRMAN. Where do they transfer, at New Orleans?
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes. -
Mr. O'ConnoR. I will be glad for you to put statistical information
on that subject in the record. It is a very interesting point brought
Out. &
Mr. WILLIAM E. HUIL. If we had this waterway from Chicago to
New Orleans, with the barge line as contemplated, would not that
dominate the rate, not only the water rate, but the railroad rate from
any point along the water route east or west ?
The CHAIRMAN. That is a pretty big question.
Mr. HAYNEs. It would be a big factor.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. I will answer that question myself, be-
cause when I was in business in Peoria I could have a water rate on
account of a small barge line running from St. Louis to Kansas
City I helped to build, so that we received a railroad rate to com-
pete with the water rate to that point. The same thing applied from
Peoria to San Francisco, because we were on the Illinois River and
could ship in the summer time to New Orleans, so that we could get
36 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
a freight rate from Peoria to San Francisco of $1.50 a hundred and
we had to pay a freight rate of $1.75 a hundred to intermediate
points, such as Denver, so if you have a water rate along your section
you are always bound to have a rail rate to meet the water rate.
The CHAIRMAN. What about the water rate from Chicago to New
York, and then from New York to the Pacific coast, as compared
with the all-water rate from St. Louis to the Pacific coast! Will
you give us those figures? -
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes; I can furnish those. The lake and rail rates?
The CHAIRMAN. I mean the lake and barge rate.
Mr. HAYNEs. I will be glad to furnish it.
The CHAIRMAN. I know the lake and rail rate would be higher, of
COUll"Se.
Mr. HAYNEs. I might say that since we built the New York Barge
Canal that our shippers are using it in every case that they possibly
C3Il.
The CHAIRMAN. The traffic has been increasing quite rapidly.
Mr. HAYNEs. After meetings with hundreds of manufacturers and
shippers of the above organizations it was clearly shown that busi-
ness is progressively being lost to eastern competitors who use, in a
larger measure, the water routes on account of the proximity to the
sea. If substantial relief is not accorded to the inland manufacturers,
producers, and shippers production will continue to decline, resulting
in centralizing business at or near the shore lines to the detriment
of the interior.
Middle western manufacturers, producers, and shippers feel that
it is unfair for the Government to allow established industry to suffer
due to an agency such as the Panama Canal, which is revolutionizing
the trend of American transcontinental commerce, when the means
for equalizing the interior is available in the completion of our in-
land waterways.
Mr. Rippin, speaking for the Mississippi Valley association, has
already pointed out that adequate terminals have been provided at
points out where the water Service is now connected with the rail and
that that would follow at all points at which the service is extended.
The CHAIRMAN. I have before me the report of this waterway
showing the amount of diversion needed. The question here before
the committee is the amount of the diversion to be permitted, and I
am referring now to Document No. 1374, Sixty-first Congress, third
session. I do not think we are in dispute about almost all of these
matters, matters which we have been discussing. I think we are
in agreement and accord.
Mr. HAYNES. I hope so.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, conceding that your waterway
or improvement of Illinois River is desirable and advisable, how
much water do you need? Of course, this committee has to refer to
the Chief of Engineers, as he is the official adviser, and if he says
that such a waterway will not require a diversion of more than 1,000
second-feet from Lake Michigan and this amount would not inju-
riously lower the lake level or cause excessive flooding of lands in the
Illinois Valley, suppose the committee agreed unanimously that the
improvement of the Illinois River was desirable to the extent recom-
mended by the engineers and on the basis of the report of the engi-
neers it would take 1,000 cubic feet and permit the diversion of 1,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 37
cubic feet for that purpose, that would answer all of the arguments
as to the commercial advantages, would it not?
Mr. HAYNEs. I would not assume so.
The CHAIRMAN. Then we would come to the question of how much
water you need for that sanitary canal. That is the question in
dispute here. That is the question that is before us, because I
assume that the majority of this committee will probably agree with
the engineers in their recommendations.
Now, whether they want to go any further depends upon the needs
of the sanitary district, and that seems to me to be the question that
should properly be taken up for discussion here.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question. Do you con-
template that 1,000 cubic feet will carry on a 9-foot channel?
The CHAIRMAN. What they have recommended is an 8-foot chan-
nel. Now, how much more it would take for a 9-foot channel I
can not estimate. I should not suppose it would take any appreci-
ably larger amount: because we have found here this morning that
the Erie Canal, 12 feet deep, takes only from 1,200 to 1,700 feet:
that it varies between those limits. So the amount of water neces-
Sary for the improvement of the Illinois River would be somewhere
in the vicinity of 1,000 feet, or, to put it at the outside, 1,200 cubic
feet. Now, what is asked here is 10,000 cubic feet. That is a very
different thing, and of course a different question comes in—the
Sanitary needs of Chicago.
Mr. HAYNEs. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, I am not an
engineer and can not testify along the technical lines that you refer
to, and we will cover that by appropriate witnesses. But we would
like to leave this thought with you: That regardless of the amount
of water necessary for the sanitary question, the big thing that is
involved here, the thing that affects all the people, and the thing
that will be of benefit to commerce in general is the question of
additional transportation in the interior.
The CHAIRMAN. And you would like a 9-foot waterway, and if
you can not get that at once and we are in a position where we have
to send it back for survey, you would like an 8-foot waterway: but
you would like the 9-foot waterway.as soon as you can get it? .
Mr. HAYNES. That is it.
The CHAIRMAN. And you would like as much water, either for an
8-foot or 9-foot waterway, as possible 2
Mr. HAYNES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SHAw. Mr. Chairman, the committee might be interested in
knowing the amount of water that is now used at the Soo, and that
will be found in the report.
The CHAIRMAN. That is 500 cubic feet, is it not ?
Mr. SHAw. It is a little more than that: but it is a comparatively
Small amount.
The CHAIRMAN. I saw in some document here—I think it was the
treaty—that it provides for 500 cubic feet.
Mr. SHAw. If I may add this further thought, Mr. Chairman:
If I understand the details of this proposal, we might be interested
in knowing the velocity that the water would have in this proposed
canal if 10,000 cubic feet per second were diverted through it. I
am a little fearful that the velocity might be such that we would
find it difficult to use the canal.
38 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. For navigation purposes?
Mr. SHAw. For navigation purposes.
Mr. Sweet. On the Erie Barge Canal, with 1,200 feet per second,
it gives you a current of three-fourths of a mile an hour, and 10,000
would be absolutely prohibitive. 4.
Mr. SHAw. Surely.
Mr. SwºT. Mr. Haynes, your interest is in the commercial side
of the development of the waterway?
Mr. HAYNEs. That is correct.
Mr. SweFT. And, so far as that is concerned, sufficient water to
accomplish the commercial side, the handling of freight in that zone,
is the extent of your interest?
Mr. HAYNEs. Yes.
Mr. HULL. I want to answer a question that was asked by the
Chairman. In the diverting of this water at the rate of 1,000 cubic
feet, I am reliably informed by engineers who know exactly what
they are talking about, that in order to carry on the project we would
have to build locks through the Illinois River at a very heavy ex-
pense, not only for building the locks but for continuing to operate
the locks, which is an expensive proposition. These locks would be
different from what I will state later on that the State is building.
These are additional locks that would have to go even below Peoria.
Another thing, if you do not give them the 10,000 cubic feet, or in
substance that amount, then you will have to dig the canal deeper
South of St. Louis and south of Cairo, and by getting this 10,000
cubic feet you are rid of the locks and of all those difficulties. That
is the reason that the 10,000 cubic feet is so imperative to make this
canal a success.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, on the question of the construction of
the canal, the committee, I take it, would have to depend upon the
advice of the engineers. They advise as to the manner of con-
struction, and I do not think that any of us are expert enough
to determine whether it is better to have locks or whether it is
necessary to have locks. They recommend the diversion of 1,000
cubic feet per second; they recommend the improvement of this
waterway to a depth of 8 feet, and they state how it shall be done.
Now, I take it that they recommend what in their judgment as ex-
perts on the subject is the best way to improve this waterway. That
is their course in regard to all waterway improvements. They do not
recommend obsolete methods; they do not recommend anything un-
necessarily expensive. They recommend the most economical, the
most modern, the most approved, the most expert way to do the work,
and we must take it, until the evidence is to the contrary, that that
is what they have recommended in this case.
Mr. SHAw. Mr. Chairman, referring to your statement a moment
ago, in which you set forth the points to consider in discussing the
1,000 cubic feet and an 8-foot channel, and further as to the amount
of water necessary for sanitation purposes for the Chicago Sanitary
District, let me add to that this point: There is another very vital
question to be taken into consideration, and that is the question of
damages from overflow and from pollution as a result of this flow
of water from Lake Michigan throughout the entire length and
breadth of the Illinois River Valley.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 39
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that, because the bill we
are discussing provides for all of that—not damages, but for taking
care of the overflow.
Mr. SHAw. I just wanted to mention that that was another thing
that will have to be considered as we go along in this hearing.
In reference to the dams and the 1,000 cubic feet, we already have
four dams in the Illinois River—two State dams and two Federal
dams. Do you mean, Mr. Hull, that there would have to be dams in
addition to those four?
Mr. HULL. I mean that those dams would have to come out and
new dams be put in. -
Mr. SHAw. For 1,000 cubic feet 2
Mr. HULL. Yes: that is what I mean.
Mr. HAYNEs. Mr. Chairman, in so far as Chicago is concerned,
studies have been made by the United States Engineers Office, and
a drawing' as to the proposed barge terminal, which we offer in
evidence. -
(The papers referred to are as follows:)
MEMORANDUM No. 6 on CHICAGO’s HARBOR PROBLEM.
UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,
Chicago, Ill., December 12, 1923.
1. The shippers and merchants of Chicago have been interesting themselves
of late in facilities for collecting and loading, interchanging, unloading and dis-
tributing the freight which is expected to be transported over the so-called
“Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway ” when completed. They realize, rightly, that such
Operations do not take care of themselves; that considerable study must be
given the problem, and that an exercise of judicious foresight in planning for
the future is necessary at the present time.
2. The transportation act of 1920 made it the duty of the Corps of Engineers
of the War Department on duty connected with the improvement of rivers
and harbors to study terminal problems affecting these works and confer
with the local interests with a view to their solution, the object being to insure
the maximum efficient development of all means of transportation. The dis-
trict engineer of the Chicago district, acting in pursuance of the provisions
of this law, has studied the local situation, and at various times has issued
memoranda in which were discussed some of its phases. Terminal problems
of the Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway will be considered in the following dis-
CuSSiOn :
3. Irrespective of character of freight or cargo, classes of carriers, and
transfer agencies, the sole object of a terminal is to facilitate the trans-
ference of cargo between carriers wherever made necessary by the conditions
of the journey. This transference between carriers is required universally,
except at industrial plants situated on the water front or siding and equipped
for direct loading or unloading.
4. In facilitating interchange between carriers due regard must be given
to the capacity of the highways of transport involved, for neither the streets,
nor the railroads, nor the harbors, nor the waterways should be unduly over-
loaded. Solutions should be sought which will tend to distribute the terminal
burden equally. A city should not Seek, nor should it be called upon, to pro-
vide or authorize terminals which will add unreasonably to the congestion
of its streets. On the other hand, a city can not hope to prosper .if it is un-
reasonably obstructive in its terminal policies.
5. Decentralization of commercial and industrial activities and the transpor-
tation facilities essential thereto is of primary importance. A city which adopts
and pursues such a policy of decentralization will not find itself garroted every
decade Or SO by traffic conditions. i
6. Having these fundamentals in mind it will be easier to indicate a rea:
sonable solution of the general terminal problem of the Lakes-to-the-Gulf-wa-
1 Drawing not printed.
40 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
terway. A large part of the commerce to be accommodated at Chicago will in
all probability he industrial ; that is, will consist of commodities shipped
from or to large industries located along the Waterway. Coal will form part
of this, While grain and manufactured goods for export, building materials
for local use, and imported raw materials will constitute the balance of the
industrial freight. Manufacturers will be quick to take advantage of the
Service offered and provide themselves with necessary loading, unloading, and
Storage facilities. Industrial sites along the Chicago River and connecting
channels should be in great demand.
7. Lest such a demand on the part of industrial interests create a scarcity
Of Suitable terminal locations the importance of the selection and acquisition
at the present time of sites for public terminals is stressed.
8. The construction of the waterway would not be justified if it were to be
used to the Sole advantage and benefit of owners of water-front property. The
cost of the construction of that portion between Lockport and Utica is borne by
the people of the entire State of Illinois, while the Irederal Governmen improves
aſid maintains that portion below Utica. The waterway should provide such
economies in transportation as to make it profitable for many shippers located
off the waterway to use whatever means of transportation is available to reach
it. For this reason plans for the future should include arrangements for in-
terchange of goods between barge and lake carrier, barge and railroad car, and
barge and truck.
9. ( 'ommodities interchanged between barges and lake carriers probably will
include Illinois coal destined for lake ports, manufactured goods from places
like Milwaukee, IRacine, and Detroit for export, imported raw materials, and
lumber. Facilities for interchange may be provided at the old Government
breakwater off Grant Park where lake vessels may moor outside with barges
in the quiet water inside, locomotive cranes or other transfer machinery being
installed On the breakwater itself to effect the transfer. The importance of
performing this Operation on the lake front should be kept in mind so that
the ultimate discontinuance of the use of the river as a terminal for lake
vessels will not he hampered. -
10. Interchange between barges and railroad cars should be arranged for
where belt-line service is possible. Universal interchange would thus be pro-
vided and all railroads entering the city or doing business in the Choago
industrial district would have equal privileges as far as transference of goods
to and from the waterway, is concerned. Three sites suggest themselves at the
present time. The first is where the In) (li:ina Harbor Belt Railroad crosses
the main drainage canal of the Sanitary district west of Summit. The second
is Where the Belt Railroad of (‘hicago Crosses the drainage canal east of
(‘icero Avenue. The third is inamediately west of the Ashland Avenue Bridge
over the West Fork of the Chicago River, at which location the (‘hicago Hiver
all (1 Indiana Railroad CO. Inay be reached. Selection of the site ordinarily
would be determined by the costs of real estate and also by the belt line
Which could offer the greatest inducements in the way of interchange facilities
with other railroads, favorable switching charges to industries located on sid-
ings, and a great number of prospective customers of water transportation.
However, as the location at South Ashland Avenue will also serve a downtown
terminal for interchange between barges and trucks, it would be more logical
to Select that Site.
11. At this rail interchange terminal (lock houses will be necessary for the
storage of goods a Waiting shipment. These houses should have freight car
loading platforms paralleling the Water front on which located. For inter-
change of bulk commodities and heavy goods such as structural steel, open
yards will be required, paralleling the water front and provided with cranes
or Other suitable unloading devices and with railroad Spurs. Suitable classifi-
Gation and storage yards for railroad cars are an essential.
12. (‘omma}(lities interchanged between loarges and trucks will be of a gen-
eral natire : i. e... consisting largely of package freight. For the reception.
storage, and safe-keeping of these goods awaiting sluipment dock houses or
transit sheds located on the waterway or oil slips leading from it will be
necessary. The policy of the railroads in providing modern, attractive, and
commodious downtown freight houses is one which well might be emulated.
Dilapidated dock houses Willl attract no more trade these modern days than
an insanitary restaurant. The city has a right to expect a certain amount of
dignity and good appearance in the structures that so conspicuously line the
river banks.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 41
13. These downtown barge terminals should be located within easy trucking
distance of a large number of shippers and at points where access by street
may be had without creating too much congestion. Three locations are sug-
gested for these, any one of which will have ample capacity for some time to
come. Frut all of Which may be needed ultimately. These are, (1) west of
South Ashland Avenue on the south bank of the West Fork of the (‘hicago
Ikiver ; (2) at the North Avenue turning basin, where the canal and river
meet at the north end of Goose Island ; and (3) at Lake Street, where the
main branch of the Chicago River forks to form the north and south branches.
14. A tentative plan for the terminal at Lake Street has been prepared
and is submitted as an exhibit to this memorandum. Such an arrangement
should be able to handle in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 tons of general
'argo per year.
15. Terminal developments should not be left entirely to the land or water
carriers whose actions are too often prompted by the exigencies of competi-
tion or considerations of local importance. These questions should be decided
by municipalities under State and Federal guidance so that the State and
National factors involved will not be Overlooked. It is not necessary that
the municipal, State, or Federal authorities build or Operate the terminals,
but they should make plans for them in general, and take such steps as will
require future construction and operation to be in accord with those plans.
16. Acquisition by the city of the necessary sites, easements, and rights of
way at the present time would place Chicago at the top of the list of pro-
gressive municipalities. Then when the State completes the waterway and the
Federal barge line and others seek to do business here, wisely chosen sites
will be available which the city may develop or lease to others for the same
purpose.
RUFUS W. PUTNAM,
Major, Corps of Engineers, District J'ngineer, Chicago District.
Mr. HAYNEs. We also would like to point out that many receivers
and shippers have to-day large plants and warehouses on the Chicago
River where the water stage is fairly stable, and we would like to
file before this hearing closes the names of those plants, which repre-
sent millions of investment, built and designed for direct interchange
through the water service.
The foregoing statement is subscribed to by the following bodies:
Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Chicago Association of Commerce,
Chicago Shippers’ Conference Association, Peoria Association of
Commerce, Joliet Association of Commerce, Bloomington Associa-
tion of Commerce, East St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, Cairo Asso-
ciation of Commerce, Kankakee Chamber of Commerce, La Salle
Chamber of Commerce, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, Pekin Asso-
ciation of Commerce, Champaign Chamber of Commerce, Decatur
Association of Commerce, Moline Business Men's Association, Quincy
Chamber of Commerce, Morris Chamber of Commerce, Sterling Asso-
ciation of Commerce, Jerseyville Chamber of Commerce, White Hall
Chamber of Commerce, Chicago Heights Chamber of Commerce,
Rockford Chamber of Commerce, Lockport Merchants’ Association.
Mr. O'Connor of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that these
gentlemen who are in attendance at this session and who will testify
in all probability before we get through, give me information on this
subject: What percentage of the 120,000,000 tons of traffic that went
over the lakes ultimately found its way into export or was distributed
in sections of the country that would be benefited by the reduced rate
brought into effect as a result of this development proposed by Mr.
Hull? I know it is something of a poser, but if anybody can give
information on that subject I think it would be informative and
enlightening to the committee.
42 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you would find the larger answer to your
question in this way: That 120,000,000 tons includes both westbound
and eastbound traffic. Now, if you take the traffic at the western
termini of the Great Lakes and then the traffic at Cleveland and
Buffalo, and add those together, you would probably get a very
large
Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana (interposing). Well, it is because I
am not of a mathematical turn of mind and I thought I would let
Somebody in the audience solve the problem for me.
Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's question is
largely answered in the articles presented by the attorney general
of the State of Wisconsin in a suit that is pending at the present time,
wherein he states that over 80 per cent of the total tonnage carried on
the Great Lakes is in coal and steel.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true.
Mr. PEAvey. None of which is exported at all.
The CHAIRMAN. It is just for domestic consumption?
Mr. PEAVEY. It is just for domestic consumption.
Mr. O’ConnoR of Louisiana. Then, leaving aside the export, what
percentage of the remaining 80 per cent would be distributed in sec=
tions of the country that would benefit by the reduced rates which
Mr. Hull claims would spring into existence as the result of the de-
velopment of this enterprise contemplated by the Hull bill? Is that
something of a poser? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think so.
Mr. HAYNEs. May I inquire right here, are you directing yourself
to freight that moves on the Great Lakes going into the interior?
Mr. O’Connor of Louisiana. Yes. I said, what percentage of the
120,000,000 tons referred to by the chairman would ultimately go
into export and into sections of the country that would benefit by a
reduced rate through the development of the waterway? Mr. Peavey
said that 80 per cent of it evidently was of a local character. -
The CHAIRMAN. For domestic consumption.
Mr. O’ConnoR of Louisiana. For domestic consumption; and I
want to know what percentage of that 80 per cent would go into
sections of the country that would benefit by a reduced rate as a re-
sult of this waterway development contemplated by the Hull bill.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can give you a line on that. Take your
steel; it is manufactured at Pittsburgh and Buffalo and is distributed
from there, and there is a water route through a large section of the
country from both points. Take your coal that goes to Duluth, Chi-
cago, and Milwaukee, and is intended for local consumption and for
consumption beyond, in the great West. That goes by rail and would
not be affected by this waterway at all, nor would your steel be af-
fected by this waterway, because your great steel manufacturing
centers are Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Pittsburgh is the greatest of all,
and Buffalo is rapidly becoming a great steel manufacturing center.
Mr. O’ConnoR of Louisiana. As my name suggests, Mr. Chairman,
I am not a descendant of Euclid; consequently I would like some
mathematician to help me solve the intricacies of the problem.
The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad if anybody can give the gentleman
any information on that question.
Mr. HAYNEs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say right here, if I
may, that that is very interesting, but it is only just about half the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 43
load. Connected with that should be the import traffic that is now
coming through the Gulf of Mexico by water up to St. Louis, and
then fans out from St. Louis by the rail lines.
The CHAIRMAN: Well, we can find that out.
Mr. O'ConnoR of Louisiana. I will be glad for you to supplement
the problem that I have put on the table by getting the figures on the
imports.
Mr. SweFT. Before we adjourn, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought
to have the appearances of those present for the record, so that we
may have them printed to-morrow morning.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. All those who desire to have their appear-
ances noted will kindly give them to the stenographer during the
I’éCeSS.
We will now recess until 2.15. -
(Thereupon, at 1.20 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2.15
o'clock p. m.)
AFTER RECESS.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will resume the hearing. We will
first hear from Mr. Ralph Fields.
STATEMENT OF MR. RALPH FIELDS, REPRESENTING THE PEORIA
ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, PEORIA, ILL.
Mr. FIELDs. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will first point
out a few things on this map to the committee.
I am representing directly the Peoria Association of Commerce.
I am a member of the traffic committee of the Mississippi Valley
Association, of which Mr. Rippin is chairman. The testimony that
was introduced for the Illinois Valley was prepared by Mr. Haynes
and myself, and we agreed to divide up the presentation of the testi-
mony before your committee so that there would be no duplication.
This is a map which has been prepared by the Mississippi Valley
Association, and I will read the heading for your information:
Map exhibit prepared by Mississippi Valley Association, showing tonnage
moving via Mississippi River through St. Louis, MO., and Cairo, Ill., in con-
nection with railroads to and from each congressional district in Iowa, Michi-
gan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, during the first 11
months of 1923. Approximately 20 per cent in freight cost is saved to shippers
by the use of this water-and-rail route under the all-rail service.
This is an explanation of what has been done by the barge line
operating under adverse conditions. The barge line, as you know,
operates only as far north as St. Louis, and not all the time to
St. Louis. During quite a portion of the year the barge line stops
at Cairo. Therefore from and to the South it comes up to Cairo
and then the tonnage spreads out like a fan over this district.
Referring to these congressional districts, as shown on the map,
the heavy black figures show the number of tons that moved in and
out of that district over the barge line in connection with the rail
lines to and from St. Louis and Cairo during these 11 months. Tak-
ing Mr. Hull's district in Illinois, the sixteenth district, we have
4,337 tons.
I want to call your attention to the extent of this territory. Here
is the ninth congressional district of Iowa, taking in Council Bluffs,
with 4,672 tons.
44 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. SweFT. Let me interrupt you for a moment. What does that
tonnage principally consist of?
Mr. FIELDs. It is pretty hard to say. I can get for this committee
a record of each bit of tonnage that is covered by these figures.
They are taken from the records of the barge line, from their ac-
counting department. It would be quite a job, but they can be
gotten, and will show the committee just exactly what the ton-
nage Is.
Mr. Sweet. I mean the principal tonnage. I do not care about
going into detail.
Mr. FIELDs. The principal tonnage would depend upon the dis-
trict to which the tonnage goes, and I can not say offhand just what
that would be. Possibly Mr. Rippin is more familiar with the
general tonnage of the barge line, being at St. Louis.
Mr. RIPPIN. Mr. Chairman, that is published complete in the re-
port of the barge line for last year, the tonnage being classified.
We will be glad to furnish you a copy of it and you can look it over.
It is quite a diversified tonnage.
Mr. FIELDs. I want to call the committee's attention to the extent
of this service. Here is Omaha, with 7,738 tons, South Omaha, 1,052
tons; Sioux Falls, 651. Here is northern Wisconsin, the Ashland-
Rhinelander district, 3,956 tons. Passing over into the Northern
Peninsula of Michigan, we have 931 tons; eastern Ohio., Warren,
Niles, and Youngstown, 2,174 tons, 569 tons and 1,091 tons. In the
Chicago district we have 27,318 tons; the Milwaukee district, 6,990
tons; Fond du Lac, 1,030 tons, and so on, all through that territory.
The towns that are shown on the map are the towns that received
or shipped the freight from that particular district via the barge
line. g
Now, that indicates what can be done for the central middle west-
ern territory, and that is a big territory, because it runs from
Buffalo and Pittsburgh on the east to beyond the Missouri River on
the west, and with the water line extending farther, with the Illinois
River open through to Chicago, with the Missouri River opened up.
and the Ohio River, all connecting with the Mississippi River, there
is no limit to the amount of benefit that would accure to the shippers
of that district. And when I say “shippers ” I do not mean merely
manufacturers or industrial plants, but the farmer and everybody
connected with the shipping in that territory.
I have before me a copy of the hearings on the McCormick bill,
S. 4428, and I would like to make that, Mr. Chairman, a part of the
record. There was a good deal of testimony introduced in those
hearings regarding the various matters that have come up and that
have been touched on to-day, and I would like to leave this with
your committee to save duplicating this testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be filed as an exhibit.
(The hearings referred to were thereupon filed.)
Mr. FIELDs. I would like to call your attention to one particular
thing on page 409; Mr. Joseph Leiter, president of the Zeigler Coal
Co. testifying. His company produces 3,000,000 tons of coal a year.
He says:
The Ruhr Valley, which is the bone of contention to-day, is a pigmy along-
side of the coal deposits which would be tributary to this canal in Southern
Illinois. I understand the Chicago district takes every year 30,000,000 tons
of coal from southern Illinois.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 45
Mr. BoycE. Will the gentleman indicate, Mr. Chairman, when
those hearings were had 2
Mr. FIELDs. In October.
Mr. BoycE. Of last year? 4-
Mr. FIELDs. October, 1923; yes, sir–October 15 to 27 inclusive.
Mr. RIPPIN. It contains the tonnage record, does it, Mr. Fields?
Mr. FIELDs. It contains the tonnage record and the prospective
tonnage record, and a great deal of information which I thi, k
would be of interest to your committee. -
As I was saying, Chicago takes 30,000,000 tons of coal a year on
the average from southern Illinois. Pittsburgh moves in about
20,000,000 tons over the Monongahela River every year, and they
claim that they do that at a saving of $1 per ton, which means a
saving to the shippers and the people of Pittsburgh of $20,000,000
annually. If Chicago could move half of its southern Illinois coal
at a Saving of $1 per ton, or even 50 cents per ton, you can see what
that one item would amount to.
The CHAIRMAN. I will call your attention in that connection to
the Erie Barge Canal. That is situated in the eastern part of the
United States, and carries, I think, about 2,000,000 tons; does it not,
Mº, Sweet? - -
Mr. SweFT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. It is only fair to say that it has been in operation
since the war, but that is over five years, and it has grown gradually
up to that. Now, that is a toll-free canal, in a very prosperous and
very thickly settled country. I simply say that to give you some
measure of what you may expect; and to illustrate it further I will
say that the Standard Oil Co. is placing oil plants all along the canal;
and with all the help that comes from large shippers of that nature
we have only grown to that size in that time.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, you are speaking of the Erie Canal?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. How old is the Erie Canal?
The CHAIRMAN. It was built in 1825 in its original form. It has
been gradually growing from time to time until it is now a 12-foot
canal.
Mr. HULL. Well, the Erie Canal, as I have always observed it,
has never been used extensively for the transportation of heavy
freight, because it always seemed to me that the Erie Canal was only
about half large enough in width to do any good; and I hardly
believe that it is fair to this committee to keep holding the Erie
Canal up from a transportation standpoint against what we are
trying to do in a navigable stream. The inference is being drawn
continually that we can not do anything down there because the
Erie Canal does not do it.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not say that.
Mr. HULL. That is what the inference has been all the way through.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not intimate that you can not do any-
thing. I think you can do something. I was only pointing to some
measure of what you might get.
In the second place, the Erie Canal is a series of navigable streams
all the way, and much larger streams than the Illinois River from
91739—24—PT 1–4
'46 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Syracuse east. So there is not the distinction there to which you
point.
Now, I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying this
at all to intimate that the Illinois River could not carry freight.
It will carry freight. But I simply want to give you some idea of
the amount of freight which you may expect to carry.
Mr. HULL. I will admit that; but I object to trying to infer,
because this old, obsolete Erie Canal does not do business, that there
is no opportunity of doing business down the Illinois and Missis-
sippi Rivers; and that is what the inferences are, whether you in-
tend them that way or not. I think it is not fair to the committee
to keep that before them continually. - - . "
The CHAIRMAN. I take exception to the characterization of the
Erie Canal as old and obsolete. The Erie Canal is the most modern
of all the canals in the world. It has been recently, within a very
few years—just as the war broke out—improved to a depth of 12
feet at a cost of $160,000,000. It is the best and most up-to-date of
all the canals of any considerable length in the world.
• -- -
Mr. Swher. Mr. Chairman, on the question of the Erie Canal I
will say to Mr. Hull that the Erie Canal before 1880 did very con-
siderably more business than it did after that. The Erie Canal was
alive with transportation, but it has been growing less and less, and
then, as the chairman states, with the improvement, becoming a
bārge canal; the tonnage has somewhat increased. And yet the Erie
Canal when it was a 7-foot channel with a 6-foot draft did a tre-
mendous amount of business, but that water transportation on the
old Erie Canal receded instead of increasing. - r
Mr. HULL. Here is the point on that. I think whenever you people
in Néw York increase the size of the Erie Canal and the Hudson
River then you will see an increase in freight. - -
The CHAIRMAN. The standard of canals to-day, the world over, is
12 feet in depth, and the Erie Canal is standardized to meet these
standards, from the engineering standpoint, of canals the world over.
Mr. HULL. What is the width of the Erie Canal?
Mr. SweFT. Two hundred feet. r I . . .
Mr. HULL. Where?
Mr. SweFT. Through the rivers, excepting the approach to the
*i. Mr. Macy, what is the bottom of the prism of the general
C8, Ił8, 9 .
Mr. MACY. One hundred and twenty-five feet. . . . .
Mr. SweFT. One hundred and twenty-five feet at the bottom of
the prism. ' -- : , -
The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred feet at the top. This comparison
of mine was not intended as anything but a suggestion as to the
measure of what might be expected. - - -
Mr. HULL. It semed to me, Mr. Chairman, that you had brought
that out about six or eight times to-day— . * .
The CHAIRMAN. No; I don’t think so. p -
Mr. HULL. As trying to infer that this would not be a practical
canal. That is why I am objecting to it. We are here to hear evi-
dence as to what this canal is worth to this particular territory, and
I think it is only fair to all of us that this one project be given good
Ser’WICe. - - . . . . . .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 47
Mr. SweFT. Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing that subject,
let me say that I have a plant myself right on the bank of the canal,
right at the dock, but we do not ship by that water route—which is
of a most improved kind—one out of a thousand tons. We pay the
difference in rate by rail a nd haul it to the depot in order to get rail
transportation and expedition in delivery. º -
Mr. HULL. I realize that.
Mr. DEAL. But you have water competitive rates by rail? . .
Mr. SweFT. No; we pay the higher rail rate. . .
Mr. HULL. Do they not give you any better rate on that canal?
Mr. SweeT. Yes; it gives us a better water rate; but we choose
to pay the higher rate in order to get delivery. '
Mr. HULL. That is all right; but what we are trying to produce
here is a water route to take care of the farmers, and all of the
people in that section of the country; and that is the reason I am
putting up the argument that I am for a water route down into the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers from the Great Lakes.
Mr. SweFT. We used to buy our coal from Chicago and get it
by the Great Lakes and the canal; but we now have it shipped by
rail, and haul it 4 miles by motor truck, as against the Erie Canal.
Mr. HULL. Why do you do that? - . . . .
Mr. SweRT. Because it has proven to be to our advantage.
Mr. HULL. Well, why do you do it that way 2 - -
Mr. SweFT. It is to our advantage to get it as we want it by
rail, rather than to handle a large cargo of coal by water.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not want the gentleman from Illinois to
misunderstand me - - :
Mr. HULL (interposing). No; that is all right, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. But I think the gentleman was trying to give
the point of view of our own community, as to what has been or
may be hereafter. w
Mr. HULL. What do you chiefly transport on your canal, Mr.
Sweet? -
Mr. SweFT. Heavy water moving commodities.
Mr. FIELDs. If I may, I should like to ask Mr. Sweet a question:
Is it not true, Mr. Sweet, that the Erie Canal flourished in years
gone by, until the railroads practically put it out of business—until
the railroads did the same thing to the Erie Canal that they did
to the packets carrying freight on the Great Lakes, which we spoke
about before lunch! And now that that is no longer possible, is not
the Erie Canal getting to the point where it will be of more use
as time goes on ?
Mr. SweFT. The railroads did not put it out of commission by
a reduction of rates; in fact, the rates advanced. But they put it
out of business in superior service in delivering over rails as against
Water. -
Mr. FIELDs. Yes; the old water service was not adequate; and
you have got to get a new brand of water service that will be
adequate. - -
Mr. HULL. Did the railroads buy the canal?
Mr. SweFT. No: it was built by the State, at an expense of
$161,000,000; and is operated by the State. -
48 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Fields.
Mr. FIELDs. The fact does remain that, in spite of the experience
of those on the Erie Canal, the experience of the shippers along the
Monongahela River has been that it has been very profitable to
use the water transportation; and the experience of the shippers
adjacent to the Mississippi River has been that it has been very.
profitable, as this map [indicating] which I have explained to you
will show.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the total tonnage shown by that map?
Mr. FIELDs. It is 170,000 tons, as I recall it.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a year's tonnage : -
Mr. FIELDs. Not quite a year: 11 months. But that is just for this
particular district: that does not take into consideration the tonnage
on the lower river—the tonnage between New Orleans and Memphis,
and a great deal of other tonnage down there that is not included in
this report. This report relates to the territory that is particularly
shown on this map adjacent to the upper river, and we prepared it
to show you what the Mississippi River line did.
Now, I will also state for the benefit of the committee that in the
year 1923, 54.1 per cent of the Mississippi barge line's business was
rail and water—was business interchanged with the rail lines—and
the remaining 45.9 per cent was water point to water point—New
Orleans to Memphis; New Orleans to St. Louis, etc., without any
rail haul. -
When the barge line started, it was the general idea that it would
simply serve the points along the river. Everybody said, “That
will be very good for Memphis, St. Louis, and New Orleans, but
nobody else will get the benefit of it.” But gradually the line spread
and gave service to all of this vast territory that you see on this map
[indicating], and everybody in that territory that has had freight
moving and has taken advantage of the barge-line service has
shared in the saving.
And the barge-line service is good enough service, so that people
are patronizing it readily, so that not only those along the river
are patronizing it—we at Peoria, who are 150 miles from St. Louis,
are patronizing it, Chicago and all of this other territory [in-
dicating on map.]. th
Now, Mr. Haynes and Mr. Rippin have given you, I think, the
major part of our testimony, outside of what I have said to you.
We in Peoria and along the velley are very anxious to have the
water opened up and the barge-line service extended through to
Chicago and the Great Lakes. We feel that we will benefit from it.
and Peoria is a typical middle-western city. We have manufac-
tories that have been hit pretty hard in the last few years, some of
them in the agricultural-implement line. Some of those have in
past years done quite an export business; some of them could do it
again if they had a little more favorable rate. The opening of a
barge line would give us an all-water service through to South
American and the European ports. We would benefit from it.
It would enable the grain of Illinois to go by water for export.
You all realize the farmer's condition to-day, and you know that
the export demand is about the only logical thing that is going to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 49
do him any good, and the more you can help him to export and
get relief, the more he is going to be benefited.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this testimony before the Senate committee
as an exhibit. \
The CHAIRMAN. You may file that with the clerk.
Mr. SweeT. Mr. Chairman, I said to Mr. Hull off the record, on
the question of the Erie Canal, and I will now repeat for the record
this—speaking of the business of the Erie Canal of the past and
the business of the barge canal of to-day:
The Erie Canal in its original state was constructed at a depth of
4 feet. Later, it being found to be inadequate, it was deepened to
7 feet; and as the business over that canal began to drop off, it was
seen to be necessary, in order to hold the business over the water
route, to deepen it to a 12-foot channel.
We find now that the traffic on the barge canal has not come up
to our expectations; and the answer, in our judgment, is that it is
the depth of the Erie channel. Canada has the Cornwall Canal of
14 feet. They are now in the process of abandoning it for a 24-foot
canal. It is the channel and the possibility of handling the large
cargo that seems to be demanded for handling water transportation
to-day: that seems to have gone step by step right up so that what
is needed now, from the West through to the seaboard, is a 24 to
30 foot channel. And I think that would bring business.
Mr. RIPPIN. Mr. Chairman, answering your question as to tom-
nage, the barge line report that I will file with you will give you
the complete report of tonnage both north and south bound.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
The next witness will be Mr. R. I. Randolph, vice president of the
Association of Commerce, Chicago, Ill.
STATEMENT OF MR. R. I. RANDOLPH, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, CHICAGO, ILL.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
I appear here at Mr. Hull's invitation, representing the Chicago
Association of Commerce, composed of some 7,000 individuals and
business firms. We are vitally interested in the subject of this bill
and the other bills before this committee.
We are interested in the navigation features of the bill and in the
sanitation features of the bill.
The interest is not confined to Chicago in either of those particu-
lars. The interest in both the navigation and the sanitary features
of the bill extends far beyond Chicago.
The Association of Commerce, through its executive committee, has
considered the several bills which are before the Rivers and Har-
bors Committee. They all cover the same ground; in the main,
they all attempt to do the same thing. There is a difference in
phraseology: there is a difference in method in some of them.
And the Association of Commerce, through its executive committee,
has passed a resolution recommending all of the bills, and stating.
in substance that we favor four essential features in all of these
bills:
First, the diversion of 10,000 second-feet of water through the
Chicago River; -
50 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Second, compensation thereof, in the shape of compensation work,
or regulating work, in the interlake channels; t
Third, arbitration and settlement of the claims for overflow
damages in the Illinois River; and t
Fourth, the waterway features of the bill: ; ---
The creation of a 9-foot waterway from Chicago to the Gulf of
Mexico, or, more particularly, that section of the lower Illinois
River from Utica, the terminal of the State project, to Grafton, at
the mouth of the Illinois River. - & ... .
Now, the chairman in his opening remarks put forth several
fundamental propositions that would affect the consideration of this.
bill and the others. - -
In the first place, the chairman referred to the fact that you had
before your committee the report of Chief of Engineers recommend-
ing an 8-foot waterway. •
That report has been referred to by document number; and it con-
tains a report of estimated cost of a 7-foot waterway: an 8-foot
waterway, and a 9-foot waterway, based upon an increment flow of
4,167 cubic feet per second, 7,500 cubic feet per second, and 10,000.
cubic feet per second. * *
That report also refers, by House document number to other re-
ports of the Chief of Engineers, on a 14-foot waterway, from Chicago
to the mouth of the Illinois River, and another report on a 14-foot,
waterway from St. Louis to the Gulf of Mexico. . 4
Those reports are complete and in detail, and give the detailed
estimates of costs and plans and profiles.
There is no section of these United States that has been surveyed
and resurveyed, and considered and reported on, to the extent that
this section of the country has. " . " .
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I am sorry to say that that does
not do away with the rule, that has been inflexible and has prevailed
for 20 years at least, if not a quarter of a century, that we have to
have, first, a survey, and then a favorable report; and the favorable
report is the only question to which we can refer. -
Now, it might be that the members of this committee would be
unanimously in favor of a 9-foot channel, if it were before them.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, Mr. Chairman, here is this report; that is:
a favorable report.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. And I would like to quote from that report, if
you please? -
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And to one paragraph in particular; and while
it recommends an 8-foot waterway, that is not what this committee
asked the Chief of Engineers for; this committee asked the Chief
of Engineers for a report of estimates of costs. It did not ask him
for a conclusion. And the report itself says that it is his conclusion
that the traffic does not warrant anything greater than an 8-foot
waterway. But he does go into the estimates of costs on a 9-foot
waterway. -
The CHAIRMAN. The Chief of Engineers is reporting absolutely
in accordance with instructions; he is bound by statute to do what
he has done; and he is not only within the statute, but he is withi
the universal practice.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 51.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, I will not quarrel with the statutes, nor will
I quarrel with the universal practice; but I would like to quote
what he has said.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. Referring in the alternative to the projects which
he recommends, I find that on page 17 he says:
For a 9-foot channel, with an increment of 4,167 second-feet, the cost either,
With dams retained or removed appears almost prohibitive, and the probability
that Congress will limit the increment to 4,167 Second-feet is, in my Opinion,
SO remote that this hypothesis may be left Out Of consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. What are you reading from ? -
Mr. RANDOLPH. Page 17 of Document No. 2; and then it goes on
as follows: - . . . - -
With increments of 7,500 or 10,000 second-feet, the figures show conclusively
the advisability of removing all dams. Inasmuch as the Sanitary District of .
Chicago and the State of Illinois receive practically all of the benefits that
accrue from maintaining the flow of 7,500 second-feet from Lake Michigan,
the propriety of the dams being removed at the expense of those interests may
Well be COnSidered. * * - • 4
That is Colonel Judson’s report. - .
The CHAIRMAN. I will call your attention to the fact that that is
the report of the district engineer; and while, of course, it is one of
the things that occur in reporting before a survey, the only thing
that comes up for our consideration is the report of the Chief of
Engineers. - - f . . . . .
Mr. RANDOLPH. All right, sir; we will take the report of the Chief
of Engineers recommending an 8-foot waterway. -
Mr. Sweet has brought out that the Erie Canal was originally
constructed at a depth of 4 feet; they found that that was not
enough, and it was enlarged to 7 feet; that was not enough and it
had to be enlarged to 12 feet; and now they find again that it is not
large enough. . --
Talking now of the waterway proposition, the waterway consists,
as we have it to-day, first of the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal,
through the Continental Divide, which is the first link in any Lakes-
to-the-Gulf waterway. That has been constructed by the people of:
the city of Chicago at a cost of $60,000,000, going through the rock of
the Continental Divide. It is 160 feet wide in its narrowest part and
24 feet deep. It extends for 40 miles, from the mouth of the river to
Lockport. That is the first link. - -
The State is engaged in constructing the second link between the
end of the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, through the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers, and the present head of 6-foot navigation on
the Illinois River at La Salle. That is being done by the State
under a bond issue of $20,000,000, which was voted by the people
of the State of Illinois in 1908. -
In that project one lock at Marseilles has been completed, another
lock at the end of the drainage canal is under contract and under
construction. There is a fall of 140 feet in the 63 miles between
the end of the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal and the present head
of navigation on the Illinois River.
To take care of that slope, there will be five locks constructed:
One at the end of the drainage canal; another lock and dam just
below Joliet; another lock and dam below the confluence of the
52 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Des Plaines and Kankakee Rivers, where they come together and
form the Illinois River; the lock and dam at Marseilles, which is
being constructed; and another lock and dam at Starved Rock, just
above Utica, the present head of navigation on the Illinois River.
Now, the State is paying for that.
The simple expedient has been adopted of constructing the locks
and dams to provide slack-water pools, with a depth of 8 feet in the
pools, with very little expenditure at the upper end of the canal; and
that can be enlarged and deepened to 14 feet, with the expenditure of
a comparatively small amount of money. All of the locks are built
with 14 feet of water over the miter sills. The locks are 110 feet
wide and 1,000 feet long. They are designed to take a type of tows
that are operated by the Mississippi-Warrior Barge Service. They
are the same size as the locks in the Ohio River improvement which
Congress has appropriated for and which is being constructed. The
development of the waterways in conformity with the Ohio project,
with a 9-foot depth throughout, will ultimately give us a connected
waterways system that will handle that type of barge; and that
type of barge can and does compete with the railroads. Anything
smaller than tows or barges carrying 9,000 tons does not compete
economically with the railroads. -
That is one reason why the New York State Barge Canal is having
difficulty in developing its traffic. Another difficulty with the New
York State Barge Canal traffic is that you have no common carriers
on the New York State Barge Canal; you have contract carriers:
but you have not any carriers that interchange with railroad carriers
and make you through rates, such as we hope will be extended to the
Illinois waterway when it is completed.
Now, as to the question that you were speaking, about, Mr. Chair-
man, of an 8-foot waterway, we will begin with an 8-foot waterway,
because when we get the Illinois waterway completed we will have.
that, practically, with the exception of the lower river an 8-foot
depth in the lower river will give is that much better service; we will.
be able to have some kind of service and a through route from
Chicago to the Gulf as soon as the Illinois waterway is completed.
And one of the fundamental designs in the improvement of the
Illinois waterway, the improvement of the lower Illinois River, and
the improvement of the Mississippi River from Chicago on down
to Cairo, the junction with the Ohio River improvement, is the vol-
ume of water that you are going to permit to go through that
channel. *
With a flow of 1,000 second-feet, as has been suggested by the
chairman here this morning——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No ; I simply read from the report
of the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, the report of the Chief of Engineers, as I
understand it. did not advocate the improvement with a 1,000 second-
foot flow. He said that a 1,000 second-foot flow—1,000 cubic feet
per second—would be adequate to provide all the water necessary
for lockage. And it probably will be, for some time to come. But
it will not be sufficient to provide the water for the channel without
improvement of the lower Illinois River by locks and dams at the
site of the four small locks that are now constructed and exist in the
canal, two belonging to the State and two belonging to the Federal
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 53
Government—LaGrange, Henry, Copperas Creek, and Kampsville;
those locks and dams will have to be enlarged. This document or
report does not show an estimate of cost with an increment of 1,000
second-feet. x -
The CHAIRMAN. The report shows that the volume of water which
they say would be necessary would be sufficient to carry 100,000,000
tons of traffic per annum.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Put it through the locks?
The CHAIRMAN. No; they say that is what is needed for their
waterway.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, if you have got a slack-water canal
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No ; the report says, “such a water-
way will require *
Mr. RANDOLPH (continuing). If you have no flow at all except
what goes through the locks, that will be sufficient; but you got to
provide in addition to what you already have four more locks in the
lower river, at a greatly increased cost for the entire project. Now,
let me develop that, Mr. Chairman -
. The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Now, I can say right here that
on the method of construction, of course, we would naturally be
guided by the advice of the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Chief of Engineers does not advocate that
kind of canal; he has approved an 8-foot project.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; what he says will be necessary for the canal
which he recommends
Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). Yes, sir and he has recommended
an 8-foot project, with a flow of 4,167 second-feet minimum; that is
what is under discussion here.
The CHAIRMAN. Where is the recommendation as to the flow
to which you refer?
Mr. RANDOLPH. In this report that is directed to you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Where is it in that report?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am referring to a letter of transmittal, signed
by Lansing H. Beach, major general, Chief of Engineers, House
Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session.
The CHAIRMAN. What page?
Mr. RANDOLPH. On page 2, where he gives you the estimate, he
says: e
It is estimated that under existing conditions a 9-foot waterway from Utica
to that depth at the mouth of the Ohio—
And so forth. Then he says paragraph 3 of that letter:
After due consideration of the information presented, I concur in the views
and recommendations of the board.
And the recommendations of the board follow. The question of
the most advisable depth of the waterway covering this reach is
most carefully considered in the reports under review. And the
whole thing is predicated on existing conditions.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not find anything of that kind, however,
in the report.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The report was made in response to a resolution -
of this committee calling for a report.
The CHAIRMAN. That is always true.
54 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. And they have asked the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review the reports printed in
House Document so-and-so— - * * - . . . . . . .
with a view to ascertaining the cost of a navigable channel 9 feet in depth
from a point in the Illinois River, Ill., in the vicinity of Utica, Ill.,...to a
connection with the 9-foot channel in the Mississippi River at or below.
Cairo, Ill. . .
In paragraph 2, page 2, subparagraph (a), it says: * *
The cost under existing conditions of an 8-foot channel in the Illinois River
between Utica and the mouth— . . . . . .
The “existing conditions” meaning the conditions of a permit
under which the flow is diverted at present.
Then they give you, under subparagraph (b), the cost under exist-
ing conditions of a 9-foot channel. º
So I submit that that estimate of cost is an estimate and recom-
mendation based on existing conditions.
Now, “existing conditions” may mean a condition of fact or a con-
dition of the permit. We will assume—and I think they assume—
that it meant the condition of the permit, 4,167 cubic feet per second.
I think they would be unwilling to assume anything else. But the
estimates of cost with the 4,167 cubic feet per second are given; and
the recommendations are based upon that as an existing condition.
Now, the existing conditions of fact apply not only to that reach
of the waterway—to the lower Illinois waterway—but they apply
also to the navigable channel of the Mississippi River as far down
as Cairo now. -
An increment of 10,000 cubic feet per second in the lower Illinois
River will raise the low-water plane of the lower Illinois River at
Utica, the present head of navigation, 8 feet; it will raise the low-
water plane at Grafton, the mouth of the Illinois River, at its con-
fluence with the Mississippi River, 2.2 feet; it will raise the low-
water plane of the Mississippi River at St. Louis 2 feet; and it con-
tributes that added depth throughout that entire reach of the Missis-
sippi River between St. Louis and the mouth of the Ohio River; and
if you had not had the sanitary district flow this last summer the
barge line would not have been able to operate. “. .
Before the sanitary district flow was sent down packets were often
unable at low stages of the river to get up from Cairo to St. Louis.
When that flow has been sent down there there has never been a time
when packet transportation has been suspended.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding—of course, I may be wrong,
and we will have the engineers here to testify—but my understanding
as to the conditions in the Mississippi River is that it is a question of
a channel, not a question of an insufficiency of water. wº-
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a question of depth over bars, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I think what they need and what the testimony
before our committee has always shown that they need in the Missis-
sippi River is a continuous channel. I do not believe there is any de-
ficiency of water in there. &
Mr. RANDOLPH. There has been a deficiency of water this last
SeaSOI). t
The CHAIRMAN. There may have been a deficiency of water in the
sense of the channel not being continuous
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 55
Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). That they have not maintained the
channel.
º CHAIRMAN (continuing). But that is another question en-
tirely. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. One of the necessary aids to the maintenance of a
channel is a sufficiency of water. -
The CHAIRMAN. They have got that, according to the testimony
which has been introduced before our committee. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. You have got to have a continuous channel, if
you have to have sufficient depth of water to maintain the channel.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they have to pump the water into
the Mississippi River, in other words, in order to maintain a con-
tinuous stream; I think they have ample water to take care of that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a continuous stream, except at the bars; and
they have not been able to maintain a continuous channel over those
bars; but the added increment from the Chicago Sanitary District
has given them sufficient water to navigate it. . . . º
Now, it is possible to maintain a channel; but it has not been
done. The added increment of depth will save several million dol-
lars in the construction of a channel in the Illinois River, over the
estimated costs - - .
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Of course, you can readily under-
stand, Mr. Randolph, that on these technical questions as to the
construction of an approved waterway, the committee, while it is glad
to hear from nonexpert witnesses, would place very much more
dependence upon witnesses who are experts on that question.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Naturally.
The CHAIRMAN. You can see that, on the general question of the
importance of the waterway, on which I think we all agree, from a
commercial standpoint, of course, the lay witness is probably more.
important than the technical witness. But on the other question,
the technical engineering question, that requires a technical education
and a life work. .. -
Mr. RANDoi.pH. I understand that the Chief of Engineers is your
technical adviser? - -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. But I am not exactly in the position of a lay wit-
ness. I am a consulting engineer. I am a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. I have been president of the Illinois
Society of Engineers, and I have made a lifelong study of this ques-
tion. C * < * - - -
I am not giving you technical advice here. I am giving you evi-
dence of facts. These are the conditions as they exist. I am not
attempting to advise this committee as to what ought to be done
in the selection of the type, kind, or size of waterway. ... I am telling
you that these conditions exist as to the added depth of flow created
by this diversion through the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal.
Now, it has a value, whether it is considered technical or econom-
ical. If you can save several million dollars of the cost of digging
a deep channel, by continuing this diversion, it ought to be considered
as
from all of its economic viewpoints.
56 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. As to this canal. the total cost of the construction
of the waterway under consideration was estimated as only
$425,000— - -
Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). No; that is maintenance.
The CHAIRMAN. I see that I am wrong about that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The estimated cost for an 8-foot depth is $1,310,-
100 for initial work: and $77,500 for maintenance, on the Illinois
River; and $620,000 for initial work and $75,000 for maintenance
on the Mississippi River, from the mouth of the Illinois River to
St. Louis, below which point there is 8 feet. That is a total of
$1.930,000 for initial work and $152,500 annually for maintenance.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is less than $2,000,000 for im-
provement altogether in the two rivers?
. Mr. RANDOLPH. In the 8-foot project.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; so that you could not save very many mil-
lions of dollars out of $2,000,000?
Mr. RANDOLPH. You could save half of it, if not more, with the
10,000 second-foot increment.
The CHAIRMAN. And then would come the question as to whether
you ought to take 9,000 cubic feet per second, in addition to what is
needed, 1,000 cubic feet per second being needed, in order to save
$1,000,000?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; but you are comparing it with a flow of only
1,000 second-feet; and if you do that, you can not compare it with
that $2,000,000; you must compare it with $20,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. No: this is on the basis of the previous reports;
and the previous reports say that they will only need 1,000 cubic
feet per second. w
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not agree with you there. I take the liberty
of disagreeing with you on that.
The CHAIRMAN. I know it is, however; you will see on looking it
up that every one of these reports refers to the previous reports,
and is based on the previous reports
Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). Just a minute. On page 3, para-
graph 3, of this report, Document No. 2, I find this:
It will be seen from the district engineer's report that the estimates for the
Illinois River are largely influenced by the amount of water discharged into it
through the Chicago Sanitary Canal. The present permit authorizes a with-
drawal of 4,167 second-feet from Take Michigan, but apparently the actual
amount withdrawn is about 8,500 second-feet. Estimates are given for a flow
of 4,167, 7,500, and 10,000 feet. -
He does not base this estimate on 1,000 second-feet; and so far as
I know, he has never made an estimate based on a flow of 1,000 sec-
ond-feet; if he has, it has vastly increased that $2,000,000 estimate;
it would come nearer $20,000,000.
Mr. O'CONNOR. May I ask you if that statement that you made ex-
presses a view which is generally shared in by the people of that
Section; that is, that 8,500 second-feet is the amount withdrawn now?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is in the evidence in the suit in the United
States district court in Chicago. -
Mr. O'CONNOR. How long has that flow been continued?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That flow has been continued for the last eight
years, according to the testimony.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 57
Mr. O'ConnoR. It does not look like an extraordinary thing to you.
to ask for 10,000 second-feet, if you have already been receiving
8,500 second-feet?
Mr. RANDOLPH. We maintain that we have a right to 10,000 second-
feet; and that right has not been adjudicated: it is still before the
Supreme Court.
Mr. O'Connor. In other words, there is not a great difference
between the figures now 2
Mr. RANDOLPH. No; not right now.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Has it had any effect on the water level of the
Great Lakes?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No: I have not got to that yet; that will take quite
an extended explanation.
While we are still on this waterway question, Mr. Chairman, you
have not found any report of 1,000 second-feet, have you?
The CHAIRMAN. I have found this in the report of the Board of
Engineers, in Document 1374, Sixty-first Congress, third session——
Mr. RANDolph (interposing). Does it give you the estimate of
cost?
The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure that it does. Yes; it gives, for an
8-foot waterway, $1,050,000; for a 9-foot waterway, $4,500,000.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is with an increment of flow of what?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, as I understand it, that is the 1,000 cubic
feet per second.
Mr. RANDOLPH. No ; I think that is not. That same thing is
listed in here as 4,167 cubic feet per second: that is what it is predi-
cated on.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is what it seems to be based on here;
the only reference that I can find which refers to the flow is that
flow of 1,000 second-feet.
Mr. RANDOLPH. What is the date of that report?
The CHAIRMAN. That is January, 1911.
Mr. HULL. That is 14 years old.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; that is 14 years old.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And the other report that you have before you
is dated November 1, 1921; and you will find that it is predicated on
4,167 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. But you will find that the engineers in these cur-
rent reports refer to those old reports.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir; and they also refer to an old report on
a 14-foot waterway, with an estimate of cost and recommendations
based thereon, in favor of the 14-foot waterway; but that is more
than 14 years old; the estimates 14 years old are not of any value
ITOW.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the estimate as to costs might not be cor-
rect now ; but the estimate as to the amount of water needed for a
waterway ought to be just as sound in 1924 as it was in 1911.
Mr. RANDOLPH. There is no argument needed as to that: you
can build a waterway with 1,000 second-feet; but it will cost you a
great deal more than with a waterway of 4,167 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I see that the Senate report makes an esti-
mate on an 8-foot channel, with 4,167 cubic feet per second, as
$3,134,400; with a 9-foot channel, $4,821,100.
58 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI Rivers, ETC.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, it depends upon what that estimate con-
tains. It is estimated in several ways in this report: On an 8-foot
depth, with an increment of 4,167 cubic feet, with all of the locks
retained; at their present size, 45 feet wide and about 350 feet long,
and everything entirely intact—you could not get a Mississippi-
warrior barge through them; they should be 1,000 feet long and
110 feet wide; the estimate of the engineers, retaining those two
State locks and two Government locks in the lower river as they
are, and estimating for an 8-foot waterway, is $1,465,000. *
tº Now, with those same locks enlarged, the estimate is $6,525,000;
that is, with a 4,167 second-foot flow. -
With a 7,500-foot increment or a 10,000-foot increment you can
take those locks out and you would not have any locks at all. There
would be an open channel all the way.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we have reached this point of
agreement, so that we mutually understand this situation: That
this estimate seems to be based upon locks and dams; that is, the
estimate, which is before us?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No, it is not; not all of it.
tº . The CHAIRMAN. I mean the present report?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Not the present report, no; it is not based upon
locks and dams. ‘. . . -
“The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us put it more simply: What the engi-
neer recommends is an expenditure of something over $1,000,000, or
..less than $1,500,000; and you can increase or decrease the cost, ac-
cordingly as you decrease or increase the volume of water. • *
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. -
. The CHAIRMAN. That does not change the navigation features at
all; you ean have your 8-foot channel at your minimum of cost, and
with your minimum diversion; but you can have a less cost of
construction
Mr. RANDolPH (interposing). And a better channel.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). With an increased diversion. Now,
that is about the situation, is it not?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct.
… The CHAIRMAN. Now, of course, then it comes down to us as to
just what this report means. * * -
Mr. RANDolph. Yes, sir; and the best evidence there should be
that of the Chief of Engineers. - º
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; now let us come to your second question;
that is, your question of your sanitary canal. . . te º
Mr. RANDoiPH. All right—the question of diversion for sanita-
tion: for sanitary purposes. º
Mr. F. H. MAGEy. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a
question? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But please state your name and whom
you represent? . , - - º
Mr. MAGEy. My name is F. H. Macey, State engineer of New
York State. * - -
I want to ask you this, Mr. Randolph: What the comparative
velocities in the different sections are, for these various increments
of flow 2 - -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me see if I understand that?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 59
* Mr. MACEY. I asked Mr. Randolph what the various velocities of
water would be in that channel for these various increments of flow;
that is, looking at it from the viewpoint of back traffic against the
velocities. e - - • * : * ; • .
* The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what Mr. Macey suggests, is this,
Mr. Randolph—in which I suppose you would concur: That as you
increase the amount of water from Lake Michigan, that increases
will bring an increase of velocity? ... . . . . . . r
Mr. RANDOLPH. In the same size of channel, yes, sir; but this is
not the same sized channel. The lower Illinois River is approx-
imately 275 miles long. In that distance it has a fall of 27 feet; it
is a stream of flat gradient. The normal low-water flow before the
sanitary district increment was added—the minimum low-water
flow—about 1,000 second-feet: it has a flood flow of pretty nearly
200.000 second-feet. - • ' -
"The CHAIRMAN. I think they estimate the normal flow at 500
second-feet in the Illinois River. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is the low-water minimum, absolutely—the
irreducible minimum.
In a stream of that flat gradient you have no current that will
prevent navigation upstream. You have more current and much
deeper gradients in the Mississippi River, under present conditions.
I can not give you offhand the velocities at the various places, but
you can see that if you add 4,167 cubic feet per second, or 10,000
eubic feet per second, to your flood flow of 150,000 second-feet, it
does not make much difference in a stream of that kind. -
Mr. MACEY. But can you operate during those flood flows?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir; we do operate during those flood flows.
We have a very wide river, except where it is constricted by the
levees which have been built; and at those points it is 1,000 feet
wide at the narrowest. At Beardstown it is 1,000 feet wide. You
have no parallel condition to that in the New York State Barge
Canal at all. -
Mr. MACEY. But I think we have a parallel condition in our
Mohawk Canal. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not think in New York you have anythin
like that, for any great distance, that is over 1,000 feet wide.
Mr. MACEY. What is the drainage area of the Illinois River in the
canalized section? -
Mr. RANDOLPH. I can not give you that offhand either. I can
tell you what the flow above that canalized section is; the flood dis-
charge of the Desplaines River above the canalized section is some-
think like 600,000 cubic feet a minute or 10,000 per foot-second; that
is about the beginning of the canalized section. Below that we
have the Kankakee River, which has a large drainage area. -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Macey, did you want to know the drainage
area of the Illinois River? •
Mr. MACEY. I wanted to know the drainage area of the Illinois
River at the head of the canal. - -
The CHAIRMAN. The total length is 470 miles; and it drains an
area of 27,900 square miles.
Mr. THOMAs (of Cleveland, Ohio). Mr. Chairman, in that con-
nection may I ask the approximate dimensions of the canal sec-
tion of that waterway?
60 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; the least Section of the Chicago Sanitary
& Ship Canal is, in the rock section, 14 miles long; it is 160 feet
wide on the bottom, 162 feet wide at the top, and it has a depth of 24
feet.
Mr. THOMAs. What would be the velocity there with an increment
of 10,000 second-feet?
Mr. RANDOLPH. With 10,000 second-feet, the velocity there is
about a mile and a quarter an hour.
Mr. THOMAs. Well, how much per second?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, you can figure that out; you can divide
the cross-section area by the flow.
Mr. THOMAs. I know that can be calculated; but I did not want
to go through the mental process; and I thought you knew.
Mr. RANDoIPH. About 3 feet a second.
Mr. KEEFER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; please state your name, and whom you rep-
I'esent. -
Mr. KEEFER. My name is Keefer, representing the Province of
Ontario. tº
I think you said, Mr. Randolph, that you could build a waterway
with 1,000 second-feet flow and also one with 10,000 second-feet
flow, and that it was a question of difference in cost. Did I hear you
correctly; and if so, what would the difference in cost be between
1,000 second-feet and 10,000 second-feet? *
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is what I have not estimated, and what ap-
parently the chief of engineers has not estimated.
Mr. KEEFER. Well, approximately :
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will not approximate, because the chief of en-
gineers will testify here. I will say that the 1,000 second-foot flow
will be many times over the cost of the 10,000 second-foot flow. I
will undertake to estimate for you, but not offhand.
* Mr. KEELER. Well, if another owner in a neighboring State was
vitally interested in that question, do you not think that cost should
be taken into consideration, rather than deprive them of their
rights?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I think the equity should be considered : yes, sir.
Mr. KEEFER. In what way?
Mr. RANDOLPH. As to the respective rights of the several States.
Mr. KEEFER. And how would you deal with those—how would
you compensate them?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I think it depends very largely upon the adjudi-
cation of those rights.
Mr. KEEFER. Well, if you deprive them of that much water, and
they are entitled to some interest in it, how would you attempt
to deal fairly with them?
Mr. RANDOLPH. If you assume that they are deprived of that
much water to which they are entitled, and that there has been no
prior agreement as to that diversion, they should be compensated.
Mr. KEEFER. How would you compensate them?
Mr. RANDOLPH. By restoring the flow.
Mr. KEEFER. How could you restore the flow when the water is
gone? -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 61
Mr. RANDOLPH. You could so regulate the outflow
Mr. KEEFER (interposing.) You could regulate the level, per-
haps?
Mr. RANDOLI’H. You could regulate the discharge and the outflow
so as to give them the benefit
Mr. KEEFER (interposing.) Suppose that water has an economic
value for power, how would you compensate them for that, if it
is taken away from the channel? What is the amount of power in
10,000 cubic feet per second flow, from the level of Lake Michigan
to the Sea—going over those two drops, the Niagara drop and the
St. Lawrence drop & You are an engineer and can state that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Ten thousand second-feet.
Mr. KEEFER. The 10,000 second-feet that you are talking about,
how much is that in horsepower?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Ten thousand second-feet is about 500,000 horse-
power.
Mr. KEEFER. And it would annount to about 500,000 horsepower.
Now, what is the economic value of that 500,000 horsepower taken
away from that watershed?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Wait a minute. I am not going to be led that
way. That assumes that you could develop all of the water that is
flowing through that stream. -
Mr. ICEEFER. Well, take any discount that you want to for any
losses on the way.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If it is an economic loss to the neighboring State,
which is not the fact: •
Mr. KEEFER (interposing). How would you compensate for that ?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would not, if it was left to me, compensate for it
at all, because we have already compensated for it and paid for it in
the unequal distribution of water in Niagara Falls.
Mr. KEEFER. That is quite a different matter, and that fact is not
admitted at all. º
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is still to be adjudicated, sir, and is not to be
adjudicated here.
Mr. KEEFER. Then, you have no other way of suggesting compen-
sation? . -
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. KEEFER. What is it?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would compensate for your level and your out-
flow and regulate your outflow, so that you could, produce and de-
velop twice as much power as you are developing now, with an
equalized outflow.
Mr. KEEFER. And what would you do with the water-power
value - • *
Mr. HULL (interposing). You do not have to answer that, Mr.
Randolph, if you do not want to.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, if the witness desires, we would like very
much to hear from him on the question of this sanitary district in
Chicago. We have to adjourn at 4 o’clock, on account of other en-
gagements of some members of the committee, and so we would like
to hear you on that subject, if you will.
. I will say to the gentleman from Canada that we will take that
question up again at a later stage of the proceedings.
91739—24—PT 1
5
62 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. O’Connor. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of some of us who
have recently come on the committee and do not know the details of
this matter, will you tell us whether there is any difference between
the Chicago Sanitary District, which has been referred to here, and .
the city of Chicago?
The CHAIRMAN. It is a separate corporation.
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a municipality imposed upon another munici-
pality for this purpose.
Mr. O’Connor. How does it differ as to size of territory !
Mr. RANDOLPH. It includes the suburbs; it includes the city and the
suburbs: I will say that it is the metropolitan area.
Mr. WILSON. I suppose it is something like the school districts?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. *
Now, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to take up this question of the
sanitary district, and the question of the lake levels, and the question
of international relations, all in good time.
But I would like at this time, sir, to make an offer to show the
committee, at your convenience, some reels of moving pictures which
I have that show the physical conditions—the works of the Sanitary
District of Chicago; to take you by these moving pictures down the
Chicago River; the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal; and show you
the water-power plant; and show you the sewage-disposal plants;
and animated charts of the sewer system and the operation of this
sanitary system; and to show you animated charts of the hydro-
graphs of the Great Lakes. If the committee cares to see these
pictures, I believe it would be of great help.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we would be very glad to see them. Are
you going to be here another day ?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will be here as long as necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. We have some one else we would like to put on
to-day as he would like to leave town, and if you will pardon us we
can hear you later.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will be very glad to defer to him with the under-
standing that I may later present the pictures.
STATEMENT OF MR. C. A. LIVINGSTON, REPRESENTING ILLINOIS
MANUEACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much of your time,
because most of what I would say has been said in another way by
previous witnesses.
We represent not all the manufacturers of Illinois but 90 per cent
of the manufacturers of Illinois who have an annual output of up-
ward of $5,500,000,000 worth of manufactured products a year.
All of its members are for this waterway; this Illinois waterway.
The organization is about 25 years old; and it has worked for this
water power for 25 years, and I will not go into any more details as
to that.
But we are still for it, and we think that now is a good oppor-
tunity to get it through through this bill of Congressman Hull.
Congressman Hull wired us to be present, and we think that this
affords a practical solution of some difficulties which have been en-
countered in the pºst.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 63
The expenditure, which has already been explained in the Sanitary
district portion of the waterway, and the $20,000,000 bond issue,
which takes care of another portion of it, will not be of much use
unless this portion which is covered by the Hull bill is permitted to
go on, and that is the reason why we are for that bill.
Now, we have a great many members who already use the water-
way; that is, the Mississippi-Warrior waterway as far as Cairo and
as far as St. Louis; the International Harvester Co. and the Illinois
Steel Co. and other steel companies throughout the State who are
advantageously located, but who could ship much more if this water-
way was completed.
For instance, the International Harvester Co. now brings in hemp
and other products which it uses from Mexico and Manila, up from
New Orleans, through the Mississippi River and the Warrior River
as far as Cairo. They could bring in more products, such as oil and
coal from the Southwest. -
Now, you have heard about the detriment that resulted from the
Panama Canal. The Panama Canal was an improvement that every-
body in Illinois, including the Manufacturers’ Association, was
for; but it has worked a great hardship on our members, because, on
account of the traffic rates, it gives the Atlantic coast industries an
advantage in shipping to South America and to the Pacific coast.
I think that is all I care to say, except that we are very strong
for it and that we hope that you gentlemen, who seem to be very fair-
minded men—including your chairman, who has had a great many
intricate questions to elucidate here to-day—will favorably report
this bill or something very like it.
We simply want you to be fair in the matter; give us fair play.
Illinois has wanted a waterway since as far back as 1643, when
Pere Marquette and Louis Joliet, the first white men that came to
Illinois, recommended a waterway, which is the same waterway that
we now recommend, and it is pretty near time that we were getting
it; but we will not get it unless you recommend a bill somewhat
similar to this.
The CHAIRMAN. What you are interested in is the waterway?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. We are interested in getting the waterway, and
all of these involved questions about cubic feet a second and velocity
and all of those things we do not know much about. We leave those
questions to you gentlemen, who are so well posted on the subject;
and we are perfectly content to leave it in your hands, because we
know that you will be fair.
Mr. O’Connor. Mr. Chairman, in order to clarify a matter that
is not clear in my mind that I think should be cleared up, as it is very
important: Did the committee instruct the engineers to submit a rec-
ommendation for an 8-foot channel instead of a 9-foot channel?
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to answer that to-morrow morn-
ing. I will have that looked up.
(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned until
Tuesday, March 18, 1924, at 10.15 o'clock a. m.)
64 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Tuesday, March 18, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Demp-
sey (chairman) presiding. -
The CHAIRMAN. We will resume the hearing of H. R. 5475. We
will first hear from Mr. Randolph, of Chicago.
STATEMENT OF MR. ISHAM RANDOLPH, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am going to show
you the physical things first.
(Mr. Randolph's statement was illustrated by lantern slides and
moving pictures.)
The works of the Sanitary District of Chicago [picture on the
screen]. The city of Chicago is built at the low summit of the
Continental Divide between the watersheds of the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi Valley [picture].
Originally the lake was both the source of water supply and the
receptacle for the sewage, a condition that could not continue as the
city grew. As the zone of shore pollution extended farther and far-
ther from the shore it became necessary to move the water supply
intakes farther off from shore, beyond the zone of pollution. This
did not prevent the pollution of the water supply, and the city
was subject to numerous and recurring epidemics of typhoid fever,
a water-borne disease.
In 1885 the sewerage and water supply commission was appointed
to consider the problem and report upon a plan for a solution of
the problem. This commission was headed by Rudolph Herring,
who at that time, until his death in May of last year, was the leading
sanitary engineer in the profession. The other two members of the
commission were Mr. G. E. Williams and Samuel E. Armstrong.
This commission considered plans for sewage disposition and water
supply. Its first plan was a continuation of the plan then in use,
disposal of the sewage into the river and thence by diffusion into the
lake, and pushing the water intakes farther out and farther into
the lake, so as to escape the Zone of shore pollution. The second
thing was the disposal of Sewage on land on the shore side of the
city on the Indiana-Illinois State line by the intermittent and filtra-
tion process, which was then the highest art of sewage disposal. A
third plan was to cut a canal through the Continental Divide and
dispose of the Sewage in the watersheds of the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. One moment. I remember reading in one of the
magazines, probably Some Seven or eight years ago, a long article
on Birmingham, the richest city in the world.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If you will excuse me, I can not keep up with the
film if I am interrupted. I will be glad to reply to any questions
afterwards.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; you may proceed without interruption.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The plan adopted was the plan of cutting through
the summit level, and it was adopted on the clearly defensible ground
* f least first cost—the least cost of maintenance. It provided for
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 65
the purification of the sewage by dilution, which was then the best
method of sewage disposal, and is to-day the best method of sewage
disposal. **
Pursuant to the report of this commission the Legislature of Illinois
passed an act in 1889 creating the Sanitary District of Chicago, a
separate municipality imposed upon the municipality of Chicago,
for the special purpose of building and administering this sewage
disposal utility.
Work was begun in September of 1892, and work on the main
drainage channel was prosecuted continuously for eight years, until
water was turned into the channel on January 17, 1900.
The Sanitary district act provided that the sewage turned into
the canal should be diluted with fresh water taken from the Chicago
River in the proportion of 20,000 cubic feet per minute for each
100,000 population, and the dimensions of the canal were specified
in the act to take care of a flow of 600,000 cubic feet per minute,
which, at the rate of pollution prescribed in the act, provided for
dilution for a population of 3,000,000 people.
It was a part of the plan of the projectors of the canal that when
this dilution limit had been reached, when the population of Chicago
had reached the 3,000,000 mark, it would then be necessary to con-
struct an additional, an auxiliary, supplemental sewage disposal
work.
The project was started under the State rights theory, as the New
York State Barge Canal was started. There was not any thought
that the State had not the right to do this. There was no Federal
law covering the subject.
As I said, the sanitary district act was passed in 1889. Not until
1899 did Congress take cognizance of this improvement, and then
the rivers and harbors act of that year contained paragraph 10, pro-
viding in general terms where it was sought to divert the flow of any
navigable river, it would be necessary to secure a permit from the
Secretary of War.
Application had been made for a permit under this provision and
the permit was granted. The permitting clause permits the reversal
of the flow in the Chicago River, and the permit recites in its pre-
amble that it is the purpose of the Secretary of War to submit ques-
tions concerning this reversal to the Congress of the United States
for final adjudication. g
The permit provided the flow through the Chicago River should be
not in excess of 300,00ſ) cubic feet per minute, 500 cubic feet per
second, or that it should not create a current in excess of a mile and tº
quarter an hour. This stipulation applied solely to shipping in the
Chicago River.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought it was 4,100 cubic feet.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The first was 4,100 cubic feet, but it was modified
two or three times in the next few years. The reason the limitation
was put upon it at that time was that the Chicago River was a nar-
row, tortuous stream and not capable of carrying any more than
that volume. The engineers reported that it could carry that volume
safely.
Subsequently the Sanitary District of Chicago spent some $13,000,-
000 joining the Des Plaines and Chicago Rivers to make it adequate
to carry a larger flow.
66 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
This is a view of the main channel of the Chicago River, 300 feet
wide and 24 feet deep here, and to the mouth of the forks of the
I’IWeHº.
At the forks of the river where the North and South Branches
come together the flow now flows up stream to the south, and this
is a picture in the south fork of the South Branch of the Chicago
River [picture].
It now has a least width (uniform) of 200 feet throughout its
length, and a depth of 24 feet. The river is now capable of carrying
7,000 second feet without carrying currents destructive to naviga-
tion.
The CHARMAN. What do you call a current destructive to naviga-
tion'
Mr. RANDOLPH. A mile and a quarter an hour.
In the remodeling of the river it was necessary to remove the old
center pier bridges and build these bascule bridges, and there are 14
of these bridges. This is the old bridge [picturel. They were taken
down to make room for the 200-foot river. *
After this improvement was completed the Sanitary District peti-
tioned the Secretary of War for a permit to increase the flow. Wil-
liam H. Taft was Secretary of War at that time and he heard this
petition, and he denied it on the ground that the Secretary of War
had no jurisdiction over the case. The same question is up to the
Supreme Court of the United States now, and William H. Taft, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, again has to rule on the ques-
tion that he passed upon as Secretary of War. *
The CHAIRMAN. What is the status of those two cases?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not know when they are to be heard, I don’t
know when they are set. This is the entrance to the main channel
of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal [picture]. The building on
the left is the electric power distribution substation. This channel
is 200 feet wide at the bottom and 300 feet wide at the surface.
This section of the canal is 300 feet wide ſillustrating with another
picture]. This extends from Robey Street to Summit, a distance
of about 8 miles. All the bridges across the main channel are mov-
able bridges equipped with machinery to operate them.
There is no navigation in the main channel now, except Some Šinall
boats plying between the stone quarries in the vicinity of Lockport,
for the reason that the canal does not go anywhere: it ends at Lock-
port. After our Illinois waterways are completed, the canal will
come into its own as a ship canal. It will then be possible to carry
barges down to the present head of navigation on the Illinois River.
This portion of the canal, 14 miles long, is cut through solid rock
[showing another picturel. This is the portion I told you about
yesterday. It is 160 feet wide at the bottom and 162 feet wide at
the surface, and 24 feet deep. This is the measure of the capacity
of the canal. It is designed to flow 10,000 cubic feet, per second.
It is considered possible to put a flow of 14,000 cubic feet a second
through it. º o
This is the spillway for the flood waters of the Desplaines River.
It flows down and joins up below Lockport.
As I have said, it has been developed that the canal with the
smooth side walls can be made to take a flow of 14,000 second-feet.
throughout; but if we put 14,000 second-feet through the canal,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 67
we are apt to draw the head so low at Lockport that it puts our
power plant out of business; and the only occasion when it would be
put through, any such flow as that, would be occasions of emer-
gency, when we would have to shut the power plant down.
This is the original controlling works [showing picture of a dam].
It is a hydraulic power dam. It can be lowered in five minutes,
or a flow of 5,000 cubic feet a minute can be put over it.
This is the terminus of the canal as constructed [another picture].
The CHAIRMAN. Now, before we go on with the next part of your
statement I want to put a witness on the stand who is only able to
be here this morning. - -
Mr. RANDOLPH. Very well, sir. -
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Spratt, if you will be good enough to
come forward we will be glad to hear you.
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS SPRATT, OF OGDENSBURG, N. Y.
Mr. SPRATT. I have been down at Miami for about four or five
weeks and Saturday I received communications from our town stating
that the hearing would take place to-day and, I think, to-morrow,
and that our people were very much aroused, and they asked me
to come at once to find out what was being done and to make pro-
test in behalf of our north country there with reference to the
taking of more water from Lake Michigan and placing it and run-
ning it into the Mississippi River, and I appear here to-day, par-
ticularly with reference to the George Hall Coal & Transportation
Co., the Rutland Railroad Co., the New York & Ontario Power Co.,
and I also appear as a director of the Board of Commerce of the .
City of Ogdensburg.
I know I have the right to reflect what is the feeling of everybody
so far as our part of the country is concerned, and we desire vigor-
ously to protest against the taking out of any more water from
Lake Michigan.
I have been here a little while and this picture here is quite inter-
esting. I might say that the people of Chicago, without referring
to this matter particularly, have been very industrious. They have
a beautiful city there. But I do not see that they have done much
with reference to the problem of how to best dispose of sewage, a
question that necessarily arises in large cities like Chicago.
There is no doubt that this can be disposed of in the modern way.
and it is not necessary to the relief of Chicago that the navigation
of the St. Lawrence River should be destroyed. The people in
Ogdensburg from time immemorial have been navigators of the waters
of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. Long before I was a
child the white sails between Ogdensburg and Chicago were seen in
almost every port. Following the sailing vessels came the steam-
boats. Our people became interested both as employees and as
owners and operated lines of steamers there until the passage of the
act with reference to the Panama Canal. At that time the com.
mission, having power, thought for some reason or other the Rut-
land Railroad Co., which operated a line of boats in connection with
their port to Boston and other points in the East, of prohibiting that
road from Operating that line of steamers at that time, with the
68 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
result that the Rutland Railroad had to sell their boats, and a great
loss was suffered by Ogdensburg and the people of that community,
because hundreds of men had spent their lives in navigating the
River St. Lawrence as sailor men, as engineers, as pilots, and as
captains, and quite a portion of our city was depopulated on ac-
count of the fact that the railroads were prohibited from operating
those boats. -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Spratt, we had before us yesterday a witness
who suggested that the decrease in the tonnage of Chicago, the port
proper, decreased from 7,000,000 tons to less than 3,000,000 tons be-
tween 1890 and 1922. Calumet, an adjacent harbor, on the other
hand, had an increase of about 50 per cent. That is, at the end of
the time it was about 150 per cent what it was in 1907.
Now, the suggestion was made here that that decrease was due
to the fact that the railroads owned the boats. Can you tell us
about that, whether that had any influence or not; did the railroad
tie up these boats and cease to use them?
Mr. SPRATT. No; the life of the railroad to a great extent depends
upon their ability to navigate and run a line of boats to and includ-
ing Duluth, and when they had to dispose of those boats, a great
portion of their tonnage was disposed of, and they were unable to
pay a dividend. From that time on the Ogdensburg & Lake Cham-
plain Railroad was unable to pay its owners a cent. For years,
since those boats were sold, they had not been able to pay their own-
ers one cent. Recently, however, I think a change has come over the
international commission, and I think they have begun to run and .
that there is now a line of boats running again—they began last
year. Our citizens are beginning to return home and to operate
those boats, and if navigation is allowed to continue as it has been,
there is no doubt that those boats will be maintained and they will
earn a reasonable compensation to the railroad. But for any indi-
viduals in our country to maintain a line of boats, the amount of
money would be so great that they could not do it, and we are so
much interested in maintaining that line of boats because of the fact
that so much money is paid out to our people who are sailors and
people learned and educated in the line of operating boats, and it
would be a very detrimental thing to again dispose of the boats they
have in commission at the present time.
I desire to call attention particularly to the Ontario Power &
It is a domestic corporation organized and owning land and water
power at the village of Waddington. They have spent probably a
half million dollars in obtaining the right condition of affairs to
utilize the waters of the St. Lawrence River. If this water is
diverted at Chicago it will destroy, to a great extent, their power
there, and it will bring a severe loss on all the people that have
rights of way pertaining to that part of the St. Lawrence River.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Spratt. What will a
cubic foot of water produce at Lockport, Ill., in power, as com-
pared with a cubic foot of water utilized for the same purpose at
the point you name on the St. Lawrence River?
Mr. SPRATT. I could not answer that as I am not prepared to give
you figures. I have just come here and did not have a chance to
bring any figures or papers with me. But if your honors will allow
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 69
us to file a brief with your body within a reasonable time we will
take pleasure in furnishing the information you ask for.
The CHAIRMAN. What we want is the combined production of
power from the Niagara escarpment down to the end of the St.
Lawrence River as compared with like production at Lockport, Ill.
Do you understand what I want?
Mr. SPRATT. I might say that the diversion of water between Ni-
agara Falls and below is for the purpose of power, and that water
is turned back again at Lewiston, so, so far as navigation is con-
cerned, it does not affect it at all. It does not affect the navigability
of the stream below. But where you divert 10,000 feet and carry it
into the Mississippi River, that water is gone forever. It is like
taking the life blood from the St. Lawrence River. We feel it will
be striking a blow at our commerce and against our people that we
can not recover from, and we certainly ask that Chicago, with all its
power and wealth, will see to it that they will take the necessary
means to dispose of their sewage in the ordinary and proper form,
which is done in several cities.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask one question. At the present time
your power plant is running all right, is it not?
Mr. SPRATT. At the present time our power plant is running.
Mr. HULL. But you have not put it all in 2
Mr. SPRATT. Owing to the question that has arisen between the
high powers, that is to say, the Canadian commissioners and our
own commissioners, that matter is still unsolved.
Mr. HULL. The boats are traveling, are they not ?
Mr. SPRATT. No, not wholly. Several boats have stuck on the
rocks. Last year, so great damage was done that the insurance com-
panies have suffered severely.
Mr. HULL. But the boats are running :
Mr. SPRATT. One boat, just the city of Montreal.
Mr. HULL. In the St. Lawrence River ?
Mr. SPRATT. Yes. The boat went on the rocks and several people
were rescued at great peril to their lives.
Mr. HULL. The boats running from Duluth east are running all
right, are they not?
Mr. SPRATT. So far as I know, from Duluth up to the point where
the St. Lawrence reaches Lake Ontario, I have not heard any fault
found. The great difficulty we are laboring under is the insufficient
water in the St. Lawrence.
Mr. LOUIs J. BEHAN of Chicago. May I ask what is the name of
the power company you represent 7
Mr. SPRATT. The New York & Ontario Power Co.
Mr. BEHAN. Located where?
Mr. SPRATT. At Waddington, about 19 miles north of Ogdensburg.
The CHAIRMAN. In New York State?
Mr. SPRATT. Yes; it is a New York State corporation. You
might subdivide the river St. Lawrence. This power is on the
American side and between the mainland and what is known as
Ogden's Island.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt. The oppor-
tunity will be afforded to you to file briefs. I want to suggest that
you get them in as soon as you conveniently can.
,70 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes, I will. I will be home in two or three days
and we will go right to work at it and furnish it to the committee as
SOOIL 3.S. We C3, Il.
The CHAIRMAN. We will give you access to the minutes of this
hearing if you want them.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes. I would be glad to have them as soon as possi-
|ble, because it will enable us to be more clear in our report.
STATEMENT OF MIR, ISHAMI RANDOLPH-Continued.
Mr. RANDOLPH. This is the butterfly valve at the head of the power
extension of the main drainage channel [exhibiting lantern slide
picture].
The original act did not provide for the development of the water
power. In 1903 an act was passed by the legislature empowering
the sanitary district to develop the potential power that existed at
the end of the drainage canal, in the fall of 36 feet between the
water in the canal and the water in the Des Plaines River. Work
began in 1905 and it was put in operation in 1907.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the amount of power generated?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It has developed about 25,000 horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. From how much water?
Mr. RANDOLPH. On the present flow, 8,500 second-feet.
The lock shown in this picture is the Illinois and Michigan canal
lock. The construction of the main drainage channel made it un-
necessary to maintain that reach of the canal between Chicago and
Lockport, and it was necessary to provide some means of access to the
old canal below this point. So this lock, with a maximum lift of 41
feet, was constructed for that purpose. The new lock now under
construction at this point by the State, 100 feet wide and 1,000 long,
will be constructed this year alongside this little lock [picture].
That will be the first lock in the project.
The old Illinois & Michigan Canal is maintained to-day from this
point on down to the head of navigation on the Illinois River. This
canal was first opened in 1848. It was constructed by a grant of land
from the United States Government made in 1822, granting alternate
sections of land on each side of the canal for a distance of 5 miles,
and amounting to 284,000 acres. It is obsolete, like your Erie Canal.
It was 4 feet deep. It would not compete with the railroads, and
it would be necessary to adopt a State project to meet the present
demands of commerce.
All of the power developed at this point is now shipped to Chi-
cago over high tension lines and distributed from the substation I
showed you in the first picture. Most of it is used to light the streets
and parks and boulevards, and to operate the sewage-disposal plants
of the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. Who owns the water power? -
Mr.RANDOLPH. The Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal
corporation created by the State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that simply a public utility or does it operate
as a business corporation?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It did serve private consumers, but that is being
discontinued. Ultimately they will use all this power for the opera-
tion of their sewage-disposal plants.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 71
The CHAIRMAN. What I mean is, is it operated as a business con-
CeI’In º -
Mr. RANDOLPH. No.
The CHAIRMAN. In the sense that people own stock in it, or is it
a municipal corporation? *
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is municipally owned and operated—a corpora-
tion. It has no stock: it is returning its revenue to the people who
paid for it, the taxpayers of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
Mr. KINDRED. You say it is a saving of $1,000,000 to the taxpayers.
Over what period of time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Each year.
Mr. KINDRED. You did not say that in the picture.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the indebtedness.
Mr. RANDOLPH. In the construction of this canal it was necessary
to revert the flow of many of the sewers. The sewers that emptied
into the lake had to be diverted into the canal so as to clear up the
old condition of lake pollution.
These charts show the construction of the intercepting sewers cut-
ting off all the old sewer outlets draining toward the lake and di-
verting them into the main drainage channel. In addition to the
main drainage channel collateral channels draining the territory to
the north of the city from Evanston to the Main River, and draining
the territory south of the city in the Calumet area, were constructed
to divert this drainage away from the lake. -
This shows [showing another picture] the area north of the city.
This shows the North Shore diversion canal, taking in the sewage
from all that North Shore suburban territory.
It was necessary to create a current in this channel to carry this
Sewage, and as it is lake level all the way a pumping station was
installed under this bridge with a screw pump that lifts the water
about three feet, a maximum to produce a flow of a thousand cubic
feet a second in this channel. This is not in addition to the volume
of flow in the main channel; it is a part of the total. It enters the
main river at the forks in the heart of the city. This channel
is not navigable except for small boats and the bridges over it are
fixed bridges, not movable bridges.
This channel carries a flow of a thousand feet, which the chair-
man thinks it would be necessary for a water-way down the Illinois
Valley. I may say parenthetically that the old Michigan-Illinois
canal, which has been abandoned, carried a flow of a thousand feet
a second, with a depth of four feet, and they used 90 to 100 ton
barges on it.
A VoICE. How much water in addition is being taken by these
pumps?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is not an additional flow. The flow is measured
in the rock cut in the neck of the bottle: it has got to go through
the neck of the bottle. There are several different methods of taking
the total, all included in the 8,500. This channel flows 2,000 cubic
feet per second. Ths one to the south, the Calumet-Sag Channel,
which goes into the rock cut at Sag is a part of the 8,500. That
will be 10,000 ultimately, a flow of 7,000 cubic feet per second in
the main river, 1,000 cubic feet in the south fork of the south branch,
and 2,000 cubic feet through the Calumet-Sag Channel, making the
total of 10,000 cubic feet.
72 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
This is the entrance lock [showing another picture] of the Calu-
met-Sag Channel. This canal is not large enough to accomodate
the Mississippi River barge service, 90 feet wide. They are towed
side by side and each barge is 45 feet wide. This is purely a drain-
age canal, although it is possible to put a smaller barge through it.
. This has been a progressive development. I told you the water
was turned into the main channel in 1900. This collateral work
has been going on ever since then, and the Sewage disposal, Sewage
treatment work under the present program is now being actively
prosecuted. That was a part of the original plan. Owing to the
flatness of the terrain it was necessary to take all of this sewage
from the interceptors into the main drainage channel.
This is the steam plant here [exhibiting another picture]. This
Lawrence Avenue conduit is 30 feet in diameter. It empties into
the north branch of the Chicago River.
We have heard a great deal about modern methods of sewage
disposal. Fifteen years ago the officials of the Sanitary District
of Chicago started a sewage disposal laboratory and began their
studies of the art of sewage disposal, and I want to say to you
gentlemen that the ultimate in the art of sewage disposal has not
been reached. There have been great developments in the last
15 years, but the problem has not been solved.
I want to say, further, that there is no city in the United States
that has adopted the so-called methods of sewage disposal to the
extent that they have been adopted in Chicago. This plant is typical
of the most modern sewage disposal plants, the best practice known
in the art.
This is an activated sludge plant, built to conserve the pollution
along the Des Plaines, and it is a very large plant, an experimental
plant. Every known device in the art of sewage disposal is used in
that plant.
The CHAIRMAN. When did they start the work on this plant?
Mr. RANDoIPII. That plant was put in operation about two years
ago.
The CHAIRMAN. When did they start it?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It was two years in building.
The CHAIRMAN. And you accommodate 40,000 people now.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes: it accommodates a population of 40,000 now,
which drains naturally into the Des Plains watershed. It would not
have gone into the lake: it had every right to go into the watershed
and the Mississippi River. That was the natural drainage there.
“Modern methods of sewage disposal ’’ is a very general term.
There are 68 cities in the United States with a population of 100,000
or more. and only 17 of them make any attempt to treat the sewage
in any way, and of those 17 only 7 treat 80 per cent of the sewage
flow. . When you speak of modern methods of sewage disposal or
sewage purification, it is a comparative term ; it is a question of what
you mean by sewage purification. It may be the screening of sewage,
taking out the solids or sedimentation. taking out the suspended
particles; or aeriation, by the use of sprinkling filters or otherwise,
for the effluents. That does not produce a purified sewage. It may be
further treated chemically—hiolytic treatment. Very little sewage is
treated to its ultimate of purification.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 73
The CHAIRMAN. Now, right on that question, if you please, I started
to say to you earlier that I read some years ago an article in one
of the leading magazines on “Birmingham, the best governed and
richest city in the world.” That was the heading of the article. It
was practically a review of the history of Joseph Chamberlain.
Birmingham is a large city, and they said that when Chamberlain
became mayor he found they had no sewage disposal system. In the
first place they bought up the slums of the city, the city bought all
its slums and cleaned them off. Then they installed a sewage
disposal system by buying a farm outside the city and using it in
some way in connection with the carrying on of a municipal farm,
and they said that system had been in use in Germany for many
Veal'S.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Sewage farming, yes; it has been tried. It is not
8 SUCCéSS.
Mr. KINDRED. Does that involve a chemical to destroy the noxious
material?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No ; it is a biological process, it is popularly de-
scribed as a bug process. It is the separation of the solids from the
sewage liquor. The solids are digested either separately or in two
storide compartments, it is separate digestion of the 'solids at any
rate by one kind of bacteria, and an oxidation of the sewage effluents,
the sewage liquor, by another kind of bacteria. The oxidizing bac-
teria are called aerobes. They have to have air to live, and they
break down the sewage and form inoffensive and stable precipitants
and the sludge is digested by the other kind of bacteria the
anaerobes.
Mr. KINDRED. Have you spoken of the chemical agents used to
destroy the noxious part of the sewage
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is biolytic treatment, the killing of the bac-
teria in the clarified effluents: the air is forced through the raw
sewage and fed to the anaerobic bacteria, and then the sludge is
settled out and dried and wherever possible used for fertlizer. That
is the big problem, the disposal of the sludge. We have been ex-
perimenting in Chicago with the use of this activated sludge as
fertilizer, with good results. It has been used at the experiment
station there, and we hope to develop a market for that sludge, that
will at least pay the expense of this process.
Mr. KINDRED. Is alum better than chlorinated lime preparations?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is another problem. The chlorinated lime
comes as a precipitant and produces a much larger volume of sludge.
It is used with the electrolitic treatment also. That is a bone of
contention, among the engineers and city officials ºright now. Our
friends in Toronto are playing with it now.
This is an Imhoff type tank [showing another picture], these are
two-story tanks in which the sewage is settled through settling cham-
bers at the top of the tank. The sludge comes down into the diges-
tion chambers in the lower part and the clarified effluent taken off
from the top of the tank, put through sprinkling filters and sent
into the drainage outlet. -
All of the sewage has to be pumped, as I told you, pumped into
the interceptors, pumped through the plant, pumped several times
in the process. This plant takes care of the pollution in the Calumet
74 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
River. The Sanitary district has another plant under construction.
now at Evanston to take care of that suburban territory, and to
take care of a population of 800,000 within the next five years.
That plant will be practically twice the size of the Milwaukee
plant which is now under construction, and which has not yet done
anything except it takes a partial flow of the sewage.
The Milwaukee plant is designed to take care of a population of
500,000 by 1930, and their interceptors are not yet completed. The
plant is not completed. The river at Milwaukee to-day is an open
septic tank. Modern methods of sewage disposal as exemplified in
Milwaukee are being duplicated in Chicago; several other plants
of this kind are projected.
There is a board consisting of three able and well-known engi-
neers that has charge of the Milwaukee plant. They are Mr. Fuller
of New York, Mr. Eddy of Boston, and Mr. Hatton of Milwaukee.
They are at the top of their profession in that line of work.
Parenthetically, we have an engineer in the employ of the san1-
tary district, who has charge of the sewage-disposal program, Mr.
Langdon Pierce, who is preeminent in that line of work in the pro-
fession. He has developed the experimental work, an experimental
laboratory, and the whole program of sewage disposal has been
developed under his direction. He has also been of great assistance
to other cities and municipalities in giving them the benefit of our
experience in this connection.
This plant is to be operated by the electric power from Lockport,
but as there is always a danger of break in the power line, and
especially in time of a storm—which is the very time when this
power is needed most—it is necessary to put in standpipe power,
and this plant was constructed for that purpose [picture].
These are the Imhoff tanks at the Calumet plant showing the
upper section of the plants, and in the foreground is the sludge
drying ground. At Rochester they persuaded the farmers to buy
that sludge. The farmers are now hauling away all the sludge they
can produce at Rochester, I understand, for 75 cents a load.
Mr. KINDRED. Do you understand that sludge may produce
typhoid fever very fruitfully?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No; that is still a moot question. An investiga-
tion recently made indicated that activated sludge will not, and
there is still a question as to Imhoff sludge. This is the raw sewage
as it comes into the plant [showing a picture].
Mr. KINDRED. May I ask a question right there, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. KINDRED. Is it, as alleged by some theorists, perfectly safe to
drink that purified sewage? -
Mr. RANDOLPH. No, sir. &
Mr. KINDRED. That has been alleged. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. I know it has. Purification, as I have told you,
is a comparative term. . A man might drink it, but it would not be
safe; it would have to be further purified by biolytic agents to kill
the germs remaining in that clarified effluent.
Now, the present sewage-disposal program contemplates the re-
quirements for the present and also for the future. The heaviest
load of the plant at present is the waste from the Chicago Union
Stockyards, which is the equivalent from domestic sewage waste of a

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 75
population of a million people. Before the war agreement had been
reached that the packers build an activated sludge plant to take care
of that waste on a division of 40 per cent and 60 per cent, that was
the basis of the division; but the war came along and delayed that
construction, and since the war nothing has been done, and the board
has recently brought a suit to enjoin the packers from emptying this
waste into the stream. That is the most important plant to be con-
structed. The others are constructed
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Suppose you succeed in that suit,
how much would that reduce your needs as to water?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Our need as to water is not met now
The CHAIRMAN. That is not my question.
L Mr. RANDOLPH. I will answer that. The levels of the Great
akes
The CHAIRMAN. Now, wait a minute. Just hold up your machine
a minute.
(The moving-picture machine was stopped.) -
The CHAIRMAN. Now, the question is, Suppose you succeed in your
suit against the packers, how much would that lessen the demand and
need for water in Chicago?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It would not lessen it because we have not got the
Water
The CHAIRMAN. That is not my question. In other words, how
much water do you have to use for the purpose of the packers?
That is a simple and easy question.
Mr. RANDOLPH. On the basis of the equivalent of the domestic
sewage from a million people.
The CHAIRMAN. What does that mean, what is your population?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Our population is over 3,000,000; about 3,200,000.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it would lessen your need of
water one-third &
Mr. RANDOLPH. No; it would not.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, why not? You don’t have to figure on
that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have to add to that 3,200,000 this equivalent
of 1,000,000 in industrial waste, making 4,200,000.
The CHAIRMAN. You don’t have it added there at all; you have
at as an incident, you have it as one of the things.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have it as the most vital part of that
problem now.
The CHAIRMAN. And that utilizes and takes one-third of all you
have.
Mr. BARRETT. Our human population is over 3,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Then call that 4,000,000.
Mr. BARRETT. Then we have additional trade wastes, almost
equivalent to another million.
Mr. HULL. The packers alone are worth a million people, the
same as a million people.
The CHAIRMAN. That does not change your original answer to
your problem at all. You are using a certain amount of water
to-day. Your population is 3,200,000, approximately 3,000,000, and
the packers' uses amount to 1,000,000 and 1 will go into 3, 3 times.
Mr. RANDOLPH. But it is four.
76 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. You have to add another million.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. HULL. They have 3,000,000 people they have to take care of
and the packers make another million, and the waste is another
million.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; that is not the question at all. You
have actually 3,000,000 people who are using a certain amount. of
water and the packers amount to 1,000.000 as water users.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Let me make this plain. The present load of the
canal takes care of a domestic population of 3,200,000 plus the
packers use, which is equivalent to a million, making 4,200,000; and
other industrial wastes are equivalent to another million, making
5,200,000. So that is the present load of the canal, and we are re-
quired by the act to dilute that in the proportion of 34 cubic feet per
second.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think your problem is sound. I think
it is plain that you have 3,200,000 population, and you do not add a
million to that because a certain part of the 3,000,000 are engaged in
businesses.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Oh, no—
The CHAIRMAN. Nor do you add to the figure because certain
other trades are engaged in other businesses; you still have 3,000,000.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am not talking about the domestic purposes
The CHAIRMAN. For those 3,000,000 people you use a certain
amount of water and you say that the use of that water is equivalent
to what a million people would use.
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, no. You do not quite understand. May I ex-
lain it?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I don't care who explains it.
Mr. BARRETT. It is not the amount of the population engaged in
the stockyards that we are talking about; it is the wastes that come
from the care and treatment of cattle and other animals, not human
at all, but the trade waste equivalent to the amount of waste of over
1,000,000 people.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.
Mr. BARRETT. Which must be added to your 3,200,000.
The CHAIRMAN. But in any community in the United States you
will have business, either manufacturing or otherwise, which will
produce what you say the packers produce. That will not alter the
total population in that city; the total of population will remain the
same. The total of what they use for water for sewage purposes will
remain the same.
Mr. BARRETT. I don’t think you have it right at all, because we
need a certain amount of dilution for the human sewage of 3,200,000.
If we could not have any more than enough to take care of that, we
would not properly treat the trade wastes that come from the stock-
yards: nor would we treat the trade wastes that come from the corn
products, nor from the tanneries. Those are three main trade wastes
and they produce as much as the equivalent of the sewage of 2,000,000
human population.
Mr. RANDoIPH. That adds to your human population.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not see that your statement alters the situa-
tion at all. Here is the situation. You are using a certain amount
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 77
of water to-day for total sewage purposes. You say that when you
come to subdivide that water you are using out of your total the
equivalent of 1,000,000, what would be an equivalent for the disposal
of the sewage for 1,000,000 people for a certain purpose. That does
not add to the total of the water you are using to-day; your total
water used remains the same.
Mr. BARRETT. But the total of our needs do not remain the same,
Mr. Dempsey.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait just one minute. Now, you have a suit
brought to enjoin the packers from using their quantity of water.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, your needs are not going to increase.
Mr. BARRETT. No: not from the use of their quantity of water,
but from dumping this trade waste into the canal.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course; but that uses just so much water.
Now, when you have enjoined the packers, supposing you are success-
ful, then you will have, by that, disposed of the need of water for
1,000,000 people. * -
Mr. BARRETT. No; let me see if I can make it clear. The experts
who have determined the amount of water necessary for the proper
dilution of human sewage, and others, I take it, reach the conclusion
that 3.33 per cent, or what would be the equivalent of 10,000 cubic
feet per second of water, is necessary to treat 3,000,000 human popu-
lation. We have added to that, on account of trade wastes, another
million from the stockyards, and still another million from other
trade wastes; so that the 10,000 cubic second-feet we have now, and
which we say we are entitled to have, is not sufficient to treat the
5,000,000 of population (3,200,000 actual humans and 2,000,000 equiv-
alents in trade values.)
The CHAIRMAN Now, let me answer your proposition. As I have
understood the witness, he is testifying you are not using 10,000
cubic feet per second but are using 8,500 cubic feet per second, and
with that 8,500 cubic feet per second you are taking care of not sim-
ply your 3,000,000 people, but you are taking care of that 3,200,000
and of the natural incidents of a large population of that kind of
certain large industries like the packers, and the tanners, and some
third one that you spoke of.
Mr. BARRETT. The corn products.
The CHAIRMAN. The corn products. So, call it as you will, 3,200,-
000, which it is, or 5,000,000, which it is not, none the less you are
taking care of it with 8,500 cubic feet. That is the way it appears
from the testimony of the witness.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Oh, no.
Mr. BARRETT. There is one thing I want to call your attention.
to before Mr. Randolph goes on. Our Calumet-Sag Channel we
have not been permitted to handle in the way which we think is the
right way to handle it. The War I)epartment has not given us a
permit to dredge so that we can put our 1,500 additional feet, in it.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have a concentration of sewage pollution
there that has brought complaints from the valley.
The CHAIRMAN. You say that you are discharging the Sewage.
in an offensive form on the Illinois farms?
Mr RANDOLPH. That it has created nuisances there, and that it
is not complying with the State law.
9.1739–24—PT 1–6
78 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
. The CHAIRMAN. That is a question of sewage dilution or purifica-
tion and not a question of Sewage disposal, is it not? -
Mr. RANDOLPH. The State law requires a dilution. -
The CHAIRMAN. But is it not a fact, does your answer go simply
to Sewage purification and not sewage disposal?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. Here is the point you make, if I get you;
that it is possible to treat all of the sewage. We do not need any
water for sewage disposal, sewage purification.
The CHAIRMAN. No, no; that is not the point I am making at all.
I understood your answer to the question propounded to be that you
did not dispose of the sewage of the city of Chicago, including the
packers, the tanners, and the corn products, satisfactorily, because
the sewage was dumped in an offensive form on the lower stretches
of the Illinois River, on the farms that adjoin that river. That is
your answer, is it not?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Complaints come from down stream; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think that goes simply to the question
of the form of the purification and not to the disposal of the
Sewage.
Mr. Sweet. Upon the basis of the gentleman across the table,
in order to handle this sewage from the equivalent of 5,000,000
people, then you would require something like 17,000,000 cubic
feet, would you not?
Mr. BARRETT. We would require 3.33 additional for every million
of population according to our State law. It is a mathematical
proposition and you may be pretty close to correct. 3.
Mr. CoNNoLLY. In view of the difficulties that apparently exist
in the way of treating this waste and getting rid of it other than
through this water process, do you think that the injunction that
has been sought will ever issue?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I know the packers have always been adroit on
other occasions in slipping out of difficulties. -
Mr. Connolly. Regardless of their adroitness, do you think there
are physical and other difficulties which are in the way that might
imperil the health of the city of Chicago and would prompt any
judge to refuse to issue the injunction?
Mr. BARRETT. May I answer that question ?
Mr. Connolly. I don’t care who answers it, just so I get an answer.
Mr. BARRETT. Let us assume that an injunction issued. No court
would put it in force until he could determine the proper way of
treating a million trade-waste population, which would require years.
Mr. Connolly. That is exactly what was in my mind.
Mr. BARRETT. And which would require millions of dollars in
investment.
Mr. FRANKLIN L. VELDE. On page 31 of this McCormick report,
introduced yesterday, it says that during 1923, there was an esti-
mated population of 4,460,000 including these trade wastes, that they
ought to have 15,500 cubic feet of water. That is the question you
asked. -.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That is the testimony of some witness, and
its value would depend upon two or three things. First, as to the
possibility of disposing of Sewage, that is one; and, second, as to the
reliability of the witness who gave the testimony, and that is some-
thing we don’t know about.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 79
Mr. BARRETT. As to the question of whether there is an additional
million above the million estimated for the stockyards, I do not want
to be held too closely on that. Mine is just recollection. There may
not be a total of two million. *
The CHAIRMAN. We have a matter in the House to-day which re-
quires the attendance of all members of the committee, so that it is
necessary for us to adjourn now. Except to-day we will endeavor
to have hearings both morning and afternoon, and we will try to
have them as long as desired.
Mr. BARRETT. I think you are doing very well.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Do you desire to hear the rest of my statement
and see the rest of my pictures to-morrow? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we will take them up the first thing to-mor-
row morning. We will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock
promptly. -
(Thereupon at 12 o'clock the committee adjourned.)
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
Hous E OF REPRESENTATIVES,
|Wednesday, March 19, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Demp-
sey (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, please come to order. We will re-
sume the testimony of Mr. Randolph.
Mr. RAINEY. Before that is done may I inquire as to procedure
in this matter. A number of bills have been introduced, and the
bills introduced so far do not reflect my viewpoint in the matter.
I represent that section of Illinois, the valley. Section, which is deeply
interested in this diversion. I have introduced a bill as the result of
considerable study, and I want to ask the committee if they will
hear me on that bill at some time that will suit the convenience of
the committee.
. The CHAIRMAN. In a general way, what is your bill, Mr. Rainey?
Mr. RAINEY. My bill does not attempt to interfere with diversion
at all from Chicago, because I know that is going to come. I know
you are going to legalize it eventually. But my bill contains pro-
visions which protect the valley land owners and provide for level
maintenance, very different indeed from the Hull bill, and provides
different methods of reaching it. It would not take me long. I do
not want to address the committee now, but at some other time, such
as the committee might suggest.
The CHAIRMAN. This committee will have to adjourn on this ques-
tion until Monday, after the hearing to-day, because we have hear-
ings on other matters; but we could hear you Monday or next week.
Mr. RAINEY. Any time that suits the committee will be satisfactory
to me. Q
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, on the question of legalizing the
diversion there are five States joined with the United States in a suit.
Mr. RAINEY. I know that. -
The CHAIRMAN. And that suit is to be heard
Mr. RAINEY. In November.

80 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. In November. Of course the United States and
those five States contend that this committee and the House have no
power
Mr. RAINEY. I know they do.
The CHAIRMAN. Have no legal right
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is the nature of the suit; is it an injunction,
proceeding?
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that is the nature of it. I have not
seen the complaint; we will have the complaint here before the hear-
ings are over. y
C Mr. Kisoned. Is it a case involving adjudication by the Supreme
Ourt,”
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it being a case between the States, the
Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction. You do not
have to begin at the bottom; you begin with the Supreme Court.
That is an action brought by the United States, as I understand it.
Mr. FERRIs. To which case are you referring 2
The CHAIRMAN. A case recently brought by the United States in
which all five States joined.
Mr. ADCOCK. It was the United States case instituted several
years ago in the district courts and now before the United States'
Supreme Court on appeal. The injunction was issued in the dis-
trict court of the United States on June 8 this last year.
The CHAIRMAN. By Judge Carpenter.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes. There is a suit brought by the State of Wis-
consin pending, I think in the Supreme Court. That was instituted
in June, 1922, returnable at the October term of that year. The
answer was filed by the sanitary district and nothing has been
done on that suit since that time. As far as I know no State but the
State of Wisconsin is a party to that suit.
Mr. KINDRED. Is it the same issue at stake in both suits?
Mr. ADCOCK. It is. The question, of course, involved in the
United States suit is the one involving the power of the United
States, or the Secretary of War, under the rivers and harbors act
of March 3, 1889. It is purely a technical question as to whether
there is delegated to the Secretary of War the power and authority
to regulate the flow of Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers.
Mr. FERRIs. I do not question the authority of the Secretary of
War to divert 4,167 cubic feet per second, but the Federal Govern-
ment does question the right of the district to divert more than the
Secretary of War permits them to divert. ... I do not understand that
they question the right of the Secretary of War to issue a permit to
divert 4,167 cubic feet per second. Is that correct? & e
Mr. ADCOCK. No. Under the bill of complaint they seek to enjoin
the sanitary district from abstracting more than the 4,167 second-
feet, which was the limitation placed upon it by the Secretary of
War. Now, on the other hand, the sanitary district claims that it
has been authorized, or the State of Illinois was authorized under the
act of Congress of 1827, to withdraw this water, and therefore the
act of March 3, 1899, does not apply, because it provides merely that
abstractions not authorized by Congress are prohibited. . And our
position is that this abstraction and this withdrawal, which would
amount to an abstraction, has been authorized and is authorized by
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, E.J. 8].
the original act, and then there is a question also as to whether the
permit of 4,167 second-feet was merely a limitation to give the sani-
tary district an opportunity to improve the Chicago River for the
greater flow, that is 10,000 second-feet. At the time the channel was
opened, the Chicago River was narrow and shallow, and they
could not get through it enough water without creating a current.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the contention would be in that
respect if you applied to the Secretary of War not for a permit but
for him to restrain you to 4,167 cubic feet per second?
Mr. ADCOCK. No. -
The CHAIRMAN. Would not that be the effect of any such con-
tention as that?
Mr. ADCOCK. No; you are quite wrong on that.
The CHAIRMAN. I can not see it any other way.
Mr. ADCOCK. The permit of 1899, under which the channel was
opened, was unlimited as to amount and limited only by the capacity
of the channel, which was 10,000 second-feet, and that was the
capacity fixed by the State law.
The CHAIRMAN. That was the capacity in 1827.
Mr. ADCOCK. No; in 1899 the channel was opened, and it had been
built to a capacity of 10,000 second-feet. Secretary of War Alger
granted the authority to open the channel and caused the waters
of Lake Michigan to flow through it. No limitations as to amounts
except with only two limitations which were that if Congress acted
then the permit should have no force or effect; and the other one
was that if the current in the Chicago River proved obstructive
to navigation in the river they might limit it. Now, the limitation
of 4,167 second-feet was placed after and expressly because of the
then condition of the Chicago River.
The CHAIRMAN. On whose application?
Mr. ADCOCK. That was on the application of certain shipping
interests on the Chicago River, and at that time the sanitary district
made application to the Secretary of War for the permit to deepen
and widen the river; to deepen it to 26 feet, from 17 to 26 feet and
to widen it at all points to 200 feet, for the purpose, as expressed in
this application, of getting through the larger amount of water with-
out injury to navigation in the Chicago River. The Secretary of
War granted that permit and we went ahead and improved the river
at a cost in the neighborhood of $13,000,000 for that purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. Can not we get down to this point? The fact is,
despite of all these various persuasive circumstances, the district
court out there has granted a decree.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Enjoining it.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the situation.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And all of these circumstances, I take it, were
placed with eloquence and force before the judge who made the
decision ?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the present situation?
Mr. ADCock. Yes. I am just endeavoring to explain to the chair-
man the issues.
82 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. Here was the thing that was in
my mind, and this is the reason I asked the question. Attorney
General Dougherty of Michigan is here in attendance, and I under-
stood from him that the five attorneys general of the five States
had had a conference and that they had united—New York, Michi
gan, Wisconsin -
Mr. Doug HERTY. Not New York, Mr. Dempsey.
The CHAIRMAN. What are the five States?
Mr. Doug HERTY. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania. -
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the attorney general of New York,
who says that makes six. -
Mr. Doug HERTY: Yes; I understood more recently, but at the
time this was first talked, New York had not indicated that.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is six or seven States that you have named.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the question I want to propound. What,
is the suit that will be argued next November? -
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the suit brought by the War Department to
fold the sanitary district to the order of 4,167 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. You are right.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the issue, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do you claim that they are diverting more?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; they admit that.
Mr. RAINEY. And that raises all the question?
Mr. ADCOCK. It raises all the question that the Federal Govern-
ment is interested in. It does not raise the questions as the issue
affects States. But if I may be permitted a minute?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. Our idea was that this is a rather novel situation.
There is very little precedent for the condition, for the law to treat
with a condition of this kind, and we thought, we who represented
the State, that if this was carried out to a conclusion that the Su-
preme Court would lay down the law, perhaps, and give us to
understand what could be done and what might not be done, and
we might then determine whether it was necessary for the State to
bring action or abandon it.
Mr. FERRIs. May I make one suggestion?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. *.
Mr. FERRIs. If the sanitary district is right in its contention that
the act of 1827 authorizes the diversion of 10,000 second-feet or more,
then it is absolutely unnecessary to ask this question, and that ques-
tion is now before the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court has ample power and ample facilities to deal
with this whole question so far as the Sanitary district diversion is
concerned. r -
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you says is if you have an
act which permits and authorizes that which is asked here you have
no need of a second act, and you can not increase the validity of
the first act by reenacting it?
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly. Of course we do not agree that the act
of 1827 held any such thing, because if it did, then we would not
need this one. *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 83
Mr. RAINEY. The questions involved here are very overwhelming,
These questions are the most important submitted to this committee,
most far-reaching in their effects, and I do not know of anything
that has ever been submitted to any committee of Congress at any
time in the history of the United States as important as this question
is. All these legal propositions will be cleared up. So it is un-
necessary, from my viewpoint, for this committee to pay the slightest
attention to that. The decisions that will soon be rendered by the
Supreme Court will decide this matter very soon. I think the Su-
preme Court is going to decide against the diversion, and just as
soon as they do that aggravates the difficulties in which this com-
mittee and the Congress will find themselves, because if they do de-
cide against the diversion this committee is going to take some action
to prevent an epidemic of typhoid in Chicago, which will completely
destroy that great city; value of property will decrease hundreds of
millions of dollars. -
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, your suggestion is, Mr. Rainey,
that if the Supreme Court should decide adversely to the diversion,
then reason and common sense would have to be used in the enforce-
ment of that decree.
Mr. RAINEY. It would, indeed; and the Supreme Court will prob-
ably grant a stay until Congress can act by appropriate legislation
in the matter. So that is when the difficulties of Congress will com-
mence. Now, no matter what the Supreme Court does in the matter
it won’t relieve the situation down in my section of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. This is an entirely different thing.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Even if the diversion were limited you would
still be threatened with the troubles you have to meet there?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; typhoid and disease and death and the destruc-
tion of our property. So our question is going to with you always.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Then you will have to try to abolish the Supreme
Court of the United States? -
Mr. RAINEY. No ; I do not belong to that crowd that believes in
abolishing the Supreme Court. Now, may I ask this in this con-
nection? Mr. Madden, my personal friend, is not here. He has
introduced a bill, the most careful of all these bills as far as the in-
terest of the Sanitary District of Chicago is concerned, and I want
to add that when you grant me the privilege of being heard, you
will grant him the privilege also of being heard on his bill. -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to do so.
Mr. SweeT. Would it mot be wise to try to arrive at a conclusion
as to how much time is going to be consumed Ž
Mr. HUIL. We are trying to crowd them through. We have wit-
nesses here to be heard. -
Mr. RAINEY. Will you ask the engineers to pass on Mr. Madden's
bill?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I think the proponents can finish their
proof to-day. - -
Mr. HULL. Yes; we can finish them by 3 o'clock, if you will let
us get started.
Mr. BRUCE. And then you will assign Thursday and Friday to
the opponents, will you? We are here and we want to get home
Sunday if possible.
84 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the trouble with the situation: We have
Set hearings on another bill. Perhaps we may be able to do this; to
divide the time between the other bill and you, giving each of you
half a day. We can sit all day, I think, beginning to-day.
Mr. BRUCE. The proponents have had about 6 hours and our pro-
gram calls for practically 10 hours.
The CHAIRMAN. The proponents will probably finish at 3 o'clock
to-day and give you the balance of the day, and we shall try to sit,
until 5 o'clock if we can. -
Mr. SweeT. Ask them to put in two or three hours this afternoon,
the opposition that they desire to present.
Mr. HULL. Why can not we have a night session ? I am willing
to sit at night if the rest of you are.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us decide that when we get to 5 o'clock. ‘.
Mr. SweFT. I feel that the opposition ought to have sufficient time.
The CHAIRMAN. Not only that, but we will be compelled to ad-
journ because there are parties who have not been notified at all; for
instance, the president of the Lake Carriers’ Association, Mr. Liv-
ingstone, a gentleman 80 years old, who knows as much about this
subject as anyone. He is in Miami, Fla., held there by reason of the
serious illness of his wife. I told him we would give him an oppor-
tunity to get here and be heard. What we want to do immediately
is this: If we can give those who are here now the opportunity to
be heard, I think that would be well. I would suggest, however,
Mr. Bruce, in that connection, that men like yourself, who are
familiar with the whole subject and have a deep interest in it, will
probably want to be present at the future hearings.
Mr. BRUCE. Yes. Well; that is satisfactory.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you turn out your light, one minute.
When Mr. Randolph resumes his testimony I would suggest this:
One of the points made on this screen is—Chicago is making $1,000,-,
000 a year out of this water power. Now, that is 25,000 horsepower
out of 8,500 cubic feet. I do not.know what can be produced in the
• St. Lawrence stretches, but 250,000 could be produced at Niagara, just
10 times that amount. Of course that is an economic loss of nine-
tenths of the total at Chicago, of plus probably an equal loss in the
St. Lawrende River. Now, I would suggest, because I have not any
doubt from what I have been told by these witnesses that they are
going to press that objection—that that be met. I am doing this
simply to be fair to you, to give you an opportunity to meet what I
am sure will be the testimony on the other side. Then there will be
the claim that the levels of the lakes have been reduced and that
as a consequence, vessels can be loaded only partially, and that the
loss in partial loading of lake vessels, owing to the reduction of lake
levels through this diversion, runs into millions upon millions of
dollars annually. That will be the claim, as I understand it, of those
interested in lake navigation. Now, those two questions, it seems
to me, are important questions, and I would suggest that if you can
you deal with them.

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 85
STATEMENT OF MIR. ISHAM RANDOLPH-Continued.
Mr. RANDOLPH. May I suggest that it will take about 20 minutes
to finish these pictures, and if permitted to run them through with-
out interruption, then I can submit to cross-examination afterwards.
(Moving-picture machine was started.)
My first film shows a hydrograph of the levels of the Great Flakes
from 1860 up to the present time. Your technical advisers, the Corps
of Engineers, has estimated that the effect of the Chicago division,
the total effect, is a lowering of 5% inches of the levels of Lakes
Michigan and Huron. We are straining to accept that decision and
our own engineers, before the canal was started, had estimated that
the ultimate effect of the lowering would be somewhere in that neigh-
borhood. [Showing picture.] -
The CHAIRMAN. What is the amount? I did not catch the amount.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Five and a half inches. This is a hydrograph of
the monthly mean surface elevation of the Great Lakes, taken from
a recording gauge at Milwaukee, extending from 1860 to date.
The extreme range between high and low, shown in this hydro-
graph, is 44 feet. There is a record high and a record low, which
shows a range of 6 feet, throughout a period running back before
this hydrograph.
The improvements to the inner lake channel, the St. Clair and
Detroit Rivers, have affected the levels.
I have a report here (pps. 356 and 357 of the Warren report),
there is a statement to the effect that the effect of the improvement
of the inner lake channels, the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, 13
years prior to the publication of the report, 13 years prior to 1900,
had been to reduce the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron for
more than a foot. The low record shown there, the horizontal line
[referring to picture] shown there is in December, 1895. The aver-
age stages above that low record are shown by the wiggly lines above
the straight line.
Lake Michigan is second from the top and Lake Huron the third.
That is the low water 1895 [exhibiting chart on screen]. The low
of 1923 is shown at the extreme right. This shows that it got down
to the record of 1895 and a little below it.
The Chicago Ship Canal was opened January 17, 1900. At that
time the level of the lake was aproximately a foot higher than the
low record of 1895. The vertical line shows the date of the open-
ing of the canal and the stage of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron
at that time.
In the 34 years the canal has been in operation, the average
monthly stages are shown by the hydrograph, and you see there a
range of about 3 feet between mean low and mean high, and the
average for that 24-year period has been foot and a half above
the low record of 1895, before the canal was opened.
I do not mean to argue by this that the flow through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal has resulted in the raising of the lake
level, but I do mean to indicate that 5% inches is a minor effect, and
that it is matched by major effects that are daily and hourly
occurring.
86 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The lake level will rise and fall more than a foot in an hour
with a shift of the wind. . The levels are influenced solely by the
water supply, rainfall, and run-off, and by the outflow, including
the loss through evaporation.
These filactuations are due entirely to natural causes. The cause
for the great concern at this time is the present low stage of the
Water. It is due to some natural causes, to which the low stage
of 1895 was due. There is one short reel to follow this, showing
the pictures of the development at Niagara Falls. -
Now, as to the claim that there has been a loss to shipping as
the result of this estimated lowering, theoretical lowering of 5%
inches, I have this to say: The regulating depth to lake shipping
are found in the interlake channels in the St. Clair and the Detroit
Rivers. Those channels have been improved by the Government
to the extent of something around $100,000,000. The largest ships
that use those channels are the ore-carrying ships. Eighty per cent
of the shipping on the Great Lakes is that of the Pittsburgh Steam-
ship Co., which is a subsidiary of the United States Steel Corpora-
tion. Those ships carry the limit of their capacity as defined by
the depths in the interlake channels. They can not load to within
6 inches of the same point with marks at bow and amidships and
it has been demonstrated by tests that they can not, or at least
if they can they do not. The estimated loss of depth of draft of
5% inches is purely theoretical. *
If this theoretical loss of draft is applied to the tonnage repre-
sented by that depth of draft in all of the boats, and a rate per
ton applied to that, you can get a theoretical loss which will run
into the millions. It is appaling in theory, but in practice it is
inoperative, because they do not load to those depths.
The hourly, and daily changes in the depths preclude any possi-
bility of loading to the depth stated.
The power development in Niagara Falls I have not seen; I have
not seen the plants there for some years, and so I will not attempt
to designate the different plants in the picture. [Exhibiting
pictures.]
Taking up the chairman’s suggestion as to the camparative value of
10,000 second-feet of flow at Niagara Falls and in the Illinois
River between Lockport and the head of navigation on the Illinois
River, there is no question but what the potential head between the
upper pool level at Niagara Falls and, we will say, the level of the
St. Lawrence River at Montreal, will produce a vastly greater amount
of power than can be produced in that 63 miles of the Illinois River.
I admitted yesterday, or the day before, in response to an interro-
gation by a gentleman from Canada, that 10,000 second-feet in that
reach would develop something like 500,000 horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. That was the Upper Canadian plant, not the
new plant which you have just shown in the last picture?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, that was the one before.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, as I understand, to be abandoned; that
proposition is to be abondoned, is it not? g
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have no assurance that it is to be abandoned.
The plants are now in operation. All of these Canadian plants in
operation at Niagara Falls are operating under the provisions of the
treaty on boundary waters May 5, 1910. That treaty allotted to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 87
the Canadian side a diversion of 36,000 second-feet, to the Ameri-
can side a diversion of 20,000 second-feet. We claim, and we have
the evidence to support that claim, that that apparent unequal diver-
sion of international waters is based upon the allotment to Chicago
of the 10,000 second-feet flow. The Canadians, in the plants above
the Falls or at the Falls, are now using their total allotment of the
treaty of 36,000 second-feet. - -
The Queenstown-Chippewa plant in operation [picture].
The sixth unit put in operation in December is now using Some
9,000 second-feet in excess of the true allotment. The actual meas-
urements of these flows are to be determined by two commissioners,
one appointed by the United States and one appointed by Canada.
Mr. KEEFER. I do not suppose those statements are accepted as
accurate? - -
Mr. RANDOLPH. The authority for those statements is the Warren
report as to the amount of the use of the water at present at the
Falls, and also technical publications, and common knowledge as to
the use of the volume of water at the Queenstown-Chippewa plant.
It is to be determined by these two commissioners that are appointed
what the diversion is at this time. -
The CHAIRMAN. I would say to the witness in that connection that
I have had a very active connection with that question of the
amount of water diverted for power purposes at the Falls and
this is the present situation, as I have found it. I have personally
applied to the Secretary of State on several occasions urging that
a temporary treaty be negotiated with Canada for the use of 10,000
additional feet to be used on each side of the river, on the ground
that there were two plants, one on the Canadian side and one on the
American side, which, owing to improved development, would be
abandoned unless we had a new treaty, and which could produce
100,000 horsepower on each side of the river, the equivalent of about
2,000,000 tons of coal a year.
Mr. RANDOLPH. May I ask, will those plants not have to be
abandoned if you have a new treaty?
The CITAIRMAN. Of course they will. So I say my information is
that so far as the American side is concerned, at least, the purpose
of the power companies is to comply strictly with the law and limit
themselves to the 20,000 cubic feet which they are authorized to use,
and they have proceeded on the theory that Canada would follow a
like course and comply with the law, and that is why I have inter-
viewed the Secretary of State on several occasions with regard to
this matter.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not allege that Canada will not follow the
same course. I do allege that Canada is not at the present time fol-
lowing the same course because they are making the diversions at
this time.
The CIIAIRMAN. I have no information as to Canada, and it was
simply an inference by this interest on the American side that Can-
ada would comply with the law. I have no information and do not
profess to have as to the Canadian side, but on the American side
I think there is no question that we intend to and will comply strictly
and literally with the law.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Let me suggest that your technical adviser, the
Corps of Engineers, in the Warren report, made in 1921, sets forth
these facts I have given. I can give you the reference if you want it.
88 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. FERRIs. I would like to know, Mr. Randolph, whether you
want to go on record as saying that Canada is diverting 9,000 cubic
feet above the 36,000 second-feet which she is authorized to divert,
or whether you base your statement on hearsay.
The CHAIRMAN. He bases it on a report made by Colonel Warren,
who made a report in 1919 on “Diversion of water from the Great
Iakes.” He was at that time resident engineer at Buffalo.
The CHAIRMAN. He does not profess to make a statement of his
own, but he refers to a report which will be before us.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not profess to have made these measurements.
Mr. FERRIs. I would like to know now whether Mr. Randolph
proposes to go on record as saying that Canada is taking 9,000
second-feet more than she is entitled to under the treaty, or whether
he is basing it on hearsay, or whether he is basing it on actual
records.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Actual records taken by the Government and
reported in the Warren report.
Mr. FERRIs. But the Queenstown project was not in operation
then.
Mr. RANDOLPH. But it is in operation now, with six wheels.
Mr. FERRIs. That is true; but do you know how much water,
based upon any authoritative measurements, Canada is diverting
to-day ? We are interested in knowing whether Canada is violating
the terms of the treaty.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And that is why commissioners have been ap-
pointed to find out.
Mr. FERRIs. I know; but you are making the assertion that this is
being done.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am making the assertion on information and
belief.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to make one brief statement. I do not
think there could be any misunderstanding between the gentleman
from New York and Mr. Randolph. I think the thing has cleared
itself up. Of course there could not be diverted more than 9,000
cubic feet through the plant which they had at the time of the War-
ren report. They did not have the plant capacity to use more than
their 36,000 cubic feet; I don’t think they had the plant capacity to
develop 36,000 cubic feet. That is my understanding. So Colonel
Warren could not have reported on an increased diversion. What
he must have reported is that if they did continue to utilize the old
plants and then put the new plant in full commission that the sum
of the three plants—there are two on the Canadian side—would
amount to more than 36,000 cubic feet per second. That is as far as
he could have gone.
" Mr. A. V. WHITE. Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?
Mr. WHITE. Whom do you represent?
Mr. WHITE. I represent the Hydroelectric Power Commission, of
Ontario. My instructions were to take no part in the discussion here,
it being recognized that the matter of the bills under discussion is
of a national or domestic nature. However, inasmuch as the com-
mission has suffered a good deal of injustice through misrepresenta-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 89
tion made in the public press of this country, which has been copied
into our press, I was asked, if a statement should be made such as has
now been made by Mr. Randolph, to absolutely controvert it.
Up to the present time there have not been sufficient physical
facilities to permit an aggregate diversion above the falls of an
amount equal to the 36,000 second-feet of the treaty, so that if Mr.
Randolph, as I understand he has stated in the record, Says that
Canada has diverted 9,000 feet to-day
Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). On information and belief.
The CHAIRMAN. Nine thousand in excess?
Mr. WHITE. Yes: and an excess of 9,000 second-feet over the
36,000 second-feet; my instructions are absolutely to controvert that
statement. g
Mr. KEEFER. How much power is being turned over to the United
States at that point by the Canadian development, turned over to
consumers in the State of New York?
Mr. WHTTE. I have not the exact figures, but it would be some-
where in the neighborhood of 150,000 or 160,000 horsepower years.
Mr. RANDOLPH. May I ask whether or not you are going to be
paid for that power, and whether it will not be a source of revenue
to the Ontario Power Co. 7
Mr. WHITE. That is true. The Power Commission derives that
revenue now by virtue of having purchased the entire Ontario
Power Co., which was built with United States capital, and the
original company had these arrangements which have been taken
over and are being carried out by the present possessor. In this
connection I would say that, up to the present time, there have only
been five units in operation at Queenstown. A sixth unit is in-
stalled but not ready to deliver its full output.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Is it not a fact that you have an installed capacity
in the plants at the Falls and in the Queenstown-Chippewa plant to
operate which would require more than 36,000 cubic second-feet
allotted to Canada?
Mr. WHITE. I am instructed not. I would like to ask you, Mr.
Tandolph, whether the Sanitary District of Chicago is deriving any
rofit from the water power it is developing from its 10,000 second-
eet?
The CHAIRMAN. That appeared from the reel yesterday; the state-
ment was a million dollars a year. That was thrown on the Screen
yesterday. That is aside from the business use of the power. They
save that much in municipal use, and then they sell a certain amount
for business purposes. That amount did not appear. I under-
stand it is something like $100,000.
Mr. KEEFER. You asked for the information and we are here
desirous to give you any information we can. Mr. White can tell
you what this 10,000 would represent divided between Niagara
and the St. Lawrence. As an engineer, let him answer that question.
The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad to have that in the record.
Mr. WHITE. The figures amount to about 500,000 horsepower, that
is the power that could be developed at Niagara and on the St.
Lawrence River. Of that amount about 100,000 would appertain
to the section of the river which flows wholly in Canadian territory.
The CHAIRMAN. And the balance the international boundary 2
90 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. WHITE. Yes. You have about the same, about 100,000, on
the St. Lawrence and 300,000 at the Falls. ... "
Mr. KEEFER. So relatively it is 200,000–300,000 at Niagara and
of the 200,000 the United States has a half interest in 100,000.
Mr. SweFT. I am informed that the State of New York keep an
hourly record of the discharge of the American power development
at the Falls. Does the Canadian commission keep such a record?
Mr. WHITE. They have similar records—that is, computations
could be made with respect to the corresponding diversions required
to develop the power; and it is upon an examination of those records,
I understand, that I have been authorized to make the statement
just made. º * * →
The CHAIRMAN. Now if the committee and those interested please,
I will spread upon the record something that I think will be of in-
terest in this connection. We are talking here about physical capac-
ity to develop power. It will be interesting to see what that means.
It means simply this—that the state of the art, the development
of power from water, has improved vastly in the last few years.
We had a plant at Niagara Falls which used 10,000 cubic feet and
it developed only 10 horsepower per cubic foot. Of course, at the
Falls the art progressed so we could develop 20,000 cubic feet; by
carrying it to Lewiston we could develop 33% horsepower per cubic
foot; or we can develop the remaining 10 horsepower in the bed of
the river on the fall between the rapids and the Devils Hole.
Now there came along a time when we passed the general water-
power bill, under the terms of that bill all water-power develop-
ments were required to be efficient—that is, to develop the most, the
greatest horsepower which was possible under the state of the art
at the time—and no company or individual could procure a license
under the general water power act unless he would give the Govern-
rºlent assurance in legal form that he would make efficient develop-
ment.
The Niagara Falls Co. applied for a license and they had to com-
ply with those terms. So they are abandoning their old plant, one
of their old plants, which produced only 10 horsepower, and they
are making an entirely new installation, which will give them 20
horsepower.
Now, the same way on the Canadian side. While I do not under-
stand the situation as to the legislation, as I do here, they had plants
which were inefficient, right at the Falls, and producing, I take it,
probably about the same horsepower as we produced on the American
side. -- •
They have installed at great expense a new plant at Queenstown,
which will be efficient, and which will produce the maximum of
power from a cubic foot of water.
Now, that is what we mean by physical capacity. Of course you
can take and add the physical capacity of both sides of these old
plants to that of the new plant and you will produce a generating
capacity for more water than the 56,000 cubic feet—20,000 on one
side and 36,000 on the other—but that does not mean anything except
the old plant stands there, as far as our side is concerned, unused,
and it is my understanding that that is the situation on their side.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 91
. . Mr. WHITE. The comment you have just made is one I was going
to offer in explanation. *
M; DEAL. What is the amount of water allotted to the American
side?
The CHAIRMAN. Twenty thousand second-feet.
Mr. HULL. What is supposed to be the total flow at Niagara !
The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred and ten thousand.
Mr. HULL. They are contending that 20,000 is alloted to Niagara
and it is also contended that 10,000 is allowed to Chicago, with ref-
erence to the 36,000.
Mr. KEEFER. That is a question that will be dealt with: that is
the contention.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know about that, I am frank to say. I
know we got the worst of it, and how it was I don’t know.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I can tell you where the other 6,000 came from:
the other 6,000 is to compensate for this that Mr. White is shipping
into the United States, and for which they get revenue. That was
the basis of that. This is a highly controversial question, and a
great deal of time could be spent on it. I am satisfied to let my state-
ment stand in the record, and I am glad to have Mr. White's state-
ment about it. We will get authoritative information from our own
commissioner, I think, in a short time.
Now Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered everything except these
Illinois valley claims. The bill provides for arbitration of these
claims. I do not propose to go into the merits of any of these claims,
but I wish when you gentlemen are considering the poor farmer in
connection with these claims that you save a tear for the taxpayer,
and the Sanitary District of Chicago, the widow and orphan, the
white-collar man, and the poor laboring man, who have to pay these
claims. We are willing to have these claims adjudicated on a fair
and square basis by any authority you may create to do it.
Unless there are some questions I am through with what I have
to say.
The CHAIRMAN. I have only this to suggest. Let me understand
what the claim of the sanitary district is as advanced by you as a
witness. My understanding of the claim is that you believe that you
have the right to divert 10,000 cubic feet now, and that as population
increases each million of inhabitants will require and additional
3,000 cubic feet.
Mr. RANDOLPH. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that it? -
Mr. RANDOLPH. No, that is not our program at all. The program
is predicated upon our right to divert 10,000 cubic feet per second,
and we propose to supplement the drainage canal and its dilution
capacity by the construction of sewage disposal plants to take care
of our present normal population, and to cut down the present load
on the main drainage channel by 50 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, let us take that aspect of it. If Con-
gress acted then and granted a license you would be willing to have
that amount cut down by 50 per cent—
Mr. RANDOLPH. No. -
The CHAIRMAN. Within what time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would not be willing to have the 10,000 cubic
feet cut down by 50 per cent because the rate of dilution is not ade-
92 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
quate now. At the end of 25 years our program contemplates con- &
struction of sufficient sewage disposal plants to reduce the present
load upon the drainage canal 50 per cent and to produce a clearer
discharge in the Illinois River, and relieve the condition of local
nuisance that now obtains. -
The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to get at is this. I want to
find out what is asked here. Do you ask for 10,000 in perpetuity 2
Mr. RANDOLPH. In perpetuity; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And you have no proposal or suggestion that you
will relieve the situation by substituting other means of caring for
your discharge there; you simply want that naked grant?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The whole program is predicated upon the grant
of 10,000 second-feet in perpetuity.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose Congress should not care to look at it
that way; suppose they should say you have a great city there, and
we are not going to permit the health of the inhabitants to be un-
necessarily jeopardized, and, on the other hand, you are taking this
water not only without authority but contrary to any right you have,
and have taken it in excess of the amount permitted, and you should
have known that you would be legally enjoined at any time on that,
and while we are not going to expose you to the ravages of disease,
we are going to insist on your taking care of your Sewage in another
way at the earliest date possible, and we are going to do that upon the
advice of experts as to what can be done and with what rapidity.
Now, what would you say to that proposition?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would say to that proposition, that this program
as contemplated, a 25-year program, is the limit of the taxing and
bonding resources of the sanitary district, that if we have got to
double that program it will take us twice as long, that unless Congress
can persuade the State of Illinois to amend the act and increase the
tax rate and the bonding power, and impose this heavier burden
upon the taxpayers of Chicago, it can not be done in less time.
The CHAIRMAN. It is suggested by those who oppose this grant
that the sanitary district has a very persuasive voice in the Illinois
Legislature and will probably secure such legislation as is needed.
Mr. BARRETT. It is not a question of legislation entirely. We
have been trying since 1870 to get a new constitution, but the people
down State do not choose to give Chicago what it wants, and our
population in Chicago and in the sanitary district is increasing
70,000 each year. That makes it difficult for us to take care of our
troubles. We have provided a program of expenditure of $100,000,-
000 down to 1945, which will just about take care of our increase.
We are hoping that in that 20 years some less expensive method of
sewage treatment will develop so that we can do a whole lot more.
Nobody can tell what may develop in the next 10 years in that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can very readily understand with six
great States, all of them saying that this water should not be taken
out, and that it is illegally taken, Congress will naturally pay a
great deal of attention, give a good deal of weight to their arguments,
and while it naturally wants to be fair and not endanger anybody,
it will try to find what can be done.
Mr. BARRETT. We expect the equities of everybody to be considered
by the Congress of the United States. We think when our time
comes here we will be able to demonstrate not only to this committee
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 93
but to these six States that our equities entitle us to what we are
asking, and we are willing at the same time, so far as shipping
interests are concerned, to pay for anything that the diversion of
Chicago has cost in the way of compensating work. We came down
here within the last four months with a million dollars and offered
it to Congress, and we stand ready to give them another million
now. We do not want to hurt the shipping interests anywhere. We
are willing to pay our share and give it to them just as we were
when we were here. Before there was nobody to receive it.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the suggestion that was made by the wit-
ness, Mr. Randolph, that you ought to be catching up. If contrary
to what Mr. Rainey, a resident of Illinois anticipates, referring to
the decision of the Supreme Court, Congress grants a continuance
of the judgment—that is what it would amount to—then it would
insist upon expedition in substitutionary measures.
Mr. BARRETT. We will be glad to show you and every man inter-
ested in those six States that we are going to spend every penny we
can get; if we get constitutional provisions which will raise our
bonding power, we will be glad to do that. Of course there is a
certain limit to what you can spend in a given time anyway.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And there is a certain limit as to how much you
can impose upon the taxpayers.
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, that is true. It has been stated here in a
Canadian report—I understand the Canadian gentlemen do not con-
cede some of these statements—we have had reprinted a report
signed by the entire International Waterways Commission, in which
they discuss the entire diversion to the Sanitary District of Chicago.
We have enough copies of these here to give them to the members
of this committee now.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have them.
Mr. BARRETT. Will you get them, Mr. Behan, please?
The CHAIRMAN. And I suggest that you file one with the
stenographer as an exhibit.
Mr. BARRETT. I will be glad to do so.
(The report referred to is to be found at the end of to-day’s pro-
ceedings.)
Mr. BARRETT. One of them was made in 1906 and one in 1907.
Both of those reports touch upon and one completely discusses the
Sanitary District diversion at Chicago.
The ČHAIRMAN. What dates are those reports? *
Mr. BARRETT. 1906 and 1907. They are the dates upon which the
reports were predicated. º
The CHAIRMAN. Would not their value depend very largely upon
the amount of diversion at that time?
Mr. BARRETT. They do specifically mention 10,000 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. As being the amount they have diverted.
Mr. BARRETT. They recognize the 10,000 second-feet, and say it
will continue, and agree to its continuance, and when this treaty
was ratified this 10,000 second-feet at Chicago was put in as a part
of the United States diversion : in other words, they said 20,000 for
power to the Americans, a part of which would go to the canal.
36,000 cubic second-feet to the Canadians, a part of which went to
their canal; 10,000 at Chicago, making 30,000, leaving the difference
9.1739—24—PT 1–7
p
94 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
6,000 feet. The 6,000 feet difference is explainable on this theory:
Much of the power generated by the Canadian power plants goes into
America. So the difference is more theoretical than actual; that is
the explanation of these reports. I have marked the spots.
Mr. WHITE. May I correct an expression. I think you said more
theoretical than actual, and I think the expression is that the advan-
tage is more real than apparent. e
Mr. BARRETT. You can have your expression on that. I will read
it when the time comes. Here is a copy of the report with a marked
paragraph, and it is signed by all the commissioners. This is the
1907 report. *
The CHAIRMAN. Here is what it says on the question (p. 5, par. 4):
When fully completed it was designed to have a capacity of 600,000 cubic
feet per minute, or 10,000 cubic feet per second, flowing at a velocity of 1.25
miles per hour in earth and 1.9 per hour in rock. sº
Mr. BARRETT. May I point out a paragraph here which will save
time?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. The green covered book, page 15. May I read?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to have you.
Mr. BARRETT (reading page 16 of the report of the International
Waterways Commission of 1907):
The diversion of large bodies of water from Lake Michigan for Supplying
the drainage canal has not been authorized by Congress, but there appears to
be a tacit general agreement that no objection will be made to the diversion
of 10,000 cubic feet per second, as originally planned.
Now will you go down on that same page to the paragraph marked
“S.” [Reading:]
The effect upon Niagara Falls of diverting water at Chicago is of secondary
importance when COnsidering the health Of a great City and the navigation in-
terests Of the Great Lakes and of the St, Lawrence Valley, but it is proper to
note that the volume of the falls will be diminished by the full amount
diverted at Chicago.
Now will you go to the next page, paragraph 43, which I will read:
A Careful consideration Of all the circumstances leads us to the conclusion
that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago River
will, with proper treatment of the sewage from areas now sparsely occupied,
provide for all the population which will ever be tributary to that river, and
that the amount named will therefore suffice for the sanitary purposes of the
city for all time. Incidentally, it will provide for the largest navigable water-
Way from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River which has been considered
by CongreSS.
That is the 1907 report. -
The CHAIRMAN. Just one minute. Pause right there for a second.
When was the treaty negotiated?
Mr. BARRETT. It began
The CHAIRMAN: When was it concluded ?
Mr. BARRETT. It began in 1909 and was ratified in 1910.
Mr. RANDOLPH. In May, 1910.
Mr. BARRETT. In May, 1910 it was approved.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, now?
Mr. RANDOLPH. If I still have the floor, let me interject, there
that the treaty itself recites that limitations of the treaty do not
apply to previous diversion works already constructed and hereto-
fore allowed, one of which was the diversion at Chicago.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 95
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty with that is this: As a lawyer I
have read this treaty with a great deal of care and I am frank to
say that I have been unable as yet to reach a definite conclusion as
to what it means regarding the Chicago drainage canal. I doubt
very much whether you would get any opinion that would be worth
while until you get the expression of a court of last resort.
Mr. BARRETT. May I read? -
The CHAIRMAN. Just one moment. The treaty, of course, is nego-
tiated between the diplomatic representatives of the two countries.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And the treaty was proclaimed in 1910, but was
signed in 1909?
Mr. BARRETT. Correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, this is January 4, 1907 ?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Just let me say as to this report of the Inter-
national Waterways Commission, that of course this is the expres-
sion of the representatives of the United States as well as those of
Canada upon this question, and it is entitled to such weight as the
reputation and standing of that commission would give it and
nothing more; it has no force or effect of law. It is nothing more
than their opinion as to what might be done or would be done. I
see one of the commissioners was a retired brigadier general. i
know Mr. Clinton; I do not know the other members. I do know
that, generally speaking, we have been rather unfortunate in results
in negotiations with the other side.
Mr. BARRETT. But, Mr. Dempsey, if I may have a word
The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to have you; I am just giving you
my opinion.
Mr. BARRETT. This commission is the commission selected by the
United States Government and the British Government to find out
all of the facts in order that the contracting parties might have them
available when they concluded the final arrangements which brought
about this treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, just wait a moment. Let us see if that is so.
I am afraid that is not so. My understanding is that this board is
a permanent board. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. Oh, no.
Mr. BARRETT. This was a board organized
Mr. KEEFER. The international commission that you are speak-
ing of is subsequent to that entirely.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. KEEFER. That is a preliminary matter, the carrying on of
those negotiations, and then after that the treaty was made, and
under the treaty the international joint commission was arranged.
The CHAIRMAN. I get it.
Mr. KEEFER. That document there is about two pages. There are
about a thousand pages altogether, involving all these matters.
There were many other things taken into consideration at the same
time.
Mr. BARRETT. Allow me to make this statement: That nowhere
in any report of the International Waterways Commission is there
96 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
any language contrary to this language, So far as the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago is concerned.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Will you let me add something there?
Mr. BARRETT. Just let me read one paragraph here and then I will
quit. I am reading from Senate Document 434 now, message from
the President of the United States transmitting a report to the
Secretary of War made by the International Waterways Commis-
sions. [Reading:
The commission , therefore recommend that such diversions, exclusive of
Water requirements for domestic use Or the Service of locks in navigation
canals, be limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second, and
on the United States side to 18,500 cubic feet per second, and in addition
thereto a diversion for Sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per
second be authorized for the Chicago Drainage Canal, and that a treaty of
legislation be had limiting these diversions to the quantities mentioned.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, let us give the full effect of the
language used, and this is the utmost effect it would have: So far
as Canada is concerned, granting that this language is all that there
is in all of the documents, so far as Canada is concerned, she would
not have the right to complain. That would end Canada's case,
if we give full effect to these two documents and grant that they
are all that there is on the question. But so far as the United
States is concerned—and that is what we are considering here, legis-
lation by Congress—so far as the United States is concerned it
would have no effect whatever, it does not attempt to deal with the
question as an internal or domestic question; it expressly, on the
contrary, leaves that to be dealt with by the Congress of the United
States, and so we start with it as an original question. It is, perhaps,
satisfying, so far as the question has arisen in the minds of many of
us as to how Canada
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Got so much.
The CHAIRMAN. Got so much more volume than that obtained by
us; but it does not have a particle of bearing, and much less is it
of any conclusive weight, upon the question before this committee
or before Congress.
Mr. BARRETT. There was only one purpose at this time, in my
offering these things. I merely wanted to have the Canadian sec-
tion advised that these records were in existence, and have you
gentlemen have them. Now, I just ask this: That this committee
keep an open mind on the second phase of the chairman's conclu-
sion on this, so that when we come on to present the entire case of
the Sanitary District of Chicago, you may be in a position to de-
termine at the conclusion just what our rights are, and that is all
we ask. Now, I am going to sit down.
Mr. SweFT. Is there anything in the treaty that carries out this
provision in section 3 of this law of 1906?
Mr. BARRETT. Every provision there is carried out; 36,000 cubic
feet to the Canadians and 20,000 cubic feet, an addition of 1,500
feet, to the American side.
Mr. SweFT. Is there anything in the treaty about 10,000 cubic
feet per second for Chicago?
Mr. BARRETT. No; that is not mentioned in the treaty, except in
general terms, that existing diversions shall not be disturbed, and
that diversions for domestic and sanitary purposes are of first
order and are not controlled.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 97.
Mr. SweFT. Are they mentioned in the treaty 2
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. KEEFER. The only language in the treaty is existing uses, not
diversions. *
The CHAIRMAN. Two of the members of the committee have
asked the chairman as to whether or not Chicago was diverting at
the time these documents were signed.
Mr. SweBT. In 1910?
The CHAIRMAN. No, January 4, 1907.
Mr. SweBT. No, 1910.
The CHAIRMAN. 1910 is the treaty, but let us take it as to both
dates. The first is the document which is dated January 4, 1910.
It expressly appears upon the face of the document that they were
not diverting 10,000 cubic feet, but that their plan called for the
ultimate diversion of 10,000 cubic feet. That answers that. The
document itself upon its face shows that fact. Now, how much
were they diverting? Do you know?
Mr. BARRETT. I can not answer that question, and would prefer
this. I will say that it is true that in 1907 the 10,000 cubic second-
feet were not diverted on an average throughout the year. How
much less than that I can not answer but the records will appear.
The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, the documents show not only
were they not diverting the 10,000 cubic feet, but that they did not
have the physical facilities to divert 10,000 cubic feet and that they
would have to provide those facilities before they could have di-
verted that. Do you see?
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I do not know that that is necessarily true.
At that time, Mr. Dempsey, I think at that time our program for
widening
The CHAIRMAN. I won’t say it is true, but I will say that the docu-
ment showed that that was the opinion of those who signed it. Now
it appears, to answer the question of the two members of the com-
mittee aºrding to a letter from the Secretary of War, from
Colonel Warner's report in 1907, that 5,116 cubic feet were diverted:
that in 1910, 3,458 cubic feet per second were diverted. These fig-
ures will be found at page 176 of the Warren report.
The figures are as follows: 1900, 2,900; 1901, 4,046; 1902, 4,302:
1903, 4,971; 1904, 4,793; 1905, 4,480; 1906, 4,473; 1907, 5,116; 1908,
4,421; 1909, 2,766; 1910, 3,458; 1911, 6,445; 1912, 6,424; 1913, 7,191 :
1914, 7,105: 1915, 6,971: 1916, 7,325; 1917, 7,786.
Mr. RANDOLPH. May I make a conclusion here, so I can relieve wou
of my presence?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to say in conclusion that our position, the
Association of Commerce, is that we indorse these provisions, both
the provisions of Mr. Hull's bill and those in Mr. Rainey’s bill, the
diversion of 10,000 second-feet, and compensating works there, regu-
lating works in the interlake channels.
The CHAIRMAN. One moment. Does that mean anything? It
has been suggested that compensating work could only be placed in
the lake channels with the treaty consent of Canada. Now, if that
is so, all your offer would mean would be readiness on your part
to do it, provided the Canadian consent was obtained.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am not a lawyer.
98 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. May I answer the question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. Our contention is that the treaty specifically pro-
vides that so long as what the United States Government does in its
own channels does not affect lake levels above their actual levels
that we have a right to put them in ourselves; but on the other hand
if all we are complaining about is lake levels, certainly Canada will
not object to restoring what she is responsible for, if, on the other
hand, we are willing to pay for what we are responsible for.
The CHAIRMAN. But you see the difficulty would be this, Judge.
Canada might very well say—and I take it there is a genuine con-
troversy between Canada and Chicago on this question—Canada
might say by consenting to what we believe will not remedy the
condition which you have created we are consenting to the continu-
ance of the condition, and we refuse any such consent and
Mr. BARRETT. But we can do it then.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). “We insist that you live up to the
treaty, and you have no rights under the treaty,” Canada might
say that. -
Mr. BARRETT. No; she can not consistently or legally say that, be-
cause the treaty provides for our diversion absolutely, and there is
no question about it; a construction and reading of the treaty will
show that. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest that you have been very helpful
in pointing to these other documents, and I have been studying the
treaty, and I am in a maze. So suppose you point out to us any pro-
visions of the treaty which authorize the diversion at Chicago.
Mr. BARRETT. The general language, existing usage—and ours was
in existence at the time. Domestic and sanitary purposes—and ours
was in existence at the time. -
Mr. RANDOLPH. Diversions heretofore permitted.
Mr. BARRETT. Diversions heretofore permitted—and ours was then
going. -
The CHAIRMAN. You were diverting in 1907 5,100 cubic feet, and
in 1910 only 3,200 cubic feet.
Mr. BARRETT. This treaty is predicated on the agreed diversion of
10,000 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us find that in the treaty. You see, your
ordinary rule of law prevails in construing a treaty, that all of the
previous negotiations—just as to any other written document—are
conclusively, as a matter of law, to be merged in the final document.
Mr. BARRETT. With one exception.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the exception? *
Mr. BARRETT. The exception being that if there be any ambiguity
or any need of construction then the intention of the parties control.
The CHAIRMAN. The intention how manifested?
Mr. BARRETT. These things would indicate it.
The CHAIRMAN. That is nothing more, as I take it—these two
documents—than the negotiations of the parties, and would have no
more bearing than if you and I sat down here and entered into a
negotiation as to the sale of this building, we talked for three days,
and at the end of the time we made a contract in writing, and then
one of us tried to go back to what was said in that talk. We could
not go back to that talk at all.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 99
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; absolutely, you could if there were any dis-
pute as to the intent of the agreement, then, the preliminaries
demonstrate it. If the agreement itself was definite and positive and
susceptible of no dispute, then all preliminary talks mean nothing.
That is the law.
The CHAIRMAN. The contract does not amount to anything unless
it is definite and certain, and it is not a contract at all unless it is
definite and certain, and the instant it is a contract that instant you
3.I’e. bºnd by the terms of the contract and the previous negotiations
8LI'ê Iłll.
Mr. BARRETT. But many, many, cases in the courts go into the
original intent.
Mr. BEHAN. We would be very glad to meet the chairman on that
legal issue.
Mr. FERRIs. What is indefinite about it?
Mr. BARRETT. If you are asking me what is indefinite, there might
be a question as to what constituted existing uses, there might be a
question as to what constituted diversion; then, we might be called
on to make proof. -
*; FERRIs. Can you not tell us what the existing uses were in
1910
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
Mr. FERRIs. When the treaty was proclaimed?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
Mr. FERRIs. How much were you using, how many second-feet?
Mr. BARRETT. I refuse to have you commit me, because I say I
do not know.
Mr. FERRIs. The record shows.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. FERRIs. Just a moment. How much were you permitted to
use at that time? e
Mr. BARRETT. We were permitted by the arrangements under
which this treaty was made to divert 10,000 cubic second feet, and
we were going far enough and as fast as we could to do it,
Mr. FERRIs. That is not fair at all. You got your permission
from the Secretary of War. How much does your permit from
the Secretary of War authorize you to take?
Mr. BARRETT. Our capacity -
Mr. FERRIs (interposing). At that time you had a written permit.
How much were you permitted to take at that time?
Mr. BARRETT. I have answered your question.
Mr. FERRIs. Oh, no. t
Mr. BARRETT. If you insist on talking all the time, I can not an-
swer. Only one of us can talk at a time. May I answer this
Question?
The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad to have you.
Mr. MoRGAN. As a member of the committee I am interested in an
intelligent development of these subjects, and, as I understand the
matters under discussion here, they are the question of diversion
and the legal rights to diversion under a treaty, and it does not
occur to me that we are proceeding in a manner to enable us to
intelligently grasp what is going on. It seems to me that the wit-
nesses should present their subjects in logical order, as they should
100 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
come. This controversional hashing back and forth, which is drift-
ing into legal technicalities, is rather difficult to grasp.
Mr. BARRETT. I think the Congressman is right, and when the
time comes we are going to try to follow your suggestions.
Mr. MoRGAN. I am interested in having the matter presented in
an orderly manner. Of course you have a right to ask questions,
but so many questions have been asked and so many have taken
part in the controversy, that it is very difficult to follow.
Mr. BARRETT. I grant some things have been done not by the
committee but by outsiders, and so far as I am concerned I will
See that nothing further happens except by permission of the
chairman.
Mr. FERRIs. It is a question that could be answered quickly.
When the treaty was outstanding, which provided that they might
divert a certain amount of water, I asked you to tell me how many
cubic feet a second they were authorized to divert under the then
outstanding permit of the Secretary of War.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what is the date of that permit?
Mr. FERRIs. In 1910. How much were you permitted to divert?
Mr. O’Connor. How much did the Secretary of War permit
them to divert?
Mr. FERRIs. The Secretary of War determined he would never
authorize more than 4,167 cubic feet per second.
Mr. O'ConnoR. How much could he have permitted them had he
desired? *
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask the gentleman a question?
The CHAIRMAN. I think the question is very simple. It gets
down to this
Mr. BARRETT. I understand it perfectly, if you will let me ask it.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. BARRETT. Our position is that the original permit of the
Secretary of War has no limitation in it, in feet; but that the diver-
sion to which he gave his consent, as we have said, was limited only
by the capacity of our channels, and two other limitations; one that
if the Congress acted his permit stopped; the other, if the flow was
injurious to navigation he would have the right to step in. That
was navigation in the Chicago River. That has been passed upon
by the circuit court of appeals in our district and so construed.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be well if you have it to be good enough
to file with the stenographer that permit.
Mr. BARRETT. We will have all of them when we come to our time.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. HULL. I would like to call Mr. Brown.
Mr. MASSEY. May I ask a question?
Mr. HULL. I object to these outsiders interrupting our procedure.
Mr. MASSEY. I am not an outsider, I am an insider.
Mr. HULL. But I have witnesses here that have come a thousand
miles to be heard, and I insist, Mr. Chairman, on going on with the
witnesses.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, Mr. Chairman, may I conclude?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I think I got as far as telling you that we ap-
proved these provisions of the bill: A diversion of 10,000 cubic feet
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 101
per second, compensating works, the 9-foot waterway, and the
adjudication of the Illinois Valley claims. I have said my say and
I thank you. º
Mr. JARMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Randolph as to what his
position or objection is to the Rainey bill?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have no objection to the Rainey bill personally;
I quite approve of Several features of the Rainey bill. It is very
like the Hull bill. -
... Mr. JARMAN. I would like to ask another question. Do you un-
derstand the provisions of the Rainey bill that under that bill you
have the power at all times if you choose to divert 10,000 cubic feet
of water?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Randolph, while I have just seen Mr. Brown
and he says he will not take three minutes; if these questions will
§ take a couple of minutes then let us permit it. Now, Mr.
assey * f
Mr. MASSEY. I wanted to ask Mr. Randolph if he had a record
of the daily diversion in the sanitary canal, either at Lockport or
somewhere .*
The CHAIRMAN. You would rather have it at Lake Michigan,
would you not?
Mr. MASSEY. Of course, at Lockport it would measure the river
as well as the diversion.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I understand that such a record is kept by the
sanitary district authorities, and while I have not a copy of such a
record I think it is available.
Mr. MASSEY. I think that is a material element in this investi-
ation.
g The CHAIRMAN. That will be produced. What is the next ques-
tion?
Mr. MASSEY. The next question is, if the sanitary district had a
contract with the city of Chicago for the sale of power at its power
station
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I don’t think you know about that,
do you Mr. Randolph?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Except in a general way, that it furnishes power
to the city, to the park boards, for municipal purposes, at what is
estimated to be the cost.
Mr. MASSEY. And they make no profits from those sales?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No; that is the theory, at least.
The CHAIRMAN. How could they make a profit? They furnish
it to themselves. The city makes a profit in the sense that the whole
thing is a profit.
Mr. RANDOLPH. You must understand this, that we have some 20
different bodies in regard to taxing and taxation, in the city of
Chicago, we have the park boards and the school boards and the
sanitary district and all the rest of them.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Eugene Brown.
Mr. HULL. Let him say what he wants to say without being
interrupted.
Mr. DEAL. I suggest that the committee be given an opportunity
to ask a question now and then.
102 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed; we would be glad to have the com-
mittee ask questions.
Mr. DEAL. The witness, of whom I wanted to ask a question,
got away.
STATEMENT OF MR, EUGENE BROWN, PEORIA, ILL.
The CHAIRMAN. This is Mr. Eugene Brown, of Peoria, Ill.
Mr. BRow N. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, per-
haps for a little variety, you would like to hear from a section of
the territory affected which is facing a condition that we have had
for a number of years, and a Qondition that we come here with a
hope of changing through legislation. However that may be, I
hope you will consider what I have written here in that particular
way, that we are here for the purpose of improving the present con-
ditions as they exist.
Peoria is a city of approximately 100,000 population, located on
the Illinois River midway between Chicago and St. Louis.
Being a native Peorian, I have known conditions on the river
for over 40 years, during which time I have seen water traffic,
both freight and passenger, come and go. For over 20 years I
have been taking part in movements intended to encourage the es-
tablishment of a waterway from the Lakes to the Gulf.
I speak from the standpoint of a land owner, with holdings in
and near the valley, also as an official of a drainage and levee
districting, having land protected by levees.
As President of the Peoria Association of Commerce, I wish to
say that among the commercial interests there is, and always has
been, a general sentiment strongly in favor of the waterway. The
western farmer needs help to-day. Here is an opportunity to help
him.
A combination of circumstances seems to indicate that now is
the time for all factions to agree upon some plan which will be fair
to all, to view the matter from a broad, unselfish standpoint, and to
complete this great national water highway. O
The circumstances are these: Transportation is almost hopelessly
congested. Chicago is ready to spend large sums of money to make
possible the diversion of lake water; the State of Illinois is spending
$20,000,000 on the most difficult part of the waterway; this link will
be useless unless the improvement is extended throughout the valley:
the people in the Illinois River Valley want legislation which will
give them relief from 25 years of uncertainty as to the posible high.
water stages. The Congress can now pass this legislation if all will
cooperate. The valley can not prosper under present conditions.
That is why we are here to-day.
We believe the Hull bill (H. R. 5475), with certain modifications,
offers the best plan yet proposed. We come here with high hopes
that all interested parties will now reason this matter out, agree upon
the various phases of the problem, and pass a bill.
There has always been an uncertainty as to the amount of unnat-
ural flow that might be expected to come down the valley, by reason
of the Chicago diversion operations. The people of the valley re-
quest that this uncertainty be removed.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 103 ,
The Illinois State law of 1889 provides that any number of chan-
nels may be added to carry the diversion into the Illinois River.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. -
Mr. WILSON. Why is there an uncertainty existing in the minds
of you people down there?
Mr. BRowN. You will get it in the next statement.
On page 19 of the report of the hearings before the Senate Select
committee, on Senate bill 4428, the testimony is that in addition to
the 10,000 cubic feet per second provided in the bill as coming from
Lake Michigan, there are conditions occurring a few times each year
when the watershed around Chicago, which formerly discharged
into Lake Michigan, sends down the valley some 10,000 or 12,000
cubic feet per second. With more channel capacity it would be
entirely possible that a total of 20,000 to 22,000 cubic feet per second
could be sent down through the valley, and even this amount could
be increased, unless there is definite limit provided, including in that
limit the water from the watershed, aside from the lake.
I think that answers your question.
Mr. WILSON. Not exactly. The fear that you have there seems to
be a fear that something will go wrong at Chicago, diverting the
water from Lake Michigan, or is it the fear of the natural rainfall
that will increase your river and cause it to overflow its banks?
Mr. BRow N. It is not so much a fear as it is the possibility under
the law as it exists to-day that additional channels might be con-
structed at some future time. - t
Mr. WILSON. What is the width of your river there at Peoria?
Mr. BROWN. Approximately 1,000 feet.
Mr. WILSON. What is the width of your river at the levees?
Mr. BROWN. Which levee?
Mr. WILSON. Well, any of the levees?
Mr. HULL. What is the width at the Beardstown Levee ?
Mr. Brown. I do not know what that is.
Mr. WILSON. Do they follow the bank or go out into the country
to build the levee?
Mr. BRow N. I could not answer that. Some of the levee people
could probably answer that.
Therefore we are asking that all diverted waters which in the
state of nature flowed into Lake Michigan be construed as Lake
Michigan waters.
We are asking that in emergencies the United States Government
officials shall take physical charge of the control of the flow, to
insure a maximum daily average of 10,000 cubic feet per second.
In order to avoid long continued court procedure, we ask that a
forfeiture clause be added, to be used in the event of nonperformance
of contract by the party using the diversion.
These points are embodied in the suggestions of amendments to
the bill under consideration, which we now offer in typewritten form,
and which we desire incorporated in the record. º te
The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to have them incorporated
as a part of your remarks. -
º
104 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
(The suggestions referred to are as follows:)
We suggest that the following be inserted after line 18 on page 14, iniume-
diately preceding section 8:
“In case said Sanitary District of Chicago shall not immediately comply with
any requirements or orders of said Secretary of War and/or of the Chief
of Engineers in this regard then said Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized
and empowered to take charge of Such locks or controlling works and operate
same for such length of time as may be necessary to carry out the objects and
purposes of this section.”
Insert after the world “ population, " in line 20, page 9, the following :
“So that a definite program of Construction of 1) urifications works sh;ull
be commenced immediately upon the passage of this bill, said program to pro-
vide that by 1945 such purification works shall be sufficient, and in operation
So that the amount of raw sewage and waste passing through the sanitary
canal into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers shall be at least 90 per cent
less than the amount Ilow passing into said rivers.”
Insert as Section 11 :
“In the event the said Sanitary District of Chicago shall violate, fail, or
refuse to carry out any of the provisions of this act on their part, to be per-
formed in the time and according to the terms hereof, then the Secretary of
War shall have the right to immediately forfeit and annul all of the rights,
powers, and privileges by this act granted to the Sanitary District of Chicago
by giving to its officers written notice of Such forfeiture and annulment.”
On page 4 in line 24, change the period to a comma and insert “computed
at that point or points where such waters are discharged into said Illinois
waterway.”
In section 5, line 2, after the word “ withdrawn,” insert “ and/or diverted
from Lake Michigan.” -
At the end of line 7, change the period to a comma and insert “ and in
computing the same, water from any river or channel connecting With Lake
Michigan which in the state of nature flowed into said lake shall be construed
as water taken from Lake Michigan.”
In section 7, line 15, insert after the word “ said " the words “Secretary of
War and/or.”
In line 17, after the word “ said '' insert “Secretary of War and/or.”
On page 13, line 3, omit the word “if.”
On page 10, line 1, insert “now or may,” omit “will.”
On page 10, lines 6 and 10, insert brackets.
On page 11, line 10, change “floor" to flood.”
On page 5, line 10, change “ i. e.” to “is.”
Mr. SweFT. During the springtime there is quite a perceptible
increase in the flood run-off of the river, is there not?
Mr. BRow N. Yes, sir.
Mr. SweFT. By the improvement of the river in the process of
canalization they remove the natural barriers, strengthen the chan-
nel, and provide for the mean or low flood. By that improvement
of conditions under low flow, would you intensify the liability
of damage to the lower valley in the time of flood?
Mr. Brown. I think so, and the people who are here from the
lower valley could answer that question better than I could. It is
something that I have not gone into.
Mr. PEAVEY. Do you serve in any official capacity at Peoria'
Mr. BROwn. You mean city administration?
Mr. PEAvEY. Yes. Have you any official position?
Mr. BRowN. Not in the municipal government; no, sir.
Mr. HULL. He is president of the Association of Commerce.
Mr. PEAvey. Oh: I see. Might I ask what is the general nature
of your business there? What business are you familiar with or
acquainted with in business circles?
Mr. BRow N. My own business?
3.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 105
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes. I just want to get your viewpoint.
Mr. BROWN. I am in the real estate subdivision business.
Mr. PEAVEY. Do you know whether or not the majority of the
people, or what proportion of the people, there are friendly or favor-
able to this project, and those that are opposed to it? -
Mr. Brown. Well, sir, we have never put out a referendum.
Mr. PEAVEY. But it is a controversial question at Peoria Ž
Mr. BRow N. I should say that the big majority of the people
are in favor of the waterway.
Mr. PEAVEY. And let me ask you whether or not a large number
of your people in that section have been damaged, due to floods and
so on, and sewage, from a diversion of those waters?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. PEAVEY. Have any of those claims ever been paid?
Mr. BROwn. I could not answer that.
The CHAIRMAN. So far as you know. tº
Mr. BROWN. There have been some claims settled: yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. Lately.
Mr. BRowN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. By the sanitary district?
Mr. BRowN. There was one settled, I think, last year.
Mr. PEAVEY. And those particular claims, the few that have been
settled, those particular people that have had their claims settled,
have been of any great influence in that section politically or other-
wise?
Mr. BRow N. I do not think so.
Mr. PEAVEY. They are just average claim holders?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. PEAVEY. Is it not true that in your papers at Peoria, and in
the other towns up and down the river there, that is, in the last
few months or few weeks—few weeks particularly—there has been a
great display of newspaper advertising and propaganda carried in
the newspapers on this proposition? -
Mr. HULL. Let me inteject there, not in support of my bill. I do
not want to mix that up with my bill.
Mr. PEAVEY. No. I mean in support of the proposition of the
development of this river channel and the diversion of this water at
Chicago.
Mr. HULL. The advertising you speak of is sanitary district
advertising, isn’t it?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes.
Mr. HULL. That has nothing to do with this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. What he is asking you is whether there has been
such advertising.
Mr. HULL. I do not want him to get my bill confused with that.
The CHAIRMAN. Whether there have been advertisements of the
sanitary district in the local papers.
Mr. PEAVEY. All I am interested in is the question of damage. I
do not care whether they do it under your bill or any other bill.
The CHAIRMAN. He has not answered that question.
Mr. PEAvey. You have seen those big page advertisements and
so forth?
Mr. BRow N. I saw one of them.
106 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. PEAVEY. In your local papers?
Mr. BRow N. Yes, sir. |
Mr. PEAVEY. Who do you suppose is paying for the advertising?
Mr. BROwn. I have not any idea.
Mr. O’Connor of Louisiana. May I ask at this time what differ-
ence it would make whether there were advertisements or not?
Mr. PEAVEY. I will tell you the only idea. I had was to show
the propaganda that is behind this proposition, and that it does
not come to us in the usual course.
Mr. O’Con NOR of Louisiana. That it is not the usual require-
ments of the situation but propaganda that is causing this agitation
of the matter? Is that your idea!
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes.
Mr. O’ConnoR of Louisiana. That it is not the real requirements
and the necessities of the situation so much as propaganda that is
pressing this matter at this time? -
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes; to educate the public back there for the influ-
ence it will have down here. -
Mr. DEAL. I understood Mr. Brown to say that he favored the
diversion at Chicago as a means of adding prosperity to the valley?
Mr. BROWN. No, sir. The statement as I had it
Mr. DEAL (interposing). You did not in those words, but did not
you imply as much? You said that the valley had not been prosper-
ous, and by this diversion you would add to its prosperity?
Mr. Brown. Oh, no. If you will read that when it comes out, you
will see that that was just the opposite.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand that.
Mr. HULL. I will read this for you, “The valley can not prosper
under present conditions.”
Mr. DEAL. That is what I wanted to get at. Now, in what way
would the diversion of the water at Chicago add to the prosperity
of the valley?
Mr. BROwn. You misunderstand the statement.
The CHAIRMAN. No; just try to answer his question. What you
are complaining about is too much water, isn’t it?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose what Mr. Deal means to ask is this:
If you have too much water or so much you are suffering large loss,
how would the increase in the water help you? That is the question.
Mr. DEAL. That was not what I had in mind. Read that again,
Mr. Hull.
Mr. BRow N (reading):
We believe that the Hull bill, 5475, with certain modifications, offers the best
plan yet proposed. We come here with high hopes that all interested parties
Will now reason this matter Out— -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a moment. I do not think
that helps any.
Mr. DEAL. That is not the point.
Mr. HULL. Just let the man answer his question the best he can.
Mr. BRow N. I am trying to answer the question. This bill pro-
vides for payment for levees. •
Mr. HULL. That is, the sanitary district pays for the levees?
Mr. BRowN. Yes. Is that what you wanted to know?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, Erc. 107
Mr. DEAL. I think Mr. Hull read the section in which you said
Something about the valley had not been prosperous heretofore.
Mr. Brown. Under present conditions.
Mr. DEAL. What I wanted to get at was in what way it was going
to be made prosperous by this diversion.
Mr. BROwn. It is not by the diversion. It is by the provisions
of the bill, part of which are taking care of the levees.
Mr. DEAL. That is what I want to get at.
Mr. BROWN. And having a control of the water.
Mr. DEAL. I did not understand that.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is what you are referring to?
Mr. BROwn. Yes, sir.
b The CHAIRMAN. And that is the basis of your advocacy of the
iIl 2
Mr. BRowN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DEAL. That is what I wanted to get at.
Mr. BROwn. Just as written in these statements. That is our
statement.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. G. LEGON, CHICAGO, ILL.
Mr. LEGON. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to concur in what has
been said, as representing the Chicago Shippers' Association, to
corroborate just what Mr. Haynes and Mr. Field and Mr. Randolph
have already said. I do not believe I can illuminate on that. We
feel that we need some relief down there to give us the benefit of our
geographical location. . We think if this waterway is completed it
will help us out. We feel that now is the best time to get all inter-
ested parties together to present all facts before you people and ask
you to give us the necessary relief. #
The CHAIRMAN. What you are interested in, then, is having suf-
ficient water in that river to give you a nine-foot channel?
Mr. LEGON. That is it.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is what you are speaking in behalf
OT
Mr. LEGON. In behalf of the transportation feature of it.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all that is asked, a nine-foot channel?
Mr. LEGON. We are not engineers, and we will have to leave that
to the engineers, the ones that are to determine that proposition.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. P. PIXLEY, CHICAGO, ILL.
Mr. PIXIEY. I represent Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., Chicago.
I am here to indorse the testimony that has been offered by the
representatives of the Chicago Association of Commerce and of
Peoria. The bulk of our business—we are one of the large shippers
of Chicago—is done to the agricultural communities, and we believe
that this bill, providing a waterway, will give cheaper transpor-
tation.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the nature of your business?
Mr. PIXLEY. Wholesale dry goods.
The CHAIRMAN, And your shipments are incoming and not out-
going? You are retailers?
108 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. PIXLEY. We are wholesalers and distribute to the retail busi-
ness. Our outgoing is larger than our incoming.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your territory?
Mr. PIXLEY. All over the United States. Anything that will
benefit the farmer.
Th; CHAIRMAN. What do you ship? What is your tonnage a
year?
Mr. PIXLEY. In the neighborhood of 100,000 tons.
The CHAIRMAN. That is incoming and outgoing both 2
Mr. PIXLEY. That is the outgoing. They are comparatively the
Saſſle.
The CHAIRMAN. How much of that do you ship by the Great
Lakes?
Mr. PIXLEY. Very little outgoing, but our incoming tonnage by
the Great Lakes is large.
The CHAIRMAN. That is just one of the things we have been in-
quiring about. Why is it that you Chicago people do not use the
waterway or the water transportation you have?
Mr. PIXLEY. I injected into this hearing the other day one prin-
cipal reason, and that is our Pacific coast territory is now being
served from New England. That product was formerly brought
into Chicago on the Great Lakes and distributed from Chicago.
We can do that no longer, because of the Panama Canal’s cond-
petition. &
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. Let us see if that is true. You
have a traffic of 100,000 tons a year, and you say that your incoming
traffic, a considerable part of it, comes by the Great Lakes, but you
do not use the Great Lakes for your outgoing traffic.
Mr. PIXLEY. Our territory lies to the West and South of Chicago,
the territory that we serve—the principal territory.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you ship up in Minnesota and Wisconsin.”
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Great Lakes would be serviceable for that.
Mr. PixDFY. We have not a service there by the Great Lakes that
amounts to anything at all.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the trouble?
Mr. PIXIEY. There never has been a dependable service, an effi-
cient service, into Wisconsin and other ports there. The rail serv-
ice—would you expect us to ship through the Soo and up into Lake
Superior, to the Minnesota points?
he CHAIRMAN. You have the best water in the world, the best
inland water in the world?
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And what you say is that you have not provided
the transportation facilities?
Mr. PIXLEY. Not to ship to Minnesota from Chicago, no.
The CHAIRMAN. You could ship anywhere; it would not make any
difference, if you had the transportation vessels, it would carry you
anywhere.
Mr. PIXLEY. We are sº to Milwaukee and some other Wis-
consin points—not a very large volume—by water.
The CHAIRMAN. The thing I am getting at is this. This conn-
mittee is in favor of the development of waterways, but we can not
understand why Chicago, of all the Lake ports, is the only one that
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 109
does not seem to utilize its natural advantages on the Great Lakes.
and does not seem to increase its water transportation; and what
we are asking is this: If you do not use what you have, the best in
the world, how can you, by crying for something that will not com-
pare with it in any way, as a transportation facility, hope to con-
vince us that you will use it if we give it to you?
Mr. PIXLEY. I think it is not right to reach any conclusion that
we are not taking advantage of the water service that is available
at the present time, because we are using it, as you said the other
day, to the extent of some three million tons a year.
Mr. MORGAN. May I inquire, as a natural business proposition,
you would use the cheapest method of transportation?
Mr. PIXLEY. With adequate service and facilities, yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is what I mean.
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes. tº
Mr. MoRGAN. In other words, you are not prejudiced against
waterway transportation by the Lakes?
Mr. PIXLEY. We favor it. It is the solution of all of our trouble.
It is the very life blood. We have got to have this; otherwise we
would be restricted in our transportation to such an extent that
Chicago will go down instead of up.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then your contention is that, by reason of the com-
modities being transported through the Panama Canal, you are
thrown out of what you would receive out of ordinary competition.
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes. We must have a waterway. We must have
cheaper transportation, because the communities and the people with
whom we do business are to-day suffering because of high trans-
portation costs.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then the question of the chairman, implying that
you do not use the water that is available now, does not apply to
you as merchants or as business men, so far as the actual facts are
concerned relating to the service in the communities in which you
serve?
Mr. PIXLEY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Why is it possible that it does not apply, when
the statistics show that it does?
Mr. Pixlex. We are using that service.
Mr. MoRGAN. As far as possible?
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes. -
Mr. SweFT. Does any considerable part of the business of your
firm or corporation ship goods to the western coast, so that you would
come in competition with the Panama Canal service, or do you serve
more of a local trade down the Mississippi ?
Mr. PIXLEY. We serve the entire United States. Our business
moves to all States in the United States. Prior to 1920 we did a very
large business on the Pacific coast, and that business was done from
Chicago. We are distributors of merchandise. We bring the mer-
chandise in from manufacturing points all over the United States to
Chicago and from there we redistribute to our customers. For-
merly we did a very large business from Chicago on that broad Pa-
cific coast territory. Since then that business has gradually dwindled
away, that is, the business from Chicago. We are still doing business
on the Pacific coast, but we are doing it from our mills and from our
manufacturing points on the Atlantic Seaboard and shipping it
91739–24—PT 1–8
110 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
around through the Panama Canal. If we were not in a position to
do that, we would lose that business to our eastern competitors
entirely.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you factories at Chicago as well as on the
Atlantic coast?
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes, sir. - g
. CHAIRMAN. Factories of the same kind, that produce the same
goods?
Mr. PIXLEY. To some extent; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But largely your factories are of one kind on the
Atlantic and of another kind at Chicago? -
Mr. PIXLEY. We have the largest production of textiles, of course,
in New England and in the Southeastern territory. |
The CHAIRMAN. So far as that production is concerned, you have
been benefited and not harmed by the Panama Canal?
Mr. PIxLEY. I do not understand how you reach that conclusion.
We claim that we have been harmed very seriously, because our
competitors in the East are able to sell their products on the Pacific
Coast. §
The CHAIRMAN. They are not competitors in the East? You say
your factories are also in the East, and you simply distribute from
your factories to the Pacific coast.
Mr. PIXLEY. That is true.
Mr. SweFT. Isn’t it a fact that the growing tendency of the job-
bing trade is to have the mill or manufacturer or producer carry the
stock, and the jobber issues his requisitions on the mill to ship direct
to his customers? -
Mr. PIXLEY. That is true as far as the jobbing interests in the
Millde West are concerned, but it is not true as far as the jobbing
interests on the Atlantic seaboard are concerned.
Mr. HULL. Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. are jobbers to a large ex-
tent. You take your orders for different lines of goods from One
customer; in other words, you might have textile goods, umbrellas,
or something else from the same customer. If you can consolidate
all of that in Chicago and ship direct from Chicago, it would mate-
rially help your business, would it not?
Mr. PIXLEY. We would get the business then where now our New
York jobbing competitor gets that business from us.
Mr. HULL. That is the point I wanted to bring out.
Mr. PIxLEY. It is possible to ship direct from the mill or manufac-
turer, but it is an impracticable way to do business. ©
The CHAIRMAN. In the one case you would sell through your
Chicago house, and in the other case, the case as it exists to-day, you
have to sell through a jobber?
Mr. PIxLEY. No; we sell through a manufacturer.
Mr. HULL. He is the jobber. In other words, he can not consoli-
date his shipments.
Mr. PIXLEY. Let me explain this. The textile industry is one of
the largest industries in the wholesale dry goods business. A mer-
chant on the Pacific coast would like to buy his textiles in small
quantities. He would like to get a varied assortment. The only
way that he can get that is through the local jobber; that is, the
jobber at Chicago, at New York, or at San Francisco. He carries
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 111
an open stock; he brings this stuff in from the manufacturer in
what we call a case quantity in that unit, and splits it up and
spreads it into an open stock and then the merchant comes and
selects his different patterns, and has them shipped from that
shipping point. Now, a New York jobber is still able to give him.
that service, but we must go into that territory and sell him 50 pieces
of a certain assortment arbitrarily formed, or 50 pieces of a cer-
tain style, which takes his capacity to use that goods. It is an
impracticable way to 'sell goods, and for that reason that business
is largely getting away from us to the jobbing point where they are
able to sell him from an open stock in a varied assortment, which is
the economical way for him to do business, and a desirable way for
him to do it.
As I started to say at the outset, our business is done largely in
agricultural communities, who are suffering to-day, and have been
suffering for a long time, from high transportation costs. In our
opinion this bill will provide cheaper transportation and will for
that reason give some prosperity to these farming communities, espe-
cially in the West.
The CHAIRMAN. What you appear for is for the transportation
end of this bill. You want to see this river made navigable for the
depth advocated by Mr. Hull, of 9 feet? º
Mr. PIxLEY. We want a waterway from Chicago to the Gulf of
Mexico. That is our chief concern.
I am also a resident of the city of Chicago. I own a home there,
and I am very much interested in the sanitation features of this bill,
because my family and myself would like to keep our health as long
as we can, and we know that something of this kind is necessary to
preserve our health and our lives.
The CHAIRMAN. You think that some method for the disposal of
'sewage must be provided out there?
Mr. PIXLEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Either by pure water or otherwise?
Mr. PIXLEY. I can not go into the technical issues.
Mr. O’Connor. Leaving aside the all-important hygienic and
sanitary features involved in this bill, you would favor it for the
commercial possibilities, if they only were involved, would you not?
Mr. PIXLEY. Most assuredly. º
Mr. SweBT. There are some means of navigation down the canal
and river now, are there not?
Mr. PIXLEY. From Chicago?
Mr. Swi:ET. Yes.
Mr. PIXLEY. No, sir.
Mr. SweFT. None whatever?
Mr. PIXLEY. No, sir.
Mr. HULL. We have to ship to St. Louis by rail.
Mr. PIXLEY. We used to have the old Illinois and Michigan Canal,
but the channel is so restricted that the size of the boats and the
cargo that can be carried down there is not sufficient to compete with
the railroads, and so it was abandoned.
112 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
STATEMENT OF MB. RAY WILLIAMS.
The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Ray Williams.
Mr. WILLIAMs. My name is Ray Williams. My business is that
of traffic manager. I wanted to say a word with reference to the
transportation feature of this bill only.
I am from Cairo. Ill., and represent the city of Cairo, the Cairo
Board of Trade, and the Cairo Association of Commerce. We have
at the present time operating on the river a barge line from New
Orleans to Cairo, which operation is continued throughout the year.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. This is a private line?
Mr. WILLIAMs. The Mississippi-Warrior service, the Federal barge
line. -
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, that is another thing.
Mr. WILLIAMs. The traffic which was shown on the map which
was presented by Mr. Field is handled through the port of Cairo
and there interchanged with the rail lines. We are deeply interested
in this proposition of the Illinois River and the transportation from
the Great Lakes to the Gulf.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is it from Cairo to Grafton 2
Mr. WILLIAMs. It is 219 miles by river.
The CHAIRMAN. And where is Grafton with reference to St.
Louis?
Mr. WILLIAMs. It is 36 miles north of St. Louis.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you run at the present time as far as St.
Louis? *
Mr. WILLIAMs. Yes, sir.
We believe that the improvement of our inland waterways would
be of great benefit to the country as a whole, not confining its benefits
to the improvement of the valley along the waterway. During the
four years that the Federal barge line has been in operation, we have
been able to ship to the Pacific coast large quantities of agricultural
implements, and vehicle material, for example, and those commodi-
ties are laid down at transportation costs materially less than if we
had to use the all-rail routes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Give us an idea of the quantity of the tonnage you
handle a year.
Mr. WILLIAMs. Well, I could not offhand give you the tonnage.
The CHAIRMAN. What was your total tonnage last year?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I could not give you the total tonnage as handled
by our shippers, but the total tonnage as handled last year would
not have any material weight with what we might handle if we
had the advantage of this waterway as proposed, and also as pro-
posed in the Newton bills, which come up later on.
The CHAIRMAN. You have not had any shortage of freight, have
you? You have had all the freight offered to you that you could
transport? !
Mr. WILLIAMs. Yes; with the limited transportation facilities by
water that we have at the present time. -
i. Morgas. What are the products which you transport prin-
Clpally
Mr. WILLIAMs. We transport grain and forest products, and all
kinds of commodities handled by wholesale grocers, wholesale drug-
gists, and dry goods.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 113
Mr. MORGAN. Is your main tonnage agricultural products and
agricultural supplies?
Mr. WILLIAMs. Our principal business is grain and grain prod-
ucts. We all know that the rail transportation lines have been con-
gested during the past few years and, as bearing upon this situation,
I would like to refer to the matter of the Illinois Central Railroad.
which is the principal Mississippi Valley line to-day, serving New
Orleans and the lower Mississippi River points, for instance, Mem-
phis, St. Louis, Cairo, Chicago, Indianapolis, and Omaha., Within
the last few months the Interstate Commerce Commission has au-
thorized the building of a line which will parallel their existing line
for a distance of about 180 miles, between Edgewood, Ill., and Ful-
ton, Ky. The initial expense for a temporary structure
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It is a double-track line now, isn’t
it .
Mr. WILLIAMs. The main line is double tracked. The initial ex-
pense for temporary structures on the 180 mile line is in the neigh-
borhood of $28,000,000. The permanent structures will cost in the
neighborhood of $45,000,000; and Mr. Markham, president of the
line, testified that their tonnage was increasing to the extent of
doubling every five years, so that with the barge line handling the
business which has been shown by Mr. Field on this map, notwith-
standing that, during the last few months they have had to get
this authority from the commission to extend their line in order to
better handle the traffic that is being offered.
So that we feel that it is in the interest of transportation and the
country as a whole to have our inland waterways so arranged that
we can navigate our streams and take care of the tonnage at a lower
cost of transportation than has heretofore been done.
Mr. HULL. One question. You live at Cairo, and that is on the
Ohio or on the Mississippiº
Mr. WILLIAMs. It is on both. It is at the junction of the two
rivers.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you this question. Do you think that in
order to make this waterway a success, it is necessary to improve
the Illinois River from Chicago to the Mississippi}
Mr. WILLIAMs. I do; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I notice that you said that your principal product
which was carried was grain. Don’t you get return shipments from
New Orleans?
Mr. WILLIAMs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You ought to carry them. In order to make a
success of it, you have to get full return cargoes, don’t you?
Mr. WILLIAMs. We have a very large—
The CHAIRMAN. Just answer that question.
Mr. WILLIAMs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, you do not get grain for your return car-
goes, do you?
Mr. WILLIAMs. No, sir. We have a very large northbound move-
ment of sugar, coffee, rice, sisal hemp, and various other commidities.
The transportation of the sugar. which is distributed out to the
farmer, is a very large portion of our northbound movement, and
the farmer’s wife, of course, during the summer uses very large
quantities, and they are all benefited by this reduction in rates, which
114 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
is occasioned by the Federal barge line on our river at the present
time. The International Harvester Co. transports practically all
of the raw material from which the binder twine is manufactured.
and while the benefit to the farmer may be very slight, all of these
things are for his benefit.
The CHAIRMAN. My question was what you had in the way of
return cargoes, and your answer is sugar and sisal?
Mr. WILLIAMs. And coffee and rice.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all I wanted to know.
Mr. WILSON. Don't you ship a good many automobiles on the
barge line, on top of the decks?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I might mention that, owing to the condition of
the roads of Kentucky and Tennessee, there have been a very large
number of automobiles carried between Cairo and Memphis for
tourists.
Mr. WILSON. I mean new automobiles.
Mr. WILLIAMs. No; we do not carry very many.
STATEMENT OF MR. P. W. COYLE, OF ST. LOUIS, TRAFFIC COM-
MISSIONER OF THE ST. LOUIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Mr. Cox LE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am authorized by
the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, having a membership of over
4,000 of the business men of St. Louis and the St. Louis district,
to present to you a statement in support of the bill in question, and
to give you facts indicating the potential traffic which we believe is
available and might be diverted to water service as proposed.
There is moved in and out of St. Louis and through St. Louis
annually, by rail, something over 72,000,000 tons of all classes of
freight. I have made a very careful analysis of the tonnage moved
into and through the territory through which it is proposed to
construct this Illinois waterway, having origin or destination in
St. Louis and Chicago, and find that that tonnage amounts to ap-
proximately 15,000,000 tons annually. It is almost impossible to
determine just how much of that might be obtained by waterway
service. That, of course, would depend upon the kind and quality
of service given, but it presents a basis of the potential elements
of traffic and is about all that can be brought to the surface at this
time. In order that a more comprehensive view of the situation
with respect to this potential tonnage may be had I have attached
hereto a detailed statement of the different commodities handled
by the four important railroads operating between St. Louis and
Chicago in the territory in question. -
The merchants of St. Louis move a great many goods from the
manufacturers in the East by rail, lake and rail, via Chicago. These
goods might be diverted to a water service from Chicago instead of
being transferred from boats to rail at that point for movement
South.
I have had numerous conferences with our shippers with respect
to tonnage of this character and I am pleased to direct your atten-
tion to the following statements made by these shippers.
Statement of D. Noonan, representing Rice-Stix D. G. Co:
T) uring the season of navigation on the lakes we route a great deal of mer-
chandise from the New England mills, and also from the Mohawk Valley in
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 115
New York, by the lake-and-rail route. The approximate tonnage for this
Season will be about 2,000 tons. In routing that merchanidse that way we
Consider the time involved, and if the traffic was handled in connection wit.
a Water Service from Chicago we would have to have reasonable service by
Water from Chicago to St. Louis. That traffic is now transferred at Chicago
to rail. What I Say with respect to our company applies with equal force to
all of the wholesale dry goods houses here. They would also handle a large
amount Of tonnage via the lake-and-rail route. In addition to that tonnage
We, Of COurSe, Would be able to favor the water route from St. Louis to
southern points with this high class merchandise if we had regular service.
I Would Say 6,000 tons of this freight moves annually. This class of tonnage,
which is now handled lake-and-rail, will stand much slower time Ordinarily
than Other classes of tonnage. During the lake season the fall goods are
moved and the Orders are placed SO that the merchandise can stand Slow
Servl(26.
Statement of George T. McClure, representing the International
Shoe Co.: -
Assuming that rates would be put in from New England to St. Louis, which
I believe they will be eventually by this route—they are in now lake and rail—
We have about 1,200,000 pounds a month, Some of which is shoes and Some
of which is raw material. The International Shoe Co., manufacturers of
shoes, is my business. We also have about five cars a week coming out of
Chicago territory direct to St. Louis; and there are imports by the tanneries
amounting to two or three cars a week, that are imported through IBaltimore
and eastern cities of that kind. What I say for my company is equally true
, Of the Other boot and Shoe manufacturers.
Statement of Mr. R. K. Keas, representing the Laclede Steel Co.:
It may seem strange that with all the iron and steel products manufactured
in the Chicago district that iron and steel products should move out of St.
Louis into Chicago and the manufacturing cities to the north, but in the move-
ment from Chicago into St. Louis of the raw materials, and the movement
back into the Chicago district of manufactured products, We have a tonnage
approximating 36,000 to 40,000 tons a year. That is freight which should be
extremely desirable from a water transportation standpoint, because it takes
but very little space and is very heavy for the space it consumes, and is very
easy to handle. I think a great deal of that tonnage would be handled by
water, because Our customers in that district would desire to Secure the Saving
that would be accomplished through Water transportation. I know quite a
lot of raw materials would move down, and especially ore from the lakes,
through this waterway to St. Louis.
Statement of Mr. E. S. Tompkins, representing the St. Louis
Screw Co.:
We have about 200 tons, I should say, per week now of iron and steel sup-
plies from Chicago, and we have a great deal of other products in the way
of iron and Steel articles from Cleveland and other points along the lake that
could be diverted to the Illinois River waterway. Other iron and steel in-
dustries here have northbound shipments of probably a thousand tons a month.
There is constant interchange between the iron and steel industries in this
district and those in Chicago of different products, that are not manufactured
in these parts, that they use in their work. This market also consumes about
600,000 tons of scrap per year. Some of it comes from Illinois, along the
Illinois River, and there is any amount of available tonnage that would prob-
ably be increased with a waterway movement that would bring lower costs.
I believe that a deep waterway from here to Chicago operated at a rate 20 per
cent less than the railroad rates would result in the movement of a very large
tonnage Over that line.
Statement of Mr. S. W. Allender, representing the Monsanto
Chemical Works:
We have a heavy acid plant in East St. Louis. We use about 12,000 tons
of Sulphur a year, or about a carload per day, at that plant. That sulphur
moves all rail from Texas at a rate of $7.20 per ton, or $86,000 per year
116 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
freight charges. There are several acid plants in the Chicago district using
greater amounts, and if the intercoastal canal and the Chicago WaterWay
are completed the sulphur could move in barge lots to Chicago, Buffalo, lake
ports, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Memphis, and other points. Any Saving at all
would control the movement by the water route. When we pay $86,000 freight
charges a year for one item you can realize that 50 cents a ton would control
the movement. Sulphur is used for making sulphuric acid, one of the large
raw materials for fertilizer, and since the freight clarges on Sulphur are
over 50 per cent of its value, the farmers would benefit in lower transportation
charges on sulphur to Chicago, St. Louis, and all points in the Valley. It is
one of the big raw materials for fertilizer. It takes 1 ton of acid to acidulate
2 tons of phosphate rock. We also use nitrate of soda from Chile, which
we are already moving by the barge line to Our East St. Louis plant, giving
an all-water movement. Our Chicago Competitors believe they could do the
same thing if the Chicago waterway is completed. I speak of Otir competitors,
because I feel that anything that would benefit them would benefit us. Nitrate
of soda is used for explosives and fertilizer, and thus again the farmers Would
benefit in lower transportation of raw material for fertilizer and for blowing
up old stumps. We are using the barge line for tea from Calcutta, probably
the longest movement in the world. Calcutta is 90° east longitude and we are
90° west longitude. We buiy about 9,000,000 pounds of tea a year. I am
heartily in favor of the deep waterway from Chicago to the Gulf, and em-
phatically in favor of the Government Operating the line until it can be estab-
lished. Our Company will be much interested in Seeing the establishment of
private barge lines, but we would want the Government to establish it first,
and iron out the rates and divisions and maintain them. The completion of
the proposed intracoastal canal is also a Very important feature in connection
with the development of the waterway between St. Louis and Chicago. That
is the reason I am So generous in speaking for our competitors, the acid plants
in Chicago. We feel when they have a route from St. Louis and find they
can not move their raw materials from Texas without the intracoastal canal,
that we will have the assistance of Chicago in getting this intracoastal canal
put through. This is a big project in which all public-spirited citizens of the
United States ought to unite for the general good and set aside their special
interests for the time being.
These statements, of course, go directly to the potential tonnage,
but I desire to call your attention, if you please, to the general situa-
tion and to the importance of a waterway of this character.
The northern producing and distributing points like Chicago and
St. Louis are unable now to reach the consumers in the interior
points of the Southwest in competition with the producers in the
North Atlantic section of the country, except by all-rail service.
With a 9-foot channel from Chicago to the Gulf, connecting with
the proposed intercoastal waterway just north of New Orleans, an
all-barge service could be had from Chicago to every Gulf port of
Texas all the way around to Brownsville, there touching and con-
necting with the rail service of Mexico, thus not only giving these
northern producing points water and rail service into western Louisi-
ana and Texas, but a water and rail service into the Republic of
Mexico. It would also give to Chicago and the intermediate points
between Chicago and St. Louis an all-water service to the Pacific
Coast by the way of New Orleans and steamships between New
Orleans and that coast.
The importance of this will be recognized and indicates its na-
tional character when we take into account the fact that the rail-
roads are operating up to, if not quite, their maximum capacity:
our industries are not producing to their maximum capacity; and
all signs point to a revival of commerce to the extent that it will,
in my estimation, very shortly produce a traffic beyond the ability
of the rail lines to handle with satisfaction to the public; hence we
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
117
must have this water service to supplement that of the railroads in
order to conserve and properly develop the resources of the country.
Classified statement of shipments handled by railroads Operating between Chi-
cago and St. Louis in 1922.
RECEIPTS.
ſ
Apples. se
Barley Butter Beef, - Bran and Mixed
i (bushels) (pounds). fresh shipstuff feed
Barrels. Boxes. (pounds). (sacks), (sacks).
Illinois Central R. R.1--------- 8, 260 8,750 6,400 ----------|---------- 2,000 l,
Chicago & Alton R. R.---------- 12,800 13, 630 59, 200 ----------|--- - - - - - - - 54,900 17, 580
Wabash R. R. (east) 1---------- 6, 470 30,909 1,600 526, 130 || 307, 400 10,660
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R.-----------|---------- 8,000 l----------|--------------------|----------
Kafir. Cotton (bales).
Coal Corn tººd Coke
(tons) (bushels). I.i.e º: • (tons).
(bushels). Local. Through.
Illinois Central R. R.1---------------- 2, 194,932 | 1,049, 100 ---------- 1,851 6,281 290
Chicago & Alton R. R.--------------- 11, 135 | 1,417,000 |-------- <s 2,450
Wabash R. R. (east) ----------------- 199,710 2, 312, 700 ----------|----------|---------- 165
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R.------- 22,321 279, 500 7, 200 |-- *
Flour. g
Eggs Ulr Hay
(pack- ( . ) §
*ś, Packages Local Through (pounds): (pigs
local). through." Earrels. (tons). (tons).
Illinois Cen R. R.'---------- 112 ---------- 250 3,948 60 |l, 411,300 ||----------
Chicago & Aiton R. R.---------- 838 1, 178 464, 670 51 162 452,900 11,680.
Wabash Railroad (east) 1------- 4,857 1, 565 | 104, 270 9, 585 3,606
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R.-----------|---------- 191, 140 795 743 --------------------
Livestock (head). Lumber. Merº and
Horses Pack-
Cattle. Hogs. Sheep. and Cars. | M. feet. Cars.
mules. ageS.
Illinois Central R. R.4-------- 118, 143 194,729 || 25, 933 2, 623 14,816 |--------- 341, 500 39, 825
Chicago & Alton R. R.------- 41,990 || 322,390 | 16,013 3,363 370 ---------|--------- 3,805.
Wabash Railroad (east) -----| 8, , 937 , 290 || 2,686 102 ---------|--------- ,000
Chicago & Eastern Illinois
* * * * = * * * * * = <= = * * * * * * * * * * * * = 406 || 2,912 21 484 |---------|---------|--------- 7,825
Onions. Pork products.
(b º; ) Sack *:: º
USDCIS), a CECS OUIS).
and CàIS. ( . º:
CrateS. pounds). (pounds).
Illinois Central R. R.1----------------- 2, 560,000 64, 300 ---------- 20,630 -
Chicago & Alton R. R.---------------- 5, 434,000 1, 130 |---------- 4, 195 || 2,863, 100 307,900
Wabash R. R. (east) ----------------- y variºny 34, 780 12 50 475,000 |----------
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. ----- 293,625 i----------|---------- sm º gº * * * * * * * * * * * *-* | * * * * * * * * *-* *

1. It is estimated that only one-third of the amounts shown for the Illinois Central and Wabash moved
between St. Louis and Chicago and intermediate points.
118
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Classified statement of shipments handled by railroads operating between Chi-
cago and St. Louis in 1922—Continued.
RECEIPTS-Continued.

Potatoes.
Zinc
Rye Wheat WOOl and
Sacks (bushels). (bushels). |(pounds). spelter
and Cars. (slabs).
barrels.
Illinois Central R. R.4------------------- 108,830 22 , 500 | 1,064,400 - - - - -
Chicago & Alton R. R.------------------ 56,430 7 1, 100 1,776,000 25,800 ----------
Wabash R. R. (east) *------------------- 82,630 35 4, 400 992,400 | 160, 500 ----------
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R.--------|----------|---------- 5, 500 680, 850 * I - • - - -
SHIPMENTS.
les.
Apples Barley | Beef, fresh Brân, Mixed. | Butter | Coal
(bush- (p oun ds) ships feeds (pounds, (tons)
Barrels. Boxes. els). ' ' (Sacks). (Sacks). not oleo). º
Illinois Central R. R.1--| 47,920 | 183,920 | 115, 250 || 57,347,700 242,400 | 1,673,290 || 7,656, 140 || 133,920
Chicago & Alton R. R.---| 1,970 2, 260 ---------|------------ 6, 770 59, 300 |-----------| 430, 700
Chicago & Eastern Illi- || || *
nois------------------- 1,960 44, 190 | 16,390 423,700 83,480 251, 660 | 1,071,240 | 15,665
Wabash Railway (east)1-| 2,930 | 61, 500 1,250 | 10,883, 200 || 36,400 81, 920 6,415, 500 288,730
Kafir
Corn corn and Corn- Cotton Eggs Flour Hay
(bushels). milo meal (bales). (packages). (barrels). (tons).
Iſlal Zè.
Illinois Central R. R.1------ 6,029, 310 |----------|---------- 25,096 204, 899 1, 373, 220 24, 325
Chicago & Alton R. R.------ 1, 180 890 550 79, 988 54, 751 119,920 105
Chicago & Eastern Illinois - 1, 570 24,930 100 83, 854 180, 181 207, 750 855
Wabash Railway (east)!---- 138,630 22,010 ---------- 134, 249 1, 155,285. 224, 540 840
- Merchandise and
Livestock (head). Sundries.
Hideº, Lead |*.* -
(pounds). (pigs). (cars). EIOrSeS
Cattle. | Hogs. Sheep. and Packages. | Cars.
mules.
Illinois Central R. R.1-- 211,400 | 10, 120 10,676 || 32, 116 || 8, 543 2,084 7, 70411,921, 400 37,205
Chicago & Alton R.R.--| 5, 575, 500 21, 860 || 11, 202 ||141,057 249, 721 25, 193 1, 502 |----------- 28, 515
Chicago & Eastern !.
Illinois ------------- 3,946,700 | 150, 570 8,849 ſ 21,306 || 8,920 12, 185 1, 531 ----------- 20,675
Wabash Railway -
(east) *-------- * - - - - - 14,057,700 465, 320 17, 185 59,428 39, 178 16,954 1,391 2, 205,700 28,820
Onions. Pork products.
Pig
Oats - .
II'OIl
(bushels). Pack- Cars (tons). Meats Lard
ageS. - (pounds). (pounds). (pounds).
Illinois Central R. R."------------ 8, 517, 530 89, 190 47 4,820 |8, 532,300 102,444, 100 |52,949,000
Chicago & Alton R. R.------------ 130, 6 280 ------ 7, 255 915, 300 2,290, 200 904, 7
Chicago & Eastern Illinois-------- 19,670 51, 470 ------ 2, 265 132,800 378,700 | 1,436,900
Wabash Railway (east)!---------- 16,370 558,460 ------ , 3 90, 100 || 7,702,700 7, 167,700

* It is estimated that only one-third of the amounts shown for the Illinois Central and
Wabash moved between St. Louis and Chicago and intermediate points. |
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 119
Classified statement of shipments handled by railroads operating between Chi-
Gago and St. Louis in 1922—Continued.
SHIPMENTS-Continued.

Potatoes. : Zinc
Rye | Wheat WOO! and
Pack- (bushels). (bushels). (pounds). spelter
Bushels. (slabs).
ageS. : -
Illinois Central R. R." ----------------- 215, 580 9,320 166,070 8, 143,940 |------------ 22, 210
Chicago & Alton R. R.---------------- 15, 110 1, 330 ---------- 611,840 24,000 - - - - - - - - - -
Chicago & Eastern Illinois ------------ 105,660 1, 370 ---------- | 682, 330 313, 100 486, 930
Wabash Railway (east)!--------------- 100, 710 11, 740 ms º ºs º ºs º º ºr ºr * 1,055,690 9,992,300 311, 340
* It is estimated that only one-third of the amounts shown for the Illinois Central and
Wabash moved between St. Louis and Chicago and intermediate points.
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKLIN L. WELDE, PEKIN, ILL.
The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to hear from Mr. Velde.
Mr. WELDE. I am a lawyer by profession, but I am not here in that
capacity. I am here specifically as the vice president and represent-
ative of the Illinois Valley Protective Association, and they adopted
within the past week a set of resolutions.
The CHAIRMAN. Which you may file with the stenographer.
Mr. VELDE. I would like to read them, so that the committee can
get the form of them.
The CHAIRMAN. I am sure, with your experience as a lawyer, that
you can tell us what is in them without reading them.
Mr. HULL. How long are they?
Mr. WELDE. A page and a half.
I have lived in the Illinois Valley all my life, and while I am not
an engineer and an expert, I am familiar with conditions, and I know
a few things about this transportation situation, because I think I
am within the truth when I say there is more tonnage which orig-
inates from and destined to Pekin than any other place between
Chicago and St. Louis.
The CHAIRMAN. How large a place is it?
Mr. VELDE. About 14,000. The census gives us a little over 12,000,
but it is growing, and we have two grain companies there that oper-
ate a fleet of boats, and they are very much impeded in their
operations by the fact that they have no outlet to Chicago. They
bring their grain from above and below Pekin, and then they have
to transport it.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you get to Pekin? -
Mr. WELDE. We are just 10 miles from Peoria on the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you come up the Mississippi!
Mr. WELDE. No ; we go no further than the mouth of the Illinois,
but we have no outlet to Chicago at the present time.
Another thing that is to be borne in mind in considering the
attitude of the residents of the valley with reference to this legisla-
tion is that it is not so much asking for water—we are getting the
water already.
The CHAIRMAN. More than you want?
120 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. VELDE. Practically as much as is asked for here, and we feel
that by reason of the sanitary condition, the immense population of
Chicago, the growth, and the welfare of its citizens—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Chicago is looking after that pretty
well. You tell us about Pekin and down below.
Mr. WELDE. This is a short set of resolutions, and I would like
to read them, because they might bring up subjects which will in-
terest members of the committee, and I will be very glad to answer
any questions by Congressmen.
The CHAIRMAN. Give it to us as fast as you can.
Mr. WELDE (reading):
YOur Committee appointed to consider and make recommendations relative
to the bill introduced by Congressman Hull relative to the Illinois waterway
(H. R. 5475) would respectfully report as follows, viz;
First. We have taken into consideration not only the well-known Con-
ditions in the Illinois Valley at flood stages of the river, but also the report
made joy Engineers Alvord and Burdick during the administration of the di-
vision of waterways of the State of Illinois; the testimony of the hearings held
before the Senatorial committee on the McCormick bill (S. 4428), and the re-
citals in the bill passed by the Illinois Legislature in 1923 making an appro-
priation in the city Of Beardstown.
Second. It appears from Said report made by Alvord and Burdick and said
report made by M. G. Barnes that if the diversion of Water at Chicago is
continued river Stages of 28 to 29 feet at the Peoria gauge may be expected.
It may not be generally known that a 29-foot stage at Peoria would cause a
flow of Water 3 to 4 feet (leel) on the platform and into the station of the
Rock Island Depot at Peoria ; would inundate to a depth of over 3 feet a long
stretch of a new paved highway between Peoria and Chillicothe ; would cause
Water to stand on the main floor of the Administration Building of the Holt
Manufacturing Co. at East Peoria and would inundate the newly constructed
ball park at Peoria.
Third. The Hull bill provides for a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second
from Lake Michigan without taking into account the additional amount of
water which—at times of heavy rainfali—comes into the sanitary canal from
the Watershed in which the sanitary district is located.
Fourth. It appears from the remarks of the Senatorial committee On pages
2S3, 299, and 356 of their said report that the members of said committee are
of Opinion that the Controlling Works at LOCkport would be alld Should be
junder the control of the Federal Government. This is, Of course, of tremendous
importance to the people in the Valley, but is not provided for in the Hull bill.
Fifth. It appears from the remarks of said senatorial committee on pages
298, 299, 301, 349, 356, 357, 365, 378, 379, and 380 of their said report that
the Senatorial committee was of the Opinion that the levees along the Illinois
River would be and should lye under the control of the Federal Government,
but the Hull bill does not so provide. {
Sixth. Ten thousand cubic feet of water per second is not needed for naviga-
tion purposes. It is needed only for purposes of sanitation in Chicago until
they have had an Opportunity to build Sewage-disposal Works and is wanted per-
manently for water-power purposes between LOCkport and Utica. The diversion
for sanitary purposes at Chicago should be permitted sufficiently long to 133rmit
them to build sewage-disposal works. The diversion for water-power purposes
should be permitted only to such an extent and at such times as will not
cause damage to the residents of the Valley.
Seventh. Your Committee is heartily and unanimously in favor of the pro-
posed waterway, but believe that reasonable protection should be afforded the
people of the Valley. -
Eighth. In the Opinion of your committee the amendments here proposed
do not fully protect the interests of the Valley, but we realized that in legisla-
tion of this importance some compromise must be made.
Your committtee therefore recommends the approval by this association
of the Hull bill, subject to the following amendments, viz:
(a) The bill should be worded in such a way that the discharge through
the Sanitary canal be limited to a total of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second
from the entire water shed which the sanitary district is located, which wouldi
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 121
include rainfall as well as diversion from Lake Michigan. Measuremenits to
be taken at the Outlet of the sanitary canal at Lockport.
(b) The works at Lockport which regulate the flow from the sanitary dis-
trict should be in charge of the Federal authorities under the control of the
Chief of Engineers or the Secretary of War. Such authorities to keep records
open to public inspection, showing the amount of water discharged and the
speed of the current.
( (.) Subject to the payments by the sanitary district (as provided in the
bill) for reconstructing old levees and building new standard levees, all levees
along the Illinois River should be under the control of Federal authorities,
with a jurisdiction similar to that of the Mississippi River commission.
(d) The time to be allowed the sanitary district for constructing sewage
disposal works should be materially shortened.
The CHAIRMAN. Right there, do you have anything to suggest as
to the measure by which if could be shortened, the extent to which
it could be shortened, the time to construct these works to replace
the sanitation by water?
Mr. WELDE. Nothing except what I might call hearsay.
The CHAIRMIN. Good common sense as evidenced by the members
of this commitee?
Mr. WELDE. No. From other people. I know nothing about it.
Mr. BoycE. May I ask the judge? You have spoken of a rea-
sonable quantity of water to safeguard the town of Pekin and
adjacent section: I presume you mean water necessary for naviga-
tion purposes?
Mr. WELDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyce. What quantity is necessary.
Mr. WELDE. As to engineering figures. I have to depend upon the
figures of engineers. They say you can get navigation down the
Illinois, with a thousand cubic feet a second. I am satisfied you can
not get satisfactory navigation that low. I have been told by
others that with 4,167 cubic feet you can get navigation but would
cost more money.
Mr. BoycE. Would that inundate your railroad station and other
places which you have mentioned?
Mr. WELDE. "No, sir; I think not. There is another thing to be
taken into consideration. The availability of a river route depends
not upon its deepest point, but upon its shallowest. For most of its
stretches at the present time the Illinois would carry a 9-foot chan-
nel, but there are places where the river will have to be excavated.
The CHAIRMAN. In order words, it would depend in a large meas-
ure on excavation instead of additional water? e
Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You have the water for the channel, if you had
the dredges there to excavate the material?
Mr. WELDE. Yes, sir. - F -
Mr. HULL. Your judgment of the river, I take it, is the same as
mine, that the river is a navigable stream as it is now.
Mr. WELDE. There is no question about it. • *
Mr. HULL. But of course at the present time we have locks in it.
Mr. WELDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. And by turning in additional water from the Lake,
we will dispose of the locks, and have clear navigation from Utica
to St. Louis? º
Mr. WELDE. Yes; and I want to say in that connection that these
two grain companies at Pekin have consistently and regularly op-
122 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
posed the removal of the locks at lower stage, to permit of navi-
gation, and that there can be a reasonable amount of excavation in
the Illinois River. I think the valley is practically unanimously in
favor of this legislation, with only reasonable protection to the
people along the river from the overflow, and I understand that
the sanitary district is manifesting a disposition to meet them.
The CHAIRMAN. Did we let you finish the reading of your res-
olutions? You started in to read the resolution as to the time sug-
gested by Chicago for replacement of its water sanitation by some
other means. You started to read the article saying that it should
be shortened and I do not think you finished it.
Mr. WELDE. I was interrupted. It continues:
Your committee have been advised that the work can be done in six years,
if pushed to capacity. The limit in the bill should therefore be 8 or 10
years at the longest. At the expiration of that time the sewage passing into
the Illinois River should be at least 90 per cent less than the sewage now
discharged into the Illinois River from the sanitary district. For purposes
of comparison measurements and estimates should now be made by the War
Department to determine the amount of sewage now discharged into the river
from the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. You might tell us who signed that, too.
Mr. WELDE. That is signed by Mr. Horton, who is a civil engineer
at Peoria.
The CHAIRMAN. And a man of standing in his profession?
Mr. WELDE. Yes, sir. Also by Mr. M. M. Baker, who is the
manager of the Holt Manufacturing Co., probably the largest enter-
rise in Peoria. He is in my county, but his headquarters are in
eoria. And by myself.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Velde, in reference to these treatment plants in
Chicago, in order to ask the question I want to say that I have
given it a great deal of study, and I have taken into consideration
the fact of the amount of money the sanitary district can raise.
of that and that is my judgment. Have you any authority that
For 20 years that would take up $100,000,000 and would make the
whole allotment that they could raise. Now, I have made a study
of that and that is may judgment. Have you any authority that
they can do it in less time?
The CHAIRMAN. That they could raise the money faster?
Mr. HULL. Or do the work. I will put it both ways.
The CHAIRMAN. He has reported on the work.
Mr. VELDE. I would like to be heard for just a moment on that
subject. I think the power of Chicago to raise money at the pres-
ent time is unlimited, as has been stated here. Their power to in-
crease their tax rate is not dependent upon the Constitution, but
upon legislation, and I am satisfied Chicago can get through the
legislature anything it wants on that subject.
The CHAIRMAN. So, So far as providing funds for the purposes of
expediting the work is concerned, it is your judgment that they can
be provided with the money that is necessary?
Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir; but it will raise the tax rate.
The CHAIRMAN. And, Second, you stand by the conclusions stated
in your written document, that you believe that the work can be done
in about six years?
Mr. WELDE. That is based, as I said, simply on hearsay as to
matters as to which one is not expert.

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 123
The CHAIRMAN. Your civil engineer would be an expert?
Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Based on such expert advice as you can get from
one of your members?
Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir; and without paying for it.
Mr. DEAN. Perhaps the gentleman can tell us what the tax rate of
Chicago is now Ż :
Mr. WELDE. I do not know. I have seen it, but I do not know now.
Mr. DEAN. Can Mr. Randolph tell us?
The CHAIRMAN. Do any of the Chicago representatives have the
accurate figures on the tax rate there?
Mr. ADCOCK. I think it is about 2 per cent on the valuation.
The CHAIRMAN. And what is your valuation?
Mr. VELDE: That is for sanitary purposes only.
Mr. ADCOCK. No; there are a number of different taxing bodies,
but I think it runs about 2 per cent on the actual value of the
property.
Mr. HoRNE. On the actual value?
The CHAIRMAN. The actual or assessed value?
Mr. HoRNE. The actual value; and the census figures just given
out in Chicago show that its tax rate is lower than any one of 16
cities in the United States at the present time.
Mr. ADCOCK. That might be true as to the city of Chicago, cor-
porate, but in order to make a comparison you have to take into con-
sideration all of the different taxing bodies there; in other words,
like the sanitary district, the city of Chicago, park boards, and so on,
that really make up the municipal government of Chicago.
Mr. DEAN. That includes the entire tax?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes, sir.
The"CHAIRMAN. What do you say, that this comparison took into
account of the taxing bodies in Chicago, or only some of them ż
Mr. HoRNE. I think that they put them all in, but I shall bring
the figures of the census when I come to-morrow morning.
Mr. PEAVEY. I understand, Mr. Velde, that you are an officer in
some protective association?
Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. Isn’t it true that their interest is the control of the
regulation of the Illinois River rather than some more water?
Mr. VELDE. We do not want more water. We have this water
now, but there is no authority from the Federal Government. Our
State laws require 10,000 feet. -
Mr. PEAVEY. I would take it, then, that most of the complaint
among the members of your association is due to overflow and sewage
conditions that come down to them from Chicago, rather than the
question of diversion, or the amount of diversion at Chicago?
Mr. WELDE. Yes; but we want enough water for a waterway, be-
cause the valley is very much interested in this from a commercial
standpoint.
Mr. PEAVEY. How much consideration has the Sanitary District
of Chicago ever given in representations made by them to your
association or anyone else to it, because of the Sanitary conditions
that they are causing to come down upon you?
Mr. VELDE. I would say nothing whatever.
124 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HULL. In your judgment it would be very detrimental to the
health of Peoria and Pekin if we were not to have the present flow
of water on account of the sewage; isn’t that true?
Mr. VELDE. I think that is true. In other words, if we get the
Sewage
Mr. HULL (interposing). You have to have water to take it away?
Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. DEAL. Is there any limitation on the amount of taxation that
can be levied by the city of Chicago for health purposes?
Mr. WELDE. There is in the statute, but not in the constitution,
and the statute can be amended at any session of the legislature, but
the bonding power is limited by the constitution. They could not
issue bonds beyond a certain limit, without a constitutional change.
(Whereupon, at 1.05 p.m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.)
AFTER RECESS.
The committee met pursuant to the taking of the recess at 2.30
o'clock p. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will hear
Mr. Barnes.
STATEMENT OF M. G. BARNES, CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE
DIVISION OF WATERWAYS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you give your full name?
Mr. BARNES. M. G. Barnes.
Mr. HULL. What is your position?
Mr. BARNEs. I am chief engineer of the division of waterways of
the State of Illinois. r # -
Mr. HULL. And he represents the governor of the State.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes, it is suggested that you tell us what
you know about this matter as an engineer.
Mr. BARNEs. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask that I be allowed to
remain seated through my talk, and I am not well enough to talk
very loudly, and if I am not heard I wish you would say so.
The Governor asked me just a day or two ago to come down and
represent him at this hearing requesting the enactment of this bill,
or a similar bill, into law that will give the state of Illinois a water-
way of adequate size and depth to take care of the commerce that
we feel is awaiting the development of a project of this kind.
In 1908 the people of the State of Illinois voted a $20,000,000
bond issue to construct a navigable waterway, called in the act a
deep waterway, connecting the Sanitary District of Chicago with
the upper end of the development of the Illinois River as under
control by the Federal Government.
Since that time various plans have been presented and negotia-
tions entered into with the Federal authorities looking to the ap-
proval of our plans. First, I think a ship canal was projected and
was not approved; later a 14-foot waterway was developed; again,
a third time, they came with a project for a much smaller canal
with locks 250 feet long and 45 feet wide. These plans were not
approved.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 125
Finally, the State proposed a plan with locks standard with the
locks on the Ohio River, 110 feet wide and 600 usable length, and
with a depth of 14 feet on the mitered sills, 14 feet in all of the per-
manent structure, and with a depth in the canal of 10 feet in rock
and 8 feet in earth, minimum depth.
These plans were approved and the State is now in the progress
of constructing such a waterway.
Mr. HULL. That is under your $20,000,000 bond appropriation?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; after we had gotten further into a study
of physical conditions we found that there were but few short
reaches where we had to do excavation in earth and that we could
almost as cheaply make a 9-foot waterway as an 8-foot waterway,
and the plans are now drawn on that depth of water.
We have completed the walls of one of the locks. We have con-
tracted for the masonry work in the second lock. These two locks
are land locked and are not dependent on any special flow in the
river. There are three locks remaining. Before the contracts for
those three locks are let and work is undertaken we should know
definitely the amount of water that is flowing in the river, so as to
know where to locate our structures. For that reason the State is
. desirous of having the question of flow established at an early
ate.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not happen to have with you, Mr. Barnes,
a map showing the part of the channel that the State of Illinois
proposes to construct?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; I have that.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us have it.
Mr. HULL. That is the big one up there. Here is what the State
is doing, from this point here; the sanitary district is where this
yellow line is. The State starts at the end of the sanitary district's
channel there and comes down here to that point near Utica, and
that is about 60 to 65 miles, Mr. Barnes?
Mr. BARNEs. Sixty-five miles in length.
Mr. HULL. That is the State's part of it. Then we start here with
my bill on deep waterway from this point here and it goes down
along the Illinois River. Peoria is located here. It keeps on until
it comes to the Mississippi River here at Grafton.
The CHAIRMAN. Now the sanitary canal is artificial, is it not?
Mr. HULL. Yes; that is these yellow lines.
The CHAIRMAN. And this work of construction by the State is
creating an artificial waterway?
Mr. BARNEs. No, sir; that is not right.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I want to know.
Mr. BARNEs. The sanitary district canal joins the Des Plaines
River. From that point southward the stream is navigable in law
and in fact.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. Let us find out what stream.
Mr. BARNEs. The Des Plaines River and the Illinois River, both.
And we begin our construction at the junction of the Sanitary canal
and the Des Plaines River and carry the improvement through the
Des Plaines River down to the junction with the Kankakee River,
thence down the Illinois River
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. At Kankakee the Des Plaines
unites with the Pllinois River.
91739–24—PT 1–9
I26 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARNEs. The Kankakee and the Des Plaines form the Illinois
River. They are called two separate streams until they get to that
point, and from there on down they are the Illinois. -
Mr. SweFT. The Illinois River flows to the Mississippi River?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. What town does the Kankakee come in at?
Mr. BARNES. Not at any town; it is about 12 miles south of Joliet.
#. Des Plaines comes down from the north, west of the Chicago
IVěr. -
The CHAIRMAN. What I wanted to get plain on the record, Mr.
Barnes, is the fact as to whether any part of what you are construct-
ing is wholly artificial, or whether it is a development of a natural
waterway.
Mr. BARNEs. It is the development of a natural waterway with the
exception of about 13,000 feet where we cut off a bend to avoid the
disturbance of existing rights, water power, and of that nature, and
at that point we divert into a land line about 13,000 feet in length.
All of the balance is entirely within the river bed.
The CHAIRMAN. All right,
Mr. BARNEs. The present situation has-
The CHAIRMAN. How much do you say in length you have con-
structed?
Mr. BARNEs. We have built the walls for the Marseilles lock; we
are now building the walls for the Lockport lock at the junction with
the sanitary canal. --
The CHAIRMAN. Have you started at the south end?
* BARNEs. We have started at the second lock from the south
©IlOl. -
Mr. HULL. This [producing map.] gives it to you, Mr. Dempsey.
Mr. BARNEs. Mr. Dempsey, if you will refer to the map opposite
page 10 of the report that I want to submit to the committee, you
will see the second lock from the lower end, the left hand end, is the
one that we have completed.
The CHAIRMAN. I see, right there a little north of Marseilles,
Mr. BARNEs. That is south of Marseilles, the lock we have com-
pleted; and you see the dotted line there shows the length of the
canal outside of the river bed, and that diversion was made because
of power developments at Marseilles that are now
The CHAIRMAN. Do those right angle turns that are now—
Mr. BARNEs. Those are miles.
The CHAIRMAN. Those right angle drops; are those drops in the
river?
Mr. BARNEs. Those are the drops that will exist when the canal is
completed. The ragged line is now the bottom of the river.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you done any work besides the completing
of that Marseilles lock?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; we are under process of constructing the
lock at Lockport. That is the upper right hand one on the map.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is where you join the sanitary canal?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You say you have started on that lock at Lock-
Ort?
p Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. That is also a land lock. As I say, it is
just outside of the Des Plaines River.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 127
The CHAIRMAN. What is the length of this section of the river
which is to be improved by the State of Illinois?
Mr. BARNEs. About 65 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. And is there any rock excavation to make it a
9-foot channel?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Where?
Mr. BARNEs. If you will notice, rock is indicated on the map, a
hatchured line. Just above the Marseilles Lock there is about 1%
or 2 miles of shallow lock excavation. -
The CHAIRMAN. How do you indicate that, you say?
Mr. BARNEs. You see the lower line there, the hatchured line;
there are two lines above one another.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARNEs. The upper is earth and the lower one is rock.
The CHAIRMAN. Why do you have the blue below the second line?
That would indicate water, would it not? Does that blue line be-
low the second line indicate the depth to which you are going?
Mr. BARNEs. This is rather a misleading point in the diagram.
That blue represents the natural river depth. The broken line that
you see is put there to represent the part where we have diverted
from the river bed. If you will notice on the plat above it, the
canal diverts from the river for a distance of about 3,000 feet, and
the point that you have in mind shows both the depth of water
at the river and also in the canal. We are making a cut there of
about 12 feet in depth.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is through rock?
Mr. BARNEs. That is through rock, yes, sir; and we are making
that 2 feet deeper than the law requires. The law only g
The CHAIRMAN. With the belief that the money will be sufficient?
Mr. BARNEs. We know it will be. I am glad you brought that
question up. I have made complete estimates for the entire work.
We have let contracts for two-fifths of it at figures materially below
my estimates, and my estimates showed that the canal could be com-
pleted for less than $20,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the State doing the entire work by contract?
Mr. BARNEs. The law permits both; either way.
The CHAIRMAN. And how are you doing it?
Mr. BARNEs. These two locks are let under contract. We expect
to do some of the work by hired labor.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Barnes. .
Mr. BARNEs. Now, as to navigation. The situation that presents
itself in the West is this: Chicago wants an outlet to the sea. We
have a natural waterway from New Orleans for some 1,000 miles
northward with a depth of 9 feet up to-the junction with the Ohio
River at Cairo; from the junction with the Ohio River to the junc-
tion with the Missouri River we have a Federal project calling
for an 8-foot depth, not yet completed. From the junction of the
Missouri River to the mouth of the Illinois River we have a 6-foot,
project, actually only 3 feet deep.
The CHAIRMAN. You have a 6-foot project?
Mr. BARNEs. The Federal Government has a 6-foot project not
yet completed, and over that reach it is about 3 to 33 feet in depth.
.**
128 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
In the Illinois River from Grafton to Utica the Federal Govern-
ment has a project of 7 feet not yet completed. Then we have a
reach of 65 miles of river undeveloped and not navigable except
for small craft. Paralleling that we have the old Illinois and
Michigan Canal of a capacity of about 125 tons burden. Then we
have the sanitary canal with a depth of 21 feet.
Now that is just as ridiculous as it would be to start out from
Chicago to go to New Orleans with five or six different gauge rail-
roads. Our boating between Chicago and New Orleans must be
limited to 125 tons burden of the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
The CHAIRMAN. Now just let us start down. You say it is a
thousand miles from the Gulf up to St. Louis?
Mr. BARNEs. No; it is about a thousand miles from the Gulf up
to Cairo.
The CHAIRMAN. From the Gulf to Cairo?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; not quite that distance.
The CHAIRMAN. Your 9-foot project, you say, reaches to St. Louis?
Mr. BARNEs. No; only to Cairo.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it is 8 feet, you say, from there?
Mr. BARNEs. To St. Louis. . .
The CHAIRMAN. How far is that?
Mr. BARNEs. It is 183 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. That makes 1,200 miles?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you say from the mouth of the Missouri
to the Illinois River the project is 6 feet?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. With 34 feet obtained?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is that?
Mr. BARNEs. It is 36 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Barnes, of course, in order to make—
just in harmony with your remark about the different gauge rail-
roads—in order to make a 9-foot waterway on the Illinois available
you would have to have a new project adopted on the Mississippi
from the mouth of the Illinois down to the mouth of the Missouri
and from there to Cairo, would you not?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And not only have your project adopted, but
you would have to have the improvement made?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And that would be 36 miles in the first stretch
and 183 miles in the second stretch?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I get it. Go ahead.
Mr. BARNEs. And we have a survey made giving an estimate of
the amount of money required to complete that work.
Mr. HULL. On a 9-foot depth basis?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. In those two stretches?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What would it cost on the first stretch?
Mr. BARNEs. I refer you to Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Con-
gress, first session. These documents were published pursuant to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 129
our request for a survey giving the cost of a 9-foot waterway from
Chicago to the Gulf.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Have you anything more to say, Mr.
Barnes?
Mr. BARNEs. That is the situation, I say, in regard to navigation?
Mr. MANSFIELD. One question, Mr. Chairman, right along there.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What did you say the depth of the Illinois River
project is?
Mr. BARNEs. Seven feet.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is deeper then than the Mississippi below it?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. That is the lower part of the Illinois River?
Mr. BARNEs. The project extends to La Salle, 223 miles.
Mr. HULL. From Grafton north?
Mr. BARNEs. It is from Grafton north, from Grafton to La Salle,
223 Iniles.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that partly artificial, that 7-foot channel?
Mr. BARNEs. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That is natural?
Mr. BARNEs. That is natural, except they have built four locks,
two by the Federal Government and two by the State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean artificial in the sense of being
created, but is it an improved waterway or
Mr. BARNEs. It is an improved natural stream.
Mr. HULL. That part of that stream it is your idea to make 9 feet?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. Two hundred feet wide?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes. The improvement under the control of the
Federal Government on the Illinois River is about 223 miles.
Mr. DEAL. That is now 7 feet? -
Mr. BARNEs. No; it is not 7 feet, but there is a 7-foot project in
existence that has not been completed.
Mr. HULL. Have they done anything on the 7 feet?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; but not completed. They are building a dredge
to continue dredging work on that improvement. I think the last
Cº. gave us something under $200,000, as I recall it.
r. DEAL. And you think that ought to be a depth of 9 feet?
; BARNEs. I think by all means that ought to be a depth of
9 feet.
Mr. HULL. It must be.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. And the locks now in existence there
should be removed. Those locks are only 75 feet wide and 350 feet
in length.
nº CHAIRMAN. I did not catch that, Mr. Barnes. Ilet be get
that.
Mr. BARNEs. I say, I believe the locks now in existence on the
Illinois River should all be removed, two that were built by the
Government and two that were built by the State of Illinois. Those
locks are only 75 feet wide and 350 feet long. If they are to remain
that would mean that all cargoes betwen Chicago and Cairo or
Chicago and St. Louis and Chicago and New Orleans will have to
break bulk at those structures.
Mr. DRAL. What tonnage can you take through those locks?
*
* r * * :
130 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARNES. We can take through those locks, roughly, about
2,000 tons. The locks that we are building . . ;- ...- . . .
Mr. DEAL. That is 2,000 tons displacement or 2,000 tons
weight? - -
Mr. BARNES. Two thousand tons of freight.
Mr. DEAL. That is to a vessel? -
Mr. BARNEs. No; that is to a fleet.
Mr. DEAL. Well, how much to a vessel?
Mr. BARNES. It would depend on how many vesels you put in,
but the lock's capacity is sufficient to accommodate a fleet of boats
that will have a tonnage of 2,000 tons. . - .
The CHAIRMAN: What is the tonnage of these barges that are
Operated in the Mississippi River barge system? -
Mr. BARNEs. Well, they have several different sizes and their
tonnage is dependent upon the depth that is available to them.' I
should imagine about 2,000 tons. -
'e are recommending for the development of the Illinois River
fleets of boats 170 feet long. When our canal is completed and this
project which we are asking for is completed vessels originating,
say, at Louisville or Cincinnati in the Ohio Valley, with 'some of
that coal from West Virginia or Kentucky, may navigate the Ohio
River and Ohio River locks, come up the Mississippi River and the
Illinois River to Chicago, without breaking bulk. Those locks are
all standard; the depth of the Ohio River improvement is the same
as we are asking for—9 feet. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Are their locks the kind of locks you are con-
structing? : * * * 3. - -
Mr. BARNEs. They are the same size, 110 feet wide and 600 usable
feet long. • *- * -
Mr. HULL. In other words, the Illinois waterway is trying to make
theirs conform to the Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers. t
Mr. BARNEs. Exactly. t - :
Mr. MANSFIELD. Standardized.
Mr. HULL. Standardized. * , , --
Mr. BARNEs. Standardize the whole thing. The lock built in the
Mississippi River at Keokuk is 110 feet wide. It is only 400 feet
long, but it is built in such a position that it can easily be lengthened
to any length to make it standard with the other locks.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is the cost of building these larger locks included
in the documents you refer to ? - Y.
Mr. BARNEs. If we are given the amount of water we ask for these
locks are a menace to navigation. We do not want them at all. We
can get along with open-river navigation. . , , , -
Mr. MANsfield. But is the cost of replacing those locks with
standard locks included in those figures? t
Mr. BARNEs. We do not want to replace them; we want to take
them out. - - - - - ,
Mr. MANSFIELD. You do not want any locks at all? .
Mr. BARNEs. No. r . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Your idea of dispensing with locks is on the
theory that you are going to get 10,000 cubic feet from Lake Michi-
gan, is it not? .
Mr. BARNEs. Not exactly that. The estimate we have made, or
that the Federal Government engineers have made, is based on the
dead
r
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 131
10,000 feet. There is also an estimate made for 4,167 second-feet
and the removal of the locks or the building of larger locks, so
. we have estimates made for any project that Congress may
adopt. . “. g
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but you could only remove the locks and
have open-river navigation on the basis of 10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. BARNEs. No ; that is not right. We can remove the locks and
have open-river navigation with 4,167 second-feet, but we must have
much more money for excavation. --
Mr. Swºrr. Mr. Barnes, the approved plan by the Government
is of 8 feet depth? -
Mr. BARNEs. No; 7. . . . -
Mr. SweBIT. Mr. Dempsey, I understood you to say the approved
plan of the engineers was 8 feet. -
Mr. HULL. It is 7 and 8 and 9. They have made three plans.
The CHAIRMAN. The approved plan is 8 feet, but he is talking
On the 9-foot basis. & -
Mr. SweRT. That 8-foot plan recommends 1,000 cubic feet, does
it not? e º $ -
Mr. BARNES. No ; no Government engineer has ever considered
anº; as low as that. - : ,
Mr. SweFT. Wait just a minute. Let us get that clear, because
yesterday the chairman stated the Government's approved propo-
sition for an 8-foot channel calls for 1,000 second-feet. I would
like to have that cleared up. - - -
Mr. BARNES. I will clear that up in just a minute. If you will
be referred to page 17; Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress,
first session, paragraph 57, you will see the engineers say this:
For a 9-foot channel with an increment of 4,167 second-feet the cost either
with dams retained or removed appears almost prohibitive, and the proba-
bility that Congress will limit the incrèmerit to 4,167 second-feet is, in my
Opinion, so remote that this hypothesis may be left out of consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. “In my opinion.” That is simply the report of
the district engineer. e - • .
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; and approved by the Chief of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. No; find me the approval of that by the Chief.
of Engineers. - +. * * * &
Mr. BARNES. On pages 1 and 2 is the approval of the engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. He doesn’t. . . . . 4- -
Mr. BARNES. Can you show where he disapproves it?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; here is what he says: -
It is the opinion of the board that the most advisable depth for this water-
way is 8 feet, and it recommends the improvement on that basis in accordance
with the above estimates, provided the State of Illinois will convey to the
United States such rights and title to the locks and dàms as Hénry and
Copperas Creek, as may be considered necessary to permit their removal, which
is deemed advisable in connection with the enlarged project proposed. After
due consideration of the information presented, I concur in the views and
recommendations of the board. t - * a
Now let us see if we can find anything in the board of engineers.
What you urge is an expression of opinion by the district engineer
as to what Congress is going to do, and I do not consider it particu-
larly valuable. - .
132 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARNEs. It is the opinion of a man who was sent there by the
Chief of Engineers to make a personal investigation of it, an officer
of the Federal Government.
The CHAIRMAN. But it is not the business of any engineer to
formulate an opinion as to what Congress is probably going to do.
ań. BARNES. I do not know as it is his business, but he actually
ICl lù. *. -
Mr. HULL. While they are looking that up, I will ask a question,
Mr. Barnes. In your opinion what ought to be done is to deepen.
ºnal and get enough water in it to remove all of those obsolete
OCKS 4
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. º *
Mr. HULL. Another thing I want to ask you is if these locks are
removed will it not in a great measure recede the water from the
overflow that we are having the trouble with down the river?
: BARNEs. Yes, it will. At Beardstown it lowers the river about
2 feet.
Mr. HULL. In other words, it would have an advantage in lowering
the river so we would not have the overflow.
Mr. BARNEs. Exactly.
Mr. SweFT. Otherwise you would have to set your dam at the lower
end of the flow to set the water back.
Mr. BARNEs. If you limit the water from Lake Michigan. I do
not think that Congress or the War Department has ever in any of its
reports of recent date considered a flow as low as 1000 second-feet.
Chicago, before the construction of the Sanitary canal, discharged
practically 1,000 feet into the river from Lake Michigan, and the
projects that the Federal Government has set forth are based on
flows of from 4,167 upwards. You will find in the reports of the
Federal engineers, especially after the completion of the Sanitary
canal, that they recognize the necessity and the advisability of
10,000 feet of water for canal, and for sanitary purposes, and if this
flow is to be limited to 4167 feet, or to 1000 feet, a much larger appro-
priation must be asked from Congress. If it is reduced to as much
as 1,000 feet those locks must be kept and larger locks built to make
them standard with the Ohio River and the Illinois River, and the
appropriation we would have to ask for must be at least $30,000,000.
Mr. SweFT. As against how much 3 e
Mr. BARNEs. As against $3,000,000 that we are now asking for.
Mr. SweBT. Ten times greater. *
Mr. BARNEs. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, you say that the difference, between a
10,000 cubic foot flow and a 1,000 cubic foot flow is a difference in
the cost of construction amounting to $27,000,000?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us go a little further. Suppose the ap-
#. is made of $30,000,000; you would have then when you
ad expended it a 9-foot waterway, the same as you would have if
you expended the $30,000,000 and had your 10,000 cubic foot flow.
Mr. BARNEs. No, sir; that is not so.
The CHAIRMAN. Just point out the difference.
Mr. BARNEs. The difference is that you would have to stop the
navigation four times on the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. Stop it?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 133
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; they have got to stop and lock through.
The other difference is you will have a narrow, restricted channel
for the 230 miles, or most of the distance, whereas now with 10,000
feet flow we have a channel of 1,000 feet width and upward, and
you have a much greater depth under the keel which will cheapen
the cost of navigation, as pointed out by the Federal engineers on
the Hudson River.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes, you do not for one instant contend
you need any width of 1,000, as an engineer? &
Mr. BARNEs. As an engineer I can say that a width of 1,000 feet
would give you cheaper navigation than 150 or 200 feet width that
you would have with 1,000 feet flow in the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the width of Ambrose Channel?
Mr. BARNEs. The width of Ambrose Channel is 2,000 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the width of the channel at Norfolk?
Mr. BARNES. I do not know; it is considerably less than that.
Th; CHAIRMAN. What is the width of the channel at San Fran-
CISCO %
Mr. BARNES. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred feet, is it not?
Mr. BARNES. Well, I was thinking 250, but you may be right.
The CHAIRMAN. There is scarcely, unless it is in the case of New
York City, a waterway in the whole United States for ocean-going
vessels where there has been artificial improvement where the chan-
nel is 1,000 feet wide; is not that true?
Mr. BARNES. I want to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the
fact that we are not building the waterway for ocean-going vessels.
The CHAIRMAN. I know it, but I say even with ocean-going vessels
there is perhaps but one channel which has been artificially improved
which has that width.
Mr. BARNES. But that distance is about 7 or 8 or 10 miles, whereas
we are asking to improve 300 or 400 miles in length.
The CHAIRMAN. Which makes it all the worse.
Mr. BARNEs. Which makes it all the worse for your narrow chan-
nel, if that narrow channel was 400 miles in length.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the width of the improved channel in
the Mississippi River? y
Mr. BARNEs. At what point?
The CHAIRMAN. At any point of the improved channel. What is
the average width of the improved channel?
Mr. BARNES. It runs from about 600 feet at the upper end down
to 2,000 or 3,000 feet in width at the lower end.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is the 2,000 or 3,000 feet—over 10 miles?
Mr. BARNEs. The Federal engineers in this report that I have re-
ferred to say that with that 10,000 feet of water from Lake Michi-
gan that they will have 1,100 feet channel above the mouth of the
Missouri River.
The CHAIRMAN. How wide a channel would you have with 1,000
feet and the necessary locks? How wide a channel would you have?
Mr. BARNEs. Well, I do not know as I understand your ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman. *
The CHAIRMAN. How wide would your channel be, suppose you
spent your $30,000,000 and had your necessary locks?
134 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
, Mr. BARNES. We would ask for locks 110 feet wide, and I should
imagine that canal would probably be 200 feet in width.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you not consider that absolutely sufficient
for all purposes of anticipated navigation?
Mr. BARNEs. No, sir; I would not.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the width of your vessels?
Mr. BARNES. The width we are providing for in our locks is 110
feet. The width they are using in the Mississippi River-Warrior
Service is something like 140 feet and upward. They are trans-
porting Something like 250,000 tons to a fleet, but we do not want,
to cut down that capacity by small locks or small canals up the
Illinois River. - -
The CHAIRMAN. I call your attention, Mr. Barnes, to the report
of the engineers for 1923, page 1080. This is on the Mississippi
River between the Ohio and the Missouri Rivers. This provides
for obtaining and maintaining a minimum channel depth of 8 feet
at low water from the mouth of the Ohio River to St. Louis, 183
miles, 6 feet thence to the mouth of the Missouri, 17 miles, with a
minimum width of channel of 200 feet. Of course, your minimum
is your controlling use. All our project provides for on the Missis-
sippi River is 200 feet. What is it below that?
Mr. HULL. 300 feet below that.
Mr. BARNES. You must recognize that those are the passovers,
so-called, in the Mississippi River. My recollection is that there
are seven of those passovers requiring almost constant excavation
by the Federal Government with their fleets of dredges. That is
not the controlling width. That is the controlling width at those
points and fleets can not meet or pass at those points, but at any
other point in that one hundred and seventy and odd miles—
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred and eighty-three miles.
..Mr. BARNES (continuing). Boats can meet and pass, because the
width is much greater. . -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to the project below
Cairo, and I call your attention to the same report at page 1861.
The existing project is to maintain a channel not less than 9
feet deep and not less than 250 feet wide from the mouth of the
Ohio River to the Head of the Passes near the Gulf of Mexico, a
distance of 1,065 miles. Now let us take the Ohio River and see
what the project is there. . . . . -- ... '
ill be referred to the report of the Missis-
Mr. BARNEs. If you wil
sippi-Warrior service— - ,
The CHAIRMAN. You say there would not be any advantage in
giving the Illinois River, which is comparatively a small river
when you contrast it with the Ohio and the Mississippi
Mr. HULL. It is larger than the Ohio River. *
The CHAIRMAN. In what sense?
Mr. HULL. In every sense.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean? *
Mr. HULL. I mean it is wider and it is deeper.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it does not have the general volume of
Water. : *
Mr. HULL. I think it does. * * *
The CHAIRMAN. Nothing like the same volume of water, and it
does not feed the same territory and has not the same tributaries.
The Ohio River has probably 12 or 13 great tributaries.
ILLENOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 135 .
Mr. HULL. I think you will find that excepting flood time the
Illinois River is more of a navigable stream than the Ohio River.
Am I right or not, Mr. Barnes? & t
Mr. BARNEs. You are right. * -
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Ohio River is not alone itself impor-
tant, but it has a large number of tributaries that are Important,
and so through these tributaries as well as through its own length
of, I think about 1,000 miles, it feeds a vast country and leads up
to the Monongahela, which has 25,000,000 tons of traffic.
Mr. HULL. Can I ask one question right in there in reference to
the sewage proposition? Is it not your opinion that with the locks
out we will be in much better condition as far as our Sanitary part
of this thing is concerned than we would with the locks in, because
of the fact the locks would hold the sewage at different places?
Mr. BARNEs. There might be a certain amount of sediment right
at the locks. -
Mr. HULL. And it would back up. - -
Mr. BoycE. How about the flooding conditions with the locks out?
Mr. HULL. He brought that out before you came in. He said it
would decrease the level of the river 2 feet. . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. At low water. * - - .
Mr. HULL. In other words, what I was trying to bring out is that
if we can get a channel down that river without these locks then
we will do away with a great deal of trouble with our sanitary part
of it, and it will give us a navigable stream that we want. -
Mr. BoycE. Do I understand that you could get rid of the locks
with more water from the lake? - ... • , ; }
Mr. HULL. That is one way. -
. Mr. BoycE. Also by a deeper channel in the river?
Mr. HULL. Yes. - -
Mr. BARNEs. But you must have water then. -
Mr. BoycE. The deepening of the channel would not necessarily
require a greater quantity of water from the lakes, would it? -
Mr. BARNEs. You can deepen the channel and get the same depth
that we have, say with 10,000 feet of flow, but the controversy I am
in now with the chairman is that it is much more expensive and not
as valuable a canal after you get it. . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. That is, the differences are these: You say that,
first, you would have to lock your commerce through four locks; and
second, you would be obliged to be restricted to a channel only 200
feet wide. Those are the two differences, are they not, Mr. Barnes?
Mr. BARNEs. Those are two of the differences. - -
The CHAIRMAN. They are the two differences you have so far
specified. ... • - -
Mr. BARNEs. No; I specified also that it would be much more ex-
pensive. :
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that of course we will concede. - -
Mr. HULL. I do not want to leave it that way, Mr. Dempsey.
There are other reasons to my knowledge why these locks ought
not to be put in, and I want you to express yourself just as you
want to. This channel with the locks out is, I would say, 50 per
cent better as a transportation problem than with them in.
Mr. BARNES. I do not know what the percentage would be, but
very much better. These locks would probably stop every fleet of
, 136 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
boats at least two hours in the transportation; and if they must pass
small locks, as you have now, it would be much longer, the fleet
being required to break up, and the time required for that and to
unite the fleet. -
l º: MANSFIELD. And the cost of maintaining and operating the
OCKS.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Take the Ohio River, they have 52 locks, there in
that project.
Mr. BARNEs. Thirty-seven completed, and six additional over 50
per cent completed on the average.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Barnes, you said a few moments ago, and
*. Hull reiterated it, that these locks were obsolete, all four of
them.
The CHAIRMAN. The present locks you mean?
Mr. BARNEs. They are old style, inadequate in size, and slow in
operation. g
Mr. MANSFIELD. Can you tell me when they were built?
Mr. BARNEs. The Government-built locks and dams were com-
pleted in 1889 and 1893.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And the State built theirs when?
Mr. BARNEs. The lock and dam at Copperas Creek was completed
in 1877 at a cost of $347,747, and the lock and dam at Henry was
completed before that date at a cost of about $400,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes, have you ever been down on the Ohio
River to observe how long it takes a barge to lock through one of
those locks?
Mr. BARNEs. I have. Of course, it has been different times for
different-sized fleets. If one barge, it is one time; if two barges,
it is another time; if a whole fleet of barges, it is still a longer time.
The CHAIRMAN. How long did it take, if you recollect, for a barge
to get through one of those locks on the Ohio River, because that is
the same kind of navigation you are advocating?
Mr. BARNES, I am not advocating for one barge.
The CHAIRMAN. I will give it to you for the others later. Take
one at a time.
Mr. BARNEs. It takes from 7 to 10 minutes to fill your lock; it
takes about a minute to open the gates. Then there is the checking
up and getting up speed again, which usually takes from 15 to 45
minutes. Look at the records of the Soo Canal, and you will find
that given in great detail.
The CHAIRMAN. But there you have a different proposition of a
much larger boat.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; but only one boat. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. And then the consumption of fuel in starting
and stopping?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes.
Mr. HULL. I know you have a wonderful line of information and
I want you to give it to these men. I want to ask one question
while it is on my mind. If we have the 10,000 cubic feet of water,
as we practically have now, it will assist in the Mississippi River
to the extent of at least 2 or 3 feet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 137
Mr. BARNEs. I can say it in a different way. The Federal engi-
neers say it will give a 100 feet wide channel between the mouth
of the Illinois River and the Missouri River.
Mr. HULL. What about the depth?
º BARNEs. They would have the same depths with different
widths.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes, there is plenty of water in the Missis-
sippi River to take care of the channel if the proper channel is
obtained. -
Mr. BARNEs. It will take care of a channel, but the width depends
upon the amount of water you have got.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is a project with a width of 200 feet part
of the way and of 250 feet the balance of the way. There is plenty
of water in that river to take care of that channel if it is obtained,
is there not?
Mr. HULL. You mean at low-water time?
The CHAIRMAN. At any time.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; 250 feet is minimum width at the shoals, which
the Government is maintaining with a fleet of dredges; one is 200
feet, another is 250 feet, another is 150 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty at those seven shallow places is
that the shoals have not been cleaned out, and the channel at that
point obtained. -
Mr. BARNEs. No; the reasons that they can not keep them open
at those crossovers is that they are constantly filling up. It means
a constant maintenance with a fleet of dredges.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but it is still true that if you do excavate
those shoal places and have the channel there is sufficient water
to fill the channel to the projected depth.
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all I am trying to bring out.
Mr. HULL. I want to bring out another question in rebuttal to
that. If we had the 10,000 feet flow you would not have near the
dredging that you have to do when you haven’t it?
Mr. BARNEs. No; you would not have to do so much excavating.
The CHAIRMAN. That would depend simply on the shoals. If
we left the shoaling alone and piled in there 20,000 cubic feet it
would shoal to the surface of the water, would it not?
Mr. BARNEs. No; that is not the experience you have with high
waters and flood waters in the Mississippi River. The bottom comes
up about one-half the height of the top.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not get the latter part of that. - -
Mr. BARNEs. The bottom rises about one-half as much as the top
rises. If your stage rises 2 feet the bottom rises 1 foot. That is
about the average. So the more water you have, the more depth you
will have in your river.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true, but I say if you neglect your shoal-
ing long enough it will come up and overcome any depth of water.
TMr. BARNEs. No; that has not been their experience. Their ex-
perience has been it only comes up one-half as much as the water
rises on the surface.
Mr. Boxer. Would greater quantity of water tend to cut away the
shoals? O
138 ILLINOIS. AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; the greater the amount of water the greater
natural depth, and the greater natural width you have. . .
Mr. BoycE. That is, with a greater quantity of water the shoals
would not be so likely to develop? . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. No, it would not. * • *
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes, in expressing the opinion that 10,000
cubic feet would have an influence on the depth of the Mississippi
River, making it more navigable, did you have in mind what the
volume of discharge is through the Mississippi at Grafton and be-
low there?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. About what is it? . -
Mr. BARNEs. At low water my recollection is around 30,000. I an
not sure that I am right about that. Is that about right?
The CHAIRMAN. Forty thousand.
Mr. BARNEs. Forty thousand.
The CHAIRMAN. At the mean stage, how much?
Mr. BARNEs. At the mean stage it is more than that, of course;
considerably more.
The CHAIRMAN. About 155?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And at bank full?
Mr. BARNEs. Well, that is way up.
The CHAIRMAN. That is 600,000 cubic feet, and at maximum plus
a million and a quarter.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; but when you speak of those figures you want to
speak of similar figures on the Illinois River.
Again, I want to call your attention to the fact we are not consid-
ering mean flows or maximum flows. What concerns us and what
concerns navigation is the minimum flow, and that is what concerns
the Mississippi-Warrior service in the use of the lower Mississippi
below the Ohio River in the last two years. º
The CHAIRMAN. Let us just see whether that is true or not. You
are balancing equities and inconveniences and disadvantages, and
if you do.that, if you balance the advantage of a maximum flow with
10,000 cubic feet per second against the disadvantage to these six or
seven sister States, all of which are opposing it, you would consider
would you not, the average through the year and, not just some very
short period when there might be a low water stage? Do you think
it would be fair for Illinois to say we will not consider at all the long
period when we have high water, but we are going to consider the
few weeks when we have the very lowest water, and we want that
10,000 cubic feet regardless of the rights of all these sister States on
account of that short period of low water? * -
Mr. BARNES. In the first place, the State of Illinois is willing to
pay any damage it does to any of these sister States.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose these sister States do not want damages,
but want the business; they want to have the Great Lakes main-
tained at their level. -
Mr. BARNEs. Exactly.
The CHAIRMAN. And they do not want damages from Illinois at
all. They want the status in quo. Now, that would not answer
the question, would it? -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 139
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; we will give them the status in quo. We are
offering to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it comes to an engineering question of
whether you can withdraw 10,000 cubic feet, whether you can take
Out of a bucket one-tenth of the water in it and yet have the bucket
full of water.
Mr. BARNEs. No; that is not it. All parties will admit that we
can regulate the Great Lakes as all other lakes and all other bodies
of water are regulated to certain heights.
The CHAIRMAN. But on that I thin kyou will find both the Chief
of Engineers, United States engineers, and the engineers of all the
other States will disagree with you. I think you will find especially
all of them will disagree with you.
Mr. BARNES. We are offering to put it up to the Chief of Engineers
and let him decide; how much it is. We do not ask any voice in it.
We will take his decision—the decision of the Secretary of War.
The CHAIRMAN. That is fair. -
{r. BARNEs. Of course, it is fair. That is what we are offering
to do. We are offering to do anything we can in order to get
navigation. -
The CHAIRMAN. What I was urging is this: That if it was a
great disadvantage to others who are interested to withdraw
10,000 cubic feet, then it would be fair to consider, you know, the
extreme low-water period as to what disadvantage that would be.
Mr. BARNEs. If such a condition existed, yes. But we deny such
a condition exists, and if an impartial jury says it does exist we are
willing to remedy the trouble and we do not ask any voice in how
much they are going to charge us. r -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, what we are concerned about is getting
the facts, and I want to say very frankly that I think you have been
an exceptionally intelligent witness, and while you are protecting the
rights of your home State you have been very fair with us, and so far,
Mr. Barnes, as I understand it, we have got to this point, that with
1,000 feet of water and locks and a channel erected at an expenditure
of $30,000,000 we could have a channel 9 feet deep and 200 feet
wide, which would require a lockage through four locks and the con-
sequent loss of time, and that with 10,000 cubic feet per second,
instead of 1,000, we would have an improved waterway without
locks and requiring no stoppage, and with an additionally wide
channel, the width being estimated at 1,000 feet. That is about where
we have gotten on the testimony as to the effect of the two different
kinds of improvement, is it not? . -- -
Mr. BARNEs. That is as far as it has been developed so far; yes.
SII’. -
The CHAIRMAN. But even under the plan proposed by the State
of Illinois, you would have the locks put in in this stretch which
the State is improving. *
Mr. BARNEs. That must be; yes sir. There is an escarpement that
requires locks for 64 or 65 miles. We must have a system of locks,
but in this other region, 230 miles, we only have a fall of something
like 30 feet, a very sluggish stream that requires 30 days for a
body to float from the upper end to the lower end. It is the best
navigable water, I may say, in the world, of that size.
140 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Now, following your statement of a moment ago as to what we
have arrived at, I want to say one other thing that the governor asked
me to speak of, and that is that the State of Illinois—not the sanitary
district—is demanding 10,000 feet of water, not alone for navigation
purposes but for navigation and sanitation. If this water is cut
down now to 4,000 or to 1,000 as you are suggesting, we will have a
stream that is polluted beyond endurance, and it is not only from the
sewage of Chicago but it is from the sewage of all the other cities
along the Illinois River. There is one city—and it is not the city
that the author of this bill comes from—that is polluting the Illinois
River to probably a population of 1,000,000 people.
Mr. BoxcE. May I ask you just in that connection whether 4,167
cubic feet will meet the purposes of sanitation?
Mr. BARNEs. No; it will not.
Mr. BoycE. Are you clear about that?
Mr. BARNES. I am.
Mr. BoycE. You do say, however, that 10,000 cubic feet will meet
the purposes of both navigation and sanitation?
Mr. BARNES. I do not. I have not said that.
Mr. BoycE. Well, please repeat what you did say.
Mr. BARNEs. I said that 10,000 cubic feet per second is all that
the State will recommend for navigation purposes. Beyond that
amount it becomes a detriment to navigation in the portion that the
State is constructing. Ten thousand second-feet we are told is suffi-
cient for sanitation when the Chicago sewage is purified as we are
asking that it should be in this bill.
Mr. MoRGAN. Have you information as to the amount of water
that is now being diverted from Lake Michigan?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. What is it? -
Mr. BARNEs. The average for the fiscal year 1923 was 8,410 cubic
feet. That is approximate. Those are the figures taken from the
records kept by the Geological Survey.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, the need of this water is twofold and
divisible: The one for navigation—we have gone over that—the
other for sanitation. *
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The State, of course, is very deeply interested in
the question of sanitation. Will you discuss the question from that
standpoint?
Mr. BARNEs. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not a sanitary engineer.
I am here in the interest of the people of the State of Illinois and I
do not want to burden my message with any collateral issues.
The CHAIRMAN. As to that, then, you would not care to express
an opinion? \
Mr. BARNEs. I am not an authority on sanitation; no, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that all then?
Mr. BARNEs. I am not quite through with the things that I wanted
to present.
Mr. Boy CE. What is the difference between the sanitation canal
and the Ohio River?
Mr. BARNEs. Will you repeat that, please?
Mr. BoxcE. We are sometimes talking about the Ohio River and
sometimes we are talking about the sanitation canal.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 14l
Mr. HULL. You mean the Illinois River?
Mr. BoxcE. Yes; 1 meant the Illinois River. Are they separate
streams? •
Mr. BARNEs. No; the sanitary canal begins at Chicago and runs
southwesterly. -
Mr. BoycE. The reason I ask the question is they are some-
times spoken of separately, so that it might leave the impression
that there are two streams. -
Mr. BARNEs. No; one is a continuation of the other.
The second point that I wanted to bring out was the advantage
it gives to the Northwestern States to have a 9-foot channel.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, let me just say in that respect, I think every
witness who has been called has spoken on that subject. We con-
vened a little late and we agreed that we would close at 3 o'clock.
We did not convene till 2.20, and it is now 20 minutes of 4.
Mr. HULL. Do you not think we had better hear from this gentle-
man? He is an important witness and will probably give us more
information than anyone else we have heard. I would like to have
him go through with this, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The only reason I am suggesting this is that
other members of the committee are urging that we conclude.
Mr. HULL. Now here is a sick man who comes here a thousand
miles to testify, and I think he ought to be allowed to testify.
Mr. MANSFIELD. May I ask one question there? Mr. Barnes, the
type of barges that are now in use on the Mississippi-Warrior serv-
ice, are they practical on the Great Lakes?
Mr. BARNEs. No; they are not of the type that would do the most
economic navigation—economic transportation on the Great Lakes.
They can be used. Boats have been built on the Great Lakes and
are navigating the New York State Canal, which has locks only 45
feet wide and 300 feet long, and boats may navigate the Great
Lakes and navigate the Illinois River, but it is not an economic
proposition.
Mr. MANSFIELD. These boats, then, could not continue in continuous
service on these rivers and also on the Lakes?
Mr. BARNEs. They would not do that. It would be more economic
to unload and put the cargoes into a lake-type vessel.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Barnes, Mr. Dempsey suggests that you go right
straight through now, because he wants to get to some other wit-
nesses, and we will not interfere with you, if you will just go right
ahead and finish.
The CHAIRMAN. I would just say, Mr. Mansfield, in regard to that
question which you propounded, that the only economic type of
vessel, as I understand it, on the Great Lakes now is the vessel that
carries about 14,000 tons.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
Mr. BARNEs. Of course, we are going to use from 9,000 to 14,000
tons in our canal, if we can get this waterway, but they will be
different type of boats.
The next question is as to the value to the Northwestern States
of this waterway. I have prepared a map which I am going to
submit to the committee, showing two routes of transportation be-
tween Wisconsin and Illinois and San Francisco; also between the
eastern Seaboard and San Francisco. With this I have submitted a
91739–24—PT 1–10
142 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
table showing the advantage that the Atlantic seaboard has over
the Middle West in transportation to and from the Pacific coast,
and in this table it shows that on first-class freight the advantage is
$1,056 a carload, and reduces to $372 per carload
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That must be average, Mr. Barnes,
because the rates differ as the commodities differ.
Mr. BARNEs. Well, I said for first-class commodities.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes. -
Mr. BARNEs. And the lowest class commodities, it reduces pro-
portionately until it gets to $372 per carload for the cheaper com-
modities. That is the advantage that the eastern Seaboard has over
the Middle West, such States as Iowa, Ilinois, and Wisconsin, in
trading with the Pacific coast.
Mr. HULL. That would include Indiana and Ohio, too, would it
not Q.
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; all those Middle Western States, all that are
tributary to the Illinois River and the Mississippi River and Lake
Michigan.
I have also prepared a table showing the large quantity—the
great tonnage of various commodities produced in the Middle West
that are seeking this trade. In the State of Illinois alone we have
over 200,000,000 bushels of grain within one day's truck haul of
the Illinois River. Grain dealers at the northern end of the Illinois
River have told me that they can not compete with dealers at Cairo
within 11 cents a bushel for grain destined for New Orleans or for
export, the reason being that Cairo has water transportation and
northern Illinois does not. That is the difference in freight by rail
and water. . .
Mr. BoycE. That is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission. -
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. As I sat in the lobby this morning I heard
some one ask why it was that Chicago is not doing the water com-
merce that it did formerly, and other cities are doing quite a sub-
stantial waterway commerce. A map which I have prepared here
will indicate one of the reasons. This map shows in black the water
front in Chicago owned, contralled, and operated by the railroads.
The entire water front of the lake front from about Sixtieth Street
on the south to Chicago Avenue on the north is owned by a railroad.
Seventy-five per cent of all the Chicago River improved to 21-foot
depth is owned by railroads. The balance is owned by private cor-
porations and the city, and street ends, etc. -
The CHAIRMAN. Will you give me that percentage again?
Mr. BARNEs. Seventy-five per cent of the Chicago River frontage
between about Twenty-third Street on the south and Erie Street on
the north.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the total frontage 2
Mr. BARNEs. Well, about 5 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, 75 per cent, three-quarters would be a mile
and a quarter left in private ownership, which you could condemn.
How much does the city of Chicago own of that 25 per cent?
The BARNEs. The street ends. -
The CHAIRMAN. While that may be an explanation, do you think
that it helps Chicago very much to explain it that way? Why do
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 143
you not acquire—you have got a mile and a quarter of frontage
there which you could acquire; why do you not acquire it?
, Mr. MoRGAN. I would like to have him develop that point, if you
will let him finish, Mr. Dempsey.
The CHAIRMAN. Just wait a minute—I am just asking that ques-
tion to be answered.
Mr. BARNES. I do not mind answering it. That is the reason I
started it, or I would not have started it.
Mr. BOYCE. May I inquire how did the railroads acquire the lands
through private owners or through
Mr. MANSFIELD (interposing). Condemnation.
Mr. BARNEs. Those are old grants.
Mr. MANSFIELD. From riparian rights?
Mr. BARNES. No; they were purchased many, many years ago by
the railroads before waterways become of great importance. At
the time they were acquired we had the old I. and M. Canal in oper-
ation and had some—oh, several miles of water front available for
water transportation.
Mr. BOYCE. Has the city of Chicago made an effort to acquire
rights for the general public?
Mr. BARNEs. The city of Chicago—that is, civic bodies of the city
of Chicago–are now studying that question. Technical men have
been appointed to investigate the whole situation and we expect re-
ports soon. The mayor of Chicago is in sympathy with it and has
conferred with these committees on the matter. *
The CHAIRMAN. What is the total lake frontage within the city
limits, and what proportion of it is owned by the railroads?
Mr. BARNEs. The total frontage in the city is about 30 miles, as I
recall—-possibly more than that. How much of that is owned by the
railroads I do not know. The map that I have prepared shows the
ownership in front of the commercial and business portions of the
citv. -
- the CHAIRMAN. Then take the commercial and business parts of
the city. What is the total frontage there and what part of that is
owned by the railroads? t
Mr. BARNEs. It is all owned by the railroads. What I attempted
to show was the frontage, both on the river and on the lake, in the
business center of Chicago owned and controlled and operated by
the railroads.
Shippers have told me that they have been unable to secure berth-
ing places in the Chicago River. I can not recall names or firms
now, but firms from Cleveland have come to our office and have
asked if I could find for them berthing places where they could
load and unload their products. I told them that I was unable
to do so. and they said that that had been their experience; that they
had not been able to find berthing places in the city of Chicago for
an independent body, and had been forced to go to Milwaukee to
do business. -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to page 1433 of the
current report of the Chief of Engineers on terminal facilities:
In the Chicago River and its branches there is a total frontage, including
numerous slips, for about 150,000 feet, about one-half of which is used by
private interests for shipping purposes. These terminals are owned and oper-
144 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ated by steamboat lines, grain, coal, and lumber companies and various other
industries. They are more than adequate in extent for existing terminals,
but except for grain elevators and some coal handling plants, are not mechani-
cally equipped. There are no public docks, wharves, or other terminal
f
facilities on the main river or its branches. . . • +
... Mr. BoydH. Are there docking and terminal facilities within the
shore line owned by the railroad companies? A. .
The CHAIRMAN. Well, this does not seem—the report of the Chief
of Engineers does not seem to state that to be the fact. And this
seems to have been the result of investigation, because he refers
to a document for a full description of the facts. . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. I am willing to concede that the water front in the
Chicago River is sufficient for existing commerče, but our commerce
has been driven away from Chicago becaise of existing conditions.
Mr. MoRGAN. At that point, is it not a fact that the dockage
facilities along the Illinois River, as well as 'all other, available
points on the lake front, are controlled by grain corporations, such
as Armour, the Albert Dickinson Seed Co., and other corporations,
and an independent shipper, an outside shipper, can not get dockage
facilities at any of those points? . . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. That is true; and it is true as the people from your
State have told me, that they can not get shipping facilities in the
city of Chicago. And now, if I may proceed with this—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). One moment—we have something
more here on this question. The Chief of Engineers seems to have
been studying it. He says— ... " - -
Mr. BARNEs (interposing). He is yet. He has a man out there
InOW.
The CHAIRMAN. He says: - -
The outer harbor facilities are not entirely adequate for existing commerce.
The municipal pier should be provided with freight-handling devices and rail
Connections.
They seem to need the railroads out there instead of having too
much of them. He says:
The north side should be protected from sea rising within the outer basin.
That is page 1429. Then he says about the Municipal Pier,
3,000 feet long, built by Chicago:
It is not equipped with freight-handling devices and has no rail connections,
although such could be easily provided. It possesses excellent accommo-
dations on top levels, 330,000 square feet, and first-class approaches for teams,
trucks, and trolley.S.
Now, that seems to put it right up to the city of Chicago that they
have not done anything to provide for commerce.
Mr. BARNEs. I want to answer the chief's opinion on that—if he
is giving an opinion. -
The CHAIRMAN. This does not seem to be an opinion; it seems to
be a statement of fact.
Mr. BARNEs. Well, I will contradict the statement of fact then.
Mr. MoRGAN. I would like to have this witness develop this sub-
ject, because it is highly important to me.
Mr. HULL. Well, let us give him time.
Mr. BARNEs. You can not reach the Municipal Pier with any rail-
road without passing, crossing, either at the surface, or under or
!
i. ; * f
t
~ +
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 145
over, the greatest thoroughfare we have in the city. . It is possible
to get the Chicago & North Western Railway in there by either
going under that thoroughfare or going over it, and only with one
or two tracks, without acquiring property at prohibitive cost in
doing that.
The Illinois Central Railroad can not get up there without cross-
ing the Chicago River. " ;
So it is impracticable for railroads to get into that pier. The
pier is situated out in the lake, and between it and the business in-
terests we find our main thoroughfares and our park system. The
pier is now used for fairs, exhibitions, and things of that kind, and
not for transportation purposes. It is not properly located for
transportation purposes. ... If the water front in that locality is to be
used for transportation purposes, we must acquire property owned
by the Illinois Central Railroad, so that piers can there be located,
where they can communicate with the business interests, either
through the freight tunnel or , through surface “transportation by
trucks. . . . . . . - . .
Mr. Boy CE. Isn’t there a considerable stretch of park lands be-
tween the Illinois Central and the Lake Shore? ; : . . .
Mr. BARNEs. Well, park lands are now being developed between
the Illinois Central and the Lake Shore, a maximum; I should say,
of 2 miles in width. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Judge, that would bring. it right down to
the question of which is more important to Chicago, park lands, or
commerce; and they have theiright to make their choice, of course,
but they have not the right to come to us and say that they are
anxious for commerce, when they wave it in favor of parks. . . . . .
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you, this pier was not built for freight
purposes, it was built for the benefit of the parks and the city, for
exhibition purposes, was it not? * , ,
Mr. BARNES. I do not know. It was built before I came there.
If it was built for freight purposes it is poorly located. I know
that. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Answering the chairman's question, we want both parks and târâmi-
nal facilities. … We are amply provided in area for both, amid if you
will give us the waterway we will show you. terminal facilities and
terminal areas greater than any other port in the world. 2, . . . .
. The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty with that business, Mr. Barnes, is
this: That it has become the fixed policy of this committee to require,
not in words but in deeds—to require the provision of terminals pub-
licly owned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. All right, I will refer you to the deeds. . . . . . . . "
The CHAIRMAN. I say, it has been the policy of the committee,
they have adopted it, to require, a great municipality or any munici-
pality that wants aid from the Government, to show its good faith
by próviding publicly owned terminals and modern facilities for
handling, loading, and unloading. You do not seem to have pro-
vided those at all. . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . ."
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; we have, as I will show you. The legislature of
the State of Illinois in its session of 1921—about that time—gave
the city of Chicago its riparian rights in the bed and banks of Lake
Calumet, a body of water some 5 miles in length and 3 miles in width.
146 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The city has its plans drawn, and I believe approved by the Secretary
of War, although I will not say that authoritatively, but at least be-
fore the Secretary of War for approval. This will give a terminal
Some 5 miles in length and 3 miles in width, with slips some 3,000
feet in length.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, to get right down to the point. The reason
that your commerce has declined instead of increasing, as it has at
other ports on the lakes, is that you have not had these facilities in the
past, but you have gotten to the point where the State has given you
Something and you have prepared plans now.
Mr. HULL. It will be necessary to have this waterway in order to
have these facilities, will it not?
Mr. BARNEs. It is of no value unless we get the waterway.
Mr. HULL. That is what I want to bring out.
Mr. BARNEs. We want that before we develop these plans.
The CHAIRMAN. Are these terminal facilities that you are going to
provide now—they are not for lake commerce at all, but solely for
this river commerce?
Mr. BARNEs. For both.
The CHAIRMAN. They will be of value then, for lake commerce,
will they not?
Mr. BARNEs. Exactly.
Mr. HULL. We need the waterway, do we not, to develop them?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; we need the waterway in order to attract
business there to use the terminal facilities. And I want to say
further that this development is on the banks of the sanitary canal,
so that it has an immediate connection with the waterway when this
improvement is made. And I want to say further, that of all the
railroads entering the city of Chicago, which go to every point of the
United States, 75 per cent of the commerce of Chicago meets at this
oint.
p Mr. HULL. In other words, you would have a waterway to New
Orleans, you would have dockage, you would have a lake waterway,
and you would have the railroad facilities, all at the same point?
Mr. BARNEs. All at the same point. -
Mr. HULL. And reduce transportation in every direction?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. I doubt if there is a place in the world
so well situated for rail, barge, lake vessel, and ocean vessel trans-
portation where they can meet and serve such a large territory as
you will find at Lake Calumet.
Mr. MoRGAN. And if this waterway was developed we would not
have to meet the situatioun of the raising of rates when water
traffic on the lakes is-closed during the winter season. Would the
river freeze up just the same at the lake?
Mr. BARNEs. I have had men watching the river this winter, and
you remember we have had two very severe months, January and
Rebruary. Part of that time the river was closed. (º,
Mr. MoRGAN. Was the lake closed?
Mr. BARNEs. No. I have said in my recommendations to men
coming there asking, for information as to the navigable season,
etc.—Shippers designing boat lines—that they ought to figure on
three months closed season, but actually we did not get that amount.
Mr. MoRGAN. What is the closed season on the Lakes now? .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 147
Mr. BARNEs. Of course, they navigate Lake Michigan all winter.
Mr. MoRGAN. But I mean the change of rates. You are not
familiar with that?
Mr. BARNEs. No; I am not familiar with that.
Mr. HULL. I live on the river, and my observation has been that
there is no time, even in the coldest weather, but what boats could
navigate with very little inconvenience by breaking the ice, because
the ice never gets more than 6 or 8 inches thick.
Mr. BARNEs. That is right.
Mr. HULL. We can run the year round, in my judgment.
Mr. BARNEs. We have a situation there that is somewhat different
than other streams of that same latitude. Chicago sewage is poured
into that, which is warm, and that keeps the river open, keeps the
locks open for a greater percentage of time than you will find in
other streams.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then it is your opinion that the river would be
open for navigation—that is, would not be closed for as long a
period as the Lakes.
Mr. BARNEs. Oh, no; nothing like as long.
The CHAIRMAN. But he said Lake Michigan was open the year
ºd. You could not have the river open longer than that, could
you ?
Mr. MoRGAN. I presume the chairman is familiar with the fact
that the railroad rates are raised at the close of the Lake season?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I have not had my attention brought to that.
I will be glad to have that put in evidence.
Mr. HULL. I would like to get the evidence here, while Mr.
Barnes is here, that we feel that Peoria—and I want to ask you the
question—do you not believe that with very little inconvenience you
can operate this river the year round—12 months in the year?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; in the ordinary year.
Mr. HULL. Then you would have water rates the year round, if
you had this waterway?
Mr. BARNEs. Exactly so. And there will be business to keep the
locks in operation. We have made a canvas of business now avail-
able. We feel that there will be 10,000,000 tons available within a
short period of time after the canal is put in operation. The city of
Chicago is using now 36,000,000 tons of coal a year, soft coal. More
than half of that comes from the south end of the State. When
this 9-foot waterway is an assured fact that coal can be transported
to Chicago at a saving of $1 a ton.
The CHAIRMAN. In that connection are there mines along the
course of the Illinois River or not?
Mr. BARNEs. There are mines within a few miles. Of course, it
is 5 or 10 miles from the Illinois River. Our great mine system,
our great Illinois coal system, is at the southern end, within 40
miles of the Mississippi River, and we last year made a survey of
the Big Muddy River, looking to the improvement of that stream.
so that the coal could be transported all the way by barge from the
coal mines, the door of the mine, to be used at Chicago.
Mr. Hui.L. That would save about $15,000,000 per year, as I
understand it?
Mr. BARNEs. At present, yes.
148 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. What would save?
Mr. HULL. Hauling that coal by boat.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is on the theory of hauling what coal
by boat? -
Mr. BARNEs. Hauling the coal now used in Chicago that comes
from the southern end of the State.
Mr. HUí.I. Soft coal. --
The CHAIRMAN. And, of course, that is on the basis that you
would take away all the coal hauling from the railroads.
Mr. HULL. At $1 a ton there is no reason why they should not.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about why they should not, but
I am asking that it is on the basis that all of the coal would be
transported by boat? . . w
Mr. BARNEs. And also on the basis that our increase in coal is nil;
that the increase in the use of coal is nil. That is on the basis of the
present usage, and we are increasing our usage 1,000,000 tons a year.
Mr. HULL. That would be another feature. . . . .
Mr. DEAL. It might be that the railroads would reduce their rates
if they knew that you had this water transportation. . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. We would get the same saving. We do not care
whether we get it by rail. . - . . . . . . . . .
Mr. HULL. In other words, Mr. Deal, you get a water rate on rail
‘when you have water competition. That is what we are fighting for
now; we are fighting now to get a waterway from Lake Michigan to
the Gülf'of Mexicó; to get a lower rail rate. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. DEAL. And you would get it. t . . . . . . .
tº Mr. BARNEs. One of the employees of the Mississippi-Warrior
service came to our office a short time ago looking for business. I
said, “Why do you not transport sugar to Chicago?” He said, “We
are now turning away sugar so that other commodifies may be trans-
ported.” I asked him how much sugar he would transport to
Chicago if he had the facilities, and he said, “The present facilities
of the Mississippi-Warrior service are not sufficient to transport
the sugar used in Chicago.” That is, all the barge lines that the
Federal Government owns on the Mississippi River are insufficient
to transport the one commodity, sugar, to Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any transportation on the Mississippi
aside from the Government-owned barge line? ... # * -
Mr. BARNEs. Yes. I can hot refer to them by name.
The CHAIRMAN. I meant to what extent? ,” w
Mr. BARNEs. To no great extent: The reason of it is that the
improvement of the Mississippi River system has been delayed and
incomplete, so that barges can not compete with rail. For example
on the Upper Mississippi you have had a project in force now
for how long, 15 or 20 years—something like that—and still we have
only got 34 feet of water on the Mississippi River, and boats can
not use that river and compete with railroads paralleling it on car-
goes that can be floated on 34 feet, and with the rates that the
railroads will give to the points on the Mississippi River, lower
than the rates to the interior points. Now, if the Mississippi River
project is completed, the Missouri River project, the Ohio River
project, and the Illinois River project, then we have all confidence
that we will get plenty of private funds to use the rivers. The
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 149
Ohio River, as you know, is now being used by private Corpo-
rations, because they see that that river is being improved and will
soon be completed.
A private concern started to use the Missouri River but it had to
stop because the appropriations from Congress were stopped and
the improvement was not carried on so that they could use the river
and compete with the railroads.
I have reported on the flood of 1922 and its effect on various lo-
calities down the Illinois River. I am submitting a copy of that
report so that you can study it and judge for yourselves what the
damage was that could be charged to the Chicago end of the stream.
The CHAIRMAN. In that report do you cover this question:
Whether there was any damage by floods from the Illinois River
before this large diversion at Chicago? * * .
Mr. BARNEs. Yes. - - -
The CHAIRMAN. What is the fact as to that 4 . . . . f
Mr. BARNEs. The facts are that, at certain points on the Illinois
River floods were higher before the sanitary canal was built than
they have been since. , t . . .'; . .';
The CHAIRMAN. Then do you think that the more water you, get
the less flood you will have down that river? Is that the conclusion:
the ultimate conclusion? . . " . " . " . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. No, sir; the ultimate conclusion is that the time has
not elapsed where we may expect floods equal to those that we had
before the construction of the sanitary canal. Some day, I expect a
flood that will be greater than the flood of 1844, and when that time
comes we will probably have a higher flood. . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. What I am asking for is not some one very, ex-
ceptional event, but I am asking whether there were floods from
year to year to any destructive extent previous to the large diversiºn
at Chicago, or whether they had come only since then and as a
result of that diversion ? . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. They did not come as a result of that diversion...:
... The CHAIRMAN. . Now wait a minute - . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. HULL (interposing). Let him answer it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. I want the question answered in full. I said
since then and as a result. Now, what was the average?, Did you
have floods from year to year before the diversion at Chicago or not?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; we did. a - **
The CHAIRMAN. To a destructive, extent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. BARNEs. To a destructive extent where improvements had been
made, and not to a destructive extent before the levees had been
built on the Illinois River that caused this destructive flood of 1922.
I claim, and can prove, that the flood of 1922 was caused—the de-
struction was caused by levees built on both side of the river, and
not because of the sanitary canal. The sanitary canal—the flood of
the sanitary canal caused an increased stage of 4 inches only at
Beardstown, where the great damage was done; the levee raised the
water some 4 feet. It was the levees that caused that, and I have a
map here showing where they are located and why this damage. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, your levees were constructed for two
purposes: First, to give you a channel, and second, to protect the com-
munity. Those are the two purposes for the construction of the
levees.
; : - ... : ** * - . 1 * :
. ." * * * * . • # .
150 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARNEs. No; they are private enterprises built by farmers and
others to reclaim flood lands.
A VOICE. And to protect it from the sanitary water.
Mr. BARNEs. No: I do not think so.
Mr. FRANKLIN VELDE, of Pekin, Ill. I would like to ask whether the
‘landowners have not the right to erect those levees until they are
compensated for the loss of their land by the Chicago sanitary
district or somebody else?
Mr. HULL. Just a minute before you answer that—Mr. Barnes,
is not a part of the sanitary district, and I do not think he ought to
be called upon to answer that question.
The CHAIRMAN. No; he is simply a witness here.
Mr. HULL. He is not appearing here for the sanitary district; he
is a witness for the State of Illinois, and I do not want to have it con-
fused with the idea that he is representing the sanitary district, be-
cause he is not, he is representing the State of Illinois. .
The CHAIRMAN. All he is doing now is answering these questions.
Mr. BARNEs. If you will read the question to me I will try to
answer it.
(The reporter read the question as follows):
Mr. FRANKLIN WELDE, of Pekin, Ill. : I would like to ask whether the land-
Owners have not the right to erect those levees until they are compensated for
theºloss of their land by the Chicago 'sanitary district or somebody else?
I do not think you asked what you intended to.
Mr. VELDE. In other words, that is a restriction upon the use of
i. lands, is it not, to forbid them to put up a levee on their own
and 7 i
Mr. BARNEs. You must remember that there is a restriction on
all people in so using their lands that they will not damage others.
That is what they have done. The laws of the State of Illinois re-
quire that those levees shall be placed in accordance with plans ap-
proved by the division of waterways. The levees that have now been
built are built without the approval of the division of waterways,
and they are built at such locations that they restrict the channel and
restrict the flow so that they have increased the high water some 3
or 4 feet.
Mr. WELDE. Is it not true that that legislation requiring the ap-
proval of the State for the location of those levees is comparatively
recent enactment?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, it was done because of the damage that had been
done by these levees, and we saw that it must not be done in the
future.
Mr. VELDE. Is it not true that that legislation at the present time
is confined to levees which interfere with the flow of natural streams
into the Illinois?
Mr. BARNEs. No, not into the Illinois; natural streams of the
State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes, let me ask you this question. You
said those levees have increased the depth of the water 3 feet in the
Illinois?
Mr. BARNEs. It is different at different locations, but say 3 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. An average of 3 feet?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the depth before the levees were built?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 151
Mr. BARNEs. Well, it is different.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the average depth?
Mr. BARNEs. This report that I am referring to shows that at
Beardstown the same amount of water flowing down the river before
the sanitary canal discharged its water into the stream caused a
high water of 3 feet less than the same amount in 1922.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, what I am getting at is—I want to get
first—you say that these levees have increased on the average, the
depth of the channel in the Illinois River 3 feet; what was the
depth before the levees were built?
Mr. DEAL. Did you say on an average?
The CHAIRMAN. On an average.
Mr. DEAL. Or was it flood?
The CHAIRMAN. On an average, as I understood him.
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, I would like to understand that. Is that on
an average?
Mr. BARNEs. No; it is not average.
Mr. MoRGAN. During flood period? R
Mr. BARNEs. First you must understand where these levees are
built. They are built from a point some 20 miles below Beardstown
to a point some 40 or 50 miles above Beardstown.
The CHAIRMAN. How far? What is the length of them?
Mr. BARNEs. Sixty to 70 miles—possibly more. Now Beardstown
lies in the midst of that improvement. Beardstown lies above the
gorge created by these levees, therefore, Beardstown was in the
path of this flood.
.." Peoria the effect of the levees had disappeared and the
fl O
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You mean by that that the depth
of the channel was not increased ? . .
Mr. BARNEs. No; at Peoria the depth of the water was not in-
creased by the levees built down stream. -
The CHAIRMAN. What was the depth of water before these levees
were built at Beardstown, and for the length of these levees, some
60 miles, you say? About what was it? .
Mr. BARNEs. At Beardstown the guage in 1922 was 22.4 feet, if
I am not mistaken, and the flood of 1844, which flood was the same
capacity, approximately, the gauge was 19 feet plus—19.4 or 19.2,
.# somewhere about that. So it was about 3 feet below the flood
Of 1922. -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not mean that. I do not mean the flood
depth. What was the depth in ordinary times?
Mr. BARNEs. Low water? a
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; at Beardstown, and for the length of these
levees before they were built, for that stretch of the river?
Mr. BARNEs. It is pretty difficult to answer that question, Mr.
Chairman, for this reason: One of the Government's locks is located
just below Beardstown, which creates an artificial pool, an artificial
depth.
§ J. P. KERR, of Versailles, Ill. May I ask Mr. Barnes a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. KERR. I should like Mr. Barnes to tell us how much the sani-
tary water has raised our low water level at Peoria, where there are
no levees.
152 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HULL. There are levees there.
Mr. KERR. Well, the river channel is normal there.
Mr. BARNEs. I do not have that information here exactly, but I
should say somewhere around 3 feet. -
Mr. KERR. There is an engineer employed by the Government who
is in charge there who says that water has been raised 8 feet by the
sanitary water. -
Mr. BARNEs. You either misunderstood him or he is wrong.
Mr. KERR. No; I did not misunderstand him, because I asked him
the second time.
Mr. BARNEs. Then he is wrong.
Mr. KERR. Well, he is a Government engineer.
Mr. BARNEs. I don't care who he is.
Mr. EUGENE BRow N, of Peoria, Ill. Mr. Barnes, you spoke of the
Calumet Lake being used for terminal facilities. Am I right?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes.
Mr. BRowN. Where would they reach that coming from down the
Illinois River? How would they reach it? -
Mr. BARNEs. Through the Sag Canal. It is one of the canals
of the sanitary district. - -
Mr. BRowN. Would the Sag Canal have to be enlarged? .
Mr. BARNEs. It depends on what size boat you want to put
through. . It is now 60 feet in width, 21 feet deep, and will take a
boat approximately 60 feet wide. . . . . . . . .
Mr. BRow N. Well, I meant for the traffic that is expected it will
perhaps have to be enlarged ? g n &
Mr. BARNEs. No: not necessarily. You must consider everything
from the mouth of the Sanitary Canal, or even a few miles below
that up to Chicago, as a terminal. It is the terminal of a canal
2,000 miles in length, and when we get to that point we must expect
to use tugs and terminal facilities to transport the various boats to
the various points, and that is why I have recommended the use of
small boats instead of these large boats that are now being used
on the Mississippi River. The ordinary user will not have a cargo
for a 2,000-ton boat, but he will have a cargo for a five or six or seven
hundred ton boat; therefore we would bring a fleet of small boats u
and have them distributed by tugs at the terminal. -
... 'The CHAIRMAN. Does that finish your statement, Mr. Barnes?
Mr. HULL. I want to ask him a few questions. Are you through,
Mr. Barnes? º
Mr. BARNEs. I think so.
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you just a few questions, and I will do
it now, and then if you have something else you can state it. . . .
First, I want to ask you what employment were you in before
you came to Chicago, or to Illinois? ,
*Mr. BARNEs. I was consulting engineer on the improvement of
the New York State Barge Canal for a period of eight years, and
was in private practice in Illinois for a period of about five years,
and before either of those employments I was in charge of the de-
sº force on the Panama Canal System. -
r. HULL. Now, you think you are perfectly competent to judge
as to the advantage of this canal? . . " : -
Mr. BARNEs. I do. .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 153
Mr. HULL. And its usage?
Mr. BARNEs. I do.
Mr. HULL. Now, I want to ask you
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think perhaps that would be a
matter for the committee to decide rather than the witness. I do not
think his testimony will be strengthened any by his own opinion
of his qualifications. I think he has made a good witness, but I do
not think his testifying that he has will help it. $
Mr. HULL Will you give me a chance, Mr. Chairman 7 I want
to ask him another question. *
You have read the bill that I have preparedº
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. The State has taken it under consideration, have they
not :
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. They are satisfied with it?
Mr. BARNEs. With a few minor changes; yes,sir.
Mr. HULL. In other words, this bill provides for the additional
lº, to be built and paid for by the sanitary district along the
rºl Verº
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. And the treatment plants to be built?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. And, take it as a whole, if that could be completed with
these other changes it would give us practically a perfect canal?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes; and that is the message that the governor
wanted me to bring here. . .
Mr. HULL. To bring here to this committee?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; that we are in favor of this bill and want to
see it passed.
Mr. HULL. That is all I have to ask. *
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you. Now, the
evidence on the part of the proponents is closed.
A VoICE. I would like to have Mr. Barnes give the committee
information with reference to the water power along the sanitary
canal and also upon the proposed Illinois waterway.
Mr. BARNEs. That is a point I should have brought out, as to the
value of this 10,000 feet of water over the 4,167 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. For water power purposes?
Mr. BARNEs. For all purposes, water power and navigation, and
sanitation, etc. I have submitted a report here in this volume that
I am going to submit to you, showing the value of this water for
navigation and power to the State, the Federal Government. It is
worth about $30,000,000.
I want to say also that this water is worth for power purposes
fully three times what the same power is worth at Niagara Falls;
this is, we are using this power for domestic purposes and it is
worth fully three times as much as that water in Niagara Falls used
for chemical purposes.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I inquire of the witness—I did not understand
your connection with the Panama Canal. Was that in the construc-
tion of the canal?
Mr. BARNEs. No; I was in charge of the designing force that got
out the preliminary designs for the locks, regulating works, etc.
154 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. MoRGAN. For the construction? r -
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. Before construction began I resigned and
went on to the New York State Canal System. *
The CHAIRMAN. I will ask the reporter to read that part of his
pººr about the relative value of water in Illinois and at Niagara
allS.
(The reporter read the answer of Mr. Barnes, as follows:)
I want to say also that this water is worth for power purposes fully three
times what the same power is worth at Niagara Falls; that is, we are using
this power for domestic purposes, and it is worth fully three times as much as
that water in Niagara Falls used for chemical purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the 25,000 horsepower produced
at Lockport is, you think, worth more than the 500,000 horsepower
which would be produced at the Niagara escarpment and in the
stretches of the St. Lawrence River, taking into account only that
part in the St. Lawrence to which the United States is entitled and
of which it would be the owner?
Mr. BARNEs. In the first place, there is more than 25,000 horse-
power available for the 10,000 feet flow.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we are simply taking the testimony
of Mr. Randolph. . .
Mr. BARNEs. Well, Mr. Randolph is testifying on the power de-
veloped at Lockport and owned by the Sanitary Canal; but what
I am concerned with is the power developed by the State of Illinois
and used by the State. 4.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, is there additional power to that developed
at Lockport? * .
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Where?
Mr. BARNEs. At the four locks we will build below Lockport.
The CHAIRMAN. That you will build? -
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir; when our project is completed.
The CHAIRMAN. And what is your total fall for those four locks? .
Mr. BARNEs. Well, roughly, 100 feet.
Mr. F. H. MACY of New York. Are there any private powers on
this line? . - • -
Mr. BARNEs. I testified to-day that there was a small private
power in use now at Marseilles, using only a small portion of the
present flow. h
The CHAIRMAN. What do you estimate that the 8,500 and the
10,000 separately would produce beyond Lockport?
Mr. BARNEs. I have estimated that the amount of power that we
can develop—what I mean by “we” is the State—to be about 55,000
horsepower. We are going to put in a development of something
like— W -
The CHAIRMAN (Interposing). Wait a minute—stop right there.
Fifty-five thousand plus 25,000 would be 80,000, and you think
that 80,000
Mr. BARNEs (interposing). You have not got it all yet. .
ſº CHAIRMAN. All right; give us the rest then. Where is the
Other? t
Mr. BARNEs. There are about—something like 8,000 as I recall it,
now developed by private interests at Marseilles.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 155.
The CHAIRMAN. Then call it 90,000.
Mr. BARNEs. I am not through. Wait till I get through with it.
Our development will call for an installation of approximately
90,000 horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. Ninety thousand plus 25,000 would be 115,000,
and your testimony is then, that in your opinion that 115,000 horse-
§. is more valuable than 500,000 horsepower which should be
eveloped on the Niagara escarpment and for the United States on
the St. Lawrence?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, under present conditions.
The CHAIRMAN. That answers that. That is all I want.
Mr. BARNEs. No; I am not through.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all I have asked. I suppose I have the
right to stop when I have finished with my question.
Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, some of the rest of us would like to
know what the gentleman has to say. I am interested in knowing it.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead. -
Mr. DEAL. I am interested in knowing the total amount of horse-
power that will be developed, and I would like for him to bring
out this point: You say that as to the difference between 115,000
horsepower and that that would be developed at Niagara by divert-
ing probably 1,500 cubic feet. Of course, they are using some power
in the drainage canal now; that is, they are diverting 8,500 cubic feet
of water now.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DEAL. You are not going to take that away from them. Now,
he wants
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Wait a minute. I do not think we
have reached any conclusion on that at all. -
Mr. DEAL. Well, you are not going to take away from them belo
4,167, say?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not say that.
Mr. DEAL. Then you mean to say you are going to take it all away
from them? -
The CHAIRMAN. Maybe. . .
Mr. DEAL. If you take it all away from them, then, of course, you
get 500,000 horsepower at Niagara, perhaps.
The CHAIRMAN. Not at Niagara, but at Niagara and the St. Law–
I'êIn Ce. *
Mr. DEAL. At Niagara and the St. Lawrence. But if you do not
take it away from them, then we will assume that they are going
to have some water diverted for sewage dilution. Now then, what
would be the horsepower that you would get at Niagara, say, if you
give them half?" -
The CHAIRMAN. It is just a matter of dividing the figures on
both sides by two. - * *
Mr. DEAL. You would get 250,000? Is that the idea?
The CHAIRMAN. As against half of 115, which would be 574.
Mr. HULL. You would not get any more than you have got now,
because they are taking this 8,500 feet now. - - a "
The CHAIRMAN. Have you any more questions, Mr. Deal?
Mr. DEAL. I want him to express himself. That is what I am
getting at. + •
156; ILLINorS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thought he had covered it fully.
Mr. DEAL. Well, he said he had not. I understood him to say
he had not, and that is what I wanted him to do.
Mr. BARNEs. I still say that I have not. * : *
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the reason that I made the suggestion is
that practically all of the members of the committee' have been
urging adjournment here for about half or three-quarters of an
hour on the ground that they thought this witness had completed
his testimony. It was not my original suggestion that we stop, but
each one of them has been asking for adjournment.
Mr. DEAL. Well, it will not take him over a minute or two, I guess.
Mr. BARNEs. This is the proposition: The power on the St. Law-
rence River is not developed, will not be developed for a long period
of time. When it is developed there is only a market for it to large
corporations, such as the Aluminum Co. of America and other
trusts that use it for private purposes, and they can only pay a very
small amount for this power. Moreover, in New York, there are
hundreds of thousands of horsepower yet undeveloped and waiting
for a market; in the West we have no such advantages. The water
power is very scarce in the Illinois River. We can use this power
for domestic purposes, and its value is at least three times the value
per horsepower that it would be anywhere along the St. Lawrence
River, where there is now no market.
h M; MACY, of New York. May we ask just one or two questions
€I’e
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MACY, of New York. On this question of value, I just want
to ask two questions. I want to ask Mr. Barnes what power is sold
for at Keokuk, Iowa, if he knows, per horsepower?
Mr. BARNEs. I do not know definitely.
The CHAIRMAN. What is it sold for 2
Mr. MACY, of New York. About $30 a horsepower.
A VOICE. And it is delivered in St. Louis for less than that.
Mr. MACY, of New York. And Niagara is cheaper power and
developed on a cheaper basis and they get $24 for it right at the
station. Now, what is it worth in Chicago? How much does the
Sanitary district deliver its power for in Chicago?
Mr. BARNES. I do not know, but they do not get any profit on the
power at all; it is used by their own corporations.
The CHAIRMAN. They sell about $100,000 worth. «"
Mr. HULL. Right there—if this is developed by the State, the
power all goes to the State and the sanitary district, and it is not to
be sold for profit?
Mr. BARNEs. Yes, sir. *
Mr. HULL. Now, let me ask you: The Niagara power plants, or
any of those plants up there, are selling power for a profit; is that
true?
Mr. BARNEs. That is true.
The CHAIRMAN. You said, Mr. Barnes, that there was not a de-
mand for all the power created at Niagara Falls?
Mr. BARNEs. No; I did not say that.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say, with reference to that, that I happen
to know that there is an excess demand for power, and that the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 157
power companies on both sides are not able to furnish the cus-
tomers, who are ready and willing and anxious to get power.
Mr. BARNEs. I do not know anything about the situation down
there: I only know about Chicago. *
The CHAIRMAN. There is a very acute, demand for power from
Niagara, and there would be a very acute demand the instant it
could be produced from all the power from the St. Lawrence. New
York City alone would take it all.
Mr. KINDRED. May I ask the witness this question: Is not the
witness speculating a great deal on assumed bases of certain condi-
tions as to the value of power in Niagara and as to the value of
power in other points, and we have not got any such evidence as
to those things that he is assuming? --
The CHAIRMAN. That is true.
Now, gentlemen, we have a rather embarrassing situation here.
The hearings on this matter were set down for the first three days
of this week. I suppose it was thought—unfortunately I was away
through illness; I would not have believed for one minute that we
could anything like cover this subject in three days; on the other
hand, I would have thought that it was wise to give only a limited
time to these hearings and then to adjourn, because it will give the
Opponents of the measure an opportunity to examine the hearings
and to prepare for their side of the case. -
Another bill has had hearings set for to-morrow. We realize, the
members of the committee all realize fully, that a good many people
are here who want to be heard on this subject now, and that it will
be a very considerable inconvenience to them to go away and come
again, but on the other hand the same condition confronts us as to
the next bill; witnesses are here on that bill. I think we will have
to have hearings for those who advocate that bill and then give
them an opportunity—to adjourn and give those opposed time to
prepare for their side of it. But the question now is, what are we
going to do? We want to do about all we can to accommodate you,
but we can not do two things at the same time; we can only have
one hearing. !
Mr. Newton is here, and he might tell us about how many wit-
nesses he has. - *
Mr. NEw TON of Missouri. We have enough, I think, to take up
our time of three days. We expect to finish in three days. Our
witnesses are coming from a considerable distance.
Mr. BRUCE. The proposition now is this, that if the committee
can not give us the time to-morrow and Friday, both during the
morning and evening, because we figure that we will need about
10 hours, that in that event we will ask the committee to postpone
the hearing of the opposition for two weeks, and in the interim
supply us with the testimony that has so far been submitted. That
seems to meet with the approval of the opponents.
The CHAIRMAN. We will resume, then, at 10 o'clock a. m. on Tues-
day, the 15th of April.
(Whereupon, at 4.45 o'clock p. m., the hearing was adjourned
until 10 o’clock a. m., Tuesday, April 15, 1924. º
(Subsequently, it was arranged to continue the hearing Thursday,
March 20, 1924, at 10 o’clock.)
91739–24—PT 1–11
158 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
t Bouse of REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, March 20, 1924.
Th committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Richard P. Freeman
(acting chairman) presiding.
. FREEMAN. Mr. Dempsey may be absent for a half an hour or
possibly an hour this morning and we will go ahead with the wit-
nesses in opposition to the Hull bill. The first witness is Mr. Jar-
Iºla.I].
STATEMENT OF MR. L. A. JARMAN, OF RUSHVILLE, ILL.
Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
live in the county called Schuyler, along the Illinois River Valley.
The east boundary of the county is the Ilinois River for about 25
miles. So I am quite familiar with the conditions and surroundings
of this river situation, at least that 25 to 50 miles.
The situation here is, as involved in these bills, this bill and other
bills, from our standpoint as to what we along the Illinois Valley
should have in the different bills, or in this bill as amended, in this
bill you will note that there are some provisions for taking care of
the Illinois Valley conditions.
My statement will be rather informatory than argumentative, be-
cause I realize that you gentlemen will want facts, and I shall not
pretend or attempt to give my personal judgment or opinion con-
cerning this matter; I simply go to the extent of presenting you with
certain facts from which you can draw your own conclusions.
Now, I propose in this matter to present to you three things or
three propositions or three questions. The first is as to the situation
down in the Illinois River, from our viewpoint, with reference to
our protection.
I will then for a few moments take up the bill of Congressman
Hull and indicate to you our objections to it; and I will then call
your attention to two sections of the Illinois statute creating the
sanitary district.
Now, I recognize that my time is very much limited, and for the
most part, and in order that I may be concise, I have placed in writ-
ing most of what I have to present to you. I would like to have
this go into the record as it is written, and not as delivered by me
here. I might say this about the matter: In conference with Mr.
Dempsey yesterday, by his request, in order to shorten the time, and
under the situation of this committee, he suggested that I present
in an oral way this matter without taking the time to present to you
this statement in writing, and by your permission this would then
be put in the record as if it were delivered by me.
Mr. FREEMAN. Do you want your prepared statement to appear
in the record as your statement, or do you wish to have your oral
statement reported and put in.
Mr. JARMAN. I would just as well leave this prepared statement
go in without the Stenographer reporting what I may say now in
addition to that.
lº. FREEMAN. Very well. That may go in as your statement,
then.
(Mr. Jarman’s prepared statement will be found at page 208.)
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 159
Mr. SEGER. Assuming that it does a great amount of damage, does
the organization that you represent object to the improvement con-
templated in this bill if the measure of damages was fixed and paid?
Mr. JARMAN. I will come to that in the course of my argument,
but I will simply answer here, that this is our position as con-
templated by this bill in a way and to some extent. We do not
object to a waterway. We as an organization yield that question.
We accept it. As individuals there may be some diversity of
opinion. So far as I am personally concerned—but this does not
affect this organization, however—So far as I am personally con-
cerned, I have no faith in it; but however that may be, I think that
nine-tenths of the people, nearly all of the people of Illinois, are
in favor of this waterway. I mean the people in the Illinois Valley,
and they want it, and they will be glad to have it.
Mr. HULL. That includes your organization?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BoxcE. What is the character of your organization?
Mr. JARMAN. The landowners in the 43 grange districts.
Mr. BoxcE. Was it created by legislative authority?
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, no; it is simply an organization for the mutual
benefit of the levee districts.
Mr. Boy CE. A mutual Organization?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. VELDE. The districts are authorized by law.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Are the districts a separate entity?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. You state that your organization favors the water-
wav Ž
M. JARMAN. Yes, sir. -
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, what character of waterway—one similar to
the one proposed in the Hull bill, eliminating the locks?
Mr. JARMAN. This is the position that our organization takes, from
our standpoint, that we are in favor of the waterway. Just let me
preface that by this. We recognized that this committee must review
this question from five standpoints. That seems to be the equitable
and fair proceeding of a committee of the United States—to view it
from five standpoints.
First, the question from the viewpoint of the needs of Chicago
for sanitary purposes. You can not avoid that. The other is the
navigation of the lakes. You can not avoid that... The other is the
navigation waterway down the Illinois River. That is before you.
Another question is the damages to the Illinois River and Valley
for these purposes. tº tº
Now, if you take all these viewpoints into consideration, then
what is to us the reasonable position? We favor a bill which will
create a waterway. You can have it, 9 feet, or any proper number
of feet, as your Federal engineers indicate is proper. We believe
that the sanitary district should be taken care of on account of its
health conditions—and from that standpoint it is entitled to the con-
sideration of this committee, entitled to their serious consideration;
but the question of water power is not entitled to serious considera-
tion against these other interests. Q
Mr. MoRGAN. Then your sole objection is from the standpoint of
water power and not from the standpoint of a waterway?
160 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. JARMAN. Except from our standpoint, our objection is to
the amount of water that comes in there and creates the damage, of
course. We primarily object to the situation there on account of
the overflow of the water. *.
Mr. WILSON. If your land was protected your objection would
be ended ? - º
Mr. JARMAN. Well, except in this way. . There are two situations
down the valley, that is the overflow of this water and the pollution
of the water, and the pollution of the water has become so obnoxious
that it has become impossible to live on it, impossible to divert
it, and impossible to fish in it.
Mr. WILSON. Do you think that ought to be shut off at once?
Mr. JARMAN. No, it can not be done.
Mr. WILSON. How long do you think it will take to put the
machinery in to take care of that?
Mr. JARMAN. My proposition is to leave that to the engineers of
the War Department. Why should we dictate here whether there
should be five or ten years of any other time? Why do we not.
1eave that to the War Department to say how long it will take to
erect those purification plants, and as the purification plants are
built we will take, care of this water, except so much as is needed
for navigation, and as these plants are built the water taken from
Lake Michigan should decrease accordingly until such a time as
that it would entirely cease, except the amount of water necessary
to take care of navigation. What that amount of water shall be
depends on the committee and the engineers; and whether it shall
require 9,000 feet, or 4,167 cubic feet is a question for the engineers,
But there should be no more water put into that drainage canal as
against the interests of these land owners in the Illinois Valley
than is necessary, and no longer time should be taken than is neces-
sary to take care of the Chicago Sewage in the future, and also neces-
sary for the purposes of navigation, as may be determined by the
War Department from time to time.
Mr. MoRGAN. To be specific on this matter, you favor a transpor-
tation waterway?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. And your only objection to the waterway is the
amount of water carried in the channel as may affect the overflow :
Mr. JARMAN. And as may affect pollution.
Mr. BoycE. And the Great Lakes.
Mr. JARMAN. And the Great Lakes; yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes; the Great Lakes. Suppose the Army engineers
find that by the construction of the proposed locks and the removal
of those that are in existence now, would not create further damage,
or, in other words, would not increase your hazards, would you be
in favor of the Hull bill, in case the engineers so find?
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, no; there are a number of provisions in the
Hull bill that we object to; but we are in favor of the waterways
to the extent that it does not injure the Illinois Valley with refer-
ence to overflow and pollution.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask one question. You said a while
ago that you were in favor of everything except the power part
of this.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, Erc. 161
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, no, no. :
Mr. HULL. I am not speaking of my bill; but you gave your spe-
cific statement that you were in favor of taking care of the pollution
if it would require 10,000 cubic feet per second; and you were in
favor of deep water; you were in favor of taking care of the Lakes;
and you were in favor of protecting the valley; but you were op-
posed to the power end of it. That is what you said.
Mr. JARMAN. No: I said this: I said that in considering this
question this committee should take into consideration these dif-
ferent viewpoints, and as to the question of sanitation in Chicago,
it was entitled to consideration as against all of these interests; but
as to the question of hydroelectric power as it affected this question
they are not entitled to consideration as against these other interests.
Mr. HULL. No; that is just where I wanted to ask you the ques-
tion. I am going to take it for granted that from what you have
said you are still of the opinion that we have to have 10,000 cubic
feet of water. *
Mr. JARMAN. No, no, no.
Mr. HULL. Excuse me; you have made the statement here several
times that you thought it would take 10,000 cubic feet to take care
of the sewage of Chicago. -
Mr. JARMAN. I never said so.
Mr. HULL. Don’t you believe so?
Mr. JARMAN. Now?
Mr. HULL. How much do you think it will take to take care of
the sewage? -
Mr. JARMAN. It depends on how many purification plants you
have. gº
Mr. HULL. Take it now.
Mr. JARMAN. Now?
Mr. HULL. Yes.
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, I suppose it is necessary to put in that river
10,000 cubic feet. You have been putting in 8,500 to dilute the
sewage, from the sanitation standpoint, but we are not in favor of
that.
Mr. HULL. But we are agreed that we have to have the water
go through there on account of the pollution.
Mr. JARMAN. Only a certain length of time, until you can take
care of your purification plans.
Mr. HULL. I want to get to my question without interfering with
you too much. Put it down to even 5,000 cubic feet of water that
goes through there. Now, would you object to their using that sur-
plus water that goes through there to generate power? It has got to
go through, and you might as well generate the power, might you
not ? -
Mr. JARMAN. No ; it has not got to go through.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dempsey). Do you not always have the
incident' that you use it for power, an argument just such as was
presented on the screen here, that territory saving a million dollars
a year for Chicago for using it? -
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And is not that about the most insidious and
most attractive of all the arguments that you can present for an
improper use? - -
162 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. JARMAN. Absolutely; here is the situation as Mr. Barnes
presented it here yesterday. -
Mr. HULL. If the water runs, through—and I don't care about
the amount; we will say that it is only 2,000 cubic feet—is there
any objection on your part to it being used for waterpower when
it goes through?
Mr. JARMAN. No.
Mr. HULL. That is what I wanted to know.
Mr. JARMAN. Only this: You should not put water through there
as against these interests, simply for water power.
Mr. HULL. Well, I will admit that.
Mr. JARMAN. And you should not put any water through there
for any purpose except what is absolutely necessary and can not be
helped, and that is the reason I say the Chicago Sanitary conditions
should be considered; but, as against these other matters, electric
power should not be considered.
Mr. PEAVEY. Do I corectly understand that you are a practicing
lawyer in that territory?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; a little.
Mr. PEAVEY. I have had several communications in the last few
weeks from different directions, and they are complaining of the
damages and loss by pollution, and particularly by overflow, etc.
It occurs to me to ask you why those people do not get redress by
going into the courts in the usual way?
Mr. JARMAN. Of course, I will answer that. Here is the situa-
tion: The sanitary district act, passed in 1889, provided that the
sanitary district should be liable for all damages to land caused by
reason of this water going through the Illinois Valley. Now, that
is the suit. As indicated, the sanitary water was turned in there
in 1900. During the first five years that occurred, as shown by their
records, about 4,000 cubic feet per second was turned in there, not
greater than that during the first five years. In the first place, the
effect of that water was not realized by these people. Suits were
brought by them, the landowners. I was connected with several
suits myself. A man owning a hundred acres of land down there
would bring a suit against the sanitary district. I tried two of those
suits, and quit the other one. It would take a man who brings a
suit against the sanitary district a long time, and it would cost him
every time more than he would get for damages.
The CHAIRMAN. Your difficulty is this, I suppose. You had a
stream there before this augmentation; and the sanitary canal, I
take it, contended it has not caused the damage; the damage was
there anyway. That is one of their defenses, I suppose?
Mr. JARMAN. Of course, yon can prove almost anything by an
expert.
The CHAIRMAN. That means a very large expense which you do
not get back in your bill of costs.
Mr. JARMAN. Why, Of course, the cost is a big item. It takes
four to six weeks to try a case. The expenses of a lot of experts
have to be paid, and they have to stay there that length of time.
We have heard a good deal about the farmers and about the im-
portance of creating the waterway there for the protection of the
farmers. Mr. Randolph stood here and talked for an hour about
protecting the farmers; but they have created more damage to the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 163
district than they could possibly save in freight rates in a hundred
years.
. Mr. PEAVEY. As a lawyer, let me ask you how does this munic-
ipal corporation find it possible to use municipal funds for such
purposes, and how do they operate, by what method?
r., JARMAN. They operate by a legal staff—not in the State of
Illinois but in Chicago—and they operate by a legal staff hired in
every county in the Illinois River Valley. There are seven law-
yers retained by the sanitary district in the Peoria district, two
lawyers retained in the next county, and two lawyers retained in
Cass County, near Beardstown. Let us be frank. We are simply
in the hands of the sanitary district, and we can not get out of their
hands, and they know it.
Mr. BARRETT. Is there not a provision in the law that attorney's
fees shall be assessed in the cost? -
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. And that has been sustained by the Supreme Court
of the State of Illinois. So the farmer's attorney is paid if he has
a legitimate case.
Mr. JARMAN. If he has a case; yes.
Mr. BARRETT. You would not expect him to be paid if he did not
have a case.
Mr. JARMAN. I would not say if he has a case. I would say if he
gets a verdict. The situation is that all legitimate claims are not
recognized and we can not get them paid.
The CHAIRMAN. What was your question, Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. He has answered it; but I will repeat it. The sani-
tary district is the only one of its kind that I know of which pro-
vides that upon a claim for damage by reason of overflow, made
by anybody in the Illinois Valley, there shall be assessed, in addition
to the damages, as part of the costs incidental to the trial, attorney’s
fees for the plaintiff, and that has been sustained by our Supreme
court.
The CHAIRMAN. Attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court.
Mr. BARRETT. Assessed by the court?
The CHAIRMAN. Take one of your four trials. What amount was
allowed in a trial lasting six weeks; what amount was allowed as
an attorney’s fee, by the court?
Mr. JARMAN. Pardon me; but we did not get any verdict.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HULL. Was that in your own county 2
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. And you did not get a verdict?
Mr. JARMAN. No.
Mr. HULL. Then what kick have you coming?
Mr. JARMAN. I am not through answering that question.
Mr. VELDE. May I interject a statement? There are limitations
upon that attorney fee provision in the law; that is, the law pro-
vides that if the claimant makes a demand within a given length
of time before the suit is brought and if he does not recover a greater
amount, or the same amount that he demands of the Sanitary district,
then he gets no attorney's fees; if his recovery is less than he has
demanded of the sanitary district, or less than they have offered
him, then he gets no attorney’s fee.
164 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. JARMAN. I want to answer a question.
Mr. LYON. Before you do that I would like to ask one question. ,
Does the sanitary district plead the statute of limitations? "Give us
the law on that.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you have as to that statute; do you have
three years?
Mr. JARMAN. Five years. As I said awhile ago, the people along
the Illinois River; the people in that valley, did not realize what
this meant at first. First, about the attorney’s fees; the gentleman
seems to think that attorney fees would correct the whole thing.
I said to you awhile ago that we did not recover a verdict in the
suits that I referred to. I will answer that further when I get
through answering these other questions. I am simply saying now
we did not recover a verdict, because under the decision of the su-
preme court, as the case had been decided, after our suit was brought
the statute of limitations of five years as against permanent damages
applied to this, and therefore under instructions of the court we
did not get any verdict.
Mr. LYON. The time beginning and running from the time of the
creation of the sanitary district in 1890?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes. I will answer that now. In the Jones case,
what is known as the Jones case, the Supreme court decided, by a
divided court of four to three, that the statute of limitations did not
apply, that under this statute there was the right of the sanitary
district to construct this right of way, and also to use this water.
In any event the supreme court by a divided court, four to three, de-
cided the statute of limitations did not apply to that. Three of the
members of the supreme court held that the statute of limitations as
to permanent damages did apply. In subsequent proceedings the
supreme court finally got to the point that the statute of limitations
did apply.
The CHAIRMAN. The three became four !
Mr. JARMAN. No: in the last case they stood six to one.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr. Velde did not exactly state the provisions of the statute of
limitations, he did not state them quite correctly.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes. As I understand, if you will file a claim, say
long before suit is brought, and state in that claim the amount you
want to recover, and you get into suit and do recover that amount,
that then you are entitled to an attorney fee.
Mr. BARRETT. No; that is not the law, is it, Mr. Velde?
Mr. VELDE. No. -
Mr. ADCOCK. If you get any verdict you are entitled to an at-
torney’s fee. The statute provides that they shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the costs.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say with reference to that that, generally
speaking, throughout the State, where there is an offer of settle-
ment—and that is substantially what Mr. Velde said—if the party
to whom the offer is made does not recover more than the amount.
offered, he does not only not recover the additional allowance which
this would be but he does not recover any costs at all, but the costs.
go against him.
Mr. BARRETT. That is not the provision of our law.
The CHAIRMAN. But is not that the provision of your general law?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 165.
Mr. BARRETT. No. You can not recover attorney’s fees in our
State, except by a special provision of the statute.
The CHAIRMAN. What I was saying applied to courts generally,
that from the time an offer is made the costs go against the man to
whom the offer is made unless he recovers more than the amount of
the offer. *.
Mr. BARRETT. That might be where you do not pursue a claim for
unliquidated damages, but in a case of this sort it is impossible.
I want to make another statement: We have had a couple of cases
down there; and in one case the recovery was $1,000, and the allow-
ance for attorney’s fees was $7,500. The supreme court said it was
unreasonable. And another case where the allowance was $5,000,
and the Supreme court again said it was unreasonable. All these
cases have to be tried away from the Sanitary District of Chicago;
they are tried in your courts and with your jurors and not with ours.
Mr. JARMAN. There are 300 cases pending in the city of Chicago
that have gone there from down State. What are you talking
about? Let me answer one question at a time now.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in the same position in regard
to these proceedings that I was yesterday in regard to the proceed-
ings then. $
The CHAIRMAN. Let us have the witness continue with his state-
ment for a while.
Mr. JARMAN. I want to answer that question. He says that down
State a man recovered a thousand dollars and $7,500 was allowed as,
attorney’s fees. That was a case brought by Congressman Graff
against the district. The judgment was $750. Congressman Graff
owned 2,000 acres of overflowed land. He brought suit at Peoria.
He had four attorneys in the suit representing him. The sanitary
district had about twice that many attorneys. That case was tried
for six weeks, and the jury came in and rendered a verdict of $750.
Mr. HULL. On 2,000 acres.
Mr. JARMAN. That is a fact; you need not smile about it.
Mr. HULL. Well, he was my Congressman.
Mr. JARMAN. Was it not a fact?
Mr. HULL. I don’t know.
Mr. JARMAN. They know it. The circuit court judge offered to
give him a new trial, but he said, “No, I can not afford to have a new
trial to test this thing with this fellow.” And he refused to have
a new trial. The court did allow him $750, and it was taken to the
court of appeals and set aside; and they compromised it when it
came back. But the circuit court ordered an investigation as to
whether or not that jury was bribed, and that investigation took
place before a grand jury under the circuit court. They did not
succeed in getting any proof, but it was thought sufficiently impor-
tant for that circuit judge to instruct that grand jury as to the in-
vestigation of bribery of that jury. Now, you have got your case.
Mr. BARRETT. They were tried by your jurors.
Mr. JARMAN. Our jurors can be bribed as well as yours.
Mr. BOYCE, This is all very interesting, but is it not aside from
the questions of merit in this case?
Mr. JARMAN. I am just answering questions. 4.
Mr. BoycE. I know ; and they are widening in scope, not material
to the question before the committee.
166 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. It is only material to this extent: The claim is
here that the Illinois landowners are damaged by these floods; and
the answer of the proponents is, “Yes, but you are paid;” and the
witness says, “No, we are not paid; we find when we prosecute our
lawsuits that the proceedings are so prolonged and so technical that
We can not get any relief, and it costs more than it comes to. So in
fact we do not get any relief.” That is the only respect in which
it has any bearing on the case.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is not this material as to the Rainey case, which
provides for a board to adjust these matters?
Mr. PEAVEY. I was the one that started these fireworks by my
question, and to my mind it seems that there is, further, a still bigger
Fº to be brought out, and that is this: That the evidence given
y those who are supporting Mr. Hull's bill, one of their principal
claims for consideration, is that we should take into consideration
the serious condition in the city of Chicago, the situation that con-
fronts those poor people as to Sanitation and care of their sewage.
Now, as the reverse of that proposition we have the proposition of
their dumping their sewage on Some other innocent poor people,
and they show no consideration for those people in Illinois when
they are dumping their sewage. Now, how can they come and ask
for consideration for their Chicago residents, when they show no
consideration for the rights of these other people? -
The CHAIRMAN. It is a development of your point, that while
technically they have relief in the courts, as a matter of fact in
practice they find that they do not get relief.
Mr. WELDE. May I be permitted when I get home to send you on
a copy of the provision of the law relative to attorney fees, that it
may go in the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. JARMAN. The gentleman's statement reminds me of a little
story. Some time ago, about two years ago, I think it was last
summer or two summers ago, a client of mine living on the Illinois
River came into my office. He had been to Chicago with a load of
livestock, and he said that after he got through his business he
wandered out into the parks of Chicago, a very beautiful place,
and he said “In my wanderings I came to a sign “Keep off the grass,”
and in my musings I thought, what a situation; when I come up
here they tell me to keep off the grass with my clean-shod feet,
but down at home they are dumping their sewage in my front
yard.” Now, that expresses the situation. *
Mr. HULL. If you will excuse me a moment, I want to answer him
while it is fresh in my mind. Mr. Peavey brought out a point that
I want to answer. The State of Illinois in 1899 passed a law turn-
ing the sewage down this river, and the State of Illinois passed a
law also providing for 8,900 cubic feet per second as the flow of
water. What I want to bring out is the fact that the State of Illi-
nois is more responsible for this sewage and the water coming down
than the sanitary district, because the State passed the law.
Mr. JARMAN. Is that so? Who asked them to pass the law Ż
Mr. HULL. That is not the question.
Mr. JARMAN. The sanitary district.
Mr. HULL. The sanitary district was not formed at that time,
was it? -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 167
Mr. JARMAN. The law provided for the formation of the Sanitary
District of Chicago, and it was formed for the purpose of giving
them the right to take care of this sewage.
Mr. HULL. Then why is not the State to blame for this?
Mr. JARMAN. To blame for what?
Mr. HULL. Having the sewage dumped on them.
Mr. JARMAN. Well, they gave them permission to do it.
Mr. HULL. They passed a law, did they not? .
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; you are interrupting the trend of my remarks.
Mr. HULL. I am sorry.
Mr. JARMAN. Here is the act of the legislature.
This is the act of the legislature of 1899, under which the Sanitary
District of Chicago was organized. Section 21 provides:
Any Channel or Outlet under the provisions of this act, which shall cause any
discharge of sewage into or through any river or stream of water beyond or
without the limits of the district constructing the same, shall be kept and main-
tained in Such size and in such condition that the water thereof shall be neither
offensive nor injurious to the health of any of the people in this State ; and
before any sewage shall be discharged into such channel or outlet all garbage,
(i.ead animals, and parts thereof, and other solids, shall be taken therefrom.
That is what the State of Illinois says. Has the sanitary district
complied with that?
Mr. HULL. I don’t think they have.
Mr. JARMAN. Well, they have been violating the law all the time.
You talk about the State being to blame
Mr. HULL (interposing.) But the State is to blame for starting it.
Mr. JARMAN. But you are coming here appealing to Congress to
do this thing above the State. This committee has no authority, of
course, except from the standpoint of navigation. You are asking
that the State shall give, in addition to what they have, the 10,000
cubic feet.
Mr. Hull. No; I am not. I am asking that they carry out the
law by asking that they do not go beyond that 10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. MoRGAN. As I understand you, repeating somewhat, you favor
a transportation waterway and you favor the city of Chicago, or
rather, claim that the city of Chicago shall provide for the caring
of its sewage disposal at the earliest possible date? Is that right?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. In brief, that is your position?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; and as they provide for that sewage this water
shall be taken out of the Illinois River. Now, what objection can
anybody have to that, what objection can there be?
Mr. MoRGAN. That is merely getting your position. If I under-
stand it, it is based upon those two points, that you favor a trans-
portation waterway, and the city of Chicago at the earliest possible
date caring for its sewage disposal'
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, and the protection of this land.
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, of course, that is implied.
Mr. JARMAN. Our information is that these purifications can be
taken care of in five or six years or more. We won’t say that; we
won’t claim it can be done in five or six years.
Mr. MoRGAN. In other words, you consider that a reasonable time
should be given for the construction of the sewage-disposal plants?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; under the direction of the War Department.
168 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MoRGAN. And, coming to the final conclusion of this matter,
you are willing to rest your case on the findings of the Engineers of
the War Department?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. LYON. You do oppose giving them a grant of 10,000 cubic
feet in perpetuity ?
Mr. JARMAN. Absolutely.
, Mr. LYON. In other words, you would decrease the amount of
diversion as they can build disposal plants, finally getting to the trans-
portation system 2
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Going a little further from that point, you are in
favor of the diversion of such water as will maintain a transporta-
tion waterway?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; and with the protection
Mr. MoRGAN (interposing). Yes: that is implied.
Mr. JARMAN. That statement brings this situation: Here are en-
gineers who say that a waterway can be carried down there with
only a thousand cubic feet of water, with the locks. There are others
who say that a waterway can be created with 4,167 cubic feet without
the locks. Others say that they want 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Now, they want a waterway. The only objection to the 10,000 cubic
feet from that statement, if the waterway can be maintained there
at 9 feet, is the cost of it is it not? And the deprivation of Chicago
of hydroelectric power. Those are the only two objections to it, are
they not ? There can not be any other, as I see it. I say that the hy-
droelectric power is not entitled to consideration against the health of
the people in the Illinois River Valley. If the War Department could
say that they could create a proper waterway, not with 1,000 feet, but
can with 4,167 cubic feet, all right, and if you protect the valley, all
right, we say: but there they say it can be maintained without locks.
Now, that is all they can have, a waterway without locks; but they
come back and say - -
Mr. MoRGAN (interposing). Is not the question you complain of
very largely an engineering proposition? And you are willing to
submit the proposition to Army Engineers? *
Mr. JARMAN. Not at all. This bill provides for 10,000 cubic feet
per second in perpetuity.
Mr. MoRGAN. I am not speaking about this bill; I am speaking
about the finding of the Engineers as to the amount of water neces-
sary for a canal.
Mr. JARMAN. But what is the objection, if you have a canal that
has 4,167 cubic feet, a canal of that size, and if their sewage is taken
care of there would be no objection in the world, except we want
this hydroelectric power. We have taken care of your sewage, we
are building the waterways of 9-foot depth, and the only thing they
are deprived of is the electric power. º
Mr. MoRGAN. And that is your statement, you are in favor of a
transportation canal to take care of the sewage disposal and the ad-
ditional development is incidental, to whatever extent it might be?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes. I am going to ask your indulgence to state my
position on that, as I have it written here. [Reading:]
I recognize that this Congress must look at this matter from five viewpoints
Or with reference to five questions: First, the navigation of the Great Lakes;
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 169
Second, the navigation waterways from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi
River; third, the Chicago sewage sanitation ; fourth, the Illinois River
Valley Sanitation and fish industry; fifth, the damages to and destruction of
property in the Illinois River Valley.
Now, those are the five viewpoints from which this committee
must look at this proposition, as I see it.
The CHAIRMAN. Nobody has told us the acreage of land affected
by these floods.
Mr. JARMAN. I put that in the record before you came in. There
are 400,000 acres of land along this river subject to overflow. There
are 200,000 acres of that land in certain districts.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the average value and what is the aver-
age rental value of the land affected?
Mr. JARMAN. We have that in the record. These districts vary
in size from 400 acres to 12,500 acres. The cost of the construction
of these districts is about $18,875,000, about $95 an acre. The value
of this land now is about $30,000,000. The value of the crop in
normal times is worth yearly $500,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. That answers my question.
Mr. MANSFIELD. One question in regard to damage. Has this
damage that you speak of occurred altogether in the unprotected
districts or a portion of it where you have your protected districts?
Mr. JARMAN. I was coming to that. There are 43 districts along
this river, as I have told you. In the spring of 1922 in 17 of those
districts the levees were broken and the water overflowed and de-
stroyed the dwellings and outhouses and barns and stock and corn
and wheat and corncribs and everything else in those districts. Seven-
teen of those districts were destroyed.
Mr. LYON. What was the highest stage of the river that year; what
was the rise of the river between low water and high water?
Mr. JARMAN. At Beardstown I think it was 25 feet. That has oc-
curred from year to year in these different districts, not to that ex-
tent. The climax of the damage from flood was reached in April,
1922, when there were over $2,000,000 of property destroyed along
this valley. That was in April, 1922.
Mr. PEAVEY. Did anybody ever collect any damages for that?
Mr. JARMAN. No: none at all. They would not pay a cent because,
they said, it was an act of God.
Mr. HULL. May I ask you a question?
Mr. JARMAN. Certainly.
Mr. HULL. In my bill I have provided for the sanitary district to
build levees high enough and wide enough to take care of the water
so that there would not be any damage, and also to pump the water
out from the farms. That is also provided for. Now, I want to ask
you, because I think you agree with me that we want a deep water-
way and want to take care of the sewage proposition—because we
will be stunk out, as you say, if we do not—we want the farmer to
be taken care of by levees high enough, and pumping stations put in,
and everything; and if that were done, would you oppose the bill?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; as it is drawn, positively.
Mr. HULL. I am saying that the Congress should do it, not the
bill. I mean if Congress decides that they will put in the bill, make
the sanitary district put in the requirements for the water, then would
you oppose it?
170 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. JARMAN. The gentleman asks me
Mr. HULL. Yes; won't you just answer that?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; that question; yes.
Mr. HULL. You would oppose it anyhow ! You would oppose it,
even if we were to take care of the land?
Mr. JARMAN. As you ask that question, yes; but I did not finish
stating my position.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you start, Mr. McLaughlin, a Member of
Congress wants to present a matter very briefly.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. McLAUGHLIN, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I represent a Michigan dis-
trict located on Lake Michigan, where the people are vitally inter-
ested in this proposition; and at the suggestion of yourself and
Members of the House representing Michigan there was a meeting
yesterday of the delegation from Michigan, at which every Mem-
ber was present. Everyone expressed himself forcibly to the same
effect, of opposition to and disapproval of this proposed legislation;
and I was directed to prepare a statement embodying the views of
the Members, to be signed by them.
I prepared that statement, but I have not had time to get the
signatures of the Members. I ask permission now to read the
statement, and later to file it with the signatures of the Members
of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.
Mr. BOYCE. Will you file your statement for the record?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You will file it with the original signatures?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes. And this does not include any argu-
ment. It is simply a statement of our opposition and the basis upon
which our opinions are based.
Addressing this committee I say:
WASHINGTON, D. C., March 20, 1924.
The COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of Representatives.
GENTLEMEN : The undersigned, Representatives of the State of Michigan in
the Congress, hereby respectfully express to you our disapproval of and oppo-
Sition to H. R. 5475 (the Hull bill), and to all bills having for their purpose
the authorization by the Congress of diversion of water from Lake Michigan
by the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago.
We submit that it is very doubtful indeed if any authority exists, even in the
CongreSS, to authorize or permit diversion of water from the Great Lakes for
any use or purpose calculated or the effect of which will be materially to lower
their levels and thereby interfere with their natural and proper use for naviga-
tion purposes, which is and always must be the primary, if not the sole, pur-
pose for which the water of Said lakes may legally be used; that if it shall be
determined that authority rests with and can legally be exercised by the Con-
gress to permit diversion Of Water from said lakes, or its use for any purpose
other than navigation, there can not be, certainly ought not to be, assumption
or exercise of such authority Without the express consent and approval of the
State or States Whose rights are involved and whose interests are or may be
affected, which consent or approval has never been asked nor given by or in
behalf of any of such States; that diversion of water from Lake Michigan by
the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago has for several years
caused, and now causes, material lowering of the level of the water of said
lake and of others of the Great Lakes, thereby embarrassing and making diffi-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 171
Cult, dangerOus, and unduly expensive the navigation of said lakes, particularly
the channels COnnecting the same and of harbors which have been Constructed
and are maintained along the shores, and if diversion of water as proposed by
these bills be permitted, the business and property of the people of the State
of . Michigan—in fact, Of the entire Country—in addition to the inconvenience,
damage, and expense already Sustained, will Suffer immense and irreparable
10SS.
ROBERT H. CLANCY. BIRD J. VINCENT.
EARL C. MICHENER. JAMES C. McLAUGHLIN.
ARTHUR B. WILLIAM S. ROY O. WOODRUFF.
JOHN C. KETCHAM. FRANK D. SCOTT.
CARL E. MAPES. W. FRANK JAMES.
GRANT M. HuDSON. - CLARENCE J. MCLEOD.
LOUIS C. CRAMTON.
This has the approval of the entire delegation of 13 Members
from the State of Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. And you will be good enough to obtain the
signatures and then file it.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. We are deeply interested in this matter. My
district extends approximately 125 miles along the shore of Lake
Michigan, and there are several harbors, some of them the largest
and best on the Great Lakes. Two are great car-ferry ports, one of
them—I believe I am speaking correctly—is the largest in the world.
All of them have been constructed and are maintained by the Fed-
eral Government.”
I will say also that reliable reports are all to the effect that diver-
sion of water now going on, from Lake Michigan at Chicago, has
materially lowered the level of the lakes and to a point never be-
fore known, and that has made more shallow the water in many
of the harbors. And as I have said, has made dangerous the passage
of those harbors. The annual report of the Great Lakes Carriers’
Association shows that the level of water of the Great Lakes is
lower than ever before, due directly to the diversion of water in
Chicago, and that the great freight carrying ships have found it
necessary to carry light loads, so that they can get over shallow
places, made shallow by this diversion of water.
The gentlemen of this committee are familiar, of course, with the
magnitude of the traffic on the Great Lakes. Those who have not
given particular attention to it have little, if any, conception of that
travel and traffic. No similar area in the world supplies such an
amount of business or the character of business in importance and
value as this area served by the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say, as illustrating that, two things;
first, last year was the greatest year in the history of the Great
Lakes. This business has been growing in spite of the difficulties,
not by reason of them but in spite of them; and, second, one of the
Detroit steamship companies is going to put the greatest passenger
vessel in the world on the Great Lakes this coming season.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The Detroit River is one of the greatest water-
ways in the world. Last year vessels, not scows or sand-suckers or
craft of that kind, but real ships, passed the city of Detroit and did
business there in such numbers that during the 73 months of naviga-
tion if the ships passing through and touching at Detroit had been
equidistant from one another, one would have passed there and been
at the city of Detroit every 15% minutes during the entire 73,
months.
172 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
As an indication of the amount of traffic carried on at the Soo
Locks, in the St. Marys River, connecting, as you know, Lake Su-
perior and Lake Huron, the amount of business transacted there
was 91 million tons of freight, whereas at the Suez Canal there was
only 23% million tons, and at the Panama Canal only 193 million
tons.
That is, the tonnage at the Suez Canal and at the Panama Canal
together is about 10 million tons less than one-half as much as at
the locks of the St. Marys River. And the total freight, as far as
I have been able to ascertain, on the Great Lakes was 120 million
tons in 1923. *
This is a business so large, that those who have given no attention
to it, as I have said, have no appreciation of its value or of its magni-
tude. The boats that are used are among the largest in the world
and they need all the water that would be there naturally but for
improper diversion at Chicago. ſº
Mr. HULL. The boats that you speak of are running now, are they
not?
The CHAIRMAN. Running light.
Mr. HULL. They are running now Ż
Mr. McLACHLIN. Not now ; they run only about 74 months of the
year. Navigation will not open for a couple of weeks.
Mr. HULL. But last year they ran all through the season, as you
stated, did they not, carrying this freight?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes. There are 74 months of navigation on
the Great Lakes and through St. Marys River. Many of the boats
on the lower Great Lakes run all the year round. For instance at
my home city, Muskegon, there is a line of boats between that city
and Chicago also a line of boats to and from Milwaukee running
all the year round. The same is true at Ludington, the great car-
ferry port. The same is true at Manistee, also at Frankfort, all in
my district. As to those harbors I can speak definitely, but can not
speak so well as to the harbors of Lake Erie and Lake Huron.
Mr. HULL. That is what I understood you to say. Suppose this
committee should become convinced for the purpose of protecting
the sanitary conditions in Chicago it is necessary to permit tem-
porarily a larger diversion of water from Lake Michigan, this
amount to be decreased as the city is provided plants to take care
of the sewage, would your delegation then oppose a temporary bill
of that kind?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I doubt very seriously—the wisdom or safety
of an affirmative answer to the question.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will permit me to interpolate, as I under-
stand the protest filed by your delegation, you think the legal ques-
tion about the right to divert should be settled in the Supreme Court
action before congressional action is attempted, and that then you
would meet that question of the temporary needs of Chicago until
it can º other means of sewage disposal? g
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes; you have expressed our opinion on that
phase of the question.
Mr. LYON. Then, do I correctly understand that would be the only
objection so far as your delegation is concerned, if the Supreme
Court should decide that they have a right to divert this water then
your delegation would have no objection to a bill allowing the city
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 173
to temporarily divert enough water to take care of the health of the
city ?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Enough water? I don’t think it is the duty
of Lake Michigan to sewer the city of Chicago. I believe any ma-
terial diversion for any purpose is illegal.
The CHAIRMAN. And you think that that question ought to be
taken up after the Supreme Court has decided the legal question?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yts. The Great Lakes are for navigation and
are not interested in Sewering the city of Chicago or supplying water
power at any point along the waterway that has been or will be
constructed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is true; but this condition is already in ex-
istence, and the lives of 3,000,000 people there are to be considered.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I realize the conditions existing in Chicago.
The city I live in is a Chicago town, near by ; we are in direct commu-
nication with it by rail and boat and a great deal of our business is
transacted there. I realize conditions there, and perhaps they must
be taken care of temporarily, although, in my judgment, they are
being taken care of illegally and to the detriment of the Great Lakes
and those who live on them and have business on them.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they have voluntarily gotten
themselves into an illegal position, but you have to give them such
consideration as is absolutely necessary?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I presume that temporary consideration may
properly be given them.
Mr. LYON. Well, if that is true, we may have to do that to protect
the health conditions of the town; do you not think we ought to
legalize it if we can!
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Degalize it at our expense? No. You say, if
you can. That is a condition of affairs that this committee, in the
first instance, must consider. The question of whether or not it
can be legally done ought to be determined by the decision of the
Supreme Court, for which we are waiting.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you a lawyer?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I am an attorney. I am an atorney, licensed
to practice.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not considered a bad practice for a litigant
having gotten into court to go to the legislature to anticipate the
decision?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I have that opinion and have expressed it in my
written statement. -
Mr. LOUIS L. BEHAN, of Chicago. Does the Congressman from
Michigan understand the right of Congress to legislate on this very
question is not involved in the proceedings now pending in the United
States Supreme Court?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I do not know what matters are directly in
issue in the suit before the Supreme Court, but many of those inter-
ested in the matter are hoping that the opinion of the court will
cover the entire proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The entire field 2
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The entire field.
Mr. BEHAN. The Congressman understands, however, that the Su-
preme Court will undoubtedly confine itself to the issues involved
in the lawsuit.
91739—24—PT 1––12
174 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. That is usually the case, but this is a great big
proposition, and the court will realize that the entire matter ought
to be, and some time must be, determined by that court.
Mr. BEHAN. Does the Congressman understand that the War De-
partment's position in times past has been predicated upon the point
that it was up to Congress to determine the amount of diversion, and
that the War, Department would merely grant temporary permits
until such time as Congress had legislated?
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what Mr. Behan asked is
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). I think my question is plain. If the
Congressman does not understand it, Mr. Chairman, I will be very
glad to make it clear.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. I would suggest
Mr. BEHAN. The Congressman is a lawyer >
The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest to the witness that what he means
is that the opinion of the Secretary of War, who very rarely is a
lawyer, and the Chief of Engineers, who never is a lawyer, is to be
weighed in determining what the judgment of the Supreme Court
should be.
Mr. BEHAN. That is not Mr. Behan’s question at all Mr. Chair-
man. I am willing, with due respect to the chairman, to leave my
question in the record as it is. -
The CHAIRMAN. I will leave it in the record as it is. I have the
right to make a remark, which I will make. Kindly sit down.
Mr. BEHAN. Without being disrespectful, I would like to say this:
I am willing, of course, to have the chairman direct any questions,
but my question is my question, with all due respect to the chair-
Iſlall.
The CHAIRMAN. The chairman does not think the question is mate-
rial or that the opinion of the Secretary of War, who very rarely is
a lawyer, or the opinion of the Chief of Engineers, who never is a
lawyer, would have any particular bearing upon the question at
ISSULé.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I just ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Surely.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Let me make a reply
Mr. MoRGAN. Just a minute. I have served on a good many com-
mittees and I have never witnessed such proceedings as are going on
now. I would like to have the question answered by Mr. McLaugh-
lin, the question asked by the gentleman over here [indicating].
The CHAIRMAN. I will put it to the committee to say whether it
shall be answered. -
(The question was repeated by the reporter, as follows:)
Mr BEHAN. Does the Congressman understand that the War Department's
position in times past has been predicated upon the point that it was up to
Congress to determine the amount of diversion and that the War Department
would merely grant temporary permits until such time as Congress had leg-
islated ?
Mr. MoRGAN. I would like to have the question answered.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, I do not object.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I have stated that I am not familiar with the
points at issue in the Suit now pending before the Supreme Court.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 175
The gentleman may be right, that the question of law which I sug.
gest is not raised there. I know that the Secretary of War, and,
perhaps, the Chief of Engineers, has suggested that it was up to Con-
gress to legislate. I venture to say, in spite of what those gentlemen
have said, that the Congress has no right to legislate to permit di-
version of water from Lake Michigan in such volume as seriously to
interfere with and embarrass the commerce of the Great Lakes; that
those lakes are for navigation purposes, not for Sewage purposes,
not for the purpose of generating electric power or to supply other
waterways. I question very seriously, under our Constitution, the
right of Congress to legislate water out of Lake Michigan or any
of the Great Lakes.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask a question there. Would that pre-
clude Niagara Falls from generating power?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Oh, that comes naturally. At Niagara Falls
we have a natural situation.
Mr. HULL. It is different, then, from any other matural situa-
tion? *
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The conditions developed and permitted to
exist at Chicago are artificial. Each situation, matural as well as
artificial, has its own facts and circumstances, all to be taken into
consideration when the Congress or the courts determine the respec-
tive rights
Mr. HULL. Then, as I understand you, it is all right to generate
power so far Niagara Falls is concerned, but not right to generate
power at Chicago; that is your answer?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes; if the diversion of water at Chicago
interferes with navigation of the lakes.
Mr. HULL. But it would make no diference if it interfered with
navigation at Niagara Falls?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The condition at Niagara are natural con-
ditions. It is not similar at all, in my judgment, to conditions at
Chicago, or as to the waters of Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you understand, do you not, Mr. McLaugh-
lin, also that the water at Niagara Falls is returned to the river
less than a quarter of a mile below the point where it is diverted,
or at any rate within a very short distance?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I do not know the particulars of the matter
of which the Chairman speaks, but I am firmly impressed that the
use of water at Niagara Falls does not interfere in any manner
whatever with navigation. The Great Lakes, their harbors and
their locks and channels are solely for navigation purposes.
Now, about taking water for Chicago, to sewer the city or any-
thing else, why, I have no objection to their taking water there,
if it does not interfere with our business and our property. I have
no objection to their taking water there if it will not interfere with
the navigation of the Lakes. I feel in that respect a good deal as the
man did who was speaking of going up in an airplane, and who was
not very much enamored of the idea. He said, “I don’t mind
going up, and I don't care how high you go, just so I can keep one
foot on the ground.” And so you can take the water if you have
a right to take and need it, if by doing so you do not interfere with
our rights, our business, or our property.
176 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Lyon. You spoke of the water being too shallow to acºom-
modate these big boats. Is that shoal water found in the chan-
nels of the harbors or in the lakes?
Mr. McLAUGHILIN. Both. -
Mr. Lyon. Could that condition be corrected by a reasonable
amount of dredging? e
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. It might involve the reconstruction of the
harbors in the Great Lakes, but many of them are built in such
a way, piers so near together, that only a limited depth can be per-
mitted. If a greater depth is attempted, the sides will slough off,
slough into a channel, and the harbors will be destroyed.
Mr. HULL. How deep are the channels usually?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. It was only a few years ago, that I remember
a Member representing a district in the eastern part of our State
asked that the St. Clair River, which passes the city of Port Huron
be deepened, the channel there. The St. Clair River leads from
Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair. It is a channel now maintained by
the Corps of Engineers. The reply to that request was that it was
dangerous to deepen that channel because it would take too much
. permit water to flow in too large a volume from Lake Huron
South. - * -
Mr. HULL. Did they deepen the channel in some places?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. They have been deepening those channels
within reasonable limits.
Mr. HULL. And is not that a great deal of the cause of the lower-
ing of the lakes—the deepening of that channel? Is not that ma-
terially the cause of it? r
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask a question?
Mr. HULL. Just a minute.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. There is a firm belief that diversion of water,
illegally going on at Chicago—because there is no question that
they are far exceeding the 4,167 cubic feet per second permitted by
the Secretary of War years ago—there is a firm belief that that
diversion of water is largely responsible for the lowering of lake
levels and the shallowing of the channels and harbors.
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you if that is not one of the mair,
causes of the lowering of the lake levels—the deepening of thes
channels? -
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The deepening of the channel I spoke about
at Port Huron was not permitted.
Mr. HULL. But you say that they are deepening one. What
one is it?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. There are channels that have been deepened
and widened, and repaired in one way and another, but always
and in every instance only as aids to navigation. The Great Lakes,
its channels and harbors are for navigation and their waters, can
not be legally diverted.
Mr. HULL. And that is the cause, is it not, of the lowering of
the water in the harbors?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. That may have had something to do with
it, but everything done was in aid of navigation, carefully and
scientifically done by Government engineers.
Mr. HULL. Sure.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 177
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Channels in the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers .
were constructed a long time ago, and lake levels, as a result of that,
or after that, were sufficient to enable the proper navigation of
these rivers and other channels. Now, all levels are too low, em-
barrassing and dangerous to commerce.
Mr. HULL. The real truth of the matter is that the boats are
operating just the same.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Not just the same, no sir. Last year large
freight boats had to run 10 per cent light on account of shallow
water. Records are conclusive to that effect. -
Mr. MoRGAN. May I ask you a question? It has been reported
here by reason of the diversion of water that the lake has been
lowered about 5% inches. Do you happen to have any definite in-
formation upon that?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I get information to the same effect.
The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt but that there will be charts
presented here before we get through with the hearing and the
Chief of Engineers will be called also, but I think they have charts.
Now, just one moment, Congressman, before you leave. The gentle-
men from Illinois has referred to the deepening of what I suppose
is Livingstone Channel. That was done for the sole purpose of
aiding, and it did aid navigation. -
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes; and that has been the effect of it.
Changes were scientifically made for the benefit of navigation, not
to interfere with it or destroy it.
Mr. HULL. Was not that because of lowering the lake levels? He
has been asked that and said it was.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I said that may have been the result. Perhaps
the deepening of these channels had that effect, but it was all as
an aid to and in the interest of navigation; it is not for the purpose
of Sewage or for the purpose of generating electric power in a
distant part of the country.
Mr. O'ConnoR. Will you permit a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. O'ConnoR. With reference to this great steamer, which I
understand some one said was the largest one in the world, building
at Detroit *
The CHAIRMAN. It is a passenger steamer.
Mr. O'Connor. Is that steamer built in view of the present con-
ditions that are existing with reference to the reduced water level?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The only information I have about it is the
statement of the chairman, and that I get from newspapers.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that passenger vessels take much
less draft than the freight vessels. It is the freight vessels that
require the greatest depth of water possible. That is my under-
standing.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Ought we not to request some one to furnish for
the record a brief statement of the issues involved in the pending
legislation in the Supreme Court of the United States? -
The CHAIRMAN. What I would suggest in that connection, Mr.
Mansfield, is this: I have no doubt we will have the bills of com-
plaint and answers, and then I will endeavor to see that abstracts.
are made of those, short abstracts, so the committee can see just
exactly what the issues are.
178 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BoycE. And briefs of counsel. -
Mr. ADCOCK. The record of the Supreme court has been printed.
The CHAIRMAN. Why can not you and Mr. Behan agree to furnish
us with that?
Mr. BEHAN. We will be glad to.
Mr. ADCOCK. There has been no abstract of the record made. The
case is set for November 10.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will furnish us copies of the record, if
you could spare, say, two copies, we would like it very much. Then
# there are briefs of counsel on both sides we would like to have
them.
Mr. BARRETT. That record is a very voluminous record, it would
take up a great deal of space. You Only want abstracts of the issues,
I suppose.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you mean the exhibits?
Mr. BARRETT. No; I mean the printed record is very large indeed.
Mr. ADCOCK. There are eight volumes.
Mr. BARRETT. The record is a tremendous one. It would take up
that much room [indicating] solid printing; you would want simply
an abstract of the issues in the case, as I understand it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. We want the substance of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Of the briefs on both sides.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, of course we could not undertake to furnish
the briefs of the Government, but we presume you will have no
trouble in getting them. I wanted to bring this fact to the attention
of Congressman McLaughlin. The Secretary of War, who took
the position that this was a matter for the Congress of the United
States, is the present Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. No; I beg your pardon, not Mr. Taft.
Mr. BARRETT. Chief Justice Taft is the man who was Secretary of
War.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. The Secretary of War at that time was Russell
A. Alger. i
Mr. BARRETT. I am not saying that Alger took that position, but
I say that the man who was Secretary of War and who took the
position that this was a matter for Congress was William Howard
Taft, now Chief Justice.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that can be properly argued.
Mr. BARRETT. This is a matter of record, and Judge Taft's report
is there. -
One thing more, Mr. McLaughlin, if I may go on. Lake Erie has
been lowered; if we concede the statements made, 41 per cent of its
total lowering is the result of diversion by the Chicago Sanitary
District, and 59 per cent of total lowering is by reason of power at
Niagara Falls—and that, of course, would include the Welland Canal.
The CHAIRMAN. We expect to call the Chief of Engineers and we
will question him as to that. e e
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I think you will find that is in the Warren
report, substantially those figures. That is the reason I wanted the
Congressman to know that.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 179
The CHAIRMAN. There is no withdrawal of water at Niagara at all.
Mr. BARRETT. That does not change the fact that there is a lower-
ing of the lake due to this diversion.
The CHAIRMAN. It does not if there is.
Mr. BARRETT. The engineers of the United States say that there is,
and I do not think there can be much dispute about it, and I wanted
the Congressman to have that in his mind.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you refer, if you will—I had Colonel
Warren’s report here -
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I am unfortunate in not having read any state-
ment from Mr. Justice Taft such as has just been referred to. I
think I know that permission to divert water at Chicago, legal or
otherwise, wise or otherwise, was given in the first instance by Sec-
retary of War Russell A. Alger.
Mr. BARRETT. You are correct in that.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Later than that I was present at a hearing when
Mr. Stimpson, of New York, was Secretary of War. That was
after the service of General Alger, where a request was made by the
Sanitary District of Chicago for permission to divert more water.
I do not know where Justice Taft was at any of these times, but he
had nothing to do with any of the matters of which I speak. If
the gentlemen quote him correctly he may speak differently from
the bench. -
Mr. BARRETT. I doubt if he will participate in this litigation, on
account of the fact that he did express himself on the matter. 1
think he will probably step aside and let his other judges do it; but
there is no question about my statement, and I will be glad to let
you see it. It is only about that much in print [indicating], not
very long. Now, one thing more—
The CHAIRMAN. Do not let us anticipate
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). I am not going to talk except on
One point more
The CHAIRMAN. Do not let us anticipate what the action of the
Chief Justice will be as to what he deems it is proper for him to
do. I think we had better leave that to him.
Mr. BARRETT. I think we will have to whether we want to or not.
He is going to be boss on that and won’t let anybody from the
Chicago Sanitary District dictate to him.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it would be unfortunate if he would take
anything said here as a suggestion to him that he should step aside.
Mr. BARRETT. Just one more thing. I am not afraid of his going
off on a tangent at all. It seems to be pretty well agreed that
So far as lake levels are concerned the engineers pretty"nearly gener-
ally agree that the lake levels can be pretty generally restored by
compensating works. I am through now.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McLaughlin, I take it that you are not an
engineer, and the people who have the time this morning are com-
plaining to the chairman that they are entitled to this time and
that this is their only chance, and that they should be heard for
the balance of the time. Mr. McLaughlin’s testimony has been of
great value, and if he has anything else to say along that line I
would be glad to hear from him.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I have nothing more to say except that Mem-
bers of Congress representing Michigan are watchful of her interests,
180 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
hence are opposed to anything that will be injurious to navigation
on the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. And you regard the diversion of this water as
inimical ? *
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes, we feel that way. Also that diversion of
Water to our damage or inconvenience can not legally be permitted
by the Congress.
Mr. MoRGAN. And all that you are particularly interested in is
the water level of the Lake?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Levels and volume of water.
The CHAIRMAN. Michigan, as I understand it, is in accord with
Ohio, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania in the
matter.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. I believe you are right. Mr. Andrew B.
Dougherty, attorney general of Michigan is here. He attended the
meeting of our delegation and perhaps he wishes to say something
direct.
Mr. Doug HERTY. Not at this time.
STATEMENT OF IMR. L. A. JARMAN–Resumed.
Mr. JARMAN. I have been asked two or three times about our po-
sition on this question. Now, I want to make that perfectly clear
before I leave the question, and I have formulated it definitely here,
and I think it is important that this committee should understand
clearly just what our position is.
This association has no disposition to disregard the physical con-
ditions at Chicago and vicinity as to their serious problem of sewer-
age, and does not oppose any solution of this problem which does
not violate the rights of others.
This association recognizes the great commercial advantages of a
waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, and does
not oppose any plan the execution of which does not violate the
rights of others.
That is what we are in favor of in the formation of a bill to
carry out this plan. I told you that we recognize that this committee
should view this question from the five viewpoints. The Chicago
River district has been and is diverting this water for sanitation
and development of power. The development of power, as against
these other interests, is entitled to no consideration; the Sanitation
is. Therefore, Chicago should be permitted to the proper and neces-
sary extent to continue the diversion of water until the works for
the purification of the Sewage can be constructed, but such diversion
and such construction should be under the direction of the War
Department.
As these works are completed, the amount of the diversion of
water should be reduced and should finally cease, except to an
amount that the War Department from time to time shall deem
necessary for the navigation from the Lakes to the Mississippi River;
and that from the passage of the bill the works controlling the
amount of the diversion of the water should be under the authority
and jurisdiction of the War Department, so that the navigation in
the Lakes and the Illinois River Valley may be protected, and the
bill should provide for the adjustment in a proper and reasonable
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 181
and equitable way for the damages that have been committed along
the Illinois River, and to give that valley protection in the future.
In view of that, let me suggest this: Such a plan developed in the
bill would do what? It would avoid, in the first place, the expense
to the Sanitary district of compensating works in the Niagara and
other rivers. That is one thing it would do. Second, it would pro-
tect Chicago in its sewage sanitation, because the bill would contem-
plate and require them to build these purification plants and require
them to build them to an extent necessary to take care of that sewage
and give them such time to do it as is reasonable and proper under
the circumstances, and that time should be left, as we suggest, to
the War Department, so that nobody could be injured.
Third, it would give a 9-foot waterway from Lake Michigan to
the Mississippi River. Whether or not the engineers determine
to build a waterway of 1,000 cubic feet or 4,167 cubic feet is a
matter of engineering. If they build 1,000 cubic feet, it will not
hurt this valley. If they build 4,167 cubic feet, it will hurt the
valley, but that hurt can be taken care of by the proper protection
of deepening the waterway of the Illinois River and by the proper
leveling. If they build a 10,000 cubic feet waterway, it will cost
much more to protect the valley than it will to develop the water-
way in the channel of the river.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you suggest, Mr. Jarman, is
that a diversion of a maximum instead of a minimum will increase
the cost; that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet instead of 1,000 cubic
feet will increase the cost, because it will increase enormously the cost
of protecting these 400,000 acres of rich alluvial soil below the city of
Chicago, and between that and Grafton?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir; I think so. Then, the only reason for ac-
cepting the 10,000 cubic feet in place of the 4,167, for instance, by the
very testimony of Mr. Barnes yesterday, is a matter of cost to the
Federal Government, and the matter of hydroelectric power. That
is all there is to it.
The CHAIRMAN.e. You say the cost is just the reverse of what he says?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. How do you arrive at that?
The CHAIRMAN. Because you take into account the protection of the
agricultural lands?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir. You have got a river 283 miles long on
both sides to protect, if you give the Illinois valley the protection it
needs. Of course, it has never been given.
Mr. HULL. The only question is, if you put in the locks, you are in
the same position on your overflow as you are now. If you keep out
the locks and have the water turned downstream, why wouldn’t it
be more of a protection to you than building the locks and raising
the water? i -
Mr. JARMAN. It is all gammon to say that you can put 10,000
cubic feet of water there and not raise the water.
The CHAIRMAN. And not need protection against it?
Mr. JARMAN. And not need protection against it.
Mr. HULL. The point I make is this, and I am taking the engineer's
report, and he Qught to have a pretty good idea of it, that by putting
in it 10,000 cubic feet and taking out the dams, you would even lower

182 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the water in the area you talk of, than if you raise these dams 25
feet high and backed up the water.
Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Barnes said that if you had 4,167 feet, you don't
need any dam.
Mr. HULL. If you have a less quantity of water, you have got to
have dams. He didn’t say that. He said 10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. JARMAN. I will leave it to Mr. Barnes, because I made a
memorandum of it at the time he said it yesterday.
Mr. HULL. Is Mr. Barnes here?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir. Didn't you say that, Mr. Barnes? Did you
state in your testimony yesterday that you did not need any dams
in the Illinois River with 4,167 cubic feet of water diverted?
Mr. BARNEs. I said that, but I qualified it afterwards.
Mr. JARMAN. I do not remember the qualification. You remem-
ber you said so?
Mr. BARNEs. If you will look it up in the record you will find there
is a qualification. w
Mr. JARMAN. You did say that, with the qualification?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir. -
Mr. JARMAN. Now, let me proceed, please. It would give a 9-foot
waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River.
Fourth, it would protect the navigation in the Great Lakes.
Fifth, it would recompense the people of the Illinois River Valley,
i. Some degree, at least, for past losses and protection from future
OSSéS.
Now, by such a bill you accomplish everything that is equitable to
all these parties. What objections could there be under such a plan?
The only objection that anybody can make or that the sanitary dis-
trict could make to such a plan are these:
The cost to the sanitary district of purification plants and the
loss of this hydroelectric power; that is the only objection that the
sanitary district could make to such a plan. Both of them are simply
a matter of dollars and cents, absolutely.
The fight of Chicago in this whole matter is to save Chicago the
cost of constructing these purification plants and to save to Chicago
this hydroelectric power.
Mr. HULL. You say that, and still Chicago has provided $100,000,-
000 to put in purification plants, and are putting them in now. How
do you account for that?
Mr. JARMAN. They have got to.
Mr. HULL. But you have made the statement that that is the
trouble.
Mr. JARMAN. That is one of the troubles of the bill. -
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you another question about my bill, be-
cause I think you have got me wrong on this part of it.
Mr. JARMAN. I am going to analyze your bill now.
Mr. HULL. I have put a provision in this bill making it an abso-
lute law that they must put in the purification plants, and your com-
plaint is that we have been going along for 20 years and nothing
done, but if my bill passes I have provided that they must be put in
within a period of 20 years, and that they must spend $5,000,000 a
year. Isn’t it better for us—and I am in the same boat you are—to
have it in the law, rather than to leave it open, as you are doing?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 183
Mr. JARMAN. But your bill does not say So.
Mr. HULL. It does.
Mr. JARMAN. I will analyze the bill.
Mr. PEAvey. If you will pardon me a question or two before you
go into the analysis of the bill?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. Here are two or three factors that I have been try-
ing to straighten out in my mind. I have not yet, although I have
asked two or three questions along this line, found out whether it
is by Illinois State law or by what manner or method or means it is
possible for a municipal corporation to make the expenditures that
have been made in the furtherance of the sanitary district’s project,
such as buying propaganda and hiring lawyers and that sort of
thing. In my State we have laws which prohibit any municipality
from making any such expenditures, and I want to ask you by
what authority are these expenditures made on the part of the
Sanitary District of Chicago?
Mr. JARMAN. In a general way it is considered by the Sanitary
district and by Chicago as a necessary expense to carry On the mat-
ter of sanitary district operation.
Mr. PEAVEY. And does the State law of Illinois permit the Sani-
tary District of Chicago to go out and buy newspaper space all
throughout the State?
Mr. JARMAN. I suppose so. They do it all the time. I have got
a copy here of a whole page in my county paper, a town of 2,000
inhabitants.
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes, sir; I have got several of them myself.
Another thing I would like to ask, I think it is in the record, that
it shows conclusively that the sanitary district made a profit of a
million dollars on the operation of this plant last year, and do so
annually. Is it a part of a fixed procedure in your idea and esti-
mation upon the part of the sanitary district to expend ten or
twenty of fifty or whatever it may be of thousands of dollars in
propaganda and organization in order to Save themselves from an
expense that might run into millions, at the expense of the people
of the State of Illinois and those on the Great Lakes above?
Mr. O'CONNOR. I think if this is an illegal expenditure any in-
habitant could enjoin the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. It could not be an illegal expenditure in our
State. It would be a perfectly legal expenditure. w
Mr. JARMAN. If it was for the interest, as they consider it, of
the Sanitary district as a municipal corporation.
Mr. O'ConnoR. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of relieving the
minds of my good colleagues and probably the minds of others of
Something that has mystified me, do the power plants along the
river absolutely depend upon the maintenance of the locks that
have been referred to ? -
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, yes. .
Mr. O'Connor. Absolutely?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'ConnoR. As I understand, the flow of 4,167 feet would
permit the removal of the locks. Is that contention also made?
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, no; I do not think so, right at that point.
That would not affect the valley.
184 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can straighten you out.
Mr. O'CONNOR. I would be very glad if you would.
The CHAIRMAN. Over that part of the channel which is being
constructed by the State there is no contention as to locks. The
engineer, Mr. Barnes, says they are going to construct certain locks,
I have forgotten how many—how many, Mr. Hull?
Mr. HULL. Five locks.
The CHAIRMAN. It is only from that point down, where the Gov-
ernment begins its work.
Mr. O'ConnoR. The reference is constantly made to the ability to
remove the locks after a flow of 4,167 feet has been obtained. .
The CHAIRMAN. But not in the part constructed by the State at all.
Mr. HULL. I know just what you want to know. Below Utica
we have four old locks now—at Henry and Copperas Creeks, con-
Structed by the State, and at Lagrange and Kampsville, by the
United States. If we put in a flow enough, we can take these old
locks out.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Would there be locks at any other places?
Mr. HULL. There would have to be locks that the State of Illinois
is spending this $20,000,000 at the upper end, between Lockport and
Utica, because that is an artificial channel, bringing the water into
the Illinois River.
Mr. O'ConnoR. Is that the place where there is a drop of 136 feet?
Mr. HULL. Yes; but these locks down below we ought to take out
and make the channel straight through.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the contention. Whether we should take
them out or not is a very much mooted question.
Mr. O'ConnoR. Regardless of the flow, it would be necessary
to maintain the locks at the place where the artificial connection
is made?
The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt about that at all. That is not
in dispute. r
Mr. JARMAN. The water drops 34 feet at the end of the Chicago
Canal. From the end of the Chicago Canal to Utica, there is
a drop of 102 feet, so it is quite a run. So that at the beginning
at Lockport they have to have a lock, and along the 63.5 miles from
the end of the channel down to Utica, the beginning of the Federal
Government project, it is so steep that they have to make locks there,
and along that line the project is to erect hydroelectric plants by
the States and by private individuals, with whom the States may
deal. So that the proposition involved, as was said yesterday by
Mr. Barnes, a possibility of developing, I think he said, 500,000
horsepower by the hydroelectric power.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And the State would dispose of that power as it
saw proper?
Mr. JARMAN. As it saw proper. It was a large amount of
power—I do not want to be taken as having said it was 500,000.
Mr. WELDE. He said 115,000. -
Mr. JARMAN. All right. At Lockport, the sanitary district has
136,000 of hydroelectric horsepower now, with propositions to de-
velop that further, and it was stated by Mr. Barnes yesterday that
that improvement, in dollars and cents, that is supposed to be made
there in hydroelectric power and navigation, and so forth, was worth
to the sanitary district, to the people of the State, and the Nation,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 185
p-
$30,000,000, and his figures show in his report, which is not ma-
terial, an expenditure of $28,000,000. -
Mr. BARNEs. That does not include the sanitary district.
Mr. JARMAN. No. If you add the sanitary district in dollars and
cents. it would be that much more, but when you are figuring that,
you are figuring this situation, that because you are creating a proj-
ect here which will take care of the health and create the wealth
of the sanitary district and the State, you are destroying the health
and the wealth of the people along the Illinois Valley. So the equa-
tion is simply a matter of dollars and cents on one side and health
and destruction on the other side.
I am going to analyze for the moment this bill of Mr. Hull's.
In the first place, as to the provision of this bill with reference to
the pollution of the Illinois River, this part of the bill is the same
as introduced by Mr. Madden, which perhaps is not before the com-
mittee.
Mr. HULL. This bill was introduced before Mr. Madden intro-
duced the bill. ()
Mr. JARMAN. I see; but it is the same proposition.
Mr. HULL. I do not want you to say I copied Mr. Madden’s bill.
Mr. JARMAN. He copied yours, perhaps. '
Mr. HULL. I did not say that.
Mr. JARMAN. It is the exact language.
Mr. HULL. Well, then, he copied mine. *
Mr. JARMAN. The plan contemplated by this bill, as I construe it,
is for taking care of the sewage of Chicago, except the sewage of
3,000,000 population. It does not take care of all the sewage of the
people of Chicago, but there has never been a time in the history of
that bill, during the 20 years from 1925 until 1945, where the sewage
of the sanitary district to the amount of a population of 3,000,000
people, does not come down that canal.
Mr. HULL. I will answer that question for you, if you will let me.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. HULL. I have taken into consideration, by a thorough study
and by my attorney, who is probably the best posted man on the
Illinois River
Mr. JARMAN (interposing). And he is the attorney for the sani-
tary district.
Mr. HULL. Yes; but I do not want you to cast any reflection on
Mr. Quinn, because he is my attorney.
Mr. JARMAN. I am not casting any reflection on him.
Mr. HULL. You are when you say that.
Mr. JARMAN. He is one of the best attorneys in the State of
Illinois. o
Mr. HULL. And he is my attorney.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; he is your attorney, and he is attorney also for
the sanitary district.
Mr. HULL. Not in this bill. Keep that in your mind.
Mr. JARMAN. A man can not separate himself.
Mr. HULL. He did.
Mr. JARMAN. He can not serve God and mammon.
Mr. PEAVEY. We had up yesterday the question of the tax rate of
the city of Chicago. Has that been settled ?
186 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. The mayor of Milwaukee said that he had a
pamphlet which gave that information in full, and he would, file it
with the stenographer. He probably will not file it until he returns.
I understand that he went back to Milwaukee last night.
Mr. PEAvEY. You do not know, do you, Mr. Jarman?
Mr. JARMAN. No, I do not. Of course, that develops a large sub-
ject, about the tax rate up there. It has been said here that the city
of Chicago is limited in its tax rate by the statute. It is not limited
by the constitution. The history of that is that in the constitutional
convention in the State of Illinois, in 1920 to 1922, it was sought by
the sanitary district to get a limitation in the constitution on the
taxing power. They introduced a proposition like that, which was
supported by the Chicago sanitary district people. The down State
opposed it and it failed to get into the constitution. I was a member
of that body. The down State opposed it because it would prevent
Chicago from raising sufficient money to care for this situation, and
we did not want to put them in that position, you know, and it was
refused. Of course, the taxation problem is a matter we have with
the legislature. They can get any tax rate that they want from
the legislature, there is no question about that. You don’t think
that, do you?
Mr. HULL. I am not a lawyer, but I think yes. Here is what I
want to ask you: I have taken all the money that they can raise into
consideration, according to the constitution.
Mr. JARMAN. Wait a minute.
Mr. HULL. You wait a minute.
Mr. JARMAN. Wait a minute.
Mr. HULL. I am not a lawyer, and I may be wrong about this.
Mr. JARMAN. You assume that the constitution limits it?
Mr. HULL. I think so, without a doubt.
Mr. JARMAN. I am in very much doubt about that. I know the
constitution pretty well. I dealt with it for two years. My im-
pression is that the constitution says that the limitation of the bond-
ing power of cities, counties, townships, etc., shall be 5 per cent of
the assessed value. I do not use the words “municipal corpora-
tion ” and if I did use the words “municipal corporation ” it would
not apply to this, because this sanitary district is a qtuasi-municipal
corporation and I do not believe it would be limited by the constitu-
tion. But that is neither here nor there. ,
Mr. HULL. Do you mean to say that they can raise more money
than this $100,000,000?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. HULL. You do?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
Mr. HULL. How Ż
Mr. JARMAN. By taxation.
Mr. HULL. Providing the legislature would permit it?
Mr. JARMAN. Chicago or the sanitary district has 40.7 per cent of
the legislature. -
Mr. HULL. That is not the question. I am trying to get at some-
thing that I had to find out in order to form this bill on. I took up
the matter of the limit that they could raise. It was $100,000,000,
and I put that in form, so as to make them spend $100,000,000 on
tº
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 187
treatment plants. That is the way my bill was formed, so as to take
every cent we could, and to force them to build the treatment plants.
That is what is in the bill.
Mr. JARMAN. But you never have a sufficient amount of purifica-
tion plants to take care of all the sewage of Chicago.
Mr. HULL. I will admit that.
Mr. JARMAN. You will never have a purification plant sufficient
to take care of the amount of sewage equal to 3,000,000 people.
Mr. HULL. Just for argument’s sake, I will admit it, but if I have
taken all of the money they have got, what can you do? -
Mr. JARMAN. It is not a question of money.
Mr. HULL. We are both of us in the same boat, but what can
they do? -
Mr. O'ConnoR. Haven’t you made a case for the diversion of
water in stating that the purification plants will never be able to
take care of this?
Mr. JARMAN. I did not say that for myself. I was quoting Mr.
Hull's bill.
Mr. O'CONNOR. I thought you made that as your own statement.
Mr. HULL. You just got through making it.
Mr. JARMAN. I am discussing your bill, and that is all I am dis-
cussing, and it is very clear, as I have stated heretofore, that they
ought to be made to take care of all of the sewage of Chicago in the
course of years, and that no more diversion should be anticipated
than what is necessary.
Mr. HULL. I agree with you, and my bill does not prevent that.
Mr. JARMAN. It does not require it.
Mr. HULL. That may be true. You can always bring it in. My
bill provides that every dime they can raise, according to what I
say is the constitution, is to be put in treatment plants, and I have
provided in the law, just as they can raise the money, that they must
pay it in, and I do not see how you object to it.
Mr. JARMAN. Because it always permits the sewage of 3,000,000
people to go down the Illinois Valley.
Mr. HULL. If you spend all the money, all you can do is to raise
more money to finish it. I am taking what they can raise.
Mr. JARMAN. You have no right, if you can not raise the money,
to protect Chicago's health by putting sewage down on our back.
Mr. HULL. That is exactly what I am up against and what you are
up against. If I can take out the 10,000 cubic feet to-day I will be
very glad to, but if I do take it out it will injure you and me and
everyone along that valley. We could not exist with that 10,000
cubic feet or 8,500 cubic feet taken out for two days, and that is
the reason I am keeping it in, to protect the people along the valley,
and in particular, Chicago, as much as I am after my own interest.
Mr. JARMAN. And I am not taking out a gallon of that water
so long as it is neccesary to come down there to protect Chicago, if
they go to work and construct their purification plants.
Mr. HULL. That is what my bill provides for, and I do not see
why you object to it.
Mr. JARMAN. Not at all.
Mr. HULL. I do not understand why you can not read it.
Mr. JARMAN. I have read it.
** *.
I88 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. MoRGAN. The only issue between you two is the amount of
money that Chicago can raise.
Mr. HULL. That is it exactly.
Mr. JARMAN. Chicago can raise any amount of money.
Mr. HULL. That is a statement.
Mr. JARMAN. That is a statement, because I know it is a fact.
You have raised that question time and time again.
Mr. MORGAN. That is a legal question, isn’t it?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes. He insists upon that matter. I know, and
everybody knows that while the limitation is 5 per cent on the assessed
value of property in Chicago and the sanitary district, the assessed
value is not one-tenth of the real value.
Mr. HULL. I do not know about that.
Mr. MoRGAN. It will be difficult for this committee to decide that
without a legal proceeding.
Mr. PEAVEY. However, it is a very important point, and the thing
I want to draw out by this witness and to get into the record is, if
I am reliably informed, this: That the people of the so-called Sani-
tary District of Chicago are paying a flat rate of approximately 6 per
cent of the average tax rate of all the cities in the Great Lakes district
that are affected by this diversion. In other words, they are asking
us to give them our water to save them the expense of taking care
of their sewage, when their tax rate is only approximately 6 per cent
of our tax rate.
Mr. HULL. It is not “our º’ water; it is everybody’s water.
Mr. PEAVEY. For transportation purposes.
Mr. HULL. I mean the water for transportation purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. We have in the State of New York a State tax
commission, and that State tax commission determines annually
what percentage the assessed valuation bears to the real value of
property throughout the State. For instance, they will give a
country town in our county—we have been down as low as 60 per
cent, 60 to 62 or 63—and gradually under our practice they have
been required to raise it until we are now up to probably 80 or
90 per cent. That goes up in this way, and it has come up to me
practically in this way: I represent half a dozen country towns
which have been in a fight with the railroads. The railroad claims
that it has been assessed 100 per cent, while the country towns
themselves have only been assessed about 50 or 60. Now, what is
your situation there? Do you have a State tax commission that
tells what rate Chicago is assessed?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes; we have a county review board, and then we
have a State commission board.
The CHAIRMAN. Do they make a report annually?
Mr. JARMAN. Oh yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean showing what the rate of assessment is
as compared with the real value?
Mr. JARMAN. I do not know about that.
The CHAIRMAN. You might get the whole thing in that way. You
could in our State.
Mr. FREEMAN. They must have a board of equalization.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 189
Mr. MANSFIELD. I served on such boards for 35 years, and I never
in my life saw property assessed on the average of more than 50
cents on the dollar anywhere.
The CHAIRMAN. I have obtained a witness who knows the facts.
STATEMENT OF MR. L. A. DUMONT, CHICAGO, ILL.
The CHAIRMAN. State your name.
Mr. DUMONT. L. A. Dumont. I think I can perhaps throw just
a little light on this State tax situation. The present statutes of
Illinois provide that the assessed valuation for taxation purposes
throughout Illinois shall be 50 per cent of the full value. We have
in Illinois a State tax commission, and the duties and purposes of
that State tax commission are to review the work done by the vari-
ous counties in the State, to see that the provisions of the law are
carried out equitably. That is the constitution, isn’t it, Mr. Hull?
Mr. HULL. I think so.
Mr. WILSON. We have done away with the old board, and that
is the new one.
Mr. MoRGAN. What per cent of valuation is that?
Mr. DUMONT. Seventy per cent.
Mr. MoRGAN. What is the rate 2
Mr. DUMONT. The rate is not determined by the State tax com-
mission, but by the various counties, when they take into considera-
tion the requirements of their various municipal governing bodies.
Mr. MoRGAN. If that rate in Chicago is 2 per cent, as was testified
yesterday, that is only 1 per cent, because it is on a 50 per cent
valuation basis.
Mr. DUMONT. The rate varies.
Mr. MoRGAN. It is 50 per cent assessed value?
Mr. DUMONT. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. And the evidence here yesterday was that the rate
was 2 per cent or thereabouts?
Mr. DUMONT. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. In that case it would only be 1 per cent.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I think that was an estimated amount.
Mr. MORGAN. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And I think if they will look into it they will find
they underestimated it.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have filed with us a statement by the
mayor of Milwaukee showing just what it is.
Mr. MoRGAN. That includes the maximum valuation that can be
assessed—50 per cent for all purposes? +
Mr. DUMONT. Under the law the assesor is supposed to determine
what the full value is in the first place, then of that full value,
as the assessors determine it, they can assess 50 per cent for taxation
purposes.
Mr. JARMAN. Are you connected with the tax department of the
city of Chicago?
Mr. DUMONT. I am connected with the Chicago Association of
Commerce, but I just happened to know about this tax matter.
Mr. JARMAN. Isn’t it true that the full valuation as returned by
the tax assessor is about one-half of the real valuation of the
property itself?
91739—24—PT 1–13
190 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. DUMONT. I can not answer your question absolutely correctly,
because nobody knows what percentage of the full value is returned
for taxation purposes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is a question of judgment, too?
Mr. DUMONT. The provision of our constitution is so antique that
the people would be fools to put in the real value of the property
for taxation purposes. -
Mr. JARMAN. That is the condition, isn’t it?
Mr. DUMONT. It is the condition in all parts of the State.
Mr. JARMAN. Chicago and other parts, too?
Mr. PEAVEY. Do we understand that the proponents of this bill
here from Chicago, in the numbers that they are here represented,
the leading organizations, commercial and otherwise, of the city of
Chicago, want this committee to undertsand that there is not one
of them that knows what the tax rate is in the city of Chicago?
Mr. BEHAN. May I answer?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Mr. BEHAN. When the time comes to put in the evidence on behalf
of the sanitary district in support of Congressman Madden’s bill, we
will furnish to the committee very comprehensive tables covering
a large period of years, showing the valuations, tax rates, bonded
indebtedness, and the maximum of tax and bonded permissions under
our constitution. I would like at this time, though, to take three
words and say this: The matter of tax assessments in our State is
perhaps different from any other State in the Union, in this par-
ticular. We do not levy one flat tax, which is collected by the State
or some one agency, but the assessments are made in each county by
a board of assessors and reviewed later by a board of review, then
equalized later by a State tax commission, formerly the State board
of equalization, but in fixing the amount of the taxes each of our
various municipalities or taxing bodies fixes its own requirements
and fixes its own tax, provided they keep within the requirements or
permissions of our constitution.
Mr. JARMAN. Does the Constitution govern the rate of taxation
of anything except the counties? Does the Constitution govern the
rate of taxation or the amount of taxes of any municipal corpora-
tion or city?
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, no; not the city, within the provisions and re-
Quirements and limitations as expressed in the Constitution of 1870.
Mr. JARMAN. What are those limitations?
Mr. BEHAN. It is too long a story now. We will provide the
committee with all the information with regard to taxes at the
next meeting.
Mr. PEAVEY. Are you a taxpayer in the city of Chicago?
Mr. BEHAN. I am.
Mr. PEAVEY. How many times a year are you allowed to pay
your taxes?
Mr. BEHAN. Just once.
Mr. PEAVEY. You get a tax receipt. Don’t you know what the
rate is?
Mr. BEHAN. I know the rate in my town. My property is in the
\own of Hyde Park.
Mr. PEAvex. You are in the city of Chicago?


ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 191
Mr. BEAHN. Yes; but we have about seven taxing districts in
the city of Chicago.
Mr. PEAVEY. But you pay all of your taxes in one place, do you
not?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. And what is the rate in your taxing district?
Mr. BEHAN. My rate for 1923 was $7.72 on the hundred.
Mr. PEAVEY. And that is on a 50 per cent basis?
Mr. BEHAN. That is on the 50 per cent basis.
Mr. JARMAN. My plan as proposed becomes more equitable in
that matter, don’t you see? I provide that they shall build these
purification plants and take care of the sewage as the War Depart-
ment might direct, and if they can not raise enough money equitably
and under the law, the War Department would take cognizance of
that fact and would not make Chicago do anything that they can not
do. I do not fix the amount in here in my proposition. I leave
that all to the disinterested position and action of the War Depart-
ment. Now, another thing about Mr. Hull's bill. I would like
to say this to the committee, that this disconnected way that I have
presented the matter is in a connected way in the statement that
I have filed, and under the arrangement with the committee, it is
to be filed in the proceedings as I have written it. I simply ask
you to read what we say in that statement.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Would you let me know one thing that may not
be entirely relevant to what is in issue here? Are you a taxpayer
of the city of Chicago?
Mr. JARMAN. No, sir.
Mr. O’ConnoR. A real estate owner?
Mr. JARMAN. No, sir.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Do you know what the total rate on real estate
is in Chicago? What is the burden placed upon that real estate
in the way of a rate?
Mr. JARMAN. I only know from my investigation of the matter,
principally in the constitutional convention of the State of Illinois,
and also only know from my general information with reference to
tax matters, individually and otherwise.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Your tax receipt ought to show, as suggested by
Mr. Peavey.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes. My tax receipt in my city shows a tax rate of
about 7 per cent on the assessed value.
Mr. O’ConnoR. I always thought that we were more heavily taxed
in New Orleans than any other place.
Mr. JARMAN. But that is less than 1 per cent of the value of my
property, the actual value of my property.
Mr. HULL. Yes; but Mr. Beahn has given his tax receipt that
runs over 3% per cent.
Mr. JARMAN. He did not use the assessed value.
Mr. HULL. He said 7% per cent on a 50 per cent valuation.
Mr. BEAHN. $7.72 on the hundred.
Mr. JARMAN. He did not say that his property was assessed at
real value. That is, I mean assessed for its valuation.
Mr. MoRGAN. In order that we may get this tax matter settled
without taking up a whole lot of time, as I understand it, later
192 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
they are going to file an exact statement of the rates and assessments,
etc., and it does not seem to me that we are getting anywhere with
this discussion.
Mr. O'Connor. I was only expressing what Mr. Peavey had ex-
pressed before, my surprise that these prominent gentlemen from
Chicago could not tell the tax rate in their own State.
Mr. MoRGAN. I understand the situation is that they assess on a
50 per cent valuation, but nobody is able to tell how much taxes
they paid on its real valuation.
Mr. JARMAN. I can tell you how much we are paying on the real
valuation.
Mr. MoRGAN. I would like that, Mr. Jarman.
Mr. JARMAN. I have got a farm that I paid $30,000 for. The
taxes on that last year were $245.
Mr. MoRGAN. A farm for which you paid how much 2
Mr. JARMAN. $30,000.
Mr. MoRGAN. And your taxes are how much 3
Mr. JARMAN. $245.
Mr. O'ConnoR. That was your total tax?
Mr. JARMAN. Everything.
Mr. BEHAN. May I make just a short statement, so that the record
will not show that none of the gentlemen from the State of Illinois
are not familiar with tax conditions? So that the committee can
intelligently see the tax situation in Illinois, it is absolutely im-
perative that there be in this record the schedules and tables. It is
the only way you can intelligently understand it, for this reason.
As some one has said, we are operating under a constitution adopted
in 1870, which a large part of the press in Illinois and a great many
civic and reform societies have clamored for years to have revised,
on the theory that it had become antiquated. Mr. Jarman happened
to be a member of a constitutional convention which sat for ap-
proximately two years and drafted what some few of us thought was
a very good constitution for the State of Illinois. We thought
that that clarified the tax situation and made it a twentieth century
proposition, but unfortunately, when that constitution, which Mr.
Jarman had a hand in making, was presented to the voters for
ratification or disapproval, it was beaten to the tune of about eight
to one, largely because of the improvements which we had sought
to make in our tax situation.
Mr. JARMAN. Only about three to one.
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, eight to one. In the town in which my property
is located, Hyde Park, which is a part of Chicago, the rate, as I have
said, is $7.72 on the hundred dollar valuation. In Evanston, a suburb
or just outside of Chicago, to the north, and which is in the Sani-
tary District taxing area, the rate there is this year about $15.50 a
hundred, and the rate varies in every taxing town in the city of
Chicago. So that for this committee to intelligently understand the
situation and be able to determine whether or not the Sanitary Dis-
trict is spending its money fast enough, that table ought to be, and
with your permission will be, in this record.
Mr. MORGAN. May I inquire how much you pay a hundred?
Mr. BEHAN. $7.72.
Mr. MoRGAN. And what is the assessed value, as compared with the
real value of your property?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 193
Mr. BEHAN. My home, which is on Hyde Park Boulevard, I bought
a couple of years ago for $35,000, and it is taxed on a valuation of
$30,000, and real estate in the city of Chicago is valued for tax pur-
poses at from 70 to 90 per cent of its value, whereas our State tax
commission has found and reported that real estate in the State out-
side of Cook County, farming property, if you please, is valued by
the local down-State assessors at from 20 to 30 per cent of its valua-
tion.
Mr. MoRGAN. Haven't you a board of equalization in your State?
Mr. BEHAN. We have in name.
Mr. MoRGAN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BEHAN. Our State officers constitute the board which fixes the
rate for State purposes. The State board of equalization, presum-
ably under our 1870 constitution, is designed to equalize the valua-
tions as between the counties, but it is an antiquated body, which in
name only is an equalizer. It does not equalize a thing. It makes
voluminous reports, but does not equalize our tax valuations. We have
a very comprehensive report on the question of taxes in Illinois, and
in April, when we meet again, we will furnish a copy of that for the
record.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much.
Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was chairman of the committee
which formed the revenue part of the constitution.
Mr. BEHAN. You mean the lately amended constitution ?
Mr. JARMAN. Well, you need not throw any bricks, but Chicago
voted against it. So there we are. There is one serious thing which
I would like to call your attention to before I close, and I say “ser-
ious ” to make some excuse for continuing this matter longer, and I
am not going to dwell on it at all, but simply call your attention to
it for your consideration in the formation of the bill.
The act of the Legislature of Illinois in creating the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago as a municipal corporation, provided as follows:
SEC. 23. If, at any time, the General Government shall improve the Des Plaines
or Illinois Rivers, so that the same shall be capable of receiving a flow of
600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, or more, from said channel, and shall
provide for the payment of all damages which any extra flow above 300,000
Cubic feet Of Water per minute from such channel may cause to private property,
so as to save harmless the said district from all liability therefrom, then such
sanitary district shall within one year thereafter, enlarge the entire channel
leading into the Des Plaines or Illinois Rivers from said district to a sufficient
Size and capacity to produce and maintain a continuous flow throughout the
same of not less than 600,000 cubic feet per minute, with a current of not more
than 3 miles per hour, and Such channel shall be constructed upon such grade
as to be capable of producing a depth of water not less than 18 feet throughout
Said channel, and shall have a width of not less than 160 feet at the bottom.
Then section 24 provides:
SEC. 24. When such channel shall be completed. and the water tu"ned therein
to the amount of 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, the same is hereby
declared a navigable strean, and whenever the General Government shall
improve the T)es I’laines and Illinois Rivers for navigation, to connect with
this; channel, said Golneral Govel’imment sh:11) have fºil; Cºntrol Gver the same
for navigation purposes, but not to interfere with its control for sanitary
and/or drainage purposes.
Now, here is the situation as to that. Chicago is a municipal cor-
poration. It had a right under the law to build this canal at its
own cost. They are given certain rights and powers under this
194 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
act, but those rights and powers are subject to certain conditions,
if it becomes a navigable stream and is taken by the Federal Gov-
ernment, but that canal would not become a navigable stream sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government except by the
consent of the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know about that.
Mr. JARMAN. I am speaking offhand about it, because I think
anybody would have a right—I am simply suggesting the question
to you, so that you may look into it. Anybody would have a right
to build a canal for any purpose, even for toll purposes, if it did not
interfere with navigation anywhere else, but however that may be,
if it is a proper conclusion that a canal built by an individual inter-
est for any purpose, and it could be used for navigation, no naviga-
tion having been in existence before, if they have full control over
it, then it is doubtful, in passing a law with reference to this sub-
ject, if you would not have to embrace in that statute some provision
So as to take care of these two sections 23 and 24.
Mr. HULL. That is provided for in this bill of mine.
Mr. JARMAN. Not at all.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, you asked me to give you this sec-
tion. I will have to make a little statement to you. My figures
were not exactly correct. I had in mind a report in another volume,
and I tried to place on Colonel Warren something that he was not
responsible for. The figures are charging the sanitary district with
0.41 of a foot and charging the other diversions at Erie with 0.35 of
a foot, making, according to this report of Colonel Warren's a
responsibility on the part of the sanitary district of 4.9 inches and
the other diversions of 4.2 inches, and it will be found in the report
of Colonel Warren at page 23.
Mr. JARMAN. I want to submit for purposes of the record a
statement of an engineer living at Beardstown, Ill., and ask that
it be made a part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that, Judge. -
Mr. JARMAN. We have prepared with reference to our view of
this question and concerning the question that we are interested in,
a statement prepared by a firm of engineers of the city of Beards-
town and we want to introduce this and make it a part of this record.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; it may be received.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
MEMORANDUM OF INFORMATION BY DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS OF ILLINOIS
To THE RIVERS AND HARBOBS COMMITTEE, Hous E OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIxty-
EIGEITH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. A statement of the general topography of the Illinois River, its elevation
with reference to the Sea level, also the sea level of the five Great Lakes and
their respective areas.
2. Map showing the location of all the drainage and levee districts along the
Illinois River, Exhibit 3, also a tabulated list of the cost of each, cost of the
improvements, the total Value of the improvements and their total value, and
the number of acres in each district.
3. Number of acres along the Illinois River not protected by any levee and
in cultivation and subject to overflow, number of acres in wild land subject to
overflow, and number of acres constantly under water before and after 1900,
and the grand total of acres in the valley subject to overflow and inundation.
4. Drainage districts built before 1900, their name, total number of acres in
each district, grand total of acres.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 195
5. General description of the character of the land and the fertility of the soil.
6. Character and kind of the crops and their market value.
7. Area of the watershed, of the Illinois River and general condition as to the
precipitation as to rainfall, and a map marked “Exhibit A,” hereto attached
and made a part of this statement.
8. Amount of water turned in the Illinois River since 1900, in a general way,
number of acres made unproductive, which statement includes number culti-
Vative acres, number of acres of timber destroyed, and the extent to which the
influx of the lake has affected the fish industry in said valley, the beaches, and
the excursion trips on the river.
9. Average gage height at Peoria and Beardstown, two important gage
stations on the Illinois River, their monthly average for March, April, May,
and June, before and after 1900.
10. Effect on the Illinois River of 10,000 cubic feet per Second on gage
height at Peoria and Beardstown.
11. Statement of how the water has affected and damaged the Illinois Valley
for the past 24 years.
12. Estimated damages caused by reason of the water from Lake Michigan
to the valley lands, private property of all kinds, including homes and busi-
neSS houses in towns and villages, the loss to navigation, including the destruc-
tion of roads, highways and wharfs, the damages to the fish industry, damage
to public utilities, and the grand total.
13. The 1922 flood, and an itemized Statement of the damages and the in-
fluences of the water from the sanitary district canal upon that flood.
14. A description of the construction, character, location and Operation of
Chicago Drainage Canal, and a map hereto attached marked “Exhibit B "
Showing the inlets of water from Lake Michigan to the controlling WorkS at
Joliet, with a description of the size and capacity of the same. Also a map
arked “Exhibit C " showing the location, area, and sea level elevation of
the various lakes. Exhibit D is a profile of the surface of the Illinois River
Valley connected with the Chicago Drainage Canal.
15. Flstimated damages to the Great Lakes and the number of investigations
made before and since 1900, by the Federal Government to ascertain the
damage done to the Great Lakes by reason of the withdrawal of the water
from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago, the damages to
the valley and the number of investigations made by the United States Govern-
ment before and Since 1900.
16. Request for an investigation and an estimate by this committee of
the districts in the valley since 1900.
17. With this statement we ask to introduce copies of the following docu-
mentary evidence, to wit:
Certified copies of the joint and several answers of the defendants of the
case in the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois and
the Sanitary District of Chicago.
Report of the Illinois Division of Waterways, second edition. Report of
the Illinois River and its bottoms.
Report of the division of waterways, by William S. Sackett, superintendent.
Photographs of natural conditions along the Illinois River, also photographs
of flood conditions.
Statement of George M. Wisner, chief engineer of the Sanitary District of
º and C. Arch Williams, attorney, Sanitary District of Chicago. Dated
1919.
Memorandum for the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army con-
cerning the drainage and sewerage conditions in Chicago and the diversion
of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan at Chicago. By W. H.
Healy, president; Edward J. Kelly, chief engineer; and Clyde L. Day, attor-
ney. Dated October, 1923.
1. The Illinois River from La Salle to Grafton is the remnant of an ancient
stream bed, bordered by wide and low bottom. and much cut by lake, bayou,
and marsh; and an alluvial stream of small lot water volume and sluggish
current with a declivity of only 26 feet in 225 miles, a declivity so small as
to require a large volume of water to maintain an effective channel; a stream
which in its natural condition is able to maintain but a small depth through
the deposits with which the tributaries constantly tend to choke the channel;
a tendency ever increasing with the inhabitation of the watershed and the
Cultivation and reclamation of lands.
The erection of dams with a view to the creation of pools of slack water
for the purpose of navigation diminishes the scouring force of the current at
196 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
medium and low stages and promotes channel decay. Causes depositS in the
mouths of tributaries and the more ready Overflow of the bottom lands; and
generally the tendency is to restore the natural channel of equilibrium at a
higher level with great ultimate injury to the Valley from overflow and un-
liealthfulness, a tendency already exhibited in a notable degree from the Con-
ditions created by the dams erected by the State at Henry and Copperas
Creek in 1871 and 1877, respectively.
The completion by the United States of the dams at La Grange and Kamps-
ville has raised the general level of the river below Copperas Creek by several
feet and promoted all these injurious tendencies to channel decay with over-
flow and unhealthfulness already exhibited through the agency of the State
works at Henry and Copperas Creek.
The Illinois River has been a highway of commerce from the earliest
settlement of the country. For the purpose of maintaining low water, navi-
gation dams and locks have been constructed at Kampsville, La Grange, Cop-
peras Creek, and Henry, in the early days producing slack-water navigation
as far up the river as La Salle, the terminus of the Illinois-Michigan Canal.
The dams at Henry and Copperas Creek were completed in 1871 and 1877,
respectively, and were constructed by the State of Illinois. The dam at La
Grange was completed in 1889, and the dam at Kampsville in 1893. These
two dams were built by the United States Government.
In the low water season of 1904—the lowest water since the opening of the
Chicago drainage canal—the heads at the several dams were as follows:
Kampsville----------------------------------------------------------- 6. 14
La Grange * * * * * = - * = ** = smºs ºs = <= *-* * * * * * = ** * * * * * = 5. 60
Copperas Creek ____ 2.38
Henry 2.80
Previous to 1900 a large part Of the lands now under cultivation in drain-
age and levee districts were susceptible of drainage for agricultural purposes
by gravity. To-day this entire acreage is drained only by pumping ; a burden
which increases as the general Water level Of the river raises, because the
lands within the levees are correspondingly wetter by raising of the water
table and heads to pump against are higher.
1—a. With this statement we furnish a profile of the Illinois River from
Lake Michigan to Grafton showing slope of the surface. (House Doc. 263,
59th Cong., 1st sess.)
1—b. Map showing location of Lake Michigan, Mississippi River, and water-
shed of the Illinois River as proposed by the State of Illinois, division of
waterways, 1915.
Value of Dra in age Districts on Illinois River'.

C ºf Annual
HIOCII- repairs
District. A Cres County. ‘ī; Of vidual º and
º Improve- pump-
Iſlent. ing.
Hennepin------------------------- 2, 610 | Putman----------- $261,000 || $52,000 || $360,000 || $4,000
East Peoria----------------------- 720 | Tazewell-- - - - - - - - - 72,000 72,000 500,000 3,500
Horseshoe Bottoms--------------- 300 | Peoria- - - - - - - - - - - - 15,000 6,000 30,000 |--------
Pekin-La Marsh. ------------------ 2, 300 |- - - - - do------------ 253,000 319, 400 615,000 3, 500
Rockey Ford (private).------------ 1,000 | Tazewell----- - - - - - 100,000 20,000 150,000 1,800
Spring Lake---------------------- 12, 100 |- - - - - do------------ 800,000 || 605,000 || 2,400,000 | 18, 150
Banner Special-------------------- 4,000 | Peoria-Fulton -- - - - 360,000 | 100, 00,000 7,000
Wakonda------------------------- 7, 700 | Fulton--------- - - - 385,000 80,000 350,000 10,000
East Liverpool-------------------- 3,300 ||----- 0------------ 330,000 50,000 ,000 5,000
Liverpool------------------------- 3,300 - - - - - do------------ 248,000 75,000 450,000 4,000
Thompson Lake------------------ 5, 400 |_ _ _ _ _ do------------ 468,000 40,000 600,000 8,000
Crabtree (private).---------------- 1,440 |- - - - - do------------ 91,000 60,000 155,000 2,000
Chautauqua ---------------------- 4, 120 Mason.------------ 350,000 20,000 370,000 6, 118
Lacey----------------------------- 3,000 | Fulton------------ 240,000 | 100,000 500,000 6,000
Langellier------------------------- 2, 100 |----- do------------ 170,000 80,000 420,000 3,000
Kerton Valley-------------------- 2, 100 |- - - - - do------------ 168,400 | 100,000 380,000 3,480
West Mantanza------------------- 2,800 - - - - - do------------ 181,000 75,000 400,000 4, 200
Seahorn--------------------------- 1,420 - - - - - do------------ 113,600 50,000 220,000 1,420
Big Lake-------------------------- 3,250 Schuyler---------- 325,000 | 120,000 650,000 4, 500
Kelly Lake--- 990 |_ _ _ _ _ do------------ y 5, 188,000 1,500
Coal Creek------------------------ 6,800 |_ _ _ _ _ do------------ 680,000 || 250,000 | 1,360,000 || 13,000
Crane Creek---------------------- 5, 200 |_ _ _ _ _ do------------ 455,000 | 150,000 ,000 5, 200
Big Prairie------------------------ 1,880 | Brown------------ 170,000 60,000 230,000 3,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
197
Value of Drainage Districts on Illinois River—Continued.

º: Of Annual
1Il Oll- repairs
District. A CreS. County. Cº. Of vidual º and
e Improve- pump-
ment. ing.
Lost Creek------------------------ 2, 260 | Cass-------------- $230,000 || $40,000 $270,000 $1,600
South Beardstown---------------- 2 § - - - - - §: * * * * - - - - - - - ; § 160,000 1, § § 10, ;
°y---------------------------- y -v ºr - - - - - 0------------ I 3. y 1,
Meredosia Lake------------------- 600 | Cass and Morgan.| 336,000 | 150,000 || 500, Ödö 4,000
Pankey Pond (special) ------------ 1, 400 |- - - - - 0------------ 30, 000 15,000 140,000 1,000
Mauvaisterre --------------------- ,000 || Morgan----------- 40,000 5,000 100,000 1,000
990ſ, Bun------------------------ 4, 630 || Morgan and Scott - 160,000 44, 000 400,000 2,000
Little Creek---------------------- 1,950 TOWIl-- - - - - - - - - - - 160,000 20,000 200,000 2,500
Miº Ǻk - - - * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11, ; #: and Brown--| 1, ; % }} § 1,400,000 *}}
alley Clty ----------------------- y 1Re-------------- 550, 180,000 750,000 y
#; County--------------------- }} % Scott-------------- 1, § § ; § } § § I ; §
18 SWan------------------------- 1, 740 -----do------------ y 60, , 550, 15,
#. - - - - - * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12, § 3. and Scott- : º: ; 300, § 1, #. § 20, §
aſ UWell-------------------------- , 800 Teene.------------ 704, 000 | 160, 64, 1,
Keach---------------------------- 10, 500 ----- do------------ 735,000 250,000 | 1,400,000 12,000
Pldred---------------------------- , 300 |----- do------------ | 650, 000 || 300,000 | 1,200,000 11,000
Spankey--------------------------| 860 ----- do------------ | 0, 000 10,000 100, 860
Nutwood------------------------- 11, 300 || Greene and Jersey- 1, 100,000 || 250,000 1,350,000 12,000
ROSedale (private).---------------- 285 Jersey------------- 28, 500 , 000 15, 300
Lynchburg and Sangamon Bottom 1,300 | Mason.------------ 130,000 20,000 150,000 2,500
Oval ----------------------- 198, 785 |-------------------- 13, 574, , 301, 6,997, 264,
Total 98, 78 º 807 |5. 301, 400 26, 997, 000 64,000
|
Total cost of improvements, $18,876,207.
Net gain—cost of improvements and present value, $8,120,793.
3. Cultivated land in Illinois River Valley not in drainage dis-


trict:
Value Value
County. Acres. per Total. County. Acres. per Total.
aCre. 3.Crê.
Jersey------------------ 1,500 $40 $60,000 || Tazewell--------------- 3,000 $60 || $180,000.
Greene----------------- 2,000 40 80,000 || Peoria------------------ 2,500 75 187, 500
Scott------------------- ,000 60 120,000 || Woodford-------------- y 50 125,000
Pike------------------- 3,000 75 225,000 || Putnam---------------- y 75 112,500
Brown----------------- 500 60 30,000 || Marshall--------------- 4, 290 50 214, 500
Cass------------------- 9,500 50 475,000 || Bureau---------------- 600 30 18,000
Morgan---------------- 4, 500 70 315,000 || Calhoun--------------- 1, 500 40 60,000
Schuyler--------------- 3,000 50 150,000
Mason.----------------- ,000 30 90,000 Total.------------ 45, 890 -------- 2, 642,500
Fulton----------------- 5,000 40 200,000
1. Nº. of acres along the Illinois River not protected by levees and in cultivation subject to *-
OVerſlow------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.
2. Number of acres in wild land and unmeandered lakes Subject to overflow, but partly subject
to reclamation------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,000
3. Number of acres constantly under water before and after 1900 (river channel and meandered
lakes) (river channel about 34,000 acres)----------------------------------------------------- 3,000
4. Acreage in drainage and levee districts--------------------------------------------------------- 200,000
Total acres in Valley and subject to overflow----------------------------------------------- 400,000
4. Drainage districts built before 1900:
p Acres.
Pekin-La Marsh----------------------------------------------------- 2, 300
Lacey –––– - - * * *- - - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - *m, ºr sm. “ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,000
Yoal Creek - - - - * = * * * * *- - - - -- wº. -- * * * * * * - - - - - - - * = * * * *- - - - - - - - - - - * * 6, 800
Keach Ranch------------------------------------ 10, 500
Total_ * - = = * * * - - - - - - - - - * * * *- 24, 700
à. The Illinois River Valley is a very fertile alluvial soil.
porous and readily drains.
The SubSoil in general is a heavy clay.
The Soil is very
The land is
very flat in its typography and has practically no drains except when artificial
drainS are COnStructed.
198 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
6. Production of acres lying within drainage districts:
Total acres within drainage districts 198, 785
90 per cent of which is under cultivation, or a CI'êS__ 178,906
70 per cent of cultivated acres produce corn, or---___________ do——— 125, 234
AVerage yield of corn per acre is 40 bushels, or--________________ 5, 009, 360
5,009,360 bushels, at 70 cents__ –––– $3, 506, 552
30 per cent of cultivated acres produce wheat, or --------- 3.CI'êS__ 53,672
Average yield of wheat per acre is 25 bushels, or 1, 341,800
1,341,800 bushels, at $1 * * - $1,341, 800
Total production of corn (value).-------------------------------- 3, 506, 552
Total production of wheat (value).------------------------------ 1, 341, 800
Total production (value) - 4, 848, 352
Deduct 50 per cent for rent------------------------------------- 2, 424, 176
Total---------------------------------------------------- 2, 424, 176
Deduct annual maintenance 260,000
Net receipts from lands (subject to normal conditions) ----- 2, 164, 176
The total investment in the drainage and levee districts at this time amounts
to $27,000,000.
The average net earnings amounts to (under normal conditions) $2,164,176,
which represents a return of 8 per cent on said investment.
Data from Report of Rivers and Lakes Commission on Illinois River and its
Pottom Lands, 1915, page 63:
“When districts now projected are fully cultivated, the total yield of the
leveed lands of the river should approximate over $6,000,000 per annum.”
Production of acres lying outside of drainage district and under cultivation:
Total area of lands under cultivation and lying outside of drain-
age districts ACreS 45, 890
An average production of corn under normal conditions is 20
bushels to the acre 917, 800
917,800 bushels at 70 cents - $624, 460
Deduct rent, 50 per cent 312,230
Net receipts — 312, 230
Capitalizing the value of the land at $50 per acre 2, 294, 500
Favorable conditions: When in a high state of cultivation the land produces
from 60 to 110 bushels of Indian corn per acre per year. This is also very
fine land for the production of winter wheat, producing anywhere from 20 to
55 bushels per acre.
This land in the state of nature was probably about equally divided as to
timber and open land, the timber section being heavily forested. Before 1900
the lumber industry on the Illinois River was an industry Of no small mag-
nitude. Since that time practically all the forests have disappeared and
there is nothing left but a few dead Snags and Some underbrush.
At the present time there are 200,000 acres protected by levees of which
amount 90 per cent is in cultivation or under the process of being brought into
Cultivation.
There are about 46,000 acres in cultivation outside of levee districts in the
valley at the present time.
Below the level of the low water of 1901, which is the lowest water since
the turning in of the Water from Lake Michigan, there are 63,000 acres under
water at that Stage.
There is at the present time Outside of levee districts 63,000 acres.
At the present time there are 45,000 acres in the Valley that would be under
water if the Water were at the level of the low-water gauge of 1901. There are
18,000 acres in private lakes, there are 200,000 acres behind levees, there are
46,000 acres in cultivation outside of levee districts, there are 91,000 acres of
wild land. Which makes a grand total of 400,000 acres.
7. The watershed of the Illinois River outside of the Sanitary District of
Chicago (which watershed has been artifically brought in) is 27,914 Square
miles. The greater part of which lies within the State of Illinois. About 3,207
square miles is in the State of Indiana and 1,080 square miles in Wisconsin.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 199
The upper stretch of the watershed is flat and the rainfall is about 32 inches
per annum. The lower stretches are lower and rough and the rainfall is
about 36 inches per annum. There have been about 400 square miles brought
in by reason of the building of the artificial channel of the Sanitary District
of Chicago. The maximum discharge of the Illinois River previous to 1915
was about as follows:
Second-feet.
Joliet, Des Plaines River––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 22, 000
Channahon, Des Plaines River-------------------------------------- 22, 000
Devine, Illinois River - 73,000
Ottawa, Illinois River__ 85,000
Peoria, Illinois River–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 90,000
Havana, Illinois River--------------------------------------------- 100,000
Beardstown, Illinois River 115,000
Pearl, Illinois River__ - - - 117,000
On the Sangamon, Kankakee, Des Plaines, Fox, Mackinaw, Spoon, and Other
principal tributaries, quite a little straightening has been done on the Kankakee
of recent date and on the Sangamon some 15 years ago—part of which affects
flood heights, together with the great many ditches and tiling that has been
done in various parts of Illinois and Indiana; these are shown on Exhibit 2,
but you will notice that not as much ditching has been done on the watershed
of the Illinois as On other watersheds in Illinois.
Previous to the year 1909 the Illinois River was one of the greatest fresh
fish producers; it was probably the greatest, with the exception of the Columbia
River. Prior to 1909 the Illinois River produced an average of 11,300,000
pounds of fresh fish annually; figure this at 10 cents per pound—deduct One-
half for labor, which would make it 5 cents per pound, which makes $565,000
worth of fish per year. At the present time and for the past Several years
the production has only been about 20 per cent of this amount.
All of the water on the river north of Beardstown is so badly polluted that
it is unfit for bathing. One doctor in one year at Havana had 100 Cases
of infection or so-called blood pison caused by people cutting their feet Or
hands when bathing. This same condition has greatly affected the Summer
resorts and boating, and hook and line fishing on the river, with this odor; the
thathing, boating, and fishing ceased to be a pleasure.
Beardstown gauge (average).
[Memphis datum, elevation 0–427.25. I
For the period beginning Jan. 1, 1908, to Jan. 1, 1924:
March-------------------------------------------------- --------- 12. S
April ----------------------------------------------------------- 14. 2
May - - 13. #2
June –––– * * - - - - * * * - - - -- * - eme - - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - - - - - - - - - - sºme sm - - - - - -ms 12. 0
Average ------------------------------------------------------- 13. 1
For the period beginning Jan. 1, 1900, to Jan. 1, 1908:
March - - * - - - - *-* * - - - - - -a - - - - -- * * * - - -- * * * * - - - -s m 13. 4
April ------------------------------------------------------------ 13. 8
May ------------------------------------------------------------ 11. 0
June – - - ___ 10.6
Average ------------------------------------------------------- 12. 2
For the period beginning Jan. 1, 1889, to Jan. 1, 1900:
March - 10. 3
April –– 10. 7
May -- 10. 3
June 10. 0
Average ----- - * - - - 10. 3
200 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Peoria ga/uge (average).
[Elevation 0–435.82, Memphis datum.]
H'or the period beginning Jan. 1, 1908, to Jan. 1, 1924: -
March - - - - __ 14.8
April 15. 6
May ----------------- --- 14. 7
June –––––– 13. 3
Average * * * * 14. 6
For the period beginning Jan. 1, 1900, to Jan. 1, 1908:
March –––––––––––––– - *-* * 14.5
April –– 14. 5
May –––––––––– — — — 11. 7
June –––––– ----- ___ 10. 9
Average -------------------- 12. :)
For the period beginning Jan. 1, 1889, to Jan. 1, 1900:
March – - *- _ 11.2
April - - - - 11. 0.
May ------------------------------ ____ 9.4
June --------------------------------------- - - - 8. 3
Average -------------------- 9.9
We herewith furnish a monthly average of the gauge height for the Peoria
and Beardstown gauge from the year 1889—the year of the closing of LaGrange
Locks to the Opening of the canal in 1900, for the months of March, April, May,
and June, the months for planting. The gauge at Peoria from the year 1889
to 1900 and from 1900 to 1908 and from 1908 to the present time. At Beards-
town this shows an increase of 1.9 feet for the first period. From 1889 to
1923 shows an average monthly spring rise of 2.8 feet, this means the effect
Of Something like 100,000 acres that are submerged and rendered unfit for
cultivation if there were no levees to protect the same. It has Saturated the
timber lands until they are destroyed and by their destruction it has greatly
increased the cost Of maintenance On the levee districts by reason that the
levees are exposed to the wind, which also greatly hampers the navigation of
the river with Small craft on account of their exposure and accessibility the
Wind has to the river and upon the Crafts. It greatly hampers the mooring
places of boats during a storm period while in a state of nature the timber
protected the same.
The flood of 1922 is in many ways different from the ordinary flood on ac-
count of its duration. The rain began to fall and the river began to rise on the
10th of March, 1922, at which time the gauge at Beardstown was 11.3, which
from the number of acres Submerged and the gauge readings heretofore pro-
duced we estimate that there were about 15 days run of the canal in the river
at that time. From that date to the 24th day of April, the day the peak of the
flood passed Beardstown, which time is 45 days plus the 15 days required by
the Canal to have brought the river from 8 to 11.3 means 60 days discharg—
ing Of the Canal in the river On the day the peak of the flood passes Beardstown.
There could have been no part of that water or an amount equal to that, dis-
charged from the volume, for the reason that the rise of the river from natural
causes was every day between the 10th of March and the 24th of April greater
than the discharge of the river at its mouth, consequently an amount of water
equal to the run of the canal at 10,000 cubic feet per second, which Mr. William
F. Mulvihill States is Correct in his answer to the State of Wisconsin in the
case of the State of Wisconsin against the State of Illinois now pending in the
United States Supreme Court. Ten thousand cubic feet per second is equal to
864,000,000 cubic feet every 24 hours or the amount of water equal to 20,000
acres 1 foot deep in 24 hours. We say 20,000 acre-feet because our habits of
thought make it more easy to grasp this unit of water as tangibly as we think
Óf dollars, 20,000 acre-feet times 60 days equal 1,200,000 acre-feet which spread
Over 300,000 acres the amount Of land flooded at the crest of the flood ; which
amount is equal to about 4 feet on the flood in the valley, and which amount
the sanitary district was responsible for in the flood of 1922, in our opinion.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
201
I) ischarge curves of Alvord dé Burdick report to Rivers and Lakes Commission,
1915.
Wat Wat
elevatiºn, Acres sº º
Mºjº, submerged º,” merged.
LaSalle reach----------------- 450. 0 20, 600 || Valley City reach------------- 431. 5 8, 600
Peoria reach------------------ 448.5 24, 200 || Pearl reach------------------- 427. 5 3,400
Pekin reach------------------ 445. 5 7,400 || Grafton reach----------------- 423. 5 9, 500
Havana reach ---------------- 442.0 30,800 -º-
Beardstown reach ------------ 438.5 1 24, 500 Total----------------------------- 129,000
1 Gage, 11.3 feet.
10, 000 C. F. S. X60×60 × 24 =20,000 acre-feet per 24-hour day.
43,560
*#. = 6.4 days to submerge acreage of 129,000 acres.
306. 000 acres in valley submerged, then—
129,000 : 300,000 : 6.4 : x = 15 days.
Time previous to March 10, 1922- - - -------------------------------- 15
March 10 to April 24---------------------------------------------- 45
Flood was affected by sanitary water--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60


1,200,000 acre-feet
00,000 acres flooded
Crest of flood at Beardstown was 25 feet on gauge less 4 feet—21 feet with no
sanitary district water.
20,000 acre-feet for 60 days (a ) =4 feet on gauge.
Gauge heights Beardstown, gauge.—1922.



Febru- º Febru- .
ary. March. April May ary. March. April. May
1---------------- 9.9 11.2 19. 1 22, 4 || 17--------------- 10.1 13.9 24.4 |--------
2---------------- 10, 3 11. 1 19.4 22.0 || 18--------------- 9.9 14.3 24.4 |--------
3---------------- 10.3 11. 1 19.7 -------- 19--------------- 10. 0 14.8 24.9 |--------
4---------------- 10, 2 11. 0 19.9 |-------- 20--------------- 10. 0 15.5 25, 1 --------
*---------------- 10.6 10. 9 20.3 -------- 21--------------- 10. 0 16.2 24, 5 --------
6---------------- 10, 8 10. 7 21, 1 -------- 22--------------- 10.6 16. 7 24.7 --------
7---------------- 10. 9 10. 7 21.8 l-------- 23--------------- 10. 9 17.0 24.7 --------
8---------------- 10. 9 10. 7 22. 1 1-------- 24--------------- 11. 5 17.2 24.6 |--------
9---------------- 10. 9 11. 0 22, 1 -------- 25--------------- 11. 7 17. 5 24.6 |--------
10--------------- 10. 9 11. 3 22. 4 i-------- 26--------------- 11. 6 18.0 24. 1 |--------
11--------------- 10. 9 11. 1 22.4 |-------- 27--------------- 11.4 18. 3 23.9 |--------
12--------------- 10. 9 11.2 22.7 l-------- 28--------------- 11.2 18.4 ----------------
13--------------- 10.8 11.4 23. 1 |-------- 29------ - - 18.5 !--------|--------
14--------------- 10, 5 12. 0 23.7 |-------- 30---------------|-------- 18.6 ----------------
16--------------- 10.4 13.0 24, 2 l-------- 31---------------|-------- 18.8 ----------------
16--------------- 10.3 13. 5 24.7 --------
NOTE.-See p. 18, Division of Waterways report.
From Rivers and Lakes Commission report, by Alvord & Burdick, 1915, page 37.
Since January 17, 1900, the previous water conditions have been greatly
changed through the flow of the Chicago Drainage Canal, which has averaged
from 3,136 cubic feet per second in 1900 to 7,185 cubic feet per second in
1913. The flow of the last-named year is equivalent to 7.1 inches on the drain-
age area tributary to Peoria, which is about 87 per cent of the estimated aver-
age flow at that place during the decade immediately prior to the opening of
the Canal. It is equivalent to about 3.4 inches upon the watershed tributary
to the mouth of the river; probably equivalent to about 40 per cent of the
run-off of the prior decade at that place.
202 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
FLOW OF THE CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL, 1900 TO 1914.
[By L. E. Cooley. ]
Cubic feet Cubic feet
per Second. per Second-
1900 2,989 || 1908 5, 317
1901 2,041 1909 5, 667
1902 - - 4, 302 1910 5, 967
1903 4, 971 1911 6, 454
1904 4, 693 1912__ 6, 378
1905 4,477 1913 __ 7, 193
1906 -- 4, 471 1914 7, 105.
1907_ 5, 117
Flow of the Chicago Drainage Canal in cubic second-feet, 1915 to 1923.
[Letter, F. B. Downing.]

ſ
|U. S. Geo-
Reported | logical Per cent
by dis- Survey | Difference. of district
trict. obServa- quantity.
tions.
1910------------------------------------------- 6,970 7, 537 567 ------------
1916---------------------------------------------------- 7, 325 7,782 457 6. 2
1917---------------------------------------------------- 7,790 8, 558 768 9.9
1918---------------------------------------------------- 7,811 8,548 || 737 9. 3
1919---------------------------------------------------- 7,606 8,566 960 12, 7
1920---------------------------------------------------- 7,321 8,351 1,030 14. 1
1921---------------------------------------------------- 7,326 8,276 950 13.0
1922---------------------------------------------------- 7,703 8, 569 866 , 11.2
1923---------------------------------------------------- 7, 266 8,064 798 11.0
But actual proof shows that the flow has been much greater, and at times
as high as 15,000 cubic feet per second.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, COMPLAINANT, V. STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY
DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, DEPENDANTS.
These defendants, and each of them admit that the mean yearly amount of
Water passing through said sanitary district canal, at its westerly terminus,
for the years 1900 to 1917, both inclusive, was approximately the amount for
said years set forth in Said paragraph 15 of said bill of complaint. These
defendants deny that the Said figures are based on methods of calculation
which result in very considerably, or to any extent underestimating any
amounts of actual flow through said canal. On the contrary these defendants
aver that the methods used to calculate said yearly mean flow of water are
methods which should produce results as nearly accurate as could be produced
by any method of calculation. These defendants further say that the flow of
water through said canal for the first four months of the year 1922 has been
approximately the amount required by the sanitary district act, according to
the population of the Sanitary district, namely—20,000 cubic feet per minute
for each 100,000 population, which amounts to 10,000 cubic feet per second.
The following are the effects of the discharge of water from Lake Michigan
into the Illinois Valley:
- POLLUTION.
. Destruction of gill fish.
Destruction of shell fish (includes pearls).
Destruction of fish food On bottom of river.
. Unhealthful to inhabitants in the valley.
. Destruction of beaches on account of being unfit for bathing.
. Has reduced navigation on account of being offensive for excursions.
i
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 203
7. Unfit for livestock to drink, therefore destroyed pasture in many cases on
aCCOunt. Of being unable to fence.
8. Almost total destruction of all summer cottages along the bank of the
Stream.
9. Greatly affected value of city property in cities near the stream.
10. Destroyed value for ice.
11. Increase of stagnant water Imeans increase of mosquitoes and gnats;
making malaria more prevalent.
12. Destruction of all game fish. -
13. The driving away of all fur-bearing animals from the main stream.
14. The depopulation of the river surface for health, pleasure, or residence.
15. The acid in the sewage shortens life of all boats.
IN CREASE EIEIGHTS OF WATER,
1. Destruction of all timber on upper river above Havana.
2. Increased current velocity.
3. Obstruction to navigation on account of velocity.
4. Greater Wind action on account of increased areas in back water and
destruction of timber—same is great damage to navigation.
5. Destruction of timber line on the banks of the river above Peoria, have,
and do make it almost impossible to navigate at night. This increases the
number of lights and increases Federal expense.
6. Destruction of timber was the destruction of all natural mooring places.
7. Increased Wave action On levees causing a great increase in maintenance
caused by loss of timber and increased depth of water.
8. Loss of the use of land for agricultural purposes. This includes crop
loSS, pasture. -
9. Destruction of pecan Orchards and pecan forest trees from which the nuts
are produced.
10. Destruction of all natural food and covering for water fowls, making it
necessary to feed the same to attract them.
11. Increased pumping for levee districts both in days of operation, lift of
water, and quantity of water pumped.
12. Filling at the mouth of all tributary streams.
13. Destruction of many roads leading to steamboat landings, thereby affect-
ing navigation.
14. Submerging of landing, thereby causing Same to be raised.
15. Increase in the submerging of a part of the cities and villages.
16. Change in sewer Systems in towns and Villages.
17. Change in level Of Warehouses.
18: An invasion of real property rights, includes riparian Owners and viola-
tion of the Ordinance of Virginia.
19. It is the taking of property without due process of law.
20. Interference with interstate commerce by the interruption of railroad
Sorvice.
21. Interference with delivery and transportation of United States mails
by reason of flooding of post roads, Streets, and railroads. *
22. Interference with telephone, telegraph, light, and power service.
23. Under the conditions existing Water is drawn heaviest from the canal
when it does the greatest damage, namely—in periods or seasons of a heavy
rain and times of great floods.
24. It tends to depopulate the entire Valley.
25. It affects the value of adjacent grazing lands, to the extent of several
miles back in the hills due to need for COrn ground.
26. Affects value of improvements On higher land connected with injured
lands in bottom.
27. Decreases the assessed value Of the county in which the value is de-
creased and lessens total taxes assessed and Collected in each county lying
partly in the Valley.
28. It saturates large acreages of Other lands and renders them unfit for Cul-
tivation near the level of land that is flooded.
29. It makes much higher land unfit for cultivation because of low contours
in the lands which are thus separated into high and low sections, thus making
bad shapes of fields for Cultivation.
30. It detaches various parts of the same body of land, thus rendering many
otherwise valuable parts inaccessible. •
304 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Permanent damages, not including flood of 1922.
Damage Since 1900:
Timberland destroyed, 100,000 acres at $15
Pasture land destroyed, 65,000 acres at $1 for 15 years—$15 per
___ $1,500, 000
a Cºre 975, 000
Loss to cultivated land, 50,000 acres at $5 for 20 years—$100 (does -
not include levee land) q-8 500, 000
Extra cost of maintaining levees by pumping 180,000 for 16 years
at $8 1,440,000
Loss of crops in the field, stack, and bins before 1922 (12 years) on
50,000 acres at $25 per acre---------------------------------- 1, 500,000
Extra cost of raising levees on account of raising water by reason
of influx of water from lake—180,000 acres at $25–––––––––––––– 4. 500,000
Average production of fish in the Illinois Hiver for 14 years pre- • {
vious to 1913, 11,300,000 pounds at 10 cents per pound, one-half of
which is labor ; in value, $565,000. Since this time (1913) there
has been a decrease of 80 per cent in production of fish, which
amounts to 452,000; One-half of this we charge to pollution by the
sanitary district, $226,000; this when capitalized at 5 cents
amountS to--- 4, 520,000
Shellfish, no accurate estimate, but reduction due to pollution is
about 50,000 per annum, or when capitalized is something like—- 1, 000, 000
Change of sewer system in city of Beardstown 135,000
Cost of levee to protect Beardstown---------------------------- 350,000
Total_____ 16, 420, 000
tº g tº & Crop Works of
District. Acres. damage district.
Hennepin------------------------------------------------------------ 2,610 $26,000 $52,000
East Peoria----------------------------------------------------------- 720 ------------ 25,000
Horseshoe Bottom---------------------------------------------------- 300 3,000 ------------
Rocky Ford---------------------------------------------------------- 1,000 20,000 25,000
Spring Lake---------------------------------------------------------- 12, 100 ||------------ 95,000
Banner Special------------------------------------------------------- 4,000 ------------ 10,000
Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------- 5,400 ------------ 50,000
Crabtree------------------------------------------------------------- 1,440 24,000 5,000
Chautauqua -------------------------------------------------------- 4, 120 ------------ 50,000
Lacey---------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * *m, m = * * m ºr sº * * * me m = * * * * 3,000 ------------|------------
Langellier------------------------------------------------------------ 2,000 ------------ 25,000
West Matanzas------------------------------------------------------- 2,800 ------------|------------
Kerton--------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 100 ------------ 5,000
Sea Horn------------------------------------------------------------- 1,420 ------------ 3,000
Kelly Lake----------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 990 8,000 27,000
Pekin-LaMarsh ------------------------------------------------------ 2,300 50,000 80,000
Coal Creek----------------------------------------------------------- 6,800 90,000 210,000
Crane Creek---------------------------------------------------------- 5, 200 y 92,000
Big Prairie----------------------------------------------------------- 1,880 ------------ 25,000
Lost Creek----------------------------------------------------------- 2,260 20,000 25,000
Clear Lake----------------------------------------------------------- 2,500 20,000 10,000
Lynchburg and Sangamon Bottom----------------------------------- 1,300 13,000 20,000
South Beardstown---------------------------------------------------- 8, 100 10,000 88,000
alley----------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3, 200 ------------ 9,000
Meredosia Lake -------- *-* = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *- 4,000 80,000 30,000
akes----------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 400 y 2,000
Mauvais Terre------------ * * * * * * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-* 1,800 30,000 10,000
Coon Run------------------------------------------------------------ 4,650 ,000 ------------
Little Creek---- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *m. * * * * * *m am sº * * as º amº am sº sm me as ºr sm * * * * * * * * * 1,950 13,000 8,000
McGee Creek---------- *-* * * * * * = 4s tº º $* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-*. 11,250 ------------ 100,000
Scott County--------------------------------------------------------- 10,760 115,000 250,000
Big Swan------------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *ms. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11, 740 ------------ 15,000
Hartwell------------------------------------------------------------- 8,800 100,000 185,000
Keach Ranch--------------------------------------------------------- 10, 500 115,000 150,000
Eldred--------------------------------------------------------------- 300 |------------ 10,000
Spankey-------------------------------------------------------------- 860 8,600 17, 200
Anderson Lake------------------------------------------------------- 5,000 |------------ 10,000
Total.--------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - 158, 550 831,600 1, 759, 200
1 Includes contractors’ damage.
Damages by loss of personal property, livestock, stored grain, stored
feed, and farm machinery - $62,500

Total damages and losses in drainage districts by reason of 1922
flood
2, 653, 300
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 205
DAMAGES TO I, A N DS OUTSIOE () F DRAIN.A.G.E DISTRICTS.
Sangamon Valley, crop loss, 5.000 acres, at $20 ---_________________ $100, 000
Meredosia Island, crop loss, 1,000 acres, at $15____________________ 15, 000
Total (lamages to lands outside of drainage districts_________ 115, 000
D.A. MAGES TO PI BIC UTILITIES.
P. & P. Teriminal------------------------------------------------ $25,000
T. P. & W. Railroad--------------------------------------------- 10, 000
C. & A. Railroad------------------------------------------------ 255, 000
P. & P. Union Railroad__________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10, 000
C. & N. W. Railroad___ <-- * * * *- * ºm mº - “mºm ºm mº m * ºm m º ºr * * * * * * * 25,000
C. B. & Q. Railroad––––––––––––––––––– - - - __ 340,000
Wahash Railroad ----------------------------------------------- 35,000
B. & O. Railroad------------------------------------------------- 14, 500
Post roads and bridges–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 93. 600
Illinois Bell Telephone Co.--------------------------------------> 150, 000
Western Union Telegraph Co.------------------------------------ 5,000
POW'er Companies in the valley_________________ 75,000
Delay of {nited States mails by reason of interrupted service of rail-
roads due to flood Waters–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2,000
Total damages to public utilities_____ - - --- __ 1,040, 100
DAMAGES TO CITIES AND TOW N.S.
Peoria ------------------------------------------------------------ $50,000
Pekin ------------------------------------------------------------- 15, 000
Liverpool (includes ice and ice house) --___ - -- 10, 000
Snicarte (elevator)------------------------------------------------ 1, 500
Browning (20 houses inundated) ----_________ - -- 10, 000
Frederick --------------------------------------------------------- 5, 000
Beardstown : .
Business houses (200, at $1,000) --______________________________ 200, 000
Residence property (700, at $800) ---___________________________ 56,000
Household furnishings––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 14, 000
Flour mill ---------------------------- 10, 900
JºWºº' -------------------------------------------------------- 25, {}00
Public buildings ----------------------------------------------- 7, 000
Public W. Orks * *-* - -, * * * * *-* *-* * * * * * * * * * * * *m º “ 4- º ºsmº amº mºst ºr sº. ºº ºr * * * - - - - -º º' -- * * 19, 000
Ice houses----------------------------------------------------- 20, 000
Alexedosia----------------------------------------------------- 2,000
Naples -------------------------------------------------------- 25,000
Valley City---------------------------------------------------- 5,000
Total damages to cities and towns----------________________ 497, 000
SUMIMARY OF DAMAGES.
Damages to drainage districts----------------------------------- $2,653, 300
Damages to lands Outside of drainage districts___________________ 115, 000
Damages to public utilities––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1,040, 100
Damages to cities and towns -----_______ - sº mº 497, 000
Total (lamages by reason of the flood of 1922________________ 4, 305, 400
Total permanent damages––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 16, 420, 000
Total damages ------------------------------------------- 20, 725, 400
The $20,725.400 above mentioned does not include damages above Peoria, ex-
cept as to cultivated lands outside of levees, and to the Hennepin district. We
believe this damage is not proportionately as great as to property as it is
below Peoria ; though it is our opinion that the damages by polution is pro-
portionately greater.
The Chicago Sanitary District has the following named inlets respectively :
6,250 cubic feet of water per second by way of the Chicago River ; 1,750.
917.39—24—PT 1–14
206 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
cubic feet per second through the north branch of the Chicago River from
the Wilmette and Lawrence Avenue pumping stations to the South branch of
the Chicago River; then the south branch of the Chicago River will carry
8,000 cubic feet per second to the west fork where it will be increased by
2,000 cubic feet per second will be added at Sag, Ill., the intersection of the
Calumet-Sag Channel with the main channel of the sanitary district lying
SOuth of Eighty-seventh Street in the city of Chicago, which is known as the
Calumet district, and to furnish additional water for oxidizing purposes for
the Sewage and drainage diverted to the main channel north of Sag, Ill.
In 1906 the sanitary district made application to the Secretary of War for
permission to construct the Calumet-Sag Channel. This is an adjunct to the
main Channel and extends from the main channel at Sag, Ill., easterly to the
Little Calumet River at Or near Blue Island. The maximum capacity is
2,000 cubic feet per second. It is designed to reverse the flow of the Little
Calumet River at most times during the year and divert from Lake Michigan
the Sewage and drainage arising in that portion of the Sanitary district lying
South of Eighty-seventh Street in the city of Chicago, which sewage and drain-
age substantially passes into Lake Michigan by way of the Calumet River.
Thirty-two miles from the mouth of the Chicago River near Lockport on
the West Side of the Canal is constructed a controlling WOrks equal to that Of
the canal. The locks or dams are of the weir type.
The water flows from this weir into the Des Plaines River and then into the
Illinois River.
Two miles below the above described bear trap dam is constructed a power
house with eight electric generators of 4,000 horsepower each and three Small
electric generators of 2,500 horsepower each. There is an extra Stall or
foundation built in which a generator has not been placed for another 4,000
horsepower. All of these generators are propelled by the water from the
canal and the Des Plaines River. While these generators as now installed
represent 39,500 horsepower they are not all in operation the full 24 hours
per day, but it is our understanding that they generate soroething like 36,000
horsepower daily. This amount running half-time will produce more than
100,000,000 kilowatts annually, and by their own engineer's last statement it
was 122,000,000 kilowatts in 1922; which sold at 2 cents per kilowatt an hour
and charging off 50 per cent for operation, depreciation and collection will
produce $1,200,000 annually—at the expense of the people in the valley. The
heads at this point vary from 43 to 37 feet, with the amount of water that is
being drawn from the canal. Below this point there are other water-power
plants and sites owned by the State of Illinois and under the jurisdiction of
the department of public works and division of waterways.
With this statement we herewith submit a map of the inlets and adjacent
territory from Lake Michigan to the Des Plaines River showing all the
various inlets as above stated, marked “Exhibit D '' and hereto attached.
Also a map marked “Exhibit C " showing location, area and sea level eleva-
tion of the various Lakes. Fxhibit D is a profile of the surface of the
Illinois River.
Following is a memorandum of Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, January
8, 1913 :
“I do not for one moment minimize the importance of preserving the health
of the great city of Chicago; but when a method of doing this is proposed
which will materially injure a most important class of the commerce of the
Nation and which will also seriously affect the interests of a foreign power, it
should not be done without the deliberate consideration and authority of the
representatives of the entire Nation. The weighing of the sanitation and
possibly the health of One locality over against the consideration of our rela-
tions and obligations to Canada in respect to a great international waterway
are not matters of mere technical or scientific deduction. They are broad
questions of national policy. They are quite different in character, for ex-
ample, from the question of fixing the proper location of a pierhead line or
the height or width of a drawbridge over a navigable stream, fair samples
of the class of questions which come to the Secretary of War for decision under
the above-mentioned act Of 1899. While the researches and opinions of ex-
perts in the respective fields are necessary and useful as an assistance toward
reaching a fair and proper policy, the final determination of that policy should
belong not to an administrative Officer but rather to those bodies to whom
we are accustomed to intrust the making of our laws and treaties.”
We would further state that we altogether agree with Mr. Stimson in his
deductions and are firmly of the opinion that any power plant run by the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 207
sanitary district for the general health of the city like Chicago is entirely
wrong; because it is a great temptation to cut loose at times when fuel is
very scarce—as during the coal strike of 1922 when the greatest flood of record
came down the Illinois River, for people in the valley all believe, and have
reasons to so believe, that the flood never would have been half as disastrous
had it not been for the coal strike in the bituminous fields of Illinois and other
near-by States, thereby subjecting waterpower generally to increasing use, in
place Of coal. *
Permit us at this point to say that had the Illinois River been somewhat
higher than it was at the time the March rains in 1922 began, SO that an
additional foot of elevation beyond that recorded had been reached, it is safe
to assume that the entire valley, practically speaking. So far as levees are
concerned, would have been wiped out. Which is to say, every district would
have been flooded. This would have added incalculably to the loss experi-
enced.
While the damage to the Great Takes has never been estimated to be more
than from three to five million dollars, yet there have been three or four
investigations by the Federal Government as to the damages caused by the
withdrawal of the water from Lake Michigan. We have had damages ranging
all the way from $20,000,000 to $50,000,000 in the valley, still not a single in-
vestigation on the question of damages has been made by the Federal Gov-
ernment; yet it is a question of national policy, and we respectfully request of
this committee before a report is made on any 10,000 C. F. S. bill that an in-
Vestigation be made at least to the extent of knowing whether our statements
are not substantially true. and if convinced that they are true, we believe that
this committee will be of the opinion that the Chicago water mill at Lockport
should be junked, and the city of Chicago he compelled to troat their sewage
Completely within the next five years, so that the flow of water from Lake
Michigan into the Illinois River may be cut to 1,000 C. F. S., which amount
is, in the judgment of the War Department engineers, sufficient to serve all
purposes of navigation, and further for the reason that we believe the valley
damage is irreparable. - - -
We further respectfully suggest that in such investigation the feasibility of
placing a lock or controlling works in the Chicago River be considered as a
means of preventing the backing up into Lake Michigan of said river during
the Sudden influxes of storm water, such as are now experienced and which
fure used as an additional reason for demanding an average flow of 10,000
C. F. S. We also call your attention to the fact that in the State law of
T889, Creating the sanitary district, it was stated that before water would be
permitted to flow through the canal proposed, dead animals and parts thereof,
garbage, and Other Solids should be removed from the same. As we understand
it, a start has been made to do this. It is now 35 years since the sanitary
district was created. We feel that five years more is sufficient in which to
Complete Works of Sewage purification, which according to the statute should
have been concurrent with completion of the other district works in 1900.
In conclusion permit us to say that in an investigation of the Illinois River
Valley, by General Wilson in 1867, it was stated substantially that owing to
the character of said valley it would probably never be suitable for human
habitation, except along its fringes, for the reason that it was timber, jungle,
marsh, and low land, and therefore unhealthful. Since that time it has been
Wrested from the wilderness at a tremendous cost. It is among the most
fertile valleys of America and in our limited Corn Belt. It is not, therefore,
entitled to exact and painstaking consideration? Certainly no great city can
long endure which has no fertile lands tributary to it. Is it not axiomatic that
the wealth of nations comes from the soil 3
Mr. BARRETT. We have a copy of this engineer's report here, and
I am wondering whether your stenographer will copy all of that, or
whether we might have a duplicate of that from these engineers so
that we could inspect it.
Mr. JARMAN. I will give you a copy.
Mr. BARRETT. And also a copy of your own statement?
Mr. JARMAN. That will be printed here.
208 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Will that be written up, or was it an exhibit?
Mr. JARMAN. He said it would be printed. Mr. Chairman, I of.
fered that before you came in, and Mr. Freeman said that I could
offer it as a part of my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. His statement will be written up?
Mr. JARMAN. The statement, was, that on account of the time, I
was to present a statement of the facts orally, but the written state-
ment that I have prepared in manuscript should be used by the
Stenographer as a part of the record as having been said by me here.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
(Mr. Jarman's written statement reads as follows:)
I appear at this hearing before this committee representing an association
Called the ASSociation of Drainage and Levee Districts of IIIinois. This asso-
ciation was formed for mutual benefit in the formation, construction, and main-
tenance of their drainage and levee districts located along the Illinois River.
These districts have been formed for the reclamation of lands for agricultural
purposes along the Illinois River by the construction of levees, ditches, and
pºns plants to protect Said lands from Overflow water from the Illinois
IWel”. - -
In presenting this matter to this committee, I am not going to do it by way of
argument or by the declaration of any personal opinion on my part : but my en-
deavor shall be to give you a statement of facts supported by competent
authorities, from which we hope you can say we have proven our case by a
preponderance Of the evidence. -
That I may be exact and concise I have placed, for the most part, what I
want to say in writing.
There are 43 of these districts. They "include an area of 200,000 acres of
land. They vary in size from 400 acres to 12,500 acres. The cost of the con-
struction of these districts is about the sum of $18,875,000 and about $95 per
acre, and the cost of maintenance each year is about $264,000. The average
value of crops raised each year upon these districts is about $5,000,000. The
CropS raised are, in the main, wheat and corn. The fair market value Of these
lands, as protected, is about $27,000,000.
This brief statement indicates the property interests represented by the
members of this association. They are also preeminently interested in the
health and welfare of the communities occupying this vast area of land.
There are now pending several bills before Congress having for their object
tWO principal propositions:
First. The diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Sanitary Canal
Of Chicago and the Illinois River.
Second. For the construction or improvement of a waterway by the Federal
Government in the Illinois River from a point near its source, at a place called
Utica, to its confluence with the Mississippi River, a distance of about 230
miles, which is to connect at Utica with a waterway to be constructed by the
State of Illinois from Utica north to Lockport, a distance of about 65 miles,
and which waterway is to connect at Lockport with the sewerage canal of
the Sanitary District of Chicago. which runs from Lockport on the south to
Lake Michigan on the north, a distance of about 31 miles.
The Federal Government therefore becomes interested in this project ; first,
On account of creating a navigable waterway from Lake Michigan to the
Illinois River and thence into the Mississippi River ; and second, because the
proposition involves the diversion from Lake Michigan of a large quantity Of
Water.
In these bills it is proposed to divert from Lake Michigan into this water-
way 10,000 cubic feet per second of water, which involves the question of the
effect such diversion will have upon the navigation in the Great Lakes.
Chicago and vicinity are interested in this project on account of, first, the
creation of a waterway ; Second, the turning into this waterway of the sewage
of the district known as the Sanitary Drainage District of Chicago and in-
cluding the city of Chicago and vicinity ; and third, in the development of
hydroelectric power.
The State of Illinois is interested as a State in the construction of the
waterway and in the development of hydroelectric power. These drainage
districts are interested in the protection of their lands from damage and
t
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 209
destruction by reason of the water diverted from Lake Michigan into the Illi-
nois River and by the pollution of the Illinois River by the sewage from the
Sanitary district.
Therefore our purpose in appearing before you is to get such provisions in
this legislation upon this waterway and diversion proposition ; to recompense
the owners of these lands in these agricultural drainage districts for past dam-
ages and to protect them from future damage and destruction ; to get Such pro-
visions in this legislation to save the Illinois River from the pollution of the
sanitary district sewage : to protect the health and welfare of the communities
along the Illinois River and to prevent the total destruction of the fish in the
Illinois River.
The Sanitary District of Chicago was organized in 1889 and completed its
drainage canal in January. 1900. Prior to that time Chicago conducted its
sewage into the Chicago River and Lake Michigan, and a negligible amount of
water taken from Chicago River and Lake Michigan diverted into the Illinois
and Michigan Canal. -
The current of the Chicago River was into Lake Michigan. The size, char-
acter, and location of the Chicago River and the city of Chicago and the
sanitary drainage district has heretofore been indicated to you by maps and
proper description. The flow of water of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan
was, of course, toward Niagara Falls.
You will note on the map that the Illinois River is formed by the confluence
Of the Des Plaines and Kankakee Rivers, and about 45 miles Southwest Of the
city of Chicago, and runs southwest into the Mississippi River for a distance
Of about 280 miles at Grafton. -
In the first 50 miles from the north the slope is a little more than 1 foot
per mile; in the next 80 miles the slope or fall is about 6 feet; the lower 150
miles has a fall of 27 feet. Because of this flat slope the stream does not
discharge its waters rapidly in its natural state. Along the river there is a
large area of low lands Subject to Overflow, and many lakes are found along
the valley, through which part of the water flows at flood periods.
The mean annual rainfall in the north end of the State is 34 inches; in
the central portion 37.5 inches.
Prior to the drainage canal. large areas of these lowlands were put to crop,
each year, others every other yeal', and so on, depending upon the height of the
land and the flood conditions in Spring.
The Chicago Drainage Canal is about 31 miles in length and runs from the
Chicago River at the city of Chicago southwest to Lockport and there connects
with the Des Plaines River. It was planned for a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet
of water per second but was constructed for a much larger capacity. By it
the current of the Chicago River is reversed and made to run into this canal
and it was constructed primarily for the purpose of taking care of the sewage
of the city of Chicago and vicinity instead of said sewage being discharged
into Lake Michigan.
For nearly 25 years and for every second of that time there has been
diverted from Lake Michigan into this canal, thousands of cubic feet of water
each second polluted with the sewage of millions of people, factories, stock-
yards, and other works. thence into the Des Plaines River and then into the
Illinois River.
Prior to 1900, there had been four drainage districts constructed along the
Illinois River by private owners of land reclaiming for agricultural purposes
an area of about 25,000 acres since 1900. So at present there exists along the
Illinois River, 43 drainage districts reclaiming about 200,000 acres of farm.
land.
Also there are thousands of acres of land along the Illinois River which
have not been brought into (lrainage districts, which are now being Overflowed
by this diversion of water. *
Of course, much of this land was subject to overflow prior to 1900, but by
reason of the water from the drainage canal thousands of acres which were:
not subject to overflow prior to 1900, have become subject to overflow since,
and the land subject to overflow before 1900 has continued under water for a.
longer time during the year and especially in the springtime of the year when
the ground is prepared and crops are planted.
From year to year the population of the sanitary district has increased, and
at present its population is about 3,200,000 and its area about 400 square miles,
and to take care of the sewage of this continually increasing population the
amount of water which has been diverted from Lake Michigan has continually
210 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
increased ; and our information is that during the past 10 years the amount
has been about 10,000 cubic feet per second and at times of floods has increased
to 19,000 cubic feet per second.
The Controlling works—that is, the works controlling the amount of water
diverted— is under the control of the sanitary district, and it is difficult to get
the exact amount; but observation shows that the Illinois River has been
raised from 3 to 8 feet by the water from Lake Michigan when the river water
is within its bank, and at times of floods an average of 4 to 5 feet.
The amount of water thus diverted from Lake Michigan into the Illinois
River is indicated also by the lowering of the level of the water in the Great
Lakes. Secretary Henry L. Stimson, in 1913, said:
“Careful Observations and CalculationS COnducted under the Offices Of the
United States Survey and reported through the chief engineers, covering obser-
vations for the last 46 years, indicate that a withdrawal of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second would reduce levels in inches at Various places, as follows: Lakes Huron
and Michigan, 6.9 inches; Lake St. Clair, 6.3 inches ; Lake Erie, 5.4 inches;
Lake Ontario, 4.5 inches; and St. Lawrence River, 4.8 inches.
“The foregoing effects would be produced at mean lake levels; the lowering
effects would be much greater at low-water periods, the precise time when any
additional shortage would be most keenly felt.”
. The Dominion Marine ASSociation of Canada contends that the withdrawal
at Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet per second lowers the levels of the several lakes
form 4.5 inches in Iake Ontario to 7.4 inches in Lake Michigan. The total
area at the surface of the water of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, St. Clair,
and Ontario and connecting intervening Waters is about 63,000 Square miles;
and the total amount of water over this area 6 inches deep Would make about
80,000,000 acre-feet of water. These figures mean that all this water is being
diverted into the sanitary canal and into the Illinois River.
From a document entitled, Memorandum for the Chief of Engineers of the
United States Army, concerning the drainage and Sewage conditions of Chi-
cago and the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per Second of water from Lake
Michigan at Chicago, prepared by the president and a committee of the board
of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago and directed to the Secretary
of War and the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, I take the fol-
lowing excerpts: *
“It is pertinent to state that the diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago,
benefits navigation in the Mississippi Valley. A flow of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second through the drainage canal Will not Only raise the low stage of the
Illinois River but will raise the low Stage of the Mississippi between St. Louis
and Cairo, approximately 1% feet.
“With a definite maximum limit established for the diversion from Lake Mich-
igan materially less than 10,000 cubic feet per second there would be many
times when the Chicago River would reverse the flow into the lake. On March
17, 1919, due to a flood in the Des Plaines River combined with a flood from
the Chicago River watershed, it was necessary to flow 15,560 cubic feet per sec-
ond through the controlling works at Lockport for a short interval to prevent
a reversal of the Chicago River. Two days later, on March 19, 1919, a rate of
15,200 cubic feet per Second was necessary.
“An unusually heavy rain, 2.68 inches, fell during the early morning hours of
August 11, 1923, and caused the most serious reversal in the Chicago River
which has happened. Since 1900. Reversal of the Chicago River was observed
from 9 a. m. ; the flow Was increased, averaging approximately 13,850 cubic
feet per second, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.; a flow averaging 12,000 cubic feet per
second, from 1 p. m. Was necessary to hold the Chicago River from reversing
again.” -
In a report made by E. L. Cooley, hydraulic engineer of the sani º
district, dated August 21, 1923, he says: g tary drainage
“From 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p. m., a period of 10 hours, the aVerage flow was
12.350 cubic feet per second. The average for the first five hours is 330 cubic
feet per second, and for the maximum hour, was 15,270 cubic feet per second.
º Compared with conditions before the canal was built the proposed flow
Will improve navigation in the Illinois River, and will raise the low water Stage *
of the Mississippi River about 13 feet at St. Louis.” - - -
int.": #. º, ". larger quantity of water has been turned
O the Illinois River than has been generally admi * >
* iš. Cubic feet per Second at tº: y tted, and is much greater
9 Cubic feet per º e -
low-water stage of the *i; #. º º, “. Will raise the
, LOuis 13 feet, what
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 211
Will it do in the Illinois River, which is much Smaller in width and slower
in movement?
The volume of 10,000 cubic feet per second for 24 hours is an amount of
Water equal to 20,000 acres of water one foot deep.
However many other causes there may be claimed for the floods along the
Illinois River, no argument Or theory can prove that this vast amount of
Water does not largely increase the flood water of the Illinois River and in-
crease the Stage of the Water in the Illinois River and overflow large areas
Of land, increase the COSt Of Construction and maintenance of levee districts
and the destruction of crops and Other property.
However much experts or theorists may figure, they can not figure this
vast amount of water out of the Illinois River coming from Lake Michigan
through this drainage Canal.
The climax of this damage, loss, and destruction was reached by the Illinois
River flood in April 1922. At that time, levees inclosing 17 of these drainage
districts were broken and the damage along the Illinois River has been esti-
mated at many millions Of dollars. - -
A report of this flood and the damage done was made on April 18 and 29,
1922, by Rufus W. Putman, major of the United States Corps of Engineers,
and a more detailed report of the damage done by this flood was made by the
United States Department of Agriculture.
An excerpt from the latter report I read as follows:
“Upon the basis of all dependable information that has been obtainable
up to the time Of this Writing, a Summary Of the total acreage inundated in the
three main devastated areas shows the following estimate: Illinois River Valley
below Peoria, 175,000 acres : * * * and the final figures may far exceed
them. A large proportion of the flooded areas was in growing crops, mainly
winter wheat, with almost as large an acreage in meadows. No attempt is
made herein to estimate the monetary value of crops destroyed; of farm prop-
erty, including livestock, stored grain, and feed; Of city property (mainly in
Beardstown) ; drainage district levees; public highways; transportation lines
and other public-service properties; or the loss to business in general through
Suspension ; as it has been impossible up to this time to procure accurate and
comprehensive figures; but the final count will unquestionably run into mil-
lions. The city of Beardstown with its environs suffered the most extensive
loss of any one locality, and the loss there will no doubt exceed a million
dollars. - -
“The crest of this flood of April 1922, was reached on April 20, at which
time all business houses in Beardstown, a city Of 7,000 people, were inundated
and 20,000 acres of land around the city were under Water, and in SOme Of the
streets there was a 10-foot depth of water. Service over the Chicago, Burling-
ton & Quincy Railroad and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was suspended ; all
food was brought in by boat ; 1,200 feet of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
tracks were washed Out, and the railroad bed Several feet under water. The
river was 18 miles wide, extending from bluff to bluff; 175,000 acres below
Peoria was inundated ; grain, livestock, dwellings and barns, agricultural
implements, and other personal property of the value of millions of dollars
were destroyed.”
Of course, it will be said that other elements entered into this destruction
than the water from the Sanitary canal, which is true ; and the elevation of
this flood to SOme extent was due, or at least it WOuld Seem was due, to the
construction of levees along the Illinois River and other artificial conditions.
But it should be remembered that the construction of these levees in large part
had been made necessary for the protection of the land by this coloSSal amount
of Water diverted into the Illinois River from Lake Michigan through the drain-
age canal; but as already I have shown that the water heretofore taken from
Lake Michigan and diverted into the Chicago River has lessened the stage of
the water in the Great Lakes 6 inches and increased the Stage of the Water in
, the Mississippi River 13 feet from the mouth of the Illinois River to Cairo. So
that, however, it may be argued, this great amount of Water necessarily is
a destructive fºrce in times of flood in the Illinois Valley.
Opinions may differ as to the various causes which may have entered into
this flood destruction and we may have to leave it to the opinion of engineers,
but it still remains that you can not take out of the Illinois River the vast
amount of water diverted from the Great Ilakes through the Sanitary canal
during this flood.
212, ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
*.
During this April flood of 1922, we are advised, and from our information we
think correctly, at that time 19,000 cubic feet of water per second were thus
diverted.
Of course, Lake Michigan is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov-
ernment for navigation purposes. Itecognizing this, the Sanitary District of
Chicago on May 8, 1899, was granted permission by Secretary of War Russell
A. Alger to divert 5,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan into this
canal. On April 9, 1901, Secretary of War Elihu Root ordered a reduction of
the flow to 4,167 cubic feet per second.
From every Secretary of War of the Federal Government since the sanitary
district has made application to increase this permit. Secretaries of War
Taft, Stimson, Garrison, Baker, and Weeks successively have declined to grant
a permit for any increase of diversion over the 4,167 cubic feet per Second,
and while the diversion for many years has been 10,000 cubic feet per second
and more, it has been in violation of the permit of the Federal Government.
On January 26, 1922, John W. Weeks, Secretary of War, stated in reference
to the Michaelson bill, which provided for compensating and regulating works,
in which the following appears : .
“I am not persuaded that the amount of water applied for (10,000 cubic
Second-feet) is necessary to a proper sanitation of the city of Chicago. The
evidence indicates that the issues come down to the question of cost. Other
adequate Systems Of Sewage disposal are possible and are in use throughout the
world. The evidence before me Satisfies me that it would be possible in one
Of the Several ways to purify the Sewage of Chicago with very much less
water for its dilution. * * * I regard it as extremely inadvisable to grant
the city of Chicago, Or any other agency, the right in perpetuity to take from the
lake a definite quantity of water.”
In defiance of the refusal of the Federal Government to grant such permit,
the Sanitary district COntinued to increase the amount of Water diverted. The
Federal Government in 1906 filed a bill in the district Federal court at Chicago
to enjoin the sanitary district from diverting any more water than the permit
granted.
In the first part of 1923 Judge Carpenter, Of the United States district Court.
at Chicago, entering an order of injunction against the drainage district said:
“On June 19, 1920, Judge Landis rendered an oral opinion finding, in effect,
that the withdrawal in excess of 4,167 cubic feet per second by the sanitary
district of Chicago was without authority of law ; that the withdrawals then
made reduced the level of Lake Michigan and other of the navigable waters of
the United States to Such an extent as to be an interference with navigation;
that the Secretary of War, acting in congressional powers, had never given his
consent to such excessive withdrawals; that the diversion by the sanitary dis-
trict was therefore unlawful and an injunction should issue. -
“The evidence ShoWS, and Judge Landis found and I find, that the waters of
Lake Michigan and other navigable waters of the Great Lakes have been re-
duced in level by the Water in excess of 4,167 cubic feet per second withdrawn
from Lake Michigan by the defendant.”
On May 8, 1922, Secretary Weeks, in a communication to the Attorney Gen-
eral, Said :
“The Chicago drainage Canal, designed for sanitary purposes, was con-
structed under authority of the State of Illinois and without Federal sanction.
>}: 2k $:
“It will be observed that 14 years have elapsed since suit was begun ; 7
years since it was argued and submitted to the court; and nearly 2 years
since a finding for the Government was announced. * * * From the be-
ginning the Sanitary District of Chicago has disregarded the rulings of the
department, persistently violated the terms of the permit, and ignored the
iSSules involved in the Suit.
“For a number of year the diversion from Lake Michigan into the drainage
Canal has been more than double the amount authorized by the department,
and there is reason to believe that the present average daily withdrawal ap-
proximated 10,000 cubic feet per second. It is an established fact that this
diversion lowers the levels of the Great Lakes and reduces the depth of water
in the harbors and connecting channels to the substantial injury of naviga-
tion. The ports and harbors from Montreal to Chicago are materially affected,
and Commercial and business interests generally are seriously inconvenienced.
Numerous and Constant complaints have been made by these interests. but the
Čepartment has been stopped by the pending suit from undertaking any active
measure of relief.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 213
“Judicial determination of the issue involved in the suit is, therefore, of the
utmost importance to a public interest committed to my charge. If there is
any procedure by which you can quicken action by the court and induce an
early and effective decision, I have the honor to urge that such procedure
be taken.”
This case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court, and On
February 23, 1924, the Hon. James M. Beck. Solicitor General of the United
States, filed a motion in the Supreme Court of the United States to advance
the hearing of this case to an early date, and in which motion the Solicitor
General States:
“The Sanitary District of Chicago should, we believe, be required immedi-
ately to take steps which it should have taken years ago, to construct purify-
ing Works and other means of disposing of drainage, so that it will not find it
necessary to divert from Lake Michigan a constantly increasing Supply Of
Water.”
I cite these papers of the officials of the Federal Government in this con-
nection to show the vast quantity of water diverted from the Great Lakes
by the sanitary district ; that it has been diverting this water contrary to
Jaw for many years. That it has been the duty of the sanitary district to
protect itself in the disposition of its sewage by other means, and should not,
in all justice, divert this water into the Illinois River to the loSS and damage
of the owners of the land along the river.
The act of legislature under which the Chicago drainage district was or-
ganized and incorporated as a municipal corporation, was passed in 1889.
Section 19 of that act, provides:
“Every sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within
Or without Such district which shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged by
reason of the construction, enlargement or use of any channel, ditch, drain,
Outlet, or other improvement under the provisions of this act.”
The question naturally occurs: “Why, then, have not these drainage dis-
tricts and landowners recovered damages, provided for in this section?”
Many suits have been brought, a few have recovered damages, but at
greater expense usually, than the amount of damages recovered. Many suits
are pending and have been pending for over 10 years, without trial ; theo-
retically these people have their remedy; practically, they have no remedy.
With a trial of the few suits that have been tried, it has been found that
the vast political, financial, commercial, and other resources of the sanitary
district, and recourse to Various means, have made the prosecution of such
suits prohibitive. Many members of the State legislature have been under
salary of the sanitary district, without rendering any visible service. Many
lawyers in the various communities are under its retainer; scores of expert
engineers appear at the trials; and every means, fair and Seemingly, Some-
times foul, in court and Out of court, have been resorted to, to defeat the
recovery of any claim for damages. There has been no disposition upon the
part of the sanitary district, to fairly and equitably meet these claims for
damages to landowners along the Illinois River.
Every case has been appealed to the appellate or Supreme Court. All this
involved great expense, and the landowners were simply unable to meet it.
There is another very serious Situation in this connection, which seems to
absolutely forbid the recovery of damages under this section. I have tried
a number of these cases and am SOmewhat familiar with the decisions of the
Courts upon them in all the cases.
This drainage district began operation in January, 1900. We have in the
State of Illinois a five years Statute Of limitations.
In the case of Jones v. Sanitary District, reported in 252 Ill. 561, which
was commenced on March 17, 1908, a plea of the statute of limitations was
filed by the department setting up that the damages claimed were permanent
damages and therefore recovery of same was barred by the five years statute
of limitation, because the damages Occurred at the beginning of the Operation
of the district in January, 1900. In that case four of the judges held that
the statute of limitations was not a bar and three of the judges filed a dissent-
ing opinion as follows:
“We are of the opinion under the averments of the declaration, the main
channel of the sanitary district is a permanent improvement and that the
statute of limitations Commenced to run from the date the Water Was turned
into the said canal; and that the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the
plea setting up the five years statute of limitations.”
#
214 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
So that in that case the court stood four to three.
In subsequent cases the Supreme Court explained the Jones case, and finally
reached the conclusion that the damages Were permanent and Were barred by
the statute of limitations. So that as to the Suits filed subsequent to 1905 the
landowners have no remedy under this position of Our Supreme Court.
The seriousness of the situation and the resultant damages were not in fact
realized by the landowners during the five years immediately subsequent to
1900, and when it was realized they were met with this bar of the statute of
limitationS. e
And one reason it was not realized was that during the first five years the
permit of 4,167 cubic feet per second of the War Department was not seriously
exceeded. +
And, further, it had not been anticipated that the rule of permanent damages
would apply.
During the past few weeks, on account of the decree of injunction of the
IJnited States district court, and now pending by appeal in the Supreme Court,
from which it would appear the sanitary district will be enjoined from
diverting more than 4,167 cubic feet per second unless it can get a bill passed
by Congress giving it the right to divert more Water, Some approach has been
made to pay some of these damages under pending suits. To what extent this
will be carried after the permission is gotten from Congress is Very uncertain.
From the past I take it that as soon as Congress passes the law giving permis-
Sion just SO SOOn will negotiations from the Sanitary district Cease.
This effort, it would seem, is being made for the purpose of getting the people
along the Illinois River to appeal to Congressmen and Senators to vote for a
law giving the Sanitary district this permission. During the last Week or two
a full-page advertisement has been carried by the sanitary district in all county
papers in the Illinois River Valley, a copy of One of which I desire to present
and have made a part Of this record.
At the SOuth end Of the drainage canal there has been constructed by the
sanitary district a hydroelectric power plant Operated under a head of 34 feet;
the estimated capacity of this plant is 36,000 horsepower and which it is pro-
posed to enlarge.
It is stated by the officials of the sanitary canal that the power plant provides
light for the streets and parks of Chicago, effecting an annual saving Of Over
$1,000,000, and that the sale of power to manufacturing plants along the canal
nets a profit of $100,000 a year. Much of the current is used by the sanitary
district itself in the Operation of the electrically driven Sewage pumpS and
stations and the machinery in the Sewage-treatment plants. The COSt Of this
power plant was about $1,500,000, and during the last 10 years the actual
output of this plant has been an average of about 120,000,000 kilowatt hours.
By an amendment to the constitution of the State of Illinois, followed by an
act of the legislature, there has been provided $20,000,000 for the construction
of what is known as the Illinois waterway from the SOuth end of the Chicago
Drainage Canal to Utica, a distance of about 60 miles; the division of water-
ways of the State of Illinois has this project under development.
The division of waterways of the State are also asking for a diversion from
Lake Michigan of 10,000 cubic feet per second for the purposes of this water-
way and including the development of the hydroelectric power along the same.
Under bills now before Congress it is proposed to So improve the Illinois
River from Utica to its mouth as to make and Sustain a 9-foot channel for
navigation purposes, at a cost of about two to five millions of dollars. -
So that by the three waterways—the sanitary drainage canal, the Illinois
waterway, and the Illinois River—it is proposed to create a waterway from
the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and to the Gulf of Mexico and also
to construct hydroelectric power plants of thousands of horsepower capacity.
Mr. M. G. Barnes, chief engineer of the division of WaterWays of Illinois, in
a report dated February 14, 1922, on the value of increase in diversion from
Lake Michigan from 4,167 cubic feet per second to 10,000 cubic feet per second,
and which was prepared for the information of the Chief of Engineers of the
United States Army, SayS:
“If the flow from Lake Michigan can be increased to 10,000 cubic feet per
second the State will have available for sale, 200,000,000 kilowatt hours added
annually ; this power is easily worth 4% mills per kilowatt hour, and this repre-
sents an annual income of $900,000. The annual interest, Operation, and main-
tenance charges on power plants necessary to develop this additional power is
estimated to be $250,000, leaving a net income to the State of $650,000, which,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 215
Capitalized at 5 per cent, amounts to $13,000,000 and represents the Value to
the State of the additional water for power purposes.”
He also says:
“It will be seen from this estimate that if the flow from Lake Michigan is
increased from 4,167 cubic feet per second to 10,000 cubic feet per second the
Government will be saved an expenditure of $3,448,400 in the improvement Of
the Illinois River between Utica and Grafton. In other words, a 9-foot Cilan-
nel with 10,000 cubic feet per second can be secured for about 45 per cent Of
the cost of securing an 8-foot channel with a diversion of 4,167 cubic feet per
Second.”
In the same report he points out the value of this additional flow in the im-
provement to the Mississippi River from Grafton to St. Louis but does not go
into detail to show the saving that would be realized by the additional flow.
He further says:
“In addition to the value of this additional water to the State and Federal
Government, it is a value to corporate interests now developing water power
at Lockport and Marseilles. The increase in flow to 10,000 cubic feet per second
would add 140,000,000 kilowatt hours to the power available at these two sites.
This power is of equal value to that to be developed by the State, and if our
reasoning is sound this additional energy is worth $9,100,000.”
The value of the additional water with a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second
to the State of Illinois, to the Federal Government, and to corporate interests
has been Outlined as follows:
Decreased cost of completing the Illinois waterway_______________ $2,000, 000
The Value of additional water power appurtenant to the Illinois
waterway * 13,000, 000
Decreased cost to the Federal Government in securing 9-foot chan-
nel in Illinois River 3, 448, 400
Government in Capitalized Saving in maintenance Of the Illinois
and Mississippi Rivers - 1,000, 000
Value of additional water power at Lockport and Marseilles_______ 9, 100,000
Total —rſ ____ 28, 548, 400
He further says:
“With the enormous commerce now in sight it is reasonable to suppose
that SOOn after the COmpletion of the improved channels an annual traffic Of
20,000,000 tons will seek transportation on these rivers. The saving of 9-foot
channel Over 7-foot channel, based on above computation, amounts to $1,200,000
annually, which, as capitalized at 6 per cent, shows the value of 9-foot channel
over 7-foot channel to be $20,000,000.”
Mr. Barnes in his sixth annual report, 1922–23, states:
“If this additional flow from Lake Michigan is authorized, the Government
will be saved an expenditure of nearly $5,000,000 in the improvement of the
Illinois and Mississippi Rivers; the State will be saved a large amount of
money in the completion of its Illinois waterway project and the additional
Value of power that may be obtained from water now going to waste, will
amount to many millions of dollars more. The total value of this additional
Water to the middle West in navigation, farm interests, sanitary needs, and
power, will exceed $30,000,000.”
You will note that these valuations are placed upon the additional flow of
water to 10,000 cubic feet per second above 4,167 cubic feet per second, so that
this valuation would be multiplied in counting the value of the total flow of
10,000 cubic feet per Second to the sanitary district, the State of Illinois, and the
Federal Government, resulting from these projects already completed and
proposed.
In an address by Lyman E. Cooley, an engineer of the sanitary district,
made on November 25, 1910, he said : *
“We can not carry the water through the Illinois Valley on 9 feet; we can
not carry One-third of it without endangering about 400,000 acres of bottom
lands to a degree that is not to be contemplated.”
Isham Randolph, for many years the chief engineer of the Chicago Sanitary
District, in an argument made to the Secretary of War in 1912, said:
“Sundry objections to granting the plea of the Sanitary District of Chicago,
until such time as the channel of the Illinois River has been made adequate
to give the flow artificially delivered to it, have been filed by associations and
individuals having and owning property in the Illinois Valley. We have no
216 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Quarrel with these petitioners ; in fact, this is a basis of reason in their
effort to protect themselves through you. They are suffering a burden which
they Ought not to bear.”
Mr. Adcock, an attorney for the Chicago Sanitary District, in discussing
the Suit in the Federal court concerning the injunction asked by the Federal
Government to limit the flow to 4,167 cubic feet per second as per Government
permit, before the City Club of Chicago, in April, 1913, said:
“If War Department’s order is Sustained by the court and the sanitary
district is compelled to lessen the flow as demanded in that Order, the Sani-
tary district will be required to Spend from one hundred millions to One
hundred and fifty millions of dollars within the next 20 years in the con-
struction Of Sewerage works, pumps, and the adoption Of Other measures to
Overcome the impurities from the sewage emptying into the canal.”
I am calling your attention to this phase of this question to show you
this situation :
We have here, demanding this 10,000 cubic feet per second of water for
these three great projects, the Sanitary District of Illinois, populated by
over 3,000,000 of people with billions of dollars of wealth; and the worth of
which water it is claimed is the health and wealth of millions of people
in Chicago, the Creation of millions of dollars of wealth and the Creation Of
a great waterway of transportation of immense benefit to the commercial
interests of Chicago, to the people of the State of Illinois, and Nation ; and
the Saving to the people of Chicago of millions of dollars.
NOW, it is asked that the Federal Government join in this demand and
help build this great waterway. The engineers of the Federal Government
reply that 1,000 cubic feet per second are sufficient for the waterway; but
in reply to this the sanitary district and the State say, yes, but with 10,000
cubic feet per second the Federal Government can improve the Illinois River
at a cost of 45 per cent of what it would cost with 1,000 cubic feet per second.
If the Federal Government shall yield to this demand in thus taking and
using this water in the protection of the health and the creation of great
wealth, then these three organizations of Government will be instruments of
the destruction of the health and farms and homes of industrious. and worthy
people along the Illinois River Valley, if not some way protected.
It can not be justified.
Private property Ought not to be thus taken and damaged without just
COmpenSation.
The survival of the strongest should not be made the rule of any govern-
mental agency. -
Pollution.—AS has been stated, the Illinois River is about 280 miles in length.
The city of Havana is about 160 miles from its source. The fish industry of
this river prior to the construction of the sanitary canal was the largest of
any river in the United States except the river of Columbia and fish from this
river Were shipped to many markets of the United States and as far east as
New York City and in Carload lots.
For many years stringent laws were passed by the General Assembly of the
State of Illinois to protect this fish industry. Many people along the Illinois
River made their living Solely by fishing and the people of the country were Sup-
plied with fish for food. This industry capitalized was worth millions of dol-
lars and Of great benefit to the people in the supply of food.
It is now a well-known fact that the fish industry in the Illinois River as far
down as the city of Havana has been destroyed by the pollution of the water of
the Illinois River by the sewage from the sanitary canal. No fish can live in
this water in the Illinois River now as far down as 1 mile below Havana. This
pollution and destruction of fish has progressed down the river for the 23 years
of the existence of the Sanitary canal and at the rate of 6 miles of the river
a year; 160 miles in 23 years. At the same rate, in 20 more years, the destruc-
tion of fish in the Illinois River will have been completed and the industry totally
destroyed. -
#. of the Legislature of 1889 under which the sanitary district of Chicago
is organized, section 20, provides:
“Any channel or outlet under the provisions of this act, which shall cause
any discharge of sewage into or through any river or stream of water, beyond - -
or without the limits of the district Constructing the Same * * * Shall be
kept and maintained of such size and in such condition that the water thereof
shall be neither offensive nor injurious to the health of any of the people of this:
State and before any sewage shall be discharged into Such channel or outlet all
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 217
garbage, dead animals, and parts thereof and other solids shall be taken there-
from.”
The Words “Solids shall be taken therefrom * mean and were intended to
mean, the Solid matter in Sewage. -
It is a Well known fact that for a number of years and along the Illinoi
tiver for many miles below Peoria that the waters thereof are exceedingly
Offensive and injurious to the health Of the people ; and it is very true that no
Serious attempt has ever been made to take from the Sewage the Solid matter.
In an appeal by the Sanitary district to the War Department for the diversion
of this increased amount of water, signed by George M. Wisner, Chief Engineer
of the sanitary district, and C. Arch Williams, attorney for the district, says,
that if the Sanitary district were compelled to immediately comply with the
limitation of flow granted very disastrous results would ensue; * * * the
Des Plaines River through Joliet and the Illinois River would reach a serious
Septic Condition, causing Inuisances, perhaps endangering life and destroying
all fish life in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, ruining that industry,
Which has grown to be one of the great industries of the State.
In an answer filed by the Sanitary district of Chicago to the bill of Com-
plaint Of the State of Wisconsin in a Suit now pending in the Supreme Court
of the United States it is stated : -
“If the said flow were entirely restrained or limited as aforesaid, there
would not be water with which to digest, dilute, or Oxidize the sewage as
it Would be discharged into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. The Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers would become polluted ; the oxygen content of
the water would be entirely eliminated, and a septic condition would exist in the
Des-Plaines and Illinois Rivers, along the entire course Of said rivers, producing
results unhealthful to the people along said rivers and wholly destroying fish
life therein.”
In the third annual report of the division of waterways Of the State Of
Illinois £or the year July 1, 1919, to June 20, 1920, it is stated:
“The Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers are badly polluted, and for years
have been unfit for bathing or domestic use or for stock; and the fish industry
has been completely destroyed as far down as Peoria. The Stench at times
in the summer season is offensive and is also a damage to navigation.”
Prof. Stephen A. Forbes, chief of the natural history survey division of Illi-
nois, in a report submitted in April, 1920, concerning the pollution Of the
Illinois River says:
“In 1918, on the other hand, polluted conditions very like those above Ottawa,
in 1911, had appeared 51 miles below Ottawa at Lacon, where the bottom sedi-
ments of the river had a stinking odor, sewage worms were abundant in the
sludge, which contained no clean water organisms, and the oxygen. Of the Water
was only about a tenth that of a normal stream and less than half that neces-
sary to the life of our Illinois River fishes. There has thus been a progression
downward of pollutional conditions at an average rate of 6 or 7 miles a year.
Furthermore, with the disappearance of the animal life of the bottom, upon
which the river fishes largely depend for food, the number of the fishes them-
'selves has fallen off so far that fishing operations were generally abandoned
1ast summer in the middle of the season at Havana, between which place and
Tiverpool the Observations above described were made.”
As has been shown, the sanitary district has been discharging for a number
of years 10,000 cubic feet per second of water and with that amount of water,
“the very disastrous results,” predicted in the above statements, have taken
place and will continue to grow worse, so that in a generation Or two the
IIIinois River will have become a foul sewer and the farms along this valley,
will have become the cesspools of Chicago Sewage.
We have tried to establish the following propositions :
(1) That the drainage districts along the Illinois River include a Jarge area
of valuable agricultural land, which has been reclaimed and is being main-
tained at large expense to the owners.
(2) That a large part of the cost of this reclamation and maintenance has
loeen made necessary by the flow of water from the Sanitary district.
(3) That great loss and damage has been suffered to these lands, Crops,
buildings, and structures and to levees, ditches and Works by this water.
(4). That this water has been diverted into the Illinois River contrary to
and in violation of law and right. -
(5) That the sanitary district has been defiant of the rights of these land-
owners and ruthlessly destructive of their property, and has refused to recog-
nize its liability or pay for the losses and damages it has caused.
218 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
(6) That the only relief to these districts and landowners is by appeal to
and protection by this Congress.
(7) That the Illinois River has been so polluted as to become a menace to
health and cause the destruction of the fish therein.
(8) That if the diversion of this water is of great value in health and wealth
to Chicago and the people of the State and Nation; then just provision should
be made for the protection of the health and wealth of the people of the Illinois
River Valley; so that the health and wealth of Chicago shall not be protected
and Created by the destruction of the health and wealth of the people of the
Illinois River Valley.
(9) That this protection should be:
First. The payment to the landowners, their tenants, drainage district, and
Others of just compensation for damages sustained in the past before any right
is granted to the sanitary district to divert any water.
Second. To protect by levees or deepening the Illinois River these lands from
future damages and cost of maintenance or to protect by the payment of future
damages caused by such diversion.
Third. The placing of the controlling works of the sanitary district under
the direction and control of the Federal Government.
Fourth. The treatment of the sewage of the sanitary district before it enters
the Illinois River so that the river will not be polluted and offensive and a
menace to health and destructive of fish.
Fifth. The construction of purification works; and as constructed the di-
Version of water should be decreased, and finally cease, except as is necessary
for navigation purposes.
This association has no disposition to disregard the physical conditions of
Chicago and vicinty as to their serious problem of sewerage, and does not op-
pose any Solution of this problem which does not violate the rights of others.
This association recognizes the great commercial advantages of a waterway
from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and does not oppose any plan, the
execution of which does not violate the rights of others.
The people along this valley for years have been encouraged and persuaded
by the agencies of the Federal Government and by the Illinois government to
reclaim these large areas of fertile land for the purpose of raising food for the
Nation; to do it the efforts of a generation and the fortunes of many have
been spent.
Since the State of Illinois became a State stringent laws have been passed,
an expensive department has been maintained to protect and increase the fish
of the Illinois River. The comfort and health of the people of the Illinois
Valley is as Sacred as that of the people of Chicago. The only way of our
Salvation is an appeal to the Federal Government. *
As I am advised, several bills have been introduced in Congress on this sub-
ject, One in the Senate by Senator McCormick on January 27, 1923; one in the
Senate by Senator Brookhart on January 22, 1924; one in the House by Con-
greSSman Hull on January 15, 1924; one in the House of Representatives by
Congressman Rainey on February 9, 1924; one in the House by Congressman
Madden on February 16, 1924.
This hearing is On the Hull bill; so that in conclusion we desire to examine
this bill for a moment.
Of course, I recognize that bills introduced into legislative bodies are usually
tentative in their provisions and that it is understood that their final form will
grOW Out Of investigation and discussion.
This bill provides:
First. For the creation of the Illinois waterway.
Second. For the diversion of “an amount not to exceed an average of
10,000 cubic feet per Second per day from Lake Michigan.
Third. The conditions upon which this diversion is authorized are—
(a) That the Sanitary district shall pay the cost of the construction of com-
pensating and regulating works in the Niagara and other rivers.
(b) That the sanitary district shall pass an ordnance pledging its agreement
that during a period of 21 years it will develop its present scheme for the
treatment of Sewage SO as to treat sewage arising from 4,250,000 of its popula-
tion. - This ordinance is to be supplemental to and explanatory of the present
Ordinance of the sanitary district. -
(c) To compensate landOWhers who have constructed or who in the future
do Construct or reconstruct levees, for the cost of such levees or construction
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 219
thereof, and to compensate those who will operate pumping plants to overcome
Seepage, to the following extent:
The Chief of Engineers shall prepare plans for the standardization of levees
which may be constructed or reconstructed, and for pumping plants. In pre-
paring such plans he shall estimate, fix, and certify :
(a) The added depth of the water in Illinois River, its floods or high stages,
attributable to water coming through the works of the sanitary district.
(b) The added present day cost per lineal foot or yard of constructing
levees of the determined standardized type, made necessary by the presence
therein said river, its natural flood, and its highest water stages of the water
coming through the works of the sanitary district.
(c) The average annual added cost of pumping by owners of land protected
by levees since January 17, 1900 to January 1, 1924, compared with such cost
prior to January 17, 1900.
(d) When such report is approved by the Secretary of War, the sanitary
district shall forthwith pay into the hands of engineers the money by him
computed to be sufficient (a) to reimburse all levee and drainage districts
and individuals who have built or reconstructed the said standardized levees,
Or Who have constructed levees equal to such standardized type, for such
added cost of building or rebuilding or reconstructing their such levees, so
determined to be attributable to water discharged into said river at its natural
flood or highest water stages by the sanitary district. (b) to reimburse all
drainage districts or individuals the total added cost sustained by them for
pumping Seepage from their lands as may be found to be attributable to the
presence in said river of the water discharged therein by the sanitary district
up to and including 1924.
(4) If after approval of said type of levees, any person or organization
Constructing such type of levee shall be compensated in cash by the sanitary
district for added cost of such levee, made necessary by reason of the discharge
in Said river in its natural flood or high water stages of water attributable to
the sanitary district.
The Chief objection to this bill and our suggestions as to what it should con-
tain are :
(1) As to the provision with reference to pollution of the Illinois River.
(a) This part of the bill is the same as that introduced by Congressman
Madden. This part of the bill is so involved with the ordinance of the sanitary
district referred to as passed in 1919 that that ordinance might control. That
Ordinance, as I understand. was to supplement the works of the sanitary
district as then constructed by purification plants. The plan contemplated by .
that Ordinance was to use the drainage canal, as then used, for the sewage
Of 3,000,000 population and the purification plant for the sewage of a popu-
lation above that number.
Paragraph (b) of this bill, beginning on page 6, from line 20 to line 6 on page
7, is the same language as the bill of Senator McCormick on page 6 from line
12, except the words “to care for any excess population of said drainage
district of Chicago over and above 3,000,000 people’’ in lines 16 to 18 in the
McCormick bill. The McCormick bill seems to contain the language of the
Ordinance.
Beginning with line 12 on page 8 of this bill it is provided that the dis-
trict shall pass an ordinance “pledging that it will develop such plans to at
least reach the following results.”
These plans provide for the construction of treatment plants and treat-
ment of sewage at intervals from two or three years and from 1924 to 1945,
so that in 1945 it will treat sewage arising from 4,252,000 of its population.
The status in 1923 in the drainage district was this:
Population sanitary district # 3, 213,000
Stockyard wastes equivalent to * 1, 030, 000
Corn products wastes equivalent to---- - ____ 380,000
Miscellaneous wastes equivalent to—— ----- 150,000
The sewage of towns in northwest corner of Indiana draining into
sanitary district by Calumet River 127,000
Visiting population º –– - 100,000
Total 5,000, 000
Population treated * * * 113,000.
Equivalent population 4, 887, 000
220 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
So that hy this hill the maximum annount of sewage to he treated in 1945,
in terms of sewage, is now already reached and passed.
The increase in population in the sanitary district has been for a number
of years about 75,000 a year. In 22 years the population will have increased
1,650,000, over 50 per cent; and with a corresponding increase of wastes,
and population in towns in the northwest corner of Indiana and Visiting popu-
lation, there will be an equivalent population of approximately 7,250,000;
take from this 4,250,000, you have 3,000,000 of equivalent population to be
treated in 1945, for which the 10,000 cubic feet per second will he used, and
the Illinois River Valley will be no better off. -
As to the provisions for compensation :
This bill provides for compensation to landowners and drainage districts.
who have constructed or will construct Or reconstruct levees and pumping
plants, and to these only; and the compensation for damages only to levees
and increased cost of pumping both in the past and in the future.
Owners of lands which have not been leveed and their tenants, whose land,
Crops, pastures, buildings, timber, livestock, etc., have been damaged or de-
Stroyed are given no relief.
The compensation provided for is only the cost of constructing such parts
of levees and cost of pumping, which have been made necessary by the Water
coming through the works of the sanitary district. This is all right so far as
it goes, but you will note only two elements of damage are provided for ; cost
Of constructing levees and cost of pumping.
Compensation should also be provided for damages heretofore caused to
levees and works of the drainage districts and to the lands, crops, buildings,
timber, pastures, etc., of the landowners inside and Outside of drainage
districts.
Before any permit is granted to the sanitary district to divert any water
it should be required to settle and pay all damages and loss Sustained by
reason of the diversion of water in the past and suffered by the drainage
districts, landowners, and their tenants, and by individuals and corporations,
municipal and private, in the Illinois Valley, the amount of the same to be
determined by some agency of the Federal Government; and similar future
damages to be paid by the sanitary district or such construction of levees or
improvement to the Illinois River should be done as will protect the Illinois
River Valley.
AS to the amount of water to be diverted :
This bill provides for the diversion of “an amount not to exceed an average
of 10,000 cubic feet per second per day ”—page 4, line 22.
This means that the sanitary district is to be given the right to continually
divert this amount Of Water.
I recognize that this Congress must look at this matter from five viewpoints
or with reference to five questions:
First. The navigation of the Great Lakes. -
Second. The navigation waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi
River.
Third. The Chicago Sewage Sanitation.
Fourth. The Illinois River Valley sanitation and fish industry.
Fifth. The damages to and destruction of property in the Illinois River
Valley.
All these interests, Of course, are entitled to your consideration.
The Chicago district has been and is diverting this water for sanitation and
development of power. The development of power as against these Other inter-
ests is entitled to no consideration ; the sanitation is.
Therefore, Chicago should be permitted, to the proper and necessary extent,
to continue the diversion of water until the Works for the purification Of the
sewage can be constructed, but such diversion and Such construction should be
under the direction of the War Department.
As these works are completed the amount of the diversion of water should
be reduced and should finally cease, except to an amount that the War
Department from time to time shall deem necessary for the navigation from
the Lakes to the Mississippi River, and that from the passage of the bill the
works controlling the amount of the diversion of the Water should be under
the authority and jurisdiction of the War Department, SO that the navigation
in the Lakes and the Illinois River Valley may be protected.
Such a plan developed in a bill would:
First. Avoid the expense to the sanitary distrct of compensating Works in
the Niagara and other rivers.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 221
Second. It would protect Chicago in its sewage Sanitation.
Third. It would give a 9-foot waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mis-
sissippi River.
Fourth. It would protect navigation in the Great Lakes,
Fifth. It would recompense the people of the Illinois River Valley, in Some
degree at least, for past losses and protection from future losses.
The only objections that I can conceive to Such a plan are:
The cost to the sanitary district of purification plants and the loss of this
hydroelectric power.
The fight of Chicago in this whole matter is to save Chicago the cost of
these purification plants and save to Chicago this hydroelectric power. And
to save these, Chicago would pollute and ruthlessly destroy the Illinois
Valley and jeopardize the navigation of the Great Lakes. To the sanitary
district this is the simple equation: To save money to us, we demand the
health and property of Others. -
As has been stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois in one of its decisions:
“Figuratively speaking, the waters have been much troubled on this sub-
ject, but so far neither the Nation nor the State has legislated how they
shall flow. What the future will See accomplished along these lines no one
can know. It may be that when that future is unfolded it will bring a re-
alization of the hopes of the most Optimistic, and that the appearance of sea-
going vessels plowing through the prairies of Illinois, laden with the people
and products from the uttermost parts of the earth, will be as common as the
now almost forgotten “prairie schooners’ of 1849 were in those days. But
if this transition is to occur—if the powerful hands Of the GOvernment are
to lay hold of this gigantic enterprise—due regard must be had to the sacred
rights of every citizen, however humble and insignificant those rights may
seem in contrast with the great public COnSummation.”
In the formation of a bill and the creation of this proposed waterway an-
Other question occurs to me which it seems to me should receive your Con-
Sideration.
In two sections of the act of the State legislature in creating the Sanitary
District of Chicago as a municipal corporation the following is provided :
“-SEC. 23. If at any time the General Government shall improve the Des
Plaines or Illinois Rivers so that the same shall be capable of receiving a flow
of 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, or more, from said channel, and shall
provide for the payment of all damages which any extra flow above 300,000
cubic feet of water per minute from such channel may cause to private prop-
erty, so as to save harmless the said district from all liability therefrom, then
such sanitary district shall, within one year therafter, enlarge the entire chan-
nel leading into the Des Plaines or Illinois Rivers from said district to a suffi-
cent size and capacity to produce and maintain a continuous flow throughout
the same of not less than 600,000 cubic feet per minute, With a current Of not
more than 3 miles per hour, and such channel shall be constructed upon such
grade as to be capable of producing a depth of water not less than 18 feet
throughout said channel, and shall have a width of not less than 160 feet at
the bottom.
“SEC. 24. When Such channel shall be completed and the water turned
therein to the amount of 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, the same is
hereby declared a navigable stream, and whenever the General Government
shall improve the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers for navigation to connect
with this channel Said General Government shall have full Control Over the
same for navigation purposes, but not to interfere with its control for sanitary
and/or drainage purposes.”
This act gives to this district certain powers and rights. Under the general
powers this canal is constructed as a municipal drainage canal by this drainage
district, a corporation, at its own cost; and simply as such the canal is not sub-
ject to navigation or control or use by the State government or Federal Govern-
ment; but the general powers and rights given to the district are conditioned by
the terms of the act upon certain rights to the State and Federal Government to
use the canal for navigation. But this right of navigation is further conditioned
by the clause “but not to interfere with its control for sanitary or drainage
purposes.”
As the utility of the canal for sanitary purposes is dependent upon the Water
diverted, a matter wholly in the discretion of the Federal Government, the
Federal Government can demand any control proper and necessary from the
9.1739–24—PT 1 15
222 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
whole situation, and not be limited to the degree Stated in the act, before per-
mission is granted to divert the water. *
Further, in the act itself any control is conditioned upon the improvement by
the Federal Government of the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers as described in
section 23 and the payment of damages to private property as stated therein.
I refer to these sections simply as a suggestion for your consideration as to
the legal effect of same in framing a bill on this subject.
STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD BOYLE.
Mr. Boy L.E. Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward Boyle, and I rep-
resent Eldred drainage and levee district and landowners in other
adjoining districts. I want to take one minute only to correct an
impression that Mr. Jarman properly represents all the districts and
landowners in the Illinois Valley. He does not. I shall come here at
your meeting on the 15th and shall show wherein he does not repre-
Sent us.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. Boy L.E. I want to say this, that we have two Congressmen rep-
resenting us here, your colleague from the Illinois Valley, Mr. Hull,
and Mr. Rainey. We believe that they are representing us properly
and honestly. We believe that we can combine the best provisions of
both for our Illinois Valley, and we will want to present them.
The CHAIRMAN. You will be given the opportunity.
Mr. Boy LE. There is one other thing I want to correct here, giving
the devil his due, about the sanitary district's attitude to us valley
owners. The sanitary district is now going down the valley offering
equitable settlements to the owners, and they are not telling the inno-
cent people that it is the act of God. They are waiving all legal
technicalities and trying to meet the issues squarely.
(Whereupon, at 12.35 p.m., the committee adjourned this hearing
until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 15, 1924.)
(The chairman directed that the following bills and communica-
tions be printed in the record:)
[H. R. 6822, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session.]
A BILL For the improvement of commerce and navigation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to create a navigable
waterway nine feet in depth suitable and sufficient to carry the commerce of
the Great Lakes and Mississippi Valley, the same to extend from Lake Michi-
gan at Chicago, Illinois, to a connection with the nine-foot channel in the Mis-
sissippi River at or below the mouth of the Ohio River, the Secretary of War is
hereby authorized and directed to improve the Illinois River from the termi-
nus of the Illinois waterway at or near Utica. Illinois, to its confluence with the
Mississippi River and to improve the Mississippi River from the mouth of the
Illinois River to the mouth Of the Ohio River SO as to provide therein a navi-
gable channel of the depth of nine feet, such improvements being based upon an
increment of not exceeding ten thousand Cubic feet per Second of water from
Lake Michigan through the channels of the Sanitary District of Chicago and
the Illinois waterway and to include the removal of the locks and dams con-
structed by the Federal Government at LaGrange and Kampsville, Illinois, and
the locks and dams constructed by the State of Illinois at Henry and Copperas
Creek: Provided, That the State of Illinois will convey to the United States
(as authorized by an act of the general assembly of said State approved June
21, 1919) such rights and title to the locks and dams at Henry and Coppera
Creek as may be deemed necessary to permit their removal. -
That authority is hereby given for the appropriation of the sum of $5,700,000,
and to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War and the super-
vision of the Chief of Engineers for the removal of said dams and such parts
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 223
of said locks as may be necessary and for the construction of Said nine-foot
navigable channel from the terminus of the Illinois waterway at or near Utica,
Illinois, to connect with the nine-foot channel in the Mississippi River at Or
below the mouth of the Ohio River. All other Federal projects for the im-
provement of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers between these points are hereby
modified to conform to the foregoing project for a nine-foot waterway.
The State of Illinois is hereby authorized, at its sole cost and expense, to
Improve the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers from the terminus of the main
channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago at Lockport, Illinois, to a GOn-
nection at or near Utica, Illinois, with the Federal improvements above
authorized and to construct such channels, locks, dams, and Other improve-
ments as will Secure, based on increment of not to exceed ten thousand Cubic
feet Of Water per second, a navigable depth of not less than nine feet Of .
water with a minimum depth of fourteen feet on all miter sills of the locks
constructed by it as a part of such improvement, and is further authorized
to modify its plans for the Illinois waterway, heretofore submitted to and
approved by the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers, so far as may be
necessary to conform to the general scheme for a nine-foot waterway: Pro-
ºvided, That work done in pursuance of said plans shall be subject at all times
to the inspection and approval Of Said Chief of Engineers and Secretary
Of War.
The State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago (a municipal
corporation Organized under the laws of the State of Illinois Owning and Oper-
ating certain canals which are navigable channels of adequate depth, con-
Inecting through navigable waterways with Lake Michigan) are hereby author-
ized, jointly and severally, to construct at their own expense and without cost
to the United States, at or near the present terminus of the main channel
of Said the Sanitary District of Chicago at Or near LOCkport, Illinois, a Suit-
able lock connecting Said sanitary district channel with the Illinois Waterway;
Said lock to be of a minimum width of not less than One hundred and ten feet,
a minimum usable length of not less than six hundred feet, the minimum
depth on miter Sills of Said lock to be not less than fourteen feet, and said
the Sanitary District of Chicago, or its legal successor, is hereby authorized
to withdraw from Lake Michigan, through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers
and through artificial channels which have been heretofore or may hereafter
be constructed and to discharge same into Said Illinois Waterway an amount
not to exceed ten thousand cubic feet of water per second.
The amount of water hereby authorized to be withdrawn shall be inclusive
Of and not in addition to the amount Of Water which has been heretofore
or is now being withdrawn from Lake Michigan by the said the Sanitary
District of Chicago for the purpose of diverting sewage and drainage from
Lake Michigan and keeping the Waters at the South end of Said lake free from
pollution. The condition on which such withdrawal is hereby authorized is
that said the Sanitary District of Chicago shalk pay into the Treasury of
the United States, as and when directed by the Secretary of War, such sum
Or Sums Of money aS may be estimated by the Chief Of Engineers of the
United States Army, as hereinafter provided, to be its reasonable share of
the cost of constructing, compensating, and/or regulating works in the Saint
Clair River and/or in the Niagara River and/or in the Saint Lawrence River
at Or above Rapide Plat, to compensate and control the water levels in said
Great Lakes and their apurtenant rivers, as full and complete compensation
for any lowering of water levels of the Great Lakes systems resulting or to
1:esult from such withdrawal at Chicago.
The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army shall cause to be pre-
pared within eighteen months from the passage of this act, at the cost of said
the Sanitary District of Chicago, plans and Specifications for and an estimate of
the reasonable cost of constructing such compensating and/or regulating works.
Such plans, specifications, and estimated cost shall be subject to the approval
of the Secretary of War.
Such works shall be designed and built as speedily as is practicable under
the direction of the Secretary of War or jointly by the United States and the
Dominion of Canada, and the money furnished by the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago, as hereinbefore provided, shall be applied and used in payment for the
Sa Pºle.
The said the Sanitary District of Chicago, and/or any other agency of the
State of Illinois upon which the functions now performed by said the Sanitary
224 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
District of Chicago may hereafter devolve, is hereby prohibited from withdraw-
ing from Lake Michigan a greater amount Of Water per second than is above
Specified, regardles of any increase in the population of said the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago. The said the Sanitary District of Chicago is required to pro-
ceed immediately with the installation of Sewage purification works to care for
the population of said the Sanitary District of Chicago, in order that any efflu-
ent discharged into Said Illinois WaterWay Or into the Des Plaines or Illinois
Rivers through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers or through any artificial chan-
nel of the Sanitary District of Chicago shall not be or become a nuisance or
menace to the health of any of the people of the United States, and shall not be
destructive of the fish life of said river nor injure nor impair the fish industry of
Said river as the same was conducted prior to the introduction of said sewage
into Said river, said sewage disposal plants to be completed and in operation
Within ten years from the passage of this act, or within such extension of time
not to exceed an additional five years as may be granted by the Secretary of War.
II, LINOIS RIVER WATERWAY COMMISSION
SEC. 2. That a commission to be known as the Illinois River Waterway
Commission, consisting of five members to be appointed by the President of the
United States, is hereby created and authorized. Two members of this com-
mission shall be selected from the active or retired list of the Engineer Corps
Of the Army, and three from civil life, two of whom shall be expert hydraulic
engineers. The members selected from civil life shall not be residents of the
State of Illinois, nor shall they have been at any time employed by the Sanitary
District of Chicago. -
Said commission shall isvestigate and determise claims for damages here-
tofore Sustained and heretofore to be sustained by landowners in the Illinois
River Valley occasioned by the diversion of water from Lake Michigan and the
discharge of the same, through the Sanitary District Channel and the Des
Plaines River, into the Illinois River.
In order to give said commission jurisdiction of any claim for damages, the
claimant and the Sanitary District of Chicago shall each agree to be bound
by the findings Of Said Commission.
Said commission shall complete its investigations within three months after
the passage Of this act, Or within Such extension of time not to exceed an
additional three months as may be granted by the Secretary of War. After
the completion of Said investigation Said commission shall make a report of
the awards of damages it may make, giving the name and post Office address
Of each claimant and the amount Of damages, if any, awarded to each claimant,
One copy of said report to be certified by said commission to the Secretary of
War and One copy of Said report to be certified to the president of the board
of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, and the provisions of this
bill in so far as they relate to the said diversion of water at Chicago from
the Great Lakes shall not take effect until said Illinois River Waterway Com-
mission shall have reported to the President of the United States that the
Sanitary District of Chicago has agreed to the jurisdiction of said Illinois
River Waterway Commission in all cases and that all of such awards have been
fully paid by the Sanitary District of Chicago, and upon receipt of said report
the Secretary of War shall issue an order declaring the provisions of this
act relating to and permitting said diversion of water to be in full force and
effect and thereupon the Illinois River Waterway Commission shall be dis-
Solved.
The said commission may employ Such clerical help as it may deem neces-
sary and shall be authorized to administer oaths to witnesses who may appear
before it. All expenses of this commission and the compensation of its mem-
bers shall be paid by the Sanitary District of Chicago. Members of the com-
mission appointed from the active list of the Engineer Corps of the Army shall
receive the pay and compensation now allowed them by law, and any member
appointed from the retired list shall receive the same pay and compensation
as he would receive if On the active list. The compensation of the members
of the commission appointed from civil life shall be fixed by the Secretary of
War. - - - - - -
SEC. 3. Both the claimant and the Sanitary District of Chicago shall have the
right to be represented before the commission by agent or attorney. But no
agent or attorney or other person shall demand or receive a larger compensa-
tion for his services than 10 per centum of the amount that shall be allowed
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 225
any claimant on his claim by the commission; and any agent, attorney, Or other
person who shall for said service directly or indirectly receive or retain any
greater fee for his services or instrumentality in presenting a claim before the
said commission than is provided in this section, or who shall Wrongfully
withhold from said claimant any part of any award in excess Of the fee pro-
vided for herein, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor and upon COn-
vction thereof shall for every such offense be fined not exceeding $1,000, or
imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretion
Of the court.
SEC. 4. The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, is hereby Vested
with jurisdiction and authority over the construction of levees and other Works
for the prevention and control of floods in the Illinois River from its mouth to
the mouth of the Des Plaines River and all Such works shall hereafter be located
and built in accordance with such plans and specifications as he may formu-
late or approve, and he is also authorized to make such regulations as he may
deem necessary to control the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into
the Illinois River as provided in this act.
The Secretary Of War is authorized to allot from any funds hereafter ap-
propriated by Congress for controlling the floods of the Mississippi River and
continuing its improvement from the Head of Passes to Rock Island, Illinois,
Such sums of money as he may deem equitable for the construction of flood
control works upon any part of the Illinois River between its mouth and the
mouth of the Des Plaines River and for levees upon any part of said river be-
tWeen its mouth and the Des Plaines River in such manner as in his Opinion
Shall best improve navigation and promote the interest of commerce and pro-
tect Said levees against the diversion of waters from the lakes as authorized
in this bill, at all stages of the river including such changes and alterations
in said levees as may be made necessary by the diversion of water from the
Great Lakes authorized by this act. All moneys So allotted to be expended under
the Supervision of the Chief of Engineers. In allotting moneys for said pur-
pOSe Said Chief Of Engineers shall at all times take into consideration the di-
Version Of Waters from the lakes authorized herein ; the Said diversion of waters
from the Great Lakes to be in such amount only as will provide for the naviga-
tion contemplated in this act and for the sewage dilution contemplated in this
act at no time, however, to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second.
[H. R. 6873, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session]
A BILL To limit, the amount of water, which may be withdrawn from Lake Michigan by
the Sanitary District of Chicago, giving authority therefor, and fixing the conditions of
Such withdrawal.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Comgress assembled, That the Sanitary District of Chicago,
a municipal Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Illinois, Or its legal Successor, be, and the same is hereby authorized to with-
draw from Lake Michigan, through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers, and
through artificial channels which have been heretofore or may hereafter be
constructed, an amount not to exceed an average of ten thousand cubic feet of
water per second during each calendar year, for the purpose of diverting sewage
and drainage from Lake Michigan and keeping the waters at the south end of
said lake, which is the source of the water supply of the people, pure and free
from pollution.
The amount of water hereby authorized to be withdrawn shall be inclusive
Of and not in addition to the amount Of water which has been heretofore or is
now being withdrawn from Lake Michigan by the said the Sanitary District of
Chicago. The condition on which such withdrawal is hereby authorized is
that the said the Sanitary District of Chicago shall pay into the Treasury of
the United States, as and when directed by the Secretary of War, such sum
or sums of money as may be estimated by the Chief of Engineers of the United
States Army, as hereinafter provided, to be the reasonable cost of constructing,
compensating, and/or regulating works in the Saint Clair River, and/or in the
Niagara River, and/or in the Saint Lawrence River at or above Rapide Plat,
to restore and maintain the water levels in said Great Lakes and their appur-
tenant rivers, as full and complete compensation for any lowering Of Water
levels of the Great Lakes system resulting from Such withdrawal at Chicago.
226 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
That the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army shall cause to be
prepared plans and specifications for and an estimate of the reasonable Cost Of
constructing such compensating and/or regulating works. Said project, plans,
Specifications, and estimated cost shall be subject to the approval of the Secre-
tary of War and also subject to the approval of any other officer of the
United States or commission or tribunal whose approval is required under acts
of Congress heretofore passed or under any treaty or treaties now existing
to which the United States is a party. -
Such works shall be designed and built, as speedily as is practicable, under
the direction of the Secretary of War or jointly by the United States and the
190minion of Canada. and the money furnished by the Sanitary District of
Chicago, as hereinbefore provided, shall be applied and used in payment for
the same.
SEC. 2. That the said the Sanitary District of Chicago, and/or any other
agency of the State upon which the functions now performed by said the
Sanitary District of Chicago may hereafter devolve, is hereby prohibited from
Withdrawing from Lake Michigan a greater average amount of water than is
above Specified, regardless of any increase in the population of said the Sanitary
District of Chicago. The said the Sanitary District of Chicago is required to
proceed immediately with the installation of sewage purification works to care
for any excess population of said the Sanitary District of Chicago over and
above 3,000,000 people, in order that any effluent discharged into the Des Plaines
Or Illinois River through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers or through any
artificial channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago shall not be or become
a nuisance or menace to the health of any of the people of the United States.
[H. R. 7044, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session.]
A BILL To provide for the diversion or withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan by the
Sanitary District of Chicago, and fixing the maximum amount of such diversion or
withdrawal, and to provide for the preservation of and compensation for diminishing
levels of Lake Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, due to such diversion or withdrawal.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Sanitary District of Chicago
(a municipal COrpOration Organized under the laws Of the State of Illinois), Or
its legal successor, is hereby, authorized to withdraw from Lake Michigan,
through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers, and through artificial channels which
have been heretofore or may hereafter be constructed, an amount not to exceed
an average of ten thousand cubic feet of Water per Second per day.
SEC. 2. The amount of water hereby authorized to be withdrawn shall be
inclusive Of, and not in addition to the amount of Water which has been heretO-
fore, or is now, being withdrawn from Lake Michigan by the said Sanitary
District of Chicago for the purpose of diverting sewage and drainage from
Lake Michigan and keeping the waters at the South end of Said lake free from
pollution. -
SEC. 3. The Sanitary District of Chicago shall pay into the Treasury of the
United States, as and when directed by the Secretary of War, such sum or Sums
of money as may be estimated by the said Chief of Engineers as hereinafter
provided, to be its reasonable share of the cost of constructing, compensating,
and/or regulating works in the Saint Clair River and/or in the Niagara River
and/or in the Saint Lawrence River at Or above Rapide Plat, to compensate and
control the water levels in Said Great Lakes and their appurtenant rivers, as
full and complete compensation for any lowering Of water levels of the Great
Lakes Systems resulting, Or to result, from Such withdrawal at Chicago.
The said Chief of Engineers shall cause to be prepared, as soon after the
passage of this act as is practicable, not, however, to exceed eighteen months,
at the cost of said the Sanitary District of Chicago, plans and Specifications for,
and an estimate of the reasonable cost of constructing such compensating
and/or regulating works. Such plans, specifications, and estimated cost Shall
be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War.
Such works shall be designed and built as speedily as is practicable under
the direction of the Secretary of War, or jointly by the United States and the
Dominion of Canada, and the money furnished by the Sanitary District of
Chicago, as hereinbefore provided, shall equal the total cost of such work and
shall be applied and used in payment for the same.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 227
SEC. 4. The said Sanitary District of Chicago is required to continue with
all possible Speed the installation, operation. and maintenance of Sewage
purification works, in accordance with the ordinance adopted August 7, 1919,
by the board of trustees of said the Sanitary District of Chicago, in order
that any affluent discharge into the Illinois River, or into the Des Plaines
River, through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers, or through any artificial Chan-
nel of the Sanitary District of Chicago, shall not be, or become, a nuisance or
a menace to the health of any of the people of the United States. Said or-
dinance is as follows :
“BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO.
“SECTION 1. To supplement the works of the Sanitary District of Chicago
now Constructed or in the process of construction for the diversion of Sewage
or drainage, and to aid said works in better accomplishing the purpose for
Which they were constructed, the sanitary district does hereby lay Out and
adopt a program for the construction and operation of works for the purifica-
tion of Sewage and the removal of trade wastes, and other Wastes, and for
the Carrying on Of Such Work at Such a rate as continuously after the lapse of
four years to diminish the amount Of Sewage, including all wastes passing into
the Des Plaines River by way of the main channel of the Sanitary District of
Chicago, so that within the period of twenty-five years such purification works
shall be constructed and in Operation, that the amount of Such raw Sewage
and waste so passing into the said Des Plaines River shall be at least 50
per centum less than that passing now.
“SEC. 2. The chief engineer and the attorney of the sanitary district are
hereby directed to take such steps as may be necessary to carry forward the
foregoing program, and the Chief engineer is directed to report to such officers
Of the United States and the State of Illinois as may be interested the progress
made from time to time in carrying out said program.
“SEC. 3. The foregoing preamble to this Ordinance is hereby adopted and
made a part of Same.
“SEC. 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after jts
passage and adoption.”
Provided also, That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall, prior to its
formal acceptance Of this act, pass an Ordinance Supplemental to and explana-
tory of its said ordinance of August 7, 1919, therein pledging its agreement
that in the development of its said Scheme for the treatment of the sewage
(which prior to January 1, 1924, it avers it has developed to where it now is
diluting sewage discharged into its main canal to the amount estimated to
arise from One hundred and thirteen thousand of the population of said dis-
trict) it will develop its said plans to at least reach the following results, based
upon human population or the equivalent thereof in trade wastes :
In 1925 to treat sewage arising from one hundred and twenty-three thousand
Of its population :
In 1926 to treat sewage arising from One hundred and twenty-eight thousand
Of its population ;
In 1928 to treat sewage arising from one million two hundred and ninety-
One thousand Of its population :
In 1930 to treat sewage arising from One million four hundred and eighty-
five thousand of its population ;
In 1932 to treat sewage arising from two million six hundred and seventy-
nine thousand of its population ;
In 1935 to treat sewage arising from two million eight hundred and twenty
thousand of its population ;
In 1938 to treat sewage arising from two million nine hundred and fifty-five
thousand of its population ;
In 1940 to treat sewage arising from three million five hundred and sixty-
two thousand of its population ;
In 1943 to treat sewage arising from three million seven hundred and twelve
thousand Of its population ;
In 1945 to treat sewage arising from four million two hundred and fifty-two
thousand of its population.
SEC. 5. To the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers is reserved the
right, and it is hereby made their duty, to compel the Sanitary District of
Chicago to so construct and/or operate its controlling works that should the
Illinois River reach a flood stage which, in the opinion of the said Chief of
228 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Engineers, will be imminently dangerous to life and/or property in the valley
of the Illinois River, as to be able to promptly reduce the flow of water in
the main canal of the Sanitary District of Chicago to that amount which will
not allow the waters of the said Sanitary District of Chicago to be diverted
into Lake Michigan.
The said Sanitary District of Chicago shall fully comply with any order that
may be issued by said Chief of Engineers and at Once regulate its such dis-
charge in obedience to any request made by said Chief of Engineers as con-
templated in this section.
SEC. 6. That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall at all times keep avail-
able to the inspection of said Chief of Engineers, and/or his representatives,
and the Officials of the State of Illinois, in its offices and stations in Cook
County, Illinois, and/or elsewhere, all of its records, data, and reports of its
Officers and employees, showing the quantity and character of water by it
carried through its canals and works, and upon request of said Chief of
Engineers, and/or his representatives, and/or the officials of the State of Illinois,
Shall forthwith furnish him and their representatives with such details and
reports as may be requested, and also it shall from time to time, as directed by
said Chief of Engineers, furnish him, and/or his representatives, and/or such
State officials, with samples of water running through such parts of its canals
and Works shall be designated.
SEC. 7. The concessions herein made and the permission hereby granted unto
the Sanitary District of Chicago relating to the withdrawal of water from Lake
Michigan are each extended and granted upon the considerations herein fixed
and designated being fully observed and complied with, and nothing herein
contained limits or abrogates the power of the Federal Government, and/or its
proper officer, and/or the officials of the State of Illinois, in maintaining unim-
paired the navigability of the Illinois River, and/or in preserving the purity of
the water therein, and/or of controlling the same so as to prevent its contami-
nation to the extent of its becoming a nuisance or menace to the health of any
Of the people.
SEC. 8. This act shall be in force and effect when the same shall be formally
accepted without reservations within sixty days after its passage by an ordi-
nance of the board of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, duly passed
and promulgated.
[Senate Document No. 434, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.]
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit hereWith, for the consideration of the Congress, a report made to
the Secretary of War by the International Waterways Commission, under date
of May 3, 1906, upon the preservation of Niagara Falls.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 7, 1906.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
* Washington, May 4, 1906.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I beg to transmit herewith a report made to me
by the International Waterways Commission of date May 3, 1906, for sub-
mission to Congress.
Very sincerely yours,
WM. H. TAFT, Secretary of War.
The PRESIDENT.
BUFFALO, N. Y., May 3, 1906.
The SECRETARY OF WAR OF THE UNITED STATES and
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKs of CANADA :
The International Waterways Commission has the honor to submit the fol-
lowing report upon the preservation of Niagara Falls:
The commission has made a thorough investigation of the conditions existing
at Niagara Falls, and the two sections have presented reports to their re-
spective Governments setting forth these conditions, to which attention is in-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 229
Vited. The following views and recommendations are based upon a careful
study of the facts and conditions set forth in these reports:
1. In the opinion of the commission it would be a sacrilege to destroy the
scenic effect of Niagara Falls.
2. While the commission are not fully agreed as to the effect of diversions of
Water from Niagara Falls, all are of the opinion that more than 36,000 cubic
feet per second on the Canadian side of the Niagara River or on the Niagara
Peninsula and 18,500 cubic feet per second on the American side of the Niagara
River, including diversions for power purposes on the Erie Canal, can not be
diverted without injury to Niagara Falls as a whole.
3. The commission therefore recommend that such diversions, exclusive of
Water required for domestic use or the service of locks in navigation canals,
be limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second and on the
United States side to 18,500 cubic feet per second and in addition thereto a
diversion for sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second be
authorized for the Chicago Drainage Canal. and that a treaty or legislation be
had limiting these diversions to the quantities mentioned.
The effect of the diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage Canal upon the
general navigation interests of the Great Lakes system will be considered in
a separate report.
The Canadian section, while assenting to the above conclusions, did so upon
the understanding that in connection therewith should be expressed their view
that any treaty or arrangement as to the preservation of Niagara Falls should
be limited to the term of 25 years, and should also establish the principles
applicable to all diversions or uses of water adjacent to the internationak
boundary and of all streams which flow across the boundary.
The following principles are suggested :
1. In all navigable waters the use for navigation purposes is of primary and
paramount right. The Great Lakes system on the boundary between the
United States and Canada, and finding its outlet by the St. Lawrence to the
sea, should be maintained in its integrity. *
2. Permanent or complete diversions of navigable waters or their tributary
streams should only be permitted for domestic purposes and for the use of
locks in navigation Canals.
3. Diversions can be permitted of a temporary character where the water
is taken and returned again, when such diversions do not interfere in any
way with the interests of navigation. In such cases each country is to have
a right to diversion in equal Quantities.
4. No obstruction or diversion shall be permitted in or upon any navigable
water crossing the boundary, or in or from streams tributary thereto, which
would injuriously affect navigation in either country.
5. Each country shall have the right of diversion for irrigation or ex-
traordinary purposes in equal quantities of the waters of nonnavigable streams
crossing the international boundary.
6. A permanent joint commission can deal much more satisfactorily with
the settlement of all disputes arising as to the application of these principles,
and should be appointed.
The American members are of Opinion that the enunciation of principles
to govern the making of a general treaty is not within the Scope of their
functions; moreover the jurisdiction of the American members is restricted to
the Great Lakes System.
GEO. C. GIBBONS, - O. H. ERNST,
Chairman, Canadian Section. Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
W. F. KING, U. S. A., Chairman, American,
Commissioner. Section.
Louis CoSTE, GEORGE CLINTON,
Coºn missioner. * COm/missioner.
THOMAS BOTÉ, - GEO. Y. WISNER,
Secretary, Canadian Section. Com/missioner.
L. C. SABIN,
Secretary, American Section.
$230 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF Comſ MERCE,
Chicago, March 21, 1924.
Hon. S. W. DEMPSEY, &
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. DEMPSEY: While testifying before your committee March 17 in
support of the Hull bill (S. 2327) you requested me to furnish your committee
With rates from Chicago, lake and canal, to New York and thence from New
York to Pacific coast ports via Panama Canal, as compared with river-and-
Ocean rates from St. Louis to Pacific Coast points.
We have searched and find that there are no rates eastbound from Chicago
in connection with the Lake and New York Barge Canal except as might be
made on contract, which have heretofore been restricted to grain in bulk. In
Other words, there are no published class and commodity rates from Chicago
to New York via the lake-and-Canal route.
With reference to rates from St. Louis in connection with the Mississippi-
Warrior bare line, beg to advise there are through published rates, river and
ocean, to Pacific coast ports which are uniformly 20 per cent less than the all-
rail rates. The combination on New Orleans in many cases makes less than
the published through rates.
We trust this information will answer your inquiry.
Very truly yours,
J. P. HAYNES.
CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE,
Chicago, January 14, 1924.
Hon. WILLIAM E. HULL,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. HULL : This will confirm my conversation with you in your office
Friday, January 11, relative to the use of the Mississippi River South of
St. Louis, Mo., and Cairo, Ill., on traffic moving in connection with railroads
to and from 11 States, shown On the statement attached herewith. You will
note this statement shows the tonnage moving between January 1, 1923, to
November 30, 1923.
Experience has shown that Our American transcontinental Commerce has
been completely revolutionized through the building of the Panama Canal.
This great project has had a tremendous effect upon industrial enterprise
in the great State of Illinois and in adjoining territory, in that many products
manufactured and produced in this State and those of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Iowa, Missouri, and Indiana have been restricted through failure to meet com-
petition of centers more adjacent to the Atlantic coast, where cheaper trans-
portation is available through the canal.
It is possible to ship many articles from these Midwestern States by rail to
Atlantic Seaboard and thence by water through the canal to Pacific coast
markets more cheaply than by rail direct, or by rail to St. Louis then barge to
New Orleans and then by vessel through the canal.
We have seen instances where electric motors from Beloit, Wis.; plumbers’
goods from Sheboygan, Wis.; corn sirup, glucose, etc., from Cedar Rapids,
Iowa farm implements from Waterloo, Iowa ; pianos from Rockford, Ill. ;
and multitudes of articles from Chicago, Ill., were moving eastward to Atlantic
seaboard to be reshipped by vessel to Pacific coast markets because transporta-
tion costs were much less than the all-rail or barge rates through New Orleans.
In many instances it is impossible to meet the competition of eastern manu-
facturers and producers, and in those cases business is lost to the Middle West-
ern States only because it does not enjoy cheaper transportation routes such
as the Illinois waterway would provide. (Business is forced to relocate :
Crane; Butler Bros.; Seft Manufacturing Co.)
Illinois and her sister States should be given an equal opportunity to dis-
tribute their products in the domestic markets and in foreign fields by the de-
velopment of cheaper transportation facilities.
It is true that the Mississippi Valley district now enjoys the benefits of the
barge-line service from St. Louis and Cairo to New Orleans now offered by the
Mississippi-Warrior River barge line backed by the Government and many
of our shippers in Illinois have been availing themselves of this service when
found to be of advantage and as evidenced by the splendid showing in tonnage
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 231
by that route. We believe, however, that such service should be extended
northward as far as possible to give necessary relief and assistance to this
great producing section and to encourage its future growth, as well as enable
the Western States to successfully compete with producing sections in the
area now receiving the gull benefits of the Panama Canal.
During past years shippers have experienced periods of acute Car Shortages
due to heavy seasonable movements and congestion in the vicinity of the
Atlantic seaboard, and it is during such times that the needs of water trans-
portation are keenly felt.
It is our view that it will not be many years when the railroads of this
country will be unable to adequately handle the freight offerings, which justifies
the full development of inland waterways as a supplemental facility at this
time.
The more compelling reason why the Illinois waterway project should receive
the support of industrial enterprise in this State of the Chicago district espe-
cially, is because their business activities are becoming more and more circum-
scribed by various elements, including a keener competition by industries more
favorably situated to water transportation and by the administration of the
fourth section of the interstate commerce act. By way of illustration, We Can
take the steel industry of Chicago and show that it is steadily losing its markets
in the South, Southwest, and the Pacific Coast States due to the ability of east-
ern mills to lay their products down in some of these markets at from $1 to $7
per ton less than the Chicago mills. -
The Pittsburgh steel mills are making intensive use of water transportation
through the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, which enables them to lay their prod-
ucts down at New Orleans at a transportation cost of about $6 per ton, While
the all-rail transportation cost is $10.30 per ton, and because of these condi-
tions we say that Chicago mills and other industrial enterprise should be given
an equal Opportunity to secure its share of the business in these important
marketS.
The same can be said of many other lines of industry—canned goods from
Iowa and Wisconsin, which compete with New England products; machinery
from Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc., against Atlantic Seaboard territory, and
SO Oſl.
“Machinery from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Pacific coast by rail would take a
rate of $2.28 hundredweight, while Atlantic seaboard can obtain rates ranging
from 90 cents to $1.25 via the Panama Canal.
“Cedar Rapids can at present ship this machinery to Paltimore, and thence
Steamer through the Panama Canal, at a rate of $1.96 to $2.15 hundredweight
(via Gulf, 5 to 10 cents lower).”
There are large movements of freight from Middle Western States to the
Atlantic seaboard for reshipment by vessel through the Panama Canal and We
Consider that such instances result in the economic waste of transportation
and facilities. It takes many western line cars into a very congested territory
from which very little return loadings are available, thus necessitating the
return of those cars empty after long delays, sometimes extending beyond
Imonths—and yet we wonder why shippers can not get cars at times.
In discussing the waterway project now before us with the vice president
Of a large western road some six or eight months ago I was surprised to have
him tell me that he favored it. Upon asking his reason, I learned that he
believed the waterway would increase the business on his line because it would
bring tonnage to his rails and that the car supply would be greatly increased
due to the release of equipment upon his Own rails on such tonnage delivered
to the waterWay.
The reality of a 9-foot waterway from Chicago to the Mississippi River
would greatly assist in the development of commerce between interior points
such as Peoria, St. Louis, and Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, in connection with
lake vessels.
The large quantities of iron ore required by St. Louis furnaces could be
moved by barge from Chicago at low cost and coke brought back.
It is a fact that rail development has not kept pace with the growth of
population and commerce, which in a large measure accounts for the traffic
jams which become periodic, oftentimes threatening the health of the country
in certain sections during winter months, due to the inability to deliver coal.
Again during periods of great business revival the country’s continued pros-
perity has frequently been threatened by freight jams and car shortages, and
it is because of these conditions that we appeal to you for assistance in solving
232 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Our problem by providing a 9-foot continuous waterway from the Great Lakes.
to the Guilf. - - r i
f jºss has committed itself in 1920, under the transportation act, as
OILOWS :
“SEC. 500. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to promote,
encourage and develop water transportation, Service and facilties in connec-
tion with the commerce of the United States, and to foster and preserve in full
vigor both rail and water transportation.”
This policy, we believe, will result in the beginning of a new era in transpor-
tation, consequently we urge Congress through your committee to give favorable
consideration to the 9-foot waterway project, which would give full effect
to its policy.
If at any time there is additional information we can furnish you with,
please do not hesitate to call on us.
Closing with kindest personal regards.
Yours very truly,
J. P. HAYNES.
Statement of tonnage handled from and to the following States for period Janu-
ary 1, 1923, to November 30, 1923, via Mississippi River Barge Line in con-
7tection, with, railroads.
Illinois------------------------------------- 70, 710. 47
Indian -I __ 16,026. 95.
IOW a - - ____ 29, 164. 2
Kansas - ____ 1, 371. 2
Michigan– - - - - º ºsmº - - - - - - - - - - -º amº - - - - - - - 4, 056. 7
Minnesota - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ºs - - - - - - -> 13, 900. 8
MissOuri – - 9, 349. 2
Nebraska ------------------------------ —f - f ____ 8, 770
Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- 19, 435.4
South Dakota - - - - - 6:51
WiSCOnSin ------------------------------------------- 18, 327. 7
TOtal ---- i - - - - - * *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 191, 763. 62.
TRANSPORT TRoubi.Es of THE MIDDLE WEST.
[Suggestions for relief, by Halleck W. Seaman, of Clinton, Iowa. Address delivered before.
Farmer-Manufacturer Convention, Chicago, Ill., January 15, 1924.]
As civilization advances and population becomes more congested, the busi-
ness of society becomes more and more complex. An interdependence of
town and country is developed—the tendency toward industrial Specialization
is accentuated. The Old time days of barter, when the Shoemaker traded
the product of his bench for potatoes or flour, have long since disappeared.
Large scale operations on the farm and in the factory are the rule. Our big
fortunes are built up from quantity production and quick Sales On Small
margins. The penny, the nimble nickel, and the thin dime are the money
symbols that make the world go 'round these days. The Woolworth tower
and the Wrigley spire tell the story. They are fine examples in decimal
fractions and multiplication.
It is the ups and downs of the humble ha'penny, for instance, and not the
scream of the Yankee dollar that determines whether or not the farmer Can
sell his wheat at a profit. The price is fixed at Liverpool and not at Chicago
or New York. Wheat is a world commodity. It is grown in surplus quanti-
ties in the four quarters of the globe—in Canada and the United States, in
the Argentines and Australia, in Russia, Algeria, and the . Transvaal. In
all of these producing sections, other than the United States, the wheat lands
are comparatively new, of fresh fertility and low-priced, and cheap labor
does the work. Their standards of living are below ours—it happens just
now that conditions are everywhere abnormal. Therefore, whenever there is
a world wide surplus of wheat, as now, if our American wheat is to find a
market abroad, it stands to reason that it must be sold on at least an even
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 233
break with foreign grown wheat—or perforce it can not be moved, and the
domestic market is glutted. There is at present in this country an indi-
gestible surplus of wheat. Not only for the farmer, but the man the farmer
OWes and can not pay is holding the sack. As a result a thread of related
º harmful consequences is interwoven throughout the fabric of the Nation's
UIS1D6SS.
What is true of wheat is to a lesser extent true of corn—it likewise faces a
Subnormal export demand, owing to the pancake pocketbooks of the European
masses, who were our former best customers. So you see that the domestic
twist is not all there is to the problem of transportation—it is the sum total of
all items of cost intermediate the farm and final destination that may make
Or break the farmer.
AMERICA NOT A BIERMIT INATION.
When the troubled Seas over there are once more calmed, and the warring
millions setle down to the pursuits of peace, then our own great problems of
industrial competition will need for their solution the combined wisdom of
Our greatest statesman. If we were a hermit nation, all would be well, and
we would need have no concern in the affairs of the rest of the World. We
could then, like the turtle, when danger threatened, simply draw back in Our
shell and feel secure and self-satisfied behind our “Splendid isolation.” ISOIa-
tion be damned. We are not a hermit nation. Our farms and Our factories
must have world markets in which to sell their surplus goods and to take from
them the things we want but do not ourselves produce. We must police our
trade lanes—other nations have a monopoly on a thousand and One articles
of commerce that are necessary under our standard of living. We feel we must
have coffee, tea, spices, silks and drugs, rubber, sisal, platinum, tin, nitrates,
and what not. To bring home the bacon in our trade relations, there must be
reciprocity—a swapping of Our surplus factory and farm products for their
articles of commerce, all of which means transportation in one form or another.
During the war we taught the peoples over there Yankee methods of effici-
ency ; we placed in their hands weapons which sooner or later will be used
• against us in commercial warfare. That means more and more competition.
Should we not therefore proflt by the bitter experience of our late unpre-
paredness and arm ourselves, industrially and commercially, for the conflict
that is bound to come? Knowing the weak points in Our foreign as well as
domestic trade relations should we not build up the defective parts in Our
business fighting machine until it becomes rugged and strong—fit for use in any
emergency?
To be specific. Our System of rail transportation is undergoing a change of
life. There are several contributing causes, such as our natural increase of
population, the inability of the weak lines to keep pace with the stronger, the
unnecessary multiplication of overhead charges, terminal congestion at the At-
lantic Seaboard, and the lack of Capital for needed expansion. But the new and
formidable Richmond in the field is the competition of the water-borne traffic
through the Panama Canal. This competition is here to stay, and as time goes
On it will become more and more intensive.
CHANGE IN RAIL POLICIES NEEDED.
The railroads are confronted with a real Crises that calls for a drastic
change in major policy. They must either adjust themselves to present-day
conditions with respect to canal and inland-waterways competition or take the
consequences. Big and powerful as they are, they can not forever run counter
to the mandates of economic law. NOr do I believe that the keen executives
of our railroads are blind to the inevitable outcome. They are only sparring
for time in which to make the necessary adjustments in an orderly way and
to this gradual shrinkage in cross-country business is but one of their many
troubles. They are harassed from within and from without. They are
coerced into paying an indefensible wage Scale to employees and must still pay
war-time prices for their materials and supplies. Like everybody else they
must whack up their proportion of the increased taxes that have followed
in the wake of the World War. The money they collect from the public in the
way of rates and fares must in the aggregate be sufficient to meet all disburse-
ments and include a reasonable return to their myriads of Stockholders—or the
railroads must collapse. Such a calamity would throw the whole machinery
234 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
of business out of gear, and that can not be allowed to happen. The railroads,
their employees, and the people should come to a mutual understanding and
work together by forbearance to tide over this emergency period. The COuntry
demands that its rail lines be economically managed and operated, that they
be maintained in superb physical condition, and at all times be ready and
able to perform their duty as public carriers at the lowest possible cost.
It is from this misconception in the past that much of the transport troubles.
of the Middle West have arisen. The future holds promise for a better under-
standing all around. Let us hope that it materializes—and do what we can.
as interested parties to help in bringing it about.
RELATED PROBLEMS.
The immediate and pressing troubles of the Middle West are more or less
mixed up with transportation inequalities. Just now, for instance, in addition
to the handicap of Pittsburgh plus, which has not a sound leg to Stand On,
the Middle West is marking time in the matter of moving its factory products.
to the Pacific coast in competition with the Atlantic Seaboard. We failed to:
realize early enough in the game that the all important item of the cheaper
haul through the Canal was destined to work Such havoc with the long estab-
lished rail haul across the country. We Of the prairie States know it now,
and Congress is busy with the big problem of working out an industrial
balance between the East coast and what Some day may be known as the
“ middle coast.”
INILAND WATERWAYS ADJUNCT TO RAILS.
The completion and successful Operation of Our natural System of inland
waterways is the accepted agency for that purpose. The need is so imperative
and SO apparent and the benefits that will accrue to the food-producing Sec-
tions Of this Nation, and in COnsequence to the Nation as a whole, are SO far-
reaching that little argument should be required as to the integrity of the prop-
osition. With Straight-thinking people it becomes, therefore, Only a matter
of ways and means.
How, then, can the several divisional projects be best accomplished, and,
what gross amount will it take to foot the bills? That in a nutshell seems
to be the present status of Our most Outstanding national problems. New
projects, such, for example, as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence enterprise, that
promise merit, but will take a lot of time, may, Of course, be Scheduled for
examination and report, but before our list of things to be done becomes top-
heavy let’s finish at least a few of the main items that have been hanging
fire for these long years. Only those projects that have already been ex-
amined and approved by Our BOard of Army Engineers should have considera-
tion by CongreSS, but that consideration should be framed into such enact-
ments that the WOrk Of improvement may be carried on economically and
effectively and with as little delay as possible. Lump-sum appropriations on
a continuing contract basis are prerequisities to the proper handling of these
essential undertakings and no more halfway, piecemeal legislation should be
tolerated. We have pussyfooted long enough ; this is a man’s sized job, the
kind of a job that Roosevelt did when he used the big stick to put through the
canal. It is a workingman’s job ; knickerbockers won’t do ; whoever gets
results must put on his digging clothes and get right down to brass tacks.
Our Regular Army engineers, who are trained to the minute, can be relied
upon to mop up the situation in record time, if Congress will only give to them
the coveted command. President Coolidge has declared himself emphatically
in favor of completing the work. No man can be elected leader of this Nation
who fails to take an equally positive stand. Both the vitals and the victuals
of the country are in the Mississippi Valley. The majority of our people live
there, which means that the votes are also there. Our farms and our fac-
tories are there, the great bulk of the raw materials, upon which our domestic
and foreign commerce is based, originate there. The prosperity of the Nation
rests primarily upon the prosperity of the Valley States, for it is there that the
meal tickets of the masses are eventually punched.
NO MORE VIRGIN IANDS IN UNITED STATES.
In the memory of those now living are vivid pictures of the conquest of those
Vast Open stretches of Our OWn land, known as the Great Plains and the Far West.
There are no longer undiscovered places in continental United States; the tide
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 235
of human progress has swept beyond the Mississippi and across the ROCkies
to the broad waters of the Pacific. Those who would pioneer with their trade
and commerce must now seek other and foreign fields for their activities,
they must turn their eyes to Mexico, Central America, South America, and to
Africa; and all of these lie to the south and to the east of us, and, except in
the case of Mexico and Central America, the sea intervenes. Of necessity
ships must share with the rails the burden of the interchange of traffic to and
from these new and abundant markets.
Few there are of us who realize the vast extent Of the African COUntry :
that it has an area of 11,500,000 square miles, against a bare 10,000,000 square
mile for the United States and South America combined ; that its population
of 145,000,000 equals that of all the countries of North America put together—
Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Central America. Yet with all its
acres and peoples, and all its riches, Africa is a “ kept " country, for Sub-
stantially every inch of her territory is colony land of European nations—
England, France, Italy, Belgium, and Portugal have preferential claims on her
COmmerce. It is only then to the countries to the immediate South of us, to
Mexico and to the Central and Southern American States and to part Of the
Orient that we of the United States can look for Something like an even break
for Our COmmercial penetration. So that after all is Said and done, Our
best bet for reciprocal trade is with the countries that comprise the Western
Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine has guaranteed Latin America against
foreign aggression, and Our demonstrated good intentions have begun to bear
fruit, to the extent at least that our commerce with South America has
expanded rapidly of late and now reaches huge proportions. The Mississippi
River points in the right direction and offers the line of least resistance for
the penetration of American goods into that nonmanufacturing market.
TNITEI) STATES MISTRESS OF THE SPANISH M.A.I.N.
The United States is fast cementing its hold as mistress of the Caribbean
Sea. Our sphere of dominance will soon, let us hope, cover not only all the
islands of the Spanish Main, but Mexico and on down to the canal. An ex-
tension of the Platt amendment over Mexico will do for that land of perpetual
banditry what it has done for Cuba—make it “safe for democracy"—as well
as American investments. Let us furnish Mexico all the arms and ammunition
she wants—100,000 or a million rounds—but “f”eaven’s sake ’’ let us not over-
look a good bet—send along a stalwart United States regular Army soldier
behind each and every gun, with instructions to clean up the nasty mess
(lown there Once and for all. There is no good reason why we should forever
Stand for this perennial turmoil on our southern border. It will be the best
move all around—best for Mexico and best for the United States—and only
What We should do to safeguard our own, as well as foreign interests in that
land of manana. We have reached the end of our patience and without further
gestures of the Wilson-Bryan brand should now stage a real show for an
indefinite run.
SOUTH AM ERICA OUR BANNER CU STOMER.
Keep your eye on South America in particular. It is the coming country.
In many ways this great continent has already arrived. The Argentines and
ºns are to-day our foremost competitors in the world's market for food-
SUllſtS.
A few years ago they did not raise enough pork on the Pampas to grease
a skillet with, and their cattle were few and of poor breeds. But now in the
Republic of Argentina and Uruguay they raise four times as much high
grade meat products per capita as we do in the United States. They have
great rivers that penetrate the heart of the producing sections, and what
is more, they make use of them. The Amazon and the Orinoco are under
the Equator, and although navigable, yet climatic conditions largely prelude
their development by white men. Not SO, however, with the La Plata River,
that makes On Rio, and the Parana on Buenos Aires, as the Mississippi does
on New Orleans. These powerful streams are each navigable for more than
2,000 miles, and the Parana in particular runs through a territory that is
as wide and as rich in both soil and resources as our own great valley of
the Mississippi. Because they make use of boat transportation from ports
far up in the interior, Our South American neighbors are able to land their
beef, pork, and mutton at the doors of Europe for much less than it costs
us to deliver similar products from our farms of the Middle West.
236 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
WATERWAYS DOWN GRADE TO SEA
We might as well look the facts Squarely in the face—navigable rivers are
the greatest business asset that any nation can posses. They always run down
grade to the sea—and the sea is our one wide highway to the markets of the
World. It covers three-fourths of the area of the globe—our rivers are but
arms Of the Sea. - -
Harriman, genius that he was, did make a rock-fill for his rails across the
*Great Salt Lake, but up to date no man has been bold enough to even try to
Cross the Salt Waters of the high SeaS On a railroad grade. We mortals are
‘still confronted with the necessity of conducting our overseas commerce by
boat service. The cheapness of this service as compared with rail haulage
is almost unbelievable.
[Statement prepared by the Ottawa (Ill.) Chamber of Commerce, March 11, 1924—Louis
M. Harvey, president ; Lee C. Carroll, secretary—For presentation to the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., in the consid-
eration of the Hull bill, H. R. No. 5475.]
From time immemorial people have graviated toward their waterways.
Being the world’s most durable and economical traffic bearers, they have been
instrumental in building important commercial centers. With the exception
Of MOSCOW in Russia and Madrid in Spain, all the world’s great cities were
built upon waterways.
Little Holland, about one-fourth the size of Illinois, has expended on her
canals more than four times the amount expended by Our Government since
its foundation. Had she owned our rivers, they would have been diked for
many years with solid masonry.
LaSalle, Pere Marquette, Louis Joliet, and other pioneer explorers endeavor-
ing to use the Mississippi Valley waterways 250 years ago were obliged to
portage. They recommended clearance of the clogged links. Albert Galatin
urged this in 1808. It has been the dream of thinking people ever since.
Every President from Washington down has concurred in the idea. But we
are still obliged to portage. p
In the Mississippi Valley System aggregating 22,000 miles of navigable water-
ways, not a single river has been completed for service. They have, however,
given ample proof that as traffic roadways they would be dependable so far
as durability is concerned. They are still running as when received from
the hands of the Almighty without decay as would have been the case with
abandoned railways. They have not lost a single tie or rail.
Delay in improvement of these rivers is a loss every year of wealth amount-
ing to more than would be required for improvement of the whole system and
is subjecting our people to a scale of prosperity far lower than necessary.
Waterways are the people's property. Having been placed under Government
control, it should receive attention at least equal to that afforded the railroads,
which are owned by private individuals. On the other hand, this great asset
of the valley has been handled with marked indifference and stupidity. Mil-
lions have been expended here and there—not sufficient anywhere—at no time
enough of money or brains to conserve amount invested. The handling of the
Ohio River project affords an example: Begun before the building of the Pan.
.ama Canal, canalization has barely reached from Pittsburgh to Louisville
Although millions have been appropriated in driblets, and 35 locks have beer,
completed, the lower portion of the river, for want of locks and dams, is in
periods of low water unnavigable. The low cost of river transportation, how-
ever, is so highly appreciated that shippers such as the Pittsburgh Steel Co.
the Carnegie Steel Co., the National Tube Co., and others maintain, at great
individual expense, large fleets of barges to take advantage of high Water in
the winter and Spring.
The Government has “played horse ’’ with this river.
The Mississippi and Missouri have been subjected to much the same treal
ment; intermittent attempts to protect their banks have proved futile. Enol
mous sums have been appropriated in these efforts, to be washed down to the
Gulf with land enough to form a State as large as Missouri, all for the lack
of ability such as exercised under more difficult conditions in completing the
Eades jetties that have controlled the mouth of the Mississippi for the last
half century.
The Hennepin Canal is without terminals and barred from the Lakes by
obstructions in the Illinois River.
Many streams navigable in spots have impediments somewhere to prevenu
through traffic.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 237
The strength of a chain is no greater than its weakest link. A railroad with-
Out terminals, With here and there rails or ties missing, would be useless.
The trouble comes from the fact that Congress begins appropriating for a
project and quits before it is finished. Waste and incompetent methods might
be avoided by creation of a department of Government charged solely with
Waterway conservation and development.
Nature directed the rivers of the valley to take a southerly course toward
a Warm Climate Where they are free from ice for a longer period than more
nothern Waters. They run through the heart of the continent in the pathway
of Our greatest COmmerce. Near their shores lies the most productive region
in the World, rich with agriculture, vast forests, mine products, coal, sand,
gravel, Clay, and manufactured products. They are crossed by all the great
trunk-line railroads of the United States and efficiency of the auto truck is
Increasing. -
This combination gives promise of a traffic in the Mississippi Valley, when
the rivers shall properly function, greater than in any other region on earth.
The commerce of the Great Lakes amounts to 94,000,000 tons per annum.
That of Chicago alone, over 80,000,000.
Recent reports indicate a probability for early agreement between Canada
and Our Government for. joint prosecution of the St. Lawrence improvement.
Such a gateway for the Lakes to the Atlantic would be of wonderful value
to Commercial interests and would render connection with the Mississippi
System more imperative than ever.
The logical means for this connection would be improvement of the Illinois
River which from the drainage canal to Utica is already under way. Twenty
millions for this project was provided by the State of Illinois 16 years ago.
The channel is to be 9 feet in depth and 200 feet wide ; five locks capable of
passing 9,000 tons each are to be built, located, respectively, at Lockport,
Brandon Roads, Dresden Heights, Bell Island (between Marseilles and Ot-
tawa), and One near Starved Rock. They are to be like those of the Ohio,
110 feet wide by 600 feet long, with 14 feet over the miter sills. The lock at
Bell Island, except installation of gates, is completed. That at Lockport is
under way. This will have a single lift of 41 feet, which is higher than any
On the Panama Canal Or in the United States.
When completed the Illinois River will constitute a link between the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence system ; Atlantic ports and Europe on the east, with the
Mississippi system, Gulf ports, Panama Canal, South America, Pacific coast,
and the Orient on the West.
If this important work is neglected and the great inland rivers remain
choked, their contiguous regions—landlocked—will be unable to fully partici-
pate in the advantages of the lake border or profitable use of the Panama.
Canal, which instead will continue to be a disadvantage in competition with
deep-Sea portS.
While the contemplated St. Lawrence Outlet would contribute Wonderfully
to lake regions, people centrally located in the Mississippi Valley would find
it natural for their commerce to seek the markets of the WOrld down the
rivers to the Gulf and out to Sea.
For many years railroads and politicians have obscured the fact that trans-
portation by water is many times cheaper than by rail and thereby put the
great waterway project to sleep. But people are getting their eyes open
to see that a load can be moved on Water easier than on land and public senti-
ment throughout the valley in the interest of cheaper freight rates and lower
cost of living is favoring waterway improvement.
In a report issued by M. G. Barnes, member of American Society of Civil
Engineers and chief engineer of the Division of Waterways, there appears
a statement to indicate relative transportation COSts. It shows the number of
miles $1 will carry a ton of freight by different methods.
Miles
With horse and wagon - - *-* * * 4.
Auto truck---------------------------------------------------------- 20
Railroad - - - ____ 100
New York Barge Canal ____ 300
Great Lake freighters 1, 000
Ohio and Mississippi River, downstream * - - - - - - - - - - - - 3, 000
Brig. Gen. Frank T. Hines, former chief of transportation, Inland and Coast-
wise Waterway Service, in a recent article states it in another way. On the
highway a single horse with an ordinary dray can draw 2 tons of freight.
91739–24—PT 1–16
238 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Hitch him to a car on a railroad track and he can pull at the same rate of
speed 15 tons. If, however, he be hitched from the bank to a well-designed boat
in the stream, he will with the same effort be able to pull 105 tons of freight
through still water. It is shown by the same authority that transportation
cost on the lakes is less than 1 mill per ton moved 1 mile, and that freight
by rail determined by statistics from all important railways is more than
Seven times as much.
Jones & Laughlin estimate their cost in general for river traffic as 23 mills
per ton mile, two-thirds of which is absorbed by terminal expense.
It needs no argument to prove that heavy freight, such as grain, iron,
lumber, and sand, can be moved on the Water with a great saving and relief to
OVerburdened railroads.
Traffic on the 70 miles of the Monongahela, canalized nearly 100 years ago
by private subscription, has reached a tonnage of 24,000,000 per annum, which
is its lock limitation.
There is much talk of special legislation for the benefit of farmers. What
they need is lower freight rates to afford a higher price for their products,
more ample facilities for moving them to markets, whose demands are now
filled by foreign competitors. Waterway improvement would accomplish this.
Without additional transportation facilities traffic will become congested
beyond imagination, commerce paralyzed and started on the road to sure death.
Competent authorities estimate that the cost of placing railroads in condition
to properly function would amount to $6,000,000,000. Improvement of water-
ways would be cheaper. Sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of this through-
out the 23 States that comprise the Mississippi Valley. Their representatives
constitute more than a majority in Congress and have the privilege of accom-
plishing the most constructive and munificent work for the great West and
the Nation at large that has fallen to the lot of statesmen Since Jefferson,
through his splendid initiative and monumental nerve, gave to our country the
Louisiana Purchase.
It is ridiculous for a people of ordinary intelligence to limit their endeavors
simply to the maintenance of conditions of a worn-Out past.
We are living in the twentieth century. Our transportation equipment Should
not be kept longer in its swaddling clothes.
KANSAs CITY TERMINAL RAILWAY CO.,
Kansas City, Mo., March 14, 1924.
Hon. WILLIAM E. HULL,
Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : At the request of the Association of Drainage and Levee Districts
of Illinois, I inclose my statement for your consideration.
Yours truly, W. M. CORBETT
AUTHORITY FOR THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO TO DIVERT 10,000 CUBIC FEET
OF WATER PER SECOND FROM LARE MICHIGAN INTO ILLINOIS RIVER,
I have been a landowner in the Hillview drainage and levee district adjoin-
ing the IIlinois River in Scott County, Ill., for 19 years. I have been in touch
with the Illinois River situation for 24 years. My conclusions follow : gº
The Government dam at Kampsville is a menace to the bottom lands. It is
not now necessary. It should be removed.
The reversing of Chicago River, which formerly ran into Lake Michigan,
turning it south into the Illinois River, and the withdrawing of a large Volume
of water from Lake Michigan, produces a serious menace to the levees and
land along the Illinois River.
Before these undertakings the Illinois River stood at low water the greater
part of each year. The record for eight years before and eight years after
follows :
Ft In. Ft. In.
1886–––––––––––––––––––– 1. 1. 1915-------------------- 5 5
1887–––––––––––––––––––– 4 1916-------------------- 6 2
1888–––––––––––––––––––– 1. 1 1917 - - – 5 9
1889–––––––––––––––––––– 1. 1918 6 5
1890____ 1. 1 1919–------------------- 5 1.
1891 * * 8 1920-------------------- 5 7
1892-------------------- 1 2 1921-------------------- 5 4
1898-------------------- 9 1922 –– 5 2
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 239
The readings were taken at the Chicago & Alton Railroad bridge at Pearl,
Ill. Where the opening under the bridge is 1,168 feet wide.
In April, 1922, the flood reached 23 feet 1 inch at Pearl, more than 2 feet Over
any previous record. A low stage of the river permits a free flow of Water
from the ditches and through the sluice gates, which are placed at 10W-Water
Stage under the levee.
On account of the above undertakings the river does not go below 5 feet
above low water mark any day in the year, Causing the districts to pump Out
all the water and to use mechanical means for cleaning the ditches instead of
by SCOUring in the natural Way When the river is low.
The Government is responsible for allowing the Chicago Sanitary District to
reverse the flow of the Chicago River, and on top Of that flow to divert a large
volume of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River, causing damage
and increased cost of Operation.
The Government should strengthen and maintain the levees that were made
strong enough to Stand the natural flow of Water in the Illinois River.
The Government should require the Sanitary district to meet the increased
cost of maintenance and Operation Caused by taking this water from its natural
channel.
Of course, the sanitary district, for the protection of the health of its people,
should have adequate water for its needs, regardless of the consequences along
the river, until Such time as modern Sewage plants are installed. The time for
such installation should be limited to a reasonable time. -
The barge canal will be helpful to the general public, and should be author-
ized. This can be accomplished Without injury to anyone. -
I suggest the following for your consideration :
1. The payment by the Sanitary district of damages heretofore caused.
2. Provide a fair and inexpensive way, by arbitration, for fixing future
damageS.
3. The Sanitary district to pay for the increased cost of maintenance and
operation caused by the increased flow of water.
4. The amount of water to be taken from Lake Michigan should be limited
in amount for each day, and solely for sanitary purposes, under the jurisdic-
tion of the War Department.
5. The Government, by reason of its action in permitting the diversion of
this water, should strengthen and maintain levees at its cost.
Respectfully,
M. M. CORBETT.
- CHICAGO, ILL., March 15, 1924.
To the COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, -
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN : The Illinois Chamber of Commerce is composed of 117 chambers
Of commerce and Other commercial and industrial Organizations in Illinois and
a large number of individual members, and represents approximately 45,000
business men in this State. Ever Since its Organization the Illinois Chamber
of Commerce has given very active support to the development of waterway
transportation, realizing that it is a necessary and wholly desirable adjunct
to railway and highway transportation. The Committee on Wterways of the
Illinois Chamber of Commerce is a very active Committee, whose members
represent every section of the State, and all of whom are enthsiastic supporters
Of the WaterWay movement. These members are :
A. F. Scoch, chairman, president Merchants, & Farmers' Trust & Savings
Bank, Ottawa, Ill.
H. C. Gardner, Gardner & Lindberg, engineers, Chicago; chairman waterway
Committee, Chicago Association of Commerce.
E. T. Harris, president Payson Manufacturing Co.; chairman, waterway
committee Illinois Manufacturers’ ASSOCiation.
J. T. Conley, Albert Dickinson Seed Co., Chicago.
Col. Fred Bennitt, secretary Western United Gas & Electric Co., Joliet, Ill.
H. H. Baum, merchant, Morris, Ill.
Stuart E. Duncan, Cashier LaSalle National Bank.
A. T. Griffith, editor Boating, Peoria, Ill.
F. L. Velde, attorney, Pekin, Ill.
240 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
R. H. Garm, president First State Bank, Beardstown, Ill.
Frank W. Crane, vice president State Savings Loan & Trust Co., Quincy, Ill.
Walter W. Williams, attorney, Benton, Ill.
Adolph Mueller, president H. Mueller Mfg. Co., Decatur, Ill.
George C. Heberling, Heberling & Extract Co., Bloomington, Ill.
H. L. Smith, doctor, Springfield, Ill.
S. S. Davis, president Rock Island Plow Co., Rock Island, Ill.
W. F. Thayer, president Thayer Action Co., Rockford, Ill.
The Illinois Chamber of Commerce has worked in unity with all other Organi-
zations, both National and State, in promoting the program Of WaterWay trans-
portation development, believing thoroughly in that paragraph of the national
transportation act of 1920 passed by Congress, which reads:
“It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to promote, encourage,
and develop waterway transportation, Service, and facilities in connection with
the commerce of the United States and to foster and preserve in full Vigor
both rail and water transportation.”
The State of Illinois is now engaged in the construction of a Series Of locks
and dams from Lockport to Utica connecting the sanitary and ship canal of
the Sanitary District of Chicago and the Illinois River, an appropriation of
$20,000,000 for this work having been voted by the people of Illinois in 1908.
The Illinois Chamber of Commerce has always given the State of Illinois all
pOSSible assistance in the construction Of this great project.
The Illinois Chamber of Commerce favors the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet
per Second from Lake Michigan into the Sanitary and ship Canal in Order to
facilitate waterway transportation, believing that the best results can be
Secured by this diversion. The Illinois Chamber of Commerce realizes the need
Of the protection of the health Of the citizens of Chicago and has SO expressed
itself. We also realize that the residents of the Illinois Valley need protec-
tion from this increased overflow and are greatly in sympathy with the move-
ment to Secure for them the Settlement of their just and due claims and for
the establishment and maintenance of a uniform System of levees, and we
have SO expressed ourselves.
During the visit of the select committee of the United States Senate to the
Mississippi Valley in October, 1923, it held hearings on the McCormick bill,
providing for a 9-foot channel in the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers from Utica
to Cairo. The Illinois chamber was privileged to have an active part in pre-
senting witnesses and testimony before the committee in support of waterway
legislation. Our local chambers of commerce gave to the committee all pos-
sible assistance in its quest Of information upon this Subject. Again We Sub-
scribe to the statement it was my privilege to make before the committee at
that time as the duly accredited representative Of the Illinois Chamber of
Commerce :
“We believe that business can be very materially improved ; that the situa-
tion as regards COst of transportation can be very materially improved ; and
that the material Welfare of the State of Illinois in which we are particu-
larly interested can be vastly improved by the passage of this waterway
legislation.”
In conclusion, I Wish to State on behalf of the Illinois Chamber of Com-
merce that we desire to be of all possible assistance to your honorable Com-
mittee in the investigation of this question vital to the prosperity of the
Mississippi Valley and to the whole United States. -
JoBIN H. CAMILIN, President.
ILLINOIS WALLEY MANUFACTURERS’ CLUB,
La Salle, Ill., February 8, 1924.
Hon. WILLIAM E. HULL, -
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
SIR : In compliance With the request in your letter of January 22, following
you will find copy of a resolution adopted by this organization at a meeting
held on February 4:
“Resolved, That the Illinois Valley Manufacturers’ Club recommend pas-
sage of H. R. 5475, introduced in the House of Representatives January 15,
1924, by Hon. William E. Hull.”
Our members are heartily in favor of this bill and hope this resolution
will help.
Yours very truly,
O. M. BENSON, Eaxecutive Secretary.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 241
1:ESOLUTION INDORSING H. R. 54.75, A BILL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF COMMERCE
AND NAVIGATION AND TO ALTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS IN THE LLLINOIS RIVER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Whereas the board of directors of Champaign (Ill.) Chamber of Commerce
are interested in the development of deep waterways in the State of Illinois:
NOw therefore be it
Resolved, That the board of directors of Champaign (Ill.) Chamber of Com-
merce do hereby indorse H. R. 5475, and recommend its passage by the Con-
gress of the United States; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution he sent to Representative William
E. Hull, author of bill, and to Senators William McKinley and Medill Mc-
Cormick and Representative Allen F. Moore.
CHAMPAIGN (ILL.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
F. C. AMSBORG, President,
CHARLES M. STAHL, Secretary.
SYCAMORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Sycamore, Ill., February 15, 1924.
Hon. WILLIAM E. HuDL,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. HuDL: We have received your letter of January 22 relative to your
; No. 5475, as was introduced in the House of Representatives January 15,
24.
We have given that very important bill the consideration due it, and at a
meeting of the board of directors, held February 12, 1924, it was approved
unanimously.
We Sincerely hope that the bill will go through as it undoubtedly means more
to the Central West and the State of Illinois than any other one proposition.
We are writing Our Congressman, Charles E. Fuller, regarding this bill also.
Yours very truly,
SYCAMORE CELAMBER OF COMMERCE,
By C. C. SIMPSON, Secretary.
CONAGHAN MOTOR CO.,
Pekin, Ill., February 25, 1924.
Be it resolved by the board of directors of the Association of Commerce of
Pekin, Ill., That we commend the energetic support which has been given by
Congressman William E. Hull to the cause of the 9-foot waterway from Lake
Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico, and we heartily indorse his bill on that Sub-
ject, H. R. 5475, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on the
15th day of January, A. D. 1924.
J. T. CONAGHAN. P. J. KRIEGSMAN.
E. L. CONKLIN. NELSON WEYRICH.
WILLIAM J. EDEN. FRANKLIN L. WELDE.
F. P. RIESE. Judge J. M. RAHN.
NEW YORK WATER POWER COMMISSION,
Albany, January 30, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: By direction of the New York Water Power Commission, I am
sending you copy of a resolution adopted by the commission on January 23,
1924, protesting against the passage of any bill authorizing a diversion of
water from Lake Michigan, such as is contemplated by Senate bill 4428, known
as the McCormick bill, introduced in the Sixty-seventh CongreSS, fourth
SeSSIOI).
The New York water power act obligates the commission, in the interest of
the State, to secure and defend its rights in territorial waters, particularly with
reference to power development.
Accordingly, the commission will greatly appreciate your cooperation in
securing the ends sought, and advising the commission of the Status of any
Such measureS.
Yours very truly, -
F. P. WILLIAMs, Secretary.
242 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
DIVERSION FROM LAKE MICHIGAN BY THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
Whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago is diverting from Lake Michigan
Waters in excess of the amount authorized by the Federal Government ; and
Whereas such diversion if continued will reduce the amount of power which
may be developed on the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers by upward of
500,000 continuous horsepower, of which upward of 200,000 continuous horse-
power, depending upon the amount of Such excess, is capable of being developed
in New York State; and
Whereas the excessive diversion by lowering the elevation of the waters of
the Great Lakes is injurious to navigation and commerce thereon ; and
Whereas a bill, known as the McCormick bill, S. 4428, is pending in Congress,
which among Other things seeks to authorize and to legalize the diversion of
10,000 cubic foot Seconds from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of
Chicago : Therefore be it
Resolved, That the commission on behalf of the State protest against the
passage of the McCormick bill or any other bill Seeking to authorize and legalize
the diversion in question : Be it further
Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to transmit copies of the resolution
to the proper Representatives in CongreSS.
CITY CLERK's DEPARTMENT.
Buffalo, March 19, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Hon. CLARENCE MACGREGOR,
Hon. JAMES MEAD,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIRS : I am inclosing herewith certified copy of resolution adopted by
the council of the city of Buffalo at their regular meeting held March 12, 1924,
and which I was directed to forward to you.
Respectfully submitted. t
C. O. BACKMAN, City Clerk.
CLFRK'S OFFICE,
Buffalo, March 18, 1924.
To ºthom, it may CO7 cern.
I hereby certify that at a session of the council of the city of Buffalo, held in
the city and county hall, on the 12th day of March, 1924, a resolution was
adopted, of which the following is a true Copy:
TJNLAWFUL CHICAGO HYDROELECTRIC-POWER DIVERSION -----,
Attention is called to the fact that the city of Chicago is diverting colossal
quantities of water out of Lake Michigan for sanitation and power purposes
and with great profit to herself, causing thereby, however, a great injury to
the commerce of the Great Lakes. The compensations and losses indicated
here involve millions of dollars and Since the loSSes affect the interests of a
Nation, as well as many localities, they deserve the thoughtful consideration
of all justice-loving America.
The annual report of the Secretary of War from 1916 says:
“From the beginning the operations of the sanitary district have been looked
upon with disfavor by navigation interests, and the Secretary of War has not
only declined to increase the diversion temporarily authorized, but has adhered
to the decision that the permit granted was of a temporary character and that
no permanent diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan could be made without
express authority from Congress.”
It may be stated that the interests of Buffalo and western New York are
now and will be further greatly damaged by the present unlawful diversion
and any further additional diversion of water granted to the city of Chicago
for power or other purposes. It is pointed out that for the same amount of
water used at Chicago Six times the power can be obtained at Niagara Falls
on account of the greater head, either by the New York State Hydro-Electric
Power Plant or by the existing companies Supplying current to the mu-
Inicipalities.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 243
The president of the Great Lakes Harbor Association made a Strong argu-
ment before the National River and Harbors Conference at Washington, D. C.,
on December 5, 1923, and it behooves Buffalo to consider the merits Of this
discussion and protect its interests. Quoting from the address we read:
“The drainage canal authorities can still say to the Chicago people: “We
are protecting your health and your pocketbooks. We are still keeping the
sewage out of the lake and sending it to the rivers of the interior of the State.
We are taking great volumes of lake water to do this. We know we are taking
more than the law allows, but we are earning a million dollars for you every
year in lighting your parks and Streets in the sale of hydroelectric power.
You should worry ''
“The Cry Of alarm which the sanitary district authorities have from time to
time raised to the effect that all the water the canal can carry is needed to
protect the health of 3,000,000 people is a clever subterfuge. Behind this plea
for humanity lies a profitable water power.
“No One has asked, or will ask, that the health of the Chicago people be
injured. No court in the land would sanction such a course. The Sanitary
district authorities know this. The sanitary district also knows that a re-
duction plant would make the diversion of lake waterways unnecessary. But
the Sanitation cry has the ring of appeal and serves well to protect the real
Objective—a powerful hydroelectric plant. * * *
“In order to maintain a ship canal, water—much water—it is alleged, is
needed. The Lake-to-the-Gulf promoters have been led to believe this, when
the truth is that less than 1,000 cubic feet of water is required for the ship
Canal, While 10,000 cubic feet would be destructive of such a project.
“The hydroelectric plant operates under a head of 64 feet. The estimated
Capacity Of the plant is 48,000 horsepower. Competent engineers hold that if
the Water were not diverted here, but allowed to take its natural course to the
Great Lakes, it would produce five to six times as much power in the Niagara
(listrict, Owing to the greater head. Thus the artificial diversion is a large
Waste of a perpetual natural resource. * * * The so-called ship canal as
a transportation project, is a gigantic failure. But the ship canal slogan has
been accepted by the Mississippi Valley people and has served to defend the
real objective—the hydroelectric plant. * * *
“The Scheme entered into by Chicago whereby the city utilized the water of
Lake Michigan to flush its sewage and incidentally created a profitable water
p0Wer plant, also, Several years ago, attracted the attention of the State of
Illinois. The latter saw an opportunity to extend the water-power feature by
erecting another plant at some distance westward from Lockport, Illinois.
The physical conditions permitted the construction of another hydroelectric
plant. If the City of Chicago could clean up a million dollars a year on the
Sale of power, why could not the State of Illinois clean up another million?
“When Robert Isham Randolph, an engineer who was employed by the
Chicago Association of Commerce, spoke on the drainage canal operation at
Milwaukee in the Spring of 1923, he made the statement that the power plant
provided light for the streets and hearths of Chicago, effecting an annual
Saving of Over $1,000,000. The report of the sanitary district also shows that
the Sale of power to manufacturing plants along the canal netted a profit last
year of $90,000.
“‘Mr. Hering, in his report of 1907, states that the desired 10,000 cubic feet
per second discharged through the drainage canal will produce at Lockport
20,000 horsepower, and at Joliet 27,300 horsepower, which at an estimated
value of $25 per horsepower, will produce an annual revenue of $1,407,500.’”
It is Contended :
1. That the withdrawal at Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet per second lowers
,the level of Lake Erie by 6.1 inches;
2. That Such lowering has caused a damage to inner harbors and connecting
channels on the Great Lakes approximating the sum of $12,000,000;
3. That every inch in the lowering of the lake levels causes a reduction in
the carrying capacity of an American and Canadian lake fleets of six hundred
vessels, and a consequent total loss of over $3,000,000 annually;
4. That the unlawful extraction of large volumes of water out of Lake
Michigan has enabled the creation of a hydroelectric power plant which yields
profits exceeding $1,000,000 annually to the City of Chicago;
5. That six times as much power can be developed at Niagara with the same
water used at Chicago, through a New York State hydroelectric plant;
6. That the continued and excessive diversion of lake waters into the Chi-
cago drainage Canal causes a great injury to the Commerce of the nation and
244 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
is in violation of the laws of the United States, of the treaty relations with the
Dominion of Canada, and against all precepts of right and justice, to Cleveland,
Buffalo, and other cities located on the lower lakes.
In view of the above, I recommend that The Council of the City of Buffalo
go on record against unlawful or additional water diversion at Chicago; and
that the city clerk be directed to notify the Congressmen representing Buffalo,
and also the United States Senators Wadsworth and Copeland, of the attitude
of Buffalo in respect to this matter, and urging that they endeavor to protect
the interests of this city by necessary legislation.
Received, filed, and recommendation adopted.
Ayes—Graves, Perkins, Schwab, Schwartz—4.
Noes—NOne.
AtteSt.
C. O. BACKMAN, City Clerk.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., March 13, 1924.
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN : Am inclosing herewith a letter from Mr. Frank A. Whiteside,
of Carrollton, Ill., relative to the proposition now pending before your Com-
mittee having to do with the flow of water through the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict. I am referring this to your Committee to be considered together with
Other matters that may be brought to your attention.
Yours very truly, w
W. J. GRAHAM.
CARROLLTON, ILL., March 7, 1924.
To the Senators and Members of Congress from Illinois.
GENTLEMEN : Responding to an appeal which the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago made yesterday by a full-page advertisement in the press throughout the
State, in which they called upon the people of Illinois, “If you would do
for Chicago what Chicago would do for you,” to write to you, I submit the
following:
I do not want to do for Chicago what Chicago has done for me. If I did,
I would divert the waters of the Illinois and other rivers into the Chicago
River, and empty the sewerage of the entire State and part of other States
into it, destroying its animal life. I would thus endanger the health and
lives of the inhabitants of that city by contaminating their water supply. I
would depreciate and damage their real estate by raising the water level of
their river so that the low ground would be too wet for Successful cultivation
during cropping Seasons, except at an expense for pumping SO great as to be
unprofitable. I would, when the river was at flood stage, turn into it vast
quantities of water, largely in excess of what I had legal permission to
do, and thus cause the levees along their river to give way, destroying
property and homes and endangering life iteself. I would, in short, imperil
the health and the very lives of the children of that city, wipe out property
values, and jeopardize her municipal investments, and in doing this I would
do for Chicago just what Chicago has done for the people of the valley of the
Illinois.
But this advertisement Says, “ Illinois Valley claims for overflow damages
are being settled as rapidly as agreements can be reached.” If true, that is
a very late thing. Practically since it was organized the sanitary district
has maintained a large and expensive corps of skilled attorneys, engineers, and
experts to fight every claim for damages of this kind, and in the majority
of cases have succeeded in defeating these claims by making the cost of
litigation prohibitive, the landowner not having sufficient financial backing to
carry his suit to a successful conclusion. The district's apparent willingness
to settle damages now reminds me of the adage, “When the devil is sick, the
devil a monk would be, but when the devil is well, the devil a monk is he.”
Damages for creating a condition which tends to breed pestilence and Sick-
ness and endanger human life are damages which can not be settled by agree-
ment nor measured in terms of dollars and CentS.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 245,
No, gentlemen, my conscience will not permit me to want to do for Chicago
What Chicago has done for me; but I am ready to assist Sir Adam Beck, or
anyone else, in any action which will tend to stop this flow of sewerage down
the Once beautiful Illinois River, with its great damage to property and its
menace to human health and life.
Yours very truly,
F. A. WHITESIDE.
[Editorial from the Plain Dealer and Daily Leader, Saturday, February 9, 1924]
UNDER A NEW NAME
The McCormick bill to legalize Chicago’s illegal diversion of water for sewage.
dilution “and Other purposes " died with the last Congress. Its reintroduction
has been expected but, so far as we have observed, it has not yet made its
appearance. Instead comes the bill of Representative William E. Hull of the
sixteenth Illinois district, practically identical with the Chicago Senator's
proposal. H. R. 5475 bears the name of Hull, but it speaks with the voice of the
Sanitary District of Chicago.
Like its model, the McCormick bill of the last Congress, the Hull proposal,
pretends to be what it is not or what it is only in part. “For the improvement
Of commerce,” reads the title, “and to authorize appropriations for the con-
struction Of certain public works in the Illinois River and for other purposes.”
What it would really accomplish if enacted would be to authorize Chicago to:
take from Lake Michigan for sewage dilution the 10,000 cubic feet per second
Which she is now taking contrary to law. -
The issue goes back for years. From the beginning it has been the case of
a great city overriding the interests of two nations in order to ease her own
problem of Sewage disposal and to make hydroelectric power with water be-
longing to others. The navigation feature of the proposal is merely a blind.
A by-product of this illegal diversion, which the Hull bill would legalize, is
Seen in gradually dropping lake levels, jeojardizing the vast commerce that
travels this inland-water route.
. As long ago as Secretary Alger's day in the War Department the drainage
district secured the Secretary’s permission to extract from the lake 4,167 feet
per Second. This is the only authorization ever given for diversion in any
Quantity whatever. In the face of this limitation, however, Chicago has been
diverting for some years approximately 10,000 feet per second, well over twice.
the amount Officially permitted.
Two cases are now before the Federal Supreme Court challenging this illegal
diversion. One is by the Government, won in district court at Chicago and
now pending at Washington on appeal. The other was brought direct to the
Supreme Court by the State of Wisconsin. The first is purposed to confine
diversion to the terms of the Alger grant; the second challenges the authority
even of that permit.
No One can forecast a Supreme Court decision, of course, but it seems rea--
sonable to expect in one suit or the other a decree adverse to the Sanitary
district. So Chicago, first through the McCormick bill and now through the
Hull bill, asks Congress to . nullify the Federal Government suit and the Wis-
consin suit while both are pending before the Nation’s high court. The Sanitary
district is like a highwayman caught with the goods and pleading for a law.
to legalize his theft.
Were navigation the purpose instead of the pretense of the McCormick-Hull
proposal, nothing like the amount of diversion proposed would be necessary.
Engneers assert that less than 1,000 feet would be necessary for the 9-foot
channel to the Mississippi which the bill asks the Federal Government to build
at an expense of $5,700,000. Nor is it generally believed that more than 4,167
feet are necessary even for proper sewage disposal. This leaves the difference:
between the amount of water legally diverted and the amount illegally diverted
to be used for the production of hydroelectric power for profit.
The McCormick-Hull proposal is unsound from whatever point of View it is
analyzed. It is convincing only on one point—Chicago's desperate determina-
tion to take water that belongs to the United States and Canada jointly and
use it for her own convenience and profit. Talk of a Mississippi WaterWay in
this connection or of regulating works to maintain like levels is beside the
mark; the feasibility of neither has been established.
246 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Rejection of the Hull bill, and of the McCormick bill if it makes an appear-
ance, Ought to be one of the absolute certainties of this legislative session.
[The records of the United States Engineer Department show that there has
already been a decrease of 5% inches in the depth of water of the Great
Lakes, With a potential loss to the public of approximately three million tons
Of this cheap transportation annually.]
FULTON SUFFERS FROM CHICAGO SEWAGE
[From the Fulton Democrat, Lewistown, Ill., March 5, 1924. )
‘On page 11 will be found a paid advertisement from the Chicago Sanitary
3District in which that district depicts Chicago's danger from insufficient dilu-
tion of her Sewage. -
While this condition and the dangers threatening Chicago from sewage con-
'tamination is probably true, the people living along the Illinois River bottoms
are in equal danger from the increased flow from Lake Michigan which Chicago
feels is necessary to her health.
The Situation presents the most puzzling dilemma which has arisen in our
up and down State relations for many years. If the sanitary district has its
Way, unhampered, ruin from flood waters stares the Illinois River bottom
“farmers in the face, and riverside cities and hamlets will be in constant
menace from damage by floods.
On the other hand, sanitary experts tell us that if they do not get an in-
(Creased flow from Lake Michigan to boost the sewage down the Chicago River
...the city will be menaced by sewage pollution.
The only way out of the dilemma that sounds practicable to us is for Chicago
to Start building a Sewage-disposal plant.
In Peoria this Week there is a hearing On damages Sustained in Peoria and
Tazewell Counties on account Of the overflow of the Illinois River. One has
already been held in Beardstown, -
We give below the story told to President Coolidge a few days ago by Irep-
resentatives Sent by Fulton and other counties adjacent to the Illinois. We
know that Doctor Kerr is a truthful man. He was accompanied by Congress-
man Guy L. Shaw, of Beardstown.
They told the President of the destruction done by the Illinois River during
flood times, and of the frightful condition of the waters because of the Sewage
«iluted into the Illinois River by the Sanitary District of Chicago.
“We are fighting for our lives and Our homes,” said Doctor Kerr. “just
because the Sanitary District of Chicago will not install sewage-reduction
-plants. The district now draws 10,000 cubic feet per second of water from
Lake Michigan for sewage dilution purposes, and this emptying into the Illinois
River, overflows the banks, causing such destructive floods as that of 1922.
And the Sanitary District of Chicago now wants Federal permission to continue
this condition indefinitely and to turn even more than 10,000 feet of water
into the river, thus making Our situation even more Serious.
“These facts are not generally known outside the valley district, so we want
the people of the State to know the true situation. We are not calamity
howlers—we are fighting with our backs to the Wall for Our Self-preserval-
tion—to Save our homes and Our lives. -
“The Illinois River is frightfully polluted as far as Peoria. All fish life
is gone. The farmers' livestock will not drink the water. The frightful odors
on the upper river on Summer days are unspeakable. The Peorians are obliged
to abandon their summer Cottages and the destruction of properties and farm
lands continues as far down as Grafton, a distance of 350 miles. Commercial
buildings erected on high land 20 years ago now have their window Sills
rotting in water; farm lands that 20 years ago yielded big crops now make
homes for frogs. Landowners have joined together to build levees to keep
these excess waters off their land only to have more water turned down on
them. The low water levek has been raised 8 feet at Peoria and 6 feet below
†3eardstown.
“Government engineers have stated that 4,167 feet per Second should be the
maximum amount of water taken from the lake, and even went So far as to
ask for an injunction to restrain the sanitary district from taking Out more .
water. The water of the sanitary district is shown by the fact that this in-
junction has laid dormant in a Chicago court for 14 years. In all this time
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 247.
the sanitary district continued to withdraw from 10,000 to 16,000 cubic feet
of water per second, in spite of the adverse opinion of the War Department
engineerS.
“We are a poor people. We are fighting a powerful corporation. Disaster
and ruin are staring us in the face unless the situation is relieved. We are
appealing to the people outside our district to investigate our claims and to
impress their Representatives, in Congress that we should have the relief we
seek even if for no other reason than to save Our homes.”
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., March 15, 1924.
Mr. Jose.PEI H. MCGANN, -
Clerk. Committee on Rivers and Harbors, -
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. MCGANN: I take the liberty of inclosing herewith resolution
adopted by the Pennsylvania State park and harbor commission of Erie at
a meeting held on March 7 last with reference to the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan by the Chicago Drainage Canal, as I understand there is
legislation on this subject pending before your committee.
Very truly yours,
STEPHEN G. PORTER.
Whereas investigations and studies made by engineers of the Corps Of En-
gineers, United States Army, and by this commission, indicate clearly that the
diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Chicago Drainage Canal has
lowered the general level of water in Lake Erie; and that during the year
1923 this level was permanently lowered fully 6 inches; and
Whereas the continuance of such diversion of water by the Chicago Drain-
age Canal is certain to bring Lake Erie to a still lower level, thus augmenting
damage already done due to the lowering of the level of Lake Erie; and
Whereas this lowering of the lake level, caused by such diversion of water,
is seriously affecting property owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
which includes the bay and harbor of Erie, the peninsula of Presque Isle, and
Other water and water-front property, under the direct Supervision and con-
trol of this commission, and, if continued, will necessitate the expenditure of
large sums of money for dredging and other work: Therefore be it -
Resolved, That the Pennsylvania State park and harbor commission of
Erie does hereby protest against any further diversion of any water from
any of the Great Lakes by the Chicago Sanitary District for the said drainage
Canal, and urges upon you the importance of exerting every influence to pre-
vent any further lowering of lake levels by the increased diversion of water
through the said drainage canal: Be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Attorney General of
the State of Pennsylvania, to the United States Senators from Pennsylvania
and to the Representatives from this State, to the district engineer at Buffalo,
N. Y., and to the Erie Chamber of Commerce.
HENRY, ILL., March 22, 1924.
Hon. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. :
After careful consideration of the Hull Deep Waterway Bill and its
possibilities we are asking our Representatives in Congress to oppose its
passage as well as the passage of any other measure which does not give full
protection to the right of he residents of Illinois River Valley.
MARSHALL PUTNAM FARM BUREAU,
L. F. Box LE, President.
[Article published in the Henry News-Republican, March 20, 1924.]
16TH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE ON CHICAGO DRAINAGE PAY ROLL, SAYS C. U. STONE
“Illinois has her own ‘Teapot Dome ' Scandal, but it does not Smell of oil
but rather of sewage,” said Claude U. Stone, of Peoria, to the Commercial Club,
of Washington, Ill., Monday evening.
248 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Stone continued, “If you will refer to the Chicago Herald Examiner
of January 26, you will find a financial report of the Sanitary District of
Chicago, and you will find the Peoria law firm of Daily, Miller, McCormick &
Radley On the list as having received $12,500 for professional services for 1923,
While not a case of any kind was tried during the year. It is known by all
that Mr. Daily is a senator in the Illinois General Assémbly.
“Barr & Barr, attorneys for Joliet, are on the list as having received $15,000
for 1923,” said Mr. Stone, “and Mr. Barr is also a member of the general
assembly. -
“A Mr. Fahy, of Toluca, who is also a member of the general assembly, is
on the list for $3,000 for professional services rendered the sanitary district,
and he is a barber when at home.”
Mr. Stone denounced such expenditures to “stifle legislation ” as being on
a plane with the Teapot Dome Scandal.
He referred to Congressman Hull's appeal of recent date to newspaper editors
“not to kill the goose which laid the golden egg" and said the Sanitary district
is indeed the goose which lays the golden egg for certain politicians.
- Mr. Stone denounced the Sanitary District of Chicago as “the biggest out-
law in Illinois for 24 years.” The Illinois Legislature permitted the flow of
4,167 cubic feet of Water per Second, Some years ago, but he said Chicago
had been turning into the sewage canal 10,000 cubic feet for years. He cited
authority to show that not more than 1,000 cubic feet is needed for sanitary
purposes, and that more than 3,000 cubic feet would be detrimental to naviga-
tion and asked, “Why, then, does the Sanitary district demand 10,000 cubic
feet?” His answer was, “Water Power.”
He states that $1,000,000 worth of power is generated and sold by the sani-
tary district each year, and this is trying to be maintained.
“Frank Quinn, a Peoria attorney, wrote the deep waterway bill presented
to Congress by Mr. Hull,” said Mr. Stone, “and Mr. Quinn received $6,500 from
the Chicago Sanitary District during 1923 for professional services,” said he.
The bill is made in the form of a perpetual Contract or grant, and when
made can not be changed by Congressional enactment. Any recourse for Viola-
tion would have to be brought in the form of a damage Suit, according to Mr.
Stone.
He showed that there was no enforcing nor forfeiture provisions in the bill,
as it now Stands.
“This so-called deep water way bill presented by Mr. Hull is only a guise
behind which the Sanitary district wants to get a perpetual Contract to turil
in 10,000 cubic feet of Lake Michigan water for power purposes, and I am
amazed that the Representative of the sixteenth district should Sponsor the
bill,” declared Mr. Stone.
“They want the water now, although the water way will not be completed
for 10 or 15 years if the bill passes. Senator McCormick admits that the bill
he presented was done at the request of the sanitary district, and the first
seven or eight pages of the Hull bill are copied from the McCormick bill.”
“Chicago is the only city in America which imposes its Sewage on other
cities in as nefarious way as it does. Cleveland has a reduction plant and the
solid matter taken from the sewage is sold for enough to repay for the build-
ing of the plant. The laws of Illinois demand that Chicago must remove all
solid matter from the sewage before it is turned into the Illinois River, but
it has never been done.”
“If the Hull bill passes Chicago will have until 1945 to put in these reduc-
tion plants.”
THE CHICAGo CESSPool.
[Letter published in the Henry (Ill.) News-Republican, March 20, 1924. I
The Sanitary District of Chicago has uncovered its hand, for once, to the
people of our State in spreading its full-page advertisements over the papers
of our State. For once, it has shown the high-handed methods used in Carrying
out its selfish purposes and its utter disregard for the interests and Welfare of
other people. It made a number of supposed possible disasters to its property
values. In the case of all the property owners from Joliet to Grafton these
disastrous conditions are facts, not suppositions, to the extent of many million
dollars, and covering a period of many years—all the result of diversion
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 249
Of water and sewage down the Illinois River by the sanitary district. This
advertisement also supposes that the lives of Chicago children may be
jeopardized. At Ottawa two boys have died, one from swimming in the
poisoned Illinois River, the other from tetanus infected into a broken leg
-exposed to the river water. Not suppositions—but facts. The upper Illinois
is a poisoned stream of death. No fish can live in it. No one knows When
milk cows may drink this water and spread disease. The odors from this river
from Peoria to Joliet are unspeakable. Who knows when a frightful epidemic
may arise from this moving cesspool and slay its thousands ! But What does
Chicago care, if it can save its money on its reduction plants and its children
are Safe
The sanitary district has defied the War Department for many years.
A Federal injunction lay dormant for 15 years, but was finally ruled against
the district. This injunction is now in the Supreme Court. All Secretaries of
War have refused to allow more than 4,167 cubic feet per second of water
from Lake Michigan. The district has knowingly taken more and more and
for eight years has been diverting an average of 10,000 cubic feet. It has
known all this time that this was illegal. Just why did they not install re-
duction plants, and not thus knowingly and willfully jeopardize the lives of
our children? Just why should property owners over a territory 350 miles
long suffer intolerable losses and be exposed to poisonous sewage in Order to
retrieve the follies of an unscrupulous sanitary district of Chicago? Chicago's
pitiful plea for the welfare Of its children is an Open confession of the mean-
ness of its contention. No other city in the world claiming to be civilized
WOuld plead for the right to pollute a great river—just to save itself SOme
money. London, with a population of 7,000,000, has used sewage reduction
plants for Over 30 years. SO has Berlin and Paris and most of Our larger
American cities. Chicago is spending more money with a lavish hand On its
internal improvements—why not care for its sewage problems first and not
force countless thousands of down-State people to bear the burden Of COSt
and the stench Of its backyard ceSSpool
This full page ad does not tell the people of Illinois about the great power
companies that keep their lascivious eyes On the power Sites On the upper Illi-
nois. It does not tell about how many millions these Sites will be WOrth, or
who will get them at a profitable figure from their politicians who will be in
power. It does not tell the names of the lawyers and politicians all the way
from Joliet down to Beardstown, and members Of Our State assembly who are
receiving fat salaries for the privilege of betraying their home towns and
surrounding territories by forcing them to yield to Chicago’s wishes. It does
not tell the people of our State that no politician can get by in his election
unless he first subscribes his name to the will and policies of the Chicago inter-
rests which are back of this demand for 10,000 cubic feet of water. A represent-
ative of this district is quoted in a Beardstown paper thus:
“He recalled how an appropriation of $350,000 for the construction of pro-
tecting works was passed by the Illinois General Assembly and how in that
appropriation Beardstown had the support and assistance of the Cook County
senatoros and representatives, in exchange for a promise On their part to CO-
operate with Chicago interests in maintaining the flow of water from Lake
Michigan. The Chicago interests still stood ready to fulfill their agreement.
They stand ready to provide that protection (for Beardstown) even if it cost
$2,000,000.” Just where this money would come from the speaker did not say.
And this little city, Ostensibly, is working hand in hand with the Chicago
interests. It has sold its soul for a mess of pottage.
Apparently, we unfortunate people of the Illinois River Valley are sold for
a price. The representatives of the sanitary district predominate in all the
river cities. The people have no voice in the matter. The landowners of the
valley have suffered frightful losses due to this large volume of water flooding
the valley. Their fight against so powerful and unscrupulous a corporation
seems to be hopeless. Iłut we cling to an ever-increasing confidence that you—
the people of our great State—will not desert us in this time of our great
need. We have faith in the good judgment and Sense of fairness Of Our
American people. We refuse to believe that our attractive valley and all its
people will be laid on the altar as a living sacrifice to satisfy the god of greed
and political graft as represented by Chicago interests.
Our case will be considered by the Rivers and Harbors Committee in Congress
this week. We appeal to the chivalry and gallant spirit of Our Great American
press to give publicity to this article so that all our American people may
250 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
know and understand. We appeal to you—the People of Illinois—to appeal
by letter or tetlegram to this committee or any Member of Congress to give
common American justice to a weak and much Wronged people. By SO doing,
you will help make our State and our country safe for the Common people.
JOSEPH P. KERR,
President A830ciation of Draintage and Levee Districts of Illinois.
MILWAUKEE, WIs., March 14, 1924,
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: We are informed by the secretary of the Board of Harbor Com-
missioners of Milwaukee that the date has been set for a hearing before your
committee on House bill 7044, which will permit; a flow out of Lake Michigan
of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second for the flushing of sewage of the city
Of Chicago through the drainage canal.
The Milwaukee Civic Council wishes to hereby file with your honorable com-
mittee a most emphatic protest against this selfishness of the city of Chicago
in profiting at the expense of other lake cities.
The Milwaukee Civic Council consists of organizations representing 7000
voters who are fully aware Of the harm that will accrue to this city which
depends largely upon its harbor and lake shipping for its freight service.
Milwaukee is spending millions of dollars for the disposal of its Sewage and
also for the development of its harbor, and it is no more than just that the
city of Chicago should make plans for the same purpose without infringing
upon the rights of Others.
We feel that it will be only a matter of years when the 10,000 cubic feet
will not be adequate for the purpose desired and it is surely up to your honor-
able committee to stop this practice of using the lake for a flushing device for
lake cities, and permit One City to take the water that others are trying to
purify, by expensive Sewage disposal plants.
ASSuring you that the Milwaukee Civic Council is organized to concentrate
all efforts toward Civic Welfare and improvement, and convinced that our
protest as Stated above is not only reasonable, but eminently equitable, and will
receive the consideration of your honorable committee that it deserves, we are,
Very sincerely yours,
MILWAUKEE CIVIC CouncIL,
Per JOHN G. NERN,
Secretary-Treasurer.
R. E. BROWN, President.
NAPLES, IL.L., March 14, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harborg Committee,
FIOuse of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR." SIR : We have been advised that H. R. 5475, bill introduced by Mr.
William E. Hull, is to be presented for hearing before your committee on
March 17.
We wish to go On record as being Strongly Opposed to the approval and pas-
sage of this bill, as it is purely a Chicago Sanitary District measure and will
not provide the protection that should be allowed the cities and property
Owners in the Illinois River Valley.
Naples was at one time a thriving river town prior to the diversion of water
into the Illinois River from Lake Michigan through the Sanitary district chan-
nel. Since this diversion Naples has been Subjected to numerous Overflows
which have almost completely wiped out the property values and caused a
50 per cent decrease in the population. There has been no disposition upon
the part of the sanitary district to compensate the residents for their losses.
Any bill that is approved in committee or passed by Congress which provides
for any diversion of water into the Illinois River should first provide for both
past and future damage compensation. Before any bill whatsoever is consid-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 251
ered, a committee from Congress should visit the Illinois River Valley points
and View the conditions existing. -
The Sanitary Distrct of Chicago is making a plea for more water on the
ground of the possible danger to the lives of their children and property values,
due to the possible insanitary conditions that might exist if they are refused
this Water. They give no thought to the danger which has faced the valley
people the past few years. In 1922, 400 men, women, and children in Naples
were driven from their homes when the levee at Naples broke. This break
OccCul’red On the last 6 inches of raise in the Illinois River. At that time we
are advised that the Sanitary district was taking 15,600 second-feet of water
from Lake Michigan by measure computed by Army engineers. This alone
Would raise the river at Naples several feet and therefore was responsible for
the conditions existing in Naples at that time.
Yours very truly,
MELTON MOORE, Mayor.
HARRY E. CHAMBERs, Clerk.
NIAGARA FALLs, N. Y., February 26, 1924.
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, M. C.,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : Inclosed herewith please find certified copy of a resolution rela-
tive to Water diversion of the Great Lakes system at Chicago, which was
adopted at a meeting of the council of this city held February 25, 1924, and
I Was directed to send a certified copy of the same to you.
Respectfully,
GEO. J. RICKERT, City Clerk.
I hereby certify that the following resolution was adopted at a meeting of
the council held February 25, 1924:
Whereas there have been introduced in the Congress of the United States.
Certain bills having for their true purpose the attempted legalization of the
diversion from the Great Lakes system at Chicago of a large amount of water
Ilow taken from Lake Michigan by the so-called Sanitary District of Chicago,
which water is not returned in any way to said Great Lakes system ; and
Whereas there is also pending in the Supreme Court of the United States:
an appeal by said Sanitary District Of Chicago from a judgment or decree in
a suit of the United States of America restraining it from diversion in excess;
of 250,000 cubic feet per minute; and
Whereas the diversion of any water from said Great Lakes System, without
returning the same thereto, is in violation Of the fundamental principles of the
common law, and is exceedingly harmful to the State of New York, both in
its effect upon navigation on the Great Lakes and connecting rivers and upon.
the Supply of water available for power development in the Niagara and St.
Iawrence Rivers, the amount so taken out at Chicago being the equivalent of
300,000 horsepower at Niagara Falls; and
Whereas the amount of Water now being permanently abstracted by said
Sanitary District of Chicago is unnecessary for any proper purposes of the city
of Chicago or of the State of Illinois, and such abstraction is exceedingly harm--
ful to the Niagara frontier, whose progress and growth are largely (lependent
upon commerce of the Great Lakes and the development of hydroelectric:
energy, and tends to reduce the amount Of Water that may be diverted from
the Niagara River for power purposes without injury to the scenic grandeur
of Niagara : Now, therefore, be it •
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Niagara Falls, That (1) it is
Opposed to any legislation having for its real purpose the attempted legaliza-
tion of diversions of water from the Great Lakes System without any return
thereof to such system, particularly the bill H. R. 5475 of the Sixty-eighth
Congress, known as the Hull bill, and the bill H. R. 7044, known as the Madden
bill, and that a certified copy of this resolution be filed with each of the Rep-
resentatives in Congress from this district and the Senators from the State Of
New York, as well as the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House of
Representatives.
(2) That the mayor be authorized to appoint a committee of three from the
officials of this city to attend at Washington in opposition to these measures
upon any hearing that may be given in respect theretO.
$252 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
(3) That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the attorney gen-
eral of the State of New York with the respectful request that in view of the
enormous interests of this State affected by the proposed legislation and the
litigation referred to, he take steps to protect the interests of the State of
New York in the subject matter by intervening in said suit in the Supreme
‘Court or otherwise.
(4) That a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the New York
State Water Power Commission for its attention.
Witness my hand and seal this 26th day of February, 1924.
[SEAL.] GEO. J. RICHERT, City Clerk.
[Telegram.]
NIAGARA FALLs, N. Y., March 17, 1924.
Hon. F. W. DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
Prevented by sudden illness from attending hearing Chicago drainage
canal bill to-morrow. City Counsel directed me to appear and oppose same.
Wish to file opposing brief. Wire last date can do so.
s GEO. W. KNOx,
Corporation Counsel.
[Telegram.]
OGDENSBURG, N. Y., March 20, 1924.
RIVERS AND HARBORS COMMITTEE,
Washington, D. C. !
We are opposed to Hull and Madden bills; detrimental to our water supply.
OGDENSBURG BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
OGDENSBURG, N. Y., March 27, 1924.
CHAIRMAN RIVERS AND HARBORS COMMISSION,
House of Representatives, Washiumgton, D. C.
DEAR SIR : I am sending you a copy of a resolution recently passed by the
Chamber of Commerce of Ogdensburg, N. Y., which resolution Opposes the
Hull bill, by which the city of Chicago is authorized to divert 10,000 cubic feet
of water per second from Lake Michigan. -
We ask you to most strenuously object to the passage of such a bill. Thank-
ing you, I am,
Very truly yours,
ARTHUR J. LAIDLAW,
Secretary Ogdensburg Chamber of Commerce.
RESOLUTION.
Whereas there is pending in Congress a bill known as the Hull bill, by Which
the Sanitary District of Chicago is authorized to divert 10,000 cubic feet of
water per second from Iake Michigan: Now therefore be it
Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Ogdensburg, N. Y.,
protest against such diversion of water on the grounds that it will lower the
water in the harbor at Ogdensburg and elsewhere along the St. LaWrence
River; be it further &
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted by our president to
our Senators and Representatives and to the chairman of the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors at Washington, D. C.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 253
PERIN, IL.L., March 15, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPsF.Y.,
Member Congress, Washington, D. C.
IDEAR SIR : As a landowner in the Illinois River Valley I am very much in-
terested in bills pending in the House concerning proposed legislation to bring
about a deep Waterway in the Illinois River.
I have attended a number of meetings of Illinois River Valley landowners at
which hill H. R. 5475 has been discussed. I have examined this bill with Care
and believe that it is an unfair bill from the standpoint of landowners along
the Illinois River.
It is common knowledge that the Sanitary District of Chicago has brought
about pollution of the waters Of the Illinois River and made of the Illinois
River a cesspool for Chicago sewage. It is also common knowledge that a
great amount of water which has been turned into the Illinois River through
the Sanitary district Canal has resulted in great damage to lands along the
Illinois River and to levees that have been constructed from time to time to
protect the lower lands from this additional flow of water.
I am interested in over 2,000 acres of land which is protected by dikes and
levees from Overflow and I think I appreciate, in a measure, how important
it is to landowners along the river that deep waterway legislation take into
account the rights of these landowners, especially as regards the privileges
which may accrue to the Sanitary District of Chicago in such legislation.
It is my position that all damages caused to the Illinois River Valley by the
pollution of the water of the Illinois River by the Chicago sewage which comes
through the sanitary district canal should be paid for by the sanitary district
and that the health and comfort of the people in that valley in the future be
protected from such pollution.
With thousands of others in that valley, I am opposed to making the Illinois
River a cesspool for Chicago slop.
I further oppose the withdrawal of any water from Lake Michigan through
the sanitary district canal into the Des Plaines River and thence into the
Illinois River in any amount greater than 1,000 cubic feet per second, and I am
Opposed to the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan through the Sanitary
district canal for the purpose of creating power.
It is unquestionably practical for Chicago to construct proper sewage-disposal
plants to treat and care for the entire sewage of that city, and I favor legisla-
tion that will require the sanitary district to construct such plants and bring
them to completion at the earliest possible date.
Legislation that takes into account only the health of the Chicago citizens
without giving consideration to the rights of the Illinois River Valley land-
Owners is unfair and means financial disaster and distress to hundreds if not
thousands of people living along the Illinois River and having interests in the
Valley.
In my opinion any legislation that is enacted by Congress should bring about
protection from said water by a plan for building and maintaining proper levees
at the cost of the Federal Government.
I am also firmly opposed to the flow of water from Lake Michigan through
said canal being under the direction and control of the sanitary district. It
should be under the sole and complete control at all times of the Secretary of
War and the Chief Engineer of the War Department of the Federal Govern-
ment. Such legislation should also bring about the removal of the State and
Federal dams in the Illinois River.
Many meetings have been held in various cities along the Illinois River
during the past few months by various associations for the purpose of discussing
these questions.
Congressman William E. Hull, who introduced bill H. R. 5475, has succeeded
in getting his bill indorsed by various organizations and associations from time
to time. The ASSOciation of Commerce of the city of Pekin indorsed his bill.
I know I can Safely Say that the action of the association does not even in a
small measure represent the attitude of the people at large in regard to this bill.
It is common knowledge in this vicinity that bill H. R. 5475 was drawn by an
attorney who represents the Sanitary District of Chicago.
While the citizens of the territory favor deep waterway, they do not favor it
at the expense of the health of the Illinois River Valley nor under conditions
which mean financial disaster to landowners in that valley without number.
91739—24—PT 1 17
254 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
I sincerely trust that the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, of which you
are chairman, will give some heed to those like me who are vitally interested
in Seeing that no unfair legislation is enacted in this particular.
Respectfully yours,
- RALPEI DEMPSEY.
PEORIA, ILL., March 21, 1924.
RIVERS AND HARBORs CoMMIssion,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the Peoria and Tazewell County Wild Life Associa-
tion, held in the assembly room of the Association of Commerce Building,
Peoria, Ill., on March 12, 1924, the following resolutions were passed :
Whereas there is now pending in Congress certain bills providing that a canal
With a 9-foot Channel be constructed from Lake Michigan to a point in the
Illinois River known as Utica ; and
Whereas the real purpose of said canal is for the disposal of the sewage of
the city of Chicago and environs, and
Whereas said bill provides that the volume of water for said purpose shall
be at the rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second ; and
Whereas the sanitary district of Chicago is now using 10,000 cubic feet per
Second for the purpose of Carrying sewage into the Des Plaines and Illinois
Rivers; and
Whereas Said sanitary district has been for a number of years discharg—
ing a Volume of 10,000 cubic feet per second into said river and thereby have
destroyed the sloughs, bayous, and back waters along said river and in conse-
Quence thereof the natural spawning grounds of the fish life and other life,
together with the birds and wild fowl that made this place their habitat have
been ruined and destroyed ; and
Whereas prior to the time the Said sanitary district of Chicago was allowed
to turn their sewage into Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers the Illinois River
was second to the Columbia River in the fishing industry and a sportsman’s
paradise, and now by reason of the pollution and enormous increase of water
the said Illinois River is practically destitute of fish and animal life in its
waters as far down as the City of Peoria, Ill. ; and
*Whereas the destruction of fish and animal life in the Illinois River is a
distinct economic loss to the people of Illionis and the entire Nation : Therefore
be it
Resolved, That all bills now pending in Congress providing for a discharge
of 10,000 cubic feet per second into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers for
the purpose of sanitary conditions or for navigation be defeated or amended
so as to allow not to exceed 4,167 cubic feet per second, or less if possible;
that the pollution of the water so used and discharged into the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers be controlled by the placing of disposal plants by Said
sanitary district; that said plants be of sufficient capacity to purify the
aforesaid water of all solid matters deleterious to public health Or Water
Fife: that additional disposal plants be provided for as the population of the
city of Chicago and environs is increased; be it further
Resolved, That the engineers of the War Department of the United States
of America determine the per cent of solid matter necessary to be removed in
order to purify the said water; be it further
Resolved, That the Peoria and Tazewell Wild Life Association, with a
membership of 8,000 citizens of Illinois, offer the above resolutions as a protest
against any legislation that does not correct the above conditions; be it further
Resolved. That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the proper au-
thorities in Washington, D. C., and that they be made part of the minutes Of
this meeting.
FRED A. BOCK, President.
Miss M. CLARK, Secretary.
PEORIA, IL.L., March 15, 1924.
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
- Washington, D. C. *
DEAR SIR : Allow me to present one of the many objections that I have
to H. R. 5475, which is now before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors
for consideration. The objection is advanced deferentially because of my Warm
personal regard for the Sponsor of the bill.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 255
This bill authorizes in perpetuity the withdrawal from Lake Michigan
by the Sanitary District of Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second.
The announced purpose of the withdrawal of this stupendous quantity of
Water is to maintain a channel 9 feet in depth in a waterway connecting Lake
Michigan with the Mississippi River. The proponents of this bill are fran-
tically eager to have this withdrawal permitted not only for all tme but to
begin immediately, although the Illinois waterway authorized by the Illinois
General Assembly in 1919, and now in course of construction, will not be com-
pleted for 10 years or more. Why the great hurry if the maintenance of a
9-foot waterway is the true object of this diversion?
Furthermore, the highest engineering authorities contend that a much less
flow will maintain a 9-foot depth in the waterway when finally constructed.
Gen. W. H. Bixby, then chief of engineers of the United States Army, in
1911 stated: “For the purposes of navigation a diversion from Lake Michigan
Of less than 1,000 second feet of water is all that will be necessary.” Why
grant in perpetuity ten times what is needed and ten years before any is
needed? To grant this excessive amount will produce such a strong current
in the Waterway when completed as to interfere greatly with navigation
rather than to promote it. Would it not be advisable to reserve the right
Of the Government to regulate the flow according to the needs of navigation
as demonstrated by actual experience? Why should the Sanitary District
of Chicago have the privilege for all time of diverting 10,000 cubic feet of
Water per second from Lake Michigan regardless of its effect upon navigation
On the Illinois waterway or the damage that is done thereby in other ways?
Page advertisements carried by the Sanitary District of Chicago in many
Illinois papers advance the argument that that quantity of water is required
for Sewage disposal and that a less quantity will result in epidemics and loss of
life in the city of Chicago. If a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet is to be permitted
for Sewage disposal purposes then the authorization should be in the nature
Of temporary relief and should cease when the necessity for it no longer exists.
The period for which the withdrawal is granted should be the very shortest
that will enable the Sanitary District of Chicago to install sewage reduction
and purification plants. Such reduction plants call for Only a nominal amount
of water for their proper operation, so that in all likelihood no water except
that withdrawn by the water supply system of Chicago will be needed. Since
10,000 cubic feet of water per second are not needed to maintain a 9-foot water-
way and that quantity if needed for sewage disposal should be needed for a
short time only, then why does the Sanitary District of Chicago desire the per-
manent privilege of diverting 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan?
Either the Sanitary District of Chicago entertains the belief that with this
quantity of water it can continue indefinitely to flush its untreated, unreduced
sewage down the Illinois Valley as it has done for 25 years in defiance of the
Illinois statute that gave it existence or it is willing for a million dollars a
year that it gets from water-power development to cause many times that
amount of damage yearly to other interests. Nothing should be done by the
Congress to delay or to enable the Sanitary District of Chicago to delay the
installation of sewage reduction and purification plants. Already the Sewage
from the Sanitary District of Chicago has so polluted the Illinois River as to
virtually destroy all fish and other water life, to make unpleasant all boating
and other water sports, and to create such a nauseating stench as to make
undesirable the habitation of homes along the river. Surely the Congress
under the guise of a waterway bill does not intend to fasten this Scourge upon
the inhabitants of the Illinois Valley. My six years' service in the House of
Representatives built up within me a confidence in its good intentions that
assures me now that such a great injustice will not be done especially to allow
an outlaw like the Sanitary District of Chicago to evade the injunctive action
Of the Federal courtS.
Fourteen years after the suit was filed, during which time the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago was so improvident or so drunk with power that it thought
it unnecessary to make preparation for adverse action, the Supreme Court is
to shortly have the opportunity to bring this flagrant law violator to justice.
The Sanitary District of Chicago has been able to prevent the enactment of
remedial legislation by the Illinois General Assembly by carrying its leading
members and other influential politicians of the State on its pay rolls at large
salaries, but such methods, I am convinced, will not win but will bring for it
scorn and repudiation in the National House of Representatives.
256 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Later, other objections to vicious features of this alleged waterway bill will
be presented by me.
In conclusion, permit me to state that I am Writing as a citizen of Peoria,
and not as attorney for any individual, corporation, or interest, and I am per-
Suaded that I express the almost unanimous Sentiment of this territory despite
the expensive propaganda that has been carried on by the Sanitary District
of Chicago to delude and deceive the people as to the objects and purposes of
this proposed legislation.
Very truly yours,
CLAUDE U. STONE.
MCGRATH, STONE, DAILY & MICHEL,
Peoria, Ill., March 20, 1924.
Hon. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : I wish on behalf of the people living in the Valley of the Illinois
to thank you for your stand against H. R. 5475. The Sanitary District of
Chicago is the greatest menace within the borders of our State. It can be
likened to a great reptile, with its head in Chicago and its body winding down
through the fertile Valley of the Illinois. It feeds upon the filth of Chicago
and drinks its Water from Lake Michigan. The filth taken in at its head
Oozes Out of the pores of its body along the way, carrying destruction and
Stench in its path. Its body grows and lengthens out each year, the rapidity
of its growth being controlled by the amount of water it can get from the lake.
It has grown to Such proportions that it has enveloped Our legislature and all
Other agencies to which we can look for protection. It has even been able to
defy the War Department of our Federal Government for the past 20 years.
It took the Government 17 years to get a decision in its injunction Suit in
Chicago, SO you can imagine how fruitless are any efforts of Ours. There is
but one way to kill this monster and that is to shut off its Water Supply.
Without water it must die.
The sponsors of this bill contend it is a waterway bill. There is no such
thing as a combined waterway and a sewer. The Sewer destroys the Water-
way and all else it encompasses. If there was a channel 9 feet deep and 200
feet wide the entire length of the Illinois it would be Of no Value as a Water-
way if it also carried the unreduced Sewage of Chicago and the 49 Other towns
in the sanitary district. This bill makes no adequate provision for the ulti-
mate removal of the Sewage at any time in the future. It gives the district
until 1945 to take care of the sewage corresponding to a population of 4,200,000
people, a very indefinite and difficult thing to determine. The present popula-
tion of the district is approximately 3,200,000 people. The trade wastes from
the stockyards, packing houses and other Sources is equal to an additional
2,000,000, so if the program in this bill was carried out immediately, not Waiting
until 1945, it would not take care of the present sewage. The population of
Chicago is increasing at the rate of 100,000 to 150,000 per year, and with the
increased population comes the increased trade wastes. If the district carried
out the program outlined in this bill to the letter it would not even take care
of the increased sewage and in 1945 we would find Ourselves in Worse condi-
tion than We are now.
Further, on the waterway feature, there is no waterway for navigation pur-
poses to run the water in from Lockport to Utica, a distance of 60 miles, and
will not be until the State of Illinois builds it. They started in 1919 and in
five years have not succeeding in completing one lock, with two or three more
to build and not a foot of the canal dug. The work is now held up by injunc-
tion and if it is ever Completed it won’t be for ten or fifteen years. There is
mo need for any water for a waterway at this time. The only thing needing
water is the Sanitary district.
The only hope of Our people lies in Congress refusing to pass any legisla-
tion that takes the power away from the War Department to regulate the flow
from Lake Michigan. If the Supreme Court upholds the injunctional order
of the district court, which it will no doubt do, the War Department will then
be in a position to force obeyance of its orders and Can, by gradually reducing
the flow thereby, force the district to install reduction plants which will in turn
take the sewage out of the river, without in any way endangering the lives of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 257
the people of Chicago or bring about the much advertised pestilence, or hamper
the development of a waterway.
The lives and the pleasures of the people of Chicago are no more sacred than
ours. The Illinois river in its natural state was a blessing, furnishing food
and wholesome recreation for thousands who had, and those who had not the
means to enjoy other resorts. To-day it is a silent, sullen, menace carrying
upon its once pure, vibrant bosom nothing but that which is dead and rotting,
while above it and perched upon the deadened branches along its course howers
the detested somber carrion ; a monument to the greedy selfishness of Chicago,
and the Stupendous stupidity of a Supine legislature.
Those Who Would fasten this upon us for eternity) in the name of a Water-
way are too void of vision or too base at heart to represent a free people.
I wish to assure you that it is indeed heartening when those to whom we
should naturally look for Succor have lost their way in the bog to hear a
friendly voice in the offing.
We look to you and your type in the Congress in this our hour of need, and
assure you an appreciation for any effort in Our behalf beyond the power of
language to express.
Very truly yours,
SHELTON F. MCGRATH.
MCGRATH, STONE, DAILY & MICHEL,
Peoria, Ill., March 26, 1924.
Hon. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The more we dig into this “alleged waterway” legislation the
more ridiculous it becomes. I have come to the conculsion that there will
never, at least not in our life time, be a waterway from Lake Michigan to the
Mississippi in the Illinois River for this reason as I have written you before.
Before any WaterWay can be had, it is necessary for the State of Illinois to
construct the “Illinois waterway,” a Canal together with its locks and dams,
etc., a distance of approximately 60 miles, from Utica to Lockport. The only
money available for the doing of this work is $20,000,000, and in order to get
that amount it was necessary in 1908 to obtain an amendment to the consti-
tution of the State of Illinois. That amount is all that can possibly be raised
for this project without another amendment to the constitution which you
know is a very hard, tedious, task to accomplish. That provision of the con-
stitution. Of Our State involved in this matter is as follows:
“Separate section 3. Canals and waterways— (State aid prohibted) : The
Illnois and Michigan canal, or other canal or waterway owned by the State,
shall never be sold or leased until the specific proposition for the sale or lease
thereof shall first have been submitted to a vote of the people of the State
at a general election, and have been approved by a majority of all the votes
polled at such election. The general assembly shall never loan the credit of
the State or make appropriations from the treasury thereof, in aid of rail-
roads or Canals: Provided, That any surplus earnings of any canal, waterway,
or Water power, may be appropriated or pledged for its enlargement mainte-
nance or extension ; and Provided further, that the general assembly may, by
suitable legislation, provide for the construction of a deep waterway or canal
from the present water power plant of the Sanitary District of Chicago, at or
near Lockport, in the township of Lockport, in the county of Will, to a point
in the Illinois River at or near Utica, which may be practical for a general plan,
and scheme of deep waterway along a route, which may be deemed most ad-
vantageous for such plan of deep waterway; and for the erection, equipment
and maintenance of power plants, locks, bridges, dams, and appliances sufficient
and suitable for the development and utilization of the water power thereof;
and authorize the issue, from time to time, of bonds of this State in a total
amount not to exceed $20,000,000, which shall draw interest, payable Semi-
annually at a rate not to exceed four per cent per annum, the proceeds Whereof
may be applied as the general assembly may provide, in the construction of
said waterway and in the erection, equipment and maintenance of Said power
plants, locks, bridges, dams and appliances.
“All power developed from said waterway may be leased in part or in
whole, as the General Assembly may by law provide; but in the event of
any lease being so executed, the rental specified therein for water power shall
258 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
be subject to a revaluation each ten years of the term created, and the income
therefrom shall be paid into the treasury of the State.
“Adopted by the Senate. October 16, 1907.
“Concurred in by the House, October 16, 1907. This section as amended was
proposed by joint resolution of the forty-fifth general assembly (Laws 1907–
1908, p. 192), adopted by vote of the people on November 3, 1908, and pro-
claimed adopted November 24, 1908.”
The State of Illinois, through its public works department, being unable to
agree with landowners for the purchase of certain land that is necessary in the
construction of this waterway, filed a condemnation proceeding in the county
court of La Salle County Some time ago. The attorneys for the landowners
contended that it was the plain intention of the legislature that this waterway
should be built as a whole and that if a condition existed that prevented the
construction of the whole canal that it was never the intention of the legisla-
ture that part of it could be constructed because unless the thing was finished
it was of no value, and following out this line of argument they contended
that the $20,000,000 authorized, which was all the money they could ever get
without an amendment to the COInstitution, Was Sufficient to do this work.
Therefore, a condition existed which made it impossible to construct the water-
way and that there was no necessity then for the taking of their land.
They also raised some other points and the lower court held that the State
had no power to condemn, which if it is sound permanently puts the waterway
out of business. That case has been appealed and is now before the Supreme
Court.
The firm of Woodward, Hibbs & Pool, attorneys at law, Ottawa, Ill., were
the attorneys for certain landowners, and I would suggest that you write them
for a copy of their brief and argument, which will give you the full data.
The Government engineers can very readily advise you whether or not this
$20,000,000 is sufficient to do this work. If it isn’t, then, of course, people
talking waterway are somewhat premature.
I would like for you to advise me what the Government engineers have
to say with reference to the cost of this proposed waterway so that I may
combat the sanitary district propaganda being circulated in this community.
Very truly yours,
S. F. MCGRATH.
ST. JOSEPH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
St. Joseph, Mich., March 15, 1924.
Hon. JOHN C. KETCHAM,
Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.
DEAR FRIEND: Acknowledging your letter of March 13 relative to Chicago
drainage canal hearings, this port, as well as every other port along the east
Coast of Lake Michigan, objects violently to the water being taken from Lake
Michigan by the Chicago drainage canal and fears that an increase will very
shortly show extensive damage to docks and piling, as well as affect the main
Channel in all harbors. -
It has not been possible here to even estimate the extent of the damage, for
the reason that it takes a little time for water and air to get in their work,
but we do know that the water in this harbor has been considerably lowered
during the past three Or four years, I would say from 12 to 18 inches.
At the hearings named by you, no doubt Mr. Leckie, of Cleveland, will repre-
sent steamship interests of all the lakes, and he will naturally be in better
position than the writer to give figures regarding damage.
Wishing you the best Of luck in combating this proposition, I am
Cordially yours,
ROY W. DAVIs, Secretary.
WATERTown, N. Y., March 19, 1924.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Directors Watertown Chamber of Commerce to-day passed resolution oppos-
ing any increase in legal amount of water diverted from Lake Michigan by
city of Chicago by H. R. 5475 or similar bills.
CLARENCE C. SMITH, Secretary.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 259
[Telegram]
MIAMI, FL.A., March 16, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, House of Representative3.
SIR : Speaking for the large ship interest embraced in the membership of
the Lake Carriers' ASSOciation, and in behalf of other owners, and for the
general shipping and commerce on and over the Great Lakes, I respectfully
call attention to the enormous importance to the country at large of conserving
the national asset of this cheap waterway, already probably the greatest in
the world in use and benefit, carrying more than 120,000,000 tons a year of
home products, chiefly consumed or manufactured and used in this country,
and would protest against the Hull bill or any other proposal authorizing Or
Countenancing the increase or continuation of impairment of this waterway.
WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE,
President Lake Carriers’ Association.
PEKIN, ILL., April 4, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman, House Com/mittee on Rivers and Harbors.
DEAR SIR : Pursuant to permission given at the hearing held last month, I
inclose herewith a copy of that section of the Chicago Sanitary District State
Statute, which relates to attorney fees.
I would also cite the following cases decided by the Supreme Court of Illi-
nois holding that the 5-year statute of limitations applies to claims for dam-
ages against the sanitary district, viz.: Vette v. Sanitary District (260 Ill.
432), Brockschmidt v. Sanitary District (260 Ill. 502) ; Shaw v. Sanitary Dis-
trict (267 III. 216). The water was turned in in 1900 or 1901 in much smaller
Quantities than now ; and very few, if any, of the valley landowners had any
idea at that time what the effect would be Of the increased diverSiOn and What
damage would be caused thereby ; so that a real injustice has been done to pro-
ably 90 per cent of the damaged landowners.
Yours very truly, F I, W
RAINFOLIN L. W. ELDE.
Section 19 of an act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, entitled “An
act to create sanitary districts and to remove obstructions in the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers, approved May 29, 1889, and is as follows:
“Every sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within
or without such district which shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged by
reason of the construction, enlargement, or use of any channel, ditch, drain,
outlet, or Other improvement under the provisions of this act; and actions to
recover such damages may be brought in the county where such real estate
is situate, or in the county where such sanitary district is located, at the
option of the party claiming to be injured. And in Case judgment is rendered
against such district for damage the plaintiff shall also recover his reasonable
attorney’s fees, to be taxed as costs of suit : Provided, however, That it shall
appear on the trial that the plaintiff notified the trustees of such district, in
writing, at least 60 days before Suit was commenced, by leaving a copy of Sucrl
notice with some one of the trustees of such district stating that he claims
(lamages to the amount Of dollars, by reason Of [here insert the cause
of damage] and intends to sue for the same : And provided further, That the
amount recovered shall be larger than the amount offered by said trustees
(if anything) as a compromise for damages sustained.”
By an amendment made in 1907 the italicized words “on the trial " were
eliminated and the following words substituted in place thereof, viz, “on the
hearing of plaintiff’s motion to tax such attorney fees.”
The present statute can be found on page 825 of Smith-Hurd's Illinois Re-
vised Statute for 1923: The original section on page 133 of the Illinois Session
Laws for the year 1889.
X
-*: 2' * ºr º & r >
?? - (< . . . . c. v. 3/a . . . . . . . . . .7/. c. -
-. + / ** - * *
{ * -- +. *
... & ( , ; ( . . & , t / " : " . . A ,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI Rivers, AND DIVERSION
OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
as “
r."
# {A:
• /
*
; : " .
$ 2
*: •- A ; A
- * .*
#
i Aſ
* * - - .. º
/ r 2 A'? ...:”
* ,
pas
'?t-4
ON THE SUBJECT
OF
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI
RIVERS, AND THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM
LAKE MICHIGAN INTO THE ILLINOIS RIVER
HELD BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
CONSISTING OF
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, New York, Chairman.
RICHARD P. FREEMAN, Connecticut. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, Texas.
NATHAN L. STRONG, Pennsylvania. JOHN McDUFFIE, Alabama.
CLEVELAND A. NEWTON, Missouri. JOHN J. KINDRED, New York.
JAMES J. CONNOLLY, Pennsylvania. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
M. A. MICHAELSON, Illinois. JOSEPH. T. DEAL, Virginia.
WALTER F. LINEBERGER, California. DANIEL F. MINAHAN, New Jersey.
WILLIAM M. MORGAN, Ohio. WILLIAM E. WILSON, Indiana.
WILLIAM E. HULL, Illinois. WILLIAM H. BOYCE, Delaware.
GEORGE N. SEGER, New Jersey. JAMES O'CONNOR, Louisiana.
HUBERT H. PEAVEY, Wisconsin.
THADDEUS C. SWEET, New York.
Joseph H. MCGANN, Clerk.
ELLA. F. PHALEN, Assistant Clerk.
APRIL 15 TO MAY 27, 1924, INCLUSIVE
I” ART 2.
ºr
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91739 1924
ſh, 3, £evr * -
*......-
3-6:1744"

CONTENTS
BILLs, LAws, TREATIES, AND COURT DECISIONs.
Page
Hull bill, quotations from------------------------------------------ 264, 365
English statutes on navigation ---- * = - * - - - mºs, sºme “- - - w area as me sm amº " - - “ sm sºme - 265
Port of Seattle v. Oregon and Washington R. CO----------------------- 265
Ownership and proprietorship of navigable Waters--------------------- 265
Constitutionality and right of Congress over navigable waters, citations.
from cases on––––––––––––––––––––––– - __ 265,428,429, 430
Illinois Central R. R. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387––––––––––––––––––––––– 266, 542
State ex rel Powers v. Larrabee (1 Wis. 200) -------------------------- 266
Supreme Court, Michigan–––––– –––– ---------------------- — 266
Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat, 203).-------------------------------------' 268
Hammer v. Dagenhart (247 U. S. 276, 62 L. ed. 1107) –––––––––––––––––– 268
U. S. v. Chandler-Dumbar Water Power Co., quotation from Justice . .
Lurton on------------------ & - - - - - ºr m, amº - - - - amº mº -- 359. 360, 631
St. Marys River, Mich., law of 1902 permitting diversion of water for . .
power purposes---------------------------------------------------- 368
Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––--- 3.02
Greenleaf-Johnson Co. v. Secretary of War (237 U. S.) ------------–––– ; , 403
Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S.– - - - - - - _____. 505, 776, 1170
Mortell v. Clark, 272 Ill------ - --------------------- .. 776
Draft of proposed bill, submitted by Hon. Guy L. Shaw----------------- 841
Chicago drainage and waterway laws--------------------------------- 1103
Resolution of Congress, April 21, 1904, permitting the lowering of the
2 height of the Government dams in the Illinois River_____________ 1170, 1178
Ordinance of the sanitary district regarding compensation works------- 1199
Corrigan Transit Co. v. The Sanitary District_____ 1204—1208. 1211, 1214, 1215
Burton Act of 1906: - • .
Amendment to, in Senate relative to Lake Michigan being Subject
of international negotiation * * –––––. 1267
Debate on in Senate--------- — — — — — — — ____ 1268, 1269, 1271
Raw of the Dominion of Canada relating to the establishment and ex-
penses of the International Joint Commission_______________________ 1356
U. S. v. Sanitary District of Chicago:
Testimony of Mr. Shenehon - ____ 1578, 1579, 1580, 1587, 1588
Testimony of Mr. F. P. Stearins----------------------------------- 1625
Testimony of Mr. George W. Fuller------------------------------- 1625
Testimony of Mr. A. E. Phillips----------------------------------- 1625
Testimony of Mr. L. E. Cooley______ –––––––––––––––––––– 1626
Opinion of Judge Carpenter------------------------------------- 453
Water-power act ; quotations from *— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1495
U. S. Supreme Court, January 5, 1925, in The Sanitary District of
Chicago v. The United States-------------------------------------- 1874
Preface to treaty–––––––––––––––––––––––––– © -------------- 426
Treaty of 1871 with Great Britain------------------------------------ 1049
Treaties relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the
boundary between Canada and the United States. January 11, 1909____ 1350
()IRAL STATEMENTS
Mir. Edmund L). Adcock • * ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 283, 286,
293, 308, 314, 386, 387, 402, 403, 423, 462,472, 497, 498, 503, 505
Mr. William F. Ardern--------------------- - * * *-* - - - * * me - e- - - - = m = 490
Mr. George F. Barrett - 1003, 1049
Maj. Gen. Lansing A. Beach_______ 278, 279, 285, 286, 364, 394, 397, 398, 503, 504
A \ * - 4
III Wº i)
IV CONTENTS
Page
Louis Behan, Esq. 1239
Mr. Charles E. Boyd, Chamber of Commerce, Detroit, Mich 441
Mr. Edward Boyle 852, 862
Gen. W. H. Bixby 396, 562, 563, 589, 634, 687
Mr. William George Bruce—— - 261
262, 275,276, 344, 345, 392, 431,435, 467, 470, 695, 736
Mr. Adam Cornelius, chairman river and harbor committee, Buffalo,
N. Y. 276,297
Mr. L. D. Cornish, assistant chief engineer, department of public works
and buildings, State of Illinois 924
Hon. William E. Dever, mayor of Chicago r— 1034
Hon. Andrew B. Dougherty, attorney general of the State of Michigan-- 263
Hon. H. L. Ekern, attorney general, State of Wisconsin 449, 469
Dr. W. A. Evans - - __ 1498
C. S. Ferris, assistant attorney general, State of New York----------- 345, 538
Mr. L. A. Geupel, director of water and Sewerage, department of
Indiana ! *- - _ 1219
Mr. Harvey D. Goulder, general Counsel, Lake Carriers’ Association———— 348,
358, 392, 420
Mr. P. J. Grant, Chamber of Commerce, Erie, Pa 314
Mr. D. W. Harper, water department, Erie, Pa 320
Mr. William J. Healy, president of the Sanitary District of Chicago.---- 1001
Mr. W. R. Hopkins, city manager, Cleveland, Ohio ––– 380
Hon. William E. Hull, M. C 468, 807
Mrs. Harlean James, secretary of the American Civic Association------- 548
Mr. Frank H. Keefer, Province of Ontario---------- 417,497, 498,499, 500, 546
Hon. Oscar J. Larson, M. C - 487, 968
Hon. A. C. Lewis, M. P 1124
Mr. F. J. Macy, State engineer, New York 319
Hon. Martin B. Madden, M. C 958
Capt. George H. Norton, Buffalo, N. Y___ - 279, 282
Mr. Langdon Pearse, Sanitary engineer, Of the Sanitary district_________ 1633
Hon. Henry T. Rainey, M. C 262, 563, 564, 756, 930
Mr. Horace P. Rainey, assistant chief engineer of the sanitary district__ 1537
Mr. Frederick C. Rupp, corporation Counsel, Buffalo, N. Y______________ 329
Mr. William L. Sackett, superintendent of waterways, State of Illinois 902
Hon. Frank X. Schwab, mayor, city of Buffalo, N. Y_______ 268
Mr. Frances C. Shenehon, hydraulic engineer, Minneapolis, Minn———— 1357, 1577
Mr. George E. Stephens, Secretary, Waterways Committee of the Illinois
Chamber of Commerce 752, 866
Mr. W. J. Stewart, of Ottawa, Canada 1472, 1687
Hon. Guy L. Shaw, Beardstown, Ill 466, 822, 955
Mr. E. B. Thomas, Chamber of Commerce, Cleveland, Ohio______________ 435
Hon. Edward Voigt, M. C___ º 376
Mr. Arthur W. White, hydroelectric power commission, Province of
Ontario----------------------------------------------------------- 1472
Mr. Philip P. Wells, deputy attorney general, State of Pennsylvania____ 312
Mr. George M. Wisner, general consulting engineer of the sanitary dis-
trict * - - 1594
OFFICIAL REPORTS
Secretary of War:
Quotations from order of Secretary Stimson, dated January 8,
1913 264, 543
Report of, on the Michaelson bill, quotations from 541
Quotations from reports of - ___ 561
Permits issued by, quotations from * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - 561, 562
Extract from memorandum of Secretary Stimson _ 586
Excerpts from the report of, 1916 750, 751
Order of April 9, 1901, directing that the discharge through the
Chicago River Shall not exceed 200,000 cubic feet per minute____ 1165
Order of July 23, 1901, permitting a discharge of 300,000 cubic feet
per minute between 4 p. m. and midnight 1166
Order of December 5, 1901, permitting a discharge of 250,000 cubic
feet per minute——— ___ 1166
CONTENTS y
Secretary of War—Continued. Page
Permit of January 17, 1902, for the complete improvement of Chi-
cago River - ____ 1167
Order of January 17, 1903, permitting a discharge of 350,000 cubic
feet per minute to March 31, 1903 1168
Permit issued by, May 8, 1899 - - 1210
Views on application for permit, 1912 -- 1252
Report of, on Michaelson bill, 1922 _ 1256
Statement Of, as to division of water at Niagara Falls, in 1910
treaty 1284, 1285, 1288
Memorandum for the Secretary of War concerning the diversion of
water from Lake Michigan, by Gen. W. H. Bixby, Chief of Engineers,
United States Army, February 28, 1912 728
Report upon the “Fffect of withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan by
the sanitary district of Chicago, by Col. W. H. Bixby, Corps of Engi-
neers, United States Army, May 22, 1906___ 730
Chicago River : -
Report of Major Marshall, June 24, 1896, on application to enlarge -
the channel Of 1144
Permit of Secretary of War to make change in capacity of, July
3, 1896 1145
Request of sanitary district that Secretary of War approve plans for
widening, October 28, 1897 1146
Permit of Secretary of War, November 16, 1897, to widen 1147
Permit of Secretary of War, November 30, 1899, to construct
COfferdam in - 1147
Permit of Secretary of War, January 18, 1890, to replace bridge in-- 1148
Permit of Secretary of War, March 10, 1899, to remove Taylor
Street Bridge ––. - 1149
Permit of Secretary of War, May 12, 1899, to erecet cofferdam in--- 1150
Permit of Secretary of War, May 8, 1899, to divert water from
Lake Michigan - * 1159
Resolution of the board of trustees of the sanitary district in re
use and improvement of, 1891 - 1118
Commercial statistics: -
Calumet Harbor and River 875
Chicago Harbor and River 973
Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minn. and Wis 978
Illinois and Mississippi Canal 877
Illinois River — ams ºr - 876
Wisconsin lake ports * 523, 524
Great Lakes harbors, rivers, and channels, and of Illinois water-
Ways 873
Waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River :
Excerpts from Government survey reports on 668,
669, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1179, 1180, 1196, 1197
Letter of Gen. W. H. Bixby, Chief of Engineers, dated Feb. 9, 1911,
transmitting report of the special board of engineers on waterway
from Lockport, Ill., to the Mississippi River 727
Report of the Special Board of Engineers on Waterway from Lock-
port, Ill., to mouth of Illinois River, January 23, 1911___________ 742
Act of Congress, 1822 1026
Memorial of the Illinois General Assembly, 1826– 1027
Extract from report of Maj. Stephen H. Long, 1817–1–1 ----_______ 1024
Drainage Channel and Waterway History, by G. P. Brown________ 1021
Statement of Hon. P. B. Porter, 1810 1020
Report of Albert Gallatin, 1818, Secretary of the Treasury_________ 1019
Act of Congress, 1827 1027
Act of the Illinois General Assembly, 1836 102S
Joint resolution of the Illinois Legislature, 1861 1079
Secretary of War, quotations from reports of the --___________ 1079, 1080
Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, quotations from Annual Reports of 1080,
1082, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1089, 1103, 1119
Report On Survey of Illinois River 1083
Reports of Samuel G. Artingstall on routes -- 1115, 1117
Census report showing per capita cost of municipal government in cer-
tain cities 723
VI CONTENTS
Page
Report of the Department of Commerce showing financial statistics of
the city government of Chicago, Ill 724
Mr. Isham Randolph, effect of diversion on lake levels 369
Table showing average monthly, annual, and periodic stages of Lake
Michigan at Milwaukee, Wis., 1819 to 1905 * * * 741
Excerpts from report submitted to the Department of State in 1909 in
connection With the boundary Waters treaty.------------------------ 779
Letter of the Secretary of State to Hon. Henry T. Rainey, April 23, *
1918, in regard to request for documents bearing on the negotiations
of the boundary Waters treaty–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 780
Resolution of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario - - - 992
Report of Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, 1818. quotations
from------ * * *-* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-s ºr amº ºm º ºsmºs - sºme ºss - sºme amas -s am amm, ºr ºr ºs =sº sº m sºme see smºs º-s 1019
Statement of Hon. P. B. Porter on canals and roads, 1810______________ 1020
International aspect of questions involved--------------------------- 1052
International Waterways Commission :
Reports of, quotations from------------------------------------- 1052,
1184, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279
Reports of, concerning the Chicago diversion and terms of treaty ;
O'Hanley's report to the Canadian Government, April 25, 1906__- 1298
Joint report of the commission on the conditions existing at Niagara
Falls, with recommendations------------------ sº ºn- 1303
Report of the American members, regarding the preservation of
Niagara Falls, March 19, 1906___ - - 1304
Progress report, upon the Chicago Drainage Canal by the commis-
Sion, January 4, 1907__ * me - - - –––– 1312
Report to, on the disposal of sewage of Chicago and vicinity, by
Rudolph Hering and George W. Fuller, December 8, 1906________ 1343
International Joint Commission : \
List of publications of the, relative to the pollution of boundary -
WaterS - * *- * * * *-s ºms amºe ºs º ºsmº -> *s mºs: ºss sm amº sº sº sº. º 1756
Final report on the pollution of boundary waters_________________ 1728
Proceedings before special joint committee of Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives, General Assembly of Illinois :
March 2, 1887, testimony of Rudolph Hering and Dr. John H.
*auch---------------------------------------------------- 1790, 1820
April 7, 1887, testimony of Lyman E. Cooley______________________ 1800
Welland Canal diversion-------------------------------------------- 1124
Sir Adam Beck, quotations from statements of 1124, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131
Great Lakes report of Board of Engineers, 1895, effect of the diversion
on lake levels----------------------------------------------------- 1136
Report of Maj. J. H. Willard. June 20, 1900, on the current in Chicago
River due to the flow of the drainage canal ---____________________ 1163
Letter of Major Marshall on application of sanitary district to open the
drainage canal---------------------------------------------------- 1152
Letter of Colonel Judson, May 24, 1920, regarding sewage purification__ 1198
Letter of Colonel Judson to the sanitary district and others regarding
cooperation ------------------------------------------------------- 1198
Application by sanitary district for permit in 1912, excerpts from______ 1248
Solicitor of the State Department, memorandum regarding provisions
of the treaty of 1910, excerpts from____ - - - - - - - - - - -º- ºr mºm me = <= <= = 1282, 1284
Chandler Anderson, memorandum by, concerning treaty of 1910________ 1294
Mr. Louis C. Sabin, excerpts from articles by on regulations works______ 1381
Iłegulation of lake levels: excerpts from articles on, and reports----__ 1381,
1382, 1383. 1402, 1403. 1404, 1422, 1423, 1424
F. C. Shenehon, report of on regulation of lake levels, quotations from - 1422.
1423, 1424
Welland Canal, estimated (liversion required for ---__________________ 1422
Sabin, L. C., telegram from regarding depths in Poe and Canadian locks,
Sault Ste. Marie, Mich––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1464
Niagara Falls, additional diversions at-------------------------------- 1476
War Department permits. (See Secretary of War.)
CONTENTS - VII
Page
International Joint Commission :
Quotations from treaty regarding jurisdiction Of------------------ 337
Excerpts from reports Of 494, 568, 627, 1281, 1528, 1529
Law of the Dominion of Canada of May 19, 1911, relating to the ,
establishment of, and expenses of ------------------------------ 1356
River and harbor improvement work done on Lakes Michigan, Huron,
and Erie *-ºs amº -> * - - - - - - - - * *m sºme a mºtº - - - - - - - - - - - * *-* *-* * * * - - - - - - - - 1857
Correspondence between the State Department and the British Embassy,
1924 ---------------------- * - - 1861
Treaty of 1910 on the boundary waters between the United States and
Canada ––––– - - - - - - - - -as ºs m - - - - - - - - - - - 1850
St. Lawrence waterway report, quotations from______________________ 652
St. Lawrence River :
American rights to navigation in the --_______ 1015, 1018, 1019, 1029, 1049
POWer development Om---------------- - - * - - 1129
I?egulation of, excerpt from Mr. Shenehon's report On-------------- 1401
Excerpts from Colonel Wooten's report on 1402, 1403, 1404
Excerpts from Mr. Bowden's report On------------------ 1405, 1406, 1407
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, STATEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONs
President of sanitary district of Chicago, (quotations from statement Of,
in 1911) — r—--" -* - 264
Mr. W. C. Rippin, quotation from statement by, on Mississippi River
COIn IllerCe ––––––––––––––––––– - - ––––––––––––––––––––––– : 349
Illinois tax commission, quotations from report of ----------------- 462, 463
Advertisement of the Sanitary Commission of Chicago 474
Extracts from a public statement issued by engineers of the sanitary
(listrict concerning the attorney general Of Wisconsin________________ '476
Affidavit of Charles Vandertie, Green Bay, Wis - - - - 512
Affidavit of E. J. Van Schyndle, Green Bay, Wis_______________________ 519
Affidavit of Charles Martin, Green Bay, Wis----------- - - - 519
Pamphlet entitled “Chicago and Her Neighbors—The Restoration of
Lake Levels by the Construction of Compensating Works,” issued by
the Chicago Association of Commerce - ––– 513
Engineering facts concerning the Sanitary District of Chicago---------- 525
Letter of F. H. Macy, chief, bureau of water power, New York State,
showing amount of power which could be developed on the Niagara and
St. Lawrence Rivers with 10,000 cubic second-feet of water___________ 57.1
Great Lakes Harbors Association, protest, objects and purposes of ----- 690
Correspondence between Mr. Arthur W. White, consulting engineer, hydro-
electric Power Commission of Ontario, and Messrs. C. A. Magrath and
C. D. Clark, members of the International Joint Commission-------- 686, 687
Letter of Isham Randolph, chief engineer, Sanitary District of Chicago,
to Col. W. H. Bixby, May 12, 1906, concerning the effect of the diversion
of water on the level of Lake Michigan, on the navigability of the
Chicago River, and on the current in the sanitary canal below the
Calumet Sag Channel_______ - - - * * - - - - - - - - - - - - -º- ºr ºm * - - - - - - - - 740
Iletter of the board of harbor commissioners, Milwaukee, Wis., concern-
ing the tendency of water,levels at Milwaukee--------------- -------- 725
Address by Mr. William George Bruce on “The Colossal Diversions of
Lake Waters into the Chicago Drainage Canal "--___________________ 701
Statement in regard to the Illinois River, filed by Hon. Guy L. Shaw---- 822
Resolutions of the Association of Drainage and Levee Districts of
Illinois---------------------------------- 827
Statements showing loss to property Owners on Illinois River due to di-
version of water from Lake Michigan : -
Coal Creek drainage and levee district---------------------------- 844
South Beardstown drainage and levee district-------------------- 844
Lynchburg and Sangamon Bottom drainage and levee district_____ 846
Crabtree drainage district_-__ * * = - - - - - - - - - - 7
Valley City drainage and levee district_____‘- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 848
Hillview drainage and levee district------------------------------ 848
Scott County drainage and levee district------------------------- 849
Crane Creek drainage and levee district-------------------------- 850
VIII CONTENTS
t Page
Statements of Mr. Charles W. Borgelt in regard to Mason County, Ful-
ton County, and Kerton Valley drainage district--- , - - 850
Tº showing lowest stage of Illinois River during the years 1900 to
*A*-i > . . . * ----. tº - 864
Table showing flow through Chicago Drainage Canal, 1900 to 1923_____ 864
Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, excerpts from report of - 1128,
- 1129, 1130, 1131
Sanitary District of Chicago: -
Letter to Secretary of War, June 16, 1896 1135
Application of, April 26, 1900, for permission to make alterations and
improvements in Chicago River 1161
Application of, June 7, 1900, to make changes, alterations, and im-
provements in the South Branch of Chicago River______________ 1162
Invitation to Committee on Rivers and Harbors to inspect sanitary
district 1151
Testimony of Isham Randolph regarding inspection of, by Secretary
of War and Chief of Engineers, 1898 1152
Effect of diversion on amount of cargo carried by lake vessels: -
Statement of Mr. G. A. Tomlinson, of Duluth, Minn 1758
Statement of A. E. R. Schneider, of Cleveland, Ohio - 1759.
Statement of Mr. C. J. Peck, of Cleveland, Ohio - __ 1759
Statement of R. W. England, of Cleveland, Ohio 1760
Statement of Mr. J. S. Wood, of Cleveland, Ohio 1761
Statement of Gordon B. Houseman, of Cleveland, Ohio____________ 1762
Physical deterioration and obsolescence of the bulk-freight lake vessels:
Affidavit of H. N. Herriman, of Cleveland, Ohio . 1763
Affidavit of Mr. Henry S. Pixckands, of Cleveland, Ohio----------- 1766
Affidavit of Mr. H. Coulby, of Cleveland, Ohio . --- 1769
Affidavit of Mr. John H. Smith, of Cleveland, Ohio___. 1772
Sanitary district channels: - -
Table showing flow in main channel, Sanitary District of Chicago,
1900 to 1924 --------. e
Table showing flow as computed by the sanitary district and United
States Geological Survey---- - - 1552
The Sanitary District of Chicago:
1551
Tables showing proposed construction work -- 1554, 1555
Expenditures, 1914–1922 1558.
Future constructions schedule 1559
Estimated revenue, 1923–1945–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1562, 1563
Summary of costs of sewage treatment 1564
Past and future expenditures on sewage disposal ___ 1568.
Population estimates –– -------------------- 1646
Table showing output of Lockport power plant, 1913–1923–------------ 1544
Illinois River, floods in :
Floods in Illinois, 1922, report of M. G. Barnes—
Causes of overflow in Illinois Valley–––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1568
Levee construction in Illinois Valley-------------------------- 1570
Discharge capacity of Illinois River, change in--------------- 1570
Effect of drainage canal flow on flood heights----------------- 1571
Estimated damage to the levee districts by flood of 1912, by U. S.
District Engineer ––– ºr- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1571, 1572
From report of M. G. Barnes, in “Floods in Illinois, 1922”–––––––– 1568
1570, 1571,1573
From “Engineering and Legal Aspects of Land Drainage in Illi-
nois’” by the Illinois State Geological Survey—
Present conditions in lower Illinois Valley - - 1572
Lands naturally subject to overflow - ____ 1572
Levees constructed too close to the Stream 1572
Effect of channel improvements on concentration of floods----- 1573
Mr. Edmund D. Adcock, statement by on behalf of the Sanitary District
of Chicago , 1688
Letters of the sewerage commission, City of Milwaukee, Wis–––––– 721, 722, 723
Report of Drainage and Water Supply Commission of Chicago in 1887–– 1089
CONTENTS IX
: Bage
Typhoid death rates of Gary, East Chicago, Whiting, Hammond, Chicago,
and Michigan City__ - 1232
Typhoid fever death rate, State of Indiana 1233
Hammond raw lake water, January 24–March 11, 1924 1233
Hammond chlorinated city supply, ‘January 24—March 11, 1924__________ 1234
Hammond chlorinated city supply, weekly analyses act, October, 1923–
April, 1924 * - 1234
Whiting raw lake water, January 30–March 1, 1924 1235
Whiting filtered and chlorinated city supply, January 30–March 1, 1924__ 1235
East Chicago raw lake water, January 1—March 1, 1924 1236
East Chicago filtered and chlorinated city water, January 1—March 1,
1924 - 1237
Gary raw lake water, February 1–March 1, 1924 1237
Gary chlorinated city water, February 1–March 1, 1924 1238
Typhoid fever death rates, Chicago and the Lake County (Ind.) cities__ 1232
Typhoid fever, State of Indiana 1233
Industrial wastes in relation to water supplies, by Wellington Donald-
SOI.] 1229
Cause of obnoxious tastes in Milwaukee water 1229
Hammond (Ind.), chlorinated city supply 1232
Lyman E. Cooley, report of, on dilution ratio, in Chicago Drainage Canal,
June 29, 1916 - - - 1338
Chicago Drainage and Water Supply Commission, report of, January,
1887 - - - - 1324
Dr. W. A. Evans, statement regarding health conditions 1498
Table showing death rate from typhoid fever in largest lake cities______ 1499
Table showing death rate for Chicago for certain years 1502
Table showing economic loss from typhoid fever, Chicago, 1912 to 1923–l 1508
Typhoid fever death rate of Chicago and the Lake County (Ind.), cities,
1900–1923 r 1516
Typhoid death rates in counties adjacent and tributary to the Illinois
River, 1904–1912___. - 1519
Typhoid fever mortality, ten Illinois counties, 1917—1923 - 1520
Table showing typhoid fever death rate in nine large cities____________ 1542
Sanitary District of Chicago, summary of construction costs for disposal
of Sewage by dilution - : + 1539
Charts showing death rate from typhoid and from all causes in
largest lake cities____________ - - 1503, 1504
Chart showing typhoid death rates of Chicago 1871 to 1924------------ 1505
Chart showing typhoid death rates of Chicago 1907 to 1924------------ 1506
Sewage: - t
Disposal by dilution, from Public Health Report No. 580, Janu-
ary 16, 1920 • .” 1636, 1646
Space required for treatment of, by three different systems--______ 1647
Some observations on natural purification in the Illinois River,
- by J. K. Hoskins----------------- - 1649
Testimony of George W. Fuller :
As to hygienic improvement in the Chicago water supply---------- 1658
Standing to which the drainage canal is entitled 1659
Necessity of treatment plants at Chicago 1659
Testimony of Frederie P. Stearns :
Possibility of Chicago producing another method of sewage dis-
pOSal - - - - - - - - - emº - - - - - - - - - - - - - - eme tº 1659
Present method is the only practicable and efficient method________ 1659
Illinois River :
Some observations on natural purification in the, by J. K. Hoskins— 1649
Reasons for rise and fall of fish production, by Professor Forbes——— 1652
Typhoid fever death rates, Chicago and Lake County (Ind.) cities,
1900–1923 - 1660
Water purification :
Table showing filter plant construction, 1829–1916 1655
Massachusetts policy 1658
Table showing population contiguous to Great Lakes and distribution
by treatment of water s 1661
Massachusetts policy for protecting the purity of water supplies–––––– 1658
91739–24—PT 2—2
X CONTENTS
Page
Exhibits accompanying testimony of Langdon Pearse, hearing before
º: and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C., Tuseday, May,
27, 1924:
Figure 1. Typhoid fever death rate in Chicago 1774
Figure 2. Kill of animals in Chicago : ____ 1774
Figure 3. Bacterial count in Illinois River, September, 1921------ 1774
Figure 4. Bacterial count in Illinois River, December, 1921--______ 1774
Figure 5. Dissolved oxygen Content and Oxygen demand in Illinois
River, September, 1921–––– - * - - 1774
Figure 6. Dissolved oxygen content and oxygen demand in Illinois
River, December, 1921----------------------------------------- 1774
Figure 7. Map of city of Cleveland_-____________ - - - 1774
List of tables accompanying testimony of Langdon Pearse, hearing
before Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C., Tuesday,
May 27, 1924:
Table 1. Significant dates in sewage treatment in the United States— 1775
Table 2. Population equivalents for industrial wastes_____________ 1777
Table 3. Summary on dilution ratio----------------------------- 1777
Table 4. Population estimates (given in text) 1779
Table 5. Urban population of Illinois River Valley________________ 1779
Table 6. Analysis of sources of water supplies of all towns and
Cities around Great Lakes---------- 1779
Table 7. Typhoid fever death rate per 100,000 population. Cities
of over 100,000 population in Great Lakes region________________ 1780
Table 8. Typhoid fever death rate per 100,000 poulation. Cities of
Over 100,000 population in Great Lakes region. Five-year period
8 Vel’8.36°S.––––––––––– --- * - m - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1780
Table 9. Information on water supply and sewerage of cities in the
United States containing over 100,000 population 1781
Table 10. Expenditures for sites for sewage-treatment works up
to 1924 -* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1790
Table showing the combined yearly charges per capita for water and
sewage works in American cities_______ 1751
Table showing typhoid death rates in cities and towns. On the Great
Lakes, 1903–1916 - - - - 1740
Brief description of methods, processes, and structures used in the treat.
ment and disposal of sewage in the United States, by Sanitary engi-
neers of the United States Public Health Service 1707
Dilution factor for raw sewage data from 1889 to 1924________________ 1831
The sewage-treatment problem in the United States from the standpoint
of sludge, 1922------------------------------------- 1836
The Sanitary District of Chicago, table showing sources of industrial
Wastes on Illinois River–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1848
Historical data on dilution factor used in enabling act of the Sanitary
District of Chicago, Computed by Langdon Pearse 1824
Engineering data available to the legislative committee at Springfield,
Ill., in 1887, by Langdon Pearse - - 1825
Summary of sanitary data of the Sanitary District of Chicago---------- 1846
Chronology of the modern waterworks, particularly relating to the high
points in the development of water purification______________________ 1848
Lists of witnesses present------------------------------------------ 430, 498
Letter of J. Horace McFarland, American Civic Association____________ 392
Letter of Mr. L. G. Dafor, Alpena, Mich------------------------------- 446
Resolution of the Buffalo (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce_______________ 276
Letter of the city engineer of Buffalo, N. Y____ - - - 311
Hon. Newton D. Baker, letter from, to the president of the Cleveland
(Ohio) Chamber of Commerce-------------------------------------- 1757
Letter of Robert Young, local manager Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co.,
Chicago, Ill-------------------------------- *- - -
Editorial printed in the Prairie Farmer, of Chicago, Ill- 466
Report of the committee on river and harbor improvement of the Cleve-
land Chamber of Commerce entitled “Chicago v. Two Nations ".______ 437
Telegram of the mayor of Charlevoix, Mich––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 444
Telegram from the mayor and citizens of Chillicothe, Ill., and vicinity-– 432
Chicago Medical Society, resolutions of ---------------- - - - - -, 1534
("ON TENT'S XI
Pagéſ
Resolution of the Chicago (Ill.) District Ice Association--------------- 1871
Resolution of the Common council, Detroit, Mich----------------------- 387
Resolution of the Duluth (Minn.) Chamber of Commerce--------------- 977
Letter from the Duluth (Minn.) Board of Trade----------------------- 976
Resolution of the East Cleveland (Ohio), City Commission---------- 1871
Telegram of the mayor of Frankfort, Mich - * * * * me - smº - - - - - - - * * * * * * - - 445
Telegram of the city manager, Escanaba, Mich. - - ––– 445
Letter of the city manager, Grand Haven, Mich.---------------------- 447
Resolution, Green Bay (Wis.) Association of Commerce-------------- 510
Iletters Of special Committee of Great Lakes-Ocean Waterway Association
of Green Bay, Wis.----------------------------------------------- 511
Illustrations, Great Lakes System_______________ ____ 1448
Illinois State Medical Society, letter from - - - - - -: * * - - - - - - - - - --> --> * - - - - 1534
Telegram of the Henry (Ill.) Kiwanis Club public affairs committee__ 432
Telegram Of John R. Paskell, mayor, Henry, Ill.---------------------- 432
Letter of the city clerk, Harbor Beach, Mich.------------------------ 445
Statement by the Henry (Ill.) Kiwanis Club_________________________ 683
Telegram from Henry (Ill.) Kiwanis Club, May 1, 1924________________ 821
Telegram of the La Salle Chamber of Commerce_-____________________ 432
Telegram of Dr. R. L. Eddington, alderman. Lacon, Ill. ---------______ 432
Resolution of the Lakewood (Ohio) City Council______________________ 1871
Resolution, the Board of Commerce, Lockport, N. Y.--______________ 388
Telegram of Mr. Benjamin Gero, Manistique, Mich—— --- 445
Resolutions of the Manitowoc (Wis.). Common Council_______________ 682
Petition of citizens of the State of Michigan------------------------ 449
ReSolution of the city Council, Menominee, Mich.---------------------- 444
Letter of the president. Menominee (Mich.) Chamber of Commerce______ 388
Letters of Managers of Shippings Associations, Marshall and Putnam
Counties, Ill.------------------------------------------------------ 433
Telegram of the mayor of Muskegon, Mich--------____________________ 444
Letter of the mayor of Manistique, Mich -- 445
Resolution Of Milwaukee Harbor and Rivers Association_______________ 523
Brief by Hon. David W. Hoan, mayor, Milwaukee, Wis________________ 715
Editorial printed in the Milwaukee Journal__________________________ 475
Resolutions of Kiwanis Club, of Milwaukee, Wis 522
Telegram of the mayor and Common Council, Manitowoc, Wis__________ 389
Protest of Milwaukee Harbor and River Association, Kiwanis Club, and
Coal Distributing Interests of Milwaukee, Wis______________________ 520
Protest of Lehigh Valley Sales Co., Milwaukee, Wis 524
Protest of the Representatives in Congress from Minnesota____________ 969
Letter of Mr. Walter McCulloh, president, Niagara Falls (N. Y.)
Chamber of Commerce--------------------------------------------- 389
Report and resolutions of the Merchants' Association of New York____ 1868
Protest of the State of New York against H. R. 6475 ___ 579
Resolution of the New York Produce Exchange 681
Letter from Mr. Olin H. Landreth, New York City - 1864
Letter of Mr. Thomas Spratt, Ogdensburg, N. Y. º 324
Brief of Messrs. Thomas Spratt and George E. Wan Kennen, Ogdens-
burg, N. Y. 328
Telegram of Kiwanis Club, of Ottawa. Ill - - - ____ 433
Telegram of the Ottawa (Ill.) Chamber of Commerce_-_______________ 433
Letter from William R. Cone, Peoria, Ill 681
Protest of Port Huron Chamber of Commerce------------------------ 680
Letter from Mr. S. F. McGrath, Peoria, Ill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 683
Letter of the mayor of Petoskey, Mich ____ 448
Letter from the Superior (Wis.) Civic and Commerce ASSOciation______ 683
Letter of the Chamber of Commerce, Sebewaing, Mich----------------- 448
Letter of the village president, Sebewaing, Mich----------------------- 448
Letter of the mayor of St. Ignace, Mich------------------------------ 446
Telegram of the mayor and town authorities, Sparland. Ill-––––––––––– 432
Resolution, of the city commission, Sandusky, Ohio- ___ 389
Local manager Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co., South Chicago. Ill.,
letter of Mr. Chas. F. Miller----------------------------- —e - - - - - - - - - - 3.11.
Resolution of the City Council of Superior, Wis---------------------- 681
Resolution of the Sandusky (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce------------ 726
XII CONTENTS
. . . Page
Letter from the Edison Sault Eleetric Co., Sault Ste. Marie, Mich---- 680
Statement of Mr. G. A. Tomlinson, Duluth, Minn., as to effect of diver- *
Sion on amount of cargo carried by lake vessels—: 1759
Chamber of Commerce of Tonawanda, N. Y., letter from __ .277
Letter of the Tonawanda (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce * 277
Treaty of 1910, quotations from - 501,
º 505, 506, 557, 558, 559, 565,627,628,629
Resolution, City Council of Toledo, Ohio • - # 685
Protest from State of Wisconsin against diversion——. ––– 376–377
Resolutions, Issac Walton League of America 509
Resolution of the Wisconsin delegation in the House of Representatives,
United States 376
Sanitary District of Chicago, newspaper articles by:
The Chicago Herald and Examiner 572
The Detroit NewS 574
MAPS
Plate 84.—Foot of Lake Erie and head of Niagara River Showing location
of proposed regulation works.
Plate 85.-Lake Erie Regulating Works, masonry and Superstructure.
Plate 86.-Lake Erie Regulating Works, sluice gate and counterweight.
Plate 87.—Lake Erie Regulating Works, hoisting gear for sluice gates.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, AND DIVERSION
OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
House, OF REPRESENTATIVES,
- Tuesday, April 15, 1934.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a.m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, the first question which we will
have to examine here this morning is the order in which the various
parties interested are to be heard, and the committee naturally
wants to make it as convenient as it can consistent with our making
progress. This is going to be a long hearing. What the committee
would like to know first is who is ready to be heard and in what
Order you want to be heard, and then we will make our disposition
as to how you shall be heard.
Mr. BRUCE. We have a number of people here that want to be
heard to-morrow. The first three days of the hearings were given
the proponents of the Hull bill. On the fourth day I think about
two hours were given to the opposition. The opposition is prepared,
will be fully prepared, on to-morrow ; and I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman, this: It was understood at the close of the last hearing
that the Chicago people had two more points to submit, and I would
urge very earnestly that the committee give time to the opposition
beginning to-morrow. We have some important people here that can
not remain more than a day, and we can make our beginning to-
morrow morning, if that is agreeable to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Who wants to be heard to-day? Who is ready
this morning?
The hearing was set for this morning, and we have got a good
attendance here. Who is ready to be heard?
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, as I understood it, the other day when
we adjourned I made the motion that at 10 o’clock on the 15th, the
day we would adjourn to, we would hear the opposition of Mr. Bruce,
and we are here to hear him. We have no witnesses to come until
you are through.
Mr. BRUCE. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, we will be ready to
proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. We do not want to force you to proceed if it is
inconvenient; we want to convenience everybody. I understand the
people from Erie are here this morning. Do they wish to be heard?
I had a telephone message, saying that they would be here.
Mr. BRUCE. Some Erie people are here, and the attorneys general
from Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York are here. We are pre-
pared to begin our case, but we understood Chicago had two more
261
262 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. *
things to present. One was her inability, from the taxation point
of view, to erect modern sewage plants, and the other was the ques-
tion of compensating works. I would suggest that we begin the
opposition to-morrow morning.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that the sanitary district would
want to be heard during this hearing, and it is only a question here
of convenience. *
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, as I understood it—I am not repre-
senting the Chicago end of it—but as I understood it Mr. Bruce was
here to testify with his people, and we had to delay because of Mr.
Newton’s bill, and in deference to that, if you will recall, I made a
motion that we would meet here to-day. He asked for eight hours,
to begin at 10 o’clock this morning. I do not even know whether
Chicago wants to present anything or not, but I think it is no more
than right for Mr. Bruce to put in his evidence.
Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Chairman, I have some gentlemen here who
want to be heard on that bill, including myself, and the matter we
want to present deals to a certain degree with the lake cities and
the international question, as well as the valley situation, and so
we would prefer, if it meets with the approval of the committee,
to present my bill and the matter it pertains to after we have heard
from the lake cities and their opposition to the diversion, and also
the representatives of the Canadian Government, if any are here. I
think it will greatly shorten my presentation if we can take it up at
that time. -
The CHAIRMAN. I think the way the committee is going to regard
this matter is this: This is not a lawsuit; and we are not going to re-
gard the technical order of proof. We are going to take all the proof,
and I am already advised that an adjournment will be asked by
parties who are not in physical condition to be here, but I do not
think it is so important in what order the proof is heard, except to
convenience those who are attending this hearing. We want to make
it as convenient as we can for .# who are here and for all who
come here, and we will try to deal with it in that way. I think we
ought to start with somebody who is ready.
Mr. BRUCE. We are ready to start.
Mr. RAINEY. May I suggest this? It would suit our convenience
to present it at the time I have indicated, if it suits the convenience
of the committee. te
The CHAIRMAN. As I say, I think we will make our decision as
to the order just as far as we can to suit the convenience of gentle-
men like yourself. If you have some one who is ready, Mr. Bruce,
we will proceed.
Mr. BRUCE. Then, I would like to ask what we really have before
us? We understand that the Hull bill has been withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. No; that is not true. The situation has not
changed, so far as these hearings are concerned. The situation as
to the Hull bill is it is in the same position as before, but on the
motion of Mr. Hull the committee asked for some additional in-
formation from the Board of Engineers. That does not have any
bearing upon this hearing except that that report, when it comes in,
will be evidence, as all of the other proof will be evidence, but we
are not waiting on this hearing for that evidence. That will come
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 263
in time, as fast as the engineers can conveniently compile it, and it
will be considered when it reaches us. That has nothing to do with
the bill. It is simply some evidence as to the bill. -
Mr. BRUCE. Inasmuch as the proponents are not going to appear
now and present, as we understood, the balance of their story, we
will ask Attorney General Dougherty, of Michigan, to present the
legal phases of these several bills.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW B. DOUGHERTY, ATTORNEY GEN-
ERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. DOUGHERTY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
it will not take me long, I think, to say to you what the position of
the State of Michigan in relation to this proposed legislation, the
Hull bill or any bill of a kindred nature, is. I have prepared and
will read it.
The State of Michigan is vitally interested in any legislation by
Congress affecting the Great Lakes. With its 1,624 miles of shore
line on navigable waters, the State occupies a unique position with
reference to commerce and navigation. And as the shipping in-
terests of the State are affected or injured so is the public in general
of the United States affected or injured for the reason that the
Great Lakes carry a large and important portion of the tonnage of
industry, mining, and agriculture consumed in this country.
Over 10 years ago it was said by the Hon. Henry Stimson, Secre-
tary of War, that the United States had then improved about 106
harbors and rivers on the Great Lakes and expended on such im-
provements over $90,000,000; that the Canadian Government had
improved over 50 harbors on Georgian Bay and Lakes Huron, St.
Clair, Erie, and Ontario; that the enormous lake traffic using the
lake harbors and connecting rivers were increasing with great
rapidity both in gross volume and in the size and average draft of
the vessels employed; that to lower the water surface 6 inches would
reduce the permissible load of a large modern vessel from 300 to
550 tons with a consequent loss of from $3,500 to $7,500 in freights
for such vessel per season. r
Mr. McDUFFIE. Is that the statement of the former Secretary of
War to the effect that it would lower the water 5 or 6 inches, or is
that your conclusion? +
The CHAIRMAN. No; he is still reading from the report of the
Secretary of War. * 4
Mr. Doug HERTY. No: not all of it. I did not expect to come on
this morning or I would have had that statement of Mr. Stimson.
I will furnish that for the committee later, and that can be adduced
more fully, perhaps, by the representatives of the lake carriers who
are here, but I think there is no dispute about the correctness of that.
The lowering of lake levels will also seriously affect the privately
owned docks, elevators, warehouses, railroad lines, and many other
constructions built to take the ship lake tonnage. These many in-
dustries and constructions were built upon established real estate
lines and water levels, and any change in either will naturally re-
sult in immeasurable losses. The same losses will also result to the
lake resorts and beaches with which Michigan is especially endowed.
264 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The Hull bill (H. R. 5475) would authorize the
Sanitary District of Chicago or its legal successor' to withdraw from Lake
Michigan * * * an amount not to exceed an average of 10,000 cubic feet
of water per second per day. -
As showing the effect of withdrawing that amount of water from
the Great Lakes we desire to call attention to the order of Hon.
Henry L. Stimson as Secretary of War, made January 8, 1913,
wherein he says:
Careful observations and calculations conducted under the offices of the
United States Lake Survey and reported through the Chief of Engineers,
Covering Observations for the last 46 years, indicate that withdrawal of
10,000 cubic feet per Second would reduce levels at various places as follows:
* Inches
Lakes Huron and Michigan---- 6.9
Lake St. Clair 6. 3
Lake Erie 5.4
Lake Ontario - * -- 4.5
St. Lawrence River, at Rapide Plat 4, 8–H
The foregoing effects would be produced at mean lake levels; the lowering
effects would be much greater at low-water periods—the precise time when
any additional shortage would be most keenly felt. This reduction would
Create substantial injury in all of the American harbors of the Great Lakes
and in the St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers. It would produce equal
injury in Canadian harbors on the Great Lakes, and a still greater injury on
the lower St. Lawrence, the Canadian Officials claiming a probable lowering
effect of 12 inches at Montreal at low water.
Nor should we be justified in thinking that the Chicago district
will be satisfied with an abstraction of 10,000 cubic feet per second.
The enormous growth in population of that district warrants the
assertion that instead of the legalized 10,000 cubic feet per second,
which they ask, they will require a much larger amount in the
future. As proof of this assertion we respectfully call attention
to the words of the president of the sanitary district, when in 1911
he said:
I am of the opinion that the presumption that Our water supply is to be
limited to 10,000 cubic feet per second or 600,000 cubic feet per minute is
gratuitous and mischievous, and should not be voiced by the officials of this
district; I believe that we should have the volume requisite to our needs as
they appear and are justified. º -
We are confronted at the outset of consideration of this project
with claims of an entirely different character. On the one hand is
the claim of sanitation, of interest to a single community; on the
other is the claim of navigation, carrying with it the broad interest
of the Nation’s commerce. On the one hand a substantial benefit
secured by inflicting on the other a substantial loss and injury.
The State of Michigan would rejoice with the Chicago district if
its stupendous sanitary system could function without injuring
seriously other public interests. We would be glad to see the dis-
trict legalized in its efforts to secure proper sanitary drainage if
it could be accomplished without endangering and possibly destroy-
ing immeasurable amounts of property and property rights. We
are convinced, however, from a careful study of the entire situation
that the damage to follow the lowering of lake levels to aid in the
sanitation project will not be worth the price.
Michigan, as every other State, must stand as guardian of the
interests of the public. It is in duty bound to preserve to the public
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 265.
the use of its navigable waters from interruption and encroachment.
It is the owner of these waters, subject only to Federal control for
purposes of navigation. The character of the State's ownership in
the waters of the Great Lakes is the full proprietary right. Such
proprietary ownership demands that Michigan shall announce its
position, its duties, and obligations incident to the trust imposed,
and seriously and vigorously oppose any plan or scheme so fraught
with danger and disaster to the rights of the public in general.
There should be a comprehensive study of the rights, duties, bene-
fits, and injuries which will inevitably follow if the legislation here
proposed will permit this community project to forever impair,
injure, and possibly destroy great natural highways of commerce.
The position in which the interested States find themselves is
strengthened by a long course of decisions of the appellate courts
wherein it has always been held that ownership and proprietorship
of navigable waters vests entirely in the several States, subject only
to control by the United States for purposes of navigation. This
was the common-law rule in England, adopted in this country, and
promulgated by the many decisions of superior courts. A few se-
lective authorities showing the establishment of this rule are here
appended: -
The right of the United States in the navigable waters within the several
States is limited to the control thereof for purposes of navigation. Subject
to that right Washington became upon its organization as a State the owner
Of the navigable waters within its boundaries and of the land under the
same. * * * The character of the State's ownership in the land and in the
waters is the full proprietary right. (Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington
R. Co., 255 U. S. 63, 65 L. Ed. 506.)
In this country every body of water which is navigable in the technical
sense is incapable of private ownership, and the State owns all such waters
in trust for all the people. - 4
The CHAIRMAN. That was held, General, in that “Long Sault”
case in the State of New York.
Mr. DoughERTY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. As against an effort to change the course of the
stream.
Mr. DoughERTY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. It was going to improve navigation, but at the
same time the Supreme Court held that they had no power to deal
with private parties as to the ownership of navigable waters.
Mr. Doug HERTY. In this connection and as showing a limitation
upon the power of the States over the waters within its borders as
affected by vested rights therein of other States, the case of Kansas
v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46, 51 L. Ed. 956, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655) is
controlling. It is there held that one State may not unreasonably
appropriate the waters of a river within its borders to the injury of
another State through which such river flows; and in determining
the question of reasonableness of the diversion of water by a State
where the rights of another State are affected, the court will give
due consideration to the interests of both States.
A State has the right to control and regulate the public use of
, the navigable waters within its limits subject only to restraints upon
the right arising out of the power of Congress over commerce.
(People v. Williams, 65 Cal. 498, 2 Pac. 393.)
266 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
. The waters of the Great Lakes are so far a part of the States bor-
dering upon them that the area of a county under the water is to be
considered in determining whether or not the counties bordering
upon the water contain the constitutional number of square miles.
(State ex rel Powers v. Larrabee, 1 Wis, 200.)
In Martin v. Waddell (41 U. S. 16 Pet. 367 (10: 997)) it was held that when
the American Revolution was concluded the people of each State became them-
Selves sovereigns and in that character held the absolute right to all their
navigable Waters and the soils under them for their own common use, subject
Only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution to the General Gov-
ernment. * * *
In Pollard v. Hagan (44 U. S. 3 How. 212 (11 : 565) ) the question arose in
regard to the rights of the State of Alabama in the shores of navigable waters
and the Soils under them within her limits. * * * It was held that the
Government of the United States did not possess any more power over the
navigable Waters of Alabama than it possessed over the navigable waters of
Other States under the provisions of the Constitution, and that Alabama had
as much power Over those navigable waters as the original States possessed
Over the navigable waters within their respective limits. It was also held that
the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them were not granted by
the Constitution of the United States but were reserved to the States respec-
tively, and the new States had the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction
Over the subject as the original States. (St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.
ºv. Board of Water Comrs., 168 U. S. 356, 42 L. Ed. 501.) e *
In the case of Ods v. Commissioner of State Land Office (150
Mich. 134) the Supreme Court of Michigan held that lands which
were in 1837 a part of the bed of one of the Great Lakes passed to
the State in fee by virtue of the State's admission into the Union in
that year, and that the swamp land act of 1850 (9 U. S. Statutes,
519) had no effect upon the title to such lands. This opinion quotes
from the case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (146 U. S.
887), and the following language held applicable:
The Great Lakes are not in any appreciable respect affected by the tide, and
yet On their Waters a large commerce is carried on, exceeding in many instances
the entire commerce of the States on the borders of the sea. * * * By the
Common law the doctrine of the dominion over and ownership by the Crown
of lands within the realm under tidewaters is not founded upon the existence
Of the tide over the lands but upon the fact that the waters are navigable,
“tidewaters ” and “navigable waters ” being used as synonymous terms in
England. The public being interested in the use of such waters, the possession
of private individuals of lands under them could not be permitted except by
license of the Crown, which could alone exercise such dominion over these
Waters as WOuld insure freedom in their use so far as consistent with the
public interest. The doctrine is founded upon the necessity of preserving to
the public the use of navigable waters from private interruption and encroach-
ment, a reason as applicable to navigable fresh waters as to waters moved hy
the tide.
The question of the State’s acquiescence in the taking of water
from Lake Michigan by the Chicago district can not be set up as an
estoppel. No limitation could be urged against the State standing
as a trustee of an express trust. We quote from a recent decision of
the Supreme Court of Michigan:
Counsel assert plaintiff has title to the disputed strip by adverse possession.
This question was raised and settled adversely to plaintiff's contention in State
v. Venice of American Land Co. (160 Mich. 680). It was there said by Mr.
Justice Stone, who wrote the opinion, that—
“An exhaustive discussion of the nature of the State's title to land beneath
the waters of the Great Lakes and of the question whether any part of such
territory can be acquired as against the State by adverse possession will be
found in the minority opinion of Justice Hooker in the last above case. (State
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 267
v. Fishing & Shooting Club, 127 Mich. 580.) It there clearly appears from an
abundance of authority that title to submerged lands in the Great Lakes held
by the State can not be divested by adverse possession, it being held in trust
for the public, according to the original cession from Virginia and the ordi-
nances of 1787. The late case of Illinois Steel Co. v. Billot (109 Wis. 418.
84 N. W. 855, 85 N. W. 402, 83 Am. St. Rep. 905) supports this view. (Olds v.
Commissioner of State Land Office, 150 Mich. 134 ; Ainsworth v. Hunting &
Fishing Club, 159 Mich. 61.) -
“The questions of water line and estoppel are answered by the above
authorities.
“The trust in the State is an express trust, and the rule is too well settled
to need citation of authorities that, as against the State as the trustee of an
express trust, the statute of limitations will not run. (1 Cyc., p. 1113, and
cases cited.)” (Kavanaugh v, Rabior, 222 Mich. 68.)
Michigan upon being admitted to full rights of statehood acquired
a proprietary ownership in all such waters in the Great Lakes within
the boundary lines of the State as then established (27 R. C. L.
1356), to be held in trust by the State of Michigan for all the in-
habitants of the State for the protection of the rights of navigation
and other public uses (27 R. C. L. 1367).
As such owner in trust of the waters of the Great Lakes within
its boundaries, the State of Michigan is entitled at all times to have
all waters coming naturally to it, yielding only to the demands of
public commercial necessity as asserted by appropriate congressional
action. (27 R. C. L. 1071.)
These waters being of a wandering, transient nature, the right of
any one State therein must be exercised in connection with its effect
upon the vested rights of other sovereignties. The power of any
State over the waters of the Great Lakes within its borders is limited
by vested rights of any other State in these waters, and one State
may not unreasonably appropriate these waters to the injury of any
such other State. (27 R. C. L. 1126; Kansas v. Colorado, 206
U. S. 46.)
Another question of Supreme importance suggests itself. From a
careful consideration of the facts advanced by the proponents of
this legislation it will be apparent that the real purpose and object
to be accomplished is not, as expressed in the title, “For the improve-
ment of commerce and navigation, etc.,” but the real goal sought is
some sort of congressional action which will legalize the abstraction
of an enormous quantity of water from Lake Michigan for two other
purposes, viz: First, to carry away sanitary sewage and, second, to
build and operate commercial power plants. Both of these objects
are purely domestic, affecting only the State of Illinois and the Chi-
cago district, and are in no wise connected with the improvement
of commerce and navigation. If, however, it should be said that a
navigable canal might be constructed, can it reasonably be said that
commerce and navigation has been “improved ” if we consider the
irreparable loss and permanent injury to commerce and navigation
on the Great Lakes? We seriously doubt if Congress would consider
for one moment the legalizing of an improvement of that character
at the expense of the great natural waterways of commerce of the
Great Lakes and their natural navigable tributaries.
Any legislation having for its object the improvement of health
conditions in the sanitary district is purely domestic and does not
present a proper subject of action for Congress. The regulation of
health measures has always been promulgated under the police power
268 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
yested in the several States. No direct general power over such sub-
jects has ever been granted to Congress, and they remain, therefore,
under the Supervision of the legislatures of the States.
In Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 203) Chief Justice Marshall, speaking of
inspection laws passed by the States, says: “They form a portion of that
immense mass of legislation which controls everything within the territory of
a State not Surrendered to the General Government, all which can be most
advantageously administered by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quar-
antine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the
internal Commerce of a State and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries,
etc., are component parts. No direct general power over these objects is
granted to Congress, and consequently they remain subject to State legislation.”
The exclusive authority of State legislation over this subject is strikingly
illustrated in the case of N. R. v. Miln (11 Pet. 102). In that case the defend-
ant Was prosecuted for failing to comply with a statute of New York which
required every master of a vessel arriving from a foreign port into that of
New York City to report the names of all his passengers, with certain particu-
lars of their age, Occupation, last place of settlement, and place of their birth.
It was argued that this act was, an invasion of the exclusive right of Congress
to regulate Commerce. And it can not be denied that such a statute operated
at least indirectly upon the commercial intercourse between the citizens of the
United States and of foreign countries. But, notwithstanding this, it was held
to be an exercise of the police power properly within the control of the States
and unaffected by the clause of the Constitution which conferred on Congress
the right to regulate commerce. (Slaughterhouse cases, 83 U. S. 16, 21 L. ed.
404.)
In a recent case the United States Supreme Court held that an act
of Congress which attempted to regulate interstate commerce with
reference to goods manufactured in a factory employing children of
certain ages was not a real and good-faith attempt to regulate com-
merce, but was aimed at the employment of children in certain fac-
tories, which was of domestic concern only and was not a proper
subject of legislation by Congress. The following brief quotation is
given from the opinion in the celebrated child-labor case:
In our view the necessary effect of this act is, by means of a prohibition
against the movement in interState COmmerce Of Ordinary commercial COm-
modities, to regulate the hours of labor of children in factories and mines
within the States—purely State authority. Thus the act, in a twofold sense, is
repugnant to the Constitution. It not only transcends the authority delegated
to Congress Over commerce, but also exerts a power as to a purely local matter
to which the Federal authority does not extend. (Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247
U. S. 276, 62 L. ed. 1107.)
It will readily be seen from the authorities above quoted that in
construing legislation such as here proposed the courts will go back
of the act to determine its real purpose and ascertain its real effect.
When these are found to be contrary to the expressed title of the
act and to the Federal Constitution, all such legislation is immedi-
ately rejected.
The position of the State of Michigan upon the bill now under
consideration is as follows:
1. The State in its Sovereign capacity is the owner and proprietor
of all the navigable waters of the Great Lakes and their natural
navigable tributaries. t
2. The State is a trustee of the public's interest in all such navi-
gable waters and acts as such trustee for the benefit of the public in
general and for the interests of the State as a sovereign. *
3. The public, the Sovereign State, and all riparian owners ar
entitled to the full flow of their navigable waters in their natural
state.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 269
4. No person or sovereign has the right to diminish or increase
the natural flow to the detriment of any other State or of the public
in general or to the detriment of any riparian owner.
5. The taking of water by the sanitary district lowers the level of
such navigable waters and thereby injures commerce and navigation,
including property, built on the shores of such waters and used for
commerce and navigation; it also injures other properties of ripa-
rian owners; it also injures vested rights of the sovereign State in
its ownership of such waters independent of its interest in commerce.
6. Laches, estoppel, limitation, or acquiescence can not be urged.
As trustee of an express trust the State is not subject to those doc-
trines.
7. The real purpose of the bill is to legalize the abstraction of
such waters for sanitary purposes. Congress is without authority
to legislate on this subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to call my attention to
one authority there? I followed all you said very closely, but I
think there was one authority quoted which dealt with the ques-
tion of how the rights of the States between themselves were affected;
that is about a third of the way through your brief. I wonder if
you can turn to that case? If so, I would just like to see it a
moment.
Mr. DoughERTY (reading):
In this connection and as showing a limitation upon the power of the State
over the waters within its borders as affected by vested rights therein of other
States, the case of Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46) is controlling.
Was that the reference?
The CHAIRMAN. I think so. *
Mr. KINDRED. While we have the Attorney General present and
have the opportunity to get his best opinion, which I respect most
highly, on one phase of the matter which he has referred to, I would
like to ask him this brief question, if it will not take too long in his
opinion or in the opinion of the chairman to answer the question.
If it does take too long, I will withdraw it. You have referred to
your wish and to the wish of other States who are now opposing
relief for Chicago with reference to its sewage disposal, to have
legalized any measures that would give relief to the serious question
of sewage disposal in the city of Chicago. Would you mind stat-
ing, if you can in a few words, how you would recommend legaliza-
tion of such rights?
The CHAIRMAN. If you will permit me to intervene, I think the
general's whole brief is based upon the fact that Congress has no
authority to do it, and, of course, it is Congress for which this hear-
ing is being held. The general might point out some other way
which, by agreement between the States—I do not know whether
that could be done or not.
Mr. Doug HERTY. I do not know whether that would be practicable
or not. It is an unfortunate situation. It is the old doctrine of
State rights.
The CHAIRMAN. So far as the United States is concerned, it ha
no authority to legalize. -
Mr. KINDRED. But in view of the fact that it is a situation that
exists and not a theory which confronts Chicago, I would like to
have some practical suggestion for relief. While I respect the sound-
270 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ness of the general's opinion as to State rights, we would like to have
his opinion on that. - -
Mr. Doug HERTY. I think that this matter, as it now stands, ought
to be left in the courts. The courts will protect the health of the
people of Chicago. Chicago is a wealthy city and can provide for
the disposal of her sanitation by modern, Scientific methods, and I
believe will have to come to it. -
Mr. KINDRED. That will require a long time, will it not?
Mr. Doug HERTY. That will require a long time, and I seriously
object to the passing of any bill setting a time limit on that. It will
add more laws, more things to litigate; but if it is left to the courts,
the courts can see that the health of the people is protected and can
see that Chicago moves with reasonable promptness in adjusting
herself to conditions. * t
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that question of the length of time and
the scientific and engineering questions are questions for experts,
and we will have experts on i. branch of the question. What the
general is addressing himself to is the legal question involved, and
what he says to us in a brief way is that Congress has no power to
deal with the problem presented.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Mr. HULL. From Chairman Dempsey’s statement do I understand
that you claim that Congress can not legislate as to the diversion in
Chicago?
Mr. Doug HERTY. Absolutely.
Mr. HULL. That is your objection?
Mr. Doug HERTY. That is my claim; and I think the State of
Michigan, if it becomes necessary, will assert that and try to main-
tain it.
The CHAIRMAN. General, here is, it seems to me, the crux of your
case as I caught it when you read your brief:
In this connection and as showing a limitation upon the power of the
State Over the waters within its borders as affected by vested rights therein

of other States, the case of Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46, 51 L. Ed. 956,
27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655), is controlling.
Now, here is what it comes to:
It is there held that One State may not unreasonably appropriate the waters
of a river within its borders, to the injury of another State through which
Such river flows; and in determining the question of reasonableness of the
diversion of water by a State where the rights of another State are affected,
the court will give due consideration to the interest of both States.
That is probably nearer your question than anything else?
Mr. DoughERTY. It gets right back to the proposition that all
lawyers are familiar with, with the common-law doctrine of diver-
sion. Everybody on the Great Lakes is entitled to a reasonable
share of the water for domestic and similar purposes, but if they
take from the stream or from the lake so much, they must, after
they are through with it, return it without unreasonable diminution.
#. CHAIRMAN. Right there, have you any authority on this
Question that if water is taken from a stream by one of several
States appropriating it that it must be returned to the stream?
Mr. Doug HERTY. I do not think so. I think that that is probably
a pioneer assertion of the doctrine.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 271
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DoughERTY. But it has not been litigated.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you say is that the principle
is laid down in the Kansas case and that I am asking for the devel-
opment of the principle here?
Mr. DoughERTY. Yes; and it has not come on.
The CHAIRMAN. And you consider that the principle is firmly
established?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. I think so.
The CHAIRMAN. But that all deductions and all illustrations of the
principle and particularly the one involved here has not as yet been
before the courts?
Mr. Doug HERTY. The courts have not asserted their rights.
Mr. Boy CE. Mr. Chairman—
The CHAIRMAN. Judge i3oyce.
Mr. BOYCE. In that connection may I inquire, Is it the contention
that the Congress of the United States can not divert water from
one navigable body of water into another for transportation and com-
mercial purposes? *
Mr. DOUGHERTY. For transportation and commercial purposes?
Mr. BOYCE. Yes.
Mr. Doug|HERTY. I think that would follow. I think that it would
follow that under the commerce clause of the Constitution the Con-
gress is given full power to regulate and protect navigation, but I
think that all the water in a system must be used, even if used by the
Federal Government, for the protection and the improvement of that
system. I do not think that anybody has any authority to take water
from the Great Lakes and put it into the Mississippi system.
Mr. HULL. It is admitted by the sanitary district and yourself
and everybody at this time there are about 7,500 cubic feet of water
going from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River and through the
Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. That is admitted generally,
isn’t it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. At least that much. I understood, when I was
here about four weeks ago, it was about 10,000 feet, but I do not
know.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Eight thousand four hundred feet, to be exact.
Mr. HULL. We will take it for granted, just for the sake of the
proposition, that it is 7,500. This has been going through for 10
years. Do you mean to say that the Congress of the United States
can not still give them the privilege of continuing the same amount
of water if they so desire for the purpose of transportation ?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes, sir: I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the development of that, General, what you
have stated is that the question whether it has been diverted for one
or a hundred years is not in point %
Mr. Doug HERTY. It is immaterial, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Because the State holds the water in trust for its
people, no statute of limitations would run against it !
Mr. DOUGHERTY. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And it has no effect upon the question {
Mr. Doug HERTY. It has no application.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you have in mind, Mr. Boyce, any authority
on this question?
272 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BOYCE. No.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Would you say that Congress has no power to
legislate upon this subject?
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'Connor. Then, suppose the State of Illinois should divert
7,500 feet per second, the only relief that the other States would
have would be a suit in the United States Supreme Court to sus-
tain it. How long would it take to get a decision to prevent Illi-
nois from doing this?
Mr. Doug HERTY. I do not know.
Mr. O'Connor. Seventeen years?
Mr. Doug HERTY. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding of the law is that the Supreme
Court of the United States is the court—I will say a court, not the
court—of original jurisdiction in suits between States?
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. So you can institute your suit directly in the Su-
preme Court of the United States if you care to?
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes; which Wisconsin has done.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is also the practice of the court
Mr. Doug HERTY (interposing). To make those cases special.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; to make those cases special.
Mr. Doug HERTY. And I do not think the Government of the
United States would stand for any such thing.
Mr. HULL. You have been 15 years on this one, haven’t you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. No.
Mr. HULL. I understand that you have been 15 years litigating.
Mr. Doug HERTY. The Federal Government has.
Mr. HULL. They have been trying to decide it for 15 years?
Mr. Doug HERTY. We have been interested in this proposition only
about 14 months. -
Mr. HULL. But the litigation started 15 years ago?
Mr. Doug HERTY. I judge longer ago than that.
Mr. HULL. Doesn't that come back to Mr. O'Connor's objection
that by appeals you might delay it by 25 or maybe 30 years? -
Mr. DOUGHERTY, Oh, no.
Mr. HULL. And might not the whole of Lake Michigan be drained
in that time?
Mr. O’Connor. That dicision which you read pitches the case
absolutely upon the reasonableness of the proposition.
Mr. DOUGHERTY. What case?
Mr. O’Con Nor. The case you mentioned here.
The CHAIRMAN. The Kansas and Colorado case.
Mr. O’Connor. Don’t you think that the Supreme Court would
hesitate about issuing an injunction restraining the State of Illi-
nois until they had ascertained the facts?
The CHAIRMAN. That would depend entirely upon the seriousness
of the diversion.
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. If it was as serious as Congressman O’Connor
specifies
Mr. Doug HERTY (interposing). I do not think it is dangerous to
prophesy what the Supreme Court would say. They might Say
right off that the Congress had no jurisdiction.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 273.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I was not here when the former hearings were
held on this subject. I would like to inquire of the attorney general
if this matter is in the Supreme Court of the United States now? .
Mr. DoughERTY. I think it began in about 1906.
Mr. HULL. About that time. . . .
Mr. Doug HERTY. The War Department was compelled, in order to
get a compliance with its own permit, given in 1899, which the Secre-
tary of War said was of doubtful legality and would be left to
Congress. By 1906 the War Department found it necessary to bring
an action to enforce its own order in the circuit court of the United
States for the northern district of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. In order to make clear to Con-
gressman McDuffie, because he does not know the facts, the permit
was for 4,167 feet, and the injunction sought was to restrain the use.
of water in excess of that limitation.
Mr. Doug HERTY. To hold it to that amount.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I see. - - - -
Mr. DoughERTY. Proofs were taken for many years. There is a
record of 10 volumes, and it makes a row of books that long [indi-
cating about 3 feet], and then I have been told that it was held
before Judge Landis, and before the judge went to play ball he had
held that case under advisement for six years, and then made a verbal
statement before he left the bench that his decision would have to be
against the sanitary district. Immediately when he left the bench
the case was proceeded with before Judge Carpenter, who is another
judge in that circuit, and in June of last year Judge Carpenter found
his decision against the sanitary district, and then the sanitary dis-
trict appealed to the Supreme Court, and it has been advanced for
argument to November 11, which will be much earlier than it would
come up if it kept its regular order. r
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, may I interpose?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. - . . -
Mr. BARRETT. It is perfectly clear, however, that the question of
the right of the State of Illinois or the right of the sanitary district
is not an issue in that case.
Mr. Doug HERTY. I have not stated that it was.
Mr. BARRETT. I merely wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Doug HERTY. That is correct. . . .
Mr. HULL. You just now mentioned that when the Secretary of
War granted this permit—I do not remember whether you said 4,167
feet or not?
Mr. DoughERTY. The first permit, I think, was 5,000 feet, and it
had various modifications.
Mr. HULL. Well, whatever it was, you stated that he said he would
hº send it to Congress. Does not that contradict what you have
S8.1Olº
Mr. DoughERTY. That is the Secretary of War's opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. That would not affect the legal question at all,
except in so far as the opinion of the Secretary of War might have
some weight, and that would depend entirely upon whether he was a
layman or a lawyer. It would depend upon the extent of his stand-
ing and learning in the law. -
Mr. O'ConnoR. It is not the Secretary of War that forms a legal
opinion.
274 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HULL. There must have been in his mind a reasonable sugges-
tion that Congress had the right.
Mr. DoughERTY. Wery likely. Many people maintain that. I
may be wrong in this position.
Mr. HULL. I was just trying to bring that question up, because it
is rather a contradiction of what you have said.
Mr. DoughERTY. It is an opinion to the contrary.
Mr. McDUFFIF. I would like to examine that brief. It seems to
be a very splendid brief.
The CHAIRMAN. Then we will have that transcribed and put into
the hearings, Mr. Stenographer.
Mr. HULL. I noticed in your statement you spoke about these
different harbors. You said 4.6 and 4.8 and so on. Does that mean
4 inches and so many hundredths of an inch!
Mr. Doug HERTY. That means 4.8 inches. *
Mr. HULL. That is, considering that if they were taking 10,000
cubic feet out, it would reduce the harbor
Mr. DoughERTY (interposing). Six and nine-tenths.
Mr. HULL. I noticed quite a few of them were 4.8.
Mr. Doug HERTY. That is down to Lake Erie. .
The CHAIRMAN. Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River.
: Mr. HULL. I will take it on the basis of 6. Say it is reduced 6
inches, we will take that for an illustration; that is on a basis of
10,000 cubic feet, and that would reduce it 6 inches?
The CHAIRMAN. Six and nine-tenths.
: Mr. Doug HERTY. Those are the figures of the War Department.
Mr. HULL. They have been taking out, so the claim is here—the
statement is made here that it is 7,500 and some of you claim up to
12,000 cubic feet per second. On the basis that you say that it
reduces 6 inches on 10,000 cubic feet, it must be reduced that now,
isn’t it? Because you have been taking out 10,000, according to
your statement.
Mr. DoughERTY. I have not made that statement.
Mr. HULL. Somebody made it.
Mr. Doug HERTY. The statement was made four weeks ago that it
was 10,000. * *
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there has been any statement that
it was 10,000.
Mr. HULL. There will probably be claims of 14,000 before you get
through, but I am trying to work out something in my mind now.
Mr. DougEIERTY. All right, sir.
Mr. HULL. I have always contended that this reduction in the
harbors was infinitesimal, for this reason: You say now that it is
reduced, that this 10,000 feet will reduce it, but we have had the
10,000, we will say, for 10 years, so we would have been reduced
now, wouldn’t we?
Mr. Doug HERTY. We are.
Mr. HULL. Has it interferred with navigation?
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes. -
Mr. HULL. To what extent? -
Mr. Doug HERTY. The gentlemen representing the lake carrie
are here and they can explain that better than I can. *
Mr. HULL. I understand. -
(>
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 275
Mr. Doug HERTY. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me state that the attorney general is on the
law of the question.
Mr. DOUGHERTY. I am not an engineer.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he can aid us any on the question .
of navigation or engineering.
Mr. HULL. I withdraw the question.
The CHAIRMAN. I am perfectly willing to have you proceed if you
want to ; but it seems to me that the engineering questions and the
lºgation questions ought to be left to those who are familiar with
them. -
Mr. HULL. The question came up from the fact that he had made
the statement. -
Mr. BEHAN. May I ask a question of Mr. Dougherty?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. . . .
Mr. BEHAN. The principle of law which you have announced
would apply to diversions for power purposes? - -
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes, sir; if the water is not returned. -
Mr. BEHAN. Has the State of Michigan, to your knowledge, made
any protest at any time against the diversion of water for power
purposes by Canada or by the State of New York? t
Mr. Doug HERTY. They do not divert water from us. - " .
Mr. BEHAN. They have reduced the lake levels, have they not?
Mr. Doug HERTY. I do not know.
Mr. BEHAN. That is all.
Mr. DoughERTY. The engineers can tell you.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to impose any limitations on the
questions, but it seems to me that we will get further along if we
ask lawyers about law and engineers and navigators about navi-
gating questions. We won’t make much progress by asking these
gentlemen who really are not familiar with it at all as to the effect
upon navigation.
Mr. Bruce, who is your next?
Mr. BRUCE. I would like to read into the minutes the fact that Mr.
Dougherty not only represents the State of Michigan—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think General Dougherty ought
to state that himself. General, state whom you represent.
Mr. Doug HERTY. The State of Michigan.
Mr. BRUCE. And Wisconsin':
The CHAIRMAN. Do you appear for any other State, General? I
think you stated that before.
Mr. Doug HERTY. When I was down here last month I think I was
the only attorney general from the Lake States, and I was asked
by the officers of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wis-
consin to represent them. Mr. Ekern is here for Wisconsin to-day,
and some of the other States are represented.
The CHAIRMAN. The attorney general of Wisconsin.”
Mr. Doug HERTY. Yes; he is here.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Does that answer your purpose?
Mr. BRUCE. Yes. I wanted to get that into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is in the record already; but it is
better to have the general state it, because he knows whether he rep-
resents them or not.
- Ö
276 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BRUCE. The city of Buffalo is represented by a large delega-
tion, and I would prefer to call upon Mr. Cornelius.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me make one suggestion: I was requested by
Congressman Shreve to permit the representatives of Erie, Pa., to
be heard this morning. If they are here we will hear them. If they
are not here, of course we can not oblige them. [After a pause.]
Mr. Cornelius, of Buffalo. -
STATEMENT OF MR. ADAM E. CORNELIUS, BUFFAL0, N. Y.
Mr. CORNELIUS. My name is Adam E. Cornelius, and I am chair-
man of the rivers and harbors committee of Buffale, and I am here
as chairman of the Buffalo delegation. Our mayor came in this
morning, Mayor Schwab, and I would like to introduce him for one
minute before I proceed with my statement.
Mr. SCHWAB. Gentlemen, I assure you that I deem this an honor
and pleasure to appear before you to represent the city of Buffalo
and its people, better known as the Queen City of the Lakes, and
I want to briefly state that we have spent millions of dollars to bring
about the conditions that exist in Buffalo to-day as to our harbor
and the freight facilities, and I believe we carry more freight than
any other city on the Great Lakes. We ask you, gentlemen, in all
fairness, and we also ask our friends from Chicago, whom we love
as our neighbors, to at least let the city of Buffalo prevail and let
them go on as they have done, because it means more to us than any
city on the Lakes. It means much to the entire population of the
city of Buffalo. We depend a great deal on the commerce of the
Lakes, and we have spent millions of dollars dredging our harbor to
the depth required to-day, and by taking away 10 or 12 more inches
you can readily see what we are up against. We have much rock
to contend with; and if the thousands of tons of freight that we have
are taken away from our port, it means the labor and the employ-
ment to everybody in the city of Buffalo, and the gentleman who
will follow me will outline briefly our position, and I just want
briefly to voice my opposition to this bill, and I hope you gentlemen
will at least let the queen rest and get along as she did before.
Mr. CoRNELIUS (resuming). I just want to read a resolution which
was adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of Buffalo, and I believe
after they adopted this they also sent a telegram. You, as chairman,
probably received the telegram.
The CHAIRMAN. The telegram has been received and filed.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. We are opposed to the passage of this bill. Our
delegation consists of six or eight men. They are not all going to
talk, and, in fact, we are not going to take up much of your time,
but the fact that we are not making long speeches we do not want
you to take as an indication that we are not interested in this propo-
sition, because we are. Here is the resolution:
Whereas there has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr.
Hull, of Illinois, a bill (H. R. 5475) relating to improvement of the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers, which would empower the Chicago Sanitary District to
withdraw 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan into the
Chicago drainage canal— -
Mr. HULL. I think you said that in my bill I recommended 10,000
cubic feet. Would you mind reading that part of it again?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 277
Mr. CoRNELIUS (reading):
Which Would empower the Chicago Sanitary District to withdraw 10,000
º feet of water per second from Lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage
Canal.
Mr. HULL., Could I correct you in that? That is not in the bill.
It says that they might have the right not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet.
It does not authorize 10,000; it is not to exceed that.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. In reality that is what you are allowing for.
Mr. HULL. That is not what the bill says.
Mr. CORNELIUS (continuing):
Whereas present diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Chicago
Sanitary District has lowered lake levels an average Of 51% inches, which
wººd be greatly increased by a withdrawal of 10,000 cubic feet per second ;
3 Il
Whereas the port of Buffalo, the second port in amount of tonnage handled
On the Great Lakes, already has felt the effect of lowered lake levels in
decreased capacity of boats entering her harbor, resulting in great financial
loss not only to the navigation interests but to the industries of the City and
the Niagara frontier industrial district ; and *
Whereas capacity of boats entering Buffalo Harbor will be diminished,
great damage done to docks depending upon wood piling for Support, and large
expenditures necessitated for increased dredging; and
Whereas increased withdrawal of water from the Lakes will diminish
greatly the value and use of Buffalo's harbor and navigable channels for
navigation and industrial purposes and will deprive the Niagara frontier
industrial district of the rightful heritage of cheap water transportaton:
Therefore be it
Re8olved by the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, Representing in its mem-
bership the principal industrial, mercantile, and navigation interests of the
city of Buffalo, that it is unreservedly opposed to the passage of House bill
5475 or any similar bill providing for water withdrawal through the Chicago
drainage canal.
The Chamber of Commerce of Tonawanda sent this letter to me,
which I received upon my arrival here from New York last night:
Have just learned that you will attend the hearing to be held on Tuesday
next On the Hull bill, having to do with the diversion of water from Lake
Michigan.
As it is impossible for us to send a representative to the hearing, we are
taking the liberty to request that you act as our attorney in this matter.
Mr. George Lehmann, of the Buffalo chamber, informs me that you will
attend the hearing in opposition to this bill and it is the desire of our organi-
zation that you cast a vote for us Opposing the measure.
Thanking you in advance for imposing on your good nature and for any
service you may be able to render, we are, very truly yours,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF ToMAwanDA,
H. A. CHAPIN, Secretary.
I might just say in respect to the Tonawanda Chamber of Com-
merce that Tonawanda may seem insignificant to you men; never-
theless, Tonawanda is coming to the front as a commercial center,
shipping by water. The American Radiator Co. has purchased the
furnaces of the Tonawanda Iron & Steel Co. and expects to develop
that, with an expenditure of something like ten or twenty million
dollars, and probably in the course of a year they will be shipping
all of the freight by water. It was the largest lumber port. Of
course, that has stopped a bit, and we do not speak of that commerce
in large terms to-day. The city of Buffalo, of course, is interested
in navigation on the Lakes by virtue of the fact that we are the
second largest port on the Lakes.
278 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Having a tonnage of about 18,000,000 tons?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. We have a tonnage of *Pºiº 18,000,000
per year. We are only exceeded by the port of Duluth, and of course
we are perfectly willing to bow our colors to Duluth, from the fact
that Duluth is greater than any of the other ports on the ocean. I
believe in the Engineer’s report they say it exceeded any other
port in the world, and we are perfectly willing to take second place
to Duluth.
Mr. KINDRED. How much is Duluth, if you know?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir. About fifty or sixty million.
The CHAIRMAN. What is it, General Beach?
General BEACH. I do not recall.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It is a commerce in very heavy commodities. The
tonnage runs high in coal and iron ore.
Mr. CoRNELIUs. In 1917 Duluth had 52,000,000 tons, or in 1918,
about the time this report came out. As I said, Buffalo's tonnage
is second.
I appeared before the city council about two years ago in the
interest of additional harbor appropriations, and at that time I gave
them certain figures which were a surprise to them, and if you don’t
mind I will repeat them here to show that Buffalo is interested in
navigation. I had taken the trouble to look up the figures.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you give those figures, would you be good
enough to tell us what your own business is and how long you have
been engaged in that business. -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I am a member of the firm of Borland & Cor-
nelius, steamship owners and brokers. We are interested as owners
and managers of a fleet of 30 ships on the Lakes, which is, I think,
the fourth largest fleet on the Lakes, with headquarters at Buffalo,
but also with offices at Cleveland, at Winnipeg, and at Montreal.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you carry in the way of tonnage in a
year?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Our own fleet of boats requires 200,000 tons of
business every six days to keep them operating.
Mr. HULL. Are you running them that way right along?
d Mr. CoRNELIUS. Well, as soon as the ice conditions permit we will
O SO.
Mr. HULL. They are well filled all the time? I mean, there is a
good business all the time?
Mr. CORNELIUS. It depends, of course.
Mr. HULL. And the boats are well loaded?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir. Here are some figures I wish to give
to you as to what Buffalo means to navigation on the Lakes. For
instance, we find upon looking at the figures that the water-borne
commerce of the city of Buffalo is as great as the water-borne com-
merce of the five Pacific coast cities under the American flag—San
Diego, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Our
commerce is as great as all of those combined.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that would not be true to-day. Los
Angeles has broken the record, and E think to-day has as great a
tonnage as Buffalo. -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I do not see where she would get it.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 279
The CHAIRMAN. She has gotten it from oil; from the oil that has
been discovered there. -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. The statistics show Los Angeles with 2,800,000
tons.
The CHAIRMAN. Now it has gone up to 30,000,000 tons. That is
my recollection.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Is that right, General?
General BEACH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. It has gone up that much?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it has come from the fact that they have
discovered oil right in the city of Los Angeles, and they are sending
that oil out, and it is the marvel of the ages. So I would cut out
Los Angeles and let the rest of it stand.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. And then we are as great as Charleston, Boston,
and New Orleans combined, and greater than San Francisco and
New Orleans, amounting to about 18,000,000 tons a year. Our ton-
nage last year was, approximately, in bulk freight, if you please,
which is dependent upon every inch of water that we can get on the
lakes, over 16,000,000 tons, consisting of 5,190,000 tons of grain;
6,128,000 tons of ore; 1,658,000 tons of stone; 426,600 tons of soft
coal, and 2,907,000 tons of hard coal.
Mr. HULL. Did that all come in through the Buffalo Harbor?
Mr. Corn ELIUS. Yes; that is, in and out of Buffalo. That is the
wºrne commerce of Buffalo, according to the customhouse
UlreS. * , , -
sº HULL. It either went in or out?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes, sir. That is the water-borne commerce of
1923. That represents 13 per cent of the water-borne commerce of
the Great Lakes last season, which was 121,000,000 tons. Conse-
quently, we feel that we play an important part in that 121,000,000
tons and have a distinctive right to be heard. *
I also want to refer to the fact that industries that have come to
Buffalo for the purpose of using the Buffalo Harbor, and are ship-
ping both in and out of the harbor by water, two years ago totaled
an investment of $170,000,000 and they employed 24,000 men, with
an annual pay roll of $30,000,000. Buffalo is distinctively a com-
mercial city. -
Before I go any further on this, I just want to say that we have
with us to-day Captain Norton, who was up to the last session city
engineer, and is very familiar with the expenditure of money, not
only by the Federal Government but by the city and by the State
and by private interests, in the improvement of our harbor, and I
will call on Captain Norton now, just for a couple of minutes, to give
you an idea of what we have spent on our harbor, and then I will
continue.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear from Captain
Norton. -
STATEMENT OF CAPT. GEORGE H, NORTON, BUFFALO, N. Y.
Mr. NoRTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as an introduction I
might say I began my service for the city of Buffalo 35 years ago
last spring as assistant engineer. I was more or less familiar with
280 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the harbor work as assistant engineer until January 1, 1898, when I
was placed in charge of the harbor and bridge work of the city and
was continually so engaged until I was made city engineer on Jan-
uary 1, 1899, since which time up until the 1st of last August I was
in charge for the city of the harbor at that point. I am also a mem-
ber of the chamber of commerce. - -
The statements here which are given roughly and briefly were
taken from the United States Engineers’ Report for 1923, as to
the expenditures made in and about the Buffalo Harbor. These
figures are of necessity very incomplete. They show that the Gov-
ernment, for completed and present existing projects, has expended
in the harbor $6,718,000 in round figures, and in the Black Rock
Channel developments and aids to navigation, $6,852,000. The city
has maintained a navigable channel in the Buffalo River, a small
stream entering the lake and forming the Buffalo inner harbor,
together with the artificial waterways connecting with it, which are
maintained by the city, $3,291,000, which does not include the large
amounts which have been spent from time to time in maintenance
of these channels. The State of New York in its barge canal ter-
minals has spent $3,750,000, and much other money has been ex-
pended by private interests in the construction of navigable water-
ways.
The CHAIRMAN. You really speak now of the frontier, rather
than any one of its individual units, and you regard them really
as one unit—Buffalo, the two Tonawandas, and Niagara Falls?
Mr. NORTON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And so you would properly include expenditures
down to the steel plants of the Tonawandas and the expenditures
on the Erie Canal at the terminal?
Mr. Norton. Yes; I believe that those figures as given in the
TJnited States Engineers’ Report cover that.
The CHAIRMAN. And the figures that you give would be something
like seventeen or eighteen million dollars?
Mr. Norton. Yes; and in addition to that we have three larger
industries there, the Lehigh Valley Railroad, which has a large
terminal constructed artificially, the Bethlehem Steel Co. with a
slip a mile long, and the Rodgers-Brown interests, together with
the Pennsylvania Railroad—those three together have cost about
$2,304,000, and in addition to that there are numerous other slips
and waterways which have been constructed by private interests, of
which the cost is not known.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you included in those figures the improve-
ment of Buffalo Creek?
Mr. Norton. That includes the work which has been done on the
improvement of Buffalo River, but that was not intended, of course,
to include the annual maintenance charge, which is from $120,000 to
$150,000 for a year.
Mr. HULL. Does the Government maintain them or do you main-
tain them?
Mr. NorTon. The inner harbor is maintained by the city.
Mº, HULL. But the regular harbor is maintained by the Govern-
ment'.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 281
Mr. NoRTON. The outer harbor, especially inside the breakwater,
and between that and the original shore line and inside the mouth of
the Buffalo River, to the junction with the ship canal, is maintained by
the United States Government. In these figures there is included the
cost to the city of maintaining that entrance channel, which was main-
tained by the city up until a comparatively short time ago. This
makes a total of $22,915,000 in the maintenance of navigable chan-
nels in and about Buffalo.
Mr. HULL. Are these channels in good condition at the present
time, and is the harbor in good condition?
Mr. NoRTON. They are in fairly good condition, but they do not
give the accommodation to commerce which they should, because the
water is a little shallow yet. j
Mr. HULL. I needs to be deepened a little bit?
Mr. NORTON. Yes; deepened or the diversion stopped—either one.
They would both accomplish about the same purpose. We maintain
below the base of the Buffalo gage a depth of 22 feet in mud
bottom and 23 feet in rock bottom. That is about what the city
tries to maintain, and the same as the project of the United States
Government. We have no municipal piers. There has been very
Severe trouble excepting in low-water seasons, when this channel is
not Satisfactory. About two years ago I was waited on by these
gentlemen present as to the troubles we were having in navigating
the Buffalo River, especially the steel people taking up the subject,
and at that time they were limited to a draft of 19 feet, as compared
with 19% in the ship canal, which made a great hardship in carrying
this tonnage up there. If we had added these 6 inches during the
low-water years, that would have given us a satisfactory depth.
Mr. HULL. What was the cause of that?
Mr. NORTON. The added 5 or 6 inches would have given us a satis-
factory navigation depth, except in periods of extreme low water.
Mr. HULL. Four inches are what the figures here were a moment
ago at Buffalo.
Mr. NORTON. I may say that I base my figures here on the report
of the Waterways Commission of 1910, which shows a diversion of
10,000 second-feet, which reduces the level of Lake Erie 5% inches.
Mr. HULL. That was in 1910 that that diversion of 10,000 cubic feet
reduced it?
The CHAIRMAN. No. He is not saying that there was any diversion
at all, but he is telling what the effect of a diversion would be.
Mr. NoFTON. This is based on the measured discharge by current
meter by the engineer when he made a very thorough study of that
matter several years ago.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you about that Lake Erie. I do not know
that it has anything to do with this, but I have always understood
that the Lake Erie reduction was on account of the strengthening of
the canal to Some extent.
Mr. NORTON. What canal? -
Mr. HULL. The St. Marys, wasn’t it? I do not remember the name
of it.
Mr. Norton. I think that would be rather far-fetched. St. Marys
Canal is at the outlet of Lake Superior way above Lake Erie.
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask a question ? s
91739—24—PT 2—3
282. ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Let me suggest this, Captain, that if you
are going to take any great time— -
Mr. NoRTON (interposing). I should like a little more time.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest this: The committee has promised
to hear another matter for one hour this noon. We are working very
diligently, and we are going to have a night Session to-night on an-
other matter, but we are going to give you all the time you want
except this one hour to-day; but we are in a position where we are
obliged to do this, so we will take a little longer adjournment be-
cause we are going to be engaged with these other gentlemen for one
hour. So far as this hearing is concerned we will adjourn until
2.30. We will immediately go into session on another matter.
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask this one question before the Captain
leaves? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. Will you tell the committee, either now or when you
return, what lowering due exclusively to power diversion there has
been at Tonawanda?
The CHAIRMAN. If you will answer that at the adjourned hour, we
will be very glad to have you do so. *
Mr. BARRETT. And what lowering there has been in Lake Erie due
exclusively to power diversion, entirely disconnected with the diver-
sion at Chicago? -
Mr. NORTON. At Chicago—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Wait a moment. This is to go on
at 2.30. -
Mr. BARRETT. And also just one other question. What lowering
there has been in the Niagara River due exclusively to power diver-
S101).
. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Norton can answer those questions when we
reconvene at 2.30. We will adjourn now until 2.30.
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the taking of
I'êCêSS.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. GEORGE H. NORTON.—Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. Captain, I think the question which was last pro-
pounded to you was what the effect was of the diversion under the
treaty between the United States and Great Britain—what effect, if
any, that has on the level of the Great Lakes? -
Mr. NoFTON. I. quote from the report commonly known as the
Warren report, the report by Colonel Warren on the diversion of
water from the Great Lakes and the Niagara River. The amount of
lowering caused by the present diversion at mean low stage is shown
as follows: - * , -
The Chicago drainage canal represents 0.43 of 1 foot lowering.
The Welland Canal, 0.22 of 1 foot. -
Black Rock Ship Canal, 0.03 of 1 foot lowering.
New York State Barge Canal, 0.01 of 1 foot lowering.
Niagara power companies, 0.1 of 1 foot. -
This is from page 23 of the report.
The total is 0.79 of 1 foot.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 283
The CHAIRMAN. Let me see. The ship canal was constructed by
the United States Government? -
Mr. NORTON. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. And was therefore not contrary to law?
Mr. Norton. Not if used for navigation purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. The barge canal was also constructed in accord-
ance with law Ż
Mr. NORTON. Yes; by the State. -
The CHAIRMAN. And the diversion at Niagara Falls is the most
solemn form of law known to civilized nations, a treaty?
Mr. NoRTON. And the Welland Canal is also used for navigation
purposes. w
Mr. MoRGAN. What percentage of the lowering of the lake levels
is attributable to water-power uses?
Mr. Norton. By this report of Colonel Warren it would be sub-
stantially one-eighth of the lowering of the level of Lake Erie. '
Mr. MoRGAN. And in Chicago what was the diversion?
Mr. Nortos, Forty-three one-hundredths of 1 foot, or about 55 per
cent.
Mr. ADCOCK. What portion of the Welland Canal diversion is for
power purposes? º
Mr. NoRTON. I don’t know. I think the proportion is very small.
Mr. ADCOCK. Is it not about 3,300 feet per second, compared with
4,500 actual?
Mr. NoFTON. I would not like to say.
Mr. CoRNEILUs. I think the engineers’ book has that. It is a mat-
ter of record. -
The CHAIRMAN. The last question would strike me as being a two-
headed question. Is there any diversion through the Welland Canal
for power purposes? Is not the question properly this: What pro-
portion as to lockages is used for power?
Mr. NORTON. Yes; I think so—that the power development is
incidental to the use of the canal for navigation purposes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is used only at the locks, is it not?
Mr. NORTON. So far as I know.
Mr. ADCOCK. I think the Warren report states that 3,300 second-
feet are used solely for power purposes, and the balance is used for
lockage purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will get the Warren report. I think
General Beach will be here in a minute and he will know.
Mr. ADCOCK. Would not the percentage then be 53 per cent of
lowering due to the drainage canal and 47 per cent due to other
diversions from Erie Ż
Mr. Norton. I have not figured it on percentages. Something of
that kind. -
The CHAIRMAN. I take it Mr. Adcock means, in asking, “would
not the percentage be so and So,” to assume that the figures stated
by him are correct. General, do you know whether any water is
diverted through the Welland Canal for power purposes, simply
aside from the navigation feature, or whether the power develop-
ment at the Welland Canal is incidental to navigation?
General BEACH. I do not. I can find out in a few moments, how-
eVeT.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, will you be good enough to find out what
the situation is?

284 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. PEAVEY. If this witness is competent to answer and has the
information on which to answer, I would like to know if he can tell
what the total amount of diversion is that would have any influence
on the Great Lakes level?
Mr. NORTON. All of these diversions have a small effect on the
lake level. -
t * PEAVEY. Do you know the exact amount, each one, and the
Otal'
Mr. NoRTON. Yes; as I have given the figures here.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think Mr. Peavey was here when you
gave those figures. Suppose you repeat them.
Mr. Norton. At the low-water level—this is from Colonel War-
ren’s report of 1921, on the diversion of water from the Niagara.
River, at the low stage, the lowering in Lake Erie is 0.43 of a foot for
the Chicago Drainage Canal; and it is 0.22 for the Welland Canal;
it is 0.03 for the Black Rock Ship Canal; it is 0.01 of a foot for the
New York State Barge Canal operation, and 0.10 or one-tenth of a
foot for the diversion at Niagara Falls for power purposes, a total of
0.79 of a foot at the low-water stage.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Captain; go ahead.
Mr. NoRTON. Now, may I explain a thing that may not be brought
out otherwise; that in those figures given in the International Water-
ways Report as 5.78 inches, I believe, as the effect on Lake Erie, that
this is at the mean water stage; and at a low-water stage the effect
of the same amount of diversion of 10,000 second-feet would be more
than those figures. If the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet lowered the
level 5.78 inches at the mean stage it would lower the lake level
something over 6% inches at low-water stage.
Mr. DEAL. I would like to understand why it is that the lowering
by the Chicago diversion is 0.43 of a foot and that the lowering
incident to the power used at Niagara is only 0.1 of a foot, when they
are using 36,000 cubic feet? -
Mr. NorTon. Because the Niagara River starts off with a slope,
it has a fall of some 8 or 9 feet before it starts down the rapids near
the Falls. Now, if we take the lower end of this stream, 20 miles
down from Lake Erie, and make a small change in the water level at
the lower end it does not affect the water level the same way at Lake
Erie. That is where the water is already 9 feet, above the level above
the falls a foot raise at that point does not raise the water at Lake
Frie a foot, but only a small fraction of a foot.
The CHAIRMAN. It is on a lower level. Does the fact that the
water is returned to the Niagara River immediately below the Falls
have any effect or not ?
Mr. NoFTON. It would have no effect whatever above the Falls,
but it would have its effect, of course, upon Lake Ontario. The
diversion of the water through the power plants has no effect on
Lake Ontario, whereas the diversion from the Great Lakes basin,
as in Chicago, has a greater effect on Lake Ontario than it has on
Lake Erie.
Mr. BoxOE. With the diversion at Niagara Falls and at Lake
Michigan operating at the same time, how do you apportion the fall
between the diversion at the two different points?
Mr. NoFTON. I have given you Colonel Warren's figures. It
would be rather long to go into the details of how those figures are

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 285
reached. I think I could explain it to you in a rough way if the
committee wanted to go into the rough details. For instance, at
Niagara Falls what the effect would be, on this slope, by removing
a certain amount of water at the lower end. If it is lowered a foot
here, it is readily computable, 9 feet high here. It might change
the level of Lake Erie an inch or something of that kind. That is
capable of solution by the ordinary hydraulic formula.
The CHAIRMAN. I might say that Colonel Warren, to whom the
witness refers, was for many years and until recently the resident
engineer at Buffalo, and he compiled what is known as Colonel
Warren's report, which is the accepted authority on all these ques-
tions. Is is a very elaborate report. ©
Mr. HULL. May I ask a question? Maybe the witness has already
answered it. Taking the amount that is used at the Falls for power
purposes, plus the amount taken off from the Welland Canal, makes
about 60,000 cubic feet, as against 10,000 cubic feet. That being so
it seems to me that there ought to be a greater proportion of the
lowering of the attributable to the 60,000 feet cubic feet than to
the 10,000 that is taken off. º
Mr. NORTON. I might say that if the point where this is taken off
is below Lake Erie, how can it affect the level of Lake Erie in any
way? . It does to a small amount, but it is hard for a layman to con-
ceive how it would have any effect on the level of Lake Erie. As
I say, it does, to a small extent, which can be computed within
reasonable limits of accuracy.
Mr. PEAVEY. I was just going to draw the comparison of the
Nºgara Falls and what relation they had on the reduction of Lake
I’Ie.
Mr. Norton. Well, by these figures one-eighth of the total lower-
ing of the level of Lake Erie at low-water stage is attributable to
the Niagara Falls power diversion.
Mr. PEAVEY. And what effect did you say the diversion at Chicago
had on it?
Mr. Norton. Between 50 and 55 per cent.
Mr. PEAVEY. As against one-eighth of the other?
Mr. NoRTON. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Would the witness be kind enough to read those
figures again, as to the diversion?
Mr. NoFTON. The Chicago Drainage Canal, 0.43 of 1 foot; the
Welland Canal, 0.22; the Black Rock Ship Canal, 0.03; the New
York State Barge Canal, 0.01; Niagara River power diversion, 0.11;
making a total of 0.79 of a foot. That is at low-water stage.
The CHAIRMAN. Before we go on with the witness, did you ascer-
tain the fact as to the Welland Canal, General Beach?
General BEACH. I was trying to get a report as to the exact con-
ditions to-day. Colonel Warren’s report, which was published in
1921, states that the diversion of water from Lake Erie to the Wel-
land Canal appears to have been approximately as follows:
During the season of navigation of 1917, 4,600 cubic feet per
second.
During the following closed season, 4,300 cubic feet per second.
During the navigation season of 1918, 4,400 cubic feet per second.
During the closed season, 4,100 cubic feet per second.
286 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Of these diversions 1,100 cubic feet per second was used for navi-
gation, including lockage, leakage, and waste during the past season,
and 800 cubic feet per second during the closed season. Of the
remainder a very small amount was used for sanitary purposes and
the balance for power development.
The CHAIRMAN. What page is that?
General BEACH. That is page 116.
Mr. ADCOCK. Would you read page 196 also? tº
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know where that power is developed? Is
that a part of the 36,000 cubic feet to which Canada is entitled under
the treaty? te
General BEACH. My impression is it is not; that that diversion that
the treaty considers is the diversion at Niagara Falls. But I am not
absolutely certain on that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, there are Canadian witnesses here who will
probably know as to that. Mr. Adcock's suggestion was what?
Mr. AdcocK. Page 196, I think.
Mr. Norton. I do not think there is anything there that gives any
additional data.
Mr. ADCOCK. One sentence I wish to call attention to, which is
this, referring to the power diversion of 3,400 second cubic-feet
through the Welland Canal—
In fact, it may be said that diversion is slightly detrimental to navigation
in that it increases the Small current in the Canal.
Mr. NoRTON. May I make a slight comparison of what that means?
A diversion of, say, roughly, 50,000 cubic second-feet at Niagara
Falls represents a loss of one-tenth of a foot. The diversion at
Chicago takes out 10,000 cubic feet, which would represent, if taken
at Niagara Falls, 0.02 of a foot.
The CHAIRMAN. One-fifth 2
Mr. NORTON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Instead of what?
*Mr. NoRTON. And yet with that one-tenth we can develop four
times as much power with this fall as can be developed at Chicago.
Mr. HULL. I have a table here, and I just want to read it off to
you and have you answer the best you can. The lowering of Lake
Erie—now, Chicago has a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet—shows 5.5
inches. That is correct, is it?
Mr. Norton. Yes; substantially; depending on the stage of the
lake. I don’t know what table you are reading from. There are
two that are published, the International Waterways
Mr. HULL. I have another one here: 5,400 cubic feet in the Welland
Canal: that shows 2.5 inches. Is that correct?
Mr. NORTON. Yes.
Mr. HULL. Then I have another one here; 1.07 for the Barge
Canal, and for the Black Rock 0.9. Are those figures substantially
correct?
Mr. NorTon. The Black Rock Ship Canal, as given by Colonel
Warren, is about three-eighths of an inch.
Mr. HULL. Well, that is close enough.
Mr. Norton. I should say there was quite a difference there.
Mr. HULL. It gives it as 0.9; 40,000 at Niagara power plant makes
2.2 of an inchº
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 287
Mr. NortON. No.
The CHAIRMAN. There is more than 40,000 feet taken on both
sides and less than 40,000 on either side. There is 36,000 taken on
the Canadian side and 20,000 on the American side, making a total
of 56,000. So those figures would not represent the combined di-
version or either diversion—40,000 would not—they would not mean
anything.
Mr. HULL. Well, I am trying to get something.
Mr. BARRETT. Is it not a fact that only 40,000 second-feet has any
effect in lowering the lake; that 40,000 feet having come from below
the head of the rapids?
The CHAIRMAN. It is not my understanding that there is any
taken below the Falls.
Mr. BARRETT. Is there not some taken below the first cascade?
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think so. -
Mr. BARRETT. By the Niagara Falls Power Co.' -
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think so. What about it, General Beach?
General BEACH. I do not think any work they have in there is
completed yet. * - -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any water taken on either
side below the cataract. I am just speaking as a layman; but, of
course, that is my home. I don’t think there is a spoonful taken
below the Falls. Here is a gentleman that knows.
Mr. F. H. MASSEY. There is no water taken below the Falls for
power purposes. t # *
The CHAIRMAN. I thought there was not any; I did not think
there would be any question about that, because you can use your
eyes even, althought you have not any expert technical knowledge
about it. * - * *
Mr. Norton. The confusion may have come about from the fact
that the break at the head of the rapids is 560 feet above sea-level
at the brink, 512 feet above sea level above the brink of the Falls,
that these different intakes are situated at different points along
there, above the point of the Falls. . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is what you mean.
Mr. HULL. Here is what I was trying to develop more than any-
thing else: That this table gives figures which I think you will find
are nearly correct. It gives 5.5 in Chicago, 4.55 for the Welland
Canal, 0.17 for the Barge and Black Rock Ship Canal, and 40,000 at
Niagara, 2.2; which would make 11.1. So the Chicago drainage
would be 5.5, and the others combined would make 5.6. In other
words, is it not true that Chicago takes about half the diversion and
the others I have mentioned take the other half? That is what I
wanted you to answer.
Mr. Norton. I am not acquainted with any official report that
would substantiate that.
Mr. HULL. It is not true, then 2
Mr. NoFTON. I do not say that it is not true. I say I have not
seen any report substantiating such figures.
Mr. HULL. You are well acquainted enough from the figures you
gº to know that there are diversions outside of Chicago, are you
not
Mr. NoFTON. Certainly.
Mr. HULL. Well, how much will they amount to?
288 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. NoRTON. I will give you the best figures that I can obtain.
Mr. HuDL. Well, would it amount to as much as 5.6, all of the
other diversions outside of Chieago, all of them put together?"
Mr. NORTON. No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. HULL. How much will it amount to, all outside of Chicago,
the diversions? " . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. NoFTON. At the low-water stage, according to the Warren
report, it would make a difference of about 4 inches, . . . .
Mr. HULL. Not quite 5.6 inches? , º
Mr. NoFTON. Not quite; no, sir. -
The CHAIRMAN. Four inches and not 5.6%
Mr. HULL. I claim it is 5.6, and he claims it is 4.
Mr. NoRTON. No; I have not made any claim. I have given you
the best-published information with which I am acquainted.
Mr. HULL. Well, I said that that was what you said, 4 inches; I
was taking your word for it. l
Now, another question. The Niagara River power alone at Fort
Day shows 13 inches, does it not? s'
The CHAIRMAN. Shows what?
Mr. HULL. Thirteen inches.
The CHAIRMAN. A diversion, lowering? r -
Mr. Norton. A lowering of what—the river at that point?
Mr. HULL. Yes. ‘. . -
Mr. NoRTON. I don’t know. It may have some effect on the river
at that point; I don’t know. - * ,
Mr. HULL. You have not posted yourself on that?
Mr. NoRTON. No.
Mr. HULL. Then at Tonawanda it shows 6 to 8 inches?
Mr. NoFTON. I don’t know any figures to substantiate that.
Mr. HULL. Well, does it show anything?
Mr. NORTON. Yes. -
Mr. HULL. What does it show %
Mr. NoFTON. I don’t know. I could not tell you without interpo-
lating from these figures what the effect would be.
Mr. HULL. Of course, I am taking it for granted that you are an
expert, and because I think these are correct
Mr. NoFTON. I don’t know of any tables of that kind.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us see. The witness is not giving testi-
mony as one who has measured the Lakes and computed himself
what the effect of these diversions is. He is an expert, but he is
simply, testifying from the report of Colonel Warren and other
recognized authorities as to what they say the effect of the diver-
sions has been. That is my understanding.
Mr. HULL. I did not understand it that way. . I thought he was
making a statement on his own knowledge. I think that is the way
the committee understands it.
Mr. MoRGAN. No; I understood that the witness was giving the
figures from Colonel Warren's report.
Mr. NORTON. Yes.
Mr. HULL. We could have gotten those figures. I beg your pardon.
I thought you were giving us something from your own knowledge.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not suppose there is an engineer in the world
except the international commission’s engineer and Colonel Warren
who has the information of his own knowledge.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 289
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, yes; they have. . -
The CHAIRMAN. When they go on the stand they can give it then.
Mr. BARRETT. And we will expect them to be cross-examined.
Mr. HULL. I did not know that this witness was simply giving
figures from somebody else. I was under the impression that he was
an engineer and that he had come here with figures of his own.
knowledge. *
The CHAIRMAN. He is an engineer.
Mr. HULL. But he comes with figures from Colonel Warren's
report, and we have that report and we know what they are.
The CHAIRMAN. Most engineers know more from books than they
do from personal examinations and surveys, and he comes here as
an engineer of the highest standing. He is a gentleman perhaps
60 years old, and has held a very responsible position in his native
city, the second port on the Great Lakes, and has been connected
with the engineers an additional time, so that his service runs into
One-third of a century. He is frank and honest and tells you just
where his sources of information were derived. Where he has knowl-
edge that he has ascertained himself he gives it to you, and in other
cases he gives you the sources of his information.
Go ahead now, Captain. . . .
fi Mr. HULL. I misunderstood it then. I thought they were his own
UII’éS.
*::: BARRETT. The diversions for power purposes on the lake down
there do lower the lake level, do they not? &
Mr. Norton. To some extent; yes. -
Mr. BARRETT. The lowering of the lake level there is due to power
diversions as well as the Chicago diversions, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. How could you complain of what has been done
under the authority of the supreme law of the land, which is the
* way a treaty is defined. Now, we are here examining the question
of a diversion that has been pronounced illegal, and how are we
going to characterize a diversion which has been authorized by a
treaty negotiated between the high contracting parties and adopted
according to the laws of both countries?
Mr. MoRGAN. As I understand, what we are attempting to de-
velop here is the diversions of water for all purposes?
The CHAIRMAN. Entirely. º
Mr. MoRGAN. And if treaties have been entered into for diversion
for power purposes, there perhaps might be other considerations for
the diversions of water that might be as urgent and perhaps as essen-
tial as the treaties entered into. . . . 4
The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about that. That is the
question which we are examining. All I had in mind in what I said
was this, that I do not think we have the power in the House to annul
these treaties. - f
Mr. MoRGAN. No; not at all.
The CHAIRMAN. And I do not see where we are going to get, or
that we are going to get anywhere by criticizing that which has been
done under treaties. y §
Mr. BARRETT. I would still like to know the attitude of New York
State. We insist that the Chicago diversion was taken care of in
this treaty just as well as your power diversions. I want to know
New York State’s attitude?
9.1739—24—PT 2—4
290 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. NoFTON. I have not given any attitude as yet. The attorney
general is here, and I presume he will speak for the State of New
York. My testimony has been confined to facts either known to my-
self or taken from reputable authorities. & . *
Mr. BARRETT. Are you complaining about lower levels gener-
8. - g
Mr. NoRTON. I don't know what I may complain of before I get
through. * -
The CHAIRMAN. Do you not understand that the question here
before us that we are considering is primarily the question of the
diversion at Chicago? -
Mr. NORTON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not that the purpose of all the bills which
this committee is considering at this time, and is not that the ques-
tion at issue?
Mr. NoRTON. As I understand it; yes.
Mr. HULL. That is the question at issue as far as one side of it is
concerned; but if there is some other diversion that is taking more
water than Chicago, and they are laying it on Chicago, I think I
ought to show it before this committee. *
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to permit you to do so.
Mr. HULL. That is what I am trying to show; and I have shown
by these tables, if they are correct, that there were more diversions
in the Niagara end of it than at the Chicago end of it, and you are
trying to lay it on Chicago, and that is what I wanted to bring out.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not disputing the gentleman’s own state-
ment, but so far they are not tables at all; they are simply a piece of
Writing and have no authenticity. -
Mr. HULL. Well, I will have the right to introduce them by an
engineer later, and then you will assume that they are correct?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if you have them introduced by an engineer
who knows about them, but I am talking about their present value.
Mr. BARRETT. We are talking about the effect of diversions on
navigation. Is that a part of your investigation, or is it merely
limited to the Chicago diversion?
The CHAIRMAN: What is your question?
Mr. BARRETT. I thought we were investigating here and that the
captain was addressing himself to the effect on navigation of the
diversions of water from the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. He was, Mr. Barrett, but you diverted him to
ask him what the attitude of the State of New York was, about
which, of course, he would not know anything. He is prepared to
go on and address himself to what you say is the question.
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask him, then, what his attitude is, assuming
he can not speak for the State of New York?
The CHAIRMAN. I am willing for him to answer, but I would rather
for him to give the information he has to the committee than to
state the way he personally feels about it. I do not think we would
be influenced by his personal feelings, but if he has some facts to
give the committee we would like to have them.
Mr. NoRTON. Before I get through perhaps I might express an
opinion. -
The CHAIRMAN. If so, we are perfectly willing to hear it.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 291.
Mr. Norton. One statement I made this morning in reference to
the depth of the Buffalo Harbor, of 22 and 23 feet, I should qualify
by saying that those are depths below the mean water-level stage of
Lake Erie. The depths established on the charts and plans are 2
feet lower than that, in which they give water for the purposes of
navigation, and in February it was 2.2 inches below this stage. So,
at the present time the water is lower than low-water stage, which
is carried on the Government chart.
Mr. HULL. Are not we at the lowest cycle now in the way of the
level of the Lakes?
Mr. Norton. Well, the month of February, for which I have seen
the figures, is a rather low-water figure. The average for three or
four months, I believe, is not as low as the low-water period of 1895
and some other periods. -
Mr. HULL. As I understand it, we have a cycle of about 25 years,
and we are at the low cycle now. Is that true or not?
Mr. Norton. That one month
Mr. HULL. I speak of the year 1924; is not that the low cycle?
Mr. NoRTON. The water levels are very irregular, due to the cycle
of meteorlogical conditions.
Mr. HULL. And we are at the low cycle now, are we not?
Mr. NoFTON. No; I would not say so. As I said, the month of
february was a very low month; but I do not think the average will
be found to be as low as the low water of 1895.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask another question. º *
The CHAIRMAN. Let us give the captain a chance to make his state-
ment and then he can answer questions. I suggest that we apply
that rule to all the witnesses.
Mr. HULL. Excuse me. I am willing to see that course followed.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I think that rule ought to be adopted by the com-
mittee if we are going to get anywhere.
The CHAIRMAN. We will try to observe that rule, then; go ahead,
Captain.
Mr. NoRTON. With those nominal depths reduced by 2 feet or more
there are times in Buffalo Harbor when those depths are not suffi-
cient, and a matter of 5 or 6 inches is of material importance in
navigation, and also the lack of that has been a source of serious
trouble to the city engineer personally, through the complaints of
the heavy freight carriers and those desiring the receipt of freight
in bulk, and any diversion below the low-water period is a serious
cause of complaint. Q
Mr. MoRGAN. What is the length of time of your experiences on
the Lakes? -
Mr. Norton. I began my work in the city of Buffalo in 1889 as a
regular employee, and at that time engaged in work that kept me in
touch with the water level.
Mr. MoRGAN. You have been in touch with it ever since then, have
you not?
Mr. Norron. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. What would you say in reference to the change in
water levels, as to their being certain cycles—about what is the length
of those cycles?
292 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. NoFTON. I think they have no definite length. I have studied
the charts, and I can not see that they have any definite length. There
is a Seasonable variation which will run from a foot to a foot and a
º lower in January and February than it is during June and
uly, although that may vary by two or three months. But there is
that annual variation, which may run a foot to a foot and a half.
h M; MORGAN. The only variation is about a foot to a foot and a
8, II & *
Mr. NoRTON. I would say a foot to a foot and a quarter.
*; MoRGAN. What is the variation at the lowest period of the
cycle : 4 *
Mr. NORTON. I would not want to quote those figures without hav-
ing them before me. They are here with the Buffalo delegation, and
they can give you the figures for the connplete record.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is all I wish to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. NoFTON. As to the effect of lowering, I wish to speak of it in
one phase which may not be otherwise brought to you, and that is the
effect upon foundations of structures in the Buffalo Harbor. Many
of these structures were built before any diversion at Chicago or be-
fore the power diversion. On the Great Lakes, different from the
situation on the seacoast, we consider that timber placed below the
permanent water level is practically everlasting, and when we built a
permanent structure we build it with the timber or piling below the
water lever, and cap that with concrete or masonry above. Many
of these structures were built before the diversion and at a high-
water period. Now, since the water level is lowered enough to
expose that timberwork over a long period of time the effect of
the atmosphere causes decay to set in, and any material lowering
of the water levels in the harbor will have a severe effect upon what
is otherwise a permanent structure, in that it will allow the heads of
the piles to decay. I might mention that the Donner Steel Co. has a
good-sized dock, and the Bethlehem Steel Co., which has something
over 2 miles of this cribbing, which probably cost $150 a running
foot; and the Union Ship Canal, the Rogers-Brown Co., and the
Pennsylvania Railroad has nearly a mile: the city has nearly a mile
of this structure in the Niagara River, and there are many more miles
of such structure placed with piles or timber cribbing, which is
usually a foot or a foot and a half below the normal water level, and
any permanent lowering which will expose ſhe top of those timbers
will endanger those timbers in the way I have stated.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The timbers have not yet been exposed, have they
Mr. NORTON. Yes; you can see many of them sticking out,
especially at this time of the year. -
Mr. HULL. You say they are sticking out. Then does the water
come back and cover them up again?
Mr. NORTON. Yes.
Mr. HULL. Then you have not got a permanent lowering, have
ou? -
y Mr. Norton. Well, as you said, this is a local cycle and they are
exposed. t
Mr. HULL. But the water comes back and covers them up. You
said they were sticking up, but that the water would rise and cover
them up.
r- ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 293
Mr. NORTON. At times. If we have a gale, for instance, there will
be plenty of water. - -
Mr. HULL. And then we have not a permanent lowering at this
time, have we?
Mr. NORTON. In high-water level or low-water level there is a
permanent lowering by reason of the diversion. .
Mr. HULL. I understand, but I want you to make the statement
that you had a permanent lowering. You just contradicted that
statement when you said it raised and fell, so that it would not be
a permanent lowering. That is true, is it not?
Mr. NoRTON. The diversion constitutes a permanent lowering of
the water level at both high and low water points. So it is a per-
manent lowering.
Mr. HULL. And still it will come up and come down?
Mr. NORTON. It goes up and comes back; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that would be true no matter how much
you lowered it?
Mr. Norton. The whole series would be lowered by that amount.
Mr. ADCOCK. How far above the ordinary water surface is the
piling preserved by the water—is it not several inches, 8 or 10
inches? In other words, it does not run right down to the surface
of the water?
Mr. NORTON. You mean the capillary attraction ?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
Mr. NORTON. It will for a short distance.
Mr. ADCOCK. Is not that 8 or 10 inches?
Mr. NORTON. That would depend again on the character of your
wood and the length of exposure. In soft wood, in which the
water evaporates readily, you would have decay there, and you could
recover it again during the succeeding high-water period.
Mr. ADCOCK. What is the extent of the oscillations on the surface?
Mr. NoRTON. They extend over what period?
Mr. Ancock. In three or four hours does it not change as much as
8 feet?
Mr. NoRTON. Not as much as that in that length of time. There
is an extreme in Buffalo of 14 feet; that is the difference between
extreme high and extreme low water.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. But that is unusual; that is due to northeast
winds, Captain. *
Mr. NoRTON. It may run a foot or 2 feet. Those are changes of
the wind from northeast to southwest.
So we consider that anything that will permanently lower in any
way the general average of the water level of the Lakes will en-
danger to some extent structures of this character which otherwise
would be considered as permanent. While I have not heard the
arguments of the Chicago people, I suppose they are based largely
on the sanitary necessity ?
Buffalo is interested in that phase of it. The International Joint
Commission created by treaty between the United States and Great
Britain was authorized to investigate the extent to which the pollu-
tion of the boundary waters on one side was injurious to the inhabit-
ants on the other side of the boundary line and what remedial
measures should be applied. They undertook these investigations
a number of years ago, first on the extent of the pollution which
294 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
which crosses the boundary line and then, subsequently, an investiga-
tion of what remedial measures should be applied.
The city of Buffalo cooperated with the International Joint
Commission in the solution of Sewage-treatment problems as far as
possible. In the summer of 1915 the International Joint Commission
sent an Engineer Corps to Buffalo and whent to Detroit to investi-
gate the conditions along the Niagara River and along the Detroit
River as typical, and perhaps the key situations of the boundary
water pollutions.
The recommendation made by the International Joint Commission
under the direction of Prof. Earle Benjamin Phillips, of the Public
Health Service at that time, was to this effect: That we should give
our sewage such treatment as would be necessary that the waters
of Niagara River might be safe for domestic supply where filtered;
that is, that pollution would not impose an undue burden upon the
water filtration plants at the towns below it, below the city of
Fºlo Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, Lockport, and Niagara
alls. o
Their general finding was this, that we should treat our sewage
to such an extent that there would not be the equivalent in bacteria
content of more than a discharge from one inhabitant for each 4
cubic feet per second. That would allow us to discharge the pollu-
tion of about 50,000 people at 4 cubic feet per person without im-
posing an undue burden upon the filtration plants below us.
With a population of 500,000 it meant, then, that we were doing
ten times as much damage to the river as we should. They ask us
to work on that basis.
The CHAIRMAN. That means we must do away with nine-tenths
Mr. NoRTON (interposing). Of the objectionable matter in the
sewage; yes. I wish to bring that out, that the findings of the Inter-
national Joint Commission show our treatment is going to be a
function of the flow of Niagara River, and any water diverted at
Chicago for sanitary purposes would impose a small but definite
burden on the city of Buffalo in reaching the standard set up by the
International Joint Commission. -
I might say for the record that the city has not gone ahead to carry
out this program in full because the International Joint Commission
had no authority to approve plans, and Buffalo representatives
made the statement to the International Joint Commission that so
soon as proper authority was set up, either by coincident legislation
between Washington and Ottawa or by treaty, whereby a proper
body was created which might approve plans, that the city of
Buffalo was ready to go ahead with its treatment.
Now, in looking toward that we have expended several hundred
thousand dollars in the extension of our trunk intercepting sewers
and the purchase of land necessary for treatment plants. I believe
I voice the sentiment of the governing authorities of Buffalo when
I say that the city expects to go ahead with the treatment so soon
as there is a proper authority which can approve plans and say,
“This is satisfactory.”
We do not want to be put in a position of spending four million
or five million dollars and then have some other authority say, “This
is not what was required.”
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 295
Mr. MoRGAN. To what exent have you adjusted your conditions
as far as they relate to sewage to the findings of this commission?
In other words, you say you can only deposit in the water. One-tenth
of the sewage of Buffalo according to the findings. To what extent
have you adjusted your sewage conditions to the findings?
Mr. Norton. I was trying to explain that we were ready to go
ahead. - r
Mr. MoRGAN. But at the present time?
Mr. Norton. We are discharging all of our sewage into the
Niagara River or its tributaries, because we can not have any ap-
proval of plans by competent authority. We have purchased the
site for these sewage-disposal plants and extended our interceptors
toward the location of those plants. .
Mr. MoRGAN. In other words, you are depositing all of your sew-
age in the waters at this time, and have not a definite plan for
sewage disposal? .*
Mr. NoFTON. I think we have quite a definite program; yes. We
have expended considerable money looking toward the carrying out
of the general recommendations of the engineers of the International
Joint Commission. - -
Mr. HULL. In other words, then, you want to have enough water
left in the river to run your sewage-disposal plants?
Mr. Norton. No; I have not any such idea in my head. -
Mr. HULL. The question I asked you was whether you are not
depending upon enough water to run these sewage-disposal plants,
and you said you did not say that. I think you did. The ques-
tion I was trying to bring out was that you did make a similar
remark. It is possible I did not understand just what you said.
Mr. Norton. I said that that much water diverted at Chicago
would require a proportionate amount of increase in the expense at
Buffalo. That is, if Chicago takes 5 per cent of the water which
would naturally pass Buffalo, the city of Buffalo would have to go
5 per cent farther with its treatment.
r. HULL. I am coming back to what I wanted to ask you. You
stated that you want this water to run these disposal plants. Don’t
you think that Chicago ought to have the water to run their dis-
posal plants?
Mr. Norton. Yes; under the same conditions as Buffalo. If
Chicago will take nine-tenths of the solids out of the sewage
Mr. HULL. We intend to make them do that.
Mr. Norton. And then you will have ample water to meet
all the conditions that are needed, which are not the same as in the
Niagara River. In the Niagara River we must make the water
potable, drinkable water; in the Chicago River you must reduce your
pollution so that it will not be a nuisance.
Mr. HULL. I think you said that the allowance of the War De-
partment was 4,167 t &
Mr. NoFTON. I did not say it would take that amount. I said
that amount would do it. *
Mr. BARRETT. What sort of treatment plants has Buffalo recom-
mended? º
Mr. NORTON. The report of the International Joint Commission
practically recommended two hours' sedimentation.
Mr. BARRETT. What kind of disposal plants?
296 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
. The CHAIRMAN, Let me suggest this: The committee is going to
allow everybody to ask questions, but let me suggest that when
any one wants to ask a question he should first address the chair.
Now, Mr. Barrett, you may proceed. -
I think the question was, what kind of disposal plants the city of
Buffalo had in mind, was not that it? - -
Mr. BARRETT. In a general way. Do they have some particular
plan in mind? . -
Mr. NoFTON. The recommendation of the International Joint Com-
mission was either sedimentation for a period of an hour and a half
to two hours and chlorinization.,
Mr. BARRETT. I did not ask that. I wanted to know what Buffalo
had planned, not what the International Joint Commission recom-
mended. s
Mr. NorTon. I said Buffalo was ready to follow out the recommen-
dations or orders of any duly constituted authorities which had the
right to see and approve our plans. We are not going to make any
plans until we know who is to approve them, and what will be ap-
proved by them.
Mr. BARRETT. Has Buffalo made any independent investigation and
study of that situation on its own account?
Mr. NoFTON. At this time we have engaged three of the best Sani-
tary experts in the country, some of whom have labored with the
Chicago situation without much result so far, and they have given
us some good advice. -
Mr. BARRETT. But up to this time it is nothing but advice; you have
not any plans worked out? .
Mr. NoFTON. I have told you what plans we have.
The CHAIRMAN. Was the advice you speak of on the subject of the
plans to be pursued? What could it be about if it was not that?
Mr. NoFTON. We thought that our Doctor Hering, and Mr. Fuller,
of New York, both of whom report in this International Waterways
Commission in regard to what could be done with Chicago, were good
advisors, and in addition we had Mr. Harrison Eddy, of Metcalf &
Eddy, of Boston. We had them as advisors.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I ask Judge Barrett a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Has Chicago definite plans made for the disposal of
the sewage?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. It has adopted plans?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; we have two systems; one known as the acti-
vated sludge system and the other known as the Imhoff tank system.
The two systems now treat the sewage from 130,000 of our popula-
tion. We have a contract let for another plant, which will cost
$25,000,000, which will be completed in 1927, and which will take
care of 800,000. We have a program under ordinance which requires
the completion in 20 years at an expenditure of approximately $120,-
000,000 of the necessary plants to take care of 3,000,000 of our popula-
tion, i $
Mr. MoRGAN. I understood his testimony was along the line that
in case Chicago diverted water to the extent of lowering the lake
levels it would affect your sanitary conditions so far as the findings
of the joint commission were concerned? º t
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 297
Mr. NORTON. If they decrease the discharge in the Niagara River—
that is, if they take 5 per cent of the water out—we would roughly
be required to go 5 per cent further with our purification.
Mr. MoRGAN. In other words, if the lake levels were lowered by
reason of the diversion at Chicago it would affect Buffalo.”
Mr. NORTON. Referring to the total quantity of water flowing into
the Niagara River, if the quantity of water were decreased 5 per cent
by Chicago diversion, then under the findings of the International
Joint Commission we would have to go 5 per cent further with our
purification of sewage, and that condition would exist as to other
cities. -
If I may divert on that, I am glad to hear that Chicago is pro-
gressing with that program, because I think on the basis commonly
given you can discharge the sewage of 100,000 on a 3% per cent
basis, and carrying this out it will be entirely possible to prevent
a nuisance within the canal. Whether that is going to be necessary
to protect Chicago's water supply I don’t know. I call attention
to this fact, that Cleveland has built and Buffalo is well under
way with a filtration plant, and the towns below have also built
them, and we think it is up to the best sanitation science to-day, even
if you have your water supply well protected, to filter your water,
and in that connection it would remove the occasional pollution of
the water supply. The city can be protected and its health can be
protected, as well as the city of Niagara Falls is protected by its
filtration plant, against the discharge of Buffalo and Tonawanda.
Mr. PEAVEY. Is there not a difference that may be considered
between the control of sewage in the city of Chicago and the city
of Buffalo, in the sense, as I understand it, that Buffalo is located
on a natural water course to which the people have a natural right,
the people who located there, whereas the diversion at Chicago is
an unnatural diversion, they having diverted the water from its
usual course to the northward back to the southward? -
Mr. Norton. It is the removal of the water from its natural water
course; it is taken away from its natural course. The riparian
owners have a right to the use of such waters. -
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the distinction can be drawn more clearly.
The city of Buffalo diverts no water for the purpose of sewage
disposal, but it simply uses the water where it is, in the Great
Lakes and the Niagara River. That is a fact, is it not?
Mr. Norton. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not divert a single cubic inch of water
for that purpose?
Mr. NoRTON. No; it is taken out and it is put back in the river
within a mile or two.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?
Mr. NoRTON. I believe that is all I have, if there are no questions.
STATEMENT OF MR. ADAM E. CORNELIUS—Resumed
Mr. CoRNELIUs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
I am not going to take up much time. I have not prepared any
speech on this matter, but I have read over this report of 1920 sub-
mitted by the engineers of the rivers and harbors of the United
298 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
States, and the more I have read it the more I have become con-
vinced that there is no better authority anywhere, on the Lakes or
elsewhere, on the whole subject. I think it is the most wonderful
presentation I have ever seen, and the members of our committee
feel the same way about it. - g -
The CHAIRMAN. That is Colonel Warren's report to which you
are referring? $ 4
Mr. CORNELIUS. Colonel Warren’s report; yes. I am going to
refer to it almost entirely. -
For instance, on page 39, at the top of the page, it says: -
In advance of the more detailed discussion we may say that we believe that
navigation purposes in value and importance take precedence over all other
uses to which the waters of the Great Lakes may be put.
That is emphasizing the fact that they know the importance of
navigation on the Great Lakes to the people of this section of the .
country, and not only this section but the entire United States.
On page 43 there are a few paragraphs which I want the privi-
lege of reading. While it is in the records, nevertheless it is some-
thing worth considering, pertaining to the commerce on the Lakes.
He says: -
The character, extent, and importance of the navigation of the Great Lakes
are generally known, and the division engineer gives a large amount of
detailed information as to the commodities carried and the vesseſs that carry
them. The traffic consists principally of bulk freight, iron ore, coal, grain,
and stone, carried in large vessels of a peculiar type, and most of it originates
Or terminates at the West end of Lake Superior or the east end of Lake Erie.
The channels through the Lakes naturally afford practically unlimited depth,
but the harbors and the Connecting channels have had to be deepened by
dredging and set the limitations upon the drafts to which vessels may load.
The Lakes themselves exhibit considerable seasonal and periodic fluctuations
Of depth, and the lower Stages, Occurring generally in the Spring and fall,
reduce to a minimum the depths available in the harbors and connecting
Channels.
Then he says:
Thus between 1860 and 1920 the monthly mean elevations of Lake Superior
varied between 600.7 and 604.1 feet, those of Lake Michigan and Huron
between 579 and 583.6 feet, and those of Lake Erie between 570.7 and 574.5
feet. There have, of course, been daily mean stages considerably lower than
these average monthly elevationS. -
Then he goes on to say:
Transportation on the Iakes is extremely well organized and efficient, and
a system has been evolved under which vessels on every trip have timely
notice of the minimum depth available along their route and load to the greatest
draft thus indicated as permissible. Advantage is taken of every possible
inch of depth, and the actual cost of transportation is thereby kept very low.
It is easy to see that under such a system every inch of depth is of measurable
Value.
I might say that last season we carried coal a distance of a thou-
sand miles, from Buffalo to Duluth, for 40 cents to 45 cents a ton.
That is cheaper than you can have coal taken from your curbstone to
the cellar. -
Mr. HULL. Were your boats fully loaded?
Mr. CoRNELIUs. No; not fully loaded. I will bring that out later.
The division engineer has figured that the average earnings for each tenth
of a foot of draft of the average lake freights is $44.57 per trip, or $590,000 per
season for the entire fleet, and this is evidently also the loss from a reduction
in depth of the same amount for the number of vessels considered.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 299
I might say that we have checked on these figures as far as we
could, and we certainly take off our hats to the engineers who com-
piled the report, because the figures are certainly complete. [Read-
ing further:] -
It is an accepted fact that lowering of all the lakes named has resulted
from diversion and changes in the discharge capacity of their outflow and con-
necting rivers, and the amount of lowering and consequent reduction of depth
available at critical points being known, it is a simple matter of multiplication
to arrive at the total annual loss.
He theri goes into various figures and comes to this conclusion:
Table 47 shows the total lowering of each lake by all existing diversions at
Imean stage. Lakes Michigan and Huron are lowered 0.47 foot; Lake Erie, 0.76
foot; and Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River at Lock 25, about 0.62 foot.
If the entire bulk freight traffic of the upper Lakes entered Lake Erie the
annual loss would be 7.6 multiplied by $590,000, which would equal $4,484,000.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a loss simply to transportation—to the
transportation man?
Mr. Corn ELIUS. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. To the man who carries the freight?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes; only about 80 per cent of this traffic pertains
to Lake Erie, and the yearly loss is therefore $3,946,000.
The loss on the 12 per cent pertaining to Lake Michigan is $333,000, and that
on the traffic of the St. Lawrence canals $434,000, the total average annual
loss based on recent tonnage being. therefore, $4,713,000. To this total loss
of earnings the diversion of the Chicago Sanitary Canal, an average of 8,800
cubic feet per Second in 1917, contributed $2,866,000 annually, and even the
diversions for power in the Chippewa-Grass Island pool, far below the foot of
Lake Erie, lower it nearly one-tenth foot and cause a loss of about $526,000
each year.
As stated there, that was based on the tonnage of 1917, when we
transported on the Lakes approximately 97,000,000 tons of bulk
freight.
The CHAIRMAN. You transported last year 120,000,000 tons.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes. This past season we transported 121,000,000
tons, which is 25 per cent increase over the figures at that time.
Therefore, I want to bring out this, that as near as we can see the
engineers' figures are accurately prepared. We swear by them, be-
cause we can not see anything wrong in them.
If you want to figure immediately on the increase of tonnage, you
add 25 per cent, and it means we have a loss of $3,582,000 on account
of the diversion at Chicago, based on last year's tonnage instead of
1917.
... Now, the engineers' figures, based on 8,800 cubic feet per second—
if you would make this 10,000 cubic feet a second you must add 11
per cent, and that makes it approximately, loss based on last year’s
business of $4,000,000 freight-carrying charges due to the withdrawal
of water by the Chicago drainage canal alone.
The CHAIRMAN. Entirely aside from the loss of transportation by
the farmers and manufacturers of the great West?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes. I wanted to bring that out. In a big year
which taxed all the capacity of everything on the Lakes—and we
had those years during the war when we needed more tonnage and
the season ended with a lot of freight to be carried—you might be
forced to the necessity of shipping a lot of this via rail; and if you
carry commodities that the Lakes ought to carry, and that they can
300 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
not carry because of loss in the draft of water, it means a much
higher rate of freight.
I believe the engineers in some other part of this report have
figured that the volume of business in 1922—I forget the amount,
but if it had been carried by rail instead of by water it would have
cost the country another º for transportation in that
single year, because transportation on the Lakes is the lowest in the
entire world.
Mr. HULL. I am assuming that you are laying all of it to the
diversion at Chicago?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I am reading from the engineers’ report, which
lays it to the diversion of Chicago.
Mr. HULL. Very well; I accept that. I want to ask you this ques-
tion: We will assume that the 10,000 cubic feet are going down the
Mississippi River, and that waterway is completed and the boats are
put on; where would there be any loss in transportation if they used
that same water for boats going down there?
Mr. CORNELIUS. In this same book, if the committee will take the
time before they reach a decision on this bill, they will find in one
part of this book where the engineers have gone into it so carefully
that fairly did they tell you what an infinitesimal amount of com-
merce there is on the Illinois River.
Mr. NEWTON. You are opposed to the improvement of the valley
rivers? 4
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. That is what I wanted to know.
Mr. HULL. This 10,000 cubic feet that you claim is going down the
Mississippi is put into transportation, and we have a 9-foot channel
and put barges on and keep the barges busy hº; freight. If that
is done, why does not that equalize the proposition?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. The commerce of the Great Lakes, 121,000,000
tons, will always travel by way of the Great Lakes. The iron ore
is found above Lake Superior and in the Northern Peninsula of
Michigan, and it is bound to find its way down the Lakes to Chicago,
where there are a few furnaces, but most of it to the Lake Erie
ports, where they take it to the great steel section; and westbound the
coal is bound to go through the Great Lakes, both the soft coal and
the hard coal-
Mr. HULL. Excuse me; I don’t think you have answered my ques-
tion. I am trying to bring out before this committee just this idea
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead and ask him the question.
Mr. HULL. Just let me alone and I will ask him. You have claimed
that they have 10,000 cubic feet diversion?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Did I claim that?
Mr. HULL. That is what you said.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I am only reading what the engineers claimed.
Mr. HULL. All right, that is what the engineers claim. If that
10,000 cubic feet are going down the river and the boats are used
on the river, does not that ttake care of the commerce for the 10,000
cubic feet? * *
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment.
Mr. HULL. Let him answer that.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to intervene, if I may, because I
take it he is not familiar with this question as I am. Suppose you
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 301
found, Mr. Cornelius, that 1,000 cubic feet would be ample for the
purpose of navigation—
Mr. HULL. I don’t think you ought to ask him that question.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I have read in the book that the engineers have
reported that 1,000 cubic feet is ample.
Mr. HULL. That gets away from my question.
The CHAIRMAN. No; he can answer both questions if you want
him to. He can answer yours first, and I will wait. I don’t think
he is an engineer— -
Mr. HULL. He should not be making these statements—
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; he is simply reading from the report
of the engineers. Now, suppose you found that 1,000 cubic feet per
second at Chicago would be ample for purposes of navigation of the
Illinois River, you would not then deem it was necessary, even
though the commerce on the Illinois River were large, to divert
9,000 cubic feet in addition for navigation purposes, would you?'
Mr. CoRNELIUS. No.
. Mr. HULL. Do you know whether 1,000 cubic feet would do it?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I am not here to discuss that; I am here to discuss
the navigation of the lakes.
Mr. HULL. All right, and I am coming back to you on that same
proposition, that you are claiming you are losing this money on
account of the diversion, and I am coming back. If you get the di-
version and use the boats why do you not get the same amount of
freight?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I read that
Mr. HULL. I am asking for your opinion.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Well, I will leave that to the engineers.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you do not want to answer that?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. The engineers have answered it in this book, and
I would like the committee to refer to that.
Mr. MoRGAN. And I understood you to say, in answer to Mr. New-
ton's question, that you were opposed to the Mississippi Valley de-
velopment?
Mr. CoRNELIUs. No; I did not say that.
Mr. NEwTON. Was ot that your answer to my question?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I think the record will show that it was.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is the way I understood it.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Why don’t you ask me whether we were opposed
to the Chicago drainage canal using the 10,000 cubic feet per second.
I said that is what our committee is here for. If there is anything
else there I want it struck out, because I am not here opposed to
any navigation scheme. -
The CHAIRMAN. I knew that was what he meant.
Mr. HULL. He said he was opposed to it.
Mr. MoRGAN. You specifically referred to the loss of freight in
dollars and cents by reason of the lowering of the lake level?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. You gave it in dollars and cents?
Mr. CoRNELIUs. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. You are a shipper, you own a steamship line?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. You are familiar with the amount of domestic and
export freight transported on the Lakes, are you?
302. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I would not be able to divide the tonnage between
export and domestic; no, sir. I can only deal now with a total
amount of freight on the Lakes last season, and I gave you that. . .
Mr. MoRGAN. You would not care to make an estimate of the
amount of freight?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. No, sir. º
The CHAIRMAN. I think we can get that probably.
Mr. MoRGAN. Very well. Then this further question: What prod-
ucts represent the principal volume of your business?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Three or four commodities. The four that we
referred to last season was requiring all the draft that the channels
can give, and in the order of their size iron ore comes first, and that
last season was approximately 60,000,000 tons.
Mr. MoRGAN. What is second?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Second is coal. That was approximately 32,-
000,000 tons. Both of those are domestic.
Mr. MoRGAN. Very well. Now, the next product?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. For those two that makes a total of 59,036,000.
tons in iron ore and 32,000,000 tons of coal, or, to be exact, 33,137,000
tons of coal.
The CHAIRMAN. That would make 92,000,000 tons of those com-
modities.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. And then the next item is grain, 11,850,000 tons.
The next item is stone, 9,920,000 tons.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is just the point I want to get at. You state
that it is necessary to maintain these lake levels in order to transport
these products?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Well, pardon me, I did not quite wish to bring
that into question.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then you make a difference in dollars and cents by
reason of the lowering of the lake levels?
Mr. Corn ELIUS. That is the idea.
Mr. MoRGAN. You are familiar with the fact, no doubt, that in
case the Chicago River was developed, that there is a possibility of
a very large per cent of that iron ore being developed into finished
products to be used by the implement-manufacturing companies, the
harvesting-machine companies—
Mr. CoRNELIUS. A small amount—
Mr. MoRGAN (continuing). And is it not a fact that in the Central
West and West approximately 70 per cent of our steel products pro-
duced in this country are consumed ?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I would not be in a position to tell you that.
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, is it not a fact that a very large per cent of
our steel products are consumed in the West and Central West?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. It would seem reasonable.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then, naturally, would it not follow that in case this
iron ore was diverted to plants that may be developed near Chicago
or along the Chicago River that the coal necessary would also be
diverted, or a great per cent of it?
Mr. Corn ELIUS. No; I don’t think so, because our coal originates
farther south.
Mr. MoRGAN. Putting my proposition in a concrete way, then, as
near as I can, is it not a fact that the loss of freight tonnage to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 303
which you refer would be much more overcome by reason of the
development of the Chicago River and the advantages offered in
transportation along the Mississippi River Valley?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I don’t see that; no, sir. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Cornelius: Suppose you
could develop the Chicago River, the Illinois River, with 1,000 or
2,000 cubic feet of water, without interfering with the navigation
of the Great Lakes. The only question involved, then, would be the
question of Chicago's sewage, would it not?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes; it would seem so to me.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask another question. You realize the
fact that the greatest trouble we are having in this country to-day
is on account of the farmer, do you not? Do you realize that or
don’t you?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I have read about the trouble with the farmer,
but I don’t see what bearing that has.
Mr. HULL. All right; that is what I want to bring out.
The CHAIRMAN. He wants to see how you are going to save these
Illinois flats, where they have rich land, if we flood them by sending
too much water down there?
Mr. HULL. No; I don’t.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what he has in mind. He wants to keep
down the quantity of water so he will insure them from being
flooded. -
Mr. HULL. What I want to bring out is this: That to-day the
farmer is industrious, and if we have the Mississippi River with a
good flow of water that will carry barges down and give the farmer
the opportunity of Saving from 5 to 8 cents a bushel on his grain, is
it or is is not a good proposition?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I have not looked into that.
Mr. HULL. Would you not consider it a good proposition?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I am not in a position to say. I am a navigator
on the Lakes, and I am here to discuss that subject only.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you don’t want any navigation any-
where except on the Lakes?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I don’t say that. I am here to discuss a bill with
Oll.
y Mr. HULL. That is what I am here for, and that is what we are
discussing, but you are trying to get off onto the Great Lakes. I
want you to come down my way.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I am here to discuss a thing that the engineers
have indicated to you, that navigation on the Lakes is the main use
to which the water should be put—and I am bringing it out—and the
loss that it entails when you take it away.
Mr. HULL. The only thing that you are bringing out is that you
want the water for your purpose. -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I am telling you what the figures are of the engi-
neers, and I will stand by them and go down with the engineers.
Mr. HULL. That is not it. We are trying to build a deep water-
way from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico.
The CHAIRMAN. And you want the water necessary for that pur-
pose, but you don’t want any more?
304 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HULL. We want this navigation, and I want to know if you
are opposed to it? . . . - - r -
Mr. CoRNELIUs. No. ... w
Mr. HULL. Then why are you opposed to the diversion?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I am not opposed to the development of the chan-
nel to the proper depth, and I am willing to abide by the engineer's
report, which I understand says 500 to 1,000 cubic feet a second.
Mr. HULL. You mean you are willing to put a thousand cubic feet
in the Mississippi River? " . -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. That is a whole lot better than 10,000.
Mr. HULL. That much won't do it. +
Mr. WILSON. There is one question that is confusing in my mind
that was brought out by Mr. Cornelius. You are charging the di-
version of the Chicago Canal to the lowering of the lake in Buffalo
and other harbors. Is that right?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes. ;
k Mr.Wilson. How many diversions are affecting the lakes, do you
In OW . -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. If you will let me continue with my story
Mr. WILSON. I just wanted to clear up one thing in my mind for
the benefit of all.
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think you were here at the time, but
Captain Norton covered all that fully, and it is in the record two or
three times. He gave each diversion in accordance with the report
of Colonel Warren, and he gave the amount of lowering due to each
diversion.
Mr. WILSON. That is what I wanted. *
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have the attorney general of
Pennsylvania here. He has to leave to-night, and I will therefore
ask that the testimony of this witness be finished as soon as pos-
sible, because we want to hear the attorney general before he leaves.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I ask one question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. The third item in tonnage I believe was grain?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Grain; yes; that is right. -
The CHAIRMAN. Eleven million tons.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Eleven million tons last season.
Mr. MoRGAN. And the total of coal and iron ore was approxi-
mately 92,000,000 tons?
The CHAIRMAN. Ninety-two million tons together. -
Mr. MoRGAN. That would be 103,000,000 tons out of the total of
121,000,000? r
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; 18,000,000 tons left. -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. You have the coal 59,000,000 tons?
Mr. MoRGAN. Can you tell me or do you know what per cent of
this wheat is for domestic use? *
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I would not have those figures. They can be
gotten, though, very easily. We can get them, I think, from the .
lake carriers. - -
The CHAIRMAN. We will get that by to-morrow.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I want to continue on the same line of navigation,
starting with paragraph 132 at page 91 of this same engineers’
report, concerning the economic effect of diversion upon naviga-
tion. He says:
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 305
The Great Lakes system forms one of the world’s greatest highways for
Water-borne transportation. The Great Lakes fleet moves more than 100,000,-
000 tons of freight each season. The greater part of this commerce is the
SO-Called bulk freight, consisting of iron ore, coal, grain, and limestone.
This is carried in a peculiar type of vessel known as the “bulk freighter.”
The bulk freighters are highly specialized boats which have been developed
by the conditions of the lake trade. The vessels are from 280 to 625 feet
in length, and have a carrying capacity of from 3,000 to 15,000 short tons.
Most of them can be loaded to a draft of about 22 feet. They are the most
economical carriers in the world, their rates usually being one-tenth of a cent
per ton-mile, and sometimes only a third of that amount. Rail rates are
SeVeral times as much, Often being at least ten times the water rates. The
annual Saving Over the cost of moving this same freight by rail exceeds a
Quarter of a billion dollars. |
Then the report goes on to say:
Under the conditions of 100 years ago the only ships which could navigate
the Great Lakes system and enter the harbors were small vessels drawing
about 5 feet of water. The United States has spent about $135,000,000 in
improving the harbors, deepening and straightening the channels, and build-
ing locks on the St. Marys and Niagara Rivers. The Canadians have done
Similar work on a smaller scale. As a result there is now available a ship
channel through and between the upper lakes with a controlling depth of
21 feet at mean stage. All the important harbors have corresponding depths.
From Lake Erie to the Welland Canal, Lake Ontario, and the St. LaWrence
River to tidewater at Montreal the controlling depth is 14 feet.
The immense traffic of the Great Lakes is a direct result of these improve-
ments of navigation, and the movement of such large amounts of freight at
Such low rates is directly due to the greater depths thus made available.
The vessel owners keep close track of the stage of water, and take advantage
of every period of high stage to load their boats to a greater draft. During
times when low stages prevail they are correspondingly handicapped and the
carrying capacity of the fleet is materially reduced.
. As already shown, the existing diversions of water from the Great Lakes
have caused a considerable lowering of the lake levels, and further diver-
Sions, with consequent further lowerings, are contemplated. The average
loSS Caused by a reduction of one-tenth of a foot in the available draft amounts
to $44.57 for one trip of a bulk freighter on the upper lakes, or $590,000 per
year for the whole fleet. For the smaller vessels engaged in trade through
the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals the average loss caused by the lowering
of one-tenth of a foot is $41.40 for each trip, and $70,000 per year for the
Whole fleet.
The amounts by which the various lakes have already been lowered by
existing diversions have been given in Table No. 6. The total loss to the
bulk-freight trade caused by this lowering is estimated at $4,713,000 per year.
If all the contemplated diversions listed in Table No. 7 should be effected, the
resulting lowering would increase the annual loss to $7,825,000.
Then he says:
The total loss to navigation amounts to a direct tax upon the transportation
of iron Ore, coal, and grain—that is upon steel, fuel, and food, three funda-
mental necessities of modern life. The Great Lakes traffic is an absolutely
essential part of the American steel industry, and plays an important part
in the distribution of grain and coal. The bulk freighter of the Lakes carries
each year about 80 per cent of the Nation’s production of iron ore, more than 20
per cent of the combined wheat crops of the United States and Canada, and
about 5 per cent of the coal production of the United States. The cost of all
these products to the general public is increased by the diversions.
I wanted to bring that out. I have read from pages 43 and 44.
Now, turning to page 55, I want to read some statements into the
record, because they are from the engineers:
Diversions for Water supply and sewage purposes have already been dis.
cussed and, with the exception of the diversion of the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict, they have been disposed of.
*
306 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I interrupt you? The engineer states that
those questions have been disposed of?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Except the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the page?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Page 55.
Mr. HULL. Will you read that over again?
Mr. CoRNELIUS (reading):
Diversions for water supply and sewage purposes have already been dis-
cussed and, With the exception of the diversion of the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict, they have been disposed of.
He has referred to them and how they came about.
The CHAIRMAN. He means that he has treated them fully.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes. -
Mr. MoRGAN. What does he mean by being disposed of?
The CHAIRMAN. I think he means that he has treated them fully.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes; that he has treated them and how they
came about and what they meant.
The CHAIRMAN. He means so far as he is concerned, they are dis-
posed of.
Mr. CORNELIUS (reading from report):
We therefore revert to this important permanent diversion at Chicago. The
Case is So Well known and the information in the report so full as to call for
little further discussion of its merits. Granting that disposal by dilution was
the most practicable plan at the time of its adoption, the fact remains that the
Chicago Sanitary District has for practically 20 years been on notice that the
United States was unwilling to allow the district to divert more water than the
limit Set in the permit of 1903, namely, 4,167 cubic feet per second. Notwith-
Standing this the district has since then greatly expanded its boundaries and
enlarged its plans, and from year to year, in the face of the opposition of the
United States, has diverted more and more water, until in 1917 the yearly aver-
age diversion was 8,800 cubic feet per second, which is more than twice the
lawful amount. -
The district can no longer fairly plead the absence or the impracticability of
other Safer methods of handling sewage and protecting the people from water-
bOrne diseases. Certainly for the past 20 years expert opinion has held dis-
posal by dilution to be inferior to other methods of treating sewage, and enlight-
ened public Opinion has condemned a policy which in effect is the transfer of a
nuisance from Our Own front door to that of our neighbor. Large cities on the
Great Lakes can not safely drink raw lake water, nor should they discharge
unscreened and unfiltered sewage either into the Lakes or tributary streams.
I want to refer to one more paragraph, and I will be through.
The CHAIRMAN. He does not name specifically the Illinois River.
Mr. HULL. While you are looking for that, you have not any
sewage-disposal plants in Buffalo, have you?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. You asked that question before.
Mr. HULL. I thought as long as Buffalo did not have them it would
not be any use for Chicago to have them.
The CHAIRMAN. We do not take any water for that purpose at
Buffalo. The evidence was that we do not even take 1 cubic inch.
Mr. HULL. You take all at Niagara Falls.
Mr. MoRGAN. When the witness concludes his reading I would like
to ask two or three questions. &
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I would like to call attention to what the report
says, on page 22, as to the loss in draft. That exists all the time,
because the lake ships are capable of loading as deep as the maximum
water we have. They will go up to 20, 21, or 22 feet if necessary, and
no matter what the stage is, it would be 5% inches deeper, according
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 307
to the United States Engineers’ report here, if there were not that
withdrawal at Chicago, that 51/2 inches, as near as we can figure, or
5.4 inches, which is approximately 4% per cent, equal to 4!/2 per cent
of the capacity of the ships, and on a season like last season approxi-
mates 6,000,000 tons.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do they now perform 4% per cent less than their
capacity? ge
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes. I want to bring this out. On a basis of
10,000 cubic feet per second we have a loss of 51/2 inches draft to all
the ships, and so, carrying that bulk freight each year, we suffer that
loss. We could carry that additional freight in every steamer, and
that would mean we could have carried at approximately the same
cost 6,000,000 tons more of freight.
Mr. BARRETT. That applies. of course, only to the very large ves-
sels; it does not apply to the smaller ones.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. It applies to the bulk freighters. -
Mr. BARRETT. Well, what percentage is that of the entire tonnage?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. We will show it to you; we have got it right here.
The CHAIRMAN. Had"you finished except for that?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes; except for that.
The CHAIRMAN. Then let me suggest this, Judge, with your per-
mission: We will recall Mr. Cornelius after we have heard the Attor-
ney General. -
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I have that information right here.
Mr. BARRETT. One more question.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us get this one answered first.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I want to read to you from the statistics given
you by the United States engineers, pages 387 and 388. This is
under the heading “Economic value of diversions.” He goes on to
classify the freighters on the lakes, and he mentions the different-
size boats in the list of bulk freighters. The smallest sizes are those
285 feet in length and with a beam of 40 feet, and there are only 85
of those on the lake. Their cargo capacity is approximately 3,000
tons each. -
Now, if we eliminate those boats—there are only 85—everything
else on the lakes is able to load beyond the drafts we have on the
lakes and therefore are all affected by this diversion.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge, your next question.
Mr. BARRETT. Your coal trade does not amount to very much of
this consideration, due to the fact that many of your boats go up
light, do they not?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Oh, yes; oh, yes.
Mr. BARRETT. So your coal is practically out of the consideration?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. No, indeed. *
Mr. BARRETT. There is never enough of it to load all of the boats
that are on the lakes?
Mr. CoRNELIUs. No ; I take exception to that, Judge, because we
have certain fleets that engage in the trade to Ohio carrying ore, and
they figure that by making a trip each seven days, a round trip up
and loaded back, they can make as much money by running light in
that Ohio trade as the other boats can by going up with ore and
loaded back.
308 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
We suffer a loss on every boat that does not carry capacity, because
it takes just as long to put into a dock and load her and take the
delays that attend the loading and the delays that attend the un-
loading, whether the boat has 10,000 tons or whether she has 9,600
tons. ... r +
The average-sized boat on the lake is 8,000 tons. The United
States Engineers' Report states that every time we lose an inch in
our draft that sized boat loses so many, tons of her capacity, so that
if we lose 6 inches we can figure we lose 360 to 400 tons on that
average type of boat. . Of course the smaller ones lose a little less.
The CHAIRMAN. There are only 80 of these boats there classified
* being, below the size where they are affected by the lessening of
the depth. ë
Mr. ºstries. I want these read into the record, too, please.
A part of those boats are also engaged now in the St. Lawrence River trade.
That trade has developed to quite an extent. You have to go
through the Welland Canal drawing 14 feet, and that diversion
affects the Welland Canal draft, the smaller, boats.
Mr. HULL. They get their diversion from the Niagara Falls end
of it, do they not?
Mr. Corn ELIUs. No; the Welland Canal is affected by the with-
drawal just as well as Lake Huron or Lake Erie.
Mr. HULL. The 5.6 in the Niagara district would affect the
Welland Canal, would it not; in other words, you are affected by
your own diversion instead of Chicago?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. But what I want to bring out is that the 5%
inches which the engineers’ report here is lowered on the entire
chain of lakes below Superior, by reason of the diversion at Chi-
cago, is also lowered in the Welland Canal. t
Mr. BEHAN. In your loss just recited due to the lowering of the
lake levels you sustain a loss also caused by the other diversions?
The CHAIRMAN. He has just said that.
Mr. CORNELIUS. I am here just discussing this.
Mr. ADCOCK. Congress has fixed projects for these harbors, into
which iron ore and coal and grain are carried.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you know whether the actual depths on the
lowest water have ever been below the project depths of the im.
provements fixed by Congress?
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t suppose he would know. If you will bear
that in mind we will have General Beach answer that.
Mr. ADCOCK. You do not know whether it is a fact that the
lowest water has ever been below the project depth?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes; I will say it has been.
Mr. ADCOCK. But you have not examined that?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. My information is that it is below what they call
their project depths.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The harbors on the lakes, however, are all main-
tained by local funds, are they not, and not maintained by the
Government?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. The inner harbor is taken care of by the local
authorities, I think, and the outer harbor by the Federal Govern-
ment. Is that right, General Beach?
General BEACH. That is correct; yes, sir.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 309
Mr. CoRNELIUS. In conclusion, I want to say that we feel that,
the commerce of the Great Lakes is so tremendous that it should
be given first consideration when we consider any diversions such
as are considered in this bill of a permanent nature. On that
account the Buffalo committee come here to say to you that we are
opposed to the bill which would mean a permanent diversion of
this kind, and we feel that the navigation of the lakes is of such
importance that it ought to influence you to oppose this bill, and
we feel also that if you are still undecided the fact that there are
two cases pending in the Supreme Court to decide the legality of
it, that at least the bill ought not to be passed until the Supreme
Court has had a chance to reach a decision.
Mr. HULL. You said a while ago that on account of this diversion
you had lost by the lighter loading of the boats 6,000,000 tons of
freight.
Mr. CORNELIUS. We figured about 4% per cent would equal that.
Mr. HULL. If these lake levels would have been such that you
could have loaded the full capacity, would you have reduced the
freight rates to the benefit of the shipper ?
Mr. CORNELIUS. It is based on an average. If we carried more
and earned more, the steamboat men get together and establish rates
proportionately.
Mr. HULL. But you could not state that you would have reduced
the rates to the shippers?
Mr. CORNELIUS. We usually do. It would naturally be reflected,
so that everybody would get a benefit if we have that increased
earning power.
Mr. MORGAN. Have you studied the report of the International
Waterways Commission?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I have read that, but not so much as I have this
OI)0.
Mr. Moross. Are you familiar with article 8 of that commission's
report?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Well, I have got it here. I have read over
this, too.
Mr. MORGAN. Well, first, while you are looking that up—
Mr. CORNELIUS. I have it right here.
Mr. MoRGAN. While you are looking that up, do you consider that
this commission made an exhaustive study of the uses of the water
of the lakes?
Mr. CoRNELIUs. The international commission?
Mr. MORGAN. Yes.
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I do not know that I am qualified to answer. I
presume they have, although, as I say, I have made more of a study
of the United States Engineers' report, for the reason that we have
been in contact with them ever since we have been in business, and
we have learned to respect each other and we have come to look upon
their report as authority.
Mr. MORGAN. You were giving your view as to freight.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Commerce being the foremost thing in connection
with the use of the water on the lakes. Well, article 8 of this com-
mission report, or part of the article, reads as follows—
The CHAIRMAN. That is the treaty, is it not?
310 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MORGAN. Yes |reading] :
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various
uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted
which would tend materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which
is given preference over it in this order of precedence :
(Fig. 1.) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes.
(Fig. 2.) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the pur-
p0Ses of navigation.
(Fig. 3.) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
Mr. CorMELIUS. Yes: I remember it. I refer to existing projects
where they had water for sanitary purposes. -
Mr. MoRGAN. Including Chicago.
Mr. CoRNELIUs. But I do not know that it allowed the full amount.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there is any provision on that
question in the treaty?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. I don’t know whether there is; I know it did say
something about interfering with existing diversions.
Mr. PEAVEY. I would like to ask one or two short questions. I
understand you appear for the city of Buffalo and your delegation
at the other towns in that district?
Mr. Cornel,TUs. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. And you are appearing here primarily against the
Hull bill &
Mr. Corn ELIUs. Yes.
Mr. PEAVEY. Do you intend that your appearance and position
shall be recorded as in opposition to the diversion of water at Chi-
cago, whether it be the Hull bill or any other bill?
Mr. Co., NEL sº. We are ::ppearing on the question of this hearing.
We are not qualified to say what we are going to do on any other bill.
The CHAIRMAN. But we are having our hearing on the question
of diversion, so I think the question is very well put. What you are
opposed to is diversion ?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes.
Mr. PEAVEY. One thing further along that line: Do I correctly
understand that you are opposed to any diversion, not limiting the
amount 7 -
Mr. Corn ELIUs. I do not think I am authorized to say that for my
committee, because they sent me here to appear against this bill,
which they have read and which they are opposed to.
Mr. PEAvPY. Let me ask you, as a matter of knowledge from your
association with them, would not they naturally be opposed to any
diversion just as much as that specified in the Hull bill?
Mr. Cor SELIUs, I do not believe I feel qualified to answer that.
If some reasonable bill came in they might think differently. I
know that this thing which refers to a probable 10,000 cubic feet
diversion they are opposed to because of the damage it would do to
navigation.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You would be opposed to any increased diver-
sion ?
Mr. CoRNELIUS. Yes; I certainly would.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 311
(The following letters were filed by Mr. Cornelius:)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
g -- Buffalo, N. Y., April 8, 1924.
Mr. ADAM E. CORNELIUS,
Boland dé Cornelius, Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y.
DEAR SIR: Replying to your letter of March 27, in reference to the Hull
bill that the city of Chicago is trying to have passed through Congress, Which
would permit them to use 10,000 cubic feet of water per second in Connection
with the Chicago Drainage Canal, and asking that we furnish record of ex-
penditures made in harbor development, resulting in deeper drafts for boats,
and the cost of same, beg to advise that the city has spent for improvement
aS follows :
Buffalo Harbor - - - - - – $15,340, 00
Buffalo River ------------------------------------------------ 2, 304, 429. 60
City Ship Canal---------------------------------------------- 790, 348. 49
Peck Slip----------------------------------------------------- 16, 636. 50
Removal islands foot Main Street––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 104, 493. 00
Build new wall and remove rock, Ohio Street __ 112,000. 00
Total -------------- __ 3, 343,247. 59
Yours very truly,
C. E. P. BABCOCK,
City Engineer.
FRANK D. JACKSON,
Assistant Engineer.
THE GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.,
Cleveland, Ohio, April 12, 1927.
Mr. ADAM E. CORNELIUS,
New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.
My DEAR MR. CORNELIUS : I would be very much obliged if you would call
to the attention of the Committee on the hearing relative to the Chicago
Drainage Canals the fact that the Drainage Canal has already lowered the
water in the Calumet River at South Chicago so that the draft of loaded
vessels is reduced 6 inches and has seriously interfered with the safe navigation
of ships in that harbor.
I would like to protest on behalf of the vessels that do business in that port
against the taking Of SO much Water, Creating the condition mentioned. I have
been in Charge of the tugs assisting vessels in and about South Chicago
Harbor for a good many years.
- Yours truly,
CHAs. F. MILLER,
Local Manager Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co.,
South Chicago, Ill.
THE GREAT LAKES Town NG Co.,
Cleveland, Ohio, April 12, 1924.
AM E. CORNELIUS,
Hew Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. CORNET.IU's : I am advised that whºle you are in Washington
expect to attend the hearing relative to the Chicago Drainage Canals.
would like to call your attention to the menace of the current at Chicago.
ed by the flow of water up the river. I have been in charge of the
used at Chicago to assist the vessels up and down the river and through
bridges, and on account of the condit on mentioned the large vessels
l Chicago all they possibly can. The current, on account of the ex-
ve flow of water, makes navigation hazardous, and even with the exer-
* Of the greatest care and skill vessels often get out of control and cross
river, doing Considerable damage. -
I hope Some way will be found to reduce the flow of water and current in
the Chicago River, Sufficient at least so that we may have reasonable and
Safe navigation.
Yours truly,
ROBERT YOUNG,
Local Manager Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co., Chicago, Ill.






312 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP P. WELLS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. WELLs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is opposed to
any diversion in excess of 4,167 cubic feet per second. The harbor
that Pennsylvania has on the lakes is the harbor of Erie, and there
has been great damage to that harbor and the navigation interests
there; and representatives from Erie are here and will give you
the particulars of that matter.
In view of that fact, the Commonwealth has taken steps to appear
in the pending case—the suit by the United States against the
Sanitary district, to restrain any excess diversion—and we have made
informal arrangements with the Solicitor General of the United
States and we are about to intervene in that suit, and do not wish any
sº by Congress to change the law until that suit is disposed of
at least.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that that is all I have to say, unless there
are some questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you here when Attorney General Dougherty
was heard this morning? -
Mr. WELLs. No ; I was not here.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad, I am sure, to have your views
in a brief way upon the rights of States that border the Great Lakes.
Attorney General Dougherty addressed himself at some length to
that and filed a brief with us, and we would be glad to have the views
of the State of Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELLs. Well, in brief, we think that Pennsylvania, as one of
the States upon the Lakes, has a right to the preservation of the
natural conditions there, and that any diversion, certainly in excess
of that authorized already, would be an invasion of the rights of
IPennsylvania, and it is to maintain that proposition that we are
going to the Supreme Court with Michigan and the other States from
the Lakes.
Mr. BoycE. Would you say that is the law if the diversion was
made on the part of Congress for navigation purposes?
Mr. WELLs. That is, you ask me whether I challenge the ºut
of Congress to legislate on the subject? r
Mr. BoycE. Yes; or to divert waters from the Great Lakes or
streams within the States, if it is diverted for the purpose of navi
tion. --
Mr. WELLs. I am not now challenging .
The CHAIRMAN. Wait one moment. See if the judge won’t
sent to a modification of his question. Do you not think, that
question would express the situation you want to express, Ju
is you were to put it “So far as may be necessary or advantage
for navigation ”?
Mr. BoxcE. Yes; of course, that is necessarily implied. Wh
have in mind is whether there is not a difference, and a vast differe!
where you undertake to divert waters for local or private purposº.
such as drainage or electric power and the lowering of waters by
the diversion of waters for the purpose of navigation, extending
navigation, if you please.
Mr. WELLs. Yes; I recognize that navigation being a matter under
Federal jurisdiction legally takes precedence of the uses you have











^
\
\
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 313
mentioned. Our information and belief is, however, that there is no
necessity for any increase over 4,167 cubic feet to develop the naviga-
tion on the Chicago drainage canal.
Mr. BOYCE. Of course, the diversion must be reasonable even
though used for navigation. -
The CHAIRMAN. It must be only to the extent that it is necessary
or at any rate advantageous.
Mr. BoxcE. Yes; that is the best word, “advantageous.”
Mr. HULL. You say you think that 4,176 cubic feet would not be
reasonable. - k
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think he said that.
Mr. HULL. You implied that, did you not?
Mr. WELLs. No. -
Mr. HULL. Do you mean to say that they should not have 4,167
cubic feet?
Mr. WELLs. No. The only thing we are saying is that they shall
not have more than that. -
Mr. HULL. You are benefited in Pennsylvania on account. Erie
taking this stand to some extent?
Mr. WELLs. Yes. - -
The CHAIRMAN. No ; he does not say to some extent, he says they
are taking this stand.
Mr. HULL. I will say what I was trying to bring out was this:
You are in favor of the navigation down the Ohio River, are you not?
That is part of Pennsylvania; you are in favor of that.
Mr. WELLs. Yes. * r
Mr. HULL. Do you not know that we need this water coming down
from Lake Michigan to make that navigation? a ‘
Mr. WELLs. More than 4,167 cubic feet per second Ž
Mr. HULL. That much or more than that. . . . . . . .
Mr. WELLs. No; I do not know that you need more than that.
Mr. HULL. In other words you would be willing to have enough
water come down to make navigation practical in the Ohio? . * * *
Mr. WELLs, I was about to say a-
'', HEIL. Here is what I am trying to show by you. I know you
.9%t tº be for the Ohio River navigation.
... WELLS. Sure we are. -
r. HULL. Taking the water out of Lake Michigan we increase the
r in the Mississippi that makes that navigation possible to take
Mr. . . steel boats from Pittsburgh down to New Orleans. Now,
i you be willing to let us get enough water out of Lake Michigan
MX.<e the Ohio River navigable all the way down?
W9; r. WELLs. We would not have to consider how much it was.
cair. HULL. Well, we would say it took 10,000 cubic feet; then would
tugsbe willing? That is a fair question. r
the ... WELLs. No: I do not think it is a fair question.
*Yºº. HULL. If it takes 10,000 cubic feet, would you be willing to let
."ve it in order to give you navigation on the Ohio River?
fºr. WELLs. We do not believe in the first place——
Mr. HULL. That is not the point. Would you or not be willing to
give us enough water from Lake Michigan to make the Ohio River
navigable? g
The CHAIRMAN. How are you going to get this water up into the
Ohio River; are you going to pump it up?
91739––24—PT 2—5
/
A.
/
314, * ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ET6.
Mr. HULL. No; you are going to make the Mississippi so it will
carry it. . * * r .#
Mr. WELLs. I understand your contention to be that the Missis-
sippi needs this 10,000 cubic feet below the mouth of the Ohio to
make it practicable.
Mr. HULL. Yes. " g
Mr. WELLs. That is not our information.
Mr. HULL. If so, would you be in favor of it?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh! r -
Mr. HULL. I have a right to ask it. He is making a fight for Erie
on the one side and for Pittsburgh on the other side.
Mr. WELLs. We do not think Pittsburgh is in any danger.
Mr. HULL. The point I am trying to make with you is that we need
this water from Lake Michigan to make this inland waterways a
success. It is conceded that we need it.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. WELLS. No.
Mr. HULL. Now, if I am correct, would you be willing to knock
out Pittsburgh for the sake of Erie? -
Mr. WELLs. Do you mean whether I would be willing to knock out
Erie for the sake of Pittsburgh? g
Mr. HULL. Yes; in other words, you can no have both.
Mr. WELLs. Well, I won’t say that.
Mr. HULL. All right.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not your information that the Ohio River
goes down into the Mississippi and that you could not bring this
water down from Lake Michigan and put it in the Ohio; and second,
is it not your information also that there is an abundance of water,
and it is only a problem of taking care of the water below the mouth
of the Ohio, and not providing water?
Mr. WELLs. We do not understand that there is any need of this
particular water below the mouth of the Ohio River in the Missis-
sippi to permit the navigation. We think Pittsburgh navigation is
abundantly taken care of ordinarily without adding this water to the
Mississippi River below the mouth of the Ohio.
Mr. ÁbooCK. Have you briefed this question to the extent that
you are willing to give an opinion that you think Congress has no
authority to authorize this diversion.
Mr. WELLs. No. -
Mr. ADCOCK. In other words, you do not want the committee to
understand that you are giving an opinion.
Mr. WELLs. No; I am not giving a legal opinion. We have not
gone into it to that extent. There are representatives of Erie here.
The CHAIRMAN. We were ready for them this morning, but they
did not seem to be here. We called them several times. I am in-
formed that they are here now, and we will hear them, as I am told
that they will only take a few minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. P. J. GRANT, REPRESENTING CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND THE PORT AND HARBOR, COMMITTEE 0F
ERIE, PA.
The CHAIRMAN. State your full name to the reporter, Mr. Grant.
Mr. GRANT. P. J. Grant. -
The CHAIRMAN. And whom do you represent?
j
ſ
ILLINois AND MIssissippi RIVERs, ETC. 315
Mr. GRANT. Representing the Erie Chamber of Commerce and its
port and harbor committee. -
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Grant, we will hear you for 10
minutes. - -
Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the city of Erie protests
against the legalizing of the illegal taking of 10,000 second-feet of
water from the Great Lakes, and it accepts the figures given by the
Government engineers that the withdrawal of the water at Chicago
will lower the lake levels by 5% inches.
As far as Erie, Pa., is concerned, it is a question of the lake levels,
and we deny the right of Chicago or of the State of Illinois to lower
those lake levels. {ºr
Every inch of lowering of the water in Erie Harbor seriously
affects the commerce of our port. We have large ore docks, large
coal docks, package freight docks, and large fish docks, and all of
our slips are dredged down to the rock.
The CHAIRMAN. You say the slips are dredged to the rock? $
Mr. GRANT. Down to the rock. And we are beginning to see the
effect on our underpinning, piling, and bridging from this reduced
level. It is only a question of time if there is to be any further with-
drawal of water when these docks will have to be taken up at a
large expenditure of money and replaced with new docks.
That is all I have to say.
The CHAIRMAN. The city of Erie is one of the places where the
General Electric Co. has a plant, is it not?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. How large is the city of Erie now?
Mr. GRANT. We have about 128,000 population. *,
The CHAIRMAN. And how many men does the General Electric Co.
alone employ there?
Mr. GRANT. They employ close to 5,500 men.
The CHAIRMAN. And the city of Erie has had a very rapid growth
in the last 10 years, has it not?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Thº, CHAIRMAN. Ten years ago it only had a population of how
IQ3. In V 4
†. GRANT. About 60,000. sº
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Grant, have you anything further to
say on this question ?
Mr. GRANT. Well, that is about all. Of course, we lose a certain
percentage of tonnage going on the lake vessels that arrive at our
port which can not load to this additional depth of 5% inches.
In 1922 we had 4,500,000 tons of freight enter the port of Erie, and,
of course, about 300,000 tons of this was the lighter class of freight,
such as package freight and pulpwood.
The CHAIRMAN. So you had over 4,000,000 tons that came in these
deep-draft vessels? -
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. These vessels were compelled to load 6
inches less than their regular capacity on account of the lower lake
levels, and that lesser loading meant the loss of about 175,000 tons for
the port of Erie. f
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen?
Mr. MANSFIELD. One question, Mr. Chairman.
You say your harbor is dredged down to solid rock now?

<º
316 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir; what they call the shale rock.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And it would be quite expensive to go any deeper,
I understand?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Not only the harbor, Congressman, but the founda-
tion of all their improvements above the harbor wall.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is the depth of the harbor down to the
rock at the present time? -
Mr. GRANT. We have 20 feet on an average mean level. Of
course, that depth varies with the winds; it goes up and down. You
take with a north wind our water will increase from 4 to 5 feet, and
when the wind is northeast it will go down proportionately.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Twenty feet is deeper than the average of the lake
ports, is it not?
Mr. GRANT. No.
The CHAIRMAN. No; that is not up to the average. The average
is 22 feet.
'Mr. GRANT. Twenty-one feet.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the channels as well as the harbors.
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. - º
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else?
Mr. GRANT. We have also the largest fresh water fishing port in
the world, and there are many small dealers engaged in this business,
and if they are compelled to take up the docks or do any further
dredging it means that you will put them out of business. They can
not afford to take up the docks and do the dredging. .
The CHAIRMAN. Is it a fact, Mr. Grant, that you are the largest
of the inland ports in your fishing industry?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir; the largest fishing port on fresh water.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that so?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir; we have—
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what the amount of business is a
year? Can you give us any idea, as to that?
Mr. GRANT. I think we take in in the neighborhood of around
50,000 tons of fish. -
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, Mr. Grant, that you
have in mind?'
Mr. GRANT. No, sir; that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?
Mr. BEHAN. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Behan.
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Grant, do we understand that the city of Erie,
Pa., is only protesting against the lowering of the lake which is
attributable to the Chicago diversion?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. . . g o
Mr. BEHAN. And it has no complaint to make against the diver-
sion by the Canadian power interests?
Mr. GRANT. Well, as we understand it, they have not exceeded
their quota for power. e
Mr. "... That does not answer my question, Mr. Grant. The
city of Erie is perfectly satisfied to permit the Canadian power
interests to lower the lake without complaint, is it?
Mr. GRANT. Well, it has not been shown us where they have ex-
ceeded their quota by the treaty.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 317
Mr. BEHAN. Well, assuming they have not exceeded their quota
given them by the treaty, but assuming that their diversion has
lowered the lake levels, Erie is satisfied with that condition, is it?
Mr. GRANT. We do not accept that argument. . .
Mr. BEHAN. That has not hurt your shipping, has it?
Mr. GRANT. That is not the question.
Mr. BEHAN. That is my question. -
Mr. GRANT. But as we understand it, Canada has not exceeded
their quota.
Mr. BEHAN. Eliminating that feature, and assuming that the di-
version by the Canadian power interests has had the effect of lower-
ing the level of Lake Erie - -
Mr. GRANT. We do not understand it that way.
Mr. BEHAN. Assuming that is a fact.
Mr. GRANT. Well, we don’t.
Mr. BEHAN. Assuming that is the fact, you do not complain of
that, do you? -
Mr. GRANT. That is not the question.
Mr. BEHAN. That is my question.
Mr. GRANT. I mean
The CHAIRMAN. I think that the positions of both the witness and
Mr. Behan are perfectly obvious.
Mr. BEHAN. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Behan's
position is very obvious.
The CHAIRMAN. I think so.
Mr. BEHAN. He is trying to get the witness to answer a question
that is put in simple plain American language.
The CHAIRMAN. And the witness seems to be unwilling to answer
it except in the form in which he has answered it.
Mr. BEHAN. If he objects to answering it, all right.
Mr. DEAL. Is your water level affected by the diversion at Buffalo :
Mr. GRANT. Well, those other causes I am not posted on.
Mr. DEAL. Why are you not posted? You ought to know. You
seem to think your water level is affected by the Chicago diversion.
Why do you not know whether it is affected by the others?
Mr. GRANT. We accept the Government engineer's figures on that
question. º
Mr. DEAL. Yes; they have given figures. We have had them here.
Mr. GRANT. Erie does not accept the figures on other causes.
Mr. DEAL. You do not figure your levels have been lowered from
any other cause than the Chicago diversion?
Mr. GRANT. Possibly they have, but we have not any record of
that. * -
Mr. DEAL. And if they have you do not object to that?
Mr. GRANT. Well, we probably would object to any withdrawal
or anything that would cause a lowering of the lake levels otherwise
than their quota, legal and allowed by law. The Chicago drainage
project is entirely illegal and an economic waste.
Mr. DEAL. But you have made no complaint as to the lowering of
the levels from those other sources? -
Mr. GRANT. No: we have not; not to my knowledge. I am not
sure what our city has done. I am not sure on that fact.
318 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose, Mr. Grant, the situation is this, that
realizing and recognizing the fact that there is a treaty—
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And that that is the law, and that your only way
to protest against that would be by seeking through the Executive
the negotiation of a new treaty—would not that be so?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. DEAL. That may be true, but possibly the treaty may have
comprehended the diversion at Chicago, and if those treaties do com-
prehend the diversion at Chicago then you would object to it?
Mr. GRANT. Well, yes. We would object to the withdrawal of
water or the lowering of lake levels by any cause.
The CHAIRMAN. Either the treaty does or does not comprehend it
and it is not a question of inference or speculation. -
Mr. DEAL. Well, I wanted to get his idea, Mr. Chairman. That is
what I am trying to bring out. -
I am not interested, Mr. Grant, in this matter one way or another.
I do not know whether I would object to the diversion at Chicago
Or not.
Mr. GRANT. As we understand it, Canada has not, or Niagara Falls
has not exceeded their quota. -
Mr. DEAL. It is the diversion we are trying to get at that actually
takes place. We want to know whether or not you object to it.
Mr. GRANT. Why, yes; we would object to any withdrawal or any
lowering of lake levels anywhere at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Congressman Newton.
Mr. NEwTON. As I understand, the only thing you are interested
in is the lake level?
Mr. GRANT. Exactly.
Mr. NEwTON. You are not interested in water power or anything
except lake levels?
Mr. GRANT. No, sir. -
Mr. NEwTon. You are interested in the lake level on Lake Erie?
Mr. GRANT. Exactly. -
Mr. NEwTon. You heard the testimony here to the effect that
Chicago had lowered forty-three one hundredths of a foot and the
other divisions thirty-six one hundredths of a foot. You are just
as much concerned in the one as the other, are you not?
Mr. GRANT. Oh, yes.
Mr. NEwTON. And if there were some method by which the lake
levels could be kept up you would not be concerned about whether
the water was taken out or not?
Mr. GRANT. Well, if it was shown that they were going under the
uOta --
Q Mr. NEwTON. Why are you concerned with the quota if you are
only interested in the lake levels?
Mr. GRANT. We came down here to oppose the Hull bill.
Mr. NEwTon. You are against the Chicago diversion?
Mr. GRANT. Lowering the lake level.
Mr. HULL. You are not opposed to me individually, are you?
Mr. HERSEY. Mr. Grant, it has been stated by you and by others
that at some points in the lakes mentioned there has been a lowering
of the water to the extent of 5% inches to the detriment of the com-
merce of the points on the lakes. How much of that 5% inches has
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 319
been diverted by the industries in Canada under the treaty and what
proportion of the 5% inches has been diverted by the Chicago drain-
age canal?
Mr. GRANT. I can not answer that question.
Mr. HERSEY. Have you got any figures on it?
Mr. GRANT. No, sir.
Mr. HERSEY. Can you quote anybody on that?
Mr. GRANT. No, sir.
Mr. DEAL. Suppose by some engineering process that a sunken dam
could be placed across the river that would result in raising the lake
levels, even though these diversions took place, would you object to
the diversion then?
Mr. GRANT. Well, I would have to see the kind of a dam that
would not interfere with navigation. I can not possibly conceive of
any dam that would not interfere with navigation.
Mr. DEAL. Well, we would not put the dams in the lake; we would
have to put those somewhere in the river that was draining the water
from the lakes. - w
Mr. GRANT. Well, I do not know; I could not answer that ques-
tion. - -
Mr. DEAL. Suppose the dam were placed across the Niagara River
above the Falls, which is not navigable; at least, they do not navigate
it, I imagine, and in order that the water would pass over it would
necessarily be raised, and to that extent it might raise the water levels
of the lakes, then how would you feel about diversion?
Mr. GRANT. Well, if that question came up probably Erie would
give it consideration and take action on it. I do not know just what
Erie would do on that proposition. I would not be able to answer
that question.
. The CHAIRMAN. Have you another witness from Erie?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us have him.
Mr. MACEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Grant if power is not
being delivered in Erie from Niagara Falls to-day?
Mr. GRANT. Yes; I think it is. -
Mr. MACEY. Well, then, Erie would be interested in the develop-
ment of power at Niagara Falls.
Mr. GRANT. Yes; it would.
Mr. MACEY. Then you would be interested in the development of
power at Niagara Falls by the use of water now being diverted down
the Chicago River?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question now.
In other words, you are interested more in the power plants than
you would be in anything else, are you not?
Mr. GRANT. No, sir.
Mr. HULL. You just answered that.
Mr. GRANT. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. No; he did not answer that.
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you one more question.
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. A while ago you said when the wind was blowing from
the northwest it would make from 3 to 5 feet difference.
320 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. GRANT. According to the velocity of the wind.
Mr. HULL. Does the wind blow considerably that way?
Mr. GRANT, No; we have the summer months, and might have a
few gales in the spring, but mostly in the fall.
Mr. HULL. It fluctuates a great deal.” -
Mr. GRANT. Well, no; in the early spring and middle season.
Mr. HULL. That is when you have the most fluctuation?
Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. Now in that case where it varies from 3 to 5 feet,
would not this 5% inches be almost lost? .
Mr. GRANT. That is only temporary; that would only be a few
hours. You can not depend on that. You can not load a ship to
depend on the winds.
Mr. HULL. We have been talking about 5% inches and you have
been talking about a fluctuation from 3 to 5 feet, and I can not un-
derstand if you have a fluctuation of from 3 to 5 feet how 5% inches
would amount to anything. Ef -
Mr. GRANT. You might have a gale and it might last for 10 hours
and it might last for 5 hours or less.
The CHAIRMAN. And you might only have one once in two weeks
or three weeks.
Mr. GRANT. And might have only one in a month.
Mr. HULL. And you might have it right along. -
Mr. GRANT. No, sir; the winds are not continuous there.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all. The next witness.
STATEMENT OF MR. D. W. HARPER, REPRESENTING THE WATER
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ERIE, PA.
The CHAIRMAN. We will give this witness about seven minutes.
State your full name to the reporter.
Mr. HARPER. D. W. Harper. I am representing the water de-
partment of the city of Erie.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?
Mr. HARPER. I am in the real estate business, but I happen to be
a water commissioner also.
The interest we have in it is a little different, or, rather, the point
we have in mind has not been brought out. f
Our intake pipe extends out in the lake, crosses the harbor and
the ºinsula which forms the harbor, and out in the lake for about
3, IIllle. -
The CHAIRMAN. Is your intake pipe for the purpose of the water
supply of the city?
Mr. HARPER. The intake pipe is for the water supply of the city.
That intake pipe has a capacity of 40,000,000 gallons in 24 hours.
It had that capacity when it was installed about 14 years ago.
Mr. DEAL. Do you use 40,000,000 gallons in 24 hours? -
Mr. HARPER. Not quite. We can not get it. That is the point I
am going to get at. - -
Mr. DEAL. You must use a large quantity of water in your town,
do you not?
Mr. HARPER. Yes. * -
Mr. DEAL. For what purposes do you use it other than sanitation?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 321
Mr. HARPER. For drinking purposes, for industrial purposes. We
have domestic consumers and industrial users. Those are the two
classifications we have.
Mr. DEAL. What is the population of your city?
Mr. HARPER. Something over 100,000.
Mr. DEAL. We have a city of 150,000 population, maybe 165,000
with the outlying territory, and we only use about 14,000,000 or
15,000,000 gallons in 24 hours.
Mr. HARPER. Where is that?
Mr. DEAL. Virginia.
Mr. HARPER. What city?
Mr. DEAL. Norfolk, Va.
Mr. HARPER. You are probably metered. You are probably 100
per cent metered.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have some questions, Congressman
Strong?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir.
Mr. DEAL. I am surprised to hear you say that you use so much
Water.
Mr. HARPER. We have not been able to reach 40,000,000 feet for
several years past. When we get around 33,000,000 feet our pumps
suck air.
Mr. DEAL. I should not think you could use that much.
Mr. HARPER. You think we are so close to Canada that we might
not need so much water? -
Mr. DEAL. Possibly that Inight have something to do with it.
Mr. HULL. Would not the use of so much water have a tendency
to lower your lake levels? -
Mr. HARPER. It all goes back in the lake again, Mr. Hull, if you
remember; it goes back through the sewers.
Mr. MoRGAN. I venture to assume from your testimony that your
primary and perhaps your only interest is in the maintenance of the
water level of the lake. g
Mr. HARPER. Yes; and there are two items. We have not reached
that yet. *
Mr. MoRGAN. I mean that is the primary question.
Mr. HARPER. Absolutely.
Mr. MoRGAN. If compensating works were constructed to main-
tain the lake levels you would have no objection to any diversion
that is made?
Mr. HARPER. If the compensating works were feasible or would
establish the old mean level I would say all right. I am not an engi-
neer and do not pass upon the feasibility of such a project.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to ask a question. Did Mr. Volstead
increase your water consumption there?
Mr. HARPER. I met Mr. Wolstead's successor in office this morning
and I might have asked him something about that, but I did not
think to do so.
I have two points. º
The CHAIRMAN. All right; make your points. -
Mr. HARPER, Our capacity has been reduced by loss of head at
that point in the lake by reason of the fall in mean level to a point
where we can not get to exceed 33,000,000 feet under the most favor-
9.1739—24—PT 2— 6
322 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
able circumstances through that intake pipe with a capacity of
40,000,000 feet. - **
Furthermore, wher the intake pipe crosses the harbor it is about
18 inches below the surface of the bed of the harbor, and where
the silt has covered over that intake pipe we are in grave danger
every season, particularly in the fall of the year, of vessels coming
in and by reason of the low level those vessels striking our intake
pipe and rupturing it.
Our bay water is not fit to drink, and our filtration plants would
not take the load of, purifying it if we took in the bay water, so it
becomes a very grave question to the water department, because, in
the first instance, of the loss of capacity in the intake pipe.
The CHAIRMAN. And the danger in the second place?
Mr. HARPER. And in the second place the danger of a rupture of
our intake pipe where it crosses the harbor by vessels passing over it.
Mr. HULL. Could you not put the pipe farther out in the lake?
Mr. HARPER. Not where it crosses the harbor.
Mr. HULL. Do you think if you had this 5% inches diverted at
Chicago it would hº you any? {
Mr. HARPER. Of course it would.
Mr. HULL. Would it help you any if you got it out of Canada?
Mr. HARPER. I think that is an irrelevant question.
Mr. HULL. If you got the same amount out of Canada, would that
help you any? # * -
Mr. HARPER. I think that is sophistry. We could not go over into
Canada.
Mr. HULL. It uses your lake as well as Chicago. -
Mr. HARPER. It does not. We put it back through the sewers.
We drink it and put it back in the sewers.
Mr. HULL. There is 5.6 inches of water taken out on one side and
5.5 inches on the other, and I was just asking you if one would not
help you out as well as the other. -
Mr. HARPER. I will answer that in this way, that if these other
projects did lower it, certainly it is the last 5% inches that hurts.
Five and one-half inches is not very much unless it is on the end
of your nose; then it is a good deal. The last 5% inches is the point
at which we have felt it, and we are protesting against any further
withdrawal of the water because of the damage that it has already
done in the loss of capacity of our intake pipe and the further danger
we are undergoing every year of vessels striking and rupturing the
intake pipe.
Mr. HULL. You are getting along all right now, are you not?
Mr. HARPE.R. No; we are not.
The CHAIRMAN. They are getting along with the loss he has told
you about and with the danger he has described.
Is that all?
Mr. HARPER. That is all.
Mr. BEHAN. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Behan.
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Witness, you say it is the last 5% inches that hurt.
On what authority do you assume to make the statement that the
diversion of Chicago creates the last 5% inches?
Mr. HARPER. The engineers’ reports.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 323
Mr. BEHAN. Which engineers’ reports?
Mr. HARPER. Colonel Warren.
Mr. BEHAN. Does he make that statement? .
Mr. HARPER. Five and forty-nine one-hundredth inches.
Mr. BEHAN. That that is the last 5% inches?
Mr. HARPER. That is my understanding. -
Mr. BEHAN. One other question: When were the Erie water intakes
constructed?
Mr. HARPER. In 1909; that is, the present intake pipe. They were
established originally in 1868.
Mr. BEHAN. The one you say is injured by the Chicago diversion.
Mr. HARPER. About 1909.
Mr. BEHAN. And do you understand that that is about nine years
after ſhe Chicago diversion was opened and began diverting this
Water 4 . *
Mr. HARPER. I understand that prior to that time you were not
withdrawing as large an amount as you have been withdrawing during
recent years.
Mr. BEHAN. Do you understand that prior to the opening and com-
pletion of the Chicago sanitary canal that the effect of its diversion
had already been foretold by a board of engineers of the United States
and by Canadian engineers who were sent over by the Canadian
Government and who reported to their respective governments that
the diversion at Chicago would have the effect of lowering the lake
4% to 5 inches?
Mr. HARPER. But what amount?
Mr. BEHAN. Ten thousand feet. Do you know whether that in-
formation was known to the engineers of Erie when they constructed
this intake? *
Mr. HARPER. I am afraid it was not.
The CHAIRMAN. Even if you did have technical information as to
what the effect of a given diversion might be, that would be totally
different information from the information that the diversion was
actually going to be made.
Mr. HARPER. If what you say is correct, it was always your inten-
tion to exceed the amount of the permit you asked for.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, not being mind readers, as some of our opponents
seem to be, I can not answer your question. I merely state that long
prior to the establishment of the Chicago Sanitary canal the Canadian
engineers ascertained what the effect of the diversion would be, and
that Government was informed as to just what it would be, as was
the Government of the United States.
Mr. HARPER. I can not quite reconcile that with the testimony Sub-
mitted here a few weeks ago—that you had not taken and had never
intended to take over 10,000 feet.
Mr. BEHAN. If you will just stay over a few days we will enlighten
Oll.
y The CHAIRMAN. The committee is adjourned until to-morrow morn-
ing at 10.30 o'clock. º
(Whereupon the committee adjourned to Wednesday, April 16,
1924, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
324 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
(The following letter and brief were placed in the record by the
chairman :)
g - OGDENSBURG, N. Y., April 7, 1924.
HoN. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, - * - .
Chairman Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. DEMPSEY: You will recall that I appeared before your committee
at the last hearing in the matter of the diversion of waters from Lake Michi-
gan at Chicago, etc., and obtained permission to file a brief in behalf of the
people whom I represented. . . d *-
I understand through the public press that the meeting of the committee
Was adjourned until the 15th of the present month. I am preparing my brief
and hope to be able to forward it to you on or before the holding of the next
meeting. --
In a conference with our people here the thought came up that perhaps it
might be well for us to present to the committee the facts in relation to boats
navigating the St. Lawrence River and how they were being affected by the
lowering of the water. I am advised that for the past year a number of the
vessels navigating the River St. Lawrence struck bottom and were required to
go with light loads instead of carrying full ones, and of course, the last foot
of a vessel is the foot which makes the profit, and if the water should continue
to lower as it has been I am afraid large expenditures will have to be made
along the River St. Lawrence, also canals lowered or the deepening of the river
at a tremendous expense. g
We would not like to go to the expense of taking captains of vessels to Wash-
ington, but if absolutely necessary I think we can arrange to have two or
three seamen and captains of steam barges plying on the St. Lawrence River
appear on the 15th, or such dates as your committee would name.
Kindly send me a wire as soon as you can so that I could be making prepara-
tions with the men if we have to have them appear in Washington.
Thanking you for your kind consideration while I was at Washington. I am,
Yours very truly,
THOMAS SPRATT.
P. S.—If you can we wish you could get along without the seamen.
T. SPRATT.
IN THE MATTER OF A BILL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION
(H. R. 5475)
We submit here with memorandum in opposition to bill for the improvement
of navigation * * * and for other purposes, H. R. 5475. This act was
introduced by Hon. William E. Hull, January 15, 1924. It was thereupon
referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. We appeared before this
Committee in opposition to such bill on March 18, 1924.
Our appearance was in behalf of the George Hall Corporation, of Ogdens-
burg, N. Y. ; the George Hall Coal & Shipping Corporation of Montreal, Canada ;
the Rutland Railroad Co.; and the New York & Ontario Power Co.
This brief is submitted through permission granted by your honorable Com-
mittee at this hearing,
GEORGE HALL CORPORATION AND GEORGE HALL COAL & SHIPPING CORPORATION
The George Hall Corporation is organized under the laws of the State of
New York. It is engaged in the transportation business on the lower Great
Lakes, the River St. Lawrence, and tributary waters. Its principal business
consists of the transportation of coal and grain from Lake Ontario ports down-
stream on the River St. Lawrence to Montreal. It is likewise extensively
engaged in the transportation of pulp wood and wood pulp upstream on the
St. Lawrence from points as far east as and below the Saguenay River to
ports and places on the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario.
The George Hall Coal & Shipping Corporation of Montreal is affiliated with
the George Hall Corporation and is owned by practically the same interests.
It is engaged in the Same general class of business.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 325
The George Hall Corporation owns and operates a fleet of five vessels.
These vessels are specially designed for navigation on the River St.
Lawrence.
The George Hall Coal & Shippping Corporation owns and operates a fleet
of 14 vessels. These ships are likewise designed for navigation on the River
St. Lawrence and the lower lakes. t
It is impossible to navigate the River St. Lawrence between Ogdensburg
and Montreal without making use of the canal system connected thereWith.
The St. Lawrence Hiver canals are designed for the use of vessels drawing
14 feet. The total distance between Ogdensburg and Montreal via the
River St. Lawrence is approximately 120 miles. Six separate canals of various
lengths have been constructed between these two points. Vessels 255 feet
in length, 42 feet beam, and 14 feet draft at low water can navigate these
Canals.
All of the vessels belonging to the George Hall Corporation are full canal
size. Nearly all of the vessels belonging to the George Hall Coal & Shipping
Corporation are likewise full canal size.
RUTLAND RAILROAD CO.
The Rutland Railroad CO. Operates a line from Ogdensburg easterly to
Vermont with connections to all principal points in the Eastern States. This
railroad and its predecessors in title and name have been in Operation for
many years. In years past and at the present time this railroad made
connections at Ogdensburg with a line of vessels running between Ogdensburg
and Chicago and intermediate ports on the Great Lakes. At present there
are five vessels operating on this line. These ships are full Welland Canal
size. These vessels are principally engaged in the transportation of grain
eastbound from Chicago to Ogdensburg, where the same is discharged at the
company's elevator. The westbound cargoes consist chiefly of package freight
destined to points on the Great Lakes and the West.
NEW YORK & ONTARIO POWER CO.
The New York & Ontario Power Co., is a domestic corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York. It owns extensive water-power
property, rights, and privileges at Waddington on the St. Lawrence. This
water-power property consists of a dam across what is known as the Little
River, extending from Ogden Island to the main south shore of the St.
Lawrence. This dam and hydraulic works have been in existence for up-
ward of 100 years. Formerly, it was very largely used in various industrial
enterprises, such as the manufacture of flour, feed lumber, shingles, and in
the operation of woolen mills, paper mills, and the like. At present it has
fallen into considerable disuse owing to changing conditions due to the removal
of the forests in this vicinity and the centralization of manufacturing inter-
ests. The fall in the Stream at that point is approximately 12 feet. About one-
tenth part of the total flow of the St. Lawrence River passes down the channel
between Ogden Island and the south shore. There is available at that point
from twenty to twenty-five thousand horsepower, according to the report of
engineers of this company.
H. R. 5475, HON. W. E. HULL BILL
We Oppose the passage Of this bill in behalf of clients above named. This
measure contemplates the further diversion of water from Lake Michigan by
the Sanitary District of Chicago. It is proposed thereby to abstract water
from Lake Michigan and discharge the same into the Mississippi River.
Section 1 provides in brief, that “in order to create a navigable waterway
nine feet in depth in the Illinois River * * * the Secretary of War is
hereby authorized and directed to improve the Illinois River * * * SO as to
provide therein a navigable channel of nine feet in depth and of a width of not
less than two hundred feet, such improvement being based on an increment of
not exceeding ten thousand cubic feet per second of water from Lake Michigan.”
We understand that the true purpose and intent of this provision is to legalize
the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet a second from Lake Michigan through the
instrumentalities of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
326 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
SAINITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
We understand this to be a municipal corporation which is engaged in the
operation of navigation works and the generation of electricity for light, heat,
and power. The present diversion of water from Lake Michigan is under con-
trol of this corporation. The original object of such diversion was the dilution
of Sewage. The first permit for the diversion of water was granted in the year
1896. It was limited to a period of two years. *:
In 1899, the Secretary of War granted a revocable permit for the diversion
of 5,000 cubic feet a second. It contained the provision that the Secretary
Of War proposed to submit to Congress the question of such diversion and that
Such permit be subject to congressional action.
In 1901 the Secretary of War directed that the discharge into the drainage
Canal be regulated to the end that the maximum flow should not exceed 3,333
cubic feet a second. In the same year, the Secretary of War granted a further
permission to increase the flow between midnight and 4 o'clock p. m. daily to
4,167 cubic feet a second, and later permit was issued authorizing the sanitary
district to divert 350,000 cubic feet per minute (5,833 cubic feet per second),
during the closed season of navigation for that year, and that after the 31st
day of March, 1923, the discharge be reduced to 250,000 cubic feet per minute
(4,166 cubic feet per second). Such permit contained the following conditions:
“That the permission herein given shall be subject to such modification as in
the opinion of the Secretary of War, the public interests may from time to
time require.” -
The foregoing is a brief recital of the authority under which the Sanitary
I)istrict of Chicago diverts water from Lake Michigan. At best it is acting
under revocable permit which limits such diversion to 4,167 cubic foot-seconds.
The so-called Colonel Warren report states that in 1917 the discharge in the
main channel averaged 8,800 cubic foot-seconds with a maximum daily average
as high at times as 10,000 cubic foot-seconds. We understand that the record
stations on the Des Plaines River at Joliet, from 1915 to 1923, indicate that
the discharge of the sanitary canal varied from 7,000 to 9,700 cubic foot-
seconds. It appears, therefore, that despite the limit of 4,167 cubic foot-
seconds fixed by the revocable permit issued by the Secretary of War in 1903,
the sanitary district has largely exceeded such limit and is diverting an
average of about 9,000 cubic foot-seconds. t
The bill under consideration is entitled “for the improvement of commerce
and navigation * * * and for other purposes.” Upon the face thereof, it
appears that the purpose of the act is to improve the existing Waterway from
Chicago to the Mississippi for navigation purposes and likewise utilize this
flow of water for sewage dilution. There is widespread feeling that the
underlying purpose of this act is the generation of electrical energy. The
history of the activities of the sanitary district justify such suspicion. It
owns and operates hydroelectric plants which utilize the diverted water for
the generation of electrical energy. There is an available fall at Lockport
of about 34 feet; at Joliet, 12 feet; at Marseilles, 11 feet ; and at Ottawa, 29
feet. If and when fully developed, with hydroelectric plants at this point,
70,000 horsepower and upward would be available from a flow of 10,000
cubic foot-SecondS.
• We understand that there is at present a hydroelectric plant at Lockport
capable of generating upward of 40,000 horsepower. That such plant is in
actual operation, only awaiting congressional action to legalize the diversion
of water to the extent of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds.
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER NAVIGATION
The diversion from Lake Michigan has a far-reaching and vital effect on the
navigation of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. For the purpose
of this discussion, we will confine our statement to the effect upon navigation
in the St. Lawrence River. We have already Stated that the St. Lawrence
River between Ogdensburg and Montreal, is nonnavigable in either direction
except by the use of a canal system constructed in connection therewith.
Vessel owners contend that the abstraction of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds at
Chicago seriously affects navigation on this section of the St. Lawrence River.
J. G. Warren, colonel, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, in a report
dated August 30, 1919, at page 372, furnishes us with a table showing the
effect of diversion of water at Chicago on the Water levels in the River St.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 327
Lawrence and elsewhere. His report indicates that such diversion of water
will lower the level at Lock No. 25 (Iroquois below Ogdensburg) 9 inches in
low water and 8 plus inches at high-water stages of the river. In short,
Colonel Warren's report states that the abstraction of 10,000 cubic foot-
seconds at Chicago will lower the level on the St. Lawrence River between
Ggdensburg and Montreal an average of 81/, inches. It is obvious, therefore,
at critical low water periods that the diversion of water sought to be legalized
by this bill will be very detrimental to navigation. .#
In the year 1912 the sanitary district applied for permission to withdraw
10,000 cubic foot-seconds through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers. This
application was refused, and Secretary of War Stimson said: “The sanitary
canal has never received the direct sanction of Congress. It was built solely
under the authority of the State of Illinois. Very careful considera-
tion * * * leaves no doubt in my mind that the withdrawal of 10,000
cubic foot-seconds would substantially interfere with the navigable capacity
of the Great Lakes and their connecting links " " * the Welland Canal
and a number of canals on the St. Lawrence River. The available depth of
Water Over One or all sills of each of these canals would be affected and in
some cases reconstruction might be made necessary.”
LOSS OF TON NAGE
We have already described the general character of the vessels Operated
by the George Hall Corporation and its affiliated company. . In this trade these
vessels make approximately 22 trips each year during the season of naviga-
tion. Experience shows that each vessel will carry 25 tons of freight addi-
tional for each inch of draft. The freight rate from the lower lakes to
Montreal and the Saguenay will average about $1.50 per ton. Therefore the
loss to the Hall companies alone per annum during low water periods would
amount to upwards of $125,000. The computation would be as follows:
Nineteen vessels, 22 round trips each year during the season of navigation,
equals a total of 418 trips. The total loss of tonnage based on 25 tons loss
for each inch would be 10,450 tons. Therefore the loss for 8% inches would
amount to 88,825 tons, which would amount to $133,000 plus, at a freight rate
of $1.50 per ton. Records show that there are a hundred vessels other than
those owned and operated by the Hall companies engaged in this trade. Upon
the same basis. the loss to navigation interests would be considerably over
a half million dollars per annum. This is entirely aside from incidental dam-
ages to vessels by reason of low water conditions. It retards navigation and
adds largely to the risk thereof. - . . - -
|
REMEDIAL WORKS
We have not Overlooked the fact that the bill makes provision for the con-
struction of remedial works designed to control the water levels in the lower
lakes and upper reaches of the St. Lawrence. Of course, no remedial works
can possibly be constructed by our Government to regulate the level of the
water in the lower reaches Of the St. Lawrence. The trade in which Our
clients are engaged therefore, could not be benefited by Such remedial works
in the section of the river wholly within the Dominion of Canada. Such pro-
posed structures might benefit vessel navigation operated in connection with
the Rutland Railroad from Ogdensburg west, but it could "be of no benefit to
the fleet of vessels owned by the Hall Companies and engaged in trade in the
lower reaches of the St. Lawrence River.
LOSS OF POWER
New York & Ontario Power Co.—The New York & Ontario Power Co. pro-
tests against the passage of this act on the ground that the diversion of 10,000
cubic foot-seconds at Chicago materially affects the amount of power available
at its Waddington power site. We have already stated that this company
owns a power site at Waddington on the St. Lawrence. It is located on what
is known as the Little River which flows between Ogden Island and the main
shore on the South. At that point there is a fall of approximately 12, feet.
About one-tenth of the total flow of the stream is discharged through the
Little River. This power site has been developed for over a hundred years,
and the division of water at, Chicago would reduce the available power at
that place to the extent of at least 1,000 horsepower. * . . . .
&
328 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The abstraction of water at Chicago and the discharge thereof into the
Chicago is without legal authority to divert water from Lake Michigan. It
asserts that as a riparian Owner it has the legal right to insist, upon the
natural flow of the stream without depletion. There is no rule of law which
will permit an upper owner to divert Water from one watershed into another.
The abstraction of water at Chicago and the discharge thereof into the
Mississippi Offends against every principle of law applicable to a lower
Owner. Nature created the River St. Lawrence with its extensive watershed
and a riparian power owner on its lower reaches has a legal right to restrain
diversion of such water by an upper Owner, especially when the water is
entirely abstracted from the stream.
The Sanitary District of Chicago doubtless has the right to the reasonable
use of the water of Lake Michigan for sanitary Or other purposes, but it has
no right to abstract the water from Lake Michigan by artificial means and
discharge the same into the Mississippi.
We have mentioned the loss of power at Waddington where Our client the
New York & Ontario Power Co. is entitled to approximately one-tenth of the
entire flow of the stream for power purposes. We feel that we have a right
to protest against the passage of this bill in the interest Of the entire Com-
munity. The average flow in the St. Lawrence River is around 220,000
cubic foot-seconds. The effective fall for power purposes in the international
Section of the St. Lawrence is approximately 88 feet. The abstraction of
10,000 cubic foot-seconds at Chicago would spell the loss of approximately
80,000 horsepower per annum in the international section of the St. Lawrence
alone.
A very great demand exists at this time for the development of this power.
At present it is undeveloped. Our industries demand that this latent energy
be utilized. There is much agitation at the present time for the immediate
development of this power. Extensive plans have been made for early de-
velopment of power in this international section. The loss of 80,000 horse-
power by the abstraction of the amount of water provided for in this bill
might mean the difference between success and failure in case of power
development on this stream.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
THOMAS SPRATT, &
GEORGE E. WAN KENNEN,
Attorneys for George Hall Corporation, George Hall
Coal & Shipping Corporation, Rutland Railroad Co.,
and New York & Ontario Power Co., No. 82 Ford
Street, Ogdensburg, N. Y.
Dated April 12, 1924,
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, April 16, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee desires the chairman to announce
in its behalf that they have adopted this rule of procedure. All wit-
nesses called will be permitted to testify without interruption or
questions being propounded, either by the committee or outsiders,
until they have finished. The committee will then propound such
questions as they see fit, all of the members, of course, being privi-
leged to propound questions, and then if questions are desired to be
asked by outsiders they will propound them to the chairman, and if
relevant and material they will be propounded to the witness.
This is done with the idea of trying to have some order in proce-
dure. We realized yesterday that we made rather slow progress, and
there were a great many of you waiting. We are going to give every-
body an opportunity to be heard, but we do want some order in the
proceedings. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 329
Now, Mr. Bruce?
Mr. BRUCE. We hoped to have Mr. Harvey Goulder for our first
witness. There is a request here from the Buffalo gentlemen to be
allowed to speak first.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that the corporation counsel of Buf-
falo desires to be heard for only about 5 or 10 minutes. He has an
engagement out of the city, and we are trying to run the proceedings
with the idea of accommodating as many as possible. I think it
would be well to hear him first under those circumstances.
Mr. BRUCE. It would be agreeable to us.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, and we will follow with Mr. Goulder.
STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK C. RUPP, CORPORATION COUN-
SEL OF THE CITY OF BUFFAL0
Mr. RUPP. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the
council of the city of Buffalo authorized and directed me to brin
to this committee a message of protest. I am the corporation counse
of the city of Buffalo. I don’t want to offer any suggestions or criti-
cisms, but I am glad that the committee has adopted the procedure
you have outlined this morning for several reasons. First, you have
called the men who have spoken to you “witnesses.” Now, I do not
come as a witness in the sense that the term is used in court. I am
rather an advocate. I do not expect to testify but to just present
Some legal questions that I think are involved, and it would seem to
me that some questions that were asked by outsiders yesterday were
irrelevant and tending merely to befog and confuse.
I must decline to answer such questions from outsiders, because,
first, I did not have the opportunity to question them.
The city of Buffalo, as I understand, received no official notice of
this, and I only received notice last Friday, and, as I say, questions
that befog the issues are really insincere, and we are dealing, as I
understand, with the question of the diversion of water at Chicago.
Mr. HULL. Do I understand that we are not to ask you any
questions? -
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announced that the procedure would
be that the witness would first make his statement and then members
of the committee could ask him questions. That is, none of us
should interrupt until he finishes.
Mr. HULL. But he said he did not want to be asked questions, so
that would decline to answer questions.
The CHAIRMAN. He said from outsiders. The Chair has an-
nounced the order of procedure.
Mr. RUPP. Let me merely say this in answer to Mr. Hull's ques-
tion: I believe it is my duty to answer questions of the committee;
but I mean outsiders whom I do not know. I am not a witness here.
I had no opportunity of cross-examining anybody else.
Now, as to Chicago, this is a withdrawal of water. There is a
slight distinction between a withdrawal of water and a diversion of
water for power purposes. Water is diverted for power purposes
and is put back; water is diverted for manufacturing purposes and
put back. This is a withdrawal that never goes back to the Great
Lakes. There is nothing novel in the question of diversion or with-
drawal of waters from navigable streams. Anyone who reads the
330 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
decisions and reports of the courts will find many decisions that have
established, I think firmly and fully established, the principle that
anyone who is a riparian owner in a State has the right to the use
of water, provided, however, it does not injuriously affect the rights
of other riparian owners, and provided it does not injuriously affect
the rights of States; and that anyone who is a riparian owner has
certain rights to,the water and to the lands adjacent to the water,
and the right to the natural level of the water and the naural flow
of the water, and that principle is also true as to real estate. Anyone
who owns a piece of property under our constitutional Government
may use that property up to the point until he creates a nuisance or
uses it so as to deprive his neighbor of the full use of the neighbor's
property. -
Those principles are fully established, and I think they apply to
this question. The law, however, has been somewhat misrepresented
by the gentlemen representing the Sanitary District of Chicago in
that they only had a color of authority to take something—about
4,000 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. Four thousand one hundred and sixty-seven cubic
feet per second.
Mr. RUPP. Four thousand one hundred and sixty-seven cubic feet.
I will deal in round figures—say, 4,000 cubic feet. They have taken,
I think it is conceded, about two and a half times that.
f The CHAIRMAN. I think the best evidence is that it is about 8,500
eet. -
Mr. RUPP. I thought it was 10,000 cubic feet. I thought it was
conceded that it was that much. But I am dealing with round
figures, and I am not attempting to give a technical discussion of
the thing except so far as the law is concerned. But they have taken
at least twice as much. I use the term “color of authority" because
the question was asked yesterday of some witness as to whether he
conceded the right of Congress to grant a withdrawal of water for
the purposes of sanitation, and I do not concede that right.
Now, the attorney representing the State of New York, who I
think will speak to you later, and I hope he will, will probably tell
you about the questions of law involved in the controversy between
the Federal Water Power Commission and the State water power
commission. It must be borne in mind that New York is one of the
thirteen original States and did not concede or bargain away to the
National Government the right over its waters. It spent $175,000,000
on a barge canal for the use of all the people who are bordering on
the Great Lakes, and it comes here with clean hands.
Now, the only right that Congress has, I will be willing to con-
cede, over waters is on the question of navigation, and very narrowly
on the question of navigation, and that is all.
So it has only color of authority. I can see, however, in the zeal
that these men have for their local territory, for the city of Chicago,
perhaps some excuse for their attitude which otherwise would not
be excusable at all. It means probably a benefit to Chicago and to
that drainage area. But think of what it means to the rest of the
Great Lakes and commerce to the east and commerce to the South
and to the north. º
The withdrawal of this water means a great deal to the fishing
interests. You may think that that is a minor proposition, but if
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 331
you will inquire you will find that it is not when they lower the
level of the Great Lakes.
It means the destruction, or a partial destruction, of hundreds
of millions of dollars of Canadian property and property of the
United States, of public property and of private property. It means
the possible destruction of the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls and
the taking of the potential power from Niagara Falls, where it
belongs, to another part of the country that has not been endowed
by nature with that great benefit, and it means that two great Na-
tions must suffer for the benefit that may be derived by one city
for its sanitary district.
Now, then, we do protest, the city of Buffalo, as I take the atti-
tude of the city of Buffalo, and I protest at the withdrawal of water
to this extent; to the withdrawal of water that will injure our
rights, and that will take from our heritage in the city of Buffalo,
and generally throughout the Great Lakes and great rivers that
continue the flow of the Great Lakes. Now, that is the point. And
there you must stop. Use your property as you will and as it most
benefits you, but if you take from somebody else his rights there
you must stop.
That is the principle on which we are going. That is why I
think that a lot of questions that were asked yesterday were frivo-
lous and irrelevant. Buffalo is not seeking to take any water for
sanitation purposes. What is the use of asking these men, who
did not know, who did not pretend to be informed on the question,
what Buffalo was doing about sanitation or what plans she had or
what she had done in that direction. We are talking about the
withdrawal of water on the part of the city of Chicago, and there
is no other withdrawal that is or should be under discussion here in
this proposition.
But, take the power proposition. You know, Mr. Chairman, and
I know, because we have lived in that vicinity so long, how careful
they were when they took water from Niagara Falls, and how much
of that water goes back. It is not comparable to the Chicago situ-
ation at all. I can not conceive, and I would ask this committee
to look into the proposition, as to what effect the withdrawal of
water by the Niagara Falls Power Co. or the Canadian interest also
has in lowering the level of Lake Erie, and I do not believe, and I
can not believe it has any effect on the city of Toronto, the St. Law-
rence River, or Lake Ontario, because it goes back. You know how
the Falls are shaped, and how the water is taken out and put back.
It is only taken at that point. So that those questions about the
diversion of water for power interests, which is taken under a.
solemn treaty between the great Nations of this continent, Spar-
ingly—we have asked for more, and even in the war we could not
get it—you know the fight that was made by a great many people
for the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls; they did not want to take
that away. Now, if this affects Niagara Falls, if this; affects the
commerce and navigation, it should be stopped. That is the posi-
tion of the city of Buffalo.
We merely want to say this in closing, and because so many ques-
tions were asked about it yesterday, let me compare it again. We
do not object to the Mississippi River being made navigable. Canal-
ize, do what you please with it, if you do not injure us. We want
332 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
your children fed, but we do not want you to take the food out of
the mouths of our children, or what belongs to us.
Niagara Falls belongs to everybody. I don’t mean we have any
right over it, but we have the right of the location. That is what
nature has endowed on us. The people who came and settled there
have a right to rely on the early decisions that that navigable water
would not be interfered with. That is the proposition. Now, in all
States where the common law has not been changed the owners of
land abiding on waterways have certain rights, riparian rights,
which we are bound to acknowledge. He has a right to the natural
flow of the water at its natural level. A municipal corporation has
the same right as any other riparian owner. We must preserve that
# and seek to enjoin anyone who endeavors to override such a
right.
Lake Erie is of immense value. It is a public highway and any
interference with it as a public highway is in disregard of law.
It seems to me now, in closing, that Chicago is caught with the
goods, and without any attempt or offer at reparation or anything
of that sort, they take a defiant attitude, an autocratic attitude, and
demand that their actions, unauthorized, be legalized by this com-
mittee.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, do any members of the committee wish to
ask any questions?
Mr. HULL. I want to ask some questions. - *
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to all gentlemen—and I will be bound
by the same rule—that I do not think we advance by arguing with
witnesses. I think it is proper we should all ask questions, but an
argument should come in the shape of an argument from those who
appear before us. -
Mr. HULL. Not being a lawyer
The CHAIRMAN. You are going to do it as you see fit.
Mr. HULL. I have to do it my own way or I am not going to do it
at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course you have.
Mr. HULL. To start with, you said that New York was one of the
thirteen original States. What part does that have in this dis-
cussion?
Mr. RUPP. Well, there is some question in some of the authorities.
As I understand it, the thirteen original States were sovereign
powers; they had full control of things, including waterways. They
banded together under the Constitution for certain purposes. Now,
only those purposes are given away to the National Government;
they still have sovereignty. That is the old question of State rights
and national rights. As to its being a new and original State, I
mean only this. There may be some different question involved in a
State that came in from territory that was afterwards purchased
by the Central Government.
Mr. HULL. That was new stuff to me, and I was wondering whether
the State of Illinois would not be considered.
Mr. RUPP. The State of Illinois is a sovereign power, too, but I
merely mention that fact for what it is worth.
Mr. HULL. I merely wanted to get your angle, whether you claimed
that we could not take water from Lake Michigan because New York
was one of the thirteen original States. Is that what you mean?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 333
Mr. RUPP. No; that is not the proposition.
Mr. HULL. Now, I want to ask another question. Do you think
that we should have the privilege of having a deep waterway in the
Mississippi? .
Mr. RUPP. Yes; if you can take it without infringing the rights
of others, if you can take it lawfully.
Mr. HULL. Do you think the Congress of the United States
would have the right to vote a reasonable diversion of water to
make a waterway down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico?
Mr. RUPP. A reasonable diversion? That is a broad term. They
might have a reasonable diversion, and I think would mean that
it would not affect the rights of others as a riparian right.
Mr. HULL. Well, if it did affect the rights of others would the
Congress of the United States have the right to divert enough
water to make a waterway down the Mississippi!
Mr. RUPP. If they had a legal right, they would not have a moral
right.
"Mr. Hull. But would they have the legal power to do it? You
are a lawyer.
Mr. RUPP. Yes; I am a lawyer, but I am not a great constitutional
1awyer. But I would say that Congress has power over navigation
on the navigable streams.
Mr. HULL. I live in Peoria and I wondered whether because you
lived in Buffalo we could not have enough water out of Lake
Michigan to make a waterway in our part of the country?
Mr. RUPP. You could not if it is going to take from Lake Erie
in an injurious degree. I have no ill will toward Chicago or the
Mississippi Valley, but I do not want them to take it at my expense.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you would not want us to take that
if it would injure you.
Mr. RUPP. Of course the degree of injury might have some bear-
ing. If it was only a slight injury—
M; HULL. In other words, you want your water before we get
OUITS :
Mr. RUPP. No; I want what belongs to us by matural right, that
is all—by natural right.
Mr. HULL. In reference to Port Day, you have lowered the river
there about 13 inches according to a statement that I have here,
which I think is reliable. That was done by another canal, was
it not, another withdrawal of water?
Mr. RUPP. I never heard of it.
Mr. HULL. Or by the power. Well, I think it is probably true.
Also at Tonawanda, 6 to 8 inches, that much diverted for power
purposes?
Mr. RUPP. I don’t think that is true.
Mr. HULL. Well, I will prove that. If that is true do you accuse
Chicago of doing that? -
Mr. RUPP. I think that is a question that this committee will
have to settle.
Mr. HULL. Do you think if it is true, and I assume it is true, be-
cause it will be brought in in the way of proof, that Lake Michigan
is responsible for that diversion?
Mr. RUPP. If it was done by power interests, obviously it was
not done by Chicago.
334 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. Then you could not lay that on Chicago?
Mr. RUPP. No. Anything that is the proof is to be taken as proof.
Mr. HULL. Now, then, we have here also, according to the En-
gineers’ report, that Chicago has reduced the levels about 5.5 inches,
and at the other end the Welland Canal and others have reduced
the level 5.6 inches. What would you say, would you be in favor,
if you shut off Chicago, of shutting off the Welland Canal too?
Mr. RUPP. The same principle applies. If the benefits derived
are such that they do not far outweigh any harm that is done, then
the same principle applies. It is a principle.
M, HULL. You would be willing to shut off both at the same
time? - -
Mr. RUPP. I don't say
Mr. HULL. Is it not a fair question?
Mr. RUPP. No; because you are assuming something that is not
SO. The Welland Canal did not take any such amount as that.
Mr. HULL. Assuming it is so, are you willing at the same time you
shut off Chicago to shut off the Welland Canal?
Mr. RUPP. I must decline to answer that.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions?
Mr. HULL. Yes; I have some more, just give me a little time. I
am a little slow. -
The CHAIRMAN. While he is preparing for his next question, you
have in mind, Mr. Rupp, that the Welland Canal, and the diversion
of the Falls on both sides, are all of them authorized by treaty.
Mr. RUPP. Yes; I stated that, I thought, Mr. Chairman, but I
thank you for the suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN. You did not have—the city of Buffalo did not
have any opportunity to be heard or protest? -
Mr. RUPP. No; none at all.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the law of the land, the treaty.
Mr. RUPP. Internationally; yes.
Mr. HULL. I want to get this before the committee. There is an-
other question about this thing that has been bothering me and that
is the power proposition. I see that you refer to the power propo-
sition, both you and Canada. -
Mr. RUPP. Yes.
Mr. HULL. Do you think it would be better to preserve all the
water for the power for Niagara Falls and Canada than it would
be to give Chicago enough diversion to protect the lives of 3,000,000
eople? º -
p Mr. RUPP. That is a question that assumes a great many things.
It is all relative.
Mr. HULL. I think it is a fair question, is it not?
Mr. RUPP. I can not assume that that is the only way the lives of
millions of people are going to be saved. Yes; I would say I would
rather save 3,000,000 human lives than to preserve power, and if
necessary to save 3,000,000 lives I would even remove Niagara Falls,
and even if those people lived in Chicago.
Mr. HULL. Well, I have you on record that you are for Chicago to
that extent. You spoke of destroying Niagara Falls. Is there not a
proposition on foot now to take still more power from Niagara
Falls?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 335
Mr. RUPP. There is not any proposition, as I understand it. I am
not an authority on that subject, however. The State's attorney is
here—not the attorney general, but I mean the attorney for the water
commissions—and he can tell you about that.
Mr. HULL. I am asking for information. .
Mr. RUPP. I do not think there is any definite information about
that. They have always been asking for more; they were asking for
more during the war period.
The CHAIRMAN. I have interviewed the attorney—the United
States attorney—and I have no information on that.
Mr. HULL. I understood you wanted to take more power, and I
thought maybe you were so strong in your assertion that we might
kill Niagara Falls that you would be willing to kill Niagara Falls
yourself. In other words, it would not make so much difference if
you killed as if we killed it. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other members wish to ask any questions?
Mr. MoRGAN. You stated that Chicago had been caught with the
goods?
Mr. RUPP. Yes; I used that phrase.
Mr. MoRGAN. In just what manner do you desire to apply that?
Mr. RUPP. Just this: Chicago took more than she was authorized
to take. Now, Chicago takes that, and they can not assume that
they are going to get the authority when they do not have it; they
have taken it without authority. That is my proposition. They have
not any equitable complaint to make, I think, about their being asked
to put back. º
f Mr. MoRGAN. And they are entitled under authority to take 4,167
eet.
Mr. RUPP. Under color of authority; yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Under color of authority, you say. You would not
object to Chicago diverting that amount of water, however, if it is
considered to be under authority?
Mr. RUPP. Oh, I can not if it is under authority. The water has
been over the mill. There is no use of my objecting then. And I will
say, furthermore, if it can be done without harm to the shipping
interests, all right, take it. That is the proposition.
Mr. MoRGAN. When the treaty between the United States and
Canada was entered into was it not known at that time that Chicago
was diverting some 8,100 cubic feet?
Mr. RUPP. I don’t know. I am not a great student of the history
of it.
Mr. MoRGAN. In view of the fact that the diversion was considered
at that time, whatever amount was diverted, would you consider that
that diversion would be legal to that extent—to the extent of the
diversions that were known and were considered at that time Would
that not be binding? -
Mr. RUPP. Binding upon whom? -
Mr. MoRGAN. Upon all interested parties, Canada as well as the
Dnited States.
Mr. RUPP. No; I do not think it is binding on anyone merely.
because it was discussed.
Mr. MoRGAN. You maintain that it is not binding, in view of the
agreement entered into, to the extent of the diversions that were
being made and known of at that time?
336 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. RUPP. I do not understand that there was any agreement
entered into about known diversions at that time.
Mr. MoRGAN. That appears in this proceeding, that that is a fact.
Mr. RUPP. That may be, Mr. Morgan; I don’t know. I am not a
witness.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then the next question, we should comply with this
treaty, should we not?
Mr. RUPP. Oh, yes; I think we should.
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, the treaty in the first instance provides domes-
tic use, and sanitary purposes have precedence over all other pur-
poses. You agree to that part of the treaty, that that should be
carried out?
Mr. RUPP. Every part should be carried out.
Mr. DEAL. Do you understand the making of a treaty by our Gov-
ernment with a foreign nation would have the effect of nullifying
the Constitution should it be in conflict with it?
Mr. RUPP. Oh, no; it should not be made in conflict with it. If
there is any possible conflict, it should be made to harmonize, of
course. I do not think treaties should be made in violation of the
Constitution; but a treaty is a solemn law; it is a solemn thing that
should be kept.
Mr. DEAL. Well, is it not a fact that when this treaty was made
and gave to Canada, or agreed with Canada that Canada should take,
36,000 cubic feet per second, and provided that we should take 20,000
cubic feet per second, that the diversion at Chicago was taken into
consideration to the extent of 10,000 cubic feet per second?
Mr. RUPP. I don’t know. That is perhaps of some importance for
this committee to ascertain. Mr. Morgan perhaps had that same
thought in mind.
Mr. MoRGAN. Exactly.
Mr. RUPP. I don’t know. -
Mr. DEAL. Do you know what is the average fall at Chicago per
second? & *
Mr. RUPP. No; I can not give you those figures. I have seen them
at different times, but I have forgotten them.
Mr. DEAL. Well, is it contemplated by Buffalo and people in New
York to still further draw upon the Falls, thereby destroying their
scenic beauty?
Mr. RUPP. There are those who would like to do that, and there
are other interests that would like to preserve the Falls, and there
has been that strife and discussion all the time, as the chairman
knows better than I do, but I can remember even as a boy when they
fall:ed about destroying the beauty of the Falls. Of course there
were other interests that came over and said that there were great
commercial possibilities, and there were many large commercial
associations, particularly during the war, which said that there were
commercial possibilities which should be developed for the great
benefit not only of the localities but for some distance, and some
wanted to develop power to take to New York City. There has
always been that conflict between those interests.
Mr. DEAL. This has nothing to do with the question, but for my
own satisfaction, is the water diverted above the Falls for power
purposes returned above the rapids?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 337
The CHAIRMAN. I can answer that. On the American side it is
and on the Canadian side it is below.
Mr. RUPP. That is what I thought.
Mr. HULL. Would that reduce the Falls? -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, whatever is taken from above the
Falls necessarily reduces the level of the water.
Mr. RUPP. That is the reason there is a conflict.
Mr. HULL. In other words, Canada has ruined the Falls? .
Mr. RUPP. Oh, no. No, there is a big volume of water over there,
with that curve in the contour of the Falls. A great many people
who are interested in the scenic beauty of the Falls saw to it that
this was gingerly and carefully given, this privilege.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, I want to ask a few questions. You are
no doubt familiar with the fact that Article V of the treaty provides
as follows:
It is the desire of both parties to accomplish this object with the least
possible injury to investments which have already been made in the con-
struction of power plants on the United States side of the river under grants
Of authority from the State of New York, and on the Canadian side of the
river under licenses authorized by the Dominion of Canada and the Province
of Ontario.
Now, the only exception is as to not injuring investments already
made in power plants. The following provision follows in the
Second succeeding paragraph:
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State
Of New York of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power
purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 20,000
cubic feet of water per second.
Then follows a provision that Canada may divert 36,000 cubic
feet. -
Mr. BoycE. Is the diversion of 20,000 cubic feet per second con-
fined to New York, that is, within the limits of New York?
. The CHAIRMAN. Within the State of New York; that is the pro-
vision of the treaty. In other words, do you know of any provision
in the treaty that permits the diversion of water for power purposes
anywhere except within the State of New York?
Mr. RUPP. No; I do not.
The CHAIRMAN. On the American side, I mean?
Mr. RUPP. I assumed you meant that. Of course, Canada takes
more than the United States, by reason, I think, of the flow and the
course of the river and the physical situation there.
Mr. BOYCE. Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the diversion
mentioned in the provision just read is confined to the waters above
the Falls? e
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see. Above the Falls of Niagara, yes. We
come to Article VIII, Mr. Rupp. Here is the provision to which
reference has been made [reading from treaty, Article VIII]:
This International Joint Commission shall have jurisdiction over and shall
pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction or diversion of the waters
with respect to which under Articles III and IV of this treaty the approval of
the commission is required, and in passing upon such cases the Commission
shall be governed by the following rules or principles which are adopted by
the high contracting parties for this purpose:
The high contracting parties shall have, each on its own side of the bound-
ary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined as
boundary waters.
338 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Then follows the provision as to how the joint high commission
shall on each side deal with the waters within their jurisdiction.
Now, do you understand that there is any claim here that the joint
high commission has authorized the diversion at Chicago, or at-
tempted to ? r
Mr. RUPP. No; I do not understand it so. I am sorry that I
had not more time to prepare, but I did not understand that there
ºnything about it. I was asked to assume that they did, that
1S all.
The CHIARMAN. In other words, Article VIII simply prescribed
for the commission how they shall deal with waters over which they
have jurisdiction?
Mr. RUPP. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. And are given jurisdiction by the treaty, and
nothing more?
Mr. RUPP. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any way that the people—and I am ask-
ing you this as a lawyer—in Buffalo or on the frontier can bring
about the diversion of additional waters—and you properly made
the distinction between diversion and withdrawal—even of waters
above the Falls for power purposes? Is not that exclusively the
provisions of the State Department, and are not the people of the
vicinity absolutely powerless in the matter? &
Mr. RUPP. Oh, they are, Mr. Chairman. We have had that propo-
sition up lots of times in the city of Buffalo.
Mr. BoycE. May I ask another question? Does not the treaty
deal with waters above the Falls—that is, waters lying between
Canada and the United States—and not with waters below the Falls?
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true.
Mr. BOYCE. And the waters below the Falls Canada is not inter-
ested in; is not that so?
Mr. RUPP. I have not examined the treaty with reference to that
question, but I should imagine from what I see of it that that is the
fact.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to get one point clear. I would like
to ask Mr. Rupp this question. Mr. Rupp, assuming that there is
a treaty between Canada and the United States, which I presume is
true, and that each is authorized to divert certain quantities of water,
that, of course, I presume will be binding as between Canada and the
United States. Would it be binding between the several States of
the United States if one should divert more than another might
think it was entitled to ?
Mr. RUPP. Well, anything entered into by the two countries of
course becomes the law of the land. I do not know whether any
State would have the right to go in and take more water or do some-
thing that the United States would not authorize. As I understand
it, however, with the States generally, the States have rights in their
own waterways, and those rights can be interfered with by the Fed-
eral Government for navigation purposes, and no other purpose, gen-
erally speaking. This treaty was consented to and ratified, I suppose,
by all interested parties.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not this a short statement of your opinion in
the matter in respect to the question propounded by Judge Mans-
field? That if one State was seeking a remedy against another State
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 339
it would be doubtful whether the State which moved could invoke
the treaty; it would rather, in your opinion, be compelled to depend
upon its common-law rights in the stream which ran along its
borders?
Mr. RUPP. That is true; it would depend on its common-law rights.
That is a good answer.
Doctor KINDRED. When you are through with that I would sug-
gest that the United States would invoke the provisions of a treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. But Judge Mansfield confined his question to one
State against another State instead of action by the United States
against the States which had offended, it may be, in the particular
to which he referred. -
Doctor KINDRED. Does not the Federal authority always invoke its
rights in such cases?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would not say it always did. We would
expect it would or might. In other words, parties many times have
legal rights which they do not enforce. In this particular instance
it appears that the United States has intervened and has invoked
its rights. -
Doctor KINDRED. Do not the rights of the Government, the sov-
ereignty of the United States and its right to make treaties, lay here
as the basic principle? *
Mr. BoycE. What I am not clear about at this moment is whether
any of the waters after they pass over the Falls touch Canada.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The Niagara River continues to be the
boundary stream throughout its entire course. It starts at Buffalo
and is the outlet of Lake Erie. It runs in a pretty nearly northerly
direction until it reaches a point 4 or 5 miles below Tonawanda,
and then it takes a pretty nearly westerly course until it shoots over
the Falls. From the Falls it again runs northerly until it strikes
a bank directly ahead of it, which makes what is known as the
whirlpool. Then there is a straight right-angle turn to the east;
the waters run with all their force and violence against this bank to
the north and make their short turn to the east, and that gives us
the whirlpool, the turning about of the waters, and then the river
runs again easterly for 2 or 3 miles and takes another turn to the
north, until it empties into Lake Ontario; but throughout the 27
or 28 miles of its course on an air line there would only be between
its termini a distance of perhaps 25 miles, but owing to its winding
it is perhaps 30 miles, and for that 30 miles it is the boundary line
between the United States and Canada.
Mr. McDUFFIE. According to the treaty the amount of water that
is permitted to be used above the Falls, and, of eourse, that is the
place where the taking of the water really affects the level of the
Lakes
Mr. RUPP. I should think so—
Mr. McDUFFIE (continuing). Is 56,000 cubic feet per second.
Do you know whether or not any more than that is now being
diverted, either by the Dominion of Canada or the United States
authorities, for power purposes or other purposes?
Mr. RUPP. It is my understanding that not any more is being
taken; but I am not sure.
340 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can answer the Congressman as to that.
I think it is entirely plain, Congressman McDuffie, that only the
20,000 cubic feet is being taken on the American side. It is my
understanding that Canada claims that only the 36,000 is being
taken on the Canadian side, and, that some investigation is being
conducted, with the consent of both parties, to ascertain whether
that is the fact. Before the hearings are terminated I should im-
agine that the report of that investigation would be available.
Mr. McDUFFIE. All right. I would like to know about that.
Mr. RUPP. I understood, too, that Chicago had made some in-
vestigation of it. -
The CHAIRMAN. I think in the newspapers there has been a mu-
tual incrimination carried on in which charges have been indulged
in. I am not saying anything about those at all, but I am rather
under the impression that Canada not only says “We are not using
more than 36,000 cubic feet per second, but we are perfectly willing
to have you measure it and see.” I think that is the situation.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I am not familiar with the geography there,
and I was going to say that I have never seen Niagara Falls. I
want to know how far the Falls are from the mouth of the river?
The CHAIRMAN. They are about 10 miles. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. How many power plants or what power develop-
ment is there between the falls and the lake? -
Mr. RUPP. Very little. - 4.
The CHAIRMAN. None at all on the American side. The develop-
ment on the Canadian side is about 5 miles above the head of the
river. That is, it is about midway between the falls and Lake
Ontario.
Mr. McDUFFIE. That development is using the full amount of
water as it leaves the lake and the river, is it, or is it using only a
part of it? - g
The CHAIRMAN. Let me tell you as to that. The history of the
power situation is this: I will take a few minutes on this because I
think it ought to be in the record.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Yes; I would like to have information upon this
power business, and its interest in this question.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can give you the full information.
After the treaty was signed there were two power plants, and I
think they were both in operation, two power plants were operated
on the American side. One of them was only 50 per cent efficient,
under the present state of the art. The other was practically 100
per cent efficient. That is the American side. On the Canadian side
there were either two or three power plants, and I don’t think
either one of those plants was efficient. That state of affairs con-
tinued for a number of years. Congress had been trying for the
entire history of the country, and had been trying very actively for
five or ten years to pass a general water power bill, and we had had
a multitude of hearings, and no legislation. Finally Congress ap-
pointed what was known as the Water Power Committee, a special
committee. That committee was made up of the ranking members
of two or three, I think three, other committees of the House. It
was supposed to get the oldest and most experienced members. That
committee reported a bill which passed the House, but failed in the
Senate. The committee was not given power to deal with boundary
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 34 I
waters, that was expressly excluded from its jurisdiction; but the
committee nevertheless reported a general bill and did not except
boundary streams.
The question of whether boundary streams should be included was
brought up by a resolution of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and
unanimously passed, upon which the chairman came in and moved
to strike it out.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Now, what was the contents of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. I will tell you that in a moment. This was the
general water power bill which we have been considering in our
committee in connection with the amendment proposed by the gentle-
man from Alabama last night, the general water power bill. I op-
posed personally the striking out of boundary streams and they
were kept in the bill. But, as I say, the measure failed in the
Senate. The next Congress weeagain appointed the same committee;
but we expressly gave them jurisdiction over boundary streams.
John Esch, now a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission,
was chairman of that committee. We passed the legislation. That
legislation required all power development companies as a condi-
tion of obtaining a license to have an efficient development, that is,
as high a development as the state of the art would permit at the
point where they were going to develop their power.
So on our side we have rebuilt our plants, have discarded one plant
and rebuilt the other plant, and it is to-day efficient. I think all of
the 20,000 cubic feet, or practically all of it, is now being used with
the new development. That has only recently been accomplished.
They have been installing the new plant for the last year, the work
having proceeded for three or four years previously. I saw part of
the installation myself about six months ago.
Now, on the Canadian side they did the same thing. They have
moved their plants which were right at the falls down to a point
about a mile, I should say above Lewiston, maybe a mile and a half
above Lewiston. They take their water at the falls as before, but
conduct it down to their plant about three and a half or four miles
below the Falls, and that plant, I understand, is efficient. In other
words, the Canadians have done the same thing we have.
Now, this was all introductory to answering your question. As
I say, I understand we are using or will use within a few weeks our
20,000 cubic feet. We have not been using quite all of it but we
will now use it, I understand, in the new plant. The Canadians are
withdrawing from their old inefficient plants and substituting the
development in their new single plant. I do not know whether they
have yet made a complete substitution. They are, I understand,
using their full 36,000 cubic feet; but I doubt whether it is all used
in the new and efficient plant, but it undoubtedly will be within a
very short time if it is not being used there at the present time.
That is the condition there as to power development.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I want to ask this further question, if some one
will tell me. Is there any power developed or proposed to be de-
veloped through the diversion of the water down by Chicago?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That appears in the hearing.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I did not hear the beginning of this hearing; I
was out of the city, and these questions may display seeming igno-
rance on my part; but it is due to the fact that I was not in attend-
342 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ance at the hearing here, and I want to get the situation clear in
my mind. -
Mr. HULL. Let me anwser that. In order that you may get the .
situation out there, it is this. In taking this water from Lake
Michigan, and the general flow of water, naturally they build locks
to get through, for this transportation. In building the locks they
develop a certain amount of power. The sanitary district gets a
certain amount of power and that power they sell under the laws
of the State of Illinois at cost to the cities or to Chicago or any
other place. There is no profit made. Then the State of Illinois
is spending $20,000,000 developing—if you will look at that map
you will see that red line. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Yes.
Mr. HULL. The two yellow lines are the sanitary district and the
red line is 65 miles that the State of"Illinois has appropriated $20,-
000,000 for a waterway. It is called the Illinois waterway. Now,
that Illinois waterway is owned by the State, and they come down
to the point where I have introduced my bill, at Utica. There they
will also have to build locks. There are five locks, as I understand,
that go in there, and, of course, the water running through the locks
develops a certain amount of power, and they sell that power at
cost.
Mr. McDUFFIE. So the result will be this: If we increase the
amount of water diverted from Lake Michigan, we will increase the
possibility of developing power?
Mr. HULL. Yes. .
Mr. McDUFFIE. In other words, you can make more power?
Mr. HULL. Yes; and give us a deep waterway.
Mr. McDUFFIE. And the more water you get the more power you
et 7
g Mr. HULL. Yes, sir; for the western country.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Now, is it for sanitary purposes alone you want
this water, or do you want it to make more power?
Mr. HULL. Let me answer that question. The sanitary district
needs a certain amount of water. We will assume it is 7,500 cubic
feet per second. They need that for sanitary purposes, and until
at least they could get their treatment plants built. Now, that
7,500 cubic feet per second goes through the Santary district and
then goes out into the Illinois, part of it, and that 7,500 cubic
feet per second develops that power I am talking about, both in the
sanitary district and then in the State part of it, at least four or
five locks, and then into the Illinois River, and makes the channel
for this deep water.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Have you any idea how much power that will de-
velop or has been developed ?
Mr. BEHAN. I can not answer that now, but when the sanitary
district's case is presented we will have that information. &
The CHAIRMAN. Let me supplement that information. We had
not only the figures, but we had a moving picture display here, and
among the legends on the film was that the power already developed
saved Chicago a million dollars a year. Next it was also established
here that 1 cubic foot of water at Niagara and on the St. Lawrence
was equivalent to 7 cubic feet at Chicago; in other words, in order
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 343
to get the same power at Chicago you would have to withdraw 7
cubic feet as against 1 foot at Niagara and in the St. Lawrence.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Because the fall is greater? -
The CHAIRMAN. Because the fall is greater.
Mr. HULL. That is somewhat disputed, though, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think so.
Mr. McDUFFIE. That is all I wanted to ask.
Mr. MoRGAN. I am trying to get clear in my mind some facts that
seem to me to be relevant and important to this case and that have
not yet been developed.
It seems to me that they present themselves in this order. First,
what was understood when the treaty between the United States
and Canada was entered into as to the amount of diversion being
made at that time? Then the question of Chicago
The CHAIRMAN. May I interpolate something, a suggestion on
that question? My understanding of the rule is this: That where
parties meet together and talk about a given subject which is the
matter of the negotiation between them, and ultimately make an
agreement in writing, that the talk and the preliminaries all vanish
and are supposed to be included in the agreement, and the agree-
ment itself is the only evidence as to what the parties did in fact
conclude in that negotiation. -
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, I will finish this.
The CHAIRMAN. I simply thought that might be of Some benefit
to you.
Mr. MoRGAN. First, I would like to know what is embraced in
the treaty so far as diversions are concerned. The next is this:
What Chicago was understood to be legally entitled to in the way
of diversion. And the next is, as it seems to me under the treaty,
the preference of the use of water. Those questions occur to me in this
order. It seems to me we are going far afield on the matter, that we
are not confining the testimony to the matter of power entering into
this question, that that is only relevant as far as it affects the devel-
opment of power from one section to another, and legal rights there,
as to what power may be developed along the Niagara River or else-
where, that comes in natural sequence of the legal rights of parties.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have the treaty before us and I suppose
the treaty will be considered filed. It may be considered filed.
Now, let me hear your second question there?
Mr. MoRGAN. The legal rights of Chicago, what Chicago is en-
titled to. º
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I will tell you, I think it would be rather
difficult for this committee to solve that question. They took sev-
eral years on that question. I do not believe that this committee
could solve the question of the legal rights. So far the situation is
this: The Secretary of War at a given time issued a permit and in
the permit he stated he doubted his authority to issue it, by which he
granted, however, until Congress should act, the right to divert 4,167
cubic feet per second at.Chicago. In excess of 4,167 feet have been
used there. That has been attacked, of course, and an injunction
sought by the United States. The United States has succeeded in a
trial court in that action. That action is now on appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, and so I suppose that the
344 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Supreme Court will settle the legal question involved to the extent
at any rate of determining whether Chicago has a right in excess
of 4,167 cubic feet per second or not.
Mr. MORGAN. The reason I presented my views in the manner I
did was this: There is general opposition to diversion of water at
Chicago without any consideration of the rights of Chicago, legally
or otherwise, just a general opposition, and it seems to me that first
of all is the consideration of the amount of diversion, in connection
with the treaty; the next is to consider the rights of Chicago with-
* * general opposition. We might generally oppose diversions
a SKB
The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest in that connection it might be
well to procure the judgment in that case, the opinion of the judge.
You might obtain it yourself and introduce that in evidence. You
would then have the best evidence you could obtain as to the absence
of legal right. That is a decision and is the law to-day.
Mr. MoRGAN. The reason I presented that is because it was known,
the effect of the lake levels, at the time the treaty was entered into
with Canada. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. I do not want to concede that,
because that is not my understanding at all. My understanding,
on the contrary, is that the use in Chicago has increased steadily
and is continuously increasing; that it is not to-day what it was
then at all; that there was not the same situation presented and
that they did not concede in those days
Mr. MoRGAN. I do not mean the present amount. r
The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course what we have before us to-day
is the question of the present amount.
Who is your next witness, Mr. Bruce?
Doctor KINDRED. Before you leave that important discussion of
the rights in water power, if you and the committee think it worth
while, I would like to have the benefit of your general information
on this subject, particularly with reference to the past and present
policy of our own State of New York with regard to its very para-
mount interest in that water power of Niagara, and I want to in-
quire particularly if you think the past and present policy of the
State of New York is at variance with the spirit of the treaty be-
tween Canada and the United States on the question of water
OWer
p The CHAIRMAN. I can not see how it could be at variance, Doctor,
because there is no claim that there is being diverted within the
State of New York more than the 20,000 cubic feet per second
which they are permitted to divert under the treaty. Of course,
so far as the policy of the State of New York as to its water power is
concerned, we have the attorney general of the State of New York
here and he is the legal representative of that State, and he being
present I would want to defer to him and let him say what the
policy is.
Doctor KINDRED. May I have your approval at the right time to
ask him?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Now, Mr. Bruce.
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to introduce at this point
Mr. Harvey D. Goulder, of Cleveland.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 345
Mr. FERRIs. Mr. Chairman, I asked recognition a moment ago.
There have been so many questions here it seems to me there is so
much confusion
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Wait just a minute. I did not catch
what you said.
Mr. FERRIS. I say there have been so many questions asked here
during the last few minutes, and it seems to me there must be some
confusion in the minds of some of you gentlemen, at least, and I
Want to State now
Mr. HULL (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I want to object to this
man making a statement now. He will have his time. This gentle-
man here wants to be heard, and we agreed on a plan last night—I
do not want to be arbitrary, but why not hear the witness?
Mr. FERRIs. I want just a moment.
The CHAIRMAN. This is not against the plan at all. The policy
adopted was to ask questions in order.
Mr. HULL. Of witnesses?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. FERRIs. I am not asking any questions.
Mr. HULL. You are starting out to make a speech.
Mr. FERRIs. I just want to make a short statement. *
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection, gentlemen, to hearing him
make a short statement? . . . . .
Mr. HULL. I am objecting to him making a speech, and I think
you ought to confine it to the policy we agreed on last night, and this
is not the policy. 4. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. He is not asking questions.
Mr. HULL. No; he is making a speech, which is worse, and I am
objecting to it.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you willing to have him substitute for Mr.
Goulder for a moment, Mr. Bruce? -
Mr. BRUCE. I had reason to believe that Judge Ferris in due course
of time would appear and would answer such questions as might be
asked of him by the gentlemen here. Of course, our program has
been very much disturbed already. I had intended to open the
hearing this morning with Mr. Goulder.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BRUCE. And then this discussion came in and it took up a good
deal of time?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BRUCE. So, of course, we are not willing to have very many
interruptions, but Mr. Ferris says that he wants a minute only.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. FERRIs. I want to say that it is the position of the State of New
York that when this treaty was made no such diversion at Chicago
was recognized or contemplated. This treaty was signed in 1909, in
January. At that time the permit from the Secretary of War was
4,167 second-feet. At that time the United States had a suit pending
against the sanitary district for an injunction to restrain the sanitary
district from diverting more than that amount, and it is impossible
to believe that the United States, in signing this treaty, could then
have had in mind any such diversion as 10,000 second-feet or that
more than 4,167 would ever be permitted. This case has been deter-
91739—24–PT 2— 7
346 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
mined by the court in Chicago, and is now in the United States Su-
preme Court, and it is our position that the United States Supreme
Court should be permitted to decide that case and determine these
questions before Congress should undertake in any way to deal with
the questions so far as diversions at Niagara Falls are concerned,
I think we shall be able to explain that fully, and when I have a
chance to address the committee I shall be glad to answer any ques-
tions anyone wants to ask me. -
Mr. HULL. I would like to have Mr. Barrett accorded the same
privilege as this other gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. You have no right
Mr. HULL (interposing). If you permit one man to make a
speech r
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Let the chairman be heard for a
moment. . . . . -
Mr. HULL. You have not heard all of it. w
The CHAIRMAN. No; I have not. The opposition is making its
CàSe.
Mr. HULL. This fellow did not speak for the opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; he does belong with the opposition.
Mr. KINDRED. He is the attorney general of New York.
The CHAIRMAN. Before I recognized him I expressly required the
assent of Mr. Bruce. -- - - - •
Mr. HULL. I want to be fair, but I want others to be fair. -
The CHAIRMAN. If there is any reason why the Chicago Sanitary
Canal cares to be heard at this time, we are going to convenience
them. If they can not stay, or if they want to be heard for any
other good reason, if there is convenience to be served by diverting
Mr. Goulder and hearing Judge Barrett, we would do it. We want
to be reasonable to both sides. * * *
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be fighting with you
about this thing. - -
The CHAIRMAN. You are not going to fight with me, because I am
going to be reasonable. -
Mr. HULL. I want to be fair. This man comes here to make a
statement, and it ought to be answered. *
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, both sides are going to be heard, and
one side is going to answer the other. If there is any reason except
the bare reason that one witness has been heard why Mr. Barrett
should be heard at this time, we will hear him, if you want to change
the order.
Mr. HULL. You changed it; I did not.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; I have not changed it. The opposition is
being heard, and Mr. Ferris appeared as one of the opposition.
Mr. HULL. All right.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, all I have to say was—I would have
been through that long since—I merely want to make this obser-
vation.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment.
Mr. BARRETT. I will state in 60 seconds by the clock what I have
to SaV.
i. CHAIRMAN. All right. -
Mr. BARRETT. Many statements have been made here as interpre-
tations of this treaty with which we do not agree. We just merely
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 347
want to make the observation now that we do not want to be bound
by silence. We do not in any manner agree with the observation
made by the attorney general of the State of New York, and we do
not wish to appear to be bound by silence. -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bruce, are you ready with Mr. Goulder? I
should have been very glad to have recognized you immediately, but
we realized it was going to take a very short time.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I think you ought to hear one side of this question
and then hear the other side. º
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Every time a witness testifies some of the audi-
ence want to contradict the testimony, and another witness comes,
and after he has testified his testimony is to be contradicted. I do
not object to hearing every man in this room, and this committee
should do it. The fact that a man remains silent over there does
not mean that he admits or is in agreement with the statement. So
no one need feel that if they are not heard immediately they are
agreeing to what a certain witness has said. This is not the way to
have an orderly procedure. It looks more like procedure in a justice
of the peace court. º, -
The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you. . , * • a
Mr. McDUFFTE. To have a witness take the stand and have an-
other jump up and contradict him before he finishes, only delays
the committee. , ‘. . . -
Mr. WILSON. Our agreement was that the speaker be allowed to
proceed without interruption from anyone. r
The CHAIRMAN. That is it exactly. -
Mr. WILSON. After he has completed his story, then the chairman
was to begin at his left asking the members of the committee if they
had any questions, to propound. After the members were through,
the men on the other side were to have the privilege to ask that
witness questions.
The CHAIRMAN. To propound questions to the chairman to be sub-
mitted to the witness. if they were deemed material and relevant.
Mr. WILSON. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the first witness
left the stand before the audience here had an opportunity to ask
him any questions at all. You recall that? -
Mr. KINDRED. You mean the attorney general of New York?
Mr. WILSON. No. Mr. Rupp, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought I did ask if there were any questions.
I think the record will bear me out... I intended to, and it is my rec-
ollection that I did, and it is purely an inadvertence if I did not.
Mr. WILSON. I recall that the attorney general of New York arose
in his place to ask a question of the witness, and you asked him to be
seated, telling him that he would have an opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. That was after the
Mr. WILSON (interposing). While the witness was talking.
The CHAIRMAN. The Congressmen had not as yet had their oppor-
tunity.
Mr. WILSON. That is what I say.
The CHAIRMAN. And when the Congressmen had finished, I not
only asked the committee separately, but asked the audience, as I
remember it.
348 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. .
Mr. WILSON. That is the procedure.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the procedure.
Mr. KINDRED. You asked the committee as a whole, I know.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, Mr. Goulder.
STATEMENT OF MR, HARVEY D. GOULDER, GENERAL COUNSEL
LAKE CARRIERS’ ASS00IATION
Mr. GouldFR. My name is Harvey D. Goulder, and I am appear-
ing as general counsel of the Lake Carriers’ Association, and to
that I might add representing various shipping and mining and ore
and furnace and other people dependent on the Great Lakes water-
ways.
The Lake Carriers' Association may be likened to a chamber of
commerce. The committee should know that they have absolutely
no ownership, no interest in any vessel, not the shadow of authority
in the operation or direction of any ship. It is an organization that
has been in existence for a great many years. It has been interested
from the beginning, or more than 30 years, in the development of
the Great Lakes waterway and route, and so largely interested
because its members are people who operate the ships.
I want to ask the committee to remove from their minds the
idea that this is simply a contest between vessel owners or any large
vessel owner and somebody else over the amount of trade which
he shall receive from the operation of his ships, except in this direc-
tion and to this effect, that we all know—business men better than
lawyers—of those inevitable, inescapable laws of trade and laws of
business that the cost of moving and handling any commodity is
borne somewhere, somehow, by that commodity, and the shipowner
perhaps could make as large a return on his investment with a
shallow draft as with a deeper draft.
What we are doing on the Lakes is not so well understood, I find,
and I have had for many years to make addresses before committees
of Congress, many times before this committee years ago, and trade
organizations and that sort of thing, and I recall this, that in the
forties Henry Clay said in opposing the land grant to overcome the
fall of 18 or 19 feet between Lake Superior and the lower lakes that
you might as well attempt to protect commerce and navigation to
the moon as in that wilderness. Proctor Knott made his famous
speech in the seventies. Very soon after this a committee of what
they called ironmasters from England in the seventies, and I think it
was in the late seventies, made an investigation of our conditions in
America in reference to the iron and steel trade, which was coming to
be, as it is now recognized at least in this country, as a pretty fair
index of the prosperity of the people of the nation, and they said
that while we had rich stores of raw materials the cost of assembling
was so great as to be prohibitive—to their minds it always would be
prohibitive—and that England had no cause to fear the rivalry of
the United States in iron and steel.
You know what the situation is to-day. You know that we lead
the world. In 1910 or 1912 I had computations made which showed
that the pig-iron production of the United States was approximately
practically equal to the combined production of England, France,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 349
and Germany. Now, that has been brought about through this
waterway. - .
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they quite heard your last words;
you dropped your voice. The word you used was “waterway,”
wasn’t it?
Mr. Gould ER. This waterway, the Great Lakes natural waterway,
which has been improved as I shall call your attention to... I was
away from Washington at the time of the first hearing and just got
a copy of the hearings this morning, and it suggests to me that I
call your attention to what Mr. Rippin said. He is a traffic man, a
traffic commissioner for the merchants’ exchange of St. Louis. I have
not his personal acquaintance, but I happen to know of him. He is a
man of fine intelligence and a traffic man. He makes this statement:
We are shipping wheat from St. Louis to New Orleans, 75,000 bushels to a
barge drawing 7 feet of water. That is a pretty heavy load, and it is about as
much as the grain carriers on the Great Lakes carry. I think 75,000 bushels
is the average load. & -
As a matter of fact, the average load of grain on the Great Lakes
in all sizes of ships is about 275,000 bushels of wheat. The large
ships, the 600 footer, as we call it, will and does carry at least 450,000
bushels of wheat at a rate that is very low. I am going to illus-
trate to you something about those rates as to how it came about
through the cooperation of this committee and the Engineer Corps
and the United States, and saves something like $150,000,000—the
department of General Beach would have the means of telling exactly
how much, but it approaches and is approximately I think, $150,-
000,000. I will show you how we brought down the rate and what
we are doing up there.
Do you know that the bulk freight ship—we are confined in our
draft and all that—but the bulk freight ship of the Great Lakes,
the tramp steamer, as we call it, exceeds on an average about at least
25 or 30 per cent the tramp steamer of the ocean? We carry in those
ships as high, when the cycles give us the higher waters, more than
13,000 gross tons of iron ore, and as I have said 450,000 bushels of
grain, and I think as high as 500,000 bushels of grain in some cases.
Let me give you this, and I hope you will put this in your minds
to stick and to stay. The shipping of the Great Lakes—I am speaking
again of the bulk freight more particularly—rendered a ton-mile
service, did last year in 1923 in a Scant eight months, equivalent to
25 per cent of the ton milage of all of the railroads in the United
States. The railroads north of the Ohio River and east of the Missis-
sippi carry about 53 per cent of all the rail haulage of the United
States. We in that same section in a rock-bottom competition to
which we are all looking, because we all know that transportation is
the very soul of commerce, it is the thing that the farmer and the
manufacturer, the consumer and everybody is interested in—we saved
those people, I mean that lake route saved those people, according
to Colonel Warren’s report, which is very conservative, on the data
of 1917 $250,000,000 over any other possible means of transporta-
tion.
The CHAIRMAN. Annually Ž
Mr. GouldFR. Annually. I do not need to argue to you gentlemen
for a moment that it is an utter physical impossibility to expect that
you can have railroads that would carry in this lake region in com-
350 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
petition along these lines where our great waterway goes, that they
could increase their physical ability to transport. I think anyone
thinking of it would know that that could not be done. Suppose it
could be done, suppose we had the lamp of Aladdin, if you please,
and could do it overnight. We hauled last year tonnage sufficient to
make a saving of $250,000,000. That was based on an ore rate for an
800-mile average haul at $1 a ton. In 1922 that rate was 80 cents a
gross ton. I could figure up for you here if it were necessary, and I
do not think it is, that annual saving if it were possible to have the
railroad carry it, that saving would be each year to the people of the
United States—that is—to every man who owns and operates a mine
or a furnace, or who purchases a needle or a watch spring—at least
$300,000,000 a year, which is at least double what the Government
all these years has spent and invested of the people's money for the
benefit of the people in this great water route.
We talk ton-miles. We talk of ton-mile costs. It is well enough
stated in Colonel Warren’s report. It could not be stated otherwise,
because he has it practically correct that coal has been shipped
season by season from Buffalo to Duluth, a distance of 1,000 miles, at
about three and one-third terths of 1 mill per ton-mile against an
ordinary railroad rate of a mill and two-tenths—no ; more than that,
six times his statement is six times that rate.
Where does this go? Who has this benefit? One of the members
of the committee spoke about his want of familiarity with geography.
I have here and I want each member of the committee to have a
copy of this map. This is a map that is gotten up without any refer-
ence whatever to this occasion; this hearing or this bill. The Lake
Superior Iron Ore Association is another trade organization, and
they get up the map every year, and in that map they carry the flow
of the iron ore. Are you gentlemen all of you cognizant of this fact,
that more than 80 per cent of all the iron produced in the United
States is from the ores that are brought down this waterway? You
see there the whole thing is laid out. You will see that represents for
Iast year 59,000,000 long tons, about 66,000,000 (of 2,000 pounds)
short tons. There is where it started from. You will note principally
from the head of Lake Superior, and some of it from Escanaba,
which is on the left of the map, an arm of Lake Michigan. You will
see where that went, and you will see it went down to the Atlantic
seaboard, it went to Sparrows Point, it permeated Pennsylvania, lots
of it went to Buffalo, it went through Ohio, and about 9,000,000 tons
of it went to Chicago—that is, to Gary, Indiana Harbor, South Chi
cago—and some to Milwaukee.
I present that map to you as showing what is the responsible factor
controlling in dealing with this Great Lakes waterway. I would
like the committee to know and to appreciate it, and I have taken this
Inuch time in explaining it because just as I read to you from Mr.
Rippin in St. Louis that an average cargo of grain on the lakes is
75,000 bushels instead of 275,000, and I add to that this 75,000 bushels
is in the largest barge that they can use on the Mississippi River.
That is the biggest cargo. Over against that I put the biggest cargo
by any one of more than 60 ships of the largest type of vessel of the
Great Lakes, the 600 footers of 450,000 bushels, six times as much in
One cargo. *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 351
Now, may I give you another thought, so that we will get some ap-
preciation of this waterway? So how the shipowner has worked,
such organizations as the lake carriers have worked with the gentle-
men, with your committee, with your Army engineers in utilizing and
helping to develop, and I will give you later from what depths in the
intricate and narrow and shallow parts it was developed.
I want to give you another thought about how we handled things,
how we have got to handle things, how this comes about, and with
that I want to point out to you that the United States could never
have performed her part in the late war; that war could not have
been won without the existence, the development and use of this
waterway. *
A ship went into the port of Two Harbors, which is about 75
miles east of Duluth on the north shore of Lake Superior. She
loaded 12,508 gross tons of iron ore in 16% minutes; in 16% minutes
she loaded 12,508 gross tons. She carried it in about three days the
800 miles distance; practically 800 miles from there to Conneaut.
Ohio, and there unloaded that cargo, and it was unloaded into cars
in three hours and five minutes. That is the way we have to do. We
load coal by the carload up to the present big 100-ton coal car, and
three minutes to put a carload of coal from the track into the hold
of the ship is very tardy work. There might be some complaint if
you took more than two minutes. That is what we have to do. That
is what we are talking about. That is the kind of transportation
route that we are dealing with.
I do not know if I said—I want to say it if I have not—that some-
thing over 80 per cent of the iron produced in the United States is
from that ore that comes along those red lines on that map and goes
by rail, as the explanatory key on that map shows, all through the
East, all up into Illinois, all down in Ohio, and makes that the lead-
ing iron and steel producing country of the world.
Now, I think that we are justified when somebody wants to come
and tap that waterway, and when somebody wants to talk—as I
shall explain this bill; I won’t be able to finish before adjournment,
probably—I will come to look at this bill and read this bill, when
you come with such prodigious quantities of tonnage on this lake,
you come with a claim or a desire or an expressed will to take so
much water from that as is now all by itself independent of any
power plants or anything else elsewhere reduces the levels by, I
should say, half a foot—it is 5% inches, or between that and 6
inches—when you say that a claim presented here to this commit-
tee—and I say it without offense or without intending to give
offense—you should go mighty slow about it. I do not want any
member of this committee to feel that we on our part are desirous of
being hoggish.
The question has been asked here over and over again, and I do
not know, but some have possibly evaded it and made all sorts of
answers to the question, “Do you people oppose, you people who are
dependent upon the Great Lakes, this waterway, this 9-foot channel
down to the Mississippi!” I say flatly no, on our information that
that will only take less than 1,000 cubic feet per second; and I say
that whatever is a reasonable proposition on that subject, even though
it might take slightly from our depth of water up there, we ought
352 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
not to oppose it. We are so wedded, we have seen such enormous
good to all the people of this country from this big waterway along
which we dwell and on which we do so much business, we have seen
so much that we appreciate it. I do not think you will find in the
country anywhere people who appreciate more fully, more deeply,
more clearly the advantage, the wisdom, the economy of water trans-
portation. Speaking for myself, I was one of the originators of
the Rivers and Harbors Congress, was its president for the first year,
and went out and was succeeded by Senator Ransdell in that great
work of developing internal waterways. It is a slow process, but it
is necessary to be done; but it has got to be done temperately, and it
has got to be done in fairness.
And so that you might not say that I am speaking to the occasion,
I want to read you just a paragraph from a letter I wrote:

One thing in mind respecting affirmative action on this subject—
This is of lake levels—
is that this is not alone the concern of the vessel owners and cognate Shipping
interests of the Great Lakes. This has developed into great proportions re-
quiring hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and giving employment to
Some tens of thousands of men ; but the whole evolution of the Lakes has come
about and all of this done because of a necessity of and advantage to prac-
tically the whole Nation through the broad industrial, agricultural, manufac-
turing interests dependent on the cheap transportation afforded by this water
route, manyfold greater investment, and in the employment of men by the
hundreds of thousands. The pressure of proper effort and influence of all such
ought to be brought into action through their Senators and Representatives in
Congress.
Now, to what end?
If this can be brought about in any large degree, there should be little ques-
tion about the waterways receiving prompt attention and care and protection
commensurate with the importance and general Value of SO great and useful a
WaterWay.
That is what we all should be doing without prejudice to any locality or
person or thing, but to Secure thorough and wise consideration and action in the
best interest. -
It is in that class that I speak to you. At what hour do you ad-
journ, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn at 10 minutes to 1. You have 20
minutes yet. I do not mean by that that you are to complete what
you have to say in that time. Take your own time and your own
method, but we expect to adjourn at that time.
Mr. GouldF.R.. I doubt if I can finish in that time, because—I do
not know, I may be obsessed with the importance of this subject.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that the whole committee is extremely in-
terested in your general views as to the importance of waterway
transportation, generally speaking, not only on the Great Lakes but
through all of our inland waterways throughout the United States.
I think that is an extremely interesting thing.
Mr. KINDRED. May I interject right there that I hope the gentle-
man will not unduly hurry, because I would like to ask a question
when he feels at leisure to answer it.
Mr. GouldF.R.. I have no objection to you asking it now, if it is
germane to what I have been saying.
Mr. KINDRED. Whenever you think best.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 353
The CHAIRMAN. We have adopted a procedure in the interest of
order that we will permit each witness to make his statement before
questions are asked. -
Mr. KINDRED. I was expressing a hope that he would not get off
the stand before I had the opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. You will have the opportunity.
Mr. GoulDER. I will be very glad to answer every question I can.
I do not, however, pretend to be a very scientific witness.
Now, we took this up, or rather you took it up, the great Congress
of the United States. When we had in Cleveland 15 feet of water
in the river, but 3 feet on the bar; at Fairport, 75 feet wide and 6
to 8 feet deep; Ashtabula, ill suited to navigation, 4 feet deep; Con-
neaut, 13 feet; Erie, tortuous, 6 feet; Buffalo, no water, harbor of
the river very narrow, 8 feet deep.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest, I do not think you gave the time
you are speaking of when you give these depths.
i. GOULDER. This was the original depth, as nature furnished
them.
The CHAIRMAN. I so understood it, but I do not think it was
plain. -
Mr. GOULDER. As they found them there in their natural state.
Milwaukee, 4%. At Racine the original condition is not given:
Lake St. Clair had sand bars from 2 to 6 feet in depth. Detroit
River, normal depth at the Limekiln crossing, 4% to 15 feet. St.
Marys River had obstructions of falls and shallows, with depths of
from 5 to 17 feet, navigation impractical. * -
There are others which I could give you. - *
Now, let us understand about this waterway. You will see from
that map, here we have the great depths in the lakes, hundreds and
hundreds of miles. We are not bothered at all about channels, but
within the harbors you will see from what I have read, the local
authorities had to dredge. The city manager and others from Cleve-
land are here, and they have a problem of $400,000 for dredging
this coming season of 1924, and that was true of all the harbors.
Some of them had to be blasted, where they had rock bottoms at
Ashtabula and Sandusky and other places, and to some extent in
Buffalo, but in the other channels in the Detroit River there were
bars. We only had 12% feet, and that was solid rock, and now we
have two channels there. That channel was widened and deepened
to perhaps 22 feet. The Livingston Channel is one of the greatest
in the world, which has been recently built by the United States at a
cost of several million dollars. One is used for down-bound and the
other for upbound ships, and in Lake St. Clair there must be 10
or 15 dredged channels; that is, the bottom dredged deep enough
for these ships, at the head of the St. Clair River, away up into
Lake Huron for 8 or 10 miles. A great deal of dredging has
recently been done in the St. Clair River, which was necessary in
order to get around where there were a great many collisions and
disasters. Up at the Soo River we did not have until 1890 over 16
feet. There were shallows above the Soo. As I have said, it took
the Government in the outer work—not the inner harbors, which
was attended to by local communities, who have spent a great many
millions of dollars getting their harbors to the depth of water
necessary—but it cost the Government something like $150,000,000.
91739—24—PT 2—8
354 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Now, mark the progress of this thing. We had up to 1896 all of
the tonnage from Lake Superior, which last year amounted to
90,000,000 tons—of course, that has been increasing rapidly with the
growth of this country and its general development, but until 1896
we could only get 16 feet of water and ships about 300 feet long and
40 feet beam.
Senator Theodore Burton was long a member of this committee
and chairman of this committee. He was one of the men who had
vision of the future, and he went in in the eighties for a 20 and 21
foot channel through the lakes. He labored assiduously. I do
not know any man who had more clearly a vision of what this
would develop into. General Poe was in charge at Detroit as division
engineer. He designed what is known as the Poe Lock at the Soo.
There is a fall there of 18 or 19 feet—it is not a fall, it is a soo, or a
rapid running down 2 or 3 miles, and the descent is perhaps
18 or 19 feet. He designed that lock with deep water to permit a
20 or a 21 foot channel, which we endeavored to get, and never fully
did get, and that was 800 feet long and 100 feet wide, which he
fondly designed for four of the largest ships to lock there at once,
that being what he thought was ample in lake freight. That was
opened in 1896, at which time there were ships, a few of them so
large that two of them could not lock there at the same time. Since
then we have got the Davis Lock 1,350 feet long by 80 or 90 feet
wide. Before that was finished they started work on the fourth
lock, as we call it, of the same size, so that we have there two big
locks 1,350 feet long, and the Poe Lock, 800 feet long, and the
Canadians built a canal and lock on the other side 800 or 900 feet
long and 50 feet wide. t s
There are at least 60 ships that can not get through the Canadian
lock. . We have in our association a little over 400 ships, and they
include nearly all of the bulk freighters, those that carry ore and
coal and stone and grain—we have recently been through the ques-
tion in the taxing, the revenue department, of obsolescence of ships,
going out of date, and the department has allowed obsolescence in
varying percentage on ships up to 10,000 tons, because in this de-
velopment of trade up there, the 600-foot ships, the ships that
will carry 13,000 or 14,000 or 15,000 met tons, if we could get 20
feet of water, is coming and perhaps has come to dominate the trade.
I think we have about 50 or so of these ships.
Now, mark our situation, you who are interested just as much as
I am in this question of having the best water communication we
can have in this ore, this grain, and this coal, 56,000,000 short tons
of iron ore, making more than 80 per cent of all the iron production
of the United States, 35,000,000 tons of coal, 11,000,000 tons of grain,
and that is more than 300,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean 300,000,000 bushels?
Mr. GOULDER. Bushels; yes, sir. Those things, as I have said,
are moving up there. How do we do it? I have told you about
dispatch. Don’t think that we load every cargo of ore in 164 min-
utes, or unload it in 3 hours and 5 minutes. That shows what can be
done. That is not the practice, of course, any more than you are
driving a horse and trotting him in 2.10 all the time, but that is what
can be done, those are the tools we use.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 355
We make that ship to get the large cargo. That is the idea. That
is where the obsolescence comes in. That is there, I say—what does
it matter if they were confined to a 10,000-ton ship ! They used to
make as much money and percentage of return on a 1,500-ton ship,
but as the ships have gotten bigger the freights have gone down.
The cost of operation has not increased in proportion to the size of
cargo carried, and so you get the cheaper rates.
We build a typical ship to-day 600, or a little over, feet in length,
54 or 55 feet in beam. She is almost a flat-bottomed. She must be
about 85 or 90 per cent of a box in length and in width.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not catch that idea.
Mr. GouldFR. She is 600 or more-feet in length.
The CHAIRMAN. You said that she must be something.
Mr. Got LDER. She must be flat-bottomed, and she is 32 feet deep,
the height from bottom to top—that which is out of water and that
which is under water—and she is so flat-bottomed and so blunt at
the ends, as blunt as is compatible with an economic speed of 10 to
12 miles an hour, and that she represents more than 80 per cent of a
Square box in those dimensions. We get about 80 per cent bigger
Mr. Tomlinson is here and he will correct me if what I say is
wrong—80 per cent of efficiency, and that ship, according to those
dimensions, could be loaded to 24 feet. When she gets down to a
draft where she has her bearings more than 15 feet deep or 18 feet
deep in the water, it takes 100 gross tons to sink that ship another
eighth of an inch. She ought to have for the best performance
24 feet depth. She should have 6 inches more water under as a
protection against going along over these rocky places. about which
we will call on our captains, perhaps, to describe to you how they
do try to navigate.
So that we are using a ship; we are getting through capacity,
even though we don’t load down to the full depth: we are using a
ship that could be loaded for the best performance to 24 feet. We
are getting about 191%.
I am going to speak about that. We have our cycles. The water
comes up for a series of years, and then it will recede for a series of
years. That is a question of rainfall and evaporation. We have not
a great watershed there. The sanitary canal used to tell us that the
Jakes were fed by springs in the bottom of the lakes, but that does
not appear to be true. If it was true, there never would be any
reduction or loss of water.
We say that we can do even a better service than we are doing.
We talk about ton miles and all that sort of thing, and I dislike
always to get into scientific terms and complications and all of that
sort of thing, and I had rather take it this way. We haul iron ore
we did in 1922; that is, 59,000,000 gross tons at 80 cents for 800
miles. That is very cheap. The railroad rates on the same ore,
fixed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, would run in one
instance that I know of $1.15 for a 115 miles. That is just ten times
as much as the lake haul of 800 miles. That would be $8 a ton for
that 800 miles, except for this—I do not want to get tripped on any
statement I make—the rail haul for so long a haul might be less than
for one of these shorter hauls of 115 miles, but also against that the
356 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
rail haul would be a great deal longer than the more direct route, as
you will see from that map, so that perhaps that they would have to
keep up that rate. There would be an economy in that the car would
be loaded at the mines and go through and be unloaded at the
furnace and would avoid the expense of loading up above, which is
absorbed in the rail rate to shipping point. The terminal charge, I
believe, at the receiving port on lake ore is borne in addition to that
freight. I am not clear about that. * *
But you can readily see how on practically 60,000,000 tons of iron
ore alone, if you are getting a haul of 800 miles at 80 cents and the
rail haul as fixed for the shorter haul is a cent a mile, that would
cost $8 a ton, and it would cost $480,000,000 against the lake haul of
$48,000,000. -
Now, I give you those figures, and I am telling you that there are
certain instances that may come in that would vary that, but they
would not vary it to any great extent. If we had to depend upon
that higher expense, even if it were $6 instead of $8, how certainly
the English committee would have been right and their prediction
come true that we could not stand it, because it takes a ton and three-
quarters of ore to make a ton of pig iron, and we could not stand it.
The product would not stand that rate. r
That is what I want to present as the subject that the committee
has to deal with.
If it is not time for adjournment, I want to show you about one of
these diversions for power at Lake Superior. I happened to have
been in that contest, and I want to show you the law that this com-
mittee framed—the Rivers and Harbors Committee—in safeguard-
ing there with reference to the level of Lake Superior, and I am
going to ask this committee to be as careful as that committee was,
as anxious about this waterway, when we were not carrying any-
where near as much and the Nation was not anywhere near as
dependent upon us. Senator Palmer, when he was in the Senate,
made the declaration—I do not think our lake transportation was
perhaps more than 25 per cent of what it is now ; less than 50 any-
how—that there was not a man gathering ice in Maine or sitting
under a banyan tree in Texas who was not benefited by this great
route. After his experience about the lock that I told you about,
General Poe said that he had followed and been a student of this
lake commerce for 35 years; that he had found what might seem the
wildest dreams this year would be the sober reality next year, and
asked, “Who will accept the rôle of prophet and undertake to say
what will be the developments?” -
And I say now for my own part and my own opinion, as I have
said frequently, that that transportation route, with the country that
we have and the growth we are going to have, is still in its infancy,
and has got to be taken care of.
It has reached the hour of adjournment; I will come in later and
take a few minutes this afternoon and point out the idea I have
with respect to this bill. * *
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until a quarter past 2.
(Thereupon at 1 o'clock the committee took a recess until 2.15
o'clock p. m.) *

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 357
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met at 2.45 p.m., pursuant to the taking of the
I'êCêSS.
Mr. BoycE. Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boyce. &
Mr. Boyce. May I inquire when we are likely to bring the hear-
ings to a close? e §
The CHAIRMAN. It has already come to the attention of the chair-
man, Judge Boyce, that there will be a request for an adjournment,
and that additional witnesses will be here next week. I do not think
we can tell anything about it. I imagine that there will be expert
testimony here, and that, I suppose, will consume a good deal of
time. I do not think we will sit on Saturday; I think the Sentiment
of the committee is that we have been having hearings continuously,
not on this matter but on this and other matters, for several weeks,
and last night we sat until a very late hour, as you know, and I think
the feeling of the committee is pretty universal that we ought not to
sit Saturday. I think we will adjourn Friday afternoon probably
about 4 or 4.30 until probably Tuesday.
Mr. BoycE. Matters in the House are moving actively, and will
from now on to adjournment move more actively, and doubtless all
the members of the committee feel that they should be present in the
House as far as possible.
The CHAIRMAN. I think perhaps after this week we will have to
confine our hearings to one session a day.
Mr. Boyce. It is especially trying on a new Member to be kept
away from the House, important as these hearings are, and at the
same time be flooded with correspondence about bills in the House.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true. I think we will try beginning with
next week to convene earlier, at 9 o'clock in the morning if we can,
and sitting until 12.30 and then adjourn for the day.
Mr. BoycE. I do not want to cut anybody off, but these hearings
cover a very wide field, from Canada, over the Great Lakes, and
along the Mississippi River to the Gulf, and if everyone is heard
who wishes to be heard we are likely to drag along until the end of
the session, and we will not be doing ourselves justice in relation to
other matters in the House. It does seem to me that these gentlemen
who are here and who desire to be heard might agree to select indi-
viduals who could give satisfactory information to the committee.
If all present are to testify, these hearings will not have been con-
cluded when Congress shall adjourn. This should be avoided if
possible, for the members of the committee have duties to perform in
the House.
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. It is necessarily a rather
lengthy matter. I think the view expressed by one of the Illinois
Congressmen practically at the opening of our Sessions is fairly
accurate, in which he said it was one of the most important ques-
tions ever presented to a committee.
Mr. BoycE. I have said that when they were not here. I think
this whole Mississippi Valley project is of immense importance. I
can not conceive of a question of more importance to the American
people, and as far as we can go I am heartily in favor of its develop-
ment.
358 w ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. As to the question of adjournment, we will take
the sense of those who are in attendance as well as the committee.
r & e
We are going to try to convenience everybody. Now, Mr. Goulder.
STATEMENT OF HARVEY D. GOULDER—Resumed
Mr. GouldF.R.. I trust in a few minutes to close what I have to say.
The CHAIRMAN. We shall not have on the stand anybody who has
had a wider experience or who knows more about this subject than
you do, and I know the feeling of the committee when we adjourned
that what you were saying was interesting and helpful to all of us:
and I am sure that I voice the sentiment of the committee in saying
we would like to have you follow your own notions and not cut down
your remarks, but tell us what you know about this subject.
Mr. Gou LDER. Thank you. I will, however, be as brief as I may be.
I have had it suggested to me by Mr. Marr, secretary of the asso-
ciation, that one thing to have in mind is the average grain rate of a
thousand miles, from Duluth to Buffalo, last season, which was 4.17 a
bushel for wheat, and the rail rate was 31.5 per hundred. That
would be 60 per cent of that for a bushel.
The CHAIRMAN. Or about 18 cents a bushel?
Mr. GouldF.R. 184 cents or 19 cents a bushel. I note also in
Mr. Rippin's statement that the rail rate between certain points was
18 cents per hundred, which would be $3.66 per ton. The barge rate
was 11} cents, which would be $2.30 per ton. That is not like the
spread that we have on the Great Lakes. -
The CHAIRMAN. So that the committee may know what you are
referring to, you are referring to some St. Louis report?
Mr. GouldF.R. What Mr. Rippin testified to—the traffic manager
of the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce. That is not so wide a
spread; and, of course, in this internal navigation to-day I doubt if
we ever will be able to get as wide a spread, owing to the capacity
of the Great Lakes, as I said this morning, and the unit; and he is
speaking there on the basis of a 7-foot channel. They had an 8-foot
channel up to St. Louis, perhaps, and less than that above.
So the committee, when they come to it, will have to make allow-
ance for all those matters. I am only giving illustrative figures on
the question of water transportation, whether it be on the Missis-
sippi River, the Ohio River from Chicago to the Mississippi, or on
the Great Lakes, or wherever it may be availed of with fairness to
everyone.
So if the 9-foot channel be the one to have, and upon investiga-
tion of that particular subject, coming, as a project which is strictly
and clearly within the purview of the duties of this committee, I
have certainly not a shadow of doubt it will all receive the proper
attention of the committee, with the aid of the engineering corps
and the Board of Engineers and all those aids which the committee
employ. I am not scientific; but if 10,000 cubic feet per second
would make a certain reduction, by the rule of thumb 1,000 cubic
feet would only have one-tenth of that effect. If that is so—and the
figures we have here are somewhere approximately correct—that
would be a very slight reduction.
We have to deal with those things in that way. There has got to
be a perfectly fair deal; and it is the office of this committee—I can
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 359
say it without offense—to see that in these navigation matters and
, in the conservation of water, water transportation, water routes, the
whole thing is done fairly and upon good and justifiable business
principles. I have not any doubt it will be done so, and I do not
know of any instance in my familiarity with the work of this com-
mittee for years back where that has not been the earnest endeavor
of the committee and I think pretty generally successful.
Of course, we all realize that this committee has not all the money
it wants. We see a great many things that might be done for which
money is not available. There is the Lighthouse Service and the
Geodetic Survey and many other things that I have been associated
with in Shipping matters that the Government has to deal with, and
we ought to be careful in expending the money of the people and
the assets of the people. -
I do not know much about this Teapot Dome matter that so
much talk is being made about. I am not speaking of the merits or
the effect upon any individual or anything of that kind, except this:
That the highest estimate I have seen of that asset was that there
were 100,000,000 barrels of oil in that section, and I have seen esti-
mates as low as 26,000,000 barrels. I suppose oil is worth, roughly
speaking, about $2.50 a barrel. Take the highest estimate—that is,
$250,000,000—less the cost of getting it out, and I doubt if the total
value of the Teapot Dome deposit is an asset to this country exceed-
ing the sum which this country through this committee has expended
on the one modern route of the Great Lakes; and its importance, to
my mind, is negligible in comparison to a water route that is saving
to the people of the country, and will continue to save, at least double
all the Government has ever expended and invested in this route.
Before I close I want to go to one other thing. The Supreme
Court in the case of Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., rendered
an important opinion. The decision was rendered by Mr. Justice
Lurton, of Tennessee. I think that any lawyer who has had ex-
perience in the Federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United
States will accord Judge Lurton, now deceased, as high a place as
any justice. He was a calm, considerate man, an able lawyer, and
was free from the possibility of prejudice. Aside from that, he was
a man of great ability. .
In the case referred to, United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water
Power Co., Mr. Justice Lurton said:
It includes navigation and subjects every navigable river to the control Of
Congress. n

He is speaking of the power of Congress over the navigable waters.
All means having some positive relation to the end in view, which are not
forbidden by some provision of the Constitution, are admissible. If in the
judgment of Congress the bottom of the river is proper for the purpose of
placing therein structures in aid of navigation, it is not thereby taking prop-
erty for public use, for the owner's title was in its very nature subject to that
use in the interest of public navigation.
If its judgment be that such structures placed in the river and upon Such
submerged land are an obstruction or hindrance to the proper use of the
river for purposes of navigation, it may require their removal and forbid the
use of the bed of the river by the owner in any way which in its judgment is
injurious to the dominant right of navigation.
So also it may permit the construction and maintenance of tunnels under
or bridges over the river, and may require the removal of every Such struc-
ture placed there, with or without its license, the elements of contract out of
360 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the way, which it shall require to be removed or altered as an obstruction
to navigation.
Commerce includes navigation. The power to regulate commerce compre-
hends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all of the
navigable waters of the United States Which are accessible from a State other
than those in which they lie. For this purpose they are the public property
of the Nation and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress. This
necessarily includes power to keep them Open and free from any obstructions
to their navigation, interposed by the States or otherwise; to remove such ob-
Structions When they exist; and to provide, by such sanctions as they may
deem proper, against the recurrence of the evil and for the punishment of of-
fenders. For these purposes Congress possesses all the powers which existed
in the States before the adoption of the national Constitution and which have
always existed in the Parliament of England.
He speaks then about a reduction of levels. I do not recall the
case well enough to know why that was referred to, but he says:
The difference of a foot in the level of Lake Superior may influence ad-
Versely access to the harbors On that lake. The same fall in the water level
of the lower Lakes will perceptibly affect access to their ports. This was a
Imatter of intermational consideration, for Canada, as welI as the United
States, Was interested in the control and regulation of the lake water levels.
And So we find in the act of 1909 a request that the President of the United
States will open negotiations with the Government of Great Britain for the
purpose of effectually providing by suitable treaty for Imaintaining ample water
levels for the uses of navigation in the Great Lakes and the waters connected
there with.
_ I am omitting a great deal. I think it will all be of interest, but
I will simply read this much.
. . . . In neither event can there be said to arise any ownership of the river. Owner-
ship of a private stream wholly upon the lands of an individual is conceivable,
but that the running water of a great navigable stream is capable of private
Ownership is inconceivable.
He speaks again of title.
That title is absolutely subordinate to the right of navigation, and no right
Of private property Would have been invaded if such submerged lands were
Occupied by structures in aid of navigation or kept free of such obstructions in
the aid of navigation.
I need not read more. That gives the idea.
Now, about these permits. The original permit was given by Gen-
eral Alger. I am frank to say I never believed that it had the proper
Sanction of law. I don’t think he had any authority, but he made a
tentative permit of the 250,000 cubic feet per minute. I do not know
if anybody knew that he was going to do it or contemplated doing it,
except those who may have applied for it and have known of it in
3. connection. But that he made expressly subject to the action by
On O'I’éSS.
I . enlarge upon that, but without dwelling upon it there came
a request to Secretary Root, when he was Secretary of War, for an
increase. He refused it. There was some little change, but it was
put at 250,000 cubic feet, and I think you will find the record, which
I don’t happen to have at hand, is that Secretary Root expressed his
doubt as to the authority of the Secretary of War under that statute.
Then they came in 1909 before Secretary of War Taft, and he de-
nied an application to increase it to 10,000 cubic feet, or to make any
increase, the proposition then being to revert the current of Calumet
River, which is perhaps 10 miles south of Chicago River. He denied
that and he expressed doubt. I don’t know that the record will show
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 361
it, but I was there and heard it. He expressed doubt as Secretary of
War; but as it was a matter for Congress, the original permit said
So, and it was subject to the action of Congress, and Secretary Root
had referred it back to Congress, or said that Congress ought to be
applied to, so Secretary Taft did the same thing. -
He was told by some one of the proponents of the application that
as this water was all internal to the State of Illinois, intrastate, it
was not subject to Government regulation. I recall Secretary Taft,
in his smiling way, saying, “Then we better consider this as a visit
of ceremony or of courtesy, but I can not grant your application.”
Then, after that the United States started a suit in the District
Court of the United States at Chicago to restrain. That case went
the way of a good many cases. It dragged along. There was noth-
ing consequential done. A hearing was had before Secretary Stimp-
son, and I happen to have that record. He says: -
We have therefore presented claims of an entirely different character, the
claims of Sanitation on the one side and navigation on the other, the interest
Of a COmmunity On the One side, and the particular interest of the commerce
Of the Nation on the other.
The discretion given to the Secretary of War in sections 9 and 10 of the act
of 1899 is very broad.
It was under that section specifically that Secretary Alger gave
the permit, and it refers to it in the document. [Reading further:]
But I have very grave doubts as to whether it was intended to authorize
him to grant a permit which would inflict a Substantial injury upon commerce
in Order to benefit Sanitation.
He says:
The entire purpose and Scope of that legislation was to make him the
guardian of the commercial interest of the Nation represented in their Water-
ways, and while he sometimes under that statute must decide that the interests
of one class of transportation are less important and must yield to the conflict-
ing interests of another class, I have considerable doubt whether it Was in-
tended to give him authority to sacrifice substantial interests of navigation
to entirely different claims over which he normally has no jurisdiction what-
eWer.
But however that may be, and without resting my decision upon the ques-
tion of any legal authority, I am quite clear as a matter of discretion that
under the facts presented in this case no further diversion of water should
be permitted at Chicago without the direct sanction of the Congress of the
United States. I do not for One moment minimize the importance Of preserv-
ing the health of the great city of Chicago, but when a method of doing this
is proposed which will materially injure a most important class of the com-
merce of the Nation and which will also seriously affect the interests of a for-
eign power it should not be done without the deliberate consideration and
authority of the representatives of the entire Nation.
Somewhere in this—I don't care to cite it for his opinion, because
he is not a scientist or a sanitary engineer, but you will find also in
this—well, here are his findings:
First, that a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan
as applied for in this decision would substantially interfere with the navigable
capacity in the Great Lakes and their connections, and second, that being S0,
it would not be appropriate for me, without express Congressional Sanction,
to permit such diversion, although clearly demanded by the local interests
and the Sanitation of Chicago.
Third, that on the facts here presented no such case of local permanent
necessity is made evident.
And then, the fourth refers to the Canadian treaty.
362 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that?
Mr. GouldFR. That was dated January 8, 1913. , ... t
Now as to following what I said about the responsibility of a com-
mittee, I don’t think I know of any committee of the House of Rep-
resentatives more important than this, that has more important mat-
ters come before it, and I do not think your committee has ever had a
more important matter for consideration than the subject of water
transportation, which is profoundly important to this whole Nation,
than the Great Lakes waterway, a waterway with ships built to get
the largest unit of cargo, to a point in length and breadth and depth
for structural strength, and for service, that ought to have 24 feet
of water, and have to skimp along on anywhere from 19.6 feet to
20.6 feet. tº * * * * * * *
Now, about diversions, Colonel Warren in his report at page 354
says: *
Diversions from the Great Lakes may be divided into three classes in respect
to their effect upon water levels, namely, (a) those which are returned to the
same body or level of water from which they are diverted, and which Con-
sequently have no effect upon the water level, (b) those which are returned
to a lower level of water in the Great Lakes Basin and which, unless Com-
pensated for, lower the level to those bodies of water at and somewhat up-
stream from the point of withdrawal and all the others downstream from
them to, but not beyond the body of water to which they are returned, and
(c) those which are permanently removed from the basin and which lower
water levels at and, in some cases, upstream from the point of withdrawal and
all those down stream through the lower lakes and rivers to the level of the
sea. The upper limits of effects produced by the latter two classes of diver-
Sions are the uppermost levels Of Water which are dependent upon or are
effected by the levels at the points of withdrawal.
He gives an example of each of the three classes of diversions and
the limits of their effects on water levels:
(a) Water pumped from Lake Michigan at Milwaukee for the flushing of
Milwaukee River, or water pumped for sanitary purposes at Duluth, Toledo,
Cleveland, and other cities similarly situated, is returned directly to the lake,
and obviously does not change the next supply to these lakes or the volume of
Outflow through their natural Outlets, and hence does not affect their jewels.
(b) Diversions from Lake Erie through the Welland Canal lower the waters
of the Lakes and rivers from the head of Lake Michigan and the foot of St.
Marys Falls down to the lower end of Niagara River. As the water is returned
to Lake Ontario they do not affect the levels of that lake nor of the St. Law-
rence River. -
(c) The diversion from Lake Michigan through the Chicago drainage canal
lowers all lakes and rivers of the Great Lakes system down to the Gulf of St.
Lawrence with the exception of Lake Superior and St. Marys River above the
foot of St. Marys Falls.
That is logical, and I have not any doubt that it is scientifically
exactly true. Now, as to how this committee acted upon the appli-
cation of the Lake Superior Co. at Sault Ste. Marie. As I said this
morning, the fall in the Sault is not a waterfall but rapids like
those they have in the St. Lawrence River at places. Sault, I think,
is French or Indian or something for rapids, and the fall, decline,
is about 18 or 19 feet, is it not, General Beach?
General BEACH. About 19 feet, depending on the stage of Lake
Superior. -
Mr. GouldFR. Roughly speaking, for my purpose I can say it is
19 feet. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 363
The Lake Superior Power Co. built a canal from a point above
the Government canal leading into the locks around the city of
St. Marys, Sault Ste. Marie, and discharging at the carbide works.
a mile, possibly, below the Soo.
There was at that time over on the Canadian side a power plant
that was using the water in some fashion, I don’t remember how, and
it is not important. They came to the committee; they did not go
to the Secretary of War and get a permit; they did not do the
damage and leave the barn door to be locked afterwards, but they
came to Congress and they said, “Frame such a law as this?’—
Subject to the express precedent conditions hereinafter mentioned, the
Michigan & Lake Superior Power Co., of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., its suc-
cessors and assigns, after first obtaining consent of the Secretary of War, the
Chief of Engineers, and their approval of the said canal and withdrawal works
proposed, is hereby authorized to divert water from the St. Marys River into
its water-power canal now being constructed at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., for
Water-power purposes, while and SO long as such Works and diversion of water
from said river shall not injuriously affect the navigation therein nor impair
Or diminish the Water levels Or any natural increase thereof either in Lake
Superior Or in the United States ship canal and locks, or the navigable chan-
nels, locks, or ship canals connected there with, whether natural or artificial,
now existing, or which may hereafter be established or created by the United
States for navigation purposes, and conditioned further that Said companies
shall establish, maintain, and Operate Suitable and sufficient remedial and Con-
trolling works in the rapids of such river, to the approval of the Secretary
of War and the Chief of Engineers; and Said Company Shall maintain and
operate said canal and works in accordance with any rules and regulations
that may herafter be recommended by any international commission and that
shall become Operative. -
Whenever, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, the Operation of said
canal and withdrawal and controlling works, or either of them, either in
themselves or in conjunction with any other Canal or canals in the United
States or Canada which now or hereafter may exist, is injuriously affecting
water levels or the navigation of Lake Superior, the River St. Marys or other
locks or ship canals connected therewith, as hereinabove provided, he shall
impose on such company such rules and regulations for the Operation of Said
canal and remedial works as may in his Opinion be necessary to prevent such
injury. It shall become his duty and he shall have the authority to enter
upon the property of said company and can close the said canal in whole
or in part to the extent necessary to maintain water levels and to require
said company at its own expense to remove, add to or modify said works,
or any part thereof, to the extent necessary to maintain water levels. Neither
the Secretary of War nor the Chief of Engineers, or any other officer, or
person acting under the direction of them, or either one of them, shall be in
any way liable by reason of anything done in the execution of this provision.
All remedies herein provided, however, Shall be Cumulative and shall be
without prejudice to any other remedies either of the United States or of
individuals for failure of said company to maintain Said levels for navigation
purposes as herein provided.
That is from the Thirty-second United States Statutes at Large,
page 361. -
That law was passed in 1902. It is part of the river and harbor
bill for that year. It is also found in the 9th Annotated Statutes,
I think at page 102, with some notations with regard to it.
Now, what follows? We had up then the international railroad
bridge that ran across both canals and across the Soo rapids. The
Soo rapids are entirely and utterly unnavigable. They are shallow
and full of rocks, and impossible of navigation.
Now, they put in remedial works—and remember this is in 1902–
they got that permission, and I don’t know but that General Beach
doubtless can tell us, whether they are finished yet.
364 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Reading from Colonel Warren's report, at page 354, he says:
St. Marys River: The natural outflow from Lake Superior is through the
St. Marys River, and the level of the lake was originally determined by the
natural discharging capacity of St. Marys Falls. These rapids, with a fall of
about 19 feet in less than a mile, form practically a free overfall weir; in
Other words, Changes in the level Of the Water at their foot have no effect
upon their discharging capacity. The natural flow has been changed by the
construction of the piers of the international railroad bridge, by filling in
along either Shore, by the construction of Canals and locks on both sides
of the river, by the diversion of water for power purposes, and by the con-
Struction of regulating works in the river above the international bridge.
He goes on to say:
Since the time of the last measurements the restrictions have been increased
until at the present time there is Only about 25 per cent of the Original area
and 33 per cent of the original discharging capacity open to free flow. Twenty-
two per cent of the area and 11 per cent of the discharge is obstructed by the
head race of the United States power station, formerly owned and operated
by the Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., and by the permanent structures
of the controlling works, while 53 per cent of the area and 56 per cent of the
original capacity of the discharge are under direct control by means of the
movable gates of the regulating works. Present plans contemplate further
extension of controlling works, to the full width of the open river, and a
portion of these works are under construction. It is probable that the outflow
from Lake Superior will be brought under full control at Some not far distant
date.
That was written 18 years after the permission was given.
Now, I have but one other point I think I shall make.
The CHAIRMAN. Had you better not get the date of the beginning
of the construction from General Beach 2
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes. Could you give me that, General? We would
like the date of the commencement of the replacement works at
Sault Ste. Marie.
General BEACH. I can not give that offhand.
Mr. Gould ER. I will supply that. *
The CHAIRMAN. You can see readily that it is more important to
know the date of commencement than the date of authorization.
Mr. Gould ER. I will furnish that.
On the subject of regulations, that was my own thought about that;
I ask you to consider that. I do not presume to offer any opinion
on these subjects. It is only a judgment that I give based on the
opinions of such men as General Beach, General Bixby, Colonel
Warren, and all these other gentlemen, who really do know. I do
not pretend to know myself. You will note there how religiously
was guarded this matter of making their controlling works, holding
the use of water always in the hands of the Government, without
responsibility for any damage, arbitrary throughout, on this subject.
I remember John Shaw and John Milburn appeared for the power
company, and the argument was one there to go ahead and use this
water and make up for it by compensation work—regulating work.
The argument on our side, and this was adopted by the commit-
tee—“now, you don't take any water until you put in your compen-
sating works. We are not going to let you, for a nonnavigation
purpose, lower the level of Lake Superior, or impair the whole oper-
ation, use any navigability of the Government works and locks at
and around Sault Ste. Marie. We are not going to have that. You
have got to only take water when *—and the language we quarreled
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 365
over a great deal; I think I was called the most stubborn man in
Washington that day; we quarreled over that—they could take water
while and so long as it did not have that effect.
As a result, when I thought about it I sought a provision—and
then there was a provision, as you will observe, that they were
always to make those regulating and compensating works accord-
ing to any changes which might be directed by our Government.
Of course, there was nothing international about this. They were
to make any changes which were directed by our Secretary of War .
and by our Chief of Engineers. They were to remove them, amend
them, modify them, all of this at their own expense, and that is
what they have to do under the law, that this committee insisted
upon its jealous regard for the waterway right.
A provision which challenges attention is that compensating or
regulating works—that is about the Chicago subject—be put in St.
Clair and/or Niagara and/or St. Lawrence River; that the sanitary
district pay its share—I do not know how you would get at a share;
I do not know what that language means—its share of the reason-
able cost of establishing such works—whether that be a share to
be divided among other cities or with the Government or what I
do not know—and in consideration of the sanitary district paying
this the same shall be in full compensation for any lowering—now,
mark you—the same shall be in full compensation for any lowering
of lake levels which has occurred or may in the future occur.
The CHAIRMAN. What are you quoting from ?
Mr. Gould ER. This is a letter, and I will make it a part of my
argument. º
The CHAIRMAN. That purports to be the proposal of Chicago—
you are evidently quoting that from something; from what?
Mr. Gould ER. I was referring to the McCormick bill then, and I
think the same provision is in the Hull bill. The Hull bill, says:
That the said sanitary district of Chicago shall pay into the Treasury—
This is from section 5, subhead (a)—
shall pay into the Treasury of the United States, as and when directed by the
Secretary of War, such sum or sums Of money as may be estimated by the said
Chief of Engineers, as hereinafter provided, to be its reasonable share of the
cost of constructing, compensating, and/or regulating works in the St. Clair
River and/or Niagara River and/or in the St. Lawrence River at or about
Rapide Plat, to compensate and control the water levels in said Great
Lakes and their appurtenant rivers, as full and complete compensation for
any lowering of water levels of the Great Lakes systems resulting, or to result,
from such withdrawal at Chicago.
That is, the Chief of Engineers permits or figures what will com-
pensate, what will suffice, and whatever it may be, estimates the rea-
sonable share of the Chicago Sanitary District, and that shall be in
full for that. The responsibility then is with the United States in
this international matter.
I spoke there in my letter about the uncertainty. Now, I refer to
page 378 of Colonel Warren's report of 1920. In this report to the
Secretary of War he expresses much confidence that compensating
works could be made, but he also says this: s
A study of hydraulic conditions on the Great Lakes shows clearly the close
interdependence of their levels and the system by which nature regulates those
levels. Whether the system can be improved upon by human agency sufficiently
366 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to justify the construction and operation costs is problematical. Any change
involving artificial storage to be generally beneficial would require cooperative
regulation of all of the lakes and rivers With an intricate System for balancing
the variable and erratic supply from the Various drainage basins. Such regula-
tion would involve tremendous costs, and the whole works would be more or less
eXperimental. * 4-
It is quite possible that regulation will ultimately be resorted to when the
Various interests about the Great Lakes have become more valuable, and when
experience, experiment, and further study have indicated more certainly its
desirability. In such case the regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River would possibly best be undertaken first.
And he concludes on the subject on the next page by saying:
There is a wide range in the matter of details and locations of compensating
Works that would be practical and would give the full compensation desired.
The Selection of the best and most economical method is largely a matter of
engineering judgment.
And so it is a question of experiments and judgment.
I make the point that there are problematical things that should
not go in, that there should not be any theorizing or anything experi-
mental at the expense or even at the risk of this waterway. Now, by
that I do not mean to say that you can not have compensating works
and all of that sort of thing. I deplore the fact that there is this
waste of navigation water going on—Ishall speak about the Sanitation
in a moment, and only for a moment—but this is too big a thing, it
is too valuable a thing for experimentation. In other words, when
you come to a question of compensating works the party on whom the
burden is of supplying those compensating works and regulating
works has the burden of establishing—I would not want to say
“absolutely,” that or anything else—but of establishing, without
any adjective, the feasibility, the practicality, and they should not
wait until somebody had paid for the thing and somebody had as-
certained what was a necessary share, but should do as did Sault
Ste. Marie in that particular, pay the money in advance, and then
not leave that thing which is problematical and experimental, not
leave that thing which it seems almost absolutely sure, as a burden
either on the United States or on Canada, or on both those nations,
by saying that once the experiment has been put in operation and
the share, whatever that is, is determined, that shall be in full com-
pensation for all that has occurred. We know what that is, or all
that may hereafter occur, for any failure, any inadequacy about
those remedial works or any accident to those works, that they are
finished and through and ended and unloaded the entire responsi-
bility of the maintenance of those works forever, and the integrity
of those works, and the safety of those works, the replacing of them,
the amending of them, and enlarging them and trying some other
way of doing it, is all put on somebody else.
Now, one other thing on which there should be certitude. I say
we are all up in the air about what I have been speaking of excepting
this remedial works could be resorted to this committee throws
around that whole subject the safeguard that any business man will
want to have, because we are business men, you are business men
doing business for a great country; you are expending their money,
the money of the people; you are doing it wisely; you are receiving
approbation for the manner in which you are doing it, and for the
care which you are exercising in and about all that business, and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 367
everything is as it should be. I say do not interrupt it by experi-
mentation or throwing the burdens onto somebody else.
Another thing in this bill on the same line. There is a provision
here about running water down 10,000 cubic feet, and I call your
attention—I do not know whether there is any limit to the quantity
in this bill at all -
Mr. HULL. It says not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. GouldFR. Ah, but it says based on an increment not to exceed
10,000 feet. And then in section 9 of this bill the language is:
The concessions herein made and the permission hereby granted unto the
Sanitary district of Chicago—
Which is a municipal corporation—
relating to the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan, are each extended
and granted, upon the considerations herein fixed and designated being fully
Observed and complied with—
And now mark this language. What does it mean—
and nothing herein contained limits or abrogates the power of the Federal
Government, and/or its proper officer, and/or the officials of the State of Illi-
nois, in maintaining unimpaired the navigability of the Illinois River, and/or
in preserving the purity of the water therein, and/or of controlling the same
SO as to prevent its contamination to the extent of its becoming a nuisance
or menace to the health of any of the people.
The CHAIRMAN. What section is that?
Mr. GOULDER. Section 9 on page 15. Let me read that again.
Here is the Rivers and Harbors Committee of Congress of the
United States asked to sanction this language in a bill, and Con-
gress, if there be authority under the Constitution, has the authority
to pass the bill on your recommendation, and without that they will
not pass it.
Nothing herein contained—
Let me give you the first language again, so as to get that clear—
SO as to provide therein a navigable channel of 9 feet in depth—
Mr. HULL (interposing). Where are you reading from now?
Mr. GouldFR. From the top of page 2 in the first section—
So as to provide therein a navigable channel of 9 feet in depth and of a width
of not less than 200 feet, such improvement being based upon an increment—
Now, I ask the lawyers on this committee, and I ask the business
men, the plain business men to notice this—
based upon an increment of not exceeding 10,000 cubic feet per second of
water from Lake Michigan through the main channel of the sanitary dstrict
of Chicago and the Illinois waterway. -
I do not quibble about whether that includes Calumet.
Mr. HULL. Oh, yes; they take it at Lockport. c
Mr. GouldFR. I do not quibble about that. Let us assume that it
does mean that. Based on that, with a provision in the bill that—
nothing herein contained limits or abrogates the power of the Federal Gov-
ernment and/or the proper officer, and/or the officials of the State of Illinois,
in maintaining unimpaired the navigability Of the Illinois River—
At what is not stated—
and/or in preserving the purity of the water there, and/or of controlling the
same so as to prevent the contamination to the extent of its becoming a
nuisance or a menace to the health of any of the people.
368 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, it will be said that there are provisions here for purification
works, and a whole lot of things, but there is the omnibus clause, the
omnibus clause in that bill. You have got a whole lot of provisions.
The right is conferred on condition of complying with certain con-
ditions, and all of that sort of thing, but your omnibus section at
the end of it is that nothing herein contained shall abrogate or
abridge the right of the State of Illinois with respect to those things.
Now, I want to say this about purification. I feel again like
apologizing to the committee. I do not know, maybe I am getting
garrulous in my old age, but on this question of the lowering of the
levels, we have a system for public improvement in the way of
navigation, and in relation to navigable streams. I have said I do
not know of any committee of Congress more important than this
committee, by virtue of its duties, to measure and size up so many,
many, many problems. I remember sitting in the gallery of the
Senate and a man came in for a certain river and wanted an amend-
ment to the river and harbor bill. The appropriation was $750,000
and it was voted down, and he dropped $50,000 a time until he got
down to $50,000, and that was voted down, and that incident was
over. Those are the things you have to deal with ; all kinds of claims
and demands. People are selfish, and people are apt to see how out
of proportion the necessities of their locality are, their particular
needs, and it is possible that I exaggerate the needs or importance of
the Great Lakes, but I refer to the figures and ask you to substitute
your own judgment for mine as to their importance, and I do that
with quite a feeling of confidence. º * *
About this reduction of levels, I am only concerned here with one
thing. Does the taking of this water, whether it be 8,800 feet or
10,000 cubic feet per second, have the effect of lowering lake levels?
I have in mind a man for whom I have had unbounded respect,
Mr. Isham Randolph, who was the first chief engineer of this sani-
tary canal. I want to read to you what he said in 1906. Isham
Randolph was a great hydraulic engineer and a gentleman of the
highest character and standing, and it was my privilege to know him
pretty well, although I was much younger than he.
The CHAIRMAN, Tell us what you are going to read from and
where it is recorded?
Mr. Gould BR. I am reading from a letter written by Mr. Randolph
to W. H. Bixby, colonel of the Corps of Engineers, United States
Army, Chicago, on May 12, 1906. -
The CHAIRMAN. And what is that reported in; what is the volume
you are reading from ? -
Mr. Gould ER. I have got it in a book which I took when no one
was looking from Mr. McGann's desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Volume 4, Miscellaneous Documents, page what?
Mr. Gould ER. Page 109 of the book. One question he said he was
asked was, “How much will the withdrawal of water probably
lower the level of Lake Michigan?” Mr. Isham Randolph said,
“This inquiry is one which I frankly confess my inability to answer.
The data necessary to the answering of this question are not in hand,
and a board of engineers, of which you are an honored member,
makes this statement,” which he quotes, and I think that statement
was 6 inches would be the result, but the opinion that I want is by
Mr. Randolph:
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 369
From the indications afforded by these tables and charts, it would seem that
any Conjecture advanced to the effect that 10,000 cubic feet per second with-
drawn from the Southern end of Lake Michigan would lower that lake and
Lake Huron 6 inches, is not based upon observations made by the United
States engineers, but is purely academic.
Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I say to
you you have got that—the question and the whole thing might be
academic, but you have got the observations and the results, and the
detailed observations of that very corps of scientific Government
officials to whom Isham Randolph referred this matter, and they say
to you, in talking about Niagara Falls, or the Welland Canal, or any
other possible diversion or return of water, that by their observation
there is this effect of the loss of practically half a foot to the navi-
gation of this great waterway, wherein I have shown you that the
dominant ship and the coming ship is constructed to-day and will
be constructed and will be more and more dominant, suitable for a
draft of 24 feet, not from the foolish notion, as some one might sug-
gest, of building a boat of a draft of 24 feet to run in a 20-foot
channel, but in order to get the large unit of cargo, length and
breadth and structural strength, they have to build them that way,
and they build them no higher in the perpendicular dimension than
they are obliged to, in order to have the strength and keep the
width and the length for the carrying capacity of that ship.
Some few ships have been built 33 feet, they have reverted to
32, and among the reasons which are self-evident is that there is a
great weight to that superstructure of the ship, and the less super-
structure they have to carry the more they can carry of cargo, with
that ship, and I do not have to confine myself to the 600-foot ship,
because the effect is relatively in arithmetical proportion the same
down to a ship of 400 feet in length.
It only has a less effect because of the less capacity and unit of
cargo to be carried in those ships. The whole thing is to carry
as much cargo to a unit as possible, so that we do carry, we can
carry, six times the cargo, even with our 19% feet draft; we can carry
six times as much cargo as they can carry on the Mississippi River
with a 7-foot draft.
There is the thing in a nutshell so far as navigation and require-
ment and necessity is concerned.
I need not repeat what I said this morning about that being a
necessity, not of the vessel man, not of the vessel owner, any more
that the cook of the ship, but of the people whose waterway, whose
great national asset, you are conserving, whose money you are spend-
ing, have spent $150,000,000 on this particular waterway.
Now, for what purpose is the diversion? I do not know how you
are going to come to a practical ending of this thing, but I tell you
we want to get the fundamental principles right. For what pur-
pose? This bill says that it is for the improvement of navigation
and for other purposes. That body of scientific men, Government
officials, as you are, to whom everything of that kind is and of neces-
sity must be referred in the United States, a similar body of men
in Canada, two international commissions, any engineers that they
may have employed outside of the Regular Army service, all have
agreed and are all here speaking in these reports to you upon two
things. The fact of that loss and the nonnecessity for permanent
sanitary purposes at Chicago.
370 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, besides us you have here the city manager of Cleveland, a
city of about a million people. You have the sanitary engineer here.
You have people from Buffalo, Detroit, Milwaukee, and other places
on the Great Lakes. We have 106 ports on our side and a great many
on the Canadian side. You have got a great big interest here, and
all those people are saying this lowering is putting millions of dollars
of expense on us annually. We have got to dredge. There are some
places we have got to blast. And we are purifying in another way,
and they are saying, just as the first engineer of sewage disposal of
the sanitary district, Mr. Herring, said, that it was necessary, it was
a question of expense to have this open diluted way. Why, gentlemen,
the consensus of opinion of Scientific men as it is presented to you
here—not by me; I don’t know, but by men who do know, experts,
in these various reports, and men ready to tell you verbally that the
method of sewage dilution which Chicago had pursued and would
pursue, asking you to impair this great waterway to an extent of half
a foot in order that they may pursue it, is just as antique as the old
way of sewage where some can remember seeing the sewers of a town
running in the gutter between the sidewalk and the roadway—quite
as antique as that. - *
. Now, I do not know of anything that I can add. As the chairman
and some of the others have said, it is a great subject, and I think
that both the committee and myself would be thoroughly exhausted
before I could exhaust that subject. !
I was to answer questions, and I will endeavor to do so. Perhaps
I will have to ask the same treatment as the young man did who
applied for admission to the bar in Tennessee years ago. There were
three questions, and if he answered two correctly he would pass.
The first he attempted to answer and got it all wrong. To the other
two, each of them he answered “I don't know,” and the examining
committee said, “He has answered two questions correctly, and we
will let him pass.” I may have to resort to that.
The city manager of whom I spoke, Mr. Hopkins, and his engineer,
are here. Would you defer your questions with me until you hear
Mr. Hopkins?
Mr. HULL. I would rather get through with this.
Mr. GouldFR. All right.
Mr. HULL. I have it on my mind, and I want to tell you that you
have made a most wonderful speech here, and I have listened to it
most carefully.
Mr. GouldFR. I want to remind you, Mr. Hull, about that case
in Tennessee.
Mr. HULL. That is all right, you are a good lawyer and T am
nothing but a very common every-day business fellow, and you will
have to excuse my language in asking you questions, but I do want
to find out a few things, and I do not want you to think that I am
impertinent in these questions. I have listened very carefully this
morning and jotted down a few things in order to get a little basis
to work on. As I understood you this morning, you represent the
Lake Carriers’ Association?
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. As their attorney or manager?
Mr. GouldFR. General counsel.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 3.71
Mr. HULL. Is the United States Steel Corporation or any other
large steel corporation a part of that? .
Mr. GOULDER. Yes; they have subsidiary companies. The Pitts-
burgh S. S. Co. is a subsidiary of the United States Steel Corpora-
tion, which has a large number of ships.
Mr. HULL. They are a part of it?
Mr. GoulDER. Oh, yes.
Mr. HULL. That is, to a large extent on these boats?
Mr. GouldFR. Oh, I should say about 20 per cent of the tonnage.
Mr. HULL. Of all the boats on the lakes? i
Mr. GouldFR. No; of those that are in our association, and our
association has 425 boats, and they are nearly all tramp bulk
freight steamers on the lakes. -
Mr. HULL. I understood you to say—I presume it is correct—
that 80 per cent of the iron ore comes from the Duluth section?.
Mr. GouldFR. Yes, from the Lake Superior section. , I think
there are about 5,000,000 gross shipped from Escanaba.
Mr. HULL. I mean that section up there? -
Mr. GOULDER. Yes, in that section up there. -
Mr. HULL. What I was getting at, was that we had a bill here
the other day for Tennessee, and they at that time stated correctly,
that there was a large quantity of iron ore taken out of Tennessee,
and they had all the power to do this, and in that it developed in
my mind that very likely sooner or later when that was completed
a great share of the iron ore would come out of Tennessee ?
Mr. GouldFR. That is probably true, if you will improve, the
Tennessee River in connection with the other streams. -
Mr. HULL. This, then, is what I was getting at, because I think,
from the drift of your speech to-day, that you can answer this very
easily. If developed, I wanted to know if you did not think it
would be very advantageous to have this Mississippi Canal through
in order to transport that iron to the different points? -
Mr. GouldF.R.. I have not any doubt it would, Mr. Hull, subject
to this, that all of these things are relative, and a great danger
that we all have in our daily life in our business is not observing
correctly the proportions. Now, if it were going to seriously impair
one existing waterway to establish another, then I do not think
your committee would want to do it, or would be justified in doing
it. Observing the law of proportions properly and reasonably,
then they should have that. -
Mr. HULL. Then you spoke of the barges, and you read Mr. Rip-
pin's report on the barges, in which he said they carried 75,000
bushels to a barge?
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes; in one load.
Mr. HULL. With respect to these barges, if you will look into the
matter you will find that they have six of those barges in one fleet,
and that would make 450,000 bushels that one of these fleets would
carry, which would be equal to one of your ships. Am I correct in
that?
Mr. Gould IR. In the quantum, yes; but you would find this:
When we started on the Lakes, turning from sail to steam, we had a
system of barges and consorts, and then the old sailing vessels were
372 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
used as consorts to the barges. Then, when they built the larger
ships and the continually progressive larger ships they were built
in couples. The idea was just what you are expressing, and your
people on the Mississippi River, I think, would be repaid if they
would look into this. They started it that way. Some had a steamer
and two barges, and then they got a steamer and one barge, and I
do not think that for 20 years a towed barge has been built. They
found out that to have the unit of cargo in the one steamer was
so much more economical that they discarded towing even one
barge. Just how you get it on the Mississippi I do not know.
Mr. HULL. They are doing it now on the Warrior line. That is
why I brought it up. I thought it was a question you ought to
understand, that they carried just as much with those barges as in
a steamboat, and are doing it just as easily, because they are doing
it and have demonstrated it.
Mr. GouldER. That is true, but you will find that they do that at
a very lamentable loss of time.
Mr. HULL. Of course, I do not know about that.
Mr. GouldF.R. You will find that that is true. Mr. Tomlinson
tells me that it takes them 11 days to go 1,500 miles. It takes one
of our steamers a scant four days to go a thousand miles.
Mr. HULL. That is on account of the river. After the river has
the proper flow in it you won’t have to do that.
Mr. Gould ER. It will have some effect.
Mr. HULL. In order to get through, I will ask these as quickly
as I can. Isn’t it true that at the present time the farmer in the
great West is in dire distress? You will admit that?
Mr. GouldER. I only know from what the newspapers say.
Mr. HULL. That is what I am trying to bring out, and doesn’t
he need the transportation to relieve his situation?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir; and we furnish him that.
Mr. HULL. What I am trying to get at it this, that that being the
case, don’t you think it would be to the great advantage of the great
Central West and the American farmer, which is the producer of
the United States, to have a transportation such as the Mississippi
Valley barge system, so that he could export his grains to Europe
and send them to the Atlantic points and save from 5 to 8 cents a
bushel on the same?
Mr. GouldF.R.. I would not make a direct answer yes or no to
that for this reason, that every one of these questions of barge work
and canal work, restricted channel work—every such question is a
very complicated one. There is the commercial question, the pe-
culiarity, the expense of operating, and a great many things that
enter into that that has got to be gone into with very great care,
and I do not think that a man, certainly unless he were perfectly
versed, would do himself justice or would give any valuable infor-
mation offhand on a subject of that kind.
Mr. HULL. I thought you could certainly answer the question if
he would not be benefited if it was a success.
Mr. GouldFR. I certainly would say that if a system of that char-
acter can be devised which would be a success.
Mr. HULL. That is what I want.
Mr. GouldF.R. But I could not pass on that question.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 373
Mr. HULL. I asked you if you did not think that he was entitled
to that. You will agree to that. If he can save that much, he is
entitled to it, isn’t he?
Mr. GOULDER. You certainly would not have to ask me twice to
get anything that would benefit him. -
Mr. HULL. That is what I wanted to know. I would like to ask
you one more question. What percentage of these lake carriers
belonging to the Lake Carriers’ Association carry grain?
Mr. GOULDER. I do not know that you could get an answer to that,
for this reason
Mr. HULL. You have expressed a good deal on the grain proposi-
tion, and I just wanted to find out.
Mr. GouldFR. About 80 per cent of these ships carry grain. There
is no such thing as a regular grain line. There is no ship designed
especially for grain. The ship that carries grain also carries iron
Ore and coal, and after they have carried a cargo of iron ore or coal
they clean her out for the purpose of putting in the grain. So that
about 80 per cent of all the ships that we are speaking of, these
tramp ships, do carry grain more or less.
Mr. HULL. I see. You said in your speech this morning that
transportation was the soul of commerce?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. That being the case, wouldn’t you advise a channel
leading from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico, and wouldn't
you think it would be of great service to the Central West? k
Mr. GouldFR. I would say this about that. I want to be perfectly
frank and I want to be careful, too, in what I state, because those
are things that require a great deal of thought: I would say that
if you could, always observing as I said in closing, the rule of pro-
portion, of taking everything into account, if that could be done
without serious impairment, what sensible men and disinterested men
would say without unreasonable impairment of Some existing trans-
portation system, by all means yes.
Mr. HULL. In other words, if it did not hurt your boat lines it
would be all right? Would not that be the answer?
Mr. Gould ER. I would not even go so far as to say that it should
be absolutely without hurt to us, but I say nothing unreasonable in
the way of hurt, nothing that a business man would say is unrea-
sonable. That should not be. I do not think your committee would
ever transform one successful, popular, valuable system into an-
other.
Mr. HULL. This country is a very large country, and, naturally,
some of the other people would like to be saved except those who
live up on Lake Superior and at Cleveland.
Mr. GouldFR. There is no doubt about it, and we must all help
each other, and you people in the Mississippi Valley and the rami-
fications of that valley, and wherever internal water transportation
is, must as reasonable men recognize the tremendous value of this
great waterway. We have got to look at you in the same spirit. I
won’t say a spirit of tolerance, that is not the proper word, but the
same spirit of fair play and mutual helpfulness.
Mr. HULL. I think that is all we want, fair play. -
Mr. GouldFR. I think you are all entitled to it, and I think that
is reciprocal.
374 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. In reference to these boats, I think you answered that,
so I won’t ask it, of building them for a depth of 24 feet. You
answered that awhile ago. I could not see any reason for building
them that weight when you could not use them, but you answered
that and so I will not ask the question again.
In the lake transportation there is more or less rail haul con-
nected with the loading of the boats, isn’t there?
Mr. GOULDER. Oh, yes. - -
Mr. HULL. Don't you believe it would be economy for the farmer,
especially if he had his waterway in the Mississippi so that his real
haul would only go to points along the Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers and there loaded into boats? +
Just wait a minute, and I will tell you what I mean by that. I
mean this: The farmer can ship his stuff to any point along the
Mississippi River, can put it into these boats, and can export his
grain, where the man on the Great Lakes can not do it, and that is
the reason I am insisting that the Mississippi River is just as im-
portant as the Great Lakes. - -
Mr. Gould ER. If that is true, if that works out as a business
problem or a commercial problem to them, an advantage, by all
means, yes; but you, over against that, will always have to con-
sider the wonderful economy there is in handling such large units.
That is the whole explanation of the expansion of the lake com-
merce and the advantage of what your committee has done in mak-
ing it possible to carry a large unit of cargo. The bigger the cargo
the cheaper you will get that transportation. -
Mr. HELL. But the fellow that lives in Kansas can not reach the
Lakes. . * . . . . .
... Mr. Gould ER. No. -
Mr. HULL. But he can reach the Mississippi and he can ship
his grain on these barges, and they can reload them, and for that
reason I think this is such an important project. You spoke awhile
ago that the Government had spent $150,000,000 on the channels
and harbors of the Great Lakes, and that several millions had been
spent by the different cities in building their harbors. Now, the
Sanitary District of Chicago has spent approximately $74,000,000
on navigable channels. Do you not think it ought to be taken ad-
vantage of and used for navigation purposes, so as to reduce freight
rates? - -
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, I don’t follow there. Let this expert answer
that. I think he can answer that better than I can. I wish you
would let Mr. Hopkins speak.
Mr. HULL. I will ask the next question. That one is probably
immaterial.
Mr. Gould ER. I will answer it when I can find a note I have
about it. ... "
Mr. HULL. I want to take up another subject, one we are vitally
interested in in Illinois. You spoke of the locks at the Soo, which
were constructed entirely by the Government of the United States
and the Dominion of Canada. The State of Illinois is now ex-
pending $20,000,000 for the construction of a series of locks as an
important link in the waterway between Lake Michigan and the
Gulf of Mexico. Each of these locks is 110 feet wide by 600 feet
long, with 14 feet on the miter sills, as wide as the locks on the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 375
Panama Canal and almost as long. One of these locks has already
been constructed. Construction is already under way on another.
Bids have been advertised for on still another. Complete plans
have been drawn for the fourth, and extensive plans are under way
for the fifth. It is the intention of the State of Illinois to complete
the construction of these locks as soon as possible. Don’t you think
that the Congress of the United States should recognize this large
expenditure of money by the State of Illinois, and don’t you believe
We should take advantage of this expenditure in building the water-
way ;
Mr. Gould ER. I think, Mr. Bull, I will answer that from Tennes-
see, that I can not on my feet go into the necessary computation and
consideration of that, and I would like to refer that to your engineer-
ing corps. I do not know whether you would need such locks. All I
know is that a thousand cubic feet will furnish a navigable channel
down there.
Mr. HULL. Do you know that?
Mr. Gould ER. I do know that.
Mr. HULL. You are positive of that?
Mr. Gould ER. Absolutely.
Mr. HULL. You differ with a lot of the engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so.
Mr. GoulDER. I took it from the engineers and their reports.
Mr. HULL. Do you not believe that the regulating works provided
for in the Hull bill will give even better harbor depths than the nat-
ural depths without any diversion?
Mr. GOULDER. No.
Mr. HULL. You did it in the Soo !
Mr. GouldFR. You are stopping the entire flow of the river. You
can not do that in the other rivers.
Mr. HULL. Do you mean to say that these regulating works pro-
posed in my bill will not be a success?
Mr. GouldFR. I will say that it is problematical, it is experimental,
and I would not undertake to pass on the question and go further
than to say that to those men who are competent, and I am not to
pass on a question of that kind; the burden is clearly on Chicago and
the sanitary district to make it so plain that there is practically no
experiment and nothing problematical about it.
Mr. HULL. He says one is all right. I do not see why the other
would not be all right.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he covered it very fully from Colonel
Warren’s report upon this question. He read very fully what
Colonel Warren says. *
1Mr. HULL. Aren’t the Great Lakes in general at a low stage at the
present time?
Mr. GouTDER. Yes; and I am going to ask that you hear General
Bixby on that. General Bixby has a chart that goes back and gives
the average for 51 years, and it is proven that we have our cycles of
low water. In addition to that, we have changes from barometrical
conditions and forces, and you will find at one end of Lake Erie at
times and at not infrequent times, probably 10, 12, and I think at
times, 15 feet higher water than in the other end. All of those things
are true, and I am stating to you and to this committee, that is all
true, and that we have the high water of 1915 and our low water to-
376 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
day or at another time and all of that sort of thing, but all the time
with that 6 inches or 5% inches lower water at high stage or low
stage or an Oscillating stage or a barometrical stage.
Mr. HULL. You will admit that that does not come all together
from the drainage canal or the diversion at Lake Michigan, because
#. have got just as much upon the Welland Canal. Why not stop
that - .
Mr. GoulDER. Because that is not before the committee.
Mr. HULL. But I am arguing with you.
Mr. GouldFR. Introduce a bill on that subject. We are not deal-
ing with that now. -
Mr. HULL. What I am trying to do is to get a deeper waterway, but
the conditions still exist that they have got it in the Welland Canal,
and why should it be any different in the other? However, I will
close my questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you any question?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes; I have a question or two.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say this, that Mr. Goulder will be here to-
morrow morning, and Mr. Hopkins, the city manager of Cleveland,
desires to be heard, and possibly it is a necessity for him to get away
to-night. r
Mr. GouldFR. He is down here on quite a positive assurance that
he would get away to-night. - -
Mr. NEwTON. Suppose you recall Mr. Goulder in the morning for
my questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Representative Voigt, from Wiscon-
sin, wants to be heard just for a few minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON, EDWARD VOIGT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. VoIGT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). dºm Voigt, I hope you will
not take over five minutes.
Mr. VoIGT. I may have to beg the indulgence of the committee for
10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. You see, we have a man who has to go out of
town absolutely, and we are only going to sit until a quarter to 5.
Mr. VoIGT. I appear here in behalf of the delegation in the House
from the State of Wisconsin to present a protest against the diver-
sion of water from Lake Michigan which is proposed in this bill,
and I wish to read that protest [reading]:
The Chicago Sanitary District is abstracting approximately 10,000 cubic feet
Of water per Second from Lake Michigan into the drainage canal in Order to
carry its sewage westward into the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers. The water
so abstracted is also employed in operating a hydroelectric plant at Lockport.
The result of this Water abstraction has been that the levels of the Great
Lakes have been lowered by some 6 inches, reducing the carrying capacity of
a lake fleet of 600 VeSSels to a material degree, Which translated into actual
figures causes a loss of over $4,000,000 annually. The loss is further aug-
mented in the lowering Of rivers and channels which were planned upon a
normal datum, exposing piling and docking to a premature decay.
The colossal abstraction of water at Chicago has not only injured the com-
merce on the Great Lakes but has also reduced the river commerce of Chicago.
The reversal of the river Stream thus carrying the sewage of the city westward
has polluted the DeSplaines and Illinois Rivers and has caused serious flood
damages in the river lands.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 377
The impracticability of the large use of the lake waters for sewage dilution
as this is done by the Chicago Sanitary District is obvious. The large cities
Of the United States and Europe have long resorted to more scientific methods
of Sewage reduction. The dilution system is deemed obsolete so far as sewage
purification methods applicable to large communities is concerned.
The one great outstanding reason why Chicago seeks to cling to the present
dilution System is because the water now abstracted is utilized for the opera-
tion of the hydroelectric plant which yields an annual profit of approximately
$1,000,000. Here is the nub of the whole question and the real reason for the
defiance of law and justice.
The War Department has for many years protested against the unlawful ab-
Straction of Water; the United States district court at Chicago has decided
that Such abstraction is causing injury to lake commerce, and that Chicago
must and can find other means of Sewage disposal.
The Secretary of War has on a number of occasions refused the request of
the Sanitary district for 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan.
The Secretary has affirmed his former ruling in a communication addressed
to the chairman of this committee under date of March 17, 1924. (Document
No. 7, 68th Cong., 1st sess.)
The effort now made to Seek the legalization of the water diversion at the
hands of Congress can not in the light of common justice and equity be sanc-
tioned. It is Our firm belief that the Congress can not justly dispose of the
gifts of nature by conferring benefits upon one section or community to the
detriment and injury of other sections and other communities. Nor can the
CongreSS, in our judgment, dispose of the waters of the Great Lakes which are
jointly controlled by the United States and Canada without the consent of the
neighboring country.
We confidently assert that the claim that this abstraction of water will be
necessary to Operate a barge Canal is not tenable. We assert that for this
purpose an abstraction of not more than 500 cubic feet per Second would be
necessary. -
We regard the proposal for the construction of compensating and regulat-
ing Works on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River as a clever Subter-
fuge which is legally impossible, and which is merely offered in order to per-
petuate the Operation of a profitable hydroelectric power plant.
We hold that in the interest of common right and justice Congress should
unequivocably deny every selfish attempt to perpetuate the colossal water
steal So boldly carried on at Chicago and to give the authorities unmistakable
Warning that the same must within a reasonable length of time come to a
final stop. --
The underSigned Members of the House of Representatives from Wisconsin
therefore protest against the diversion of lake waters at Chicago and against
the legalization of the diversion now taking place.
HENRY ALLEN COOPER. J. D. BECK.
EDWARD VOIGT. EDw ARD E. B.Row NE.
JOHN M. NELSON. GEO. J. SCHNEIDER.
JOHN C. SCHAFER. J. A. FREAR.
VICTOR L. BERGER. H. H. PEAVEY.
FLORIAN LAMPERT.

That is signed by the 11 Members of the House from my State,
Mr. Chairman. I just want to say a few words. The delegation
from my State in the House is not opposed to the building of any
canal from Chicago to the Mississippi, and I do not think that any-
one who is interested in water transportation would object to seeing
the abstraction of a reasonable quantity of water from Lake Michi-
gan for that purpose, and it is not the purpose of our delegation to
protest against any reasonable amount of water which may be neces-
sary for the purpose of navigation. . So far as I have been able to
study the facts of this matter, any barge canal which is here pro-
posed would not take in excess of a thousand cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say on that question that the Erie Canal,
the testimony here is, which is a 12-foot canal, instead of a 9-foot
91739–24—PT 2—9
378 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
canal, and a very large canal, only takes from 1,200 to the utmost
of 1,600 or 1,700 cubic feet.
Mr. VoIGT. Suppose this canal for navigation purposes took 2,000
feet; I don’t want to be understood as being here to protest against
that, but we think it would establish a very dangerous and bad
national policy to permit any city in this country for a private
municipal purpose to abstract this huge quantity of water for the
purpose of Sewage purification, or for the purpose of running a
power plant. I do not think that should be permitted as a matter
of principle, because if you permit it in this case you will establish
a precedent for other cases.
I want to say also that I do not see how this committee could
recommend a bill authorizing this 10,000 feet or more without violat-
ing the treaty between this country and Canada. I have been look-
; that treaty over, and I find a clause in it that I think prevents
that.
The CHAIRMAN. Call our attention, if you please, to the section
which you read.
Mr. VoIGT. There is article 2 of the treaty, and part of that reads
as follows:
But it is agreed that any interference with or diversion from their natural
channel of such waters on either side of the boundary resulting in any injury
on the other side of the boundary shall give rise to the Sarne rights and entitle
the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in
the country where such diversion Or interference Occurs.
That clause does not apply only to the so-called boundary waters
but it applies to waters which are tributary to boundary waters,
and of course Lake Michigan is tributary to the other lakes which
constitute the boundary between the two countries.
There has been a claim made here, I understand, that when this
treaty was drawn the diversion of 10,000 feet at Chicago was in
the minds of those who drew the treaty. I do not see how that is
possible, in view of this fact. This treaty was made in 1910 and,
according to the report of the engineers of the sanitary district,
it appears that in the year 1910, 3,458 feet per second were taken
from Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. What are you reading that statement from ?
Mr. VoIGT. I am reading now from the bill of complaint of the
State of Wisconsin against the State of Illinois, pending in the
Supreme Court, but I take it that these figures are correct. I have
no doubt about that. It appears here that in 1909, according to
the report of the district engineer at Chicago, 2,766 cubic feet per
second were taken; in 1910, 3,458; in 1911, 6,445.
If they were taking 3,500 cubic feet, approximately, when this
figure was made, how could the contracting parties to that treaty
have had this in mind that 10,000 feet were going to be taken? At
any rate, this treaty, does not permit the abstraction of this water.
I doubt very much whether, in view of the law, the Secretary of
War had the legal power to authorize the abstraction of the 4,167
feet. I do not think that the Secretary of War had power to author-
ize the diversion of water except for the purposes of navigation, so
I do not believe that that would stand up in court.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 379
But that is not the question before the committee. now. The
question before this committee is whether the abstraction of 10,000
feet or more
Mr. HULL (interposing). It does not say “more.” It says not to
exceed 10,000 feet. * ſº • tº
Mr. Voigt. I think you have got something in the bill which will
authorize the abstraction of more than 10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. HULL. No.
Mr. VoIGT. I beg to differ with you.
Mr. HULL. It was not the intention.
Mr. VoIGT. You have it in the bill, and if that bill passes the
drainage district can abstract 25,000 feet.
Mr. HULL. Show me where.
Mr. VoIGT. I have not time to read it now.
Mr. HULL. You are wrong about that.
The CHAIRMAN. We won’t make any progress by discussing the
meaning of the provisions of the bill.
Mr. HULL. I would like him to confine his statements to the bill.
Mr. VoIGT. I am saying that, as I understand the bill, it would
authorize the abstraction of more than 10,000 feet; but I am here to
protest against the abstraction of 10,000 cubic feet.
The CHAIRMAN. My own judgment, while I am opposed to the
diversion, is that Mr. Hull is correct and that it does not authorize
the diversion of more than 10,000 cubic feet. I may be wrong about
that. •
...Mr. VoIGT. All right. * , -
The CHAIRMAN. I admit that you can read it both ways. I think,
however, it only means what he says.
Mr. VoIGT. There is some ambiguous language in the bill, if it
means 10,000 feet, it could have been made considerably plainer.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. .*
. Mr. VoIGT. But, anyway, I am here to protest the diversion of any
water except that which is legitimately necessary for the purposes
of navigation. It seems to me that what the committee ought to do
is to give the sanitary district a reasonable opportunity to set its
house in order. This claim that the city of Chicago and adjoining
territory are too poor to build all necessary works for the disposition
of their sewage is entirely untenable. If you have not been informed
on that subject, you will be. The amount of money that can be used
for that purpose, that they can raise, is ample for that purpose. I
think they should be given a reasonable length of time, say five or
six years, during which to build their proper plants.
The CHAIRMAN. With a continually decreasing volume of water?
Mr. VoIGT. Speaking for myself alone, I should say they ought to
be permitted to abstract 8,000 or 10,000 feet, say, for five years,
during which time they could build the sewage-disposal works. I
shall not say anything about these compensating works further than
this: If they should be permitted to enter upon that scheme, then the
bill should provide that these compensating works are built at the
risk of the sanitary district; that if those works accomplish what it
is claimed they will do, that thereafter they must maintain them.
They must guarantee the maintenance of them, and there must be no
guaranty made on the part of the United States which will relieve
the drainage district from any responsibility in the premises.
•ºf
380 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAERMAN. The two provisions would be utterly inconsistent,
wouldn’t they? The provision of requiring them to substitute other
means of sanitation and the provision permitting them to provide
these works to maintain lake levels? Those two measures would be
utterly inconsistent. You could not have them both.
Mr. VoIGT. No. That is, they could not undertake them both at
the same time. I say this, that if they were to go to work and build
the compensating works within a couple of years they would have to
do so at their own risk. Then if they fell down on the compensating
Work, then they should be compelled, within a few years, to build
plants for sewage disposal; and if they were held down to that, I do
not believe the sanitary district or the State of Illinois would want
to invest the money in the experiment.
I thank the committee for its attention.
The CHAIRMAN. We will call upon Mr. Hopkins, of Cleveland.
STATEMENT OF MR. W. R. HOPKINS, CITY MANAGER OF CLEVE.
LAND, OHIO *
Mr. HoPKINS, My name is W. R. Hopkins, and I am city manager
of Cleveland, Ohio. I feel that I am trespassing both upon your
time and your patience to address you this afternoon, and so I shall
try to be brief.
First of all, I am here pursuant to a direction by the council of the
city of Cleveland to express to you as strongly as I can our profound
conviction that neither this bill nor any bill like it, neither this bill
nor any substitute for it, ought to be passed, and for that I will
give three reasons. *
First of all, the city of Cleveland in any proposition involving the
lowering of the lake level has to put a direct tax upon our people, as
we have the burden of maintaining proper channels within our 5 or 6
miles of inner harbor in the Cuyahoga River, so that these great ves-
Sels can come up to our steel plants which are located in the Cuyahoga
Valley. That interest is immediate and calculable, and on that
point if any sort of work in the Niagara River will raise the
level of Lake Erie, I submit to you first of all that the Government
could do no better thing on its own account than to spend this
$3,000,000 for that purpose, because it would save annually a great
deal more than the interest on $3,000,000 on dredging, which would
thereby be made unnecessary.
But if the Government feels unequal to bearing that whole load,
the city of Cleveland and every other city that has a harbor on the
Great Lakes can well afford to contribute toward it, and I am here to
say to you that the city of Cleveland can and will contribute very
substantially, on the simple, plain business proposition, that we had
better pay interest on Some bonds in a given amount than pay twice
as much annually for dredging.
Our second proposition is that we have a very great and constantly
increasing interest in the preservation and development of every pos-
sible electric horsepower at Niagara Falls and on the St. Lawrence.
Within the last five years the progress of the art of transmitting elec-
tricity in large amount over great distances has been so great that
Cleveland to-day is within the Niagara Falls radius on the basis of
electric transmission with a loss of less than 10 per cent. The cost of
developing power at Niagara is so small that Niagara power in
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 381
Cleveland will represent not only the most desirable, the most, abso-
lutely dependable power that we can get, but by far the cheapest.
Not only Cleveland but every city within a radius of 300 miles of
Niagara Falls and the St. Lawrence has a similar interest.
Perhaps before these works could be constructed the same thing
would be true of Chicago, if the progress in long-distance transmis-
sion continues. We can easily reach a time when the city of Chicago
is interested in preserving electricity at the Falls and the St. Law-
rence. The whole course of development in the electric field is such
that we are to-day linking up all of these territories so that the in-
terest of one State becomes the interest of another. Only recently
the great plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania have combined for the in-
terchange of power. So it is entirely possible at any time for us
in Cleveland to be getting Niagara power through existing connec-
tions. -
No matter how you figure this thing, there is a limit to the amount
of water you can divert above Niagara Falls without ruining the
Falls. There is a very definite limit to that. First of all, there is
the existing treaty limit of 56,000 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. Which is binding until we have a new treaty
Mr. HoPKINs. Surely. Second, there is the further limit in the
attitude of the American people, which will never tolerate the de-
struction of Niagara Falls from the standpoint of scenic wonder. In
the opinion of the Government's own engineers, with the proper com-
pensating works constructed in the Niagara River, the amount of
water which can be devoted to power purposes above the Falls with-
out injuring the beauty and grandeur of them, represents a very
large amount over and above what we are now paying. But no
matter what that amount is, it is limited, because the whole amount
of water going over the Falls is limited. Somewhere short of 200,000
cubic feet per second is the limit beyond which we can not take water
for power purposes without destroying the beauty of the Falls.
Every cubic foot of water that goes down this drainage canal is
diverted forever from any power purposes at Niagara and in the
St. Lawrence. Every cubic foot of water so diverted represents the
permanent economic loss of at least 45 horsepower. In other words,
I am assuming that in addition to the 300 to 310 feet of possible
head at Niagara from the upper river to the lower there is also 140
or 150 feet capable of development in the St. Lawrence; and I am
assuming also that every cubic foot we take at Chicago will be
charged against that in future adjustment with Canada. Why not?
In other words, by what right can we take water for a drainage
canal on this side and require the Canadians to lose their half of the
power which could otherwise be developed from it. Whatever other
shortcoming the Canadian may have, the inability to protect his own
rights and get everything he is entitled to is not one of them.
TMr. DEA. That seems so.
Mr. HoPKINs. Doubtless every American, although we get 20,000
cubic feet per second of the 56,000 authorized, and the Canadians
get 36,000, and although the fact that that was originally due to a
situation which no longer exists, namely, that at that time we were
getting on the American side the great bulk of all the power that was
generated on the Canadian side, and they argue with force that they
were entitled to a larger amount of water over there commensurate
382 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
with the enormous exportation of electricity from their side to ours,
for otherwise our actual enjoyment of electric power would not be
equal. That condition no longer exists. The Canadians more and
more use their own power, and they are within sight of a time When
they will forbid the exportation of any power to this side.
The CHAIRMAN. As they did during the war?
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes. That being true, in spite of that Sir Adam
Beck, the head of their power commission, has insisted that whenever
the allotment is increased, that whenever the amount to be diverted
is increased, it shall be divided 50–50. What they have they keep.
That being true, do you think that when we get down to divide the
next amount of power at Niagara and the St. Lawrence that they
are not going to charge us with the 10,000 cubie feet at Chicago & Do
you think they are such fools, and can you imagine a legitimate argu- .
ment against it? -
Now, gentlemen, this matter of electric power is, to my mind, the
great outstanding and immediate fact in this country. In the whole
North certainly and, I think in the South, of the development of
great blocks of electric power, the most perfect power man knows,
promises to have more effect industrially, economically, and socially
than any one thing that is to happen in the next 20 years in this
country, and here is a source of wealth, the development of which
robs us of nothing. Unlike coal which you burn and it is gone. Un-
like iron ore, which you mine and it is gone. But the power that
you take from water represents no substraction whatever from the
economic wealth of the country, and when generated it is perfect
power. If you have a steam plant, when you have called upon it for
the capacity of that single unit, you get no more, but when you have
an electric machine of any sort, the electricity responds to the de-
mand, no matter where it must come from. It is a perfect power.
As soon as the railroads of this country are put on a substantial,
permanent financial basis, the economic argument for electrification
of the railroads will be unanswerable, and we shall have that demand
for electric power.
We in the city of Cleveland have a profound interest in preserving
every possible horsepower that can be developed, either at Niagara
Falls or the St. Lawrence, because even the most remote of it interests
us directly. If they can provide power, even in Maine and Massa-
chusetts, it protects just that much Niagara power which might
otherwise have to answer that demand. g
As I figure it 10,000 cubic feet per second means 450,000 horsepower,
assuming heads aggregating 450 feet. Take your pencil and on any
assumption you like in dollars and cents as to the difference between
the cost of generating electric power at Niagara or on the St. Law-
rence, and the cost of developing it from steam within that territory,
and you can not get less than $20 a horsepower. In other words, by
any sort of calculation you have a sum running anywhere from nine
to twelve or fourteen millions a year, representing the economic sav-
ing of hydroelectric power developed at those places as against elec-
tricity developed from steam, and that gap must widen, for the
cost of producing coal steadily increases and will continue to increase.
So our second objection to this thing is that it involves robbing
not merely our locality but the whole eastern section of this country
and the Nation of economic wealth so great in amount upon any
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 383
calculation that no nation, not even this one, can be pardoned for
wasting it. -
Our third objection to this plan is that it is wholly unnecessary.
If Chicago had approached this problem in 1909, instead of 1889,
with her courage, her intelligence, her spirit, and her wealth, she
would never have dreamed of pouring her sewage into a drainage
canal. I do not blame Chicago for having started this drainage-
canal project. At that time sanitary engineering and Sewage dis-
posal were practically untried and unknown things on such a scale
in this country. At that time the first high head of electric power
had not even been calculated in this country. The value of Niagara
and the St. Lawrence power was not dreamed of. It was natural
for Chicago at that time to take this way, to avail herself of that
natural freak, the low elevation which separated the headwaters of
the Chicago River from the headwaters of the Desplaines. That
was natural. I do not blame them at all.
But that is a freak, and if the city of Cleveland, which now has
just about the same population to take care of that the city of Chi-
cago had in 1889, if it enjoyed the similar natural conditions So
that we could tunnel through from the headwaters of the Cuyahoga
to the headwaters of any stream going through to the Ohio River, we
would have an equal right to come here and ask this. But I ask, you
gentlemen seriously whether, in view of the modern development
of sanitary engineering, in view of the sewage-disposal plants now
existing, in view of the known value of this water for power pur-
poses, you would give the city of Cleveland 10 minutes' hearing on
a proposition to let us do to the Cuyahoga River exactly what Chi-
cago did to her river. And the two rivers are exactly alike. I can
remember the Chicago River before they did this, and it looked
enough like our Cuyahoga to make me feel at home—sluggish, slow-
flowing, winding streams. They were exactly the same thing.
But nature did not do in our locality what it did in theirs, and so
we had to do what everybody else except Chicago has had to do.
We had to find another answer to the problem, and we found it.
And that is not all. The city of Cleveland had to provide for a city
of a million people, both to take care of their sewage and of their
requirements for water, and to-day has installed three sewage-dis-
posal plants—one on the Lake shore to the west, one on the Lake
shore to the east, and one building back to the south. Those plants
take from our sewage the large part of their impurities. Those
plants represent all together, will when completed for a city of a
million people, an investment of $5,100,000. -
Further than that, we have provided and are providing plants to
filter all of this water. We have in existence on the west shore of
the Lake at Division Street a filtration plant together with covered
storage for 20,000,000 gallons. We have nearly completed to the east
our Baldwin plant to treat 160,000,000 gallons a day, and that in-
cludes storage for 120,000,000. In order that you may know what
that means, I will explain. At Baldwin we have two structures,
each 7 acres in extent, having an interior height of 40 feet, and
supported by columns precisely as a cathedral is. It is a great sight
if you have never seen one. If you can Imagine a 7-acre cathedral,
40 feet high, with the columns going up to the roof, you will get a
picture of these two inclosed storage reservoirs. Those two reser-

384 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
voirs take care of 120,000,000 gallons of water after it has been
urified, after it has been filtered, so that it can not be contaminated
y later exposure to the elements. Those two filtration plants repre-
sent, an investment, or will all together, of seven and three-quarter
millions. In other words, with less than $13,000,000 we will have
treated the Sewage for a city of a million; we will have filtered their
water and we will have preserved it in inclosed reservoirs after it is
filtered.
Now, isn’t it preposterous for a great, splendid city like Chicago
to say that they can not do that kind of thing? The Lord knows we
have nothing but affection and pride so far as Chicago is concerned.
We like Chicago and we have been there. We have not anything
against Chicago, but the trouble is, gentlemen, they are here askin
you to let them go from bad to worse. They started out doing a .#
thing. True, it was the best they thought they knew at the time,
but everybody knows now that that is the wrong way to do that
thing, and they come here not only asking to continue it, continue
what they are doing, but to make it worse.
Now, I say to you in all sobriety, gentlemen, the city of Chicago
ought not to be asking for more but promising to take less. In your
plans for sewage disposal you people of Chicago ought not only to
be taking care of what you can not now put in that ditch, but you
ought to be providing for plants to treat your sewage that is going
in there so that later on, at least, the greater part of that will not
require to be diluted by water that ought to be performing a great,
valuable, economical use.
Now, that is the plain common sense of that proposition, and I say
to you gentlemen that it is unworthy of the city of Chicago to ask
all the rest of this country to let them go on in a course like that.
There is no end to it. After they have poured all of the sewage
they can into 10,000 cubic feet per second, the city will still con-
tinue to grow, and as to the remainder of the city they will have
to do exactly what all the rest of us have to do with all of our sewage.
In a city like that I submit it is not a question of compensating
work. It is not a question of two millions or ten millions or twenty
millions. It is a question of hundreds of millions of dollars.
But that is not all. It is a question of wasting the most priceless
of all of the natural resources of that part of the United States.
Now, I will be very glad, gentlemen of the committee, to answer
any questions I can of you or anybody else.
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you one or two questions. Have you read
the bill?
Mr. HoPKINs. I understand the bill authorizes a diversion of
10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. HULL. But have you read the part of the bill where I am
forcing the Chicago Sanitary District to build treatment plants?
Have you read that part of it?
Mr. HoPKINs. No, sir. w
Mr. HULL. Then you have not been talking on the bill at all?
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes; I am talking on one proposition. You want
authority to continue to divert 10,000 cubic feet?
Mr. HULL. Not to exceed 10,000 feet. We do not say to continue
here. It is provided in this bill that they shall build these plants
to the extent of 5,000,000 a year. Have you read this bill?
Mr. HoPKINs. No.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 385.
Mr. HULL. Then why should you come here and criticize a bill
which you have not read? r
Mr. HoPKINs. I am criticizing that feature of the bill, the diver-
sion of 10,000 cubic feet a second, or any substitute for that.
The CHAIRMAN. We are not considering simply one bill here.
There are 4 bills before the committee, and there may be 15 before
We finish. What we are considering is the question of the diversion
at Chicago.
Mr. HoPKINS, And that is what I am addressing myself to.
The CHAIRMAN. And in order to discuss that question you would
not have to read a particular bill. All you would have to do would
be to deal with the general question of diversion, which you have done.
Mr. HULL. I take exception to that. He is saying what Chicago
has got to do, and is to do, and it is already in this bill what they
are to do. I am providing in this bill that they shall build these
ºnt plants, and that is the reason I thought you had not
read it. - s tº
Mr. HoPKINs. Permit me to say that for any purpose other than
diluting the sewage or generating power Chicago won’t need an
amount of water that would seriously affect the rest of us. The
New York State Barge Canal takes only 500 cubic feet from the
Niagara River. Beyond that we are absolutely opposed, for the
reasons I have given you, to any authority to divert water at
Chicago.
Mr. HULL. I can not help you being opposed to it; but there is
always a risk when a man has a bill which proposes things, that you
should be opposed to the bill without knowing what it contains.
The CHAIRMAN. Any more questions?
Mr. HULL. Wait until I get through. I have a lot of questions I
want to ask. You have put in a good deal of your time on the power
end of it? -
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. Would you object, if they happened to get the 10,000
cubic feet, to them generating power out there?
Mr. HoPKINs. You can not generate, with the fall you have, one-
fifth of the power you would need.
Mr. HUIL. That is not the question. Would you object to them
generating it? That is what I asked you.
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes; for this reason: You can not generate power
without taking more than you need
Mr. HULL (interposing). I am not asking you that. Do you object
to a canal down to the Mississippi River?
Mr. HoPKINs. No. -
Mr. HULL. You do not?
Mr. HoPRINs. No.
Mr. HULL. Would you object if Congress would decide to give
water for that canal?
Mr. HoPKINs. No.
Mr. HULL. All right.
Mr. HoPKINs. Just for that canal—not for power and not for
dilution.
Mr. HULL. Then we are going on down the line you have made,
and in talking here about this diversion and what it means; but do
you know that Chicago takes 5.5 inches—lowers the lake 5.5 inches?
That is what they all claim. Do you know that to be true?
9.1739–24—PT 2—10
386 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HoPKINs. I do not know it. I simply take their statements.
I know you can not take 10,000 feet a second without lowering it.
Mr. HULL. Wait a minute. All of these other things—the Welland
Canal and the New York Barge Canal, and the Niagara power—all
of these together have a tendency to reduce the lake levels and Lake
Erie something like 5.6 inches. That is true?
Mr. HoPKINs. That may be; I do not know.
Mr. HULL. All right. Do you object to that?
Mr. HoPKINS. No; because they produce power and navigation.
Mr. HULL. You don't object to that?
Mr. HoPKINs. No.
Mr. HULL. That is all I wanted to know.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. McDUFFLE. How long would it take to complete a proper
system for disposal of sewage for a city the size of Chicago? About
how long would it take to carry out a program and build the neces-
sary establishments?
Mr. HoPKINs. That would depend on how seriously they went
at it. Judging from my own experience, I should say if they went at
it vigorously, six years at the outside. I understand that involves
engineering, and still I know something about conditions there,
having made some study of the matter of subway construction there,
and I know a little of their soil. But, on the other hand, assuming
that our conditions in Cleveland are worse, and I think they are, I
should say six years.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Do I understand you to suggest that the time is
coming, if not now at hand, when more water will be diverted from
the Lakes for power?
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes, sir. The Government's engineers in response
to a request from Congress for such a report Some four years ago, I
guess, made a report two years ago in which they suggested that the
diversion above the falls be increased to 100,000 cubic feet per
second—from 56,000.
Mr. McDUFFIE. What effect will that have on the level of these
lakes?
Mr. HoPKINs. They couple that with the suggestion of compen-
sating works, which would not only cover that one development, but
presumably tend to correct existing trouble. I understand that to be
their view. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Then it is possible to take more water from the
lakes and not lower the level of the lakes, is that the idea?
Mr. HoPKINs. That is the assumption of the Army engineers, and
I would be willing to take their judgment. I would assume that
that would be true. I would not want to dispute them, because I
think they are qualified.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all unless some one has some further
questions.
Mr. ADCOCK. When did the city of Cleveland first start to lay out
plans for sewage purification? f
Mr. HoPKINs. I should say in 1915. It may have been 1914, but
1915, I think.
Mr. ADCOCK. And also water purification?
Mr. HoPKINs. The same thing.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 387
Mr. Apoock. And what is the plan of sewage purification; that is,
to what degree of purification? -
Mr. HoPKINs. I think Mr. Ellms, the sanitary engineer, is here
and he could answer that precisely.
Mr. ADCOCK. Is it complete now 2
Mr. HoPKINs. The west side plant is; yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. When will the entire project be complete?
Mr. HoPKINs. I should think within 18 to 24 months. That in-
volves one to the south.
Mr. ADCOCK. But I mean for the entire city ?
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes; within 24 months, I shoud say.
Mr. ADCOCK. And the occasion for your providing for purification
of sewage was the purification of your water supply?
Mr. HoPKINs. The same thing you had before you then exactly.
Mr. ADCOCK. And the population at that time was about 700,000
in the city of Cleveland?
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes; I think so.
Mr. ADCOCK. The city of Chicago was in the same condition in
1889, was it not? * &
Mr. HoPKINs. I should think just about.
Mr. ADCOCK. Only it had a million people.
Mr. HoPKINs. Just about the same as we have now.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you know whether at one time there was pro-
jected a diversion of the Cuyahoga River for taking care of the
city of Cleveland’s sewage 2 -
Mr. HoPKINs. Yes: I know there was such a plan.
Mº, ADCOOK. And wasn’t it abandoned because of the great ex-
pense
Mr. HoPKINs. Nature made it impossible. The watershed behind
Cleveland is very much higher.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is, the divide is very much greater than at
Chicago?
Mr. HoPKINs. But I should say for your information that that
was done in 1895; that suggestion was made. -
Mr. ADCOCK. And when Chicago projected her plans for a diver-
sion of her sewage from Lake Michigan that was an approved plan
at that time? -
Mr. HoPKINs. I said that. I think that is true.
Mr. ADCOCK. That was probably the best plan they could adopt at
that time?
Mr. HoPKINs. The engineers must have thought so, because they
advised Cleveland in 1895 to do the same thing.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Then that is all. We will adjourn until 10.30
o'clock to-morrow morning.
(Whereupon at 5.15 p.m. an adjournment was taken until to-
morrow, Thursday, April 17, 1924, at 10.30 a. m.)
(The following papers were filed by the chairman for the record):
DETROIT, MICH., April 10, 1924.
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
The following resolution was unanimously adopted by the common council
of the city of Detroit in session this date :
“By Councilman Murphy:
“Whereas this common council, representing the city of Detroit, has been
notified that the congressional Committee on Rivers and Harbors will resume
388 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
hearings at Washington, D. C., on Tuesday, April 15, 1924, upon the Chicago
Water division question; and - *
“Whereas the city of Detroit is emphatically and unalterably opposed to
Iowering the levels of the Great Lakes by diverting their natural flow and
-Creating a menace to navigation that would not only be financially disastrous
to innumerable commercial interests, but would lower the water at every
Wharf along the Great Lakes, thus creating an intolerable situation by reducing
the cargoes of every vessel plying the Lakes to the great detriment of the
industries depending on lake transportation; and
“Whereas millions of dollars have been expended by the United States
Government for dredging the St. Clair flats, the Livingstone, and other chan-
nels ; and - -
“Whereas the water now being diverted at Chicago has already very
materially lowered the level of the Lakes : now, therefore, be it
“Resolved, That the common council of the gity of Detroit, in session assem-
bled, in behalf of the Commonwealth we represent, urgently request Senator
James Couzens and Senator Woodbridge N. Ferris, together with Congressmen
Robert H. Clancy, Clarence J. McLeod, Grant M. Hudson, Earl C. Michener,
and Louis C. Cramton, to vigorously oppose lowering the levels of our mag-
nificent Lakes and waterways as proposed in the Chicago water diversion
question ; and further - -
“Resolved, That the city clerk be, and he is, authorized and directed to
transmit telegrams of the foregoing resolutions to the State of Michigan
representatives in both Senate and Congress and to the chairman of the
congressional Committee on Rivers and Harbors requesting their hearty co-
Operation in accomplishing the defeat of this unjust proposition.”
RICHARD LINDSAY, City Clerk.
MENOMINEE, MICH., April 12, 1924.
IRIVERS AND HARBORS COMMITTEE,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. :
Menominee (Mich.) Chamber of Commerce membership unanimously ap-
proves and indorses resolutions passed by Menominee city council protesting
against increased diversion of Lake Michigan's waters by Chicago Drainage
Canal. Please give consideration to Menominee's position in this matter.
H. A. BOWDISH,
President and acting secretary Menominee Chamber of Commerce.
THE BOARD OF COMMERCE,
- Ilockport, N. Y., April 12, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C. ?
DEAR SIR: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your favor of April 1, Calling
attention to a bill in Congress providing for the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet
of water from Lake Michigan. .
At a meeting of the board of directors of the Lockport Board of Commerce,
held April 10, the following resolutions were unanimously passed : .
“Resolved, That the Board of Commerce of Lockport, N. Y., records itself
as opposed to any legislation in Congress designed to cause or permit the di-
version of 10,000 cubic feet of water, or any other considerable amount from
the waters of Lake Michigan for the purposes of a drainage canal at Chicago;
in that such diversion would cause a diminution of the flow and the lowering
of the waters at the lower end of Lake Erie, resulting in Serious menace to
navigation, a great loss in actual and potential water, power supply, and un-
called for waste in improvements already made at the lower ends of the Lakes;
and be it further -
“Resolved, that we call upon our Representative in Congress, Hon. S.
Wallace Dempsey, to use all honorable means in Securing the defeat of legisla-
tion alreay initiated or which may hereafter be initiated seeking to accomplish
Such diversion.
“That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to Hon. S. Wallace Demp-
sey at Washington, D. C.”
I trust you will use your best efforts in preventing the passage of this bill.
Very truly yours, -
W. G. JoHNSTON, Secretary.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 389
REsoluTION PROTESTING AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF THE HULL BILL OR ANY SIMILAR
. . LEGISLATION NOW OR HEREARTER PENDING BEFORE THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES *
Whereas, in connection with and growing out of the effort of city of Chicago
to divert a large volume of water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drain-
age Canal, there is now pending in Congress what is known as the Hull bill,
which bill in effect would authorize the city of Chicago to so divert such
Water. - w - -
Whereas in the judgment of the city commission of the city of Sandušky,
Ohio, if such authority were granted it would result in lowering the level
of all the Great Lakes, lessening the benefit and advantage which has accrued
‘because of the activity of the Government in deepening and marking port
channels, depreciate the investment made as a result of this activity, seriously
interfere with the employment of thousands engaged in the operation of such
investments, seriously affect the prosperity of all cities on the Great Lakes and
jeopardize the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River deep waterways project: NOW,
therefore,
Be it resolved by the sity commission of the city of Sandwsky, Ohio, That
upon behalf of said city and all its interests we earnestly protest against
the passage by Congress of the Hull bill or any similar legislation now or
hereafter pending in Congress, and that the clerk of this commission be and
she is hereby directed to forward a true and correct copy of this resolution to
the Senators from the State of Ohio and to the members of the Ohio dele-
gation in the House of Representatives.
Adopted April 14, 1924.
CHAs. F. MILLER,
TVice President of the City Commission.
Attest :
BEATRICE SNYDER,
Clerk of the City Commission.
MANITowoc, WIs., April 16, 1924.
Hon. H. WALLACE,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D. C.:
Mayor and common council city of Manitowoc, Wis., unanimously adopted
resolutions opposed to Hull bill (H. R. 5475) or any other bill seeking to
legalize diversion Of water from Lake Michigan into Chicago Drainage Canal,
it being detrimental to navigation and Commerce upon Great Lakes. Complete
COpy of resolution by mail. --
ARTHUR H. ZANDER,
City Clerk, Manitowoc, Wis.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Niagara Falls, N. Y., April 16, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Com/mittee,
TWashington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : The subject matter of the various bills which have been intro-
duced into the Congress of the United States to permit the Sanitary District
of the City of Chicago to divert from Lake Michigan at Chicago 10,000 cubic
feet of water per second and to discharge the same through the Illinois'
and Mississippi Rivers into the Gulf of Mexico, has received the serious.
attention of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Niagara Falls and
that body is unanimously opposed to the permitting of any diversion of
Water from Lake Michigan for such purpose or the reversal of the flow of
it ſhy rivers emptying into Lake Michigan for like purpose.
I have personally been a student of water supply and water power for
many years. I was for a number of years consulting engineer of the State :
water-Supply commission of the State of New York and as such have a
rather complete knowledge of the waters of the State of New York, and on .
behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Niagara Falls, of which
I am now president, file this objection to any such proposed legislation on
f' following grounds:
390 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
1. The diversion by the city of Chicago is an abstraction. The waters
taken are not returned to the Great Lakes system, but are permanently
lost for all uses of that system. - • .
2. This abstraction lowers the levels of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and
is therefore detrimental to the commerce upon these waters in which this
city is interested. . . . . . . . . - - .
3. Navigation in the Niagara River is accomplished partly through dredged
channels and the lowered level of the Niagara River, which is brought about
by the abstraction at Chicago, constitutes a very definite injury to this
Community.
4. The New York State Barge Canal is constructed at the level of the
Niagara River and the lowering of the river caused by the abstraction of
Water at Chicago decreases the transportation capacity of the barge canal,
thus injuring our transportation and business interests.
5. If the 10,000 cubic feet per second abstracted at Chicago were permitted
to flow through the Niagara River and should be used here for power de-
Velopment, 300,000 horsepower could be produced thereby. Since it is claimed
by the city of Chicago, as well as by the Dominion' of Canada, that the
abstraction at Chicago is the reason that under the existing treaty only
20,000 cubic feet per second may be diverted from the Niagara River above
the falls for power purposes in the United States while 36,000 cubic feet
per second may be so diverted in Canada, it is obvious that the full 300,000
horsepower at Niagara Falls is lost to the American side.
This 300,000 horsepower at the standard price for continuious electric
energy at Niagara Falls would be worth $6,000,000 per annum, and measured
in terms of the cost of reproduction by coal would be worth probably
$18,000,000 per annum. A diversion of the 10,000 cubic feet per second at
Niagara Falls is merely temporary, the water being immediately returned
to the Great Lakes system, without interfering with navigation.
6. The 300,000 horsepower which could be produced at Niagara Falls by
the use of the 10,000 cubic feet per second would also be the cause of
production of other articles of enormous value which could be and would
be manufactured were this power available to western New York. The
result would be the production of a vast amount of wealth susceptible of
taxation, as well as the lowered cost of many products.
7. It is suggested that the people in Chicago take the position that it
would be a serious calamity to that community should the permission to
divert this water be denied. It seems to me that the answer to this atti-
tude is threefold :
(a) The city of Chicago can by an expenditure of a not unreasonable
sum of money take care of its Sewage by other methods, as has been done
in Other lake cities and elsewhere. -
(b) To permit this diversion allows the city of Chicago to continue to
dispose of its sewage not at its own expense but at the expense of the
navigation interests and of the State of New York and other States which
would be benefited by the use of the water now being abstracted at Chicago.
(c) The city of Chicago has been cognizant for nearly 20 years that
its right to use this water was contested and has, nevertheless, taken no
steps otherwise to take care of its sewage and ought not now be heard
to insist upon a continued invasion of the rights and property Of Others
for its own benefit.
It seems obvious to our chamber of commerce that the Congress should
promptly and sharply decline to grant the permission asked to the end that
those in charge of Sanitation at Chicago shall clearly undersand that the illegal
abstraction by that city of water, the use of which belongs to others, may only
be continued until proper disposal works can promptly be installed.
I respectfully request that this communication be made a part of the pro-
ceedings of the committee and printed with the record thereof.
Respectfully submitted.
NIAGARA FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WALTER McCuILoB, President.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 391
AMERICAN CIVIC ASSOCIATION,
Harrisburg, Pa., April 16, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, -
Chairman House Committee on Rivers and Harbors,
- Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : You are considering, I am informed, certain legislation favoring
an increased diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago, the bills in question
being H. H. 5475 and H. H. 7044, both providing, among other things, for a
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan. -
Since the action instituted by the American Civic ASSOciation in 1905, which
brought about the internationalization of the control of the Falls of Niagara,
resulting in the passage of the Burton bill June 29, 1906, and eventually in the
negotiation of the treaty with Great Britain proposed in that bill, limiting the
diversion of water which would affect the Falls of Niagara, we have had
repeated reason to believe that the vast majority of the American people, in
numbers and in interest, are unalterably opposed to any further diminution
of the glory of this great cataract.
The increased. diversion proposed at Chicago, Ostensibly for sanitary pur-
poses, but incidentally for power purposes, is, it is respectfully urged upon
your committee, a use of the water of Lake Michigan of questionable pro-
priety, taking into account the general international ownership of and interest
in the Great Lakes. That this diversion will unsettle lake navigation relations
that have seriously engaged your Committee and Congress and have involved
the expenditure of great sums of money is obvious. It is believed that the
present authorized diversion from Lake Michigan is itself dangerous and has
had injurious effect not only upon the navigable levels of the harbors affected
but on the great cataract at Niagara. u
More important by far than the commercial relationship involved is the
further interference with the glory of Niagara Falls contemplated in this
increased diversion. The continually proceeding depletion at Niagara has
shortened the crest of the Horseshoe Falls by some 485 feet, has thinned
appreciably the average Volume of water visible both from the American and
the Canadian sides, and in its volume diminished the effective grandeur of the
Falls precisely in proportion to the relation of the amount diverted to the
average total flow.
The average flow over the crest at Niagara under normal conditions un-
checked by power diversions has been assumed to be 201,000 cubic feet per
Second. Under the treaty heretofore mentioned the withdrawal of 56,000 cubić
feet has been authorized and has been completed. Thus 27 per cent of the
unchecked flow has been removed, as well as large and increasing diversions
at Niagara managed by Canada under the clauses of the treaty which permit
diversions for sanitary and navigation purposes, independent of the limitation.
It is believed that the large majority of American citizens regard Niagara
Falls not only as the greatest natural spectacle of eastern America, but as a
heritage in trust for future generations which we ought to pass on—even if
seriously damaged, as is now apparent—no further injured.
There is, however, a notable economic relationship of the matter which may
not have reached the attention of your committee. Niagara Falls is the One
greatest spot of attraction to travelers in eastern United States. Carefully
kept records at the New York State reservation, and counts as carefully made
each year, indicate that approximately one and a half million visits per year
are made, not to see the electric works or the wheel pits or to hear the roar
of the turbines, but to view what is left of this great natural wonder. The
expenditures made by those who visit the Falls have been conservatively esti-
mated at an average of $25 per person. There is thus a gross travel revenue
earned by Niagara as a spectacle amounting to more than $35,000,000 a year,
fully distributed among the people who really won the Falls.
It has been estimated that a million horsepower may be developed by the
total destruction of Niagara Falls. If this be assumed as a fact and a price
per horsepowwer averaged between the lower rates of Canada and the higher
rates of America be taken at $20, it will be seen that the power revenue will
approximate $20,000,000 annually, inuring only to a comparatively few persons.
892 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Your committee is therefore urged to realize that further diversion at
Chicago means further depletion at Niagara and a trifling with a very great
and Well-distributed source of income, as well as with “a natural possession
Which it is insisted belongs not to this generation alone but to all the ages.
Your committee is earnestly urged to report unfavorably upon the pending
legislation authorizing this additional diversion at Chicago.
Respectfully submitted.
AMERICAN CIVIC Association,
J. HORACE MCFARLAND.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
a . Thursday, April 17, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 a.m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chair-
man) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bruce, can you give the committee some idea
as to how much longer you will want to take now? The sanitary
district is going to be heard after you are heard; and if you have
rebuttal, we will give you the time for your rebuttal, but have you
any idea as to how much more time you will want to take now?
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, if you have an afternoon session, we
will be through by to-morrow noon. Of course we would like to have
an opportunity for rebuttal after the sanitary district has made its
final case. It will be targely a question with the committee. Time
has been taken up more largely with questioning than in the presen-
tation of our case.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BRUCE. So that we stand ready to close by to-morrow ngon.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. I would suggest, then, that you put
on your next witness. 3
Mr. BRUCE. We understand that the committee would like to ask
Mr. Goulder some questions. That was the understanding yesterday.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. BRUCE. After that we will present our witnesses in rapid
succession.
STATEMENT OF MIR, HARVEY D, GOULDER—Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Newton, have you any questions to
ask Mr. Goulder 2
Mr. NEwTON. There were a few questions I wanted to ask Mr.
Goulder. You made a reference to a barge line, and for the sake of
the record I want to ask you a question. I believe you made the
statement that it took something like 12 days to make the trip from
St. Louis to New Orleans. As a matter of fact, a towboat carries
six barges, with 75,000 bushels in each barge, making 450,000 bushels
of wheat, and they make the trip from St. Louis to New Orleans in
six davs.
Mr. ºwn. I made the statement, I think, that it was 11 days.
Mr. NEWTON. That is upstream.
Mr. Gould ER. Upstream? º
Mr. NEwTON. Yes; downstream half the time.
Mr. GouldER. Well, I made that statement on a hurried suggestion
of Mr. Tomlinson, who was here, but who is not here to-day.
Mr. NEWTON. I knew it was not intention.
ILLINGIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 393
Mr. GoulDER. Mr. Tomlinson was the director of waterways for
the Government during the war and was in charge of the Mississippi
transportation among other things, and he spoke of the line that was
put on between St. Louis and St. Paul and made one trip, I think,
and then had to give up.
Mr. NEwTON. The channel was not completed.
Mr. GOULDER. And his suggestion, if he were here before the com-
mittee, would be this, that one of the greatest difficulties in the
Mississippi River navigation, whether the channel were 6 feet or
9 feet, is the instability of channels, the forming of bars, and that
when you come to a correlation of this matter and the real improve-
ment and the depth advantage in the use of those channels it would
be to find a way to overcome as far as possible that shifting of
channels, the formation of the bars, and that sort of thing, and with-
out that Mr. Tomlinson would have said to you that there always
would be very great difficulty in that navigation.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you understand the projects adopted at that time
have not been completed? For instance, from St. Louis to Cairo the
project called for $21,000,000 and up to date only $1,900,000 have
been spent and so that is not complete, but I did not want the record
to go with a statement which I happened to personally know is
not accurate; but I knew it was not your purpose to intentionally
misstate it, and I felt I ought to correct it in the record.
Mr. GouldFR. I am very glad to accept that.
Mr. NEwTON. One other thing, about the size of the loads on the
Lakes. I believe General Beach testified the other day in the other
hearings that the largest load of freight ever carried was on the
Mississippi and was 50,000 tons of coal from St. Louis to New
Orleans in one tow. Isn’t this true? You have practical observation
on the Lakes as to operation; I assume that you would necessarily
have some information as to the practical end of it?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. Isn’t it true that the surface of the Lakes is at times
much rougher? You have storms there and you have rough weather?
Mr. Gould ER. Oh, yes.
Mr. NEwTON. And if you undertook to handle a lot of tows con-
nected with chains, or cables, or ropes, the condition of the surface
of the water would make it more expeditious to carry the cargo in
one boat?
Mr. Gould ER. I do not think that that has anything to do with the
matter, or that it is even an important matter. The method of tow-
ing on the Lakes is this: That either on the steamer or on the tow
barge they have a towing machine. . The cable is a wire cable, and
they usually have a scope of as much as 1,200 feet of cable between
the ships.
Mr. NEWTON. Oh, I see.
Mr. GouldER. That is a balanced machine. The cable on board
is wound on a drum, and there is an automatically working steam
machine, so that when a certain strain comes then the cable plays
Out.
Mr. NEWTON. I see.
Mr. Gould ER. When that strain is removed the cable runs in to the
adjusted point by the operation of the machinery.
|Mr. NEwroN. There is a flexibility which takes up the waste?
394 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. GouldFR. There is a flexibility there. I would not be positive,
but I could not tell you exactly how often they have been broken
by reason of storms. * - , . . . . .
Mr. Hausman, of Harvey H. Brown & Co., says that they have
had this system of towing for 25 years and there has never been a
breaking of a cable when using this auſtomatic towing machine.
Mr. NEWTON. In order that you may understand my attitude, I
want to say, personally, as a member of this committee, I have no
disposition to lower the Lake levels; on the contrary, I think they
ought to be maintained, but there is some data I want to get here.
In the Detroit River between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, are there
any rapids? ".
Mr. GouldF.R. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. That is open-channel work?
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes. There are rapids at the head of the River St.
Clair. Perhaps the map shows there that the St. Clair River is
possibly 45 miles from Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair. Lake St.
Clair is a shallow lake, circular, practically about 25 miles across.
Then comes the Detroit River, which must be 30 miles down to Lake
Erie. There are rapids at the head of the River St. Clair where
Lake Huron comes into the St. Clair River. There is a more or less
swift current, up to 3 or even 4 miles an hour in the St. Clair River.
There is no current, or very slight current—a mile an hour perhaps—
in Lake St. Clair. Then there is a stiff current at the head of the
Detroit River, just above Detroit, a current running down there
that is variously estimated, according to conditions, as 2 or 3 miles
and perhaps increasing as you come down to the foot of the
Detroit River at the head of Lake Erie. Then there is a big flat
at Bar Point, the head of Lake Erie, and, much improved by
dredging, a deeper channel has been made there. -
Mr. NEwTON. Do you know what the fall is between Lake Huron
and Lake Erie'
Mr. Gould ER. I do not, sir; but it is a matter of Government sta-
tistics. I have heard it repeated, but I would not undertake to say
what it is from memory. -
Mr. NEwTON. I called on the War Department, and I think they
said 8 feet. Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. General Beach is looking it up.
General BEACH. I will give it to you in just a moment.
Mr. NEWTON. From Lake Huron to Lake Erie is what I want.
General BEACH. It is about 9 feet.
Mr. NEWTON. About 9 feet.
General BEACH. It varies a little from time to time, but it is
about 9 feet. &
Mr. NEWTON. The swiftness of the current in that would indi-
cate a little greater fall than that, but my recollection was it was
8 feet. You have had channels cut through there and the channel
deepened?
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes, sir—not through the entire river, because at
points these rivers may be 50 or 60 feet deep.
Mr. NEwTON. But of course the smallest place would control the
flow through?
Mr. Gould ER. I would say no.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 395
Mr. NEwTON. You had, as I got it—correct me if I am not right—
said that there were two channels cut through the Detroit River,
where it was 12 to 14 feet deep.
Mr. Goui.DER. That is the Limekiln crossing on the Canadian
side.
Mr. NEWTON. You have one channel cut through the Detroit
River 600 feet wide and 22 feet deep, and another channel cut
through 450 feet wide and 22 feet deep.
Mr. GouTDER. Yes. That is to say, they were not cut to that ex-
tent. We cut down, say, from the bottom and reduced from time
to time, first to 16 feet, and then to 18 feet, and then to 22 feet.
Mr. NEwTON. But it started originally at about 12 or 15 feet?
Mr. GoulDER. Yes; at the Lime Kiln crossing.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you asking—I just want to be sure to have
this in the record right—you are on the St. Clair River now?
Mr. GoulDER. No; this is the Detroit River we are speaking of.
Mr. NEWTON. This is below Lake St. Clair?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not think it appeared clearly on the record.
Mr. NEWTON. So that
Mr. GoulDER (interposing). May I interrupt you a moment?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. GouldF.R. General Bixby informs me that the Detroit River is
28 miles long, with a 3-foot drop from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie.
hº NEWTON. Oh, I see, and then the 6-foot drop is evidently above
that
Mr. Gould ER. In the St. Clair River.
Mr. NEwTON. Then there must be a 11-foot drop altogether.
Mr. GouldFR. That does not agree with the 9 feet.
Mr. NEWTON. That is what I am trying to get straight, if I can.
That is one thing I wanted to get my mind clear on. Will you ask
General Bixby, so as to have it in the record, what the total drop is?
Mr. GouldFR. The first report General Bixby hands me is 7 feet—
General Bixby was the Chief of Engineers, and this is the annual
report of the Chief of Engineers—7.7 drop in St. Clair River, and
that is 40 miles.
Mr. NEWTON. That is 7.7 from Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. And then 3 feet from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie.
That would be three-tenths less than 10 feet drop?
General BIxBY. Ten and seven one-hundredths.
Mr. NEWTON. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Gould ER. I would refer you on that—all these statistics are
given in the report on the improvement of rivers and harbors in the
Detroit, Mich., district in the annual report of the Chief of Engi-
neers for 1923, and I find it here on page 1467, and this can be left
with the committee, this excerpt.
Mr. NEWTON. Let us see if I have that right. Was it 6.7 or 7.7
to Lake St. Clair?
General BIxBY. Seven and seven-tenths.
Mr. NEWTON. Seven and seven-tenths feet between Lake Huron
and Lake St. Clair?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Three feet between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie?
396 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIXBY. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. That makes a total drop of 10.7 feet between Lake
Huron and Lake Erie
General BIXBY (interposing). The 1923 reports say 9.
Mr. NEWTON. I see. It did not figure out right.
Mr. GoulDER. Let me read you in answer from this report.
Mr. NEwTON. That is better.
Mr. GouldFR (reading):
The St. Clair River connects Lakes Huron. and St. Clair, flows in a southerly
direction, and is 42 miles in length.
And then it gives the discharge of the river and so on. That is
5.8, according to this report, which added to the 3 would be 8.8,
Or, as General Beach has stated, about 9 feet.
Mr. NEWTON. The channels that have been cut out would make
an extra depth in there of between 18 and 22 feet. All told they
have increased the depth that much, haven’t they?
Mr. Gould ER. I would not apply that as a ite rule, because in
these shallow places there is not a table on the bottom of the least
depth stretching for a mile or two, or half a mile, but it is an uneven
bottom, and interspersed along that bottom would be depths that
would be given—that is not a uniform depth.
Mr. NEwTON. I know, but the least depth would control the amount
of water going over, wouldn’t it, because the shallows would not be
taking up any extra water? -, *
Mr. GouldF.R.. I do not think I ought to answer that, because I am
not scientific enough to know that. I think that such men as General
Beach, the present Chief of Engineers, and General Bixby, the
former chief, could answer that better than I could.
Mr. NEWTON. Are you going to call General Bixby'
Mr. Gould ER. I wanted him—I approached him to present some-
thing about lake levels, and he can give you any information of the
character that you are asking me. I am perfectly willing to give the
best answer I can, but I think that his would be much more valuable
testimony.
Mr. NEwTON. Then I think that is all. I can get that information
from General Bixby. -
The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Goulder, your statement has been quite inter-
esting and instructive, but there was a point brought out yesterday
evening that I would like to develop a little further. You spoke
of the type of boats in use on the Great Lakes and the evolution of
those from the old Sail boats, first to steam and then I understood
a collection of boats and barges in tow, and finally you got down to
a single unit, small comparatively at first, until now you have the
600-foot boat. You made the suggestion that it might be well to
consider these matters on the Mississippi River, and of course that
would apply to all rivers of like character. +
The CHAIRMAN. By “considering these matters” what you mean is
considering the experiences that they have had 3
Mr. MANSFIELD. That they have had with these boats.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Don't you realize, Mr. Goulder, that perhaps the
problem of the rivers is just working out to the reverse; in the old

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 397
days they had the old single packet, and now they take one power
boat and convoy six or eight barges through shallow water, and
each barge perhaps has greater freight capacity than the single boat
would have. You don’t think that the type of boats that are ap-
plicable to the Great Lakes, where you have deep water, would be
suitable on the shallow river?
Mr. GouldF.R. Not at all, Mr. Mansfield. I only say this, that here
has been a very great—I do not like to use big words but I might
say tremendous—evolution and development on the Great Lakes
which has involved a study of a type of ship, commercial advantage,
commercial problems, the quick handling of cargoes, and perhaps
other elements which go into and toward the Solution of the question
of what we are all seeking, and that is the cheapest available trans-
portation. That study has gone on very thoughtfully, and with very
decided success. My only recommendation and my only thought
about that is, that when we come to consider the navigation of rivers
and other methods of navigation, that that evolution up there and the
processes and the thought, and a great deal of the results, ought by
no means to be neglected. It all ought to go into the study of any
problem. When you find the water transportation problem solved
as well as it has been on the Great Lakes, then all of that knowledge
and information and experience should be utilized.
So I say, then, about your river transportation—if I digress I am
sorry, and I do not like to take up the time, but if I may I would
like to digress for a moment on that. One of the elements in the
cheapness of freight transportation on the Great Lakes is the rapidity
and the dispatch with which it is done. There is a very large ex-
pense in operating one of these ships, whether she is lying idle or
whether she is operating. Perhaps the only difference between run-
ning and being in port is in the consumption of fuel, which is only a
fraction of the total expense of the ship, laying aside the question of
investment and all of that kind of thing.
When you come to consider the question of canal navigation, canal-
ized river navigation, or anything where there is a restraint or a re-
striction which involves a reduction in speed and a longer time, and
you have got to study the problem of how long it takes, then you have
got to study a question which is of great importance, in my estima-
tion, on the rivers, and that is the terminals, the time the ship or
the barge or the vehicle has to lie idle under expense while the cargo
is being put in and taken out, and those things are very serious
problems. You will find that a serious problem, whoever may dis-
cuss or analyze the question of the Great Lakes and the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. You will find that necessarily comes in. It must come
in on the New York Barge Canal, and every project of that kind.
The CHAIRMAN. Wasn’t there a study made—perhaps General
Beach can answer it—by a commission appointed by the Government
as to the best type of boat for the navigation of inland rivers, within
a year or two? -
General BEACH. No, sir. That was about 10 or 11 years ago.
The CHAIRMAN. That was a very elaborate study wasn’t it; and
they made a long report, didn’t they?
General BEACH. The report was about the size of that book [indi-
cating], and the demand for it was such that the Government printed
a second edition.
398 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I see. . . , * * . • Q
General BEACH. Copies are available. . There are some on hand,
and anybody can obtain them if they desire. - t
Mr. NEwton. On that point I want to ask General Beach a ques-
tion. As a matter of fact, that was necessarily a more or less theo-
retical study, gathering all the information they could get? **
General BEACH. I would not say that it was theoretical. The
study was made by obtaining all the information which was avail-
able on European rivers and was also supplemented by tank test
experiments. We had a model tank made and types of boats and
barges, and we tested them at different depths and we have verified
those tests by experiments in Keokuk Lake with full-sized towboats
and barges, which show that there was a most remarkable verification
of the experimental tanks by the actual tests with full-sized vessels.
Mr. NEwTON. Was that lake navigation or river navigation?
Maybe I do not understand.
General BEACH. The towboat board, as it was called, was organ-
ized for the purpose of investigating conditions of navigation on
inland rivers. w -
Mr. NEwTON. But don’t you think that the best information ob-
tainable will be by the years of experimenting in operation, such as
barge lines are making now, and finding the difficulties in the wear-
ing of the boat and the kind that meet the different conditions of
the river ? {
General BEACH. I would say that if the barge lines would adopt
the conclusions of the towboat board they would save money from the
beginning. -
Mr. NEwToN. But they have had this difficulty, that they have had
to take the equipment that was given to them.
General BEACH. They have not been in a position to utilize the
results of the towboat board’s findings. *
Mr. NEWTON. Because the equipment was built under the stress of
war, and was turned over to them and they are simply doing the
best they can with the equipment which was supplied to them?
General BEACH. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. General, just as a matter of information, because
we are all very greatly interested in this, could the recommendations
or a part of them be applied to the plan which is being operated on
the Mississippi barge line?
General BEACH. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. May I ask Mr. Goulder a question or two?
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Peavey. - *
Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Goulder, in your office as general counsel to the
Lake Carriers’ Association, I take it that you would naturally be
confronted by questions of any and all existing opposition to lake
commerce as it pertains to your association on the Great Lakes.
Is that correct? *
Mr. GouldFR. That is a pretty broad proposition. I do know of
Some of them.
Mr. PEAVEY. And I would like to ask you what your experience
has been as to the relation of the railroads in that section, as to
whether or not they cooperate with you or whether they are in oppo-
sition.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 399
Mr. GouldF.R.. I do not know of any specific opposition. . The rail-
roads can not do that bulk business. I do not believe that any rail-
road official would undertake any of that business. When we did
have on the Lakes package-freight boats the different trunk lines—
the Pennsylvania, the Erie, the New York Central, and the Lehigh
Valley—operated lines of steamers for package freight between Buf-
falo, Erie, and the upper Lakes—Chicago and Milwaukee on Lake
Michigan and Duluth on Lake Superior. When the Panama Canal
act was passed Congress made a general law that railroads should not
own any ships at all in competition which might be used in competi-
tion with water transportation, and they were obliged to sell all of
their ships, and they were all sold, and those which did not go to the
seacoast were purchased by a perfectly independent concern, the
Great Lakes Transit Corporation, with headquarters in Buffalo. The
railroads had a large business in hauling coal for lake shipment to
Lake Erie ports, and, of course, they hauled the ore from the mines
to the shipping point on Lake Superior and to Escanaba, and the two
processes are absolutely separate. There are no through bills of
lading, there are no joint rates, there is no partnership, or nothing in
common in the two transportation systems. Ours is simply a link
in transportation, absolutely independent of railroads or any docks
or terminals or any other element of business. I do not know of any
competition now, and, so far as these great bulk ships are concerned,
these great commodities of coal, ore, stone, and grain, which are car-
ried in bulk cargoes, those railroads owning ships really do not carry
much of that. They fill up sometimes with grain in their lower hold.
but the quantities that they carried was very small.'
Mr. PEAvey. What in your opinion would be the explanation of the
pººl disappearance of the package freighter from the Great
a KeS 4
Mr. Gould ER. The Panama Canal act.
Mr. PEAvEy. Directly? *
Mr. GouldFR. Yes, sir. Hut they have not disappeared, because
there are about—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). If you will pardon me, Congress-
man Peavey, just to illuminate something you have asked, just tell us
# the Panama Canal act had the effect you have stated, as you go
£1,10Il Qſ.
§ GouldF.R. Because in legislating that no transcontinental rail-
road should own ships that were conveying by water through the
Panama Canal—they wanted the competition—when that law was
passed, instead of confining it as in the original bill to the Panama
Canal, they made it general, to apply everywhere, wherever there was
or might be competition between the rail and the water haul.
The CHAIRMAN. I see. - -
Mr. GouldFR. The package freighter did not disappear from the
Lakes, because there remain about 27 of those original package ships.
Then they have been building ships to carry automobiles only, or
practically nothing else, and adapted especially for carrying automo-
biles and for special service. Then we have the freight and passenger
lines—the Detroit and Cleveland and the Cleveland and Buffalo, with
lines between Cleveland and Buffalo, between Cleveland and Detroit,
between Detroit and Buffalo, and they have some such lines on Lake
400 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Michigan. In addition to that we have the car ferries, which carry
trainloads of cars across Lake Michigan and Lake Erie.
Mr. PEAVEY. In that connection, Mr. Goulder, to your personal
knowledge, is it not a fact that lake commerce is gradually being
reduced year by year?
Mr. Gould ER. I do not think so. -
Mr. PEAVEY. And let me ask you this further question. What has
been your experience, granting that the character of the commerce
on these boats in the association you represent, isn’t their cargo such
that they naturally would not or could not have railroad compe-
tition?
Mr. GouldFR. I can not conceive of the competition of railroads
in that trade. The railroads could not do it physically, and the
product and the business could not possibly stand it. -
Mr. PEAVEY. I grant you that is true.
Mr. Gould ER. Now, just stop and think of the magnitude of that.
Taying aside all of this other stuff that we have been speaking of:
there is a transportation service of 25 per cent of all the railroads
of the United States, and the railroads north of the Ohio and east
of the Mississippi do 53 per cent of the railroad transportation, the
general rail service, and we in bulk freights alone with our 121,-
000,000 tons hauling the distance that we do, do 25 per cent as much.
Mr. PEAVEY. I do not believe I have made myself quite clear to
you, Mr. Goulder, as to the purpose of my question. What I would
like to know from you is the attitude of the railroad owners or mana-
gers in that section, as to whether or not they are willing to coop-
erate with lake traffic and lake commerce, or whether their attitude
is one of opposition to water commerce? r
Mr. GouldFR. They cooperate in that they have a very good business
in hauling iron ore to the shipping points and coal to the shipping
points, and they and the Interstate Commerce Commission cooperate
to this extent, that the rate which they charge on the railroad on
coal to a lake shipping port is a lower rate than that for local de-
livery—on the theory that after all it is a through service and they
make that lower rate with reference to what the total cost is to the
consumer of geting coal to them and giving the consumer the benefit
of the lower rate, put that into the total rate by a reduction there,
if it is really for lake shipment. - -
Mr. PEAvey. Then, just one further question. Of course, to your
knowledge, it is conceded that Chicago is the headquarters of the
ownership and management of all railroads in that section of the
country?
Mr. Gould ER. I do not know about that. It is quite large.
Mr. PEAVEY. What would be their attitude toward this project
from the standpoint of navigation?
Mr. Gould ER. You mean going down
Mr. PEAVEY (interposing). The Illinois River.
Mr. Gould ER. I can only say, from the general discussion I have
heard in conventions and before congressional committees, etc., that
the river boats lagged and dragged because of the railroad opposi-
tion, and the business came to be more than the railroads could take
care of, which gave the hope and opportunity for the revival of
that business. If you could get Senator Ransdell to come before your
committee, there is the one man that I know above all others who
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 401
has made a study of just the comparisons we are asking about, and
he is much more familiar than I can possibly be with the situation.
Mr. PEAVEY. That leads up to one question which I want to ask.
My understanding is that Chicago at one time had a waterway that
was used to quite a large extent, and I think it is general knowledge
on the part of the business world in that section of the country
that the railroad influence in Chicago was powerful enough to de-
stroy the lake commerce that they once had. -
Mr. Gould ER. Something did it.
Mr. NEwTON. As a matter of fact it was not influence. It was
the fact that they put on a potential water rate along the proposed
canal.
Mr. PEAVEY. We do not get that any longer.
Mr. NEWTON. They were getting it a year ago. Governor Lowden
told me that a rate was made paralleling the canal that saved the
State of Illinois a good many times the $20,000,000 appropriated to
open the canal to the river; that as soon as they appropriated the
money immediately the railroads put in a potential water rate along
through the territory where the canal would be built, and it wa
not necessary to build the canal. &
The CHAIRMAN. Let me develop a trifle further one thing that
Mr. Peavey asked. As I understand you, the railroad-owned boats
carried package freight?
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Was that with package steamers?
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes. Occasionally some grain to fill out the cargo
coming down.
The CHAIRMAN. But their business
Mr. GoLIDER (interposing). The business was package—high-
class freight. -
The CHAIRMAN. And they continued in that business until legis-
lation was passed which made it impossible for them to continue
in the ownership of these package steamships?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And then those boats, or a considerable number
of them, were sent off the lakes into other traffic at other points.
Is that true?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir. The Interstate Commerce Commission de-
cided that those boats came within the prohibition, and the Lehigh
Valley particularly made contentions—I won’t detain you with what
they were, but they made contentions—that the law was not ap-
plicable to any of them and especially not to the Lehigh Valley,
and that went to the Supreme Court of the United States, which
held in accordance with the ruling of the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission that railroads of the country, including the Lehigh Valley,
owned those ships, and they did absolutely dispose of them to inde-
pendent parties.
The CHAIRMAN. About how many of those railroad-owned pack-
age º were there previous to the passage of that legislation?
Mr. Gould ER. I speak from memory and may not be accurate, but
it will be substantially accurate to say about 33, and, now, I think,
the Great Lakes Transit Corporation have 28. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. As I understand it, that law does not apply to
the railroad ferry boats that ferry cars? e
402 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. Goulder. No. The Pere Marquette and some other roads on
Lake Michigan, and a road between Ashtabula and Conneaut, Ohio,
and ports in Canada have those boats running, just as they have at
the Straits of Mackinaw, car ferries that take trains of cars across,
but that law does not affect them. *
The CHAIRMAN: Are there any more questions, gentlemen? -
Mr. GouldFR. I should say, Mr. Chairman, I am corrected in this,
that the Great Lakes Transit Corporation has 28 boats, but 3 of
those boats that were designed for package freight and passengers
do not carry package freight but are confined to passenger business
during the passenger season. -
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other members of the committee
who wish to ask questions, we will see if some one outside has any.
Mr. ADCOCK. I would like to ask a question. The question was
asked you as to the time when you first commenced to use water in
the St. Marys River for power purposes.
Mr. GouldFR. The Canadians began that—just when I do not
know. The first that we had to deal with this before this committee
was 1902, when the act which I read yesterday, that section of the
rivers and harbors bill, was passed. -
Mr. ADCOCK. Was there any diversion before that?
Mr. GouldF.R. Not on our side. There was some little use of the
rapids but no diversion; some little use of the rapids in the river
for power purposes, but the Canadians did have a paper mill on
the Canadian side. t
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goulder, it has been suggested by some of
the members of the comittee that in a very brief way they would
like you, if you would, to distinguish between the lines of Federal
jurisdiction and those of State jurisdiction over the waters of the
Great Lakes, and if you have any authority in mind not to read
from it but just to cite the authority so that we may know what it
is. We want that very briefly, if you can sketch it in a general way,
Mr. Gould ER. I can give that very quickly. The case that I re-
ferred to yesterday, the Chandler-Dunbar case (229 U. S. 83), not
only goes over that, but it has a résumé of the authorities going
away back to the Philadelphia case, back in Peters reports, I think.
So that you will find in that sufficient reference to all the authorities
that have dealt with that subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Tell us in a very brief way what you understand
that case holds, marking the line of Federal jurisdiction and the
lines of State jurisdiction.
Mr. Gould ER. I can do that by reading just a little memorandum.
In 179 U. S., the case of Scranton v. Wheeler, the Supreme Court
says:
The power of Congress to regulate commerce, and therefore navigation, is
paramount, and is unrestricted except by the limitations on its authority by
the Constitution.
Interest of riparian Owner in submerged land bordering stream is subordinate
to public right of use for navigation, and United States is not required to com-
pensate him on constructing pier which obstructs his access to navigable water.
The case of Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. The Secretary of
War, in 237 U. S., page 251, is a case where the War Department
had fixed a harbor line or dock line out to which piers might be
built by the riparian proprietor. They fixed a line—I think it was
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 403
in Chesapeake Bay, but no matter where—and afterwards, because
of the requirements of navigation, the War Department changed
that line and withdrew it, drew it in nearer the shore. That cut
off the end of the piers, and I think moved a mill and some im-
provements, and the owner of that mill—that is, Greenleaf-Johnson
Co.—sought to have compensation in court, first denied the right of
the Secretary of War to make that change and recall that license,
and also contended that if the Government took it they should pay
for it.
The Supreme Court held that—
The power of the Sovereign State or Nation—
That is, calling the United States the State, the sovereignty—
is perpetual—not exhausted by one exercise—and all privileges granted in
public waters are subject to that power, the exercise of which is not a taking
of private property for public use, but the lawful exercise of a governmental
power for the common good.
When one acting under State authority erects anything in navigable waters
he does so with full knowledge of the paramount authority of Congress to
regulate commerce among the States and subject to the exercise of such
authority at some future time by Congress. p
The power of the States over navigable waters is subordinate to that of
Congress, and the State can grant no right to the soil of the bed of navigable
Waters which is not subject to Federal regulation.
The power of Congress extends to the whole expanse of a navigable stream
and is not dependent upon the depth or shallowness of the water.
Perhaps that answers your question.
The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly stated, Mr. Goulder, the Congress has
control over streams for purposes of navigation?
Mr. GouldFR. Absolute control.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a brief statement of the whole question,
and all other uses must yield to that power of Congress for that
purpose? -
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes, sir. And the theory of that is—there are not
very many principles of law, and this is the one principle of law that
governs this—that those waters belong to the people of the United
States. Congress is given certain authority—that is, the authority
to regulate for navigation purposes under the commerce clause of the
Gonstitution—and the Congress has got to go back to the Constitu-
tion and the commerce clause as the foundation and justification of
any exercise of any power that it exercises or attempts to exercise, or
any law that it passes. The State for certain purposes may do cer-
tain things, but when you come to the question of navigation, that is
paramount. Any right that the State has is no better in this respect
than that of a riparian proprietor, a private individual. It is all
a matter of trust. It is all held in trust for the people, and the
Congress of the United States is the ultimate authority, overriding
any authority whatever of the State or any private individual in the
control, use, and regulation for navigation, which is the paramount
trust in which that is held by the United States as a sovereign power.
The CHAIRMAN. Have any of you any questions?
Mr. ADCOCK. I would like to ask a question. When Congress does
act, then its power is supreme. Is that it?
Mr. Gould ER. There are two views of that. I do not want to get
into a legal disputation here. In certain respects, where Congress
404 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
has a power and does not use that power, there may be a fair as-
Sumption that it does not think that the use requires regulation; but in
other cases where the Congress has acted, or cases where Congress
does not act, if it is a thing of general interest and not purely local,
then the fact that Congress has not acted does not vest the State or
anybody else with authority, and you will find that— -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). If you will pardon me, Mr. Goulder,
I did not catch your point there. Would you mind just restating
that? I am very much interested in it, and I did not catch the dis-
tinction you draw.
Mr. GouldFR. It is this: That in certain matters that are of pure
local interest, although the Congress would have the authority to act,
if it does not act, there might be and is a fair assumption that Congress
does not think that it requires regulation, and if it has not passed a
law, a local law may be effective; but if it is a matter of general in-
terest, I think the local authority has no right to act, but if it is
general—such as this question of navigation that you have got here—
then the silence of Congress does not invest the State authority with
power or authority to do that which belongs to Congress and is of
Congress; and there has been decided in a case in Tenth Wallace, a
case where they passed a law with reference to the regulation of
passengers and passenger service on the Mississippi River—perhaps
it was the Ohio River, but it was a river proposition—and there was a
law of a State that undertook to regulate.
The CHAIRMAN. The same thing?
Mr. Gould ER. The same thing. Now Congress had never acted in
that direction; it never had seen fit to pass a law that covered that
definitely. The Supreme Court of the United States—the opinion
being delivered by Chief Justice Waite—held that the State law was
unconstitutional and inoperative because that was a matter purely for
Congress, and no State had a right to legislate on that by reason of
the generality of the question.
Mr. HULL. Could I ask one question? Not being a lawyer, I just
want to get information. The State of Illinois is spending $20,-
000,000 for a waterway 65 miles in length in the State of Illinois.
Congress has not acted on it, as I understand it, one way or another.
Is that unconstitutional for them to pass that law? º
Mr. GouldF.R.. I do not know whether to put it on the ground of un-
constitutionality, but it is inoperative against any action by Congress;
and if Illinois did that, Illinois did that with the full knowledge to
be imputed to Illinois that that was subject to any action that Congress
might thereafter take in regard to it. Just exactly
Mr. HULL (interposing). In other words, you say now that Con-
gress could pass a law stopping the State of Illinois from putting in
those locks and building that waterway?
Mr. Gould ER. I have not a doubt of it.
Mr. HULL. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. You started to illustrate your answer to Con-
gressman Hull. Do you have that in mind? You said “just as,”
and then he interrupted you.
Mr. GouldFR. Well, just as the riparian owner has a right to go out
and meet commerce, but he does it subject to the power of Congress
to compel him to undo it, just as two States permitted the bridge over
the Monongohela River at Pittsburgh—it became necessary for navi-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 405
gation of the river to have that bridge raised—and they had to take
it down. So, even if you get a license from the Secretary of War,
that may be withdrawn, because that has got to be conditional, is
conditional, and is subject to revocation. *
The CHAIRMAN. I think there are several of those bridges down
there on the Allegheny and the Monongahela which are not in process
of being demolished. -
Mr. GOULDER. We do not have to cross that bridge here.
The CHAIRMAN. In the exercise of that power.
Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I was particularly interested in the case
that Mr. Goulder cited, the Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. case. I
happened to be manager of the Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. when
they took that property.
Mr. Goulder. Then you recall the case.
Mr. DEAL. And the facts were that this was a mud flat, and the
State authorized the Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co.—that is, the
harbor commissioners of the State—many years ago to establish a
pier, and they at their own expense cut away this mud flat and built
this pier. It was not necessary for navigation at all that they should
go and take this property. Of course, I have some feeling in the
matter, because I was interested in it; it was our property.
Mr. GouldF.R. You were the gored ox. s
Mr. DEAL. Yes, sir. But the Government wanted a turning basin,
and so they applied to us to purchase the property and we offered
to sell it at a price that had been paid us by the Belt Line Railroad
just back of it, neither more nor less. We were willing for them
to develop and they said, “No ; we won’t give you anything for it;
we will take it,” and we brought suit, with the result you have men-
tioned. As I understand your contention and that decision, the
Federal Government has a right of control of any water whatsoever
that is susceptible of development, it matters not whether it is a
mud flat, the actual soil of the State or not, if it is possible to go in
and cut off the shore line—land that is supposed to be under the con-
trol of the sovereign State, the Government can go and cut that
shore line away and establish water routes. Is that your conten-
tion ?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes; and that contention was settled in this com-
mittee, and I do not know but that a law was passed. There was a
serious question whether the jurisdiction of the committee was con-
fined to waters which are not navigable or could be extended to
waters which flowed into those waters which are navigable, and are
in aid of navigation, and the decision was that whatever water,
whether in a certain space and distance susceptible of navigation or
being made navigable, nevertheless contributed to water which was
navigable in fact, was in the jurisdiction of Congress and the juris-
diction of this committee, and they had a right to protect or deal
with regard to it. *
Mr. DEAL. Under that contention my State would not have the
right to develop a canal out of any waters that happened to flow
through the State?
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, you are getting now into a borderland, but
if this principle that has been assumed by the committee and by
Congress is correct, it would be conditional, it would be taken
406 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
subject to the right of Congress to regulate, to deal with that, so
far as that might affect public navigable waters.
Mr. DEAL. Then we could not develop our water power without
the consent of the Federal Government? -
Mr. GouldF.R. Not if it interfered with navigation of public waters.
Mr. DEAL. Suppose it does not interfere with navigation of public
waters but is susceptible to it?
Mr. GouldFR. Then the committee would not exercise the power.
Mr. DEAL. We could not go up into the mountains of our State,
the State itself, and develop water power if it was susceptible of
being made navigable by the Federal Government, if the Federal
Government desired to do so?
Mr. GouldFR. Why not? If that water flowed and you let it
flow, provided the navigable waters were not deprived of anything
if it all went down, just as though you permit Milwaukee or Cleve-
land, Toledo, or any other place to pump water out of the lake, if it
is returned to the lake.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say, Congressman Deal, as to this ques-
tion of the development of waterways, you will recollect that the
committee had quite an extended discussion on that, and that we
finally concluded that we might lose a good deal of power through
the development of it without having had full surveys, and the com-
mittee unanimously agreed that we should have full surveys and
then follow the development of each stream as a whole.
Mr. DEAL. I had that in mind at the time I was asking the ques-
tion, and then I also had in mind the argument presented here by
Attorney General Daugherty.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Congressman Boyce. - ſº
Mr. BoycE. I do not understand, Mr. Goulder, that you desire to
be understood as saying, for instance, living as I do at Dover, Del.,
8 miles from the Delaware Bay, that the State of Delaware, through
its legislature, if it desired to do so, could not build a canal at its
own expense from the Delaware Bay to some convenient point in or
near the town of Dover?
Mr. GouldF.R. Not if that did not interfere with public or navi-
gable waters of the United States.
Mr. BoxcE. I am speaking of such a body of water.
Mr. Gould ER. Yes.
Mr. Boy CE. And an arm from Delaware Bay up to Dover, a dis-
tance of about 8 miles from the bay, could hardly be said to interfere:
with navigation on Delaware Bay.
Mr. Gould ER. Then, there would be no objection to it, because you.
have the question of fact as well as the law. I have undertaken to.
state the principle of law which governs. Always there is the ques-
tion of fact. Here is the case of Scranton v. Wheeler at Sault Ste.
Marie. Scranton owned riparian property, and the United States
and he were unable to agree on a price. The United States wanted
to be fair about it. They wanted to have a pier there to accommo-
date ships that had to go through the canal and had to lie there for
a time in awaiting their turn for the canal and in foggy weather,
and so on. + -
Mr. BoxcE. Neither do I understand you to contend that the build-
ing of such a canal under the authority of the State though it would
divert water from the Delaware Bay could not be done?

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 407
Mr. GoulDER. Then you bring your facts—
Mr. Boy CE (interposing). The diversion in such a case could
hardly be said to be unreasonable. -
Mr. GoulDER. Now, you are dealing with a question of fact. I was
going to say in this Scranton and Wheeler case that they were unable
to agree upon a price, and the Government went out into the bed of
the stream and built their pier, not touching his uplands at all. By
the law of Michigan a riparian owner, by virtue of his ownership of
the uplands, owns through the median line, in that case the inter-
national boundary line, the soil under the river. Now, Scranton
owned and had title to the bed of the river out to the international
boundary line. The Supreme Court of the United States held that
he had title, but it was a qualified title, subject to this public trust,
and subject to the regulation of Congress and the use for navigation
purposes.
That case agrees entirely with your proposition, and you would
have nothing to fear under that case in the case you state. The ques-
tion of fact was that the action of the United States was for a naviga-
tion purpose. If so, they had a right to build that pier there with-
out compensation, because the title was only a qualified title and the
supreme authority was in the people of the United States through
the Constitution and through Congress under the commerce clause
of the Constitution.
So always you would have to determine just as you would here,
just as you will here in this present instance when you come to this
bill, is there an action by the State of Illinois, by the sanitary dis-
trict, or by a private individual or company? Is it something that
does, as you suggest, interfere with navigation? If it is a trifling
interference, perhaps nothing would ba said. If it is a serious inter-
ference, the authority to stop it, to regulate it, to deal with it, in my
judgment unequestionably is in the Congress.
I will go a step further and there would be a question whether
even Congress would have authority to grant a diversion or a with-
drawal and injure a large body of water for a nonnavigation pur-
pose. I think that question could very fairly be raised. I am not
raising it now.
Mr. Boy CE. Let us leave the concrete case suggested and consider
generally the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject of diversion
of waters from navigable waters. Do you contend that diversion can
not be authorized by Congress if it be limited to a reasonable diver-
sion for the extension of navigation?
Mr. GouldF.R. No ; that is a question that Congress has got to de-
termine. You will find that the Supreme Court of the United States
about every term
Mr. BoxcE (interposing). Have not these hearings brought about
much confusion as between the question of diversion of waters for
navigation purposes and the incidental use of such diversion for Sani-
tation and water power?
Mr. GouldFR. I am afraid that we may have, and I think we might
clear that up in a few words.
Mr. BoxCE. Pardon me, if it may be assumed that Congress has the
authority to divert water from navigable waters for the purposes of
extending or developing navigation, including the creation of the new
4:08 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 4
navigable stream, is not the question one of reasonableness of the
Quantity of water diverted? J. - - •
Mr. Gould ER. Is your question to me whether you could, for
example, reduce the levels of the lakes by one-half foot?
Mr. BoxcE. My question is confined to a reasonable diversion.
Mr. Gould BR. In order to furnish some other transportation
route? -
Mr. BOYCE. Yes.
Mr. Gould ER. All right. Then you and I are in perfect agree-
ment. -
Mr. BoxOE. What would or would not be reasonable is in the first
instance for the consideration of this committee or Congress, is it
not, but ultimately for the courts?
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, both. Ultimately the courts.
Mr. BoxcE. Is not the primary question for this committee one
of jurisdiction of Congress to divert water from the Great Lakes
for the extension of navigation, and not the question of diversion for
Sanitary or water-power purposes? t
Mr. Gould ER. Possibly that is true. Possibly one might go so
far as to say the committee and Congress have not any right what-
ever to do that, but I am very much—well, I am in agreement with
your idea about the reasonableness of things, and that is the thing
that the committee and Congress would have to determine.
The CHAIRMAN. Permit me to interrupt. I might suggest a
question here that might help a trifle, Judge, in determining what
is reasonable.
Mr. BoxcE. Or unreasonable.
The CHAIRMAN. Or unreasonable. Wouldn’t it be necessary, as
Judge Boyce has suggested, to divorce the two questions of sanita-
tion
Mr. BoycE (interposing). I am coming to that.
.# GouldFR. That is a thing I think we can clear up here very
I'ê8,OILIV.
*Boxer. I am trying to clear up some confusion in my mind,
if I can. I confess that I find myself in a state of confusion between
the question of diversion for navigation and the apparent incidental
use of the diverted waters for sanitary and water-power purposes.
Of course I take it that the waters diverted must be reasonable.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; that is, what is needed for navigation
purposes?
Mr. BOYCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. GouldFR. And does that unreasonably impair another?
Mr. BoycE. And does that unreasonably impair another; that is
right. That is the primary question, and limited to navigation pur-
poses I think there can be no question as to the jurisdiction of
Congress over the subject. -
The CHAIRMAN. I assume that that is so, although I will say
frankly, Judge, that I have not as a lawyer examined that question.
º BOYCE. I have not. I am just taking the common-sense view
of it. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Boyce, may I ask a question of you there?
Mr. BOYCE. Yes. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. Would Congress have the legal right to divert
water from one navigable water body to another to create a million
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 409
dollars’ worth of traffic on one, but at the same time to destroy a
million dollars’ worth of traffic on another?
Mr. BOYCE. I do not think that enters into the previous question,
which is the question of the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject
of diversion for navigation purposes from one navigable stream to
benefit, create, or enlarge another. What will be the result and
advantage or disadvantage of the diversion may very well bring up
the question whether or not there has been an unreasonable diver-
SIOIl.
Mr. NEWTON. If Congress believed that by diverting from one
navigable stream into another it would help benefit the whole
people, wouldn’t it have a right to do it?
Mr. BOYCE. Well, I do not think we have to pass on that. I think
the primary question is the power of Congress to divert water from
One navigable stream into another, or the creation of another for the
purposes of navigation. &
Mr. MANSFIELD. And in doing so possibly close our eyes to this
question of power——
Mr. BoycE (interposing). No; I am coming to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Judge, and take your own method.
Mr. BOYCE. Now, conceding that Congress has the power to divert
water from a navigable stream for purposes of the extension of navi-
gation and not to carry off sewage, the question is whether the
diverted waters from the Great Lakes are necessary for navigation or
whether a greater quantity than is necessary for navigation is being
diverted for sewage.
We are called upon, as I see it, to determine whether or not
Congress has the power to divert a reasonable amount of water from
the Great Lakes through the Illinois River for the purposes of
navigation, and not whether the water so diverted is being used to
carry off sewage from Chicago and for the creation of hydroelectric
power.
The CHAIRMAN. Perfectly, Judge.
Mr. Boy CE. The question arises whether an unreasonable quantity
of water is being diverted from the Great Lakes for purposes of
navigation, and not whether incidentally the water so diverted is
being used to carry off sewage or to create water power. I may not
make myself clear.
The CHAIRMAN. Perfectly.
Mr. BoycE. Are the waters being diverted from Lake Michigan at
Chicago primarily used for navigation and only incidentally used
for carrying off sewage and for water power?
So that, considered as I See it from every angle, the single question
for us is this: Has Congress power to divert water from the Great
Lakes for purposes of navigation, and is that diversion a reasonable
one? -
The CHAIRMAN. Is it such a diversion as is necessary or at least
convenient and proper for purposes of navigation, or is it more?
Mr. BoycE. That is the point. It seems to me it narrows itself
down to that, if I made myself clear.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is it not a fact that the Secretary of War, when
he granted that permit for the diversion of 4,167 feet, didn’t have
navigation in mind? He did not authorize it, if he had the power to
authorize it, for that purpose, did he?
9.1739—24—PT 2—11
410 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BOYCE. As I see it, Chicago can not divert water from the
Great Lakes either for the primary purpose of carrying off its sewage
or for creating water power on the Illinois River; but, as I have
already tried to indicate, either or both of these uses may arise in-
cidentally to the grant which Congress may make with respect to the
diversion of water from the Great Lakes to the Illinois River for the
purpose of navigation. -
Mr. HULL. May I ask you a question there? - -
The CHAIRMAN. That last presents simply a question of fact.
Mr. BOYCE. That is a question of fact. What I have tried to make
plain is, as I see it, you probably can not have diversion for sewage
and power by themselves, but may have it to a reasonable amount
for navigation.
Mr. HULL. Your opinion is that they would have that right?
Mr. Boy CE. I have not expressed an opinion on diversion for
sewage and power. We deal, as I see it, with the right to divert for
navigation.
Mr. HULL. Yes. -
Mr. BOYCE. If the subject of sewage and power arise inciden-
tally
Mr. HULL (interposing). It does not affect the other.
Mr. BoxcE. If there is any question about it, it is most likely for
the courts and not Congress.
Mr. HULL. The question I want to ask, to get my mind clear, is
we legislate for navigation. I am going to make an example of, say,
7,000 feet, and incidentally, that carries off the sewage, and it is
creating water power on account of the locks.
Mr. BoxOE. But we do not authorize it. -
Mr. HULL. I understand; but it does not preclude the other?
Br. BoycE. Exactly.
Mr. HULL. That is what I wanted.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you yerv much, Judge.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I would like to have Mr. Goulder express his
opinion, if he cares to, with reference to the right of the United
States to authorize or permit the taking of water from the Great
Lakes for any purpose, any more than we are already using, and
the effect of taking more water on the agreement between this coun-
try and Great Britain. In other words, have we the right to take
additional water from the Great Lakes without the consent of Great
Britain under our treaty?
Mr. GouldFR. I think not, and I had intended to answer that
question. Preliminary to that, and in response to the judge, it is
well to recall the bill the title of which is “ For the improvement
of commerce and navigation, and for other purposes.” When we
look at section 9, which I read yesterday, and after following a lot
of technical detailed provisions about erecting purification works
and about compensating works, or, as I think the scientific men say,
regulating works, we get all through that and we come down to the
other purpose in the cognate:
The concessions herein made and the permission hereby granted unto the
Sanitary District of Chicago—
This is described in the bill as a municipal corporation created by
the State of Illinois—
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 411
relating to the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan are each extended
and granted, upon the considerations herein fixed and designated—
That is the purification works, sewage disposal up to 3,000,300
population, and so on—
and nothing herein contained limits or abrogates the power of the Federal
Government, and/or its proper officers, and/or the officials of the State of Illi-
nois, in maintaining unimpaired the navigability of the Illinois River, and/or
in preserving the purity of the water therein, and/or of controlling the same
SO as to prevent its COntamination to the extent of its becoming a nuisance Or
menace to the health of any of the people. t
There, Judge, are the purposes of the bill. With that is a declara-
tion at the outset in favor of the 9-foot channel as being the nav-
igable channel which is adapted to that situation, and with that
is the repeated recommendation—there are the repeated reports of
the Army engineers of this country, similar engineer officers of Can-
ada, and the various commissions—that less than 1,000 cubic feet
would be necessary for that kind of a channel. -
As I said yesterday, if 10,000 cubic feet reduces or has reduced
up to now—what the future would be, I do not know; that is for
scientific people to consider—but if up to now it has reduced practi-
cally half a foot the lake level, I would think that one-tenth of 10,000
cubic feet would reduce it only one-tenth of half a foot.
Then would come your question of whether this loss and impair-
ment of navigation, as would be regarded as unreasonable and an
abuse by Congress or anybody else of authority to do that, if it
were necessary to establish another channel. As to that I said yes-
terday and I repeat, that is a question for Congress and for this
committee to consider, and as I was about to say, in the Supreme
Court of the United States they admonish counsel about once a term
in some opinion that in citing authorities in the Supreme Court you
must address the law to the facts of the particular case, and I have
been speaking and still do of legal principles that have been ap-
plied. The question, then, of the application of the principles to
the facts—and here is the bill, the purpose of which is based on
an increment of 10,000 cubic feet, but nothing shall prevent the
using of such water as may be proved to be necessary by the State
of Illinois or the sanitary district for other purposes, but taking a
basic increment of 10,000 cubic feet, there goes in this bill the ad-
mission that 9,000 feet is for other purposes and the only other
purpose is the carrying off of the sewage of this community coupled
with the admission that the purification works will do that work,
and they propose in part to do it by purification works.
Mr. HULL. May I interrupt you right there?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. This portion that you are finding fault with
Mr. GouldFR (interposing). I am not finding fault.
Mr. HULL. At least you are analyzing it. I want to ask you a
question. If you read my bill, it says not to exceed 10,000 cubie
feet. It does not even say 10,000 cubic feet, but it is carried through
in three different places in the bill “not to exceed 10,000 feet.” I
do not care for that. I want to get right down to this one thing
you are putting up to us. You are stating that we might get along
with 500 cubic feet. I suggest that is what you intimated by in-
ference at least. We will take it for granted that the Congress of
412 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the United States will grant this 500 cubic feet for navigation pur-
poses. Will this section interfere with it?
Mr. Gould ER. Which section? 3. • * ,
Mr. HULL. This section you have been talking about. You have
been finding fault with this section on a certain basis.
Mr. Gould ER. You mean section 9?
Mr. HULL. Yes. I am going clear back and going down to the
minimum of 500 cubic feet, which you practically said is enough
for us to have navigation, and I will take it for granted that the
Congress of the United States gives us 500 cubic feet to make navi-
gation in the Illinois River. Then, how would this section affect it?
Mr. GouldFR. They would prohibit and have an undoubted right
to prohibit
Mr. HULL (interposing). I can not quite get you. I am trying to
get something in my mind here, why this section is bad.
Mr. GouldFR. The section is only bad in this: That your bill would
have a declaration by Congress that Congress was giving a right,
and that would have to be carried into the courts to show that you
could take 9,000 cubic feet
Mr. HULL (interposing). No ; I am going back. Don’t get away
from me, now. You are a good lawyer and I want to pin you down
to 500 cubic feet.
Mr. GouldFR. All right. Let me say this to you.
Mr. HULL. I am not a lawyer, and I have to talk as a layman, but
I want to pin you down to 500 cubic feet, and I won’t let you get
away from it.
Mr. Gould ER. I am here before your committee. You don’t have
to pin me down to anything. ... •
Mr. HULL. You have dodged everything so far, and this is one
thing I want you to answer. º
Mr. GouldF.R.. I will answer it if I can, but don’t talk about being
pinned down to something. No man can pin me down to anything.
Mr. HULL. You have been using generalities all the time you have
been here.
Mr. Gould ER. I have.
Mr. HULL. You have been criticizing this bill, and I think I have
a right to have your answer to my question.
Mr. Gould ER. You may have it.
Mr. HULL. Why don’t you answer it?
Mr. GouldFR. What was your question ?
Mr. HULL. I asked the question.
Mr. GouldF.R. What is the question?
Mr. HULL. If Congress decides that we shall have 500 cubic feet
to have navigation in the Illinois River, how does this section in-
terfere?
The CHAIRMAN. Would this section then be objectionable? That
is your question, isn’t it?
Mr. HULL. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir; it would be thoroughly objectionable.
Mr. HULL. Why? -
Mr. GouldF.R. Because, although it puts in here basic increment
which is based on 10,000 cubic feet
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 413
Mr. HULL (interposing). Oh, this is 500. The law is going to be
500. I am trying to make it 500.
The CHAIRMAN. Congress Hull is assuming in his question to you,
Suppose that the bill was cut down so that, wherever “not exceeding
10,000 cubic feet” occurs you substitute “500 cubic feet,” then he
wants to know on that assumption if the provisions of section 9
would be objectionable? -
Mr. HULL. That is the point.
Mr. GouldFR. That would be objectionable in this: That when
you go into court, if they undertake to use an unlimited quantity
or any quantity in excess of 500 cubic feet, the sanitary district or
the State of Illinois would come forward with section 9 of this bill
and say that Congress had authorized whatever section 9 author-
izes, but whether that would prevail is another question. I am not
the Supreme Court.
Mr. Boy CE. You mean whatever the section authorizes outside of
the needs of navigation itself?
Mr. GouldFR. Yes. You would have the question, but you would
think of a lawyer—Mr. Hull may not be a lawyer, but it does not
require a lawyer to see what strength of argument there might be
in the point, “Why, here Congress has authorized ”—you would
have to bring the authorization of Congress.
Mr. HULL. If it authorizes 500 feet, how can you get any more?
Maybe I am dumb; but I do not see, if you make a law for 500
feet, how you can get any more than that.
Mr. GouldFR. Because you would find that people would say that
Section 9 provides that you may take whatever is necessary for the
purification of the water.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gouder and you two gentlemen, I think,
have got just a trifle excited, each of you, and so I can perhaps help
you a little if you will permit me.
Mr. HULL. I am not excited.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us take section 9. I think I can perhaps
explain this: -
The concessions herein made and the permission hereby granted unto the
Sanitary District of Chicago—
That would be a permission to divert 500 cubic feet under the
assumption—
relating to the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan are each extended
and granted upon the considerations herein fixed and designated being fully
Observed and Complied with—
That would mean, I suppose, as to regulatory work—
and nothing herein contained— -
Now I come to the part-about which the discussion is being had—
limits or abrogates the power of the Federal Government—
Qf course, you could not do that anyway, so I do not regard that
as being a provision of any force or effect whatever—
and/or if proper officers—
That is the same—
and the Officials of the State of Illinois—
§ -
414 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
And I do not think that is material either, because we would not
attempt to abrogate what is their proper authority. Now we come
to the qualification, however— -
in maintaining unimpaired the navigability of the Illinois River—
Now, if you say in one portion of a bill that you grant a man 500
feet only for purposes of navigation and then say at another point
that you are not going to impair the power of the proper officials,
Federal and State, to maintain its navigability, I think you have
absolutey done away with your limitation and your grant of 500
feet, because this would give you the right to find out from time to
time, as a matter of fact—the executive officials to find out from
time to time as a matter of fact—what the amoun was, and it would
leave with the executive what does not belong to it at all.
Mr. HULL. Doesn’t it leave it to the Government?
The CHAIRMAN. It leaves it to the executive branch of the Gov-
ermment, which has no authority and no power to determine that
amount. That should properly be left to Congress, and so I think
it would be objectionable in that way.
Mr. HULL. Excuse me just a minute. The reason that clause was
put in was for the purpose of doing just what is necessary to be
done, and that is to see that the navigation is kept up. It did not
mean that we had to have more power, but it means that you could
not put things into the river to stop navigation. That is what it
meant. The intent of that was to preclude somebody from put-
ting materials into the river that would stop navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. I will say frankly that I think that the objec-
tion to that section, on the assumption *
Mr. HULL (interposing). Is far fetched, isn’t it?
The CHAIRMAN. No. I think it is a reasonable construction that
when you came to the question of maintaining navigation, entirely
aside from our specific grant and limitation upon that grant, that
we leave it to the executive officials in charge to determine whether
we will grant it or not, and for him to take more if he in his in-
dividual judgment thought as a matter of fact it required more—I
do not think we would have any power to delegate. I think the
provision would be unconstitutional because I do not believe that
Congress would have the power to delegate to an executive officer its
functions, but I do think it would be bad legislation because I do
not think it should attempt to delegate to an executive officer what
our functions are. º
Mr. NEWTON. Isn’t this true now?
The CHAIRMAN. I simply have done this in trying to straighten it
Out.
Mr. NEwTON. Suppose that all questions about sanitation and
all other questions except navigation were eliminated from this bill,
and we passed a bill diverting or allowing the diversion of 10,000
cubic feet per second, then when you got into the courts with it,
with these other questions eliminated, the Government would be
in a much stronger position, because then the only question to be
determined is whether or not it would be reasonable for navigation,
and after you diverted it for navigation the engineers would have
the same power to control it as a navigable stream with reference
to sewage as they have with reference to rivers, and they have that

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 415
power now. So that your bill, when passed by Congress, would be
infinitely stronger from the Government's standpoint with all ques-
tions of sewage out of it.
Mr. GouldFR. What position would that put your committee in,
when you know that 10,000 feet is necessary?
The CHAIRMAN. The Congressman did not put that as intimat-
ing, I take it, at all his judgment as to the amount to be diverted,
but only put it as an illustration.
Mr. HULL. As a hypothetical case.
Mr. NEWTON. It raises the legal question. -
The CHAIRMAN. Before you pass from the question propounded
by Congressman McDuffie, in order to make plain your answer to
his question, let me ask this. The Congressman asked you whether
we would have the right to divert water on our side of the border
in excess of or different from the terms and amounts prescribed
by the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, ratified
in 1910. He answered that we would not. Now, to elaborate
that just a trifle, in other words, from the time that that treaty was
ratified, that became the law of both countries upon that subject,
and is the law until modified or repealed, isn’t it?
Mr. GOULDER. I should say so. In the first place, there is before
this committee
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a moment. I should have said
modified or repealed, to make my question more exact, by joint
action of the two countries involved.
Mr. GoulDER. Yes; I would think so. The question has come up,
tending to the confusion that the judge has spoken of here this
morning, whether that treaty applied at all to Chicago, whether it
applied to the legal use in the sense that there was a quantity of
4,167 feet under a conditional permit, and I want to make this sug-
gestion. Here is Canada, with a great many ports. You have the
men here from the smaller ports. I have spoken about the big
through trade. In this country there are men from Canada who will
call attention, I hope, to the big ports in Canada and their interest
in this entire subject—everything that has been talked about before
this committee during these hearings.
When a commission was appointed the other day, headed by Secre-
tary Hoover, the President in his letter appointing this commission
called attention to this, that they are first to consider the economic
aspects and arrive at a decision as to whether the project should be
undertaken; if so, they are then to consider the formulation of such
projects as might be submitted for international agreement on con-
struction, finance, and administration.
That is in reference to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Where is the
difference? We have our treaty dealing entirely with the Lakes.
We have the interest of the Canadians just as acute, because they
are building ships, and building big ships; they have many ports,
and they have spent a great deal of money in Toronto; they are
spending a great deal of money in Kingston to make that a port for
large ships, just as there is a project on foot to make Oswego a large
port for United States ships at the extended eastern point of the
Lakes, which now is Buffalo and Port Colborne—Buffalo on the
American side and Port Colborne on the Canadian side, 20 miles
this side of Buffalo.
416 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The idea is that the Welland Canal, to be completed in a couple
of years, which will extend the waterway for bigger ships as a part
of the general system of lake navigation on this waterway so far as
the easterly end of Lake Ontario is concerned, to be met by having a
big port and terminals on the American side and on the Canadian
side. I say they have just as acute an interest in Canada as we have
on this side. What about the United States going forward, having
these navigable waters in its power and in its charge, bound to be
Solicitous for the good of all the country, Canada bearing the same
relation, and the two powers, Canada, or England for Canada, and
the United States agreeing that this whole subject shall be treated
jointly by the parties—that is one thing that I call to your attention.
Now, I have had questions asked me here this morning as if I
were some ultimate authority on the questions and my opinion or my
decision would carry some force and be effective, and we know that
is not true. I am only illustrating and speaking, as Mr. Hull says,
in general terms about this whole thing, with concrete information
as to what the importance is of the question. May I not suggest
the propriety of taking up a matter of this kind between the two
countries? -
Then, again, the judge has raised the question about the courts,
the legal aspects of this, what the courts will decide. We have one
decision, the district court for the northern district of Illinois, which
took many years to get to the point of holding that the Chicago
Drainage Canal for all the purposes mentioned in this bill and for
everything in this bill, is acting entirely without authority, acting
illegally in exceeding even that temporary conditional permit.
That case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States,
and it is there pending for argument. There is a case made at
hand to determine. There is another case brought by the State of
Wisconsin, an original bill in the Supreme Court of the United
States, raising pretty near all the questions you have asked me con-
cerning the matter this morning.
I am not counsel in that case and had nothing to do with the
preparation of the case or the bill, but it is there and it raises the
questions—I think practically every question that we have been
talking about—and it is already now in the Supreme Court.
The CHAIRMAN. As to that case, the Supreme Court of the United
States being the court of original jurisdiction?
Mr. GouldFR. That is the court of original jurisdiction. The suit
is brought there.
The CHAIRMAN. Because it is a case between States?
Mr. Gould ER. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of
suits between States, and in that case the suit is between the State
of Wisconsin, complainant, and the State of Illinois and the Sani-
tary district of Chicago as defendants. That stands now in the
Supreme Court.
Mr. NEwTON. May I ask a question there?
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Newton. - -
Mr. NEwTON. You say the new Welland Canal will be completed
in about two years?
Mr. GouldFR. So I understand. * -
Mr. NEwton. Do you know how much water it is contemplated
will be necessary to go through that canal?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 417
Mr. Gould ER. I do not.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you know whether there is water power on that?
Mr. Gould ER. I think there is. I think you will find that most
everywhere where there has been enterprise.
Mr. KEEFER (representing the Province of Ontario). Mr. Chair-
man, there is no water power on the new Welland Canal.
The CHAIRMAN. And will be none?
Mr. KEEFER. And will be none.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you know how much water is to be taken when
the new Welland Canal is finished?
Mr. GOULDER. I do not know that, but I have no doubt our engi-
neer would have some data on that.
Mr. NEWTON. I have been told that it is 17,000 cubic feet.
Mr. GOULDER. I do not think it is so much as that.
Mr. SweFT. Mr. Keefer, on the point of the question asked as to
the amount of water necessary for the operation of the new Welland
Canal, do you have the information?
Mr. KEEFER. I am sorry indeed, but I can not give it. I was just
asking one of the engineers, and he is not able to tell me. We are
not opposing; we do not consider this the proper forum for our case.
We are here if possible to render you any assistance, and this is a
fact you have asked for and I will endeavor to get it.
Mr. NEwTon. This is true, isn’t it? Suppose it is 10,000 cubic feet
or 5,000 cubic feet that is necessary. That would have the same
effect toward lowering the level of Lake Erie as if you took the
Water somewhere else, as if through the Chicago Drainage Canal,
wouldn’t it?
Mr. GOULDER. I am told not.
Mr. NEwTON. Well, why not?
The CHAIRMAN. Wait just a moment. Congressman Newton, I
understand we are going to have technical men on the stand to give
us all of that information.
Mr. NEwTON. All right. I would like to get that.
Mr. GOULDER. I would like to say I would rather not answer a ques-
tion of that kind.
Mr. NEWTON. I will withdraw it.
The CHAIRMAN. He does not know any more than I do about it
as a lawyer.
Mr. Boy CE. May I ask a single question?
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Boyce.
Mr. Boy CE. I am not just clear in my recollection at this moment
whether in the agreement between the high contracting parties of the
United States and Canada with respect to the diversion of water it
was specifically agreed for what purposes any diversion of water
might be used ?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. Boy CE. I do not know.
Mr. NEw'TON. It is in the treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. I am frank to say, Mr. Boyce, that I am in doubt
as to the construction of the treaty in that respect. I will call your
attention to the provisions.
Mr. MCDUFFIE. Article VIII.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The doubt in my mind is this, whether
the provision to which Mr. McDuffie refers is intended as to the
9.1739—24—PT 2 12
4.18 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
control by the joint commission established in the treaty or as to the
control by each country of its share of the diversion authorized and
permitted by the treaty. I was going to ask one or two questions
of the witness along that line, but I would like to have you read
that article, if you will, Mr. McDuffie. You will have to read it in
connection with the preceding article.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I would like to suggest that Article V also sug-
gests, Judge Boyce, how much water may be diverted for power
purposes above the Falls. -
Mr. NEwTON. If the water going out through the Welland Canal,
which is an additional outlet of Lake Erie, does reduce the level of
the lake or has a tendency to that effect, it would be just as much in
violation of the treaty between the United States and Canada as
taking water out at Chicago, would it not?
Mr. GOULDER. That may be so, but now you are getting into a
question relating to the joint waterway and the effect of the impair-
ment of the joint waterway. I would say offhand that the question
of any withdrawal of water or use—I won’t say withdrawal, but any
use of water for navigation purposes in this waterway at the Welland
Canal—should be considered as to the possible effect, but that is not
what we have under consideration now. You have your treaty in
regard to that. Nobody is raising a question in regard to that. It
relates to the established waterways, and the consideration of that
would require perhaps as long a hearing as you are having on this.
The question now is supposing that there were such a use of water at
the Welland Canal, suppose it should have the effect of reducing the
levels unless assisted at the head of that canal, how to do it, and that
sort of thing, are all questions which do not have relation here,
because the question here is of an accomplished reduction of the lake
level for nonnavigation purposes. You ask to be limited to 10,000
cubic feet. Practically all of that is for nonnavigation purposes,
which is going to have a permanent effect. If water has to be taken
out, has to be used for navigation purposes of this waterway, are you
going to reduce the level by turning a race or Spigot at Chicago, or
Cleveland, or anywhere else, and run that water off and cut this down
half a foot? It would be just so much waste if there is no use of
this water anywhere between Chicago and some other point east—at
the Welland Canal or anywhere else. The combined effect will be
enhanced by a permanent lowering at Chicago.
Mr. NEwton. The interest of the carriers is in lake levels, isn’t it?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. And that is the extent of the interest of the carriers,
isn’t it?
Mr. Got LDER. Yes, sir. When you come to that question of the
Welland Canal, and that is likely to involve that sort of thing, I
fancy that you will find that the lake people will be giving that a
study which they have not yet given to it. 4.
Mr. NEwTON. But so far as the carriers are concerned, it is immate-
rial as to where the water goes if it lowers the levels of the lakes?
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. Let us see if it is. Suppose you
have the Livingston Channel for this lake navigation, and suppose
that the construction of that channel does in fact lower, and appreci-
ably, the levels of the lake, but on account of the situation at Detroit
it is absolutely necessary in the interest of navigation to have it, can
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 419
you say that then it is an argument, because, in order to increase the
convenience and the quantity of navigation and that this might mean
lowering the lake, could you say it is an argument that you should
for purposes not of navigation to still further lower the lakes at any
point where people want to lower them along their banks?
Mr. GOULDER. Certainly not; because if the Livingston Channel,
the case you instance, should reduce 1 inch, then by this use at Chi-
cago the level has gone down 7 inches.
The CHAIRMAN. The purposes of the Welland Canal, as I under-
stand it, are purely and wholly navigation purposes, aren’t they
Mr. Gould ER. As I understand it. -
The CHAIRMAN. But necessarily in the interest of navigation be-
tween the different Great Lakes?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir. g *
The CHAIRMAN. Now, because you have to have a connecting
canal—and I hope some day two connecting canals, one on our side
as well as on the other side—between the Great Lakes, in order to
make navigation between the Lakes possible, is that an argument why
we should drain the Lakes at every point for nonnavigation pur-
poses? -
} Mr. GOULDER. I think that is one of the strongest arguments against
draining the Lakes for any other purpose. -
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen?
Mr. HULL. I want to ask a question in reference to what you said
a while ago about the purposes for taking water out of Lake Michi-
gan and putting it into the Illinois River. I think you said that you
could not take it for any purpose, or at least you inferred that, except
for navigation purposes. Is that the way I understood you?
Mr. GoCDDER. Yes, sir. You can not impair navigation. .
Mr. HULL. You can not use it for anything else at all; for domestic
purposes or anything else?
Mr. GoulDER. You are getting away off the subject.
Mr. HULL. I will put it for Sewage purposes, then, for sanitary
purposes. That is what you said, wasn’t it? -->
Mr. GOULDER. Yes; where that is not an essential purpose, and
nobody claims that it is essential at Chicago.
Mr. HULL. I want to read this to you from the treaty. I will read
just a little from that ; I am not going into the details. It says:
1. Uses for domestic and Sanitary purposes.
2. Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of
navigation.
3. Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
If you have a treaty that gives you all of those things, if that
treaty is agreed to, wouldn’t it apply to the Mississippi River the
same as it would to the Welland Canal?
Mr. Gou LDER. Let me put my answer in the form of a question
to you. -
Mr. HULL. Couldn't you answer this question?
Mr. GoLILDER. Just a moment. Do you in your question—I will
put it this way: Do you in your question construe that to mean a
nonnecessary sanitary or any sanitary purpose that anybody had a
mind to conceive or suggest?
420 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. It is 1 o'clock, and this ques-
tion -
Mr. FIULL (interposing). We will have to get it afterwards, then.
The CHAIRMAN. It will take a good many years to settle the
question you have asked. - g
Mr. HULL. I want him to answer the question, because it is exactly
in conflict with what he said awhile ago.
Mr. Gould ER. No: it is not.
The CHAIRMAN. The question you have raised by reading a few
lines of this treaty would, I am frank to say, puzzle a court as well
as excellent lawyers. I do not believe we could decide that offhand,
but I am perfectly willing for you to take all the time you want
after lunch, but let us have lunch now. We will adjourn until 2.30.
(Whereupon at 1.05 p.m., a recess was taken until 2.30 p.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met pursuant to the taking of recess.
STATEMENT OF MR. HARVEY M. GOULDER—Resumed
Mr. HULL. Mr. Goulder, we quit before you answered the ques-
tion. I will repeat it. I interrogated you before regarding the
fact that you had stated that water drawn from Lake Michigan
into the Illinois River could only be drawn for navigation purposes.
But I find in the treaty between Canada and the United States three
clauses—first, uses for domestic and sanitary purposes; second, uses
for navigation, including the service of canals for the purpose of
navigation; and third, uses for power when for irrigation pur-
poses. Now, the only thing I want to know is if that is in the treaty
and could be used in the State of New York, why could it not be used
in the State of Illinois?
Mr. GouldFR. About this treaty, of course you understand—I don’t
think I owe an apology to the committee for taking as much time—
I am not briefed up or prepared on these questions; but I have read
this treaty since you have been talking about it, and there is a good
deal in it that is open to legal construction.
Now, the question under that article to which you refer, article 8,
is, is that a grant or not? It says the following order of precedence
shall be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter
for these waters. I think the first question that a court would want
to consider with reference to that is whether that is a grant of any-
thing, whether it is a mere suggestion to the High Commission, with-
out demarking in any manner their powers; because, if you go back
with me to the first article, it says:
The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable
boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purpose of com-
merce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries
equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within
its own territory, not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation.
And so forth. There is the first article. The second paragraph
provides: 3.
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this
same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan, and to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 421
all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing, or which may here-
after be constructed on either side of the line.
That involves Lake Michigan.
Mr. HULL. Excuse me a moment, because I am not conversant with
the law, and it is a little hard for me to get this. The question was
not to trick you or anything like that; I am trying to get you to say to
me whether this treaty would not apply to Illinois, that is what I
want to know. I don’t want to trick you, and I dont' want to go into
a long legal lot of stuff. I just want an answer to my question. I
suppose it would apply generally everywhere, it would apply to Illi-
nois?
Mr. Gould ER. I suppose so.
Mr. HULL. Then, why should you make the statement that we are
not allowed to have water from Lake Michigan in the river for any
purpose, when the treaty says, and specifically says, the first thing,
that it is to be used for domestic and sanitary purposes?
Mr. Gould ER. Because the fundamental law of the United States
is absolute and controlling, and there is something else in this treaty
which relegates the question of water, whatever may be permitted
by the high contracting parties, to the control of one country and the
other, with the further agreement that “any interference with or
diversion from their natural channel of such waters on either side
of the boundary, resulting in any injury of the other side of the
boundary, shall give rise to the same rights and entitle the injured
parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in the
country where such diversion or interference occurs.”
Mr. HULL. I don’t think that answers the question.
Mr. GOULDER. I think it answers it perfectly.
Mr. HULL. I am after a direct answer to this question, and I think
I am entitled to it. You have answered part of it, you have said it
would apply to Illinois; and if it does apply to Illinois and the
treaty is legal, then I can not see why we have not the right to take
water out of Lake Michigan and put it in the Illinois River for just
what it says here, for the use of domestic and sanitary purposes.
Mr. GouldFR. Yes. Now, our difficulty is just this: You asked me
a legal question and I give to you a legal answer.
Mr. HULL. No: I did not ask a legal question. &
Mr. GOULDER. You say you are not a lawyer, but you ask a ques-
tion in reference to a legal construction of a legal document, to wit, a
treaty. Now, I can not step out, nor can this committee, nor will the
Supreme Court of the United States, or anybody else, properly, step
out from the legal effect, the legal consequence, and the proper legal
definition in an answer to such a question as you have asked. If you
were a lawyer
Mr. HULL (interposing). I probably would understand it. I will
admit that I don’t know very much about law. I admitted that be-
fore we began.
Mr. Gould ER. If you did
Mr. HULL (interposing). But I have some intelligence and I can
not get it through my head why it is that you put in a treaty that it
can be used for domestic and sanitary purposés and still claim that it
can not be done. I can not get that. -
Mr. GOULDER. You can not get it because it has not been your habit,
as you admit, to study documents of this kind and the legal effect of
422 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
words in the documents, and the first rule you would learn as a lawyer
would be that you can not take one line, one sentence, one thought
alone in a document—
Mr. HULL. Of course, two-thirds of this committee, probably, are
not lawyers, and I think they look at it as I do.
Mr. GOULDER. Every one on the committee who is willing and
open-minded will understand the force of my explanation, that you
can not take one single little thing out of a legal document and say
that that stands by itself. Else, what is the use of the rest of the
document?
Mr. HULL. Of course, I understand that you could cite a lot of
things for an hour or more that would befog the question and none
of us would get it; but I want you to say whether you can answer
this or not, whether you can or can not, and if you can not, I will
take your word for it.
Mr. GOULDER. No; I can not.
Mr. HULL. Then, that answers the question.
Mr. GouldFR. Wei. let me give you an illustration that will
appeal to the layman's mind as well as to the lawyer. There was
an old colored preacher in Baltimore who preached a sermon at
Easter time on the extravagance of women's dress, and he took for
his text “ Topnot come down.” One of his colored brethern who
knew the Bible well asked the preacher, “Where did you get that
text?” The preacher referred him to this verse in the Bible, “Let
those who are on the house top not come down.” So he simply took
the words “top-not come down” and applied it to the Easter bonnet
and preached a sermon against extravagance. -
Mr. HULL. Well, it was a good sermon, was it not?
Mr. GouldF.R. It was good, because why? .
Mr. HULL. Because it was short?
Mr. Gould ER. Because he did not read all of it, because he did not
quote the whole text, and even he did not stop on that, but he did
preach a sermon on extravagance.
Mr. HULL. Well, I think I have made a pretty good point here.
Mr. GOULDER. Possibly.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me make this suggestion to you : If we are
to interpret the lines referred to in the sense suggested, then there
would not be any reason or any possible use for the consideration of
any bill by this committe, would there?
Mr. Gould ER. Certainly not; there would not be any use for any
of the rest of the treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. If that means, in other words, that any locality
on either side of the Great Lakes that withdraw water to any extent
for the purposes specified in article 8, even though it might result in
a drainage of the Great Lakes, then, of course, no legislation legaliz-
ing such drainage would be necessary to be considered, would it?
Now, is not that the fair conclusion to which necessarily the sug-
gested interpretation would bring us?
Mr. Gould ER. Undoubtedly.
Mr. HULL. That is not the question at all. The question that Mr.
Goulder said this morning was positively that we could not take the
water in the Illinois River for any purpose except navigation, and
still the treaty says that it can be taken for domestic and sanitary
* ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 423
urposes; it says that the first thing, and if you can do it in New
ork why can you not do it in Illinois?
Mr. GouldFR. The treaty does not say anything of the kind.
Mr. HULL. Maybe I can not read, but that is what it says. You
have that question.
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes; I have.
Mr. HULL. And I am taking it, because you have not answered
it, that it is true. You are not going to get away from this com-
mittee by dodging it.
Mr. GouldFR. Now, Mr. Hull, I have heard that you made a
speech; it has been reported to me that you made a speech in Con-
gress saying that there were a number of bills before this committee
taking water for purification purposes, and none of those bills could
a SS. -
p Mr. HULL. I didn’t make that statement.
Mr. Gould ER. I say it has been reported to me.
Mr. HULL. I understand, but I want you to give me the source of
where it was reported.
Mr. GouldER. It was published in some paper.
Mr. HULL. You have made the statement and I want to know
where you got it. * -
Mr. Gould ER. It has been reported So.
Mr. HULL. Well, it is not so, and that answers that. I will
answer my questions. - -
Mr. GouldF.R. All right, if that is not so. I only said that it has
been reported. -
Mr. HULL. Enough of that, then.
Mr. Gould L.R. Have you any other questions?
Mr. HULL. Yes, I have one more. We have had a good deal of
discussion here about the Welland Canal, about the flow of water
there, and the other day we had a lot of discussion about the harbor
at Cleveland, where you live. It is generally conceded—maybe I
am wrong on the figures, but I think it is 43 points against 52, is
it not? Fifty-two from Chicago and 43 in other ports?
Mr. ADCOCK. 47 per cent. - - …”
Mr. HULL. It is about even between the two. I am going to stop
the flow of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River and
put that 5.5 back. This is just a question, not that I really intend
to do it, but in order to get it before you I will say that I will
take that water from the lake at Chicago, and I am going to pre-
sume that when you add this extra flow in the Welland Canal—and
you have almost admitted it—that it might reduce the level of
Lake Erie another foot. Would you then be willing to stop the flow
in the Welland Canal?
Mr. Gould ER. I want to correct your question in this. I have
not admitted what effect, or if any effect. I have referred you
to the authorities of your own corps of engineers on that subject,
and I have Said, in answer to a question, that if there were any
such effect of reduction, whether it is an inch or a half inch, or 10
feet, or anything else, that would be in the prosecution of the great
international waterway that has been described here, and I doubt
if this country, with or without this treaty, would patiently stand
by and see too great a sacrifice of the water even for the through
navigation route.
424 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Af
Mr. HULL. Does that answer the question whether you would be
in favor of closing up the Welland Canal?
Mr. Gould ER. I don’t think that is a fair question.
Mr. HULL. Well, all right, if you don’t want to answer it.
Mr. GouldF.R.. I don’t think that is a fair question because you go
into an assumption there which I do not believe has any basis in
fact or any foundation in fact. º
Mr. HULL. Well, it is a theory at least—
Mr. GouldF.R. Wait a minute. You put a hypothetical question—
if, if, and assume, and presume, then what would you say? I say
that is not a fair question.
Mr. HULL. The only question that I am trying to get before the
committee is this: That I have contended all along, and I think I
have a right to, that there is as much withdrawal from your Cleve-
land harbor on the Niagara end of it as there is on the other, and
I want to find out your attitude as a boatman, if it would lower
your harbors to the extent that you could not use them, would
you be willing then to stop up the Welland Canal? I know you
are willing to stop up the Michigan one. Now, I want to know
whether you would do the other?
Mr. Gould ER. I told you this morning that I would be willing,
and the boatmen would be willing, I think, and this committee, to
give that subject very fair consideration, very fair investigation, get
at the facts, discuss the question, the effect, the reasons of it, what
is the fair thing to do, what is the proper thing to do under the law
of the United States, as was so well expounded, and you have a brief
or memorandum of the attorney general of the State of Michigan,
Mr. Dougherty, on that subject before you, and you have the authori-
ties I cited of the Supreme Court, and with your treaty, and with
the comity of nations, and all those things. Now, to ask a simple
individual who comes here a question on that unrelated question,
because it is not pending at all, what he would do, I say to you I per-
sonally would come, just as I come here to you, to this committee,
and I would say, “Give that the fullest consideration, get the facts,
get what it is for, get what the effect is; how does it relate to naviga-
tion.” Your business is to protect navigation. The treaty says that
navigation shall not be injuriously affected. The law of the United
States says the same thing. . Your committee are here as a bulwark
between the people of the United States and the locality of Cleve-
land or Chicago or any other locality to see that that is done; that is
wise and fair.
Now, that is all I am asking this committee to do about your bill,
and that is what I would ask the committee to do on the question.
Mr. HULL. The whole thing develops on this: You have made a
fine speech; it is one of the best I have ever heard
Mr. Gould ER. Thank you.
Mr. HULL. Now, the whole thing is this: In your speech, which
was a most eloquent oration, one of the most eloquent I have heard,
you would have got clear through if somebody had not come back
at you, and I have tried to come back in my humble way to get you
to answer a few questions, and you have gone around four blocks in
answering the first one.
Mr. Gould ER. That is because of the character of the question.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 425
Mr. HULL. In all you have said you have stressed the possibility
of ruining your harbors, you gave that to us for two and a half hours.
Now, I come to you with a plain proposition, ask you a simple ques-
tion, and in answer to that you make another oration, but you don’t
answer the question.
Mr. GOULDER. I answered it absolutely, the same as the question in
reference to your Chicago Drainage Canal.
Mr. HULL. That would be to close it up?
Mr. GOULDER. No. That would be you have no right to go so far
as to injure navigation. Your own bill states that you can go into
the purification of that without injuring navigation. My position
is you should not be permitted to take out for any such purpose, and
you should not take it under the guise of a navigation bill, and you
should not ask a committee dealing with navigation to put through
one part navigation and nine parts purification.
Mr. HULL. I am only doing what the treaty says. One more ques-
tion and I will close.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman
Mr. HULL. I will be through in a minute. On section 9, the one
you found fault with in my bill, I have added a little provision, and
I wanted to know if this would be satisfactory if I would put it in.
Provided, however, That this provision shall not be construed at any time to
authorize the withdrawal of any greater amount than 10,000 cubic feet per
SeCOnd.
Would that make it satisfactory to you?
Mr. Gould ER. No.
Mr. HULL. That answers it, then.
Mr. GOULDER. I leave that to the committee. What would be more
Satisfactory is that you would be consistent, and if your purpose is
a purpose relating to navigation
Mr. HULL (interposing). I have no other purpose in the world.
Mr. GOULDER. Very well. Then, if you eliminated everything
from your bill except the navigation purpose and put that to the
committee and let the committee have the privilege that it has in
every bill of that character, whether it is Chicago, or Alaska, or
Cleveland, or Texas, or Tennessee, or anywhere else, that is to ascer-
tain what ought to be used for navigation, then I think you would
have something to talk about. -
Mr. HULL. Excuse me a minute. This clause was put in for a
purpose different from what you have interpreted it, and that is
why I put it in. In developing the Illinois River, with the sewage
that exists there, which we are not responsible for at Peoria, I put
that provision in so as not to allow anybody to put things in the
river to make it nonnavigable.
Mr. GouldF.R. You are not a lawyer.
Mr. HULL. I know I am not, but I had a good lawyer draw that up.
Mr. GOULDER. But although you are not a lawyer you, of course,
have had occasions when you had to make a contract, and you know
if you make a written contract you must take what is said in the
written contract, and not any other intention that the parties had in
mind at the time of the negotiations before they made the contract in
writing. You must take the intent as expressed in the language of
the contract. Nobody can go back to what was in your mind or my
426 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
mind as to what we intended. If you put it in writing, you have
got to look and see what is written, and the man who has not the
intimate knowledge of the mind of the man who wrote it has nothing
else to go by but the language, and you have that before the com-
mittee. *
Mr. McDUFFIE. I would like to suggest that we have a general
statute already on the books that prevents impeding navigation or
putting anything in navigable water that interferes with navigation,
and that applies to all navigable streams.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan.
Mr. MoRGAN. You are, of course, familiar with the conditions
under which the divisions of water at Niagara Falls were entered
into when the treaty was made, and the diversions adjusted accord-
ing to the treaty?
Mr. GouldF.R. No; I would not say I am familiar with that. I
never had any direct connection with that, so as to make a study or
to familiarize myself with it. I have only a very general knowl-
edge of it. º
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, from a legal standpoint, so far as the treaty
and the rights that exist under the treaty, certain divisions were
referred to as a matter of adjustment of the amounts of water to be
apportioned to the United States and Canada, they should be bind-
ing so far as they relate to the adjustment of the amounts?
Mr. GOULDER. They should be, Mr. Morgan, I would say, always
with this idea: These are all human questions, the expression of
human minds, and they had to put that division into that treaty,
and yet it is open to modify that.
Mr. MoRGAN. Well, assuming that, I would like to read
Mr. GouldFR (interposing). I would not say whether it should
be, because I want to say, Mr. Morgan, as with Mr. Hull, I want to
answer your question as fairly and squarely as I can, and that
Niagara Falls matter gets me into things I am not familiar with.
Mr. MoRGAN. To ask you a further question, I would like to read
article 5 of the report of the International Joint Commission, a part
of article 5.
Mr. Gould ER. That is not the treaty?
Mr. MoRGAN. No. This is a preface to the treaty.
Article 5 fixes the authorized diversion from Niagara River above the Falls
for power purposes in case of the United States as the daily diversion at the
rate of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second ; and in the case of Canada a
daily diversion at the rate of 36,000 cubic feet of water per second.
You are familiar, no doubt, that those were the divisions made
under the treaty? *
Mr. GOULDER. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN (reading):
The only limitation is to limit the diversion of water from the Niagara River
so that the lake level of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be
appreciably affected.
There appears to be no regard for fixing the particular amount
allowed to be diverted by each country.
It is understood that in allowing the larger amount to Canada the facts
were taken into account that the greater flow of the Horse Shoe Falls lies in
Canadian territory, and that Chicago was diverting a considerable amount of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 427
water from Lake Michigan which would otherwise go into Niagara Falls. In
Qther words, it was understood when the division of water was made of 36,000
cubic feet and 20,000 cubic feet, respectively, that there was a diversion of
Water at Chicago.
That being taken into consideration as the division of water, would
we not have the right under that treaty to reserve to ourselves what-
ever the diversion was at Chicago?
- F º GOULDER. No ; I think you ought to reserve that at Niagara
3.1.1S. -
Mr. MoRGAN. I do not mean at Chicago; I meant as a reservation
to the United States.
Mr. Gould ER. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is all.
Mr. GouldFR. Here is another question raised in my mind by Mr.
Hopkin's remarks yesterday, that question of whether you would
reckon by inches or by horsepower. He spoke of that yesterday in
his remarks.
Mr. MoRGAN. The treaty, however, speaks of cubic feet.
Mr. GouldFR. Yes; the treaty speaks of cubic feet. I don’t know
about that; those things have got to be gone into. I say, I am not
familiar with those questions; I have never studied them; and those
are matters for international consideration under the treaty by the
commission.
Mr. MoRGAN. If I may add there, the treaty manifestly, in the
division of the waters, was based upon diversions that were spe-
cifically referred to at that time. Then the United States and Can-
ada would have a right to the specific diversions, whether they used
them at Chicago or wherever we have used the water; in other
words, we are entitled to a certain amount of diversion?
Mr. GouldF.R.. I understand we are entitled to half-and-half.
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes.
Mr. GouldFR. They have equal rights.
Mr. MoRGAN. In equal divisions.
Mr. GouldFR. Now, how that is to be worked out I am utterly
unable to say; I would not attempt to say in regard to it.
Mr. MoRGAN. Legally, would it not be fair to infer that the divi-
sions that had to do with the diversion of water would be a legal
question in connection with the transaction?
Mr. GouTDER. It would be a legal question; but I do not think that
that would be a question for this committee. I do not see how in
any possible manner it is involved here. There must be nothing
done under that treaty—that is paramount—and there must be noth-
ing done that will interfere with navigation or injuriously affect
navigation on either side of the river. Now, how they are going
to work that out
Mr. MoRGAN. I would like to interrupt right there. Only so
far as the diversions of water that were understood at that time was
agreed upon and the diversion at that time that they agreed upon
manifestly was affected to the extent of those entered into at that
time.
Mr. Gould ER. I think that is a question fairly within the cases
pending in the Supreme Court. I think they necessarily go into
those questions. I do not think they are germane.
428 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. MoRGAN. I would not consider that they were germane; but
I wanted to get your view, you having studied the treaty. I presume
you are, from a legal standpoint, in a position to refer to the diver-
sions agreed upon when the treaty was adjusted upon the division
of 36,000 cubic feet and 20,000 cubic feet, respectively.
Mr. GoLIDER. I think you would have great difficulty in getting
any lawyer fairly and frankly and sincerely to answer questions of
that sort without having made it the subject of study. I do not
think, in other words, that my offhand opinion, or the offhand opin-
ion of any other lawyer on that subject, is worth listening to or .
worth having.
Mr. MORGAN. Very well, then. I thought you had made a study
of that subject. -
Mr. GOULDER. Because the first-blush opinions on questions of that
kind asked of an attorney standing on his feet, never having antici-
pated the question, never having studied it, never having worked it
out in any manner, his first-blush opinion is of no consequence,
and I would not give a client in a small case or any case—I would
Inot on such a subject give a client an offhand opinion.
Mr. MoRGAN. Very well; I thank you very much.
Mr. DEAL. Mr. Goulder has very kindly consented to give me some
citations on the constitutionality and right of Congress over navi-
gable waters. May we put those in the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would be glad to have them.
(The citations referred to are as follows:)
Chandler Dunbar Co. v. U. S. (229 U. S. 83) ; Clement v. Metropolitan West
Side Elevator Company (123 Fed. ; 271 C. C. A. 7th C.) :
1. Navigable waters—Obstructions to navigation—Bridges. A bridge across
a navigable stream is an obstruction to navigation tolerated only because of
necessity and the convenience of commerce on land, and, the rights of naviga-
tion being paramount. * * *
Scranton v. Wheeler (179 U. S. page 141) :
The power of Congress to regulate commerce, and therefore navigation, is
paramount, and is unrestricted except by the limitations on its authority by
the Constitution.” t
Interest of riparian owner in submerged land bordering stream is Subordinate
to public right of use for navigation, and United States is nor required to com-
pensate him on constructing pier which obstructs his access to navigable water.
Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Company v. Secretary of War (257 U. S. 251) :
The power of the sovereign state of nation is perpetual—not exhausted by
one exercise—and all privileges granted in public Waters are Subject to that
power; the exercise of which is not a taking of private property for public use
but the lawful exercise of a governmental power for the common good. (West
Chicago R. R. v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 506.) w
When one acting under State authority exacts anything in navigable Waters
he does so with full knowledge of the paramount authority of CongreSS to
regulate commerce among the States and subject to the exercise of such au-
thority at some future time by Congress. (Union Bridge Co. v. United States,
204 U. S. 364.) * -
The power of the States over navigable waters is subordinate to that of
Congress and the State can grant no right to the soil of the bed of navigable
waters which is not subject to Federal regulation. (Philadelphia Co. v. Stim-
son, 228 U. S. 605; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 269.)
The power of Congress extends to the whole expanse of a navigable stream
and is not dependent upon the depth of shallowness of the Water.
The United States is not liable under the fifth amendment to Compensate
the owner of a wharf erected in navigable waters for the removal of that
part of the structure outside of the new lines properly established by Federal
authority, although the wharf was originally erected within the harbor lines
then duly established by both the State and Federal authorities.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 429
In this case the action of the Secretary of War in establishing new harbor
lines within those previously established was not so wanton and arbitrary
as to subject it to judicial review, if such action were Subject to review.
The mooring of vessels is as necessary as is their movement and can equally
be made the basis for increasing the navigability of a river whether for trad-
ing vessels or war vessels.
The judgment of Congress as to whether a construction in or over a river is
or is not an obstacle and hindrance to navigation is an exercise of legislative
power in repect to a matter wholly within its control and is conclusive.
C. B. & Q. Railroad v. Drainage Commissioners (200 U. S. 561):
. It is the duty of the railway company, at its own expense, to remove the
present bridge, and also (unless it abandons or surrenders its rights to cross
the Creek at Or in that vicinity) to erect at its Own expense and maintain a new
bridge in conformity with the regulations established by the drainage Com-
missioners, under the authority of the State ; and Such a requirement, if en-
forced, will not amount to a taking of private property for public use Within
the meaning of the Constitution, nor to a denial of the equal protection Of
the laws.
Union Bridge Company v. United States (204 U. S. 364) :
Commerce comprehends navigation; and to free navigation from unreason-
able obstructions by compelling the removal of bridges which are such obstruc-
tions is a legitimate exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce.
Congress when enacting that navigation be freed from unreasonable Ob-
structions arising from bridges which are of insufficient height or width Of
span, or are otherwise defective, may, without violating the constitutional
prohibition against delegation by legislative or judicial power, impose upon an
executive Officer the duty of ascertaining what particular cases come within
the prescribed rule. s
Requiring alterations to Secure navigation against unreasonable obstruc-
tions is not taking private property for public use within the meaning of the
Constitution ; the cost of Such alterations are incidental to the exercise Of an
undoubted function of the United States, exerting through Congress its power
to regulate commerce between the States.
Although a bridge erected over a navigable water of the United States under
the authority of a State charter may have been lawful when erected and not
an Obstruction to commerce as then carried on, the Owners erected it with
knowledge Of the paramount authority of Congress Over navigation and subject
to the power Of Congress to exercise its authority to protect navigation by
forbidding maintenance when it became an obstruction thereto.
The silence or inaction of Congress when individuals acting under State
authority, place unreasonable obstructions in waterways of the United States,
does not cast upon the Government any obligations not to exercise its con-
stitutional power to regulate Commerce without compensating Such parties.
The provisions in paragraph 18 of the river and harbor act of 1899 (30
Stat. 1121, 1153), providing for the removal or alteration of bridges which are
unreasonable obstructions to navigation, after the Secretary of War has, pur-
Suant to the procedure prescribed in the act, ascertained that they are Such
obstructions, are not unconstitutional either as a delegation of legislative Or
judicial power to an executive officer or as taking of property for public use
Without compensation.
Monongahela Bridge v. United States (216 U. S. 177) :
CongreSS may, in Order to enforce its enactments, clothe an executive officer
with power to ascertain whether certain specified facts exist and thereupon
to act in a prescribed manner, without delegating, in a constitutional Sense,
legislative or judicial power to such officer.
Under its paramount power to regulate commerce, Congress can require
navigable waters of the United States, although within a State, to be freed
from unreasonable obstructions; and it is not a delegation of legislative Or
judicial power to charge the Secretary of War with the duty of ascertaining,
under a general rule applicable to all navigable waters and upon notice to the
parties in interest, whether a particular bridge is an unreasonable obstruction .
to navigation.
An act of Congress which invests the Secretary of War with power to re-
quire the removal of obstructions to navigation after notice to parties in
interest and opportunity to be heard and reasonable time to make alterations
430. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
in the obstruction, as paragraph 18 of the river and harbor act of March 3,
1899 (30 Stat. 1151), does not invest the Secretary with arbitrary power be-
yond constitutional limitations.
To require, after notice and hearing, alterations to be made within a reason-
able time and in a bridge over such navigable waters so as to prevent its being
an obstruction to navigation, is not a taking of private property for public use
Which, under the Constitution, must be preceded by compensation made or
Secured to the owners of the bridge.
The erection of a bridge over such navigable waters within a State by au-
thority of the State is subject to the paramount authority of Congress to regu-
late commerce among the States and its right to remove unreasonable obstruc-.
tions to navigation. &
The mere silence of Congress, and its failure to prevent the construction.
under State authority of an obstruction to navigation does not prevent it from
Subsequently requiring the removal of the obstruction or impose upon the
United States a constitutional obligation to make compensation therefor.
It is for Congress, under the Constitution, to regulate the right of naviga-
tion in navigable waters of the United States and to declare what must be
done to clear navigation from obstructions; and where this has been done in
the manner required by Congress it is not the province of the jury, on the
trial of One refusing to remove obstructions, to determine whether the re-
moval was necessary.
An act will not be declared unconstitutional merely because an executive
officer might, in another case, act arbitrarily or recklessly under it. If such a
case arises the courts can protect the rights of the Government or persons
which are based on fundamental principles for the protection of rights of
property.
Mr. McDUFFIE. May I suggest that some years ago the Senate at
the suggestion of Senator Nelson, of Minnesota, passed a resolution
authorizing the study of those questions in which you are interested,
and they made quite an interesting report, citing many, many of the
leading cases, and that is in the form of a document published, and
you can find it in the document room. I have a copy in my office, and
I will be glad to furnish you with the number of the document and
the date of it, and you may add that to the list of authorities that Mr.
Goulder may see fit to give you. -
Mr. DEAL. Thank you very much.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I am sure you will be interested in it.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how long ago that was compiled?
Mr. McDUFFIE. I regret that the date has slipped my memory, but
I can get it by telephoning my office.
The CHAIRMAN. You can get that later.
Mr. Gould ER. Heeding the admonition of the chair, and on the
suggestion of Judge Boyce yesterday about not making speeches, I
want to say that we have here Mr. G. A. Tomlinson, of the Tomlin-
Son Fleet; he was a director of the inland waterways for the Gov-
ernment during the war, including the rivers. We also have Captain
England, for some practical information—he is now the manager
of the Interstate Transportation Co., having a number of steamers;
Mr. Claude J. Peck, representative of the Shenango Steamship Co.,
and connected with the Shenango furnaces; Mr. Gordon B. House-
man, of the ore fleet of Harvey H. Brown & Co.; Mr. A. E. F.
Schneider, the fleet traffic manager of the Cleveland Iron Co., with
between twenty and thirty ships. City Manager Hopkins had to
come with him Mr. Ellms, who is sanitary engineer in charge of the
disposal of sewage at the purification of water departments of Cleve-
land, or those elements are in his department, and he went away
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 431
saying that Mr. Hopkins had made the thing plain, and his statement
would be only cumulative.
Now, we have Mr. E. B. Thomas, chairman of the rivers and har-
bors committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, with
their protest, and also Mr. Clifford J. Gildersleeve, the secretary, with
the protest from the chamber of commerce.
I would like to have Mr. Thomas present that to you. Mr. Thomas
himself is an engineer, a sanitary engineer and that sort of thing. I
don’t know that it is sufficient for him to file that written report
which they made, but that is for you gentlemen to determine.
Now, I do not learn from our people that there is anybody else
here. I failed to mention Mr. George A. Marr, secretary of the Lake
Carriers’ Association.
Mr. William Livingstone, the president of the Lake Carriers’ Asso-
ciation, I regret to say, is prevented by illness in his family from be-
ing here, but I have and will file with the committee, if agreeable, a
copy of the brief filed before Secretary Stimpson, and the brief filed
before Secretary Baker, the former in 1912 and the other in 1916 or
1917, which bear Mr. Livingstone's signature, and it may be accepted
I think as an argument on his behalf as if he were here.
Mr. SweFT. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I voice the sentiment of many
on the committee, if not all, that we would like to give opportunity
to hear as many as possible; but it seems to me that there is a great
deal of duplication, and if all the gentlemen mentioned want to ap-
pear and be heard it seems to me that they ought to confine their state-
ments to something new and not rehash the objections that have
already been made. If this were done it would afford more of these
men, who have sat here patiently waiting for a good many days,
opportunity to be heard by the committee.
Mr. GOULDER. That is my suggestion.
Mr. BRUCE. You having exactly that in mind, I had planned to
have Attorney General Ekern, of Wisconsin, appear next, and also
the mayor of Milwaukee, and if this committee felt that it wanted
more expert testimony along sanitary and navigation lines they
could call for that testimony in the morning. I believe by introduc-
ing the next two witnesses you will avoid all duplication, at least for
to-day’s hearing.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Before you call your next witness let
me suggest to the committee that the Secretary of War has sent to
the committee certain resolutions which were forwarded to him, say-
ing that he thought they should properly be sent to this committee
instead of to him, for us to file and use in the hearings. They are
not very long, and I do not think it would take over four or five
minutes to read them, and so I will read them for the record:
HENRY, IL.L., April 11, 1924.
Secretary of War JoBN W. WEEKs,
Washington, D. C.
HoNORABLE SIR : This message, nonpartisan and unbiased, comes direct from
the heart of the great Illinois Valley. We declare that you did not discriminate
against us when you declined to recommend a so-called deep waterway bill.
We are not against a deep waterway, but will resist forever the use of our
beautiful river as Chicago's Sewer. Chicago is not interested in a deep water-
º and shows it when she asks 10,000 feet, which is far in excess of waterway
IlêeCIS.
The Sanitary Commission of Chicago is and has been a lawbreaker for years.
Give us justice and give her more justice than she deserves through the
432 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
privilege of obeying the law for this valley. Have its health menaced, its land
Overflowed, its commerce destroyed in perpetuity as Chicago asks is an unheard
of oppression for a free, law-abiding people. We ask our great War Department
for plain, simple justice. Chicago must take care of her sewage sooner or later.
She can, because other cities have. The stench of Chicago’s sewage was so .
great last Summer that the hottest nights some of our people were compelled
to sleep in closed rooms, sick or well. Put yourself in this position. We wish
Chicago no harm. We favor the allowance of reasonable time for the erection
of Sewage-disposal plants. We beseech and implore your justice to us in this
matter of terrific importance.
HENRY KIWANIs CLUB PUBLIC AFFAIRs CoMMITTEE,
Per W. B. DUKE.
HENRY, IL.L., April 11, 1924.
JoBN W. WEEKs,
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
City of Henry indorses Henry Kiwanis Club telegram, even date.
JoBN R. PASKELL, Mayor.
SPARLAND, ILL., April 11, 1924.
JoBN W. WEEKs,
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.
HoNORABLE SIR : We hurry, to wire you to-day that we approve of the mes-
Sage Sent you to-day by the Kiwanis Club of Henry, Ill., in regard to Chicago
turning sewerage into Illinois River. We certainly oppose this.
MAYOR AND TOWN AUTHORITIES.
CHILLICOTHE, ILL., April 11, 1924.
JoBN W. WEEKS, e
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
We, being citizens and residents of the great Illinois Valley, take this
means of telling you that we are solidly in favor of your stand on deep water-
way bills. We are heartily in favor of a proper deep waterway but are very
heartily opposed to Chicago using this beautiful and once profitable stream
as a dumping ground for all of her sewerage. The sanitary district has
made it possible for the river to be used as a deep waterway without using
an additional 10,000 feet of sewerage. We ask our War Department to con-
tinue to protect our interest as the Secretary has done so far.
L. A. RIDER,
Mayor of Chillicothe, Ill.
DR. H. W. THOMs,
Member Board of Health Chillicothe Club
and Citizens of Chillicothe and Vicinity.
IA SALLE, ILL., April 11, 1924.
JoBN W. WEEKS,
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
This organization, representing the citizenship of 30,000 people, ask that
you maintain your original decision on the Chicago sanitary district, which We
understand will be reopened to-day. We are for justice, but desire to Safe-
guard the great Illinois Walley.
LA SALLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
SPARLAND, IL.L., April 11, 1924.
Hon. JOHN W. WEEKs,
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
The inhabitants of the city of Lacon appeal to you and join in the appeal
of all Illinois River towns, beseeching you to use your just powers to prevent
the usurpation by the city of Chicago for its own selfish ends one of the finest
Navigable rivers of the Western Hemisphere, the devastation carried on and
proposed to be carried On if permitted along this beautiful stream with its
environs and borders unexcelled for beauty and the choicest habitat of man by
turning down its Course regardless of all the rights of property Owners in
3.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 433
their long-fixed investments and the health of thousands of men, women, and
children inhabiting these cities and towns, a pestilential mess and reeking
havoc can not be measured. We appeal to you in the utmost sincerity to lend
the power and strength of your good offices in behalf of our rights.
CITY OF LACON, IL.L.,
By DR. R. L. EDDINGTON, Alderman.
OTTAwa, ILL., April 12, 1924.
Hon. JOHN W. WEEIzs, -
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
On behalf of the people of Ottawa, located on the Illinois River waterway,
we oppose the granting of the privilege of more water to the sanitary district
of Chicago. It is not needed for sanitary purposes. The condition of the
Illinois River is very bad, caused by the water from the Sanitary District of
Chicago, and is a menace to the health of the people of our city. We are
Opposed to the request of the sanitary trustees for the additional 10,000 cubic
feet asked for. Let Chicago do her duty in the right way and get rid of her
Sewerage in modern Ways by the erection of disposal plants and not keep
Sending it down the valley. *
RIWANIS CLUB,
C. A. WADE, President.
MARSHALL-PUTNAM FARM BUREAU (INC.),
- - Henry, Ill., April 12, 1924.
Secretary of War WEEKs,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The undersigned, managers of shipping associations of Marshall
and Putman Counties, wish to assure you that we approve the plan of the War
Department retaining complete control of the water which is allowed to flow
through the Drainage Canal into the Illinois River. We are opposed to any
legislation which contemplates setting any specified amount which may be
taken.
..We are favorable to the proposition of a deep waterway through the Illinois
Itiver, but insist that any legislation along this line shall give due consideration
to the interests of those living in or having property in the valley.
Very truly yours, '.
* EDw1N OLSON, Granville, Ill.,
F. E. SMITH, McNabb, Ill.,
CHAs. MARTIN, Varna, Ill.,
AXEL HELANDER, Wenona, Ill.,
JACOB FECHT, Toluca, Ill.,
W. M. DRAKE, Putnam, Ill., . .
IRVING E. BROADDUs, Henry, Ill.,
Managers Shipping Associations.
OTTAWA, ILL., April 12, 1924.
Hon. JoHN W. WEEKs, * - *
Secretary of War, Washington:
Ottawa people have always been and are now deeply interested in the Illinois
Valley Waterway, but want a clean stream and not a polluted one, and since the
turning of the water of the Chicago River down the valley the Illinois River
has practically killed all animal life, fish are no longer living in the river, and
the river is therefore a menace to the health of the people of Ottawa and
vicinity. What Chicago should do is not ask for more water—there is water
enough in the river for waterway purposes—but she should bind her efforts in a
Constructive manner and dispose of her sewerage in the modern way by erecting
Sewage-disposal plants. The protection of the health of the people of Ottawa
and the whole Illinois Valley is just as important as the health of the people of
Chicago. Make the sanitary trustees of Chicago fulfill their past obligations to
the valley people when the permit to send the water down the valley of the
Illinois was granted 30 years ago. $
Respectfully,
AT. F. SCHOCH,
Chairman Waterway Division of Commerce.
THE OTTAWA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
T. M. HARVEY, President.
434 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. There is another one here from a fishing club
which I have not read. -
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I would be considered out
of order, as a resident of Illinois, to request the committee to request
the Secretary of War to send along any favorable communications
the Secretary may have received and not confine his deliveries to
Scurrilous things of that kind? I don’t know whether I am in order
or not, but I think the committee will understand my feelings in this
matter, and I think if the Secretary of War has received any com-
munications favorable to the Chicago side of this controversy that
the Secretary of War in all fairness to the citizens of this country
ought to send them all to this committee and not perhaps only a
portion.
General BEACH. May I say in answer to that that the Secretary of
War has forwarded everything he has received to my office, and I
have turned it over to this committee by instructions?
Mr. BEHAN. May I ask this committee to make the request directly
to the Secretary of War. I would like to know Secretary Weeks’s
position on this matter. It seems singular to me that the Secretary
of War at this time and at this moment and in this way has sent this
committee photostatic copies of communications received by him.
There may not be any; but if there be, I think we are entitled to the
benefit of any communications on the other side of the controversy.
The CHAIRMAN. We will request the Secretary of War to do that;
i. if there are any on the other side, I will take pleasure in reading
them. -
Mr. SweFT. I would like to ask the gentleman who has just ad-
dressed the committee if he desires to go on record as denying the
subject matter contained in these so-called scurrilous communications.
Mr. BEHAN. Do you mean do I deny these letters were received?
No.
Mr. SweFT. Or that they are scurrilous communications, as you
stated 2 -
Mr. BEHAN. I emphatically state that the matter contained in those
letters is not borne out by the facts.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not pretended to read any communications
received by the chairman, but I have filed a few of them with the
stenographer. I can say, however, I have received a very consid-
erable number, and I think considerably more than are here from
the valley, protesting in substantially the terms used in these com-
munications just read, and I think one is from the county judge or
probate judge of one of those counties in Mr. Hull's district.
We will have put in the record of the committee every one that
has been received in my office.
You would not want it to go into the record, although, perhaps,
it is already in the record now, that these city officials and members
of common councils and Kiawanis Clubs, and so on, have all
been inspired to send these communications by the men to whom
you refer?
Mr. HULL. That is just what I do want to go into the record
because I know it is the truth. I want it to go into the record that
way, sure.

TLLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 435
Mr. PEAVEY. Relative to the subject under consideration, I do
not know what the experience of any of the other members of the
committee has been, but I have in my office in the Capitol here,
which I will be glad to submit to the committee or place in the
record, I don’t know just how many, but I would say somewhere
around 30 or 40 communications from individuals, all stating quite
explicitly the nature of their complaint, etc., and I will say this.
That on the nature of their complaints as affecting them each in
dividually I am surprised that they confined themselves to the rather
mild language mentioned in these telegrams.
Mr. BRUCE. If the committee will grant five minutes, the Cleve-
land representative and Detroit representative merely want to pre-
sent a protest from their commercial bodies, after which we will
call upon Attorney General Ekern, of Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Present your witnesses in order.
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Thomas.
STATEMENT OF MR. E. B. THOMAS, CLEVELAND, OHIO
Mr. THOMAs. The river and harbor committee of the Cleveland
Chamber of Commerce has prepared a report.
The CHAIRMAN. You appear here for the Cleveland Chamber of
Commerce, do you?
Mr. THOMAs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed.
Mr. THOMAs. In the interest of expedition, if we may have this
statement to go in the record, I will only read a part of it.
, The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may read only what you con-
sider essential.
Mr. THOMAs. We have dealt at some length with the question of
navigation on the Great Lakes, which is a question very near to us,
but as that has been gone into carefully, we can pass that, I will not
take time to read it, except to say this about the four biggest items
of traffic:
The water-borne commerce on the Great Lakes for the last 10
years on the biggest four items of traffic amounted to more than
1,000,000,000 tons.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the whole Great Lakes system?
Mr. THOMAs. The whole Great Lakes system, but on four items
OIl TV.
§. HULL. What are the items?
Mr. THOMAS. Iron ore, coal, stone, and grain.
Mr. HULL. What proportion is grain? *
Mr. THOMAs. Grain is about 11,000,000 tons.
Mr. HULL. I mean in proportion?
Mr. THOMAs. That is about 9 and 10 per cent. I would like to
read a couple of paragraphs on the question that was discussed
considerably this forenoon, that is as to the amount of water required
for lockage purposes in this proposed canal.
The amount of water required for navigation purposes in the canals of Sault
Ste Marie is 1 cubic foot per second for about 50,000 tons of freight. The
average amount used for navigation in the canals of Sault Ste Marie, Buffalo
436 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
(New York State Barge Canal), Galop, Morrisburg, Farrin Point, and Corn-
Wallis is 1 cubic foot per second for 25,300 tons. On this basis 100 cubic feet
per second would be sufficient for 2,530,000 tons, or 500 cubic feet per second
would be ample for the accommodation of approximately 13,000,000 tons of
freight per Season through the Chicago drainage canal.
To sum up the conclusions of the committee:
Your committee therefore recommends that the chamber of commerce urge
and Work for the defeat of the Hull bill for the following reasons:
(1) The immense danger to navigation on the Great Lakes.
(2) A loss of hydroelectric development of more than 400,000 horsepower.
(3) The damage to Niagara Falls.
(4) The damages to harbors and docks on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie
in both Canadian and American territory.
(5) The possibility of violation of the treaty of 1910 between England and
the United States, which your committee has not touched upon, because this is
a question which can be determined only by the State departments of the
tWO GOvernments.
(6) Because the legality of the present permitted operation has been ques-
tioned by the State of Wisconsin and because the Supreme Court of the United
States has not yet handed down its decision.
I might state that the title selected for this report is “Chicago v.
Two Nations.”
Mr. MoRGAN. May I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Surely.
Mr. MoRGAN. You are familiar with the fact that the division of
the water between the United States and Canada is 36,000 cubic feet
and 20,000 cubic feet, respectively? *
Mr. THOMAs. Yes. That is provided in the treaty?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. THOMAs. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. And that division was based upon certain diversions
that were known to exist at that time, which was specifically re-
ferred to ?
Mr. THOMAs. That is my understanding, but I would not pretend
to be able to answer that question.
Mr. BEHAN. Would the gentleman mind giving the committee
what his understanding is about that treaty on that matter?
Mr. THOMAs. As to that 20,000 cubic feet and 36,000 cubic feet?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes.
Mr. THOMAs. What I referred to as the understanding I had was
that the amount of water that may have been diverted at the time
the treaty was agreed to, which was 1909, was 2,800 cubic feet and
not 10,000 cubic feet, and the year the treaty was adopted it was
3,400 cubic feet. - º
The CHAIRMAN. I think it was 3,450, was it not?
Mr. THOMAs. Yes; it was 3,458 cubic feet, to be exact.
Mr. BEHAN. What figures are those?
Mr. THOMAS. 2,700 feet was the amount diverted in 1909 and 3,458
in 1910.
Mr. BEHAN. What relation has the figures you have just read to the
difference between 20,000 cubic feet allowed the United States and
36,000 cubic feet allowed Canada?
Mr. THOMAS. Whatever weight may be allowed to those figures,
they are not 4,167.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 437
Mr. BEHAN. In other words, your theory is that because the sani-
tary district at that time was taking perhaps 3,000 second-feet that
Canada was entitled to 16,000 more than the United States?
Mr. THOMAs. No, sir; not at all. -
Mr. BRUCE. The next speaker is Mr. Boyd.
(The full report presented by Mr. Thomas is as follows:)
CEIICAGO v. Two NATIONS
[A report of the committee on river and harbor improvement, the Cleveland Chamber of
- Commerce, approved by the board of directors April 7, 1924]
To the Board of Directors of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce.
GENTLEMEN : Your committee on river and harbor improvement has carefully
studied the lowering of lake levels brought about by the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan through the Chicago drainage canal, and desires to submit the
following report:
I.OWERING LARE LEVELS PRODUCED BY THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM LAIKE MICHIGAN
THROUGH THE CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Lake Michigan is separated from the Des Plaines River at Chicago by a low
divide Or ridge of land about 8 miles wide, which in the early days was a
portage. The Des Plaines River empties into the Illinois River and the Illinois
into the Mississippi. The Sanitary District Of Chicago Was Organized under an
act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois for the purpose of digging
a canal through this divide and diverting water through it from Lake Michigan
as a means Of Sewage disposal. This act was passed in 1889 after two and one-
half years of investigation and debate. The sanitary district originally had an
area of 185 square miles, but has gradually been increased to its present area
Of 437 Square miles, including all of Chicago and 49 Other cities and villages
having a total estimated population in 1923 of 3,213,000.
The district has police powers ; the power of eminent domain ; and is Sup-
ported by taxes. Bonds may be issued for permanent improvement up to 3 per
cent of the assessed valuation. ... The district was formed primarily to dispose
of sewage by dilution, but also has power to provide such other means of sewage
disposal “as might be necessary when the capacity for dilution is exceeded.”
In 1892 construction was commenced on the drainage Canal providing for the
flow of water from Lake Michigan through the South branch Of the Chicago
River and the Canal into the Mississippi River. System.
In 1896, after the excavation of the canal was well under way, the district
made its first request for a Federal permit for the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan. This request was to widen and deepen the south branch of
the Chicago River at designated locations in order to permit a flow of 5,000 cubic
feet per second at a velocity of 1% miles per hour. The request was granted
by the Secretary of War in the form of a temporary permit and under specific
conditions, among them being “that the authority shall not be interpreted as an
approval of the plans of the Sanitary District of Chicago to introduce a current
in the Chicago River. This latter proposition must hereafter be submitted for
Consideration.”
In 1899 the district made application to the Secretary of War for permission
to use the canal as SOOn as completed. Permission was granted expressly stipu-
lating that the permit was temporary and revocable at will ; that it would be
changed if found necessary to protect Commerce in the river from unreasonable
obstruction because of the current or to protect property from injury, and also
that “it is distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary of War
to submit questions connected with the work of the Chicago Sanitary District
to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this permit shall be
subject to such action as may be taken by Congress " Other permits were
granted from 1901 to 1903. Finally temporary permission was granted in 1903
limiting the flow to 4,167 cubic feet per second, and this permit is now in force.
On January 17, 1900, the canal was completed and Some of the water of Lake
Michigan was diverted through the South branch of the Chicago River, the
Des Plaines River, the Mississippi River, and into the Gulf of Mexico. Prior
438 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to this date this same amount of water flowed through Lake Huron, the St.
Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, Lake Erie, over Niagara Falls,
through the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River, the
St. Lawrence being partly an international channel and partly entirely within
the Dominion of Canada. ,
The yearly mean diversion of the Chicago drainage canal, as repopted by the
Sanitary district in cubic feet per second, follows:
1900 2,900 | 1909 2,766
1901 4,046 || 1910–––. —- 3, 458
1902____ 4, 302 || 1911 6, 445
1903 - 4,971 | 1912 ––– 6, 424
1904 4, 793 || 1913 7, 191
1905__ 4, 480 | 1914 ___ 7, 105
1906______ - 4,473 || 1915 6,971
1907 5, 116 1916 - 7, 325
1908 4, 421 | 1917 7, 786
The United States Geological Survey computations indicate (Diversion of
Water from the Great Lakes and Niagara River, p. 177) that the above figures
should be increased by 12 per cent. *
The present diversion of water through the Chicago canal, according to the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors (Diversion of Water from the
Great Lakes and Niagara River, p. 23), lowers the level of Lakes Michigan,
Huron, Erie, and Ontario and connecting channels approximately 51% inches
and the St. Lawrence River at Lock No. 25, 8 inches.
In 1913 the Federal Government brought suit in the United States Court at
Chicago to restrain the use of more than the permitted amount of 4,167 cubic
feet per Second. A decision in favor of the Government was handed down,
Which decision was appealed by the sanitary district and is now pending in the
United States Supreme Court, and which will be heard November 24, 1924.
In 1922 the State of Wisconsin brought action in the United States Supreme
Court, where it is now pending, against the State of Illinois and the sanitary
district. This action questions the authority for the original permit and asks
injunction against the withdrawal of any water. Further prayer is that under
no circumstances shall the drainage district be permitted to use more than the
4,167 cubic feet allowed in the Secretary of War's permit.
Several measures have been presented to Cengress providing for additional
diversion and to legalize the present illegal diversion from Lake Michigan
through the Chicago drainage canal; five such bills are now pending. One,
introduced by Hon. William E. Hull, of Illinois, provides for a minimum
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second and an indefinite maximum and is
now under consideration by the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House
of Representatives.
Your committee begs to present the following regarding the diversion of
water proposed to be authorized by this bill:
In the Opinion of your committee, the waters of the Great Lakes and COn-
necting channels have one paramount and economically important use—navi-
gation. The value of transportation on the Great Lakes is emphasized from the
fact that this inland water system is located in a district having the densest
rail traffic On this continent.
The tonnage hauled by the railways of the eastern district of the United
States (bounded on the north by Canada, on the east by the Atlantic Coast,
on the south by the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, and on the west by the Missis-
sippi River) in 1922 was 975,691,067 tons, which is 53 per cent of the total
tonnage hauled by all of the railroads of the United States. The density of
traffic in this district is further illustrated by the fact that the average ton-
nage per mile of road over the entire United States was 7,833, while the tons
hauled per mile of road in the eastern district was 16,596.
This eastern Section is joined on the north by the Section having the densest
railroad traffic in the Dominion of Canada. The Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence River traverses the full length of these sections and almost through
the center. The center of gravity of manufacturing of the United States and
Canada is probably not far from the westerly end of Lake Erie.
Further demonstration of the commercial importance Of this district is shown
from the fact that the water-borne commerce On the Great Lakes for the last
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 439
10 years on four bulk freight items amounted to more than one billion tons.
During the navigation season of 1923, the Great Lakes traffic on these four
principal items was as follows:
Stone, net tons - - - - - - - - - - - - * * *- - - - - - * * - - - - * * 9,920,422
Grain, net tons 11,850,446
Coal, net tons__ 33,137,028
II'On Ore, grOSS tonS - - - ºs 59,036,704
Total, net tons 121,029,004
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and HarborS States (Diversion of Water
from the Great Lakes and the Niagara River, p. 48) that “it is reliably esti-
mated that the annual carrying charges for bulk freight On the Lakes are
$250,000,000 léss than if rail transportation were used.” These figures are
based on the traffic of 1917, since which time not only has the traffic increased,
but the water rates have been decreased by approximately 25 per cent, which
means Of Course that the loss WOuld be COnSequently increased. The United
States has spent about $135,000,000 in improving the harbors, deepening and
straightening the channels, and constructing locks on the Great Lakes. Canada
has made Similar improvements and is now engaged in a $100,000,000 construc-
tion program on the New Welland Canal. The large amount of traffic and the
low freight rates—the lowest in the world are directly due to these im-
provements and the natural depth of water. Vessel operators take advantage
of high stages of water and load their boats to the greatest possible draft,
while low water correspondingly reduces the carrying capacity and increases
the carrying cost. The average loss caused by a reduction of one-tenth of 1
foot at the average draft, as shown by the Board of Engineers on Rivers and
Harbors, amounts to $44.57 per trip for the average lake bulk freighter. Since
the diversion of water from the Great Lakes through the Chicago drainage
canal as provided by the Hull bill would lower the mean stage of Lakes
Michigan and Huron 7.4 inches and Lake Erie approximately 6.1 inches, the
total loss caused by this diversion would be more than $3,000,000 per year.
(Diversion of Water from the Great Lakes and the Niagara River, p. 44.)
On the basis of 4% per cent interest, this amount would justify a capital ex-
penditure of $66,000,000; therefore this figure could properly be charged
against the sanitary district for the single item of loss to navigation caused by
a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second.
The bulk freight vessels of the Great Lakes carry annually about 80 per cent
of the Nation’s iron ore, more than 20 per cent of the wheat crops of Canada
and the United States, and about 6 per cent of the coal production of the
|United States. It is therefore evident that the COSt Of three of Our fundamental
necessities—steel products, food, and fuel—is increased by this diversion of
water from the Great Lakes and will be further increased if the additional
diversion is allowed. It is further evident that the millions of consumers of
these items, representing probably every State in the Union, ultimately suffer
the loss represented by the above figures, while only a small percentage of these
millions live in the sanitary district and can be assumed to be beneficiaries.
This lowering of lake levels of course affects the efficiency of every harbor on
the three lakes by reducing the maximum depths. This lowering of lake levels
has caused considerable damage to docks and other construction of WOOd be-
cause of its having exposed portions of the construction formerly under Water
and causing those portions to weaken and endanger the whole structure.
WATER POWER
Ten thousand cubic feet per second of water, as provided in the Hull bill,
would develop approximately 300,000 horsepower at Niagara Falls, 100,000
horsepower in the international section of the St. Lawrence River, and 100,000
horsepower in the Canadian section of the St. Lawrence. While only 8 to 15
per cent of these amounts could be developed by the same flow through the
drainage canal, this proposed diversion would therefore permit of a develop-
ment of from 40,000 to 75,000 horsepower in the vicinity of Chicago but Would
cause a loss of approximately 500,000 horsepower at Niagara Falls and along
the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers.
440 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
DESTRUCTION OF SCENIC BEAUTY
Niagara Falls and the rapids in the Niagara River are probably the most
famous and Surely the most accessible Scenic wonder in the world. No great
national feature in the United States or Canada has as many visitors. Officials
of the New York State Reservation estimate the annual number of visitors at
1,500,000 perSons. It is also estimated that the average expenditure for each
visitor is at least $25, which means in approximate figures that 1,500,000 people
expend $37,000,000 annually for the purpose of experiencing the grandeur and
Sublimity of this scene. The partial destruction or Serious defacement of this
great international asset, in order to permit a large city to dispose of its sewage
by an antiquated method, is something to which we believe the people of this
country should not submit. #
RFSPONSIBILITY FOR CONTINUOUS DIVERSION AND OUT-OF-DATE METHOD OF SEWAGE
- - DISPOSAL - !
The views of the committee as to the responsibility for the present dilemma
of the Chicago Sanitary District and the method of sewage disposal adopted by
it are so admirably and concisely expressed by the Board of Engineers for
'Rivers and Harbors that we beg to repeat from page 55 of Diversion of Water
from the Great Lakes and Niagara River:
“Granting that disposal by dilution was the most practicable plan at the time
of its adoption, the fact remains that the Chicago Sanitary District has for
practically 20 years been on notice that the United States was unwilling to
allow the district to divert more water than the limit set in the permit of 1903,
namely, 4,167 cubic feet per second. Notwithstanding this, the district has
since then greatly expanded its boundaries and enlarged its plans, and from
year to year, in the face of the opposition of the United States, has diverted
more and more water until in 1917 the yearly average diversion was 8,800
cubic feet per second, which is more than twice the lawful amount.
“The district can no longer fairly plead the absence or the impracticability
of other safer methods of handling sewage and Of protecting its people from
water-borne diseases. Certainly, for the past 20 years, expert Opinion has
held disposal by dilution to be inferior to other methods" of treating sewage,
and enlightened public opinion has condemned a policy which, in effect, is the
transfer of a nuisance from Our Own front door to that Of Our neighbor. Large
cities on the Great Lakes can not safely drink raw lake Water, nor should they
discharge unscreened and unfiltered sewage either into the lakes or into
tributary streams. In 1915 the Chicago Real Estate Board employed three
experts, of whom two were of acknowledged eminence in England and the third
a New York expert of well-known authority, to investigate the sewage problem
of Chicago and to present their views as to the best way of solving it. Their
report, entitled “A Report to the Chicago Real Estate Board on the Disposal
of the Sewage and the Protection of the Water Supply of Chicago, Ill.,’ by
Messrs. Soper, Watson, and Martin, has been printed, and its conclusions are
therefore well known to the public in general and particularly to the people of
Chicago, whom they advised substantially in accordance with the views above
expressed. Chicago is therefore debarred from any claim for indulgence as
to work done and expenditures incurred in recent years. If, in defiance of
the opposition of the Government and in open disregard of the law, the officials
of the Chicago Sanitary District have continued to expend the money of their
constituents in the prosecution of unwise and illegal plans, these officials and
their constituency are to blame, and they should expect no great indulgence
from the general public whose Government they have ignored and whose
interests they have disregarded.” -
This is a strong indictment, but it seems to your committee to be justified by
the factS.
It is therefore evident that water should not be permanently permitted to be
diverted for sewage-dilution purposes, especially from an international Supply.
NAVIGATION REQUIREMENTS OF PROPOSED DRAINAGE CANAL
The amount of water required for navigation purposes in the canals of Sault
Ste. Marie is 1 cubic foot per Second for about 50,000 tons of freight. The
average amount used for navigation in the canals at Sault Ste. Marie, Buffalo
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. ' 441
(New York State Barge Canal), Galop, Morrisburg, Farrin Point, and Cornwall
is 1 cubic foot per second for 25,300 tons. On this basis, 100 cubic feet per
second would be sufficient for 2,530,000 tons, or 500 cubic feet per second would
be ample for the accommodation of approximately 13,000,000 tons of freight per
Season, through the Chicago drainage canal. -
If the diversion proposed by the Hull bill, 10,000 cubic feet, were permitted,
this would provide for 260,000,000 tons—nearly three times the total tonnage
now handled through the Sault Ste. Marie canals.
Even if a canal could be constructed more cheaply by using a larger diversion,
it is the opinion of your committee that one State, one city, or one sanitary
district should not be permitted to profit at the expense of two nations.
The city of Chicago is now Saving more than a million dollars annually in
using for municipal and other purposes power developed from diverted water.
If the Hull bill were passed and 10,000 cubic feet of water permitted to be
diverted, this saving would amount to approximately $1,250,000 each year. It is
the opinion of your committee that one city or one sanitary district should not be
permitted to profit at the expense of two nations.
CONCLUSIONS
Your committee therefore recommends that the chamber of commerce urge
and work for the defeat of the Hull bill for the following reasons:
(1) The immense danger to navigation on the Great Lakes.
(2) A loss of hydroelectric development of more than 400,000 horsepower.
(3) The damage to Niagara Falls.
(4) The damage to harbors and docks on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie
in both Canadian and American territory.
(5) The possibility of violation of the treaty of 1910 between England and
the United States, which your committee has not touched upon, because this is
a question which can be determined only by the state departments of the two
governments.
(6) Because the legality of the present permitted operation has been ques-
tioned by the State of Wisconsin, and because the Supreme Court of the United
States has not yet handed down its decision.
Your committee further requests permission to urge the chambers of commerca
and Similar bodies in this Section to file protests through their Congressmen
with the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, before which hearings on the Hull
bill are now being held. It also requests permission to direct communications
to Senators and Representatives from this district and to the members of the
committee and to the Secretary of War, transmitting printed copies of this
report. Additional hearings will be held on April 15, and the committee desires
authority to send its representatives to that hearing.
Respectfully submitted.
EDGAR B. THOMAS, Chairman.
EDWIN BAxTER,
J. C. CHANDLER,
CHARLEs E. COLE,
‘R. W. ENGLAND,
T. H. GARRY,
L. H. GELLER,
G. M. STEINBRENNER,
Committee on River and Harbor Improvement.
APRIL 7, 1924.
STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES E. BOYD, REPRESENTING THE DE-
TROIT BOARD OF COMMERCE
Mr. BoxD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I rep-
resent the Detroit Board of Commerce, and I am speaking for the
common council of the city of Detroit. I am also speaking for 12
other cities in Michigan. I have their statements here, and if you
will permit me to put them into the record, I shall not read them.
91739—24—PT 2—13
442 . ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. If they are not too long, you might read them.
You are a prompt reader. - -
Mr. Boyd. I would prefer to Submit them and not take the time
necessary to read them. They are all agreed with the Detroit posi-
tion that whereas a certain amount of water is now legalized to be
withdrawn at Chicago, more is attempted to be withdrawn by this
bill, and we are opposed to the further diversion simply because of
the cost that it is going to be to keep up our shore line and the de-
struction it will entail in withdrawing more water.
Mr. BOYCE. I was about to ask, with the permission of the chair-
man, what is your understanding as to the amount that is legally
withdrawn? -
wº Boyd. The 4,167 feet has been permitted by the Secretary of
à.I’. 3.
Mr. BoycE. That is what you mean by saying it is legalized?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; that is what I mean by saying it is legalized; that
is the last permission that has been granted. J
Doctor KINDRED. You state that you and the interests that you
represent are opposed to the further diversion of water?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.
Dºctor RINDRED. Do you approve of the diversion of the 4,167
feet?
Mr. Boyd. I am not prepared to state. We are opposed to the bill
as drawn, because that would attempt to legalize a maximum of
10,000 cubic feet.
The CHAIRMAN. I would state that the hearings are not simply
on one bill, but they are on the general question involved, because
there are a number of bills, and before we get through there may be
a number of other bills.
Mr. HULL. But it is my bill that you are opposed to ?
Mr. BOYD. Yes. -
Doctor KINDRED. As the result of any studies you have made on
the subject, would you say that the 4,167 cubic feet of water would
be sufficient to establish navigation and commerce along the Illinois
River? -
The CHAIRMAN. I think before his testimony would be competent
we ought to observe some rules. He ought to be established to be an
engineer and have made a study of the question.
Mr. Boyd. I would simply refer you to the report of the engineers
on that subject.
Doctor KINDRED. I withdraw that question, then.
Mr. NEwToN. I take it that the interest of the people you repre-
sent is lake levels?
Mr. BoxD. Yes. . . . -
Mr. NEwTo.N. And you are not materially interested in where that
water goes out if it lowers the level of the lakes?
Mr. Boyd. We are interested in maintaining the shore levels or
keeping them up to the original natural levels.
Mr. NEwToN. It would not make any material difference to your
people where the water was taken out if it lowered the lake levels?
Mr. Boyd. I do not believe so; no.

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 443
Mr. NEwToN. If it is shown that the Welland Canal or some other
canal lowers the lake levels at Detroit, it would affect you just as
much as to take the water out at Chicago?
Mr. Boy D. A lowering of the level would; yes.
Mr. NEwTox. And if continual diversion above the St. Lawrence
River would continue to lower the levels of the Lakes, then that
ought to be curtailed and reduced, according to your viewpoint? e
Mr. Boyd. If the levels are continually lowered and navigation is
injured, that ought to be curtailed; yes.
Mr. NEwTON. And if some process can be found whereby the
levels of the Lakes can be kept up so that your harbors will be avail-
able for use, then you are not materially interested in who takes the
water out, as long as you maintain your levels?
Mr. Boy D. That would obviate much of the objection; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you find it necessary to make certain
withdrawals, such as in the Livingstone Channel, for navigation
purposes, you do not regard that withdrawal, one which is abso-
lutely ncessary and incident to navigation, as one that can be avoided,
do you?”
Mr. BOYD. No. -
The CHAIRMAN. And where canals are used simply for the purpose
of connecting the lakes and are Ineeting the needs of communication
between the different parts of the lake system, you do not regard
that in the same sense as a withdrawal for purposes that are not
navigable purposes at all?
Mr. Boyd. Absolutely not.
The CHAIRMAN. And is it not your understanding that the Wel-
land Canal is simply a means of making a continuous waterway from
Duluth down to and through Lake Ontario, which is one of the
Great Lakes, as essential as any other part of it?
Mr. Boy D. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. It is simply a channel in the same sense that a
channel in the Detroit River is a channel, or a channel in the St.
Marys River, or in the Soo are all channels connecting the system,
making it a unified system :
Mr. Boy D. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEWTON. On that theory, then, if the water used at Chicago
and down the valley is used for navigation purposes, you would take
the same position on that as you would on the Welland Canal, would
ou not?
y Mr. Boyd. I would refer you to the report of the engineers, which
says that a thousand feet of water would take care of the navigation.
If a thousand feet of water would take care of the navigation, we
are not opposed to it.
Mr. NEwton. But you would be willing to give the same treat-
ment to the Welland Canal for navigation as you would to Chicago?
Mr. Boyd. If it was essential to navigation; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You regard Lake Ontario just as much entitled
to navigation as Lake Erie or Lake Michigan? -
Mr. Boyd. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. If it came to the question of taking water out of
the Chicago River for navigation on the one hand and taking it out
444 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RTVERs, ETC.
at the east end of Lake Erie for power purposes, you would prefer
navigation, would you? - -
Mr. Boyd. I think so.
(The following communications were filed by Mr. Boyd.)
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
County of Menominee, 38:
I, Henry Blunden, clerk of the city of Menominee, Mich., do hereby certify
that the attached is a true, complete, and correct copy of a resolution passed
by the city Council at a meeting held on April 10, 1924, as the same appears in
the record at my office; and that I am the sole custodian and keeper of the
records, books, papers, documents, and Seal of said city.
Witness my hand and seal of said city at Menominee, Mich., this 11th day of
April, 1924. -
[SEAL.] H. W. BLUNDEN,
Clerk of the City of Menominee.
- - - -a º
RESOLUTIONS IN RE BILL H. R. 5475, INTRODUCED BY MR. HuDL, RELATING TO
- IMPROVEMENT OF DES PLAINES AND ILLINOIs RIVERs
Whereas in and by the above bill the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet of
water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal is sought to be
legalized, the same being the amount now diverted into said canal; and
Whereas such diversion seriously impairs the use of the harbor of the city
Of Menominee and lake transportation; and
Whereas such purposes are of the utmost importance to the territory adjacent
and tributary to said harbor of Menominee; and
Whereas the present diversion has already Seriously affected the use of Said
harbor, and the continuance Of the diversion will materially diminish the
value thereof for commercial and industrial purposes and deprive the city of
Menominee and territory adjacent thereto from the use thereof for the ship-
ping of coal, paper pulp, and other commodities now transported by lake
freight: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the council of the city of Menominee protest against the pas-
sage of the above-designated bill, and further protest against the continued
diversion of said water as above set forth and respectfully petition that neces-
sary steps to prevent such diversion be taken by the proper authorities: Be it
further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., and to our
Senators and Representatives in Congress .
The foregoing resolution was duly passed by the following aye-and-nay vote :
Ayes: Aldermen Ahearn, Bellmore, Bushek, Dunlap, Erickson, Hubert.
Kresse, Schulze, Sullivan, Whitton, and Winkel.
Nays: Alderman Cernoch.
MUSKEGON, MICEI., April 15, 1924.
ANDREW B. DOUGHERTY,
Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C.:
Lowering water level of Lake Michigan reduces channel depth and exposes
piers of docks and bridges to decay, exposes swamp lands and outlets to city
sewers, reduces water supply of the city for domestic and other purposes; re-
garded as a serious menace to the health and prosperity of our city.
ARCHIBALD HADDEN, Mayor.
CHARLEVOIx, MICH, April 14, 1924.
Hon. ANDREW B. DOUGHERTY,
Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C. :
Lake front property, wharves, boat houses, and bathing beaches at Charle-
voix already seriously damaged by lowered water levels. Believe approxima-
tions of engineers much too low. Actual danger of ruin of this entire resort
region. Any increase of Water withdrawals would be disastrous. Conditions
plain enough for ordinary inspection.
| ARTHUR BERGEON, Mayor.
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 445
- FRANKFoRT, Mr.CH., April 14, 1924.
ANDREW B. DOUGHERTY, - ... • a.
Care Hotel, Raleigh, Washington, D.C.: * - *
Coast Guards report at Frankfort, Mich., lake level reduced 30 inches in
two years. * ,
JAS. H. PATTERSON, Mayor.
EsCANABA, MICH., April 12, 1924.
Hon. ANDREW B. Doug HERTY,
Raleigh Hotel, Washington, D. C.:
If water level is not restored, city of Escanaba will have to expend in exceSS
of $100,000 to restore beaches, dock, and water facilities to previous standard.
Seven inches destroys entirely city park and bathing facilities. . . . . .
FRED R. HARRIs, City Manager.
Hon. ANDREW B. Doug HERTY,
Care Raleigh Hotel, Washington, D. C.: -
I own docks on one side this harbor. Water has been receding for last 10
years. To lower water any more would inflict great damage to this, property.
Chicago bill should...be stopped.
MANISTIQUE, MICH., April 14, 1924.
BENJAMIN GERO.
- CITY OF HARBOR BEACH,
- Harbor Beach, Mich., April 10, 1924.
Hon. ANDREW B. DoughERTY, - -
Attorney General, State of Michigan,
- Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The level, of Lake Huron at this place is the lowest it has ever
been in the memory of the oldest resident, and as a result of the receding
of the water the shore of the lake at this place is a bare mud flat for two
or three hundred feet, unsightly, and unsanitary. -
The residence and resort property on the lake shore has been greatly
damaged. +
The local manufacturing companies are having difficulty getting steamers
to bring coal to their dock, which may necessitate expensive dredging.
The harbor of refuge has recently been dredged and deepened by the United
States Government.
The city waterWorks intake pipe has been uncovered and during the last
winter froze up, causing considerable damage to the city and residents.
We protest most strongly against further diversion of the water through the
Chicago drainage Canal.
/ CITY OF HARBOR BEACH,
WM. A. PRESCOTT, City Clerk.
CITY OF MANISTIQUE, MICH., April 12, 1924.
ANDREW B. Doug HERTY,
Attorney General, State of Michigan,
- Care of Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: In the short time available for investigation I have interviewed
the Ann Arbor Car Ferry Co. and the John Coffey Fishing Co. as to existing
conditions due to the diversion of waters from Lake Michigan, and find that
to-day the conditions of our harbor is such that the car ferries drag on the
bottom when docking. This is a serious matter, as they make no less than
400 trips annually. Any further lowering of the level would render it impos-
sible for the said ferries to senter the harbor unless the channel be deepened.
This would entail a great expense, as the bottom is of Solid rock.
The Coffey Fishing Co. advise that only the smallest of their boats can now
land at their own docks, and that any further lowering of the water level Would
render said dock entirely useless. In addition to these facts the lowering of
the lake level has exposed the dock timbers to the elements, causing rapid
446 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
deterioration of same. This is a serious Consideration, as it directly affects the
lumber storage of our local manufacturers. - - -
Trusting that this letter will aid you in your efforts, and assuring you that
We are very glad to cooperate with you in preventing the passage of bill H. R.
5472, I am, -- 3 ºf ,
Respectfully,
HARRY ERIKSEN, Mayor.
r CITY OF ST. IGNACE, MICH., April 12, 1924.
Mr. A. DOUGHERTY, * , , T .
Washington, D. C., Hotel Raleigh.
DEAR SIR: Replying to yours of the 9th instant regarding the reduction of
Water through the water withdrawn from Lake Michigan for the Chicago Canal.
The shore line all along our harbor has dropped a great deal since the canah
Was Opened, the water having, gone down So much that numerous docks in this
vicinity have had to be lengthened considerably, and boats with deep draft
have difficulty in docking.
TWO years ago we had a number of city sewers that ran out into the bay
here lengthened out so that they were under water, and this spring the locat
health officer has notified us that these sewers must be lengthened from 5 to 10
feet in various places so they will be under water. This certainly shows that
the water has gone down very materially.
Another point: Our city municipal water plant, which gets its supply of
water direct from the lake, has never had any trouble, but last Season we found
that the Water was SO low that we have had to take Steps to lengthen our
intake pipe nearly a hundred feet in order to get the proper amount of water.
If this supply of water continues to be allowed to go through the drainage
canal it is just a question of a few years when it will work a great hardship
on all the lake ports and numerous small islands about here.
Yours truly,
- A. R. HIGHSTONE, Mayor.
City of ALPENA, Mich, April 12, 1924.
Hon. ANDREw DoughERTY, 4
Attorney General, State of Michigan, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : Replying to your letter of April 8 instant relative to what effect
the lowering of the waters of the Great Ilakes have had and will have upon
the harbors, beaches, docks, and other forms of construction touching the lake
shore in the vicinity of Alpena, would state that after a careful Survey of the
situation I am able to advise you—
1. That along the shore of Lake Huron and shore of Thunder Bay within
a radius Of 50 miles of the city of Alpena, the lake level has been gradually
lowering from the normal level until it is 2 feet below the average lake level
govering the past 63 years. The present level is 0.3 foot below level of one
year (1923) ago. g ;
2. The unprecedented low water stage has resulted in better than 10 per
cent loss in the cargo capacity of vessels trading along the Lake Huron shore
in 1923. The present outlook for season of 1924, it will be approximately 15
per cent. This loss in less cargo capacity is enormous when you consider the
tonnage Shipments in rock products alone exceeded last year ten million tons.
This loss is all due to the fact that boats are unable to load to their full
tonnage Capacity. * . . . . . . .
3. Regarding terminal facilities concerning docks, the situation is alarm-
ing. The docks at Alpena, constructed with cement on piling, at low, estimate
cost $300,000. When these docks were built the capping on docks, was in-
tended to reach 1% feet below mean water level. Now this piling is exposed at
least half a foot and exposure of piling results in the rapid deterioration of
the piling and the crumbling away of docks; and if continued will necessitate
new dock construction at enormous expense. -
The channels reaching to these docks, costing $750,000, now require further
deepening ; and if lower levels occur, additional deepening at much larger
expense must be done, or plants will be obliged to ship output by rail. If
rail shipment must be made, boats and docks in value up into the millions must
be abandoned. - t
These statements regarding docks, channels, etc., will apply to all chan-
nels at points north of the city of Alpena to Rogers City, a shore line of up-
Ward of 50 miles.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 447
4. The Water Shore line along the beaches has receded to such an extent
from the original meander lines established by the United States survey, 'that
fractional 40's of land along the shore line are now full 40's of land, and
Inumerous places where the depth of water was sufficient that fish boats sailed
Over, there are numerous such places now where land is exposed and vegetation
growing thereon.
. Because of the lowering of the lake levels of the water, fishermen who oper-
ated out of Small harbors in the vicinity of fishing grounds have had to aban-
don their docks, fish and ice houses, and erect new dock, ice, and fish houses at
Other deeper harbors, miles distant from the fishing ground, because of insuf-
ficient depth of water to navigate their boats. The loss to men engaged in the
fishing industry because of reason above stated has been quite large. The
fishing industry in Alpena and in its vicinity along Lake Huron shore is one of
great importance and in which large amounts of capital are invested and many
men employed in connection therewith at large wages.
In conclusion, the people of this city can not protest strong enough against
the passage of House bill 5472, because if passed the carrying out of its pro-
Visions Will reduce the water level of Lakes Huron and Michigan, causing
Very great injury to Thunder Bay Harbor and all harbors on said lakes.
I Sincerely hope that this statement be of assistance to you in preventing
legislation that can have no other effect but injury to all the Lake ports and to
Water transportation on the Great Lakes.
Very truly yours,
+ L. G. DAFOE.
CITY OF GRAND HAven, MICH., April 10, 1924.
Hon. ANDREW B. Doug HERTY, -
Attorney General, State of Michigan,
Care of Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The mayor of this city has referred to me your letter of April 8,
and I am submitting the following information regarding lowered lake levels as
affecting this city and vicinity. -
As you know, at this period of the year we have our highest water in the
local harbor, as we are situated at the mouth of Grand River. To-day I meas-
ured the water level as indicated upon the local Government gauge. This
showed 0.75 of a foot below low-water data. In low-water season during the
past year it has shown at different times as low as 1.25 feet below low-water
datum. &
The Government has several thousand feet of cement concrete pier work on
either side of our harhor. The cement work rests upon wooden piling. Since
this was installed the lowered lake level has caused the tops of these piling to
become exposed to the air, and if this condition continues, a very few years will
see the disintegration of this pile support. The measurement taken this date
shows 20 inches of this piling Work exposed. -
The main municipal dock which has been used for the docking of pleasure
craft is completely useless on account of lowered water level in the harbor,
and before it can be rendered available several hundred dollars must be spent
for dredging it and building additional platform work. *
. The local municipal electric-light plant obtained its condensing water from
the harbor through a pipe line from the harbor to the plant, which lay beneath
the surface a depth of about 3 feet in 1920. It became necessary for me to
install a new intake line this year, at a cost of about $2,500, as the Original
line had become entirely exposed because of lowered harbor level.
A large business is done at this port each summer by gravel industries, who
haul gravel from the pits about 12 miles upstream in Grand River and deliver
the same either to or through this port. The lowered lake level has naturally
lowered the river level, which makes it impossible to load to capacity the gravel
barges.
The lowered level of the water in the harbor has caused great inconvenience
to lake Steamers of the Goodrich Line and the Grand Trunk Railway, Which
regularly enter this port, as their clearance from the bottom of the harbor is
very small. s
I trust these facts will be of service to you, as this city is vitally interested
in an eventual halt being put to the withdrawal of water through the Chicago
Drainage Canal. -
Yours very truly, & -
PAUL R. TAYLOR, City Manager.
448 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
- - PETOSKEY, MICH., April 10, 1924.
ANDREw B. Doug HERTY, ... . . . . . . . . . ' ' -
Attorney General, Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C. . . ". . .
DEAR MR. Doug HERTY: Replying to your favor of the 8th, wish to advise that
, the city of Petoskey is very much interested in you representing the State of
Michigan at the hearing to be held in Washington next week in regard to
diverting and abstracting water from Lake Michigan through the ‘Chicago
River. In this connection we wish to say that the water in Lake Michigan has
receded several feet during the past year, and the shore line is in a very
hazardous condition. Some of the larger boats are having a great deal of
trouble in making the city dock, and the shore line is exposed out anywhere
from 200 to 300 feet from its original level. Unless something is done immedi-
ately to stop drawing off and diverting this water it will be impossible for
boats to make either the local dock or the dock built at an expense of several
hundred thousand dollars by the Petoskey Portland Cement Co. ".
Petoskey and vicinity is proud of the fact that we have such an efficient
Attorney General to look after the interests of its taxpayers, and we will ap-
preciate anything that you can do for us. On the other hand, if we can be of
further assistance do not hesitate to let us hear from you. n
Very truly yours, -
JoBIN L. A. GALSTER, Mayor.
SEBEWAING, MICH., April 9, 1924.
Hon. ANDREW B. DOUGHERTY, -
Attorney General, Lansing, Mich.
DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, in regard to a
bill introduced by Hon. William E. Hull, a Representative from the State of
Illinois, H. R. 5472, now being considered by the Committee on Rivers and Har-
bors, which bill would permit the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water per
second from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal. r
While I presume that most of those favoring the passage of this particula
bill are inclined to Scout the idea of an injury to the harbors and Scenic
beauty of our Lake shores and beaches, still I am confident that no one can
visit the beaches of Lakes Michigan, St. Clair, and Huron without having the
fact of a receding Shore line brought forcibly to his attention, and such is espe-
cially true as to the shores of Saginaw Bay. In the years prior to the diver-
sion of water through the Chicago Drainage Canal Sebewaing was a navigable
harbor, and there was a fleet of traders between this port, Bay City, Alpena,
and other shore harbors. The water has now fallen in depth to such an extent
that the Sebewaing River harbor can only be used by small fishing boats draw-
ing . but a few inches of water.
I was just talking with one of the leading commercial fishermen here and he
stated that if the bill referred to became a law, which permitted a diverting of
the water equal to a lowering of the lake depth of 3 or 4 inches, the business of
the local fishermen Would be ruined and that the inner bay along this Shore
would be largely a marsh.
I am inclosing herewith a carbon copy of a letter our local chamber of com-
merce has forwarded to Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey, chairman Committee On
IRivers and Harbors, Washington, D. C.
Yours respectfully, -
F. W. BACH, Village President.
[Inclosure]
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Sebewaing, Mich., April 9, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, g
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : We understand your committee is now considering H. R. 5472,
introduced by Hon. William E. Hull, Representative from Illinois, which bill
is stated to be for the improvement of commerce and navigatioon, and
authorizes appropriations for the construction of certain public Works in the
Illinois River. As we understand the bill, it would authorize the So-called Sani-
tary District of Chicago to withdraw from Lake Michigan through the Chicago
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 449
and Calumet Rivers, and through artificial channels, constructed or to be con-
Structed, a quantity of water not to exceed an average of 10,000 cubic feet
per second, or twice the quantity now being diverted.
We believe that such proposed reduction, if authorized by Congress, will
result in a serious and unwarranted injury to the harbors on the Great Lakes
and Connecting rivers, and would seriously obstruct present navigation chan-
nels, and permanently injure the scenic beauty of our lake beaches. That in
certain shallow bays, similar to Wild Fowl and the inner bay along the shore
here, the commercial fishing industry would be ruined. -
The Shoal water along the shores of the Great Lakes have attracted summer
Cottagers, and many hundred thousands in dollars have been spent by our
citizens in these summer homes; the shores where bathing beaches contribute
to the Scenic beauty have been improved and permanent summer resorts built
up, and this large outlay we believe would be destroyed in many sections
should the diverting of the additional quantity of water be authorized as
provided in the bill under consideration. . - *
The flow of the water diverted through the drainage canal, has seriously
effected the water depth of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and St. Clafr, and con-
nected rivers, requiring large Federal outlays in deepening the navigation
Channels, and has seriously effected the Scenic beauty of the lake shores and
beaches through the consequent receding shore line.
We beg permission to register our protest against the enactment of the
bill referred to, H. R. 5472, or any other similar bill.
Yours respectfully,
J. S. PALMER, Secretary.
Hon. ANDREw B. Doug HERTY,
* Attorney General of Michigan.
The undersigned residents and citizens of Michigan are the owners and
lessees of summer homes and cottages on the shores of the Great Lakes, and
such properties are being ruined and rendered unattractive and useless by the
lowering of the level of the lakes by the Chicago Drainage Canal. We are
directing your attention to the great damage and loss entailed by such lowering
of the lake levels to the class of property above referred to, which in
Michigan is of enormous value not only to the citizens directly interested but
to the State at large. We therefore petition and request that you as attorney
general of Michigan take effective and immediate steps to stop the taking Of
Water from the Great Lakes by said canal and to reduce the quantity SO taken
to an amount not larger than that used at the time said canal was first opened.
Your petitioners will ever pray.
Harry J. Daily, H. M. Ekennaul, W. W. Chapman, Fred E.
Shearer, W. H. Gustin, Jay Thompson, Grant H. Piggott, Jno. H.
Walther, Herman Neiss, James R. Tanner, A. R. Birchard, Frederick
Mohr, H. R. Ford, B. R. Hahn, R. H. Fletcher, Jr., H. G. Wendland,
C. C. Rosenbury, S. M. Powrie, L. C. Gregory, W. I. Preston, John
N. Keho, M. D., Fred Rupff, Elizabeth J. M. Graw, by gen. agt.,
Charles O. Tompkins, L. B. Tompkins, Mary Corrigan, Willard E.
King, C. Traphagen, Ed. Z. Baumgarten, F. C. Peters, A. J. Elias,
Wm. F. Ferrie, Sr., C. B. F. Reid, Bromfield & Colvin, Thomas
Tourein, Frank Lourein, Adam Schepper, C. A. Galbraith. Walter I.
Top, Mrs. Emma S. Hogan, L. C. Carpenter, Leonard Mueller,
Edward Meisel, Grant Morrison, Reoll Pendleton, W. L. Webb, J.
R. Petty, W. R. Knepp, John C. Neckar, H. M. Connigel, Walter
e Watt, W. H. Watt, Edw. C. Watt, M. Q. Connigel, Peter Brissette,
g Alex Brissette, I. B. Richardson. *
STATEMENT OF MR. H. L. EKERN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. EKERN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
appear on behalf of the State of Wisconsin in this hearing. In the
first place, before entering into a general discussion—and I will be
as brief as possible and not repeat anything that has been given
91739—24—PT 2—14
450 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
before so far as I have observed it—I want to say that we are very
strongly in favor of the development of navigation. That includes
the St. Lawrence waterway, and that includes the waterway from
Chicago down the Illinois River to the Gulf. We are desirous of
eliminating any possible obstacles to the development of those
ºrways and we also want to protect the waterways we already
3.Vē. - -
The State of Wisconsin has a very large interest in this
question because it has a number of harbors, some 13 or 14 harbors,
on Lake Michigan, carrying a very large traffic. It is also interested,
generally with Minnesota, in the Duluth-Superior Harbor, which is
really one harbor, and it is the largest harbor in the world, as you
all know, with 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 tons annually.
It also has the harbor of Ashland, which, although a small city,
has a large harbor, with some 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 tons a year, as
I recall it. Then it has an interest in the development of the city of
Chicago, the harbor in the city of Chicago, because naturally a very
large part of the commerce of the State of Wisconsin is directly with
the city of Chicago.
To begin with, I am not going to attempt to discuss here the legal
propositions involved. I do not think it would help the committee
any. You have the statement here of Attorney General Dougherty
with his brief, which outlines our position. We believe that legally
there is serious doubt as to the authority of this committee, or of
Congress, to take our water and lift it out of our watershed and put
it into another watershed for any purpose. We believe that we have
a proprietary interest in this water just exactly the same as the pro-
prietary interest we have as a State in the land under the water,
and that we have not deeded that to the Federal Government, and,
under the decision in the Seattle case, it is our water and Congress
has not any right to take it away for any purpose as a legal propo-
sition.
We are not here insisting on that proposition. We are quite
willing, so far as it is necessary, to take such water from Lake
Michigan as is necessary to develop a waterway to the Gulf of Mex-
ico, and for that purpose, according to the statement of the engineers,
which I have never seen challenged, 500 cubic second-feet is more
than enough, and I think the statement in Colonel Warren's report
is that a thousand cubic-second feet taken from one watershed to the
other would carry 100,000,000 tons of water-borne commerce with
the proper improvement of those channels. That, of course, is more
than any possible anticipated commerce along that line for a long
time in the future.
In any event, so far as the water down the Illinois River is con-
cerned, that is not an immediate question before the committee in
regard to the amount of water that they will presently take, be-
cause it will take a great many years, I anticipate, to develop that
waterway. And we believe that when you have provided water for
navigation the power of Congress has ceased, that it is not within
the province of Congress to divert or permit the abstraction of this
water for sanitary or power purposes.
I want to sketch a little bit of history of this matter. This canal,
I think, was first proposed in the early nineties, and it was opened.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 451
in 1900, and then suit was begun, as I recall it, in 1908, to restrain
the diversion from the Calumet. That dragged along and a suit
was begun by the War Department in 1913 to restrain a diversion
of more than 4,167 cubic second-feet through the sanitary canal.
The people interested in watching this were hopeful that
something would come of this litigation and that there would be
Some decision. Repeated appeals were made, as has been stated
here, to the Secretaries of War for incresed quantities of
water, which were uniformly rejected, and in the readjustment of
the quantities of water allowed by the Secretary of War it was very
specifically put on the ground that navigation within the river
must be protected from excessive grants. That was the reason for
the various readjustments in quantity, as I understood it.
The testimony that was taken way back in 1913 and 1914, and the
case was argued in 1915, and then Judge Landis held it under
advisement. I think he went off the bench in 1921. Then he called
in his reporter and dictated a statement of what his decision was to
be, and the sanitary district asked for some modification, and that
was never disposed of. He went off the bench without deciding the
case. It went into Judge Carpenter’s hands, and then Judge Car-
penter rendered his decision.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a transcript of what Judge Landis de-
cided informally in the way you have stated 2
Mr. EKERN. I think there is; I am not sure that I have it here.
I have Judge Carpenter's decision.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you a copy so you could file it?
Mr. EKERN. Yes; I intend to file this with the committee. I want
to read a small portion of it. But before reading that I want to
call attention to this: That before Judge Landis announced his
decision, before Judge Carpenter took it up, the State of Wisconsin
had gotten tired of dragging this along with the lake levels being
constantly lowered, and the State of Wisconsin, on the suggestion
of its attorney general, through its legislature, directed the institu-
tion of a suit by the State of Wisconsin against the State of Illinois
and the sanitary district.
That was in 1921. That was before my becoming attorney general.
This is something I inherited. I want to say right here that regard-
less of any differences in Wisconsin in political parties or within
the parties themselves, one subject on which the State of Wisconsin
is absolutely agreed is this.
The CHAIRMAN. We had evidence of that yesterday in the fact that
its members came in and filed a unanimous protest.
Mr. EKERN. Yes; Mr. Chairman. Now, the State of Wisconsin
filed this suit and the district has answered in that suit. No further
proceedings have been taken in that suit, for the reason that Judge
Carpenter made his decision enjoining the district from diverting
more than 4,167 cubic feet per second, and it was known that that
decision would be appealed from, and it was felt that we could
probably get a decision from the Supreme Court of the United
States on the questions of law involved within a reasonable time, and
hence we have not gone to the extent of taking testimony in the
Wisconsin suit.
452 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. General Ekern, let me make this suggestion as a
lawyer. Are you not a little fearful as a lawyer that while the
Supreme Court will unquestionably decide the question presented
to it, whether Chicago is entitled to divert more than 4,167 cubic
feet, that they may say that that is the only question presented to
them, and that they defer expressing an opinion on a question not
before them, as to the right of Chicago to divert at all for sanitary
purposes; and do you not think the State of Wisconsin could speed
up a bit and get its case set for hearing at the same time with the
other case, insuring a decision on the whole question?
Mr. EKERN. I do not see how that is possible, Mr. Chairman, for
the reason that on the issues joined there are a great many questions
of fact, and I do not see how we can have a reference and have
testimony taken and completed by the time this will be argued in the
Supreme Court on November 10. At least that is our feeling, and
the reason we have not done anything further on this until we could
get Some of the legal questions settled; and then the truth of it is,
Mr. Chairman, that we had hoped that the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict would see the light and adopt a different attitude toward us
and other neighbors. -
Now, perhaps the decision of the Supreme Court will speed that
along somewhat. As I said, on the legal questions we are willing
to rest that on the brief filed by Attorney General Dougherty, and,
as I understand, Mr. Goulder agrees with the conclusions reached
there. I would like in that connection, however, to call attention to
the answer of the sanitary district in the Wisconsin case, which
might be of interest in this connection. In the complaint in our ac-
tion we set up the number of cubic feet diverted from year to
year, and in the answer of the district, on page 24, in the case of the
State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois and the Sanitary District
of Chicago, they admit that “the mean daily amount of water pass-
ing through said sanitary district canal, at its westerly terminus,
for the years 1900 to 1917, both inclusive, was approximately the
amount for said years set forth in said paragraph 15 of said bill
of complaint.” -
(Reading further from the answer in the case refered to :)
These defendants deny that the said figures are based on methods of calcu-
lation which result in very considerably, or to any extent, underestimating any
amounts of actual flow through said canal. On the contrary these defendants
aver that the methods used to calculate said, yearly mean flow of water are
methods which should produce results as nearly accurately as could be pro-
duced by any method of calculation. These defendants further say that the
flow of water through said canal for the first four months of the year 1922 has
been approximately the amount required by the sanitary district act, according
to the population of the Sanitary district, namely, 20,000 cubic feet per minute
for each 100,000 population.
Now, on the question of the right to take this water out and not re-
place it, I am inclined to think the sanitary district agrees with us,
that they can not take out water from our watersheds, because this is
what they set up in defense:
These defendants admit that all the water diverted from Lake Michigan by
the defendants through and by means of the sanitary district's main channel
is carried into the Mississippi Valley, but these defendants deny that said
water is permanently extracted from the Great Lakes system.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 453
ſº
These defendants and each of them deny that the mean level or surface ele-
vation of the water of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, and the
Various Waterways connecting said Lakes and the St. Lawrence River above
tidewater has been or will be lowered 6 inches, or any other amount below the
level that Would have existed Or would exist in Said Lakes and waterways in
the absence of such diversion. On the contrary, these defendants and each of
them aver that the Surface elevation of said Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and
Ontario and their connecting channels has not been lowered by said diversion ;
if there has been any lowering of the surface level of water of said Lakes it
has been and is only a theoretical lowering, and that by reason of said diversion
if there has been actually any lowering of said Lake levels below What they
Would have been had such diversion not existed such lowering has not been
to any appreciable extent and has been so Small and inconsequential that it
has not, and will not, have any effect upon the said Great Lakes System of
Waterways or any of Said harbors or navigation thereof.
These defendants further aver that the water diverted to the Gulf of Mexico
or the Mississippi River Valley returns to the Great Lakes system by processes
Of nature which are continuously going on, by which the water flowing from
the Great Lakes System from any and all outlets is returned to said (; reat
Lakes System, SO that the amount of water stored in the Great Lakes system?
in each Of Said Lakes and Waterway's is approximately the same from olie
period Of years to another.
The CHAIRMAN. Might I ask the name of the attorney who wrote
that?
Mr. BOYCE. Do you propose to bring that question into contro-
versy, Mr. Chairman & If you do, we will be all summer on this
hearing.
Mr. EKERN. You realize what we had before us in taking testimony
on the facts. That is signed by Edward J. Brundage, attorney gen-
eral of Illinois, soliciter for the defendants, the State of Illinois:
William F. Mulvihill, attorney for the Sanitary District of Chicago,
solicitor for the defendant district ; and Clyde L. Day, Morton S.
Cressy, and my friend Edmund D. Adcock, solicitors for said defend-
ants and each of them.
Doctor KINDRED. Do the counsel that made that answer explain
this unfathomable and mysterions process of nature by which this
"water goes back?
Mr. EKERN. That is left to the imagination—possibly capillary
attraction. I just want to direct your attention to this point. I
want to read briefly from the decision of Judge Carpenter in the
United States case. This decision is found on page 127 of volume
8 of the transcript of record, October term, 1923.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that decision reported now Z Can that be
found in the Federal Reporter'
Mr. EKERN. No ; it is not. I have been looking for it and it is
not there.
In this opinion Judge Carpenter says:
It is needless to say that this litigation is of vital interest to the people of
the State of Illinois. It was started nearly 15 years ago by a bill filed in behalf
of the United States of America against the Sanitary District of Chicago to
restrain the defendant from diverting the Waters of Lake Michigan in excess.
of approximately 4,500 feet per second.
The pārties used the better part of six years in putting in the proof. The
matter was then presented with appropriate briefs to my distinguished col-
league, Judge Landis, for final determination. Judge Landis kept the matter
under advisement for another six years, moved undoubtedly by the thought
that the State of Illinois was being benefited all the time by the withdrawal
Of 10,000 cubic feet a second by the defendant, and that the Government was
not in any way actually harmed.
. . .
454 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
*
Now, just by way of comment. I think the State of Wisconsin had
some rights there that it lost during that delay. [Reading:]
On June 19, 1920, Judge Landis rendered an oral opinion, finding in effect
that the withdrawal in excess of 4,167 cubic feet a second by the Sanitary
District of Chicago was without authority of law ; that the withdrawals then
being made reduced the level of Lake Michigan, and other of the navigable
waters of the United States, to such an extent as to be an interference with
navigation ; that the Secretary of War, acting under congressional powers, had
never given his consent to such excessive withdrawls; that the diversion by
the sanitary district was therefore unlawful, and an injunction should issue.
A motion was made thereafter not for a reconsideration of the findings of
the court, but for the purpose of settling the terms of the final decree.
Attorneys for the sanitary district urged the evidence showed Clearly that
by the construction of weirs and other compensating Works at a relatively
small expense the Government could restore the various water levels which
had been reduced by the flow into the drainage canal. They also urged that
the State ºf Illinois, by appropriate legislation, had authorized the sanitary
district to agree with the United States Government to stand the cost of such
weirs and compensating works and their annual maintenance, and strenuously
urged upon the court that as a condition to the entry of any injunction the
plaintiff Government should agree to erect and maintain Such works at the
expense of the defendant.
Counsel for the drainage district have also urged upon the court at this
time to reconsider entirely the case upon the evidence presented.
Then the court goes on to say:
This court is very much disinclined to interfere with the judgment of
Judge Landis. *
The CHAIRMAN. I take it that the reason that the distinction was
drawn there as to its being of that color of authority was that an
injunction is an extraordinary remedy and will not be granted in
ordinary cases between parties?
Mr. EKERN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have to have a violation of law or some
* of that kind besides and in addition to the ordinary legal
right. -
Mr. EKERN. I think that is a fair statement. The court then
discusses the further argument and then goes on to say:
This court is very much disinclined to interfere with the judgment of Judge
Landis. At least it is entitled to the weight that would be given to the report
Of a master in chancery Or a special commissioner. In addition, this court has
gone over the entire record and is able to say that it agrees with Judge Landis
in every respect, although from a legal standpoint with some reluctance.
It is not necessary to go into the duties of the Secretary of War with respect
to navigable waters. It is not necessary to discuss the question of whether
when the state of Illinois entered the Union in 1818 it joined with special
reservations with respect to its own police powers. A reading of the Federal
decisions from Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 1) down to the present date leaves
no escape from the thought that the States in adopting the Constitution sur-
Toll (lered to the Central Government everything, without stint or reservation,
so far as the terms of the Constitution are concerned. The right to regulate
com.merce was conferred with many other things, and that right imposed upon
the Central Government to See to it that navigation Was not interfered with,
either by individuals, the several States, or any foreign power. It is very true
that it is the duty of the State of Illinois, in the exercise of its police power, to
provide for the safety and welfare of its own people. On the other hand, if that
safety and welfare depends upon the operation of the things granted to the
Central Government, the State of Illinois must look to Congress for eventual
aid or relief.
The evidence shows, and Judge Landis found as I find, that the waters of
Lake Michigan and other navigable waters of the Great Lakes have been re-
duced in level by the amount of water in excess of 4,167 cubic feet per second
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 455
withdrawn from Lake Michigan by the defendants. From the standpoint of a
practical mariner, the testimony may not be satisfactory. It was given by
engineers more or less highly technical, but thoroughly equipped in their pro-
fession. In fact , no Lake captain testified that by reason of the lowering of the
level of Lake Michigan was navigation interfered with. I have grave doubts
Whether any boats have been stranded or delayed by reason or the action of the
Sanitary district. . | • - -
On the other hand, the water levels have been reduced and the Secretary of
War, in whom is reposed the sole authority in matters of this kind, has de-
termined that there was an interference in navigation, and a permit to the
Sanitary district to continue in its present withdrawals was refused.
The jurisdiction of the court has not and could not be challenged, and an in-
junction must issue against the defendant. -
The record shows that the Sanitary District of Chicago has expended in its
work some hundreds of millions of dollars; and the evidence shows rather con-
clusively that no other system of disposing of the sewerage in the great district
covered would work so well as that devised by the sanitary district. The city of
Chicago, Since the drainage district began to operate, has practically doubled
in population. The district served by the sanitary district holds more people
than Over 40 States in the Union. The rate of typhoid fever since the comple-
tion of the drainage canal has been reduced from 75 per 100,000 to a negli-
gible number. *
The testimony of Government engineers shows that it would take from 10
to 25 years for the drainage district to erect sewerage treatment and disposal
WOrks to handle the sewerage within the drainage district, if the flow of water
was reduced from 10,000 to 4,167 cubic feet per second.
This matter is a subject which needs the consideration of thinking people,
not Only in the State of Illinois but in the whole United States. The treaty
with Canada entered into some years ago seemed to contemplate an acqui-
esence On the part of the Canadian Government to the withdrawal of 10,000
cubic feet per Second by the drainage district. However that may be, the
Secretary of War has not given his official consent. Whether the increased
Withdrawal Should or should not be made is properly a political and not a
legal Question in the absence Of consent by the Secretary of War. The
Legislature of the State of Illinois, the various civic bodies, the Association of
Commerce, and Senators and Representatives should see to it that at the
earliest possible moment the situation here is brought to the attention of
Congress, so that by appropriate legislation the health and welfare of this
great community may be safeguarded. I have no doubt that when the matter
is properly presented it will be taken up by Congress and by the State De-
partment and some plan devised which will bring about adequate and the
desired resultS.
It goes without saying that this court will not issue an injunction to be
effective forthwith. It can not impose the conditions SO Strenuously urged
by the attorneys for the sanitary district. It is doubtful whether the State
of Illinois could authorize expenditures to be made in foreign States and
foreign countries to restore the water levels.
On the testimony of the Government engineers, the court might, in the
exercise of a sound discretion, delay the effectiveness of its injunction for
from 15 to 25 years to enable the sanitary district or the State of Illinois
to arrange for other means of disposing of the sewage now handled by the
sanitary district.
Believing as I do that it is a matter for the immediate action of Congress,
a decree may be prepared finding the facts as stated in the bill and enjoining
the defendant from withdrawing from Lake Michigan in excess of 4,167
cubic feet a second ; the decree, however, not to go into effect for six months.
The matter must necessarily go to the Supreme Court of the United States
for final settlement, and no doubt, if need be, when the record is there filed,
application may be made to that court for a Supersedeas or further stay.
It has been suggested to me that, some claim has been made that
this question has been passed upon in a way in the case of Missouri
v. The State of Illinois. I take it the committee is fairly familiar
with the case, which was a case brought right at the opening of
this canal by the State of Missouri against the State of Illinois
to restrain turning this sewage into the river and then reversing
456 ILLINOIS, AND MISSISSIPPI, RIVERS, ETC.
the river and sending it down to St. Louis. In that case the State
of Illinois demurred and it went up on the question of jurisdiction,
and the court held that it had jurisdiction. The original action
was in the Supreme Court of the United States. Then, it went, on
to be tried on the facts,
The CHAIRMAN. Simply to take evidence on the facts?
Mr. EKERN. Yes. Evidence was taken and it went before the
Supreme Court again on the facts. That case is reported in 200
U. S., and the earlier one in 180 U. S. In that case the court held
that there was not any possible way to tell the bugs in the water
at St. Louis coming from the sanitary district from the bugs which
might come from anywhere along the Mississippi River.
Mr. HULL. We did not have any bugs in the Mississippi there
because those distillers were there then. t ł
Mr. EKERN. The case had not been proven, and the case was
dismissed. The matter of navigation was stipulated out of the
case, and it was only tried on the question of pollution of the water
by the typhoid bacillus, and it was decided on that question; but
the matter of the jurisdiction of the court is absolutely determined,
and, I take it, for all time.
The CHAIRMAN. It was settled that it had jurisdiction?
Mr. EKERN. Yes, sir.
Now, there are a number of things that we might object to here
on legal grounds. By the way, these States that are associating
through Attorney General Daugherty here are joining in this pres-
ent suit as friends of the court in sustaining the attitude of the
War Department, and I understand also that the State of New York
is asking to come into this. Our attitude is that we are opposed to
any legalization by Congress at this time of any diversion whatever.
We want this to be fought out and determined in the court where
it is now pending, and then, if any action is necessary, after the
court has decided it, that will be time enough for such action.
We do not think the sanitary district is in any position whatever
to come in here and urge any action.
A great point has been made here with regard to the danger to
the city of Chicago from typhoid if there were any interference
with this diversion. Now, to begin with, we do not consider this as
a mere diversion of water such as the case where water is taken off at
Niagara Falls for power purposes and immediately returned to the
Niagara River, or where it is taken off at the upper end of the
Welland Canal and immediately returned at the lower end of the
canal, because this is abstraction, a withdrawal of the water from
the entire watershed.
The CHAIRMAN. Which is never returned except in the manner
indicated in the answer to your bill of complaint?
Mr. EKERN. Exactly. Of course, that is the way they want to
return it.
Now, you may be interested in the enormous quantity of this water.
The amount of water taken is an amount equal to the entire flow of
the Wisconsin River at its mouth, a large river producing a large
amount of power. You will appreciate the amount of water taken
by the amount of power produced, which is 36,000 horsepower on a
34-foot head. --

ILLINQIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 457
They say they need this to prevent typhoid. They have filed—
I don’t know whether they have been filed with you or not. Has
there been filed with you a copy of the memorandum concerning the
drainage and sewage conditions in Chicago, issued by the board of
trustees of the Sanitary District in Chicagó?
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think so. e
Mr. EKERN. Well, I think they ought to file it. It is their docu-
ment. I want to give you the benefit of some of the things they
have in here.
At page 13 of this report, of which I have just read the title, they
give the typhoid death rate of the various cities along the Lakes, and
some others. Now, it is true that Chicago had a very exaggerated
death rate away back in 1891. That, however, was reduced somewhat
Soon afterwards.
Doctor KINDRED. How much per thousand, may I ask?
Mr. EKERN. I think they say they went as high as 192 per 100,000.
I know they are ashamed of it. They had it reduced for the five-
year period between 1890 and 1894 to 92.2 per 100,000.
In the period from 1895 to 1899 they reduced it to 36.6.
In the period from 1900 to 1904 they reduced it to 29.2.
In the period from 1905 to 1909 they reduced it to 16.6.
In the period from 1910 to 1914 they reduced it to 10.1.
In the period from 1915 to 1919 they reduced it to 2.9, and in the
period from 1920 to 1922, those three years, they reduced it to 1.1.
That looks as if they had done pretty well. But we know Cleve-
land had a death rate in the first period referred to, from typhoid
fever, of 50.6. That was from 1890 to 1894. They reduced theirs in
the next five-year period by one-third. That was the period from
1895 to 1899, to 32.6. Then, in the next five-year period the figures
ran up to 56.8. Then in the period from 1905 to 1909 their figures are
15.2. In the next five years, from 1910 to 1914, they reduced it to
12.1. In the years from 1915 to 1919, for those five years, they re-
duced it to 5.6, as against Chicago reducing hers to 2.9 for that period.
You will recall the testimony that Cleveland did not begin to put
in their treatment work until 1917, and they were taking water out
of the Lakes for drinking purposes, and still they got that death rate
down to practically where Chicago was, and Chicago was taking this
enormous quantity of water out of the Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to be clear about that. What were
the figures in the period from 1910 to 1914?
Mr. EKERN. Chicago's typhoid fever rate for that five-year period
was 10.1 and Cleveland's 12.1.
The CHAIRMAN. And Cleveland was pumping their Sewage into the
Lakes?
Mr. EKERN. Running it into the lake.
The CHAIRMAN. And were they drawing the water out of the
same lake?
Mr. EKERN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And their typhoid-fever rate was about the same
as that of Chicago? -
Mr. EKERN. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Which was sending its water down into the district
of my friend Hull?
458 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. EKERN. Yes. As I have said, that the last three years Cleve-
land has gotten its rate down to 2.9, equal to the rate of Chicago dur-
ing the five years preceding, and Chicago has reduced her rate to 1.1
; §: last three years. Of course, we are taking Chicago's figures
or this. 3.
The CHAIRMAN. Cleveland has not its third plant completed. It
has two plants, as I recollect the testimony, two disposal plants com-
pleted, and the third one—if I am wrong I wish you would cor-
rect me y ~.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is my understanding of it. h
The CHAIRMAN. The third one will be completed in from 18 to 24
months. So they are only disposing of two-thirds of their sewage
by this new and improved system. «
Doctor KINDRED. Right there I would like to ask a question that I
think is pertinent. I think this rate of death from typhoid is due
very greatly to the sources of drinking water rather than the sewage
disposal. I do not understand that the gentleman made it clear as
to what the sources of the drinking water of Chicago were as com-
pared with the sources of drinking water in Cleveland.
Mr. EKERN. My understanding is that both cities take their
drinking water ouv or the lakes. -
The CHAIRMAN. And in the case of Cleveland they were sending
their sewage into the lakes?
Doctor KINDRED. You are assuming parallel conditions with re-
gard to the two cities? k -
Mr. EKERN. Yes: they were similar with vegard to their drink-
ing water, but not with regard to the disposition of the sewage, be-
cause Cleveland was dumping its sewage into the lake and Chicago
Was dumping its sewage into the Chicago River.
This table shows that between the period from 1890–1894 to the
period 1920–1922 Cleveland reduced her typhoid rate from 50.6
to 2.9; and Chicago reduced her typhoid rate in the same time from
92.2 to 1.1. In other words, the death rate from typhoid is practi.
cally eliminated. The average of nine cities given in this table was
for the first period, 1890–1894, 45.4, and now the average for those
same nine cities is 3.5. So typhoid is practically eliminated. Any
doctor in the Public Health Service would not attempt to justify
now any such figures as are shown to have existed in these earlier
years shown in this table. . .
Doctor KINDRED. I think they are remarkable records, and will
compare with those of the most healthful cities.
Mr. EKERN. Other cities are shown here—Detroit and Milwau-
kee, New York, Philadelphia, and St. Louis, and some others. St.
Louis has had the same experience. These cities have eliminated
these water-borne diseases by treatment of the drinking water, I
take it. -
Mr. HoAN (mayor of Milwaukee). In Milwaukee about 10 years
ago they learned that by a solution of chlorine mixed with lake water
they could eliminate much of the typhoid. i --
The CHAIRMAN. All right, General; is there anything more?
Mr. EKERN. The principal defense, as we have gathered it, of
the city of Chicago—and I am now speaking from the records as
well as what has gone into pleadings in this case—the principal
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 459
defense is the poverty of the city of Chicago. Now, it is a bad case,
but I want to submit just a few figures. They may be premature,
because I had hoped that the city would come in here and prove its
poverty first; but I would like to submit a few figures on that ques-
tion before going any further. This is just to show how poor they
are and how little they have been able to do. -
. This report shows— . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Which report is it?
Mr. EKERN. The report of the sanitary district, December, 1923,
page 24. It shows that the population which they should care for
is 3,213,000 people; stockyard wastes, equivalent to 1,030,000; corn-
products waste, equivalent to 380,000; miscellaneous waste, equiva-
lent to 150,000 people, making a total of 4,773,000 people; 4,773,000
º”. is the sewage waste that they now have in charge to take
Cafe OI. -
It shows that they have been able to establish a plant in the
Calumet which treats the equivalent of 72,800; the Des Plaines
River plant, 39,000; Morton Grove, 1,200; a total equivalent to caring
for the Sewage of a population of 113,000, that they have gotten
around to treat, as against Sewage to be taken care of, equivalent to
that of a population of 4,773,000. -
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know why they should erect such very
Small sewage disposal plants as against what Cleveland has done in
providing three sewage disposal plants to take care of a population
of a million. Here are several plants to take care of 136,000, as
many as Cleveland has to dispose of its whole million of population.
Mr. EKERN. I understand the reason assigned is that they have
been experimenting somewhat. I think the real reason is they did
not want to spend any more money.
Doctor KINDRED. Has Cleveland completed a sewage-disposal
plant so that, it does not any longer empty its sewage into the lake?
The CHAIRMAN. Cleveland has completed two out of three plants.
The third one is under construction and will be completed in 18 to
24 months.
Doctor.IGINDRED. And is that to take care of its entire sewage?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and at the same time they have done that
since 1917, and they have also installed a complete filtration plant
for all their water for domestic purposes.
Mr. BoycE. How many acres—7 acres, are there not?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; 7 acres.
Mr. EKERN. This report further shows that the equivalent popu-
lation for which sewage is not treated is 4,660,000 people, and that
the diversion needed for same, to comply with the requirements of
the Illinois law is 15,500 cubic feet per second. -
Now, on any facts that have been brought out anywhere I have
seen they are guilty of violating their own statute very seriously
right along, unless, of course, they want to omit the industrial
wastes, and & even then they are exceeding the need under the
statute. - -
Let us see. They are required to divert 20,000 cubic feet; that
is, minute cubic feet for each 100,000 population, and that would
require 7,000 cubic feet per second for 3,000,000 people.
They have not been in a great hurry to do this. The district made
a report in May, 1923; that was before Judge Carpenter made his
460 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
decision. That report is much easier to follow than this one. That
gives the construction at the end of 1922, and the total amount they
had spent for sewage-treatment plants was $7,939,000, of which the
Calumet plant, down near the Indiana border took up $6,000,000.
This Morton Grove plant, that takes care of 1,200 people, cost
$66,000, and miscellaneous small plants $1,900, up to January 1,
1922; the Des Plaines River, $1,441,000. Miscellaneous, $1,064.
That is a total of about $9,000,000 which they have spent in all the
time for sewage-disposal plants. - -
The CHAIRMAN: What population does the $6,000,000 plant take
care of ?
Mr. EKERN. At the present time the $6,000,000 plant takes care
of the equivalent of 72,800 people. It is calculated to take care of
a somewhat larger number. - r
Mr. BARRETT. It is built to take care of a population of 300,000.
The territory includes right now approximately what has been men-
tioned. '.
The CHAIRMAN. That makes it similar in cost to the Cleveland
plant. That was the reason I was coming to the question.
Mr. EKERN. Now, of course, there is another part to this which
should be stated in fairness. That is, that they charge up to the
construction of these plants the cost of constructing intercepting
sewers and pumping stations, and they charge up $11,500,000 for the
intercepting sewers and they charge practically $4,000,000 for the
pumping plants and the Calumet power station in that connection.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether these intercepting sewers
and pumping stations are simply for the disposal plants constructed
or for an entire system :
Mr. EKERN. They are for the entire system, I suppose, to the ex-
tent they have gone. The reason I call your specific attention to the
report of May, 1922, as of December 31, 1923, is that in this report
of December, 1923, they give the figures for the end of 1923, and in
those figures it is shown that there is no additional expenditure for
several of these larger items—nothing whatever added.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, there is nothing added between May and
December 2
Mr. EKERN. Well, during the year.
The CHAIRMAN. So it would appear from a comparison of the two
reports that the work was suspended. -
Mr. EKERN. It is simply a difference in the date of the report, I
am told. - t
Mr. BARRETT. They are as of December 31, 1922, in both reports.
Mr. EKERN. Now, as to the progress made, the north side sewage-
treatment plant is one they talk a great deal about. The minutes
of the trustees as given out show that Mr. Crow stated in
June, 1923, that by the 1st of July they expected to advertise to
receive bids for a part of this plant, estimated at a cost of from
$4,000,000 to $5,000,000—that is, the north side plant.
Then they speak of the west side plant, and they say:
We have not at present secured or selected a plant for this site.
I am not going to take time to read this report, but I want the
committee to look at it, and I suggest that in reading this report
they scan it very carefully to find out how much has been spent actu-
HLLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 461
ally, because they give the whole thing together—what has been spent
and what they say they are going to do. You know there is a great
difference between what has been done and what you say you are
going to do.
Doctor KINDRED. I want to ask you as one certainly not biased in
favor of Chicago or the Chicago drainage system but as one who
wants to be fair, what is the total for the complete sewage-disposal
plant going to cost Chicago ultimately? • .
Mr. EKERN. I would rather that question should be asked of the
engineers. w
The CHAIRMAN. I will answer the question for Doctor Kindred.
The sewage-disposal plant of Cleveland cost, according to the testi-
mony of Mr. Hopkins, $13,000,000. -
Doctor KINDRED. For how many people?
The CHAIRMAN. For 1,000,000 people. The estimated waste dis-
posal of Chicago is based by Chicago not on its population but on
waste disposal of 4,700,000, or we can call it 5,000,000. On the same
basis the cost would be $65,000,000, from which would be deducted
what has already been done in the way of construction of sewers and
sewage-disposal plants, either completely constructed or on the way.
That is all we have before us. t -
Doctor KINDRED. Are there any reliable estimates as to how long
it would reasonably take?
The CHAIRMAN. Six years, according to the testimony of Mr.
Hopkins, the city manager of the city of Cleveland.
Mr. HULL. Can I interject there? I have made a study of this.
It will take, as near as I can get the estimates, which I have gotten
from a dozen people, 20 years to complete the plants, and it will cost
$100,000,000 to do it, to take care of 3,000,000 people. That is in
my bill that way.
The CHAIRMAN. Let the chairman say in reply to that, that of
course the actual experience of a great municipality like Cleveland,
having observed how long it takes, is better than the estimate of any
of us, even if disinterested, and speaking from experience, the Cleve-
land general manager told us that the work could be done in 10 years.
Mr. HULL. He told us a lot of other things that were not true.
fi Mr. EKERN. Mr. Hoan will follow me and be able to give the exact
gures. - R
I want to address myself to one other point, and that is the ability
of the city of Chicago to put in these disposal plants. It is not pre-
tended from an engineering point of view, as a practical construction
matter you would take 20 years or any such time to put in sewage-
disposal plants. The only pretense that is made is that they can not
raise the money to put them in before that time. That is the only
proposition, that they are too poor. Well, I pay a few taxes in
Chicago myself, and I rather resent that. -
Now, the tax limit. Let us begin with this, the debt limit of the
city of Chicago.
Under the constitution of Illinois the debt limit is 5 per cent.
They operated under that debt limit for a number of years, and for
some reason they went to the legislature and they got that debt limit
put down to 3 per cent by act of the legislature.
The CHAIRMAN. By statute and not by the constitution?

462 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
time they ask it to; there is no question about that. - -
Here is what they show—and, by the way, they are advertising
now for the sale of bonds, and they say when the present bonds are
issued that the bonded debt will be less than 2 per cent of their
assessed valuation. - ‘. . -
The CHAIRMAN. They say that in their advertisement for the
sale of bonds? * * ‘. . -
Mr. EKERN. Yes. They now have outstanding bonds, according
to their figures, of $27,300,000, and with the new bonds, they will
have $33,000,000 outstanding. Their maximum capacity of bonds
for 1924 is $57,450,000 on the 3 per cent basis. They have a valua-
tion of approximately $2,000,000,000 on assessed valuations. That is
what the district has. That leaves them a margin of $22,000,000
more bonds that they can issue.
Mr. ADCOCK. Contract liabilities should be considered in that con-
nection. They usually run about $10,000,000.
Mr. EKERN. You mean in the future?
Mr. ADCOCK. No; the then contract liabilities.
The CHAIRMAN. Current liabilities?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
Mr. EKERN. You mean you are owing $10,000,000 that has ac-
crued 3 º
Mr. ADCOCK. I think there are contracts outstanding, yes; actual
contracts.
Mr. EKERN. Requiring the ultimate payment of $10,000,000?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
Mr. EKERN. That may run for a long while. It would build a
lot of sewage plants.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is what they are doing; that is what they have
been let for. -
Mr. EKERN. I assumed that, and consequently that does not affect
this, because if you can get them you will have the sewage
lants.
p Mr. BARRETT. We won’t disagree with that. But it will cut down
the limit you have raised, won’t it? e . * *
Mr. Ekº RN. They have no tax limit, so far as the constitution
is concerned, but there is a tax limit in the statute and they
are only raising a part of that, as I understand it. ... There
is a good deal of a dispute in Illinois as to exact effect of
the law. My understanding is that the district can get that law
amended. Our suit is against the State of Illinois as well as the
sanitary district. We intend to hold them both responsible for this.
That might seem to offer them only a limited means of getting
away from this poverty proposition, but here is the fact: The as-
sessed value of property in Illinois is very much less than half the
true value. This appears from the last report of the Illinois Tax
Commission, at page 10:
... Mr. EKERN. The legislature will put it back to 5 per cent at any
It is to be remembered that under the law, in each instance, every piece
and part and parcel of property, whether real or personal, including moneyS
and credits, should be taken at its full, fair, cash market Value by the as-
sessing authorities, and by reason of custom and such general use as to become
a rule which every taxpayer is entitled to the benefit of, 60 per cent of such
full value thus determined should be taken for the full equalized Value and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. * 463
one-half of the latter for the assessed value to which the tax rate will be
applied. - - -
That is from the tax report. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. What are you quoting from ?
Mr. EKERN. From the report of the Illinois Tax Commission of
1922, at page 10. [Reading:] -
O. L. Manchester, in his taxation in Illinois, indicates that the undervalua-
tion of property for purposes of assessment is more serious than the Illinois
commission acknowledges. He says (p. 26) : -
“Land values in Illinois Seem to be assessed on an average at about one-
fifth instead of one-half their true values. Unimproved lots are undervalued
to about the same degree. Improved lots, however, are assessed higher—
possibly at One-third their full value. One-fifth as a fraction seems about
right as to tangible personalty. With regard to his intangible personalty
we believe the estimate of the civic federation at the time the constitutional.
amendment upon classification was before us; i. e., that $1 out of $10 is
found for taxation, is as nearly Correct as any would be apt to be; only it is
now becoming the practice to put the full value of such intangible property
as is found down at about 70 per cent of what the law requires. Some such
fraction, too, is used in railroad and capital stock assessments, to say nothing
of the loss from the fact that there are probably thousands of corporations
within the jurisdiction of local assessors whose capital stock is not assessed
at all.”
The net effect of the practices now prevailing in Illinois regarding assessment
Of property is shown by comparing the total value of all property in Illinois,
as reported by the United States Census Bureau, with the total assessed value
of property as equalized by the Illinois Tax Commission. In the preliminary
report upon the wealth of the United States in 1922, which has just been given
Out by the United States Census Bureau, the total wealth of Illinois (which is
the same as the total value of all taxable and exempt property in Illinois) is
given as $22,232,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Does not that give the city of Chicago, also,
separately : *
Mr. EKERN. Well, the sanitary district extends beyond the city of
Chicago. I have the assessed value of the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not mean the assessed value. Here is the
census report giving what purports to be the true value. Now, does
that census report cover the sanitary district?
Mr. EKERN. It does not separate the figures for the sanitary dis-
trict, but I can give you an idea of what they would be.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Are not the figures of the sanitary district em-
braced in it, so far as the city limits are concerned; are they not in-
cluded ? -
Mr. EKERN. They are included in these figures, the figures of the
sanitary district.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I have been going over that question for some
time and I interpreted it that way. *
Mr. EKERN. Yes; the sanitary district includes a great deal of
territory outside the municipality of Chicago. [Reading further
from the same document:
The report of the Illinois Tax Commission (report of 1922, p. 10) shows that
in the same year the total assessed value of all taxable property as equal-
ized by the tax commission was $4,000,497,373.
In other words twenty-two and a quarter billion dollars of value
was assessed in the State of Illinois for tax purposes at $4,000,-
000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. At less than one-fifth
Mr. EKERN. Yes; at about 18 per cent.
464 & ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, in Wisconsin, where I have the figures from the same au-
thority, the United States Census Bureau reports “the total wealth
in Wisconsin in 1922 to have been $7 ,866,081,000, while the assessed
value of all property in Wisconsin as equalized by the tax commis-
sion in this year was $4,664,407,451,” a little over 50 per cent. In
other words, the State of Wisconsin is assessed for four and two-
thirds billions as against the State of Illinois being assessed for
$4,000,000,000.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You understand, in that connection, that the De-
partment of Commerce, and the Census Bureau especially, does not
regard taxation based upon values as a fair test of a comparison of
One place with another; they take the per capita.
Mr. EKERN. I understand. I am using these figures for the pur-
pose of showing how low a percentage of the value is being assessed
in Illinois.
Now, then, the constitution of Illinois does not limit the assess-
ment to one-fifth or one-third or one-half, but would permit prop-
erty to be assessed as it is in the other States at full value, and
hence it would be practical in the State of Illinois to multiply the
assessed value by at least three, and in that way increase the debt
limit three times and increase the tax limit. -
Mr. WILSON. Have you the rate of the two States, the tax rate?
You have the assessment but have you the tax rate?
Mr. EKERN. The tax rate, as suggested by your colleague does
not mean anything unless you compare the assessed value.
Mr. WILSON. Well, have you the tax rates of those two States?
Mr. EKERN. I have some data on that that I am coming to in a
few minutes. The assessed value of property in Wisconsin in 1922
was more than 10 per cent greater than the assessed value of all
the property in Illinois, although the true value of all property in
Illinois, as reported by the Census Bureau, was three times as great
as in Wisconsin, as reported by the Census Bureau. I want to say
in that connection that in Wisconsin we do not assess intangible
property at all; it is exempt, and a very large part of our personal
property is exempt for the reason we have had an income tax that
takes the place of it, which tax we have had for a number of years,
and that has something to do with the total value of our property
and the assessed value of our property.
Mr. WILSON. Will you later place in the record the rates?
Mr. EKERN. I have not the tax rate; I will place what I have, per
capita.
#. CHAIRMAN. Have you put in the record what the United
States shows as to the actual value of the property in the Chicago
sanitary district? ar
Mr. EKERN. I have not that. I have here these statements—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Will you do what Mr. Wilson says
first, however?
Mr. EKERN. I am glad you asked me about that, because I would
rather put this in first and then answer Mr. Wilson.
The latest assessed valuation of real and personal property in the
Sanitary District of Chicago is $1,917,928,603. The present sanitary
district tax rate is 4.1 mills on each dollar of assessed valuation. That
is the sanitary district rate. º
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 465
The bonded indebtedness of the district on $32,894,000; that corre-
sponds practically with those figures.
The CHAIRMAN. You have given us now simply the assessed valua-
tion, and what I wanted was what the United States says the real
value of the property in the Sanitary district is.
Mr. EKERN. That is not available.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what about the city of Chicago?
Mr. EKERN. I presume the city of Chicago is; in fact, it must be,
and I presume the other would be available if you could go to the
Census Bureau and pick out the municipalities included in that; the
Census Bureau could furnish you that data.
The CHAIRMAN. A great many members of the committee have
told me that they have made other arrangements or appointments
this afternoon, because they counted on adjourning before this. How
much longer will you take; Mr. Attorney General?
Mr. EKERN. May I answer Mr. Wilson's question?
. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. I would like to ask the witness a few questions.
Mr. EKERN. I am practically through with what I have to say. I
had planned to leave to-night, but if the committee desires me of
course I am at the pleasure of the committee and can stay over.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, I think we had better adjourn, and you
will come back to-morrow morning.
Mr. EKERN. Shall I answer Mr. Wilson's question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. WILson. I wish you would.
Mr. EKERN. The total property tax per capita in 1922, according
to the United States census, was as follows:
Mr. WILSON. This is where; in Illinois?
Mr. EKERN. This is for the city of Chicago. It was 36.91; Buffalo,
35.99; Milwaukee, 40.14; Detroit, 44.56; Cleveland, 45.04.
The net debt per capita, in 1922, according to the United States
Census, was as follows: Chicago, 46.35; Milwaukee, 66.97; Buffalo,
84.01; Detroit, 123.37; Cleveland, 135.85. Cleveland is about three
times Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. And these are quotations from the census?
Mr. EKERN. For 1922; yes. Now, the city of Detroit made an in-
vestigation of this question of bonded debt per capita, and by the
Detroit bureau, that is also for 1923, they found the bonded debt to
be as, follows: Chicago, 41.68; Milwaukee, 53.09; Buffalo, 91.16;
Detroit, 132.56; Cleveland, 135.85.
Mr. WILSON. I thank you very much.
(Thereupon, at 5.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
10 o'clock a.m. to-morrow, Friday, April 18, 1924.)
CoMMITTEE on RIVERS AND HARBORS,
- House of REPRESENTATIVES,
* Friday, April 18, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Demp-
sey (chairman), presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, this is not the only hearing or the only
matter we have before us, and for the last three weeks we have been
466 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
in practically continuous session, and I think more than that. I
think nearly four weeks. The result has been that our matters aside
from the hearings have remained absolutely without attention what-
ever. To illustrate, as far as my individual case is concerned I have
constituents who have been in the city for a week, wanting me to do
departmental work with them, and I have had to have them stay
here without any thought of attending to work they have on hand.
Now, we realize fully the importance of this matter, and I want
to give ample and full hearings, and shall do so; but we are con-
fronted with this question as to whether it is necessary for us after
to-day to take an adjournment, and we have in mind fully that we
want to serve the convenience of everyone who desires to attend the
hearings, and it is with that in mind that I would like to hear what
these gentlemen who are here have to say as to that, as to whether
it would meet your convenience if we were to adjourn this evening
until a week from Monday, substantially that, or something like that.
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen representing the oppo-
sition have two suggestions to be submitted to the committee. One
faction is willing to stay over and continue the hearings on Mon-
day or Tuesday, but I think the larger faction, as far as I can make
out, is willing that you should adjourn the hearings for one week,
and then you would complete the hearing within two or three days.
The CHAIRMAN. I doubt very much whether it will be completed
in that time, but we would be willing to stay and hear those who are
here and ready. Now, what about the valley, Mr. Shaw Ż
Mr. SHAw. We will do whatever is best to do.
The CHAIRMAN. It is simply a matter of convenience. What do
you say about the sanitary district, Mr. Adcock or Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. This is the situation, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. Of course, we realize that you men have other
duties to perform besides attending to the hearings on this subject.
We appreciate the fact that a great deal of time has already been
given to this matter, and that considerable more time will have to be
given to it if everybody is heard. There has been no disposition here
to refuse anybody an opportunity to say what he wishes to say. If
it was possible, considering the condition you gentlemen find your-
selves in, and the multitude of duties you must necessarily perform,
so that we could go on and complete the hearings—I do not mean by
that just ourselves, but everybody—without having to break in, we
would be much better pleased if we could go on Tuesday, without
inconvenience to the folks here who want to be heard, and then if we
could go on and finish it in two or three days; but we realize that
you know much better about what you can do considering all your
conditions than we do, and we must come back if it is necessary for
you men to now attend to other duties here in the Congress of the
United States whenever you say. -
The CHAIRMAN. We had a conference of such members as we coul
get together hastily—we happened to meet at the door—and we all
agreed if we could have a few days that we could catch up with
our old work, necessarily our correspondence, and do our depart-
mental work and be in a condition to then resume and go on with
the hearings; it would really be a more convenient arrangement to
all of us. Don’t you think so, Mr. Morgan?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 467
Mr. MoRGAN. As far as my position is concerned, and as far as I
am concerned, it seems to me it would be much preferable to those
who desire to be heard to have the committee dispose of other busi-
ness first, so that the members could be present at the hearings.
Mr. BARRETT. I want you men to understand that we appreciate
the time you have all put in, and we are going to be as patient with
you and as considerate of you as you have already been with us.
You know your situation much beter than we do. I realize that
much of your business must be pushed back. We will come back a
week from Monday. We are in your hands.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say, Mr. Bruce’
Mr. BRUCE. After further consideration, our people are practically
of one mind, that we ought to come back a week from Monday.
Mr. HULL. Are you not going to get through, Mr. Bruce.
Mr. BRUCE. We are going to put in some more witnesses. The
Illinois River delegation I find wants a little more time than I esti-
mated, and it is the opinion of Mr. Goulder and others that it would
be a relief to the committee and everybody would be a little more
fresh to come back a week from Monday. -
The CHAIRMAN. It is to the interest of everybody that we have as
many of the members present as possible, and if we do not take a
little recess it will be absolutely necessary for many of the members
to be absent part of the time. Then, we will have the understanding
that when we adjourn, we will adjourn until a week from Monday.
Mr. BARRETT. Is it the purpose of the committee to go on with
as much as possible during the day? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
Mr. BARRETT. We would appreciate it if it is possible to put on
everything possible to-day that is going to be presented against our
side; we would like to have the testimony on the other side all put
in as far as possible before we begin.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness on the stand was the attorney gen-
eral of Wisconsin, but I think one of the members of the committee
desires to be heard for a few moments first.
Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Chairman, we had a matter come up yesterday
relative to the attitude of the people down on the Illinois River to
the pending legislation. The committee will recall I spoke briefly
of my experience on the subject, and I believe the chairman put some
correspondence into the record, and that the relative position of those
on this subject was brought up, and as that matter has been recog-
nized by a publishing company located in the city of Chicago in a
leading editorial, I will ask permission of the chariman and the
committee to introduce the editorial appearing in the Prairie
Farmer, a publication printed in Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you read that into the record.
(Mr. Peavey read as follows:)
The Chicago Sanitary district has made a cesspool of the Illinois River. It
has flooded the valley with an excessive amount of water, and is asking Con-
gress for more. It has filled the river with raw sewage that Smells to Heaven.
It has killed the fish as far south as Peoria, and has jeopardized the health
of the people of the Illinois River Valley. It has made this great river into
an Open Sewer.
Congress should compel Chicago to complete the installation of sewage-re-
duction plants as rapidly as possible. No other great city is allowed to dump
468 - ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
its raw sewage into the rivers. London, with a population of 7,000,000, has
been using sewage-reduction plants for more than 30 years. H
The Chicago Sanitary District does not want to spend the money to build
such plants. It wants the water power that additional flooding of the Illinois
River Valley will give it. It should not be allowed to continue its pollution of
one of Illinois's greatest natural resources to promote these Selfish purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. What date is that?
Mr. PEAVEY. This is the issue of March 29, 1924. r
Mr. HULL. In reference to the photostatic letters, practically all
from my congressional district, that were introduced yesterday as
evidence, I would like to make the following statement:
First of all, I want it distinctly understood that the contents of
those letters in reference to the sanitary district are, in my judgment,
the sentiment of a majority of the people along the river, including
myself. But on the other hand, there is a condition existing in the
Illinois River that can only be curred by dealing with the sanitary
district through the process of giving and taking. -
In 1889, the State of Illinois passed a law giving the sanitary
district the privilege of turning the sewage into the Illinois River,
and also required of them to keep within the river 10,000 cubic feet
per second. -
In writing my bill, I had just three things in my mind: First, to
build a deep waterway from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico;
second, to clean up the filth from the sewage in the Illinois River:
third, to protect the landowners from further overflow, and to drain
their land with pumping stations. - -
Immediately upon the introduction of this bill, it was attacked by
two lawyers in the city of Peoria, namely, Shelton McGrath and
Claude U. Stone. In order that I may analyze the reason of this
agitation, and the reasons for these letters being sent from different
parts of my district to the Secretary of War, it is necessary for me
to give a history of the propaganda being sent out by Messrs. Mc-
Grath and Stone, and therefore I am giving you in detail just who
these gentlemen are.
Messrs. McGrath and Stone are lawyers in Peoria, who have sent
out propaganda and have made speeches in every town and hamlet
on the river in my congressional district against my waterway bill,
and have made drastic speeches against the sanitary district. This
agitation has created a discontent and a feeling among the people
against a bill which I intended for their relief. And this is re-
sponsible for the letters sent to the Secretary of War, which were
introduced yesterday as evidence, as previously noted.
I desire to introduce to you in a friendly way these two lawyers,
for I am sure all of the members of this committee have received
letters from them registering protests totally unfounded so far as
they relate to my bill.
Mr. McGrath is a Republican, a supporter and a friend of mine.
In fact, our relations are close. He is an astute lawyer; in fact, one
of our best lawyers and one that I have employed at different times.
He represents two of our largest railroads and, I presume, aspires,
as is his right, to represent more of them; and I can recommend him
to do their bidding faithfully, even to the destruction of a deep
waterway.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 469
Mr. Stone is an ex-Congressman—Democratic—having represented
Iny district for six years, and during which time we had the same
pollution in the Illinois River, the same amount of water in it, and
the same conditions that we have now; and I can find no record
where he ever entered a protest against the sanitary district or
offered a bill to give the people relief from the serious condition that
confronted them. But the moment I offered this bill, which I con-
tend is about the only procedure that can be employed in order to
give actual relief to the valley people, he comes out “holier than
thou’ in a tirade against the bill and weaves in it the sanitary dis-
trict in such an insidious manner as to inflame the minds of the
people. What his motive is is beyond me, unless it is politics. He
has been running large ads with his picture in all the newspapers
in my district for six weeks or more, presumably for the position of
delegate to the national Democratic convention. It is needless to
say that it was unnecessary to spend this vast sum of money when
his opposition was negative. I doubt if he is a taxpayer. If he is,
he is not a large one; and why he should suddenly discover a pater-
nal feeling existing in his breast for the city of Peoria and the
people of the Illinois Valley is beyond me.
Now, in order that you may have a clear idea of what has hap-
pened, Lawyer McGrath made a very fiery speech to the Kiwanis
Club at Henry. This speech, which in my judgment was wholly
unfair, was all that was necessary to inflame the feelings that had
already been aroused by letters and speeches by former Congressman
Stone. The immediate result of the McGrath speech was the send-
ing of delegations to the towns on the river as far north as Ottawa
and south to Chillicothe with instructions to have letters and tele-
grams sent to the Secretary of War protesting against the granting
of any permits in favor of the sanitary district or indorsement of
any bill. 0.
I believe if the club had heard a more conservative discourse on
the situation and had been shown the true purpose I had in view
when I introduced my deep waterway bill these telegrams and let-
ters might have never been written, and I believe when I have an
opportunity to explain the situation to them. I will have their sup-
port for my bill as well as the support of all the citizens of the
great State of Illinois. -
The CHAIRMAN. Now, General Ekern.
STATEMENT OF HON. H. L. EKERN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF WISC0NSIN–Continued
Mr. EKERN. Yesterday evening I presented some comparison of
taxes collected per capita in different cities and also the debt limit
of different cities. There was some confusion, and I just want to
call your attention to this, that the total property taxes per capita
shown by the 1922 census shows that the lowest is 36, and Chicago
is 36.91.
The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, but there are two men who were to
be heard this morning, Mr. Bruce; one being the deputy attorney
general of the State of New York, Mr. Ferris, and, as I understand
it, the other is the mayor of the city of Chicago. I suppose the
470 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
mayor of the city of Chicago is on the opposite side from you, Mr.
Bruce, but, of course, he has official duties to perform, and he has
come here especially to be heard, and the committee feels that it
would like to extend to him the courtesy of allowing him to be heard
out of order. +
Mr. BARRETT. As far as the mayor of Chicago is concerned, I have
explained to him what work we have done, and he has kindly said
that he would be very glad to come back a week from Monday, or
when it is convenient for vou to hear him.
The CHAIRMAN. That is very kind of him. I did not want to
make him come back some other time if he felt that his duties were
such that he ought to be heard now.
Mr. BRUCE. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that if no time is
taken up in cross-examination as far as Mr. Ekern is concerned, we
have the mayor of Milwaukee here, and while we intended to intro-
duce General Bixby on the question of lake levels, we will be glad
to defer and give place to the mayor of Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. And you will make a place for Judge Ferris?.
Mr. BRUCE. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. You may continue, General.
Mr. EKERN. The figures for other cities, Detroit, Cleveland, and
Milwaukee, are materially higher, ranging from $40 to $45 per
capita, total property taxes. - 3.
The net debt per capita, United States census, 1922, shows Chicago
by far the lowest, 36.45. The next is 67, and the next is Buffalo, 84.
. Detroit, 123; the next Cleveland, 135, or nearly three times as
IIll ICſ).
The Detroit Bureau of Research gives the figures slightly differ-
ent, but the proportions are about the same.
In that connection I also want to bring out this, that the State
debt of the State of Illinois is very low in proportion to other States,
as well as the cost of the State government, as given in the financial
statistics of States for 1922 issued by the United States Census
Bureau.
The indebtedness of the State government of Illinois is $1.91 per
capita. The next is Ohio, with $4.96. The next is Pennsylvania,
with $5.45. The next is New York, with $7.95. The next is Minne-
sota, with $10.81.
That eliminates from these comparisons the adjoining States of
Indiana and Wisconsin, which have no State debt, in effect.
The cost of the State government per capita as given in these
financial statistics shows Illinois, $7.83: Indiana, $8.10: Pennsylvania.
$9.89; Ohio, $11.35; Wisconsin, $12.92; Minnesota, $17.06: Michigan,
$24.07.
The CHAIRMAN. What was Illinois?
Mr. EKERN. Illinois, about $7.83—about half of Minnesota and a
third of Michigan. “ . . . . . . . . -- . . "
Of course, all these statistics have to be analyzed from the stand-
point of the basic data that goes into them. But where the results
are so uniform, showing ability to raise money, I think these figures
have a good deal of weight. . . . . . -
Now, going back to their own figures, their report shows that for
1924 the debt limit is something over $57,000,000–$57,540,000, to be
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 471
exact. That is on a 3 per cent basis. If they go to the constitutional
limit of 5 per cent, which can be done by a mere amendment of the
statute, the debt limit will be practically $100,000,000.
Their present indebtedness in 1924 is $33,000,000, which is just
one-third of their actual borrowing capacity by a very simple amend-
ment to the statute at the next session of the Illinois Legislature.
Furthermore, it was absolutely shown, and it can not be questioned.
that the assessed value of property in Illinois is not to exceed one-
third of the full value. But let us say that it is one-half. Immedi-
ately they put up the assessed value, double it, they would have a
debt limit of $200,000,000, and if you follow the figures they could
easily go to $300,000,000 to bring the debt limit up to the proportion
of the assessed value.
So there is no question about the ability of the city of Chicago to
raise money to do this job. And then, of course, it is purely an engi-
ineering question whether it is going to take five or six years to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you contend that the testimony of the
city manager of Cleveland, from actual experience, was as reliable
data as that of any expertº
Mr. EKERN. Well, the city manager of Cleveland, I understand,
is an engineer, and he has actually done this work; and the city of
Milwaukee has done the same work, as will be explained. As a mat-
ter of fact, in discussing this you have to keep in mind that a lot
of these intercepting Sewers have been built, and it is largely a matter
i. of putting on actual work of constructing the sewage-disposal
plant.
This is one thing I would like to have the committee keep in mind
all the time, and that is that regardless of what these bills provide——
and I would differ very seriously with those who say that these bills
are not intended to authorize or do not authorize 10,000 cubic feet
diversion and more—regardless of that, the sanitary district in all
their literature ask for 10,000 cubic feet per second forever. There is
not any question about that; that is what they are asking for and
that is what we are objecting to.
Now, then, the sanitary district has given some figures here as to
what it has been spending. I want to read from a table which is
in this volume of December, 1923, at page 17. I have left one copy
with the committee on this table, and I have also left one copy on the
table of the pamphlet dated May, 1923. The sanitary district has
also issued another pamphlet under date of October, 1923. I have
one copy of that, and when I conclude here I will leave that with the
committee, because the district has promised me another copy.
They show their receipts and liabilities. I do not understand that
method of accounting, because my understanding of accounting is
that a statement should show receipts and disbursements; but they
show that for 1923 they had a bond redemption of $2,296,000 and
interest, $1,308,000, and they spent for maintenance and operation
$3,100,000, a total of $6,704,000. They said they had a balance
available of $7,720,000 for a construction program of $5,582,000.
That is for 1923. *
I have not anything definite to compare that with, and that, as I
understand, is the estimate, because these figures that are printed,
as we were advised yesterday, are the figures as of the end of 1922,
472 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
and hence 1923 figures are an estimate. But we have something
here which is exact basic data. I am assuming, of course, that these
figures are correct. - -
In the Herald and Examiner of January 28, 1924, is contained
what purports to be an advertisement of the Sanitary District of
Chicago. It contains a statement of receipts for the year 1923.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is a legal publication required by statute.
Mr. EKERN. I assume it is a publication required by the statute.
That shows that during the year 1923 they had a total income of
$15,043,227.40. A lot of that is made up in receipts from power,
which I understand—I have not added the items—amount to about a
million dollars. There is One peculiar thing about this statement,
and I know Judge Barrett will not take exception to my comment-
ing upon this. He said he wanted to know the worst we had to say.
Personally I have the highest regard for the gentlemen representing
the Sanitary district, and my criticism goes solely to the corpora-
tion, the sanitary district.
There is a peculiar thing about this. There is no summary. There
is a mass of detailed figures here, four pages, eight columns, closely
printed, and all detail, and there is not a single bringing together, a
compilation or summary from which you can get anything unless you
have an adding machine and go to work at it yourself.
This statement shows disbursements. There are three pages of
these disbursements. It shows the district disbursed $13,684,789.09.
I was curious to know where this money went. It is extremely
difficult for a person who has not handled this to go over this and
find out what he wanted to find out about it. They publish some
data but they don’t publish the summaries in the way I would like
to have them if I were examining the accounts of a corporation. I
used to be a commissioner of insurance Some years ago.
There are some things there, the bigger items, about 23 contracts,
which show an expenditure on these contracts of $4,055,000. I do
not pretend I have got all the Small ones, but that is approximate.
It shows also that there has been paid out on bonds $3,727,240.
Roughly, that accounts for seven and three-quarter million dollars of
this thirteen and three-quarter million dollars.
There are $6,000,000 here which are not accounted for in this
rough summary that I have made, and I want to know where that is
to be found. -
So I find that our friends, the attorneys, and I don’t think that
they have gotten too much ; I think they have probably gotten too
little; but they employ too many of them—have received $137,753.82
for their legal department. My friend, Edmund C. Adcock, legal
services, $6.748.72% Carl J. Appel, legal services, $274.99; Barr &
Barr, legal services, $15,000; Judge George F. Barrett, legal services,
$9,500; John W. Beckwith, legal services, $338.73; Louis J. Behan,
legal services, $9,500; Lee O’Neil Brown, legal services, $5,000—Lee
O'Neil Brown is a member of the legislature and a candidate for
governor; Chipperfield & Chipperfield, legal services, $4,548.75;
Dailey, Miller, McCormick & Radley, legal services, $12,566.92; Leon
Edelman, legal services, $3,000; Harold Kessinger, legal services,
$3,500—I know Mr. Kessinger; he is a state senator; Lyle, Harold,
Hoover & Dennitt, legal services, $1,200; Mills, Epler C., legal

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 473
services, $5,500; William F. Mulvihill, legal services, $9,000; Quinn
& Quinn, legal services, $4,500; Frank Quinn, legal services, $2,000;
Samuel Weinshenker, legal services, $3,743.10.
That is just some of the items. There is a long list in the legal
department here—a very long list. These items are not picked out
from the Items shown in the “legal department” but are shown
under the title “ Statement of expenditures, 1923, materials and sup-
plies account, construction, maintenance and operation, etc.”
I am commenting on this because I am wondering how much of
this large amount, as much paid outside as within the “legal depart-
ment,” is charged to construction in any figures that are shown here,
and I think it is pertinent in that connection.
In that same connection I find a very long list of engineers—there
must be 270 or 280 of them—and averaging the figures I should
judge there is three-quarters of a million dollars more there. So
there is a million dollars that goes for law expenses and engineering
expenses in the administration of this district in a year.
I am not saying that that is too much; I don’t know. But they have
an income currently from power of about a million dollars and there
is about $6,000,000 to be accounted for. We have accounted for
$1,000,000, approximately, professionally. I don’t know where the
other $5,000,000 goes to, except there is a large item here for pay-
ments to individuals and to expenses. I am going to leave this
with the committee for such use as it is worth. º
I do not know whether it has been brought out before the com-
mittee, but the sanitary district will not question it, that back in
March, when the attorneys general of the States of Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota got together to
See about this matter, whether they did not have some rights that
they ought to work together on, the sanitary district voted to allot
$25,000 to its legal department and $25,000 to its engineering de-
partment for the purpose, as they stated, of educating these mis-
guided public officials in regard to the facts.
Well, we have been furnished this material that I am leaving with
you. I am leaving the education so you may have the same process.
In addition to that I understand that Illinois in July appropriated
$100,000. I don’t know how that was divided, but, regardless of
how it was divided, I assume it was spent for the same purpose.
And very recently they have been sending something out through the
State of Wisconsin. I have here two advertisements which appeared
simultaneously, and I think these advertisements appeared in every
daily paper in the State of Wisconsin—full-page advertisements—
simultaneously on April 9, 1924. This is a sample; this is not all.
This reads: - g
Citizens of Wisconsin, you men and women of Milwaukee and Wisconsin,
would you join in destroying Chicago, the main market for your products?
Chicago's ruin is imminent and the health and lives of 3,000,000 American citi-
zens—your friends and neighbors—are in the balance.
Will you be a party to wholesale slaughter of Chicago's citizenry? To save
Chicago 10,000 cubic feet of water per Second from Lake Michigan is abso-
lutely necessary. Shut this water off and Chicago is doomed ! . Who opposes
Chicago's use of this water? Canadian power interests. Navigation interests
On the Lakes.
91739—24——PT 2—15
474. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, I don’t want to take the time of the committee to read all of
this. I really think this is so choice and so well done that you ought
to put this in your record, Mr. Chairman—the rest of this article.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be received for that purpose.
(The article in full is as follows:)
[Milwaukee Journal, Wednesday, April 9, 1924]
Citizens of Wisconsin, you men and women of Milwaukee and Wisconsin,
would you join in destroying Chicago the main market for your products?
Chicago's ruin is imminent, and the health and lives of 3,000,000 American
citizens—your friends and neighbors—are in the balance. Will you be a party
to wholesale slaughter of Chicago citizenry? To save Chicago 10,000 cubic
feet of water per second from Lake Michigan is absolutely necessary. Shut
this water off and Chicago is doomed. , Who opposes Chicago's use of this
water? Canadian power interests. Navigation interests on the Lakes.
These commercial interests tell you :
1. They state that Chicago wants this water for power from which over
$1,000,000 profit is made each year.
The fact is that this water is used strictly for Sewage disposal and Such
little power (one-fiftieth of the amount developed at Niagara) as is obtained
as a by-product is used for public street and park lighting, without one cent of
profit. Chicago has no financial interest in this power, and its loss would
mean nothing to Chicago. w - - , -
2. They state that Chicago could use treatment plants for sewage disposal
by the expenditure of $90,000,000, and not need 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Do you know that Chicago is engaged in spending $106,000,000 and has
already spent another $23,000,000 in new construction on treatment plants—
more than these interests themselves ask Chicago to Spend? -
Do you know that Chicago is continuing to build sewage treatment plants,
as Suggested, as fast as it is humanly possible to do so?
Do you know that these plants are necessary in addition to and supplemental
to the need for Lake Michigan water in order to insure against typhoid epi-
demics which would immediately result from a backing up of the Chicago
River? *
3. They tell you that navigation has suffered due to lake levels 5% inches.
lower because Of this diversion. -
Do you know that the sanitary district has waived all argument as to how
much the Lakes have been lowered, and has offered, by certified check, to pay
the Cost of regulating and compensating works to restore any lowering in any
manner the United States engineers direct?
C 4. They tell you Chicago is taking this water in violation of the treaty with
anada.
When did Wisconsin citizens become so jealous of the rights of Canadian
and British power interests? The fact is, that the treaty gave Canada 36,000
cubic feet of water for power at Niagara while America got only 20,000, be-
Cause, as Was agreed, “there appears to be a tacit general agreement that
Chicago needs or will need about 10,000 cubic second-feet of water for sanitary
purposes, and that the city should have it without question.” (Par. 19, p. 520,
ºn Compilation of Reports of International Waterways Commission—
To fair-minded citizens of Wisconsin we say that the single and only pur-
pose Of the Sanitary District of Chicago in seeking 10,000 cubic feet of water.
per Second from Lake Michigan is to preserve the health and lives of the men,
women, and children of the great metropolitan area of which Chicago is the
center, and that the Sanitary district is using every physical and financial
resource to build artificial Sewage plants to care for its growing and pressing
needs as fast as possible. {
HEALTH Is THE on LY Issue
Do not be misled by false and groundless statements intended to prejudice.
you against Chicago and do not permit your city and your State to be used
as a tool of the Canadian and other power interests, who feel it will reduce
P-7
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 475
their power at Niagara' Falls and who demand Lake Michigan’s water for
their own power schemes and care nothing for Chicago's health and the lives
of American citizens.
We urge you to verify the trutſ of these statements before your CongreSS-
men act at Washington.
By authority of—
THE SANITARY CoMMISSION OF CHICAGO.
EDw ARD J. KELLY, Chief Engineer.
WM. J. HEALY, President.
Mr. EKERN. I read that from a Milwaukee paper, which is a city
of some size. I have in my hand now a copy of the Eau Claire
Leader of April 9, 1924. Some of the smaller cities in the State
printed the same thing at the same time. Here is a significant thin
that happened up there. I have been taught, being raised in a fruga
family, that waste of any kind is wrong, and I feel the same way
about public and national matters as I do about private waste. In
the issue of this Eau Claire Leader appears this full page ad, for
which the sanitary district, of course, paid, good money. *
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how such expenses are charged?
Mr. EKERN. I do not. I assume that their legal or engineer ex-
penses are charged to individuals as expense, because I do not find
them under advertising, although they advertise a good deal like
this. In the Eau Claire Telegram of the same date, under the title
“Chicago's appeal,” is a long editorial. You can get the point of
the editorial by my reading the last sentence:
Chicago says, too, that it will always be 10,000 feet, whether it has sewage-
disposal plants or not; and that statement is a stunner, because it is an assump-
tion that (‘hicago can not do wilat other big (“ities have (lone.
I don't know that anybody “got to this editor; I don’t think
they did. I think he wrote that of his own notion. l
I also have an editorial from the Milwaukee Journal, in which
paper that same advertisement appeared. In the Milwaukee Jour-
mal, commenting on this, the editor Says:
Iłuin, then, must hang as immediately over Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Duluth,
Milwaukee, Green Bay, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Two Rivers, Sturgeon Bay—
with 'combined population of more than 3,000,000—unless they also have 10,000
cubic feet. of lake water. And ruin will be imminent in every Canadian and
American city on the Lakes unless they take a proportionate amount. But it
isn’t. The only ruin that is really imminent is the ruin of the Lakes. But
read on into the advertisement: sº
“Would you join, in destroying ( 'hicago, the main market for your prod-
llctS 2 ” - . *
How absurd this suggestion and this threat Chicago will not be destroyed
nor will be “the main market for your products,” though perhaps the sanitary
district hopes there will be a few people foolish enough, to fear the loss of
their “ main market.” And only a Soap-box Orator—or the Chicago Sanitary.
District—could descend to this :
“Will you be a party to wholesale slaughter of Chicago's citizenry? Shut
off this water and Chicago is doomed ?” . º
The sanitary, district seriously advances such twaddle for consumption by
intelligent, Wisconsin citizens ! . . . - t 3. *
With such an introduction, what can Wisconsin folks think of the rest of
the-advertisement? The water power gained by the Lake robbery is profitless t
Chicago has no financial interest in it !” Yet, while Chicago was building that
canal she sent circulars through all of Illinois stressing the value and the
profit that was to come of that water power. . . . # &
Sewage treatment plants alone can not save Chicago' from pestilence and
disaster... Yet neither, London nor Patris, New York nor Berlin, robs a lake
or attempts anything so archaic as flushing sewage down upon inland com-
476. ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
munities. Milwaukee is building a disposal plant for 500,000 people. What
prevents Chicago, with six times the resources and facilities, building six
Such plants? * > . !.
Then this anomaly: Chicago is building plants “as fast as is humanly
possible.” If that is true and those plants are designed to meet fully Chicago's
needs, there is no problem. Nobody wants to shut off the drainage canal
until Chicago can otherwise dispose of her sewage. But the Lake States
don’t believe Chicago. Nothing short of constant supervision by the War
Department, the attorneys géneral of surrounding States and engineers from
Canada will convince them that Chicago honestly is building anything to
Offset the Lake steal “as fast as is humanly possible.” They are convinced
that the Chicago drainage canal is serving no interest except Chicago's, and
they have before them the facts that levels of a natural resource in which they
have a just interest have been lowered to the great detriment of their present
and ultimate prosperity. It isn’t a question of argument; and Chicago would
Save money if she understood that it isn't a question of twaddle. It is a
Question of facts—facts that the citizens of Wisconsin will not forget.
That is what they did with the good money that they paid for
that full-page advertisement. .
Not only that, but about the same time or a little earlier, they
sent their agents up into the lake cities of Wisconsin with petitions
to get them signed. Well, you know the people of Wisconsin read,
and they didn’t get many of them signed. At least we never heard
of them again. I don't object to their putting out information;
I wish they would print all the material they print in booklets, and
put some of that out; but I do think going before the people with
this kind of stuff that they are not entitled to any consideration.
I want to leave here some material that was specifically authorized,
severally, by the engineers of the sanitary district a year ago when
the attorneys general had their meeting, and specifically approved
by the chairman of the sanitary district. I just want to leave that
here with you so you can use it if you please. ſº
The CHAIRMAN. What is that?
Mr. EKERN. Let me read the title and the signature, so you can
identify it:
A public statement for use in Sunday a. m. papers, issued by George M.
Wisner, consulting engineer; member American Society of Civil Engineers,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Western Society of Engineers.
By Edward J. Kelly, chief engineer Chicago Sanitary District; member
American Society of Civil Engineers, Western Society of Engineers; en-
gineering member original Illinois Waterways Commission; South Parks
Commissioner. -
By Langdon Pearce, sanitary engineer, Chicago Sanitary District; mem-
ber American Society of Civil Engineers, Western Society of Engineers.
Approved by W. J. Healy, president the sanitary district.
Here is a little thing that may be of interest in this public state-
ment that I have just referred to: -
Because the attorney general of Wisconsin has closed his mind to the
engineering facts of a purely engineering problem, and because he is spread-
ing his preconceived ideas among the lawyers of other States, the peril, to
Chicago and environs and to the entire Middle West in a lesser degree has
been materially increased. -
Deliberate, detailed consideration shows this to be the chief result of the
conference held in Chicago by attorneys general of Wisconsin, Michigan, *
Minnesota, and by the representative of the chief law Officer of Indiana.
Refusing to open his mind to the truth of the relationship between the level
of the Great Lakes and the taking of water for Sewage purposes at Chicago,
the Wisconsin attorney has declared for a finish fight on the Chicago Sani-
tary District. He has been joined by the Michigan, attorney general.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. ,477
If a finish fight is wanted, and with it an absolute waste of the tax-
payers' money, a finish fight is what Wisconsin and Michigan and any others
joining with them will get. Yet the sanitary district, does not believe that
the taxpayers of Wisconsin and Michigan have given their attorneys gen-
eral a mandate to Waste the taxpayers' money in a useless' fight, in the courts
in which Chicago will have the advantage from the start, because Chicago's
position is rooted in need and in certain inalienable rights. -
Attorneys general of States hold political positions. They come and go
as State administrations come and go. Before a settlement of the lake-
level controversy can be had in the courts it is not unlikely that the present
investigator, the attorney general of Wisconsin, will have gone back to pri-
vate life and a new man will have succeeded him. . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Are you in your first term or your second term 2
Mr. EKERN. I am, on my first term. I am succeeding the other
man who was defeated at the last campaign. We, are agreed on
this proposition. A
The engineering staff of the Sanitary district has been in effect for 23
years; it will continue so long as there is a Sanitary district."
Mr. BARRETT. That should be 33 years.
Mr. EKERN. Then there is an error in this.
In view of that fact, I ask this committee whether this organiza-
tion is entitled to any indulgence in taking this action, which was
high-handed from the outset and which has continued high-handed
in absolute defiance of their own statutes, the statutes of the United
States relating to the diversion of waters, and the orders of the
War Department of the United States.
Now, that can not be described any better than it has been de-
scribed by H. Taylor, brigadier general, United States Army,
senior member of the board. This is published as the report of the
board of engineers, August 24, 1920, on page 55 of Colonel War-
ren’s report. •
The district can no longer fairly plead the absence or the impracticability
of other safer methods of handling Sewage and Of protecting its people from
water-borne diseases. Certainly, for the past 20 years, expert Opinion has
held disposal by dilution to be inferior to other methods of treating sewage,
and enlightened public opinion has condemned a policy which in effect is
the transfer of a nuisance from our own front door to that of our neighbors.
Large cities On the Great Lakes can not safely drink raw lake water, nor
should they discharge unscreened or unfiltered sewage oither into the Lakes
Or into tributary Streams. In 1915 the Chicago real-estate board employed
three experts, of whom two were of acknowledged eminence in England and
the third a New York expert of well-known authority, to investigate the
Sewage problem of Chicago and to present their views as to the hest way of
SOlving it. *
Their report, entitled “A report to the Chicago Real Estate Board on the
disposal of the sewage and the protection of the water supply of Chicago,
Ill.,” by Messrs. Soper, Watson, and Martin, has been printed, and its con-
clusions are therefore well known to the public in general, and particularly to
the people of Chicago whom they advised substantially in accordance with the
views above expressed. Chicago is, therefore, debarred from any claim for in-
dulgence as to work done and expenditures incurred in recent years. If, in de-
fiance of the opposition of the Government and in open disregard of the law,
the officials of the Chicago Sanitary District have continued to expend the
money of their constituents in the prosecution of unwise and illegal plans, these
officials and their constituency are to blame, and they should expect no great
indulgence from the general public, whose Government they have ignored and
Whose interests they have disregarded.
The CHAIRMAN. Just state to us again the date when Chicago re-
ceived that report.
478 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. EKERN. I think the report was made at the end of 1915 or the
beginning of 1916. * .
The CHAIRMAN. That was my recollection, but I wanted to be sure.
Mr. EKERN. This was made four or five years later in August, 1920,
and concurred in by the board of engineers, and in which it is their
tºion after a most exhaustive investigation as this committee
OWS. , .. w
It has been suggested that relief can be had from this by the erec-
tion of regulating and compensating works. I am not an engineer,
but I know that engineers of high standing say there is some question
about what'effect could be secured from such works.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you pass from mechanics to law, let me
make this suggestion: Suppose all the other communities on both
sides of the Great Lakes drew from this basin a fairly fixed body of
water, to the same extent and in the same percentage as Chicago, what
do you think the effect would be?
Mr. EKERN. We would not have any Lakes left.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you withdrew half that water, can you
compensate for it in some mechanical way?
Mr. EKERN. Well, you know the sanitary district’s theory; they say
it is coming back. t
The CHAIRMAN. In the way that is described in the answer filed?
Mr. EKERN. In the way described in their answer; yes. Of
course, if that is true no drainage project would get anywhere. But
here is the objection I make to this: I object to selling to any spe-
cially favored community by the Federal Government or the joint
action of the Federal Government and Canada a privilege that is
not granted to all. I do not care if they will pay all the costs. And
my objection is based on this ground: If our Lakes can be bettered
by regulating works, there is no question about this, we are entitled
to that bettering and improvement of our navigation interests, for
navigation without any diversion and without any loss that is caused
by diversion. *
There is another thing that has impressed me about this. There
has been a good deal of question
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). In other words, what you say is
that in order to get any benefit that comes from compensatory works
or works which will lift the Lake levels you do not have to withdraw
a lot of water; you can do it, now without the withdrawal'
Mr. EKERN. And we are entitled to the benefit before there is any
withdrawal, absolutely. - s
There is another thing I have noted here. I have noted here a
good deal of tendency to criticize whatever is happening down in
Lake Erie, criticizing what is done by the Canadians, and what is
done by power people at Niagara Falls. I have never, discovered
that one wrong justifies another. I just want to submit this for con-
sideration: That this is not the last treaty; I hope that we will
make other treaties with Canada; as the years go by and the amicable
relations continue I hope the Government of the United States and
the Government of Canada will continue to handle problems by com-
mon negotiations and entering into completed contracts, which will,
of course, be subject to interpretation, etc., defining their respective
rights. . . .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 479
. I think that in that bargaining we people, who are not as shrewd
as apparently our Canadian friends are, who got this 36,000 cubic
feet per second and gave us 20,000 cubic feet, I think in future bar-
gaining we will be at a decided disadvantage if the Congress of
the United States is a party to taking this water down at Chicago
illegally and in violation of law. I do not understand that the
Government of the United States has any power by treaty to give
away your property or mine. My understanding is this Government
of ours, this Congress of this United States, has only such powers
as were delegated by the States. The power to dispose of this water
has not been delegated by any State that I know of to the United
States. We have a property right in these waters: they are our
property; the water is ours: the land below it and the air above it
is our property. We have not given it to the Congress of the United
States; it is ours. And we can not give that away by treaty, and it
will be presumed in the construction of any treaty, absolutely pre-
sumed by the courts, of course, that the Congress of the United
States has acted within its constitutional powers. That is a simple,
fundamental proposition; I do not need to argue that.
Now, then, if you go into this treaty just a moment, as I understand
it, it is really seriously contended here that the giving of a primary
right to water by the treaty in article 5. for uses for sanitary and do-
mestic purposes, is a legalization of taking a stream as large as the
Wisconsin River at its mouth right out of Lake Michigan, not for
drinking water, not for washing, but as a conveyance for sewage
down along the Des Plaines and the Illinois Rivers.
I don’t think that that argument would be made—
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether that argument was ever
advanced before this time, whether it was ever advanced before any
of the Secretaries of War, when the original or any subsequent appli-
cation was made? -
Mr. EKERN. I do not know that: it may have been. I am not
sufficiently familiar with all the arguments. -
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether the arguments at those
times were reduced to writing or not?
Mr. EKERN. Some of them were.
The CHAIRMAN. I have it in mind, General, in your comparisons
of wrongs, of course the question of assuming the diversions at
Niagara or Lake Erie to be wrongs are purely assumptions, because
those diversions were ratified and pursuant to a treaty, and are the
law of the land. -
Mr. EKERN. I want to state for the record I am not stating that
those diversions from Lake Erie and Niagara or the Welland Canal
are wrong. -
The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to make that plain.
Mr. EKERN. I will be glad to go into that. - -
The CHAIRMAN. And one other suggestion along those lines. You
referred to the fact that you hoped this would not be the last treaty
with Canada. As a matter of fact, the United States throughout the
entire border is dependent upon Canada for large quantities of basic
materials, is it not? - - -
Mr. EKERN. I understand so. º
The CHAIRMAN. Which we import in tremendous volumes.
480 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. EKERN. Our newspaper pulp very largely comes from
Canada. . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. And any man who has average common sense
would want the amicable relations, which we are to celebrate as
having existed for a hundred years in the very near future, to con-
tinue for another 100 years. - $ 1 * * * *
Mr. EKERN. I hope so. . .
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, General. s -
Mr. EKERN. I want to recur in this discussion on the treaty.
Article V reserves the primary right to use the water for domestic
and sanitary purposes. I think that is directly construed in the
treaty itself in Article III. The last part of the last sentence of
Article III reads this way. I will only read the part that is material
to this: - r
The foregoing provisions are not intended to limit or interfere with the exist-
ing rights of the Government of the United States on the one side and the
Government of the Dominion of Canada on the other, to undertake and Carry
on governmental works in boundary waters for the deepening of channels
* * * nor such other provisions intended to interfere with the ordinary
uSe Of Such waters for domestic and Sanitary purposes.
You will note that it defines it as the ordinary use of such waters.
Now, of course nobody will contend that the Chicago diversion or
the Chicago taking, an abstraction, is an ordinary use, but it is a
very extraordinary use of waters. 3r
The CHAIRMAN. And in that connection, I suppose, General, you
call attention to the fact that the Board of Engineers, in the report
which you have just mentioned, states unanimously that for 20 years
i.". to the date of the report in 1920, water dilution had not
een the scientific or modern method of sewage disposal.
Mr. EKERN. That is correct; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And that would be specifically significant.
Mr. NEWTON. What date was that? s
The CHAIRMAN. In 1920 the report of the engineers was made. I
will just say that report of the Board of Engineers would have a
special bearing, as much as a dictionary definition of what an
ordinary use meant, would it not? *
Mr. EKERN. Oh, absolutely.
I have taken more of your time than I had intended. I will
simply say that of course it is undisputed here that our lake levels
have been lowered and we are suffering. Now, this matter is in
the Congress. - t
The CHAIRMAN. On that question of whether disputed or not,
you say this, I suppose: That this committee at any rate would be
guided by the Board of Engineers and the Chief of Engineers, who
are our experts, in a matter of this kind, and if it was disputed our
own experts are really those by whom the committee would naturally
be guided. - | -
Mr. EKERN. Yes; but in spite of the statement I read to you
from their answer you will find abundant statements by the sanitary
district which concede the lowering of the lake. So I do not think
you need worry about that. And our position, at least our position
for the State of Wisconsin, is that there is no hurry about any action
by Congress. These people do not come in here with clean hands,
and we are entitled to have this thrashed out in the Supreme Court,
* - * º:
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 481
where it now is, and certainly there should be no such legislation
as is here próposed. * *. # =>
Now, I have not discussed in detail any of the bills. I want to
suggest this, that if it is considered that any bill that is here pro-
posed should be enacted into law, and I had, the pleasure of listening
to my friend Hull state to the Chicago Association of Commerce
that his was the right bill- i • -
Mr. HULL. Don't you think so, because it makes them put in the
sewage plants? . . . . .
Mr. EKERN (continuing). And that they had to pass his bill or
none at all, and hence I want to say that I do not think his bill is
the right bill. I think there are some property rights involved in
various things in dealing with the lower proprietors there which you
might well consider carefully; but I won’t take your time to go into
that, because that is a matter that affects you more than it does us.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any members of the committee wish to ask
any questions? g r }
Mr. HULL. I might ask him one question, since he has made that
statement about my bill. You do not object, do you
Mr. EKERN. No; not at all. -
Mr. HULL. You are not opposed to the part where I force them to
build treatment plants, are you?
Mr. EKERN. Well, I am not sure how effective your provision for
requiring them to build treatment plants is. - 4.
Mr. HULL. I am making them put them in or else there is no water
comes in. Would you object to that?
Mr. EKERN. I did not notice that shutting off the water very
stronghy. & S *-
Mr. HULL. It is in the hands of the War Department.
Mr. EKERN. The War Department has not been very successful
in the past in that. - 8
Mr. HULL. Well, you have to leave it to Somebody. There is
another thing in that bill, and that is where I make the sanitary dis-
trict take care of the land along down the Illinois River. You
would not object to that, would you? &
Mr. EKERN. I suggest you investigate the constitutionality of the
provision you make for the adjustment of those damages; I assume
it has been done. º , ' , - º -3
Mr. HULL. I think the bill is fair that way. I am not trying to tie
you up; but I wanted to know your idea, because I may have to write
another bill some time. - -
The CHAIRMAN. General, do you think Congress—not only this
committee, but Congress itself—has any authority to adjust rights
between the different citizens of the State of Illinois?
Mr. EKERN. I do not know where that is granted to Congress.
Mr. HULL. One more question. I presume you will answer it the
same way as the rest of them have done. Of course, there is a
5.5-inch lowering of the lake from the diversion of water at Chi-
cago; we admit that. There is a 5.6-inch lowering of the lake from
the other end. Would you think it was just as important to stop
the diversion at the other end of the lake as it would be at Chicago?
Mr. EKERN. I question your figures.
Mr. HULL. Well, I will relieve you of questioning them by presum-
ing it. I just want to get your opinion.
91739—24—PT 2 16.
482 H.LINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. EKERN. Well, I don’t want to presume anything that is within
the record or the facts. -
Mr. HULL. I think that that is correct, that those figures are correct.
Mr. EKERN. The figures are given at page 375 of Colonel Warren's
report, and with the understanding that you modify them to that
extent - -
Mr. HULL. The figures I have, maybe they are the same. They
are the Niagara Power Co., 2.2 on a basis of 40,000; and then the
barge canal is 0.9 and the Welland Canal is 2.5. That makes 5.6.
Mr. EKERN. You say that is 5.6%
Mr. HULL. A lowering of the lake of 5.6 inches. General, I am
not fighting for the sanitary district in this case; I am fighting for
a principle that I think is correct, and that is if one person can not
reduce levels another one should not. I think that is what you stated.
Mr. EKERN. I am perfectly willing to stand by that. Let me
get the figures as given in Colonel Warren's report. They are
Seventy-six one-hundredths of an inch lowering of Lake Erie, of
which the Niagara Power Co. takes ten one-hundredths, the barge
canal one one-hundredth, the Black Rock three one-hundredths, and
the Welland Canal twenty-one one-hundredths, and the Chicago
diversion is forty-one one-hundredths. The proportion is something
like yours. M
Mr. HULL. It is about the same. What I wanted to get is some-
thing I think you agree with me about. I think you agree with me
in this respect
Mr. EKERN. Mr Chairman, if there is an illegal diversion or taking
of water, I am just as much opposed to New York State doing it, or
Canada doing it, as to Chicago doing it; but when we try a criminal
on one charge we do not permit him to come in and claim that
because somebody else has committed an offense he has not anything
to do with it. I am not charging that the Chicago district is a
criminal, but the papers talk of their stealing it.
Mr. HULL. I think that is hardly fair. You are doing like the
others did, walking around a couple of blocks without answering my
question. I want you to answer my question.
Mr. EKERN. Let me make this, clear: My understanding of the
diversions at Niagara is that the water is taken off in the Niagara
River and is returned immediately to the Niagara River below.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the fact. -
Mr. HULL. But that is not the question. The question is this:
There is an actual diversion there of 2.2, and you can not get away
with that with me. You might do it with the rest of them; I don’t
know.
Mr. EKERN. Yes; we will agree on that, 2.2. Now, that diversion,
so far as it is in the Niagara River, can not affect navigation at all.
Mr. HULL. Why? It reduces the lake levels of Lake Erie.
Mr. EKERN. Except as it reduces the level of Lake Erie.
Mr. HULL. All right. They have as good right as any other lake,
surelv.
Mr. EKERN. Certainlv. Now, then, the diversion is below, it is
along the river, it is below the crest when the river leaves the lake.
Mr. HULL. That one diversion is what the trouble is in Lake Erie
now, and everybody knows it. That is your trouble, and I am taking
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 483
you at your own word. You have made a good speech; I have not
bothered you, because I think you are friendly; but, on the other
hand, I am only fighting for a principle; I am not fighting for my
bill or for the sanitary district, but for a principle; and the prin-
ciple is to be fair to everybody. If we are to preclude them from
using the 5.5, or, in other words, if we close up Lake Michigan and
give back that water, then I think by all fairness that they ought to
close up the Welland Canal and give back that water. That is a
fair question.
Mr. EKERN. Yes; and you are absolutely wrong on it; and if you
will permit me to answer, I will.
Mr. HULL. All right; I would like you to answer.
Mr. EKERN. The taking out of this water at the head of the
Niagara River and returning it, so far as the Niagara River is con-
cerned, can not affect navigation, because everybody knows there is
no navigation in the Niagara River at this point. Now, then, so far
as the Welland Canal is concerned, the Welland Canal is the one
method of getting any larger boats around the Niagara River. That
is a distinct aid to navigation; there is no question about that. Now,
if there is any right to divert water—and there is, clearly, within
the watershed along the same stream, there is no question about
that—why, of course. that water is legitimately used in the Welland
Canal.
Mr. HULL. All right. I will take your word for that.
Mr. EKERN. And you heard a statement here that not a foot of
that is used for power purposes.
Mr. HULL. But that is not true. They are using it for power
purposes.
Mr. EKERN. But if they are, I say it does not make any difference.
Mr. HULL. No ; I think that is immaterial. Det me go back to
another question. Are you through with that? -
Mr. EKERN. No. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Before you finish that question I want to make a
suggestion to the gentleman. General, the diversion, at Niagara is
a diversion under a treaty, and you understand that this is a com-
mittee of the House of Representatives, do you not?
Mr. EKERN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You understand this is a committee of the House
of Representatives?
Mr. EKERN. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, suppose we had all the desire in the world—
suppose the House had all the desire in the world to repeal a treaty,
has the House any jurisdiction at all over treaties; is not that ex-
clusively the function of the Senate and the Executive?
Mr. EKERN. Exactly. f
The CHAIRMAN. So that the question of this treaty can not be
involved, because we are absolutely without jurisdiction upon the
subject matter.
Mr. HULL. I am not disputing any of those things. You are not
going to get me mixed up with that now. I am simply taking the
gentleman at his word, and I think he agrees with me because I
talked with him a little yesterday.
484 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better confine ourselves to the
record rather than outside talk, because it would not help us any.
Mr. HULL. All right; I will omit the outside talk. Now, what I
am trying to get at is this, Mr. Ekern: You know, as well as I do,
that we want to build a deep waterway down the Mississippi River.
You know that is more important to Wisconsin than the other; you
Know that will help all the farmers of the West and Northwest more
than anything else. It will help Milwaukee and stop those manu-
facturers from moving out. ,
Mr. EKERN. They are not moving out; they are moving in. •
Mr. HULL. The papers say they are moving out. Now, listen. If
we divert water there at Lake Michigan and put it in the Illinois
River and build a canal from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico,
is that any different than letting Canadians take our water and run-
Ining it through the Welland Canal and at the same time, when we
are doing that we are only reducing the level 5.5, and when they run
it in the Welland Canal they reduce it 5.6. Is there any difference?
Mr. EKERN. Are you through?
Mr. HULL. Yes. -
Mr. EKERN. Yes; it is entirely different as a legal proposition.
Mr. HULL. Leave out the legal part of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait. Let the general answer the question.
Mr. HULL. You have been posting the general for a long time.
Let me post him— *.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. I insist that he be given an
Opportunity to answer the question. If you want to withdraw that
and propound another question, all well and good.
Mr. HULL. No; I want to say this: What I want to know is your
actual thought. I don't want the legal part of it.
Mr. EKERN. I can not give you—
Mr. HULL. I can give you mine. •
Mr. EKERN. I will give you both; I won’t dodge in any way. Let
me finish that. As a legal proposition it is our position that you
can not abstractly take this water from one watershed into another.
Mr. HULL. I am going to admit that for the time being.
Mr. EKERN. That settles the whole matter. But, as a matter of
fact, you have an entirely different situation. All the testimony of
all the engineers that has ever been produced, so far as I know, is
to the effect that the present commerce can be carried by 500 second-
feet, and any possible future commerce can be carried by 1,000 cubic
second-feet. w w *
Mr. HULL. But that all depends on how you build the canal.
Mr. EKERN. Exactly; and now I want to say this: That the argu-
ment has been put out that the Federal Government can save be-
tween $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 in connecting this waterway by
taking 10,000 feet º
Mr. HULL. I understand all that.
Mr. EKERN. As against doing it with 1,000 feet.
Mr. HULL. That is not what I asked you. I did not ask you those
questions; I just asked you to give me what you thought
Mr. EKERN. I am telling you. -
Mr. HULL. No, you are not telling me; you are telling me a lot of
other things. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 485
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, the orderly way—
Mr. HULL (interposing). But I am not a lawyer.
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think the committee *
Mr. HULL (interposing). I will leave the committee whenever you
tell me to. * - *
The CHAIRMAN: I think the general ought to be given, a chance.
Mr. HULL. I will give him a chance. r
Mr. EKERN. With this engineering data, we have this further fact;
that in the canal at Chicago, which has been in operation 24 years,
there are no lake carrying boats, and no traffic, there is not a single
facility except in the very lower end of the Chicago River for the
exchange of rail and water borne traffic, notwithstanding the fact
that you have crossing or adjoining that canal at least a dozen of the
largest railroad systems in the world. - • ,
Now, that shows that there has not been any intention to develop
water-borne commerce at this time. Let me follow, that a moment.
Mr. HULL. Go ahead. - -
Mr. EKERN. The hearings before the Secretary of War were full
of testimony with regard to the driving away of commerce from the
Chicago River, which is the mouth of the sanitary district canal.
It never got into the sanitary district canal, and the figures show—it
has been testified before this committee—that the tonnage in 1913,
of 4,000,000 tons, or something like that, in the Chicago River, was
cut in two.
Mr. HULL. We have had all that. • ‘ -
Mr. EKERN. About 2,000,000 or something like that was what it
was in 1920, it was cut in two. You know, now, in addition to that,
if you use 10,000 cubic feet per second in the river you create a
problem of currents. -
Mr. HULL. You are getting away from my question; you haven’t
answered any of it yet. . . .
Mr. EKERN. You have created such a hostility——
Mr. HULL. Don’t get me mixed up with the hostility.
Mr. EKERN. No; I beg your pardon. This sanitary district has
created such a hostility among the people of Illinois, along the river,
that it makes it absolutely impossible to my mind at the present
time to consider any provision for a canal. We object to the sani-
tary district coming in here and brazenly telling us that they are
going to take 10,000 cubic feet of this water forever, and they are
going to dump enough sewage into that water forever to keep it
carrying this pestilence down and destroy
Mr. Hum. (interrupting). You are not answering my question. I
asked you a question and you have gone around like the other
lawyers, dodging things
The CHAIRMAN. I think in fairness to the gentleman—
Mr. HULL (interposing). He is not getting mad
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). That we ought not to comment upon.
his testimony; that we ought to confine ourselves to questions.
Mr. HULL. All right; I have tried to get an answer.
Mr. EKERN. Will you restate your question? -
Mr. HULL. I am trying to get you to agree with me, that is what
I am trying to do. [Laughter.]

486 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Because we all agree, and I think you do agree, but here is what
I want to know, and I want to know it from you in a straight
way without a lot of legal propositions. I think I asked the ques-
tion something like this, that if we built this canal through the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and we evidently have a good in-
tention because the State of Illinois has spent $20,000,000 on it right
now, and if we are not forestalled we will soon have a canal that
will have barges on it that will take as much freight as one of
your big lake steamers in the lakes, provided we are given the
privilege of doing it by the Congress of the United States, if we
build that canal would it be any more harm than to take the water
you claim than it would be to put it through the Welland Canal
into Canada; I want to know if it is any more harm or not, I don't
want to know anything else.
Mr. EKERN. My sole purpose in appearing before this committee
is to convince each member and have them agree with me. Now,
will you give me a moment to answer that?
Mr. HULL. All right. - .
Mr. EKERN. The diversion at Chicago lowers Lake Michigan
half a foot; it lowers Lake Huron half a foot; it lowers Lake St.
Clair, and the two rivers which are entitled to that flow; the effect
on Lake Erie of course does not begin until you get to Lake Erie,
and there it lowers it forty-one one-hundredths of a foot. Now, the
Welland Canal, which is an aid to navigation -
Mr. HULL. Let me stop you right there.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute
Mr. HULL. Won’t the other be an aid of navigation?
The CHAIRMAN. You promised not to interrrupt.
Mr. HULL. That is the reason I asked you about the other, if that
would not be an aid to navigation the same as the other.
The CHAIRMAN. Go on and finish your answer, General.
Mr. EKERN. The effect of the Welland Canal is not felt to any
material extent, at least, until you get to Lake Erie, and there the
lowering by the Welland Canal is twenty-one one-hundredths of a
foot.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the lowering is from Erie down.
Mr. EKERN. No; there is no lowering below the Niagara River
because the Welland Canal goes out back into the stream, there
is no lowering there. Now, the effect of the Chicago diversion is
a lowering of forty-one one-hundredths in Lake Erie, and the low-
ering of the Niagara River by approximately nine-tenths of a foot.
I will give you the figures. -
Mr. HULL. I have them all in front of me.
Mr. EKERN. The lowering of the Niagara River is twenty-three
one-hundredths, and where there is no other lowering is forty-two
one hundredths of a foot from the Chicago diversion, and when
you get to the St. Lawrence you have sixty-two one-hundredths low-
ering. The two propositions can not be compared at all, because
one improves navigation—the Welland Canal—and the other ab-
solutely destroys navigation. - -
Let me make this point in addition to that: I do not want you
to think we are unfair in Wisconsin, but we do our business with
Chicago, and it would be a great advantage to us to have that com-

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 487
merce water borne, and a large part of it can be, but the doors of
Chicago are closed in our face by the situation, and we have a right,
I think, to object to that. Of course, if you don’t want us, we will
go somewhere else. ,
Mr. HULL. Well, I guess I won’t ask you any more, because you
didn't answer that. There is no use in asking you a question when
you don’t answer it.
Mr. EKERN. All right; I am sorry. I have tried to do so.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Larson, of Minnesota.
Mr. LARSON. I was not here to hear all that you have said this
morning. - - -
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. I suppose I ought to ask the
members of the committee. If that is satisfactory to the members
: º committee to have Mr. Larson ask these questions now, go
3.I]{28 CI. -
Mr. LARSON. I was not here when you made your statement. As-
suming that Congress has ample power to regulate interstate com-
merce, which, of course, includes navigation, would it have the
power to regulate it in such a manner as to impair one watercourse
of navigation by improving another watercourse? Has the Su-
preme Court of the United States passed on that question, and, if
not the Supreme Court, has any other court? 2
Mr. EKERN. I would not undertake, right on my feet, to attempt
to answer that.
Mr. LARson. Your position is that Congress would not have the
power to regulate navigation by impairing materially one water-
couse and thereby improving another watercourse?
Mr. EKERN. Oh, absolutely; of course, if it is a material im-
pairment.
Mr. LARson. What I want to know is whether in your investiga-
tion has the Supreme Court of the United States passed on the
question. -
. Mr. EKERN. I would not answer that; but I think so.
Mr. LARSON. You think that it has 2 W
Mr. EKERN. I want to say that that goes to the question of mate-
riality, which you injected into your last question. I am clear on
that, that you can not destroy absolutely one water course for the
purpose of building another, if there are any rights involved.
Mr. LARSON. Not to destroy, but seriously impair it.
Mr. EKERN. Seriously impair it. - -, . . .
Mr. Sweet. The question then would be as to which of the water
routes was of the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
The CHAIRMAN. If the diversion for one waterway seriously im-
paired the other. The question here seems to be twofold—the diver-
sion for a waterway in the Illinois River and the diversion for sani-
tation at Chicago. These two questions are involved, and they in-
volve very different quantities of water. Does anyone else want to
ask anything? -
Mr. NEWTON. Yes. º
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Deal wanted to ask a question.
Mr. NEwTON. Let him go right ahead.
488 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. DEAL. I have listened with a great deal of interest to your talk,
and I am approaching this subject with an absolutely open mind.
There are some things that I am interested in; and, by the way,
while I think of it, I believe you stated that the commerce with
Chicago from Wisconsin had been impaired, did you not?
Mr. EKERN. Yes; from the Chicago end, without any question.
Mr. DEAL. Why? -
Mr. EKERN. Because of the fact that the currents created by this
large diversion have driven commerce from the Chicago Harbor.
Mr. DEAL. I do not catch the idea, quite. Why should that do it?
Mr. EKERN. Lake captains do not want to take their boats in there
and take those chances. - -
Mr. DEAL. How many major harbors are there on Lakes Michigan,
Huron, and Erie?
Mr. EKERN. Wisconsin, I think, has 13 on Lake Michigan and 4
or 5 possibly on Lake Superior. -
Mr. DEAL. Are those all major harbors, or minor harbors?
Mr. EKERN. They are all good-sized harbors. -
Mr. DEAL. What I have in mind in asking about major harbors
are those harbors which are used by the 600-foot ships, the largest
ships that are plying on the Great Lakes? -
Mr. EKERN. Well, I would rather have you ask that of some of the
engineers who are intimately familiar with it.
The CHAIRMAN. General Beach, could you look that up for us and
see how many harbors there are on the Great Lakes in the State
of Wisconsin'
Mr. EKERN. That use 600-foot ships.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DEAL. We have been told here that the waters in the Lakes are
subject to cycles, in which the height rises and falls through periods
of time not due to the incidents of winds or tides. You have no
tides.
Mr. EKERN. There is a slight tide.
Mr. DEAL. But there are conditions and certain cycles of time at
which the water rises and lowers. That being true, would the low-
ering of the Lakes 5% inches make any material difference?
Mr. EKERN. Yes.
Mr. DEAL. In these cycles of time?
Mr. EKERN. Have you finished your question?
Mr. DEAL. Yes. -
Mr. EKERN. The lowering of the Lakes by 5 or 6 inches through a
taking away of the water reduces the level of the Lake by those 5
or 6 inches at all stages, whether it is lower or higher. It does not
make any difference, and hence, of course, in low water the situation
is very much aggravated by the lowering 5 or 6 inches.
Mr. DEAL. It is only during low-water periods?
Mr. EKERN. Not necessarily; because it would affect it all the time.
Of course, during a period, say a year, you have higher water,
because the levels do fluctuate; when you have higher...water the
boats would load deeper.
TMr. DEAL. I understand. f - : ,
Mr. EKERN. Whereas when you have low water, the load would
have to be accommodated to the depth of water that carries the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 489
boat; and I am told by vessel captains that they load to the last
inch that is permitted by the harbor out of which they go, the road-
way, and the harbor into which they will go.
Mr. DEAL. I get that idea. t
Mr. EKERN. And hence it is very important.
Mr. DEAL. Otherwise that for navigation the lowering of the
Lakes a matter of 6 inches would not be material?
Mr. EKERN. Yes. That is a very material thing in other ways,
because piling, docking, and wharfage, and all that has been built to
accommodate a certain height. An alteration of 6 inches in the lake
level one way or the other makes a difference; and then the water
supply, the intake pipes, and a lot of that kind of stuff, and the
lower channels in the Soo, for instance—in the canals—all of those
are affected by any such changes in the level of the Lakes. The
Federal Government has spent, according to the engineers’ report,
$135,000,000 in improving these roadways and harbors, largely by
dredging, and if you will find out what a contractor charges for
adding 6 inches to the depth of a harbor you will learn—of course,
you probably know—it is a very large amount.
Mr. DEAL. I understand that.
The CHAIRMAN. I might suggest on your question of navigation to
still further answer Congressman Deal's question, that the testimony
before us is that the boats are now built with a depth of 24 feet, not
because they have 24 feet, but because they find that from an engi-
neering standpoint they can get their greatest strength in that way.
So you have at all times the large boats capable of loading to 24
feet, and it makes no difference; you can not control the cycles. If
the cycle is a low cycle or a high cycle, the Congress of the United
States would not be able to control that, but they would be able to
control diversions; and every diversion that takes away an inch takes
away 100 tons on one of these vessels, and you just multiply your 6
inches by 100 and you get your 600 tons, or 590 tons, for the actual
diversion which those boats lose regardless of the cycle—whether it
is a high or a low cycle. You lose it at all times on the boats as they
are constructed and as it is best to construct them.
Mr. EKERN. That is my understanding.
Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I understand that perfectly, I will not
pursue this line of questioning any further, but wait until an engi-
neer comes on the stand. I had another motive in asking those
questions which I will develop later.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought that perhaps you might not have been
here at the time this testimony came out.
Mr. DEAL. I was here and heard it and understand that feature,
and I grasp that, but I had another motive in mind, which I will
develop later. -
The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee have any
Questions?
Mr. NEwTON. Yes; I have some questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Newton.
Mr. NEWTON. As I understand, General, as a result of the diver-
sion at Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet the Chicago Harbor has been
490 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
rendered in such a condition that a large number of the lake cap-
tains won’t take their boats in there?... . - J
Mr. EKERN. That is my understanding. . . . . . . .
Mr. NEwTON. Then what Wisconsin is trying to do is to protect
Chicago against her own folly? - -
Mr. EKERN. We think so. - -
Mr. NEwToN. It is rather a charitable interest? -
“Mr. EKERN. Well, I think if the facts were put before the people
of Chicago, a lot of people in Chicago would take the same view.
Mr. NEwToN. You say that this reduction reduces the level of the
lake at all times, whether the lake is high or low Ż f
Mr. EKERN. Exactly. -
Mr. NEwTON. As I understand it, in the latter part of the spring
and early summer, the melting of the snow al.,d the rains raise the
levels of the lakes generally; that the early summer is the high
point, isn’t it? w
Mr. EKERN. Necessarily a greater inflow. . .
M, NEwTON. And the level of the lakes would be higher at that
time? - -
Mr. EKERN. Yes. It depends not only on the rainfall and the
inflow of melting snow, but also of course on the season, the rate
of evaporation.
Mr. NEwToN. Yes. Now, as I understand it, the general level
of the lakes now, has not gone down quite to the point of 1895.
Is that right? .
Mr. EKERN. I am not advised as to that.
Mr. NEwTon. Is that true, General Beach 2 Is it below 1895
now, and if so how much below :
Mr. WILLIAM. F. ARDERN of Milwaukee. The War Department
says that 1923 has been the lowest point since 1860.
Mr. NEWTON. How much lower than 1895? af
Mr. ARDERN. About three-tenths of a foot.
Mr. NEwTON. Then, if that be true, and this is one of the cycles, it
must be that the general tendency of the Lakes is rising, because you
say the reduction is about 9 inches as a result of the diversion.
The CHAIRMAN. Five and five-tenths inches.
Mr. NEWTON. Five inches.
Mr. SweFT. Nine-tenths of a foot.
Mr. EKERN. No ; the reduction in Lake Michigan is between 5 and
6 inches. * -
The CHAIRMAN. Five and five-tenths, the testimony is.
Mr. NEwToN. Then the reduction as a result of the diversion is
much greater than the reduction as a result of the cycle, isn’t it?
Mr. EKERN. Those are engineering questions.
Mr. NEwTON. That is a matter of common sense. There is no engi-
neering about that.
e
Mr. EKERN. Here is the proposition: Whatever you abstract from
any cause just lowers the levels that much. r
Mr. NEwTON. Providing the supply is at all times the same.
Mr. EKERN. It does not make any difference.
Mr. NEwTON. If this is the low end of the cycle, it would indicate
that the level of the lake without the diversion would be much higher
than it was in 1895, wouldn’t it?
ILLINois AND MIssissippi Rivers, ETC. 491
Mr. EKERN. Of course, I would not want to make any statement
in regard to your cycles, because I do not understand that these cycles
run in any well-defined orbit. -
Mr. NEwTON. But we have been diverting water for some 20 years,
haven’t we? . w -
Mr. EKERN. Twenty-four.
Mr. NEwTON. How long has Chicago been diverting?
Mr. EKERN. Twenty-four years. Well, there were some taking
before that, I think. r -
* Mr. NEwTON. But since 1900 Chicago has been diverting?
Mr. EKERN. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. You say that the reduction at Chicago is not felt on
Lake Erie? ‘.
“Mr. EKERN. I beg your pardon. That is not what I said. I said
that the diversion at Chicago is felt on Lake Erie to the extent of
forty-one hundredths of a foot by Colonel Warren’s report.
The CHAIRMAN. And what he did say, Congressman Newton, was
this, as I understood him : That the diversion at the Welland Canal
was only felt as far as Erie. That was my understanding.
Mr. EKERN. That is correct. There may be a very slight effect on
the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair.
Mr. NEwTON. Can you calculate that, with a large opening between
Lake Huron and Lake Erie? f
Mr. EKERN. There is a difference in levels between Lake Erie and
Lakes Huron and Michigan of approximately 9 feet.
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. EKERN. There is about 3 feet, I believe, up the Detroit River
to Lake St. Clair, and then 6 or 7 feet from Lake St. Clair to Lake
Huron. t
Mr. NEwToN. Now, water seeks a level, doesn’t it?
Mr. EKERN. Of course. ty -
Mr. NEWTON. As you enlarge and deepen the channel between
Lake Huron and Lake Erie, with a 9-foot fall you will increase pro-
portionately the flow from Lake Huron to Lake Erie, seeking a level,
won’t you?
Mr. EKERN. That depends upon the place where the deepening
takes place.
Mr. NEWTON. The channel has been deepened considerably, so that
the ships can go through.
Mr. EKERN. If it was uniformly 9 feet clear through and an abso- .
lutely uniform level, and the crest of the river was 9 feet, of course,
if you deepen that 9 feet it will increase the flow.
Mr. NEwTon. That depends not on the crest of the river; it de-
pends on the crest of Lake Huron, doesn’t it?
Mr. EKERN. Well, I mean the river bed.
Mr. NEwTON. You mean the crest of the reservoir above will de-
termine the extent to which it will flow :
Mr. EKERN. I thought you were referring to the bottom of the
river and the bottom of the lake being excavated.
Mr. NEwToN. I am. -
Mr. EKERN. And I was discussing the level of the bottom and not
the level of the top.
492 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETG.
Mr. NEWTON. But if you maintain the top of your reservoir at the
same height and you enlarge and deepen the channel leading out of
that reservoir into the receptacle below, you will increase the speed
of the flow or the quantity of the flow, won’t you?, ; : .' .
Mr. EKERN. I think that would follow on your statement,
Mr. NEwTON. That is reasonable, isn’t it?" -
Mr. EKERN. Certainly. -
Mr. NEWTON. You understand— -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Of course, on all of these engineer-
ing questions we are, going to have the testimony of General Beach
and General Bixby.
Mr. NEWTON. I know; but he has testified on lake levels.
Mr. EKERN. I have no objection to answering any obvious ques-
tions, but I want it understood that I am not speaking as an engi-
Elee I’.
Mr. NEwTON. We understand that.
Mr. EKERN. My knowledge of this comes from reading the engi-
* report and from observation, which you, have just as much
aS L.
Mr. NEWTON. It does not take an engineer, though, to know that
if you have two tanks of water of equal size, and you bore a hole in
the bottom of each, and the diameter of one is 1 inch and the
diameter of the other is 2 inches, that the 2-inch hole would empty
that tank first.
Mr. EKERN. I think that would happen.
Mr. NEwTON. And if you deepen and enlarge the channel between
Lake Huron and Lake Erie in order to get a uniform depth of 22
feet, when it was only 13 feet before, and you make that channel 1,050
feet wide, the probabilities are that more water will flow through in
the deep channel when you have a 9-foot fall than would flow
through there in the shallow channel. •
Mr. EKERN. There is no doubt more water will flow through the
channel. r
Mr. NEwTON. If a channel has been cut through between Lake
Huron and Lake Erie, through the bottom of the river as it existed,
when it got the free passage, a channel of uniform depth deeper than
the minimum channel, amounting to 1,050 feet, wide and some 9 feet
deep, that would carry considerable additional water through
wouldn’t it?
Mr. EKERN. I would think so. º
Mr. NEwTON. And if it has been going on, that probably has
contributed to the lowering of the Lakes Huron and Michigan, as
well as the Chicago diversion?
Mr. EKERN. That would involve this question, whether or not
the channels were blocked in other parts. It would also involve
the question of whether or not, as a matter of fact, the channel
was only 13 feet deep at the highest point of land where the river
joins Lake Huron. I am just stating some of the things that ap-
pear to me obvious.
Mr. NEwTo.N. I do not think that feature has been gone into.
The flow of the channel would be determined by the smallest,
shallowest place. That would be the neck of the bottle. -
ILLINOTS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 493
Mr. EKERN. Taking into account the width as well.
Mr. NEWTON. Yes; the width and the depth as well.
Mr. EKERN. Yes. : * - f *
Mr. NEWTON. If you cut out of the bottom of that a clear chan-
nel all the way through 9 feet deep and 1,050 feet wide, that is
going to throw, with that fall, a considerable amount of water
through, isn’t it? g-
Mr. EKERN. I would think so. I think that these questions
should be answered by the engineers. - . . . .
Mr. NEWTON. If you put an obstruction in there, or if you put
a lock across that river, you could hold that level of the lake above
and raise it probably, according to the amount of water that came
in above, couldn’t you? - -
Mr. EKERN. Undoubtedly you could control it by locks, if you
dammed for the whole width.
. Mr. NEwTON. Then, if you dam for half, you would reduce it
50 per cent, wouldn't you? .
Mr. EKERN. That is a matter you will have to ask the engineers.
d Mr. Newtos. You don’t have to be an engineer to know that,
O you ? & 4 -
Mr. EKERN. Yes; I think very much so. -
Mr. NEWTON. Isn’t that the same as the difference between a
1-inch hole and a 2-inch hole in a tank; if you cut off half of the
water, you would halve that space.
Mr. EKERN. If you cut off half the uniform space.
Mr. NEWTON. If you close one space in so that only half the
space exists that existed before, then you would reduce the flow
one-half, wouldn’t you? -
Mr. EKERN. No. That does not follow at all. That does not
follow in mill-dam cases. t
Mr. NEwTON. Would it reduce it at all?
Mr. EKERN. Of course, it would reduce it; but, there being a
broader tail race below for the smaller quantity of water, the flow
probably would be greater. i *
Mr. SweFT. You increase your run-off friction and thereby re-
tard the flow to a certain degree. g t
Mr. NEwTON. Of course, that is the point. º
Mr. EKERN. It may operate both ways, depending on your tail
I’a Ce. i * -
Mr. NEwTON. As you close down the opening through which the
water 'flows you would necessarily reduce the amount of water
coming through in a given period of time?
Mr. EKERN. I would say so. - --
Mr. NEWTON. You take the situation at the other end. I want to
say to you now that I am not advocating any 10,000 feet or any other
amount. I am not interested in electricity, except to be just and
equitable; but I am interested in navigation for the whole country.
I think as time passes and this country develops, as its industries.
multiply there is going to be an increasing demand for enough
water coming out of the Great Lakes down through the Mississippi
Valley to insure navigation. As to how much it takes for navigation
is a question that we ought to get some information on. I assume
494 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
that your interest as a representative of Wisconsin is a lake-level
interest, .. . . . . . . . . . "
Mr. EKERN. We are interested in lake levels.
Mr. NEWTON. You want the lake levels maintained? . -
Mr. EKERN. And then we want the canal built down through
Illinois and into the Gulf of Mexico. , ºr
Mr. NEWTON: Of course, you are interested in being fair to every-
body concerned? -
Mr. EKERN. Yes. • ,
Mr. NEWTON. But, regardless of how much we think ought to b
taken for navigation, is it your understanding that the Canadians
and the Americans who have been considering this question prior to
the treaty took into account any amount of flow at Chicago for
Sanitary purposes?
Mr. EKERN. The question of the Chicago diversion entered into
the discussions without any question. The reports show that. -
Mr. NEWTON. They took into account a specific amount in those
considerations, and did not the Canadians recommend a specific
amount? -
Mr. EKERN. I do not so understand.
Mr. NEwTON. What does this mean in the report of the joint com-
mission of both Canadians and Americans on May 3, 1906, when
both the Canadian and American members of the commission made
a joint report as follows - -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What page?
Mr. NEWTON. Page 55 of the hearings.
The CHAIRMAN. Of what hearings?
Mr. NEWTON. The McCormick hearings. Paragraph 3 of this
joint report contained the following extract from the commission’s
report: r
3. The commission therefore recommends that Such (liversions, exclusive of
water required for domestic use or the service of locks in navigation canals, be
limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second, and on the United
States side to 18,500 cubic feet per second (and in addition thereto a diversion
for sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second be authorized
for the Chicago drainage canal). -
They must have had in mind that they were considering this ques-
tion of the Chicago drainage canal and had in mind the limit of
10,000 cubic feet then, didn’t they’ -
Mr. EKERN. I only know about that what it states.
Mr. NEwTON. Is not that the reasonable interpretation of the
language? • -
Mr. EKERN. That is what they say.
Mr. NEwTON. I do not see that it could be construed in any other
way; and it goes on further to say—
and that a treaty or legislation he had limiting these diversions to the quanti-
ties mentioned. 4
In other words, the joint commission represented by Canadians
and Americans, making the report to the United States and to
Canada, recommended legislation limiting the amount, among other
things, to 10,000 cubic feet per second for Chicago, didn't it?
Mr. EKERN. I assume that you are reading that correctly, and that
that is what they said.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPP1 RIVERS, ETC. 495
Mr. NEwTON. Then they must have had it in mind, and they must
have recommended a specific amount. Whether we find that is neces-
sary now for navigation purposes and to enable Chicago to take care
of her sanitation is another question. -
Mr. EKERN. Before leaving that, I do not want to leave any mis-
understanding on the record here. It is not, of course. claimed that
any of this became effective as a treaty or law in any form.
Mr. NEwTON. Then we will take up the treaty.
Mr. EKERN. Under the treaty there is no mention of this.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you contend that any part of the diversion at
Chicago is legal?
Mr. EKERN. We take the position as a matter of law that lifting
of the water out of the watershed is something that this Congress
can not authorize, and that it is illegal. -
Mr. NEWTON. That it is illegal?
Mr. EKERN. Yes; but we are not raising that question on the ques-
tion of taking water for purposes of navigation.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you contend that the United States and Canada
could not enter into a treaty by which a certain amount of water
can be diverted for navigation purposes?
Mr. EKERN. Absolutely. We take the position that the United
States can not do it.
Mr. NEwTON. If Canada agrees to if :
Mr. EKERN. The agreement of Canada can not justify a violation
of our Constitution. -
Mr. NEwton. You contend, then, that the United States and
Canada can not make a treaty. What provision of the Constitu-
tion prohibits such a treaty 2
Mr. EKERN. It is not the prohibition, it is the grant. You must
find the grant.
Mr. NEwToN. But for navigation purposes I think the Constitu-
tion recognizes the right of the public over the right of the indi-
vidual, doesn’t it? We have the right to confiscate property for
navigation ?
Mr. EKERN. In the regulation of navigation ? -
Mr. NEwTon. Yes; in the regulation of navigation. If for the
purpose of navigation
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think we are making an error
here in our assumption in these questions. I do not understand
that the General contends that Canada and the United States would
not have the right to make a treaty. -
Mr. NEWTON. That is what he said. ſº
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if he did contend that I take it that
is an inadvertence.
Mr. EKERN. They have an absolute right to make a treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. What the effect of that treaty would be in the
United States’ reservation of the right to do something with the
water is a question as to which, as I understand it, the General con-
tends that each of the States located on the Great Lakes has an in-
terest, and that they would not be foreclosed by the treaty.
Mr. EKERN. Exactly; that is our position.
Mr. NEwTON. You mean that the Government of the United States,
in dealing with navigation, has not a power superior to the States?
Mr. EKERN. Not in that respect.
496 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. NEwTON. That we would have no right to cut a canal through
jº, land, for instance, if the owners of that property objected
to it?
Mr. EKERN. Now, Mr. Newton, there is no such question as that
involved at all. Let us make this clear. The thing that we object
to is the taking and lifting of this water, out of its natural water-
shed—the thing we object to as a legal proposition—and putting it
over into another watershed.
Mr. NEWTON. That is what I am going into, because that question
is of a great deal of concern to this country.
Mr. EKERN. But understand, so far as these hearings are con-
cerned, we are not making that objection before the Congress.
Mr. NEwTON. I understand that.
The CHAIRMAN. You are not making that objection?
Mr. EKERN. As to navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. As to the reasonable diversion for navigation ?
Mr. EKERN. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. But what I want to get at is this, whether or not
we have a right, if we enter into a treaty with Canada by which, for
illustration, we would divert 10,000 cubic feet of water, then has
Congress the right to divert it?
Mr. EKERN. Our position is squarely this, that while you may
enter into a treaty with Canada that might specify that there may
be diverted to Chicago 10,000 cubic second-feet, the question would
still be open between Chicago and the Sanitary District on the one
side and the United States and all of the other States on the other
side whether or not you could do it.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you contend is this, that
that provision in the treaty would have no more binding effect on
Milwaukee than if there was a provision insterted in the treaty
that the various local improvements made by Milwaukee to the
extent of five or six million dollars should become the property of
the United States without compensation?
Mr. NEWTON. If Canada entered into a treaty and signed it.
providing for 10,000 cubic feet diversion at Chicago, then, so far
as Canada is concerned, any diversion on this side would be legal,
wouldn't it? Canada’s treaty would bind Canada, wouldn’t it?
Mr. EKERN. That is a question that I do not want to pass on, as
between Canada and Canada's Provinces and Canada's citizens.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you question the right of the Canadian Govern-
ment to make a treaty affecting this water?
Mr. EKERN. And binding its citizens, its Provinces?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. EKERN. That is a question of Canadian law purely.
Mr. NEWTON. Have you any doubt about the authority of the
United States, the Congress of the United States, having the right
to make waterways and build highways and take property for that
purpose ?
Mr. EKERN. I do not think in building a highway that the United
States or anybody else can take the minerals from my land and trans-
port them to another man’s land without compensation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 497
Mr. NEwTON. Do you think that if the treaty with Canada author-
lized any diversion at all at Chicago, that Chicago to that extent is
violating the treaty? - 1 * :- 1 - - r
Mr. EKERN. I do not understand that that is involved.
Mr. KEEFER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. -
Mr. KEEFER. Is it your contention that Canada has consented to
any diversion at Chicago? . - -
r. NEWTON. That is just what I am getting at now. . . *
Mr. KEEFER. Because what you have read is the preliminary nego-
tiations but not the final treaty.
Mr. NEWTON. I am going into the treaty. •
Mr. BEHAN. May I make it clear to the gentleman from the Do-
minion that the Chicago Sanitary District and the people of our
community do contend seriously and sincerely that Canada has en-
tered into a solemn compact with the United States, under the terms
º the Chicago Sanitary District diversion was agreed to and
I’8.U.I.T162C1. -
Mr. KEEFER. We understand that is the contention of Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. I want to get this, and you may
be familiar with it. Was there any such contention ever advanced
in behalf of Chicago at any of the hearings subsequent to the nego-
tiation of the treaty before any Secretary of War? t
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Dempsey, frankly, I can not tell you that. Judge
Barrett and myself have only recently taken charge of a portion of
this matter, but our position is that regardless of whether or not that
question was ever raised before the War Department or before any
other body, that the question is properly raised here and properly
before this committee for its decision.
The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you. There is no question
about that at all, but you would materially assist the committee if
during the recess you could -
Mr. BEHAN. I will ask Mr. Adcock if he can answer that.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; it was raised.
The CHAIRMAN. At what time and through what Secretary of
War?
Mr. ADCOCK. Before Mr. Stimson. You will find that in volume
6 of the Supreme Court Record, and an extract of all of those pro-
ceedings. -
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough—
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). We have a full and complete set of the
record which has been printed by the clerk of the United States Su-
preme Court, for filing with the committee at the proper time—the
entire transcript.
The CHAIRMAN. If you can file that during the recess, it would
enable us to give it some study, perhaps. -
Mr. ADCOCK. I want to say this, that at that time the only thing
that was before the Secretary of War was the treaty itself, and the
report of the International Waterways of January 4, 1907, relative
to the Chicago Drainage Canal, with the report which Congressman
Newton has read, the report of the Canadian commission of April 25,
1906. That is, the Canadian members of the commission were not
498 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
before the Secretary of War, for the reason that we were unable to
find them, but those are published in a complete record of the pro-
ceedings of the International Waterways Commission cited under
the authority of the Ottawa Government, and they are available for
the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Just to make the record complete, what is the date
of this report of the commission?
Mr. AdcocK. May 3, 1906. There are three or four reports.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that a permanent commission or a temporary
commission?
Mr. ADCOCK. It was a commission that existed from 1905 to 1913,
and was appointed under joint legislation of Canada and the
United States for the purpose of investigating these very proposi-
tions and to make recommendations as to terms of the treaty, and
as I understand an examination of the treaty will disclose that the
treaty provisions contained substantially almost exactly the recom-
mendations of that commission.
Mr. BEHAN. May I interrupt again?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
Mr. BEHAN. To say that at the proper time the sanitary district,
when it proceeds with its case, we have had prepared and will file
with the clerk of the committee and with each member of the com-
mittee reprints of these reports, not only of the American com-
mission but of the joint commission and of the Canadian commission
to its Government. All of that will be furnished to the committee.
Mr. BARRETT. We would like, if possible, to have the names and
addresses and who these men are from Canada, and whom they
represent, in the record, Mr. Chairman. May we have that?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Keefer. - •
Mr. KEEFER. Mr. J. W. Stewart is an engineer representing the
Federal Government of Canada. I, Frank H. Keefer, represent the
Province of Ontario. I think that the other gentlemen that are
here are here in more of a private and municipal capacity. One,
for instance, the mayor of the city of Toronto, the vice president——
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). May we have their names, please?
Mr. KEEFER. Mr. W. W. Hiltz, representing the city of Toronto;
Mayor McGuire, of the city of Toronto, who is the vice president of
the same association of which Mr. Bruce is the chairman, the Great
11akes Harbor Association. He is here in that representative capac-
ity, not representing Canada, but as an officer of the association.
Then there is Mr. S. B. Gundy, representing the Toronto Board of
Trade; Mayor T. J. Jutten, of Hamilton, Ontario; Maj. Alex C.
Lewis, who is associated with me; Mr. Arthur V. White. C. E.,
representing the Hydroelectric Power Commission of Ontario.
Mr. BARRETT. I understood that Mr. Bruce was an American. I
was trying to find out who was here from Canada.
Mr. KEEFER. I have tried to tell you.
Mr. BARRETT. Have we got them all now Ż
Mr. KEEFER. Yes, sir. On this question we, of course, ſater on,
if you so wish, will give our position on this matter. The Canadian
viewpoint is simply this: This is a contest between the United
States and the city of Chicago. We are relying upon the United
States keeping the city of Chicago in order. It is none of our busi-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 499
ness what is here before this committee. We feel that we are in the
wrong forum. We have great confidence in the position the United
States has taken through its War Office. They have attempted to
regulate Chicago. Through their judiciary they have attempted to
regulate Chicago, and that matter is pending in your courts. They
are now coming for relief to this Congress, and that is a matter
for you to deal with. We feel that we are quite out of our forum
to take part in these proceedings.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me state on that point that the committee has
received a communication from the Secretary of State asking if it
would be agreeable to the committee to have you attend and be
heard, and the committee has communicated with the Secretary and
said it would be entirely agreeable. So the matter has come
about in the regular way and through the regular channels.
Mr. KEEFER. We thank you very much for the great courtesy
you have shown us all the way through. I might briefly state our
position in that respect. We will go into the detail later. We have
had preliminary documents filed. The treaty is what governs. The
preliminary documents refer to two matters only, the dealing with
the stopping—not permitting but the stopping—of diversion at
Niagara Falls. If it was not stopped, the river would be dry. In
investigating that they deal with two things. They did stop that
diversion to the then existing power plants. The details are set out
both in the American and the Canadian reports, and they also rec-
ommended and our Canadian negotiators signed their names to
what was then considered a necessary and neighborly act to a diver-
sion at Chicago. When the matter was dealt with by the two Gov-
ernments, the United States and Canada, both of them adopted the
matter of recognizing the existing plants at Niagara, but rejected
the Chicago diversion. That is not in the treaty at all, and if it is
argued that Canada is bound by that treaty, and the court of Illi-
nois so held that they are, because if Canada is bound so is the
United States: they both signed these preliminary negotiations and
they both recommended the Chicago diversion, and if Canada is
bound then we are wasting our time here in all this argument, be-
cause the United States is bound. *
The CHAIRMAN. Might. I just ask this before you finish ' | Here
is a preliminary report signed in 1906 which seems to precede the
treaty, which was made in 1909 or 1910? -
Mr. KEEFER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, a good deal of water seemed to
go over the dam for a number of years past, for a very considerable
period, after this report was signed before any treaty was nego-
tiated. Of course the report could only be advisory and recom-
mendatory ! - {
Mr. KEEFER. That is all. -
The CHAIRMAN. It could not be controlling?
Mr. KEEFER. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. But, of course, while preliminary negotiations
are at times receivable as some evidence of what has been done, yet
after all the document that is finally signed is that which must
finally control the parties. Do you know whether there is any rec-
500 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ord, of negotiations between the two countries, following this joint
report, and between that date—the date of it—and the final ratifica-
tion of the treaty? . . . - *
Mr. KEEFER. I can not, say whether there are or are not. I am
utterly ignorant of such. , There may and may not be... -
The CHAIRMAN. If you will be good enough, as I suggested to
the other side, to find out— r . -
Mr. KEEFER. I will endeavor to do so. But what I have found
out is this, if I may present it to you. The negotiations leading up
to it are perfectly clear. The object of the negotiations between
the two countries was to preserve Niagara Falls and to maintain as
far as possible the level of Lake Erie. They had a number of
power plants started; two large American companies were built on
the Canadian side, and they are there to-day, that were exporting
their power to the United States under a license from Canada.
The commission wanted to stop, they felt constrained and had so
reported in their negotiations, and I can quote to you when the
proper time comes the report to substantiate this, that they felt
constrained and compelled to recognize the existing capital expendi-
tures on both sides of the line, two of which were on our side, but
they said, over an objection, “We will stop all more,” and they did
so and so recommended, and the two Governments have adopted
that, adding on 1,500 more to the American 18,500, and the details
are specifically given of the 36,000, the Ontario power, the Niagara
power, so much for the Niagara Falls Park Railway and its little
plant, and so much for the Welland Canal, and on the American
side the two power plants, and then in addition to that—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Where will we get those figures?
Mr. KEEFER. They are documents, and I will get them for you
before we adjourn.' -
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. KEEFER. In addition to that, and that which they were not
appointed for, apparently, they did deal with this Chicago diver-
sion, and our commissioners recommended it, and so did the United
States commissioners recommend it, but both Governments some
years after, as you say, when they made the treaty, did not accept
the Chicago diversion, but did deal with the other. There is where
the matter stands, and if there is any other information that hap-
pened between those dates I will try and get it. I have spent a
good deal of time digging up what I could get for you.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be very helpful.
Mr. BARRETT. Just a moment before you adjourn. We in Chi-
Cà, CO
#. CHAIRMAN (interposing). Would it not be just as well to
defer your questions until after the recess?
Mr. BARRETT. I think I had better get it now. It will only take
a moment. I will be very brief.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. -
Mr. EKERN. But before Mr. Barrett makes a statement, I want
to say that I am obliged to leave at 3 o'clock, and I would like to
conclude anything you, want of me before you adjourn. I have
nothing further to add except this, that if the position of the sani-
tary district is as they now state it, that they rest on the treaty,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 501
and that it provides them with what they need, then this committee
and this House of Representatives and this Congress has not any-
thing to do with it. -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course not. * 4.
Mr. EKERN. It is a matter, then, absolutely before the court, and
that is where we ask you to leave it. . . . . . . .
Mr. BARRETT. I wish the chairman would not conclude that ques-
tion so quickly, at least until we have had our entire case heard.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; we won’t.
Mr. NEWTON. I have a few more questions to ask and I do not
like to be cut off on this.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well; proceed.
Mr. NEwTON. Now, General, as I understood you to say, or did I
understand you to say that there was no authority in the treaty for
the diversion of any water at Chicago? º
Mr. EKERN. That is my understanding. The treaty does not
mention 10,000 cubic second-feet or any other quantity.
Mr. NEwton. The tréâty was entered into and ratification ex-
changed at Washington on May 5, 1910; and I find in the treaty this
provision: -
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses
enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which
tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which was given
precedence over it in this order of precedence:
(1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;
(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of
navigation ; -
(3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
I find following this provision in the treaty:
The foregong provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses of
boundary waters on either side of the boundary.
Don't you think that makes it clear that in the body of the treaty
they took into account the amount of water that was at that time,
in 1910, being diverted to the Chicago canal?
Mr. EKERN. They probably did, and in accordance with the solemn
report of the sanitary district that amount of water at that time was
some 3,100 cubic second-feet, and it had been less the year before. I
am not in a position to say there what they took into account. That
is a matter of legal construction, and I think we would be wasting
our time— *
Mr. NEwTON (interposing). But you are a law officer and the repre-
sentative here of a great State. * .
Mr. EKERN. We take the position that the treaty does not give
Chicago any rights as against anybody in the United States.
Mr. NEwToN. Let us assume that that is true. -
Mr. EKERN. And now we will leave the Canadians to settle that
with their own people. * --
Mr. NEwton. Then if the Canadians take anything in violation
of this treaty they would violate it, wouldn’t they? I find that the
treaty, makes this requirement: -
The requirement for an equal division may in the discretion of the commis-
sion be suspended in cases where such diversion does not diminish elesewhere
the amount available for use on the other side.
502 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. EKERN. May I answer that right squarely this way? Don't
you think if there was any question of violation by Canada that that
is a matter for our diplomatic department? . . . .
Mr. NEwTon. But have you as attorney general of Wisconsin, or
has your State or any officer of your State, made any protest to the
§ºry of State about the taking of water through the Welland
Canal? .
Mr. EKERN. We are not advised of any diversion. - .
Mr. NEwTON. You say you rely on the engineers’ report, and that
says that the water going through the Welland Canal reduces the
Jake level more than half as much as the diversion at Chicago.
Mr. EKERN. When we have any information on which we ought to
proceed we will proceed, but at the present time there is not any
before us. . . .
Mr. NEwTON. You have had the report here of the Chief of Engi-
neers; you have heard that presented here? - # * y
Mr. EKERN. The report of the Chief of Engineers, so far as that
goes, shows a direct improvement of navigation without any ques-
tlon. - - - . . '
Mr. NEwTON. The report of the engineers says—I will put you,
on notice now, as the representative of the State of Wisconsin, that
the report of the engineers says—that the diversion through the
Welland Canal lowered the level of the lake 0.22 feet. *
Mr. EKERN. 0.21. - -
Mr. NEwToN. 0.22; I have it. That is half as much as Chicago.
Don’t you think it is your duty, as the law officer of your. State, to
make a formal protest at having your lake levels lowered by the
Welland diversion? -
Mr. EKERN. Not at all. 1 *
The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any protest over the Livingstone,
Channel, over the construction of that new channel for navigation
purposes?
Mr. EKERN. No. ,
The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any protest over any channel that
was constructed for navigation purposes?
Mr. EKERN. None whatever. -
Mr. NEwton. And would you make any protest over what the Con-
gress thought was a reasonable amount for navigation at Chicago?
Mr. EKERN. I have already stated that we do not object to the
taking of any water—we do not, in fact, object to the taking of any
water that is necessary for navigation at Chicago.
Mr. NEwton. But you stated that 500 cubie feet per second was
enough at Chicago? w , - • ,
Mr. EKERN. At the present time. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. NEwToN. Of course navigation has not been improved, but
when the navigation is improved do you think that is enough? .
Mr. EKERN. The report of the engineers states a thousand cubic'
second-feet will carry a hundred million tons annually.
Mr. NEwTon. Can you explain, then, why it is that Chicago is tak-
ing 8,000 cubic feet per second and reducing the level of the lake
0.43 feet, and the Welland Canal is taking enough to reduce the level
of the lake 0.22 feet? h • " . . . . . . . . . . .
f
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 503.
Mr. EKERN. Of Lake Erie. That does not have anything to do
with Lake Michigan.
Mr. NEWTON. How can you say that when if you lower the level
of Lake Erie any greater you increase the fall between Lake Huron
and Lake Erie Ż
Mr. EKERN. By 0.21 of an inch.
Mr. NEWTON. To that extent you have increased the fall?
Mr. EKERN. The report of the engineers say that the effect on Lake
Huron and Lake Michigan is imperceptible.
Mr. NEWTON. It certainly makes some reduction?
Mr. EKERN. I think there is an engineer who claims that compen-
Sating work can be put in there at the head of Niagara Falls and raise
very materially Lake Erie, and that that will affect
Mr. NEWTON (interposing). Is there any reason why compensat-
ing work can not be put in the Detroit River and raise the level of
Lake Michigan? -
Mr. EKERN. The upper river, the St. Clair, isn’t it?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. EKERN. I assume that something of that kind could be done,
but engineers differ on that.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you will find that there is an engi-
neer in the world who will testify you can do that on account of the
enormous amount of traffic at that point. Vessels pass a given point
there I think—how often, General Beach 2
General BEACH. One every two minutes. -
The CHAIRMAN. It is absolutely impracticable. Let me ask you
two questions. I call your attention to article 4 of the treaty, the
last paragraph.
Mr. BARRETT. It might be well at this point to indicate that in
1914 the Chief of Engineers of the Corps of Engineers of the United
States Government did recommend the very thing that Congressman
Newton is now talking about, and there are several engineers of
standing who will maintain that such a thing can be done and well
done.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe you are going to convince—I
am not a resident of Detroit, but I do not believe that you are going
to convince anybody who is interested in Great Lakes traffic that
it is practicable to have any such thing at a point where vessels
pass every two minutes. e
Mr. ADCock. This report stated that it would benefit navigation
rather than injure it. . - . -
The CHAIRMAN. If I am wrong about it I would be very glad to
be convinced. . .
Mr. ADCOCK. It would remove certain currents that were injurious
to navigation. - • . . * , . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Let us take your article 4. Do you see the Sec-
ond paragraph? . . . . . . . . . . . ... *
Mr. NEwTo.N. I am not through yet. . . . . . . . . . . * - w
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to adjourn in about two minutes.
Mr. NEwToN. I do not think I ought to be cut off. I have three
or four very pertinent questions to ask yet. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. I supposed the chairman had some rights to ask
questions himself. I have not asked any questions yet. . . . . . . . . ;
i.
504 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. NEwton. I want somewhere to ask these questions,
Mr. HULL. The rule is to go around to the left.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you exclude me?
Mr. HULL. No.
The CHAIRMAN. I have been excluded so far. .* -
Mr. NEwTON. Let me ask this question: There must have been
Some reason for allowing Canada to take 36,000 feet and the United
States only 18,500, wasn’t there? " º
General BEACH. Twenty thousand.
Mr. EKERN. Yes; I think there was.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not follow that question. w
Mr. EKERN. He asks if there was not some reason for Canada
getting 36,000 cubic feet per second and the United States 18,500.
The CHAIRMAN. They say they will furnish us the exact figures.
Mr. NEwToN. I want a little information from this man on it.
The CHAIRMAN. If he knows anything about it.
Mr. NEwTON. Yes. Can you contemplate anything other than the
diversion at Chicago that actuated the United States commissioners
in making any such agreement as that?
Mr. EKERN. Oh, yes. i
Mr. NEWTON. What else?
Mr. EKERN. I had rather you would get the exact data on that,
but there is abundant reason for that; one reason being stated by
Mr. Keefer here, namely, that the power plants which were then
in operation—and I am personally familiar with some of these
matters—that the power plants then in operation were built by
American capital for American consumption, and the power was
being transmitted to this country and consumed at Buffalo and the
environs of Buffalo.
Mr. BARRETT. Of course, you recognize that the Chicago drainage
canal had been built with capital of the citizens of Chicago, too?
Mr. EKERN. Yes; and it was diverting, according to this testi-
ITQC)]]
R. NEwToN (interposing). As a lawyer, don't you think that if
we could shut out the 10,000 feet, or whatever they are getting, at
Chicago, the power interests at that end would be entitled to a
corresponding increase in the amount of water that they could take
under the treaty for power?
Mr. EKERN. You mean this country?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. EKERN. That is a matter of negotiation by treaty.
Mr. NEwTON. We would not have to negotiate any treaty on that,
* the treaty recognizes an equal amount to be taken on either
S1C10.
The CHAIRMAN. Not an equal amount—a certain amount.
Mr. NEwTON. Is there any reason for it not being equal? Is there
any reason why our representatives should not get for the United
States as much as Canada got for her?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know.
Mr. BARRETT. That was the position of our State Department, that
we were entitled absolutely to a 50–50 arrangement.
Mr. EKERN. I would recommend that you be appointed on the
next commission, Mr. Newton.
t
4.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 505
Mr. NEwTON. If I did, I would try and get a square deal for the
United States. Just one other question and I am through. Do you
know whether the Supreme Court of the United States has ever
taken into account this watershed question?
Mr. ADCOCK. It was involved in the Missouri-Illinois case.
Mr. EKERN. It was not involved in the Missouri-Illinois case.
Mr. NEwTON. Let us see whether it was or not. I quote from a
decision in the Missouri-Illinois case, in 200 United States, pages 495
to 546, where, in speaking of the effect of the action of Congress
and of Illinois in providing for the construction and operation of
this canal, the Supreme Court said:
Some stress is laid on the proposition that Chicago is not on the natural
watershed of the Mississippi, because of a rise of a few feet between the
Des Plaines and the Chicago Rivers. We perceive no reason for distinction on
this ground.
So they must have considered the watersheds to some extent in
that case.
Mr. EKERN. If you please, in that case the sole question involved,
in the 200 United States case, which was the second time it was up
on appeal, was whether or not as a matter of fact there were bugs
in the water which injured St. Louis coming from the sanitary
district. &
Mr. NEwTON. The opinion goes on further to say:
The natural features relied upon are of the smallest. And if, under any
circumstances, they could affect the Case, it is enough to say that Illinois
brought Chicago into the Mississippi watershed in pursuance not only of its
own statute, but also of the acts of Congress of March 30, 1822, and March 2,
1827, the validity of which is not disputed.
Mr. EKERN. The issue was not raised in that case.
Mr. NEWTON. But they are discussing watersheds?
Mr. EKERN. But it was not in the case, and the record so shows.
The CHAIRMAN. Article II of the treaty, I call your attention to
the second paragraph:
It is understood, however, that neither of the high contracting parties in-
tends by the foregoing provision to surrender any right, which it may have
to object to any intereference with Or diversions of waters on the other side
Of the boundary, the effect of which would be productive of material injury
to the navigation interests On its Own side of the boundary.
Now, that seems to deal squarely with the question of any diver-
Sion on either side being made which will injuriously affect naviga-
tion and leave the parties to the same rights they had before the
treaty was made, does it not?
Mr. EKERN. It is my understanding that the intention of the whole
treaty was to protect the respective rights against encroachment.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Newton, Article II, to which I just directed
attention, provides that either party may, just as if this treaty had
not been made, object to any diversion on the other side which inter-
feres with navigation. Now, we come to Article IV, the Second
paragraph:
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and
waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the
injury of health or property on the other.
91739–24—PT 2 ! I'
506 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
And you contend, as I understand you, that this flowage of
water—the maintenance of lake levels—is just as much property as
anything else? - - . . . . * * . . . . ' .
Mr. EKERN. Yes, sir. r -
The CHAIRMAN. Then, let us turn over to the next paragraph,
Article V, and here is the Welland Canal. Mind you, Congressman
Newton, I do not for one moment contend that the Welland Canal
should divert one inch of water more than is necessary for canal
purposes, just as I contend Chicago should not divert an inch more
than is necessary for river purposes.
Mr. NEwTON. That is the point; we ought to be consistent. -
Mr. HULL. Will you concede that they are doing that right now Ż
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know. * ".
Mr. HULL. But they are-—3,400 cubic second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. If they are, I quite agree with you that they
should be restrained. But I call your attention next to the provi-
sions of Article V, and that is the article that deals with the limita-
tion of diversions of water from the Niagara River so that the level
of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be appreciably
affected, and you will find the last provision in that Article V is this:
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for
sanitary or domestic purposes or for the service of canals for the purposes of
navigation.
That applies exclusively to Lake Erie. It has no reference to any
other of the Great Lakes, and, of course, it is an authority for the
construction of canals on either side of the border; but, of course,
those canals must be limited to such a flow of water as is necessary
and advantageous and will not exceed the amount both necessary
and advantageous for the purposes of navigation.
We will meet again at 2.30.
Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Chairman, if I will not take over two minutes,
may I ask a question? -
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.
Mr. PEAvKY. Leaving the legal lights to attend to all of the legal
matters that have been raised, etc., and getting down to a question
before the people, I want to ask you this: Isn’t it a fact to your
knowledge—you, I understand, have a law office in Chicago, and
being there frequently you are in constant touch with the situation—
isn’t it to your knowledge a fact that there is a misrepresentation or
a misapprehension up before the committee on this whole question in
this sense, that this whole appeal for a diversion at Chicago is sup-
posedly based primarily upon the dire needs of 3,000,000 people in
the city of Chicago for sanitary purposes, and that a large portion
of them are going to die if it is not granted ? I would like to ask
you if to your knowledge it is not a fact that the people of Wisconsin,
the people of southern Illinois, and the people of Michigan all have
not greater and more explicit knowledge of all the questions involved
in this Chicago diversion than the people of Chicago 2 Is not that
known to you?
Mr. EKERN. I think they have as much general knowledge of it
as the people of Chicago, and, of course, coming from Wisconsin,
I claim they have more. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 507
Mr. PEAVEY. Then I would like to ask you this further question,
if this is not a fact, that this question should be segregated here in
the minds of the committee and the people of Chicago on the one
side—undoubtedly if they had full knowledge they would be united
with the people of Wisconsin and the people of southern Illinois on
the disposition of these questions; and the people who control and
run the Sanitary District of Chicago are on the other side by
themselves?
Mr. EKERN. I think the sanitary district management is against
the interests of the city of Chicago. There is no question about
that. I have expressed that already.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Wilson. -
Mr. WILSON. I do not want to interfere with the meeting ad-
journing. I appreciate the fact that our chairman is so well versed
in the law of navigation and has served so long on this committee,
I should like to ask just one question about the power that is con-
tained in this treaty. Personally I have no interest in the diversion
except for navigation. While you were on Article V explaining it,
Mr. Chairman, you went over to the end and took the last paragraph.
I would like to refer you back to Article V, paragraph 3, and ask
you if the 20,000 cubic feet of water per second that is allotted to
the State of New York excludes the States of Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania from the right to
take power from the different lakes on which they border?
The CHAIRMAN. I should say in answer to that, Congressman
Wilson, that the treaty has not anything to do with it.
Mr. WILSON. What is the meaning of paragraph 3?
The CHAIRMAN. Kindly let me answer it.
Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The treaty seems to be based upon the assump-
tion that the only place at which the diversions would be made for
power would be on the Canadian and American side at Niagara.
I assume that the treaty was negotiated by men who had an under-
standing of that situation, that seven times as much power could be
created by the use of the water at that point as at any other point,
and I suppose they were actuated by a conservation of the properties
of the great national resources of the United States, and that they
were acting in the interest of the whole country, and that that was
the reason why they provided for diversions for power at that
place and not elsewhere. I think they were actuated in just the
same way that a business man would be. If you found that you
could get seven times as good results in your home town as you
could anywhere else, you would naturally carry on the business
which produced that multiplied result there, and it would be to the
interest of the whole country to have you conduct it there rather
than at a place where you could get only one-seventh.
And this also, it seems to me, is quite important in the considera-
tion of this treaty. While, as I have repeatedly stated, I think the
diversion should be kept down to what is necessary in these canals
for canal purposes, aside from that I do think that we are wasting
our energy in complaining of this treaty,
Mr. Wrison. I am not complaining of the treaty I just wanted
an explanation of that third paragraph.
508. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
. The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose of it. There is not any ques-
tion about it. We will later have engineers on the stand, and my un-
derstanding is that there is no dispute at all about the fact that in the
interest of the people you can create seven times as much power in the
lower stretches as you could at any other point, and that that was
unquestionably what actuated those who represented the two coun-
tries, and what actuated the Senate in ratifying what our diplomatic
representatives on both sides did.
Mr. EKERN. May I be excused, Mr. Chairman? I want to catch
my train. -
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Gentlemen, if there is nothing more
We will excuse the general, and I have had two people in my office for
about two hours waiting for me, and I think, so far as the rest of us
are concerned, we can wait until after lunch.
Mr. BARRETT. May I read here, so that the committee may have
this Welland Canal situation before it—I will take about 10 lines of
reading. This is from page 116 of the Warren report:
The diversion of water from Lake Erie through the Welland Canal appears
to have been approximately as follows: During the season of navigation of
1917, 4,600 cubic feet per second ; during the following closed season, 4,300;
during the navigation season of 1918, 4,400; during the closed season, 4,100.
I now pass to page 195, title “Welland Canal,” in the same report:
The diversion from Lake Erie through the Welland Canal for power purposes
appears to be approximately 3,400 cubic feet per second. This is a primary use
of the water as it is diverted from the Lake Erie level of the canal before
having been used in any manner for the benefit of navigation. In fact, it may be
said that the diversion is slightly detrimental to navigation in that it increases
the whole current in the canal. w
I want to leave that thought with you.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, after that, it is obvious—I assume that it
is true—it is obvious that they should be charged with that as a part
of the 3,600 cubic feet.
Mr. BARRETT. No; it is not charged to the 3,600.
The CHAIRMAN. How is this committee going to deal with it?
Mr. BARRETT. There is one more thing I want to leave with the
committee. We do not agree with Chairman Dempsey's conception
of the reasons that actuated the two Governments in arriving at or
concluding this treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 2.30.
(Thereupon, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2.30
1. in.) -
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met at 2.30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the taking of
PêCêSS.
(The following papers were filed by Mr. Ekern and Mr. Ardern:)
[Editorial from The Telegram, Eau Claire, Wis., Thursday, April 10, 1924]
CHICAGO’S APPEAL
The Sanitary District of Chicago publishes a fervent appeal to “the citi-
zens of Wisconsin’” to sustain Chicago’s demand for continued draft Of 10,000
cubic feet per second of water from Lake Michigan as an alleged necessity
for the very existence of the big town. It asks whether Wisconsin people
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 509
would destroy the “main market ’’ for their products and be a party to “whole-
sale Slaughter’’ Of Chicago citizenry. Certainly not. We want Chicago to
live and keep the growth of population, if possible, ahead of the destructiveness
Of auto Speeders, gunmen, and rattlesnake “bootliquor.” But why is it that
Chicago is the Only lake port whose salvation depends on the lake water? On
the lakes there are other ports which have or haven’t creeks to be turned
around and flooded the other way for sanitary purposes, and which never
thought of Such a scheme. It has been stated, too, in the Washington reports,
that Government authorities will not stop or curtail the 10,000 cubic feet until
Chicago shall have made sufficient progress with its sewage-disposal undertak-
ing, which the advertisement says is being pushed “as fast as it is humanly
possible to do so.” The advertisement says that Canadian power interests and
navigation interests on the Lakes are opposing Chicago’s use of water. It is
not an extravagance of Statement to say that the Canadians and the naviga-
tion interests have rights which deserve recognition. Chicago claims that the
lowering of lake levels could be remedied by regulation works and offers to
Day the cost. That is something which requires expert engineering knowledge
and eXperience to answer, but the Chicago proposal on that has not proven
acceptable. Chicago says, too, that it will always need 10,000 feet, whether
it has sewage-disposal plants or not; and that statement is a stunner, because
it is an assumption that Chicago can’t do what other big cities have done.
RESOLUTIONS OF IzAAR WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, PEORIA, ILL., MARCH
28, 1924
Whereas there are now pending in Congress certain bills providing that a
Cana] With a 9-foot channel be constructed from Lake Michigan to a point
in the Illinois River known as Utica and whereas the real purpose of said
Canal is for the disposal of sewage of the city of Chºcago and environs; and
Whereas said bill provides that the volume of water for said purpose shall
be at the rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second and whereas the Sanitary
I)istrict of Chicago is now using 10,000 cubic feet per second for the purpose
of carry'ng Sewage into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers and whereas
Said Sanitary district has been for a number of years discharging a volume
of 10,000 cubic feet per second into said rivers and thereby has destroyed
the Sloughs, bayous, and back waters along said rivers and in consequence
thereof the natural spawning grounds of the fish life and other l fe together
with the loirds and wild fowl that made these places their habitat—have
been ruined and destroyed ; and r
Whereas prior to the time the said Sanitary District of Chicago was al-
lowed to turn ther sewage into the IDes Plaines and Illinois Rivers, the Illi-
nois River was second to the Columbia River in the fishing industry and a
sportsman's paradise and now by reason of the pollution and enormous in-
crease of water the said Illinois River is pract cally destitute of fish and
animal life in its waters as far down as the city of Peoria, Ill., a distance of
162 miles : and
Whereas the destruction of fish and animal life in the Illinois River is il
distinct economic loss to the people of Illinois and the entire Nation ; and
Whereas section 20 of an act of May 29, 1889, creating the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago ºn the State, says: “Before any sewage shall be discharged
into such channel or outlet, all garbage, dead animals or parts thereof, and
other solids shall be taken therefrom * : and
Whereas the Said sanitary district has violated the above-mentioned Sec-
tion 20 for the past 24 years, and now seek another long period of time ap-
parently for the same purpose; and
Whereas Chicago l'es at the very source of the Des Plaines and Illinois
Rivers and by reason of the volume of sewage discharged therein, makes it
useless for any cities farther down said stream to undertake any program
for sewage reduction until such time as they are assured of definite action
by the Sanitary District of Chicago : Therefore he it
Resolved, That all bills now pending in Congress providing for a discharge
of 10,000 cubic feet per second into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers for
the purpose of sanitary cond tions or for navigation be defeated or amended
so as to allow not to exceed 4,167 cubic feet per second or less if possible ;
that the pollution of the waters so used and discharged into the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers be controlled by the placing of disposal plants by said
510 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Sanitary d’strict; that said plants be built in the shortest time possible to
|build and put in operation such plants, and of sufficient capacity to purify
the aforesaid water of all Solid matters deleterious to public health or water
life; that additional disposal plants be provided for as the population of
the city of Chicago and environs is increased. Be it further
Resolved, That the Eng’neers of the War Department of the United States
of America determine the per cent of Solid matter necessary to be removed
in order to purify the said water. Be it further
Resolved, That the Fort Clark Chapter, Peoria, of the Izaak Walton League
of America, offers the above resolutions as a protest against any legislation
that does not correct the above conditions. Be it further
Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to our State Senators
and Congressmen and to the proper authorities in Washington, D. C., and that
they be made part of the minutes of this meeting.
LEWIS P. KELLY, President.
L. T. Mu-RPHY, Secretary.
RESOLUTION OF Association OF COMMERCE, GREEN BAY, WIS.
Whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago is now and has for a number of
years been diverting from Lake Michigan for purposes of sanitation and water
power a quantity of water vastly in excess of the maximum limit put upon
this diversion by the War Department of the United States; and
Whereas this excess diversion has resulted in lowering the natural levels
of Lake Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario to the extent of from 4 to 6
inches; and
Whereas this reduction in lake levels has seriously interfered with naviga-
tion in the various harbors and COnnecting Channels On the Great Lakes,
thereby causing a loss to shipping due to the curtailed carrying capacity of
the lake freight carriers, which loss is estimated by various authorities as
from two to four million dollars annually, practically all of which will be
passed on to the ultimate consumer; and
Whereas this interference to shipping has further resulted in the necessity
for the appropriation of large Sums of money by the Various port cities on the
Great Lakes and by the United States GOVernment to maintain channel
depths and harbor facilities; and
Whereas these expeditures involve an increased burden of taxation upon
the people of these communities, which burden is in addition to the direct
transportation loss pointed out in the foregoing paragraph ; and
Whereas these port cities, as well as other municipalities located along the
Great Lakes, have sustained &nd will continue to sustain in ever increasing
degree, as long as the present condition of lake levels maintains, great dam-
age because of the exposure of piling Subconstruction supporting docks,
wharves, bridges, public and private buildings, etc., to the ravages of decay,
these losses being due directly to the subnormal lake levels during the last
few years ; and
Whereas a condition has developed in many of the lake port cities, such as
Green Bay, through the reduced lake levels which has become a serious
menace ot health in these communities. We refer to the fact that many of
the sewers that empty into the lakes or tributary rivers and which were
formerly below the water level are now exposed at their outlets so that the
sewage instead of passing off into deep water as formerly, is deposited upon
the shore or upon the surface of the ice in the winter, creating an extremely
insanitary condition. The remedy to this, of course, involves considerable
expenditure of money by these communities; and
Whereas the port of Green Bay, Wis., together with other Lake Michigan
ports, has received appropriations from Congress within the past year, and
whereas other projects are now pending before the Board of Engineers for
the improvement of this harbor, and whereas it becomes imperative that these
expenditures be not jeopardized or made valueless by a reduciton of channel
depths due to this diversion of water by the Sanitary District of Chicago:
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Green Bay Association of Commerce, representing all the
commercial and business interests of Green Bay and De Pere, Wis., is unalter-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 511
ably opposed to any bill which provides for the legalization by Congress of the
Dresent excessive diversion of Lake Michigan water through the sanitary canal
at Chicago or which provides a limit of diversion in excess of the amount now
authorized by the War Department, namely 4,167 cubic feet per second, and
respectfully prays that such action be taken by Congress or by the courts as
Will bring about the earliest possible discontinuance of this excessive diversion
and that Such measures be adopted as will tend to restore the waters of the
Great Lakes as soon as possible to their normal or natural levels.
Respectfully submitted.
GREEN BAY ASSOCIATION OF CommHRCE,
By W. F. KERwrn, Managing Director.
Attest : -
SAM. D. HASTINGs, Jr., President.
CITY OF GREEN BAY, WIs., April 12, 1924.
RIVERS AND HARBORs CoMMITTEE, §
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN: The undersigned, special committee of Great Lakes-Ocean
Waterway Association, of Green Bay, Wis., attended the hearing held by your
Committee to consider the Hull bill on March 17, 18, and 19, and desired at
that time to present to your committee the protest of the above association,
which was not directed to the bill itself, excepting in so far as it, together with
the Other bills now pending, seeks to legalize the diversion of 10,000 second
feet of water into the sanitary canal from Lake Michigan at Chicago.
This association, together with the other associations of Green Bay and its
entire inhabitants, believes that such diversion creates an irreparable loss to
the citizens not only of Green Bay but of the entire territory served by this
port. The annual tonnage imported in Green Bay amounts to about one mil-
lion tons. The season of 1923 was a very dry season. The water in the lakes
WaS very low and the diversion which has, as admitted, lowered the lakes by
5% inches has so materially added to the freight rates and the carrying
Capacity of the lake carriers operating into this port that it has been impos-
sible to estimate the loss to the people served by this port. Therefore, on be-
half of this association and of these citizens, we desire to register our protest
against this bill. $
In addition to the above loss to our citizens from the increased cost of carry-
ing by Vessel into this port there is the loss to the country as a whole and to
those citizens who have improved the property by this lowering of the levels of
the lake. The first is the loss of water in the channel, which the Government
has expended large sums of money to create and the second is to the dock
improvements and to city bridge improvements caused by the lowering of the
level below that provided for when these works were done. The Withdrawal of
Water Creates, as you unquestionably understand, great loss by the rotting of
the substructure to bridge and wharfs and to such cribs as have been built by
the Government at this port. -
Our attention has been called to efforts in the past upon the part of the
Sanitary District of Chicago to create sentiment and to promulgate propa-
ganda which would make it appear that the citizens of Green Bay and of
this surrounding territory favor this diversion and the passage of this act.
The press has carried news items to the effect that the citizens of this port
favor the passage of this bill and that petitions have been signed by prom-
inent citizens in this Community requesting Congress to act favorably upon
this or kindred bills. -
In addition to this, the committee also calls attention to the fact that
there were men in Green Bay Securing he signatures of citizens of this port
to such petition, and we have every reason to believe that such a petition
will be presented either to your committee or to the House when the bill
reaches the floor. Our investigation proved the fact that Edward Brown-
Stein, representing the Sanitary District of Chicago, and Peter C. Granata,
also representing such district, were operating in the city of Green Bay.
The affidavits which are attached prove conclusively that these men were
nót sécuring the signatures to such petition from reputable citizens of this
community; that the only signatures they succeeded in securing were those
for which they paid money to mere boys, and that no representative citizen
512 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Of this community signed such petition. We feel that we are justified in
Calling this latter fact to your attention under the circumstances.
We believe that the Sanitary Disrict of Chicago should use its funds in
an honest effort to secure for the city of Chicago the right kind of sewage
disposal and that it should not use its funds to corrupt any community or
any class of people in any community in its effort to secure the passage of
this act, the purpose of which we believe to be the securing of large sums
of money through the development of water power and not for the alleged
purpose of saving the lives of the inhabitants of the city of Chicago.
Another fact has been called to our attention. Within the last few days
large Sums of money have apparently been spent by the sanitary district to
create sentiment and also propaganda in favor of these bills in expensive ad-
Vertising in the local press of this city, and we believe that this campaign has
also been carried on in other communities which have interested themselves
in fighting the illegal diversion of water by the sanitary district.
Should we use no other argument, the water now being used by the sanitary
district belongs to the people of this community. It can not be compensated
for. It is being diverted contrary to all of the laws of the land. Its diversion
is contrary to the laws of nature, and we further believe after the arguments
which Were presented at the hearing before your Committee that no case was
made which would warrant such a perpetual loss to the citizens of this commu-
nity, such as is asked for by the sanitary district in this bill and in the kindred
bills which have been introduced.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK CARTIER,
Councilman, City of Green Bay,
President Great Lakes-Ocean Waterway Association.
- FRED D. MERRILL,
Member Commission, Great Lakes-Ocean Waterway Association,
* Corporation Counsel, Green Bay.
* H. S. WELLs,
. Member Commission Great Lakes-Ocean Waterway Association.
STATE of WISCONSIN,
Brown County, 88:
Charles Vandertie, being duly sworn, under oath deposes and says that
my name is Charles Wandertie, and I live at 114 North Clay Street, city
of Green Bay, Brown County, Wis. I am 17 years of age. I go to the Con-
tinuation School in the city of Green Bay. I live with my mother. I was
employed to pass petitions and get signatures on the same in the city of
Green Bay by the same men who were passing the booklet “Chicago and
her neighbors, the restoration of lake levels, by the construction of compen-
Sating Works, issued by the Chicago Association of Commerce, August 1923.”
I met these gentlemen at the Jeefferson pool room, in the city of Green Bay.
I met them Wednesday, March 12, between 12 and 1 o'clock. They told me
if I could get 25 signers to this petition they would pay me $5. I did not
read the petition. I started to, but when they told me they would pay me
$5 I went to work getting signatures. I do not know who the petition was
addressed to. The men in the pool room signed it for me. These men
gave me some of these books entitled “Chicago and her neighbors,” above
referred to. He told me to show these books to people. I showed these books
to men in the pool room. I knew the men who signed this petition. I know
it was a petition because the men who gave it to me told me that it was.
Charles Martin, of Green Bay, Wis., worked with me and helped me get these
signatures. Charles Martin is 18 or 19 years of age. We got 22 names
on the petition... We got these names among the men around the pool room.
Most of the persons who signed this petition were boys about my age. There
may have been a few men who signed over 21 years of age. The men who
hired me knew that I was getting young boys to sign the petition, because
one lad 15 years old said in the presence of these men that he did not
want to sign it because he was only a boy and they said that made no
difference. I said that I got paid for my work on this petition. I got $2.50
for the work I did and Charles Martin got $2.50 for helping me. These
same men paid the proprietor of the pool room and he paid us. I saw these
same men who passed the books entitled “Chicago and her neighbors,” above
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 513
referred to, pay the proprietor of the pool room and he paid us. These Same
men also bought cigars for the crowd in the pool room and passed them
around to those who signed the petitions. º
I am making this statement and affidavit freely and Of my OWn accord
in the presence of Mayor Wiesner, Councilman Cartier, Charles Bader, Stan-
ley Barnett, of the Green Bay Press Gazette, and F. D. Merrill, city attorney,
all of the city of Green Bay, and I am not being paid or promised anything
by any of these gentlemen or any other person.
* * CHARLES WANDERTIE.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 14th day of March, 1924.
[SEAL.] PETER SELISSEN,
Notary Public, Brown County, Wis.
My Commission expires August 22, 1926.
CHICAGO AND HER NEIGHBORs—THE RESTORATION OF LAKE LEVELS BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF COMPENSATING WORKS
ISSued by the Chicago Association of Commerce, August, 1923
This pamphlet is a nontechnical presentation of the essential facts relating
to the levels of the Great Lakes, the effects due to the various diversions and
improvements, including the Chicago Drainage Canal, and the results secured
by existing and proposed compensating works in stabilizing lake levels and
as an aid in the development of Great Lakes-ocean navigation.
The following text has been edited and the figures used have been checked
by L. K. Sherman and Robert Isham Randolph, consulting engineers, both
nembers of the American Society of Civil Engineers and of the Western
Society of Engineers, and well qualified to discuss the subject :
CHICAGO TO HER NEIGEIBORS
Instead of injuring her neighbors by lowering the levels of the Great Lakes,
Chicago stands ready to benefit them by providing at her own expense the
means of effective regulation.
Control of the lake levels is urgently necessary not only in the interest of
lake commerce but for the preservation of Niagara Falls and for the protection
of power development in the Niagara River.
During the 13 years before the Chicago Drainage Canal was opened the
level of Lakes Michigan and Huron had been permanently lowered 1 foot
by the channel improvement in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers.
To improve navigation in Lake. Superior controlling Works and Ship-
locks have been built at its outlet by the United States and Canadian GOV-
ernments, as a result of which the mean level of Lake Superior has been
permanently raised 1 foot.
The construction and operation by the Federal Government of regulating
works in the other interlake channels would provide a multiple control of
the flow of lake waters by which it would be possible to not only compensate
for the SO-Called 51%-inch loss which it is claimed has resulted from the Open-
ing of the Chicago Drainage Canal, but would stabilize the levels of all five
lakes on a basis substantially higher than the extreme low levels to which
navigation is now periodically subjected. .
, Chicago offers to pay for these controlling works at an estimated cost of
Several millions of dollars. They are, however, to be designed, constructed,
and operated by the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army.
The Chicago Drainage Canal was built in good faith before any question
as to the right to divert water from the Great Lakes had been raised, and
this diversion is a necessary part of the entire sewage disposal program of
the city. ' - ,
PRESENT STATUS
The health and welfare of more than 3,000,000 citizens of Chicago, is jeopard-
ized by the action, of certain persons and interests who are seeking to restrict
the right of the people of the eity, to divert water from Lake Michigan in a
Volume Sufficient to adequately provide for the sanitary necessities.
91739—24—PT 2 18
514 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
It is claimed that the diversion of water from Lake Michigan through the
Chicago Drainage Canal has lowered the surface levels of Lakes Michigan and
Huron to the detriment of navigation and the injury of the harbor cities of
the Great Lakes. The Corps of Engineers of the United States Army has
reported that the maximum and ultimate lowering of Lakes Michigan and
FIuron amounts to 5% inches. -
The remedy for any lowering of lake levels is, obviously, the restoration of
former depths, and various plans have been suggested to accomplish this pur-
pose. In their essentials these plans are all alike, i. e., the construction of
remedial works, compensating works or regulating dams in the interlake
channels. The Sanitary District of Chicago has by ordinance, resolution, and
tender of funds to the Secretary of War, offered to pay the cost of the construc-
tion of Such Works to be built. On the designs and under the direction of the
United States Government Engineers cooperating with the engineers of the
Dominion Of Canada, and now seeks the necessary legislation in the CongreSS
of the United States to validate such a treaty agreement and to authorize the
Construction. Of these works.
The rights of the citizens of Chicago under existing laws and executive
permits have been subject to litigation for years and are still pending in the
United States Courts. Whatever the outcome of that litigation may be, the
power to finally determine the equities in the case and to apportion the uses of
the waters of the Great Lakes rests in the Congress of the United States and
the GOvernment of the Dominion of Canada.
For the information of all concerned there is presented here with a brief out-
line of the historical, physical, and legal facts bearing upon the question:
EIISTORICAL
The city of Chicago has grown from a frontier trading post which was lo-
cated at the lowest summit in the Continental Divide between the Great Lakes
and the Mississippi watersheds because it gave the shortest portage between
these two great waterway systems. As the city grew the great lake at its feet
became the Source of its water supply and, perforce, the receptacle for its
Sewage. The steady increase in population necessitated driving the Water
supply intakes progressively farther out into the lake to escape the Zone of
shore pollution, but the growth of the city was so rapid that this expedient
gave but temporary relief and it soon became necessary to devise Some Other
means of sewage disposal or water supply. Mr. E. S. Chesbrough, authority on
drainage and water supply and city engineer from 1854 to 1879, made a trip to
Germany just before his retirement to study the methods of sewage disposal. On
land, as practiced in the then highest state of the art in that country and re-
ported that its application to Chicago was not feasible. In 1886 a drainage and
water supply commission was appointed to develop a solution for the problem.
The chairman of the commission was Rudolph Hering, recognized as a foremost
authority on sewage disposal at that time and until his death in 1923. The
Other two members of the commission were Samuel G. Artingstall, city engineer,
and Benezette Williams, also an authority on drainage. The findings of this
commission after considering all other methods of sewage disposal were in favor
of the dilution method by means of a canal across the Continental Divide, the
Canal to have sufficient capacity to divert all floodwaters, including the Sewage,
from Lake Michigan. , - -
On the basis of this report the act authorizing the construction of the Chi-
cago Sanitary and Ship Canal was passed by the Illinois Legislature and be-
came effective on July 1, 1889. Construction was started on September 3,
1892, and the canal was opened to the flow of water from Lake Michigan on
January 17, 1900. After the main channel was finished the Chicago River
was widened and deepened throughout its length and the old center pier
bridges replaced by bascule spans to comply with the limitations imposed by
the permit of the Secretary of War in respect to navigation. The North
Shore Sanitary Canal was built to collect the sewage from the northern part
of the city and its suburbs and conduct it to the main sanitary canal and the
Calumet-Sag Canal was constructed to perform the same function for the
southern part of the city and its suburbs. These two canals and the Chicago
River are merely feeders to the main channel which is the neck of the bottle
with its carrying capacity limited by its slope and cross-section to a Volume
of 10,000 cubic feet per second. '. In 1907 the water power potential of the 86
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 515
feet fall at Lockport, the terminus of the canal, was developed by the Construc-
tion of a modern hydroelectric plant, and this by-product of the sanitary neces-
sity was utilized to light the streets and parkways of the city.
The results of the operation of the canal have been all that were anticipated.
The Chicogo River flowing through the heart of the city is no longer a mass of
thick, black, foul-smelling water. The citizens of and visitors to the Second
city Of the United States no longer need drink water which if allowed to stand
would give visible evidence of life in the form of Wigglers. This may sound
Overdrawn, but a citizen of Chicago has only to look back 25 years to recall the
time when such things were facts. The typhoid-fever death rate is a meas-
ure of the efficiency of sewage disposal, and in Chicago this rate has been re-
duced from a maximum of 172 per 100,000 population in 1891 to 1 per 100,000
population in 1922. Chicago's death rate from typhoid fever is now 1.7 per
cent of what it was in the decade preceding the opening of the drainage canal.
The average rate in the other large cities of the Country has been reduced to
only 9 per cent of what it was prior to 1900. When it is realized that the
floating and transient population of Chicago is approximately 100,000 it can be
seen that good Sanitary Conditions in Chicago is a real benefit to her neighbors
and to the country at large.
The canal was designed to dispose of the sewage from a population of
3,000,000 people, and the projectors of the canal realized that when this popu-
lation was reached SOme additional and auxiliary means Of Sewage disposal
would be necessary to care for the excess population. Anticipating this need,
an experimental sewage-treatment laboratory was started SOon after the Canal
was opened. This laboratory work was prosecuted continuously, and the
present large program for expenditure of $100,000,000 for sewage-treatment
works is based on the results of some 20 years of Scientific study. The popu-
lation at present tributary to the canal is in excess of 3,000,000, and the Sani-
tary district is taking car of the excess with two sewage-treatment plants al-
ready constructed and One in process of construction. An activated sludge
plant on the Des Plaines River at Maywood, a natural tributary of the Missis-
sippi River, treats the Sewage from a suburban population of 40,000 and is
probably the most highly developed plant of its kind in the world. A plant
of the Imhoff type is in Operation south of the city treating the Sewage from a
population of 150,000, and an activated sludge plant designed to treat the
sewage from a population of 800,000 in 1930 is under construction on the
northwest side of the city.
Chicago's pioneer work in the study of sewage treatment and in the Con-
struction of large Sewage treatment plants has been of untold value to Smaller
communities throughout the entire United States, many of which have not
the resources to study such problems in minute detail.
No city in the world approximating Chicago in size treats sewage to the
degree of purification accomplished by the drainage canal. Chicago happened
to be the One large City so situated that a diversion of water of the Great
Lakes is feasible and economically useful.
The entire program of sewage treatment and disposal is predicated on the
right of the city to divert a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake
Michigan. and any diminution in that volume will work an incalculable injury
to Chicago. The equities demand that Chicago shall not be permitted to solve
her OWn domestic problems at the expense of other cities and interests on the
Great Lakes, but it is still an open question as to whether the Chicago diver-
sion has injured any other city or interest. If such damage has been done,
however, it can be repaired by perfectly feasible and practical methods, the
efficacy of which has been demonstrated by works already constructed at Sault
Ste. Marie.
The effect Of the Chicago diversion is a part of and contributary to much
greater changes in the fluctuations of the surface levels of the Great Lakes,
as a Consideration of the following physical elements of the problem will
indicate : --
PHYSICAL
The basin of the Great Lakes covers an area of about 300,000 square miles.
Into this basin there is an average rainfall amounting to 667,000 cubic feet per
Second. About 8,500 cubic feet per second flows out through the Chicago Drain-
516 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
age Canal into the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. About 220,000 cubic feet
per second flow over Niagara Falls and 240,000 cubic feet per second into the
St. Lawrence River. The balance of the inflowing rain, a much greater quan-
tity than the flow over Niagara. passes off from the basin of the lakes as
evaporation.
NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS OF TEIE GREAT LAKES
The foregoing figures are averages. The rainfall and the evaporation over the
Great Lakes varies greatly from year to year and through a series of years.
Therefore, there is corresponding difference in the elevation of the average
water Surface from year to year and there is each year a difference in eleva-
tion of from 1 to 13% feet between the Spring and summer stage and the autumn
Or Winter Stage.
Each lake level is locally affected from time to time by the following natural
CallSeS :
(a) Difference in annual rainfall.
(b) Difference in annual evaporation.
(c) Effect of wind. -
(d) Effect of barometric pressure.
(e) Effect of ice at Outlets.
(f) Effect of Seiches.
Before the drainage Canal was opened in 1900, the record of gauges on Lake
Michigan by the United States Lake Survey, since 1860, showed a range in
difference of elevation of 4.6 feet. +
EFFECT on LAKE LEVELS FROM ARTIFICIAL CAUSEs
The effect of the Chicago Drainage Canal can not be determined from any
series of gauge readings though complete records showing both seasonal and
Cyclic fluctuations are available covering the period from 1860 to date.
Eighteen years after the canal was opened Lake Michigan was 2 feet higher
that it was the day water was turned in, but this increase of lake level is of
COurse no more due to the drainage canal than was the record low water Of
1895 Or 1923.
Investigation and COmputations of the United States Engineers and the In-
ternational Joint Commission of United States and Canada give the maximum
lowering effect of the Chicago Drainage Canal on Lakes Michigan and Huron
as 51% inches.
In addition to Chicago's canal there are several man-made agencies which
affect the levels of the Great Takes, among them are:
(a) Water power diversion at Niagara Falls.
(b) Water power and regulating works at Sault Ste. Marie.
(c) Channel improvements in the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers.
(d) The Welland Canal and water power.
(e) New York Barge Canal.
Chicago can not be charged up With all Of the natural and man-made lower-
ings or fluctuations of lake levels.
COMPENSATING WORKS
The 5%-inch lowering of the lake levels due to the Chicago Drainage Canal
as well as all other man-made effects can be taken care of and restored by
the construction of compensating or regulating works in the St. Clair, Niagara
fivers or Other OutletS.
The practicability has been determined by several United States Engineer
boards and by the International Joint Commission United States and Canada.
The estimates of cost are about $2,500,000.
Chicago offers to pay for the construction of compensating works by the
Governments of . United States and Canada which will restore any lowering
effect made by the drainage Canal.
These compensating Works Chicago offers as a solution for the long standing
lake level controversy and as a better procedure for all concerned than con-
tinued litigations. Compensating works remove all objections that have been
raised by the interests of navigation. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 517
COMPENSATING WORKS V. LITIGATION
Some of our neighbors have proposed attempting stoppage of Chicago's use
Of the drainage Canal by litigation in the Federal court.
Let us compare the relative merits to the lake ports by such procedure with
the results to be secured by regulating works which Chicago has offered to
pay for.
ASSuming that Chicago was prevented from utilizing the capacity Of the
canal—10,000 cubic feet per second—Chicago would still retain a canal flow
of 4,167 cubic feet per Second by virtue of her Original permit and Chicago
would not have to pay for any compensating works despite any lowering
effect upon lake levels. This lowering effect government engineers have com-
puted as 5% inches for the full 10,000 cubic feet per second.
If these neighbors should win this point in court the utmost they would ac-
complish, beyond great damage to Chicago, Would be a possible raising of
certain lake levels by less than 3% inches. •
If, on the other hand, they cooperate with Chicago and the compensating
works, for which Chicago has formally offered to pay her share, are built,
then the levels of Lakes Michigan, and Huron will be restored the entire 51%
inches, alleged to be due to the full flow of the Chicago Drainage Canal.
Moreover, these compensating Works will restore additional losses in the Great
Lakes and the St. Lawrence River caused by the diversion of 56,000 cubic
feet per second or more for water power at Niagara, the Welland Canal, and
channel enlargement in the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers.
As to the Niagara water power diversion. 'The Warren report (“ Diversion
of water from the Great Lakes and Niagara River’’) points out that the
present-treaty limit may be increased from 56,000 to 80,000 or even 100,000
cubic feet per second without injury to the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls,
provided regulating works are built in the Niagara River. It would seem,
therefore, that Ontario's interest in the construction of the proferred regulat-
ing works should be fully equal to Chicago’s.
The construction of controlling Work, aside from any effect of the Chicago
Drainage Canal, affords a most useful if not essential adjunct to the develop-
ment of the Great Lakes-Ocean Waterway.
One writer questions the effectiveness of the proposed regulating works
and asks if any engineer of national rputation is willing to risk his reputation
by guaranteeing the success of such proposed works in producing the exact
results desired. 3.
Regulating works and their effect on the lake levels are not problematical.
Lake Superior has been regulated for many years by works at Sault Ste.
Marie and its mean surface level raised permanently One foot. Lake Ontario
has been raised about 6% inches by compensating Works built at the outlet
into the St. Lawrence River. Compensating works have been designed and
recommended by such eminent engineers as Alfred Noble, George Y. Wisner.
Col. C. W. Raymond, Francis C. Shenehon, Col. J. G. Warren, G. M. Wisner,
and Others. .
We would especially refer to a most comprehensive investigation and pub-
lished report authorized by Congress and prepared by Col. Warren, and the
IRoard of Engineers for Rivers and . Harbors under date of August 24, 1920.
RECOM MENDATIONS
Section 182 (4). That provision be made for the construction and mainte-
nance of remedial works of the nature outlined in this report; such works
to be built under the Supervision of the International Joint Commission.
Section 183 (2). That Federal control of the diversion at Chicago be estab-
fished, the Sanitary District of Chicago being permitted to divert from Lake
Michigan not be exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second. *
Also under date of May 3, 1906, the International Waterways Commission
recommends that diversion for sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic
feet per second be authorized for the Chicago Drainage Canal.
LEGAL
The Chicago diversion was originally conceived and made on the States
rights theory, as were also the diversions in New York State for the Erie
Yanal. The Illinois and Michigan Canal was constructed pursuant to act of
518 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Congress of March 2, 1827, which made a grant of land, five alternate sections
on each side of the route and amounting to 284,000 acres, “to unite the waters
of the Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan.” From the time the Illinois
and Michigan Canal was placed in Operation in 1848 water has been withdrawn
from Lake Michigan, not only for navigation purposes, but also for sanitary
purposes. The Sanitary district act and the works constructed thereunder
accomplished the replacement of the old Illinois and Michigan Canal by the
main channel of the sanitary district. The legal principles underlying the
law were the subject of special conference of the most eminent counsel in
the State of Illinois. No question was ever raised or doubt expressed as to
the right of the State of Illinois to authorize the enterprise and appropriate
the waters needed for the purpose.
The legislation by the State of Illinois which authorized this great work had
wide notoriety. The sanitary district law which went into effect July 1, 1889,
was widely advertised ; its constitutionality was attacked but it was sustained
by the courts. All of this was known to the Congress of the United States
and to the executive department of the Government, and from no one of these
did there come a protest of a prosecution of the work which was commneced
September 3, 1892. That work was prosecuted diligently for eight long years
with the full knowledge of every department of the United States Government.
The work was visited by congressional delegations, by Secretaries of War :
by chiefs of Engineers ; by Officers of the United States Engineer Corps; and
no voice was raised in opposition. Literature describing the work was
Scattered broadcast. On the 17th day of January, 1900, the dam at the South
end of the channel was lowered and the waters of Lake Michigan began to
flow southward. At that time, the sanitary district had expended in creating
the work over $33,000,000. The water has been flowing through that channel
for 23 years without let or hindrance from any Government source.
The charge that the Sanitary District of Chicago is violating the law in
diverting more than 4,167 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan is not
well founded, for the reason that there is no law that covers this diversion.
The law Of the State of Illinois Which enabled the COnStruction of the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal went into effect only July 1, 1889. Work
was started September 3, 1892, and water was turned into the completed
canal. On June 17, 1900.
The permit of the Secretary of War, dated May 8, 1899, consenting to the
opening of the channel was issued under the authority conveyed by section
10 of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, entitled “An act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public
works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes.” This act was passed
10 years after the enabling act of the State and eight years after work on
the canal was started. The permit is for a flow of 300,000 cubic feet of water
per minute with a velocity of 1% miles per hour and recites “that it is
the intention of the Secretary Of War to Submit the questions Connecleu
with the work of the Sanitary District of Chicago to Congress for COInsidera-
tion and final action.” This permit as extended and modified from time
to time was the basis for the Suit tried in the United States District Court
at Chicago to compel compliance win its provision. The law under which
the permit was issued was not retroactive and the limitations imposed by
the permit applied only to the current in the Chicago River.
In its international aspect the matter has been considered by the Inter-
national Waterways Commission in its joint report of January 4, 1907, in
which it said among other things:
“There appears to be a tacit general agreement that Chicago needs, or
will need, about 10,000 cubic feet of water per Second for sanitary purposes
and that the city should have it without further question. * * * We
therefore recommend that the Government of the United States prohibit
the diversion of more than 10,000 cubic feet per second for the Chicago
Drainage Canal.”
This is an apparently reluctant concession, but it is further recognized
and conceded by the provisions of the treaty apportioning the boundary
waters between the United States and Canada for water-power purposes to
the extent of 36,000 cubic feet per second on the Canadian side, and 20,000
cubic feet per second on the American side. The reason for the difference is
found in the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per Second at Chicago and a Smaller
amount in New York State.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 519
concLUSION
(a) The Chicago diversion has not yet been stopped by injunction and
ls still in litigation.
(b) The effect of the diversion is a part of and contributory to much
greater changes that have not been thought worthy of correction.
(c) Remedies are readily applied and remedial works are necessary to
the fuller and better development of lake channels and harbors.
(d) The effect is subordinate to and masked by major effects and the
remedy is incidental to and included in the betterment of channels and the
control Of lake levels.
(e) The Sanitary District of Chicago has offered to pay for the remedy
and Such a solution would remove all cause of litigation and controversy.
(f) The passage of the enabling legislation by Congress is the first step in
removing all difficulties, internal and international, to the restoration of
the levels Of the Great Lakes. 4.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, Brown County, 8s:
E. J. Van Schyndle, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: I am
employed at the Jefferson pool hall, city of Green Bay, Brown County, Wis.
Two men, holding themselves out to be Peter C. Granata and Edward Brown-
stein, representing the Sanitary District of Chicago, came to this place of
business on Wednesday, March 12, 1924, and left their cards, which are at-
tached to this affidavit. When I first saw them we had two petitions on Which
there were 25 names, and which I turned over to them. These were the peti-
tions which I got from Charles Wandertie and Charles Martin. I turned these
petitions over to these men whose names are given above. They had left $5
here to pay the boys who passed the petitions for their work in getting the
names On these petitions.
One of the men who took the petitions himself wrote additional names On the
petition. I read part of the, petitions. The man who wrote the additional
names on the petitions transferred the pen from his right to his left hand. He
wrote better with his right hand than he did, with his left. In the part Of the
petitions I read there was something to the effect that the sanitary district
would raise the lake level and at the same time would use Water from Lake
Michigan. I was told that when they were here before I came they bought
cigars for the house and passed them around to the boys who were here. They
said when they left that they expected to be back in about two weeks.
I am making this statement of my own free will and accord and I am not be-
ing paid or promised anything by any person for SO doing.
E. J. WAN SCHYNDLE.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of March, A. D. 1924,
FRED S. MENNILL,
Notary Public, Brown County Wis.
My commission expires October 2, 1924.
I, Charles Martin, do hereby make this statement and affidavit of my own
free act and will, without profit or promise of any kind :
My name is Charles Martin. I live at No. 1127 Pine Street, Green Bay,
Brown County, Wis. I am 20 years Of age. I am not at present employed.
I live with my mother at the above-named address, and am not married.
I was employed to circulate a petition and obtain signatures thereto by two
men who were distributing a booklet entitled “Chicago and Her Neighbors,”
supposed to be issued by the Chicago Association of Commerce in 1923.
I met these men at Wan Schyndle's pool room at No. 219 Cherry Street, Green
Bay, Wis., on Wednesday, March 12, 1924, between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock
p. m. They told me that if I could get 20 or 25 signatures to the petition they
would pay myself and another boy $2.50 each. I did not read the petition and do
not know definitely what it contained. I was informed by the men who ap-
proached me that it related in some way to the Chicago drainage question, but
I was not told in what respect and do not know in what way. * *
The various young men and boys we got to sign the petition did it, as I be-
lieve, merely to aid us getting Our money, as we told them we were getting paid
\
520 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
for circulating the petition. I do not think they read the petition carefully, if
at all, and had no idea what it contained.
The men also gave me Some Copies Of the pamphlet “Chicago and Her Neigh-
bors ” and told me to show them around to the people.
I know that it was a petition because the men who gave it to me stated that it
was, and the same information Was at the head of the paper. I know some of
the young men who signed the petition.
Charles Vandertei, of Green Bay, worked with me and helped me to get
the signatures. We secured 22 or 23 signatures to the petition, getting them
from young men at Van Schyndle's pool room and the Brunswick pool hall on
Main Street in Green Bay. The young men who signed the petition were
for the most part from 18 to 20 years of age. There may have been a few
who were over 20 years. The men who employed me knew I would get the
names of boys on the petition. They stated that that fact did not make any
difference. These men themselves circulated a petition in Van Schyndle's pool
room. On Cherry Street, and they then passed out Cigars to all in the pool
room. One boy refused to sign the petition being circulated by these men,
stating that he was only 15 years old, and they told him, however, that his
age made no difference. . . # -
After having Sectured the Signatures to the petition which we got in the
both pool rooms we were given $2.50 each by the proprietor Of Van Schyndle’s.
p00l room, with whom the money had been left.
As above stated, I make this statement of my own free act and will without
Compensation of any kind.
- CHARLES MARTIN.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of March, A. D. 1924.
H. P. MEYER,
Notary Public, Marinette County, Wis.
My Commission expires June 12, 1927.
4.
MILWAUKEE HARBOR AND RIVERS Association,
z’ Milwaukee, April 11, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, - -
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors:
As a representative of the Milwaukee Harbors and Rivers Association, and
the coal distributing interests of Milwaukee, I hereby inclose our brief pro-
testing against the abstracting of Water from Lake Michigan, thus causing the
level to be lowered considerably, interfering with shipping and causing large
expenditures to be made in dredging and rebuilding docks, in case the present
level of water is permitted to remain.
Respectfully yours,
MILWAUKEE HARBOR AND RIVERS Association,
WM. F. ARDERN, President.
PROTEST OF MILWAUKEE HARBOR AND RIVER ASSOCIATION, KIWANIS CLUB, AND
COAL DISTRIBUTING INTERESTS OF MILWAUKEE
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman, COm/mittee on Rivers and Harbors :
The undersigned, authorized by and representing the Milwaukee Harbor
and River Association, composed of the principal owners and lessors of
property abutting on all navigable rivers in the city of Milwaukee, and repre-
senting also the Kiwanis Club of Milwaukee, composed of several hundred
representative business and professional men of said city, and representing also
the interests of coal distributors in said city, who, during the past ten years,
have handled, on the average, in excess of 4,000,000 tons of coal per year, does
hereby enter his most emphatic protest against the abstraction of such volume
of water from Läke Michigan as will cause the lowering of the level of said
Lake Michigan to a point Where it will interfere with navigation and commerce
and cause substantial injury to the interests here represented.
Milwaukee has approximately 8 miles of navigable rivers within its city
boundaries and 16 miles of docks, not including, however, private slips. The
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 52I
further abstraction of water from Lake Michigan will result in the further
IOWering of the lake level, as well as the water level in said rivers, and thus
compel those interested in river commerce in Milwaukee to dredge said rivers
to the extent of several feet. Not only will this situation involve the addi-
tional dredging but it Will necessarily subject the present sheet piling to be
undermined by the current created by boat propeller wheels and thereby
cause the adjacent ground to slide into the navigable rivers and thus interfere
With commerce. The situation thus created will compel the reconstruction of
docks, involving the lowering of sheet piling as now constructed. This would
mean an enormous expense, and, in many instances, would compel the aban-
donment of dock operations during the course of repairs and reconstruction.
With the low level of water, such as the parties in interest are contending
With, boats can not load to their full capacity and inability on the part of boats
to Carry a full load must necessarily produce increased freight rates.
To illustrate: A boat 450 feet in length and 50 feet in width, drawing 19 feet
of water, raised 1 inch, reduces the load by 70 tons. A boat 550 feet in length
and 56 feet in width, drawing 19 feet of water, raised 1 inch, reduces the load
by 100 tons. Larger boats would, of course, suffer in their loading capacity
accordingly. #. - g
In the aggregate, this situation, if permitted to continue, will involve the
taking on of many additional boats for the purpose of properly caring for
Milwaukee Commerce. -
Unless boat owners can carry freight with profit, there is every reason to
anticipate that they will seek other ports, and this occurring, Milwaukee must
pay the consequences in diminished service and increased rates.
The physical situation in the Milwaukee Harbor is such that the rise and
fall of water is not controlled by locks, and accordingly, shipping interests
must deal with the Water level as they find it and have no method by which
same can be controlled Or the Water capacity of the rivers regulated.
Another element Of the situation which is of much concern to those inter-
ested in river Commerce and transportation in Milwaukee is the fact that with
the water levels lowered in the outer harbor to a point which brings the bot-
tom of the boat altogether too close to the lake bottom, there is imminent
danger in the event of storms, such as are not unusual On the Great Lakes and
in the Milwaukee Section, that large boats will in such storms strike the lake
bottom with such force as to involve very great injury to the boats, together
with danger to the Safety of those in control. This same situation very
seriously interferes with the steerage of the boat. g
The facts as they apply to the city of Milwaukee and its commerce apply,
Of COurse, with equal force to all cities on the Great Lakes similarly situated.
TO summarize the situation, we direct your attention to the following:
(a) The abstraction of water, as now carried on, is unlawful and in viola-
tion of the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. * , t
(b) To permit continued abstraction in the volume now permitted consti-
tutes unfair and unjust discrimination.
(c) The abstraction involved is not for a purely public purpose but it is used
for the purpose of producing profit. -
(d) The continued abstraction of water and lowering of levels will interfere
with satisfactory boat-freight service in the city of Milwaukee.
(e) The continued abstraction of water and lowering of levels will compel
reconstruction of a large portion of river dOckage and, in many instances,
its discontinuance.
(f) The continued abstraction of water and lowering of levels will inter-
fere with the safe, proper, and economic handling of boats in the Outer harbor
of Milwaukee, as well as within the 8 miles of rivers within said city.
(g) The continued abstraction of water and lowering of levels will neces-
sarily increase boat freight rates. O
(h) The continued abstraction of watér and lowering of levels will affect the
standing of Milwaukee as a great lake port, enjoying to-day the prestige Of
being the second port of importance on the Great Lakes as a coal-distributing
port, which will be destroyed.
While this protest is entered on behalf of those who are immediately and
directly concerned, the very evident effect of the continued unlawful and
unreasonable abstraction of water volume will cause irreparable injury to
every citizen of Milwaukee, and the State as well, for whatever interferes
522 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
With the proper maintenance, growth, and development of the industry and
Commerce of a great commercial center and port necessarily involves all its
citizens. -
Respectfully Submitted.
* WILLIAM. F. ARDERN,
President of and representing Milwaukee Harbor and
River Association; representing Kiwanis Club and
coal-distributing interests of Milwaukee.
KIWANIS CLUB,
Milwaukee, Wis., April 11, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Com/mittee on Rivers and Harbors:
As a representative of the Kiwanis Club of Milwaukee, "I hereby inclose our
resolutions protesting against the abstracting of water from Lake Michigan,
thus causing the level to be lowered considerably, interfering with shipping
and causing large expenditures to be made in dredging and rebuilding docks
in Case the present level of water is permitted to remain.
Respectfully yours,
WM. F. ARDERN,
Representing Kiwanis Club.
IN RE BILL NO. 547 5, INTRODUCED BY MIR. HULL, RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF
DES PLAINES AND III,INOIS RIVERS
Whereas in and by the above bill the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet
Of Water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal is sought to be
legalized, the same being the amount now diverted into said canal; and
Whereas such diversion seriously impairs the use of the harbor and rivers
Of the city of Milwaukee, lake transportation, power plant, and industrial
purposes; and -
Whereas such purposes are of the utmost importance to the territory adja-
cent and tributary to said harbor and river; and
Whereas the present diversion has already seriously affected the use of said
harbor and rivers for said purposes and a continuance of the diversion will ma-
terially diminish the Value thereof for commercial and industrial purposes and
deprive the city Of Milwaukee and territory adjacent thereto from the use
thereof for the Shipping and receipt of grain, coal, and Other commodities now
transported by lake freight: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Milwaukee Kiwanis Club, That such association protest
against the continued diversion of Said water as above set forth and against
the passage of said bill, or any other bill Seeking to legalize Such diversion,
and respectfully petitions that necessary steps to prevent Such diversion be
taken by the proper authorities to the end that the shipping industry of the
State of Wisconsin may be protected from this unlawful diversion.
WM. F. ARDERN,
Representing Kiwanis Club.
CREDENTIAL AS REPRESENTATIVE
KIWANIS CLUB,
Milwaukee, Wis., March 14, 1924.
Mr. WM. ARDERN,
120 Wisconsin Street, Milwaukee, Wis.
MY DEAR MR. ARDERN : At the special meeting of the board of directors, held
at the City Club on February 5, you were elected the representative of the Mil-
waukee Kiwanis Club on the lake level committees and, as, such, you are the
official representative of the Milwaukee Kiwanis Club in any matter which
pertains to the rivers and harbors and lake level of Lake Michigan.
YUüTS truly,
ROYDEN E. WEBSTER, Secretary.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 523
IN RE BILL H. R. 5475, INTRODUCED BY MR. HULL, RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF
DES PLAINS AND ILLINOIS RIVERS
MILWAUKEE HARBOR AND RIVERS Association,
Milwaukee, April 11, 1924.
Whereas in and by the above bill the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet
of water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal is sought
to be legalized, the Same being the amount now diverted into Said Canal; and
Whereas such diversion seriously impairs the use of the harbor and rivers
of the city of Milwaukee, lake transportation, power plant, and industrial .
purposes ; and -
Whereas such purposes are of the utmost importance to the territory ad-
jacent and tributary to said harbor and rivers; and
Whereas the present diversion has already seriously affected the use of said
harbor and rivers for said purposes and a continuance of the deversion will
materially diminish the value thereof for commercial and industrial pur-
poses and deprive the city of Milwaukee and territory adjacent thereto from
the use thereof for the shipping and receipt of grain, coal, and other com-
modities now transported by lake freight: Now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Milwaukee Harbor and Rivers Association (composed of in-
dustries using Lake transportation in the conduct of their business and de-
pendent upon the adequate depth of Water for the efficient and economical
use of docks, unloading equipment, and Other appliances installed for use
in connection with such transportation and furnishing to said city and the
industries therein coal and other necessities), That said association protest
against the continued diversion of said water as above set forth and against
the passage of said bill, or any other bill seeking to legalize such diversion,
and respectfully petitions that necessary Steps to prevent such diversion be
taken by the proper authorities to the end that the shipping industry of the
State of Wisconsin may be protected from this unlawful diversion. r
WM. F. ARDERN,
President Milwaukee Harbor dé Rivers Association.
Tonnage received and Shipped during last 10 years shows an average as
follows: &
Tonnage handled
Kenosha, Wis - - 9
Racine, Wis 243, 652
Milwaukee, Wis 7, 272, 709
Sheboygan, Wis i 607,156
Manitowoc, Wis 1, 751, 126
Green Bay, W’s A: 954, 440
Sturgeon Bay, Wis_________ -- f - 449, 021
Kewannee, Wis___________ - 207, 583
Marinett-Menominee, Wis -- - 460, 615
Total------------ y 12, 007. 048
524
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Receipts and shipments of Sub-ports within last 10 years.

Year Receipts Shipments Year Receipts Shipments
PORT OF MANITOWOC |PORT OF RACINE–COIl.
1922---------------------- 839,379 810,937 || 1915---------------------- 226,856 20, 585
1921---------------------- 940,859 634,854 || 1913---------------------- 229, 153 18, 584
1920---------------------- 898,617 3. -
1919---------------------- 1,043,910 727,460 Total--------------- 2,025,064 177,839
1918---------------------- 918, 188 835,039 -
1917 – 1,088,807 793,329 || PORT OF STURGEON BAY
1916---------------------- 1,070,836 791, 923
1915---------------------- 878,689 708, 119 || 1922----------------------|------------ 1 191, 100
1914-- 983,388 759,630 || 1921---------------------- 14, 100 175,260
1913---------------------- 1, 141, 159 759,906 || 1920–---- * * * - - - - 1 381,934
- — || 1919---------------------------------- 1366, 330
Total--------------- 9,803,832 || 7,707,435 || 1918----------------------|------------ 1 436, 384
... • - 1917---------------------------------- 1720, 803
PORT OF KENOSEIA 1916---------------------------------- 1 630,416
1915---------------------------------- 1 539, 695
1922---------------------- 14,751 10, 118 || 1914 • *- - - ____| 1499,634
1921---------------------- 20,690 4,899 || 1913----------------------|------------ 1 548,660
1920---------------------- 27,848 7,384
1919---------------------- 31,820. 6,717. Total--------------- 14, 100 4,490,216
1918– 32,075 10,907.
1917-------------i- - - - - - - - - 47,947 26,742 1 Receipts and shipments.
1916---------------------- 66,386 61, 558 -
1915---------------------- 56,529 16,739 PORT OF GREEN BAY
1914---------------------- 68,910 9,731
1913–- 70,347 15,369 || 1922---------------------- 759,882 82, 334
- 1921---------------------- 911,830 213, 185
Total--------------- 437,303 170, 164 || 1920---------------.- - - - - - - 899, 935 207, 491
1919–--------------------- 773,872 192, 563
PORT MARINETTE- 1918---------------------- 975, 605 115,387
MENOMINEE 1917---------------------- 856, 852 114, 483
1922- - 384, 101 200,828 || 1916---------------------- 769, 436 88, 999
1921-- 333,490 139,280 || 1915–---------4----------- 751,878 69,228
1920 – - 6,944 103,635 || 1914---------------------- 782, 193 115,815
1919---------------------- 201,605 218,923 || 1913–--------------------- 761, 821 101,618
1918---------------------- 215,718 193,914
1917---------------------- 245,383 289,229 Total -------------- 8, 243,304 1,301, 103
1916---------------------- 281,084 183,479
1915---------------------- 298,500 115, 119 |PORT OF MILWAUKEE
1914---------------------- 302,098, 126, 166
1913---------------------- 321,562 145,096 || 1913–--------------------- 7, 225,887 1,649, 344
- 1914---------------------- 6, 546,478 1,942,487
Total--------------- 2,890,485 1, 715,669 || 1915---------------------- 6, 468,674 1,659, 024
1916---------------------- 6,616, 116 1,308,783
PORT OF SHEBOYGAN 1917---------------------- 5, 744, 662 1,075, 230
- 1918---------------------- 5,475,340 1,611, 210
1922---------------------- 476, 504 |------------ 1919---------------------- 5, 591,434 1,411, 557
1921---------------------- 430,699 6, 204 || 1920---------------------- 4,792,868 1,068,638
1920---------------------- 484, 335 |------------ 1921---------------------- 4,770, 584 1,667, 802
1919---------------------- 549, 502 2,524 || 1922----------------------- 4, 355, 926 2,093, 492
1918---------------------- 698, 133 5,397 || 1923–--------------------- 5, 624,919 1, 299, 349
1917---------------------- 657,212 11,342
1916---------------------- 664,037 18, 523 Total -------------- 63, 212, 888 16, 786,916
1916---------------------- 651,757 13,745 -
1914---------------------- 628,331 11,348 PORT OF KIEWAUNEEE
1913---------------------- 746, 545 15,426
1922---------------------- 108,874 126, 618
Total--------------- 5, 987,055 84, 509 || 1921--------------- ** - - - - - - 96, 114 98, 178
1920---------------------- 97,859 174, 328
PoRT of RACINE 1919----------------------* 59,419 124, 230
1918---------------------- 46,055 125, 133
1922---------------------- 237,842 8, 190 || 1917---------------------- 113,273 76,730
1921---------------------- 236,008 6, 543 || 1916–--------------------- 125, 109 130,660
1920---------------------- 194,470 10, 210 || 1915---------------------- 82,477 114,438
1919---------------------- 220,766 13,038 || 1914---------------------- 100, 589 103,636
1918---------------------- 228,424 37,420 || 1913---------------------- 85,991 86, 125
1917---------------------- 210,300 36,853
1916---------------------- 241,245 26,416 Total -------------- 915,760 1, 160,076
g
RIVER AND HARBOR COMMITTEE,
GENTLEMEN :
Washington, D. C.
We desire to file a protest against the request of the city of
Chicago for additional Water in connection with its drainage canal.
LEHIGH WALLEY COAL SALES Co.,
Milwaukee, Wis., April 7, 1924.
The
amount of water being uSed there now is such that the lake level is reduced
to a point where it affects Shipping at Milwaukee to the extent that large boats
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 525
have come here without a full load and which necessitates our paying a higher
freight rate than Duluth or Superior to make up for the light load.
Further encroachment on the water supply will increase this expense.
Yours very truly,
C. A. GRANGER, Sales Agent.
ENGINEERING FACTS CONCERNING THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
PURPOSE
The purpose for which the sanitary district was created was to divert the
sewage of Chicago and adjacent towns from Lake Michigan, thus protecting
the municipal water supply from contamination by sewage ; to dispose of
sewage by dilution and outlet into the Illinois River ; to provide such other
means of sewage disposal as might be necessary when the capacity for dilution
is exceeded.
The act creating the sanitary district requires a minimum dilution of 200
cubic feet per minute or 3.33 cubic feet per second for every 1,000 people. By
subsequent charter the district utilizes the water power incidentally created.
An amendment to the sanitary district act in 1921 requires the construction of
Sewage treatment works to supplement the dilution required by the original
act.
ORGANIZATION
The Sanitary District of Chicago was organized under an act of the General
Assembly of the State of Illinois dated May 29, 1889. It is governed by a
board of nine trustees, three of whom are elected for a six year term at the
regular fall election held every two years. The district is supported by taxes,
the maximum rate of which may be two-thirds of 1 per cent of the assessed
valuation of property within the district. Bonds may be issued for permanent
improvements up to 3 per cent of the assessed valuation. The sanitary dis--
trict has police powers and the power of eminent domain.
AREA AND POPULATION
The Original sanitary district (1889) extended only from Devon Avenue On
the north to Eighty-seventh Street on the south and from Lake Michigan to
Harlam Avenue on the west, having an area of 185 square miles and a popu-
lation of 1,140,000. Subsequent annexations, all by act of the State legisla-
ture, have increased this area in 1903 by 173.10 square miles, in 1913 by 28.10
square miles, 1917 by 1.94 square miles, in 1919 by 7.37 square miles, and in
1921 by 41.88 square miles. Now (1923) the sanitary district extends from
the north line of Cook County south to the south line of Harvey and from the
Indiana State line west to the east line of DuPage County. Its area is 437.39
square miles, including all of Chicago (199.38 square miles) and some 49 other
incorporated cities and villages. -

Year Population | Area
Square
'miles
'890------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 149, 758 185.00
1900--------------------------------------------------------- -- * sº * 1,775,882 185.00
1910--------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,311,810 358. 10
1990------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,986,000 395, 51
1993------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 213, 437. 39
tº
MAIN CHANNEL AND DES PLAINES RIVER DIVERSION, THE SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
The main drainage canal.—The first constructive work of the sanitary
district extends 28 miles from the Chicago River at Robey Street to the
Controlling works at Lockport. Construction work was started September 3,
1892, and seven years and four months later water was turned in January 2,
1900. This is the main outlet for the sewage of Chicago.
526 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The earth section, from Robey Street to Summit, is 7.8 miles long, has a
bottom gradient of 1 in 40,000, a depth of 24 feet, a bottom width of 162
feet and side slopes of 1 on 2 on the SOuth side and 1 on 1 on the north side.
The earth and rock section, from Summit to Willow Springs, is 5.3 miles
long, has a bottom gradient of 1 in 40,000, a depth of 24 feet, a bottom width
of 202 feet, and side slopes of 1 on 2.
The rock Section, from willow Springs to Lockport, is 14.95 miles long,
has a bottom gradient of 1 in 20,000, a depth of 24 feet, a bottom width
of 160 feet and vertical sides, either channeled out of solid rock or masonry
Walls built On rock.
The capacity of the main channel is approximately 10,000 cubic feet per
Second.
The Des Plaines River diversion was made necessary by the fact that
in places the main channel was constructed in the original bed of the Des
Plaines River. The Des Plaines River was straightened over a length of
about 13 miles in a new channel constructed along the northwest side of
the Valley from Summit down to below Lemont.
Bridges.—Six highway and seven, railroad bridges were constructed across
the main channel. All of these are Swing bridges except One, the eight-track
railroad bridge which is of the rolling lift type. These bridges have a
minimum clearance above water of 16.5 feet. Across the Des Plaines River
diversion were built four highway and three railroad fixed bridges,
Controlling works.-Flow in the main channel is regulated by the old con-
trolling Works at Lockport and by the movable dams at the power house.
(For details of these structures see pages 7 to 9.)
Cost :
Right of way - $2,366, 226. 39
Channel construction - 20, 605, 662. 38
Bridges. g 2, 585,083. 21
Engineering and Supervision 1,463, 640. 43
Total cost of Original Main channel 27, 020, 612.41
DES PLAINEs RIVER IMPROVEMENT
The Des Plaines River improvement or Joliet project involved the straight-
ening, widening, and deepening of the Des Plaines River from the Lockport
Controlling works south for 6 miles through Joliet to McDonough Street.
Work was started March 25, 1898, and completed September 30, 1901.
This channel carried the total flow of the main channel, wasted into the Des
Plaines River through the controlling works. It was designed to carry the
maximum possible combined flood from both the main channel and Des Plaines
River safely through Joliet. Its flow capacity is 25,000 cubic feet per second.
The cross-sections of this project are, from the controlling works to Six-
teenth Street (Lockport), 600 feet wide and 3 feet deep ; from Sixteenth Street
to the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad the natural Des Plaines River chan-
nel; from the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad to the upper basin. Of the
Illinois & Michigan Canal in Joliet 240 feet wide, and 5 feet deep and 140
feet wide and 7.5 feet deep from the upper basin to Dam No. 1 at Jackson
Street, Joliet, 300 feet wide and 8 feet deep and from Jackson Street to Mc-
Donough Street, 200 feet wide and 6 feet deep.
This work involved the rebuilding of Dam No. 1 and Lock No. 5 at Jackson
Street, the removal Of the Adams Dam and of Dam No. 2, the construction of
a concrete wall between the Illinois & Michigan Canal and the river from
Jackson Street to Jefferson Street, and the rebuilding of six highway and two
railroad fixed bridges.
r.
Cost :
Right of way $676, 711.93
Construction - • * * { - 1, 309,063.46
Bridges 325, 305.34
Engineering - . - - * 22,490.99
Total__ -- is 1 _ 2, 333, 571. 72
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 527
MAIN CHANNEL EXTENSION
The main channel extension, constructed in order to concentrate the 34
feet of fall in the Water of the main channel from the controlling Works to
the upper basin and to utilize the potential power running to waste, was built
between July 28, 1903, and August 27, 1907.
This project is 4.25 miles long. From the Lockport controlling works to the
power house the channel has a varying width, the minimum being 160 feet
and a depth Of 24 feet. In this reach it is above the natural Surface of the
ground for the most part, being retained between a clay and rock levee on the
west and a concrete Wall backed by rock fill on the east. From the power
house to the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad bridge (6,000 feet) the channel
is cut in the solid limestone 160 feet wide and 20 feet deep. From the Elgin,
Joliet & Eastern Railroad bridge to the upper basin (5,500 feet) it is 160
feet wide and 10 feet deep. This stretch is parallel to and is connected with
the Des Plaines River Improvement. Retween Ninth and Sixteenth Streets,
Lockport, the channel widens to 600 feet, providing a turning basin for ships.
The work involved the construction of two highway swing bridges, the
power house (see p. 9, the Butterfly Dam, movable dams, and lock at the
power house (for details of these structures see p. 8).
CoSt :
Right of way $29, 520. 70
COnStruction - 2, 319, 302. 17
Bridges 140,271.58
Engineering 13,994. 25
Total 2, 503,088. 70
COLLATERAL STRUCTURES
The controlling Works at Lockport, built with the main channel to regulate
the flow in the channel and discharge directly into the Des Plaines River,
consist of seven sluice gates and One bear-trap dam.
The sluice gates are of the Stoney type, 30 feet wide, an! have 20 feet
vertical travel. They are counterweighted and can be operated either by
motors Or by hand. º
The bear-trap dam has a crest length of 160 feet and an oscillation of 15
feet from elevation –10 C. C. D. to −5 C. C. D. The main hinge is down-
Stream. This dam is counterweighted by suspended tanks which may be filled
with water. It can be operated by controlling the weight of these tanks,
but is usually Operated by controlling water pressure on inside of dam, which
exerts upward thrust on top leaf of dam.
The movable dams at the power house consist of two sector dams, One with
a crest 12 feet long leading from the forebay, the other with a crest 48 feet
long leading from the main channel. Both dams have a verticle range of
14 feet, from –120 C. C. D. to —2 C. C. D., and a radius of 26 feet and are
hinged downstream. The operation is by controlled water pressure inside
the dam, which exerts an upward thrust on the top leaf of the dam.
These dams are used to regulate the flow in the main channel. In point
of use they have practically taken the place of the original controlling Works.
The Butterfly Dam, located in the center of the main channel extension
just below the Lockport controlling works, is to completely shut off the flow
in the main channel extension in case of emergency. This dam is a steel
structure pivoted at the center, the bottom pivot bearing anchored in rock
at the bottom of the channel, the upper bearing being supported by a bridge
which is parallel to the channel. In an open position the dam is under the
bridge and in a closed position it is across the channel, the ends resting On
lugs attached to the side walls of the channel. r §
The operation of the dam is by electric motors, which can be assisted by
proper manipulation of 12 butterfly valves, each approximately 4 feet by 6
feet, in the face of the dam itself.
The movable leaf of the dam is 30 feet high and 184 feet long. The weight of
the dam proper is 710 tons and the total weight of the steel, including the
Supporting bridge, is 1,080 tons,
The lock at the power house was built in connection with the main-channel
extension. It was opened to navigation July 13, 1910. Its width is 22 feet,
528 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
uSable length 130 feet, maximum lift 40 feet, mean lift 34 feet. This lock is
Operated throughout the entire year by the Sanitary District. No charge is
made for lockage. It was built to take care of navigation using the Illinois and
Michigan Canal between Joliet and Chicago, anticipating the time when this
* would be cut through by the construction of the Calumet-Sag Channel.
‘OSt : -
Lockport Controlling works tº $337, 055.86
Movable dams at power house 115,325.63
Butterfly dam 220, 115.25
Lock at power house *. 165, 842. 50
Engineering g - 162, 630. 97
Total COSt Collateral Structures - - 1, 000, 970. 21
WATER POWER
The Lockport Power House is located on the main channel extension about
2 miles south of Lockport. Its construction was completed in 1907, the first
power being delivered November 26, 1907. This power plant was built to utilize
the power being Wasted in the waters of the main drainage canal, falling SOIme
34 feet between Lockport and Joliet. The electric current generated is trans-
mitted to Chicago and used for pumping Sewage, operating Sewage treatment
plants, lighting city streets, parks, and boulevards.
The theoretical power available with a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second is
36,000 horsepower. The head is approximately 34 feet. Electric current is
generated at 6,600 volts and stepped up to 44,000 volts for transmission to
Chicago, where it is stepped down and distributed at 12,000 volts.
The power house is a fireproof structure of concrete, steel, and tile, 385 feet
long, 70 feet wide, and 47 feet high. Access for moving machinery is had by a
spur from the Santa Fe Railroad running directly into the power house. A
concrete wall with submerged arches across the forebay serves as an ice guard.
The power house equipment consists of seven 6,000 horsepower horizontal
water turbines, each driving a 4,000 milowatt direct-connected generator. The
turbines are each composed of six 1,000 horsepower runners mounted on One
shaft. They will each use 100,000 cubic feet per minute of water at 0.8 gate
opening and 34 feet head, developing 5,360 electric horsepower. The speed is
163 revolutions per minute. The gerferators are 3-phase, 60-cycle, A. C. 6,600
volts, stationary field, rotors 18 feet 2 inches in diameter. There are three
exciters, each of 350 kilowatt capacity, 250 volts, 300 revolutions per minute
each driven by a separate water turbine. There are 21 transformers, 1,333
kilowatt each, single phase, oil and water-cooled.
Cost of power house :
Real estate $20,000.00
Improvements to land 17, 604.86
Structures 403, 122. 01
Head gates, Walls, tailrace, etc. 332, 870. 60
Equipment - 622, 115. 28
Total 1, 395, 712.75
Transmission is at 44,000 volts from the power house to the terminal Sta-
tion in Chicago at Thirty-first Street and Western Avenue, a distance of 30
miles. The line is composed of galvanized steel towers, 60 feet high, Set 6
feet in concrete bases. Each tower has a 42-inch base, 24-inch top, two cross
arms, and weighs 4,000 pounds complete. They are set 350 feet apart. There
are three complete circuits, a total of nine wires spaced 72 inches apart. The
wires are aluminum, 19 Strands—270,000 C. M. aluminum.
, The terminal station building is made of concrete, 124 feet by 70 feet by 42
feet high. It houses transformers, synchronous condensers, etc. *
City lighting.—This power from Lockport is used to operate more than
60,000 street lights for the city of Chicago and over 9,000 additional lights for
the West Park, Lincoln Park, and South Park districts.
NORTH SHORE CHANNEL
The North Shore Channel extends from Lake Michigan at Wilmette to the
North Branch of the Chicago River at Lawrence Avenue, a distance of 8.14
miles. Its function is to receive all sewage of the north end of the Sanitary
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 529
district from Glencoe down to Lawrence Avenue, also to carry lake Water
for flushing out the North Branch of the Chicago River.
Work was started on this canal September 12, 1907, and water was turned
in November 29, 1910. Its capacity is 1,000 cubic feet per seconl, its water
depth 13.6 feet, bottom width 26 to 30 feet, side slopes 1 on 2 and 3 on 5,
and its bottom gradient 1 in 20,000. The channel was cut in earth through-
out and the Spoil from the northern portion was used to fill in a space on the
1ake front, now used as a public park in Wilmette. Twenty highway bridges
and three railroad bridges, all of the fixed type with a clearance of 16 feet,
Were COnStructed across this channel.
The Wilmette pumping station, located under the Sheridan Road bridge in
Wilmette, is used to pump water from Lake Michigan into the North Shore
Channel, developing the head necessary to cause the proper flow. Its lift
is 3 feet. There are four horizontal screw pumps 9 feet in diameter,
capacity 250 cubic feet per second each at 3 feet head and 75 revolutions per
minute. Each pump is geared to a 150-horsepower alternating current, 3–
phase, 60-cycle, 440-volt motor. Electric current for operating this station
is received from the LOCkport power house. -
The Wilmette Lock, under the Sheridan Road bridge alongside the pump-
ing station, is 32 feet wide, 130 feet long, and 11 feet deep. *
CoSt : -
Right of way $1, 188, 529. 19
Channel construction (including Wilmette Lock and Harbor) – 1,659, 314. 14
Bridges –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 625, 868. 29
Wilmette pumping Station____ - - * - - - 348, 039.84
Engineering --------------------------------------------- 284,738. 38
TOtal 4, 106,489. 84
CALUMET-SAG CHANNEI,
The Calumet-Sag Channel extends from a junction with the Little Calumet
River just east of Blue Island to a connection with the main channel at Sag.
Its function is to reverse the flow in the Calumet River, diverting all the Sew-
age of the district South Of Eighty-seventh Street away from Lake Michigan.
Its capacity is 2,000 cubic feet per second and its length is 16.2 miles. Work
was begun on this channel September 18, 1911, and water was turned in
August 25, 1922. . .
The earth sections, 10.8 miles long, have a bottom width of 36 feet with side
slopes of 1 on 2 or a bottom width of 50 feet with side slopes 1 on 1. The
depth is 20 feet and the bottom gradient 1 in 37,000. -
The rock sections, 5.4 miles long, have a bottom width of 60 feet, depth Of
20 feet, and vertical sides, either channeled out of solid rock or concrete Walls
on rock. The bottom gradient is 1 in 37,000.
Since this channel is too narrow for large boats to pass each other in nav-
igating it, a lie-by is constructed in each 3 miles of the canal. Seven
railroad bridges and 17 highway bridges were constructed across the Calumet-
Sag Channel. All are fixed bridges and have a minimum clearance above
water of 16.5 feet.
CoSt :
Right of way - $573, 555.98
Channel construction 11, 396, 407. 46
Bridges - 774, 531. 07
Controlling works —— 326,068.43
Engineering and supervision —- ––– 964, 966. 34
Total -- - - * * 14,035, 529. 28
CHICAGO RIVER
The main branch of the Chicago River, from Lake Michigan to Lake Street,
has been improved and is maintained by the United States Government. This
portion of the river has a minimum width of 200 feet and a depth of approx-
imately 26 feet. - " . . . -
The South Branch of the Chicago River, from Lake Street to Robey Street, a
distance of 5 miles, was widened and deepened by the Sanitary district. At
530 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Robey Street the river now flows into the main drainage canal. Work on this
project was begun in May, 1897, and completed in 1920.
The work involved the dredging Of the river to a minimum width of 200
feet between dock lines and to a depth of 26 feet for the middle 100 feet, shoal-
ing to a depth of 16 feet at the face of dock. It also involved the removal
of 14 center pier bridges and the replacing of same with bascule bridges, having
a minimum Width between abutments of 120 feet and a minimum clearance
above Water Of 16.5 feet. -
Cost:
Right of way $6,134,842. 44
River improvement - 2, 398,056. 13.
Bridges •- - 3, 358, 402.40
Engineering - 581, 080. 57
Total 12,472, 381. 54
The north branch of the Chicago River, from its junction with the main
branch, north to Belmont Avenue, was improved by the United States Govern-
ment. The north branch from Belmont Avenue to Lawrence Avenue, a distance
Of 2.2 miles, was relocated, straightened, widened, and deepened by the Sanitary
district. This work was begun May 10, 1904, and completed December 2, 1907.
The work consisted of dredging a channel 90 feet wide and 12 feet deep and the
building of three highway bridges. This channel was redredged between May
11, 1911, and June 11, 1912. The middle 20 feet of the channel between Belmont
Avenue and ROSCOe Street was deepened to 15 feet in 1917.
Cost:
IRight of way - $17, 150.00
River improvement w 343, 115. 62
|Bridges 25, 512. 66
Engineering - ____ 45,459.66
Total --------------------------------------------------- 431, 237.94
SEWAGE PUMPING STATIONs
The Thirty-ninth Street pumping station, located at Thirty-ninth Street and
Lake Michigan, pumps the sewage of the district on the south side between
Thirty-first Street and Eighty-seventh Street, west through a 20-foot conduit
in Thirty-ninth Street, discharging into the South Fork of the South Branch
of the Chicago River. It also pumps lake water for flushing the South Fork.
The two arms of the South Fork are known as the Stockyards Slip and Bub-
bly Creek. This station was built jointly by the city of Chicago and the sani-
tary district. The sanitary district built the portion used for pumping flush-
ing Water and the city of Chicago built the portion used for pumping sewage,
also the 16-foot intercepting sewer along the lake front leading to the station
and the 20-foot conduit west in Thirty-ninth Street to Halsted Street. This
station was completed in 1905 and was turned over by the city to the sanitary
district to operate on April 30, 1910. The area drained is about 22 square
miles and the pumping of sewage varies from forty-five to one thousand million
gallons per day.
The boiler plant consists of eight boilers, six being 265 horsepower each,
Aultman-Taylor boilers, B. & W. three-pass, water-tube type, equipped with
chain grate stokers, and two being 500 horsepower each, Edgemoor boilers
equipped with Taylor automatic stokers. -
The flushing pumps are screw pumps, two in number, each having a Ca-
pacity of 1,000 cubic feet per second against a 4 foot head at a speed of 55
revolutions per minute. Each pump has a 6-blåded propeller 14 feet 9 inches
in diameter. Each pump is driven by a vertical, triple expansion steam engine.
The sewage pumps are four vertical-shaft centrifugal pumps, two having a
capacity of 75 cubic feet per second each against a 24-foot head and two
having a capacity of 250 cubic feet per second each against a 12-foot head.
Each pump is driven by a triple expansion steam engine, with cylinders set at
120° intervals around the vertical shaft. The condensers...of all the pumping.
engines are of the barometric type. t * .
A steam turbine, driving an electric generator of 4,000 KVA. capacity, 2.300
volts, 60 cycle, was installed in this station in 1916. This generator is used to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 531
assist the Lockport power plant in carrying the peak of the electric lighting
load at Such times as the steam capacity at Thirty-ninth Street is nſt required
for pumping Sewage.
CoSt.—The cost to the sanitary district of the Thirty-ninth Street Pumping
Station is $754,885.51. The total cost of this station, including the expense
borne by the city of Chicago, is approximately $1,200,000.
The Lawrence Avenue Pumping Station, located at Lawrence Avenue just
east of Broadway, pumps the sewage of the district on the North Side, be-
tween Diversey Boulevard and Howard Avenue, west through, a 16-foot
conduit in Lawrence Avenue, discharging into the North Branch of the Chicago
River. It also pumps lake water for the dilution of this sewage and for
flushing the North Branch. The lake water is taken in through a crib located
about One-fourth mile off shore in Lake Michigan at the foot of Lawrence
Avenue and carried to the station through a conduit under the bed of the
lake. This pumping station, with the crib and conduits, was built by the
city of Chicago, completed in 1908, and turned over to the sanitary district
to operate on December 6, 1910. The area drained is about 6 square miles
and the pumping of sewage varies fºom twenty-five to One hundred and ninety-
two million gallons per day. wº p
The boiler plant consists of two boilers, each being 280-horsepower Edgemoor,
horizontal, four-pass, water-tube type, equipped with Green chain grate stokers.
The flushing pump is a screw pump having a capacity of 585 cubic feet per
Second against a 3-foot head at a Speed of 40 revolutions per minute. The
pump has a six-bladed propeller 13 feet 6 inches in diameter and is driven by a
Vertical triple expansion steam engine. - -
The sewage pumps are three vertical shaft centrifugal pumps, one havin
a capacity of 37% cubic feet per second against a 10-foot head and two
having a capacity of 125 cubic feet per second each against a 5-foot head.
Each pump is driven by a compound steam engine, with cylinders set 120°
apart around the vertical shaft. The condensers of all the pumping engines
are of the barometric type.
Cost.—The cost to the sanitary district of the Lawrence Avenue pumping
station is $49,755.42, which covers only minor changes in and about the sta-
tion. The Original Construction cost was borne by the city of Chicago.
Remodeling.—The sanitary district is now (1923) making plans for re-
modeling and increasing the capacity of the Lawrence Avenue pumping
station. The added capacity will be needed to take the flow from the
10-foot relief sewer to be constructed in Broadway by the city of Chicago.
Pumps will be rearranged so that all the sanitary sewage (the dry weather
flow) can be pumped to the North Side Sewage treatment plant. Storm Water
will be pumped as at present. The pumps will be driven by electric motors.
The Evanston pumping station, located at Elmwood Avenue and Lake
Street, Evanston, pumps the sewage from the lake front district of Evanston,
wast through a 10-foot sewer in Lake Street, disharging into the North
Shore Channel. This station was completed in 1920. The area drained is
about 600 acres.
The pumps are centrifugal trash pumps, with vertical Shafts driven by
induction motors. There are six pumps, three having a capacity of 35 cubic
feet per Second each against a 10-foot head at 200 revolutions per minute
and each driven by a 100 horsepower motor, and three having a capacity
of 9.6 cubic feet per Second each against a 10-foot head at 200 revolutions
per minute, and each driven by a 25 horsepower motor. The power for
operating this station is supplied from the Lockport power house on the
main drainage Channel. '' –
Cost.—The cost of the Evanston pumping station was $511,833.87.
The Ninety-fifth Street pumping station, located at Ninety-fifth Street and
Baltimore Avenue, pumps the sewage of the northern portion of the district
lying south of Ninety-fifth Street either into the Calumet River or into the
Calumet intercepting Sewer. This station was built by the city Of Chicago
and turned Over to the Sanitary district to Operate on November 1, 1921.
The boiler plant consists of three Edgemoor, horizontal, three-pass, water-
tube boilers, two having a capacity of 200 horsepower each and one having a
capacity of 150 horsepower. They are hand fired.
The sewage pumps are three vertical shaft centrifugal pumps, two hay-
ing a capacity of 110 cubic feet per second each against a 7-foot head and
one having a capacity of 30 cubic feet per second against a 7-foot head.
532 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Each pump is driven by a compound steam engine, with cylinders set 120°
apart around the vertical Shaft. The Condensers are of the low head baro-
metric type.
CoSt.—The Construction cost of this pumping station was borne by the
city of Chicago. -
Remodeling.—The sanitary district now (1923) is rebuilding the Ninety-
fifth Street pumping station. When completed it will be electrically operated
by power from the Lockport power house or by stand-by power from the
Calumet power station. The cost of this work to date has been $5,496.07.
The Calumet pumping station, located at One hundred and twenty-fifth
Street and Indiana Avenue, pumps the sewage from the Calumet intercepting
sewer into the Calumet sewage treatment plant, or into the Calumet-Sag
Channel, or into the Calumet River. Ordinarily the pumpage is into the
treatment plant, the effluent from which flows into the Calumet-Sag Channel.
When the capacity of the treatment plant is exceeded the pumpage is direct
into the Calumet-Sag Channel, and in time of excessive storms it is into the
Calumet River. This station was completed in 1920. It drains the territory
South of Eighty-seventh Street, about 12,000 acres, and the pumpage of
sewage is from 40 to 700 cubic feet per Second. A portion of this is pumped
first into the Calumet intercepting sewer by the Ninety-fifth Street pumping
Station.
... The pumps are centrifugal trash pumps with horizontal shafts, all set
above the suction chamber and driven by synchronous motors. There are
six pumps, three having a capacity of 75 cubic feet per second each against
a 30-foot head at 260 revolutions per minute, and three having a capacity
of 275 cubic feet per second each, against a 30-foot head at 150 revolutions
per minute. The pumps are primed by rotary vacuum pumps.
The motors are 2,300 volts, 3-phase, 60-cycle synchronous motors, three of
250 horsepower each for the small pumps and three of 1,000 horsepower
each for the larger pumps. There are two additional motors, of 375 horse-
power each, which may be coupled to two of the large pumps when these
pumps are pumping 230 cubic feet per second each against a 10-foot head.
The power for operating this station is supplied from the Lockport power
house. Stand-by power is furnished by the Calumet power station.
Cost.—The cost of the Calumet pumping station was $1,499,402.02. º
The Calumet power station, located at One hundred and twenty-fifth Street
and Indiana Avenue, adjoining the Calumet pumping station, furnishes stand-
by electrical service for the Calumet pumping station, and will furnish similar
service for the Ninety-fifth Street pumping station after it has been rebuilt
and electrified. This station was completed and put in service in June, 1922.
The power units are four full Diesel type engines, each direct connected with
extension shaft to an engine type generator and overhung exciter.
The engines are of 750 brake horsepower each and have a speed of 180 revolu-
tions per minute. The Diesel oil engines are vertical, 2-cycle, single-acting,
Cross-head type. .
Generators and earciters.--The four generators are 500 kilowatts each at
80 per cent power factor, 3-phase 50-cycle, 2,300 volts. The four exciters are
16 kilowatts, 1,125 volts, and shunt wound.
Cost.—The cost of this power station was $1,164,458.59.
IINTERCEPTING SEWERS
The Ffty-second Avenue sewer, discharging into the Main Channel at
South Fifty-second Avenue, intersects the sewage of South Oak Park and
Cicero. This sewer is 5.290 feet long and varies in size from a 7-foot 6-inch
circular sewer to a 12-foot 3-inch by 16-foot semielliptical section. The cost
was $283,379.50.
The West Thirty-ninth Street conduit, extending from Robey Street to West-
ern Avenue, and emptying into the Western Avenue sewer, was built to cause
Circulation in the west arm. Of the South fork Of the South branch of the
Chicago River. This is the portion of the river commonly known at Bubbly
Creek. This sewer is built of concrete, has an ovoid section 14 feet deep by
12 feet wide inside. Its length is 2,346 linear feet. The cost was $89,357.76.
To provide additional capacity in the Western Avenue sewer for the discharge
from the West Thirty-ninth Street, conduit the sanitary district paid the city
of Chicago $78,069.58 to enlarge the Western Avenue sewer from Thirty-ninth
Street north to the main drainage canal at West Thirty-first Street.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 533
The stockyards intercepting sewer, extending from Ashland Avenue to Robey
Street, and discharging into the West Thirty-ninth Street conduit, intercepts
the Ashland Avenue and Robey Street sewers. This carries most of the Sewage
from Packingtown.
The Sewer is 3,450 linear feet in length and is built with a concrete bottom
and a brick arch. Its section is semielliptical and varies in size from 7 feet
by 7 feet to 8 feet by 9 feet. The cost was $97,681.50. The Union Stock Yards
& Transit Co. paid $25,000 toward this cost.
The North Shore intercepting sewer, extending along the lake shore from
Glençoe down to the North Shore Channel at Wilmette, diverts from Lake
Michigan the Sewage from Glencoe, Winnetka, Kenilworth, and Wilmette.
This sewer is approximately 7 miles long. It is built of concrete and tile. Its
gross-sections are egg shaped or circular. It varies in size from a 24 inch tile
in Glencoe to 6 feet by 9 feet at Wilmette. It empties into the North Shore
Channel just west of the Wilmette pumping station. The cost was $690,376.62.
The Calumet intercepting sewer, extending southwesterly from the shore of
Lake Michigan about Eighty-Seventh Street, past the Ninety-fifth Street pump-
ing Station, On West of Lake Calumet down to the Calumet pumping station,
and thence west to the Calumet-Sag Channel near Blue Island, diverts all the
Sewage of a region south of Eighty-seventh Street from the Calumet River
into the Calumet-Sag Channel. A branch of this sewer extends across the
Calumet River and north and South in Avenue N, draining that portion of
South Chicago lying east of the Calumet River. The Harbor Avenue sewer,
Section 1, and the Avenue N connection are now (1923) under construction.
The balance of the sewer from Ninety-fifth Street pumping station southwest
was put in operation in September, 1922.
This Sewer is 67,166 feet long, is built of concrete, and all the cross-sections
are horseshoe shaped. Thecost to date has been $5,049,400.61. The estimated
cost of the uncompleted section is $1,800,000. -
The Des Plaines River intercepting sewer and the Oak Park sewer, extend-
ing West in Chicago Avenue through Oak Park and River Forest across the
Des Plaines River, thence south in First Avenue, Maywood, to the Des Plaines
River sewage treatment plant, just south of Twelfth Street, west of the Des
Plaines River, intercepts the dry weather flow from the villages of Maywood,
River Forest, Forest Park, Melrose Park, and the northern part of Oak Park.
Provision is also made for taking care of the sewage of the Speedway Hospital
and the villages of Broadview and Bellwood.
This sewer was built mostly in tunnel, is of circular shape, and ranges in
size from 6 inches up to 6 feet in diameter. It includes four crossings Of the
Des Plaines River to pick up sewers lying east of the river. 'The work was fin-
ished in 1922 at a cost of $1,458,218.46.
The Evanston intercepting Sewer carries Sewage from the entire Water front
of Evanston and north end of Chicago, west on Lake Street and EmerSOn
Street, and discharges into the North Shore Channel. Its size varies from
6 inches to 10 feet. It was built mostly in tunnel, using compressed air, and
was completed in 1920. The cost was $1,251,786.06.
The Niles Center outlet sewer carries sewage from Niles Center east in
Oakton Avenue into the North Shore Channel. This is a 20-inch tile Sewer
about two miles long. It was constructed in 1917 at a cost of $25,362.93.
The Thirty-ninth street conduit extension, now (1923) under construction,
is located in the bed of the stockyards slip from Halsted Street to a point
about 100 feet west of Racine Avenue. This conduit is being built of rein-
forced concrete. It is semielliptical in cross-section 22 feet wide by 22 feet
high inside at Halsted Street and 25 feet wide by 25 feet high at the Outlet.
When completed this sewer will permit the filling in of the stockyards slip and
the extension of West Thirty-ninth Street or Pershing Road through to Ash-
land Avenue. Its cost will be approximately $2,400,000. A diversion channel,
to carry the flow of the 39th Street Conduit during construction, was com-
pleted in March, 1921. This diversion channel extends along the South
bank of the stockyards slip from Halsted Street to a point just west of Racine
Avenue. The total cost to date has been $593,357.03.
The North Side intercepting sewer system, now under construction, will
carry the sewage of the district lying north of Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, and
south of Glencoe, into the North Side Sewage Treatment Plant. In this
system sewers will be constructed along both sides of the North Branch of
the Chicago River, from Fullerton Avenue running north to Argyle Street; a
534 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
branch will be constructed from the Lawrence Avenue pumping station to the
North Shore Channel; another branch along the east side of the North Shore
Channel from Devon Avenue to Argyle Street. At Argyle Street these four
branches merge into one large sewer, which will extend along the west bank
of the North Shore Channel north to the site of the treatment plant. A sep-
arate branch Of this sewer (contract No. 1) extends along the west bank of the
North Shore Channel south from the Outlet of the North Shore intercepting
Sewer at the Wilmette pumping station to the site of the treatment plant, South
of Oakton Avenue. In this North Side system there will be approximately 14
miles of Sewers ranging in size from 4 feet to 18 feet in diameter. The esti-
mated cost is $12,000,000. -
Contract No. 1 of the North Side intercepting sewer was constructed in 1922.
Its length is 4 miles and its cross sections a 4 foot 6 inch circle and a 6 foot
6 inch Semiellipse. The cost was $1,998,300.06.
SEWAGE TREATMENT
It has long been recognized that in a community growing as is Chicago,
a limit would be reached beyond which it would not be feasible to dispose of
Sewage by dilution, the Only method provided for in the original Sanitary
district act. The main drainage channel, the main outlet for Chicago's Sew-
age, was constructed with a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second, which
amount of water would dilute the sewage of 3,000,0000 people. The popula-
tion had grown to this amount by 1921, and is growing at the rate of 70,000
per year. Industrial wastes in Chicago are equivalent to the Wastes from
more than 1,500,000 peopple, in addition to the population. The Sanitary
district began the Study of sewage disposal by methods Other than dilution
On March 1, 1909. A laboratory was established at Thirty-ninth Street for
this study, which is still in Drogress. Experimental sewage testing stations
were built and operated at Thirty-ninth Street, on domestic sewage from
1908 to 1911; at the Stockyards, on special trade wastes from 1912 to 1918;
along the North Branch, on tannery wastes from 1919 to 1922; and at Argo,
on the special wastes of the Corn Products Co. from 1920 to date.
The laboratory, maintained by the sanitary district at the Thirty-ninth
Street Pumping station, is equipped for mechanical and bacteriological Work
On water and sewage, as well as Oil and Coal analysis. In this laboratory
are analyzed certain samples from the testing stations and from the main
channel, Chicago, Des Plaines, and Illinois Rivers. Special examinations are
also made of soils. Branch laboratories are maintained at Summit to test
the water in the main channel, and at the Corn Products testing station to
test and check On the results produced by the different devices. Branch
laboratories are also maintained at both the Calumet and Des Plaines River
Sewage-treatment Works, where most of the determinations are made to control
the plants.
The corn products testing station, located at Argo, is experimenting on the
wastes from the works Of the Corn Products Refining CO. This factory grinds
Gorn in amount from 60,000 to 75,000 bushels per 24 hours, and makes starch,
glucose, cattle feed, soap, corn oil, and other corn products. The principal
waste is from the gluten settlers, with a small amount from the starch Cones,
soap works and bone charcoal filters, etc. These are all combined with the
human excretia and condenser water and discharged in One sewer to the main
channel. The testing station includes a grit chamber 6 inches wide by 18
inches deep, 15 feet 8 inches long inside, feeding three types of activated sludge
plant. One contains two aeration tanks, each 6 feet wide by 12 feet deep by
23 feet long inside, 11 feet effective water depth, the filtros plates having an
effective area of 17.4 per cent of the water surface, set in precast concrete
containers; and a secondary settling tank of the Dorr thickness type, 12 feet
in diameter and 12 feet deep. Another consists of a tank 6 feet wide by 12
feet deep by 23 feet long inside, in which are mechanical paddles. The third
plant consists of two tanks, each 8 feet wide by 12 feet deep by 23 feet long
inside, with 11 feet effective water depth, the filtros plates being set eccen-
trically in a line along One side of the tank, having an effective area of 8 per
cent of the water surface. This battery of two tanks is served by a Dorr
thickener for settling the sludge 12 feet in diameter by 11% feet deep inside.
The plant also includes a Peck aerator built in a tank 20 feet in diameter
with an 11-foot effective water depth. There is also a sprinkling filter 14 feet
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 535
Square by 8 feet deep, containing 1% to 2 inches of stone, receiving settled
liquor from a Dorr thickener 14 feet in diameter by 7 feet water depth. This
is also equipped with a secondary settling basin. For handling Sludge a steam
boiler is provided for heating, if necessary, together with a three leaved plate
filter press with chambers 1 inch thick by 3 feet square, and an American
rotary Vacuum filter 3 feet in diameter with One leaf. The amount of air used
has varied from about 3 to 4 cubic feet per gallon of sewage with periods of
aeration of 12 to 14 hours. The sludge produced has contained from 7 to
8 per cent of nitrogen and as high as 10 per cent of phosphoric acid calculated
as P205. The compressed air is supplied by a Nash hydroturbine blower of
Capacity 45 cubic feet per minute driven by a 25-horsepower motor.
The Morton Grove sewage treatment plant handles the sewage of the village
Of Morton Grove before discharge into the North Branch of the Chicago
River. The sewage is first settled in an Imhoff tank and is then pumped
Onto a covered sprinkling filter containing two beds each 35 by 36 feet,
in Which are stone 1% to 2 inches in size, 14 to 6% feet deep. Secondary
Settling basins are provided to settle out the solids produced by the filter.
A sludge pump and sludge beds are provided for handling the sludge.
The cost of this plant has been $65,964.31.
The Des Plaines River sewage treatment plant, located just west of the
Des Plaines River and south of Twelfth Street, serves an estimated popula-
tion of about 40,000 people, residing in Melrose Park. River Forest, Forest
Park, Maywood, Bellwood, Broadview, and part of Oak Park, including the
Speedway Hospital. This is an activatel sludge plant. The sewage arriving
at the treatment works is pumped through a lift of about 28 feet by three
Vertical pumps of the trash-pump type, each of a capacity of 6% cubic feet
per Second, driven by a 50 horsepower squirrel-cage induction motor 440
volts, 3 phase, 60 cycle, 400 revolutions per minute. The ordinary dry-weather
flow is about 4% cubic feet per second. In the same building with the pump-
ing Station are the blowers to compress the air for the activated sludge pro-
CeSS. These are of the hydroturbine type, driven by induction motors, there
being 1 of 2,400 cubic feet per minute capacity at 8% pounds pressure per
Square incli ; 2 at 2.800 cubic feet per minute at 6% pounds pressure per Square
inclu, 1 at 1,000, and 1 at 500 cubic feet per minute at 61/3 pounds; 4 at 150
horsepower, 1 at 75, and 1 at 50 horsepower, 440 volts, 3 phase, 60 cycle. The
Sewage is pumped through a Venturi meter into a grit chamber, which is
followed by a Riensch-Wurl self-cleaning screen with openings one-sixteenth by
2 inches. The screened sewage is aerated in 4 tanks. One at 15 feet depth
and three at 10 feet depth. These have filtros-plate areas approximately 1
to 5.7 planned to compare various methods of operation, straight flow, reaera-
tion of sludge, and reaeration and resettling of slulge. The aerated liquor is
Settled in settling tanks, one-half of which have hopper bottoms, and one-
half of the Dorr type, with a Squeegee cleaning device. For pressing and dry-
ing the sludge from the tanks to form commercial fertilizer there are provided
in the press and dry house centrifugal and stuff pumps, as well as duplicate
ejectors which feed two presses, one of the plate type with 120 chambers each
1 inch thick and 33 inches square : the other of the platen type containing 18
bags, each 5 by 8 feet. With these the water content is reduced from 99%
per cent to between 73 and 80 per cent. The press cake is then dried in a
rotary drier of the Atlas type 4 feet in diameter by 30 feet long, the dried
sludge being passed through a screen and bagged for use. A crusher is pro-
vided for breaking up any coarse material. With the dry flow the period of
aeration has been around five hours, the air averaging about 114 cubic feet
per gallon. The nitrogen content of the sludge has averaged around 5 per
Cent.
The cost of this sewage treatment plant, including the pumping station,
has been $1,441,835.01. -
The Calumet sewage treatment plant, located at One hundred and twenty-
fifth Street and Cottage Grove Avenue, is handling the sewage of the ter-
ritory south of Eighty-seventh Street, east of Western Avenue and west of
Lake Michigan, and north of the Calumet River. The sedimentation process
is used at this plant. The works consist of coarse bar screens with 1-inch
openings, a grit chamber with 5 channels in which the velocity is reduced to
about one-half foot per second to drop grit, 30 units of Imhoff tanks of the
double-deck type in which the sewage is settled and the sludge collected and
digested, 2 units of activated sludge in which the sewage is treated with com-
536 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
preSSed air, and 1 sprinkling filter of crushed stone 0.74 of an acre in area
and approximately 6 feet deep, which is dosed with settled sewage. . The
i. filter is equipped with two secondary settling tanks with hopper
Ottoms. "
The Imhoff tanks are designed for a period of two and three-fourths hours
settling when each unit is handling 1.75 million gallons per 24-hour flow,
with a sludge storage capacity of 2.25 cubic feet per capita.
A. machinery building houses the blower units for the activated-sludge
tanks, comprising 2 compressors of capacity of 2,500 cubic feet of free air per
minute each, one of 1,000 cubic feet per minute, and one of 450 cubic feet per
minute. §
The air will be filtered through duck in a Sly type dust arrester, and also
through a Midwest air filter. In the same building are three centrifugal
pumps to feed settled sewage to the sprinkling filter.
In the activated-skudge units one is to operate on raw sewage and one on
Settled Sewage. Two Dorr thickeners are provided for settling the sludge, each
34 feet Square.
The Solids removed from the Imhoff tanks will be air dried on prepared sludge
beds, of which about 71,600 square feet area are provided. This sludge will
be removed to a dump on the northern end of the property. This can be used
by farmers locally for fertilizer. Sludge-conditioning tanks are provided for the
activated sludge, which will also be handled by a filter press of the Oliver type.
This, is a cloth-covered cylinder, 11 feet 6 inches in diameter by 14 feet in
length, revolving about once in 15 minutes in a tank containing sludge. The
layer of Sludge is picked up by the vacuum maintained inside the drum, the
Sludge being Scraped off when dry. In addition, a continuous centrifugal ma-
Chine will be tried of the Bascoter-meer type. A rotary drier, 4 feet in diam-
eter by 30 feet long, of the Atlas type, is also installed with the necessary mix-
ing devices and screen to produce a marketable fertilizer. The plant is de-
Signed to handle 56,000,000 gallons per day, and at present is handling around
20,000,000 gallons from an estimated population of about 70,000. The sewage
COntains about 100 p.p.m. of suspended matter and has a biological oxygen con-
Sumption of 130 p.p.m. The effluent of the plant is discharged through the
Calumet outfall sewer to the inlet of the Calumet-Sag Chauneſ.
The cost to date has been $6,124,866.62. -
The Glenview treatment works. This is a small sewage-treatment plant for
a town of about 750 people, including a small pumping station, Imhoff tank,
and sprinkling filter (0.07 acre), with a secondary settling basin. The purpose
is to prevent pollution of the north branch of the Chicago River. This plant
will probably be constructed during the summer of 1923.
North Side Sewage-treatment plant. The proposed North Side Sewage treat-
ment plant is to be located just South of Oakton Avenue and west of the north
shore channel, alongside the gas plant of the Public Service Co. of northern
Illinois. The plant will handle the sewage of about 800,000 people in 1930,
with a flow of 175 m.g.d. The Sewage will be pumped through a lift of about
48 feet, passed through a grit chamber and through fine screens into three bat-
teries of aeration tanks for treatment by the activated-sludge processes. After
the aerated liquid is settled the effluent will be discharged into the north shore
channel. It is proposed to pump the sludge through pipe to a disposal area
for the sludge some 20 miles away on the Southwest end of the sanitary district.
It is expected that work will be started on the construction of this plant in
the immediate future. Its estimated cost is $13,500,000. The expenditures to
date have been $304,394.55.
Costs of construction to December 31, 1922
Main channel and river diversion $27,020, 612.41
Des Plaines River improvement - 2, 333, 571. 72
Main channel extension 2, 503, 088. 70
Collateral structures (main channel) - 1, 000, 970. 21
Lockport power house 1, 395, 712.75
North Shore Channel 4, 106,489. 84
Calumet-Sag Channel 14,035, 529.28
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
537
Costs of construction to December 31, 1922—Continued
Chicago River: 2.
SOuth Branch
$12,472, 381. 54
NOrth Branch * 431, 237.94
- $12, 903, 619. 48
Pumping stations:
Thirty-ninth Street 754, 885. 51
Lawrence Avenue 49, 755. 42
Evanston * 511, 833.87
Ninety-fifth Street 5, 496. 07
Calumet 1,499, 402. 02
Calumet power station 1, 164,458. 59 -
3,985, 831. 48
Intercepting sewers: * -
Fifty-Second Avenue 283, 379, 50.
West Thirty-ninth Street 167, 427. 34
Stockyards 72, 681. 50
NOrth Shore 690, 376.62
Calumet ſ 5,049, 400. 61
Des Plaines River 1,458, 218.46
Evanston 1, 251,786. 06
Niles Center 25, 362.93
Thirty-ninth Street Con. Ext 593,357. 03
North Side, contract No. 1 1,998, 300.06
Miscellaneous Small Sewers-- 5,068. 08 " .
4 11, 595, 358. 19
Sewage-treatment plants: -
* Des Plaines River 1,441, 835, 01 *
Calumet ——— 6, 124, 866. 62
Morton Grove 65, 964. 31
North Side s 304, 394. 55
Miscellaneous small plants 1, 942. 10
s 7, 939, 002. 59
Sanitary investigations, miscellaneous structures, etc.--------- 1,064; 154. O1
Grand total A, 89, 883, 940. 66
- IMPORTANT DATES
May 29, 1889., Sanitary district act approved by legislature.
July 1, 1889. Sanitary district act in force. º
November, 1889. Sanitary district act ratified by referendum of people.
September 3, 1892. Construction of main drainage channel begun.
January 2, 1900. Water turned in main channel.
January 17, 1900. Bear Trap Dam lowered, and flow started in Main
Channel. - *
May 14, 1903. Amendment to act passed, annexing North Shore and Calumet
regions and authorizing water-power development.
August 27, 1907. Main channel extension completed.
November 26, 1907. First electric current delivered to Chicago from Lock-
port power house.
March 1, 1909. Study of sewage treatment begun.
April 30, 1910. Operation of Thirty-ninth Street pumping station begun.
November 29, 1910. Water turned in North Shore Channel.
December 6, 1910. Operation of Lawrence Avenue pumping station begun.
September 18, 1911. Construction of Calumet-Sag Channel started.
August 5, 1915. Construction of Calumet intercepting sewer started.
January 28, 1916. North Shore sewer completed.
July 16, 1919. Evanston sewer completed.
January, 1921. Evanston pumping station completed.
March, 1921. Calumet pumping station completed.
91739–24—PT 2—19
588 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
November 1, 1921. Operation of Ninty-fifth Street pumping station by Sani-
tary district begun. -
August 2, 1922. Des Plaines River sewage-treatment plant started operating.
August 26, 1922. Calumet Sag Channel opened.
September 11, 1922. Operation of Calument sewage-treatment plant begun.
STATEMENT OF MR. C. S. FERRIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GEN-
ERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dempsey). For whom do you appear?
Mr. FERRIs. I appear for the attorney general and formally for
the Water Power Commission for the State of New York, which
represents the State in matters like this.
I have prepared a brief, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to file. I
don’t know whether you care to print it or not; you can use your own
judgment about that. The statement I desire to make will be an oral
Statement. -
b º; CHAIRMAN. Will it follow, generally speaking, the line of your
rief? . . . . . . . - -
Mr. FERRIs. Well, some things I may omit. I attach to the brief
a copy of the opinion and decision of the Secretary of War, Mr.
Stimson, made in 1913. I think that is a document in which every
member of the committee would really be interested. I presume you
have it some other place.
There has been so much time consumed here that I have promised
Mr. Bruce to be brief, and I am going to keep my agreement.
There are three or four matters I would like to speak about. The
gentlemen preceding me have covered so many questions, and so thor-
oughly, that I shall be content to only refer to these and not under-
take to discuss them at all. - . .
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Hull bill, as I understand it, is under
consideration. -
The CHAIRMAN. All four bills are under consideration, and we
are considering the question rather than a bill.
Mr. FERRIs. That is as I understood it, that all bills relative to
this subject of diversion at Chicago are under consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. FERRIs. What I may say will be intended to apply to the
subject generally. I have read Mr. Hull's bill.
Mr. HULL. They are nearly all alike in that respect.
Mr. FERRIs. I do not mean to say I have studied it thoroughly.
Some of the later bills I have not seen at all, but I understand that
all of the bills authorize a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Mr. HULL. Not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet. There is quite a
difference. - ‘. -
Mr. FERRIs. Well, I am not too particular about the wording be-
cause I do think the bills authorize a diversion of 10,000 cubic
feet, and it is my understanding that that is the purpose of the pro-
posed legislation. 4. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Well, if they did not authorize a diversion of
10,000 cubic feet by that language, what would be the diversion
they did authorize? . . . . . " -
Mr. FERRIs. Probably more.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 539
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, there must be something in the
bill, it must be measured either by quantities or it must be measured
by some other standard, and I do not understand that it sets up
any other standard. -
Mr. FERRIs. Now, Mr. Chairman, the State of New York has not
sent its engineers on any of these waters to examine them and
measure them. We have not employed any other engineers to do
that. Our information is based upon the reports of the engineers
of the United States. Our information is based upon those reports.
and upon the action of the Chief of Engineers, the Secretary of War,
the Attorney General, or the Attorneys General of the United
States, in the acts which they have taken from time to time, and
also upon the terms of the treaty, which I do not claim to under-
stand thoroughly. I think I do understand some parts of it, the
parts in which we are most interested, and what I have to say here
to-day I expect will be substantiated by these reports.
I want to go back for a moment to 1899, when the sanitary dis-
trict made its first application and obtained from General Alger
a permit. I believe that permit is rightfully termed a temporary
and conditional permit.
I don’t know whether I ought to assume that the Secretary of
War had power to make that permit or not. It was made, as I
understand, under the authority of the act of 1899, which was the
rivers and harbors act, and my understanding is that the authority
vested in the Secretary of War under that act was to enable him
to protect all of the navigation interests, that he was to protect
Illinois and Ohio and New York; in other words, that he became
the guardian of all the interests of navigation, and no one could
put any obstruction into any navigable waters or divert the flow
of navigable waters, or interfere with the navigable waters in any
W. without first having obtained a permit from the Secretary of
8.T. . º
Now, that has been my general understanding of the powers of
the Secretary of War. But at any rate, he assumed this authority,
and I am not going to quarrel with the Secretary of War for having
assumed that authority, because in that permit he told the people of
Chicago and the sanitary district that it was a matter for congres-
sional action. He advised them that he was going to present the
matter to Congress and that they should present the subject to
Congress. - -
The permit was modified from time to time until the authorized
diversion was settled upon as 4.167 cubic feet per second.
In 1907 they went to the Secretary of War again and asked for
4,000 additional second-feet on account of what was called the Calu-
met. Sag, I think, the improvements to be made in that part of the
sanitary district, and that permission was denied. That did not
make any particular difference; they went right home and went to:
work just the same getting ready to take it; and in 1908 the Federal
Government of the United States, through Mr. Bonaparte, Attorney
General, brought a suit. . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. That was under the administration of President
Roosevelt. . . . - . . . : . . . . . -
Mr. FERRIs. They brought a suit to restrain the sanitary distrigt
diverting more than 4,167 cubic feet. Then it ran along until 1912.
540 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, Judge, you connect up three
years. First, the second application in 1907 and its denial; second,
increased diversion after denial; and, third, the commencement of
the suit in the following year?
Mr. FERRIs. In 1908; yes. In 1912 they came back to the Secre-
tary of War, Mr. Stimson, at that time, in President Taft’s admin-
istration. They asked for authority to divert 10,000 cubic feet, and
that was denied.
Now, I ask every one of you to look at Mr. Stimson's report. As
I understand it the most thorough hearing ever had on that subject
Was the hearing before the Secretary of War Stimson. He reviewed
the question thoroughly. He spoke in that report, which you will
find at the end of my brief, and he stated what would be the effect
on the water levels, and he denied the application.
That was in 1913; I think it was in January. This was after the
treaty had been made. The treaty was negotiated in 1909 and it
Was promulgated, if that is the right word, in 1910, by President
Taft. Secretary of State Root with the ambassador from Great
Britain, wrote that treaty, and when that treaty was promulgated
by Mr.Taft, Philander C. Knox was Secretary of State. -
So all during that time we had eminent and able men considering
the whole subject. In 1913, a very short time after Secretary Stim-
son had denied their application, the Federal Government, through
Mr. McReynolds, now a justice on the bench of the Supreme Court
of the United States, and then Attorney General, brought a second
action to restrain. At that time, when everybody that had any-
thing to do with the subject was alive, when the whole matter was
fresh in the minds of these people, you will find the United States
Government in 1908 bringing an action; in 1913 bringing a second
action, and the two actions were consolidated and tried, and we must
come to one of two conclusions, that either those men who had to
do with the making of this treaty, who were familiar with it, either
did not understand it as otir friends from Chicago claim they under-
stand it, or else the Federal Government was ready to carry on liti-
gation and deprive Chicago and the sanitary district of its just
rights. - . . -
%. anyone here believe that all of those men I have mentioned
did not understand this subject fully, and did not proceed along the
lines of equity as they understood it to be, and did not understand
that Chicago was violating every order of the Federal Government
all the way down, and was diverting water which she had no right
to do?
We now come down a little further. In 1920, Judge Landis
handed down an oral decision.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the pleadings in those
cases? *
Mr. FERRIs. Somewhat; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the sanitary district in 1908 plead the treaty?
Mr. FERRIs. They could not in 1908—
The CHAIRMAN. Did they in 1913?
Mr. FERRIs. It is my recollection that they did.
The CHAIRMAN. How is that Mr. Adcock? Did you plead the
treaty?
º
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 541
Mr. ADCOCK. It was brought up in connection with the motion to
modify, or the reconsideration of Judge Landis's direction as to
the drawing of the decree.
The CHAIRMAN. But there was nothing in the pleadings up to that
time.
Mr. ADCOCK. Nothing; no.
Mr. FERRRIs. You see, after Judge Landis had held this case for
six years—I am not criticizing him because it was during the war—
he had the attorneys before him and discussed the matter, and
at that time he dictated a memorandum, and he said that he had
held it up because during the period of the war he had not felt
like handing down a decison; but at any rate he never signed any
decision, he never signed any injunction order and after that it came
before Judge Carpenter. Then they made an application—I don’t
know whether it was before Judge Landis or Carpenter—but at
any rate they made an application asking for a modification, and
that was denied. Judge Carpenter suspended the injunction until
it could be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States,
and I understand the case is to be heard in November.
, They never came up man fashion and asked Congress to deal with
this subject until after Judge Landis had handed down his deci-
sion and after Judge Landis had handed down his decision there
was a bill introduced known as the Michaelson bill, I think, which
was before this committee. [There was a bill introduced in 1918 by
Mr. Gallagher, a member of this committee (H. R. 9407, 65th Con-
gress, 2d session referring to House Document 762, 63d Congress),
which authorized a diversion of 12,000 cubic feet per second and
provided for certain so-called compensatory works.] I understand
this committee asked the present Secretary of War for his opinion.
I don’t think that has been referred to during this hearing at any
time, I don’t recall that it has. And the present Secretary of War
wrote a letter to the chairman of this committee, which was printed.
When the Michaleson bill (H. R. 9046; 67th Cong., 2d sess.) was
before this committee the Secretary of War wrote as follows:
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of the letter?
Mr. FERRIs. The date of the letter is January 26, 1922. I read
from his letter:
The Sanitary district, however has persistently sought permission to abstract
larger and additional amounts of water, and has, in fact, made such diversion
after authority therefor was denied. In 1907, after an application for per-
mission to connect the drainage canal with the Calumet River, to draw an
additional 4,000 second-feet of water through this connection, had been denied,
the trustees of the Sanitary district declared their intention to make the con-
nection and take the quantity of water desired, without the authority of the
Secretary of War, unless prevented by injunction from so doing. Thereupon
the Attorney General, at the instance of this department, filed a bill in the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, in
March, 1908, praying for an injunction to restrain the contemplated action of
the sanitary district. Again, in 1912, the sanitary district applied for per-
mission to divert from Lake Michigan, through the Chicago and Calumet
Rivers, a total of 10,000 second-feet of water ; and after some exhaustive hear-
ings and investigations this application was denied in a carefully prepared
and comprehensive decision by the Secretary of War.
That is the decision which Secretary Weeks made, which I wish
§. gentlemen would read. And he disapproved the Michaelson
bill.
gº
542 - ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, we are down to this time. The point I desire to make, Mr.
Chairman, is that these Attorneys General, Secretaries of War, Chief
of Engineers of the Army, all of the men who during that period
of time dealt with this question, must have known what was in the
treaty, must have known what was contemplated by the treaty,
must have known what was in the report of the waterways com-
mission in 1906, concerning which so much has been said. It is
unbelievable that the United States Government, that had prose-
cuted an action to a judgment, understood that this right had been
reserved to the sanitary district to divert any water at all.
The CHAIRMAN. By the treaty? !
Mr. FERRIs. Yes; by the treaty.
Now, there are some legal propositions, and I am not going to take
a lot of time to discuss those. The attorney general of Michigan
filed a brief here, and I agree with him in the main on that.
The rights of the States are important—the several States and
groups of States. But if there is any question about the ownership
of the bed of Lake Michigan or the St. Lawrence River or the Ni-
agara River, that question was settled in the leading case, which I
think Mr. Barrett failed to state, and which the Chicago people have
the most intimate knowledge of, and that is the old Lake Front case
in Chicago, where they undertook to give the Illinois Central Rail-
road Co. a thousand acres out in the harbor—give it away—and there
was so much agitation over it that the people would not stand for
it, and the legislature tried to take it back; and the Illinois Central
Railroad said, “You have given it to us, sold it to us, and you can
not take it back.” And the city claimed an interest there, and they
had a three-sided litigation, the State and the railroad company and
the citv. Y t
Aºny, the result was that that case was decided in the United
States Supreme Court and will be found at 146 U. S., the Lake Front
C3 SeS. t
The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us the title of that case and the
volume in which it is reported?
Mr. FERRIs. I am not sure whether it is in 146 U. S., but it is the
Lake Front case. -
Mr. ADCOCK. The case of Chicago v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Mr. FERRIs. Yes; and the Illinois Central against Chicago, and the
Illinois Central against the State of Illinois, and the State of Illi-
nois against them all. -
The CHAIRMAN. Were they all combined in arguments before the
Supreme Court? - -
Mr. FERRIs. Yes. When that case was decided in the United
States Supreme Court that court said:
Your repealing act did not amount to anything, because you did not have any
right to grant it anyway; it belongs to the State of Illinois in trust. It is not
a right such as a man has who has bought a piece of property and then sells it,
but it is a sovereign right and ownership in trust for the benefit of all the -
people. -
That is the title of the Niagara River; that is the title of the St
Lawrence River.
The CHAIRMAN. Was not that same thing held in our State?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 543
Mr. FERRIs. In the Long Sault case. In the Long Sault case they
referred to the Lake Front case and said that was the leading case in
the United States Supreme Court on the subject, and that is one
reason why the State of New York is interested here, that its re-
sources shall be protected. But I only wanted to refer to that as Sup-
plemental to what the attorney general of Michigan stated in his
brief.
Now, on this question of commerce and navigation I do not intend
to spend a lot of time. The gentleman from Cleveland, Mr. Goulder,
covered the subject very thoroughly. - >
But I do want to call the attention of the committee to this fact:
It does not make any difference whether it is a low-water period, a
seasonal period—seasonal during the years—or whether it is one of
the years since 1860, or what the period may be, we all have high
water and we all have low water everywhere. It doesn't make any
difference about that. If you take out of Lake Michigan, which goes
down through the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean, a
volume of water that is equal to one-twentieth of that flowing in
the Niagara River—and that is what it is—one-twentieth—you do
not need an expert; you do not need an engineer. All your have got
to do is to have some one of mature years, and he will know that it
will lower the level; it will bring the bottom of the river up closer
to the top. ; . #
Now, I supposed that the effect on navigation was so thoroughly
settled in the hearing before Secretary of War Stimson that the
fact it would lower lake levels, the fact that it would necessitate
ships loading lighter, was so well settled that it would not require
any time here at all. But I want to read a paragraph from Secretary
Stimson’s report. • . . . . - wr
The CHAIRMAN. Where is it to be found? -
Mr. FERRIs. Attached to my brief. It is page 2 of the appendix:
The enormous lake traffic that uses these harbors and these rivers is in-
creasing with great rapidity, both in gross Volume and in the size and average
(Iraft of the vessels employed therein. The Chief of Engineers reports that
to lower the water surface 6 inches would reduce the permissible load of
one of the large modern vessels by from 300 to 550 tons, with a consequent loss
of from $3,600 to $7,500 in freights per vessel per season. The International
Waterways Commission reported that , it would be a conservative estimate
which would make the loss to the navigation interests resulting from a
reduction of 6 inches in the depth of water as $1,500,000 per annum, or a
sum which, capitalized at 4 per cent, would amount to a loss of $37,500,000.
(See third progress report of International Waterways Commission of Decem-
ber 1, 1907, p. 24.) The lowest careful estimate of injury to American
vessels alone is reported by the Chief of Engineers at $1,000,000 per year.
Now I am not going to quarrel with this committee or with Con-
gress about your powers over navigable waters. I know you have
great powers. I am glad you have. I know the Secretary of War
and the Chief of Engineers and the Congress are the proper agencies
in which that authority should be vested. Somebody must look
after those things for all the people of the United States.
I am not going to get into any discussion of whether you have a
right to divert water from one watershed to another. But there is
one thing I want to suggest—that whatever this Congress does do
under the commerce clause of the Constitution and the only thing
544 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
that it is authorized to do is something in aid of navigation, not
something to impair navigation. And with all of the industries
built up on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, built up
on a volume of water which flows there by nature, the great cities,
the great industries, the shipping interests, and all other interests,
I want to say that it is a question that ought to receive he most
careful consideration before anyone should undertake to divert
water from one watershed to another. We are not living in that
part of the country in which mining and irrigation interests are
concerned, where the law may be somewhat different—for instance,
where the laws of Wyoming and Colorado may authorize or per-
mit the diversion of water from one watershed to another; we are
living in the East. Chicago is in the East; they call it the Middle
West, but it is pretty well East. I maintain that the action of Con-
gress should be to aid navigation, that your authority is to aid navi-
gation and not impair it. -
I don’t know whether, if you undertook to authorize a diversion
of 10,000 cubic feet from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi water-
shed, whether that would be upheld or not. I maintain that this is
not a navigation proposition primarily. The whole force back of
it is this sanitary district crowd from Chicago; that it where it is.
You have not heard a cry or yelp from anybody except Chicago.
Yes; I have heard a few from your section, Mr. Hull, from people
who say that you are destroying their property and making it very
disagreeable for them to live there; I have heard something of that.
At any rate I concede the question of navigation is with Congress,
within reasonable bounds, in aid of navigation and not to impair
navigation. - * -
We come along down. But to revert back a moment to the last
subject, it is a principle of the common law and the civil law that
wherever a watercourse is running or wherever water is running
through a watercourse, wherever a stream is running it shall be per-
mitted to run. It is so well established that it is a maxim laid down,
and every farmer and everybody else in the United States knows
that if his farm runs to a stream of water, or a stream of water is run-
ning across his land, nobody has a right to pollute it or take it away
somewhere so it won't go along or across his land. That has the force
of a maxim. I want to refer to that in connection with whether or
not you have the right to take the water out of one watershed and
put it in another watershed. I maintain that there is no authority,
for the reason stated, and some others I may state. There is no
authority in this treaty which permits the drainage district to take
10,000 cubic feet or any other amount. And if there is, they certainly
do not need this legislation for the drainage system. These people
here from Chicago might as well go home and prepare their briefs
and get ready to argue the case in the Supreme Court of the United
States. That is the next place to operate.
Why not let the United States Supreme Court pass on some of
these questions first?...That would be a pretty good thing, would it
not? Then we would know what the treaty means. I have my
notions as to what the treaty means, and Mr. Behan and Judge
Barrett and others do not agree with me. They may be right and I

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 545
may be wrong. It is a profound question. I do not claim to know
all about it, but I will give you my understanding.
I do not believe that all these reputable gentlemen would have
denied them this right if the treaty gave them this right, and I do
not believe the United States Government would have been carrying
on two lawsuits, as it has, to restrain them from the diversion if they
were entitled to it or at least if these officials believed it—and we have
had them down through the various administrations—Mr. Roosevelt,
Mr. Taft, and President Wilson.
This might perhaps be a subject for the International Joint Com-
mission, if it was brought there properly. I do not know whether it
would or not. That is pretty difficult to understand, but I apprehend
that possibly it would be. . . .
There has been a lot said here about this report of the waterways
commission in 1906 and 1907, or whatever time it operated. My
understanding about that commission—or those commissions—is that
it was a commission to investigate and advise, leading up to a nego-
tiation of the treaty. Here is a publication which was put out by
the International Joint Commission in 1924. There is a little discus-
Sion on this subject. .
The waterways commission, which consisted of six members, three
representing the United States, and three representing Canada, was
purely an investigating body, without any power or jurisdiction.
Its duties were to investigate and report upon the conditions, the
uses of the waters adjacent to the boundary between the United
States and Canada, including all of the waters of the lakes and rivers
whose natural outlet would be the River St. Lawrence and the At-
Iantic Ocean, also upon the maintenance and regulation of suitable
levels, and also upon the effect upon the shores of these waters and
the structures thereon, and upon the interests of navigation, by
reason of the diversion of these waters from, or change in their
natural flow, and, further, to report on the necessary measures to
regulate such diversion and make such recommendations for im-
provement and regulations as shall best serve the interest of naviga-
tion on these waters. t -
The waterways commission submitted a number of valuable re-
ports to the two Governments which were subsequently published.
It also made several recommendations, the more important of which
provided for the establishment of certain governing principles, and
in the use of boundary waters, and also for the creation of a com-
mission having wider powers in its use. - r
I call attention to that langauge, “The more important of which
provided for the establishment of certain governing principles in
the use of boundary waters.” - -
As the result of these and suggestions from various quarters nego
tiations were entered into with Washington in 1907 and 1908, be-
tween the British ambassador to the United States, James Bryce,
and the then Secretary of State, Elihu Root.
These negotiations finally culminated in the treaty of January 11,
1909, and were ratified and proclaimed the following year.
The difficulty about their contention is that when Secretary Root
and Mr. Bryce got together, with whatever assistance they had from
other people, the Chief of Engineers and others who were charged
91739—24—PT 2—20
546 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
with authority and responsibility in these matters, they did not
recognize this recommendation of the 10,000 cubic feet diversion at
Chicago to be permitted. It was like all other contracts. We talk
them over and may write some letters and may have a long period
of negotiation the same as we did here, finally, when we make a con-
tract, that is the contract, and that is the situation here. .
The CHAIRMAN. Is not this even a stronger situation, Mr. Ferris?
When you say you write letters and you negotiate, and then finally
make the contract, you are talking in that case about the parties
themselves. In the case we are considering you have simply bodies
with powers to recommend and no further powers. The Secretary
and the ambassador could wholly disregard all their recommenda-
tions.
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. It was not anything that the Secretary or the
ambassador did, it was simply someone that had been sent out and
gathered some data and submitted to them for their consideration.
Mr. FERRIS. Well, now, we come along down to the Welland Canal.
We have had an awful time over that. The Welland Canal has
been there for a hundred years. You have a map there, I presume.
I know I left some here the other day, so that some of you gentle-
men who were not familiar with the geography of that section of
the country might look it over. The Welland Canal is recognized
by the treaty to be—it is not on here but I will show you the general
course of it. It starts way up here on the Canadian side of Lake
Erie and ends on Lake Ontario.
The CHAIRMAN. It starts at Colburn, on Lake Erie, and ends on
Lake Ontario. It begins at Colburn and ends at Port Dalhousie.
Mr. KEEFER. The new Welland Canal ends at Port Weller.
Mr. FERRIs. Here is the Niagara River, flowing north [indicating
on map.]. Here is Lake Erie and here is Lake Ontario. Per-
haps some of you can tell me how you can get from Lake Erie to
Lake Ontario without having a canal.
Mr. HULL. Nobody is kicking on the canal. It is the amount
of water you are taking out of it. You are taking out 4,500 and
you can get along with 1,500.
Mr. FERRIs. Let me tell you something about that.
Mr. HULL. General Beach will tell you about that.
Mr. FERRIs. I don’t know about that.
Mr. HULL. Well, ask him; he is right there.
Mr. FERRIs. You can ask him. •
Mr. HULL. I will ask him then. General Beach, can the Welland
Canal get along with 1,500 feet for navigation? You told me this
morning. -
General BEACH. They can get along with about 1,700 feet.
Mr. HULL. And it is taking about 4,500 feet.
Mr. FERRIs. Now, that may be true.
Mr. HULL. Well, you know it now, do you not?
Mr. FERRIs. No; only from General Beach's statement.
Mr. HULL. Well, ask him.
Mr. FERRIs. You asked him and I heard his answer. I know
this, that it is a canal authorized by the treaty and it is on Canadian
territory, and it is something we have not any control over, and if
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 547
you had any complaint you should go about it in the right Way,
before the International Joint Commission, and have it corrected.
There is a forum for doing that. I am informed that the New
Welland Canal, which will be completed in a couple of years, has
no provision for any water-power proposition at all. It is purely
for navigation. I should think that a lot of people in the north-
west who want the St. Lawrence waterway to materialize would be
glad to have this improvement.
º HULL. Are you in favor of the St. Lawrence waterway your-
Self?
Mr. FERRIS. Wait a minute, that is an irrelevant proposition.
Mr. HULL. And you don’t want to answer that question?
Mr. FERRIs. I would like to answer it but it is irrelevant and
has no bearing. What I mean to say, is this, that that is a nec-
essary channel for navigation, it is in aid of navigation, it is rec-
ognized by Elihu Root and James Bryce and everyone who had any-
thing to do with it. It is recognized by the two Governments; it
is utilized. It is necessary for navigation, and so far as the affect-
ing of any water levels is concerned, it is purely local.
Mr. HULL. Well, it takes it out of Lake Erie, does it not?
Mr. FERRIs. Yes.
Mr. HULL. It reduces the level 2.2%
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly, it has to. -
Mr. HULL. You ought to shut that off if you shut off the other one.
Mr. FERRIs. That is what we have been trying to make you under-
stand, that you can not take water out of Lake Michigan without
reducing the level, and you have been claiming you can.
Mr. HULL. No; I didn’t say that. -
Mr. FERRIs. Somebody has.
The CHAIRMAN. No; Mr. Hull has repeatedly put it on the record
that there is a lowering by reason of diversion of 5.5 inches.
Mr. HULL. That is right; but I claim you have 5.6 on the other
end. So why don’t you stop that if you stop Lake Michigan? -
Mr. FERRIs. We haven’t got 5 inches or 6 inches; but suppose we
have. That hasn’t got anything to do with this question at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, hold on. I have not said any-
thing as to the infringement of the rule, because I thought that this
colloquy would stop within reasonable bounds. -
Mr. FERRIs. Well, I don’t want to infringe any rule.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not suggesting that you were. -
Mr. FERRIs. I don’t know what the rules are. If you would tell
me what they are I would try to abide by them.
Mr. BARRETT. Pardon me, but may lask a question?
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly.
Mr. BARRETT. Will you point out in the treaty the clause that pro-
vided for the flow of 4,500 second-feet in the Welland Canal. That
includes, of course, the portion for water power.
Mr. FERRIs. I don’t mean the treaty says that you may take 4,500
feet through the Welland Canal, it does not say that. It says you
may have canals, and it is left to the good sense and the good judg-
ment of the Canadian people to build a proper canal.
548 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. To their good sense and good judgment and good
faith? { * -
Mr. FERRIs. Yes, sir; and if they are not acting in good faith in
building a canal as they should, then there is a proper court to go to,
the International Joint Commission, and have it corrected, and we
will join with you any time. 4 d w
Mr. BARRETT. We don’t want you to join with us. Now, may I
a.S l * -
The CHAIRMAN. Now, I absolutely insist that I am not going to
permit interruptions in violation of our rule. In the interest of
order we ought to obey the rule. I
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask the chairman if I may propound this
question. * - - i .
Mr. FERRIs. I will be through pretty soon, and then you can ask
me any questions. -
Mr. BARRETT. I would like to have him point out in that treaty
where there is any mention of water power for the Welland Canal
or a mention of anything for the Welland Canal, if he would.
The CHAIRMAN. We adopted the rule that we would not even per-
mit members of the committee to interrupt a speaker until he has
concluded his main statement, and I think we should enforce that
rule. I regret not to propound the question, but we have decided
that it is necessary to follow this rule in order to have some reason-
able dispatch. . - - r -
Mr. BoycE. You are following the wishes of the members of the
committee, Mr. Chairman. -
Mr. FERRIs. There is one thing I would like to say, and that is I
do not need any assistance from those people to defend me with the
committee. I will get along by myself. r
The CHAIRMAN. With your permission, Judge, I will interrupt the
proceedings for a moment in order to allow a lady, Mrs. James, to
present a letter to the committee. -
Mrs. HARLEAN JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I wish to pre-
sent this letter with the committee. I am secretary of the American
Civic Association, and I simply wish to file this letter, and I thank
you very much. - $
(The letter referred to will be found at the end of the day’s pro-
ceedings.) - t ,
Mr. FERRIs (continuing). Coming back to the Niagara Falls di-
version it was an authorized diversion of 20,000 cubic feet on the
American side and 36,000 cubic feet on the Canadian side. There
seems to have been some misunderstanding about why the division
was made in that way and why Canada was given more water than
we were when this treaty was made. h
At that time there were two plants under construction on the
Canadian side. I don’t know how far they had progressed. You
may know better about that than I do, Mr. Dempsey. But they were
being constructed by American capital, the Canadians Niagara
plant and the Ontario Power Co.'s plant. The power from those
two plants was to be exported into the State of New York, and the
amount of power which the State of New York has received ever
since from Canada has been so great that added to what is produced
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 549
by the 20,000 second-feet on the American side has given to the State
of New York more power than they have had on the Canadian side.
That is the situation. This treaty on the face of it is for a period
of five years. It is to run a longer time if neither of the high con-
tracting parties object to it. But on a year's notice it can be abro-
gated, and if at any time Canada should prevent the bringing of
º across at the Niagara border to industries in the State of New
ork it could not continue for a great length of time, because the
treaty could be abrogated in a year.
Now, we have not been harmed by it, and I want to read to you
from Colonel Warren’s report on that subject, pages 402 and 403:
The present treaty with Great Britain does not apply this principle to diver-
sions from the upper Niagara River, but allows a diversion of 36,000 cubic feet
per Second in Canada and only 20,000 cubic feet per second in the United
States. The reason for this inequality becomes fully apparent upon study of
the report of the American members of the International Waterways Commis-
sion, dated March 19, 1906. This report forms the groundwork for the Niagara
provisions of the treaty. The amount to be diverted on the Canadian side was
fixed at 36,000 cubic feet per second with a view to allowing the companies on
that Side the amounts of water for which they then had Works under COIl-
struction. Similarly the amount allowed on the American side was limited to
20,000. The inequality of the diversion was recognized, but it was considered
better to preserve the Falls by keeping the total quantity as low as possible
without causing losses to investors and to preserve the equality of diversions
at the expense of the Falls. The International Waterways Commission in
commenting on this matter said: *
“The advantage is more apparent than real, since the power generated On
the Canadian side will to a large extent be transmitted and used in the United
States. In the negotiation of a treaty, however, these points should be con-
sidered.”
Now, right in that connection. after the hearing of this committee
last month, on page 93, I think the Chicago people were fully
apprized of this, and I want to read from the record [reading from
hearings before Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of
Representatives, proceedings of March 19, 1924, at page 93]:
1Mr. BARRETT. They recognize the 10,000 second-feet, and say it will con-
tinue, and agree to its continuance, and when this treaty was ratified this
10,000 second-feet at Chicago was put in as a part of the United States diver-
sion; in other words, they said 20,000 for power to the Americans, a part of
which would go to the canal, 36,000 cubic second-feet to the Canadians, a part
of which went to their canal ; 10,000 at Chicago, making 30,000, leaving the
difference 6,000 feet. The 6,000 feet difference is explainable on this theory;
much of the power generated by the Canadian power plants goes into America.
So the difference is more theoretical than actual—that is, the explanation of
these reports. I have marked the Spots.
Mr. WHITE. May I correct an expression? I think you said more theoretical
than actual, and I think the expression is that the advantage is more apparent
than real. -
Mr. BARRETT. You can have your expression on that. I will read it when
the time comes. Here is a copy of the report with a marked paragraph, and
it is signed by all the commissioners. This is the 1907 report. -
The CHAIRMAN. What are you reading from?
Mr. FERRIs. From the hearings before this committee—your last.
hearings. It is fully explained there. As I said when I started, I
have based my information on the acts of governmental agencies—
the Secretary of War, the Chief of Engineers, men who are author-
ized by Congress and the Federal Government to furnish us in- .
formation, and here is the information in Colonel Warren's report.
550 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
It is a perfectly clear proposition. There is not anything to be
misunderstood. Canada has acted in good faith on that proposition
So far. I anticipate she will continue to do so. If she does not,
i. * a way to either break off relations or have her do as she
SITOlil C. . . . . - * * *
There was one thing I omitted—and it is a little out of . order
here—and I want to call the committee's attention on the quantity
of water that is now being used at Chicago. It has been our under-
standing all along that they are using more than 8,800 second-feet.
Here is a sheet from the page of the Chicago Herald and Examiner
of Saturday, February 9, 1924. I am not going to try to read it.
It is signed by the president, William J. Healey, and the trustees—
Several trustees. * * t
The CHAIRMAN. Of the Chicago Sanitary District’ -
Mr. FERRIs. Yes. It is a pretty good political advertisement, or
would be in our country. Here is one thing he says:
No. 1. The Sanitary District of Chicago must have a withdrawal of water
from Lake Michigan of 10,000 cubic feet per second to dispose of the sewage of
the city and its suburbs through the drainage canal to prevent the dumping Of
this sewage into Lake Michigan and the immediate pollution of Chicago's only
source of drinking water supply.
No. 2. That quantity of water is now being withdrawn by virtue of the act of
the Illinois General Assembly that created the district, which requires that
amount of water to properly dilute the sewage of the present population of
the present Sanitary" district.
That is what the president and trustees say. -
Mr. BARRETT. Well, that was the fact at that time when that
advertisement contained that statement.
Mr. FERRIs. What do you mean—that you quit withdrawing that
amount the next day? I don’t know how much water they are using,
but they are using it. I know that is what they used there, and he
didn’t mean to tell the people of Chicago that they were just using
it there to-day. He meant they were using it right along.
Mr. BARRETT. That is the average, I understand.
Mr. FERRIs. There is the statement of two months ago, and you
made a statement the other day, that they were taking 8,800 feet.
Now, I want to read another one from a Michigan paper. I am
not going to put it in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the paper?
Mr. FERRIs. The Detroit News of Sunday, April 15, 1923. I read
this: &
We do make power, that's true. We produce electricity and sell it to light
Chicago's streets, boulevards, and parks at cost. We've saved the city and
parks millions of dollars and the country great quantities of coal. But we
only use waste water. We don’t take a tumblerful that we don't require for
Sewage purposes. *
That is just what we are trying to impress on this committee. Ten
thousand cubic feet running over Niagara Falls and developed in
the falls or in the gorge would be 305 feet head. That is what they
have got on the generators in the new hydroelectric company's plant
at Queenstown, 305 feet head, and I suppose we get the same on this
side.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we get a little more. My understanding
is that we get about 311. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 551
Mr. FERRIs. We get something over 300 feet, and on that part of
the St. Lawrence River—that is, the international boundary line—
before it enters Canada we get about 100 more. } &
Now, there is no theory about this; it is a fact. It is something
recognized by everybody that ever generated steam in a boiler, that
it takes 10 tons of coal per horsepower year. Some may think, they
could do it with less, but it is 10 tons; and if coal is $6 a ton, that is
$60. But you have your plant and your maintenance and your labor
to add to that. The Niagara Falls Co. sells every bit of the power
it produces for not to exceed $20 and $21 per horsepower. It goes to
Buffalo, and it goes halfway or perhaps two-thirds the way across the
State of New York. We would be able to get 400,000 horsepower
from Niagara Falls and the St. Lawrence River, and that would
save 4,000,000 tons of coal annually and if we can have this water to
put into power—and I am speaking of it as a resource for the State
of New York - &
The CHAIRMAN. For the United States. -
Mr. HULL. You are just speaking for New York, are you not?
Mr. FERRIs. Yes; just for New York.
Mr. HULL. I think you ought to have it all. *
Mr. FERRIs. I don't agree with you. I don’t agree that you think
any such thing; that is my position. We ought to have what is in
our neighborhood; I agree with you on that. If we can save you
4,000,000 tons of coal for the country, your advertisement trying to
influence the people of Michigan that you are saving a lot of coal
with a plant down there on your artificial canal does not amount to
very much. It is something to use for argument, but it is pretty
small compared with the fact that we can save 4,000,000 tons of coal
that won’t have to go into the State of New York.
I don't object to their developing power on that canal down there
with whatever water they may take rightfully. If they have some
surplus water that can be used for developing power, that is water
they have a right to take; I don't object to their developing power;
I approve of it. It is a by-product, and I approve of their saving
whatever they can; but I object to their making that one of the
things, one of the real reasons why they should take 10,000 cubic feet
out of Lake Michigan and put it down through there.
You can figure this up; there is nothing theoretical about it. You
see the difference. You see the millions and millions of dollars you
will save to the people in the East each year, and this is an important
thing. The Secretary of Commerce to-day is working and working
and working on this subject, the economical development of power.
You all realize it. You have got it at Muscle Shoals, you have got
it over on your river, Mr. Congressman from Missouri, at Keokuk,
or somewhere there. You get the power down to St. Louis cheap.
You wanted it. The contract was made before the plant was ever
built. I do not know how much water it needs up there for naviga-
tion purposes. That is a matter with the Secretary of War. That
is a matter for you gentlemen to determine, but I do insist that
this legislation is fathered—it is backed by the sanitary district
authorities. They come down here and they say, “We have got to
have it.” It comes here under the guise of a navigation proposition.
I sometimes think the title of the bill ought to be changed and “navi-
552 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
gation” taken out. That is what they have been contending for for
25 years, in defiance of every constituted agency of this Government
that dealt with the subject, and they find themselves in this situation
due entirely to their own fault, that they did not come here and
either have Congress give it to them, if they had the power, or tell
them that they could not have it. They have now got in this fix,
and my suggestion is that you let the Supreme Court pass on the
litigation that is pending and get an interpretation of certain things
here. That would be a good way, before you do anything else.
I want to read just from this treaty on this subject of the diversion
at Niagara Falls, the first paragraph of Article V:
The high contracting parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diversion
Of Waters from the Niagara River so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow
of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both parties
to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments which
have already been made in the construction of power plants on the United
States side of the river on the grants of authority from the State of New
York, and on the Canadian side of the river under licenses authorized by the
Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario. i
The men who negotiated this treaty had in mind how much it was
going to affect the level of Lake Erie, and it was agreed, it was
understood, and it was found after thorough investigation that this
amount of depreciation might take place and not appreciably inter-
fere with navigation. . They settled it. It is not for us, it is not for
me at least, and I suggest it is not for the members of the committee.
to dispute the competency and ability and the good faith of the men
who negotiated this treaty in determining that situation.
Mr. HULL. I heard you speak of developing the power on the St.
Iawrence waterway—that is, to establish a big power plant in the
St. Lawrence—which, of course, would benefit New York and New
England to a great extent, and I would like to know if you favor it?
Mr. FERRIS. Favor what?
Mr. HULL. Building the large power plants on the St. Lawrence
River?
Mr. FERRIs. I favor the development of water power wherever it
is feasible. f • {
Mr. HULL. You favor that, do you?
Mr. FERRIs. On the St. Lawrence?
Mr. HULL. Yes. You spoke of it, and I just wondered if you
favored the building of the power plants up there.
Mr. FERRIs. Are you talking now about the St. Lawrence water-
way? - • * {
Mr. HULL. Developing plants on the St. Lawrence waterway.
Mr. FERRIs. Or the development of water power? .
Mr. HULL. I am talking about the waterway and developing the
water-power work. - 1. l
Mr. FERRIs. Congress will determine some day about the St.
Lawrence. ” * * *
Mr. HULL. I am not asking you that; I am asking you if you
favor it? . y - - i
Mr. FERRIs. I am in favor of the development of water power.
Mr. HULL. You spoke of it, and I wondered if you favored it.
Mr. FERRIs. Favored what? '.
Mr. HULL. Completing the St. Lawrence waterway.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 553
Mr. FERRIS. I told you I declined to get into any discussion with
you on that subject. -
Mr. HULL. You have been talking about it?
Mr. FERRIs. No ; I have not. You are mistaken.
Mr. KINDRED. General, the State of New York has declared by the
governors of both political parties and its legislature its policy with
regard to water power on the Niagara and on the Great Lakes adja-
cent to New York. Is that policy, present and past, at variance with
any of the propositions discussed here now?
º: FERRIS. Well, I do not think that that policy is related to this
Subject. *. -
Mr. KINDRED. That is what I wanted—to get you opinion about it.
Mr. FERRIS. I do not think that that policy has any relation to this
subject in any way. The only way we are interested is this, if they
take 10,000 second-feet of water in Lake Michigan and abstract it
and take it out of the waterway, it leaves us so much less which will
be used for power and of course interferes with and impairs navi-
gation to that extent. -
Mr. KINDRED. May I ask if there is not one feature involved in the
policy of the State of New York which would prohibit the use of
waterpower except developed by the State? Is not that at variance?
Mr. FERRIs. I will be perfectly frank with you. The State of New
York has a statute which provides that any waterpower owned by
the State may be leased or licensed, and the licensee shall pay a rental
for it; that it shall develop that power according to the approval
of the water power commission. That act is on the books. There
has been a great deal of discussion in our State about the water-power
policy, whether that policy should continue or whether the State
ought to undertake that development itself. Now, we know that it
has been impossible to develop the St. Lawrence River up to this time,
and probably will be for some time. If the St. Lawrence waterway
goes through, the development will be taken care of, I assume, in
that way. If it does not, some day I imagine Canada will enter into
some arrangement with the State of New York, either for the State of
New York to make the development, or permit some one else to.
I want to be perfectly frank with you gentlemen. I do not un-
derstand the question of the water-power policy is in any wise in-
volved—that is, the New York policy—in this discussion.
Mr. KINDRED. That is what I wanted to clear up.
Mr. FERRIs. I think the chairman understands that equally as well
as I do, and I think I have made an accurate statement.
Mr. HULL. There is just one question I wanted to clear up in my
own mind. You have talked a great deal about the water power. If
we do not have this diversion, it would all be sent back to Niagara
Falls for water power, and I was just wondering if you had that in
your mind?
The CHAIRMAN. Navigation all the way down—
Mr. HULL (interposing). I just wanted to ask you if you thought
it was more important to have the water power than these other
things? -
º FERRIs. What other things?
554 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. Navigation or anything else? You have put all your
stress on the water power. . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. FERRIs. No, no. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. HULL. I just ask you the question. . . . .
Mr. FERRIs. No; I want to be fair with you. I put the sanitary
º ºned. purposes first, navigation second, and water power
third. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. HULL. In other words, you don’t care so much about the water
for water power as you thought you did? - - - -
Mr. FERRIs. I certainly do. You are mistaken about that.
Mr. HULL. I understood all of your argument was you wanted it
for water power? . . . I . . . . . -
Mr. FERRIs. I have told you I was not going to discuss navigation
questions much, because Mr. Goulder and other gentlemen have dis-
cussed it, and I did not want to take your time. . . . . .”
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?
Mr. NEWTON. I noticed you recognized the right to use the water
for domestic purposes? * * t -
Mr. FERRIs. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you include sanitary purposes with that?
Mr. FERRIs. I do to the ordinary extent. This really at Chicago
is the most extraordinary demand for Water for sanitary purposes
that was ever known; and I do not mean for sanitary purposes
except as used in the ordinary way by cities in the United States and
on the Great Lakes. -
Mr. NEwTON. You mean such water as is necessary to take care
of the sanitation of the cities, do you?
Mr. FERRIs. I do in an ordinary way, but not in any such way
as this. - 4-
Mr. NEWTON. Are you in favor of using such water as is necessary
for navigation at Chicago?
Mr. FERRIS. I am in favor of using the amount that I understand
the Secretary of War has reported is necessary.
Mr. NEWTON. What is that?
Mr. FERRIs. Not any 10,000 second-feet.
Mr. NEwToN. How much, then?
The CHAIRMAN. He did not specify any figure. 4 +
Mr. NEwTON. As I understand, you are willing to take the judg-
ment of the experts of the War Department on that, whatever they
would say? • * ‘. . -
Mr. FERRIs. Well, I am willing to take the judgment of those
people as to what they say, and not the way you interpret what
they say. * .
Mr. NEwTON. You would be willing to leave it to the Chief of
Engineers? You would be in favor of them taking at Chicago such
water as is necessary for navigation?
Mr. FERRIs. If somebody else besides Chicago puts the interpreta-
tion on it. . . . . . -
Mr. NEwToN. You would be willing, if the Chief of Engineers or
the engineers of the War Department, whom you say you have abso-
lute confidence in, were to determine how much is necessary for
navigation?
Mr. FERRIs. That probably would be a fair proposition.
; ; ; i.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 555
Mr. NEWTON. But I want to know if you agree with that prin-
ciple? I want to know if you are in favor of such water as is
necessary?
Mr. FERRIs. You know a witness has got to have a fair opportunity
to answer. -
Mr. NEWTON. I want to give you that.
Mr. FERRIS. I said to you all that I doubted the right, while I
did not want to get into any discussion about the power of your
committee and Congress—that I doubted the right of Congress to
take any such large amount from one watershed and put it into
another.
Mr. NEWTON. I am not discussing the 10,000 feet now.
Mr. FERRIs. How much are you discussing?
Mr. NEWTON. I am discussing as much as the engineers may find
necessary to operate a canal.
Mr. FERRIs. How much do you claim that is?
Mr. NEWTON. I am leaving that to the engineers. General Beach
said it was 1,700 cubic feet per second in the Welland Canal. I am
not familiar with the Welland Canal.
Mr. FERRIS. I thought you were asking about the Chicago diver-
S101). '
Mr. NEWTON. I am, but I am using that as a basis to try to find
out about Chicago.
Mr. FERRIs. I would not think that would be a very good basis.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you think it would be more or less?
Mr. FERRIs. You and I would not get together on that at all.
Mr. NEWTON. You are speaking for the State of New York now
as their official representative. Do you say that the State of New
York is willing that such water as may be found to be necessary for
navigation purposes should be taken at Chicago?
Mr. FERRIs. I would say we would not object to a thousand second-
feet. -
Mr. NEwTON. That does not answer the question. Are you will-
ing for so much as may be necessary, whether it is a thousand or
five hundred or fifteen hundred, to be taken for navigation purposes?
Mr. FERRIs. If you will tell me how much is necessary I will
answer your question.
Mr. NEWTON. I want to leave that to the War Department and
let them decide it. They are the officials in whom you have great
confidence?
Mr. FERRIs. That is the way they want to put these regulating
works over there, and they don’t know how much it would cost and
they have not been approved by the War Department, and your
question is a good deal on a par with that.
Mr. NEwTon. As a matter of fact, the less water that goes through
the sanitary canal at Chicago the more water goes over Niagara
Falls for electricity?
Mr. FERRIs. It does not go over for electricity until the treaty is
modified.
Mr. NEwToN. But it does mean electricity at the other end?
Mr. FERRIs. Not until they get some provision for it.
556 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what he means, Congressman, 1
take it, is that they are diverting now all that they are authorized
by the treaty, and they could not divert this extra 10,000 cubic feet
unless there was a new treaty. I take it that is what he means.
Mr. NEwTON. But isn't it a fact? Under the diversion and under
the plain terms of the treaty, which indicate some idea of equality
of treatment between the two nations, isn’t it reasonable to assume
that if we shut off the amount at Chicago that you would be entitled
to more at New York? t
Mr. FERRIS. If what?
Mr. NEwTON. If we shut off the flow that goes thrugh at Chicago
you would be entitled to more at New York?
Mr. FERRIs. Not until you get your treaty amended. -
The CHAIRMAN. All you would have after you shut off the diver-
Sion at Chicago would be 6 inches more for navigation under existing
circumstances. -
Mr. NEWTON. Do you mean that the commission would not have
a right to allow more to New York for navigation?
Mr. FERRIs. Mean what? * r
Mr. NEWTON. Do you mean that the international commission
would not have a right to allot more to New York if you shut it off
at Chicago and still be dealing on the same plane with Canada under
the statute? + -
Mr. FERRIs. The international commission would not have any
authority on the subject.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you mean to tell this committee that you do not
think that the power commission of New York or somebºdy rep-
resenting New York, if the 10,000 feet were shut off at Chicago,
Would demand a greater allotment under the existing treaty?
Mr. FERRIs. Appeal to whom?
Mr. NEWTON. Appeal to our Government to intercede with
gº for permission to have more water for power at Niagara
alls?
Mr. FERRIs. I suppose you mean Great Britain, don’t you?
Mr. NEWTON. No. I mean, don’t you think that they would in-
sist immediately that our allotment would be enlarged at Niagara
Falls if this were shut off at Chicago?
Mr. FERRIs. Our position in New York is this: That more water
might be used for power purposes now if proper remedial works
were built about Niagara Falls, and we would like to have the
treaty amended now so we could get more power.
Mr. NEwTo.N. Do you think you could build remedial works
above Niagara Falls better than you could in the Detroit River?
Mr. FERRIs. I will tell you it would take an engineer to answer
that question... . . . . , # * * t
Mr. NEwTo.N. But you have answered it for New York.
Mr. FERRIs. I have not answered it at all. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Mr. NEwroN. I understood you to say that if proper remedial
work were built above Niagara Falls you could take more power.
Mr. FERRIs. We could if the two nations permitted it and if
the treaty was amended. We can not take any more power until
the treaty is amended. * - • * * *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 557
Mr. NEWTON. Do you think that the treaty does not contemplate
anything in the way of diversion out of the natural course of any
water?
Mr. FERRIs. Now, I want to get your question so there won’t be
any misunderstanding. n
Mr. NEwTON. Is it your interpretation of the treaty that it does
not contemplate the diverting of any water out of the natural
watercourse?
Mr. FERRIs. No. The treaty permits the use of water for canal
purposes.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you think it does not permit any use such as
is being diverted at Chicago? -
Mr. FERRIs. I have tried to have the committee understand that.
That has been my position, my announced position here all the
time. I did not suppose that you had any doubt about my position
on that. . . - -
Mr. NEwaſo N. But what is meant by this language in Article II
of the treaty:
Each Of the high contracting parties reserves to itself or to the several
State governments on the one side, and the Dominion or provincial govern-
ments on the other, as the case may be, subject to any treaty provisions now
existing with respect thereto, the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the
use and diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all Waters On its
own side of the line, which in their natural channels would flow across the
boundary or into the boundary waters.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. That would not have any reference to any condi-
tion presented here. - º
Mr. FERRIs. You will have to read a little more there to get a fair
question. *
Mr. NEwTo.N. What do you think that means? •.
Mr. FERRIs. I say you will have to go a little bit further. In the
first place, I think that it is used in connection with a whole lot more
of the treaty.
Mr. NEwton. Do you think that the Canadians and the Govern-
ment of the United States did not have in mind this Chicago situ-
ation when they wrote this treaty?
Mr. FERRIs. I think they did have it in mind, and I think they
specifically excluded it.
Mr. NEwToN. What provision of the treaty excludes it?
Mr. FERRIs. The treaty generally prohibits any such diversion.
Mr. NEwToN. The treaty provides further: º
But it is agreed that any interference with or any diversion from natural
channels of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any
injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights
and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury
took place in the country where such diversion or interference occurs.
What do you think that refers to?
Mr. FERRIs. Where are you reading from? }
Mr. NEwTON. Article II of the treaty. I want to get your inter-
pretation of the meaning of that article.
Mr. FERRIs. What point are you reading from ?
Mr. NEwTON. I am reading beginning with “But it is agreed.”
They must have had in mind some diversion from the natural
channel of the waterway when they wrote that into the treaty?
558 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. FERRIs. I do not think so. . . . . . .
Mr. NEWTON. It is about the middle of the paragraph.
Mr. FERRIs. Which one? .
Mr. NEWTON. In Article II, beginning about the middle of the
paragraph, I read the first part, and then I began where it says:
The exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion, whether
temporary Or permanent, of all Waters On its Own side of the line which in its
natural channels would flow across the boundary or into the boundary waters.
In other words, each Government is allowed so much water, and it
has a right to dispose of that water as it sees fit, doesn't it, under the
language of that provision?
Mr. FERRIs. No.
Mr. NEWTON. Don't you think that they must have taken into
account diversions such as that at Chicago when they said:
But it is agreed that any interference with or diversion from their natural
Channels such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any injury
On the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights and
entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took
place in the country where such diversion or interference Occurs.
Mr. FERRIs. I should think that that section would be a recogni-
tion of the legal rights of the parties on both sides. w
Mr. NEWTON. Do you think that that excludes Chicago?
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly it does.
Mr. NEwTON. If you think that they intended to exclude Chicago,
why didn’t they mention the diversion at Chicago in the treaty
and exclude it?
Mr. FERRIs. I will tell you one reason. The Secretary of War.
in 1899 up to 1910, denied the right to take it, and in 1908 the United
States Government brought a suit to see if they could get them to
stop it, and I do not think that the high contracting parties, in
view of that fact, intended to authorize a diversion which the United
States Government were using the whole machinery of the judicial
branch of the Government—the Department of Justice—to stop.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, in other words, in order to assume that
this treaty does contain authority for the diversion at Chicago,
you would have to assume that Chief Justice Taft, who passed ad-
versely upon the matter, was wrong. These lawyers on the com-
mittee would have to assume that; we would have to assume that
also Mr. Root, who was Secretary of State, was wrong. ...We would
have to assume that Secretary Stimson, who is one of the most
eminent of our lawyers, was wrong.
Mr. FERRIs. Mr. McReynolds?
The CHAIRMAN. We would have to assume that Mr. Justice Mc-
Reynolds, now on the Supreme Court bench, was wrong; we would
have to assume that all of these Attorneys General who have been in
the conduct of these suits were wrong, because it was their duty,
if Chicago was given this amount, to cease the prosecution of the
suit and withdraw it. and we would have to assume that the judg-
ment which is to-day in existence of a Federal court is wrong, and .
the last is the law of the land until it is reversed; and we would
have a lay committee to reverse both the courts and all of these
eminent authorities, wouldn’t we?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 559
Mr. FERRIs. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but why not get the
finest, the highest, and best and ablest court in the world to decide
this, and not spend so much time here? t
h Mr. NEWTON. One Secretary of War authorized 4,100 feet, didn’t
€ $
Mr. FERRIs. He gave a conditional permit.
The CHAIRMAN. A conditional and temporary permit.
Mr. NEWTON. Has that been overruled or set aside?
Mr. FERRIs. What do you mean?
Mr. NEWTON. Is not that order still in force?
Mr. FERRIs. I think, on the face of it, it is. r
Mr. NEWTON. And then no Secretary of War since that time has
interfered with the use of 4,100 feet at Chicago?
Mr. FERRIs. Well; yes; they have. With the 4,100?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. FERRIs. No; I do not think.they have. - -
Mr. NEWTON. Then they must have recognized it. Don’t you
think it was a little strange that the framers of the treaty between
the two countries, if they wanted to prevent any diversion at Chi-
cago, should have omitted it entirely from the treaty, in view of the
fact that the commission in 1906 had recommended a limit of 10,000
feet at Chicago and had recommended that legislation should be
enacted?
Mr. FERRIs. No; I do not think so at all. I think it was a very
natural thing. I think the people who made that treaty took into
consideration what ought to be done, and what probably would be
done, and that was that the sanitary district should come to Con-
gress, as it is doing now, and try to get the question settled, and that
if it did not do that it would obey the orders of the duly constituted
authorities of the United States, which it has not done.
Mr. NEWTON. As a matter of fact, none of the Secretaries of the
War Department has interfered with the order about 4,100 feet?
Mr. FERRIs. That is the same question you asked me a moment ago.
Mr. NEwTON. Not exactly the same question.
Mr. FERRIs. How is it different?
Mr. NEwTON. It is different in this
Mr. FERRIs. That is the same.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the two things, Judge, are entirely
separate—the permit of the Secretary of War and the treaty. They
are not one instrument. - -
Mr. NEwTON. But I understood you to offer, as the strong proof
that this Government was not favoring that, the fact that all the
Secretaries of War have ruled against it. -
The CHAIRMAN. Had ruled that it was not contained in the treaty.
Nobody referred to the permit of the Secretary of War, at least the
chairman did not, and I understood he was the one who last spoke.
He referred exclusively in all of his questions and all of his remarks
to an answer to the argument that the treaty provides for this.
Mr. NEwTON. Just one other question. I notice the language here
in Article II of the treaty which I just read, and which I want to
read again: - *
That it is agreed that any intereference with or diversion from their natural
channels of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any
injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights
560 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
and entitle the -injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury
took place in the country where such diversion or interference occurred; bu
this provision shall not apply to cases already existing - f
Do you think that did not have in mind the amount of water com-
ingº; at Chicago at that time?
r. FERRIs. I should say that it would mean cases where they
were existing under some authority, and not where they were tres-
paSSling. * *
Mr. NEwTON. And at Chicago at that time they had 4,100 feet,
and they were existing under an order of the Secretary of War?
Mr. FERRIs. No; they were trespassing. That is my position.
Mr. NEwTON. If that was true, when the order was in existence,
why should they write a treaty and why should Canada sign a treaty
that would be so misleading in its character? -
Mr. FERRIs. I do not think that it is. You contend that it is
misleading, and I do not. I contend it is clear.
Mr. NEwTON. Here is an order in force made by the Secretary of
War allowing the diversion by our Government of 4,100 feet at that
time, and they write a treaty saying everything in existence has the
tº.
right to continue and no action can result therefrom.
Mr. FERRIs. If you will just think what was in that first permit.
it was a temporary and a conditional permit. It was not any per-
manent authority for the withdrawal of water there at all. Chi-
cago found themselves in this situation. There was nobody else to
go to except the Secretary of War, and he assumed to act under the
act of Congress of 1899, and he says, “I will help you out tempo-
rarily, but you come down to Congress where you belong, and have
this settled.” -
Mr. NEwton. Was there any time limitation written into the
permit? -
Mr. FERRIs. No; except it would be supposed that they would go
along and be diligent about it.
Mr. NEwTON. And, I understand, your interpretation of the treaty
is that all of these things leading up to the 10,000 feet could not
be considered because they are not written in the treaty. Would
not the same rule apply to the order of the Secretary of War that
you ought to use the strict language of the order?
Mr. FERRIs. And that is what I am doing. This was a temporary
permit. It gives no permanent right to take water.
Mr. NEwToN. Has the permit got “temporary” written into it?
Mr. FERRIs. It says it is conditional, and the whole reading of it
makes it temporary. Wait a minute, I will show you something.
Mr. NEwTo N. Let us have that. ..I. would like to see that. I have
not read it. . § f
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes; I have a few.
Mr. FERRIs. I want to answer the Congressman’s question. The
present Secretary of War, on January 26, 1922—
T Mr. NEwton (interposing). But that is not Mr. Alger's order.
The CHAIRMAN. He says that is referred to.
Mr. NEwroN. Or Mr. Root's order.
HLLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 561.
Mr. FERRIs. You mean General Alger's, don’t you—the first one?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes. Let us have that one.
Mr. FERRIs (reading):
In view of the substantial and widespread damage done to many activities
throughout the United States by the diversion and damage which can but be
partly compensated for by the construction of the word “Supposed ” in the
bill, the diversion should not be continued beyond the time when its necessity
ceases to eixst.
That is what your present Secretary of War said about it.
Mr. NEwTON. But I want what General Alger said about it.
Mr. FERRIs. Just a minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us, General Beach, where we can
find it?
Mr. BARRETT. We have it.
Mr. FERRIs. From this same letter of Secretary of War Weeks
under date of January 26, 1922:
The Chicago drainage canal, designed to reverse the flow in the Chicago
River, was constructed under authority of the State of Illinois, without Fed-
eral Sanction, and extends from the Chicago River at Robey Street to Joliet
on the Des Plaines River, a distance of about 32 miles. After its completion
in 1899 the Secretary of War granted a temporary and conditional permit.
Mr. NEWTON. Let us have that permit.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the language of the permit.
Mr. FERRIs. That is what the present Secretary of War says about
it. I can not get any better authority than these men who know
all about it. g º
M; NEWTON. Do you think his opinion is controlling on this Con-
I'êSS
g Mr. FERRIs. Well, sir, I will tell you I have a good deal of respect
for the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers
on these subjects. I have been guided by what they have said pretty
generally in all my remarks.
Mr. HULL. You would not be guided awhile ago by the amount of
flow that went down the Illinois River.
Mr. FERRIs. You never got me up to the point to find out.
Mr. HULL. You said you would not.
Mr. FERRIs, I asked you how much.
d Mr. HULL. We don’t know how much. You said you would not
do it.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to read this permit. It is to be found in
the bill of complaint of the State of Wisconsin against the State of
Illinois, on pages 19 to 21. Here is the permit:
Now, therefore, the Chief of Engineers having consented thereto, this is to
Certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives permission to the said Sanitary
District of Chicago to open the channel constructed and cause the waters of
the Chicago River to flow into the same, subject to the following conditions:
I would like you to get this just as it is, Mr. Newton.
1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary
of War to submit the quesions conneced with the work of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this
permit shall be subject to such action as may be taken by Congress.
2. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by Such
drainage, works in the South and main branches of Chicago River be unreason-
ably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary of War
562 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
reserves the right to close said. discharge through Said channel or to modify
it to such an extent as may be demanded by navigation and property interests
along said Chicago River and its south branch. n - • , , -
3. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume all responsibility for
damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction
Óf the current in Chicago River. -
Mr. HULL. Thus far the order has not been changed, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand it is just as it has been.
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman, that is not the permit which fixes the
4,167 cubic feet withdrawal, as I understand it. The next one of
Secretary of War Root, I think, is the one. This was the original
permit to open the channel and was without limitation. -
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will see what that is. Here is
the permit issued by Secretary Root. This is at page 21 of the bill
of complaint.
Mr. NEwTON. That seems to cut it down a little bit. *
Mr. McDUFFIE. That cut it down to about 3,33314 cubic feet per
second.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us read that:
Whereas under date of May 8, 1899, the Secretary of War granted permis-
sion unto the Sanitary District of Chicago to open the artificial channel from
Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport and caused the waters of Chicago River
to flow into the same upon the following conditions, inter alia: -
“2. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by Such
drainage works in the south and main branches of Chicago River be unreason-
ably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary of
War reserves the right to close said discharge through said channel or to
modify it to such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property
interests along said Chicago River and its south branch.”
And whereas it is alleged by various commercial and navigation interests
that the present discharge from the river into the drainage canal Sometimes
exceeds 300,000 cubic feet per minute, causing a velocity of nearly 3 miles per
hour, which greatly endangers navigation in the present condition of the
river;
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the Secretary of War, upon the recom-
mendation of the Chief of Engineers, hereby directs said Sanitary district to
regulate the discharge from the river into the drainage canal so that the maxi-
mum flow through the Chicago River and its South branch shall not exceed
200,000 cubic feet per minute.
That seems to have been changed by the Secretary of War on the
2d of December, 1901, to 250,000 cubic feet per minute.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It seems the sanitary district came back and said
that was not enough to move the sewage. g
The CHAIRMAN. And that seems to have been changed again the
17th of January, 1903, by the Assistant Secretary of War, and that
increased it to 350,000 cubic feet per minute until the 31st of March,
1903, after which date it shall be reduced to 250,000 cubic feet per
minute. On your question of its being temporary, Congressman
Newton, this last page, 26, states:
1. That the permission herein given shall be subject to such modification as
in the opinion of the Secretary of War the public interests may from time to
time require. *
In other words, at any minute. -
Mr. KINDRED. Mr. Chairman, is that the last permit?
General BIxBY. December 5, 1901, is the last permit.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the last permit, but there were changes in
the flow made by two subsequent orders.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 563
Mr. NEwTON. Apparently, then, they must have gotten down to
around 4,100 feet in these later permits. Two hundred thousand
cubic feet per minute makes
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). Four thousand one hundred and sixty-
seven feet per second is 250,000 per minute.
Mr. NEwTON. So it is in effect now at what it was originally under
the permit of Secretary Alger?
General BIXBY. There was a permit of January 17, 1903, which
authorized an increase over the December 5, 1901, permit, which
stated that after the expiration of the time limit, then, they would
go back to the limit of the permit of December 5, 1901, which thus
came again into effect, that is the last permit.
Mr. BOYCE. Did you or any member of the committee or any
person present representing either side of the conflicting interests
here know whether any of the permits issued by the Secretary of
War was ever brought to the attention of Congress; and if so, has
Congress acted upon the same?
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Judge, that both of those things can be
answered in the negative. It is my understanding that there was a
bill introduced by Mr. Gallagher—in what year?
Mr. BEHAN. In 1918, I think. 4.
The CHAIRMAN. And later a bill was introduced by Mr. Michael-
son in 1920?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. -
Mr. BoxCE. I did not mean to inquire whether any bill had been
introduced in Congress by any Member, but whether this committee
had acted upon any suggestion from the Secretary of War in relation
to a permit. * - * *
The CHAIRMAN. Act upon the question of the diversion?
g . Boxer. And has the authority to issue the permit been ques-
tlOned -
Mr. BARRETT. No; that has not been done, Judge.
Mr. RAINEY. May I suggest this? Twenty years ago the War
Department recognized this diversion, and the engineers in a report
they made indicated the extent to which the flow of the river had
been increased, and thereafter Congress passed a bill, which I intro-
duced myself, authorizing the Government dams in the river to be
lowered 2 feet. That is nearly 20 years ago.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; and that act was passed.
Mr. FERRIs. That was in the rivers and harbors bill?
The CHAIRMAN. What were the two bills? I would like to get
that definitely for the record.
Mr. RAINEY. There is only one bill, and that bill authorized the
lowering of the two Government dams in the river. There are two
-Government dams.
The CHAIRMAN. In the Illinois River?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir: to offset the damage caused to drainage
districts by the discharge from the lakes, and Congress authorized
those dams to be lowered at the expense of the Sanitary District of
Chicago, and the Sanitary District of Chicago lowered one of the
dams and started to lower the other, but it was never completed.
564 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
l Mr. BEHAN. And that was April 21, 1904. It was by a joint reso-
ution. * * * ' ' , , k -
The CHAIRMAN. That would be, I suppose, under that clause 3 of
the original permit of Secretary Alger. i -
Mr. RAINEY. No; it went through as an independent bill.
The CHAIRMAN. But if it had any relation to this it would be
under section 3.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. That is the reason for the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Any more questions of Judge Ferris?
Mr. MoRGAN. I have some.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Morgan.
Mr. MoRGAN. Do I understand your objection to the diversions,
Mr. Ferris, of waters from the lakes to be on the basis that it would
affect navigation on the Great Lakes?
Mr. FERRIs. It would affect navigation on the Great Lakes and
the St. Lawrence waterway, clear down through. You See, anybody
starting in a ship at Duluth would want to go down through, perhaps
to Montreal. '. - •,'
Mr. MoRGAN. If I have understood the objection here, it has gen-
erally been based upon lowering the water levels of the lakes as af-
fecting navigation. -
Mr. FERRIs. It may be that the gentlemen who are interested, liv-
ing in the Lake regions, have dwelt more upon that, but it affects the
levels all the way through, of course. .
Mr. MoRGAN. Then it is your judgment that what affects the lake
levels would be detrimental to navigation?
Mr. FERRIs. Not only on the Lakes, but the St. Lawrence River.
Mr. MoRGAN. Why do you make the distinction between the diver-
sion affecting lake levels for certain purposes and certain diversions
that were well known when the treaty was entered into and object
to the Chicago diversion?
Mr. FERRIs. I do not understand you.
Mr. MoRGAN. Why did you make the distinction between the low-
ering of the water levels of the lakes, between diversions that were
known at the time the treaty was entered into so far as it relates to
the St. Lawrence and Niagara, and other diversions, and the Chicago
diversion?
Mr. FERRIs. Why did I make that distinction?
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes; why did you make that distinction so far as it
affects navigation? * -
Mr. FERRIs. I do not understand you now. What other diversion
do you refer to ?
Mr. MoRGAN. Niagara Falls and the Welland Canal and the barge
canal of New York and other diversions that were known at the time
the treaty was entered into. º
Mr. FERRIs. The barge canal of New York is something that has
been in existence since 1827.
Mr. MoRGAN. Oh, yes; that is true, and so has the Chicago diver-
SIOIl
Mr. FERRIs. I will answer your question if you will let me. And
the treaty recognizes it. -
Mr. MoRGAN. Recognizes what?
Mr. FERRIs. The treaty recognizes that diversion.
Mr. MoRGAN. In what manner?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 565
Mr. FERRIS. It recognizes in general terms all canals of that char-
acter.
Mr. MoRGAN. Will you refer to that recognition, where it refers to
the recognition of the Welland Canal and the diversions in the treaty?
Mr. FERRIS. I do know whether I can and do it quickly. The
Welland Canal is in aid -
Mr. MORGAN. I would like to have just on the point of the recog-
nized diversions in the treaty.
Mr. FERRIs. Yes. The Welland Canal is in aid of navigation. It
is a connection between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and it is the
only way of getting a boat through there. -
Mr. MORGAN. It detracts more than it aids, doesn’t it?
Mr. FERRIs. No; it is a great aid. It is a wonderful aid. There is
no detraction, so far as it lowers the level of any water in the lake
or anything. It is purely local. -
Mr. MoRGAN. That is the point exactly. It is purely local?
Mr. FERRIs. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. Will you point in the treaty to where it provides for
the diversion?
I Mr. FERRIs. I will try and find it for you. I do not know whether
CàIl.
The CHAIRMAN. I can find it for you very quickly, if I can get a
copy of the treaty. It is under Article V, right at the last paragraph:
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for
sanitary or domestic purposes or for the Service of Canals for the purpose of
navigation.
Mr. BARRETT. Where does that include the water taken for power?
The CHAIRMAN. It has no reference to that. He did not ask about
that.
Mr. MoRGAN. I am coming to that proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. He was asking exclusively as to canals.
Mr. MoRGAN. I was leading up to that point. You referred to
as far as it affects navigation, and then in your argument you at-
tempt to justify the extra diversion from what the engineer states
is necessary for transportation. You attempt to justify diversion of
the extra water for power purposes, did you not?
Mr. FERRIs. The extra water?
Mr. MoRGAN. I am asking you a question.
Mr. FERRIs. I am trying to get it. You say the extra water?
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes. You attempted to justify the extra diversion
over and above what was required for transportation down the
Welland Canal.
Mr. FERRIs. Of the extra water?
Mr. MoRGAN. Over 1,700 feet.
Mr. FERRIs. I did not attempt to justify it at all. If they are
taking more than they should, it is illegal.
Mr. MoRGAN. I am speaking of known diversions for transporta-
tion purposes. If they take more than 1,700 feet it is illegal?
* * I say, if they are taking more than they should, it
is illegal.
* § MoRGAN. I am speaking of transportation. You mean for
transportation? *
566 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly. * , -
The CHAIRMAN. I think we will all agree on that. -
Mr. FERRIs. I do not know just what they are doing there but if
they are taking more than they have a right to, they should be
stopped. # T t º: r
Mr. MoRGAN. Anywhere there is an extra amount being diverted
for power purposes, it is illegal, over and above transportation re-
Quirements? - >. . . .
Mr. FERRIs. Any amount more than what is recognized by the
treaty. - *
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes.
Mr. FERRIs. The treaty recognized 36,000. -
Mr. MoRGAN. Is it your opinion that the treaty recognized the
well-known diversions at the time the treaty was entered into ?
Mr. FERRIs. I think it recognized canal diversions, like the Wel-
land Canal. * - - -
Mr. MoRGAN. How do you assume that, without a specific refer-
ence to the amount?. * *
Mr. FERRIs. Because in the last part of Article V it says:
Prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of Water for
sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes
t
Of navigation. $ }
Mr. MoRGAN. I think that paragraph has been read into the rec-
ord. However, it might be well to repeat it. The last paragraph
in Artivle V seems to me to be very plain. -
Mr. FERRIs. That is what I have just read.
Mr. MoRGAN. It is very general in its terms. Isn’t it a fact that
the diversion at Chicago was known at the time the treaty was
entered into ? .
Mr. FERRIs. I think it was. * *
Mr. MoRGAN. Then why was not complaint made at that time by
the State of New York and others who are now complaining.
Mr. FERRIs. Complaint by the State of New York?
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Or by the State of Ohio, which could complain
just as much as the State of New York, and is represented in pre-
cisely the same way. -
Mr. FERRIs. I will answer it. In the first place, I do not know
whether the State of New York was aware of it, and in the second
place, if the State of New York was aware of it, we know that the
United States Government had a suit pending against the sanitary
district to make them do what they should do. * x t
Mr. MoRGAN. There was not any objection filed by anybody that
is now objecting, was there, at that time? .
Mr. FERRIs. I do not know anything about it. I think that is
entirely irrelevant. & t -
Mr. MoRGAN. It is not irrelevant if it was understood that the
diversion at Chicago was known at that time without objection
and was a part of the consideration for 'the division of the water
at 36,000 feet. -
Mr. FERRIs. Do you mean known about it, or authorized?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 567
Mr. MoRGAN. Was it not considered by a joint commission, and
didn’t they refer to it specifically in their report?
Mr. FERRIs. . You mean: the Waterways Commission?
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes. -
Mr. FERRIs. Yes; certainly they did. There is no question about
that, but they were an advisory commission, but Mr. Elihu Root
and Mr. Bryce made the treaty. •
Mr. MoRGAN. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Adjourned until the 28th.
Mr. BEHAN. May I ask a couple of questions?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Mr. FERRIs. I want to complete my answer. You must remember
that the water taken at Lake Michigan is not a diversion in the
ordinary sense. It is an abstraction of water. It is taken out and
put into another watershed. You can not find anything else like
that all the way down.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Except the barge canal.
Mr. BARRETT. They knew about that at the time.
lºERRIs. You haven't any doubt and I haven’t any doubt that
thev did.
†. BARRETT. I did not know whether you were sure of it, or not.
Mr. FERRIs. That is not a fair question. I am ready to answer
any fair question.
Mr. BARRETT. All right, you have answered it.
Mr. FERRIs. Put your smile on the record.
Mr. BARRETT. You can have that too.
Mr. FERRIs. If there is any way, I would like to have it on.
Mr. BARRETT. All right. r
Mr. BEHAN. I think at the start of your talk this afternon you
referred to a report of the International Joint Commission and read
Something from it. ©
Mr. FERRIs. I do not know as it is a report.
Mr. BEHAN. It is the brown book, I think. Isn’t that what it is?
That is the report of the International Joint, Commission of 1924?
Mr. FERRIs. I do not think it is a report. I think it is a pam-
phlet of information they have put out.
Mr. BEHAN. It is issued, then, by the International Joint Com-
mission in 1924, isn’t it? - * ,
Mr. FERRIs. That is what I told you, and I still adhere to it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. One more question, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Mansfield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. About the New York Barge Canal I am not so
certain; I am not familiar with the geography; is it diverted from
the St. Lawrence watershed or does it go back into Lake Ontario 2
Mr. FERRIs. It diverts it. The water is taken from the Niagara
River and runs easterly through the canal to Lockport. At Lock-
port a part of that water is returned to Lake Ontario. I did not
know it was ever returned, but Mr. Macy says it is all returned.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I did not know and I wanted to find out.
The CHAIRMAN. That is about 15 miles from where it is taken in.
Tonawanda is just 15 miles from Lockport, and Lockport is the
place where he says it is discharged. . . . . . . . , -
Mr. MANSFIELD. It seems that it goes back.
568 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. KINDRED. Do wo understand that the answer to that question
is that there is no diversion by reason of the barge canal, but the
water is all returned? * -
The CHAIRMAN. There is a diversion, but not a withdrawal.
Mr. MoRGAN. If I have understood here, all of the opposition of
the different States has been based on lowering the water levels of
the lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is my understanding of what Cleveland
Sayº. -
, , Mr. MoRGAN. I maintain, therefore, that any diversion, whether
it be for power or whatever purposes, that affects transportation,
one interest has not any right over the other, and it is a legal ques-
tion as to whether we have authority to grant any.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If I may be permitted, Mr. Morgan, the New
York Barge Canal may divert water from the system of lakes above
Niagara, but it returns it for the St. Lawrence.
Mr. MoRGAN. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. It returns it to Lake Ontario, near the west end
of Lake Ontario. &
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Only 30 miles from the west end. Now, gentle-
men, is that all?
Mr. BEHAN. May I proceed with my questions?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. -
Mr. BEHAN. I assume you read this pamphlet of the International
Joint Commission of 1924? -
Mr. FERRIs. I only read a part of it. I got it this morning.
Mr. BEHAN. You quoted from it to-day.
Mr. FERRIs. Yes, sir. .
Mr. BEHAN. Will you please turn to page 12 of that pamphlet
in which the International Joint Commission, which is a body cre-
ated by reason of the treaty, in which that commission analyzes
Article V of the treaty? Have you the place?
Mr. FERRIs. What page is it?
Mr. BEHAN. Page 12.
Mr. FERRIs. I have got page 12.
Mr. BEHAN. You stated during your talk that in your opinion the
10,000-foot diversion at Chicago was not taken into consideration
in fixing the 36,000 cubic feet for Canada and the 20,000 feet for the
United States. -
Mr. FERRIs. That is what I stated.
Mr. BEHAN. All right. Now, will you read that portion of page
12 in which the joint commission analyzes Article V and in which it
states:
The only statement in the article as to the object of this limitation—
Referring to the 36,000 and the 20,000–
is that it is expedient to limit the diversion of water from the Niagara River,
so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be appreci-
ably affected. - *
Then the commission goes on and makes its analysis:
There appears to be no record showing the reasons for fixing the particular
amount allowed to be diverted by each country. It is understood that in allow-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 569;
ing the larger amount to Canada the facts were taken into account that the
great hulk of the Horseshoe Fall lies in Canadian territory, and that Chicago
was diverting a considerable amount of water from Lake Michigan which
would otherwise go over the falls.
Now, having read that construction of the treaty, or that analysis
by the International Joint Commission, would you still say that the
º diversion at Chicago was not considered in fixing those
gures -
Mr. FERRIs. Yes. I would say it was just as likely to be that way
as the other. Colonel Warren's report here is the most exhaustive
work on the subject, and it was authorized by Congress. They spent
I do not know how much money, a great many thousands of dollars,
with the engineers all up and down the whole waterway, and this is
the best authority on the subject of diversion of water on the Great
Lakes and the Niagara River that has been written at all.
Mr. BEHAN. Then, in your opinion, the construction or the analy-
sis of Article V of the treaty by the joint commission which was
provided to be created by the treaty is of no weight?
Mr. FERRIS. I did not say that at all. I say this: If you people
want to have your case decided by the finest tribunal in the world,
you ought to let the Supreme Court pass on it. I might be mistaken
on it. I have not given you my opinion on the subject anywhere
except as it is based on what I read to you. Are you willing to let
the Supreme Court pass on it?
Mr. BEHAN. That is not the question.
Mr. FERRIs. Are you? -
Mr. BEHAN. I will answer questions when I am making my argu-
ment to this committee.
Mr. FERRIs. You ought to be willing to answer it. That is a fair
question.
Mr. BEHAN. Will the chairman please instruct the witness that
he will answer the question correctly
The CHAIRMAN. What was the question?
Mr. BEHAN. I will restate it. You do not attach much weight to
the analysis or construction given to Article V of the treaty by the
International Joint Commission? -
Mr. FERRIs. I do not place as much weight on it as I do Colonel
Warren's report. *
Mr. BEHAN. All right; that answers it. Have you examined and
read all of the reports of the International Waterways Commission?
Mr. FERRIS. No.
Mr. BEHAN. Have you read the Canadian section’s report to its
government?
Mr. FERRIs. Well, now, Mr. Behan, I have read at various
times
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). Can you answer that yes or no? Let
us save the time of the committee.
Mr. FERRIs. If you will let me answer it, it will save the time of
the committee. I have read a great deal, but whether I have read it
all I could not answer.
Mr. BEHAN. Did you read from portions of it?
Mr. FERRIs. Yes.
91739—24—PT 2—21
570 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BEHAN. Have you examined the files of the State Depart-
ment—the papers with reference to this treaty negotiation?.
Mr. FERRIs. No.
Mr. BEHAN. Have you read the transcript of the proceedings or
any of the proceedings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Re-
lations when this treaty was under consideration?
Mr. FERRIs. No. -
Mr. BEHAN. Have you read what Mr. Root stated to that com-
mittee? -
Mr. FERRIs. No.
Mr. BEHAN. Have you read what the Solicitor of the State De-
partment stated to that committee ?
Mr. FERRIs. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Which committee is this?
Mr. BEHAN. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at the
time it was considering the boundary-waters treaty. Do you know.
that that committee was advised by the State Department that the
Chicago diversion was covered by this treaty? -
Mr. FERRIs. No.
Mr. BEHAN. Now, one other question.
Mr. FERRIs. Would you let me ask you a question?
Mr. BEHAN. No; not at this time. . -
Mr. FERRIs. I will ask it, and you can answer it later.
Mr. BEHAN. No ; let me proceed in my own way. One of the
power companies on the New York side of Niagara is operating or
was operating by virtue of an early charter. I do not recall the
name; do you recall the company?
The CHAIRMAN. One was the Niagara Falls Power Co.—that is
the name of the present power company, of the combined company.
Mr. FERRIs. There was the Hydraulic Co. and the Niagara Falls.
Power Co.
Mr. BEHAN. Under a very early charter they granted it the right
to divert water from the Niagara River. Do you recall the charter.
I have in mind? - -
Mr. FERRIs. I do not know what you have in mind. I recall.
there was some grant. -
Mr. BEHAN. A grant to divert water from Niagara Falls for
power purposes, was it not?
Mr. FERRIs. Certainly. w
Mr. BEHAN. And these charters of these companies, or some of
these companies, were recognized by this treaty.
Mr. FERRIs. I do not know how you intend to have that question
put. I think it is the same charters that are mentioned in the treaty.
Mr. BEHAN. Are you familiar with the opinions of the attorneys.
general of New York in years past? t
Mr. FERRIs. Well, I am familiar with some of them.
Mr. BEHAN. Do recall an opinion by an attorney general, or the
attorney general of New York in 1895, as to the validity of one of
these charters whose right was recognized by the treaty?.
Mr. FERRIs. No. r
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 571
Mr. BEHAN. Do you know that that attorney general gave it as
his opinion that that grant of that charter was without the power of
the Legislature of New York, and that he was about to institute pro-
ceedings to enjoin the diversion of the water?
Mr. FERRIs. No ; I do not know any such thing.
Mr. BEHAN. Because by lowering the levels of the river it had
constituted a nuisance?
Mr. FERRIs. I know that we have had attorneys general that have
given various opinions. Sometimes they agreed and sometimes
they did not.
Mr. BEHAN. You are not familiar with that particular part of
your office, then?
Mr. FERRIs. That was a long time ago.
Mr. BEHAN. That was just prior to the time that these treaty
negotiations started. -
Mr. FERRIs. No: what attorney general was that?
Mr. BEHAN. I do not know. If I had known that you were to
talk to-day I would have had it.
Mr. FERRIs. What year was this?
Mr. BEHAN. 1895. I have that.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Ferris, do you know how much of the water.
surfaces of the Great Lakes are in the United States and how much
are in Canada?
Mr. FERRIs. No. *
Mr. BARRETT. And how much of the drainage area is in the United
States and how much in Canada?
Mr. FERRIs. No ; I do not.
Mr. BARRETT. Don't you know that we have over 60 per cent in
the United States?
Mr. FERRIs. No ; I do not. I should say it was more, but you
asked me and I quite frankly told you that I did not know the
amount.
Mr. Chairman, here is a statement prepared to show the amount
of power which we claim would be produced on the Niagara River
and the St. Lawrence and the cost of hydroelectric development and
the cost of the same power by steam. It is prepared by Mr. Macy,
who is with me, an engineer, and I would like to have it filed. I do
not care to read it.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be filed and go into the record.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
To the CoMMITTEE on RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN : In connection with the protest of the State of New York against
the diversion of water by the Sanitary District of Chicago, the following figures
are presented to your committee as indicating one element of damage which
will accrue if such diversion is allowed to continue or is authorized as pro-
vided in the Hull bill. §
The measure of damage caused by the withdrawal of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second from the natural flow of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers is ascer-
tained by comparing the cost of producing the amount of power this volume of
water would produce with the cost of producing the same amount of power
by fuel.
It is feasible to develop approximately 500,000 horsepower continuous 24
hours power on the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers with the amount of water
572 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Which this bill authorizes shall be diverted at Chicago. In making this compari-
SOn Of Cost the following base figures are used :
Steam power :
Installation cost, per horsepower — $67.50
Fixed charges, per cent g. . 14
Coal consumption, tons per horsepower year 10
Operating cost, per horsepower year $4.60
Hydraulic power: -
Installation cost, per horsepower – $100.00
Fixed charges, per cent . 13
Operating cost, per horsepower year $1.50
Annual cost of steam power per horsepower a year:
Fixed charges, 14 per cent of $67.50 $9.45
Operating cost - 4, 50
Fuel, 10 tons, at $5––––––––––––..---- - 50, 00
Cost per horsepower year for steam power : 63.95
Cost of hydraulic power per horsepower year:
Fixed charges, 13 per cent of $100 ___ $13.00
Operating cost 1, 50
Cost per horsepower year of hydraulic power 14, 50
Saving effected by hydraulic over steam development:
Steam power __ $63.95
Hydraulic power —— 14, 50
Saving per horsepower year - 49.45
Annual saving for total power available from 10,000 cubic feet per second,
500,000X$49,45=$24,727.
Amount of damage equals annual saving capitalized at 5 per cent, $494,-
500,000.
Respectfully submitted. -
- F. H. MACY,
Chief Bureau of Water Power, Department of State,
Engineer and Surveyor, Albany, N. Y.
Mr. BEHAN. The gentleman offered in evidence a brief. Have you
a copy of that?
The CHAIRMAN. It will be printed. It is going into the record.
Mr. BARRETT. That will be too late for us to use it. We would like
to have a copy of it, if you have it.
Mr. FERRIs. I will try and furnish you a copy. How soon do you
want it?
Mr. BARRETT. As soon as possible, so that we can prepare to riddle
it with holes when we come back.
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until a week from Monday,
which, I understand, is the 28th, at this same place at 10.30.
(Whereupon, at 5.15 p.m., the committee adjourned.)
(The papers filed by Mr. Ferris are as follows:)
[Chicago. Herald and Examiner, Saturday, February 9, 1934]
To THE PEOPLE OF THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGo: *
Chicago is in peril. The trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago here-
with lay before the 3,000,000 residents of the city and its suburbs the facts in
the gravely critical situation that must be met immediately in the pending con-
troversy over the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan for purposes of
disposition of the sewage of our metropolitan area. Ten thousand cubic feet
per second must be authorized. Favorable congressional action on Chicago's
request for emergency legislation is an overpowering necessity. Read these
facts:
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 573
1. The Sanitary District of Chicago must have a withdrawal of water from
Lake Michigan of 10,000 cubic feet per second to dispose of the sewage of the
City and its Suburbs through the drainage canal and to prevent the dumping
Of this Sewage into Lake Michigan and the immediate pollution of Chicago’s
Only Source of drinking water supply.
2. That quantity of water is now being withdrawn by virtue of the act of
the Illinois General Assembly that created the district, which requires that
amount of Water to properly dilute the sewage of the present population of
the Sanitary district—upward of 3,000,000 souls. The sanitary district built
its WOrks with the acquiesence and permit of Government officials. In 1909
by treaty between United States and Great Britain its withdrawal was sanc-
tioned. -
3. Apparently the sole authority for the limitation of withdrawal of water
from Lake Michigan to the amount of 4,167 cubic feet per second, in so far
as the Federal Government is concerned, rests upon a supposed direction of
the Secretary of War to limit the withdrawal to that amount, made 24 years
ago, When the main channel was opened and the flow of the Chicago River
Was reversed and before the Chicago River was widened and deepened by the
Sanitary district at a cost of upward of $13,000,000.
4. This Federal limitation was made by the then Secretary of War because
Of the then condition of the Chicago River. Succeeding secretaries have re-
fused to remove this limitation as requested by the sanitary district with the
population of Chicago increasing at the rate of 75,000 each year, notwith-
Standing the Widening and deepening of the river for the express purpose of
removing the Federal objections, their position being that an act of Congress,
granting specific authority to the sanitary district, must be secured.
5. An injunction suit, brought against the sanitary district in the Federal
courts seeks to restrain the district to a maximum withdrawal of 4,167 cubic
feet per Second, the quantity required a quarter of a century ago. That in-
junction Suit has been disposed of in the lower courts against the sanitary
district, and is now on appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States.
6. Bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives
of the present Congress, granting to Chicago the use of the required 10,000
Cubic feet per Second. Hearing upon these bills will begin within the next
tWO Weeks. The president and trustees are now in Washington pressing upon
Congress the necessity for immediate and decisive action.
Failure of this congressional authority to pass at this session of Congress
may mean disaster to Chicago, from the standpoint of loss of life and property
destruction more calamitous than the great fire of 1871.
Arrayed against Chicago in its fight for life is a combination of interests,
tremendously powerful, insidious in its machinations, and unscrupulous in its
tactics. Sir Adam Beck, who is the spokesman for Canadian power interests
that are potently involved, in the power created at Niagara Falls, is in the
Open as Chicago's bitter and implacable foe. He wants the water that Chicago
is using for health and sanitation to be taken away from this city and sent
down the Niagara River for his power purposes. Sir Adam Beck’s ultimatum,
if it becomes effective, means destruction of Chicago's drinking-water supply
and Consequent loss of life; it means the saddling of an immediate burden of
a quarter of a billion dollars upon the taxpayers of Chicago for the building
Of Sewage-disposal plants to partially take the place of the water that Sir
Adam Beck would grab from the sanitary district. It would mean a tax
of $50 on every man, woman, and child in our district. It would mean pollu-
tion of Our water supply and an immediate, alarming increase in the typhoid
death rate for at least 25 years while these plants were being built. It would
put Chicago back where it was 50 years ago. It would mean the scrapping of
the $100,000,000 of construction of the drainage canal of the sanitary district
between Chicago and Lockport, and would create havoc with the vast system
of intercepting sewers that has been built in conjunction with the North Shore
Channel and the Calumet-Sag Channel and would make chaos of the present
program of reasonable construction of sewage-disposal plants that is well on
its way to realization. -
Sir Adam Beck has the active assistance of a force of propagandists, with
headquarters at Milwaukee, Wis., ostensibly representing the navigation inter-
ests of the Great Lakes. This element, with subtle skill, has spread the false
assertion throughout the Great Lake ports that the withdrawal of Lake Michi-
gan water through the drainage canal is responsible for the lowering of the
levels of the Great Lakes by 2% feet, thereby greatly harming navigation.
574 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The truth is, that engineers of the United States and Canada claim that the
Chicago withdrawal will result only in the lowering of the lake levels by not
more than 5% inches.
To compensate the navigation interests for this lowering, the sanitary dis-
trict trustees, with the approval of and authority from the Illinois Legislature.
offered to build, and now offers to build, at the expense of the sanitary district,
regulating works in the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers and at the outlet of
Lake Ontario, which would restore the claimed 5% inches for navigation, at
a cost of approximately $2,500,000. President William J. Healy and the
trustees of the sanitary district at Washington last November, made the formal
proffer of a check for $1,000,000 to the Chief of Engineers of the United
States and through him to the Secretary of War, as evidence of good faith
On the part of Chicago. The proffer was declined on the ground that there was
Ino legal authority for receiving the check. -
Trustees of the sanitary district. on repeated visits to Canada, were gra-
ciously received by men thoroughly representative of the navigation companies.
Who gave cordial approval to the Chicago plan as a means of settling forever
any differences between Canada and Chicago on the lake-level issue. Not so,
Sir Adam Beck. After 48 hours of effort and the delivery of a formal demand
for an audience, President Healy and the trustees were permitted to present
Chicago's case to him. He bluntly told the Chicago delegation that he opposed
any such plan ; that it would tend to reduce the flow of water through the
Niagara River, and therefore reduce his power, and that he held to the con-
tention that the water of the Great Lakes is: First, for power; second, for
navigation ; and, third, for sanitation. This in the face of the provisions of the
present international treaty, which expressly stipulates sanitation first, navi-
gation Second, and power third—a treaty which is premised upon the right
of Chicago to withdraw 10,000 cubic feet per second for Sanitation. President
Healy's reply to Sir Adam Beck was: “The life of one Chicago child is more
sacred to me than all the water at Niagara Falls for power purposes.”
The interests that are represented by the Milwaukee coterie succeeded in
enlisting the attorney general of Wisconsin who proposes to secure an original
injunction in the United States Supreme Court to prevent Chicago from with-
drawing any water from Lake Michigan, a suit in which he has sought to
involve the attorneys general of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and Penn-
Sylvania, but without Substantial result as yet.
The trustees of the sanitary district are making every possible effort to
secure the enactment of the necessary legislation at Washington. They are
entitled to the active cooperation and support of every man, woman, and child
in Chicago and its suburbs. It is your fight that they are making and it is
a fight for the lives of your children. Behind the trustees there should be an
exhibition of the old-time Chicago spirit at this dangerous and critical moment.
Every public-spirited citizen is urged to write to Senators and Representa-
tives at Washington from Illinois and other States, to support Chicago in her
fight for the water that she must have.
The Sanitary District of Chicago. William J. Healy, president. Trustees:
T. J. Crowe. Morris Eller, L. F. King, Harry E. Littler, Willis O. Nance,
Michael Rosenberg, Alexander N. Todd, James M. Whalen.
[Detroit News, Sunday, April 15, 1924]
HEALTH OF 3,000,000 MENACED BY WASTEFUL ATTACK ON SANITARY DISTRICT
OF CHICAGO-MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL IN FUTILE, EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT-
HITS TAXPAYERS -
[By William J. Healy, president of the Sanitary District of Chicagol
(Engineering facts by Edward J. Kelly, chief engineer of the Sanitary
District of Chicago, member American Society of Civil Engineers, Western
Society of Engineers, engineering member original Illinois Waterways Com-
mission, South Parks Commission of Chicago, and by George M. Wisner, con-
sulting engineer and lake level expert, member American Society of Civil
Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Western Society of
Engineers.) -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 575
CHICAGo, April 14.—The controversy to-day over the Chicago water diversion
is the case of Middle West radicals versus the health and prosperity of Chicago
and the Chicago market.
The sanitary district offers the one practicable, economical solution of this
years-Old Controversy, which has flamed anew in agitation as futile as it is
misinformed, and is spreading throughout the Great Lakes region.
The solution offered and urged upon Congress to accept will restore the
"Great Lakes to their pristine fullness as great mill pond reservoirs and keep
them restored through all the years to come.
That they shall be completely restored is, we believe, the desire of all, in-
cluding the radicals pressing agitation against the sanitary district. The only
apparent split attends the question, “How shall it be accomplished?” On
‘the One hand is a destructive criticism, no solution, waste of public funds,
(iisaster, because agitators refuse to look sanely at the engineering facts. On
the Other hand is the sanitary district, with the engineering facts and the solu-
‘tion of the problem.
To understand the situation that now confronts Chicago it is necessary to
‘turn the light on the present background of misrepresentations and their
COn Sequences. -
In Sequence the problem resolves itself into these major divisions:
1. The dangers involved and the agitation that brought them about.
2. The real facts about the relationship between the diversion of water at
‘Chicago for sewage purposes and the levels of the lakes,
3. The proposal to restore those levels; that is the solution of this con-
‘troversy.
THE DANGER
Prostration of Chicago, one of the world's greatest markets, a great metro-
politan center, is seriously threatened by a misguided attack that radicals
from surrounding States have instituted against the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict the public agency created by Illinois statute to keep physical Chicago
"clean and healthy.
The health of the city's 3,000,000 people and that of thickly populated environs,
‘the wealth of the Chicago market, the prosperity of industry and commerce
radiating throughout the world—in fact, the entire welfare of the capital of
the Middle West are endangered by a program that, even partially successful,
would make ours an unclean city, turn our intracity water areas into Cesspools,
and crush Chicago.
Wisconsin officeholders are the chief offenders. They have seized on the
Towering of the lake levels from natural causes as the lever for their campaign.
There have been sporadic campaigns in the past, but none that could com-
pare with the present in extent and viciousness. The present campaign,
foisted on the public of surrounding States as a fight for the people, is a cam-
paign to Cripple Chicago by reducing far beyond the safety point the amount
‘of water taken at Chicago for the disposal of our sewage and that of our
neighbors.
Radicals have thrown truth to the winds and are beating their cymbals
up and down the Takes, crying that Chicago is draining the lakes, destroying
harbors, knocking shipping into a cocked hat, stealing water for power
purposes.
“Chicago, the great water thief,” agitators are crying, “We must work fast
or Chicago will steal the lakes.”
PoDITICIANS IGNORE solution
The agitation dragged public officials into the foreground, but perhaps not
"all needed dragging. And presently, Out of the hue and cry, the attorneys
general of four States—Wisconsin. Michigan. Minnesota, and Indiana—appeared
in Chicago to hold a conference. It proved to be an abortion.
Wisconsin called the lawyers into session. The sanitary district heard
they were coming. We hoped they would sit down with us and arrive at a
-common sense solution that would settle the controversy. We offered them
every record we have. We offered to place our engineering staff at their dis-
posal and with the staff all the knowledge accumulated in a quarter cen-
tury of dealing with lake levels. This problem is wholly one of engineering
facts, its solution one of engineering science, but the attorneys general did
576 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
not see fit to avail themselves of the Opportunity to get the truth—facts that
their own advisers have never been in a position to gather. As defenders
Of the public Welfare considering an engineering question, they were for-
tified by one engineer and he admitted he knows nothing about sanitary or
hydraulic engineering.
They did condescend to see our lawyers and our counsel talked with them
and brought up the solution of the lake level problem we are offering and
have been offering and explained how the lake levels could be restored. They
told the attorneys general we would pay the charges and the matter could
be settled without a cent's cost to Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana,
or any other States. Somehow, saving their own taxpayers considerable money
and increasing the value of the lakes didn’t seem to strike the responsive chord
We expected. :
The attorneys general ignored our offer of engineering facts, the crux of
the situation. They issued statements after two days of talking, putting their
States on record. Michigan joined with Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a suit
before the United States Supreme Court to enjoin the sanitary district from
taking half our present water.
Minnesota seemed to think Wisconsin’s cause a good one, but did not say
whether they would enlist. Indiana remained comparatively neutral.
They went home then, taking their publicity agents with them. The Wiscon-
sin representative felt so elated over his success with his comrades-in-law that
he decided to call another conference. He is leaving for the East to visit the
attorneys general of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and ask them to Sit
in at a seven-handed session to be held in Cleveland. This is all bunk. The
scheme is to recruit enemies of Chicago. A formidable array of legal talent is
sought, and the weight of their constituency, to join in Wisconsin's suit against
a city upon which the complaining States depend for much of their wealth in
commerce and industry. , - , -
THE FACTS ABOUT THE SANITARY DISTRICT
What are the facts, the truths they could have proven for themselves, had
they desired to proceed in behalf of the public welfare?
Upwards of a third of a century ago Chicago was a city subject to frequent
epidemigs, an unhealthy city, in its arms a stinking muck heap, known as the
Chicago River. We were discharging our sewage then into the river and the
lake. The river flowed into the lake when not completely inert. Lake Michigan
wore a black necklace of SCum Or undisposed-of Sewage. w *
To protect its undermined health Chicago. rose in arms and the State created
the sanitary district by legislative, act in 1889. The State said, “We hereby
create a public corporation to handle the sanitary requirements of Chicago and
its environs.” -
In the ensuing 10 years the district built the drainage canal, connecting the
Chicago River at Robey Street with the Des Plaines and Illinofs Rivers. Sewers
discharging into the lake were pointed to the river and the drainage Canal.
Our lake shore from the far north to the far south side was cleansed of
effluent or sewage pollution. Chicago brightened up at once, smelled the air,
and found it wholesome. The city began to thrive. The Government looked
on, fondly beneficent. & -
When we began to take water the level of Lake Michigan rose. As the city
grew we increased the amount we were taking. The lake rose still higher. The
Lakes have been rising and falling for years and still are—from natural causes.
When we opened the drainage canal the Chicago River, which is a part of
the drainage system, had a depth of but 17 feet. Consequently, what was
called an “excessive current ’’ was set up in the river when we began taking
water. Because of that fact the War Department limited the permit we had
then calling for 10,000 cubic feet per second, not because there was any objec-
tion to more water being taken, or because of any effect on the level of Lake
Michigan, but solely because of the excessive current which made navigation
difficult. The War department ruled that the current must be throttled to
114 miles per hour.
We overcame all objections by widening the channel of the river to its
present depth, thus making it navigable. We removed obstructions in the
river channel and straitened the river. In all, we spent $13,000,000 in these
improvements, which were of considerable benefit to the interests of surround-
ing States.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 57.7
The War Department not only acquiesced in the program of deepening the
• Channel and improving the river, but expressly authorized the improvement,
knowing its purpose, and that was the taking of more and needed water. But
for SOme reason the War Department never removed the limitation even
though the cause had been eliminated.
Hence this controversy to-day.
AUTHORITY TO USE WATER
There came into existence the International Waterways Commission, com-
posed of Canadians and members from the United States, officially appointed.
On January 4, 1907, they submitted a joint report on the diversion of water
through the Chicago drainage canal. They said, to quote their own words:
“The diversion of large bodies of water from Lake Michigan for supplying
the drainage canal has not been authorized by Congress, but there appears to
be a ...tacit general agreement that no objection will be made to the diversion
of 10,000 cubic feet per second, as originally planned.”
The Illinois statute under which we were operating had said we would
require 1,000 cubic feet per second for each 300,000 population, or 10,000 cubic
feet per second for a city of 3,000,000. - te
Later the boundary-waters treaty between the United States and Canada was
written, in 1909, and ratified May 5, 1910. The American and Canadian sec-
tions of the international commission considered the diversion of 10,000 cubic
feet at Chicago as just in the formation of the treaty. While no specific men-
tion is made in the treaty of the Chicago drainage canal, it is unquestionable
that certain articles of the treaty authorize the diversion. Francis C. Shene-
hon, hydraulic engineer and lake-level expert, asks if it is reasonable to believe
that the formulators, Secretary of State Elihu Root and Ambassador James'
Bryce, knowingly neglected to safeguard the public interest of the people of
Illinois while “carefully safeguarding the private corporations of the State
of New York and of the Province of Ontario.” He does not think so.
By the express provisions of the treaty with Canada and by the terms of the
Illinois statute we are entitled to 10,000 cubic feet per second. . . . . .
The War Department limitation made 20 years ago to guard, against an
excessive current in the river, which we immediately obviated with the depart-
ment's sanction by widening and deepening, the river, calls for a smaller flow
than we are now taking, which is, roughly, 8,000 cubić feet per second. Notwith-
standing the fact that we removed the cause of the Govertiment's limitation,
and did so under their express authorization, the district is called an outlaw
by agitators who refuse to speak of the diversion as other than unlawful.
If we were suddenly throttled to 4,167 cubic feet per second, as, Wisconsin
says we should be, Chicago's sewage would be back in the lake as it was 25
years ago. The city would shrivel. , Chicago became a prosperous city and a
great metropolis and grew apace because of proper sewage disposal. 'Our
growth made a corresponding growth in surrounding markets, which must use
Chicago as the outlet for their agricultural products, their goods and mer-
chandise. # * , , , , . . . f ! . . . * *
Chicago could not, would not, stand for a stagnant sewage channel in the
arms of the city. Yet that is what we would have if the radicals fighting the
sanitary district had their way. . . . ; . . . . . . . . . .
In the light of what has gone before, in the light of uncontested diversion
for many years, in the light of Chicago's needs, the sanitary district can not
and does not believe that objectors have just cause for complaint. We believe
the War Department lacks jurisdiction, and so contended when a friendly suit
was long ago started in the Federal courts to enjoin us," a suit still undecided
Col. J. G. Warren, of the United States Corps of Engineers, undertook an
exhaustive inquiry and submitted a report in 1921. He recommended, among
other things, that the Sanitary District of Chicago be permitted to divert from
Lake Michigan and its tributaries a total quantity of water not exceeding at
any time a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second. * † - ,
We are now taking less than that and will guarantee not to take more.
In the treaty between the United States and Canada it is provided that the
taking of water for domestic and sanitary purposes shall have precedence in
the use of water. Our water is taken for domestic and sanitary purposes.
Water diverted at Chicago serves the purposes of the treaty by acting as a
vehicle for the disposal of sewage and by making practicable a navigable water-
way leading toward the Gulf of Mexico. "
91739–24—PT 2—22 •
578 - ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The Chicago River and the drainage canal constitute an integral part of the
proposed Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway, to advance which the State of Illinois. "
is spending $20,000,000 in the construction of locks at Marseilles and Starved,
Rock. The waterway is designed to improve lake commerce and will aid States.
Complaining about the drainage canal and others that are not.
What has been the effect of diverting water for sewage purposes at Chicago?.
Federal engineering experts have testified the effect has been to lower the level
Of the lakes about 4 inches. Just that and nothing more.
Before the drainage canal was built the only outlet from Lakes Michigan.
and Huron was the St. Clair River, then having an outflow of 11,000,000 cubic
feet per minute. Water taken at Chicago was gradually increased until 500,000.
Cubic feet per minute was being taken. In 20 years this slightly lowered the
lake levels. Finally there came a time, some three years ago, when the taking.
of water at Chicago was without any effect on the lake levels, for the outflow.
from St. Clair had diminished to 10,500,000 cubic feet per minute and we were:
getting part of the outflow the St. Clair River had had before the dra?nage.
Canal Was placed in Operation. .
We could go on taking the amount we are now getting through, eternity with--
Out affecting the present lake levels in the slightest. If we were to take Our
full 10,000 cubic feet per second, sanctioned by the treaty with Canada and,
authorized by Illinois statute, the lake levels would be lowered perhaps one
more inch and the outflow through the St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara, and St.
Lawrence Rivers would be slightly diminished.
That outflow might well be lowered. Power interests at Niagara Falls have
a market for Only a small part of the power they Gan. Clevelop with the amount.
Of Water allotted to them. *
t WHAT WHE PROPOSE—THE SOLUTION.
Suppose we have scooped 4 inches off the reservoirs, of Lakes Michigan and.
Huron as the Federal experts have said. We can put those 4 inches back, and.
more. We can maintain a proper outflow through the St. Clair, Detroit,
Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers to the benefit of all communities, as. Well as.
private interests. -
We can put back the water we have taken with compensating or regulating:
works in those rivers. We offered to do so long ago and appropriated the
money for the purpose and offered it to the Government, and said:
“Uncle Sam, you build them at our expense, then, no one can complain about.
the type of Works.”
The best engineering brains of the country back up the assertion they Will.
perform as we claim. There are Several types of compensating and, regulating:
works, all feasible, practicable. Consider one type, for illustration, the regula-
tion works used at the international bridge connecting the American and.
Canadian SOO to hold Water stored in Lake Superior and to, keep the lake level.
more Or leSS COnStant. -
We, preferably the Government, should build such works along the St. Clair,
Niagara, and St. Lawrence. A bridge could be built part way across the rivers.
Inot wide enough to interfere With navigation. Gates could be installed under
the bridge. When closed they would hold back water in, the lakes, raise the
lake levels. In rainy seasons a surplus would be created for use in dry seasons.
As it is now, the Surplus is not preserved, and the lakes suffer from lack of
regulation. With compensating or regulating works the levels of all the lakess
can be raised to a point higher than they were before the drainage canal at
Chicago took any water from Lake Michigan. Harbors that complainants con-
tend have been injured, although not by the sanitary district, but from the
natural lowering of the lakes, would be restored, exeryone benefited.
WHAT DO YOU THINK
What more can anyone ask? We even say we will put up the money and we
have the money ready, $2,500,000, and more if more is needed. Wouldn’t it be:
the common sense thing for Surrounding States to join with the sanitary dis--
trict in asking Congress to authorize the restoration, instead of making a.
political football of the problem?
The restoration of the lake levels can be accomplished in a brief interval. If
litigation continues, if the States go on fighting, the fight will continue for:
years, and at its conclusion, providing there ever is a conclusion, nothing will
have been accomplished for the good of the Great Lakes States.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 579
These lakes of ours are continually rising and falling, feeding as they do .
solely on the precipitation in the Great Lakes watershed, an area three times
larger than the area of the lakes themselves. Sometimes the levels are up,
sometimes down. They have been down for several years. There have been
numerous successive mild winters and none of the usual ice jams in the St.
Clair River to hold water back in the reservoirs. As the lakes have lowered
from natural causes, the misinformed agitation has grown in Volume, for
citizens have said, not understanding what had happened, “See how low the
Lakes are. That's because they’re taking all that water over in Chicago. Guess
they want it for power.”
We do make power ; that’s true. We produce electricity and Sell it to light
(‘hicago’s streets, boulevards, and parks at cost. We've Saved the city and
parks millions of dollars and the country great quantities of coal. But We Only
use waste water. We don’t take a tumblerful that we don’t require for Sewage
|Jul’p OSes. -
We actually need more than we are taking, but we are supplementing Sewage
disposal by dilution with artificial-treatment plants. Counting pollution from
trade wastes, the district handles pollution from a population of approximately
5,000,000. It is constantly growing. Our artificial-treatment program Supple-
ments disposal by dilution. It’s a program calling for an expenditure of
$100,000,000 in the next 20 years.
If the warfare now being waged on the district were to succeed, we'd have
to commence at once an additional program of $150,000,000 to handle stagnated
Sewage. That would ruin the city with taxation. It would amount to a per
capita tax of $50 on every man, woman, and child. Business pays, and business
in this instance would pay through the nose. f
Compensating and regulating works to restore the lake levels, we think you
Will agree, is the only honest answer to all our troubles and the troubles of
Others.
I'll put the question to you as business and professional men Of Michigan :
Isn't it your wish that the lake-level controversy be settled on a common-Sense
basis, ‘On an economical basis, to the benefit of all concerned, to the benefit of
the taxpayers' pocketbooks not only in Illinois but in Wisconsin, Michigan;
Minnesota, Indiana, in which you have an interest both as business men and as
Citizens? i
Or shall the misguided people of Wisconsin, Michigan, and other States pre-
Vail in a useless, expensive fight which, succeeding, would mean the downfall of
Chicago and injury to the entire Middle West?
On the One hand, Chicago has offered to pay the bill, although the bill is not.
Wholly Chicago's, for there has been diversion of water other than here. On the
Other hand, the taxpayers of all States concerned will pay. Chicago will pay
double and suffer staggering damage in doing so.
We do not believe that the mass of citizens of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minne-
Sota, and Indiana wish to open their pocketbooks to pay the heavy expenses
Of a long-drawn-out legal battle before the United States Supreme Court, where
Wisconsin now stands. We do not believe they want a blow struck at the
Chicago market, which is a blow struck at their market. We do not believe
they wish to be a party to a proposal that would eliminate the Lakes-to-the-
Gulf waterway, making Chicago helpless, unhealthy, and destroying the hope
of making this the world's greatest city.
PROTEST OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AGAINST H. R. 5475, INTRO-
DUCED BY MR. Hull of ILLINois, FIRST SEssION, SIXTY-EIGHTH
CONGRESS
WATER POWER COMMISSION,
Albany, April 15, 1924.
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs. t
- House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN : The New York Water Power Commission, on behalf of the
State of New York, hereby protests against the enactment into law of H. R.
5475, introduced by Mr. Hull of Illinois, and entitled as follows: +
“A bill for the improvement of commerce and navigation and to authorize
appropriations for the construction of Certain public works in the Illinois
River, and for other purposes.”
580 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
And the New York Water Power Commission, on behalf of the State of
New York, hereby further protests against the enactment of any legislation
authorizing the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary DiS-
trict of Chicago.
The Sanitary District of Chicago is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of an act of the legislature of the State of
Illinois, approved May 29, 1899, in force July 1, 1899, and entitled “An act
to create Sanitary districts and to remove obstructions in the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers.”
Prior to May 8, 1899, the sanitary district had constructed an artificial
channel from Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport of sufficient capacity to
carry 300,000 cubic feet per minute (5,000 c. f. s.) with a velocity of one and
One-quarter miles an hour, it being intended to connect the said artificial
Channel with the west fork of the South branch Of the Chicago River at Robey
Street in the city of Chicago; and prior to the date last above mentioned
the Sanitary district made application to the Secretary of War for permission
to reverse the current and the flow of the Chicago River and to divert and
abstract a certain quantity of water from Lake Michigan through said
Chicago River and through said artificial channel, and on the 8th day of
May, 1899, the Secretary of War granted a temporary and conditional permit
to the sanitary district authorizing such diversion in the following terms
and upon the following conditions:
“Now, therefore, the Chief of Engineers having consented therto, this is
to certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives permission to the said
Sanitary District of Chicago to open the channel constructed and cause the
water of Chicago River to flow into the same, subject to the following con-
ditions:
“1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary
of War to submit the questions connected with the work of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this
permit shall be subject to such action as may be taken by Congress. -
“2. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by such
drainage works in the South and main branches of Chicago River be unreason-
ably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary of War
reserves the right to close and discharge through said channel or to modify it
to Such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property interests along
Said Chicago River and its south branch.
“3. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume all responsibility for
damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction of
a current in Chicago River.” -
The permit issued by the Secretary of War was modified from time to time
until anuary 17, 1903, when the amount which might be diverted by the sani-
tary district from and after March 31, 1903, was fixed at 4,167 cubic feet per
second, it being decided that no greater diversion could be allowed without
affecting injuriously the interests of navigation. Since March 31, 1903, the
sanitary district has not obtained permission for any greater diversion than
4,167 cubic feet per second. w t
On the 5th of February, 1912, the sanitary district made application to Hon.
Henry L. Stimson, then Secretary of War, for a modification of the permit by
enlarging the amount of water which might be diverted to an amount not to
exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second. This application was denied.
Secretary of War Stimson in his decision has covered so fully the several
questions under consideration that we append hereto a lengthy abstract there-
from. - -: -
In presenting our objections to the bill above mentioned and to the diversion
of water from Lake Michigan by the sanitary district, we suggest that the fol-
lowing subjects should be considered : -
1. The necessity for an increased diversion.
II. The present embarrassing situation in which the sanitary district finds
itself is due entirely to the fault of its trustees and their utter diregard of all
constituted authority and the rights of other States, as well as the rights of a
friendly nation. * : -
III. The effect upon commerce and navigation. i
IV. The effect upon our relations with Great Britain, more particularly
Canada. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETG. 581
V. The effect upon water-power rights and possibilities, especially the effect
upon the rights Of the State Of New York and its citizens.
VI. The whole question of the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the
Sanitary district should be left, at least for the present, to the United States
Supreme Court. -
I. THE NECESSITY FOR AN INCREASED DIVERSION
In considering this subject we call your attention to the memorandum of
Secretary of War Stimson and the letter of Secretary of War Weeks, bearing
date January 26, 1922, in both of which it is stated in substance that it has
not been established that the amount of water applied for is necessary to a
proper Sanitation of the city of Chicago and that the issue comes down to the
question of COSt ; that Other adequate systems of Sewage disposal are possible
and are in use throughout the World and that the problem that confronts Chi-
cago is not different in kind but simply larger and more pressing than that
which confronts all of the other cities on the Great Lakes. The engineer of the
sanitary district in his report of October 12, 1911, proposes eventually to use
some such method, but proposes to postpone its installation for a number of
years to come, relying upon the present more Wasteful method in the mean While.
It is manifest that so long as the sanitary district is permitted to divert Water
from Lake Michigan for this purpose there will a very Strong temptation to
postpone a more Scientific and possibly more expensive method of disposing
of its sewage. This is particularly true in view of the fact that by so doing it
may still further diminish its expenses by utilizing the water diverted from the
Lakes for water power at Lockport and other points.
Whether the Sanitary district shall be permitted to divert from Lake Michi-
gan a large amount Of Water for Sanitary purposes, Or in the alternative, Shall
be required to provide some other means for disposing of its sewage, involves
only the question of cost to the sanitary district. Other large cities on the
Great Lakes have disposed of their sewage by the use of modern and scientific
sewage disposal works, and there is no good reason why the Sanitary district
should be permitted to divert from Lake Michigan a large amount of water
for sewage disposal purposes to the detriment Of navigation interests as well
as other interests on the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways and the
St. Lawrence River. *
The diversion of 10,000 c. f. s. through the sanitary canal into the Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers and the discharge of the Sewage of the Sanitary dis-
trict into this waterway results (a) in flooding the lands along the river bot-
toms and (b) pollutes the waters all the way to the Mississippi and beyond to
such an extent as to be not only offensive to but injurious to the health of the
inhabitants living along the whole length of the Waterway. The sanitary dis-
trict should be required to purify its sewage and should not be allowed to en-
danger the health, and lives of the people living along this waterway a distance
of approximately 300 miles.
II. THE PRESENT EMBARRASSING SITUATION IN WEHICH THE SANITARY DISTRICT
FINDS ITSELF Is DUE ENTIRELY TO THE FAULT OF ITS TRUSTEES AND THEIR UTTER
DISREGARD OF ALL CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHER STATES,
AS WELL AS THE RIGHTS OF A FRIENDLY NATION
The Secretary of War in the first permit granted May 8, 1899, which was
temporary and conditional, seemed to doubt the propriety of his granting any
permit to the sanitary district to divert water from Lake Michigan for sani-
tary purposes and the first condition imposed upon the sanitary district in
said permit was as follows: . -
“1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary
of War to submit the questions conneced wih he work of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this
permit shall be subject to such action as may be taken by Congress.”
Thus it was made clear to the trustees of the sanitary district that the
Secretary of War did not intend to assume responsibility in the matter, and
that it was incumbent upon the trustees of the sanitary district to obtain
authority for such diversion from Congress and not depend therefor upon the
Secretary of War.
When the Michaelson bill (H. R. 9046, 67th Cong., 2d sess.) was before the
Committee on Rivers and Harbors, the Secretary of War, after referring to
582 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the permit allowing a diversion of 4,167 c. f. S., under date of January 26, 1922,
Stated :
“The sanitary district, however, has persistently sought permission to ab-
stract larger and additional amounts of water, and has, in fact, made such
diversion after authority therefor was denied. In 1907, after an application
for permission to connect the drainage canal with the Calumet River and to
draw an additional 4,000 second-feet of water through this connection had
been denied, the trustees of the Sanitary district declared their intention to
make the connection and take the quantity of water desired, without the au-
tnority of the Secretary of War, unless prevented by injunction from so doing.
Thereupon the Attorney General, at the instance of this department, filed a
bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of
Illinois, in March, 1908, praying for an injunction to restrain the contemplated
action of the sanitary district. Again, in 1912, the sanitary district applied
for permission to divert from Lake Michigan, through the Chicago and
Calumet Rivers, a total of 10,000 second-feet of water ; and after some exhaus-
tive hearings and investigations this application was denied in a carefully
prepared and comprehensive decision by the Secretary of War.”
It appears that the trustees of the Sanitary district refused to conform to
the decision made by Secretary of War Stimson, January 8, 1913, and the
Attorney General commenced another suit in 1913, asking that the trustees of
the sanitary district be permanently enjoined from abstracting any water from
Lake Michigan, in excess of 4,167 C. f. S., the amount authorized by the
Secretary of War. The suit commenced in March, 1908, and the second suit
commenced in 1913 were consolidated. A large amount of testimony was taken
and the case was submitted to the Court for decision on or about February
15, 1915. Judge Landis held the case until June 19, 1920, when he handed
down an oral opinion Sustaining the contention of the Government. Nothing
further was done in the case until June 18, 1923, when Judge Carpenter, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, signed
a deeree for an injunction in favor of the Government restraining the sanitary
district from diverting more than 4,167 c. f. s. and staying the operation of
the injunction for a period of six months to enable the sanitary district to
appeal to the Supreme Court. Of course, the operation of the injunction will
be stayed pending the appeal to the Supreme Court.
'The State of Missouri made early objection to the use by the sanitary dis-
trict of the Sanitary Canal and the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers as a
means of disposing of its unpurified sewage. In the year 1900 the State
of Missouri brought suit in the United States Supreme Court against the
State of Illinois and the sanitary district for an injunction restraining the
sanitary district from discharging its unpurified sewage into this water-
way. The State of Illinois and the sanitary district challenged the juris-
diction of the Supreme Court by demurrer. The demurrer was overruled,
and the defendants were required to answer. (180 U. S. 208.) A large
amount of testimony was taken, and the case was finally Submitted to the
Supreme Court for decision on the merits. (200 U. S. 496.) The bill of
complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The Supreme Court did not
decide that the State of Missouri did not have a good cause of action but
did decide that a cause of action had not been proven. The effect of this
decision was to leave the State of Missouri free to bring a Second action if .
it should see fit.
In the case last above mentioned Mr. Justice Holmes, who delivered the
opinion of the court, referred to the acts of Congress of March 30, 1822, and
March 2, 1827, which are claimed by the trustees of the sanitary district
as authority for the construction and use of , the sanitary canal. . In com-
menting on these two acts of Congress Mr. Justice Holmes said: “Of course,
these acts do not grant the right to discharge Sewage.” It is apparent that
the acts of Congress of 1822 and 1827 referred to above deal only with
the question of navigation. Congress has never authorized the construction
of the sanitary district canal and has never authorized the diversion of any
water from Lake Michigan through this canal; and, furthermore, Congress
has no authority to authorize the diversion of Water from Lake Michigan
for sanitary purposes. The whole authority of Congress to authorize the
diversion of water from Lake Michigan is based upon the so-called Com-
merce clause in section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which confers upon
Congress power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 583
Several States and with the Indian tribes.” Any action taken by Congress
‘Imust be based upon the needs of commerce and navigation without reference
to the sanitary needs of the city of Chicago.
For a quarter of a century the trustees of the Sanitary district have been
warned repeatedly and emphatically that the sanitary district had no real
ºright to (livert water from Lake Michigan through the sanitary canal. The
trustees were warned by the Secretary of War in the first permit issued,
May 8, 1899, that the question of diversion was one to be dealt with only
by Congress. The trustees were warned again in 1907, after an application
for permission to connect the drainage canal with the Calumet River and
to draw an additional 4,000 cubic feet per second through this COnnection,
Which application was denied, and the denial of which they disregarded. The
trustees Were Warned again in 1908 by the commencement of a suit by the
Attorney General, at the instance of the War Department, to restrain the
trustees of the Sanitary district from diverting more than 4,167 cubic feet
per second. The trustees were warned again in 1912, when they made a D-
plication to Secretary of War Stimson for permission to divert through the
Chicago, and Calumet Rivers a total of 10,000 cubic feet per second, which
application was denied, and the denial of which they disregarded. The At-
‘torney General commenced a second action in 1913 for an injunction re-
Straining the trustees of the Sanitary district from diverting more than 4,167
Cubic feet per second. -
All these Warnings that the Sanitary district must have the sanction of
‘Congress before it could have the right to divert any water from Lake
Michigan through the sanitary canal have been wholly disregarded by the
trustees of the district, and, so far as we know, they have never asked
CongreSS to authorize any diversion whatever until the introduction of
the so-called Michaelson bill in 1921. Q
The trustees of the sanitary district were not justified in making and carry-
'ing out such elaborate plans for the disposal of the sewage of the district and
in the expenditure of the large amount of money which they claim to have
expended without first having obtained authority for their action. The trustees
of the sanitary district have seemed to be intent on going ahead with this work
and with this large expenditure of money regardless of their rights in the
premises and regardless of the rights of other States and cities and regardless
Of all the navigation interests from Duluth to Montreal. The trustees of the
“sanitary district have never been willing to submit to the supposed authority of
the Secretary of War or to the authority of Congress until recently, when they
found themselves confronted with an injunction issued by a judge of the United
‘States district court. They have never intended to be limited in the amount Of
‘their diversion to even 10,000 cubic feet per seconds. In a publication entitled
“Diversion of the Waſters of the Great Lakes by Way of the Sanitary and Ship
Canal of Chicago,” authorized by the trustees of the sanitary district in 1913
and written by Lyman E. Cooley, consulting engineer of the sanitary district,
TMr. Cooley States:
“The Sanitary and Ship Canal of Chicago (drainage canal) is 30 miles long
"between the Chicago River, 6 miles from Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines
River above Joliet, and is made for a capacity of 14,000 second-feet.”
Again, the president of the sanitary district in his report of 1911 says:
“I am of the opinion that the presumption that our water supply is to be
'limited to 10,000 cubic feet per second, or 600,000 cubic feet per minute, is gra-
tuitous and mischievous and should not be voiced by the Officials of this district.
T believe we should have the volume requisite to our needs as they appear and
are justified.”
In 1919 in another publication authorized by the trustees of the sanitary dis-
trict entitled “The Sanitary District of Chicago, History of its Growth and
T)evelopment,” prepared by C. Arch Williams, attorney for the sanitary district,
is found another statement indicative of the purpose of the trustees. In dis-
cussing the development of hydroelectric power on the sanitary canal and the
T)es Plaines River and the further duestion of the management thereof , by the
State of Illinois, Mr. Williams States : -
“In time the State may look forward to a flow of 600,000 cubic feet of water
ºper minute being furnished by the Sanitary District of Chicago and may hope,
with a successful outcome of the suit pending between the sanitary district and
the United States Government, for an eventual flow of 840,000 cubic feet of
water per minute (14,000 cubic feet per second).”
584 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Clearly the situation in which the sanitary district now finds itself is due
entirely to the fact that its trustees have gone ahead in the elaboration of their
plans, expending large sums of money in putting these plans into effect without
possessing or obtaining the right to divert and abstract water from Lake Michi-
gan through the Sanitary canal. The bill under consideration should not be
approved. The sanitary district should be required to construct other disposal
Works as rapidly as possible and eventually stop diverting water from Lake
Michigan in excess of 1,000 cubic feet per second, all that is necessary for the
purposes of navigation.
III. THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION
Secretary of War Stimson, in his memorandum above referred to, has covered
the question of the effect of the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by
the Sanitary district upon navigation so fully that it is unnecessary to
discuss that question at any great length. We appreciate that the bill against
which protest is filed undertakes to provide for compensating and regulating
Works intended to restore lake levels and maintain the same to meet the
objections raised on account of the effect of the diversion upon navigation.
Of course, such compensating and regulating works would be very expensive
and would require a long time for construction, and it is a serious question
Whether works could be constructed that would satisfactorily restore and
maintain Water levels in all the lakes and rivers affected. r
A considerable portion of Such compensating and regulating works would
be located on Canadian soil and could be constructed only with the consent
of Canada, and we have no assurance that Canada would consent to any
such plan. Canada, has always opposed the diversion of water by the sani-
tary district, and it is not unlikely that the same opposition will manifest
itself to the plan for compensating and regulating works in Canadian waters.
The authority, if any, for Congress to enact the legislation sought by this
bill is found in the commerce clause of the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8),
which confers upon Congress the “power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and among the Several States and with the Indian tribes.” We
Submit that this provision of the Constitution is intended to confer upon
Congress authority to enact legislation in aid of commerce and navigation
and not legislation detrimental thereto. The needs and requirements of navi-
gation between Chicago and the Mississippi River will be amply provided
for by a diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second, or 1,200 cubic feet per
Second at most. - t
The barge canal, constructed and maintained by the State of New York
at a very large expense, is Seriously affected by the diversion at Chicago.
This canal was constructed with a depth of water of 12 feet. It is supplied
with water from the Niagara River, at Tonawanda. The diversion of 10,000
cubic feet per second at Chicago lowers the level of the water in the Niagara
River, at Tonawanda, at least 53% inches, and consequently lowers the level of
the water the same amount in the canal from Tonawanda to Lockport.
IV. THE EFFECT OF OUR RELATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY
! , $ CANADA
The diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the sanitary district in excess
of 4,167 cubic feet per Second is unlawful, and it is not admitted that the
diversion of 4,167 cubic feet per second is lawful or justified unless it be of
such temporary duration as to allow the sanitary district to provide necessary
sewage-disposal works, Reference has been made to the treaty with Great
Britain, dated January 11, 1909. This treaty deals with the question, among
others, of the amount of water which may be diverted from the Niagara River
above the Falls for power purposes and limits the amount of diversion at this
point to 20,000 cubic feet per second on the New York side of the river and to
36,000 cubic feet per Second on the Canadian side. The average flow of water
through the Niagara River is about 216,000 cubic feet per second. In dealing
with the question of the diversion of water for power purposes from the Niag-
ara River above the Falls the question of the effect of such diversion
upon the scenic features has been emphasized and it is generally agreed that
for the present at least, no diversion will be permitted that will impair the
scenic beauty of the Falls. It is generally agreed by engineers that it is feasible
to construct regulating Works in the Niagara River that will so diffuse and dis-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 585
tribute the flow of the waters that a much larger diversion for power purposes
may be permitted and the full scenic beauty of the Falls preserved, and that
Such regulating Works will be beneficial in preventing the continuous recession
Of the Falls. It is not unlikely that in the early future the treaty will be so
modified as to materially enlarge the amount of water which may be diverted
for power purposes.
It is contended by the officials of the sanitary district that article 8 of the
treaty gives a preference to the uses of water of the Lakes for domestic and
Sanitary purposes Over the uses of such water for navigation and other pur-
poses. It is a serious question whether it is intended by this provision of the
treaty to permit such an extraordinary use of water for domestic and sanitary
purposes. Whether it does permit such an extraordinary use of waters for
these purposes can not be determined at this time. However, it is obvious that
in any future negotiations for a modification of the treaty enlarging the amount
of Water which may be diverted for power purposes, this Government will be
more or less embarrassed, for it is not unlikely that in such future negotiations
Canada Will contend that this Government should be penalized to the extent
of any increased diversion allowed to the sanitary district, and if such con-
tention were recognized the injury which would be worked upon the State
Of New York is apparent. Ten thousand cubic feet per second flowing through
the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers is capable of a development of about
400,000 horsepower. -
V. THE EFFECT UPON WATER-POWER RIGHTS AND POSSIBILITIES, ESPECIALLY THE
EFFECT UPON TEIE RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND ITS CITIZENS
The State of New York, with a population of upward of 10,000,000 (nearly
one-tenth the population of the United States) has many natural resources but
not coal. The amount of power utilized by the various industries of the State,
excepting power used for the Operation of steam railroads, is in excess of
5,000,000 horsepower annually. Of this 5,000,000 horsepower, 4,000,000 is steam-
produced power and 1,000,000 is water-produced or hydroelectric power. The
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second at Chicago (an amount approximately
equal to one-twentieth of the flow of the Niagara River) means a tremendous
loss to the State of New York from the standpoint of power development.
This amount of water developed on the Niagara River would produce upward
of 300,000 horsepower and on the St. Lawrence River about 80,000 horse-
power. The need for the development of hydroelectric power to the greatest
possible extent within the State of New York is obvious. The development of
this item alone means a saving of about 4,000,000 tons of coal annually which
may be used for other purposes and in other States and is of great importance
to other States as well as New York. • {
It should be emphasized that the water-power resources of the Niagara and
St. Lawrence Rivers are peculiarly 'adapted to the most economical develop-
ment on account of the low unit cost resulting from large installations and the
natural regulated flow of water. Firm hydroelectric power is in great demand.
It will be absorbed by our industries as speedily as it is possible to install
wheels and generators to produce it. The subject is one which is receiving
the attention of all parties in New York State as well as the attention of the
Federal Government. -
Thus far in this discussion nothing has been said about the legal claims of
the State of New York to own and control the undeveloped water power on the
Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers within the boundaries of the State. On
account of the obvious equities and necessities of the great industries of the
State in need of this undeveloped power and the tremendous saving of coal to
be effected by the development thereof and the great benefits flowing to
industries in other States thereby, it would seem that Congress will keenly
appreciate the purpose of the State of New York in its efforts to facilitate the
development of these great and valuable undeveloped water powers and the
material benefits to the industries of the State and indirectly to the industries
of other States as well. - e
We recognize the right of the Federal Government to exercise a control over
the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers so far as may be necessary in the inter-
ests of commerce and navigation and so far as may be necessary to insure
free navigation and improve the same. Further than this we contend the Fed-
eral Government has no right to go, either by legislation enacted by Congress
or by action of the Secretary of War or by any other agency. The Federal
586 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Constitution does not contemplate that the Federal Government. through Con-
greSS Or any of its departments, shall extend its activities and control over
navigable Streams like the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers further than to
insure free navigation and improve the same. The title to the center of the
Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers (the international boundary line) and the
control over the same is vested in the State of New York, subject to the rights
of the Federal Government above stated.
When we consider that 10,000 cubic feet per second diverted from Lake
Michigan by the Sanitary district is capable, under proper development, on the
Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers of generating upward of 400,000 horsepower,
the great financial loss to the State, due to such diversion and abstraction at
Chicago, is apparent, and we feel sure that Congress will not overlook this item
in dealing with the subject under consideration. -
VI. THE WHOLE QUESTION OF THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN BY
THE SANITARY DISTRICT SHOULD BE LEFT, AT LEAST FOR THE PRESENT, TO THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
The two suits instituted against the sanitary district at the instance of the
War Department as previously stated herein were decided in favor of the
Government and a decree was entered restraining the sanitary district from
diverting more than 4,167 cubic feet per second. From this decree the sanitary
district has appealed to the Supreme Court, where said appeal is now pending.
The trustees of the sanitary district seek to justify their claim of right to
divert water from Lake Michigan through the Sanitary canal on the grounds
that such diversion is authorized by (a) the acts of Congress of 1822 and 1827.
(b) the permit of the Secretary of War, and (c) the treaty between the United
States, and Great Britain proclaimed by the President May 13, 110. These
claims were made, by counsel for the sanitary district and were opposed by the
Attorney General in the suit now on appeal to the Supreme Court.
The questions involved in these claims are now before the Supreme Court
in the Suit on appeal and Will be passed upon by that Court When the Case is
decided. The rights of the sanitary district will be decided by that court, and
we do not believe Congress should undertake to deal with the question while
the appeal in that case is pending. If the sanitary district now has the right
to divert 10,000 cubic feet per second, as claimed by its trustees, further legis-
lation is unnecessary. If the Sanitary district has not such right, Congress
should not undertake to confer the right by legislation. It is most important
at this time to have the Supreme Court interpretation of the treaty. Congres-
isional action might conflict with the terms of the treaty and thus Create a situa-
tion more embarrassing than the present. The State of New York contends
that, regardless of the meaning of the treaty in respect of this question of
diversion by the sanitary district, Congress should not undertake by legislation
to authorize such diversion, and especially contends that, with SO many
questions in controversy which eventually must be passed upon by the Supreme
Court, Congress should take no action while the appeal in the present legisla-
tion is. pending. -
We respectfully submit that the bill against which this protest is filed should
not be enacted into law.
THE NEW YORK WATER Power CoMMIssion,
By ALEXANDER MACDONALD, Chairman.
CARL SHERMAN, Attorney General.
C. S. FERRIs, Deputy Attorney General,
Capitol, Albany, N. Y.
EXTRACT FROM MEMORANDUM OF SECRETARY OF WAR STIMSON
This application was opposed by representatives of 23 cities and 6 States
interested in harbors and commerce on the Great Lakes, notably the cities
of Duluth, Milwaukee, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo. It was also opposed
by representatives of the navigation interests engaged on the Chicago River
as well as on the Great Lakes, and by the Official representatives Of the
Canadian Government as well as private interests engaged in the navigation
of the Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, including representatives of the
cities of Kingston and Montreal. It appeared upon this hearing that, a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 587
withdrawal of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan would reduce
levels at various places as follows:
Inches
Lakes Huron and Michigan–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6. 9
Take St. Clair - * * * * * = ** * * * * * * - * = *-s “ - = - * *-* = ** = a- = e− sº-, -ses s-t = a- -- ~s -ºs. = – 6. 3
Ilake Erie------------------------ * * * * * * * * * * * *- - - - - * = sºs = ** = - mºss, ºnes -, * == * = - - 5.4
**ke Ontario---------------------------------------------------------- 4. 5
St. Lawrence River at Rapide Plat_________ (plus) 4.8
The foregoing effects would be produced at mean lake levels; the lowering
effect would be much greater at low-water periods—the precise time when
any additional Shortage would be most keenly felt. This reduction would
create Substantial injury in all of the American harbors of the Great Lakes
and in the St. Mary's, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers. It would produce equal
injury in the Canadian harbors on the Great Lakes, and a still greater injury
on the lower St. Lawrence, the Canadian officials claiming a probable lowering
effect of 12 inches at Montreal at low water.
The United States has improved about 106 harbors and rivers on the Great
Lakes affected by this diversion, and has spent on such improvements over
$90,000,000. The Canadian Government has improved over 50 harbors on
Georgian Bay and Lakes Huron, St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario. By treaty
American vessels are accorded equal rights of navigation with Canadian vessels
in all these waters, including the St. Lawrence River. The reduction of the
Water in these harbors and channels would diminish to just that extent the
amount Of these improvements, and would nullify to just that extent the effects
of the moneys which have been appropriated for that purpose by the respective
governments. Connecting various portions of these waterways are the two
Canals at the Sault Ste. Marie, the Welland Canal, and a number of canals
On the St. Lawrence River. The available depth of water over one or all sills
of each of these canals would be affected, and in some cases reconstruction
might even be made necessary. & -
The enormous lake traffic which uses these harbors and these rivers is in-
Creasing With great rapidity, both in gross volume and in the size and average
draft of the vessels employed therein. The Chief of Engineers reports that to
lower the water surface 6 inches would reduce the permissible load of one of
the large modern vessels by from 300 to 550 tons with a consequent loss of from
$3,600 to $7,500 in freights for such vessel per season. The International Water-
Ways Commission reported that it would be a conservative estimate which
would make the loss to the navigation interests resulting from a reduction of
6 inches in the depth of water as $1,500,000 per annum, or a sum which,
capitalized at 4 per cent, would amount to a loss of $37,500,000 (see third prog-
ress report, of International Waterways Commission of Dec. 1, 1907, p. 24).
The lowest careful estimate of injury to American vessels alone is reported by
the Chief of Engineers at $1,000,000 per year. -
In a word, every drop of water taken out of Chicago necessarily tends to
nullify costly improvements made under direct authority of Congress through-
out the Great Lakes, and a withdrawal of the amount now applied for would
nullify such expenditures to the amount of many millions of dollars, as well as
inflict an even greater loss upon the navigation interests using such waters.
I have carefully examined, however, the evidence which both sides have
introduced bearing upon the sanitary needs of the city of Chicago, and my
conclusion is in no Way Shaken. I am not perSuaded that the amount of water
applied for is necessary to a proper sanitation of the city of Chicago. The
evidence indicated that at bottom the issue comes down to the question Of
cost. Other adequate systems of sewage disposal are possible and are in use
throughout the world. The problem that confronts Chicago is not different in
Rind but simply larger and more pressing than that which confronts all of the
cities on the Great Lakes, in which nearly 3,000,000 people of this country are
living. The urban population of those cities, like that of Chicago, is rapidly
increasing, and a method of disposition of their sewage which will not injure
the potable character of the water of the Lakes must sooner or later be found
for them all. The evidence before me satisfies me that it would be possible in
one of several ways to at least so purify the Sewage of Chicago as to require very
much less water for its dilution than is now required by it in its unpurified
condition. A recent report of the engineer of the sanitary commission (Oct.
12, 1911) proposes eventually to use some such method, but proposes to post-
pone its installation for a number of years to come, relying upon the present
588 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
more wasteful method in the meanwhile. It is manifest that so long as the:
city is permitted to increase the amount of Water which it may take from the:
lakes, there will be a very strong temptation placed upon it to postpone a
more scientific and possibly more expensive method of disposing of its Sewage.
This is particularly true in view of the fact that by SO doing it may still
further diminish its expenses by utilizing the Water diverted from the Lakes
for water power- at Lockport. But it must be remembered that for every unit
of horsepower realized by this water at Lockport four units of Similar horse-
power would be produced at Niagara, where the natural Conditions are SO
much more favorable. . Without therefore going more into detail in a discussion
of this question, I feel clear that no such case of necessity has been presented
by the evidence before me as would justify the proposed injury to the many
varied interests in the great waterways of Our lakes and their appurtenant
riverS.
It remains only to consider certain special arguments that have been pressed
upon me. It has been urged that the levels of the Lakes, even if lowered, could
be restored by compensating works. To a certain extent this is true. But the
very nature of this consideration offers another illustration of the importance
of having the whole question passed upon by Congress. Such compensating
works can only be constructed by the authority of Congress and at Very con-
siderable cost. It is not a matter which is in the hands of the Secretary Of
War. Permission to divert water which will at one and the same time nullify
the effect of past appropriations and make necessary similar expenditures in
the future should be granted only with the express consent of the body in
whose hands the making of such appropriations and the authorization of Such
WOrkS restS.
Furthermore, in most cases such compensating works could only be Con-
structed with the joint consent of our neighbor, Canada. The United States
Government alone would be unable, even if it were Willing to Spend its OWIm
funds, to compensate for the damage done through the lowering Of these levels
unless Canada were willing to join in constructing the portion of such works
which would necessarily stand upon Canadian soil.
The queſtion, therefore, boºomes inot merely national but international, and
this leads me to the consideration of the arguments, which were urged by both
Sides in referring to the treaty with Great Britain in respect to Canada of
January 11, 1909. A careful consideration of that treaty fails to indicate to
me that it is in any way controlling upon the questions now before me. It
gives to the citizens of both countries certain mutual rights of navigation in
the waters of the Great Lakes and their connecting rivers, but beyond that the
Question of the right to this diversion at Chicago seems to me to have been
Carefully excluded. The applicants for the permit have urged upon me that
article 8 of the treaty gives a preference to the uses of water of the Lakes for
domestic and Sanitary purposes over the uses of such water for navigation.
Article 8, however, applies only to future cases brought before the Inter-
national Joint Commission; and furthermore I am clearly of the opinion that
the domestic and sanitary purposes referred to in that, article were intended to
be the “ordinary uses of Such waters for domestic and sanitary purposes refer-
red to in article 3. It would be quite contrary to our own national policy “to
give such a preference to an extraordinary sanitary use of such a character
as to create a Substantial injury to navigation. The matter has been before
Our Own Supreme Court in the case of the United States v. the Rio Grande
Dam & Irrigation Co. (174 U. S. 690). In that case the Supreme Court
held that a company which proposed to take the water of the Rio Grande
River, for the purpose, among others, “of supplying water to cities, and towns
for domestic and municipal purposes” could be prevented from so doing when
the result would be a substantial injury to the navigability of the Rio Grande
River further down. .
The treaty, however, COntains provisions in its article 10 by which “any
questions or matters of difference arising between the high contracting parties
involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States or of the
Dominion of Canada, either in relation to each other or to their respective in-
habitants, may be referred for decision ” to an international joint commission
established by the said treaty. The hearing before me brought forth the fact
that the Government of Canada regards the proposal contained in this applica-
tion as one which affects the material interests of that country. The establish-
ment of formal treaty between the two countries of a tribunal with jurisdic-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 589
tion to decide just such questions seems to me to afford an additional reason
against the assumption of jurisdiction to decide the question by an administra-
tive Officers of One of those countries.
In short, after a careful consideration of all the facts presented, I have
reached the following conclusions:
First. That the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan,
as applied for in this petition, would substantially interfere with the navigable
capacity of the navigable waters in the Great Lakes and their connecting
rl Wel’S.
Second. That being se, it would not be appropriate for me, without express
Congressional Sanction, to permit such a diversion, however clearly demanded
by the local interests of the sanitation of Chicago.
Third. That on the facts here presented no such case of local permanent
necessity is made evident.
Fourth. That the provisions of the Canadian treaty for a settlement by
joint Commission of “questions or matters of difference ’’ between the United
States and Canada offer a further reason why no administrative officer should
authorize a fur; i.er diversicn of water, manifestly so injurious to Canada,
against Canadian protest.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
Hous E OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Monday, April 28, 1924.
The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Bruce. *
Mr. BRUCE. The opposition requested that we be granted three
days and that one of these days should be devoted to rebuttal after the
Chicago people have stated their case.
Now, our witnesses coming here to Washington have been Some-
what worn out, and we do not come with as large a number of wit-
nesses at this hearing. - f
So we may not occupy fully the two days that we expected we
would. However, if agreeable to all parties concerned we would
ask you to give us a day for rebuttal. -
The CHAIRMAN. Why not take that up in its order? Put on your
direct proof now, and we will take up the question of rebuttal when
we reach that question.
Mr. BRUCE. We intend to put in all witnesses we have at our
service now, and we would ask General Bixby to be called as our
first witness.
Mr. BARRETT. Will you tell us about how long they will take?
Thº, CHAIRMAN. How long do you think it will take on your
direct? - r
d Mr. BRUCE. I think now it will reduce itself to practically one
• O 3, W. -
ine CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from General Bixby.
STATEMENT OF GEN. WILLIAM H. BIXBY, U. S. ARMY, RETIRED,
AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FROM 1910 TO 1913 .
General BIXBY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my statement is
not going to be very long, and I request that I be allowed to proceed
and then will be glad to answer the questions at the end of my
:statement. q . . . . * *
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, the committee has adopted that rule,
‘General.
590 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
General BIxBY. In 1906 I was called upon by the War Depart-
ment to submit a report upon the subject of the effect of withdrawal
of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago.
This report, under date of May 22, 1906, was printed in full in
Document No. 6, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, Committee on
Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, United States, and
a few copies are still on file in the rooms of the River and Harbor
Committee. It covers briefly nearly all the matters under consid-
eration at the present hearing, and I suggest its being reprinted as an
appendix to my present statement. s ... " e
The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest that you can either do that or
we will produce one here and have it filed as part of your statement.
General BIxBY. The sanitary district completed work So far to
allow of the passage of water in 1900. The next year they obtained
from the Secretary of War temporary authority for the diversion
of lake water through their canal. Several later permits were issued
at different times, but the one which has operated since the spring
of 1903 is the permit of December 5, 1901, which limits the diversion
flow to 4,167 cubic feet per second for 24 hours per day. My re-
port of May 22, 1906, made certain predictions regarding the prob-
able lowering of lake levels due to diversions of 4,167, 8,000, 10,000.
and 14,000 feet per second covering the requests of the sanitary dis-
trict; and it explained the expected effect of these diversions upon
lake levels, navigation, and riparian properties. The sanitary dis-
trict at that time stated that the predictions of this report, so far as
regards lake levels (see p. 14 of Document No. 6), were purely
academic, and that the time necessary for the lakes to reach an
approximately fixed régime after withdrawal of water as asked for
by the district could only be determined by a long series of actual
observations. Twenty-three years have now passed since the open-
ing of the canal and the commencement of the diversion of this
water, and 17 years have passed since the submission of my report.
The actual results reached to-day confirm in almost every particular
all the predictions and nearly all of the reasons given in the 1906
report with respect to the results of the lowering upon the interests
of navigation. I, therefore, have desired to address your com-
mittee upon this subject of the Great Lakes levels and recent changes
therein, so as to show what are the actual results at the present day
due to the past actual diversions at Chicago.
As a preliminary to my remarks it seems well to invite your
attention to a few statistics as to the general conditions of the lakes
and the conditions of their waterflow; my figures being based upon
United States Lake Survey records and Colonel Warren's report on
diversion of water from the Great Lakes, dated August 24, 1919, as
forwarded to Congress by the Secretary of War December 7, 1920.
I submit herewith a table giving the lakes, showing the area of
water surface and the ratio of area compared to Michigan–Huron;
the area of drainage basin in square miles, the net supply in cubic
feet per second; the evaporation yearly in inches, based on the 10
years from 1905 to 1914, inclusive; the outflow in cubic feet per
second, and the ratio of outflow. I will not read these figures be-
cause most of them are in the Warren report, and they are in the
table accompanying my statement.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 591
For the years 1905–1914
Area of Area of Net - -
water | Ratio drainage Ratio Supply, Ratio º: Oºw, i Rºe
Name of lake Surface, of basin, Of Cubic of nºt vºy feet per out-
square area square area feet per supply |}. . d fl
miles miles Second 1 II, Ches SeCOn OW
|
Superior--------------------- 31, 810 0.7 80, 700 0.57 69, 300 0.61 18, 7 71, 100 | 0.38
Michigan-------------------- 22, 400 ------ 69,040 - - - - - - 47, 350 -------------------------- ------
Huron----------------------- 23,010 - - - - - - 72, 600 ------ 66,920 --------|--------|----------------
Michigan-Huron ------------ 45, 410 | 1.0 141, 640 | 1.0 113, 270 1. 0 26. I 186,850 1.0
Erie-St. Clair---------------- 10, 400 . 23 41, 100 . 29 22,950 . 20 35.0 204,300 1.1
Ontario---------------------- 7, 540 . 17 34,640 .25 32,830 . 29 33. 1 || 237,800 1. 3
! Net supply equals rainfall and run-off from land, less evaporation.
These figures show the ratio of areas to be, taking Lake Michigan-
Huron as the basis—regarding these two lakes as one lake---Superior
0.7, Michigan, 1.0, Lakes Erie and St. Clair taken together, 0.23,
and Lake Ontario, 0.17. So that Lake Superior has about three-
quarters the area of Michigan–Huron, Lake Erie about one-quarter,
and Lake Ontario about one-sixth the size of Lake Michigan and
Huron taken together. -
The ratio of their drainage basins, measured in terms of Michigan-
Huron, is: Superior about one-half; Erie and St. Clair about three-
tenths, and Ontario about one-quarter. - -
The CHAIRMAN. What do you fix as the unit?
General BIxBY. Michigan–Huron. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is the combination of Lakes Michigan and
Huron 2
General BIXBY. The combination of Michigan plus Huron, taken
as one lake.
Then, for the ratio of net supply, Lake Superior is about two-
thirds; Lakes Erie and St. Clair, one fifth ; and Ontario about three-
tenths. •
Taking the ratios of outflow, in terms of Lake Michigan–Huron,
Lake Superior is equal to four-tenths of Michigan-Huron; Lakes
Erie and St. Clair taken together have one and one-tenth times the
outflow of Michigan–Huron; and Lake Ontario has one and four-
tenths times the outflow of Michigan–Huron.
In order that you may approximately realize what is implied by
such volumes of outflow, I will say that 1 second-foot per year equals
1 Square mile filled to a depth of 1.13 feet, or 13.6 inches, equivalent
to 31,536,000 cubic feet. Consequently 10,000 second-feet for one
year would produce a 0.35 foot or 4.2 inches depth over the water
area of Lake Superior, 0.25 foot or 3 inches depth over Michigan-
Huron together, 1.08 feet or 13 inches over Lake Erie, and 1.5
feet over Ontario; and 1 foot depth on each lake would require
a year's flow of about 28,200 feet per second into Superior, 40,300
into Michigan–Huron, 9,200 into Erie, or 6,700 into Ontario.
Mr. BOYCE. I do not exactly understand that, that is one what?
General BIXBY. One second-foot per year.
Mr. BoycE. One cubic foot per second?
General BIXBY. Yes; it means that it will fill up a square mile
to the depth of 1.13 feet, which is 13.6 inches, equivalent to over
31,000,000 cubic feet. Those figures are taken from the Department
of Commerce reports, based on figures of the Geological Survey.
592 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BOYCE. I understand you to mean that if a cubic foot per second
was drawn out at one time, it would produce the result which you
have just stated?
General BIXBY. I mean if that amount of water were drawn at
one time and dumped into a tank the size of those lakes.
Mr. BoxCE. That is, if drawn out in one second?
General BIXBY. No. If a foot per second flows steadily throughout
the whole year, it is termed a second foot per year, and 10,000 of
those, which is the diversion that is proposed at Chicago
Mr. BOYCE. You mean the quantity drawn out, 1 cubic foot per
second for an entire year, if confined would at the end of the year
produce the result which you have stated?
General BIxBY. Yes; 10,000 feet per second, which is the flow which
they propose to have at Chicago, and which they ask for, and which
they have pretty nearly had, at one time; if 10,000 cubic feet per
second should flow for a whole year into a water area of the size of
these lakes and be all held there until it was all in, it would fill up
these lakes to the depth I have given; that is, 4.2 inches in Lake Su-
perior, 3 inches over Michigan-Huron together, 13 inches over Lake
Erie, and 1.5 feet over Lake Ontario. In other words that would be
the volume of water in each of those lakes. -
Mr. BoycE. I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, for not following
our rule which for the moment I overlooked.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that that is rather explanatory of what
General Bixby was saying. -
Mr. BOYCE. I shall not intend to interrupt again.
General BIxBY. The net supply; that is, rainfall less ground ab-
sorption and evaporation, of any lake together with the inflow from
the lake above, will fill up the next lake below much higher, but much
more slowly, than is usually supposed by the uninformed. For an
approximate measure of such action, we may consider each lake to
be a tank with vertical sides and with a horizontal cross section equal
to the present water surface. As a matter of fact, the water surface
of each of the Great Lakes increases with every foot of rise, but also
so does the velocity and amount of outflow per foot of rise; so that
these two changes somewhat balance each other and render the ap-
proximate calculations more exact than might at first thought be
expected. Under such treatment the flow from upper lakes to lower
lakes would fill each lower lake in one year to depths as given in the
following table: • * , . -
Depth to which the met Supply of upper lakes would fill the lower lakes every
1 , | Ayear, on the basis of the 1905–1914 figures

Upper lakes--------- Superior Mººr Erie Ontario Totals
Lower lakes | Feet Inches | Feet Inches | Feet |Inches | Feet |Inches | Feet |Inches
Superior------------ 2.4 29 ----------------|--------|---------------- - 2, 4
Michigan-Huron- - - - 1.8 21 2.9 34 -------- : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.6 55
ie----------------- 7.7 90 12.3 147 2.5 30 ------ 22.5 269
Ontario------------- 10. 6 127 17 204 3.4 41 4.9 || 59 35.9 431
| - * —

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. ' 593
The last column shows what would be the filling at any individual
lake if its outlet were totally closed by ice jams for an entire year;
showing a rise per month (one-twelfth of the last column) of ap-
proximately 2.5 inches for Superior, 5 inches for Michigan–Huron,
2 feet for Erie, and 3 feet for Ontario.
This table shows that on the basis of the 1905–1914 figures, every
year the depth of water that comes into Lake Superior would fill
Lake Superior 2.4 feet if it did not have any chance to run off. The
same volume of water running into Lake Michigan would fill Michi-
gan up 1.8 feet; it would fill up Lake Erie, if it all ran into that
lake, 7.7 feet; and it would fill Lake Ontario up 10.6 feet.
Now, Michigan–Huron would then add to this 3 feet for itself;
and would add to Lake Erie 12 feet, and to Lake Ontario 17 feet.
Lake Erie would fill up itself 2.5; and if that same volume of water
could be flowed into Lake Ontario and stay there it would add 3.4
feet to the depth of Lake Ontario. Ontario's inflow and rainfall"
would fill itself up 4.9 feet.
That is, the total shows—which is rather ...'..." the
amount of water that comes every year into the Great Lakes if it
was just put into each lake all at one time (and it does get there
eventually of course) would fill up Lake Superior 2.4 feet; would
fill up Michigan–Huron 4.6 feet; would fill up Lake Erie 22.5 feet,
and would fill up Lake Ontario about 36 feet. . . . .
Of course this volume does not stay in each lake. It must run off,
but this last statement I have made is to show what would be the
filling of any individual lake if its outlet were totally closed by ice
jams for an entire year. A total closure can never happen because
the water rises so fast that any ice jam would be blown out; but
an ice jam does stay for a while and does produce some retardation.
But if the outlet of any one of these lakes could be completely
stopped up so that no water could run out, then at the end of a
year Michigan–Huron would be filled up 4.6 feet, Lake Erie would
be filled up 22.5 feet, and Lake Ontario 35.9 feet.
I give those figures to show the volumes of water and their mag-
nitude and the power of the water due to each inflow.
The 1923 United States lake survey bulletins and other recent
records show that a change of 1 foot in the present levels of these
lakes would change the outflow of these lakes 18,500 feet per second
for Superior; 23.700 feet per second for Michigan-Huron: 21,800
feet per second for Erie; and 21,100 feet per second for Ontario
with corresponding lesser amounts for lesser changes of level, which
would mean for extreme low water about 21,000 for Michigan-
Huron, 20,500 for Erie, and 20,000 for Ontario. { *
The CHAIRMAN. You say that it would change the outflow of these
lakes. Do you mean increase or decrease it?
General BIXBY. Well, if the change of 1 foot in the level is to
lift the level, then it increases the discharge by this amount of cubic
feet per second. If for any reason the lake drops a foot, then a
discharge of the lake diminishes because of the loss of head, and if
Michigan–Huron; for example, should lower a foot, the discharge
would be 23,700 feet per second less than it was before, so that those
figures show the difference caused to the discharge by any increase or
lowering according as the lake level rises or lowers.
1594 • ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
At these rates the full effect of an excess outflow or a lowering
of 10,000 second-feet would not arrive or disappear in less than 3
years, or 36 months, at Superior; 3.4 years, or 41 months, at Michigan-
Huron; 0.9 years, or 11 months, at Erie; and 0.7 years, or 8 months,
at Ontario, and longer if the lakes be lower. Owing to the exist-
ence of movable dams at Superior the outflow at that lake might be
greatly quickened, but the flow through the long almost level St.
Marys River would still be slow. Colonel Warren (page 362 of his
1919 report) states that a superelevation in Lake Huron, due to a .
long series of ice jams, corresponding to a retardation of 10,000
second-feet per year, in this lake, runs off only 90 per cent in 4 years.
So that transfer of water from one lake to another is a very slow
motion. If Lake Huron goes up 6 inches it takes 3 years to run off 90
per cent of that 6 inches, 4 years before it entirely disappears.
Moreover, the 1910 report by the International Waterways Com-
mission upon the regulation of Lake Erie (House Document 779,
61st Cong., 2d sess.) shows that, as an observed fact, it is usually
from one to three months before an increasing or decreasing supply
of any of these lakes shows at the point of discharge.
So if you have a heavy rainfall or increase of water from any
cause, it is from one to three months after it starts into the lakes
before it shows up at the outlet. -
On the above basis it might require two to three years to move
an addition 10,000 second feet from Superior into Michigan-Huron
(to replace any abstraction of this amount, or any undesired lowering
of lake levels) and 51 months more to send it from Michigan-Huron
to Ontario, and another 8 months into the St. Lawrence.
It is obvious that the Weather Bureau can not predict rainfall de-
ficiencies thus long in advance. The drop of levels of Lake Superior
of 1.3 feet in the last 7 years since 1916, and of 2 feet in Michigan-
Huron since 1918, together with the slowness of outflow and low
water of Superior, shows that Superior can no longer be depended
upon to perform its proper duty as a sure storage supply protection
to the lower lakes; and Michigan-Huron, the larger lake, must be-
gin to replace Superior for such duty and must for the future con-
serve all water possible in the public interest of navigation.
The levels of all these lakes must depend upon rainfall, ground
absorption, evaporation, inflows, and outflows. The lakes gradually
rise whenever rainfall plus inflow from upper lakes is greater than
absorption plus evaporation, plus outflows (including diversions);
and they gradually fall under the contrary conditions. The rises
generally occur during spring and summer and the falls during the
winter. These principal changes, called seasonal changes, are af-
fected also in a minor way by winds, barometric pressures, and ice
jams; but these minor changes are local and temporary. By reason
of winds and barometric pressures, oscillations as much as 6 inches
often occur several times in a single day; and those of from 2 up to 4
feet within an hour, are occasionally experienced. These Small os-
cillations are commonly called seiches. Winds blowing strongly
and steadily for a fortnight may make a difference in Lake Erie of
12 to 15 feet between the low level at one end of the lake and the
high level at the other end of the lake. Usually these oscillations
balance each other in the course of a few days or weeks so that the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 595
monthly means of lake levels are practically free from the effects
of winds and barometric changes.
A closure of the connecting channels of any one of the lakes by
ice during winter, by reducing the flow from the upper lake to the
lower lake, raises the level of the upper lake and lowers the level
of the lower lake. When the ice goes out in the spring, the upper lake
is therefore higher than usual and the lower lake lower than usual,
the slope of the water surface between the two lakes being, of course,
much greater than usual. The steeper slope causes an increased flow,
tending to restore both lakes to their normal levels with reasonable
rapidity. The Warren report (p. 362) states that the restoration
takes place to the extent of 98 per cent in 10 months at Lake Ontario,
93 per cent in 10 months at Erie, and 32 per cent in 10 months at
Michigan–Huron. He shows that after several consecutive annual
ice blockades, Lake Huron may stand for a while as much as 0.48
foot higher under its ice conditions than under open river conditions,
the maximum retardation of flow and super-elevation of level hav-
ing occurred in April, 1918. Lake Erie and Lake Ontario while
showing some elevations for a few months, remain practically un-
changed so far as the total of 2 or 3 years is concerned. Lakes Erie
and Ontario were considerably lowered for a year in 1906, 1918,
and 1920 but each subsequent year has seen normal conditions re-
established. If the weather be cold enought to produce ice trouble
at all of the lakes at the same time, the upper lake will rise and the
others will either hold their level or rise as long as the ice continues.
When Lake Michigan–Huron remains high while Erie and Ontario
fall, as in 1901, 1905-6, 1918 and 1920, the changes of levels may
safely be ascribed to ice troubles; and their effects practically dis-
appear in the following year.
The 1910 treaty with Canada mentions uses of water and diversions
of water. A sharp distinction should be made between the two.
Where water is merely taken from the lake and immediately re-
turned to the same (as at Milwaukee, Toledo, Cleveland, and To-
ronto) the water is merely used and is technically not diverted, and
can not affect the water levels anywhere.
Mr. HULL. I would like to have you repeat that statement as to
Milwaukee and other places.
General BIxBY. Where water is merely taken from the lake and
immediately returned, as is done at Milwaukee, Toledo, Cleveland,
and Toronto, the water is merely used and it is not technically di-
verted, and it does not affect the water levels.
Mr. HULL. In other words, as it is taken out for sewage and the
sewage is put back, it does not affect the level.
General BIxBY. Yes. So that technically that is not a diversion, it
is simply a use.
Mr. HULL. But if it would lower the lake levels then it would be
considered a diversion. -
General BIxBY. Oh, yes.
Where water is taken below the head of rapids where navigation is
impracticable, and returned at or just below the nonnavigable portion
of the waterway, its taking is a diversion so far as concerns scenic
beauty, but it is practically merely a use, and not a diversion, so far
596 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
as navigation is concerned; since it restores to the navigable portions,
all the water which originally flowed therein.
Mr. HULL. I want to clear my mind on that one statement. You
say it is not a diversion at Niagara Falls only from the point of view
of scenic beauty?
General BIxBY. Yes; practically.
Mr. HULL. But, to put an example like this: Say Niagara Falls.
power plant does take away 2.2 inches of water out of Lake Erie.
Now, if that statement is correct, which I presume is the fact, does
not that affect the level of Lake Erie?
General BIxBY. It would if that is so.
Mr. HULL. I wanted your opinion on that. 3.
General BIxBY. But let me explain. There are some people who
will tell you that if you take water from a lower lake it affects the
water surface upstream and always produces an effect on an upper
lake. Well, that is true in certain respects and to a certain extent.
But it is not always true. I do not think anybody here would claim.
that if you should raise the surface of Lake Ontario 5 feet it would
back water up the Niagara Falls. Ontario can not back up over the
Falls. But when you get to the top of Niagara Falls you are at the
foot of a long series of rapids, and the water is flowing over them
very fast. When the water gets over the river bottom sill at Buffalo
and begins to flow downstream, it begins to get into the same sort of a
condition as it is in when it goes over Niagara Falls, only not so
much so; and so when it gets over that sill it is beginning to be what
you might call waste water, so far as navigation is concerned; and as:
the boats do not use that part of the river to any extent it does not
affect navigation, and because it has to drop so far, the effect on Lake
Erie is a great deal less than it would be if the river was level from
Buffalo to the head of the Falls. Water taken away at the Falls
affects Erie a little. Theoretically there is a decided backing-up
effect; but practically there is not. There is not as much of a backing
up as would be expected. Up to the present year I have heard lots
of engineers discuss the question of backwater in rivers caused by
piers of bridges, and you can not get a dozen of them to come to any
agreement as to results. They all come out with different figures, and
each one is positive that he is right and the rest are wrong. Anyway,
the amount of effect is small, it is insignificant compared with that of
the other diversions we are talking about. &
Mr. BOYCE. As explanatory, may I ask a question at this point?
Is not the backing up of the water, if any, due to some resistance just
before it goes over the falls?
General BIxBY. Well, I don’t want to say what it is due to. You
know you can find it only with a microscope or with an exceedingly
Sensitive measure.
Mr. BOYCE. There is no resistance on a gradual slope except fric-
tion, is there?
General BIxBY. That is all.
Mr. BOYCE. But at the falls, just before the water goes over, is:
there not a natural resistance, and does not that produce whatever
backing up there may be? -
General BIxBY. Well, in our measures of water surfaces, as the
water comes down toward a dam, which we call the weir, the water.
&
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 597
level stays up, if the slope is gentle, until we get within a certain
measurable appreciable distance from the crest of the weir, and there
it begins to drop, and it begins to drop before it reaches the edge or
the falling-off point of the fall.
Mr. BOYCE. And does it drop off as fast as it rushes on ?
General BIxBY. Well, I don’t know about that.
Mr. BOYCE. Which perhaps causes an appreciable backing up?
General BIxBY. All the water below the drop, if the slope be gentle,
is held back by friction on the sides and bottom of the stream; and
being held back, it acts like. a semifluid; it keeps the water behind
itself from moving forward as fast as it otherwise would do. You
can illustrate this by taking a pitcher of molasses and pouring it on
a gently sloping table. The molasses will not run off immediately,
and you can see the effect. There will be some sort of a waiting.
You can get get the effect still better if you use pitch or bitumen.
If the diversion be made from one waterway into another water-
way of the same river basin where there is a considerable drop of
levels between the intake and outlet of the diversion (not a big drop
like that at Niagara), the diversion becomes a real one, very much
like the case just spoken of, and such diversion ordinarily will then
affect only the part of the waterway between its two ends, although, as
at the old Welland Canal, there may sometimes be a slight effect on
the upper waterway in case the intake is at a higher level than the level
of the outlet of the upper waterway; that is to say, as the intake to
the old Welland Canal is a little higher than the surface of the water
at Buffalo, where the water goes out of lake Erie into the slope of
Niagara River, there is a little drop in the water slope at the end of
the lake, so that the diversion of the old Welland Canal may produce
a slight effect in lowering Lake Erie, but yet it may be a minor effect.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not quite get your statement as to the effect
of the diversion at Niagara, I mean your last statement.
General BIxBY. A diversion only affects that part of the stream
which lies between the intake and outlet of the diversion canal.
Now, if, at the intake of a diversion canal, the water is at the same
level as that of the outflow, the lake from which the diversion is
made, then the diversion produces no special effect on the lake. It
is just like having an island in the middle of a river. If water can
run on both sides of an island, it does not make any difference
whether you let it all run on one side or the other side.
Mr. HULL. Would it not overflow the island if you ran it all on
one side?
General BIxBY. That would depend on the size of the two channels.
The CHAIRMAN. The size and the depth of the channels.
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. HULL. It seems to me if we had an island and a certain
amount of water flowing along the river on the two sides of the
island, and then if you diverted all the water to one side, that it
would overflow the island. *- & g
General BIxBY. Yes; but I have headed that point off by placing
the intake on the one side at a higher level than the level of the out-
flow on the other side. Of course, if you get the water piled up on
one side, it will run off faster. -
598 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. It would run off if it was piled up high enough.
to be higher than the dam : --
General BIXBY. Yes; every foot the water surface is raised, the
water flows that much faster. o
Mr. HULL. If the intake is higher than the outlet, then it does
not affect it; but how could the intake be higher than the outlet—
it would not run through, would it ! Your statement, as I under-
stand it, is that if the intake is higher than the outlet then it would
not affect the water behind it, but I can not see how the intake
could be higher than the outlet.
General Bixby. I think you are a little confused as to which out-
let we are talking about. Take the Welland Canal, for instance, the
inlet is of course much higher than the outlet.
Mr. HULL. I understand. -
General BIxBY. And the intake of the Welland Canal is also a
little higher than the levels at the mouth of Erie at Buffalo, be-
cause the water begins to flow down the Niagara
The CHAIRMAN. Let me make a suggestion. Do you not think it
would be exceedingly helpful to the committee if we had a map.
that you could place on the board there, showing just how the three
diversions at Niagara are accomplished—the diversion for power
on the American side, the diversion for the same purpose on the
Canadian side, and the diversion for the Welland Canal 2 If we had
those three, showing both the intake and the outlet of the three,
such a map or diagram would be very helpful to members of the
committee who perhaps do not understand the facts and the situation
there as well as I do. I think you have got to get it to the committee
either by a map or by telling them what you are talking about,
because they have your conclusions; and while I can see how they
are made, I think perhaps some of the members do not have the
basic facts from which to draw the conciusions. I am talking about
this special subject; I am not talking about anything else you have
said.
General Bixby. I agree with your statement; but I have not such a
little drawing with me.
The CHAIRMAN. How long would it take you to prepare one?
General BIxBY. Not very long.
Mr. HULL. I think we can understand it; I think I understand
it now.
The CHAIRMAN. Could you not prepare such a map during the
noon recess?
General BIxBY. Oh, yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Because I can say now that I want to ask you
some questions that would be based on such a map; and they would
not be intelligible unless we had such a map.
General BIxBY. This diversion I am talking about is a minor
diversion anyhow.
. Mr. HULL. It is 2.2 feet, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better let the General proceed
without interruption. -
Mr. HULL. All right. -
General BIxBY. Where the diversion is made from any part of the
Great Lakes into another water basin outside of the St. Lawrence
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 599,
basin (as is done at Chicago) the diversion becomes an abstraction
of water, never to be returned to the original basin, and must neces-
sarily affect the levels and water flow of all the lakes and connecting
waters from the point of abstraction down to the ocean, and must
injure the value of all their riparian properties and power develop-
ment.
Diversion from Lake Erie slightly affects Michigan-Huron, but
does not affect either Superior or Ontario. Diversions from Michi-
gan-Huron and Ontario do not affect the lakes above themselves;
and they only affect the Lakes and waterways below themselves
when the diversion is an abstraction.
Because of the temporary effects of storms, winds, barometric
pressures, and ice, individual levels for particular days and particu-
lar months are sometimes misleading; and if we desire to know what
is the general effect on the entire system of Lakes resulting from a
term of years, we must refer, not to the daily or monthly records, but
to the annual averages of these levels by which the monthly and
daily variations have in almost all cases been balanced up and done
away with.
As all the water coming into any lake must eventually leave it in
some way, the total outflow of each lake must be equal to the total
supply, including water from higher lakes or rivers and rainfall,
diminished by absorption into the land, evaporation, diversions not
immediately returned, and final overflow. The annual net outflows
of the Lakes obtained in this way will in general be independent of
wind changes, barometric changes (including Seiches), and except
for 4 years, 1901, 1906, 1918, and 1920, will be practically inde-
pendent of ice effects since 1900. The levels of each lake once es-
tablished will remain practically constant, dependent only upon va-
riations of inflow and outflow. The five Lakes, as a general rule,
rise and fall together, any drop of level in an upper lake being ac-
companied by a corresponding later, drop of level in all the lakes
below itself. i
As I explained before, it takes many months to get 10,000 cubic
feet from the upper lake to the lower one, and you must not expect
to see it happen all at once.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask a question there just to clear my
mind. I am going to give you an example of this kind. Say there
were rainfalls exceedingly heavy that would run into Lake Huron
and raise it 5 feet; would that have any effect on Lake Michigan?
General BIxBY. The rainfall in Lake Huron, of course, will raise
the surface of Lake Huron the amount I have given in the table.
Mr. HULL. But will it raise Lake Michigan?
General BIxBY. Michigan and Huron are practically one lake.
The difference of levels between one end of the combined lake and
the other end, that is, between the Chicago end and the Lake Huron
end, is only measured, as a rule, in hundredths of a foot.
Mr. HULL. That is not what I was trying to get at. I was trying
to get at this point. If the rainfall has run into Lake Huron—not
Michigan, but Lake Huron—filled up Lake Huron 5 feet, would that
affect the level of Lake Michigan?
The CHAIRMAN. He says they are practically one lake.
600 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIXBY. I say they are practically one body of water, and
the levels at the Chicago end only differ from the levels at the Huron
end by hundredths of a foot.
Mr. HULL. And you say it would raise Lake Michigan?
General BIXBY. Yes; both lakes would rise.
Mr. HULL. If we build up Lake Huron with that much water it
would raise the water in Lake Michigan that much?
General BIXBY. Pretty nearly so; you would hardly be able to
distinguish any difference in the levels.
Mr. HULL. I think that controverts to some extent the statement
you made a while ago, but it is immaterial.
General BIXBY. I said that it would take some time to produce its
effect—that it takes from one to three months after a big rainfall
before it begins to show at the outlet of Lake Huron, because the mo-
ment the rain comes down it spreads over the whole of Lake Mich-
igan; and you have to give it a month or two to settle. If you let
Water into a horse trough at one end, you will find that at first it
always stands a little higher at that end than at the other end; but
if you have shut the water off and let it rest for a few seconds you
will find that the water is level throughout the trough. It is the
same with those lakes, Michigan and Huron, which act as one big
tank or horse trough. They are two lakes by name but one lake
when considered practically.
Mr. HULL. But it would fill up Lake Michigan if the water was
raised in Lake Huron to the extent of 5 feet. What I want to get
at is whether the levels of Lake Michigan are lower or higher than
Lake Huron. In other words, you stated a while ago, I think, that
it would never back up, in other words, that it would not go back-
wards; that if you filled up Lake Huron from a surplus of water
from rainfalls, that did not affect either Lake Michigan or Lake Su-
perior, I think you said.
General BIxBY. You can not raise Lake Huron 3 inches
Mr. HULL (interposing). Without raising Lake Michigan 3 inches?
General BIxBY. Without the rise commencing to move over into
Michigan, and in a reasonable length of time Michigan will be the
same as Huron; but sometimes it takes a whole month for the com-
plete effect.
Mr. HULL. Well, that is immaterial. -
General BIxBY. These two lakes are practically one body of water,
and their annual mean level rarely ever differs more than a few
hundredths of a foot from one end to the other. And so when I am
talking about their levels I use the level at the Huron end, just
above its outlet, because that is where we measure the discharge,
and because Michigan, the rest of the lake, is tributary to Lake
Huron.
Now, as I said, the five lakes as a rule rise and fall together, and
any drop of level in an upper lake is accomplished by a correspond-
ing later drop of level in all the lakes below. If there is a rise in
the level of Huron-Michigan, for instance, you must not look for its
full effect in Ontario within a year. .
Mr. HULL. If it takes a year to affect it, and if in that year we
hº dºle the amount of rainfall we had previously, it never would
affect it?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 601
General BIxBY. If we had double the rainfall you would have that
much more water, of course, in the upper lakes, and our figures
would show how long afterwards you could expect to find the effect
of that additional water showing in the lower lakes, affecting the
level of the lower lakes. r &
Mr. HULL. But double the amount of rain i -
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, we must stick to our rule.
Mr. HULL. All right, go ahead. - º
General BIXBY. The extent of lowering of lake levels by any par-
ticular diversion, and the time which is required to produce the
same, can be proved only by the actual record of the annual average
lake levels, taken in connection with a consideration of the inflows
and outflows of the lakes. The best determinations will, of course,
be those obtained from the lake where there are the fewest diversions
and the least interferences by ice effects and weather conditions.
It is evident, as admitted in 1906 by the sanitary district, that a
rise in the water surface of any lake can not be ascribed to any
diversion of water from itself or elsewhere. That is brought out in
my 1906 report, which I asked to have reprinted. The sanitary
district stated that the rise in the water level of the lakes which
occurred a little after 1900 was not caused by the diversion at
Chicago. You can not take water out of the lake and thereby raise
the lake. So, a continued rise of levels throughout the Great Lakes
is merely an indication of an excess water supply either from lakes
above or from the atmosphere—rainfall, minus absorption and
evaporation. Effects of a diversion must therefore be looked for in
the lowering of the water levels; a portion of which will be due to
diversion and the rest to other causes. Neither rainfall nor evapora-
tion can be controlled, but diversions can be limited and kept down.
In discussing the lowering of lake levels due to a diversion from
the Great Lakes at Chicago, there are certain years which should be
especially considered, namely, 1900, which is the date of opening
of the canal and commencement of diversion of water; 1908, the end
of a long 13-year gradual rise; 1910, the date of the treaty with
Canada regulating diversion from the Great Lakes; 1911, the year
of the first low water since 1900; 1913, the year of the second rise:
1915, the year of the second very low water; 1918 and 1919, the last
years of high water on all the lakes; and 1923, a year of extreme
low water. * - **
I therefore include a table showing the mean annual levels of the
Great Lakes taken from the United States Lake Survey records,
all being reduced to the standards of 1903. This table shows gen-
eral averages for 64 years, since 1860. It also shows the general
averages for 41 years before 1900 and 23 years since 1900, so as to
make a comparison. .* ; : ' , ,
Mr. HULL. Why did you not make them for 23 years each way.
Then you would have it fairer, would you not? . - t '
General BIxBY. Well, I was looking a moment ago at a little
graphic chart I have. If you will look over that chart you will
see the peaks of flow are such that it is pretty hard to pick out any
particular 23 years. We have the record from 1860 to 1923, and
anybody that wants to do so can divide it up to suit themselves.
91739—24—PT 2—23
602 ILLINoís AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
All divisions give the same general result. We have the records
for 41 years prior to 1900, and we have the records for 23 years since
1900, and if you compare those two you can see pretty well what the
lakes have been doing. You can see what they were doing before
1900, as far as our records go, and what they have been doing since.
So I furnish that table. I won’t read it, because you would not
remember it, and you will see when it is printed.
(The table is as follows:) | * -
Medºn annual levels of the Great Lakes, as given below, taken from the United
State Lake Survey records, all being reduced to the standards of 1908
t
' [In feet above, mean sea level at . New York]


l y . . . . - - Michi-
Average mean annual levels - Superior garl- Erie Ontario
- 5 * Huron - -
For 41 years, 1860-1900----------------------------------------- 602.25 581. 49 572. 67 | 246.23
For 64 years, 1860-1923----------------------------------------- 602. 27 581. 09 572.49 246. 15
For 23 years, 1901-1923----------------------------------------- .' 602.31 580. 43 || 572. 17 || 1 246.00
Individual mean annual levels for—
1900----------------------- --------------------------------- 602, 8 580. 3 571. 9 2 245. 25
1908------ '- - - - - - - -!------------------------------------ - - - - - - 602, 3 581. 0 572. W 8 247.3
1910-------------------------------------------------------- , 601.8 580. 1 571. 9 245.7
1911-------------------------------------------------------- 601.4 || 579.6 571. 5 245. 0
1913-------------------------------------------------------- 602.3 580. 7 573. () 247.0
1915-------------------------------------------------------- 602, 1 579. 6 571.7 245. 1
1918-19------------------------* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- 602.3 581. 3 572, 8 , 246.7
1923-------------------------------------------------------- 601.8 579.3 571.4 245, 0.
1 And with Gut compensation added. *
2 And with Gut compensation deducted. -
8 From 1904 to 1923 an amount of 0.56 feet in Ontario levels is due to construction of a dam at the Gut,
and this amount should be deducted from the 1904–1923 levels when making comparisons with the 1900
level, or the mean annual level of Ontario for 1900 should be figured at 245.8.
The levels for Michigan-Huron are those for Huron, the outlet lake. . .
Although the permit of 1901 to the Chicago Sanitary District
authorized 4,167 cubic feet per second diversion, the actual diver-
sions (page 176 of the Warren report for 1920) have been for 1900,
2,900 cubic feet; for 1910, the treaty year, 3,458; for 1915, 6,971; for
1923, 8,500; the average for 18 years however being 5,726. -
My report of May 22, 1906 (Rivers and Harbors Document No. 6,
59th Cong., 1st Sess.), predicted various lowerings of Lake Michigan
and Lake Erie for various diversions between 4,167 up to 30,000
cubic feet. Those for 6,000 feet (the nearest to the average actual
diversion of 5,726 for 18 years as given in the Warren report); for
8,000, the nearest to the reported diversions of the present time:
and 10,000 feet, the amount now asked for by the sanitary district
were as follows: For Lake Michigan-Huron a lowering of.0.3 feet,
or 4 inches, for 6,000 feet diversion; a lowering of 0.4 feet, or 5
inches, for 8,000 feet diversion; a lowering of 0.5 feet or 6 inches,
for 10,000 feet diversion. The corresponding lowerings predicted
for Lake Erie were: 3 inches for 6,000 feet diversion: 4 inches for
8,000 feet diversion; and 5.inches for 10,000 feet, diversion.
As shown from the above figures of actual levels (and as may be
seen on the graphic tables published by the Lake Survey) there has
been an actual total lowering in the 11 years from 1900 to 1911 of
0.7 feet, or 8 inches, on Lake Michigan-Huron; 0.4 feet or 4.8 inches,
on Lake Erie; and (allowing 0.56 feet, or 7.6 inches, for the com:
pensation at the Gut) a lowering of 0.80 feet, or 9.6 inches on Lake
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 603.
Ontario. Also, a lowering in 15 years from 1900 to 1915 of 0.7
feet, or 8.4 inches, on Lake Michigan–Huron; of 0.2 feet, or 2.4
inches, on Lake Erie; and of 0.7 feet, or 8.4 inches, on Lake Ontario.
Also, an actual total lowering in 23 years, from 1900 to 1923, of 1
foot, equal to 12 inches, on Lake Michigan-Huron; 0.5 feet, or 6
inches, on Lake Erie; and 0.8 feet, or 9.6 inches, on Lake Ontario.
The United States Lake Survey charts and records show that
the 40-year period prior to 1900 (the opening of the Sanitary dis-
trict canal) and the 23-year period since 1900, both ended with a
drop of several feet in lake levels so that they are well comparable;
that the general average of Lake Michigan–Huron, since 1900 has
dropped 1.06 feet, or 13 inches, below the average prior to 1900; 0.66
feet, 8 inches, below the average of the past 64 years since 1860, and
is now lower than at any time in the last 63 years; and furthermore,
that the average drop of 4 inches per year or more on all three lower
lakes for the last four years is still in full progress downward.
In the last four or five years, the water surface has dropped about
2 feet on all the lakes and is still going on.
Mr. HULL. Why would it go down 2 feet? You would not attri-
bute all of that to the diversion at Chicago
General BIxBY. Well, I will explain that a little later.
Mr. HULL. All right. Go ahead.
General BIxBY. While all three lakes show rising water during
about one-half of the 23 years since 1900, against a similar propor-
tion for the 41 years prior to 1900, and while the rates of rise of the
two years from 1911 to 1913 and the three years from 1915 to 1918
is fully as great as during any similar periods between 1860 and 1900.
showing equally good weather conditions since 1900 as prior thereto,
yet the highest annual levels of Lake Michigan–Huron since 1900 is
as much as 1.8 feet below the highest annual level (1886) between
1860 and 1900, and the similar difference is about a foot on Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario, and the highest annual level of Lake Michi-
gan-Huron since 1900 is 3.4 feet, or 41 inches, lower than the high
yº. of 1838; and similar differences of Erie and Ontario are about
2 feet.
In looking for the cause of these lowerings (which are exceedingly
dangerous, no matter for what reason) I omit selection of Lake On-
tario for the reason that its outlet has been somewhat modified by
the compensating works at the Gut; and I also omit Lake Erie for
the reason that its levels have been complicated by ice effects and
power diversion; and for a solution of the question I select Lake
Michigan–Huron where all complications are the least. The same
conclusions could be proved for Lakes Erie and Ontario, but would
involve much more complicated analysis because of the complica-
tions due to diversions and ice. The low levels of Lake Michigan-
Huron in 1911, 1915, and 1918 can not be ascribed to continuous lack
of water supply since 1900 because the high levels 581.3 of 1918, and
580.9 of 1919 (a little higher than the average of the past 64 years)
are about a foot above the 1900 levels and show an excess of water
supply from 1900 up to at least 1918, and there has been as many
years of rising water and as rapid a rate of rising since 1900 as prior
thereto. There are no power diversions on Lake Huron to be con-
sidered except at Chicago.
604 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
There are no great changes to be considered in the outlet channel
of the Lake—the St. Clair and Detroit River—since, according to the
Warren report of 1920, pages 87 and 358, the changes that have been
made in these channels are slight and practically balance each other.
If ice troubles during the past winters have produced any effect on
Lake Michigan, it would only have been to raise the level of Lake
Michigan and thereby to indicate a still greater lowering than the
8 inches above shown for the first 11 years, 8 inches for the first 15
years, and 12 inches for the first 23 years after the opening of the
canal. If there has been a lack of water supply from Lake Superior,
where compensating works were established about 1904, it can only
be because Lake Superior has been drained down beyond safe limits
with a view to supplying deficiencies in Michigan-Huron. If such
draining be continued it may soon be necessary to shut down the
power plants on both the American and Canadian sides at the Sault
in order to get water enough for navigation in Michigan–Huron
and the lower lakes. While diversions through the Welland Canal
may theoretically produce a slight effect upon Michigan–Huron; its
low-water effect has been shown in the Warren report to be not more
than 0.25 inches or one-twentieth (5 per cent) of that due to Chicago
diversions. -
As above stated every drop of levels in an upper lake cause a cor-
responding later drop in all the lakes below. The drop in Erie has
now reached 0.5 feet, or 6 inches, and that in Ontario (taking into
consideration its compensation at the Gut) has now reached 0.8 feet,
or 9.6 inches; and as above stated the average of levels (580.43 feet)
of Lake Michigan for the 23 years 1900–1923 since the opening of the
District canal is now 1.06 feet, 12.6 inches below the average (581.49
feet) of the 41 years (1860–1900) prior to the opening.
The facts are, therefore, that Lake Michigan has actually dropped
0.7 foot, or about 8 inches, in the first 11 years; 0.7 foot, or 8.4
inches, in the first 15 years; and 1 foot, or 12 inches. in the first 23
years since the opening of the sanitary district canal, and I see no
other discernible cause than that of the diversions through the sani-
tary district canal at Chicago.
Lake Superior, in spite of its compensating works, is now at a
stage about 0.5 foot, or 6 inches, below its average for the past 64
years, having been drained down a half foot below its proper storage
basin level. If its outflow be stopped or diminished so as to return
it to its safe condition as a storage water protection against future
deficiencies of rainfall, the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron and
all the lakes below must necessarily still further drop very consider-
ably because of the temporary diminution of water supply from
Superior. Furthermore, as recently intimated by the lake survey
office, a further considerable lowering of all four lakes is expected
within the next year or two; so that there is now a reasonable
probability that the drop of 1918–1928 may become as great as the
3.5-foot drop of Lake Michigan which occurred in the 10 years be-
tween 1885 and 1895. -
Mr. HULL. You mean it dropped 3% feet?
General BIXBY. From 1885 to 1895.
Mr. HULL. How do you account for that?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 605
General Bixby. There have been a good many reasons for it, one
and another. * t
Mr. HULL. You could not lay that to the drainage canal?
General BIxBY. No; nobody ever laid it to that; but I told the
engineer of the drainage district in 1906—I invited his attention to
this big drop of 3% feet between 1885 and 1895—and I said, “Now,
you have no right to expect that you may not have another such
drop in the years to come, and if that drop does come in another 8
or 10 years in the future as it did in the past, just think what will
happen to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and the navigation on those
lakes and on the St. Lawrence River.”
Mr. HULL. Do you think this 6 inches would help it out, if it
dropped 31% feet? Six inches would not cut much ice, would it?
General BIxBY. It will cut 6 inches of ice every time, and 6 inches
makes a great many millions of dollars difference to the navigation
on the Great Lakes, as Mr. Goulder explained. If a man comes to
me and says, “Here, you are going to have your income cut down
50 per cent next year: what objection have you got to my cutting 10
per cent more?” You would not expect me to agree to that. He
might say, “You won’t feel it,” but I will say, “I will feel it,” and
I will feel it all the more if I have a big cut first with the extra
cut afterwards.
That is the way with the Great Lakes. You get a 3%-foot drop,
you are getting it now at that rate, you have got 2 feet in five years,
and if it goes down that way there is all the more reason you do
not want to drop it another 6 inches.
So what I predicted in 1906 is being confirmed to a great degree.
Under such circumstances all the dangers predicted in my report
of 1906 are materializing and being confirmed by actual facts even
to a greater degree than there stated; and it is more evident than
ever that there is a great danger in allowing the levels of Lake
Michigan to be further lowered by any diversions, and especially
great danger in allowing any abstractions of its waters for transfer
to other basins.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished, General Bixby ?
General BIxBY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Then we will adjourn until 2 o’clock.
(Thereupon at 12.30 the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock
p. m.) -
AFTERNOON SESSION
The hearing was resumed at 2 p.m., pursuant to adjournment.
STATEMENT OF GEN, WILLIAM H. BIXBY-Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Do you want
to explain that map, General Bixby ?
General BIxBY. It does not make any difference to me one way
or the other. I suppose I will have to explain it before any questions
can be asked about it.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead, and explain your map.
General BIXBY. This is a small diagram. I had no blackboard,
and I had to make it on this small diagram. I made it for the pur-
606 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
pose of trying to clear up the statements that I had made. Suppos-
ing that that black oblong rectangle represents the total water that
comes into Lake Superior, the vertical sides of the rectangle there
and here and there and down there [indicating] are depths propor-
tional to those given in my table, as the depth which the inflows into
each lake will level up such lake.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. I think you should either by num-
bers or by letters indicate what you mean, so that the record will
mean something. We who are here can see upon the chart, but if
you will put A or B, C, and D, then the record can be read in
connection with the map—we should have that map reproduced in
the hearings. -
General BIxBY. There is rectangle A. The black space there rep-
resents the volume of water that gets into that lake yearly.
The CHAIRMAN. That is Lake Superior?
General BIXBY. A represents Lake Superior, B represents Michi-
gan-Huron, C represents Erie, and D Ontario. The vertical sides
of rectangles, under the letters A, B, C, and D, are proportional
to the depths that my table shows. Each lake would fill up every
year with its inflow, as shown by its rectangle, supposing that the
outlet was stopped up tight, so that nothing could get out. Each
rectangle by its area indicates the volume of water that gets into
its lake every year. The vertical line under A is proportional
to the depth that Lake Superior would fill up if its outlets were
stopped up. Vertical line under B is proportional to the depth
that Huron-Michigan would fill up in one year. The vertical line
under C represents the depth to which Lake Erie would fill up, and
the vertical line under D represents the depth to which Lake Ontario
would fill up. . - -
The horizontal sides of the rectangles under A, B, C, and D rep-
resent the approximate measures of the areas of the lakes, Michigan
being taken as unity, Superior having seven-tenths as big in area,
Erie one-quarter as big an area, and Ontario one-sixth as big an
area. So these rectangles which are marked black show the volume
of water that comes into each lake each year. The drawing is made
so as to give you roughly an idea of the magnitude of these bodies
of water as well as their position with respect to each other. The
distance from the top of the rectangle of A down to the top of the
rectangle of B is proportionally about 22, which is the fall in feet
from Superior to Erie. This next distance from here down is pro-
portionally about 8, which is the fall from Michigan-Huron down
to Erie, and then the next drop should be 326 feet to represent the
fall to Ontario. I haven’t room enough on the paper to show that
distance, so I put the Ontario rectangle at the bottom of the sheet.
So this diagram gives you a rough idea of where those bodies of
water are with respect to each other and what their volume amount
to each year.
Now, to flow 10,000 feet per second from A, representing Superior
into Huron, my table shows, is going to take about three years, and
to flow 10,000 feet per second from B, which represents Michigan-
Huron, into C, which represents Erie, takes about three and four-
tenths years, and to get this volume of water from C, which repre-
sents Erie into Ontario, takes about nine-tenths of a year, and to get
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 607
that from Ontario down into the St. Lawrence takes about seven-
tenths of a year. In other words, it would take about eight years to
start 10,000 feet per second from Superior up here at A, and then
put it into Huron and then into Erie and then into Ontario, putting
it into each one after it had got into the other. The water does
really flow somehthing in that same sort of a way.
The CHAIRMAN. And that same sort of time? -
General BIXBY. In that sort of delayed time. The International
Waterways Commission report of 1910 on regulation of Lake Erie
shows that when the rainfall comes along on B, which is Michigan-
Huron, or C, which is Erie, or D, which is Ontario, there is an inter-
val of from one to three months between the maximum of the rain-
fall and the maximum of the discharge from one lake into the other.
For instance, the rainfall on Michigan takes about a month or two
months before it begins to show its full effect in the discharge at
the outlet to Lake Huron. A good many people think that the 10,000
feet per second from Michigan–Huron would almost immediately
show up on Lake Erie; that if you had a big rainstorm there it
would show up immediately. It does not. It takes time to produce
its effect and to get down, but it finally gets there after a great delay,
and so when we are considering the flow of water in these lakes you
have to allow a great element of time for it to get down. . . . . . . .
To illustrate, when I first went to Detroit and made an inspection
of the Great Lakes I thought I was going to discover some wonderful.
facts of the water flow from one lake to the other, and I hunted up
the record of a good many big storms which swept over the Lakes
in order to find out how long after a big storm swept over Superior,
it would be before the water out of Superior, would begin to show
up in Huron, and how long after the storm swept over Huron it
would begin to show up in Erie and how long after it has swept over
Erie it would begin to show up in Ontario, and I looked up quite a
number of big storms that swept over the Great Lakes in that way,
and I thought I was going to find some definite number of days or
weeks that it would take the rainfall to flow from the upper lake
into the lower, but, unfortunately, when I had looked up the records
and discussed them I found that in most every case, the lake rose in
Ontario before it did in Erie, and it rose in Erie before it did in
Huron, and consequently as it rose in the lower lakes before it rose
in the upper lakes evidently the rising was not due to immediate
flow of the water from one lake to another, and then I found it.
would take several months and perhaps several years for that water
to get down. . l ‘. . . . . . . . . -
So you need nöt expect that you will get an immediate effect from
inflows. The reason Ontario rises before Erie and Erie before Huron.
is because, if the storm be equal in effect on all the lakes, the lower
lake basins catch it and run it off into the lakes, quicker at the lower
lakes than at the upper lakes, and so the rapidity of rise in the
lakes is due mainly to the rapidity with which the rain runs off from
the fields. In some sections the character and slope of the surround-
ing country is such that water will run off a great deal quicker than
it does in another section, and that is the case in Ontario. The rain-
fall runs off and gets into the lake quicker, and so shows a rise in
the lake quicker. In the cases I investigated the rise of each lake
608 ILLINois' AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
was not due to the rain that had fallen earlier, three or fours days,
or five or six days, earlier in Superior than it did in Huron, oritwo
or three days earlier in Huron than Ontario, and it was not water
running down from one lake into the next that caused the rise in
the lakes below, but it was the run-off. ;
The CHAIRMAN. The run-off from the drainage area of the par-
ticular lower lake? - - -
General BIxBY. Of each lower lake. The way it runs off from the
surface of the ground, through the fields, and into plowed fields, and
in every way, into and off of the land. Ontario has a quicker runoff
than the upper lakes, and so the lake rises quicker. But anyone
figuring on the rise in the lower lake being the immediate result of
the rainfall in the upper lakes is greatly mistaken. He has got to
allow one or two months for it to come down from the upper lake
and three or four months for it to run off, and it may be probably
five or six years before it produces its full effect. Therefore, no
Weather Bureau man can tell you beforehand what is going to
happen. No predictions can tell you when to hold up the water in
Superior three or four years ahead of time. You have got to keep
a large reserve all the time, and if Superior is not able to keep it
up, Huron-Michigan, a great deal bigger lake, a larger storage basin,
must assist; and we may have to depend on Michigan–Huron in the
future to accumulate a surplus of water—let it come up just as high
as we can and store all we can to hold it in reserve, as we do with
fire-insurance policies—so that when there is a deficiency down below
we can gradually try to let it out: in fact, beforehand—perhaps
two or three years beforehand—so as to produce its best effect.
Under any circumstances we can not afford to lose the water in any
of the upper lakes—Superior or Michigan—because although the
full effect of a loss may take two or three years to come about, it is
dead certain to come about in the end. Give time and such loss will
show up in the lower lakes. Anything you take out of Lake Superior
and take away from its basin diminishes just that amount of water
supply to the lakes below and must necessarily decrease proportion-
ately or correspondingly the outflow from each lake into the lower
lake, and consequently must produce an effect in lowering the lower
lakes. There is always some difficulty in figuring out just exactly
how much time it will take to get water down from one lake to
another, but it gets there eventually; and when the upper lake is at
a higher stage than the lower lake, the flow is more rapid. The
lakes survey shows that the increment, the rapidity of flow of the
discharge, the number of feet per second of flow will diminish as the
lake levels go down, and every change is sure to produce its effect
eventually. % -
The other point referred to this morning was that of diversions
from one level to another. I will start at the bottom of the lakes, as
I did before. Suppose that in Ontario down here—this is Niagara
Falls, and this is the rise from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, the outlet to
Lake Erie, and there is a little bit of a rise in the lake up to opposite
to where the old Welland Canal comes through. ,
The CHAIRMAN. Again I think you had better number or indicate
in some way on the map itself the names. {
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 609
General BIxBY. I thought in this I would describe them by the
lake levels, and that it would represent the rise. e
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Any way, so you are sure you get it
on the record. ... •
General BIxBY. I will mark the different reaches E, F, G, H, K,
and L. Then level E shows the level of Ontario, with a rise at
Niagara Falls to the level marked “F,” which is the crest of Niagara
Falls; and then there is a rise from there, much smaller, it is true,
that from Ontario to Erie being over 300 feet, and this is not as
much as that. The rise to Niagara Falls from E is, roughly speak-
ing, five times what it is from F up to Buffalo. I am not particular
about those figures, and I am not using any figure in there to show
this rise. Then from Buffalo there is a very slight rise to the outlet
to Lake Erie, and that little stretch marked “G” represents a slight
fall from Lake Erie from the point of deep water in the lake. The
line here underneath the surface of the level shows that Lake Erie
is deep in the middle. - - t
The CHAIRMAN. A semicircular line?
General BIXBY. A semicircular line. As the water leaves the deep
water and the wide expanse of Lake Erie represented by section H
and gets into the narrow portion near Buffalo, it is contracted there,
and the friction of the bottom and sides of the channel is greater.
so that there is a holding back of a lot of the water and a dropping
of the surface level of the water as it runs down and flows over the
crest of the outlet of Lake Erie near the upper, part of Buffalo. There
is a slight rise as you have seen, of about 8 feet, from section H, Erie,
up to sections K and L at Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan. That
Small rise means a gentler flow in the river. The flow starts at about
5 miles an hour near the outlet of Lake Huron and, gradually di-
minishes until the natural flow may be a mile and a half or something
like that when it comes down to Lake St. Clair, so that the velocity
of the flow is a gradual slackening. But the volume that comes.out
of Huron has got to go into Lake Erie, so that the discharge of
Huron is the inflow of Erie, and the discharge of Erie at Buffalo
would be the inflow into Ontario. . . . . * . . . . . .
Supposing that we have a water diversion from section F, or just
below section F or in section F at its lower end, which is above the
crest at Niagara Falls, then the water flowing over the crest of Ni-
agara Falls flows over it in a very thin sheet, only averaging a few
feet. There are very few places along there where a man could not
stand on the crest of Niagara Falls if he had the strength to hold
himself against the current; but the water falls over and sprays out
and dissipates itself to some extent in the air, and eventually runs
down into Ontario; and there is not any opportunity for the water
of Ontario to hold back this water flow sufficiently to cause any hold-
ing back effect to show up at the crest of Niagara Falls. The effect
may be theoretically something, but practically it would be, infini-
tesimal, and I do not think anybody has ever; been able to measure
it. Put the head of water available at F would be measured by the
line from the level of Ontario up to the line showing section F;
any water flow down over F, here to there [indicating], would follow
the route shown on the drawing, and any diversion of water in this
section F would not affect navigation very much, because there are
91739–24—PT 2—24
610 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
very few boats that would want to fool around in the rapids be-
tween Buffalo and the crest of Niagara Falls. There is a little navi-
gation there, but that is not the big navigation of the Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. The navigation, General, I would say to you, at
the present time, for practical purposes, extends down to about 1
to 2 miles below Tonawanda. - - * * h
General BIxBY. Yes. - g º
The CHAIRMAN. And that is about between 13 or 13% miles, I
would say, above the Falls. The reason for that is not really the
current, but the river has only the lake depth to that point. From
that point down we have a shallow channel. We have some hopes
that we may have navigation down to a lower point if the channel
were deepened.
General BIXBY. My remark in my previous statement was that in
such a section as this F. G. in which you have a large portion that is
not navigable, then any diversion of water from that place into Lake
Ontario below has no effect on water levels of navigable portions, and
therefore so far as navigation is concerned it is not really a diversion.
It is merely a use of water that has no other use. Such water can be
used for power; and if it affects the scenic properties of the Falls,
then it is a diversion so far as the scenic properties are concerned, but
not so far as navigation is concerned. If water be taken from the
lake up above Buffalo, after the water has gone over the natural sill
of the water channel at the outlet of Lake Erie, if you take water
from up there out of the upper level G, up above Buffalo, and de-
liver it into Ontario, it will have much greater head and therefore
will flow with greater force, greater velocity, and in the same num-
ber of hours you will get more water through its pipe than you will
through a pipe of the same cross section taking out water at the
crest of Niagara Falls. ‘. . 4.
If you go up in Lake Erie to a point opposite to the old Welland
Canal in section H, where the lake is beginning to run off faster
toward Niagara, or where the Niagara River is commencing to ex-
tend itself up into the lake, that little section G, H, has a little slope,
so that there is a slight difference of level between the intake at
Welland and the water surface opposite Buffalo, and that difference
of level will mean a difference of head for a diversion there. There-
fore, you will get a little more rapid flow with the same size pipe
from that section up there than you would at Buffalo, and therefore
you might take a little more water out of the lakes at Welland
Canal inlet than you would if you were to take it at Buffalo; and
by taking this little bit of water out of the lakes at Welland Canal
inlet it will produce a little effect on the levels of H or Lake Erie;
but when you come to look at the total discharge of the Lakes, you
will see that the total discharge at this old Welland Canal is very
small in proportion to the total discharge that comes down from
Lake Erie, and the effect on the upper Lakes
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You intend that black portion there
near the Falls end of the semicircle to represent the volume of water
withdrawn by the Welland Canal, as compared with the total volume
of water of Lake Erie shown on your G!
General BIxBY. Yes; as shown over at Buffalo.
Mr. BoycE. May I ask a question ?
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Boyce.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 611
Mr. BoxcE. I was not here at the beginning of the session. I am
sorry I was not. I was detained in the House. Did I understand
you to say that the water which passes over the Falls into that por-
tion of the Niagara River which is not navigable, but passes along
the Niagara River wherever it is navigable, has no effect on the lake
levels? -
General BIXBY. The portion that has gone over the sill of the
Lake Erie outlet at Buffalo and is running down Niagara River will,
of course, slightly affect the level of Lake Erie.
Mr. BoycE. Did you say it did or did not affect the lake level?
I understood you to say that the portion of the water which passed
over the Falls is not a diversion of water?
General BIXBY. Not so far as navigation is concerned.
Mr. BoycE. So far as navigation is concerned 2
General BIXBY. Because it has no effect on navigation. The water
that goes over the crest of Niagara Falls, after it gets over the rim
of the basin just above, begins to fall like water running out of a
spigot in a water tap in your house, or water that runs out from
the fire engine hose nozzle. After it commences to fall, and has
fallen quite a distance, if you put somebody out under it with a
bucket to catch it, that water does not produce much effect on the
flow of the water out of the nozzle or spigot. -
Mr. BoycE. But there is a much greater quantity of water ulti-
mately passing over the Falls into the lake? -
General BIxBY. Yes; it goes into the lake eventually.
Mr. BoycE. Goes into the lake eventually'
General BIxBY. But after the water goes over the rim of that
basin, the rim which marks the crest of the falls at Niagara Falls,
after the water gets over that and is falling down, it is no use to
navigation until it gets down into Lake Ontario.
Mr. BoycE. But doesn’t it ultimately pass into a navigable stream 2
General BIxBY. Yes; at the mouth of the river.
Mr. Boy CE. And later into the lake 2
General Bixby. Yes; after it gets down into Lake Ontario it
affects navigation.
Mr. BoycE. The question I had in mind was whether or not the
water which passes over at the Falls has any appreciable affect on
the upper lake level?
General BIXBY. It has no effect on the lake level, any more than it
would if the falls were not half as high.
Mr. BoycE. That hardly answers my question.
General BIxBY. The lake levels are affected by the water that gets
into the lakes, diminished by the water that flows out of the Lakes.
If you don’t change the amount of water that is flowing out of the
lake it has no effect on navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that I understand Judge Boyce,
but I think that what he has in mind is covered by an earlier part of
the General’s testimony.
Mr. Boy CE. I just wanted to see whether I understood him. I did
understand General Bixby to say, and I was wondering if I was
right about it, that the water which passed over the Falls does not
increase the lake levels? -
612 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he said just what you say, Judge Boyce.
Mr. Boyce. I was wondering if the General used that expression?
The CHAIRMAN. What he meant, in view of his testimony as a
whole, was clearly this, that it made no difference whether the water
passed directly over the Falls, which originally was the sole course
over which the water reached Lake Ontario or the lower Niagara
River, or whether it was diverted in the manner the diversions are
made, a part of them for power purposes, only a slight distance from
the Falls. # t
Mr. Boy CE. I understood the General in the forenoon to say in
effect that the water diverted at the falls was not in fact a diver-
sion, but was rather only a use of water which was returned.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. * ,
Mr. BOYCE. It was being used only because it was ultimately
emptied into the lake.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought he was repeating the same thing.
General BIxBY. Of course Erie receives 186,000 feet per sec-
Ond from Michigan-Huron, and it picks up enough from the rain-
fall and drainage area to have an outflow of 204,000 feet per second,
and that amount of water running down into Ontario, if the out-
let of Ontario was stopped up, would raise Ontario 35 feet; but
Ontario is not stopped up, and Ontario is flowing out the water
it receives as fast as it receives it, as it has done in former years, and
therefore the lake levels will stay quiet as long as the inflow and
outgo remain uniform. What I was saying was simply that after
water comes down into a place where it is no longer of any use for
navigation and you utilize it for water power, it is then no diver-
Sion of water so far as navigation is concerned. r 3.
Mr. HULL. Can I ask you a question right there? Presuming that
the intake of the water above Niagara Falls for power reduced the
lake level 2.2 inches, as has been recognized here generally, would
not that reduce the lake levels of Lake Erie?
General BIxBy. It has been stated in the Warren report that it
does make a slight reduction. - º 3.
Mr. HULL. Of 2.2 inches?
General BIxBY. Yes. $ - -
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you one more question. Say, for instance,
that we had 10,000 cubic feet per second going through the Welland
Canal, how would that affect Lake Erie 2 -
General BIXBY. If they took that same amount of water, 10,000
cubic feet per second, out of Lake Erie, it would have its effect on
lowering the levels of Lake Erie. . . . -
Mr. HULL. Just the same as at Chicago? ... -
General BIXBY. In the same general manner as it would at Lake
Michigan. t %
Mr. HULL. That is what I thought. {
General BIXBY. But its effect on Lake Michigan will be smaller
in comparison with what it is on Lake Erie. -
Mr. HULL. Take it for granted that that 10,000 feet going through
the Welland Canal would be greater, according to your statement,
than it would from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River, how
does the 4,500 feet that they take now affect it? . . . . . .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 613
General BIxBY. The 4,500 feet has of course some effect of lower-
ing Lake Erie, and if the Welland Canal was stopped up and Lake
Erie consequently rose a little bit, then a little more water would
run over Niagara Falls. -
Mr. HULL. What I was trying to present was that these two
diversions are just about equal to the diversion at Lake Michigan;
in other words, they have the same effect upon Lake Erie as the
other has on Lake Michigan.
General BIXBY. Which two 2 ©
Mr. HULL. The Welland Canal and the power plants at Niagara
Falls. That is what you have just stated?
General BIxBY. And the power plants at Niagara 2
Mr. HULL. Yes; you said one makes 2.2 and the other makes 2.5.
That would make 4.7% & . *
* CHAIRMAN. General, he assumes that you have stated certain
things. # t * * * * *
Mr. HULL. I will go over it again. You did state that the Welland
Canal, at a 10,000 foot diversion, would have a greater affect on
Lake Erie than the 10,000 cubic foot diversion has on Lake Michigan,
going into the Illinois River. You stated that, didn’t you?
General BIXBY., Practically, but I did not say anything about
the diversion at Niagara. -
Mr. HULL. You have a 4,500 foot diversion at the Welland Canal
now, and that certainly would have a proportionate effect as the
10,000 cubic feet, wouldn't it, in reducing the level of Lake Erie’
General BIxBY. It would reduce Lake Erie; yes." *
Mr. HULL. That is what I say. We have all admitted, or you or
everybody has, that it would be about 2.5. -
The CHAIRMAN, I do not think that it helps us any to assume, in
questioning a witness, that he has stated certain things. There is
evidently, as to all of these questions, a sharp difference between the
witness and the questioner as to what has been stated. You do not
get anywhere by assuming. Just ask the witness any question you
want, but you don’t get anywhere by stating that he has already
stated so and so. . . .
Mr. HULL. I am not an attorney, and it is pretty hard for me to
get these questions in. What I am trying to prove by this witness,
if I can, is that we have got a diversion now of 4,500 cubic feet in
the Welland Canal, which makes 2.5 loss of water. We have got
2.2 loss of water at Niagara Falls.
General BIxBY. I never admitted any diversion at Niagara Falls.
Mr. HULL. But you did think 10,000 cubic feet going through
the Welland Canal would be greater than the 10,000 cubic feet going
into the Illinois River ?
General BIxBY. I never admitted that any diversion at Niagara
Falls affected the level of Lake Erie.
Mr. HULL. I am speaking about only two propositions. One is
the Niagara Power Plant and the other is the Welland Canal.
What'I am trying to bring out is, isn't the diversion of the Welland
Canal of 4,500 feet equal to the 2.2 at Niagara?
The CHAIRMAN. †. thousand four hundred to 4,300, according
to the report. -- - ... • , , ,
614 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
General BIXBY. According to the Warren report, 1,000 feet of that
in the Welland Canal was strictly for navigation. ..
Mr. HULL. That is not what I am trying to bring out. I am.
trying to bring out about the loss of water in Lake Erie, if it is not
lost in these two propositions. -
The CHAIRMAN. Let him answer you.
General BIxBY. It would be possible.
The CHAIRMAN. And then we will suspend questions until he is
through with his general statement.
General BIXBY. I say that if we assume 10,000 per second at the
old Welland Canal, it would produce more serious effects and more
damage on Lake Erie than 10,000 feet at Chicago out of Lake Mich-
igan. It would be possible to make a diversion of 10,000 feet per sec-
ond at the Welland Canal that would not appreciably affect Lake
Erie at all, because you might take it out at a higher level than the
lake has at Buffalo, and if you put that level up the water will all
run off at Buffalo, and it would not necessarily affect Erie. Again,
I understand the diversion at the Welland Canal was originally a
thousand feet for navigation, and the new Welland Canal is only
going to be something like 800 feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean 800 feet per second total?
General BIxBY. Yes, sir. The new Welland Canal won’t take
more than 800 feet per second for its deeper navigation. And then
the old power works in the Welland Canal which were in existence at
the time of the treaty and were figured as existing diversions which
the country was not meddling with, and as I understand, when the
new Welland Canal is finished the diversions at the old Welland
Canal are going to be wiped out and transferred to some other point.
But it would be possible to make a diversion of 10,000 feet per
second at the Welland Canal which would not hurt Lake Erie.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you this, that 4,500 cubic feet is going back
into Lake Ontario?
General BIxBY. It goes from Erie into Ontario, and does not
change the water supply of Ontario at all.
Mr. HULL. That was considered a part of the perquisites of Canada
when the treaty was made? -
General Bix BY. I suppose so, but it does not affect Ontario at all,
because all the water gets back to Ontario.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished your direct statement, General %
General BIxBY. Yes. Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go on, Mr. Hull.
Mr. HULL. If that was a part of it, that 4,500 feet, why was not the
10,000 cubic feet a part of it, so far as the other part was concerned,
the Chicago diversion?
General BIxBY. I did not come here to make any such talk about
those things, but if you want to know, I have looked into the reports
of the International Joint Commission and the International Water-
ways Commission, and I find a clear statement by both of those com-
missions that the diversion at Niagara Falls was fixed at 36,000 for
Canada and 20,000 for the United States according to their own
statements as the result of fixing a limit for the two countries
which would interfere as little as possible with the existing diversion.
Mr. HULL. That is right.

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. . 615
General BIxBY. And the Waterways Commission’s report states
that the diversion on the Canadian side totals up to 36,000, and it
states the diversion on the American side totals up to 18,500, and while
it recommended a diversion at Chicago the treaty simply took care
of that 18,500 which was in existence at that time. -
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you one more question and I will quit. I
heard you say something about a 3%-foot fall in the Lakes from 1885
to 1895, and I would like to ask you if that was not partly caused by
the improvement of the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers?. * ,
General BIxBY. It is possible that some of it was due to that.
Mr. HULL. That is all I want to ask. . . . .
General BixBY. But the main part I stated in my report—I said
that possibly some of it might be caused by the improvement of the
Detroit and St. Clair Rivers, but the main portion was due to lack of
rainfall over the Great Lakes, the upper lakes above the outlet at
Huron. - -
The CHAIRMAN. You did not prepare the map that I had in mind.
The map I had in mind was a map that would show how the diversion
at Niagara is made, the geography of both sides. I will try and get
that into the record if I can, because we have not any testimony on
the subject yet. Are you, familiar with the situation up there, geo-
graphically, as to the diversions? . . . . .
General BIxBY. Roughly ; yes. º * 4.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will just follow me on that, I think we can
get it on the record. r - - . ' * , -
General BIxBY. The diversion in the old Welland Canal is roughly,
according to the map, about 18 miles—
The CHAIRMAN. What is that, General? j , ; 4.
General BixBY. The points of intake into the old Welland Canal,
where the water is diverted from Lake Erie into the old Welland
Canal for power purposes, is about 18 miles west of Buffalo, and
therefore about 18 miles upstream from the proper outlet of Lake
Erie, and the lake at that point is about 12 or 13 miles wide. So that
the level at the inlet of the old Welland Canal is a little bit above the
lake level at the real outlet of Lake Erie near Buffalo.
The CHAIRMAN. How near is the inlet of the new Welland Canal to
the inlet of the old Welland Canal? Of course, that is what we are
interested in. - , -
General BIxBY. I do not know just how those two inlets are with
reference to each other. I do not know the distances they are apart
from each other. I do not see that that would have any appre-
ciable effect on the levels of Lake Erie. -
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what I want to know, if you know
it, is the new Welland Canal, so-called, simply an enlargement of the
old Welland Canal, and does it run the same course between the two
lakes? Does it start at the same place and end at the same place?
General BIxBx. I do not know how close they will start one from
the other, and how close they end together, but I simply know that
the inlet in Lake Erie is so far away from Buffalo and the outlet
in Lake Ontario is so far away from the mouth of the Niagara River.
that there should not be any appreciable effect on Fake Erie or Lake
Ontario coming from the change of location.
616 . ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know where the intake of the Niagara
Hºlºpower canal on the American side is, how far it is above the
8,11S - -
General BIXBY. I do not know exactly. My impression was that
it was about one-sixth or one-eighth the distance from the crest of
the Falls up to Buffalo. I do not know just what it is. ... f
The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better ask someone about that
who knows.
General BIXBY. The chart is right here, and I should think the
distance could be taken off the chart.
The CHAIRMAN. Does that show where the diversion is?
General BIxBY. I do not think this clearly shows the diversion.
The Warren report shows it. -
The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would measure that, General. I woul
like to have you find out if you can, for the purposes of your testi-
mony, where the diversion starts above the Falls on the American
side, its general direction, and how far below the crest of the Falls
it empties into the Niagara River. Can you give that? How far
above the crest of the Falls it starts, what its general direction is,
how long it is, and how far below the crest of the Falls it re-
empties into the Niagara River. Second, the same thing as to the
diversion for power purposes on the Canadian side; and third, the
place where the new Welland Canal starts, its general direction
and course, its length, and where, with reference to the mouth of.
the Niagara River, it empties into Lake Ontario? - w
General BrxBY. I can hunt those up.
The CHAIRMAN. You can hunt those up after you have gone off
the stand and then come back. * -
General BIxBY. Very well.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not know those facts, do you, General
Beach, off-hand? :
General BEACH. I could not give them accurately enough to want
to put them on the record. - ,
Mr. NEwTON. I would like to ask a few questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Newton. -
Mr. NEwToN. How far would you say above the lower end of
Lake Erie is the diversion through the Welland Canal? k
General BIxBY. I said it was about 15 or 18 miles, but I do not
know that accurately. I would have to look up the Warren report
and take it from that."
Mr. NEwTON. The total amount of water that is being diverted
under the treaty at Niagara Falls is being taken from above the
Falls, isn’t it? $ --
General BIxBY. The amount that is taken under the treaty is taken
1. the crest of the Falls; that is, in the neighborhood of Goat
Island. • : -
Mr. NEwton. About 55,000 cubic feet per second, isn’t it?
The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-six thousand. - -
Mr. NEwTon. Does that include the amount that is going through
the Welland Canal? # g
General BIxBY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know as to that.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 617
General BIxBY. I understand it does not, but I have been told—
the Warren report states how much is diverted at Niagara, and by
deduction it would seem that Canada at present is probably not
taking at the Niagara Falls up to this limit, but if it adds to Ni-
agara proper what goes through the Welland Canal, my under-
standing is there is only about 500 feet per second for the two to-
gether in excess of the amount authorized to Canada at Niagara.
The question has always been a sort of a mooted question as to whether
the Welland Canal was considered as being part of the diversion at
Niagara. Strictly according to the treaty it is not, but in many of
the discussions it has been so regarded. The Joint Waterways Com-
mission and the commission which got the treaty *
Mr. NEWTON (interposing). Would it be difficult now to find out
how much Canada is taking and how much we are taking?
General BIXBY. The Warren report shows what the United States
is taking, but it does not show clearly what Canada is taking.
Mr. NEWTON. Is there any reason why this Government should
not know officially the amount of water that is being taken there?
General BIXBY. There is no reason why it should not know offi-
cially, if it asks. I assume that at any moment Canada would give
it if it were asked for. . . . " . -
Mr. NEWTON. Do you know whether it has asked, or whether it
has the information? - s: - -
General BIXBY. I do not know, but the Warren report shows that
he tried to get it and found that there was a good deal of uncer-
º He found a good deal of uncertainty even on the American
S1Cl6. -
Mr. NEwTON. Why is it uncertain? Has not the Government any
way to have a check on it? -
General BIXBY. The Canadian authorities can tell you that. We
do not have any check on what is done by Canada except by taking
her figures. . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say something to you, which I think will
clear up the situation. I think General Bixby' does not understand
it. There is a new development of power on the Canadian side which
is going to supersede all their old plants, and that new development
is just coming into existence at the present time. They are install-
ing their different units, and have been for about a year. I do not
know whether they have their full plant installed or not, but that
takes the place of their old plant, and by referring to the Warren re-
port you would not get any light on that question at all. -
Mr. NEwTON. But I think the Government ought to know now.
The CHAIRMAN. I will come to that branch. .# it in a minute, but
I just wanted to make clear to you that the General is entirely wrong
in relying on the Warren report, because I do not think that shows
“anything at all as to the present situation, because it has changed
entirely since the report was made. Your second question as to the
knowledge of this country as to diversions in Canada, my under-
standing is—I can not tell you how I got it, but I am quite clear.
this country has requested a measurement of the diversion by Canada,
and that measurement is going on at the present time, and I imag-
ine before these hearings are closed we can get a final report made
by an official of this Government as to what the actual measurements
618 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
are. Do you know anything about that, General Beach? That is,
that you could say?: r - : -
General BEACH. No. ; ; : - -
The CHAIRMAN. That is my understanding. I do not think there
is any doubt about that. . . . . . - * '* . . . . ; " - -
Mr. NEwToN. Colonel Warren, I believe, said there was 4,500
cubic feet per second going through the Welland Canal. What do
you say the exact amount of water that goes over the Falls is, ap-
proximately? . . . . " , s -
The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred and twenty-six thousand cubic feet
per second. r
Mr. NEwTON. All that is taken out of those waters, either for
water power or the Welland Canal, is diverted away from the Falls,
isn’t it?
General BIxBY. It is diverted away from Niagara Falls.
Mr. NEWTON. And to that extent, on the figures you have given,
about one-fifth of the water that ordinarily flowed over the Falls has
been diverted and taken away by water-power interests and the
Welland Canal? . -
The CHAIRMAN.: Over a fourth, Congressman.
Mr. NEwton. Yes; a fourth.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a fourth, isn’t it? .
Mr. NEwToN. About a fourth; yes. -
General BIxBY. If I was correctly informed, it would make, so
far as I could see, no difference whether Canada took it out at .
Niagara Falls or took it out at Welland, since they do not exceed
the total limit.
Mr. NEwTo.N. But as a matter of fact, every cubic foot of water
that is taken out from any of these channels is reducing the amount
of flow, and to that extent reducing the scenic beauty of the great
Niagara Falls? -
General BIxBY. Oh, yes. »
The CHAIRMAN. I do not subscribe to that, no matter what Gen-
eral Bixby says. I differ entirely, and would prefer to make my
own statement. I simply don’t want to be bound here by what
he saws. r
Nº. NEwTON. Of course you are not bound by General Bixby.
But as a matter of fact, the flow that goes through the diversion
and is taken out of the river above the Falls and does not go over
the Falls reduces the Falls to that extent?
General BIxBY. Yes; of course. 4
Mr. NEwToN. And whatever goes through the Welland Canal
never goes over the Falls? *
General BIxBY. Exactly. - - r
Mr. NEwTon. The New York Barge Canal takes some water and
it does not go over the Falls? - • .
General BIXBY. No. -
C ...i Newtos. Do you know-how much is going through the Barge
àI18, 4 r w
General BIxBY. I have not examined that carefully. I saw by
the Warren report that a certain amount was going through.
Mr. NEwTON. One thousand seven hundred feet, wasn’t it?
The CHAIRMAN. From 1,200 to 1,700 feet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 619
Mr. NEwton. Do you know whether any part of that is being
used to manufacture electricity ? - -
General BIXBY. In the olden times there used to be considerable
of it used for power purposes.
Mr. NEWTON. Where?
General BIXBY. After it got out of the Niagara River and into
the Barge Canal there were power works on the side of the canal
that had leases which they could utilize to take a certain amount of
water out of that canal.
Mr. NEWTON. Tell me this, with canals you have locks and dams?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. How is it possible to use the water necessary for the
locks and dams for power purposes without impairing the use of
the locks and dams?
General BIXBY. There is always a water-pipe connection with a
valve in it between the upper and lower levels, and they can let just
as much of a flow as they want to go into a lock at the upper end
and come out at the lower end.
Mr. NEwTo.N. But you don’t need that for navigation ?
General BIXBY. No, sir. Besides which there is always in every
canal a good deal of leakage through the upper gate into the lock
and through the lower gate into the canal below, and which they
have not, as a rule, found it economical to stop.
ë Mr. Newtos. And that leakage is rather profitable for power,
isn’t it? : , &
General BIxBY. It is rather profitable for power, but it can be
stopped off any time the country says so. t
Mr. NEWTON. If you build your locks properly and use your water
solely for navigation, there is not much water there to be used for
power, is there, in the perfectly natural use of water for navigation?
General BIxBY. No ; there would not be much use for power either
at the Welland Canal or the Barge Canal if they did that.
Mr. NEwTON. It is your view that the paramount importance of
this whole thing is lake levels?
General BIxBY. Yes. -
Mr. NEwTON. Anything that diverts water from the lake levels.
in vour judgment, is wrong as a matter of policy? g
General BIxBY. If it changes the lake levels in the portion of the
water that is used for navigation, it is a detriment.
Mr. NEwTON. Anything that lowers the lake levels for navigation
is a detriment?
General Bixby. So far as it covers the stretches used for naviga-
tion.
Mr. NEwToN. Lake Erie is used for navigation, isn’t it?
General BIxBY. Almost all.
Mr. NEwTo.N. The water that goes through the Welland Canal,
which according to Colonel Warren’s report reduces the level of
Lake Erie a little more than 50 per cent of the amount of the diver-
sion at Chicago is contrary to that principle, isn’t it? .
General BIxBY. I was figuring on the amount. It is contrary to
the principle, no matter what the amount is. -
Mr. NEwToN. As I understand this proposed new barge canal is
intended to take considerably more water than the old barge canal
at Welland 2
620 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIxBY. The canal at Welland?
The CHAIRMAN. They do not call that a barge canal.
Mr. NEWTON. They call it the Welland Canal.
General BIXBY. The Welland Canal is planning to use less water
than the old one. ‘. . . . . .
hº NEWTON. Then they are going to cut out part of the electricity
then? -
General BIXBY. I do not know anything about that.
Mr. NEwTON. You have not read Colonel Warren’s report, which
said that out of the 4,500 feet 3,400 was being used for electricity?
General BIXBY. Yes. I understand they are all going to be wiped
Out. *
C Mr. NEwTon. All the power will be wiped out of the Welland.
Xanal? º
General BIXBY. I understand that all of the power will be wiped
out of the new Welland Canal. When everything gets straightened
and settled and the new canal gets open and in use, and Canada
finds out how much more water it is going to have, and the United
States finds out how much it is going to have, then Niagara will get
it all. - . . .
Mr. NEwTON. Do you understand that the power companies are
calculating on getting more power than they are now getting in the
vicinity of Niagara Falls? x -
General BIxBY. They have been, as the Warren report shows,
struggling on both sides to get something like 30 per cent more
power out of the water at Niagara at the expense of Niagara Falls.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you think that is a safe policy for the whole
country to stand for ? #
General BIxBy. I do not know exactly what I would call a safe
policy, but the fact is this, that it will mean less water going over
Niagara Falls, and some people say that will spoil the scenic beauty
of Niagara Falls; other people say that it will not.
Mr. NEWTON. Those that say that it will not generally are people
that are interested in power, are they not? - --
General BIxBY. Not entirely. Some engineers take that same view,
because the water that goes over Niagara Falls at the present time,
over the crest of the Falls, and falls down is not being utilized for
scenic beauty as efficiently as it would be possible for it to be. The
water goes over in Some places 2 or 3 inches thick, and in some places
only an inch thick, and at othe places it goes over 5 or 6 or 8 feet
thick. It is an irregular falls, and then the water goes over in such a
way that a whole lot goes where you don’t need it, and a lot does not
go where you would like to have it. So some engineers have felt that
you could improve on the Scenic beauty by properly arranging the
waterflow, and they feel that they can get just as much scenic beauty
with a good deal less water and have a whole lot of water to use for
OWeI’.
p Mr. NEwTON. About how far above the rim of the Falls did you say
the water for power purposes was taken out, this 5,000 or 6,000 feet
per second? w - - - ... " * .
The CHAIRMAN. I asked him to look that up. He does not know.
Mr. NEwTON. It would be something like 4 or 5 or 6 miles, roughly 2
The CHAIRMAN. No; it is not 1 mile. *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 621
General BIxBY. On the American side it is something around about
a mile. - -
Mr. NEwTON. Is the Niagara River at the Falls shallower and nar-
rower than it is above?
General BIxBY. It is a great deal shallower, but it is not narrower
than it is above. - {º
Mr. NEWTON. But it is shallower?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. NEwTon. If you make another opening for power purposes
above the rim, would not that have the same effect as if you made the
fall wider or made it deeper?
General BIxBY. Why, they take the water out above the Falls by an
intake, take it from something that would look like a pool.
Mr. NEwToN. As you lower that pool, you pull the water down to-
ward the lower end of Lake Erie that much faster? ;
General BIxBY. Very little faster.
Mr. .NEWTON. But it is faster 2
General BIxBY. I am told that it does go a bit faster.
Mr. NEWTON. And the more you take out above the rim where the
water is a great deal swifter, the gerater you are going to make the
pull on Lake Erie, aren’t you? - n
General BIxBY. Theoretically, yes. Practically, a very small in-
Crea.Se.
Mr. NEwTON. If you take water out of the lake -
General BIxBY. You don’t take it out of any lake. You take it out
of the Niagara River below the foot of the rapids and above the crest
of Niagara Falls. You don’t take it out of Lake Erie. d
Mr. NEwTON. But for the Welland Canal you take it out above?
General BIxBY. The Welland Canal takes it out of Lake Erie, and
they located it there because it was apparently the best place to have
a boat canal, a steamboat canal. -
Mr. NEWTON. And your understanding is now that the new Welland
Canal is not to have any water for power purposes? -
General BIxBY. That is my understanding. I have no proof of
it. The Canadians will possibly be better able to tell you than I.
but I do not believe they have any proof of it yet, themselves.
Mr. NEWTON. Who owns that canal?
General BIxBY. The water power is leased. Those powers are
under leases that were in existence at the time of the treaty.
Mr. NEWTON. You mean the power is?
General BIXBY. Yes. l
Mr. NEwTON. And that was evidently taken into account—all the
existing diversions were taken into account at the time of the treaty 2
General BIxBY. They were existing diversions, yes; and they were
under existing leases and leases that a good many people, I under-
stand, would like to see canceled. - * -
Mr. NEwTon. If that is true, whatever existed at the time, would
be legal under the treaty? r • . .
General BIxBY. Yes. - - , !
Mr. NEWTON. And there is nothing to prevent them from taking
it indefinitely so long as the treaty lasts? - 1 * *
General BIXBY. I do not see anything to prevent them, but my
understanding is that they have, as a rule, considered the Welland
622 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Was in the Niagara territory, and they have endeavored to keep the
diversion at Welland within the limits of Niagara. -
Mr. NEWTON. Perhaps these calculations will reveal somethin
On that. w -
General BIxBY. Which calculations?
Mr. NEWTON. That they say are going on now. t
General BIXBY. Oh, yes. I was at Detroit and Chicago while the
power works were being constructed at Sault Sainte Marie, and it
was a long time before we could get any definite figures as to any-
thing that they were taking out from Lake Superior, because they
would take out a little one day and nothing the next day and a great
deal the following day, and it is pretty hard work to know what they
were doing until the controlling works were completed and until the
power works were completed and until they got into effective work,
and then it was quite a simple matter, and that is probably the case
in Canada with the new Welland Canal.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you think the new canal is taking more water
than is necessary for navigation purposes? . . .
General BIxBY. I have never looked into that.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you know about what it takes for navigation ?
General BIXBY. I do not. I just saw it roughly alluded to in
the Warren report and I paid no attention because it was covered
by the treaty definitely and somebody was responsible for seeing
that the total diversion from the Niagara River did not exceed the
amount stated in the treaty. I never looked to see whether they
did or not. - -
Mr. NEwTON. I understand they are taking from 1,200 to 1,700
cubic feet per second and that the average barge on the Erie Canal
has about 750 tons capacity? -
General BIxBY. I am no authority for any of that. I do not know.
Mr. NEWTON. I understand that that is true. If that is true and
the barges going through the Chicago Canal are carrying 2,000 tons
instead of 750, is it not reasonable to presume that you would need
more water for the larger craft than the 750-ton craft?
General BIxBY. You use what we call a lockful of water.
Mr. NEwroN. You would have to have larger locks for larger
craft, wouldn’t you?
General BIxBY. The locks are built one for all.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, General. Do you take the
smallest boat you can find on a canal and then cut down the water
in your canal to fit that smaller boat, or do you use the canal that
has cost $200,000,000, to the greatest capacity?
General BixBY. The locks are built to carry the largest boats and
the largest practical barge fleets, and then when the smaller boats
come along, it is like the holes that the farmer cut in his barn door
to let the old cat and the kittens through. The kittens would not
come through their own hole, and so they come through the cat's
hole at these locks. You may have to send a whole big lock full of
water through sometimes to let a couple of Small boats get by.
Mr. NEwton. How wide is the Erie Canal?
The CHAIRMAN. 125 feet on the surface and 90 feet on the bottom,
as I understand it.
g
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 623
Mr. NEwTON. Then our Mississippi tows that are 150 feet wide
could not get through the Erie Canal? We would have to have
wider channels than that. They are 150 feet wide and 900 feet long.
General BIXBY. You haven’t any barges on the Mississippi or on
the Illinois or on any of those waterways that are 150 feet wide.
Mr. NEwTON. We have three together.
General BIXBY. But you don’t have to have three together.
Mr. NEWTON. You do, or go to the trouble to break them up every
time you get to a lock. • .
General BIxBY. But on the Ohio River they used to have their
barges 6 or 8 wide, and sometimes on the Mississippi, when they
got down that far, 10 wide. That is a question of navigation, and
varies from time to time and from year to year, and from steamboat
to steamboat. t º * *
Mr. NEwTON. They have found that the tow that is 900 feet long
and 150 feet wide is the most profitable tow. I think that is all.
Mr. McDUFFIE. As I understand it now, the water taken for the
Welland Canal comes directly from Lake Erie? -
General Bixby. Directly from Lake Erie.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It is not taken from the river, below the mouth
of the river, or where the river flows out of Lake Erie. In the con-
struction of the new Welland Canal, let us say that an additional
800 to 1,300 feet per second is necessary—at least somebody suggested
that—how would that affect the various lakes? How would it affect,
to what extent I mean, if you have any idea, in lowering its levels,
and how would it affect Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, and would
it affect Superior—that amount of water? Probably I can shorten
that question some. Suppose you take 800 cubic feet per second
additional for the use of the new Welland Canal out of Lake Erie,
what effect would that have in inches in the lowering of the levels of
all the lakes?
The CHAIRMAN. It is the General’s understanding that you are
going to take 800 feet less, not 800 feet more.
General BIxBY. You are going to take 200 feet less. They were
taking a thousand, and they will get along with something like 800.
Mr. McDUFFIE. And not use the old passageway?
General BIxBY. Not use the old passageway.
Mr. McDUFFIE. There would be no water escaping through the
old passageway?
General BIxBY. There would be no water escaping through the old
pasageway. That is what I have been told, that that was the propo-
sition in view. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. There is then some 1,200 to 1,700 feet going
through the Erie Canal. That taps the lake directly rather than the
Niagara River?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; it is about a little over 10 miles below
Lake Erie on the Niagara River. g
Mr. McDUFFIE. It is on the Niagara River?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It does not tap the lake 2 I am talking about the
State barge canal.
General BIxBY. No. *
The CHAIRMAN. I will show it to you on the map.
624 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I want to know how many canals you have here.
They talk of the Erie Canal and the New York State Barge Canal.
What I am trying to get at is how many canals are taking water out
of these lakes? " - - - .
The CHAIRMAN. Here is Buffalo right here [indicating on map.],
and this canal starts right down there at the Tonawanda. There are
two Tonawandas, and it starts between the two. - *
Mr. McDUFFIE. But it is above the Falls?
F º CHAIRMAN. Ten miles below Buffalo and 14 miles above the
allS. - - --
Mr. McDUFFIE. Then the diversion of water at this point does not
affect the lake level of Lake Erie does it, the diversion of water on the
Niagara River?, * w r
The CHAIRMAN. Into the barge canal. *
Mr. McDUFFIE. What is the effect upon Lake Erie 2 Does it have
a tendency to lower it, or does it lower it at all? -
General BIxBY. I am not sure. The diversion into the barge canal
being immediately upon the Niagara River below the real outlet of
Lake Erie may produce a small effect upon Lake Erie, but nowhere
near the effect that it would if it went straight out from Lake Erie.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Have you got any idea how much it affects it, to
what extent, we will say, in inches?
General BIxBY. I haven’t, no; but what is the total amount of the
outflow you are assuming?. . . . 4
Mr. McDUFFIE. About 1,200 to 1,700 feet—say 1,500 feet.
General BIxBY. Well, you see, if it went straight out of Lake Erie
it might produce something like 2 inches, but going out from the Ni-
agara some distance below the outlet of Lake Erie, I should not sup-
pose it would produce more than a third as much as it would if it
went out from Lake Erie. So that it might possibly make a differ-
ence of two-thirds of an inch.
Mr. HULL. About nine-tenths. :
General BIxBY. I do not know. I got these figures from a very
rough estimate. . . . . . . . .
Mr. McDUFFIE. Do you understand, then, that it is not contem-
plated that more water will be taken from these lakes by any new
improvements, so far as both the Canadian and American sides are
concerned? . . . . . . . . . -
Gen. BIxBY. Not until the treaty is changed. Until a new treaty
is made I understand the intentions are to keep inside of the treaty.
Mr. McDUFFIE. These were all taken into consideration at the time
the treaty was made? -
General BIXBY. They were all existing diversions.
Mr. McDUFFIE. What do you understand was in the minds of the
treaty-making authorities as to the amount of water that should be
or could be or was to be diverted at Chicago?
General BIxBY. The members of the treaty commission, and the
waterway commission as it existed before the treaty, had to get
their figures out of the Sanitary district, and at the time they got them
out of the sanitary district, along about 1906, there was not more
than 4,000 or 5,000 feet per second moving. 3
Mr. McDUFFIE. And the treaty was made when? -
General BIxBY. Then the waterways commission made a recom-
mendation that there should be a treaty, and that there should be a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 625
joint commission, and probably by reason of that recommendation of
the waterways commission the treaty was made and the joint com-
mission was appointed. In recommending that there should be a
joint commission, the waterway commission suggested and recom-
mended that 10,000 feet per second should be given to Chicago, and
they also recommended that the total of the diversions that were to
be used by the properties then established on the Canadian side,
which totalled up to 36,000 feet per second, should be allowed to con-
tinue at 36,000 feet a second, and they recommended that 18,500 feet
per second, which was then either used or expected to be used by the
properties on the American side should be continued, and then they
recommended that Chicago should be allowed 10,000 feet, and then the
treaty came along, and they recommended that this diversion at
Chicago should be considered in the treaty. . . *
Mr. McDUFFIE. Should be? - .
General BIxBY. Should be considered in the treaty, and when the
treaty came and went through, just like legislation goes through the
House and Senate and in conference, when it comes out you don’t
recognize it always as what went in, and when the treaty came out it
did not agree with the recommendations and suggestions of the water-
way commission, and it did provide the 30,000 for Canada as the
waterway commission recommended. -- - . .
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-six thousand. -
General BIxBY. And it did provide the 18,500 for the United States,
and a margin of 1,500 more, and it did not say a word about Chicago.
Mr. NEwToN. Are you sure that it specifically mentioned Niagara
Falls? -- - . . . . . . . , ',
General BIXBY. In what? " . .
Mr. NEwTo.N. In the treaty. t
General BIxBY. Specifically the Niagara River.
Mr. NEwTON. And gave them 18,000 cubic feet?
General BIxBY. Gave them 20,000. º t
The CHAIRMAN. General, I think you are wrong in one figure that
you stated. I do not think that we used on the American side 18,500,
I think we were using only 15,800. -
Mr. BARRETT. We did not get to using all of the 19,500 that you
are now using until about war time.
The CHAIRMAN. You are right.
Mr. BARRETT. That is the way it is. r
The CHAIRMAN. You can see I wanted the facts as they were.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us get our figures right. I think the figures
were 15,800, and I think we were shy 4,200, and I think that 4,200 was
granted by Congress upon my motion, upon a resolution introduced
by me annually for several years, and it was carried along by a resolu-
tion from year to year that 4,200 until finally the water power act
came along. t {
, Mr. BARRETT. In 1920.
The CHAIRMAN. And the water power act provided for the 20,000
cubic feet. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. I would like to know if any witness can testify
how much water is going out per second through the canal at
Chicago.
626 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Now? . . . . ' ' ' ' – ' ' ' ----
Mr. McDUFFIE. Yes. . ; T = .. , , . . .”
Mr. BARRETT. We will have all of those records here when we
start to-morrow, and we will give you every one of them. . .
General BIxBY. I have averaged up the figures which Colonel
Warren put in. . . . - -
The CHAIRMAN. Five thousand seven hundred and thirty. -
General BIxBY. Which was the average from 1900 up to 1917, and
since then I do not know. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. How much would 10,000 feet per second diverted
at Chicago lower Lake Michigan? . - 4 * ...
Mr. BARRETT. In all of the figures which exist in the Warren report
and elsewhere, when they try to figure the amount that we are
charged with having lowered Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie,
they always have it as 10,000 second-feet diversion.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Is there a 10,000 second-foot diversion?
... Mr. BARRETT. There has been that much. .
Mr. McDUFFIE. And you have figures as to what it is now Ż
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; we will have the figures so that you will
have the data on it. . . . . . . - . . . . .
Mr. McDUFFIE. Has not the Government itself made some calcu-
lations about how much is going out through the canal? *
Mr. HULL. It is 5.5 inches, isn’t it—the 10,000 cubic feet? .
Mr. McDUFFIE. Do you know how much is going out of this canal
by actual measurement at Chicago?' ' ". . J - # ,
General BEACH. It is checked from time to time, so far as we can.
General BIxBY. But I stated the average for those years, and what
has happened since is not going to affect that average very much,
because the first two years they took so little; and the last report
that I have seen, as stated by Mr. Randolph, jr., was a statement
that there were 8,500 feet. . . . . . . & .
Mr. McDUFFIE. All right. Here is a proposition, here to divert
10,000 feet. . . . . . . . ; .
General BIxBY. Yés. . . . . . . . . . . . - *
Mr. McDUFFIE. What I am trying to get at-while all of this
testimony is very interesting, the question is the effect on navigation
on these Great Lakes, and it is a very important matter. How much
lowering of the lake levels will 10,000 feet reduce, diverted at Chi-
cago? That is one of the things I want to know. If they have not
already approximately 10,000 feet, is it wise for the Government to
permit the use of more water at Chicago if it is going to seriously
affect navigation? + -
General BIXBY. I read from my printed statement this morning
that 10,000 second-feet—that is, 10,000 feet per second—for one year
amounted to 3 inches in depth over the entire area of Michigan-
Huron and 13 inches over Erie and a foot, and a half over Ontario,
and then I quoted in my statement the lowering that has actually
occurred since 1900, which are in excess of all of these figures.
Mr. McDUFFIE. That is all I want to ask. * - -
General BIXBY. Mr. Chairman, I have been asked about the treaty.
"The CHAIRMAN. Yes. b. . . . & .
General BIxBY. The report of March 17 or 19, 1906, of the Inter-
national Waterways Commission, the American members and the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 627
State officials, which was concurred in by the Canadian members,
a report made by them to the United States Congress. Paragraph
24 says that— - - 4.
The Chicago Drainage Canal, constructed under the authority of the State
of Illinois, was designed to divert about 10,000 cubic feet per second of water
which would actually flow over Niagara Falls. -
Section 26 of that report says:
The total quantity of water to be taken from the river by works now au-
thorized: The Niagara Falls Hydraulic & Manufacturing Co., 9,500; Niagara
Falls Power Co., 17,200; Canadian Niagara Power Co., 9,500; Ontario Power
Co., 12,000; Electric Development Co., 11,200; Niagara Falls Park Railway Co.,
1,500; total, 60,900. , - I
The amount thus far diverted is but 17,800, but much of that per-
haps was figured to be taken from works having been authorized.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true, General. When the resolutions went
through, the resolutions permitted us only to divert to the extent of
our installed capacity. - * "
General BIxBY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. They did not permit us to install additional ca-
pacity, and my understanding was that we did not get quite the full
amount, quite the 20,000 of the installed capacity. It was something
shy of that.
Mr. ADCOCK. Was that installed capacity or projected capacity?
The CHAIRMAN. It was the machines that they actually had, and
I am very sure that is true, because I had to deal with it several years.
General BIxBY. Paragraph 32 of the report of the International
Waterways Commission for 1906 recommended a treaty and the
appointment of a joint commission, and recommended that the
Niagara Falls Hydroelectric Power & Manufacturing Co. be given
9,500, that Niagara Falls Power Co. be given 8,600, and that the
Erie Canal or its tenants be given 400, and that the Chicago Drain-
age Canal be given 10,000, or a total of 28,500, or 18,500 outside the
Chicago Drainage Canal. So that they recommended 18,500 for
works now authorized but not at that time taking all that amount of
water. That was the recommendation of the commission, and it was
a report made to the Secretary of War. It will be found in the
miscellaneous publications here. 3.
Mr. HULL. May I ask you a question right there?
General BIxBY. Yes. * 1
Mr. HULL. At the time that this treaty was signed, according to
these statements, Chicago was diverting a certain quantity of water.
General BIXBY. Yes. - -
Mr. HULL. How do you reconcile your statement a while ago with
this statement in the treaty: t
But this provision shall not apply to cases already existing.
They stated, didn’t they, that diversion existed at the time, and it
says in the treaty *
General BIxBY. (interposing). Which paragraph?
Mr. HULL. Article II, on page 4, and the latter part of it:
But this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to cases ex-
pressly covered by a special agreement between the parties hereto.
628 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
That is what I want to know, how you reconcile your statement
with this? . . . . . . . * + : . .
General BIXBY. There is so much misunderstanding about this
treaty... I knew something about the treaty, because prior to the
treaty, as Chief of Engineers, I had to inspect all of this business.
Mr. HULL. Will you kindly answer the question, if you will?
How do you reconcile your statement that it did not say it in the
treaty, and still it does say it in the treay, as I understand it. You
will see where I have marked it. + \ . . *
... General BIxBY. Article II—
reserves to itself or to the several State governments on the one side and the
Dominion or provincial governments on the other, as the case may be * * *
the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion * * * of
all waters on its own side of the line which in their natural channels would
flow across the boundary or into boundary waters. y
"Mr. HULL. Read it on through. It is just that one item I want
you to answer.
General BIXBY (reading): -
But it is agreed that any interference with or diversion from their natural
channel of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any injury
on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights and entitle
the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in
the country where such diversion or interference occurs.
By that Canada has a right ^
Mr. HULL (interposing). Read the balance, and then you will see.
General BIXBY (reading): -
But this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to Cases ex-
pressly covered by special agreement between the parties hereto.
Mr. HULL. That is the point. That existed at that time and it
does not apply to it? -
General BIxBY. This provision shall not apply to cases already
existing, it says. - -
Mr. HULL. That existed, because we all admit that.
General BIxBY. At the time of the treaty there was only about
3,000 feet diversion.
Mr. HULL. But there was a diversion.
General BIxBY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, let us just read this article and See
whether it has any relation to this question at all or not.
Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself or to the several
State governments on the one side and the Dominion or Provincial govern-
ments on the other, as the case may be, Subject to any treaty provisions now
existing with respect thereto.
Let us see what it is they reserve.
The exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion—
Of what?
Of all waters on its own side of the line which in their natural channels
would flow across the boundary or into boundary waters.
That does not have any reference at all
Mr. HULL (interposing). Read the last.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait just one moment. I am questioning at the
present time, and I will give you the right to question when your
time comes. I intend to be entirely fair. That refers not at all to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 629
the boundary streams, but refers exclusively to streams that flow
into boundary waters or are wholly in either Canada or the United
States. Isn’t that true? Just read it carefully and see.
General BIXBY. But I was not paying much attention to that as I
am paying attention to this last paragraph. §
The CHAIRMAN. It is all one sentence. I will come to that in
time. - - *
General BIxBY. It says:
This provision shall not apply to cases alreadly existing or cases expressly
covered by special agreement between the parties hereto. * .
And then it goes on in the next paragraph and says that—
neither of the high contracting parties intends by the foregoing provision to
surrender any right, which it may have, to object to any interference with or
diversions of water on the other side of the boundary, the effect of which would
be productive of material injury to the navigation interests on its own side
of the boundary. ' - -
The CHAIRMAN. That is a separate thing, but I just want to go
to the first paragraph first. What is it that they don’t surrender
the jurisdiction over but reserve to themselves the exclusive juris-
diction and control of 2 All water on its own side of the line—no
matter if it did flow into boundary waters. ' That is the situation,
isn’t it?
General Bixby. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. Wouldn’t that cover Lake Michigan?
The CHAIRMAN. Lake Michigan is expressly brought within the
treaty by a subsequent provision, and I will come to that in a minute.
Mr. ADCOCK. Where is that? - º
Mr. BARRETT. But on the question of whether Lake Michigan is
exclusively an American body of water, there is no doubt about that,
is there? * {
The CHAIRMAN. Not as I understand it.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is, it is a nonboundary body of water within
the terms of the treaty. |
General BIxBY. That is what I have always understood.
Mr. BARRETT. We are in agreement on that.
The CHAIRMAN. The rest of that paragraph is subject to that
introductory part leading down to the first semicolon, isn’t it? w
General BIxBY. Yes; that provision is subject to everything that
went before it. --
The CHAIRMAN. I think all the rest of that paragraph is subject
to and defined by what is contained down to the first semicolon.
General Bixby. Yes; naturally.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, you direct attention to the fact that the
whole paragraph is qualified by this, that it is— * -
understood, however, that neither of the high contracting parties intends by
the foregoing provisiont to surrender any rights, which it may have, to object
to any interference with or diversions of waters on the other side of the
boundary, the effect of which would be productive of material injury to the
navigation interests on its own side of the boundary. 3. {
General BIxBY. That covers everything in that article.
Mr. ADCOCK. Mr. Chairman, could that cover cases already exist-
ing and give them the right to object to cases that were in existence
because they were then settling all questions with reference to cases
630 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
already existing and could only refer to something that came up
in the future as a new diversion, or use of the water? Is not that
the proper construction of that? - t
Mr. NEWTON. That is, interference with navigation?
Mr. ADCOCK. Interference with navigation.
Mr. NEWTON. That would not apply to power?
General BIXBY. That does not cover power at all. This treaty
was not designed to cover power. It was designed to cover naviga-
tion and scenic beauty.
Mr. NEWTON. Then, if the Government saw fit to put in compen-
sating works that would protect navigation, they would be acting
within the provisions of the treaty?
General BIXBY. They would be within the provisions of the treaty,
but Canada would have a right to protest and object.
Mr. NEWTON. But your treaty covers navigation and not power?
General BIXBY. Yes; navigation. If Canada considers its navi-
gation interests are interfered with, then by Article II it has a
right to protest and sue or do anything else. . . .
Mr. HULL. Does it have a right, after you read that clause that
I have pointed out to you? +
General BIxBY. Yes. - *
Mr. HULL. Why so? That existed before the treaty was signed,
10 or 15 years. That diversion existed from 1895 on up to 1910,
when this was signed, and it specifically says that it does not prohibit.
General BIXBY. But it specifically states that the taking does not
apply to cases where the effect is of material injury to navigation. . .
Mr. ADCOCK. But haven’t they been settling that proposition
through the International Waterways Commission, and haven’t there
been recommendations about it? .
General BIXBY. There had been recommendations, but Congress
did not adopt them. -
Mr. ADCOCK. And wern’t they then settling the cases which already
existed, and therefore could that provision apply to any other diver-
sion for something that came up in the future?
General BIxBY. No matter when it existed.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Boyce?
Mr. BoxcE. I would like to ask two or three questions to get your
answers on the record. It would help to enlighten me, if it does not
enlighten anyone else.
First, I would like to inquire whether or not, having in mind sea
levels, Chicago has a greater elevation than Buffalo.
General BixBY. Chicago is considerably higher than Buffalo–
about 8 feet, in fact.
Mr. BoycE. Of course there is a higher elevation all the way
through the various Great Lakes until we reach Buffalo.”
General BIxBY. Yes. - -
Mr. BoxcE. I am not very familiar with the vicinity of Buffalo
and Niagara Falls, and I have not the situation very well in mind.
I don’t know whether Buffalo is on Niagara River, which river, as I.
remember, flows between Buffalo and Lake Ontario. Is that true?
General BIXBY. The head of Niagara River is opposite some parts
of Buffalo, and the river runs down to Lake Ontario. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 631
Mr. BOYCE. And there is a sudden deep depression in the Niagara
River between Canada and America, just north, I believe, of Goat
Island? -
General BIXBY. The original ground comes up and forms a sill.
Mr. BOYCE. There is a natural obstruction which assists in the
creation of the Falls? -
General BIXBY. There is a natural obstruction there in the rock
bottom of the rapidly descending river.
Mr. BOYCE. And because of that obstruction the Falls are created?
General BIXBY. The bed of the river is dropping all the time
until it gets to the crest of the Falls, and then it drops about 300
feet. -
Mr. BoxcE. Just under the Falls, as it were, there is a deep drop 8
General Bixby. Right at the Falls there is a drop of about 300
feet. - * * * f -
The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, but you are wrong in your figures.
There is a drop of 210 feet at Niagara Falls and then a drop of 90
feet from there to the lake. 3 *
General BIXBY.; Yes; the chairman is correct. I was figuring on
the total drop to Lake Ontario.
Mr. BoycE. I am not interested in that. -
The CHAIRMAN. But I did not want the record to be wrong.
Mr. BoxcE. As I understand it, from Buffalo on the Niagara
River there is a descent all the way down until we get to the Falls,
and then there is a sudden drop in the river. :
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. BoxcE. You say that is a drop of 210 feet?
General BIxBY. Yes; 210 feet. - • * .
The CHAIRMAN. And then 90 feet from there to Lake Ontario.
Mr. BoxcE. And from there on is Niagara River to Lake Ontario.
Now, as I am informed, there are certain diversions or uses of
water at or near Niagara Falls—you do not call them diversions—
for water-power purposes?
General BIxBY., Yes.
Mr. BoxcE. Hydroelectric power?
General BIxBY. Yes. &
Mr. BoycE. Some of these uses are made available north of the
Falls, are they not, including the Welland Canal? .
General BIXBY. South of the course of Niagara Falls, or I should
Say upstream; yes. - $
The CHAIRMAN. I am quite familiar with the facts there and I
would, perhaps, be able to enlighten you— , ,
Mr. BoxcE. What I am getting at is this. Some of these water
powers are established between Buffalo and the Falls, but in the
vicinity of the Falls. Is that right?
The CHAIRMAN. No. On the American side; I should say about 1
mile above the Falls there is an open canal cut running from the
north side of the river in a northwesterly direction a distance, I
should say, of probably 2 miles. ---
Mr. BoycE. There is a call of the House, and I would like to ask
the General a few additional questions to-morrow morning. .
The CHAIRMAN. I will finish my statement and we will have it
written up, so you can see it.
632 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. McDUFFIE. What question is now before the court to be de-
cided? Is not this whole matter, or a great deal of it, before the
court now? - ,
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. " . . . . . . . . . . . . . s
Mr. McDUFFIE. Well, what is at issue before the court; is it the
right to take more water? - v.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the right to take more than 4,167 cubic feet
per Second in one suit. • ..! , - *
Mr. BARRETT. I think Mr. McDuffie ought to have the facts clear
in his mind. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Let the chairman finish his statement. *
Mr. BARRETT. Pardon me, I thought he was through, or I would
not have interrupted.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, there are suits pending, one
of which has been tried and is on appeal—that is, the injunction
suit, as I underständ it—to restrain the city of Chicago from taking
more than 4,167 cubic second-feet. That suit was first presented to
Judge Landis, and held many years by him, and finally he handed
down informally, orally, a decision adverse to Chicago, but it was
never translated into a decree before he ceased to be a judge and
went off the bench. The case was then presented to Judge Car-
penter, and he entered a decree restraining Chicago from taking
more than 4,167 cubic second-feet. That decree has been appealed
to the Supreme Côurt of the United States and, as I understand it,
is now on the calendar and it will be reached in November. Is that
a fair statement so far, Judge?
Mr. BARRETT. With the exception that there should be added that
the litigation now pending before the Supreme Court of the United
States embraced only one question, which is the right of the War
Department under the rivers and harbors act of 1899 to limit the
Chicago flow. That is all. It has no effect on this legislation at all.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding is that
Mr. BARRETT. May I go a step farther? In fact, every statement
of the War Department that has been made on this has contained in
it the statement that the War Department was going to call this
'matter to the attention of Congress and ask Congress to act upon it.
The CHAIRMAN. There is the issue in that case; it is a single issue.
Now, the second case is the case brought by the State of Wisconsin,
in which I understand certain other States have joined.
Mr. ADCOCK. No ; they have not intervened. That only seeks to
enjoin the taking of water in excess of 4,167 cubic feet. I think it
really does raise the question of whether or not there is a right to
take any, but that is the extent of the prayer in that suit.
The CHAIRMAN. That is my understanding, that the whole is
presented.
Mr. BARRETT. One thing more, Congressman. The Wisconsin suit
has never been tried, and not a line of testimony has been taken in it.
The CHAIRMAN. You will remember, Mr. McDuffie, that the attor-
ney general of Wisconsin stated that they had not taken the testi-
mony as yet. I think we asked him somewhat at length about that
question, as you will see in the record. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Well, can we have any opinion or form any idea
as to how long it will be before the court.acts upon this question that
we are more or less passing upon here now?
*
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 633
The CHAIRMAN. I should suppose the argument of the case in
November would determine largely the question here.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The court must necessarily be determining the
treaty we are talking about in the consideration of this lawsuit,
must it not? t -
Mr. BARRETT. Only as an incident. We will undertake to explain
that whole thing so as to make it perfectly clear to you. . .
General BIxBy. I would like to add one thing more to my testi-
mony.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. -
General BIxBY. February 9, 1911, I was required by the War
Department to submit a report on this question of diversions, which
constitute the views of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har-
bors, and my own view. That report was forwarded by the Secre-
tary of War to Congress, to the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives, February 9, 1911, stating the situation in 1911.
February 28, 1912, I was required to prepare a memorandum
for the Secretary of War on the subject as Chief of Engineers, and
I prepared this memorandum for the Secretary of War on the
subject of this sanitary district diversion. That was February 28,
1912. Those two reports of mine state the same thing that I have
put into my statement here and other things which I did not have
in the statement. - ſ
The CHAIRMAN. How long are they?
General BIxBY. One is three pages and the other is a page and a
half. -
Mr. HULL. Would they be a duplication of what you have said
here to-day?
General BIxBY. Not entirely.
Mr. HULL. It does not seem to me we ought to put both in be-
cause there might be some duplication.
General BIxBY. They are official documents.
The CHAIRMAN. We will want to refer to them and I think we
had better put them in the record.
General BIxBY. I think they ought to be in the record, where you
can refer to them. (See p. 727.)
Mr. ADCOCK. Can we ask some questions to-morrow morning?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; we are going to let you ask all the ques-
tions you want to. We will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock
promptly. In the meantime, General, will you be good enough to
get up the figures as to the Welland Canal and as to diversions of
power on both sides, and if you can put that in the form of a map,
showing where the water is diverted for power purposes, on both
sides, and where it is returned, we would like to have that done.
General BixBY. Very well, Mr. Chairman.
(Thereupon, at 4.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Tuesday, April 29, 1924, at 10 o’clock a. m.)
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Tuesday, April 29, 1924.
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment,
Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chairman) presiding. -
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
91.739—24—PT 2—25
634 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
STATEMENT OF GEN. WILLIAM. H. BIXBY—Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. General Bixby, I just want to say that I myself
made an error in the statement of the fall at Niagara. I understand
that the fall at the cataract is only 158 feet, instead of 210, but there
is a 90-foot fall through the rapids and what is known as Devils
Hole, and the balance of about 60 feet is from Devils Hole down to
Lake Ontario, making 320. I left out the 60-foot fall below the
Devils Hole, and I got the fall at the cataract itself too high.
General, something was said to you about the operation of locks
anywhere in a navigable stream, and the impression that I derived
from your testimony was that locks were kept in operation all the
time, regardless of whether they were in actual use for the passage of
boats, and that all the water must necessarily pass through the locks.
The fact is quite otherwise, isn't it? Water in the locks is only used
when they are locking a boat through, and at other times the water is
by-passed at the side of the lock? That is, if you know.
General BIxBY. Yes, I know about it. In the first place, it depends
on where the lock is. If the lock is in a river like the Ohio, there is
only a small proportion of the water that goes through the lock. If it
is in a canal, in a general case, the water goes all through the lock or
through by-passages that are constructed at the same time the lock is,
and that some people would consider part of the lock, but the
water does not necessarily go into the lock basin and out of the lock
basin. It may go through the culverts in the side of the walls of the
lock, if any water flows at the time that the lock is not in use, but the
majority of canals frequently do not have any flow of water except
the leakage through the locks, which is always an appreciable
quantity, and the water that goes through the lock by the lockage of
the boats when the boats come along; the boats as a rule demand a
passage through the lock as soon as they arrive, and if the lock is
big enough to take in a whole fleet and there are only one or two boats
there, the locks very often have to open up for one or two boats just
as readily as they would for a whole fleet. When a canal is busy to
its full capacity, then all the water practically goes through the locks,
and the amount of water that is used is dependent on the number of
lockages which you can make in the course of the year. For example,
up at the Soo and other large locks like that, and down at Panama,
the best they can do as a rule is to make one lockage every half hour,
and in the Illinois River, where they have big locks, they will be for-
tunate if they average one lockage in half an hour. They may have
to take three-quarters of an hour for each lockage; but suppose that
they have good luck when they fill up the locks, open the gates, get
the boats in, lower the water, let the boats out, and shut the gates, if
they do that in half an hour they are doing remarkably well.
In figuring up the amount of water that was necessary in the
Illinois River for locking purposes, I was orginally figuring on the
fact that they might want water enough so that they could keep
their locks busy all the time, and therefore they would want water
enough to fill up the locks once every half hour, and then they would
be doing all that they possibly could do, and the water that would
do that much would be all that they would need in the pure interest
of navigation. There would be leakages around the gates in addi-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 635
tion, which they could gradually stop up more or less. They would
not need to flow any water through the sides or culverts of the
canals for the mere interest of navigation through the canal.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
General BIXBY. In reference to the Welland Canal, yesterday I
was asked about the distances, and I have inquired from the Cana-
dians who know the locality, and they tell me that the old Welland
Canal’s inlet in Lake Erie was originally out of a river. Then, they
cut through the summit so that the inlet in the Welland Canal was
after that directly from Lake Erie. The new canal uses the same
location on Lake Erie exactly as the old canal, so that the new
canal takes its water directly from Lake Erie.
The old canal emptied into Lake Ontario about 10 miles from the
mouth of Niagara. The new canal will empty into Lake Ontario
about 5 miles from the mouth of Niagara.
The CHAIRMAN. How about the inlet? How far is that?
General BIxBY. The inlet in Lake Erie is what I have just de-
scribed. I do not remember its distance.
The CHAIRMAN. I am specially interested in that.
General BIxBY. It is about 40 miles, but I won’t say for certain.
The old Welland Canal connected with the Welland River, so that
boats could go through the Welland River and then down the Wel-
land Canal and go into the Niagara River in the Chippewa Basin
above the Falls. So that the old Welland Canal had two outlets,
one into the Niagara River above the Falls, and the other into Lake
Ontario, depending on which way the boats wanted to go.
The CHAIRMAN. But the new canal will have only the one outlet
into Lake Ontario?
General BIxBY. The new canal is dug for big boats, and the big
boats don’t go down to the Chippewa.
The CHAIRMAN. Coming back to this question of the operation of
locks again, 1 live at Lockport where we have locks, and large locks.
I am not a mechanic and know nothing about the operation of locks,
but it has been my observation as I have passed the bridge frequently,
generally several times a day, that there is practically no water in
the locks except during the lockages, and that the water is conveyed
around in a by-pass except when the lockages are going on. I may
be wrong about that, but that is just by recollection.
General BIXBY. When the boats move into the lock the water level
must be on a level with the canal.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, when they open the gates. When the
open them the water comes in and gradually rises to the higher level.
General BIxBY. Yes, sir; and then when a boat is sunk it goes
down to the lower level.
The CHAIRMAN. When they open the lower gates the water comes
down to the next lower level.
General BIXBY. Yes; and then there is always in the lock water
either of the upper level or the lower level.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true. -
General BIxBY. And the general practice is, when a boat comes
through, to leave the lock in the condition which it is in when the
boat gets out. -.
The CHAIRMAN. When the boat leaves it.
636 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIXBY. When the boat leaves it, yes; because if the boat
is going from an upper down to a lower level, they want to wait
to see if there is not another boat in the lower level that wants to
come up, the desire always being to send one down and one up alter-
nately, and they save water in that way.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you the report of the commission on the
St. Lawrence waterway, the report of that Joint Canadian and Amer-
ican Commission? Have you that with you?
General BIxBY. I think I have a copy.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to see it a moment. -
... General Bixby. I find I have not got that report. I have got
the International Waterways report. * *
The CHAIRMAN. Have any of you gentlemen a copy of that report?
(A copy of the report referred to was presented by one of the
Canadian representatives.)
The CHAIRMAN. Now, General, can you readily turn to the recom-
mendation of this International Waterways Commission, regarding
the Welland Canal? Do you have this in mind so that you can
turn to it readily?
General BIxBY. I have not; no. I don’t know that I have seen that
for a long while.
Mr. RAINEY. I think it is the last two paragraphs of the Ander-
son report.
. The CHAIRMAN. I do not hardly think this is what I had in mind.
You remember, General, there was a commission of the engineers
of the two countries appointed to make a survey and recommenda-
tions as to the St. Lawrence route. My recollection is that that
was not over three or four, or five years ago.
General BIxBY. It was not over that, certainly. They made the
survey to assist the International Joint Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. That was what I wanted. You haven’t got that,
have you?
General BIxBY. I do not seem to have it. Now, I want to add just
one little statement about the Great Lakes, so as to clear up another
idea about the Great Lakes; which some members of the com-
mittee -
. The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Wait just one minute. I did not
finish what I wanted to complete. I want to make an orderly com-
pletion of this question of lockages. While the water is on the lower
level and the upper gates of the lock are closed, the water must pass
around in some other way than through the locks?
General BIXBY. If it has to pass around. But on many canals
there is no need of it, as they have not got any water to spare for
OWGI’.
p The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about power. I am talking
simply about the filling of the lower levels. If the water passes it
must pass in some other way than through the locks during the time
that these upper locks are closed? º * *
General BIxBY. Exactly, and in that case they provide side culverts
or they provide diversion canals. t
!. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; now, go ahead with your other statement.
General BIxBY. Speaking of the Great Lakes, the majority of peo-
ple do not have clear in their minds the levels of the Lakes with refer-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 637
ence to the ocean, although we have got it in figures, nor the depths
of the Lakes. Some one here the other day made the remark that if
the diversion was large enough at Lake Michigan they might drain
all of Lake Michigan, and somebody suggested they might drain
Lake Superior. Now, I want to get that idea clearly into your mind.
The Washington Monument is 555 feet high. It stands about 25 feet
above the water level of the ocean, so that the top of the monument is
about 580 feet above sea level. That is the level of Lake Michigan. So
Lake Michigan is on a level with the top of the Washington Monu-
ment. Superior is 20 feet higher. Now, Superior's water surface is
20 feet higher than the top of the Washington Monument and 1,200
feet deep, so that the bottom of Lake Superior is 600 feet lower than
the base of the Washington Monument, consequently you could never
drain off Lake Superior under any circumstances. The level of Lake
Michigan is just on a level with the top of the Washington Monu-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The level of the surface?
General BIxBY. The level of the surface, and Michigan is a very
deep lake. The bottom of Lake Michigan is on a level about 300 feet
below the base of the Washington Monument. Erie is only 8 feet
lower than Michigan, so that the level of the water surface of Erie is
only 8 or 10 feet below the top of the Washington Monument, but
Lake Erie is a shallow lake, and the bottom of Lake Erie is on a level
of about 2% of the way up on the Washington Monument, above
the line of the old and the new stone. Ontario is only a little over 200
feet above sea level, so that the level of the top of Lake Ontario is up
about at that line of division between the new and old stone, but On-
tario is a deep lake and the bottom of Ontario is 500 feet below the
base of the Monument. So there is no danger of Ontario or Michi-
gan or Superior ever draining off at any time, no matter whether the
channel is 500 feet deep or not.
But Erie might easily be drained off into Ontario, if any leakage
should start in the rock surfaces that intervene between Erie and
Ontario. The Falls of Niagara have evidently cut back 7 miles
from Ontario in we do not know how many years, and it is of course
possible, but not probable, that there might be some opening up of the
seams in the rock, and water, going through with that big head,
might possibly, but not probably, scour out a channel, and you
might have trouble in stopping Erie from being drained off into
Ontario.
Mr. NEwTON. In view of the fact of what you have said, the drain-
ing out of Lake Erie is more serious than it is out of Lake Michigan?
General BIXBY. There is more serious danger, because there is no
danger at Michigan, and there is a chance of one in a million perhaps
that there might be some danger in Erie.
Mr. Boy CE. Mr. Chairman Ż
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Boyce.
Mr. Boy CE. General Bixby, when I left the committee yesterday to
answer a call from the House for a record vote, I think I had started
to inquire about the power plants in and around Niagara Falls.
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. BOYCE. And I rather think I had inquired, but I did not get
your answer, because I could not wait, whether the power plants were
South of the Falls or north of the Falls.
638 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIXBY. The power plants of Niagara?
Mr. BoycE. Yes. f • . . . '
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can give you, that information better
than General Bixby, if you will permit me.
Mr. Boy CE. I would be very glad. I am just seeking a little infor-
mation which will help me and it may help other members of the
committee. -
General BIXBY. And I think it would make it clearer if you would
say upstream and downstream rather than the points of the com-
paSS. . . . -
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can give it to him from the points of
the compass and upstream and downstream both.
Mr. BOYCE. I had just as soon have it upstream and downstream.
The CHAIRMAN. I will give it to you both ways, Judge. On the
American side there is only one plant now. -
Mr. BOYCE. Are you speaking upstream 7
The CHAIRMAN. I will locate it both upstream and by the points
of the compass. -
Mr. BOYCE. If all of the power plants are not above the Falls, I
lºng to inquire whether there are any power plants below the
3.11S. . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Let us take the two sides separately. On
the American side there is but one power plant in use. There is an
inefficient plant, only 50 per cent efficient, which under the license
granted to the American company had to be discontinued and I think
has been totally discontinued. This American plant is located as
follows. A diversion of the canal discharge, I should say, about 1
mile above the Falls. -
Mr. BoycE. From the Niagara River?
The CHAIRMAN. In the Niagara River, on the north side of the
Niagara River. It runs in a general northwesterly direction from
the point of diversion above the Falls to a point on the river bank
about half a mile below the Falls. *
Mr. BoycE. In other words, the diversion is from Niagara River
above the Falls and returned below the Falls?
The CHAIRMAN. It is taken about 1 mile, I should think, or not to
exceed 1 mile, above the Falls, and it is returned to the river I should
think about half a mile below the Falls, north of and down the
stream from the cataract.
Mr. HULL. It does not go over the cataract?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. The river for probably 9 miles above
the cataract runs in a general westerly direction and the water
goes over the Falls in a northwesterly direction. Below the Falls
the river makes a right-angle turn and runs in a northerly direction
to the whirlpool, which is 3 miles below the Falls. There it makes
another right-angle turn and runs northeast and north. That gives
you the general direction of the river. Here is your river running
west. It jumps over the Falls, falls over the precipice, and makes
a right-angle turn like that [indicating by diagram]. Here is your
power canal which runs just like that [indicating]. -
Mr. BoycE. You have directed your remarks to one plant.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 639
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is the plant that takes all except that
500 cubic feet on the American side. Five hundred cubic feet has
been heretofore conveyed for some years by the Erie Canal.
Mr. BOYCE. And that one plant is above the Falls? *.
The CHAIRMAN. This one plant takes the fall on the river ban
and half a mile below the fall returns the water, after using it, to
the river at that point. ! . .
Mr. BoycE. And that is the only one on the American side?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, 19,500 of the 20,000 cubic feet has
been for a short time only used by that, one plant, because that plant
has been remodeled. - * * * * !
Mr. Boy CE. Is there any diversion of water from , the Niagara
River above the Falls to supply water power located below, the Falls?
The CHAIRMAN. Not on the American side. Just let me finish
with that 500 feet, if you will. That is 19,500. As to that 500 feet
that has been conveyed by the Erie Canal to Lockport and used there,
it is my understanding that the rights as to Lockport have been ac-
quired by the Niagara Falls Power Co., and that the whole 20,000
cubic feet—that is, very recently, within a few weeks—and that the
whole 20,000 cubic feet will be used from this time, on at Niagara
Falls, and through this power, canal to which I have directed your
attention. That takes care of the whole American side. Now, let
us take the Canadian side.
Mr. BoycE. You are still upstream, are you?'
The CHAIRMAN. No ; I am going downstream.
Mr. BOYCE. On the Canadian side? • *
The CHAIRMAN. On the Canadian side. . . . " .
Mr. Boy CE. Is the diversion below the Falls on the Canadian side?
The CHAIRMAN. The diversion, as I understand, is above the Falls
on the Canadian side. - * , 4
Mr. BoycE. Both American and Canadian! t . .
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. It is above the Falls. As to the precise
point I can not say. g g
Mr. BoycE. It is not material. . "
The CHAIRMAN. But it is carried down the river about 4 to 4%.
miles, and is returned to the river on the west side of the river at a
point I should say just about 4% miles below the Falls. That one
plant is a new plant which has not been entirely completed as yet.
They are installing units from time to time. Those units I think
are separate units and develop something like 70,000 horsepower for
each unit, and they have been installing separate units from time
to time during the past year. . . . 3. $. *
Mr. BoycE. Then there is diversion from Niagara River above the
Falls for two plants, one on the American side and one on the Cana-
dian side?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. . . . .
Mr. BoycE. And so far as you know that is all? . .
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. There was on the Canadian side at least
two plants, which are being abandoned for the same reason that one
* the plants on the American side was abandoned. It was not
efficient. * : { --
640 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BoxcE. Is there any diversion of water from Niagara River
below the Falls for power purposes? t t
The CHAIRMAN. None. There has been contemplated on the
American side a diversion of this kind.
Mr. Boyce. There is none existing now?
The CHAIRMAN. There is none existing now.
Mr. BoycE. The rest is immaterial, so far as I am presently
concerned. *
The CHAIRMAN. There are none existing on either side.
Mr. BoycE. The Welland Canal lies between Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it starts, as I understand, about 10 to 20
miles west of Buffalo on the north shore of Lake Erie. It runs
north about 27 miles. It has cost or will cost when it is completed,
I think, about $75,000,000.
Mr. Boyce. And whatever diversion there is through the Wel-
land Canal is immediately diverted from Lake Erie.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BoxcE. And it flows into Lake Ontario.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, I will say as to that, Judge, I ex-
pect to produce here the report—or at least the witnesses tell me that
it will be produced here—of this International Commission of Engi-
neers to survey the St. Lawrence route and among their recom-
mendations is one that the Welland Canal is a part of the St.
Lawrence waterway and should be adopted by this country as such,
and that this country should pay its proportion of the cost of the
Welland Canal.
Mr. BoycE. That would be very natural. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is a joint report unanimously signed by the
two countries. One of the hearings preceding the making of this
joint report was at the city of Chicago, which was participated in
by the municipal authorities, the mayor and some of the most
prominent of their citizens, in which they advocated precisely what
was done; that is, what was done as to the report. They advocated
the adoption of the Welland Canal as a part of the St. Lawrence
waterway. That is my recollection of the hearing, and they dealt
also with the question of diversion here in those hearings, and my
recollection is—well, there will be produced here the statement of
their engineer as to this diversion.
Mr. BoycE. General Bixby, I understood you to say yesterday
that the diversion of waters in the vicinity of Niagara Falls, both
for the Welland Canal and for the power plants, could not properly
be regarded—I may not be using your language—as a diversion,
º rather a use, because the water used was returned to the Niagara
1Ver’.
General BIxBY. Yes; I said it was not a diversion so far as con-
cerned the interests of navigation, but it was a diversion so far as
concerned the scenic effect at Niagara.
Mr. BoycE. Assuming that is true—and it must be so—what pos-
sible effect would such a return have upon the upper Great Lakes?
General BIxBY (interposing). It leaves Lake Ontario—
Mr. BoycE. I have not finished my question.
General BIxBY. Excuse me. s
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 641
Mr. BoycE. What possible effect would the waters diverted from
Lake Erie and the Niagara River, returned to the Niagara River or
Lake Ontario below the Falls, have upon the lakes above the Falls,
including the whole system of the upper Great Lakes?
General BIXBY. That would leave Ontario unchanged.
Mr. BoycE. Well, Ontario does not contribute anything, does it,
to the lake levels of all the lakes lying above the Falls? -
General BIxBY. No. Ontario does not affect the lake levels.
Mr. Boy CE. Because it is below the Falls?
General BIxBY. Because it is so far below the Falls.
Mr. Boy CE. So far below the Falls?
General BIxBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BoycE. And it can have no possible effect upon the levels of
the lakes lying above the Falls?
General BIxBY. No. d
Mr. BoycE. Is it not the same with reference to the use of waters
of the upper Niagara River, though returned to the Niagara River
below the Falls? Can such return have any possible effect upon
the lakes above the Falls?
General BIxBY. No effect whatever. l
1Mr. BoycE. So that, so far as the lakes above the Falls are con-
cerned, any water diverted, either through the Welland Canal or
for power purposes, is lost to the upper lakes, as much so as if it
were diverted into the Illinois River?
General BIxBY. Well, all the water diverted from Lake Erie in
this way, if you call the Welland Canal a diversion or call the Niagara
River a diversion
Mr. BoxcE (interposing). I am speaking about the effect.
General BIxBY. All the water that flows out of Lake Erie into On-
tario, no matter which way it flows, does not change
Mr. BOYCE. It can go but one way; that is downstream?
General BIxBY. Downstream, of course. But I mean by whatever
route it goes to Ontario the same amount of water leaves Erie and
the same amount of water gets into Ontario, and therefore the effect
on the lake level is not to change the normal conditions.
Mr. BoxcE. But isn’t it a fact that waters diverted from Lake Erie
and emptying into Ontario can have no possible effect upon the lakes
lying above Lake Erie? y
General BIxBY. They have practically no effect on the lake levels
above Niagara. . - y r
Mr. BoycE. So that it is not the water
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not get that answer. I will
ask the stenographer to read it.
(The reporter read the last remark of General Bixby.)
Mr. BoxCE. It is a physical fact, isn't it? -
General BIxBY. Here the water has to flow into Lake Erie at one
end and flow out at the other, and therefore that establishes a normal
flow. . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. BoycE. But when the waters leave Lake Erie, or when they
leave the Niagara River, they, whether used for the Welland Canal
or for power purposes, are diverted above the Falls, and they are
returned in the case of the Welland Canal into Lake Ontario, or in
the case of the power plants into the Niagara River below the Falls.
91739–24—PT 2—26
*
642 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Is not water so diverted lost so far as all the other lakes above the
Falls are concerned? - . . . .
General BIXBY. It is gone—
Mr. BoycE. Including Lake Erie :
General BIXBY. It is gone as far as all the other lakes are con-
cerned, but it is not gone any more than it was gone under the
natural flow that existed in olden days. w
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, General; the question presented
as to the diversions at Niagara and the Welland Canal is just this:
What difference does it make, if any, between a diversion of the
entire flow over the Falls and a diversion of 36,000 cubic feet on the
Canadian side and 20,000 on the American side, in the ways that
have been described, one being returned 4% miles below the Falls
and the other about half a mile below the Falls, and a diversion
at the Welland Canal from the point specified into Lake Ontario—
what difference does it make in lake levels, if any, diverting through
the power plants and through the Welland Canal rather than over
the crest of Niagara? It all goes through the Niagara River into
Lake Ontario. • ?
General BIXBY. The diversion at Niagara Falls affects nothing.
The CHAIRMAN. The only difference, I understand, is to affect
the quantity over the Falls by the diversion through the Welland
Canal and the power plants. º • . . . -
General BIxBY. That is all.
Mr. BoycE. It does do that, presumably? t
ºral BIXBY. The Welland diversion affects the scenic beauty
a little. - k
Mr. BoxcE. But the fact that the water goes over the Falls into
the Niagara River below, or through the Welland Canal into On-
tario, or is used for the power plants, returned to Niagara River
below the Falls, has no possible effect, has it, upon the system lakes
lying above the Falls? *
General BIXBY. It has no effect to change the former existing
normal conditions of the lakes. It does not change the old order of
things. It does not effect any changes above the changes that occur
§ year with climatic and atmospheric conditions and other
things. . . - *
.# BoycE. You do not think it is physically possible that the
creation of canals (there is only one now) and the creation of water
powers at or in the vicinity of Niagara Falls, would have any effect
beyond that which would arise, if you had neither, and the water
used for such purpose went over the Falls?
General BIXBY. That is the idea, that the diversions right at Niag-
ara Falls, these water powers, from just above the Falls to just
below the Falls, produce no damage or ameliorating or bettering
effect on the lakes above. * : , . . . .
Mr. BoycE. It is possible, is it not, by mechanical processes to
divert more water from Lake Erie? .
General BIXBY. Oh, yes; you can drain Lake Erie if you want to,
but it would not be a business proposition to do it exãctly as now
done at Niagara Falls. } h
Mr. Boyce. Are you prepared to say as a fact that, by reason of
the establishment of the Welland Canal and the establishment of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 643
the power plants, no more water is emptied out of Lake Erie than
that which went over the Falls before the creation of the canal
and the power plants? *
General BIxBY. I have already stated that the Welland Canal
does make a diversion which produces a very small effect, compara-
tively speaking, on Lake Erie, and a much smaller effect, practically
insignificant, on Lake Michigan. -
Mr. BoycE. And could not that effect be mechanically increased ?
General BIxBY. Yes, and it can be mechanically diminished, too.
That is a subject of regulation for the future under the commission,
under Canada and the United States. But that diversion had to
be put up with because it was an existing diversion at the time of
the treaty, and the tendency today is to get rid of all of those losses
at the Welland Canal just as soon as the Canadian Government can
manage to cancel the leases. - t i -
Mr. BoycE. Let me ask this question, and then I will stop. Is it
not possible to so increase the diversion of water in and around Niag-
ara that it would ultimately "affect Lake Michigan, although it
might take one, two, or more months to do so, equal in effect to
the present diversion at Lake Michigan into the Illinois River?
General BIXBY. It is possible as an engineering proposition to do
something of the sort, but it would not be at all practicable, and it
would have to be an enormous diversion of Lake Erie through the
Welland Canal to produce the same effect as by the abstraction of
water from Lake Michigan. . . . . ." :
Mr. BoycE. Such a diversion in the vicinity of Niagara, assuming
it should be larger than at present, would affect Lake Michigan,
would it not ? . . . . . . . . . . . .
General BIXBY. It is possible, of course; it is possible also to dig
a canal from Lake Michigan to Lake Ontario and cut the whole
business out. . . . . . . . . . *
Mr. BoycE. Permit me to further inquire: Do you or do you not
know whether there are any existing influences toward a larger
diversion of water from Lake Erie and the Niagara River above
the Falls? . t *.
General BIxBY. Why, the waterways commission recommended
the establishment of a joint commission, and the treaty stated that
that was the very object of the treaty—to stop the possibility of
these enormous diversions on both the American side and the Cana-
dian side, and put them under control. If people live up to the
treaty they won’t have any trouble. • ‘ .
Mr. NEwTON: You speak about regulating works at Niagara!
General BIxBY. Yes. . . . . . . -
Mº, NEwTON. Regulating, works means to reduce the flow, does
it not? . . .
General BIxBY. Not necessarily. .
Mr. NEwTON. How would you put in regulating works without
reducing the flow Ż
General BIXBY. The regulating works at the Soo are for the pur-
pose of raising the water. -
Mr. NEWTON. But they decrease the amount of water that goes
out of Lake Superior? . . . . - -
644 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
General BIXBY. One moment. Those at the Soo are for the pur-
pose of raising the level. At times we have a surplus of water
from rainfall, and we will use the control works to hold it back;
and then when the time of drought comes along, we will release it,
lowering Lake Superior and increasing the outflow from Lake
uperior into Lake Michigan; so that the regulating works at some
times diminish the flow and at other times increase the flow.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they regulate the flow %
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Now, let us get right into that. In order to raise
the level you reduce the flow, do you not?
General BIXBY. No; sometimes we increase it. * ,
Mr. NEWTON. Can you tell me how you can increase the flow out
of a hundred thousand gallon tank and raise the level?
General BIXBY. By turning on another inflow faucet into the tank.
Mr. NEWTON. But where are you going to turn another inflow into
Lake Superior other than what nature gives? t
General BIXBY. At Lake Superior we do not get any more than
what nature gives us; no.
Mr. NEWTON. And you can not increase that, can you?
General BIxBY. No; not there. -
Mr. NEWTON. And there is but one way to raise Lake Superior at
any time, and that is by reducing the flow out of it, is it not?
General BIxBY. Correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. Is that true, that the level of
Iake Superior can not be raised through rainfalls in its drainage
area as well as in the other way specified?
ºl BIXBY. I did not intend to imply that we had control of
the rain. --
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what you testified was that the only way to
raise the level of Lake Superior was one way, and that was to stop
it up and keep it all there. Now, that is not true, is it?
General BIxBY. I understood Mr. Newton to state that the rainfall
was there.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; that was not stated in his question at all.
hº NEwTON. Assuming that the rainfall is there, we can not stop
that'ſ -
General BIxBY. The rainfall furnishes the water.
Mr. NEWTON. And, of course, the rainfall varies from season to
Season to a certain extent, does it not?
General BIxBY. Always. . .
Mr. NEWTON. But assuming that the rainfall is regular, the only
way to raise the level, if you have the regular rainfall—the only way
to raise the level of the lake would be to reduce the flow out of the
lake; and if you reduce the flow out of the lake, you will accumulate
more water in the lake, won’t you?
General BIxBY. Yes; that is the object of the regulating works and
storage reservoir. •
Mr. NEWTON. If you increase the flow out of the lake, you necessa-
rily reduce its level, do you not? z
General BIxBY. All other conditions remaining unchanged?
Mr. NEwTON. Yes; we assume that all the conditions remain un-
changed in all these questions. Now, if you increase the flow out of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 645
the lake you reduce the level, and if you reduce the flow out of the
lake you increase the level.
General BIXBY. All other conditions remaining unchanged.
Mr. NEWTON. Now, that is just as true in Lake Erie as it is in
Lake Superior?
General BIXBY. It is true everywhere.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but there is not any evidence of your increas-
ing the flow up to this time from Lake Erie by the diversion either
at the Falls or at the Welland Canal. The evidence so far is that
the flow from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario remains unchanged, and
the question is based purely on an assumption contrary to every bit
of evidence that has been given, is it not?
Mr. NEWTON. Let us see whether the chairman is correct on "that
oint.
p General BIXBY. I made the statement here the other day that no
increase of levels on the Lakes anywhere could be ascribed and re-
garded as due to abstractions of water from the Lakes.
Mr. NEwTON. Well, the Welland Canal flows directly out of Lake
Erie, does it not?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Your 10,000 cubic feet per second out of Lake Erie
through the Welland Canal reduces Lake Erie not less than the 10,000
cubic feet per second out of Michigan through the Chicago Canal?
General BIXBY. All other conditions remaining unchanged, it will
reduce the levels of Lake Erie, certainly, as much.
Mr. NEWTON. It will have exactly the same effect?
General BIXBY. It will have a corresponding effect.
Mr. NEWTON. But Lake Erie is a smaller lake, is it not?
General BIxBY. A smaller lake.
Mr. NEWTON. Ten thousand cubic feet per second out of Lake Erie
probably would reduce the level of that lake more than 10,000 cubic
feet per second out of Lake Michigan would reduce Lake Michigan,
would it not? -
General BIXBY. Yes; but under the existing conditions—and they
can not be changed, except by joint commission rulings—when you
take water out of Lake Erie and put it through the Welland Canal
you reduce the outflow from the Niagara River, and they practically,
not quite but nearly, balance each other; and so you don’t get any
more outflow from Lake Erie into Lake Ontario than you did before.
Mr. NEWTON. In other words, if you have a tank with 100,000 gal-
lons of water in it, and you have one pipe leading out, that takes a
flow with a diameter of 5 inches, and then you put in another pipe 5
inhº, in diameter, the one counteracts the other? Is that what you
ITQ08.I] .
General BIxBY. I didn’t say so.
Mr. NEWTON. Well, when you make a new opening you take out
more water, do you not?
General BIxBY. We do not flow water from lake to lake through
pipes; we flow it through notches.
Mr. NEWTON. You flow it through openings?
General BIxBY. Yes; through openings in the form of notches.
Mr. NEwTON. If you have one opening that has taken a certain
quantity of water, if you open another opening on the rim of that
lake you will drain the lake faster, won’t you?
646 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIXBY. Sometimes, and Sometimes not.
Mr. NEWTON. When not? . . . . * * - . .
General BIxBY. Because when you cut that other notch in the side
and the lake begins to drop, the lake level drops at the bigger opening,
and the bigger opening has a larger cross Section, and the moment the
water begins to drop a foot through that outlet it loses velocity, and
if you cut it down far enough you get no velocity at all in the other
Opening. . - ! - - .
, Mr. NEWTON. Well, it will drop faster after you make the other
opening, won’t it? . . , ; ; ; , . . . . . . . .
General BIxBY. At the start; yes: . . . . . -
Mr. NEWTON. It will drop faster; the lake level will continue to
drop faster all the time, as long as the other opening stays open,
won’t it?
General BIXBY. It may, and it may not.
Mr. NEWTON. You can only increase the flow at Niagara by raising
the level of the Lakes, can you not; that is the only way you can in-
crease the flow over Niagara; is not that true?
General BIxBY. From Lake Erie'
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
General BIxBY. Yes. That is the only way that I know of increas-
ing the flow over Niagara except to dig out the Niagara River—to
widen and deepen the Niagara River. . . . . . . . .
Mr. NEwTON. And it is only by reducing the level of Lake Erie
that the flow over Niagara is reduced? . . . . \
General Bixby. Well, there are so many funny things about that;
you don’t, by any cuts that you make from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario,
you do not change the total amount of rainfall that occurs on the
upper lakes. s
Mr. NEWTON. Not at all— - f
General BIxBY. So that for a short time you could cut openings
into Lake Ontario that would lower the level of Lake Erie, but by
and by things would get back to a normal flow, and the flow over
Niagara would be the same as it was before.
Mr. NEwToN. Then you say that ultimately 10,000 cubic feet per
second of water through the Welland Canal would not lower the
level of Lake Erie? - -
General BIxBY. No; I never said that.
Mr. NEwTON. But I thought you said ultimately it would get
back
General BIxBY. Ultimately the relations between Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario would come back to their former conditions, and the
same flow would go over Niagara steadily as went over it in former
years, unless the rainfall should change.
Mr. NEwToN. But we are assuming the rainfall to remain the same.
General Bixby. Then the flow over Niagara can not change except
during a temporary condition. -
Mr. NEWTON. And when that temporary condition is passed the
lake drops down again, and your flow over Niagara is again less?
General BIxBY. No; because your outlet does not drop; the depth
of your outlet does not drop. You see, this is entirely different in
running through notches than from running through pipes.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 647,
Mr. NEWTON. Well, a part of the water that originally went
through Niagara is now going through the Welland Canal.
General BIxBY. Yes. * , § y - -
Mr. NEWTON. Suppose you cut another canal between Lake Erie
and Lake Ontario; would not that again reduce the level of the lake?
General BIxBY. Of course. -
Mr. NEWTON. And as often as you, made new openings, that much
faster you would reduce the level of the lake? 4. --
General BIxBY. Naturally. |
Mr. NEWTON. And if you stopped all the canals up, then as the
rainfall came the lake would gradually come back to the original
condition and the original amount of water going over Niagara; is
not that true? . . . -
General BIxBY. Exactly. -- * -
Mr. NEWTON. You speak of the flow through the Chicago Canal.
as an abstraction?
General BIxBY. Yes. . . t
Mr. NEWTON. And the flow through the Welland Canal as a
diversion? g * x
General BIxBY. Certainly. . . # * r
Mr. Newtos. You consider that they are very different in their
nature? . . . . . . . . . - :
General BIXBY. One takes water away permanently from the lakes,
except Lake Superior, and the other one does not take it away from
any of the lakes. . . .
Mr. NEWTON. For navigation we consider a lake as a unit, do
we not? . . . . . .
General BIxBY. Often. . .
Mr. NEWTON. Do we not do that all the time for navigation; we
consider the lake as a unit to determine the navigation of that lake?
General BIxBY. Well, generally. * :
Mr. NEWTON. So far as Lake Michigan is concerned, the taking of
water through the Chicago Drainage Canal is an abstraction and
makes an extra pull on Lake Michigan? * $
General BIXBY. It is not only an extra pull on Lake Michigan, but
it is a pull on every lake below. - -
Mr. NEWTON. But we are talking about Lake Michigan now; it
is an extra pull on Lake Michigan. & -
General BIxBY. Yes; that is what is objected in the reports.
Mr. NEWTON. And we call that an abstraction.
General BIXBY. No: it is only an abstraction where you take it
out of one basin and put it off into another basin.
Mr. NEWTON. But so far as Lake Erie is concerned, there every
additional drop of water you take out through a canal, so far as
Lake Erie is concerned, is an abstraction from Lake Erie, is it not?
General BIXBY. Anything taken out of Lake Erie is an abstraction
from Lake Erie, but we do not call it— r
Mr. NEWTON (interposing). Yes; and would affect the levels, so
far as navigation is concerned, just as much as it would at the other
end out of Lake Michigan?
General BIXBY. If it is more water taken out of the lake than
flowed out of the lake before. -
, 648 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. NEwton. That is necessarily the result of every additional
canal cut through the rim of the lake, is it not ? |
General BIxBY. On that lake itself.
Mr. NEwTon. Yes; on that lake itself. Lake Erie happens to be
the lake where reduction is more serious, because the lake is more
shallow. - -
General BIxBY. Well, the same quantity of water taken from Lake
Erie will do more damage than that quantity of water taken from
Lake Michigan.
Mr. NEwTON. So far as navigation is concerned on Lake Erie,
10,000 cubic feet per second of water through the Welland Canal,
for illustration, would be much more serious than the same amount
of water through the Chicago Canal from Lake Michigan, would
it not—and for two reasons: First, because the area of the surface
of the lake is smaller; and, second, because the depth of the lake is
less?
General BIxBY. Taking the Welland Canal, with its present cross
section and elevation, taking Niagara River, with its present cross sec-
tion and elevation, at the outlet of Lake Erie and its level, then 10,000
cubic feet per second taken out through the Welland Canal, if we
found it did not change the flow out of Niagara, would produce more
serious damage on Lake Erie than it does on Lake Michigan; but
as I stated the other day, it is possible to take 10,000 cubic feet per
second out of Lake Erie in the location of the Welland Canal with-
out interfering at all with the flow out of the lake at Niagara, it is
possible to modify both outlets so that you could take 10,000 cubic
feet per second at the Welland Canal without injuring the other.
Mr. NEWTON. Well, the only way you can take 10,000 cubic feet
per second out through the Welland Canal, out of the body of Lake
Erie, without reducing the level, will be to reduce the flow over
Niagara by 10,000 cubic second-feet, will it not?
General BIXBY. I have my doubts about saying yes or no to that
proposition. $
Mr. NEWTON. How can you increase the number of gallons of
water that comes out of that lake without reducing its level?
General BIxBY. You can not.
Mr. NEwToN. Then if you are getting a given amount of water
over the Niagara and you take another 10,000 cubic feet out at the
Welland Canal, you must necessarily reduce the level.
General BIXBY. The Welland Canal is one outlet and the Niagara
River is another outlet, and the cross sections can be so regulated
that they will not flow together any more water than in the first
place, and you can give more water to Welland Canal than to
Niagara without reducing the lake levels at all.
Mr. NEwTON. But you reduce the flow at Niagara 2
General BIXBY. You reduce the flow at Niagara if you increase .
it at the Welland Canal, of course; but it does not necessarily affect
the levels of Lake Erie or affect the levels of Lake Ontario. It does
not at all affect Lake Ontario anyhow, and it does not necessarily
affect the levels of Lake Erie.
Mr. NEWTON. You can take half the water going over Niagara
now and divert it and send half of it through the Welland Canal,
and of course you would not reduce the lake levels.
General BIXBY. That is one of the things I was bringing out.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 649
Mr. NEWTON. But if you leave your rim the same at Niagara, the
opening the same at Niagara, and then make another opening at
the Welland Canal, then you would take more water than you did
before?
General BIxBY. That is correct.
Mr. NEwTON. Colonel Warren’s report shows the effect of that
has been to reduce the levels of Lake Erie.
General BIXBY. Slightly.
Mr. NEWTON. The only way that compensating works can be ef-
fective, taken year after year, is by reducing the flow out of the
lake, is it not?
General BIxBY. Temporarily.
Mr. NEwToN. Temporarily? Well, you have to reduce the flow
out of the lake for a given period of time, for a whole year, in
order to raise the level of that lake?
General BIxBY. No; you don’t have to reduce it more than one
day; but every bit of reduction raises the level, and the question
of the time is another matter altogether. It may be one year or it
may be five years to get the full desired rise.
Mr. NEWTON. Yes; but the only way you can make the regulating
works effective is to reduce the flow out for one day or one month or
one year, or whatever the period of time is that you want to under-
take to increase the level, is it not?
General BIXBY. All other conditions remaining unchanged, yes;
but they never do remain unchanged.
Mr. NEwTON. Then, the only way regulating works can be effective
is by reducing the flow out of a body of water in order to keep the
level? - -
General BIxBY. At some time during the year; not all the time.
Mr. NEWTON. At some time it has to stop the flow %
General BIXBY. Some time it has got to stop the flow.
Mr. NEWTON. Because if the flow goes down, the level above goes
down.
General BIxBY. Yes. º
Mr. NEWTON. If you undertake to put in regulating works around
Niagara and raise the level of the lake, then you must decrease the
amount of water that is being used for electricity, must you not?
General BIXBY. Generally. I am not certain it is always so, but
generally so. -
Mr. NEWTON. If you stop the flow out, you do not have the same
quantity for your electricity, do you?
General BixBY. All other conditions remaining unchanged, you
are right; but, you see, I had to look after the levels of Lake Su-
perior for quite a while, and we found it was not a simple matter
to say just what was going to happen and you could not regulate
absolutely and perfectly anyhow, and we always had to depend on
excess rainfall to raise our Lake Superior level, principally to raise
it. The rainfal raised it a great deal more than our regulating
work, and so we would wait for a big rainfall, and catch it and
hold it; but you can not regulate Lake Superior or Lake Erie or
Michigan by depending on regulating works without excess rain-
fall. It is the rainfall that we depend on principally. -
650 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. NEWTON. And every gallon of water that goes out through
the Welland Canal into Lake Ontario, so far as #. Erie is con-
cerned, has gone on its way to the sea and is gone forever. . . . . .
General BIXBY. It has gone from Lake Erie; yes. . .
Mr. Newton. And so far as Lake Erie is concerned, it has gone
forever. - . . . ; ; , - ...
General BIxBY. Yes. . " - . , .
Mr. NEWTON. And you can not increase your flow out for elec-
tricity or any other purpose without reducing the lake level so far
as Lake Erie is concerned? . . .
General BIxBY, Well, that is not the result of the studies of the
engineers. Their object in putting in regulating works is to gain
water for the power. Otherwise it would not pay to do it. d
Mr. NEWTON. You can not increase the quantity of water in the
lakes, except by holding the water in the lakes. - .
General BIxBY. That comes in by rainfall; yes. -
... Mr. NEwTON. But the only way the regulating works can be effec-
tive is to retard the flow out of the basin holding water. Now, if
you can show me where I am wrong on that, I would like very much
to have you do so. -
General BIxBY. I think I have one statement here that would
help. The water from the upper lakes, which flows into the lower
lakes, according to the statement I gave you yesterday, in one year
will fill up Lake Erie 74% feet. Now, you never could dream of
putting in any regulating works that would change the levels of the
lake 7% feet by lifting them, according to the gauge of your regulat-
ing, works; you will be lucky if you can handle 1 foot of that. You
put in your regulating works so as to catch the excess of your 71%
feet when it is not wanted below and hold it back later, so the regu-
lating works really assist you in getting a higher level than the
normal level by utilizing and conserving the surplus water that
usually runs off at times when you do not need it and really do not
want it. You save 5 or 6 feet that otherwise would go to waste.
That 5 or 6 feet that goes to waste over Niagara will develop power
while it is going to waste, if you put in your power works; but you
can not depend on it all the year round, and the average power
works have to be built on the basis of what they can depend on all the
year round as a steady job.
Mr. NEwTON. I have observed this map here of Niagara River
from above the Falls to Lake Ontario. From the indication on this
map Niagara River above the Falls is much larger and contains a
much larger volume of water than does the river below the Falls.
Is that right?
General BIxBY. It contains exactly the same quantity of water.
It is wider and shallower, but it flows exactly the same quantity of
water, because the water that comes out above the Falls lands below
the Falls and it is there unchanged.
Mr. NEwTON. But is not the Niagara River above the Falls to a
certain extent an extension of Lake Erie?
General BIxBY. When it gets past Buffalo–the city of Buffalo
proper—in the next 5 miles, down to Grass Island, it drops 10 feet;
there it becomes a rapids; and then after the next 13 or 14 miles
it drops 50 feet, and it is a big rapids; no boat navigation on it.
- t

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 651.
General BIxBY. Yes. - -
Mr. NEWTON. It drops 50 feet? t - . . . . *
General BIXBY. It drops 50 feet and gets to the Falls, and then it
drops 170 feet or thereabouts.
The CHAIRMAN. 158 feet. * f -
General BIXBY. Whatever it is. And then another 75 feet or more
in the rapids below the Falls before it gets to Lake Ontario.
Mr. NEWTON. As I understand from Colonel Warren's report he
indicated that the diversion at the Falls has to some extent reduced
the level of Lake Erie. . . . . . . . . . . . . -
General BIxBY. Theoretically it reduces it; it must reduce it.
Practically it produces a very, very small, a minor reduction, be-
cause the drop is so great, 50 or 60 feet from Lake Erie down to
the Falls, and when water drops 50 feet it is flowing pretty fast and
does not hold up very much in the way of back water. t -
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you a question there. Has
there ever been a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second through
the Welland Canal? . . . . . . -
General BIXBY. I have never heard of it. * ,
The CHAIRMAN. So the Welland Canal with 10,000 cubic feet per
second is a wholly supposititious canal, which has never had any
actual existence in fact? ! ' ' ' •
General BIXBY. That is my understanding. * *
The CHAIRMAN. And the Welland Canal, the greater Welland
Canal, instead of diverting 10,000 cubic feet per second, suppositi-
tious cubic feet, is to divert only 800 cubic feet? -
General BIXBY. It is going to reduce the outflow from 1,000 to
800. - * º
The CHAIRMAN. And all the power works upon the canal will be
replaced by a power development elsewhere; there are to be no
power works on the new Welland Canal?
General BIXBY. That is my understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. General, as a matter of fact, does the 800 cubic
feet to be diverted through the Welland Canal add that much to
the diversion from Lake Erie into Lake Ontario or not? Does it add
anything or does it simply reduce the amount which passes over
the Falls from the one lake to the other by the 800 cubic feet?
General BIXBY. It reduces the flow out of Lake Erie past Buffalo
down the Niagara River very slightly. Its effect is quite slight; it
reduces it very slightly; but, of course, it does produce theoretically
some effect, but practically almost nothing. -
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any way of measuring the diversions of
the 800 cubic feet through the Welland Canal and of the diversions
through the Niagara River, including in those diversions through
the Niagara those for power plants, and contrasting then by records
the diversions over Niagara before there were power plants and
before there was a Welland Canal?
General BIXBY. Theoretically, it can be done. Practically, the
difficulties of doing it are such that the results are not at all certain.
The measuring apparatuses are supposed to be correct, and they are
getting more correct every year, but still they are not perfect, and
there are more liabilities of minor errors creeping in while deter-
Mr. NEWTON. You were talking about above the Falls?... .
652 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
mining measurements than there are while determining differences
of levels actually existing.
The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of opinion, what do you say as to
whether the diversions on the two sides of Niagara for power pur-
poses increase at all the flow through the Niagara River of water
from Lake Erie into Lake Ontario? If you do not understand my
question I can make it simpler. -
General BIXBY. I am not quite sure about that question.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any more water flow from Lake Erie to Lake
Ontario because 36,000 cubic feet are diverted for power purposes and
returned to the Niagara River?
General BIXBY. Three thousand six hundred, I suppose you
Iſleå, Il -
The CHAIRMAN. No; not at all. -
C ºral BIxBY. Thirty-six thousand cubic feet in the Welland
àIlä.1% :
The CHAIRMAN. No; I did not say a word about the Welland Canal.
Formerly all the water flowed through the Niagara River from Lake
Erie to Lake Ontario. Now. 56,000 cubic feet are diverted, 36,000
on the Canadian side and 20,000 on the American side, for power pur-
poses. Has the diversion of the 56,000 cubic feet per second increased
at all the amount of flowage from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario? *
General BIxBY. No; it has not. * -
The CHAIRMAN. General, are you familiar with the report of the
St. Lawrence waterway—United States and Canadian Government
engineers? Are you familiar with their report?
General BIxBY. I would like to see the outside of the volume be-
fore I answer. - f -
The CHAIRMAN. This is a message from the President of the United
States transmitting their report to Congress. I want to call atten-
tion to the upper paragraph on page 162 and ask if you will read
that.
General BIxBY. The one that starts on page 162?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
General BIxBY (reading):
This commission does not feel called upon to express any opinion as to the
propriety or otherwise of the Chicago diversion beyond observing that the en-
gineering services of both countries have reported that the present diversion has
had a certain definite effect in lowering the prevailing depths in all the lakes
and connecting rivers below Superior, including the St. Lawrence, and particu-
larly in the harbors and river channels which had been rapidly deepened at
great expense to meet the increasing demands of commerce.
The CHAIRMAN. That is at the top of page 162, the first paragraph.
Now, if you will hand back the book. I call attention to pages 180
and 181. If you will just read recommendations Nos. 2 and 6 of
that report. -
General BIxBY. Page 180, recommendations, paragraph 2:
That the new Welland Ship Canal be embodied in Said Scheme and treated as
a part thereof. r *
The CHAIRMAN. That is the scheme of the St. Lawrence-Lakes
waterway? - -
General BIxBY. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Please read the next one.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, Erc. 653
General BIxBY. Paragraph 6:
That Canada proceed with the work necessary for the completion of the
new Welland Ship Canal in accordance with the plans already decided upon
by that country.
The CHAIRMAN. General, to make recommendation 2 more in-
telligible, please read recommendation 1, if you will. -
General BIxBY. Recommendation 1:
That the Governments of the United States and Canada enter into an ar-
rangement by way of treaty for a scheme of improvement of the St. Lawrence
River between Montreal and Lake Ontario. *
The CHAIRMAN. And then follows recommendation 2, that the
Welland Canal be embodied in and made a part of the waterway?
General BIxBY. Yes; exactly.
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman, would you mind putting in the record
the title of the report from which those extracts were read?
The CHAIRMAN. This is a message from the President of the
United States, transmitting a letter from the Secretary of State,
submitting the report of the International Joint Commission con-
cerning the improvement of the St. Lawrence River between Mon-
treal and Lake Ontario for navigation and power. It is Senate
Document 114, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, issued in
1922.
Now, I think, Mr. Adcock, you had some questions you wanted
to ask. Is there anyone on the committee that wants to ask any
questions before that? -
Mr. PEAvey. I would like to ask one or two questions. *
General Bixby, you spoke a few moments ago in relation to the
amount of water necessary or required for lockage in the Illinois
River. What amount of diversion would be necessary to give an
* supply of water for lockage for navigation purposes in that
stream :
General BIxBY. Somewhere between 500 and 1,000 feet per second,
according to circumstances; probably not over 800 feet per second.
Mr. PEAvey. In your official capacity as Chief of Engineers were
you ever called upon to make a survey or analysis and report as to
the amount of water necessary by way of diversion to make the
Illinois River navigable?
General BIxBY. Not specifically. In the report we made, we made
some allusions to it; but there was no specific call for such informa-
tion and it was only given casually.
Mr. PEAVEY. Based upon your long and varied experience in that
line of work as Chief of Engineers, what would you give in your
opinion as the amount of water necessary in the Illinois River by
way of diversion at Chicago for nºigatiºn ºposes'
General BIxBY. For what depth of navigation?
Mr. PEAVEY. For a 9-foot depth.
General BIxBY. For a 9-foot depth?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes, sir.
General BIxBY. I don’t know that 9 feet has ever been recom-
mended.
Mr. PEAVEY. I don’t know that it has, but I believe it has been
under consideration. - g *
General BIxBY. Yes; and so has 14 feet and 20 feet and 25 feet.
654 ILLINGisi AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETö.
Mr. PEAVEY. Could you give an accurate estimate as a matter of
personal opinion as to the amount of diversion necessary for navi-
gation purposes in a 9-foot channel?
General BIxBY. In the Illinois River?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes, sir. t
General BIXBY. Well, it is all a question of dollars and cents. A.
question of the project— -
Mr. PEAVEY. No. &
General BIXBY. It would be easy to get navigation at 9 feet or 12
feet or 15 feet or 20 feet or 25 feet, if you wanted to, without any
water at all. {
Mr. PEAVEY. Without any diversion at all, you mean? *.
General BIXBY. Yes; as an engineering proposition; but as a
matter of dollars and cents I would not recommend it. From the
lowest lock at Chicago down to the lowest lock you do not need any
more than the water for the lock, from the lowest lock down to the
mouth of the Illinois River the country is almost flat, there is less
than 25 feet fall in the whole distance of 60 or 75 miles, and it would
be easy to put a dam at the mouth of the river and back the water
up over that whole country and make a magnificent lake. In former
days it could have been done perhaps, but now that land is used
for agricultural purposes and of course that could not be done, or
they would have to build levees on both sides of the river to do it.
They could build levees, and they could dredge, but it would be
expensive, and it would depend a good deal on how much land is
worth now for agricultural purposes there to the State of Illinois.
Mr. PEAVEY. In your opinion, then, the 500 to 800 feet that you
have previously mentioned as necessary for lockage, would be suffi-
cient for all navigation purposes on the Illinois River, and any
further diversion would have for its result simply to lessen or reduce
the cost of construction of the waterway?
General BIXBY. That is right. It would be a question of dollars
and cents." . . . -
Mr. PEAVEY. That is all I have to ask.
Mr. NEwTON (acting chairman). Do any other members of the
committee wish to ask any questions?
Mr. ADCOCK. General, did you state whom you represent or appear
for here? . . . . . .
General BIXBY. Mr. Harvey Goulder stated that he was going to
call on me. -
Mr. ADCOCK. That is, the Lake Carriers’ Association?
General BIXBY. Yes; I had prepared to come anyway, but he called
on me to appear. I was prepared to come because this concerned
my report on lake levels, which I felt I was justified in showing
proof of, and I came prepared to talk about lake levels as compared
with my official report of 1906. • , , " . -
Mr. ADCOCK. You were interested particularly in navigation on
the Great Lakes? • "
General BIxBY. Always, yes. . . . . .
Mr. ADCOCK. You were Chief of Engineers during what period?
General BIXBY. From 1910 to 1913.
Mr. AdcocK. What time were you division engineer at Chicago?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. ' 655
General BIXBY. 1904 to 1908; and I was also in charge of the
Illinois River improvements. k i
Mr. ADCOCK. And it was during that time you were in Chicago
that you made your report of May 22, 1906, that you have spoken of?
General BIxBY. Yes. r
Mr. ADCOCK. You were present at the hearings of the Interna-
tional Waterways 'Commission at Chicago, with reference to the
drainage canal? " ; ,
General BIxBY. I was.
Mr. ADCOCK. You were there?
General BIXBY. I was present. º
Mr. ADCOCK. That was in October, 1906, was it not?
General BIXBY. Yes; or thereabouts.
Mr. ADCOCK. Those hearings were held at that time?
General BIXBY. Yes. - -
Mr. ADCOCK. And they lasted over several days, did they not?
General BIxBY. They did.
Mr. ADCOCK. And subsequently the commission made a special re-
port with reference to the drainage canal, did they not? -
General BIxBY. They did. ... "
Mr. ADCOCK. And they made certain recommendations with ref-
erence to the diversion at Chicago? - -
General BIxBY. Yes. - *
Mr. ADCOCK. They recommended that the diversion at Chicago
should reach 10,000 cubic feet per second, did they not? f
General BIxBY. They did. - I
Mr. ADCOCK. And they also stated after those hearings and in
their reports that there was a tacit general agreement that Chicago
should have 10,000 cubic feet per second? -
General BIXBY. Yes; based on hearsay, of course, if it was tacit.
Mr. ADCOCK. You were present at the hearings were you not? " '
General BIxBY. I was. r
Mr. ADCOCK. And they had complete hearings at that time at
Chicago? - -
General BIXBY. They had extended hearings.
Mr. ADCOCK. Lasting over several days?
General BIxBy. Yes. -
Mr. ADCOCK. Is it not your understanding that prior to that
time the International Waterways Commission had made investiga-
tions with reference to the diversions at the Niagara River and also
from the Great Lakes? . . .
General BIxBY. You mean the International Waterways Commis-
sion? - - n } -
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes. -
General BIXBY. Yes, they had. - - t
Mr. ADCOCK. You are familiar with the report of March 19, 1906,
of the American section, with reference to the preservation of
Niagara Falls? -
General BIXBY. I read it in former days; I don’t recollect it all.
Mr. ADCOCK. You remember that they recommended at that time
that 10,000 cubic feet for Chicago, do you not?
General BIXBY. They did; I read that yesterday.
656 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. ADCOCK.You are also familiar with the report of the Canadian
section of April 25, 1906, are you not? . . .
General BIXBY. I am not sure about that, but I know that the
International Waterways Commission in their report stated that
their views and recommendations were concurred in by the Canadian
section. - -
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; with reference to the 7,000 second cubic feet at
Chicago?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. Now, General, you are familiar with General Poe's
report, are you not?
General BIxBY. About what?
Mr. ADCOCK. About the contemplated diversion at Chicago, that is
the effect upon lake levels of the diversion that was contemplated by
the canal then under construction.
General BIxBY. I don’t remember it. -
Mr. ADCOCK. You remember General Poe?
General BIxBY. I remember General Poe, but I don’t remember his
report. - *
§. ADCOCK. And General Ruffner?
General BIXBY. I remember those gentlemen; yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. And General Marshall, who were a commission con-
stituted by the Chief of Engineers, General Craighill, to make a re-
port upon the effect of the proposed diversion by this canal?
General BIxBY. I would not attempt to dispute it but I don’t know
it. I think it would be natural
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you know whether or not at that time they made
estimate that the effect of a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet might be
possibly 6 inches on Lake Michigan? - ! -
b General BIXBY. I don't remember it, but I think it might probably.
© SO, , *
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you remember also in that report that they sug-
#º that there should be measurements made of the outflows of the
lakes?
General BIxBY. As I have said, I don’t remember anything about
the report, so I can not say anything more.
Mr. ADCOCK. A great many measurements of the outflows of the
different lakes have been made, have they not? º
General BIXBY. A great many.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the outflow of Lake Huron, the St. Clair
River, the Detroit River, and Niagara and the St. Lawrence Rivers.
By whom were those measurements made? -
General BIxBY. Mainly by the United States Survey, and to a large
extent by the International Waterways Commission, who always
utilized the information of the United States Lake Survey.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the Lake Survey had charge of that and that
is a Government department? g
General. BIxBY. It is.
Mr. ADCOcK. Under the War Department?
General BIXBY. Yes. r
Mr. ADCOCK. When did they commence to make those measure-
ments? . . . . -
General BIXBY. I don’t know. Years ago, beyond my memory.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 657
Mr. ADCOCK. Was not the first made by Sabin, about 1888?
General BIxBY. I don’t think he was the first. w
Mr. ADCOCK. That is, to make complete measurements of the St.
Clair River ?
General BIxBY. They have been making measurements all the time,
keeping them up all the time. They never made them complete.
Mr. Ancock. What was the purpose of making those measure-
ment.Sº -
General BIxBY. First, in the interest of navigation; second, to
afford information to the Federal Government and to the commissions
that may be appointed by the Federal Government to consider mat-
ters of water flow in the Great Lakes.
Mr. ADCOCK. Matters of the regulation of the flow of the lakes?
f General BIxBY. That is one item, that is not what they were started
OI’.
Mr. ADCOCK. And determine also the effect of diversions?
General BIxBY. Yes, that is one of the things. Of course the main
object of the lake-survey work has been in the direct interest of navi-
gation, to afford information to mariners; that is, to apply to run-
ning boats. - -
Mr. ADCOCK. How would the outflow measurements furnish infor-
mation to mariners?.
General BIxBY. Not particularly any information to a mariner.
Mr. ADCOCK. But it was to determine the increments of those differ-
ent rivers, was it? 1.
General BIXBY. I would not agree to that. The determination of
the increments was an after thought. - . . . . . . . .
Mr. ADCOCK. That is, what do you understand the increments of a
river to be? -
General BIxBY. I understand that what is termed increment means
the increase in water flow at the outlet of any lake due to supereleva-
tion of 1 foot, or it is to be a decrease in the velocity of water flow,
due to lowering the levels 1 foot.
Mr. ADCOCK. Who was head of the lake service during the time
that the principal amount of measurements were made?
General BIxBY. They must have had four or five or six.
Mr. ADCOCK. Was Mr. Shenenhon in charge?
General BIxBY. No; he was not in charge.
Mr. ADCOCK. I mean the head of the Lake Survey? º
General BIxBY. He never was. He was never, at the head of the
Lake Survey. - -
Mr. ADCOCK. He was principal assistant, was he not?
General BIxBY. That is a different thing.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is a different thing? t
General BIxBY. Yes; he worked under somebody else's direction.
Mr. ADCOCK. But he had directly to do with the measurements of
those rivers, did he not? i
General BIXBY. Yes; and a great many other people had directly
to do with it. " .
Mr. ADCOCK. And the Warren report with reference to the effect
of diversion from the Great Lakes and so forth, was based upon the
calculations and data of the Lake Survey, was it not? -
General BIXBY. Very largely.
658 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Adcock. And does the Canadian Government maintain any
department to measure the outflow of those streams as the United
States does? $.
General BIxBY. I presume they do, but I am not posted on the
doings of the Canadian Government.
Mr. ADCOCK. You do not know about that?
General BIxBY. I do not know about that.
Mr. ADCOCK. Did you ever hear of their doing that?
General BIxBY. I suppose I must have, because I have always
had the impression that they were doing it.
Mr. ADCOCK. Well, don’t you know that they accept the calcula-
tions and measurements made by the United States Government?
General BIxBY. I don’t know it; but I presume they give great
weight to them. f -
Mr. ADCOCK. Your report of 1906, May 22, 1906, was made up
from that date, was it not—that is, the date furnished by the lake
survey?
General BIxBY. I used some of the data of the lake survey, but
my report had a whole lot of things in it that were original with me.
Mr. ADCOCK. But you determined at that time, or made a state-
ment as to the effect of the Chicago diversion of 10,000 cubic feet
from the different lakes?
General BIxBY. I did. . - •
Mr. ADCock. And in reaching that conclusion you used data of
the lake survey?
General BIxBY. I based it on the discharge from the lakes and the
increments for each foot of elevation and lowering.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you remember in that report of May 22, stating
this in paragraph 25? s
The CHAIRMAN. What page?
Mr. ADCOCK. I think it was page 12.
The CHAIRMAN. What document is that?
Mr. ADCOCK. Document No. 6, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.
General BIxBY. What page? p
Mr. ADCOCK. I think it is page 12. [Reading: . .
Summing up the above, it may be briefly stated, therefore, that 10,000 feet
per Second diversion. Of Water from Lake Michigan into the drainage canal
will be probably not unreasonably obstructive to navigation and injurious to
property if divided up into 6,000 cubic feet through the main river and the
south branch, increased by 2,000 cubic second-feet more through the Thirty-
ninth Street sewer, and 2,000 cubic feet more through the Calumet River,
10,000 cubic feet in all; but that an increase in this amount to. 8,000 cubic
feet, 2,000 cubic feet, and 4,000 cubic feet, respectively, 14,000 cubic feet per
second in all, will probably prove to be unreasonably obstructive and injurious
to navigation. -
General BIXBY. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK (reading): g
Also that the 10,000 cubic feet will eventually and permanently lower the
levels of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron by about five-tenths of a foot and
Lake Erie about four-tenths, and 14,000 cubic feet per second will make these
depths seven-tenths and sixth-tenths, respectively, which will be quite costly
in future results?
General BIxBY. I remember that as I see it and read it. I want
to make a comment on that, however, because that mere question,
the reading of that, will give a wrong idea to the people who read
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 659
it—not intentionally, of course. But in that, as you read it, there is a
word “also,” that this will do so-and-so to Lake Michigan, Huron,
and Erie. Therefore that word “also '' implies definitely that the
preceding remark did not apply to Lakes Michigan, Huron, and
Erie, that preceding remark, that it would not be unreasonably ob-
structive to navigation and injurious to property follows directly
after the paragraph that describes the currents in the Chicago River,
caused by the diversion, the navigation of the river and the difficul-
ties of the navigation in the Chicago River caused by the diver-
Sion, and the whole report was the effects on Chicago mainly in these
two pages, the effects on the Chicago River. Now, that statement
was that it would not be unreasonably obstructive to navigation on
the Chicago River or injurious to property on the Chicago River if
divided up into certain amounts, as stated, and to make it clear I
added right afterwards “also its effects on Michigan, Huron, and
Erie,” and that word “also " makes it perfectly clear, I think, to
any critical reader that the injuries to navigation did not apply to
Superior, Huron, or Michigan, or Erie, but only applied to the
Chicago River. It was in connection with the statement that has
been made that you could put as much as you wanted to through the
Chicago River and it would not hurt navigation. . .
The CHAIRMAN. Navigation on the Chicago River? -
General BIxBY. Yes; navigation on the Chicago River. It was
for that reason I asked Mr. Randolph, as he wrote a letter printed
in the same report, to state that if he had, as I had asked him, one
boat on each side of the Chicago River tied up to the wharf, as they
had a right to do, and two other boats tried to pass each other, as
they had a right to do, I asked him what would be the effect on the
current and navigation in the Chicago River, and he said—I will
read what he said: * - -
If there were boats at docks On each side of this 200-foot channel, I can not
conceive of such rashness as to endeavor to pass the two boats unles the at-
tempt was made with very small craft.
Mr. ADCOCK. Now, as I understand you, you did not want to
convey the impression that the diversion at Chicago would continue
to lower the lake levels after a certain number of years, did you?
General PIXBY. I implied in that that it would take a certain num-
ber of years to bring it about, and I find now that it can be ex-
pected theoretically to be brought about in four, five, or six years,
and the effect after that is infinitesimal in the lowering, but once
lowered it will stay lowered. -
M; ADCOCK. Unless there is some contraction of the outlet; is that
true?
General BIxBY. Until there is some contraction of the outlet.
Mr. ADCOCK. Or regulations? -
General BIXBY. Or regulations or controlling works, yes. -
Mr. ADCOCK. You stated the increment of the St. Clair River to
be 23,800 feet, did you not?
General BIXBY. Somewhere around there. -
Mr. ADCOCK. And in determining that effect, which you state, that
complete effect which would take place in five or six years, having the
increment and the amount of the additional outlet, say at Chicago,
660 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
10,000 cubic feet per second, how do you calculate the number of
inches or feet effect upon lake levels, the lowering effect?
General BIXBY. Well, I take the normal discharge, so many mil-
lions or more feet per second per year. I take the normal discharge
in feet per second per year.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you not divide the amount of the diversion of
10,000 cubic feet per second by the increment and does not that give
you the percentage of a foot of effect of lowering, is not that the way
the Lake Survey has always done it?
General BIxBY. The Lake Survey has done it that way sometimes.
Mr. ADCOCK. Is not that the usual practice?
General BIxBY. But I take the total amount of water in Lake
Michigan, due to that 10,000 feet per second. I also check up by
taking the amount corresponding to one-foot elevation of Michigan,
find the volume of water that is in that one-foot depth of Lake
Michigan, and divide it through by the flow that comes from its
increased discharge due to one foot of elevation. Then I get the
ratio at which that 1 inch or 1 foot, or fraction of a foot, will run
off that water. From this I get the depths of lowering. Then I
consider the lake at the lower level and the higher level and find
what the supposed flow would be at the different levels, and I
multiply through the difference of flow by the years I have given
you, and I find that the flow in my interval of time of runoff, which
was for Lake Michigan 3.4 of a year, and the discharge at the higher
level multiplied by 3.4, and the discharge at the lower level multi-
plied by 3.4 of the year will give the certain volumes. The difference
between those two volumes will be equal to the volume in the lake
due to the increase or lowering of these levels; showing that which-
ever way of figuring on the years, I have the same total amount of
discharge from the lakes, with that difference of the volume which
comes from the 10,000 cubic feet or the one-foot difference of level.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, we promised we would adjourn
at 12.30. Certain members of the committee were obliged to leave
owing to previous engagements, and I promised them that we would
adjourn; and so we will have to stop now, and we will go on at 2
o'clock. -
(Thereupon, at 12.40 p. m. the committee took a recess until 2
o'clock p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The hearing was resumed at 2 o'clock p. m., at the expiration of the
TeC0SS. . . "
STATEMENT OF GEN, WILLIAM H. BIXBY—Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. General, we are ready to proceed.
Mr. ADCOCK. General, assuming the increment which you gave for
the St. Clair River at about 24,000 cubic second-feet, what would
be the ultimate lowering effect on Lakes Michigan and Huron due
to the Chicago diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet?
General Bixby. The final lowering?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
General BIXBY. Lake Michigan 0.5 of a foot—6 inches.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 661
Mr. ADCOCK. That is 10,000 feet per second? . .
General BIxBY. That is for 10,000 feet per second. . . .
Mr. ADCOCK. How do you calculate that from a 0.5 per foot?
Wouldn’t it be 5 inches approximately? - -
General BIxBY. I have got it 6 inches—0.5 of a foot or 6 inches
in Lake Michigan and 0.4 of a foot—equal to 5 inches—for Erie.
- - Mr. ADCOCK. That would be the complete lowering effect, wouldn’t
it? -
General BIXBY. That was the complete effect, as I figured it out.
Mr. ADCOCK. You mean 5 and 4, Michigan and Huron, was it?
General BIXBY. I figured it out 0.5 of a foot for Lake Michigan,
which is equivalent for Lake Huron, and roughly 0.4 of a foot for
Lake Erie—5 inches. . . . 3.
Mr. ADCOCK. That would be the complete or ultimate lowering
effect, would it not? - *
General BIXBY. That was roughly figured for the ultimate lower-
ing effect. !
Mr. ADCOCK. You said the average diverson at Chicago was 5,700
second-feet, or approximately 6,000 second-feet for the last 23 years?
General BIXBY. Five thousand seven hundred and twenty-six for
18 years. -
The CHAIRMAN. For the last 18 years? •
General BIxBY. No; from 1900 up to 1918. t
Mr. JARMON. Where did you get those figures, General?
General BIXBY. Those were taken out of the Warren report. He
presumably secured most of them from the sanitary district.
Mr. ADCOCK. During 18 years, General, what was the total effect
upon the mean level of Lakes Huron and Michigan due to that di-
version of 5,700 second-feet? t
General BIxBY. I should say, roughly speaking, about half of it.
Mr. ADCOCK. Half of what? . . . .
General BIxBY. Half of the 6 inches.
Mr. ADCOCK. About 3 inches, then?
General BIxBY. Roughly speaking; yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. And that was to the same effect for Lake Erie, or a
little less? 1 *
General BIxBY. Just a trifle less. - -
1Mr. ADCOCK. What was the effect, or what is the effect, of the di-
version of 4,500 second-feet through the Welland Canal on Lake
Erie Ż - -
General BIxBY. I have not figured it. -
Mr. ADCock. You are familiar with the Warren report, are you
not ? ... . - t
General BIXBY. I think the Warren report says something about
2 and a fraction inches. y -
Mr. ADCOCK. That is 0.21 of a foot?
General BIxBY. It is in the report; I am not positive.
Mr. ADCOCK. About 21% inches?
General BIxBY. That is what I have heard. I have not verified it.
It is in the report.
Mr. ADCOCK. The effect of the diversion at Niagara Falls is how
much, according to the Warren report?
662 ILLinois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
General BIxBy. I should have to look up all of these things, Mr.
Chairman. . . . -
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead. +
General BIxBY. Could you tell me what page it is on?
Mr. ADCOCK. I think you will find it on page 89.
General BIxBY. Colonel Warren’s report says that the lowering
in feet from diversions of Niagara power companies would amount
to 0.01 of a foot on Lake Michigan.
Mr. ADCOCK. Is not that 0.1 of a foot?
General BIxBY, One one-hundredths of a foot on Lake Michigan
and 0.1 of a foot at Lake Erie, and he does not give it anywhere else.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is about an inch and a quarter, isn’t it?
General BIxBY. One one-hundredths of a foot at Lake Michigan?
Mr. ADCOCK. No; I am speaking of Lake Erie.
General BIxBY. One-tenth of a foot at Lake Erie would be a little
over an inch, of course.
Mr. ADCOCK. About an inch and a quarter?
General BIxBY. An inch and two-tenths.
Mr. ADCocK. Then, the effect of the Black Rock Canal and the
New York Barge Canal diversion was together about 0.04 of a foot,
or about half an inch?
General BIXBY. On what lake?
Mr. ADCogR. On Lake Erie? *
General Bixby. Black Rock and New York * Canal?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; Black Rock Canal and New York Barge Canal.
General BIxBY. Four-hundredths of a foot.
Mr. AD.Cock. Or about half an inch!
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. So the effect of these diversions of the Welland Canal,
the Black Rock Canal, the New York Barge Canal, and the Niagara
power companies on Lake Erie was greater than the Chicago diver-
sion, wasn’t it, by about an inch and a quarter?
General BIxBy. I do not get that question clearly.
Mr. ADCOCK. I say the effect of the diversions for the Welland
Canal, the Black Rock Canal, the New York Barge Canal, and the
Niagara power companies on Lake Erie was greater than the effect
of the Chicago diversion in that period, was it not, by about an inch
and a quarter? t
General BIxBY. In that period, you say?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
General BIxBY. In what period? How many years?
Mr. ADCOCK. They have been diverting water right along the
same time that Chicago has been diverting, haven’t they?
General BIXBY. Well, I do not believe that Colonel Warren states
how many years that diversion has been going on, but he speaks of
it as a total up to the time that he is talking about.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; but those diversions have been going—
General BIXBY (interposing). For a long while, but I do not
know for how many years. I should think they should have been
going on long enough to have produced their full effect, if that is
what you wish to know.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 663
Mr. ADCOCK. Now, General, you stated in your testimony the other
day -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Why don’t you offer right in evi-
dence upon that point that table at page 89?
Mr. ADCOCK. I am willing to do that if the General desires it.
General BIxBY. I have no objection to its going in in any way.
You can put it in either as his or mine.
(The table referred to is as follows:)
TABLE No. 6.-Lowering in feet at mean stage due to present diversions of water
from the Great Lakes



Amoºt | Michi- Niagara * sº
Diversions in cubic gan- St. Clair | Erie * * | Ontario | River
feet per | Hºon 1p- at Lock
Second pewa No. 25
Chicago Drainage Canal-------- 8,800 0.43 0.35 0.41 0.23 0.42 0, 62
Welland Canal.----------------- 4, 500 . 03 . 09 . 21 . 12
Black Rock Canal-------------- 700 ---------- .01 .03 |------- ---------------
New York Barge Canal--------- 1,000 .01 .03 --------------------
Niagara power companies-------| 50,885 . 01 . 05 . 10 • 60 --------------------
Total---------------------|---------- . 47 . 50 . 76 .98 .42 . 62
Mr. ADCOCK. You made certain comparisons of the mean levels for
41 years prior to the date of the beginning of the Chicago diversion,
and the mean levels for the 23 years afterwards, and you made cer-
tain comparisons between the elevations of the lakes when the
Chicago diversion started to the end of the 23-year period, and then
you stated:
The facts are therefore that Lake Michigan has actually dropped 0.7 foot, or
about 8 inches, in the first 11 years; 0.7 foot, or 8.4 inches, in the first 15 years;
and 1 foot, or 12 inches, in the first 23 years Since the Opening of the Sanitary
District Canal, for no other discernible Cause than that of the diversions
through the Sanitary District Canal at Chicago.
General BIxBY. Yes. The drops are simply decided by making
subtraction from figures that are already there, so I do not think there
can be any question about the drop.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you wish us to understand from your statement
that the effect of the Chicago diversion on Lake Michigan was
12 inches; that is, lowering it 12 inches?
General BIxBY. Well, I carefully worded that. I said for no other
discernible cause. I have not been able to find any other cause.
Mr. ADCOCK. You just stated a little while ago that the total effect
of the 5,700 second-feet diversion, the average for the 18 years you
mentioned, was about 3 inches, did you not? i
General BIXBY. That was the computation or the prediction.
These are cold facts of drop. Now, I have said that the drop—I
stated in my attempt that the drop must be due and is due partly to
diversions and partly to other causes. Here I have stated I have
been unable to find any other causes; consequently I must assume,
until somebody prowes to the contrary, that the drop is due to the
Chicago diversion. t
664 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. ADCOCK. Might it not be due somewhat to the lack of supply?
General Bixby. I state I have looked over the records, and I find
that for half of the years prior to 1919 there was a good supply,
because the lakes all rose. For half of the years since 1900 there
was also a good supply, because all of the lakes rose. Then the
lakes dropped, not quite half as many years before 1900 as since
1900. Under those circumstances there is not anything to show that
there was any better water or any worse water since 1900 than there
was before. I can not find anything. There may be something, but
I have not been able to find it.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you wish that statement to stand as your opinion
as an engineer that there is no other cause?
General BIxBY. In the way in which it is written—“For no other
discernible cause.” I can not speak for other people. Other people
may discern a cause which I have not been able to find.
Mr. ADCOCK. Then, in regard to your statement that the effect of
the diversion, as the lowering effect of the diversion was 3 inches,
what do you say as to that? Weren't you wrong in that respect?
General BIxBY. I predicted that it would be at least 3 inches.
Those were figured on the information that we had at that time.
The best information that we could have for predictions, like
weather predictions, was all we had. I said it would be at least that.
I did not say how much more it would be. I do not know that all
of this excess is due to that, but I have not been able to find any
other reason for it. So I say, so far as I am concerned, there is no
other descernible cause but that diversion.
Mr. ADCOCK. You made your prediction on the different measure-
ments of flow, didn’t you—on those different records?
General BIxBy. Different measurements of flow, yes, on the out-
lets of the lake. -
Mr. ADCOCK. And you understand that Colonel Warren used the
same methods in his computations, don’t you?
General BIxBY. I suppose he did. I suppose he depended on the
Lake Survey.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the usual method that is followed by engineers,
isn’t it?
General BIxBY. Usually, because they are experts at it and are Sup-
posed to know better than anybody else what the figures amount to.
Mr. ADCOCK. As an engineer, have you reached the conclusion as
to whether it is scientifically possible to determine the effect of this
lowering? *
General BIxBy. Scientifically possible to determine what?
Mr. ADCOCK. The effect of the diversion on lake levels?
General BIXBY. We can make approximations only and check up
afterwards by facts. We can not really predict anything more on
the levels of the Great Lakes than the weather bureau can. They
predict on the weather, and our water supply in the Lakes depends
on the weather, and when it comes to lowering we can come with a
very much closer approximation, and I consider these approxima-
tions are as good as could be expected at this stage of progress in
engineering science. •
Mr. ADCOCK. That is your prediction for 6 inches for 10,000 Sec-
ond-feet?
General BIxBY. Yes; 0.5 foot on Lake Erie.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 665
Mr. Adcock. Yes; 0.5 foot on Lake Erie. Did you make any com-
parison of the mean levels for the 23 years prior to the date of the be-
ginning of the Chicago diversion and for the 22 years subsequent
thereto ?
General BIXBY. Well, I did not figure them up. I was occupied
in other ways, and I did not figure up for the 23. I simply looked
at the charts.
Mr. ADCOCK. Have you a hydrograph of the Great Lakes there?
General BIXBY. I have, and I was just going to get it [presenting
hydrographic chart]. On this hydrograph I have put a dot down
there, which dot represents the annual mean average, the line on
that chart showing the monthly variations. Mr. Dempsey, here is
One not quite as accurate, nor as large, but it shows roughly.
Mr. ADCOCK. For 23 years prior to the opening of the drainage
channel, there is only one low period, isn’t there?
General BIxBY. On what?
Mr. ADCOCK. On Michigan and also on Erie?
General BIXBY. There is one extremely low position, in 1896.
Mr. ADCOCK. For the 23 years subsequently there were three of
them, according to your statement, were there not—1911, 1915, and
1923?
General BIxBY. Yes; you asked me about this 23 years?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes. -
General BIxBY. I have not figured it up on the adding machine or
the calculating machine. I looked at that chart roughly to see if
there was any decided difference between, considering 23 years be-
fore 1900 or considering the 64, and the rough measurement that I
made on the chart, roughly, not accurately, indicated to me that if
I had considered only the 23 years before 1900 the effect of the then
calculated lowering of the levels would have been a little greater in
Ontario and a little less on Erie than if I had considered the
whole 64. &
Mr. ADCOCR. It was about 0.36 of a foot on Lake Erie Ż
General BIxBY. I do not know. As I said, I did not figure it,
and not having figured it I do not know exactly.
Mr. ADCOCK. But you stated as to Lake Erie, the difference be-
tween the 23-year period as the mean for the 23-year period after-
wards, and the mean for the 41-year period, would be about 6
inches, would it not?
General BIxBY. What would be 6 inches?
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the difference between the mean for 23
years subsequent to the opening of the drainage channel and for the
41 years prior thereto.
General BixBY. You are speaking of Erie’
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
General BIxBY. The 23 years subsequent to 1900 showed an
average mean level of 572.17 feet. For the 41 years prior to 1900,
572.67. So that it is half a foot—0.5 lower now than it was for the
41-year period, but for the whole 64 years the level of Erie showed
572.50, which would show a difference of 0.17—one-sixth of a foot.
Mr. Adcock. And 0.33 for Erie'
General BIxBY. Yes; 0.33 difference from the 64-year average.
91739—24—PT 2 27
666 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Adcock. That is the mean on the 64 years and the mean of
the 23 years since 1901?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. The diversions from Lake Erie and the Niagara
River had some effect, did they not, during that period in lowering
Erie'
General BIxBY. The diversions of the Niagara River ?
Mr. Adcock. Directly from Niagara River and Lake Erie?
General BIxBY. Affected what?
Mr. ADCOCK. Affected Lake Erie?
General BIxBY. Of course, diversions from Lake Erie affect Lake.
Erie, and so from Niagara slightly affect Lake Erie, but I do not
remember seeing any statement that there was any very marked
difference in the Niagara River and the other diversions from
Lake Erie. As I say, I left Lake Erie out, because Lake Erie is
complicated with winds as well as the seiches, and it is complicated
with ice troubles up above it and below it, and as the big report on
regulation of Erie shows, it is full of complications irrespective of
mere questions of diversions, and it is a grand place for anyone to
get into arguments and get nowhere.
Mr. ADCOCK. But taking a mean for a period of 23 years, the
seiches and winds would not make any difference as to the mean?
General BIxBY. Whatever is in this table of ievels I am standing
by, but those tables do not say anything about the Niagara River.
Mr. ADCOCK. But how would the seiches and winds and the
fluctuations of the lake—that is, the daily fluctuations of the lake
which you speak of—affect the mean level of Erie?
General BIxBY. They are practically all wiped out, except that
the ice troubles, as to back water from ice, Warren says may take
one or two years to run off. They run off, most of them, 90 per
cent of them, in one year. So that it may affect the subsequent
year, but the effect gradually disappears in two or three years.
Mr. ADCOCK. And taking the mean for 23 years
General BIxBY (interposing). Taking the mean for 23 years, that
effect is practically wiped out. *
Mr. ADCOCK. According to Warren’s report, the table on page 89,
the effect of these diversions from Erie and the Niagara River lowered
the elevation of Erie approximately 4% inches, did it not?
General BIxBY. About that—0.35, he showed. The biggest part of
that, or two-thirds of it is on account of the Welland Canal, due to
constructions which are only temporary.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you say are only temporary or were only
temporary 2
General BIxBY. Well, I say that they are supposed to be only tem-
porary. They have lasted more or less in one way and another since
1900 up to date. Some of them have been abandoned, and some of
them have been given up. I do not know what will happen to the
rest of them, of course.
Mr. ADCOCK. The diversions of the Welland Canal have been going
on for a number of years, haven’t they?
General BIxBY. They have apparently been going on since the
treaty, because the recommendations of the waterways commission
I think referred to them, and they were in existence, those leases, at
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 667
the time of the treaty, but how long before that they had been
making those power diversions I do not know. -
Mr. Adcock. They were in existence prior to 1906 at the time the
Burton Act was passed, wern’t they for the preservation of Niagara
Falls?
General Bixby. I do not know. I do not say they were not, and I
do not say they were. I simply say I do not know.
Mr. Aboock. When did they commence to regulate the outflow of
Superior? When were those works first provided for? It was about
1901, wasn’t it?
General BIxBY. Somewhere about 1901.
Mr. ADCOCK. There is now complete regulation, isn't there? That
is, the entire flow of St. Marys River may be shut off at times, if de-
sired.
General BIxBY. The compensating works at the Soo were completed
about 1905—when they got into operation. The water surface then
was put at a little bit lower than the average water levels of Lake
Superior.
Mr. ADCOCK. Who designed those works? Was is Alfred Noble?
General BIxBY. Portions of them were built by the Canadians in
connection with their water powers. Then afterwards the United
States assumed some control over them by making requirements
about the water power people. Whether Alfred Noble designed them
all or not I do not know. I presume he had something to do with it.
He may have designed them all, because he was right there, and was
an able man.
Mr. ADCOCK. It would be impossible, would it not, without injuring
navigation very seriously, to use the waters of the St. Mary's River
for power purposes unless there was regulation of this kind?
General BIxBY. Do you say it would be impracticable?
Mr. ADCOCK. That it would be impossible, without seriously in-
juring navigation?
General BIxBY. At the present time, yes; without injuring naviga-
tion somewhat, but whether it will be always so or not, after the lake
shall have been regulated, I can not say. At present the water at the
regulating works has not been high enough to allow the works to give
proper protection to navigation. -
Mr. ADCOCK. But they have been regulated within a range of a foot
and a half, have they not? That is, the levels of Superior Ž
General BIxBY. The regulation limits are a foot and a half apart,
but they say that it is necessary to have a margin of half a foot on
each side, making two feet and a half total.
Mr. ADCOCK. Under natural conditions the range of high-and-low
water was about 5 feet, wasn’t it, at Superior—the range between the
high and the low?
General BIXBY. Not the average range, the maximum range.
Mr. ADCOCK. The maximum range; that is what I mean.
General BIxBY. There is a great deal of difference between the
average and the maximum. The maximum is great on all the lakes,
compared with the average, but the average range is a good deal less,
as that chart will show you. On Lake Superior the average range is
not over a foot and a half. w y
668 ILLINo.1s AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is after the regulation, is it not? .
General BIxBY. Since 1860. ''
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean, the average annual range?
General BIxBY. The average annual range.
Mr. ADCOCK. But I am asking you between the high and the low %
General BIxBY. The average annual range?
Mr. ADCOCK. No: the maximum high and the maximum low.
General BExBY. The maximum high what and low what—the
monthly or daily
Mr. ADCOCK. Before regulation?
General BIxBY. Daily, monthly, or yearly 2
Mr. ADCOCK. During the 41 years prior to regulation?
General BIXBY. Yes; but I am asking, do you mean the range in
daily or monthly or yearly 2
Mr. ADCOCK. Take the highest elevation.
General BIxBY. The highest ever known?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. In that period?
Mr. ADCOCR. Yes. The highest in that period and the lowest in
that period, and what is the difference?
The CHAIRMAN. That is, in the 41 years previous to 1900?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; previous to regulation, whenever that was. Give
the monthly mean.
General BIxBY. Will that be enough for you?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
General BIxBY. Because the highest range, according to the
monthly mean, is only 3 feet and one-third, but the highest monthly
mean is 604.1 feet. But in 1838 it went up to 605.3 feet, and how low
it has gone on the lowest ever known, how much lower it has ever
gone below this monthly mean, I do not know: but those are the high-
est and lowest when I say the highest known, that may have lasted
for only two or three hours.
Mr. ADCOCK. You were president of the special board of engineers
which made a report on waterway from Utica to the mouth of the
Illinois River, were you not?
General BIXBY. I was on one special board.
Mr. ADCOCK. And you made a report with reference to com-
pensating for the diversion of 10,000 second-feet at Chicago, didn’t
ou?
General BIxBY. We mentioned it. We mentioned that fact. Have
you the page of that report?
Mr. ADCOCK. No: I have not.
General Bixby. I will find it in a moment. -
Mr. ADCOCR. That report stated the following, did it not?
To restore the diminished levels in the lakes by constructing contracting
works in their outlets does not, however, present any serious difficulty.
The CHAIRMAN. What are you reading from ?
Mr. ADCOCK. The report of the special board of engineers on
waterway from Utica to the mouth of the Illinois River, of which
General Bixby was president.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that book you are reading from ?
Mr. Adcock. It is House Document 762, Sixty-third Congress,
second session.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 669
The CHAIRMAN. Is that bound in any particular thing?
Mr. ADCock. Yes; it is bound. .
The CHAIRMAN. With what, I mean?
Mr. ADCOCK. This is in a volume of the record before the Supreme
Court, but it is a congressional, or rather a House record. He said:
To restore the diminished levels in the lakes by constructing contracting
WOrks in their outlet does not, however, present any serious difficulties. A
careful discussion of the proper locations and dimensions of such works is
also in Appendix A.
That was Colonel Keller’s report.
At the foot of Lake Ontario the closure of the Gut Channel of the Galops
Rapids by the Canadian Government has had the effect of raising the level
of Lake Ontario an amount nearly equal to the computed, lowering of the lake
by a diversion of 10,000 second-feet at Chicago, and no compensation is at
present deemed necessary to restore former conditions in the lake.
In Appendix A it is proposed to diminish the Outflow of Lake Erie by the
construction of three submerged weirs in Niagara River in the vicinity of
Squaw Island, which would average about 4.2 feet in the height and would
contain about 15,000 cubic yards of masonry. The estimated cost is $150,000.
To raise the levels Of Lakes Michigan and Huron submerged weirs are pro-
posed in St. Clair River, covering 3 miles of river below the mouth of Black
River at Port Huron. The weirs as suggested in Appendix A have a height
of from 5 to 6 feet above the river bed, contain about 65,000 cubic yards of
material, and their estimated cost is $325,000. It is computed that these
weirs will increase the velocity of the water flowing over them slightly (from
a mean of 3.28 feet to 3.89 feet per Second), but, on the other hand, above the
mouth of Black River the river slopes, and velocities which are now excessive
will be diminished and navigation on the whole will be considerably benefited.
The Chicago diversion has no effect on Lake Superior. .
Compensation for the loss of elevation on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie
and their connecting waters, due to an assumed diversion from Lake Michigan
of 10,000 second-feet, will by the plan above outlined involve an expenditure
of about $475,000, to which should be added an amount for the maintenance
of the weirs, estimated at about $15,000 per year, the total cost being much
less than the cost of restoration 9f depths by dredging. It is the Opinion of
the board that while other plans have been proposed, compensation by fixed
contraction works similar in general to those above described affords the
cheapest and most satisfactory method of preserving the levels of the Great
Lakes.
Do you find that?
General BIxBY. No; I do not find that report. This which I have
here is a later report, and has some allusions to it, but it is not the
report you are reading from.
The CHAIRMAN. I have sent for a copy of it and will be very glad
to let you inspect it. g
General BIXBY. I thank you.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you remember signing the report which con-
tained such language?
General BIxBY. Oh, yes. That is the Second report of the same
board: but the first report you will find in here [indicating].
Mr. ADCOCK. That report was dated August 15, 1913.
General BIXBY. Yes. The most of what you have read sounds
familiar, and I should suppose that it was what I would have re-
membered, if I had a perfect memory.
Mr. ADCOCK. And you agree with the conclusions of that report,
do you—that is, that the lakes build contraction work so as to off-
set for the diminishing lake levels, due to the Chicago diversion of
10,000 second-feet? -
670 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
General BIxBY. At the time that that report was written I be-
lieved every word of it. In the 10 years that have come since, lots
of engineers have taken up the matter and discussed and discussed
it over and over again, and some of them think it is right and pos-
sible, and some of them think it is not; but at the present time I
should say that I should agree with this great big report on the
regulation of Erie, which says that it can not be done perfectly,
and with another report which says as to Superior that it can not
be done perfectly; but within ordinary practical limits, making al-
lowances for all the difficulties that any engineering problem pre-
sents, it seems to me that as an engineering proposition we can get a
regularization of Ontario and Erie and Michigan and Superior
within such limits as are all that ought to be expected from any kind
of such scheme.
l MºAncock. And would so far protect navigation and restore the
evels? :
General BIxBY. Not fully, but practically, reasonably well protect
the levels of those lakes; but in our board report, that you have
Quoted from, we have made no allusions to the St. Lawrence River
below the mouth of Lake Ontario, because we were not asked to
make any report on that, and we have never claimed that these
regulation works on those four lakes would regulate also the St.
Lawrence.
Mr. ADCOCK. No.
General BIxBY. But I do consider that the lakes themselves can
be regulated for navigation on the lakes themselves, and the levels
of the upper lakes reasonably well
Mr. ADCOCK (interposing). And also on the St. Lawrence; isn’t
that true? -
General BIxBY. Well, I would not agree to that. Two-thirds of
the St. Lawrence, I should say yes. The lower third, next to the
ocean. I do not know whether you can do it or not; but at any rate
if you do do it it is going to cost a mint of money.
Mr. ADCOCK. And would not such regulating works improve the
navigable conditions on the lakes; that is, at low water time when
navigation needs it? Wouldn’t you have higher water then?
General BIXBY. No; you would not always have higher water.
Mr. ADCOCK. Wouldn’t you have higher water at Iow water times
than you would have if there were no regulations of any kind?
General BIXBY. Oh, you could get higher water.
Mr. ADCOCK. And that would be the purpose of the regulations,
to keep the lake levels more even 2
General BIxBY. Oh, you could get 20 feet higher water on all the
lakes if you were willing to pay for all the lands you would sub-
merge and all the damages you would do to riparian owners.
Mr. ADCOCK. But you could so control the levels that you would
not have the water any higher at any time than the high water?
General BIxBY. Within reasonable limits I consider that all four
lakes can be controlled—within reasonable limits—and for reason-
able demands of navigation they can be controlled, I think, so far
as concerns their own navigation; but it is a question of dollars and
cents only. But it won’t be perfect, because we have not perfect
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 671
water supplies. We have not perfect other conditions, but it would
be what I consider reasonable.
Mr. ADCOCK. And practicable?
General BIxBy. What I would ordinarily term practicable.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GouldFR. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mr. Goulder. -
Mr. GouldF.R. You are familiar with the Warren report on that
subject, are you not?
General BIxBY. Fairly. g
Mr. GouldFR. That it is problematical and a matter of experiment,
and so on, as to what those works may be or may do? It is on page
378: shall I read that?
The CHAIRMAN. If you will.
Mr. GouldFR (reading):
A study of hydraulic conditions on the Great Lakes shows clearly the close
interdependence of their levels and the system by which nature regulates those
levels. Whether the system can be improved upon by human agency Sufficiently
to justify the construction and operation costs is problematical. Any change
involving artificial storage to be generally beneficial would require cooperative
regulation of all the lakes and rivers, with an intricate system for balancing the
variable and erratic supply from the various drainage basins. Such regulation
would involve tremendous costs, and the whole works would be more Or less
experimental.
. It is quite possible that regulation will ultimately be resorted to when the
various interests about the Great Lakes have become more valuable and When
experience, experiment, and further study have indicated more certainly its
desirability. In such case regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River would possibly best be undertaken first.
And he then speaks of ways, and concludes:
There is a wide range in the matter of details and locations of Compensating
works that would be practical and would give the full compensation desired.
The selection of the best and most economical method is largely a matter Of
engineering judgment. *
You are familiar with that?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. GouldFR. And you agree with that statement?
General BIxBY. I agree with every word of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you pass to another phase of it, Mr.
Goulder, may I just interject?
Mr. GouldF.R. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you say, General, you agree with
every word of it. I want to call your attention to certain specific
statements. You agree, in other words, with the statement that such
regulation would involve tremendous cost, and the whole works
would be more or less experimental 2
General BIxBY. Yes. *
The CHAIRMAN. And you also agree with this statement, that—
Whether the system can be improved upon by human agency Sufficiently to
justify the construction and operation costs is problematical.
General BIxBY. Yes; I agree with that.
The CHAIRMAN. And that—
- Any change involving artificial storage to be generally beneficial would re-
quire cooperative regulation of all of the lakes and rivers, with an intricate
672 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
. for balancing the variable and erratic supply from the various drainage
&SIIAS.
General BIXBY. Exactly.
Mr. ADCOCK. Where are you reading from ?
The CHAIRMAN. Page 379. It begins on page 378.
General BIXBY. I agree with those.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all I am asking—just that. Let me just
ask you this: Was this Warren report wholly gotten up by Colonel
Warren alone, or was it the work of a body of engineers?
General BIxBY. The work of his entire office, and especially the
work of Mr. Richmond, the assistant engineer, who prepared this
appendix, but it was the work of Colonel Warren’s entire office,
Mr. Richmond being in charge of it, and consulting the Lake Sur-
vey and its results and all of its own examinations, etc., utiliz-
ing all his office and the Lake Survey office, and the work of
power commissions that had made their reports.
The CHAIRMAN. Just to supplement this statement of the report
that such works would be more or less experimental, isn’t it the fact
that regulatory works have not been undertaken on the Great Lakes
in any case where there has been a withdrawal from the drainage
or Great Lakes area or basin, but only where the waters are con-
tinued in that system?
General BIxBY. That is my understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have only been undertaken, even in
the case of regulations, between the basin of the Great Lakes them-
selves, in one instance, and that is at the Soo?
General BIxBY. At the Soo-Sault Ste. Marie—just above the
locks.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. So that that is the only practical illustra-
tion to which you can point or from which you can draw lessons of
practical experience?
General BIxBY. For the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We have had storage reservoirs or basins
which had weirs to regulate the discharge on the upper Mississippi;
but, then, the conditions are quite different on the Mississippi from
what they are on the Great Lakes, because the water supply is so
small at the upper end of the Mississippi River proper, and you
could hardly draw an inference from one to apply to the other.
Mr. ADCOCK. Notwithstanding the statement of the difficulties
that might be encountered, you are still of the opinion, as you ex-
pressed it a little while ago, that it is practical to construct and oper-
ate so-called regulating works that will control the levels of the
Lakes within certain limits?
General BIXBY. I consider that it is practicable to get regulation
works which will control within reasonable limits, and from my
point of view, while experimental, it is an experiment that is well
worth trying. º
Mr. ADCock. Mr. Richmond that you speak of, General, what
were his antecedents and his training, etc.—do you know?
General BIxBY. I do not know.
Mr. ADCOCK. He was for a long time in the Lake Survey, was he
not?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 673
General BIXBY. I do not know. His name is W. S. Richmond.
I Only know that he was a man who was considered very highly by
Colonel Warren.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you know that the so-called Warren report was
reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of the
United States Army 2
General BIXBY. Yes. The Board of Engineers' report is in this
bound volume.
The CHAIRMAN. At what page?
General BIxBY. Page 15 and following.
Mr. ADCOCK. That was signed by H. Taylor, Sr., member of the
board, was it not?
General BIxBY. Yes, sir; on page 60, signed by H. Taylor.
Mr. ADCock. And General Taylor has just been namd as Chief
of Engineers, to take effect in June, has he not?
General BIxBY. No ; he has not yet been appointed Chief of En-
IIlêéI’S.
g Mr. ADCOCK. But he is to be Chief of Engineers?
General BIxBY. He has been nominated.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; he has been nominated.
General BIxBY. He has been nominated, with the expectation that
he will be confirmed.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you agree with the recommendation of that
board of engineers, which reviewed the Warren report as stated on
page 58, as follows:
For the benefit of navigation, we have recommended the immediate Con-
struction by international agreement of a regulating dam at Buffalo to cost
about $8,000,000. This dam would equalize the discharge of Lake Erie and
raise its level more than it has been, or is likely to be, lowered by diversions
from the Great Lakes system, and it would also restore the depths of the Detroit
River.
Do you agree with those recommendations or that recommenda-
tion ?
General BIxBY. Well, I do not know that I know enough about the
situation to know whether the exact specific dam and the exact spe-
cific costs are right.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
General BIxBY. But that it would be possible to have a dam that
would do that within reasonable limits, I freely concur in. The
kind of a dam I think will be adopted will probably be considerably
modified long before it is ever constructed. The plans will prob-
ably be modified more or less.
Mr. ADCOCK. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors,
United States Army, reviewed the report of the special board on
waterway from Utica to the mouth of the Illinois River, of which
you were president?
General BIxBY. They did.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that report, December 16,
1913 & -
Mr. ADCock. Yes; December 16, 1913. In that report the Board
of Engineers stated:
Further, the board believes that the total volume of water to be diverted
from the natural discharge channels of the Lakes should be definitely fixed
by Congress; that a project, with estimate of cost, for works necessary to
91739—24—PT 2 28
674 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
compensate for such diversion should be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War; that before any diversion is
made beyond that at present existing the State of Illinois shall transfer to
the Secretary of War the funds necessary for such works as given by the
approved estimate of cost; that the works shall be built by the United States.
with the funds so provided; and that the control and maintenance of such
works Shall be in and at the cost of the United States.
Do you remember that recommendation?
General BIxBY. It sounds familiar. -
Mr. ADCOCK. And that report was signed by Gen. W. M. Black,
Sr., member of the board, recently Chief of Engineers, was it not?
General BIXBY. He is the man. I was looking to see if I signed it.
Mr. ADCOCK. You signed the special board report?
General BIxBY. I think I signed that; yes. Now, what was your
question?
Mr. ADCOCK. I just asked if you remembered that recommenda-
tion ?
General BIxBY. I do.
Mr. Gould ER. What is the date of that?
The CHAIRMAN. December 16, 1913.
General BIxBY. That is dated December 16, 1913, and that is the
report of the River and Harbor Board of Engineers, and the report
of the special board was August 15, 1913.
The CHAIRMAN. Having said that the regulatory work would be
more or less experimental, and that whether the system of the Great
Lakes can be improved upon by human agency sufficiently to justify
the construction and operating force is problematical, and that all
the Lakes and channels would have to be brought in, with their in-
tricate system for balancing the variable and erratic supply from the
various drainage basins——it is a question, then, isn’t it, General,
whether such experimental work should be undertaken in order to
offset a diversion which is had at Chicago, which, so far as sanitation
is concerned, is necessary at the most only for a limited time, Sanita-
tion being possible in other ways and improved and better ways,
within a given time; the question is whether under these circum-
stances you should undertake them to offset a demand of that kind
which is not permanent, and which can be better provided for other-
wise—is not that the question ?
General BIxBY. Well, that is a question, and that question I would
answer by saying that my statement, that I concur with that board,
is my present individual opinion. I can not give any opinion offi-
cially, as an officer of engineers, because I am no longer in that corps,
but personally and individually my view is that the regulation of
those Lakes is something that ought to be done some time, and prob-
ably will be done some time, irrespective of drainage diversion at
Chicago, even if there be not a particle drained at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all right, but let us simplify the question.
Should we, in order to permit unnecessary diversions from the Great
Lakes, imperil navigation by saying that we will permit the diver-
sion and then take the chances upon this more or less experimental
system of regulating works to remedy the evil which it is certain will
immediately resultº
General BIxBY. Well, I had not considered that as an engineering
problem, because the engineering feature of it is the construction and
possibility, but that is simply an ethical problem.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 675.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no: that is not an ethical problem at all. It
is a practical problem relating to navigation, and whether you should
take the chances of impeded and obstructed navigation by an un-
necessary withdrawal from the basin. That is the question entirely.
General BIXBY. I expressed my opinion and it was that I was not
doing it as an offset.
The CHAIRMAN. No; but I am asking you a different question now.
General BIxBY. Whether it is proper to do it as an offset 2
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
General BIxBY. Well, if the other fellow foots all the bills and
pays everything, I do not see but what it is a problem worth solving
and an experiment worth trying. If the other man pays all the
expense, I think it would probably be a problem worth solving,
because the result will be finally a benefit.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean that if you regulate so as to simply
Gffset a withdrawal, that you will get better navigation than you
would without the withdrawal? Is that what you mean?
General BIxBY. I mean
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No ; is that what you mean?
General BIXBY. Not exactly. I am not considering that. Regu-
lation is a good thing.
The CHAIRMAN. Leaving out your question of cost or who pays
the cost, do you think you should grant a perpetual right, where it
is not necessary, for the withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes,
where the greatest tonnage is carried in the world, or in the history
of the world, grant that in perpetuity, and then take your chances
on what you say are more or less experimental works?
General BIxBY. I do not believe that it is right to grant any per-
petual rights. Consequently, I would not believe that it would be
right
"The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not ask you to answer it in
that way. Can you answer my question as it is propounded? Read
that question to him.
General BIxBY. I do not believe that it is proper to grant any
perpetual right, and therefore it did not make any difference what
the problem was.
The CHAIRMAN. Aside from your individual opinion on the grant-
ing of perpetual rights, I am asking you this question, whether you
believe, even if you were not opposed on principle to the granting of
perpetual rights in waters, you think it would be safe or wise to
grant a permit for the permanent withdrawal of water from the
basin of the Great Lakes and into another system and then depend
on what you yourself say is a more or less experimental way of
remedying the loss in levels? -
General BIxBY. Mr. Chairman, that raises a question which I
think I ought to explain. Serving at Chicago during all of this
trouble, I was necessarily drawn in contact with the law on this
question. Then, as Chief of Engineers, I was drawn in contact
a Q'al Il.
*. War Department permits mislead a majority of people. In
the case of Cummings v. Chicago, on the Calumet River, the Su-
preme Court decided that a War Department permit gave no au-
676 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
thority whatever; that it was merely a waiver of the objections of
the United States in behalf of the interests of navigation, and every
Secretary of War's permit that was given in those days, up to the
time I left, as Chief of Engineers, was always accompanied with
the statement that it was a waiver of the interests of navigation
for the time being, and whenever the interests of navigation showed
that they were being injured, the Secretary of War had the right
to modify the terms of the permit. It was a temporary permission;
merely a temporary waiver of the rights of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, General, to put the question in another
form, if Congress granted a perpetual right to divert at Chicago
for sanitation, would it have anything on which to rely for the loss
of lake levels, except upon corrective works, which you have testi-
fied at considerable length are more or less experimental It would
not have anything else, would it?
General BIxBY. The protective works should be finished be-
fore—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Oh, no. But they would not have
anything to rely on except the corrective works, which you have
testified are more or less experimental. Isn’t that so?
General BIxBY. That is so; yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. The Board of Engineers of the War Department in
making their surveys do their work primarily based upon the needs
of navigation, do they not?
General BIxBY. The surveys are always made, except when specifi-
cally ordered otherwise by Congress, with a view to navigation.
Mr. MoRGAN. In that connection, any diversion that is made for
navigation is based upon the value of the diversion and its effect
upon navigation, so far as relates to the waters or waterways from
which water is diverted: is not that true?
General BIxBY. Based on the effect on the waterways from which
the water is diverted, and the effect on the waterways to which the
water is diverted.
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes. And in that connection, for navigation pur-
poses, for the development of the Chicago River and the Mississippi
Valley, the water diversions there might be practically considered
from the standpoint of the necessary diversion to add to the value
of transportation, to develop the Chicago River to a 9-foot channel,
that might be done, might it not?
General BIxBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. The diversion for sanitary purposes at Chicago was
only considered at the outset as a temporary relief for that purpose,
was it not? I mean the increased diversion?
General BIXBY. My understanding is that the War Department
permit, which was a temporary permit, a waiver of objections until
Congress could act, was intended as a temporary thing.
Mr. MoRGAN. Would you consider it within the authority of this
committee, or within the authority of Congress, to recommend the
diversion of water for sanitary purposes?
General BIxBY. Temporarily, in small quantities. +
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes; I am speaking of a permanent diversion, as a
permanent proposition.
General BIxBY. I have always claimed the opposite.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 677
Mr. Morgan. Therefore, it is within the provisions of this com-
mittee and Congress to consider navigation projects and not sani-
tary projects, is it not, in the matter of diversions? ſº
General Bixby. I do not know the rules of the committee well
enough nor the rules of Congress well enough to answer that. ..
Mr. Morgan. Would it be your judgment that it is a practical
thing for this committee and Congress to take care of transpor-
tations as the first consideration?
General Bixby. That is what I should suppose; I should suppose
that the action of this committee would concern navigation and
not—
Mr. MoRGAN. (interposing). Are you familiar with the treaty be-
tween the United States and Canada?
General BIxBY. I am. 3.
Mr. MoRGAN. In view of the fact that there were certain known
diversions at that time, including certain diversions at Chicago,
would you consider that in the division of water at Niagara Falls the
|United States should reserve for diversion purposes, whatever it
might decide would be a practical amount, at least the amount that
was being diverted at Chicago and was known at that time?
General BIxBY. I do not think the treaty should consider it; I
do not think it did consider it.
Mr. MoRGAN. There was an interpretation of the treaty and there
were certain known diversions at that time.
General BIxBY. The treaty specifically stated that it was not in-
tended to injure and destroy propérty and businesses that were al-
ready well started, and therefore in section 2 they say that they do
not intend the treaty to apply to existing diversions except where
such diversions prove seriously injurious to navigation. So, under
the treaty, Article II of the treaty, I understand that Chicago had
a perfect right to a continuance of the diversion of between 3,000
and 4,000 cubic feet per second, which existed at the time of the
treat V.
. MoRGAN. That is what I am getting at.
General BIxBY. And possibly they had a right to claim that they
were entitled to 4,167 feet per second named in the temporary per-
mit, but that was only temporary. But under the treaty they would
seem to have a perfect right to a continuance of between 3,000 and
4,000 cubic second-feet, which were existing at the time of the treaty.
According to my understanding of the treaty, anything in excess of
that is subject to the approval of the joint commission and the ap-
proval of the United States Congress and the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. MoRGAN. Do you consider it practical to divert such water?
Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman, is there any reason why we could
not take a recess now and go on with this in the morning?
The CHAIRMAN. What time is it?
Mr. NEWTON. Four o’clock.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will let Mr. Morgan finish his questions.
Mr. MoRGAN. Do you consider it practical to make such diversion
for transportation purposes on the Chicago River as would seem
practicable? r
General BIxBY. Transportation purposes?
678 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MoRGAN. Navigation purposes, I mean.
General Bixby. I do. -
. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask one question before we ad-
JOurn.
I call attention first to a provision in this report which counsel for
the Sanitary district has directed attention. You will find this state-
ment :
. In the valley of the Des Plaines and upper Illinois Rivers excellent founda-
tions for locks are available; the lower Illinois has a gentle slope, so that any
reasonable depth can be Ubtained by dredging, and the present diversion of
Water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal is more than
Sufficient for navigation purposes.
Do you remember that statement?
General BIXBY. I do not remember it, but it seems to me familiar,
and I agree with it.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the amount in 1913; do you remember?
Mr. ADCOCK. It was 7,192 second-feet.
General BIXBY. I just wanted to see what that was. That is the
Board of Engineers’ report?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
General BIXBY. Not my board’s report, but the report of the Board
of Engineers? &
The CHAIRMAN. I call attention to provision 6:
The investigations and studies of the special board show that the diversion
of water from the Lakes lowers the levels progressively in proportion to the
amount So diverted, the full effect not being observable for some time; and
that for the 10,000 second-feet diverted through the Chicago Drainage Canal
at mean lake level the water Surface will be lowered in Lake Huron and Lake
Michigan 0.465 foot; in, Lake Erie, 0.448 foot; in Lake Ontario, 0.431 foot.
Such lowering would materially affect the carrying capacity of the large freight
vessels, estimated at 88 tons per inch of draft, and would cause a loss on
American vessels alone at the lowest estimate of $1,000,000 per annum.
What do you say as to that?
General BIxBY. That is the Board of Engineers' report, and I see
no reason to disagree with it. I would not know whether I agreed
with it or not exactly, because I have not figured it through, but I
see no reason to disagree with it. That is the report of the Board of
Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. Certain members of the committee have advised
me that they have made engagements for 4 o'clock this afternoon,
and in view of that fact I have said that we would adjourn at 4
o'clock to-day.
General BIXBY. There is one word I want to add in connection
with what was last read. Wherever in any of my reports, either as
district engineer at Chicago or as a member of the board or as Chief
of Engineers, where the War Department refers to existing diversion
at Chicago they always understand and mean a legalized diversion,
and they never recognized, and never have recognized, that the Chi-
cago Sanitary District had any temporary permit or any legalized
permit for more than 4,167 cubic second-feet, and when they have
used more than that it has been simply due to the customs of the
Government, that when the Secretary of War turns over a matter
to the Attorney General he suspends further action by himself until
the papers come back to him from the Attorney General. Therefore,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 6.79
when he specified 4,167 cubic feet per second and the matter was
taken up in the court, the district officer was told that the matter
was pending action in the court; and while he would report on ex-
cess diversions, excess takings, he should remember that none of
them had been permitted except the 4,167 cubic feet; and so in our
reports we are not considering an existing diversion at Chicago to
mean anything more than that the legalized temporary diversion of
4,167 cubic feet. Now, if the court comes out with a decision and
says that the sanitary district is entitled to more, that would, practi.
cally, I suppose, have a retroactive effect.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask one question. If the 10,000 cubic feet that
apparently was allotted, or supposed to be allotted, should be proven,
if it should be proven it was allotted to Chicago, your judgment
would be, would it not, that they were entitled to it, the way this
treaty reads?
General BIXBY. If it were proved it were allotted by the treaty
and the joint commission's approval, that would govern.
The CHAIRMAN. I take it you are not a lawyer ?
General BIXBY. I am not a lawyer.
The CHAIRMAN. And you do not call yourself an expert at con-
struing treaties?
General BIXBY. Only on those cases that have come up before me
and which I have had to settle or act upon, like the Cummins v.
Chicago case, which I had to apply for a great many years.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have not studied law Ż
General BIXBY. No: although I have studied engineering juris-
prudence; but I am not a lawyer, and I do not think I ought to
answer questions of law.
Mr. ADCOCK. As I understand, when the War Department speaks
of an existing diversion in its reports it only means the permitted
diversion?
General BIXBY. It only means a temporary diversion, so far as
concerns the interests of navigation.
Mr. ADCock. But when you speak of an existing diversion, you
only mean, when you say that, the amount of the diversion as fixed
by the War Department permit, temporary or otherwise?
General BIxBY. If I were asked what the existing diversion was
in 1910, I should say that the actual existing diversion was as much
as between 3,000 and 4,000 cubic second-feet, and that the possible
allowable diversion might be 4,167 cubic feet, to be determined by
the Supreme Court and Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. And you say the same as to December 16, 1913?
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is, if it were more than 4,167 cubic feet, and
actually 7,000 cubic feet, in referring to it as an existing diversion
you would mean merely the permitted diversion? -
General BIxBY. Yes; I would say that other parts of it were ille-
gal and consequently not touched upon in any treaty or any official
War Department decision.
Mr. Apcock. Then, I take it that the facts do not exist except as
thew are permitted by the War Department?
General BIxpy. Not in this case.
680 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody want General Bixby to be here
to-morrow morning? If not, we will then go to the next witness.
We will stand adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-
morrow, Wednesday, April 30, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
. following communications were filed by the chairman for the
I'êCOI’OI
PORT HURON, MICH., April 18, 1924.
RIVERS AND HARBORs CoMMITTEE,
Washington, D. C.:
We hereby enter protest against the passing of House Bill 7044, Chicago
drainage, now pending before Congress. Any diversion of water would be in-
jurious to the welfare and interests of the people and property bordering on
POrt Huron and the St. Clair River district.
GEO. E. STEwART,
Secretary Port Huron Chamber of Commerce.
SAULT STE. MARIE, MICH., April 21, 1924.
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
The Edison Sault Electric Co., of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., is operating a
hydroelectric plant leased from the United States Government, lease dated
June 25, 1912, and supplies the city of Sault Ste. Marie with power for operat-
ing its WaterWorks plant and street lighting ; also supplies all lighting
for private homes and power for other industries, as well as United States
Fort Brady and all Government works at this point, including the locks.
The recent depression of lower lake levels is interfering with the proper
operation of the plant to such an extent that the situation at times is critically
serious from a power standpoint. This interference is caused by the lower
levels dropping to such an extent that air is admitted into the draft tubes
which materially reduces power output of plant and hinders regulation. We
have partially relieved the situation by placing forms in throats of draft tubes,
but can not remedy situation with any further lowering Of levels.
We realize that a portion of the depression of lower pool levels is due to
withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage
Canal. It so happens. in So far as concerns this power plant, that the addi-
tional depression means the difference between proper Operation and failure
of draft tubes at present levels.
In other words. draft tubes would have given no particular difficulty had
not the natural depression of levels been aggravated by withdrawal of Water.
We therefore earnestly protest at the withdrawal of water until such a time
as the lake levels are compensated and brought back to normal levels. We
believe lower lake levels should have compensating works at once under GOV-
ernment control to prevent further serious conditions.
EDISON SAULT ELECTRIC CO.
PEORIA, ILL., April 22, 1924.
Hon. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : The estate of Spencer S. Cone, of which I am one of the heirs,
owns the N. 34, of sec. 14, Tp. 26, R. 4, in Tazewell County, Ill., located on the
east side of the Illinois River nearly opposite the city of Peoria and directly
opposite the village of Averyville, a suburb of Peoria. This land can be
exactly located and the amount of land damaged determined by reference
to the Government Surety of the Illinois and Des Plaines River, where On
sheet No. 22 near the right will be found the name, S. S. Cone.
After a careful study of H. R. 5475, which is locally known as the Hull bill,
I wish to express to you my emphatic disapproval of that bill and to thank
you and your associates for the stand you have taken against it. Our land
is valuable not only as extremely prélouctive bottom land, but to us and to
the city of Peoria as factory and home sites. The water turned in by the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 681
Sanitary district has needlessly ruined many acres of our best land for which
we can not hope to secure compensation without a greater cost than the pos-
sible collectible damages. We, like hundreds of other valley landowners,
realize that we, to quote the words of an attorney of Lacon, Ill., before the
Peoria ASSOciation of Commerce forum on the subject, are opposing “an
ancient and dishonorable enemy '' who have violated and flouted not only the
equitable rights of the people, but the laws of the State of Illinois.
I believe that Mr. Hull and that other Peorian in Washington, Robert H.
Lovett, Assistant Attorney General, will advise you that I am a reputable,
responsible business man. I would be the last man to selfishly stand in the
Way Of an improvement, especially one of general Welfare or public benefit,
but I fail to find any, even inadequate, benefit in this bill other than water
power, to Offset its demerits.
Past knowledge of the tactics of the sanitary district trustees make it
absolutely imperative that the control of the water flow shall be kept out
Of their hands and placed preferably in that of the War Department.
The time allowed for the construction of the Sewage-disposal plants men-
tioned therein should be very greatly shortened, and no provision should be
allowed to enter the bill whereby they can evade, nullify, and flout the
wise provisions of the acts Of the Illinois Legislature under which they
Operate. -
There must always be someone to fight the battle for right and, together
with other and more helpless landowners in the valley, we look to you and
men of your type in Our hour of need, and allow me to express my appreciation
and thank you for the good work you have and are doing in this matter.
Yours respectfully,
WM. R. CONE.
SUPERIOR, WLS, April 25, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR SIR : I inclose copy of resolution passed by the city council. Of
Superior at its last meeting.
Respectfully yours, w
A. D. S. GILLETT, Commissioner.
RESOLUTION PROTESTING AGAINST THE DIVERSION OF THE WATER OF THE GREAT
LARES.
Resolved by the Mayor and Council of the City of Superior, That the diver-
Sion of the waters of the Great Lakes into the Chicago Drainage Canal has
reached a point where it seriously threatens the water levels of the Great
Lakes, and if permitted to continue will hamper lake Shipping because of the
lowering of the depth of the channels. Since the prosperity Of the entire
northern portion of the American Continent is, in a large measure, dependent
upon the successful and efficient handling of this lake traffic, such diversion is
a serious blow to the welfare not only of the region tributary to the Great
Lakes but also to the entire COuntry.
Therefore, we earnestly protest against this diversion and urge Our Sena-
tors and Representatives to do all in their power to correct the evil.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of April, 1924.
Approved this 15th day of April, 1924.
FRED A. BAxTER, Mayor.
M. G. BECKLEY, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE NEW YORK PRODUCE
3. EXCHANGE, APRIL 25, 1924
H. R. 6873, H. R. 7044, H. R. 6822, H. R. 5475—Diversion of water from
Lake Michigan by Sanitary District of Chicago. -
Whereas the above-enumerated bills have been introduced into Congress
with the stated purpose of enabling the Sanitary District of Chicago to
withdraw water from Lake Michigan at the rate of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second ; and
682 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Whereas the members of the New York Produce Exchange engaged in
marketing products of the farm, and especially those originating in the
great Northwest, are opposed to any lowering of water levels of the Great
Lakes and Consequent depreciation of their value as transportation arteries:
Therefore be it *
Re8.olved, That the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives
from the State of New York be and are hereby respectfully and earnestly
urged to use their influence to prevent the enactment of any of these bills.
W. C. Ross MAN,
Secretary.
MANITowoc, Wis., April 25, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : Pursuant to instructions from the Common Council of the
City of Manitowoc, I am inclosing herewith copy of resolutions unanimously
adopted at a regular meeting held April 15, 1924:
Yours very truly,
ARTHUR H. ZANDER.
City Clerk.
RESOLUTION REGARDING DIVERSION OF WATER FROM TAKE MICHIGAN INTO THE
CHICAGO DRAIN AGE CAN AI,
Whereas the Hull bill (H. R. 5475), dealing with the improvement of the
Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, with a view of perfecting a waterway from
the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, and which incidentally seeks to legalize
the diversion and abstraction of 10,000 cubic feet per second of water from
Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal, has had a hearing before the
Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives, on March
17, 18, and 19, 1924, at which the proponents were heard; and
Whereas the hearing on said bill is to be resumed on April 15, 1924; and
Whereas the passage of that bill, or any other bill seeking to accomplish
the same purpose, is injurious and detrimental to the navigation and com-
merce upon the Great Lakes, and especially to the city of Manitowoc, with
all other lake port cities, and is further injurious to the harbor improvements
Of the city of Manitowoc and all other lake port cities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the Common Council of the City of Manitowoc, that we are un-
alterably opposed to said bill or any other bill or measure which involves the
diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal, or
any other diversion or abstraction of the water from Lake Michigan ; be it
further
Resolved, That we do hereby request the representatives of the State of Wis-
COInSin in Congress to Oppose Said bill or any other bill or measure which involves
the diversion of Water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal,
or otherwise; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Congressman of the
several congressional districts in the State of Wisconsin, and to each of our
Senators : be it further resolved :
Resolved, That the substance of this resolution be telegraphed to Hon. S.
Wallace Dempsey, chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, House of Repre-
sentatives, Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Dated April 15, 1924.
OTTO A. VOGEL.
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
City of Manitowoc, 88:
I, Arthur H. Zander, clerk of the city of Manitowoc, Wis., do hereby certify
that the above, is the true and correct copy of the original resolution on file
in my office; that the Same Was duly passed and adopted by the mayor and
common council at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of April, 1924,
unanimously.
IDated April 25, 1924. g
[SEAL.] ARTHUR H. ZANDER,
City Clerk.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 683
SUPERIOR, WIs., April 26, 1924.
HON. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbor's Committee, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: It is the opinion of this organization that H. R. 5475, known as
the Hull bill, which would give the Chicago Sanitary District Commission
the power to divert an excessive amount of water from Lake Michigan, Will
operate to the detriment of cities in Wisconsin situated on the Great Lakes,
and I am directed to file protest with you against the passage of this bill.
The directors of this organization feel that the demands of the Chicago
Sanitary District Commission are unwarranted and excessive and that the
lowering of the water level of the Lakes will interfere with commerce by
reducing the carrying capacity of boats that ply these Waters.
We would appreciate having you enter this as a protest against this bill.
Very truly yours,
SUPERIOR CIVIC AND COMMERCE ASSOCIATION,
By W. H. TYSON, Secretary.
- PEORLA, ILL., April 28, 1924.
HON. S. WALLACE DEMP3EY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: I am to-day in receipt of a transcript of a portion Of the evi-
dence taken before your committee on April 17, 1924, concerning alleged
waterway bills. In this transcript I see where my friend, Mr. Hull, attributes
my objections to his bill to my railroad connections, and this transcript also
COntains a Statement On behalf of Mr. Hull that myself and Some Organiza-
tion in which I am interested have taken over something like 15,000 acres of
land for developpment. In this connection I wish to say that I am and have
been for some time attorney for certain railroad interests, but so far as I
know no railroads, at least none that I represent, are in any way interested
One way or the other. No one connected with any railroad that I represent
or any other railroad has ever spoken or communicated in any way with me
about this matter.
With reference to my being interested in the development of 15,000 acres of
land I wish to say that I am not a member Of Or attorney for any organiza-
tion interested in any land development proposition whatever in the valley
of the Illinois or any other river; that I do not even know of any such project
as referred to by my friend IIull. I do not own or have any interest in any
land whatever situated in in the valley of the Illinois other than my residence
property. The ASSOciation of Drainage and Levee Districts employed me to
present their objections to the McCormick bill here at Peoria last fall. This
I did, and upon the conclusion of this presentation my employment ceased, and
since that time I have represented nobody but myself and the people in the
Illinois Valley generally, who are not nearly as gullible as the sanitary district
and some of their friends give them Credit for being.
Inclosed you will find a communication from the Kiwanis Club of Henry,
Ill., published in the Peoria Journal under date of April 24, 1924. The com-
munication is dated April 22 and is in reply to the statement made in the
record by Mr. Hull concerning these communications, which were published
in Our local papers.
Very truly yours,
S. F. MCGRATH.
[The Peoria Journal, Apr. 24, 1924.]
HENRY KIW ANIS CLUT EXPLAINS STANI) ON HULL BILL
APRIL 22, 1924.
The Peoria Jou?"mal :
After reading the letter of Congressman William E. Hull, and the accom-
panying article printed in your papers under date of Monday, April 21, 1924.
we, the Kiwanis Club of Henry, as good citizens, taxpayers, and residents of
the beautiful Illinois Valley. feel that it is our right to explain our position
in regard to deep waterway bills, water diversion from Lake Michigan, and
sewage disposal of the city of Chicago by its sanitary commission.
684 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
We are not after Congressman William E. Hull's hide. We are not at-
tempting to dabble in politics. We wish to stop nothing that looks to us
like good, honest legislation. We know nothing of any personal aspira-
tions of the Messrs. Stone and McGrath. We will take no part in any squabble
taking place between them and Congressman Hull.
We are not opposed to a deep waterway, but will be heartily in favor of one
any time it is offered us. But any waterway bill specifying a channel 8.
Or 9 feet deep places no visions of majestic lake or Ocean Vessels moving
up and down Our Valley, but sounds like a barge canal to us.
Government engineers have claimed that a 1,000 cubic foot per second diver-
Sion from Lake Michigan would fill such a channel, and any bill specifying a
10,000-foot diversion smells like a sewage bill to us and will forever meet with
Such Opposition as we may be able to give it. We have had all of Chicago's
Sewage we care about, and will allow no more to intimidate us Or alter our
Stand on this matter in the slighest.
Congressman Hull says that he favors a give-and-take proposition with the
Sanitary Commission of Chicago. The sanitary commission has always favored
this proposition. They give us their sewage and take our farm lands, our fish-
ing, Our trapping, our boating, our bathing, destroy our fine timberlands, and
Will not stop, apparently, at menacing our health.
Congressman Hull says that down State Illinois does not favor our stand
in this matter. Down State Illinois possibly is passive on this subject, as
this community Once was. But down State Illinois will some day learn, if
We are given no relief, that Chicago’s Sewage, slowly but Surely, works down,
not up, the river, and that the day when they may view with alarm the increase
Of filthy, polluted, germ-laden water, carrying destruction with it, grows
nearer With each Sunset.
We wish to correct any impression that we have acted hastily or that we
have any regrets for any activities we have engaged in in cleaning up our river.
We believe so firmly and feel so strongly that the day is at hand to correct
this great Sewage injustice that we do not intend to slacken our efforts one
particle until this fight is fought to a finish.
There is no reason why Chicago should not care for its sewage through dis-
posal plants, just as many of the world's largest cities do. Chicago had no
right to kill the fish in what was formerly the second best fish river in the
United States, furnishing one-fourth of all the fish taken in the great Missis-
sippi basin. She had no right to flood our land, kill our timber, nor menace
Our health.
It took 17 long years to get a decision against the sanitary commission
for violation of the War Department order giving Chicago the right to
divert water at the rate of 4,167 cubic feet per second. Now that the Su-
preme Court declared that this case shall come before it in November Of this
year, We have protests, and howls, and wails, deep waterway bills, talk Of
typhoid epidemics and many other varieties of Squirmings. We have sanitary
Commission hearings up and down our valley, where the commission walks off
leaving unsettled claims for damages which have been in litigation for 20
years, and in the case of recent claims, not even troubling to take property de-
Scriptions.
Many of our fellow townsmen have damaged lands. We are not Out to Ob-
tain damages for them of ourselves. We want the Sanitary commission to
come to trial before the Supreme Court of these United States. We have all
faith in the Supreme Court and the War Department protecting the rights of
the Oppressed weak.
We do not threaten the city of Chicago with a typhoid pestilence, nor do We
propose to allow her to threaten us with One.
We demand that Chicago start work at once, in earnest, on sewage disposal
plants, to be completed in such time as the War Department shall consider
reasonable and sufficient, and to be large enough to care not only for the
sewage of the present population of the city of Chicago, but also such increases
as shall be made in her population in the future. We favor no bill, no matter
who presents it, allowing 25 years for the erection of disposal plants that Will
in 1949 be sufficient to care for the sewage of what was the population of
Chicago in 1924. Chicago has millions to spend on civic improvement boule-
vard and park improvement, but not one cent for sewage disposal. A good
housekeeper keeps the whole premises tidy. Why don't some of Chicago's
visitors walk around and take a look at her beautiful back yard 2 Let uS tear
off the camouflage, shut-off the Smoke screen, and call all legislation now
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 685
before Congress, barge canals, sewage disposal bills, or hydro-electric plums,
anything but bills to give the residents of this valley a good clean river and
an honest-to-goodness waterway.
We ask :
That Chicago's sanitary commission be brought to trial before the Supreme
Court and an end put to the law breaking of this greedy, unscrupulous cor-
poration.
That Chicago start at once on the erection of sewage plants, sufficient to
Care for her entire population and that such plants be completed in such time
as shall be deemed sufficient by the War Department of the United States.
That water diversion from Lake Michigan be regulated in conformity with
the ruling of the War Department and not the needs of the sanitary commis-
sion for sewage disposal and hydroelectric power.
That our rightful possessions, our lands, our timber, our fishing, hunting,
trapping, boating, and bathing, be returned to us and that there shall never
be another menace to Our health from this source.
That the citizenry of Peoria and all other towns and cities all up and down
this valley stop to think how the business activities and recreation no longer
Center around what was once a beautiful river, and then give or withhold their
Support in this struggle as they may see fit.
Great natural resources in this country, since the beginning of its history,
have been grabbed, stolen, and squandered. When is the end?
THE KIw ANIS CLUB OF HENRY, ILL.
ToLEDO, OHIO, April 29, 1924.
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.:
City Council of Toledo has authorized me to vigorously protest in behalf
Of the citizens of Toledo the granting of any right to the city of Chicago to
divert the water of Lake Michigan for drainage canal. Such diversion would
be great blow to our navigation. Sincerely hope efforts of Chicago to obtain
this privilege will be killed in committee.
F. M. JOHNSON,
I)irector of Jaw, City of Toledo.
A RESOLUTION
Protesting against the diversion of waters from the Great Lakes by the City
of Chicago.
Whereas the city of Chicago is contemplating the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan ; and
Whereas such diversion will lower the lake levels throughout the Great
Lakes waterways ; and
Whereas such diversion will be prejudicial to navigation on the Great Lakes
and to the interests Of the various ports that are situated thereon : There-
fore, be it
Resolved, By the council of the city of Toledo, that it hereby, in behalf of
said city, declares its protest against the diversion of water from Lake Michi-
gan by the city of Chicago, resulting in lower lake levels.
Be it further resolved, That in the opinion of Our engineers this diversion
WOuld lower the lake level of Lake Erie and Maumee River and that the
same would be prejudicial to Toledo as a port on the Great, Lakes.
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the congressional Committee
On Rivers and Harbors, and to our Representative in the House of Representa-
tives, and to the United States Senators of Ohio, with the request that they
use all means in their power to cause the refusal by the Federal Government
to the request of the city of Chicago to divert waters from the Great Lakes.
That this resolution, being an emergency measure, shall take effect and be
in force from and after its passage.
Adopted April 21, 1924.
F. J. MERY,
President of Council.
Attest: ;
A. W. PAYNE,
Clerk of Council.
686 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
I, A. W. Payne, clerk of the council of the city of Toledo, State of Ohio, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution
adopted by council April 21, 1924 : approved by the mayor April 25, 1924, and
published in the Toledo City Journal April 26, 1924. .
Attest : º
[SEAL ] A. W. PAYNE,
Clerk of Council.
TOLEDO, OHIo, April 29, 1924.
HYDRO-ELECTRIC PoWER COMMISSION OF ONTARIO,
Toronto, Ontario, April 23, 1924.
CHARLEs A. MCGRATH, Esq.,
Chairman Canadian Section, International Joint Commission, Ottawa,
Canada.
DEAR MR. MCGRATH : At the recent hearings in Washington before the Rivers
and Harbors Committee with respect to the bills before Congress relating to
the diversion by the Sanitary 1)istrict of (‘hicago, there were introduced in the
Course of the hearings some quotations from a pamphlet entitled “The Inter-
national Joint Commission—Organization. Jurisdiction, and Operation Under
the Treaty of January 11, 1909, Between the United States and Great Britain.”
The pamphlet bears the imprint, Washington, Government Printing Office,
1924, and consists of v-H55 pages. *
Could you please oblige by letting me know if this is a pamphlet issued by
the International Joint Commission and if the views expressed in the pamphlet
are authoritatively presented by the commission ?
Thanking you in anticipation of your reply in connection with this inquiry,
I am, *
Faithfully yours,
- ARTHUR W. WHITE,
Consulting Engineer.
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
Ottawa, April 26, 1924.
ARTHUR W. WHITE, Esq.,
Consulting Engineer, Hydro-Electric Power Commission, Toronto.
DEAR MR. WHITE : I have your letter of the 23d in regard to the pamphlet
recently issued at Washington respecting the organization, etc., of the Inter-
national Joint Commission.
This document was prepared by the United States Section of the Commission
as an informal and unofficial statement of various matters which have been
before the commission for consideration or relate to its work, and was printed
by the State Department at Washington. It must not be taken as representing
the views of the commission. The commission has expressed no views except
in its formal orders and Opinions. The American secretary has to appear
each year before the Approprations Committee of Congress, where he is ques-
tioned as to the activities of the commission. and I understand that this
memorandum was prepared as a convenient way of putting the information
before the committee. Through inadvertence, the pamphlet was printed in a
form that made it appear as an Official publication of the commission.
I know that Our American colleagues will regret as much as we do that any-
one should be misled into taking this document to be in any sense a presenta-
tion Of the views of the COmmission.
Yours very truly,
C. A. MAGRATH.
INTERNATIONAL Joint CoMMISSION,
Washington, D. O., April 29, 1924.
A. V. WHITE, Esq.,
Consulting Engineer, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR SIR : I have the honor to hand you herewith letter addressed to
you by Hon. C. A. Magrath, chairman of the Canadian scetion of the Interna-
tional Joint Commission, With relation to a certain publication entitled “Or-
ganization, Jurisdiction, and Operation Under the Treaty of January 11, 1909,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 687
between the United States and Great Britain,” bearing the imprint of the
Government Printing Office, and to which it is understood reference has been
made in the hearings now being conducted by a committee of the House Of
Representatives.
The letter of Mr. Magrath is correct in all particulars save as to the au-
thority for printing. The pamphlet was printed not by the State Department,
which is in no wise responsible for the same, but was and is intended Only
as a general statement by the United States section of the objects, purposes,
and activities of the commission, and in no sense an official utterance of the
commission, official views, as stated by Mr. Magrath, being expressed only in
the formal orders and Opinions of the commission.
It may be said in passing that the commission issues no annual Or gen-
eral reports, and one of the principal reasons for the pamphlet was to inform
the Committee on Appropriations and other parties interested of the past
Operations of the commission.
Yours very truly,
C. D. CLARK, Chairmam.
THE NEW WILLARD,
Washington, April 29, 1924.
Mr. CLARENCE D. CLARK,
('hairman International Joint Commission, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR SIR : Your esteemed letter of April 29 has been received, ac-
Companied by the letter from Mr. Charles A. Magrath to which you refer.
These communications satisfactorily clear up the misunderstanding that has
arisen respecting the status of the publication under discussion.
I beg to express my appreciation of your courtesy in connection with the
Inqullºy. &
Yours faithfully,
ARTHUR V. WHITE.
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
|Wednesday, April 30, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bruce 2
Mr. BRUCE. The question is whether you got through with Gen-
eral Bixby.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you finish, General Bixby ?
General BIxBY. There was one question put to me vesterday just
before adjournment which I only halfway answered when I was in-
terrupted, and I would like to complete my answer to that question.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead and complete your answer.
Mr. Gould ER. I wanted to call attention to that answer, that Gen-
eral Bixby did not complete it.
Mr. BARRETT. We would like to know what the program is for to-
day. Will we be able to go to Chicago to-night?
The CHAIRMAN. The understanding is that when we adjourn to-
day, if they finish, we adjourn to a week from to-day, when Chicago
will present its case.
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, you say we will adjourn to-day until
next week? -
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn as soon as you finish with your
CàSe.
Mr. BRUCE. We are practically through, after I have read Mayor
Hoan's statement. -
The CHAIRMAN. Now, General Bixby, you wanted to complete an
2InSWeI’. *
688 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF GEN. WILLIAM H. BIXBY
General BIXBY. In the record of yesterday the chairman asked this
question:
The CHAIRMAN. Having said that the regulatory works would be more or less
experimental, and that whether the system of the Great Lakes can be improved
upon by human agency sufficiently to justify the construction and operating
force is problematical, and that all the lakes and channels would have to be
brought in, with their intricate system for balancing the variable and erratic
Supply from the various drainage basins—that is a question, then, isn’t it, General,
Whether such experimental work should be undertaken in order to offset a diver-
SiOn Which is had at Chicago, which, so far as sanitation is concerned, is neces-
Sary at the most only for a limited time, sanitation being possible in other ways
and improved and better ways, within a given time; the question is whether
under these circumstances you should undertake them to offset a demand of
that kind which is not permanent, and which can be better provided for other-
wise—is not that the question?
I answered:
Well, that is a question, and that question I would answer by saying that my
Statement that I concur with that board is my present individual opinion.
Then the chairman asks another question, and there were several
questions and finally the chairman asked:
NOW, General, to put the question in another form, if Congress granted a
perpetual right to divert at Chicago for sanitation, would it have anything on
Which to rely for the loss of lake levels except upon corrective works, Which
you have testified at considerable length are more or less experimental? It
Would not have anything else, would it?
In answered, “The protective works should be finished before ”—
and then I was interrupted.
Mr. GouldF.R. Now, please continue that answer. Before what?
General BIxBY. I wanted to explain that the protective works—
that I assumed in my opinion, agreeing with the view of the board
that they were desirable—that the protective works should be fin-
ished before any permanent permit was given for any
Mr. GOULDER (interposing). For any purpose? tº ſº
General BIxBY. For any purpose, and that it should wait until
the protective works should have proved themselves successful be-
fore anything but a mere temporary permit should be allowed.
That is, that the works have been proposed in half a dozen dif-
ferent ways and probably will be proposed in half a dozen more
ways, and they are more or less experimental, and until they are
finished and the experiment has proved itself a success I felt that
under these conditions, and in giving anything but a temporary
permit, subject to revocation, that that is the only way in which the
regulatory works, as I considered, are worthy of being undertaken.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you want them to build the regulatory
works, and then if they don’t want to give it they don’t have to
give it?
General BIXBY. No; if they are built and proved a success, then
the permit might be extended; but if they don’t do the business,
then the interests of navigation come up.
Mr. HULL. Well, the regulatory works have been a success in
Lake Superior, have they not?
General BIxBY. No; they have not.
Mr. HULL. Do you mean to say they have not?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 689
General BIxBY. Only partially. - tº
Mr. HULL. Then you disagree with all these other engineers?
General BIxBY. Only partially.
Mr. HULL. Every one who has come before us so far has said that
they were successful.
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t understand that we have had any testi-
mony on that line.
General BIxBY. The Warren report especially takes that up and
says that Lake Superior is not able, even at present, to furnish all
the water that is necessary for regulation. Now, I said I thought
it was possible to have regulatory works that would do that busi-
ness, and it is always more or less experimental until it proves a suc-
cess; the regulations of the Secretary of War, who always has a
right to change his permit in the interests of navigation, would
come in, and under those circumstances I feel in favor of the regula-
tory works, but not otherwise.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, General, have you yourself attempted to
plan in detail any regulatory works of that nature?
General BIXBY. I was on the board of the 16-foot waterway from
Chicago to the Gulf, in which we had to give brief offhand sugges-
tions.
The CHAIRMAN. But have you planned any details yourself as to
such regulatory works?
General BIXBY. I have not planned the details, but a general
arrangement—
The CHAIRMAN. Have you studied any details and plans by any
other engineer outstanding 2
General BIxBY. I have looked over some of them and looked them
through, but I have not studied them all carefully. I have looked
them through to see what they were and what the chances were of
their being successful.
Mr. Shenanhon produced a plan
The CHAIRMAN. It would take a considerable period, even if regu-
tatory works were put in and were in a measure successful, to
determine whether they were a complete success or how far they
would be successful, would it not?
General BIXBY. Certainly.
º CHAIRMAN. And how long a time, approximately, would it
take 4
General BIxBY. Well, I should suppose that they ought to allow
fully 10 years.
Mr. DEAL. How many major ports are there on the Lakes—on
Takes Michigan, Huron, and Erie?
General BIXBY. I should say that there are six very large ports
on the United States side. I would count Duluth, Milwaukee, and
Chicago—they are three big ones on those lakes. Then we have
Toledo and Cleveland and Buffalo. That makes six, and there are
at least two important coal ports, making eight.
Mr. DEAL. How many are there on the Canadian side?
General BIXBY. Taking in all the lakes?
Mr. DEAL. No; those three lakes.
General BIXBY. I did not count any on Ontario. On Michigan
and Huron I should suppose there might be two that would be con-
sidered of a good deal of importance.
690 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. DEAL. It has been estimated that about $156,000,000 have been
spent on improved harbors on all the lakes. What additional depth
has been given to those major ports?
General BIXBY. I think those major ports have gone up from
Somewhere about 15 feet to about 20 feet. -
Mr. DEAL. In other words, they have been dredged about 5 addi-
tional feet?
General BIXBY. Some of them, but not all. Roughly speaking,
I should say that they were originally about 15 feet and have gone
up to about 20 feet.
Mr. DEAL. If it has cost $156,000,000 to increase the depth of all
the ports on the Lakes, that would indicate that the dredging of any
particular harbor had not amounted to such an enormous sum of
money. What do you figure it would cost to increase the depth in
these major ports an additional 6 inches? -
General BIXBY. I have not figured that. I find that the Warren
report goes into a good deal of detail, and there are a great many
figures in the matter, stating from their ports’ opinion what that
cost would be in dollars; but I have not figured it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think both of you are omitting just half the
factor here. Is it not a fact that on all the ports of the Great Lakes
the outer harbor only has been improved by the United States, and
the inner harbor has been improved by the municipalities, and that
in many of the municipalities the cost of improving the inner har-
bor—for instance, taking Cleveland as an example, and the Cuya-
hoga River—the amount spent by the municipality has been several
times—five or six or sometimes ten times—what the cost has been to
the Government for improving the outer harbor?
General Bixby. It is certainly true that the ports themselves have
spent a lot of money.
Mr. DEAL. That has not been determined and has not been given.
Now, I am trying to get what it has cost the Government and what
it would cost the Government to create an additional 6 inches in the
major harbors on the Great Lakes.
General BIxBy. I am quite sure I have seen that in the Warren
report.
R. DEAL. I have not seen that anywhere, but I made a calcula-
tion, and I think it would amount to something like nine million or
ten million dollars. Am I very much out of the way?
General BIxBy. I would not want to say, because I do not carry
those figures in my head. te
Mr. DEAL. Do you not think it would be pertinent to bring that
out 2 .
General BIxBY. I do; yes.
Mr. DEAL. Could you not make some calculation and give us an
estimate of what you think that would be?
General BIxBY. The best I could do would be to take it out of that
Warren report, because prices are changing all the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be necessary also in order to get any
intelligent estimate—I mean as to the whole matter—to find out
what the municipalities have spent and what they are spending
from year to year? It is not a question simply of what the Govern-
ment spends directly; but here is a port like Cleveland that has
deepened its inner harbor on the faith of the improvements by the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 69 L
United States, and except on the knowledge that the United States
would do certain work there they would not have spent that money
for a moment.
Mr. DEAL. What I wanted was to find out what the original cost
of deepening the harbors would be—the cost to the municipalities,
and the cost to the Government—but I don’t think it would be fair to
take the annual maintenance after the depth has once been secured.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not think it would, either.
Mr. DEAL. And what I want to get at is the cost to the munici-
palities and the cost to the Government of creating this additional
depth of water. Now, after we get that, then we can determine
what that additional 6 inches will cost and in that way eliminate
this question of the disadvantage to shipping in the lowering of
the water in the Lakes, because the lowering of the water itself is
not a material disadvantage when there is such an enormous volume
of water, but it is a disadvantage to the shipping. Now, then, if it
were only, a few million dollars, for instance, we might figure what
rights Chicago has and what rights the balance have and come to
some kind of a compromise by which Chicago might be willing to
pay something for this additional depth of water that is created.
The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, General, when you make that
report, I want you to study the question of whether the effect caused
by diversions can be remedied by deepening. There must be some
point where it is impossible, and the question is whether you would
reach that point with a diversion such as is either actually being
made here or is contemplated. So I would like to have you study
that question also.
General BIxBY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment
about the commerce on the Lakes, in a general way, because I have
seen in listening here that a good many people do not realize the size
of the commerce on the Lakes.
I went to Detroit in 1901 and stayed there until 1904, and in about
1903, there was a wreck in St. Marys Canal, and we tried at first to
stop all the travel through the Lakes. But the Lake Carriers' Asso-
ciation objected to that, and so we had to let them go by the wreck,
and to do that we had to stop all downstream boats in the upper
river at night, and then in the morning start them in at 6 o'clock to
go downstream until they were worked out, and then turn around
and let the boats go upstream. That gave me an opportunity to see
what there was in the way of boat travel. Mind you, this was in
1903. Now, one day in particular, when we started the boats down
at 6 o'clock in the morning; they went down at five-minute intervals,
which was just as close to each other as it was safe for those big
lake carriers to go, and they kept on going down until 2 o'clock in
the afternoon. When they stopped going down there was a con-
tinuous procession of those big lake carrier boats that reached from
the canal 20 miles across Lake St. Clair and 10 miles down the
Detroit River—30 miles of boats—and then in the afternoon the up-
stream was about half as big.
A little after that I had occasion to have a naval officer tell me
about the number of boats in New York Harbor at the time of the
Atlantic Fleet review, when the Atlantic Fleet gave a celebration
692 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
I figured out at that time that the entire outfit in New York Harbor
in boats and tonnage was only equal to what went down the Detroit
and St. Clair Rivers in two days, and they were repeating it every
two days during that month.
The total was only 30,000,000 tons. Since then it has gone up to
90,000,000
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred and twenty million tons last year.
General BIXBY. Yes; 120,000,000 now. So you can imagine what
that proposition would be to-day. If in 1903 with 30,000,000 of tons
it was 30 miles long, with boats following each other just as close
as was safe, you can imagine what it would be to-day.
Mr. DEAL. We have been told about this tremendous traffic on the
Lakes and we have some idea of what it is; but I would be glad if
you would give us this information I have asked for. Are there any
compensating works between Lake Superior and Iake Michigan?
General BIxBY. The compensatory works are at the Soo, above
the Soo locks, in Lake Superior, in the head of St. Marys River, or
the outlet of Lake Superior above the locks. There are none in
between.
Mr. DEAL. What is the difference in level between Lake Superior
and Lake Michigan?
General BIxBY. About 20 feet.
Mr. DEAL. What is the difference in level between Lake Michigan
and Lake Huron? *
General BIxBY. They are practically one lake. -
Mr. DEAL. With the deepening of this water between Lake Huron
and Lake Erie—and I believe there is a difference in level there, too,
is there not?
General BIxBY. Between Huron and Erie &
Mr. DEAL. Yes.
General BIxBY. About 8% feet. Michigan and Huron are on a
level within a few hundredths of an inch.
Mr. DEAL. The main difference is between Lake Huron and Lake
Erie &
General BIxBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DEAL. Now, by the deepening of that waterway it lets the
water down more rapidly from above and thereby helps to take care
of the level in Lake Erie, does it not, so that the amount of water
taken away for canals and other purposes in Lake Erie does not
indicate as much lowering of the level as it would indicate if it
were not for this deepening of the canal and letting the water down
more freely from above?
General BIxBY. Well, Colonel Warren in his report made a care-
ful examination of the changes in the St. Clair River, the St. Clair
Lake, and the Detroit River, and stated that as the result of his
careful examination whatever changes had been made in those rivers
in 'the last many years balanced each other practically, so that
practically the flow from Lake Huron into Lake Erie is practically
normal, the same as it was many years ago.
Mr. DEAL. And it did not have the effect of lowering the levels
above?
General BIxBY. It did not have any appreciable effect on either of
the Lakes Huron or Erie.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 693
Mr. DEAL. That does not sound very reasonable, does it?
General BIxBY. Well
Mr. DEAL. If you can put compensatory works in there and raise
the level of the lake and then you come along, in another instance,
and make the depth of the water greater, in other words the passage
of the flow greater, it would seem to me that if it would act in one
way it would act in the other way, that when you create a larger
flow outward it would have a tendency to lower that level.
General BIxBY. But as a matter of fact, the channel in places on
those two rivers was deepened in places and it was narrowed in
places, the cross section was built up, and in other places it was en-
larged, and those changes of filling up, the enlargement, and the
deepening against narrowing would, Colonel Warren says, practi-
cally balance each other.
Mr. DEAL. There must be more water going through, because you
are taking larger and larger ships all the time, and more of them;
the testimony was, I think, that it opened up and permitted a larger
amount of water to flow through.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not heard any testimony to that effect.
Mr. DEAL. Maybe I am mistaken. That is what I want to get at
now ; I want to get it clear in my mind.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest that on that question when you
bring in your other testimony, you also get the parts of Colonel
Warren's report relating to that and call our attention to that.
General BIxBY. I read his conclusions in my statement.
Mr. HULL. Is Colonel Warren the only and final authority on
that question? I thought General Bixby was an engineer giving
testimony on his own account that was valuable.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but I thought it would not do any harm to
recall Colonel Warren's testimony.
Mr. DEAL. I have the idea that in letting in a larger volume of
water from Lakes Michigan and Huron into Lake Erie that it has
a tendency to raise the level, or, in other words, the water seeking
its level would have a tendency to raise the level in Lake Erie.
General BIxBY. It would, but it lowers it in Lake Huron.
Mr. DEAL. Yes; it would have a tendency to lower it in Lake
Huron and to raise Lake Erie; would not that make it difficult to
determine what the lowering would be by the diversions at the lower
end, say at Niagara and at the Welland Canal and at the Erie Canal?
General BIxBY. It adds some complications. That is the reason
that I left out Lake Erie in my discussions, because the complica-
º were so mixed and varied there, and they were not in the other
place.
Mr. DEAL. That being the case. if it was not for this compensation
would not the lowering in Lake Erie be materially greater as the
result of the diversions in Niagara and the canals than is indicated
at present, 5% inches?. If it was not for this compensation would
it i. indicate that they had lowered that level much more than 5%
II].CIlêS 9
General BIXBY. I do not agree that it is compensation.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the difficulty. The general testifies that
there is not any more water. The question is based on the contrary
hypothesis. I do not think as yet we have had any testimony that
694 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
there is more water that goes through. I think the testimony was
fairly to the contrary. But, of course, it is all right to ask ques-
tions based on that idea.
Mr. DEAL. That is true. I will agree that probably no more water
goes through, but if my idea is correct, that there is some compen-
sation by a larger flow of water from the upper lakes as against
that water that is diverted from Lake Erie, then all of the lowering
that has occurred in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is not due to
the diversion at Chicago. That diversion is 5% inches, and 5%
inches at Niagara.
General BIXBY. That is a question that Colonel Warren went into
very carefully when he balanced up the pros and cons, and he came
to the conclusion that Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River had
improved as much as they had deteriorated by the changes in those
changes. We do have deeper channels for boats to go through,
but every time we deepen the channel in that way we have to di-
minish the cross section of the river, and we do it by filling in certain
places and keeping the bulk of the water as well as we can in the
narrow portion that the boats are going to use, and so we get the
same flow but better results for navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. You were not here yesterday, Congressman Deal,
but we introduced a report made in 1922, made by the last body of
engineers who studied the question, and they concur in Colonel
Warren’s report. Those two reports are, as I understand it, the only
reports of recent years upon the question; but I call your attention
to that part of the report.
Mr. DEAL. I was unfortunately absent Monday and Tuesday.
The CHAIRMAN. I was simply calling attention to the fact that
that was read into the record, and it attributed the lowering to the
cause which General Bixby and Colonel Warren both attributed
it to.
Mr. DEAL. If it can be that this increased amount of water that
is flowing through has aided in lowering the levels in Lake Huron
and Michigan and compensated to some extent the lowering in Lake
Erie, it might be that the diversions at Lake Erie would be very
much greater or result in a much greater lowering if it were not for
this compensation from above, and engineers have possibly made
some mistake in their calculations. I do not say they have, because
they are supposed to know, but I wanted to get that clear in my
mind and be satisfied that the diversion at Chicago actually takes
away the 51% inches. & -
General Bixby. I think the Warren report, together with the re-
port that Chairman Dempsey referred to a moment ago, of 1922,
makes that perfectly clear; but that is a long report. It took men
several years to work it up, it took a great many men from various
offices to figure on it carefully, and it would be practically impos-
sible for any one man in any off-hand way or in any short time to
go over the whole matter as carefully as they did.
Mr. DEAL. Did they make that report based on observations of
the flow at different periods?
General BIXBY. Based on a very large number of observations;
yes. They had in their hands the observations for the last sixty
and some odd years. *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 695
Mr. DEAL. I can not see that it makes any material difference
about the lowering of the lakes, except in regard to shipping in and
out of the harbors, with such an enormous body of water; it doesn’t
seem to me it makes any difference except in the harbors, and the
additional cost of that additional 6 inches in the harbors is the
consideration, not the only consideration but the principal consid-
eration, so far as the lakes cities are concerned. The next question
is as to the effect upon Niagara Falls, and if it does not materially
affect the Falls then it narrows itself down as to who shall have the
water, what power company shall have the use of the water.
General Bixby. The compensatory and the regulatory works and
the dredging in the harbor would be excellent and effective if it were
not for all these occasional troubles that come in, such as the Sup-
ply, different from year to year, and the wind effects, which in
Lake Erie amount to making the water at one end of the lake 13
or 14 feet higher or lower than the water at the other end. Some-
times the water will be 7 feet above the usual level at one end, and
perhaps 7 feet below the usual level at the other end. So as to be
sure to have the right depth when the water is low you have to have a
greater depth than you otherwise would.
Mr. DEAL. Those are questions dealing with situations that can
not be regulated. That is, we have those same difficulties to contend
with on the seaboard.
The CHAIRMAN. But you do not want to add to your troubles un-
necessarily, do you?
General BIxBY. No; as I said yesterday, if my income is cut down
50 per cent, I object seriously to somebody then adding another cut
of 10 per cent. I would object much more to that 10 per cent on top
of the 50 per cent than I would except for the 50 per cent reduc-
tion.
Mr. DEAL. That is true; but other people have some rights in the
premises as well as the harbors. I should say that the people of
Chicago had some rights in the premises. They are on the lakes and
they have some right to use the water as well as others. I am not
partial to anybody. I am absolutely impartial in the premises, and
I want to get at the facts, I want to satisfy myself as to the ex-
tent of damage that may be done to either side, and I think these
º have some rights there. It is a question of the preponderance
of right.
General Bixby. I should be glad to go over these reports and work
up those figures as you and the chairman have indicated.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all, General.
STATEMENT OF MIR, WILLIAM GEORGE BRUCE
Mr. BRUCE. In amplification of what has been asked of General
Bixby in the way of figures of the cost of harbor improvements as
made by the Government and by the municipalities, I want to
offer this: That there are no statistics here in Washington, so far
as my knowledge goes—that is, any information as to the expendi-
tures made by the several municipalities on the Great Lakes.
Mr. Goulder. In view of the questions asked yesterday about the
appearance of General Bixby here, in whose behalf he appeared,
I would like to have it appear on the record that General Bixby is
a resident of Washington.
696 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. May I ask you a question?
Mr. GouldF.R. Certainly.
Mr. HULL. Does General Bixby represent the Lake Carriers’
Association or the Canadian association ? Which one does he repre-
sent? I see him with the Canadians. -
Mr. GouldFR. I would say that General Bixby does not represent
either one, but that he is in sympathy with the Lake Carriers’ Asso-
ciation, and on the American side.
Mr. HULL. In other words, he is not employed?
Mr. GOULDER. No.
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I had occasion for
use in Milwaukee
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose it is impossible in a room like this
for us to avoid associating with everybody who is in the room, and
I do not take it that because we see one gentleman with some other
gentleman that that is an indication of his sentiments or affiliations.
You may proceed.
Mr. BRUCE. Several years ago I had occasion to assemble figures
or, rather, to seek them, and I found that there were no such rec-
ords in Washington. I made a direct appeal to the several harbors
on both the American and Canadian sides to ascertain the actual
amounts invested by the several municipalities in their harbors.
Next week we shall be prepared to present you with such a state-
ment unless General Bixby makes an original research in the matter
and will supply such figures to you. But we have in our report of
the river commission of Milwaukee the cost of the several harbors
as expressed in local expenditures as well as Government appropria-
tions.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to receive them.
Mr. BRUCE. Now, Mr. Chairman, we want to occupy as little time
as possible this morning, and I want to present for the record the
resolutions of protest adopted by the Great Lakes Harbors Associa-
tion, and also a brief outline of the purposes of that organization.
It was organized for the purpose of protesting against the water
diversion at Chicago, and at the same time I have here a brief on
the subject. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee
to read all this, but I would like the privilege of presenting this
for the record.
General BIxBY. Mr. Chairman, day before yesterday I spoke of
two letters, one of February 28, 1912, and one of February 9, 1911.
I did not have copies of those letters at that time and I would like
to turn the copies over.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to look at them.
(The letters were examined by the chairman while the proceed-
ings of the committee continued, as follows:)
Mr. BoycE. While the chairman is looking at those letters I would
like to ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boyce.
Mr. BoxCE. Did that protest go against any diversion whatever?
Mr. BRUCE. No. It is entirely directed against the Chicago di-
version. e 4
Mr. BoycE. Any diversion whatever at Chicago?
Mr. BRUCE. Yes.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 697.
Mr. BoycE. And not specifically confined to the diversion of 10,000
cubic feet per second, if that many cubic feet are being diverted at
this time? - -
Mr. BRUCE. Well, it is directed against the diversion likely to
lower the levels of the lakes and to injure navigation.
Mr. BoycE. That is very important, “likely to lower.” Is it
against any and all kinds of diversions?
Mr. BRUCE. All diversions lowering the levels of the lakes.
Mr. HULL. Including the Welland Canal? *
Mr. BRUCE. Well, it does not specifically mention the Welland
Canal, but it does mention the Chicago diversion.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it a fact that anybody who is sane has protested
against improvements in navigation on the channels of the Great
Lakes or the connecting channels between the Great Lakes; are not
those channels designed in aid of navigation, and is there any pro-
test that you have heard against efforts to aid navigation?
Mr. BRUCE. No. - -
Mr. HULL. But they took more water for the Welland Canal than
they needed for navigation. " . . r s
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely; but my understanding of the Welland
Canal situation is this: That they have been using 1,000 cubic feet
for navigation and anything in excess of that has been used for
power, and that by the new Welland Canal they propose to do two
things, through improvements in canal construction methods, to cut
down the use for navigation from 1,000 to 800 cubic feet, and to do
away with any diversion for power purposes. That is the testimony,
as I understand it, up to this point. If that is wrong we would all
be glad to have it proved, and I agree with you that if Canada is
taking anything in excess of its 36,000 cubic feet we should join in
a protest, because that is all they are entitled to take aside from the
necessary operation of the canal. f * , ... ."
Mr. BoycE. All I wanted to know, whether this protest went
against any diversion. - - . . . g
Mr. BRUCE. Mayor Hoan, of Milwaukee, has been here twice and
has been compelled to go away twice without submitting his brief.
As a matter of courtesy to him I think I should have the privilege
of reading it, although I would be perfectly willing simply to hand
it in and let it be made a part of the record. g . . . .
Mr. HULL. Of course that would not give the opposite side any
chance to cross-examine the mayor. How are we going to answer it
if he is not here? It seems hardly fair to let the mayor escape that
way. I do not object to your reading it, but I am trying to find out
how we could answer it. # - - . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is true of all written evidence.
Take a lawsuit, for instance; you introduce letters; of course, in
some instances you get the person, who wrote the letters, but in other
instances you are unable to do so. That does not invalidate or-go
to the admissibility of the evidence. . We will be perfectly con-
scious and are conscious of the fact that the mayor is not subject
to cross-examination. . . . . . . . - . + . .
Mr. BoycE. In this connection, may I inquire whether professed
statement is from the mayor himself or from someone else.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you know as to that, Mr. Bruce?
91739–24—PT 2—29
698 ILLINOTS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BRUCE. This is the mayor's own statement. He made a study
of certain phases. . . ~ *
Mr. Boyce. I wanted to know whether the statement was yours
Gr the mayor’s.
Mr. BRUCE. No, it is not mine; it is the statement of Mayor Hoan.
I can read it or I can file it without reading it. -
Mr. Boy CE. I think it would be better simply to file it. • r",
Mr. BRUCE. There are about 13 pages of the manuscript. The ex-
hibits are not to be read. -
Mr. HULL. It seems to me it would be better to file it rather than
to read it.
Mr. BoycE. It may be assumed that we will all read it. -
Mr. BRUCE. I will submit it without reading if that is agreeable.
Mr. BoycE. Let me see it for a moment.
Mr. BRUCE. It is an amplification of the sewage question as, dis-
cussed by the city manager of Cleveland. It makes that subject a
little more complete. It is also an amplification of the ability So far
as taxation is concerned of Chicago to build a sewage disposal plant.
That is practically the substance of the brief.
Mr. BoxcE. Is the statement intended to be supplementary to what
the mayor stated here personally? * * *
Mr. BRUCE. Yes. The exhibits consist of statements by certain
experts, and also include samples of fertilizers that were produced
by the Milwaukee plant, showing that if Chicago adopts that system
that it may have some income from the disposal of the sale of fer-
tilizer. Samples of that are produced. Also photographs showin
the results of the use of this fertilizer in the growing of corn an
potatoes and other commodities. 4 º' • -.
Mr. BoxcE. You now refer to the commercial use which may be
made of the waste matter? k
Mr. BRUCE. Yes. . * -
Mr. BEHAN. In view of the fact that we on our side have been
preparing on the question of taxes and our ability to build sewage
disposal plants, may we ask that a copy of this statement of Mayor
Hoan be furnished to us. . . t
The CHAIRMAN. It will go in the record and there is no reason why
you can not be furnished with copies of the record. . - -
Mr. BoxcE. May I make a suggestion? It seems to me it would
be very well and more satisfactory to the parties interested pro and
con, if when it is sought to introduce into the record a written state-
ment filed with the clerk for that purpose, there should also be filed a
copy of the statement for use of the opposite side.... . . . . -
The CHAIRMAN. I think that would only be fair. . .
Mr. BRUCE. We stand ready to comply with that. . º
The CHAIRMAN. I call attention of the committee to the fact that
this statement deals in considerable detail with the question of
sewage disposal, and it seems to me that it deals with it in the light
of the most recent experiences where methods other than through
its being discharged into the water have been installed, and I think
it would well be worth the time of the committee to read it. . . . . . .
º BRUCE. I will submit it without reading, then, if that is agree-
3,010. . . . . . - . . -º -
That closes the direct evidence that we have to present.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 699
(The papers heretofore referred to by Mr. Bruce and filed as a
part of the record are as follows:)
1“ROTEST OF THE GREAT LAKES HARBORS Associ \"IoW AGAINST THE UNI.s. wrºtºſ,
DIVERSION OF THE WATERS OF TFIE (II:FAT LAKES AT CHICAGO
The following protest against the unlawful diversion of the waters of the
Great Lakes at Chicago, was adopted by the Great Lakes Harbors Association at
it meeting held at Milwaukee, on Friday. October 19, 1923:
“Whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago, a corporate body having control of
the sewerage and hydroelectric activities of that city, is illegally diverting an
immense volume of the waters of Lake Michigan into the drainage canal lead-
ing to the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers and thence to the Mississippi River;
and
“Whereas this enormous and never-ceasing drainage of the waters of Lake
Michigan has resulted in a steady lowering of the water levels of the Great
Lakes and their connecting channels together with the St. Lawrence River, with
disastrous consequences to commerce; that the carrying capacity of lake
vessels has been materially reduced, the piling under piers and wharves has been
exposed to decay, and harbor authorities have been compelled to expend large
sums of money to maintain channel depths ; and
“Whereas this obnoxious and arbitrarily imposed condition is being main-
tained by the Said Sanitary District of Chicago in defiance of the Federal authori-
ties and the edicts of the Federal and State courts; and
“Whereas the Congress of the United States at its next Session is to be asked
to legalize this unlawful diversion of lake water ostensibly in the interest of
navigation between the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico; therefore be it
“Resolved by the representatives of port cities on the Great Lakes, both Ameri-
can and Canadian, in convention assembled at Milwaukee, Wis., That we do.
unanimously protest against the present unlawful and excessive diversion of lake
water into the drainage Canal at Chicago, and that we urge our Senators and
Representatives in the Congress to oppose any measure which will legalize or
perpetuate the abstraction of the waters of the Great Lakes for the purpose to
which such waters are now being used ; and be it
“IRésolved, That while not necessarily opposing the 9-foot project of the Lakes
to the Gulf waterway by way of the canals and rivers of Illinois and the
Mississippi River, we do strenuously oppose a diversion Of the lake waters for
the disposal of Sewage and for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power ;
and be it further
“Resolved, That we deem this continued diversion of lake water for sewage
and power purposes a purely local advantage secured at the expense of the en-
tire Great Lakes region and to the injury of the commerce of both Canada and
the United States; that we urge upon the Sanitary District of Chicago, in all
fairness and justice, to discontinue forthwith the unlawful practice as early as
is consistent with the solution of the sanitary problems involved; and be it
further
“Resolved, That we are disposed to grant to the sanitary district at Chicago, in
the interest of public health, a reasonable time to complete scientific system of
sewage disposal, but must insist that the diversion of water during Such period
be limited to the amount already authorized by the Secretary of War, and that
the diversion entirely cease as soon as such sanitary sewage system is in suc-
Cessful Operation.
“Resolved further, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Sena-
tors and Representatives of every State bordering on the Great Lakes and to
the Canadian Government with the request that they use their influence in pro-
tecting the commerce of the Great Lakes by preventing a continuance of condi-
tions which are both unnecessary and damaging.” tº -
GREAT LAKES HARBORS ASSOCIATION.—OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE ORGANI-
IZATION AS STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ADOPTED AT MILWAUKEE, WIS. OCTO-
BER 19, 1923 - - • - -
1. The promotion of the efficiency of the several lake harbors, their develop-
ment along physical and administrative lines, and the Solution of financial
and legal problems connected with the same.
700 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
2. To restore, preserve, and protect the waters of the Great Lakes at their
In Ormal levels,
3. To encourage the furtherance of waterway projects designed to connect
the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean.
4. To Serve as a means of gathering and disseminating information regarding
progressive Steps taken in harbor and port development and water-borne com.
merce, and to keep the lakes and cities in touch with each other on the proj-
ects undertaken by them.
5. To Secure on the part of the constituency in the several lake port cities a
better appreciation of the economies effected by water transportation, the im-
portance of municipal as well as individual efforts in port development, and
the expediency of concerted effort on the part of all lake cities in bringing
the inland Oceans known as the Great Lakes and the connecting waterways
With the high Seas to a maximum stage of utility and service.
6. To bring to the attention of the Governments of Canada and the United
States the vastness of the productive ability of the farms, forests, and factories
Of the great midwest and Canada, and the importance of securing a direct
Outlet to the sea and thus to the markets of the world.
7. The advancement of the commerce of the Great Lakes through greater
efficiency in port facilities and a better coordination of water and rail trans-
portation. -
PLAN OF ORGANIZATION, SCOPE, AND CHARACTER OF MEMBERSHIP, OFFICIALS AND
How CHOSEN, AMOUNT OF ANNUAL DUEs, ETC.
Membership.—The members of the association consist of municipalities, com-
mercial and civic bodies, and individuals of the cities located and contiguous
to the Canadian and American shores of the Great Lakes, and all other bodies
and persons interested in harbor and port development.
Officers.-The officers of the association are a president, five vice presidents,
and 15 directors. The executive Officers are ex Officio members of the
board of directors. They are chosen annually except the board of directors.
which are chosen by classes at the first or Organization meeting as follows:
Five members for the term of one year, five members for the term of two
years, and five members for the term of three years, and thereafter the
terms of the members of the board of directors shall be three years.
The board of directors Choose a Secretary-treasurer and fixes his term of
Office. The board has the general management Of the business of the associa-
tion.
The board of directors has authority to adopt by-laws to govern the trans-
action of Such business as may Come before it unless otherwise provided for by
the association. º t i
Vacancies occurring either in the office of the president, Vice president, or
director must be filled for the unexpired term by the board of directors.
Meetings.-Regular meetings of the association are held annually at such
time and place as shall be chosen by the board of directors. Special meetings
may be held at such time and place as shall be designated by the board of di-
rectOrS. -
Dues.—The expenses of the association shall be met by dues to be paid as
follows: $25 per year by municipal, commercial, and civic members; $5 per
year by individual members. Dues shall be payable each year in advance.
OFFICIAL BOARD
President, Wm. George Bruce, Milwaukee, Wis.; vice president, C. Al-
fred Maguire, Toronto, Ontario; H. M. Hallett, Ludington, Mich. ; Elbert H.
Baker, Cleveland, Ohio; D. H. White, Midland, Ontario; C. E. Boyd, Detroit,
Mich. -
Secretary-treasurer, Herman Bleyer, Milwaukee, Wis.
DIRECTORS
For one year from October 19, 1923: George Hardy, Toledo, Ohio; Archi-
bald Hadden, Muskegon, Mich. ; W. W. Hiltz, Toronto, Ontario; R. C. Ogilvie,
Superior, Wis.; Geo. F. Freitas, Sandusky, Ohio. º
for two years from October 19, 1923: Frank Cartier, Green Bay, Wis.; E. S.
Reynolds, Šturgeon Bay, Wis.; Paul R. Taylor, Grand Haven, Mich. : C. M.
Osborn, Kenosha, Wis.; Jos. Gibbons, Toronto, Ontario.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 701
For three years from October 19, 1923: H. S. Wells, De Pere, Wis.; Martin
Georgenson, Manitowoc, Wis.; Thos. J. Green, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. ; D. W.
Hoan, Milwaukee, Wis.; Herman Schuelke, Sheboygan, Wis. -
THE COLOSSAL DIVERSION OF LAKE WATERS INTO THE CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Address delivered before the National Rivers and Harbors Congress, Washington, D. C.,
December 5, 1923, by William George Bruce, president Great Lakes Harbor Association
(representing the United States and Canada), president board of harbor commissioners,
Milwaukee, Wis., Submitted as a brief by the Great Lakes Harbor Association]
The question involved in this discussion is whether any one section of the
Country may resort to an excessive use of one of the great gifts of nature to
the detriment of another section; whether one unit of population, with large
profit to itself, may utilize the water of the Great Lakes in such colossal quan-
tities as to injure the commerce of a wide area and, finally, whether in so
§: a single community shall be permitted to defy the laws of the United
tates.
“We have presented to us in this case,” said Secretary of War Stimson in
1913, “claims of entirely different characters and jurisdictions—the claim of
the Sanitation, on the one side, and of navigation, on the other ; the vital in-
terest of a Single community, on One side, and the broad interest of the com-
merce of the Nation, on the other.” -
The city of Chicago is diverting colossal quantities of water out of Lake
Michigan for sanitation and power purposes and with great profit to herself,
Causing thereby, however, a great injury to the commerce of the Great Lakes.
The COmpensations and losses involved here involve millions of dollars and
since the losses affect the interests of a Nation as well as many localities, they
deserve the thoughtful consideration of all justice-loving Americans. Hence
Our presentation of the subject in an attitude of protest and in a prayer of
relief.
In approaching the Subject in hand, let it be said that we do so in a most
humanitarian spirit and with a full regard for the physical welfare of Chicago’s
3,000,000 people. In seeking to correct her present faulty system of sewage
disposal, we want to give Chicago all the time necessary to bring this about.
But she must sooner or later set her household in order and stop imposing
upon her neighbors. We are convinced that when once fully informed on the
subject, the conscience of the people of Chicago will not tolerate the injustice
now practiced against the large area embodied in the Great Lakes region.
For the sake of sequence and compactness I will assemble the several points
under the general headings of (1) historic outline, (2) navigation, (3) sanita-
tion, (4) water power, and, (5) compensating works, discuss them in their
order, and append a summary and conclusions.
BRIEF HISTORIC ouTLINE OF SANITARY DISTRICT 1.
In 1889 Chicago decided to adopt a sewage system whereby the flow of the
Chicago River was reversed and the sewage carried westward into the
DeSplaines and Illinois Rivers, instead of being discharged into Lake Michigan.
A drainage canal was constructed which extended a distance of 33 miles to
Lockport. It was planned for a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second, but
was constructed for 14,000 feet capacity. -
The Illinois Legislature, in creating the sanitary district, and providing for
the canal, contemplated (1) to divert sufficient water from Lake Michigan
to cause a constant flow in the Chicago River and thus keep al, contamination
out of the Lake, (2) to improve navigation, and (3) to provide a source of
water power. -
Ten years later, May 8, 1899, Secretary of War Russell A. Alger granted
permission to the Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal corporation, to
divert 5,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan into the drainage canal.
On April 9, 1901, Secretary of War Elihu Root ordered a reduction of the flow
* The district now includes all of the city of Chicago and 49 other incorporated villages
and cities in Cook County, covering a total area of 436.39 square miles. " Its population
(1923) is 3,213,000. It is supported by taxes, the maximum rate of which may be two-
thirds of 1 per cent of the assessed valuation. For permanent improvement bonds may
be issued in amount up to 3 per cent of this assessed valuation. Extract from sanitary
district report.
702 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to 4,167 cubic feet per second. The amount of water diverted during the years
that followed was approximately 10,000 cubic feet, and at times considerably
In OI’e.
Efforts were then made to secure the legalizing of the excess waters taken
by appealing to the War Department. The Secretaries of War Taft, Stimson,
Garrison, Baker, and Weeks, successively, however, declined to grant the
desired permit.
In fact, each expressed the Opinion that the Sanitary district had gone far
beyond its rights and that the flow should be reduced to the quantity legally
granted. When the sanitary district authorities, however, continued in defiance
of law to divert an excess quantity, the Federal Government brought an injunc-
tion suit in the United States District Court at Chicago. The bill for an in-
junction was filed by the Federal Government in 1906. The arguments were
presented in 1912. -
The history of the case is then told by Judge Carpenter of the United States
District Court at Chicago who, in rendering his decision against the drainage
district last Spring, said:
“On June 19, 1920, Judge Landis rendered an oral opinion finding in effect
that the withdrawal in excess of 4,167 cubic feet a second by the Sanitary
HDistrict of Chicago was without authority of law ; that the withdrawals then
made reduced the level of Lake Michigan, and Other of the navigable, Waters
of the United States, to such an extent as to be an interference with naviga-
tion ; that the Secretary of War, acting in congressional powers, had never
given his consent to such excessive withdrawals; that the diversion by the
sanitary district was therefore unlawful and an injunction should issue.
“The evidence shows, and Judge Ländis found and I find, that the Waters
of Láke Michigan and other navigable waters of the Great Lakes have been
reduced in level by the water in excess of 4,167 cubic feet per second withdrawn
from Lake Michigan by the defendant.”.
The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court where it
is now pending. In the meantime the Legislature of Wisconsin decided to
bring Suit, and upon recommendation of the War Department entered the
Same in the United States Supreme Court instead of a district court.
On May 8, 1922, John W. Weeks, Secretary of War, said:
“The Chicago Drainage Canal, designed for Sanitary purposes, was con-
structed under authority of the State of Illinois and without Federal sanction.
* * * It will be observed that 14 years have elapsed since suit was
begun ; seven years since it was argued and submitted to the court; and nearly
two years since a finding in from the Government was announced. * * *
From the beginning the Sanitary District of Chicago has disregarded the rulings
Of the department, persistently violated the terms of the permit, and ignored the
issues involved in the suit. For a number of years the diversion from Lake
Michigan into the drainage canal has been more than double the amount author-
ized by the department and there is reason to believe that the present average
daily withdrawal approximated 10,000 cubic feet per second. It is an established
fact that this diversion lowers the levels of the Great Lakes and reduces the
depth of water in the harbors and connecting channels to the substantial injury
Of navigation. The ports and harbors from Montreal to Chicago are materially
affected, and commercial and business interests generally are seriously incon-
venienced. Numerous and constant complaints have been made by these in-
terests, but the department has been stopped by the pending suit from under-
taking any active measure Of relief.
“Judicial determination Of the issue involved in the Suit is, therefore, Of the
utmost importance to a public interest committed to my charge. If there is
any procedure by which you can quicken action by the court and induce an
early and effective decision, I have the honor to urge that such procedure be
taken.”
The Chicago press announced that on July 5, 1923, the sanitary district
had appropriated the Sum of $100,000 to be expended in making propaganda
in the neighboring States in behalf of the continued unlawful diversion of
water into the canal. This propaganda assumed form in large display ad-
vertisements which appeared in leading daily newspapers and in illustrated
lectures delivered by Robert Isham Randolph. The appeal was based on the
fact that Chicago had spent large sums for sanitary purposes and that the
water was required to dilute the sewage of a growing city.
It is this propaganda, which is conceived in injustice and born in defiance
of law, yet attractively presented and eloquently urged, that the good people
of the adjoining States have had to contend with.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 703
CHICAGO MARKES TEN BOLD CLAIMS
The representatives of the Chicago Sanitary District boldly claim that they
have a natural right to the water they divert and that they are not violating
any law in SO doing. Here are the claims as asserted by Robert Isham
Randolph, a Chicago engineer, who has been lecturing in Wisconsin and Michi-
gan under the auspices Of the Chicago Association of Commerce. Each claim
is met with Our answer:
1 Chicago has a natural right in the diversion which is attested by the
natural and political history of the development ; a legal right which has been
confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and main-
tained through continued litigation.
Answer. Chicago has no natural right to an abnormal and excessive flow
Of lake Waters artificially created. The natural flow is eastward via the
Niagara and the St. Lawrence River. No Supreme Court decision has ever
legalized the diversion of lake waters at Chicago. The United States district
Court has decided against Chicago. The case has been appealed and is still
pending in the United States Supreme Court.
2. A flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second is necessary for the protection of
the Water Supply and the disposal of the sewage of the large resident and tran-
Sient population of the Chicago metropolitan district. -
Answer. The flow of 10,000 cubic feet is not necessary for the disposition
Of Chicago's Sewage. The reduction method of sewage disposal requires only a
nominal quantity of water. * - -
3. The effect of the diversion upon lake levels is a part of and contributary
to much greater changes that have not been thought worthy of correction.
AnSWer. There are no other artificial diversions of lake waters comparable
to the Chicago diversion that call for correction. .
4. The remedy for the lowering of lake levels is readily applied and is
necessary to the fuller and better development of lake channels and harbors
regardless of any effect of the Chicago diversion. - -
Answer. The remedy for restoring the lake levels is not recognized as prac-
tical, feasible, or equitable.
5. The affect of the Chicago diversion is subordinate to and masked by
major effects and the remedy is incidental to and included in the betterment of
Channels and the control of lake levels. -
Answer. The effect of the diversion is positive and the remedy thus far
offered is not incidental or acceptable.
6. The Sanitary District of Chicago has offered to pay for the remedy and
Such a Solution would remove all cause of litigation and controversy.
AnSWer. The fact that Chicago has offered to pay for compensating works
does not compensate the loss of water for power purposes where it will render a
tenfold Service.
7. Alleged nuisance in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers is contributed to
by all of the local communities on the river and a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second is necessary for sanitation throughout the entire length of the Illinois
waterway.
AnSWer. If Chicago is not the only offender in polluting the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers, then all offenders should be brought to justice.
8. A flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second is necessary for the realization of
the State and Federal project for a 9-foot waterway from Chicago to St.
Louis. *
Answer. The flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second is not necessary for a
9-foot channel. General Bixby and the Canadian authorities hold that less
than 1,000 cubic feet is ample.
9. The effect of the sanitary flow upon flood heights in the Illinois River
is negligible and it falls chiefly upon private reclamation enterprises.
AnSWer. The Claim is here made that the floods caused on the banks of the
Illinois River are negligible. The testimony of the river bank dwellers and the
fact that 300 damage suits have been filed by these dwellers against the drain-
age canal authorities would testify to the contrary. The Association of Drain-
age and Levee Districts estimate the damages at from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000.
10. The passage of enabling legislation by Congress is the first step in
removing all difficulties, internal and international, to the restoration of the
levels of the Great Lakes, the protéction of the public health of Chicago and
the Illinois Valley, and the completion of the Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway.
704 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Answer. Congress can not legalize the excessive diversion Of water without
Violating the treaty with Canada, nor can any System of compensating works
rStore the Water that is constantly and permanently diverted. The health of
Chicago can be protected by sewage-reduction plants, and the Lakes-to-the-Gulf
WººterWay. Will be injured rather than benefited by an excessive flow of water.
The Chicago Sanitary Canal was constructed without the Sanction of Con-
gress, and the only existing authority for this diversion is a permit of the
Secretary of War. * * * And yet Congress has taken no action, but in the
meantime the sanitary district has for years greatly exceeded the limits of
the permit of January 17, 1903. Page 15, Report of Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, April 24, 1920.
The uncompensated diversions in cubic feet per Second from the Great Lakes
are as follows: Chicago drainage Canal, 8,800; Welland Canal, 4,500; Black
Rock Ship Canal, 700; New York State Barge Canal, 1,000; Niagara Falls
PQWer, companies, 40,885; American Falls, 17,560; Canadian Falls, 33,325. Pages
23 and 27, Diversions of Waters of the Great Lakes and Niagara River, Report
of Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, August 24, 1920,
INJURY TO LARE NAVIGATION
In dealing with the effect of the colossal diversion of lake waters into the
Chicago Drainage Canal on the levels of the Great Lakes, we are confronted
With two incontrovertible facts. First, that such diversion has reduced the
mean levels by approximately 6 inches, and, second, that such reduction is
Causing an annual loss of several million dollars to the Lakes commerce.
The International Waterways Commission has laid down the following gen-
eral principles applicable to the diversion of water from the Great Lakes:
1. In all navigable waters the use for navigation purposes is of primary and
paramount right. The Great Lakes system on the boundary between the United
States and Canada, and finding its outlet by the St. Lawrence to the sea,
should be maintained in its integrity.
2. Permanent or complete diversions of navigable waters or their tributary
Streams should Only be permitted for domestic purposes and for the use of
locks in navigation canals. -
3. Diversions can be permitted of a temporary character where the water
is taken and returned, and when such diversion can not interfere in any Way
with the interests of navigation. In such cases each country is to have a right
to diversion in equal quantities." -
The Great Lakes system forms one of the world's greatest highways for
waterborne commerce. Its fleet moves more than 100,000,000 tons of freight
each season. * * * These vessels are from 280 to 625 feet in length and
have a carrying capacity of from 3,000 to 15,000 short tons. Most of them
can be loaded to a draft of 22 feet. These are the most economical carriers in
the World, their rates usually being less than one-tenth of a cent per mile-ton,
and sometimes only one-third of that amount. Rail rates are several times
as much, often being at least ten times as much. The annual saving over the
Cost of moving this Same freight by rail exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars.”
The Dominion Marine ASSociation of Canada contends that the withdrawal
at Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet per second lowers the levels of the several Lakes
and Channels aS follows: t
Inches
Lake Michigan - - - 7.4
LOWer Sill Of lock at Saulte Ste. Marie 7.4
Lake Huron 7.4
Lake Erie r 6.1
Lake Ontario } 4.5
Rapide Plat in St. Lawrence River 6.8
Cornwall Canal, Lock 21 5.0
Coteau-- y F.3%
Montreal 10.2
1 P. 96, Diversion of Y. tº the Great Lakes and Niagara River. Report of Engi-
eers for Rivers and Harbors, º & º
Il # 91, ††. of Waters from the Great Lakes and Niagara River, Report of Board
of Engineers for Rivers and, Harbors, August 30, 1919.
8 Report, Department Marine and Fisheries, Canada, 1921, p. 95.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 705
Secretary Henry L. StimsOn, in 1913, Said :
“Careful Observations and Calculations conducted under the Offices of the
United States Lake Survey and reported through the Chief of Engineers, cow-
ering observations for the last 46 years, indicate that a withdrawal of 10,000
Cubic feet per Second Would reduce levels at Various places as follows:
Inches
Lakes Huron and Michigan––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6. 9
Lake St. Clair - 6. 3
Lake Erie-_____ - * * *- - 5.4
Lake Ontario -- * - - - - - - - - - -- * - - - - - - - - - - m - - - - 4. 5
St. Lawrence River at Rapide Plat-------------- 4.8
“The foregoing effects would be produced at mean lake levels; the lowering
effects would be much greater at low-water periods—the precise time when any
additional shortage would be most keenly felt.”
The International Waterways Commission in 1907 analyzed the losses to the
shipping interests in the following manner :
“In the modern vessel each inch of increased draft adds about 50 tons to
the carrying capacity. To lower the water Surface 6 inches is to reduce the
capacity of the vessel about 300 tons. If the freight rate on iron Ore be taken
at 55 cents per ton, exclusive of the cost of loading and unloading, and the
number of trips during the season at 22, there appears a löss of over $3,600
per season for each vessel. The number of vessels navigating the Great Lakes
which draw 19 feet or more is 417, and their tonnage is 1,541,414 tons, which
is about three-quarters of the total tonnage of the Great Lakes. It is a con-
servative estimate that the loss to the navigation interests resulting from a re-
duction of 6 inches in the depth of water is $1,500,000 per annum, which, capi-
talized at 4 per cent, amounts to a loss of $37,500,000. With a greater reduction
of depth the resulting loss would be proportionately greater. The number of
deep-draft vessels and the share of lake traffic which they carry is increasing
each year, while the lake traffic itself is increasing with marvelous rapidity.
(The total number of tons of freight which passed through Detroit River in
1920 was about 80,410,082, valued at about $1,135,390,357.*) The records for
the year 1906, so far as they are made up, indicate that the number of tons
which passed through the Detroit River in 1906 exceeded 65,000,000, valued at
$690,000,000. The loss will be even greater in the future than it is now. It is
quite certain that the loss will not pass unnoticed, and that the governments
will be compelled to restore the depth either by additional excavations or by
regulating works.”
The approximate loss in the carrying capacity of one of the Canadian steam-
ship lines was fixed on 1 inch draft at minimum load as follows: - -
“On a vessel 250 feet in length the loss is 21 tons; 260 feet, 24 tons; 332 feet,
32 tons; 376 feet, 40 tons; 510 feet, 68 tons. It was estimated that a fleet of
9 ships had lost 477 tons during a season's run. Adding the loss of 61
vessels of canal size at a loss of 22 tons each, the total tonnage loss is 1,819
tons. Translated into dollars and cents, the loss figured at an average of 40
cents per ton aggregates the sum of $727.60, or a season’s work of 28 trips
$5,820.80 loss per inch. On a reduction of 6 inches the loss will be $34,924.80.
The Lake Carriers Association in 1916 prepared a study on the subject
which was presented to the War Department in which the statement is made
that 500 ships, Canadian and American, are affected by the reduction of even
1 inch of the available draft in the lake waterway. It illustrates the loss
in the following language: -
“Taking 50 cents per ton as an average for 1916 of freight to the ship, the
direct loss to the vessels would be at the rate of $750,000 in the Season per inch
of reduction ; reduction for 4-inches, the direct loss would be $3,000,000; at 6
inches, $4,500,000 per year. Capitalized at 5 per cent, 4-inch loss in draft would
be $60,000,000 and for 6 inches it would reach $90,000,000. It is apparent that
reduction of a single inch is not only material but very Serious. This of itself
is sufficient reason that the greatest caution be used and no diversion of water
from these natural and government-improved channels be granted or in any-
wise confirmed, except under clear, satisfactory, and convincing showing of
Some overruling public necessity; nevertheless, this direct loss to the ship is
but a part and a very small part of the general public loss.
* Annual Report Chief of Engineers, United States, 1922.
91739—24—PT 2 30
706 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
“Vessel Owners keep close track of the Stage of water and take advantage
of every period of high stage to load their boats to greater draft. During times
when low stages prevail, they are correspondingly handicapped and the carry-
ing capacity of the fleet is materially reduced. * * * The average loss
caused by a reduction of one-tenth of a foot in the available draft amounts to
$44.57 for One trip of a bulk freighter on the upper lakes, or $590,000 per year
for the whole fleet. For the smaller vessels engaged in trade through the
Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Canals, the average loss caused by the lower-
ing of one-tenth of a foot is $41.40 for each trip and $70,000 per year for the
whole fleet. * * * The total loss to the bulk freight trade caused by this
lowering is estimated at $4,713,000 per year. Of the loss now occurring,
$2,866,000 per year is due to the diversion of 8,800 cubic feet per second by
the sanitary district of Chicago.”
“The depth in the Welland Canal and in the six canals employed to Over-
come the rapids in the St. Lawrence River is now 14 feet, of which every inch
is needed.” " - -
In a decision denying the petition rendered on January 8, 1913, Mr. Stimson
SayS :
“First. That the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per Second from Lake
Michigan, as applied for in this petition, would substantially interfere with the
navigable capacity of the navigable waters in the Great Lakes and their Con-
necting rivers.
“Second. That being so, it would not be appropriate for me, without express
congressional sanction, to permit such a diversion, however clearly demanded
by the local interests of the Sanitation of Chicago. *: r
“Third. That on the facts here presented no such case of local permanent
necessity is made evident.
“Fourth. That the provisions of the Canadian treaty for a settlement by
joint commission of “questions or matters of difference' between the United
States and Canada offer a further reason why no administrative Officer should
authorize a further diversion of water, manifestly so injurious to Canada,
against Canadian protest. The prayer of the petition is therefore denied.” "
The total cost of restoring the depth in the harbors of the Great Lakes and
the channels between the lakes, as estimated by both American and Canadian
authorities, is roughly $10,000,000, and of restoring it in the Welland and
St. Lawrence Canals is $2,500,000 additional, or $12,500,000 in all. The
annual report of the Secretary of War for 1916 says: - - t t
“From the beginning the operations of the Sanitary district have been looked
upon with disfavor by navigation interests, and the Secretary of War has
not only declined to increase the diversion temporarily authorized but has
adhered to the decision that the permit granted was of a temporary character
and that no permanent diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan could be
made without express authority from Congress.” ". l -
When the permission to divert water from Lake Michigan was first granted
by Secretary Russell A. Alger on May 8, 1899, he accompanied the same with
the following conditions:
“1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary
of War to submit the questions connected with the work of the sanitary dis-
trict of Chicago to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this
permit shall be Subject to Such action as may be taken by Congress.
“2. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by
Such drainage WOrks in the SOuth and main branches of the Chicago River be
unreasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary
of War reserves the right to close said discharge through said channel or to
modify it to Such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property
interests along said Chicago River and its south branch.”
His successor, Secretary Elihu Root, in reducing the quantity of water
from 5,000 to 4,167 cubic feet per second, attached the following condition:
“That the permission herein given shall be subject to such modifications as
in the opinion of the Secretary of War the public interests may from time to
time require.” - e -
That the strong currents caused by the water diversion have even proven
harmful to the river commerce of Chicago is attested in the fact that in 1913
* P. 92, Diversion of Water from the Great Lakes and Niagara River, Report of the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Aug. 30, 1919.
6 Report of the International Waterways Commission, dated Jan. 4, 1907, p. 180.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 707
the in and out tonnage for the port of Chicago was 3,829,442 tons. In 1920
it has dwindled down to 1,527,265 tons.
The State of Illinois contemplates the construction of a 9-foot channel
connecting Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River. Gen. W. H. Bixby,
Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on January 23, 1911, Stated: “For
the purposes of navigation a diversion from Lake Michigan of less than 1,000
second-foot of water is all that will be necessary.” In this connection it is
safe to hold that a stronger current than that caused by the amount named
would prove an interference with navigation. In fact, the diversion of
10,000 cubic feet per second as proposed would prove disadvantageous to th
navigation operations on the channel. º
It has been argued that the diversion at Chicago is required to relieve the
low-water stages on the Mississippi River. The answer here is that the same
flow which is to afford this relief also causes the damaging floods experienced
in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. Nor can the argument be Sustained that
the low-water stages on the Mississippi can justly be Compensated by an arti-
ficial diversion of lake waters at the sacrifice of the natural flow in aid of
navigation and power On the Great Lakes.
A GIGANTIC SEWAGE DISPOSAL BILUNDER
When the Chicago Drainage Canal engineers conceived and executed the
idea of reversing the flow of the Chicago River, thereby conveying the Sewage
westward into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, and thence into the Missis-
sippi River, they performed a task that for the time being was deemed ingen-
ious and practical. It kept the sewage out of the lake from which the drink-
ing water was secured and promised to oxidize such sewage in the volume
of lake waters that flowed through the canal.
In thus providing Chicago with a reasonably promising Sewage system the
engineers, however, failed to reckon with the element of time and with the
rights of the lake region. In a comparatively few years the sewage plant as
such became obsolete in that it became antiquated and wholly inadequate to
serve a greatly increased population. Time also revealed the great injustice
wrought by a reckless diversion of lake waters. While the blunder as applied
to the sewage plant has now become obvious, it finds its best excuse in the
eyes of the Chicago people through the utilization of the lake waters in
Operating a profitable power plant.
The drainage canal authorities can still say to the Chicago people: “We are
protecting your health and your pocketbooks. We are still keeping the
sewage out of the lake and sending it to the rivers of the interior of the
State. We are taking great volumes of lake water to do this. We know we
are taking more than the law allows, but we are earning a million dollars for
you every year in lighting your parks and streets and in the sale of hydro-
electric power. You should worry !” .
Lake Superior is not affected by the Chicago division but the traffic through
the canals Of Sault Ste. Marie is affected in the same manner that Other lake
commerce is affected. The vessels passing through the canals are either
destined to or have come from lower lake ports, and must therefore adjust
their cargoes to the levels of the other lakes. This means a reduction in cargo
capacity.
The commerce carried through the canals of Sault Ste. Marie in 1922 was
66,067,258 tons, valued at $957,126,634. The traffic through the American canal
was 91 per cent of total net registered tonnage, and 40 per cent of (57,043)
the total number of passengers carried. Number of vessels passing through
locks 17,383. Average distance freight was carried 810.7 miles. Canal operated
250 days during navigation season.
The number of vessels passing through the Detroit River for the season 1922
was 22,147 vessels, carrying a registered tonnage of 54,535,878 tons. American
vessels 740, Canadian 109—total 849. Steam vessels 685, sailing vessels and
unrigged craft 152, gasoline boats 12—total 849.
It has been held by the promoters of the drainage canal that the rights of
Sanitation are paramount and that they precede the rights of navigation. This
principle is SOund under all ordinary conditions. The treaty between the
United States and Canada makes the use of the waters for sanitary purposes
a primary consideration. It assumes, however, that the waters of the Great
Lakes are primarily and in a larger Sense dedicated to the cause of naviga-
*,
'708 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
tion, and as Such render a great Service to the two countries, the United States
and Canada. It does not assume that these Waters may be used for sanitary
purposes to any unreasonable degree or to an extent sufficient to injure
navigation.
On January 26, 1922, John W. Weeks, Secretary of War, wrote Chairman
Dempsey, Of the River and Harbors Committee, in reference to the Michaelson
bill, which provided for compensating and regulating works in which the fol-
10 Wing appearS :
“I am not persuaded that the amount of water applied for (10,000 cubic sec-
Ond feet) is necessary to a proper Sanitation of the city of Chicago. The evi-
dence indicates that the issue comes down to the question of cost. Other ade-
Quate Systems of sewage disposal are possible and are in use throughout the
WOrld. The evidence before me satisfies me that it would be possible in one of
Several ways to purify the Sewage of Chicago with very much less water for its
dilution. * * * I regard it as extremely inadvisable to grant the city of
Chicago, or any other agency, the right in perpetuity to take from the lake a
definite quantity of water.” -
The Department of Marine and Fisheries of Canada (1920) held :
“It is Submitted that merely local requirements for purposes of sanitation
must be Subordinate to requirements of navigation of such enormous propor-
tion Over Such Wide areas, and specially So where, as in this case, Other meth-
Ods Of Sanitation than the dilution method are available. -
“Chicago stands alone of all cities and of all countries, so far as I have been
able to obtain information on the Subject, with regard to this method of ab-
stracting large quantities of water for dilution purposes.” 7
The Dominion of Canada, in its brief presented to the Secretary of War,
March 27, 1912, said: º 4. 3.
“It having been shown that the sewage of Chicago can be so treated and
disposed of by other means than the present dilution methods by which great
quantities of water are withdrawn from Lake Michigan and discharged through
the drainage canal into the Illinois River, it is contended on behalf of Canada,
that the abstraction of Water from Lake Michigan shall be limited to Such
quantity as shall not injuriously affect navigation interests on the Canadian
side of the boundary, and that such limitation shall take effect at the end Of
Such time, as, in your judgment, may be reasonably necessary for the Sanitary
district to install and put into use the works which may be required for dis-
posing of the sewage by other means than by the dilution method now in use.
“That, in view of the fact that the sanitary district claims that permits
hitherto issued deal only with flow through the lower portions of the Chicago
river and that it has the right to take any amount of water without permission
through the canal provided it is supplied through other feeders, it is respectfully
requested that all permits be only for such limited quantity of water as shall
not injuriously affect navigation on the Lakes and St. Lawrence River, and be
so worded as to state the total quantity which the sanitary district of Chicago
may be permitted to Withdraw, for domestic and Sanitary purposes, from the
drainage basin of Lake Michigan.
“We feel confident that the interests of humanity at Chicago, and the levels
Of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence River, can best be protected by the
installation of a modern System of Sewage disposal, rather than by using a
method which has been shown to be injurious to the navigation and commerce
of both nations, and, further, that the interests of the public generally will,
thus, be protected and their welfare promoted.”
As late as October 4, 1923, Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior of
the Dominion of Canada, wrote: “Successive Dominion governments have pro-
tested emphatically to the Government of the United States against the diver-
sion of water into the Chicago Drainage Canal. The Dominion government is
quite alive to the situation and will do everything in its power to remedy the
unsatisfactory condition of affairs.” *
Nor is the protest against the excessive diversion of lake waters confined to
territory outside of Illinois. There is opposition even within the State of
Illinois. The population along the banks of the Illinois River has been incensed
at the action of the drainage district authorities. The excessive diversion
has resulted in the flooding of river lands, the pollution caused by unoxi-
dized sewage has destroyed fishing and boating, and rendered the homes along
the river banks undesirable. Three hundred damage suits have been brought
by river landowners against the sanitary district.
7 Report Department of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, p. 20.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 709
The people of the river towns have organized the so-called Illinois Valley
Protective Association. In a letter written by President Eugene Brown under
date of May 24, 1923, he says: Any national legislation which has for its Ob-
ject the granting of authority to exceed the original War Department permit Will
be fought vigorously by all the people of this valley. Our experience has
taught us that unless there is Government control of the outlets of Lake Michi-
gan into this waterway, we may expect not only undesirable sewage, but
floods, which will continue to cause disaster. Furthermore, any legalizing by
Congress of additional waters would whitewash the crimes of the past and
make it difficult to collect damages.”
Another and more formidable organization of Illinois farmers and land-
owners has been brought into life. The Association of Draimage and Levee
Districts of the Illinois valley represents over 400,000 acres of land. There are
30 districts extending along the river country over a distance of 200 miles.
DAMAGING RIVER, FLOODS IN ILLINOIS
The Illinois River problem constitutes a more significant phase of the lake
levels question than has heretofore been estimated by the Great Lakes people.
The property interests involved are greater than has generally been known.
The awakening of the Illinois River land owners to the situation, and their
Organization in defense of their rights is bringing out the full extent of the
losses incurred through the volume of the polluted waters sent down the river
by the Chicago Drainage Canal. -
The district which has suffered through a flooding of river lands extends
Over a distance of some 200 miles. Along the banks of the river, wherever
the lands are low, huge levees have been constructed. These levees, or earthr
walls, are privately constructed and maintained under the provisions of a
State law. Thirty of these districts, each controlling from 2,000 to 14,000
acres of land, are strung along the river region.
The land is drained and waters at levee points are pumped back into the
river. Thus the landowners not only pay for levee ctnstruction but also the
Cost of drainage, which has made the total tax a heavy one. Notwithstanding
these protective measures, the periodical floods have destroyed crops and
ruined pasture and forest lands.
In April, 1922, the flood was most damaging. Not only was the damage to
agricultural lands a heavy one but the towns along the river suffered con-
siderably. At Beardstown the population could travel in rowboats on the
main streets. This applied to other river towns.
The cost of constructing the levees has averaged about $100 per acre of the
land protected by them. This cost has been paid by the landowners direct.
No government aid has been extended. Here it should be said that the levees
have been necessary for the protection of the lands against flood periods re-
gardless of the flow of Lake Michigan waters diverted at Chicago. The excess
waters, however, so diverted into the Illinois River, has aggravated the situa-
tion. The levees have to be built higher because the Chicago flow has raised
the level of the river from 3% to 4 feet.
The owners represent some 400,000 acres of farming, pasture, and forest
lands which have been damaged by the floods caused by the tremendous vol-
umes of water sent down the river by the drainage canal. Some 300 damage
suits have been filed. One attorney has 150 cases involving damages amount-
ing to about $5.000,000. The total losses are variously estimated at from
$30,000,000 to $40,000,000.
Those who have filed SuitS have not thus far met with much success. Every
lawyer representing a farmer landowner has been obliged to face 10 lawyers
representing the drainage districts who have employed every trick and sub-
terfuge to evade justice. Litigation has become a most expensive pastime, and
the farmers are not hopeful in Securing redress through the courts.
Those in authority to speak for the landowners believe that the damage
should be fixed at $25 an acre for farm lands and $10 an acre for pasture
lands. This would fix the total damage at between $20,000,000 and $30,000,000,
which is deemed a most reasonable demand. It is less than the actual damage
incurred.
The farmers have heretofore looked with considerable distrust upon the
trustees of the Chicago drainage district. The legal fights engaged in thus
far have availed them nothing. The powerful political influence, money, and
legal talent at the command of the Chicago authorities has been overwhelm-
ing against which the farmers have regarded themselves as being absolutely
helpless. •
710 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The farmers have, however, come to the realization that since Chicago is
playing the game on political lines perhaps they, too, can take a hand in it.
With proper organization the influence of 25,000 farmers can be lined up.
The Congressmen in the river district are already taking notice of the for-
midable movement that has been inaugurated. A powerful organization,
known as the Association of Drainage and Levee Districts has been formed.
The new War cry which has been hoisted, namely, that of a deep waterway
COnnecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico, has already been effectu-
ally punctured by the down-State farmers. They know that the State is com-
mitted to a 9-foot channel and that a deep waterway, namely, a 20-foot channel,
is neither feasible nor practical. And a 9-foot channel requires less than 1,000
cubic feet per second to render it navigable. The introduction of 10,000 cubic
feet per second would prove a serious hindrance to navigation.
Therefore, the farmers can no longer be fooled with the ship canal and deep
Waterway slogan as revived by politicians and fostered by the drainage canal
Schemers. They know the legitimate needs of navigation and stand ready to
Support them.
They have also been familiarized with Chicago's Sanitation problem and
have in unmistakable language voiced the opinion that that city must purify
its Sewage as do other large cities in the United States and Europe and not
dump it upon the river-land owners in the interior of the State. They are
most explicit in stating that no waters shall be diverted from Lake Michigan
in Order to maintain a profitable hydroelectric power plant at Chicago at the
expense of the river-land farmers, and that all waters used in scientific sewage
purification should revert back into Lake Michigan.
The position taken by the Illinois drainage and levee districts,” as expressed
in the resolutions adopted by the association representing them, clearly makes
the Illinois River landowners an ally of the Great Lakes interests. While these
interests, both of the United States and the Dominion of Canada, are united
against the damaging water diversion engaged in by Chicago, that city will come
to the realization that it has a formidable opponent within its own State
bOrders.
When the issue connes before Congress the Voice of thousands of Illinois
farmers in protest against an unholy cause will prove more effective than the
bluff and bluster of Chicago politicians. The alliance now formed between the
Great Lakes region and the Illinois River districts will strengthen considerably
the movement against the lake diversion evil. -
8.The resolutions adopted by the Levee and Drainage Districts Association at the con-
vention held at Beardstown, Ill., Dec. 14, 1923, read as follows :
Whereas we believe that the matter of greatest importance to the drainage and levee
districts of Illinois and the people of the Illinois River valley is the menace of the water
dºrted into the Illinois River from Lake Michigan, by the sanitary district of Chicago,
31I] ſº
Whereas enormous damages have been inflicted upon property interests in the valley by
Said wº during the last 23 years, which have not been paid for or settled : Now, there-
fore, be it -
Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to any measure which involves the diversion
of water from Lake Michigan by the sanitary district into the Illinois River until said
sanitary district makes just compensation for the damages in the valley caused by said
waters; and that ample guaranty be provided to cover future damages which may be
caused by legalization of water diversion of Sald sanitary district. * *
Resolved further, That it is the sense and opinion of this association that the Chicago
Sanitary District, instead of diverting its sewage into the Illinois River valley, should
construct a sufficient number of modern disposal plants to treat the entire output of
sewage in Chicago, and that if this is done any water taken from Lake Michigan for the
purpose of treating said sewage should not be diverted into the Illinois River, but should
be returned into Lake Michigan.
Whereas also the said Illinois River in its natural state was the source of great benefit
and income to the people because of the fishing and other industries arising from its use:
Be it
Resolved, That it is the sense, and opinion of this association that said river should be
returned as soon as possible and as far as possible to its natural State; and
Whereas the engineers of the War Department have announced that the flowage of
1,000 cubic second-feet or less is sufficient for any navigation the Federal Government
deems wise to provide for in the Illinois River: Be it
Resolved, That the association use its influence to induce the Federal Government to
refuse to authorize a flowage from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River of any greater
amount than 1,000 cubic feet per second, which we believe is sufficient for maintaining a
barge canal, and if any further depth is required it should be provided for by deepening
the , cºhºl of the river; and we indorse the plan of removing all locks and dams: Fur-
ther be it 3. :
Resolved, That in our opinion Federal aid should be extended to the drainage and levee
districts, cities, villages, railroads, and other property interests throughout the Illinois
River in the matter of rendering such assistance as the War Department may deem ad-
visable to safeguard in future said property interests.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 711
The Sanitary district authorities would serve the interests of Chicago more
Wisely, and those of her neighbors more justly, if the money contemplated for
experimental compensating Works to be constructed out of her territory many
miles a Way, Were invested in sewage reduction works right at home.
If Milwaukee can construct an efficient sewage reduction plant at a cost of
$15,000,000 to Serve a half million people, then Chicago cah construct six such
plants to serve 3,000,000 people at a cost of $90,000,000. Out of the appropria-
tion of $103,000,000 now at command of the district, Chicago would have
$13,000,000 to apply to a seventh plant. - -
In defense of the Water power, it is stated that no more water is used than, is
necessary for the removal of the sewage. When it is remembered, however, that
the reduction System instead of the dilution system for sewage disposal may be
employed this defense no longer Stands. -
The Sanitary district is already constructing three reduction plants in addi-
tion to maintaining the dilution plant, and has ample evidence of the efficiency
of the former. Its Sanitary program may well provide for the removal of the
entire Sewage by means Of the reduction System and thus discontinue the use of
the lake WaterS. f
History records that six Secretaries of War (Root, Taft, Stimson, Garrison,
Baker, and Weeks), each in turn, refused to recognize the excess diversion. The
only authority now left to grant the Same is the National Congress. This body
alone has the power to concede the demands made, but it is not likely, after all
the facts have been presented, that Congress will countenance an act SO palpably
mercenary and unjust.
“The trustees of the Chicago Sanitary District have already been advised that
the Chief of Engineers would not recommend to Congress any diversion greater
than 250,000 cubic feet per minute (4,167 cubic feet per second), the limit set in
the permit of the Secretary of War, dated January 17, 1903, until the district
had worked out and presented a suitable and comprehensive plan for treating its
sewage so as to render it inoffensive and innocuous, and at the same time reduce
the quantity of water necessary for its dilution and transportation.”" .
The claim that the physical welfare of 3,000,000 people is at stake does not
hold when it is remembered that it is within the province of every American
community to provide modern sanitary conditions. Science has dealt With the
disposal of sewage for many years and has devised means which are far more
acceptable than the method adopted by Chicago, which must Sooner Or later be
abandoned. -
The Great Iakes are a national asset, a God-given blessing conferred upon
an entire people. They carry the products of the great Empire of the West
to the markets of the East and thus renders them more accessible to the en-
tire world. And while they are an immediate economic advantage to many
millions, they are an indirect boon to the Nation as a whole. Their integrity
and utility must be preserved and protected.
A PROFITABLE POWER PLANT
The cry of alarm which the sanitary district authorities have from time
to time raised to the effect that all the water the canal can carry is needed to
protect the health of 3,000,000 people, is a clever subterfuge. Behind this
plea for humanity lies a profitable water power.
No one has asked, or will ask, that the health of the Chicago people be in-
jured. No court in the land would sanction such a course. The Sanitary
district authorities know this. The sanitary district also knows that a reduc-
tion plant would make the diversion of lake waters unnecessary. But, the Sani-
tation cry has the ring of appeal and serves well to protect the real objective—a
profitable hydroelectric plant.
In addition to providing for the sewage disposal of over 3,000,000 inhabitants
of the district and the trade wastes from factories of all kinds and removing the
rainfall of this vast territory, the district, under the authority of the State, uti-
lizes the flow at Lockport, where there is a fall of about 34 feet in the main
drainage canal, for the purpose of generating electricity—a by-product which
formerly went to waste. The electricity is transmitted over high tension wires
to the sanitary district terminal station, at Thirty-first Street, and Western Ave-
nue, Chicago, from which it is distributed to substations in various parts of the
* Lansing H. Beach, major general, p. 13, Report Diversion of Water from the Great
Lakes and Niagara River, 1921.
712 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
city of Chicago, and the current used to furnish over 60,000 street lights in the
city of Chicago and 10,000 lamps in the various park systems. It also supplies
electrical energy to several other municipalities and to the pumping stations
and treatment works of the sanitary district of Chicago. Private consumers
are furnished with , surplus electricity during the daytime. The saving to
the taxpayers of the district by reason of utilizing this water power which
otherwise would run to waste, amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars
annually. Extract from Sanitary District Report.
The ship Canal slogan which is periodically raised, too, has its appeal. A
canal wide and deep enough to carry a substantial commerce, and extending 33
miles westward from Chicago to Lockport is in itself an achievement. It may
form an important link in the Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway. The slogan has
proven attractive to the Mississippi Valley people. -
In order to maintain a ship canal, water—much water, it is alleged is need-
ed. The Lakes-to-the-Gulf promoters have been led to believe this, when the
truth is that less than 1,000 cubic feet of water is required for the ship canal,
while 10,000 cubic second feet would be destructive of such a project.
The hydroelectric power plant at Lockport operates under a head of 34 feet.
The estimated capacity of the plant is 48,000 horse power. Competent en-
gineers hold that if the water were not diverted here but allowed to take its
natural course through the Great Lakes, it would produce five to six times
as much power in the Niagara district owing to the greater head. Thus the
artificial diversion is a large waste of a perpetual natural resource.
This splendid canal project which extends out from a great world city,
Whose commercial and industrial interests are enormous, to a distance of
33 miles does not carry a single ton of freight from one end of the year
to the other. The westward commerce is carried by the railroads which
parallel the Canal. Thus, the so-called Ship canal, as a transportation project,
is a gigantic failure, but the ship canal slogan has been accepted by the
Mississippi Valley people and has served to defend the real objective—the
hydroelectric plant. -
Finally, as a further subterfuge in defense of an unlawful diversion of lake
Waters comes the proposal for compensating works. The sanitation cry has
been punctured; the ship canal slogan has been bared, and the last trump
Card must be found in the restoration of the lake levels through the offer to
Construct compensating and regulating works. The fallacy of this proposition
is gradually coming to the surface.
And again, we have a subterfuge to deal with. Behind it looms a profitable
hydroelectric plant. A project that makes an earning of a million dollars a
year can afford to make alluring offers of experimentation in compensation
plans. While the experimentation goes on, consuming much time in inter-
national negotiation and planning, all resulting in nought, the power plant
Will Continue to earn big money at the expense of the lake shipping interests.
All of which means that the hydroelectric plant is to be protected and per-
petuated.
The Scheme entered into by Chicago whereby the city utilized the water of
Lake Michigan to flush its sewage and incidentally created a profitable water
power plant, also several years ago attracted the attention of the State of
Illinois. The latter saw an opportunity to extend the water power feature
by erecting another plant some distance westward from Lockport. " The physi-
cal conditions permitted the construction of another hydroelectric plant. If
the city of Chicago could clean up a million dollars a year on the sale of power,
why could not the State of Illinois clean up another million?
The State of Illinois, however, could not, as did Chicago exploit such a
project under the plea of Sanitation, but realized that the ship channel idea
would appear more plausible. When the campaign for a $20,000,000 bond issue
was launched by the State, the promoters of the same could not resist the
temptation to tell the people that behind the ship channel idea was something
even more attractive, namely, the water power. Thousands upon thousands of
campaign circulars announced the fact that the hydroelectric project would
net a 5 per cent earning on the investment. The bond issue was designed to
kill two birds with one stone. The profits derived from the såle of power
would warrant the investment in the ship channel improvement. . . . *
When Governor Dunne came to Washington to secure a permit from the
War Department for all the water the canal could carry, he met with a
peremptory refusal at the hands of Secretary Baker of the War Department.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 713
The Cleveland Chamber of Commerce in 1916, in a protest to the War
Department, said :
“We must not be misunderstood as arguing against the use of Water for
ordinary domestic and sanitary purposes or against such use where a real
necessity exists. We argue only against such dilution where it is a choice of
alternative methods, where the economy, if any, consists in the development
of power for the benefit of a single locality, where the real price for such
aid for a locality is paid at such enormous cost by the general public Of this
country, and which goes on forever.”
When Robert Isham Randolph, an engineer who was employed by the Chi-
cago Association of Commerce, spoke on the drainage Canal Operation at
Milwaukee in the spring of 1923, he made the statement that the power plant
provided light for the streets and parks of Chicago effecting an annual saving
of over $1,000,000. The report of the sanitary district also shows that the
sale of power to manufacturing plants along the canal netted a profit last
year of $90,000. -
“Mr. Hering, in his report of 1907, states that the desired 10,000 cubic
feet per second discharged through the drainage canal will produce at Lock-
port 20,000 horsepower, and at Joliet 27,300 horsepower, which, at an estimated
value of $25 per horsepower, will produce an annual revenue of $1,407,500.”
“The general estimate arrived at was that the present diversion of 8,800
cubic feet per second has a value to the city of Chicago of about $7,000,000 a
year, or $800 per cubic foot per second per annum.” “
It has also been urged by Chicagoans that the diversion of lake waters at
Chicago is justified by the fact that at Niagara a greater volume flows over
the Canadian falls than over the American falls. The answer here is that the
treaty between Great Britain and the United States, providing for a division
of land and waters as applied to the Niagara Falls, was entered into as the
equities dictated, and long before a Chicago Sanitary District was thought of.
The treaty relations between two great COuntries can not be wantonly violated
in order to serve the interests of a single community.
COMPENSATING AND REGULATING WORKS
The sanitary district authorities have since 1910 urged plans whereby the
lake levels are to be restored. They offer to construct compensating works.
at the St. Clair River, namely, permanent submerged dams and weirs, and
regulating works at the Niagara River, arranged to open and close the flow,
keeping Lake Erie at a fixed stage. The cost of the compensating works was
estimated, in 1913, at $475,000, and the regulating works at $2,500,000. .The
cost it is believed would now be much higher.
If these plans afforded a reasonable assurance of restoring the several lakes
and channels to their normal levels, there could be no objection to them, So far
as navigation interests On Lake Erie and upper lakes are concerned. But,
how about power at Niagara and the St. Lawrence? The loss of 10,000
cubic second feet would not be restored. A continual flow throughout the
year of 10,000 cubic second feet is more than is poured into Lake Michigan
by the Grand River and Fox River (the two largest tributaries), combined,
and is about equal to the flow of the two rivers plus that of the Menomonee
River. But, compensating works afford no such assurance, and must for the
present be looked upon as a subterfuge to gain time. Reputable engineers
differ as to the merits of remedial schemes. At best they must be regarded
as being purely experimental and of doubtful expediency. -
Again, if they were feasible, why not employ them in, the interest of naviga-
tion instead of water power? In an editorial, the Buffalo Express, under
date of October 29, 1923, says: f t
“Chicago proposes to build so-called compensating works in the Niagara
River. Chicago engineers have promised that these would restore the lakes,
to their old level. If these works did all that it is claimed they would do,
the Governments Of Canada and the United States should build them for their
own benefit and still not permit Chicago to take the water. A 4-foot incre-
ment in the minimum depth of Great Lakes harbors would be a great benefit
to water-borne commerce.
* Report Department of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, 1921, p. 70.
* Diversion of Waters from the Great Lakes and Niagara River, Report of the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, August 30, 1919, p. 93.
71.4 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
“TO begin with, no compensating and regulating works constructed any-
Where on the Great Lakes can meet the Situation without constructing similar
Works On the St. Lawrence River. Thus, any scheme which proposes to re-
Store Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, must also include Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River. Nor can any experimental scheme in the direction of
restoring the lake levels be undertaken without the consent of Canada.
“The Dominion of Canada has expressed itself in no uncertain tone that it
is absolutely Opposed to any scheme designed to perpetuate the diversion of
lake waters into the Chicago Drainage Canal. Its people believe that the nat-
ural flow of the inland Oceans is eastward, emptying into the Atlantic Ocean,
and that the artificial diversion of waters westward and southward emptying
into the Gulf of Mexico, as affected at Chicago, is not to be tolerated.”
Early this year Secretary of War Weeks issued a statement in which he
Said :
“In view of the substantial and widespread damage done to many activities
throughout the United States by the diversion, damage which can be but partly
COmpensated for by the construction of works proposed in the bill, the diversion
Should not be continued beyond the time when its necessity ceases to exist.
As a further matter for consideration I may point Out that the compensating
Works proposed in the bill can not be constructed without the assent of the
Canadian Government. It is not established that this consent would be
granted.” -
But since compensating works are being stressed, let us for the moment
assume that they will restore the lake levels. They will not restore water.
Water power depends on head and Volume. At LOCkport there is a head of
34 feet, while at Niagara and the St. Lawrence River the head is from five to
Six times greater. Consequently the loss in power is not compensated by restor-
ing the lake levels and at the same time continuing diversion. Such diversion.
becomes a distinct economic loss to the Nation.
The Canadian Government says: -
“It has been proposed that the Chicago Sanitary District erect compensation
works. While the treaty of 1909 provides for works of this character, never-
theless it is not the intent Of the treaty to permit water diversions on the plea
that compensation works may or will be built. Such works should only be a
possible remedy to be applied in extreme and absolutely unavoidable gases.
Clearly, neither the United States nor Canada could ever conserve the integ-
rity of the levels of the Great Lakes by allowing to be instituted a policy of
‘ diversion and COmpensation.” . Finally, no compensation works could COmpen-
Sate Canada for the injury done to her interests in the St. Lawrence River by
the abstraction of water at Chicago.” “ .
The project of building compensating and regulating works to restore the
levels of the lakes has been before the department of engineers of the War
Department for a period of three years without receiving approval.
Grave doubt has been expressed on whether the sanitary district could legally
expend moneys for compensating works located far beyond its own domain
or the boundaries of the State of Illinois. It was believed that any citizen of
Illinois could enjoin the district from entering into such a project. Judge
Carpenter, of the United States District Court at Chicago, in rendering his
decision last Spring against the drainage district, said: “It is doubtful
whether the State of Illinois could authorize expenditures to be made in for-
eign States and foreign countries to restore the water levels.”
The Chicago Sanitary District would serve its Own interests better and her
neighbors more justly if the money contemplated for Compensating works many
miles away were invested in a sewage-reduction plant at home.
When the sanitary district authorities were confronted with the statement
that it would be ultimately more practical to construct Sewage-reduction plants
at home than compensating works at a distant point, it also became evident
that Such a course would— * *
(a) Restore the Chicago River as a navigable channel.
(b) Render the canal available for an inner harbor.
(c) Obviate the flooding of lands on the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers.
(d) And, finally, place the district in a law-abiding attitude before the
Nation. a
The district authorities have, however, brushed aside all reasonable argu-
ments why the reduction System of sewage disposal should be substituted for
the dilution system, simply because the water power connected with the latter
is too profitable to relinquish.
12 Report Department of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, 1921, p. 18.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 715
SUMIMARY AND CONCLUSION
The arguments urged by the people of the Great Lakes region in Opposition
to the colossal diversion of lake waters into the Chicago Drainage Canal are
attested to by the official records of the two Governments, the United States
and the Dominion of Canada, and by other authoritative sources of information.
They Warrant, verify, and establish the following incontrovertible conclusions :
1. That the enormous diversion of waters into the Chicago Drainage Canal
has lowered the mean levels of the Great Lakes by nearly 6 inches.
2. That such lowering has caused a damage to inner harbors and Connecting
channels on the Great Lakes approximating the Sum of $12,000,000.
3. That every inch in the lowering of the lake levels causes a reduction in
the carrying capacity of an American and Canadian lake fleet of 600 yessels
and a consequent total loss of Over $3,000,000 annually.
4. That the strong current caused by the diversion is harmful to the river
commerce of Chicago, the efficient maintenance of an inner harbor, and the
prospective operation of a barge-canal system across the State of Illinois as a
link to the Lakes-to-the-Gulf WaterWay. -
5. That the present dilution plan does not provide Chicago with a modern
and Scientific system of Sewage disposal Such as is employed in the leading
cities of the United States and Europe.
6. That the strong current caused by the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second has caused damaging Overflows Of the Westward river lands, at the
same time causing a pollution of the waters in such rivers in the interior of
the State. - -
7. That the unlawful extraction of large Volumes Of water Out of Lake
. Michigan has enabled the creation of a hydroelectric power plant which yields
profits exceeding $1,000,000 annually to the city of Chicago.
8. That the remedial Schemes Suggested, namely, compensating and regulating
works for the restoration of the lake levels, are at best purely experimental
and of doubtful expediency. - : &
9. That the Dominion of Canada will never consent to an artificial emptying
of lake waters into the Gulf of Mexico as against a natural flow into the At-
lantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River.
10. That the continued and excessive diversion of lake waters into the
Chicago Drainage Canal causes a great injury to the commerce of the Nation,
is a violation of the laws of the United States, of the treaty relations with
the Dominion Of Canada, and against all precepts of right and justice.
(The brief of Hon. Daniel W. Hoan, referred to by Mr. Bruce,
is as follows:)
To the RIVERS AND HARBORS COMMITTEE,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. -
GENTLEMEN : My name is Daniel W. Hoan. I appear as mayor of the city
of Milwaukee, as a director of the Great Lakes Harbor Association, and rep-
resent the League of Wisconsin Municipalities for the purpose of reading a
communication from it signed by the Secretary, Fred H. MacGregor. [Read
letter of league.]
At the outset I desire to say that the citizens of Milwaukee are not opposed
to the 9-foot waterway from Chicago to the Mississippi Valley, nor are we
opposed to the diversion of 1,000 cubic feet or less per second of water from
Lake Michigan to make such a canal navigable.
The fact is that the citizens of Milwaukee and, I think, of Wisconsin are
practically unanimously in favor of the development of water navigatiºn in its
largest Sense.
I also wish to express Our appreciation to the Rivers and Harbors Committee
for the kindly and considerate attention they have given to the needs of Mil-
waukee's harbor. One-third of all the tonnage coming in and out of this
great industrial center comes by cargo via the Great Lakes. Consequently,
we know and appreciate the value of the help of your committee as given to
the development of waterway transportation in this country.
We know that the diversion of water at Chicago in such enormous quan-
tities has injured navigation, and we not only know the effect of the lowering
of the water levels at Milwaukee, the direct damage, of which I shall relate
further on, but we have heard the testimony of the lake captains who appeared
before the Secretary of War and explained the dangers incident to an attempt
716 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to navigate the Chicago River because of the tremendous and dangerous
currents created by the diversion of water into the sanitary district. ... We
know that this is the sole cause or reason why Chicago's harbor is the only
Gne on the Great Lakes whose tonnage has fallen off.
The figures are, I believe, from 9,000,000 tons in 1890 to around 2,000,000
tons in 1923. We know that Chicago is blessed by a vast network of railroads,
and has had perhaps as great and rapid a growth as any other city in the
world, notwithstanding its utter disregard of developing its lake transportation
facilities. Milwaukee and Wisconsin cities are not in so favorable a position.
We have practically but two railroads running in and out of the city of Mil-
Waukee. Most all Wisconsin cities, and particularly lake cities, are in the
Same position, and we therefore strongly favor any measure which will increase
the use of the Great Lakes for navigation purposes, and are opposed to any
measure which will injure navigation on the Great Lakes.
One of the members of the committee stated that our interest in the falling
off of lake transportation of Chicago was a charitable view. I can hardly
agree with this statement. We are directly interested in the development
of the harbor at Chicago as we are in the development of all other harbors
On the Great Lakes. Of what use would Milwaukee's harbor be without Other
harbors on the Great Lakes from which vessels Sail to and fro? Milwaukee
is spending millions of dollars in the development of its harbor and Chicago
offers one of the best ports for the increase of navigation from this city. We
know that your committee will not take any action that will continue to pre-
vent the Chicago harbor from developing, as does this enormous diversion of
Water.
SEWAGE DISPOSAT,
We are opposed to the diversion of any water from the Great Lakes for
sanitary, power purposes, or any other purpose that will injure navigation
On the Takes.
• It is the position of Chicago, as expressed by its chief spokesman on sanitary
measures, Mr. Randolph, on page 72 of the hearings, that the disposal of sewage
by modern means has not been solved. His exact words are: “There have
been great developments in the last 15 years, but the problem has not been
Solved.” If that statement is correct, why has the Sanitary District of Chicago
spent $25,000,000 on the actual construction of a modern sewage-disposal
WorkS2
Our answer to this question is that the disposal of sewage by modern methods
has been Solved. Our evidence thereon is—
First. The statement from the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors, signed by Brig. Gen. H. Taylor, which report appears on pages
15 to 60 of the so-called Warren report of the diversion of water from the
Great Lakes and Niagara River. Quoting from page 55 thereof: -
“The district can no longer fairly plead the absence or the impracticabilit
of safer methods of handling Sewage and of protecting its people from Water-
borne diseases. Certainly, for the past 20 years expert Opinion has held dis-
posal by dilution to be inferior to other methods of treating sewage, and en-
lightened public opinion has condemned the policy, which in effect, is the
transfer of a nuisance from our Own front door to that of a neighbor.”
Second. As evidence that Sewage disposal treatment problems by modern
means has been solved, I refer you to the report of the Treasury Department,
|United States Public Health Service, Bulletin No. 132, published July, 1923,
entitled “Sewage Treatment in the United States,” reporting on the study
of 15 representative Sewage treatment plants.
Third. Mr. Randolph himself testified on page 72 of these hearings as
follows :
“Modern methods of Sewage disposal is a very general term. There are
68 cities in the United States with a population of 100,000 or more, and only
17 of them make any attempt to treat the sewage in any way, and of these 17
only 7 treat 80 per cent of the sewage flow.” -
It therefore follows that at least seven cities of 100,000 population or more
are already treating 80 per cent of their sewage. -
Fourth. You have heard the evidence of how Cleveland has obtained a pure
supply of drinking water. Cleveland has accomplished this by installing a
system of sewage-disposal Works, using what is generally known as the Imhoff
tank system of sewerage purification. In addition thereto it has built a Water
filtration plant to filter the water from the lake. These combined plants have
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 717
Theen built at a cost of $13,000,000 to take care of both the industrial and do-
mestic Sewage of apopulation of 1,000,000 people. It follows that Chicago,
adopting a similar system, could build a complete plant to dispose of all its
§§§ and also filter its drinking water for three times $13,000,000, or $39,-
The Sanitary District of Chicago says, on page 32 of a report issued in De-
cember, 1923, by the board of trustees, entitled “Memoranda Concerning the
Drainage and Sewerage Conditions in Chicago,” that the sanitary district has
already expended $25,000,000 on the construction of a sewage treatment proj-
•ect and plans to spend $95,000,000 more for the same purpose in the next 23
years, and still it claims that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water per
'second is needed to dispose of its sewage. This $95,000,000 would build a
'sewage disposal works for a population of nearly 8,000,000 people, including
all sewage from industrial and commercial institutions, such as is built in the
city of Cleveland, and would also build a filtration plant to purify its drinking-
water supply for 8,000,000 people. This is the language of the report:
“Although the sanitary district has already expended $25,478,651.58 on the
construction of Sewage-treatment projects and plans to spend $95,209,000 more
for the same purpose in the next 23 years, the diversion of more than 10,000
c. f. S. is needed to properly dispose of the sewage, etc.” - -
Right here I would like to clear up one matter of doubt that has been created
in the minds of some of the members of the committee. The sanitary district
-officials have injected the idea that since Chicago has a stockyards and other
industries which create sewage, that it must provide not only for its 3,000,000
inhabitants, but its industrial waste equals the domestic sewage of 2,000,000
people. In other words, they have attempted to make it appear that Chicago
has a sewage problem, not only of its 3,000,000 people but for 2,000,000 more
that it hasn’t got. The figures are that Chicago sewage is three-fifths do-
mestic and two-fifths industrial. These are the figures that apply to all large
cities of the United States. When Cleveland gave figures of $13,000,000 for
disposing of the sewage of a million people it carried with it the disposal of do-
mestic and the two-fifths industrial and commercial sewage. Consequently, if
we are to use the method employed by the sanitary district of Chicago, then
the $95,000,000 would build a plant for the domestic sewage of 8,000,000 souls
but would also take care of industrial and commercial sewage equal to a popu-
lation of four or five million in addition.
COST OF MILWAUKEE SEWAGE-DISPOSAL WORKS
The experience of the city of Milwaukee verifies the experience of Cleveland
as far as cost is concerned. I do not wish to pose as a sanitary engineer or as
an expert. I have, however, studied the problem of water purification and
sewage disposal as the city attorney of Milwaukee from 1910 to 1916 and as
mayor from that time to the present date. During that period I have read
very widely on this subject and conferred at intervals with men of national
prominence who deal with this problem. I claim, therefore, to be familiar with
the fundamental principles. As to the engineers employed by Milwaukee with
whom we have had to deal here on the Sewage-disposal question, Mr. Ran-
dolph has the following to Say:
“There is a board consisting of three able and well-known engineers who
have charge of the Milwaukee plant. They are Mr. Fuller, of New York; Mr.
Eddy, of Boston; and Mr. Hatton, of Milwaukee. They are at the top of their
profession in that line of work.” (See p. 74 of the hearings.)
That the committee may clearly understand Milwaukee's Sewage disposal
works, it may be well to relate that all cities on the Great Lake originally
dumped their sewage into the Lakes while taking their drinking water untreated
from that body of water. When it was discovered that the water supplies
were contaminated, experiments were made to place Some disinfectant in the
water. At the beginning of these experiments, powdered chlorine was used.
It was not until about 1915 it was discovered that a great deal more Satisfaction
resulted from the use of liquid chlorine. From that time to this, in all cities,
even where there is no water filtration plants, or Sewerage disposal WorkS, the
rate of typhoid has fallen off very rapidly.
Inasmuch as the sanitary district lays great emphasis on being menaced by
typhoid undess the diversion of water is continued, I submit the following:
The statistics are given on pages 12 and 13 in the report of the board
of trustees of the sanitary district of Chicago, heretofore referred to. You Will
718 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
find a table giving the average deaths from typhoid since 1890, of the cities of
Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia,
St. Louis, and Washington. The average deaths per 100,000 population from
1890 to 1894 in these cities were 45.4, while Chicago's death rate by typhoid
during that period is 92.2. From 1895 to 1899 the average for these cities was
31.8, while Chicago's is given as 36.6. From 1900 to 1904 the average given is
36 for the cities mentioned, while Chicago’s is 29.2. From 1905 to 1909 the
average given is 26.1, while Chicago's is 16.1. From 1910 to 1914 the average
is 16.1 for these cities while Chicago's is 10.1.
You note the decline since liquid chlorine has been used.
The average given for these cities from 1915 to 1919 is 7.7, while Chicago's is
2.9. The average from 1920 to 1922 is given as 3.5, while Chicago's is 1.1. (If
I am not mistaken, Chicago has been using liquid chlorine in its drinking
Water Supply for the past few years.) -
Another factor which has helped to decrease the deaths from typhoid fever i
large cities was the discovery that typhoid is spread through milk. There has
Consequently been a close supervision of the milk supply of large cities since
that time. The discovery was also made, in recent years, by the Public Health
Service of the United States, that typhoid fever is carried by flies which has
resulted in Sanitary measures being applied to offset this and other means of
carrying these germs. - •:
In brief, the point I desire to make is, that in a city like Milwaukee, while
We are still pouring our sewerage into the lake, and without even filtering our
Water, the death rate from typhoid fever has been reduced from an average of
32 per 100,000 population in 1890 to 1894 to 2.2 per 100,000 population in 1920
to 1922. Just a trifle above Chicago's rate which was 1.1 per 100,000 population.
I want to say to the committee without fear of contradiction that the number
of deaths from typhoid per 100,000 in small cities of the United States and in
the rural districts is far greater than in the large cities of this country, includ-
ing Chicago, and I wish to say also, that the death rate from typhoid per 100,000
population is continually growing less in large cities because of their sanitary
measures, and that during the year 1923 in Milwaukee the deaths from typhoid
fever amounted to less than 1 for every 100,000 population, or in exact figures
.85, notwithstanding the fact that we are drinking unfiltered water from Lake
Michigan and still dump the raw sewage of 500,000 people into Lake Michigan
as well as all of Our industrial Sewage. º
The next general step which was taken by most cities on the Great Lakes and
the one which was generally recommended by sanitary engineers, was to build
a modern water filtration plant. Many cities on the Great Lakes have such
water filtration plants in operation, and, of course, use a smaller amount of
liquid chlorine in the water. w
CLEVELAND’S PLAN
It will be clearly understood therefore, that Cleveland built not only a water
filtration plant but one to purify its Sewage in part. It must be borne in mind
that the Imhoff tank system makes no pretense of purifying sewage only up
to a given degree which depends upon the character of the tank adopted and
installed. l
ACTIVATED SIUDGE SYSTEM
The most effective method of treating sewage is the plan adopted by the city
of Milwaukee, and that is the type which has been adopted, as I understand,
by the sanitary district of Chicago. The essential features of this type of
plant are :
First. It is superior to any other type known in the degree in which it
purifies Sewage.
Second. It develops a practical fertilizer which can be used on the farm
lands of this country to great advantage.
Third. This type of plant is somewhat costlier than the Imhoff tank system.
It extracts from the sewage 95 per cent of the bacteria and 98 per cent of the
organic solids in suspension in the raw sewage. Thus from 2 to 5 per cent
of the city’s raw sewage will go into Lake Michigan after our plant is in
operation, which will be about one year hence.
With reference to this plan, I have with me two letters from Our chief engi-
neer, T. Chalkley Hatton, who was so highly referred to by Mr. Randolph.
These letters give the cost of Such a plant, the time it takes to build the same,
and its efficacy in purifying Our drinking water supply.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 719
As to cost, it should be explained that the intercepting Sewers laid to Such
a plant are something all cities have to build regardless of Whether the
sewage goes into such a plant or a sanitary canal, and therefore should, in
fairness, be disregarded as part of the cost of building a disposal Works.
These letters show that such a disposal works will cost the city of Milwaukee,
when completed, $8,000,000. It will take care of the sewage of 589,000 people,
including all industrial waste, and to build such a plant for a population of
1,000,000 people, with its industrial waste, would cost at the very most
$13,580,000.
I therefore request the privilege of reading into the record Mr. Hatton’s
letter marked “Exhibit 1.”
As to the length of time it will take to , build such a plant, we expect to
complete our plant in about five years from the time work was actually
Started on the same, and the next letter will show that for a population of
about 3,000,000 persons, such a plant can be constructed to take care of all
its sewage, including industrial waste, in six years. t
I therefore take the liberty of asking to read into the record Mr. Hatton's
letter marked “Exhibit 2.” , .
FERTILIZER
Instead of destroying navigation and poluting the waters of the Great
Lakes and its contributaries, Milwaukee will produce a valuable fertilizer in
large quantities and give back to the farming communities of this country a
product of which they are highly in need. Such a fertilizer is highly rich
in nitrogen and ammonia, a product which is becoming increasingly Scarce,
whereas its need is constantly increasing. Milwaukee, in brief, will furnish
to this country 100 tons of dry fertilizer per day beginning with the operation
of its plant, which will tend to cheapen the cost of fertilizer to agricultural
districtS. t - e a , -
Chicago, were it to adopt modern sewage methods, would be able to produce
at the present time 600 tons of such dry fertilizer per day. r
I desire to Submit and to read into the record with reference to this a
communication from Mr. W. H. Kadish, a chemist of high Standing in the city
of Milwaukee, who was for a number of years a member of Our Sewerage
commission and is now assistant to the chief engineer. . I present and read
“Exhibit 3.” . . . . . . . . ."
That you may have before you concrete evidence of what this fertilizer will
do for the farming districts of this country, I submit for your view some
actual photographs taken from experiments conducted with the use of this
fertilizer by Our sewerage department on farm lands in the State of Wisconsin,
which I have marked “Exhibit 4,” and also a box containing three Samples Of
fertilizer, marked “Exhibit 5.” *
CHICAGO’s FINANCIAL ABILITY
I have already pointed out that the sanitary district of Chicago has made
provision for a budget of $95,000,000 to build a plant which it claims will Only
take care of 60 per cent of its sewage, and which will take 23 years to build.
Taking Chicago's figures at their face value, it has already made provision
for disposing of the Sewage of a population of about 1,000,000 people. Say
this is only one-fifth of its sewerage problem. (Surely that is a fair estimate,
since the sanitary district has already spent $25,000,000, and must give some
account of its expenditures.) It still would have four-fifths of its Sewerage
problem to finance Since the entire program should cost, from the experience
of Cleveland and Milwaukee, not to exceed $39,000,000 and four-fifths of this.
expenditure would be $31,200,000, it still has to spend. Since the sanitary
district plans on spending $95,000,000 in 23 years, it thereby admits its ability
to raise this amount in 23 years. It will only take one-third the time or
about eight years to raise the $31,200,000 necessary to build a modern sewage
disposal plant to take Care of all its sewage and to produce for its farming dis-
tricts 600 tons of valuable fertilizer per year, bringing in a revenue and being
of great benefit to the farming districts.
The sanitary district of Chicago however, can easily raise $31,200,000 in
the six years necessary to build its plant. It need not resort entirely to bond
issues unless it so desires. The city of Milwaukee built its plant by collecting
a tax which raised over $4,000,000 of the money needed to build and the re-
mainder in bonds. -
‘720 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Attorney General Ekern gave you the statistics of the census bureau, Show-
ing that of the 16 largest cities in the United States, Chicago's per capita
municipal expense is within four of being at the bottom. As to its per Capita
municipal debt of these 16 largest cities, Chicago is in fact at the very bottom.
It has the lowest per capita debt of 16 cities, while St. Louis is given in the
statistics as the lowest it has since voted a bond issue of $200,000,000 for
civic center and other public improvements which places its per Capita debt
away above Chicago's. I have a list of these cities in the Order in which they
fall, and ask to read the same into the record as “Exhibit 6.”
The point was raised by one of the witnesses for the Sanitary district of
Chicago that such statistics are not reliable because of the many Overlapping
assessment districts. I wish to say that such per capita cost of government
includes every known tax levied in the city of Chicago for all departments
and functions of government. This is revealed by a report issued by the De-
partment of Commerce at Washington on October 29th, 1923, entitled “Fi-
nancial Statistics of the City Government of Chicago,” which I offer as “EX-
hibit, 7.” .”
Chicago can not well contradict her low rate of taxation and bonded indebt-
edness. In the official advertising matter which that city sends out to attract
industries and business, which advertising is approved by the mayor and
city officials, it loudly boasts of this fact. I desire to read and offer in evi-
dence as “Exhibit 8° a pamphlet entitled “Chicago Plan, by the Board of
Local Improvements,” wherein it says, on page 1, “Of all the cities in the
United States in excess of a half million population, Chicago has the lowest
per capita tax and lowest per capita debt, of all save One.” *
In brief, the entire situation with respect to diversion of water from the
Great. Lakes by the sanitary district of Chicago, is well Summarized by the
$ecretary of War, John W. Weeks, in his letter to your committee, being
document No. 6, sixty-seventh Congress, entitled “Diversion of water from
Lake Michigan ” in the following language:
“I am not persuaded that the amount of water applied for is necessary
to a proper sanitation of the city of Chicago. The evidence indicates that at
bottom the issue comes down to the question of cost. Other adequate systems
of Sewage disposal are possible and are in use throughout the World. The prob-
Iem that confronts Chicago is not different in kind but simply larger and
more pressing than that which confronts all of the other cities on the Great
Lakes, in which nearly 3,000,000 people of this country are living. The urban
population of those cities, like that of Chicago, is rapidly increasing, and a
method of disposition of their sewage which will not injure the potable char-
acter of the water of the Lakes must SOOner or later be found for them all.
“The evidence before me satisfies me that it would be possible in one of
Several ways to at least so purify the Sewage of Chicago as to require very
much less water for its dilution than is now required by it in its unpurified
Condition. A recent report of the engineer of the sanitary commission (Oct.
12, 1911) proposes eventually to use some such method, but proposes to post-
pone its installation for a number of years to come, relying upon the present
more wasteful method in the meanwhile. It is manifest that so long as the
City is permitted to increase the amount of water which it may take from the
lakes, there will be a very strong temptation placed upon it to postpone a
more Scientific and possibly more expensive method of disposing of its sewage.
This is particularly true in view of the fact that by so doing it may still
further diminish its expenses by utilizing the water diverted from the lakes
for water power at Lockport.” . . -
SPECIAL DAMAGE TO THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE
The city of Milwaukee has 20 miles of dockage property along both sides
Of three rivers as well as slips. These docks are built of concrete on top of
wooden piling. They were constructed with a view that the wooden piling
would be submerged under water, thus preserving the piling from deterioration.
We find now at the present time that these wooden piles are projecting
most Of the time as much as a foot and a half above the water level. What-
ever the cause, these Wooden piles are rapidly deteriorating. It is estimated
that One-half of this piling will have to be replaced if this deterioration con-
tinues, within the next 10 years, and the other half within the 10-year period
following. The cost of reconstructing these docks at present prices will be
from four to five million dollars.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 721
As to dredging our rivers, the cost is continually increasing as well as the
amount of dredging necessary. In past years an appropriation of $25,000 was
adequate. Last year we increased this amount to $50,000, which we know is
inadequate. The city of Milwaukee is face to face with a serious problem,
not Only because we must rapidly increase the amount necessary for dredging,
but because we are already dredging in the middle of our streams as low as
We can Safely go. It must be borne in mind that the dredging can not be done
except in the middle of the river so as to permit a certain amount of dirt to
rest against the docks. There is danger at the present time, if Milwaukee is
to dredge its rivers so as to obtain a depth of 21 feet of actual water, of the
Current undermining some of our present docks. This would mean not only
the destruction of the docks but the possible injury to foundations and walls
of adjoining structures which would run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That your committee may have the actual facts relative to our water levels
from the Secretary of our harbor commission, I submit herewith and read to
#tº letter from Secretary Herman Bleyer, which I have marked: “Ex
I l .”
In conclusion permit me to say that while we have the kindliest feeling
to Ward the people of the sanitary district of Illinois, we believe their conduct
in diverting 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from the Great Lakes is
a menace to navigation. It has ruined the Chicago Harbor. It has damaged
the harbors of the Great Lakes, running into millions of dollars, and we be-
lieve it is high time that the sanitary district put its house in order and that
a modern Sewage disposal works be built to convert its sewage into valuable
fertilizer for the benefit of the agricultural districts.
The people of Milwaukee have full faith that your committee, in the in-
terest of navigation, will take no action which will place in continual jeopardy
a great national asset, namely, navigation on the Great Lakes.
t DANIEL W. HoAN.
(The following papers accompanied Mayor Hoan's brief) :
LEAGUE OF WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES,
- Madison, April 12, 1924.
Mayor D. W. HoAN, Milwaukee, Wis.
DEAR SIR: Inasmuch as I am advised that you plan to appear before the
Committee on Rivers and Harbors at Washington to protest against the di-
Version of water from the Great Lakes by the Sanitary District of Chicago, and
inasmuch as it is impossible for me to appear before that committee, I desire
to request you to officially represent the League of Wisconsin Municipalities
and enter for us a vigorous protest against the passage of any law by Con-
gress legalizing the diversion of waters from Lake Michigan for sanitary pur-
poses. I am advised that the sanitary district itself admits the lowering of
lake levels on an average of at least 6% inches. I know that the cities of this
State are awake to the great financial loss which this inflicts upon those bor-
dering upon the Great Lakes, as well as to the welfare of the cities throughout
the State as a whole, and I know that it is their unanimous opinion that proper
steps be taken to bring this enormous diversion to an end at the earliest pos-
sible moment. Any influence which you can exert to prevent this legislation
will be greatly appreciated by the officers of the League of Wisconsin. Munici-
palities and the 125 cities which make up its membership.
Respectfully yours, - 3. - t -
LEAGUE OF WIsconsin MUNICIPALITIEs,
FoRD H. MACGREGOR, Secretary.
SEWERAGE CoMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
§ + w April 14, 1924.
Hon. DANIEL W. HoAN,
Mayor City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wis.
DEAR SIR: In compliance with your request, I am handing you herewith
certain data concerning the sewage disposal plant now being constructed for
the city of Milwaukee and the metropolitan district within the county of Mil-
Waukee. r
The sewerage commission of the city of Milwaukee has built up to December
31, 1923, 33.44 miles of intercepting sewers at a cost of $6,767,186 for the
722 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
purpose of Collecting the sewage from the Sewerage system of the city and
carrying it to the sewage disposal plant.
The metropolitan sewerage commission, which builds all the intercepting
Sewers Outside the city limits to Collect the Sewage from the contiguous mu-
nicipalities and carry it to the intercepting sewers built within the city and
through them to the sewerage disposal plant, has built 9.31 miles of intercept-
ing sewers at a cost of $2,557,402 and has under way the building of several
additional miles at an estimated cost of $1,928,598.
The Sewerage commission of the city of Milwaukee is building a modern
Sewage disposal plant, 70 per cent of which is completed, to treat the sewage
from a population of 589,000. This plant has cost $6,762,367 up to December
31, 1923, and the estimate of its total cost is $8,000,000.
. It is designed to treat an average of 85,000,000 of gallons of sewage per day,
31 per Cent of which is industrial liquid wastes, and 11 per cent is liquid
Commercial wastes. , , a -
The estimated cost of operating the sewage-disposal plant is $1,158,815 per
year, Or at the rate of $1.97 per capita. This cost includes maintenance, de-
preciation and interest charges and all fuel, labor, and miscellaneous costs.
About 40,000 tons of dried sludge will be produced by the plant per year, the
value of which as a fertilizer is estimated to be $581,719, which, if deducted
from the total annual cost for Operation, will make a per capita charge per
year of 97 cents. - - -
ASSuming that the Sewage of Similar character as that produced by the
City of Milwaukee is to be treated by a similar process from a population of
1,000,000 and basing the estimates upon our costs both actual and estimated,
Such a plant would cost $13,580,000 for construction and $970,000 per year for
net Operation, which provides: for the disposition of the dried sludge.
This basis would not be entirely fair as the larger the plant, other things
being equal, the less the ratio of both construction and operating costs.
Of the above costs 42 per cent should be borne by industrial and commer-
cial interests and 58 per cent by domestic interests.
Trusting this is the information you are seeking, I am
YourS truly,
T. CHALKLEY HATTON,
Chief Engineer, Sewerage Commission, City of Milwaukee
and the Metropolitan Severage Commission, County of Milwaukee.
SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
April 23, 1924.
FIon. DANIEL W. EIOAN,
Mayor Milwaukee, Wis.
MY DEAR SIR : Replying to your inquiry of April 22, I beg to advise you
that the first contract connected with the construction of the sewage disposal
plant for the city of Milwaukee was let October, 1918, this contract and
those immediately following up to contract No. 57, embraced work to be done
regardless of the process of sewage treatment finally adopted.
This process was not adopted until 1920 and the first contract was awarded
July 1, 1920, since which time the work has been proceeding progressively
but the time taken has been largely dependent upon the results Of Our experi-
ments which have been conducted coincidént with construction. That is, We
have been enabled to push ahead with the work as fast as we might if all
the problems influencing the design of the plant had been solved before the
work was started. In spite of this handicap, however, we will be operating
by July 1, 1925. -
Had the problems been solved before hand the plant could have easily been
built in four years. When completed it will treat the sewage from approxi-
Imately 689,000 persons.
Second. If cash and land were available, sewage disposal plants of Suffi-
cient capacity to treat the sewage from an industrial city of three millions
population could be constructed in six years. This estimate includes one year
for the preparation of plans and the construction of two or more treatment
plants (as might be required for the whole population) being carried on at
the same time. The ratio of indusrtial wastes and domestic Sewage does
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 723
not influence, the time of constructing such works. The time depends upon
Scuring men and materials and carrying out the work in proper sequence.
Third. It is, and always has been, my opinion hat when sewage disposal
plant, now being built by the city of Milwaukee is in operation, it will pro-
duee an effluent of such high standard at all times that no other treatment
than chlorination will be required to safeguard the public water supply from
Sewage pollution.
My judgement is based upon the fact that at the present time from fifty
to sixty-five millions of gallons of raw, untreated sewage are being discharged
into the lake waters daily about 5 miles from the intake of the public water
Supply and for several years the citizens have been practically free from
Water-borne diseases, although no other treatment than chlorination, scien-
tifically and carefully applied, has been given the water supply. When this
raw sewage is treated by the process now being introduced 95 per cent of
the bacteria and 98 per cent of the organic solids in suspension in the raw
sewage will be removed therefrom before the sewage effluent is discharged
into the lake, whereupon the probability of polluting the water supply with
sewage is negligable. - - --
Trusting this communication satisfactorily answers your inquiry, I am
Most respectfully yours,
T. CHALKLEY HATTON,
Chief Engineer.
SEWERAGE CoMMIssion of THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
April 24, 1924.
Hon. DANIEL W. HoAN, -
Mayor, City Hall, Milwaukee, Wis.
MY DEAR SIR : In reply to your request for information concerning the fer-
tilizer material to be produced at Milwaukee's activated sludge sewage dis-
posal plant, I beg to submit the following: º . . . . *
It is estimated the initial production will be at the rate of 100 tons of dry
fertilizer per day which will increase automatically as the population of the
district increases. The main fertilizing constituent of activated sludge is
nitrogen, to the amount of about 7.5 per cent as ammonia, in an Organic rather.
than a mineral form. Organic nitrogen is becoming increasingly Scarcer,
whereas the demand for it is constantly growing ; consequently, the produc-
tion of a new material like activated sludge should fill a real economic need.
In order to learn about its fertilizing value the sewerage commission created
a fellowship at the college of agriculture, University of Wisconsin, which has
been functioning since February, 1923. Field experiments in comparison with
standard commercial materials have already established the definite fertilizer
value of activated sludge. It is well adapted to use with general farm CropS
such as corn, potatoes, etc., and is an ideal material for such Specialized pur-
poses as garden truck crops, greenhouse flowers and grass both on lawns and
golf courses. In fact, it compares favorably with any of the commonly used
materials such as tankage, blood, cottonseed meal, sheep manure, etc.
In our larger industrial cities 1 ton of dry fertilizer material can be recoV-
ered per year per each 15 to 20 of population. In its larger aspects, a process
which purifies sewage at all times to a remarkably high degree and at the
same time manufactures therefrom a uniform and valuable nitrogenous fer-
tilizer which is now going to waste is a big step forward. Unquestionably
many other American cities will within the next decade adopt this activated
sludge process which at one stroke prevents the pollution of a water supply
and utilizes agriculturally the very source of the pollution itself.
Very truly yours,
W. H. KADISH,
Assistant to Chief Engineer.
|UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU REPORTS
Uncle Sam's Census Bureau has furnished the following figures showing
how much each citizen in the various cities in the United States . With a
724 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
population of over 400,000 (of which Milwaukee is one) pays toward the cost
of municpal government. Here are the figures for the calendar year 1922: .
Per capita . Per capita
municipal municipal
. . . . expenSe expense
Detroit - :------ $120. 30 | Buffalo 62. 33.
LOS Angeles 99.34 || Cincinnati 60. 99.
Boston - 76. 34 || Milwaukee . 58. 55.
Pittsburgh 69. 23 Chicago 57. 56.
Cleveland r 69.09 || Philadelphia 57. 50.
Newark 69.03 || Baltimore 50.37
New York__ 66.66 | New Orleans s 43.92.
San Francisco 63.08 || St. Louis - 40. 02:
Minneapolis 62. 49 +
The Census Bureau at Washington also shows how much the debt per
Citizen is in each of the large cities of the United States:
Here are the Census Bureau figures for 1922:
Per Capita. - Per capita.
municipal * municipal
- debt debt
Cincinnati $201. 23 || Baltimore 104.84.
New York_ - 182.72 | Philadelphia 103. 38.
Cleveland A 135. 61 | New Orleans 101. 14.
San Francisco 135. 30 Minneapolis 92.78.
Pittsburgh 123. 13 | Buffalo S4. 01
Detroit 119. 27 | Milwaukee -- 66.97.
Newark 113.48 || Chicago 46. 36.
Boston > * - 110.76 | St. Louis - 17.99
Los Angeles 110. 59 - -
The St. Louis figures do not include the $87,000,000 bond issue recently
approved by the St. Louis voters which will increase the St. Louis figures to:
$129 per capita. * ,
You will see that Milwaukee has the lowest debt of any large city in the
Jnited States except Chicago and that it stands eleventh out of 16 in annual
expense per person for municipal government. - -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT
OF CHICAGO, ILL., 1922
EXPENDITURES
WASHINGTON, D. C., October 29, 1923.−The Department of Commerce an-
nounces that the costs of government for the city of Chicago, Ill., for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1922, amounted to $163,079,761, which was a per
capita cost of $57.56. In 1917 the per capita cost was $38.11, and in 1914,
$33.78, the totals for these years being $97,948,451 and $81,446,303, respectively.
The per capita costs for 1922 consisted of expenses of general departments,
$34.89; expenses of public service enterprises, $2.15; payments for interest,
$2.88; and for outlays, $17.64. The chief expenditures for permanent im-
provements were $2,567,000 for water supply system ; $4,212,000 for parks;
$5,966,000 for schools; $11,190,000 for sewers; and $24,960,000 for highways.
REVENTUES
The total revenue receipts for 1922 were $153,560,705, or $54.20 per capita.
The per capita excess of governmental costs over revenue receipts was, there-
fore, $3.36. However, the revenue receipts exceeded the costs for the ordinary
operation and maintenance and the payments for interest, excluding outlays,
by $14.28. The excess of per capita payments over revenue receipts is largely
on account of permanent improvements, the costs of which were met by the
issuance of debt obligations. - .
In Chicago property taxes represented 67.8 per cent of the total revenue for
1922, 56.5 per cent for 1917, and 56 per cent for 1914. The increase in the
amount of property taxes collected was 16 per cent from 1914 to 1917 and 98.6.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 725
per cent from 1917 to 1922. The per capita property taxes were $36.74 in 1922,
$20.39 in 1917, and $18.73 in 1914.
Earnings of public service enterprises Operated by the city represented 6.2
per cent of the total revenue for 1922, 8.9 per cent for 1917, and 9.8 per cent
for 1914.
Business and nonbusiness licenses were 4.2 per cent of the total revenue for
1922, 10 per cent for 1917, and 12 per cent for 1914.
INDEBTEDNESS
The net indebtedness (funded and floating debt less sinking fund assets) of
Chicago was $46.36 per capita for 1922, $28.30 for 1917, and $27.34 for 1914.
Bond issues for the current year were more than $6,000,000 for parks; $8,000,-
000 each for sewers and highways; and $28,000,000 for schools.
ASSESSED VALUATIONS AND TAX LEWIES
For 1922 the assessed valuation of property in Chicago subject to ad valorem
taxation for the city corporation was $1,666,241,773. The levy for all purposes
for 1922 was $128,640,423, this being a per capita of : Total, $45.40; city
corporation, $16.47; county, $4.29; school district, $15.92; sanitary district,
$2.52; park districts, $3.56; and State, $2.64.
In all of the data shown for this city the transactions of the independent
school, sanitary, and park districts are included.
The statistics for Chicago include a percentage of the financial transactions
of Cook County, the percentage being based upon the ratio between the assessed
valuation of the city and that of the entire County. This treatment is desirable
for comparability in cities of over 300,000 population because in a number of
such cities the original county organization has been merged with that of the
city.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
OFFICE OF BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS,
- April 25, 1924.
Hon. DANIEL W. HoAN, Mayor,
City of Milwaukee.
DEAR SIR : Answering your inquiry as to the tendency of water levels at
Milwaukee Harbor, I am free to state that we have experienced a decided
decline in the stage of water here in the past 12 years, or the period in which
I have been an active observer of harbor conditions.
Twelve year ago, in 1912, the level of the water at Milwaukee was uniformly
1 foot below the established city datum, or the stage of water at this point
in the spring of 1836. This level of 1 foot below datum became the fixed
standard for the control of river dredging. We always dredged to 21 feet
below datum, and in SO doing were fully aware that we were only creating
20 feet of water for navigation purposes. Since 1912 there has been a steady
lowering Of the water in the harbor, so that now Our Standard of 1 foot
below datum means only 19 feet of depth for navigation. !
Last fall the water for a time was 3 and three-tenths feet below datum,
and at the present time, despite the fact that it is the season of spring
floods, the water in the harbor is uniformly 2 feet below datum, or a full
foot lower than it was in 1912 when I began to interest myself in the mat-
ter. In consequence the large coal carriers are unable to load to capacity
as in former years. This spring we could not promise more than 18 or 18%
feet for the coal fleet which was loading at Lake Erie ports for Milwaukee.
It is true the stage of water fluctuates with atmospheric conditions, but
it is not Safe to load vessels beyond the minimum stage of water.
I have been in close touch with shippers and marine men at Lake Michigan
ports both Qn the east and west shores during the past 12 years and their
reports have always corresponded fully with our experiences here.
Very truly yours,
r HERMAN BLEYER,
Secretary.
726 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
(The following resolution was filed by Mr. Bruce:)
THE SANDUSKY CHAMBER of CoMMERCE,
f / * Sandusky, Ohio, April 15, 1924.
Mr. W.M. GEORGE BRUCE,
President Great Lakes Harbor Association, Milwaukee, Wis.
DEAR MR. BRUCE : Hearings on the Chicago water diversion question con-
(lucted by the Congressional Committee on Rivers and Harbors are now in
progreSS ; and
Whereas the Great Lakes are a great natural highway and medium of water
transportation ; and
Whereas any impediment to its free and safe navigation is injurious to the
general welfare of the country; and
Whereas there is now pending in Congress what is known as the “Hull bill,”
H. R. 5475, which will give authority to the city of Chicago to divert a large
Volume of Water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal; and
Whereas in the judgment of this city, if such authority were granted, it
Would result in the lowering of the level in all the Great Lakes, lessening the
benefits and advantages which have accrued because of the activity of the
Government in deepening and making port channels, and depreciating the in-
Vestment made as a result of the activity, seriously interfering with the employ-
ment of thousands engaged in the operation of such investments, seriously af-
fecting the prosperity of all the cities on the Great Lakes, and jeopardizing the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence deep waterways plant : Therefore be it
Resolved, That this city is opposed to the Hull bill or any similar legislation
now or hereafter pending before Congress whereby the city of Chicago would
be permitted to divert large volumes of water from the Great Lakes; and be
it further t
Resolved, That in the face of the records of the United States Engineering
Department which show that there has already been a decrease of 5% inches
in the depth of water of the Great Lakes, with a potential loss to the public
of approximately 3,000,000 tons of this cheap transportation annually, that we
consider it not only wise and proper but an imperious necessity that the Hull
bill or similar legislation be rejected. -
Respectfully submitted.
THE SANDUSKY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
GEO. L. LEINGANG, Manager.
Mr. DEAL. May I ask Mr. Bruce a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DEAL. When was objection made, if any, to the diversion at
Chicago, the first objection?
Mr. BRUCE. The first objection that I know anything of was made
in 1912, I think. At that time Chicago presented a petition to
Secretary of War Stimson for an increase over the 4,167 cubic feet.
The Great Lakes formed a delegation to protest and appeared be-
fore Secretary of War Stimson. I think that was in 1912.
Mr. DEAL. Some 20 years after the diversion, after the district
undertook to open up the drainage?
Mr. BRUCE. About 12 years later. .
Mr. DEAL. In the meantime, however, they had developed their
canal and locks and also the water power? .
Mr. BRUCE. Yes.
Mr. DEAL. And no protest had been made up to that time?
Mr. BRUCE. Not to my knowledge.
The CHAIRMAN. Up to what year? -
Mr. BRUCE. 1912. I think that was the year when the hearing
was held. -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to this, Mr. Bruce.
Temporary permits were granted in 1900 and 1901, 12 years earlier.
and they were not only temporary in their nature, they were not
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC, 727
only restricted as to amount, but they put Chicago upon notice of
their temporary nature, of the fact that the Secretary doubted his
own right to grant them, and of the fact that even for the limited
amount and for the temporary time Chicago must go to Congress.
So it was not simply a question of protest from Somebody else, but
the Government itself acted at that time, 12 years earlier than the
time you specified.
Mr. DEAL. Admitted, though, that the Secretary of War did not
claim that he had the right to give them a permit, a permanent per-
mit?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that their rights were of a temporary nature
and if they were to obtain them at all they were to obtain them from
Congress.
Mr. BoycE. Just a moment on this point. It may very well be that
the members of the committee have seen the interesting plates and
the very instructive account of the Illinois River improvement con-
tained in the Geographic Magazine within the past 12 months.
The CHAIRMAN. These two letters which General Bixby filed ma
be received, the first being a letter of February 28, and I call atten-
tion especially to the postScript, which reads as follows:
Even on the supposition that the waterway from Lake Michigan to the
Mississippi River should at some future time provide for the passage of
boats of Over 20 feet draft or any other greater draft useful in the Great
Iakes, such a navigation can be maintained with a diversion of Lake Michigan
water less than One-fifth of that at present in progress and less than one-
fourteenth of that desired at present by the State authority.
(The letters referred to are as follows:)
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE of THE CHIEF of ENGINEERs,
l Washington, February 9, 1911.
SIR : I have the honor to submit herewith, for transmission to Congress,
report dated January 23, 1911, made by the Special board of engineers appointed
in pursuance of the river and harbor act approved June 25, 1910, to consider
and report upon a waterway from Lockport, Ill., by Way of the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers to the mouth Of Illinois River, and certain related sub-
jects. -
This report has been referred to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors for review, as required by law, and in its report this board concurs in
general with the special board in its conclusions concerning the waterway from
Lockport to the mouth of , the Illinois River. The only essential difference
between the views of the two boards is upon the extent of COOperation by
the United States in the construction of the portion of the Waterway between
Lockport and Utica. In the opinion of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors no expenditures for construction should be made by the United
States on this section of the waterway. In the Opinion of the Special board
the $20,000,000 authorized to be appropriated by the State should be sufficient
to entirely complete this section of the waterway, including the locks and
bridges. Over the waterway; but if through unforeseen contingency these funds
prove insufficient, the United States would be warranted in assisting the State
by contributing such part of the cost as might be eventually found necessary
to complete construction of suitable locks in the dams below Lockport and, Of
bridges over this section of waterway. . . . . . . ' ' , , .
As to minor differences or suggestions of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors, the following remarks are submitted: It was anticipated by the
special board that report on the improvement of the Mississippi River by dams
at or near Jefferson Barracks and Commerce would be submitted before the
next session of Congress and before the State of Illinois could take the action
toward, the construction of the waterway between Lockport and Utica, which
is considered necessary to warrant the United States in adopting any project
for the section of the Mississippi River in question. The recommendations of
f
728 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the Special board as to the diversion of water from Lake. Michigan are that
Said diversion be restricted to the minimum required for purposes of sanitation;
but should the diversion eventually authorized by Congress exceed that con-
templated by the board, a change in the method of improvement of the Illinois
River, as indicated by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, may then
be desirable. If the United States authorizes the sanitary district of Chicago to
divert Water from Lake Michigan for purposes of sanitation, and also conveys to
the State any equities it may possess in the rights of way or other properties
of the Illinois and Michigan Canal upon completion of the proposed waterway
as recommended by the special board, it is believed that such action would
relinquish to local agencies any rights the Government may have in the water
power to be developed between Lockport and Utica. It was anticipated by
the special board that no action would be taken by Congress for the adoption
of any definite project until the State of Illinois was in the position to guar-
antee the expenditure of $20,000,000 on the section of the waterway between
Lockport and Utica, and that any such legislation by Congress would be made
to harmonize with any policy that it might adopt with reference to the diver-
Sion of Water from Lake Michigan under the recent treaty with Great Britain.
By the terms of the river and harbor act approved June 25, 1910, I am
member and president of the special board, and I concur in its report.
It is believed that the $1,000,000 already appropriated by the United States
should be expended in improving the Illinois River below Utica to the depth
recommended by the board; that this work should not be undertaken until an
equal Or greater depth above Utica is assured by the plans and Operations
Of the State of Illinois.
Very respectfully, -
- W. H. BIXBY,
Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
The SECRETARY OF WAR.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE. OR THE CHIEF of ENGINEERs,
Washington, February 28, 1912.
Memorandum for the Secretary of War (as to the sanitary district diversion
Of Water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago River, sanitary district
Canal, Illinois River, to the Mississippi Valley).
There are several special features of this Chicago Sanitary district diversion
and Illinois River power and waterway proposition which need special expla-
nation to anyone studying the proposition.
For purposes of navigation alone by canal and canalized river from Lake
Michigan to the Mississippi River, on the Illinois River and its headwaters
and connecting canals, and to keep the locks and pools full, a diversion from
Lake Michigan of less than 1,000 second-feet of water will easily supply any
reasonable demands and is all that Will be actually necessary, and any greater
diversion is a greater injury than benefit to navigation. The works of the
sanitary district of Chicago, originally constructed mainly for purposes of
sanitation, were designed to allow the diversion of 10,000 second-feet, which
they now request, and they are now found to be large enough for a total
diversion of 14,000 second-feet, the additional 4,000 second-feet having been
requested by them and refused by the War Department a few years ago
(injunction suit "still in progress), the extra water to be taken from Lake
Michigan through the Calumet River and a connecting canal following the
Sag route. The amounts requested, while perhaps needed at the present time,
will not be necessary later, after the full installation of the more modern
improved methods of treating sewage. The War Department, while awaiting
the definite action of Congress, has so far permitted the diversion of 4,167
second-feet. The sanitary district by its own recent statements is understood
to be using about 7,000 Second-feet. While it appears to have been assumed
at times that the sanitary district will be finally allowed by the United States
to divert 10,000 second-feet So long as actually necessary for sanitary purposes,
the diversion of the waters. Of the Great Lakes from their natural Outlet SO
far as desired merely for aid for power development is of doubtful legality
by reason of the terms of the recent treaty between the United States and
Great Britain, which appears to require the approval of such a diversion by
the International Joint Commission created pursuant to said treaty. The
treaty enables riparian owners of Canada, as well as of the United States,
*
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 729
who consider themselves injured by such diversion, to bring suits in United
States Courts to protect their interests.
The treaty also, although recognizing as proper the use of water necessary
for Sanitary purposes, provides for action, if necessary, by the commission
after request from the United States Congress or the Canadian Parliament,
and no Other Organization has power of final decision. It is the Opinion Of
the engineer, Lakes-to-the-Gulf Waterway Board (January 23, 1911), that, in
view of the rights and interests of navigation, only such water should be
diverted from Lake Michigan as is indispensable for Sanitation, and then only
With a provision for construction and maintenance of proper compensating Works
in the Outlets of the lakes to prevent a lowering of their levels; and that
although water thus diverted may be used incidentally for power purposes,
great care must be exercised by the War Department, when waiving the Ob-
jections Of navigation to the diversion of water for Sanitary purposes, to not
extend such waiver beyond the amount actually necessary for Sanitation alone.
Diversion of water from Lake Michigan and the St. Lawrence Basin into
the Illinois River and the Mississippi River and the Mississippi River Basin
is seriously objectionable from many standpoints and should be permitted
under the recent treaty with Canada. Only to such extent as is necessary for
sanitation of the city of Chicago. . The objections to such diversion of Water
are briefly as follows:
(a) The levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie for the last 20 years
and at the present moment are lower than their average of the last 50 years,
and their levels are now again falling. Every foot of draft in the harbors Of
these lakes and in the connecting rivers—St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit—is
exceedingly valuable to navigation ; and every cubic foot per second Of Water
flow taken out of Lake Michigan in excess of its natural outflow through Lake
Huron and the St. Clair River is a permanent loss to the water flow of the
St. Lawrence Basin and tends to injure navigation over the entire WaterWay
from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. While compensating Works
at the outlets of Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario may
be possible to an extent sufficient to maintain the existing and past levels
of these lakes, they will be very expensive and can not in any case prevent 10SS
of the St. Lawrence Basin of any water diverted into the Mississippi Basin; and
any loss of water by such diversion will make necessary further expensive
contraction works or dams or dredging the St. Clair, Detroit, and St. Lawrence
Rivers in order to maintain channel depths. Moreover, the same loss of Water
will permanently injure and diminish the water-power development capacity
Of the Niagara and St. Lawrence RiverS.
(b) Moreover, the dumpage of sewage into rivers, while heretofore allowable,
is becoming more objectionable every year and is being prevented more and
more every year by enactments of State legislatures throughout the COuntry.
Chicago, with reference to the Illinois River, is in much the same situation
as Worcester, Mass., with reference to the Blackstone River. In days long
past the sewage of Worcester flowed into the Blackstone and was Carried
down through the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island into Narragan-
sett Bay. The danger and damage to the people and industries of the Black-
stone River led to enactments of laws by the Massachusetts Legislature for-
bidding further sewage contamination of any of the State rivers, thus forc-
ing the inland cities of Massachusetts to the disposal of Sewage by modern,
improved methods, based upon mechanical and chemical treatment. , AS
Chicago and the cities along the Illinois River, increase in population it is to
be expected that the results of the sewage contamination of the river and the
legislative action of Massachusetts will be practically duplicated in Illinois,
where the remedy will be possible at a lower cost per head of population;
after which the diversion of large quantities of Lake Michigan Water into
Illinois River, being then no longer necessary for the sanitation of Chicago,
and neither now nor then for navigation" between Lake Michigan and the
Mississippi River, and being already of detriment and serious danger to the
important interests of navigation of the Great Takes system, will no longer
have any reason for continuance except for local benefit inside the State of
Illinois.
1 Even on the supposition that the waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi
River should at some future time provide for the passage of boats of over 20 feet
draft or any other greatest draft useful in the Great Lakes, such a navigation, can be
maintained with a diversion of Lake Michigan water less than one-fifth of fhat at
present in progress and less than one-fourteenth of that desired at present by the State
:authorities.
9.1739–24—PT 2—31
730 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
(c) Looked at from the point of view of conservation of water power,
every cubic foot of water diverted from Lake Michigan into the Illinois
River is an economic loss to the United States as a whole, as well as to Can-
ada, because the local conditions as regard river slope and fall are such that
this water, if sent through the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers to the At-
lantic, can develop twice as much power in the State of New York and, at the
same time, twice as much power in the Dominion of Canada as it can de-
velop in Illinois if sent through the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers to the
Gulf of Mexico.
From the above it is evident that it is of the greatest importance to the
United States that the diversion of water from Lake Michigan to the Illinois
River should be limited to merely Such amount as is actually indispensable to
sanitation, and that the United States should reserve to itself the right to re-
determine such amount every few years as local Conditions Change.
W. H. BIXBY,
Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
(The following reports, referred to by General Bixby, are printed
in full:)
[Document No. 6, 59th Congress, 1st session, Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of
Representatives, U. S.]
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN BY THE SANITARY
DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
UNITED STATES ENGINEERING OFFICE,
508 Federal Building, Chicago, Ill., May 22, 1906.
GENERAL : I have herewith to submit the following report upon the Subject
of withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan by the Chicago Drainage
District, as referred to me by first indorsement of your office, April 13, 1906,
upon letter of Hon. T. E. Burton dated April 11, 1906.
2. Assuming, from the last paragraph of that letter, that an immediate
answer was not required, I wrote to the Chicago sanitary district, and to
the Chicago River Improvement Association and to other interested parties,
to secure from them an expression of their views on the Subject, and I
expected to have received all their answers over three weeks ago. But
the confusion incident to a change of office of the sanitary district and to the
recent labor strike among the steamboats of this region, and Other unfore-
Seen circumstances, have delayed such reports. That of the sanitary district
is now received (copy herewith) but the date of receipt of the others can
not now be asserted with any certainty. Consequently I think best to submit
the present report without further delay, and will submit further reports after
the river association and Other parties have been heard from.
3. The present permits from the War Department to the Chicago sanitary
district are briefly as follows:
(a) That of May 8, 1899 (E. D. 35041 (?)). authorizing the diversion of
water from Lake Michigan via Chicago River, its South Branch and West
Fork, into the drainage canal at a point near Robey Street, Chicago; this per-
mit not specifying ally particular volume of water to be delivered, but, by
implication, indicating a volume of not exceeding 300,000 cubic feet per
minute (5,000 cubic feet per second), and a velocity not exceeding 1.25 miles
per hour (1.83 feet per second), which were the limits there named as
given in a prior permit for deepening and widening Chicago River as a
preliminary to the drainage canal construction. The real limit of the flow,
allowed under this permit, is the point at which “such flow may become un-
reasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property.”
(b) That of April 9, 1901 (E. D. 35242 (?)), authorizing a flow of 200,000
cubic feet per minute (3,333 cubic feet per second) from midnight to 4 p. m.,
followed by 300,000 cubic feet per minute (5.000 cubic feet per second) from
4 p. m. until midnight.
(c) That of December 5, 1901 (E. D. 35242/74), authorizing a flow of
250,000 cubic feet per minute (4,167 cubic feet per second) throughout
24 hours of the day.
(d) That of January 17, 1903 (E. D. 35242/80), authorizing a flow of
350,000 cubic feet per minute (5,833 cubic feet per second) during the winter
(closed navigation) season of that year until March 31, 1903.
(e) After the expiration Of the time limit of permit (d), the limit of permit
(c) of December 5, 1901, came again into effect; so that the present limits are
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 73L
250,000 cubic feet per minute (4,167 cubic feet per second) for 24 hours
per day.
4. Under the provisions of the Illinois drainage act of May 29, 1889 (Sec.S.
23–24), the Sanitary district is required to be able to maintain in the canal
a flow of 20,000 cubic feet per minute (333 cubic feet per second) for each
100,000 of population in its district, if such population at any time exceeds
1,500,000; and it is required, under certain provisions as to future navigation,
to give the canal a cross section sufficient to pass 600,000 Cubic feet per minute
(10,000 cubic feet per second) with a velocity not exceeding three miles per
hour (4.4 linear feet per second). The first condition would by inference
allow Only a population of 1,250,000 for the already authorized flow of 250,000
cubic feet per minute (4,167 cubic feet per second). and it does require a flow
of 300,000 cubic feet per minute (5,000 cubic feet per second) for the population
of 1,500,000 already claimed for the district. The volume of water flow so
far allowed by the War Department is therefore less than that at present
demanded by the Illinois State laws.
The cross section of the Chicago River when its widening shall be completed
by the drainage district will be such that at its smallest cross section (Omitting
contraction at bridge draws) it will pass a volume of 600,000 cubic feet per
minute (10,000 cubic feet per second), with a current of 1.46 miles per hour
(2.13 feet per second), this volume being considered sufficient for the district
for all actual needs of to-day as well as for several years more, or until the
district population shall reach 3,000,000. The sanitary condition of the river
has been so good so far with the 250,000 cubic feet per minute (4,167 cubic
feet per second) already authorized by the War Department that there is no
Special apparent need (other than legal) for a use to-day of any greater
Volume; but the sanitary district, looking to the completion of the river
widening in 1907–1909, desires the 300,000 cubic feet per minute required by
its charter for its present 1,500,000 population and, looking to the future,
naturally seeks authority for such a flow as will provide for still further en-
largement of the district and for future rapid growth of its population. This
situation has already been briefly explained to the War Department and to
Congress in the recent report on a 14-foot navigable waterway from Lockport,
Ill., to St. Louis, Mo., via the Des Plaines, Illinois, and Mississippi Rivers.
(Pp. 10–11, H. Doc. No. 263, 59th Cong., 1st sess.)
5. The future extent of demand for diversion of water from Lake Michigan,
in the neighborhood of Chicago, must not be supposed limited to Chicago River
alone, or even to the Chicago sanitary district as it was when originally
planned. The results of first work having indicated such good prospects for the
future, the original single intake through Chicago River main entrance has
already been augmented by a pumping plant on the lake near Thirty-ninth
Street, which pumps into the Thirty-ninth Street sewer to flush its contents
through the South (or Stock Yards) Ford and the West Fork, South Hranch,
Chicago River, to the head of the district drainage Canal near Robey Street,
this route accounting for the 2,000 cubic feet per second asked for the Thirty-
ninth Street sewer. In the same way a secondary canal is to be completed
from Calumet River, along the “Sag” route through the old State canal feeder.
to empty into the district drainage canal at a point about 18 miles from its
head in Chicago River and about 9 miles from Lockport, at which latter place
the main Canal now Overflows into the Des Plaines River, this route being
intended to drain and take sewage from an area around South Chicago, Ill.,
and East Chicago, Ind. (which latter place is likely some day to have a million
population of its own), and accounting for the 4,000 cubic feet now requested
for Calumet River. The 4,000 cubic feet may be enough for Calumet River for
a few years, but eventually there will be a demand for several times this
amount for its northwestern Indiana Surroundings.
According to recent newspaper articles there is a not improbable possibility
Of Other towns and cities On the lake front of northeastern Illinois and south-
eastern Wisconsin desiring to erect pumping plants along the lake front and to
pump their own sewage into the tributaries of the Des Plaines, and Fox rivers
and to draw large volumes of water from Lake Michigan for flushing pur-
poses by pumping stations and flushing conduits similar to the arrangement
at Thirty-ninth Street, Chicago. Furthermore, this office has recently been
informally told that there is a liability of a combined power and navigation
canal being established by private parties in the near future between Lake
Michigan and the Ohio River Basin which will wish to take considerable of
its water supply from Lake Michigan and will demand a right to the same by
reason of being an aid to navigation. Finally there are other water routes,
732 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
already partly in existence, by which the water of the West Fork of Chicago
River is liable to be drawn off direct into the Des Plaines River for power pur-
poses without passing through the drainage canal, and demands are liable to
be made at any time in this direction. Consequently, any question as to the
Volume of diversion of Lake Michigan waters into the Mississippi River Basin
must look forward to demands for a much greater diversion than the 10,000
Cubic feet per second now needed by the sanitary drainage district, and greater,
eVen, than the 14,000 cubic feet per second now requested by them for present
and future use. In my opinion, the War Department must look forward to a
future not unreasonable demand for from 20,000 to 30,000 cubic feet per sec-
Ond for navigation and sanitary purposes, to be taken out of Lake Michigan at
points along the Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana shores.
6. If water diversion must be limited (as already appears necessary to safe-
guard the future public use of the same) it would seem to this office that the
first right to the use of the water belongs to navigation, to which water is an
absolute necessity. The second right belongs to the public needs for sanitary
purposes, so far as they can not be provided for otherwise, and the use of
Water for power purposes alone should be made secondary to the above, since
it is always possible to obtain power in other ways. For such reasons I con-
sider the sanitary district request and other similar requests should be given
more Weight than such requests as are based merely upon uses for power pur-
poses.
7. The foregoing general information and discussion has been given above
in Order to make easier a consideration of back reports and back history should
the War Department desire to refer to them during further discussions of this
Question, and also in order to make easier the consideration of such new re-
ports as may be brought forward from time to time. The actual experience
of the past has so far given no definite, plainly observable, direct results to
govern the future treatment of the questions at issue. Such treatment must
therefore still be based upon theoretical Or “academic ’’ discussions as to prob-
able water levels, probable currents, and probable difficulties in handling the
large boats that are expected to use Chicago River and the waterway from
Lake Michigan through Chicago River, the drainage canal, and Illinois River
to the Mississippi So fast and so far as the 20 feet, 14 feet, and 8 feet depth
channels may be extended or otherwise Secured in the future.
8. The expected effect of the proposed water diversion upon lake and river
levels has been briefly discussed by the 14-feet waterway board in 1905 (p. 11,
H. Doc. No. 263, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.) and by the United States lake survey
guite fully in 1900 and 1904 (p. 5401, annual report 1900; pp. 4120 and 4131,
annual report 1904). This discussion by the United States lake survey ap-
pears to be the most reliable yet offered by anyone, and its predicted results
are apparently not disputed by either the sanitary district or any other ex-
isting engineering authority. -
9. From the point of view of the lake Survey discussion upon this subject, I
affirm positively that any continuous permanent diversion of water from Lake
Michigan into the Mississippi River Basin through the sanitary district drain-
age canal or other waterways must necessarily effect a permanent lowering of
the average water level of Lakes Michigan and Huron if the effect be consid-
ered as measured below the levels which would exist in these lakes if no such
diversion were allowed. The only question at issue is, therefore, whether such
lowering will be appreciable and serious.
10. From the lake survey discussion, above referred to, it will be evident
that—

One year’s steady flow- t
age in cubic feet—
Will equal a volume equivalent to that of L
Per Per
second minute
4, 167 250, 000 1.3 inches depth--
6,000 360,000 1.8 inches depth--
8,000 480,000 2.4 inches depth-- -
10,000 600,000 3.0 inches depth--UOver the entire water surface (45,314 square miles)
12,000 720, 000 3.5 inches depth--ſ of Lakes Michigan and Huron combined.
14,000 840, 000 4.1 inches depth--
20,000 1, 200,000 5.9 inches depth-
30,000 1,800,000 | 8.9 inches depth.)
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 733
It is evident that long-continued diversion of the above volumes of Water
must produce Serious cumulative effects not necessärily Specially Observable in
the first few years, but Sure and certain in its final effects upon the average
level after several years; and the consequent permanent lowering will continue
until the time comes when the Water Surface of the head of St. Clair River
(natural outlet of Lakes Michigan and Huron) shall have lowered enough to
Cause the loss of water flow St. Clair River to equal the newly developed water
flow through the new diversion outlets. Were it not that the volume of outflow
Of Lake Huron diminishes slightly as the surface level drops, the surface level
Of combined Lakes Michigan and Huron would be lowered each year by an
amount equal to that Of the last Column of the above table.
11. As it has been found by reliable observations of the United States Lake
Survey (see 1904 annual report, above quoted) that a fall of 1 foot in Lake
Huron level corresponds to a loss of 19,238 cubic feet per second in the flow
discharge through St. Clair River, it becomes evident that the final perma-
ment lowering Of Lakes Michigan and Huron levels will be a little more than
twice as much as the depths given in the above table as corresponding to the
actual volume of a single year's flow. The lake survey formulae lead to actual
results approximately as follows:

Flowage of diversion | Depth of lowering of the surface of Lakes Michi-
canals and outlets— gan and Huron at the end of the—
Per Sec- - First Third Fifth -
Ond Per minute year year year Final
Cubic feet | Cubic feet Inches Inches Inches Inches Feet
4, 167 250,000 1 2 2 3 0.2
6,000 360,000 1 3 3 4 ... 3
8,000 480,000 2 4 5 5 ... 4
10,000 600,000 -2–––. 5- -]----0--------6 . . 5
12,000 720,000 3 6 7 7 ... 6
14,000 840, 000 3 7 8 9 ... 7
20,000 1, 200,000 5 10 11 13 1. 1
y 1,800,000 7 14 17 19 1.6
In percentage--------- 38 76 91 100
These effects may be one-twentieth more during years of low lake stages Or
One-Seventh less during years of high lake stages.
12. The effect on Lake Erie will be very closely four-fifths of the above and
will in like manner amount to approximately as follows:
Flowage of diversion Depth of lowering of the surface of Lake Erie
canals and outlets— at the end of the
Per Sec- - First Third Fifth º
ond Per minute year year year Final
Cubic feet | Cubic feet Inches Inches | | Inches Inches Feet
4, 167 250,000 1 1 2 2 0.2
6,000 360,000 1 2 3 3 ... 3
8,000 480,000 2 3 4 4 ... 3
10,000 600,000 2 4 5 5 .4
12,000 720,000 3 5 6 6 . 5
14,000 840, 000 3 6 7 8 ... 6
20,000 1, 200,000 4 8 9 11 .9
30,000 1,800,000 6 12 14 16 1. 3
ſhe effects may be one-twentieth more during years of low lake Stages or
Jne-Seventh less during years of high lake stages.
13. By examination of the last graphical chart prepared by the United
States Lake Survey to show the water levels of the Great Lakes from 1860 to
1904 (opposite p. 4056, annual report 1904), it will be seen that these lakes
act as storage ponds, and their surface levels gradually rise whenever rain-
fall is greater than evaporation and run-off, and gradually fall under the Op-
posite conditions. The chart shows Lakes Michigan' and Huron to rise and
fall practically as a unit, and these two lakes, with Lake Erie, rise regularly
734 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
from 0.5 to 1.7 feet every spring, and they fall nearly an equal amount every
autumn, being usually lowest in January-February and highest in July-August.
In addition, the average level gradually rises during a series of wet years and
falls during a series of dry years. In 1879–80 the water level of Lakes Michi-
gan and Huron was at about a medium stage (about 581.2 above New York
Harbor, after which the annual average gradually rose about 0.3 foot on an
average each year until 1886, when it reached as high as at any time since 1860
(Standing about 583), after which it fell about 0.3 foot per year until 1895–96,
When it was lower than any prior record, even that of 1847 (standing about
579.5), after which it again started upward, its average rise for the past nine
years being, however, only 0.12 foot per year, leaving the water level of 1904–5
at a Standstill and at an exceedingly low stage (about 580.6), where a downward
tendency of level would seriously damage the interests of navigation and lead
to great expense to the Federal Government for extensive redredging in all the
harbors Of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, and in the adjoining waterways
of St. Marys River from Lake Huron upward to the foot of the Sault Locks,
and in the St. Clair River and Lake and Detroit River from Lake Huron down-
Ward to Lake Erie.
Furthermore, by reason of winds and barometric effects, oscillations of 6
inches Several times in a single day are frequent, and 2 to 4 feet within an
lmour are Occasionally experienced. Consequently, individual exceptional levels
are misleading, and the general effects of water divisions must be measured by
annual average rather than by monthly or daily. Even when considering only
annual levels, the irregular Oscillation of the annual average lake surface,
Combined with the fact that So far the Sanitary district diversion has been
confined to 4,167 cubic feet per second (250,000 cubic feet per minute), makes
it difficult for anyone to prove that the 0.2 foot final lowering expected theo-
retically from the past 250,000 cubic feet per minute diversion has really been
the cause of the present unusually slow recovery from the unusually low stage
of 1895–96, and of the present practical continuance of dangerously low water
Stages. But the danger of further lowering of this level another 0.5 foot or
more by an increase of the recently allowed 4,167 cubic feet per second up to
10,000 and 14,000 cubic feet per Second, as now requested, is undoubtedly real
and should be evident from the above remarkS.
14. If diversions of from 4,167 to 30,000 cubic feet per second from Lake
Michigan should be actually made at any future time, then the next time that
redredging becomes necessary in rivers and harbors of Lakes Michigan, Huron,
and Erie it will become necessary for the Federal Government to dredge to
lower levels than before, and the extra depth of Such necessary dredging must
be taken at the figures of the last Columns of the above tables of paragraphs
11–12, viz, at from 0.2 to 1.6 feet in Lakes Michigan and Huron and from 0.2 to
1.3 feet in Lake Erie, dependent upon the amount of diversion allowed. The
only way of avoiding such extra dredging will be by holding up the water
levels of all these lakes by dams and other controlling works across the exits
of these lakes, which will be expensive and probably impracticable for Lakes
Michigan and Huron and expensive, but, practicable and eventually probable
for Lake Erie. The diversion of the 14,000 cubic feet per Second named in
the request of the Chicago Sanitary District of April 11 would therefore mean
future dredging some day to 0.7 foot extra depth in all harbors of Lakes
Michigan and Huron and to 0.6 foot in those of Lake Erie (or its equivalent
in dams, etc.). The cost of such dredging or dams, etc., Will be the price to
be eventually paid by the Federal Government for granting such privileges
to the sanitary district.
15. The expected effect of the water division through Chicago River and the
sanitary district drainage canal upon the use of the river and canal by naviga-
tion is an entirely different Question from that of lowering of lake levels; and
again I find that past experience fails to show definite direct results which can
be used for deciding future effects. So far the actual flow under the above-
named War Department permits has ordinarily been kept within the limits of
the permits, although occasionally, during seasons of suspended or slackened
navigation, such limits may have been exceeded for short intervals for ex-
perimental purposes. Except where the resulting flow has been temporarily
increased by irregular causes (such as sudden natural changes of lake level),
for which the Sanitary district has not been responsible, the currents have not
so far proved to be unreasonably, or even moderately, obstructive to navigation
or injurious to property. At times some protests have been made against a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 735
feared impending danger, and a few complaints have been made about troubles
actually realized, but in practically all such cases the dangers and trouble have
apparently proved to be largely imaginary or exaggerated. Such complaints, as
a rule, have been due not to unreasonable currents, but mainly to the fact that
prior to the opening of the drainage canal the Chicago River was ordinarily a
quiet pool of dead water except for short intervals during strong winds and a
rising or falling barometer ; and the change from this quiet pool to a WaterWay
with a constant current required the adoption of new or different methods for
handling boats and required time for people to get used to the change.
In the few cases where past troubles from currents have been real, they have
been due to the contracted channel ways at bridges, tunnels, and other special
points, where full dimensions of water flow have already been secured Or are
being secured by the drainage district improvements, or will be soon provided
by tunnel owners. These troubles in the past have been quite freely and fully
commented upon or reported upon by the boat interests and by this Office, the
most important of such reports being those of the hearing before the honorable
Secretary of War, May 16, 1900 (E. D. 35242/7), that of Major Willard, Feb-
ruary 16, 1901 (with third indorsement on E. D. 45242/26), that of Major
Willard, June 20, 1900 (E. D. 35242/(?), that of Major Willard, March 29,
1901 (with third indorsement on E. D. 35242/40), and that of Colonel Ernst,
November 5, 1901 (which led to permit E. D. 35242/74, quoted above). These
reports show that the greatest velocity heretofore actually observed at any
single point of the worst old bridge draw opening (that of Canal Street, now
greatly improved), was 2.24 miles per hour (3.29 feet per second), while the
average for a whole cross section at this draw was only about 1.8 miles per
hour (2.6 feet per second), and the average for a full 200-foot width of river
just above and below the bridge would not have been over 1.2 miles per hour
(1.8 feet per second) ; and that even a large part of this was probably due to
sudden changes of lake levels for which the drainage district was not re-
Sponsible. These currents, although much complained of at the time, are not
greater than are constantly encountered in many tidal rivers on the Atlantic
coast, where no complaints are made, because all boat captains and pilots are
accustomed to such currents and make their arrangements accordingly.
16. But if complaints have been urgently presented in the past at Chicago
with an allowed flow of 4.167 cubic feet per second, there is no doubt but that
further and numerous complaints must be expected when the total volume of
flow shall be doubled, although the velocities to be met by a single boat passing
through any unobstructed portion of this river in future years will still be
Very Small, Owing to the new clear widths and clear depths being SO great as to
make the new cross section of the river at constricted places more than double
the old crosssection. Future trouble in the Chicago River due to the currents
Caused by the drainage district diversions, will be due not SO much to the actual
Volume of water passing as to the fact that the public expects from the Chicago
River to-day the performance of three entirely different functions, viz, (a)
Service as a Sewer to carry Off water freely, (b) service as the main wharfage
area or principal dock or slip of Chicago Harbor, and (c) service as a canal for
free passage of boats from one end of the harbor to the other, including,
probably, in a few years, service as the most important portion of the through
canal or water route from Lake Michigan to the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers.
The Chicago River, even after enlargement to 200 feet width and 26 feet depth,
according to the present plans of the sanitary district, will have all it can do
to properly fulfill either one of the above functions alone, and it can not reas-
onably be expected to properly fulfill any two of such functions, and much less
to fulfill all three together.
17. In the capacity of sewer to properly carry off all the diluted sewage
which the sanitary district must dispose of in the future, the South Branch
and West Fork of Chicago River and the district drainage canal will need the
use of the full cross section now being given to them at their typical points of
construction, viz, 4,700 square feet in South Branch, Chicago River, where a
future 8,000 cubic feet per second is now asked for ; 5,220 square feet in West
Fork, South Branch, Chicago River, 5,412 Square feet in the earth sections
and 3,542 Square feet in the rock Sections of the drainage canal, for all of which
10,000 cubic feet per second is now asked for ; and 5,412 square feet in the lower
(South) end of the drainage canal, where 14,000 cubic feet per second is now
being asked for. I assume that after this volume of water reaches the Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers it can be taken care of more easily than in the
Chicago River and that the 2,800 square feet cross section of the proposed 14-
736 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
foot waterway, now under consideration by Congress, will be supplemented
Sufficiently by the rest of the natural river on each side of the improved boat
Channel. The above cross sections, so long as no boats lie at wharves or pass
up and down the river, will allow the passage of the 8,000 cubic feet per second
through the South Branch, with average Velocities of not exceeding about 1.2
miles per hour (1.7 linear feet per Second) ; 10,000 cubic feet through the West
I'ork, with average velocities of not exceeding about 1.3 miles per hour (1.9 lin-
ear feet per Second), and the same flow through the earth Sections of canal at not
exceeding 1.2 miles per hour (1.8 linear feet per second), and through the rock
Section of Canal at not exceeding 1.9 miles per hour (2.8 linear feet per Second) ;
and 14,000 cubic feet through the lower end of canal at not exceeding 1.8 miles
per hour (2.6 linear feet per second). .
Wherever the full free cross Section of the river is obstructed by bridge
abutments or by boats, either at docks or passing, the average 8,000 to "10,000
Cubic feet per second water flow must pass through the reduced CrOSS Section
an increased Speed. The full development Of this increase, While not instanta-
neous, will require only a few moments. In this manner, at bridges, the
velocities will be increased for a short length by about 30 per cent; at places
where two boats of 40 to 50 feet beam and 800 square feet wetted cross
Section are abreast the increase of velocity will be about 50 per cent ; at places
Where three such boats are abreast the increase will be about 100 per Cent, and
in Case four such boats should be abreast (One tied up at the wharf On each
side of the stream and two others trying to pass in mid-river, the increase will
be about 200 per cent. The drainage currents in the South Fork, South Branch,
due to the 2,000 cubic feet per second coming from the Thirty-ninth street
pumping station, and in the North Branch, due to a similar pumpage proba-
bly soon to be established at some street near Evanston, in the north end
Of Chicago, will be only about one-half of those in the South Branch, and
their effects will probably be so Small as not to be complained of by navi-
gation interests. The drainage currents in the canal proper between the West
Fork and LOCkport will be about the same as in the South Branch ; but as this
part of the Canal was not originally a public water way and has not yet
been accepted as such by the Federal Government, it is doubtful whether the
United States Can Object to any currents which its Owners may establish or
desire to establish therein. It is therefore evident that SO long as the Chicago
River Serves merely as a sewer and is not to be used by boats the drainage
district currents will not be objectionable, but as soon as it is also used as a
harbor or as a canal or water route the currents begin to be seriously ques-
tionable.
18. I can see no use of Chicago River as a harbor or place for wharf
frontage unless boats can Stop and tie up Somewhere nor unless they can
pass each other to get to their places of wharfage, and On a stream like
Chicago River the Wharf owners on each side of the stream must be entitled
to equal privileges. This means that there should be room for one boat to tie up
on each side of the river and room for at least a third boat to pass.
19. The Chicago boat owners claim that the Chicago commerce has been
seriously crippled because the tunnels prevented passage of boats drawing over
16 feet; that boats less than 45 feet beam are going out of existence on the
Great Lakes. and that Chicago Harbor must provide future facilities for
boats of 45, 50, and even 60 feet beam. I therefore assume in the following
discussion that the advantageous use of Chicago River by boats must require
preparation for boats of from 40 to 50 feet beam and 800 square feet of
wetted cross section when loaded. A mere dock or boat slip of 3 or 4 boats'
length (say 2,000 feet) should, for advantageous use by 50-foot-beam boats,
have a clear width of 175 feet if straight, and 200 feet if at all curved, to
allow of a boat tied up On each side and of one boat at a time entering or leav-
ing the slip, allowing a few feet between them for free motion; but if the
boat slip be more than 2,000 or 3,000 feet length it should, for safety of navi-
gation and economy of time, be 50 feet wider, so as to allow of four full-
sized boats abreast. tWO at wharves and two passing in mid-stream.
20. As Chicago River, South Branch, including its west fork up to the drain-
age canal entrance, is about 5.57 miles long and only 200 feet wide, and not
straight, it is at present not wide enough for use as a boat slip or harbor for
40 to 50 feet length boats, except in alternate sections of half-mile lengths,
and it can not advantageously be used even in that way for harborage purposes
except by boats of less than 40-foot beam. Even then, as soon as one boat ties
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 737
up at a Wharf and a second boat tries to pass it, the current velocity in the
South Branch, With 8,000 cubic feet per second drainage flow, is liable to
increase (for the reasons given in paragraph 17) to 1.8 miles per hour (2.6
linear feet per Second), and when three boats are abreast the current is liable
to increase to 2.4 miles per hour (3.5 linear feet per second). With four
boats abreast the current is liable to reach 3.6 miles per hour (5.3 linear
feet per second). *
21. These currents, due to the use of Chicago River for combined sewerage
and harbor purposes, will vary with the volume of passing water about YS
follows: %

| Current in South Branch, Chicago River (hav-
ing 4,700 Square feet wetted croSS Section),
which may be expected with boats of 800
Volume of Square feet wetted CrOSS Section
water flow
2 boats 3 boats 4 boats
Open river abreast abreast abreast
Cu. ft. per sec. Ft. per sec. Ft. per sec. Ft. per sec. Ft. per sec.
4, 167 0.9 1. 3 1.8 2.8
6,000 1. 3 1.9 2, 6 4. 0
8,000 1. 7 2.6 3.5 5.3
10,000 2. 1 3.2 4.3 6.7
12,000 2. 6 3.9 5.2 8. 0
14,000 3. 0 4.5 6. 1 9.3
22. The Corresponding currents in the South Fork and in the earth Section
of the main drainage canal Will be a trifle less, so as to give about the same
Currents for three boats abreast as Will the South Branch for two boats
abreast. The currents in the rock section of the drainage canal will be greater
for two boats abreast than they Will be for three boats abreast in the South
JBranch. These currents are those due merely to the passage of the volume of
water to be used at all hours of the day by the Sanitary district, and are such
as must be expected even though all the boats may be themselves tied up at the
wharves or otherwise motionless. The obstructing boats will materially back
up the Water Somewhat On their upstream Sides, and between the Suck due to
the passing water and the pressure due to the temporary difference of head
above and below the boats the anchored Or tied-up boats will Surge and tend
to tear themselves from their Imoorings. Obviously, with such currents and a
waterway only 200 feet wide, two boats abreast in Chicago River, South
Branch, may cause trouble, three boats Will be the limit of practicability, and
four boats abreast will become dangerous. Conditions will be a trifle better
in the West Fork and earth sections of the drainage canal, and much worse
in the rock section of the drainage Canal.
23. Intereference with the use of Chicago River for mere harborage purposes
Imust therefore be expected when the drainage canal flow through the South
Branch reaches 8,000 cubic feet per second and that through the West Fork
Teaches about 10,000 cubic feet per second. The only remedies then possible
will be (a) to stop further diversion (as can now be done under the provisions
of the existing permit which limit the diversion to the indefinite time and
volume when “such flow may become unreasonably obstructive to navigation
or injurious to property "), (b) to further widen or deepen the river (the
widening being impracticable by reason of high cost of river bank property
and the deeping being questionable because of danger to foundations of adjoin-
ing buildings), and (c) to move Chicago harborage out of the river into the
Wake (where it nroperly belongs and where further expansion will be much less
costly to the Federal Government and quite practicable within reasonable
Timits). -
24. From what has been said in the preceding paragraph it also should be
obvious that Chicago River can not be advantageously used as a canal Or a
through waterway for boats of over 40 feet beam without either abandoning
the use of the river for wharfage purposes or for drainage purposes, or both.
Engineering authorities, as a rule, agree that a canal for through boat travel
should have a cross section six times as great as the cross section of the boats
91739–24—PT 2 32
738 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
for which it is built, in order to allow of free travel and passage of one
boat each way all the time, and that wherever boats must tie up the cross
Section must be increased by the addition of special wharf fronts or harbors
On the side of the regular channel. A lesser cross section add greatly to the
deterioration of banks or revetments, diminishes greatly the speed of travel
of boats, and makes the proper handling of boats quite difficult. Chicago
River, South Branch, and the West Fork are only four times as wide as the
boats which Chicago wishes to use in it and have only the total cross section
needed for a canal to properly serve such boats even if its water were that
of a quiet pool without any current at all. Any use of the river as a harbor
or any use of it as a sewer interferes with its proper use as a canal or through
Water route.
The Currents to be expected by passing boats are already given above, ex-
Cept as affected by bridges. I do not consider that on the Chicago River,
South Branch, and West Fork, the bridge interference need be considered,
because under the plans of the Chicago drainage district all these bridges are
given a clear span of 140 feet, and under the city ordinances boats are for-
bidden to tie up at or close to a bridge, and because boats will rarely attempt
to pass each other in a bridge draw, so that the currents due to a bridge
obstruction will not be materially different from those due to two boats pass-
ing each other in open river or to two boats tied up at the wharves, one on
each side of the river. So omitting bridge obstruction, the currents met by
moving boats, so far as due to the drainage canal water flow, will be prac-
tically as above given for boats at rest. In considering the question of boat
handling, and the speed and safety of the same, there must be borne in mind
always the boat's own velocity when in motion, which of course should be
added to the current velocity, in order to determine the relative velocities
of the boats and the river, also the difficulty of quickly displacing the river
Water to make room for the boat’s own bulk ; also the head of Water tem-
porarily banked up by the boat in its front during its travel through the river.
Boatmen in Chicago River do not seem to be agreed as to the water velocities,
which they regard as unreasonably obstructive to their boats, but state such
velocities usually at somewhere between 2 and 5 miles per hour (about 3 and
7 feet per second) ; but all velocities above 2 miles per hour (3 feet per
Second) due to water flow through Chicago River appear to be questionable
and usually objectionable. If the river is to be continued in use as a through
waterway and also as a harbor, both for heavy-draft boats, all use for drain-
age purposes is very objectionable above a flow of 6,000 cubic feet per second
and will probably become “unreasonably obstructive to navigation and in-
jurious to property " at about 6,000 cubic feet per second in the North Branch
and at about 8,000 cubic feet per second in the West Fork. If the harborage
use of the river be abandoned, the limit of unreasonable obstruction to future
navigation will probably arrive at about 8,000 cubic feet per second in the
South Branch and about 10,000 cubic feet per second in the West Fork, and
also in the lower end of the drainage canal below the point of receipt of the
Calumet River sewerage arriving via the Sag and feeder canal.
25. Summing up the above it may be briefly stated, therefore, that 10,000
cubic feet per second diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the drainage
canal will be, probably, not unreasonably obstructive to navigation and in-
jurious to property if divided up into 6,000 cubic feet per second through the
main river and south branch, increased by 2,000 cubic feet per second more
through the Thirty-ninth Street sewer and 2,000 cubic feet per second more
through Calumet River (10,000 cubic feet per second in all), but that an in-
crease in these amounts to 8,000, 2,000, and 4,000 cubic feet, respectively
(14,000 cubic feet per second in all), will probably prove to be unreasonably
obstructive and injurious. Also that the 10,000 cubic feet per second Will
eventually and permanently lower the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron
by about 0.5 foot and Lake Erie by about 0.4 foot, and 14,000 cubic feet per
second will make these depths 0.7 and 0.6 foot, respectively, which will be
quite costly in future results.
Very respectfully,
W. H. BIXBY,
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers.
Brig. Gen. A. MACKENZIE,
Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army,
Washington, D. C.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 739
CHIICAGO, May 12, 1906.
DEAR SIR: Yours of April 18 last, addressed to the president of the Sanitary
District of Chicago, was by him referred to me for reply. Taking up your
interrogations seriatim, I submit the following:
“A. How much will the withdrawal of water probably lower the level of
Lake Michigan, giving inches of lowering and time in which to take full
effect?, ?”
This inquiry is one which I frankly confess my inability to answer. The
data necessary to the answering of this question are not in hand, and a board
of engineers, of which you are an honored member, makes this statement:
WESTED RIGHTS
“The effect upon the level of Lake Michigan of withdrawing 10,000 cubic
feet per second for an indefinite period has been the subject of an elaborate
investigation under the office of the Lake Survey in Detroit, and the conclusion
reached is that the final effect will be to lower the level about 6 inches. (See
Annual Report of Chief of Engineers for 1900, p. 5401, and for 1902, pp. 2779,
2825; also for 1904, p. 4120.) Oscillation of more than 6 inches in the level
of the lake's surface are very common, often occurring hourly for many hours
in succession, while oscillations of 2 or 3 feet within an hour are not uncom-
mon. Still greater Oscillations within a year or series of years Occur, all from
natural causes. Moreover, during a severe winter the discharge of St. Clair
River is reduced by ice to less than One-third its normal discharge, the
remaining two-thirds being stored up in Lakes EHuron and Michigan and rais-
ing their levels; and the difference between the total discharge during a
Severe winter and the discharge during a mild winter will probably equal, Or
nearly equal, the discharge Of the Chicago Drainage Canal for a year. A
permanent average lowering of 6 inches in the lake's level, therefore, is not
easily observed and will probably not be noticed by navigators. Nevertheless,
the effect is real and important. Evideiat; v there is a limit to the amount Of
water which can be taken from the Southern end of Lake Michigan without
Compensating works at the Outlet Of Lake Huron.
“The board does not condemn the present plan of taking 10.000 cubic feet per
SeCOnd, believing as it does that some Such amount will be needed to protect
the lives and health Of the people of a great city and a populous valley; but
it invites attention to the fact that if a much larger amount be taken it will be
necessary to COnstruct remedial Works elsewhere, and that these are, Or
ShOuld be, Of an international character. It is led to make this remark by the
attitude of the Illinois Legislature and of the other principal advocates of this
enterprise, which is that the 14-foot waterway is only a beginning, and that
a much deeper channel ultimately should be constructed. which means that
a much larger volume of water must be taken from Lake Michigan. It is the
Opinion Of the board that the Sanitary l’easons for the abstraction of Water SO
far exceed and Overshadow the Commercial reasons that the amount should be
strictly limited by the sanitary necessities of the case. It is impossible to
fix a limit to the future growth of Chicago. In a future not far remote larger
amounts of water may be needed for sanitary purposes, and channels deeper
than 14 feet will then become practicable in the Open alluvial portion of the
Illinois River.”
Bulletin No. 15, Survey of Northern and Northwestern Lakes, United States
Engineer Corps, dated April 15, 1905, gives physical data for each of the Great
Lakes from which I have collected the following facts:
The aggregate area of the basins of Lakes Michigan and Huron is 143,400
square miles, the aggregate rainfall on which is 343,064 cubic feet per second.
and the outflow 131,400 cubic feet per second (206,400–75,000=131,400);
the evaporation and land absorption would therefore be 211,664 cubic feet per
second. Working on the basis of these figures we find that 1 foot in depth,
or 45,500 square miles, the aggregate area of the two lakes, would equal
1,268,467,200,000 cubic feet and that would take 2 years and 318.64 days
to discharge that volume of water at the rate of 14,000 cubic feet per second.
The time that it will take for the lakes to reach an approximately fixed
régimen when Subjected to the withdrawal of the volume of water asked for
by us can Only be determined by such a long series of observations as is sug-
gested by your honorable board.
740 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
An opportunity to compare the mean monthly elevations of Lake Michigan
for five years prior to the opening of the canal with the five years there-
after may be of interest and is therefore given below. The data for this
Comparison is taken from a table issued by the United States lake survey
office, Detroit, Mich., sent us by Col. G. J. Lydecker, under date of March 21,
1906. The showing indicates a higher stage of water in the lake for the five
years since the withdrawal of water through the Sanitary canal than that
which obtained during the five years previous to 1900, which simply indicates
that the rainfall during that period has exceeded the total outflow and evapora-
tion from the lake basins, the impounded excess serving to raise the lake level.
From the indications afforded by these tables and charts it would seem
that any conjecture advanced to the effect that 10,000 cubic feet per second
withdrawn from the southern end of Lake Michigan would lower that lake
and Lake Huron 6 inches is not based upon Observations made by the United
States engineers, but is purely academic.
“B. What will be the resulting currents in the Chicago River (a) for 8,000
Cubic feet per second between the lake and junction of river with the Thirty-
ninth Street sewage water flow 2"
This is figured for a datum stage of the lake as 114 miles per hour when
the channel is widened throughout the stretch in question to 200 feet, deepened
to 16 feet at dock lines, and 26 feet 50 feet out from dock—that is, given a
cross section of 4,700 square feet. There will be an acceleration of current
through bridge openings due to channel constructions. (b) “That (velocity)
for the 10,000 cubic feet per second between the point where the Thirty-ninth
Street water flow joins with the river and the point where the Calumet inflow
connects with the river or drainage canal? " -
This flow enters the West Fork of the South Branch through the Windage
Basin, recently created by the United States Government, at Ashland Avenue
and the forks of the river, and flows west through the said West Fork into
the drainage canal at Robey Street. This division of the West Fork has a
width of 220 feet and a cross section when fully improved of 5,220 square feet.
The sanitary and ship canal between Robey Street and Summit, 7.8 miles,
has not been excavated to full width, but it is to be given a cross section
which will reduce the velocity of flow to 134 miles per hour with 10,000 cubic
feet per second passing. Between Summit and Willow Springs the channel
has a cross section of 5,412 Square feet. When the minimum depth of 22 feet
prevails the resulting velocity would be about 134 miles per hour. At Willow
Springs the rock channel is entered and its cross section, with a 22-foot
depth, is 3,542 square feet, giving a velocity for a flow of 10,000 cubic feet
per second of 1.92 miles per hour. This is for navigable uses a practically
Straight channel without an obstruction of any kind in it.
The theory upon which this channel was designed was that there would
be a slope of 2.5 feet from the lake to Robey Street and of 1.7 feet from there
to Willow Springs and of 3.92 feet from Willow Springs to Lockport, making
a total slope of 8.12 feet. Observations and determinations made since the
opening of the channel show a much less slope than was anticipated, and hence
a greater capacity. These Observations lead us to conclude that the rock
channel has a capacity of 840,000 cubic feet per minute at a velocity of about
2.6 miles per hour.
“C. That (velocity) for the 14,000 feet per second through the drainage
Canal or other waterway below where the Calumet River inflow is received,
assuming cross sections above Lockport equal to that of the drainage canal
and below Rockport to be that of the newly proposed' ship canal (200 feet
width, 14 feet depth) 2*
This question may be answered as to the regular' section of the drainage
Canal, but without a detailed study involving much time can not be answered
South of the controlling Works, because the drainage canal debouches into a
basin of irregular width, giving a very greatly increased cross section as far as
the new power plant. The channel south of the power plant will not conform
to the hypothesis of 200 feet width by 14 feet depth, because it will pass
through slack-water pools, and when it reaches the Illinois River it will have
a much greater cross Section than that due to 200 by 14 feet, for the report
of the Commission ShoWS that even after the removal of the dams in the
Illinois River there would be a 7-foot waterway with a flow of 4,200 cubic
feet per Second (See report, p. 18, last paragraph) ; it is therefore apparent
that in such a stream Whose natural width is largely in excess of 200 feet, the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 74.1
|
result of excavating within its banks 7 feet or more to give a depth of 14 feet,
would leave a channel the cross section of which would greatly exceed 2,800
square feet; hence a computation based upon that area would be misleading
and useless.
In the subdivisions of question C it is hard to determine the leading question
of velocity, particularly as in 2 and 3 no dimensions of boats are given. How-
ever, if there were boats at dock on each side of a 200-foot channel I can not
conceive of such rashness as an attempted passage between them of two boats
moving in opposite directions unless the attempt is made by very small craft.
Yours, very” truly,
Is HAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer.
W. H. BIxBY,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A.,
Federal Building, City.
LAKE MICHIGAN AT MILWAUKEE, WIS.
Average monthly, annual, and periodic stages for certain characteristic periods
r from 1819 to 1905
[Referred to mean tide at New York, lake-survey level adjustment 1903. Data 1860-
1905 furnished by United States lake survey office under date of March 21, 1906, by
G. J. Lydecker, colonel, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army. Data, 1819, 1838, 1847, from
report of United States Deep-Water Commission, 1896. I
[Sanitary district of Chicago, May 11, 1906–Compiled by E. L. Cooley]

Year January February | March April May June July
1895---------------------------- 579.91 579. 80 579. 77 579. 97 580. 13 580. J.8 580. 07
1896---------------------------- 579. 06 579. 10 579. 11 579. 29 579. 57 579. 89 579. 83
1897---------------------------- 579, 33 579. 41. 579. 72 579. 89 580. 38 580. 65 580. 84
1898---------------------------- 579. 72 579. 86 580. 18 580. 50 580. 78 580.91 580, 86
1899---------------------------- 579. 53 579, 61 579. 81 580. 08 580. 52 580. 83 581. 04
Monthly average --------- 579. 51 579, 56 579. 72 579.95 580. 28 580. 49 580. 53
Septem- Novem- || Decem- Annual
Year August ber October ber ber average
1895--------------------------------------- 579, 95 579. 68 579.31 579. 09 578.98 | 579. 74
1896--------------------------------------- 579. 76 579. 66 579, 61 579. 39 579.34 579. 47
1897--------------------------------------- 580. 78 580. 53 580. 24 579, 98 579. 76 580. 13
1898---------- sm º º º ºs ºs º º ºs m. º. º. ºº º º 580. 69 580. 34 580. 33 579, 92 579, 58 580. 31
1899--------------------------------------- 580. 96 580. 82 580. 49 580, 31 579, 81 580. 32
Monthly average-------------------- 580.43 580. 21 580.00 579. 74 579, 49 579, 99
Year January February | March April May June July
1900---------------------------- 579, 66 579. 77 579.94 580. 07 580. 31 580. 42 580. 53
1901---------------------------- 579, 95 579. 92 580, 34 580. 49 580. 92 580. 97 581. 06
1902---------------------------- 579, 76 579. 61 579. 84 579, 91 580. 30 580. 50 580. 83
1903---------------------------- 579, 69 579. 85 580. 06 580. 33 580. 43 580. 61 580. 79
1904---------------------------- 579.87 579. 86 580. 15 580, 61 580, 98 581. 36 581. 36
Monthly average--------- 579. 79 579, 80 580. 07 580. 28 580. 59 580. 77 580. 91
Septem- Novem- || Decem- Annual
Year August ber October ber ber average
1900--------------------------------------- 580. 70 580. 65 580. 66 580. 52 580. 19 580. 28.
1901--------------------------------------- 581. 11 580. 92 580. 56 580. 23 579.95 580. 53
1902--------------------------------------- 580. 85 580. 48 580. 33 580. 20 579.91 580. 21
1903--------------------------------------- 580. 72 580. 77 580. 50 580 14 579, 82 580. 31
1904--------------------------------------- 581. 28 581. 21 || 581.08 || 580. 78 580. 44 580. 75
Monthly average-------------------- 580. 93 | 580. 81 580. 63 580. 37 || 580. 06 580. 42
742 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Average monthly, annual, and periodio Stages for certain characteristic periods
from 1819 to 1905—Continued

|
Year January February March April May June July
|
#: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = - * ~ * | * * * * ~ * ~ * ~ * 578.02 ----------------------------
1898-------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - * * 1 - * * - - - - -> * * III (534.69) 584.60
1847---------------------------- 579.31 579, 19 579. 41 579. 50 579. 71 580. 12 580. 18
1876---------------------------- 581. 39 581. 59 581. 92 582. 12 582. 74 583. 15 583. 49
1886---------------------------- 582.67 582. 69 582.97 583. 24 583. 50 583. 57 583.38
1860–1905----------------------- 580.85 580.88 581. 05 581. 25 581, 54 581. 78 581, 86
Y Septem- Novem- || Decem- || Annual
€9, I August #." | October | “... ber average
1819----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1833.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.III/III.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.III.
1847--------------------------------------- 580, 13 580.24 579. 92 579. 81 579, 60 579. 76
1876--------------------------------------- 583. 42 583. 37 582. 79 582. 89 582, 42 582.61
1886--------------------------------------- 583. 15 582.91 582. 81 582.47 582. 14 582, 96
1860-1905---------------------------------- 581.80 581.61 581. 39 581. 13 580. 89 581. 34
REPORT BY A SPECIAL BoARD OF ENGINEERs on WATERw AY FROM LocKPORT, ILL.,
º TO MOUTH OF ILLINOIS RIVER
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washigton, January 23, 1911.
SIB : The Board of Engineers appointed by the Secretary of War September
8, 1910, in Special Orders, No. 43, Office of the Chief of Engineers, for the con-
sideration of a waterway from Lockport, Ill., by way of the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers to the mouth of said Illinois River, has the honor to Submit the
following report, supplemental to its preliminary report of November 1, 1910:
FEASIBILITY OF THE WATERWAY
In the numerous surveys, under instructions from Congress, for a WaterWay
from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River, the line from Bridgeport, On
the South Branch of the Chicago River, to Lockport, on the Des Plaines, thence
along the Des Plaines River to the Illinois, and along the Illinois to its mouth,
has uniformly been considered the most feasible. In all projects a Canal has
been proposed from Bridgeport to Lockport, and the river bed utilized below
La Salle. In the earlier ones, a canal between Lockport and La Salle Was
advocated, but since the Chicago Drainage Canal has been excavated through
the Chicago divide and now insures an adequate Supply of water for the Chan-
nel, the canalization of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, With Short Canals
around rapids, has been generally recommended. In the Valley of the DeS
Plaines and upper Illinois Rivers the rock is sufficiently near the surface to pro-
vide excellent foundations; the lower Illinois has an exceptionally gentle slope,
averaging about 0.13 foot per mile, so that any reasonable depth can be ob-
tained by dredging, and the present diversion from Lake Michigan through
the Chicago Drainage Canal is more than sufficient for the channel. It is
therefore the opinion of the board that the waterway from Lockport to the
mouth of the Illinois River is feasible.
THE MOST ADVISABLE DEPTH AND DIMENSIONS FOR THE WATERWAY
Waterways from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River have been pro-
posed varying in depth from 4% to 24 feet. In determining the most advisable
depth of the waterway it is necessary to consider the probable commerce, its
character, its origin, its destination, and the dimensions of the vessels in
which it can be most economically transported. Experience has shown that, as
a general rule coarse and bulky articles seek Water transportation, while the
finer manufactured products are shipped by rail. Of the 62,863,218 tons trans:
ported through the St. Marys Falls Canals in 1910, about 97 per cent consisted
of iron ore, coal, grain, and lumber. Crude manufactured products, Such as
pig iron, ingots, and steel rails, are also naturally shipped by water, and in
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 743
thickly Settled communities like New York there is a large water commerce in
building materials, such as brick, stone, lime, cement, sand, and gravel.
The Illinois River flows through one of the richest farming regions of the
United States. There are along its banks large mineral deposits, especially
Coal, building Stone, and the ingredients for making cement, so that the val-
ley itself is capable of producing a large amount of the commodities which
Seek Water transportation. The natural markets for this section are now Chi-
cago and St. Louis, and were both New Orleans and the Northwest connected
With the Illinois River by suitable water transportation they might become
additional markets. The board on a survey of the Mississippi River, whose
report is published as House Document No. 50, Sixty-first Congress, first
Session, made a careful investigation of the probable commerce of the section
Of this Water route from St. Louis, Mo., to its mouth, which is already of
width and depth sufficient for its present commerce, and concluded that neither
the natural and industrial resources nor the density of population along the
Mississippi River were sufficient to create a large water-borne commerce, and
that only from its tributaries could be expected a commerce sufficient to justify
a large expediture for greater dimensions. The Ohio River and its tribu-
taries penetrate the iron and coal fields of the Appalachian system, and have on
their banks large manufacturing centers at Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Cincinnati,
Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and elsewhere. The upper Mississippi
affords a line of water transportation for the grain, iron ore, and lumber of
the Northwest, the Missouri reaches the grain fields of the West, and the
White, Arkansas, and Red Hivers afford an outlet for southern products. In
addition it is the expectation of many of the advocates of a waterway from
Chicago to the Gulf that much of the commerce of the Great Lakes can be
diverted thereto, although it now generally moves in an east and west di-
rection. Finally, there is the commerce of the Gulf, expected to largely in-
crease with the completion of the Panama Canal, some of which it is claimed
would be carried to Chicago were an adequate waterway provided. There
are, therefore, four sources Of possible Commerce for the proposed water-
way: First, its immediate banks; second, the tributary rivers; third, the
Great Lakes; and fourth, the Gulf of Mexico.
The types of vessels which can most economically handle such commerce
differ radically. A vessel navigating the Ocean has to combat violent storms
and severe wave action, and requires such relations between length, width,
and depth as to Secure good lines, great stiffness of hull, and maximum sta-
bility. For Ocean Service the experience of the past 50 years has evolved an
economic freight steamer with a draft between 20 and 30 feet, though at a
few of the principal ports vessels drawing from 30 to 40 feet are being intro-
duced.
On the Great Lakes, since Storm waves are not as large as on the Ocean,
and harbors of refuge are more frequent, less Structural strength is neces-
Sary in vessels, and for the same draft the displacement may be much greater
than On the Ocean. Experience On the Great Lakes has evolved an economic
bulk cargo steamer with a length of 550 to 600 feet, which, when loaded to an
ultimate draft of 21 to 24 feet, carries a cargo of 10,000 to 15,000 tons. The
package freighter employed on the Lakes by the various railway Corporations
is of somewhat smaller dimensions and has a draft of 18 to 19 feet. These
two types of vessels now carry the bulk of the iron ore, coal, grain, and
merchandise of the Great Lakes, and the cost of transportation has been re-
duced at least half in the past 20 years.
On rivers, vessels are not exposed to wave action, and their structural
strength and draft for the same displacement can therefore further be di-
minished. The early river packet was a frail stern or side wheed steamer hav-
ing a draft of 3 to 10 feet, but as a freight carrier it has now been generally
displaced by barges, which experience has demonstrated to be more economical.
These barges have a draft not exceeding 8% feet and a capacity up to 3,000
tons. They are assembled in tows and handled by a powerful towboat, in which
the same economies in Steam consumption are obtained as in the modern lake
or ocean steamship.
The experience of foreign nations in river navigation is similar to that of
the United States, as is illustrated by the enormous traffic of the River Rhine
which, according to the “Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Band 226,” amounted
in 1908 to about 54,000,000 tons between Strassburg and the Dutch frontier.
The low-water depth of the channel upon which this large volume of freight
was carried, as described in the preliminary report of the United States
744 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
National Waterways Commission, 1910, Was only 9.8 feet for 110 miles from
the Dutch frontier up to Cologne, thence 8.2 feet for 82 miles to St. Goar,
thence 6.6 feet for 79 miles to Mannheim, and thence 4 feet for 84 miles to
Strassburg. About 30 per cent of the traffic of 1908 used the river above.
Cologne where the available depths vary, as above stated, from 4 feet in the
Section immediately below Strassburg to a maximum of 8.2 feet in the section
immediately above Cologne. Bulky commodities are transported in fleets of
barges towed by special steamers designed for the purpose. The United States
Consul general at Berlin reported to the Department of State under date of
August 18, 1909, that the capacity of the largest Rhine barges is over 2,600
tons, with a length of 336.6 feet, a beam Of 39.6 feet, and a maximum draft of
9.4 feet; that the largest Rhine towboat has a length of 249.3 feet, a breadth
of 29.5 feet, and that the most powerful have from 1,300 to 1,450 horsepower.
Under date of March 7, 1910, he reported that the Rhine boats on an average.
are 237 feet long and 30.6 feet beam, with carrying capacity of from 480 to
1,000 tons on drafts of 4 to 7% feet. Package freight is carried in separate
Steamers, and he stated that the capacity of the largest Rhine freight steamer is.
975 tons, with a draft of 7.9 feet, a length of 278.9 feet, and a breadth of
29.5 feet. According to a report made by Maj. F. A. Mahan, Corps of Engi-
neers, retired, in 1903 the total number of sailing vessels and towed barges on
the Rhine was then 8,379, and the total number of towboats was 745, while of
other steamers of all classes there were but 378, including 156 package-freight
steamers. According to information furnished by the American consul general
at Frankfort in 1908 the Rhine fleet consisted of 1,318 Steam VeSSels with
indicated horsepower of 295,849 and 9,759 barges with a carrying capacity of
3,960,378 tons, or 11,077 vessels in all. These figures plainly show the pre-
dominating character of towboat navigation. No other river of Europe.
carries a commerce comparable with that of the Rhine, and it is clear that for
the proposed waterway a channel equal to that now found on the Rhine will
be adequate for an immense traffic.
From the preceding it follows that if the waterway is to be used by vessels.
capable of navigating the ocean and the Great Lakes, it should be given a
depth sufficient for the economic carriers above described, and this, in the
Opinion of the board, should be not less than 24 feet; but if it is to be Con-
structed for vessels adapted to river traffic, economic navigation does not
require its depth to exceed 9 feet. The depth of 14 feet, so strenuously insisted
upon by certain advocates of the waterway, is greater than necessary for
river navigation and entirely insufficient for either lake or Ocean vessels.
The only canals of 14 feet depth of which the board has knowledge are the
Canadian canals along the St. Lawrence River and the Welland Canal Con-
necting Lakes Erie and Ontario, which were constructed in the infancy of
lake navigation. Little use is now made of them for transportation to and
from Chicago. This depth has not been adopted by any other nation nor
retained by Canada in recent projects.
A 24-foot Waterway from Chicago to the Gulf has never been considered
by Congress, but its cost would be enormous; and even if constructed, it
would never be used commercially by the vessels for which designed. Barge
navigation on rivers has been developed to such efficiency that it is estimated
in House Document No. 492, Sixtieth Congress, first session, that coal can be
shipped from Pittsburgh to New Orleans in a 9-foot channel for 0.376 mills
per ton-mile, which is a low rate even for lake and Ocean vessels of 21-foot
draft. Both lake and Ocean vessels are designed for use in waters of great
depth and unlimited width which they navigate with unrestricted speed and
comparative safety, but on rivers, canals, or other contracted waters they
must materially reduce their speed and sometimes require assistance by tugs.
In the report of the committee on the canals of New York State, 1899, it is
shown that the first cost of lake vessels is so great and their rate of Speed on
canals so slow that interest charges alone will prevent them from Competing
with barge navigation. Moreover, on the Mississippi River, with its Swift
current, crooked channels, and other difficulties of navigation, insurance
charges would place them at a further disadvantage as compared With the
ordinary river craft. Ocean, lake, and river boats have been specially designed
for the work they have to perform, and when diverted therefrom lose in
economy. Should a lake vessel drawing 14 feet attempt to engage in Com-
merce between Duluth and Liverpool via the Mississippi River, it would be in
competition with the modern lake freighter from Duluth to Chicago, the
modern barge and towboat from Chicago to New Orleans, and the modern
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 745
ocean freighter from New Orleans to Liverpool, each specially adapted to its
portion of the route and able to carry freight for less than one-half of the
rate the vessel of 14 feet draft would be forced to Charge.
Considered as a business investment, a waterway of even moderate depth
from Chicago to the Gulf is still more or less experimental. There is already
maintained under existing projects a channel of 9 feet depth from New Orleans
to Cairo, and of 8 feet from Cairo to St. Louis, and of at least 4% feet from
St. Louis to Chicago via the Illinois and Michigan Canal. With the exception
of coal from the Ohio River, the existing commerce on any portion of this
route is small. To justify even existing expenditures commerce must be de-
Veloped in the tributaries, and until it is created a further enlargement Of the
main stream will not be warranted. A uniform depth in the Mississippi and
its leading tributaries will be far more beneficial to the navigation interests
of the United States than a main channel of great depth with shallow feeders.
As a channel of 8 feet depth is now maintained from Cairo to St. Louis and
can be extended from St. Louis to Utica at relatively Small Cost, business
caution dictates that a waterway of this depth be obtained and tested before
entering upon enormously expensive projects of questionable ability.
Should commerce respond to these comparatively moderate expenditures
and utilize the waterway provided, and should an increasing traffic demon-
Strate the necessity for additional depth, then a channel of 9 feet depth
can be constructed from Cairo to Utica. This can be obtained at a small addi-
tional cost and will correspond to the depth provided by the existing projects
for improving the Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers. For the locks and other
new constructions between Utica and Lockport the extra foot of depth should
be obtained at the outset, since its cost will be comparatively small. When a
9-foot Waterway has been provided between Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans,
and the cities in the Ohio Valley, should navigation keep pace with the improve-
ment and still greater depths appear economically desirable, they may be
created Without sacrificing the work now recommended by the board. In
such case, the original locks will still be valuable to provide for the smaller
Craft which will continue to navigate the minor tributaries as well as the
main stream.
The course thus outlined corresponds to that which the Government has so
successfully pursued with the large commerce on the Great Lakes, where it
has deepened and enlarged channels as navigation has required. Harbors of
23 feet depth and the new 24% foot lock at the St. Marys Falls Canal are
now logical, but to have constructed them when the navigation of the lakes
was confined to vessels drawing but 12 feet would not have been a judicious
expenditure of public funds. The old Weitzel Lock is still profitably utilized
for the passage of light-draft boats, and thus relieves the new deeper locks,
which are frequently taxed to their full capacity.
The board considers a bottom width of 160 feet in canal and 200 feet in the
Open river above the mouth of the Illinois sufficient for a channel of 8 or 9
feet available depth. For safety and ease of navigation the channel should be
excavated to 11 feet in rock cuts and canals, and the locks should be given
11 feet depth, 80 feet width, and 600 feet useful length. With these lock dimen-
sions three barges, carrying about 9,000 tons of freight, may be locked through
with their towboat. A waterway of these dimensions would have a capacity
exceeding 100,000,000 tons per annum, and would accommodate barge tows
Carrying about nine times the ordinary train load of this vicinity. In addition,
the Vessels using it would be capable of navigating the Ohio and lower Missis-
Sippi Rivers. Such a waterWay will not require a diversion of more than
1,000 second-feet from Lake Michigan, and this amount would not injuriously
lower lake levels nor cause excessive flooding of lands in the Illinois Valley.
COOPERATION WITH THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
On December 8, 1910, the Hon. Charles S. Deneen, Governor of Illinois, ac-
companied by Mr. Isham Randolph, chairman, and Mr. Robert I. Randolph,
Secretary, Of the Internal Improvement Commission of Illinois, appeared be-
fore the board and made an explanation of the policy and plans of the State
in connection with the development of the proposed waterway. In anticipation
Of the hearing, Mr. Isham Randolph, designated by the governor as the
authorized agency Of the State of Illinois, filed with the board a letter and
plans embodying the State's proposals. A copy of the letter accompanies this
report, marked “Appendix A.”
746 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Briefly, the project presented by the State of Illinois contemplates the develop-
ment of power at 4 sites between Lockport and Utica, and the improvement of
navigation by the construction of 5 large locks, 80 by 900 feet in horizontal
dimensions, with 24 feet depth on their miter sills. The uppermost lock of the
Series will be at Lockport connecting with Lake Michigan, and the lowest will
be at Utica, connecting with the already improved portion of the Illinois River.
The locks between Lockport and Utica are to be connected by channels 300
feet wide, 24 feet deep as far as Lock No. 2 at Brandon Bridge below Joliet,
and thence to Utica of not less than 9 feet immediate, and not less than 14
feet later, depth, and a bottom width of not less than 200 feet. These channels
are to be in the river bed, except at the mouth of the Des Plaines River and
at Marseilles, where short sections of canal are proposed. This project is
practically the same as that printed in the 1909 report of the Internal Im-
provement Commission of Illinois, and the estimate of cost is $19,957,517. It
differs from any heretofore submitted to Congress in that it proposes the
utilization for power purposes of the water which may flow through the
Chicago Drainage Canal and contemplates an ultimate channel depth of 24
feet for navigation purposes, though the estimates provide for 24 feet only to
Brandon Bridge and for 14 feet below.
The Board of Engineers whose report on a survey for a navigable water-
way 14 feet deep from Lockport to the mouth of the Illinois River is published
in House Document No. 263, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, estimates the
cost of the same portion of the route at $15,647,902, but its plan contemplates
2 canals about 3 miles long at Joliet and Marseilles, and 5 movable dams and
9 locks. The locks are to be 600 by 80 feet, with 14 feet on the sills, and ex-
isting conditions are to be changed as little as practicable, thus avoiding
damages to riparian owners whether for power rights or for overflow.
A careful examination has been made of the detailed estimates presented
by the State of Illinois. So far as concerns the engineering features alone,
such as excavation, construction of dams, locks, power plants, etc., the estimated
cost is reasonable. The State's estimate, however, includes nothing for flowage
damages nor for the purchase of water-power rights and franchises, and should
the outcome of judicial proceedings now pending cause these damages and
rights to assume great value, the State’s estimate would then be insufficient.
For purposes of navigation a diversion from Lake Michigan of less than
1,000 second-feet of water is all that will be necessary. For purposes of sani-
tation the works of the Sanitary District of Chicago were designed to allow
the diversion of 10,000 second-feet and now contemplates a total of 14,000
second-feet, the additional 4,000 second-feet to be obtained by the diversion
of water through the Calumet River and a connecting canal following the
Sag route. The War Department, while awaiting the definite action of Con-
gress, has so far permitted the diversion of 4,167 second-feet and the sanitary
district is understood to be using about 7,000 second-feet. As the water
which is at present being diverted from the lake appears to have already se-
riously affected the navigation of its harbors and connecting waterways,
prompt congressional action is recommended to limit the diversion.
While it appears to have been assumed that the sanitary district may be
allowed to divert 10,000 second-feet so long as actually necessary for sanitary
purposes, the diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes from their natural
outlet for power development alone is inadmissible, under the recent treaty
between the United States and Great Pritain. The future diversion of water
from Lake Michigan for any purpose is fraught with difficulties. Not only has
Canada an interest in the maintenance of lake levels which the United States
must recognize, but every foot of water flowing through the Chicago Drainage
Canal lessens the flow at Niagara Falls and at the power sites along the
St. Lawrence River, where, due to the fall available, the same amount of
water will create about four times the power that can be generated from it
on the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. The treaty enables riparian owners
of Canada, as well as of the United States, who consider themselves injured
by such diversion, to bring suit in United States courts to protect their in-
terests. The claim that more than 1,000 cubic feet per second is required for
purposes of navigation can not be maintained. The treaty, however, recog-
nizes as proper the use of water for sanitary purposes, and it is the opinion
of the board that Only Such water should be diverted from Lake Michigan
as is indispensable for Sanitation, and then only with a provision for proper
compensating works in the Outlets of the lakes to prevent a lowering of their
levels. Water thus diverted may be used incidentally for power purposes,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 747
but care must be exercised in authorizing the diversion of water for sanitary
purposes, to restrict it to the amount necessary for those purposes alone.
By virtue of the act of Congress of March 30, 1822, dedicating to the State
of Illinois the land necessary for a canal connecting the Illinois River with
Lake Michigan, and the act of March 2, 1827, granting to the State certain
public lands for the purpose of aiding in its construction, and the acceptance
by the State of the conditions imposed therein, the State of Illinois Obligated
itself to construct a suitable waterway from Lake Michigan to the navigable
WaterS Of the Illinois River. In accordance with this agreement the State
constructed the Illinois and Michigan Canal, from Bridgeport to La Salle,
and improved the upper portion of the Illinois River by the Construction of
locks and dams at Henry and Copperas Creek.
FOr many years this WaterWay Was a valuable transportation route, but in
recent years the State has neglected it and failed to maintain it abreast of the
needs Of commerce. The work now proposed by the State in connection with
the canal of the Chicago Sanitary District contemplates a waterway from
Lake Michigan to Utica, which, although departing from the line of the old
canal, substitutes a waterway more than sufficient for any probable naviga-
tion. This will in effect fulfill the original agreement between the State and
General Government for this section and incidentally develop a water power
which the State considers a profitable business investment. State or local
agencies are better adapted than the General Government for conserving
water power for their citizens.
The board believes that the State is more generous in its provisions for
navigation than necessity requires, that the locks it proposes are larger than
will be utilized, and that its original agreement would be amply fulfilled if
it constructed locks 600 by 80 by 11 feet, and reserved at each lock ground
sufficient for an additional lock should it ever be required, but it is also
of the opinion that the State should be permitted to expend its own funds
in Such manner as it deems proper. With locks of the dimensions suggested
by the board the $20,000,000 authorized to be appropriated by the State
should complete this part of the waterway; and unless large expenditures are
required for power rights, even the larger locks could be constructed for that
amount.
The General Government will then fully cooperate with the State in a wa-
terway from Lockport to the mouth of the Illinois River if it assumes charge
of the State Structures at Henry and Copperas Creek, and enlarges the exist-
ing channel in the Illinois River below Utica to Suitable dimensions. The
Mississippi River from the mouth of the Illinois to St. Louis should also be
suitably deepened.
CONDITIONS INECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH COOPERATION TO FULLY PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES
A primary Condition Of any COOperation between the United States and the
State of Illinois should be the acceptance in perpetuity of full responsibility
by the State of Illinois or its agencies for all damages by changes in lake
levels, including cost of compensating works, and for all damages to riparian
Owners, and the State should transfer to the United States the locks and the
control of the new waterway thus created so far as needed by navigation,
and the locks and dams at Henry and Copperas Creek on the Illinois River.
With Such a transfer the obligations of the State of Illinois to the United
States with reference to the maintenance of the Illinois and Michigan Canal
may be considered as adequately fulfilled, and any equities of the United
States in the rights of way and Other properties of this canal should be
transferred by the United States to the State of Illinois.
By this means the United States, at a relatively small outlay, can, with the
assistance of the State of Illinois, make a test of the commercial value of an
adequate inland waterway connecting Chicago with the cities of the Missis-
sippi Valley. The plan of the State of Illinois to provide a navigable con-
nection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River may be of such
commercial value to the United States as to justify generous cooperation in
its completion. The records of all previous investigations into the merits of
such a waterway Support this View. There is no objection to the State's
giving the channel Such dimensions as it may consider advisable in order to
preserve the head Of Water for power purposes, provided they are not less than
those considered necessary to navigation. Increased widths and depths will
748 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
be incidentally of benefit to navigation by diminishing the velocity with which
the water will flow in the channel.
Should the State of Illinois be unable to complete the locks Suggested by the
board or the bridges required by navigation, the United States might then
properly undertake to complete these parts of the project, but as the authorized
appropriation of $20,000,000 by the State is considered sufficient for all work
above Utica, no estimates are submitted for these parts. -
PLANS AND ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF WORK RECOMMENDED TO BE DONE. By THE
TJNITED STATES
The existing Federal project for the improvement of the Illinois River,
adopted in 1880, together with the existing State project, provides for a 7-foot
SlackWater navigation from Utica to its mouth, which has been already Ob-
tained by dredging and by the construction of four dams, with locks 350 feet
long and 75 feet wide.
When this project was adopted the low-water discharge of the Illinois River
Was only about 500 cubic feet per second at Utica and about 1,000 cubic feet per
Second at its mouth. The opening of the Chicago Drainage Canal in 1900,
however, radically affected the character of this stream, and has increased its
low-Water discharge at the present time to over 5,000 cubic feet per second, and
raised the level of low water so that 8 feet can be carried to Grafton, provided
that the upper miter sills at Henry and Copperas Creek are lowered about 1
foot, the Crests of the dams are restored at the heights to which they were orig-
inally constructed, and portions of the pools deepened slightly by dredging.
While the present locks are smaller than the board would recommend if new
Structures were to be Created, they will efficiently provide for an extensive
Commerce, though large tows will have to be passed through them in sections.
If a commerce should ever develop that would require the construction of
larger locks, or a depth of 9 feet, the necessary locks can then be added.
Using the present locks, the estimate for an 8-foot waterway from Utica
to the mouth Of the river, is as follows:
Excavation in pools and in river below Kampsville - $887, 545
Lowering miter Sills and reconstructing gates 60,000
Restoring Crest KampSVille Dam--------------------------------- - 7,000
Miscellaneous and Contingencies, 10 per Cent_ 95, 455
‘. -º-
TOtal -- 1, 050, 000
Including new locks the estimate for a 9-foot waterway, which may ulti-
mately be required, is as follows: -

L h E .
* * - engt 3, XC3W3- 1160UIS 3.]]
Subdivisions in miles tion Locks contingen- Total
Cies
Rampsville Lock to Grafton----------------- 31.5 $342, 600 ------------ $34,260 $376,860
La Grange Lock to Kampsville Lock-------- 46.0 , 338,600 $519,000 85,760 943, 360
Copperas Creek Lock to La Grange Lock---- 59.3 259,409 505, 000 '76, 441 840, 850
Henry Lock to Copperas Creek Lock-------- 59. 3 310, 500 480,000 79,050 869, 550
Utica to Henry Lock------------------------ 35. 0 4.17, 800 468,000 88, 580 974,380
Total.---------------------------------- 231. 1 1,668,909 1,972,000 364,091 4,005, 000
The annual cost of maintenance below Utica is estimated as follows:
For an 8-foot waterway:
4 locks, at $10,000 - - - - $40,000
Dredging---------------------------------- --__ 25,000
65,000
FOr a 9-foot WaterWay : - -
4 pairs locks, at $14,000 56,000
Dredging––––––––––––––––––– — — — — — —- 35,000
91, 000
Above Utica : 5 locks, at $10,000 - - 50,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 749
The report of the board of 1905 for obtaining a 14-foot waterway (H. Doc.
No. 263, 59th Cong., 1st sess.), provides for a movable dam at Alton and a
Canal On the east Side of the river between Alton and St. Louis, considered nec-
essary for Such depth on account of the steep slope in the Miss'ssippi River in
the vicinity of the Chain of Rocks between St. Louis and the mouth of the
MissOuri River, the large amount of sediment in the Missouri River, and the
extreme Variation in the regimen of the river at this locality.
For an 8-foot channel the main river can be utilized and the depths obtained
by COntraction works and Shore protection as on the upper Mississippi and
below St. Louis more cheaply than by a lateral canal. This will also allow to
Missouri River boats free access both to the upper Mississippi River and to the
portion of the river between St. Louis and the mouth of the Missouri River,
which would be cut off by the Alton Dam. To obtain an 8-foot depth, it is pro-
posed to contract the river to widths varying from 1,250 to 2,100 feet by a sys-
tem Of Wing dams, to revet the Caving banks, and to excavate through the
Chain of Rocks a channel 500 feet wide and 10 feet deep at low water. The
estimated COSt Of this work is as follow S : &
St. Louis. Mo., to Grafton, Ill.
Wing dams:
Grafton to Missouri River, linear feet 60,400, at $12.50_________ $755, 000
Missouri River to St. Louis, linear feet 26,500 at $25__________ 662, 500
Total for new wing dams--- - - - 1,417, 500
Repairs to old Work------------------ 150, 000
Shore protection :
Grafton to Missouri River, linear feet 64,00, at $8_____ $512,000
Missouri River to St. Louis, linear feet 54,000, at $15__ 810, 000
Total for shore protection---------------------------------- 1, 322,000
Rock excavation at Chain of Rocks, cubic yards 138,000, at $3.50____ 483, 000
3, 372, 500
Miscellaneous and contingencies, approximately 10 per cent_________ 337, 500
Total----------------------------------------------------- 3. 710, 000
The cost of annual maintenance is estimated at $125,000, including channel
dredging.
A channel of 9 feet depth can subsequently be obtained by dredging, at an
estimated additional cost of $75,000 per year.
When the existing project for an 8-foot waterway from St. Louis to Cairo is
completed, it can be maintained at 9 feet by dredging for an additional expendi-
ture of $100,00 annually.
The work recommended by the board in the near future, therefore, consists
of enlarging the channel of the Illinois River from Utica to its mouth to 8
feet, at an estimated cost of $1,050,000, and providing an 8-foot channel in
the Mississippi River from the mouth of the Illinois to St. Louis, at an esti-
mated cost of $3,710,000.
Until it obtains further data the board defers its report upon the measures
required to properly preserve the levels of the Great Lakes and to compensate
so far as practicable for the diminished level in such lakes by reason of any
diversion of water from Lake Michigan ; upon the influence on volume and
height of waters in the Mississippi River below Cairo; upon the effect upon
the climate of the Lake States by a change in the natural currents of Lake
Michigan ; upon the improvement of the Mississippi between the mouth of .the
Illinois River and the mouth of the Ohio River by the construction of a dam
at or near Jefferson Barracks, and a dam at or near Commerce, and the de-
velopment of water power incidentally created by such dams.
Respectfully submitted.
W. H. BIXBY,
Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
C. MCD. Town SEND,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers.
C. KELLER,
Major, Corps of Engineers.
J. B. CAVANAUGH,
Major, Corps of Engineers.
JOHN BOGART,
Civil Engineer.
750 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goulder in connection with that permit you
might be interested in what Secretary Baker said in 1915.
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT. Several days ago Mr. Behan and Mr. Adcock and my-
Self talked to Mr. Bruce regarding his contemplated procedure, and
he indicated at that time that he did not intend to put in what he de-
sired to say about our situation in Chicago, but was going to hold it
in reserve for what he termed rebuttal. In view of the situation that
now confronts us, I think it would be only fair that whatever Mr.
Bruce has to say he say now, because he can not tell what may be
rebuttal until we talk, and, of course, we do not know what he has in
his mind as rebuttal until he tells us. We would like to know.
Mr. BOYCE. There is such a thing as surrebuttal.
Mr. BARRETT. But I would like to have it now so we may know what
he may have to say.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not this fairly what should be done? As I
understand it, the other lake interests have put in what they fairly
regard as rebuttal of the original case. Now, I do not think 'that
they should be permitted to duplicate the evidence which they have
already put in or enlarge on it. If new questions arise from your
C3 Se
Mr. BARRETT. May I interrupt you for a moment? If you will fol-
low what we generally understand to be the rules on rebuttal that will
be all right.
The CHAIRMAN. We will.
Mr. BARRETT. We have no objection to that; there will be no trouble
about that. -
The CHAIRMAN. We have no desire to increase the volume of the
hearing or admit anything here except what is enlightening to the
committee, and we will try to restrict the hearing to that.
Mr. BARRETT. That is all right. Then I will let Mr. Bruce choose
his own method of handling it.
Now, there is one thing more which the committee might consider.
I know I am going to make a suggestion which, with the amount of
work which the committee has on hand, will probably not be accorded
a very hearty response. You men have heard a great deal about
Chicago and the sanitary project we have there. I was wondering
whether it would be at all possible for this committee to come out to
Chicago and see what we have got out there and what we are doing,
before we go on further with the hearing.
(Informal discussion followed, which, by direction of the chairman,
was not reported.) -
The CHAIRMAN. My attention is called, Congressman Deal, to the
report of Secretary of War Baker in 1916, the part in question being
continued on pages 63 and 64, from which I will read:
From the beginning the operations of the sanitary district have been looked
upon with disfavor by navigation interests, and the Secretary of War has not
only declined to increase the diversion temporarily authorized, but has adhered
to the decision that the permit granted was of a temporary character and that
no permanent diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan could be made Without
express authority from CongreSS.
It would be interesting to read the whole report, and I will ask the
stenographer to transcribe into the record from the middle of page
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 751
63, under the heading “Waterways and waterpower,” to the end of
the paragraph on page 64.
(The excerpt referred to from the report of the Secretary of War
for 1916 is as follows:)
WATERWAYS AND WATER POWER
The War Department is constantly dealing with the important question of
WaterWays and water power, not only under the river and harbor legislation
passed from time to time and dealing with specified waterway improvements
but also under the general dam act and other legislation dealing With the
diversion of streams and the establishment of water powers. Congress is, of
Course, actively considering this latter subject, and the prospect is that com-
prehensive provision will be made for the conservation of the undeveloped
Water power of the United States, which is enormous in its possibilities and
COmprises the great unexpended natural resource of the Nation.
Several special problems in this connection are more or less constantly
before the department. The first of these is the Chicago Drainage Canal.
This Canal was built under the authority Of the State of Illinois for sanitary
purposes, but has never had the approval of Congress. It was completed in
1899, and application was then made to the War Department for permission to
COnnect the canal with the South branch of the Chicago River, thus reversing
the flow of that stream and diverting its waters from Lake Michigan into the
drainage canal and thence into the Mississippi River. A conditional permit
was granted in 1901 authorizing the diversion of 4,167 cubic feet Seconds, and
this amount was continued to be the legal limit. The drawing of water from
the Chicago River into the canal affects the general navigation interests of the
country On account of the tendency of such diversion to lower the level of the
Waters of the Great Lakes.
From the beginning the operations of the sanitary district have been looked
upon with disfavor by navigation interests, and the Secretary of War has not
Only declined to increase the diversion temporarily authorized but has adhered
to the decision that the permit granted was of a temporary character, and that
no permanent diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan could be made without
express authority from Congress. Nevertheless, the sanitary district has for
many years been withdrawing a much larger amount of water than is author-
ized by this permit. Upon two different occasions the sanitary district has
refused to conform to decisions Of the Secretary Of War declining to grant
authority for larger diversions and has declared its intention to continue
excess diversions unless prevented by injunction. Accordingly, in 1908, and
again in 1910, bills in equity were filed at the instance of the War Depart-
ment by the Attorney General seeking to enjoin excess diversion. The two
Suits were consolidated and tried in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois but remain undecided.
Mr. HULL. That would indicate to you, then, that Congress has a
right to legislate on that subject?
The CHAIRMAN. That does not express an opinion on that; but he
says that he does not have any power—that they could not do it
without the authority of Congress—but he does not say they could
do it with the authority of Congress.
Mr. HULL. But the indications are that they could?
The CHAIRMAN. I. don’t think he went into that question. Mr.
Baker is a lawyer, and a good one, but he did not express an opinion
one way or the other on that.
Now, Mr. Bruce, have you anything further?
Mr. BRUCE. We have nothing more now.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is anybody who wants to be heard before
we start the Chicago case—Chicago's side—let us hear from them.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Rainey, of Illinois, is here, but I would like to
telephone out and get some others here when we hear him. Mr.
Stephens is also here, and I would be glad to put him on for 10
752 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
minutes or so. Then I would like to add something myself, pos-
sibly. I would also like to have Mr. Sackett, who represents the
State of Illinois, go on to-morrow, morning, and I think perhaps,
with his statement and perhaps a short statement I will make, that
we will be through.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you are going to close what
you are going to put on now at 12.30? .
. HuDL. Yes. Mr. Stephens will now address you.
STATEMENT OF ME, GEORGE E. STEPHENS
The CHAIRMAN. Have you given your full name to the reporter?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir; George E. Stephens.
The CHAIRMAN. Where from ?
Mr. STEPHENs. Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?
Mr. STEPHENs. Secretary of the waterways committee of the Illi-
nois Chamber of Commerce.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you testify, Mr. Stephens, on the hearings
which the commission held on the Illinois waterway in 1920?
Mr. STEPHENs. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you an officer of the chamber of commerce at
that time?
Mr. STEPHENs. In 1920; no, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed.
Mr. STEPHENs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
desire very briefly to direct the attention of the committee to some
facts regarding tonnage on the Great Lakes. These facts have been
taken from the annual report of the Chief of Engineers of the United
States Army for 1923, the latest report available, the 1924 report
not having yet been issued. These facts are presented in condensed
form for the service of the committee. Upon the margin of each
page in this condensed form is given the number of the page and the
volume of the 1923 report in which the facts may readily be found.
I have here copies of the two volumes of the report for 1923.
These brief statements show the tonnage for the largest ports in the
United States on Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Michigan, also
for the canals at Sault Ste. Marie, which the Chief of Engineer’s
report says is an accurate registry of the tonnage on the Great
Lakes; and also for the channels in the St. Clair River and the
Detroit River.
These statements show the comparative statement of tonnage for
each port of importance, the general character of the tonnage in these
ports, the drafts of vessels using them, the fluctuations of water
levels in the ports, and the effect of the improvements made by the
|United States Government and the local communities where they
have done anything.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. I don’t quite get, Mr. Stephens,
that last statement. What do they show as to the local communities?
Mr. STEPHENs. For instance, if a local community, such as Mil-
waukee or Buffalo or Cleveland, or any of these cities, has done any
work, that is shown in here.
The CHAIRMAN. Does it show it not a lone as to the nature and ex-
tent of the work, but does it show the cost of the work as well?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 75.3
Mr. STEPHENs. I have not included the figures, but they are very
easily found in the report to which these pages refer.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to supplement your
statement by putting in those figures?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be very helpful to us.
Mr. GouldFR. Would it annoy you if I should ask you whether the
figures which you are using apply to outside as well as inside internal
improvements of the different ports?
Mr. STEPHENs. These figures, as I understand it, Mr. Goulder, give
the tonnage for the harbor as a whole, the inside and the outside,
where it occurs.
Mr. GoulDER. But I mean about the cost of improvements.
Mr. STEPHENs. These figures are all given in the engineers' report,
but I have not given them in detail in this statement here.
Mr. Gould ER. I think it would be very advantageous to the com-
mittee, rather than to have to come to it afterwards, to know how
far the United States Government goes in its improvement work,
where the limit is, and what, if anything, is left for the local city
itself. If your figures cover the whole thing, that is all right. Have
you got these divisions? -
Mr. STEPHENs. I will be very glad to supplement it to that extent.
The CHAIRMAN. If you can furnish it—I do not know whether
they are complete or not; my understanding is that the only place
on the Great Lakes where they have gone into the inner harbor is
on the River Rouge in Detroit. The Government has spent there
about $800,000. In every other port on the Great Lakes I think the
inner harbor and all of its connecting waterways have been cared for
by the locality.
Mr. STEPHENs. This report would show that, and I will include
that.
Mr. Gould ER. I would like to have it. I think it would be en-
lightening with your own report.
The CHAIRMAN. Isn’t that your understanding, Mr. Goulder?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir. I know in Cleveland the Government
undertakes only up to what we call the Lake Shore Bridge. Inside
of all of that the whole territory, with a river frontage of from 8 to
10 miles, is cared for solely at the cost of the city.
Mr. STEPHENs. Toledo has done the same thing.
The CHAIRMAN. And Buffalo has done the same thing on Buffalo
Creek and all of the inner harbors.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes; as Captain Norton referred to the other day.
There is also shown in this condensed report the average tonnage
per vessel of the traffic through the Soo from 1855 to 1893, inclusive.
This average tonnage per vessel is determined by dividing the total
tonnage for each year by the number of vessels passing through the
locks; also for five-year periods from 1855 to 1893, prepared by
United States Army engineers and published in the report of 1923.
Included in the statements is a partial report for the year ending
December 31, 1923, of the traffic during the past year through the
Soo locks, and this preliminary report was recently published or
sent out by Col. E. M. Markham, of the Corps of Engineers, United
States Army, at Detroit.
754 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
. There is also a summary report of canal statistics on the Dominion
of Canada for 1923, recently issued by authority of the minister of
trade and commerce at Ottawa. -
Included also are statements from the report of the Chief of En-
gineers for 1923, showing the traffic on the Illinois River, the Illinois
and Mississippi Canal and the Illinois and Michigan Canal, built
in 1848, and still used, although to a very limited extent by reason
of its size and depth. On this canal in 1922 were carried 14,000 tons
of freight, according to the report of the Chief of Engineers.
There is also a series of charts which I have prepared based upon
the figures given in the report of the chief of engineers of 1923,
showing the tonnage in all the important ports before referred to.
I have these reports here if the members of the committee care to
See them, and I can explain what they mean. These charts were
prepared for the large ports around the Lakes, as far back as
the figures in the report for 1923 go. The black horizontal lines
on these charts show the amount of traffic for each year. The figures
in red immediately following give the figures of tonnage in round
numbers. You will notice at the left hand top here, in some of them
each square represents either 1,000,000 tons or 500,000 or some num-
ber of thousand tons. Of course, in getting up a chart of this kind
on a paper of this size, you have to divide them up into different
groups, so far as the amount of tonnage is concerned. As I Say,
these black horizontal lines show the amount of traffic each year.
Then the figures in red immediately following give the figures in
tonnage in round numbers. As to the perpendicular red lines, the first
one shows the extent of the tonnage for the first year reported. The
second shows the tonnage at the close of the year 1899, just before
the drainage canal at Chicago was opened. As I say, the perpen-
dicular red lines show, first, the tonnage for the first year reported;
second, the tonnage at the close of the year 1899, just before the
drainage canal at Chicago was opened, and the third perpendicular
line shows the tonnage for the last year given in the report, in most
instances for 1922, the latest report available, but in others for the
year 1923, whenever it has been possible to secure it. These figures
are all from official sources. -
There is also a chart showing the total railway freight tonnage in
the United States from 1892 to 1924, as published on page 695 of the
Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1922 and for the years
1922 and 1923 as reported by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The purpose of these statements and charts is to show that in general
traffic on the Great Lakes has largely increased since the opening of
the drainage canal at Chicago, and that fluctuations in the traffic
have followed the general trend of business and have not been caused
by the diversion at Chicago.
Now, I will explain those charts to you.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me see if I can follow you through in my own
way. I just want to take each one of these charts and go through
them.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir. This is the railway tonnage, because we
assume that the railway tonnage naturally shows the trend of busi-
ness. Here is where it begins in 1922, and these horizontal lines
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What railway tonnage is that?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 755
Mr. STEPHENs. For the United States—the total railway tonnage
for the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is in the red figures following the black
lines at the left?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir. The black lines give you a comparative
view of all of this. This shows the general trend of railway traffic.
For instance, here it drops off a little and then it goes up, and then
it dropped a little, and rose again, and so on.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the railway tonnage; I get that.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes. Here is the point—you will find that the
tonnage of the Great Lakes at the different ports follows in general
the increase and the decrease in railway traffic. What I am trying
to get at is this, that the traffic on the Great Lakes goes according
to business, as the trend of business goes up or down, in general.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see if that is so. We will take the port of
Chicago. Let me just ask you some questions.
Mr. STEPHENs. All right.
The CHAIRMAN. You start out in 1895, nearly a third of a century
ago, with a certain tonnage, don’t you?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Do these red figures represent the tonnage also 2
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You start out with 9,800,000 tons in 1895?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And that only grew less than 3,000,000 tons up
and including 1923? That is true, isn’t it?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it grew about 2,700,000 tons in
28 years?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What was your railway freight in Chicago in
1895, and what was it in 1923?
Mr. STEPHENs. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Didn’t it multiply by at least 10?
Mr. STEPHENs. Oh, yes, sir. &
The CHAIRMAN. So the railway freight in Chicago could not have
borne any relation in increase to the tonnage of the Great Lakes?
Mr. STEPHENs. Well, I did not mean to point out that we should
take any particular city.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am doing; and I will tell you why
I am doing it. The testimony before us tends to show, as I con-
strue it—I have no right to speak for other members of the com-
mittee—three things. First, that Chicago has not kept pace with
other harbors on the Great Lakes, for two reasons: First, because
of currents created by the diversion at Chicago growing out of the
drainage canal: second, because of the fact that Chicago has not
improved terminals, provided improved terminals, as other ports
along the Great Lakes. I just want to go through these figures
with you to see whether or not Chicago has anything like kept
pace with other vicinities in its growth, and then I am going to
ask you whether it is to be attributed to the two things which are
in the testimony before us and to which I have directed your
attention.
756 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HULL. Would it make any difference with you, Mr. Chair-
man, if we should suspend now and hear Mr. Rainey? If the
witness would suspend, you could ask your questions later.
The CHAIRMAN. That is satisfactory.
The WITNEss. Surely.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to convenience Mr. Rainey.
Mr. RAINEY. Anything that is convenient for the committee is
convenient for me. -
Mr. PEAVEY. May I ask just one question before we hear Mr.
Rainey? -
The CHAIRMAN. Certainlv.
Mr. PEAVEY. In these different compilations that you have made,
there is not any classification as to the tonnage, is there?
Mr. STEPHENs. Do you mean, for instance, at Milwaukee Harbor
the amount of commodities that are handled back and forth 2
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes.
Mr. STEPHENs. That shows in the statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest that, in the meantime, in order
to enable us to judge whether railway traffic has coordinated with
and only kept pace with the traffic on the Great Lakes, you pro-
cure the railway tonnage at Chicago in 1895 and then in 1923, and
then, if it is convenient, at some of the other large ports as well.
Mr. STEPHENs. The railway tonnage?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEPHENs. I will be very glad to.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Congressman Rainey.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY T. RAINEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
The CHAIRMAN. What is your plan, Congressman Rainey 2 We
had planned to adjourn at 12.30. Will you finish in that time, or
would you prefer to have us sit a little longer, or would you prefer
to come in in the morning?
Mr. RAINEY. I could not finish in half an hour.
The CHAIRMAN. It would take you a little more time?
Mr. RAINEY. It would take more time than that.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you proceed for a half hour, and we will
take it up and see. º:
Mr. RAINEY. I will be perfectly willing to do that.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, these hearings are
drawing to a close. The chairman is glad to hear that, and I know
the members of the committee are glad to hear it. I have had a
familiarity with the membership of this committee for almost a
quarter of a century, and when I first knew it mone of you gentle-
men were serving on this committee. This subject has been before
the committee in various forms repeatedly. We are fortunate in the
fact that 11 members of this committee are comparatively new and
can look at these questions from the present-day viewpoint, and I
want to congratulate the committee on the fact that you have now
the best-equipped chairman of this committee I have known during
my entire acquaintance with the committee. The familiarity of the
chairman with subjects of transportation, and particularly water
transportation, has never been exceeded by any other of the great
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 757
chairmen who have preceded him; and I want to congratulate the
committee on the fact that the comparatively new member of the
committee [Mr. Hull) in his examination of these witnesses and in
º study he has given this question has developed most important
acts.
I know you are not going to recommend any legislation now. I
know what is going to happen. You are going to wait until the
Supreme Court of the United States makes its decision, and you
ought to wait until the Supreme Court renders its decision; but
when that decision is rendered, if it is against the sanitary district—
and I think it will be against the sanitary district—you are going
to act.
The CHAIRMAN. And we will have then, Congressman, a vast
amount of valuable material, so that we will be enabled to act intel-
ligently.
Mr. RAINEY. The chairman is right about it; and when you do
that, you will be required to act quickly, because the health of mil-
lions of people will be at stake. At that time, as the chairman has
well said, you will have at your command the immense amount of
information which this committee has now assembled in these hear-
ings. I have no delusions about my bill. I know the game, gen-
tlemen. I know that I don’t belong to the party which is in control
of legislation, and you are not going to report out my bill, and I
don't ask it. You ought to report out a bill which carries the name
of a Member of Congress who is on the Republican side, and that
side is now responsible for legislation; my side is not responsible for
legislation. You ought to report out a bill which bears the name of
a member of this committee when you do report it out, and I hope
the bill will bear the name of my friend and colleague from Illinois
[Mr. Hull], who has so well qualified himself on this subject.
The various bills have been prepared, which you are considering,
every one of them except two by the representatives of the Chicago
Sanitary District. The bill which Mr. Hull presents was prepared by
himself, with the assistance of one of the best lawyers in Illinois, who
lives in Mr. Hull's city, and the bill which I have drawn and which
I have introduced and which is before you was prepared by myself,
and I am the only person presenting a bill who is the author of the
bill presented, and I am perhaps the only person who is not insisting
that his bill be passed. But I have studied this question for many,
many years. I live within the area traversed by this river. I repre-
sent 10 counties in Illinois, and every one of them except one touches
this river, and the river from Peoria to its mouth flows right through
the center of my congressional district, and so I know something
about this subject, and I am interested in it, and I am speaking to-day
for the valley people, the only people who so far have suffered in
the least, on account of the diversion at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. And who have not so far been heard, Congress-
Iſla, Il. |
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. And who have not, so far, as the chairman says,
been heard from. I am not going to indulge in any figures or tech-
nicalities, but I am going to try to sketch broadly this situation and
what it is and what the problems are you are going to be compelled
to consider this fall or this winter, and it may be in a special session
7.58 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
of Congress, because you are going to have to consider it quickly.
I am going to try to sketch these propositions broadly. I am going
to try to show that all these various interests who have appeared here
are not so far apart, and it is perfectly easy for this committee to re-
port out a bill which meets the contentions of the various interests who
are fighting each other, and especially fighting the Chicago Sanitary
District. We are not going to get very far if we continue in our
abuse of the Chicago Sanitary District. They have certain rights,
certain vested rights, and they are entitled to be seriously considered,
and we do not get anywhere by simply abusing them and criticizing
what they have done in the matter of sewage and in the matter of
diversion at Chicago.
I have some clauses in my bill which affect the valley and which
are not in Mr. Hull's bill. I think Mr. Hull will tell you that he is
perfectly willing to incorporate them in his bill—perhaps not in the
language which I have used; the committee can perhaps get better
language than that—but the propositions of the valley are important,
and Mr. Hull will be perfectly willing to put them in his bill and will
tell you so before this is over.
Mr. HULL. I will say that now.
Mr. RAINEY. Thank you, Mr. Hull. The propositions in which the
Chicago Sanitary District is interested, particularly, in the end
need not conflict very much with these other contentions, and you are
going to be able to get a bill that will protect all of these interests
eventually and bring all of these various things together.
And now may I call your attention to the geographical and geologi-
cal conditions in that part of this continent?
Mr. HULL. Do you want this map of Illinois?
Mr. RAINEY. No. There is a great valley cleaving this continent.
It commences at the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, and ends down here at
the mouth of the Mississippi on the Gulf of Mexico—one of the most .
important sections of the world, producing all varieties of crops,
and subject to all kinds of climates. At the very apex of this valley
are the Great Lakes. In prehistoric times the Lakes discharged both
ways, through the Illinois and Mississippi and out through the St.
Lawrence. There is no geological doubt about that at all, and when
we built the Illinois & Michigan Canal, which we completed in 1848,
we simply restored to these Lakes their ancient Outlet, and we are re-
storing it now to a still greater degree.
The South Branch of the Chicago River commences right here at
Chicago and extends for 6 miles, forming a great inner harbor for
Chicago. Six miles from the lake these canals commence, the Illi-
nois & Michigan Canal and the canal which we call the Chicago
Ship Canal, and they extend for 91 miles on down to the Illinois
River to the head of navigation at Utica, and 327 miles from the
Great Lakes is Grafton, 327 miles from the southern end of Lake
Michigan, where the Illinois River flows into the Mississippi River.
That is the oldest water-trade route on this continent except one—
the oldest trade route except the St. Lawrence. They commenced
to use this trade route from the Lakes down through the Illinois
River and on down to the Gulf of Mexico in 1670. The old French
commenced to use it, the Jesuits in their explorations which com-
menced about that time. Then with marked rapidity they built
important settlements all through this valley, commencing with
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 7.59
Lake Michigan and extending clear on down to the Gulf of Mexico.
Here was old Kaskaskia, at one time the capital of the State of
Illinois, and just above it they built the most important fortification
ever built, perhaps, on the western continent, Fort Chartres, which
was completed early in the eighteenth century, and it cost the French
$3,000,000 to build it—and they built it with slave labor—built in
Crder to defend this trade route extending from Lake Michigan on
down to New Orleans.
Mr. MCDUFFIE. Where was that and what was its name?
Mr. RAINEY. Fort Chartres.
The CHAIRMAN. And where?
Mr. RAINEY. Just below East St. Louis and above Kaskaskia, on
the Illinois shore of the Mississippi.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It was built about 1760?
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, no; it was finished before that. It was finished
probably about 1720. In 1759, after the Battle on the Plains of
Abraham, the French flag disappeared from Illinois entirely, and
from this fortification, Fort Chartres, which cost so much to build.
and it was built entirely with slave labor which cost nothing,
great armies marched out in the eighteenth century—great armies
for that day. A great army of perhaps a thousand men—marched
to Pennsylvania and captured Fort Necessity, when George Wash-
ington was an important factor in command of the army which the
English had located there.
So this has been an important trade route for a long time. When
George Washington started to build his canal along the Potomac
River, which now extends up as far as Cumberland, he had in view
this very waterway extending from Lake Michigan down through
the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. In his letters to
Jefferson the fact is disclosed that he started to build a waterway
from the interior of this continent to the sea, and this project has
not yet been fully realized. Jefferson, in a letter he wrote to him
from Monticello at that time, credited him with the idea of building
a waterway to connect the Mississippi River system with the sea.
and he wrote back to Jefferson and said:
I am not entitled to any credit for this conception. You made that Sug-
gestion yourself and I have only acted upon it. I am prompted by selfish
motives, because I own large bodies of land along the Ohio River.
He was trying to reach these holdings with this waterway and
would have succeeded if it had not been for the building of the great
Cumberland pike, which started from Cumberland and was com-
pleted in 1820 as far as Illinois, and traffic used that pike after going
up the waterway as far as Cumberland.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose those lands were grants made to him
for his service because of war?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; they were made to him for services in the
Revolutionary War. He never even saw them and his heirs never
realized anything on them; somebody else got into possession of
them—but that is why he said to Jefferson, in his generous way,
i º is the reason I started this waterway, because I own these
aIl CIS.
That was probably a mere courtesy on his part, and he evidently
had more in view than his own selfish motives.
760 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
So this is an old water trade route. That is the only section of
the United States over which the flags of four nations have floated—
first the French until 1759, until the battle on the Plains of Abra-
ham, and then the English until 1778, when George Rogers Clark
came up with his army of Kentuckians and captured old Fort
Raskaskie, and then the American flag after that, except during a
60-day interval when the Spanish came over from St. Louis and
marched with an army across Illinois and captured Fort St. Joseph
on Lake Michigan, and for 60 days the Spanish flag floated over this
waterway. During that time the importance of this waterway was
recognized by four Governments.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Mr. Rainey, part of the district which I repre-
sent has been under five flags—Mobile, Ala.
Mr. RAINEY. You have got us beat on flags, then.
The CHAIRMAN. In the early days there was a tremendous in-
crease of traffic; soon after Fulton discovered his steamboat there
was a tremendous increase of traffic even on the Ohio River, and
great numbers of boats were built, and that increased the traffic on
the waterways a great deal, and that is covered very fully in
Beveredge’s “Marshall”—there is a very interesting account of it
there—and that continued to grow until two things happened.
First, the railroads came in, and, second, the great western develop-
ment, and our energies were devoted to the building up of our rail-
road systems and to settling the West.
Mr. RAINEY. That is true, and the building up of our railway
systems has ended now, and those who are living now will never
see another railroad built in the United States. We have com-
menced to abandon railroads now in Illinois and Missouri and Texas,
and those three States have proceedings pending which will mean
soon the abandonment of miles of railroad. We have 337 miles in
Illinois which may be abandoned at any time now. We are getting
back to the waterways again, and to good roads which serve the
farms and carry the farmer's goods free of all charge and entirely
independent of railroad charges.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you think we will do the way
Holland does; that each man will have his own boat?
Mr. RAINEY. They may do that; it may be necessary for each man
to have his own boat. But those conditions, which have culminated
now in a growing appreciation of the necessity of river transporta-
tion, are making this committee the most important committee in
the Congress, and you are going to continue to be the most important
committee in Congress in the problems presented to you for many,
many years in the future. No committee of Congress ever had pre-
sented to it greater problems than those which are presented now
by the proponents of these various plans, which I think can all be
united, and the way to do it is for these various interests to get
together and consult with each other and accomplish Something
constructive, with the assistance of this committee.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you never knew a compromise
where each party did not give something?
Mr. RAINEY. I never heard of one, and each party must give
something.
The CHAIRMAN. And you do not have satisfactory legislation
unless they do so?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 761
Mr. RAINEY. That is true, or none of them get anything. In pre-
historic days these lakes discharged out through the Mississippi
River, and after the opening was closed they discharged nearly half
the season through the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. There has
always been a discharge from Lake Michigan down the Illinois
River and over this very route, and there has been a waterway there
for 240 years, right into Lake Michigan. The French brought their
produce up from Kaskaskia there, their furs and their wines and
brandies, up the Illinois River and up the Des Plaines River on
keel boats until they reached a ridge of ground.
Mr. MANSFIELD. They do not carry that kind of traffic now .
Mr. RAINEY. They have quit. They brought it up to this ridge
which separated the Des Plaines River from the Chicago River, and
they had portages across that; they got their stuff over in that way.
Finally they had ox carts on the old trail, only extending a few miles,
with broad wheels, and used them when the waters were low and they
could not get to the lakes with their boats, until finally those broad
wheels wore out channels, until finally, during a large part of the
year, except when navigation was closed by ice, those boats from
New Orleans could go right into Lake Michigan, and did go into
Lake Michigan, following this old beaten out wagon track.
Mr. McDUFFIE. You mean a boat went up a wagon trail?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. The water was sufficiently high during a large
part of the year, and those large wheels had worn out gullies over a
large part of this portage.
So, with the exception of the St. Lawrence, it is the oldest and best
recognized water-trade route on the continent.
Illinois became a State in 1818, and it was settled largely from
Kentucky: the first settlers were rangers in the War of 1812 and
came up there from Kentucky. They commenced at once to agitate
the question of getting out to the sea by way of the St. Lawrence
River and following this water route up to Chicago. Illinois was
settled first of all—this section which I represent, from Peoria on
down to the river—by Kentuckians. The Kentuckians came up here
to that part of Illinois, passing the bad lands in southern Illinois
and settling here in the west central portion. There were no Indians
in Kentucky—the Indian tribes in Illinois, Indiana, and down here
in Tennessee had a truce and agreed that Kentucky should be a
mutual hunting ground and a ground where peace should abide,
and there should not be any warfare—and, therefore, Kentucky was
settled up first, and from Kentucky they came up through Illinois,
passing over the bad lands and settling here along this river [indi-
cating on map.]. My grandfather was the first man to settle in that
section, a ranger in the War of 1812 from Kentucky.
So these settlers here in the more heavily settled portion of Illinois
commenced as soon as the State was admitted to discuss the question
of a water-trade route out through the St. Lawrence River. That
is the way they wanted to go. England would not concede it at all.
They said “Both banks of the St. Lawrence River are within the
territory of the Dominions of Great Britain and within our
sovereignty, and you can not navigate the St. Lawrence River.”
The early settlers of Illinois commenced then to insist upon a route
by which they could get from the Lakes, the present city of Chi-
91739—24—PT 2—33
762 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
cago–Fort Dearborn then—down through these rivers and on down
to the French Settlements of New Orleans and of Louisiana on the
South. They wanted that as their route.
And so, in 1822, at the request of the Representatives in Congress.
from Illinois, Congress passed an act authorizing the connection
by a water route of Lake Michigan with the Illinois River here
[indicating on map.], the same water route we are talking about now.
This was 102 years ago. In the act of 1822, Congress gave to Illinois,
alternate sections along the entire proposed route of that channel, and
the right to sell these sections and take the money derived from the
Sale of the lands and build a canal, and the original canal was built
in that way. -
In 1827 Congress passed, another act formally and in terms
authorizing the joining of the Great Lakes with the Mississippi
River system. º commenced immediately after that to build
this canal, and they finally, finished it in 1848. The strongest
proponent of this waterway in those days was Abraham Lincoln.
He maintained himself in public life and became a possibility by
advocating this particular waterway. It was finished when he was
a Member of Congress representing the section of Illinois I am
now representing, I remember his speech on that occasion; I have
read it; it is one of the greatest speeches he ever made, and one
of the greatest waterway speeches ever made. A cargo of sugar from
Louisiana had just that morning reached the State of New York,
going all the way by water and through this canal. It was an
event so important that Lincoln made a speech calling attention to
the journey of that little boat clear around to New York State, and
in substance said:
This morning the people who live in New York are sweetening their coffee
a little cheaper, and the people who live in Louisiana are getting a little bit
more for their sugar, on account of the fact that the State of Illinois has
built a waterway connecting the Mississippi and Illinois River systems with
the Great Lakes.
That was his argument for waterways. [Applause.]
The Çıramwas Did they have a Congressional Record as early
as that? -
Mr. RAINEY. Oh yes, sir; and the speeches were remarkably well
reported. That is one of the few things with reference to water-
ways and the only thing I know of that the chairman has not read.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like very much to read that.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I would like to read it also. I wonder if the
record appears as a part of the Globe, a publication appearing before
the Congressional Record, or was the Congressional Record printed
in those days as it is being printed now?
Mr. RAINEY. It was printed in those days just about as it is now,
except that those who made speeches had the most liberal per-
mission to revise their remarks. They had shorthand reporters then.
Shorthand reporters, however, really developed a little bit later.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 were reported in shorthand and
reported by a man who later became a Member of Congress from
Illinois who is dead now, Mr. Hitt. He reported in shorthand
t]hose debates in 1858 and we had shorthand even then in reporting
debates in Congress, not as expert as now, perhaps—they did not
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 763.
have the Pitman system—not as expert shorthand reporters as we
have to-day, of course. - *
But the building of this waterway was made possible by the fact,
that Great Britain held we could not use the St. Lawrence water-
way. They mainained that position until the treaty of 1854, when
they abandoned it and said we could navigate the St. Lawrence
River, but at that time the canal was in operation.
I have no delusions about ships sailing into Chicago, ocean going
ships. It is not going to be done in this generation.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Congressman—and this is entirely aside
from any feeling with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway—that
the advocates of the St. Lawrence route to-day concede that it will
be more economical, as well as more expeditious, to use the lake
vessels in the St. Lawrence Channel, if it is made, and then load
and unload at Montreal. I think that is the present stage of scien-
tific opinion, and concedely so. - -
Mr. RAINEY. It will be at the expense of billions of dollars that
we will have to contribute ourselves if we get enough sentiment to
do that foolish thing—the reason is that they can not get return
cargoes, and it costs just as much to operate a ship without a cargo as
with a cargo. We have tried it. When the Welland Canal was
completed, and about 22 years ago, we organized a line of ships
in Chicago to run direct to the ports of Europe, and they made
two trips. They drew less than 14 feet of water, and they went
right through the Welland Canal. They could not get any return
cargoes, and they had to sell those ships. There will be no return
cargoes for ships to carry to Chicago during the lifetime of the
present generation and the next. Our method of carrying on in-
dustry in the United States does not make it possible."
The bulk of our importations consist of raw materials, or ma-
terials partly manufactured and ready for further manufacture, and
it goes to New England; it does not require a waterway to the cen–
tral part of the continent. It will continue to go to the New England
States until industry is completely reorganized. &
In this country we produce 54 per cent of the iron produced in
the world, but we consume 53 per cent of the iron produced in the
world. We produce 43 per cent of the print paper used in the world,
and we consume 50 per cent of the print paper consumed in the
world. We produce 41 per cent of the shoes produced in the world,
and we consume 39 per cent of the shoes consumed in the world. We
produce 69 per cent of the cotton Supply of the world, and we con-
sume 37 per cent of the cotton supply of the world. We produce 92
per cent of all the automobiles produced in the world per year—
that is an astounding statement, but a more astounding statement
is that we consume 93 per cent of all the automobiles produced in
the world in a year. . - - *
The CHAIRMAN. And I see that Ireland is going to put quite a
high tariff on automobile bodies? . ;
Mr. MANSFIELD. Also on Fords. - - r
Mr. RAINEY. Therefore this statement of trade facts shows that
there are not going to be cargoes for the interior of this continent
until industry is revolutionized, as it will be in the future. . We
have a most expensive system of production in this country. We
764 ILLINOIS, AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
carry from the Middle West and carry over mountain ranges coal
and foodstuffs to New England, and we carry from the South cot-
ton to New England, and assemble these products there at the east-
ern end of the continent and manufacture things and then send them
right back again. As long as industry proceeds in that economically
wasteful way—and it will do it for a couple of generations—we are
not going to need a waterway which will enable ocean-going ships
to sail to the interior of this continent, because they can not go there
with cargoes, and that is all there is to it.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Don't you think the hydroelectric power will re-
move that situation? w º
Mr. RAINEY. With the superpower movement which is going on
now in the United. States, the method of assembling power gen-
erated from coal and from water power and carrying it great dis-
tances, the time may be nearer than we think when industry will
move and manufacturing will move in much smaller units than it
does now. In fact, it is doing it now. An effort to operate 2,400
chain stores, which was worrying our retail merchants, has failed,
and they are running along now with 700. The shoe industry is
operating now in smaller units. Smaller manufacturing units will
increase to a large degree in industry as this superpower distribution
increases through the United States. When the country is grid-
ironed with wires, when any community can reach up and get the
power to operate small factories, then industry may in smaller units
locate in the Middle West, where it ought to be.
The CHAIRMAN. Don’t you think the revolution will come this
way, instead of the way you suggest: Aren’t you going to curtail
manufacturing industries which would better be locaed in the Cen-
tral West to that region, and aren’t there going to be enough of the
industries, with the development of the country, with the growth of
population and of wealth, aren’t there going to be practically the
same number of industries left in New England, but of a different
kind 2
Mr. RAINEY. I think so. I think perhaps you are right about it.
The CHAIRMAN. And on your question of power—I have watched
that personally—you are going to have always a great advantage at
the center where the power is produced. It is very costly to send
power elsewhere, as you have to buy your right of way and build
vour transmission line and then lose some percentage—not a very
large percentage—of the power in transmission. Those three fac-
tors, the right of way, the transmission line, and the loss of power,
are always going to be to the disadvantage of the man who receives
it at a distance; and right on that question I call your attention to
the fact that the State of Tennessee has the most promising future,
in my judgment, of any State in the Union, because of 3,000,000
horsepower which has just been discovered there.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; with new and better methods of doing it, it may
cost less. f r
The CHAIRMAN. It will cost less. *
Mr. RAINEY. And, after all, a right, of way which is an aeriel
right of way is not going to be as expensive to maintain nor to obtain
as a railroad right of way.
The CHAIRMAN. Nothing like it.
ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 765
Mr. RAINEY. And will not interfere much with anything except
airplanes and radio transmission in the future. But there is a water
transportation to which Chicago and that section is entitled, and it
is the transportation which can be obtained at the present time by
barge service, like the transportation methods on your slack-water
systems in New York State, and for which New York State is en-
titled to so much credit. When we develop this water transportation
on down to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico it is not
going to interfere at all with the very large investments the State of
New York has made. It is not going to take any traffic away from
those canals. º - -
With reference to the history of this waterway, we maintained a
very considerabe traffic over the old Illinois & Michigan Canal
until a very recent period. Fourteen years ago I went over it all
the way to the Gulf. f *
During the Word War some of the retaining walls had fallen
down and there were levels of the canal that were out of use,
although during the World War there was some traffic on this
canal. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Which is the canal you are referring to now,
and what are its termini? 4 . . .
Mr. RAINEY. The committee can get the best idea about these
canals by simply bearing in mind this, that they both start from
the same place and they both reach the same point. They start
on the southern end of Lake Michigan, and extend to the head-
waters of the Illinois River, at Utica, and one of them is not
finished yet, of course. -
In 1871 we had a new constitution in Illinois, a long drawn out
convention, and the railroads particularly were represented there,
better than they have ever been since in Illinois. They got into
our constitution a provision which prohibited the State of Illinois
from building a canal or lending its credit for the purpose of build-
ing a canal or repairing a canal. That was intended to help the
railroads, and intended as a blow at this waterway. That clause is
still in our constitution. We have never amended our constitution
in this particular, except once. We tried to omit it in the constitu.
tion which was put out for the ratification of the voters a few years
à Q"O. * i -
*he CHAIRMAN. I am not surprised that you got it into the present
constitution.
Mr. RAINEY. It was not in the proposed constitution, but the
people defeated the proposed constitution at the polls.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Is that a prohibition against any internal im-
provement by State funds, or only applying to canals?
Mr. RAINEY. Just canals. As a matter of fact, under that consti-
tution, and since that constitution we have been taking care out of
Illinois funds of the Upper Mississippi for something like 95 miles.
Illinois takes care of that herself out of her own funds, and has built
two locks there herself, which cost $650,000. It was just directed
at the Illinois & Michigan Canal by the railroads. That provision
was not enforced until along about a quarter of a century ago, when
somebody raised the question against an appropriation made in
Illinois, and the courts promptly held that the act was unconstitu-
tional. From that time on we could not get funds to repair this
'766 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
canal. The canal was only 4% feet deep and the locks were very
Small. We commenced an agitation then to amend the Constitution
of Illinois So as to permit the State of Illinois to build an adequate
waterway. That movement really commenced with the attempt of
Chicago to get rid of her sewage. The question of a waterway
# the question of the disposal of sewage went right along to-
ether. -
s The CHAIRMAN. Of course, in the days when they originally
started these related questions, that was the only way they had of
disposing of sewage?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and as late as 1871—this sewage had been com-
ing down into the Mississippi River watersheds
Mr. BOYCE (interposing). Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rainey having come
to the matter of sewage, would it not be a good time to recess?
The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, so far as I am concerned, that this
is extremely interesting, and I want the Congressman given a full
opportunity to be heard.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It is a quarter to one now.
The CHAIRMAN. If it suits the convenience of the Congressman, we
will take a recess at this point. - -
Mr. RAINEY. Whatever suits the convenience of the Chairman
will suit me.
Mr. BOYCE. I am not opposed to your going on if you prefer to
do so now. - -
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock, with the under-
standing that we are to sit long enough to hear fully whatever the
Congressman has to Say.
(Whereupon, at 12.50 o’clock, a recess was taken until 2 o’clock
p.m. same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met pursuant to the taking of recess, Hon. S. Wal-
lace Dempsey (chairman), presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY T. RAINEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS-Continued
Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am grateful to the
committee for the attention that they are giving to these desultory
remarks of mine.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to say that what you have said to us is
as interesting and as valuable as anything any of us have heard for
a long time. We are extremely interested and are under great obli-
gation to you. - -
Mr. RAINEY. That is a great compliment, coming as it does from
the chairman of this committee.
To revert again to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the attempt
to navigate the St. Lawrence and the plan of sending grain from
Chicago, which failed on account of a failure to secure return loads,
was not the last time such an attempt was made. An attempt was
made in 1915 by the Chicago Board of Trade. At that time, as the
chairman will remember, we had in effect the Underwood tariff law,
which had put corn on the free list. They were producing corn in
the Argentine at that time, and it was selling in Europe at a less
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 767
price than Illinois corn. All the corn that is exported from the
United States comes from Illinois. They were dealing in corn on
the Chicago Board of Trade. They commenced to deal in Argentine
corn on the Chicago Board of Trade for the reason that Argentine
corn was on the free list.
They told a wierd story about three steamers having been loaded
on the upper La Plata River with Argentine corn destined for the
city of Chicago, by way of the Laurentian Canals and the Welland
Canal. They were going to unload Argentine corn in Illinois, in
the corn belt of Illinois. As a result, corn commenced to recede in
price. I wired the president of the Chicago Board of Trade and
asked him if it was true that those trades were being made, and he
replied, yes, and that the ships had left the upper La Plata and were
on their way to Chicago. I waited a couple of weeks and they had
not arrived, and I wired him and asked him where those ships were,
and he said that out of consideration for Illinois they had deter-
mined to stop the ships at Toronto and unload them there, and per-
haps the corn would be distributed in New England and New York,
where they were accustomed to the hard, flinty corn, and so we need
not worry any more.
I waited, and they had not reached Toronto, and so I wired him
again, asking him where that corn was, and he replied that the ship-
ments had been deflected and had gone to New England ports and
therefore we need not look for them at Toronto.
Then I waited a while and investigated the matter, and I found
that the shipments that had been made from the upper La Plata to
ports in the United States—and there were only three—were to the
Corn Products Co. at Edgewater, N. Y., which company got two
cargoes, and manufactured the corn immediately into corn sirup for
export. It would not have paid any duty except the 1 per cent draw-
back duty. Argentine corn makes better corn sirup than Illinois
corn. The other ship contained a part of a cargo and landed at
Galveston; one other ship went to Boston, containing only a part of
a cargo, and it was ground into dairy feed. Each of these ships had
a beam 2 feet too wide to go through the Laurentian Canal.
That was the last attempt to navigate the St. Lawrence, and I
wrote the secretary of the Chicago Board of Trade and told him
if any more transactions occurred in Argentine corn I was going
to have a congressional investigation, and none have occurred since
then, and that was the last time an attempt was made to navigate
the St. Lawrence River to Chicago.
Now, something as to the history of this particular waterway
that we are discussing.
The constitution of 1871, construed long after the constitution was
adopted, prevented our full use of the old Illinois & Michigan
Canal, which followed this red line [pointing out on map.] and this
yellow line [pointing out on map.] up to Bridgeport on the south
branch of the Chicago River. It was falling into decay. We had
an agitation for a 14-foot-deep waterway from the Lakes to the
Gulf. We had the report of the engineers who had made that
survey, a most comprehensive report, probably the most compre-
hensive report of any survey ever made. It is Document No. 263, a
report upon a survey of the Des Plaines and the Illinois Rivers, in
768 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress, in 1905. We had
that report, which discussed the question of a 7-foot Waterway, an
8-foot Waterway, and a 14-foot waterway, down the Illinois River
to the Mississippi and to St. Louis.
The report is as to waterways of those three depths—7 feet,
8 feet, and 14 feet. But there have been seven other Surveys made
of the Illinois River from 1867 down to this time. That is the
best surveyed river territory in the world. Whatever you gentle-
men do, I hope you won't order another survey of this river. They
have worn out all the surveying privileges engineers ought to have.
I do not think engineers will think they need any more information.
We had to do something about this waterway, and we were com-
pelled to amend the constitution of Illinois. Lyman A. Cooley
and myself prepared an amendment. Mr. Cooley was the great
Waterway engineer who is now dead. We prepared an amendment
to the constitution of Illinois authorizing the State to expend $20,-
000,000 for the purpose of building a canal connecting the sanitary
district canal or ship canal with the Illinois River.
A campaign for that amendment in Illinois after it was drawn
up was made. That amendment was submitted to the people. The
campaign was made by Senator Lorimer, now employed in Co-
lombia in great enterprises, Cicero J. Linley, still active in Illinois
civic life, and myself, assisted by Martin P. Madden, who introduced
One of these bills. I made for that amendment in Illinois 200
Speeches, in various places in the State at my own expense.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Good speeches?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; they were good speeches; I will admit it, my-
self. I remember I discussed the question of the Illinois waterway,
and I located the Waterway as commencing at Lake Superior and
ending in the Pacific Ocean. I made a series of photographs which
I had transferred to plates—some of them were colored—showing
the activities at the Soo, and these Great Lake vessels passing
through the Soo. Then, some scenes on the Illinois & Michigan
Canal, and the Chicago Ship Canal, and then down the Illinois
River, down the Mississippi and across the Gulf, and then some
scenes on the Panama Canal, concluding with a slide which I re-
garded as a triumph of photographic art. I made it myself. It
was a slide showing the harbor of Panama. I had a young lady
color it for me, and I indicated on tracing paper, I remember, the
position of the southern cross in the sky, and she made a night scene
of it with the stars of the southern cross, of course, as the principal
constellation. g &
I commenced taking my audience a journey in the early morning
at the Soo and at night I left them under the Southern cross in the
Pacific Ocean. So you can see it was a good speech. . e ‘s
At any rate, we carried that amendment in Illinois by a majority
of 750,000. No proposition of public policy ever submitted in the
State of Illinois, or perhaps in any other State, was ever carried by
such a large majority.
Illinois is now expending that $20,000,000.
Before that campaign was made for that amendment, we had the
Chicago Ship Canal. They commenced to build that under the act
of the State of Illinois of 1889. At that time the Chicago Ship
ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 769
Canal was completed. In 1900 the water was turned into the Chi-
cago Ship Canal from the Lakes.
One word about the Chicago Ship Canal. It is the greatest enter-
prise ever undertaken by any city in the history of the world. The
Chicago Ship Canal commences 6 miles from the Lakes on the South
Branch of the Chicago River, and extends down 36 miles to Lock-
port, at the termination of this yellow line on the map [indicating
on the map.]. This yellow mark is what is known as the Sag. That
is a much smaller canal. The Sag Canal was constructed at a later
time and is represented by this lower yellow mark [indicating] for
the purpose of admitting from Lake Michigan to the canal waters
so as to lessen the current in this part of the canal.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Sag Canal is not a navigable canal, is it?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, it has about 18 feet, and can be navigated. The
Chicago Ship Canal is 36 miles long, down to Lockport. It cost
$27,000,000 to build it. It is 24 feet deep, and 160 feet wide in the
rock sections. *
There are only two canals in the world any deeper than the Chi-
cago Ship Canal, the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal. -
It is a wonderful construction. Much of it is blasted out of solid
rock. It was designed in the rock sections to carry 14,000 cubic feet
of water per second. 10,000 cubic feet per second was the amount
contemplated by the act that Chicago would ultimately require to
dilute her sewage, and she requires that much now.
This was built larger in the rock sections so as to permit a dis-
charge through that canal of as much as 14,000 cubic second-feet.
Now, in building the Sag Canal and in altering her sewers so as
to discharge this way [indicating on map.] and in improvements on
the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago has expended in
all up to the present time over $97,000,000, which is a tremendous
amount for any city to undertake.
Mr. McDUFFIE. $97,000,000?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. º
Mr. McDUFFIE. On what—on that canal? -
Mr. RAINEY. On this canal, including the changes she was com-
pelled to make in her sewage systems, and the alterations she was
compelled to make in the South Branch of the Chicago River and
the building of this Sag Canal, in all a little over $97,000,000, an
amount not equaled in expenditures for similar purposes by any other
city in the world. t
Mr. McDUFFIE. Over how many years did that expenditure run?
Mr. RAINEY. That expenditure commenced soon after the act of
the Illinois Legislature of 1889. Prior to that time Chicago had
expended for this purpose considerable money. In 1871 Chicago
obtained permission from the State of Illinois to enlarge the old
Illinois & Michigan Canal for the purpose of making it not only
navigable to a greater degree, but also to carry off more sewage, and
Chicago was permitted by the State of Illinois to expend on that
enterprise in 1871, $3,000,000, and that is as much as the Illinois &
Michigan Canal originally cost. *
In 1917, after our declaration of war against Germany, there was
a freight blockade out in that section, and the shippers along the
route of the Michigan-Illinois Canal got together and agreed to con-
tribute an immense amount of tonnage if the Illinois-Michigan Canal
91739—24—PT 2 34
770 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
could be restored. I myself presented the matter to President Wil-
son. President Wilson appropriated out of his emergency fund
$100,000. The engineers found it would require that much to re.
store the Illinois-Michigan Canal and make a 4%-foot channel. Of
that $100,000, $96,000 was actually expended before the war ended,
and then it was not necessary to proceed any further. But the re-
sult was the almost complete restoration to a depth of 4% feet of the
old Illinois-Michigan Canal as late as 1918, when the work stopped.
Of course, nobody uses it now. They would have used it if the
war had lasted. We thought the war might last 11 years. You will
remember we started to prepare for a war that might last 11 years.
If it had lasted any longer than it did that old canal would have come
into use again.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Are these canals practically parallel?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; they are parallel.
Mr. McDUFFIE. How far apart are they?
Mr. RAINEY. You can see one canal from the other canal; they are
less than a quarter of a mile apart.
Mr. BoycE. For what distance?
Mr. RAINEY. For the entire distance. From Utica, on the Illinois
River, clear up here to Bridgeport [indicating on map.], on the South
Branch of the Chicago River, they run along together;, they are
practically the same canal. They are a canalization of the Des
Plaines River, with water admitted from the lake to both of them.
We use the Chicago Ship Canal as far as it goes, to Lockport, and
then there is an arrangement there for locking boats down into the
old Illinois-Michigan Canal, and from that point on we still use the
Illinois-Michigan Canal, when we use any canal at all. As a matter
of fact it is not used to any degree now.
Mr. McDUFFIE. You have two openings from the lake; or does one
opening feed both canals?
Mr. RAINEY. Separate openings, right together. They are not far
apart. Of course, under the act of Illinois of 1889, whenever the
Government takes over this canal and recognizes the canal Illinois is
building, then the State of Illinois transfers to the Federal Govern-
ment all its rights, with all the money it has expended. We com-
pletely abandon the old Michigan-Illinois Canal. In fact, it is prac-
tically abandoned now.
Mr. McDUFFIE. There is some water running in it, is there not ?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; some discharge; but I doubt if a boat could
get all the way through. There is simply some little local use of it.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Are you taking over the ship canal—is that what
the $20,000,000 is for?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; the $20,000,000 is for the purpose of extending
the Chicago Ship Canal to the Illinois River, and we are extending
it as a 9-foot waterway, and we are building locks there 800 feet
long, the same size as the locks on the Ohio River. We are building
them with the miter sills down 14 feet, so that at any time in the
future the Government can make a 14-foot waterway there without
tearing up these locks. The rest of the scheme is a 9-foot waterway,
and of course it would not take long to make a 14-foot waterway out
of that, if the Government should at any time in the future deter-
mine to do it, and they will not have to disturb these locks.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 771.
Mr. HULL. It would take but a very small expense to make a 14-
foot channel down to Utica now Ż p . . . . . .
Mr. RAINEY. That would not cost much and my recollection is
that in this report they find that they can build a 14-foot waterway
from Utica to St. Louis, and that involves canalization around the
chain of rocks from Grafton to East St. Louis, at an expense of
$23,000,000. -
The Illinois River is the easiest river in the world to improve. Its
channels are permanent; they do not change. There is only one
other river in the world like the Illinois River in this respect, and
that is the river Nile. Whenever you spend any money on the Illi-
nois River you don’t ever have to reexpend it. -
The improvement of the Illinois River itself is proceeding under
the authority granted by the Federal act—the rivers and harbors
act of 1884. It is a slack-water proposition. The Government has
built under that authority two dams, one at LaGrange, and the other
at Kampsville. Those two locks have been built by the Federax
Government. That takes care of 186 miles of this river. There is
about 86 miles of it that is taken care of by the State of Illinois.
Illinois has built at Henry and at Copperas Creek two dams and locks,
just like the Government dams, costing the same amount of money.
So we now have slack water in the Illinois River all the way up to
Utica. Those locks, of course, are small. They are 75 feet wide
and 370 feet long, and the improvement is proceeding on a 7-foot-
depth proposition. - -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Do they propose to develop any power in either
of those locks? - -
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, no; in fact when the river rises a little they
are completely drowned out, and since this large amount of water
comes down from Chicago you can hardly tell where the locks are
a great portion of the year, and during a great part of the year the
boats run right over these locks. - -
Mr. HULL. And it is your idea, if we ever build this to dispose
of the dams entirely?
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, yes; they are injuring our property and also they
injure navigation in the river, and the suggestions of the engineers
contemplate the removal of every one of those locks and dams.
Mr. MANSFIELD. But that is contingent on the diversion of about
10,000 cubic second-feet? -
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, no; not at all. You can maintain a 9-foot chan-
nel there with a much less flow than 10,000 cubic feet.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And without the locks?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; without the locks. The State of Illinois by the
act of 1889 authorized the removal of the State locks and dams, and
what we are asking in all these bills is that whatever legislation you
pass you have all these obstructions in the river removed.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, there are four—two State and two Fed-
eral 2
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; two State and two Federal. The State of Illi-
nois maintains the upper river, where the two State dams are
located, and the lower river is maintained by the Federal Gov-
ernment.
772. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETG.;
- You have probably noticed that your appropriations for the Illi-
nois River are very small in proportion to the amount of tonnage
the river carries and can carry. " l º ,' '
Now, as to the waterway proposition, of course that is important:
and as to its possibilities, as I said before lunch, I do not anticipate
any ocean-going vessels coming up the Illinois River, or up the St.
Lawrence River, either; but we are going to have barge traffic, and
we have been carrying on a barge traffic now on the Mississippi
River and have carried it on long enough to demonstrate that barge
traffic can be successful on those rivers and at a tremendous saving
of freight. . . . . . . .
We have two barge equipments now for those rivers. In the Gov-
ernment barge line there are 40 barges and 6 propelling steamers.
In the other line, which is to be privately managed by Mr. Goltra,
we have 19 barges and 4 steamers. The Government barges, unfor-
tunately, are built under the direction of a New York engineer who
knew something about building barges for the slack-water naviga-
tion that you have on the Hudson River and in the splendid system
of canals you have in the State of New York. He came to St. Louis
and built the same kind of barges to be used on the Mississippi
River. They have what you call bluff prows, or slack-water prows.
In other words, they are flat, and the propelling steamers, are built
with screw propellers of the tunnel type. But even under those
handicaps we have operated those barges sufficiently to indicate that
while we may be compelled to remodel them and put on them what
is known as spoon bows, from which the water will slip away, we
have made a demonstration showing that barge traffic on those rivers
can be successful. -
The Government barges are 340 feet long and have a beam of 40
feet. The other barges—the Goltra Barges—are 350 feet long and
have a 48-foot beam. - - -
The Government boats draw from 7 to 8 feet of water, and the
Goltra boats draw much less. The Goltra barges will carry 1,300
tons and will only draw 5 feet; with that load the Government
barges will draw nearly 8 feet. Their construction was superin-
tended by Mr. Goltra, who had had some experience in attempting to
operate barges on the upper Mississippi River, and that experience
cost him some $26,000. As I Say; his barges will carry a 1,300-ton
load on about a 5-foot depth of water, and they can get return
cargoes. . . . . . * ..." : ' ' ,
Mr. HULL. I brought out in the evidence that a fleet of those barges:
would carry 450,000 bushels of wheat, or an amount equal to the larg-
est steamer on Lake Michigan. Am I correct in that? -
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; I am sure you are correct. I think that would
be a moderate statement. . . . . . . . , , -
The CHAIRMAN. I think the most astounding statement the Con-
gressman has made is that those Goltra barges can navigate on a
5-foot depth.
Mr. RAINEy. Yes; and carry as large a cargo as the Government
barges can carry on 7 feet. -
The CHAIRMAN. Than the other barges of less capacity and greater
draft.
Mr. RAINEY. And the Goltra barges are built in this way: They
have what is called a bottle bow or spoon bow, and therefore the water
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 773
slips around on the side of those bows, and there is less resistance as
the barge goes up the stream. Of course, the Hudson River is not
really a river, it is simply an arm of the sea; and a slack-water barge
is the proper thing for that navigation, but it is not for ours, and
while we can copy many things from New York to our advantage,
we made a mistake in copying this.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that Mr. Goltra expects to operate
those barges this season? . . . . , , ,
Mr. RAINEY. It depends on his difficulties with the courts; how he
comes out there.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought that that had been straightened out.
Mr. RAINEY. The Supreme Court has decided for him, but the
Government still has the barges. The facts about that controversy,
which has been a most unfortunate controversy, are these: Mr. Gol-
tra got ready to operate his barges under his contract with the Gov-
ernment—and I was largely responsible for the Goltra barges, very
largely personally responsible for them on account of the representa-
tions I made to Mr. Goltra that those barges could get to Chicago, and
that we were going to build the waterway. The facts were these:
They were delivered to him only a few months ago. He was required
to carry as a common carrier. Of course, his original idea was to
assemble in South St. Louis iron ore from the Mesaba Range, and
coking coal from West Virginia, brought all the way by water, and
then assemble the coal and iron ore there and produce iron, and from
there distribute it at less freight rates. But the Government re-
quired him to act as a common carrier, and he was to do that under
rates to be fixed by the Government. When he applied to Mr. Weeks,
Secretary of War, for rates, Secretary Weeks gave him the rail rate.
He said, “I can not operate at the rail rate; I want to operate at the
rate the Government barges have, 20 per cent less than the rail rate.”
But the Secretary refused to give him anything but the rail rate except
perhaps as to sand. Of course, he could not carry at the rail rate,
and then the Government boarded his barges with 52 armed men,
drove his men off and took possession, and they have had them ever
since. The case has been fought out in the courts and the courts
have decided in favor of Mr. Goltra. The action of the Secretary
in taking those barges does not differ very much, it seems to me,
from piracy on the high seas. But that is a matter which will be
thrashed out hereafter. '.
But evidently Secretary Weeks saw that a better demonstration
could be made as to the success of barge navigation on the Mississippi
River with the Goltra barges than with the Government barges. The
Government barges can be transformed into this other kind of barge,
with bottle prows, but it will cost money to do it. * -
Now, in order to indicate how important barge traffic can be on the
Illinois River, I want to relate to the committee a conversation I had
two weeks ago with a great captain of industry in the United States,
Joe Leiter, of Chicago and Washington. He owns mines in Franklin
County, Ill., which is right along the Mississippi River. The coal
from those Franklin County mines can be used as coking coal, and it
makes just as good a coking coal as we can get in West Virginia.
What he wanted to do was to get to Davenport, Iowa, with that coal.
He told me he consulted engineers and had perfected plans to build
774 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
along the Mississippi River here, immediately west of his mines, 12
miles west [indicating on map.], where there is a bluff along the river
of 40 or 50 feet, great iron hoppers, extending from the top of the
bluff down near the water line. He expected to build railroads from
his coal mines out to those iron hoppers, and right over the iron hop-
pers. Then the idea was to fill up dump cars with coal at the mines
and carry the cars so filled with coal immediately over these iron
hoppers and then dump the coal into the iron hoppers. The iron
hoppers were to be large enough to hold an immense amount of coal.
And then to run the Goltra barges—and he had a contract with Mr.
Goltra, which I have seen—right under these hoppers, and fill them
with coal out of these hoppers. Then he proposed to carry the coal
to a point just above Davenport. He expected to construct there
great concrete vats. Then to use moving cranes along the river, to
unload the coal from these barges into those vats. He expected then
to submerge the coal in water. Coal will last indefinitely, he said.
in water.
When it was time to carry coal to the Northwest to supply their
winter demands, he expected to remove the water and take out the
coal from these vats to haul it there, taking it out with these great
automatic traveling dippers, and in that way accomplish 200 miles of
this haul. After having made that a success he expected to come to
this committee and ask this committee to make appropriations to
keep a Government barge in the river from Davenport up to Minne-
apolis and St. Paul; and he said that one Government barge could
keep the river deep enough and make a dependable channel from
Davenport up, to deliver his coal. He was ready to go into this enter-
prise at the time the seizure of these barges occurred.
The CHAIRMAN. Does he submerge the coal as an insurance protec-
tion against fire?
Mr. RAINEY. No; to keep it from disintegrating in the air, to keep
the air away from it. He made this interesting statement to me
as a result of his investigations. He said it would cost more to
carry that coal by rail from his mines to these dumping arrange-
ments along this bluff on the river, 12 miles, than to carry that coal
by water all the way 200 miles up to Davenport.
The CHAIRMAN. We had an interesting statement of that kind be-
fore the committee, by Jones & Laughlin. My recollection is that
their traffic man testified that to bring the coal from their mines on
the Monongahela, a very short distance by rail, would cost $1.15 a
ton, and the same thing brought down in their own ships would cost
them 15 cents a ton.
Mr. RAINEY. That is very interesting; those statements are always
interesting and illuminating, and this committee is going to have
to consider them. He told me he could not get a rate over the
Illinois Central to Chicago for his Franklin County coal that would
enable him to carry his coal to Chicago, that Chicago had a cheaper
rate from Pennsylvania, from the coal fields of Pennsylvania, than
he could get from Franklin County up, although the distance is
only about half as great. Therefore, whenever this river is im-
proved he expects to deliver coal to Chicago. He made the astound-
ing statement that the Chicago district absorbed every year 30,000,000
tons of coal, and it can all be supplied and carried there by water
from this section of Illinois when these canals are finished.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 775
Now, as part of the canal system there is a canal extending from
Hennepin along about here [indicating on map.] connecting the
Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, known as the Hennepin Canal.
That was completed about 15 or 18 years ago.
The idea of Congress in making that appropriation was to con-
nect Minneapolis and St. Paul up here [indicating on map.] by
water, and almost by a direct water route, with Chicago, so that
flour could be carried by water down the Mississippi, across this
canal, across Illinois up here [indicating on map.], in the Illinois-
Michigan Canal or the new canal to Chicago, an inexpensive way
of transporting that flour.
Mr. HULL. That canal we have there now would be very effec-
tive if we finished this other, would it not? I am referring to the
old Hennepin Canal.
Mr. RAINEY. Tremendously effective if they could get to Chicago.
Mr. HULL. I mean if we would finish this canal.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the depth of the Hennepin Canal?
Mr. RAINEY. It is 7 feet. Of course, now if it was built again, it
would be built larger and with larger locks, but it will admit
barges of considerable size, large enough to pay to operate it, and
over this waterway which we attempted to develop during the war,
they had pledged in Minneapolis, I forget how many barrels of
flour by water to Chicago, if they had a depth of 44% feet, if we
restored the Illinois-Michigan Canal.
Now, discussing the question which has been raised here as to
the legal possibility of taking our water from the lake system and
transferring it to the Mississippi River system, while that was
presented with great force, and the argument was an able one, I
am not impressed at all with it. As a matter of fact, as I have
said, the Lakes always did discharge that way, even in prehistoric
times, the Lakes discharged that way, and during a part of every
year since we have known "...; about that section the Lakes
have discharged out into the Mississippi River Valley system.
So as a matter of fact the Lakes have always discharged that way,
and for nearly a quarter of a century the lake has discharged out
into the Mississippi River Valley system without any interruption.
In 1822 the Government made this land grant, of alternate sec-
tions of land, for the purpose of building the old Illinois-Michigan
Canal. In 1827 they enacted the law which authorized the con-
struction of the canal by the State of Illinois, and in 200 U. S.
Supreme Court reports, in commenting upon those two acts, the
Supreme Court of the United States says this. I am reading now
from the case of Missouri against Illinois. This very discharge of
sewage from Chicago was under consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. That was the subject of litigation?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes: was the subject of litigation. At that time it
had just commenced and S.t Louis had an idea that it would ulti-
mately pollute her water supply system and was doing it then.
Of course, she was unable then to prove that.
Mr. PEAvey. Can you tell me the amount of that natural flow that
occurred in the Chicago River at that time?
Mr. RAINEY. You mean what the water from the lake turned
the other way?
776 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. PEAVEY. I mean the natural flow that went down through this
watercourse of its own accord.
Mr. RAINEY. Well, it only occurred during certain seasons of the
€3,1’.
y Mr. PEAVEY. It did not run all the time? s
Mr. RAINEY. Not all the time. Geologists say that in prehistoric
times there was a great river flowing down from the Lakes and the
Lakes discharged both ways, but since we have known anything about
it the natural discharge from the Lakes has only been during a part
of each season into the Mississippi Valley system.
The CHAIRMAN. During high water?
Mr. RAINEY. During high water, that is it. Under the act of 1889
we commenced to send the lake waters down that way, and for nearly
25 years the river has been flowing, the lake has been discharging at
all seasons of the year, and every minute of every day, out into the
Mississippi River Valley system.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the diversion?
Mr. RAINEY. Under the diversion.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Give me a reference to that decision.
Mr. RAINEY. That is the case of Missouri against Illinois, in 200 U.
S., and I am going to read from page 526. This opinion was rendered
at the October term (1915) of the Supreme Court. [Reading:]
Some stress was laid on the proposition that Chicago is not on the natural
watershed of the Mississippi, because of a rise of a few feet with the DeS
Plaines and the Chicago Rivers. We perceive no reason for a distinction on this
ground. The natural features relied upon are of the Smallest. And if under any
circumstances they could affect the case, it is enough to say that Illinois brought
Chicago into the Mississippi watershed in pursuance not only of its own statutes,
but also of the act of Congress of March 30, 1822, and March 2, 1827 (the court
giving the citation), the validity of which is not disputed. Of course these acts
do not grant the right to discharge sewage, but the case stands no differently
in point of law from a suit because of the discharge from Peoria into the Illinois,
or from any Other Or all the Other cities On the bankS. Of that Stream.
What the future may develop of course we can not tell. But our conclusion
upon the present evidence is that the case proved falls so far below the allega-
tions of the bill that it is not brought within the principle heretofore established
in the CauSe. *
They refer in their opinion to the case of Wisconsin against Duluth,
96 U. S., page 379.
The Supreme Court of Illinois in this connection said
The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, but who wrote the opinion in case you
have just cited in 200 U. S. ? * *
Mr. RAINEY. Justice Holmes rendered the opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. Was it a united court, do you know? s
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; it was a united court, there was no division, no
minority opinion. * -
In the case of Mortell v. Clark, in 272 Illinois, at page 213, the
court said:
Said act of 1903 permits the crossing of the Illinois & Michigan Canal near
Sag Bridge and provides for the abandonment of certain portions of said
canal. Counsel for appellant argue that this is in violation of the Federal
grant of 1822, under which the Illino s & Michigan Canal was construeted,
which provides, among other things: “If said ground shall ever cease to be
GCCupied by and used for a Canal suitable for navigation, the reservation and
grant hereby made shall be void and of none effect.” The canal was built
under the authority of the act of Congress of March 2, 1827, the act of 1822
having been mutually abandoned by the State and Federal Governments.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 777
This Federal act did not provide just where the canal should enter Lake
Michigan, simply stating that the land was granted for the purpose Of Open-
ing “a canal to unite the waters of the Illinois River with those of Lake
Michigan,” etc.
The sanitary district's main channel as now constructed practically complies
with this act and furnishes a Canal more suitable for navigation than the
Illinois & Michigan Canal.
Now, in 1848, the old Illinois-Michigan Canal was finished, and
immediately thereafter, 76 years ago, the sewage of Chicago was dis-
charged into the Mississippi River system. They established at
Bridgeport a great pumping station and pumped the Sewage from
the South Branch of the Chicago River into the canal, and then, as
late as 1871, when they found the Illinois-Michigan Canal was not
large enough to take care of this sewage, the State of Illinois per-
mitted Chicago to enlarge it for that purpose and also for the pur-
poses of navigation, but the sewage purpose was predominant, and
the city of Chicago spent $3,000,000 for the purpose.
Repeatedly, from that time the State of Illinois by legislative acts,
at least three times, notably in 1861, has recognized the fact that this
canal existed and existed for the purpose of diverting waters from
the lakes.
The language of the 1861 act is this, in substance, or recites this in
substance: For the purpose of insuring at all times an unfailing
supply of water to the Illinois-Michigan Canal for the purpose of
navigating the Illinois River, etc., and the act proceeds by making
certain other appropriations for this purpose.
Chicago has expended on this South Branch of the Chicago
River $12,000,000 to make changes in the river, widening the channel,
building protections for bridges, and every dollar of this has been
expended under the direction of the Federal engineers.
There was no Federal statute requiring the engineers to approve
the building of the Illinois-Michigan Canal from the South Branch
of the Chicago River, I mean the sanitary canal from the South
Branch of the Chicago River, on down south to Lockport. There
was no authority in law which required the Sanction of the Federal
engineers for that; but their authority must be obtained under the
Federal statute before any changes could be made in the South
Branch of the Chicago River, which was a navigable stream, and
under their jurisdiction. And so recognizing this flow and in
order to make it possible down through this system of canals the
Federal engineers approved the plans for the improvement of the
South Branch of the Chicago River submitted to them, and under
their approval and in furtherance of this plan the city of Chicago
spent $12,000,000 for that purpose alone in improvements on the
South Branch of the Chicago River.
And so, with all these things staring us in the face, although I
speak for the only part of this country which has suffered thus far
from this sewage, I am not going to denounce the Chicago Sanitary
District, but I am going to try, if possible, to enable the valley
people, who have suffered so much, and the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict to get into accord, so that they can get along together and live
together in the State of Illinois.
And now, with reference to these various interests which are here
represented to-day, and all of which are opposing this Chicago
778 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
diversion, I want to say this, so far as I am concerned: I want that
diversion to be just as small as it can be in order to maintain naviga-
tion and to provide for sewage disposal until Chicago is required and
is able to dispose of her sewage in some other way.
With reference to our Canadian friends, these delightful gentle-
men who are here from Canada, I want to start out by congratulating
them in having so clearly and conclusively defeated us in the field
of diplomacy.
These investigations have gone on far enough to indicate that in
diplomatic negotiations between this country and Great Britain—
which, of course, means Canada—we have been clearly, absolutely,
and conclusively defeated. So I take off my hat to these delightful
gentlemen who are here from Canada; and I want to say that if we
are going to be defeated in the field of diplomacy, or any other field,
by any section of this world, we prefer to be defeated by Canada,
and you have done it most conclusively.
You get more water than we do. These hearings show that you
get very much more than we do out of this lake basin. Then, we
have kindly agreed not only to give you more than we get but to
buy back from you at your own price what we have already given
VOll.
And so, having defeated us so conclusively and so overwhelmingly
in the field of diplomacy, we want you to get together with us now
and cooperate with us, and we are going to consult with you. We
are going to live peaceably with our great neighbor on the north, for
many reasons. We have a considerable part of our population more
kindly disposed toward you now, since this section of the world has
been exposed to the rigors of prohibition, and there are many other
reasons why we are going to keep on good terms with you.
The CHAIRMAN. This is only one, is it not, of a great variety of
large interests that are interwoven between the Dominion of Canada
and the United States?
Mr. RAINEY. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. And we certainly have to live on amicable terms,
because we have to make frequent adjustments.
Mr. RAINEY. That is true, and the chairman has stated it better
than I could.
We are not going to injure Canada in the least; but we have some
interests to protect ourselves now, and we are not going to yield as
readily in the future to you as we have in the past, and you are not
going to ask us to do so. You can afford to be generous, and I know
you are going to be.
I know something about the boundary waters treaty of 1909 and
what it means. We commenced to arrange for the boundary waters
treaty of 1909 in 1903, when we selected an International Water-
ways Commission. The International Waterways Commission as-
sembled data under which this treaty was finally consummated,
which was such a triumphant diplomatic victory for our Canadian
friends. Finally when the treaty was presented to the Secretary of
State by the International Waterways Commission this is some of
the language that was used. I want to read from the Anderson
report, made to our State Department. As to Lake Michigan; it
only takes a very cursory view of the map to indicate the fact that
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 779
Lake Michigan is in the United States. We think it is; it looks like
it is in the United States, does it not? It is not a part of the
boundary waters at all, and it was not considered a part of the
boundary waters when the treaty was made and when section 2 of the
treaty was drafted, which has been read to you so many times that I
will not read it again. But I want to read something that has not
been read to you. º
The CHAIRMAN. There is one provision there—I think it is Article
I—that seems to bear on that question.
Mr. RAINEY. I think it is Article II and Article III.
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to be the second paragraph of Article I:
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this
Same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to
all canals connecting boundary waters and now existing or which may here-
after be constructed on either Side Of the line.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. That has reference absolutely to navigation.
Article II is the vital article, and Article III.
'• Th; CHAIRMAN. Has that anything on this question of Lake Mich-
Igan
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; that is what I am going to read to you from this
report. It was a report submitted to our State Department when
the treaty of May, 1909, was under consideration, and that is the
boundary waters treaty of 1909. This is a memorandum prepared
on the authority of data submitted by the International Waterways
Commission. I want to read from this State Department memo-
randum :
The distinction which is drawn in the preliminary article between the
boundary waters and waters which are tributary to boundary waters and
waters of rivers flowing across the boundary is carefully observed in Articles
II and III of the treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. It is following the first semicolon in paragraph 1
of Article II, starting in with “but,” in the first paragraph of
Article II?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; that is what I am reading. This comment is
on that very article. I will read it again:
The distinction which is drawn in the preliminary article between the
boundary waters and waters which are tributary to boundary waters and
waters of rivers flowing across the boundary is carefully observed in Articles
TI and III of the treaty.
Article II applies only to waters which in their natural channels
would flow across the boundary or into boundary waters—that is,
before they have crossed the boundary or become part of boundary
waters—and can not by any construction of this provision apply to
the use or obstruction or diversion of boundary waters.
Now, again, with reference to Lake Michigan :
The waters of Lake Michigan do not come within the definition of boundary
waters as defined in the preliminary article Of the treaty, and it will be
noted that in Article I of the treaty the Waters Of this lake are not included
in the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System, but are covered by a
special provision in the second paragraph of that article. The question has
arisen as to the effect upon Lake Michigan of the provisions of Article II,
which deals with tributary waters, or rather with all waters, which in their
natural channels flow across the boundary or into boundary waters, and the
objection is made that if the provisions of this article apply to Lake Michigan
the right to recover damages for injuries resulting on the other side of the
line On account of diversion of tributary WaterS might interfere with the
780 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ºliversion of waters from Lake Michigan for the purposes of the Chicago,
Canal. -
In response to this objection, attention is called to the express provision in
this article that it shall not apply to cases already existing which would seem
to COver and was certainly intended to cover the canal system at Chicago.
But in any case, an examination of the provisions of the article will show
that, as pointed out in paragraph numbered 6 above, the right of action for
damages applies to private or individual interests in distinction from public
Or governmental interests, and such interests are given only the same rights.
which similar interests on the American side of the line could have in the
absence of this treaty. -
That is the construction placed by the State Department at the
time this treaty was made, based on the memorandum submitted by
the International Waterways Commission as to the treaty. In 1918
I appeared before Secretary Lansing of the State Department, and
I : now from a letter of his dated April 23, 1918, and directed to
myself.
This is a letter from Secretary of State Robert Lansing to Henry
T. Rainey, of Illinois, inclosing certain papers before the Secretary
of State when the treaty with the United States and Canada was
negotiated.
APRIL 23, 1918.
Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY,
House of Representatives.
MY DEAR MR. RAINEY: Referring to your letter of April 15, and to your
calls at the department in respect to obtaining from the archives certain
documents bearing On the negotiations of the boundary waters treaty between
the United States and Great Britain of 1909, I beg to say that upon consider-
ing the papers selected by Mr. Adcock, Of Chicago, it appears that there is
no objection to furnishing you with a copy of the memorandum from the
State Department to the Committee On FOreign Relations for their consideration
in connection with the treaty (a copy of which may doubtless also be Ob-
tained from that committee), Or with a copy of the memorandum of extracts
from the report of the International Waterways Commission ; but that the
Other two papers Selected by Mr. Adcock appear not to have been üsed
directly in the negotiations resulting in the treaty of 1909, and were never
submitted to the Canadian Government.
For these reasons, which I am Sure you will appreciate, it seems preferable
not to give out the papers mentioned. In discussing the matter with the
Hon. Chandler P. AnderSOn, who represented the State Department in the
negotiations with the Canadian officials which resulted in the treaty in 1909,
he pointed out that it might be of more assistance to you to have a short
statement from him as to What was brought Out during the negotiations in
respect to the diversion of the water for the Chicago drainage canal than to
have the documents Selected by Mr. Adcock, which do not clearly bring Out
the attitude of the negotiators on this point. If you desire to have Such a
memorandum by Mr. AnderSon, I would be pleased to ask him to prepare it
for you.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT LANSING,
Secretary of State.
It was Mr. Anderson who prepared this memorandum for the
State Department, as to the meaning of Article II.
Mr. ADCOCK. That memorandum was before the committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate when they ratified the treaty.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. At that time I was permitted to see the
secret files of this convention under which the boundary Waters
treaty, the treaty of 1909, was perfected.
The discussions had in the convention—those papers—of course
are secret, and, of course, I can not tell you what they contained.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 781
I would not be permitted to do that, and, of course, I can not do it;
but I can say this, that there is nothing in those Secret files of that
convention that causes any doubt in my mind
The CHAIRMAN. Which is in conflict with what you have read?
Mr. RAINEY. Which is in conflict with what I have read, or with
this memorandum which was submitted by the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee when this treaty was before them; and that is as
far, I think, as I ought to go. -
Now, the Illinois River is one of the most beautiful rivers in the
world. It was, at least, until this sewage came down—not even
excepting your own river, the Hudson, Mr. Chairman. Some day
we will take you and the rest of the committee on a trip up the
Illinois River when we get rid of this sewage. I would not advise
you to take that trip now. I am not going to find fault with Chi-
cago. It doesn’t do any good. They have only done what every
city in the world did at that time, and that is discharge their sewage
into a running stream. When the city had a population of only
5,000 they commenced to find out that they could not discharge
sewage into Lake Michigan and at the same time get their drinking
water from Lake Michigan; and when the city was not much larger
than that they built cribs out in the lake, out beyond any effect from
the sewage discharged in the lake. They continued to build those
cribs farther and farther out until to-day you can hardly see them
as you look out from the beautiful lake front of Chicago. Then they
commenced, in 1848, to pump sewage into this canal and into the
Mississippi River system. They have been doing that now for 76
years. The old Michigan-Illinois Canal got to be a nuisance on
account of that. As you traveled along there in trains—and I can
remember when I commenced to practice law in the old days that
this was true—you would have to pull down the window of your
sleeper when you got to the Illinois-Michigan Canal so you would
not smell that sewage. It was in that condition then.
I have seen the river in Chicago on fire. They maintained an ap-
paratus on the river to put out fires, before they commenced this
very large diversion into the Mississippi River system. The diver-
sion was authorized by the act of 1889. The Illinois Legislature
estimated that when Chicago attained its present size they would
require 10,000 cubic feet per second coming down from the Lakes,
and they expressed that in the act. --
I mention these things to show that this is not the time to critize
and abuse the Chicago Sanitary District. We thought then, when
this act was passed, in 1889—I can remember it well, of course—the
act of 1889, and it was represented to the legislature that running
water purified itself in flowing 25 or 30 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. I think they used to say that it purified itself even
in 7 miles.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. They made most extravagant claims for it, and
we believed it, and we talked about what a tremendous advantage
this waterway would be, and we thought we would never be troubled
with the sewage as it came on down the river. They were doing
what every city in the world was doing at that time, and what most
of the cities perhaps are doing now, discharging their sewage and
proaching when it will be the duty of this committee to devise some
782 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
their trade wastes into rivers and bays and harbors. The time is ap-
means not only of cleaning the Illinois River but of cleaning up all
of our rivers, and especially the ports of our cities. I understand
that even now the discharges of oils and sewage and wastes along
the Atlantic coast cities are endangering the beaches of New Jersey,
the great playground for the people of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. I may say for your information that we contem-
plate putting out in two or three days a bill which will make some-
what more binding the provision of the existing act against oil
pollution, and in that the intention of the committee is to incorpor-
ate a provision for the study of the general question. We did not
think it was advisable to go any further than that, just at the present
moment.
Mr. RAINEY. That is as far as you could go, and that is a very
Wise provision.
The CHAIRMAN. But we are going to endeavor to have that in-
vestigation of a kind which will insure investigations.
Mr. RAINEY. If you go out to the Illinois River and smell it, you'
won’t need any more investigations.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of investigating the evil; it
is a question of investigating how best to abate it.
Mr. RAINEY. I know it, and Chicago has rendered a great Serv-
ice in that way for many years. They have conducted experiments
with activated sludge plants, and they have rendered a great Serv-
ice in attempting to solve this problem; but the time has come
when it has got to be solved.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you here when Mr. Hopkins addressed
the committee”
Mr. RAINEY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you read what he said to the committee?
Mr. RAINEY. No. t
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I might state to you very briefly—and if
I misstate it anyone present can correct me—that my understand-
ing of his testimony is substantially this: That the city of Cleve-
land, with its 1,000,000 inhabitants, has completed a system for the
purifying of its water, and it has two-thirds completed a system for
the disposal of its sewage. By two-thirds I mean they are dis;
posing of it in three plants and two of those plants are completed
and the third will be completed in from 18 to 24 months, and that
third plant when completed will dispose of all of the sewage of that
city.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; that is a very proper thing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hopkins was asked the expert question
from his actual experience, as to the time it would take to complete
a like system for Chicago. Of course, that is only the testimony of
one, but it is the testimony of the man who has seen the largest ex-
periment of a practical kind. His testimony was it would be six
€3.I’S.
y Another interesting thing was the question of cost, and he said
that the total cost of installation for Cleveland was $13,000,000;
and multiplying that by three would in a rough way, as it seemed
to him, approximate what it would cost Chicago... . &
Mr. RAINEy. Yes. It might, only we have in Chicago a discharge
from the stockyards in addition.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 783
Mr. BARRETT. Just a moment. There was a statement made here
that they had constructed these treatment plants in a comparatively
short space of time. Of course, they had been working on treatment
plants and processes in Cleveland since 1895, and while many of
these plants, or much of them, may have been constructed in the
last 10 or 12 years, they are nothing like the plants we have built.
They are purely sedimentation plants. They merely take out the
Solids and then go through a filtration process which we do not
have in Chicago and which we can not construct in Chicago except
at an expenditure of over a hundred million dollars.
º CHAIRMAN. You will go into all that when you go on the
Stand.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. The situation is entirely different from ours.
The CHAIRMAN. I realize fully that there may be differences
existing between the two cities, and I only gave this illustration for
what it might be worth; but as the experience of a great city, as the
observation is drawn from that experience by the city manager,
who seemed to be not only a highly intelligent but a reliable,
dependable man.
Mr. BARRETT. There is one thing more we might say here. Chi-
cago in its sanitary district is no more anxious to throw money
away than Cleveland is. If we felt that the sort of system they have
would apply to Chicago, we would build it; but we know more about
it than Cleveland; we have spent a lot of money to find out, and
conditions in Chicago are not the same as they are in Cleveland, and
consequently, while it would only cost $35,000,000 on the Cleveland
basis, it has and will cost us much more.
Mr. GOULDER. Is not the idea that you convey, then, that Cleve-
land has been doing experimenting incidental to anything of this
kind 2
Mr. BARRETT. I would not say that. There is nothing experi-
mental about their sewage treatment plants. The sedimentation
plant is one of the oldest known and they have a dual system. They
have their sedimentation and they have filtration.
Mr. Gould ER. Then what is your idea that you intended to con-
vey, that they have been expending money since 1895; what have
they been doing?
Mr. BARRETT. I say they started work in 1895. Mr. Hopkins in-
dicated that they began construction in 1915, which I presume is the
correct time, and they have been able to construct plans up to now
for about two-thirds of a million dollars. tº
Mr. GoulDER. What did you think they were doing in that in-
terim ;
Mr. BARRETT. I don’t know what they were doing. I can not say.
The CHAIRMAN. What I imagine we could gather in another way
from this testimony is that there has been real progress made in the
art of sewage disposal.
Mr. BARRETT. We are hoping that in the next 10 years perhaps
some man may evolve a scheme or system of sewage treatment which
will make unnecessary this vast expenditure of money. Some one is
going to discover Something which will supplant activated sludge,
which is very expensive.
The CHAIRMAN. But you won’t come to us with any such proposi-
tion as that; you will come to us with a more constructive program.
784 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Our program contemplates an expenditure of from
one hundred and twenty-five million to one hundred and forty-five
million. That is the activated-sludge proposition. We are hoping
that some one will come along and give us something much cheaper
than that so that we will be able to save something on the figures
given.
The CHAIRMAN. While you are hoping for that you will at the
Sà.IIlê time be doing something active toward the completion of the
work? e
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; but if they should find something that would
do the work better, we will change our plan and go right into that.
Mr. RAINEY. Chicago has more difficult problems, of course, than
Cleveland; for instance, from the Chicago stockyards—
The CHAIRMAN. We received from some one down in the valley—
this is in answer to your stockyards proposition—we received or
rather I received yesterday some argument, I have not read it yet,
I have not had the opportunity to, on that question of the stock-
yards not being as these men claim, an addition to the Chicago
problem.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I can not say anything more than that. I re-
ceived by mail something of that kind by some one down in the
vallev. i
. RAINEY. I think the State of Illinois has brought suit
against the stockyards to make them take care of their waste.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RAINEY. But at the present time they discharge into the Mis-
sissippi Valley system an amount of sewage which is equal to the
human sewage that might be developed by a million people. That
is a problem that we must face in addition to the regular Chicago
proposition. I know that Chicago has a tremendous problem on
her hands. Every year, every 10 years for the last several decades,
Chicago has added to her population an increment equal to the
entire present population of St. Louis, and for every 10 years Chi-
cago will not only be compelled to take care of her present Sewage,
but of the increase that will come from an addition of from 500,000
to 600,000 in population. She now has 3,000,000 people. Chicago
can accomplish wonders. Chicago is the wonder city of the modern
world. One hundred thousand miles of railroad reach Chicago
over the rail lines stretching out from Chicago alone. Her post-
office receipts were $30,000,000 last year, and in 1896, to show you
what the tremendous growth of Chicago has been, her post office
receipts were only $5,000,000. Her bank clearings last year amounted
to $30,000,000,000. Fifty million people live within one night’s
ride of Chicago. In the stockyards of Chicago they slaughter
20,000,000 food animals every year; every week in Chicago alone they
slaughter as many food animals as are produced in all of New
England in a year.
In 1871 the fire destroyed 175,000 buildings in Chicago. The
city of Chicago had rebuilt itself in nine years by 1880, had entirely
rebuilt itself, and since 1880 Chicago has rebuilt itself again, and
the problems which confront, Chicago in building operations are
greater than any other city in the world. In building her sky-
scrapers, she has to go down 90 feet to get a foundation. Chicago
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 785
is the city in the world which must, first of all cities, accomplish
some method of taking care of her sewage.
The CHAIRMAN. From what Chicago has done in these other
fields, it would be assumed that she would be able to keep pace in
a highly efficient and satisfactory manner and within a reasonable
time.
Mr. RAINEY. That is what we shall ask shall be done, because we
are the sufferers from it. I remember when they turned the
Chicago sewage into the ship canal, which extends as far as this
yellow line runs down [indicating on map.] to Lockport, 36 miles.
The entire sewage of Chicago came down there. We could run
pleasure boats down on the canal, and they did it, and without de-
tecting a particle of odor. They had regular excursions running
Ott over that sewage, to show that there was not any bad odor. It
was just as pleasant as if you were on a palatial steamboat running
On any stream in the world.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Perhaps you had something in those days to
offset the effect of it.
Mr. RAINEY. There was something in those days that would accom-
plish that result. The problems now are not the problems that were
presented in 1889 or even in 1900, when this water was turned in.
Mr. HULL. May I ask you a question right there?
Mr. RAINEY. Certainly.
Mr. HULL. I think you told me, or at least I got the idea, that we
had always had between 75,000 and 100,000 cubic feet, even with all of
these disposal plants?
Mr. RAINEY. I do not know how much we will have to have, but of
course we can not stop it at once. We do not want that sewage com-
ing down there without being diluted at all. We would have to move
out of Illinois. I hope at least that the discharge from the Lakes
can be limited to the requirements of the sewage until finally Chicago
takes care of it, and to the requirements that the waterway will
demand, for which the State of Illinois is now expending $20,000,000.
To show how we have all been deceived about sewage and navigable
rivers, about seven or eight years ago our State University, one of the
greatest on the American Continent—I think we have between 12,000
or 13,000 students this year—sent its scientists over the river—this
was seven or eight years ago— and they issued a pamphlet on the fish
life in the Illinois River, in which they said that the plankton, which
is the name that they gave to the fish found in the river, had been
increased by the diversion of the water into the Illinois River, and that
such diversion was of tremendous benefit to the fish life of the river,
and that fish life of the river had increased and its possibilities as
a fish-producing stream had been increased by this diversion from
Lake Michigan into the Illinois River. That was, as I say, seven or
eight years ago, and they have recently gotten out a new pamphlet,
revising their remarks. This nuisance has all come in a compara-
tively few years, in the last seven or eight years.
Mr. BoycE. Was it a fact at the time the first pamphlet was issued
that fish did increase rather than diminish :
Mr. RAINEY. They said they did. At that time we had plenty
of fish in the Illinois River—seven or eight years ago.
The CHAIRMAN. But you do not think that they thrived on the
sewage?
786 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. RAINEY. No.
Mr. NEWTON. Has the quantity of oils been increased in the sewage
since that time?
Mr. RAINEY. That is true.
Mr. NEWTON. And that is the element that is most destructive to
the fish 2
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you obtain and furnish us the present bulletin
of the Illinois University on this question?
Mr. RAINEY. I will furnish it.
Mr. BoxcE. Did you have any typhoid in those days?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; of course they had typhoid in those days, and
they have it now, and it is a tremendous menace—that a great flood
of sewage comes down that river and has destroyed the fish life
of the river. They can take fish out of the river north of Peoria,
where Congressman Hull lives, but they are covered with sores; you
can not eat them. As far south on the river as Kempsville—and
Rempsville is at this point on the Illinois River [indicating on map.].
The CHAIRMAN. That is, it is 35 or 40 miles above Grafton?
Mr. RAINEY. It is 45 miles, as the stream runs, above St. Louis.
Last September at that point on the river a commercial fisherman,
Bartholomew, got 2,500 food fish. He sent them to St. Louis, and
they were condemned as unfit for human food, within 40 miles of the
Chain of Rocks, where St. Louis gets her water supply.
Now, St. Louis brought this suit I read from the opinion—the suit
of St. Louis against Illinois—20 years ago. If she should make some
tests there now, she would get some very different results.
The last bulletin issued by the University of Illinois shows that
this great flood of filth comes down the river at the rate of 7 miles
a year. If it is at Kampsville now, 40 miles above the intake at the
Chain of Rocks, where St. Louis gets her water supply, and it is
there these fish were caught which were unfit for human food, how
long will it be before it reaches the water supply of St. Louis?
So you have now before you not only the safety and the health of
the 3,000,000 people who live in Chicago but the immediate safety
and the health of the 600,000 people who live in the city of St. Louis.
Those are the problems presented to you.
Mr. MANSFIELD. How about all the small towns along the river?
Mr. RAINEY. They all discharge into it, but they do not get their
water supply from it.
The CHAIRMAN. I apprehend that what Congressman Mansfield
meant was the safety and health of the people in the small towns
along the river, as well as the city of St. Louis?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir: that is what I meant.
Mr. RAINEY. He is right about it: they are all endangered, but
they do not take their water supply from the Illinois River.
Mr. NEwTON. I will say, in anticipation of that catastrophe, St.
Louis is moving her water supply to the Missouri River, so the only
way you can affect us is by the smell.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You had better be ordering some of our Texas
sulphur up there to get rid of it.
Mr. NEwToN. Don’t you think this is true, as the quantity of the
matter that dilutes the purity of the stream increases, the greater the
distance it takes to purify?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 787
Mr. RAINEY. That is absolutely true.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is it from Chicago to Kampsville by the
Illinois River? -
Mr. RAINEY. By way of the river it is about 300 miles.
Th; CHAIRMAN. So we have learned that it does not purify in 300
miles?
Mr. RAINEY. And it is not pure even below that. It is only a
few miles from the mouth of the Illinois River.
Mr. BoycE. I would like to inquire whether or not you have had
occasion to make any independent investigation of the question of
sewage with reference to the jurisdiction of Congress over the
subject?
Mr. RAINEY. No, sir; I have not in that connection.
Mr. BoxOE. Except as it may incidentally arise in connection
with navigable streams?
Mr. RAINEY. I assume, without making any investigation, that
under the general welfare clause of the Constitution it is within
the province of Congress to regulate sewage.
Mr. BoycE. I am not going to draw you into any lengthy discus-
ision. Do you regard the general welfare clause in the Constitution
disconnected with defense as a general grant of power or as a pro-
vision to be exercised only in cases of emergency like war?
Mr. RAINEY. I think so. I think Congress ought to exercise that
only in cases of emergency.
Mr. BoycE. If the provision may be regarded as a general grant
of power, the reserved power may well be disregarded. -
Mr. RAINEY. Well, you may be right about that, but certainly it
ought to be exercised
Mr. BoycE (interposing). In case of emergency?
Mr. RAINEY. In case of great emergency.
Mr. BoxcE. I agree with you as to that.
Mr. RAINEY. There can not be any question as to that, and this is
a great emergency.
Mr. NEwTON. There could not be any question, under the general
welfare clause, as to the right of Congress, if the sewage became so
contaminated as to become dangerous to protect a city like St. Louis
from destruction? *
Mr. RAINEY. If Congress could not do that, the Constitution
might as well be abandoned.
The CHAIRMAN. Not only that, but if this is hurtful to the people
along its banks and to the people living at either end, if it is in-
jurious and inimical to their health, it certainly would be equally
injurious to any one who attempted to pursue the occupation of a
navigator on the stream, who was constantly on the stream, and so
it would be a direct menace to navigation.
Mr. RAINEY. That thought had not occurred to me, but it appeals
to me as being a correct statement of the law.
Mr. BoycE. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. NEWTON. Then, if you can show it was to the detriment of
the health of the navigators, you would have your case?
Mr. MoRGAN. If we have the right to deal with the pollution of
waters from oil and other causes, we certainly would have the right
in this case.
788 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it has been done in those cases.
Mr. BoxCE. I agree with you.
Mr. RAINEY. In a short time that sewage will be in the Mississippi
River. It is not an extravagant statement to say that in five years
from this day Chicago sewage will be as much of a problem at St.
Louis as it is in Chicago, and therefore that is the reason for action by
Congress in this matter. The Illinois River before this sewage came
down there was the second most important food fish river on the
continent.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean in value?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And in what you could show by statistics?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. They took out $5,000,000 worth of fish every
year in the Illinois River, and marketed the fish, and there was only
One river on the continent that during that period, and until five
or six years ago, took out more fish than that, and that was the
Columbia River in her great salmon industry. Lyman E. Cooley,
whom some of you gentlemen perhaps know, a most distinguished
hydraulic engineer, told me, and I have often quoted him, that the
land submerged by the waters of the Illinois River yielded every year
in fish values a rental of $15 an acre. That is what we had in the
Illinois River before this sewage came.
The CHAIRMAN. And I would like to say that in the east the
average rental values of agricultural lands has generally been held
to be about $3 an acre, so that would be about five times the average
return.
Mr. NEwTON. Does that mean just the area covered by the water?
Mr. RAINEY. That is just the area covered by the water, nothing
but that, and it has all gone now. The fish industry in the Illinois
River has gone. We have lost it all, and all on account of the sew-
age. Until two or three years ago you could travel up the Illinois
River and the pearl fishers were at work dragging the river and
taking from it the mollusks out of which pearl buttons were made.
There was no river on the continent that yielded as much in value
in that industry as the Illinois River. There are none of them
there now. The sewage has killed them all.
At points on the Illinois River, notably at Beardstown and some-
times even at Peoria, before this sewage came down, Paris houses
maintained pearl buyers, direct from Paris, France, buying sweet-
water pearls that were taken out of these fresh-water mussels, and
have seen pearls sold for as much as $3,000. That industry has
all gone. There is no more of it in the Illinois River. -
The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statistics at all? You say the fish
industry produced about $5,000,000 a year. Are there any statistics
as to the pearl industry, annually Ž
Mr. RAINEY. There are none.
The CHAIRMAN. You simply know that it was enough—
Mr. RAINEY (interposing). To maintain buyers there even from
Paris, and it was something of an industry, not as important of
course as the pearl-button industry or the fish industry, but it has
gone now, and until this sewage came down below Peoria and in my
district people had built their summer homes along the river,
building these homes as they believed along one of the most beauti-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 789
ful rivers in the world. They can not live in them now on account
of the stench from the sewage. On the upper stretches of this river
you will find bubbles of gas rising and continually bursting. It is
the sewage that comes down there.
Do you wonder that the people who live in the valley are com-
plaining? Isn’t it time that they complained and that they were
being considered? Nobody has been injured by the flow of this
sewage down this river except the people in my district and in Con-
gressman Hull's district and along the Des Plaines River, who have
been driven away from that beautiful stream. The pleasure boats
are gone. You can not operate pleasure boats now on the upper
Illinois River, with its beautiful scenery, on account of the stench
which rises from the river. Isn’t it time that these problems are
being solved?
That is the sewage problem, but it is not the only problem that
we have in the Illinois River Valley, for we have some of the most
fertile lands in the world extending from Peoria and on down to the
mouth of the river, land which will produce in value per acre as
much as the land in the valley of the Nile will produce.
To indicate what that land will produce, here is Mr. Boyle, who
lives in my congressional district, sitting here, and who will ask to
be heard after I am through. He has one of the finest farms in
the world on the Illinois River, 2,500 acres of this kind of land. A
few years ago I was traveling over his farm with him, and I was
attracted by a field of corn which was growing in weeds, the weeds
being as high as the corn; and there had been no cultivation of it at
all, and knowing something about his careful methods as a farmer, I
said to him, “What happened in this field?” He told me this as-
tounding story, that early that spring a farmer had come along in his
wagon—they move from place to place out there in their wagons; not
so much now as they did some years ago—and asked him for land on
which to farm, and he rented him 80 acres, he broke it up, and planted
it in corn, and then the rain came and the corn did not come up. The
farmer moved on in the nighttime without giving notice and deserted
his job. Then another farmer came along and asked Mr. Boyle for
some land, and Mr. Boyle called his attention to this land and said,
“You can put that in if you want to; it has been abandoned by the
man who planted it, and I do not know where he has gone,” and he
said “All right; I will plant it, but I won't have time to plow it up;
if you will let me do that, I will do it.” Mr. Boyle said, “All right,”
and he did. His planting came up and the other planting came up,
and the field could not be cultivated and weeds grew as high as the
corn. I said to Mr. Boyle, “When you harvest this crop of corn I
wish you would crib it separately and measure the cribs so I can tell
how much it yielded ”; and he did so, and it yielded 115 bushels to
the acre. That is the Illinois River Valley. That is the kind of
corn we produced there just a few years ago, before this water came
down in such enormous quantities
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You have not been affected any-
thing like as badly by this proposition as some other people. Your
prices for corn have gone up considerably.
Mr. RAINEY. They get good prices for corn, but not as good as they
ought to get. I never saw a farmer get as much as he thought he
790 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ought to get for corn. In 1921 corn in this valley was selling for
$2.08 per bushel. In just a few months it dropped to 23 cents per
bushel, for reasons which I will explain later on.
Before this water came down in such enormous quantities, I have
seen them harvest corn in the Illinois River Valley. They would
drive wagons through the fields with two by fours bolted across the
Wagon bed, so as to pull the corn down in order to enable the man
who was doing the shucking to reach the ears. That is the kind of
land we have along the Illinois River.
In 1904—and I am coming now to another question of damage—
of course, you gentlemen who live in the effete East don’t believe
these stories, but Congressman Hull will believe it, and so will Mr.
Boyle here. t
The CHAIRMAN. I have been a farmer for 30 years, and we have
raised some surprising corn, in my personal experience, which has
hot come up to your experience, but which makes me believe them.
Mr. HULL. I have land along there which raises 110 bushels an
acre; not last year, but it has in the past.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Wilson, from Indiana, thought you were talk-
ing about Indiana when you said that.
Mr. RAINEY. Indiana is a good corn State, but it has no place
which will raise such corn as this. In 1904—and I am personally
responsible for a lot of these things—at that time Mr. Wilson, of
Iowa, was Secretary of Agriculture, I went to see him and he had
$99,000 appropriated for the purpose of expending in investigating
questions of farm drainage. I told him about this land, and just about
the story I am telling you now; he believed it. I am going to ask all
of you to believe it. I said to him “questions of farm drainage
exist in the valley as nowhere else, and I wish you would make an
appropriation to investigate conditions in that valley so that the
people can be protected there from these floods which destroy our
corn.”
I have seen that river 5 miles wide and 20 feet deep over these
cornfields. He took that entire appropriation and sent his en-
gineers down there through the Illinois River valley, through its
entire length, clear down to Grafton at the mouth of the river,
and investigated the matter and made suggestions as to how that
land could be made profitable with its tremendous possibilities. He
sent men to Holland to investigate the pumping systems and dike
systems in Holland, and they came back and out of that money
they issued bulletins, little bulletins, showing cross sections of levees
along the Illinois River which had failed, and cross sections of
levees in Holland which had held. Then they told them how to
build levees and told them the kind of slope to give, the percentage
of slopes, to build puddling ditches in the bottom, dig a ditch be-
fore you build your levee and then fill the ditch in and build
your levee on top of the ditch, and described methods that could be
ºnstalled to pump the water that might fall in those districts.
As a result of that expenditure and those suggestions made by
Federal Government engineers the owners of these lands have ex-
pended $20,000,000 in building levees, and the levee systems pro-
ceed in units the entire length of the river for probably 200 miles.
All the water that falls on the watersheds above these levee dis-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 791
tricts and runs down into the districts, they have got to pump out,
and they must pump out some seepage that comes in. They built
canals hoping that they would discharge by gravity into the Illinois
River. That was before this diversion was so great. At the time
the Government made these suggestions they were only taking out
4,167 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?
Mr. RAINEY. About 1904 or 1905.
The CHAIRMAN. The permit was issued in 1901?
Mr. RAINEY. 1900, wasn’t it? .
The CHAIRMAN. 1900 first, and then I think it was renewed.
Mr. ADCOCK. 1899 was the first permit.
Mr. BARRETT. And the canal opened in 1900.
Mr. RAINEY. On the strength of the advice given to them by
the Federal Government, they made all of this expenditure of
money. They have installed pumps to pump the water that runs
into the district over their levees and out into the river. Some of
those pumps are the largest in the world. In some of those dis-
tricts they have pumping systems that will pump 80,000 gallons of
water every minute over these levees and out into the river. Then
there came this great flood down, which in 1922 went over the tops
of their levees and destroyed millions and millions of dollars
worth of property.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you add to your $5,000,000 loss an-
nually from fish, to your loss from your pearl-button industry,
to your loss from your pearl industry, your next item, which is the
interest on your $20,000,000 investment.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and the value of the land.
The CHAIRMAN. Which becomes valueless, and of the damage to
the land back of it from year to year?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. That has been our injury. That is what
we suffer from. -
Mr. MoRGAN. Have you made a summary of these estimates?
Mr. RAINEY. No, I have not. It would amount to a tremendous
sum, so large as to be appalling.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you could probably get a summary of
this kind—of the acreage of land which has been submerged.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And roughly of its assessed and its rental value.
Mr. RAINEY. That could be done.
The CHAIRMAN. Those two things would be very simple, but at
the same time very helpful to the committee. -
Mr. JARMAN. That is all made in a statement which I filed.
Mr. RAINEY. Now, there comes the vital questions which affect
us in the valley. I know what is going to happen—and I am going
to conclude in just a moment.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to hurry you, and I just want to
say this on behalf of the committee, and I am sure they will all
join with me in this statement, Congressman, while you have had a
direct and personal interest for your constituents in this matter, I
never have heard so self-contained and so considerate a speech.
Mr. RAINEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it has been exceedingly valuable on that
account. I think that your starting with the basis of not abusin or
’792 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, bTC.
anybody, of simply taking things as they are, of trying to reach a
reasonable basis
Mr. RAINEY (interposing). And we are reaching it.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). Yes—has been exceedingly helpful,
and I congratulate you on carrying out successfully what you said
you were going to do when you started to speak.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Was it due to excessive rainfall that you had the
Overflow in 1922? -
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; largely. It was the excessive rainfall, and it
Was due also to the fact that they are straightening many of these
rivers. The Kankakee River starts over in Indiana in what is
known as the Kankakee marshes and flows down into the Illinois
River. Over here in Indiana the people are draining the Kankakee
marshes. The Sangamon River—Abraham Lincoln ran a steam-
boat over it once as a practical illustration of what might be done—
that has been straightened. The Spoon River, which comes in
from a great distance, and all of these rivers carry a large amount
of water, and they have all been straightened. Heretofore, when
there was a rain on the Kankakee marshes, the Kankakee marshes
held back that flood until we could dispose of that part of the
run-off which came on the lower part of the valley. Now the
marshes have been drained, and from that tremendous Indiana
watershed there comes into the Illinois River and from the Kanka-
kee marshes a great flood before we get rid of our own run-off.
When there is a rainfall over the Kankakee watershed, the Spoon
River, and the Illinois River, we get a tremendous flood, such as
we never had before, because those rivers discharge very rapidly,
more rapidly than they ever did before.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest right there, if it meets with your
approval, I understand that you are going to have some State
officials here?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. They are going to follow.
The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps some of them can give us the discharge
per cubic foot per minute of these two rivers which you have re-
ferred to. -
Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Sackett will do that later.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be helpful and it would give us an idea
of the relative importance and relative weight to be given to these
different factors.
Mr. RAINEY. You are right, and Mr. Sackett will attend to that.
He represents the waterway department of the State of Illinois. So
it is not entirely Chicago. We have all of these problems. But the
discharge from the Lakes, that diversion down the Illinois River.
means an added flow to the Illinois River of a volume of water as
great as flows in the Ohio River at low water, so you can see what
the diversion is and what our problems are. The water in the
Illinois River is held up against these levees, so when we go to pump
over the levees we have got to overcome this head. It takes more
coal to do that pumping on that account. There are pumping
plants there which are operated at a cost of $200 a day, and much of
that can be charged up against the diversion at Chicago, which
makes it more expensive to get the water out.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite follow that. I do not see how that
would increase the cost.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 793
Mr. RAINEy. I will show you. This book, we will say, represents a
levee along the Illinois River. On this side [indicating] is a levee
district.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the land side?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. That is the land side, and this is the water side.
That water is maintained there higher than the land in the middle
of this district all the time or nearly all the time at a very slight
elevation, so the water in the river is higher than the surface of the
land back here.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. RAINEY. We have to pump the water from the lowest point
down here, over this levee and out into the river. If the water is
lower in the river than it is on this side we can siphon it out, get
a siphon effect after we start to pump, but if the water is higli and
is up against the levees as I have indicated with this book, we do
not have this siphon effect and therefore we have to burn more coal.
Mr. BARRETT. And you get more seepage?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. With every inch of rise on the shoulder of the
levee, you get that additional inch of seepage?
Mr. RAINEY: Yes; you get that additional inch of seepage, and
that additional weight, and we can not balance it by having a siphon
effect. The Federal Government is responsible for these invest-
ments, and for the building of these levees, and for these conditions.
Acting under my advice, Vice President Fairbanks, now de-
ceased, bought a ranch which is known as the Keech district in
my county, just above Mr. Boyle's land—and Mr. Boyle will speak
whenever you are ready to hear him. He came to me and he said,
“The Keech ranch of 11,000 acres has been offered to me for
$120,000; would you advise me to buy it?” I said, “Certainly;
you buy that and build the kind of levee the Government indicates
should be built in these bulletins which have been sent out, and you
will get that value every year in corn alone,” and so he bought it,
and he built a levee of the kind I have indicated. Four or five years
ago some gentlemen came through the town near which I live, and
they came out to my farm, because I am just a farmer and live on
a farm, to see me. They said to me, “We are going down to look
at the Fairbanks ranch; you know something about these lands;
do you think it is worth $1,000,000?” I said, “I certainly do
think it is worth $1,000,000.” And he said, “Mr. Fairbanks will
sell it for that money, and we thought we would go down to look
at it,” they said they were going to buy it, and I said, “Have you
an option on it?” They said, “No.” I said, “Then you are not
going to get it.” They went away and came back and said that Mr.
Fairbanks had withdrawn his offer and would not sell the land.
His heirs would probably take much less than that for it now
with this water coming down. The added mass of waters, together
with the straightening of these rivers which flow into the Illinois
River from other States, has destroyed the value of those ranches.
The Federal land banks will not loan any money on these ranches
any more. This land, which is the best land in the world, you can
not borrow a dollar more on it than is now on it. These men who
own it have borrowed all they can borrow to build these expensive
levees. The joint stock land banks and the Federal farm banks
91739—24—PT 2—35
794 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
have said, “We will not loan you any more money,” and bankruptcy
stares them in the face.
The CHAIRMAN. I would observe right there that my personal
observation has been, and I concluded it was a very unwise system,
that the Federal loans are extended to a larger amount than any
other loan that is obtainable. In our country there is no necessity
for Federal loans at all, but when a man wants a loan that he can
not get anywhere else he applies for a Federal loan and gets it.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; that is true. Of course, private bankers know
too well those dangers. Now, I am coming to the question. I know
what is going to happen. The case of the Chicago divers on has
gone over until next fall. You are not going to do anything until
the Supreme Court renders a decision in that case. I think the
Supreme Court will hold that the Secretary of War had no right to
grant this diversion in the first place, that it must be done by con-
gressional authority. When that decision comes the only way to
keep the trustees of the sanitary district out of jail, is for this com-
mittee to act and act quickly, and for the trustees to convince the
court if they can that they are doing everything possible to get
legislation to legalize that flow. You are not going to stop it. You
can not stop it. With the health of 3,000,000 people at stake, in two
days there would be such an epidemic of typhoid there, if this
Sewage were emptied out again into the lake; as the world has never
known. In less than three months more than a third of the popula-
tion of Chicago—
Mr. HULL (interposing). It would affect us down in the State
as well.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; it would.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see just a moment whether it would or not.
Down there it would be discharged, wouldn’t it?
Mr. RAINEY. I did not quite catch the remark.
Mr. HULL. We would get the heavy stuff down in the State. We
would never get all of that out in the world.
Mr. RAINEY. If they stopped it entirely they would have to rely
on the old pumping Systems and pump it out from Bridgeport into
these canals, and, of course, that undiluted sewage would be ruinous
to the health of our people. That sewage has destroyed the summer
resorts along the river. You can not bathe in the river. The stock
can not drink the water of the river in the upper stretches. You
can imagine what is happening to us. I have not exaggerated the
thing. I have been moderate in my statements; as moderate as I
could be.
The CHAIRMAN. And in about five or six years, as you figure it,
the flow of sewage at the present rate—
Mr. RAINEY (interposing). Will reach the city of St. Louis.
The CHAIRMAN. Will reach the city of St. Louis?
Mr. RAINEY. Undoubtedly.
The CHAIRMAN. And it will be subject to the same conditions as
you have in the valley? -
Mr. RAINEY. Undoubtedly; as to health. Now, what are you
going to do about it? . You are not going to stop it, but you are
going to require the city of Chicago, with all of its tremendous
resources and all of its wealth, to install these plants and to do it
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 795
quickly, not in the length of time if you can help it that they are
asking, but that is a matter to be determined by engineers, and you
are going to require them to do it as speedily as it can be done, so
as to clean up that river.
The CHAIRMAN. And to do it probably under the direction of the
Chief of Engineers?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. To be certain that reasonable expedition is used.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean, considering all the circumstances.
Mr. RAINEY. And you are going to do more than that. When you
have legalized this flow
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). “A” flow, rather than “this?”
flow, Judge. - *
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; when you have legalized any flow, then you have
transferred the headwaters of the Mississippi River from the
Canadian boundary to the Great Lakes, by law it has been done—in
fact it has been done now, but you will have done it by law then—
and when you legalize this flow of course you can do it without tak-
ing care of us, you have the right to take our property, but you are
not going to do it without compensating us in some way.
The CHAIRMAN. We are not going to do it, I do not believe, ex-
cept in such a way as will protect you.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and that way is what? For the Government to
take care of our levees. -
The CHAIRMAN. For the Government in some way to protect you,
whatever may be the best way, for what is deemed necessary for
navigation. . . - -
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and the best way as I see it, if you legalize the
flow, then it becomes at once a national problem for which all the
people of the United States are responsible. When you do that you
are going to make it as small as it can possibly be, and you are going
to take care of our levees. You are not going to legalize it without
taking care of us. In other words, you are going to extend, and
we are going to ask you and it is a fair thing for this Government
to do, to extend the same aid on the Illinois River as the Govern-
ment extends on the Mississippi.
The CHAIRMAN. You have a very much richer and more prosperous
and more productive section.
Mr. RAINEY. We have the richest and most productive farming
section in all the world along this river. It is that if we can get
these levees taken care of as against this added flow and get rid of
this sewage. Otherwise it is not worth much.
Now, I want to show you how far we have progressed along these
lines, and how easy it is to get together. We can get together with
our Canadian friends. They are not going to let us suffer, they
are not going to destroy the health of the people in that valley and
in Chicago. They will be as enthusiastic as any section of this
country in helping us solve that problem. That is the way, for
neighbors to be, and nobody ever had better neighbors than we have
in Canada. You have 8,900,000 people in Canada, but we have
6,000,000 in Illinois, and we have 3,000,000 in the Sanitary District
of Chicago, and that is one-third as many people as you have in all
796 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of Canada, and of course these problems are so serious that we are
going to ask the cooperation of the people in Canada to solve it.
So far as the lake cities are concerned, the evidence taken here
does not show that they have been injured by this large diversion
at Chicago, which at times exceeds 20,000 cubic feet. In 1914 it
exceeded 20,000 cubic feet per second at times. Of course we have
problems as to water power which I am not discussing and I am
not insisting upon, but when this water is brought in from Lake
Michigan we can bring in there immense amounts of water power.
There are only four or five places in the United States where more
water power can be developed than here.
The lake cities have not been injured any, and they will not be
injured in the future, but we realize the fact that we must take care
of the lake cities first of all. That is the first thing to do. This
problem is not their problem so much as it is our problem, and we
must remove from them their feeling of anxiety as to their harbors.
They are entitled to their harbor depths. Every one of them has
a deeper harbor depth than the depths estimated by the engineers.
They have about 21 feet and they have not any ships at all that
will draw over 20 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. The testimony shows that the economical con-
struction of the largest vessels on the Great Lakes now demands a
24–foot draft. ty *
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; that is at some time in the future they want to
be able to build vessels with a 24–foot draft. -
The CHAIRMAN. They are building them now.
Mr. RAINEY. They are building them now?
The CHAIRMAN. The large vessels that they construct are built
that way, because that construction is the best for economy of space
and is the best for strength, with that big type of vessel, even if they
are only able to have 21 feet. r
Mr. RAINEY. I did not hear that testimony, but they are entitled
to harbor depths to accomodate those vessels. Most of them have
23 feet now. - -
The CHAIRMAN. A good many have.
Mr. RAINEY. And it won’t take long to get them. A great
engineer testified here yesterday and said that these harbor depths
could be made 60 feet if they want them by building weirs or
movable gates, as General Bixby testified—and we are always
glad to see General Bixby when he appears before the committees
of this House, and he looks to me just as full of energy and as young
as he did in the old days before they retired him, and may a kind
Providence keep him living and active for many years. . I believe
he has many years of service left ahead of him yet for his country.
General Bixby has stated that it is easy to correct these harbor
depths and maintain them. t - 4.
The CHAIRMAN. He slightly modified that and said that the cor-
rection was problematical and experimental. -
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. r
The CHAIRMAN. And that there had been a lowering of about 6
inches. -- - -
Mr. RAINEY. I thought he said it was practical.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 797
The CHAIRMAN. Well, he did. I am frank to say that his testi,
mony at different points was not entirely reconcilable. He stated
both what you say and what I have suggested. * *
Mr. RAINEy. Well, at any rate, we will find a way of doing it.
Our engineers, General Bixby and the rest of them—and they are
the greatest engineers in the world, our engineers and the Canadian
engineers—will find a way of doing it. t º
The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe, if we reach the solution at which
you are aiming, we will have engineering problems. I think that
the matter will take care of itself.
Mr. RAINEY. If it does not we will find a way of taking care of it.
This great country will take care of the health and the lives of
the people who live in that section when the time comes.
Mr. Gould ER. While you are on the question of lake drafts, the
draft this year was 19.6, and a couple of years ago it was more
than that.
Mr. RAINEY. I thank you for that information. Now, we must
commence first of all in the spirit of friendliness for the lake cities.
We must take care of them in some way.
The CHAIRMAN. I am frank to say that the States and the cities.
in all States which have harbors think they have been injured and
they have told us so. b
Mr. RAINEY. And we will get their cooperation when the emer-
gency comes, and we will get together in some way. This great Gov-
ernment and the great city of Chicago and Canada can all get to-
gether on this proposition. With reference to Chicago, Chicago is a
great city. The Chicago Sanitary district is the greatest municipal
corporation in the world. It moves along slowly, but in such a way
that it can not be readily controlled. These gentlemen and the new
trustees of the sanitary district are absolutely honest in everything
they undertake and everything they say. They mean it. Those who
follow them may also mean everything they say. But collectively.
we have got to look out for what these corporations do when what
they do is going to extend over a period of years or maybe over a
century or two centuries. We have got to see the steps they take
and see that they are made to keep their agreements, because these
delightful gentlemen now are not going to be trustees of the Sanitary
district 50 or 100 years from now. I hope they will maintain their
positions as long as they care to or as long as they live, but we want
some legislation in this connection that will protect us. Chicago is
fair under her present administration. I have taken these matters
up with the trustees of the sanitary district. We have claims pend-
ing against the sanitary district. Under the act of 1889 we can sue
the sanitary district on account of this diversion.
The CHAIRMAN. We have heard quite a bit about that.
Mr. RAINEY. I expect you have, but the farmers have not got very
far in their suits. They have been able through the excellent attor-
neys they have employed to hold us off—and there are no more dis-
tinguished attorneys in the United States than these gentlemen who
will appear before you—and we farmers can not cope with them
in the courts. They can overwhelm us with expert testimony. En-
gineering testimony is getting to be a great deal like medical testi-
mony used to be when I practiced law years ago. You could find
798 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
doctors who would sustain any side of a question which came up,
and so you find engineers to-day who will do the same thing—not
the kind of engineers who have been appearing before this com-
mittee, however. -
I took the matter up with the trustees a little while ago and said,
“You are going to have tremendous problems and so, are we, and
I want you to pay these claims; it will probably take four or five
million dollars to do it,” and in a spirit of fairness they said they
would do it at once, and they are doing it now. They are paying
the farmers in this valley for the damages they are claiming and
they are sending commissions down through the valley and paying
the claims that ought to be paid, and they are going to keep it up
through this summer. Now, we are getting together on these things.
Mr. MANSFIELD. In what way were those damages brought about,
by the overflow or by the sewage?
Mr. RAINEY. Not by sewage, they are paying the damage oc-
casioned to the farms by the overflow and by the diversion and seep-
age through the levees. That is a long step in the direction of get-
ting together. There will be lots of these claims, and we do not
want anything paid that ought not to be paid. We are not going to
hold up the sanitary district for a dollar they ought not to pay, but
we want them to pay every dollar they ought to pay. I am asking
in my bill for the appointment of a commission to pass on these
damages, and I am asking that this flow of water be not legalized
until they have paid these damages. You would not have any right
to put that in your bill, perhaps, or you would not feel like doing it
unless they consented to it, but they will agree to it. They will agree
to that commission proposition, perhaps not in exactly the language
I have it, going into the ultimate bill, so that they can be bound to
pay these farmers their damages before the legalization of this
water diversion occurs.
The CHAIRMAN. Even with their consent, don't you doubt exceed-
ingly whether a provision of that kind in an act would be valid?
Mr. RAINEY. No, I do not think so. I think if you make the flow
contingent upon the payment of these claims, they will have to pay
it. r
The CHAIRMAN. I do not say that there would not be an observance
of it, but I should hesitate, without examining the question, to say
that it would be legal. Offhand I doubt it very much.
Mr. RAINEY. That we could not mandamus them and make them
do it? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RAINEY. But we can refuse to legalize this flow until they did
do it.
With this explanation, which has dragged along too long already,
I would like to read you some clauses from this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better adjourn until to-morrow
morning at 10 o'clock. e e
(Whereupon at 4.50 p.m. the committee adjourned.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 799
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVEs,
Thursday, May 1, 1924.
The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m. Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to listen to the analysis of your bill,
Congressman Rainey.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY T. RAINEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS-Continued
Mr. RAINEY. I am only going to read the sections of my bill which
particularly affect the valley. Mr. Hull's bill covers the other
proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you start let me make a suggestion to you.
One of the questions here, if we ultimately come to a bill, is going
to be this. I am just stating this so you can be considering it with
reference to what you say and what I am inclined to believe is
ultimately going to result. Here will be the question of what can
be done, and within what limits of time it can be accom-
plished: Here is the city manager of Cleveland, who has testi-
fied as to his experience and his opinion as a result of that experience.
Chicago has experts who will testify, undoubtedly, on the other side.
It has been running through my head as the first thought on the
question that the question of time is not a question which it would
be safe to solve on the opinions of experts on either side, and that
that question of time could probably be better solved in some such
way as this: By leaving, the matter of progress in the discretion of
the Secretary of War, to be exercised through the Chief of En-
gineers, and making any continuance of conditions dependent upon
their annual or semiannual certificate as to good faith and diligence.
If we get to that question everybody will want to be reasonable
and fair, but nobody would want to depend upon expert Opinions,
one way or the other, and I just suggest that to you as a thought
for your consideration and for you to ripen into something better
than I can suggest offhand. But I am inclined to think that that
is the line to which you will be bound to hew in the end. I do not
think Chicago would for one moment want to take the opinion of
the city manager of Cleveland. I do not think they would feel
safe in doing that. On the other hand, I do not believe the valley
or other lake interests would want to take the opinion of Chicago.
And there you have a sharp conflict, and you could not reconcile,
and it would not be safe to attempt to compromise, those two
things. What you want to insure is good faith and diligence, and
could not that be done in that way? I am not asking you
to answer that now.
Mr. RAINEY. I will read a section of my bill bearing on that sub-
ject and I will try to answer the suggestion of the chairman.
This is bill H. R. 6822. At page 6 my bill provides:
The said. The Sanitary District of Chicago is required to proceed imme-
diately with the installation of sewage-purificaton works to care for the
population of said The Sanitary District of Chicago, in order that any effl-
ent discharged into said Illinois waterway or into the Desplaines or Illinois
Rivers through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers or through any artificial
800 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
channel of The Sanitary District of Chicago shall not be or become a
nuisance or menace to the health of any of the people of the United States,
and shall not be destructive of the fish life of said river nor injure nor im-
pair the fish industry of said river as the same was conducted prior to the in-
troduction of said sewage into said river, said sewage disposal plants to be
completed and in operation within ten years from the passage of this act,
or within such extension of time not to exceed an additional five years as
may be granted by the Secretary of War. w
Now, whether that is the time or not, the extensions or not
which ought to be allowed, would be dependent upon the expert
testimony which is to be presented to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not better, if you get to that point, to do
Something along the lines I have suggested—make your pro-
vision that they shall commence immediately, that they shall
proceed with all diligence, and that the question of their
diligence shall be a question of fact to be determined and
certified, annually or semiannually, to Congress by the Chief of
Engineers, and that the continuance of the flow shall depend upon
that certificate and shall cease if the certificate is adverse? Then
you are insuring performance and it does not seem to me that in
any other way you are going to insure it.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; that would be another way of presenting the
same thing, and perhaps a better way.
The CHAIRMAN. What you want is to be reasonable; you do not
want to be unreasonable; but you do want to insure and require
good faith.
Mr. RAINEY. I think that would be all right, Mr. Chairman, per-
haps better than the way I have suggested. Here I make exten-
sions of time dependent upon obtaining consent of the Secretary
of War, and of course that contemplates diligence and all that sort
of thing—to conclude within the time that may be allotted—and if
they fail to do it, then give them some additional time. But I
think the certificate idea of yours is an excellent one.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose they have an election in Congress and
somebody made an issue the other way, and they didn’t do any-
thing for 10 years; then for 10 years you would be tied up.
Mr. RAINEY. I can draft a clause of that kind and present it.
The CHAIRMAN. Then they might come back in 10 years and
say, “We must have this additional time.”
Mr. RAINEY. It is possible to find language that will carry out the
idea of the chairman, and I will be glad to draft such language as
far as I can. l
The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad if you would. g
Mr. RAINEY. I provide for an Illinois Waterways Commission to
take care of these claims in language something like this. It proba-
bly could be better expressed or expressed in a briefer way than I
have expressed it here.
ILLINOIS RIVER WATERWAY COMMISSION
SEC. 2. That a commission to be known as the Illinois River Waterway Com-
mission, consisting of five members to be appointed by the President of the
United States, is hereby created and authorized. Two members of this:c0m-
mission shall be selected from the active or retired list of the Engineer Corps
of the Army, and three from civil life, two of whom shall be expert hydraulie
engineers. The members selected from civil life shall not be residents of the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 801
State of Illinois, nor shall they have been at any time employed by the Sanitary
I)istrict of Chicago.
Said commission shall investigate and determine claims for damages here-
tofore sustained and heretofore to be sustained by landowners in the Illinois
River Valley occasioned by the diversion of water from Lake Michigan and the
discharge of the same, through the sanitary district channel and the Des Plaines
River, into the Illinois River.
In order to give said commission jurisdiction of any claim for damages, the
claimant and the Sanitary District of Chicago shall each agree to be bound by
the findings of Said commission.
Said Commission shall complete its investigations within three months after
the passage of this act, Or within such extension of time not to exceed an
additional three months as may be granted by the Secretary of War. After
the completion of said investigation said commission shall make a report of
the awards of damages it may make, giving the name and post-Office address
Of each claimant and the amount of damages, if any, awarded to each claimant,
one copy of said report to be certified by said commission to the Secretary
of War and one copy of said report to be certified to the President of the
board of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, and the provisions of
this bill in so far as they relate to the said diversion of water at Chicago from
the Great Lakes shall not take effect until said Illinois River Waterway Com-
mission shall have reported to the President of the United States that the
Sanitary District of Chicago has agreed to the jurisdiction of said Illinois
River Waterway Commission in all cases and that all of said awards have
been fully paid by the Sanitary District of Chicago, and upon receipt of said
report the Secretary of War shall issue an order declaring the provisions
of this act relating to and permitting said diversion of water to be in full
force and effect and thereupon the Illinois River Waterway Commission shall
be dissolved.
The said commission may employ such clerical help as it may deem necessary
and shall be authorized to administer oaths to witnesses who may appear
before it. All expenses of this commission and the compensation of its mem-
bers shall be paid by the Sanitary District of Chicago. Members of the commis-
sion appointed from the active list of the Engineer Corps of the Army shall
receive the pay and compensation now allowed them by law, and any member
appointed from the retired list shall receive the same pay and compensation
as he would receive if on the active list. The compensation of the members
of the commission appointed from civil life shall be fixed by the Secretary
Of War.
Now the sanitary district will agree substantially to this, I think
you will find, when their case is presented, and I think it is germane
to the bill and to the other propositions, and if they agree substan-
tially to it they do that in response to the efforts we are all making
to get in harmony on this matter.
Mr. SEGER. You refer to certain damages now being paid by the
Chicago district. By whom are they paid?
Mr. RAINEY. Now? Oh, it is being done by a voluntary arrange-
iment.
The CHAIRMAN. Simply by negotiations between the parties.
Mr. ADCOCK. And, of course, they have their remedy in court?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; they have their remedy in court if they are not
satisfied.
The CHAIRMAN. We have been told that there is a considerable
number of compromises being arranged, and you are probably rep-
resented legally by your lawyers, and as to the damages, by engi-
neers or investigators. &
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes, and the committee of the board of trustees.
… Mr. JARMAN. Does that include all damages, whether they are
... barred by the statute of limitations or not? t -
Mr. ADCOCK. No, I do not imagine the board of trustees of the
district would have the power to pay anything but a lawful claim.
91739—24—PT 2 36
|
802 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. JARMAN. Then any claim that would be barred by the statute
of limitations would not be included in this provision?
The CHAIRMAN. What is your statute of limitations?
Mr. ADCOCK. This is in the nature of an eminent domain pro-
ceeding, and under our statute they have a right of action in the case
of damage by a public improvement. Under this sanitary district
act that provision of the Constitution was substantially reiterated
in that section and it gives any person who has lands that are dam-
aged the right to sue in the county of Cook, where the Sanitary dis-
trict is located, or in any county where the lands are located, and
there are some 15 counties extending down through the valley where
suits are pending. -
The CHAIRMAN. What is the length of your statute?
Mr. ADCOCK. The statute of limitations for a suit like this is five
€8,ICS.
y The CHAIRMAN. Is that your statute on civil contracts?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; except as to written contracts, where the statute
is 10 years. But the five year statute of limitations applies to this.
Now, as to what we call the permanent damages, that is, the
measure of damages and depreciation in value of the land due to
this flow of 10,000 cubic feet, the courts have held that as to those
cases the statute of five years applies. Our supreme court has de-
cided that. If they did not bring suit in five years after the channel
was opened then they were barred. There has been another line of
suits called the temporary damage suits.
The CHAIRMAN. Damage as to crops.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; recurrent. That was litigated for a number of
years and finally the courts got down to this proposition: That a
landowner who had not brought suit within the five-year period
immediately following the opening of the channel could bring suit,
Say, to-day, and he could recover the depreciation on the value of his
land due to any actual increase inflow over the statutory authorized
flow at the beginning of the five years immediately preceding the in-
stitution of the suit. So if the actual flow had been more than the
authorized flow then they could bring suit and recover for the
depreciation in the value of the land due to that increase in flow.
The CHAIRMAN. If there had been an increase in the flow during
the five years?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
Mr. JARMAN. Over and above that authorized by statute.
Mr. ADCOCK. Fixed according to the population of the district;
that is what you call the authorized flow.
Mr. JARMAN. That does not fix any definite amount, then, but it is
variable according to the increase in population?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes. The population increases in Chicago about
71,000 a year; 71,000 plus, I think.
Mr. JARMAN. Does that statute fix a minimum, and does it give
the percentage in accordance with the percentage of increase in the
population? • - . • &
Mr. ADCOCK. No; it º that the ratio of population—that is,
we shall cause to flow through this channel into the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers a certain volume of water, which is 20,000 cubic feet
per minute for each 100,000 population.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 803
Mr. JARMAN. That would make 10,000 cubic feet per second for
3,000,000 population.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
Mr. JARMAN. I understand, then, that you are settling these claims:
that there are not included any claims that are barred by the statute
of limitations?
Mr. ADCOCK. Congressman Rainey has stated the proposition cor-
rectly, I think. --
Mr. JARMAN. Well, do I correctly understand that that is the
proposition? -
Mr. ADCOCK. I think there is no difficulty in getting together on a
plan, on Mr. Rainey's idea, that will protect all the interests in the
valley. I have not gone over the particular provision of the bill for
that purpose. º
The CHAIRMAN. You gentlemen are talking about different things.
You have in mind present damages, and he has in mind a future
adjustment through legislation.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think either one of you is going to talk
about what the other has in mind, and so I do not think you are
going to get anywhere.
Mr. JARMAN. Well, as I understand this bill, from what Mr. Con-
gressman Rainey has said, it provides for all damages.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all right; but you are not talking about
his bill, as I understand; you are talking about the efforts at compro-
mise, to which Mr. Rainey referred yesterday, and Mr. Adcock is, on
the other hand, talking about Mr. Rainey’s bill.
Mr. ADCOCK. Well, I am talking about what Mr. Rainey has said
we propose to do in regard to these claims, in connection with legis-
lation that is pending here.
Mr. JARMAN. Just let me ask this question. Do you understand
that Mr. Rainey's bill provides for the settlement of damages which
would be barred by the statute in any action that might be brought.
Mr. Boy CE. It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have hardly
reached the stage to have this matter
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I agree with you, Judge. I think
we had better let the Congressman go ahead.
Mr. RAINEY. It depends largely on the negotiations and compro-
mises we are able to make, and to which we can get the committee to
agree.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes: I think if we reach the point that your bill
would be under serious consideration for action, I think you have
indicated as broad and general a scope on this question as anyone
could reach, and that it would simply be a question of further
study along those lines. Do you not think so, Judge Boyce 2
Mr. BoycE. I do. I do not however imagine that anyone at the
present stage of the hearings before the committee is authorized to
answer questions that might be propounded which would be bind-
ing upon the parties whom he might represent.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it would be academic discussion.
Mr. RAINEY. Academic discussion, and I think it ought to be
avoided at this stage. You are absolutely right about that, I think.
804 * Is AND Mississippi Rivers, etc.
The CHAIRMAN.
Mr. RAINEY. Y
present.
The next Se
In explanatiº
commenced
the farme'
of the a'
I think it is govered for the present.
es; it is covered as far as it can be covered at
ction has to do with the question of attorney’s fees.
on to the committee I want to say that when this flow
, attorneys sent their agents through the valley and got
cs to agree to contracts giving them a certain percentage
..mount of damages that they might be able to recover by
- * mise or in any other way. -
* CHAIRMAN. Varying from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, approxi-
in late ſy % -
M F.
* ir. RAINEY. You are right, usually 50 per cent. Enough claims
* (ve been kept alive by one of these attorneys, if they are paid by
Jhe district without any further interference with the contracts, to
give to that one attorney $300,000 or $400,000, and he will not have
been responsible in any way for the conditions which now come to-
gether which make possible the payment of these claims.
The CHAIRMAN. And you are protecting against that?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and the chairman knows we do that right along
here in bills in Congress. :
The CHAIRMAN. Repeatedly. .
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; repeatedly. Section 3 reads:
SEC. 3. Both the claimant and the Sanitary District of Chicago shall hav
the right to be represented before the commission by agent or attorney. Ru
no agent or attorney or other person shall demand or receive a larger compen.
sation for his services than 10 per centum of the amount that shall be allowed
any claimant on his claim by the commission ; and any agent, attorney, or
other person who shall for said service directly or indirectly receive or retail
any greater fee for his services or instrumentality in presenting a claim befor
the Said commission than is provided in this Section, Or Who Shall Wrongfully
withhold from Said claimant any part of any award in excess of the fee pro
vided for herein, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor and upo
conviction thereof shall for every such offense be fined not exceeding $1,000
or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretio
of the COUlrt. -
That clause, of course, is not unusual and it frequently appears in
bills that we pass. -
The CHAIRMAN. We have had it this session.
Mr. RAINEY. Of course, this committee does not want to be a party
to enabling any attorney to make $300,000 out of these claims
Here comes the question of the protection of levees. I drew the bil
which extended the protection awarded by the Government to levee;
from Cape Girardeau north to Rock Island, Ill., and this proceeds
largely with that language, and I have submitted this to Genera
Beach, who says it will accomplish what it is desired to accomplish
| Reading:]
SEC. 4. The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army is hereby veste
With jurisdiction and authority over the construction of levees and othe
Works for the prevention and control of floods in the Illinois River from its
mouth to the mouth of the Des Plaines River and all such works shall here
after be located and built in accordance with such plans and specifications
as he may formulate or approve, and he is also authorized to make such regu
lations as he may deem necessary to control the diversion of water from Lak
Michigan into the Illinois River as provided in this act. - -
This takes it away from the sanitary district. They control i
now, but this gives it to the Chief of Engineers, and such works
as he might direct shall be built there. [Reading further:
















ILLINois AND M* Issippi RivKRs, ETC. 805
The secretary of War is º' eed to allot from any funds hereafter ap-
ropriated by Congress for Gºro' ſing the floods of the AHssissippi River and
ºntinuing its improvement ſº fºie Head of Passes to Rock Island, Ill., such
ums of money as he may ºeº equitable for the construction of flood control
works upon any part of the I) Jinois River between its mouth and the mouth
f the Des Plaimes River and for levees upon any part of said river between
ts mouth and the Des Plain es River in Such manner as in his opinion shall
rest improve navigation an Ol promote the interest of commerce and protect
aid levees against the divºrsion of waters from the lakes as authorized in
his bill at all stages of the river, including such changes and alterations in
said levees as Inay be made necessary by the diversion of water from the Great
Lakes authorized by this ºct. All money's SO allotted to be expended under the
supervision ºf the Chief of Engineers. In allotting moneys for said purpose
said Chief of Engineers. Shall at all times take into consideration the diver-
sion of waters from the lakes authorized herein ; the said diversion of waters
from the {#1:eat Lakes to be in Such amount only as will provide for the
navigation ſtºn, templated in this act and for the sewage dilution contemplated
in this act, at no time, however, to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second. -
That is substantially the language which was used in the act which
extended 83 overnment aid for levees to the upper Mississippi Valley.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the real trouble I see about that provi-
sion, and a change that has got to be worked out. You are going to
equire a very different protection during such time as you continue
water for Sewage disposal in quantities in excess of that needed for
navigation.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is going to be quite a relatively tempo-
ary purpose. On the other hand, you are going to require perma-
ent protection by levees as to the diversion for navigation.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And what you have got to work out is a system
r permanent protection as against any diversion necessary for
avigation, and then the thing that will afford the most protec-
on but will be the least expensive for the temporary purpose dur-
g the continuance of the erection of sanitary works.
Mr. RAINEY. That is true, and it is difficult to work it out in a
|]. -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course it is, and what you have got to have
advance, and what this committee ought to do before the ad-
urnment of this Congress is, probably to pass a resolution ask-
g the Chief of Engineers to be at work on that problem, so as to
in a condition to report to us when Congress reconvenes.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. I will introduce such a resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. And that ought to be carefully considered, and
ill be glad to work at that with you.
r. RAINEY. Yes. The difficulty at the outset appears to be this.
is is the idea of the chairman and mine, too. It looks like these
ees will require more assistance during the period of large flow
in will be at all necessary hereafter. You are right about that,
d that is a difficult problem connected with this. It will proba-
adjust itself as the years pass because the appropriation will
essarily be a permanent appropriation as long as this flow con-
ues, and the less we make it in the future the less the perma-
it diversion for the Mississippi River fund will be for this pur-
e. But, as you say, it is a difficult problem, and I do not know
w to work it out in a bill, and I don’t think it can be done ex-
t to leave it largely to such regulations as the Chief of Engi-












806 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
neers may from time to time put into effect. But you are right
about the resolution, and about getting the opinion of the Chief
of Engineers on this problem and I will introduce such a resolu-
tion as that. s
Mr. HULL. That will be a resolution on the sewage disposal?
Mr. RAINEY. A resolution as to how best to protect these levees.
The CHAIRMAN. Temporary and permanent.
Mr. RAINEY. Temporary and permanent, as against the Chicago
diversion, which in the bill we may ultimately adopt may grow
less as the years pass, and as the necessity for sewage dilu-
tion grows less. -
Now, as I have said to the chairman, I have no pride of author-
ship at all in this bill, I am not asking that my bill be passed, in
fact it would be foolish for me to do so, but I am submitting this
for purposes of study, and I would be glad to work with Mr. Hull
and assist him in his bill so far as I know how to do it, in order to
get in these provisions for the protection of the valley, with which
I know Mr. Hull is in entire accord. The problems in his district
are identically the problems presented in my district.
Now, I thank the committee for the time given me. You have
been generous, and the witnesses who will follow will be much
more interesting than I have been able to be. You have Mr. Sack-
ett here and Mr. Boyle, and ex-Congressman Shaw, all of whom
want to be heard, and finally you will have the pleasure of listen-
ing to the attorneys representing the Chicago Sanitary District.
Mr. JARMAN. You provide in your bill that this damage pro-
vided for shall be paid to landowners. Is it not just as just to
provide for damages to drainage and levee districts, where they
have been damaged? Drainage and levee districts are a separate
entity and there has been great damage there.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say that section is one the details of
which could not possibly be worked out at the present time. All
you can do at the utmost is to give a general sketch or outline of
what might be purposed in the event we reach the consideration
of it. * *
Mr. JARMAN. My suggestion is in connection with the landowner;
that levee districts ought to be provided for
The CHAIRMAN. It is a good idea to have it in the record, and we
thank you for making this suggestion.
Mr. HULL. Are these drainage districts owned by the landowners
themselves? -
Mr. JARMAN. No; it is a separate municipal corporation organized
under the statute, and the municipal corporation owns the levees and
the ditches and the pumping stations.
Mr. Huº. was it not the landowners' money that made those
improvements? *
Mr. JARMAN. Oh, yes; but if you had an action for damage to the
levees that action would be brought by the drainage and levee dis-
tricts as municipal corporations, and the damages recovered would
go to the municipal corporation and not the landowners. ..
The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your suggestion, Mr.
Jarman. Now, Mr. Bruce, who is your next witness?
Mr. BRUCE. We are through for the present.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 807
The CHAIRMAN. There was some question as to whom we should
hear.
Mr. HULL. I would like to get this into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Hull. We will be glad to hear you
now and then whoever you suggest.
STATEMENT OF HON, WILLIAM E. HULL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. HULL. Gentlemen of the committee, I feel as though my col-
league, Mr. Rainey, has sacrificed a great deal in being so magnani-
mous as to say to this committee what he has in reference to myself,
realizing, as the rest of you do, that I am only a new Member and
probably have presumed more than I should in introducing a bill
that has attracted so much attention over the country. I do not
suppose that anybody on the committee, and I am sure I did not
myself, realize what magnitude this bill would run into.
The CHAIRMAN. I might say right there, Congressman, that while
the matter has been the subject of more or less live discussion along
the Great Lakes, that it has now become a vital question owing to
the fact that there has been the decision on the appeal pending.
Mr. HULL. In organizing for the construction of my bill con-
siderable time was put in to try and find out what would be for the
best interests of the sanitary district or, rather, I should say, for the
people of Chicago, the farmers of the valley, and the cities of the
vallev.
Rizing as Congressman Rainey has said, that the beautiful river
of Illinois has been damaged to such an extent by the pollution as to
convert it to something other than a river; that we who have spent
our fortunes, have lived along the banks of this beautiful river, have
our lives yet to live there, feel the importance of a bill of some kind,
no matter whether Congressman Rainey writes it or Congressman
Madden writes it or William E. Hull writes it, that will bring about
a solution of one of the most serious problems that this country has
before it in the way of a waterway, and also of the pollution of one
of our beautiful rivers.
I have been criticised in my district very largely by those who
have heard stories and misrepresentations that I was furthering the
interests of the sanitary district, that my bill had been written in
their interest. That, of course, is wholly untrue. While I am ex-
ceedingly fair not only to the sanitary district but to the farmers.
and the citizens in the valley, I realize, as Congressman Rainey has
so ably stated to you, that it would be impossible to do anything
other than be fair with all, and I want to say in the outset that that
means the people on the Great Lakes, it means those people who
have their harbors, it means the people at Niagara Falls who have
created the great water-power plants; and incidentally I might say
it means, too, our Canadian friends. I think we are identically in
the same boat in my district and in Mr. Rainey’s district, which dis-
trict adjoins mine. I think he said yesterday that he had 10 counties
that this river runs through. I have six counties in my congressional
district and five of them this river runs through, including the whole
side of Peoria County, in which I live, is bounded by the Illinois
808 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
River. Tazewell County, another large county, is equally bounded
by the Illinois River.
So you can understand, gentlemen, the anxiety that I have as the
Representative of the sixteenth congressional district of Illinois in
coming before the Congress of the United States and trying to per-
fect a bill that will give us actual relief.
Mr. Rainey's suggestions are in accordance with my views. There
is nothing in Mr. Rainey's bill that I would not gladly accept. The
only difference was in writing the bill. It was in my mind, as the
chairman brought up yesterday, whether it was possible to make a
commission to settle these claims as Mr. Rainey has suggested. If
it can be done, and the bill would be legal under such conditions,
I would certainly welcome it, because I know that the landowners
along this river have suffered intensely. Mr. Rainey has not ex-
aggerated it in the least. The citizens of Peoria, a city of some
90,000 people, are entitled to some relief. There is no better city of
its size in the United States and there is no more beautiful location
for a city than on the banks of the Illinois. The President of the
United States visited Peoria, and he stated to me that it was the
most beautiful city he had ever seen. That recommendation alone
would bring forth the thought that I have of my city, that I have of
the place of my abode; a city I have had the greatest confidence in :
a city that I have invested my entire fortune in, trying to make it
the great city of the West.
I have conceived the idea in this bill that we should have a deep
waterway; that we should clear up the Illinois River: that we should
make the sanitary district pay the claims that they ought to pay:
and that we should force the sanitary district into building their
treatment plants to take care of the sewage.
But there are other fundamentals, gentlemen, in this problem that
are far beyond even what I have stated here to-day, and I have based
the argument that I am going to make on a different idea entirely.
What I say is based on the evidence that has been produced here and
upon my thought, not as a lawyer—as I have so often stated to you
gentlemen—but as a common, everyday business man.
I say to you now that what I am going to say is my thought on a
principle and not on a bill; because if we can not bring that thing to
bear on the committee and on the Congress of the United States, then
what Mr. Rainey has talked about would be futile, and we have got
to go first to the fundamentals in this proposition before we can
even come to the actuality of building a canal in connection with the
taking care of the sewage in the Illinois River.
I appreciate the courtesy and cordiality that has been shown in
the discussion of this matter and the geniality shown me by the
members of the committee and specially by the chairman, and I
know that he has been more than lenient with me in all these dis-
cussions we have had; he has also realized my desire to do something
and he has realized my greenness as a Congressman, he has taken
that into consideration I know or he would not have stood for a lot
of things he has had to stand for because of my inability to express
myself from the legal standpoint.
The CHAIRMAN. You have done exceedingly well, very well indeed.
Mr. HULL. This is what I have to say on this important subject.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 809
On April 18, I made a statement to your honorable committee that
in deference to what seemed to me to be good policy in reference to
the passing of a general rivers and harbors bill, I would withdraw
my bill H. R. 5475 from the general bill.
Those hearings were set in advance and have been pursued on
the presumption that my bill might be included in the general bill
reported by the committee for the improvement of rivers and har-
bors. Owing to the fact that I have about determined in my own
mind that a new bill should be written on this subject, I have pur-
sued the policy of fighting for a principle and not for the passage
of the bill. -
Involved in this principle is a matter of equity for this great Gov-
ernment of ours. The policy of our Nation has always been to treat
each section of the Union on an equal basis. Therefore, after the
testimony that has been put forth in this case, it seems evident that
this was the intention of those empowered to establish a treaty be-
tween the United States Government and the Canadian Government.
At that time this commission was empowered to take into considera-
tion, first, Canada, then Niagara Falls, and then the great West,
which naturally fell to Chicago, because it happened to be the point
where diversion existed at the time the treaty was promulgated.
From the evidence that has been introduced at this hearing I think
it has been clearly demonstrated that the Canadian Government has
been the greatest beneficiary of all, and next to that the State of
New York in its Niagara power plants, and the only thing left, as I
see it, for the whole great western country, which includes such
States as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and the far
West, would be what was left in the consideration of the diversion
problem, and that would be the 10,000 cubic feet per second allotted
to Chicago. . . .
At this juncture I want to remind you that this deep waterway
from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico is not a new thought,
but one that goes back for a century, and I call your attention to
the fact that in 1822 Congress passed the first canal act. In that
year, the British Government gave definite expression of its attitude,
denying American citizens the right to navigate the St. Lawrence
River, so the Congress of the United States passed an act authoriz-
ing the State of Illinois to open this canal in order to connect the
lakes with the seacoast.
Then again in 1827, when the British Government refused to dis-
cuss the question of the right of American citizens to navigate the
St. Lawrence, the United States Government—that is, Congress—
again passed an act authorizing the State of Illinois to open this
same canal and provided therein that there should be granted to the
State of Illinois, for the purpose of aiding the State, the right to
open a canal to unite the waters of the Illinois River with those of
Lake Michigan. -
From 1829 to 1836 the State of Illinois passed legislation authoriz-
ing the construction of the canal as requested by the United States.
This canal was completed in 1848 by the State of Illinois, but on
account of the lack of funds it was only 6 feet deep and 40 feet
wide, and was fed partially by the gravity flow from the Calumet
River through the Calumet feeder which connected with it at the
810 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
village of Sag, Ill., and by water pumped from Chicago River up
into the canal at Ashland Avenue where its locks were located. It
became a great aid to commerce in the Mississippi Valley.
The enlargement of this canal by an act of legislation in 1861 was
authorized by joint resolution directing the commissioners of the
Illinois, and Michigan canal to cause a thorough survey.
Another report was made in 1866, by General Wilson, and in this
report it was clearly demonstrated that the Illinois River
was by nature the line by which the waters of Lake Michigan should
be connected with those of the Mississippi, and a moment’s consid-
eration will show that at no remote period the waters of the Lake
must have been carried off by those streams as well as by the St.
Lawrence.
During the period up to 1890 a number of surveys were made of
the entire Illinois River project, showing a through line of water
connection from the Mississippi to Lake Michigan via the Illinois
River, and these projects have at different times been before the Con-
gress of the United States. I quote from the rivers and harbors
act, approved August 5, 1886, “to examine and report upon the
Illinois and Michigan Canal and the proposed Hennepin Canal,
says, in its report, that the waterway from Chicago to Grafton, on
the Mississippi River, is a most important one, and when completed
there is little doubt that it will richly pay for itself in the reduction
and regulation of freights.” In addition to that it will be of great
value for commercial, military and naval purposes.
In 1889 the State of Illinois considered that it was acting not only
within its rights but also pursuant to the wishes of the United
States as expressed by congressional acts, and by engineer’s reports,
in providing for the construction of the sanitary and shipping canal,
as is apparent from the joint resolution of the legislature of Illinois,
adopted May 29, 1889, an act entitled “An act to create sanitary
districts and to remove obstructions in the Des Plaines and Illinois
Rivers.” And on July 1, 1889, it became a law, and the War De-
partment was advised thereof on July 10, 1889. e
It was evidently contemplated by the legislature of that time
which gave the sanitary district the privilege of turning the sewage
into the Illinois River, that they would also make the minimum
capacity 10,000 cubic feet per second. The reason that I have
quoted these different dates is to establish in your minds, if possible,
the fact that this waterway, known as the Illinois waterway, that is
now being constructed by the State of Illinois, was actually started as
far back as 1822. Then we lead on up to the time when the route was
chosen and we find that was in 1892, and the actual construction of
the canal was started in 1893, and again in 1895 the Secretary of
War ordered a report made, as to the effect the diversion would have
on the lake levels, considering a contemplated diversion of 10,000
cubic feet per second. On January 17, 1900, the main channel was
completed and placed in operation. It was 160 feet wide in the
regular section and 24 feet deep with a flowage capacity of 10,000
cubic feet per second. So you can see that there is a long history
to this deep waterway that we have before us to-day, and the rea-
son that I have given these dates is for the purpose, if I can, of con-
vincing you that this project was one that was established years
and years ago, that it has always had the right to divert 10,000 cubic
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 811
feet per second, and you will find further along in the treaty, be:
tween the United States and Canada, the very fact that this great
western country was permitted to divert this water as has been
plainly shown to you. . It was the intent of the International water-
ways commission to charge this 10,000 c. f. s. diverted at Chicago
against the United States Government, because they allowed, the
diversion of 20,000 c. f. s. from the Niagara River above the falls
for power purposes and at the same time allowed 36,000 c. f. S. to
the Canadian government and the paragraph closes and states that—
The prohibition of this article shall not apply to the diversion of Water for
sanitary or domestic purposes.
Consequently, it is plain to me, and I believe that it was the in-
tent at that time, to allow this 10,000 c. f. S., because it was used for
sanitary and domestic purposes, and then again article 8 defines
the order of precedence to be observed among the various uses enu-
merated for boundary waters, which are determined as follows:
(1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes.
(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the
purposes of navigation. *
(3) Use for power and for irrigation purposes.
But, in my judgment, of all the clauses in the treaty that would
make it apparent and prove the fact that that was the main thought
in the treaty, is the following:
The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses
of houndary waters on either side of the boundary.
It seems very simple to me, gentlemen, that that one clause should
say that the 10,000 c. f. s. was being diverted at the time and also
that the Government took into consideration the fact that the
Niagara project was only to have 20,000 c. f. s. against the Canadian’s
36,000 c. f. s., and that they surely intended to count this 10,000
c. f. s as belonging to the United States Government. *
It may seem strange to you that after withdrawing my bill, H. R.
5475, I should continue on these hearings to prove the facts that
Chicago and the great western country were entitled to this diver-
sion, or to disprove the fact that we in the West were infringing
upon the East, but to me it appears important that I should do so,
as it is not the bill I am fighting for but a principle. And I believe
that Wisconsin and Michigan, who are taking such an active part
in this fight, and are actually pulling the chestnuts out of the fire
for the Canadian Government, and the Niagara power plants, will
some day wake up and will realize that they have given away the
greatest asset that this western country will ever have, and that is
the 10,000 c. f. s. diversion they are entitled to, not only by the
agreement of the International Waterways Commission, but as im-
plied in the treaty. -
We have a great many things confronting us in this legislation,
and my main object is a deep waterway leading from Lake Michi-
gan to the Gulf of Mexico. That must be the paramount issue, be-
cause that means so much, not only to the people living along the
river, but to all the people who live west and east of us, because it
will provide transportation that will reduce the freight rates and
give the farmer and the manufacturing interests of the middle west
an equal chance with the more-favored sections of the east.
812 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
But again we have in the river to-day, and I want to make that
emphatic, the sewage of Chicago, put there by the law of the State
of Illinois, and, in my judgment, a withdrawal of any portion of
the water that they are putting through now, under the present con-
ditions, would be ruinous to the health and lives, not only of the
citizens of Chicago, but of the citizens along the river; and while it
is true that a portion of my constituents disagree to some extent with
me in this respect, I have made a study of it, and I am convinced in
my own mind that it would be actually ruinous.
There are only three ways that Chicago can dispose of this
sewage: One is through the Illinois River, as they are disposing of it
now ; the other is to pump it back into Lake Michigan where they
obtain their drinking water; and the other would be through sewage
disposal plants. The latter is the only one that must be eventually
used; and it is the duty of the sanitary district and the citizens of
Chicago to begin, and begin in earnest, to build these plants as
rapidly as they possibly can, not only for their own salvation, but
for the salvation of all the people in the valley. If they will not
do this voluntarily, then it is either the duty of the United States
Government or the duty of the State of Illinois to force them to do
So by legal action. I believe that in passing a law making this deep
waterway, regardless of everything else, that should be the principal
paragraph in the bill—to force Chicago into building of these plants.
But, in my judgment—and I think I have a fair idea of the situa-
tion—it will take Chicago at her best, financially and physically, 20
years at least to complete these plants to take care of the 3,000,000
people. I believe, further, that after that has been done, it will take
a large quantity of water to protect those who are in the valley.
The 10,000 cubic foot-seconds is allotted, in my judgment, to the
great western country. It was the one thing that was taken into
consideration in the treaty, and while it does not say so in so many
words, it implies it in a number of places, and I am satisfied that
even the Canadian Government at that time recognized the fact that
we would be obliged to have that amount of water in order to carry
out this system of sewage disposal that was in operation at that
time.
But, on the other hand, eliminate the sanitary district and
the city of Chicago from the proposition; come back to the
true and fundamental principles laid down by Our Govern-
ment that all parts of our country should be treated as nearly
alike as possible, and I maintain that this 10,000 cubic foot-
seconds belongs to the great Central West, and that it will through-
out all the time to come be the mainstay of a deep waterway
from the Lakes to the Gulf. I believe that when this waterway
is once established the commerce attracted to its borders will be so
large that eventually it will be necessary to make the canal 18 or 20
feet deep, and such a project would be impossible without the diver-
sion that has been given to us by the treaty. If we at this time allow
Canada and the Niagara power interests to take this water away
from the Mississippi Valley, I predict it will never be possible to get
it back again, no matter how vital it may prove to be to the mainte.
nance of an adequate waterway from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of
Mexico.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 813
You have heard the evidence upon both sides, and it is unnecessary
for me to elaborate upon the proposition that the farmers of the
West and the manufacturers of the West, especially in the Central
West, which includes all of the States, are in need of this great
waterway; and also that unless they are actually given this relief
you may see in the near future a great destruction of enterprises in
this section of the country. Therefore, I do not intend to take up
your time by referring to the proofs made on this particular subject,
and all that I will do in conclusion is to try and point out how futile
the objections to this great project have been.
We will take every witness, those who represented the Lake
carriers, those who represented the power interests, and those who
represented States who think they are to be injured. Take all, of
their evidence together and what do you find? The Lake carriers
and all of them combined have not yet demonstrated to this com-
Inittee that the Lake levels have been lowered to such an extent as to
injure transportation. Why? Because it has been proven, and
stated time and time again by those who know, that the tonnage is
away beyond their expectations, and is larger this year than in any
previous year, and at no time have they either demonstrated or
proven that they have been inconvenienced in the least; but on the
other hand we have these men coming before this committee, and they
generally wind up with the statement that seven times as much
power can be generated at Niagara power plants as can be developed
in the canal at Chicago. It has been made clear to this committee, I
am sure, that that is what is uppermost in the minds of those who
are objecting to the western country having this diversion. Power,
and power only, seems to be the main object of all the testimony, and
we find the Canadian Government has the same purpose in mind
and has already taken the lion's share of this water in taking the
36,000 cubic foot-seconds. The makers of the treaty gave the State
of New York, through the Niagara Power Co., 20,000 cubic foot-
seconds, and now why should these interests desire to take away from
the western country that which rightfully belongs to them and which
they had in control before the treaty was ever signed? All I have to
say to you, gentlemen, is this: Don't overlook the great proposition,
and that is that this Government must continue to function in every
section of it, and when you destroy one section for the benefit of the
other, then you destroy the prosperity of the land. The great Central
West has been the feeder and the progressive part of this country,
and now that it has this hope of a deep waterway connecting Lake
Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico, which will, without dispute, create
a medium of transportation that will take the products of this great
agricultural and manufacturing section of our country through the
... Panama Canal and to all parts of the globe, do not take away the
advantage it so richly deserves. & *
I want to say further that should this great waterway be a thing
of realization, then you will find in time of war what great advant-
age it will be to the United States Government.... . . . .
Now, gentlemen, I have lived along the Illinois River all my
life. I have spent the last 35 years in Peoria. We have a vast
expanse of water in front of our beautiful city, one mile in width,
a slow flowing river that we call: Peoria Lake, and today this en-
814 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ergetic city is concerned with two problems; one, of the pollution of
the river, and the other, a need for navigation; and I want to say
to you, so that it may be carried back to the people who live along
the river, that the object in view in this legislation is, first, to give
a thorough transportation from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mex-
ico; second, to clean the Illinois River of its pollution ; and third,
to protect the farmer and his lands and reimburse him for the dam-
ages he has suffered in this connection.
The great State of Illinois, patriotic in times of war, patriotic in
times of peace, offers to the Government of the United States more
than her share toward this great waterway. The farmers and the
citizens of this Commonwealth by their vote gave twenty millions
of dollars to build the connecting link between Lake Michigan and
the Illinois River, so that the people of the great Mississippi Valley
might be favored by transportation that would give them relief and
connect them with the ports of the world. , Will it be the policy of
this committee and the Congress of the United States to ignore this
gº gift of a State so willing to help herself and her sister
ates? -
We who live in Illinois are proud of the name—
By thy rivers gently, flowing,
Illinois, Illinois,
O'er thy prairies verdant growing,
Illinois, Illinois,
Comes an echo on the breeze,
Rustling through the leafy trees
And its mellow tones are these,
Illinois, Illinois.
Not without thy wondrous story,
Illinois, Illinois,
Can be writ the Nation’s glory,
Illinois, Illinois,
On the record of thy years,
Grant and Logan and our tears,
Illinois, Illinois.
[Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment before you sit down. I just want
to ask you a few questions along the lines suggested by Congressman
Rainey and in which you concur. The troubles that you have down
in the valley are twofold, aren't they 2
Mr. HULL. Yes. - -
The CHAIRMAN. First, you don’t want the sewage of Chicago any
longer than is necessary?
Mr. HULL. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, on that question you would not bind your-
selves to a 20-year limit, but you would be willing, would you not,
to have, to have a disinterested man, a man whose interest was to
see that they were dilligent
Mr. HULL. I certainly would.
The CHAIRMAN. To judge as to the time?
Mr. HULL. That is only my opinion. -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I am trying to get your opinion. #
Mr. HULL. I concur in what Mr. Rainey says in that respect. If
it could be done in 10 years, it would suit me better. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 815
The CHAIRMAN. Entirely aside from your sewage problem, you
do have genuine trouble down there in the valley with floods, don’t
Oll 4
y Mr. HULL. Yes; that is true to some extent—in the spring only.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have had very great troubles there: you
have had tremendous floods in one year, and in consequence of the
floods you have had to erect this system of levees, which is only a
partial protection and you are going to need a regular system and a
carefully considered and well-thought-out system.
Mr. HULL. That is correct, and if you will read my bill, Mr.
Chairman, you will see that it works a little over Mr. Rainey's
bill in this respect, that I have insisted in my bill that the United
States Government shall have sole charge of all the levees to be
built; they shall be built under their supervision, of a certain width
and a certain height, that will take care of the water that is flow-
ing down from Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, your floods have come from water
with this combinaton of sewage, and you are going to do away
with the sewage?
Mr. HULL. Yes. Right there I know what you are getting at
and I want to amplify what you are going to say in this way: If
you will read my bill you will notice I have allowed the privilege
to the engineers—and I am speaking of the Army engineers now—
to turn off the water to the very lowest extent from Lake Michigan
when we are having the floods and until the floods recede.
The CHAIRMAN. What you want down there is enough water for
such a navigable stream as is suited to and can be produced on the
Illinois River. That is what you want, isn’t it?
Mr. HULL. Well, I want to add to that. That is what we want
to start with. But, excuse me right there, because it comes in con-
tact with what I said in this speech. I presume it will take
so much water to make a 14-foot channel, then if that waterway
should prove the success which I have hopes of, we might want to
make it an 8–foot channel. That is my contention.
The CHAIRMAN. We have had, as has been suggested here, more
reports on the Illinois River, or as many, at any rate, as upon any
stream in the country, some half a dozen reports. dº
Mr. HULL. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. So far the engineers have recommended an 8-
foot channel, a 7 to 8 foot channel. There has been the thought
in the minds of some that that should be made 9 feet in order to
make it the same depth as the Mississippi system, of which it will
become a part. -
Mr. HULL. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you secure enough water for a 9-foot
channel, you are securing, are you not, all that the valley would
want, and any addition beyond that would not only not be a bene-
fit, but would be a positive detriment in the flooding of your lands?
Mr. HULL. Well, I do not agree with you on that, Mr. Dempsey,
to this extent. This is my idea. My idea has been this, that we
should make a channel without the locks, which, of course, takes
more water than if you have the locks, because the locks are more
816 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
detrimental to the landowners than the floods. They dam up the
water, and then when the floods do come it spreads over this land.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we take it this way
Mr. HULL. Take the dams out, and give us enough water for the
channel and the preservation of the health of the public.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we take it this way, to avoid the quali-
fication you make: What you want, then, is enough water to feed
such a stream as the engineers would say is the best kind of a stream
that can be obtained there for your 9-foot depth.
Mr. HULL. I would have to agree to what the engineers thought
was the best channel.
The CHAIRMAN. And anything beyond that would be a detriment
and not a help, wouldn’t it? - -
Mr. HULL. Well, in this way. I do not agree with you fully. We
are in variance as to the amount of the cubic-feet flow, and I want
to qualify it before I get away from it.
The CHAIRMAN. You keep that in your mind.
Mr. HULL. I will forget it if I do. Let me get it off of my mind.
You know I am not a lawyer and I do not think so well.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. HULL. The waterway should have enough water to do just
what you say, and take care also of the purification of the water
going downstream.
The CHAIRMAN. And no more?
Mr. HULL. I will agree to this extent, until such time as these
men in Chicago get their purification plants completed.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not in conflict with that. I have absolutely
abandoned that branch entirely.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you are willing to give us all the water
we need for the purification of the stream?
The CHAIRMAN. We dealt with that and passed it.
Mr. HULL. I will take your word for it. *
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking now solely and simply about the
navigation part of it. &
Mr. HULL. All right.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Congressman, you don’t believe that,
because it would be reasonable—let us assume that—if you ask for
a 9-foot channel, that you should obtain at that time, at the same
time when you are obtaining that water necessary for a 9-foot chan-
nel, permission to divert for an 18 or 20-foot channel, particularly
in view of the fact that the 9-foot channel is the prevailing depth
in all of the rest of the Mississippi system, and that any increased
depth would make your barges unnavigable on any part of your
system except the Illinois River alone?
Mr. HULL. I would certainly not desire to make the Illinois River
deeper than the Mississippi River, but, on the other hand, any time,
in 20 years, we will say, that this waterway should gain the progress
that we hope, we would all of us together, the Mississippi and the
Illinois River, want to make that channel an 18-foot channel instead
of a 9-foot; well, I would want the water to make it that way.
The CHAIRMAN. That would be a question when your commerce
would develop and is not a practical question at the present time,
is it?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 817
Mr. HULL. No. But I desire to protect the flow for the future.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the fact that the engineers
report that even a 7 or 8 foot channel on the Illinois would be ample
to handle a hundred million tons of freight?
Mr. HULL. Yes; but I do not agree with that report. -
The CHAIRMAN. All I am asking is whether you are familiar with
that branch of the report.
Mr. HULL. Yes; I am. I have read it half a dozen times.
The CHAIRMAN. And you are, of course, familiar with what has
been repeatedly developed here, that the commerce on the Great
Lakes, the greatest known in all history, at its maximum last year
was only 120,000,000 tons, so you are practically, by even a 7 or 8
foot waterway, getting approximately the same capacity for trans-
portation that is on that greatest system in the world.
Mr. HULL. Do you know what I think about it, I think if this
waterway is perfected as contemplated by the United States Gov-
ernment, that it will haul three times the amount that the Great
Lakes will, because we have the freight to haul. The only freight
that the Great Lakes have to haul to amount to anything is the iron.
You have noticed in the evidence that there is only a very small
portion of grain that goes that way. Of course, if you build your
canal through New York you would divert some of that grain traffic,
but the way it is now with the great grain crop, if we get these boat
lines to going as it should be, I contend that we will haul five times
as much freight as the Great Lakes. That is an extravagant expres-
sion to make, but I believe it.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest this to you: I have been engaged
very earnestly in this work for 10 years.
Mr. HULL. Don’t ever think for a minute I am going up against
you, in your judgment.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no more ardent advocate and no firmer
believer in inland transportation in the United States than . I am,
but if you can do some small part of your capacity traffic of your
hundred million tons, and I want you to do all you can do—
Mr. HULL (interposing). Of course, we don’t advocate something
that will be a frost. :
The CHAIRMAN. There is nobody in the world who will rejoice
more than I to see you increase your tonnage, but if you do any-
thing like the Monongahela is doing, 25,000,000 tons, which is the
wonder for river transportation up to the present time—if you will
do that within 10 years after your waterway is completed, you will
be living up to the expectations of those who not only believe in in-
land transportation but hope for its widest development. -
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, don’t you believe that if we do get an
adequate waterway, that comes out of Chicago and göes down to
New Orleans, that will connect with the lake carriers and also with
the ships at New Orleans, that the through freight will be double
what you state? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. I hope so. . . * - -
Mr. HULL. I will give you an illustration. I did not mean to get:
into this discussion, but since we are here we will stick. I will take
the distilleries in Peoria, and I know about them if anybody on earth.
knows about them. We have four very large plants that can operate,
818 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
on a basis of 35,000 bushels of corn a day. To-day they can not op-
erate. Why? Because the plants in the East, at Baltimore and dif-
ferent points, bring the molasses from Cuba—they do not use corn
anymore, but molasses—they bring that blackstrap to Baltimore
and distill it and make the alcohol, and it leaves these distilleries in
Peoria high and dry, because corn is at such a price that they can
not compete with the ship transportation and the molasses. But, on
the other hand, if we had the transportation in the Illinois River
and Mississippi River, we would bring the molasses just as cheaply
to Peoria and to these distilleries as they do to Baltimore, and that
alone would pretty near make up the freight that you are talking
about. -
The CHAIRMAN. There is no more thickly settled part of the
United States than that along the banks of the Erie Canal. That is
an absolutely free canal and has been since it was started in 1825.
It is now supposed to have a depth of 12 feet, although I do not
think it has probably over 10 feet for its entire course, and the
volume of potential freight is greater along that waterway or is as
great as it is anywhere in the world, and yet I do not think you will
find that last year we carried over two or three million tons.
Mr. HULL. I will agree with you.
The CHAIRMAN. I tell you it is one thing to theorize about trans-
portation and it is another and entirely different thing to get the
transportation. I believe that your waterway will get transporta-
.tion, but I do not share even the hope that you are going to get a
fiftieth part of the transportation you have in mind.
Mr. HULL. Of course, maybe you are right. I am not going to
say you are not. But I think differently.
The CHAIRMAN. Here you have ocean traffic and lake traffic, which
is an enormous success, growing like a weed every day, and what
we have got to do on this committee, one of our studies, is to pro-
mote and help in every way possible our inland transportation, and
make it live up to and realize in some degree what our hopes are.
Mr. HULL. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to analyze the Erie
Canal with what we are talking about. I know what the Erie Canal
is, and I know its potentalities, and I know what it has to draw
freight from, and what it does not, but here is the Illinois and Mis-
sissippi Valley Canal going through a great agricultural district.
tº: CHAIRMAN. We are the greatest agricultural State in the
Ill OIl.
Mr. HULL. You do not raise as much in the whole State as we do
in one county in Illinois. -
The CHAIRMAN. If you will look up the returns from agriculture
in New York, you will find that it is greater than Illinois.
Mr. HULL. 3. fellows are a joke compared to Illinois. Here,
Mr. Chairman, is what I am arguing for, and maybe I am wrong.
I do not know whether I am right or not, but I am just taking a
shot at it anyhow. I figure that the export grain that we would
have along the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers would keep all
the barges that we would get for a long while to carry that grain
for export purposes only, and that would save the farmer from 6
to 10 cents a bushel on his grain. He would certainly commence to
ship his grain by water if he could save 6 cents a bushel. You can
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 819
ship your grain to Davenport or to Peoria or Burlington or any of
those places and load it in these barges and run it down to the Gulf
of Mexico and suck it out in a day into a ship and send it to Liver-
pool. You won’t have to advertise to get business when you can
do that, and that is the reason I am so strong for this waterway.
The CHAIRMAN. I think your waterway is going to be useful, but
you cannot determine on potential commerce what the actual com-
merce is going to be, as the very sad observation and experience of
all of us j .#. but just let me say this in conclusion, Congressman
Rainey took a broad view—
Mr. HULL (interposing). I am agreeable to what he said. This
speech of mine was written before Mr. Rainey made his speech, or it
might have been modifid in some way. -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe that any effort to get water for
a waterway 18 or 20 feet deep, when you are aiming at a 9-foot
channel, is a practical way to proceed, and I am afraid that any
effort of that kind would defeat its very object, because the amount
you are asking to-day is 9 feet, and if you talk about 18 or 20 feet,
when you only mean 9 feet, it has seemed to me that you are not
aiming at the moon simply but you are aiming at dreams.
Mr. HULL. I am speaking for myself and not for the community
of Chicago. Here is what I would prefer if I had my way about it.
I would want the engineers to come out and build us a 9-foot water-
way and give us enough water and reserve us the right to use the
10,000 cubic feet per second if we need it. g
The CHAIRMAN. And get rid of the sewage as soon as they can'
Mr. HULL. To make us a 9-foot waterway from Lake Michigan
to the Gulf of Mexico through the Illinois River and take the
locks out.
Mr. McDUFFIE. How much fall is there from Lake Michigan
down through this canal? -
Mr. HULL. I can not tell you exactly. I had those figures, but I
have forgotten them.
Mr. McDUFFIE. You say you want to get a channel without any
locks. Is it possible to do that?
Mr. HULL. Oh, yes; easily. We have got the channel now. If
we had the same flow of water continually that we have in the Illinois
River to-day, we could take out the locks and have a navigable river.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Then, why did you build locks instead of dredg-
ing the channel?
Mr. HULL. We did not have this water when these locks were
built. This water has been turned in since. The locks were built
many years ago.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Hull says he is willing to take a
practical 9-foot waterway such as the engineers recommend. On
your question of locks, we know that is an engineering question and
I do not think that the Congressman would attempt to say that
what he is expressing is anything more than a layman's opinion.
Mr. HULL. That is what I desired. I do not claim that that is
what will be done.
The CHAIRMAN. What he wants is navigation down there, and he
does not want any unnecessary water flooding the farmers. What
820 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
he wants is a pure stream, and he does not want that sewage dumped
down on him any longer than is necessary.
Mr. HULL. And, of course, we have to have this water that comes
through now for years to come, until the sewage-disposal plants are
put in, and then I do not believe you can reduce the amount of flow.
Mr. McDUFFIE. How long do you think that will be? |
Mr. HULL. I think 20 years, and I am going to make a statement
now for myself only.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to say something to Mr. McDuffie. He
was not here when I suggested it. When Congressman Rainey re-
sumed this morning the chairman suggested to him, when he read
his provision as to the disposal of sewage by disposal plants, whether
it would not be better to put in a provision that Chicago should be
compelled to proceed at once and to proceed with diligence, the dili-
gence to be ascertained annually by the certificate of the Chief of
Engineers, and the continuance of water for dilution to depend
absolutely upon that certificate as to diligence. Now, Congressman
Hull does not want that dumped down any longer than is necessary,
and he is not going to adhere to 20 years. He is going to depend on
that certificate just as well as the rest of us.
Mr. McDUFFIE. If this channel is constructed and the United
States Government takes it over and assumes all responsibility,
whenever these floods come, unless they are protected against them,
floods brought about by an additional flow of water, then the Federal
Government will have to take care of all damages, would it not :
The CHAIRMAN. I should think so.
Mr. McDUFFIE. That is another problem.
Mr. HULL. They do that on the Mississippi now.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; they don’t do that on the Mississippi now,
because Providence alone is responsible for the floods on the Missis-
SIppl.
Mr. HULL. They get the same water we are getting. We are
sending it on down to them.
The CHAIRMAN. Even that simply increases our liability. -
Mr. HULL. Absolutely. That might extend on down to the Missis-
sippi River. *
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. Instead of our being liable we would
be liable because we permit an artificial diversion. The instant we
permit that to the extent that that creates a flood, that instant legal
liability for damages ensues, not only to the extent of the State of
Illinois but on down to the Gulf. *
Mr. HULL. You and I are pretty near together on that. There is
not enough difference between us to defeat a bill. The theory I have
gone on in this subject is simply a summing up of the evidence as I
saw it. It was not what the committee may decide, but it is the way I
viewed the evidence and everything, and my idea of the diversion,
and whether you use the 10,000 cubic feet is immaterial to me, only
I was working out the problem and answering the questions. I
thank you for giving me this chance. 4 * f
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock. . "
Mr. HULL. Mr. Sackett has got to go on first this afternoon and ,
then we have Mr. Boyle arid Mr. "Shaw. We ought to finish this ‘’’
afternoon if we can get here at 2 o'clock.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 821
The CHAIRMAN. I will be here at 2 o’clock.
Mr. HULL. And get the balance of them here.
(The chairman filed the following telegram for the record:)
HENRY, IL)., May 1, 1924.
Chairman R )Exi PSEY.
Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C. :
Have read Hull speech ; 10,000 feet exceeds Waterway needs and floods lands;
Chicago population exceeds 3,000,000; disposal plants should care for entire
populations plus future increases; boats withdrawn from river for lack of
business; valley without waterway for years; sewage not back of disturbance;
what's rush 2 20 years erection plants too long ; Hull campaign speech said
three years; advise whether Niagara Falls existed before sanitary commission.
HENRY KIWANIs CLUB,
And Chief Semach wine Chapter, Isaac Walton.
(Whereupon, at 12.20 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m.)
AFTER FECESS
The committee met at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to the taking of recess.
The CHAIRMAN. I have made a computation on the basis of the
New Welland Canal diverting 800 cubic feet per second instead of
4,500 cubic feet per second. The figures in Colonel Warren’s re-
#. show 0.21 on 4,500 cubic feet and on 800 cubic feet that would
gure 0.035 instead of 0.21. -
Mr. ADCOCK. Does not Colonel Warren’s report state that it is pro-
posed to take through the New Welland Canal 5,300 cubic feet—
that is, 800 cubic feet in addition?
The CHAIRMAN. Look it up and see. The testimony here is that
they are going to take 800 instead of 4,500.
Mr. BARRETT. We have prepared a map which contains, probably
not entirely accurately, but in a general way, the location of all the
power plants, pretty much the same as you have suggested you
wanted on this map here.
The CHAIRMAN. The situation is this: There were two power
plants on the American side at Niagara. One has been discontinued
because only 50 per cent efficient; the other has been enlarged and is
100 per cent efficient for the production of power at the Cataracts.
What I want is simply the plan that is in operation. The other is
discontinued.
On the Canadian side there are two or three plants which have
been discontinued, and only one in operation, and that is about 4
miles below the Falls on the Canadian side, at what they call
Chippewa, I think; at any rate, it is above Lewiston and above
Brock's Monument, on the Canadian side.
Mr. BoycE. Is the intake for each of these canals above the Falls?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; in each instance. n
Mr. Boyce. But the plants are below? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the plants are below. On the American side
the plant that I referred to is about a mile and a half and on the
Canadian side about 4 miles below.
Now, Mr. Shaw.
822 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
STATEMENT OF HON. GUY L. SHAW, A FORMER REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS -
Mr. SHAw. I would like to introduce one of those maps for the
record and leave the rest for the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the map?
Mr. SHAw. That is a map showing the location of the Illinois
River with the drainage districts of the Illinois Valley.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Will it help us any to have these be-
fore us while you are speaking?
Mr. SHAw. I don’t know that it will. I may say that I am going
to cut my remarks down as short as I can, because there are other
gentlemen from the valley who want to speak, and I realize full
well that the committee has been very patient in listening to every
OI) e.
I have here a statement which is more of a historical sketch of the
Illinois River than anything else, which I would like to make a part
of my remarks:
Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Association, Drainage, and Levee
JDistricts of Illinois:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, from 1809 to 1818 Illinois
had the Territorial form of government, it being admitted to the Union in the
latter part of the year 1818. It may be interesting to you to know that the
first governor of the State, Hon. Shadrack Bond, was the great uncle of my
esteemed colleague, Mr. Bond, in the 67th Congress and was a member of this
committee, from the eighth district of New York.
Shadrack Bond was the first to espouse improved Waterway transportation
on the Illinois River, and in his inaugural address in 1818, in making a plea.
for the construction of what is now known as the Illinois-Michigan Canal,
he Said :
“Possessed of a country not surpassed for the fertility of its Soil, intersected
and almost surrounded by lakes and rivers convenient for navigation, it is
much to be regretted that the means requisite for the commencement of any
internal improvement of consequence are not in Our possession. The money
which has been appropriated and which is to be disbursed under the direction
of Congress in making roads leading to the State would go far to improve the
navigation of our watercourses; in a few years, it is believed, that fund will
accumulate to an amount sufficient to defray the expenses of cutting a Canal
to connect the water of Lake Michigan and the Illinois River. The advantages
resulting from such a work are too obvious to require comment. By means
thereof, together with the canal connecting the water of Lake Erie and the
Hudson River, which is already in a state of great forwardness, a Water Com-
munication from our very doors will be opened to the Atlantic by Way of the
Lakes. I therefore recommend an early application to the Congress of the
United States to procure such a change in the disposition of that fund as to
make it applicable to the furtherance of so desirable a purpose.” -
No active steps seem to have been taken toward the Construction Of the pro-
posed canal until in February of 1823, at which time the general assembly
appointed a board of commissioners “to consider, and devise and adopt Such
measures as may be requisite to effect communication by canals and locks be-
tween the navigable waters to the Illinois River and Lake Michigan.” * * *
In 1833, 10 years later, an act was passed by the general assembly abolishing
the previous acts providing for the construction Of the Illinois-Michigan Canal.
Nothing definite seems to have been accomplished until 1836, when estimates
were made for a canal 60 feet wide at the bottom and 6 feet deep, Costing
$8,654,000. Work was commenced in June of that year and continued until
March, 1841, when it was discontinued for want of available funds. -
In 1845 and additional $1,800,000 was raised by the Sale of lands owned by
the State. In consequence of a change of plans the entire cost fell within the
estimates which had been made, so that at the opening of the Canal in April,
1848, the entire expenditure had been $6,170,226.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 823
When completed the eastern terminus joined the south branch of the Chicago
River, 5 miles from the mouth of the main stream. A direct line is pursued
to the valley of the Desplaines, the main eastern branch of the Illinois
River, a distance of about 8 miles. The canal then traverses the ValieV to the
mouth of the Kankakee River, a distance of 43 miles, passing through the towns
of Lockport and Joliet, and receiving water from four feeders, the Calumet,
Des Plaines, Du Page, and Kankakee Rivers. The canal now follows the
valley of the Illinois River to its terminus, La Salle, passing through the towns
of Morris and Ottawa, receiving water from Fox River, the whole length being
96 miles.
Iöven before its completion it was ascertained that it would be inadequate on
account of the low-water stages in the Illinois River. In 1852 the project
adopted by Congress provided for the improvement of the navigation off the
Illinois River by dredging and the construction of six locks and dams.
By an act of February 28, 1867, the State began the work of improving the
Illinois River channel by constructing a lock and dam at Henry and another at
('opperas Creek. These dams established a depth of 7 feet, except in the lowest
places.
The lock and dam at Henry were completed in 1872 at a cost to the State of
$400,000.
In 1877 the State of Illinois opened the dam at Copperas Creek, which cost
$347,747. The United States Government put in the foundation of the lock at
Copperas Creek and spent $95,000 for dredging and another $50,000 for general
improvement of the channel. This work was all done in the interest of naviga-
tion and booking to a Lakes-to-Gulf waterway.
In 1890 the Federal Government put in the La Grange Lock and Dam, and
in 1893 the Kampsville Dam was completed. The Government constructed these
dams and locks for the purpose of improving the transportation on the Illinois
River with a view to facilitating shipments of grain and other produce of .
the Middle West. t
In the meantime the sanitary problem of Chicago had become serious, and
in 1865 permission was asked to lower the Summit of the canal So as to insure
sufficient flow of water from Lake Michigan into the Des Plaines River to carry
the Sewage from Chicago. . . .
In 1865 the plan was authorized and was completed in 1871. With the rapid
growth of Chicago, this soon became inadequate and the Chicago Sanitary Dis-
trict was created by act of May 28, 1889, and a new channel was begun in 1892
and finished in 1900.
The main channel of the sanitary district includes the Chicago River and
covers about 39 miles across the Chicago divide to the Des Plaines River at
Dam No. 1, Joliet, with a level of 42.4 feet below standard low water at Lake
Michigan.
The Federal act to create the Sanitary district in 1889 included the removal of
the State dams at Henry and Copperas Creek. This the State objected to by
injunction, as the removal of these dams would destroy navigation and an open-
river policy was insisted upon by the State. Finally, in an appeal to the
Supreme Court in 1900, it was decided that the dams could not be removed and
maintain an equal depth of water in the river.
The sanitary district lowered the dam two feet at Kampsville by Federal per-
mit authorized by joint resolution of Congress, April 21, 1904, but nothing was
done at La Grange, where the levels of the Second reach were controlled.
In 1912 it was found that the State dams at Henry and Copperas Creek had
not been removed under legislation of 1889, therefore action regarding the re-
moval of the Federal dams at Kampsville and La Grange was deferred. It was
stated that the Federal dams would form no part of the deep waterway project
and must be removed as a condition of further action on the part of the Gov-
ernment.
One million dollars was appropriated by Congress in 1910 for deep waterway
subject to an understanding with Illinois that the State dam be removed. The
Lakes to the Gulf Deep Waterway Association in 1912 sought to divert this ap-
propriation to the dredging of the lower Illinois in connection with the removal
of the dams. The result of hearings on the subject was that the State must
remove the dams before the Federal Government would remove its dams or apply
any of the $1,000,000 appropriations. *
Though the general assembly in 1907 authorized the expenditure of $20,000,-
000 for waterway and water power in the upper Illinois Valley the legislature
824 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
was not disposed to use this money until an authorized flow of 10,000 second-
feet is authorized.
The preliminary flow of water through the main channel of the Chicago
Sanitary District Canal from Lake Michigan to the Illinois was based on
the capacity of the Chicago River as determined by experts and was for 4,167
Second-feet. The flow was finally established January 17, 1900.
The Association of Drainage and Levee Districts of Illinois at the Spring-
field meeting of its executive committee On March 8, 1912, asked the Secretary
of War to refuse permission for the Chicago Sanitary District to increase the
flow from Lake Michigan until the dams were removed.
The Chicago Sanitary District has never kept faith. They have from the
very beginning violated the Federal permit and it is conceded that as much
as 8,500 second-feet is being diverted into the Illinois River and there seems
to be good evidence that as much as 16,000 second-feet is at times being
diverted.
The Chicago Sanitary District has for many years held out to the people
of the Illinois River Valley the lure of a Lakes-to-Gulf deep waterway, but
the futility of such a plan has been demonstrated by engineers time and time
again, who declare that a barge canal Only can be developed.
Some recommend the removal of both the locks and dams, while others say
the locks do not interfere with navigation and may just as well remain as
they are. By the removal of all the dams and Some dredging, a depth of 8
feet can be maintained which is all that is needed for a barge canal and we are
now getting more than enough water for that.
The sanitary district talks much about the necessity of diluting its sew-
age, which is the cloak used to cover the commercial motive prompting them.
One of the principal reasons why the sanitary district desires to divert this
large quantity of water is that it now is furnishing power generated by means
of the flow of the water through the dam at Lockport. I am informed that
it has seven turbines at Lockport and it requires approximately a flow of
100,000 cubic feet per minute to operate each of these seven turbines. This
means if they were all in Operation at the same time it would require the
diversion through the dam of 700,000 cubic feet per minute. Their appli-
ances are so arranged that if they do not get this quantity they can shut
off part of the turbines. The strong plea that is being made by the sanitary
district is that it is absolutely necessary to properly dilute the sewage now
going into the channels to be able to use 10,000 cubic feet of water from Lake
Michigan per Second ; that if they are not permitted to do this, then the re-
sponsibility for the health of the great population of Chicago will be upon some
One else. It is claimed by SOme that the increased flowage over the amount
the Sanitary district is authorized to divert will not lessen the Sewage nui-
sance in the least, because of the slow flow of the Illinois River.
There has been much discussion over the depth of this long-contemplated
waterway. In 1888 an act of Congress advised a channel of 14 feet. The
waterway bill of 1895 provided for a channel of not less than 14 feet for the
waterway from Lake Michigan by way of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers
to the Mississippi, with the exception of a 24-foot depth at Joilet. The 14-foot
depth was to be developed to 24 feet progressively by dredging.
The Barlow Board was authorized by act of March 3, 1899, and they were
instructed to determine the feasibility of a 14-foot channel from Lockport to
the Mississippi. The Ernest Board of June 13, 1920, recommended a channel
14 feet with provision for a deeper way in the “not remote future.” In
March, 1907, a special 14-foot board was constituted under act of Congress.
They adopted the estimates and plans of the Ernest Board.
A special board of engineers was constituted under act of Congress of
June 25, 1910. This board was unable to make any definite headway because
the State of Illinois had not provided any agency to confer with them.
The Lakés-to-Gulf Deep Waterway Association was organized in 1906. They
met in convention and decided upon “14 feet through the valley ’’ as the
initial project with lock sills and other permanent structures adapted to a
depth of not less than 24 feet. -
In 1911 this association reaffirmed the program adopted in 1910 at its fifth
annual convention.
The whole matter sifts down in the last analysis to this: That in order to
maintain an 8-foot channel in the Illinois waterway, it seems certain that the
State and Federal dams must be removed or else provision must be made for
*
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 825
the expenditure of vast sums of money in alteration and restoration of these
dams. The crest of Kampsville Dam would have to be restored ; lock keeperS'
quarters would have to be built and maintained at the State locks and dams :
the gates at the State locks must be rebuilt and many other items would have
to be cared for if the dams and locks are retained.
The removal of the State dams would not interfere at any time Or place
with navigation, but the Federal dams could not be removed until the channel
now being built by the State is completed, as their removal would interfere
with navigation at low-water stage and also interfere with the work being done.
The sane and practical thing seems to be to remove all dams in Connection
with the accomplishment of an 8–foot channel if the flow from Lake Michigan
is to be 4,167 second-feet or more.
The Secretary of War has persistently refused to permit a flow from Lake
Michigan greater than 4,167 second-feet without express sanction of Congress.
If the 10,000 Second-feet asked for by the sanitary district is allowed, it
will lower the level of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron 6 inches; Lake Erie,
5.5 inches; and Lake Ontario, 5.7 inches.
You must realize that this withdrawal would mean about 900,000,000 cubic
feet of water every day from Lake Michigan.
As one example of what the lowering of the lake level would mean, let me
recite a statement in the report of the Lake Carriers’ Association regarding
this project. This report states that the lighter loading of their freighters
made necessary by the lowered level would cause a loss to them of nearly
$3,000,000 annually. Carriers have increased in size in demand of trade, and
the Government and States have spent millions Of dollars enlarging Channels
and dredging harbors and perfecting terminals, and any project which inter-
feres with this attempt to meet the demands of Cheaper transportation re-
tards and abridges commerce.
We of the Illinois Valley do not want any more sewage sent down the river,
no matter how much it is diluted. We have lost our fishing industry as a
Consequence of the pollution of the stream. The fauna Of the river has
changed under the effect of the pollution so that there is not sufficient food
for fish even if they could otherwise live in the foul waters. Thousands of
acres of tillable land absolutely ruined on account of the high water after
the flow from Lake Michigan was turned in ; stretch after stretch of trees
have been destroyed by the wave wash or have been strengthened at great
Cost ; pasture land where thousands of heads of Cattle had been pastured can
not pasture 20 head now ; the pollution with its foul presence and odor has
made boating and bathing impossible ; the owners of land along the river
have received almost nothing from the Sanitary district for the damage done
them.
The pollution of the waters of the Illinois River by the Sanitary District
Of Chicago has killed all plant and animal life in the river. Before the pollu-
tion of this river it ranked second only to the Columbia River in the produc-
tion of fish. In 1908 the commercial catch alone had grown to 23,896,000
pounds. At present prices this industry would be worth to the people of the
valley at least $1,000,000 per year.
I must not neglect to tell you also of the mussel resources and pearl indus-
tries of the Illinois River, which have been among the most important in the
country. It is interesting to note that probably the first American fresh-water
shells gathered for the purpose of button manufacture were taken from the
Illinois River in 1872, two tons being gathered at Peoria and exported to
Europe. In 1876 a shipment of shells was sent from Beardstown to New York.
The Illinois River reached the maximum of its shell production in 1909. AC-
cording to the United States Census of 1908, the Illinois River furnished one-
fifth of the total amount of the yield of shells and pearls in the Mississippi
Hasin. At one time there were 2,600 boats in the mussel fishery between Peru
and Grafton. At Bath, Ill., the mussel beds were more productive than any
Other bed in the entire river
Some splendid pearls have been found in the Illinois River, ranging in price
from a few dollars to $2,700. Peoria Lake, Beardstown, Havana, Bath, Pearl,
Meredosia, and Hardin were all pearl centers, buyers coming from the East
and even from Europe to purchase from the great supply afforded by this river.
For the most part, however, the people of the Illinois Valley are engaged in
agricultural pursuits. -
The reclamation of overflow lands made habitable and productive thousands
of acres of otherwise uninhabitable and unproductive lands. Some little Work
91739—24—PT 2—37
826 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
was done before 1900, but it was after that that the pumping stations were
established, and it was this that gave the reclaimed lands a Substantial and
Secure existence. The districts under levee in 1913 comprised about 226,635
acres. The average cost of reclamation, was about $50 an acre, so that the
development of the 226,635-acre district represents an investment of about $11,-
000,000 above the cost of the land.
While there were some disadvantages to the Valley through this leveeing in
the narrowing of the river bed, and thus increasing the flood height at Other
places and doing away with the shallow water—breeding ground for fish—the
advantages far outweigh the disadvantages in the productivity of the reclaimed
land.
I have recounted the history of the deep waterway from Lake to Gulf to
show you how the Illinois Valley people have been filled with high hopes or
despair as to the ultimate results of this project. I well remember SOme peo-
ple going through the country with big maps and charts and holding forth
most eloquently on what they proposed to do and what it would mean to them.
But nothing has ever come of any of the big talk that has really been of advan-
tage to the people talked to. It has been a political dodge or in the interest
of the Chicago Sanitary District Canal from beginning to end. As an Ameri-
can citizen I believe in the rights of each and every other American citizen
and I mean, while I am representing the ASSOciation of Drainage and Levee
Districts of Illinois and the Illinois River Valley, through which 230 miles
of this river flow, to do all I can, through persistant, untiring effort to change
the conditions of those who, like myself, are realy and seriously affected by
the present deplorable state of sanitation on the Illinois River.
It has been demonstrated to us by the flood in the Spring of 1922 that intense
suffering can be caused by the relentless and Swollen waters of the Illinois.
We can not stand idly by and do nothing to prevent such an overwhelming
disaster in the future.
Though we could not but be proud of the spirit, the courage and the resource-
fullness of the inhabitants of the flooded districts at the crucial moment, yet
we know that much suffering, much financial loss entailing expenditures for
years to come must follow such a devastating flood. Fields that would other-
wise have produced crops worth thousands of dollars are now idle. In innu-
merable ways hardships will fall upon the people, and I want nothing for them
so much as to give them proof that all is being done by Congress that can be
done to bring about renewed conditions and, consequently, hope of normal
conditions and resumption of the rights which are most Surely Ours.
The people of the State of Illinois were deceived when they permitted the con-
struction of the sanitary district Canal for the purpose of taking care of the Sew-
age of the city of Chicago. It was at that time an inadequate method of handling
the Sewage, but the thing was permitted, the flow was established, and the
Sanitary District of Chicago agreed to pay damages which might acrue from
any flood from Lake Michigan going into the Illinois River Valley. This they
have never done. Perhaps they may have made some settlements with some
people, but there has been but a limited amount of that. They have over-
flowed the land, they have killed thousands of acres of timber, and they have
ruined many acres of land from an agricultural standpoint. They have
almost destroyed some of the villages and cities along the river, and the supply
Of fish and animal life in the river has been destroyed; the conditions have
become intolerable.
The Government has some dams in the river, such as those at La Grange
and Copperas Creek. Part of them are Federal dams and part of them are
State dams as heretofore designated. We feel that those obstructions
should be removed and steps taken toward controlling the floods of the river.
We do not say they should not flow any water down our river under present
conditions, but we want the flow cut down to the minimum for navigation. We
want them to play fair With us, which they will not do, and which they have
never shown any disposition to do. The only recourse we have is to the
Federal Government, and We are going to try to picture this matter to you so
you will understand the situation in all details, and then we are in hopes
that from that time on the issue will be so clarfied that we can take definate
steps toward correcting this evil in the Illinois River Valley.
I have here a proposed bill I would like to introduce
into the record in order that the members of the committee may
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 827
more fully understand the ideas of our association with reference
to this legislation. I do not claim anything especially original in
this. Certain portions of it were taken from the Hull bill and
other portions from the Rainey bill, and Mr. Jarman has helped to
put it in shape. I think it is quite representative of what we need
and is introduced in an effort to coordinate the two existing bills
and to cooperate in this matter.
The CHAIRMAN. We are willing to consider it. I would simply
suggest to you that so far as we can see there are only two points
that need be considered. One is the provision as to how you shall
provide for dispatch in the erection and putting in operation of
sewage-disposal plants. That is your first proposition. The sec-
Ond is how you will provide for a waterway, as to the additional
water diverted from Lake Michigan for an 8-foot or a 9-foot chan-
nel. Those are the two provisions in the bill that are debatable.
There is nothing else in the bill that I can see.
Mr. SHAw. Our position has been all the time to leave those mat-
ters in the hands of the Chief of Engineers and the War Depart-
ment. We think we will be content with what the War Depart-
ment points out along those lines.
The farmers in the Illinois valley have some definite ideas of
what they want and at a meeting of the Association of Drainage
and Levee Districts held December 14, 1923, we introduced some
resolutions. I think most of you have seen them, but I would like
to have a copy of them put in the record. And at the semiannual
meeting April 11, the same resolutions were again adopted.
RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS OF
ILLINoſs AT ITS MEETING IN BEARDSTOWN, HELD DECEMBER 14, 1923.
Whereas we believe that the matter of greatest importance to the drainage
and levee districts of Illinois and the people of Illinois River Valley is the
menace of the water diverted into the Illinois River from Iake Michigan by
the Sanitary District of Chicago; and
Whereas enormous damages have been inflicted upon property interests in
the Illinois Valley by said waters during the last 23 years, and are continuing
to be imposed on the interests in the valley, which have not been paid for or
settled for in accordance with the law of the State of Illinois, by which the
Sanitary District of Chicago was created : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to any method which involves
the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago
into the Illinois River until said sanitary district makes just compensation for
damages caused in the valley by said waters, and ample guarantees are pro-
vided to cover future damages which may be caused by legalization of water
diversion by said sanitary district; and be it further
Resolved, That it is the sense and opinion of this meeting that said Sani-
tary district, instead of diverting its sewage into the Illinois River Valley,
should construct a sufficient number of modern sewage plants in Chicago ;
and that if this is done any water taken from Lake Michigan for the
purpose of treating said sewage after the same is chemically purified, should not
be diverted into the Illinois River, but should be returned into Lake Michigan;
and
Whereas said Illinois River in its natural state was the source of great
benefit and income to the people because of fishing and other industries arising
from its use as a natural Stream : Be it
Resolved, That it is the sense and opinion of this meeting the said river
should be restored as soon as possible and as far as possible to its natural
State ; and
Whereas the engineers of the War Department have announced that the
flowage of 1,000 cubic feet per second is sufficient for any navigation the Fed-
eral Government deems wise to provide for in the Illinois River; Be it
828 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Resolved, That this association use its influence to induce the Federal Gov-
ernment to refuse to authorize a flowage from Lake Michigan into the Illinois
River of any greater amount of water than 1,000 cubic feet per second, which
We believe is sufficient for maintaining a barge canal, and that if any increased
depth is required it should be provided for by deepening the channel of the
river, and we indorse the plan of removing all locks and dams in the Illinois
Eiver; be it further - s
Resolved, That in our opinion Federal aid should be extended to the drainage
and levee districts, cities, Villages, railroads, and other property interests
throughout the length of the Illinois River in the matter of rendering such
assistance as the War Department may deem advisable to safeguard in the
future Said property interestS.
Passed April 11, 1924.
The CHAIRMAN. There are two parts to this and one is that the
Illinois River should be restored to its original state as soon as
possible; and, second, that only 1,000 cubic feet should be diverted
from Lake Michigan, that being the quantity of water, as announced
by the engineers, as necessary for navigation; and the third is ask-
ing Federal aid for the maintenance and protection of the levees.
Those are the three resolutions?
Mr. SHAw. Yes; in considering this plan from the farmers’ stand-
point, and in fact from all the interests in the Illinois River Val-
ley, we take the position that we want the dams in the river re-
moved. We prefer a waterway without any dams if we can have
it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Congressman Shaw, that the committee
would say to you, just as they have said to everyone else of the
various contending interests here, that on that question of the con-
struction of a waterway we would be guided very largely by the
opinion of the engineers as to what was the advisable way to do
this work. That is a technical work requiring the very best, and
you will want the very best, advice you can get, and in any event it
would be in the hands of the engineers no matter how we attempted
to deal with it. You would not want this committee to use its opin-
ion as against that of General Beach or General Taylor; you want us
to get their advice and be guided by it on that proposition, would
you not?
Mr. SHAw. Yes. -
Mr. HULL. They can not be guided on that until this diversion
is settled; they have to have the diversion settled before they can
decide on what kind of a canal would be best. As an illustration,
if you had 6,000 cubic feet going down then they would build a
different kind of a canal from what they would if they had 1,000
cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I think you have the cart before the horse.
I think the engineers will advise us as to the quantity of water
necessary for the 9-foot channel, that we are not going arbitrarily
to say to them that they must have a channel no matter how un-
wise it may be to conduct any number of cubic feet; but, on the
other hand, we are going to say to them, “How many cubic feet is
necessary or advantageous for a 9-foot channel?” and that when we
find their judgment on that in turn we will be guided by it. . We
are not going to say, “You will have to take twice or three times
or four times that amount in this channel regardless of your
opinion.”
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 829
Mr. HULL. Well, we asked the opinion of the Secretary of War,
how much it would cost on a 2,000 cubic feet per second flow and
how much on a flow of 4,167 cubic feet per second, and how much
on a flow of 7,000 cubic feet and how much on a flow of 9,000 cubic
feet. Now, then, they will report that, and then it will be up
to the committee to decide which one they wanted, would it not ?
The CHAIRMAN. They will report further. You will remember
the chairman of the committee asked General Beach if he under-
stood that he was to find not alone as to the 2,000 cubic feet di-
version but was to find absolutely regardless of the number of
feet specified how much water is necessary or advantageous for a
9-foot waterway, and to report upon that, and we assume that he
will report. He said that he did understand it that way, and that
the report would be made that way.
Mr. HULL. He will report on each of those flows. Now, with
the 2,000 cubic feet probably he would have to have locks, and with
the 4,100 cubic feet probably he would not have to have locks.
Mr. BOYCE. Assuming that a 9-foot channel shall be proposed,
would not the engineers in that event rather consider whether or
not a 9-foot channel would serve the commercial purposes better
with or without locks?
Mr. HULL. Yes; that is what I said. w
Mr. Boy CE. I suggested that the engineers would probably con-
sider whether a channel would serve better with or without locks.
Mr. HULL. Yes; that is what I said in my talk.
Mr. BoxcE. Having determined whether it would be most ad-
vantageous either to have or not have locks, one way or the other,
the engineers would doubtless inform the committee how much
water it would be necessary to divert from Lake Michigan for
navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. In the kind of a canal which they recommend.
Mr. Boy CE. In the kind of a canal which the engineers recommend.
Mr. HULL. I think they would.
Mr. BoycE. They would not consider the diversion first.
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. BoycE. Not by any means.
The CHAIRMAN. No: not by any means; and in reaching their
determination as to the kind of canal they will have all the inter-
ests in mind, they will remember that the United States, from the
time it permits this diversion, is going to be liable for damages
if the water floods those lands; they will have to remember that,
and they will have to remember the cost of levees.
Mr. BoycE. At least the engineers will feel that it is the right and
proper thing for them to present all the facts to the committee.
Mr. SHAw. In that connection our association, and I think all the
interests in the valley, would be content to abide by the decisions
of the War Department; but we feel that those dams retard the
flow, and especially in low water they have to maintain higher
heads in the river, because of more underground seepage and an
obstruction that ought to be removed. That will be covered, how-
ever, more fully by the gentleman who is to follow me.
We take the position, on account of our past experience in deal-
ing with the sanitary district on the question of damages, that
830 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Something must be done by this Congress regarding this matter or
We are not going to get what is due us.
I may say we have studied the proposition submitted by Mr.
Rainey, quoted in section 7 of my proposed bill, and we are in
hopes that he will get something of that kind through. While some
of us feel the War Department would be a better tribunal to han-
dle this matter, we are going to help him as much as we can, and
We feel that the committee ought to take this matter up for serious
consideration and aid and assist all they can in the matter of
settlements. * -
Not only should we have past damages for the flow of water com-
ing from Lake Michigan but we should be taken care of in the way
of any future damages. We do not care whether it is the Chicago
Sanitary District that strengthens and raises our levees or whether
it is the Federal Government. We have felt that if the sanitary
district is correct in insisting that they must have 10,000 cubic feet
of water for all time—and some authorities have claimed that they
will have to have more than that—that the sanitary district ought
probably to come to our rescue, and if they do get the water, they
will undoubtedly be compelled to raise and strengthen our levees
in order to take care of the flow.
• On the other hand, if the sanitary district is compelled to build
treating plants for the purpose of treating all of their sewage in a
reasonable length of time, and if diversion goes on for the purpose
of navigation, undoubtedly the Federal Government is the one that
ought to do this levee work and look after the future protection and
damages resulting.
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. Let us see about two aspects of
that. First, as to the length of time, would you regard 20 years as
a reasonable length of time?
Mr. SHAw. Absolutely not. g
The CHAIRMAN. Second, if the flow is to be greater for a limited
time during which the sewage disposal plants are installed and the
additional flow beyond the amount necessary for navigation is what
causes the damage, and not the amount that is needed and is used
for navigation, what would the Federal Government have to do
with that ?
Mr. SHAw. I think the sanitary district ought to bear the entire
burden in that case. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is during that time?
Mr. SHAw. During that time. We believe that the sanitary dis-
trict can treat their sewage with a less amount of water than 10,000
cubic feet per Second. On the other hand, I think all the people
want the sanitary district to have such water as they need to pre-
serve the health of the citizens of Chicago, and we are willing to
leave that question to Congress and to the War Department to set-
tle. If they need 10,000 cubic feet per second we will not fight that
proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. If they need 10,000 cubic feet at all, except as
sewage-disposal plants were installed, to be reduced from time to
time with their installations?
Mr. SHAw. We are going to insist when the time comes that they
be compelled to construct treating plants as rapidly as they can.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. - 831
The CHAIRMAN. That the volume of water be reduced from time
to time as the plants are put into operation?
Mr. SHAw. That is it exactly, until you reach the minimum
amount of water for navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. Until you reach a minimum, which is the amount
necessary for navigation. -
Mr. SHAw. That is the point, that is our position.
Mr. HULL. Do you think they will ever get to a point where they
won’t need any water except for navigation?
Mr. SHAw. I think so.
Mr. HULL. Do you think so?
Mr. SHAw. I do not pose as a sanitary engineer, but my private
opinion is, which may or may not be worth much, that they can do
with a smaller amount of flow than they say they can. I have an
idea from what I have seen of some of their treating plants that
probably for some time to come they will need some water, and they
will need a certain flow from Lake Michigan to wash away the
effluent from the treating plants, but that is a thing that, as I under-
stand, is not fully settled, and I am not proposing anything defi-
nitely regarding the amount of water that they will need for that
purpose. -
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you another question. Would you be in
favor of taking out the water now the way things are?
Mr. SHAw. Continuing to take the water out?
Mr. HULL. Reducing the flow now Ż
Mr. SHAw. If competent Government engineers tell us that it can
be safely reduced and still preserve the health of the people in
Chicago, and I believe it can be, I would certainly be glad to follow
their advice. I would not recommend, and none of our farmers down
the river would recommend, a reduction of the flow which would
interfere with the health of the people in Chicago.
Mr. HULL. Or down the river ?
Mr. SHAw. Yes; or down the river. The point is that that they
must get busy in a serious way and construct these treating plants
and get the thing over with in a comparatively short time. They
are claiming they need 20 years. I was talking with one gentleman
recently who said that by 1945, they could take care of and build
treating plants for a population in excess of 3,000,000 people, and
then in 1945 they are willing to bind themselves to begin on another
plan of construction which will take care of that 3,000,000 people in
another 15 or 20 years after that. I would not agree to such a plan.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the suggestions along that line
would not only deny any relief from this open sewer to the valley,
but it would deny the relief as well to the succeeding generation.
Mr. SHAw. Absolutely. Practically speaking, we never would get
relief, and we don’t say positively that the sanitary district can build
these treating plants in any certain definite period, but we think
there is some one of the engineers in the War Department who
knows something about this proposition. We feel that there are
perhaps some engineers in the War Department that could figure it
out maybe equally as well as the engineers from the sanitary dis-
trict—and I am not casting any reflection upon the engineers of
the Sanitary district—and tell the Congress how many years will
be required to build these plants. -
832 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. To tell you frankly, my own personal views are
that if you are going to deal with this question I would not be
willing to go on the interested opinions of experts, because they
will be interested on both sides, and I would want to make them
dependent upon their own exertions and secure the certificate from
the Chief of Engineers from year to year that they were diligent
and cut the thing off at the end of the year if they had defaulted.
Mr. SHAw. Well, would you be willing to amend that proposi-
tion slightly and get a report from them more often than an annual
report?
The CHAIRMAN. Probably semiannual would do, but you would
not get Congress to act more than once a year.
Mr. BOYCE. At least some one representing either this committee
or Congress?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHAw. I do not want to be unfair with the officials of the
Sanitary District of Chicago. They tell me, and I think honestly
so, that they are sort of cleaning up the situation in Chicago. I
have been told that the men now in charge of the sanitary district
are all fine gentlemen and are all honest, and after having come in
contact with some of them I am inclined to believe that is true;
but the truth is the Chicago Sanitary District has not played fair
with the Illinois Valley in the past, and I think their unfairness
has been carried on to a greater extent than some of the present
officials know, and we want that situation understood ad corrected.
As I say, we do not want to impose any hardships on the people
of Chicago, but the sanitary district and the people of Chicago are
better able to finance this—that is, the treating plants for their
sewage—than the farmers are able to take care of the increased
cost of maintaining their lands, which are overflowed as the result of
this flow from the Chicago drainage canal, and it is getting to be a
very serious problem.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the committee ought seriously to
consider an argument that the city of Chicago—perhaps as rich a
city as there is in the world—is unable to care for sewage disposal,
as important a municipal problem as it is, and in this particular
instance involves not only the safety and health of its own people
but involves as well the rights of the whole Illinois Valley and of
other municipalities on the Great Lakes?
Mr. SHAw. I certainly do not think so. Of course, we will know
when they get through, but I think next week you are going to
find them laying a good deal of stress on that point, and they are
going to tell you that they are doing it now as fast as they can. I
may not be 100 per cent right on the question, but I do not think they
are doing it as fast as they can, and I think Congress ought to take
serious steps in compelling them to build these treating plants at
the earliest possible date.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose there were neighbors adjoining and one
dumped his sewage into the other's yard.
Mr. SHAw. That is what Chicago is doing now.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you think it would be a serious defense
that the man who was doing the dumping was unable to build an
outhouse?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 83.3
Mr. SHAw. No; I don’t think it would be.
The CHAIRMAN. He might live in a very handsome house and
upon a very expensive and grand scale, but he might be able, on the
other hand, to make figures which would show that the erection of
this Outhouse would absolutely ruin him.
Mr. SHAw. There you get back to the question of experts again.
We think of that every time we go to Chicago. We are proud of
Chicago, and we think it is one of the greatest cities on earth and a
very beautiful city. We admire her parks and business institutions,
and when we meet her business men we are astonished and we are
not able to understand why she should handle the sewage proposition
as she has done. We do not think it is necessary.
Now, the future damage proposition is one that has not been
stressed; with the increased flow of water in the river we are going
to be confronted with the cost of levee maintenance. As the flow
increases and the head of water is increased the cost of maintenance
is very materially increased. -
The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us the total length on both sides of
the river of your levee system or the construction of the levees you
have? There was a little said here about that—how high they are,
how thick they are, how much it has cost to erect the present system,
whether they are adequate or inadequate, and at what times they are
adequate and at what times inadequate. Could you not give us
something in a short way that would summarize that?
Mr. SHAw. I think that is fairly well covered in the report by
Goodell & Millard, civil engineers, already introduced into the rec-
ord. If not, I can give you a report on that. I think the committee
is entirely right in asking for that information, because I do not
think you appreciate what this maintenance cost is going to be, even
after the whole thing is settled and this diversion is finally settled,
unless it is very materially reduced.
The CHAIRMAN. We would like to know what I have suggested,
and we would like to know in addition what your maintenance costs
are now and what it is going to cost, if anything, in addition, to
perfect the present levees.
Mr. SHAw. I think Mr. Rainey was quite right in his "statement
when he said that the Illinois River had been pretty nearly worn out
by its surveys, and yet I made an attempt in the Sixty-seventh Con-
gress to have a survey made by the War Department of these levees.
Now, I don’t think it needs to be an extensive proposition. I think
a good deal of the data they could collect from local engineers out
there in the valley. I think they should have cross sections of all
these levees. That would be comparatively inexpensive. That is
the only way the information you asked for can be worked out
accurately. Of course, it could be estimated.
Mr. BoycE. This entire drainage district is within the confines of
a sovereign State—Illinois—is it not?
Mr. SHAw. Yes, sir.
Mr. BoycE. Suppose the present Illinois River was a natural,
shallow stream following the course which it now follows, with no
canal connections, and was not navigable, and that Chicago was
emptying its Sewage into such natural, shallow stream, is it your
thought that Congress would have jurisdiction over the subject of
91739—24—PT 2 38
834 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
such sewage disposal as an independent matter, wholly disconnected
from navigation?
Mr. SHAw. I don’t think so; I don’t think Congress would have
anything to do with it. But that condition could not exist if there
was not a flow of water from Lake Michigan.
Mr. BOYCE. But the Illinois as presently maintained is used for
navigation, and it is at the same time used for sewage disposal. The
suggestion is made that Congress undertake to consider the sewage
situation as an independent fact. Do you think it is a matter within
the jurisdcton of Congress?
Mr. SHAw. I think you will find cooperating with us in this
matter sufficient Congressmen that it can be done. I do think it.
Ought to be done by Congress. I think it is an exceptional case.
Mr. BoycE. Where is the jurisdiction of the great State of Illinois
all the time over the subject of sewage disposal before the com-
mittee ?
Mr. SHAw. You are leading me into a phase of this question that
I had hoped not to be compelled to discuss. That is somewhat em-
barrassing to some of we people in the State of Illinois who know
the conditions.
Mr. Boy CE. I did not mean to ask any embarrassing question.
Mr. SHAw. But the truth of the matter is, we have never been
able to accomplish anything in our courts. A gentleman here last
week, the attorney general from Wisconsin -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Let me suggest this to Judge Boyce
in that connection. On the supposition suggested by the judge, that
this is not a navigable stream but that sewage is dumped into it, I
don’t think we would have jurisdiction of the stream as such, and I
think the judge is right; but I think, on the other hand, Mr. Rainey
pointed out how we would have jurisdiction over it. Here is the
Mississippi River, a navigable stream, and this is one of its water
supplies.
Mr. BoycE. Does not the question arise, and won’t we be confronted
with it in the last analysis, but in connection with navigation ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, absolutely; no other way.
Mr. BoycE. And finally reach the question of the amount of water
to be diverted for navigation?
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. BoxcE. And then come back to the question of the pollution
of a havigable stream?
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.
Mr. BoycE. And can we reach it in any other way?
The CHAIRMAN. No other way; you are absolutely right, Judge.
Mr. BoycE. First have a navigable stream, sulf-sustaining or
aided by diversion of water from another navigable body of water,
and then present to the committee a serious condition of pollu-
tion
The CHAIRMAN. Of that stream; yes.
Mr. BoycE. And then there is no question about jurisdiction of
Congress over the subject? w
The CHAIRMAN. None at all.
Mr. BoycE. But I do not think the question of pollution brought
to the attention of the committee ought to be considered as an in-
dependent matter.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 835
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the only way we could reach that the other
W3,
Mr. Boy CE. Congressman Rainey, if you will pardon me, Mr.
Chairman, suggested the welfare clause of the Constitution to meet
the question of the jurisdiction of Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. There is one other way, I think you will agree
with me, it could be reached—the question of pollution alone—and
that is on the question of diversion from the Great Lakes. And then
you get into the question of navigation again.
Mr. BoycE. Then the question would arise, has Congress the
power to interfere with the navigation of the Great Lakes for the
sole purpose of carrying off sewage?
The CHAIRMAN. That is true, and we would say no, we had no
power to authorize it for that purpose.
Mr. BoxCE. Would we not say no?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would say no; and on the other hand
we would have no power to authorize it, but we would have power to
restrain it, and enjoin it, because it interferes with navigation.
Mr. HULL. But from the treaty as it reads have not they given
the power when they say you can use it for domestic and sanitary
purpº-and they were using it at the time—does not the treaty
cover it !
The CHAIRMAN. I find by examining the authorities that the last
words spoken by the legislative body is the word that controls.
Mr. BoycE. My thought is that the whole question before the com-
mittee may be solved if we keep in mind the primary object of the
diversion of water from Lake Michigan that is for the purpose of
navigation and as associated with it the fact of incidental pollution.
The CHAIRMAN. You are entirely right, Judge.
Mr. BoycE. We can work the question out along those lines: but
I have not been able to see that Congress has jurisdiction over the
subject of pollution as an independent question.
Mr. HULL. But it is the main question and must be considered
with navigation.
Mr. NEwToN. Well, now, let's see. From their analysis, as I get
it, the only thing we have authority to do is to stop it. •
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. NEwTon. Then, the only power we have is to put the people
of Chicago in a condition where they have to die. Now, is not that
true? We can suffer them to live by letting the sewage go through,
but we have no independent right to assert it and help them :
The CHAIRMAN. No; you did not apprehend the effect of what the
Judge said.
Mr. Boy CE. No ; I said having in mind the particular situation
as it exists as a whole.
Mr. NEwToN. But we have no power to do anything except to
stop the things that interfere with navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. Boy CE. No ; we are first providing for navigation, and having
done that, it is then brought to the attention of the committee that
the navigable stream is being polluted. Clearly Congress has juris-
diction over the subject in a navigable stream.
836 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. NEwTON. But if we have no jurisdiction except over naviga-
tion, I do not see how we would have a right to initiate anything to
take care of sewage on that theory; but we have a right to stop any-
thing that interferes with navigation. d
Mr. BoycE. We do not have to go so far as to say anything which
interferes with or impedes navigation.
Mr. NEwTON. Well, I do not think you could assume for a moment
that sewage aids navigation.
Mr. Boy CE. No; but it does not necessarily impede it. It is
noisome, dangerous to health, and in fact a nuisance.
Mr. NEwTON. Well, if you have no authority under the Consti-
tution to deal with anything only in so far as it affects navigation,
then we would have no right to legislate with a view of taking care
of the Sewage of a great city. - *
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think yourself, Congressman, that we
have any such right?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes; I do. I think under the general welfare clause
of the Constitution that we would have no right to sit idly by and
See great epidemics start that would kill hundreds of thousands of
people. I think we have a right to initiate.
The CHAIRMAN. All that we are quarreling about is the theory
upon which jurisdiction depends.
Mr. NEWTON. Yes; that is just the point.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the effect of your argument would
be this: You would not intervene, then, because you would not con-
fine yourself to the ground of jurisdiction suggested by Judge Boyce;
you would want to find some other ground of jurisdiction before you
would save these hundreds of thousands of lives?
Mr. NEwTON. I think we would have a primary jurisdiction under
the welfare clause to save life and prevent epidemics.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a very doubtful thing. You would have
to have a construction by the Supreme Court on that.
Mr. NEwTON. I do not think the Supreme Court would hesitate a
moment in its construction of that if it was a question of saving hun-
dreds of thousands of lives.
The CHAIRMAN. Then why do we have to force jurisdiction when
we have a known ground of jurisdiction?
Mr. Boy CE. Let us take this as an illustration: Suppose the Illinois
River at the head of Lake Michigan was a shallow, unnavigable
stream, with very little water in it, and not emptying into the Mis-
sissippi River; and suppose Chicago emptied her sewage into the
sluggish, quiet stream, creating a distressing, dangerous nuisance all
down the valley, such as is complained of.
The CHAIRMAN. Which is on its way to St. Louis as fast as it can
In OVé. -
Mr. BoycE. Which is on its way, the Illinois River now being
connected with the Mississippi River, creating a nuisance in a stream
within the limits of a sovereign State which, as Judge Cooley says
in substance, retains all its primary Sovereign powers except as
inhibited by the State constitution, the Constitution of the United
States, and the laws enacted in pursuance thereof and the treaties
entered into—and which more nearly approaches the Parliament of
England in its power. It is contended that the good people of the
State of Illinois may not have their remedy at home.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 837
Mr. NEWTON. In other words, you assume that the State of Illinois
has not the jurisdiction to do it?
Mr. BOYCE. I assume she has the jurisdiction.
Mr. NEWTON. Then how can either be a river within a sovereign
State, if the theory we have heard here about Lake Michigan being
entirely within the United States, and that therefore we have not a
right to act on it because it flows into another country, is correct?
Mr. Boy CE. I have left Lake Michigan out of it, and I have not
intended, in asking this question, to have any diversion into the
suggested natural unnavigable stream.
Mr. NEwTON. I know; but we are interfering with the stream
** through Illinois, but it goes through other States after-
Wal'CiS.
Mr. BOYCE. I have confined my illustration to a suggested unnavi-
gable stream confined within the limits of Illinois.
Mr. NEWTON. Of course, here is a thing that comes to my mind
Mr. BOYCE. Taking the situation as it exists, we have a navigable
stream under consideration in need of diversion of water from Lake
Michigan. My thought is Congress has the power to divert a rea-
Sonable quantity of water from Lake Michigan in aid of navigation
on the Illinois River, due regard being had to . navigation on the
Great Lakes. But the question of diversion of water for naviga-
tion is not the only question before the committee. But we have
in connection with navigation the distressing sanitary situation.
I fail to see my way clear, as a Member of Congress, to deal with
the latter question independently and alone.
The CHAIRMAN. I am inclined to think you are entirely right.
Mr. BOYCE. When we shall come to an executive session of the
committee for discussion and determination, I do not know how I
shall vote.
Mr. NEWTON. There is no doubt we have a right to allow water
for sewage, on the theory of navigation; we have a right to shut
out sewage if we think it hurts navigation; but have we a right to,
if a million people in Chicago were dying—
The CHAIRMAN. Or St. Louis, when it reaches there.
Mr. NEwTON. Or St. Louis. Do you mean to say that, under the
Constitution, if a million people dying in either of those cities, that
Congress would not have a right to interfere under the general-
welfare clause to do whatever was necessary to do in order to re-
lieve that situation? s
Mr. BoycE. We are not called upon to deal with such calamity
or emergency.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me supplement his question with another
one. Is not that a good deal like a question of an epidemic of small-
pox or typhoid fever? Would we have a right to interfere in a
State, to interfere substantially with their police regulations as
to typhoid fever or smallpox, no matter as to the extent of the epi-
demic, the number of deaths? Is not that a question entirely aside
from the extent or magnitude of the evil?
Mr. NEWTON. We are doing it all the time. The maternity bill
does it; the Public Health Service does it. We have legislation
doing that all the time, the Federal, Government going out over
the country and asserting itself in the handling of diseases in a
community. -
838 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Boy CE. Here is what I mean. Take the great city of Chicago
with her 3,000,000 people. Suppose all she had was a water supply
from open wells and cesspools for the disposal of Sewage, and sup-
pose the people were dying by the hundreds daily because of that
condition, and suppose neither Chicago in its corporate capacity
nor the great State of Illinois would do anything to remedy that
situation; would Congress have jurisdiction and power to compel
Chicago to provide an up-to-date water supply and a modern Sani-
tary system ż \
Mr. NEwTON. But you have an entirely different situation.
Mr. BoycE. Of course.
The CHAIRMAN. You are entirely right. I think there is no doubt
we will have jurisdiction, and I do not believe it is so very essential
from what we derive it; but I do think that we do derive it in the
way that Judge Boyce suggests, and I think the efforts to derive it
the other way would be at least open to question.
Mr. NEWTON. Of course, we will assume that human beings any-
where would undertake to do something to protect themselves; but
what right have we to send out agents into Delaware and other
States under the authority of the maternity bill? We have been
doing that thing right along.
Mr. JARMAN. You asked for a statement to be filed with reference
to those districts? - *
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. JARMAN. Several days ago I filed a statement in which you
will find a table headed “Value of drainage districts in Illinois,”
and it gives the name of the district, its areage, its location, its cost
of construction, cost of individual improvement, present value, and
annual repairs and pumping.
The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would be good enough to tabulate and
give us the total costs and the total cost of maintenance.
Mr. JARMAN. That is given.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the total cost of the levee system and
what is the average cost of maintenance? *
Mr. JARMAN. The total cost of the district is $13,574,807.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is your annual cost of maintenance?
Mr. JARMAN. $264,000.
Mr. SHAw. We will have to leave this sewage question for the
committee to settle, I suppose, and whatever the legal situation may
be it is a wrong that should be righted, and we are not content with
Chicago's proposition to treat the sewage in excess of 3,000,000 in-
habitants. "We want it all treated in the shortest possible time.
We have been misrepresented in our position on a good many
things, and particularly with reference to the waterway, and I want
to put ourselves on record here and now as being in favor of a rea-
sonable, sensible development of the river for a barge canal. There
is a lot of talk about a deep waterway. Perhaps a good many people
who use that term do not mean what I have in mind as a deep water-
way, although I notice Mr. Hull is talking in the future about 14
feet or a 20-foot channel and various depths. --
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Congressman, we could not even con-
sider, as a matter of jurisdiction, a waterway deeper than 8 feet
without sending it back to the engineers for report on a 9-foot
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 839
channel, and we would have to have favorable action upon that 9-
foot report before we could act. All the reports before us are for
8 feet. There is a considerable feeling, at any rate, that this water-
way, if there should be a waterway, should be of the same depth as
the other. Really it is purely theoretical and academic, and a future
matter to discuss anything beyond 9 feet; because it would take us
a year or two before we would get to the point where we would have
a right to consider it.
Mr. SHAw. We are favorable to an 8-foot channel or a 9-foot
channel, whatever the War Department wants to "recommend and
Congress adopts.
As I have said, we are in favor of doing away with the two
State dams and the two Federal dams, we would like to have them
taken out. We want a waterway without dams.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if you have some engineer who has in-
vestigated the question of dams or no dams and who has a standing
among the engineers to entitle his opinion to weight, the committee
would be glad to consider what he has to say, but I do not think
we would weigh the opinion of the assembled farmers on that ques-
tion as entitled to very great weight.
Mr. SHAw. No; we would not ask you to, and, on the other hand,
we will be content with whatever the War Department should recom-
mend in that regard, although Judge Boyle will treat on that ques-
tion of dams quite extensively.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he would lose his time unless he is an
expert on the subject.
Mr. SHAw. He knows a good deal about it. -
With reference to this flow of water from Lake Michigan, we
want that strictly under Federal control at all times. We do not
want Congress to authorize a flow of any certain amount with a
stipulation in the law, that the sanitary district is to make certain
reports at certain times to the Government or to certain officials;
but we want the flow in the hands of the Chief of Engineers from
the time the water leaves the lake until it gets into the Illinois
River, and from the time the law becomes a law, and for all time.
We want them to regulate it in accordance with the floods in the
river, and in accordance with the rates of the diversions from other
sources. We think that is very important, that it be not left in the
hands of the sanitary district or even the State of Illinois. In
fact I do not think that the officials of the State of Illinois want to
control that matter. I think that was suggested the other day.
The CHAIRMAN. If this becomes a navigable stream through it
being adopted by Congress and through national appropriations I
doubt very seriously if that would be done; certainly Congress
would not depute anyone else to have control of it, and there might
be some question as to whether Congress would have the right to
put its control in the hands of anyone else.
Mr. SHAw. Well, we hope that they would not have the right,
that it could not be done.
The CHAIRMAN. It never has been done, and Congress never has
surrendered the control of Federal projects to anyone else.
Mr. SHAw. Now, Mr. Chairman, because of the distance to Wash-
ington, we have not been able to bring as many witnesses here as we
should.
840 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think what you are saying, and the very, very
remarkably able address of Congressman Rainey, have given us a
very clear idea of the situation there, and we have now supplemented
it by this data as to the cost up to the present time of levees, and
the annual cost of maintenance. We would like the additional
data, if it is not already in the record.
Mr. SHAw. I will make a suggestion. In order to supplement the
data which is in the record I have some statements here prepared,
some by engineers and others by landowners, relative to the condi-
tions on the river, and a good many of them deal directly with the
cost of maintenance and the flood conditions, and the river generally,
dating back as far as 60 years, and I would like to introduce those
into the record for your consideration. They are by men who have
lived on the river. I have looked them over in a general way and I
think they are all prepared and signed by reliable and substantial
farmers and business men in that section of the country who know
what they are talking about.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have anything that is help-
ful in the record. I think it is a mistake to have simply duplications.
Mr. SHAw. They are not duplications. -
º CHAIRMAN. You make your record so big that nobody will
read it.
Mr. SHAw. If you suggest it, I will take them and check them
over and see that there are not any duplications. I can probably
cut them down some.
The CHAIRMAN. You and Mr. Jarman might be able to do this.
If there are duplications—and I have seen that frenguently in these
statements—to say that SO and so give a list of the people who cor-
roborate one man whose statement you give. In other words, I
would not put similar statements into the record, because I think
that would simply be lumbering it up.
Mr. SHAw. I will be glad to do that with Mr. Jarman. I think
that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
(Subsequently Mr. Shaw filed the following statement, draft of
proposed bill, and reports referred to in his remarks:)
Mr. Chairman, complying with your request in order to prevent duplication
in testimony and to also prevent making the record too voluminous, I have
carefully gone over the statements mentioned in my statement and have se-
lected 10 of which will give you a fair idea of the financial ruin and destruc-
tion of property caused in the Illinois River Valley by the Sanitary District
of Chicago.
The first one is a statement made by Mr. George C. Lowe, of Beardstown,
Ill., secretary of the board of commissioners of the Coal Creek drainage and
levee district, of Schuyler County, Ill. I happened to be acquainted with this
district and its landOWners and know that the records kept by the commis-
Sioners are accurate.
With reference to the Coal. Creek drainage and levee district I want to
refer you to a most interesting report found in a pamphlet entitled “ Illinois
and Mississippi Rivers and Diversion of Water from Lake Michigan,” contain-
ing hearings on the Subject of H. R. 12620, Sixty-seventh Congress, second
session, pages 22 to 27, inclusive. This report was made by the commissioners
of the Coal Creek drainage and levee district, showing the damages Sustained
to that district as result of the 1922 flood.’
. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 841
SUGGESTED AMENDED BILL
(In the House of Representatives, January 15, 1924)
A BILL For the improvement of commerce and navigation and to authorize appropria-
tions for the construction of certain public works in the Illinois River, and for other
purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. That in order to create a navigable waterway nine feet in depth
in the Illinois River, suitable and sufficient to Carry the Commerce of the
Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley through the State of Illinois, the same
to extend from Lake Michigan at Chicago, Illinois, to a connection with a nine-
foot channel in the Mississippi River at or below the point where the Illinois
River discharges its waters into the Mississippi River, the Secretary of War
is hereby authorized and directed to improve the Illinois River from the
terminus of the Illinois waterway at or near Utica, Illinois, to its confluence
With the Mississippi River, so as to provide therein a navigable channel of
nine feet in depth and of a width of not less than two hundred feet, Such
improvement being based upon such an increment of water from Lake Michigan
and the Chicago River or other source, through the main channel of the
Sanitary District of Chicago and the Illinois WaterWay, as may be determined ,
by the War Department of the United States, and as may be necessary for
Said WaterWay for navigation, and not exceeding 4,167 cubic feet of water per
Second, and to include the nonremoval or removal of all thereof or part of the
locks and dams heretofore constructed by the Federal Government in the Illi-
nois River at La Grange and Kampsville, Illinois, and also the nonremoval or
removal Of all thereof or part of the locks and dams heretofore constructed in
Said river by the State of Illinois at Henry and Copperas Creek, as may be
determined by Said War Department: Provided, That the said State of Illinois
Will (as authorized by an act of the general assembly of said State, approved
June 21, 1919), Convey to the United States its full rights and title to the said
locks and dams at Henry and Copperas Creek, to permit the removal of such
parts thereof as may be deemed unnecessary by the said Secretary of War and
the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army.
SEC. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $5,700,000, to be expended
under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief
of Engineers, for the removal, if so determined by the said War Department,
Of Such parts of Said dams and Such parts of said locks as may be necessary,
and for the Construction Of Said nine-foot navigable channel from the terminus
Of the Illinois WaterWay at OT near Utica, Illinois, to connect with the nine-
foot channel in the Mississippi River at or below the mouth of the Illinois
River. All other Federal projects for the improvement of the Illinois River
between the last referred to points, are hereby modified to conform to the
provisions of this act.
SEC. 3. The State of Illinois is hereby authorized, at its sole cost and ex-
pense, to improve the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers from the terminus of
the main channel of the Sanitary District of Chicage, at or near Lockport,
Illinois, to a connection at or near Utica, Illinois, with the Federal improve-
ments above authorized, and to construct such channels, locks, dams, and
other improvements as will Secure, through the Said main channel of Said
sanitary district, a navigable channel of a depth of fourteen feet on all miter
sills of all locks constructed by it, as a part of Such improvement, and is
further authorized to modify its plans for the Illinois waterway, heretofore
submitted to and approved by the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers,
So far as may be necessary to COnform to the general scheme for a nine-foot
waterway: Provided, That the plans for such improvement and the work
done in pursuance of Said plans, Shall be Subject at all times to the approval
of said Chief of Engineers and Secretary of War.
SEC. 4. The State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago are hereby
authorized according to plans approved by the War Department of the United
States, jointly and/or severally, to construct at their own expense, and with-
out cost to the United States, at Or near the present terminus of the main
channel of Said the Sanitary District of Chicago, at or near Lockport, Illinois,
a suitable lock connecting said sanitary district channel with the Illinois
waterway; said lock to be a minimum width of not less than one hundred
842 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ten feet, a minimum usable length of not less than six hundred feet, the
minimum depth on miter Sills of Said lock to be not less than fourteen feet.
SEC. 5. The Sanitary District of Chicago is hereby authorized to withdraw
and/or divert from Lake Michigan and Chicago River water for the purpose
of diverting and diluting Sewage and Wastes, subject, however, to the following
COnditions :
First. The said the Sanitary District of Chicago shall construct, operate, and
maintain sewage purification works of sufficient size and extent for the purifi-
cation of all the sewage and wastes of the present and future population of the
said the Sanitary District of Chicago ; that the work of Such construction shall
begin upon the passage of this act and shall proceed and continue at such a
rate and to Such an extent as continually to diminish the amount Of Sewage
and wastes and water so diverted and/or withdrawn, so that within the period
of — years such diversion of sewage and wastes and withdrawal and/or
diversion Of Water therefor shall cease.
Second. The Sanitary District of Chicago shall pay all awards of damages
caused by the diversion and/or withdrawal of water, sewage, and wastes from
Lake Michigan, Chicago River, and other sources and discharge. the same into
the Illinois River, as provided in section 7 hereof, and shall otherwise conform
to the provisions Of this act.
Third. Upon the failure of the said Sanitary District of Chicago to carry
Out, meet, and perform any of the foregoing conditions the right of the said
Sanitary District of Chicago to withdraw or divert water or to divert sewage
and wastes from Lake Michigan and the Chicago River Shall thereupon Cease.
SEC. 6. The withdrawal and/or diversion of water herein permitted and
diversion of sewage and wastes and the works of the said Sanitary District of
Chicago controlling the same shall at all times be under the direct control of
the Secretary of War, subject to the provisions of this act.
SEC. 7. That a commission, to be known as the Illinois River WaterWay Com-
mission, consisting of five members to be appointed by the President of the United
States, is hereby created and authorized. Two members of this commission shall
be selected from the active or retired list of the Engineers Corps of the Army
and three from civil life, two of whom shall be expert hydraulic engineers.
The members Selected from Civil life shall not be residents Of the State Of
Illinois, nor shall they have at any time been employed by the Sanitary District
Of Chicago.
Said commission shall investigate and determine Claims for damages here-
tofore sustained and hereafter to be sustained by landowners, and drainage
and levee districts, occasioned by the past and/or future diversion of water,
sewage, and wastes by the said Sanitary District of Chicago from Lake Michi-
gan, the Chicago River, or other source and the discharge of the same, through
the Sanitary District channel and the Des Plaines River into the Illinois
River.
In Order to give this commission jurisdiction of any claim for damages, the
claimant and the Sanitary District of Chicago Shall each agree to be bound
by the findings of Said Commission.
Said commision Shall complete its investigations within three months after
the passage of this act, or within such extension of time not to exceed an
addtional three months as may be granted by the Secretary of War. After
the completion of said investigation said commission shall make a report of the
awards of damages it may make, giving the name and post-office address of
each claimant and the amount of damages, if any, awarded to each claimant,
one copy of said report to be certified by said commission to the Secretry of
War and one copy of Said report to be certified to the president of the board
of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, and the provisions of this
|bill in So far as they relate to the said diversion of water at Chicago from
the Great Lakes shall not take effect until said Illinois River Railway Com-
Imission shall have reported to the President of the United States that the
Sanitary District of Chicago has agreed to the jurisdiction of said Illinois
River Waterway Commission in all cases and that all of said awards have
|been fully paid by the Sanitary District of Chicago, and upon receipt of said
report the Secretary of War shall issue an order declaring the provisions of
this act relating to and permitting said diversion of water to be in full force
and effect and thereupon the Illinois River Waterway Commission shall be
dissolved.
The said commission may employ such clerical help as it may deem neces-
sary and shall be authorized to administer oaths to witnesses who may
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 843
appear before it. All expenses of this commission and the compensation
of its members shall be paid by the Sanitary District of Chicago. Mem-
bers of the commission appointed from the active list of the Engineer Corps
of the Army shall receive the pay and compensation now allowed them by
law, and any member appointed from the retired list shall receive the same
pay and Compensation as he would receive if on the active list. The com-
pensation of the members of the commision appointed from civil life shall
be fixed by the Secretary of War.
SEC. 8. Both the claimant and the Sanitary District of Chicago shall have
the right to be represented before the commission by agent or attorney. But
110 agent Or attorney or other person shall demand or receive a larger com-
pensation for his services than 10 per centum of the amount that shall be
allowed any claimant on his claim by the Commission ; and any agent, attorney,
or other person who shall for said service directly or indirectly receive or
retain any greater fee for his service or instrumentality in presenting a claim
before the said commission than is provided in this section, or who shall
Wrongfully withhold from said claimant any part of any award in excess
of the fee provided for herein, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall for every such offense be fined not exceed-
ing $1,000 or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding two years, Or both, at
the discretion of the court.
SEC. 9. The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army is hereby vested
With jurisdiction and authority over the construction of levees and other
Works for the prevention and control of floods in the Illinois River from its
mouth to the mouth of the Des Plaines River, and all such works shall here-
after be located and built in accordance with such plans and specifications as
he may formulate or approve, and he is also authorized to make such regula-
tions as he may deem necessary to control the diversion of water from Lake
Michigan into the Illinois River as provided in this act.
Q The Secretary of War is authorized to allot from any funds hereafter ap-
propriated by Congress for controlling the floods of the Mississippi River and
“Gntinuing its improvement from the Head of Passes to Rock Island, Illinois,
Such Sulms Of money as he may ſleem equitable for the construction of flood-
Control Works upon any part of the Illinois River between its mouth and the
mouth of the Des Plaines River and for levees upon any part of said river
between its mouth and the Des Plaines River in such manner as, in his
Opinion, Shall best improve navigation and promote the interest of commerce :
and protect Said levees against the diversion of waters from the lakes as
authorized in this bill, at all stages of the river, including such changes and
alterations in Said levees as may be made necessary by the diversion of water
from the Great Lakes authorized by this act. All moneys so allotted to be
expended under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. In allotting moneys
for Said purpose said Chief of Engineers shall at all times take into Con-
sideration the diversion of waters from the lakes authorized herein.
SEC. 10. To the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers is reserved the
right, and it is hereby made their duty, to compel the Sanitary District of
Chicago to SO construct and/or operate its controlling works that should the
Illinois River reach a flood stage which in the opinion of the said Chief of
Engineers will be imminently dangerous to life and/or property in the valley of
the Illinois River as to be able to promptly reduce the flow of water in the
main Canal of the Sanitary District of Chicago to that amount which will not
allow the waters of the said Sanitary District of Chicago to be diverted into
Lake Michigan.
The said Sanitary District of Chicago shall fully comply with an order that
Tmay be issued by said Chief of Engineers and at once regulate its such dis-
charge in obedience to any request made by Said Chief of Engineers as con-
templated in this section.
SEC. 11. The said Sanitary District of Chicago shall at all times keep avail-
able to the inspection of said Chief Engineer, and/or his representatives, and
the officials of the State of Illinois, in its offices and stations in Cook County,
Illinois, and/or elsewhere, all of its records, data, and reports of its officers
and employees, showing the quantity and character of water by it carried
through its canals and works, and upon request of said Chief Engineer, and/or
This representatives, and/or the officials of the State of Illinois, shall forth-
with furnish him and their representatives With Such details and reportS aS
Imay be requested, and also it shall from time to time, as directed by Said
Chief of Engineers, furnish him, and/or his representatives, and/or such State
844 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Officials, with samples of water running through such parts of its canals and
Works as shall be designated.
SEC. 12. The concessions herein made and the permission hereby granted
unto the Sanitary District of Chicago relating to the withdrawal of water
from Lake Michigan, the Chicago River, and other Source are each extended
and granted upon the considerations herein fixed and designated being fully
Observed and complied with, and nothing herein contained limits or abrogates
the power of the Federal Government and/or its proper officer, and/or the
Officials of the State of Illinois, in maintaining unimpaired the navigability
of the Illinois River, and/or in preserving the purity of the water therein,
and/Or Of controlling the Same SO as to prevent its contamination to the extent
Of its becoming a nuisance or menace to the health of any of the people or
harmful or destructive Of the fish life Of Said river.
SEC. 13. This act shall not be in force and effect until the same shall be
formally accepted without reservations within sixty days after its passage by
an ordinance of the board of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, duly
paSSed and promulgated.
THE COAL CREEK DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,
Beardstown, Ill., January 21, 1924.
ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTs,
Beardstown, Ill.
GENTLEMEN : In compliance with the request in your form letter of January
12, 1924, we are pleased to give you the following information :
First. The amounts Of assessments paid in the past for all work done in
the past, since the organization of our district, is $261,033.86.
Second. The assessments now on record against the lands unpaid are—
(a) Total amount, $209,943.44. -
(b) Total acreage, 6,396.14 acres. J
Third. The average annual maintenance expenditure over the past five-year
period is $15,140.50.
Fourth. All costs included, total apmount to repair damages of 1922 are
$152,250. -
Yours very truly,
COAL CREEK DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,
By GEO. C. Low E, Secretary.
Mr. Harry B. W. Kallista, of Larchland, Ill., chairman of the board of com-
missioners of the South Beardstown Drainage and Levee District, which lies
immediately south of the city of Beardstown, Submits the following report.
This report I know to be accurate and to represent the conditions in this
locality:
- LARCHLAND, IL.L., February 1, 1924.
ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS OF ILLINOIS,
Beardstown, Ill.
GENTLEMEN : As one of the builders of the South Beardstown Drainage and
Levee District of Cass County, III., and chairman of the board of commissioners
since the organization of the district, in the year 1913, I am submitting the fol-
lowing information about our district and facts about the Illinois River as per-
tains to it : -
The South Beardstown district lies on the east side of the Illinois River be-
tween Beardstown and the La Grange lockS.
The district was organized in 1913, and the amount of assessments Spread
against the lands of the district to date totals $633,051.97, of which amount
$42,000 has been paid off by the landowners. All of these assessments draw
interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, payable annually. &
There are still on record against the lands of said district assessments unpaid
to the amount of $591,051.97. There being only 7,313.92 assessable acres in the
district, this makes most of the land in the district carry an assessment of OWeI’
$80 per acre.
The interest on this, together with the amount paid on assessments each year,
and the annual upkeep expenses such as pumping, etc., makes it cost the land-
owners at least $11.50 per acre per year. In addition to this expense most of
the landowners in the district are paying interest on mortgages upon their lands,
which brings their carrying charges to $15 to $18 per acre before there is any-
thing left for the landowner. *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 845
The cost of pumping in our district for the year 1921 was $14,430.69. For the
year 1922 it was $16,519.34, although we had a reduction in power rate of 36
per cent below the rate of 1921. If this had not been the case we would have
paid $22,465 for pumping alone in 1922, a charge on 7,313 acres, all caused by
the water from the damnable Sanitary District of Chicago, which during the
1922 flood period had to turn more water through from Lake Michigan, not for
dilution of Sewage but in order to generate more electric power for the city
Of Chicago, which is “the nigger in the woodpile ” in this so-called deep water-
way, helping no one in the valley of the Illinois River except a few grafters.
Our cost for pumping for 1923 was $9,866.80.
The flood of 1922 cost our district $30,000 during the month of April to
maintain the district and keep out the river, which was 2.6 feet higher against
our levee than the high water of 1844 would have been, and our levees built
5 feet higher than the 1844 mark. The above $30,000 does not include the cost
Of pumping against the excessive head of water nor the extra seepage.
When our Government allows a small place like Chicago to commit a crime
Such as they have been doing since 1900 and flood the Illinois River with lake
Water, there is no telling what may happen to our districts, as they have
raised Our Water from 3 to 6 feet in the Illinois River. -
We had as good a levee as anywhere along the Illinois River, 5 feet above
the 1844 water and 8 to 20 feet wide on top, covered with blue grass; still we
had to spend $30,000 in two weeks to protect our district. Since that time
we have spent $60,000 more to repair and raise Our levee above the 1922 high-
water mark, which expense was all caused by the Sanitary District of Chicago
in its greed both for the purpose of Sewage disposal and the generation of
electric power, which is, we understand, illegal under the franchise of the
Sanitary district. Take the power feature away from the Chicago Sanitary
District and it would not need to turn down the Illinois River SO much water
from Lake Michigan.
The question of the Sanitary District of Chicago is the greatest crime ever
perpetrated on any part of this country, permitting them to ruin a people as
they have done to the landowners throughout the Illinois River Valley. And it
is a big question whether or not the Owners of nearly 400,000 acres of reclaimed
land along the Illinois River can survive what has already happened to them,
caused wholly by the Sanitary District of Chicago. To date we have no court
nor any department of our Government which has made the district pay for
the loss and damages Caused by it to the Illinois Valley nor live up to the laws
under which the sanitary district was created.
The reason we know that these floods are caused, to a great extent, by the
water from Lake Michigan is that previous to the Opening of the Sanitary Dis-
tricte of Chicago the Illinois River was a sluggish, muddy stream. Now the
water at flood times is clear, and anyone in the Valley knows such water does
not run off of the prairies of Illinois.
Above Our South Beardstown district about 6 or 7 miles the Sangamon River
and Sugar Creek empty into the Illinois River. During the flood of March
and April, 1922, the flow from these two streams was muddy water, being the
run-off from uplands. The color of the water could be seen as it mingled with
the water of the Illinois River, yet only a short distance from the mouth of
these streams the muddy character of the water disappeared and the water
Of the Illinois River was clear.
In districts which were flooded and the hundreds of buildings flooded in the
city of Beardstown the remarkable thing was the small amount of silt deposited.
Our district is also particularly interested in the removal of the dam at
La Grange, as with the large amount of water from Lake Michigan the dam
is now covered most of the time, and thereby holds the water at a higher
stage against our levee and causes us to pump against a greater head at all
times, and makes more seepage in the district.
For over 30 years the farmer along the Illinois River has heard that the
Illinois River was to become a great highway and Ocean going vessels would
stop at our door and take away our products at low transportation charges.
The people of Illinois voted $20,000,000 to build a link in said highway; and
after all this, the farmer has come to realize the true facts, that sewage
disposal and power plants alone have been the ultimate object, and not the
development of a highway giving cheap transportation to the farmer. If it
were not for legalizing the flow from Lake Michigan of 10,000 cubic feet per
second for the Sanitary District of Chicago there would be no bill now pend-
ing.
846 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The great highway did not appear, and a barge canal was proposed, which
would be of little more use and value than the present Hennepin Canal which
runs through the richest part of Illinois and which is never used.
The attitude of the Sanitary District of Chicago in flowing illegally the
Waters as they have in the past has not only laid waste too many acres of
land in the Illinois River bottoms; but the fact that the amount of water
which it puts through this valley is to be increased has decreased the market
value of land in drainage districts which have not been flooded to the amount
Of at least $75 per acre.
The greatest amount of damage the Sanitary District of Chicago has done
in this valley was in 1922; yet I understand that Senator McCormick, who
talks “flowage * in Chicago, and the benefits of having a 9-foot barge Canal ‘’
down State, takes the view that the sanitary district is not responsible for
Such damages.
In conclusion, I will say that we need neither the 9-foot barge canal nor
the water from Lake Michigan; but if our War Department would remove
the dams and shut off the water from Lake Michigan, the valley could take
Care of itself with no expense to any one.
Our districts, as well as many others, will go bankrupt if any more ex-
penses are piled on us; and so will the people who have bought our bonds,
as we have paid to the limit for protection against the water. If these
conditions are to remain as they now are, which conditions are purely arti-
ficial and not natural conditions, then the Sanitary district, or our Government
which seems to allow them to exist, should have to maintain our districts
and pay us for damages accruing to our lands in the Illinois Valley since
the year 1900.
Yours truly,
HARRY B. W. KALLISTA,
Chairman, Board of Commissioners,
South Beardstown. Drainage and Levee District.
STATE OF ILLINOIs,
Cass County, ss :
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 6th day of February, A. D. 1924.
[SEAL.] IDA. J. MADISON,
- -- Notary Public,
My commission expires January 9, 1927.
The following are the reports of Mr. J. H. Cardes, of Havana, Ill., secretary
Of the Lynchburg and Sangamon Bottom Drainage and Levee District. -
Mr. C. L. Cook, of Pekin, Ill., gives a very interesting report on the Crabtree
Drainage District.
Mr. H. G. Edwards, of Naples, Ill., discusses briefly the Valley City Drainage
and Levee District.
Mr. J. A. Young, of Glascow, Ill., gives the financial statement of the Hill-
View Drainage and Levee District.
Mr. W. L. Bagshaw, of Winchester, Ill., gives a most interesting statement
Of the Scott County Drainage and Levee District.
Hon. H. V. Teel, of Rushville, Ill., gives a statement of the Crane Creek
Drainage and Levee District.
Mr. Charles W. Borgelt, of Havana, Ill., a large landowner of Mason and
Fulton Counties, gives a very interesting report of what the water from Lake
Michigan has done to that section of the Illinois River Valley, which is as
follows:
IN REGARD LYNCHBURG AND SANGAMON BOTTOM DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT
This district was organized about 1900, contemplating the draining of lands
by gravity into the Sangamon River some distance downstream and protecting
the lands against Overflow from the Sangamon River by a levee on the south
side, or side toward the Sangamon River. Assessment levied, $40,444.50.
In 1911, after several years of loss of crops and overflowed condition of
lower lands by reason of the continual higher stages of the Illinois River, it
became necessary to levy another assessment in the ameunt of $16,000, of which
amount $13,900 was levied to do work necessary to protect the lands against
these added waters by means of a west levee and also to pump the Water from
within the inclosure made by the construction of this West levee. From this
time on pump assessments have been levied each year.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 847
In 1913 an assessment of $25,807.70 was levied, of which $8,715 was used in
repairs of damages by previous flood and purchase of additional pump capacity.
In 1922 an assessment of $45,901.54 was levied, of which amount $9,274.89
was levied to provide more and better pumping facilities. Also in 1922 after
the flood $20,000 was levied, the entire amount being intended to be used in
building up the levee on the west or Illinois River side. This last Said assess-
ment has not yet been collected but will be called in SOOn.
Have had a drag-line machine working this past summer, fall, and winter
in building up the levee. In the fall of 1922 did considerable team and scraper
Work to build up the holes and low places.
Last year cost of pumping was approximately $3,600 with not even fair
I'esults, all of pump fund gone and Some borrowed from general fund.
Damages in 1922: All of $20,000 assessment required directly through this
flood of 1922 and about $1,500 spent to repair holes, temporarily. Great
amount of labor and sacks required during flood, difficult to estimate.
Entire wheat crop in district lost, and but very small corn crop raised that
SUlDTIQ61”.
A Creage : Pump tax based on 1,329 acres.
SLIMIMARY
($40,444. 50
16, 000.00
g 25, 807. 70
ASSessments levied__ * * { 45, 901. 54
20, 000.00
º
* 148, 153. 74
13, 900.00
8, 715. 00
9, 274. 89
| 20,000 to
( 51, 899. 89
To this must still be added costs of making and collecting assessments,
engineers’ and attorney’s fees, and Other expenses necessary to conduct Work
which amounts to approximately 20 per cent of this amount.
The pump tax annually from $1, to $3 per acre (never sufficient at any
time) is brought about directly through the higher stage of the Illinois River
due to large amount of water turned into the Illinois River by the Sanitary
District of Chicago.
Estimated part of said assessments made necessary and directly
due through the high stage of Illinois River because of large
amount of water turned in by the Sanitary District of Chicago—-
J. H. CARDES,
Secretary, Havana, Ill.
PEKIN, ILL., February 5, 1924.
In re Crabtree drainage district.
DEAR SIR : The following is the information relating to Overflow in the
above-named drainage district :
First. The Crabtree drainage district consists of 1,200 acres of land situated
in Waterford Township, Fulton County, Ill. The land was not organized into
a drainage district but the levee and ditch work were done by the Owners of
the land.
Second. The Owners of the land at the time the drainage Work was done
were the undersigned C. L. Cook, who owned 1,040 acres of the land; Mr.
Earl Crabtree and Mr. William Miles, who own about 160 acres. The COSt.
of the levee and ditch work was borne entirely by Mr. C. L. Cook. Owing to
the levee breaks occasioned by the high Water of 1922, C. L. Cook has been
so embarrassed financially that he was unable to meet the interest payments
On his mortgage and SO to avoid mortgage foreclosure he made a deed to his
mortgagee, Mr. Frank Shelly, of LewistOwn, Ill., and has taken back from
Mr. Shelly contract for deed. -
Third. On account of the fact that the ownership of the land was almost
all in the undersigned, C. L. Cook, no drainage district was formed and the
work was done by Mr. Cook as an individual and paid for by him.
848 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Fourth. The drainage work done by the undersigned consisted of the con-
Struction of a levee about 5% miles in length on the river side of the land
and inside ditches and drains and a pump Station fully manned and equipped
with centrifugal pumps and steam engine.
Fifth. The cost of the levee was $64,000, the cost of the inside drains approxi-
mately $12,000, and the cost of the pumping plant and station approximately
$15,000, making a total of $91,000.
Sixth. The annual cost of pumping, including repairs to machinery, coal,
and men to handle the pumping plant, is $2,000 annually.
Seventh. The damages caused by the flood waters of 1922 were as follows:
Levee damage $24,000
Inland ditches 5, 500
Pumping plant, buildings, and machinery 6, 000
300 acres of wheat destroyed 8, 000
LOSS of the use of 900 acres, entire land of district, exclusive of the
wheat area, which could have been farmed to corn 20, 000
Total damages 63, 500
The foregoing is a conservative statement of the conditions in the Crabtree
district in Fulton County, Ill., owned by me originally, with the exception of
160 acres, and now held by me under bond for deed from Mr. Shelly.
Very truly yours,
C. L. COOK.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
County of Cass, SS:
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 6th of February, A. D. 1924.
[SEAL.] IDA. J. MADISON,
º * Notary Public.
- NAPLEs, ILL., January 21, 1924.
THE ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS,
Beardstown, Ill.
DEAR SIR : We are in receipt of your letter of January 12 requesting certain
information in regard to the bonded debt of our district, etc. 44
Following is an answer to your questions :
First. No part of assessment for benefits paid so far. First payment, amount-
ing to one-fifteenth of principal of $425,292, due March 1, 1926.
Second. (a) $425,292, (b) approximately 5,000 acres.
Third. Allowed for pumping $0.95 per acre, or total of $4,750.
Fourth. Total amount of repairs, 1922, $7,995.32.
Information concerning the landowners, with their addresses, has been Sup-
plied you. -
Yours very truly,
WALLEY CITY DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,
H. G. EDWARDS, Secretary.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
County of Scott, SS:
I, J. A. Young, one of the commissioners of the Hillview Drainage and LeVee
District of Greene and Scott Counties, Ill., state that the above-mentioned dis-
trict was organized under the laws of Illinois in June, 1906; that I have been
one of the commissioners since September, 1908; that I have been Secretary
of the board of commissioners since 1914; that I am custodian of all the
records of said district; that there has been Spent for improvements upon
the lands of said district $681,256.52; said amount being raised by cash assess-
ments and sale of bonds. I further state that there is now bonds unpaid to
the amount of $194,577.60; that the total amount spent per acre is an average
of $55.28; that the amount of outstanding bonds per acre is an average of
$15.87; that the district acreage is 12,323 acres; that the amount of annual
benefits tax is $21,565.25 per year, or an average of $1.75 per acre per year.
I further state that the attached statement showing the amount of $9,242.88
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 849
for pumping the water out of the district during April, 1922, and the amount
of $2,695.41 spent for protecting the district levee during April, 1922, are true,
and that all of the above amounts are taken from the district records and are
true.
J. A. YOUNG.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of February, 1924, by said
J. A. Young.
[SEAL.] R. E. H. CURTIs, Notary Public.
Summary of expenses of Hillview Drainage and Levee District for month of
April, 1922:
Estimated amount of coal on hand April 1 $1.305. 77
Amount of coal purchased and paid for in April, 1922, and freight on -
SåIY)6. - - 2,745. 77
Coal consumed in April, paid for later 1, 576. 72
Labor for unloading coal, coal passing, firing and engineering for
April, 1922 - 1, 593. 12
Electric current for April, 1922__ ______ 2, 021. 50
Total pumping expense for April, 1922 ____ 9. 242.88
Cost of patrolling levee, sandbags, boating, etc., incurred in April,
1922, flood 2, 695. 41
Hillview district pumped 25 days against river gauge of 20 feet or more and
20 days against a higher head Of water than was ever recorded.
[SEAL.] J. A. YOUNG,
Secretary of Board of Commissioners.
WINCHESTER, IL.L., January 22, 1924.
ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS OF ILLINOIS,
Beardstown, Ill.
DEAR SIR : Supplementing the data asked for on your inquiry blank received
yesterday, would say that the Scott County drainage and levee district was
Organized in 1908 and 1909; work done on levee and ditches in 1910 and 1911.
Assessments for Original work totaled $218,278.22, since which two other
assessments have been made for improvements, which total $166,944.57; and
also the assessments for annual benefits since Organization total $82,075.78,
making a grand total of all assessments of $467,298.57.
Of this latter amount $335,217.55 has been paid, leaving assessments unpaid
of $132,081.02.
The total acreage in district is 10,450, but there are 950 acres of this total
included in lands that are protected by levee from Creek only, then also de-
ducting ditches and right of way not assessed the total acres assessed is 9,190.
We have 15 miles main levee, river, and Creek, and 17.2 miles of main ditches.
Steam-power pumping plant, one 45-inch and one 26-inch centrifugal pump.
Cost of pumping in year 1923 was $8,056.27.
River levee broke during high water of 1922, flooding whole district; very
gºve estimate of damage done by flood to crops, improvements, etc.,
200,000. -
An assessment was spread in 1922 of $104,000 to raise, repair, widen, and
btrengthen levee; this amount included in above total of assessmentS.
Will be pleased to try to furnish any other data may be desired.
Yours truly,
W. L. BAGSHAW,
Secretary.
850 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
RUSH VILLE, IL.L., January 25, 1924.
SECRETARY-TREASURER ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS OF
ILLINOIS.
DEAR SIR: As secretary of the Crane Creek drainage and levee district of
Schuyler County, Ill., I am sending you the information requested by Doctor
Kerr concerning the development of our district.
1. The total assessments against the lands of Said district paid
in the past - $151, 574. 02
(This does not embrace “annual benefits '' assessed each
year in the sum of $2 per acre.)
2. Unpaid assessments against said lands total 109, 587. 28
Total acreage of said district, 5,021 acres.
3. Annual costs of pumping, per acre, approximating 1. 10
4. Estimated cost of repairing damages of 1922 flood____________ 91, 677.26
This work is now under construction, and it has become
apparent that the COStS Will exceed the estimate
by about 6,000.00
Yours truly,
H. V. THEI.
STATEMENT OF CHARIES W. BORGELT
Mason County.—Our immediate family have owned Illinois River bottom
land for more than 60 years and we still own adjoining lands. Prior to the
turning in of the Chicago Sanitary Drainage Canal water this first bottom
land was farmed in corn and other spring planted crops. Seven out of eight
years since 1901, or since the turning in of the said waters, the farm land has
been abandoned for farming and has been allowed to grow up in cottonwood
and willow timber. These areas were too small to be profitable leveed and
pumped. Pecan groves that bore crops for years have been mostly killed by
the continuous high water. For our own information we have kept river
Stage Water records and also Government weather records. These records
prove that before the Chicago Canal water was turned in the daily rise of
water in the river was much less than it was after the Chicago Canal water
Was turned in and it receded at about the same rate that it rose. After the
Chicago Canal water was turned in it rose much more per day and continued
for longer periods and did not commence to fall at times for several days
and when it did fall it sometimes took as many as 10 days to fall as much
as it rose in one day. The reason for this was easy to understand. Before
the Chicago Canal water was added the raises all came from rain and went
as it came, especially if it was local, but now it can be held up indefinitely ac-
Cording to the amount it takes to satisfy the needs of ('hicago.
Fulton County.—We have at this time one 320-acre farm which we have
owned since 1898. In 1900 we organized a drainage district mostly for the
purpose of Straightening and deepening a creek to carry hill water across the
bottom lands to the Illinois River, both first and Second bottom lands. This
land was farmed every year in that condition prior to the turning in of the
Chicago Canal water. This work cost $25,000 for 3,700 acres, or about $8
per acre. After the Chicago Canal water was turned in, it had to be made a
levee and pumping district to do that. Devees had to be built and pump plants
had to be installed. The ditch banks to carry the hill water had to be raised.
The cost of this work and the previous work of $8 per acre has cost $72.68
per acre and an additional annual pumping and repair tax of $2 per acre.
The outlay of this amount, except the first $8 per acre, was due to the raising
of the water levels in the river by the additional water turned in by the
Chicago Drainage Canal.
Rerton Valley Draimage I)istrict.—The assessments of this district have
been cash assessments, except the first One, and we have no assessments due
the district except two farms, one of 40 acres and one of 200 acres, on which
the last assessment has not been paid, approximately $3,000. The entire
cost of the improvements to this district has been $72.68 per acre, all of
which was due, except $8 per acre, to the raise of the water level in the
Illinois River, due to the turning in of the Chicago Canal water.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 851
STATE OF ILLINors,
County of Mason:
I, Charles W. Borgelt, of the county of Mason, State of Illinois, being duly
sworn, depose and say, that the foregoing statements in regard to the Mason
County, Fulton County, and Kerton Valley drainage district are statements of
facts to the best of my knowledge.
* CHARLES W. BORGELT.
Sworn to before me this 2d day of February, 1924.
[SEAL.] A. F. TERRELL, Notary Public.
Mr. Chairman, I have many other statements equally as good as those which
I have just presented, but the conditions throughout the Illinois River Valley
are SO uniformly bad, as shown by these reports, that to introduce all of them
would duplicate the testimony already given a goodly number of times. There-
fore I Submit the names of the ladies and gentlemen who have mailed these
reports to the association, and wish to state to the committee that I shall be
glad to Submit these Statements at any future date should the committee so
desire.
H. G. Edwards, Pike County, Ill.
J. M. Pine, Bluffs, Ill.
R. D. . McCelland, Galesburg, Ill.
W. E. White, Lewistown, Ill.
H. L. Le Sourd, Mason City, Ill.
Peter Vann, Astoria, Ill.
C. M. Dickson, Lewistown, Ill.
G. D. Sutton, Mason City, Ill.
Dr. William Niergarth, Pekin, Ill.
Walter E. Emery, Peoria, Ill.
Henry Clark, Lewistown, Ill.
I_ouis IR. Kuffer, Beardstown, Ill.
Charles J. Walter, Peoria, Ill.
C. M. Johnson, Canton, Ill.
David Plattner, Morton, Ill.
F. H. Newman, Griggsville, Ill.
William Ryan, Lincoln, Ill.
Fred H. Farnsworth, Hennepin, Ill.
C. C. Craver, Kansas City, Mo.
Joseph Davis, Colorado Springs, Colo.
Earl Crabtree, Lewistown, Ill.
James D. Raker, Canton, Ill.
Charles Turgrinson, Hennep'n. Ill.
C. E. Quintal. Alton, Ill.
Mary F. Exley Hunt, Hennepin. Iłl.
J. H. Steel, Beardstown, Ill.
Daniel A. Bushnell, Eldred, Ill.
Michael Heffren, Havana, Ill.
Thomas Meehan, Pike County, Ill.
Dr. Ben Russell, Speer, Ill.
C. M. COllurn.
John W. Roce. Bluff City, Ill.
Fred C. Speckman, Mason County, Ill.
Ed. Connersford, Naples, Ill.
W. B. Aydelott, Pekin, Ill.
C. H. Davies, Shipman, Ill.
J. C. Aydelott, Pekin, Ill.
Russell LeSourd, Peoria, Ill.
William H. Hill, Beardstown, Ill.
Ed. Stucke, Beardstown, Ill.
Lewis Herzberger, Beardstown, Ill.
R. D. Pine, Okmulgee, Okla.
Ed Krohe, Beardstown, Ill.
John Dore, Hennepin, Ill.
J. L. Murray, Bloomington, Ill.
P. D. Dieffenbacher, Havana, III.
C. H. Kreiling, Havana. Ill.
Henry Halblaub, Beardstown, Ill.
W. A. Simpson, Lincoln, Ill.
Ruth M. Strode, Stillwater, Okla.
James W. Corwine, Lincoln, Ill.
W. T. Boyd, Sheldons Grove, Ill.
Alfred H. Schmidt, Mason County, Ill.
John O'Hara, Manito, Ill.
A. E. LeGault, Pekin, III.
Edward Schermerhorn, Pekin, Ill.
Halbert N. Gray, Potlatch, Idaho.
James G. Fay, Peoria, III.
Lorenzo Leland, Ottawa, III.
H. G. Pine, Okmulgee, Okla.
T. T. Crittenden, jr., Kansas City, Mo.
W. M. Corbett, Kansas City, Mo.
J. E. Harris, Canton, Ill.
Frank Markley, Havana, Ill.
I. N. Layman, Beardstown, Ill.
Moses Staker, Morton, III.
J. E. Gerber, Morton, Ill.
George A. Himmel, Pekin, Ill.
Thomas A. Mulcahey, Lewistown, Ill.
Walter Stone, Mason City, Ill.
Ralph Dempsey, Pekin, Ill.
A. S. Walker, Lincoln, Ill.
Wellington Hermann, Manito, Ill.
H. L. Yoder, Morton, Ill.
Peter Blohm, Beardstown, Ill.
Elias Staker, Morton, Ill.
D. O. Smyson, Canton, Ill.
Stephen Martin, Peoria, Ill.
Mrs. Susanna Leibold, Peoria, Ill.
Mike Joerger, Peoria, Ill.
C. J. Sightbody, Glasford, Ill.
J. D. Raker, Lewistown, Ill.
Adam Deck, Hennepin, Ill.
H. J. Dreiling, Forest City, Ill.
H. F. Zeele, Morton, Ill.
Henry Aman, Speer, Ill.
J. C. Snyder, Metamora, Ill.
H. H. Hanns, Sheldons Grove, Ill.
James Hanns, Sheldons Grove, Ill.
Charles N. Liemore, Hoopeston, Ill.
John A. Liemore, Hoopeston, Ill.
Mary E. Liemore, Hoopeston, Ill.
Edith Liemore, Hoopeston, Ill.
August E. Schmoldt, Beardstown, Ill.
John C. Scully, Peoria, Ill.
Roy Page, Peoria, Ill.
Walter Weaver, Canton, Ill.
O. J. Coon, Havana, Ill.
852 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
STATEMENT OF MR, EDWARD BOYLE
Mr. Boy L.E. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
appear as a landowner, chairman of the board of commissioners of
the Eldred levee and drainage district of Greene County, Ill.
The CHAIRMAN. You might show us if you will where Greene
County is on this map.
Mr. Box LE. This is Greene County [indicating].
The CHAIRMAN. And that is about 40 miles above Grafton?
Mr. Box.EE. Yes. I have been asked to represent several districts,
commissioners, and landowners.
I deem it unnecessary to go into a long list, because since these
hearings have started all interests through the courtesy of Mr. Hull
and Mr. Rainey have been very much in conference, and I have come
to the conclusion that all nature’s differences keep nature's peace,
and as this matter will be worked out by the committee we will
find that this is no exception to the rule.
As Mr. Shaw has told you, there is no one down the valley who
says that the water ought to be cut off from Chicago, its diversion
from Chicago. We are all agreed that Chicago must not be put
in a condition which will bring about an epidemic. We are all most
emphatically agreed that those dams ought to go out, that the San-
itary District of Chicago is not responsibe for all our ills down the
valley, that the Government in maintaining those dams is respon-
sible for a large measure of our injuries.
We are alſ agreed that Chicago should, as provided in Mr.
Rainey’s bill, make reasonable compensation for our damages.
The CHAIRMAN. What are you going to say when you get into
court? You say the cause of your damage is a divided one, and that
you do not know which one has caused it and to what extent. You
will have to sue them together and let the jury find the fact on
your statement.
Mr. Boy LE. I am coming here and making a statement which is
a fact, and I can not avoid it.
The CHAIRMAN. But it puts your question of damages in just
that position.
Mr. Boy LE. I know it does; but I am meeting this committee stat-
ing the facts.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, on that question of what is causing
damage, as I said to Congressman Shaw, we would be guided by
the opinions of the engineers as to what had caused the damages.
That is an expert question. The extent, if any, to which any dams
maintained by the Government have contributed to the injury, and
whether there would have been any injury if more than 4167 feet
had been used, is a question.
Mr. Boy LE. I will approach that later. We feel that the Govern-
ment, as it has done on the Mississippi, should take our districts
under its control and in aid of navigation, as we shall show it will
mean, keeping strictly within the constitutional province, strengthen
and raise our levees.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Boyle, don’t you think that you would
have to start in this way
Mr. Boy LE (interposing). I will reach that, Mr. Chairman; I will
approach that later.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. - 853
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. BOYLE. There has been a propaganda for 25 years, known as
a waterway, often called a deep waterway, from the Lakes to the
Gulf. We in the valley considered that academic for many years,
except as to the question of the taking out of the dams. That has
been real, but when the World War came on we realized that it
was a very real question. -
Mr. BOYCE. May I ask you a question?
Mr. Boy LE. Yes.
Mr. BOYCE. Do you mean the waterway as a real question ?
Mr. BOYLE. Yes; it became a real question to us. It is now a
pressing need. The development of inland commerce in this Nation
has completed a cycle, as it appeared at the World War and since.
We began with a development of our inland waterways. That pro-
ceeded until 1860, when the Mississippi and its tributaries carried
more tonnage than Great Britain or the Atlantic seaboard, and after-
wards, starting from 1860, the railroad building began in the Mis-
sissippi Valley and on to the Pacific coast. In fact, for years rail-
road building was overdone in the Missippi Valley, and, of course,
our waterways were more or less neglected and not used, but when
the World War came on and we were called upon for national de-
fense to furnish the foodstuffs for the world, we could raise them
but we could not deliver them, and even since the armistice we find
that in this great valley we can not get our grain products out
rapidly enough in the peak season, known as the harvest season, to
save them. That is our present situation.
In 1921 we found our corn selling as low in our county at our
home elevators as 28 cents.
The CHAIRMAN. Shelled or eared ? -
Mr. Boy LE. Shelled. That corn should have gone out when it was
needed and when it would have brought $2 a bushel. I sold corn
on the Chicago market at $2.03 per bushel. I got all of my corn
out, but many of my neighbors did not, with the result that when
1921 came on that old corn on the market in the fall of 1921, or
especially and following in 1922, came in as No. 1 corn, and we were
hoping from week to week that corn would be out of the way so
that our new No. 3 and No. 4 corn could find its market. So that we,
who were able to market our products at the proper time, were
affected seriously, and we understand that the railroads will never
be able to build again to meet adequately the grain trade in the har-
vest seasons. They have been hedged in on the one side by the
granger laws and the present law followed—there may be some modi-
fications of that from time to time—and on the other side by the
Adamson law, and those two influences are going to stand, so there is
never going to be any further promotion of railroads for promotion's
sake.
Mr. BoycE. May I ask you a question?
Mr. BOYLE. Yes. -
Mr. BoycE. Is it or is it not your opinion that the present situa-
tion and condition of the railroads of the country are due more to
legislation than to any present mismanagement on the part of the
railroads or disregard of public interests?
Mr. BOYLE. Judge, I think you have a double question there.
854 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BoycE. Then separate it. -
Mr. Box.E. I think that the railroads brought it upon them-
selves -
Mr. BoycE (interposing). That is, prior to much of existing legis-
lation?
Mr. Boy LE. Prior to the legislation.
Mr. BoycE. That may be taken for granted, I think.
Mr. Boy LE. With their pooling and their rebates.
Mr. Boy CE. That is, in days past certain interests seeking domina-
tion of the railroads disregarded public interests and arrayed public
sentiment against them?
Mr. BOYLE. It has.
Mr. BoycE. And then followed restraining legislation, some of
which has not only been hurtful to the general public but to the
roads as well.
Mr. Boy LE. The granger laws, as we know them in the courts, and
then finally followed the Adamson law, which put the railroads of
the country in the straight and narrow path, and it means surely and
certainly that we may never expect a revival of that great era of
railroad building.
Mr. Boyce. Why?
Mr. Boy LE. The era of railroad building
Mr. Boyce (interposing). If you can answer it, can the railroads
get easy money to-day for their needs and to keep pace with in-
creased population?
Mr. Boy LE. The money will never be forthcoming.
Mr. BoycE. Why? -
Mr. Boy LE. Well, there are no more subsidies to be granted.
Mr. NEWTON. You mean the income is not sufficient to attract it?
Mr. BoyLE. And there are no more Government subsidies.
Mr. BOYCE. And is there not fear on the part of the investor as
to the safety of his money?
Mr. BOYLE. I am coming to that, Judge. No more governmental
subsidies, land grants, etc. There are none of the States that will
make grants as they did in those days, and the farmers will not again
mortgage their farms, as they did after the sixties, to get these rail-
roads, and I feel sure, lastly, that the investor will be very cautious.
The railroads went ahead with their building—that is, the builders—
very ruthlessly, and did a great many things that they never can do
8,08, IIl. *
*: CHAIRMAN. Might I make a suggestion to you, Mr. Boyle?
I think we understand pretty clearly what the conditions are in
the valley. I think what the committee would be interested to learn
from you is this: First, are you interested in a 9-foot waterway
through the valley; Second, is not your interest and the interest of
the valley adverse to any more water than is advantageous for the
operation of a 9-foot waterway; third, is not your interest for the
substitution of some other method than that at present practiced for
sewage disposal in Chicago and that at the earliest date possible?
Those are the three questions that are here.
Mr. BOYLE. I shall come to those very directly. I shall come to
those, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to make the point that this great
committee, which I believe to-day holds the destinies of this country
more than any other governmental agency, must meet this problem

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 855
in a constructive way as never before. That is, we are starting right
where Washington and his compeers started, and in that respect
history must repeat itself, and I believe that we can bring back in
this country the era of good feeling which that great era of inland-
waterway improvement did create in our country. Many of the
questions, as I have heard in this meeting, have gone out. First, I
heard a suggestion here that we had no right to break through that
continental divide. Why, in 1877 Gouveneur Morris
The CHAIRMAN. You mean 1777?
Mr. BOYLE. 1777, Gouveneur Morris, that polished and educated
gentleman from New York, said, “We must make those inland seas
by the aid of man break through the barriers and mingle their
waters with the waters of the Hudson,” and they did. The Erie
Canal was the first wonder I ever saw in my life, and I want to
emphasize this before I come to the detail of this discussion, that
for common defense—I believe we call it national defense now since
the World War—it were never more important that we should pro-
ceed as Mr. Bull so well told us this morning. The time has come
for us to do constructive work and come together as reasonable men.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Newton, what time did you say that
you would like to have us adjourn this afternoon? You have made
some suggestion, I think, and I sort of wanted to guide the Speaker
a little bit by that.
Mr. NEWTON. What time is it now?
The CHAIRMAN. Four o’clock.
Mr. NEwTON. Well, we are going on again in the morning?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. I thought that we ought to adjourn a little early.
The CHAIRMAN. 4.15?
Mr. HULL. How long will it take you to finish, Mr. Boyle?
Mr. Boy LE. I think I can get through in half an hour.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you make that 4.15, do you think?
Mr. Boy LE. I can not and meet the work.
Mr. BoxcE. Would it be inconvenient for you to return to-morrow
morning?
Mr. HULL. I would like to get through with this witness to-day
if we can and put Mr. Sackett on in the morning. Let us stay a little
while and not interrupt him.
Mr. SEGER. I might suggest that if we could let the witness go on
without having discussions in the committee, we might get through
in another half hour. -
Mr. NEwTON. Let us go right down to 4.30 without interruption,
because the interruptions take up time. º
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Boyle, we will be very glad indeed
to hear you.
Mr. BoxLE. I can help you by skipping several parts and turn
to this question of our inland waterway down the Illinois. Refer-
ring to Document No. 263, the Fifty-ninth Congress, first session,
I want to first make a statement that there are four agencies that
are contributing to this better waterway—the Sanitary District of
Chicago, the State of Illinois, the Federal Government, and finally
these levee and drainage districts. I want to explain briefly why
we are contributing.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the levee and drainage districts?
856 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BoyLE. Levee and drainage districts. I call your attention—
I will take sheet 2, because it is my own county. You have this, of
course, as a part of your files. Sheet 2 is a map covering Greene
County. You will see along the river front that the elevation is
about 430 Memphis datum. *
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Boy LE. Four hundred and thirty feet. That was an assumed
datum at Memphis, of course, taken for this report. I think there
is 4 feet and some tenths difference between that and the real
Sea-level datum. You will notice on the map going back toward
the bluffs 430, also starting at 430, and then rising to 435 and 440.
Mr. HULL. What does that 430 mean? I never knew that myself.
Mr. BOYLE. Feet. You notice an intervening space of a mile or
a mile and a half, and it is not shown on the map, but the average
level of the intervening space would be 424.
The CHAIRMAN. I think if you will be good enough, we will be
very glad to have you come over here and show us where the 430
is. I do not see it.
Mr. NEWTON. It is 430 feet above Memphis. Memphis is the base,
and I do not know just how far Memphis is above sea level.
Mr. BOYLE. There is your 430, as you notice, along here, along
the bank.
The CHAIRMAN. Along the bank of the stream :
Mr. NEwTON. It is that straight line, isn't it?
Mr. Boy LE. No: it is a meandering line.
Mr. NEwTON. Here is 430.
Mr. BOYLE. Now, come back here and you will see the 430, starting
at 430.
Mr. ADCOCR. The Memphis datum has reference to a certain datum
as fixed. For instance, they have a Chicago datum, and they figure
a certain amount above or below Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. And this simply means so far above the Memphis
datum ?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes; the datum is a certain elevation.
Mr. Boy LE. You will notice a ditch there. The land here between
these two levees you will find it varying down to 424 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, Mr. Boyle, in your county when
you reach a point, say, a mile or two from the river, you get the
same height as the river, but between this distance of a mile or sq
from the river and the river itself the land is lower than the river?
Mr. BOYLE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We get that. -
Mr. BOYLE. Now, in the days before we begun our building you
might have the most perfect waterway in the world there, but you
could not get to it.
The CHAIRMAN. There was a morass or swamp between Ž
Mr. Boy LE. Yes. I have been across there before we built our
own levee in 1910, and when I went across I would have to stand
up in the saddle to get across, and when I would get to the bank
of the river I would be on dry ground.
The CHAIRMAN. And, as I understand it, what was then a morass
has become the very richest of your land?
Mr. Boy LE. Yes; that is true. Now, what have we done? If you
will refer to the map which Mr. Shaw introduced this afternoon
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 857
you will see that we have made the approaches to the Illinois River
at all points easy, and of course when we speak of navigation we
mean transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. Tell us how you have made it easy.
Mr. BOYLE. We have made it easy by putting these levees along
the high bank of the river, and these levees are put up in units
varying from 6 miles along the river front to 10. They are not
continuous up the river. We have to break them. For instance, our
own distirct; Macoupin Creek comes down at our south line, and
we straightened Macoupin Creek, and Nutwood is below us.
The CHAIRMAN. Another creek? +
Mr. Box LE. No; the Macoupin Creek is between us and the Nut-
wood district. That forms an outlet to the Illinois River. At the
north of us is what was called the Columbiana, and that comes down
between us and the Keech Levee and drainage district, and so I
might go up the river and they would all be fashioned in that way.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you are telling us in a
brief way is this: That you have not only built the levees but you
have built drainage canals as well, straightening natural streams
for that purpose; and through these straightened natural streams
and other artificial channels you have drained what was formerly
a morass and made very rich land. That is a short statement of
it, isn’t it? -
Mr. Box1F. Exactly. So that this waterway is now approachable
at all points. We have within our property the old town site of
Columbiana. Some of the old maps will show it; and we call it the
front porch to the Illinois River, it is so attractive and beautiful
there. We have made out of the old dirt road a turnpike, and I
shall expect to see the day, when the trucks will be coming in line
to deposit their freight at this waterway. *
The CHAIRMAN. How much is the area of your district?
Mr. Boy LE. Ours is 8,500 acres. The Keech is about 10,000, and
the Nutwood below us is 11,000. w
The CHAIRMAN. So you vary, roughly, from 7,500 to 10,000?
Mr. Box.E. Yes. Now, I am coming back to my point. We have
contributed to making this a better navigable stream and to all
the purposes for which you intend to have navigation. We have
contributed very largely, and our conclusion is that having con-
tributed to that it is quite proper for the Federal Government to
in turn strengthen and raise our levees, and I can say that in
following out the best practices it can be done to-day directly in
the way of improving navigation. . .
To illustrate, Mr. Chairman, my home is directly opposite
Kampsville Dam, this water that we have been talking about, and
I have seen it all go over that dam for the past 24 years. We even
to-day can not use this river in a practical way. We have the
packets coming from St. Louis up to Peoria. Why not? Because
only in flood stages or above medium stage can the packet approach
to take our loads. If we are shipping to-day to St. Louis, we
must haul our stuff by ferry across to the other side. Now, that
is true all along the river as the river now exists.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean, that you have no terminals?
Mr. Box.E.E. No, we have no terminals, and the boats, even those
drawing not over 4 feet, can not get to us. That means simply the
9.1739—24—PT 2—39
858 . ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
dredging out of the river, so that they can cross and throw their
bridge over onto the land, but they can not get there from about
the 1st of July on.
Mr. HULL. You mean they can not get close enough to the land?
Mr. BOYLE. They can not get close enough to throw over the
bridge there.
The CHAIRMAN. How wide is your stream in July 3
f Mr. Box LE. It usually lies from bank to bank from 1,200 to 1,300
eet.
The CHAIRMAN. That question of approaches and terminals has
always been treated, I will say to you, as a local question.
Mr. Boy L.E. We do not want a terminal. We just want the pack-
ets or the barges—the packets are no good to us, they are not large
enough. They can not take our capacity shipments. They can
take a part of a carload of hogs. We can get them to take them,
but when we ship 500 or 600 at one shipment they can not take
them. They can not take 500 head of cattle. They are not practi-
cal. It is not a waterway in the true sense.
Mr. NEWTON. You haven’t the big barges up there yet?
Mr. Boy LE. Indeed we have not.
Mr. NEwTo.N. If you had these big barges 50 feet wide and 300
feet long, you could use them?
Mr. Box LE. Indeed we could. Now, I am coming to what I
wanted to say should be done. I see the Government fleet come
down to Kampsville every year and dredge out in front of the locks
on the upper side, and then come down and dredge out the lower
part of the lock. What are they doing? They have got their old
fashioned floating dredges, which scoop up the soil, put it into
their barges, and they float across the river onto our side and dump
it, so that if the sanitary water were turned out to-day, I would
expect to find where they have made that dumping a corn field.
Now, that is not right. - -
What ought to be done is that the suction dredges ought to be
put in that river, and as they take that dirt out of the river improv-
ing navigation, throw it over into our barrow pits and onto our
levees. That is quite practical. They do that, but then if they
did that for the improvement of navigation they would make our
terminal, and it would be there naturally. -
Now, I wish to refer to these discharging measurements—and I
am cutting out a great deal, Mr. Chairman. Did you find another
sheet there showing the discharging measurements?
The CHAIRMAN. The river discharge measurements?
Mr. Box.E.E. The measurements that were made—I have another
copy here. I think this is the most important point, and I am
jumping to it to call your attention to it. Referring again to this
Document 263, Fifty-ninth Congress, House of Representatives, in
1904 the discharge measurements were made all down the Illinois
River, starting from the Twelve Mile Island, and that is from the
mouth up as far as the Des Plaines. I will turn to only one of
those, a; that is Pearl, which is 12 miles above our location. I take
that because the river has received at that point practically all of
its large tributaries and I call your attention to the fact on page
184 of that report, that on April 29, 1904, the cubic second-feet—
this is at low water stage—were 10,846. I refer now to the amount
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 859
of water which the sanitary district admits to the War Department,
as filed in the office in Chicago, it was discharging in 1904. You
don’t find that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I understand that.
Mr. BoxLE. They show an amount in that year of 4,793 cubic feet.
That means that in 1904 nearly half of that 10,000 cubic second-feet
that was going under the Pearl bridge of the C. & A. Railroad was
water from the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. What did you say the discharge of the sanitary
district was?
Mr. BoyLE. Four thousand seven hundred and ninety-three.
The CHAIRMAN. Practically 5,000 feet? ->
Mr. Box.E. Practically 5,000 feet; yes. So nearly half of it was
from the lake. Here is a point I want to call your attention to
especially: That was 20 years ago. Since that time, if you will refer
to these sheets, you will see that all that valley was practically un-
leveed. You will see ponds and lakes and marshes described in it.
I refer now to these sheets. Furthermore, I will tell you that since
that time the Sagamon River and others have been drained—not
only the Kankakee, but all the others.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean it just as you state it. What
you mean is that the discharge of the Sangamon River and these
other tributaries has been increased by the drainage of other dis-
tricts. What you said was just the opposite.
Mr. BoyLE. I thank you. I am trying to hurry too fast, I fear.
Mr. HULL. You mean that those rivers have drained all the area
around, like the marshes? -
Mr. BOYLE. Yes.
Mr. HULL. And now they have not the reservoir of water to fill
the rivers in the dry months.
Mr. Box LE. They have opened up.
The CHAIRMAN. And now they have an added discharge?
Mr. Box LE. Yes; they have an added discharge in the spring time
when the rains are on. The waters come down rapidly, whereas in the
old days, 20 years ago, not only the lakes and marshes and ponds of
this Illinois River Valley, but the great Kankakee bottoms up here in
Indiana, and the bottom lands all through the State, or what we call
quick bottom lands, were holding their waters, and in the dry seasons
gradually feeding down. That was true in 1904, and my conclusion
is that with all of this agricultural improvement, if the sanitary dis-
trict water were turned out to-day and was kept turned out, probably
by the 1st of July, if we have an average season, you would find little
or no natural water coming down the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. Take your own district. Do you flow only for a
limited period in the spring into the Illinois River? How log do you
ump?
p º Boy L.E. We pump into the Illinois River until the water in the
Illinois River gets down to 420 Memphis datum, and then we shut
down our pumps, open out sluice-way and let it run out by gravity.
The CHAIRMAN. And during what period of the year does water
run by gravity from this area?
Mr. Boy L.E. Usually in an ordinary season from the 1st of July until
February of the next year. -
860 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
fl The CHAIRMAN. That is during all of the period that water would
OW & -
Mr. Boy LE. Yes. t a. i
The CHAIRMAN. Excepting during the freezing period?
Mr. Boy LE. In the freezing period usually we have our gravity
drainage. . . . . - - - º
The CHAIRMAN. Now, of course, neither your nor I are engineers,
but just let me ask you some questions based on what you yourself
have testified to. tº a " .
Mr. Boy L.E. Very well.
The CHAIRMAN. In your own drainage area, you drain into the Illi-
nois all through the season. Why would not that be equally true in
another drainage area? - º
Mr. Box LE. I am very glad to have you ask that.
The CHAIRMAN. Above you in Illinois or in Indiana º
Mr. Boy LE. Let me explain. Of course we have little or no water
to drain in the dry season. * .
The CHAIRMAN. That is, the discharge is continuous, but the quan-
tity varies. That is the fact, isn’t it? . * * r
Mr. BOYLE. Well, in the dry season there is very little water to be
drained out.
The CHAIRMAN. But that expresses it, though—the quantity varies
but the discharge is continuous?
Mr. Boy LE. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Why is not that true just above you just like it is
in your area? ... "
Mr. Boy LE. I want to explain to you, Mr. Chairman. Our dis-
trict and the Nutwood district below us are the only districts on
the Illinois River below the dams. Now, I am coming to the great
point of taking those dams out. Take the Keech district, owned
by the estate of ex-Vice President Fairbanks. If the dams were
out, he would have the advantage which we have. It would make
a difference in low stage of the river of 34% feet at his gravity
outlet. The next district above it, the Hotwell—Mr. Schram is
here with me—it would make a difference of 3 feet with the dam
out. The next district above, the Hillview, it would make a dif-
ference of 21/2 feet. There would be the advantage to all these
districts of taking the dams out. It makes no difference to me,
with our district, or the Nutwood. That is the specific damage
or injury which these dams are doing to all of these districts
above us, but not to us, of course. Our drainage district is below
them, and of course in the flood stage the dams are interfering with
the quick run-off of the water. # - - .
... To illustrate, back in 1904, in a flood stage, April 5, the run-off
was 115,204 feet. The sanitary district was contributing 5,000 of
that at that time. I am getting the facts before you.
. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. . . . . . A -
Mr. Boyle. They contributed that. Sometimes it is the last
straw that breaks the camel's back, but those are the facts which
your engineers will advise you about. Mr. Barnes put in his work
here, and he will show you. , . '
The CHAIRMAN. I see that we are approaching the adjournment
time, and I would suggest that I might ask you about three questions.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 861
Mr. BoxLE. Let me make three statements. I heard the attorneys
general from the several States. They said—Mr. Dougherty, I
believe—said he represented the attorney general of the State of
Indiana. *
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so. I think he said he represented
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New
York. That is six. -
Mr. Boy L.E. Didn't you, Mr. Bruce, come and correct him and say
the State of Indiana Ż
Mr. BRUCE. No; I do not think I said that, although at the con-
ference which was held the attorney general of Indiana was there.
Whether he authorized him to represent Indiana or not I am not
certain. {
Mr. BOYLE. But that is immaterial.
Mr. ADCOCK. I do not understand that the attorney general of
Indiana has taken any part at all in this matter.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not remember to have heard General
Dougherty say that he represented Indiana.
Mr. Boy LE. That is immaterial. Le me say this * ,
The CHAIRMAN. There are three things which are material, and
upon which I would like to have your opinion.
Mr. Boy LE. But I want to get this over while we are at it. I
lived in Michigan City, Ind., for 11 years. I had interests there.
I was interested in a boat line. I have talked with the president
of that boat line, which is now out of existence, but he is chair-
man and president of this and that—all the civic affairs of the
city. ...I said, “How about this lake level in your harbor of Michi-
gan City?” He said, “We do not think there is anything to that.”
Then, while these hearings have been on, I called up Mr. Green-
baum, who is now Secretary of the chamber of commerce over
there, and asked him what he knew about it, and he said, “Nothing.”
The CHAIRMAN. That would not be very helpful, the fact that
Some man does not know anything. *
Mr. BoyLE. Wait. He is a man who knows. He is a very prac-
tical man. I said, “Have you ever talked to the engineers about
that matter?” He said, “They have never made any complaint;
there has never been any suggestion here that there was any lower-
ing of lake levels.” There is Michigan City, right at the funnel
of the lake, and I wondered—I am not going into that—but I
wondered to what extent those gentlemen were making the wish
father to the thought.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you let me ask you these questions?
Mr. BoyLE. Now, just a minute, and then I will let you take all
the time you want. -
The CHAIRMAN. I will not take but two minutes.
Mr. Boy LE. Joliet is a town in which I also happen to have inter-
ests. I asked them about the matter, and they said that they were
agreeable to whatever Chicago was agreeable to, and the valley
interests, provided they kept enough water going down until they
got the reduction plants in.
Now, just one other point, and then I am done. I am jumping a
great many of them. I am interested in business in Chicago and am
the head of a law firm, and have other interests there also; but all
the savings of a lifetime have been put into this Illinois Valley. I
862 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Want to impress this upon you, that when you come to the question
of how rapidly—and I am speaking for myself alone—you can
force the Sanitary District of Chicago to build these reduction
plants, do not overlook this very vital question. Remember that the
taxpayers must meet it—not I—and how are they going to meet it?
There is no city in this country where there are more small-home
builders. How do they get those homes? They buy them on con-
tracts, a small payment down, $500 down, and pay so much per
month. It takes them—and the family has to make a long, steady
pull, and they have to pull together—about 15 years to do that, and
the taxes and assessments come into the reckoning, and this Con-
gress must consider the general welfare not only of that city but of
the whole world and not alone consider the physical possibility, but
What is reasonable.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Boyle.
Mr. BOYLE. Now, I am ready for your questions.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I will waive them, because we have run
beyond the adjournment hour. We will stand adjourned until 10.15
to-morrow morning. *
(Thereupon, at 4.40 p.m., the committee adjourned.)
(Subsequently the following letters and tables were submitted by Mr.
Boyle :) - -
ELDRED, ILL., May 9, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, +. . .
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors, f * .
- House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. DEMPSEY: I have regretted extremely that I did not stop to answer
your proposed question just when you wished, because of my impetuous rush
to end within the minute in the hurried and restless end of an arduous day for
yOll. - - r --
I remember distinctly the subject I was on and barely sketching, and as it
was my very earnest purpose to give you Some possible help to simplify the very
perplexing problem of how much diversion of water from Lake Michigan, if any,
should be legalized, please allow me to Supplement my statement more fully,
trusting that I may possibly answer your intended question.
For the past 20 years I have been a very careful observer of the stages of
water in the Illinois River, and for the past 14 years I have had the
resident engineer Of Our Eldred Drainage and Ilevee District make weekly
reports to me on the stages of the river. Twenty years ago I was appointed
by the landowners of the Illinois Valley as one of a committee of three to de-
velop the evidence of the damages which the Sanitary District of Chicago had
imposed on the landowners of the Illinois River Valley by the diversion or
water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River. I am the Only one now
living of that committee, and I now approach the subject with all possible fair-
ness to the Sanitary District of Chicago in its present extremity, because I
believe that the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago are likewise ap-
proaching the matter with a fair understanding with their propositions to make
provision against further reduction, of lake levels, and to adjust all just claims
Of the landOwners Of the Illinois River Valley. º:
My home on the Columbiana Farms is located on a terrace on the bank of
the Illinois River about 200 feet south of the Kampsville Dam, the last of the
dams in the Illinois River, and my observations, confirmed by the reports of Our
resident engineer to me, are that the low stages of the Illinois River below the
Kampsville Dam have not been raised during the past 20 years, nothwith-
standing the fact that the Sanitary District of Chicago has, for the purpose of
sanitation, found it necessary to increase the diversion of water from Lake
Michigan to the Illinois River, because meanwhile the lakes, ponds, and marshes
in the Illinois River Valley and on the uplands of Illinois and Indiana have
been drained out by large reclamation projects. -
These lakes, ponds, and marshes were formerly reservoirs which gradually
fed the Illinois River through small obstructed and meandering natural water-
; : *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 863
courses during the dry Season of the year, whereas the large and straight-
dredged open ditches, quickly now carry off the rainfall in the spring of the
year, making these lakes, ponds, and marshes now suitable for cultivation, in-
stead of reservoirs feeding into the Illinois River during the dry season of
the year which is usual, beginning about July 1. This reclamation of lands
for agricultural purposes has not yet been completed. Several large projects,
of which I have intimate knowledge, are now in the process of being completed
and provisions are being made for additional projects.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, I believe, it will be found in practice
that a diversion from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River of at least
8,500 Second-feet will be required to maintain a 9-foot channel in the Illinois
River with the two Government dams and the two State dams taken out,
and that as a factor Of Safety, the limit for navigation should not be less
than 10,000 second-feet.
We are not concerned about the removal of the dams for Our Eldred
drainage and levee district, as Our gravity drainage is below the Kampsville
Dam, the last of the dams, but we are concerned for our neighboring districts.
The removal of the Kampsville Dam will give the Keach drainage and levee
district, next above Our Eldred drainage and levee district, 3% feet additional
gravity drainage in low-water stage; the Hartwell drainage and levee district,
next above, an additional gravity drainage of 3 feet in low-water stage and
the Hillview drainage and levee district, next above, and additional gravity
drainage of 2% feet in low-water stage; and this advantage to drainage and
levee districts will apply all the way up the river, it being, of course, under-
St000 that the removal of the other dams in the Illinois River would have
the same beneficial effect for the gravity drainage of the respective districts
above them.
I am inclosing sheet marked “A,” which shows the flow through Chicago
Drainage Canal from 1900 to 1923, inclusive, compiled by the Sanitary District
of Chicago, and furnished to the United States engineers in its office at
Chicago, and I am also inclosing sheet marked “B,” which explains itself
in connection with letter marked “C,” which I have just received from Maj.
James R. Fuller, assistant United States engineer, located at Peoria, Ill.
A study of these sheets marked “A” and “B” will confirm my observation
that the low stage of the Illinois River has not been raised during the past
20 years, notwithstanding the fact that the Sanitary District of Chicago has
increased the diversion from Lake Michigan, it being understood, of course,
that the variation from one year to another on the low gauge readings of the
lower gauge at the Kampsville Lock is accounted for by the variation in the
Season. To illustrate : The years 1915 and 1917 were exceptional years in
Our Illinois Valley for more than usual rainfall during the summer months.
Mr. J. Woerman, assistant United States engineer located in the Chicago office
of the United States engineers, advised me when he handed me sheet A that
10 per cent can be added to the recorded flow through Chicago Drainage Canal
for latter years, because the measuring apparatus of the Sanitary District of
Chicago has become WOrn, which additional 10 per cent will approximate the
8,500 second-feet which the Sanitary District of Chicago has stated, at the
hearing Of your committee, is the present diversion.
It is needless to Say that we who are interested in the agricultural develop-
ment within our drainage and levee districts would prefer to have a dry bed
in the Illinois River in all Seasons of the year, if water were not needed for
navigation, but we must approach this question not with provincial minds
but as reasonable business men not Opposed to a development which will give
all producers and consumers the blessings of better distribution, the great
need at the present time.
Trusting that I have made more clear the brief statement which I made on
this subject at the hearing on May 1, I am,
Very truly yours,
EDWARD BOYLE.
864
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
(A) Flow through Chicago Drainage Canal
#
* * Mean for | Mean for
Year (cubic feet (cubic feet wººle yº
per per ee #. tee .
mňite) mite) | minute) || Second)
1900---------------------------------------------------- 260,067 86,943 179,386 2,990
1901---------------------------------------------------- 320,967 174, 188 242, 760 4,046
490°---------------------------------------------------- 259,364 244, 261 258, 111 4,302
1908---------------------------------------------------- 367,458 259,834 298,264 4,971
1904---------------------------------------------------- 332, 943 240,238 287,566 4,793
1905---------------------------------------------------- 332, 740 , 604 268,783 4,480
1906---------------------------------------------------- 313, 255 205,588 268, 358 4,473
1907---------------------------------------------------- 374,957 252,297 306,968 5, 116
1908---------------------------------------------------- 333,867 185, 392 265, 234 4,420
1999---------------------------------------------------- 209, 313 109,399 165, 940 2,766
1910---------------------------------------------------- 389, 679 122,419 207, 503 3,458
1911---------------------------------------------------- 428,774 333,254 386, 673 6,445
1912---------------------------------------------------- y 0 385, 440 6,424
*---------------------------------------------------- 803,800 101,000 431,495 7, 192
1914---------------------------------------------------- 1,256, 100 121, 500 26, 7, 105
*---------------------------------------------------- 1, 191, 100 y 418, 257 6,971
1916---------------------------------------------------- 1,223,500 3,700 439, 488 7, 325
1917---------------------------------------------------- 1, 650,000 129,500 467,439 7,791
1918---------------------------------------------------- 1, 155,800 0 468,677 7,811
1919---------------------------------------------------- ,029,000 46,000 456,339 7,606
1929---------------------------------------------------- 693,452 324,823 439,281 7,321
1991---------------------------------------------------- 570,338 212,035 439,734 7,326
19°---------------------------------------------------- y 107,500 462, 181 7,703
1993---------------------------------------------------- 959, 600 y 435,957 7, 266
NOTE.-From 1900 to 1911, inclusive, the figures given in the maximum and minimum
columns show the greatest and
to 1918, inclusive, the figures gi
least average for any month in that year
- From 1912
ven represent maximum and minimum discharge based
upon hourly readings. From 1919 to 1921, inclusive, the figures given show the maximum
and minimum daily discharge.
hourly gauge readings.
The figures from 1922 and 1923 are based upon half.
(B) Lowest stage reached by the Illinois River during the years 1900 to 1923,
inclusive, as shown by the records of the lower gauge at Kampsville Lock

Month Year || Reading Month Year || Reading
Feet Feet
January------------------------ 1900 9.60 || October------------------------ 1912 11.90
October------------------------ 1901 9.45 Do------------------------- 1913 11.35
January------------------------ 1902 10.00 || August------------------------- 1914 10. 75
December---------------------- 1903 10.80 By--------------------------- 1915 12.05
September---------------------- 1904 11.00 || October------------------------ 1916 11.70
August------------------------- 1905 11. 10 P0------------------------- 1917 12.30
July---------------------------- 1906 I1. 20 P0------------------------- 1918 11.70
November__ - - 1907 12.80 || September---------------------- 1919 11.30
October------------------------ 1908 10.45 || October------------------------ 1920 11.35
Do------------------------- 1909 11.60 || July---------------------------- 1921 11. 75
November---------------------- 1910 11. 10 || October------------------------ 1922 11. 60
September---------------------- 1911 11. 10 || August------------------------- 1923 11. 75
Elevation of zero of gauge, 409.1 feet, Memphis datum. -
NOTE.-Some lower readings occurred during winter months, due to ice gorges, which
are not given.
Edward Box LE, Chicago, Ill.
DEAR SIR: Inclosed is a table giving the lowest readings each year of the
lower gauge at Kampsville Lock for the years 1900 to 1923, inclusive.
Your attention is invited to the fact that as there is less than 6 feet fall
normally from Kampsville to the mouth of the Illinois, the Mississippi at times
affects the stage at Kampsville Lock.
Yours truly,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
Peoria, Ill., May 8, 1924.
JAS. R. FüILER,
A88istant Engineer.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 865
COMMITTEE on RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House OF REPRESENTATIVEs.
Friday, May 2, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 a.m., pursuant to adjournment of yes-
terday. Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN: All right, gentlemen, we will proceed. I think,
Mr. Adcock, I will call the attention of the committee to what you
showed me in this report of Colonel Warren’s. I put in an estimate
as to what, on General Bixby's figures as to reduction in the Welland
Canal, the diversion would amount to in lowering Lake Erie. My
ºtion is directed to page 22 of the Warren report, where it is
S21 CE . -
Its Operation (that of the new canal) is estimated to require a diversion of
about 2,000 cubic feet per second, and the total diversion of the Welland Canal
will then be about 5,300 cubic feet per second.
I take it, however, that while General Bixby is probably wrong in
his estimate as to the amount of water required to operate the new
Welland Canal, he is probably right about the fact that diversions
for power there will be discontinued when the new plant on the
Canadian side is in full operation. -
Mr. HULL. What becomes of that power?
The CHAIRMAN. It is to be, I should say, three-quarters of it, used
on the American side.
Mr. HULL. I do not mean that. I mean when they disband this
part, do they still control that amount of power in Canada? In
other words, is that in addition to the 36,000 cubic feet?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know what they used up to the time of
the construction of the new canal.
Mr. HULL. Do you know, Mr. Adcock?
Mr. ADCOCK. I only know what the Warren report states.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand, as I stated here a few days ago—
and while I may be wrong about it, it is my understanding—that the
diversions on the Canadian side are being remeasured right at the
present time.
Mr. ADCOCK. The only thing I have in mind was the authoritative
evidence we have so far has been that the use of the water on the new
Welland Canal is 5,300 second-feet, according to the Warren report.
There has been some rumor or some statement made that they under-
stand that they are not going to use that much. I have the informa-
tion that it was a hope that they might be able to buy up those plants.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we will have full evidence of an official
character as to just what the conditions are: but I wanted, in fairness,
to call attention to this.
Mr. ADCOCK. Did you read the whole paragraph'
The CHAIRMAN. No: I only read the last sentence. The other is
simply the dimensions. -
Mr. ADCOCK. Well, it takes 800 second-feet in addition to the pres-
ent diversion.
The CHAIRMAN. No doubt the exact facts regarding this matter
and regarding the entire Canadian transaction will be placed offi-
cially before us before these hearings are closed.
91739—24—PT 2—40
866 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
STATEMENT OF MIR. GEORGE E. STEPHENS-Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Stephens.
Mr. STEPHENs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
at the suggestion of the chairman, I can finish what I have to say
in about five minutes. -
Figures regarding traffic on the Chicago River and the drainage
canal for 1923, have been prepared by Mr. H. G. Legan, who re-
cently appeared before the committee, and who is the assistant traffic
manage of the Morton Salt Co. of Chicago, and chairman of the
water transportation committee of the Chicago Shippers' Conference
Association, which is made up of most of the large shippers of Chi-
cago. He has authorized me to present them to the committee. This

is for 1923; the tonnage carried by these companies:
Tons
The Consumers’ Co 222, 500
The Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co 500,000
Lenzie & Grello 265,000
FitzSimmons & McConnell 200,000
They all handled stone for construction work.
The CHAIRMAN. That is on the canal, is it, or is that on the lakes?
Mr. STEPHENs. On the river and the canal. They have stone quar-
ries down on the drainage canal, and they bring this stone up and
it is used for construction work in Chicago. The American Sand
& Gravel Co., 298,187 tons.
They operate a sand plant over at Michigan City, and they load
up their boats with the sand and bring it from there down to the
Chicago River for construction work. As I say, their tonnage last
year was 298,187.
Then the Merchants' Lighterage Co., which is a merchandise
transfer, is 160,000 tons, which totals 1,645,687 tons.
These figures are not included in the annual report of the Chief
of Engineers of the United States Army. Add these figures to the
total tonnage given in the latest available report of the Chief of
Engineers, that for 1923, and it gives a total of 4,503,208 tons.
In addition to the above figures Mr. Legan states that the Erie
Railroad Co. informs him that they now handle about 30 carloads
a day in their own lighters at their Erie and Kingsbury Streets and
Webster Avenue and river team tracks. Beginning May 10, this
company expects to extend the service to the North Pier terminal
warehouse, which is located at Illinois Street and the lake, and will
handle about 15 cars more daily, making a total of 45 cars a day.
The Erie officials inform Mr. Legan that they will save about three
days time by using the lighterage. Add this tonnage to that already
given, and the total is very large.
The Texas Oil Co. also handles thousands of tons a year in its own
lighters from its refining plants at Lockport on the drainage canal.
Mr. Legan says that he is informed that some of the companies
hauling stone save 25 cents a ton in freight by hauling on these
barges and from three to four days in time.
The CHAIRMAN. They ought to save a great deal more than
that. The evidence before us is that down on the Monongahela the
steel companies haul their coal, which is more difficult to handle,
I should say considerably, on account of its being in very much
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 867
Smaller units, at 15 cents a ton as against $1.15 by rail. In other
Words they haul it at just about one-seventh. That was the testi-
mony, as I remember it. Wasn't it, Mr. Peavey?
Mr. PEAVEY. I think so.
Mr. STEPHENs. Of course, this enters into it. In Chicago the
down-town district is served by belt lines. All of the freight traffic
that comes in on all the big railroads is transferred to its belt lines
to be delivered. Of course, that transfer requires considerable time.
That is where we are different from a good many cities. We have
to handle it over this belt line.
The lighterage traffic on the Chicago River handled by the Mer-
chants' Lighterage Co., of which the stock is owned by Chicago
shippers, during 1923 was almost equal to the tonnage carried by
the Mississippi Barge Line into and out of 11 States north of the
Ohio River during the first 11 months of 1923. These lighterage
boats were built on special design for service in the Chicago River,
and are, I am informed, the only ones of their type. They transfer
freight from one railroad to another and from railroad to steamer
docks. They draw 15 feet of water, with a large deck below the
water line. They extend 16 feet above the water line and pass under
street bridges with ease. Some railroad bridges across the river,
I am informed by the officials of the company, are so near the
water line that they must be turned every time a boat or lighter
passes through. They state that when the swinging bridges are
done away with they can double the number of boats in a year, as
there is a big demand for lighterage service. -
The CHAIRMAN. What will you substitute for the swinging
bridges?
Mr. STEPHENs. We will have the lift bridges; the bridges we have
across the street now are high enough above the water line to allow
these boats to go through, but the railroad bridges are low and must
be drawn and necessarily that interferes with traffic. These lighters
that I spoke about transfer freight between the following railroad
lines: Eastern lines—the Wabash, Erie, Grand Trunk, and Big Four;
western lines—the Santa Fe, North Western, Chicago & Eastern Ill-
inois, Milwaukee, Rock Island, Burlington, Illinois Central, and
the Wabash. #
Carloads are also handled for the Canada Atlantic Transit Co.,
the Great Lakes Transit Corporation, and the Rutland-Lake Michi-
gan Transit Co.
That is all I have to present.
Mr. HULL. I would like to have those drawings put into the
record.
Mr. STEPHENs. I will do so. Mr. Chairman, I may say that you
asked me the other day if I would find out the railroad tonnage in
the large cities, and I called Doctor Lorenz, of the Interstate Com-
merce Commission, and he says that they have no figures for those
railroad terminals.
Mr. PEAVEY. May I ask the gentleman a question or two before he
oes?
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Peavey.
Mr. PEAvey. I understand you are connected with the traffic de-
partment of the chamber of commerce?
868 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. STEPHENs. No, sir. I am secretary of the waterway committee
of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce; but Mr. Legan, who was before
the committee a couple of weeks ago and could not come down at
this time, got these figures together for the traffic, and I am present-
ing them for him. - -
Mr. PEAVEY. You represent one of the departments operating
under the chamber of commerce? . . . . . . -
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir. Ours is the Illinois Chamber of Com-
merce—the State chamber of commerce—which is made up practi-
cally of all of the chambers of commerce of the State.
Mr. PEAVEY. I take it your presence here indicates your interest in
this matter. You are interested, I take it, primarily in the develop-
ment of the navigation of the waterways?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir. *
Mr. PEAVEY. I would like to ask you whether or not your organi-
zation, has ever remonstrated in any manner or made public any
remonstrance about the railroad influence in the destruction of the
lake traffic? - - . . .
Mr. STEPHENs. We have taken no action. +
Mr. PEAVEY. Have you ever recognized it or considered it? .
Mr. STEPHENs. No, sir; we never have officially.
Mr. PEAVEY. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. I see that your tables show that the growth of
traffic in Chicago has been from-what is it; 700,744,000 tons?
Mr. STEPHENs. This is the railway tonnage for the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. I got the wrong one.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I see that the tonnage at Chicago grew from
9,800,000 tons in 1894 to 12,500,000 in 1923, a growth of 2,800,000
tonS.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And I see that the growth in the United States
of railway tonnage was from 700,744,000 tons in 1892 to 2,300,000,000
in 1923, a growth of about 3 for 1.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. As against a growth of one-third at Chicago?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, I see that the growth through the American-
Canadian canals grew from the figure you give as 75 in 1855—the
average tonnage per vessel through the locks at the Sault—to a figure
you give as 4,158 in 1923, a growth of fifty-five times what it was
originally.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What are you speaking about now %
The CHAIRMAN. I am comparing the growths of the tonnage at
Chicago with the growths on the other lake harbors and with
growths in the United States. ... - &
The tonnage in Menominee, Wis.; grew from 300,000 tons in 1909
to 593,000 tons in 1923, nearly double. r •
The tonnage in Erie Harbor, Pa., grew from 1,600,000 tons in 1891,
or, we will take 1895—that will serve-grew from 2,200,000 tons to the
same apparently in 1922; but in 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1920 it
amounted to over 4,000,000 tons, and in 1916 to four and one-half
million, and I would say in that connection that for the last two
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 869
years I understand they have had some trouble; that it lias been
brought to my official attention that they have had some trouble
there in Erie with their harbor. A storm caused a breach in the
peninsula which protects the harbor.
Mr. HULL. It was the coal strike that did it.
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir; that had a great effect on the Lake traffic
in all of these reports, which the engineer's report states.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to be sure that I have given you the benefit
of 1920 at Chicago. Last year was your biggest year—no; you had
another year, 1918, that was as big. You have one year that was
bigger than that, which was 1913. In 1913 you have 13,200,000 tons.
Then at Buffalo, N. Y., the tonnage grew from 8,500,000 tons in
1895 to 17,600,000 tons in 1922, or practically double. In Cleveland
the tonnage grew from 5,200,000 in 1895 to 10,900,000 in 1922. Was
1922 the coal-strike year? -
Mr. HULL. Yes; 1921 and 1922.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been as high as 16,500,000. You have not
the figures for 1923 in any of these except one.
Mr. STEPHENS, No, sir; because I had to take the figures from the
latest report of the Chief of Engineers, and the 1924 report is not out.
The CHAIRMAN. The tonnage in Milwaukee Harbor apparently has
remained, since 1911, about stationary, except for the last three years.
Mr. STEPHENs. If the Chairman please, I have a few remarks on
that. I have gone through the previous reports of the United
States Army Engineers. The annual report for 1913, on pages 1103
and 1104, part 1, makes this statement:
About 4,970,000 tons of coal were brought to Milwaukee in 1912 for local and
interior points.
The next report, for the next year, which is 1914, says:
There has been an increase of 563 in the number of 'VeSSels during the cal-
endar year 1913, and shipments have increased about 11 per cent.
In the same report it says:
By reason of its excellent harbor the manufacturers and distributers of Mil-
waukee enjoy Superior shipping facilities and low freight rates, especially to
and from eastern points. *
The annual report for 1916 says:
By reason of its excelent harbor Milwaukee has become the principal coal
port on Lake Michigan. -
The report for 1917 says:
The favorable effect of the harbor upon commerce is widespread throughout
several States lying to the westward. |
The increased value of commerce for the year is due to the increase in Value
of commodities, especially coal.
The CHAIRMAN. How much of an increase was that?
Mr. STEPHENs. I do not know. The figures would show.
The CHAIRMAN. This shows the tonnage, not the increase in value?
Mr. STEPHENs. I could give it to you by looking up the Engineer’s
report.
The CHAIRMAN. Never mind.
Mr. STEPHENs. In the report for 1918 it says:
The decrease in tonnage compared to that of the preceding year is due prin-
cipally to the reduced receipts of soft coal and the decrease of car-ferry traffic
870 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
It also speaks about the terminal facilities in Milwaukee and says:
These facilities are inadequate for existing commerce.
The report for 1919 says:
The increase in tonnage compared to that of the previous year is principally
due to decreased receipts of soft coal and to increased grain shipments and car-
ferry traffic.
The report for 1920 says:
The decrease in tonnage compared to that of the previous year is principally
due to decreased coal receipts. Tonnage by car ferry increased nearly 30 per
cent. There was a decrease in grain shipments, which were only about 38 per
Cent Of those of 1918.
The report for 1921 says:
The decrease in tonnage of 18 per cent compared to that of the preceding
year is principally due to decreased shipments by car ferry and by bulk
freighters engaged in carrying grain.
The annual report for 1922 says:
The increase of 11 per cent in tonnage compared to that of the preceding
year is due to increased receipts of coal and shipments of grain, both foreign
and domestic. The grain shipments were the largest ever made for this harbor.
The report for 1923 says:
The decrease of 13 per cent in tonnage compared to that of the previous year
is due to decreased receipts of coal and foreign and domestic shipments of
grain. (Annual report, 1923, p. 1372, pt. 1.) º
The CHAIRMAN. All of these reports except that for Chicago for
1922 and Chicago, 1923—1923 was the banner year?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Chicago was considerably smaller in 1922?
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. In Toledo the growth was from 2,000,000 tons in
1895 to 9,400,000 tons in 1922, an increase of 400 per cent.
Mr. STEPHENs. That, of course, was due largely to the increased
coal shipments.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Then in the tonnage at St. Marys Falls
Canal, Mich.
Mr. STEPHENs (interposing). That is through the Soo?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That grew from 15,000,000 tons in 1895 to
66,000,000 tons in 1922.
Mr. STEPHENs. Of course, that was due to the grain shipments and
the coal shipments.
The CHAIRMAN. But the important thing is that it is shipping and
it has multiplied by about 6.
Mr. STEPHENs. That is true.
The CHAIRMAN. The tonnage in Green Bay, Wis., grew from
680,000 tons in 1909—we have not got 1895—to 840,000 tons in 1922,
but it was over 1,000,000 in 1920 and 1921, an increase of nearly
10 per cent. *
The tonnage at Frankfort, Mich., in 1914 was 700,000 tons, and in
1922 was 1,300,000 tons, an increase of about 100 per cent. º
The tonnage in Manitowoc Harbor, Wis., was 1,800,000 tons in
1910 and 1,600,000 in 1922, a slight decrease. It practically re-
mained stationary all the way through. That harbor does not
seem to have gone either up or down.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 871
The tonnage in channels in Lake St. Clair, Mich., grew from
22,000,000 tons in 1891 to 63,000,000 tons in 1922.
The tonnage at Muskegon, Mich., grew from 100,000 tons in 1909
to 382,000 tons in 1922—nearly 400 per cent.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I suppose that was largely car ferry tonnage at
Muskegon?
Mr. STEPHENs. No, sir; there is no car ferry tonnage there, ac-
cording to the engineer’s report on page 1027, Part 2, 1923.
The CHAIRMAN. The tonnage in the Detroit River in 1895 was
25,000,000 tons, and in 1922 it was 68,000,000 tons.
Mr.'s repress. That Rouge River report there is very interesting
too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PEAvex. While this gentleman is still here, it just occurs to
me—I do not know whether I can make myself clear on it—but
the reading of these reports suggests to me something that has been
running in my mind for a long time. The chairman and the other
members of this committee know that this is a parallel question
to the one under consideration, relative to the disappearance of lake
shipping on the Great Lakes. I wonder if that does not enter di-
rectly into this question that is before this committee in this wise.
The gentlemen here and other gentlemen are appearing for the
Sanitary District of the city of Chicago primarily in the interest
of navigation and for better transportation facilities south from
Chicago. I wondered if by omission or commission the sanitary
district and the people of Chicago have not put themselves in the
position where th. can not very well ask for consideration from
this committee on this question, because of their attitude of accept-
ing, without remonstrance of any kind, a situation controlled by
factors within their own city, which has deprived the Great Lakes
of practically all of its shipping. I have reference to the railroad
influence, centered in the city of Chicago, the managing heads of
18 of our principal railroads of the Northwest. It seems to me
that these things are so closely related that they should be con-
sidered by this committee. I do not know whether this witness
would want to or care to testify in regard to that, but it seems to
me it is a very important thing. This committee is considering
primarily the question of navigation and the development of navi-
ation, and what possible benefit to the country as a whole or the
reat Lakes relative to developing navigation south from Chicago
if you are going to draw the line at the lake shore, and say that
we are going to permit things to happen in the city of Chicago
that practically close the doors of the Great Lakes channels.
Mr. STEPHENs. In answer to that question as to the effect of rail-
road transportation on the Great Lakes, you will remember that when
the Panama Canal act was passed in 1912 the boats were taken from
the railroads.
Mr. PEAvKY. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEPHENs. I have a report here showing the number of steam-
ers separated, and it goes on to state that a lot of those boats were
taken away.
Mr. PEAvex. Yes; I understand. Mr. Goulder has told us that,
in his opinion, it was largely attributable to the Panama Canal act.
But what occurs to me is that this committee should be interested in,
and above all it seems to me that the association which you represent
872 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
should be interested in, is the proposition that the canal act in itself
directly was not aimed or purposed to destroy the Great Lakes ship-
ping. If it has done it inadvertently, then you, together with all
the rest of us, should be coming here before this committee and Con-
gress to get that remedied. - * t
Mr. STEPHENs. It has not decreased lake shipping to any great
extent. Look at that chart, which shows the amount of shipping that
goes up through the Soo. What I have been trying to point out in
all of this is that the tonnage on the Great Lakes in these different
ports follows very generally the trend of business. I may say that
I tried to get from the Interstate Commerce Commission some figures
whereby I could prepare a chart to show the trend of business for the
past few years—say, 15 or 20 years—and I was unable to do so, and
all I could do was to take these figures from the engineer's report.
Mr. PEAvEY. Permit me right there to call your attention to this:
The United States Steel Corporation has been recognized in this
country for many years as the barometer or the best single gauge
for public business in the country. The United States Steel Corpora-
tion, the greater portion of its business is had over that channel of
lake traffic. Therefore the conclusion that we draw is obvious; but
what I would call your attention to is this, that of the 121,000,000
tons of transportation carried on the Great Lakes for the year 1923,
92,000,000 was steel, 11,000,000 was coal or return cargo, 9,000,000
was grain from Duluth to Europe; five of the remaining seven mil-
lion was stone and ballast, leaving only 2,000,000 for all the other
channels of trade on the Great Lakes, and I can account for practi.
cally all of that 2,000,000 in the raw materials of logs and lumber.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Haven’t you got your figures a little wrong, Mr.
Peavey? - s -
Mr. PEAVEY. I am quoting those from memory. In the result I
am not. r
Mr. MANSFIELD. Ore, 59,000,000; coal, 33,000,000; grain, 11,000,000:
stone, about 10,000,000.
Mr. PEAvey. Yes; I thank you for correcting me as to the figures;
but the net result is the same. It reduces itself down to where you
have only 2,000,000 tons, approximately, to account for of the trans-
portation on the Great Lakes, including logs and lumber, so that you
see the commercial transportation on the Great Lakes is practically
nil; it has practically disappeared. .
Mr. STEPHENs. You speak about our waterway south from Chi-
cago. That is one thing we are after, and why we are asking for
this development of the Illinois River is right along this line. At
the south end of the city of Chicago, inside the city limits, is Lake
Calumet. It is connected with Lake Michigan by the Calumet
River, which is improved with a width of 200 feet, and is 24 feet
deep. It comes down into Lake Calumet. The Calumet Sag Channel,
which has been constructed by the sanitary district, runs west
partically from Lake Calumet and connects with the Chicago Drain-
age Canal. That is the proposition that we have. The Great Lakes
steamers already come down the Great Lakes to the lower end of
Lake Michigan and at the present time can enter the Calumet River
and come down to within 200 feet of Lake Calumet. With the de-
velopment of Lake Calumet which we hope to have Soon, the Great
Lakes steamers can come down into Lake Calumet where we are
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 873
going to form a harbor. Then the barges can come up from the
south through the drainage canal and through the Calumet Sag
Channel and over into Lake Calumet. Within a stone’s throw of
Lake Calumet passes the great railroad traffic lines, and if they do
not pass within a stone's throw they are connected, all of them,
with belt lines. Right in there we expect to take Lake Calumet and
make a big inland harbor out of it. To show you what the railroads
think of that inland harbor, the Nickel Plate Railroad managers
have already made a proposition to the city of Chicago that they
will develop that at their own expense if the city will give them a
franchise to run a single line of railroad around that lake.
Mr. MANSFIELD. How large is Lake Calumet?
Mr. RAINEY. About a mile wide and a mile and a half long.
Mr. STEPHENs. That is what we are trying to do, to develop this
so that the Great Lakes traffic can come down in there and connect
with the Sag Channel and over into Lake Calumet, and that is
where the railroads are coming in.
Mr. PEAVEY. Is it the understanding of your organization and
its membership that the railroads have changed their attitude now,
and that they are willing to give further cooperation?
Mr. STEPHENs. To this extent. President Markham of the
Illinois Central is profiting, of course, by the barge line up and
down the Mississippi River, and the other railroads are doing the
same thing. I had a letter
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What did Mr. Markham say?
You said he was profiting, but you did not state what he said.
Mr. STEPHENs. What I meant to say was this, that Mr. Markham
recognizes the advantage of this waterway transportation, and has
so stated repeatedly. The other railroads are doing the same thing,
The general superintendent of the Missouri division of the Burling-
ton gave me some figures last year as to the amount of grain that
his road is shipping down to St. Louis to connect, with the barge
line there, and he said in effect that he considered it a great trans-
portation development. We are satisfied that the railroads are
going to join with us on the development of this inland waterway
transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. I will give you these figures you suggest on the
River Rouge. The tonnage developed from 114,000 tons in 1895 to
over a million tons in 1922. That is, of course, on account of Mr.
Ford 2
Mr. STEPHENs. Yes. That is plainly stated.
The CHAIRMAN. We º very much.
(The tables submitted by Mr. Stephens are as follows:)
ANNUAL REPORT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS UNITED STATES ARMY, 1923
Chicago Harbor (including Chicago River)—Comparative statement of traffic
Tons. Tons.
1890-------------------- 7, 209, 514 | 1898-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7, 391, 454
1891-------------------- 7, 214, 765 1899 – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 189, 365
1892-------------------- 8, 412, 992 || 1900– – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5, 873, 070
1898-------------------- 7, 958, 963 1901 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 184, 242
1894-------------------- 7, 209, 236 1902 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5, 184, 792
1895-------------------- 7, 205, 942 1903 – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 105, 553
1896-------------------- 6, 347, 163 1904 – ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4, 446, 071
1897-------------------- 7, 149, 759 1905- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5, 388, 986
874 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI BIVERS, ETC.
Tons. # "Cons.
1906-------------------- 5, 011, 786 1915---------- ---------- 3, 259, 170
1907-------------------- 4, 980, 123 1916-------------------- 2, 439, 381
1908------------- — — — — — — — 4, 0.25, 170 1917------------ -------- 1, 900, 687
1909-------------------- 4, 224, 655 | 1918-------------------- 1, 925, 633
1910-------------------- 4, 273, 304 || 1919-------------------- 1, 631, 620
1911-------------------- 4,025, 576 | 1920-------------------- 1, 527, 265
1912-------------------- 3, 644, 745 | 1921- - - - - - - - - ----------- 2, 632, 343
1913-------------------- 3, 829, 442 | 1922-------------------- 2,857, 521
1914-------------------- 3, 780, 509
The heaviest tonnage in this port during 1922 was in vegetable food products
and the Second largest was in hard coal.
Chicago Harbor includes the protected areas in the lake and the entrance to
Chicago River up to Rush Street, being as yet mainly useful as an entrance to
Chicago River and a protection to same ; most of its commerce is identical with
that of the river. The draft of loaded boats ranges from 14 to 19.4 feet.
About 30 per cent of the tonnage carried is at the lighter draft mentioned.
The lake commerce through Chicago Harbor, mostly entering Chicago River, .
during 1922 consisted princ'pally of miscellaneous merchandise, coal, lumber,
and grain.
In its original condition this harbor could be used by none but the Smallest
craft and then only when temorarily deepened by scour due to freshets. The
Chicago River entered Lake Michigan about one-half mile South of its present
mouth across a shifting bar. Its width averaged about 200 feet. The harbor
was limited to the portion of the river east of Rush Street, about one-half
mile long. The depth over the bar was 3 to 4 feet. The orig'nal project for
improvement was adopted by Congress in 1833 and Subsequent acts have been
paSSed. -
Seasonal fluctuations in mean stage from low water in Winter to high Water
in summer average about 1.2 feet. Local and temporary fluctuations of 0.1
to 0.5 of a foot due to wind and difference in barometric pressures occur daily.
Seiches of 3 to 4 feet occur as infrequent intervals.
The existing project provides for an inner breakwater, inclosing an inner
basin of about 224 acres, an exter' or breakwater inclosing an Outer basin of
about 490 acres, and maintenance dredging to a depth of 21 feet of part of
the inner basin and also of the entrance to Chicago River from the lake to
Rush Street.
In 1864 the city of Chicago furnished the sum of $75,000, which was
expended in dredging and in extending the north p’er.
The river and harbor act of 1912, which adopted the part Of the project
providing for the construction of a breakwater to form an outer harbor, con-
tained a requirement that the work should “not be commenced until assurances
satisfactory to the . Secretary of War shall have been received that the work
contemplated by the city of Chicago as part of said improvement will be
actually undertaken and completed by said city.” The work referred to in
this act which was to be undertaken by the city Was the Construction of
municipal freight and passenger piers just north of the mouth of the river.
Pier No. 2 was begun March 13, 1914, and completed two years later at a
cost of $3,508,517. The funds were derived from a bond issue by the city of
Chicago.
Effect of improvement.—Transportation by water through this harbor has
been greatly facilitated. The improvement has provided protection to the
entrance to the inner harbor in the Chicago River and to the outer harbor
established by the city of Chicago and has reduced freight rates on a number
of commodities, notably coal. Should the probable connection between the
Great Lakes and navigable waterways be made, it is believed the economic
benefits to the community will be greatly enhanced.
CHICAGO RIVER
Geographically speaking, the Chicago River flows, into Lake Michigan, but
actually it discharges into the sanitary canal—the current having been reversed
in 1901—at the rate of nearly 9,000 cubic feet per second. The current varies
from 0 to 3 miles or more, according to conditions of rainfall, amount of diver-
sion, and seiches. The fall per mile is about 0.32 foot and the average width
200 feet. In its original Condition the river, as a result of municipal and pri-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 875
vate improvements, was navigable for boats of about 14-foot draft over Widths
of about 200 feet throughout the main river and for boats of 12-foot draft for
lesser width for about 5 miles farther up each of the branches. The existing
project provides for maintenance dredging to 21 feet.
Fluctuations in stage are practically those resulting in changes of water level
in Lake Michigan. On Lake Michigan seasonal fluctuation in mean stage from
low water in winter to high water in Summer average about 1.2 feet. Local
and temporary fluctuations of 0.1 to 0.5 of a foot, due to wind and difference in
barometric pressure, occur daily. Seiches of 3 to 4 feet occur at infrequent
intervals. Existing project was authorized in 1899 and by later acts.
In adopting the 21-foot project the river and harbor act of 1899 prescribed
that all the work of removing and reconstructing bridges and piers and lower-
ing tunnels necessary to permit a practicable channel of Said depth to be
obtained should be done, or caused to be done, by the city of Chicago without
expense to the United States. The tunnels have been. lowered, and the most
obstructive bridges have been modified. -
Effect, of improvement.—The size and capacity of steamers operating in the
river have increased, and all vessels have been enabled to move with greater
freedom and Safety.
Calumet Harbor and River—Comparative statement of traffic
- Tons Tons
1890------------------- 1, 796, 401 || 1907- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – 6, 430, 347
1891------------------- 2,066, 751 | 1908— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5, 932, 153
1892------------------- 1, 822, 907 || 1909 - > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 155, 104
1893------------------- 903, 397 | 1910- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7, 254, 317
1894------------------- 1, 436, 897 | 1911 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,607, 996
1895------------------- 2,857, 750 | 1912- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8, 318, 838
1896------------------- 2,973, 724 | 1913 – L-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9,445, 878
1897------------------- 3, 493, 218 1914- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 549, 576
1898------------------- 4, 117, 526 | 1915- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 968, 660
1899------------------- 3, 229, 874 1916- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10, 308, 735
1900------------------- 3, 783, 674 | 1917- ----------------- - 10, 269, 304
1901------------------- 3,995, 277 | 1918-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10, 594, 123
1902------------------- 4, 454, 428 1919 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8, 574, 542
1903------------------- 4, 742, 225 | 1920- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10, 392, 490
1904------------------- 3, 728, 260 | 1921- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 215, 989
1905------------------- 4, 530, 394 | 1922- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – 9, 680, 155
1906------------------- 5, 290, 326
During 1922 the largest volume of business was in iron ore, the tonnage
amounting to almost 6,000,000. The next iargest item was limestone. A large
amount of grain was shipped from the port, consisting of wheat, corn, oats,
and rye.
The maximum loaded draft of vessels using the Outer harbor is 21 feet.
The maximum loaded draft of vessels using the river is 20 feet.
The decrease in tonnage during 1919 was due to the cessation in the de-
mand for steel for war munitions and the strike of the ore boat crews the
latter part of the season. The decrease in 1921 was due to the restricted
operations of the steel mills and the collapse of the largest grain elevator in
the Calumet River, and temporary diversion of a large portion of the grain
traffic.
Calumet Harbor is near the southern end of Lake Michigan, 12% miles
South of Chicago Harbor and is known on the Great Lakes as South Chicago
Harbor.
Calumet River is formed by the junction of the Little Calumet and the
Grand Calumet Rivers. Since the opening of the Sag Channel of the sani-
tary district in Chicago in 1922 the current in the main river and that
portion of the Little Calumet between the main river and the Sag Channel
has been reversed toward the Chicago Drainage Canal under normal condi-
tions of flow, the amount of withdrawal being approximately 400 cubic feet
per Second.
Fluctuations in stage of the river are practically those resulting from
Changes of water level on Lake Michigan. On Lake Michigan seasonal
fluctuations in mean stage from low water in winter to high water in summer
average about 1.2 feet. Ilocal and temporary fluctuation of 0.1 to 0.5 of a
foot, due to Wind and difference in barometric pressure, occur daily. Seiches
of 3 to 4 feet occur at frequent intervals.
876 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs; ETC.
Number of tons of commerce on the Chicago River and on the Calumet River,
- 1896 to 1923

- Chicago | Calumet gº Chicago | Calumet
Year IRiver River Total Year River River Total
1895------------ 7,005,944 2,857,750 9,863,694 || 1910------------ 4, 273, 304 || 7,254, 317 | 10,527,621
1896------------ 6,347, 165 2,973, 724 || 9, 420,887 || 1911------------ 4,025,676 | 6,607, 996 || 10,633, 572
1897------------ 7, 149, 739 || 3,493,218 10,642,957 || 1912------------ 3,644, 745 8,318, 838 || 11,963,
1898------------ 7, 391,454 || 4, 117,526 11, 508,980 || 1913------------ 3,829,442 || 9,459, 249 || 13,260,320
1899------------ 6, 189, 364 3, 229,874 9,419, 238 || 1914------------ 780, 6, 549, 576 10,330,085
1900------------ 5,873,070 || 3,783, 674 9, 656, 711 || 1915------------ 3, 259, 170 6,988, 660 | 10, 127,830
1901------------ 6, 184,242 3,995, 277 | 10, 175, 519 || 1916------------ 2,439, 381 10,308, 735 | 12,748, 116
1902------------ 5, 184,792 4, 4 y vs.”y 1917------------ , 900, 10,269,304 || 12, 169,991
1903------------ 6, 105, 553 || 4, 742, 225 10,847, 778 || 1918------------ 1, 925, 633 || 10,594, 123 12,519,756
1904------------ 4,446,071 3, 728, 270 | 8, 174,341 || 1919------------ 1,631, 620 8,574, 542 | 12,206, 162
1905------------ 5,388,986 4, 530,394 || 9,919, 420 || 1920------------ 1, 527, 265 10,392,490 11,919, 755
1906------------ 5,011, 786 5,290, 316 || 10,302, 102 || 1921------------ 2,632, 330 6, 163,971 8,796, 301
1907------------ 4,980, 123 6,430,347 || 11, 410,470 || 1922------------ 1,718,900 || 9,035, 264 10, 754, 164
1908------------ 4,025, 170 5,932, 153 || 9,957, 323 || 1923------------ 1, 543, 537 11,056,309 | 12,599,846
1909------------ 4, 224,655 6, 155, 104 || 10, 379,759
Illinois River—Comparative statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1890_ -- 26, 300 1907 16, 705
1891 35, 495 | 1908 15, 375
1892 57, 275 | 1909 – 50, 200
1893 56, 309 || 1910 106, 320
1894 - 45, 875 1911 4. 173, 529
1895. 37,640 | 1912 º 167, 598
1896 42, 105 || 1913__ 141,497
1897 45, 195 | 1914 178,199
1898 29, 243 | 1915__ 239, 677
1899 41, 675 | 1916 219, 272
1900 25, 925 | 1917 - - ___ 284, 970
1901------------------------ 36, 485 1918 165, 252
1902 29, 851 | 1919 190, 503
1903_ - - 20, 860 | 1920 __ 187, 007
1904 --- 15, 035 | 1921 157, 546
.1905 - 14, 950 | 1922__ 196, 725
1906____ 22, 385
The Illinois River is formed by the confluence of the Kankakee and the
Des Plaines Rivers and flows in a southwesterly direction emptying into the
Mississippi at Grafton, Ill., about 36 miles above St. Louis. The total length
of the stream is 273 miles. At extreme flood stage, usually in the spring, the
discharge is about 130,000 second-feet at the mouth of the river. The low-
Water Stage usually occurs in late summer and early fall, and may be ex-
pected to last from Six weeks to three months. The current is sluggish. The
fluctuation from low water to flood stage is upward of 14 feet.
In higher stages, before improvement, the Illinois was navigable by the
larger Mississippi River boats as far as Utica, 230 miles, but at low water it
was practically unnavigable except for small flat-bottom boats drawing less
than 20 inches.
The original project for improving the Illinois River was adopted by Con-
gress in 1852, and there have been subsequent improvements.
Effect of improvement.—Transportation by water has been made easier, and
a profitable and useful navigation is carried on the entire year except when
ice prevents. Up to as late as 1895 steamboats were compelled to suspend
Operation one or two months in the late summer and early fall nearly every
year on account of low Water. Since 1895 navigation has never been sus-
pended. &
The existing project is about 93 per cent complete. The controlling depth
of the river is 6 feet at low water as it prevails with the present unauthorized
(by Congress) flow of Water through the Chicago Drainage Canal, based on
surveys and soundings taken this season (1922).
The State of Illinois has appropriated $20,000,000 for the construction of
an 8-foot waterway from Lockport to Utica, a distance of 60 miles, connecting
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 877
the Chicago Drainage Canal, which has a navigable depth of 26 feet and
OVer, and the upper limits of the Illinois River improvement. The increased
importance of the Illinois River, due to the progress being made upon the
Construction of the Illinois waterway, makes it imperative that more ex-
pensive dredging operation be carried on both for maintenance and for the
completion of the project.
Illinois and Mississippi Canal—Comparative statement of traffic
Tons
1918-------------------------------------- 10, 566
#. * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - --> --> -- - - - - - - - - – – –. * .--— 10, 295
*0------------------------------------ - * * 7,428
1921------------------------- = * * * * * * * * * = **m am -- * * * * * * *-* = * mºm sº mm mº º sº sm amº. 12, 949
1922___ –4 * * * * * * * * * *= amº- sºme smºs º- * * * *-* * * * * * * *mº ºm sº smº, ms. * * 11, 166
This canal is 75 miles long and connects the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers,
proceeding from a point on the Illinois River about 12 mles from LaSalle
across the State to a junction with the Mississippi River at the mouth of Rock
River, 292 miles above the mouth of the Missouri. The canal is fed by a
navigable feeder 29 miles long extending from Rock Falls on the Rock River
to the Summit level of the canal. The object of the canal is to furnish, in con-
junction with the Illinois and Michigan Canal, the Chicago Sanitary Canal,
and the Chicago River, a through waterway from Chicago, on Lake Michigan,
to the Mississippi River.
Effect of improvement.—The commerce is not now commensurate with the
cost of the canal and its operation, but it is expected that when the Illinois
waterway now under construction by the State of Illinois is completed there
will be considerable traffic from Chicago and Lake Michigan through to the
Mississippi River at ROCk Island and Davenport. -
ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL (OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS)
The freight traffic in 1922 amounted to a total of 14,350 tons. Of this amount
the larger tonnage Was in Wheat.
This canal has a length of 63 miles from Joliet to LaSalle with 11 locks. The
depth over the lock sills is 416 feet.
During 1922 a total of 358 boats with a net registered tonnage of 26,129 tons
used this canal. There were 165 packet boats, 70 barges, and 123 launches.
Manitowoc Harbor, Wis.-Comparative statement of traffic

General - General
Year vessel Cºy Total traffic Year vessel C.; y §.
traffic traffic TøIIIC
Toms Toms Toms Tons Toms Toms
1909---------- 370,826 87,916 458,742 || 1916---------- 440,754 1,422,005 1,862,759
1910---------- 623, 134 1,219, 137 1,842,271 || 1917---------- 430, 325 1,451,811 1,882, 136
1911---------- 361, 193 1,076,036 1,437,229 || 1918---------- 441,056 1, 312, 171 1,753,227
1912---------- 404, 270 | 1,052, 585 1,456,855 || 1919---------- 490,210 | 1,281, 160 | 1,771,370
1913---------- 540, 808 1,360,257 1,901,065 || 1920---------- 275,900 1,484, 855 1, 760, 755
1914---------- 369,965 1,372,895 1, 742,860 || 1921---------- 398,077 1,218, 255 1,616, 332
1915---------- | 420,021 1, 166,787 1, 586,808 || 1922---------- 370,337 1,302,321 1,672, 658
The general vessel traffic is in soft coal and the car-ferry traffic in hard and
soft coal, lumber, flour, and feed, etc.
In 1922, 175 vessels (entered and cleared) were from 16 to 18 feet draft;
1,925 vessels from 14 to 16 feet.
This harbor is on the west shore of Lake Michigan, distant about 79 miles
north from Milwaukee. --
The fluctuations of water level are seasonal changes of about one-half foot
above or below the annual mean stage and extreme fluctuations of a temporary
nature due to wind and barometric pressure of about 1% feet above or below
the mean lake level prevailing at the time.
Improvement of this harbor was first authorized in 1854.
878 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The principal effect of improvement has been to increase the volume of car-
ferry business and of coal receipts for shipment to the interior.
1s; usual limit of draft for car-ferry traffic is 17 feet; coal, 18.5 feet; grain,
feet. -
The decrease in the amount of coal received by vessels other than car ferry
Was more than offset by increased shipments by car ferry and general vesset
traffic, leaving an increase over 1921 of about 3% per cent in total tonnage.
Milwaukee Harbor, Wis., comparative statement of traffic

General vessel traffic Car-ferry traffic Total traffic
Year
Tons Value Tons Value Tons Value
1911 6, 544,519 $87, 561,110 | 1,067,772 $32,092,625 7,612,291 || $119,653,735.
1912 - 6, 712,505 || 97,336,350 | 1,067,122 || 31, 895, 500 || 7,779, 627 | 129,231,850
1913– 7,496,923 || 104,848,000 | 1, 150,307 35,886,750 | 8, 647,230 140, 734,750
1914 r— 7, 536,718. 120,455, 167 948, 111 32,415,732 8,484,829 152,870,899.
1915 7,326, 100 || 130,928,955 793,775 19,419,966 || 8, 119,875 150,348,921
1916 6,656,980 211,172,689 1,268,508 55,982,962 7,925,488 267,155,651
1917--------------------- 5,855,089 || 256, 195,500 965, 775 53,387,400 6,820,864 309, 582,900
1918 5,726,749 || 178.689, 175 | 1,358,801 | 183,875,693 7,086, 550 362, 564,868
1919 5,248,850 135,321, 100 1,759,350 184,758,200 7,008, 200 320,079,300.
1920 - 4,075,466 90,965,900 1,685, 103 125,416,000 || 5,760, 569 216, 381,900.
1991--------------------- 5,011, 520 111, 513,800 1,419,627 90, 147,000 || 6,431, 147 201,660,800
1922-- 4,023,505 || 125,868, 500 1, 579,430 155, 546,700 5,602, 935 281,415, 200,
In 1922 the largest tonnage was soft coal, iron ore, lumber, other forest
products, grains, flour, salt, building materials, and unclassified commodities.
...About 28 per cent of the total tonnage consists of miscellaneous commodities.
Carried by car-ferry streamers on a limiting draft of 17 feet. The usual
limits of draft and proportions of total tonnage for vessels other than car
ferry are as follows: Coal (48 per cent), 19 feet; grain (12 per cent), 18
feet; other miscellaneous traffic (12 per cent), 16 feet.
TWO new package freight lines, known as the Great Lakes Transit Cor-
poration and the Nicholson Transit Co., operated during the year to Buffalo
and to Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo, respectively.
The decrease of 13 per cent in tonnage compared to that of the preceding
year is due to increased receipts of coal and foreign and domestic shipments
Of grain. There is an increase in valuation due to increased receipts and
Shipments of automobiles and other commodities of high unit value.
NOTE.-As the figures in the above table show, the highest mark reached
in total traffic into and out of Milwaukee Harbor was in the year 1913, with
a total of 8,647,230 tons. A comparison between the commodities involved in
shipments in 1913 and 1922 show some interesting changes. These figures show
that in 1922 shipments increased over 1913 by 60,000 tons, but the receipts
in 1913 were 3,000,000 tons more than in 1922.
The increase and decrease shipments in commodities comparing 1913 with
1922 were as follows:

Commodity Increase Commodity Decrease
Tom's Tom's
Corn----------------------------------- 286,808 || Flour and feed- © 65,493
Iron manufactures--------------------- 33, 515 || Miscellaneous 405,682
Oats.-------- sº º sº 6, 515 || Wheat- 10,409
Rye-------------- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,915 || Copper - - 4- º sº º sº º 'º - º gº º ºr * * 6, 156
Lumber-------------------------------- 29,053 || Pig Iron 1,935
Malt----------------------------------- ,063
Barley------- 30,095
Wool * = <= is 616
Cement * - 3,040
Coal and coke 2,649
Stone.-- &= tº 45, 200
Autos and parts------------------------ 67,346
Dairy products------------------------- - 2,683
Fruits and vegetables------------------ 11, 171
Meats (dressed)-- 14, 152
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 879
There were no shipments in copper and pig iron in 1922 as compared with
1913, but even in 1913 shipments in those two commodities were not large.
The following commodities were shipped in 1922 which were not found in 1913:
Barley, wool, cement, coal and coke, stone, automobiles and parts, dairy
products, fruits and vegetables, and dressed meat.
The increase and decrease in receipts in commodities comparing 1913 with
1922 were as follows:


Commodity Increase Commodity Decrease
Toms Toms
*ish----------------------------------- 788 || Bark (tan) ----- 5,500
Salt------------------------------------ 21,479 || Coal (all kinds) --- - 2,423, 141
Flaxseed-- 2, 520 || Iron Manufactures º 8,552
U188ſ---------------------------------- 29, 286 || Lumber--------------- '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39,681
Paper---------------------------------- 17, 784 || Miscellaneous 724,904
Pulp----------------------------------- 4,914 || Iron ore------------------------------- 209,3
Cement and lime 67, 554 || Posts and ties 10,060
Sand 41, 500 || Wood tº- 13,950
Stone.-- * * * * * - - - 58,577
Autos and parts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43,625
Ash, Soda, and chemicals - y
Marble and sandstone------------------ 9,830
In 1922 only two commodities, tahbark and wood, were missing from the list
received in 1913. The following commodities were found in the receipts in
1922 that were not on the list in 1913: Flaxseed, sugar, newsprint paper, pulp,
Cement and lime, sand, stone, automobiles and parts, ash, soda and chemicals,
marble and sandstone.
The large decrease in 1922 as compared with 1913, the peak year in Shipping
in Milwaukee Harbor, shows a heavy falling off in shipments of coal, both hard
and SOft, lumber, iron ore, and miscellaneous. }
Milwaukee Harbor is located at the mouth of the Milwaukee River and Con-
sists of a channel protected by piers and of an outer basin, having an area of
about 650 acres, over 275 acres of which there is a depth of 18 feet and greater
in Which vessels seeking safety from storms can be moored ; the basin is pro-
tected by a breakwater, extending from the shore in a generally southeasterly
direction. - -
The original project for the improvement of Milwaukee Harbor was adopted
by Congress in 1843 and subsequent acts have been passed. The existing project
provides for a north breakwater and a south breakwater extending to the shore
thereby forming a protective basin in which is to be located a commercial
harbor to be constructed by the city of Milwaukee.
The project depth is referred to low water datum for Lake Michigan, which
is taken at 579.6 feet above mean tide level at New York. The fluctuations
of water level are seasonal changes of about one-half foot above or below the
annual mean Stage and extreme fluctuations of a temporary nature, due to
Wind and barometric pressure, of about 1% feet above or below the mean lake
level prevailing at the time. The estimate of cost for new work revised in
1922 is $4,592,000 exclusive of the amounts expended under previous projects.
The river and harbor act of September 22, 1922, adopting the project for
breakwater extension, construction and dredging, provided that actual work by
the United States shall not be commenced thereon until the city of Milwaukee
shall have presented evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of War that it is
prepared to finance and carry out its part of the project along the general
lines of the plan presented with report published in House Document No. 804,
Sixty-sixth Congress, Second session, subject, however, to such modifications
as may be deemed essential by the Chief of Engineers and that it will deed to
the United States the area proposed to be donated for Federal uses just north
of the north pier. These assurances have been given by the city of Milwaukee
and were approved by the Assistant Secretary of War on April 5, 1923.
Effect of improvement: The harbor of refuge is but little used by vessels
Seeking shelter from storm, but on account of the congested condition of the
inner harbor it is largely used by vessels waiting an opportunity to enter the
inner harbor and proceed to their destination. By reason of its excellent
harbor, Mlwaukee has become the principal coal receiving port on Lake Michi-
gan. Many bulky articles, such as coal, salt, sugar, etc., are transshipped from
water to rail at Milwaukee. The favorable effect of the harbor upon com-
merce is Widespread throughout several States lying to the westward.
880 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Green Bay Harbor, Wis., (city of Green Bay), comparative statement of traffic
No car-ferry traffic at this point.
Tons Tons
1909 ––– 686,313 | 1916---------------------- 858, 435
1910 977, 590 1917 º 971, 335
1911 751,326 | 1918---------------------- 1,090,992
1912 748, 148 1919 º * 966, 435
1913 ___ 863, 439 1920 1, 127,774
1914 898, 008 || 1921--__________________: - 1, 132,450
1915 sº º 821, 106 | 1922 * 848,806
General vessel traffic large in soft coal. Other large tonnage in gasoline.
In 1922 110 vessels (entered and cleared) from 16 to 18 feet draft.
This harbor is located at the mouth of the Fox River at the head of Green
Bay, distant about 180 miles from Milwaukee via Sturgeon Bay Canal and
about 49 miles southeasterly from Menominee Harbor.
The fluctuations of water level are seasonal changes of about one-half foot
above or below the annual mean stage, and extreme fluctuations of a temporary
nature due to wind and barometric pressure of about 1% feet above or below
the mean lake level prevailing at the time.
Improvement of this harbor was first authorized in 1866.
The principal effect of the improvement, of the outer channel has been to
permit deep-draft vessels carrying coal to enter the harbor. Coal receipts have
been increased over 400 per cent since completion of outer channel.
The usual limit of draft for coal consigned to Green Bay, comprising 71 per
cent of the total tonnage, was 18 feet. -
The decrease of 25 per cent in tonnage, compared to that of the preceeding
year, is due to decreased receipts and shipments of coal.
Menominee Harbor and River, Mich., and Wis. (incuding Marinette, Wis.),
comparative statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1909 319,850 | 1916 481,979
1910 374,621 | 1917 570, 313
1911 306, 503 || 1918 439, 297
1912 510,314 || 1919 434, 641
1913 470, 200 | 1920 415, 734
1914 447,728 1921––. 472, 770
1915 457,271 | 1922 593, 941
General vessel traffic large in soft coal, ,sand, and gravel. Heavy car-ferry
traffic in coal and “unclassified.”
One hundred and ninty-three wesels from 16 to 18 feet draft; 245 from 14
to 16 feet draft.
This harbor is on the west shore of Green Bay about 155 miles from Mil-
waukee via Sturgeon Bay Canal. O x
Previous projects: River and harbor acts, 1871, 1899, 1890, 1892, 1896.
The fluctuation of water leved are seasonal changes of about one-half foot
above or below the annual mean stage, and extreme fluctuations of a tempa-
rary nature, due to wind and barometric pressures, of about 1% feet above
or below the mean lake level prevailing at the time.
The principal effect of improvement has been to permit deep-draft vessels
carrying coal to enter the harbor. Coal receipts have thereby been ma-
terially increased and the water rates lowered.
The usual limit of draft for car-ferry traffic, 17 feet; coal, 18 feet; lumber
and other forest products, 16 feet; sand and Stone, 16 feet.
Frankfort Harbor, Mich—comparative Statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1914---------------------- 737,248 1919 1,397, 606
1915–––––––––––––––––––––– 718, 899 || 1920 1,432, 531
1916 951,210. 1921-. 1, 131, 509
1917 *- :=a. 1, 265, 411 1922 —r- 1, 363, 714
1918–––––––––––––––––––––– 1, 113,031
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 881
Heavy car-ferry traffic in hard and soft coal, lumber, and “unclassified.”
In 1922, 2,230 vessels cleared and entered this port with a draft from 14
to 18 feet. This harbor is on the east shore of Lake Michigan about 203
miles from Chicago.
The fluctuations of water level are seasonal changes of about one-half foot
above or below the annual mean stage and extreme fluctuations of a tempo-
rary nature due to wind and barometric pressure of about 14% feet above
Or below the mean lake level prevailing at the time.
Improvement of this harbor was first authorized in 1866 and the river and
harbor act of June 3, 1896, provided for a depth of 18 feet.
Effect of improvement.—The improvement is of special benefit to inter-
State Commerce, due to the operation between Frankfort and several harbors
across the lake of a line of car ferries by the Ann Arbor Railroad Co., which
carries practically the entire commerce of the harbor. This through rail
and car-ferry service is of benefit to interstate commerce by giving more
direct and quicker transportation, although the rates for carload shipments
are the same as by the longer routes around Lake Michigan.
The usual limit of draft for car-ferry traffic is 17 feet.
The increase of about 20 per cent in tonnage compared to that of the pre-
ceding year is due to increased receipts by car ferries.
Muskegon Harbor, Mich.-Comparative statement of traffic
No car-ferry traffic from this port.
Tons Tons
1909–----------------------- 115, 746 1916 - 127, 496
1910------------------------ 103,762 | 1917------------------------ 78,092
1911------------------------ 114,015, 1918–1–1-- 114, 374
1912––––––– - - 91, 659 || 1919------------------------ 146, 833
1918--------------- ––––––––– 110, 773 || 1920 _____ 174, 500
1914------------------------ 119,811 | 1921–––––––––––––––––––––––– 309,938
191 5––– 115, 035 | 1922______ 382, 733
General vessel traffic very large in gasoline and pulp wood.
In 1922, 29 vessels in and out had a draft of from 18 to 20 feet; most of the
VeSSelS were from 12 to 16 feet. -
This harbor is on the east shore of Ilake Michigan about 113 miles from
Chicago and 80 miles from Milwaukee.
The fluctuations of water level are seasonal changes of about one-half foot
above or below the annual mean stage and extreme fluctuations of a temporary
nature due to winds and barometric pressure of about 11% feet above or below
the mean lake level prevailing at the time.
Improvement of this harbor was first authorized in 1867.
Effect of improvement.--The principal benefit to commerce is increased facili-
ties for shipping manufactured articles, general merchandise, and road mate-
rials, and especially high-grade merchandise and perishable articles between
Muskegon and Chicago and Milwaukee. -
The usual limit of draft of vessles carrying gasoline and refined oil is 19
feet; that for pulp wood is 16% feet.
ST, MARYS FALLS CANAL, MICH.
The improvement for which this report is made under this caption forms
part of the project for the improvement of St. Marys River at the Falls.
All the commerce passing between the lower lakes and Lake Superior ports
uses the canals and the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario.
During 1922, 97 per cent of the total freight passed through the American
canal. The limit of draft for boats during the Season of 1922 was determined
by the available depth in the channels in the lakes and rivers above and below
the canal, and was about 20 feet. About 75 per cent of the bulk freight carried
was by vessels capable of loading to the available draft. Vessels carrying
miscellaneous freight and lumber loaded to a draft of 15 to 18 feet. Bulk
freight, however, forms about 98 per cent of the total tonnage.
882 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Comparative Statement of traffic
- - Tons I Tons
1887 5,494, 649 1905 44, 270,680
1888 6, 411,423 1906 51, 751,080
1889 7, 516,022 | 1907 58, 217, 214
1890 9, 041, 213 | 1908 41, 390, 557
1891 8, 888, 759 1909 57,895, 149
1892 11,214, 333 | 1910 62,363, 218
1893 10, 796, 572 1911 53,477,216
1894 13, 195, 860 | 1912_- 72, 472, 676
1895 15, 462, 580 | 1913 79, 718, 344
1896 16, 239,061 | 1914 55, 369, 934
1897 18, 982, 755 1915 71, 290, 304
1898 21, 234, 664 | 1916 91, 888, 219
1899 25, 255, 810 1917 89, 813, 898
1900 25, 643,073 1918 - 85, 680, 327
1901 28, 403,065 1919 68, 235, 542
1902 35, 961, 146 1920 79, 282,496
1903 34, 674,437 1921 48, 259,254
1904 31, 546, 106 | 1922 66, 067, 258
In 1892 the United States canal was open to navigation 248 days during
the calendar year and the Canadian canal was open to navigation 252 days.
The heaviest tonnage through both canals was iron ore, amounting to 42,-
156,638 tons, all of it coming through the canal from Lake Superior, except
a very small amount which went north into Lake Superior. The next largest
item was Soft coal, amounting to 8,790,571 tons going north. Following close
upon the heels of the Soft Coal tonnage was the tonnage in wheat from Lake
Superior coming south, which amounted to 8,268,458 tons. The next largest
tonnage was rye coming south with a total tonnage of 1,291,696 tons. Of the
total tonnage passing through the canals and locks 54,714,680 tons came south
and 10,351,638 tons went north. This was in bulk freight. The package
freight both ways through the canals was 1,000,940 tons.
[Compiled from partial report for year 1923, recently issued by Col. Markham, Corps of
Engineers]
A partial report for the traffic passing through the American and Canadian
canals at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario, during 1923 has just been
issued by Col. E. M. Markham, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. This
preliminary report shows that the United States Canal was open during 1923
for traffic 231 days and the Canadian canal for 240 days. The total freight
traffic in 1923 in short tons was 91,379,658 tons, an increase over 1922 of 38
per cent. The heaviest tonnage during the year as usual was iron Ore with
a total of 59,356,943, an increase of 41 per cent. There was also a very heavy
tonnage of soft coal amounting to 16,709,305 tons or an increase over 1922 of
90 per cent. By far the largest increase in tonnage of any commodity was
hard coal. In 1923 this tonnage amounted to 1,686,006 tons, an increase OVer
1922 of 151 per cent. During 1923, 282,985,776 bushels (not tons) of wheat,
an increase over 1922 of 3 per cent. Of 13 commodities passing through the
canals in 1923 eight show an increase in tonnage over 1922 and five ShoW a
decrease, as follows:

Increase | Decrease A. Increase | Decrease
Per cent | Per cent - Per cent | Per cent
Flour ------------------------ 12 ----------- Stone------------------------- 6 |----------
Wheat ----------------------. 3 ----------- Lumber-----------------------|---------- 12
Copper ---------------------- 4 ----------- Grain (other than wheat) -----|---------- 27
Iron ore--------------- : - - - - - - 41 ----------- Salt---------------------------------,---- 4
Manufactured and pig iron... 45 ----------- Oil-------------------------------------- 10
Coal (soft) ------------------- 90 ----------- General merchandise-------------------- 25
Coal (hard) ------------------ 151 -----------
The total tonnage for 1923, 91,379,658 short tons, was with one exception
the largest tonnage ever passing through the canal in a year. In 1916 the
peak of the traffic was 91,888,219 tons, only 508,561 tons more than in 1923.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC,
883
As usual nearly all of the tonnage went through the American canal, more
than 97 per cent.
Percentages of increase and decrease in the traffic through the canals in 1922
Over 1921 were as follows:

Increase | Decrease Increase Decrease
Per cent | Per cent Per cent | Per cent
Lumber 4 ----------- Stone------------------------- 33 ----------
Wheat----------------------- 39 ----------- General merchandise---------- 47 ----------
Grain (other than wheat) ---- 25 tº sº ºm m. lour-------- 8
Opper 84 |----- Coal (Soft)--- 30
Iron ore---------------------- 87 ||-- Coal (hard) ---- 70
Manufactured and pig iron--- 75 ----------- Oil---- * - 37
Salt- sº 18 -----------
Returning to the annual report of the Chief of Engineers, United States
Army, 1923, for the calendar year 1922, the following figures show the classi-
fication of American and Canadian vessels and ports between Lake Superior
and each Of the other lakes:
*

From Lake Superior to-
Lake Lake Lake Lake
Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
I'reight carried by—
American vessels— Toms Tom's Tom & Toms
From American ports to American ports------- 8,811, 268 28,374 || 36,617,221 3,357
From American ports to Canadian ports-------|------------ 605, 860 | 84,061 3,454
From Canadian ports to American ports------- 64, 185 151,907 || 4,078, 251 |------------
Canadian vessels—
From Canadian ports to Canadian ports------|------------ 2, 313, 536 1,348,677 159, 502
From Canadian ports to American ports------- 20,732 ||------------ 387, 709 |------------
From American ports to Canadian ports-- 246, 634 95,495 |------------
To Lake Superior from—
Lake Lake Lake Lake
Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
Freight carried by—
American vessels— Toms Toms Tom 8 Tom 8
From American ports to American ports------- 122, 298 574,460 7, 506,440 ------------
From American ports to Canadian ports------- 69, 170 98, 627 | 1,993, 242 ------------
From Canadian ports to American ports-------|------------ as sº as ºn sº, sº ºn an as se as sº ºs as m = ** s = * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * *
Canadian vessels— *
From Canadian ports to Canadian ports-------|------------ 288,854 46,738 87,446
From Canadian ports to American ports-------|------------ 9,411 - 3,800
From American ports to Canadian ports------- 8,567 ------------ 237,982 |------------
The above figures show that the heaviest traffic from ports on Lake
Superior to ports on the lower lakes was carried by American vessels
from American ports to American ports on Lake Erie, and the next
largest tonnage was by American vessels from American ports to
ports on Lake Michigan. The next largest tonnage was carried by
American vessels from Canadian ports on Lake Superior to American
ports on Lake Erie.
Canadian vessels carried the largest tonnage between Canadian
ports on Lake Superior and Canadian ports on Lake Huron with
the next largest tonnage between Canadian ports on Lake Superior
884 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
to Canadian ports on Lake Erie. The next largest tonnage for
Canadian vessels was from American ports on Lake Superior to
Canadian ports on Lake Huron. The tonnage carried by Canadian
vessels from Canadian ports on Lake Superior to Canadian ports on
Lake Ontario was comparatively small.
The figures further show that the heaviest traffic from ports on
the lower lakes to ports on Lake Superior was carried by American
vessels from American ports on Lake Erie to American ports on
Lake Superior, the next largest tonnage being carried by American
vessels from American ports on Lake Erie to §. ports on Lake
Superior. Canadian vessels carried the heaviest tonnage from
Canadian ports on Lake Huron to Canadian ports on Lake Superior.
The next largest was from American ports on Lake Erie to Canadian
ports on Lake Superior.
The following figures, compiled from the annual report of the
Chief of Engineers, United States Army, 1923, show the steady in-
crease in the average tonnage per vessel of all freight passing through
the American and Canadian canals at Sault Ste. Marie from the
opening of the first canal in 1855 to January 1, 1924:
Average tons Average tons
per vessel per vessel
1855 75 | 1903 ---------- - 1, 864
1856--------------------------- 116 || 1904 - 1, 956
1860 * * * ____ 167 | 1905 - 2,042
1870_. 295 || 1908 2,726
1880____ f 377 1910 2,979
1890 ____ 856 1912 3, 181
1892____ + ____ 891 1913 r 3,350
[893 ~ S99 || 1914 2,958
1894 __ 910 | 1915 3, 357
1898--------------------------- 839 1916 ––––– 3, 616
{896 872 1917 3,924
1897 - 1, 105 1918 4. 157
1898 - 1, 195 | 1919 ––– 3,879
1899-------------------------- 1,246 | 1920 -------------------------- 4, 206
1900 1, 318 1921 ––– 3,756
1901 –––1, 417 | 1922 ---------------------* * * * *m; sºme 3, 800
1902 1, 587 1923 –––– —— 4, 158
From the above figures it will be seen that the peak in average tons per
vessel was reached in 1920 with an average of 4,206. The next highest tonnage
was during the year closing January 1, 1924, 4,158, or only a slight reduction
from the peak figure.
In the 8-year period from 1892 to 1900 the average tonnage per vessel was
994 tons. In the 5-year period from 1901 to 1906 the average tonnage had
increased to 1,773 tons. In the 10-year period from 1914 to 1924 the average
tonnage had increased to 3,781 tons. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC
885
Statement of freight traffic through American and Canadian canals at Sault
Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario, giving total and yearly mean tonnage for
each five-year period since first opening in 1885
Tons
1890–1894 :
Total ––––––––––––– 53. 136, 737
Average ----------- 10, 627, 347
1895–1899 : -
Total ------------- 96, 774, 870
Average ––––––––––– 19, 354, 974
1900–1904: -
Total ––––––––––––– 156, 227, 827.
Average ––––––––––– 31, 245, 566.
1905–1909 : : 4
Total ––––––––––––– 253, 524, 680
Average ––––––––––– 50, 704, 936
1910–1914: . - }
Total ------------- 323, 401, 388
Average ––––––––––– 64, 680, 278.
1915–1919 : -
Total ------------- 406, 908, 290
Average ––––––––––– 81,381, 65S

Average actual draft of vessels classified by maazimum freight cargoes
f Actual .
average draft
Freight tons in largest cargoes-º e
Tons
1S55–1859 :
Total ------------- 278, 985
AVerage ––––––––––– 55,797
1S60–1864 :
Total ––––––––––––– 924, 373
Average ––––––––––– 184, 875
1865–1869 :
Total ––––––––––––– 1,413, 953
Average ––––––––––– 282, 791
1870–1874 :
Total ------------- 3, 415, 294
Average ––––––––––– 683, 059
1875–1879 : -
Total –––––––––––– – 4, 807, 809
Average ––––––––––– 961, 562
1880–1884:
Total ––––––––––––– 10, 060, 830
Average ––––––––––– 2, 012, 166
1885–1889 :
Total ––––––––––––– 27, 206, 481 ||
Average ––––––––––– 5,411, 296
Average cargo and percentage of total freight carried by class of all vessels
passing through the American and Canadian canals at Sault Ste. Marie
during the year 1922
ſº A #
Average reight verage freig
Class cargo i carried Class cargo 1 carried
by class by class
Tons net register between— . .
Tons net register between— Per cent Continued Per cent
1 and 1,000--------------- 129 1 . 4,000 and 5,000------------ 6, 100 26
1,000 and 2,000------------ 1,695 3 5,000 and 6,000------------ 6,690 27
2,000 and 3,000------------ 3, 148 10 6,000 and over------------ 7,956 10
3,000 and 4,000------------ 4, 377 23 Unregistered - - - - - -------- 88 |----------
1 The average cargo as here given is the average cargo per passage; in obtaining these figures the passages
when no cargo was carried are included.
Actual
average draft
Freight tons in largest cargoes:
Less than 100 6.4
100 to 1,000 12.8
1,000 and 2,000––––––––––––– 14. 3
2,000 and 3,000–––––––––––– 16. 6
3,000 and 4,000–––––––––––– 18.9
4,000 and 5,000–––––––––––– 18. 7
5,000 and 6,000------------ 9.6
6,000 and 7,000------------ 19.8
7,000 and 8,000------------ '20. 0
8,000 and 9,000–––––––––––– 20. ()
9,000 and 10,000-----------. 19.8
886 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The following figures show the increase in the size of freight carrier vessels
between 1906 and 1922: -

Number of
vessels
Length Beam
1906 1922
30 to 99 feet •º º - * * * 8–29 13 36
100 to 199 feet-------------------------------------------- - - - * * * - - - - - - - - - - 21–39 170 30.
200 to 299 feet------------------------------------------------------------------- 32–43 258 90
300 to 399 feet - * - - - ---| 38–50 171 104
400 to 499 feet--- * * * * * * = - - - - - - - - sº am º ºs- = * * - - - - - - * * * * * * * - - - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - - - - - 45–53 128 153
500 to 599 feet-------------------------------------------------------------------| 52–60 57 124.
600 feet and over as amº = - - - - - - - a sm ºr * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 58-64 |-------- 47
Comparing the above figures with the table above showing the tonnage of
the average cargo and the percentage of total freight carried by each class, it
is Shown that the number of vessels with a maximum length of 30 to 399 feet
decreased between 1906 and 1922 and the number of vessels with a maximum
length of 400 feet and over increased during that period. -
In other words, vessels with a maximum length up to 400 feet and with a
maximum actual draft up to 18.7 feet were reduced in number from 1906 to
1922 and vessels with a maximum length of 400 to 625 feet and an average
actual draft up to 20 feet greatly increased in number.
The following table shows the yearly change in the class of freighters as
listed from their maximum cargo between 1902 and 1920: 3. . . .

Number of Number of
veSSels VeSSels
Maximum cargo in tons Maximum cargo in tons
1902 1920 1902 1920
1 to 1,000-------------------------- 180 124 || 5,000 to 6,000---------------------- 32 20
1,000 to 2,000.-- 115 27 || 6,000 to 7,000---------------------- 37 37
2,000 to 3,000---------------------- 84 31 || 7,000 to 8,000---------------------- 43 45
3,000 to 4,000.-- -- 133 26 || 8,000 to 10,000--------------------- 5 94
4,000 to 5,000---------------------- 27 13 || 10,000 and over----------- 43
In other words, the number of vessels carrying maximum cargoes of from
1 to 6,000 tons decreased largely between 1902 and 1920; vessels carrying
maximum cargoes of 6,000 to 8,000 tons remain about the same ; whereas
Vessels carrying maximum cargoes of 8,000 tons to more than 15,000 tons in-
creased very largely. w
St. Marys River flows from the eastern end of Lake Superior into the north-
ern end of Lake Huron. It has a length of 63 miles and a total fall varying
from 21 to 23 feet, depending upon the stages of the lake. The greater part
Of this fall—that is from 18 to 21 feet—occurs in a section about 1 mile
long, known as St. Marys Falls. Here there are five lift locks, four con-
Structed by the United States and one by the Dominion of Canada. The
Width of the St. Marys River varies considerably and there are numerous
channels separated by islands, large and small. At the narrowest place,
Where there is but one channel, the width is about one-half mile, while else-
Where the river widens into a series of small lakes. Except at the falls the
Current is sluggish and in the wider of the so-called lakes it is imperceptible.
Improvements on the river for navigation were first authorized by Congress
in 1856. The existing project was authorized in 1892 providing for a depth
Of 21 feet at low water and the construction of locks, canals, compensating
Works, dredging, etc.
The project depths are referred to low-water datums for Lakes Superior
and Huron, which are taken at 601.6 and 579.6 feet above mean tide level at
New York, 2 feet below mean level of the lakes, 1860 to 1875.
Each year the St. Mary River rises and falls about 1 foot as measured by
the monthly mean level. In the past 56 years the difference between the
highest and lowest monthly mean levels above the locks has been about 34%
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. - 887
feet and below the locks about 5 feet. From day to day the level fluctuates
Somewhat, due to wind and barometric pressure, such changes frequently
amounting to Several inches and sometimes to a foot or more. In addition
to these changes in level, occasionally a considerable oscillation takes place
Within two or three hours, which is somewhat in the nature of a Seiche, such
.* amounting to over 5 feet have been known to occur within three
OUII’S.
Effect of improvement.—This improvement in conjunction with the work
done on the other sections of the ship channel affects the entire commerce
passing between Lake Superior ports and those upon the lower lakes and
rivers. These improvements have permitted a great increase in the draft
of Vessels and this has resulted in the use of vessels of greater tonnage, the
Carrying capacity of the largest freight steamers having increased from
4,000 tons in 1893 to 15,581 tons in 1920. It is believed that the reduction
in freight rates from 2.3 mills per ton-mile in 1887 to 1.2 mills in 1922 can
be attributed chiefly to these improvements in channels.
REPORT BY THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOR 1923
[Summary report, Canal statistics Dominion of Canada for season of navigation, 1923,
published by authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, 1924]
The traffic through the Canadian and United States locks at Sault Ste. Marie
was surpassed only by the record of 1916. Iron ore is the predominant freight"
using these canals and in two years it jumped from 22,595,323 tons in 1921 to
59,356,943 tons, almost equaling the war years of 1916, 1917, and 1918. The
coal shipments were only 232,812 tons below the records made in 1913. Wheat
Cargoes passed all previous records. The long open seasons with asbence of
Severe storms, the heavy harvest in the West, the revival of the steel industry,
the absence of shut-downs in the coal mines, and increases in practically all
lines of business were all factors in the large increase in the traffic through
the Canal.
Traffic on the Welland Canal increased 11 per cent. All grains except corn
and flax showed increases, wheat increasing 162,925 tons. The St. Lawrence
Canal also showed an increase in traffic of 221,609 tons; the largest increases
recorded were in wheat, hard coal, barley, soft coal, oats, and pulp wood.
The Chamblay, Canal, Murray Canal, Ottawa Canal, and St. Andrews also
showed considerable increases. The only canals showing decraeses in 1923
compared with 1922 were St. Peters, Rideau, and Trent.
Of Canadian grain passing through the Canadian and American canals at
Sault Ste. Marie in Canadian ships all showed large increase for Canadian ves-
sels except flax, the smallest tonnage of all. Canadian grain carried in United
States vessels through the canals showed a decrease in wheat, oats, barley, and
rye. The total loss to United States vessels in Canadian grain in the year
was 11,656,410 bushels. Norwegian vessels gained both in wheat and barley.
Following is the traffic on Canadian canals in 1923: g º

Canal - ; Increase Decrease
Sault Ste. Marie---------------------------- -* 2, 255,929 546,869 |-------- --
Welland------------ 3, 755, 912 364,493 ||----------
St. Lawrence - - - * * * * * * * - a-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---| 4, 541, 528 221, ----------
hambly-------------------------------- - 3. * - - 213, 190 30, 147 ---------- 4.
St. Peters - 46, 574 |---------- 6, 163.
Murray- - * 3, 144 1,301 |----------
Ottawa--- 233,092 19,865 |----------
Rideall - - -ºº º º ºs º ºs º- - - - - * * * * * * - - - - - º ºs º ºs º- - - - - - 81,299 |---------'- 5,083
Trent-------- - ems º ºn as - - - - - º ºs ºs º ºs - - - - - 31, 302 |---------- 11,636
St. Andrews 37, 364 11,977 ----------
Port of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., St. Marys River, Mich.-Comparative statement
of traffic
Tons
1920 * * 163, 821
1921 - 214, 921
1922 - 821, 892
* Previous years unknown.
888 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
St. Clair River at Port Huron, Mich.-Comparative statement of traffic
-" - Tons
1919 * * { * - - - * = * * * * * * * * * * * * *-* * *-* => * * - - - - - - -, - * * * = - -, -, - 186, 169
1920 - - - 188, 490
1921 - - - 176,040
1922–––––––––––– - *-* - - - - sº, sº mm. ººm *-* - - - - - - *-*-* - - - - - — — — — — 236,259
The principal traffic through this port was shipments of wheat and soft coal.
The St. Clair River connects Lakes Huron and St. Clair and has a total fall
of about 5.8 feet in a length of 40 miles. At the south end of Lake Huron
there is a shoal upon which the natural depth is less than that required for
navigation and the 2-mile dredged channel through this shoal is considered as
belonging to this improvement, giving a total length to the section of 42 miles.
The discharge of the river at mean stage is about 206,300 second-feet, with
a minimum of 136,000 and a maximum of 271,000. The mean velocity varies
from about 5 miles per hour at the upper end to about 134 miles per hour near
the mouth. º
In its Original condition this Section was Obstructed by Shoals at the foot of
Lake Huron and at several localities in the St. Clair River. The least depth
upon these shoals varied from 16 to 18 feet at mean stages of water, and the
channels were usable by vessels then navigating the Lakes. The existing
project providing for the improvement was authorized by Congress in 1892,
supplemented by authorization in later years. ;
The water level of this river fluctuates with the levels of the Lakes above
and below it, which during the course of each year are subject to a consistent
seasonal rise and fall, the lowest stages prevailing during the winter months
and the highest during the summer months. At the head of St. Clair River,
as measured by mouthly mean levels, the water may rise and fall each year
as much as 1.5 feet. During the past 20 years the difference between the
highest and lowest monthly mean levels during the navigation season has been
about 2.5 feet. Occasional fluctuations due to. Winds of high Velocity may be
as much as 3.5 feet in six hours. . . . .
The Port Huron west channel was completed and open to traffic July 25, 1921,
and thereafter the grounding of Several vessels on its east side made necessary
the removal of the remaining portion of this middle ground shoal. This re-
moval was accomplished in 1922 by the Lake Carriers' Association under War
I)epartment permit without, expense to the United States. The project width
of this west channel was 400 feet and the additional width of 700 feet was
thus obtained, making 1,100 feet in all; controlling depth, 21.1 feet. The east
channel width, 1,400 feet; controlling depth, 20.1 feet,
The whole project covering work on the St. Clair River is about 99 per cent
completed. + -
Funds for new work are applicable to the construction of a Submerged weir
for compensation of water levels provided for in project document for Port
Huron shoal, west channel. w
Effect of improvement.—The improvements in this river affect the commerce
between Lake Erie ports and those on the upper lakes and rivers. The effect
of the improvement on the draft and size of vessels and the increased ton-
nage carried is set forth in the report on St. Marys River.
The narrow channel at the foot of Lake Huron is used by all through traffic.
The navigation is hazardous during severe northeast storms, and during the
spring and fall months of fog. The maintenance of the full project width of
2,400 feet is not regarded as necessary ; but safe navigation requires that
project depth for at least 1,000 feet width be obtained without avoidable or
unreasonable delay. The controlling depth varies from 19.5 feet to 21.1 feet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 889
Channels in Lake St. Clair and St. Clair Flats Canal, Mich.-Comparative
statement of traffic
TOns w Tons
1891--------------------- 22, 160,000 | 1910_____________________ 68, 965, 947
1898--------------------- 35,000, 000 | 1911--------------------- 61, 498, 884
1899–-------------------- 40,000, 000 | 1912_____________________ 72, 871, 432
1900–-------------------- 42, 000, 000 | 1913_____ 78, 857, 492
1901--------------------- 48,000, 000 || 1914_____________________ 63, 799, 286
1902--------------------- 41, 733, 998 || 1915- ------------------- 76, 990, 239
1903 - 42,000, 000 || 1916--___________________ 95, 370, 752
1904___ 38, 044, 929 1917---- 88, 738,438
1905 51, 359,071 | 1918--------------------- 82, 979, 184
1906_ - 60, 589, 441 1919––––– 50, 630, 434
1907__ 66, 271, 962 | 1920––––––––––––––––––––– 75, 602, 648
1908--------------------- 50, 586, 560 | 1921––––––––––––––––––––– 57, 523,481
1909--------------------- 62, 895, 134 1922--------------------- 63, 772, 660
The records show that 3,761,467 registered tons using the Detroit River in
1922 did not pass through the St. Clair Flats Canal and channels in Lake
St. Clair, but either stopped at Detroit or turned and went back down the river.
Subtracting this amount from the total shown for the Detroit River, leaves for
the registered tonnage passing through the St. Clair Flats Canal as 50,774,411
tons. Applying to this figure the same percentage of increase gives for the
estimated actual freight carried through the canal as 63,772,660 tons.
Lake St. Clair is the Smallest of the Great Lakes and is shallow throughout.
On the Sailing course it is 18 miles wide. In its original condition the channels
through this lake were obstructed by a shoal at the entrance of the Detroit
River and by bars in the lake at the several mouths of the St. Clair River.
This river flows into Lake St. Clair through seven mouths, forming the delta
known as the St. Clair Flats. These passes were obstructed by bars in the
lake over which there was a least depth of water of from 2 to 6 feet. The
Original project for the construction of the channel through the St. Clair
Flats was authorized by Congress in 1867. Subsequent acts have been passed.
The existing project, the beginning of which was authorized by Congress in
1886, provides for a ship canal consisting of two dredge cuts, each 300 feet
wide, the westerly 21 feet deep and the easterly 20 feet deep, extending from
deep water in the St. Clair River, a distance of a little more than 3 miles, and,
for a channel 800 feet wide and 20 and 21 feet deep through the shoal at the
entrance to the Detroit River known, as Grosse Pointe Channel. The dykes
for St. Clair Flats Canal east channel were completed in 1894 and the west
channel in 1906. The dredging of Grosse Pointe Channel to the original project
depth of 20 feet was completed in 1897, and the dredging of the lower 514
miles of this channel to a new depth of 21 feet was completed in November,
1920.
As measured by monthly mean levels the water may rise and fall during the
navigation season each year as much as 134 feet. During the past 20 years the
difference between the highest and lowest monthly mean levels during the
navigation season has been about 2% feet. Occasional fluctuation due to winds
or high velocity may be as much as 1 foot in Six hours.
Effect of improvement.—All the commerce passing between the lower and
upper lakes passes through the channel at Lake St. Clair. The effect of the
improvement on the draft and size of vessels and the increased tonnage carried
has been set forth in the report on St. Marys River.
Detroit, Mich.-Comparative statement of traffic
Tons
1920 * - - 1,665, 159
1921 1,476,289
1922 2, 305,678
The heaviest tonnage during the year was sand and gravel, 1,196,194, and
gasoline 233,906 tons. The increase in tonnage in 1922 over 1921 was mainly
in receipts of petroleum products and in shipments of automobiles and trucks.
1 No prior report submitted.
91739—24—PT 2—41
890 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Detroit, Mich.-Comparative statement of traffic
TOIns Tons
1890 —iº- 21, 684,000 | 1907 71, 226, 895
1891 23, 209,619 1908 54,086, 750
1892 26, 553, 819 1909 67,789, 369
1893 23, O91, 889 1910 73, 526, 602
1894 24, 263,868 1911 66,951, 231
1895 25, 845, 679 1912 78, 671, 208
1896 27, 900, 520 | 1913 85, 376, 705
1897 35, 000, 000 || 1914 69, 810, 853
1898 35, 000,000 | 1915 82, 514, 457
1899 40, 000,000 | 1916 100, 907, 279
1900 42, 000, 000 1917 95, 243, 119
1901 48,000, 000 | 1918 88, 855, 520
1902 44, 260, 506 | 1919 73,091,328
1903 46, 817, 245 1920 80, 410,082
1904 42, 792,326 1921 63, 973, 308
1905 55, 508, 360 | 1922 * 68, 497,062
1906 63, 808, 571
The actual freight in tons that is carried through the Detroit River can be
closely estimated by comparison with the tonnage of St. Marys Falls Canal,
where records of both net registered and actual freight are kept. During the
season of 1922 the actual freight passing St. Marys Falls Canal was 25.6 per
cent greater than the net registered tons. Since about three-fourths of the
Detroit River tonnage is St. Marys Falls Canal tonnage, there is no error in
assuming that the ratio for this three-fourths is the same for the Detroit River
as for St. Marys Falls Canal and it is reasonable to suppose that the ratio
between the registered and freight tonnage of the remaining-One-fourth is also
the same as that for St. Marys Falls Canal. Therefore, increasing the regis-
tered tonnage by 25.6 per cent, the estimated actual freight of Detroit River
is 68,497,062 short tons. -
Each year the river rises and falls about 2 feet, as measured by the monthly
mean level. In the past 56 years the difference between the highest and the
lowest monthly mean level has been about 4 feet. Occasional fluctuation in
depth of several feet, produced by high easterly or westerly winds, respectively,
raise or lower the water level at the west end of Lake Erie and similarly affect
the level of the lower Detroit River. Such changes have been as much as 6
feet within 8 hours. -
Effect of improvement.—A very large percentage of the total commerce of
the Great Lakes passes through this improvement, which forms one section of
the through-ship channel. A great increase in the draft of vessels has been
permitted, resulting in vessels of greater tonnage. Greater speed without sac-
rificing safety has followed the addition of double channels. It is believed that
to those causes is due the reduction of freight rates on the Great Lakes.
Vessels carrying bulk freight, which forms about 95 per cent of the total
tonnage, in 1922, used a draft of 20 feet. Vessels carrying miscellaneous
freight and lumber were loaded to about 18 and 15 feet, respectively.
Rouge River, Mich.--Comparative statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1893_ 73, 732 | 1908–––––––––––––––––––––– 267, 746
1894 - 47, 106 | 1909–--------------------- 336,022
1895 114,090 1910–––––––––––––––––––––– 661, 902
1896---------------------- 123, 495 | 1911–––––––––––––––––––––– 951, 309
1897 *-* *-* ºr -, 125, 373 | 1912–––––––––––––––––––––– 1, 321, 098
1898 127, 745 1913 1, 684, 742
1899_ 93, 394 | 1914 1, 439, 932
1900–--------------------- 124, 312 1915 ... 1, 651, 823
1901____ —t- 106, 215 1916–––––––––––––––––––––– 1, 415, 550
1902. 66. T()1 1917 --- 1,954, 470
1903---------------------- 136, 272 1918--------------------- 1, 850, 391
1904---------------------- 249,259 | 1919–––––––––––––––––––––– 996, 825
1905---------------------- 284, 140 | 1920 ----- 1, 632, 024
1906____ * 234, 861 1921---------------------- 2, 359
1907---------------------- 253, 544 1922---------------------- 1, 136, 823
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 891
By far the heaviest tonnage in this port was iron ore, with a total of
899,900 tons. There were also 130,000 tons of sand and gravel and 50,000 tons
of limeStone.
In 1922, 169 vessels entered the port with a draft of from 19 to 21 feet.
The Rouge River empties into the Detroit River at the southerly limits of
the city of Detroit. The level of this river except during floods changes with
the level of the Detroit River, which fluctuates to an average extent of 1.5.
feet during the navigation Season.
Effect of improvement.—The Water-borne commerce Of this channel Consists
principally of coarse freight, and as the improvement under previous projects
has permitted the use of vessels of greater capacity, it is believed that a
reduction in water rates has resulted. The completion of the present project
will furnish a comparatively easy and Safe channel for freighters of the largest
class on the Great Lakes, and it is expected that a further reduction in water
rates will follow.
Vessels carrying freight on the improved portion of the channel usually
load to the maximum draft available. The increase in amount and value of
commerce during 1922 was mainly due to increase in the item of iron ore
resulting from greater activities of the Ford Motor Co.
Toledo Harbor, Ohio–Comparative statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1891--------------------- 1,426, 274 1907 - - __ 5, 077, S75
1892–-------------------- 1, 764, 003 1908 3,994, 246
1893 1,226, 766 1909 5, 284, 715
1894--------------------- 2,094, 933 1910__ 6, 520,392
1895 - - - 2,037, 500 | 1911_____ 6, 407, 878
1896. 2, 154, 728 1912 6, 938, 354
1897 2,409, 594 | 1913 7, 510, 334
1898--------------------- 2, 383, 655 | 1914 7, 166, 172
1899 2, 543,069 1915 7, 416, 834
1900 2,998, 456. 1916 10, 335, 530
1901 3,086, 364 1917 13, 710, 238
1902–-------------------- 3, 866, 772 1918 13, 769, 388
1908--------------------- 3, 532, 514 1919 10, 130, 014
1904__ 3, 115, 019 1920 10, 904, 293
1906--------------------- 3, 613, 389 1921 9, 202, 109
1906___ 4, 522, 280 1922 9, 424, 51S.
By far the largest tonnage out of this port in 1922 was soft coal, both cargo
and bunker, a total of 7,313,243 tons. The next largest tonnage was iron ore
Shipped into the port, a total of 1,382,942.
In 1922, 1,000 vessels in and out were of a draft between 19 and 21 feet.
Toledo comprises the lower 7 miles of Maumee River and the channel about
9 miles long through Maumee Bay to Lake Erie.
Ordinary fluctuations of water level are from 4 feet above to 2 feet below
low-water datum, and extreme fluctuations produced by wind and other
causes are from 9 feet above to 6.5 feet below that plane.
Improvement of the harbor and river were first ordered by Congress in 1866.
Effect of improvement.—The construction of a straight, Safe, and convenient
deep-water entrance channel accommodating the largest class of lake freighters
has resulted in the development of Toledo Harbor into one of the most impor-
tant of the lower lake terminals for iron ore, coal, and similar coarse freight.
. The increase in volume and value of commerce during 1922 was mainly in
the items Of iron Ore and general merchandise. º
The improvement of the Great Lakes harbors and connecting channels has
developed a type Of VeSSel which could not have entered Toledo Harbor in its
natural condition. Since fully 95 per cent of the freight handled on the Great
Lakes is carried in vessels of this type, it may be fairly stated that the com—
mercial development of Toledo Harbor is attributable to facilitates resulting
from its improvement. During the calendar year 1922, 94 per cent of the
total tonnage of the port was coal and iron ore, practically all of which was
handled in vessels drawing 19 to 21 feet. All vessels entering Toledo Harbor
pass through 9 miles of the 15 miles of improved channel and proceed up-
stream to the various docks located along the 61% miles of river channel.
892 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio–Comparative statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1891--------------------- 4, 512, 765 | 1907 12,872, 448
1892 7,060, 791 1908 - 10, 159, 170
1893 4, 189,922 || 1909 12, 393, 425
1894 4,043, 804 || 1910 13, 386, 606
1895 5, 282, 599 || 1911 10, 949, 760
1896 5, 522, 111 || 1912 14, 296,078
1897 6, 118, 731 || 1913 16, 488, 083
1898 6, 500, 518 1914 10, 912, 572
1899 7, 390,291 || 1915 12, 631, 442
1900 7, 569, 423 1916 16, 577,240
1901 7, 484, 810 || 1917 14, 282,687
1902 10, 151, 006 || 1918 15, 895, 450
1903 - 10,050, 433 1919 12, 235, 283
1904 9, 350,417 | 1920 12,463,028
1905 11, 419,797 1921 6, 200, 362
1906 12, 247, 626 | 1922 10, 925, 692
The largest commodity received at Cleveland by water is iron ore, the tonnage
for 1922 being 8,048,124 tons. The next largest item, soft coal, was shipped
Out of Cleveland, amounting to a total of 1,372,484 tons.
More than 7,000 vessels entered and cleared the port in 1922 and the greatest
draft of any vessel was 19.5 feet.
Cleveland Harbor comprises the lower 5% miles of Cuyahoga River, the
“Old River,” which is about 1 mile long, and an outer harbor formed by break-
Waters which is about 5 miles long. First improvement of Cleveland Harbor
Was authorized by Congress in 1866. The city of Cleveland and private interests
have done a large amount of work in improving the harbor.
Effect of improvement.—The improvement has made the development of
Cleveland Harbor possible, as in its natural condition is was entirely unsuited
to the needs of navigation. Although not primarily intended for the purpose,
Cleveland Harbor is extensively used as a harbor of refuge. Improved condi-
tions on the Great Lakes of which Cleveland Harbor is a part have resulted
in a Very great reduction in water rates. These rates on such bulk commodi-
ties as iron ore and coal, which comprise about 88 per cent of Cleveland's com-
merce, have been reduced.
Erie Harbor, Pa.-Comparative statement of traffic
Tons Tons
1890---------------------- 1, 734,056 | 1907 --- 5, 155,067
1891 1, 674, 209 | 1908 2,725,088
1892 2,073,055 | 1909 3, 144, 796
T893 1, 694,010 | 1910 2, 868, 485
I894 1, 992, 654 1911 2, 264,322
1895 2, 225,957 | 1912 3, 135,725
1896 2, 473,719 1913 3, 340,071
1897 3, 295,951 | 1914 3, 014, 344
1898 3,061,296 || 1915 3,296,655
1899 3,486, 471 | 1916 4, 595, 119
1900 3,357, 356 | 1917 4, 252, 810
1901__ 2,916, 273 || 1918 4, 380, 516
1902 3, 225,963 1919 3, 197, 794
1903 2, 662, 959 1920 4, 252, 100
1904 2, 510, 467 1921 2, 325,067
1905 3,760,228 1922 2, 212, 348
1906 A, 237,230 |
From the above table it will be observed that, during the years 1895, 1896,
1897, 1898, and 1899 the total tonnage in Erie Harbor was larger each year
than for the year 1922. There was practically no diversion of water from Lake
Michigan into the Chicago River from the years 1895 to 1899, and yet the
tonnage at Erie Was larger than in 1922, 22 years after the diversion of
4,167 cubic feet per second or more. It will also be observed that during the
five-year period from 1895 to 1900 the average yearly tonnage at Erie was
2,908,678 tons and for the five-year period from 1918 up to and including
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 893
1922 the average yearly tonnage was 3,273,565 tons, or an average yearly
tonnage of only 364,887 tons more than for the five years preceding the time
when the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Chicago River began.
Erie Harbor is located in Presque Isle Bay, on the South shore of Lake
Erie. * * * The Bay is 4% miles long from east to west and 1 to 1%.
miles wide from north to South. The harbor basin is 2 miles long, 1/3 to 1%
miles wide and 18 to 24 feet leep. Ordinary fluctuations of water level are
from 3 feet above to low water datum, and extreme fluctuations, produced
by wind and other causes, are from 5.9 feet above to 2.7 feet below that
plane. Low water datum for Lake Erie, elevation 570.8 feet above mean
tide at New York City, 2 feet below mean lake level, 1860, 1875.
Effect of improvement.—The improvement has made the development of
water-borne commerce possible, as in its natural condition the depth in the
entrance channel was only about 6 feet, and the deepening of this channel
and parts of the harbor basin commensurate with the Connecting channels of
the Great Lakes has enabled the largest bulk freighters of 20 feet draft to
make use of the harbor freely and safely, including anchorage, With resultant
material reduction in water-borne freight rates, notably for the bulk Commodi-
ties, iron ore, grain, and coal, which represent about 85 per cent of the harbor
traffic.
Local cooperation.—None required by law. The following work has been
done for the benefit of the public with funds supplied by other sources than
Congress: In 1824, $10,000 was expended by the State of Pennsylvania in
the partial construction of the breakwater south of the entrance channel.
Of the total expenditures by the Government of the United States and the
State of Pennsylvania totaling considerably more than $1,000,000 for the im-
provement of Erie Harbor the city of Erie has contributed practically nothing.
Of the total hard and soft coal shipments, those to Canadian ports com-
prised hard coal 7 per cent and soft coal 76 per cent. The different classes
of freight are carried in vessels of the drafts as follows: Hard and soft
coal, via Welland Canal, 14 feet; hard coal to westerly lake ports, 20 feet;
iron ore, 18 to 20 feet; pulp wood, 18 feet; lumber, 15 feet; package freight
and grain, 15 to 19 feet.
The decrease in freight traffic, short tons, of the calendar year 1922, under
that of 1921, is due to the decreased shipment, both foreign and domestic, of
hard and Soft Coal.
Buffalo Harbor, N. Y. —Comparative statement of traffic
- "Tons Tons
1890--------------------- 7, 331, 772 | 1907 16, 487, 240
1891--------------------- 9, 096, 111 || 1908 - - 12, 178, 87.4
1892 9, 586, 112 | 1909 14, 145, 013
1893 __ 9, 380, 363 | 1910 14, 755, 717
1894______ 8, 365, 872 1911 12, 417, 862
1895 ____ 8, 570, 323 1912 16, 695, 738
1896--------------------- 9, 664, 155 1913 18, 920, 854
1897_____ * * 10, 748, 204 || 1914 14, 07.2, 620
1898--------------------- 11, 489,245 | 1915--------------------- 18, 720, 724
1899–-------------------- 10, 576, 657 1916 18, 532, 712
1900--------------------- 10, 216, 409 | 1917--------------------- 18, 925, 179
1901--------------------- 10, 219, 700 1918 18, 544,063
1902___ - - 9, 726,402 1919 * * 14, 610, 551
T903____ * = * 11, 798, 272 | 1920 18, 094, 623
1904--------------------- 10, 783, 980 | 1921* }- 14, 0.33 351
1905 12, 224, 286 1922’-------------------- 17, 679, (96
1906 15, 568, 338
By far the largest tonnage entering Buffalo Harbor is composed of Wheat
and iron ore.
amounted to 4,853,997 tons. The iron ore brought in
amounted to 4,308,803 tons.
ceived of 1,244.238 tons.
In 1922 the total wheat receipts by way of Lake
vessels
during that year
Limestone was next with a total tonnage re-
Of the shipments out of Buffalo Harbor the largest
was hard coal amounting in 1922 to 1,133,972 tons.
* Previous to 1922 some commerce actually pertaining to Buffalo Harbor, N. Y., had
... been reported under the heading “Black Rock Channel and Tonawanda Harbor.” Be-
ginning with 1922 that commerce has been separated and is reported under Buffalo.
Harbor or Tonawanda Harbor, depending upon the locality to which it pertains.
894 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Buffalo Harbor consists of an outer harbor about 4% miles long and an in-
ner river canal and basin harbor with a total length of about 7 miles and a
Width of about 200 feet. The inner harbor is improved and maintained by
the city of Buffalo. The original project for the improvement of Buffalo
Harbor was adopted by Congress in 1826.
Ordinary fluctuations of water surface are from 3 feet above to low water
(latum and extreme fluctuations due to wind and other causes are about 9
feet above and 31% feet below that plane. - • , *
Fffect of improvement.—The improvement has made the development of
water-borne commerce possible in that the channels have been improved by the
tleepening of Buffalo River entrance channel, etc, so as to enable the largest
bulk freighters of 20 feet draft to make use of the inner harbor deepened by
the city of Huffalo. The outer harbor provides safe refuge and anchorage
and is extensively used for anchorage as well as for a channel way. Such use
by the largest and deepest draft vessels on the Lakes is extensive. Improved
harbor conditions, commensurate with the connecting channels of the Great
Iakes, have resulted in a material reduction in water-borne-freight rates,
notably for the bulk commodities, iron ore, hard coal, grain, and limestone,
which represent about 85 per cent of the bulk traffic. Other beneficial effects
which have resulted from the improvements have been the establishment of
many water transportation lines, bulk and package freight and passenger.
The controlling depth in harbor and channels s 21 feet at low water datum,
*xcept at the junction of the Buffalo River and the city ship canal, where the
controlling depth is 19 feet. The grain, 'ron ore, and coal are carried in
vessels varying in draft from 18 to 21 feet, while flour, feed, and merchand se
are carried in package-freight steamers varying in draft from 17 to 19 feet.
All commerce makes use Of the improvement.
The increase in freight traffic for 1922 over 1921 was due to the increased
receipt of wheat, automobiles, rye, 'ron ore, Soft coal, copper, etc.
All of the above commerce is exclusive Of that on the New York State Barge
Canal and applies to Great Lakes traffic Only.
("harlotte Harbor, N. Y. (city of Rochester).-Comparative statement of traffic
(includes lake, internal and car ferry between Rochester and Cobourg, On-
tario, Canada) -
TOns
1918------------------------------------------------------------ 1, 681, 775
1919------------------------------------------ Q- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 835, 461
1920------------------------------------------------------------ 1, 474, 148
1921------------------------------------------------------------ 575, 929
1922––––––––––––– - - - - 633, 470
The largest tonnage out of this port was soft coal to the amount of 463,008
tons. A large amount of pulp wood is also transported. The greatest draft of
vessels is 19 feet. All Of the hard coal and about 87 per cent of the Soft coal
shipments were by car ferry from Rochester to Cobourg.
("harlotte Harbor is On Lake Ontar () at the mouth Of the Genesee River. It
consists of a pool at the mouth of the river about 5 miles long, with a pier-
j)rotected entrance channel from the lake.
The original project for the iprovement of this harbor was adopted by
Congress in 1829. The existing project provides for a channel 20 feet deep
from the lake to the pool at the mouth of the Genesee River so as to be at all
t mes available for Wessels drawing 18 feet. Ordinary fluctuations of water
surface are from 3 feet above to low water datum and fluctuations due to
winds are Small.
Fffect of improvement.—The improvement has made the commercial develop-
ment of Charlotte Harbor possible in that it has changed the entrance to the
Genesee River so as to increase the admissible draft of vessels of 8 to 19 feet.
Use of larger and deeper draft vessels has resulted in reduction in water-
}}orthe-fre ght rate. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 895
Ogden&burg, N. Y.-Comparative statement of traffic
BY LAKE AND INTERNAL
TOnS TOns
1890 630, 281 | 1900---------------------- 646, 248
1891---------------------- 699, 848 1901____ _ * * 439, 148
1892---------------------- 625, 846 | 1902 837,025
t893 * 908, 048 1903–––––––––––––––––––––– 1, 185, 875
1894---------------------- 736,084 1904---------------------- 898, 257
ſ895 693, 825 | 1905– 1,034,085
1896 886, 438 || 1906---------------------- 1,056, 100
f897 866,035 | 1907–––––––––––––––––––––– 1, 238, 498
1898 645, 201 | 1908---------------------.. 856, 714
1899---------------------- 670,383
BY LAKE, INTERNAL, AND CAR FERRY
TOns Tons
1909---------------------- * 1,049, 985 | 1916---------------------- 1, 038, 682
1910–--------------------- 1,004, 317 | 1917–––––––––––––––––––––– 1,029, 427
1911 799, 687 | 1918---------------------- 922, 612
1912---------------------- 933, 392 | 1919–--------------------- 709, 978
1918---------------------- 1,002, 722 | 1920–––––––––––––––––––––– 977, 103
1914---------------------- 959, 648 1921–––––––––––––––––––––– 927, 760
1915–--------------------- 1,049, 820 | 1922–––––––––––––––––––––– 1, 121,852
Ogdensburg Harbor is located on the south bank of the St. Lawrence River,
62 miles by water from Lake Ontario. It consists of a dredge channel from 250
to 350 feet wide along the city wharf frontage of about 1 mile, with an entrance
channel from the St. Lawrence River at its upper end, and an entrance channel
and basin at the lower end, from 1,600 to 2,100 feet wide extending from the
wharves to the main St. Lawrence River Channel. When Work was first under-
taken by the Government in 1868 the depth at low water was 9 feet through
the upper entrance channel, 10 to 12 feet at the lower entrance channels, and
6 to 12 feet along the city front. The existing project provides for an upper
entrance channel 19 feet deep and 400 feet wide ; for a channel 19 feet deep
and 350 feet wide along the City water front ; and for a lower entrance channel
and basin 19 feet deep, 1,600 to 2,100 feet wide, along the lower wharf frontage.
The existing project was adopted by Congress in 1910 and further enlarged
by the act of 1919. º
Ordinary fluctuations of water Surface are from 2.8 feet above to low Water
datum, and fluctuation, due to wind and other Causes, are Small.
Effect of improvement.—The improvement has made the commercial de-
velopment of Ogdensburg Harbor possible in that the channels have been im-
proved so as to secure entrance and city front channels of a depth sufficient
to accommodate vessels of 17% feet draft. The improvement has also made
possible the establishment of railroad wharves and consequent development
Of water transportation lines operating to and from American and Canadian
lake ports as well as car ferry plying across the St. Lawrence River between
Ogdensburg and Prescott, Ontario. The improvement is considered to have
had a controlling effect on freight rates for bulk commodities in interlake
traffic, which traffic has, however, been suspended since 1915.
The heaviest traffic into or out of Ogdensburg Harbor between ports in the
United States is soft coal. . The tonnage for 1922 being 184,770 tons. The
heaviest tonnage in foreign traffic is pulp wood from Canada, amounting to
142,600 tons in 1922. A large amount of miscellaneous merchandise is carried
between Ogdensburg and Prescott by a Canadian car ferry. In 1922 this com-
prised 63 per cent of the total tonnage. This car ferry draws about 12 feet,
but the vessels engaged in transporting pulp wood draw from 14 to 17 feet.
Coal is carried in vessels varying from 12 to 17 feet.
The increase in traffic at Ogdensburg in 1922 was due to increased receipts,
both foreign and domestic, of wheat, Welsh coal, corn, oats, hard and soft
coal, pulp wood, and textiles.
* No figures on car-ferry traffic before this time are given.
t
g
896 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Figures regarding traffic on the Chicago River and the drainage canal for
1923, prepared by H. G. Legan who recently appeared before the committee
on behalf of the assistant traffic manager of the Morton Salt Co., of Chicago,
tund chairman of the water transportation committee of the Chicago Shippers'
Conference Association, names of some in association who authorizes me to
present them to the committee :
Tons per year
Consumers Co. (stone) sº. —ºs = <= -s. --> -e-, -, -, -º- ºr--> --> -- *-s --- * ~ *-* = a- ºr =se - * * -- - - - * * * * * * * * * 222, 500
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (stone).---------------------------- 500,000
Lenzie & Grello (stone) * * * * * * =s sº sºme sº sº. º. - * *-* = *-* * * * * * * * * 265,000
Fitzsimmons & McConnell (stone * → - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * ~ - - - * * = - 200,000
American Sand & Gravel Co. (sand) ------------------------------ 238,938
Merchants Lighterage Co. (merchandise transportation) ____________ 160,000
Total------------------------------------------------------ 1, 586, 438
{These figures are not included in the annual report of the Chief of Engineers,
United States Army. Add these figures to the total tonnage given in the latest
available report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army (that for 1923)
2,857,521 tons gives a total tonnage yearly of 4,443,959. This is a larger ton-
11age than that of the “general vessel traffic " in Milwaukee Harbor, during
the year 1922 as reported in the United States Army report of 1923; and only
1,158,000 tons less than the total traffic in Milwaukee Harbor, including general
vessel and car ferry. (Report of Chief of Engineers, United States Army,
1923, p. 1011, pt. 2.)
In addition to the above figures, Mr. Legan states that the Erie Railroad
Co. informs him that they now handle about 30 car loads a day in their own
lighters at their Erie and Kingsbury Street and Webster Avenue and River
team tracks. Beginning May 10 this company expects to extend the service to
the North Pier terminal warehouse, which is located at Illinois Street and the
JLake, and will handle about 15 cars more daily, making a total of 45 cars a
day. The Erie officials inform Mr. Legan that they will save about three days
time by using the lighterage. Add this tonnage to that already given and the
total is. Very large. The Texas Oil Co. also handles thousands of tons a year in
its own lighters from its refining plant at Lockport on the Drainage Canal.
Mr. Legan says he is informed that some of the companies hauling stone save
25 cents a ton in freight charges and from three to four days in time. -
The lighterage traffic on the Chicago River handled by the Merchants' Light-
erage Co., of which the stock is owned by Chicago shippers, during 1923 was
almost equal to the tonnage carried by the Mississippi Barge Line into and
out of 11 States north of the Ohio River during the first 11 months of 1923.
These lighterage boats were built on special design for service in the Chicago
River, and are, I am informed, the only ones of their type. They transfer
freight from one railroad to another and from railroad to steamer docks. They
draw 15 feet of water, with a large deck below the water line. They extend
16 feet above the water line and pass under street bridges with ease. Some
railroad bridges across the river, I am informed by the officials of the com-
pany, are so near the Water line that the bridges must be turned every time a
boat or lighter passes through. They state that when the swinging bridges
are done away with they can double the number of boats in a year, as there
is a big demand for lighterage service.
These lighters transfer freight between the following railroad lines:
Eastern Lines—Wabash, Erie, Grand Trunk, and Big Four.
Western Lines—Santa Fe, North Western, C. & E. I., Milwaukee, Rock Island,
Burlington, Illinois Central, and the Wabash.
Car loads are also handled from the Canada Atlantic Transit Co., the Great
Lakes Transit Corporation, and the Rutland-Lake Michigan Transit Co.
000 ‘003 “OI
000 ‘006 ‘6
000 000 ‘II
000 ‘003 “OI
000 ‘000 ‘6
000 ‘00I '8
000 ‘000 ‘OI
000'000 ‘6
000 000 ‘OI
000 ‘009 ‘6
000 ‘007 ‘6
000 ‘009 ‘II
000 ‘009 ‘OI
000 ‘007 ‘6
000 ‘008 ‘6
SUOJ,
I
I06I
006L
668I
S68I
* * * * *-* = a- asame as-sº sº sº- ammº ºne sº-º, sºme sº- a-- *** * * *
*36 I 04 g681 (.79.11.1 ſittypn/9
-lty) woq-tºp H out nº p.) pup (..toº.1 ſuppºl.) wº) .400.am II off poltſ) tºp off outwo? 1940,L
000 ‘009 ‘ZI'
000 ‘001, ‘OI
000 ‘001, '8
000 ‘006 II.
000 ‘00& ‘ZT
000 ‘009 ‘ZL
000 000 ‘ZI
000 000 ‘ZI
000 ‘00I 'OI
000 ‘003 “OI
000 002, 3I
000 ‘006 ‘II
000 ‘009 “OI
000 ‘009 “OI
stioJ.
836T
636 L
I36L
036T
6T6T
8T6I
JT6T.
9I6I
GT6T
fºL6I
§I6I
ZI6T
II6I
OI6I
35–2 Ld-pa-632.I6
"Uſbºaq uoys.I.9App of Bopulo uouſAA t
606 I
806T.
J.06L
906 I
Q06I
#06T.
306T
306 I
1,68
000 '931 “I ---------------------- 336 I
()00 ‘złS *gºs º- IZ6I
000 :009 ‘I ---------------------- 036E
000 '966 ---------------------- 6L6 [.
000 ‘008 “I TTTSI6I
000'006 “I ---------------------- J.I6I
000 ‘00+ “I * * * 9I6 I
000 ‘009 ‘I sº ºr * * * * * * * * * * * * * *m. QI6'ſ
000 ‘005. “I #I6I
000 ‘009 ‘I ---------------------- §I6 I
000 ‘003 “I * * * &I6'ſ
000 IgG ---------------------- II6E
000 ‘I99 - - 0.16ſ
000 '98: ---------------------- 606 I
000 ‘19: ---------------------- S06 I
SüOJ,
3361 01 868 I uto.tſ “1191 M.
, ()00 '96L T TTTTzz6I
000 '18E ----------------------- I36E
000 ‘18L 7 T 036 I
000 ‘O6T TTTTTT 6T6T
000 'gol 8E6ſ
000+sa ----------------------- J.I6'ſ
000 ‘6Iz, 9I6I
()00 '68& T QI6I
000 '81.I TTTTTT #I6I
000 IFI ----------------------- §I6I
000 ‘29 I T ZI6I
000 ‘g).I TTTTTT II6I
()00 '90I OI6I
()00 '09 sºm, 606 I
000 ‘g I -- 806. I
000 ‘9I - * * TTT206 I
Suo J,
168L
TTT968I
2,261 01 1681 uto.t] .133 12ſ. 8101tyll I tºo 300 unto, I,
'o'Tº ‘SaGLAIH Ida ISSISSIW CINV SIONITTI
000 '893 * 206E
000 ‘Fºz --~~~~~~ 906 I
000 ‘F8& Q06I
000 gra ---------------------- #06 I
000 '93L * 306 I
000 '99 306 I
000 '90ſ ---------------------- I06I
000 ‘Falſ r 006'ſ
000 '86 * * * T668 I
000 ‘LZI 868 I
000 ‘ga, I 268T
000 ‘83 I * * - 968L
000 ‘FII g68I
000 ºr ---------------------- #68. I
000 '81 ---------------------- §68T
Su (), L
‘.12.) Aſ 20 no I ºt! 30 Dutt O.I.
000 '88, - T906E
000 ‘FI Q06H
000 ‘gſ * *-* #706 I
000 ‘0% - - 806.I
000 '63, * *-* 306E
000 '98 TT I06 I
000 ‘ga, r 006 I
000 “If 668I
000 ‘6& * * * 868 I
000 ‘g? J.68I
000 ºf T 968L
000 ‘18 Q68I
000 ‘gº tº º º ºr #68.I
000 '99 $68T
000 ‘L9 368][
000 ‘g? Tº ** * I68I
SUIOJ,
{}00 869 3.36.
000 "3).7 "T36.
000 ‘g|If 036T
000 Ҽgy 6T6T
000 ‘63? 8T6T
000 ‘019 JT6T
000 ‘ISp 9T6T
SUIOM,
"urbºaq uopsia.App. 03Boyu O uouſ/M. r
2361 of 606 I wo.1 ! .490.421 pup toq.tv H “spºt ‘aoultuoua IV up 2007two,I,
8g ºf §36.
008 '8 366-
991, '8 ić6.
90% ‘F 036L
618 ‘8 6T6T
19L ‘p 8T6T
#36 ‘g JT6I
9I9 ‘g 9I6I
198 ‘8 GT6T
896 ‘Z #T6T
093 ‘g §I6T.
ISI ‘g ŽI6T.
61.6 °3 0I6I
931. ‘3 806T
350 ‘z G06T
996 “I #706T
SuðJ,
000 ‘000 ‘003 ‘Z
000'000 ‘008 ‘I
000 ‘000 ‘009 ‘I.
000 ‘000 ‘00& ‘a,
000 ‘000 ‘000 ‘z,
000 ‘000 ‘008 “C.
000 ‘000 ‘00& ‘Z
000 ‘000 ‘00% '3
000 ‘000 ‘008“I
000 ‘000 ‘006 ‘I
000 ‘000 ‘000 ‘z,
000 ‘000 ‘008 “I
000 000 001. ‘I
000 ‘000 ‘008 ‘I
000 ‘000 ‘009 ‘I
000 000 ‘009 ‘I
Suo J,
34.4 pſiſ ‘ap S #171 pS 'slºttvo
woppottp:O-ttpop.tout F Müno.1114 ſºups&md 4*1040.1 ! 11p “198890, .490. “260 wwo! 361).toa F.
000 000 ‘001, “I
000 000 ‘009 ‘I
000 000 ‘00ſ, ‘I
000 000 ‘603 ‘I
| 000 ‘000 ‘008 “I
000 000 ‘008; ‘I
000'000 ‘000 ‘I
000 000 ‘000 ‘I
000 ‘000 ‘356
(00'000 ‘898
000 000 ‘83),
000 ‘000 ‘ggſ,
000 ‘000 ‘989
000 000 ‘839
000 ‘000 ‘88.
000 ‘ºf’. ‘001.
SUIOT,
000 ‘19p. QT6T
000 ‘lſº fºL6T.
000 ‘Olſº 3I6I
000'009 3T6I
000'003 IT6T.
000'013 OT6I
000 ‘008 T606T
SUIOL
#98 ‘I 806T.
289 ‘I 306 I
1.If ‘I I06T
SI3 ‘I r 006 I
9% ‘I 668T
g6I ‘I 868T
gOI ‘I T268T
3.18 968 I
688 G68T
OT6 #68T
998 O68I
1.18 088I
96% TO),8I
2.91 098T
9II 998.I
91, QQ8T
SUIOJI,
#261 01 &68 I uto.tſ saqp}S papyu, ) out up 20 puu.04 floquipp. 1040, I,
"OLGI ‘Sag|APA Ida ISSISSIW CINV. SIONIIII
868
‘OLT ‘shgarh. Ida IssISSIW (INV SIONITTI
668
000 ‘006 ‘OI
000 ‘003 ‘9
000 ‘00P ‘3T
000 ‘00& ‘z I
000 ‘008 ‘g I
000 ‘00% ºf I
000 ‘009 ‘9T
000 ‘009 ‘z I
000 ‘006 ‘OI
000 ‘00; ‘9T
000 ‘000 ‘FI
000 ‘006 ‘OI
000 ‘003 ‘g|I
000 ‘000 ‘z I
000 ‘000 ‘OI
000 ‘008 ‘a, I
SUIOT
000 ‘009 ‘LI
000 ‘000 ‘ºl
000 ‘000 ‘SI
000 ‘000 ‘FL
000 ‘009 ‘SI
000 ‘006 ‘SI
000 ‘009 ‘SI
000 ‘001, '8L
000 000 ‘FI
000 ‘006 ‘SI
000 ‘009 ‘9 I
O00 ‘00; ‘a, I
000 ‘000 ‘FI
000 ‘000 ‘FI
000 ‘00I 'z.I
000 '00ſ, '91
SUIOJ,
000 ‘00& ‘z,
000 ‘008 ‘Z
000 002 ºf
000 00I '8
000 ‘003 °F
000 ‘00Z ‘F
000 ‘009 ‘f
000 ‘00& ‘g
000 ‘000 ‘g
000 ‘008 ‘8
000 ‘00I '8
000 ‘003 ‘Z
000 ‘008 &
000 ‘OFI ‘8
000 ‘001. ‘a
000 ‘00I 'g
Suo J.
636 L
IG6.
036T.
6T6I
8T6I
J.I6I
9I6T
GT6T
#I6I
8T6I
3I6I
II6I
OI6I
606T
806.I
2.06T
336 I 04 I68I uto.t! .100-to PI
TT&C6I
[36][
036T.
6T6 I
8T6T
J.T6T.
-- T9 I6 I
GT6T.
#I6T
- 3I6'I
&T6T
IT6T
0I6T
606T
806T
TTTT 106T
‘ueñaquops reApp O389puo Uon AA t
2261 0 1 168 I tºto.1 ! 4004011 “A V. ‘O11) ſlºg p 1) offmi woul,
ZZ6'ſ
—r- Lº.6 L
036T
6T6T
8T6I
J.I6T
9I6T
GI6I
#I6I
8T6T
&I6I
II6T
OT6T
606T
806 I
1061
000 :003 aſ 906 I
000 ‘00; ‘II Q06 I
000 ‘093 ‘6 #706I
000 ‘000 ‘OI --------------------- 806. I
000 ‘00I 'OI --------------------- 306 I
000 ‘OOP “2. I06 I
000 ‘009 ‘1. 1 006 I
000 ‘008 “1. * 668. I
000 ‘00g ‘9 --------------------- 868 I
000 00I '9 --------------------- 2,681
000 ‘009 ‘g 968T
000 ‘003 ‘g sº sm emº sº - amº sºme s-s sºns º sm º ºsmºs Q68I
000 ‘000 ‘F #68.I
000 00I '# --------------------- 968 I
000 ‘000 ‘1. 368T
000 ‘00g ‘F --------------------- T68 I
SUIOJ,
‘Opuſ O ‘put)790.270 up 961) ww.oll,
000 ‘009 ‘GL TTT * * * TT906 I
000 ‘00: ‘a I --------------------- Q:06 I
000 ‘001. ‘OI * #06 I
000 ‘001. ‘II --------------------- 306 I
000 ‘001, 6 --------------------- 306 I
000 ‘00: ‘OI ---------------------L06D
000 ‘00: ‘OI -------------------- r O06 I
000 ‘009 ‘OI TTT 668I
000 00F II --------------------- 868 I
000 ‘001. ‘OI --------------------- 2.68 L
000 ‘009 ‘6 TTT - 968 I
000 :009 ‘8 TTTTTg581
000 ‘008 'S --------------------- #68. I
000 ‘008 ‘6 * * TT$68I
000 ‘00g 6 --------------------- &68I
000 000 ‘6 ---------------------I681
SUIOT,
O00 °00& ‘F --- - 906 I
000 001. ‘g ---------------------- Q06 I
000 ‘009 ‘à #06'ſ
000 ‘009 ‘c. 806. I
000 ‘003 ‘8 * -º Č06 I
000 ‘006 ‘à I06I
000 ‘003 ‘g r O06 L
000 ‘OOf ‘8 66SI
000 ‘000 '8 868 I
000 ‘00& ‘g 168 I
000 ‘00; “g 968 I
000 ‘00& ‘Z Q68I
000 ‘006 “I #68 I
000 ‘009 ‘I $68 I
000 ‘000 ‘a, 368 I.
000 ‘009 ‘I I68L
SUIOT,
2361 on 1681 uoal “od ‘400aoh ot.g. up 26puuou,
900
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Tonnage at Milwaukee, Wis., Harbor from 1911 to 1922
Tons Tons
1911--------------------- — 7, 600, 000 | 1917—----- 6,800,000.
1912 7, 700,000 | 1918 7,000, 000
1913 8, 600,000 | 1919 7,000,000
1914 _ 8, 400,000 | 1920 5, 700,000
1915 8, 100,000 | 1921 6,400,000
1916_. _ 7, 900, 000 | 1922 5, 600,000
Tommage in Toledo, Ohio, Harbor from 1891 to 1922
Tons Tons
1891 1,400,000 || 1907 5,000, 000
T892 1, 700,000 | 1908 3,900,000
1893 1, 200,000 | 1909 5, 200,000
1894 2,000, 000 | 1910 – 6, 500,000
1895 2,000, 000 || 1911 6, 400,000
1896 2,000, 000 1912 6,900, 000
1897 2,000, 000 | 1913 7, 500,000
1898 2,000, 000 | 1914 7, 100,000
1899 2,000, 000 || 1915 7,400, 000
1900 * 2,000, 000 | 1916 10,300,000
1901 3,000, 000 | 1917 13, 700,000
1902 3,000,000 1918 13, 700,000
1903 3,000, 000 1919__ 10, 100,000
1904 3,000, 000 1920 10, 900, 000
1905 3,000, 000 | 1921 9, 200,000
1906 4, 500,000 l 1922 9, 400, 000
Tonnage at St. Marys Falls Canal, Mich., from 1891 to 1922
Tons Tons
1891 8,000, 000 | 1907 58,000, 000
1892 11,000, 000 | 1908 41,000, 000
1893 10,000, 000 | 1909 57,000,000
1894 13,000, 000 | 1910 62,000,000
1895 15,000, 000 | 1911 53,000, 000
1896 16, 000 1912 72,000, 000
1897 18,000, 000 | 1913 79,000, 000
1898 21,000, 000 | 1914 55,000, 000
1899 25,000, 000 | 1915 71,000, 000
1900 * 25,000, 000 | 1916 91
1901 28,000, 000 | 1917– 89
1902 35,000, 000 || 1918– 85
1903 34, 000, 000 || 1919 68,000, 000
1904 31,000, 000 | 1920 -- - - - 79
1905 44, 000, 000 | 1921 48,000, 000
1906 51,000, 000 | 1922 66,000, 000
Tommage in Green Bay, Wis., from 1909 to 1922
Tons Tons
1909–––––––––––––––––––––– 680,000 | 1916 ____ 850, 000
1910–--------------------- 977, 000 | 1917 – * * - 971, 000
1911 –– 750, 000 | 1918–––––––––––––––––––––– 1,000, 000
1912---------- ---------- 748,000 | 1919 960, 000
1918---------------------- 860, 000 | 1920 1, 100, 000
T.914----- 890, 000 | 1921 1, 100, 000
1915---------------------- 821, 000 | 1922---------------------- 840, 000
Tommage at Frankfort, Mich. Harbor from 1914 to 1922
Tons Tons
1914---------------------- 700, 000 | 1919 — - --> - ___ 1, 300, 000
1915.---------------------- 700, 000 | 1920 1, 400, 000
1916–––––––––––––––––––––– 900, 000 1921____ 1,000, 000
1917 - - 1, 200, 000 1922 - - 1, 300, 000
1918 1,000, 000
. . When Chicago diversion began.
I06
‘ubă34 UOps IBApp Q3topus) uan AA r
‘OLGI ‘SuſqAIM Idd ISSISSIW CINV SIONITTI
'000 ‘000 ‘89 33.6L | 000 ‘000 '89 906ſ
O00 000 ‘89 [36] | 000 ‘000 ‘gg Q06 I
036L | 000 ‘000 ‘zł T+06 I
000 ‘000 '81. 6L6L | 000 ‘000 ‘9% 306 I
8T6I | 000 ‘000 ‘Fº 306 L
2I6L | 000 ‘000 '85 I06I
9I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘zł r 006 I
g|I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘OF 668 I
000 ‘000 ‘69 #I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘gg 868 I
3I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘gg TA,68T
SJ, z16I | 000 000 18 968 I
000 ‘000 '99 II6L | 000 ‘000 ‘gz --------------------- Q6SI
000 ‘000 '82. OI6I | 000 000 ‘Fa #68 I
O00 ‘000 ‘L9 606L | 000 ‘000 ‘8% $68 I
.000 ‘000 ‘pg 8061 000 000 '92 --------------------- 368T
:000 ‘000 ‘II. TTT206H | 000 ‘000 '82 TTTI68I
SUIOJ, SUIO.I.,
336 I 01 I68I tito.4/ .taa!?I 110.119GI up 90014140,L,
000 ‘388 zz6I 000 ‘g|I ------------------------ GI6'ſ
000 ‘608 IZ6L | 000 ‘6II TTTFI6I
000 ‘FLI 026 I | 000 ‘00I §I6'ſ
000 ‘9FI 6L6L | 000 “I6 TTTøI6I
O00 ‘PII +. 816I | 000 ‘00I ------------------------IL6 I
000 '81. * -- *** * * * * * 1.I6I | 000 ‘00I ------------------------(). I6 L
000 ‘13 I 916I | 000 ‘00I ------------------------ 606 I
SUIONL SUIOT,
£361 04 606 I wo.1/ 10q.lpH “lſop IV ‘uoſjø918?! Iſ 10 0001/w0, I,
O00 000 ‘89 Z36T | 000 ‘000 ‘39 606 I
000 ‘000 ‘19 IZ6I | 000 ‘000 ‘09 806 I
000 ‘000 ‘g, 036L | 000 ‘000 '99 T206 I
O00 ‘000 ‘Og 6L6L | 000 ‘000 ‘09 906T
'000 ‘000 ‘38 8I6I | 000 ‘000 “Ig Q06I
O00 000 ‘88 LI6I | 000 ‘000 '88 #06I
000 ‘000 ‘gó 9I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘āf 806L
000 ‘000 '91. g|I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘If Z06 I
000 ‘000 ‘89 #I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘8% I06I
000 ‘000 '81. £I6I | 000 ‘000 ‘ā; 1006 I
000 ‘000 ‘31. ZI6I | 000 ‘000 ‘OF 668I
000 ‘000 “I9 II6I | 000 ‘000 ‘gg 868 I
900 000 ‘89 OI6I | 000 ‘000 ‘ZZ I68I
SUIOAL SUIOJ,
"[04/ſ ‘..MyD10 '1S 9: D'I up slottupulo up 26p ww.0J,
000 ‘009 ‘I Z36L | 000 ‘009 ‘I ~~~~~~g L6I
000 ‘009 ‘I I36I | 000 ‘001, “I fºL6 I
000 ‘001, ‘I 036|| || 000 006 I £T6I
000 ‘001, ‘I 6L6L | 000 ‘00ſ, ‘I ZT6I
000 ‘00, ‘I 8T6I | 000 ‘00ſ, ‘I II6T
000 ‘008 ‘I 1.I6I | 000 ‘008 ‘I OI6I
000 ‘008 “I 9T6I | 000 ‘Ogi; TT606 L
SUIOJ, SUIOM,
2261 01 2.06 I tuo.1 / .400.0m II “81.41 ‘ooqi opywr) Iſ My 300ttu O.I.
902 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
MILWAUKEE HARBOR TONNAGE
[From the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army.]
Annual report, 1913:
About 4,970,000 tons of coal were brought to Milwaukee in 1912 for local
and interior points.
Annual report, 1914: -
There has been an increase of 563 in the number of vessels during the calen-
dar year, 1913, and shipments have increased about 11 per cent.
Annual report, 1915:
By reason of its excellent harbor the manufacturers and distributors of
Milwaukee enjoy superior shipping facilities and low freight rates, especially
to and from eastern points.
Annual report, 1916:
By reason of its excellent harbor Milwaukee has become the principal coal
receiving port On Lake Michigan.
Annual report, 1917:
The favorable effect of the harbor upon commerce is widespread through-
out several States lying to the westward.
The increased value of commerce for the year is due to the increase in
value of commodities, especially coal.
Annual report, 1918:
These facilities (terminal) are inadequate for existing commerce.
The decrease in tonnage compared to that of the preceding year is due
Pºpally to the reduced receipts Of Soft coal and the decrease of car ferry
traffic.
Annual report, 1919:
The increase in tonnage compared to that of the preceding year is due prin-
cipally to increased receipts of soft coal and to increased grain shipments
and car ferry traffic.
Annual report, 1920:
The decrease in tonnage compared to that of the previous year is principally
due to decreased coal receipts. Tonnage by car ferry increased nearly 30
per cent. There was a decrease in grain Shipments which were only about
38 per cent of those of 1918.
Annual report, 1921:
The decrease in tonnage of 18 per cent compared to that of the preceding
year is principally due to decreased shipments by car ferry and by bulk
freighters engaged in carrying grain.
Annual report, 1922:
The increase of 11 per cent in tonnage compared to that of the preceding
year is due to increased receipts of coal and shipments of grain, both foreign
and domestic. The grain shipments were the largest ever made for this
harbor.
Annual report, 1923: -
The increase of 500 per cent in tonnage compared to that of the previous
year is due to increased receipts of coal. No coal had been received since
1918.
STATEMENT OF ME. WILLIAM L. SACKETT, SUPERINTENDENT OF
WATERWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILD-
INGS, STATE OF ILLINOIS, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. L. D. CORNISH,
ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER,
Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee—
Mr. HULL. Before you commence, will you tell the committee just
what your position is, so that they will understand?
Mr. SACRETT. Superintendent of the division of waterways of the
State of Illinois, being the administrative officer of the State, hav-
ing control of the various lakes and rivers of the State, to prevent
obstruction, encroachment, and to maintain and protect public inter-
ests therein.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 903
Mr. HULL. And have you any connection with the sanitary dis-
trict 2
Mr. SACKETT. None whatever.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any supervisory powers at all
Over it?
Mr. SACKETT. Over the sanitary district?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SACKETT. No, sir. The sanitary district is a municipality
created by act of the Illinois Legislature, with certain specific dele-
gated powers, independent of any State administration.
Mr. NEwTON. Is it a part of the State government?
Mr. SACKETT. No, sir. It is a separate municipality, to which has
been delegated certain specific powers and organized for the purpose
of providing sanitation for Chicago, and given the power of ob-
taining revenue under a stated limitation of tax levy, whereas the
city of Chicago is restricted in this regard.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And its boundaries are different from the city
boundaries?
Mr. SACKETT. Absolutely; yes, sir. It includes the city and ex-
tends far beyond the city limits.
The CHAIRMAN. How much territory, and how much population
outside of the city ? - - tº
Mr. SACKETT. I think that the Sanitary District of Chicago at
the present time is practically Cook County.
Mr. ADCOCR. Four hundred and thirty-eight square miles.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that total, or is that all outside the city?
Mr. RAINEY. That is total.
The CHAIRMAN. And how much outside of the city?
Mr. RAINEY. I believe the city is 192 square miles.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, about 200 square miles in the city
and 200 outside?
Mr. RAINEY. About. There are 49 incorporated municipalities in
the district outside of the city of Chicago.
Mr. BARRETT. The population outside of the city is somewhere
between 300,000 and 400,000—probably nearer 300,000 than 400,000.
Mr. HULL. There is one more question I want to get in the record.
How long have you been connected with this waterways proposi-
tion? I do not mean your present position, but I mean from the time
you started in the canal superintendency and on ?
Mr. SACKETT. Since 1898.
Mr. HULL. About 26 years?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir; as a preface to my remarks, I want to say
that I am not an attorney. An attorney, I understand, will take
a set of facts and appear with equal facility on either side, present-
ing convincing arguments, always find precedents for his position
and decisions of the court to confirm them. Neither am I an en-
gineer. The theories of the engineers of 20 years ago have appar-
ently been considerably upset by actual developments. I appear
before this committee as an administrator, hoping to give you some
practical knowledge of a condition which exists, and give you facts
as I know them.
There is a saying that a plausible lie travels so fast as a rule that
the truth never catches up with it. I take it in this situation there
has been so much of misunderstanding and misrepresentation that
904 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
there is a general misconception of the facts with reference to this
situation in Illinois. The State of Illinois is charged with the com-
mission of various offenses in connection with its development of a
Lakes to the Gulf waterway, and during recent years specifically
with diverting water from Lake Michigan to the detriment of other
States for the purpose of commercializing water-power development.
This charge is unfounded, without basis; and I believe I can show
you the State of Illinois has violated no moral obligation or
statutory law in this particular.
The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking, I suppose, Mr. Sackett, in
specifying the State of Illinois, in the sense that the Sanitary Dis-
trict is a creation of the State of Illinois. Of course, the testimony
here is all as to the Sanitary District, and I suppose that is the sense
in which you are speaking of the State of Illinois.
Mr. SACKETT. The Sanitary District will be able to defend itself
from these charges, but the State of Illinois is a part of this proposi-
tion and I desire to discuss that angle.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SACRETT. I am going to first discuss the relation of the State
of Illinois to the development of a waterway in connection with the
Federal Government, and later I am going to discuss the proposi-
tion of sanitation as it affects not only the people in Chicago and
Cook County but of the people of the State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. Where is your home, Mr. Sackettº
Mr. SACRETT. Officially my address is Springfield. My home is
about 62 miles southwest of Chicago. I am not a resident of Chi-
cago. I do live along the Illinois River, and I will tell you some-
thing about conditions from personal observation and knowledge, as
well as officially.
On the development of the waterway, the State of Illinois has
proceeded by orderly processes, as directed by Federal authority,
and not only with the approval of Congress, but in partnership with
Congress and the Federal Government. Early history in this con-
nection has been so fully covered by both Congressman Rainey and
Congressman Hull that I will not go into that feature except as
necessary to convince you of the assertion I have made.
The need, the advantage, and the importance of a waterway from
the Lakes to the Gulf was first pointed out by the early explorers,
La Salle and Joliet, as early as 1774. They indicated even in that
early day that this was not a trade route of local advantage only,
but a development of national importance, a connecting link with
navigation over the Lakes from the East to the Central West, and
from that point to the Gulf, opening some 15,000 miles of continuing
navigation over inland waters.
By the act of Congress of 1882 Federal officers were directed to
make a survey and a report on the cost and the advisability and the
possibilities of this development; and by an act of Congress of
1827 a land grant was made to the State of Illinois in aid of the
construction of the Illinois & Michigan Canal—a grant of 325,000
acres, later sold by the State at $1.25 an acre, obtaining $406,250,
to help finance the project, but directing that the State of Illinois
do the actual work of construction.
With this financial aid the State of Illinois constructed the Illinois
& Michigan Canal, the cost being six and a half million dollars,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 905
which was a connecting link for water navigation and transportation
from a junction with the Chicago River, or Lake Michigan, to La
Salle, a distance of 96 miles. That canal was opened in 1848. The
congressional act required that it be toll free so far as the United
States Government was concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. By “tóll free” do you mean to the Government?
Mr. SACKETT. It was toll free to the Government.
The CHAIRMAN. But not to other users?
Mr. SACKETT. Toll was charged over the canal to everyone but the
Government.
Mr. SEGER. Where is La Salle on that Illinois map?
Mr. SACKETT. Just below Utica.
Mr. HULL. About 10 miles below that star [indicating].
Mr. SACRETT. A considerable commerce went over that canal for
a period of years up to 1887. Agricultural products of the West
were taken to Chicago and over the Lakes to Buffalo and points east.
There were large grain shipments during that period; shipments
from the East were taken both to Chicago and then down through
this canal to the Illinois River, to Peoria, St. Louis, and to the Gulf.
ºpment from the Gulf likewise traversed the route to the
north.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us the largest tonnage you ever had
in a year up to 1887 ?
Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Cornish advises me that it was something over
a million tons. But I can say this to you, that the cost of that canal
was something like six and a half million dollars. The earnings of
the canal more than paid the cost, for many years paid the mainte-
nance and operation of the canal, and placed a surplus in the treas-
ury of the State as a result of its earnings, and that condition con-
tinued until about 1887.
You have already been advised by Congressman Rainey of the
restrictions placed in the State's constitution in 1871, generally
accredited to railroad activity, because the canal had been a very
active competitor of railroad shipments.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the United States ever test out the right—
whether the State has the right to amend its constitution in view
of the fact that the canal had been constructed as the result of land
grants by the Federal Government?
Mr. SACRETT. I do not know that the Government ever raised that
question. Some other questions have been raised, however, which
I may say in passing led to a decision that the land grant was made
in the nature of a contract with the State of Illinois, and that the
State of Illinois had fulfilled its obligation and its contract by con-
structing and opening the canal.
The CHAIRMAN. And they did not need to operate it?
Mr. SACKETT. They did not need to continue that particular canal.
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me it was a most extraordinary deci-
sion, that the land grant would only provide for the construction
and opening, and not for the operation of the canal.
Mr. BARRETT. The grant itself, Mr. Dempsey, goes further than
Mr. Sackett says. It does not specifically provide for operation,
but it does require the State of Illinois to keep it open continuously,
and our Supreme Court has said that this new canal provided by the
906 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Chicago Sanitary District is the old canal so far as the Federal Gov-
ernment is concerned. 4 -
Mr. SACKETT. I was going to get to that. Mr. Dempsey is asking
about details I expect to explain later. tº
The CHAIRMAN. I will try not to anticipate. -
Mr. SACKETT. I will try to get it all before you as a practical
proposition, eliminating theories. -
To go a step further, in view of the fact of a constitutional restric-
tion imposed upon the State of Illinois, and the development of the
railroads at that period, it was impossible for the State of Illinois,
of course, to enlarge the channel of the canal or its structures—
its locks—because with the increased capacities of the railroads, the
shorter time that they took for transportation, the fact that the rail-
roads could and did construct terminal tracks to the factory or the
industry, many of which then began to expand and to locate away
from the water, the railroads did not have all the business they
could handle and the canal, of course, lost considerable business and
much of its revenue, and could not keep pace with the demands of
great modern commerce in view of the restrictions on appropriations
by the State placed in the constitution of 1871, which prevented its
reconstruction.
Mr. NEwTON. I do not know whether I got just what that restric-
tion was clearly in my mind.
Mr. SACKETT. The credit of the State should not be expended in
aid of canals or railroads.
Mr. NEWTON. I have here what purports to be a record of the
operations of the canal beginning in 1860.
The CHAIRMAN. What are you quoting from?
Mr. NEWTON. The Chicago Historial Society’s collection, which
seems to be authentic.
The CHAIRMAN. And issued when?
Mr. NEwTON. University of Chicago, 1918. In 1860, which seems
to be the first record they have of the tonnage, the tons transported
were 367,000; 1861 they were 547,000; in 1862 they were 673,000: in
1863 they were 619,000; in 1864 they were 510,000; in 1865 they
were 616,000; in 1866 they were 746,000; in 1867 they were 746,000;
in 1868 they were 737,000; in 1869 they were 817,000; in 1870 they
were 585,000; in 1871 they were 628,000. It runs along between
600,000 and 800,000 until 1882, when they carried 1,011,000, and
then it dropped to 900,000 and runs between 700,000 and 900,000
until 1892. Then it begins to drop a little. s
The CHAIRMAN. But that was in excess of the tonnage previous
to 1871. The tonnage between the two dates last specified was in
excess of the tonnage in 1871, when the constitution was amended.
Mr. NEWTON. This began in 1860. In 1871 the constitution was
amended. It held up until 1900. In 1900 it dropped down to
121,000. In 1901 it dropped to 81,000, and in 1902 it dropped to
35,000 tons, and 1903 to 63,000, in 1904 to 47,000, in 1905 to 38,000,
in 1906 to 35,000, and in 1907 to 80,000. How do you account for
that sudden drop there?
The CHAIRMAN. That is beginning in 1901? -
Mr. NEWTON. From 1901 to 1907 it dropped; that is, beginnin
with 1900 it was 469,000 tons, after 1901 it averages around 50,000
tons.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 907.
Mr. SACKETT. That is partly accounted for because of the con-
struction of the larger and more adequate channel paralleling it
from Chicago to Lockport, which was toll free, and the commerce,
of course, went to the larger channel which was constructed by the
Sanitary District of Chicago.
Mr. NEwToN. And they took the traffic?
Mr. SACKETT. They took the traffic.
Mr. NEwTON. On the other canal?
Mr. SACKETT. That is toll free. The old canal was charging toll.
Mr. NEwtoN. When was the $20,000,000 appropriated for canal
purposes over there?
Mr. SACRETT. It was approved by a vote of the people in 1908.
Mr. NEwTON. Well, in 1908 the traffic on this canal jumped from
an average of about 50,000 up to 312,000, and then from 1908 down
to 1915, it averaged from 300,000 to 400,000.
Mr. HULL. That is during the war. -
Mr. NEwTON. We were not in the war until 1917.
Mr. HULL. The war began on the other side in August, 1914.
Mr. NEwTON. You have an average of around 50,000 tons, and
then in 1908 it jumped up again to 312,000 tons and 352,000 in 1909.
There must be some cause for that.
Mr. SACKETT. I think, perhaps, I can clear your mind on that.
Part of this canal is still in operation. The drop in the tonnage
there that you speak of was partially because of the transfer of the
traffic of the portion between Chicago and Lockport paralleling the
larger channel, which went to that channel, partly because railroad
rates were cut to canal points because there was no regulation.
There is still 65 miles of this canal in use now, and it maintains itself
by its earnings.
The CHAIRMAN. The old canal?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEWTON. There must have been some reason for such an in-
crease which went steadily up to a higher level and continued there.
Mr. SACKETT. I would have to look at our records to ascertain
the facts, but my surmise is that what that represents is the total
both of the canal and the two State locks in the river.
Mr. NEWTON. Here is what it says. This may give you some in-
formation. I should have read this first: “The Illinois & Michi-
gan Canal”—that is the one you have in mind?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the old canal?
Mr. NEwTON. I see an interesting fact is that during this whole
period the total revenue collected was $6,631,007, and the total gross
expense was $5,391,107. That is a pretty good showing, I think.
Mr. SACKETT. The maximum capacity of that canal was only a
million tons. You see there were periods when it reached its ca-
acitv. -
p § NEwTON. Yes. One year it reached a million tons—in the
year 1882. -
Mr. SACRETT. Going back, now, to the point of the interruption,
as the result of the small capacity of the old canal and the inter-
ruption of navigation and transportation we come to the sanitary
district's activities in designing, constructing, and opening the chan-
908 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
nel from Chicago to Lockport, as it is commonly expressed; but, as
a matter of fact, practically the same navigation is extended into.
Joliet. The depth of the channel from Lockport to Joliet, a dis-
tance of 4 miles, is restricted, compared with the depth of the chan-
nel developed between Lockport and Chicago; the State now tak-
ing the work at Lockport and extending the channel down over.
that part of the State over and through the same territory hereto-
fore served by the old Illinois & Michigan Canal.
We have already been acquainted with the size and opportunities
of navigation and transportation over this new channel constructed
by and paid for by the Sanitary District of Chicago, and it is un-
necessary for me to go into that; but I want to make this point
now with reference to Federal approval of that newer waterway
which parallels the old Illinois & Michigan Canal; and, by the way,
the original surveys of the old Illinois & Michigan Canal reserved
a right of way practically from Chicago to La Salle, the entire dis-
tance of 96 miles, of 288 feet width. The original canal when con-
structed was about 45 feet bottom width and 60 feet top width,
reserving on either side what is called a 90-foot strip, with a view
unquestionably when the Illinois & Michigan Canal was constructed
of reserving that right of way for enlargement as demands might
require. -
In the construction by the Sanitary District of Chicago of the
larger channel it was at first contemplated the Illinois & Michigan
Canal right of way would be used, but owing to various objections
and interference and maintenance of that canal for the uses of the
city of Chicago that idea was abandoned, new right of way ob-
tained, and the new channel constructed of proportions such as
seemed to be required by the demands not alone of the city of Chi-
cago for purposes of sanitation but with a view to providing ade-
quate navigation in the years to come that the territory and its
development would require. In 1901, if I am not mistaken, under
authority delegated by the act of Congress of 1899 to the Secretary
of War, when the matter was brought to the attention of the Chief
of Engineers and the Secretary of War the plan of this channel
was approved, its physical connection with the Chicago River was
necessarily approved, the vested rights in the State in providing a
waterway for the diversion of water from Lake Michigan was ap-
proved, and a permit for a certain stated diversion of water was
issued.
The CHAIRMAN. What action did Congress take? What was the
statute, did you say?
Mr. SACKETT. Hºt is the act of 1899. Congress delegated cer-
tain powers of jurisdiction and approval.
Mr. BARRETT, Mr. Sackett has in mind the rivers and harbors
act of 1899.
Mr. SACKETT. I have had it called to my attention a good many
times in the administration of affairs in the State of Illinois, in
cooperation with the Chief of Engineers and district engineers.
Mr. BARRETT. That is section 10 of that act.
Mr. SACKETT. Now, how were the diversions fixed by your Chief
of Engineers and Secretary of War at that time? It was fixed
entirely upon the consideration of the requirement for the safety of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 909
navigation in the Chicago River and nothing else. It so states, that
a diversion of 4,167 cubic second-feet could be utilized without in-
terruption, interference, or danger to navigation in the Chicago
River.
Mr. SweFT. Pertaining perhaps to the current flow of the river.
Mr. SACKETT. That was it exactly. It was because of the current
in the river, because of the bends in the river, and because the river
was narrow and shallow. Since that time improvements for navi-
gation in the Chicago River, or rather, I should say that for a short
period following that permit and the authorized amount of diver-
sion based upon safety of navigation and the conditions in the
Chicago River, Congress through its appropriations to the War
Department did some of the work of straightening, widening, and
improving the Chicago River, but for a short period only. The
present improvement of the Chicago River for purposes of naviga-
tion has been accomplished almost entirely through expenditure by
the Sanitary District of Chicago, not, of course, with a primary
view to an improvement of navigation, but with the necessity before
them that the river must be improved to make navigation safe with
the larger diversion of water that would be required to meet its
sanitary problems, and I think you will find in recent years that the
sanitary district has spent ten, twelve or more millions of dollars
in the improvement of the Chicago River, all of which has been in
aid of and a benefit to navigation and without expense to the Gov-
ernment, which otherwise would have had to meet the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, if it had undertaken the work.
Mr. SACKETT. Well, the Government assumes jurisdiction of navi-
gation and the improvement of navigable streams and waters within
the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. It does just as it passes acts adopting projects,
and not otherwise.
Mr. SweBT. And would it have been necessary for the Government
to have undertaken the work, to provide the requirements for navi-
gation, without the necessity of providing a channel for 10,000
second-feet?
Mr. SACRETT. I presume that the best answer to that is that the
Government would have been called upon to expend some amount
of money for the improvement of navigation in the Chicago River,
but not to the extent that the improvement has actually been made,
because of the necessity of sanitation. The present situation up to
this point has been, in the first instance, in pursuance of a contract
or a partnership with the Federal Government, so far as the con-
struction of the Illinois-Michigan Canal is concerned, the reversal
of the flow of water, if you please, under modern conditions, to pro-
vide a waterway through the Middle West from the Lakes to the
Gulf, and there has been no step, even by the sanitary district in
its construction of the more modern, larger, and more adequate
waterway, that has not been with the full knowledge and after the
act of the representatives of the Federal Government. -
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say as to the lawsuit commenced
about 20 years ago and which has been pending all that time? Do
you regard that as an acquiescense and consent?
Mr. SACRETT. I told you I was not a lawyer.
910 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
. The CHAIRMAN. I know, but we began a lawsuit to restrain this
diversion of which you are talking. That certainly is neither
acquiescense nor consent nor partnership, is it? Q
Mr. ADCOCK. It was the excess after the permit.
The CHAIRMAN. He said every minute.
Mr. SACKETT. No; I said every act. I mean the physical diver-
Sion, etc. I am not speaking of what transpired after that took place.
The CHAIRMAN. As to the diversion, the present state of the matter
is that it has been done contrary to the express direction of the ex-
ecutive departments of the Government, and the courts so held after
elaborate proofs had been made covering a period of years.
Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Dempsey, aren’t you just a little confused in
this particular? Was not this suit upon the theory that there was
a diversion over and above the authorized diversion?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I am not confused, because the statement as
made, as I understand it, was that any action that had been taken
relating to either the improvement or the diversion, that the United
States was both silent, acquiescent, and, in fact, a partner; and I
say that that can not be true because the Government obtained, on
the directly opposite theory, an injunction from the court sitting in
Illinois. r
Mr. SACKETT. To a diversion in excess of 4,167 cubic second-feet?
The CHAIRMAN. The diversion in excess was part of the act. You
said all acts.
Mr. SACKETT. I meant up to that time.
The CHAIRMAN. That was about 20 years ago.
Mr. SACKETT. I am speaking up to the time of the diversion—the
diversion in the first instance was 4,167 cubic second-feet, and up to
that time every act had been approved either by act of Congress or
by officers of the United States Government to whom Congress had
delegated authority to act. I am quite willing to admit that all of
that was with a view, only, so far as the Federal Government was
concerned, of navigation; that sanitation did not enter into it at all,
but this suit was brought after the diversion of more than 4,167
cubic second-feet.
Mr. BoycE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boyce.
Mr. BoxcE. Do you recall whether the act of Congress to which
you have referred placed any limitation upon the amount of water
which might be diverted?
1Mr. SACKETT. No, sir. The act to which I refer is an act by
which Congress delegates to the Chief of Engineers and the Sec-
retary of War certain administrative duties in connection with the
supervision of the waters of the United States, where there are im-
provements or changes in navigable waters that might in any way
affect navigation. - *
Mr. BoycE. Did the act expressly authorize, or rather, invest, the
Secretary of War with any express power to provide for any diver-
sion?
Mr. SACKETT. I can only answer that by the statement that under
the provision of the act the Secretary of War did authorize a
diversion. -
Mr. BoycE. There is no doubt about that.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 911
Mr. SACKETT. I am not a competent authority to interpret it.
Mr. Boy CE. I did not know whether you had it in mind or not.
Mr. ADCOCK. I make a suggestion on that. The first permit to
open the channel was issued May 8, 1899, and that gave the right to
open the channel, but there was no limitation as to the amount of the
withdrawal. There were two conditions; one, that the Secretary of
War proposed to submit the matter to Congress, and if Congress
acted then the permit should have no force or effect; and the second
condition was that if the current was created in the Chicago River
unreasonably obstructive to navigation, then the Secretary of War
might permit the flow. As Mr. Sackett states, the river was then
narrow and shallow, and afterwards the Secretary of War did limit
the flow expressly because of the current in the Chicago River.
The sanitary district then laid out its project for the improvement
of the Chicago River, to deepen it and widen it, to provide for the
larger flow which the population demanded and which the sanitary
district act provided should be passed through that river; and then
the Secretary of War, knowing why we were improving the river
and deepening and widening it, namely, to take this larger flow,
consented by two or three permits to the enlargements of the river.
We spent $13,000,000 or more in that, and we assumed that the clause
of the limitation having expired—that is, the limitation of the flow—
that the limitation itself would have no force nor effect. That is
the situation.
Mr. NEwTo.N. Mr. Chairman, if the witness will permit, before
we get too far away from the questions I asked a bit ago about
the reasons for the traffic disappearing from the canal at certain
points
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The Illinois & Michigan Canal?
Mr. NEwTON. The Illinois & Michigan Canal. With reference
further to the volume of the Illinois Historical Society, volume No.
10, entitled “Illinois & Michigan Canal,” written by Putnam, as I
called your attention a while ago to the surprising drop from
469,000 in 1899 and the decided drop during 1901, falling to 81,000
tons a year and ranging near approximately 60,000 a year until
1908, when the tonnage again increased to 312,000 tons constantly,
and maintained that level, I find in this same volume on page 142
that in 1901 the railroads paralleling this canal made unusually low
rates. For instance, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
from Chicago to La Salle, a distance of 99 miles, made a rate of
5% cents on the 100 pounds of freight. The Chicago & North
Western Railroad from Chicago to Dixon
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Five and one-half cents a hundred 4
Mr. NEwToN. On a hundred. The Chicago & North Western
Railroad from Chicago to Dixon, a distance of 100 miles, had a rate
of 8 cents on a hundred pounds. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Railroad from Chicago to Ottawa, a distance of 85 miles, to a point
on the canal, made a rate of 5 cents a hundred pounds. The Chicago.
Burlington & Quincy Railroad to Mendota, off the canal, a distance
of 83 miles, 2 miles less distance, had a rate of 61/2 cents. The
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad to Marseilles, a distance of
77 miles, made a rate to a canal point of 4.75 cents on a hundred
pounds of first-class freight, while the Wabash Railroad to Eming-
912 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ton, the same distance, 77 miles, made a rate of 6 cents, where they
had no barge-line competition.
The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy to Earlville, 72 miles, off the
canal, made a rate of 6%, cents on a hundred pounds of freight,
while the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific to Morris, 62 miles, on the
canal, made a rate of 4 cents.
The Illinois Central to Chebanse, 62.8 miles, off the canal, made a
rate of 6 cents on the hundred pounds of freight; to Joliet, on the
canal, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, a distance of 40 miles,
made a rate of 3 cents on a hundred pounds of freight.
The Wabash to Manhattan, off the canal, 44 miles, made a rate of
4 cents, which is 25 per cent less rate for exactly the same distance,
* one point was off the canal, and the other point was on the
Callal. -
And I find also that to Aurora the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy,
a distance of 37 miles, 3 miles less than to Joliet, made a rate off
the canal of 5.6 cents. In other words, the charge to Aurora, off the
canal, 5.6 cents per hundred pounds, and to Joliet from Chicago,
40 miles, only 3 cents.
And that continued until 1908, and then the freight jumped up
again to 312,000 pounds. .
Mr. SACKETT. Since you have called my attention to that, I can
say this: There was a time that railroads carried freight practically
for nothing in order to put the canal out of commission, and about
the time the freight jumped up I am reminded Interstate Commerce
Commission control was established, which prevented cutting rates
to water competitive points and make up the loss sustained in that
manner by overcharge to points not accessible to water, and that is
what brought about that change unquestionably.
Mr. NEwTON. As a matter of fact, there is not anything mysteri-
ous about this freight on the canal increasing or decreasing at cer-
tain periods?
Mr. SACRETT. No, sir.
Mr. NEwToN. It is all the absolute result of artificial freight
rates that were intended to destroy it?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. It is the same old story that we get in the rail
lines that parallel the rivers.
Mr. SACKETT. I am not going to make an argument here in be-
half of the new waterway being constructed or what it will do for
us. It will give lower rates on many shipments, build up new in-
dustries, and the railroads will have all they can do and benefit
also.
Mr. NEwTON. I am very much obliged to you for giving me the
opportunity to get this into the record.
Mr. SACKETT. Pursuing the other proposition just a moment,
the $13,000,000 expended by the Sanitary District of Chicago for
the improvement of the Chicago River made possible the improve-
ment for navigation, but was expended by the Sanitary District to
rovide for its own needs of sanitation. In that connection 14
§: were constructed by the Sanitary District and in the ex-
penditure of that money, the work, the plans of the bridges, were
all approved by the Chief of Engineers and such other administra-
tive officers of the Federal Government as the law of 1899 required.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 913
In 1908, because of the restrictions in the constitution of the State
of Illinois, an amendment was submitted asking for the approval
of $20,000,000 so that the State might continue the more adequate
waterway from the point shown in red on this map, from the ter-
minus of the work of the Chicago Sanitary District at Lockport, to
Utica, to connect with the navigable portion of the Illinois River, and
this portion of the work from Lockport to Utica requires construc-
tion of five locks and the improvement of the Desplaines and Illi-
nois Rivers through this reach of territory, which covers the same
territory served by the original construction of the Illinois and
Michigan canal. -
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you think, so far as the obliga-
tion of the State of Illinois to construct a canal between Lockport
and Utica is concerned, that it will be answered by this construc-
tion now in progress?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. What I am getting at still further is, in
view of the original grant of authority by the Federal Govern-
ment, the State of Illinois is maintaining both its integrity and its
contract, and answering the question you asked, by providing now
a more adequate channel for the waterway than it had originally,
because of the increased population and the increased demand for
transportation and navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. The distance from Chicago to Grafton, which
was the original distance, is something over 300 miles?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And what is the distance from Lockport to
Utica 2
Mr. SACKETT. About 65 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. So you are constructing about one-fifth of the
way
Mr. SACKETT. We had no contract to construct anything beyond
LaSalle at any time. The Sanitary District of Chicago, a creation
of the State of Illinois, constructed 37 miles of this distance, and
the State of Illinois itself is completing the balance.
The CHAIRMAN. I understood that the Illinois and Michigan
canal extended all the way down to Grafton.
Mr. SACKETT. Oh, no; only to LaSalle.
Mr. HULL. The Illinois River is a navigable stream from La-
Salle to Grafton.
Mr. SACKETT. The Illinois River is navigable from LaSalle to
Grafton. In 1822 and 1827, when the acts of Congress were passed,
the State was authorized to construct and open a canal from Chi-
cago to LaSalle, and in its work now from Chicago to Iaşalle is
covering exactly the territory which was apportioned to it by the
acts of Congress of 1822 and 1827, leaving the navigable water
of the river to the development of the Federal Government, as it de-
velops other navigable waters.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us, Mr. Sackett, why it is that some
of the residents of the valley seem to think that a lockless canal from
Utica would be preferable to one with locks, in view of the fact that
the State of Illinois in this new waterway, which is presumably a
modern canal and constructed according to the latest engineering
methods, is putting five locks in a distance of how many miles, did
you say?
914 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. SACKETT. Sixty-five miles.
The CHAIRMAN. Putting in a lock every 13 miles?
Mr. SACKETT. I can explain that to you; but I was going to come
to that later.
The CHAIRMAN. Come to it in your own way.
Mr. SACKETT. I will explain it to you now. Understand, I am
speaking not technically but broadly. Let me answer you in this
way: Between Chicago and La Salle, which is the end of the work
of both the sanitary district and the State, the fall is something like
130 feet. You must have locks to successfully navigate and main-
tain your level from this point down ſindicating on map.].
The CHAIRMAN. That is, from La Salle down? -
Mr. SACKETT. No; from Lockport to La Salle. From La Salle
down the fall is 40 feet, and locks and dams are unnecessary in that
portion. If it were possible to avoid locks up here, I can assure you
that in the interest of navigation no locks would have been provided,
but they had to be provided.
The CHAIRMAN. That seems to be a very large number of locks
for that distance.
Mr. SACKETT. This lock at Lockport will be the highest lift lock
of its size in the world, having a lift of about 41 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the lift at Lockport, N. Y.?
Mr. SACKETT. I do not know. -
The CHAIRMAN. What is the lift at Little Falls, N. Y.2
Mr. SACKETT. I do not know.
Mr. CORNISH. Those are smaller locks. There are some that have
a higher lift. Mr. Sackett made the statement that it was the high-
est lock of its size in the world. It is an unusually large-sized lock.
Mr. NEwTON. Will you tell us what the size of that lock is?
Mr. SACKETT. It is 600 feet in length and 110 feet wide, the same
size of lock as the Federal project in the Ohio River, and adopted
because of that project and upon the advice of your Chief of Engi-
neers; and I am going to speak of that later. As the result of the
submission of this proposed amendment to the constitution, the
people of Illinois in 1908 approved the issuance of $20,000,000 bonds.
The CHAIRMAN. In connection with this $20,000,000 bond issue,
would you tell us what the value is to-day of this 325,000 acres of
land?
Mr. SACKETT. That would be difficult for me to tell you, but if we
take the ruling values of land. I would say about $200 an acre, or
about $65,000,000.
That was all sold by the State and put into the construction of
the canal, the State getting about $400,000 for it. The Illinois-
Michigan canal cost was 61% million.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I understand that.
Mr. SACKETT. It is immaterial as to the value at the present time,
I take it, for any purpose. I was merely citing the progress as
between the Government and the State leading to what I now state,
that so far as any obligation rests upon the State it is fulfilling its
obligation in constructing the more modern waterway, preliminary,
of course, to the improvement of the Illinois River, which has
been under consideration here, independent of any sanitary dis-
trict question involved.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 915
The CHAIRMAN. What I was trying to find out was if it was in
fulfillment of an obligation that the $20,000,000 was expended, be-
cause of the transfer of land of very great value? -
Mr. SACKETT. I do not know and I am not prepared to say that
that was what was in the minds of the people. I can state that
if we take present-day value, if that grant of land to the State of
$65,000,000, the sanitary district and the State of Illinois,
in providing the larger present-day channel and navigation im-
provement over the same route, has or will expend about the $65,-
000,000. You had a valuable water connection here in which your
navigation and transportation by water was interrupted and inter-
fered with. It was inadequate to meet the present-day demands,
and I think, the people, realizing the importance not only to the
entire Middle West but also to the eastern States, and the oppor-
tunity of grain shipments and agricultural products from the Lakes
to the Gulf at reduced rates, and from interior midwest points
to the lakes and New York seaport, had a great deal to do with
it, because you have already been told, and I can repeat, that under
present conditions you can ship from Chicago or Illinois points by
rail even to Baltimore and possibly to Buffalo, at a saving of any-
where from $350 to $1,000 and more a carload, then tranship by
water and put it on west coast points for less money than you can
ship direct from Illinois points by rail.
The CHAIRMAN. Illinois points south of Chicago?
Mr. SACKETT. Any point in Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought you were contrasting Chicago rates on
the Great Lakes with rates south of Chicago.
Mr. SACKETT. No ; from any point in Illinois, you can do that.
Following the approval of this bond issue by the people in 1908
there was considerable difficulty about authorization by the General
Assembly of the State of Illinois of construction. The legislature
has to make appropriations every two years. This $20,000,000 was
authorized under the constitution as a bond issue but the general
assembly still has to make appropriations of the amount from
session to session to have it available, so that in 1915, or seven
years after that bond issue was approved, the first act of the General
Assembly of Illinois was passed authorizing the construction of
the larger channel from Lockport to LaSalle, connecting with the
sanitary district canal, and authorizing an appropriation to start
the work.
Now, again, we come back to Federal supervision in this matter,
because that act became effective July 1, 1915, and the governor of
Illinois and other officials of the State of Illinois, through a
waterway commission which existed at that time, created to
handle this matter, came to Washington with the law, with the
plans developed under that law, asking for the approval of the
Chief of Engineers of the plan as required by the act of Congress
of 1889, asking for a permit from the Secretary of War, and it was
denied.
The CHAIRMAN. So there was no partnership or cooperaton there?
A. SACKETT. Just a minute now. I will come to all of that after a
little. - •
916 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. But that is a fair conclusion of that denial in that
respect? . . *
Mr. SACKETT. Just a minute. It was not denied later. I will tell
you some of my experiences, as you ought to know them. I am trying
to give you the correct history of this proposition and not theories or
engineering recommendations or anything else. I am trying simply
to tell you what happened; if it does not mean anything, all right.
Approval of the plan was refused by General Black, who was then
the Chief of Engineers, and the Secretary of War, Mr. Baker, from
Ohio, upon the report of his Chief of Engineers denied a permit for
this work.
Mr. NEWTON. What year was that, now?
Mr. SACKETT. 1915. The question was before them here for a year
and a half, and upon this ground—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Was it in writing? -
Mr. SACKETT. The application for approval of plan and for permit
was in writing, but I have not that record. I will tell you what hap-
pened later, which is perhaps more important, but approval and per-
mit were denied upon the ground that the channel was not adequate
as provided in the law of 1915, and that the locks were not adequate,
were not large enough to meet the demands of navigation.
Mr. HULL. You mean the lower locks?
Mr. SACKETT. No; I mean the locks right here in the territory be-
tween Lockport and La Salle that the State is now constructing, and
which officers of Illinois felt under the law of 1899 it could not do
until it had the approval of the War Department.
Mr. Boyce. Is that statement just made a matter of record, or has
it been conveyed to you verbally?
Mr. SACKETT. It is a matter of correspondence between the adminis-
trative officers of the War Department and the officials of the State
of Illinois. You will perhaps find the correspondence in the files of
the War Department, but I can say it upon my own knowledge.
Mr. BoxcE. I do not mean to deny your right to make the statement
if you have personal information, but I wanted to know whether it is
a matter of record. tº
Mr. SACKETT. The Governor of Illinois, at that time Governor
Dunne, made the application in writing, and the records of his office as
well as the record here unquestionably contain that information.
Mr. BoxcE. That is all I wanted to know.
Mr. SACKETT. The reason of the denial was that the dimensions of
the locks provided in the law of 1915, and upon which the plans sub-
mitted were developed, were not adequate for purposes of navigation,
and therefore the right to construct was denied the State of Illinois,
the right to construct this work within its own limits, at its own
expense. tº
The CHAIRMAN. Did they say that they were simply sufficient for
the purpose of carrying sewage? -
Mr. SACKETT. Oh, no.
The CHAIRMAN. It was designed simply for sewage transmittal?
Mr. SACKETT. No, sir. The sewage proposition did not enter, into
the matter at all. It was not presented by the State, nor considered
in the proposal submitted. It was a proposition where they con-
sidered it, as I take it, as officers of the Federal Government consider
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 917
all propositions, merely from the standpoint of its effect upon navi-
gation and nothing else.
Mr. BOYCE. Just in that connection, was the question of the di-
version of water involved?
Mr. SACKETT. I do not think that the fuestion of the diversion of
water at that time was presented in a formal way, but, of course,
you still have what I have already presented, the knowledge prior
to that time of the sanitary district channel construction, its phyical
connection with the river, and what they term the revocable permit
authorizing the 4,167 cubic second feet diversion, which was based,
and states that it was based, solely upon a consideration of the
amount of water that could be sent through the Chicago River with
Safety to navigation in the Chicago River.
I became the administrative officer of waterways in Illinois on the
1st day of July, 1917, under the present organization of the State
government of Illinois, which at that time was recognized much in
the same way as the Federal Government is organized. In other
words, where there is a president and cabinet officers under federal
organization, under the provision of the state government we have
a governor, a director of a department, and in those departments
subdivisions or divisions handling certain work with a superin-
tendent at the head of each division, and at that time I became the
superintendent of the division of waterways of the State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. What waterways do you supervise?
Mr. SACKETT. All waters in the State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have anything to do with navigation upon
Lake Michigan?
Mr. SACKETT. No, sir. We surrendered all control over matters
of navigation to the supervisions of the Federal Government. There
was a proposal at one time before the legislature for inspection or
certain requirements by the State after a disaster on the Illinois
River, from the standpoint of the protection of life, which would
have included operation of boats on the Great Lakes, because at
the time of this disaster, it was felt that Federal inspection had
been lax.
Mr. BoycE. Do you have anything to do with the drainage of the
lowlands like those lying along the Mississippi River?
Mr. SACKETT. No, sir.
Mr. BoycE. Or the building of levees?
Mr. SACKETT. We do now, but we did not at that time. I will
explain all of that when I get into the question of Sanitation.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better adjourn now until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12.40 p.m., a recess was taken until 2 o’clock p.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The hearing was resumed at 2 o'clock p. m., at the expiration of
the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed, now, Mr. Sackett.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM L. SACKETT–Resumed
Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I explained at our
morning session the denial of the permit by the Secretary of War
and approval of plans for waterway construction by the State of
918 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Illinois under the State act of 1915. This entire proposition was
more or less new to me, and after being assigned to this work July
1, 1917, it required several months to become familiar with the water-
way situation and to ascertain just why the permit at Washington
had not been granted. After learning the details in October of 1918
and prior to the reassembling of the General Assembly of Illinois
in January, 1919, I came to Washington and had a personal confer-
ence with General Black, then Chief of Engineers. He went over
the entire situation with me and gave me his reasons for not approv-
ing the plans submitted by the State of Illinois under the 1915 act.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by the 1915 act?
Mr. SACKETT. That is the Illinois General Assembly act, the one
I explained this morning, where the plans were not approved be-
cause General Black held the structures were not adequate for navi-
gation. But he did advise me at the conference in October, 1918,
what, in his opinion, would be considered structures of adequate size
to meet the necessities of the proposed waterway from the Lakes to
the Gulf, the section of which between Lockport and La Salle, the
work to be done by the State, being a part.
I say to you that General Black, as the Chief of Engineers of the
Federal Government, in that conference with me practically dictated
the terms of the present—1919—waterway act of Illinois, both as to
the terms for maintenance, after construction, the size of the struc-
tures, the locks, and other details. I took that information back to
Illinois, and the new waterway act was written. The present water-
way act, what we call the 1919 law, was introduced in the general
assembly and passed by the general assembly, becoming effective July
1, 1919. Before that act became effective, however, and while it was
in conference between the two houses of the Illinois Legislature,
General Black himself came to Illinois and went over a portion of
the waterway to be constructed by the State, went over that portion of
the waterway already constructed by the Sanitary District of
Chicago, went over a copy of the proposed law with me, made two
or three suggested amendments to that law, which in deference to his
suggestion that he might not later be embarrassed when the matter
came before him for approval, were incorporated into the law.
After the law was passed and became effective July 1, 1919, the
State proceeded immediately to the development of plans under the
provisions of that law. These plans were completed, so that in
December of 1919 they were submitted by the Governor of Illinois,
Governor Lowden, to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of
War, with a formal application as required by this act of Congress
of 1899 to which I have referred, and those plans were approved by
General Black, who made his recommendations to the Secretary of
War that a permit issue authorizing the State of Illinois to proceed
with the construction authorized under the act of 1919, and in Octo-
ber of 1920, to show the speed with which the State acted, the first
contract for construction was let; that is, upon the lock which you
have previously been advised of at Marseilles, and that lock, with the
exception of the steel gates, is completed. Last October a contract
was again let for another lock, the one at Lockport, and that work is
under way; the excavation has practically been completed. In other
words, two-fifths of the work of this construction by the State is
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 919
already contracted for. More would have been contracted for had it
not been for difficulties met in La Salle County in connection with
the condemnation of certain property, in which an appeal was taken
to the State supreme court, and to ascertain just what the court holds
the power of the State to be to condemn land required we have been
Waiting for an opinion in that case, although we are convinced the
State's position will be confirmed. *
You are all familiar with the fact that this work which the State
of Illinois is doing, and, in fact, the Sanitary District of Chicago
has done leading up to the work which the State is doing, is wholly
within the State of Illinois. Nevertheless, under an act of Congress
the State of Illinois seems required to submit its plans to the
Chief of Engineers and to obtain a permit from the Secretary of
War of the Federal Government. The Government was not making
any expenditure in this connection.
| º CHAIRMAN. Except the original expenditure by the grant of
all Ci.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not think that figures at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Why not? sº
Mr. SACKETT. The State delivered the goods on that contract.
The CHAIRMAN. No ; they do not deliever the goods except by keep-
ing that canal open perpetually.
Mr. SACKETT. We have kept it open and we are making a bigger
one now to keep open, so if we take your view of it, the State is keep-
ing its contracts. What I am going to suggest is, this work is wholly
within the State of Illinois. What reason is there why plans should
be submitted for approval to Federal authority unless it is because
of knowledge of a connection of that work with navigable waters of
Lake Michigan, and that connection has been approved.
The CHAIRMAN. That is not the reason. There is another and a
very good reason. The United States has jurisdiction not only over
navigable streams like the Mississippi, into which the Illiois River
flows, but it has also jurisdiction over all tributaries, and this is a
tributary of the Mississippi.
Mr. HULL. Not this part of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes it is. All of it is tributary to the Missis-
SIIDIOl.
*. DEAL. Do you contend, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Gov-
ernment has control over any waters that are not navigable?
The CHAIRMAN. If they are tributaries of waters which are navi-
gable. There is not any question about it.
Mr. DEAL. Wholly within the State?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. NEwton. A canal is not tributary until after it is constructed
and the water turned into it.
The CHAIRMAN. The contention here, as I understand it—every
witness who has testified has said that there has been a watercourse
over the course of this canal not only during historic times but from
prehistoric times. You are digging a different channel when you
are constructing this canal, but it is all for the same water.
Mr. NEwTON. The fact that navigable water goes through it will
bring it within the jurisdiction of the United States, but it would not
before.
920 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Just as long as there has been water there—and
I understand from Mr. Rainey that there has always been water up
to Chicago; he says there has been a slight drainage even from Lake
Michigan—but at any rate, as far as this canal goes there is not
any dispute at all on the evidence that there has always been water
which flowed down to the Mississippi and was tributary to that
stream which is navigable water. *
Mr. NEwTON. But the fact that there is water there, according
to what he says, connecting a flow out of the Lakes, would gives the
Chief of Engineers undisputed jurisdiction over it.
The CHAIRMAN. The fact that it is tributary to a navigable strea
would give him jurisdiction.
Mr. Boy CE. Speaking as to the existing situation, in your view
of it are not our difficulties multiplied ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SACKETT. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is this: You
mentioned this morning a suit which was started by the Federal
Government, which I maintain was started after it was claimed there
was an excessive use of water beyond what had been permitted, and
which I believe is the fact. I am simply pointing out that, with all
of that knowledge on the part of the representatives of the Federal
Government, this work was authorized under authority delegated by
the congressional act, and the State is proceeding with the expendi-
ture of funds and is complying without questioning the power of
Federal control.
The CHAIRMAN. And all I was calling attention to was that I do
not think your inferences were correct. You stated you were neither
a lawyer nor an engineer, and I thought your legal inferences were
wrong.
Mr. SACKETT. As an administrative officer I have learned in deal-
ing with all questions not determined by courts of last resort it is
wise to admit no waiver of rights of the States.
Mr. ADCOCK. I think, in the case of the United States against the
Economy Light & Power Co., where a dam was sought to be built
across the Desplaines River, it was held that it could not be con-
structed without the consent of the Secretary of War. So I think
the jurisdiction of the United States over the Desplaines River is
pretty well settled in that case, decided by the Supreme Court.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it is even disputable that Congress
had jurisdiction over the Mississippi River as far up as any connec-
tion with it extended.
Mr. ADCOCK. It was concurrent with the State of Illinois. -
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, of course. I am talking about navigation
purposes.
Mr. SACKETT. Well, I agree with you on that proposition, but I
still get back to the fact that the State of Illinois is acting under and
in conference with and approval by the officers of the Federal Gov-
ernment.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but your inference as to what it was an
approval of is totally different from mine. It is not an approval of
a diversion from Lake Michigan. It is not an approval of sanitation
of Chicago. It is an approval of just exactly what was done, of the
building of this canal to replace another canal, which you are bound
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 921
to rebuild and bound to replace, because you had had a valuable
grant. That is all that it is an approval of.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not agree with you on your last statement;
but, however, that is immaterial. The work which the State is
doing, the amount of money available is sufficient to do the work, and
there is no question but what the work will be completed at an early
date. Now, I am speaking of the navigable features of the propo-
sition, but I still contend that these approvals were all with knowl-
edge of the existing situation—sanitation, diversion of water, and all
else. Further than that, in the issuance of Federal permit—
The CHAIRMAN. Which permit, now?
Mr. SACKETT. The one issued to the State in 1920 for this work
under the 1919 legislative act, the one that the State is now operating
and doing this work under.
The CHAIRMAN. And was that permit or approval, as it might
more properly be termed, in writing?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you it here?
Mr. SACKETT. I have not a copy of it; no, sir. It can be obtained
undoubetedly from the Secretary of War, if you wish it, or we can
furnish you a copy.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will be very glad to have a copy
for the record.
Mr. SACKETT. Congress about that time was considering an act
for the conservation of water power.
The CHAIRMAN. Was considering an act for the licensing of
water power, and its conservation as well, We have been consid-
ering it for about 10 years, with a good deal of difficulty, haven't
we, Congressman Rainey'
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SACKETT. What I wanted to point out was that the act had
not yet been passed, but the Secretary of War imposed the conditions
upon the State of Illinois in this permit that, when your Federal
Power Commission had been created, we should again submit our
plans to the Federal Power Commission for the purpose of approval
by that commission with reference to the use of any water flowing
down through these channels, not necessary for navigation. Those
plans have been submitted. I am detailing the facts to you
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). We are very glad to hear them.
Mr. SACKETT (continuing). To show you that the State of Illi-
nois has acted fully within the authority authorized by the Federal
Government. Those plans were submitted to the Federal Power
Commission and the preliminary license granted on the showing
made in those plans.
I am coming now to the proposition that those plans showed con-
struction based upon approximately 10,000 cubic second-foot diver-
sion from Lake Michigan. e --
The CHAIRMAN. Have you gotten any further than your prelim-
inary permit? -
Mr. SACKETT. Not yet; no, sir. We haven’t yet gotten to the
point of knowing whether we are going to have 10,000 second-feet
diversion, or what we are going to have. That is before you gentle-
men now. At least, I understand that is one of the things that is
91739–24—PT 2—43
922 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
before this committee, to make some decision in that particular
matter.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you your preliminary permit?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. . -
The CHAIRMAN. I say, have you that with you?
Mr. SACKETT. No; I haven’t it here.
The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have a copy of that.
Mr. CORNISH. Will a typewritten copy do?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. CoRNISH. We will send it on.
The CHAIRMAN. I will say to you frankly, if there is a lot of
printed matter and all of that kind of thing on it, we do not want
you to go to the trouble of furnishing it. What we want is what is
peculiar to this permit.
Mr. SACKETT. They are not long. Now, I come to this propo-
sition of the improvement of the Illinois River by the Federal
Government, embodied in the bills that were introduced in this
connection, from the completion of the work of the State at Utica,
then by the Government to Grafton on the Mississippi River, and
from that point to Cairo. As I have already stated, this work, as
outlined by General Black, was that it would be commensurate with
that of the Federal project on the Ohio River.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say to you, Mr. Sackett, entirely aside
from what individuals may have stated to you, all that we can act
upon would be, first, the survey, and then the report of the en-
gineers on that survey, and we have six such reports. That is all
we can consider, although the entire engineering force there may
have said very nice and very pleasant things, and I have no doubt
that they would, because they are all pleasant gentlemen— *
Mr. SACKETT (interposing). They did not say very nice things
to me. I will tell you about that later.
The CHAIRMAN. It would not help any in this situation.
Mr. SACKETT. No; you misunderstand what I am getting to ; but
getting back to your last remark, I want to say that I was not given
a very cordial or a very pleasant reception by General Black, but
I will go into that when we come to the sanitary features, because
General Black knew all about the sanitation and diversion situa-
tion. -
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is obvious that they must have known
it for 20 years, or they would not have brought this suit.
Mr. SACKETT. He knew it, and I think it will be of some practical
use to you to have his opinion because I think it is worthy of con-
sideration. What I mean and what I had to suggest as to the im-
provement of the Illinois River was not that you were going to
take my statement for a basis of action at all. *
The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean your statement or that of any one
else. We would take yours with just as much weight as we would
that of anybody, but I am informing you what our rule is, and
what our jurisdiction is, and we can not go beyond that.
Mr. SACKETT. I thank you for that expression of confidence, if
it was meant as an expression of confidence. Plans for the work
of the State of Illinois on this waterway were considered in rela-
tion to development of the Federal project of the Ohio River. The
structures are the same size. What I am getting at is this.
©
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 923
The CHAIRMAN. And as that was a 9-foot waterway, you Con-
cluded that they had in mind a 9-foot waterway here? e
Mr. SACKETT. No; I am not saying what they had in mind about
the rivers here at all, but I am saying this, that in view of the
fact Congress has authorized a 9-foot project on the Ohio River,
and in view of the fact that we are providing not less than a 9-foot
project for 96 miles out of Chicago, that I can perceive no reason
why there should be discrimination so far as the improvement of
the Mississippi River from Cairo to St. Louis or from St. Louis
to Grafton, and the Illinois from Grafton to La Salle, is concerned.
I can see no reason why there should not be a 9-foot channel pro-
vided there, as well as in the Ohio River, and from Cairo to the
Gulf. I do not see why we should not all have it, not merely Illi-
nois, but the entire Middle West and the entire country, that we
should not have the benefit of a continuing opportunity of water
transportation on a 9-foot channel. There should be no dis-
crimination that deprives people along the Illinois and Mississippi
Rivers of anything less than a 9-foot channel.
Mr. NEwton. Do your locks provide for a 9-foot channel?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwton. ...And they were dictated by the Chief of Engineers?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. Our locks provide for 14 feet over the
miter sills, a minimum depth in the rock of not less than 10 feet.
Mr. NEwTON. As I understand when you went to General Black
with your original plans in 1915 he rejected them because they were
not in conformity with the Ohio plans? -
Mr. SACKETT. He simply said they were not in the interest of
navigation, the navigation that would reasonably be expected
through this water route.
Mr. CoRNISH. I might state that the plans of 1915 that Mr.
Sackett has referred to that were rejected were for a much smaller
canal in depth and width and the locks provided in that plan were
55 feet wide and 250 feet long—very small compared to the size of
the locks in the present project.
Mr. NEwTon. And General Black made you change those plans to
conform to the locks on the Ohio River?
Mr. CoRNISH. I do not know as he specifically mentioned the
Iocks on the Ohio.
Mr. NEwTon. But he required locks which turned out to be the
same as those on the Ohio?
Mr. CoRNISH. Yes. And while I am making these remarks, I also
want to state, so that it may go into the record, that there was no
Sewage to go through that canal. . That was a question raised by
your chairman as to the capacity of the canal being based on sewage
requirements. There was no sewage to go through that canal. The
sewage would continue to go down the river as it does now. Of
course, there would be more or less sewage in it, because the water
supply came from the same source, but the water in the canal was
required for navigation only.
Mr. SACKETT. There has been some discussion, Mr. Chairman,
relative to the improvement of the Illinois River. Mr. Boyle gave
expression to some very practical propositions in his statement yes-
terday that will have a very material bearing upon the claims for
924 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
©
property damage down the State if they were followed. In get-
ting a 9-foot channel, as I understand the proposition, you have two
considerations. You will have a certain amount of water required
for sanitation at Chicago. The more water, of course, that is di-
verted for purposes of sanitation that goes down through these
streams, the less expenditure by the Government for dredging that
will be necessary to get a 9-foot channel. Whatever dredging is
necessary, however, the final determination of this proposition may
be as to the amount of flow, whatever dredging is necessary, whether
it be 2 feet, 4 feet, or 5 feet, it will be based, I assume, entirely on
the amount of water diverted. If the improvement is made as Mr.
Boyle suggested yesterday by dredges that will take the material
out and deposit it on these levees that have been constructed and
back of the levees, so as to raise and strengthen them, you will be
accomplishing two propositions—the prevention of any further
overflow of those districts as well as the improvement of the river
for purposes of navigation,
The CHAIRMAN. I can disqualify as emphatically as an engineer
as you did, Mr. Sackett, but it does seem to me that the reverse of
your statement would be true, that when you have taken enough
water for a 9-foot channel, a 9-foot navigable channel such as the
engineers would recommend, a good engineering channel, every inch
of water beyond that would add to your expense in every direction,
your expense of construction, your expense of maintenance, your
expense of protection of lands that are from time to time flooded.
It would seem to me that that would very plainly follow, and there
could not be any dispute about it.
Mr. SACKETT. You are speaking of a 9-foot channel?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SACKETT. How are you going to get it? Either you must
have the water or you must dredge out the channel to make depth.
The CHAIRMAN. You have got to have water anyway, and the
question is how much water you are going to have, whether you are
going to have water sufficient for a 9-foot channel or whether you
are going to have water more than sufficient, and when you add any-
thing beyond what is necessary for a 9-foot channel, as I say, it
would seem to me perfectly obvious that you are adding to your cost
of construction and maintenance, and you are adding to your dam-
ages from flooding, and you are adding to the cost of your levees.
Mr. CoRNISH. Would the chairman like to have a quotation here
from Colonel Judson, of the Corps of Engineers, and also from the
present Chief of Engineers on that subject?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would be very glad to have it.
Mr. CoRNISH. In Document No. 2, Sixty seventh Congress, first
session, page 17, paragraph 57—
Th; CHAIRMAN (interposing). What is the heading of the docu-
ment 4
Mr. Cornish. The “Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House
of Representatives, letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States
Army, transmitting report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, from Lockport,
Ill., to Cairo, Ill.” -
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Proceed.
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 925.
Mr. CoRNISH. I will read that one paragraph :
For a 9-foot channel, with an increment of 4,167 second-feet, the Cost either
with dams retained or removed appears almost prohibitive, and the probability
that Congress will limit the increment of 4,167 second-feet is, in my opinion,
so remote that this hypothesis may be left out of consideration. . With incre-
ments of 7,500 or 10,000 second-feet, the figures show conclusively the advis-
ability of removing all dams. Inasmuch as the Sanitary District of Chicago
and the State of Illinois receive practically all of the benefits that accrue.
from maintaining the flow of 7,500 second-feet from Lake Michigan, the pro-
priety of the dams being removed at the expense of those interests may Well
be considered. -: * ~ *
Mr. ADCOCK. Read on just a little further.
Mr. CoRNISH. I think I have another document which has a letter
from the Chief of Engineers in which the Chief of Engineers recom-
mends the 7-foot channel for navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. The board recommends 8 and the Chief of En-
gineers 7?
Mr. CoRNISH. As being sufficient for the commerce then in sight.
The CHAIRMAN. No; there is a statement here that an 8-foot chan-
nel will accommodate a hundred million tons.
Mr. CoRNISH. I have not been able to find that in here.
The CHAIRMAN. I will find it for you. I do not think it is in
this report, but I will find it for you.
Mr. CORNISH. I am quite sure you won’t find it there, because I
am thoroughly familiar with that. !
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Adcock.
Mr. ADCOCK. Read the last paragraph, please.
Mr. CoRNISH. In the same document, paragraph 65:
In my opinion, to most reasonably conform to the probable conditions of the
future, an 8-foot project should now be adopted—
The CHAIRMAN. That is the chief? -
Mr. CoRNISH. No; this is from Colonel Judson's report. I will
read the chief’s report later.
should now be adopted, based on a 7,500 second-feet withdrawal for purposes of
estimate and with all dams removed. Then should Congress place the limit of
the amount of water to be withdrawn from Lake Michigan at 10,000 second-
feet, which I deem probable, and under proper conditions advisable, that incre-
ment would of itself increase the depth to 9 feet. The computations show
that with all dams removed an increment of 10,000 second-feet will increase
the depths due to the increment of 7,500 second-feet by about 1.25 feet at Utica,
about 1 foot at Peoria and Havana, and slightly less than 1 foot at the mouth.
In another document subsequent to this, which is Document No. 7,
Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, Committee on Rivers and
Harbors, House of Representatives, letter from the Chief of Engi-
neers, United States Army, transmitting report of the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors on Illinois and Mississippi Rivers,
from Lockport, Ill., to Cairo, Ill.
I will read from page 2, paragraph 3, of the letter of Lansing H.
Beach, Chief of Engineers, in this Document No. 7 :
On additional information obtained from the district engineers the board
estimates the cost of an 8-foot channel through the Illinois-Mississippi Water-
way from Utica, Ill., to St. Louis, Mo., with the diversion limited to 4,167
second-feet, at $2,395,800 and $648,500 annually for maintenance: and for a
9-foot channel from Utica to Cairo, Ill., with the same increment from Lake
Michigan, at $6,191,100 and $650,000 annually for maintenance plus a large
additional maintenance charge—$400,000—if existing works are to be main-
926 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
tained. The board states that the cost of the 9-foot channel is so large as to
appear almost prohibitive, while that for the 8-foot project is out of proportion
to the commerce which may be expected even after the completion of the Illinois
Waterway extends the 8-foot depth through to Chicago.
That is based on 4.167 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. So I understand it. Now, let me see the report
again. I want to get the present estimate.
Mr. CoRNISH. They are in this document here [handing paper to
chairman].
Mr. SACKETT. The dams to be removed, Mr. Chairman, refer to
the dams below the work of the State in the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand, Mr. Sackett.
Mr. CORNISH. On page 16 of Document No. 2 is shown that for a
9-foot depth with a 4.167-foot diversion, with the locks retained, the
first cost is $7,811,000 and an annual cost of operation and mainte-
nance, plus interest on first costs, of $578,600. The same channel,
10,000 second-feet diversion, with all locks removed, the first cost is
$1,372,700 and the annual maintenance charge is $153,000. That
shows how much cheaper it will be to the Government to have a large
increment of water from Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. What I was asking was, Did they give an
estimate here of traffic?
Mr. CORNISH. No, sir; not in these documents.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought they did.
Mr. CoRNISH. I can assure you that there are no estimates of ton-
nage in either one of those two documents.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Sackett.
Mr. SACRETT. It has been a proposition before the people of the
valley for the last 20 years—the removal of the dams in the Illinois
River. With the dams out and the channels deepened, there would,
of course, be less damage to adjoining lands than is the case under
present conditions. The State of Illinois, however, should never
consent to the taking out of the dams until the proposition of the
diversion is determined, so far as navigation is concerned, because
if this diversion is to be restricted, necessarily dams and locks must
be used in the lower Illinois River. If the flow of water is such as
to maintain a 9-foot channed, with the improvement as suggested in
these reports or as it has been discussed, then, of course, the locks and
dams in the lower Illinois River can be safely removed and should be
left out. - -
Mr. HULL. Do you think it would make a better waterway with
the dams out?
Mr. SACKETT. Absolutely. The more locks you have for boats to
go through, the greater the cost and the greater delay in traffic.
The CHAIRMAN. How many dams would there be in any event?
Taking an increment of 1,000 cubic feet per second, as added to the
existing flow of the Illinois River, how many dams would be re-
quired below the State canal?
Mr. SACKETT. All that you have now, and, in my judgment, even
IDOI’6”.
The CHAIRMAN. We have two built by the State of Illinois and
two by the Federal Government, haven’t we?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You would have to have four dams, then?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 927
Mr. SACKETT. You would have to have at least that and perhaps
º and you will not have navigation the entire year, even with
that.
The CHAIRMAN. The State is going to have five dams in 65 miles,
and you would have four dams down the Illinois River, then, in
about 250 miles, wouldn’t you?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is not a large number of dams on an artifi-
cial waterway for that length?
Mr. SACKETT. No; but I think you misunderstand the situation,
Mr. Dempsey. I know you are speaking now of a flow that has been
suggested by gentlemen down the valley that I will discuss a little
later—the conditions—and I do not think it is ever possible to
restrict the flow even for navigation alone, to say nothing of sanita-
tion or anything of that kind, to any such figure as that, and if you
do during the dry season, and especially now, as Mr. Boyle suggested
to you, have the improvements for drainage taking away the vast
storage basins that have existed over a century of time along the
Illinois River, the Kankakee, and other tributary streams that has
acted to retard and hold back the flow of water so that it fed gradu-
ally, with more rapid direct run-off, the straightening of rivers, that
water is all going to get away. You can not hold it back under
ordinary conditions, and you will require more than any thousand
cubic second-feet to take care of navigation alone.
The CHAIRMAN. I really don’t know—I am entirely openminded
on that ; I suggested a thousand feet because that has been the volume
suggested, I think, in two and perhaps more reports of the engineers.
Mr. SACKETT. Yes. That was done years ago for a small canal.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, they are reports on a channel such as we
are contemplating here, but let us come to the question of whether
your drainage has added to or detracted from your flowage into
this river. As a matter of fact, isn’t this true as well as what you
have said? Did not a great volume of water lie stagnant through-
out the year in the Indiana marshes and in the marshes along the
Illinois River previous to the improvement of the Indiana lands
and their drainage into the tributaries of the Illinois, and previous
to the improvement of the lands along the Illinois, and haven’t you
added very greatly, just as was said by Mr. Boyle, to all these things
and also opened large irrigation streams from place to place along
the Illinois through the drainage of these marsh lands, and doesn’t
all of that additional water that remained there previous to these
improvements find its way into the Illinois River and find its way
throughout the season into the Illinois River?
Mr. HULL. He did not testify to that.
The CHAIRMAN. I am giving my recollection of the testimony,
and I questioned him, and he testified that it continued to drain
through the drainage ditches through all of the season until it be-
came frozen, and during all of the year when it was not frozen it
did drain and the record will so show.
Mr. SACKETT. He was speaking of the time when they operated
pumps, and the period of year when they did not operate pumps.
The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking about the drainage into the
Illinois?
928 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; but what he testified to was that when the
Water, during floods in the Illinois River, under present conditions
was at a certain level they had to pump the water out.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true: * * |
Mr. SACKETT. That when the water receded during the dry-
weather periods then they got drainage by natural means. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is true.
Mr. SACKETT. But that did not apply in the connection that I
think you apprehend it to now.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding was that, and I think the
records, whether Mr. Boyle intended it or not, will show this, that
he testified that there was drainage through these irrigation ditches
throughout the year. Now, isn't it perfectly obvious
Mr. SACKETT (interposing). No; that is the drainage ditches that
flowed without pumping into the Illinois River—
The CHAIRMAN. That is true.
Mr. SACKETT. From these reclaimed lands. It did not refer, and
he did not refer, I am sure, to the conditions existing before the
levees were constructed, but simply to the conditions now that have
been created.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right; and that is all additional water.
Mr. SACKETT. Oh, no.
Mr. CoRNISH. Will you let me answer that question? You are
getting into engineering, and I can settle it, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. CoRNISH. The situation with reference to the drainage of the
uplands of the rivers is this. @
The CHAIRMAN. This is not the uplands. I am speaking about
these marshlands along the river, which he says are only about 2
miles wide and which have been made now, instead of marshlands,
the richest land in your State.
Mr. CoRNISH. They are all within the levees.
Mr. HULL. But we are talking about the lands 50 or 25 miles
away from the river.
The CHAIRMAN. We are talking about both of them.
Mr. HULL. I didn’t so understand.
Mr. CoRNISH. I can answer either question.
The CHAIRMAN. Answer both.
Mr. HULL. But I would like that question answered, because that
is the most important thing here, that these marshlands in the Kan-
kakee district when they had the water in them they filled up the
river, and now they have not got the water in them and they can
not fill up the river. -
Mr. NEwToN. He does not mean that they had any less water, but
he means, as a matter of fact, you had great reservoirs that held the
water at the high season and let it drain out when the dry season
came, and now it all runs out in the high-water season and there is
no reservoir to feed the Illinois River.
Mr. Cornish. You mentioned the Kankakee marshes, which means
the up-river drainage.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true, and I want you to cover this in your
answer, that these lowlands that have been reclaimed, despite their
reclamation, are still lowlands and that they will give off drainage
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 929
in their present improved state throughout the season of each year
when there is no freezing.
Mr. HULL. That is not so. g
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. I do not know anything about it.
This man is the witness.
Mr. CoRNISH. The low marsh lands referred to along the Illinois
River are all within levees. Much of the water that comes out of
those districts is pumped out into the river. That is one of the
greatest complaints of the landowners along the river, that the river
is higher than it used to be, and it forces them to pump, so that there
is but little natural drainage from those levee districts into the river.
Mr. HULL. Now, answer the other question.
Mr. CORNISH. The other question was, What effect has the drain-
age of the marshlands along the Kankakee and similar rivers? The
Kankakee marshlands are up in the headwaters of the Kankakee
River in the State of Indiana. Those marshes previous to drainage
formed big sponges. In the winter they gathered up and soaked in
the water and gave it off gradually during the year. The purpose
of the drainage was to get rid of that water as quickly as possible,
so as to cultivate the fields. Drainage ditches have been dug and
that water now is drained into the river in flood periods, and it
materially increases flood heads at times. -
Mr. HULL. Then in the months of July and August there is no
water coming from there to fill the river?
Mr. CoRNISH. At times there will be less than there would be if
drainage ditches did not exist.
Mr. NEwToN. The engineers from New Orleans told me that down
the river during the flood season and immediately following the
water is higher each year than it used to be 25 or 30 years ago. At
New Orleans they tell me that the water now at certain seasons,
because of the straightening of the river and the opening up of
these swamps, comes down there in such volumes that their lives are
in danger, and there is grave danger of the city of New Orleans
being entirely flooded some of these times because of the fact that
the water runs off quickly from these reservoirs and is shot down
there all at one time.
Mr. Cornish. It is obvious -
Mr. NEwToN (interposing). And this condition exists clear down
the Mississippi, when heretofore, instead of draining out in a few
weeks' time as now, it took the whole summer to run out.
Mr. CoRNISH. It is obvious that if you take water and discharge
it in one-third the time it used to take it will create a higher crest
of shorter duration. -
Mr. NEwToN. And do that all the way down the river?
Mr. CoRNISH. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Have there been any official measurements of the
volumes of discharge of these tributaries of the Illinois from Lake
Michigan south to Grafton, starting in, we will say, before the Chi-
cago Sanitary District was created, and continuing down until the
present time, monthly or weekly 3
Mr. CoRNISH. The Geological Survey of the Government maintains
gauging stations on all the important rivers of the country, includ-
91739—24—PT 2—44
930 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI REVERs, ETC.
ing the Illinois, and they are matters of record in public documents,
which show the flow of those streams daily.
The CHAIRMAN. So that we can get that from the engineers?
Mr. CoRNISH. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you know what the effect has been as the result of
the drainage in Indiana on this Kankakee River, as to the daily flow %
Mr. CORNISH. It has reduced the daily flow during some periods.
Mr. NEWTON. Can you get that and insert it in the record?
Mr. CORNISH. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Can you get the records before the drainage, and
since the drainage? I mean for the same period.
Mr. CoRNISH. If it exists in published form; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. We will ask the engineers for it, as to the Illinois
River and all of its tributaries, from Lake Michigan down to Grafton.
I will make that request. -
Mr. CoRNISH. I find that the records of flow in the Kankakee River
do not conclusively support the contention of reduced summer flow.
Mr. RAINEY. I would like to explain these drainage works, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like very much to have you do so.
Mr. RAINEY. When these levees were built and these districts were
developed, inside the land now included in the district there are what
we called lakes or marshes, just a few inches deep, but the water stood
there the most of the year. They were not important reservoirs, and
did not hold much water, but, of course, they prevented the cultiva-
tion of the land. When we drained the water off the soil there is 30
or 40 feet deep and it is the richest soil there is in the world. We
accomplished that drainage in this way: We commenced at the
highest point of every drainage district, and those districts are in
units of from four to sixteen thousand acres, and at the lowest part
of the districts, which is always the middle part, because that river
valley is highest in elevation on the river bank, and then it scoops out
in this way up onto the bluffs on each side. We ran those drainage
canals in there 20 feet wide and 10 or 15 feet deep in places. We
throw the dirt out of them, and make those great canals right through
the lowest part of that district, commencing at the north and grading
down to the south the way the river flows and then the south end of
the district at the river banks. Separated from the river by a levee
are the pumping stations, and then we build here at the lower end of
each one of those drainage canals a great copper gate, which can be
by mechanism opened and closed, and then when the river is low
enough, during the low-water seasons, so that we can get a gravity
flow, we do not pump, but the water runs off the adjoining lands
into the canal and then down the river and is discharged by gravity
through those open copper gates into the river.
Mr. NEwTON. Through the levee?
Mr. RAINEY. Through the levee. When there is a rise in the river
we close those gates, because the water would run back. We close
those copper gates tight, and then we pump. We have some of
the greatest pumping plants in the world there. Some of these
immense pumping plants have an aggregate pumping capacity of
80,000 gallons a minute, and we pump the water right over into the
river, and at all periods of time now on some of these districts the
Q
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 931
surface of the water in the river is higher than the land over here
[indicating] occasioned by the increased flow down the river. All
the water that falls in the drainage area of each particular district,
as it flows down into the river, must run into that ditch, and some-
times the streams that come down from the bluffs on each side
drain an area 10 or 15 miles from the river. All that Water.comes
down into that drainage ditch, and if the river is high, as this flow
makes it high during nearly all the year, it runs out by gravity
but it does not add a particle to the run-off of the river. They
simply pump back into the river water which falls and which other-
wise would run right into the river. It does not add to the flow
of the river a bit, the drainage of these marshes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. But the bed of the river is confined to those levees?
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. When, if you did not have the levees, the river
would spread out.
Mr. RAINEY. The river would spread out, would spread over all
of these lands. N
The CHAIRMAN. I can not understand one thing. I can not under-
stand how if you send into the confines of the banks of this river not
alone the water which from the construction of these levees flows
through, but you now add to that volume these Lakes, as you call
them on both sides throughout the farming season all the water
that exists there, why doesn’t that add to the flow in the river?
Mr. RAINEY. During that season?
Mr. NEwTON. You pump it out in the spring, don’t you?
Mr. RAINEY. We are pumping now.
Mr. NEWTON. You will try to have all that cleared up pretty soon,
will you not? ©
Mr. RAINEY. Every pump is running now, isn’t it, Mr. Shaw'
Mr. SHAw. Yes, sir. -
The CHAIRMAN. How long do you continue discharging into that
river?
Mr. RAINEY. All of the year.
Mr. HULL. But not to the extent in July and August that you
would in April and May?
Mr. RAINEY. If it goes by gravity, we let it go that way.
The CHAIRMAN. That was exactly my understanding of the test:-
mony of Mr. Boyle. I had understood that Mr. Boyle testified just
exactly that way, and that was the situation, that you are adding
to this volume in the river, these Lakes from the sides.
Mr. SACKETT. But you don’t.
Mr. RAINEY. When we first emptied those Lakes into the river, we
were adding to the volume of the river.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RAINEY. But now we don’t empty the lakes into the river.
The lakes have never had any more water in them.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean that the original emptying added to
the volume, and now you simply maintain that volume?
Mr. RAINEY. We maintain that volume.
The CHAIRMAN. You maintain the added volume?
Mr. RAINEY. No, sir. There is not a bit more water now that
comes into that river on account of these pumping plants than went
into it when the lakes were there. *
932 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. NEwTON. Is not that river higher in the spring?
Mr. RAINEY. No; it does not come any faster; but if the pumping
plants were not there there would accumulate then 4 or 5 inches of
water in these lakes. --
Mr. NEWTON. You take these reservoirs like the one that has been
described—and there must be many of them—that land has been
drained off and cultivated? r
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. -
Mr. NEWTON. Of course, the same amount of water falls during
the winter and spring that fell before?
Mr. RAINEY. Absolutely the same.
Mr. NEWTON. There are hundreds of thousands of acres over there
that were covered with the waters all during the summer that is being
made dry in the spring, so that it can be farmed by sending the water
down the river earlier? . .
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. The result of that is that you are sending a great
deal more water down the river in the spring than you used to, and
you correspondingly send less in the later months?
Mr. RAINEY. No; those lakes, without the levees and without the
pumping system, would remain exactly the same as before. The
added water does not make any difference.
Mr. NEwTON. That may be all true of those lakes right along the
river, but how about the lakes in Indiana”
Mr. RAINEY. You are right about that.
Mr. NEwToN. The result is that they raise the water in the spring?
Mr. RAINEY. Undoubtedly. -
Mr. NEwTON. And then you don't have that source of feed in the
summer time?
Mr. RAINEY. Those marshes up there operated as great reservoirs
and hold back the floods.
Mr. NEwTON. And fed it out all during the summer?
Mr. RAINEY. And fed it out all during the summer. -
Mr. NEwTON. And the result now is that you don’t have the same
kind of water for navigation during July and August and Septem-
ber and October that you used to have with these big reservoirs act-
ing like a sponge. -
Mr. RAINEY. Absolutely true.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask a question that I have in my mind.
If we did not have any flow at all from Lake Michigan we would
not have any river for navigation at all? - -
Mr. RAINEY. We would at certain seasons of the year, because we
have straightened the Spoon River, the Sangamon River, and now
the Kankakee River.
Mr. HULL. And the Mackinaw River?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes. We have straightened them so that now in-
stead of holding back the spring floods or any floods that comes it
all comes down at once, and we get rid of it all at once and it does
not act as heretofore.
Mr. HULL. In July, August, and September?
Mr. RAINEY. But if we did not have a flow from the lake, we
would not have much water in the summer months; but that is
capable of accurate measurement.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 933
The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are going to determine. .
Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I might suggest in that particular,
diverted from what I intended to say and coming to it immediately,
there will be periods of the year when diversion from the lake, so
far as navigation is concerned, is much less than other portions of the
year.
Mr. NEWTON. As a matter of fact, aren't there periods of the
year when there is plenty of water in the river to carry navigation?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir; but more than three months of the year
you would need more.
The CHAIRMAN. You would need some diversion?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; but for your information, let me suggest some-
thing about these floods that has not been mentioned as to a condi-
tion existing before these levee districts were made. During the
spring of the year the flood levels were not as great as they are now.
Not only has the Illinois River been straightened and the marshes
drained, reclamation work in some of the tributary rivers has been
done, land cut through, and direct channels made for the purpose of
drainage, with the result that large volumes of water are sent out
in a few hours, where months were taken before; but along the
Illinois River, take it from Lockport, where our work is starting,
from July, take it in the county I live, Grundy, and La Salle and
on down the river during the spring flood periods there is no re-
straint to the water. It spreads out over a lot of territory.
flooded this farm land down the river to Peoria and below. The
river at some points was 5 miles wide during these flood periods.
As it receded, then, of course, the lands dried up and they were
tillable and they raised large crops on that property.
The CHAIRMAN. When did you begin building levees there?
Mr. SACKETT. I was asking Congressman Rainey yesterday about
that, because he was more familiar with it than I was. He said that
they started back in the eighties, and recited to you in his state-
ment the suggestions of Government engineers as to how to build
levees.
Mr. RAINEY. That was in 1904.
Mr. SACKETT. I think you will find, however, that the real, actual
work that results in the present-day condition started very largely
after this diversion of water by the sanitary district, because then,
on account of the higher level the year round, that became a ne-
cessity.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. SACKETT. But what I was going to suggest about these flood
conditions was this, that perhaps for five or six or sometimes seven
years the land would be flooded in the spring, yet tillable during the
year and good crops raised, but about every sixth, seventh or
eighth year you would have a flood in the summer time that would
cover those lands and destroy the crops, so that the lands were not
always tillable, but every sixth, seventh, or eigth year or about
that you would get a flood in July or August that would kill the
corn crop and destroy it. That was another reason, I assume, why
these reclamations of lands and leases were started.
Mr. NEwTON. May I ask a question there?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
934 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. SACKETT. I will get through in just a few moments now.
Mr. NEwTON. If it were not for the question of sanitation, if it
were possible to eliminate that question entirely, the ideal situation
So far as navigation is concerned would be to have a very consider-
able amount of water during these three or four low months after
the water has been drained out by cutting these channels straight
and draining the reservoirs, and probably the rest of the year you
could run navigation without any water diversion at all?
Mr. SACKETT. Very likely that is true.
Mr. NEwTON. And the rest of the year, you probably would
not need any water at all?
Mr. SACKETT. The navigation problem would be quite simple if
it was not for the sanitation problem.
Mr. NEwTo.N. You are going to discuss the sanitation problem?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. I would like to conclude as to this levee
proposition, for the information of the committee, as viewed from a
public viewpoint, because the gentlemen who are interested in these
levee districts see the situation more from a personal or financial
viewpoint without consideration of some other things that I be-
lieve entitled to attention. What I mean by that is this: They
have been damaged; the turning in or the diverting of water by the
Sanitary District of Chicago down the Illinois River for the pur-
pose of serving the people of the city of Chicago has unquestion-
ably resulted in damage to the owners of property along the Illi-
nois River throughout the State.
Mr. NEwToN. That is during the flood period, when you add that
much more water to it?
Mr. SACKETT. No; they were damaged irrespective of the flood-
water period, when this diversion of water was turned in down
the river, when the 4,167 cubic second feet was first sent down.
My best recollection is that it made a difference of something like
4 feet in the normal water levels down there, and of course there
were no levees and wherever there were no levees constructed at
that time the water necessarily flowed out over that much more
property. They were damaged, and I must express the conviction
the sanitary district did not pursue as broad a public policy as it
might have pursued 25 years ago in handling these propositions,
because my judgment is that if they had appropriated $100,000 at
that time and gone down to these people where the land had been
actually overflowed and remained overflowed during the year, where
before it only overflowed during the floods and then receded, they
could have purchased most of the land that was damaged below
Peoria and below or near Beardstown.
The sanitary district did not pursue that policy. More than that,
instead of adopting a policy that might have adjusted and settled
those conditions, they have litigated in the courts. Congressman
Rainey suggested to you that the farmer, of course, was without
the means or the opportunity of getting the engineering or neces-
sary expert information to meet that which the sanitary district
had. Under the present State government organization that infor-
mation is available, and can be utilized by people if the conditions
were to exist to-day that existed then. A number of cases passed
upon in the State Supreme court were adverse to the property
OWIleI’S.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 935
The CHAIRMAN. Because of the failure of proof?
Mr. SACKETT. Whether it was failure of proof or what it was, is
immaterial. It was adverse, and the result helped to build up preju-
dice and create still more opposition to the work of the sanitary
district, and that has not improved, as you see by what has come to
this committee. Throughout the years that it has been transpiring
the sanitary district, in my judgment, has not pursued the public
policy it might have pursued in some of its other operations and
Some of its expenditures, all of which come to the notice of the people
down State that are affected not only in the sense of the property
damaged but in the sense of the sanitary evils that occur and result
from it, because they are apparent and they are extensive.
In my opinion the sanitary district, even though it may not now
be legally bound to pay some of the claims, might better adopt the
policy of settlement, even if it must now pay five or ten times what
it could have settled all of these things for 25 years ago, go to these
people and reach some basis of settlement, and I believe that is one
of the dominant reasons why the people down State are coming
before this committee now, in the hope that some practical provision
may be included in some law to be enacted by Congress that will
force the sanitary district into some sort of settlement and recogni-
tion of down-State interests from a sanitary viewpoint, and I under-
stand that is the mind of those representing the sanitary district
here now, that Congress by the enactment of some law here may sit
in the position of arbitrator of these conditions or find some com-
mon ground of bringing the people affected into some sort of satis-
factory agreement with the sanitary district.
So much for the property damage. They have been damaged and
there ought to be some adjustment and settlement, and abatement
§ the nuisance resulting from sending untreated sewage down
tate.
Now, time is short and I want to talk a little about the sanitary.
problem from the State point of view. However we may agree or
disagree on the proposition of the policy or the principle of a large
city disposing .# its sewage through natural watercourses, and espe-
cially throughout the entire extent of a large State, it is an estab-
lished fact that that is being done. After the fire in Chicago in
1871 they had to find means of disposing of their sewage, and of
course they took the easiest means available. That was putting the
outlets of their sewers into the Chicago River, pumping the water
from the Chicago River then into the Illinois and Michigan Canal,
and sending the sewage down the Illinois and Michigan Canal and
thence into the Illinois River and down through the State, but owing
to less population and the lack of industry as at present the volume
of sewage at that time was not so objectionable, but the principle at
that time was adopted that that was the method of sewage disposal,
to keep it out of their lake and their water supply by sending it
down through the State and affecting other cities.
Chicago has had a marvelous growth of population, and because
of that the system has grown into one that results in an abuse of the
rights of others throughout the State. When this diversion of 4,167
cubic second-feet was authorized that apparently was all that was
necessary to take care of proper dilution of water and carry the
load of sewage that was necessary; but as the population of the city
936 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
increased it was not sufficient, and the State of Illinois, in the exer-
cise of its own police authority and in the creation of this sanitary
district, enacted the requirement which, of course, was all known to
officers of the Federal Government acting upon this, that sewage
should be diluted to the extent of 3% cubic feet per thousand of
population. The sanitary district is not complying even with that
provision of the law at the present time, because if they were they
would be sending or be required to send down through the State of
Illinois a volume of water approximately between 12,000 and 15,000
cubic second-feet, and their channel will not carry that amount of
water continuously.
Mr. NEwTON. When was the law passed, and by whom, requiring
that 34% feet? -
Mr. SACKETT. That is the act of 1889 creating the sanitary district.
Mr. NEWTON. That was a State law Ż
Mr. SACKETT. That is a State law, which I maintain is the exer-
cise of its police authority to regulate
Mr. NEwTON. And the purpose of requiring that amount was to
sufficiently dilute the sewage so that it need not be a nuisance?
Mr. SACKETT. That is it, exactly.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what your experts undoubtedly told the
Illinois Legislature was the ratio required. -
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; I might admit that; but that ratio is very small
compared to other authorities on the subject. º -
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you come right to this, then, don’t
you: First, your ratio is, if anything, too little; and, second, you
can not even supply, with this very little ratio, a diversion which
will pass within the channels of the stream which they are using?
Mr. SACKETT. No. I wanted to go on and show you
The CHAIRMAN. That is all true, isn’t it?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes. Your mind and mine are in the same channel
right now. For instance, I might say to you, quoting from Prof.
S. A. Forbes, who is at the head of the State natural history survey
of the State of Illinois, in a report incorporated in our division of
waterways report for 1919, speaking of the required ratio of dilu-
tion, he says:
When we remember that the city of London was treating its sewage and had
been doing so for some time when our sanitary canal was opened in 1890; that
an English royal commission on Sewage disposal after years of investigation
reached the conclusion that unscreened sewage should not be permitted to flow
into any stream ; and that it fixed the rate of dilution of screened sewage at
more than Seven times the legal dilution rate for crude Sewage in Illinois, we
See how far short we fall of what may be called standard methods of manage-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. Just let me get that right. They fixed the rate for
screened sewage Seven times what you are fixing the rate for un-
screened sewage?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood you to say.
Mr. SACKETT. That is what Professor Forbes said.
The CHAIRMAN. That is your report for 1919?
Mr. SACKETT. That is included in our report for 1919–20, but is a
quotation from a report made by Professor Forbes, who, on behalf of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 937
the State and for biological reasons and otherwise, is making annual
surveys along the Illinois River as to its condition.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And to meet those requirements your sanitary
canal is entirely insufficient in capacity ?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. To meet the requirements of greater dilution the
sanitary district canal is insufficient. To meet the requirements as
laid down by Professor Forbes it would not carry one-sixth of the
volume needed. It would not be one-seventh of the size required.
Mr. GouldFR. Would you mind giving me that reference to that
report. You say “our report.” I do not know what that means.
Mr. SACRETT. It is the State report for division of waterways.
for 1919.
The CHAIRMAN. And give the page, if you will, too.
Mr. SACKETT. This is page 40. •
Mr. RAINEY. That is even if it were screened, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true, even if it were screened.
Mr. SACKETT. What I wanted to get before the committee is this:
The city of Chicago followed the same policy in putting its sewer
outlets in the stream most easily reached, the same as all cities of
the United States. The city of Chicago is no greater offender than
the other cities of Illinois along this river and along other rivers
of the State of Illinois. They have all followed that policy, and
to-day in my judgment stream pollution is one of the greatest evils
of the entire country. -
The CHAIRMAN. The only distinction, Mr. Sackett, to be made,
and it is a serious one, between the position of Chicago and other
cities is that Chicago, in order to follow the practice pursued by
other cities, in order to protect its own drinking water, had to draw
water contrary to the prohibition of the United States Government
from Lake Michigan, and they knew that perfectly well, that they
were drawing it contrary to that prohibition.
Mr. SACKETT. It might be contrary to the terms of the permit
given by the Government, but none the less the State of Illinois, in
my judgment, based on the doctrine of State rights has some rights
that are paramount to navigation, and can insist upon a sufficient
dilution and can take action that will protect its own people from
the results of epidemic, of pestilence, and from a nuisance, so long
as that nuisance continued, or until it is abated by other means or
methods. &
Mr. NEwTon. Is there any question about the fact that the State
of Illinois has title to the bed of the lake?
Mr. SACKETT. Illinois retains title to the bed of Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. Isn’t that true of all the States?
Mr. SACKETT. I think not.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what my understanding is, from what
the attorneys general have said. -
Mr. NEwTo.N. No; I do not think so.
Mr. SACKETT. My understanding is that the States of Wisconsin,
Indiana—I do not know about Michigan, but I surmise it is the
same—if you aré riparian owner, you own as far out and can do
whatever you please subject to the control of the Government in the
way of navigation. Under the law of the State of Illinois the
riparian owner owns to the water line, according to our State court.
938 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC,
decisions, to the water line in an undisturbed condition, which is
interpreted to mean a normal water line, neither the extreme high
nor the extreme low.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You would not contend, however, that the State
of Illinois would have a right to drain Lake Michigan dry and by
doing so dry up Lake Superior, to which it had no title?
Mr. SACKETT. No; I would not go as far as that, and I would fur-
ther admit this principle of law, as I understand it
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). They really haven't any way to do
it. Mr. Sackett has presented very clearly and to the great ad-
Vantage of the committee one aspect of this matter that none of
us had considered before, and we are under very great obligations
to him. It now appears that Chicago in order to take care of its
sewage in the way that it is doing—insufficiently, from the health
standpoint—has not any stream bed through which to discharge
adequately and sufficiently; and if they take care of it in accordance
with the principles laid down by their public-health authorities,
they only have a stream bed one-sixth as large as necessary, so, you
See, under those conditions they not only can not drain the Lakes
but there is this very certain, definite limit, they can not drain to
the extent to continue to take care of that sewage. They are forced,
they must resort to some other system. That is perfectly obvious
here now. -
Mr. SACKETT. Let me suggest this further thought—
The CHAIRMAN. Our rule—pardon me for interrupting—our rule
of ownership in the State of New York is exactly what you state
for these other States, but my understanding of the decisions of
the court is that the streams are held none the less for the benefit of
the public; and we had a recent decision to that effect on the St.
Lawrence River which not only went through our court of appeals
but came to the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not
think the public relations change at all.
Mr. SACKETT. As an administrative officer of the State of Illi-
nois I simply state the facts, because as an administrator of the
State of Illinois we protect the public rights as against private
rights in Lake Michigan, marked, as I say, by the water line, as
defined.
The CHAIRMAN. You have brought us right down to the question
of where Chicago has got to devise ways and means. Now, let us
go on from there. e
Mr. SACKETT. Let me discuss a little further this proposition.
You asked me if I was cordially received by General Black down
here.
The CHAIRMAN. I remember that question.
Mr. SACKETT. Let me advise you that I was not; and one of
the troubles was the fact that the Sanitary District of Chicago, in
his opinion, had been negligent in providing means of taking care
of its sewage, so that there would not be necessity of an excess di-
version of Water. *
The CHAIRMAN. Did he use the term “negligent”? Didn’t he
use a stronger term? º º
Mr. SACKETT. It would not be printable, just what he did say
to me at that time.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 939
. The CHAIRMAN. I have heard it discussed among Army en-
gineers.
Mr. SACKETT. He included Judge Landis and others in connection
with the entire proposition. In fact, he told me he would go to
the Attorney General to have Judge Landis impeached if he did
not make a decision in the case, and we had a very stormy session
for many hours; but finally we got together and I got the permit,
notwithstanding his feeling toward the sanitary district and what
he believed to be their negligence. And I agree that the sanitary
district has not made, in the opinion of people down State, at least,
the progress on this work that it should have made.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you were here and heard the testimony
of the city manager of Cleveland as to what they had done? *.
Mr. SACKETT. No; I was not here.
The CHAIRMAN. They have provided complete filteration plants
for their water supply, and they have completed two-thirds of sew-
age-disposal plants, and the remaining one-third will be completed
within 18 to 24 months.
Mr. SACKETT. Well, I do not think the cases are analogous. I
will tell you why I don’t think so. Chicago has a difficult problem
on its hands. As an administrative officer I can tell you one or
two instances that may indicate some of the difficulties of Chicago,
especially since we went through a period of war but a few years
ago. Most cities in Illinois at least are restricted by statute, so
that it is almost impossible to finance some of these propositions. I
can say to you this, that the city of Decatur, in the central part of
the State, has been since 1911 trying to solve a problem of water
supply and sewage, which included the industrial waste from a
corn-products concern. They have made now a magnificent lake;
they have found some means of solving that problem, but it has
taken them since 1911 to the present time. It is not complete yet,
but they have expended, I think, something like three and one-half
or four million dollars. " *
The CHAIRMAN. What is the population of Decatur?
Mr. CoRNISH. It is 40,000.
Mr. SACKETT. As an administrative officer, seeking to get other
cities in the State of Illinois to clean up conditions both for their
own good and for the public good, I have met these difficulties of
financing and war conditions—Chicago must be given some con-
sideration because of those conditions. But let me suggest another
concrete example to you to show you some of the difficulties now.
I am not standing here as an apologist for the sanitary district at
all. I am simply trying to give you some practical information
which, if it helps you to solve this matter, well and good. ...At Pekin,
a city some 15 miles below Peoria, in Congressman Hull's district,
is another corn-products plant, with a discharge into the Illinois
River of an industrial waste that probably represents a million
population of domestic sewage. . When the plant was changed from
manufacturing some other product into this corn-product factory
and I was advised of it, I had some correspondence with the manager
of the company. In response to that correspondence he called to
see me one day and we went over the entire situation, and I found
him very agreeable. He said he did not want to violate any law.
1940 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
He asked me what to do. I told him we wanted him to take care
of the industrial waste; that it should first be treated before it went
into the river, and of what the result of that would be. He said to
me, “All right, I will do it. I do not know whether it will cost
$100,000 or $1,000,000, but I will do it.” I thought I was getting
along very nicely, but he says, “I have had our engineers studying:
this probelm. They have not been able to tell me how to do it.
or the method to use.”
I think the State of Illinois has many eminent engineers, who
know something about sanitation, and, of course, I assumed that
when I called them in to advise them of my success in negotiating:
this great improvement with this gentleman—that they would im-
mediately tell me what was necessary to be done. You can imagine.
my astonishment when these engineers informed me that science had
not, yet found a way of doing that, and that is only five years ago,
and, of course, the gentleman has not put any plan in to take care
of his waste. It is going into the river. He is waiting for me to
tell him how to do it, and I have not been able to find an engineer-
up to this time who has been able to tell me how to do it.
There is another of your problems, so far as the State is con-
cerned, on your Chicago situation, and I refer to this merely to
show you, because I have heard in the two or three days since I have
been here discussions which have led me to believe that there was
a false premise or misunderstanding about the progress of treatment
plants in Chicago. I hope you will find a way here of not only
starting the work but having it progress as rapidly as it is possible:
for engineering and finance to do it. But in addition to the three:
and one-half million of population of the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago, you have got the industrial waste from the stockyards. That
is a material proposition in the situation within the city of Chicago,
and the estimate of engineers is that that waste is equivalent to the
domestic sewage of another million people.
But just a few miles out on this sanitary district channel you have
another corn-products plant, a large one, and all of that waste
Mr. HULL (interposing). That is at Argo?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes. And all of that waste is going into the sani-
tary district channel. It must either be treated by the plant itself
or be treated by the sanitary district. It is within the limit of the
sanitary district, although some distance out in the country. Their
engineers have been experimenting and trying to ascertain some
means or method of taking care of that waste instead of having
to dump it out on land, and if you dump it, as some of the small
plants do, then you have a nuisance from the odor that is unbearable
so far as the immediate communities are concerned. Officials at our
State university have been trying by experiments to ascertain and
find out what method was possible of treating this waste satisfac-
torily in disposing of it.
Now, I merely mention, in view of what the State law requires
in the way of diversion of water, that it already requires more.
water for the domestic sewage and the ordinary trade waste, based
on the population of the sanitary district, than the channel will
take.
The CHAIRMAN. Very much more.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 94I
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; on our own ratio, but in addition to that you
have got all the trade waste from the stockyards of the city of
Chicago. You have all the trade waste from this immense corn-
products plant at Argo. That is all going down through the State
of Illinois. If you were to properly dilute this water now you
would require 20,000 cubic second-feet a second at least, and even
then, as it is now, it is unfit for any human use. It is unfit for agri-
cultural use, stock will not drink it, fish can not live in it, and if
you undertake to send anything like 20,000 cubic second-feet down
through the State, even if you could get it through the channel of
the sanitary district, then you would meet the opposition of all the
people down State because you would do them an irremedial damage
in the way of floods, which would be constant and continuing.
The CIIAIRMAN. And more widespread than it is at the present
time !
Mr. SACRETT. Very much more so. So that that proposition is im-
possible. We of course reached the conclusion that Chicago must
find some means of treating its sewage, and even then the effluent
from this sewage is not going to be pure water, as some of the
gentlemen who are interested here seem to think. , You must still
have diversion of water to send down through this channel to dilute
that water and make it so it won't be a common nuisance, as it is now.
I just want to remind you of one of Congressman Rainey’s state-
ments the other day. I agree with him in principle. He was just
a little mistaken in his facts. I will not undertake to say that the
fish caught at Kampsville and sent to St. Louis were not condemned,
because I do not know anything about it, but the conditions of the
river, bad as they are, do not yet extend as far down as Kampsville,
according to the surveys and the reports and the information of
State officers. They do go as far as the middle of Lake Peoria that
Congressman Hull told you about, an immense body of water several
miles long and a mile wide, and the conditions there are marked.
It is true that this sewage contamination has been traveling at the
rate of between 4 and 6 miles a year under present conditions. It
is true that it is going to be only a question of a few years before
it will reach, in all probability, if it continues as it is now, the
Mississippi River, and may affect St. Louis, but, in my judgment,
that time will not arrive inside of the next 20 or 25 years, and never
will arrive, of course, if the sewage of the sanitary district is prop-
erly handled and taken care of in the best manner that science will
devise in the meantime.
You were invited the other day to go to Illinois and go over this
situation, and I hope you will. I hope you will come to Illinois,
however, some time during the month of August. You don’t need
to stop in the vicinity of the stockyards of Chicago. It is not
necessary that you go over any particular portion of the Chicago
River within the limits of Chicago. Just come down to where I
live or down to La Salle County, and you will find that if I take you
out during that warm summer month, and during the period of the
year when the rainfall is less than at other periods of the year, that
the odor and the stench—if I take you as far as 2 miles from that
river—will be such that you would probably inquire as to “what is
that,” if you did not know anything about what it is. It is little
942 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
less than a common nuisance down through the State. Any reduc-
tion in the amount of water being diverted at this time will result
not only in damage and detriment to the people in the city of
Chicago—and they are to be considered—but equally to the people
down State, and even down in the district where these levees have
been constructed, and where these gentlemen believe that they are
damaged, because of the flow of water or the level of the water be-
cause of putting these levees in and narrowing the channel, which
necessarily raised the water, they would find that if the flow was
diminished and reduced, it would not be very long before they would
be demanding that water be sent down to clear up the nuisance that
would result.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they are between Scylla and
Charybis?
Mr. SACKETT. Exactly, sir.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Which means between the devil and the deep
blue sea?
The CHAIRMAN. They are between being flooded on the one hand
and being driven out of their homes by the filth and its odor on
the other.
Mr. JARMAN. Aren’t we entitled to commiseration?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; and you are entitled to compensation. Let me
suggest this further thought because I would like to get this prac-
tical situation before you without engineering theories, that the
State of Illinois has the right within itself, since this water is in
position to be obtained to get it to prevent a nuisance, to prevent
pestilence and disease. I imagine that the members of this com-
mittee will agree with me that if it was not available even in the
city of Chicago, because of any law enacted or any restriction placed
upon it by Congress, or even by the courts, that if it became apparent
that there was to be pestilence, sickness, or death, that any mayor
of the city of Chicago would find a way of getting that water and
turn it into that channel regardless of the claims of interests of navi-
gation, and he would probably be sustained by the sentiment of the
people of that community, and, I presume, would be reelected if he
was a candidate, and, I think, that would be equally true down
State, because I believe that if those conditions existed and the water
could be obtained, that the people themselves would take the neces-
sary action and that you could not prevent it and could not control
them, no matter how law-abiding they might be under ordinary con-
ditions. It would be an emergency that would simply, in my judg-
ment, impel the action, regardless of consequences, as a matter of
taking care of themselves.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose they wholly neglected, or neglected in
large measure, to provide for themselves in other apparent and
necessary ways, and continued to neglect it, do you think then,
after their own neglect, that the mayor and the people would be
protected in forceable measures to that which they would have no
right to takeº
Mr. SACKETT. I think they would do it and probably charge up
the neglect to those who perhaps had the responsibility of proceed-
ing, but eliminating Chicago, where I think the people have a right
to protection, if their agencies fail to provide suitable means, yout
still have the problem down State.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 943
The CHAIRMAN. What I am talking about is, suppose this matter
was put into the hands of the Secretary of War through the Chief
of Engineers, and Chicago's continuance of an absolutely necessary
diversion diminishing from time to time was made contingent upon
the annual certificate of the Secretary of War that they had pursued
diligently with providing other means for sanitation during the
year and they failed in doing that which they were required to do,
do you think then that their breach of law would be one that would
be looked upon as permissible under all the circumstances?
Mr. SACKETT. Mr. Chairman, permit me this suggestion. I do
not think any Chief of Engineers of the Federal Government under
such conditions would assume the responsibility of curtailing the
water as you suggest. I think it would be manifestly unfair to im-
}. upon him any such responsibility. Coming to General
Black
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a moment.
Mr. SACKETT. I want to explain still further to you. I get what
you want, because I have a suggestion to make which may be of
some practical value. Perhaps you may discard it, I do not know.
General Black was quite familiar with the situation, as I have
already told you and as you know. He said to me, in discussing
this proposition, that in his opinion if treatment for sewage was
provided for the entire population of Chicago the flow could never
be reduced below 7,500 cubic second-feet—and nobody had any
more ill feeling or more prejudice than he had—and it comes on
down the line through every Chief of Engineers, and it will. I
assume, until the situation is cleared up. Not only that, but the
people of Illinois are exercised about this situation.
The CHAIRMAN. I should think they well would be.
Mr. SACKETT. For instance, it occurs to me now that when Con-
gressman Hull's bill was announced in the press as being under
consideration, and without full understanding of the contents of
i. bill you received, and I think you introduced some copies of
etters. -
The CHAIRMAN. Only a few, in comparison to what I received.
Mr. SACKETT. I want to state—
Mr. HULL (interposing). If they would get his speech they would
change their minds.
Mr. SHAw. We have had his speech a hundred times.
Mr. HULL. Do you disagree with what he says?
Mr. SHAw. Not all of it.
*. SACRETT. I will answer any questions the gentleman has to
3.SK Iſle.
Mr. HULL. But he is making statements here, and I just wanted
to say that.
Mr. SACKETT. It has merely come to my attention about some
letters being introduced, because I happened to know some of the
gentlemen from the territory within which I live who sent out some
letters protesting against action by Congress as they understood the
contents of Mr. Hull's bill. They understood that bill was not pro-
viding means or methods for the Chicago Sanitary District proceed-
ing to take care of its sewage in the way that would relieve the
down-State stream from the nuisance created by present conditions,
'944 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
and so therefore they were protesting because they thought it did not
sufficiently take care of it. Some of them thought the time should
be shorter than was provided in the bill. The bill as originally
drafted, and a copy of which they probably received, provided only
for taking care of about 50 per cent, and naturally with that under-
standing of the bill they were not satisfied. When it was explained
to them that Congressman Hull had amendments to be included in
his bill that would require the sanitary district to install sewage
treatment plants in a definite period of time and clean up the re-
sulting nuisance, then, of course, their mind was entirely different
on the proposition. They had written a protest because they did not
fully understand the provisions of the bill. Some of them do not
understand now why it should take 20 years, for instance, to accom-
plish this. A belief exists it can be done in a much shorter time.
Getting back to what you asked about the Chief of Engineers, I
would like to merely make this suggestion: This is a practical ques-
tion; it is not a theory that we are confronted with. You have a
situation where you require a certain flow of water for purposes of
sanitation, which I believe to be paramount to the interests of navi-
gation or development of water power anywhere, notwithstanding I
am willing to admit that power development is a great national
resource that ought to be conserved. t
The CHAIRMAN. And we have to transport our products, or else
we can not live.
Mr. SACKETT. Yes. Now, I think if you were to add some pro-
vision to your bill by which the Chief of Engineers, representing the
Federal Government, and permitted the State of Illinois to name an
engineer not identified in any way with the Sanitary District of
Chicago, you understand, but who was an eminent authority on
sanitation, to act with your Chief of Engineers in a solution or
reaching a conclusion of the proposition you are speaking of, and
that if those two were unable to decide that they were authorized in
that event to select a third man wholly disinterested, and that if
they could not decide upon a third man that some Federal court
have authority to name a competent authority on sanitation, because
sanitation is more directly identified with the situation than naviga-
tion, that you would then have a disinterested tribunal to decide the
proposition that could present both the legal difficulties and propo-
sitions as well as the general propositions with which the Chief of
Engineers would be familiar, and that they could all become fa-
miliar with the proposition, and I think you would relieve the Chief
of Engineers of a responsibility that I do not believe should be
placed upon any single man—not that I have no faith in the Chief
of Engineers, or anything of that kind, but I think it should be
broadened out. I think you will get the same result, but I think you
would have better information.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if you select an engineer from Illinois,
it would not follow at all that he would be a man who was in the
vicinity of Chicago or that he was a man on the Illinois River; if
he were the most eminent man in his profession, he might live in
some locality where he would be entirely remote from either one.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not say to appoint someone from Illinois, but
give the State of Illinois the right to appoint some eminent en-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 945
gineer. I do not say a resident of Illinois. Let it be a resident of
Illinois who is disinterested, if such an authority can be found. In
fairness it should not be a citizen of Chicago. Necessarily he must
be outside, but if such a man was not available outside of Chicago,
let someone be appointed by the State of Illinois or named by the
State of Illinois independent—I am suggesting some method where
local influence could not in any way affect the decision.
Mr. HULL. In other words, that the State of Illinois select him.
He might be from London.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not care where you get him from. I only say
that he ought to give the right to the State of Illinois for equal repre-
sentation with the Federal Government by its Chief of Engineers,
because it is a sanitary problem, and if they can not agree let them
name a third man, if they can agree upon a man, and if not let the
Federal court, outside of Chicago, if you please, or in Chicago, what-
ever you deem best about that, have the right to name them some
other eminent representative.
Mr. Boy CE. Is it your contention—I say this very respectfull
Mr. SACKETT (interposing). You won’t hurt my fellings, Judge,
however you say it.
Mr. BoycE. I say it very respectfully to you, and if I could reach
them to the good people of Illinois, but is it your position that the
great sovereign State of Illinois, composed as it is of its three
branches of executive, legislative, and judicial power, is impotent
to remedy this situation, and because it is impotent that you see no
other place for redress or help except at the hands of the Congress
of the United States?
Mr. SACKETT. No; I will tell you what my position is, Judge.
Conditions in the State with reference to this condition of pollution
are bad. º!
Mr. BoycE. Of course they are bad.
Mr. SACRETT. They are bad down the State.
Mr. Boy CE. Of course they are.
Mr. SACKETT. They are bad in Chicago, and something has to be
done, but it seems that we are confronted not only with pollution,
but we are confronted with the charge of an unlawful diversion of
water, and that diversion of water is interfering with navigation,
and with other interests. I take it for granted the diversion of
water has brought the proposition here to Congress largely upon the
suggestion of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War that
they want Congress to determine the question and not leave it for
them to determine it.
Mr. BoycE. Assume, if you will, that Congress or anyone else is
going to interfere with your present diversion of water into the
Illinois River, and you would still have a frightful condition?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes.
Mr. BoycE. And a continuing frightful condition?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. An increasingly bad condition?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes.
Mr. BoycE. Now, it comes back to this, are the good people of
Illinois, with all their sovereign power, impotent to deal with it?
Mr. SACKETT. I would have to tell you a good deal that I do not
want to say at this hearing if I answer that question.
946 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BoxcE. I won't insist upon it.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not want to go into a lot of details.
Mr. HULL. I don’t think you ought to press him on that question.
There is a good reason for his not answering it.
Mr. BoycE. I won’t. • .
Mr. SACKETT. I will answer it this way: Assure the people of the
State of Illinois there will be no diminution of the diversion abso-
lutely essential for sanitation and, in my judgment—and I speak
advisedly—I do not believe there will ever be a time when you can
reduce this flow to less than 10,000 cubic second-feet. General Black
said to me in all frankness, as an engineer fully familiar with the
conditions there, that in his judgment if you had treatment of sew-
age for the entire present population of Chicago—and that was in
1918—that he did not believe that you could reduce the diversion of
water to less than 7,500 cubic second-feet at any time; and, in fact, he
said to me that if he was called upon that he would not assume the
responsibility of fixing a diversion less than that, and he might be
required, in his own conscience, to make it more. . That was upon
the proposition that they had treatment for all Chicago Sewage.
Now, a condition continues about so long before people become
sufficiently aroused to arise and change it. That is gradually coming.
If the sanitary district proceeds, as I believe they should, in the work
of the treatment plants, if they adjust other causes of complaint and
the damage that has resulted from the original diversions, that is
going to clear the situation very materially. tº
Mr. NEwTON. I take it that the sewage of Chicago involves a great
many million gallons a day, doesn’t it?
Mr. CoRNISH. It is 1,200 second-feet of water that is pumped every
day through the sewers of Chicago.
Mr. NEwToN. Then you have that quantity of pure sewage? You
have not reduced that volume, have you?
Mr. CoRNISH. It still requires a lot of water to treat the effluent,
the effluent from your treatment; you only take out the solids, and
you still have a lot of bacteria content.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The disease germs are still there?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. You would get at 10,000 feet about half
of what you ought to have now.
The CHAIRMAN. Professor Forbes, whom you quote, said treatment
must be required, and he would greatly increase the quantity of
water also. g
Mr. SACKETT. Yes. Even in that report he estimated at that time
14,000 cubic second-feet essential then ; but as I stated to you, be-
cause of flood conditions that would result down State it was inad-
visable and impossible.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, all these estimates are upon the assump-
tion, which I do not understand to be in accordance with the facts,
that the latest sewage systems simply extract the solids and do not
purify at all. That is not my understanding of the present methods.
My understanding is that here you are getting 1,200 cubic feet of
water per second for washing dishes and all of the other things, and
the parts coming from the human body, that you have that large
quantity of sewage without any solids at all, your solids are in addi-
tion to that, and then you can extract your solids and you have a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 947
great quantity under the present conditions. When you treat them
what you do is to destroy the germs and the poisonous matter in it?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir; but you have an effluent that is by no means
pure going into the streams, and the quantity of water that we have,
without additional diversion, is insufficient for proper dilution. .
However, let the gentlemen who are directly interested in this
through their own representatives and their own authority on these
subjects tell about it.
Mr. NEwTON. I would like to find out something about it. There
seems to be an idea that we can take this stuff and evaporate it.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. Here was the point I was making. I said
the testimony of Mr. Sackett was on the basis that the only method
and the method which would necessarily be followed if they aban-
doned the present method would be simply to extract the solids and
then discharge the sewage with no other treatment except the extrac-
tion of the solids into the water.
Mr. SACKETT. There is some treatment, but that does not purify this
water to an extent to eliminate all the harmful element. What I con-
tend is that the effluent is such with the population increasing, you
will have to figure on a diversion from a sanitary point of view regard-
less of anything else, and that it would require 10,000 cubic second-
feet. & -
The CHAIRMAN. What the extent of that diversion would be would
depend upon expert testimony as showing just how that sewage should
be treated beyond the separating of the solids from it, and the extent
to which it would be purified by this treatment.
Mr. SACKETT. It would all depend, of course, in the final analysis
on the actual conditions as you found them, and what could be done.
I do not want to be understood as suggesting now any arbitrary con-
sideration of a flow of water. I am only stating in this particular
what others have stated to me, whom I believe to be authorities. If
you found that with the treatment of sewage as contemplated and
undoubtedly as it will result in Chicago, that the effluent was such
that less water could be diverted and the interests of the public would
be protected, and no further nuisance arise as a result of it, and it can
be reduced, well and good. I am only making the suggestion. For
instance, I quoted General Black as saying that 7,500 was his
minimum. -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you must remember, Mr. Sackett, that
General Black was talking to you about the State of the art of sewage
disposal five years ago, and just as you said a moment ago in your
testimony the conditions on this problem have been growing so very
much more rapidly worse all the time that there has been an inde-
pendent study, and I take it there has been very great progress made
in it in a period of five years.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not think so, and from my knowledge as an ad-
ministrator, I told you my difficulty even in the disposal of a trade
waste, and they have not yet given me the proper method that I was
going to have a man spend a million dollars to take care of, and that
is one of the problems in Chicago. The domestic sewage is easilv
andled. -
948 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. But, of course, we will have to go into that question
with the experts who are able to present the latest thought and the
highest state of the art at the present time on the subject.
Mr. SACKETT. I am trying to inform this committee of an existing
condition by a recital of facts as they have come to my attention, and
I am not trying to solve the problem by any suggestions, either in the-
ory or in practice, as an authority upon it at all. I do want to say
this, however, and perhaps this will be helpful to you. The impres-
sion seems to prevail that with a diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet
there is going to be a great increase in the flow of water sent down
through the State of Illinois into the Illinois River that will have a
material and far more destructive effect upon property down the river.
It was also contended and I believe a good many think that when
you say 10,000 cubic second-feet—in fact, I know, because I met a gen-
tleman from Cleveland the other evening and he informed me of his
own impression—that if there was a diversion of 10,000 cubic second-
feet that you are in some way doubling or trebling the present diver-
sion, and if the permit authorizing the diversion of 4,167, for instance,
had affected lake levels to the extent of 4, 5, or 6 inches, that this
would mean 4, 5, or 6 inches more lowering of lake levels, just as the
gentlemen down State seem to be of the opinion that 10,000 second-
feet means to double the quantity of water being sent down. What
I want to get before you is 10,000 cubic second-feet is not materially
different from the diversion now, and I state as a fact that while the
official records may show about 8,500 cubic second feet diversion, it
has practically been within the last seven or eight years nearer 10,000,
and it would not make any change to any extent in existing water
levels in the lakes or increase flood damage down State.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me state as to the effect down State we are
referring that precise question to the Chief of Engineers for his
recommendation and the effect upon lake levels, of course, only
makes itself felt as it appears to the committee after a period of
years, and the investigations on which we now rely were made some
years ago, and those effects must have occurred on diversions sev-
eral years before the investigation, and dating back for those two
periods the diversion was undoubtedly not to exceed half of what
it is at the present time. You get my two points?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; I understand.
Mr. HULL. Then the diversion through the Welland Canal and
the other would double up if the one at Lake Michigan would. It
would apply to one just as much as it would apply to the other.
The CHAIRMAN. No. My understanding is that the diversion at
the Welland Canal was not only as great but that it was much
greater than it will be in the future.
Mr. HULL. I do not want it to get into the record that we are
making a foot diversion when we are only making a 5-inch diver-
sion, when the Welland Canal is making about the same amount.
I want to keep them both together. -
The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you called my attention to this, be-
cause I want to answer as to that. My understanding as to the
Welland Canal is that they, at the time these levels were made,
were diverting for power purposes as well as for the canal, and
that the diversion for power purposes is to cease in the future, so
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 949
that the diversion there will be less than it was at the time the
records were made. º
Mr. HULL. But I am talking about the present time, that is
what I am referring to.
The CHAIRMAN. We have no record.
Mr. HULL. In other words, if you take the lake levels 10 years
back, it will work out the same with one as it does with the other.
The CHAIRMAN. Does that finish you, Mr. Sackett?
Mr. SACKETT. Just one more thought and I am through, if you
will permit me. That there may be a practical understanding of
conditions down the State as to the purity or the extent of the pol-
lution of water, I think you will all agree when you get this that
conditions are such that they present a practical problem that can
not be disregarded. Assuming that 11 parts represent pure
water
Mr. CORNISH (interposing). Eleven parts of dissolved oxygen.
Mr. SACKETT. Yes. The condition to-day at Peoria, 165 miles
from Chicago, you have less than one part of dissolved oxygen at
that distance. This is from a recent statement I received from
Professor Forbes just before coming here, to show you the extent
of the pollution.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me understand that, I am not clear on what
you mean. What you say, as I understand it, is that the impurity
is as near as you can measure it, one-eleventh of the volume at Pe-
oria, 165 miles away?
Mr. CoRNISH. No; that is not correct. The pollution of water is
indicated by the amount of dissolved oxygen existing in it. Vege-
table and animal matter as it decomposes consumes the oxygen.
Water from a pure stream or lake contains a normal content of
11 parts of oxygen per million of volume. It is that 11 parts that
maintains fish life, for instance. When you pollute the water, it
consumes that dissolved oxygen, and when it gets down to the point
where he speaks of one-half of one part in a million
The CHAIRMAN. He did not state that.
l Mr. CoRNISH. He said half of one part. Then it is absolute pol-
ution.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, of your eleven parts in a million
pºº, when you reach Peoria you have less than one-half a part
left, 7
Mr. CoRNISH. Yes; of ogygen.
Mr. HULL. In fact, it is practically a complete pollution ?
Mr. CoRNISH. In other words, the water at that point is so pol-
luted that it is no longer in a condition to consume polluted matter.
Water purifies itself by drawing the oxygen from the air, and that
oxygen eats up the polluted matter, but when it gets to the point
Mr. Sackett mentions it is complete pollution.
Mr. SACKETT. Now, Professor Forbes, from the natural survey
division, is making annual surveys of the Illinois River in behalf of
the State. In view of the fact that I was coming here I wrote to
him and asked him for some information as to just what the condi-
tions were and the extent of this pollution down State. The expla-
nation by Mr. Cornish tells you how absolutely polluted and impure
the water is, and here is another statement which I think will be
950 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of interest. This is from Professor Forbes under date of April 25,
of this year:
In the Summer of 1920 the Clean-Water native animals and those of the
bottom muds of the river above Peoria had almost entirely disappeared and
were replaced by those characteristic of polluted waters. . In the upper of the
three divisions Of Peoria Lake the yield of native clean-water animals of the
river averaged in 1915 396 pounds to the acre and that of the foul-water
animals 1% pounds, while in 1920 the native animals averaged 56 pounds to.
the acre, and the foul-water animals 355 pounds.
Mr. HULL. It just turned around.
Mr. SACKETT (reading):
In other words, the total weight of the clean-water animals of the river-
bottom had fallen off 88 per cent in the five years, and that of the foul-water
animals had increased about 700 times. In the channel of the middle division
of the lake the corresponding figures for 1915 were 72 pounds per acre of
clean-water animals and 1% pounds of foul-water Species, and in 1920 none at
all of the former and 24 pounds of the latter.
The middle of Lake Peoria is the most remote point of his in-
vestigations where the absolute and complete pollution is estab-
lished. There are traces from there down, at Beardstown and other
oints.
p Mr. NEwTON. What are foul-water animals?
Mr. CoRNISH. They are principally a species of worm that exist in
the mud of polluted streams or lakes. - - -
Mr. SACKETT. There is just one further point that occurs to me.
that I did not cover. You asked questions about the flood condi-
tions in the flood of 1922. I merely want to give you this informa-
tion about that condition because we investigated it. In the flood
of 1922, which is the one when Beardstown was inundated, the
volume of water was about 56,000 cubic second feet from the In-
diana marshes or the streams above the Sangamon River just above
Beardstown; the diversion on the basis of 8,000 cubic second feet
from Chicago would represent about one-seventh of that volume
of water. The Sangamon River, which empties into the Illinois.
River a few miles above Beardstown, added to that flow so that it
was something over 100,000 cubic second feet during the flood
period—109,000—and the diversion at Chicago was therefore about
one-fourteenth. The reason for that and why you should under-
stand the relative relation of the diversion from the Lakes to the
flood conditions is the watershed of the Sangamon—there were
Several continuous heavy rains—so that the effect on Beardstown
resulted very largely from the runoff in that immediate territory.
The Fox River and the Rock River, farther up the State, did not
have such heavy rains and the flood discharge was not near as
great as usual. Had those rivers also contributed proportionately
as they have heretofore, the conditions, of course, at Beardstown
Would have been very much worse than they were. The construc-
tion of the levees resulted to some extent in raising water levels
and gorging parts of the river. One reason for this in particular
was that just below Beardstown they have levees that run back in
a sort of a V-shaped form, where the river is narrowed to about 1,100
feet in width, whereas before the levees were constructed it was
Something like three to five miles in width. I merely state that to .
show the proportion of the flood which came from the diversion .
from Lake Michigan at Chicago.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 951
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Newton, what is the width of the
Mississippi between the levees?
Mr. NEWTON. The plan is to make it 2,500 feet.
Mr. HULL. In your opinion, and I regard it as equal to anybody in
the State of Illinois or anywhere else on the Illinois River, do you
believe in the next 25 or 30 years that we can get along with the
Sanitary conditions as they are with much less than 10,000 cubic feet
Mr. SACKETT. With the conditions as they are:
Mr. HULL• Yes; or as they will be?
Mr. SACKETT. We could not get along at all as they are, if you
mean by your question if Chicago puts in such treatment plants as
it, Can.
Mr. HULL. That is what I mean.
Mr. SACKETT. And takes care of its sewage with its present popu-
lation, my own personal opinion is that you will not be able to get
along with less than 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Mr. HULL. That is what I wanted to get into the record, and, of
course, I defer to those who make a study of that proposition.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Don't you believe that they are actually diverting
10,000 feet now? -
Mr. SACKETT. Well, it may not average that, but I think if they
do make it 10,000 that the difference will be negligible, so far as its
effect on either proposition is concerned—either down State to prop-
erty, or upon lake navigation.
Mr. NEwTON. Even after your quantity of fluids are treated and
which you state requires dilution, do you think that at seasons of the
year when water is abundant in the river that the river can be largely
reduced and take a greater amount at the seasons of the year when
the water has flowed out?
Mr. SACKETT. You are asking a question of opinion about naviga-
tion
Mr. NEwTON (interposing). No; I am asking about the sewage,
to().
Mr. SACKETT. The more water you would get the better your
stream will handle the proposition, but that is a question I could
only advance a theory upon, whereas the question can best be an-
swered, in my judgment, when you reach the time of actual treatment
and know what the existing situation is.
Mr. NEwTON. Is this true? Do you think that because of the
drainage of these areas at the headwaters that the natural flow
of the river is higher at the high-water period than it was formerly?
Mr. SACKETT. For certain periods.
Mr. NEWTON. That is what I mean. •
Mr. SACKETT. Yes; that might continue a week or 10 days; some-
times it takes them 30 days, but it is a brief period. -
The CHAIRMAN. But there is a fixed flowing, and a large flow
from all of these tributary streams? -
Mr. SACKETT. During the flood period.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I mean throughout the year.
Mr. SACKETT. Oh, no.
Mr. HULL. They pretty near dry up. -
Mr. SACKETT. You have great difficulty in the streams of Illinois
in what we call the dry-water period that may extend from the middle
of June up to the 1st of October in some years.
952 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do they divert as much water from Lake Michi-
gan in flood Seasons as they do in the dry seasons, is that continuous
the year round, or can they regulate that?
Mr. SACKETT. They can regulate it, but they do not always do it.
Mr. RAINEY. As a matter of fact, they have a water-power propo-
sition there that they must take care of, and during the season of the
year when the floods are the greatest, in order to furnish a fall for
that water power, they turn in more water from the lake at the very
time they ought to turn in less, so far as we are concerned. -
Mr. SACKETT. Let me say a word about Congressman Rainey’s
proposition. He is right, and yet he is wrong about a part of that.
During flood periods some of this water goes down the Des Plaines
River, and of course it all goes into the Illinois River and that adds
to flood stage down State. I do not believe that the sanitary dis-
trict has really turned down more water because of any of their
power plants during the extreme flood, except in so far as it was
necessary to keep the flow from going back into the lake, and was it
last year that in spite of all efforts they made the river flowed back
into the lake and contaminated the drinking water supply?
Mr. CORNISH. That was last August, but a similar condition occurs
every year.
Mr. SACKETT. At any rate, there are certain periods of the year
when it is very difficult to get enough fall to keep the water from
flowing back into the lake, and during that high period of the year
last year some of it actually did go out into the lake and they had
difficulty from infection and other troubles. 4. -
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Rainey, I think you had some ques-
tions to ask?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. In 1914 there were times, according to my
own recollection when they sent down over 20,000 cubic feet. I want
to make this suggestion as to the statement the chairman has made
with reference to the accelerated flow from the drainage areas. I
want to call the chairman’s and the committee's attention to a most
interesting thing that is going on at the present time. When I came
to Congress I served first on the Committee on Irrigation of Arid
Lands and helped lay out 37 Government projects. At that time
Colorado came to the United States with a proposition. The land
in Colorado slopes from the mountain slopes to the eastern side of
the State. They wanted the Government to turn over to them land
in blocks as large as they might be able to use, such acreage to be set-
tled by actual settlers, the Government to get its $1.25 an acre, and
the settlers to be required to live there five years and to develop
holdings in small units. The State of Colorado passed an act, and
so did the Federal Government pass an act, and under these great
bodies of land were turned over to the State of Colorado. -
What the State of Colorado did was this: They permitted actual
settlers to come on that land and they are still going on it and to
develop it in small units of, I think, 60 acres, requiring each settler
to obtain from the engineering department of the State a blue print
of his particular 60 acres, and then the settler was required to build
up at the western extremity at the highest point of his 60 acres an
impounding dam, to impound water, and then to dig irrigation
ditches out through that holding of his, as the State might indicate.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 953
Otherwise he forfeited his holding. At that time the rainfall on that
area was something enormous, but it all ran right off. It ran down
into the Platte River—that is, the watershed of the Platte River—
and the river was a raging torrent a part of the year, and during
the reminder of the year it ran under the sand and you could not
See it at all. When I investigated several years ago that proposition,
64,000 of those little areas had been taken up, and 64,000 of these
impounding dams have been built, and as a result of that there were
no more destructive floods in the Platte River and there were no
more periods in the year when the river flowed underground.
. was always a stream there, and that is a very interesting
thing.
The CHAIRMAN. If you reverse that order, you would have what
you have on the upper Illinois River?
Mr. RAINEY. Exactly. That is the most interesting thing that
has happened in the United States to-day in that line. After
straightening these rivers we had that flood, I think, at Beardstown
in 1922—Beardstown is a city of 6,000 inhabitants, without levees,
on high ground along the river, and they thought that it never
would have a flood, and therefore they never built any levees or
thought they would ever have to, and they never had any flood
until this flood of 1922. I went up there at that time and rode over
the city in a boat with certain of the officials of the city. Every
part of that city was under water except a very small part, the
whole town was inundated, in some places up to the second stories.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Congressman Shaw.
Mr. SHAw. How long do you think it would require the city of
Chicago or the Sanitary District of Chicago to construct treatment
plants in excess of the 3,000,000 population, sufficient to take care of
the sewage in excess of 3,000,000 population?
Mr. SACKETT. How long to take care of 3,000,000, or in excess of
3,000,000?
Mr. SHAw. In excess of 3,000,000. Do you agree with the engi-
neers' figures on that?
Mr. SACKETT. You mean by that as they are scheduled and in-
corporated into the bill?
Mr. SHAw. Yes.
Mr. SACKETT. You mean how long it would take them to go above
that?
Mr. SHAw. No; I am asking you if you think that schedule is
figured out right?
Mr. SACKETT. Again I will have to refer to more expert authority
than I am. From the practical point of view you might shorten it
up some. Nevertheless, I have to admit that engineers who have
given attention to this problem tell me that they think 20 years is
about as rapidly as they can do it, unless, of course, they can find a
way of financing more rapidly than that. I assume that anything in
the way of engineering can be done if you will give engineers plenty
of money to do it with, and they can get the necessary material.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you think that the time that they
estimate is a financial time and not an engineering construction
time?
Mr. SACKETT. My thought would be that you can do anything
from an engineering point of view if you have money. Money will
9.1739–24—PT 2—45
954 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
get the force and the men and the material together to do it, but I
assume you will have to consider their financial ability, and there
are some limitations upon that.
Mr. SHAw. How much water, in your opinion, would we have to
have for navigation in the Illinois River, leaving the sewage ques-
tion out?
Mr. SACKETT. That, of course—some of you have suggested a
thousand cubic second feet.
Mr. SHAw. But some of us have disputed that, too.
Mr. SACKETT. I do not think that is anywhere near enough.
Mr. SHAw. What do you think would be sufficient?
Mr. SACKETT. If you want to conserve slack-water navigation,
especially during the dry periods, I would say not less than 4,000
feet. s
The CHAIRMAN. That is, 4,000 feet during the dry period, and less
during the balance of the year?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Would that require locks?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, indeed.
Mr. HULL. If you don’t have any locks, how much would you say?
Mr. SACKETT. Down the river?
Mr. HULL. Yes.
Mr. SACKETT. Well, I do not know that I am in a position to state
that fact, but I think it would take a couple of thousand more, at
least.
Mr. HULL. Six or seven thousand feet?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir. That river has a navigable depth all the way
from La Salle down now with the water that is going down, and you
would also get the benefit of that diverted water at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you cut the 10,000 cubic feet right out.
Mr. NEwTON. Cut every drop of the lake water out during July,
August, and September.
Mr. Corn ISH. It is around a thousand feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. Aside from the lake water 2
Mr. CoRNISH. Yes.
Mr. HULL. And that would not mean navigation by any means.
Mr. CoRNISH. Yes; with locks and the low water we could have
navigation.
Mr. SACKETT. It would not provide the navigation contemplated
by the Illinois project.
Mr. CoRNISH. No.
Mr. SACKETT. Nor for boats with a 7-foot draft, etc.?
Mr. CoRNISH. No.
Mr. SACKETT. You could not navigate boats or barges to carry
8 and 10 trainloads of freight?
Mr. CoRNISH. No.
Mr. HULL. There is one question I want to get into the record that
I think Mr. Sackett is familiar with. You are familiar with Farm
Creek that runs into the Illinois River at Peoria, say in April and
May, up to those months it is a very large creek with an immense
volume of water in it, and you are familiar with the fact that after
that time it is practically dry?
Mr. SACKETT. Yes, sir; that is a fact.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 955
Mr. SHAw. Are you prepared to say to what extent you think the
river should be dredged out if those dams are removed w
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you will get very much on these
kind of questions.
Mr. CORNISH. It depends on the amount of water.
Mr. SACKETT. The more your river is deepened
Mr. SHAw (interposing). He has taken a position contrary to the
thought of the people down the river where I live.
The CHAIRMAN. In what respect?
Mr. SHAw. In regard to the amount of flow, and he stated here
that we are laboring under delusions down there, and I am trying
to straighten that out. We think we know a good deal about the
conditions. We think we know to what extent we are damaged by
the sanitary district. We think we know what the sanitary district
did to us in 1922, and it has been suggested—I think Mr. Hull sug-
gested—if the people down State could only come here and hear
this talk, we have heard that and I want to say I think Mr. Sackett
has made a splendid statement, and I am taking no exceptions to
it, but we are trying to find out about what is necessary to be done.
Mr. SACKETT. Let me answer Mr. Shaw in this way: I have al-
ready stated that you were damaged, and I think you should be coin-
pensated for it. I have also stated that in the flood of 1922 the
Sanitary District of Chicago contributed to it. Our report shows
that the sanitary district diversion contributed to it four inches.
Four inches in time of flood I concede is a lot of water.
Mr. JARMAN. Don’t some of the engineers say that it contributed
four feet? -
Mr. SACKETT. No, sir; our report says that the low-water period
makes a difference of about four feet.
Mr. JARMAN. No ; I mean in the report of 1922, don’t some en-
gineers say that it contributed four feet at that flood at its crest?
Mr. SACKETT. If they do I never have seen it, and I do not know
who it was.
Mr. JARMAN. It is in this record.
Mr. SHAw. I want to say, in regard to the pollution question, I
am not disputing what Mr. Sackett has said, nor what Doctor Forbes
has said. Mr. Rainey may have been misinformed regarding the
facts concerning these fish, but I have heard the same story, and I
want to go a little stronger, that the fishermen at Grafton have told
me that their fish are rejected on the New York market.
The CHAIRMAN. Down as low as Grafton?
Mr. SHAw. Down as far as Beardstown very few people consume
the fish taken out of the Illinois River now, and we have one market
that imports fish from the Mississippi altogether, and so that state-
ment is not overdrawn at all; in fact, he underestimated it.
Mr. SACKETT. I said that I did not think it was quite as bad as
Mr. Rainey thought it was, but I candidly admit it is bad enough.
Mr. HULL. Don’t you think that it is barely possible that if the
fish have been destroyed from Beardstown down, it might be from
the pollution of the river from the corn products plant at Pekin?
Mr. SACKETT. That would contribute to it, but another factor
would be the fact that in making the levees this destroyed the spawn-
ing places and the breeding places in the pure water that used to be
956 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
out in the overflow areas, where they could escape from some of
this pollution, but now they have to get into the river.
Mr. SHAw. This land is not all reclaimed, and there are a lot of
spawning places there now. We must not get the impression that
levees extend from one end of the river to the other on both sides.
Mr. SACKETT. About 80 per cent of that land is reclaimed.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Mr. Chairman, in this suit that has gone to the
Supreme Court of the United States, suppose that the Supreme Court
of the United States maintains the injunction that was sought some
years ago, contempt proceedings can be resorted to to compel the
sanitary district of the city of Chocago from taking 10,000 cubic
feet, but what is to prevent Chicago from going along and taking
10,000 cubic second-feet out?
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can answer that question.
Mr. O'Connor. It has really been a legal problem with me from
the time these discussions began.
The CHAIRMAN. There are two ways of meeting the proposition.
First, on the present state of affairs Chicago is taking without
action by Congress. It may or may not be determined adversely
to Chicago, as to the present case. Suppose it is determined ad-
versely, that ends it.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Then contempt proceedings could be brought,
but suppose it is not maintained?
The CHAIRMAN. Then Congress, in my opinion, has control of the
situation for navigation purposes, and Congress could pass legisla-
tion
Mr. O’ConnoR (interposing). It could only pass that legislation
on the theory that 10,000 feet would interfere with navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. You could only pass it on this proposition.
Mr. O'ConnoR. You would not base it on the theory that it was
relative to navigation that you were trying to prevent it?
The CHAIRMAN. That is true. You could only base it on the pro-
position that 10,000 feet or some other diversion was insufficient for
navigation.
Mr. JARMAN. I would like to ask just one or two questions.
Mr. LARSON. I desire at some time before the termination of these
hearings to voice the views of the people at the head of the lake,
and as soon as it is convenient for the committee to hear me I shall
be at the service of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. If it is equally convenient, we would very much
prefer to have you come in on the day that we adjourn to.
Mr. SACKETT. This gentleman desired to ask me a couple of ques-
tions.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; in a minute.
Mr. SACKETT. You asked a number of questions about these
floods, and perhaps I should leave this State flood report of 1922 as
a part of the record, inasmuch as it contains a report by State offi-
cials as well as Government officials on the situation made by engi-
neers in the valley.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. HULL. I make the motion that we adjourn until Thursday.
Mr. SHAw. Will you let me make a statement? I think there
‘has been a lot of new questions that have come up here, and while
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 95.7
we like Mr. Sackett and we believe in his department, and all that,
we are not in full accord on some of his ideas concerning these
flood conditions, and I want to reserve the right that, after the
sanitary district has completed its presentation, if it seems advisable
to appear and be heard further on some of these questions. -
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what is properly rebuttal, the ruling was
that it would be admitted, Mr. Shaw.
Mr. JARMAN. In view of what Mr. Sackett has said, I want to ask
him the question of how many acres along the Illinois River is under
drainage levees? &
. CHAIRMAN. If you can answer it yourself, put it into the
PëCOPCI. --
Mr. JARMAN. One hundred and ninety-eight thousand.
The CHAIRMAN. And now, how much is not under levee ?
Mr. JARMAN. About 200,000.
The CHAIRMAN. So that it is about half and half? -
Mr. JARMAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until Thursday at 10 o'clock
2. II]. * *
(Whereupon, at 5.20 p. m., the committee adjourned.)
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVES,
ſº Friday May 9, 1924.
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey,
chairman, presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, Mr. Bruce handled the matter on
the other side. Now, who is going to handle the matter for the
sanitary district? It would be a little more convenient if some
One person would take hold.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Adcock, Mr. Behan, or myself will direct it,
depending upon circumstances.
The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you want to have heard first? • *
Mr. BARRETT. Congressman Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, who
has introduced bill No. 7044, which is pending before this com-
mittee.
Mr. BoycE. May I inquire for my own information, and for the
information of the members of the committee, about how much
more time will likely be consumed in these hearings?
The CHAIRMAN. I think, probably, the judge will tell you this:
that we have been disappointed all the way along at the length of
time consumed, and that will probably continue to be, and that it
will take considerable time. I think we ought to give full and
complete hearings and we may have to do this, Judge; we may
have to adjourn occasionally for a few minutes and go over to the
House on account of there being such pressing business on hand
there.
Mr. BoycE. I did not mean to indicate any desire to cut off any-
one desiring to be heard. I only desire to say that it looks to me
as if from now on to the adjournment of Congress that we are going
to be subjected to a great many interruptions because of impor-
tant matters in the House, and I think it is only fair to the gentle-
958 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
men desiring to be heard that they should know that the mem-
bers of the committee are likely to be needed from time to time
in the House.
The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the circumstances. Perhaps we
can meet at 9 o'clock in the morning and sit through until 1 o'clock.
I will agree to be here at 9 o'clock to-morrow morning it that suits
the other members of the committee, and then we can have a con-
tinuous session until, say, 1 o'clock.
Mr. HULL. I move that we commence at 9 o'clock every morning
and sit until 1 and then adjourn for the day.
Mr. SEGER. I second the motion.
Mr. BARRETT. We have tried to arrange our work so as to ex-
pedite matters to the utmost. Just how long it will take it is
pretty hard to say. If we have consecutive and uninterrupted
hearings I imagine that the outside requirement would be five
days, and probably from four to six days would be a good guess.
You know how near we can estimate these things. We will do
the very best we can and be as expeditious as possible and still
completely present the case of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
Mr. Boyce. I do not want the gentlemen with us to think that
I am objecting to a full hearing, but to understand the present situ-
ation and demands upon the members of the committee, if we should
be obliged to interrupt the hearings from time to time and keep
them here longer than they had expected.
The CHAIRMAN. It is moved and seconded that the committee meet
at 9 o'clock, beginning to-morrow morning, and sit until 1, and then
adjourn for the day.
(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)
STATEMENT OF HON, MARTIN B. MADDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I come from Chicago.
It is one of the villages in the great State of Illinois. It was or-
ganized in 1837 as a city. It has grown beyond the dreams of the
most optimistic dreamers. It has had its problems. It has them
now. We have been trying to solve these problems. Our people
have been liberal in the matter of money. They have not been afraid
to expend it. They have endeavored to find a solution for all the
ills that surround us. -
We have grown so fast that we can not keep pace with the condi-
tions of growth that press upon us. Our sanitary problems are
among the greatest that we have to deal with.
Early in the history of the State the Government authorized the
construction of the Illinois & Michigan Canal. They contributed
largely to the cost of its construction. They recognized not only the
needs of navigation but also the needs of sanitation, and this canal
for many years was used as the outlet for such sewage as did not
run into the lake. We take our water from Lake Michigan. Our
people use this water for their drinking supply. If it can be main-
tained in its original purity, it is the best water there is in the world.
There is only one way that that purity can be maintained, and that
is to prevent contamination from the sewage.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 959
The Chicago River originally ran into the Lakes. There is a
point known as Summit where the divide occurred, and that artifi-
cial summit was removed. The course of the river was turned about,
so as to take away from the lake the contamination to the Water
supply.
It became apparent a good many years ago—as far back as 1880
or prior to that—that the Illinois & Michigan Canal was not of
sufficient capacity to carry away the sewage. We deepened the canal
in 1969, and we established a pumping system at the end of the
Chicago River and pumped water and sewage into this canal. The
canal was above the level of the river and the Lakes.
Later on it became apparent that something else must be done.
The State Legislature, under the authority it had, organized the
Sanitary District of Chicago. It required the sanitary district board
to prrovide, if I recall it correctly, 20,000 cubic feet of water a
minute for every 100,000 of our population.
Under the authority granted by the act the sanitary board began
to function. They were bound by the act to supply the quantity of
water set out in the act or they were violating the law if they failed.
Then the question of Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the
lake came up, and a permit was applied for to take water from Lake
Michigan. What we needed then and what we believed we had the
right to under the apportionment of the water taken under the treaty
with Great Britain was 10,000 second cubic feet. We received a
permit, if I recall—and if I am not accurate in the figures I give
they can be corrected later—to take 5,000 cubic second-feet. Later on
that permit was modified and reduced to 4,167 cubic feet per second.
Our population has grown from 600,000 and odd, at the time the
sanitary district was first Organized, until it is to-day more than
3,000,000 within the boundaries of the city of Chicago. This does not
take into consideration the millions who are living in adjacent terri-
tory and whose sanitary conditions are affected by whatever the policy
may be in respect to the use of water from the Lakes.
It is apparent to everybody, and must be if they study the problem,
that unless sanitation is provided by the dilution of the sewage
through the waters of the lake a serious condition will result to the
health and life of millions of people.
So that we consider the sanitation in connection with any legisla-
tion that may be undertaken of first importance in connection with
taking waters from the Lakes. As I see it sanitation would be the
first, and naturally, as we take the water it ought to be utilized.
What would it be utilized for? Transportation is one of the funda-
mental problems in which the people of the country are interested,
and as we take this water, if we may be permitted to continue to take
it, we propose to cooperate with the rest of the State and the adjoin-
ing States in the utilization of the water for navigation purposes.
And then it may be said, also, that while we are using the water for
the dilution of the sewage and for the transportation of commodities
that we might also make use of it for all purposes, and power would
probably come into play.
But as far as we are concerned, the paramount object is to preserve
and protect the lives and health of our people. We believe as heartily
as anyone can believe in the future of water transportation, and we
960 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
will join with anybody in any section of the country in the develop-
ment of a system of water transportation that will cheapen the move-
ment of commodities. But we want to impress upon this committee
the very, very great importance of the problem with which we are
called upon to deal. The question will undoubtedly arise, and has
arisen, and will continue to arise, why does Chicago set itself up as
an instrumentality to which must be supplied the waters of the Lakes,
in order that the sewage created by the population of Chicago shall
be disposed of without detriment to the people of the country?
The answer to that is that, first, we are obligated to the State under
the law that directs us to make such disposition of the sewage. In
response to that law we have expended in the creation of a sanitary
district a drainage channel, which is about 30 miles long, and in the
widening and deepening of the Chicago River and in the building of
cut-off channels at different points, from the north and the south,
something in the neighborhood of $100,000,000, out of our own funds,
and we have realized all the time while we were doing this that some
other method of sewage disposal must some day be applied.
But we are also mindful of the fact that we can not apply this new
method, which will obviate the necessity of taking water from the
Lakes, in a day, and even when we do complete the program which
we have under way, and upon which we have already expended
$25,000,000, and upon which it is calculated we will spend $120,-
000,000 within the next 20 years, we will still need to take the water
from the Lakes, because there is no system other than dilution by
means of which the detrimental element of human and animal matter
can be completely disposed of.
And so we come to you here to-day to say that we are particularly
anxious that this committee in whatever program of legislation it
may think proper to inaugurate in the development of a waterway
system throughout the different sections of the country shall em-
brace in that program such authority as may be thought proper to:
provide for the protection and preservation of the health and life
not only of the people of Chicago but of all the surrounding terri-
tory, and particularly through the Illinois River section.
We realize that in taking this water from the Lakes we do more
or less place a burden on the people in the adjacent territory, but
we have made every proper provision for the protection of the inter-
ests of these people, and we are willing to continue to protect them
in every way.
Then the answer to the question about the lowering of the lake
levels. Complaint may be made that we lower the lake levels. It
has been made. Perhaps that is true to some extent. But a singular
state of facts may be related here which may look something like
a paradox. When the water was first let into the drainage canal
from the Lakes, and for five years after it continued to flow, the
lake levels were 5% or 6 inches higher than they ever had been
before. Somebody asked why that could be. The answer can not
be given scientifically. All one can say is that that is a fact.
It has been figured out that lake levels rise and fall in cycles of 10
years. The natural outlet of Lake Michigan was through the
Illinois & Michigan Canal and the Illinois River in the early his-
tory, and we are asking for nothing here except what nature origi-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 961
nally provided, except that we are asking for it on a much larger
Scale than nature provided.
The question arises, what would Canada say about our right to
take water from the Lakes. The answer to that is that we are not
taking water from any lakes over which Canada has any jurisdic-
tion. Lake Michigan is not a boundary-water lake. It is true it
has connection with the lakes that are on the boundary. But we
continue to believe that Canada has no jurisdiction whatever over
our right to take water from Lake Michigan. And, moreover, we
have a treaty with Canada which recites that the treaty commis-
sioners were appointed because Great Britain and the United States
are equally desirous of settling all questions which are now pending
between the United States and the Dominion of Canada and to
make provision for the settlement of all questions arising in the
future. It defines the boundary water, and our opponents concede
that Lake Michigan is not a boundary water. It provides for the
equal right of both countries to navigate boundary waters in the
Great Lakes system, and it reserves to each Government the exclu-
sive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion of all the
waters on its own side of the boundary line.
The State Department, when the construction of this treaty was
pending in the Senate, advised the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations that this section covered, and was intended to cover,
diversion by the sanitary district. It provides that no further or
other uses or obstructions or diversions of boundary waters on either
side of the line affecting the natural level or flow of boundary
waters on the other side of the line shall be made except by the
authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada within
their respective jurisdictions and with the approval of a joint com-
mission, to be known as the International Joint Commission. That
joint commission exists.
It provides that neither Government is to permit any protective
works or dams on its side of the line without the approval of the
joint commission if the effect of such protective works or dams is
to raise the natural level of the lake on the other side of the line.
Now, we contend that our engineers can and will demonstrate that
the protective or compenpsating works provided for in the Madden
bill—that is, the bill introduced by me—can be built altogether on
American territory and can not have the effect of raising the waters
above the natural levels. Therefore neither Canada's nor the joint
commission's approval is necessary.
Then Article V fixes the diversion for power purposes, it providing
not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion of 20,000 cubic feet
by the State of New York and a diversion on the Canadian side of
36,000 cubic feet per second; and then it provides that the prohibi-
tions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for sani-
tary or domestic purposes or for the service of canals for the pur-
poses of navigation.
We contend that the sanitary district canal, being both for sani-
tary and navigation purposes, is clearly within the diversions recog-
nized and permitted by this article, and the sanitary district board
have authorized me to say to you that they are prepared to build
compensating works at such points as may be designated by the War
91739—24—PT 2—46
962 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Department through the board of Army engineers, which will pre-
Serve the levels of the Lakes if the diversion of the waters from the
Fº for sanitation purposes have the effect of lowering the lake
eVel.
The sanitary board has at all times stood ready to meet every obli-
gation to every community adversely affected by any work which
they are required under the State law of our State to do. They are,
first, of course, charged with the responsibility of providing for the
dilution of the sewage. That is the purpose for which they are
Organized. That is the mandate which they have from the State, the
political subdivision which presides over them. But while they
recognize their paramount duty to be sanitation, they yet are not
unmindful of the needs of other sections of the State, and whenever
any work which they are required to do adversely affects any other
Section of the State, they have repeatedly expressed their willingness
to the extent that reason would justify in providing the remedy,
paying the costs.
We do not want to be understood as standing in anybody's way
who may want legislation for navigation purposes. On the contrary,
we want to be distinctly understood as willing and ready to coop-
erate, because we as well as anyone can realize that there must be in
the very nature of things more transportation facilities supplied,
which will enable the cheap movement of the products of the field
and of the factory, and of labor generally, and that is particularly
true as to bulky commodities. But we want you to realize one thing.
I want particularly to impress this committee with this thought:
That we are not coming here with any purpose to in any wise evade
any responsibility or to lead this committee to believe we are going
to undertake to do the impossible or to say to you that in the long
run we will be able to get along without any water from the Lakes
for the dilution of our sewage, because we know that is not possible.
That would be out of the question. We know that as the population
of our section of the country increases—and it is growing by leaps
and bounds—that the full flow which we claim the right to divert
from the Lakes—10,000 cubic feet per second—will be required. We
know, too, if less than 10,000 cubic feet per second shall be taken from
the Lakes for this purpose that great danger will follow to the health
of our people. And we know, too, that there is no danger—and we
say this confident in the belief that everybody knows that this can be
proved beyond any question—of destroying navigation or retarding
navigation or making it impossible, or making it more expensive or
more difficult, because we are ready and willing to meet the issue
by providing the compensatory works at any point which may be
directed or approved, or both, by the Army board of engineers or
by any body of responsible agents cooperating with the Government
authorities.
It is not my purpose to enter into technical details of this problem.
We have other men who are qualified to do that. It of course must
be realized by you gentlemen, who are all busy men, that we who are
here dealing with the manifold problems that are imposed upon us
day after day have not time to study the details of these great
problems at home, and that we ought not to undertake to discourse
upon them without complete knowledge. Now, as to the fundamental
question involved in this I have knowledge. As to the detailed facts
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 96.3
and technical aspects of the matter I have not knowledge, and it
would be presumptuous on my part to undertake to discuss the engi-
neering and the technical details. We have men who have made a
life study of that problem here to give you the information which
you will probably want and ought to have upon the subject. -
Unless there are some questions, I will be very glad to say that
that is all I care to submit to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The question, Congressman, is a difficult and per-
plexing one with which the committee is going to try to wrestle, and
in a broadminded and liberal spirit. We all realize that sewage
disposal by dilution alone was the only method practiced for many
years by practically all the communities in this country. Some of
the communities are successfully, as they say, adopting other methods.
Since the adjournment of this committee the chairman has received
a long pamphlet from a sanitary engineer who claims that he is
devising a method by which sewage disposal will not alone be easy
and expeditious but will be even profitable to the community.
Mr. MADDEN. We are looking toward that day; and I want to add
just this, if I may, to what I have said: We are looking to that day,
but we say it will take us at least 20 years to complete the plans
which we have already well under way.
The CHAIRMAN. What has been running in the minds of the coin-
mittee on that problem of Sanitation is perhaps two or three things:
First, we are in hopes that existing methods will be improved upon
as indicated by the attitude of some of these engineers; second, that
the time can be materially shortened from that which is estimated,
and that it should be made to depend upon some impartial tribunal
simply exacting a reasonable progress and good faith.
Mr. MADDEN. The progress we can make is limited to the amount
of money we can raise by taxation. Our tax is fixed at 5 per cent
on the valuation. That is the constitutional limitation.
The CHAIRMAN. Going into that question quite liberally, I think,
Mr. Barrett, you are prepared to deal with that.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. With the sanitary district the limit is 3 per
cent under the constitution. The entire limit under the constitution
would be 5 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN. We have some evidence on it, and we expected to
go into the question quite carefully. All these questions are difficult.
It is not simply a question of navigation on the Great Lakes. We
have been hearing at considerable length the case of the people down
the Illinois River, who complain of two things; they complain of
flood and they complain of injury to health from this being an open
SeVer’.
Mr. MADDEN. We will meet all that.
The CHAIRMAN. For instance, we had a representative from the
State of Illinois, a man who is said to know more about the subject
than anyone else, and he said that this sewer caused the loss of
$5,000,000 a year in the destruction of fish life, aside from side in-
dustries; that that was the loss in fish life alone per year, and he
said that the sewage had now reached a point only 40 miles above
Grafton, the place where the Illinois empties into the Mississippi
River, and was proceeding at a stated rate year by year.
964 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. MADDEN. Of course, I do not pretend to have technical knowl-
edge on that.
The CHAIRMAN. So all those problems confront us. When you
come to the construction of this treaty it is the most difficult thing
in the world. To illustrate, you can not take Article VIII alone,
but you have to go back to Article III, which is a limitation of Arti-
cle VIII, and then you have to go back to Article I, the second para-
graph of which deals with Lake Michigan. The treaty requires con-
tinuous and profound study, and then no matter how skilled you are
in the law I think you can draw various conclusions from it, and
I do not think any of us knows just what it means until it is in-
terpreted.
Mr. MADDEN. I realize that every day.
The CHAIRMAN. This treaty is really especially hard. Take it on
the question of the use of the waters. It is perfectly plain that the
treaty does lay down the doctrine that in the use of waters that are
used on both sides the Joint High Commission shall give certain
precedence, that three uses shall be given precedence for the use of
the water and in the order stated; but Article III says that—
It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions hereto-
fore permitted or hereafter provided for, by special agreement between the
parties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether
temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affect-
ing the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the Other side of the line.
shall be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of
Canada within their respective jurisdictions— -
and so forth. Now, at the time that treaty was made, Chicago was
diverting about 2,700 or 2,800 feet per second, and of course I do
no understand that Chicago considered that as sufficient or would
rely upon that as providing for its necessities.
Mr. MADDEN. That is a position we take on the water. The posi-
tion we take on the water rights under the treaty is that we have
a definite, positive, uncontroverted right to take 10,000 cubic feet
per second.
The CHAIRMAN. As I say, So far as the treaty is concerned, it is a
very difficult question.
We are very greatly obliged to Mr. Madden. Is there anyone who
desires to ask Mr. Madden any questions?
Doctor KINDRED. We have listened to your statement, Mr. Mad-
den, with great interest and profit. One question I want to ask is
this: Under all the conditions that confront Chicago in establishing
purification plants to dispose of its sewage, and under the constitu-
tion and legislative limitations, how long will it take Chicago to
complete an adequate system to dispose of its sewage?
Mr. MADDEN. I said 20 years. I said that in my statement.
Doctor KINDRED. I did not catch that.
The CHAIRMAN. That has been stated repeatedly.
Mr. MADDEN. That, of course, had this reservation; that we would
still need the 10,000 cubic feet per second to provide against the dan-
ger that might still exist over and above the situation now existing.
Doctor KINDRED. One more question in that connection. I do not
intend to be controversional at all, but I would like to ask you if
it is not a fact that Cleveland completed the system—of course, for
a less population º
The CHAIRMAN. One-third the population.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 965
Doctor KINDRED (continuing). One-third the population of Chi-
cago; but is not the period in which Cleveland completed its sys-
tem in proportion a much shorter one than what you are suggesting
for Chicago?
Mr. MADDEN. I have not any knowledge on the subject of what
Cleveland did. '
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think, Mr. Madden, that it appears be-
fore the committee the time Cleveland really has taken. This and
this only does appear: That the city manager of Cleveland, who
seems to be an unusually able man, stated that in his opinion sewage-
disposal works could be installed in Chicago in from four to six.
years, and he said that the Cleveland works had cost $13,000,000 for.
a population of 1,000,000. - º
Mr. MADDEN. We have already expended $25,000,000, as I have
said, and our limitations under the constitution in the way of our
power to assess taxes would make it impossible for us to carry out.
the plan which has already been laid out in less than 20 years.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask one question to bring out a fact.
Of course, you were not here at our hearings, but Mr. Sackett and
Mr. Rainey and Mr. Boyle and others were here, and it was stated
that after the sewage-disposal plants in Chicago were completed to
take care of the 3,000,000 people, and the $2,000,000 trade waste,
that then they would need anywhere from 7,500 to 10,000 cubic feet
per second, even after that is done. Is that your opinion? -
Mr. MADDEN. I said that in my statement.
Mr. HULL. I wanted to bring it out, that after everything was
completed you would need that. º
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think the evidence shows what is sug-
gested. *
Mr. HULL. Mr. Sackett said so. -
The CHAIRMAN. I think that question is an expert question upon
which Congressmen could not qualify unless they are engineers. .
Mr. BARRETT. The Congressman has stated it substantially as the
experts will testify. ... •
Mr. LINEBERGER. I wanted to ask this question: He states this is
a matter of health primarily. I assume that the classes of disease'.
that would arise from a failure to properly sanitate Chicago would
be of an infectious kind. *
Mr. MADDEN. Typhoid would, of course, be the paramount dis-
ease to be considered. * * --
Mr. LINEBERGER. Therefore the disease problem, from your view-.
point, is not purely one of Chicago but of the entire Section there,
inasmuch as there must be hundreds of thousands of people to be
considered. : .
Mr. MADDEN. Ten million, at least.
The CHAIRMAN. How many people live adjacent to and can be
said to be within the valley of the Illinois below Chicago? *
Mr. MADDEN. I should think now about 2,000,000, outside of
Chicago. - * ,
Mr. BoxCE. I would like to ask a single question.
Mr. MADDEN. Go right on, Judge; I am delighted. • :
Mr. BoycE. Have you given any consideration to the question of
the powers of Congress to deal with the Chicago Sanitation situation
966 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
in connection with the diversion of water from the Great Lakes in
aid of sanitation at Chicago 8
Mr. MADDEN. I think the power of Congress is mainly confined
to its control over navigable waters, and whatever power they have
would be derived through that. g
Mr. MANSFIELD. And that this other would be incidental.
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.
Mr. LINEBERGER. As supplementary to the question I just asked
you—I realize you may not be able to answer this, but I would like
to have your opinion—do you believe that the danger which has
been complained of by those lower down the river would be greater
by permitting Chicago to have this water and thereby carry this
sewage down the river through the localities in which they live—do
you believe that danger would be greater than that which would
happen if Chicago, by its failure to get this water, became an in-
fected center and the disease spread? As to relative danger, which
would be greater?
Mr. MADDEN. I will answer that question in this way, if I may.
I do not think there is any doubt at all in the minds of anybody
that we ought to be permitted to take the present quantity of water
from the Lakes. I do not think there is anybody that raises a ques-
tion about that.
The CHAIRMAN. These six States are all of them appearing here
and protesting on the ground that they do object.
Mr. MADDEN. Well, some of the States; I am talking about the
Federal authorities now. But let us assume now that they were
able to prevent it and that they were willing to admit that we could
take a smaller quantity—and, of course, the smaller the quantity
we take the greater the difficulties will be of the people down the
State, because there will be more pollution; and to-day I think it
may be fairly said—and I think all the cases tried in the courts
will prove the truth of what I am about to say—that the condition,
from the sanitary standpoint, is infinitely better all along the valley
about which you hear complaints than it ever was before we began
to take the water from the Lakes and run it through the Chicago
River. So that can not be any complaint.
The CHAIRMAN. What trouble did they have before they got this
sewage? . We...have not heard any intimation that there was any
trouble previous to the dumping of this sewage.
Mr. MADDEN. They had stagnant water and malaria and all kinds
of diseases, which we have eliminated; and we are giving them pure
water, which they never had before. - -
Doctor KINDRED. Have you not got to reckon in that connection
with the fact that you had less sewage because you had less popu-
lation? -
Mr. MADDEN. Of course, that is true. Now, if you will let me
O
Mr. McDUFFIE. I wanted to detain you for just one moment. I
do not care to open up the question that you have devoted some
time to, but you stated a moment ago that in your opinion you had
the unqualified right—
Mr. MADDEN. Under the treaty.
Mr. McBUFFIE. That is what I was going to ask you.
Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 967
Mr. McDUFFIE. You base your statement on that treaty?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.
Mr. McDUFFIE. To the effect that you have an unqualified right
to divert 10,000 cubic feet per second at Chicago? -
Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir. I think there is no question about that
being the proper construction of that paragraph of the treaty.
Mr. McDUFFIE. And yet, since the treaty was entered into,
agreed upon, you had some communication with the War Depart-
ment and they issued a permit to you allowing you to have only
4,167 cubic feet per second.
Mr. MADDEN. Four thousand one hundred and sixty-seven cubic
feet per Second: that is what they authorized us to use, and I think
we are using a good deal more.
Mr. McDUFFIE. At the time that you took the matter up with
the War Department did you ask for the 10,000 cubic feet per second?
Mr. MADDEN. Absolutely—certainly.
Mr. McDUFFIE. And they granted you 4.167 cubic feet per second?
Mr. MADDEN. No; they granted us more, and then curtailed the
use later.
Mr. McDUFFIE. But the final result was that you got 4,167 cubic
feet instead of the 10,000 cubic feet?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes; but these men with technical knowledge would
be glad to explain that.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I understand; but I wanted your opinion as to
what you based your view on as to your right to the use of 10,000
cubic feet per second.
Mr. MADDEN. Yes. There is a question between the United States
and the sanitary district on our rights to take more than 4,167
cubic feet, and there is a suit which has been tried on that and it
is now in the Supreme Court of the United States.
I am sure that I am greatly obliged to you for your courtesy.
The CHAIRMAN. We are obliged to you, Mr. Madden.
Congressman Larson was here all day the other day, and we
promised him five minutes this morning.
Mr. LARSON. We are extremely interested at the head of the lake
in this proposed legislation, and I would like to have a reasonable
amount of time.
The CHAIRMAN. We want to give you a reasonable amount of time.
We just do not want Chicago to feel that we are taking this out of
their time. *
Mr. LARSON. I was here for two or three hours when one of the
proponents of this bill was expatiating on its merits. I was ready
then to say something on behalf of my constituents.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you just take such time as you feel nec-
essary.
Mr. LARSON. I do not feel that I should be limited. I am not
going to take very much time, but we have great interests involved
in this legislation.
Mr. LYON. In the State of Minnesota?
Mr. LARSON. In the State of Minnesota; and I should like to have
a reasonable time.
Mr. SweFT. The question is whether or not the same subject mat-
ter has not been gone over several times.
968 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. LARSON. I doubt whether it has. Probably I can explain some
matters from a different viewpoint.
STATEMENT OF HON, OSCAR. J. LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want to present, if I
may, the viewpoint of the people who live at the head of the lake
and who depend so much for their prosperity and material well-
being on keeping the lake levels unimpaired so that there will be
no injury or damage to lake transportation.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I was going to make this observation: We want to
hear Judge Larson, of course, and give him such time as needed;
but I understood that you were to hear these gentlemen from Chi-
cago to-day, Mr. Chairman, and I was wondering whether the judge
would be heard after these other gentlemen get through. My only
idea in making any suggestion in regard to the matter is in behalf
of orderly proceeding rather than taking sides as to whom we
should hear. I thought that if we had agreed to hear these other
gentlemen to-day, that possibly Judge Larson would be here right
along, and we could hear him some other day.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. McDuffie is quite right; the arrangement was
made that we should go on. We have no desire to interfere with the
committee if they wish to hear Congressman Larson of Minnesota;
we will be glad to stand aside if that is the decision of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we will be able to hear Mr. Larson and
then go ahead, Judge Barrett, with your men.
Mr. LARson. Mr. Chairman, I have gone into this matter with
some care, and the probabilities are that I will be able to eliminate
some of the matters that I intended to bring to the attention of
the committee.
I was keenly interested in the statement made by Congressman
Madden. As you know, we all have a very high regard for his
ability. I have frequently marveled at his grasp of any measure
upon which he undertakes to speak. He seems to have an extraordi-
nary mental power to concentrate his mind upon any subject on
which he undertakes to speak, and as a rule you can rely with con-
siderable confidence upon any statement of fact that Congressman
Madden makes.
But there is no man so great but occasionally he will make mis-
takes, and if I may be permitted to say so, I think in his statement
to-day he is altogether wrong when he says that the city of Chicago
bas the unqualified right to extract from Lake Michigan 10,000
cubic feet of water per second for Chicago Sanitary purposes.
Congressman McDuffie asked him, very naturally, where did
Chicago get this right?
I understood before he replied to that question that was a right
which Chicago claimed by virtue of its police power in the interest
of protection of the health and the well-being of the people of
Chicago and of the surrounding territory; but in his reply to Con-
gressman McDuffie's question he said it comes from the treaty en-
tered into between Canada and the United States.
Now, my understanding is that a treaty is the supreme law of the
land, tantamount to a congressional enactment. The point I want
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 969.
to make at the outset, before I enter into the discussion of my
theme is this: If Chicago had this power to extract 10,000 cubic
feet per second from Lake Michigan by virtue of a treaty which is
the supreme law of the land, why is Chicago here seeking authority.
from Congress? Mr. Madden’s bill, which he introduced, says
nothing, as I recall it, about navigation, not a word. The bill is
predicated upon the proposition that Chicago has not the power
that she is now exercising, but that she seeks that power from the
Congress of the United States. That is why that bill, and the
other bills along the same line, have been introduced here.
I shall later in the discussion of the international phase of this
subject revert to it. But we in Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, and espe-
cially those of us who have resided at the head of the Lakes, are very
keenly interested in these several bills that you are now considering.
Our understanding is that it is their chief and common purpose
to secure for the Sanitary District of Chicago congressional au-
thority to divert and withdraw from Lake Michigan 10,000 eubic
feet per second. We believe that if said authority was granted its
exercise would materially injure and damage navigation on the
Great Lakes. g
The Representatives from Minnesota, therefore, desire in behalf
of their respective constituencies to protest against the passage of
any one of these bills, and by your leave, Mr. Chairman, I shall
read the memorial of the Representatives of the State of Minnesota,
in which they protest against the passage of this proposed legislation.
Mr. MICHAELSON. May I suggest that it be inserted in the record
without reading?
Mr. LARSON. Well, this may probably set forth some of the argu-
ments. k a
Mr. MICHAELSON. It will go in the record.
Mr. LARSON. Very well; it may go in the record. It may set forth
some of the arguments against the bill, and consequently thereby
make it unnecessary for me to go into the matters therein stated.
However, whatever is the wish of the committee I shall do.
The CHAIRMAN. Follow your own suggestion. We had received,
I will say, from Michigan a protest, and also a protest from Wis-
COI)SII).
Mr. LARSON. This is from a different viewpoint. We are trying
to voice the sentiment of the people of Minnesota and of the North-
west with reference to this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Follow your own suggestion.
Mr. LARSON. This is addressed to the Committee on Rivers and
Harbors, House of Representatives, and reads:
We, the undersigned Representatives from the State of Minnesota, desire
to enter our protest against the enactment into law of any of the several
bills now being considered by your Committee, the purpose of each of which is
to secure congressional authority for the diversion and withdrawal in per-
petuity from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago “an amount
not to exceed an average of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second per day.”
Mr. HULL. Let me correct that. My bill does not imply that, so
I would like to have that part of it corrected.
Mr. LARson. I believe I have correctly quoted from your bill.
Mr. HULL. No; you have not.
970 . ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. LARSON. However, that is the common purpose of all these
bills, there is no question about that.
Mr. HULL. That is incorrect, so you might as well take that out.
Mr. LARSON (reading):
We understand that for many years the Sanitary District of Chicago has
|been withdrawing from Lake Michigan enormous amounts of water contrary
to law, in Violation of the provisions of a treaty entered into between the
United States and Great Britain, in utter defiance of the National Government,
in absolute disregard of the rights of the people of the United States and to
the Substantial injury to navigation on the Great Lakes.
The sanitary district has evidently been acting on the theory that might
means right. It has been pursuing—
“The simple plan,
“That they should take who have the power,
“And they should keep who can.”
Finally after an inexcusable law's delay, the United States district court
rendered a decision restraining the withdrawal of more than 4,167 cubic feet
per Second of water (the amount theretofore permitted by the Secretary of
War to be withdrawn) and suggested therein that the defendant seek authority
from*Congress for the withdrawal of water in excess of the amount permitted
by the Secretary of War. The case is now pending in the Supreme Court of
the United States. Pursuant to the suggestion of the district court and pre-
sumably in anticipation of an adverse decision by the Supreme Court these
Chicago Sanitary District bills were introduced in Gongress.
The evidence is indisputable that the wrongful withdrawal of water has
Substantially lowered the lake levels, and thereby has caused, is now causing,
and will continue to cause unless it be prevented, irreparable and enormous
damage to navigation. On the Great Lakes which constitute in use and benefit
the greatest waterway system in the world. -
We have it on the authority of the president of the Lake Carriers' Asso-
ciation that the stupendous tonnage of 120,000,000 a year of home products
is carried in the argosies plying on this great Waterway which exists by the
bounty of Providence for the free and unobstructed navigation by the people
Of this Nation and of Canada. The annual Saving by lake transportation Of
said tonnage over rail transportation amounts to about $300,000,000.
It has been estimated by reliable marine authorities that the lowering Of
the lake levels by reason of the wrongful withdrawal of water from Lake
Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago causes an annual loss in lake
transportation of approximately $3,000,000 and this is in addition to the
incalculable damage that is being done constantly to the lake ports in Our
country and Canada.
The lower the level, the lighter the shipload ; the lighter the Shipload, the
higher the cost of transportation. That is self-evident. The consumer, we
are told, ultimately pays the freight, at least, on commodities transported
for domestic consumption and use.
During the navigation season of 1923 the stupendous sum of 33,137,028 met
tons Of coal were transported on the Great Lakes. A large part Of that Coal
was unloaded at the Duluth-Superior Harbor at the head of the Lakes for
consumption locally and for transshipment by rail to the people of Minnesota
and of other Northwestern States. The loss to the coal consumers, due to the
increased cost of transportation, which in turn is caused by the lowering of
the lake and channel levels, runs into millions of dollars annually. In Other
words, the consumers of coal and other commodities transported on the Great
Lakes suffer an enormous yearly loss in order that Chicago may continue
using an archaic method of sewage disposal and that she may also continue
profiting from the development for local use of hydroelectric power to the
extent of more than a million dollars a year by wrongfully withdrawing Lake
Michigan water.
Besides coal, the records show that during the navigation season of 1923
the Great Lakes traffic in Stone, grain, and iron ore was as follows:
Stone-------- net tons__ 9,920, 422
Grain ––– dO 11, 850, 446
IrOn Ore gross tons__ 59,036, 704
The increased cost for transporting these and other commodities due to the
wrongful withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan by the interest now
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 971
seeking congressional authority is of necessity reflected in the cost of Said
commodities to the consumers thereof. Under the circumstances, for Congress
to sanction this stupendous and economic waste would be to inflict upon the
people of this country and of Canada rank injustice.
There is a strong popular sentiment for the development of Our inland
waterways for transportation. It looks as though the proponents of at least
One of these bills have taken advantage of that sentiment, for upon a Super-
ficial reading of the bill one might easily get the notion that its paramount
purpose is “to create a navigable waterway.” . -
We want it distinctly understood that we are not Opposed to the develop-
ment of our inland waterways; on the contrary, we are heartily in favor of
such a national policy. But we are convinced by the testimony of the GOV-
•ernment engineers and other authorities that the amount of water sought to be
withdrawn by authority of Congress is far in excess of the amount that Would
be legitimately required for navigation purposes. Surely under no circum-
stances would the pretended waterway carry a tonnage equal to that now
Carried through the Sault Ste. Marie canals, yet the amount of water Sought
to be withdrawn would be sufficient to carry a tonnage nearly three times
the total tonnage of those canals. It does look as though the interest back Of
these several bills wants the additional water, not primarily for transportation,
but for the development of hydroelectric power and for the disposition of
sewage. For genuine transportation purposes, yes; but for the disposal and
purification of Chicago sewage, and for the development of hydroelectric
power for profit, we most emphatically protest that the sanitary district
should not be authorized to continue impairing and damaging the efficiency
of the greatest and most valuable waterway system in the world.
Mr. DEAL. May I ask a question of the gentleman right there?
Mr. LARSON. Certainly.
Mr. DEAL. Does Minnesota border on Lake Michigan?
Mr. LARSON. No ; it borders on Lake Superior.
Mr. DEAL. Is there not a lock between Lakes Superior and
Michigan? *
Mr. LARSON. Yes; there is.
Mr. DEAL. Does not that lock hold the water in Lake Superior?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; I will come to that later. I will show how
that while the lake level of Lake Superior would not be affected
by the proposed legislation, we have got to regard the Great Lakes
system as a whole. Our commerce is not confined to Lake Superior.
The immense tonnage that we ship from the Lake Superior ports
is shipped to the Erie ports and to Chicago and Gary and other
places, and while the water level of Lake Superior may remain
intact *
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you deal with this later on ?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty is we are infringing on our rule.
Mr. DEAL. I understand it. I just want to ask one other question.
Mr. LARSON. I would prefer to read this through and then when
I get through it, answer any question that I can.
Mr. MICHAELSON. He might not remember the question.
Mr. LARSON. I beg your pardon. I would be very glad to answer
any question that I can.
Mr. DEAL. How long is it supposed that the ores from the Mesaba
Range will last?
Mr. LARSON. That depends. The present ore bodies from which
the shipments are now being made are estimated to last approximately
half a century, but there has been discovered immense ore bodies
containing an incalculable amount of ore of a lower grade. A
method of the treatment of those ores has been discovered which
972 1LLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
make them commercially profitable, and the Lord only knows how
long it will take before they are exhausted. The whole north shore of
Lake Superior to the west is just bottomed with iron ore, and we
hope it will last long enough to maintain the needs of this Nation
of ours for many years.
Are there any other questions? I do not want to leave the im–
pression that I don’t like to have questions asked me.
Mr. DEAL. Is Minnesota any more interested in maintaining the
lake level than any other State that does not border on Lake Mich-
Igan &
Mr LARson. We are vitally interested in the levels of the other
ſakes. That iron ore that I have spoken of would not be worth
much if it were not for the fact that we are enabled to ship it to the
Erie ports. Only then does it become valuable.
Mr. DEAL. This would only be a matter of 5 or 6 inches.
Mr. LARSON. I am talking about it being confined exclusively to
Lake Superior. Of course it will not prevent us from shipping by
rail, but the cost would be almost prohibitive.
Mr. HULL. Who gets the benefit of the cost, the shippers or the
boat lines?
Mr. LARSON. My understanding is—and I think it is yours, too—
that ultimately the consumer pays the cost. Don’t think for a
moment that any of these large steel companies are going to suffer.
It is the people generally who will pay the freight.
Mr. HULL. Isn’t it a fact that if rates are increased the boat lines
will keep it all? -
Mr. LARSON. No: I do not think so.
Mr. HULL. You think not %
Mr. LARSON. No ; that is not the policy of the steel trade, as I
understand it. *
Mr. MICHAELSON. They charge all the traffic will bear, don’t they?
Mr. LARSON. No: I do not think they do.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, from this time on we will have to
enforce the rule rigidly.
Mr. DEAL. I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LARSON. My distinguished friend here tried to put a great
lawyer in a cul de sac, and I will give him the opportunity to put me
in there if he wants to.
Mr. HULL. No; I had rather take you out to supper.
Mr. LARSON (reading):
Neither do we wish to be understood as opposing any measure that would
help to conserve the health of the people of Chicago. But it is the testimony
of sanitary engineers that the present method of Chicago's Sewage disposal is
antiquated, wasteful, and unnecessary. A modern and efficient plant or plants
for the disposal of the Chicago sewage would, of course, cost money, but
Chicago has ample financial means to erect and maintain such a plant Or
plants. She need not resort to the use of more Lake Michigan water than She
is now permitted to withdraw.
Chicago's motto is “I will.” We suggest that she translate that motto into
action and promptly erect Suitable sewage disposal plants and thereby stop
polluting the waters of Illinois and other States, and stop whiffing the awful
stench from her sewage into the nostrils of her neighbors.
Mr. MICHAELsoN. Oh, now, now!
Mr. LARson. The testimony has been given here—in answer to my
friend who laughed—that the people in the Illinois Valley at night
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 973
must close their windows to avoid the stench that comes from the
disposal of this sewage from the Chicago River.
Mr. MICHAELson. You don’t believe that?
Mr. LARson. I am taking the testimony. I was never there. I
hope to be there some day. I have a friend of mine—Mr. Hull—
who I am sure will invite me to his home. [Reading:]
Even if the rights of our own people alone were affected by the proposed
Tegislation, we believe that Congress would not have the power to grant the
authority requested ; but this matter concerns also the rights Of Our Sister
nation to the north. With Great Britain, acting for Canada, the United States
Thas entered into a Solemn treaty with reference to the use of the Great Lakes
and its connecting channels. True, Congress has the power by appropriate
Tegislation to abrogate and annul any and all treaties made by our Govern-
‘ment with other nations. But to do so, especially in this instance, would
constitute a breach of faith. With us a treaty is more than a mere “scrap of
paper ‘’; it is a solemn and binding international compact. We would not
deliberately break faith with any nation and certainly not with Canada, with
which we have for more than a century been on relations most cordial and
friendly. She is our neighbor. We should not give her the slightest reason for
:apprehension that it is Our purpose to violate our treaty obligations. This
continent is large enough for both nations to Occupy and develop in the utmost
harmony and concord and for the mutual advantage and happiness of both
llations. gº
For these and other reasons we are constrained to voice our opposition to
the pending bills. We appreciate the importance of Chicago's sanitary problem,
lout we have such confidence in the intelligence and progressive spirit of her
Tjeople that they can and will solve that problem without the necessity of
resorting to the impairment of the Great Lakes waterway system, which is
America’s cheapest and most efficient agency for the transportation of her com-
Iſher’Ce.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. I beg leave to insert this protest into the record.
There are a few more signatures to be put on it. I do not want to
leave it with the committee until it is signed by all of my colleagues.
They have agreed to it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these briefly are the views of the Minnesota
delegation regarding the proposed legislation. Of course, we do not
presume to speak with the authority of civil or sanitary engineers,
of marine experts or of international lawyers, but we believe that our
protest is well founded and is consonant with the views of many
witnesses who have come before the committee and whose testimony,
by reason of their intimate knowledge of the subject upon which
they have testified, will be given great weight by this committee.
The subjects regarding which there has been any substantial con-
troversy are few. The essential facts upon which the proponents of
these bills base their opposition can not be seriously disputed. For
instance, it can not be denied, nor is it a matter of conjecture and
speculation, that the unauthorized and unlawful withdrawal of
water from Lake Michigan has substantially lowered the lake and
channel levels and that such lowering is now causing and will con-
tinue to cause great damage to transportation on the Great Lakes.
Neither can it be seriously denied that the wrongful action of the
Chicago Sanitary District has caused and will continue to cause,
if congressional authority requested be granted, a yearly money loss
to the American people running into millions and millions of dol-
lars.
Our Chicago friends admit the lowering of the lake levels, but
by some mental legerdemain they argue that the money loss caused
974 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
thereby to transportation is merely theoretical. They further argue
that, assuming that the loss is real and great, the withdrawal of the
water is justifiable on the grounds of sanitary necessity. They say
that the health of the people of Chicago is of greater importance
than the interests of lake navigation, be the damage caused to navi-
gation however great and the number of people injuriously affected
however large. In brief their slogan is “Chicago first, Chicago
uber alles.” That is the proposition made by Mr. Madden, “We
have the unqualified right to withdraw this water from Lake Michi-
gan in the interest of the health of the people of Chicago, and that
right is paramount to the right of navigation.” Unfortunately for
the Chicago people, the Supreme Court of the United States has
held that the paramount right to the waters of the Great Lakes is
in the interest of navigation and not a sanitary interest, and by the
Way, in passing
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Have you the authority in mind?
Mr. LARson. Yes; I have the authority in mind.
Mr. BARRETT. Will you give it to us, please?
Mr. LARSON. I will give it to you right now, the case of the United
States v. Dunbar-e
Mr. BARRETT. The United States v. The Chandler-Dunbar Co.'
Mr. LARson. Yes; that is the decision of Justice Lurton. I will
give you the exact language later on if you want it. That is not
only the decision of that particular point, but all along the line,
wherever this question has come up, the Supreme Court of the
United States has held that the interest of navigation comes first.
Mr. BEHAN. Has the Congressman the additional authorities?
Mr. LARSON. Oh, yes; I can supply them to you.
Mr. BEHAN. Will you do that, too?
Mr. LARson. I will be glad to.
Mr. ADCOCK. That was simply a question between navigation and
water power involved in the Chandler-Dunbar case.
Mr. LARson. Yes, sir; but in its decision the court without any
qualification stated that, so far as the waters of the Great Lakes
are concerned, the interest of navigation comes first.
Mr. BARRETT. As between navigation and water power.
Mr. LARSON. It did not say that.
Mr. BARRETT. There was not any question of sanitation involved.
Mr. LARson. That is a matter that you may argue. You may
rest assured that this committee is composed of such men that they
will weigh with painstaking care any legal proposition which you
may see fit to submit to them. There are many great lawyers on
this committee, and those who are not lawyers are blessed with an
extraordinary amount of good common sense.
Boiled down, their argument resolves itself into the question of
municipal selfishness against the national welfare. Now, I believe,
that a candid consideration of the circumstances and facts will
justify that conclusion. It appears that only after Chicago dug the
sanitary canal did she apply to the National Government for per-
mission to withdraw water from Lake Michigan. The permission
was granted, but the generosity of the National Government was
soon abused. Chicago took more water than she was permitted
to take. The National Government, demurred, but Chicago kept
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 975.
right on in utter defiance of the Secretary of War. Finally, the
United States was constrained and obliged to seek the aid of its
courts. It took about 12 years for that litigation to come to a point
before a decision was made. Our loquacious and unique Judge
Landis finally rendered his decision before he relinquished the digni-
fied but less remunerative position as Federal judge to assume the less
dignified and more lucrative one as czar of American baseball. Then
he handed down the decision, which did what? It restrained the
Sanitary District of Chicago from taking more than 4,167 cubic
feet per second per day out of Lake Michigan, and to that court
had been submitted the very arguments that are being submitted
to this committee, that Chicago has a right by virtue of the police
power of the State to withdraw that water. But the court was
obliged to brush that argument aside and say that the national
power, when it comes to a matter of navigation, is Supreme. The
court was right in so deciding. Its decision is in harmony with all
of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, starting
with the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, in which the opinion was ren-
dered by the great Chief Justice Marshall.
Now, a great delegation from Chicago is here seeking authority
of Congress to do what the courts said she had no right to do with-
out congressional legislation. I recall reading some time ago a very
interesting scientific article, the author of which was an eminent
geologist and geographer, wherein he advanced the theory that by
reason of the tilting of the earth the time would come when Lake
Michigan water would go through Chicago, into the Illinois River
and the Mississippi River down to the Gulf of Mexico. In fact,
he predicted that in 2,500 years Nnagara Falls will become an in-
termittent stream, and in 3,000 years all the water will have been
diverted to the Chicago outlet, the Illinois River, the Mississippi
IRiver, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. MICHAELSON. Then we have got nothing to worry about?
Mr. LARSON. No. I was going to suggest that if you had exercised
your powers of procrastination just a little further, if you had not
been sleeping at the switch, you could have put off this litigation
until such time as nature would have supplied you with a sufficient
amount of water.
Mr. BEHAN. It is the first hundred years that are the hardest,
Congressman.
Mr. LARSON I presume so. Pursuant to my promise, I am going
to eliminate some things that I was going to say, but I want to
call your attention to the importance of Duluth as a shipping center
and the interest that it has in this proposed legislation.
I dare say that most of you will recall reading the great speech
of Proctor Knott, delivered on the floor of the House of Representa-
tives about 50 years ago. It was the most wonderful outbreak of
satire and wit and humor ever heard in Congress, in which he ridi-
culed and satired Duluth, which was then a mere struggling village.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It was not even a village then, was it? That was
before it was born, wasn’t it?
Mr. LARSON. It was then on the map, although as you will recall
from reading the speech, he had a difficult time in finding Duluth.
Those of you who have not read that speech will have something
very delightful to exercise your minds with when you want to get
976 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
relief and relaxation from the pressing work which occupies you
as Members of Congress.
Mr. MICHAELSON. Do you offer it as an exhibit in this case?
Mr. LARSON. I would be very glad to do it, with the hope that
you might be persuaded to read it. He speaks of Duluth and says
that it is to become the commercial metropolis of the world. Now,
while Duluth is no longer a struggling village and has not become
the commercial metropolis of the world, it is a great industrial and
manufacturing and shipping center. In point of tonnage it is the
greatest port in America, except New York—greater than Chicago,
greater than San Francisco, greater than Baltimore, greater than
Boston, greater than Galveston.
The CHAIRMAN. You should not put Chicago in such a place on the
list. Chicago's tonnage is less than that of Buffalo.
Mr. LARSON. Yes; it is greater than Buffalo in point of tonnage—I
mean Duluth's tonnage is greater than that of Buffalo. Our hope
is that in the near future Duluth will become an ocean port, in which
may be seen ocean-going vessels from all parts of the world. In
order that Duluth may become such, we want to protect lake naviga-
tion from further impairment by the Chicago Sanitary District.
As showing the concern of the people of Duluth in these pending
Chicago Sanitary District bills, I desire, with your permission, to
read into the record a letter which I received recently from the
Duluth Board of Trade. That organization represents the grain
trade of Duluth, the importance and the extent of which I shall refer
to briefly later. This letter is not very long and it sets forth con-
cisely the viewpoint of those engaged in the grain trade. It also
will answer a question propounded to me by one of the members of
the committee as to Duluth's interest in this matter because of the
fact that the lake levels of Lake Superior are not involved. I want
to read it. It is dated April 12, 1924, and is addressed to me:
We are advised that the Hull bill (H. R. 5475) will come before the Com-
mittee on Rivers and Harbors for hearings beginning April 15. This is the
bill which would permit Chicago to divert 10,000 feet of water per second from
the Great Lakes. You are, no doubt, thoroughly familiar With it.
Duluth, like nearly all cities along the Great Lakes, except Chicago, is Strongly
opposed to this bill. I believe you have received from Secretary Saxby the
resolution adopted by the Duluth Chamber of Commerce with reference to the
matter. They oppose any action until Canada, which has treaty rights, has been
Consulted, and also Oppose any diversion of water until after Government
engineers have determined What amount can be taken Without injury to the
level of water in the Great Lakes.
The Duluth Board of Trade is directly interested, for its members are large
shippers in carriers on the Great Lakes. When this matter was brought before
the attorney generals representing the States bordering On the Great Lakes, an
effort was made to convince Attorney General Hilton Of Minnesota that this
State was not interested because the level of water in Lake Superior would not
be affected. This is, Of COurSe, childish. The GOvernment authorities have
determined that the waters of the Great Lakes have always been lowered
nearly 6 inches, and, of course, the place at which that lowering is directly felt
is in channels like the Detroit River.
The depth of water in those channels governs the amount of load that can be
placed in a vessel leaving Lake Superior for lower lake ports, and the ports Of
Minnesota are among the largest shippers on the Great Lakes, so that Our
interest is a direct and Vital One. Not only that, but we are directly concerned
in the level of waters on Lake Michigan, for Our shipments of iron ore from
Minnesota points to South Chicago and Indiana Harbor are large.
I am inclosing you a statement given to me by the Pittsburgh Steamship Co.
of the shipments during a period of five years, and you will see from that that
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 977
A-
Our interest in what the level of waters is in harbors on Lake Michigan is very
direct. We also ship grain occasionally from Duluth to Chicago, but the amount
Of that is hardly large enough to make a point of. -
I am inclosing you a proof of protest prepared by the Cleveland Chamber Of
Commerce at Cleveland, which will be presented at Washington. This will
give you, I think, in very good form the general argument against the bill.
We are not in a position to send anybody to Washington to present our
protest, but would like to ask that you do so on behalf of the Duluth Board of
Trade, which includes among its members all of the shippers of grain and
flour at the head of the lakes, including the cities of both Duluth and Superior,
and also all Of the vessel agents who make charters of boats to carry cargoes.
to the lower lakes. They are all of one mind in the matter, and I do not believe
that it Will require any argument to convince you of the Soundness Of the
position We all take.
Very truly yours,
CHAs. F. MACDONALD, Secretary.
I also shall beg leave to insert into the record the resolution adopted
by the Duluth Chamber of Commerce, which, as you might surmise,
represents all general business interests of our city. It is along the
same line, and I shall not take your time to read it.
(The resolution referred to is as follows:)
THE HULL BILL (H. R. 547 5)
This bill fails to take into account the rights of the Dominion of Canada
under treaty Obligation in any proposed diversion of water from the Great
Lakes, and we condemn its failure to give those rights full consideration.
We Oppose approval of the withdrawal of any amount of water from the
Great Lakes until engineers representing the United States Government shall,
after thorough investigation, determine that the amount proposed to be taken
and the control under which it will be withdrawn will not result in any lowering
Of the level of the water in the Great Lakes now or at any future time to the
detriment Of navigation.
If the amount of water that can be withdrawn without damage to the
interests of the Great Lakes or in violation of treaty rights is such as to permit
the development of a practicable channel for water-borne commerce from Lake
Michigan to the Mississippi River, we believe its use for that purpose to be in
the public interest.
These communications, Mr. Chairman, give you some idea of the
apprehension with which the people of Duluth, and especially the
business interests, look upon the proposed legislation.
True, the level of Lake Superior has not been nor will it be affected
by the diversion and withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan, but
our shipping is not confined to Lake Superior. We ship iron ore,
grain, lumber, and other commodities to the ports of the other lakes
on the Great Lakes system. Our coal comes from Lake Erie ports.
A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and so the efficiency of
the Great Lakes system as a means of transportation is no greater
nor better than its most shallow channel. That is so obvious that
really I ought to apologize for stating it to you.
When the French voyageurs took the first shipment of beaver furs
from the head of the Lakes to Montreal in 1660 they portaged over
the Soo with their canoes, but since then times have changed and the
methods of transportation have changed with the times. We can
not portage a 600-foot Leviathan carrying many thousand tons of
grain or iron ore. Such a vessel needs approximately 20 feet of
water all along the line of its 800 or more miles of voyage, and also
in the harbors of the different cities to which they transport their
nation’s freight. Now, the question is—
‘978 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The harbors and the connecting
waters?
Mr. LARson. Yes. The question is, Shall we in our Great Lakes
transportation go backward or forward? Shall we impair and
endanger the cheapest and the best transportation system in the world
by reducing the levels of the Great Lakes and their connecting chan-
nels? I haven’t the time—I wish I had—to read to you the figures
showing the tremendous commerce at the head of the Lakes. They
are astounding. The average American has no conception of the
importance and the extent of the commerce on the Great Lakes, and
he has little or no conception of the commerce which goes out of and
into what is known as the Duluth-Superior Harbor. I am not going
to take your time to read those figures now, but with you permission
I shall ask to have inserted into the record a brief résumé of the
report made by the Government engineer stationed at Duluth, show-
ing the freight shipments and receipts at the Duluth-Superior Har-
bor during the shipping season of 1923.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be received.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
Freight shipments and receipts at the Duluth-Superior Harbor during the
navigation season of 1923 shattered all previous records, according to the statis-
tical report of marine commerce prepared by Maj. E. H. Marks, United States
engineer at Duluth, and made public Friday. The total valuation of the
season’s freight was placed at $449,701,954.
After eliminating all known duplications, Duluth-Superior Harbor receipts
and shipments for the year 1922 constituted 40 per cent of the total tonnage On
the Great Lakes, the report States. For the year 1923 a larger percentage is
warranted, due to the greater VOlume Of tonnage received and Shipped.
Shipments from this point during the last season totaled 45,103,470 tons.
The next largest season on record is 1918, with 41,256,491 tons. Coming next
on the list are 1916 and 1917, with 41,131,478 and 40,169,010 tons, respectively ;
T922 lags far behind, with 31,216,847 tons recorded. In 1921 only 18,743,527
tons were shipped.
Receipts at this harbor during 1923 were 14,171,342 tons, compared to
6,985,227 tons in 1922 and 11,340,628 tons in 1921. The second highest season
on record for receipts is 1918, with a tonnage of 12,482,807. Third place is
taken by 1917, with 12,242,814 tons.
The value of freight shipped from the Duluth-Superior Harbor in 1923 is
placed at $317,746.130 and of freight received at $131,955,824.
A total of 12,428 boats of all kinds arrived and departed from the harbor,
with a registered tonnage of 46,021,670. The total number of passengers
arriving and departing during the season was 44,291. &
Shipments of ore from the harbor for 1922 amounted to 42,350,918 tons, as
compared with 27,043,558 for 1922 and 9,860,547 for 1904. Grain shipments
totaled 70,237,441 bushels, against 115,744,144 during 1922 and 46,770,766 in
1904. Coal receipts were 12,688,321 tons for 1923, compared to 5,705,296 for
the preceding year and 52,785 tons in 1879.
The navigation season in 1922 for interlake traffic covered a period of 220
days, which, according to the report, is reckoned from the first arrival from
lower lakes on May 5 to the last arrival or departure for lower lakes on
December 11. Local navigation closed January 8, 1924. The average number
of tons of cargo received and shipped per day during the season at Duluth
and Superior was 234,288, adds the report. The increase in freight tonnage
during 1922 was 55 per cent, the increase over 1920, 27 per cent, while over
1900 it amounted to 405 per cent.
The report states that there was a marked increase in the receipts in some
commodities, including automobiles, 70 per cent: hard coal. 150 per cent: soft
coal, 119 per cent ; Wheat, 1,954 per cent; machinery and manufactured irons,
53 per cent.
Proctor Knott called Duluth “a mirage in the desert.”. I dare
say if he were living to-day and could read the figures in this report
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 979
he would no longer claim that Duluth is “a mirage in the desert,”
but would realize that it is a great shipping port, the outlet to the
East and to the markets of the world for grain and flour and iron
and lumber and other commodities.
Lake commerce, Mr. Chairman, is the very lifeblood of Duluth,
and without it Duluth would perhaps still be a mere struggling
village. If I need to make any apology for taking up your time
here it is because of the fact that Duluth is so vitally interested
in this proposed legislation, which we fear will have a detrimental
effect upon lake transportation. I say, do you wonder that we of
Duluth and Superior look with fear and trembling when it is pro-
posed that Congress shall authorize the withdrawal from Lake
Michigan in perpetuity—not for this year, not for the subsequent
year, not for 10 years, but in perpetuity, forever, unendingly—So
enormous an amount of water as to reduce the levels of the Great
Lakes and thereby materially and seriously injure and damage
transportation on those Lakes?
May I call your attention briefly to the importance of this pro-
posed legislation to the iron industry of the country, in which we
of Duluth are so vitally concerned? The iron and steel industry is
one of the Nation's basic industries. Its successful operation is
essential not only to the prosperity of our country but to civiliza.
tion itself. It has been called the barometer of the Nation’s business.
Eighty per cent of the Nation's iron ore is carried on the Great
Lakes, and a very large part of that 80 per cent is shipped from the
head of the Lakes.
Mr. HULL. We are going to get that out of Tennessee after
a while.
Mr. LARSON. On some days there is shipped from Duluth as much
as 200,000 tons of iron ore. It is mined in Minnesota. In the iron
mining industry of Minnesota millions upon millions of dollars of
American capital is invested. The mining of ore gives employ-
ment to thousands upon thousands of men in our State and in my
district. Many important cities in Minnesota depend solely for
their existence upon the iron mining industry. It pays practically
all the State taxes. It helps to keep up the State educational in-
stitutions. But what value, I ask would it be to Minnesota or to
the Nation if that iron ore could not be transported to Chicago and
Gary on Lake Michigan and to the Lake Erie ports by the present
efficient and cheap methods of transportation ? Iron in the ground
is of no value. It becomes valuable only as it is made into steel
for the equipment of railroads and for the building of bridges and
for the building of skyscrapers and for manufacture into farm im-
plements and for the manufacture into other things so essential
to our civilization. Mr. Chairman, in the name of that great in-
dustry, we protest against the passage of these bills.
Now, a word with regard to the transportation of coal, so far as
it relates to the Duluth or the Duluth-Superior Harbor. The official
report shows that the coal receipts at the Duluth-Superior Harbor
in the shipping season of 1923 amounted to 12,680,321 tons. In
Duluth we have 24 coal docks, equipped with modern, up-to-date
machines for unloading from the ships and loading from the docks
980 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
into the railroad cars. Their aggregate storage capacity is about
12,000,000 tons.
No one will deny that coal is an essential commodity. Its cost
is a matter of deep concern to the people. The cheaper it can be
transported the less will it cost, to the consumer. In September,
1920, the steamer H. G. Dalton brought to Duluth a cargo of an-
thracite coal amounting to 14,613 tons. How many railroad cars
do you think it would take to transport that shipload of coal from
Pennsylvania to Duluth? What would the transportation cost be?
The price would be almost prohibitive. The farmers of Minnesota
and the Northwest would be obliged to burn straw for fuel. Many
of the coal-using industries in our section of the country would
be obliged to shut down. Fortunately, we will never be obliged
to resort to rail transportation exclusively to get coal to Duluth,
but, as we state in our protest, the shallower the water, the lighter
the shipload; the lighter the shipload, the higher the cost of trans-
portation; the higher the cost of transportation, the higher the
price of coal to the consumer. Therefore, we argue let us keep up our
lake levels, that these freighters can carry coal to the limit of their
capacity.
Now, the farmers are complaining about the high cost of trans-
portation of their products. They want cheaper transportation.
but if any of the bills now pending before this committee should
become a law it would mean an increased cost of transportation
of grain and other farm products.
Mr. HULL. From where?
Mr. LARSON. From the Northwest, from Minnesota, from South
Dakota, from North Dakota, and from other Western States which
we call the great bread basket of the world.
Mr. HULL. You only have about 5 per cent of the traffic in grain.
Mr. LARson. You will get the figures shortly.
Mr. HULL. We have had them all week.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you gave them as 11,000,000 tons.
Mr. HULL. That is out of 120,000,000 tons. It does not amount
to anything.
Mr. LARson. Eleven million tons of grain?
Mr. HULL. Yes; out of 120,000,000 tons of all kinds of traffic.
Mr. LARson. I know; but 11,000,000 tons of grain is a tremendous
amount of grain, and the transportation of that amount of grain is
some item when it relates to the producer and the consumer.
Mr. HULL. We raise that much corn in Peoria County.
The CHAIRMAN. Eleven million tons?
Mr. HULL. Yes. That is as much as he ships.
Mr. LARSON. I am afraid that my friend here has absorbed some
of Proctor Knott's imagination.
The CHAIRMAN. What does that mean in bushels, 11,000,000 tons?
Mr. LARson. I think Mr. Hull must have bushels in mind rather
than tons.
Mr. HULL. I think not. I think we raise just about the same
amount as you ship. I looked it up one day. We raise it in two or
three counties there.
Mr. LARson. We will not take time to go into that.
Mr. HULL. It is immaterial,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 981
The CHAIRMAN. No; it is quite material; but I think the facts are
the other way.
Mr. HULL. I will produce them.
Mr. LARSON. Our contention is that that will mean an additional
handicap for the farmers of the Northwest who ship their grain by
rail to Duluth for transshipment by water to Buffalo and other
points in the East. From Duluth-Superior Harbor in the shipping
season of 1923, the grain shipments totaled 70,277,441 bushels. If
you can beat that in Peoria County, go to it.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you raise those in your back yard, Mr. Hull,
or do you take in some of the adjoining lots?
Mr. HULL. We have always used 55,000 bushels of corn a day in
Peoria for 300 days in the year.
Mr. LARSON. That was in the time of the distilleries?
Mr. HULL. Yes; but you are talking about these old times, too?
Mr. LARSON. As against 115,744,141 during 1922. Mr. Goulder,
the general counsel of the Great Lakes Association, told us that the
average wheat load carried on the Great Lakes is 275,000 bushels,
and that a 600-footer carries at least 450,000 bushels, and at a very
low freight rate, the lowest in the world. The bread basket of the
World would not be much of a basket if the farmers of the North-
West could not avail themselves of the cheap transportation rates
afforded by the Great Lakes waterway, and you may rest assured
that they do not look with favor on any congressional measure which
will add to the cost of the transportation of their grain and other
products to the eastern markets and to the markets of the world.
Should any of these bills be reported favorably and come before the
House for consideration, I venture the prediction that the farmers,
and especially the farmers of the Northwest—I know the farmers of
my State of Minnesota—would remonstrate against its passage in no
uncertain terms. They would make it plain that Chicago shall not
take care of her sewage and exploit the water of Lake Michigan for
the development of hydroelectric power at their expense.
I heard the proponents of these bills say that their object is the
improvement of commerce and navigation. If my constituents were
convinced that such is their chief and real object, they certainly
would not want me to come before this committee to oppose so laud-
able and worthy a purpose. They favor the improvement of our
inland waterways for navigation. They are fully aware of the fact
that it is futile to expect the railroads to cope with the transporta-
tion demands of the country. We must resort to the development of
our inland waterways if we expect to get adequate transportation at
reasonable rates. I believe that proposition is generally admitted
even by the railroad executives. Water transportation is the cheap-
est transportation in the world, and the Great Lakes water affords
the cheapest water transportation in the world.
The CHAIRMAN. Does not that make you pause a little bit, when
you talk about changing your waterway system? -sº
Mr. LARson. I should hope so, and I am quite sure, knowing this
committee as I do, that they are not looking upon this matter with
any levity or as a minor matter. They are considering legislation
which will affect the prosperity of this Nation, not for this year
or next year but for years to come. It is on the development of
982 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
our internal waterways that of the business of the Nation must rely
for an adequate distribution of the products of industry.
May I put this into the record, because it is very striking? We
are told that $1 will haul 1 ton of freight by horse and wagon 4
miles, by English steam truck 20 miles, by the average railroad 133
miles, by specially selected railroads 200 miles, by the Erie Canal
333 miles, by European canals 500 miles, by the Great Lakes 1,500
miles. Do you wonder, then, that we are concerned about legisla-
tion which we think will detrimentally affect that great transporta-
tion agency of the Nation? No, we are not opposing here the im-
provement for navigation and commerce of any proposed inland
waterway. If that were the legitimate and real purpose of any of
the bills we would be here urging their passage, but we are reliably
informed by those who know whereof they speak that sufficient
water may be withwdrawn from Lake Michigan for an adequate
waterway without in the least impairing navigation of the cheapest
and the best waterway system in the world. Our opposition, Mr.
Chairman, is directed solely against the withdrawal of more water
than is needed for navigation. We object to granting authority
to withdraw from Lake Michigan 10,000 cubic feet of water per
second per day for carrying away her sewage and for exploiting
the people's waterway for the development of hydroelectric power
for Chicago's profit I hope I have made my position clear on that
proposition. sº tº
We appreciate the mportance and difficulty of Chicago's sanitary
problem. The health * her population should be conserved.
Health, there is no question about that, is the most important thing
in the world. I think it was Emerson who said it is the first duty
of man to be a good animal, and the great English philosopher,
Herbert Spencer, supplemented that statement by saying that the
first duty of the nation, in order to have national prosperity, is to
be a nation of good animals. We are not here opposing any legiti-
mate measure for the conservation of the health of the people of
Chicago. We are interested in their health, we are interested in
their prosperity, and we are interested in their happiness. We are
their neighbors, we are now and will continue to be on the most
cordial relations with the people of Chicago. But we are informed
that it is the opinion of competent sanitary engineers that Chicago
can dispose of her Sewage without the necessity of withdrawing
such an amount of water from Lake Michigan as would further
jepordize and impair the interests of navigation on the Great Lakes.
Chicago is not a pauper. Chicago is rich and opulent. I dare say
that she has ample engineering talent within her borders to devise
ways and means to overcome the engineering difficulties involved
in her sanitary problem. They say that necessity is the mother
of invention. When this committee of Congress makes it plain to
Chicago that the authority sought for will not be granted, Chicago
will find another method, although perhaps more expensive, for the
disposal of her sewage.
me of those who have spoken in behalf of the bill, and particu-
larly our good friend Congressman Madden, have invoked the
doctrine of State rights. This is for you lawyers of the committee
and I have a great respect for your legal ability from reputation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 983.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you pass from the question of the financial
and physical problem to the legal problem, let me suggest that you
consider this, your delegation and that of Michigan and that of Wis-
consin, and see whether you have any better suggestion than what has
been outlined here. This is one of the tentative things that we are
considering. Suppose that this problem does come to us after a Su-
preme Court decision; suppose that it is decided unqualifiedly that
Chicago has no legal right to withdraw from the Great Lakes, but we
are faced with the actual situation as it exists that Chicago is in fact.
diverting and Chicago is caring for its sewage in that way. Can we
do better than to permit the diversion for such time as may be neces-
Sary, in constantly decreasing quantities, leaving the matter of prog-
ress from year to year in the hands of some impartial tribunal, such
as the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War, and making the
continuance even of the diminished diversion contingent upon Chi-
cago's proceeding in good faith and with such reasonable diligence
as her not having the right would impel her naturally to do—or ought
to impel her to do. Just consider that and see what you have to say
at a later date to the committee on that question.
Mr. LARSON. I thank you for the suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will, please.
Mr. LARSON. I might say that there is no disposition on the part of
my constituents, and I am sure on the part of the people of Minnesota
generally, to oppose any reasonable way of solving Chicago's Sanitary
problem, and even though Congress may not have the constitutional
power to legislate for the benefit of Chicago's sanitary situation, there
will be a disposition, I am quite sure, on the part of Congress to stretch
a point in the interest of the conservation of the health of the people
of Chicago. -
The CHAIRMAN. I think there would be no doubt, if it came up in
the way I have suggested, that Congress would have jurisdiction. If
it came up as I have suggested it would come up not as a grant but
as a restriction in the interest of navigation, and so the jurisdiction
of the question, it seems to me, would be clear.
Mr. LARSON. Some of you with legal minds may be able to develop
a method which will be legal and constitutional and at the same time
satisfactory to Chicago and to the people of the Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not intend to break in on you.
Mr. LARSON. I want to consider now briefly a question which has
been invoked here, was invoked this morning, and undoubtedly will
be invoked again when the legal phases of this matter are under con-
sideration by the proponents of the bills. I said that some of those
who have spoken in favor of the bills have invoked the doctrine of
State rights. They have argued that the sovereign State of Illinois
has the power to protect the health of her citizens by using Lake
Michigan water, even if such use is detrimental to navigation on the
Great Lakes. They argue plausibly that the use of Lake Michigan
water for conservation of health of all the residents of Chicago is a
legitimate exercise of the police power of the State. I think I am
stating the proposition fairly. Now, our answer to that argument is
the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, namely, “Con-
gress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.” The word
'984 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
“commerce’ as stated by the great Chief Justice Marshall, compre-
hends the term “navigation,” and it has so been understood since then.
The control over navigation is in Congress. That control, as stated
by Mr. Justice Lurton in the Chandler-Dunbar case, is unfettered and
it is supreme.
Mr. ADCOCK. In that case Congress passed an act directly operating
upon the water-power plants, didn’t it?
Mr. LARSON. I will consider that later. The States—get this—
may not exercise their police power, great as it is, for any purpose
whatever, if by so doing they encroach upon the sovereignty of the
National Government. That is not my dictum; it is the declaration
of the Supreme Court of the United States. “For any purpose
whatever *—that, it would seem to me, would include sanitary pur-
poses.
It is unnecessary to argue any further the proposition advanced,
for has not the Federal district court held that the withdrawal of
more than 4,157 cubic feet of water per second is unlawful? The
fact that the Sanitary District of Chicago is here seeking congres-
isional authority is a tacit admission that the State of Illinois has
no power to grant the authority and that Congress and Congress
alone has that power. Otherwise you would not be here. If you
had faith in the proposition that the State of Illinois has police
power by virtue of which you are permitted to withdraw that
amount of water from Lake Michigan, you would not be here seek-
ing authority from Congress.
1Mr. ADCock. What did they do in the case of New York v. New
Jersey? º :
Mr. LARSON. I do not know about that case. I am here arguing
this proposition on the decision of the court in the very matter in
which we are interested. Your court has decided against you, and
surely it had time to reflect—six years after all the testimony was
in. It took six years for Judge Landis to come to a conclusion.
You can not say that it was an ill-considered or a hasty conclusion.
It may be doubtful whether this Congress in the exercise of its
constitutional power to regulate commerce—that is, to regulate navi-
gation—has the right to grant the authority sought when it is plain
that the real purpose for the withdrawal of so much water is not to
promote navigation but to dispose of the sewage and to develop
hydroelectric power. To grant such authority would be to impair
navigation and to regulate navigation.
Now, just a word on the treaty phase of this controversy. There
is another legal question involved in the power of Congress to grant
the authority sought, and that is a very important and I believe a
controlling question. To permit Chicago to withdraw from Lake
Michigan in perpetuity 10,000 cubic feet per second of water per day
would lower the levels of those Canadian waters that are a part of
the Great Lake system. In fact, the levels of the Canadian waters
have already been lowered, to the detriment of Canadian navigation.
To do that is clearly contrary to well-established principles of the
common law and of international law.
Besides, we have a treaty with Canada the chief purpose of which
is to protect the respective water rights of both nations. Of course,
Congress can abrogate that treaty by enacting the sought-for legis-
lation. Congress has the constitutional power to do that. But to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 985
do so would constitute a great breach of faith. Congress would be
loath to do that in any case, but I am confident that our friendship
for our sister nation of Canada is so deep and is so warm and is so
valuable that under no circumstances would we deliberately break
faith with her simply to allow Chicago to handle her sewage more
cheaply and allow her a profit by the exploitation of her hydro-
electric power. -
That Canada does not look with favor upon the action of Chicago
in withdrawing this enormous amount of water from Lake Michi-
gan is quite evident. The Parliament or Legislature of the Prov-
ince of Ontario has adopted a resolution of protest. The Cana-
dian newspapers are editorially remonstrating against what they
call an unauthorized diversion, and some have even given expres-
º ſo their righteous indignation by calling it “the Chicago
steal. -
Mr. BARRETT. You are sure it is righteous?
Mr. LARSON. Put your own interpretation on it.
Mr. BARRETT. We will try to do so.
Mr. LARSON. Under the circumstances, for Chicago to give the
so-called steal, or, to use more euphemistic language, the unauthor-
ized diversion, congressional sanction would raise a grave inter-
national question for our State Department to settle. To say the
least, Congress should act with the utmost caution, so as to avoid
creating a diplomatic strife between Canada and the United States.
We should not permit Chicago's sewage problem to cause a breach
in the cordial and friendly relations that for more than a century
have blessed both nations.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I shall try to sum up in a few
words our specific objections to the granting of congressional au-
thority to the Sanitary Drainage District of Chicago to withdraw
in perpetuity 10,000 cubic feet per second per day from Lake
Michigan. -
We object
Because navigation on the Great Lakes, the Nation’s best and
cheapest waterway system, would be materially and seriously in-
iured.
J Because enormous, irreparable, continuing and incalculable dam-
age would be caused to the hundred and more lake ports in this
country and Canada.
Because the Nation’s transportation bill would stupendously in-
crease and in the course of a few years would run into billions of
dollars.
Because the basic industry of agriculture and the basic industry
of iron and steel would be seriously affected.
Because the proposed legislation is palpably not in furtherance
of the legitimate promotion of commerce and navigation between
the Great Lakes and the Gulf, but its paramount object is to aid
the flowage and purification of Chicago's sewage and to exploit
wastefully the development of hydroelectric power for commercial
UlSe.
Because the use of the amount of water sought to be withdrawn
is not indispensable for the solution of Chicago's Sanitary problem.
Because the United States Supreme Court has held that the pri-
mary use of navigable waters is for the purpose of navigation.
9.1739—24—PT 2—47
986 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Because it is doubtful whether Congress in the exercise of its
constitutional power to regulate commerce, which includes navi-
gation, has the power to grant an authority the exercise of which
would impair rather than improve navigation. Impairment of
navigation is not regulation of navigation.
Because the granting of such congressional authority would be
futile as against Canada for the exercise of said power by Chicago
would be in clear violation of the well-established principles of
both the common law and of international law.
Because, finally, the granting of Said authority would constitute
a breach of the treaty now existing between Great Britain and the
United States and thereby provide a grave diplomatic imbroglio
between two friendly nations upon the uniterrupted continuance of
whose cordial and friendly relations depends in a large measure the
peace of the world.
The CHAIRMAN. Adjourned until 2.15.
(Whereupon, at 1.15 p.m., a recess was taken until 2.15 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to the taking of recess.
Mr. LARSON. My understanding is that some questions were to be
propounded to me, and I want to say as an introduction to any ques-
tions that may be asked me that I am not here as a sanitary expert,
as a civil engineer, a marine expert, or an international lawyer;
that I have tried to base my statement upon the evidence that has
been thus far submitted to the committee, and your other evidence
which is recognized as a matter of common knowledge.
The CHAIRMAN. Referring to the 11,000,000 tons of wheat of
which you spoke, Congressman Deal has figured that out, and he
makes it 366,000,000 bushels. Three hundred and sixty-six million
bushels would be one-half the total production of wheat for the
United States. Multiply 11,000,000 tons by 2,000 pounds to the ton
will give you 22,000,000,000, and dividing that by 60 pounds to the
bushel would give you 366,000,000 bushels plus.
Mr. LARson. May I say that I shall look over those figures and
if I should find that I have erroneously stated the amount that I
shall ask leave to correct the error.
The CHAIRMAN. We are proceeding on the basis that the 11,000,000
tons is correct, and that will figure out 366,000,000 bushels.
Mr. LARSON. I shall be glad to correct the record with the per-
mission of the committee if I should find there is an error.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask you one or two questions. I don’t
know that they are very important.
Of course, you elaborated a good deal on the importance of the
large amount of tonnage carried on the Great Lakes, and those who
are helping to promote the Mississippi Valley River barge line and
the deep waterway from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico
has calculated that the amount of grain that would be shipped
on the river would amount to more than the total tonnage of the
Great Lakes. Presuming that to be the fact, would you not think.
that this deep waterway from Lake Michigan down to the Gulf of
Mexico would be an important proposition from a transportatio
standpoint to the farmers? & t

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 987
Mr. LARSON. I think I have made my position quite clear on the
transportation phase of the proposed legislation. I have stated that
if it is really the purpose to promote navigation, by the development
of our internal waterways, we in Minnesota, we in the Northwest,
would be for it, because we believe in the development of our water.
ways for the solving of the Nation’s transportation problem. -
. Mr. HULL. In other words, what I am trying to get you to state
is that if this was hauled, all this grain, it would be a great advan-
tage to the farmers?
Mr. LARSON. I am not discounting that.
Mr. HULL. Would it be or would it not be?
Mr. LARSON. That is so obvious—
Mr. HULL. It is just as well to say yes as it is to try to say some-
thing else.
Mr. LARSON. Of course, it is obvious that anything that will
cheapen the transportation of the products of the farm is beneficial
to the º as a whole, and as a legislator trying to legislate for
the Nation I would be in favor of any such proposition. As a
former member of this committee the chairman knows, and the other
members of the committee know, that I was an enthusiastic sup-
porter of anything that had to do with the legitimate development
of our internal waterways.
Mr. HULL. Now, then, if it took 6,000 cubic feet of water to do
this, would you oppose it?
Mr. LARSON. Well, that is an assumption.
Mr. HULL. No; that is not an assumption, we brought it out the
other day in evidence, evidence from very reliable and good men.
Mr. LARSON. But that is an assumption that is not borne out by
the evidence as I have it. The evidence, as I have it, is that 1,000 cu-
bic feet per second is ample for any legitimate use of the proposed
waterways for which your bill, ºi. you have withdrawn, pro-
vides. As I understand it now, the measure that is before this com-
mittee is a measure which has to do with the authorization by Con-
gress of the withdrawal of 10,000 feet per second for sanitation
purposes. -
Mr. HULL. My bill is still before the committee; but I withdrew
it from the general bill. Get that in your mind... You have not
heard the evidence, or otherwise you would not have made that
statement, but we will presume that it needs 6,000 cubic feet per
second to make this waterway what we want to make it. In that
case would you legislators in Minnesota oppose it?
Mr. LARson. Well, that would depend, of course, on the testimony
of those who are competent to testify as to what effect it would
have, if any, upon the transportation on the Great Lakes. I should
say this, without committing myself definately, that I should want
to be firmly convinced that any amount of water that would be
taken away would not detrimentally affect the present waterway
system which we know has been of tremendous benefit to the Nation.
Mr. HULL. Even if this other were of more benefit?
Mr. LARson (continuing). And going into speculation as to what
some other waterway system might do or might not do.
Mr. HULL. Well, one more question. You have been around here
a good deal and heard the testimony.
Mr. LARson. Not as much as I would like to have been.
988 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. And it has been testified here, it has been developed
Without much controversy, that the diversion of the Lakes, especially
Lake Erie from the east end, including the Welland Canal and
the Niagara Power and the New York canal, amount to about 5.6
inches. ... Would you be in favor of stopping that if we stopped the
Lake Michigan diversion?
Mr. LARSON. My understanding is that that diversion of that water
is in no way detrimental to the transportation interests.
Mr. HULL. But they all acknowledge that it reduces the level
of Lake Erie. -
Mr. LARSON. But my understanding is that it does not detrimen-
tally affect navigation.
Mr. HULL. If it did, would you be in favor of stopping it?
Mr. LARSON. If it detrimentally affected navigation, of course
that would be a matter for serious consideration by this committee,
because Congress has supreme power of regulation of the Na-
tion’s commerce, including navigation. That would be a matter
that would have to be thoroughly gone into. But that is a hypo-
thetical proposition; that is not the issue that is involved in this
legislation at all. The question is, Shall the Sanitary District of
Chicago be permitted to withdraw 10,000 cubic feet per second
to-day from Lake Michigan? That is the only issue involved now
before this committee. . . . . . f -
Mr. HULL. Oh, no. -
Mr. LARson. That is the only question upon which I would care
to express an opinion. I don’t care to go into any hypothetical
or academic questions as to what I might do under different cir-
cumstances in the future with regard to something else.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you are going to leave it on the record
that you want one stopped, but you don’t want the other stopped ?
Mr. LARson. I am not leaving that on the record that way at all.
Mr. MICHAELSON. You read a memorial from Duluth and the
State of Minnesota. May I ask if any of the other Members from
Minnesota joined you in signing this memorial?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; they join me. They have not all signed the
memorial, but I have gone over it with the other Members from the
State.
Mr. MICHAELSON, Who has signed it besides yourself?
Mr. LARson. I think Mr. Clague. Mr. Newton has read it and
has said he would sign it. I have corrected some clerical errors
Mr. MICHAELSON. How many Members are there from Minnesota?
Mr. LARSON. Ten. They will all sign. I made that plain. It
won’t be put into the record until it has the signatures to it.
Mr. MICHAELSON. But up to date it has but one signature?
Mr. LARSON. Two. r
Mr. MICHAELSON. I want to ask you another question. The gen-
tleman was very solicitous regarding Canada, and said some very
kind things regarding Canada. Would he also say a few kind
things regarding Mexico? . . . - -
Mr. LARSON. I think that is a facetious, impertinent question, and
I shall not make any attempt to answer it. This is a serious matter
we are considering. '. -
Mr. MICHAELSON. It is a very serious matter with me.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 989
Mr. LARSON. I shall not answer the question, with all due defer-
ence to the member of this committee. *
Mr. MICHAELSON. That is all.
Mr. LARSON. Before closing may I give the attitude of Canada
with reference to this matter, so that the committee may know how
Canada does regard this diversion of water?
Mr. BEHAN. May I interrupt?
Mr. LARSON. Wait until I get through.
Mr. BEHAN. We understood that the gentleman was speaking on
behalf of the Minnesota delegation, and if he is appearing for the
Canadian Government or the Canadian power interests, we would
like the record to show the change. *.
Mr. LARSON. I think that is a gratuitous insult on the part of this
gentleman, to attribute to me any other motive than that of desiring
to legislate for the United States of America. I am not here in
the interest of any power interest in Canada, nor any power inter-
est of the United States. I am here as a Representative from
Minnesota, whose function it is to do the best he can to legislate for
the entire people of the country, and as a legislator I think I have
the right to present to this committee information so that this com-
mittee may know that the sister nation to our north regards the
withdrawal of this water as damaging to her national interests, and
I desire for that purpose merely to show how Canada does regard
this matter, to introduce as a part of the record the resolutions
adopted by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario protesting
against the withdrawal of this water.
Mr. BEHAN. I did not intend to insult the gentleman *
Mr. LARSON. But you did it just the same.
Mr. BEHAN. I stand by my statement. The gentleman did make
the statement that he asked permission to present the attitude of a
sister nation.
Mr. LARSON. Yes.
Mr. BEHAN. That is entirely foreign to the attitude of this com-
mittee or this Congress, particularly when that nation has asked
permission to be represented by its chief hydrographer, Mr. Stewart.
Mr. LARSON. I do not present it in behalf of Canada. I present
it and offer it merely for the purpose of showing what the attitude
of Canada is in reference to the withdrawal of this water. I take
it that this committee and the Congress of the United States will
not deliberately violate a treaty without justification, a treaty made
between the Canadian Government on the one hand and the United
States. Government on the other.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, our relations with Canada are so
close and so interwoven that you regard the continuance of good
relations entirely beneficial to both nations?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; and that this committee may know that Canada
does look with disfavor upon what is being done now by the Sanitary
District of Chicago. , ' -
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask a question? You stated you were not
an international lawyer, yet you are giving a legal opinion on this
treaty. Are we to infer from your position taken here that you charge
the State of Illinois with coming before the Rivers and Harbors
Committee of the Congress of the United States and suggesting
990 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
legislation in absolute violation of the treaty between Canada and
the United States; is that your position, and that Congressman
Madden, of Illinois, is asking such things? Answer that question.
Mr. LARSON. Yes; I will answer the proposition. Canada is vitally
interested in the transportation on the Great Lakes.
Mr. BARRETT. I was referring to the treaty.
Mr. LARSON. Yes. I have expressed an opinion that I believe
that if Congress were to authorize the withdrawal of 10,000 cubic
feet per second from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River, that in
my judgment it would be a violation of the treaty entered into
between the United States and Great Britain; and more than that,
if the treaty is not involved in the matter it would mean, neverthe-
less, a violation of what I regard as well-established principles of
the common law and of international law. I am not here impugning
the motives of Chicago.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I am glad to have that explanation after the
long tirade we heard this morning against Chicago.
Mr. LARSON. No; I am not saying that Chicago is here deliberately
trying to violate this treaty. I realize the position of Chicago. She
has a very important sanitary problem to Solve.
Mr. BARRETT. And we insist, of course, that we are not violating
any treaty.
Mr. LARson. Well, all right; it is for you to satisfy the committee
on that proposition. But leaving the treaty aside, you are violating
the laws of the United States. -
Mr. BARRETT. That, of course, we will be ready to discuss with this
committee, and even with you, Congressman Larson, at a proper time
and place. But one thing more. May I make a suggestion? You
make a statement that what we are suggesºing to Congress be done is
a violation of the common law.
Mr. LARSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BARRETT. And of international law?
Mr. LARSON. That is my opinion.
Mr. BARRETT. Have you made an investigation of that, Congress-
man?
Mr. LARSON. I may not have made as thorough and elaborate
investigation as the gentleman who is addressing me, but I have in
my day studied that subject somewhat, and to me, it may not be to
you, it is an obvious proposition.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, do you not know that the British Government
right now and throughout all of her history has insisted that the rule
of international law permits her to do with her own waters as she
sees fit, regardless of what another nation thinks about it?
Mr. LARson. That is not consonant with the treaty into which she
entered with the United States, because that treaty, as I read, rec-
ognizes that there are certain rights belonging to the United States
and certain rights belonging to §. Britain or Canada with refer-
ence to these boundary waters, and that one of the purposes, perhaps
the chief purpose, of the organization and the establishment of an
international joint commission was to amicably and in the most
expeditious way adjust whatever differences might arise as between
the two nations with reference to the use of these international
waterS.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. ..991
Mr. BARRETT. Do you not know that she has never abdicated her
position that her control of the St. Lawrence is absolute where both
of its banks are in her domain, and has merely by contract permitted
us to navigate it? Do you not know that the Attorney General of
the United States, in writing an opinion on it, has so stated?
Mr. LARSON. Well, it is immaterial here. We have a treaty. The
fact that it entered into a treaty with reference to the control of the
international waterways is a tacit admission on the part of Great
Britain, as it is a tacit admission on the part of the Government of
the United States, that both Governments are concerned with the
use of these waters.
Mr. BARRETT. As a matter of contract only.
Mr. LARSON. Well, it is a matter of international compact.
Mr. BARRETT. Not as an international right.
Mr. LARSON. They waive their rights, otherwise they would say
we should not be on their boundary waters at all.
Mr. BARRETT. Have you an opinion from the attorney general of
Minnesota as to what Great Britain insists are the international obli-
gations of this country and the rights of this country with reference
to Canada? -
Mr. LARSON. No. *
Mr. BARRETT. He has not written one on that subject, has he?
Mr. LARSON. I don’t know. There are a lot of things that the
attorney general of Minnesota writes that I am not familiar with.
Mr. BARRETT. And, of course, there are many things stated by
Congressmen that everybody does not agree with.
Mr. LARSON. Certainly. I wish it to be understood here that I am
not trying to impose my views on this committee. I am trying the
best I can, in my humble way, to express what I believe to be the
views of my constituents with reference to this very important legis-
lation, which this committee is considering so patiently and so earn-
estly, and I want to say right here that if I have said anything that
has given offense to anybody in Chicago or Peoria or any other place,
I most humbly apologize for making that statement, whatever it
may be. I want to be friends with Chicago.
Mr. BARRETT. What did you mean by saying that Chicago's atti-
tude was “Chicago tiber allies’’?
Mr. LARson. I tried to demonstrate from what I said subsequent
thereto that the conduct of Chicago, after the National Government,
through the Secretary of War, had remonstrated time, and time
again that it was unlawful for Chicago to take more than 4,157 cubic
feet of water from Lake Michigan and put it into Illinois, doing that
year after year and year after year, until such time that the United
States Government was obliged to have one of its courts determine the
matter, so that Chicago might be restrained—I say the conduct of
Chicago along that line would indicate that Chicago had no regard
for anybody but Chicago. Now, that is my honest opinion, from
which I shall not withdraw.
Mr. HULL. One more question before you leave. Your whole ob-
jection to this is strictly on navigation and not on power, is it not?
Mr. LARSON. I am not interested in power at all.
992 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. The reason I ask you that question is I have just picked
up this paper which you have referred to, this clipping from a
newspaper
Mr. LARSON. However, I will say this, Mr. Hull, since you asked
me the question: Of course, there is a power question involved
here. As to the use of water that is going from Lake Michigan
into the Illinois River or the sanitary canal, which is used for
power purposes, if we could produce seven times more power with
the same amount of water on the Niagara, then, I say, it is a great
economic waste, and it ought not to be favored, because, as some
one said, civilization consists in the progressive elimination of waste,
and there you are wasting horsepower by the millions.
Mr. HULL. That is what I want to bring out. In other words,
you would like to have New York and Canada make a lot of money
out of the water that they get for power purposes rather than give
us navigation down the Mississippi River?
Mr. LARSON. Oh, no. - * ,-
Mr. HULL. That is what you have stated. You get back to this
power proposition; and that is what I claim, that this whole thing
is not navigation, this lake-level thing is nothing but a screen to
cover up the power plants that are trying to take this 10,000 cubic
feet so they can develop power with it.
Mr. LARSON. May I state—and then I will get through, because
I do not think this is getting us anywhere, and I know you are in-
terested in getting the facts—but may I say this: That if you will
recall during my argument—if I may so dignify it—I made no
mention whatever about the waste of power by Chicago; I made
no statement whatever that if that water were to go over Niagara
that it would produce seven times more power.
Mr. HULL. But you have introduced a clipping from a paper here.
Mr. LARson. I know what that is. I have introduced that merely
for the purpose of showing the attitude of Canada. I may or may
not subscribe to what it contains.
Mr. MICHAELSON. Those are not your sentiments, then?
Mr. LARSON. They may be, and they may not be.
Mr. HULL. Listen to this: -
Because of the hydroelectric energy that could be developed if such water,
viz, 500,000 horsepower, in the Niagara and the St. Lawrence Rivers—
And so forth. That is what it is all about.
Mr. LARson. If the gentleman paid any attention to what I said
when I offered this resolution in evidence adopted by the Provincial
Parliament of Ontario, he would know that I merely introduced it
for the purpose of giving to this committee the attitude of the
Canadian people regarding the withdrawal of this water.
Mr. HULL. Yes. I simply wanted to get that in the record, that
that is what it is about.
Mr. LARson. It is in the record. ,
The article referred to, filed by Mr. Larson, is as follows:
MEMORIAL
That whereas there is and has been for SOme time past, but without any
legal authority for so doing, a diversion and abstraction at Chicago of 10,000
cubic feet per second flow of waters out of the boundary waters between
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC 993
Canada and the Unied States, commonly known as the Great Lakes System,
and into another watershed into which said waters do not belong ;
And whereas such diversion and abstraction is contrary to the international
treaty respecting boundary waters entered into between Canada and the
United States, and the Canadian Government has been protesting and is pro-
testing against such diversion for some time past to the Government of the
United States;
And whereas the Province Qf Ontario, which is bounded on the South by
the Great Lakes system, is vitally affected by any diversion from the said :
Lakes of any body of water, both because of its effect on navigation in the
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and also because of the hydroelectric
energy that could be developed from such water, viz, 500,000 horsepower,
in the Niagara and the St. Lawrence Rivers: Be it
Resolved, That the legislature of the Province of Ontario, in session assem-
bled, respectfully urge upon the Government of the Dominion of Canada to
use every means within its power with the United States of America to re-
strain the city of Chicago from such illegal and improper diversion of water
from the international waters in which Canada, and particularly the Province
of Ontario, are so vitally interested.
And this legislature also recommends that the GOvernment Of Canada
should request the Government of the United States to take and exercise
control of the works which permit of any diversion at Chicago instead of
allowing same to be under the jurisdiction of one interested party only.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call attention to the first para-
graph of Article III as showing the two parties to the treaty had
submitted the question of diversion, had submitted them, and did
not bind themselves to all diversions and obstructions by the treaty.
The first paragraph reads this way:
It is agreed that in addition to the uses, obstructions and diversions hereto
permitted or hereafter provided for by Special agreement between the parties
hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether tem-
porary or permanent, of boundary water on either side of the line, affecting
the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line,
shall be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of
Canada within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval, as herein-
after provided, of the joint commission, to be known as the International
Joint Commission.
I thought that was material to the discussion which has been
had, and helpful on that.
Mr. LARSON. I.et me say that I did not come here with any idea
of being an expert on the interpretation of this particular treaty.
My understanding is that so far as the waters of Lake Michigan
are concerned this international joint commission has no jurisdic-
tion over them at all. -
The CHAIRMAN. You are wrong about that. .
Mr. LARSON. I may be wrong, but at any rate I did not see any-
thing in the treaty itself where this withdrawal of water from Lake
Michigan was referred to.
The CHAIRMAN. Article I, paragraph 2, deals with it, as you will
see. It is so easy to attempt to interpret the treaty by one or two
lines and so difficult to interpret it even with the whole treaty in
your mind.
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question for my own
information. Do you contend that the second paragraph of Article
I has to do with anything except the free navigation of Lake
Michigan?
The CHAIRMAN. That is the question here. I think diversion has
to do with navigation. That is the way in which we are consider-
ing it. a •
91739—24—PT 2—48
994 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. LARson. What article did you refer to, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Two articles, the first one was the first paragraph
of Artcle III and the one I referred to just now is the second para-
graph of Article I. h
r. LARSON. Well my understanding is that the jurisdiction of
the International Joint Commission is restricted to the regulation
of what are known as boundary waters, and I understand that Lake
Michigan is not regarded at all as a boundary water.
Mr. BARRETT. And you do not regard it as such?
Mr. LARSON. No. It is a part of the system of the Great Lakes,
but it is not a boundary water strictly speaking; it is simply a part
of the system of the Great Lakes, and the waters of Lake Michigan,
part of them, ultimately go into the boundary waters.
Mr. HULL. Then why should Canada have any more jurisdiction
over that than they would over the Illinois River, if that statement
is correct? -
Mr. LARSON. Because it is no part of the system of the Great
Lakes.
Mr. HULL. The Illinois River is joined up with Lake Michigan.
Back in 1822 we had that water running from Lake Michigan down
into the Mississippi Valley. -
Mr. LARson. Well that is not getting us anywhere. -
I want to thank the committee for their great patience in hear-
ing me. I have probably spoken longer than I should have spoken,
but we, particularly those of us who live in Duluth, are vitally in-
terested in the outcome of this proposed legislation.
Mr. NEwTON. I would like to ask you a question or two.
Mr. LARson. Very well.
Mr. NEwTON. Is it your theory that Congress has no jurisdiction
over this; has no right at all on this thing? s
Mr. LARSON. I would say this, in reply to your question: If it is
purely a matter of Sanitary regulation, then Congress has no juris-
diction over it. If, however, it is a matter of navigation, if it is a
matter of commerce which comprises the term “navigation,” then of
course Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution
has supreme authority over it; it may regulate it.
The CHAIRMAN. So far as it affects navigation.
Mr. LARSON. Yes; so far as it affects navigation. But purely as
a sanitary proposition my opinion is that Congress has no jurisdic-
tion, and I would be glad later on if legal lights who represent
Chicago, if they would enlighten me on the proposition as to whether
Congress can, under its constitutional power, legislate purely and
solely on a matter which relates to sanitation in any of the States,
outside of and apart from the question of navigation. I can under-
stand Mr. Hull's bill. He ties up navigation with it. That was
the logical thing to do. Navigation was placed first. We could
have gotten the idea that that was the real purpose of it.
Mr. HULL. It was.
Mr. LARson. It may be.
Mr. HULL. That was the real purpose of the bill.
Mr. LARSON. If that is true of Mr. Hull's bill it is well founded
in law. It shows he is not only a good business man, but he is a
keen lawyer. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 995
Mr. HULL. No; I got a good lawyer to write it.
Mr. NEWTON. You understand that navigation comes first, above
everything else?
Mr. LARSON. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. Under the treaty?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; I will say even under the treaty. You are, of
course, referring to the precedence that health is given'
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
Mr. LARSON. Even that, if you will go through the treaty you
will find, I think, at the bottom of Article III that it refers to the
“ordinary use ’’ of such waters for domestic and sanitary purposes.
Now, my view is this: That the abstraction from Lake Michigan
of 10,000 cubic feet per second is not an “ordinary use ’’ of that water;
but, on the contrary, it is an extraordinary, unusual use of that
water. That amount of water I am told exceeds the amount of
water that goes down the American Falls in Niagara. The amount
of water that goes down there is only 9,000 cubic feet per second
per day.
The CHAIRMAN. No ; you are wrong about that.
Mr. LARSON. That is my understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. No ; on the American side, if you are talking
about the American side—
Mr. LARSON. I am talking about the American Falls.
The CHAIRMAN. The American Falls is 10,000 cubic feet per
second; that is between the mainland and Goat Island.
Mr. LARSON. But at any rate the proposition I am making is
that this precedence given to health refers only to the ordinary use,
and that the amount of water that is abstracted is extraordinary.
Mr. NEWTON. What interest has Minnesota in this matter outside
of lake levels?
Mr. LARSON. Well—
Mr. HULL. He stated power.
Mr. LARSON. I protest against putting that interpretation upon
what I have stated, and I would prefer that the gentlemen of the
committee would put their own construction on what I have stated
and base it on the language I have used in my statement.
Mr. NEwTo N. I did not hear that part, but the question is what
interest has Minnesota Outside of lake levels?
Mr. LARson. I don’t know that it has any. We are principally
interested in navigation.
Mr. NEwTON. In keeping the lake levels up?
Mr. LARSON. Yes. --→n
Mr. NEwTON. If the lake levels are maintained, it does not concern
you as to where the water is taken out?
Mr. LARson. Not as to Minnesota.
Mr. NEwTON. Yes. You are interested in navigation?
Mr. LARSON. Yes. -
Mr. NEwTON. And if the level of the Lakes is maintained, so far
as you are concerned and your people are concerned, it is immaterial
whether the surplus goes out through the Chicago Canal, and maybe
i. ºf it used for power, or whether it is used for power at Niagara
Falls?
996 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. LARSON. I would say in the main that is true, except, of course,
if it is waste of energy, waste of water power, by utilizing it at
Chicago instead of utilizing it at Niagara, then, of course, we would
have some interest in it as a matter of conservation of our national
I'êSOUITCéS.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be a national waste?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; and we are legislating here not for Minnesota
alone, but for the Nation.
Mr. HULL. And New York.
Mr. NEwTON. But your primary interest is navigation?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; surely.
Mr. NEwTON. As I understand it, there have been good power
plants and diversions put in at the Soo, and yet you have compen-
Sating works that keep your lake levels up. That is true, is it not?
Mr. LARSON. I understand that they have some compensating
works there that have been constructed under very restrictive provi-
SIOIlS.
Mr. NEWTON. And that are very effective?
Mr. LARSON. I think they are effective, so far as I know.
Mr. NEwTON. Have you raised any question about the lowering of
the lake by the deepening of the channel between Lake Huron and
Lake Erie’
Mr. LARSON. I have not personally, and I do not know whether
anybody has.
Mr. NEwTON. Do you know that the channel through there orig-
inally was about 30 feet deep, and that there has been an extra
channel cut out of the bottom of the river, and that the two channels
when taken together are 1,040 feet wide, and there is an extra depth
now of 8 feet, and that the fall between those two locks is 9 feet;
do you recognize that?
Mr. LARson. And what is the materiality of the question so far as
this
Mr. NEwTON. When you cut the opening out there does not that
take more water from Lake Huron and Lake Michigan that would
go into Lake Erie'? /
Mr. LARson. I do not know; but if there is any wrongful diversion
of water from the Great Lakes system other than this, that is a
matter for this committee and Congress to take care of at the proper
time; but I don’t thinkit is any justification for Chicago to withdraw
this water simply because some other place on the Great Lakes or
some other municipality is doing wrong; you can not justify one
legal wrong by pointing out that somebody else is also committing
another legal wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. But this is not any wrong. The Congressman
is calling attention to perhaps the greatest improvement in the whole
Great Lakes system.
Mr. LARSON. I don't know whether it is wrong or not.
The CHAIRMAN. Where vessels pass every 5 or 10 seconds, and
where the channel is absolutely necessary.
Mr. LARSON. In the interest of navigation? e
The CHAIRMAN. In the interest of navigation; yes. . And was
probably the greatest improvement in the whole Great Lakes system.
-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 997
Mr. LARson. I don’t know whether it is an improvement, but as-
suming it is -
Mr. NEwton. I am getting at this. I see you come here from
Duluth, and others come from Milwaukee and make a fuss, and you
do not say anything about the extra channel that has taken so much
water out of those two lakes into Lake Erie, and I am wondering
whether it is municipal or city jealousy. gº
Mr. LARson. Oh, Duluth has no occasion to be jealous of any city,
not even of Chicago. f
Mr. NEwToN. Have you made any complaint up there about the
levels being lowered from the Welland Canal?
Mr. LARson. No. Please understand my position. a f
Mr. NEwToN. That is what I want to get. * , =
Mr. LARson. These bills have been introduced in Congress, and
they are before your committee. They have attracted public atten-
tion. My constituents, together with the people who use the Great
Lakes as a transportation agency, have an interest in these bills.
They have studiéd them, and my constituents, particularly the Board
of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce of Duluth, have asked me
to come here and protest against the passage of any one of these
bills, because they sincerely believed that if this authority should
be granted it would detrimentally affect transportation on the Great
Lakes, and thereby indirectly affect the prosperity of the people of
Duluth and Minnesota. º
Mr. NEwTON. Well, the testimony of the experts of the War De-
partment before this committee shows that the Welland Canal has
reduced the lake levels more than 50 per cent more than this has.
Mr. LARSON. I presume that if any bill relating to the Welland
Canal were introduced, relating to the withdrawal of water from
the other lakes within the United States, and the matter were to
come before this committee, in all probability the people of Duluth
would be interested in it, and if they regarded it as dangerous to
navigation, probably if I were serving in Congress I would be glad
to come here and protest just as I am trying to protest against this
proposed measure.
Mr. NEwTON. But that condition exists, and has been existing all
the time, and there are certain American cities that are protesting
against the diversion on the American side that seem perfectly will-
ing to have them divert water on the other side, and I think there
ought to be some consistency about it.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you consider that this committee is consider-
ing the diversion of the Welland Canal or would be authorized to
consider it?
Mr. NEwTON. No; this committee would have nothing to do with it.
S Mr. HULL. That helps Canada, and the other helps the United
tates. *
Mr. LARSON. No; please don’t put me in a bad light. You are
such a good friend of mine you ought to be more considerate of my
feelings. That is a matter that is, as it is sometimes expressed, an
internal concern of the sovereign nation, and the only way that can
be adjusted is through diplomatic channels.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Congressman Newton sees another way
in which we can consider it. We are considering all these bills, and
998 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
he can see a way in which we can consider the diversion through
the Welland Canal.
Mr. NEwToN. I think we have an easy way. I think if we conclude
it is bad policy to have the lake levels reduced—and we have not
jurisdiction as to the other side—it is easy to pass a resolution and
call the attention of the State Department and place the information
that we have in their hands and ask them to proceed along diplo-
matic lines. But, as I say, I think we ought to be consistent.
The CHAIRMAN. That will simply be a resolution. I think you
can get that resolution through the committee now. That will per-
haps end all the discussion. I don’t think there will be any votes
against it; but, of course, you would want to be sure of your infor-
mation to start with. gº •
Mr. NEwTON. We have our army of engineers testifying.
The CHAIRMAN. No; no. You want to be sure of your informa-
tion that Canada is diverting more than her 36,000 cubic feet per
second. On that I don’t know anything, and there has been no testi-
mony before the committee on that point. Second, there is a provi-
'sion in the treaty that water taken for navigation purposes, such as
the Welland Canal, is not within the inhibitions of the treaty, and
there are only two propositions. If they are only withdrawing their
36,000 cubic feet, or only as much as necessary for the operation of
the canal, we would not have, in either event, any ground of pro-
test, and we would simply be making ourselves ridiculous by pro-
testing.
º NEwTON. But the representative of Canada made the state-
ment the other day, I understood, that there would not be any water
taken for electricity; but the evidence of our engineers is that there
is something like 4,500 cubic feet going through the Welland Canal,
and that 3,600 cubic feet of that is going for electricity.
The CHAIRMAN. I think there is an investigation being made at
the present time, and I think we will have the benefit of that before
we finish here.
Mr. NEwTON. But I think the whole thing ought to proceed con-
sistently. -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it may be that all of these gentlemen
who are protesting are all wrong, and if there is any way of con-
vincing Michigan and Minnesota, Ohio, New York, and Pennsyl-
vania that they are wrong, it would be very helpful to do that; but
I do think that Congressman Larson has a perfect right—that
it is fairly within his rights—to come here and protest, and I do not
believe he is fairly subject to criticism in the course he has adopted.
Mr. NEwTON. I do not think so either.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe that in order to entitle him to
the right to protest he has to protest about things that are not an
issue here at all. He has not so far as I have observed—and I have
been here during his entire discussion—at any time gotten outside
of what is fairly his duty as a Member of Congress. I cannot for
the life of me understand—and I have heard it again and again,
both as to Members of Congress and other witnesses—I can not un-
derstand why a witness who comes here fairly within the discharge
of what his obvious duty to testify as to the matter in issue is to be
subjected to criticism that he should not have at the same time pro-
tested about a number of things as to which he may not even be
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 999
informed, but all of which are quite obviously not before the com-
mittee, and he would be taking up the time of the committee without
º if he did do those things for not doing which he is criti-
CIZeCl.
Mr. NEWTON. So far as I am concerned, in stating on this thing,
I think I owe my country as much as I do the other country, and
I think we ought to be consistent on both sides of it.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe that Congressman Larson is any
less patriotic than any other Member of Congress, and I do not
think it is fair to state to a Member of Congress that he is less patri-
otic than some one else because he has not protested about some-
thing that has no reference to the hearing.
Mr. NEwTON. And as far as being discourteous to witnesses is con-
cerned, I do not think I am any more discourteous than the
chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is any instance where the chairman has
been discourteous he will try to remedy it. He would be glad to
remedy it at the time of its occurrence, and if there is any instance
in the past, if the gentleman will call the attention of the chair-
man to it he will be glad to apologize in each instance.
Mr. LARSON. May I interject a remark?
The CHAIRMAN. I will say frankly that the gentleman from
Minnesota served with me a considerable time on this committee,
and I always found him one of the most useful and valuable mem-
bers we ever had. He proved to be a man of unusual ability, of
diligence, of high character, and all I said was simply from my
personal feelings toward the gentleman of whom I am frank to
say I am exceedingly fond.
Mr. LARson. I was going to interject a remark, but I will let the
record remain as it is. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to ask you one or two questions.
Congressman Larson, the Hull bill, as you are aware, provides that
Chicago shall be required to place all necessary equipment for the
sanitary district treatment of Sewage, according to the most scien-
tific methods, and gives them a period of 20 years in which to install
these works. That has been more or less criticized on several oc-
casions as being an unreasonable length of time. Now, you heard
Congressman Madden's statement here this morning, that under
the constitutional provisions of the State of Illinois they would be
prevented from raising the finances necessary to install this equip-
ment in any shorter period of time. So far as you know will there
be any contention with Mr. Madden's theory on that line?
Mr. LARSON. Let me answer that in the words of one who can
speak with authority. I am not, as I said before, a sanitary engineer
or a civil engineer, but right on that point this is what the board
of engineers for rivers and harbors have said upon that subject. It
is found on page 55 of the diversion of water from the Great Lakes
and the Niagara River:
. Granting that disposal by dilution was the most practicable plan at the
time of its adoption, the fact remains that the Chicago Sanitary District
Thas for practically 20 years been on notice that the United States was un-
willing to allow the district to divert more water than the limit set in the
permit of 1903, namely, 4,167 cubic feet per second. Notwithstanding this,
the district has since then greatly expanded its boundaries and enlarged
1000 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
its plans, and from year to year, in the face of the opposition of the United
States, has diverted more and more water, until in 1917 the yearly average
diversion was 8,800 cubic feet per Second, which is more than twice the
lawful amount. º
The district can no longer fairly plead the absence or the impracticability
of other safer methods of handling Sewage and of protecting its people from
water-borne diseases. Certainly, for the past 20 years expert opinion has
held disposal by dilution to be inferior to other methods of treating sewage,
and enlightened public opinion has condemned a policy which, in effect, is
the transfer of a nuisance from our own front door to that of our neighbor.
Large cities on the Great Lakes can not safely drink raw lake water, nor
should they discharge unscreened and unfiltered Sewage either into the Lakes
or into tributary streams. In 1915 the Chicago Real Estate. Board employed
three experts, of whom two were of acknowledged eminence in England, and
the third a New York expert of well-known authority, to investigate the
sewage problem of Chicago and to present their views as to the best way
of Solving it. Their report, entitled “A Report to the Chicago Real Estate
Board On the Disposal of the Sewage and the Protection of the Water Supply
of Chicago, Ill.,” by Messrs. Soper, Watson, and Martin, has been printed,
and its conclusions are, therefore, well known to the public in general, and
particularly to the people of Chicago, whom they advised substantially in
accordance with the views above expressed. Chicago is, therefore, debarred
from any claim for indulgence as to work done and expenditures incurred
in recent years. If, in defiance of the Opposition of the Government and in
open disregard of the law, the officials of the Chicago Sanitary District have
continued to expend money of their constituents in the prosecution of unwise
and illegal plans, these officials and their constituency are to blame, and they
should expect no great indulgence from the general public whose Government
they have ignored and whose interests they have disregarded.
Now, the proposition is, as I look at it, that Chicago is not in a
position where it can go to Congress and say this is something new,
that we were not aware of this problem before, and therefore you
should grant us these indulgences.
This thing has been before Congress for years and years, and they
have had experts investigating it and those experts have reached
the conclusion that their present methods of sewage disposal are
not in accordance with science, are out of date and archaic. .
Mr. MANSFIELD. We are not dealing with the past, however. For
my part I think we will have to just wipe that out and take it from
the present on. Now, then, assuming that Congress has jurisdiction
to deal with these bills on the theory of navigation, and that this
diversion is temporarily necessary, the question is what length of
time, if we have the authority and the power and the jurisdiction,
what length of time should we provide for them to place this equip-
ment, from now on, assuming that they have been guilty in the past?
Mr. LARSON. I would not presume to answer that question. That
is the question that involves a thorough knowledge of sanitary
engineering and civil engineering.
The CHAIRMAN. And of construction?
Mr. LARSON. Yes, and of construction; and I could not tell
whether it would take 5 or 10 years. Undoubtedly you will receive
information from those who can speak with authority on those
questions. That is altogether out of my line.
Mr. BARRETT. Is it not a fact that St. Paul and Minneapolis are
discharging sewage into the Mississippi River, and that there is no
difference between them and Chicago in that respect, and is it not
also a fact, notwithstanding the report of the Army engineers, that
the city of Washington is still following the dilution system?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1001
Mr. LARSON. I don’t know as to that. That is a matter, as I say,
that you will have to discuss with sanitary engineers and not with a
mere Congressman.
Mr. MANSFIELD. For my own information I would like to be
enlightened. The treaty with Canada provides for a division for
power at Niagara 2 t -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Now, this power that is developed at the Soo-
you have spoken about that. Who is utilizing that?
The CHAIRMAN. I think we are. -
Mr. BARRETT. Both sides are using it.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McGann tells me that we get most of it, but
that all the water goes back into the river. That is in the evidence.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If it is not in a treaty, I am satisfied the Ameri-
cans are getting their share; but if it is left to a treaty, I doubt it.
Mr. BARRETT. We will now call Mr. Healy.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM J. HEALY, PRESIDENT OF THE
- SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
Mr. HEALY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it was
thought that it would be well for the sanitary district to present its
position before you before the witnesses are heard.
As president of the board of trustees of the Sanitary District of
Chicago, I am commissioned officially to speak. In that connec-
tion the board desires to tender to the committee in its investiga-
tion and study of the grave question of sewage disposal and pro-
tection of water supply of the upward of 3,000,000 people of Chi-
cago included in its metropolitan area, its record, data, the services
of its engineers, attorneys, and other employees who are in Wash-
ington in order that the committee may carry to a satisfactory con-
clusion its investigations and study.
The Sanitary District of Chicago is the agency representing the
great metropolitan area extending approximately 50 miles along
the shores of Lake Michigan, including therein a population of
almost one-thirtieth of that of the United States, for the protection
of its health and the preservation of its lives.
The diversion of 10,000 cubic seconds-feet of water from Lake
Michigan is necessary for the protection of the water supply of this
vast population. In the past years a controversy has arisen as to
Chicago's right to divert this water. While it is the belief of the
board of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago that it has
the right to take this water, nevertheless, in order to settle all con-
troversies and to compose all difficulties and the various conflicting
interests, the board of trustees offers to defray the expense of con-
structing, maintaining, and operating such compensating or regulat-
ing works as the United States may determine necessary to be built
to offset for any diminishing levels of the Great Lakes due to the
said diversion, taking care of any claimed injury to navigation upon
those lakes. The board of trustees proposes to construct and place
in operation sewage disposal works as rapidly as the use of all its
resources will permit.
To reduce the flow from 10,000 cubic second-feet to 4,167 second-
feet would make absolutely certain typhoid epidemics that would
1002 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
wipe out hundreds, if not thousands, of lives each and every year.
The people of Chicago are fully alive to the danger before them
and hope that they will not be compelled to feel that their interests
are disregarded. Their health and lives are at stake.
The attorneys, engineers, and other persons representing the
Sanitary District of Chicago and other representatives of the people
of Chicago will present the facts of Chicago's case. I leave in your
hands for your earnest consideration the most important question
which confronts Chicago and the Mississippi Valley, and what we
believe to be the destiny of Chicago's 3,000,000 people.
The CHAIRMAN. I was just going to suggest this for your own
consideration and your testimony. It is running through the minds
of a good many of us if this question comes to us, necessarily to be
dealt with and dealt with promptly in the fall after the Supreme
Court decision, that we would like to have you tell us what you
think, what objections there are to a proposition of this kind, that you
should be permitted to divert what is necessary from year to year,
but that your promptly pursuing a system of erecting works or
other means of sewage disposal should be insured by a responsible
tribunal of some kind.
Mr. HEALY. We would be glad to agree to any impartial tribunal
to arrange such terms as would give us an opportunity to con-
Struct
The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to ask for Mr. Healy’s opinion
now, if you want to consult about it.
Mr. HEALY. No; most of the board are here, and we would be
very glad to have this question submitted to some impartial board
as to the number of years it will take to construct these plants.
The CHAIRMAN. Our ideas I do not think are going to be very far
apart in the end. We are going to regard this matter as presenting
two questions: one the question of navigation, and that the sanitary
district citizens of Chicago you are interested in it, but the sanitary
district as a district is not interested in that; and the other is the
question of the sanitation. Now, it has appeared to us in the end
that if the question comes to us
Mr. HEALY. You mean in case the Supreme Court gives an adverse
decision to the district?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; nobody is trying to make it so you will have
epidemics. We are going to try to see that you don’t have them.
But what has been running in our minds is that some impartial
department like the War Department, through the Chief of En-
gineers, should simply See that you proceed with diligence from year
to year and that you have such water as you need, but only such as
you need, and that it shall be diminished from year to year.
Mr. HEALY. As we financially and physically can do.
The CHAIRMAN. But we will have to take into consideration, I
have no doubt, all the circumstances.
Now, we all know that in legislation we often have to do with
things that seem Superficially to be wise, and we would be glad to
have you show us where that is wrong, and in what particulars it
is wrong, how it could be improved upon, if the committee should
take that view of it.
Mr. HEALY. That is a matter that we would be very glad to
take up. * *
ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1003
STATEMENT OF MIR. GEORGE. F. BARRETT
Mr. BARRETT. I will talk to the committee for awhile, Mr. Chair-
Iſla, Il.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as official repre-
sentatives of the sanitary district we have been in Washington for
several months, and we have observed with a great deal of satisfaction
the patient and careful consideration which you men of this com-
mittee have given not only to the question of the needs of the Sanitary
District of Chicago but also to the question of navigation from Lake
Michigan through the Illinois Valley and down the Mississippi River
to the Gulf of Mexico.
It has caused many of us to wonder how you get time to attend to
the multitudinous duties which necessarily devolve upon you as Mem-
bers of Congress. We have seen you day after day work here from
early in the morning until late in the evening, and we have marveled.
We are certain that the members of this committee are industrious,
but, having consideration for your time, we will present our case with
the utmost expedition.
A discussion of the treaty and the reports of the international com-
mission leading up to it, and such other matters relating thereto as
may be necessary to a proper presentation of our views regarding the
treaty, have been left to Mr. Behan. *
The general presentation of legal questions which may not be dis-
cussed by myself or by Mr. Behan have been left to Mr. Adcock, who
has had charge of much of this work for many years, during a portion
of which he was general attorney for the santiary district.
We will produce engineers of wide experience and outstanding
reputation, who for a great many years have studied the hydraulics
of the Great Lakes. They will demonstrate to you that whatever
lowering may properly be charged to the Sanitary District of Chicago
can, at a very small expense—which we are willing and ready to pay
at once—be restored by the construction of either compensating or
regulating works; that it is feasible and practicable at a very small
cost to construct regulating works in the Great Lakes system which
will bring back the diminished levels, due partially to the diversion at
Chicago and to diversions for power purposes at Niagara and else-
where, but mainly to lack of precipitation in recent years, and that
regulating works properly constructed and managed will give to the
Great Lakes and all of their connecting channels and to the St. Law-
rence River a better flow of water for navigation than existed in the
state of nature.
We will produce a sanitary engineer who has been connected with
the sanitary district for many years and is considered by us and
throughout the Nation as the peer of all sanitary engineers in this
country and probably in the world. He will discuss the history and
progress of the art of sewage treatment and what is being done in
that regard in all of the large cities and many of the smaller ones of
the United States and abroad. He is thoroughly acquainted with the
treatment plants and projects of the cities of Milwaukee, Cleveland,
and others mentioned here and will explain them to you. He will
in detail explain what Chicago has done in the development of the
art ind in constructing its plants, and will show that the sanitary
1004 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
district has constructed several Sewage treatment plants and has
another under construction which, when completed, will take care
of the sewage of about 1,000,000 people; that provisions have been
made for the construction of a number of the most modern plants by
the year 1945 at a cost of upwards of $120,000,000—which is the limit
of our financial ability—for the purpose of caring for approximately
4,000,000 people. He will demonstrate that notwithstanding the
completion and operation of all of these plants that Chicago's water
Supply can not be kept safe for domestic and drinking purposes with-
out the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet of water through our
Sanitary channels. .
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, we will turn over to you, I will say, a sort
of a treatise that was sent to me during the recess for your sanitary
engineers to look over and to discuss when they are testifying.
Mr. BARRETT. We will be very glad to have it.
... The CHAIRMAN. We will turn it over to you as soon as we ad-
journ to-day. The clerk of the committee will turn it over to you.
Mr. BARRETT. We will produce a civil and hydraulic engineer
who has been connected with the Sanitary District of Chicago
since it started upon its work. He is acquainted with every detail
of the dilution and sanitary projects of that district and has had
first-hand information regarding conditions in the Illinois River
Valley. This man, with others equally well equipped, will give
you facts and not theories regarding the sanitary district and the
Illinois River Valley, and will answer all of the charges made
before you regarding conditions in the valley, and will demonstrate
that the sanitary district is responsible for only a very small pro-
portion—not more than 5 per cent—of the things which have been
charged against it by the people who claim to represent that valley.
We will produce Dr. W. A. Evans, for more than a quarter of a
century a recognized authority on matters pertaining to public
health. He will discuss the imperative need of a diversion of 10,000
cubic second-feet of water at Chicago in order to protect the health
of Chicago's 3,000,000 of people and to guard the health of the
countless millions who yearly come in social and business contact
with them.
In a word, we wish the committee to know that we have earefully
studied the entire legal, engineering, and health phases of the Sani:
tary District of Chicago, and we are prepared to answer any and
all questions regarding the same, whether asked by a member of
this committee or any other person, no matter who he is or where he
comes from. º
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge, right there—and I wish the mem-
bers of the committee would listen to this and see if they don’t
agree with me—here is a thing that has occurred to me as being
important to the sanitary district as well as to the interests of the
valley. The valley has the idea, I take it from their testimony
here, that if the United States adopts as a project the waterway
through the Illinois River and diverts water for that purpose from
Lake *Hººgº. the United States will be liable for flooding, and
that the United States, in order to protect itself from that liability,
will be obliged to erect levees in addition to those now in existence.
It is not plain from the testimony how much of the levee system
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. I005
we would have to install or what its cost would be or what liability
We would be assuming, and it does seem to me that the committee,
When it comes to the questions here and comes to weigh them, will
Want to know, and the sanitary district will want to know, what
that situation will be, and we can not legislate in the dark on this
any more than we can on anything else, and if we go on the floor
of the House and we don’t know, there will be the most excellent
and best of good reasons why the legislation would fail.
Mr. NEWTON. I think, as a matter of fact, the last day here we
started in to break through the crust of a lot of facts that we have
not yet gotten regarding the navigation end of it.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, Judge, you have engineers, and
it has occurred to us that while you are dealing, and when you are
dealing, with your question as to sanitation in Chicago, probably
that you should also advise us, not alone as to the past—we are
not so much interested in that
Mr. BARRETT. But as to the future?
The CHAIRMAN. But as to the future, what can be done and
what should be done, because that is pretty vital if the United
States is going to assume a hand here.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Reporter, will you write from the point where
the chairman started to suggest these matters to us, so that we may
have them at the earliest possible moment for submission to our
engineers?
r. NEWTON. There is no doubt in my mind but what the flow
of water down through the Illinois River has been very materially
changed by the draining of certain sections. If there is any way to
know, we would like to know the cubic foot flow at certain periods
of the year, and the amount of water in each of the tributaries going
into the Illinois River. If we could get it as far back as we can
get it in each of those rivers, and each month of the year, and they
Say they can get it now, we can find out what the effect has been
of the cutting of ditches and the draining out of the marshes, so that
the water flows out and aggravates and increases the damage dur-
ing the flood period.
The CHAIRMAN. I will see that those questions are submitted to
the engineers, and if the engineers have anything they can furnish
us on that, I am sure they will do so.
Mr. NEWTON. I hope so. -
Mr. BARRETT. I will have the stenographer write this up im-
mediately, so that we will have it before our engineers.
Mr. NEwTON. And here is something that ought to be settled.
The suggestion has been made probably that in high water in order
to keep that sewage from going back into the lake it was necessary
to turn more water into the canal. I would like to know if there
is not some way in the future to meet that condition. I do not
think it is fair to charge to the sanitary district all of the floods
that may have accumulated in the last four or five years, because I
think that has been greatly aggravated by the cutting out of these
channels and the draining of these swamps that sends the water out
at one period. I would like to know if there is not some way in
which less water could be used at the flood period and more water
at the low period after the glades have been drained off and whether
or not the sanitary problem will not fit in to that.
1006 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
* BARRETT. Yes; we will discuss that. We will get an answer
to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you will probably have to take into
consideration not alone the natural streams, the rivers, giving us
their cubic-feet flow per second at such different periods of the year
as you can, but also the flow of the artificial channels being created
through the formation of working out the problems of these drain-
age districts. -
Mr. SweET. And the reversal of the two rivers that went into
Lake Michigan. * ,
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. I would like to know whether or not the Chicago
River is a river which drains such an area that it makes a great
contribution toward the flood seasons of the year?
Mr. BARRETT. We will give you answers to those questions.
The CHAIRMAN. You can cover all of those things.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And we will give you such assistance, Judge, as
we can, if you need it, through the United States engineers.
Mr. BARRETT. We will be very glad to have any information we can
et. -
Mr. O’ConnoR. It might be of interest if you would have your
engineers inform us what relation, from a percentage standpoint,
that 10,000 feet would have on the Mississippi River between Mem-
phis and Vicksburg, Say. -
Mr. NEWTON. Also New Orleans.
Mr. O'ConnoR. We get it all at New Orleans, from every point
in the valley; but I want to know what effect it will have on the
upper Mississippi. We will undoubtedly get it all, but I do not
think it is large. That is the point I had in mind. -
Mr. BARRETT. I have no doubt that the data on many of the ques-
tions is complete, so far as the Illinois Valley is concerned. If it
is not complete, we will try to get it, and if it will aid you we will
be very glad to turn it over to you. But our position here is that
we will be prepared, either through the legal end of the sanitary
district’s orginization in Washington at this time or through the
engineering division, to answer any queston whch may be submitted
to us.
I want the committee to understand that the Sanitary District
of Chicago does not concede the statement of some of the people from
down in the Lake Erie territory that we have been caught with the
goods. Neither do we concede Congressman Larson's imputation
that we took what we could and held what we took. We don’t accede
to his charge that our position is “Chicago iber alles.” Neither
do we concede in this treaty matter that it is a case of “Canada
iiber alles.” .* .
The position of the sanitary district and the State of Illinois is
that whatever they have done they have done on the theory that they
had a legal right to do it. They have not yet and do not now con-
cede that they have done any wrong, either to the Nation or to the
States surrounding the Great Lakes. And as to Canada, it is our
position that that country, in the negotiation of the boundary waters
treaty of 1910, obtained the right to divert 36,000 cubic second-feet
y
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1007
of water for power purposes at Niagara and 3,400 cubic second-feet
of water for power purposes at De Ceuw Falls on the Welland Canal,
making a total of 39,400 cubic second-feet of water for power pur-
poses, and that she obtained the right to use all water necessary for
lockage purposes. That she conceded to and the United States Gov-
ernment obtained the right to divert 20,000 cubic second-feet of
water for power purposes at Niagara Falls and 10,000 cubic second-
feet of water for health and sanitary purposes through the Sanitary
District of Chicago, and such water as she might need for lockage
purposes; that Canada has for upward of 14 years had the advan-
tage of withdrawing 9,400 cubic feet of water per second more than
that withdrawn in the United States, and that this excess of water
has been worth to her and her people approximately $150,000,000, and
that her attempt, by subtle and refined reasoning, to take from the
United States the right to withdraw 10,000 cubic second-feet of water
for health and sanitary purposes through the Sanitary District of
Chicago, while insisting upon the right to withdraw 39,400 cubic
second-feet for power purposes, is not the kind of conduct which the
United States of America has a right to expect from a sister nation
and is entirely inconsistent with the plain language of the reports of
the International Waterways Commission and of the boundary waters
treaty itself.
The CHAIRMAN. There is not anybody going to legislate in any
spirit of retaliation or punishment for Something that has occurred.
Mr. BARRETT. The people of Chicago will be glad to hear you say
that.
The CHAIRMAN. That is going to be the farthest from the thoughts
of anybody who considers this matter.
Mr. BARRETT. But I do think that inasmuch as these charges have
been made
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It is entirely proper for you to say
that, but I did want to say what I have said.
Mr. BARRETT. We will give you a complete and unequivocal state-
ment of the position of the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago.
We will demonstrate that it was the arbitrary and unreasonable atti-
tude taken by Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada which made
necessary the construction by the State of Illinois and the United
States Government, between the years 1836 and 1848, of the Illinois
and Michigan Canal, which reunited the waters of Lake Michigan
with those of the Mississippi River; that when the Legislature of the
State of Illinois, in the year 1889, passed legislation which provided
for the organization of the Sanitary District of Chicago, that it was
the deliberate act of the lawmaking body of the great State of Illi-
nois, done after complete investigation and careful consideration cov-
ering a period of several years, and it is not, I hope, necessary for
me to state to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the Congress
of the United States that our legislature was firmly fixed th the belief
that it had the legal and moral right to enact this legislation; that
when the people of the city of Chicago, in the same year, organized
the Sanitary District of Chicago and that district, between that time
and the year 1900, entered upon and completed the tremendous proj-
ect of cutting a canal across the continental divide between Chicago
and Lockport, a distance of about 40 miles, about one-half of the dis-
tance being through solid rock and the canal being about 200 feet
1008 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
wide and 26 feet deep, and the cost thereof being upward of $50,-
000,000, that they were convinced that this and this alone would pro-
tect the health of our people, and that they were legally and morally
justified in doing it; that when we disagreed with the Chief of
Engineers of the War Department of the United States we did it hon-
estly. We do not claim to be infallible and we do not concede infalli-
bility to the Chief of Engineers or to the Corps of Engineers.
With reference to the boundary waters treaty, it is our position that
it was conceived upon the theory that it was the desire of the Gov-
ernments of the United States and Canada to dispose of all disputes
then existing regarding the use of water in the Great Lakes area by
each of the Governments and their nationals. +
The International Waterways Commission, upon whose reports
the boundary waters treaty of 1910 was based, began to function in
the year 190—, and it is a matter of common knowledge that many
people in the United States had complained, for many years prior
thereto, of the amount of water being diverted at Niagara by Ameri-
can and Canadian interests for power purposes; that prior to the
organization of this commission water had, for a long time, been with-
drawn at De Ceuw Falls for power purposes; that in the year 1900
the Sanitary District of Chicago was diverting water in large quanti-
ties for sanitary and domestic purposes and had, as required by the
law of the State of Illinois, prepared a channel, at a cost of about
$50,000,000, for the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second, which
was the amount of water legally required by this project, and that
complaints regarding this were made by the Canadian Government,
which had made an exhaustive investigation of the same as early as
1896; and that there were various other disputes along the chain of
lakes, all of which were considered by the international commission
and cared for under the terms of this treaty. p
When the commission had made a complete investigation of all
of these various points of dispute, and had made several thorough
investigations of the Sanitary District of Chicago, the treaty was
drawn and it provided, after disposing of various other incidental
and relatively unimportant points of dispute, that the Government
of Canada should be permitted to withdraw 36,000 cubic second-feet
of water for power purposes at Niagara Falls, and the amount of
water previously permitted to be withdrawn for power purposes,
approximately 3,400 cubic feet per second, at De Ceuw Falls on the
Welland Canal, in addition to all water necessary for lockage
purposes; and the Government of the United States was permitted
to withdraw at Niagara Falls 20,000 cubic second-feet of water for
power purposes, and the Governments of Great Britain and Canada
conceded to the United States the right to permit the diversion of not
exceeding 10,000 cubic second-feet of water through the channels
of the Sanitary District of Chicago for domestic and sanitary pur-
poses, and the Government of the United States obtained the right
to withdraw all water necessary for lockage purposes; and these
things appear plainly in the language of the treaty, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the British and Canadian Governments, while in-
sisting upon their right to withdraw 39,400 cubic feet of water per
second for power purposes, wish, by placing their own construction
upon the language of this treaty, to deprive the United States Gov-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1009
ernment and the Sanitary District of Chicago of the 10,000 cubic
second-feet of water allotted for sanitary and health purposes.
We will demonstrate this to be the fact so that there will be no
question about it.
We do not understand that there is any different rule of law as to
construction of a treaty than exists in the construction of contracts
between individuals.
The CHAIRMAN. There is not.
Mr. BARRETT. That in every contract, including treaties, there
must be mutuality between the parties; that on each side there must
be obligations to perform and benefits to accrue, or they never would
have been written. Our position is that the United States Govern-
ment is in duty bound to abide by the terms of this treaty and will
perform it to the letter, but we take the position that when the
treaty was written it was also the duty of the British Government
to perform in the same manner. We want no more than is our due,
and less will not satisfy us.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you passing from the treaty now Ż
Mr. BARRETT. I am merely making the general observation as to
the treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. I was going to say that if you were passing from
the treaty, let me make this suggestion, and that you advise us as to
it at your own proper time—I don’t say now—whether you gave the
evidence before the court on the treaty which you are now going
to offer to us, or whether evidence has been discovered since the
treaty which you are going to present to us, and whether you argued
the same questions in court which you are going to argue to us?
Mr. BARRETT. We will make that quite clear before we are through
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. BARRETT. The discussion of the terms of the treaty and its
meanings, the obligations upon and the benefits to accrue to the
United States, the obligations upon the part of Canada, and the .
benefits to accrue to them will be discussed by Mr. Behan, and when
he is through I am satisfied there will be no question in the minds
of any of you men as to what this treaty means.
Gentlemen, if this treaty did not provide for that 10,000 second-
feet at Chicago, somebody had better find out what was the matter
with Elihu Root at that time, and they had also better find out what
was the matter with the Foreign Relations Committee of our Senate.
Those gentlemen discussed it positively; they had a definite and fixed
opinion on what that treaty meant, and you gentlemen know the
members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the
United States better than I do, and you know Elihu Root equally
as well as I do. None of them need education from me. None of
them would give away anything that belonged to the United States.
They will concede to the limit in order to properly care for a dis-
puted question, but as for giving things away that belong to us
nobody need fear it. - -
The case of the Sanitary District of Chicago will require consid-
erable time to develop. It has been suggested here by Congressman
Rainey and by Congressman Hull and various others who have pre-
ceded me that Lake Michigan had its original outlet into the Gulf
of Mexico. There is not any question about that, and we will
1010 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
demonstrate it here so that the record may be clear. It has been
conceded by the Board of Engineers of the United States Army,
and the man who investigated the question for the Canadian Gov-
ernment in 1895 conceded it, and Congressman Larson this morning
was discussing how the French traders left the region of Duluth and
went from there into Canada. We might tell him that the same
French traders and other traders left Minnesota and Canada and
came down the Lakes into the Chicago River, and thence down the
Des Plaines River into the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers as
early as the year 1600. There is not any question about the fact
that that route has been used since 1600.
The question occurs, How did we happen to start the canal to
connect Lake Michigan with the Illinois River? Of course, so far
as the topography of the country was concerned, it was relatively
easy to do. The Continental Divide, just a few miles west of Chicago,
required but little excavation, and the portage between the Chicago
and the Des Plaines Rivers had water over it during all of the rainy
Seasons of the year, and was dry only for a comparatively short
period of the year.
But in that early day those things would not have been enough
to cause the construction of this canal. It has been suggested here
by Congressman Rainey, I think, and possibly by Congressman Hull,
that necessity then was the mother of invention. The history of this
country, after we obtained our freedom from Great Britain, shows
that great difficulty was caused by the attitude of the British and the
Canadian Governments with reference to our right to navigate the
St. Lawrence River. After the War of 1812 it was particularly
aggravating. While we were not driven off the river, they never
conceded that we had the right to navigate it; in fact, when we
attempted to negotiate with them, they insisted that we had no
right; that where that river was of their sovereignty on both sides
of it they reserved the right to eject the citizens of any other nation
when they saw fit. The first time that they definitely spoke their mind
on this matter was in the year 1822. They took a definite and posi-
tive stand, and at that time the Congress of the United States passed
the first canal act asking the State of Illinois to build a canal to
connect Lake Michigan at Chicago with the Illinois River. , But
at that time Illinois was very poor. The population was small and
it was financially impossible, notwithstanding the fact that every-
body recognized the need of it. The fact of the matter is that as
early as 1816, when the land through which this canal was finally
constructed was ceded to the United States by the Indians, it appears
historically that the Government promised the Indians that a canal
would be constructed through these public lands.
After the act of 1822 was passed the State of Illinois memorial-
ized Congress and set forth facts which demonstrated the necessity
of constructing an outlet from the Great Lakes to the sea, first for
commerce and second for military operations.
In 1827 we again attempted to negotiate with Great Britain upon
the subject of our right to navigate the St. Lawrence, and they posi-
tively refused to discuss it, and Congress passed the second canal
act. That 1827 canal act provided that there should be constructed
from the southern end of Lake Michigan a canal to unite that lake
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1011
with the Illinois River. Congress asked the State of Illinois to con-
struct it, and they granted 284,000 acres of land for that purpose.
That land was used by the State of Illinois to help defray the ex-
penses of the construction of that canal. Just how much the Sale of
the land produced I do not know exactly—possibly three or four
million dollars.
The Legislature of the State of Illinois passed various acts pro-
viding for the construction of the canal, the first one in 1829 and
the last in 1836, and between the years 1836 and 1848 the Illinois and
Michigan Canal was completed. When they began its construction
it was intended to be a gravity-flow channel on the deep-cut plan,
but as it went along there was a shortage of money, and they
were obliged to build it on the shallow-cut plan, with its terminus
at Ashland Avenue near the Chicago River. It was fed by
gravity flow at Sag, Ill., from the Calumet feeder, of which you
have heard so much here, and by water pumped up into the
canal from the Chicago River at Ashland Avenue. The canal
was operated on the shallow-cut plan until the year 1861, when, by
reason of its failure to do the work required of it, both for commercial
and sanitary purposes, the Illinois Legislature directed the commis-
sioners of the Illinois and Michigan Canal to cause a thorough sur-
vey, examination, and estimate to be made of the Illinois River, of
the Illinois and Michigan Canal, of the Des Plaines and Chicago
Rivers, and of the portage between them, for the purpose of ascer-
taining the comparative value, cost, efficiency, benefits, and advan-
tages, direct, prospective, and incidental, of the different methods
proposed or desirable for improving the navigation of the Illinois
River by dredging, removal of dams, or by supplying water from
Lake Michigan through the enlargement and deepening of the
Illinois and Michigan Canal, or otherwise, or by opening a channel
from Lake Michigan, by way of the south branch of the Chicago
River and Mud Lake to the Des Plaines River, and down said canal
to a point that would secure a free flow, ample and never-failing
supply of water sufficient for the navigation of the Illinois River at
all seasons and times when not obstructed by ice; and to include
also an estimate for the channel hereinbefore mentioned of sufficient
size to admit a full and free steamboat navigation from the Illinois
River to Chicago and Lake Michigan, as well as a size sufficient for
supplying water for all the deficiencies of navigation in the Illinois
River at all seasons.
This action upon the part of our legislature indicates that a great
deal of thought had been given to the best method of obtaining a
channel of sufficient size and flowage capacity to provide for naviga-
tion from Chicago through the Mississippi River, and that substan-
tially the same conclusions were reached prior to the Civil War as
were expressed by Col. William V. Judson, United States engineer
at Chicago, in his report made March 23, 1921, concerning a water-
way from Chicago to the mouth of the Illinois River, in which he
said—I am reading from House Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh
Congress, first session:
For a 9-foot channel with an increment of 4,167 second-feet, the cost, either
with dams retained or removed, appears almost prohibitive, and the probability
1012 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
that Congress will limit the increment to 4,167 second-feet is, in my opinion,
so remote that this hypothesis may be left out of consideration. * * * In
my opinion, to most reasonably conform to the probable conditions of the future,
an 8-foot project should now be adopted, based on a 7,500 second-feet with-
drawal for purposes of estimate, and With all dams removed, Then should
Congress place the limit of the amount of water to be withdrawn from Lake
Michigan at 10,000 second-feet, which I deem probable, and under proper Con-
ditions, advisable, that increment would of itself increase the depth to 9 feet.
There were a number of investigations made of this canal by the
Government of the United States. In 1866 the Federal engineers
recommended that the canal be enlarged, and stated that it had been
designed by nature as an outlet for Lake Michigan. They recom-
mended it for commercial and military purposes.
In 1863 the Chief of Engineers recommended the enlargement of
the canal for the purpose of protecting the northern frontier and for
Mississippi River navigation. In fact, from 1848 continuously to
1890, the Government, through its engineering division, closely
watched the canal and made many surveys, all of which recom-
mended the continuance and enlargement of the canal. During
this period of time this canal was used for navigation, as the record
here already shows, and for sanitary purposes.
In 1856 Chicago built its first sewer system, which, I think, was
the first in the United States. That system of sewers drained into
the Chicago River and, of course, when the water was pumped from
the Chicago River into the Illinois and Michigan Canal it took our
sewage through the canal into the Des Plaines, Illinois, and Missis-
sippi Rivers.
The CHAIRMAN. 1866?
Mr. BARRETT. 1856.
As the population of Chicago increased this pumpage into the
canal was insufficient to protect our water supply, and in 1871, due
to negotiations that had been carried on for several years, the city of
Chicago was permitted, at an expense of $3,500,000, to cut down
the level of the canal to make it a gravity channel, and it was then
built as it was originally intended—on the deep-cut plan. This pro-
duced a flow of 40,000 feet per minute in the canal.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Who paid the expense of that?
Mr. BARRETT. The city of Chicago. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. That was before you had the sanitary district? .
Mr. BARRETT. That was before the sanitary district was organized.
Chicago grew very fast, and in 1881 we found that we did not have
a sufficient flowage of our sewage through the canal to protect our
water supply, and pumps were installed at a cost of about a quarter
of a million dollars, and they produced a flowage capacity of some-
thing like 60,000 minute-feet. This gave only temporary relief, and
typhoid was frequent and epidemic. During the period from 1881
to 1885 there was a great number of cases of typhoid fever in the city
of Chicago and surrounding territory, all due to water pollution,
and a drainage and water supply commission was formed by the city
of Chicago for the purpose of studying our water supply, Sewage
situation, and recommending a plan by which our water supply could
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1013
be protected and our sewage disposed of in the best way known at
that time. This drainage and water supply commission consisted
of three men—Rudolph Herring, Samuel J. Artingstall, and Bene-
zette Williams. These men had nation-wide reputations as sanitary
engineers, and they made an exhaustive study of Chicago's situation
and needs, and in their report made at that time they recommended
the construction of our sanitary canal as the proper method of car-
ing for Our Sewage and protecting our water supply. This report
will be found in the reports of the International Waterways Com-
mission, and it was also furnished to the Chief of Engineers and to
the Congress of the United States, as we will demonstrate here by
the records when we get to these exhibits.
They discussed three plans as among those possible: One plan was
to empty the sewage of Chicago into one end of the lake and to at-
tempt to take water from a point a long ways off in the hope that we
would be able to get good drinking water in that way. Another was to
establish a very large sewage farm—I think they talked about 15,000
acres; and the third was the dilution method, by which they sug-
gested the reversal of the Chicago River and the construction of this
sanitary channel to connect with the Illinois and the Mississippi
Rivers for a twofold purpose—one to take care of the sanitary needs
and the water supply of Chicago, and the other to provide a deep
waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. This Great
Lakes-Gulf waterway had been under discussion for many years and
this was suggested as Chicago's contribution to it. There is sure to
be a waterway of substantial size from Lake Michigan to the Gulf
to take care of the commerce of the Great Lakes, so that it may go
through this canal down the Illinois River into the Mississippi,
past St. Louis, and down into New Orleans and the Gulf, and that is
one of the things that I am going to draw your attention to a little
bit later when you are discussing the advisability of limiting at any
time or under any circumstances this flow out of Lake Michigan to
less than 10,000 second-feet.
There is no good reason, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Com-
mittee, why we can not have for the benefit of all of the people of the
United States a waterway of substantial size and usable character
connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico, so that we and
our commerce may pass from the northern portions of our country
into the Gulf of Mexico as well as we may go from the Lakes through
the boundary waters between Canada and the United States into the
ocean, and you gentlemen in your wisdom are going to be very
cautious before you give up the 10,000 cubic second-feet of water so
necessary for this Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway after it has been con-
ceded to the United States by the British and Canadian Govern-
ments.
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn now until 9 o'clock to-morrow
morning. tº tº
(Whereupon, at 4.35 p.m., an adjournment was taken until to-
morrow, Saturday, May 10, 1924, at 9 o'clock a. m.)
1014 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Saturday, May 10, 1924.
The committee met at 9 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding. *Ly
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, we are prepared to hear you now.
STATEMENT OF MB. GEORGE F. BARRETT–Continued
Mr. BARRETT. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com-
mittee, I went along in my discussion yesterday more or less gener-
ally, but for the purpose of this record and so that you gentlemen
may have before you the data which we have collected, not only
historically but actually pertaining to our position, I will now call
your attention to some of the things which I referred to yesterday
and some to which Congressman Rainey and Congressman Hull re-
ferred to in their talks.
We have said that the original outlet of Lake Michigan was into
the Gulf of Mexico. A number of historical works demonstrate
the truth of this assertion, which has been conceded by the Board
of Engineers of the United States Army as well as by Mr. O’Hanley,
the civil and hydraulic engineer who investigated the sanitary dis-
trict for the Canadian Government in 1895. In the report of the
Chief of Engineers for 1875, at page 396, volume 2, No. 2, the
following appears:
An exactly similar case to that of the Minnesota Valley and ancient Lake
Winnipeg is presented by the valley of the Illinois River and Lake Michigan.
The Illinois Valley is throughout broad and deep, far beyond that of rivers
generally of the same volume. At its upper end its width is great even where
there is no Stream, and it Widens Out Suddenly into what was, undoubtedly,
the ancient shore of Lake Michigan, whose waters must then have flowed
down the valley of the Illinois. So little have the waters receded from this
ancient outlet that the city of Chicago has cut down the barrier sufficiently
to serve as a canal for navigation, and a drain for its Sewerage, by a direct
flow. Of the Water.
Then, Mr. O’Hanley was designated and delegated by the Cana-
dian Government in 1895 to investigate the Sanitary District of
Chicago for the purpose of advising the Canadian Government as
to what was going on there and what would be the probable effect
of our diversion of 10,000 second-feet upon the Great Lakes. He
reported on this subject, as well as the general situation. I now
read from his report only as to the question of the ancient outlet.
We have printed this report of Mr. O’Hanley and a number of the
reports of the International Waterways Commission, and we have
set out important parts of them in black-faced type. We have
printed the treaty for the use of this committee and will be prepared
to furnish each member of the committee with copies of our reprint.
The CHAIRMAN. I would file, Judge, if you will, with the stenog-
rapher as well a copy, so that he may have it as one of the exhibits.
Mr. BARRETT. We will be very gald to do that. This particular
thing that I now refer to is in the report of Mr. O’Hanley and
reads as follows:
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1015
EXTINCT OUTLET OF LAKE MICHIGAN
The evidence in support of the theory that Lake Michigan at some remote
period of its history discharged a part, at least, of its waters into the Gulf
of Mexico by Way of the Des Plaines, Illinois, and Mississippi Rivers is not Only
Convincing and conclusive, but overwhelming.
You will find as we go along here that some of our engineers have
reported that what was known in the old days as Chicago Creek,
which is now called our main river, our North Branch, and our
South Branch, was actually a part of Lake Michigan, and what we
now in Chicago designate as Mud Lake was in the early days
called Lake of the Prairie and was a part of the connecting channel
between the Chicago and Des Plaines Rivers.
Mr. GoulDER. May I ask if in any of these reports they indicate
how long ago that became extinct”
Mr. BARRETT. I don't believe the reports are specific on that point,
but all of them show that there was a flow of water throughout that
valley through the rainy reasons of the year for many, many years,
and that it was used for navigation by the traders in the early days
from 1600 until just a short time before we started the construction
of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. }
Mr. GouldF.R.. I do not want to annoy you.
Mr. BARRETT. You are not annoying me at all.
Mr. GouldFR. But I am thinking in my mind just at the present
moment if that is historic or prehistoric. Is there any record in
these reports which you have studied that within the memory of
man or within known history there has been any such waterway?
Mr. BARRETT. All of the reports concede that.
Mr. ADCOCK. It is well established that it was used as a waterway
down to about 1830 by the fur traders and others.
Mr. Goulder. Didn’t they have to portage?
Mr. BARRETT. Some times in the year they had to.
Mr. GouldFR. They had to at Green Bay.
Mr. BARRETT. I think they had to portage during the summer
months, but during the rainy seasons of the year it was possible to
navigate, and they did navigate without any portage.
Mr. GouldFR. I have always understood that, so long as memory
goes back, there was a portage from one distinct watershed to
another. Of course, it might be that during the rainy seasons they
might be able to go through with a canoe.
Mr. BARRETT. I stated here yesterday that the attitude of Great
Britain regarding the navigation, by citizens of the United States, of
the St. Lawrence waterway had a great deal to do with and was
probably actually responsible for the construction of a waterway from
the southern end of Lake Michigan through the Illinois Valley and
down the Mississippi. I will read from the State Executive Papers,
first sesion, Twentieth Congress. It has on it a No. 2 and then a No.
307, 1827–28, and is from the Senate Library. This is correspondence
from Mr. Rush, who was the minister plenipotentiary from the
United States to Great Britain, and is addressed to Mr. Adams.
It begins on page 8 of Document 43, and I read from page 11 of
Document 43:
On the principal question of our equal right with the British to the entire
and unobstructed navigation of this river, I dwelt with all the emphasis de-
1016 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
manded by its magnitude. I spoke of it as a question intimately connected with
the present interests of the United States, and which assumed an aspect yet
more Commanding in its bearing upon their future population and destinies.
Already the immense region which bordered upon the Lakes and northern rivers
of the United States were rapidly filling up with inhabitants, and soon the
dense millions who would cover them would point to the paramount and ir-
resistible necessity for the use of this great stream as their only natural highway
to the Ocean.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is that the St. Lawrence?
Mr. BARRETT. That is the St. Lawrence.
Nor was the question one of magnitude to this part of the Union alone. The
Whole Nation felt their stake in it; the middle and the north more immediately;
but all the rest by the multiplied ties and connections which bound up their
Wants, their interests, and their sympathies with the middle and the north.
It was under such a view of the immediate and prospective value of this navi-
gation to us that I first presented it to the notice of the British plenipotentiaries
as a question Of right. I told them they must understand this to be the Sense
in which I had drawn up the article upon the subject, and that it was the sense
in which I felt myself bound, as the plenipotentiary of the United States, to
urge its adoption.
I approach an interesting part of this negotiation when I come to make
known in what manner the British plenipotentiaries received this disclosure.
They said that on principles of accommodation they were willing to treat of
this claim with the United States in a spirit of entire amity ; that is, as they
explained, to treat of it as a concession on the part of Great Britain for which
the United States must be prepared to offer a full equivalent. This was the
Only light in which they could entertain the question. As to the claim of right,
they hoped that it would not even be advanced; persisted in, they were willing
to persuade themselves it would never be. It was equally novel and extraordi-
nary. They could not repress their strong feeling of surprise at its bare inti-
mation. Great Britain possessed the absolute Sovereignty over this river in all
parts where both its banks were of her territorial dominion. Her right, hence,
to exclude a foreign nation from navigating it was not to be doubted, Scarcely
to be discussed. This was the manner in which it was at first received. They
Opposed to the claim an immediate, positive, unqualified resistance. -
I Said that Our claim was neither novel nor extraordinary. It was One that
had been well considered by my Government and was believed to be maintain-
able on the soundest principles of public law. The question had been familiar
to the past discussions of the United States, as their state papers, which were
before the world, would show. It had been asserted, and successfully asserted,
in relation to another great river of the American Continent flowing to the
south, the Mississippi, at a time when both of its lower banks were under the
dominion of a foreign power. The essential principles that had governed the
One case were now applicable to the other.
The CHAIRMAN. On the theory that we bordered the river for 125
miles along the northern boundary of the State of New York?
Mr. BARRETT. But this is the Mississippi River.
The CHAIRMAN. I know; but they applied that theory to that 125
miles?
Mr. BARRETT. That is correct, and that it was a natural waterway
* we had a positive legal right to navigate throughout its entire
ength.
My reply was not satisfactory to the British plenipotentiaries. They com-
batted the claim with increased earnestness, declaring that it was altogether
untenable and of a nature to be totally and unequivocally rejected. Instead
of having the Sanction of public law, the law and the practice of nations
equally disclaimed it. Could I show where was to be found in either the least
warrant for its assertion? Was it not a claim plainly inconsistent with the
paramount authority and exclusive possession of Great Britain? Could she
for any moment listen to it? -
I remarked that the claim had been put forward by the United States because
of the great national interests involved in it; yet that this consideration, high
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1017
as it was, would never be looked at but in connection with the just rights of
Great Britain. For this course of proceeding both the principles and practices
of my Government might well be taken as the guaranty. The claim was there-
fore far from being put forward in any unfriendly Spirit and would be subject
to a frank and full interchange of Sentiments between the two Governments.
I Was obviously bound, I admitted, to make known on behalf of mine the
grOunds On Which the claim was advanced—a duty which I would not fail ts
perform. I Stated that we considered our right to the navigation of this river
as Strictly a natural right. This was the firm foundation. On which it would
be placed. This was the light in which it was denfensible on the highest au-
thorities, no less than on the soundest principles. If, indeed, it had ever here-
tofore beer Supposed that the possession of both the shores of a river below
had conferred the right of interdicting the navigation of it to the people of
other nations inhabiting its upper banks, the examination of such a principle
Would at Once disclose the objections to it. The exclusive right of jurisdiction
Over a river could only originate in the social Compact and be claimed as a right
Of SOvereignty. -
The right of navigating the river Was a right of nature, preceding it in point
of time, and which the mere Sovereign right of One nation could not annihi-
late as belonging to the people of another. It was a right essential to the
condition and wants of human Society and conformable to the Voice of man-
kind in all ages and countries. The principle on which it rested challenged
Such universal assent that wherever it had not been allowed it might be im-
puted to the triumph of power or injustice over right. Its recovery and exer-
cise had still been objects precious among nations, and it was happily acquir-
ing fresh sanction from the highest examples of modern times. The parties
to the European alliance had, in the treaties of Vienna, declared that the
navigation of the Rhine, the Neckar, the Mayne, the Moselle, the Meuse, and
the Scheldt should be free to all nations. The object of these stipulations
was as evident as praiseworthy. It could have been no other than to render
the navigation of those rivers free to all the people dwelling upon their
banks, thus abolishing those unjust restrictions by which the people Of the
interior of Germany had been too often deprived of their natural Outlet to
the sea by an abuse of that right of sovereignty which claimed for a State
happening to possess both the shores of a river at its mouth the exclusive
property over it. There was no principle of national law upon which the
stipulations of the above treaties could be founded which did not equally
apply to the case of the St. Lawrence. It was thus that I opened our general
doctrine. It was from such principles that I deduced Our right to navigate
this river independent of the mere favor or concession of Great Britain and,
consequently, independent of any claim on her Side to an equivalent.
I have read, Mr. Chairman, from many documents, but I was
very anxious to read this because I never read a better statement of
what law ought to be than what has been given by Mr. Rush here.
The CHAIRMAN. It is a very remarkable document; I agree with
‘VOll.
y Mr. BARRETT. Never have I read clearer or better language.
Mr. GouldFR. By whom?
Mr. BARRETT. By Mr. Rush, who was the American plenipoten-
tiary to Great Britain in 1822. There is more in this document, but
I have read enough to set before you gentlemen the position taken
by the United States and the position taken by the British Govern-
ment regarding the St. Lawrence waterway.
Mr. KINDRED. That was not Benjamin Rush, was it?
Mr. BARRETT. It does not give his name. It just says from
“Rush.” It does not appear what his first name was, and I do not
know. - - -
Mr. ANTHONY. It was Richard Rush. 4.
Mr. BARRETT.. I am told this for the information of the com-
mittee; I do not know that it is a part of the record, but we have
here a Mr. Anthony, who is the son of one of our noted judges in
91739—24—PT 2—49
1018 ILLINOIS AND, MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Illinois, and he is connected with the legal department of the sani-
tary, district; and he informs me that this man's name was Richard
Rush, and he is the same man after whom the Rush Medical Col-
lege of Chicago has been named. . . . . "—
Mr. KINDRED. Let me suggest a correction there. Benjamin Rush
Was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a great phy-
sician, who lived and died at Philadelphia, Pa. *
Mr. BARRETT. I am giving you my authority.
Mr. KINDRED. Then I will have to correct you.
Mr. BARRETT. Very well. -
Mr. KINDRED. Rush Medical College is named after Benjamin
Rush, M. D., and not Richard. * , . .
Mr. BARRETT. Then it is probably the same man—Benjamin Rush,
but not Richard. • * *
Mr. KINDRED. Benjamin is right. . . . . # * -
Mr. BARRETT. We find in this same volume, at page 23, a further
discussion of this subject, and this is contained in a letter from Mr.
Clay to Mr. Gallatin, and I will read from it. 1 * *
The CHAIRMAN. To Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; Albert Gallatin, who, by the way, as will
appear, in the record here, is the man who sent papers out in the
early days recommending the construction of this waterway from
Chicago to the Illinois River and down the Mississippi and into the
Gulf of Mexico. And Mr. Porter, a Congressman from New York,
will appear as another who recommended it, and it is astonishing
the wealth of information he had concerning, a part of our country
so distant from the State of New York. . :
The CHAIRMAN. Porter was afterwards a member of the Cabinet.
Mr. BARRETT. He was surely equipped to be a member of the
Cabinet. - - - - - - - -
The CHAIRMAN. Porter was a State official of the State of New
York, with Martin Van Buren, and is mentioned in Van Buren's
autobiography at considerable length. He was a general, and then
he was later a member of the Cabinet. & -
Mr. BARRETT. I read at page 23 of Document 43, in the same vol-
ume of State papers to which I previously referred:
The force of the example in the definitive treaty of peace of 1783 between
Great Britain and the United States, by which they stipulated that the naviga-
tion of the river Mississippi from its source to the ocean shall forever remain
free and open to both parties, is not Weakened by any observations in the
British paper. A stronger case need not be presented of the admission of the
principle that a State whose territories are washed by a river can not be
justly excluded from its navigation to the ocean by an intervening power.
Spain held the entire bank from the ocean up to the thirty-first degree Of north
latitude, from which point to its source the residue of the left bank, it was
supposed, belonged to the United States and Great Britain in severalty.
Spain, with respect to the mouth of the Mississippi, thus stood in 1783 in
the same relation to the United States and to Great Britain as Great Britain
now does in regard to the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the United States.
What was the law of that position of Spain as solemnly declared. by both
the present contending parties? It was that the navigation of the river Mis-
sissippi, from its Source to the ocean, Shall forever remain free and open to
them both. If Great Britain by the success of the war terminated in the
treaty of 1763 was enabled to extort from France a concession of the free
navigation of the Mississippi, as is asserted in the British argument, her con-
dition was not the same in 1783. Yet, amidst all her reverses, without con-
sulting Spain, she did not scruple to contract with the United States for their
I
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 101.9
‘reciprocal freedom of navigating the Mississippi from its source to the ocean
through Spanish territory and passing the finest settlements and the largest
City of Louisiana as well as all the Spanish fortresses of the lower Mississippi.
Is Great Britain prepared to promulgate a law for Spain to which she will
not herself Submit in analogous circumstances? $.
We have a further discussion on this very subject from Mr.
Gallatin to Mr. Clay, dated the 21st of September, 1827. I call your
attention to these things because, singularly, we found Great Britain
refusing to grant, as a matter of right, that our citizens could navi-
gate the St. Lawrence to the Ocean in 1822; and then we find Con-
gress passing this first canal act, which I will read in a few mo-
ments; and then we find negotiations extending from 1822 down to
1827, and I read only from this letter of the 21st of September,
1827; and then we find in 1827 this second canal act which I will
read, providing for this canal from Lake Michigan to the Missis-
sippi. This is on page 31 of Document 43, and I begin at the bot-
. ºrge 31, in the same volume to which I have previously
I’eierre Ci : - *
The British plenipotentiaries will not entertain any proposition respecting
ithe navigation of the St. Lawrence founded on the right claimed by the United
States to navigato that river to the Sea. - w \ -
Although it may prove hereafter expedient to make a temporary agreement
Without reference to the right , (which I am not authorized to do), I am
Satisfied that for the present, at least, and whilst the intercourse with the
British West Indies remains interdicted, it is best to leave that by land or
inland navigation with the North American British Provinces to be regulated
by the laws Of each country, respectively. The British Government will not
whilst the present state of things continues throw any impediment in the way
of that intercourse if the United States' will permit it to continue. * +
Now, I will not read any longer, but this book contains a com-
plete report of many of the things that occurred during these ex-
changes of statements. - • * &
Now, at this time the American Nation was very much concerned
about a waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf, and we find
Congressman Porter and Albert Gallatin as early as 1808, urging
the construction of this canal. This is a report of Albert Gallatin,
Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of roads and canals. It
was communicated to the Senate on the 6th of April, 1808. It will
be found in American State Papers, volume 20, miscellaneous, vol-
ume 1, page 735: 4
The Secretary of the Treasury, in obedience to the resolution of the Senate
of the 2d of March, 1807, respectfully submits the following report on roads
and Canals: &
“The general utility of artificial roads and canals is at this time SO uni-
versally admitted as hardly to require any additional proofs.” “ * *
The Illinois River, which empties into the Mississippi above St. Louis, rises
in a swamp which, when the waters are high, affords a natural Canoe navi-
gation to the sources of Chicago Creek, a short stream, which falls into Lake
Michigan at its southern extremity.
Another communication generally used by the Indian traders is that from
Green Bay, also in Lake Michigan, to the Mississippi by Fox River and the
Wisconsin. Nor is there any doubt that if the inland navigation between the
North River and the Lakes was completely opened the whole Indian trade
either of the Mississippi by Lake Michigan or of the Northwest by Lake
Superior must necessarily center in an Atlantic port of the United States—
a consideration of minor importance as a commercial object when compared
with the other advantages of that great Communication but of great weight
in its relation to the political intercourse of the United States with the Indians.
1020 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
I will now read a few excerpts from the report of Congressman
Porter, which is a remarkable treatise on roads and canals and con-
tains some real English language from an American citizen.
This will be found in the Annals of Congress, volume 2, page
i; of the Eleventh Congress, first and second sessions, in the year
10 : -
CAN ALS AND ROADS
Mr. P. B. PORTER. I have risen, Sir, for the purpose of asking the attention
Of the House to a subject than which, I may confidently say, there is no one
that regards our domestic policy more important or which more loudly calls for
the interposition of the National Legislature.
The subject to which I allude is the internal improvement of the United
States by roads and canals. And I intend before I sit down to offer a reso-
lution the object of which will be to ascertain the sense of the House in
relation to the expediency of appropriating a part of the public lands to such
improvements. * * *
It will be recollected that a bill was some days ago laid on your table from
the Senate embracing the subject of roads and canals. What course this bill
has already taken, or what may be its ultimate fate in that House, were it
possible for me to conjecture, it would be improper for me to state in this
place, especially in the present State of my feelings On that Subject. I main-
tain this bill Only because I had some little share in producing it in the form
in which it appears on your table and in which it Originally appeared in the
Senate; and because it therefore shows my ideas of a practical mode of car-
rying the Objects of the resolutions into effect. And I must beg the House
to bear in mind the provisions of the bill in weighing the observations which
I am about to offer, should these observations be so forunate as to gain the ear
Of the House.
At the Southwestern extremity of Lake Michigan the most inconsiderable
expense would open a canal between the waters of that lake and the Illinois
River, One Of the principal branches of the Mississippi. Nature has already
made this connection nearly complete ; and it is not uncommon for boats in the
Spring Of the year to pass from the lake into the Illinois, and from thence
by the waters of the Illinois' and Mississippi to New Orelans without being
taken Out Of the Water.
Farther to the north a connection might be formed with nearly the same
facility between the waters of the Fox River, which discharge into Green
Bay and the Wisconsin, another branch of the Mississippi; and the lands
adjacent to these rivers are said to be uncommonly rich and fertile.
From this view of the western country, and the great extent of its natural
internal navigation, we perceive the advantages to be derived by opening it to
the Atlantic by a great Canal; and we discover also, at the same time, that it
is not very important to the inhabiants, by what line this canal approaches
them, as their interests Would be almost equally promoted by any route that
might be adopted. I presume, however, there can be no doubt on this
point.
(Mr. Porter then submitted his resolution :)
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to examine into the expediency
of appropriating a part of the public lands, or of the proceeds thereof, to the
purposes of opening and constructing such roads and canals as may be most
conductive to the general interests of the Union, and that they have leave to
report by bill or otherwise.
After some conversation on the propriety of authorizing the committee to
report by bill, the resolution was agreed to without diversion, and a com-
mittee appointed, consisting of 20 members, whose names appear.
Mr. Boy CE. May I Say in this connection, as bearing directly upon
the power of Congress to make appropriations for the development
of inland waterways and the construction of public highways, there
will be found a most interesting statement issued by President
Monroe, which is contained in volume 2 of Richardson's Messages
of the Presidents. *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1021
Mr. BARRETT. I have not read it, Judge, but I will be very glad
to look it up. -
Mr. BoxcE. It is a lengthy but most interesting statement.
Mr. BARRETT. I have discovered that these early leaders of ours.
were more or less lengthy, but their language was so beautiful that
I never got tired reading it.
Mr. KINDRED. A little prolix, wasn’t it?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think so. I did not find, although it was
lengthy, that there was any waste of effort in it. -
Now, we have here on the same subject a discussion of a matter
to which I referred yesterday, which appears in a history of the
drainage canal and waterway, written by G. P. Brown, of the State
of Illinois. I am not going to read it. I am going to ask that it
be put into the record, so that we may have the thing complete.
he CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND WATERWAY HISTORY, BY G. P. BROWN
In the House on February 8, 1810, Peter B. Porter, of New York, rose to
discuss the internal improvements of the United States by roads and canals.
He said he had listened to appeals for the protection of commerce. It was to
be presumed that Congress would be as willing to give a direct encouragement
to agriculture as to do it indirectly through the medium of commerce. He
referred to the bill introduced in the Senate by Mr. Pope, in the preparation
Of which he had had a part. Some great system of internal navigation such
as was contemplated in that bill was not only an object of the first con-
sequence in the future prosperity of the country, considered as a measure of
political economy, but as a measure of State policy it was indispensable to
the preservation of the integrity of the Government. For 20 years the United
States had been favored in external commerce in a manner unequaled. . Their
citizens had not only grown rich but they had almost gone mad in pursuit
of this commerce. This was owing in part to the unparalleled succession of
events in Europe. The course of events had now materially changed and with
it the tide of this country’s commercial prosperity. He was far from believing
§: this might not eventually prove fortunate to the people of the United
tates. -
One of the objects of the system he was about to propose was to unlock the
internal resources of which the country found itself possessed, to enable the
citizen of one part of the United States to exchange his product for those
of another, and to open a great internal commerce which was acknowledged by
all who professed any skill in the science of political economy to be much more
profitable and advantageous than . the most favored external commerce. The
system had another object in view not less important. “The people of the
|United States are divided,” he said, “by a geographical line into two great
and distinct sections, the people who live along the Atlantic and the east side of
the Allegheny Mountains, and who compose the three great classes of mer-
chants, manufacturers, and agriculturists, and those who occupy the west
side of those mountains, who are exclusively agriculturists. This diversity
and supposed contrariety of interest and pursuit between the people of these
two great divisions of the country, and the difference of character to which
these occupations give rise, it has been confidently asserted and is still be-
lieved by many, will lead to a separation of the United States at no very
distant day. In my humble opinion, sir, this very diversity of interest will,
if skillfully managed, be the means of producing a closer and more intimate
union of the States.” By producing a mutual dependence between these great
Sections and by these means only could the United States be kept together.
There was no market for the products of the West, he continued. The
disastrous effects were seen on the industry and the morals of its people.
Their increase in numbers and the ease with which their children were brought
up and fed, far from encouraging them to become manufacturers, put at a
great distance the time when, quitting the freedom and the independence
of the soil, they would submit to the labor and confinement of manufactures.
1022 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
It became an object of national importance, notwithstanding almost any other
that could Occupy the attention of the House, to inquire Whether the evils
incident to this state of things might not be removed by a great navigable
canal from the Atlantic to the western States, thus promoting the natural
connection and intercourse between the farmer and the merchant, SO highly
conducive to the interests of both.
Proceeding to show by geographical detail both the importance and the
practicability of such navigation, he found west of the Alleghenies, “a Scene
of natural internal navigation unequaled in the world.” To the South aid
the west of the Great Lakes the waters of the Ohio and the Mississippi ap-
proach within short distances of and are interlocked by the Waters of the
Lakes. The lands along these dividing waters are generally level, and the
rivers are navigable and might be connected by short canals at little ex-
pense. At the southeastern extremity of Lake Michigan the most inconsid-
erable expense would open a canal between the waters of that lake and the
Illinois River, one of the principal branches of the Mississippi. Nature has
already made this connection nearly complete, and it is not uncommon for
boats in the spring of the year to pass from the lake into the Illinois and
from thence by the waters of the Illinois and Mississippi to New Orleans
without being taken out of the water.
The effect of a canal system would be to reduce the prices of manufactured
articles to the people of the West and increase the prices of the public lands.
The United States Owned about 250,000,000 acres of land in the western
country, independent of Louisiana. More than 100,000,000 acres of this was
in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, 50,000,000 of which were within 30 miles
of the Lakes. To appropriate 1,000,000 acres for the construction of a canal
from the Atlantic to the Lakes would enhance the value of the remaining
49,000,000 acres some hundred per cent. Canals and roads would increase
the duties on imports and be a military advantage. They would enable the
western settlers to pay their debts to Congress.
Every motive of interest and policy unites in urging the Government to
undertake this system of internal improvement. It is a subject too Vast
to be accomplished by individual enterprise. The means of the citizens of the
western country are peculiarly inadequate to such an undertaking. They
can not construct canals, for the very obvious reason that they are already
deeply in debt for their lands, and they must continue SO until this great
work is executed for them. They will not only be able to pay you for their
lands but they will remunerate you for the expense of opening canals by the
tolls which they Will be able to pay. In the advantages which these outlets
for their produce will give them, and On which their prosperity must So
essentially depend, you will have a pledge for their future attachment and
fidelity to your Government which they will never forfeit. But, sir, if you
neglect to avail yourselves of the opportunity which this system affords of
securing the affections of the western people—if you refuse to extend to
them those benefits which their situation so imperiously demands, and which
yOur resourceS enable you and your duty enjoins in On you to extend to them ;
if, while you are expending millions yearly for the encouragement of com-
merce, you affect constitutional doubts as to your right to expend anything
for the advancement of agriculture; if you can constitutionally create banks
for the accommodation Of the merchant but can not construct canals for
the benefit of the farmer; if this be the crooked, partial, sideway policy
which is to be pursued, there is great reason to fear that our western breth-
ren may SOOn acCOSt uS in a tone higher than that Of the Constitution
itself. : They may remind us (as the people of this country once did an-
other power which was regardless of their interests) of the rights of which
the God of nature has invested them by placing them in the possession of a
country which they have the physical power to defend and which it is to be
feared they would defend against all the taxgathers we could send among
them, supported by all the force of the Atlantic States.
Mr. Porter, submitted, a resolution providing for the appointment of a com-
mittee to examine into the expediency of appropriating a part of the public
lands, or the proceeds . Of their sale, to the construction of such roads and
canals as might be most conducive to the general interests of the Union. The
resolution was adopted and a committee of 20 members, with Mr. Porter as
chairman, was at once appointed. On February 23, 1810, Mr. Porter, for his
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1023
committee, reported a bill essentially the same as the one introduced in the
Senate by Mr. Pope. This was read twice and referred to the committee
Of the whole. Its fate seems to have been the same as that of Pope's bill in
the Senate.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, this is an excerpt from the history by Mr.
Brown on this drainage channel and waterway, which discusses the
treaty with the Indians, by which the United States obtained all
of the lands—I do not know how many thousand acres, but all of
the lands at the northern end of Illinois on Lake Michigan, clear
down to Ottawa, and it is interesting to note what they got for
land in those days and what they are very likely worth now. They
ceded to the United States all of the land contained within the fol-
lowing bounds: - -
Beginning on the left bank of the Fox River of Illinois, 10 miles above the
mouth of the said Fox River; thence running so as to cross Sandy Creek 10
miles above its mouth; thence in a direct line to a point 10 miles north of the
west end of the portage, between Chicago Creek, which empties into Lake
Michigan, and the River Des Plaines, a fork of the Illinois—
That will take in practically the entire city of Chicago, or a great
deal of it— .
thence in a direct line to a point on Lake Michigan 10 miles northward Of the
mouth of Chicago Creek; thence along the lake to a point 10 miles southward
Of the mouth of the Chicago Creek; thence in a direct line to a point on the
Kankakee 10 miles above its mouth—
And that is way south of Chicago—
thence with the Said Kankakee and the Illinois Rivers to the mouth Of Fox
River and thence to the beginning.
For this land the Indians received “a considerable quantity of merchandise,”
and an agreement that they would receive annually for 12 years goods to the
value of $1,000. The grant contained 9,911,411 acres and included the present
Site of Chicago. . Governor Edwards said afterwards in a communication to
the State legislature that he personally knew that the Indians were induced
to believe that the opening of a canal through these lands would be very ad-
vantageous to them, and that, under authorized expectations that a canal
would be constructed, they ceded the land for a trifle. On this fact the
governor based an argument for the early inception of the work, saying :
“Good faith, therefore, toward these Indians, as well as the concurring in-
terest of the State and of the Union, seems to require that the execution of
this truly national object should not be unnecessarily delayed, and nothing is
more reasonable than that the expense should be defrayed out of the proceeds
of the very property which was so ceded for the express purpose of having
it done.” -
And you will find that the very land which they ceded was par-
tially used for the purpose of starting this waterway. -
Mr. KINDRED. I would like to ask if the white man got any better
bargain there than he did when the Dutch bought Manhattan Island
for a quart of whisky and a few dollars?
Mr. BARRETT. Right there, Congressman, may I suggest that a
quart of whisky is now extremely valuable? . .Yºu need not put that
into the record.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I wish you would put about half of it into the
record. , i.
Mr. BARRETT. In 1818 the State of Illinois had a population of
60,000. It was then admitted into the Union. At that time the
matter of building this canal was again before Congress and in
1819 John Calhoun, then Secretary of War, recommended that
1024 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the canal be constructed on account of its importance for com-
merce and for military operations. This exhibit appears in the
executive papers of the first session of the Sixteenth Congress, vol-
ume 2, page 17, section 5, and I find a notation here “Old number-
º 1819–20, letter from the Secretary of War, dated December
28, 1819: - . . . . . . . * -
SIR : In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of ,
the 15th instant, directing the Secretary of War “to lay before that House
the several topographical reports that have been made to the War Dpartment,
in pursuance of instructions to that effect, respecting the practicability of
uniting by a canal the waters of the Illinois River and those of Lake Michi-.
gan, and such other information as he may be in possession of on that sub-
ject,” I have the honor to transmit an extract of Major Long's report and a
Copy of a report made by R. Graham and Joseph Phillips, Esqs., which
Comprehend all the information on the Subject in this department.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, . t
Your most obedient servant, -
*
• , * t
à J. C. CALHOUN.
This was addressed to Hon. Henry Clay, at that time Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
Attached to this is a report of Maj. Stephen H. Long, and I
want it written into the record, but I will read only a portion of it:
Chicago River is merely an arm of the lake, dividing itself into two
branches, at the distance of 1 mile inland from its communication with the
lake. The north branch extends along the western side of the lake about
30 miles and receives some few tributaries. The South branch has an extent
of only 5 or 6 miles, and receives no supplies except from the small lake of
the prairie above described. The river and each of its branches are of
variable widths, from 15 to 50 yards, and for 2 or 3 miles inland, have a
sufficient depth of water to admit vessels of almost any burden. The en-
trance into Lake Michigan, however, which is 30 yards wide, is obstructed
by a sand bar about 70 yards broad, upon the highest part of which the
water is usually no more than 2 feet deep. Piers might be sunk on both.
sides of the entrance and the sand removed from between them. By this
means the river would be rendered a safe and commodious harbor for Ship-
ping, a convenience which is seldom to be met with on the shores of Lake
Michigan. * § . . .
Proposed canals and roads: A canal uniting the waters of the Illinois
with those of Lake Michigan may be considered the first in importance of
any in this quarter of the country and at the same time the construction
of it would be attended with very little expense compared with the magni-
tude of the object. The watercourse, which is already opened between the
river Desplaines and Chicago River, needs but little more excavation to
render it sufficiently capacious for all the purposes of a canal. It may be
supplied with water at all times of the year by constructing a dam Of mod-
erate height across the Desplaines, which would give the Water of that river
a sufficient elevation to supply a canal extending from one river to the
other. It would be necessary also to construct locks at the extremities of
the canal, that communicating with the Chicago River being calculated to
elevate about 6 feet, and that communicating with the Desplaines about 4
feet.
This Major Long was in the War Department and this is a re-
port upon the construction of this canal for military and com-
mercial purposes. * . . .
(The report referred to is in full as follows:)
['Fºxtract from a report of Maj: Stephen H. Long to George Graham, Esq., Acting Secre-
tary of War, dated Washington, March 4, 1817]
The Illinois is formed by the union of three considerable rivers—the Des
Plaines, the De Page, and the Kankakee—the last of which is nearly double
the Size Of either Of the two former. The Illinois is about 300 miles in length
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1025
and is of a variable width, from 70 yards to 1 mile. It has a very moderate cur-
rent and a depth of water sufficient to render it navigable at all times for boats
of Considerable burden, about 250 miles from its mouth. At the mouth of the
Vermilion there are rapids perceivable only in the lower stages of water.
Farther up the water is not generally so deep as it is below the Vermilion.
The valley of the Illinois varies in its width from 3 to 10 miles, is generally flat
and marshy, and for the most part subject to inundation when the river has no
more than a medial height. In some parts of it, however, prairies and bottoms
of considerable extent are to be met with, elevated much above high-water
mark. In ascending the river the bluffs gradually decrease in height, being
about 150 feet high at the mouth and about 100 feet at the head of the river.
Imbedded in the bluffs are strata of limestone, slate, and coal, which Occa-
sionally make their appearance along the surface of the declivities. *
The River Des Plaines is a small stream rising in the lowlands bordering
upon the west side of Lake Michigan and has its general course in a South-
westerly direction. The valley of this river has an average width of about 1
mile and is terminated on both sides by regular banks nearly parallel to each
other, extending along the river about 30 miles from the head of the Illinois.
In ascending this river, also, the banks or bluffs gradually decrease in height,
being, as before mentioned, about 100 feet high at the mouth and Only 20 Or
25 at the distance of 30 miles higher up the river, where, instead of maintaining
their parallel direction, they form nearly right angles with the course of the
river, that on the right taking an easterly and that on the left a northwesterly
course; but, being gradually inflected from these courses, they form exten-
sive curves, encircling a large tract of flat prairie, in no part elevated more than
12 or 14 feet above the common level of the water in this vicinity. The river
throughout the above-mentioned distance has two or five short rapids or ripples
that make their appearance only in times of low water. In every other part
it has the appearance of being a chain of stagnant pools and Small lakes, afford-
ing a sufficient depth of water for boats of moderate draft.
In the flat prairie above mentioned is a Small lake about 5 miles in length
and from 6 to 30 or 40 yards in width, communicating both with the river Des
Plaines and Chicago River by means of a kind of canal, which has been made
partly by the current of the water and partly by the French and Indians for
the purpose of getting their boats across in that direction in time of high water.
The distance from the river Des Plaines to Chicago River by this watercourse
is about 9 miles, through the greater part of which there is more or less water,
So that the portage is seldom more than 3 miles in the driest Season ; but in a
wet season boats pass and repass with facility between the two rivers.
:: × sk :}; : Sk ::
Chicago River is merely an arm of the lake, dividing itself into two branches
at the distance of 1 mile inland from its communication with the lake. The
north branch extends along the western side of the lake about 30 miles and
receives some few tributaries. The South branch has an extent Of Only 5 Or
6 miles and receives no supplies, except from the small lake of the prairie
above described. The river and each Of its branches are of variable widths,
from 15 to 50 yards, and for 2 or 3 miles inland have a sufficient depth of
water to admit vessels of almost any burden. The entrance into Lake Michi-
gan, however, which is 30 yards wide, is obstructed by a sand bar about 70
yards broad upon the highest part of which the water is usually no more than
2 feet deep. Piers might be sunk on both sides of the entrance and the sand
removed from between them. By this means the river would be rendered a
safe and commodious harbor for Shipping, a convenience which is Seldom to
be met with on the Shores of Lake Michigan. * * *
Proposed canals and roads: A canal uniting the waters of the Illinois with
those of Lake Michigan may be considered the first in importance of any in
this quarter of the country and at the same time the construction of it would
be attended with very little expense compared with the magnitude of the
object. The watercourse, which is already opened between the river Des
Plaines and Chicago River, needs but little more excavation to render it
sufficiently capacious for all the purposes of a Canal. It may be supplied
with water at all times of the year by constructing a dam of moderate height
across the Des Plaines, which would give the water of that river a sufficient
elevation to supply a canal extending from one river to the other. It would
be necessary also to construct locks at the extremities of the canal, that
communicating with Chicago River being calculated to elevate about 6 feet
and that communicating with the Des Plaines about 4 feet.
91739–24—PT 2 50
1026 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RrvKäs; ETC.
... We find also that in 1821 a resolution was adopted by Congress
directing the Committee on Public, Lands to determine,what was
necessary to construct this canal and in 1822 the first canal act was
passed. ' This act is as follows: . . . . . . . . . . . ; !
Acts of CoNGREss CoNCERNING ILLINoIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL–ACT of 1822
- - - - • t . . . . . . . ) -, 4 * * , t H - . . . . ( ; 1
(1) Act of March 30, 1822; Third Statutes at Large, page 659; Hurd's
Revised Statutes (1905 edition), page 90: . . . . . : - n =
SECTION 1. The State of Illinois be and is hereby authorized to survey and
mark, through the public lands of the United States, the route of the eanal
connecting the Illinois River with the southern bend of Lake Michigah; and
90 feet of land on each side of said canal shall be forever reserved from any
sale to be made by the United States, except in cases hereinafter provided
for, and the use thereof forever shall be and the same is hereby vested in the
said. State for a canal, and for no other purpose Whatever, 'Oh Condition, how-
ever, that if the said State does not survey and direct by law said canal to be
opened, and return a complete map thereof to the Treasury Department
within three years from and after the passing of this act; or if the said canal
be not completed, suitable for navigation, within 12 years thereafter ; or
if said ground shall ever cease to be occupied by and used for a canal suitable
for navigation, the reservation and grant hereby made shall be void and of
none effect; Provided always, and it is hereby enacted and declared, that
nothing in this act contained or that shall be done in pursuance thereof shall
be deemed or construed to imply any obligation on the part of the United
States to appropriate any money to defray the expenses of Surveying or Open-
ing said canal : Provided also, and it is hereby further enacted and declared,
that the said canal, when completed, shall be, and forever remain, a public
highway for the use of the Government of the United States, free from any
toll or other charge whatever, for any property of the United States, or per-
sons in their service, passing through the same. - i
2. Every section of land through which said canal route may pass shall be,
directed by law, and said State is hereby authorized and permitted, without
waste, to use any materials on the public lands adjacent to said canal that
may be necessary for its construction. - f :
I want to call your attention to something right here. This lan-
guage says “connecting.” When they passed the canal act of 1827
they did not use “connecting.” They used “uniting the waters of
Lake Michigan with those of the Illinois River.”
lºcºsmºs. What distinction do you draw between those two
WOTCIS . - *
Mr. BARRETT. You might connect the two and not necessarily
make them one, but if you unite them you make them one.
The CHAIRMAN. The only difference I can see would be which fed
the other. . . . • , -
Mr. BARRETT. Well, perhaps so; but the distinction is plain, how-
ever, that you might connect without uniting.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is true.
Mr. BARRETT. But you can not unite without connecting. The
State of Illinois did not construct the canal under the act of 1822,
but did begin the construction of it under the 1827 act, and I would
ask that all of this be incorporated into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be received. *
Mr. BARRETT. In 1826 we find that the General Assembly of the
State of Illinois passed a memorial a part of which I want to read.
This is a memorial passed by the General Assembly of the State of
Illinois, which will be found in Senate Documents Nos. 20 to 56,
first session of the Nineteenth Congress, 1825–26, volume 2, page 49.
- ... . I , * } - r * 2.É? *
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. f027
This is not the entire memorial, but the part that I consider of in-
terest. The entire memorial will be found at the place indicated.
That the construction of a canal uniting the waters of Lake, Michigan with
the Illinois River will form an important addition to the great, connecting
links in the chain of internal navigation which will effectually "secure the
indissoluble union of the confederate members of this great and powerful
Republic. By the completion of this great and valuable work the iconnection
between the North and the South, the East and the West, would be strength-
ened by the ties of commercial intercourse and social neighborhood, and the
Union of the States might bid defiance to internal commotion, sectional jeal-
lousy, and foreign invasion. All the States of the Union would then feel the
most powerful motives to resist every attempt at dissolution. To effect SO
great and desirable an object, your memorialists believe to be of 'sufficient
importance to engage the attention and awaken the munificent patronage of
a Government whose principle of action is the promotion of the general
welfare. * . # # * * , . . . . . . .
Now, we come to the time when Congress passed the 1827 canal
act, and this I will read, because of its importance in this case. It
was an act passed March 2, 1827 : * . * * * º
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of , the Uniited
States of America in Congress assembled, That there be, and hereby is, granted
to the State of Illinois, for the purpose of aiding the said State in opening a
canal to unite the waters of the Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan; a
quantity of land equal to one-half of five sections in width on each side of
said canal, and reserving each alternate section to the United States, to be
selected by the Commissioner of the Land Office, under the direction of the
President of the United States, from one end of the said canal, to the other;
and the said lands' shall be subject to the disposal of the legislatüre of the
said State for the purpose aforesaid and, no other: Provided, That the said
canal when completed shall, be and forever remain a public highway for, the
use of the Government of the United States, free from any toll, or, other
charge whatever, for any property of the United States or persons in , their
Service passing through the same: Provided, That said canal shall be com-
menced within 5 years and completed in 20 years, or the State shall. be bound
to pay to the United States the amount of any lands previously sold, and that
the title to purchasers under the State shall be valid. - - -
Then, there is a provision for making reports in section 2 as to
the location and the sales of the land, and a further provision, re-
garding what the legislature of the State may do regarding the
selection of lands. I will not read those, but, ask that they go into
the record. . . . . . . . . r
(The sections of the act referred to are as follows:) .
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted that so soon as the route of the said canal
shall be located and agreed on by the said State it shall, be the duty of the
governor thereof, or such other person or persons as may have been or shall
hereafter be, authorized to Superintend the construction of Said Čanal, to ex-
amine, and ascertain the particular sections to , which the said State will be
entitled, under the provisions of this act, and report the same to the Secretary
of the Treasury of the United States. *. # 4
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted that the said State, under the authority of
the legislature thereof, after the selection shall have been so made, shall have
power to sell and convey the whole, or any part of the said land, and to give
a title in fee simple therefor, to whomsoever Shall purchase the whole or any
part thereof. -
Right at this point I want to make the observation that the State
of Illinois, having between the years 1829 and 1836 enacted legisla-
tion by which this canal was built, and having taken and used lands
granted by the United States, was absolutely bound and still is ab-
i

#
1028 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
solutely bound to maintain forever a canal as a public highway from
e Michigan to the Illinois River, and it is our position that we
have kept the faith, that we constructed the Illinois and Michigan
Canal in accordance with the provisions of that act, and that our
present sanitary channel and the connection being made by the
State of Illinois is furnishing not only the canal which the United
States insisted that we furnish but a much better canal for every
purpose, and that the present canal—the one under discussion here—
is merely a supplanting of the old canal. It was considered at the
time that we might use the bed of the old Illinois and Michigan
Canal, and in the act of 1836 which I will read in a few moments
you will find that we make a specific provision in our legislation for
the width and depth of the channel and then provide that 90 feet
on each side of it shall be reserved for enlargement, strictly in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the 1822 canal act, and you will find
now that our present canal is not any larger in width, though it is
much greater in depth, than the canal º, was contemplated at
that time.
Let me read this act of our general assembly. It was passed on
the 9th of January, 1836, and is entitled “An act for the construc-
tion of the Illinois and Michigan Canal.” # .
That said canal shall not be less than 45 feet wide at the surface, 30 feet
at the base, and of sufficient depth to insure, navigation of at least 4 feet,
to be suitable for ordinary canal boat navigation, to be supplied with water
from Lake Michigan and such other sources as the canal commissioners may
think proper, and to be constructed in the manner best calculated to promote
the permanent interests of the country, reserving 90 feet on each side of said
canal to enlarge its capacity whenever in the Opinion of the board of canal
commissioners the public good shall require it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is the date of that?
Mr. BARRETT. January 9, 1836. There were a number of acts
passed by our State between 1829 and 1836 before we finally got to
the point where we started to dig, and this is the last act.
The CHAIRMAN. Fixing the size of the canal? . .
Mr. BARRETT. Yes... This is the act under which we began the
construction of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. . tº s º
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is the first act that recites that it is to be
fed by water from Lake Michigan, isn’t it?
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I think that the 1827 act of the Congress of
the United States makes a definite provision that the canal shall
unite the waters of Lake Michigan. This is the first one that uses
that language after the 1827 act; you are quite right.
And from such other Sources as the Canal commissioners may think proper.
In other words, we used in this act the very language used by Con-
gress and the very language used by the Legislature of Illinois when
they memorialized Congress to unite the water of Lake Michigan
with the Illinois River: -
and to be constructed in the manner best calculated to promote the permanent
interests of the country, reserving 90 feet on each side of said canal to enlarge
its capacity whenever in the opinion of the board of canal commissioners the
public good shall require it.
Now, this 45 feet in width with the two nineties on each side makes
225 feet. Our present canal through the rock section is 162 feet wide
~
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1029
at the top and 160 feet at the bottom and in the earth section 225
feet wide at the top, exactly the same as the other.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, Judge, what you mean by that is that that
which is already constructed within the area which it was provided
should be reserved for that purpose?
Mr. BARRETT. The sanitary district canal is constructed practically
ºide of the old canal. You can almost jump from one to the
Other.
The CHAIRMAN. But within the area you also mean?
Mr. BARRETT. With the greatest width 225 feet?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. , - . . .
#
Mr. BARRETT. The new canal is built within the limitations as to .
width which our original legislation provided, and is the canal which
takes the place of the Illinois and Michigan canal, and our present
canal is to all intents and purposes the canal required to be built by
the Congress of the United States in 1827, and conforms to the re-
quirements of that legislation. The Illinois courts have expressly de-
cided this. . * - ''. . . . . .
In 1854 the first arrangement was made between Great Britain and
the United States by which we were given at least what might be
termed a paper privilege of navigating the St. Lawrence. Previous
to that time they did not stand on the bank with a gun and chase us
off, but we did not have anything, excepting the privilege that the
man has who walks across your lawn without asking whether he may
do it. But in 1854 there were arrangements made between the
United States and Great Britain by which we were given the privi-
lege of navigating the St. Lawrence to the sea, and you will find that
when that arrangement was made Canada got its consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Their quid pro quo? . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. BARRETT. They got their quid pro quo. This is entitled “Reci-
procity treaty as to fisheries, duties, and navigation of British North
America.” . . . . . . . . . .
It shows that this treaty was concluded June 5, 1854; ratification
advised by the Senate August 2, 1854; ratified by the President Au-
gust 9, 1854; ratifications exchanged September 9, 1854; proclaimed
September 11, 1854. - . . . . .
The articles covered—I do not print in this exhibit the entire treaty,
because it is voluminous and unnecessary—but the articles cover fish-
eries, rights of British subjects, reciprocity, St. Lawrence and Ca-
nadian canals, duration of treaty, Newfoundland, and ratification.
Article 4 is the one that concerns us, which is as follows:
It is agreed that the citizens and inhabitants of the United States shall have
the right to navigate the River St. Lawrence, and the canals in Canada used as
the means of communicating between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean,
with their vessels, boats, and crafts, as fully and freely as the Subjects of Her
Britannic Majesty, subject only to the same tolls and other assessments as now
are, or may hereafter be, exacted of Her Majesty's said subjects; it being under-
stood, however, that the British Government retains the right of suspending this
privilege on giving due notice thereof to the Government of the United States.
It is further agreed that if at any time the British Government should exer-
cise the said reserved right, the Government of the United States Shall have
the right of suspending, if it think fit, the operations of Article III of the pres-
ent treaty—
That was a provision which gave to the citizens of Canada the right
to export into the United States duty free a large list of articles and
1030, ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
commodities, which I have not copied here, and that was what was
exacted when we made this treaty. t
in so far as the Province of Canada is affected thereby, for so long as the sus-
pension of the free navigation of the River St. Lawrence or the canals may
continue. ‘. -
You will notice that this is a very, very honest arrangement, that
we have the right to do it, and that they have the right to suspend it
merely on notice.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Judge, that evidently was on a tariff con-
sideration. Isn’t there something besides that since that time?
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, yes. We have the treaty of 1871,...At the time
that treaty of 1871 was promulgated the committee will recall that
many things were considered, among them the Alabama claims, and
in the treaty of 1871 we were given, so far as the St. Lawrence is
concerned, the right to navigate it to the sea, and there is no pro-
vision for termination. That right is given to us now as a matter of
contract. They never have receded from the position which they in-
sist is their right under international law to do with that river as
they please, but they have contracted that we may navigate it for-
ever under this treaty. -
But Mr. Harmon, a former Attorney General of the United
States, in his opinion, and the International Waterways Commission
in their discussion of it, demonstrate that Great Britain and Canada
never have receded from their position under what they say consti-
tutes the international law, that being that where they control both
banks of the river—that is, both banks of the river are within their
Sovereignty—they have the right to do with that river as they
please, and that now is considered to be settled international law.
We have taken a contrary position several times on the theory
that the best way to promote the general good of all the people all
of the time would be to do as we suggest, that where the river runs
through our country and also through the territory of another nation,
either above or below, that both nations should have the right to
navigate it without let or hindrance, as a matter of right, because it
is a natural right. -
The CHAIRMAN. You are coming, of course, to that treaty of 1871?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. ... I just want to call the attention of the
members of the committee to the position taken by the British Gov-
ernment on this subject, because it was asked here by some of the
members, or at least one of the members, as to whether the United
States of America had the right to divert waters from Lake Michigan
without the consent of Canada, and I told that Member of Congress
that, we would be prepared to answer that question, and I think the
observations already made demonstrate the British position in refer-
ence to it, but we had the same question to dispose on the Rio Grande
River a number of years ago during the Cleveland administration,
and we had a navigation treaty between Mexico and the United
States, and, some American citizens were taking a considerable
quantity of water for irrigation purposes, taking so much that it
really affected navigation, and the question arose as to whether or
not by reason of those facts we were pot obligated to stop it, and the
matter, was called to the attention on the Attorney General of the
. .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1031
United States, and Mr. Harmon, who was then Attorney General,
wrote an opinion on it in which he discussed the British attitude, dis-
cussed international law generally, and reached the conclusion that
we had the right as a Nation to have our nationals do with the water
as they pleased, regardless of its effect on the adjºining nation. I
would not, of course, urge that that be done as the best way to get
along with people. I merely set it forth for the purpose of indicating
what the British position was on that subject, so far as international.
law was concerned. -
The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything to show why Great Britain:
modified her attitude as to the navigation of the St. Lawrence in the
national part of the stream, from that taken in her first treaty, to
that taken in 1871? Why, in the first treaty, she exacted compen-
sation or an equivalent, and why, in the second place, she made her
contract a perpetual one without consideration?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not believe that Great Britain ever made a
contract without a consideration, and I think when you read the
treaty of 1871 you will see that she got everything to which she
was entitled. - - - -
The CHAIRMAN. Then take it the other way. You take it, then,
that it was simply a contract for a consideration?
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I would say this, that the 1871 treaty is volum-
inous and treats of a great many subjects. We had been getting
along none too well with Great Britain for some considerable period
of time. It is well known that during the Civil War we complained
quite bitterly about the Alabama and a number of other boats that
were fitted out in Great Britain and preyed upon our commerce.
That matter was settled in the 1871 treaty, and a reading of it will
indicate that it seemed like a good way to dispose of a bad situation,
and a number of matters were settled in that treaty. You will find,
and I think it is a safe statement, that whenever Great Britain
writes a treaty she gets what belongs to her, and some people think
that she always gets considerably more.
There was a reciprocal arrangement, so far as navigation was
concerned. We gave her in that same treaty the right, and gave
to her citizens and nationals the ‘right, to navigate our portion of
the Great Lakes on the same terms that our own citizens could do.
The CHAIRMAN. And did wé acquire the right also to navigate
her canals? - … * I
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; and the St. Lawrence. -
The CHAIRMAN. And her ports on the Great Lakes 2
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; I think that is covered by it; I have no doubt
about that. Right here I think it might be well to make this obser-
vation: The Great Lakes are a very considerable body of water. They
cover thousands of square miles, and when you gentlemen are trying
to arrive at a conclusion with reference to these boundary waters and
the treaty with respect to them, it will be interesting to know the pro-
portionate amount of those Great Lakes in the United States and
in Canada. . * * t * , " ... • * , -
As far as water surface of the Great Lakes in square miles is con-
cerned—this appears from the United States Lake Survey, Bulletin
No. 32 of April, 1923—it is stated that there is in Canada and in
*-
1032 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the United States the following number of square miles in the fol-
lowing lakes: . t
Lake Superior :
In Canada * - 11, 100
In the United States-Ill. *. - 20, 710
Total - * - 31, 810
Lake Michigan : k * * . .
Entirely in the United States.
Lake Huron : º
In Canada--- - *— — — — — — — — — — — — - - - 13, 900
In the United States - - ____ 9, 110
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that is probably owing to the fact that
there is what is really an auxiliary part of the lake to the east of
the main portion there, isn’t there? What is that figure?
Mr. BARRETT. Thirteen thousand nine hundred square miles in
Canada and 9,110 miles in the United States. They have taken
in, of course, the entire Great Lakes area, including Georgian Bay.
The St. Clair River and Lake, 280 miles in Canada and 180 in
the United States. -
S Lake Erie, 4,950 square miles in Canada and 4,990 in the United
tates. i -
That is all of the lakes above Niagara, and shows that of the
entire lake ereas above Niagara, there is in Canada about 35 per
cent and in the United States about 65 per cent. {
Now, we come to Ontario, which is below Niagara.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Approximately two-thirds in the United States?
Mr. BARRETT. Quite true. Ontario, in Canada, 3,980 square miles;
in the United States, 3,560 square miles. The proportions of all
the lakes both above and below Niagara, 36 per cent in Canada and
64 per cent in the United States—approximately one-third and
two-thirds. s -
Now, we come to the drainage basin areas, including, of course,
the water surfaces: i
Lake Superior, in Canada. 43,280 and in the United States 37,420.
Lake Michigan, of course, is entirely within the United States.
Lake Huron, in Canada 47,610——
Mr. MANSFIELD (interposing). You did not give the area of Lake
Michigan, did you, there? Have you got that?
Mr. BARRETT. I will give you the total, Congressman. The total
of Michigan is 69,040 Square miles.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the drainage area?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; and I had better give you the area of Lake
Michigan in surface, 22,400 square miles. * .
Lake Huron, 47,610 square miles in Canada and in the United
States 24,790 square miles. ſº
Lake St. Clair, 4,110 square miles in Canada and 2,310 in the
Dnited States. g e
Lake Erie, 11,110 square miles in Canada and 23,570 in the United
States. e
That constitutes all of the Lakes above Niagara, which gives to
Canada in drainage area 40 per cent and to the United States in
drainage area 60 per cent.
i
*
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1033
We now come to Ontario. The drainage area of Lake Ontario
in Canada is 15,920 Square miles, in the United States 18,720 square
miles, making a total of drainage areas in the United States pro-
portionately 59 per cent and in Canada 41 per cent.
I just want you gentlemen to keep that in mind when you are
determining what we would be entitled to and what we are entitled
to in the way of diversions from the Great Lakes. . .
And I might, in passing, say that the head of the hydroelectric
commission of Ontario has stated in Washington—in this city of
Washington—that the proper division of waters between Canada
and the United States is an even division. -
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, the big thing, I think, in connection with
your boundary line is that Lake St. Clair apparently does not have
the boundary line run as you would naturally expect it looking at the
map on the line of the connection between Lake Huron and Lake St.
Clair, because from the point where the St. Clair River empties into
Lake St. Clair there is an increase in size to the west, and you would
naturally think there would be more in the United States.
Mr. BARRETT. To the casual observer that seems true, but we do
not know just where they have fixed the boundary line.
The CHAIRMAN. They must have fixed it with reference to the
connection between Lakes St. Clair and Erie, rather than between
Huron and St. Clair, or a combination of the two.
Mr. NEwTON. Are your calculations made on the official records of
the boundary line?
The CHAIRMAN. They must be.
Mr. BARRETT. These calculations are not made by us. They are
made by the United States Lake Survey.
Mr. NEWTON. I see. w
Mr. BARRETT. And, of course, it will be possible, and if it is desired
by the committee we will furnish information which will indicate the
boundary line at Lake St. Clair. s
The CHAIRMAN. I think your figures are sufficient in themselves.
Mr. HULL. That portion right under Lake St. Clair would in-
dicate where that difference comes in, because that is in Canada.
. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. * *
Mr. HULL. So that gives more land to Canada than to the United
States. 6.
Mr. BARRETT. I have been advised by Mr. Goulder that he thinks
the sailing charts or maps—I do not know what language he used—
probably have those lines on them, but at any rate we will see that
the committee has them available.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you get away from that, Judge, just let
me make this remark. It is a subject that has been running in my
mind: Does that treaty of 1871 make any exceptions in times of war
in which either country may engage?
Mr. BARRETT. You mean as to the St. Lawrence?
The CHAIRMAN. I mean as to the St. Lawrence or the ports on
either side.
Mr. BARRETT. It says “forever.” I would say from the language
that “forever” means to include all time, but I did not investigate it
definitely for that purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. That is quite an important matter.
1034 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Of course, in time of war the fellow does what he
pleases if he is strong enought to do it, and contracts ordinarily do
not make much difference when you get at neck holds. ,
The CHAIRMAN. There may be either one or two things. This has
been running through my mind. There may be an express exception
in the treaty in times of war, or international law itself may say that
a treaty of that kind does not include war items; but it is a very
interesting question.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not consider that important here, but we can
look at the treaty and let you know. We have it available.
The CHAIRMAN. It is very important from a certain navigation
standpoint. -
Mr. BARRETT. Of course, when we are at war, if we are big enough
we will take it, and if they are big enough to stop us, we won't. I
was just going to suggest this, if it is agreeable to the committee.
Mayor Dever is here from Chicago. I have not concluded what I
wish to say, but he is here and I understand that it is absolutely
necessary for him to leave to-day, and if it is satisfactory to the
committee, I would like to step aside now and let the mayor be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to let you on your side control
the order of your proof absolutely.
Mr. BARRETT. As I told you before, I wanted that to include Mr.
Adcock and Mr. Behan. So I will step aside now and let Mayor
Dever be heard. I just want to say, for you gentlemen who may not
know, that Mayor Dever is one, of course, of our leading citizens.
He has been one of our judges. He has sat at nisi prius and on the
appellate bench. His reputation and his record on the bench was
such in our community that he could have stayed there as long as
he pleased, but his branch of political government in our community
drafted him for the position of mayor, and the people of our great
city decided he was the man they wished. He will discuss this sub-
ject with you, and I hope that he will touch upon his idea as to what
this treaty means and how it affects us. I hope I am not suggesting
something, Mr. Mayor, that you have not given some thought to.
Now, I introduce the mayor of Chicago.
- t - & º
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be pleased to hear the mayor
of Chicago.
STATEMENT OF HON, WILLIAM E. DEVER, MAYOR OF CHICAGO
Mr. DEVER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
feel very grateful to my friend, Judge Barrett, for the nice things
he has said about me. He himself is a leading citizen of Chicago,
and while I do not know how he behaved last spring, I am half
inclined to think that he did not vote for me, when I was a candidate
for mayor. - -
I feel a little disturbed at the moment to break in upon Judge
Barrett's argument. I have listened to it with a great deal of in-
terest. He has disclosed facts to me this morning that I never
knew. I, like most other, gitizens of Chicago, have a general knowl-
edge of our drainage problems, and their tremendous significance
to the welfare of that city. I suppose I knew that the work that
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1035
was done was done in a way, with the consent and with the knowl-
edge and the authority of the Federal Government. I had never
read and perhaps never knew of the act of 1827. I am inclined
to think that Judge Barrett has shown this morning—I have not
heard the other side of the case—but I am inclined to think that
Judge Barrett has shown this morning that Congress itself has
authorized practically everything that has been done by Chicago—
certainly that seems to be so in so far as Chicago has operated to
build a canal that would connect us with the Gulf. I think it is
an extremely significant development of this question. I had not
known of it before. - -
I am not at all competent to pass upon any of the engineering
features of this important problem, and while I have served some time
on the bench and have practiced law in Chicago I have not had
sufficient time, perhaps, to render me competent to deal with the
treaty of 1910. I have read it. I read it for the first time coming
in here last night, and I read also the report of the joint commis-
sion. I read also the report of the Canadian members of that com-
mission to their Government and a similar report made by the
American commission to the Federal Government. I have not the
least hesitation in saying that in so far as the diversion of 10,000
cubic feet of water from Lake Michigan is concerned, that it was
done with the knowledge and with the acquiescence of and as the
result of a trade with Canada. ... I do not know that Canada is com-
plaining of the diversion of this water. . . . . . r
The CHAIRMAN. The evidence before us is that at the time the
treaty was concluded the amount of the diversion was, as I recol-
lect, not to exceed 3,400 cubic feet. . . . :
Mr. DEVER. For Canada?
The CHAIRMAN. No; the amount of diversion at Chicago.
Mr. DEVER. Well, that may be true.
The CHAIRMAN. And was less at the time of the report of the
joint high commission. . . . . .
Mr. DEVER. Yes; that may be true. I think at the time the treaty
was made certain of the records disclosed that the trustees were di-
verting about 6,000 cubic feet.. I think that at that time we were
diverting less than 10,000 feet. The point I am making, Mr. Chair-
man, is this, that everybody concerned with this subject—the Ca-
nadian commissioners, the American commissioners, and the gentle-
men who signed the joint treaty—all concluded that if Chicago was
not taking 10,000 second cubic feet at the time of the adoption of
the treaty that Chicago certainly should be given the power to do
so. It was recognized throßghout all the discussion that it was
necessary for Chicago to take that much water from Lake Michi-
gan. I think that question is beyond cavil. I do not think it re-
quires the opinion of an astute lawyer or a judge to determine it.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest that you just read, if you have
not done so, the first paragraph of Article III. -
Mr. DEVER. Of the treaty?
The CHAIRMAN. Of the treaty. . . .
Mr. DEVER. I do not believe I have . . . . . .
1036 ILLINors. AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Here it is [producing paper].
Mr. DEVER (reading):
It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions and diversions hereto-
fore permitted or hereafter provided for by Special agreement between the par-
ties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether tem-
porary or permanent, of boundary Waters On either side of the line—
I think a fair interpretation of that language means simply this:
No other diversions except those that are specifically provided for
or mentioned herein. And there is another section where it reserves
the rights of the American people to take at Chicago all that was
then taken.
I do not think I care to spend much time on this question of the
fair interpretation of the treaty. That is a matter that can be dis-
cussed by the lawyers for the district much more ably than I can
discuss it. But I do think our Canadian friends are committed to
and accepted and acquiesced in rights belonging to the people of Chi-
cago to divert that much water. -
In dealing with a question like this we are not dealing with it as
technical lawyers, it is a political question, and it is a question that
calls for the application of principles of statemanship, if I may use
the term—and I do not think there is anybody, from Canada or
elsewhere who will state for a moment that when Canada was al-
lowed to divert 36,000 cubic feet per second that all of the parties
to the contract did not intend to allow the right of Chicago to divert
10,000 cubic feet. It is inherent in the whole story. It is inherent
in everything that was said. It is inherent in everything that was
done by the parties.
I am not claiming anything of bad faith on the part of Canada
at all. If it is true, as has been stated in Chicago, that Canada now
desires to divert more than the amount allowed under the treaty,
36,000 cubic feet per second, I am quite sure this Government will
and ought to give patient consideration to that question. I don’t
know whether that is the purpose that underlies this objection to the
diversion by Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet. But if that is the pur-
pose, we think it a little unfair, Mr. Chairman, to imperil the lives
of the people of Chicago by attempting to prevent our use of the
water so as to permit an increased flow to a nation that has been
treated more than generously by us.
I do not think there is an engineering expert or a sanitation ex-
i. in this country who has any reputation of any sort who would
hesitate for a moment to say that the diversion of 4167 cubic feet
per second is not sufficient to dilute the-Sewage created and produced
by the population of the city of Chicago. This is a fundamental fact
in this case.
There are other facts, some of them difficult for us. One is as to
how soon it may be possible by the building of treatment plants to
take care of the sewage that will be created by the fast growin
population of that city. That is a matter for the experts, and
am not competent to advise you upon it. But in so far as I have
advised with them, with our health commissioner, and our
former health commissioner, Doctor Evans—a man of national
reputation, and in so far as I have advised with our financiers
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1037
in Chicago, particularly with those connected with the drainage
board, Chicago will be unable to provide treatment plants of suffi-
cient magnitude to take care of its fast growing population, and
also to take care of the sewage created by the present population of
3,000,000 people; in other words, it will give us all we can do to take
care of our excess population, all that our finances will permit us to
do. I have seen it stated in Chicago newspapers that it has been
Said, and I think some witnesses testified to this effect, that Chicago,
being a great and wealthy city, ought to exhaust its resources in
building treatment plants.
A gentleman from New York stated he was friendly to Chicago
and Chicago's interest, but he felt that Chicago ought to stop taking
this water from the Lakes in the excess amount and that Chicago
Ought to exhaust all her resources in the building of treatment plants.
I assert that those statements, which are widespread—and some of
them come from our neighboring States—are untrue in so far as they
imply any laxity or any lack of a sense of responsibility on the part
of the people of Chicago in dealing with this tremendous question.
Chicago, I am told, has a sewage-treatment construction program
provided for that is much greater and more expensive than any pro-
vided for by any other great city in the world in the way of artificial
treatment of sewage. All we are appealing for to this committee is
that we be not asked to perform more than we can perform.
I have heard it stated—and I think I have heard it stated here—
that Chicago has been taking this amount of water from the Lakes
without legal permit; that Chicago's legal rights are expressed only
in the last permit received, which only permits the district to take
4,167 feet of water per second. * .
Perhaps I ought to say that the question of lake levels in the early
history of this question, as to the amount of water that could or
should be diverted for the canal, was not considered seriously. I
know some investigations have been made and reports have been
made to Canada, and those reports indicated that it was a question
that could not be determined. The O’Hanley report I saw last night
for the first time, and that report indicates that it was a question that
could not be determined or that at the date of the report, in 1896, it
was not a determinable question by any engineering skill then known
to Mr. O’Hanley, and I am inclined to think he is right about it, but
my opinion on that is not worth very much.
But this much I think is evident from the record which is or will
be before this committee: That during the years of friendly conflict
between the Federal Government and the sanitary district as to the
amount of flow that could be permitted out of the lake into the canal
the whole question turned upon the character of the current in the
river. The Federal Government did not seem to be concerned, so
far as I have been able to learn from anything in the record, with the
Question of the levels; it was concerned with the matter of the cur-
rents in the river, So that the diversion of the water would not inter-
fere with shipping in the river.
I say that is quite evident from this record, that the change in the
amount of water allowed was brought about from day to day or from
time to time because the parties were searching for that flow of water

#038 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
that would best provide for the sanitary needs of Chicago and at
the same time not interfere with the river as 'a navigable stream.
º is the only thing that disturbed them in those days, as I under-
Chicago has spent, as you know, Mr. Chairman, $13,000,000 in
'order to meet the requirements of the Federal Government in connec-
tion with this complaint that the current was too strong to permit
'safe navigation, and she did it under permits granted by the Federal
Government. The Federal Government stood by and watched it.
The Federal Government not only consented to the widening of the
channel and the deepening of that channel from 16 feet to 26 feet
and the widening of the channel from 90 feet to 200 feet—it not only
consented and acquiesced in it, but supervised the work itself. And
when the channel was deepened and when it was widened and when
the flow was changed from 4,167 to approximately 8,500 feet, the
Government never said a word. The engineers went back to their
work in Washington tacitly consenting to the flow that was then
being taken by the district out of the lake, because the objection the
Federal Government had was as to the current and not as to the
quantity of water being taken, and the question of the lake levels
was not considered as important. I do not mean to say it has not
been discussed. It has been discussed since the beginning. It was
discussed before the canal wa sbuilt, it was discussed before the
Illinois Legislature provided for the building of the canal, but it had
never become a really important practical question until after the
Canadian Government had provided for its citizens the right to take
36,000 cubic feet of water from the international waterways. .
In other words, I am half inclined to believe—I do not make the
charge, but I am half inclined to believe—that if this question of
the request of Chicago to take this 10,000 cubic feet of water was
not tied up in some manner with the diversion of waters for power-
production purposes we would not be here to-day at all. I don’t
think we would be here; I don’t think it would be a discussible
question on this side of the international line.
Our friends about us—Wisconsin and the other great States—have
become disturbed because it is said that the lake levels have been
reduced approximately 5 inches, or 5% inches, and the complaint
is made from Buffalo to the Lake Superior region on our side that
that has seriously handicapped shipping. I do not know what the
record is before the committee on that question, and I have no right
to discuss it with a view of advising the committee; but to a man
on the street, even if it be accepted as true that lake levels have been
lowered 5% inches—and that is the very most that has been said
against us in connection with the lake-levels changes so far—assum-
ing it to be true, and competent engineers say, as Mr. O’Hanley said,
that it is not a determinable question that can be decided by the most
skillful engineers—however, if that be true, as a matter of fact, the
man in the street' wonders if this is so very disastrous to the ship-
ping of our neighboring friendly ports. Five and five-tenths inches
is not much [indicating]. This may be unscientific; but I know
that 5.5 inches is not much, taken off the surface of these Great
Lakes, some of them almost unfathomable, and it is not much as
reflected in the straits or rivers connecting the Great Lakes.

- * - - ! - # t - 4.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1039
I can well imagine that by chance a ship might be built that
could be affected by reason of the alleged reduction in lake levels to
the extent of having on rare occasions to reduce its tonnage some-
what. I do not see how it could be an important disaster to any
port, and I do not believe it is; but if it is, how does Chicago meet
it? Just this way: We feel we are talking now to a committee of
the American Congress. We are asking for relief, and we are will-
ing and ready to say to this committee that we will do anything that
is humanly possible for us to do, and one of the things we offer to
do is to restore the lake levels by the construction of regulating
works, and we will pay every dollar of the cost. We will do it
lunder the supervision of the Federal Government. We will do it
just as they recommend that it shall be done—and in so far as this
question of the lake levels affects any American interest—and so far
as I know now the lake-level question touches only the ports of entry
along the Lakes—in so far as every American interest is concerned
we feel quite willing and able to correct it in a way that all engi-
neers say it can be corrected. I don’t know what fairer proposition
can be made than that. - - - * , -
The Canadian gentlemen who represent the Canadian power inter-
ests might not be satisfied with that. I can understand there might
be engineering reasons, and particularly economic and financial
reasons, why they would not be satisfied with it, but they are taking
all the water they have a right to take from these international
waters. Nothing that has been done so far as I know has affected
their right to take water or has in any way damaged them. I have
not heard anybody say that because of anything that has happened
in Chicago or elsewhere that they have not always been permitted
and been able to take 36,000 cubic feet of water per second. And
that is all they have any right to take under the treaty. ..
I am willing to take it in good faith that they are here simply as
listeners. If whatever diversion is allowed, for whatever purpose, it
is made quite clear that it may have its reflection upon their interests
then they have a right to be here; but I repeat, that so far as the
lake level question is concerned, Chicago stands ready to correct it
in accordance with any plans that may be devised for its correction,
and we will pay the entire bill. I do not want to be too boastful, but
the question is so important and it impinges so strongly at this mo-
ment upon the thought of the people of Chicago, I would almost be
tempted to say that even though we are very hard up, and even
though Chicago finds its financial resources exhausted, that never-
theless we will try to find some way of paying the cost in advance if
required to do so; we do not want to injure our neighboring cities.
Í was reading a book the other night and it led my thoughts to
the work of this committee. It was a book by Thurlow Adams, deal-
ing with the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1620
down to about 1667. Strange to say, the same perfectly human
quality exhibited here was as definitely expressed in those early days
as it is to-day in this country; there the merchants of Boston and
the farmers whom the merchants of Boston called frontiersmen, were
at war, a social and political war, over certain special privileges that
the Massachusetts Bay Colony had granted to the merchants and the
frontiersmen then, who had their farms about 15 miles west of Bos-
1040 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ton (New York itself then was on the extreme frontier and had no
rights that anybody considered), claimed that the interests of the
east were seriously interfering with the privileges of the then west-
ern frontier. It is a perfectly human situation. Just what one
would expect to find, human nature being what it is. And the germ
that probably was imported into the colonies from Europe that
caused so much trouble in our early history has germinated very
rapidly since, and we have to deal with it in this country to-day, and
that is why we are here. That is why we are here before a neutral
body. We do not complain of anything our Canadian friends want
to say or do; we do not complain of anything our eastern friends may
stand for; we do claim that we are here before a committee of the
American Congress, that this is a time and place for the exercise of
statesmanship and a place where sectional differences, sectional jeal:
ousies, trade or commercial jealousies, will, I know, be lost sight of
by this committee. -
If there is a sectional question here, then you are here to settle it
and make it a national question. What the people of Chicago are
interested in is sanitation first of all. The health of that great city
is at stake. We will have a population of more than 6,000,000 people
in Chicago, based on definite figures, in 25 years from now. If we
stop taking this water from the lake we can not by any possibility,
in my judgment, treat the sewage that will be created by that popu-
lation, and we will do more, I think, than any other city in the world
has ever thought of doing in the building of plants and the spending
of money for an artificial system of sewage disposal.
But it is more than we can do to artificially treat the immense
amount of Sewage coming from such a population. Chicago is a
peculiar city in many ways. It is unique among the great cities of
the world. Chicago is built, in the first place, upon lowland, abutting
on the lake, and from the day the first log hut was built in that city
to this very day our problem of Sewage disposal and Sanitation has
been difficult. We have had to take up and relocate our sewers two
or three times. We have had to build up the ground level of the
city, raise the city grade 8 or 9 feet. We had to raise every street in
the city of Chicago in order to provide for Sewage by gravity.
But that is not our greatest difficulty. Our great difficulty arises
because we are growing faster than any other great city in the world.
Our growth is so tremendous that we can not find money enough to
provide for the improvement that are required by that vast growth.
We are at this time in the course of construction of certain immense
improvements—the widening of streets and the building of bridges.
We have to stop that work because we have reached our constitu-
tional limitation of indebtedness, and for work already in the course
of construction we must provide $46,000,000 more to complete it, and
there is no place we can get it, there is no question about that.
I don’t think it worth while for anybody to listen to extravagant
statements that there is big wealth in Chicago or that there are un-
discovered sources of taxation in Chicago. If there is any way by
which we can raise the $100,000,000 that will be necessary to arti-
ficially dispose of the sewage for our 3,000,000 people, we would be
glad to take advantage of it. We can not raise that much money
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1041
now ; it is utterly impossible, and if we are cut down to 4,167 cubic feet
of water it is certain as the fact that I am standing here that there
will be a large destruction of human life. -
I know no member of this committee is going to have his name,
even remotely, connected with such a catastrophe as that. I think
the Federal Goverment should help us. Our situation is unique.
It grows out of the topography of our city partly; it grows out of
the fact that we are a new city, largely. . . . .
If it be concluded that 10,000 cubic feet per second is the amount
needed for sanitary purposes, then I can see no possible reason on
this earth why that 10,000 cubic feet per second should not be used
for every economic purpose for which it could be used—for irriga-
tion purposes, for the production of electric power, or for building
a water transportation route to the Gulf. --
So far as the production of power is concerned, I happened to be
here a couple of weeks ago when a very able speaker addressed the
committee most interestingly about this problem. He had his New
York point of view as I have the Illinois point of view. The only
difference between us is that, no matter what happens, his
neighborhood is not going to be seriously affected one way
or the other. It is quite different in my State. I am
deeply concerned about what may happen if we do not get con-
tinuously this flow of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second. I want
to say now, Mr. Chairman, that Chicago—and I am speaking as its
official representative here—that Chicago does not care anything at
all about the power phases of this question. It is not true, as the
gentleman from New York said, that this is not a sanitation ques-
tion. He said with emphasis that it was a power-production ques-
tion. In other words, that it is a commercial question, and that
it is a money making program. There is not a word of truth in that.
It is one of the most important social and human questions that the
city of Chicago has ever had to deal with, and it has spent millions
and hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to protect the inhab-
itants of that city from its difficult and unique physical situation.
The power question does not interest the city in the least. I might
say, in passing, that the quantity of power produced is relatively in-
significant, and it will always be relatively insignificant, as I under-
stand the physical situation. Whether it is so or not, the city is
able to buy its power from private producers quite as cheap to-day
as we can purchase it from the sanitary district.
We are not concerned with that question. I do not think it is
important, and I hope the committee will not be prejudiced by any
thought that underlying this is any question of money making.
There was this natural fall, and it was used for the production of
power. It was an economic waste otherwise. Nobody could com-
plain of that. -
So, I say, we are more concerned with the question of health than
any other question; but we might as well be frank about the whole
matter. The building of a canal that will enable Chicago to bring
in and send out merchandise to the Pacific coast, to South America,
and reduce freight rates is a tremendously important thing. It is
one of the reasons why I am here. I do not regard such waterway
merely as a commercial enterprise; I regard it as essential to the
1042 ELLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
preservation of the best and largest interests of every sort in the
Mississippi Valley. That is not stating the question one bit too.
strongly, either. * -
It has been said, I don’t know how truthfully, that we are receiv-
ing in the city of Chicago 36,000,000 tons of soft coal from the soft-
coal fields of Indiana and Illinois. It has been said, and I think it
has been demonstrated, that we will save from $15,000,000 to $36,000,-
º * on freight rates in this single commodity if this canal
is built.
If this is false, its falsity can be demonstrated quite easily. That
is a matter of mere mathematics. If it be true, then why should
we not have the canal, not particularly in the interest of Chicago
but in the interest of the whole Mississippi Valley and all of the
Southern States? And that is why I referred to this germ that
§. to germinate in 1630 in New England, in Massachusetts Bay
Olony.
You and I can not eliminate it. Sectional pride, sectional jealousy,
trade jealousies, exist in spite of anything that lawmakers may do.
But we have here before this committee to-day I think one of the most
important national questions that has ever been presented to it.
It is the building up of natural resources; it is not the preservation
of artificial resources. It is the creation of a great highway, so
that all of the products of the Mississippi Valley and all of those
great States beginning at the Canadian border and extending to the
Gulf of Mexico may find the most convenient and cheapest method
of shipment to the Atlantic seaboard and to the Pacific seaboard.
That is the story in a nutshell. We have a great house in Chi-
cago—and I could mention its name, if considered important to do
so—that has been compelled to go to Bridgeport, Conn., with 55
per cent of its plant; orders taken by that house from the Pacific
coast, when filled in Chicago, had to be sent by rail to New York
and thence through the Panama Canal to destination on the Pacific
coast, because they could be filled that way and sent by that route
cheaper than they could be sent by direct rail from Chicago to the
Pacific coast. - -
So that we have a situation growing in the South and Middle
West that calls for genuine statesmanship. We have developed in
this country two great sections of industrial and of commercial
interests—the Atlantic seaboard on the one side, the Pacific on the
other; and the most productive region in the World lies between
those commercial centers. And what we are pleading for is the
aid of the Federal Government, not to injure anything that exists
or can exist on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, but to aid us in devel-
oping the most fertile region in the world, a region that is feeding
the world to-day.
What a blind policy it would be to put artificial manacles on those
great Middle Western and Southern States, what a blind commercial
policy it would be to do that! I think true statemanship will solve
this problem by providing for the building of a ship canal that will
connect us with the Gulf of Mexico. I believe it will mean the wel-
fare of and benefit to the whole country. Those artificial, means
that are sometimes adopted to throttle one section for the supposed
benefit of another are pretty nearly always a mistake. True states-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1043
manship will provide for the development of the natural resources
of the entire Nation, giving to each section those facilities for which
nature has best fitted it, and that is all we are asking in connection
with this water way. -
A gentleman from Illinois has been here complaining of the con-
duct of the trustees in dealing with damages created by submergence
of land along the Illinois River. I do not think this committee
wants to hear much about that. I do not think it is an important
question at all. The fact of the matter is it would require a very
long study, One that you will never complete, Mr. Chairman, to de-
termine the merits of that question, and when determined, if ever
determined—and I don’t think you would ever reach the end of it—
it does not touch the merits of the question here at all. -
If it be true that the sanitary district by strong-arm methods has
gone into these districts and has treated the landowners unfairly,
all I can say is that I am sorry for it. But I may say in connection
with it, with some experience as a lawyer and some experience as a
judge, that it is very strange if there is not something to be said
on the other side of the case. I had cases myself against the drain-
age district years ago and I don’t think it is quite true that in every
case the drainage district treated the landowner complainants un-
fairly. I am not a betting man, but if it were possible I would be
willing to wager a small bet that if the whole question were investi-
gated thoroughly by honest and competent men, if the whole his-
tory of the last 30 years of litigation between landowners and the
trustees were laid before you, you would find that the taxpayers of
that district had submitted to one of the finest hold-up systems that
ever was imposed upon a great governmental organization; and
further that the claims that are existing to-day are in a large meas-
ure not well founded in justice or in law. But even if they are, the
matter is irrelevant to any question before you.
Pointing to the character of the opposition, Mr. Chairman, a man
comes in here, a lawyer who had been defeated in a suit, and he
complained of injustice done his client. His case had been sub-
mitted to a jury taken from his own neighborhood, his own town.
It may be that he was treated unfairly by that jury, but juries in
farming regions where litigation takes place between farmers and
a corporation do not very often decide against the farmer unless
there are some strong reasons for doing so. And that is human, also.
That is what one would expect.
Now, I am about through, and I thank the committee for letting
me come here. I know what I have said is of no scientific value
to you; I know it would be dogmatic for me to argue with you on
the technical questions involved here; but there are certain things
I do know, and one is that Chicago is acting in good faith in this
matter.
We should not be penalized; here we are not in a court of equity
or in a court of law; we are not here asking for legal relief but for
remedial legislation; we are asking for legislation that will relieve
the situation in Chicago. We are not standing upon any finespun
theory of legal right at all. We are saying to you that it would be
humanly impossible for us for lack of money, for lack of time, lack
1044 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of experience, for lack of knowing what to do, to take care of this
Sewage º, the construction of treatment plants alone; but we do say
to you that every energy we have has been and will be directed
toward solving this problem; that we are building a plant now not
far from where I live that will cost $25,000,000 that will take care
of the sewage created by a population of 800,000. It will be com-
pleted in 1928. Do you not think that when that plant is completed
and serving the people that if we start off with another just like it
that that shows we are in earnest and are going to take care of the
situation?
Much time was taken by the misled gentleman from Wisconsin on
the question of the money spent for advertising purposes by the
drainage trustees. Hom important that is!
Here is a board of public officials surrounded by prejudices, cre-
ated by we don't know what. Inspired newspapers charged that this
governmental body, exercising so necessary a function in the great
city of Chicago, is ruining shipping all over the Lakes, poisoning
everything below the drainage canal through Illinois, and you ex-
pect those men to sit Supine and not say anything about it?
Many local papers having no real local interest in the matter have
been writing against the drainage trustees, and the only way we
could get such papers to plead our side of the case was to purchase
Space for advertisements, so that the honest people in the States
might know what our case is. Is that wrong? Don't other cities
do it; for instance, Los Angeles? I don’t know of a city that has
not done more or less of that. It is advertising. It might be un-
wise, but there is nothing of bad faith about it; there is nothing
wrong about it; and I don’t think it was even extravagant.
• It is said that we are spending too much money on treatment
plants; that they have been built much cheaper in other places. I
think the answer to that is this—and you will get evidence on it
from men who know far more about it than I do—I think the
answer to that is this: That in these other places the plants are
built in the centers of congested districts or near them, but in Chi-
cago we had to build them miles away from where the sewage is
created and produced.
In other words, the $25,000,000 plant that we are building on the
north side of Chicago would cost us about one-half of that sum if
it were located near where the sewage is produced. We have to
build them away off, because people won’t have those things in
their immediate neighborhood.
Chicago is growing so fast it is good economy to build these plants
out as far as possible, and we are expending millions and millions
of dollars in building intercepting sewers that carry the sewage out
to the plants.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that Chicago has not re-
sources that will enable it to do better; and when asking for this
privilege of taking 10,000 cubic feet per second of course there is
no sectional question or question of local pride involved, it is because
depending upon it is the very life of the city, it is a most serious
problem for Chicago; you gentlemen have to deal with it, and you
might as well solve it now. We don’t care what you do with the
water power. We do know if you permit us to take 10,000 cubic
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1045
feet per second after its passage into our canal—we do know, as
every member of this committee will admit, that the water having
been once taken it should be used for every and any economic pur-
pose for which it can be used.
Last summer, in August, we had a very heavy rainfall, and the
Water backed up and passed into the lake. Within three days we
had a typhoid-fever epidemic. I have forgotten the number of
lives, lost, but it alarmed us greatly. The epidemic took place
within a few hours after the water had backed up into the lake—a
very inconsiderable amount of it, too. Now, that is what we are
afraid of, and that is the important thing with us. We will do
anything that is possible for Chicago to do to meet the wishes of
this committee. It would be almost a national disaster if we were
asked to do things that we can not do. We think the statesmen of
this day are big enough, strong enough, to see the situation in its
broader aspects; that the protection of this city and its health, the
development of this canal, will mean things of much significance
and advantage to the entire United States; and that it would be a
narrow and a killing policy to prevent this diversion under the de-
lusion that, it interferes with the progress and growth of any par-
ticular section of this or any other country.
I thank you very much. |
The CHAIRMAN. The committee has not been impressed with the
importance of the evidence as to pending or past lawsuits. It has
been impressed by this aspect of the Illinois Valley: First, that a
$5,000,000 annual income in fish life has disappeared; and, second,
that a large amount of flooding has been done, which is a continu-
ing loss to the Nation as a whole, and if that can be prevented it
should be prevented as a waste, an economic loss.
Mr. DEVER. I think so. . . . . . {
The CHAIRMAN. And we are not concerned with the lawsuits, past
or present; but we are concerned with those two aspects of it. -
Mr. DEVER. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we come to another aspect of it. Suppose
the committee, so far as the navigation phase of the matter is con-
cerned, should feel disposed to adopt the suggestion of the board
of engineers, which will undoubtedly be made in the near future,
for a 9-foot waterway, to coordinate with all the other waterways
of the Mississippi system. That would dispose of the waterway
question. Then suppose it would adopt this as to your sanitation
problem: That it should say to Chicago, we will be advised by the
engineers as to what is necessary at the present time for the disposal
of the sewage and the question of future use of water for disposal
by dilution shall depend upon necessities as they exist from time.
to time upon condition that Chicago shall exert itself to provide a
modern system of sewage disposal to take the place of the present
system, that to depend upon the certificate of some impartial tribu-
nal either existing or created for that purpose. Would not that
indeed, even in your opinion, be extending to Chicago all the relief
that she is asking, and in a way that would be just and fair to the
six sister States and to the navigation interests upon the Great
Lakes, and fair also to the great State of Illinois as represented here
by the interests in the valley 2 s' -
1046 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
l *: Devºn. Your question includes taking care of the present pol-
UIUIOIl
The CHAIRMAN. Of course. It is something that will have to be
cared for from year to year, and they are not going to deal with
it as a problem just at the moment the legislation is enacted; it is
a continuing problem, and will have to be dealt with year after
year. That is what is contemplated in my question.
Mr. DEVER. I would rather you would ask that of the trustees.
I am not authorized to speak; that is, I do not know enough about it.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you represent Chicago, and in a very much
broader sense than the sanitary district. That is an incorporation
to deal with Sewage in a certain form, by dilution alone, and neces-
sarily interested on that account. Now, you have a very much
broader and a very much more appealing interest. You come here
representing the city of Chicago, and I am propounding that ques-
tion to you because, while I think you are interested from that angle,
you have a reasonably broad interest, and we think the answer to
that question would enlighten us. * *
Mr. DEVER, I will answer it as well as I can. As I say I have tried
to impress the committee with the fact that I have no technical
skill or training, to render my voice worth much on the physical
problem. I have talked with the members of the district and attor-
neys, and I have said to them that I was going to say to the com-
mittee perfectly frankly that Chicago is going to strain every
ner We ºr . . . . . . . . . . . ."
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is all we are asking you to
do— * . . . . . . * *
Mr. DEVER. To take care of her sewage. ;
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we are putting that all in the hands of this
tribunal; we are putting the financial side, we are putting the con-
struction side, we aré putting the whole thing— -
Mr. DEVER. Well, I am advised, and I do not want to be on record
as saying something that I do not quite mean, I am adviced by the
engineers, and I am inclined to agree with them, because I do know
something about our financial resources. There is not a great
deal of difference between the city Qf Chicago and the sanitary dis-
trict as far as territorial limits or population, or financial resources
are concerned. I think you ought to take us on good faith. I
think you should let us take that 10,000 cubic feet per second in-
definitely. I do not feel like saying anything more than that, be-
cause the question is too difficult and too important.
The CHAIRMAN: Well, you realize that we have to legislate from
the national standpoint and viewpoint. -
Mr. DEVER. Yes. &
The CHAIRMAN. Now here are these six other States which are inter-
ested, and do you think that it would º to them at all that
we should leave the question entirely for Chicago's determination?
Mr. DEVER. Oh, I did not mean it that way. s
The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we– ; 4. -
Mr. DEVER (interposing). I think you should take us in good
faith and check up on us, as the Government will, of course.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is exactly what is proposed in an
impartial tribunal, that they shall take into account your financial
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1047
resources, take into account the state of the art as to sewage dis-
posal, take into account the construction problems; and taking them
all into account, they say that you must recognize the good faith and
diligence in the the prosecution of this work, and so long as you
do you are to be entitled to such water, not exceeding the amount
which you are using to-day, as you may find necessary from time to
time. -
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I hardly think that it is entirely
fair to the mayor of Chicago to attempt to put to him a hypo-
thetical question consisting, I would imagine, of five or six type-
written pages on a subject concerning which he can have at best
but a general knowledge, and expect him to answer a proposal such
as you put. Those of us who represent the district will be glad to
answer that question fully.
Mr. DEVER. Yes; that is what I meant to say, that I would rather
you would ask that question of those who know.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of knowledge; I am not ask-
ing for expert knowledge. I am saying should not the question of
what is necessary be lodged in an impartial tribunal? That is the
substance of the whole question. Would you not be content to do
that, and can you satisfy the conflicting interests here, the six other
States, in any other way? - - -
Mr. DEVER. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. And can you legislate from the national view-
point, or in any other way except from the local viewpoint, in any
other way? . .
Mr. DEVER. Yes; I think you can. w
Mr. BARRETT. I think we should be permitted to answer that and
not insist on an answer from the mayor. I do not think the mayor
should be permitted to commit the sanitary district, which he does
not control. !-- * . -
Mr. DEVER. I do not want to Say anything that will commit any-
body to anything. * - - • *
Mr. O'Connor. Will not the Supreme Court in deciding the in-
junction suit determine that question you have asked, Mr. Chair-
man? -
The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid not.
Mr. O'ConnoR. And every factor contained in it?
The CHAIRMAN. If, as Mr. Rainey suggested, the decision of the
Supreme Court should be against the sanitary district then I should
imagine that the questions which I have propounded for the mayor
would come before this committee for settlement.
Mr. O'ConnoR. It looks to me like the Supreme Court would have
to determine every factor contained in your questions.
Mr. DEVER. It leaves us just where we are to-day; that is, it leaves
it an unsettled question. -
Mr. Boy CE. I assume that the mayor and the gentlemen repre-
senting Chicago will not reach the conclusion that the committee
has passed upon the questions submitted by the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. - -
Mr. BoxCE. There has been no formal action by the committee
and I know that the chairman would not have it so understood.
The CHAIRMAN. No, and no informal action; nothing at all.
1048 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BoxCE. The questions were intended only to draw out ex-
pressions of opinion. w
The CHAIRMAN. That is right. . . . . . .
Mr. BoycE. And they were not intended to go beyond that?
The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly true. *, -
Mr. Boy CE. On another occasion, when a similar' question was
asked involving a committal, I suggested that the party testifying
was probably not qualified maybe to make a binding answer the
same as in open court. I am not taking any exceptions to the ques-
tions propounded by the chairman, they being intended as mere
feelers. •
The CHAIRMAN. That is entirely true. Let me suggest the purpose
and the usefulness, it seems to me, of the question. It is running
along in my mind that we are going to get down somewhere to the
region of the question we have propounded, and what I had in mind
was to hear the objection which Chicago and the sanitary district
could present to that form of solution.
Mr. BoxcE. Trying to draw out all you can to aid the committee
when it shall come together in executive session for the considera-
tion of this whole question?
The CHAIRMAN. That is it exactly. I would like to have before us
just what Chicago says and whether it would object, and the basis
of such objections, to such action as is outlined in my questions.
Now, there may be objections, and there might be serious objections;
it might be wholly wrong, and I am ready to be shown if it is.
Mr. O’ConnoR. Will you permit me a question in order to clarify
my own idea? -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O’Connor. * -
Mr. O’Connor. Do I correctly understand that you hold that
the Supreme Court would maintain an injunction and permit it to
issue and become perpetual without considering the fact that it
might imperil the health of 6,000,000 people? -
Mr. DEVER. No ; I never made any such expression. .
Mr. O’ConnoR. But your answer to me that that would leave the
matter in the same position tended to make me believe that you felt
that the Supreme Court might not consider that.
Mr. DEVER. No; I am quite sure that if the Supreme Court de-
cides against us, I am quite sure it will not issue any mandate, that
that question will be thoroughly considered by somebody. r
Mr. O’ConnoR. That is why I said that every factor contained in
the chairman's question would be considered by the court.
Mr. DEVER. It leaves the problem the same as it is now; in other
words, the Supreme Court will not settle this question; it is a
legislative duty and must be settled by the legislature.
Mr. BARRETT. We have no objection to the question propounded
by the chairman, we have no objection to all the things he has in-
cluded in it; but we doubt the advisability of the mayor of Chicago
answering it, and we will not hesitate to talk to you about it. Wr
will be glad, as Mr. Healy indicated, to discuss with this committee,
at any proper time and place, this entire subject.
(Thereupon, at 12.30, a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.)
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1049
AFTER RECESS
The committee reconvened at 3.40 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to proceed, Mr. Barrett.
STATEMENT OF MIR, GEORGE F. BARRETT–Resumed
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned this morning
I was discussing the treaty of 1871 and in a general way the atti-
tude of the British Government with reference to the rights of
citizens of the United States to navigate the St. Lawrence, and
before I go on I wish to talk about some of the things suggested by
the chairman which we did not think really applied to this, but
which are really interesting when the question is what the United
. States got and what she gave to Great Britain and Canada under
the treaty of 1871.
Article 26 of this treaty—I am now reading from the United
States Statutes at Large, volume 17, page 872:
The navigation of the River St. Lawrence, ascending and descending, from
the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary
between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain
free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United
States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain, or of the Do-
minion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation.
That covers navigation in the St. Lawrence.
The navigation of the River Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikene, ascending and
descending, from, to, and into the Sea, shall forever remain free and Open for
the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and to
the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of
either country within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege
of free navigation.
So we see in this they covered these Alaskan Rivers.
The CHAIRMAN. The first provision does not seem to be as broad
as the second.
Mr. BARRETT. I did not notice anything of that kind.
Mr. BoxCE. I thought it was the same thing.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it was. It was “not inconsistent,
subject to laws,” etc.
Mr. BARRETT. It says, “not inconsistent * in both instances—
“not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation.” That
is a concluding line of each clause. It makes them, I think, the
S3.II 162. -
The CHAIRMAN. That clears it up. I did not catch that clause.
Mr. BARRETT. Article 27. - d
The Government of Her Hritannic Majesty engages to urge upon the Gov-
ernment of the Dominion of Canada to Secure to the citizens of the United
States, the use Of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the DO-
minion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion ; and the
Government of the United States engages that the subjects of Her Britannic
Majesty shall enjoy the use of the St. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equality
with the inhabitants of the United States, and further engages to urge upon
the State governments to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty the
use of the several State canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or
rivers traversed by or contiguous to the boundary line between the posses-
sions of the high contracting parties on terms of equality with the inhabi-
tants of the United States. -
9.1739—24—PT 2—51
1050 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
I know that, so far as we are concerned, those things have been
done, and I take it that the rest of the States where the condition
exists have done the same thing. - -
ART. 28. The navigation of Lake Michigan shall also, for the term
of years mentioned in article 33 of this treaty, be free and open for
the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty,
subject to any laws and regulations of the United States or of the
States bordering thereon, not inconsistent with such privilege of
free navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the period of years specified?
Mr. BARRETT. Ten years, I think. I will read it; it had a termi-
nation clause, but it was never terminated, and you will find in the
boundary waters treaty of 1910 it was again provided that the Cana-
dian citizens should have the privilege of navigating Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. I remember that. -
Mr. BARRETT. And it still exists, and while there was in that
regard a termination clause in the treaty of 1871 there never was a
termination of that privilege to the subjects of Great Britain.
In the hurried examination that we have been able to make since
obtaining this book, which was only within the last 30 minutes, we
find no reference to conditions in time of war, and I doubt seriously
that in the conclusion of a treaty that war between the high con-
tracting parties would be considered.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean simply war between the parties,
but suppose that we had a war with a neutral Ž
Mr. BARRETT. Of the British Government?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and we desired at that time to avail our-
selves of the navigation of these British channels, would not our
adversary say that Great Britain was handing us something that was
an advantage to us in the war, and which we should not have, and
would not they consider them as an enemy?
Mr. BARRETT. I have no doubt of it at all.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It would be a violation of their neutrality.
Mr. BARRETT. Congressman Newton just a few moments ago sug-
gested that thought to me when we were discussing the possibility
or the likelihood of a treaty being negotiated governing the St.
Lawrence River for navigation and power purposes, and he had
some very definite ideas regarding that, having in mind the very
thing that the chairman has suggested. .*
The CHAIRMAN. You can see it would be very much more impor-
tant to us to have that right in time of war than at any other time,
and if, for instance, we had made provisions for a waterway and
that was the only waterway that we had provided for a very consid-
erable portion of necessary commerce, and then at the time when we
needed it most it failed
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). I can very well see that we have in
the Congress of the United States, and particularly in the Rivers
and Harbors Committee, men who will see to it, when that treaty is
written, that we will be able to get out, and right here. I might
suggest that you have a way. Just let us build something from
Lake Michigan south to the Gulf, and you will have in that a way
to get out. But we will investigate this other thing carefully and
give you a report on it Monday.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1051
Mr. KINDRED. Would it not be a good solution to build an ade-
quate ship canal straight to the Atlantic, using approximately the
route of the New York State Barge Canal? ' - -
Mr. BARRETT. I am very strong for building any kind of a canal
that will take our tonnage to the Atlantic seaboard, and I am not
particularly insistent upon having it go through the St. Lawrence
if you can accomplish the same purpose elsewhere.
Mr. KINDRED. Suppose you could get a shorter route and save
the freezing up of the canal during the winter?
Mr. BARRETT. I have been told that the St. Lawrence may not be
Open for navigation more than seven months in the year, and in
some extreme years not the entire seven months. If it is possible
to get the same sort of service through a region where we will have
a longer period of operation that would be beneficial, and, of course,
this country will be able to finance whatever it needs
Mr. KINDRED (interposing). And no foreign complication ?
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, that is always advisable.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And all within our own boundaries?
Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely. So I say that we will not quarrel with
you and we will help you in every way we know how if you wish to
build a canal entirely within our own country to connect the
Great Lakes with the Atlantic, but we want you to help us and
our brothers in Wisconsin and Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsyl-
vania, and every one of the States on the Great Lakes, including
New York, by building a canal and maintaining a navigable chan-
nel all the way down through the Illinois River Valley into New
Orleans, so that we may have an outlet from the Great Lakes to
the South as well as to the East that will be entirely within our
own boundaries, and which we will control without consultation with
or advice from any outside source.
Now, getting back to the question of what the rights of the United
States Government were and are in the matter of the diversion of
water from Lake Michigan. This, I think, has been demonstrated
very clearly by the position taken by the British Government re-
garding their right to control of the St. Lawrence River. Unques-
tionably they insisted they had the right to exclude us from navigat-
ing it. Beyond question that includes the right to do with it as they
please, where both banks of it are within the Dominion of Canada.
That being so, they would have the right to divert as much water
as they pleased down there where both banks were in the Dominion,
and beyond that they insisted on the right to do with that boundary
water as they pleased, even where we had one side of it and they had
the other. te
Great Britain has no right to insist on One rule regarding its
rights to the waters of the St. Lawrence and upon another rule when
the United States insists upon a similar right to the use of the waters
of Lake Michigan. In other words, the old and homely rule that
what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander applies here.
Beyond question, under the British theory, which is now the accepted
theory of international law, the United States Government, or any
of the sovereign States under proper circumstances would have the
right to divert water from Lake Michigan as it or they pleased, and
Great Britain would have nothing whatever to say about it. That
1052 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
being true, we would have the right at Chicago, either by legislation
of the State of Illinois in a proper case, or by appropriate legisla-
tion on the part of the Congress of the United States, to divert such
amount of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago River,
or any other channel, down the Desplains into the Illinois and down
the Mississippi and into the Gulf, as the State of Illinois or the
Government of the United States saw fit.
And when the International Boundary Waters Commission was
considering what should be done, they went into this subject, and
in their report they entered into quite an extensive discussion of it,
and they referred to an opinion of Attorney General Harmon, who
was the Attorney General under the administration of Grover Cleve-
land, regarding the question of whether some of our States along
the Rio Grande or some of the citizens of some of our States, were
in any manner violating the provisions of the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, or the principles of international law which applied there,
and I will read from the compiled reports of the International
Waterways Commission the language of this opinion of Attorney
General Harmon, which will also be found in the Opinions of Attor-
neys General, volume 1, page 274. I shall not read it all, but only
those portions which have been discussed by the International
Waterways Commission, which I think will be sufficient to demon-
strate my point.
These compiled reports of the International Waterways Com-
mission, 1905–1913, were printed in Canada by order of the Canadian
Parliament, and the book bears the printing date of 1913. I read
now from page 363, under the heading “International aspect of
questions involved.” The subject that they were discussing was not
the particular thing that we have in mind here, but has to do with
an application made for certain relief covering the Neebish Channel.
I read now from the bottom of page 363:
* * * It can hardly be disputed that in the absence of treaty stipulation
a country through which streams have their course, or in which lakes exist,
can in the exercise of its SOVereign powers rightfully divert or Otherwise
appropriate the waters within its territory for purposes of irrigation, the
improvement of navigation, or for any other purpose which the Government
may deem proper. This principle was lucidly stated by Mr. Harmon, Attorney
General of the United States, on December 12, 1895, in a communication to
the Secretary of State. The question submitted to the Attorney General by
the Secretary of State involved the right to appropriate the waters of the
upper Rio Grande for irrigation purposes, to the injury of residents of Mexico,
and in giving his opinion the Attorney General laid down the law as follows:
“The fundamental principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty
of every nation as against all others within its own territory.”
He then quoted from Chief Justice Marshall's Opinion in Schooner Exchange
v. McFadden (7 Cranch. p. 136) the following excerpt:
“The jurisdiction of the Nation within its own territory is necessarily
exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by
itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source,
would imply a dimunition of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction,
and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which
could impose such restriction.
“All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation
within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation
-itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”
Great Britain also has insisted upon the same principle in the matter of
the navigation of the lower St. Lawrence. The history of the positions taken
by the United States and Great Britain need not be recited, but it will be
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. I 0.53
noted that Great Britain did not recede from her position, and simply Con-
ceded by treaty the right of navigation upon certain concessions being made
by the United States. It would seem, therefore, to be settled international
law, recognized by both countries, that the exercise of sovereign power over
Waters Within the jurisdiction of a country can not be questioned, and that,
notwithstanding such exercise, may take a form that will be injurious to
another COuntry through which the waters of the same Streams or lakes pass,
it can not be rightfully regarded as furnishing a cause of war.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge, with regard to this controversy,
which has only one element, I would be glad if you are correct that
We have exclusive jurisdiction over Lake Michigan, but there are
two things that occur to me. First, in international law would Lake
Michigan, the Straits of Mackinaw, and Lake Huron, on account of
all three of those bodies of water being practically on a level, be
regarded as separate units, or would they be regarded as one body
of water? You will notice that in the engineer’s discussion, that
by General Bixby, he stated that the engineers had always treated
for our own purposes—I am not talking about international pur-
poses in that respect—those three as one body of water. That is my
first question. .
Mr. BARRETT. Might I interject right here the reason for that; you
will notice that the map shows the mean surface as 581.3 feet above
sea level; that appears on the Lake Michigan portion.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, go right over to Lake Huron, and the mean
surface is 581.3 feet above sea level. Of course, the engineers would
consider that as one lake, because they have the same level. That
is their purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose if we contend—that is, if the United
States contends—that those are separate bodies of water and not one
body of water, doesn’t it necessarily lead to this conclusion: I don’t
mean practically, but theoretically, that we would have the right
through Lake Michigan to divert the water from Lake Huron to an
extent to render the navigation of Lake Huron impossible, economi-
cally speaking, considering the draft and size of boats now required
to make navigation possible?
Mr. BARRETT. That would mean exactly that, and that is the posi-
tion taken by the British Government, and it has never been changed.
I do not mean by that to say that as far as Huron is concerned, that
that is strictly an American body of water.
The CHAIRMAN. No ; it is an international boundary line.
Mr. BARRETT. It is international. I do mean to say that Lake
Michigan, and, from all I am able to see now the Straits of Mack-
inaw, are American waters. Certainly Lake Michigan is.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me point out the distinction between the con-
tention between Great Britain as advanced in those cases and the
contention that we would have to make to succeed in an international
controversy. What Great Britain has contended is not the right to
drain the Great Lakes or to make unusable either international,
much less national bodies of water, on our side, but she is contending
simply and solely that she had the right to the navigation of a na-.
tional stream within her own boundaries.
Mr. BARRETT. That is not exactly correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The exclusive right.
1054 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. That carries with it absolute sovereign control,
º is not limited to navigation, but to everything she desired
to do.
The CHAIRMAN. I have no question about it carrying absolute
control of that stream, but whether it carries, as an incident of that
absolute control, the right to make unusable international bodies of
water with which it is connected, and much less national bodies of
water with which it connects, would, I should say, be a very, very
great extension of the principle. I am not saying that that is not
so, but I am saying offhand it strikes me as being very doubtful.
Mr. BARRETT. We have to be consistent. If a right is claimed,
as the record discloses—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I will admit that the Attorney
General’s position is absolutely in point.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I will admit that he passed upon the question.
Mr. BARRETT. There is not any doubt about that, and there is not
any doubt but what Great Britain has always maintained it.
The CHAIRMAN.N.But it seems to me that the contention of Great
Britain does not go anything like as far as Attorney General Hār-
mon's position. . .
Mr. BARRETT. The only thing is that we do not have Great
Britain in this particular case demanding all she has demanded at all
times, but when she said we could not navigate the St. Lawrence
without her permission she said in the same breath, “Great Britain
will do as it pleases.”
The CHAIRMAN. That she could drain the Great Lakes? I do
not think so.
Mr. BARRETT. She did not insist on that. But, as a question of
right, it follows absolutely from it, but what nation is going to do
such a foolish thing? -
The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to a second phase of
the question, and that is this. Take your second paragraph of
Article I.
Mr. BARRETT. The 1910 treaty you are now going to read?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Take your second paragraph of Article [.
The first sentence reads in this way:
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this same
right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all
c: , p: ils connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter
be constructed on either side of the line.
Mr. BARRETT. The first section of Article I?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. The second paragraph, the first part of
the first sentence. You can stop after the words “Lake Michigan ”
and put stars and a period. Doesn’t that mean, and taken in con-
nection with the first paragraph of the article, can it be construed
other than to mean that Lake Michigan was within the same pro-
tection of this treaty as are the boundary waters? Isn’t it treated
in just the same way, and would not the other contracting party have
the same right to appeal for the protection of navigation, the right of
navigation being granted, the same right to appeal to that clause, so
as to control navigation on Lake Michigan as they would have to
appeal to any of the boundary waters?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1055
Mr. BARRETT. I want the chairman not to lose sight of the fact
that in my discussion up to this point I have been discussing the
British theory of international law, which Mr. Harmon says is the
accepted theory, in the absence of treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is true. I recognize that.
Mr. BARRETT. There was no treaty consideration in this, and, of
course, at the time that this diversion at Chicago began no treaty
existed. *
The CHAIRMAN. No; that is true.
Mr. BARRETT. They did undertake—and I am trespassing now on
Mr. Behan's preserves, but I will answer that question in order that
it may not appear that we desire to equivocate.
The CHAIRMAN. I am trying very hard, Judge—
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). I am not quarreling with you.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). Not to do anything more than to
state the position. I am not arguing against your contention.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, there is no argument against my
contention.
Mr. BoxcE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question to see if I get
in mind the judge’s idea?
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Boyce.
Mr. Boy CE. Your thought is that in the absence of a treaty of any
sort, under the British theory of international law, Canada could, if
she saw fit, divert any quantity of water from Lake Ontario, as the
lake is wholly within her territory?
Mr. BARRETT. I say that is the position they have taken.
Mr. BoycE. That is your conclusion drawn from the British theory?
Mr. BARRETT. That is the position they have taken.
Mr. BoxcE. Regardless of any effect
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). On the sister nation, the United States.
That is their position. Now, of course, I do not mean to say that
Great Britain or the United States would be so absurd or so foolish
or so ridiculous as to do such a thing, but that is the position they have
taken. Then, coming to your question, Mr. Dempsey
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a moment. Judge Boyce, if
you have not considered it, I want to call your attention so that you
may be considering it to the two distinctions that occurred to me.
Did you get the distinction that I drew’
Mr. BOYCE. I took Lake Ontario as an illustration to see if I had
grasped the position which the judge had taken on the theory of in-
ternational law claimed on the part of Great Britain in the absence
of any treaty. That is all I had in mind.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, to illustrate that—and I won’t take
over a word to do it—but Judge Barrett instances the fact that Great
Britain can exclude us from the navigation of the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Boy CE. In the absence of a treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I say that is not a parallel case. They
would not go to the extent of draining or giving them the right, or
saying that Great Britain would contend that she could drain either
an international stream or a national stream which was connected
with her stream; and then I say, Secondly, that Lake Huron and Lake
Michigan can be regarded in the one way or the other either as sepa-
rate units or as one unit, and the question is whether they should
1056 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
not be regarded as one unit, being practically on a level, and one of
them being a boundary stream, and that it is not a question of sole
jurisdiction over a body of water which is within the limits of one
mation, but whether by controlling that body of water you have a
right to destroy another body of water which is a boundary water.
Mr. Boy CE. But the judge read Judge Harmon’s opinion in con-
nection with the theory claimed by Great Britain.
The CHAIRMAN. The deduction by Judge Harmon of the argument
on the Rio Grande.
Mr. BoycE. In which Judge Harmon doubtless had in mind the
claim of Great Britain.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BoycE. But under this theory the United States could divert
water from a body of water within its territory for any purpose, for
navigation, irrigation, etc.
Mr. BARRETT. Or any other purpose deemed proper by the sov-
ereign State. sº
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Harmon's opinion went even further than
that, because the Rio Grande is not all in our territory; it is a bound-
ary stream.
Mr. BARRETT. That is the very thing that was happening down
there, they were lowering the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation
purposes.
Mr. BOYCE. In view of what Judge Harmon said, my first thought
was to use Lake Erie as an illustration, but I concluded I would not
open discussion on the point further than Judge Harmon had gone,
and therefore I used Lake Ontario.
Mr. BARREGG. The fact of the matter is, Judge Boyce and gentlemen
of the committee, that prior to the existence of the Great Lakes
boundary waters treaty the Canadian power companies diverted water
at Niagara without asking any questions of the United States, and
the American power companies at Niagara diverted water without
asking any questions of Canada. The Canadians at the Welland
Canal did the same thing without asking us any questions, both for
power and navigation. Both sides took the position that they had
the absolute and unquestioned right to do these things.
The CHAIRMAN. At any rate, they proceeded without treaty?
Mr. BoxcE. Did not the question of a treaty between the United
States and Great Britain have its origin in the desire to preserve
the scenic character of Niagara Falls?
Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely.
Mr. BoycE. Was not that the origin of it?
Mr. BARRETT. That was the origin.
Mr. BoxcE. There existed prevalent feeling over the country
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Particularly in the United States.
Mr. BoxcE. Meaning the United States—that the marvelous
scenic attractions at Niagara were going to be destroyed?
Mr. BARRET. Yes, sir.
Mr. BoycE. Did not the movement for a treaty have its origin
in the desire to prevent the destruction of the Falls at Niagara? .
Mr. BARRETT. Quite true; and then we had a great many other
places along the entire chain of lakes where we were diverting—I
am talking now about the United States and its nationals—and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1057
where Canada was diverting. And there were disputes here and
questions there, and when we got to the point where it became
advisable, it seemed to both parties, to conclude a treaty for the
preservation of the Falls, they decided then to come in and settle
and dispose of every existing difficulty and dispute upon the entire
chain of lakes, and all of these things which they have covered
in this treaty were in existence at that time.
We have had a great deal of discussion here about the conditions
at the Welland Canal. During the investigation of this international
commission you will find that for power purposes at the Welland
Canal, I think, in 1906 and 1907 they were ... taking about 1,800
cubic second-feet, but everybody contends, and I think it is within
the range of the possible, that the amount of diversion which they
were taking for power at the Welland Canal at the time of the
promulgation of the treaty was covered by the treaty, and it was
considerably more than 1,800 feet, probably more nearly 3,500 sec-
ond-feet, and it is contended, and with a good deal of reason, that
that diversion for power at the Welland Canal is covered by the
language of the treaty which is: “Diversions heretofore existing
and heretofore permitted.”
It has been suggested here by some one that they contemplate
stopping the diversion at the Welland Canal for power purposes,
and it has also been suggested that they are going to transfer that
3,500 second-feet to their plants at Niagara Falls. There is nothing
in this treaty which would permit that, if they have it in their
minds. When that diversion for power purposes stops at the
Welland Canal, this treaty makes no provision for its transfer that
I have been able to discover. -
Mr. BoycE. Provided they keep within the 36,000 cubic feet per
second 7
Mr. BARRETT. They can not go beyond this 36,000 second-feet.
There has been another suggestion made here, and I am not going
to discuss this treaty, because that is Mr. Behan’s particular task.
There has been another suggestion here which I think this treaty
does not provide for, and that is that they have a right to average
their diversion for power purposes. In other words, that a certain
hours of the day they can take 10,000 second-feet and certain other
hours of the day they can take 50,000 second-feet. I say that a
careful study of that treaty makes such a thing impossible, because
if they could do that and there was no governing body to say how
much they could take at one time and how much at another, and
if they themselves were the sole arbiter of it; if their word was
law, they could absolutely deplete the Falls during the daytime if
they saw fit by taking all of their diversion in the daytime and
closing up at night. I am not suggesting that they would do that,
but I am saying that such a construction of the treaty would make
that possible.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding of the measurements on our
own side is that, aside from an immaterial addition, which necessarily
occurs, as I understand it, at times on account of the variations in
water levels, we are not permitted to average and we are not per-
mitted to have a maximum. I may be wrong, but that is my un-
derstanding.
91739—24—PT 2—52
*—º-
1058 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. I think you are quite right. For a while that right
was asserted, but eventually it was concluded that the treaty did not
contemplate any such thing as that; and I will say now to the chair-
man and to the members of the committee that such investigation as
we have made at the Falls does not indicate—and I will put it posi-
tively that it does indicate that there is no excess diversion on the
American side. That is not the fact with reference to the diversion
on the Canadian side. Such investigation as we have made indi-
cates excess diversion on the Canadian side.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, I did not catch quite clearly your state-
ment that they diverted at the time of the treaty at the Welland
Canal, for power purposes, 1,800 feet.
Mr. BARRETT. If you will read the reports of the International
Waterways Commission, and Mr. Behan will call your attention to
them definitely, you will find that in 1906 or 1907, at the time they
were reporting particularly their investigations on the Welland
Canal, that they reported a diversion for power purposes, I think,
at 1,800 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. So, under the interpretation that that was per-
mitted, that would be the limit?
Mr. BARRETT. No, sir; I do not accede to that at all.
The CHAIRMAN. And I am not advancing that at all.
Mr. BARRETT. I would say that the amount contemplated at the
time of the promulgation of the treaty would be the amount to
which they were entitled.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true; and I understood that the amount
to which you just referred—1,800 cubic feet—was the amount.
Mr. BARRETT. No, sir. At the time that they were making their
investigation—in 1906 or 1907—they were diverting for power pur-
poses about 1,800 cubic second-feet. I think that will appear in the
report. I am advised that the report of the International Water-
ways Commission of March, 1906, contains that statement.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the American section.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, of course, they are right; there is not any
question about that. Then you read in Colonel Warren’s report,
Mr. Chairman, which is a very comprehensive report
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I remember the statement there.
Mr. BARRETT. He makes the statement that at the time the treaty
was concluded they were not diverting greatly in excess of the
amount which he found them to be diverting at the time he made
his investigation, and my recollection of that is that he said 3,400
second-feet.
My position with reference to that is this, that if it be conceded
that this treaty contemplated a diversion for power purposes at the
Welland Canal under the general language “diversions previously
permitted "
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Uses, obstructions, and diversions
heretofore permitted. - -
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; that is the language. Then I would say that
the amount they were diverting for power purposes at the time the
treaty was concluded would be the controlling factor.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about that.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. . 1059
Mr. BARRETT. All right. Then I say, with reference to the sani-
tary channel at Chicago, all the other reports indicate that they
concluded that our capacity was 10,000 second-feet, and that in
everything they did and everything they said which has been re-
duced to writing and in the determination of the amount of water to
which we were entitled—I am talking now about the United States—
they conceded that 10,000 second-feet—and there is another thought
I am going to demonstrate before we get through here, Mr. Chair-
man and gentlemen of this committee—
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is very illuminating, but don’t you
think, Judge, that this is really the important aspect to this com-
mittee ? We have not a controversy between us and Canada.
Mr. BARRETT. I am not quite sure that that is so.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean this committee.
Mr. BARRETT. That may be; but there is a very serious contest
being carried on in the press. It is so serious, Mr. Chairman, that
if we wake up in the morning and pick up our paper and do not
find a protest of some kind from Canada regarding our diversion at
Chicago we are surprised and think that the press is not functioning
properly."
The CHAIRMAN. But I am just putting this as a question for you
to consider, whether the treaty provides for the sanitary district as
between the sanitary district and the United States.
Mr. BARRETT. We will reach that.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the important question here.
Mr. BARRETT. That is one of the important questions, and we have
not lost sight of it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the other is interesting, but this is the
important one.
Mr. BARRETT. I will say this to the chairman, which will illus-
trate my view. I hope that it will not be inconsistent with Mr.
Behan's that the conclusion of this treaty did not give the power
companies on the American side at Niagara anything. Neither
did it give anything to the power companies on the Canadian side;
that some sort of action on the part of the Government of Canada
and the Government of the United States was necessary, and you
have got it so far as your people at Niagara Falls are concerned
through the Burton Act.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you say is this, that the
treaty was simply a limitation and not a grant, and that in order to
get a grant the power companies had to apply, as they did, to the
power commission to Secure a license?
Mr. BARRETT. I won’t say exactly what the chairman has said.
My position is this. that it was a grant from the United States to
the British Government, and from the British Government to the
United States, of the right to permit the diversion at the Falls,
so far as Canada was concerned, of 36,000 cubic second-feet, and so
far as the United States was concerned of 20,000 second-feet, and
the further amount of 10,000 cubic second-feet at Chicago for sani-
tary purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. I. agree with you entirely; but your previous
statement was that the treaty was not a grant to the power com-
1060 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
panies. It was not, but it was a grant by Great Britain to the
United States?
Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you.
Mr. BARRETT. I make no other contention.
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you absolutely.
Mr. BARRETT. As I say, Mr. Chairman, when we understand each
other there will be no chance for a disagreement. We will make no
statement here that is not absolutely consistent with the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, the committee has had before it
to-day not alone this matter, on which it has spent a pretty full day,
but we have had two other matters, and we convened very early, and a
number of the members have suggested that we adjourn at 4.30.
If that meets with the approval of the committee, we will adjourn
and meet at 10 o'clock Monday morning; and, Judge, we are very
much obliged to you. You have been doing very well.
Mr. BARRETT. It is a pleasure to me to be able to talk to you.
(Thereupon, at 4.30 p.m., the committee adjourned.)
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Monday, May 12, 1924.
The committee this day met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace
Dempsey (chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF MIR. GEORGE F, BARRETT–Continued
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Barrett, this has occurred to me over the
recess: What was done by the State Department on the opinion of
Judge Harmon? Was any agreement reached between the United
States and Mexico, or what was the result of it?
Mr. BARRETT. In this Rio Grande case water was being diverted
by a large number of individuals along the river and there was a
much more serious problem in the case of the Rio Grande Dam &
Irrigation Co., an American company, and the Rio Grande Irriga-
, tion & Land Co. (Ltd.), a British company, which had succeeded to
the rights of the American company and which claimed that it had
positive legal rights to impound all of the waters of the Rio Grande,
but its works were never completed. The Mexican Government
persisted in its complaints and finally the United States Govern-
ment instituted proceedings against the Rio Grande Dam & Irri-
gation Co. and the Rio Grande Irrigation & Land Co. (Ltd.), and
after many years of litigation it was finally determined that the Brit-
ish company did not have the right to impound all of the waters
of the Rio Grande, and with the rights of this large company out
of the way the Governments of the United States and Mexico entered
into negotiations which resulted in the treaty of 1906, and this treaty
provided for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio
Grande between the United States and Mexican Governments.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any textbook or any case that lays down
the rule as you explained it to us on Saturday, that a country which
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1061
has a navigable body of water within its own boundaries has control
over it for all purposes?
Mr. BARRETT. You will find in this very thing that I read here a
discussion by a text-writer, who takes the position that the United
States took that being a natural highway, both parties should have
the right to use it for navigation. But I have not any doubt that
you will find any number of text-writers on the subject.
The CHAIRMAN. There is one very recent work—I will not say very
recent—of about seven or eight volumes that was prepared by John
Bassett Moore, issued, I should say, about six or seven years ago.
should think he might discuss the question at some length, possibly.
Mr. BARRETT. The reason that I paid no attention to text-writers—
let me say that Farnum is the man who took the American view of
it. In other words, he takes the view of what the law should be and
discusses it and elaborates on it. But he does not discuss what the
law is.
The CHAIRMAN. I intended this morning to stop at the law library
and get a look at Moore. -
Mr. BARRETT. Here we have a discussion of this subject and a
guotation and citation from Chief Justice Marshall and the agree-
ment of the International Waterways Commission that that is the
rule of international law. For our purposes and, I thought, for the
purpose of the committee that was ample.
I did not want to waste a lot of time by citing text writers. When
I have Chief Justice Marshall, I let the text writers alone. That
is usually a pretty good plan.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, if you will give me that citation of Mar-
shall’s, I will look that up in the annotated edition to see whether
the case has been touched at all. º
Mr. BARRETT. Schooner Exchange v. McFadden (7 Cranch,
p. 136). May I proceed now, Mr. Chairman &
The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to hear you, Judge.
Mr. BARRETT. The place at which I arrived on Saturday was a
practical conclusion of what was regarded as the rule of interna-
tional law in the absence of treaty.
Of course, when a treaty exists, that disposes of the question at
hand, regardless of the rule of international law. . But one of the
Congressmen—l do not recall which one—asked this question early
in the hearing. It occurred to him that under any and all circum-
stances this Government would be required under the rules of
international law to ask Canada, or conversely that Canada would
be required to ask the United States, for permission if they desired
to divert water. These authorities answer that question definitely,
in the absence of treaty.
As I told you early in my talk, the question of the treaty here
will be discussed by Mr. Behan, but I am going just to make an
observation or two with reference to it and leave the elaboration
of it to Mr. Behan. th
I am trying, Mr. Chairman, to keep track of the questions as
you ask them or as any other Congressman asks, so that as near
as may be we will have your questions answered as we go along,
because I take it when you ask them it is far better to answer them
1062 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
quickly and be through with them than to wait and probably forget
them—either I forget them or you do.
We, representing the sanitary district and citizens of the State
of Illinois, take the position that there is no question in this mattel
which we can not answer, and we do not want to be in the position
by silence, neglect, or otherwise of appearing to be unable to answer.
You asked the question, very near to the end of our discussion on
Saturday—in fact, a number of questions—quite pertinent, as to
whether or not I took the position, or we did, that this treaty gave
rights to the power companies on the American side of the Falls
and the power companies on the Canadian side of the Falls, and I
answered that question. You asked also as to whether or not this
treaty to a greater extent than in the case of the power companies
in New York State provided for the sanitary district of Chicago.
Your question is:
But I am just putting this question for you to consider, whether the treaty
provides for the sanitary district as between the sanitary district and the
United States? * -
The CHAIRMAN. That is entirely aside from the question between
the sanitary district and Canada.
Mr. BARRETT. That is a very pertinent question. I am going to
make an observation in reference to it before I answer this question.
We take the position that so far as the Dominion of Canada is
concerned and the British Government, their mouths are absolutely
sealed to question in any way this diversion of 10,000 second-feet at
Chicago, and that it goes to the extent of stopping them from
questioning it regardless of its effect upon power, navigation, or
any other matter or thing.
It makes no difference what they complain about. Their Govern-
ment, having agreed to this diversion, they are estopped from com-
plaining about it.
Mr. KINDRED. Judge, may I ask right there whether there is any
specific complaint as to the method and purpose for which it is being
diverted by the British or Canadian Government? They are simply
complaining that it is being diverted.
Mr. BARRETT. I would answer this, generally, Doctor, that I think
that Canada has complained about this for every known reason and
many that are not known. -
Mr. KINDRED. As to what purpose it is used for 2
Mr. BARRETT. It is a general complaint, what we call a blanket
complaint. In other words, when we were concluding this treaty
and investigating all of the diversions on the Great Lakes and set-
tling all these disputed, contested issues, they got together and deter-
mined that they would as near as possible take care of the invest-
ments theretofore made on the American side of Niagara and of the
investments previously made on the Canadian side of Niagara, and
that included, I take it, the situation at the Welland Canal, both for
navigation and power purposes; at any rate, it seemed to be the con-
tention that it does take care of that.
Then they went into a very careful investigation of our situation
at Chicago and positively and without any question agreed that
there would be a canal constructed which, when in operation—or
I should put it this way—that a canal was constructed which, when
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1063
operated to its legal capacity, would require a diversion of 10,000
Second-feet. And they said, for what purposes? 1. For sanitary
purposes. 2. For navigation purposes. And they said further that
it would be a link in the chain of the navigable waterway connecting
the Great Lakes, with the Gulf of Mexico.
They went further and they complimented us and said that we
were spending enough money on that canal so that if it were spread
to the same extent over the entire United States there would be
enough expended to build eight Panama Canals. They said, “It is
tacitly agreed and understood that they will require a diversion of
not less than 10,000 cubic second-feet of water from Lake Michigan,”
and that we should be given this diversion.
Now, I say that it is not in accord with square dealing for them
to agree during the discussions leading up to the treaty and in the
treaty, itself to this diversion at Chicago, and thereby get 9,400 cubic
Second-feet of water more than that given to the United States, and
then after they have gotten their quid pro quo, as the chairman said
the other day, and have used it for 14 years, to come in and say,
Č. we do not now believe you ought to have that down there at
Icago.”
. Now, I am going to come to your question, Mr. Chairman. The
international boundary waters treaty is an agreement between the
British Government and the Dominion of Canada and the United
States of America.
The CHAIRMAN. I can understand very readily that the conten-
tion that if it was agreed that there should be certain diversions
it might be contended that that agreement was binding upon both
parties to the agreement in the sense that the United States, if it
agreed with Great Britain that there should be this diversion, is also
bound to Chicago that there should be the diversion. But I do not
think it necessarily follows—and I am just asking whether it does
follow—that the United States has agreed with Chicago because
the United States made this agreement with Great Britain.
Mr. BARRETT. I am going to answer you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KINDRED. May I interrupt, in order to get clear in my mind
the judgment of the chairman and also of Judge Barrett, and ask
this: The two Governments agreed that there should be a certain
amount of water to be divided in a certain proportion between the
two. But that meant to grant that much water to the respective
Governments for the Governments to dispose of as they might see
fit. Isn’t that clear? *
In other words, Congress is the soſe judge of this matter. Isn’t
that very clear regardless of what any treaty might have implied?
Is that clear? -
Mr. BARRETT. I think that the language of the treaty is almost
as you put it, Doctor, that the Government of the United States shall
be permitted to divert and the Government of Canada shall be per-
mitted, or to authorize the diversion of: that is what it is.
Let me answer your question, Mr. Chairman. We have here a
very involved situation as far as the State of Illinois, the sanitary
district, and the United States are concerned. Mr. Chairman, you
know as a lawyer, and every other lawyer on this committee knows,
that if you and I agree and enter into a contract in writing for the
1964 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
benefit of Congressman Hull and Congressman Newton that,
though they may never have had anything to do with the making
of the contract, it having been made for their benefit and a good
consideration having passed between you and me, they are in a posi-
tion to enforce the contract in the courts. There is not any question
about that as a matter of law.
The CHAIRMAN. The question started out with being discussed
in the State of New York in the twentieth volume of the Court of
Appeals report. I think you have to have it plain. ſ
Mr. BARRETT. When I get through with this there will not be any
question that it is plain. That is my view of the proposition here,
that when this contract was made, so far as Canada is concerned
and was concerned, she has nothing further to say about this
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The Fox case is the first case on
that point. I was trying to think of the title of it.
Mr. BARRETT (continuing). So far as 10,000 second-feet is con-
cerned. That belongs to the United States to do with as she pleases,
so long as the thing which she continues to do is consistent with what
she was then doing, and that is allowing it to run through the sani-
tary channel down the Illinois Valley into the Mississippi. There
is no question about that.
Mr. KINDRED. That compels consistency on the part of the United
States in that respect?
Mr. BARRETT. The United States, Doctor, has always been con-
sistent with the sovereign States, and she will continue to be con-
sistent.
The fact of the matter is that prior to the passage of the Burton
Act, Mr. Chairman, there was a recommendation that legislation
be passed by Congress permitting the State of Illinois and the sani-
tary district to divert 10,000 cubic second-feet for sanitary pur-
poses. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Behan?
Mr. BEHAN. Absolutely.
Mr. BARRETT. That is in the report.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you the report?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. The reason that that legislation did not go
through in all probability, was this: That at that time the people in
the sanitary district were insisting upon the right to have 14,000
second-feet, because they were getting ready to enlarge the district
and to build the Calumet Channel.
This is the report which was made to Congress at the request of
Congress on the preservation of Niagara Falls.
I do not want to go into these things at length, but you will recall,
Mr. Chairman -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Here is the thing that bothers me
now so far as you have gotten, that if any contract was made—let
us assume it was made—you come to your second stage, whether it
was made for the benefit of Chicago.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, will you permit me to elaborate my
position? w -
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead. -
Mr. BARRETT. You will understand when I get through, we are
not depending alone on that. That is merely one of the various
links in a very strong chain of circumstances.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1065
The CHAIRMAN. What I would suggest, Judge, is that you cover,
in addition to other things, the question whether the problem now
being debated was raised before Secretary Stimson and the other
Secretaries. *
Mr. BARRETT. I am going to touch that. That gets away down to
1912. This treaty was made in 1910. Discussions leading up to it
were had between 1902 and 1909.
The investigation made by the Canadian Government was made
in 1895 and the investigation made at the request of the Secretary
of War by the Poe Board, to determine what the effect on the Great
Lakes would be of our diversion at Chicago, was made in 1895. So
you see they knew everything long before we were through build-
ing the canal. They knew just exactly what was going to happen
to the Lakes.
The Poe report showed that there would be a lowering of the
Lakes about 5% to 6 inches.
O'Hanley made the same report. So when the Canadians agreed
to this diversion, they knew all about it. They can not claim that
they went into something that they did not understand. The
Canadian Government does not do that sort of thing.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they claim that. I think they
claim, as I understand it, that the treaty does not provide what you
claim. I think that is their sole claim.
Mr. BARRETT. And, of course, this treaty does provide for it and
there is not any question about it. We are going to have, Mr. Chair-
man, an American interpretation of this treaty. We are not going
to have a British interpretation of it by protest.
Let me develop this case a little bit further. We say that when
that was made, they have no further right to complain about what
we do with that water. The question arises, as the doctor has sug-
gested, What is there that compels consistency upon the part of the
|United States Government?
Merely the fundamentals of our Government, Mr. Congressman;
that is absolute honesty with each other and particularly between
the United States and the States. But there is a bigger field here
that we have not yet touched on.
The opening of the sanitary channel in January, 1900, was not
an instantaneous happening, like a bolt of lightning out of a clear
sky. The right of the State of Illinois and the sanitary district to
divert this water became definitely fixed as a result of occurrences,
legislative and otherwise, covering a period of more than a century,
both before and since 1900. One of these is, as suggested by one
of the Congressmen, that the State of Illinois had the legal right
under the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United
States, to permit the building of this canal, to change the course of
the Chicago River, and to divert the waters of Lake Michigan as a
matter of absolute State rights in the absence, Mr. Chairman, of
definite legislation by the Congress of the United States prohibiting
it, and that notwithstanding the fact that it does indirecly affect
interstate commerce.
That is point No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, on that point, my own offhand opinion
would be that the State right for which you contend is limited by
1066 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the paramount right of the United States to restrain anything
which impedes, obstructs, and hinders or impairs navigation.
Mr. BARRETT. Subsequent to our enactment? In other words,
that the United States would have the right to stop it after the State
of Illinois had authorized it?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it makes a particle of difference.
Mr. BARRETT. I will agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that in the
absence of a state of facts which would constitute an estoppel upon
the part of the Government, if the State of Illinois authorized the
diversion and the changing of the course of the Chicago River,
Congress subsequent thereto, by appropriate legislation, could
estop it.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that you can estop the Govern-
ment, and I do not think that the doctrine applies to the Govern-
ment at all. -
Mr. BARRETT. It will take a very strong set of facts to do it, but
I believe that there are many authorities which indicate that the
doctrine of estoppel can be applied to the Government.
The CHAIRMAN. And I do not think it would make any difference
if you enacted a law at every session and sent it on here to Congress
and to the Executive. I think that the State right is subject to the
paramount right of the Government to protect navigation, and that
right can be asserted without congressional action at all through the
courts on the initiative of the Executive and by injunction or such
other course as it may deem proper. That is my offhand opinion.
Mr. BARRETT. There is a good deal in what you say, but you are
not entirely right, for if the Government of the United States for
a period of more than a century, with full knowledge of the facts,
sat by and permitted the State of Illinois partially by legislation
and partially by tacit acquiescence to construct this canal and to
divert this water at an expenditure of more $150,000,000 a case of
estoppel could arise which the Supreme Court would recognize.
The CHAIRMAN. I doubt it.
Mr. BARRETT. I know you doubt it. Many times I have doubted
a thing and then found the Supreme Court told me I was wrong.
I had to agree with them even if I doubted them before.
There is not any question about my proposition of law. If Con-
gress has not previously occupied the field, the State has the right
to change a watercourse, to bridge it, to close it up, or to do any-
thing it pleases with it, and the courts are positive on it. I do not
think there is any question about it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we have a right, just as a matter of
course, and year in and year out we compel the States to change
bridges.
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Which have been in existence for over 20 years.
Mr. BARRETT. You did it in the Monongahela case.
The CHAIRMAN. We are doing it in the Monongahela case to-day.
Mr. BARRETT. There is no question about that.
The CHAIRMAN. And I think we have a right to remove anything
which impedes or impairs navigation at any time, regardless of
what the State may have done, and I think we are doing it every
day.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1067
Mr. BARRETT. I have not said anything to the contrary, but I
have said that until you do it the State's right is paramount. She
is sovereign.
Mr. GouldFR. May I ask you a question?
Mr. BARRETT. Certainly.
Mr. GouldFR. Granted that be true, if it be true in matters which
are purely local in effect; do you take the position, as a matter of
law, that the failure of Congress to act and its silence on a mattter
which is interstate and the effect of which is interstate gives con-
sent—that is, that that silence gives consent or gives any authority
whatever to the State? I am speaking where the effects are not
merely local, as they may be in a great many instances.
Mr. BARRETT. All right, if you will let me answer your question,
I would be glad to.
Mr. GouldFR. I wish you would. The Supreme Court has an-
swered that.'
Mr. BARRETT. If the State of Illinois undertakes to pass general
legislation affecting interstate commerce we would not have any
right to do it. But in the case which you tried, Mr. Goulder, affecting
this sanitary district, they said what the law was; that was in the
Corrigan Transit case. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals
in your own case said what it was, and they discussed this very
situation in that case, and you did not take it to the Supreme Court of
the United States. You let the circuit court of appeals record stand.
Mr. Gould ER. Because they held in that case as a matter of fact
that the vessel created a current.
Mr. BARRETT. They said more than that, Mr. Goulder. They said
a great deal more than that.
Mr. Gould ER. They had that question of fact.
Mr. BARRETT. They said definitely and positively that we had the
permit and we had obeyed every word of the permit. They said that
the permit was for no particularly specified amount, and that there
was no limitation of flow in the permit. When you discussed our
rights under the rivers and harbors act of 1899, they told you in no
uncertain terms what our rights were.
Mr. KINDRED. But, Judge, is it not a fact, that the United States
Government, acting through the proper agency, the Secretary of
War, did later limit the amount?
Mr. BARRETT. We are going to get into that, Doctor. We are
going to discuss that.
Mr. KINDRED. One more question. I do not want unduly to take
your time.
Mr. BARRETT. I would be glad to have you take all the time you
want with me, Doctor.
Mr. KINDRED. That is very kind. But if any State changes the
course of a navigable stream, although the United States Govern-
ment does not invoke its authority to prevent that action by the
State through the Executive or through the courts, or through any
other agency, Congress can, at any time, exercise a paramount
authority, can it not?
Mr. BARRETT. I would say that subsequent to the action of the
State, if the Congress of the United States decides to enter the field,
1068 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
they have a definite right, in the absence of a situation amounting to
an estoppel.
Now, the chairman says that he does not agree with me that the
Government of the United States can be estopped, and I do not agree
with him. I insist that it can be. Let us go a step further.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I should say offhand that the Govern-
ment is simply the trustee for all the people, of their navigation
rights and I do not believe that there is any way in which they can
waive or give away those rights.
The State of New York has attempted to do it in one case and
they were told in no uncertain terms that they could not do it and
it was supposed to be really beneficial.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I said when we started out here
that we would make no assertion not backed by the record or by
definite and absolute and positive authority. We have the authorities
to back what I say.
Let me develop it a step further. I have just developed in a
general way the State rights theory. Then we come to the question
of whether or not, as a matter of law, Doctor Kindred, the Congress
of the United States has not done the very thing that is now under
consideration here, directed us with their money to build a canal,
without telling us how big it should be, or how much water we should
flow, leaving those questions absolutely to our discretion, with a
prior indication upon the part of Congress in the year 1822 that there
should be 90 feet on each side of the canal left for the purpose of
enlargement.
In 1827 they directed us to build the canal and they gave us
284,000 acres of land. Subsequently I am advised that we got con-
siderably more. The figures, I am not absolutely certain about, but
the situation is the same whether we got 284,000 or 500,000, because
if we got that much, we are obligated just as much by it as if we
got 500,000.
The Congress directed us to build a canal to unite the waters of
Lake Michigan with the Illinois River.
They said, “You must keep it open as a highway forever.” The
State of Illinois, with its own money and the money of the United
States, built that canal and kept it in operation. We diverted the
water of Lake Michigan and there has never been any question of
our right to divert that water and until the War Department at-
tempted to limit our flow, Doctor, there never was an indication as
to how much water we could take.
So we went along and built that canal and operated it and did
just exactly what the Government of the United States told us
we must do; that is, keep that canal open for them.
The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think the Government had, at every
minute, after the passage of that act, right down to this present day,
mºute control over that matter and could at any time assert con-
trol'.
Mr. BARRETT. Over what? -
The CHAIRMAN. If it was a Federal stream, don’t you think that
the control of that stream was at all times in them; and is there
anything in that which implies that they have waived or in any way
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1069
diminished the authority which Congress has, in spite of all its
improvements? *.
We have the question here all the time, every day where commu-
nities themselves contribute a large part of the funds toward the im-
provement of a waterway; but no one for one moment thinks that
because the community contributes, as it has in some cases, two-thirds,
or even three-quarters of the sum, that it has any control over the
waterway. The Federal jurisdiction is unimpaired, and here we
gave you the money.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; and we used our own with it.
The CHAIRMAN. And why should we, by the fact that we have au-
thorized the construction of a canal—we authorize all these projects,
but we do not part with control, because we authorize a project or b8-
cause we adopt a project.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think you do either. I have not said you
did. -
The CHAIRMAN. We never have.
Mr. BARRETT. But I do say this, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. On the contrary, the effect of an authorization or
an adoption of a project is to bring it more clearly within the control
of Congress.
Mr. BARRETT. I have said this, Mr. Chairman, that when you gave
us that land and directed us to build that canal, you did not tell us
how it should be built. +
The CHAIRMAN. But we could tell you any minute.
Mr. BARRETT. But until you do, we have a right to go along and do
it our way. And we did go along and do it our way. We kept it as
it was originally constructed until it would not do the work. We
changed it then: without any complaint from the Government.
Later on it was necessary and we changed it again. Still later on,
with full knowledge of the Government, we expended $50,000,000 and .
they knew every move we were making. *
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, there is another answer to that proposition.
The money that you have expended—the large sum of money that you
have expended—and the work which you have done is not to construct
a waterway, for two reasons. First, it is not a part of a waterway.
It is an entirely different kind of a waterway for a few miles from
that which it is for nine-tenths of its distance.
Mr. BARRETT. In what respect is it different?
The CHAIRMAN. You can not have the kind of navigation for nine-
tenths of the waterway that you have provided for in this short dis-
tance. . It is not, therefore, a waterway. It is something down at one
point, in a waterway, not in harmony at all with the character of the
waterway, not coordinated with it, not really a part of it at all, but
Something of a different kind and different nature.
Second, no one will pretend your waterway is for the purpose of a
waterway. It is for an entirely different purpose.
Mr. BARRETT. We are not conceding that. It is our position that
the State of Illinois has declared for a deep waterway from the
Lakes to the Gulf, not once but many times, and particularly im-
mediately before the passage of the sanitary district act.
The CHAIRMAN. To follow your argument to its conclusion, Judge,
we could not proceed within the jurisdiction of this committee at
all. What is the size of your canal?
10'70 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. In the stone section it provides for 10,000 sec-
ond-flow capacity
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not mean the capacity, but
what is its width and depth?
Mr. BARRETT. It has a width in the stone section, I think, of a
hundred and fifty feet. That is at the bottom and a hundred and
sixty-two at the top. It is 24 feet deep, and our law said that for
waterway purposes it should be not less than 18 feet deep. There
is a 200-foot width in the clay section.
The CHAIRMAN. All we have before us at the most and all that we
could consider under the rules which are controlling
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Mr. Dempsey, you have asked me a
question and I am starting to develop it. I am not saying what you
should consider, but you should know all these things. All these
things are going to be presented to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true. -
Mr. BARRETT. You have asked me a question and I am answer-
ing it.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I agree with you.
Mr. BARRETT. Our position is as I have stated. We say first in a
general way what we would be entitled to under the State rights
theory. We then say that Congress directed us to do a certain thing
and required us to keep it forever open; that we went along for a
period of years, and Congress was advised yearly, I might say
almost daily, of what we were doing.
They allowed us to spend our money and never said, “You must
not do it.” -
We say that with all these things—and I have only showed you a
portion of them; I am going to develop every line of it before I am
through—that a situation is created here which may and we think
should estop the Government of the United States from quarreling
with us.
Then let me go a step further, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to suggest is what occurs to us.
Mr. BARRETT. I want you to suggest everything you think about
as we go along, because, after all, we are here for the purpose of
giving to you gentlemen our complete position. We want to edu-
cate you and the people in the States bordering upon the Great
Lakes, and incidentally those people from Canada, that we are not
brigands and highwaymen, as we have been charged with being in
the Canadian press.
The CHAIRMAN. We have not charged you, Judge, with that.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not say you have, I do not think you will, and
the facts would not justify it. But that does not stop the Canadians
from doing it.
The CHAIRMAN. We have assured you, and we meant it
Mr. BARRETT. You have been wonderful, and we have no quarrel
with you—any one of you.
The CHAIRMAN. And, in good faith, we are going to give you
every consideration. x-
Mr. BARRETT. I have not any doubt about it.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1071
The CHAIRMAN. All the chairman intended by what he suggested
in answer to your question was to point out the difficulties that arise
in his mind, so that you might answer those difficulties as well as
present what occurs to you.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I understand you very
well. ...You are a lawyer, and it is just as impossible for a lawyer to
sit still when a legal proposition is being advanced and thoughts
occur to him which may not permit the position stated to be correct
as it is for a child to go all day without seeking some nourishment.
hº not quarreling with you at all. I am perfectly content with
that.
Mr. KINDRED. Judge, I am not a lawyer.
M.ºmer. But you are a mighty good doctor, and that is just
aS Well.
Mr. KINDRED. That is very good of you. But you seem to be
worried over the reports in the Canadian newspapers. You do not
think for a moment that any member of this committee or anybody
in the United States is going to be influenced by any sensational
reports about this matter in the Canadian newspapers?
Mr. BARRETT. Doctor, I would say this to you: I have not the
slightest fear that any member of this committee is going to be in-
fluenced by that at all. But I do say that some people in the United
‘States have already been influenced by these reports in the Canadian
newspapers. I have not any fear of you gentlemen at all; not the
slightest. We are willing absolutely to rest our case in your hands.
All we want you to do is to know our position, and when you do, we
are going to get along all right with you. I was asked a question
that took about four lines of types in the asking and it will take two
hours to develop all the things which are necessary in order to an-
swer it.
We come to the next place in the development of the answer to
your very simple question, Mr. Dempsey.
First, did Congress direct us to do the things we have done? We
insist it did. Óf course, it is going to be contended that when we
built that large canal we should not have done it. But we say, on
the other hand, that when the War Department was told and knew
of every plan that we made, if they did not agree with it, they should
have told us. But they did not at any time.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it is necessary to go as far as you say,
Judge. I think that all that the court, if it does not adopt your con-
tention will say to you is that you built subject to the right of the
|United States at any time, if it interfered with navigation, to stop
you by injunction or otherwise; that you were bound to know the
law; you are bound to know the paramount rights of the United
States and you built and took your chances.
Mr. BARRETT. You see, you assume a premise we can not agree to.
We insist that what we did was entirely consistent with the direc-
tions of the Congress of the United States. Then we come along to
the thing that Doctor Kindred has asked about. I am really out of
my place in the elaboration of what I started to answer.
The CHAIRMAN. We have down in New York an illustration of
your question. The doctor knows very well in the river front the
1072 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
piers are built out beyond the pierhead line as fixed by the United
States Government. They expended an awful lot of money on that.
They used them for a long period of years. The Government does
not say much of anything so long as they do not seem to interfere
with navigation. But the instant they are convinced that their hin-
drance is greater than their usefulness, they say to the dock commis-
sioner, “That pier will have to be cut down to the bulkhead line.”
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; and they have an absolute right to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is done.
Mr. BARRETT. Because Conugress has occupied that field definitely
and absolutely under the rivers and harbors act. There is no ques-
tion about that. I would not stand here for a moment and contro-
vert that. º
Mr. KINDRED. Under the same principle, would not the United
States Government have a right to go on and remove and displace
any other obstruction or impediment to navigation, whatever it was?
Mr. BARRETT. Doctor, I would say as a general proposition that
the right of the Government of the United States to control inter-
state commerce is supreme and is paramount, unless they have, by
a course of conduct permitted over a period of years a thing to be
started and to grow so that it amounts to an estoppel.
Understand, Doctor, this is not the case of an individual fussing
with the Government. This is the case of the State of Illinois, a
sovereign State, and a question arising between it and the Govern-
ment. There is just a little difference between an individual and
the Government and a State and the Government. There is not any
Question about it.
The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think it would make any difference in
that bulkhead line, if the city of New York under the authority of
the State legislature, as it frequently does, had erected the pier and
gone beyond the line?
Mr. BARRETT. I would say this
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). And they had spent, we will say,
$20,000,000. Well, it spent $50,000,000 in one place alone, one small
place. It spent $50,000,000 on just one small development of its
harbor and had gone outside the bulkhead line fixed and that had
been done by the city under the authority of the State.
Mr. BARRETT. If the Congress of the United States had occupied
the field
Mr. DEAL (interposing). And permitted by the Federal Govern-
ment, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The Federal Government stands by and does not
do anything.
Mr. BARRETT. If the Federal Government had occupied the field
previously, then I do not care how much the State expended. The
Congress of the United States would have the paramount right.
My point is that where they have not occupied the field—and they
said so in no uncertain language in the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals in Mr. Goulder's case. It just so happens that Mr.
Goulder brought a suit against the Sanitary District of Chicago
and there has been some law made in our circuit court of appeals on
it. They discussed it very clearly and certainly and absolutely, so
far as we are concerned, it not having gone to the Supreme Court
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1073
of the United States, that is law. It has never been discussed in
any other place. You know that.
The CHAIRMAN. I would agree to that. I would suggest to Mr.
Goulder that he telephone over to the law library and ask them to
send over the bound volume containing the case.
. Mr. BARRETT. We will have that here, if you want it. I am, going
#. Mr. Adcock's field, but I have to in order to answer your ques-
1OI).
We come to the question of the permits, as they call them, and we
hear General Beach saying the War Department had not any right,
there never was any legislation which authorized the War Depart-
ment to issue this permit. If that be true, then there has never been
any action upon the part of the Congress of the United States which
could be brought to bear on this question. It would still have to
legislate, because the same sort of legislation exists in every rivers
and harbors bill on the same subject since 1899. The language, so
far as I know, has not been changed in that particular section under
which these permits, if you call them that, were issued.
In 1899, Doctor, our channel, which cost approximately $50,000,000
at that time, was completed. The only thing that was required was
opening up a very small strip of land to allow the water of the
$º River to flow into the channel and down into the Illinois
alley.
As I have told you, the War Department had investigated in 1895,
and so they knew everything that was likely to happen, and, as it
now appears, the same thing that General Poe and his board re-
ported at that time is the very same thing we find every engineer who
has talked on the subject says is the fact. So they had that much in-
formation, and the Canadians had the same information from Mr.
O’Hanley as well as General Poe.
So with that information before them and with the fact before
them that we had made the Chicago River a part of our channel, and
that we had applied for permission to widen and deepen the Chicago
River, so as to produce the flow necessary to take care of our needs,
the Secretary of War, with the consent of the Chief of Engineers,
did grant a permit to reverse the flow of the Chicago River and let
it run down through our channel into the Illinois Valley.
Now, if he had the power to grant that permit under section of
the rivers and harbors act of 1899
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). If you have that before you, I
would like to read it again.
Mr. BARRETT. I would rather you let me make this statement, and
when I reach this point in my discussion we will read them to you
and put them into the record. I merely got off here at a tangent
because of the question asked.
If it had the power, then everything we have done up to that time
is strictly consistent with the law. The Congress of the United
States had given the Secretary of War the power to do the thing
which he did do, which permitted us to open our channel and allow
the water to flow down.
As we go along we find that complaints are made to the Secretary
of War that we are creating a current in the Chicago River. Some
of Mr. Goulder's clients evidently had complained about the difficulty

I074 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of navigating the river, and of course our actions indicated that we
recognized the possibility of that. We started out to correct that
condition, and we have corrected it.
We have made that river 200 feet wide and 26 feet deep. It was
originally 17 feet deep and in some places only 80 feet wide.
We, spent about $15,000,000 making that river big enough to carry
the volume of water which we needed and which the Government
of the United States was advised about.
There never has been any complaint other than that the current
in the river was obstructive to navigation. We have corrected that.
There is not any sailor on the Lakes who will say that there is a
bad current in the Chicago River now. We have got that abso-
lutely under control.
So we say that the only condition in the permit of the Secretary
of War—there were two conditions. I am going to read them to you,
but I am repeating them now as nearly as I can recall them.
First. If the flow of water is such as to create a current obstruc-
tive or injurious to navigation, the Secretary of War reserves the
right to limit the flow.
Second. It is the intention of the Secretary of War to call this
matter to the attention of Congress for the purpose of legislation.
We have corrected the difficulty of flow referred to in the first
condition of the permit, and the Secretary of War never asked
Congress to legislate upon the matter in accordance with the
language of the second condition.
The CHAIRMAN. But that provision would leave the question so
far as the Secretary having authority or so far as his acting is
concerned, absolutely in the hands of Congress, would it not, Judge?
Mr. BARRETT. That would depend, of course, on whether or not
Congress had already given the authority.
The CHAIRMAN. Mind you, I am confining myself to one thing.
You have been addressing yourself to the question of whether the
Secretary had the authority first, and second, assuming that
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). I am not, I am saying that
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Second, assuming that he had
authority, that he has acted. Now, he acted, at most, subject to the
action of Congress. You must assume that if Congress attempted
to exercise jurisdiction and desired to do so, the Secretary had not
acted, that they could readily procure action from the Secretary.
Mr. BARRETT. The question of what the result of congressional
action would be on our rights must of necessity, Mr. Chairman, be
an academic question. You have not done it up to this moment.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not discussing that.
Mr. BARRETT. What the result would be, I am not prepared to
say right now. You and I probably would not agree on it.
The CHAIRMAN. All I am discussing is just the one thing, that
the Secretary of War's action was temporary and eonditional, tem-
porary until Congress acted, and conditional on the actionof Con-
gress. -
Mr. BARRETT. No; I would not say that it was temporary. There
is not anything in the permit to indicate that it is of a temporary
nature, but it does say that he is going to call it to the attention of
Congress. If Congress had acted, a different situation would be
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1075
created here, but that permit had only one condition in it, and that
was regarding the current in the Chicago River. It is true he does
advise us that he is going to call it to the attention of Congress for
appropriate legislation, but I would not call that a condition.
The CHAIRMAN. It does not seem to me you can spell anything
else out of it.
Mr. BARRETT. We will read it to you. You and I will not have
any disagreement on it when we read it. -
You gentlemen can now see that there are a great many questions
involved in this case and you can readily understand that while
the War Department has quarreled with us because we did not, as
they said, bow in immediate obedience to their command, that, being
a governmental agency of the State of Illinois and having what we
considered absolute rights, we were not in a position to do the things
that they commanded us to do. -
The CHAIRMAN. Regardless of that, as I said to you before, Judge,
we are not going to consider it from that standpoint at all.
Mr. BARRETT. I know that. We are merely trying to give you
the entire situation so that you men may understand that there never
has been upon the part of the sanitary district a willful desire to
quarrel with the War Department of the United States.
We are between a number of fires here. First, our State govern-
ment says, “You must do this,” and then we know from all this
series of facts and circumstances that we have some rights.
We know that we have expended more money on the sanitary
channel of Chicago than the Canadian power companies have ex-
pended on theirs. We know that the treaty between the United
States and Canada provides for this 10,000 second-feet for which we
are asking.
We have not committed any heinous crime and we should not,
under the circumstances, be severely criticized merely because we
did not immediately bow to the War Department. I am mighty
sorry we have not always gotten along with the War Department.
If each side understood the difficulties of the other, there never
would be nearly as much trouble.
The difficulty and the thing which causes us trouble is first, we do
not understand their situation.
It is pretty hard to talk to these soldiers. I came down here a
short time ago. They told me to go and talk to General Beach. I
said, “I do not know whether I want to do that or not. I think
when we talk to him we had better have the Secretary of War
present, so that he can establish a line there, so that we will not
cross over where we do not belong.”
I do not understand their peculiar education, but it seems to me
that it has produced a condition which makes them reach the fol-
lowing conclusions: First, determine what you think is right, then
issue an order and see that it is obeyed. That is the way they are
educated. If they were not educated that way, we would never
win a war, and I think we should not be too critical of that for in
our entire history we have never lost a war and I have no recollec-
tion of the time when we won a conference.
1076 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
I do not like to talk to those fellows who have that sort of an
education, because it is pretty hard to demonstrate to them that
they are not absolutely right. Their minds are their kingdom.
They say they are right and that ends it with them. And they say,
“What is the use of your talking to us?”
We do not agree with them. They do not understand our situa-
tion. We, of necessity, have only an outside understanding of theirs.
You have asked here a number of questions as to what is going
to be the result of this decision in the Supreme Court, and I tell
you nobody knows. -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course they do not.
Mr. BARRETT. They say, “Will not the decision in the Supreme
Court settle this question?” And I tell you, nobody knows. It is
possible it will, entirely possible that it will. But it is also entirely
possible that it will not, because there are so many angles to this
thing, and the Supreme Court of the United States has not once,
but every time that a question has arisen for its determination, be-
tween sovereign States or between the Government of the United
States and a sovereign state, shown a disposition to have the diffi-
culties worked out by arbitration and discussion rather than by the
strong arm of the court. They did that in the dispute between Vir-
ginia and West Virginia. They did that in the case of the Passau
drainage district down in New Jersey which had an argument with
New York State. -
The CHAIRMAN. They did not do that, however, Judge, where the
States attempted to license the use of navigable waters within their
borders; take, for instance the case of Fulton and his associate
Livingston.
Mr. BARRETT. In that case an entirely different situation arose.
The State of New York t
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). There were several States.
Mr. BARRETT. Particularly New York, became very magnanimous
at one time and gave absolute and exclusive authority to a couple
of steamboat navigators to operate in the waters of New York State.
#. somebody else who got a boat decided he wanted to navigate
there.
These fellows said, “Nothing doing; we have got an exclusive
privilege here.”
Of course, it did not take the Supreme Court long to dispose of
that. That was such an obvious proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it was considered at very great length and
dealt with at very great length by the Supreme Court.
Mr. BARRETT. There is not any question about this, as Mr. Adcock
just now suggests, that operated directly upon interstate commerce.
Our situation was not.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know as to that. *
Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely; there is not a question in the world
about it. Mr. Dempsey, Mr. Goulder is a great lawyer. We con-
cede that. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals down in
our State did some talking about that to him and he did not go to
the Supreme Court of the United States with it. I am not quarrel-
ing with that. He may have reached the conclusion that they were
right down there; he probably did.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1077
The CHAIRMAN. But I think that case there attempted licensing
of the use of navigation.
Mr. GoulDER. Maybe I was estopped.
Mr. BARRETT. You probably were estopped by the law; that may be
true.
The CHAIRMAN. The most famous of all the cases of the Supreme
Court on that subject is the use of navigable streams.
Mr. BARRETT. Which one?
The CHAIRMAN. That case of the attempted licensing. It was the
original case and the best known of all the cases. -
Mr. BARRETT. You know, in many, many instances we have almost
endless legislation indirectly affecting interstate commerce passed by
the States in the exercise of their police power. In every case that
the Supreme Court has discussed there has been a disposition to
sustain the State enactment, if it could be done.
The CHAIRMAN. That is always true of every statute.
Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a primary rule of construction.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, you and I are not going to have much
disagreement here before we are through. There is not any question
about that. I can call your attention to any number of cases where
quarantine laws have been sustained, pilot laws have been sustained,
laws requiring chemical analyses of contents of articles of commerce
to be displayed upon the article of interstate commerce have been
sustained. Rate laws have been sustained. There are any number
of them. I can call your attention to 40, but they serve no purpose
here.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding is that your rate laws have
been going the other way.
Mr. BARRETT. Rates more recently form an occupation of the field
generally by the Congress of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. I think so.
Mr. BARRETT. But these things occurred at a time
Mr. DEAL (interposing). It does not follow that it is right, because
Congress has occupied the field. You find Congress assuming rights
it does not have very frequently.
Mr. BARRETT. Very frequently that is the case. Many of us
thought when they started in to prohibit the manufacture and sale of
intoxicants that it was an invasion of a field that they did not have a
right to cover, but the Supreme Court of the United States has said
they did, and that is final. There was a great deal of discussion on
that. There is discussion of many other things, and there is a great
deal of discussion in reference to this maternity bill. There is a
great deal of discussion regarding the educational bill.
But after all, under our system of government, when the Supreme
Court of the United States speaks we stop talking. We may be right
and they wrong; but they finally are right.
The CHAIRMAN. The law passed by Congress, until it has been set
aside and as not within our jurisdiction, is the law of the land.
Mr. BARRETT. That is true.
The CHAIRMAN. No matter how much we may disagree with its
theory or its purpose, that is the situation.
Mr. BARRETT. Until a court of competent jurisdiction says other-
wise we must and we do submit, and that is why we get along so

1078 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
well. We may not like it, but we take it; and having taken it we
are the better for it.
. It has taken me the better part of an hour to answer your four-
line question. So you see you are quite a troublesome questioner.
I am not quarreling with you at all. I can very well understand
now why Mr. Rainey, of Illinois, said, “We have here the greatest
chairman who has ever presided over the Rivers and Harbors Com-
mittee.”
We are not going to have any trouble. It is simply a question of
having everybody understand our situation. When you do under-
Stand us we are not going to have any difficulty.
We will be able to demonstrate that what we have done here has
been consistent with decency and honesty of purpose and that the
people in the State of Illinois are decent and honest and that they
are good citizens of the United States.
While we may not agree with every thing you gentlemen do down
here in Congress we will obey it, regardless of that, after you get
through doing it. You gentlemen are not going to punish us as
the War Department wanted to do, merely because we did not agree
with them. -
I am hoping—and I think it is going to bear fruit—that we are
going to get along better with the War Department, because we are
going to try to show them that we are not highwaymen. We are
going to try to find out and understand their views. We are going
to give them ours; and when we do We are going to get along, be-
cause, after all, we have down in Chicago about one-thirtieth of the
population of the United States. There is not anybody in the United
States going to try to kill or maim or harm us down there. I know
that. -
We have been down here, more or less, since last December, Mr.
Chairman, and we have learned a lot since we came. I hope before
we leave we shall be able to leave a few thoughts with you gen-
tlemen which may be constructive. If we do, all of the things we
have done, all the time we have spent, and all the money, inci-
dentally, that we have been forced to spend to stay here with you
will have been well spent. -
Of course, we have gone far afield since the time that we stopped
reading some of these memorandums. We find that over a long
period of years—just how many I do not know, but a great many—
the War Department of the United States made many investiga-
tions of our channel which shows, Mr. Chairman, that they, and
through them the Congress, were completely and thoroughly ad-
vised of what was going on down at Chicago.
In 1861 our legislature passed a joint resolution on the subject
of the Illinois & Michigan Canal, the Illinois, the Des Plaines, and
the Chicago Rivers. They had in mind an enlargement and devel-
opment of them for waterway purposes. That resolution, which
appears in the laws of Illinois, 1861–1863, at page 277, is as follows:
JOINT RESOLUTION in relation to the improvement of navigation of the Illinois River
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring herein ).
That the board of trustees of time Illinois and Michigan Canal be, and are
hereby, authorized and instructed to cause prompt and thorough surveys,
examination, and estimates to be made of the Illinois River, and of the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1079
Illinois and Michigan Canal, and also of portions of the Des Plaines and
Chicago River, and of the portage between said rivers, for the purpose of
accurately ascertaining the comparative value, cost, efficiency, benefits and
advantages, direct, prospective, and incidental, of the different methods pro-
posed or desirable for improving the navigation of the Illinois River, by
dredging or excavation of the channel and wing dam, or by Supplying Water
from Lake Michigan, through the enlargement and deepening of the Illinois
and Michigan Canal, or otherwise, or by opening a channel from Lake Michi-
gan by way of the south branch of the Chicago River and Mud Lake to the
Des Plaines River, and down said Canal to a point that will secure a free,
flowing, ample and never-failing supply of water, sufficient for the navigation
of the Illinois River at all seasons and times, when not Obstructed by ice.
Such surveys, examinations, and estimates to include a plan of enlarge-
ment of the Illinois and Michigan Canal sufficient for the introduction and
use of stern-wheel river steamers and propellers upon it; and also for side-
wheel river Steamers, and to include also an estimate for the channel herein-
before mentioned, of sufficient size to admit of full and free Steamboat navi-
gation from the Illinois River to Chicago and Lake Michigan, as well as a
size sufficient for supplying water for all the deficiencies of navigation in the
Illinois River at all seasons. And the Said trustees are hereby authorized to
employ efficient and competent engineers of high character to make Such
surveys, examination, and estimates, and to avail themselves in their labor's
Of all reliable surveys and data heretofore made or obtained of the Said
Illinois River and Illinois and Michigan Canal, and to report the results of
all such examinations and surveys to the Governor of the State as SOOn as
the same shall be completed, and to furnish ample abstracts thereOf to the
newspapers of the State for publication, So far as may be desired by
them. And the said board of trustees are hereby authorized to pay the nec-
essary expenses Of Said Surveys, estimates, and examinations out of any
funds that may be received by them from the earnings of the Illinois and
Michigan Canal: Provided, That the expenses thereof shall not exceed the
sum of $6,000: Provided, That no payment shall be made by the said trus-
tees for or on account of any liability heretofore incurred or moneys hereto-
fore advanced for surveys, plats, or otherwise exceeding $1,200.
We have these several reports of the Secretary of War on the same
subject matter, and I will read them. . These are merely excerpts.
This is from a report of the Secretary of War, third session, Fortieth
Congress, volume 2–3, page 442:
There can be n0 doubt that through th’s depression there was once an outlet
from the Lakes to the Mississippi, which was closed by the recession of the
waters of the Lakes. Even now at the present stage of Lake Michigan its
surface is only between 8 and 9 feet below this summit. The Des Plaines River,
from the depression described, changes its Course and runs in nearly a south-
west direction until it forms a junction with the Kankakee. The river itself,
except in floods, is very shallow, being Often reduced in dry seasons to a
mere brook, discharg’ng less than 1,000 cubic feet of water per minute. But
the valley averages a mile wide and is terminated on both sides by well-
marked terraces, which become higher and higher as they approach the Illinois.
£vidence at every step presents itself that the water, when this was the great
outlet of the Lakes, extended from bluff to bluff.
The CHAIRMAN. That was the report of what year?
Mr. BARRETT. I can not tell; but I imagine it was 1866. The next
one that follows is 1868.
This is from the report of the Secretary of War, third session,
Fortieth Congress, volume 2–3, page 442, being a part of the annual
report of the Chief of Engineers for 1868:
For a canal and river improvement of a capacity sufficient to pass such
gunboats as required and river Steamers of 800 and 1,000 tons burden from
the Mississippi to Lake Michigan no other route, in Our judgment, can be
compared with that by the Illinois River and the Illinois & Michigan Canal.
1080 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
It follows the course of what was unquestionably once the great outlet of the
Lakes toward the Gulf of Mexico and through which only is it now prac-
ticable to again turn their waters in that direction. On all other routes pro-
posed there is a considerable ascent from the Lake to the summit, involving
the necessity of an additional amount of lockage and of providing a supply
Of water from sources much less reliable than that inexhaustible reservoir,
Lake Michigan.
Then we have a further report of the Secretary of War at the
third session, Fortieth Congress, volume 2–3, page 452, as follows:
The improvement of the Illinois River below La Salle, which we earnestly
recommend, at the earliest practicable period, would make a perfectly reliable
navigation from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, and whilst it would give
a first-class navigation, equal to that Of the lower Mississippi, for an extent
of more than 220 miles it would make even the present canal an important
channel of commerce, though not equal in capacity to what is desired. This
improvement is estimated to cost $1,953,600, and no improvement contemplated
within our knowledge would accomplish equal results at anything like such an
expenditure.
Then we find in the annual report of the Chief of Engineers for
1868, at page 450 of House Executive Documents of 1868–69, the
following, under the caption, “Naval and military considerations in
favor of the improvement’:
In considering the importance of this system of improvement in its military,
naval, and commercial aspects we respectfully invite attention to the following
extractS :
“The recent consideration of the British-American Provinces shows the
anxiety felt by the English Government in their behalf and must be regarded
as a movement in hostility to the people and institutions of the United States.
While it does not actually increase the aggregate British strength on our
northern frontier, nor in any way encroach upon our territorial rights, it con-
Solidates the policy in regard to Canals as well as other matters, and renders
available the entire forces of those provinces in any difficulty which may arise
between England and the United States. The English are already able, by
means of a system of internal canals, to pass gun-boats of 9 feet draft into
Lakes Erie and Ontario, and are Contemplating a new canal which will enable
them to reach Huron without coming in reach of American territory at any
point. The canals already finished are constructed avowedly for military as
well as commercial purposes, and in case of war will enable the English to
drive our commerce from the Lakes and destroy or lay under contribution
nearly every important city on our northern frontier. But, in addition, they
can inflict upon us a still more vital injury when they have gotten possession
of the Lakes by severing the main line of our communication with the east
for heavy products.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that?
Mr. BARRETT. 1868.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the introductory part of that? What
did º say was being contemplated in Canada at the time?
Mr. BARRETT. The caption is, “ Naval and military considerations
in favor of the improvement.” They were discussing generally the
* or importance to the United States of the construction of this
CàIla, l. -
The CHAIRMAN. They did not have under discussion any par-
ticular thing which was being done in Canada?
Mr. BARRETT. You know, this was immediately following the
Civil War, just prior to the time they were discussing the treaty of
1871, and we had not settled the Alabama claims, and I suppose
there was a rather tense situation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1081
That would be what I would have in mind in reference to it, Mr.
Chairman. This report continues as follows:
NOW that the act of Confederation has become a law, the Canadians them-
Selves Will be able, and in fact compelled, to adopt a fixed policy in reference
to the extension of their internal canal system, as much for offense in the
possible Contingency of a war with us as for the purpose of establishing close
and safe communication with the remoter portions of their territory bordering
upon the upper Lakes. In view of what the provinces have done in their
Separate capacity, it is fair to assume that they will not be negelectful of
their Opportunities as a united nation, but will at the earliest possible date set
earnestly to work to enlarge, extend, and perfect their means of reaching the
internal Seas upon Our northern borders.
We are debarred by treaty Stipulations from increasing our naval force
upon the Lakes until after six months notice has been given. This may be
Well enough, since it Saves us the expense of building costly vessels and main-
taining them in Commission When they are not actually required. But as
We have no communication between the Lakes and the Seacoast suitable for
vessels of War We can not expect to meet the enemy upon anything like terms
Of equality when the emergency arises. It will not do to depend upon
permanent defenses for the purpose of barring the entrance to the Lakes, for,
unfortunately, they can not be so situated nor so constructed as to completely
Subserve the object in view.
There are but two ways in which we can thoroughly protect our own northern
frontier in times of war and relieve ourselves of a continuous menace in
times of peace. The GOvernment must either connect the Lakes and the Mis-
sissippi River by a Canal Of Sufficient capacity to accommodate gunboats suit-
able for Service on the Lakes or prepare for the annexation on conquest of
Canada. As a military measure the construction of a Canal will be effective ;
and, fortunately for the country, this can be done at an expense which must be
regarded as insignificant when compared with the Objects to be obtained. But,
great as are the military reasons which favor the establishment of Steamboat
navigation between the Lakes and the Mississippi, they are vastly transcended
by those of a commercial and political character.
The Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, and the New York Canals are the
natural outlet for the lake cities and a great portion of our northwestern
territory as much as the Mississippi River is the outlet for the territory con-
tiguous to it. Since the construction of the St. Lawrence and New York
canals the commerce of the Northwestern and Western States has gradually
been seeking its way to the eastern Seaboard rather than the Southern.
Indeed, the northern tier Of Our States, even as far West as the MissOuri, OWe
their prosperity if not their existence to the development of water Communica-
tion with the East. Railroads have exerted a potential influence in populating
these States, but their extraordinary development in wealth and industry is
mainly due to the construction of the Canadian and New York Canals, by
which up to the present time they have been able to send their Surplus products
directly and cheaply to market.
This accounts satisfactorily for the superior wealth of the country bordering
directly upon the Lakes and for the marvelous growth of the cities which have
sprung into existence along our northern borders within the last 40 years.
But, owing to the various restrictions and to the influence of certain commer-
cial laws, it has been found unprofitable and inconvenient of late to use the
St. Lawrence Canal, while the New York canals are already overtaxed, and
the region west of Chicago is almost entirely unprovided with canal facilities
worthy of the name. So that a great part of the people of Illinois, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri are compelled to send their Surplus prod-
ucts to market by rail or perilous river navigation and at an expense in
money or time which leaves them scarcely a tithe of their value to pay for
the cost of production.
These States have now reached a stage in their development when cheap
and direct communication with the markets of the world has become an abso-
lute commercial necessity, and unless the amplest provision is made by Our
own Government for such communication and a policy adopted by Canada
which shall give us all the advantages of unrestricted trade upon their rivers
and canals, our commerce and agriculture will be crippled before the expira-
tion of another decade to such an extent as to demand not only the enlarge-
91739—24—PT 2 53
1082 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ment of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, the improvement of the Illinois River,
and the construction of the Rock River and Green Bay Canal, but the absolute
COnguest for annexation of the entire Dominion of Canada.
To the people of Our race nothing is more inexorable than a commercial neces-
sity, no argument is so potent as that based upon physical fact, and no ethics
So rapidly understood as those which relate to the national Welfare.
When our people have been brought to thoroughly understand this necessity,
the facts which underlie, and the manner in which it affects their material
well-being, they will not be overnice in regard to the territorial rights of those
who bar the door to the eastern market, but will demand the extension of Our
borderS SO that their commerce may find its way unvexed to the Sea by the
St. Lawrence, as it now does by the Mississippi.
It has been truly said it should be a settled principle Of American legislation
to encourage in every possible way facilities for intercommunication, to repress
in the most effectual way anything that might possibly act as a restraint.
Experience shows us that travel and transportation increase as their cost
diminishes. Whatever, therefore, operates as a tax on locomotion is incon-
Sistent with the highest principles of State policy.
When the railway system was first being developed in England measures
were taken to give the Government an effectual and thorough control over it.
Already in that country it is agitated to consummate those measures by the
State assuming the proprietorship of the roads, equalizing their rate of charge,
and reducing those rates to a minimum.
There can be no doubt that such a consummation would produce very
powerful Social effects.
In America transportation at the lowest possible cost assumes the attitude
of an affair of the highest State necessity.
By increasing the facilities for the transportation of manufactured goods
and the staple products we must inevitably increase the necessity for rapid
communication between all sections.
By constructing canals and improving river navigation, we necessarily
increase the demand for railroads.
We have several other reports which we would like to submit to
you.
It has been our position and still is, Mr. Chairman, that not only
the State of Illinois but the Government has been committed to this
project of opening up communication of every kind in this Illinois
Valley from the time they directed us to build this Illinois & Mich-
igan Canal continuously down to the present time, but particularly
from 1848 to 1890, when a large number of investigations were made
by the War Department, and in every one was a recommendation to
go through and enlarge this thing and fix it up, and we say those
things justify us in our contention that there was a general tacit
understanding that what might be done to aid the Government in
enlarging and completing this canal would not at any future time be
Quarreled with.
I will read from the report of the Chief of Engineers of 1880. I
will quote a couple of paragraphs from the report and ask to have
the entire report as I have it here inserted in the record.
It discusses a large number of surveys. This is from the report
of the Chief of Engineers, page 1995, dated May 10, 1880:
The question of a through line of water communications from the Mississippi
to Lake Michigan Via the Illinois River has been before Congress since an
early date.
This is where I get my authority, gentlemen of the committee, for
the fact that there was probably more than 284,000 acres given to
us. It says:
In 1822 the State of Illinois was authorized to make through the public lands
of the United States a route for a navigable canal connecting the Illinois River
4 / ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1083
with Lake Michigan, and between that date and 1854 Congress granted to the
State 321,760 acres of land to assist in its construction. The canal was first
opened to navigation in 1848, its cost up to that time being $6,409,509.95.
This is not in the report. That was a vast amount of money in
those days. We then had very few people in our State. The report
continues:
Since then the State has spent a great deal toward its enlargement and
maintenance. In the meantime several surveys having in view the improve-
ment of the Illinois River have been made, the first in 1838 by Capt. Howard
Stansbury, topographical engineers; the next of any considerable importance
was made under the direction of Gen. J. H. Wilson in 1866, the object of which
Was “to obtain such specific and accurate information in regard to obstructions
to navigation in that river as will enable you to Submit estimates for its im-
provement, so that the largest boats navigating the Illinois & Michigan Canal
and steamboats drawing 4 feet of water will be enabled to pass through the
river to St. Louis during the Season of extreme low water without breaking
Cargo.”
His report on this survey led Congress to direct a more complete survey in
1867 (act approved March 2) the object of which was to prepare plans and
estimates “for a system of navigation by way of the Illinois River, between
the Mississippi and Lake Michigan, adapted to military, naval, and commer-
Cial purposes.” This duty was committed to a Board of Engineers composed
of Gen. J. H. Wilson and Mr. William Gooding, civil engineer, the latter
having been for a long time the chief engineer of the Illinois & Michigan
Canal. The report of this board was submitted to the Chief of Engineers under
date of December 17, 1867, and is published in his annual report for 1868,
pages 438 to 468. It recommended that the Illinois River be improved by the
construction of five locks and dams, Creating thereby a slack-water system
with a navigable depth of 7 feet at the lowest stage, from the mouth of the
river at Grafton to Utica, 227 miles above.
Then it goes on with a description of the chambers and continues:
The several surveys and reports above referred to give so complete a de-
scription of the physical characteristics of the route, and present the argu-
ments in favor of its improvement so forcibly, that it seems unnecessary to
extend this report by repeating what has been so fully set forth before ;
accordingly, it is limited to a brief outline of operations on the last survey,
and a statement of what is necessary to complete the improvement of the river.
(The complete report above referred to is as follows:)
SURVEY OF ILLINOIS RIVER
DNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,
Chicago, Ill., May 10, 1880.
GENERAL : I have the honor to Submit the following report On a Survey Of
the Illinois River, executed in pursuance of the act of Congress making ap-
propriations for the improvement of certain rivers and harbors, approved
March 3, 1879. º -
The question of a through line of water communications from the Missis-
sippi to Lake Michigan, via the Illinois River, has been before Congress since
an early date.
In 1822 the State of Illinois was authorized to make through the public
lands of the United States a route for a navigable canal connecting the Illinois
River with Lake Michigan, and between that date and 1854 Congress granted
to the State 321,760 acres of land to assist in its construction. The canal was
first opened to navigation in 1848, its cost up to that time being $6,409,509.95;
since then the State has spent a great deal toward its enlargement and main-
tenance. In the meantime several Surveys, having in View the improvement
of the Illinois River, have been made, the first in 1838, by Capt. Howard
Stansbury, topographical engineer; the next of any considerable importance
was made under the direction of Gen. J. H. Wilson, in 1866, the object of
which was “to obtain such specific and accurate information in regard to
obstructions to navigation in that river as Will enable you to Submit estimates
&
1084 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
* y
for its improvement, so that the largest boats navigating the Illinois & Michi-
gan Canal, and steamboats drawing 4 feet Of water, will be enabled to pass
through the river to St. Louis during the Season of extreme low water without
breaking cargo.”
His report on this survey led Congress to direct a more complete survey in
1867 (act approved March 2), the object of which was to prepare plans and
estimates “for a system of navigation by Way of the Illinois River, between the
Mississippi and Lake Michigan, adapted to military, naval, and commercial
purposes.” This duty was committed to a Board Of Engineers composed of
Gen. J. H. Wilson and Mr. William Gooding, civil engineer, the latter having
been for a long time the chief engineer of the Illinois & Michigan Canal.
The report of this board was Submitted to the Chief of Engineers under date of
December 17, 1867, and is published in his annual report for 1868, pages 438 to
468. It recommended that the Illinois River be improved by the construction
Of five locks and dams, creating thereby a Slack-water System with a navigable
depth of 7 feet at the lowest stage, from the mouth Of the river at Grafton to
Utica, 227 miles above; the lock chambers were to be 350 feet long, 75 feet
Wide, and the estimated cost of the entire Work was $1,953,600. To complete
the through line to Lake Michigan, an enlargement of the canal was recom-
mended, and the estimated cost Of this enlargement being in round numbers
$16,250,000.
The Several Surveys and reports above referred to give SO complete a descrip-
tion of the physical characteristics of the route, and present the arguments
in favor of its improvement so forcibly that it seems unnecessary to extend
this report by repeating what has been so fully set forth before ; accordingly it
is limited to a brief outline of Operations on the last Survey, and a statement
of what is necessary to complete the improvement of the river.
A substantial improvement having been effected from its point of connection
With the canal down to Copperal Creek Lock, it was decided to apply the
$5,000 allotted for our survey to the remainder of the river, viz, from Copperas
Creek to Grafton, where the Illinois empties into the Mississippi.
Mr. G. H. Hurlburt, assistant engineer, was placed in charge of the work,
and, having Organized his party, took the field at Copperas Creek, September
22, 1879; subsequently, October 30, 1879, a second party, under the immediate
direction of Mr. R. A. Brown, assistant engineer, in local charge of the im-
provement of the river, was organized, to carry the survey from Grand Pass
to Grafton (41% miles), the Object being to expedite the work during the very
low stage of the river which prevailed at the time and insure its completion
before winter Set in. This party closed its field work at Grafton November
8, 1879, and the party under Mr. Hurlburt closed its work at Grand Pass
Bridge November 28, 1879, when field work was suspended. It had been the
intention to supplement the survey by a minute examination of the improved
river above Copperas Creek, but this was impracticable, owing to the late
(late at which the survey was completed.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the taking of
I'êCêSS. &
STATEMENT OF ME, GEORGE F, BARRETT–Continued
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I think that from this point on I
will probably be able to progress more rapidly. I hope that I am
not overburdening you gentlemen. I don’t want to do it. It is
º however, for me to try to make this story as complete as
OSSIO 10.
p The CHAIRMAN. We want to get the matter just as fully into
the record as we can so we can study it, and then when the time
comes, if we have to deal with it we will have it all before us.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1085
Mr. MANSFIELD. I think you are making a very interesting record
for somebody to consider hereafter.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it ought to be made complete and ready.
Mr. BARRETT. We find a further report by the Corps of Engineers.
dated at Chicago on the 2d of September, 1882, which urges the im-
provement and enlargement of this waterway, and states that Sev.
eral surveys have been made of the route by both the State and
General Government, and I will read a portion of it, and would like
to have all of this go into the record, as it is not very long. This
report was made by Maj. W. H. H. Benyaurd, major of Engineers,
and was addressed to Brig. Gen. H. G. Wright, Chief of Engineers,
United States Army. It reads as follows:
[Extract from the Chief of Engineers' Report, 1884, Appendix HH, p. 1957, entitled “Pre-
ºnary examinations Of Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers between La Salle and Joliet,
UNITED STATES ENGINEERS’ OFFICE,
Chicago, Ill., September 2, 1882.
GENERAL : I have the honor to present the following report in regard to the
proposed survey of the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers from Joliet to La Salle,
Ill., as provided for in the river and harbor act of August 2 and assigned 10
my charge by letter of August 11. -
Several surveys have been made of the route by the State and by the Gen
eral Government, and I have not deemed it necessary, therefore, to make a
personal examination of the stretch of river in question in order to report
upon the necessity of an instrumental Survey. I have examined the maps
and consulted the reports and Other sources of information and deem it neces-
sary to make Survey, estimates for which are presented here with.
The necessity of the improvement derives its importance from several Con-
siderations. The State has improved the river for ship navigation from la
Salle to Copperas Creek, and the Government is now engaged in continuing the
improvement thence to the mouth. I am directed to report upon the Cost of
enlarging the Illinois & Michigan Canal, which extends from Lake Michigan to
La Salle. This work, if ever carried on, will give through navigation for large
vessels from the lake to the Mississippi. The canal runs in close proximity
to the river the entire distance from Joliet to La Salle, and in making up the
estimates for the enlargement of the canal it will be necessary to discuss
whether or not it will be more economical to enlarge the Canal between those
two points or to improve the river and abandon the other. -
Very respectfully your obedient servant,
W. H. H. BENYUARD, Major of Engineers.
The Illinois & Michigan Canal as originally constructed from the
Chicago River, the west branch of the south branch of the Chi-
cago River had its beginning at Ashland Avenue. The sanitary
district channel begins approximately at Robey Street, which is just
a half mile up the river to the west. The old Illinois & Michigan
Canal and the present sanitary district channel from Chicago to
Joliet or Lockport are in some places very close together and in no
place more than 1,000 feet apart. They absolutely parallel each
other all the way down. I wanted you to have that in your mind.
You can see on the map here [pointing out the canal on the map.].
I am advised that the lines parallel each other here [indicating].
This is the South Fork which runs over into the stockyards [indi-
cating]. That branch leaves the Chicago River at about Ashland
Avenue [indicating]. That is the north branch up there [indicat-
ing]. This is the Illinois-Michigan Canal, and this is the South
branch [indicating].
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will you point out where the stockyards are
located 2
|
1086 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Right here [indicating on map.]. Here is the en-
trance to our river on the lake [indicating]. When you get over into
here we call it the west branch of the south branch, and this in the
old days was called Mud Lake.
In 1887, in the report of the Chief of Engineers, at page 2120, the
following appears:
Improvement Of Illinois River, Ill.
The project now in the course of execution for the reach of the Illinois River
lying between the State lock at Copperas Creek and the mouth, a distance of 135
miles, contemplates the construction of two locks and dams and the dredging
of a channel way where necessary, so as to insure a continuous depth throughout
Of not less than 7 feet at low water.
The Sites Selected for the locks and dams are, one at Kampsville, about 30
miles above the mouth of the river, and the other at LaGrange, 45 miles above
Kampsville. These locks are 350 feet long and 75 feet wide, with 7 feet over
Imiter Sills at low Water.
The ultimate object of this improvement is to provide a channel way from
the lower end of Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River boats, So that the
products of the country may be carried from the lake to the Gulf without
breaking bulk ; also to enable vessels of war of considerable capacity to pass
freely from the Gulf of Mexico into the defenseless waters of our northern
lakes should the exigencies of our foreign relations ever require this to be done.
Now, here is another report which I find in copying our assistant
who handled it copied a great deal more than I think is necessary
to include in the record. I will just read those portions which seem
to affect our situation. This is taken from the report of the board
of engineers appointed under the provisions of the rivers and harbors
act approved August 5, 1886, to examine and report upon the Illinois
& Michigan Canal and the proposed Hennepin Canal, and these are
excerpts from House Executive Document 79, Forty-ninth Congress,
second session. . e
At one place it says that the waterway from Chicago to Grafton,
on the Mississippi River, is a most important one, and when com-
pleted there is little doubt it will richly pay for itself in the reduc-
tion and regulation of rates.
In the report of the Chief of Engineers, for 1887, at page 2122,
there is a discussion of this waterway for the purpose of accommo-
dating large steamers from the lake down the lower Mississippi, on
the Ohio, and on the Missouri Rivers. It is quite an extensive re-
port, but it is rather important and I would like to have it included
in the record if it is consistent with the rules of your committee. I
will read a section or two from it:
The United States and the State of Illinois have long been committed to the
project of Opening a water communication between the Mississippi River and
the Northern Lakes of capacity sufficient for the wants of commerce and for
the exigencies of our national defense, should these ever arise.
Then, omitting a Section or two, we find—
Pushing this improvement through to the lake, the connecting line will be
formed which will join the northern lakes with the vast network of navigable
rivers whose waters flow into the Gulf of Mexico on a scale to a certain degree
commensurate with the importance of the commerce that will be affected by
it. The mere fact that Such a route is available will serve as a wholesome
regulator to the rates that would be exacted by other methods of transporta-
tion were this one not in existence. -
You will recall the observation made by Mr. Hull, that the reason
we had moderate rates down there was because this canal was in
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1087
existence, and here you will see the same thing is said by the Chief
of Engineers. And here we find reference to the ancient reports
referring to the problem of connecting the Great Lakes with the
Mississippi River “by a commodious waterway that could be used
for commercial, military, and naval purposes,” and it says that
“this problem has received attention from our most thoughtful
statesmen from the day of Albert Gallatin to the present.” te
This is quite an important report and we would like to have it in
the record.
The report in full is as follows:
[Excerpts from annual report Chief of Engineers, 1887, page 2122]
When this work is completed it will then be practicable for the large
steamers belonging to the upper and lower Mississippi, the Ohio, and Missouri
Rivers to come with their unbroken cargoes to within 100 miles of Lake
Michigan. All this can be brought about by an expenditure on the part of the
Government of less than $600,000.
The Illinois River, from the western terminus of the Illinois & Michigan
Canal at La Salle, to Copperas Creek, about 80 miles below, has been im-
proved by the State of Illinois by means of two locks and dams Similar to
those in process of construction by the United States on the river below. From
La Salle to Joliet the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers have been carefully
surveyed, and plans and estimates of cost for their improvement to the Same
navigable capacity as the river below have been made and submitted to Con-
gress. The report on this project submitted by Maj. W. H. H. Benyaurd,
Corps of Engineers, United States Army, may be found in the Chief of Engi-
neers' Report for 1884, page 1958. The estimated cost of improving this reach
of the river is $3,433,562. The distance is 64 miles and the fall 100 feet.
Congress has now before it the engineering data showing the feasibility and
cost of a water communication between the Mississippi River and a point 30
miles distant from navigable water leading into Lake Michigan Sufficiently
commodious for the commercial and military exigencies of the country, and
from this point to the lake perfectly practical routes over which the line can
be constructed are known to exist. It only remains for Congress to provide
the means for making the necessary surveys and estimates of cost for con-
tinuing this work from Joliet to Lake Michigan, when it will have the engi-
neering features of the whole subject before it in a shape necessary for
intelligent legislation. I estimate that about $10,000 will be sufficient to
defray the expenses of the necessary surveys and examinations and prepara-
tion of the plans and estimates of costs of the work. -
The United States and State of Illinois have long been committed to the
project of Opening a water communication between the Mississippi River and
the northern lakes of capacity sufficient for the wants Of commerce and for the
exigencies of our national defense, should these ever arise. The amount ex-
pended by the United States to the end of the present fiscal year in carrying
out this project is $680,633.42, exclusive of $62,359.80 expended on the founda-
tion of the Copperas Creek Lock, which was afterwards turned over to the
State. The cost of the locks and dams built by the State of Illinois at
Copperas Creek and Henry was $747,747.
The distance by this route from the Gulf of Mexico to the Southern end of
Iake Michigan is about 1,620 miles. When the projected improvement of the
Illinois River below Copperas Creek, on which we are now working, has been
finished more than 1,520 miles of this distance will be available for the water
transportation of Commerce in bulk between these pointS. Pushing this im-
provement through to the lake, the connecting line will be formed which will
join the northern lakes with the vast network of navigable rivers whose waters
flow into the Gulf of Mexico on a scale to a certain degree commensurate with
the importance of the commerce that will be affected by it. The mere fact that
such a route is available will Serve as a wholesome regulator to the rates that
would be exacted by other methods of transportation were this one not in ex-
istence. Besides the immense commercial advantages that may be expected
from the completion of the project there are military and naval exigencies that
1088 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
might easily arise where it would figure as a prominent factor in the problem
Of Our national defenses. From whatever point we look at the subject there
is nothing 10Cal or sectional in it. It is true that all the work to be done
happens to be in the State of Illinois. The benefits to be derived belong to the
Nation at large. It is fortunate, too, that at this time the subject is unen-
Cumbered by any phase of a political character. The problem of connecting
Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River by a commodious waterway that
could be used for commercial, military, and naval purposes has received atten-
tion from Our most thoughtful statesmen, from the day of Albert Gallatin
to the present.
The question of enlarging the Illinois & Michigan Canal from Joliet to
Chicago, Ill., to a capacity equal to the low-water capacity of the improved
Illinois River has been discussed at some length by Gen. J. H. Wilson in a
report to the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, published as House
Executive Document No. 16, Fortieth Congress, first Session. Since the date of
that report the conditions which affected the problem in its most essential
features have materially changed. Additional engineering data that we are not
now in the possession of have become a matter of absolute necessity, and must
be collected and compiled before all the facts necessary to a thorough under-
standing of the subject can be laid before Congress. The board of engineers
appointed under provisions of the river and harbor act approved August 5,
1886, to examine and report upon the Illinois & Michigan Canal and the pro-
posed Hennepin Canal, says in its report (H. Ex. Doc. No. 79, 49th Cong., 2d
sess.) that “the waterway from Chicago to Grafton, on the Mississippi River,
is a most important one, and when completed there is little doubt that it will
richly pay for itself in the reduction and regulation of freights.” These re-
marks are concurred in by the Chief of Engineers in his letter submitting this
report to the Secretary of War. In the same report the board remarks:
“In view of the possibilities of the case, it would appear that whatever en-
largement of the canal is made from Joliet northward should not be carried
farther than the “Sag,” a point whence the line of the canal could be easily
diverted to a more favorable terminus.” .
The Secretary of War, in laying this matter before Congress, remarks upon
this point:
“In this connection another question is suggested by the report of the
Board of Fºngineers. At present the canal has its northern terminus in the
South Pranch of the Chicago River, about 5 miles from Lake Michigan.
This branch runs through the central business portion of Chicago and is
crossed by numerous drawbridges. At present these bridges are a great im-
pediment to navigation and to the land traffic of Chicago. If this river be-
comes the only outlet to the large commerce that may follow the opening of
this new route of transportation between the Mississippi River and Lake
Michigan, another outlet for the Canal will be necessary, and economy and
convenience may demand another channel to the waters of Lake Michigan.
As to the cost of Such a change, should it be necessary, we have no
knowledge, no preliminary Surveys of the country, with a view to the con-
structing of a new route to the lake, having been made,”
In my report to the Chief of Engineers, dated February 10, 1886, sup-
plementary to that of Maj. W. H. H. Benyaurd, Corps of Engineers, on the
subject of the Hennepin Canal, published in House Executive Document
No. 117, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, I have the honor to state:
“Before taking steps looking to the enlargement of the Illinois & Michi-
gan Canal, in the interests of commerce, or as a military expedient, the
advisability is suggested of ascertaining whether or not some route can be
found from Joliet to Lake Michigan at a point where better facilities can
be provided for handling the large commerce of this section. It is thought
by some that a practical route exists between the valleys of the Des Plaines
and Calumet Rivers, along which a canal such as will accommodate the
largest vessels using the improved Illinois River can be constructed at a
cost less than that estimated for the enlargement of the Illinois & Michigan
Canal from Joliet to Chicago.
“Before definitely locating that portion of this route which is to lie be-
tween Joliet and Lake Michigan, and which will involve in its construc-
tion the expenditure of a Very considerable amount of money, every possible
route should be examined, and every engineering phase of the problem
should be considered. For these reasons I venture to respectfully suggest
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1089
the advisability of calling the attention of Congress to the necessity for
making available the sum of $10,000; as much thereof as may be neces-
Sary to be expended in examinations and surveys between the southern
end Of Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines River at or near Joliet, Ill., and
On the preparation of plans and estimates of cost of constructing, along
the most practical route so determined, a waterway having sufficient capacity
to accommodate the same class of vessels and commerce that the present
improved condition of the Illinois River is designed to accommodate.”
I told you the other day about what it was necessary for us to do
in Chicago in the way of enlarging this canal, and that at one time
the city of Chicago paid $3,500,000 for the purpose of cutting down
the summit level so we might have a gravity flow. I have been ad-
vised since that after we were burned out in Chicago in 1871, and
were in the terrible distress that followed that conflagration, the
Legislature of the State of Illinois refunded to the city of Chicago
the money which we expended on this canal, and this undoubtedly
was of great assistance in our hour of need.
During the period between 1880 and 1890 the city of Chicago was
in a desperate condition. Our population had steadily increased; we
were growing in fact by leaps and bounds, and our water was being
constantly polluted. The Illinois & Michigan Canal was taking
away 60,000 minute-feet of our sewage, but this was not enough, and
the condition became so bad that typhoid fever was epidemic and the
death rate therefrom was the greatest of any city in the world. In
1885 the city council of the city of Chicago appointed the drainage
and water supply commission, consisting of Benezette Williams,
Samuel G. Artingstall, and Rudolph Hering. They studied the sit-
uation exhaustively and finally recommended the construction of our
present sanitary channel and system. -
Their report was made in 1887, and it was immediately sent by the
division engineer at Chicago to the Chief of Engineers of the United
States Army, and he included it in his annual report to Congress.
A report of the drainage and water supply commission will be
found in the Annual Repart of the Chief of Engineers for the year
1890. It begins at page 2557 and ends at 2574. This report is as
follows:
REPORT OF DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION
CHICAGO, January, 1887.
To the homorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Chicago.
GENTLEMEN : On January 27, 1886, your honorable body passed a resolu-
tion authorizing the creation of a drainage and water-Supply commission.
After being amended February 23 it read as follows:
“Whereas pure water and Scientific drainage are necessities of this com-
munity, and the people demand a System of water Supply and drainage adequate
to meet the requirements, not Only Of the present but of years to come, nor
will any temporary expedient Or makeshift satisfy them ; and
“Whereas a thorough and permanent system of Supplying pure water to our
citizens and caring for the drainage of the municipality can not be paid for out
of current taxation, therefore it is desired that a plan shall be devised and
perfected before the next meeting of the legislature to the end that necessary
legislation may be had.
“For the purpose of carrying into effect the objects sought there is recom-
mended the appointment by the mayor of a commission to consist of one expert
engineer, whose reputation is so high that his opinion and report will command
the respect of the community, and with him one or two consulting engineers of
like experience in engineering and sanitary matters. The duty of this drainage
and water-Supply commission, made up as above set forth, should be to consider
91739—24—PT 2—54
1090 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
all plans relating to drainage and water Supply Which may be brought to its
attention to make such examinations and investigations and Surveys as may
be deemed necessary; to collect all information bearing on this problem ; to
consider all recent developments in the matter of sewage disposal and their
application to our present and future needs; to consider and meet necessity of
increasing our water supply and of protecting the same from contamination ;
to remedy our present inadequate methods of drainage and sewage disposal;
to consider the relations of any system proposed to adjacent districts, and
whether there may not be a union between the city and its suburbs to solve
the great problem ; to determine the great question as to the interest which
the State and the United States may have in the disposal of sewage by way
Of the Illinois River and to devise plans to meet any Objections thereto if Such
a system shall be thought best ; and in general to consider and report upon any
and all things which relate to the matter of water supply and drainage of the
City of Chicago.
“The commission should report on the whole matter Committed to it in the
most full and comprehensive manner, with maps, plans, and diagrams complete,
and accompany the report with estimates Of the first cost and annual require-
ments for the maintenance Of the System proposed.
“The report of the commission should be made as early as practicable and
not later than the convening of the next session of the Illinois Legislature in
January, 1887. -
“In consideration of the foregoing, be it
“Resolved, That the mayor be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to
employ on behalf of the city one expert engineer of reputation and experience
in engineering and Sanitary matters, at a salary not to exceed $10,000 per
annum, and also to employ Such consulting engineers, not exceeding two in
number, as may seem necessary, and Such assistant engineers as may be re-
guired, all to be paid according to services rendered, for the purpose of carrying
out the objects set forth in the preamble hereto. For the fees of Said assistant
engineers and for expenses COnnected with Said work there shall be allowed
not to exceed the sum of $20,000. All fees, salaries, and expenses connected
With said work shall not exceed in the aggregate the Sum of $30,000, and the
same shall be paid from the water fund of the city upon vouchers audited by
the mayor and city comptroller.”
In accordance with the terms expressed herein his honor Carter H. Harrison
appointed Rudolph Hering as chief engineer, Benezette Williams and S. G.
ArtingStall as COnSulting engineel's, Who together should constitute a COmmis-
Sion. Mr. Hering entered upon duty March 28, Mr. Williams September 17,
and Mr. Artingstall December 21, 1886.
The investigation designated by the resolution was a formidable One,
Comprising no less a task than the consideration of the entire subject Of the
future Water Supply and drainage of Chicago. It appeared doubtful from the
beginning that a report such as was demanded could be furnished within the
specified time, for the simple reason, of for no other, that observations of the
lake phenomena and of the flow of certain rivers should be extended Over at
least One year, COvering four COnsecutive SeaSOnS, in Order to draw Satisfactory
deductions.
But the large amount Of work alone that was asked for made it imprac-
ticable to present a complete report in so short a time. It was expected, how-
ever, that results could be reached Sufficient to indicate the character of
legislation required to Carry Out any project that might be determined upon,
and that therefore a preliminary report having this end in view could be
made at the stated time, leaving to a later date the presentation of a report
outlining the detailed features of the scheme recommended and embracing
the minor results of the entire inquiry.
The present communication is to cover the ground indicated for the pre-
liminary report, and besides containing the conclusions reached regarding the
main features of the proposed project, it contains also a brief review of the
work done during the past year and of what still remains to be done.
The month of April was devoted to a general examination of the Subject
of the territory to be investigated and of the various suggestions that had
been made toward effecting a Solotion of the problem.
The examination disclosed the fact that the city is sometimes greatly suf-
fering from the Offensive condition of parts of the Chicago River and its
branches, caused by the discharge of sewage into the same, and from the Occa-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1091
sional contamination of its water supply brought about by the discharge of
the polluted Contents of the river into the lake. It also disclosed the fact
that almost every conceivable way of dealing with these questions had been
Suggested and in some forms applied during the past 30 years.
The problem, therefore, demands the attainment of two ends—the protec-
tion of the Water supply and the removal of the river nuisance. As the water
must be taken from the lake, it is evident that both its pollution and the
objectionable condition of the river should be prevented by a better disposition
Of the Sewage. It is, therefore, the latter question which constitutes the main
object of this investigation.
Among the possible methods of getting rid of the Chicago sewage there are
hut three that have been deemed worthy of an extended consideration, namely:
A discharge into Lake Michigan, a disposal upon land, and a discharge into
the Des Plaines River. The preliminary work has, therefore, been confined to
these three projects and was classed as topographic, hydrographic, and mis-
Cellaneous. 3. *
At the time when the present commission began its labors the topographical
work had already received some attention. Surveys were being made of the
Des Plaines River from Bridgeport westward under the direction of Mr.
Artingstall, city engineer. These surveys were continued, and have now been
Completed as far as Joliet. They include contours of the entire valley and
borings to rock between Bridgeport and Lemont. In order to understand the
hydrography of the Des Plaines Valley above the point where the Chicago
Sewage could be discharged into it, and also to ascertain the probable magni-
tude and effect of floods in the river, a survey was made of its bed as far north
as Northfield Township. To determine the area of the basin, its entire divide
was located. To ascertain the practicability of diverting the flood waters from
the upper portion of the Des Plaines and North Branch watersheds directly
into the lake, and thus avoiding the difficulties which would arise from their
passing through the Chicago River, all feasible lines were surveyed. Finally, a
few levels were taken of the area adjoining the city wherever no connected
levels existed to show the general topographical features of the territory over
which the future city will spread out and from which the drainage will require
artificial removal. †
The hydrographic work consisted in ascertaining the flow of the Des Plaines
River, the rainfall upon its area, its flood discharges, the character of its bed,
and the probable effect of discharge the Chicago Sewage into it when diluted
by a large and constant stream of water from the lake. It consisted, further, in
examining the nature of the currents in the lake and in studying the rise and
fall of its levels, and in ascertaining the amount and character both of the sew-
age discharge into it and of the deposits in the river and lake in front of the
city to determine the effects of the present sewage disposal.
Inquiry and Surveys were made to show the feasibility of purifying the
Chicago sewage by filteration on land. Land damages were carefully estimated
for the different schemes; existing records were Searched concerning borings
and excavations made in and about the city, so that the practicability Of Certain
lines of tunnels could be discovered ; the probable growth of the city and its
suburbs, as well as the probable distribution of the future population, received a
careful attention, and finally, a large number of data were compiled which
pertain to the existing works of water supply and sewerage in Chicago and
the adjoining towns.
In reporting the result thus far gained we will present them in the order
most convenient for discussion, but before doing so will briefly describe the
present manner and effect of the sewage disposal, as shown by this investi-
gation.
PRESENT SEWAGE DISPOSAL
The sewage works of Chicago and suburbs have been planned on what is
called the combined system, in which the sewers serve for the removal both of
sewage and rain water. In the town Of Evanston they empty into the lake.
In the town of Lakeview they partly discharge into the lake and partly into
the north branch. From the north and west divisions and part of the South
division of Chicago the drainage enters the Chicago River and its branches, and
from the remaining part of the south division it flows into the lake at three
outlets, situated, respectively, at Twelfth, Twenty-second, and Thirty-fifth
1092 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Sireets. The sewage of Hyde Park discharge into the lake, excepting those of
Pullmari, Where the Sewage is ſlisposed of on land. The town of Lake, includ-
ing the stockyards district, drains into the south fork of the Chicago River.
When the sewage works of this city were designed, 1856, by Mr. E. S.
Clesbrough, it was apprehended that ultimately some means would have to be
found to change the water in the river from time to time or to keep the sewage
entirely out of it. The first step toward improving the condtion of the river
Was taken by deepening the Illinois & Michigan Canal, so as to cause a current
from the lake to the Des Plaines River at Lockport, the next step was the
building of the Fullerton Avenue conduit in order to produce a circulation in
the north branch, and the last step was the erection of a canal pumping
Works to increase the flow in the river, which had become greatly polluted.
The influence of these works is confined to the main river and its north and
south branches. But the south fork of the latter, receiving a large amount of
Sewage from Chicago and the town of Lake, and charged with the waste from
the Union Stockyards and packing houses, has no artificial means for a circula-
tion of its water, and as a consequence is in a condition of great filthiness.
The accompanying diagram has been prepared to show the present pollution
of the Chicago River, and its branches during the time when all their water
is discharged into the canal by the Bridgeport pumps. On the left are shown
the main river and the north branch, One above the Other, their combined
water forming the South branch, and reaching Bridgeport on the right, where
they are lifted into the canal.
At the latter point the south fork is shown as joining it. The shaded
portions indicate the amount of sewage entering and passing the respective
points, and the blank portions the lake water diluting it. The degree of dilu-
tion is shown by the relative areas. It diminishes in the north hranch from
Fullerton Avenue to the South branch, and becomes still less toward Bridge-
port, and finally receives the foul waters of the South fork.
The depth and character Of Sewage deposits in the river and harbor, as
might be expected, vary considerably. They are not great in the track of
vessels, but increase toward the docks and quieter portions of the slips, where
they reach a depth of from 1 to 4 feet. Whil the deposits in the channel are
of a heavier kind, such as cinders, those in the docks are mostly a foul mass
of decomposing organic matter. No form of life is found to exist above Clark
Street Bridge as far north as Clybourn Place and as far Sourth as Ashland
A venue. The effect of this condition of the river is to endanger the purity of
the water supply whenever the river, with its accumulated deposits, flows into
the lake, which occurs when the rain water that finds its way into the river
exceeds the amount pumped into the canal. If this excess is great, as in the
s}} ring and occasionally in the Summer months, the Contamination of the lake
is considerable, and must COInstantly increase.
From the foregoing it is seen that the present method of disposal of the
sewage from Chicago and its suburbs is partly by discharging it into Lake
Michigan, but mainly, except during floods, by discharging it into the Des
I’laines River.
FUTURE POPULATION
The first question which requires an answer, and upon which many of the
subsequent inquiries depended, was the population which it was economical and
advisable to consider at present, and the extent of territory upon which such a
population will be located.
The growth of Chicago has been frequently quoted as phenomenal. Esti-
mates made thereof for Various purposes have turned out to be rather under
than Over the actual result.
It is taken for granted that Chicago and its suburban towns will have to
dispose of their sewage So that the water supply for the entire community
residing near the lake from the south line of Hyde Park to the north line of
Evanston will be guarded against pollution by the sewage from any one of its
separate communities. For this purpose the whole populated area within the
above limits is considered as forming one city with a common interest.
The growth of this metropolis was obtained partly from the United States
census and partly from the school census of Cook County, which gave a record
up to the summer of 1886. In order to forecast the probable ratio of the future
increase it was desirable to compare this growth with that of other cities. By
considering the ratio in increase elsewhere, and including the natural suburbs
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. } 09.3
of each city, a fair and instructive basis of comparison was obtained; and by
realizing the respective natural advantages for growth in each of the coln-
munities the probable ratio for Chicago was determined with a satisfactory
degree Of exactness.
The accompanying diagram shows the results of this comparison. It rep-
resents by Curves the population of the largest cities in the country since 1790,
riot as usually quoted from the census, giving the inhabitants on certain arbitrary
areas fixed by law, but as virtually making up the population of the respective
municipalities, by including adjacent towns and natural suburbs, the only
method which enables the true growth of the great cities to be recognized. For
instance, the New York center naturally includes Brooklyn, Jersey City, Ho-
boken, Newark, and other suburbs, and Chicago, the entire territory from Hyde
Park to Evanston.
The diagram indicates that the character of growth of the different cities:
permits them to he divided into two distinct classes. Philadelphia, Boston, Št.
Louis, and Cincinnati show very much the same character of increase and repre-
Sent by comparison the more conservative communities. New York and ( 'hi-
Cago, On the Other hand, While Showing a remarkable resenbla 1) ce to e, lºh
Other, form quite a contrast to the rest of the cities, and might he called the
more progressive Communities. The diagram finally indicates the time Wien
the Chicago curve, which was the lowest One prior to 1864, intersected in turnt
those of St. Louis, Cincinnati, Boston, and there is a high degree of probability
of its intersecting the Philadelphia curve in or before 1891—i. e., in four years
from now—after which Chicago will be the second largest center of population
in America. * #
As it is not practicable in so young a city as Chicago to forecast a definite
line of growth, it is preferred to give the probable maximum and the prob; ple
minimum between which the true line will most likely be contained. The mini-
mum line represents a growth resembling that of New York, and the maximum
line assumes the ratio of increase per decade to be constant instead of gradually
decreasing, as in most other cities. The result indicates that the population
of Chicago and suburbs will be 2,500,000 between the years 1905 and 1915, or
about three times the present population in 18 to 28 years.
In providing public works for large communities it must ire borne in it, it d
that it is economical to invest only such sunns as will bring a return within a
certain number of years, leaving expenditures for benefits that will be realized
only at a later time to a later generation. This fact, together with the probable
growth of Chicago, shows it to be economical and judicious at present to plan
works sufficiently extensive to dispose of the sewage of not less than 2,500,000
inhabitants.
In addition to the population the area that will be occupied by it has to lie
determined. While this is a far more difficult task, Owing to the many a ſºci-
dental causes influencing the distribution of the population, it is possible, 11ever-
theless, to outline the area sufficiently close for present purposes
The future metropolis, with a population three times as great, will be I lis-
tributed along the lake from South Chicago to Evanston and will reach inland
to the . Blue Island ridge in the South, to the Des Plaines River in the center,
and to the higher parts of Niles Township in the north. Outside of these gon-
eral limits a more or less dense population will extend for some distance along
the lines Of railroad.
As inferred above, it is proper to consider at this time the wants ºf the
population that will reside upon this entire territory.
DISCHARGE OF THE SEWAGE INTO LARE MICHIGAN
To discharge the Sewage from cities into comparatively large bodies of Water
is not Only the usual but often the best method for its disposal. Dilution and
dispersion thoroughly expose it to the action of the Oxygen contained in both
the water and the Superincumbent air ; it is thereby gradually oxidized. Where
the body of water is a large river with strong current the best conditions for
such purification are found. Where it is a lake in which the circulation is
slight and irregular the efficacy of the method is less and depends for its
success on the character of the currents and the relative amount of sewage to
be discharged into it.
The hydrographic surveys of the lake, made during the past season, were
therefore partly for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, the laws govern-
ing the currents, So that we would know their effect in dispersing the sewage
1094 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
discharged into the lake. The trend of the shore currents was actually ascer-
tained by daily recording the direction of spar buoys placed at the Chicago
WaterWorks Crib, at Michigan City and at St. Joseph. A large number of bottle
floats were thrown into the lake at different points and different times for the
Same purpose. They were partly single surface floats and partly double, the
lower one being placed at varying depths, according to the depth of the water.
More than half of them have been picked up and returned, with place and
date noted. The currents were also observed by means of large can buoys from
an anchored tugboat at different points in the lake extending from Hyde Park
to Evanston, about 6 miles from the shore. Two general lake trips were under-
taken, one to St. Joseph and back to Groose Point and another one parallel with
the Shore around the head of the lake.
When the Observations are completed and compiled in detail some valuable
information will be available for the question of water supply. Light will be
thrown on the movement of the water under different winds and the sudden
Changes of temperature of the water at the crib and on the turbidness of the
Sal Cle.
The following results have a bearing on the question of sewage disposal:
Where not affected by local conditions the currents practically go with the
Winds in Water of moderate depth and quickly respond to any change. In deep
water also the surface currents run with the wind, but at the bottom and even
at mid depth the direction is usually different. The prevailing current along
the shore of Cook County during the past Summer has been observed to be
toward the north, but it is possible that this result may be different during the
winter months. In the open lake, wave action seems to be effective in pre-
venting the permanent deposits down to a depth of about 60 feet; inside of the
breakwater Sewage deposits are found on the bottom.
The general deduction from these results is clear that, as no constant cur-
rent exists which would carry the sewage away in one direction it should be
discharged into the lake at one end of the future city, while the water supply
should be obtained as far away from it as practicable toward the other end,
a conclusion which is being acted upon in other large lake cities. The proper
place from which to bring the water would be opposite Grosse Point, and the
sewage discharge should be east of Hyde Park. While it might be practicable
to allow the sewage in its crude form to enter the lake under such conditions
for many years, the necessity would arise later for clarifying it at least
partially previous to its discharge. It could not be allowed to run into the
river as at present, but the dry-weather flow and a considerable amount Of
storm water would have to be intercepted and carried to the outfall through
many miles of special conduits. This entire quantity would have to be raised
by pumping in order to get sufficient head to empty into the lake, while the
diluted sewage during storms in excess of the capacity of the intercepting
Sewers would be allowed to discharge directly into the river.
The water supply would have to be brought from Grosse Point in large con-
duits to the several pumping stations scattered over the city and its present
suburbs. The circulation of water in the Chicago River and branches would
have to be maintained practically as it is at present, because the removal merely
of the dry-weather flow of Sewage would not altogether prevent its pollution.
DISPOSAL OF LAND
We shall at this time enter into a general discussion of the principles
underlying land purification of sewage or make historical references showing
the success or ill success of the method as practiced elsewhere. We will
simply state that with good management under ordinarily favorable condi-
tions a disposal on land proves satisfactory, so far as the purifications of
the sewage is concerned, and that with proper conditions in the way of good
markets and a favorable soil and climate sewage farms can be operated on
a large scale after the sewage is delivered upon the same without financial loss.
In speaking of a Sewage farm of the magnitude required for the metro-
politan area of Chicago it is not understood as being land devoted primarily
to the raising of crops, using the sewage only when and where it would most
promote the growth of vegetation. The primary object would be the purifica-
tion of the sewage on an area of land as Small as Could Serve the purpose.
Technically speaking, the sewage disposal would be by means of intermittent
: ;
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1095
filtration rather than irrigation. To carry out Such a scheme for Chicago
involves the following:
(1) The acquirement of sufficient land suitable for the purpose.
(2) A comprehensive system of intercepting and collecting Sewers carrying
the Sewage to the farm.
(3) Pumping works of a capacity to handle all the dry-weather flow of
Sewage and a Certain proportion of storm water.
(4) A thorough underdrainage, leveling, and preparing of beds for the
filtration areas.
. (5) A system of underground conduits and surface carriers for distribut-
ing the Sewage over the ground, and a system of open ditches for removing
the purified water to the nearest water courses.
(6) Buildings, roads, and a complete farming outfit.
(7) An organization for properly distributing the sewage, for carrying on
the farming operations, for conducting the business of disposing of the crops
in the best market. - - -
In making estimates for the size of intercepting sewers, conduits, pumps, and
area of land required we have used as a basis a population of 2,500,000
people, With an average dry-weather sewage discharged of 150 gallons, or
20 cubic feet, per head daily, and made provision for storm water equivalent
to One-fifth of an inch in 24 hours over all portions of the district now drained
Or likely to be drained by a combined system of sewers, allowing surplus water
to eScape into the rivers and Lakes.
The dry-weather flow of sewage would therefore be 50,000,0000 cubic feet
per day, and the maximum flow of storm water 65,000,000 cubic feet per
day, making a total maximum discharge of 115,000,000 cubic feet.
From an examination of rainfall tables we conclude that the annual amount
Of Storm water that would be carried off by such an intercepting system would
range from 9 to 12 inches, an average of which, in round numbers, may be
taken at 40,000 cubic feet per acre per annum over the area drained by a com-
bined system of Sewers. It is practicable, however, to exclude the storm water
from the sewers over a large portion of the future city by adopting the sep-
arate System Of Sewerage. The area north of the town of Jefferson and of the
middle of Lakeview may be treated to advantage in this way and also a large
portion of Hyde Park, Lake Calumet, and other adjoining towns.
ASSuming that the area which does not allow the Storm water to be entirely
excluded is 140 square miles, the average daily amount becomes 10,000,000
cubic feet, which gives, when added to the sewage, 60,000,000 cubic feet, or
24 cubic feet per head of population per day to be provided for On the farm.
As the amount of land required to purify Sewage Can Only be determined by
experience, and as this has been very limited in our own country, we are
forced to rely mainly upon that of Europe. Without going into details at
present we will simply state that a fair consensus of this experience justi-
fies us in the conclusion that from 10,000 to 15,000 acres of land would be re-
quired to dispose of the sewage from the entire metropolitan area.
The only available territory for sewage filtration in the neighborhood of
Chicago consists of two Sandy ridges in the town of Thornton extending acroSS
the State line into Indiana and in a Sandy ridge CrOSSing the town of Niles.
The soil is quite favorable, but the character of the surface is such that the
Inecessary preparation to make it suitable for filtration beds would be com-
paratively expensive. An enormous cost is, however, represented by the fact
that the sewage would have to be collected by large intercepting Sewers, lifted
altogether 90 feet, and carried about 20 miles before reaching the farms. We
therefore consider such a project entirely impracticable.
The land treatment can only be seriously thought Of in connection With the
sewage disposal from the smaller areas mentioned above and comprising the
extreme northern and southern parts of the future metropolis. The drainage
of parts of Evanston, Lakeview, and Niles might be taken to the Sandy ground
in the latter town and that of the Calumet region to the Sandy ridges in
Thornton, should this method be found most advantageous when compared With
OtherS.
The preliminary investigation made for this purpose consisted in an ex-
amination of the grounds, in the projection of a farm, and in an estimate Of the
cost of preparing the same and delivering the Sewage to it by intercepting
sewers and conduits.
1096 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
DISCHARGE OF THE SEWAGE INTO THE DES PLAINES RIVER
A third Solution of the drainage problem is rendered practicable by the fact
that the divide between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi Valley lies about
10 miles West of Chicago, with so slight an elevation that it is not a difficult
matter to Carry the sewage from the city westward into the Des Plaines
River, and thence into the Mississippi River. The method of disposal, as
previously explained, is in fact mainly the present one, most of the Sewage now
being carried across the divide by the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
There are two low depressions between the future metropolis and the Des
Plaines River—the Mud Lake Valley, with the present canal, and the Sag
Valley, West of Lake Calumet. Neither is more than 10 feet above the lake,
nor do they present any engineering difficulties for canal construction. It is
therefore quite feasible to carry all the drainage from the territory ultimately
to be occupied by the metropolis, extending from Lake Calumet to Evanston,
into the Mississippi Valley through these depressions, avoiding thereby all
possible lake pollution and permitting the supply of water to be drawn from
any number of convenient points in front of the city.
The possibility of this solution was recognized as early as 1856 by Mr. E.
S. Chesborough, and the first step toward its adoption was taken, as already
mentioned, by turning the Sewage into the Illinois & Michigan Canal. Not
until quite recently, however, has it become practicable to consider the con-
Struction of a special waterway for sewage removal, because when the popula-
tion was smaller the expense of the undertaking was too great.
The sanitary requirements demand a flow of water large enough to dilute
the Sewage sufficiently to make it inoffensive along the river at all times. Be-
yond this, any increase in the size of the channel to provide for the storm water
which naturally enters it should be kept at minimum. A glance at the map and
an examination of the ground show the possibility of diverting the greater
part of the storm water from the metropolitan district without serious dif-
ficulty. Both branches of the Calumet River can be diverted west of the In-
diana State line into Wolf Lake, and thence into Lake Michigan. The Des
Plaines River can have its flood waters diverted into the North Branch near
the north line of the town of Jefferson, and the Combined waters can be led
from Bowmanville directly into the lake. Salt Creek, a branch of the Des
Plaines River, can readily be turned southwardly near Western Springs,
through a water course known as Flag Creek, at one time evidently its old
bed, discharging into the Des Plaines Opposite Sag, and thus reducing the
necessary storm-water capacity in the new channel between Sag and Summit.
In order to determine the probable quantity of flood water which can thus
be excluded, it was necessary to ascertain the maximum flood discharges front
all the watershed in question. This requirement called for a gauging of Des
Plaines, North Branch, and Calumet Rivers; a gauging of the rainfall, which
is a measure of the stream flow ; a Survey of the Watersheds ; and an examina-
tion of the river channels. It Was also necessary to make a reconnoissance of
all possible lines for diverting the Des Plaines, North Branch, and Calumet
Rivers, and Salt Creek, and survey of those which were most important.
The results indicate that each one of these diversions is both practical and
economical. By adopting the “Separate system ’’ of sewerage for the territory
lying north of the proposed Bowmanville channel, the surface drainage from
this territory can be safely turned into the lake.
A second branch of the investigation extends to the elements governing the
proper size of the waterway from which a large proportion of the storm water
has been excluded. The area still draining into it will consist largely of paved
streets and roofs, allowing of no absorption and shedding the water rapidly.
It requires a careful consideration to determine the maximum quantity of water
that may enter the proposed channel, and for which an ample allowance must
be made to prevent a back flow of the polluted water to the lake.
The proper degree of Sewage pollution in the new channel demanded a
careful investigation. When sewage is mingled with a sufficiently large quan-
tity of water it not only becomes inoffensive, but readily finds the oxygen which
gradually purifies it. When the surface is covered with ice a greater dilution
is necessary for this purpose than at other times when there is a constant
replenishment of oxygen from the air. The proposed waterway should, of
course, provide immunity from offense at all times.
The information upon which definitely to decide this question will be given
in the final report, as the data have not yet been all collected, owing to the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1097
necessity of making actual tests of the oxidation of the canal water under the
ice, which is being done for the use of the commission by Dr. J. H. Rauch,
Secretary Of the State board of health. The summer conditions are presented
in his late report on the water supply and sewage disposal of Chicago. The
result of these analyses wil be compared with those of other streams that are
also polluted with Sewage, in order to show the rate of Oxidation with varying
degrees of dilution and aeration.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the water channel we have as-
Sumed 3,600 Square feet for the cross section and a velocity of the water 3 feet
per Second, or 2 miles per hour. This gives a discharge of 600,000 cubic feet of
Water per minute, or 24,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 persons, which we
believe equal to the maximum requirements of a population of 2,500,000
people.
A. Fºrd branch of the inquiry covers the selection of routes for the proposed
(28 Ila IS.
Between Chicago and Summit three lines are practicable—one following the
West Fork and Ogden ditch, and another extending from the southwestern end
of the South Fork in a westerly direction to the Ogden ditch and thence to:
Summit, and a third being an enlargement of the present canal. We are of
the Opinion that eventually both the first and second of these lines should be
adopted, but that the second One should he built first in Order to Secure circu-
lation in the South Fork. From Summit westward the bed of the river and
the present canal were the only lines to be considered. The best location has:
not yet been finally determined.
For the drainage of the Calumet region a simple inspection shows that a
Canal should start from the river at the southern point of Blue Island and
extend almost directly westward to the Des Plaines Valley at Sag.
A fourth branch of the inquiry relates to the study of such data as have
reference to securing a proper circulation for the waterways within the city.
To throw light upon this point the variations of the lake level have been
recorded since last spring by means of an automatic gauge, indicating an almost
continual fluctuation averaging several inches, and recurring at periods of
about 20 minutes. During a low pressure of the atmosphere the amplitude of
these oscillations increases, and not infrequently reaches several feet. The
accompanying diagram shows the level of the lake on August 16, 1886, at a
time when an area of low barometer passed over it. From 6.40 a. m. to 6.55
a. m.—that is, in 15 minutes—the water fell 2 feet 10 inches.
A rising level causes an inflow to the river and drives the water of the
latter into the slips, where it deposits a portion of its suspended sewage matter
and becomes foul. A falling level reverses the flow and the slips empty their
foul water into the river and lake. During heavy fluctuations of the latter,
Such as the One referred to above, it has been traced more than a mile in the
direction of the Crib. \
As the proposed canal from Bowmanville to the lake will lower the water of
the North Branch at this point to the lake level, provision must be made for:
its circulation. The size of the Fullerton Avenue COnduit is not sufficient to-
furnish the water required for a current in both directions, nor would such an:
arrangement be satisfactory or economical. It will be necessary to establish
a flow toward the South Branch from the lake opposite Bowmanville in order
to prevent a future lake pollution by the proposed channel. This can be accom-
plished by placing a lock in the North Branch at any point that may be found
most desirable and raising the water at the same time about 1 foot. If such
a lock is placed at Fullerton Avenue, the present pumping Works, with Slight.
modifications, can be utilized.
Finally, it must be mentioned that circulation can be secured in the proposed
waterways of the Calumet region, into which the Sewage is discharged, by a
gravity flow from Lake Michigan into the Des Plaines Valley through Lake.
Calumet and the Sag. The detailed features of this project have not yet been
wholly matured, the estimates of cost being based on a channel having a capacity.
of 1,000 cubic feet per second.
COMPARISON OF PRO.JECTS
In the foregoing we have outlined the main features of the Only three-
feasible methods of disposing of the metropolitan sewage, and have given the
results of the investigation reached to date. A general conclusion as to the
1098 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
preferable method may be given at present, and also an approximate estimate
of cost. But we are not able as yet to give either conclusions or detailed
Statements of the probable expense regarding all parts of the proposed work,
and must defer them until the final report.
In comparing the projects we will first mention their probable cost and then
their relative advantages.
The discharge of the Sewage into the lake from a population of 2,500,000
in the manner described above, including the extra expense, otherwise not nec-
essary, of taking the water supply of Grosse Point, would cost at least $37,-
000,000, with an annual expense for interest and operation of at least $2,400,-
000. It would require an immediate investment of about $20,000,000.
TO dispose of the entire metropolitan Sewage by filtration on land would
require an investment of about $58,000,000, with an annual expense of over
$3,000,000 for interest, pumping, and maintenance, after deducting the profit
from the sale of crops. It would be necessary to invest at once about
$34,000,000. Land disposal for the sewage from the Calumet region alone,
With a future population of 300,000, would require an investment of about
$4,000,000 and an annual expense of at least $250,000.
Finally, the cost of the Des Plaines project is approximately estimated as
follows:
1. A channel from the South Fork to Joliet of the capacity heretofore
given will cost between $17,000,000 and $21,000,000.
2. A diversion of the flood waters of the Des Plaines, the North Branch,
and Salt Creek will cost between $2,500,000 and $2,800,000.
3. Pumping works and locks for the North Branch will cost about $150,000.
4. A separate System of Sewers to collect the sewage now discharged
directly into the lake and to carry it into the river will cost about $600,000.
5. A channel from Lake Calumet to Sag will cost between $2,500,000 and
$3,000,000.
6. A diversion of the flood waters of the Calumet River will cost between
$350,000 and $400,000.
The total cost of the Des Plaines drainage project would therefore be,
for the main district, between $20,250,000 and $24,550.000; for the Calumet
district, between $2,850,000 and $3,400,000. The annual cost, including inter-
est, etc., is estimated at about $1,300,000 per annum.
The pollution of the lake can be decreased and the present condition of
the Chicago River, and particularly of the South Fork, can be improved by the
immediate construction of the following works, which, with the exception of
the pumping works at the South Fork discharging into the Illinois & Michigan
Canal, are all a part of the final plan :
1. Channels diverting the flood waters of the Des Plaines, North Branch,
and Salt Creek, as described above.
2. A modification of the Fullerton Avenue pumping station and the con-
struction of locks for the purpose of getting circulation in the North Branch.
3. A separate System of Sewers to collect the sewage now flowing into the lake
from the south diversion and to discharge it into the South Fork.
4. A waterway extending from the western end of the South Fork to the
Illinois & Michigan Canal, With a new pumping station to promote circulation.
5. By raising the banks of the canal and by removing deposits this capacity
can be increased 40 per cent at a small cost, and thus provide for a greater flow
Of Waters in the Same.
The cost of the WorkS COmprised under these five items is estimated to be
between $5,000,000 and $5,500,000. They could be finished in three years, and
would greatly lessen the liability of polluting the water supply, while the sewage
would be disposed of in the best practicable manner until the final completion
of the Des Plaines project. º
It therefore appears that this project is decidedly the least expensive one for
the present as well as for the future.
Besides the economical advantages of the Des Plaines Scheme, its superiority
is still furthed emphasized by advantages of another kind. The proposed canal
will, from its necessary dimensions and its regular discharge, produce a magnifi-
cent waterway between Chicago and the Mississippi River, suitable for the
navigation of boats having as much as 2,000 tons burden. It will establish an
available water power between Lockport and Marseilles fully twice as large as
that of the Mississippi River at Minneapolis, which will be of great commercial
value to the State. The Calumet region will be much enhanced in value by
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1099
having a direct navigable channel to the Des Plaines River and by a lowering
of the flood heights of Calumet Lake and River. Within the city the water of
the Chicago River and its south branch will get a much better circulation if it
flows by gravity than if it has to be pumped, the necessity for which would
remain even if the sewage should be discharged through intercepting Sewers,
either into the lake or upon land. Upon either of the latter conditions an
Occasional Overflow from the Sewers into the river during heavy rains Would be
more objectionable than a constant discharge Of Sewage into a more rapidly
flowing stream. Flood waters entering the lake by way of the Chicago River
would carry into it much filthy matter, either suspended Or deposited, notwith-
standing the existence of intercepting Sewers, but the proposed diversion of Such
waters before reaching the populated districts will for all time obviate this
undesirable occurrence. Lowering the level of the North Branch at Bowman-
ville by its diversion to the lake will be equivalent to raising the low prairie
extending toward Evanstown and Niles and greatly benefit parts Of these towns.
TEIE WATER SUPPLY
In reaching the conclusion that the Sewage of the city should be discharged
into the Mississippi Valley the question of water supply is materially Simplified,
because the lake will then at all times furnish good water wherever intake are
desired for an extension Of the WOrkS.
The preliminary inquiry made with a view to ascertain the main features
of an increased supply comprised, first, a compilation of data concerning the
existing works both in Chicago and its suburban towns, which were Collected
mainly through the courtesy of the respective authorities; and, Secondly, a Study
into the most economical method of distributing the water over the metropolitan
area. The following is a brief description of the existing works:
The present intake for the public water supply of Chicago is located in Lake
Michigan, about 2 miles from shore, and the water is conducted to the city in
two circular brick tunnels 5 and 7 feet in diameter. They extend parallel to
each other under the bed of the lake and 50 feet apart to the north pumping
works, where they are connected and where the 5-foot tunnel terminates. The
7-foot tunnel is continued under the city for a distance of 20,500 feet to Supply
the west works on Ashland Avenue and Twenty-Second Street.
The tunnels from the source to the shore are built at a depth of 80 feet below
city datum, or low water in the lake, and the 7-foot tunnel is continued on the
same level for a distance of about 11,500 feet, where, to avoid rock excavation,
it is incined upward until, at the west pumping station, the top is but 21 feet
below city datum. The economical capacity of the two tunnels is between
90,000,000 and 100,000,000 gallons per day, or less than the present average
daily consumption of water. Their maximum capacity is reached when deliv-
ering about 150,000,000 gallons per day, which is now nearly equaled by the
demand during the hours of greatest consumption, and at the present rate Of
increase it is estimated that during the Summer Of 1887 the maximum demand
for water will be at the rate of 145,000,000 gallons per day ; during 1888, 150,-
000,000 gallons per day; during 1889, 167,000,000 gallons per day; and in 1890,
180,000,000 gallons per day.
To provide against accident or obstruction from ice or other causes in the
main tunnels, and to provide against an inadequate Supply in the near future,
which appeared inevitable, a new tunnel is in progress of construction. The
intake is located 1,500 feet from shore and connection is made with the other
tunnels at the north pumping works.
The distribution of the water is effected by pumping it directly into the water
mains at the north and West Stations. At the north works the three tunnels are
so arranged and constructed that any one of them can be emptied when desired
for repairs or cleaning, and both pumping stations still be supplied with water
from the other tunnels. The total pumping capacity of this station is at pres-
ent 67,000,000 gallons per day, but it will be increased to 91,000,000 gallons per
day as soon as the new pumps now in process of erection are in operation.
The connections between the pumps, standpipes, and the distribution mains
at these works have become so complex by the successive additions to the plant
that an unnecessary loss Of head is the consequence. As this can be remedied
to Some extent without great expense, We recommend that it be done at the
first favorable opportunity. The station being on the shore of the lake is not
1100 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
centrally located with reference to any part of the city, which renders it
necessary to use a greater length of main pipe, with a consequent loss of pres–
Sure, to reach the consumers than would otherwise be the case. The total
pumping capacity of the west-side station is 60,000,000 gallons per day, and the
connections between the pumps, standpipes, and mains are simple and effective,
and the loss of pressure from this cause is a minimum. The location is better
adapted to Secure economical and satisfactory results than that of the north
works, and with reference to additional pumping stations which will later be
necessary in Other parts of the city these works are well situated.
The following table compiled from the annual reports for 1884 and 1885 gives.
a detailed comparison of the cost of pumping at two stations, anthracite coal
being used at the north side and good bituminous COal at the west Side:
Cost of pumping 1,000,000 gallons 1 foot high

1884 1885
Nature of expenditures
North side | West side | North side West side
Salaries------------------------------------------------ $0.01488 $0.02022 $0.01560 $0.01667
uel--------------------------------------------------- . 05313 . 02855 . 04590 . 02482
Lubricants--------------------------------------------- . 00064 00.186 . 00057 . 00160,
Miscellaneous------------------------------------------ . 00323 00417 . 00133 . 00401
Total.-------------------------------------------- . 07188 05480 . 06340 . 04710.
The hydraulic merits of the System are shown on the diagrams of water pres-
Sures from a Survey made in December, 1886. The pressures have all been
reduced to a common height above city datum and to a uniform height of water
at the works. That diagram shows a greater loss of head in the vicinity of the
north side station than at the west side. This is accounted for by the complex
arrangements heretofore mentioned and also by the relatively small area of
mains, being only 16% square feet at the north side and over 21 square feet
at the west side. Nearly equal quantities of water are pumped at each of the
stations during the middle of the day.
The following table shows the pumping Capacity of all the Suburban towns
having a public water Supply and the pressure Ordinarily maintained at the
works. With the exception of South Evanston, all take water from Lake.
Michigan :
& Individual pump
capacity Total Ordinary
Locality pumping head at
C e º Puº in
apacity per day eet,
Pumps per day
Gallons
Hyde Park--------------------------------------------- 2 | 3,000,000 ||------------|------------
Do------------------------------------------------- 1 | 12,000,000 18,000,000 103–150
Lake--------------------------------------------------- 2 || 4,000,000 ------------|------------
D0------------------------------------------------- 2 2,000,000 | 12,000,000 100–190
Lake View--------------------------------------------- 1 5,000,000 ------------|------------
Do------------------------------------------------- 1 3,000,000 || 10,000,000 92
O------------------------------------------------- 1 2,000, 000 ------------ 92
Village of Evanston.------------------------------------ 1 3,000,000 || 3,000,000 92
Total.-------------------------------------------- 11 ------------ 43,000,000 ------------
At the artesian well Supplying the village of South Evanston there is a head
of about 53 feet.
The pressure at different parts of the pipe system is very irregular. In
Hyde Park it varies from 16.5 feet at the pumps to 10 or 12 feet at Forty-third
Street. In the town of Lake the average head at the town hall is reported about
10 feet, with 188 feet at the pumps. In Evanston, South Evanston, and Lake
View the difference of head in various parts of the villages is not very great.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1101
The following table gives a comparison of the consumption and cost of water
in Chicago and the suburban towns:

Cost of
Average | Average º pumping
Locality Year || head at daily gallons 1,000,
pumps | pumpage delivered §
‘Qhicago (north side).----------------------------- 1885 113 || 38,369, 134 $7.17 $0.06034
‘Qhicago (west side).------------------------------ 1885 105 || 53, 280,880 4.95 . 04071
Fº (village).------------------------------- ; 113 1 § § # § . 15000
* Vle" --------------------------------------| 1886 ---------- y ºvº tº. *-ºſ I - ºr º: º ºs º ºr tº º ºs º º
Town of Lake----------------------------------- 1886 163 || 7, 292,023 8. 80 . 05400
łłyde Park-------------------------------------- 1886 ---------- 3,410,000 8.92 ------------
The Second point of inquiry was a study into the most economical method
Of distributing the water over the metropolitan area. We will at present refer
to it but very briefly, mentioning only such conclusions as pertain to the im-
Imediate demands and leaving a fuller discussion of the details of this im-
T}Ortant question to the final report.
The comparatively level area upon which the city is located, and the prac-
ticability of taking the water from the lake along the city front at any desired
point, after the sewage has been diverted, permits the most economical dis-
tribution to be ascertained by mathematical investigation to a much greater
degree of exactness than is usually possible. -
It is found to be less expensive for the densely populated areas to have
pumping stations about 2 or 3 miles apart, because the loss of head and cost of
mains and pumping to obtain the least allowable pressure are thus reduced to
a minimum. In planning new works this fact should be considered and loca-
tions so selected that they will be advantageous for the future as well as for
the present.
The localities which we believe to be most suitable for additional pumping
stations are near Twelfth Street, in the central part of the city; near the Union
Stock Yards ; near Humboldt Park, and near Fullerton and Racine Avenues.
When it is considered that at the present time the pumps are delivering
during the busy part of the day at the rate of 120,000 000 gallons in 24 hours,
which is nearly the maximum capacity of all the machinery, and that even
with this large consumption of water it is impossible in some parts of the
city to obtain water in the second story of the buildings, it becomes evident
that an increased supply is imperatively required, and being a work of years
to build new tunnels, inlets, buildings, and machinery, the necessity of decid-
ing upon the location of the new works as soon as possible is readily Seem.
The locality which is suffering most from the want of water is the business
section and the south part of the city, the lowest pressure extending from
Twelfth Street to the city limits. It will become necessary in the future to
have two stations in this territory—one between Harrison and Twelfth Streets
and the other to be somewhere east of the Union Stock Yards. We are
strongly of the opinion that of the two stations it will be advisable and most
advantageous to build the one north of Twelfth Street first, for the following
TeaSOIAS ·
1. It will require a shorter tunnel from the lake to the proposed station
and less expenditure for main discharge pipes to Connect with the present
system than would be the case with the proposed Southern station. This is
equivalent to less cost and a saving of time in construction.
2. If the southern station is built first it will require mains of larger
capacity leading toward the city than will be ultimately necessary when the
central station is built.
3. The location recommended is near the center of the greatest consumption
of water, and will be a gain not only in obtaining greater pressure in the
business district, but in removing the cause for complaint on the South side
by increasing the pressure so that the water will flow to the upper floors of
the highest dwellings.
4. All other parts of the city will gain by the construction in this location,
as the north and west Works will be relieved Of the enormous drain upon
them to supply water for the husiness part of the city. They will be better
able to give a good head on the north and west sides, where the population
is increasing very rapidly, and Which will very SOOn be in the same unsatis-
1102 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
factory condition as now obtains in the southern end of the city unless
relief is afforded in the manner indicated.
The other pumping stations will gradually become necessary as the popula-
tion increases, and for a population of 2,500,000 there will be a need for a
total combined capacity of 375,000,000 gallons to provide for a daily con-
Sumption of 150 gallons per head. With several intakes and tunnels the
danger from Stoppage of the water Supply by ice or accident will be reduced
to a minimum, as it is not probable that more than one of them would be
SO endangered at the same time.
We believe that a submerged intake will afford a more reliable and safer
Structure, So far as injury from passing vessels and stoppage by ice are con-
cerned, than a structure projecting above the water.
With the sewage kept out of the lake there is no need of locating the intake
farther than 2. miles from the shore, where water can be obtained sufficiently
free from Suspended earthy matter, and where a depth of about 30 feet is.
generally found, which is the least depth desirable for a submerged inlet.
GENERAL REMAIRESS
After presenting the results thus far gained, indicating the general Solution
of the Chicago drainage and water-Supply problem, it remains to point Out
certain facts which may be useful in discussing some of the legal measures.
required to carry out the proposed work. We desire to state that in Order to
reach the best results it is imperative to have all the main drainage Works,
such as intercepting sewers, waterways, and pumping stations, executed
and maintained under a single management. It would be economical also to
design and operate the main works for supplying water to the entire met-
ropolitan area on a uniform plan and under one management, for the Same
reason that it is economical to keep the north and west side pumping Works
under one control, thus giving facilities as far as practicable for a Supply
proportioned to the demand to the entire metropolitan area, including the
towns not bordering on the lake. We do not wish to imply, however, that
such a general authority need necessarily extend further than to the Con-
struction and maintenance of the tunnels and conduits furnishing Water to
the respective pumping Works.
Regarding the limits for metropolitan drainage, the investigation has shown,
as already indicated, that topographical Conditions clearly define two districts
for the future metropolis. The main district extends from the line of Eighty-
seventh Street on the South to the north line Of Evanston and from the lake
Westward to the Des Plaines River. Its sewage is collected into one channel
and discharged into the Des Plaines Valley at Summit. The Calumet district
extends over the natural drainage area of Calumet Lake and River South Of
Eighty-seventh Street, and has its outfall channel running from Blue Island
to Sag.
The final report will contain several maps, showing certain features of the
metropolitan area, namely, the distribution of the population in 1886, the exist-
ing Works and main distribution pipes for water Supply, and the existing main
Sewerage works and 5-foot Contour lines over nearly the entire area. It will
also contain maps and profiles of the proposed waterways and storm-water
diversion channels mentioned in the present report, and a map showing the
lines of the main collecting and intercepting sewers of the proposed drainage
districts, and also the lines of new tunnels and the general distribution of the
Water Supply.
In carrying on the present investigation its various branches are placed in
charge of the following gentlemen, of whose ability and industry we desire to
make Special mention : Mr. L. E. Cooley, principal assistant, had special charge
of the hydrographic work; Mr. Charles H. Swan, of the sewage disposal on
land; Mr. Francis Murphy, of the topographical work; Mr. O. Guthrie, of the
river pollution, land damages, etc.; and Mr. T. T. Johnson, of the water supply,
Sewerage, and miscellaneOuS WOrk.
Respectfully submitted.
RUDOLPEI HERING,
Chief Engineer.
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS,
SAMUEL G. ARTINGSTALL,
Consulting Engineers.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1103
The committee will notice that the division engineers at Chicago
have been very diligent in keeping the War Department and Con-
gress advised of everything that has happened about the Sanitary
District of Chicago.
Between 1887 and 1889 we had a legislative joint committee con-
sidering this same subject, and they were aided by the report of the
Drainage and Water Supply Commission, as well as by the depart-
ment of health of the State, and as a result of their labors and in-
vestigation they drafted a bill under which, after its passage by
our legislature, the Sanitary District of Chicago was created.
This district was not created by the legislature. The legislature
passed an enabling act, and it provided that people in contiguous
territories located within a certain county could, by a petition filed
under the provisions of the act, and a vote of the people, create a new
municipality, and that is what this is—a new municipality.
I want you gentlemen to understand the reason why it was
formed. The bonding power of the city of Chicago had been ex-
hausted, and it was in such a condition that it was financially im-
possible for the city of Chicago to do anything in a large way to cor-
rect the conditions which confronted it. So in order to have a body,
not incumbered by bonds previously issued, and which could levy
taxes, this sanitary district was created. That is the reason for it.
There is no dodging the issue. We had to do it or we would not
have had any way of financing ourselves out of our difficulties. The
Sanitary District of Chicago is the largest municipality formed
under this act, and the War Department and Congress had full and
complete knowledge of every act, legislative or otherwise, that had to
do with its organization. The Corps of Engineers of the United
States Army reported every step of its organization to Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by being reported to Congress?
Mr. BARRETT. I mean that the United States division engineer at
Chicago advised the Chief of Engineers that our State legislature
had passed this legislation and sent him a copy of it.
The CHAIRMAN. What did the Chief of Engineers do, if anything?
Mr. BARRETT. He received it in due course, and included it in his
annual report to Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. He included it in his annual report?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; this legislation was passed on the 29th of May
and became a law under our constitution on the 1st of July, 1889.
We find the War Department in possession of a copy of it on the
10th of July, 1889, and that he included a complete copy of the same
in his annual reports for the years 1889 and 1890.
A copy of the sanitary district law transmitted by the Chief of
Engineers to Congress appears in the annual report to the Chief of
Engineers for the year 1889, beginning at page 2109 and ending at
page 2134, and in the annual report for the year 1890 beginning at
page 2550 and ending at page 2557. A copy of the law as trans-
mitted in these reports is as follows:
CHICAGO DRAINAGE AND WATERw AY LAws
[From the Chicago legal news edition of the laws of 1889]
AN ACT To create sanitary districts and to remoye obstructions in the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers. Approved, May 29, 1889. In force July 1, 1889
186. Incorporating sanitary district—question, how submitted—commis-
Sioners: 1. Be it enacted by the people of the State of Illinois, represented in
1104 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the General 488embly, That whenever any area of contiguous territory within
the limits of a single county shall contain two or more incorporated cities,
towns, or Villages, and shall be so situated that the maintenance of a common
outlet for the drainage thereof will conduce to the preservation of the public
health, the same may be incorporated as a sanitary district under this act,
in the manner following: Any five thousand legal voters resident within the
limits of Such proposed sanitary district may petition the county judge of
the county in which they reside to cause the question to be submitted to the
legal Voters of such proposed district whether they will organize as a sanitary
‘district under this act. Such petition shall be addressed to the county judge
and shall contain a definite description of the territory intended to be embraced
in Such district, and the name of such proposed sanitary district: Provided,
however, That no territory shall be included in any municipal corporation
formed hereunder which is not situated within the limits of a city, incorpo-
Tated town, Or village or within three miles thereof, and no territory shall be
included within more than one sanitary district under this Act. Upon the
filing of such petition in the office of the county clerk of the county in which
‘Such territory is situated it shall be the duty of the county judge to call
to his assistance two judges of the circuit court, and such judges shall con-
stitute a board of commissioners which shall have the power and authority to
consider the boundaries of any such proposed sanitary district, whether the
Same shall be described in such petition or otherwise. Notice shall be given
by such County judge of the time and place where such commissioners will
meet, by a publication inserted in one or more daily papers published in such
county, at least twenty days prior to such meeting. At such meeting the
county judge shall preside, and all persons in such proposed sanitary district
shall have an opportunity to be heard touching the location and boundary of
Such proposed district and make suggestions regarding the same, and Such
commissioners, after hearing statements, evidence, and suggestions, Shall fix
and determine the limits and boundaries of such proposed district, and for
that purpose and to that extent may alter and amend such petition. After
such determination by said commissioners, or a majority of them, the COunty
judge shall submit to the legal voters of the proposed Sanitary district the
question of the organization and establishment of the proposed Sanitary dis-
trict, as determined by said commissioners, at an election to be held on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November thence next ensuing. Notice
whereof shall be given by the said commissioners, at least twenty days prior
thereto, by publication in one or more daily papers published within Such pro-
posed sanitary district, such notice to specify briefly the purpose of Such elec-
tion, with a decision of such proposed district. Each legal voter resident
within such proposed sanitary district shall have the right to cast a ballot at
such election, with the words thereon, “For Sanitary District,” or “Against
Sanitary District.” The ballots so cast shall be received, returned, and Can-
vassed in the same manner and by the same officers as is provided by law
in the case of ballots cast for county officers. The county judge Shall cause
a statement of the result of such election to be spread upon the records of the
county court. If a majority of the votes cast upon the question of the in-
corporation of the proposed sanitary district shall be in favor of hte proposed
sanitary district, such proposed district shall thenceforth be deemed an Or-
ganized sanitary district under this act.
187. Judicial notice of district—organization—election—county judge: 2,
All courts in this State shall take judicial notice of the existence of all sani-
tary districts organized under this act. Upon the Organization of any Sanitary
district under this act the county judge shall call an election to elect officers
and cause notice thereof to be posted or published, and perform all other acts
in reference to such election in like manner as nearly as may be as he is
required to perform in reference to the election of officers in newly organized
cities under the provisions of an act entitled “An act to provide for the incor-
poration of cities and villages,” approved April 10, 1872.
188. Trustees—election and terms of : 3. In each sanitary district organized
under this act there shall be elected nine trustees who shall hold their offices
for five years, and until their successors are elected and qualified, except the
term of office of the first trustees elected shall be until five years after the
first Monday in December after their election. The election of trustees, after
the first, shall be on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November
in every fifth year. In all elections for trustees each qualified voter may vote
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1105,
for as many candidates as there are trustees to be elected, or he may dis-
tribute his vote among not less than five-ninths of the candidates to be elected,
giving to each of the candidates among whom he distributes the same, the
same number of votes or fractional part of votes. The trustees shall Choose
one of their number president, and such sanitary district shall from the time
of the first election held by it under this act to be construed in law and equity
a body corporate and politic and by the name and style of the sanitary district
Of , and by such name and style may sue and be sued, contract and be:
contracted with, acquire and hold real estate and personal property necessary
for corporate purposes, and adopt a common seal and alter the Same at
pleasure.
189. Trustees constitute a hoard—duties and powers of : 4. The trustees
elected in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this act shall constitute
a board of trustees for the district by which they are elected, which board of
trustees is hereby declared to be the COrpOrate authorities of such Sanitary
district, and shall exercise all the powers and manage and control all the
affairs and property of such district. Said board of trustees shall have the
right to elect a clerk, treasurer, chief engineer, and attorney for such munici-
pality, who shall hold their respective offices during the pleasure of the board
and Who shall give Such bond as may be required by Said board. Said board
may prescribe the duties and fix the compensation of all the officers and em-
ployees of said sanitary district: Provided, however, That the salary of the
president of said board of trustees shall in no case exceed the sum of four
thousand dollars per annum ; and the salary of the other members of the Said
board Shall not exceed three thousand dollars per annum : And provided fur-
ther, That the amount received by any attorney shall not exceed the sum of
five thousand dollars ($5,000) per annum. Said board of trustees shall have
full power to pass all necessary Ordinances, rules, and regulations for the
proper management and conduct of the business of Said board of trustees and
of said corporation and for carrying into effect the objects for which such
Sanitary district is formed.
190. Ordinances making appropriation—Publication of : 5. All ordinances
making any appropriation shall, within One month after they are passed, be
published at least once in a newspaper published in such district, or if no"
such newspaper of general circulation is published therein, by posting copies
of the same in three public places in the district ; and no such Ordinance Shall
take effect until ten days after it is so published, and all other Ordinances,
orders, and resolutions shall take effect from and after their passage unless.
Otherwise provided therein.
191. Ordinances and resolutions—Evidence: 6. All Ordinances, Orders, and
resolutions, and the date of publication thereof, may be proven by the cer-
tificate of the clerk, under the seal of the corporation, and when printed in
book or pamphlet form and purporting to be published by the board of trustees,
and such book or pamphlet shall be received as evidence of the passage and
legal publication of such ordinances, orders, and resolutions as of the dates
mentioned in such book or pamphlet, in all courts and places without further
proof.
192. Board of trustees—Powers of: E. The board of trustees of any sani- .
tary district organized under this act shall have power to provide for the
drainage of Such district by laying out, establishing, constructing, and main-
taining One or more main channels, drains, ditches, and outlets for carrying
off and disposing of the drainage (including the sewage) of such district,
together with Such adjuncts and additions thereto as may be necessary or
proper to cause Such channels or Outlets to accomplish the end for which they
are designed in a Satisfactory manner; also to make and establish docks adja-
cent to any navigable channel made under the provisions hereof for drinage
purposes, and to lease, manage, and control such docks, and also to control and
(lispose of any water power which may be incidentally created in the con-
Struction and use Of Said Channels or Outlets, but in no case shall said board
have any power to control water after it passes beyond its channels, water-
ways, races, or structures into a river or natural waterway or channel or
water power or docks situated on such river or natural waterway or channel:
Provided, however, Nothing in this act shall be construed to abridge or pre-
vent the State from hereafter requiring a portion of the funds derived from
such water power, dockage, or wharfage to be paid into the State treasury
to be used for State purposes. Such channels or outlets may exter.d outside.
1106 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Of the territory included within such sanitary district, and the rights and
p0Wers of Said board of trustees over the portion of such channel or outlet
lying outside of such district shall be the same as those vested in said board
Over that portion of such channels or outlets within the said district.
193. May purchase and sell real estate, etc. : 8. Such sanitary district may
acquire, by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, any and all real estate
and personal property, right of way, and privilege, either within or without
its corporate limits, that may be required for its corporate purposes: Pro-
wided, All moneys for the purchase and condemnation of any property shall
be paid before possession is taken or any work done on the premises dam-
aged by the Construction of such channel or outlet, and in case of an appeal
from the County court taken by either party whereby the amount of damages
is not fully determined, the amount of judgment in such court shall be depos-
ited at Some bank to be designated by the judge thereof subject to the pay-
ment of Such damages on Orders signed by such county judge whenever the
amount Of damages is finally determined ; and when no longer required for
Such purposes, to sell, convey, vacate, and release the same, subject to the
reservation Contained in Section seven relating to water powers and docks.
194. May borrow money—Limitations: 9. The corporation may borrow
money for corporate purposes and may issue bonds therefor, but shall not
become indebted in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount in the
aggregate to exceed five per centum on the valuation of taxable property
therein, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes
previous to the incurring of such indebtedness: Provided, however, That said
five per centum shall not exceed the Sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
195. To provide for direct annual tax—Net earnings: 10. At the time or
before incurring any indebtedness the board of trustees shall provide for the
collection of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on Such debt as
it falls due, and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof as the Same
shall fall due, and at least within twenty years from the time of contracting
the same : Provided, That the net earnings from water power and docks may
be appropriated and applied to the purpose of paying the interest Or principal
Df Such indebtedness, or both, and to the extent that they will Suffice the
direct tax may be remitted.
196. Contracts—How let : 11. All contracts for work to be done by Such
municipality, the expense of which will exceed five hundred dollars ($500),
shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder therefor upon not less than sixty
days’ public notice of the terms and conditions upon which the contract is to
be let having been given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation
published in said district, and the said board shall have the power and
authority to reject any and all bids and readvertise: Provided, No person
shall be employed on Said work unless he be a citizen of the United States, or
has in good faith declared his intentions to become such citizen. In all cases
Where an alien, after filing his declaration of intention to become a citizen
Of the United States, shall, for the Space of three months after he could law-
fully do so, fail to take out his final papers and complete his citizenship, such
failure shall be prima facie evidence that his declaration of intentions was not
made in good faith. And that eight hours shall constitute a day’s work.
197. Trustees may levy and collect taxes, etc. : 12. The board of trustees may
levy and collect taxes for Corporate purposes upon property within the terri-
torial limits of such Sanitary district, the aggregate amount of which in any
one year shall not exceed one-half of One per centum of the value of the
taxable property within the corporate limits, as the same shall be assessed
and equalized for State and county taxes of the year in which the levy is
made. Said board shall Cause the amount required to be raised by taxation
in each year to be certified by the county clerk on or before the second Tues-
day in August, as provided in section one hundred and twenty-two of the
general revenue law. All taxes so levied and certified shall be collected and
enforced in the Same manner and by the same officers as State and county
taxes, and shall be paid over by the officer collecting the same to the treasurer
of the sanitary district in the manner and at the time provided by the general
revenue law.
198. Expenses Of improvement—Special assessments-—General tax : 13. The
board of trustees shall have power to defray the expenses of any improvement
made by it in the execution of the powers hereby granted to such incorporation
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1107
by Special assessment or by general taxation, or partly by special assessment
and partly by general taxation, as they shall by ordinance prescribe. It shall
Constitute no objection to any special assessment that the improvement for
which the same is levied is partly outside the limits of such incorporation, but
In O Special assessment shall be made upon property situated outside of such
Sanitary district, and in no case shall any property be assessed more than it
Will be benefited by the improvement for which the assessment is levied. The
proceedings for making, levying, collecting, and enforcing of any special assess-
ment levied hereunder shall be the same as nearly as may be as is prescribed
by article nine of an act entitled “An act to provide for the incorporation of
cities and villages,” approved April 10, 1872. Whenever in said act the words
“City Council '' are used the same shall apply to the board of trustees con-
stituted by this act, and the words applying to the city or its officers in that
#: Shall be held to apply to the corporation hereby created and to its
'OITICerS.
199. Assessments—Installments—Interest: 14. When any assessment is made
under this act the Ordinance authorizing such assessment may provide that it be
divided into equal annual installments, not more than twenty in number, and
fix the amount and time Of payment of each installment ; and that the install-
ment Shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding Six per Cent per annum, pay-
able annually, from the date fixed in said Ordinance, and the Several install-
ments and interests thereon may be collected and enforced, as they Shall
become due, in the manner provided for the enforcement of assessments under
said article nine. No more of any assessments need be returned or certified
to the county collector than will show the amount due and unpaid at the time
of such return, and no sale of any parcel of land for any installment of an
assessment shall discharge the premises from any subsequent installment Of
the same or any other assessment. Any one or all of the intallment may be
paid any time after the assessment is confirmed, with accrued interest, if
any, to the date Of payment.
200. When assessments payable by , installments—Bonds may be issued:
15. Where any assessment is made payable in installments the board Of trustees
may issue bonds or certificates not exceeding in amount eighty per centum of
the unpaid portion of such assessment at the date Of the issue thereof, payable
only out of such assessment and bearing interest at a rate not exceeding the
rate of interest upon the installments of such assessments. The board of
trustees shall have the right to call in and pay off Said bonds Or certificates
as fast as there is money received into the treasury from the assessment
against which the same are issued, and all moneys received upon such assess-
ments shall be applied to the payment of Said certificates or bonds until they
are fully Satisfied.
201. Private property—how taken for improvement: 16. Whenever the board
of trustees of any Sanitary district shall pass an ordinance for the making
of any improvement which such district is authorized to make, the making
of which will require that private property should be taken or damaged, such
district may cause COmpensation therefor to be ascertained, and condemn
and acquire possession thereof in the Same manner as nearly as may be as is
provided in an act entitled, “An act to provide for the exercise of the right
of eminent domain,” approved April 10, 1872: Provided, however, That pro-
ceedings to ascertain the compensation to be paid for taking or damaging
private property shall in all cases be instituted in the county where the prop-
erty sought to be taken or damaged is situated: And provided, That all damages
to property, whether determined by agreement or by final judgment of court,
shall be paid out of the annual district tax prior to the payment of any other
debt or obligation.
202. May acquire right of way: 17. When it shall be necessary, in making
any improvements which any district is authorized by this act to make, to
enter upon any public property or property held for public use, such district
shall have the power so to do and may acquire the necessary right of way
Over such property held for public use in the same manner as is above provided
for acquiring private property, and may enter upon, use. widen, deepen, and
improve any navigable or other waters, waterways, canal, or lake : Provided,
The public use thereof shall not be unnecessarily interrupted or interfered with,
and that the same shall be restored to its former usefulness as soon as prac-
ticable: Provided, however, That no such district shall occupy any portion
of the Illinois and Michigan Canal outside of the limits of the county in
1108 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
which such district is situated for the site of any such improvement, except
to CrOSS the Same, and then only in Such a Way as not to impair the usefulness
of said canal or to the injury of the right of the State therein, and only under
the direction and supervision of the canal commissioners: And provided further,
That no district shall be required to make any compensation for the use of so
much of Said Canal as lies within the limits of the county in which said
district is situated except for transportation purposes.
203. Special assessment—damage to property and cost of acquiring: 18. In
making any Special assessment for any improvement which requires the taking
or damaging Of property, the cost of acquiring the right to damage or take
such property may be estimated and included in the assessment as a part of
the cost of making such improvement.
204. Liability of sanitary district for damages: 19. Every sanitary district
Shall be liable for all damages to real estate within or without such district
which shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged by reason of the construction,
enlargement, Or use of any channel, ditch, drain, outlet, or other improvement
under the provisions of this act ; and actions to recover such damages may
be brought in the county where such real estate is situate, or in the county
Where Such sanitary district is located, at the option of the party claiming
to be injured. And in case judgment is rendered against such district for
damage, the plaintiff shall also recover his reasonable attorney’s fees, to be.
taxed as costs of suit : Provided, however, It shall appear on the trial that the
plaintiff notified the trustees of such district, in writing, at least sixty days
before Suit was commenced by leaving a copy of such notice with some one
Of the trustees of such district stating that he claims damages to the amount
Of dollars by reason of (here insert the cause of damage), and intends.
to Sue for the same: And provided further. That the amount recovered shall
be larger than the amount offered by said trustees (if anything) as a com- .
promise for damages sustained.
205. Capacity of channel or outlet: 20. Any channel or outlet constructed
under the provisions of this act which shall cause the discharge of sewage into
Or through any river or stream of water beyond or without the limits of the
district constructing the same shall be of sufficient size and capacity to produce
a Continuous flow of water of at least two hundred cubic feet per minute for
each One thousand of the population of the district drained thereby, and the
Same shall be kept and maintained of such size and in such condition that the
Water thereof shall be neither Offensive or injurious to the health of any of the
people of this State; and before any sewage shall be discharged into Such
Channel or Outlet all garbage, dead animals, and parts thereof, and other Solids.
Shall be taken therefrom.
206. Sanitary district—failure to comply with act—remedy—penalty’: 21. In
Case any sanitary district in this State formed under the provisions of this
act shall introduce Sewage into any river or stream of water Or natural or
artificial watercourse beyond Or without the limits of such district without con-
forming to the provisions of this act, or having introduced such sewage into
Such watercourse shall fail to comply with any of the provisions of this act,
an action to enforce compliance shall be brought by the attorney general of
this State in the courts of any county wherein such watercourse is situate, or
he may authorize the State attorney of any such county to commence and
prosecute such action in any such county : Provided, That nothing in this sec-
tion contained shall be construed to prevent the prosecution of any action or
proceeding by individuals or bodies corporate or politic against such district.
207. Act—how construed : 22. Nothing in this act contained shall be so con-
strued as to constitute a contract or grant between the State of Illinois and
any sanitary district formed under its provisions, or to prevent, debar, or de-
prive the State of Illinois from at any time in the future altering, amending,
or repealing this act, or imposing any conditions, restrictions, or requirements
other, different, or additional to any herein contained upon any sanitary district
which may be formed hereunder.
208. Channel—How to be constructed ; 23. If any channel is constructed
under the provisions hereof by means of which any of the waters of Lake.
Michigan shall be caused to pass into the Desplaines or Illinois Rivers, such
channel shall be constructed of sufficient size and capacity to produce and
maintain at all times a continuous flow of not less than 300,000 cubic feet
of water per minute, and to be of a depth of not less than fourteen feet, and
a current not exceeding three miles per hour, and if any portion of any such
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1109
“hannel shall be cut through a territory with a rocky stratum where such
Pocky Stratum is above a grade sufficient to produce a depth of water from
Lake Michigan of not less than eighteen feet, such portion of said channel
shall have double the flowing capacity above provided for, and a width of not
less than one hundred and sixty feet at the bottom, capable of producing a
depth of not less than eighteen feet of water. If the population of the district
‘llaining into such channel shall at any time exceed one million five hundred
thousand (1,500,000), such channel shall be made and kept at such size and
in such condition that it will produce and maintain at all times a continuous
flow of not less than 20,000 cubic feet of water per minute for each 100,000
of the population of such district at a current of not more than three miles
Der hour, and if at any time the General Government shall improve the
Desplaines or Illinois Rivers, so that the same shall be capable of receiving
a flow of 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, or more, from said channel,
and shall provide for the payment of all damages which any extra flow above
300,000 cubic feet of water per minute from such channel may cause to private
property, so as to save harmless the said district from all liability therefrom,
then Such Sanitary district shall, within one year thereafter, enlarge the
entire channel leading into said Desplaines or Illinois Rivers from said dis-
trict to a Sufficient size and capacity to produce and maintain a continuous
flow throughout the same of not less than 600,000 cubic feet of water per
minute, With a current of not more than three miles per hour, and such chan-
nel shall be constructed upon such grade as to be capable of producing a
depth of water not less than eighteen feet throughout said channel, and shall
have a width of not less than one hundred and sixty feet at the bottom. In
case a channel is constructed in the Desplaines River, as contemplated in this
section, it shall be carried down the slope between Lockport and Joliet to
the pool commonly known as the upper basin, of sufficient width and depth
to carry off the water the channel shall bring down from above. The dis-
trict constructing a channel to carry water from Lake Michigan of any amount
authorized by this act may correct, modify, and remove obstructions in the
Desplaines and Illinois Rivers wherever it shall be necessary so to do to pre-
vent overflow or damage along said river, and shall remove the dams at
Henry and Copperas Creeks in the Illinois River, before any water shall be
turned into the said channel. And the canal commissioners if they shall find
at any time that an additional Supply of water has been added to either of
said rivers, by any drainage district or districts, to maintain a depth of not
less than six feet from any dam owned by the State, to and into the first lock
of the Illinois and Michigan Canal at La Salle, without the aid of any such
dam, at low water, then it shall be the duty of said canal commissioners to
cause such dam or dams to be removed. This act shall not be construed to
authorize the injury or destruction of existing water-power rights.
209. Channel, when completed—Control of : 24. When such channel shall be
completed, and the water turned therein, to the amount of three hundred
thousand cubic feet of water per minute, the same is hereby declared a
navigable stream, and whenever the General Government shall improve the
Desplaines and Illinois Rivers for navigation, to connect with this channel, said
General Government shall have full control over the same for navigation
purposes, but not to interfere with its control for sanitary or drainage purposes.
210. May permit territories outside to drain, etc. : 25. Any district formed
hereunder shall have the right to permit territory lying Outside its limits and
within the same county to drain into and use any channel or drain made by it,
upon such payments, terms, and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon,
and any district formed hereunder is hereby given full power and authority
to contract for the right to use any drain or channel which may be made
by any other sanitary district, upon Such terms as may be mutually agreed
upon. and to raise the money called for by any such contract in the same way
and to the same extent as such district is authorized to raise money for any
other corporate purposes: Provided, That where the united flow of any sanitary
districts thus cooperating shall pass into any channel constructed within the
limits of the county wherein such districts are located, and which passes into
the Desplaines or Illinois Rivers, such united flow shall in no case and at no
time be less than 20,000 cubic feet of water per minute for each one hundred
thousand of the aggregate of the population of the districts cooperating : Pro-
vided, Nothing in this act shall in any wise be so construed as to diminish,
impair, or remove any right or rights of any city, village, township, or
corporation, body politic, or individual situated on the Desplaines or Illinois
1110 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Rivers or their tributaries and within the valleys of the same to use the
Channel for drainage or otherwise not inconsistent with the rights of the dis-
trict Constructing the same as expressed in this act.
211. When city or village owns waterworks, etc. : 26. Whenever in any
Such sanitary district there shall be a city, incorporated town, or village which
OWns à System of waterworks and supplies water from a lake or other source
Which will be Saved and preserved from Sewage pollution by the construction
Of the main channel, drain, ditch, or Outlet herein provided for, and the turn-
ing Of the Sewage of such city and district therein, and there shall be in such
Sanitary district any territory bordering on any such city, incorporated town,
Or Village, within the limits of another city, incorporated town, or village,
Which does not own any system of Waterworks at the time of the creation of
Such Sanitary district, then, upon application by the corporate authorities of
Such latter named city, incorporated town, or village, the corporate authorities
Of Such city, incorporated town, or Village having such system of waterworks
Shall furnish water at the boundary line between such municipalities by means
Uf its Waterworks to the corporate authorities asking for the same, in such
Quantities as may be required to Supply consumers within Said territory, at
no greater price or charge than it charges and collects of consumers within
its limits for water furnished through meters in like large quantities.
212. When channel constructed—Commissioners to be appointed to inspect
its works: 27. If any channel shall be constructed under the provisions
of section 23 of this act, it shall be the duty of the trustees of such dis-
trict, where such channel shall be completed, and before any water Or Sew-
age shall be admitted, therein to duly notify, in writing, the governor of
this State of such fact; and the governor shall thereupon appoint three
discreet persons as commissioners, one of whom shall be a resident Of the
city of Joliet, or between said city and the city of La Salle, and one a
resident of the city of La Salle, or between said city and the City
of Peoria, and One a resident of the city of Peoria, or between said city and
the mouth of the Illinois River, to inspect Said work. The Said Commissioners
shall within ten days after such appointment meet at the city of Chicago,
and shall appoint a competent civil engineer, and they may employ Such
Other assistants as they may require to expeditiously perform their duties.
The said Commission shall take as their datum line for the Survey the datum
established by the Illinois and Michigan Canal Trustees in 1847, and shall
make Such examination and Surveys of Chicago River and Of the Channel Or
channels authorized by this act as shall enable them to ascertain whether
said channel is of the character and capacity required by this act. And in
case they shall find the work in all respects in accordance with the pro-
visions of Section 23 of this act, they shall SO certify to the governor who
shall thereupon authorize the water and sewage to be let into said channel.
But in case Said commissioners shall find said channel is not constructed in
accordance with the provisions of this act, it shall be their duty to file in any
Court of competent jurisdiction, on the chancery side thereof, in their name
as such commissioners, a bill against said corporation, which bill shall Set
forth wherein said work is deficient and fails to comply with the provisions
of this act; and said court shall thereupon issue an injunction without bond
against said defendant, enjoining and restraining it from admitting water or
sewage into said channel, until the final order of the court. And in case Said
court upon hearing, Shall determine that said channel is not constructed in
accordance with the provisions of this act, said injunction shall be continued
until the provisions of this act shall have been fully complied with. Such
commissioners and engineer shall receive for their services ten dollars per day
each, and their reasonable expenses and Outlays for the time by them neces-
sarily employed in the discharge of their duties, which shall be paid to them
from the State Treasury; and the said sanitary district shall reimburse the
State for all expenses and disbursements on account of said commission.
If any channel. is constructed under the provisions of this act which shall
discharge the Sewage of a population of more than 300,000 into or through
any river beyond or without the limits of the district constructing it, the
same shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of
this act, and if any Such channel receives its supply of water from any river
or channel connecting with Lake Michigan it shall be construed as receiving
its supply of waters from Lake Michigan.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1111
The annual report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of
War and the report by the Secretary of War to the Congress of the
United States for the year 1890 appear as Executive Document No. 1,
part 2, House of Representatives, Fifty-first Congress, first session.
Under this law it was necessary in order to create this district that
the question should be submitted to the people, and a petition was
filed in accordance with the act and submitted to the voters within
the district at the November election in 1889, and the people by their
votes organized a new municipality under the name “The Sanitary
District of Chicago.” -
The first board of trustees was elected at a special election held in
December, 1889, and on the 12th of June, 1890, the Supreme Court of
the State of Illinois held the act to be constitutional. So you see
that within a year after the enabling act was passed, and in a little
more than six months after the district was formed by the people,
and in less than five months after the first board of trustees was
elected, the supreme court of our State had passed upon the act.
We are moving along rapidly because of the dire needs of our
city.
I wish to make a few general observations regarding this legislation
which has already been read into the record.
The sanitary district was given power under this law to construct
and maintain common outlets for the drainage and sewage of its
territory, to make laws, manage and control docks adjacent to any
navigable channel built by it, and control and dispose of any water
power incidentally created in the building of such channel. But it
was expressly prohibited from controlling the water beyond its
limits
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you not regard that as quite
significant?
Mr. BARRETT. Significant as to what?
The CHAIRMAN. The provision expressly prohibiting it from hav-
ing any control of the waters beyond the limits of the
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). I regard that as signficant as demon-
strating that the use of water for power purposes was merely in-
cidental.
The CHAIRMAN. By the State of Illinois; so far as it had power,
the sanitary district was given the control of this waterway in the
limits of the sanitary district?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
The CHAIRMAN. And beyond that point it was prohibited from
jurisdiction?
Mr. BARRETT. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, who had control of the stream from the lim-
its of the sanitary district down to Grafton ?
Mr. BARRETT. I want everybody to distinctly understand that the
Sanitary District of Chicago was in complete and absolute control of
the water from Chicago to the limits of its channel at Lockport, and
that it was not in any manner prohibited by law from having such
control. The law did, however, prohibit the sanitary district from
having control of the water beyond the limits of its channel.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, read me the provisions.
T 112 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. There is a great deal more in section 7 of the sani-
tary district act than what I now read, but I will give enough to
answer the question of the chairman.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POWERS OF
SEC. 7. The board of trustees of any sanitary district organized under this
act, shall have power * * * to control and dispose of any water power
Which may be incidentally created in the construction and use of said channels
Or Outlets, but in no case Shall Said board have any power to control water
after it passes beyond its channel, waterways, races, or structures into a river
'Or natural Waterway, or channel, or water power, or docks situated on such river
or natural waterway or channel. * * *
The act also provides that when the channel is completed it shall
be a navigable stream under the control of the Government of the
United States for navigation purposes, but not to interfere with its
control for 'sanitary or drainage purposes. The language of the act
in this respect is as follows: *
CHANNEL, WHEN COMPLETED, CONTROL OF
SEC, 24. When such channel shall be completed and the water turned therein
to the amount of 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, the same is hereby
declared a navigable stream, and whenever the General Government shall im-
prove the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers for navigation to connect with this
Channel, Said General Government shall have full control over the same for
navigation purposes, but not to interfere with its control for sanitary or
drainage purposes.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com-
mittee, while the general language of the law under which the sani-
tary district was organized provided for the generation of electrical
energy, it was necessary to have additional legislation before this
could be done, and in 1903, by an amendment to the act, the sani-
tary district was given power to extend its channel from Lockport
to Joilet, Ill., a distance of about 4 miles, and between 1903 and
1907 our power plant was constructed and water was used for the
purpose of generating electrical current.
It will be seen, therefore, that for seven years after the channel
was opened no power was generated at all; but our people saw
this water going to waste and concluded that it would be for the
benefit of everybody concerned to conserve this energy, and they
applied for and received additional legislative power.
For a number of years after we began to make electrical power
there was not enough need for it in the sanitary district and among
the various municipalities to which we were required to sell under
the law, and a small portion of it was sold for commercial purposes.
At the present time very little is sold for commercial use and the
sanitary district has prohibited its sale for this purpose by ordi-
nance, and the only power now being used for commercial purposes
is that which it is required to deliver under contracts heretofore
made.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you put in the two sections, the one
you read limiting the control of the sanitary district by territorial
limits, and the other providing that the United States should have
jurisdiction.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1113
Mr. BARRETT.. I have read the portions that are applicable and
the Sections are in the record in their exact language.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be sufficient then.
Mr. BARRETT. It has been charged here that we did not want this
water for Sanitary purposes and that we had no desire to use it for
navigation purposes, but that our sole and only object was for the
purpose of creating electrical energy. This is an absurd statement.
The manufacture of electrical energy is so absolutely incidental to
the main objects of the sanitary district that if the Congress of
the United States can find any good reason why we should dis-
continue its manufacture, why we should allow this water to go
to Waste, or any reason why we should not use that which is
there and available, or if it is possible for the Congress to find
anything wrong, in what we are doing with it, or if by discon-
tinuing its use for power we can get this legislation, we will im-
meadiately agree to abandon its use for making electrical current.
It does not mean a thing to the Sanitary district except the saving
of a few dollars. The main fight of the sanitary district now is
not dollars, but the saving of lives.
In a few years, Mr. Chairman, when we have built all of the
treatment plants which we are required, under our ordinance and the
Madden bill, to construct, we will need every kilowatt of electrical
energy which can be generated at Lockport. Not only that, but
we will be required to go into the market to buy a great deal
more electrical power.
We are certain, however, that the Congress of the United States
would not wish us to waste this water, and you gentlemen will find
beyond question that the manufacture of power is with us merely an
incident.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the moving picture we saw directed to
that feature more than anything else.
Mr. BARRETT. That was produced by the Association of Com-
merce of our city. I think last year the total revenue from power
was not over $900,000, and we are required to pay all operating
and maintenance expenses out of that sum.
The sanitary district, at the time of its formation, was given
the right of eminent domain and was particularly authorized to
enter upon, use, widen, deepen, and improve any navigable or
other waters, waterways, canals, or lakes, provided the public use
thereof should not be unnecessarily interrupted or interfered with.
and that they should be restored to their former usefulness as soon
as practicable.
The main channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago connects
with the Chicago River at Robey Street and runs in southwesterly
direction to Lockport, a distance of 28 miles. The power house is
located 4 miles below Lockport, making the main channel 32 miles
long. The distance from Lake Michigan up Chicago River, the
South Branch of Chicago River, and the West Branch of the South
Branch of Chicago River to the Point at Robey Street where it
connects with the main channel of the sanitary district is about 6
miles. About one-half of the main channel of the sanitary dis-
trict is cut through solid rock, and the other half through dirt.
and the Illinois Legislature, in section 23 of the sanitary district
91739—24—PT 2—55
1114 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
act, provided that where the sanitary channel was cut through rocky
Stratum, it should be built with a flowage capacity of not less than
10,000 cubic feet per second. I have been informed that while that
portion of the main channel cut through rock was built for a flow-
age capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second, it really has an actual
flowage capacity through that section of 14,000 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. At the natural flow %
Mr. WISNER. No; that would be the flow if the Sag Channel was
built and the Calumet River improved.
Mr. BARRETT. What the chairman means is that the natural flow
through the channel would be 14,000 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
Mr. BARRETT. That is true. Section 23 provides that this channel
shall be constructed of sufficient size and capacity to produce at all
times a continuous flow of not less than 300,000 cubic feet of water
per minute and to be of a depth of not less than 14 feet, with a cur-
rent not exceeding 3 miles per hour; and that if any portion of any
such channel shall be cut through territory with a rocky stratum,
such portion of said canal shall have double the flowage capacity
above provided for.
It is easy enough to dredge in the dirt section, but it would be
hard to deepen the rock section, and so they made the provision,
knowing how we were growing and how we would probably continue
to grow.
We are growing now, I understand, at the rate of about 70,000 a
year, and it has been quite remarkable how the estimated growth
and the actual growth have kept together. i.
Section 24 of the act, Mr. Chairman, provided as we have seen,
that our channel should be within the control of the sanitary district
for sanitary and drainage purposes, and that in all other respects
it was a navigable waterway under the control of the Federal
Government.
So you see this was a Federal waterway. We built it for the
Nation. We paid the money for it, but we just turned it over to
them.
The CHAIRMAN. Right there, if it was a Federal waterway and
within their jurisdiction, what jurisdiction would the Congress
possess over it?
Mr. BARRETT. What is that?
The CHAIRMAN. I say what jurisdiction did the Congress possess;
where did their jurisdiction stop; was it not an unlimited juris-
diction ?
Mr. BARRETT. I don’t get your point. We gave them control over
it for navigation purposes. We retained control for sanitary pur-
poses. For navigation purposes it was a Federal waterway; for
sanitary purposes it was our waterway: they could not interfere with
its use for that purpose. That is the language and it is very plain.
Section 20 of the act provided that the Sanitary District of
Chicago should construct a channel of sufficient size and capacity to
produce a continuous flow of water of at least 200 cubic feet per
minute for each 1,000 population of the district drained thereby.
Section 25 provided that any sanitary district organized under
this act was required to permit contiguous territory to drain into it.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1115
This unquestionably brought about the increase in the size of the
district, because if a territory could drain into it and pay no taxes,
it was a bad thing, and the limits were extended so that all territory
draining into it could be required to contribute taxes toward its
maintenance.
The city of Chicago is required, under legislation passed by our
general assembly, to furnish water to cities and villages beyond her
own confines.
I do not believe that there is any other city in the world which is
required to obey such a law as that. For years we have been furnish-
ing water to a large number of municipalities.
The CHAIRMAN. In our State we have a good deal of legislation of
that kind, but it is permissive; it is not mandatory.
Mr. BARRETT. The city of Chicago has to let them do it and has
nothing to say about it. This is due, probably, to the fact that Chi-
cago borders on the lake, and they would have no way of getting to
the lake without going through our city, and while Chicago collects
a small amount for the service, this duty places a great burden upon
her.
In 1890 canal routes were surveyed; I think five were projected.
On the 28th of February, 1890. Captain Marshall made a report of
the survey of this waterway from Lake Michigan to the Illinois River
at La Salle, and he pointed out the necessity for the improvements,
and recommended the use of the proposed sanitary ship canal as a
part of this waterway.
As I have indicated, five possible canal routes were surveyed and
reports thereon were made in writing to the board of trustees of the
Sanitary District of Chicago by Samuel G. Artingstall, its chief
engineer. On July 10, 1891, Captain Marshall, division engineer at
Chicago, made a report on this subject to the War Department and
sent therewith exact copies of the reports made by Samuel G. Ar-
tingstall to the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, which
may be found in the annual report of the Chief of Engineers to the
War Department and Congress for the year 1891, beginning at page
2617. I wish to have in the record at this place, Mr. Chairman.
exact copies thereof, which are as follows:
IEEPORT OF SAMUEI, G. ARTING STALL, CPHIEF ENGINEER, TO BOARD OF TRUSTEFS OF
CHICAGO SANITARY DISTRICT ON FEASIBLE ROUTES FOR DRAIN.AGE CHANNET, BE-
TWEEN HERIIDGFXPORT AND STU M MIT
MAY 23, 1891.
The honorable Board of Trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago:
I have the honor to submit the following report, with map and estimates.
showing four feasible routes for the main drainage channel between Bridge-
port and Summit, with comparative estimates of the cost of the same.
As the routes shown are wholly in earth excavation, the Channels have
been taken of sufficient size and capacity to maintain at all times a Continu-
ous flow of not less than 300,000 cubic feet of water, and a depth of not less
than 14 feet.
In making the estimates wherever practicable the right of way is sufficient
to provide for the deposit and storage of spoil during the construction of the
WOrk.
Four routes are considered :
First. Commencing in the West Fork of the South Branch at Western Avenue
and following the line of the Ogden ditch to Summit.
Second. Commencing at the junction of the Illinois & Michigan Canal and
the South Fork of the Chicago River. and following the line of the Canal to
Summit.
1116 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Third. Commencing at the end of the west arm of the South Fork near
Western Avenue, thence westward along Thirty-ninth Street to the Illinois
& Michigan Canal, thence westerly along the canal to Summit.
Fourth. Follows the preceding route to the canal, where it crosses and con-
tinues in a norwesterly direction to the Ogden Ditch and along the ditch
to Summit. -
As it is imperative that the great pollution in the South Fork, caused
mainly by the drainage of the stockyards and packing houses, should be pro-
vided for, and as this can not be reached directly by routes 1 or 2, a smaller
channel to provide for a flow of 60,000 cubic feet per minute commencing at
the West end of the West Fork and discharging into the main channel has been
included in the estimates for these two routes.
Routes 3 and 4 I would respectfully recommend to your favorable considera-
tion, for the reason that the total Volume of 300,000 cubic feet per minute
will pass through the whole length of the South Branch and the West Fork
of the South Branch, and will insure a regular and constant circulation and
change of water in the most polluted part of the Stream, and this without
any additional channels or pumping Stations, With the attendant expense of
maintenance and Operation.
As the east arm of the South Fork is private property and not a natural
channel, it seems to me that the parties Owning and using it should be at the
expense of abating the nuisance. -
The use of the Illinois & Michigan Canal, or any part of it, involves the
removal of the present pumping station and locks at Bridgeport to a point west
of the main channel, where it occupies the line of the Canal.
In my opinion no serious interruption to navigation or permanent injury
will be done to the canal by the use of any portion of it as a part of the main
Channel. *
Estimate of total cost of Channel NO. 1, from Western Avenue to
Summit, by way of Ogden Ditch $2,108,791
Channel No. 2, from river to Summit, by way of Illinois & Michi-
gan Canal 3, 367, 313
Channel No. 3, from end of west arm of South Fork along Thirty-
ninth Street to canal, then by canal route to Summit------------ 2, 689, 872
Channel No. 4, following same route to canal, which it crosses, then
in a northwestern direction to Ogden Ditch, then along the Ogden
IDitch to Summit 2, 227,392
On account of the proximity of railroad track for a long distance on both
banks of the canal, considerable of the excavated material, when the canal
is enlarged to a suitable size, will have to be removed by rail or vessel, and
for this proper allowance has been made in the estimates.
It is not to be understood from the foregoing that there is recommended a
prosecution of the work from Chicago to Summit only. On the contrary, so
far as the names of the district would permit, there should be a line of opera-
tions on the entire route simultaneously, Or a beginning Of the work at the
lower end of the route at Joliet and working northward.
The cost of right of way has not been made, as this department has not
been directed to estimate this subject.
This department is now investigating in further detail the route for the
continuation of the main channel from the Summit to Joliet, and will give you
the results at the earliest possible time.
As soon as your honorable body can, after due deliberation, fix the routes
for a portion or the whole of length of the main channel, I wish to commence
and prepare working drawings, specifications, etc., so as to be ready to com-
mence operations by the time you have acquired the right of way.
At this time it may not be improper to state that I find in possession of this
board very valuable and reliable information and data, in the shape of con-
tour maps and borings for the whole length of the route between Chicago and
Joliet; also maps of the Watersheds tributary to the Des Plaines and Chicago
Rivers, measurements of the flow of the streams, and analyses of the Chicago
River water at Various points, which are the results of the investigations .
carried on by your board up to this date. In addition to this is a large quan-
tity of Government, City, and other data of considerable value. -
The data obtained is now nearly all tabulated and in available form for
immediate use.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1117
The COllection of this information has of necessity been a work of much
time, Care, and labor, and was and is needed to arrive at an intelligent de-
cision of the most economical and available route and sections of channel for
this important work.
Respectfully submitted. - -
SAMUEL G. ARTINGSTALL,
Chief Engineer.
REPORT OF SAMUEL G. ARTINGSTALL, CHIEF ENGINEER, TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, ON LOCATION OF DRAINAGE CHANNEL BETWEEN
SUMMIT AND JOI, IET
- JUNE 20, 1891.
The homorable Board of Trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
GENTLEMEN: I have the honor to submit the following report, with estimates,
being the result of investigations for the continuation of the main channel from
Summit to Joliet. Much care and consideration has been given to locate this
line So it can be constructed at the least cost and at the same time comply with
all the requirements of the law in regard to dimensions, capacity, and velocity
Of water. The section from Summit to Willow Springs is located so as to
avoid all expensive rock excavation. From Willow Springs to Lockport, the
route is laid out so that it occupies the lowest ground and generally follows the
bed of the Desplaines River. This is a material advantage in the portion be-
tween Lemont and Lockport, where the whole depth of the channel is in hard
limestone rock. From Lockport it is proposed to build the channel down the
slope to the upper basin in Joliet “ of sufficient width and depth to carry off
the water the channel shall bring down from above.” At the upper end of this
slope is to be a movable dam to control and regulate the amount of water flow-
ing in the Channel above and to guard against damage which is liable to OC-
cur in flood Seasons to Joliet and below, unless means are taken to hold the
Water in Check at Such times.
There will also be a series of basins, weirs, and races in this section, which
incidentally can be utilized for power, and in time be a source of revenue to the
(listrict.
To avoid as much as possible expensive limestone excavation, it is proposed to
construct the channel below Lockport partly by removing obstructions, and
partly by embankment of rubble masonry walls backed by the waste materials.
Dikes Will also have to be constructed to protect Some of the low grounds from
being flooded.
The proposed channel is almost entirely artificial, although in some parts it
Occupies the present bed of the Desplaines River and is subject to its floods
which will be under control by the movable dam at Lockport. As that part of
the route above Lockport for a length of nearly 10 miles is almost wholly in
rock, and the work of excavating any channel through it will be of necessity
slow and tedious, work in this section can be commenced both at Lockport and
at or near Willow Springs, and prosecuted as fast as the means at the disposal
of the district will permit, while the less difficult stretches between Summit and
Willow Springs, and between Lockport and Joliet can proceed in such manner
as to allow ample time to consider and carefully design suitable adjuncts neces-
sary for the proper control of the waters when the channel is completed.
Between Summit and Joliet, a distance of 24% miles, there will be 21,162,000
cubic yards of waste material, of which 8,303,383 cubic yards is rock excava-
tion and 12,858,617 cubic yards earth or glacial deposit.
This great quantity of spoil I consider of no marketable value at this time.
and it is impracticable to dispose of it, except by depositing it on each side of
the channel. A sufficient width of right of Way Will be necessary for this pur-
OSę.
p I estimate the cost of constructing the channel as Outlined above:
From Summit to west end of 14-foot channel near Willow
Springs at - $3,907, 582
From west end of 14-foot channel to Lockport at 9, 031,973
From Lockport to Joliet at 1, 605, 910
| Total estimated cost 14, 545, 465
1 118 II.LINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The cost of right of way is not included in the foregoing estimates. The
spoil is to be deposited on the bank on each side of the channel. excepting the
Small portion of the rock which can be used in building walls, dams, etc.,
below Lockport.
Respectfully submitted.
SAMUEL G. ARTINGSTALL,
Chief of Engineers.
In the month of April, 1891, the sanitary district advised the War
Department that it had passed an ordinance including within the
sanitary district and its channels the Chicago River, and the lan-
guage contained in it is that the Sanitary District of Chicago “do
forthwith enter upon, use, widen, deepen, and improve the Chicago
River so as to make the same a proper and sufficient supply channel
for the main channel.” º
The CHAIRMAN. Is that all that it said?
Mr. BARRETT. No; there is a great deal more in it. Let me have
Exhibit C, page 21. This is a certified copy of the resolution of
April 21, 1891, passed by the board of trustees of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago:
RESOLUTION OF APR l I, 21, 1891, OF THE BO \RD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SANITARY
DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
Resolved, That this board hereby ordains that the Sanitary District of
Chicago do forthwith enter upon, use, widen, deepen, and improve the Chicago
Iłiver from its mouth at Lake Michigan to the South Branch thereof, and also
the South Branch thereof, together with the South and West Forks thereof,
SO as to make the same a proper and Sufficient Supply channel for the main
channel heretofore surveyed from the Chicago River to Joliet ; and, further.
that the acting chief engineer be, and he is hereby, directed immediately to
investigate and report upon the capacity of said river and its said South
Branch and forks for that purpose, and also as to any changes that should
be made therein, and that a copy of this resolution, certified by the clerk,
be forthwith transmitted to the mayor and common council of the city of
Chicago and the Secretary of War of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that a man sitting in Wash-
ington would take that resolution to mean this—that you were to
have a channel sufficient for navigation purposes, the only channel
that has been talked of up to that time being 7 feet, and it would be
put upon notice simply that you were going to carry in that channel
sewage
Mr. BARRETT. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not that the natural meaning of the language,
without a man being on the ground, would not that be the natural
interpretation of it?
Mr. BARRETT. No; I don’t think so.
The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be the necessary interpretation?
Mr. BARRETT. No; I do not think that it is either the natural or
necessary interpretation. Do not lose sight of this fact, that when
we passed our legislation the War Department and the Congress
of the United States were advised. When the sanitary district
was organized they were advised, and included therein was the pro-
vision which required the 10,000 cubic feet per second flow. Then
before we started to dig or turn over a shovelful of earth we ad-
vised the War Department that the Chicago River has been included
in our sanitary project, and that we were about to enter upon it for
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1119
the purpose of widening and deepening it so as to furnish a supply
channel for our sanitary district of sufficient size to furnish our
legal flow.
The CHAIRMAN. But that is not the way it reads.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, let us see if it does not read that way. I do
not want to misread anything.
The CHAIRMAN. And you have not, but you are quoting from
memory.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I will say that my memory is pretty good.
Let us see if it is not. It reads:
Resolved, That this board hereby ordains that the Sanitary IDistrict of
Chicago do forthwith enter upon, use, widen, deepen, and improve the Chi-
cago River from its mouth at Lake Michigan to the South Branch thereof,
and also the South Branch thereof, together with the South and West Forks
thereof, so as to make the same a proper and sufficient supply Channel for the
main channel heretofore surveyed from the Chicago River to Joliet.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a supply channel for the main channel:
º: i; the proposed purpose of it; that is what you are going to do
it for .
Mr. BARRETT. In other words, this is an exact reprint of some of
the language contained in our legislation. Nothing was done by
chance. When they drew the resolution they used the same lan-
guage. It is all these things that go to make up the general circum-
stances that exist here.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that you ought to construe what
was contained in an isolated sentence as to apply to the whole com-
prehensive language.
Mr. BARRETT. In April, 1892, we had selected the route through
which the sanitary channel was to be built, and a report regarding
this was sent by the division engineer at Chicago to the Chief of
Engineers, and in due course it was sent to the Secretary of War
and the Congress of the United States.
In the annual report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of
War and the Congress of the United States for the year 1892, the
following appears, in a somewhat lengthy discussion, between pages
225 and 227:
Doubtless the slow improvement of this river (Illinois) has resulted from
a difference of opinion as to the method of improvement that should be
applied. On the other hand, the necessities of the city of Chicago for better
drainage has demanded a large discharge into the Illinois River for sani-
tary purposes, which discharge would make an open river improvement
practicable below La Salle; on the other hand is the fact that the most
economical and effective system, as far as navigation is concerned, is that
by slackwater, modified, perhaps, by movable dams in the alluvial valley
of the Illinois, Lake Michigan being below the summit level, the channels
being comparatively shallow but of greater width than proposed for san-
itary purposes. Additional friction and consequent injury to both the scheme
for a navigable channel and to the local drainage measure, delaying both,
has been due to the demand by advocates of the latter that the United
States shall construct the navigable channel of the dimensions necessary
for the drainage scheme without regard to the most economical channel
and speedy method of meeting the absolute requirements of commerce by
water over the connecting link between 14,000 miles of interior navigation
existing upon the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and the Great Lakes.
These dissentions are now apparently quieted, and without friction the
question of the extension of the navigation existing on the western rivers
to the Great Lakes, the best dimensions and location of channel from Joliet
1120 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
to La Salle and the advisability and conditions of joint use by the United
States for navigation and the city of Chicago for drainage of the channel
that must be cut for both purposes across the rock in place from near
Willow Springs to near Lockport can be now examined.
Upon this subject the reports of the Chief of Engineers for 18S9, page
2121 et seq.; for 1890, page 2419 et seq.; and 1891, page 2611 et seq.; are
referred to.
The authorities ef the Sanitary District of Chicago have progressed so
far with their work as to have definitely located for the third time a part of
the drainage channel, and have taken an additional step in advance by
Soliciting and receiving proposals for the construction of their channel for
drainage across the rock between Willow Springs and Lockport. The prices
Secured are very favorable; the contract has not yet been awarded, but the
proposals are under advisement by the trustees. -
So it is apparent that immediately after our route had been
Selected the War Department and Congress of the United States
were advised regarding the same, and had full knowledge of the
facts before we began our construction. -
In the same year bids were advertised for and shortly there-
after contracts were made and the work was under construction
in 1893. In 1893 we were under construction. That is pretty
fast work. Ordinarily these things would take a great deal of
time. But conditions in Chicago at that time were such that the
utmost speed was necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. It shows what you can do in an emergency.
Mr. BARRETT. This was a case of do it or die, and we started out
to do it. We can do anything, within the range of the possible,
that any other place in the world can do. . But we can not do im-
possibilities. t
Now, in 1895, for the purpose of showing that the War Depart-
ment was not asleep, we find that a commission
The CHAIRMAN. They are never asleep, you say? - -
Mr. BARRETT. We have been under the impression at times that
they stay awake too long.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It seems as if you had made water go upstream
in a number of instances. -
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; the first instance of its kind in the world.
It was the topic of discussion of the civilized world when we were
doing it. When people came to us in multitudes during the World's
Fair time they gazed on it in wonderment; it was the marvel of the
entire world. And now, after we have spent over $150,000,000 on it,
some people want us to throw it onto the scrap heap.
The CHAIRMAN. You don’t have to go any farther than Baltimore
to find that they had, as I understand it, until a comparatively
recent time a system of sewage disposal directly through the gutters,
and I have no doubt they spent a lot of money on that; but, of
course, that was absolutely archaic. -
Mr. BARRETT. I do not know about that; but, of course, there is a
reason why Baltimore had to keep its sewage out of natural
channels. - * *
The CHAIRMAN. Of course they have provided other systems now.
Mr. KINDRED. When you referred to the necessity of scrapping
the immense plant in Chicago that you referred to, do you mean
after you have built the sewage-disposal plants in Chicago, such as
you have referred to, which will no doubt be a model to the world
when it is finished, you will have to scrap all you have done now?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1121
Mr. BARRETT. No. I do not want to be misunderstood. Here is
what I have in my mind: You folks down here in the eastern part
of the country have done a wonderful lot to build up and improve
the United States, and we who came much later
Mr. KINDRED (interposing). We take off our hats to the West also.
Mr. BARRETT. We came later, however, blazed the trails in the
West, and we have tried to aid you in making this the greatest
Nation in the world. The combination of work by you in the East
and by us in the Middle West and by those beyond the Rocky Moun-
tains have built up the greatest Nation in the history of all the
world. - -
We have started down there in Chicago to build what we con-
sider—and we in Chicago are trying to think 50 years or a hundred
years ahead—we have started out to build from Chicago what we
conceive to be the kind of channel with the kind of flow that the
great Middle West needs to take care of this United States as it will
be 50 or 100 years from now.
Mr. KINDRED. From the standpoint of navigation ?
Mr. BARRETT. From the standpoint of navigation, sir; and we are
hoping that when we get through here we will have demonstrated
to you gentlemen the absolute need of this flow of 10,000 cubic feet
per second to take care of the Great Lakes area, to take care of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New
York, and their commerce on the Great Lakes, to take care of the
great Middle West, so we may have New Orleans, way down on the
Gulf, grow like Chicago has grown, and that the entire country will
keep pace with what we believe it will be 50 years from now, and
that New Orleans and Chicago will grow until they are as large as
New York City: and we should not act here to-day on this momen-
tous question like a village board which sees only its needs of to-day
without giving a thought to things that may and will be needed in
the years to come; and I say to you, sir, that regardless of whether
at some future time we need that 10,000 cubic feet for sanitary and
health purposes, we do not want you to take it away from the
Mississippi Valley, which will need it for commercial and naviga-
tion purposes. We want you to think a long time ahead.
The reason that the British have succeeded so well in their con-
ferences is due to the fact that they have always figured for the im-
mediate present and for the years to come, and I want you to think
50 or 100 years ahead, and when you do and you reach a conclusion,
you are going to say, “Why, Chicago and its sewage treatment is
only an incident.” We have got to leave this water where it is so
that the Mississippi River will be made a great commercial artery,
so that we can float any kind of a ship on it from the Gulf up into
the Great Lakes and thence to any other part of the country by the
St. Lawrence waterway, if you please, or through a canal built en-
tirely within our own country connecting the Great Lakes with the
sea, as some of you gentlemen suggested a few days ago. It would be
a wonderful thing if we could be absolutely in control of the artery
which leaves the Great Lakes to the east as we are to the south, where
it is entirely within our own country.
When a waterway is entirely within our own domain we can use
it as we please in every emergency, and it will not be necessary to
9.1739—24—PT 2 56
1122 ILLINorS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
determine whether under our treaty with Canada and Great Britain
We can use it in the event of war with another nation, and it will
not be necessary, after we have spent a billion dollars on the St.
Lawrence waterway, to listen to protests from Great Britain regard-
ing our rights during peace time as we have been required to do
under our boundary waters treaty and limitations of armaments
treaty. We should be extremely cautious about putting a thousand
million dollars of our money into a waterway that we can not con-
trol, and I want you gentlemen to keep this 10,000 second-feet in the
Middle West, where we have one that we can control. We are en-
titled to it now, and don’t you let them take it away from us. Keep
it for commerce and for the national defense. Chicago's sewage
treatment is only an incident.
In 50 years perhaps Chicago may be able to take care of its sewage.
You think about the United States. Give us a half century and we
will take care of Chicago. We are greatly interested in our own
immediate needs, but we are more interested in the United States.
We know we are going to be able to take care of ourselves in ume
and that the Congress of this great country will not deprive us of
necessary time; but when you start to spend our money on the St.
Lawrence hearken to the protests we have now from Canada and
Great Britain as to whether we have the right to do the things which
the language of our treaties obviously says we may do, and remember
that notwithstanding the undoubted meaning of these treaties we
have protests for breakfast, for dinner, and for supper, until
we are not sure whether we are on foot or horseback; that we have
complaints until we are fed up on them, and disputes over language
the meaning of which is so obvious that we wonder whether we have
any conception of the meaning of words which we have learned at
our mothers' knees and used all our lives.
Don’t you let them take this water away from the United States.
Just take care of the great West. This country is big now, but in
another century we are going to be a great deal larger.
Now, that is what I have in my mind, Doctor. I never had any
idea that I would like to come to Congress, and after I see the
amount of work which you men have to do I am not seeking the place
now ; but if there is one thing or one reason in the world which would
make me want to come down here it would be to watch the kind of a
treaty they draw for this St. Lawrence waterway. If that treaty
is ever drawn I want it drawn by men who are wide awake and who
are animated by the thoughts of such men as Washington and
Lincoln.
Mr. KINDRED. Why draw it at all?
Mr. BARRETT. I will not quarrel if you do not draw it. If we have
to spend any money to get from the Great Lakes to the sea, I would
just as lieve spend it in New York State as any other place in the
world.
Mr. KINDRED. That is the shortest route, and it can be used longer
in the year. You and I are not going to have any trouble. -
Mr. BARRETT. No; we are not going to have any trouble on that.
I know, then, that you are not going to have any question as to what
rights you have under any treaty, and you won't be like we are in
Chicago, where on account of Canadian protests it has come to such a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1123
pass that even our children are asking how soon are they going to
take our water from us. i.
I want to call your attention to another thing right here, Doctor
Kindred. The boundary waters treaty of 1910 gave to the power
interests of Canada 9,400 cubic feet per second more than the total
of what was given to the American power interests on the New York
side of Niagara, and to the sanitary district at Chicago. In other
words, the United States got 30,000 cubic second-feet and Canada
got 39,400 cubic second-feet.
'Mr. HULL. How did they get more than 36,000—was it from the
Welland Canal?
Mr. BARRETT. Well, you know when they want it the language
means everything it says, but when we want it it does not mean what
you and I understand it to mean. They get the 3,400 feet in this
way: The treaty in one paragraph refers to diversion previously
permitted, and they say, “Well, we had this diversion previously
at the Welland Canal, we have been making power down there so
consequently that must be added to our 36,000 feet; but when we
gave you that 10,000 cubic second-feet at Chicago we did not mean
what we said.”
Now, that 9,400 second-feet, according to some people who figure
water power in Chicago is worth to them not less than $90,000,000.
Mr. HULL. Per year?
Mr. BARRETT. No.: not in a year, but capitalized; and possibly
more than $100,000,000; because they say they can produce out of
10,000 cubic second-feet of water 300,000 horsepower
The CHAIRMAN. Three hundred and thirty thousand.
Mr. BARRETT. All right, Mr. Chairman, you know more about that
than I do. Out of 9,400 second-feet, then, they can produce 300,000
approximately, can they not? If it is a little more or less we will
concede it, because we have been generous to a fault.
The CHAIRMAN. That would be an annual income at $15 of $450,000
would it not?
Mr. BARRETT. No; it figures $4,500,000.
Well, let us take that and find out what we gave them. What is
it? Is it $4,500,000? Is that what it is? It is $4,500,000 per year,
that is the profit, on the basis of what the chairman says it is prob-
ably worth.
Now, let us capitalize that and what is it worth. At $4,500,000
it is worth $90,000,000 of anybody’s money.
Are we going to give them $90,000,000 and then let them take away
our 10,000 cubic feet per second from Chicago?
These are not my figures, gentlemen; these are the figures of Sir
Adam Beck, who is the head of the Hydroelectric Commission of
Ontario, and he says they can make power out of water down there
at $4.50 a horsepower. Now, you remember that when you are try-
ing to find out, what they got.
Now, let us assume that they are going to take away from us—
and, of course, this is not going to happen—this 10,000 cubic feet
per second, and then you figure out what they got, and try to deter-
mine what they got when they are taking not 36,000 cubic feet per
second, but 45,000 cubic feet per second, and they admit and have
admitted that they have taken 45,000 cubic feet per second; but
they claim, of course, that they have a right to distribute their load.
1124 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. H. G. LEwis, of Ontario. Mr. Chairman, I just want to inter-
rupt to make sure about the figures. I understood you to say that
there was an authority for the statement that power could be de-
veloped for $4.40 per horsepower.
Mr. BARRETT. Isaid $4.50 per horsepower.
Mr. LEWIS. I would like to have the authority, because we do not
know of any place in Canada where power is being developed at such
a price. - 3.
Mr. BARRETT. All right. I am telling you what Sir Adam Beck
said as to power at the De Ceuw Falls. He said it was possible
to produce it there for $4.50 per horsepower, and he said also that
an equal division of water between Canada and the United States
was proper and right.
Mr. LEwis. I do not quarrel with that.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to say something further?
Mr. LEwis. I want to make clear about that. Evidently he has
something else he wants to speak and I wanted to comment upon that
point in answer to that.
The CHAIRMAN. You can do that while the judge is looking that up.
Mr. LEwis. I want to say this, that so far as De Ceuw Falls is
ºned the development there, even if the 10,000 cubic feet were
cut O
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Does the record show whom you
represent? Pardon me for interrupting.
Mr. LEwis. The Ontario Government, with Mr. Keefer.
Mr. BARRETT. I thought Mr. Stewart was to represent them.
Mr. LEwis. I am A. C. Lewis, M. P.; I am one of the members of
the Ontario Legislature, from Toronto. The De Ceuw Falls develop-
ment would not benefit by 1 foot if this 10,000 cubic feet should be
cut off at Chicago. But I am not discussing that point. Any addi-
tional development, if it were allowed by the new treaty between the
two countries at Niagara or any other development in the St. Law-
rence River, would benefit by this 10,000 cubic feet added to what is
now flowing through those rivers could not possibly develop horse-
power at anything like the sum mentioned, $4.50.
Mr. BARRETT. All right. I am going to read what Sir Adam Beck
said to a committee of Congress in Washington in April, 1918. This
is at page 728 and page 767 of a book entitled Water Power Hear-
ings Before the Committee on Water Power of the House of Rep-
resentatives, held between March 18 and May 15, 1918. At page 728
he said:
The city of Hamilton derives its supply from the Welland Canal. The
compa;ny pays 50 cents a horsepower for its license. It is a very economic
and chean development. They take the water from the canal and have about
275 or 300 feet fall. The Jordan Creek serves as a tail race. . They claim
their power costs only $4.50 a horsepower.
And at page 767 of the same book he said:
The Dominion Power Co. estimated that the actual cost of power developed
at De Ceuw Falls from the Welland Canal, with nearly 300 feet of head, Costs
$4.50 a horsepower.
Mr. LEwis. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. What is that?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1125
Mr. LEwis. I say yes; I am not quarreling with that. My state-
ment still stands
Mr. BARRETT. I have made my statement.
Mr. LEwis. I am not quarreling with those figures if they are
given by Sir Adam Beck. The point I am making is this: The
argument advanced that this 10,000 feet per second is diverted at
Chicago and sent on through the channels at Niagara and the St.
Lawrence would not increase the development at De Ceuw Falls—
Mr. BARRETT. No ; you can’t increase that, neither can you increase
it at Niagara.
Mr. LEWIS. If an extra diversion was allowed by a treaty from
Niagara or in the St. Lawrence, this 10,000 cubic feet per second
could be turned into electric energy only at a cost of approximately
$15 per horsepower.
Mr. HULL. If you were to get the 10,000 feet now used in Chicago
and take it into Canada, you would certainly develop the water
power such as has been developed'
Mr. LEwis. No.
Mr. HULL. Why not :
Mr. LEwrs. Because that is the one place
Mr. BARRETT. I am not talking about the 10,000 feet at Chicago; I
ann talking about the 9,400 cubic feet that Canada got over and above
everything else. Now I am going to talk about something else.
Mr. BOYCE. Where is Deceuw Falls?
Mr. LEWIs. At the Welland Canal, and the water used at Deceuw
Falls is the surplus water at the Welland Canal.
The C11 Å IRMAN. Mr. Hull asked you if the development could not
be as cheap at Niagara per horsepower as it was at Lockport, Ill. A
Mr. HULL. Oh, no; what I was trying to get at was this: That if
they took the 10,000 cubic feet per second and put it into Canada
would not they be able to develop horsepower as cheap as Mr. Beck
says? •
The CILAIRMAN. I did not understand your question, them.
Mr. LEwis. No.
Mr. HULL. Why?
Mr. LEwis. Because you could not use that diversion at Deceuw
Falls. -
Mr. HULL. Is there not any other place you can use it?
Mr. LEwis. No; neither in the St. Lawrence nor at Niagara could
you develop horsepower at that price.
The CHAIRMAN. In the Welland Canal you do not get as much
power out of a cubic foot, do you?
Mr. LEwis. No; but it is a cheap development. It is, however, an
inefficient development. In the New Welland Canal, of course, there
is no power development provided for at all. I do not want to get
into a controversy, but I felt that so far as the cost of developing this
power was concerned that you want to get into a controversy, but I
felt that so far as the cost of developing this power was concerned
that you want to have the record straight.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, I am going to talk about another power de-
velopment we have heard considerable about at one time or another.
and referring to what the gentleman has now said, that it is an
inefficient development, of course that is their fault; it is not ours.
1126 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, let us discuss the situation with the Ontario Power Co. We
have been told a great many things about all their investments and
finances. If I understand rightly, and if I get wrong on this, some
of you gentlemen from Canada please put me back on the track.
There were about 160,000 horsepower developed at the Ontario Power
Co. in 1917. One hundred thousand of that horsepower was under
contract to the Hydroelectric Commission of Ontario and 60,000
under contract, I think, to the Niagara-Lockport Co. The Ontario
Power Co. claimed the right to develop not 160,000 but 185,000 horse-
power. Some dispute arose. In other words, they claimed the right to
develop some 18-foot project there that I do not quite understand my-
self, and a dispute arose, and eventually the Ontario Power Co. sold
to the Hydroelectric Commission of Ontario, and they took it over
with this 60,000 horsepower contract on their hands. The 100,000
horsepower contract was in their own hands; the 60,000 horsepower
contract was at $12.50 per horsepower with the Niagara-Lockport Co.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it was an American contract.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to those things which
are within my knowledge.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, will you let me finish this, and then I will be
glad to. The other contract was I think for $9.50, and the Hydro-
electric Commission of Ontario bought the Ontario Power Co. at a
price, roughly, of $23,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Who made the purchase, Judge?
Mr. BARRETT. The Hydroelectric Commission of Ontario.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. And we have authority for this statement, that with
those two contracts, one at $9 and one at $12.50, that in 25 years
they will have a fully equipped plant, entirely paid for, and all of
their bonded indebtedness paid and wiped out on the profits made
at those prices. So I do not think they have gotten a very bad bar-
gain. If I am wrong on that Sir Adam Beck is wrong. . That is
in his testimony. Mr. Chairman, according to Mr. Beck they have
been making so much money on their power developments over
there that they have had to cut the price from time to time in order
to keep from paying their debts too fast.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest what my personal understanding
of the situation is. The debts of the hydroelectric commission are
guaranteed by the Province of Ontario.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; everything guaranteed by the Province
of Ontario.
The CHAIRMAN. And that commission pays no taxes.
Mr. BARRETT. Sir Adam says they do.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. BARRETT. Then Sir Adam Beck is wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding is that they paid no taxes
there locally, or that the Province of Ontario
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). That is not the way we read him,
Mr. Dempsey.
The CHAIRMAN. My authority for that, I will say frankly, is
Hugh Cooper, who is probably the most eminent engineer in the
world.
Mr. BARRETT. I have heard of him.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1127
The CHAIRMAN. Cooper told me, and the Ontario Power Co. has
also informed me, that that is the fact. Hugh Cooper told me also
on the question of certain estimates that Sir Adam Beck made a
report to the Canadian Government that it would cost $10,000,000
and Hugh Cooper said it would cost $70,000,000, and when the work
was finished it was found that it did cost $75,000,000, and these
estimates here are by him that he gave to his Government.
Mr. BARRETT. I did not bring him into the United States and
he is
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I have no interest one way or the
other in this matter, but I am telling you the information that comes
to me.
Mr. BARRETT. We have a right to take what he says, because if
it is anything it is an admission against interest, and let me read
from this same report, from page 713 of the testimony of Mr. Beck:
I might here mention that in hydroelectric development the operating cost
is from 50 cents to $1 per horsepower, while the fixed charges on the capital
invested, interest, sinking fund and renewal funds, or depreciation, is from
$6 to $8 per horsepower. So you see how small an amount of the cost of
power constitutes labor or operating costs.
So he says that they did pay taxes.
Mr. MAGUIRE. May I say something?
Mr. BARRETT. I am talking now.
Mr. MAGUIRE. We want to correct the judge on some information
which we have and which we think he does not have. They pay the
taxes on land. -
Mr. BARRETT. We pay taxes on the property as it exists. We do
not volunteer it; but they tell us we have to pay, and we pay it.
The CHAIRMAN. What does Sir Adam Beck say?
Mr. BARRETT. He says that they do pay taxes, and this is his lan-
guage from page 749 of the record of the power hearings:
There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I think this committee should know.
It has been asserted that the hydroelectric power commission does not pay any
taxes; that the municipalities lose the tax on the properties owned and con-
trolled by the hydroelectric power commission and the various municipalities.
Three or four years ago We passed an act in the legislature, or we amended
the hydro act which made all lands taxable—all the lands owned or controlled
by the commission taxable for School and municipal purposes. So we pay taxes
on all the lands that we own or control in the various municipalities. At the
last Session the act was enlarged to include all utilities, whether a Street-
railway system, a waterworks System, gas plants, reservoirs, or electric plants.
The lands of all municipal undertakings are taxed for municipal and for School
purposes. So the statement no longer applies that we are not paying taxes.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you will find that what I give to you is
substantially true.
Mr. BARRETT. I want to say that in 1918 that was the greatest
power development in the world, greater by far than our Common-
wealth-Edison Co. of Chicago.
Mr. MAGUIRE. If Judge Barrett will permit one suggestion?
Mr. BARRETT. All right.
Mr. MAGUIRE. On the exportation of power from the Province of
Ontario to the United States last year the provincial commission lost
260,000.
$ Mr. BARRETT. That does not quite square with Sir Adam Beck.
I expect everybody to honor their contracts.
1128 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MAGUIRE. But the commission under the pre-war contract with
the United States lost $260,000.
Mr. HULL. Didn’t every organization in the United States lose
money on their pre-war contracts?
Mr. MAGUIRE. Quite true; but Judge Barrett, I think, had the idea
that they were making fabulous profits. As a matter of fact, they are
losing money. g -
Mr. BARRETT. I will read what Sir Adam Beck said.
Mr. MAGUIRE. But you said that Sir Adam Beck said that they
were selling at $4.50—
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). I did not say any such thing.
The CHAIRMAN. No, no: he did not.
Mr. MAGUIRE. That was the statement that you made.
Mr. BARRETT. The record will show what I said.
The CHAIRMAN. He said it cost $4.50.
Mr. MAGUIRE. He said Sir Adam Beck said that was the figure.
Mr. BARRETT. I might read again what I read before.
Mr. MAGUIRE. But I am sure that he made the statement. -
Mr. BARRETT. I think he knows what is going on down there. I
know that some of this may hurt, but the truth should be told.
Mr. MAGUIRE. The truth will never hurt.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think it will, either, but it sometimes is not
very pleasant. This is what Sir Adam Beck said on the subject of
profit on purchase of American plant:
The remaining 60,000 is under contract to the Niagara-Lockport Co. We
assumed the whole of the bonded indebtedness of the company, amounting to
about $15,000,000. We acquired the common stock of the company and paid
them $8,000,000 in 40-year hydroelectric power 4 per cent commission bonds,
guaranteed by the Province of Ontario. A transformer station and a Short
System Of lines in the immediate vicinity of the plan itself—we reduced the
cost of operation by over $40,000 a year—we have two firm contracts, one, with
the municipalities and one with the Niagara-Lockport Co., expiring in 1950;
our revenue will be sufficient to maintain the plant to the highest point of effi-
ciency, provide for renewals and depreciation charges and Operation ; we will
have sufficient revenue to retire the whole of the debt in 25 years—that is,
instead of the Ontario Power Co. owning this plant, we will in 25 years, Out of
the reserves that we are setting aside, pay off the whole of our indebtedness
and own the plant free of debt in 25 years from last August.
Now, if the gentlemen say that I am mistaken, here is the record
from which I am quoting, and this is what he said.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he did.
Mr. MAGUIRE. Surely.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, when we had this break, resulting in
the discussion of profits made by the hydroelectric commission and
the value of the excess of 9,400 cubic second-feet to that organization,
I had made the statement that in 1918 the Hydroelectric Commission
of Ontario was the greatest power development in the world; greater
by far than the Commonwealth-Edison Co., of Chicago. This is
demonstrated by the statement of Sir Adam Beck before the power
committee which held its hearings at Washington and to which I
have heretofore referred. From that record of the testimony of Sir
Adam Beck, on pages 723 and 724, I read the following:
The commission up to date has invested $53,000,000 in transmission, distribut-
ing, and generating Systems, and the municipalities have invested $17,000,000,
or a total of over $70,000,000. We anticipate by 1921 we will have invested
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1129
over $100,000,000—the municipalities and the commission—in hydroelectric
power Systems in the Province of Ontario. We are distributing 310,000 horse-
power. In 1921 we will have available 750,000 horsepower for the use of the
people in the Province of Ontario.
And on page 768 of the same record the following appears from
the testimony of Sir Adam Beck:
(Question by member of committee :)
Mr. HAMILTON. I understood you to say that the Hydroelectric Power Co. is
the largest corporation in the world transmitting and delivering electric
energy—the largest individual company distributing and transmitting power
in the world.
Sir ADAM BECK. We distributed about 1,800,000,000 kilowatt-hours during
the year 1917, as against 1,400,000,000 of the Commonwealth-Edison Co., of
Chicago.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it
is almost impossible to understand the reason for this constant fuss
and dispute upon the part of Canada regarding the 10,000 cubic
second-feet of water used by us at Chicago when the facts are known
regarding the amount of undeveloped water power available in the
Province of Ontario and in the Dominion of Canada generally. On
this subject I wish to read from the testimony of Sir Adam Beck
before the power committee of the Congress of the United States.
I read now from pages 748 and 749 of the record of that committee,
the testimony appearing in the form of questions and answers:
Mr. FERRIs. I want to ask you a fundamental question, if I may, Sir Adam.
What is the total estimated potential horsepower in Canada, all told? Do
you know
Sir ADAM BECK. Between five and six million in Ontario. The total is
between fifty and sixty million in Canada. -
Mr. FERRIs. What percentage of the aggregate is now developed and in use?
Sir ADAM RECK. In Ontario about three quarters of a million.
Mr. FERRIs. And what was the total in Ontario?
Sir ADAM HECK. Between five and six million.
Mr. FERRIs. And what percentage of the aggregate of the Dominion of
Canada is being used ?
Sir ADAM RECK. That I do not know. '
Mr. FERRIs. The figures you have been giving us have been Province figures?
Sir ADA M BECR. Yes. *
Mr. FERRIs. Relating to Ontario principally 7
Sir ADAM BEck. Altogether ; I have been speaking entirely from a provincial
standpoint.
The following is an interesting excerpt from his testimony, which
appears at page 765 of that testimony:
Mr. HAMILTON. And you don’t think that we should hesitate to increase the
quantity of water to be used?
Sir ADAM IRECK. I think it will be many, many years before We Will generate
enough power at Niagara Falls to affect seriously the scenic effect of Horseshoe
Falls.
You gentlemen of the committee will doubtlessly be quite as in-
terested as I was when I discovered in the testimony of Sir Adam
Beck, given in 1918, that the Hydroelectric Commission of Ontario
had prior to that time negotiated with the Minister of Railways and
Canals of the Canadian Government for the potential water power
of the then and now proposed St. Lawrence waterway, and you will
also be interested to learn that Sir Adam Beck has reached the con-
clusion that the levels of the Great Lakes may be regulated for power
purposes if for no other.
1130 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
I read now from page 723 of the report of the power committee,
to which I have heretofore referred:
We are operating 12 distinct districts. The Trent Canal enters the St.
Lawrence at Trenton. The St. Lawrence is the next largest source of power
Supply that is of an international character. You will remember the contro-
Versy we had about the devel Opment of the LOng SOO Rapids on the St. Law–
rence. The Aluminum, CO. Secured a Charter from the State Of New York.
That has been canceled since, I believe. They secured the riparian rights on
both sides of the river and applied to the Dominion Government for the right
to build a dam, which would have been an international dam. Our desire
was that the two countries should build a dam and create a deep waterway
down the St. Lawrence to the seaboard so that vessels with, say, 25-foot draft
would be able to pass through the Welland Canal that we are building at the
present time and enlarging at an expenditure of millions of dollars, enabling
vessels to pass through the canal and down the St. Lawrence to the sea. * * *
And from this point on in my reading, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to have the record printed in italic type:
Incidentally we will be creating two large water-power developments by the
building Of two dams, one of which will regulate the level of Lake Ontario and
develop over 1,000,000 horsepower. On an equal division you would have half
a million and we would have the Other half. We have the assurance of the
Minister of Railways and Canals that the 500,000 horsepower, or the right to
develop power on these two power developments on the St. Lawrence, will be
granted to the Hydroelectric Power Commission of the Province of Ontario.
The CHAIRMAN. That is on the St. Lawrence? º
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. The point that I was just about to take
ll
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Hugh Cooper says that the amount
there is a million and a half.
Mr. BARRETT. Seven hundred and fifty thousand each?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. He has not overstated it, then.
The CHAIRMAN. No. -
Mr. BARRETT. Maybe he has not overstated the other things either.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not say whether he has or not.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not say so, either. I am taking them at face
value.
I did not know, Mr. Chairman, that this St. Lawrence project had
reached the point where they were negotiating for the power to be
generated there, but I want particularly to call your attention to
his language on that subject, as well as to his statement “that dams
will regulate lake levels for power purposes.”
The CHAIRMAN. That is, in the opinion of Sir Adam Beck, who
is not an expert on dams of that kind?
Mr. BARRETT. Then we will come back to Colonel Warren, who
says that they will regulate lake levels, and he does say that they
can take 80,000 second-feet from the Niagara River at the Falls—
I know that he is not pleasing everybody in his report, because he
is suggesting that the Canadians get 4,000 of the additional and we
get 20,000. I do not think that is quite satisfactory to everybody.
The CHAIRMAN. If this is a convenient place for you, Congress-
man Newton and I have another engagement this afternoon.
Mr. BARRETT. May I just read another word, and I will give you
the other things in the morning? A man named Mr. Ferris, either
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1131
a Senator or a Congressman, who was on this committee, asked this
question of Sir Adam Beck:
Mr. FERRIs. I want to ask you a fundamental question, if I may, Sir Adam.
What is the total estimated potential horsepower in Canada, all told? Do
you know?
S’r ADAM BECK. Between five and six million in Ontario. The total is
between fifty and sixty million in Canada.
Mr. FERRIs. What percentage of the aggregate is now developed and in use?
Sir ADAM BECK. In Ontario about three-quarters of a million.
Mr. FERRIS. And what was the total in Ontario?
Sir ADAM BECK. Between five and six million.
Mr. FERRIs. And what percentage of the aggregate of the Dominion of
Canada is being used ?
Sir ADAM BECK. That I do not know.
Here is a tax proposition, and then I think I am through with
this, unless there are other questions that you want to ask me. This
appears on page 749 of this same book:
There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I think this committee should know :
It has been asserted that the Hydroelectric Power Commission does not pay
any taxes; that the municipalities lose the tax on the properties owned and
controlled by the Hydroelectric Power Commission and the various munici-
palities. Three or four years ago We passed an act in the legislature, or we
amended the hydro act, which made all lands taxable, all the lands Owned or
controlled by the commission taxable for school and municipal purposes. So
We pay taxes On all the lands that We Own Or COntrol in the various munici-
palities. At the last Session the act was enlarged to include all public utilities,
whether a street railway System, a Waterworks System, gas plants, reservoirs,
or electric plants. The lands of all municipal undertakings are taxed for
municipal and for School purposes. So the statement no longer applies that we
are not paying taxes.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not he says at any
stage in his testimony whether it applies to improvements on the
land or not?
Mr. BARRETT. I did not go any further into it than I have read.
I do not know that he says any more in his statement, but he wanted
to make it quite clear •
Mr. MANSFIELD. (interposing). I think he made the statement that
that included the improvements on the land.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I am sure that he said that they paid taxes,
and he left it right there, and if they paid taxes it was only nominal
in amount.
M. FCINDRED. The statement he read said that they paid taxes on
land.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. I take it, Doctor, that “land ” includes im-
provements also.
The CHAIRMAN. What I wanted to develop was whether that
language was to be taken in its plain significance or whether there was
an affirmative statement that it did not include structures erected on
the land.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, it is perfectly all right with me if you adjourn
In OW. r g
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will adjourn until 10.15 to-morrow
morning.
(Whereupon, at 4.20 p.m.. the committee adjourned.)
1132 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
º Tuesday, May 13, 1924.
The committee met at 10.15 a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman), presiding. +.
J . CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Proceed,
udge.
STATEMENT OF MIR. GEORGE F. BARRETT–Resumed
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
wish at this time to make certain that there is no misunderstanding
or confusion on the part of any member of this committee regarding
the effect upon lake levels of our diversion at Chicago, and for that
purpose I wish to make the following statement.
Every engineer who has investigated the effect of a diversion of
10,000 cubic second-feet of water through the channels of the Sami-
tary District of Chicago and has charged that this diversion would
have the effect of lowering the levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron,
Erie, and Ontario, has admitted that after this diversion of 10,000
cubic second-feet of water has been going on for a period approxi-
mating five years, that the levels of the lakes which I have mentioned
would be lowered approximately 5% inches, and that after the levels
had been reduced by that amount, there would be no further reduc-
tion. -
If there is any question about this I am prepared to answer it.
If any man in this room, engineer or otherwise, takes a different
position on this subject than what I have now stated, I wish that he
would speak, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are justified in
assuming that my statement is entirely correct in view of the fact
that there is now no dispute concerning it.
The CHAIRMAN. I am inclined to think that that statement is
correct. That is my understanding of it, I will say that.
Mr. BARRETT. I merely wanted to get that before the committee,
so that there will not be anybody laboring under the impression
that a continuation of this diversion would mean a continual lower-
ing of the lake levels. I think that that is probably generally
understood.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no testimony before us to the contrary
as I understand it.
Mr. Boyce. May I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; Judge Boyce.
Mr. BoxcE. When, if you know, was the first discovery that the
lake levels had been lowered 51/2 or 6 inches—how long ago?
Mr. BARRETT. May I answer that in this way, Judge? Before
we took a thimbleful of water out of the Great Lakes, aside from
that which we were taking for our Illinois & Michigan Canal.
the board authorized and appointed by the War Department, under
direction of Congress and headed by General Poe, reported that
there would probably be a lowering of the lakes due to this 10,000
second-foot diversion of from 5 to 6 inches.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1133
Mr. BoxcE. When, after there had been a diversion from Lake
Michigan at Chicago, 10,000 feet per second, if so much at any time,
was it discovered as a fact?
Mr. BARRETT. That is a question about which
Mr. BoxCE (interposing). I have not finished my question.
Mr. BARRETT. Pardon me, Judge.
Mr. BoycE. Was it discovered as a fact that there had been a
lowering of the Great Lakes of 51/2 to 6 inches?
Mr. BARRETT. I would like to answer that in this way, Judge.
That is a matter about which there has been a great deal of dis-
pute. The records will show when the engineers appear here that
for several years after we started taking this water that the levels
were higher than they had been for a number of years before, and
then it will appear that there was a decrease in levels.
Mr. BoxcE. I have no thought of getting into the question of lake
level because of seasonal conditions.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not know that these could be said to be exactly
seasonal. I think you will find that these were mean averages cover-
ing a period of years. The actual discovery of it has never been
testified to by any seafaring man on the Great Lakes. The best
testimony we have had on it is from people at the various ports
who say that they have noticed that the water was lower on docks and
wharves, and then we have had the testimony of these hydraulic
engineers that it must be so.
Mr. Boy CE. Now, how long since? How far back was that ob-
servation made?
Mr. BARRETT. As to which phase of it—the engineers?
Mr. BoycE. I do not care whether the observations were made
by captains, engineers, or other competent persons. When was the
observation first made that there was in fact a lowering, whether
at the docks, or out on the surface of the Lakes?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think that I can give you exact dates on
that. As soon as it was apparent that we were to open the sanitary
channel, they started in to make measurements, and those things
have been progressive since. I do not think you can find any par-
ticular date.
The CHAIRMAN. I think General Bixby fixed the time. I think
he testified to a time.
Mr. ADCOCK. I think Mr. Shanahan will state the time when the
first extended measurements were made on the St. Clair River—that
is, gauging of the St. Clair.
Mr. BoycE. My present purpose is to get on the record if we can,
in connection with the statement which you made respecting your .
information that after a continuous diversion from two to three
years, sufficient to affect lake levels, there would be no further
lowering of the Lakes, if the quantity of the diversion was not in-
creased? *
Mr. BARRETT. As to when that was discovered?
Mr. BoycE. Yes; I desire to get that information on the record in
connection with your statement, because it will be worth while to
know when the discovery was made.
General BIxBY. At least 25 years ago.
1134 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. I think the engineers theoretically figured this out
and arrived at that conclusion a long time ago, before we opened
the canal, as to whether it has been definitely determined and testi-
fied to by the ordinary lay witness ;
Mr. BoycE (interposing). I desire to bring the discovery out in
connection with the diversion, if possible. -
Mr. BARRETT. If we can get the information on that, Judge, and
put it into the record.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is it your position now that there will be no
further lowering unless there is an increase in the diversion?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. If there is any lowering at all due to
this, and we for the purpose of this case, in offering to correct this
condition, concede it, we are away from any question as to whether
it has happened or not, these men have said that it does, and in all
probability it does, and when it reaches the maximum of 5%.
inches then it is through and there will be no further lowering.
Mr. NEwTON. Has it reached that point yet?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, it has reached that point.
The CHAIRMAN. That depends upon whether you have diverted a
maximum?
Mr. BARRETT. I think we will be able to show you that as a fact.
Mr. BoycE. I suppose the fact is that equilibrium is reached in
the lake levels after two or three years between the diversion, what-
ever it may be, affecting the lake levels and the natural water sup-
plied to the Great Lakes?
Mr. BARRETT. I think that is so, and they go a little bit further.
The outflow at this place here [indicating on map.], the St. Clair,
and for the purpose of determining this, these engineers have con-
sidered Lake Huron and Lake Michigan as one body, they say the
outflow here from those lakes, we will say, is 185,000 second-feet.
They say at Chicago “You are taking out 10,000 second-feet.”
The result is that you have taken away from the outflow of the St.
Clair River that 10,000, and reduced it to 175,000 second-feet.
When that 10,000 second-feet goes out in this direction [indicating]
and the 175,000 in the other direction, it will lower it to the point
where the same 185,000 feet will go in both directions, and eventu-
ally it will reach the absolute minimum of level. That is my under-
standing of what the engineers say, and when it reaches that equilib-
rium as you have just expressed it, it can not be any lower. Of
course, if you had a 5,000 second-feet diversion it would be one-
half, and if you had a 20,000 second-feet diversion, it would be
twice as much. They mathematically develop it so that it is
pretty hard to dispute them, and I am not going to undertake to
do it.
Mr. BOYCE. Neither am I.
Mr. BARRETT. All right, Judge. I don't mind saying this, that it
took me a long time to find out how, but eventually it did sink in.
But then we have the flow running over the top, which of course
makes a difference. Now, developing this matter to its conclusion–
and I am going to hurry along here so that I won’t be intruding
myself on you gentlemen to the point where you will be exhausted—
in the month of June, 1896, the sanitary district, following its ordi-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1135
nance of 1891, which made the Chicago River a part of its sanitary
system, directed a communication to the Secretary of War, as fol-
lows:
CHICAGO, June 16, 1896.
The CHAIRMAN. This is from the sanitary district?
Mr. BARRETT. From the sanitary district to the Hon. Daniel S.
Lamont, Secretary of War, and it reads—some portions of it; I
am not going to read it all.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that, did you say?
Mr. BARRETT. The 16th of June, 1896, and this, of course, was
almost four years before we opened the channel and allowed the
water to flow through. [IReading:]
DEAR SIR : The work of the Sanitary District of Chicago has progressed SO
far that it is now necessary for us to enter upon that which must be done
in the Chicago River to make available the artificial channel which we have
under construction from Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport in Will County,
28 miles distant. gº -
Our connection with Lake Michigan must be through the Chicago River
with the West Fork of the South Branch of which we make a junction at
Robey Street. We send herewith a map showing in a general way our plans
for improving the Chicago River by widening and deepening at the points
indicated thereon by red hatchings and by figures which refer to explanation,
given in the legend on the map. It is desired to so correct and regularize the
cross section of the river as to secure a flowage capacity of 300,000 cubic feet
per minute with a velocity of 1% miles per hour. The cross section necessary
to accomplish this can be obtained throughout the greater part of the dis-
tance between Monrºe Street and Robey Street, by dredging the river to a
depth of 20 feet at midstream, with 12 feet at dock lines and a uniform slope
away from docks of 1 foot in 5, so that the full depth would be reached 40
feet from the dock lines; but there are places so narrow that this cross sec-
tion can Only be obtained by widening the river; and again the depth to be
obtained (fol. 211) in the vicinity of Van Buren Street is limited by the
height of the crown of the tunnel. To obviate this difficulty it is purposed
to Secure the requisite cross Section by constructing a by-pass to the west of
the bridges at Adams, Jackson, and Van Buren Streets, as indicated. We
ask your permission to proceed with the work upon the lines indicated and so
far as is consistent with propriety the cooperation of the United States En-
gineering Department.
Awaiting your favorable reply, and holding ourselves ready to respond to
any call from you for fuller information as to our plans, I am
Yours respectfully,
B. A. ECKHART, President.
I would like to have that in the record, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
Mr. BARRETT. It has been called to my attention that, perhaps, I
did not read a section of this report of General Poe, but I thought
I did, but if it is not in the record I want it put in. This report of
General Poe was made on the 16th of August, 1895, and is addressed
to Brig. Gen. William P. Craighill, Chief of Engineers, United
States Army, Washington, D. C.
The CHAIRMAN. Poe was the resident engineer?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not know that, Mr. Chairman. Is there some
one here who could answer as to whether Poe was the resident engi-
neer in Chicago at that time? I think he was the head of a board
appointed by the War Department.
Mr. WISNER. He was in Detroit at that time, and in charge of
Lake St. Clair. He was not in Chicago.
1136 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. This report is signed by O. M. Poe, colonel, Corps
of Engineers, brigadier general, United States Army, by E. D.
Ruffner, major of Engineers, United States Army, and by W. L.
Marshall, major, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, and I
think you will find that Major Marshall was resident engineer at
Chicago. -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What is the date of this, now?
Mr. BARRETT. The report?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. The 16th of August, 1895.
The CHAIRMAN. A year before the other one?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. t
You see, it was somewhat of a problem at that time, although they
had mathematically determined that it would happen they were not
absolutely certain about it, because nothing like this had ever hap-
pened before. It develops now that, according to their best informa-
tion, they were right at that time. They have not changed their
position in reference to it, and they figured that General Poe was
correct, and have found nothing to indicate the contrary.
At this very time, Mr. O’Hanley, appointed by the Dominion Gov-
ernment, was investigating among other things this very question,
and as will appear from his report, which will be introduced in the
record here, and I did read it the other day for one purpose, he
found after investigating the Poe report and all of the data avail-
able in the United States, at Chicago, Washington, Detroit, and
various other places, that in all probability there would be a 6-inch
lowering, and he reported to that effect.
Mr. Chairman, may this report of General Poe be made a part of
the record 2
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
Mr. BARRETT. The report is as follows:
CHICAGO. II.i... A hiſ ust 16, 1895.
3rig. Gen. WILLIA M P. ("R.A.I.G H iſ, L.
Chief of Engineers, United States , 1 rmy,
Washington, I). C.
GENERAI. : The IBoard of Engineers appointed by virtue of S. O. No. 14, C. S.,
Corps of Engineers, to consider and report upon “the probable effect of the
operation of the Chicago Drainage ("anal upon the lake and harbor levels and
upon the navigation of the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways,” sub-
mits the following report :
The board met in Chicago. August 12, 1895, and on the 13th and 14th accom-
panied the officers of the drainage (‘anal over the line under construction.
£very facility and courtesy possible has been extended by the trustees and
engineers of the canal for a full investigation of the subject matter. A brief
description of the canal is extracted from the printed report furnished the
board by these gentlemen.
The main drainage channel of the Sanitary T)istrict of (‘hicago is now under
contract from its confluence with the South Pranch of the Chicago IRiver, at
Robey Street, in the city of Chicago, to its southern terminus, in Will County,
Ill. At the southern end of the channel the controlling works will he located.
Beyond these works, the construction contemplated by the district will be the
work necessary for conducting the flow from the channel in conjunction with
the waters of the Des Plaines River down the declivity to and through the
city of Joliet, and making such changes in the Illinois & Michigan Canal as
the new conditions developed will make necessary. - .
The first work put under contract extended southwesterly from the Willow
Springs Road, and these sections were numbered consecutively Nos. 1 to 14.
Average length of sections, 1 mile. Fasterly from Willow Springs Road the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1187
Sections are lettered from A to O, omitting J. The lettered sections are, except
for a short distance near Summit, entirely in glacial drift, defined in the
Specifications thus: “ Glacial drift shall comprise the top soil, earth, muck,
Sand, gravel, clay, hardpan, bowlders, fragmentary rock displaced from its
original bed, and any other material that overlies the bedrock.”
The sections from 1 to 14 were put under contract in July, 1892; from A to F
Were put under contract late in 1892, and early in 1893; and G to M, inclusive,
were contracted for in December, 1893. Sections N and O were put under
contract May 2, and section 15, August 27, 1894. -
Earth was first broken on “Shovel Day,” September 3, 1892, on the rock
cut below Lamont. -
The Des Plaines Walley is traversed by the river from which it takes its
name—a Stream Of Wide fluctuations with no constant and reliable fountain
Supply. During Some Seasons its whole discharge would pass through a 6-inch
pipe, and at others its volume reaches 800,000 cubic feet per minute. Then
it rolls majestically along, flooding the whole valley. Such being the situa-
tion, Control of this stream was a condition precedent to the successful prosecu-
tion of the work upon the main channel. This control has been secured by the
Outlay of nearly $1,000,000 in constructing what is known as the river diversion
Channel. -
About 13 miles of new river channel had to be excavated with the location
of the main drainage channel and about 19 miles of levee built to divorce
the Waters Of the Des Plaines watershed from the channel which is to receive
the waters of Lake Michigan and pass them on to the Mississippi River via
the lower Des Plaines and the Illinois Rivers. The width of the river-diversion
channel On the bottom is 200 feet, side slopes 1% to 1, grade generally 12–100
per 1,000 feet. •
At the head of this river diversion it was necessary to provide a safety
Valve in the form of a spillway to allow surplus water to flow toward Chicago,
because arrangements have not as yet been perfected for carrying the entire
flood Waters Of the Des Plaines through Joliet.
This spillway is a concrete dam capped with cut stone and its wings faced
with stone masonry. It is 397 feet long, and its crest is 16.25 feet above
Chicago datum (this datum is referred to the low water of Lake Michigan of
1847 and is 579.61 above sea level at Sandy Hook). No water flows over this
spillway until the volume passing the water gauge above it reaches 300,000
cubic feet per minute.
The cross Section of the earth Sections from A to E, inclusive, is 202 feet
on the bottom, side slopes 2 to 1. This section extends for about 500 feet
into the west end of F and then reduces to 110 feet on the bottom, pre-
Serving the same side slopes. The explanation for this change of cross section
is as follows: Throughout the rock Sections and those sections in which there
is a preponderance Of hard material Or Where rock may appear the Section
adopted is designed according to law for a flow of 600,000 cubic feet of water
per minute, which means provision for a population of 3,000,000 people. The
narrow channel provides for a flow of 300,000 cubic feet per minute, or for
about the present population of Chicago. The enlargement of the narrow
channel can be made by the easier method Of excavation, such as dredging,
whenever the needs of the city require it. The grade throughout the lettered
sections is 1 foot in 40,000 (0.025 per 1,000 feet), and the bottom of the chan-
nel at Robey Street is 24,448 feet below datum. The numbered sections from
No. 1 to No. 6, inclusive, are underlaid with solid rock. The width of the
bottom in rock is 160 feet, and walls of masonry laid in cement will be built
upon the rock surface to a height of 5 feet above datum. Sections 7 to 14,
inclusive, are in Solid rock ; width at bottom, 160 feet ; sides vertical ; prism
taken out in three stopes with offset of 6 inches on each side for each cut,
making top width of 162 feet; grade in rock, 1 foot in 20,000 (0.05 per 1,000).
Section No. 15 is also in rock, and its cross Section is enlarged at its South
end SO as to form a “windage basin '' in which large vessels may be turned
around. The controlling works are located on this Section. These works will
consist of gates or movable dams by which the flow of water from the main
channel into the tailrace, which is to deliver the outflow into the Des Plaines
River, can be controlled.
This river below Lockport follows the trough of the valley (lown a steep
declivity to the canal basin in Joliet. The fluctuations in Lake Michigan by
varying slope of water surface will be felt at the controlling works, and pro-
1138 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Visions must be made to meet these fluctuations within a range of 5 feet above
datum and 8 feet below, or an extreme oscillation of 13 feet. The fall from
datum at the controlling works to the level of the upper basin will be about
42 feet in a distance of about 4% miles. As the plans for controlling works
have not been finally adopted by the board of trustees, they can not now be
discussed. -
The total amount of excavation involved in the construction of the main
channel is 26,077,765 cubic yards of glacial, drifts and 12,071,668 cubic yards
of Solid road, or an aggregate of 38,149,433 cubic yards, to which must be
added the material excavated from the river diversion ; glacial drift, 1,564,403
cubic yards; solid rock, 258,926 cubic yards; total river diversion, 1,823,329;
grand total, main channel and river diversion, 39,972,762 cubic yards. All of
this work is now under contract and in addition thereto 384,958 cubic yards
of retaining wall. *
In response to the request of the senior member of the board the board of
trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago has furnished a report on lake-
level effects on account of the main channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago
containing briefs by Trustee L. E. Cooley, chief engineer, and by Thomas T.
Johnston, assistant chief engineer, accompanied by numerous blue prints.
These papers present a full d’scussion of the subject as viewed by the canal
officials and will be found in the appendix, marked “A.”
What is the outflow of the lower Lakes?
In November, 1891, the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, at the
request of the secretary of the American Society of Civil Engineers—who had
been asked by the chief engineer of the Montreal Harbor Commission of
Canada to suggest the subject—ordered a set of observations made to deter-
mine the amount of water flowing down the Niagara River. The time was
especially propitious, as the water was then very low.
The results of these measurements were somewhat unexpected, and they
Were repeated in May, 1892. The second Set corroborated the first and the
whole formed the subject of a report to the Chief of Engineers, which appears
in his annual report of 1893, page 4364 and following. But, as the subject was
important, the Engineering News anticipated the appearance of the official
report by publishing in its issue of March 8, 1893, this report, with the per-
mission of the Chief of Engineers. This publication was the first ever made
in which as a result of careful measurements a relation between the level of
the Lakes and their outflow or discharge had been established and given to
the public. Prior determination of this charge had not been attempted to detect
this relation, and nothing more than a general determination of a season’s work
had been published.
In all plans for the Chicago Drainage Canal the early measurements had
been taken, and those studying the subject chose such isolated figures as suited
them best.
The report of 1892, being so late in appearance, long after the drainage canal
Was put under Construction, escaped the notice of many who are interested in
navigation. for two reasons: Some were too busy to see anything unles sspe-
cially brought to their notice. Others thought the whole matter already fully
Canvassed and settled. It is true there is nothing showing that the consent
of Congress had been asked for this enterprise. Certain that the subject had
not been treated as an interstate affair, to say nothing of its being an inter-
national affair. The United States has always been slow to move; with its
mny Sleeping rights it has for many years been loath to exercise them. Not till
1888 did it begin to exercise positive legislation over its navigable waters in
Order to preserve them for all its citizens. Each river an harbor bill since
then is found to have Sections strengthening the hands of those who wish to
keep the waterways open and in good order for all classes of navigation. Not
until 1890 had any prohibitive clauses been enacted into laws forbidding, for
example, the destruction of channels by improper dumpings. Sawmills went
their own unchecked way every year clogging up the streams. Railroads
bridged all Smaller streams in the States without interference from the United
States. Many other features can be quoted. Hut it is sufficient to say that all
that is now changed. The adopted policy is to defend as well as to improve
all water courses now navigable or probably navigable in the reasonably close
future. Waterways are under the charge of the United States and there is
no likelihood of their being abandoned for some time to come.
With this an established fact, it is impossible to think that the United States
supervision would not be extended to the Chicago Drainage Canal in due time.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1139
Under whatever law built and for whatever purpose constructed, just so soon
as it is shown that that canal affects or becomes a part of the system of navi-
gable waterways of the United States some supervision or control of it must
follow. When boats use it for harbor purposes, when its waters add to the
Illinois River or take from the Lakes, they alter natural conditions and the
matter rises for consideration under national authority.
The water levels of the Great Lakes are very delicate. Storms, barometric
changes, rainfall, even tidal changes are felt. Records show that Buffalo no
less than 13 feet as a total possible change, between the lowest and the
highest gauge readings. Each lake is a basin. The water is constantly pour-
ing in from not only one but several inlets. The overflow, however, is now al-
ways out of the one outlet provided for that purpose; the second one formerly
at Chicago has been plugged up.
AS in Our basins when the water rises enough to take two, three, Or more
of the small holes to carry it off, it is always to be noted that these holes
are always carrying that surplus off. They do not wait until the water has
time to COme from One end to the Other. In the same channel the head alone
governs the rate of outflow, and that head is measured by the gauge read-
ings at the outlet. The supply of water in the lake: The net supply, allow-
‘ing for evaporation, is the sole cause of the overflow. That supply depends
solely upon rainfall, but the lake when it receives more than it has been re-
ceiving must d’scharge more. When it has less there is less to run out. If
the outlet be dug down, or new ones made the water runs off faster than it
Tan Off before.
The outflow is instantly affected by a changed inflow, provided there is
enough Such to increase or reduce the head.
If we have a rainfall of 1 inch Over the lake area (and such are not un-
Common events), there is a head of 1 inch to run off. Hut there are two out-
lets to run Out Of, instead of one this inch must run Sooner than through
the One.
If the new outlet should reduce the levels of Lake Michigan and Huron
about 6 inches, this effect will be produced in full in about two years ; and is
not then a question of very many years as some suppose.
We may feel very sure, therefore, that in this question two points are
certain.
First. The drainage Canal is not solely a State affair, but a national one.
Second. The tapping the Lakes must affect their levels. But it is said,
first, that the changes in levels does not concern shippers, and then that at
nost the effects will be trifling.
If one watched Carefully the course pursued by shippers one would see
that as a rule each vessel carries all that it can take, and get out of its
port, or into that it intends to reach. Vessel owners and managers are very
shrewd, watchful men. They know what they can safely carry allowing for
Storms and short detentions arising from passing causes. They average
pretty well the practicable depths and carry all the channels will stand.
They are as conversant as they are theorists about the effects of storms, but
they keep good watch on ruling depths. Now should it be certain that these
average depths were reduced 3 inches, or 6 inches, they must load accordingly.
And not Only the large boats, but also the small ones using the small harbors
that the large Ones can not go into. All must lose the 3 or 6 inches, as it
may be ; and not for one or more trips, but for all trips, and for all time: a
(liminuation of a capacity is not a single tax, but a continuous one. A vessel
that when light draws 6 feet, and loaded 12 feet, must lose 3 inches out of 72.
Say 4 per cent in capacity each loading ; a vessel drawing 12 feet light and 20
feet loaded, would lose somewhat over 3 per cent in capacity at each and every
loading.
Should the loss of levels be 6 inches instead of 3, then these figures become
doubled. Will the loss be 6 inches or will it be 3? This is an important
question and we have only the Niagara River discharge observations from
which to answer it. These cover a range of about 1 foot and eight-tentlıs.
There were Scattering Observations outside these limits, but the mass of
results was secured between gauge readings, mean lake level, the highest,
and—1.85 feet. The “Smooth curve,” as published, enables us to note the fall
of 0.53 foot on the gauge per 10,000 cubic feet per second for the first foot of fall
and 0.44 foot for the whole.
1140 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETO.
These observations, especially at the lower readings, are erratic and indicate
a need for more measurements, especially at these levels. This lower portion of
the gauge should be studied and additional observations made, and the board
is a unit in Suggesting the importance of a Series of gaugings of the St. Clair
River at the present time for this purpose, and to furnish additional knowledge
of the relation between gauge readings and discharge. The subject is of such
general bearing upon the navigation of the Lakes that it demands careful treat-
ment and full data. The Niagara data do not show how much Lakes Huron
and Michigan would be lowered even if 0’ .53 were the net loss to Lake Erie.
The opinion expressed by Mr. Johnson that the effect on the two upper lakes
would be some 15 per cent greater than upon Erie would seem to point to a
probable loss of say '0' .61. This possible loss of 7 inches certainly is important
enough to justify careful measurements of the discharge through the St. Clair.
It is true that the law as it stands, and the intention of the trustees contem-
plates the abstraction of only 300,000 cubic feet under present conditions, but
after the canal is opened measurements would not be so instructive, and we
must assume that ultimately the entire 600,000 cubic feet per minute will be
drawn from Lake Michigan as required by the State law.
The abstraction of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan
would lower the levels of all the Iakes of the system except Lake Superior
and reduce the navigable capacities of all harbors and shallows through the
System to an extent that may be determined, if at all, by actual measurements
only. Under the laws of the United States these changes in capacity can not
be made without Federal authority, and to enable the executive officers of the
United States to act advisedly in the matter it is necessary in the opinion of
the board that not only that these measurements be taken but that the money
cost of restoring the navigable depths in channels and harbors be carefully esti-
mated. -
In this connection the board Submits without expression of Opinion an esti-
mate prepared by Mr. Charles H. Keep, secretary of the Lake Carriers' Associa-
tion, of the commercial losses in carrying capacity of the lake fleet, should be
a reduction made in lake levels of 1, 3, or 6 inches.
(Appendix, marked “B.”)
The board notices that the same peculiarity exhibited by the Niagara dis-
charge curve is pointed qut by Mr. Johnson as existing in the Morris, Ill., and
South Branch, Chicago River, curves. (See p. 25, Index A1.) -
The board also notes Mr. Johnson's conclusions on page 23, Appendix A-1,
that “applying the reasoning to the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, then the value
of Q'—Q may be taken from the diagrams illustrating the tables before described,
the only uncertainty being as to the value of d. Suppose d to be unity and the
mean depth 20 feet. Then Q’—Q will equal something greater than 20,000 cubic
feet per second-foot, which practically corresponds with the deductions made
from the Niagara River observations.
So many uncertainties arise in the application of hydraulic formulae that the
Only way to ascertain the approximate discharge of these streams is to measure
them for periods long enough to eliminate accidental fluctuations and to cover
all stages.
While the navigable Capacity of all harbors and channels on the Great Lakes
below St. Marys Falls will be injuriously affected by a diminution in depth, the
navigability of the inner harbor of Chicago will he diminished also by the in-
troduction of a current therein, which in the present condition of the river even
with the minimum flow of 5,000 feet per second or 300,000 cubic feet per minute
is entirely inadmissible. The estimates of the effect of the drainage canal upon
this harbor should also consider this element.
The board of trustees have not yet determined upon a plan of treatment of
this navigable channel, and their plans may be such as may improve, impair.
or destroy its utility as a navigable river.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
O. M. POE,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Brigadier General United States Army.
E. H. RUFFNER,
Major of Engineers, United States Army.
W. I. M.ARSHALL,
Major, Corps of Engineers.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 114l
Mr. Boyce. Did he express any opinion as to whether the surface
then became stationary? -
Mr. BARRETT. He was not absolutely certain. This is some of his
language, Judge. He concludes that the Poe report was a reliable
report and he comments very favorably on it, and the date of his re-
port I will give in just a moment. It was February 29, 1896, and he
says here in one portion of it:
The abstraction of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan
would lower the levels of all the lake system, except Lake Superior, and reduce
the navigable capacity of all harbors and shallows throughout the System to an
extent that may be determined if at all by actual measurement Only.
But he goes along throughout the entire report, and you see that
he reaches a conclusion in general the same as was reached by this
board of engineers of the United States Army.
Mr. WILSON. Does he include Lake Ontario & Would it reduce the
level of Lake Ontario? -
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. If it reduces Lake Michigan, according to
the theory pursued by these engineers, it will reduce Huron, Erie,
and Ontario, because there has been taken from those lakes a certain
portion of the water that otherwise would have gone into them.
Mr. WILSON. But it is about 400 feet—the mean surface level of
Lake Ontario is about 400 feet lower than Lake Superior, isn't it?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. It will not reduce Erie and Ontario to the
same extent that it will reduce the others. I think you will find that
Michigan and Huron will have a larger reduction than the others.
Mr. WILSON. And the fall at Niagara is about 158 feet, I under-
stand.
Mr. BARRETT. A little more than that, I think, all told. Between
the level of Erie
Mr. WILSON (interposing). The fall proper?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. I think you are right on that, Congressman.
Mr. WILSON. And then from there on down there is a continual
fall, and still that abstraction from Lake Michigan would reduce
the level of Lake Ontario?
Mr. BARRETT. According to the theory of these engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. Not only on the four lakes but the testimony up
to this point is all one way that it would reduce the level of the St.
Lawrence River.
Mr. BARRETT. I think that necessarily would follow. If they are
right in one premise, they are right all along the line.
Mr. LINEBERGER. It would be in a very decrease quantity, though.
Mr. BARRETT. Quite true.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Because the velocity would have slowed down
with the reduction of the volume. It would not be in the direct pro-
portion. - - -
Mr. BARRETT. I think the figures show you are right about that,
that when you get down to Ontario it is not so great.
Mr. LINEBERGER. It would be on the theory of Cupper's plan.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If the diversion there affects the Mississippi
River, then, as a matter of fact, it would also the St. Lawrence
in the same proportion would, it not?
Mr. BARRETT.I can not say as to that.
1142 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, Ero.
Mr. LINEBERGER. There is a coefficient charge, Judge, as a tech-
nical proposition, but—
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Mr. Congressman, when you start
using engineering terms of that kind I am forced to admit that I
do not understand.
Mr. LINEBERGER. If there are any engineers, I would like to have a
statement from them.
Mr. BARRETT. I asked General Bixby this morning, and I am
going to see if I make the statement in accordance with his answer,
that this 10,000 second-feet of water, when it has been diverted
constantly for a period from two to four years—I think you told
me that some engineers say that it should be a little longer than
that, but most of them say it is about that—then the reduction of
level will be absolute and will not be progressive. Is that correct,
General? ;
General BIxBY. The amount of reduction?
Mr. BARRETT. The amount of reduction.
General BIxBY. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. And I believe you said about 51% to 6 inches?
General BIXBY. That figure is what they have all pretty well
agreed on.
"Mr. LINEBERGER. Would that be uniform throughout the Lakes
and river?
Mr. BARRETT. Not to the same extent in all of them.
General BIxBY. The heavy line shows here the low water. It
goes down; it starts down, and then it comes up.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you got the idea of Congressman
Lineberger's question. -
Mr. NEwTo N. I think he testified that he gave the amount of the
lowering of Lake Michigan. Can you recall those figures?
General BIxBY. I gave what I had put into my report in 1906,
that it was about 6 inches on Lake Michigan and 5 inches on Lake
Erie, and the Lake Survey office at that time said it was about 4
inches on Lake Ontario.
Mr. LINEBERGER. That is exactly the point I was trying to get at,
and it would still be a little less, on the St. Lawrence River?
General BIxBY. Yes. In the river it sometimes goes one way and
sometimes the other.
Mr. LINEBERGER. But your reduction of level may slow down your
velocity ?
General BIxBY. This “Regulation of Lake Erie ’’ report contains
the most exact computation they have ever made, and it is based on
all the figures that they have had for 30 years; but the curve given
in this report shows that they figured in the Lake Survey office at
that time that the lowering would reach a standstill, as you might
say, in seven years on this particular lake within the particular years
used in that report.
Mr. LINEBERGER. General, I do not think that this point is impor-
tant, except in so far as it shows that there is a proportionate diminu-
tion in the reduction of the levels the farther you get away from
this diversion point at Chicago, and, of course, that is important from
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1143
the standpoint of the lowering of the St. Lawrence River, because our
international relationship with Canada enters into that.
Mr. NEwTON. There is one thing that has never been cleared up,
and I think General Bixby can clear it up. This 5% inches, as I
understand, has been figured out by taking the surveys of the lake
and the outflow of the lake; in other words, by actual measurements
of the surface, as I understand, you figure it out theoretically. You
know you have a certain amount of water and a certain amount going
out, and you can calculate scientifically the amount of the reduction,
That is the way the figures are made?
General BIxBY. That is the way they do it, checking it up by back
records, and in that way they pretty well prove that the figures are
right.
"Mr. Newton. In these different cycles on the lakes, as I under-
stand it, there is quite a fluctuation in the depth of the lake between
these different cycles—of water?
General BIxBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. How big a span is there between the highest and the
lowest cycle in the past 50 years, approximately?
General BIXBY. I gave that the other day. It is about 5 feet.
Once the level happened to get up very high on Lake Superior, and
once it happened to get very low. &
Mr. NEwTON. In 1893 or 1894, that was the highest period in the
Lakes, wasn’t it?
General BIxBY. No.
Mr. HULL. He put that all in the evidence.
General BIXBY. That was a low period.
Mr. NEwroN. And along about 1910 it was a high period?
General BºxBY. Yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you know how much there was in the span be-
tween those two, the highest period in 1910, and the lowest period?
General Bixby. The record states that the high water of 1838,
which was the highest on the Great Lakes, was away up to 605.32 at
Superior, and it has been away down below 601 on Superior. So
there is over 4 feet. .
Mr. BARRETT. Would it be of service to you if we were to furnish
you a chart—to furnish every member of the committee a chart—
showing this period of years?
Mr. NEwTon. I think we ought to have it.
Mr. BARRETT. We will do that.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one minute before you finish. We just
simply want to place in the record the name or description of the
chart to which you have referred, General Bixby, in your testimony
just given.
General BIxBY. Its title is the Lake Survey chart of monthly mean
water levels on the Great Lakes, from official records, 1860 up to
1923.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge Barrett, will you resume?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. After we made application, Mr. Chair-
man and gentlemen of the committee, for permission to widen and
deepen the Chicago River, the engineer at Chicago, who was Major
Marshall, reported to the Chief of Engineers. This report bears
1144 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
date June 24, 1896, and is addressed to Brig. Gen. William P.
gºil Chief of Engineers, United States Army, Washington,
GINERAL : I have the honor to report upon the application of Mr. B. A.
Tekhart, president board of trustees, Sanitary District of Chicago, for the
authority of the Secretary of War to make certain changes in the capacity
of the channel of the Chicago River for drainage purposes.
As far as the work itself is concerned, there can be no objection to it, as in
every case the navigable channel of Chicago River will be improved, and at
this stage I am unable to do otherwise than to recommend the granting of
the authority sought. - -
The qllestion that must come up later for the action of the War Department.
to wit, whether the improved channel of Chicago River will be sufficient to
carry 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute without lessening or destroying
the navigability of Chicago River, or whether the city of Chicago will be al-
lowed by the United States and Great Britain to take any water at all from
the Great Lakes, with the inevitable result of lowering their levels, is not
now under investigation and is One that Will not probably be settled or decided
by executive officers. It is Or may rather be considered an international
Question.
For the present I have to respectfully recommend that the necessary au-
thority be granted as requested for the general under the conditions:
(1) That while the general plan is approved, the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago must furnish plans in triplicate— -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). There seems to be a square putting
up, to the sanitary part of the proposition, by the Government, that
while it would approve the plans for your canal because they would
improve navigation, it did not thereby commit itself at all to the
theory that you were to have the water for that canal, but that that
was a separate problem for the consideration of the War Depart-
ment, or for international consideration, or for Congress to consider.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, we are offering this and every line
in it, and we say that it fits in with the theory that I outlined yester-
day. If it did not, probably as we lawyers do, we would not offer
it. That is why we are offering every line and every dot and every
cross of a “t,” and we will develop that to a point where it will be
theroughly understood. There is nothing in this that differs at all
from our.theory.
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that it is very significant.
Mr. BARRETT. We will develop that.
Mr. GOULDER. What is the date of that?
Mr. BARRETT. June 24, 1896. [Reading:]
Must furnish plans in triplicate on an enlarged scale showing each pro-
posed new bridge, each by-pass, and each new dock or wharf proposed to
be built, in order that the Secretary of War, under the law, may act intelli-
gently in each case.
(2) That this authority shall not be interpreted as approval of the plans
of the Sanitary District of Chicago to introduce a current into Chicago River.
This latter proposition must hereafter be submitted for consideration.
(3) That will not cover obstructions to navigation by reason of this Work
while in progress or when completed.
(4) That the United States shall not be put to expense by reason of this work.
(5) That this authority will expire by limitation in two years from date,
unless extended.
And that is signed by Major Marshal. May we have that written
into the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Received. Now, can you tell us when that came
to the notice of the sanitary district?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1145
Mr. BARRETT. This report?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. I can not answer that, but I would say that we were
pretty well advised of what transpired from time to time. I would
not attempt to say that we did not know about it. I have not been
with the sanitary district all of these years, but I would say that they
knew about it some time after it was delivered to the War De-
partment.
The CHAIRMAN. Contemporaneously?
Mr. BARRETT. I will not say that, because I do not know. It is rea-
sonably certain that they had some knowledge regarding it soon
after it was written, for some of the things that appear in this
letter appear in the permit, and we will see right now what is in
the permit, and that will indicate how much we knew and when we
knew it. The permit covering this application and this recom-
mendation I will now read. It bears date July 3, 1896, and it is
entitled “Subject: Improvement of Chicago River.” It is signed by
Joseph B. Doe, Acting Secretary of War.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Not John Doe, is it? -
Mr. BARRETT. I wondered about that when I first read it. It is
rather a strange name. We have known John Doe and, Richard
Roe for many years.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Old friends?
Mr. BARRETT. Old friends and sometimes convenient ones. [Read-
ing:] .
PERMIT OF SECRETARY OF WAR TO SANITARY DISTRICT TO MAKE CEIANGE IN CAPACITY
OF CHICAGO RIVER, DATED JULY 3, 1896.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th ultimo,
requesting permission to make certain changes in the capacity of the channel
of the Chicago River for drainage purposes at points indicated on the map
accompanying the application, and in reply beg to say that upon investigation
it is found that the permission requested can be granted upon the following
conditions: - t -
1. That while the general plan is approved, the Sanitary District of Chicago
must furnish plans in triplicate on an enlarged scale showing each proposed
new bridge, each by-pass, and each new dock or wharf; proposed new bridge
to be built in order that the Secretary of War may act intelligently in each
CàSe.
2. That the authority shall not be interpreted as approval of the plans of
the Sanitary District of Chicago to introduce a current into Chicago River.
This latter proposition must be hereafter submitted for consideration.
3. That it will not cover obstructions to navigation by reason of this work
while in progress Or When completed. -
4. That the United States shall, not be put to expense by reason of this
Work. * { -
5. That this authority will expire by limitation in two years from date
unless extended.
They do not have that clause to which the chairman referred in
this permit. • -
Mr. WILSON. That permit was granted 28 years ago?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. t
Mr. WILSON. And how long before that had the Sanitary District
of Chicago been diverting water, at the time that permit was
granted 2 , - .
91739—24—PT 2 F7
1146 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
*
Mr. BARRETT. At this time we were not diverting any water ex-
cept what was going through the Illinois & Michigan Canal.
Mr. WILSON. Do you know how much that was?
Mr. BARRETT. Sixty thousand cubic feet per minute.
Mr. LINEBERGER. A thousand cubic feet per second?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. The diversion now is about 10 times that. It
is pretty hard to keep track of this, but the dividing line for di-
version purposes is 1,900 in the channel.
Mr. WILSON. I just wanted to find out how much water was being
diverted from Lake Michigan 28 years ago.
Mr. BARRETT. There was not any more than this 1,000 cubic
Second-feet through the Illinois & Michigan Canal at that time.
May we have this in the record, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, we have another thing which I want to call
to the attention of the committee, that on the 28th of October, 1897,
the Sanitary District of Chicago again asked for permission to
widen and deepen the Chicago River at another point, and they
were granted a permit with the same conditions that appeared
in this other one, and I will offer these permits without going to the
trouble of reading them, because I do not want to take up your time
unnecessarily, and in each instance the major in charge has indi-
cated that it would be an improvement to navigation. This is the
one of October 28, 1897, and is signed by Thomas Kelly, president
of the board. It is an application for a permit to widen and deepen
at another point. May we have that in the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
REQUEST of SANITARY DISTRICT THAT SECRETARY OF waR APPROVE PLANs FoR widEN-
ING CHICAGO RIVER BETWEEN QUINCY AND HARRISON STREETS, DATED OCTOBER
23, 1897 - -
B. A. ECKHART, Esq.,
President the Sanitary District of Chicago, e
§ - Rialto Building, Chicago, Ill.
THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO,
Chicago, October 28, 1897.
To the Hon. RUSSELL A. ALGER,
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.
SIR : I have the honor of transmitting to you through Maj. W. L. Marshall.
Corps United States Engineers, plats showing the proposed widening of the
Chicago River between Quincy and Harrison Streets to conform to the plans
of this district for securing an adequate flow of water through the said stream.
Our general plans have been heretofore submitted to the War Department
and in the communication under date of July 3, 1896, signed by the then acting
Secretary of War, Joseph B. Doe, have received a qualified approval subject
to the general requirement that plans for each separate division of the work
shall be submitted for specific approval. We respectfully ask your approval of
the plans now transmitted.
Very respectfully,
THoMAS KELLY, President.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, we have five more of the same kind of ap-
plications for permits.
Mr. HüLL. They granted them each time, did they?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1147
Mr. BARRETT. They granted them each time, and these permits—
the first one I have is dated November 16, 1897, and I would like to
have that in the record, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
Permit of Secretary of War, dated November 16, 1897, that sanitary dis-
trict widen Chicago river between Quincy and Harrison Streets.
Whereas, by section 3 of the act of Congress approved July 13, 1892, entitled
“An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors and for other purposes,” it is
provided that, without the permission of the Secretary of War, it shall not
be lawful to build any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, dam, weir, breakWater,
bulkhead, jetty, or structure of any kind outside established harbor lines
or where no harbor lines are or may be established in any port, home-
Stead, haven, harbor, navigable river, or other waters of the United States,
in such manner as shall obstruct or impair navigation, commerce, or anchor-
age of Said waters; or to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter Or modify
the course, location, condition, or capacity of any port, roadstead, haven,
harbor of refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater of the
channel of any navigable river of the United States, unless approved and
authorized by the Secretary of War; *
And whereas, the Sanitary District of Chicago has submitted to the Secre-
tary Of War for his approval the attached plans for the widening . Of the
Chicago River between Quincy and Harrison Streets of said city, by the con-
struction of by-passes and docks;
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the Secretary of War hereby approves
and authorizes the work shown on said plans upon the following conditions:
1. That while the general plan is approved, the Sanitary District of Chicago
must furnish plans in triplicate on an enlarged scale showing each proposed
new bridge, each by-pass, and each dock or wharf proposed to be built, in order
that the Secretary of War may act intelligently in each case.
2. That this authority shall not be interpreted an approval of the plans
of the Sanitary District of Chicago to introduce a current into Chicago River.
This latter proposition must be hereafter submitted for consideration.
3. That it will not cover obstructions to navigations, by reasons of this work
while in progress, or when completed.
4. That the United States shall not be put to expense by reason of this
Work. - -
5. That this authority shall expire by limitation in two years from date
unless extended.
Witness my hand this 18th day of November, 1897.
[WAR OFFICE SEAL.] . R. A. ALGER,
- Secretary of War.
Mr. BARRETT. And the next one is November 30, 1898, for the
purpose of widening and deepening the river.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Are you putting those in in sequence?
The CHAIRMAN. In chronological sequence?
Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes. *
Mr. BARRETT. I am trying to do so, because it is much easier for
me to follow them, and I think it is much easier for you gentlemen
to do that.
Mr. LINEBERGER. They might be arranged in chronological sequence
by the clerk if they are not.
Mr. BARRETT. This is one dated January 18, 1899, also for the same
purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The papers referred to are as follows:)
Permit of Secretary of War, dated November 30, 1898, to sanitary district
to construct cofferdam at center pier of Adams Street Bridge.
1148 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Whereas by section 3 of an act of Congress approved July 13, 1892, en-
titled “An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preserva-
tion of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes,”
it is provided that, without the permission of the Secretary of War, it shall
not be lawful to build any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, dam, weir, breakwater,
bulkhead, jetty, or structure of any kind, outside of established harbor lines,
or Where no harbor lines are or may be established, in any port, roadstead,
haven, harbor, navigable river, or other waters of the United States, in such
manner as shall obstruct or impair navigation, commerce, or anchorage of
said waters; or to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the
Course, location, condition, or capacity of any pri, roadstead, haven, harbor of
refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of
any navigable water of the United States, unless approved and authorized by
the Secretary of War;
And whereas the board of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, Ill.,
has applied to the Secretary of War for permission to construct a temporary
Cofferdam around the east side of the center pier of Adams Street Bridge in
Chicago River, at Chicago, Ill., as shown on the attached blue print, and to
Cleposit clay outside of the cofferdam running north and south from center
pier and extending into the bank;
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives
to said board of trustees permission to construct a temporary cofferdam around
the east side of the center pier of Adams Street Bridge in Chicago River, at
said place, as shown on said blue print; and to deposit clay outside the
cofferdam running north and south from center pier and extending into the
bank, upon the following conditions:
1. That a practical channel for the passage of commercial vessels at this
point shall be maintained by said board of trustees during construction.
2. That all débris and material attendant upon this construction shall be
removed from the channel prior to May 1, 1899, at which date this authority
shall expire by limitation.
3. That the work herein permitted to be done shall be subject to the super-
vision and approval of the engineer officer of the United States Army in charge
of the locality.
Witness my hand this 30th day of November, 1898.
[WAR OFFICE SEAL.] R. A. ALGER,
Secretary of War.
Permit of Secretary of War, dated January 18, 1899, to sanitary district to
replace bridge South of Taylor Street and also to move the existing bridge.
Whereas by section 3 of an act of Congress approved July 13, 1892, entitled
“An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes,” it is
declared that it shall not be lawful to Construct, by authority of the legislative
act of a State, any bridge, not already authorized by law, over a navigable
water of the United States wholly within the limits of such State, without
the approval by the Secretary of War of the location and plans of such
bridge ; w -
And whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago, having authority under an
act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois to replace the bridge at the
crossing of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railway, over the south branch
of the Chicago River, just south of Taylor Street, Chicago, Ill., with a bridge
of bascule type, without pier in the river; and also to move the existing swing
bridge downstream to a new site, to be operated until the completion of the
new bridge, or about one year; and has submitted a map Showing the plans
and locations of such proposed permanent and temporary bridges, as indicated,
respectively, in red and green thereon ;
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the locations and plans of Said
bridges, as shown on said map, which is hereto attached, and hereby approved
by the Secretary of War, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the new bridge shall have a clear channel span of 120 feet, measured
perpendicular to the axis of the channel.
2. That a channel of 17 feet in depth and 48 feet clear width, measured
perpendicular to its axis, shall be maintained by the Sanitary District Of
Chicago during construction of the new bridge, along the eastern bank Of the
river.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1149
3. That the existing and temporary structures with their center pier, founda-
tion pier, guide piles, abutments, as far as they project beyond the dock lines,
and foundations shall be removed to a depth of 20 feet below Chicago City
datum immediately after the construction of the proposed bridge.
4. That the channel of Chicago River throughout the length of the present
protection pier Shall be dredged by the sanitary district for the full width
of 120 feet to a depth of 17 feet below Chicago city datum immediately after
the removal of the existing and temporary bridges.
5. That the authority herein given shall lapse two years after the date
hereof not SOOmer availed Of.
6. That the work herein permitted to be done shall be subject to the
Supervision and approved of the engineer officer of the United States Army
in charge of the locality.
Witness my hand this 13th day of January, 1899.
[WAR OFFICE SEAL.] R. A. ALGER,
Secretary of War.
Mr. BARRETT. The next one is March 10, 1899. I think they will
run along as you suggest, Mr. Lineberger. These are permits in
every instance. We have not offered the application. We merely
offer the permits.
Mr. LINEBERGER. You say those are not the applications but they
are the permits?
Mr. BARRETT. They are the permits.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Then let me ask you this question: Were the
permits in all instances granted as per the application?
Mr. BARRETT. That is my understanding, if I am not mistaken,
Mr. Congressman. What we asked for they gave us.
The CHAIRMAN. The language is practically the same, I take it,
as the language of the first one which you read?
Mr. BARRETT. Suppose I read this one, and we will see. This is
the permit of the Secretary of War, dated March 10, 1899, to the
sanitary district to remove a bridge at Taylor Street:
Whereas by Section 9 of an act of Congress approved. March 3, 1899, entitled
“An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes,” it is
provided that bridges, dams, dikes, Or causeways may be built under authority
of the legislature of a State across rivers and other waterways the navigable
portions of which lie wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the
location and place thereof are Submitted to and approved by the Chief Of
Fngineers and by the Secretary of War before construction is commenced;
And whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago, having authority under an act
of the Legislature of the State of Illinois to replace the bridge acroSS the
South Branch of the Chicago River at Taylor Street, Chicago, Ill., With a
bridge of the bascule type, without pier in the river, has submitted a map
of the location and plans of the same, which have been approved by the Chief
of Engineers:
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the map of location and plans of said
bridge, which are hereto attached, are hereby approved by the Secretary of
War, subject to the following conditions: º
1. That the existing bridge at Taylor Street, including its center and pro-
tection piers and foundations, shall be entirely removed to a depth of 22 feet
below Chicago city datum before any work of construction whatever is done
under the new designs and the channel put in navigable condition and SO
maintained during construction.
2. That upon the completion of the new bridge the officials of the Sanitary
District of Chicago shall at once cause the new channel, for its full width
and for 150 feet on each side of the structure, to be dredged to the full depth
established in the Chicago River by authority of law.
3. That this authority shall lapse and become void if not availed of within
two years from its date.
1150 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
4. That the engineer officer of the United States Army in charge of the
district within which the bridge is to be built may supervise its construction
in Order that Said plans shall be complied with.
Witness my hand this 10th day of March, 1899.
IWAR OFFICE SEAL.] R. A. ALGER,
* Secretary of War.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, is not that evidence, and rather conclusive
evidence, that the United States not only asserted but exercised full
jurisdiction over the stream and over all of the incidents
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). In the Chicago River?
The CHAIRMAN. Connected with it as well?
Mr. BARRETT. In the Chicago River?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. There has never been any question about that, and
there is not any now.
The next one is May 12, 1899. May that be inserted into the
record, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
Permit by Secretary of War dated May 12, 1899, to sanitary district to erect
a cofferdam along west side of Chicago River.
Whereas by section 10 of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, entitled
“An act making appropriation for the Construction, repair, and preservation Of
certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes,” it is pro-
vided that it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any
wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, or other structures in
any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of
the United States outside established harbor lines or where no harbor lines
have been established except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers
and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate
or fill, or in any manner alter or modify the course, location, condition, capacity
of any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or in-
closure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable
water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning
the Same:
And whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago has applied to the Secretary
of War for permission to construct a temporary cofferdam along the west side
of Chicago River at Chicago, Ill., as showri on the attached blue print, which
work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers subject to the condi-
tions hereinafter set forth :
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives
unto said Sanitary District of Chicago permission to construct a temporary
cofferdam along the west side of the Chicago River at said place, as shown on
said blue print, subject to the following conditions:
1. That a practicable passageway for vessels of the largest class navigating
Chicago River shall be at all times during the continuance of this cofferdam
kept open, and of dimensions shown on said blue print, and of the depth now
available.
2. That immediately upon completion of the by-pass the cofferdam and all
débris attending its construction and use shall be removed from the channel
to a depth of 17 feet below Chicago city datum.
3. That this authority Shall lapse and become Void by limitation two years
from its date if not availed of before the expiration of that time.
4. That the work herein permitted to be done shall be subject to the Super-
vision and approval of the engineer officer of the United States Army in charge
of the locality.
Witness my hand this 12th day of May, 1899.
[WAR of FICE SEAL.] G. D. MIEKLEJOHN,
* Acting Secretary of War.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1151
Mr. BARRETT. So that you gentlemen may have this in your minds,
on the 9th of February, 1898, just as a matter of general interest,
the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House visited our sani-
tary district. I don’t suppose any of you gentlemen were on that
committee at that time. You are all too young looking for that.
The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?
Mr. BARRETT. 1898; and they inspected the entire situation. On
the 9th of February, 1898, our main channel was practically com-
plete. The fact of the matter was that our application for opening
it was made early in 1899. J
In May, 1898, the Secretary of War, Russell A. Alger, and General
Wilson, Chief of Engineers, made a complete inspection of the sani-
tary channel. These are merely references to these visits, Mr. Chair-
man, from the records of the sanitary district, showing our invita-
tion and a statement from the records that these men did inspect
and visit the channel. May we have those in the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The document referred to is as follows:)
Invitation by sanitary district to Rivers and Harbors Committee of United
States Congress to inspect sanitary district and report that said visit and
inspection was made.
Extract from the official proceedings of the Sanitary District of Chicago at
a meeting held February 9, 1898, the same being the resolution passed by the
board of trustees inviting the committee of Congress to inspect the channel of
the Sanitary district as the guests of the board of trustees.
Mr. Wenter presented, and seconded by Mr. Eckhart, moved the adoption of
the following resolution: t
Whereas it is currently reported that the Committee on Rivers and Harbors
of the National House of Representatives is going to make a tour of inspection
at the various rivers and harbors in the West ; and
Whereas the importance of the Chicago River and Harbor is second to none
in the United States and deserves the fullest attention and consideration on the
part of said Committee; and -
Whereas the main channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago is nearing
its completion, and as such it is one of the connecting links of said Chicago
River and EHarbor: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the president be authorized and directed to send an invitation
in the name of the board of trustees to said committee to inspect the channel Of
the sanitary district, and that said committee be the guests of this board while
Sojourning in the city.
On roll call, on the motion for the adoption of the resolution, the vote stood :
Yeas—Mesrs. Boldenweck, Braden, Carter, Eckhart, Jones, Kelly, Malette, and
Wenter—eight. Nays—None.
Upon which result the president declared the motion carried. (Proceedings
of the Sanitary District of Chicago, 1898, pp. 4553–4554.)
Extract from the official proceedings of the sanitary district at a meeting
held February 24, 1898, same being the report of Mr. Wenter as chairman of
the committee on Federal relations, and reported that the inspection of the
Sanitary district channel was made on February 23, 1898:
Inspection of main channel by Congressional Committee.
Mr. Wenter, chairman. Of the Committee on Federal relations, made a verbal
report that the inspection of the main channel by the Committee on Rivers
and Harbors of the National House of Representatives on February 23, 1898,
had been made pursuant to the resolution of February 9, 1898 (p. 4554 of the
proceedings), but that the committee had not prepared a written report on the
matter. (Proceedings of the Sanitary District of Chicago, 1898, p. 4575.)
Mr. BARRETT. The same thing is true with reference to the visit
of the Secretary of War and General Wilson, and that appears from
sºme-
1152 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the testimony of Isham Randolph, who was one of the engineers
of the district. May that be received? n
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
The document referred to is as follows:
Testimony of Isham Randolph, that in May, 1898, Secretary of War and
Chief of Engineers inspected the sanitary district channel and the Chicago
River. (Record, U. S. v. Sanitary District, p. 3592.)
Q. Did the Secretary of War at any time visit and inspect the works of the
district?—A. Yes, sir; he did.
Q. When was that?—A. That was on the 5th of May, 1898.
Q. That Was Secretary of War Russell A. Alger?—A. Russell A. Alger.
Q. Was he accompanied by Gen. John M. Wilson?—A. Yes, Sir ; he was
Chief of Engineers at the time.
Q. He was Chief of Engineers. Who else accompanied the Secretary of
War and Chief of Engineers on this inspection trip, and what did they do?—
A. Well, John R. Tanner was of the party, and a majority of the board of
trustées, and I was with them. They went down by train, stopping at points
Where they could see the channel to advantage, and getting off and looking
at it, and ending up at Lockport, where they examined the Bear Trap Dam,
then in process of construction. We have pictures of the party at the various
points along their journey.
Q. Have you got those pictures with you?—A. No ; not with me ; I have them
in my album.
Q. Did the International Waterways Commission visit the works of the
district and make an inspection of them?—A. Yes, sir; they did.
Q. If so, when, and what did they do?—A. Do you care about the other visit
of General Alger?
Q. Did General Alger inspect the Works at another time?—A. He was here
on the 24th of June, 1899, and made an examination of the harbor and the
river, in company with the sanitary trustees and myself.
Q. Was the purpose of the work explained to General Alger and General
Wilson?—A. Yes, sir. -
Mr. BARRETT. On the 17th of January, 1900, the main channel was
completed and placed in Operation. As I have said here, in the ab-
sence of some of you gentlemen, it began at Robey Street on the Chi-
cago River and ran 28 miles to Lockport, and it was 160 feet wide in
the rock section and 24 feet deep, with a flowage capacity of 10,000
cubic feet per second. The cost of the construction up to that time
was $29,691,239.99. The War Department reported on the applica-
tion of the sanitary district to open our main channel, which was a
report on our application to reverse the flow of the Chicago River
into the main channel, and send it down into the Mississippi. This
is the report of W. L. Marshall, dated April 24, 1899. It is ad-
dressed to Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson, Chief of Engineers, United
States Army, Washington, D. C. I want to read this one, because it
is, I think, in line generally with the report of General Marshall:
General : I have the honor to report as follows on the application of the
trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago for authority to open their drain-
age canal. It is a strange fact that this city has expended, or will expend, Over
$30,000,000 with the intention of diverting an apparently unlimited amount of
water from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi drainage area for Sanitary pur-
poses without finding out whether such diversion would be allowed by the great
interests of the United States and the colonies of Great Britain along the Chain
of Great Lakes in the navigation of the rivers and harbors of the Great Lakes,
Now, they ask the authority of an executive officer of the United States to Open
a channel that will to some unknown extent lower the levels of all the Great
Lakes below Lake Superior and of their outlets, introduce a current also un-
known and not to be ascertained otherwise than by actual experiment in Chi-
cago River, the most important navigable river of its length on the globe—
I have not any comment from New York on that. That is a re-
markable statement, but probably true.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1153
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you have kept growing since then
with New York. I think now we can beat you four or five to one.
Mr. BARRETT (continuing reading): -
but which is already obstructed by bridges, masses of masonry and bends and Of
difficult navigation at best.
The possible effects of this diversion are not known further than that to Some
unknown degree they will be injurious. Whether the amount of this injury
will be so small as to be accepted by the interests affected, in view of the mani-
fest advantages to and apparent necessities of their neighbors, can not be de-
termined by other than the interests themselves.
It is clear to me that I am not competent to make a recommendation as to
what should ultimately and definitely be done.
The matter of what effect the Opening of this channel would have on the
levels of the Great Lakes has been heretofore Submitted to a board of engi-
neers. The board reported that the Great Lakes would be lowered, but that
there Was not Sufficient data—
This is interesting on your proposition, Judge Boyce—
but that there was not Sufficient data to determine the exact effects of the pro-
posed discharge, and recommended extended investigations, which it is believed
are being carried on now by the Deep Waterways Commission or board. They
have not reported. In my opinion, the abstraction of from 300,000 to 600,000
cubic feet per minute will permanently lower Michigan, Huron, and Erie from
3 to 8 inches; not more than 8 nor less than 3
The CHAIRMAN. That was a very remarkable forecast?
Mr. BARRETT. I have found, Mr. Chairman, that we have a re-
markable lot of men in the Engineering Corps of the War Depart-
lment, notwithstanding the fact that they do not always, agree with
us. Technically they are very accurate. Their judgment on matters
of policy affecting municipalities and States may not always be
good, but when we see how well they care for things when we are in
war, we have to overlook a lot of things that they think should be
done on matters not connected with the proposition of war, but if
you want to know what the other fellows think about them, you
read O’Hanley’s report and see what he thinks about our Corps of
Engineers. He accepts them practically in their own language with-
out question, and that is a safe thing to do on matters connected
with their particular business. [Continuing reading:
corresponding to an extreme reduction of from 160 to 466 tons in carrying
capacity of the large vessels of the Lakes, and that it will take from three
to four years for this full effect to be obtained.
He is about in the position, I think, that most of the engineers
3 T€ IlOW.
But the State law is unlimited in its requirements. Twenty thousand cubic
feet per minute must be taken from Lake Michigan for each 100,000 population
of the district; already nearly 400,000 cubic feet must be taken, and at the same
ratio of increase for a few decades, in a very short time there must be taken
1,000,000 cubic feet per minute under this indefinite law. The amount should
be limited and the injurious effect stopped somewhere.
The mean current to be introduced in Chicago River upon the opening of
the canal is estimated by the engineers of the drainage board at 114 miles
per hour, or 110 feet per minute. This is simply an assumption that with such
velocity in an unobstructed river the amount of 300,000 cubic feet per minute
can be discharged through the Chicago River—but I have seen this river so
jammed with vessels, drawing all the water that is in it, that by leaping
from deck to deck I could cross the river. What the velocity would be in such
Conditions, With Lake Michigan on one side and a great fall on the other
Side of such vessels, no one knows. But it is a simple mathematical problem
91739—24—PT 2—58
1154 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to determine the effect on steel-plate vessels of from 2,000, to 4,000 tons mass
drifting upon or striking stone piers with a Velocity of mear 2 feet a second.
They will go to the bottom.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, again let me suggest that this report of the
engineer would seem to me to be directly in conflict with the theory
of Chicago that all that you did you did with the concurrence and
silent acquiescence of the Government.
Mr. BARRETT. But we say it is not only concurrence and silent
acquiescence. We say it is a definite written consent. ... We do not
limit ourselves to silent acquiescence, and all this, Mr. Chairman, is
still consistent with our theory. We are introducing these things—
we do not try to keep anything from you. We want you to have the
entire book, open and face up. We want you to know everything.
The only time we are not safe is when you do not know all of it, and
* is why we are giving you all of it. That will be developed per-
ectly.
The CHAIRMAN. The engineer asserts quite squarely that you ex-
ended that $30,000,000 without obtaining the consent either of the
nited States Government or of Great Britain or of the other
parties interested in the navigation of the Great Lakes to that
diversion.
Mr. BARRETT. You understood what I said a moment ago—I think
our engineers are wonderful when they stay at engineering, but when
they start discussing legal propositions and venture opinions on
them, sometimes they go wrong. That is not their particular line.
The CHAIRMAN. But he was a representative of the Government of
the United States as to this matter. That is the point.
Mr. BARRETT. The Secretary of War passed on it, and I will read
what he said in a few minutes. I want you to know that the Secre-
tary of War knew everything that Major Marshall told him. We are
not going to conceal anything. It would not be possible with this
committee, but there is no reason for it. We will lay all our cards
on the table. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to
tell the people of the United States our story, and we are doing it,
and we will not conceal anything from them. Now, let me read this
paragraph:
Individually I have to say that I am in entire sympathy with the people in
their effort to purify their water supply. I have lost my only son from typhoid
fever, produced, I believe, from drinking water polluted by defective drainage
at Chicago— -
º CHAIRMAN. That was read once before, Judge. I remember.
that.
Mr. BARRETT. I presume it was. It was not read, of course, by us.
The CHAIRMAN. I have forgotten who read it.
Mr. BARRETT. I want to have it in the record, so that we may have
a connected story. -
The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection whatever.
Mr. BARRETT. There was a great deal of talk when the Hull bill
was under consideration, and evidence was being introduced, and I
presume that some of these things have been referred to before.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think any part of this report, except
what you are reading now, was referred to.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1155
Mr. BARRETT. We want you to have it all, Mr. Chairman. [Read-
ing further:l
which this channel will correct. In every proper way I have aided the officers
Of the drainage district. I would like further to aid them, but I believe this
question to be entirely out of my sphere, and too great and important for me
eVen to venture an Opinion or make a recommendation about.
This man was long-headed. He did make some statement and did
offer some suggestions. The Secretary of War acted under what he
understood the law to be and gave us what we were entitled to.
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to be quite a marvelous thing that a man
who had lost his only son through an impure water supply should
be able to make that report, I am frank to say.
Mr. BARRETT. That is probably the reason he was able to do it
so well.
The CHAIRMAN. He did it apparently contrary to his own interests
and his own feelings. -
Mr. BARRETT. No; I do not think that this statement is susceptible
of that sort of a construction. He is setting forth to the Govern-
men everything that occurs to him, so that they may have full in-
formation on it, and then he says, “I think you ought to go ahead,
but if there is to be a final arbiter here it should be the Congress of
the United States, and I suggest that you send it there.”
If this had been done at that time, all of this would be unneces-
sary now.
The CHAIRMAN. Who is to blame for that? t
Mr. BARRETT. Well, now, I am not going to criticize. I am going
to let this record speak for itself. I take the position that we are
absolutely within our rights, and that what Major Marshall sug-
gested, while this would have been a very nice thing and would have
stopped a lot of unpleasant criticism and a great deal of useless
talk, that it was not absolutely necessary.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Just one point before you get any further into
that. Didn't he at that time say that he thought that ultimately
1,000,000 cubic feet per minute would be required?
Mr. BARRETT. At some time.
Mr. LINEBERGER. That would be 16,666 cubic feet per second?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. LINEBERGER. And you are asking for 10,000 now?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
Mr. LINEBERGER. This may be rather a pointed question, but I
think it is interesting to discuss at this time. What assurance have
you that Chicago would not be back here in 10 or 20 years asking
for that 16,666 feet, based upon this prediction contained in this
report
º: BARRETT. Congressman Lineberger, I' wish to say that it is
not necessary to have any apprehensions on that subject because
of the fact that the sanitary district is here at this time asking the
Congress to pass this legislation, which provides for a maximum
of 10,000 cubic second-feet of diversion at Chicago, and beyond
question it is fully aware of what its needs are and is saying, by its
conduct, that if given 10,000 cubic second-feet at Chicago, it will
be able to take care of things, and that being true, if it ever did
1156 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
come back here asking for more water, I have no doubt that it would
be met with a summary dismissal and a final denial.
I wish to make a further statement with reference to lake levels
and the effect thereon of the diversion of water by the Sanitary
District of Chicago. You will recall that the record now shows
that the Sanitary District of Chicago started to cut its channel from
Chicago to Lockport in September, 1892, and that within a few
years thereafter a great deal of the work thereon had been com-
pleted. This project contemplated the reversal of the flow of the
Chicago River and people throughout the world discussed very
generally the subject of the possibility, as it was put in those days,
of making water run up hill, and there was also a great deal of
discussion as to the effect of this diversion upon the levels of the
Great Lakes.
On account of the uncertainty as to what the effect of this diver-
sion would be upon the levels of the Great Lakes, the War Depart-
ment of the United States appointed, in 1895, a commission of engi-
neers, headed by General Poe, and that body made an exhaustive
investigation, which has been heretofore referred to, and found.
among other things of value, that if the Sanitary District of Chicago
diverted, through its channels, from the drainage area of Chicago
and Lake Michigan, 10,000 cubic second-feet of water continuously
for a period of from three to eight years, that the levels of Lakes
Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario would be lowered; that the
maximum lowering, which would be in Lakes Michigan and Huron,
would be not more than 6 inches, and that Lake Erie would be
lowered in a lesser degree than Michigan and Huron: that Lake
Ontario would be lowered still less than Lake Erie. This commis-
sion also found that when the maximum lowering (not more than
6 inches) was reached in these lakes, that there would be no other
or further lowering due to this diversion. -
The Dominion of Canada, about the same time, appointed a civil
engineer by the name of O’Hanley, and directed him to investigate
the Sanitary District of Chicago, and after many months of study
he made a complete report, in the year 1896, which will be placed
in this record, and adopted the conclusions of the Poe commission
with reference to the effect of Chicago's diversion upon lake levels.
The main channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago was com-
pleted in 1899 and on the 17th of January, 1900, the last barrier
was removed and the course of the Chicago River was reversed and
sent through the Sanitary channels from Chicago to Lockport and
thence down the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers into the Mississippi.
In the year 1902, the International Waterways Commission was
appointed by the Governments of the United States and Canada
and this body made and caused to be made a number of very com-
plete and exhaustive investigations of the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago, its project and works (and I wish, parenthetically, at this time
to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Poe Com-
mission, the Canadian engineer, Mr. O’Hanley, and the International
Waterways Commission, in the investigation made by them and
each of them of the Sanitary District of Chicago, were fully ac-
quainted with the law under which the sanitary district was organ-
ized and knew that the completion of its works contemplated a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1157
diversion of not less than 10,000 cubic second-feet of water, and
made their investigations upon that basis). These reports of the
International Waterways Commission will be placed in this record
before we have concluded our proofs, and from them it will defi-
nitely and positively appear that the International Waterways Com-
mission, by unanimous agreement upon the part of both American
and Canadian representatives, recommended that the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago be permitted to divert 10,000 cubic second-feet of
water for sanitary purposes, and in 1906 the American section of
the International Waterways Commission, in a special report upon
the Sanitary district, recommended that legislation be enacted per-
mitting this diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet of water by the
Sanitary District of Chicago.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Are those recommendations a part of the
record?
Mr. BARRETT. I think, Mr. Lineberger, that they are already in
this record. To make absolutely sure of it we will put all of them
in before we conclude our hearings.
Mr. HULL. I am sure that they are in the record. I put them in
myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; they are in. I remember now.
Mr. BARRETT. The committee will recall that as a result of the
report made in the year 1906 by the American section of the Inter-
national Waterways Commission, there was passed by the Congress
the Burton Act, which legalized the diversions for power purposes
on the American side at Niagara Falls. At that time I have not
any doubt that Congress would have passed the legislation per-
mitting the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet at Chicago if it
had not been for the fact that the sanitary district was at that time
insisting upon its right to divert 14,000 cubic second-feet because
of the fact that they were then preparing to enlarge the Calumet
River and to construct in connection therewith the Calumet-Sag
Channel which would connect at Sag, Ill., with the main channel
of the sanitary district and which it was felt, at that time, would
require 4,000 cubic second-feet of water for successful operation.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Who said that, now?
Mr. BARRETT. The Sanitary District of Chicago.
Mr. LINEBERGER. They were contending then for 14,000?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. LINEBERGER. That is 4,000 more than you are asking for now?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Mr. LINEBERGER. The sanitary district stood in its own light at
that time?
Mr. BARRETT. In the light of subsequent facts it would seem So,
although they contended that they were absolutely right and it
is not certain now that they were wrong. You will recall, Con-
gressman, that when the boundary waters treaty was written the
Canadian Government conceded to the United States, as a part of
the diversions to which they agreed the United States was entitled,
this partcular 10,000 cubic second-feet of diversion at Chicago, and
I might say now that we are asking for this 10,000 cubic second-
feet, which everybody agreed that we were entitled to, in order that
1158 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
there may be no further dispute with the Canadian Government,
Congressman Lineberger, have I answered your question?
Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes; I understand. You are asking that what
is in this treaty be given to you by act of Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Before we adjourn—and we have to adjourn
now—let me just suggest that Mr. Behan in his discussion consider
this aspect of the treaty. Right up to the time of the adoption of
the treaty you were asking the Secretary of War for a permit to
divert more than 4,167 feet, and the Secretary of War was steadily
refusing.
Mr. BARRETT. That is my particular work; I am not going to
unload that on him. I will discuss it.
The CHAIRMAN. I was going to state that we have a commission, I
suppose representing the Secretary of State, recommending 10,-
000 cubic feet, and then the question is whether or not it is embodied
in the treaty. Now, I ask you in your discussion of the treaty to
discuss the question whether or not it is reconcilable to say that the
Secretary of War was at one and the same moment saying that he
would not grant you more than 4,167 feet, and was insisting that you
be granted the 10,000 feet which you asked. That seems to be the
situation.
Mr. LINEBERGER. They had asked for 14,000, had they not?
The CHAIRMAN. No; at that time 10,000. Now, gentlemen, I am
sorry to say that members of the committee feel that they must
adjourn to be on the floor during the discussion of the Cape Cod
Canal matter. I am perfectly willing, so far as I am individually
concerned, to have an understanding that if we can get away we
will come back and sit this afternoon.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not believe that we ought to quarrel with these
Members. They have been very patient, and we want to do what is
consistent with their plans.
Mr. NEwTON. Why not make our plans to be back here at 9.30
to-morrow morning.
The CHAIRMAN. I will agree to that.
Mr. BARRETT. May I read just this one page? It will only take
about three minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. BARRETT. I am almost through. This is going on with the
letter of Major Marshall:
Yet I may venture to suggest that the entire subject be referred to Congress
for final Solution, and that a conditional permit Or authority be granted to the
authorities of the Chicago Sanitary District by the War Department, awaiting
action by Congress, to open their channel, and under the following conditions:
First. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by
such drainage works in the South and main branches of the Chicago River be
unreasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary
of War reserves the right to close said discharge through said channel or to
modify it to such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property inter-
ests along said Chicago River and its South Branch.
Second. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume all responsibility
for damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction
of a current in the Chicago River. With 300,000 cubic feet per minute dis-
charge, it will take One year to lower the level of Lakes Michigan and Huron
one-tenth of a foot, and Several years to reach the maximum permanent effect
of this discharge, which will not probably much exceed 3 inches, so that the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1159
main injury to navigation, if any, that can be expected before action by Congress,
will be in the Chicago River, and that can be at once abated.
All the changes made by the Sanitary District of Chicago taken by themselves
have been Such as to increase the navigable capacity of Chicago River.
Taken in connection with the current to be introduced, I am not able to say
that the river will be as navigable as it was before these changes were made.
The changes materially lessen the probable injury to navigation of this current
and the points where the changes have been or will be made.
. I believe their channel will be entirely under control and that if the dis-
Charge be injurious it can be at once and at any time shut off, and it is evi-
dent that the War Department should preserve the right to control the current
and discharge through the controlling works of this channel.
And it is signed.
I thank you for waiting for me.
The CHAIRMAN. Adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9.30.
(Whereupon, at 12.10 p.m., the committee adjourned.)
CoMMITTEE on RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVES,
* Wednesday, May 14, 1934.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon S. Wallace Demp-
Sey (chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE F. BARRETT–Continued
Mr. BARRETT. I am quite anxious to conclude what I have to say
here at the earliest possible moment, and if I may be permitted to,
I would suggest that we follow the chairman's rule, so that I may
get through with what it is necessary for me to say, and when I
am through I will be glad to answer whatever questions anyone
may wish to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. We will follow that rule.
Mr. BARRETT. If you will do that I will get through quickly,
because I realize your time is limited and I am quite anxious that
you may proceed to the conclusion as quickly as possible. ,
I will now read, Mr. Chairman, the permit dated the 8th of May,
1899, issued by Russell A. Alger, Secretary of War, which bears the
approval of John M. Wilson, brigadier general, Chief Engineer.
This follows the recommendation of General Marshall. I have
great difficulty remembering the correct titles of all these officers
in the War Department, and I hope they will not quarrel with me
if I make any mistakes in that respect.
Whereas by section 10 of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, en-
titled “An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and pres-
ervation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for Other pur-
poses,” it is provided that it shall not be lawful to alter or modify the course,
location, condition, or capacity of the channel of any navigable water of the
United States unless the work has been recommended by the Chief Of Engi-
neers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same.
And whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal Corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, has constructed an artificial
channel from Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport, and has been heretofore
granted permission by the Secretary of War to make certain improvements
in the Chicago River for the purpose of correcting and regulating the cross
Section of the river SO as to Secure a flowage capacity of 300,000 cubic feet
1160 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
per minute with a velocity of 1% miles an hour, it being intended to connect
the said artificial channel with the west fork of the south branch of Chicago
River at Robey Street in the said city of Chicago.
And whereas the said Sanitary District of Chicago has now applied to the
Secretary of War for permission to divert the waters of the said Chicago
River and cause them to flow into said artificial channel at Robey Street as
aforesaid.
And whereas the Said Sanitary District of Chicago represents that such
movable dams and sluice gates as are necessary to at all times Secure abso-
lute and complete control of the volume and velocity of flow through the Chi-
cago River have been constructed.
Now, therefore, the Chief of Engineers having consented thereto, this is to
certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives permission to the said Sanitary
District of Chicago to open the channel constructed and cause the water of
Chicago River to flow into the same, subject to the following conditions:
1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary
of War to submit the questions connected with the work of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this
permit shall be subject to Such action as may be taken by Congress.
2. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by such
drainage Works in the South and main branches Of Chicago River be unreason-
ably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary of War
reserves the right to close said discharge through said channel or to modify
it to Such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property interests
along said Chicago River and its South branch.
3. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume all responsibility for
damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction of
a current in Chicago River.
Witness my hand this 8th day of May, 1899.
[SEAL.] •e R. A. ALGER,
Secretary of War.
JOHN M. WILSON, -
Brigadier General, Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
Under that permit, Mr. Chairman, and under the facts then in
existence, which I have outlined to the committee, the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago in January, 1900, opened its main channel and the
flow of the Chicago River was reversed and sent on its way down
toward Lockport through the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers
into the Gulf of Mexico. e
Subsequently the case of the Corrigan Transit Co. was tried in
our district court at Chicago and eventually went to the circuit court
of appeals
The CHAIRMAN. Is that found in 137%
Mr. BARRETT. There were two cases, one in volume 125, that is the
lower court; the other is in volume 137, the circuit court of appeals.
The contention was there made, and it has frequently been made,
that this permit was limited to 5,000 cubic second-feet. It has al-
ways been the position of the Sanitary District of Chicago that there
was no limitation of flow in that permit to 5,000 cubic feet, or to any
other amount; with the exception of the condition that in the event
of an excess current in the river that the flow might be modified,
and this case of Corrigan Transit Co. v. The Sanitary District, as I
indicated here some time ago, was tried against the sanitary district
by Mr. Goulder, who is here now opposing the passage of this bill.
In that case the lower court and circuit court of appeals held that
there was no limitation to 5,000 cubic feet of flow in that permit, and
that the recitation in the preamble thereof did not limit the permit
in any way.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1161
Shortly after the opening of our channel there were complaints
from shipping interests that the current in Chicago River was
obstructive to navigation, and as a result thereof the War Depart-
ment did limit the flow expressly on account of that.
The sanitary district, in accordance with its ordinance which I
have heretofore referred to, made a number of applications for per-
mits to improve, widen, and deepen the Chicago River, and one of
these was submitted to the War Department on the 26th of April,
1900, and asked for a permit from the War Department to make the
Chicago River, between Kinzie and Eighteenth Streets, 200 feet
wide and 26 feet deep.
So that you gentlemen may know, Kinzie Street is practically the
end of what we term Chicago River. The Chicago River begins at
the Lake and pursues almost a straight wasterly course, veering just
a little to the south. It has its junction with its north and south
branches at about Kinzie Street.
So this application was to improve, widen, and deepen the river
from Kinzie Street, which is where my finger points on the map
[pointing out on map.] down to Eighteenth Street here [indicating].
You will notice that its course is almost due south, veering a little to
the west on its way. Eighteenth Street on the river is just a little bit
east of Halsted Street, about at Canal and Eighteenth. So the appli-
cation was to make the south branch of the river 200 feet wide and
26 feet deep.
On June 7, 1900, another permit was asked to extend the widening
of the river to Ashland Avenue, which is at the point where the river
connected with the old Illinois & Michigan Canal.
Mr. BoycE. What was the purpose of these applications?
Mr. BARRETT. To widen and deepen the entire river from Kinzie
Street to Ashland Avenue to a width of 200 feet and a depth of 26
feet.
Mr. BoxcE. What was it expected to accomplish?
Mr. BARRETT. It was expected to make the river wide and deep
enough so we could flow through it the amount of water necessary
under our law without excessive current, in accordance with the con-
dition of the permit of the Secretary of War.
Mr. NEWTON. Was the purpose accomplished?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. We spent between $13,000,000 and $15,-
000,000; we made the river 200 feet wide and 26 feet deep from the
Lake to the place where it emptied into the Main Sanitary Channel;
we removed all execessive current from the river: we made it safe for
shipping, and we did all this, as this correspondence shows, for the
sole purpose of making Chicago River large enough to carry the
amount of water which we were required by law to flow through
our main Sanitary channel. e
The application of April 26, 1900, reads in part as follows:
That in pursuance of the power conferred upon it by the statutes of the State
of Illinois, and in the performance of the duties enjoined upon it by the act of
the legislature authorizing its creation and under which it is acting, it has been
determined to improve the Chicago River by widening and deepening the same,
and to the end that such action on the part of your petitioner may be Conform-
able to law and the statutes of he United States in that behalf, it hereby
makes application for permission to make the changes, alterations, and improve-
ments in said Chicago River from or near Lake Street in the city of Chicago
1162 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to or near Ashland Avenue in the city of Chicago, said work to conform to the
plan and Specifications as follows:
(a) A map herewith exhibits the existing boundaries of that part of the
south branch of the Chicago River which it purposes and desires to improve.
I would like to have both of these applications go into the record.
(The applications referred to are as follows:)
CHICAGO, April 26, 1900.
The SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR : The Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal corporation Organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, respectfully represents that, by
the laws of the State of Illinois and the charter of this petitioner, it is authorized
to enter upon, widen, deepen, and otherwise improve any navigable Stream,
river, or other waterway. That in pursuance of the power conferred upon it by
the statutes of the State of Illinois, and in the performance of the duties enjoined
upon it by the act of the legislature authorizing its creation and under which it
is acting, it has been determined to improve the Chicago River by Widening and
deepening the same and to the end that such action on the part of your peti-
tioner may be conformable to law and the statutes of the United States in that
behalf, it hereby makes application for permission to make the changes, al-
terations, and improvements in said Chicago River from or near Lake Street
in the city of Chicago to or near Ashland Avenue in the city of Chicago, Said
Work to conform to the plan and specifications as follows:
(a) A map here with exhibits the existing boundaries of that part of the
South Branch of the Chicago River which it purposes and desires to improve.
(b) The work to be done contemplates widening the river to a width of two
hundred (200) feet between dock lines, except in so far as bridge abutments
may project into the stream Outside of the new dock lines; Said Widening in
all cases to be made with a view of improving the navigability of the stream.
(c) The work to be so done as to ultimately permit excavation of the river
bed to a depth of thirty (30) feet below water surface throughout the central
portion of the stream.
(d) The widening of the river is to be so disposed that the effect will be to
produce a straighter channel than now exists and, furthermore, to result in a
continuous dock line having straighter alignment and being better disposed for
navigation than the docks which now exist.
(6) The work to be done is to be prosecuted progressively as to time. The
rate of progress being limited by the rapidity with which right of way may be
acquired and the resOurces for the execution of the work to be made available.
The modification and alteration of said river as above indicated will greatly
benefit navigation in said river. Your petitioner therefore respectfully requests
that the plan of improvement as above outlined be approved by you.
Awaiting as early a reply as practicable under the circumstances, your peti-
tioner has the honor to be,
Very respectfully yours,
THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO.
By WILLIAM BOLDEN weCK, President.
Attest :
Joseph F. HAAs, Clerk.
te
EXHIBIT J–i
CHICAGo, June 7, 1900.
The SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR : Under date of April 26, 1900, the Sanitary District of Chicago had
the honor to address a communication to you containing an outline of the
proposed improvement of a portion of the South Branch of the Chicago River.
Accompanying the letter Was a map showing the location of the South Branch
of the Chicago River, the bridges spanning said river, and also the width of
the stream along the entire course of the South branch of the river. Since that
date the Sanitary District of Chicago passed an ordinance for the improvement
of the South Branch of the Chicago River from the south line of Twelfth
Street to the east line of Ashland Avenue so as to make said south branch
between the lines aforesaid of a uniform width of two hundred (200) feet;
the work to be done so as to ultimately permit excavation of the river bed
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. II 63
to a. depth of thirty (30) feet below water surface throughout the central
portion of said stream, in accordance with the plans adopted by the board of
trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, a copy of which plans is hereto
annexed, the ordinance referred to being marked “Exhibit A,” with this
letter, and the maps showing the plans of the proposed improvement being
Imarked “Exhibit B.” The maps are in two sections, known, respectively, as
NO. 2 and NO. 3. *
The Sanitary District of Chicago is a municipal corporation Organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and by the laws of said State
and the charter of Said Sanitary district it is authorized to enter upon, deepen,
Widen, and otherwise improve any navigable stream, river, or other water.
Way and that in pursuance of the power conferred upon it by the statutes of
the State of Illinois and in performance of the duties enjoined upon it by
the act of the legislature authorizing its creation and under which it is acting
it determined upon Said plans outlined in the inclosed ordinance and further
illustrated by the maps hereto annexed ; and the said sanitary district, in
Compliance with the statutes of the United States, hereby makes application
to you for permission to make the changes, alterations, and improvements
in Said South Branch of the Chicago River from the south line of Twelfth
Street to the east line of Ashland Avenue.
Awaiting as early a reply as practicable under the circumstances, your peti-
tioner has the honor to be, ©
Very respectfully yours,
THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO,
By WILLIAM BoLDEN weCK, President.
Attest :
Joseph F. HAAs, Clerk.
Mr. BARRETT (continuing). After these applications were filed the
the War Department caused an investigation to be made by Maj.
J. H. Willard, and his report, directed to the Chief of Engineers,
was dated at Chicago, June 20, 1900, and is as follows:
CHICAGO, IL.L., June 20, 1900.
Brig. Gen. JoBN M. WILSON,
Chief of Engineers, United States Army, Washington, D. C.
GENERAL : Complying with your wishes indicated in your dispatch of this date,
I have the honor to submit a preliminary report upon the current in Chicago
River due to the flow of the drainage canal.
Since the Canal was Opened under the provisional permit of the Secretary
of War only that member of the controlling works at Lockport known as the
Bear Trap Dam has been Operated, the Stoney gates having been kept closed.
The Bear Trap, as you know, is a counterpoised hydraulic gate and can be
set to remain at any elevation between closed and wide open. During the
observations for velocity and discharge the dam has been set at various heights
to give estimated flow between 150,000 and 320,000 cubic feet per minute, and
the Observations have been taken at an interval after each Setting that should
give the full effect on the river. But inasmuch as the lake level is not con-
stant and the reservoir capacity of the river between lake and drainage canal
is large, it should not be expected that the mean velocity and discharge at any
point in the river should be constant for a given setting of the Bear Trap Dam.
The subject can not be covered by anything short of an elaborate investiga-
tion over a long period and through wide ranges of lake level, and therefore
has not been attempted. .
The observations made to ascertain facts under existing Conditions consisted
in measuring discharges with current meter at critical points in Chicago River
between lake and Canal, especailly at bridges, where the greatest dangers were
to be feared, through as large a range as could be got with safety by successive
settings of the Bear Trap Dam.
The discharges in the canal were measured by meter and by rods for differ-
ent settings to compare with weir estimates and measurements previously taken
in the Illinois and Des Plaines RiverS.
The bridge sites giving the most restricted sections naturally were the places
to expect the greatest velocities. They made the most convenient points for
measurements. The Observations have just been completed as far as intended
for the present and the discharges are being computed.
1164 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Using preliminary computations for estimated volumes of discharge through
the canal, they are shown in two Series, With extreme velocities observed at
each station, in the following table :
Maazimum velocities in Chicago River in feet per second and miles per hour
for discharges in cubic feet per minute of the draimage canal

º -
Discharge 150,000– Discharge 270,000–
210, ,000
Place of observation -
Feet per | Miles | Feet per | Miles
Second per hour | Second per hour
Rush Street Bridge-------------------------------------------- 1.88 1. 28 2. 36 1. 61
Clark Street Bridge-------------------------------------------- 1.80 1. 23 2. 40 1. 64
Wells Street Bridge-------------------------------------------- 1.51 1.03 2, 40 1. 64
Washington Street Bridge-------------------------------------- 2. 12 1.46 3.21 2. 19
Van Buren Street Bridge--------------------------------------- }. 88 Y. 28 2. 72 1. 85
Eighteenth Street Bridge-------------------------------------- 1. 67 1. 14 2. 77 1. 88
Canal Street Bridge-------------------------------------------- 1. 76 1. 20 3. 29 2. 24
Halsted Street Bridge------------------------------------------ 1. 67 1. 14 2. 64 1. 80
Average------------------------ *------------------------- 1, 79 1. 22 2. 72 1, 85

It is probably safe to estimate the mean velocities of the Sections at about
80 per cent of the maximum, giving an average of less than 1 mile per hour
for discharge not exceeding 210,000 cubic feet per minute and less than 1%
miles per hour for discharge not exceeding 310,000 cubic feet per minute, and
therefore the general current of Chicago River must be much less.
The greatest Velocity corresponding to the greatest discharge of the Canal
was observed at the Canal Street Bridge, say 244 miles per hour, and approxi-
mately 1% miles per hour for a mean velocity. This is one of the first
bridges authorized to be replaced by a bascule, With large Opening, under the
general project of the Sanitary district for replacing bridges and Widening
Chicago River.
There is no doubt that the reversed current in Chicago River has increased
the difficulty of navigating it with the large boats now demanded by Com-
merce, but it is a notewortlay and gratifying fact—not unexpected by me, at
least—that the pilots have been quick to adapt themselves to the new Condi-
tions, and I have little doubt but that they could handle their boats safely
even in greater currents than now Obtain.
If I have not Overestimated pilots’ Skill, and Considering the immense benefit
of the drainage canal to the City Of Chicago Since its Opening Only a few
months ago, I recommend that no restrictions be placed upon the legal require-
ments of flow into the Sanitary Canal unless it should be found absolutely
necessary to do SO.
The engineer department, the city of Chicago, and the Sanitary district are
of One mind as to the need Of improving Chicago IRiver and are COOperating
heartily to that end, and large surns are appropriated and being expended
judiciously by each for the objects in view. The interests of navigation are
not only being protected but are being advanced practically sooner than
could be hoped for in the usual course.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. H. WILLARD,
Major, Corps of Engineers.
Mr. BARRETT. I wish to call the attention of the committee par-
ticularly to the last three paragraphs of Major Willard's report.
You will notice that he says therein that notwithstanding the fact
that the reversed current in Chicago River has increased the diffi-
culty of navigation, that it is noteworthy and gratifying that the
pilots have quickly adapted themselves to the new conditions, and
that he has little doubt about their ability to handle the boats
safely.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1165
He also says that “considering the immense benefit of the drainage canal
to the city of Chicago since its opening only a few months ago, I recommend
that no restrictions be placed upon the legal requirements of the flow into
the Sanitary canal unless it should be found absolutely necessary to do so.
He also says that the engineer department, the city of Chicago,
and the Sanitary district are cooperating heartily in the improve-
ment of the Chicago River, and that large sums of money are being
expended judiciously therein, and, further, that the interests of navi-
gation are not only being protected but are being advanced practi-
cally sooner than could be hoped for in the usual course.
On the 11th of July, 1900, the Secretary of War granted permits
to the Sanitary District of Chicago to widen and deepen the Chi-
cago River from Kinzie Street to Ashland Avenue, and those per-
mits had the usual provisions protecting the navigation in the river
and requiring us to be cautious, to be extraordinarily cautious, so
that no damage to property should result, and making us responsi-
ble for the payment for the entire works, and to see that the Gov-
ernment did not have any expense attached to it.
The conditions, aside from what I have mentioned, are substan-
tially those contained in the permit to open the channel, issued on
the 8th of May, 1899. ;
While this work was progressing, but uncompleted, more com-
plaints were made by shippers regarding the current in Chicago
River, and in order to prevent these complaints and eliminate the
cause thereof the War Department ordered the flow in the channel
reduced. On the 9th of April, 1901, the Secretary of War wrote to
the sanitary district. I will read this:
Whereas under date of May 8, 1899, the Secretary of War granted permission
unto the Sanitary District of Chicago to open the artificial channel from
Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport, and cause the waters of Chicago River
to flow into the Same, upon the following condition, inter alia :
“20. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by
such drainage works in the South and main branches of Chicago River be
unreasonably obstructive to navigation Or injurious to property, the Secretary
of War reserves the right to close said discharge through said channel or to
modify it to such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property
interests along Said Chicago River and its south branch.”
And whereas it is alleged to various commercial and navigation interests
that the present discharge from the river into the drainage canal sometimes
exceeds 300,000 cubic feet per minute, causing a velocity of nearly 3 miles per
hour, which greatly endangers navigation in the present condition of the
river.
Now, therefore, this is to certify that the Secretary of War, upon the recom-
mendation of the Chief of Engineers, hereby directs said sanitary district to
regulate the discharge from the river into the drainage canal so that the
maximum flow through the Chicago River and its South branch shall not
exceed 200,000 cubic feet per minute.
Witness my hand this 9th day of April, 1901.
ELIHU ROOT, Secretary of War.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that?
Mr. BARRETT. The 9th of April, 1901. That is a little more than
a year after we opened our main channel.
On the 23d of July, 1901, the Secretary of War amended the order
of April 9, 1901, and this amendment permitted a withdrawal of
300,000 cubic feet per minute between the hours of 4 o’clock p. m.
and 12 o'clock midnight of each day, periods of the day when such
1166 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
tºnal flow would not interfere with navigation on the Chicago
1WeI’. *
General BIxBY. What is the date of that?
Mr. BARRETT. This is the 23d of July, 1901. This is signed by
Elihu Root, Secretary of War, and is addressed to Alexander J.
Jones, president Sanitary District of Chicago. May we include this
in the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
File NO. 2560 Of 1900.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, July 23, 1901.
SIR : Referring to War Department order of April 9 last, restricting the flow
of water through the Chicago River under War Department permit of May 8,
1899, to 200,000 cubic feet per minute, and replying to your letter of the 15th
instant in which you request, for reasons stated, that the said order be amended
to permit a flow of 300,000 cubic feet per minute between the hours of 4 p. m.
and 12 o'clock midnight, I beg to inform you that I have this day approved the
modification last referred to, which approval will be subject to revocation by the
department in case the increase shall prove to be dangerous to navigation.
Very respectfully,
ELIHU ROOT,
Secretary of War.
Mr. ALExANDER J. Jon ES,
President Sanitary District of Chicago,
Chicago, Ill.
Mr. BoxcE. I do not want to direct you from your argument, but
may I inquire whether, if at or about this time, there were any com-
plaints on the part of those down the valley because of the diversion?
Mr. BARRETT. I would say, offhand, no.
Mr. BoxcE. I do not desire to lead you away from your argument.
Mr. BARRETT. That is perfectly all right. I would say that at that
time there were practically none. I don’t know that it has been in
existence long enough.
On the 5th of December, 1901, the Secretary of War authorized the
Sanitary District of Chicago to increase the flow of water through
its channels to 250,000 cubic feet per minute throughout the 24 hours
of the day. That would be substantially 23 months after we opened
our channel.
This direction was as follows:
Whereas, under date of May 8, 1899, the Secretary of War granted permission
unto the Sanitary District of Chicago to open the artificial channel from Robey
Street, Chicago, to Lockport, and cause the waters of Chicago River to flow
into the same, upon the following condition, inter alia :
2. That if, at any time, it becomes apparent that the current created by Such
drainage works in the South and main branches of Chicago River be unreason-
ably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary of War
reserves the right to close said discharge through said channel or to modify it to
such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property interests along such
Chicago River and its SOuth branch ; -
And whereas the Secretary of War subsequently directed said Sanitary
District of Chicago to regulate the discharge of water into the Chicago Drainage
Canal so that the maximum flow through the Chicago River shall not exceed
200,000 cubic feet per minute from midnight to 4 p. m., nor 300,000 cubic feet
per minute from 4 p. m. to midnight;
And whereas said Sanitary District of Chicago has applied to the Secre-
tary of War for permission to increase the flow between midnight and 4 p. m.
daily to 250,000 cubic feet per minute; and the Chief of Engineers has recom-
mended that the increase applied for he granted, but that the rate of flow
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1167
from 4 p. m. to midnight be reduced to 250,000 cubic feet per minute, so that
the flow through the Chicago River shall not exceed 250,000 cubic feet per
minute throughout the 24 hours of the day.
Now, therefore, this is to certify that, in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Chief of Engineers, the Secretary of War hereby gives unto the
said Sanitary District of Chicago permission to regulate said discharge so
that the maximum flow through the Chicago River shall not exceed 250,000
cubic feet per minute throughout the 24 hours of the day, upon the following
COnditions :
1. That this permission shall be in lieu of the present authorized rates of
flow as stated above.
2. That the permission herein given shall be subject to Such modification as
in the opinion of the Secretary of War the public interests may from time to
time require.
3. That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall be responsible for all damages
inflicted upon navigation interests by reason of the increase in flow herein
authorized.
Witness my hand this 5th day of December, 1901.
W. CARY SANGER,
Assistant Secretary of War.
This is the amount which would, if divided into second-feet, result
in 4,167 second-feet flow.
On the 17th of January, 1902, the Sanitary District of Chicago
had worked out detailed plans for the complete improvement of the .
Jhicago River, which would make the channel wide enough and
deep enough throughout its entire length to give ample room for
the entire legal flow under our law. These were the detailed plans
which the War Department required us to give under the original
permits, and they were approved by the War Department on the
17th of January, 1902.
General BIXBY. 1903, I think?
Mr. BARRETT. No, 1902, unless I have made a mistake.
Mr. BEHAN. 1902 is correct.
Mr. ADCOCK. That was the approval of the plans.
The CHAIRMAN. January 17, 1902?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. Will you see whether that is what we want
[referring to a document]?
General BIxBY. I think that is the approval of the plan.
Mr. BARRETT. I am only talking about the approval of the plan.
I did not say anything about the permit yet.
These plans were approved the 17th of January, 1902, by the
Secretary of War, Mr. Elihu Root, and the plans submitted and
approved were those complying with the permits issued July 11,
1900. The indorsement indicating the approval is as follows:
Approved in pursuance of provisions of Section 10 of the river and harbor
act of March 3, 1899, subject to the following condition :
1. That this action shall not be construed as involving the General Govern-
ment in any way with the expense incident to the carrying out of the project,
nor as in any way invalidating, waiving, or affecting the right of the Secre-
tary of War to regulate or revoke the permit granted under date of May 8,
1899, to the Sanitary District of Chicago to divert the waters of the Chicago
River and cause them to flow into the artificial channel know as the Chicago
Drainage Canal, nor as authorizing in any way any invasion or impairment
of the legal rights of any person or corporation.
On January 17, 1903, the Secretary of War modified the direc-
tion of December 5, 1901, and authorized the increase of the flow
through the Chicago River to 350,000 cubic feet per minute.
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What is the date?
1168 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. January 17, 1903. I think we should change that
language there, “During that portion of the year ending March
31, 1903.” . Apparently it was thought that April 1 would be the
opening of navigation and that 350,000 cubic feet might cause a
current when the boats were operating. -
I am told that my memorandum is wrong, that the date should
be the 17th of January and not the 7th. The exhibit is correct, but
my notation is incorrect. May we have that in the record?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; proceed.
(The paper referred to by Mr. Barrett is as follows:)
Whereas under date of December 5, 1901, by an instrument supplementary
to the Original permission granted by the Secretary of War May 8, 1899, to
the Sanitary District of Chicago to open the artificial channel from Robey
Street, Chicago, to Lockport and cause the waters of the Chicago River to
flow into the same, the Secretary of War, pursuant to authority reserved
in said permission of May 8, 1899, gave permission to the Sanitary District
Of Chicago to regulate said discharge so that the maximum flow per minute
throughout the 24 hours of the day, upon the following conditions, inter alia :
That the permission herein given shall be subject to such modification as in
the opinion of the Secretary of War the public interests may from time to
time require.
And whereas the said Sanitary District of Chicago has applied for permis-
. Sion to increase the flow through the Chicago River from 250,000 cubic feet
per minute to 350,000 cubic feet per minute during the closed season of navi-
gation in Order to carry off the accumulations of sewage deposit which line
the shores along the city.
Now, therefore, this is to certify that in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Chief of Engineers the Secretary of War hereby gives unto said
Sanitary District of Chicago permission to increase the flow through the
Chicago River from 250,000 cubic feet per minute to 350,000 cubic feet per
minute until the 31st day of March, 1903, after which date it shall be reduced
to 250,000 cubic feet per minute, as now authorized, upon the following con-
ditions:
1. That the permission herein given shall be subject to such modification
as in the opinion of the Secretary of War the public interests may from
time to time require.
2. That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall be responsible for all dam-
ages inflicted upon navigation interests by reason of the increase in flow
herein authorized.
Witness my hand this 17th day of January, 1903.
W. CARY SANGER,
Assistant Secretary of War.
Mr. BARRETT (continuing). After the War Department approved
these plans the Sanitary District of Chicago, between the years
1902 and 1912, practically completed the work of widening and
deepening the Chicago River, so that it was 200 feet wide and 26
feet deep, with a flowage capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second,
with a velocity of not more than one and a quarter miles per hour.
The channel at that time was absolutely safe for navigation, did
not have an excessive current, and was large enough to permit the
flow which we were required to have under our State law. There
was some small portion of the work having no direct bearing on the
question of size for navigation purposes, which was completed after
1912. -
The total amount expended for this purpose was $12,903,619.48.
In order that the committee may have some idea of what further
work was done regarding this project, this should be said: The
sewers in the old Section of Chicago drained directly, for the most
part, into the Chicago River. I think it was general throughout
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1169
the country; in fact, throughout the world. People generally
drained their sewage into a stream, and that was done at Chicago.
But in portions remote from the river, on the north and south sides
of the city, sewage was emptied directly into the lake. That was
the fact in the Wilson Avenue section, in Evanston, and other north-
shore towns, and the same was true on the south side of Chicago
at places remote from the river. Intercepting sewers were built
along the lake shore and all of these sewers emptying into the lake
were eventually drained into the river or sanitary channel.
In order to successfully operate these sewers, pumping stations
were built at Lawrence Avenue to care for the north side and at
Thirty-ninth Street to care for the south side of the city.
The cost of these intercepting sewers along the lake was $11,-
611,162.38.
In 1903, which was three years after the channel was opened,
application was made to the legislature for permission to develop
electric current at the place where our water dropped about 30 feet
between Lockport and Joliet, and the legislature granted permis-
sion to the sanitary district to extend its channel for the purpose of
developing this current and to construct a power station.
The legislature, however, strictly limited the sanitary district in
the method of disposing of its current as follows:
First. By using the same in the operation of its own plants.
Second. By transmitting the same to cities, towns, and villages
within the district for municipal uses.
Third. By selling the same to persons or corporations requiring
‘OOWer.
p During the time between 1903 and 1907 the sanitary district ex-
tended its channel from Lockport to Joliet, a distance of about 4
miles, and built its power plant at a cost all told of $4,562,716. The
first electrical power was generated by it in the year 1907.
We want the committee to know that the Sanitary District of
Chicago has never used more water than 10,000 cubic feet per second
because of the fact that it was making electrical power. The fact of
the matter is the power plant of the sanitary district is not built
to take as much water as 10,000 cubic second-feet. There have been
times when more than 10,000 cubic feet of water per second flowed
through our locks, but these have been during flood stages, when it
was absolutely necessary to take more than 10,000 cubic second-feet
of water to keep sewage from backing up into Lake Michigan and
polluting our water supply.
I make this statement because of a question asked by Congressman
Newton a day or two ago.
I stated the other day, and will repeat now, that at the present time
with the exception possibly of an isolated case, where a contract may
have been in existence requiring delivery of current beyond the date
when the sanitary district passed its ordinance, that the sanitary dis-
trict has now discontinued the sale of all power for commercial pur-
poses, and that every bit of it, with the possible exception heretofore
referred to, is used either in the operation of the sanitary district's
own plants, or by cities, park boards, or other municipalities, within
the sanitary district, and is sold at cost, there is no profit made on it
as between the sanitary district and these municipalities.
1170 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
On the 19th of February, 1906, the case of Missouri v. Illinois was
decided by the United States Supreme Court. This was a bill
brought by the State of Missouri to enjoin the State of Illinois from
permitting the reversal of the flow of the Chicago River and sending
sewage through the Illinois Valley down the Mississippi, contending
that it raised the levels of the Mississippi River, and was otherwise
injuring them by sending unhealthful matter that is sewage, by their
doors.
That case was decided and the decision will be found in Two hun-
dred United States Supreme Court Reports at page 495, and at page
526 thereof the Supreme Court of the United States said:
Some stress is laid on the proposition that Chicago is not on the natural Water-
shed of the Mississippi, because of a rise of a few feet between the Des Plaines
and the Chicago Rivers. We perceive no reason for distinction On this ground.
The natural features relied upon are of the smallest and if under any circum-
stances they could affect the case it is enough to say that Illinois brought Chi-
cago into the Mississippi watershed in pursuance not only of its own Statutes
but also of the acts of Congress of March 30, 1822, and March 2, 1827, the valid-
ity of which is not disputed,
That is quite a lengthy case and of considerable importance, and
if there are no further questions to be asked about it, Mr. Adcock
will discuss it with the committee later.
Mr. MANSFIELD. When was that disposed of?
Mr. BARRETT. It was decided February 19, 1906.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you the case here?
Mr. BARRETT. I will get it for you if it is not here.
On the 21st of April, 1904, a resolution was passed by the Con-
gress of the United States authorizing the Secretary of War, with
the concurrence of the Chief of Engineers, to lower the crests of the
Government dams at Kampsville and LaGrange, so that a greater
quantity of water could pass through the Illinois River without dam-
age to riparian owners.
You will remember that Congressman Rainey called attention to
this in his talk, saying that this constituted a recognition by the Gov-
ernment of the United States of the sanitary district's flow and was
a method by which they sought to make possible that flow through
the valley so as not to cause injury. The resolution, in part, is as
follows: *
The CHAIRMAN. That is a resolution of Congress of what date?
Mr. BARRETT. April 21, 1904.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized,
in his discretion, with the concurrence of the Chief of Engineers, to permit the
Sanitary District of Chicago, at the expense of said corporation, to lower the
height of the Government dams in the Illinois River at Kampsville and La-
Grange, Ill., in accordance with such plans as he may prescribe and subject to
Such stipulation and Conditions as, in his judgment, may be necessary to pro-
tect the interests of the United States.
Approved, April 21, 1904.
The Sanitary District of Chicago lowered the crests of those dams
under plans approved and under permits issued by the Secretary of
War. The details of those things I do not have.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Rainey said they were lowered 2 feet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1171
Mr. BARRETT. In September, 1907, the Secretary of War gave au-
thority to the sanitary district for the construction of the north shore
channel, and that was thereafter constructed by the sanitary district.
The north-shore channel furnished an outlet for the drainage and
Sewage for the city of Evanston and other north-shore villages and
towns. It is 8 miles long, 80 feet wide, 30 feet deep; has a flowage
capacity of 1,000 second-feet. It cost $1,416,489.
I will ask Mr. Ramey to point out on the map the place that
indicates the north-shore channel.
The north-shore channel leaves the north branch at the point
indicated on the map. That flow flushes out the north branch of
the Chicago River and flows down as indicated by Mr. Ramey's
pencil until it strikes the main channel at the Chicago River at the
point indicated, and then flows down the south branch into the
west branch of the south branch, and eventually into the main
sanitary channel and down through that channel into the Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers into the Mississippi.
The Calumet Sag Channel was constructed after the year 1910.
There had been considerable discussion in reference to this channel,
and originally it was intended to have a flowage capacity of 4,000
second-feet. If this plan had been carried out it would have been
necessary to have a total diversion of 14,000 cubic second-feet.
line as the old Calumet Sag feeder, used as a supply channel for the
Illinois & Michigan Canal, and when the sanitary district started
to dredge, widen, and deepen this to make a canal for a 4,000 second-
foot flow the litigation in question here was brought by the United
States Government. That is the origin of it, and I think it began
in 1908.
Mr. Adcock. March 23, 1908.
Mr. BARRETT. The War Department permitted the construction of
the Calumet Sag Channel after considerable dickering back and
forth, and the channel was dug, with a capacity of 2,000 second-feet.
It is 60 feet wide, 20 feet deep, 20 miles long, and cost $14,035,529.
Now, will you point out, Mr. Ramey, how that connects with the
Calumet River? In this territory indicated by Mr. Ramey's pencil
is the development of the great steel industries in Chicago, and close
by are the great steel mills of Gary in Indiana.
Mr. RAMEY. There [indicating] the Sag Channel taps the main
channel.
Mr. BARRETT. The Government has refused permission to the
sanitary district to dredge this channel from the point indicated,
just east of Blue Island. Blue Island is a much older town than
Chicago. It is about 15 or 18 miles southwest of Chicago. Is that
correct?
Mr. BEHAN. Twenty miles.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Behan says it is about 20 miles southwest of
Chicago. This channel now is taking what is called the dry weather
flow, amounting to about 700 cubic feet per second. Since we com-
pleted our main channel there have been a large number of surveys,
suggestions, and projects for the construction and completion of a
deep waterway connecting the Sanitary Channel at Lockport with
the Mississippi River.
1172 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
In the rivers and harbors act of 1899, a plan of that sort is con-
templated, and in the rivers and harbors act of March, 1899: June 5,
1900; June 13, 1902; April 21, 1904; June 25, 1906; March 2, 1907;
March 3, 1909; June 25, 1910; August 22, 1911; and August 24, 1912,
references, projects, and plans are provided for, surveys ordered,
and the preparations made for the purpose of connecting the sanitary
channel at Chicago with the river in one way or another, and we
would like permission, Mr. Chairman, to edit those reports for the
purpose of selecting the parts of them that particularly apply, and
in order not to have your record too voluminous, and to insert them
in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. That may be done.
Mr. BARRETT. I find, Mr. Chairman, that these reports have been
checked and I would like permission to insert in the record at this
place the following excerpts therefrom :
The rivers and harbors act of March 3, 1899, at page 879, provides for a
board of three engineers to make surveys and estimate of cost for improving
the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers with a view of extending navigation from
the Illinois River to Lake Michigan. Report to he made on a 7-foot and an
8-foot channel.
['Preliminary report, on survey of upper Illinois and lower Des Plaines IRivers, Ill.
(Barlow Board.) (H. Doc. 548. 56th Cong., 1st sess.) J
GENERAL. The board of engineer officers constituted by paragraph 1, Special
Orders, No. 14, headquarters Corps of Engineers, United States Army, March
12, 1899, to make a survey and estimate of cost for the improvement of the
upper Illinois River and lower Des Plaines River, with a view to the exten-
sion of navigation from the Illinois River to Lake Michigan at or near Chicago,
met at the United States engineer office, Chicago, Ill., April 10 and 11, 1899.
At this Session the maps and records Of this Office were examined, and it was
decided to employ a competent civil engineer and such draftsmen as might be
found necessary to arrange and consolidate the results of all available surveys,
including those of the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago and prepare
a comprehensive map on which will be located, in plan and section, the inn-
provement to comply with the proposed law. It was also decided that the
available surveys should be supplemented by such additional examinations or
instrumental surveys at Special localities as might be deemed necessary, espe-
cially the valley of the Des Plaines River from the southern end of the drain-
age canal to the mouth of the Kankakee River, and along the Sag route between
the Calumet River and the drainage canal at Sag Station.
The board reconvened by virtue of Special Orders, No. 59, headquarters
Corps of Engineers, United States Army, November 11, 1899, at Chicago, Novem-
ber 22. It then proceeded to Lockport, examining the controlling works of
the sanitary drainage canal and the various methods proposed for making
connections there with, and inspected the portions of the proposed route Of the
canal between Lockport and the mouth of the Kankakee River and in the
vicinity of Marseilles.
As the trustees of the drainage canal proposed at an early date to turn the
water of Lake Michigan into the canal, it was considered advisable to defer
final action on the report until the drainage canal was in operation and the
effect on the velocity of the discharge of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers
could be studied.
2: :: :: sk :k sk sk
* * * the work of the board might be confined to the presentation of re-
vised plans and estimates derived from this report, if it were not for the
change in conditions which has resulted from the construction by the Sani-
tary District of Chicago of a drainage canal through the divide between
Chicago and Lockport. This channel opens a waterway over this part of
the route which more than meets the requirements of the one called for or
of any other likely to be called for by those interested in navigation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1173
If the route by the Chicago River and drainage canal be adopted, there re-
mains but little more than half of the work involved in the 8-foot project of
1890 for the Government now to take in hand in order to complete the improve-
ment, since the estimated cost of this portion of the channel (about 28 miles)
was nearly $14,000,000. By the Calumet and Sag route only about 10%
miles Of the drainage canal can be utilized.
But while the drainage canal covers about half of the work involved in the
project by way of the Chicago River, it at the same time has turned an ad-
ditional flow into the Des Plaines River, materially changing its low-water
regimen. The requirements of this flow at present are 5,000 cubic feet per
Second, while the limit of 10,000 is probably more nearly the flow that will
have to be dealt with, at least not long after the completion of the present
project. As nearly as can now be estimated, this flow gives a water line
indicated on the accompanying profile, and the contrast is shown with the low-
Water conditions hereto existing. The steep slope shown on the profile indi-
Cates that with so large, a volume of discharge the velocity of the current
would be too great for upstream navigation in an open river. This might be
Overcome to a great extent by canalizing the river by high dams, entailing
great expenditures for the necessary works, as well as for the purchase of
lands overflowed, the cost of which can not even be approximated from
present information. , -
As the increased velocity of current in the river due to the increase in
the discharge from the drainage canal will cause a caving of the banks, thus
widening the river and producing bars in the main channel, the board also
Submits an estimate of $25,000 per mile for protecting the banks and con-
fining the river to the width it now has.
:}; x: 4. sk * :: *
The congested state of Chicago River and the increased difficulty of navi-
gating it in the strong reversed current caused by even the present limited
flow into the drainage canal led the board to fear that the full flow of 10,000
cubic feet per second, which will soon be required by law, would make ad-
ditional traffic through this river impracticable.
[Final report on survey of upper Illinois, and lower Des Plaines Rivers, Ill., with a view
to the extension of navigation from Illinois River to Lake Michigan at or near Chicago
(Barlow Board). (H. Doc. 112, 56th Cong. 2d Sess.) I
The board finds the most economic route for waterways of 7 feet and 8 feet
depth to be from Utica to Marseilles in the bed of the river, 11.4 miles; thence
around the Marseilles Rapids by canal, 7.4 miles; thence in the bed of the
river to near the mouth of Kankakee River, 21.2 miles; thence by enlarging
the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the Joliet Basin, 18.3 miles; thence by Canal
through Joliet Basin and along the east bank of the Des Plaines River, 4%
miles, connecting with the sanitary canal at Lockport; and thence through the
sanitary canal and the Chicago River to Lake Michigan, thus complying with
the terms of the act of March 3, 1899.
The board is of the Opinion that both dams should be surmounted by SOme
form of movable weir to reduce the elevation of flood discharge by an amount
at least equal to that which has been caused by the additional discharge from
the Sanitary Canal. g
As in the preliminary report, the board invites attention to the fact that
the estimates are based upon the assumption that the State of Illinois and
the sanitary trustees of the city of Chicago will cede the necessary parts of
their respective franchises free of cost to the United States both for construc-
tion and use. º
Since the board's report of March 17, 1900, the trustees of the sanitary dis-
trict have undertaken to cooperate with the United States in deepening the
South branch of Chicago River to 21 feet and widening it to at least 200 feet.
They have already planned to substitute seven bascule bridges for the center-
pier bridges now obstructing the river. It is expected that this project will
be extended and that the city of Chicago will undertake a part of the bridge
reconstruction and lower or cause to be lowered the three tunnels now limiting
the navigable depth of the river to 17 feet. The fears entertained with respect to
the dangers of navigating the south branch of the river under the new conditions
of reversed flow have been allayed to a great degree by the practical experience
1174 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Of the past season. For this reason and because the plans for both the 7-foot
and 8-foot waterways comply with the requirements of the act contained in
the Words “with a view to the extension of navigation from the Illinois River.
to Lake Michigan at or near Chicago" in connecting with the sanitary canal
the board is of the opinion that the additional cost will not justify the con-
Struction at the present time of an auxiliary canal from the sanitary canal
to Lake Michigan by way of the Sag and Calumet route, and is also of the
Opinion that Such a route would not become a necessity until the commerce of
either the 7-foot or 8-foot route should develop to a degree not expected for
years.
The Sanitary canal having been opened in accordance with the State law
and under a provisional permit from the Secretary of War, the flow of the
Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers has been increased by a discharge of 5,000
cubic feet per second, which will be raised to the maximum of 10,000 cubic
feet per Second under the provisions of the State law authorizing the con-
struction of the sanitary canal. (From Seddon’s report.)
:: sk :k × sk #: :k
Estimates for rights of way and land damages were taken approximately at
$700,000. Estimates of flooded land values were made here by the Sanitary
District of Chicago in 1892, but their prices seemed too low for present land
Values and the round sum taken here Considers them increased about 50
per cent. (Seddon’s report.)
The rivers and harbors act of June 5, 1900, page 914, provides that the board
of three engineers appointed under act of March 3, 1899 (p. 879), make report
and estimate of costs of a channel 10 feet deep, a channel 12 feet deep and a
channel 14 feet deep through the proposed route (Chicago to La Salle) and
that these estimates cover and include a proper connection at Lockport with
the sanitary and ship canal which has been constructed by the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago.
[Preliminary examination of Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers, Ill., with a view to the
extension of navigation to Lake Michigan, at or near Chicago, with channel depths
of 10, 12 and 14 feet (Barlow Board). (H. Doc. 220, 56th Cong. 2d Sess.) I
The project for the lower Illinois River provides for locks 75 feet wide and
350 feet between miter sills, with 7 feet on the miter sills at low water.
The discharge of the Chicago Drainage Canal should increase the navigable
depth to over 8 feet, and if the project be extended to Lake Michigan by the
8-foot project on which estimates have been submitted by the board there
will be afforded a COnnecting link between the Great Lakes and the rivers of
the Mississippi Valley, not only ample for river navigation as it now exists, but
also for any improvement therein that has been authorized by Congress.
The engineering questions presented in a project for a deep waterway to
connect Lake Michigan with the Illinois River, although attended with con-
siderable difficulty, are by no means insuperable. The proposed line would
embrace, first, the Chicago River, consisting of the main river and portion of
the South Branch for a distance of about 5 miles. This section is now under
improvement by the United States in cooperation with the trustees of the
Sanitary District of Chicago, and will, when the many changes in bridges and
tunnels have been made, and the widening and deepening of the channel com-
pleted, afford a navigable depth of 21 feet and an available width of 200 feet.
Connecting with this section the sanitary canal affords a magnificient water-
way, 28 miles in length, of sufficient depth and width for any possible require-
ment of navigation.
From the west end of this canal the waters of Lake Michigan, in a steady
flow amounting to from 5,000 to 10,000 cubic feet per second, are discharged
into the bed of the Des Plaines River, and are carried thence down through
the Illinois to the Mississippi.
The velocity of current along the Des Plaines River, which would have
resulted from confining this discharge to a channel of 8 feet depth for barge
navigation, will be sufficiently reduced in a ship canal of 14 feet depth or over
to make upstream navigation feasible. On the Lower Illinois River the pre-
vailing slope of less than 0.15 foot per mile will insure so gentle a current
that the depth required can be secured simply by enlarging the existing water-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1175
Way by dredging in an alluvial deposit at a cost which will be small when
Compard with the work which has been done by the city of Chicago in cutting
through the divide between the lake basin and the Illinois Valley watershed,
SO eloquently described in the memoir of the board of trustees of the Sanitary
District of Chicago.
The rivers and harbors act of June 13, 1902, page 995, appropriates $200,000
for making Surveys, examinations, and investigations for a 14-foot waterway
from Lockport to St. Louis; provides a board of three engineers for this work
from Lockport to the mouth of the Illinois River, and that the Mississippi
River Commission shall do this work from the mouth of the Illinois River to
St. Louis; provides also that the said board of engineers shall report upon a
7-foot and an 8-foot channel from La Salle to Ottawa.
[Report upon Survey for 14-foot waterway from Lockport to St. Louis and a waterway
of 7 feet and of 8 feet from La Salle to Ottawa (Ernst Board). (H. Doc. 263,
59th Cong., 1st Sess.) I
To provide the 14-foot channel from Lockport, by way of the Des Plaines
and Illinois Rivers to the mouth of the Illinois River, the board proposes to
Canalize the river from Lockport to Utica by 9 locks and 5 new movable dams,
and to utilize the Open river from Utica to Grafton by removing the 4 existing
dams and dredging a channel 200 feet wide at the bottom. It is thought that
Such a channel Will have the requisite depth of 14 feet when the natural dis-
Charge of the river is augmented by the contemplated flow of about 10,000
cubic feet per Second from the Chicago Drainage Canal.
This channel will connect with the Chicago Drainage Canal by a lock in
the dam which is now under construction by the Sanitary District of Chicago
at Lockport; it then follows the Canalized river in the main, having lateral
canals, each about 3 miles long, at Marseilles and Joliet.
The board estimates the COSt Of the channel from Lockport to Grafton at
$23,543,582. This estimate is based upon concrete locks 600 feet long, 80 feet
wide, and 14 feet deep over the miter sills. The board remarks that this depth,
while corresponding to the channel mentioned in the act, will not provide for
any future increase which may be made possible by augmenting the flow
through the Chicago Drainage Canal above 10,000 cubic feet per second. The
board states that, to take full advantage of such possible increase and navigable
depth, the locks would have to be entirely rebuilt, or would have to have in-
creased depths given to them at the present time. To increase the depth over
the miter sills 6 feet now would add about $1,376,000 to the cost of the project.
The plan proposed is based upon the assumption that the abstraction of 10,000
cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan, a quantity contemplated in
the State legislation affecting the drainage Canal, will eventually be permitted
by competent Federal authority. -
In this connection the board states that it does not condemn the present
plan of taking 10,000 cubic feet per second, believing as it does that some
such amount will be needed to protect the lives and health of the people of a
great city and of a populous valley; but it invites attention to the fact that if
a much larger amount be taken it will be necessary to construct remedial
Works elsewhere, and that these are, or should be, of an international Char-
acter. It is led to make this remark by the attitude of the Illinois Legislature,
and of the other principal advocates of this enterprise, which is that the
14-foot waterway is only a beginning, and that a much deeper channel ulti-
mately should be constructed, which means that a much larger volume of water
must be taken from Lake Michigan. It is the opinion of the board that the
sanitary reasons for the abstraction of water so far exceed and overshadow
the commercial reasons that the amount should be strictly limited by the
sanitary necessities of the case. It is impossible to fix a limit to the future
growth of Chicago. In a future not remote larger amounts of water may be
needed for sanitary purposes, and channels deeper than 14 feet will then be-
come practicable in the open alluvial portion of the Illinois River.
2k sk :: × sk :ſt 2:
The total distance from Lake Michigan to Grafton, at the mouth of the Illi-
nois, is 327.28 miles. Beginning in Chicago River, 6 miles from the lake, the
Illinois & Michigan Canal extends to La Salle, near the head of navigation
on the Illinois, a distance of 96.7 miles. This canal has lost its traffic to such
1176 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
an extent that it has ceased to produce a revenue and is falling into decay,
which bids fair to soon become total. It is barely navigable for vessels drawing
4% feet. For certain purposes it has been replaced as far as Lockport by the
Chicago Drainage Canal, as will appear further on.
None of the dams have as yet been removed, but by joint resolution approved
April 21, 1904, Congress authorized the Sanitary District of Chicago, at its own
expense, to lower the Governſhent dams, and on the 23d of May, 1904, permis-
sion was granted by the Secretary of War to that body to lower the dams 2
feet upon Condition that it install Such movable crests as should enable the
dams to be maintained at their present height during low water, and upon
further condition that it hold the United States harmless from any claims
for damages which might result from the operation of these movable crests.
Besides being a highway of commerce, the Ilinois & Michigan Canal has from
the beginning Served to carry Off the Sewage of Chicago. The Chicago River
has always been the main receptacle of the Sewage of the city, and as the
Volume of sewage has increased with the growth of the city additional facilities
for discharging it into the canal have become necessary. When the canal was
opened in 1848 a pumping plant was established at Bridgeport, where it joins
the Chicago River. In 1860 the capacity of this plant was nearly double, being
increased to about 400 cubic feet per Second. Later on the Summit level of
the canal was cut down SO as to provide a continuous gravity flow from the
Chicago River and Lake Michigan. That work was completed in 1871 and the
pumping plant abandoned. In 1883 a new pumping plant was brought into use
having a nominal capacity of 750 cubic feet per Second, but it soon became
evident that the discharging capacity of the old canal was quite inadequate to
carry the volume of water required to dilute the sewage and that a new
and greatly enlarged channel must be provided. The Chicago Drainage Canal
was then constructed and was brought into use in January, 1900. It has not
yet been completed to its full capacity as designed. When fully completed it
will have a capacity of about 10,000 cubic feet per second flowing at a low
velocity. As now constructed, it has a depth of about 22 feet and a bottom
width in different parts of 110, feet, 160 feet, and 202 feet, respectively. It con-
Stitutes a navigable channel able to accommodate the largest vessels now navi-
gating the Great Lakes. It extends from the Chicago River to Lockport, where
it discharges into the Des Plaines River, and is now being extended 2 miles
farther to a new power house. With the 6 miles of the Chicago River and the
2 miles extension just mentioned it provides a wide and deep channel for a
distance of 36 miles from Lake Michigan. At present it has no navigable con-
nection with the streams below, but under State legislation a connection is to
be made. It creates an important water power.
Although the primary object of the Chicago T)ainage Canal was the dis-
charge of Chicago Sewage, its function as a channel for navigation was kept
in view from the beginning. All of the bridges over it are drawbridges with
ample openings. The original act of the Illinois Legislature providing for
its construction dated May 29, 1889, contains the following items, viz:
“24. When such channel shall be completed and the water turned therein,
to the amount of 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, the same is hereby
declared a navigable stream, and whenever the General Government shall
improve the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers for navigation to connect with this
channel said General Government shall have full control over the same for
navigation purposes, but not to interfere with its control for sanitary or
drainage purposes.” -
As its utility for Sanitary or drainage purposes is dependent upon the Sup-
ply of water which it may obtain from Lake Michigan, a matter wholly
at the discretion of the Federal Government, the degree of control which
the State offers to the United States in this act, although limited, is probably
sufficient. It is conditional, however, upon the improvement by the Federal
Government of the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers, and the degree of improve-
ment is described in Section 23 of the above-mentioned State law, which Con-
tains the following language:
“If at any time the General Government shall improve the Des Plaines
or Illinois Rivers, so that the same shall be capable of receiving a flow Of
600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, or more, from said channel, and shall
provide for the payment of all damages which any extra flow above 300,000
cubic feet of water per minute from such channel may cause to private
property, so as to save harmless the said district from all liability therefrom.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1177
then Such Sanitary district shall within one year thereafter enlarge the en-
tire channel leading into said Des Plaines or Illinois Rivers from said dis-
trict to a Sufficient size and capacity to produce and maintain a continuous
flow throughout the same of not less than 600,000 cubic feet per minute, with
a Current Or not more than 3 miles per hour, and such channel shall be con-
structed upon Such grade as to be capable of producing a depth of water not
leSS than 18 feet throughout said channel, and shall have a width of not less
than 160 feet at the bottom.”
The taking of large quantities of water from Lake Michigan for drainage
purposes has not been authorized by Congress. It has been the policy of the
War Department thus far to regulate the quantity of water which is ad-
mitted to the canal, by the necessities of navigation in the Chicago River.
The capacity of that stream at present is such that not more than about 4,200
Cubic feet per Second can pass without creating velocities which will unreason-
ably obstruct navigation. The quantity of water admitted to the canal is, for
the present, limited to that amount or, as expressed in the permit
of the Secretary of War, to 250,000 cubic feet per minute. This
is less than is required by the State law. It will no doubt be increased as the
obstructions in the Chicago River are removed, and its discharging capacity
increased, a work upon which the Sanitary district is now engaged. In pre-
paring its estimates the board has assumed that the full discharge of 10,000
cubic feet per second contemplated in the plans of the sanitary district will
eventually be permitted by the Secretary of War. -
The effect upon the level of Lake Michigan of withdrawing 10,000 cubic
feet per second for an indefinite period has been the subject of an elaborate in-
vestigation under the office of the Lake Survey in Detroit, and the conclusion
reached is that the final effect will be to lower the level about 6 inches. (See
Annual Report of Chief of Engineers for 1900, p. 5401, and for 1902 p. 2779
and p. 2825; also for 1904 p. 4120.) Oscillations of more than 6 inches in the
level of the lake's surface are very common, often occurring hourly for many
hours in Succession, while OScillations Of 2 or 3 feet within an hour are not
uncommon. Still greater Oscillations within a year or series of years occur,
all from natural causes. Morever, during a severe winter, the discharge of
St. Clair River is reduced by ice to less than one-third its normal discharge,
the remaining two-thirds being stored up in Lakes Huron and Michigan and
raising their levels: and the difference between the total discharge during a
Severe winter and the discharge during a mild winter will probably
equal, or nearly equal, the discharge of the Chicago Drainage
Canal for a year. A permanent average lowering of 6 inches in the lake's
level, therefore, is not easily observed, and will probably not be noticed by
navigators. Nevertheless, the effect is real and important. Evidently there
is a limit to the amount Of Water which can be taken from the SOUthern end
of Lake Michigan without compensating works at the Outlet of Lake Huron.
The board does not condemn the present plan of taking 10,000 cubic feet
per second, believing as it does that some such amount will be needed to pro-
tect the lives and health of the people of a great city and of a populous Valley ;
but it invites attention to the fact that if a much larger amount be taken it
will be necessary to construct remedial works elsewhere, and that these are,
or should be. Of an international character. It is led to make this remark
by the attitute of the Illinois Legislature, and of the other principal advocates
of this enterprise, which is that the 14-foot waterway is only a beginning, and
that a much deeper channel ultimately should be constructed, which means
that a much larger volume of water must be taken from Lake Michigan.
It is the opinion of the board that the sanitary reasons for the abstraction of
water so far exceed and overshadow the commercial reasons that the amount
hould be strictly limited by the sanitary necessities of the case. It is im-
possible to fix a limit to the future growth of Chicago. In a future not remote
jarger amounts of water may be needed for sanitary purposes, and channels
deeper than 14 feet will then become practicable in the open alluvial portion
of the Illinois River.
The natural discharge of the Illinois River at La Salle Varies from about
500 cubic feet per second at the lowest stage to about 85,000 cubic feet during
floods. The effect of adding thereto 10,000 cubic feet per Second is to raise
the water surface at all, stages and to increase the extent and duration of
overflow upon the bottom lands of the valley. Some damage Will be done
to these lands; in many cases no doubt small, but in all cases Sure to be
91739–24—PT 2—59
1178 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
exaggerated by the owners. A multitude of damage suits is to be expected.
With the discharge limited, as it now is, to 4,200 cubic feet per second, 224
suits have been brought against the trustees of the Sanitary District of
Chicago, the claims aggregating $4,409,180. Making due allowance for exag-
geration of claims, a considerable Sum of money is involved, besides much
litigation. In the State legislation quoted above it is proposed that the
Sanitary District of Chicago shall assume responsibility for damages caused
by the discharge of 5,000 cubic feet per second, and that for additional damages
caused by amounts greater than 5,000 cubic feet the United States shall be
responsible. The introduction of dams in the portion of the route where
dams will be required to secure the prescribed depth has a tendency to further
increase the Overflow. To keep this at a minimum it is proposed to make
the dams of the movable type, which shall have no effect upon the water
surface except at low and medium Stages.
The steep slope of the Des- Plaines River and of the Illinois River above
|Utica is favorable to the development of Water power. Rights of this nature
have acquired additional importance with the recent increase in the discharge
of the drainage canal, and will acquire still further importance with the
further increase Contemplated. An important Water power has been devel-
oped by the State of Illinois at Joliet and is now in use under lease by a
private corporation. The Sanitary District of Chicago is engaged in construc-
tion of works for the development of water power just above Joliet. An
important water power is in use also at Marseilles. Various other schemes
for the development of water power have been projected. In all such cases
fixed dams, with their resultant back flowage are a necessity. In fixing the
location and height Of its dams the board has endeavored to avoid the injury
of any of these Schemes. It has succeeded in doing this for all that are
developed and probably also for those that are undeveloped. It has accepted
the levels Of the pools at and above Joliet as fixed by the dam now in existence
at the former and that under construction at the latter ; and at Marseilles
the canal around the rapids has enabled it to avoid the power dam at that
place entirely. At other places economy in excavation and avoidance of Over-
flow have been the guiding considerations. The best development of water
power would no doubt in some cases call for a different arrangement. Fewer
dams and those of a greater height and of the fixed type might, from that
point of view, be desirable. The plan Submitted is not designed to develop
water power; but there will probably be no difficulty in modifying it so as to
conform to such development if those who are to benefit thereby will cooperate
with the Government. They should pay the cost of dams and the damages
from flowage, which is no more than they would be compelled to do if the
Government made no improvement.
2}: sk sk sk sk 2k Sk
From the dam above Utica to Grafton the low-water slope of the Illinois
Tiver is exceedingly small, varying at different places, but not exceeding 0.13
foot per mile for long distances. The natural low-water discharge of 500
cubic feet per second at Utica was not sufficient to maintain an open channel
suitable for river navigation, and the river was improved by locks and dams,
as mentioned on pages 8 and 9 of this report, under the head of “present im-
provements.” The additional flow provided by the Chicago Drainage Canal
is now 4,200 cubic feet per second. It will allow removal of the present pocks
and dams, and it makes practicable the maintenance of an open channel con-
siderably deeper than the 7 feet now provided by those structures. The in-
crease to 10,500 cubic feet per second will make practicable a still larger open
channel.
[Act of April 21, 1904, page 1049 : Joint resolution to authorize the lowering of the
height of the Government dams in the IIIinois River at Kampsville and LaGrange]
Iresolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War is hereby a u-
thorized, in his discretion, with the concurrence of the Chief of Engineers, to
permit the Sanitary District of Chicago, at the expense of said corporation,
to lower the height Of the Government dams in the Illinois River at Kamps-
ville and LaGrange, Ill., in accordance with such plans as he may prescribe
ILLINCIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1179
and Subject to such stipulations and conditions as, in his judgment, may be
necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
Approved April 21, 1904.
| The lowering of these dams was done by the sanitary district in the years
1904 to 1906, inclusive, to the extent of 24 inches to 27 inches, flashboards of
Corresponding heights being provided. T
The act of March 2, 1907, page 1261, provides for a board of five engineers
to examine the Mississippi River from St. Ilouis to its mouth upon the prac-
ticability of maintaining a 14-foot channel and to consider in connection with
their examination the proposed waterway from Chicago to St. Louis pre-
viously reported.
[Report 61st Cong., 1st sess., Doc. No. 50]
IReport by Special Board of Engineers on survey of Mississippi River from
St. Louis, Mo., to its mouth, with a view to obtaining a navigable channel 14
feet deep and of suitable width, including a consideration of the survey of a
proposed Waterway from Chicago, Ill., to St. Louis, Mo., heretofore reported
upon, and a report with reference to water power and to land drainage along
the routes hereiin Innentioned.
[Bixby Board]
This board reported on a waterway in the Mississippi River below St. Louis.
It merely reviewed the report of the Ernst Board (made under the act of
Julie 13, 1902) which covered the Chicago River, sanitary canal, Des Plaines
and Ellinois Rivers.
The rivers and harbors act of June 25, 1910, page 1420, appropriates
$1,000,000 for a waterway from Lockport to the mouth of the Illinois River;
provides for a board of five members, the president to be the same as that of
the board provided for March 2, 1907. Report is asked upon the feasibility of
Such waterway and advisable dimensions if such is recommended. Also upon
measures to preserve lake levels and the effect upon the climate of the Lake
States. Also upon the extent of cooperation of the State of Illinois, and, if
this is advisable, to report upon plans and estimate of cost Of the work.
[Preliminary report on waterway from Lockport, Ill., to the mouth of Illinois River.
(H. Doc. No. 1061, 61st Cong., 3d sess.) (Bixby Board.) |
This board conferred with Mr. Isham Randolph, who had been designated
by the governor as the authorized agency of the State of Illinois, after which
it made an inspection trip down the Sanitary Canal, Des Plaines, Illinois, and
Mississippi Rivers. The report merely states that the board is carrying on the
work and makes no recommendations.
[Report by a special board of engineers on waterway from Lockport, Ill., to the mouth
of Illinois River. (H. Doc. No. 1374, 61st Cong., 3d sess.) (Bixby Board.) )
In the numerous surveys, under instructions from Congress, for a waterway
from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River, the line from Bridgeport, on the
South branch of the Chicago River, to LOCkport, On the Des Plaines ; thence
along the Des Plaines River to the Illinois River and along the Illinois to its
mouth, has uniformly been considered the most feasible. In all projects a
canal has been proposed from Bridgeport to Lockport and the river bed utilized
below La Salle. In the earlier ones a canal between Lockport and La Salle
was advocated, but since the Chicago Drainage Canal has been excavated
through the Chicago divide and now insures an adequate Supply of water for
1180 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the channel, the canalization of the Des Plaines and the Illinois Rivers with
Short canals around rapids has been generally recommended. In the valley of
the Des Plaines and upper Illinois Rivers the rock is sufficiently near the sur-
face to provide excellent foundations; the lower Illinois has an exceptionally
gentle slope, averaging about 0.13 foot per mile, so that any reasonable depth
can be obtained by dredging, and the present diversion from Lake Michigan
through the Chicago Drainage Canal is more than sufficient for the channel.
It is therefore the opinion of the board that the waterway from Lockport to the
mouth Of the Illinois River is feasible.
#: :: sk :: ::: 2: aft
For purposes of navigation a diversion from Lake Michigan of less than
1,000 second-feet of water is all that will be necessary. For purposes of sanita-
tion the works of the Sanitary District of Chicago were designed to allow the
diversion of 10,000 second-feet and now contemplate a total of 14,000 second-
feet, the additional 4,000 second-feet to be obtained by the diversion of water
through the Calumet River and a connecting canal following the Sag route.
The War Department, while awaiting the definite action of Congress, has so far
permitted the diversion of 4,167 second-feet, and the sanitary district is under-
stood to be using about 7,000 second-feet. As the water which is at present
being diverted from the lake appears to have already seriously affected the
navigation of its harbors and connecting Waterways, prompt congressional
action is recommended to limit the diversion. i
While it appears to have been assumed that the sanitary district may be
allowed to divert 10,000 second-feet so long as actually necessary for sanitary
purposes, the diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes from their natural
outlet for power development alone is inadmissible under the recent treaty
between the United States and Great Britain. * * * The treaty, however,
recognizes as proper the use of water for sanitary purposes, and it is the
opinion of the board that only such water should be diverted from Lake Michi-
gan as is indispensable for Sanitation, and then only with a provision for
proper compensating works in the outlets of the Lakes to prevent a lowering
of their levels. Water thus diverted may be used incidentally for power pur-
poses, but care must be exercised in authorizing the diversion of water for
sanitary purposes to restrict it to the amount necessary for those purposes
alone.
[Final report by a special board of engineers on waterway from Lockport, Ill., to the
mouth of Illinois River. (Doc. No. 762, 63d Cong., 2d sess.) J
The special board finds that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water per
second through the Chicago Drainage Canal would lower the water surface
at mean lake level 0.465 in Lakes Huron and Michigan, 0.448 foot in Lake
Erie, and 0.431 foot in Lake Ontario. It proposes the construction of sub-
merged weirs in Niagara River to hold up the level of Lake Erie and sub-
merged weirs in St. Clair River to hold up the level of Lakes Michigan an
Huron at a total estimated cost of $475,000 with $15,000 annually for main-
tenance. The influence on the volume of the Mississippi River due to any
diversion from Lake Michigan will be an increase approximately equal to
the amount of water diverted.
Mr. BARRETT. The acts of June 29, 1906, March 3, 1909, and
August 22, 1911, provided for the diversion of water from the
Niagara River and have nothing whatever to do with the Chicago
Drainage Canal.
The act of August 24, 1912, provides for a survey of northern and
northwestern lakes and has no bearing on the Chicago Drainage
Canal.
Mr. SEGER. I would like to ask whether any of those surveys
have been made. .
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; a large number of them have been made, and
a great deal of money was expended; but one appropriation of a
million dollars was not expended. The State of Illinois many years
ago provided for the construction of a channel, which is now being
built, to connect the sanitary channel with the Government’s proj-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1181
ect farther down the Illinois Valley, and they are expending on it
now $20,000,000. That was described here by Mr. Barnes and also
by Mr. Sackett. It is well known to Congressmen Hull and Rainey.
I have no doubt that Mr. Newton, who has been paying so much
attention to the Mississippi phases of it, understands about it, and
I presume all of you gentlemen are advised of it on account of your
connection with the Rivers and Harbors Committee.
The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that if there is anything that you think
covers the survey with reference to levee protection or damage
by floods it be particularly included in any excerpt you may make.
It is my understanding that that has not been covered in any surveys
but you may discover something.
Mr. BARRETT. You know this situation in the valley is peculiar.
You have heard a great deal about it, and I am going to stop here
long enough to say a few words.
I have been told by a man who has been in almost constant attend-
ance upon these hearings, and who is present now claiming to repre-
sent interests in the Illinois Valley opposed to the sanitary district,
that there are very few cases legally maintainable in existence in the
Illinois Valley against the Sanitary District of Chicago.
The fact of the matter is I was startled when he told me he did
not believe there were over 12. Now, I have had no connection with
the Illinois Valley situation or with the case now pending in the
Supreme Court until after proofs had been closed in the trial court,
and this admission of fact from a representative of valley interests
may be taken as true, inasmuch as it is not now disputed.
There may be in the Illinois Valley, in addition to a few legally
maintainable cases, some cases in which claims exist which are just
and should be paid by the district regardless of the fact that the
person having the claim could not legally maintain it.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not refer to cases or claims
Mr. BARRETT. Yes: I understand. I shifted from your position.
I understood you to ask whether there had been a survey made as to
taking care of these levees, but I have shifted off on my own account.
I did not misunderstand you.
The people in the valley have their own problems, and the sani-
tary district has its problems; but it has been pretty definitely
determined that the method they have pursued in constructing their
levees is in a great degree responsible for their difficulties not alone
in the matter of floods but also that it has a great deal to do with
the destruction of fish life on account of the restriction of the flow
of the river at certain spots making it impossible for the fish to get
to their natural feeding grounds.
Mr. NEwToN. Is there any uniformity in the width between those
levees?
Mr. BARRETT. That is the trouble; there is none. If there was
uniformity the difficulty would not be nearly so great. Congress-
man Rainey made the statement here that they had constructed them
in accordance with a suggestion from the United States Govern-
ment, or one of its departments. Now, there may have been an
investigation by a division of the Government of the subject of levee
construction, but there is a serious dispute as to whether they told
l:182 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
them to build them in the way they have constructed them. Mr.
Rainey in his bill has suggested a method of disposing of these
claims, and we have, on our part, wanted to see absolute justice done
to the people in the valley, which we feel can be done by our own
State and has been done by our own State. ... We have no purpose
here to fuss or equivocate. If there is a legally maintainable claim
against us down there and these men down there feel they can not
afford to hire lawyers and there is some way that the Congress of
the United States can provide for a commission to determine the
facts, we are ready to pay certain claims.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is your opinion as to our jurisdiction?
Mr. BARRETT. I have heard a very wise statement made by the
chairman, and I would just as soon not discuss it, but we will not fuss
with them. The Sanitary District of Chicago will not attempt to set
it aside, because if it is only a question of what we owe I am satisfied
that no board that you gentlemen may provide will make us pay a
greater amount than a jury of farmers down in the valley will re-
quire us to pay.
The only point we make is that the claim should have a basis in law.
I think I may safely add the following: If there is some claim that is
So just and meritorious that it should be paid, and for some good rea-
son it has not been pursued, we will pay that in addition. So nobody
needs to worry. We feel that the State of Illinois is amply able to
take care of the valley. We feel that Illinois and the Illinois Valley
are so close to this project that we can afford to be absolutely fair and
liberal with everybody who lives there, provided it is a reciprocal
lilatter and they are willing to be decent and fair with us.
Mr. HULL. You said you did not want to discuss the point, but I
would like to just ask this, because I am in sympathy with that part
of the bill: Do you believe it can be put in legally Z Can it be put in
legally and stand? $
Mr. BARRETT. Anything I would say on that would be necessarily a
curbstone opinion.
Mr. HULL. And I would like to have that.
Mr. BARRETT. And I would rather not discuss it. I am not in the
habit of giving those opinions. I thought there was considerable
force in what the chairman said, but I am not sure that he is abso-
lutely right, because after listening to Mr. Rainey. who is a good
lawyer, and listening to the arguments he advanced. I would like to
check those authorities to be sure that Mr. Rainey was wrong and the
chairman was right. I have this in mind: I think Mr. Rainey has
paid a great deal more attention to it than you have, Mr. Chairman,
that your reference to it is more or less general. That is the way, my
mind has been acting on it. But he says that he has seen authorities
which would justify it, and I have not checked them up, and I do
not want to venture an opinion because he is so interested in this and
has made such an investigation that he may be absolutely right.
That is all I would want to say on that, Congressman Hull. May
we have this in the record [referring to the resolution of April 21,
1904, by the Senate and House of Representatives, already included in
the record] }
I am down to a place where my discussion is going to be quite gen:
eral. We maintain and will be able to demonstrate that this channel
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 11.83
has done for Chicago and its health everything that they predicted
for it, that the death rate in Chicago and its environs from typhoid
fever has been reduced from 172 per 100,000 in 1891 to 1 to 100,000
in 1922. .
I do not want to be understood to claim that that is the only cause
of that reduction. Medical science has advanced and advanced to a
marked degree, but this in the early days was mainly responsible
for it. Medical Science has contributed to it and the net result is what
I have stated. . - - - -
We have a sanitary engineer here who has had to do with the
Cleveland situation. He is now in the employ of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago, and has been for a number of years. I will ask Mr.
Pearse how long?
Mr. PEARSE. Fifteen years. - -
] * BARRETT. How long were you connected with the Cleve-
all ' .
Mr. PEARSE (interposing). Two months.
The CHAIRMAN. When were the two months?
Mr. BARRETT. Tell him, Mr. Pearse. .
Mr. PEARSE. In 1904. - g . -
Mr. BARRETT. He has been through Cleveland and through a
great many cities of the United States, and has made a particular
study of Sewage treatment, and he will discuss the Cleveland plant
and all of the other plants throughout the country.
The amount of water necessary for sewage dilution, as found b
our drainage and water-supply commission in 1887, and fixed by the
joint committee of our legislature in cooperation with the health
department of the State and city of Chicago, has been approved by
sanitary engineers who were directed to investigate the subject by
the International Waterways Commission. The waterways com-
mission asked for a report on this subject by Rudolph Hering and
George W. Fuller, and a report was made to that commission by
Mr. Hering, Mr. S. M. Gray, and F. P. Stearns regarding the
amount of dilution required in the city of Washington.
There was an investigation made by another commission under
the direction of the International Waterways Commission. They
reached the same conclusion on the subject, and the International
Waterways Commission approved these reports in the following
language: -
It is our judgment that for large canals with trade wastes eliminated a
dilution of 314 cubic feet per second per each 1,000 population connected with
the sewers also receiving storm water is as low a figure as it is now possible
to state. Local conditions, especially temperature, which affect bacterial
activities and the coefficient of absorption of oxygen by water, and still other
mätters, bear upon this question, the detail discussion of which is not now
necessary. - :
I want you to understand that we do not have a double system of
sewers in Chicago; that ours is a single system; it carries off sewage,
and through the same sewers is carried off the washings and rain-
waters and general drainage. I do not know whether there is a
double system of sewers anywhere in the country. If so, Mr. Pearse
will refer to it. But we have a single system of sewers.
Mr. BEHAN. The other investigation was made by Lyman Cooley,
of the International Waterways Commission? -
1184 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; that was made by Mr. Cooley. The report by
Mr. Hering and Mr. Fuller was to the joint commission. The same
general results were found by both.
(Mr. Barrett submitted the following for the record:)
INTERNATIONAL WATERw AYS CoMMIssion UPon CHICAGo DRAINAGE CANAL,
JANUARY 4, 1907
The disposal of sewage by dilution depends on the amount of oxygen in the
diluting water being sufficient to prevent putrefaction of the organic matter
in the Sewage as the latter undergoes bacterial decomposition. If the oxygen
is deficient, bacterial decomposition produces what is called “putrefaction,”
With its various attendant bad odors, such as noted for years in Chicago at
“Bubbly Creek.” If there is a sufficient amount of oxygen dissolved in the
Water to combine with this organic matter, decomposition goes on without any
foul Odors, and the organic matter is reduced to inert matter in an inoffensive
way.
This question is one of balancing the amount of oxygen in a given volume
of water with the amount of decomposing organic matter in the sewage, which
naturally must vary greatly.
There are many observations of more or less accuracy available to give
figures for this relation. The Massachusetts State Board of Health made a
special inquiry into this subject for all local rivers in 1902, with conclusions,
stated on page 452 of their annual report for that year, as follows:
“The results of the investigations show that where the quantity of water
available for the dilution of the Sewage in a stream exceeds about 6 cubic
feet per second per 1,000 persons discharging Sewage, objectionable conditions
are unlikely to result from the gross pollution of all the water of a stream
in dry weather. Under favorable ciriumstances. Such as in cases where the
sewage is discharged at many outlets into a large body of water, objectional
conditions may not result where the dilution is somewhat less than 6 Cubic feet
per second per 1,000 persons; but objectionable conditions have resulted in all
Of the cases thus far examined where the flow has been less than 3.5 Cubic feet
per second per 1,000 persons discharging Sewage into the stream.”
These conculsions apply for the most part to comparatively small streams
into which much manufacturing waste is discharged and upon which mill
ponds are situated.
There are times when the flow of water in the drainage canal appears to
have been insufficient to eliminate objectionable odors entirely. How far this
may be explained by confusion on the part of observers of the putrefactive
Odors emanating from the Illinois and Michigan Canal with those of the new
canal, and how far it may be due to temporary reductions in the rate of flow
in the new canal and river to facilitate constructive work, and also to the
effect of rainfalls and to old depositS in the South fork, We are unable to Say.
The new canal appears to serve at present about one-half of the population
for which it was designed, and through it flows a volume of lake water which
is variable, but which averages not far from one-half of the ultimate quantity.
It is our judgment that for large canals with the trade wastes eliminated, a
dilution of 314 cubic feet per Second for each 1,000 population connected with
the Sewers also receiving Storm water is as low a figure as it is now possible
to state. Local conditions, especially temperature, which affects bacterial
activities and the coefficient of absorption of oxygen by water, and still other
matters, bear upon this question, the detailed discussion of which is not new
necessary. We feel certain that a dilution of 21/2 cubic feet per second would
cause offenses at times, and probably also a dilution of 3 cubic feet per second.
Mr. BARRETT. We have made the claim that the city of Chicago
was the pioneer in the treatment of sewage. We started in a long
time ago to try to find out how to do it properly, because we realized
that the way our population was increasing the time was close at
hand when it would be necessary to treat sewage, and as early as 1908
we started to investigate.
Many statements have been made here that the science of sewage .
treatment has developed to a point where they have reached a definite
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1185
conclusion. I wish to say that, while great progress has been made,
the best minds engaged in this work are not ready to admit that they
are certain that they have reached the final Solution of the subject.
We are hoping, in line with the view expressed by the chairman,
that the time is close at hand when we can do a great deal of Sewage
treatment in a much shorter period of time than is now necessary, and
with considerable reduction of cost. The reduction of cost is not
the important thing. It is the element of time that enters into it
that is most important.
The development of this has, I think, reached the point where it
is now conceded that the best methods known are the Imhoff tank, or
sedimentation system, and another which is called the activated
sludge system. I do not know just what they are using at Cleveland,
except that it is a sedimentation system. The Imhoff tank is a sedi-
mentation type. In addition to sedimentation they have what they
call the sprinkling filter system. After they have sedimented it they
take the effluent and force it up through a lot of sprinklers and let
it run through broken stone and eventually run it off through the
channel, and in that way they produce a fairly good effluent.
The other method of treating it is the activated sludge system.
All of them are expensive. The activated sludge is more expensive
than the Imhoff tank system, but it produces a better effluent.
The activated sludge system will be explained here, but in a
general way the Sewage is brought by intercepting, sewers to the
point where they build this big treatment plant, and for the purpose
of describing it roughly, the heavy materials are passed through a
screen. Eventually it gets into a big tank, and then they insert into
the raw sewage a sludge, as they call it, which contains millions and
millions of live bugs; and they make these bugs strong and virile by
feeding them oxygen, and this set of bugs destroys the bad bugs in
the sewage and eventually a good effluent is produced.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The good bugs get the bad ones, do they?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; the good bugs win out over the bad ones; and
we find that to be the case generally through life; the good ones get
the bad ones; the bad ones can not stand up; they have got to go.
We would have made a great deal more progress if it had not been
for the war. You gentlemen know that construction was stopped
in every line during the war. Many people unacquainted with facts
and conditions have complained about our progress, but when every-
thing is known and considered, we have not been culpable.
Plans projected I will leave to the discussion of Mr. Pearse, and
he will show that by 1945 we will have expended on treatment plants
$110,000,000 in addition to what we have already expended. That
will make a total of $140,000,000.
There is a plant now under actual construction, on which contracts
have been let, amounting to about $10,000,000 and which will re-
quire before completion about $28,000,000. This is being built on
the north side of Chicago at a point, as the mayor of Chicago told
you about the other day, close to where he lives. It will treat the
sewage of 800,000 of our population. That is about the population
of the city of Baltimore. It is thought now that without any un-
toward happenings it will be completed by 1928.
91739–24—PT 2—60
1186 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
We have provided for a south-side sewage treatment project to
take in the territory between the Loop district and Eighty-seventh
Street, an area of 59 square miles, to take care of a population of
910,000; a west-side sewage treatment project, covering the Loop
district and a large part of the west side of the city, an area of
approximately 58 square miles, to take care of the sewage of 1,340,-
000 people.
Industrial wastes have for many years been a thorn in the side of
the sanitary district and they have spent a great deal of time and
money in an effort to solve the problem of packing and corn prod-
ucts Wastes.
For a long time it was thought that we had the packing house and
stockyards waste problem solved. Discussions were had and nego-
tiations were carried on with the packers for a long time, and it
seemed that this problem had been settled until they insisted upon
some detail of operation which the sanitary district could not agree
to. Both sides had just about agreed to a plan under which a treat-
ment plant was to be built by contributions from each, but the
packers, as I am advised, insisted upon some measure of control of
the plant and the sanitary district could not agree to this.
There is litigation now pending, brought by the sanitary district,
to determine whether the packing industries have the legal right to
empty their trade wastes into Chicago River. The packing-house
wastes and corn-products wastes have given the sanitary engineers
more difficulty than any other waste we have. Is that correct, Mr.
Pearse?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes.
Mr. HULL. Which is the most injurious waste, the packing-house
waste or the corn-products waste?
Mr. BARRETT. Will you answer that, Mr. Pearse?
Mr. PEARSE. It is more a question of the relative strength of the
pollution. The packing-house industry is equivalent to a million
people, and the corn products is equivalent to about 450,000.
Mr. BARRETT. Assuming the same amount, which would be the
more injurious?
Mr. HULL. I wanted to find out which one was the most damaging
to a river, the corn products waste or the packing house waste. The
reason I ask that is because we have a corn products plant at Pekin.
Mr. PEARSE. On the same volume of sewage corn products sewage
is likely to be stronger, and we have had it so strong in the winter,
when they are forcing the plants to capacity, that it is incapable of
treatment, there is no way you could treat it except by mixing
more water with it in order to treat the waste after they have been
diluted. I think, in general, the answer to that question is that
the corn products is the stronger and more difficult thing for treat-
ment in order to take care of the waste.
Mr. HULL. Just at that point, because I think it is important,
what is the real ingredient in the corn product that makes it so
serious? 7.
Mr. PEARSE. It is the organic matter that comes from the process
of manufacture of the starch and glue. The material that comes
chiefly to the sewer is the gluten. The starch manufacture comes
along in this way. The corn comes into the plant and is steeped in
an acid. They take the husks off each kernel, and then by treat-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1187
ment in water the starch and the gluten are separated. Then the
liquid carrying them has to be settled.
The wastes are very largely from the gluten, and according to the
manner in which they operate the settlers the pollution from the
plant will vary. We have had a very great variation in that. Our
investigations have shown the company at Argo alone, that by
properly operating their settlers they can save over $80,000 a year
without increasing the cost of their operations. That has been one
practical result of our investigation.
Mr. BARRETT. Suppose we let this be developed by Mr. Pearse
when he addresses you?
Mr. HULL. All right.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Newton asked a question a few days ago which
I will undertake to answer now. His question had to do with the
possibility of restricting our flow so as to protect the Illinois Valley
during flood stages. Do you recall that question?
Mr. NEWTON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. He asked two questions.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I do not remember the other one, but I kept
that one in mind.
Mr. NEWTON. I wanted to find out to what extent the opening
up of the drainage canals and the draining of reservoirs and swamps
had affected flood water stages, and what effect they had upon the
low water stages of the Illinois River.
The CHAIRMAN. And then there was a third question, and that
was whether there could be a seasonal flow so far as navigation was
concerned, a flow confined or diminished, say, during nine months
of the year, and increased during the other three months?
Mr. NEWTON. When there was a great quantity of water coming
out of these water sources whether it was practicable to check or
reduce it, and at the same time maintain navigation, and also take
care of the Sewage question.
Mr. BARRETT. Let me go on with what I have in mind, and when
these engineers come on you can develop it to its conclusion.
It has been determined by our engineers, and there is no doubt about
it, that the flood run-off of the Chicago drainage area is 10,000 cubic
feet per second, excepting on rare occasions when it has been as high
as 12,000 cubic second-feet, and as we pave further into the outlying
territory and that becomes more widely sewered the flood run-off
will increase, but up to the present time it has rarely exceeded 10,000
cubic feet per second.
This condition requires a 10,000 cubic second-foot flow through
our channels, because in Order to carry off the drainage and sewage
during flood stage it is necessary to keep the stream flowing to its
capacity so that in times of storm when the drainage and sewage
is suddenly increased the stream will be flowing fast enough to take
care of the flood run-off.
It has been definitely determined that if our channel is carrying
a 4,167 cubic second-foot flow and a storm suddenly arises which
produces a flood run-off of 10,000 cubic second-feet, that the flow
in our channel can not be increased fast enough to carry off the flood
and that our Sewage, as a consequence, backs up into the lake and
pollutes our water supply.
1.188 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The 4,167 cubic second-foot diversion provided by the War Depart-
ment's attempted limitation of our permit is exceeded from seven
to ten times each year by sewage and drainage emptying into our
channels. Sometimes it is exceeded by hundreds of cubic second-
feet and frequently by several thousands of cubic second-feet. If,
therefore, we were limited to a flow of 4,167 cubic second-feet, our
Sewage and drainage would be emptying into Lake Michigan about
eight and one-half times a year, or about once in six weeks.
Mr. HULL. May I ask a question?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes."
Mr. HULL. If we have 4,167 cubic feet diversion as a steady diet,
and you happen to have a flood of, say, 8,000 cubic feet, would that
necessarily make it go back to the lake on that basis : .
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; and I will go into that more in detail in a
few minutes.
Mr. HULL. All right. -
Mr. BARRETT. It has been suggested very frequently that we could
get along all right by taking 4,167 cubic second-feet of water during
normal times and take care of floods by opening the gates to 10,000
cubic second-feet during flood stages. In fact the War Department,
I believe, gave serious consideration to this, but our engineers main-
tained that this was impracticable because of the length of time re-
quired to increase our flow from 4,167 to 10,000 cubic second-feet, and
in order to determine absolutely the feasibility or practicability of
this suggested arrangement they made a number of practical tests
and demonstrated that in order to increase the flow from 4,167 to
10,000 cubic second-feet at least 24 hours was necessary; and the
fact was further developed that during heavy rains the flood run-off
from Chicago drainage area reached a 10,000 cubic second-foot flow
in 6 hours. This shows that with a flow restricted to 4,167 cubic
second-feet we would have our sewage emptying into the lake and
polluting our drinking water in about three hours after the begin-
ning of a heavy rain, and that this would continue (assuming a con-
tinuous flood rain) for 24 hours, notwithstanding the fact that our
gates at Lockport were opened to 10,000 cubic second-foot capacity
immediately after the rain began to fall.
Mr. HULL. To get the additional water from the lake?
Mr. BARRETT. No. It is necessary to have 24 hours' time in order
to increase the slope of our stream which covers a distance of about
32 miles from Lake Michigan to Lockport, so that the discharge can
be increased from 4,167 to 10,000 cubic feet per second. In other
words, it is our position, and I do not think it will be seriously
questioned by the engineering fraternity, that if our gates at Lock-
port are set for a flow of 4,167 cubic second feet and a storm comes
suddenly upon us, and immediately we open the gates so as to permit
a flow of 10,000 cubic second feet, that 24 hours will elapse before
we can establish throughout our channels a steady flow of 10,000
cubic feet per second, and that during a heavy rainstorm, which
produces our maximum flood run-off or 10,000 cubic second feet or
more, only six hours are required to bring this amount of flow
through our sewers or natural drains into the sanitary channel.
During the trial of the case now pending in the Supreme Court
of the United States engineers appearing on behalf of the Govern-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1189
ment stated that if the flow were restricted to 4,167 cubic feet per
second that it would be impossible, in the event of sudden storm,
to open up our gates at Lockport to their maximum capacity and
thus prevent the sewage from backing up into the lake. *
The engineers of the sanitary district disputed this and stated
that it would be impossible to increase the slope of our channels
so as to produce a steady flow of 10,000 cubic second feet (the amount
of our flood run-off) in less than 10 hours and that it might require
a great deal longer time, and in order to definitely ascertain what
would be required in such circumstances a test was made under the
direction of George M. Wisner, chief engineer of the sanitary dis-
trict, by Horace P. Ramey, Murray Blanchard, H. S. Ripley, and
R. H. Burke, assistant engineers of the sanitary district, and George
E. Haggis, T. H. James, and Louis Ayres, civil engineers in the
employ of Gardner S. William, of Ann Arbor and Chicago, and
there was employed on this test, in addition to those whose names
I have mentioned, about 60 other men, working continuously for
24 hours, and the test was made on the 8th and 9th of March, 1914,
in the following manner:
Current meter stations were established at Lockport, Lamont,
Willow Springs, Robey Street, Loomis Street, and Dearborn Street
in Chicago. A current meter party worked at each of these stations
continually during the test, taking a measurement of the flow at
each section every 15 minutes. Before the beginning of the test a
flow of approximately 4,000 cubic second feet was established
throughout the whole length of the canal and Chicago River. Then
at a given time the gates were opened at Lockport wide enough to
permit a flow of 10,000 cubic second feet out of our channel.
Observations were made at the various current meter stations con-
tinuously for a period of 24 hours after opening the gates at Lock.
port, and at the end of this time the meter readings in the Chicago
River at Robey Street, Loomis Street, and Dearborn Street had not
recorded a flow of more than 8,500 cubic second-feet, and at no time
during this 24-hour test was there a flow of more than 8,500 cubic
second-feet at any point in Chicago River.
The laws of the State of Illinois specifically require the Sanitary
District of Chicago to keep a flow through it channels of 3,333.1%
cubic second-feet for each million of population, and this, in addition
to the fact that it is physically impossible to change the flow in our
channels from 4,167 cubic second-feet to the amount necessary to
prevent our sewage during flood stage from backing up into Lake
Michigan, makes it absolutely necessary that we have a continuous
diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet of water.
Another suggestion has been made that we could prevent our
sewage from backing up into the lake during flood periods by
putting a movable dam across the mouth of the Chicago River so
that when the flood came on we could close this dam and thus pre-
vent the Sewage from running into the lake, and some people, with-
out giving the matter serious considerations, have said, “Well, that
seems all right.” and I ask this committee to do a little thinking
about that.
In the first place it is ridiculous to suggest that the Chicago
River be locked for a period of anywhere from a few hours to as
1190 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
many hours as a storm continued, so that shipping could not get
into it at all; but passing by this very serious objection, we come to
the question of what the result would be in case this dam were placed
across the Chicago River and a storm run-off of 10,000 cubic second-
feet started to empty into our channels. We have seen that with a flow
of 4,167 cubic second-feet that 24 hours is required to bring about
a continuous flow of 10,000 cubic second-feet, and we have also seen
that a flood run-off of 10,000 cubic second-feet can be brought into
our channels from our drainage area in six hours. So from this
it is apparent that in about three hours' time we would have a
greater flow into the river than the channel would carry off and in
six hours' time we would have twice as much sewage and drainage
flowing into the channel as it would take away, which would result
in our sewage and drainage backing up into basements and business
houses and causing a general flood condition throughout the city
for from 18 to 21 hours, or until the maximum amount of 10,000
cubic second-feet was flowing continually through the sanitary canal.
The result from this suggested cure is worse than the disease.
This plan is not feasible. When some of the members of the com-
mittee suggested a day or two ago that it was impossible to cut us
off, they told the truth. This can not be done if Chicago is to con-
tinue to exist. -
Mr. HULL. You did not quite answer my question. I am trying
to get it in my own mind. I asked you if you have 4,167 cubic feet
per second-flow and then you happened to have a flood that would
run it up to 8,000 or 10,000 cubic feet a second, whether that would
go into the Lakes on that basis. That is what it would do, is it
not? *
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; it would absolutely go into the lake.
Mr. HULL. Unless you had a flow through the canal equal to the
flood flow, it would go into the lake?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. We have to keep our stream running at
10,000 cubic feet to carry a 10,000 second-foot flood. In other
words, a flow of 4,167 cubic second-feet will carry off a flood of 4,167
cubic second-feet, but will not carry off a flood of anything greater
than that and certainly will not carry off a flood of 10,000 cubic
second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. What happens during the 24 hours while you are
equalizing it?
Mr. BARRETT. Well, we do not have to equalize it, we keep up
our flow.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand; but you say it takes 24 hours to
increase it from 4,167 cubic feet to 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Now what happens during that interval?
Mr. BARRETT. Now, do not misunderstand me. I said in order
to demonstrate the lack of justification for the position of the War
Department we did conduct this experiment. We cut it down to
4,167 cubic feet per Second, and then we opened up our gates to
see how long it would take to get the maximum flow. We do not
generally do it. If we did that we might as well close our channel.
Mr. WILSON. It would reverse itself, and it would then require
24 hours to get it back to equilibrium or normal again, would it
not ?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1.191
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. In order to obtain a maximum flow of 10,000
cubic Second-feet, 24 hours' time was necessary. We keep up our flow
in order to prevent just this thing.
Mr. NEWTON. I presume your floods come up rather quickly.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I suppose they come up more quickly there
due to the fact that we have so much of a sewered area and so many
paved streets, and they probably are greater than in the ordinary un-
paved and unsewered territory. The engineers will tell you what in
an unpaved area the outflow would be with a given precipitation,
and what it is in a paved and thickly built area; there is quite a
marked difference.
I have a memorandum or two here that I want to talk about, which
will be discussed at greater length by the engineers. -
There are many causes for lowering of the lake levels in addition
to our diversion. The Warren report indicates what we are charged
with responsibility for, and the United States Engineers have es-
timated that diversion for power and navigation purposes have
lowered lake levels as follows: Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, 0.06
of a foot; Lake St. Clair, 0.15 of a foot; Lake Erie, 0.35 of a foot;
Niagara and Chippawa Rivers, 0.75 of a foot.
It is well known that the barometric changes, shifting winds, and
seiches change and lower lake levels. It is a fact that during the
entire time that our channel has been operating and we have been
diverting water from Lake Michigan and the Chicago drainage area
that there has not been a harbor or connecting channel upon the
Great Lakes which has been lower than the depth projected for it by
the United States Government.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will pardon me, I think you are wrong.
Very few harbors in the United States, either inland or on the coast,
have the project depth.
Mr. BARRETT. My statement applies to the Great Lakes only, and
as to them it is correct. When I go beyond the Great Lakes I am
going to sink.
Mr. BoxcE. It will be too deep for you?
Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely. I am going to leave that to the men
who have to navigate waters other than the Great Lakes. I am glad
you have put me back into our own water, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to call the attention of the committee to the following facts:
We have had a good deal of discussion and many statements from
men such as Mr. Goulder, representing the Lake Carriers, from the
heads of navigation companies, and from persons residing at or near "
harbors, regarding the effects of our diversion upon lake levels, but
there has not been a single practical mariner or navigator who ever
said that a ton of freight was lost as a result of this alleged lowering,
and you know the Supreme Court of the United States in this Mis-
souri case said they would hesitate a long time before entering a decree
on the uncorroborated testimony of a lot of experts. I do not know
but what that is pretty good logic.
Now there is not any question, Mr. Chairman—and I am glad I am
back in the Great Lakes—there is not any question but that the levels
of the lakes can be raised. There is no doubt about it. I am con-
vinced of that. & -
The CHAIRMAN. I think we will take your experts a good deal
quicker than we will your lawyers on the question.
1.192 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. That is sensible, Mr. Chairman; but my statement is
true nevertheless, for lake levels have been raised for power purposes.
I do not see any difference between lowering caused by the diversion
of the sanitary district and a lowering due to diversions for power
purposes. I am not quarreling with power, excepting that power is
inconsistent and unreasonable, and I have not any quarrel at all with
the shipping interests of the United States.
The shipping interests of the United States are entitled to good
lake levels, and we are going to be one of the best friends they have
got outside of this committee.
But getting back to the question of lowered lake levels, I see no
difference in lowering caused by power than in lowering caused by
the sanitary district. &
The CHAIRMAN. Might not the difference in location make a differ-
ence in the use after it is diverted?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think so.
The CHAIRMAN. But might not there be a difference from the fact
that the water is returned to the same watershed at practically the
same point, that it would be returned by the original channel
Mr. BARRETT. It will not change the lowering at the place where it
OCCUITS. y
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don’t know as to that.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, let us see if that is not so. Lake Superior, if
unregulated, would be lowered from 18 inches to 30 inches, due to
diversions for power purposes. It would be lowered that much if
they did not regulate it.
Now let us assume that they did not regulate. Would we not at
Chicago, on the same theory as that advanced by Mr. Ekern, of Mil-
waukee, have a right to complain about that? Of course we would.
We have to be consistent about it. -
JLet us get to your query, Mr. Chairman. Lake Erie has been
lowered by power diversions, and Colonel Warren has stated the
amount. Now let us assume that power on Lake Erie is responsible
for a lowering, of 3 inches in that lake. You say it does not make
much difference because it gets back into the same watershed. But
it has gone from Lake Erie, regardless of the fact that the water
does eventually get into Lake Ontario. And we, at Chicago, and
Congressman Larson at Duluth, and Mr. Ekern at Milwaukee, and
Mr. Dougherty in Michigan, are entitled on the theory of those
gentlemen to the absolute maintaining of natural levels at Erie. That
is the logical result of their argument, and yet when we assert it the
people on Lake Erie resent it and charge us with being absolutely
unreasonable. And they say there is a treaty, but I say that the
treaty does not change our rights or the rights of our sister States.
The CHAIRMAN. Any inherent rights, you mean?
Mr. BARRETT. I did not say any inherent rights; you can call them
inherent or any other kind of rights. It does not change our rights,
and that is why we are not quarreling with our sister States. We
at Chicago have a better claim, a better right to our diversion, even
so far as it affects our sister States, than you folks have at Erie.
And I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that some of your power com-
panies on the American side at Niagara may not have been in a
much better legal position than the attorney general of New York
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1193
said they were in when he started in to prevent their diversions on the
ground that they were a nuisance. They had authority from the
sovereign State of New York to divert water for power purposes.
They did invest their money, and they did develop power, and they
did sell it in New York to the citizens of that State and to the
citizens of other States if they could get to them and it was a benefit
to the people. And Congress, up to the time in question, had not
legislated on the subject, and it is not so certain, Judge Boyce and
gentlemen of this committee, that the attorney general of the State
of New York was absolutely right when he said they did not have
any legal rights.
I have not completely checked their situation, but I can see very
well how they might have a much better legal foundation for a
claim than the attorney general of New York thought they had.
The CHAIRMAN. What become of his claim? -
Mr. BARRETT. Well, it was eliminated by you gentlemen down
here when you passed the Burton Act. In other words, you did for
these people at Niagara the very thing we say should be done for Chi-
cago. You may not have given that particular power company any-
thing that it did not already have, because I can very well under-
stand, Mr. Chairman, that if the United States Government had
undertaken to prevent that power company from diverting water
and making power that there would have been a right smart law-
suit all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States before
they would have abandoned their rights. You would have heard
something in the Supreme Court of the United States about the
right of the State of New York, a sovereign State, to grant the
right to divert that water, in view particularly of the fact that the
Congress of the United States had not legislated on the subject;
but let us get back now to the diversion and lowering at Erie.
Following Mr. Ekern's argument to its logical conclusion, we at
Chicago have a right to insist upon the absolute natural levels of
the lakes. He says that when he talks about the sanitary district
diversion, but we could not get him to be logical when we talked
to him about lowered levels due to power diversions. He could not
see that. }
Mr. HULL. You mean he did not want to see it.
Mr. BARRETT. I did not say that. I said he could not see it. His
eyeglasses were colored when it came to power diversion lowerings,
but they were crystal white on lowerings at Chicago.
We are trying to see through the same glasses at both places.
Following his argument to its logical conclusion, we are entitled
to natural levels at Erie. But the absurdity of the thing is apparent
when you find that the Government of the United States has by
treaty permitted this outgo on the Canadian side by agreement with
the British Government and on the American side—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Has granted a license on the Ameri-
can side.
Mr. BARRETT. Under the power act now; but do not forget the
fact, Mr. Chairman, that for many months after the Burton Act the
diversions went on at Lake Erie on our side of the lake without
any authority at all.
1194 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are talking about present conditions
just as I suggested about the Chicago district; we are not going
to decide this on past history, nor are we going to attempt to take
an attitude on some other branch that the executive department may
have taken.
Mr. BARRETT. No; but for the purpose of examining the situation
we are going to try to put lowerings due to power on this level [in-
dicating] and we are going to put lowerings due to diversions on
the same level, right on this table.
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty is that you will find the treaty
authorizes a certain diversion and then the water power and the
license under the water power act?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; and I say we are in the same position, and
probably a little bit better. But I do not want to get off my subject.
Mr. BoycE. If the question now being considered by the committee
shall ultimately have to be determined by the courts, will not the
respective rights of the States of New York and Illinois be con-
sidered together?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think I understand you.
Mr. BoxcE. Both of the States are interested in the question before
the committee, one particularly with regard to water power and the
other with regard to navigation, regardless of any treaty between
our Nation and Great Britain. Will not these rights have to be con-
sidered together?
The CHAIRMAN. But I think you have to take into consideration
the whole situation. All I was attempting to do was to show that
in the one case there had been the authorization by treaty and,
second, the authorization by the water-power commission in issuing
licenses.
Mr. BoxcE. The only thing which led me to suggest the question
was the thought that maybe you were restricting your view of the
situation to the treaty and the water power act.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; I admit frankly that you would have to
take into consideration all the circumstances
Mr. BARRETT. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly obvious that
if we start down the street and your heels are not the same height
when you start and one is ground off by the rubbing on the cement
walk and the other is shortened by the loss of a lift it does not make
any difference what caused it, both heels are lowered, and it does
not make any difference here whether the loss of elevation is due
to power or to our diversion at Chicago, there is a lowering just
the same. If one is right and can be justified, the other is right
and can be justified, because certainly it is as important to serve the
health of the poeple in a great community as it is to give them power
with which to turn the wheels of industry and to provide light and
other necessities for the community.
Navigation interests say that they are entitled to their lake levels,
and I say, in the absence of a finicky complaint, that they are entitled
to have levels maintained so that navigation will not be unreasonably
obstructed.
Now, to be fair with everybody, if we are responsible to any ex-
tent—and everybody seems to say from an engineering standpoint
that we are partially responsible, and for this purpose I am going
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1195
to concede it—we should, in order to live decently with our neigh-
bors, all the way from Chicago up to Duluth and clear around down
into your country, Mr. Chairman, be ready to make good the levels
of the lakes to the extent of our responsibility, and correspondingly
the power people should do the same thing, and everybody else, out-
side perhaps of navigation, should take care of it; and where there is
a lowering not caused by sanitary or power diversions it should be
taken care of by the General Government.
Every report of every engineering board that I have read has said
that submerged weirs or regulating works will restore lake levels for
power purposes. Colonel Warren, in his report, tells us that by the
construction of a submerged weir at Erie, and by the construction of
another weir just above the crest of the Falls, they can take 80,000
i. feet per second out of there and still have proper levels in Lake
I’le.
Now, if it can be done for that purpose, it can be done for the
other purpose. That is logical. If we can restore Superior 2% feet
by a regulating works at the Soo, where water is diverted for power
purposes, it can also be done where water is diverted for navigation
or for sanitation. -
When the Canadians at Gallop Rapids caused a 6-inch lowering of
Lake Ontario by the enlargement of a channel, they restored this loss
of level by constructing a submerged dam, partly on Canadian and
partly on American territory, and our War Department and its en-
gineers have said that this dam has restored the level of Ontario to
the height it had above the lowering caused by the enlargement of
that channel. .
Now, if it will do it there it will do it in another place. Do you
not know that our War Department has arranged for the construc-
tion of a submerged weir near Port Huron [indicating on map.] for
the purpose of restoring a lowering caused by the dredging of a new
channel in the St. Clair River here [indicating on map.] }
They say it can be done. It has not been built, but in line with
their known engineering ability we are justified in assuming that it
can be done.
Now, we say we can and will furnish the money necessary to
restore the loss of level for which we are charged with responsibility,
and we suggest that the power interests who seem so very much in-
terested in lake levels come in and do equity themselves and put down
their share of the money to bring back these levels.
(Thereupon, the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION
The hearing was resumed at 2.50 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge, we are ready to proceed.
STATEMENT OF MIR. GEORGE. F. BARRETT–Resumed
Mr. BARRETT. As I said this morning, a great many investigations
and reports have been made regarding regulating works, and I think
that every board of engineers which has investigated the subject
has recommended regulating or compensating works to restore lake
levels. The board of engineers on deep waterways, appointed under
1196 ILLINors, AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the act of Congress of 1897, reported that it was feasible to con-
struct movable gates or dams in the Niagara River for the purpose
of elevating the surface of Lake Erie, and that such construction,
by maintaining the level of the lake at an even stage, would benefit
navigation.
The International Waterways Commission recommended the con-
struction of compensating works for the restoration and preservation
of the levels of the Great Lakes.
In the year 1910 Congress created a commission of engineers to
report upon means and methods for the preservation of lake levels,
and in its report, made in August, 1913, entitled “Final report on
waterway from Lockport, Ill., to the mouth of the Illinois River *
(H. Doc. No. 762, 63d Cong., 2d sess.), the commission discussed the
Chicago diversion and reported that— -
A diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second through the Chicago
Drainage Canal would lower the water surface at mean lake level 0.465 foot
in Lakes Huron and Michigan, 0.448 foot in Lake Erie, and 0.431 foot in
Lake Ontario.
And it proposed the construction of submerged weirs in the
Niagara River to hold up the level of Lake Erie, and submerged
weirs in the St. Clair River to hold up the levels of Lakes Michigan
and Huron, at a total estimated cost of $475,000 with $15,000 annu-
ally for maintenance.
This commission further reported that—
To restore the diminished levels of the Lakes by contracting works in their
Outlet does not, however, present any serious difficulties * * *. At the foot
of Lake Ontario the closure of the Gut Channel of the Calop's Rapids by the
Canadian Government has had the effect of raising the level of Lake Ontario
an amount nearly equal to the computed lowering of the lake by diversion
of 10,000 second feet at Chicago, and no compensation is at the present time
necessary to restore former Conditions in this lake. * * * It is proposed
to diminish the Outflow of Lake Erie by the Construction of three submerged
weirs in Niagara River in the vicinity of Squaw Island, which would average
about 4.2 feet in height and would contain about 15,000 cubic yards of masonry.
The estimated cost is $150,000. To raise the levels of Lakes Michigan and
Huron, submerged weirs are proposed in St. Clair River, covering 3 miles of
river below the mouth Of Black River at Port Huron. * * *
It is computed that these weirs will increase the Velocity of the Water flowing
over them ; but, on the other hand, above the mouth of Black River the river
slopes and velocities which are now excessive will be diminished and naviga-
tion on the whole will be considerably benefited.
I want the record to show that I have not read consecutively,
and I did not mark the stars to indicate the breaks. This is not
complete. I have selected portions of it, but it is not consecutive.
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors reviewed the
foregoing report and recommended among other things:
The board believes that the total Volume of water to be diverted from the
natural passage channels of the Lakes should be definitely fixed by CongreSS;
that a project with estimate of cost for works necessary to compensate for
such diversion should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Chief of Engi-
neers and the Secretary of War ; that before any diversion is made beyond
that at present existing the State of Illinois shall transfer to the Secretary
of War the funds necessary for such work, as given by the approved estimate
of cost; that the works shall be built by the United States with the funds
so provided; and that the control and maintenance of such works shall be
in and at the cost of the United States.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1197
This report was signed by General Black, senior member, and
who was at one time Chief of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that?
Mr. BARRETT. The date of this is December 16, 1913. I will
select the parts that we are interested in, and all of the reports here
for verification, else we would have a record here that would be
interminable. The Warren report, which has been talked of here
so many times, contains the recommendation that the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago be permitted to divert 10,000 cubic feet per second
from Lake Michigan; that the regulation of this diversion be placed
under the control of the Secretary of War—these are just conclusions
from his report; it is not his own language—that the sanitary district
pay to the United States Government a reasonable cost for water
used for power purposes; and that plans be prepared for the con-
struction of compensating works to restore lake levels.
When the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors reviewed
Colonel Warren’s report they recommended that the sanitary dis-
trict be permitted to divert 6,800 cubic second-feet of water, saying:
We believe further that the Chicago water supply should receive such
treatment as will render it at all times safe. The diversion above recommended
would permit 2,000 cubic feet per second by way of the Calumet River, 4,800
cubic feet per second by the Chicago River, and allow the operation of all
power generating machinery now installed at Lockport, Ill. It would also
afford the statutory dilution of 33% cubic feet per second for 1,000, for a total
of 2,100 000 people. *
This report was approved by the Chief of Engineers with the
exception of that section that had to do with the Sanitary District
of Chicago, which was disapproved without reasons, excepting of
the most general kind, being given for the disapproval.
As to the reason why the Sanitary District of Chicago at the
outset concluded to and offered to pay for the cost of constructing
regulating works, that came about in this way: In May, 1918,
General Judson, who was the United States engineer at Chicago—
General BIxBY. Colonel Judson.
Mr. BARRETT. I have given all sorts of titles to these Army officers,
and I have tried to be generous. e g
General BIxBY. He was retired, so he can not get any higher in
rank.
Mr. BARRETT. I will call them all “General ” unless they stop me.
He addressed letters to the officers of the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago. He suggested the desirability of cooperation between local
bodies at Chicago and the United States and the adoption of harmo-
nious policies. He inclosed with his letter a memorandum of his
suggestions
Mr. MANSFIELD (interposing). We had a gentleman here a few
weeks ago who called General Goethals, “Colonel.”
Mr. BARRETT. You know, Mr. Congressman, you never make a
mistake when you call one of our members of the State legislature
“Senator.” So, following the same plan, I am going to call all of
these Army officers “General,” and I will be sure I am not getting
below their grade.
Mr. Boyce. Why do you discriminate between members of the
legislature and Members of Congress?
1198 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. I am not going to talk about Members of Congress.
I am staying down in Illinois and in the Army.
Mr. HULL. The way it is here now, we don’t care to be called
“Senators.”
Mr. BARRETT. I am not going to get into any difficulty. The letter
of Colonel Judson, addressed to the Chief of Engineers of the
|United States Army begins as follows:
Referring to the letter of the Chief of Engineers dated March 25, 1920, in-
structing me to cooperate with the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago
in making a study of sewage purification, I desire to submit the following
report of progreSS.
And then I go on, without reading all that he says, to this:
Ignoring all questions except that of the proper reduction and disposal of
Chicago Sewage by the existing method, it is apparent from many considera-
tions that an excessive amount of water from Lake Michigan is not being
uSed.
The CHAIRMAN. He said this when?
Mr. BARRETT. This is the letter from General Judson which brings
up our offer to the Government to construct these regulating works.
He says that—
Ignoring all questions except that of the proper reduction and disposal of
Chicago sewage by the existing method, it is apparent from many considera-
tions that an excessive amount Of Water from Lake Michigan is not being used.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date?
Mr. BARRETT. May 24, 1921. We are going to give you this entire
book, so I will only read a paragraph or two. The report then,
after going into a great many things, says:
While the sanitary district doubtless has authority under existing State
laws to proceed with its sewage treatment program, in an excess Of Caution
it has caused bills to be introduced in the State legislature for explicit au-
thority to construct the proposed sewage treatment works in accordance With
the accompanying memorandum.
The next of importance that I care to take your time to read is
as follows:
In the meantime the sanitary trustees are proceeding energetically with their
plans for sewage treatment and disposal as outlined in the inclosed memoran-
dum. Since the date of their report they have acquired 180 acres of land
located on the north Shore channel as a site for their proposed north side
purification plant. The progress made by the sanitary district is well illus-
trated by exhibits E and F, constituting part of inclosure. * * * The
program of the sanitary department, if carried out, will insure the practica-
bility of keeping the volume of water diverted from Lake Michigan within
limits which it is hoped all concerned will finally deem reasonable.
And he writes to the Sanitary district, addressing his letter to Mr.
Adcock:
DEAR SIR : I inclose herewith a memorandum which in a way is self-explana-
tory. It itemizes the three principal respects in which it is desirable there
Should be COOperation between Certain local bodies and the United States and
the adoption of harmonious policies. I am sending a copy of this memorandum
to a number of gentlemen of Chicago, requesting each to advise me as to
whether anything can be done at this time through proper conferences or other-
wise to advance the Cause of cooperation and harmonious action as proposed.
Thanking you in advance. -
And that is signed by Colonel Judson.
This memorandum goes in detail into the question of the construc-
tion of these regulating works and various other things which might
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1199.
bring this matter to a successful and friendly conclusion, and I will
not read it, because we are going to give each member of the com-
mittee one of these, but the result of it was that the Sanitary District
of Chicago passed an ordinance in which they appropriated and pro-
vided money necessary to defray the expense of these regulating
works, which would raise the level of the Great Lakes.
That indicates, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
how we came to make this offer. The first section of that ordi-
nance is:
The Sanitary District of Chicago does hereby offer and agree to defray the
expense and pay to the United States Government the cost of constructing and
maintaining works to be installed at the outlet or outlets of any of the Great
Lakes to compensate for any diminishing levels of the Great Lakes and con-
necting waters due to a diversion or withdrawal from Lake Michigan of 10,000
Cubic feet of water per Second by the Sanitary District of Chicago through its
Various channels.
I will not read the next section.
It was suggested to me here this morning that we did remove both
of those dams at Kampsville and LaGrange. I was not quite sure as
to the situation, and I find on investigation that it is a fact that the
crest on one of those dams or of one of the dams was lowered; that
the work was started on the other but was not pursued to a final
conclusion. I think there was some litigation in reference to it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Are those dams on the Illinois River ?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; Government dams.
The CHAIRMAN. The lower Illinois River.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Rainey said that the work had not been com-
pleted, but had been authorized.
Mr. BARRETT. That is just what I was now explaining. Mr. Shaw
thought that I left the impression with you gentlemen that that work
had been finally completed. I thought I said that I was not quite
sure about it, and I wanted to make definite and certain that I was
not leaving any wrong impression.
Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have taken
you over the history and many of the detailed acts, both legislative
and constructive, having to do with the Sanitary District of Chicago.
Unquestionably in a project running the number of years that this
has been in existence Some things or many things, as a matter of fact,
have probably not been given to you. To give you everything would
make a record so large that it would be of no service to you. If
anything of importance has been overlooked, we are reserving the
right, either through Mr. Behan or Mr. Adcock or these engineers,
to supply it.
I just want to call your attention to this one thing, which I think
was probably given to you by the mayor of Chicago: The costs of
construction of the work which we have been required to make in
Chicago on our sewage system have probably been larger than they
would be at most any other place in the United States, due to the
fact that Chicago is the only city in the United States which was
built on a swamp, and it has been necessary to raise our datum there
from 6 to 10 feet in order to flow our sewage into the river. All
of the lower portion of the city, which is now the business section.
and for quite a long way out in the outskirts was completely under
water for many, many years.
1200 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. What is the highest place in Chicago, designating it
by the streets? Is it along the edge of the lake or it it back on the
west side?
Mr. BARRETT. I would think that the highest land would be in
the neighborhood of Western Avenue, around what was called, in
the old days, Forest Hills. This would be in the neighborhood of
Ninety-fifth to One hundredth Streets on Western Avenue, and
would be located 7 miles west of the lake. We have other high
spots in Chicago but they are generally not on the shore of the lake
but considerably west of it.
Mr. HULL. Was it low along on Michigan Avenue?
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, yes. All of our Michigan Avenue frontage
was completely under water in the old days, and much of the land
along our lake front now is made land. Where the Illinois Central
is running along the lake through the center of the city is made
land. Many of our parks along the lake shore are built on made
land.
Now, just a word or two, and I think I will stop, and I will be
willing to answer any questions that may be put to me.
Mr. Larson of Minnesota has suggested that we are asking for
or that this legislation would run in perpetuity. Regarding that I
want to say that there is not anything in the act which says that it
shall be perpetual. If as a result of all of the things which have
happened in a legislative way in our State or Nation, or as a result
of all of the things which we have done pursuant to them or any of
them, a condition is created which would justify the courts in saying
that our rights are vested, then of course legislation will not add
anything to what we now have. If the courts should hold that we do
not have a vested right to those things which we insist are ours, then
any legislation which would be passed by you gentlemen would of
course always be within the control of the Congress of the United
States. If you passed an act which you specifically said should run
in perpetuity, that might create a different situation, but that is not
the way you legislate, and there is not anything in this act suggesting
any such thought as that.
Mr. Boy CE. Which act?
Mr. BARRETT. The Madden bill. It has been suggested here by
Congressman Larson and by others that we are down here now
because we know that we will be defeated in the Supreme Court of
the United States. There is not anything which we have said or
will say which will admit that that is true. As every lawyer on this
committee knows, it is possible, of course, for only one side of a
lawsuit to win if the decision turns on only one point. But where
many things are involved, as in this case, any one of a number of
things may happen. There is apt to be a determination here of
this litigation on the question of the power of the Secretary of
War under section 10 of the rivers and harbors act of 1899, which
might leave and in all likelihood would leave the matter, as far
from decision as we find ourselves now. If, of course, the Supreme
Court of the United States decided the issues entirely upon the oc-
currences in the State of Illinois and the legislation of our State,
that would definitely settle it. If they decided them absolutely
on the legislation of the Congress of the United States and those
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1201.
things which we have done pursuant thereto, and decided in our
favor, that would definitely settle it. If they decided them on a
combination of those two things in our favor, that would definitely
Settle it. If they decided, however, that the Secretary of War did
not have the power to issue these permits, or left the matter in an
indefinite and unsettled condition, which they have done in many
cases where disputes have arisen between one State and another,
or between one State and a governmental division of another State,
and here suggested to the parties that the matter be disposed of by
discussion and by cooperation or by congressionel action, that
would put us right back with you gentlemen again. What is our
purpose, then, in asking for this legislation?
The CHAIRMAN. What will you do as to your suit? Are you going
to invite a decision of the issue presented by the pleadings, or are you
going to invite a broad decision?
Mr. BARRETT. I would say this
The CHAIRMAN. That is, if you feel at liberty to answer that
Question.
Mr. BARRETT. There is not any question which you will ask me
that I will not undertake to answer. I did not present the evidence
in this case. The Government attorneys, according to my interpre-
tation of the pleadings, took the position that the Secretary of War
did kave the authority to issue this permit. Strangely enough, the
Chief of Engineers now says that he believes that they will decide
that he did not have the authority. The attorneys did approach it
On that basis, and that is apparent from the fact that they asked only
for an injunction limiting us to 4,167 second-feet. If they were
taking the general position that he did not have the authority, they
would probably take the position that the entire flow be taken away
from us.
Now, as to your question, of course you know, Mr. Dempsey, when
a defendant meets pleadings, he meets them, but I am advised by
Mr. Adcock, who has been in this suit since 1912, that everything
we have set forth to you gentlemen here has been put into the record
by way of proof. So that the Supreme Court would be in a posi-
tion, under their very elastic rules, which in a general way may be
said to be that in a dispute between States or governmental divi-
sions of States, they will apply international law, they will apply
United States law, they will apply State law, they will apply local
law, or they will apply common law and equity law, to the end that
as near as may be absolute justice may be done between the ºarties.
So you see they are in a position to do pretty much anything to abso-
lutely dispose of this entire question. First, Mr. Chairman, we want
it settled. We are more desirous of having every question disposed
of than anybody in the United States, but as for conceding that we
are licked, nothing is further from our thoughts.
The question naturally arises, that being true, what are we here
for Ž
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think you need explain that.
Mr. BARRETT. I just want to say a word on that.
The CHAIRMAN. That is very natural.
Mr. BARRETT. That has been said here by other folks, and I will
answer it. It won't take me long. I have said before that we are
1202 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
anxious to live in harmony with our neighbors. We are not in the
habit ordinarily of taking out several millions of dollars and putting
them into the laps of other people, but we recognize that even if the
Supreme Court of the United States says that we are within our
rights, that we still have the question undisposed of with reference
to the rights of the Lake States, and the question of what injury
We may have done to them in the lowering of lake levels. We are
yery anxious to settle that controversy as soon as may be, so that
if we are damaging anybody we may limit our damages—and that is
a rule of equity, isn't it, Judge?
Mr. BOY CE. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. We have the right to do that, and why shouldn’t we
do it, and that is one of the things we are asking for here.
. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your understanding that the States will
intervene in this case that is now on the calendar?
Mr. BARRETT. For the purpose of settling this question?
The CHAIRMAN. For the purpose of settling all questions.
Mr. BARRETT. I hardly think that can be, because this matter here
is entirely an equity proceeding and the other would be an entirely
different proceeding, for the purpose of settling all questions as to
our rights. I understand that one of the States—
Mr. ADCOCK (interposing). New York asked leave to appear as
amicus curiae—a friend of the court.
The CHAIRMAN. Where a State intervenes in that way, Mr.
Adcock, have they interposed any separate pleading 2
Mr. ADCOCK. No.
The CHAIRMAN. They have simply been admitted to the record
without pleading 2
Mr. ADCOCR. The motion was for permission to file a brief in sup-
port of the decree of the lower court.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. It still remains on the same pleadings, then 2
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The pleadings are not enlarged by the order?
Mr. ADCOCK. Not at all.
Mr. BARRETT. You see, if the Supreme Court sustains this decree,
Mr. Chairman, it would still leave us with 4,167 second-feet under
the permit of the Secretary of War.
It has been suggested and statements have been made that we
have been asking for additional permits notwithstanding the fact
that we insist that we have these rights, and I wish to say a few
words on that.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been put a little bit differently from that,
Judge.
Mr. BARRETT. Put it any way you please, and I will try and
answer it.
The CHAIRMAN. The way it was presented was this, that it seemed
to us here were two things that were absolutely opposed in their
nature. One is the contention that the treaty provides for the
10,000 cubic feet. The other is that at the very time that the treaty
was negotiated the Secretary of War was refusing to increase the
permit beyond 4,167 cubic feet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1203
Mr. BARRETT. All right. I am ready to answer that question right
In OW.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is how you can reconcile the con-
tention that you have that under the treaty with the fact that the
Secretary of War was saying right at that time, “No, you can not
have it.”
Mr. BARRETT. You and I differ on the question of what we say
about this treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. In what way?
Mr. BARRETT. I take the position with reference to the treaty that
we obtained the same rights at Chicago under that treaty as you
folks on the New York side of Niagara did under it; that is a treaty
provision agreed to by Canada which would permit the Government
of the United States to allow you folks and our folks to divert
20,000 at Niagara Falls and 10,000 at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt that the limitation—because it
was a limitation—was fixed at Niagara on both sides, and I am frank
to say that I have been so far unable to construe the treaty in other
respects, and it was because of that fact that I am directing your
attention to this apparent contradiction.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, you have had a great many things
to do. I do not know whether you are going to get time to do it
during the period that I am suggesting, but if you will take that
treaty and read it carefully from the opening words to the conclud-
ing line, there won't be any question in your mind at all about the
meaning of that treaty. As you said the other day, it can not be
done unless you rtad it all, but let me get back to your question.
The CHAIRMAN. I will say I have read it a great many times and
I am still in doubt about it.
Mr. BARRETT. You have probably been so busy with your work
here that your mind has been taken from the subject under con-
sideration and has wandered away from it. You are too good a
lawyer to have any doubt about what that treaty means.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose Mr. Behan will give us the benefit of
his views on the treaty?
Mr. BHHAN. I will try to.
Mr. BARRETT. There is not any doubt at all about it—not a bit.
You say during the time the treaty was benig considered we were
asking for more water, and the Secretary of War was constantly
insisting that we could not have so much. -
The CHAIRMAN. You should not have any more. f
Mr. BARRETT. We should not have any more. All right: put it
that way. The facts are these: That at the time we opened up our
channel we were given what we insist and what the courts have
construed to be an unlimited permit as to amount.
The CHAIRMAN. Now. Judge, right there, that was the first ques-
tion I have jotted down on my memorandum.
Mr. BARRETT. All right.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understood you, it was in one of these
cases—either in 137 Federal or 125 Federal?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. * -
1204 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I have read both cases, and I can not see any-
thing on the question in either one. -
Mr. BARRETT. I will get it for you. You know Mr. Goulder was
here the other day and I called his attention to that, and he did not
quarrel with me, and he tried that lawsuit for the plaintiff.
The CHAIRMAN. We ought to be able to read just as well as Mr.
Goulder.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And if there is anything of that kind I think our
attention ought to be called to it.
Mr. BARRETT. I will read it in just a moment. The time comes
when the War Department said, “Well, we have continued this per-
mit to this effect, that if you introduce a current into the Chicago
River we are going to cut down your flow,” and complaints were
received from the navigation interests, and they did notify us that
they were cutting our flow to 200,000 minute-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the second provision in the original
permit?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not remember the number, but I know it is
there.
The CHAIRMAN. It is No. 2.
Mr. BARRETT. The other one is that they are going to call it to the
attention of Congress. I will read this before we go any further.
I wanted to get the permit so that we could definitely have it before
us. We have here what our circuit court of appeals was discussing
in this Corrigan Transit Co. v. The Sanitary District, and the first
section has in it what our circuit court of appeals says is a preamble.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. That preamble reads as follows:
Whereas by section 10 of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, entitled
“An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes,” it is
provided that “it shall not be lawful to alter or modify the course, the location.
condition. Or capacity of the channel of any navigable water of the United
States unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and
authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same ;” and
Whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal corporation, organized
under the laws of the State of Illinois
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Suppose we stop right on that pre-
amble. That recites that Congress has acted in regard to this diver-
sion, doesn’t it: that the field is not unoccupied ?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
The CHAIRMAN. It recites that Congress has passed a general act?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. By which the course or direction of any—
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). It is provided that it shall not be
lawful to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity
of the channel of any navigable water of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Lake Michigan is a navigable water of the United
States, and of course that act applies directly to it. So Congress had
acted, and the field was occupied during all the time which we have
been discussing it. Isn't that true?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1205
Mr. BARRETT. Well, then, that makes our case absolutely complete,
because they did issue our permit. If you concede that
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No; I don’t concede that.
Mr. BARRETT. Then you must concede that we have an absolute
permit for 10,000 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not see how the one follows on has any con-
nection with the other at all.
Mr. BARRETT. The circuit court of appeals say so. Let me read
this through. They are talking about #. very permit.
The CHAIRMAN. About the permit they are going to grant?
Mr. BARRETT. No; the permit that was granted. -
The CHAIRMAN. You are reading now from the case?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. Mr. Goulder took the position that on ac-
count of the existence of the words 300,000 cubic minute-feet in the
preamble
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I mean, what did the court say?
Mr. BARRETT. And he said that we had been taking more; that
having taken more, we created a current in the river, and having
created a current in the river we damaged his boat.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, but what did the court say?
Mr. BARRETT. All right. This is what the court said:
The grant— w
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Which one are you reading from,
the circuit court of appeals?
Mr. BARRETF. I am reading from volume 137, which is the circuit
court of appeals’ decision, written by Judge Baker and Judge Jen-
kins and Judge Humphrey:
T'e 'rºnt of ne mission was not conditioned upon defendant’s keeping within
a Stated maximum. The Second condition indicates
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Is that all that is said on the
Question?
Mr. BARRETT. Do you wish me to read all of these facts?
The CHAIRMAN. They did not state the facts even in the opinion.
They say “After reciting the facts the court said " so and so, and
so there are no facts in the opinion at all; but did they say anything
more on that law question?
Mr. BARRETT. I will go on : -
The second condition indicates the Secretary’s intention to Observe the effect
of defendant’s canal Operations, and thereafter, if he should deem it neces-
sary. in behalf of the public interest committed to his care, to regulate the
rate and volllime Of the Current.
Just notice that language—
To regulate the rate and volume of the current.
In the grant of permission no reference to rate is found.
Let me read the grant of permission:
This is to certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives permission to the
said Sanitary District of Chicago to Open the channel constructed, and cause the
water of the Chicago River to flow into the Same.
That is your grant of permission—to open the channel, one;
to reverse the flow of the Chicago River, two; and let it flow into the
Chicago River. There is absolutely no limitation, and that is what
the circuit court of appeals says.
1206 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. That would give them any amount of water that they
wanted ? -
Mr. BARRETT. That is what the circuit court of appeals says, that
there is no limitation: - -
In the grant of permission no reference to rate is found. The only refer-
ence is in the Second clause of the preamble to the grant. -
Which I have previously read.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT (reading):
But a preamble can not be resorted to except to help solve an ambiguity
in the body of the grant or enactment. The grant here is unambiguous.
I never read any more positive language, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. There are two things. First, they construe the
whole instrument, and they say that the Secretary absolutely re-
Serves the right, if there was injury to navigation or to property,
to
Mr. BARRETT (interposing). Let us read what the court says, and
not what your notes say. You have it there.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what the permit says. I want to read
the second condition.
Mr. BARRETT (reading):
That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by Such
drainage works in the South and main branches of the Chicago River be
unreasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Séc-
retary Of War reserves the right to close such passage through said channel
Or to modify it to Such an extent as may be demanded by navigation and
property interests along said Chicago River and its south branch.
Now, that does not say a word about Lake Michigan. That limits
it strictly to the Chicago River and its south branch.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don’t know that it does, because it says
in the beginning of the second condition that if it proves injurious
to navigation.
Mr. BARRETT. On the Chicago River.
The CHAIRMAN. It does not say on the Chicago River.
Mr. BARRETT. All right. Let us read it again.
The CHAIRMAN. The first part.
Mr. BARRETT. Let us read it again. There is a suggestion that I
had better get the original of it if we can, because this is from the
booklet which we prepared for the use of your committee, and it
may be possible that there is an error in copying.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the construction that the court places on
it, and I should say this is the law.
Mr. BARRETT. We are quite content with anything it says.
The CHAIRMAN (reading):
The grant of permission was not conditioned upon defendant’s keeping
within a stated maximum.” º
I take it that that would mean if you exceed the grant your per-
mission was not forfeited, and I should say that is all it meant.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not concede that at all. On the contrary it says
that there is nothing in the grant that imposed any rate of current.
The CHAIRMAN (reading):
The grant of permission was not conditioned upon defendant’s keeping within
a stated maximum.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1207
All I can make out of that is, that it was not to be forfeited if the
maximum should be exceeded, and that is all that a condition could
mean. I do not see that the condition could mean anything else.
Mr. NEWTON. Read that language again.
The CHAIRMAN (reading):
The grant of permission was not conditioned upon defendant's keeping within
a Stated maximum.
I should say that that implies two things, that there was a grant
of a maximum, but that it was not made conditional or forfeitable
upon your exceeding that maximum. Now, let us take your next
Sentence:
The Second condition indicates the Secretary’s, intention to observe the effect
of defendant’s canal Operations, and thereafter— -
. Let us see what they say. Let us see if they say that he was to
simply protect the interests along the canal or the current in the
canal.
Mr. BARRETT. No; I am not talking about the canal, I am talking
about the Chicago River. - - - - © -
The CHAIRMAN. Let us see if it was just to protect the people
along that vicinity or not. *
And thereafter, if he should deem it necessary in behalf of the public in-
terest— -
That is the language they use.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. e º
The CHAIRMAN. That means the public of the United States.
Mr. BARRETT. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. And nobody else?
Mr. BARRETT. Sure.
The CHAIRMAN. No Smaller aggregate?
Committed to his care—
And those committed to his care are the whole people of the United
States. -
to regulate the rate and volume of the current.
Mr. BARRETT. The current of what?
The CHAIRMAN. The current of water.
Mr. BARRETT. Of the Chicago River?
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, regulate the volume of it.
Mr. BARRETT. That is all I am contending for. If we agree on
that, we are not apart at all.
The CHAIRMAN. We do not seem to agree what that means. It
seems to me that he had the right, which it seems to me plain from
the permit, to either close the stream altogether—and that is one of
the alternatives—or to lessen the flow as he saw fit—to do either one.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, may I read again?
The CHAIRMAN. Delighted to have you, Judge.
Mr. BARRETT. And I am going to read slowly. This is the condi-
tion about which we are talking, and the authority is there. Let
us get this thing before you gentlemen so that you will have. it in
your minds. Mr. Goulder took the position that, on account of
the-
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not care a fig about what posi-
tion he took. The language is there. t
1208 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be far better to have
in the record the complete statement regarding this case, as well as
what was said by the court in deciding it.
The case about which we have been talking is Corrigan Transit Co.
v. The Sanitary District, 137 Federal 851. Suit was brought in
admiralty by the Corrigan Transit Co., owners of the barge Algeria,
against the Sanitary district for damages which it was claimed were
due to the excessive current in the Chicago River. The case was
heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit before
Judges Jenkins, Baker, and Humphrey. Mr. Harvey Goulder, who
is now here representing the Lake Carriers’ Association, was the at-
torney for the owners of the boat. Judge Baker, in delivering the
opinion of the court, said:
(855) The libel exhibits this theory of recovery : Defendant, though an
instrumentality of the State, could not lawfully alter the course of the river
Without the consent of the Secretary of War. In obtaining that consent de-
fendant made a promise, which inured to the benefit of libelants, that it would
pay all damages occasioned by the change. The change created a current which
naturally would (and in libelant’s case actually did) require more time and
more expense in moving barges than formerly. Therefore, defendant must pay.
The permit does not contain a promise by defendant to pay damages caused by
the change. The third condition, which is relied on, obliges defendant to
“assume all responsibility for damages” by reason of the introduction of a cur-
rent in the river. This was an Indemnifying contract, purely between the
parties, and not an undertaking by defendant to pay to outsiders damages for
Which otherwise they would have no cause of action. Defendant’s obligation
Was to pay or fight all claims for damages on account of the current and save
the Federal Government harmless. No elaboration, we believe, can make this
COnclusion more apparent than does a mere reading of the permit.
2. In argument at the bar libelants urged that defendant should be held
liable On account Of the rate of the current on October 4, 1900. Some of the
many reasons for denying the contention are these :
(1) It is outside of the scope of the libel. No averment respecting rate of
current was made. Liability was predicated on the introduction of a current
(any current) that would render navigation more difficult and expensive than
it was previously. - -
(2) The grant of permission was not conditioned upon defendant's keeping
within a stated maximum. The Second condition indicates the Secretary’s
intention to observe the effect of defendant’s canal Operations, and thereafter,
if he should deem it necessary in behalf of the public interests committed to his
care, to regulate the rate and volume of the current.
(3) In the grant of permission no reference to rate is found. The only
reference is in the second clause of the preamble to the grant. But a preamble
can not be resorted to except to help solve an ambiguity in the body of the
grant or enactment. The grant here is unambiguous.
(4) But, if the preamble be taken up, the reference to rate is found to be a
recital of defendant’s purpose in asking an earlier grant of permission to COrrect
and regulate the cross section of the river. Observe that defendant asked leave
to do a certain thing to accomplish a certain result. Certainly defendant
thereby neither bound itself to do the work nor guaranteed the resulting rate
nor covenanted to remove the abutments and piers or bridges which it had no
right to touch.
(5) Defendant's evidence, by engineer’s measurements, showed an average
velocity of a mile and an eighth an hour, and that on October 4, 1900, no
unusual current prevailed. Libelants' witnesses observed the effect of the
current upon the movement of the barge, and estimated the velocity at 3
miles an hour between bridges and 4 miles in the draws. Even at the places
where defendant was at liberty to correct and regulate cross section, it Was
not undertaken to secure a limit of a mile and a quarter an hour when 600
or 700 square feet of the cross section was taken up by the barge Algeria.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1209
3. Libelants have taken the further position here that the part of Section 10
(act March 3, 1899, ch. 426, 30 Stat. 1151; U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3541),
which purports to authorize the Secretary of War to issue permits is uncon-
Stitutional as being a delegation of legislative power ; that by reason of ap-
propriations made from 1892 on, and by reason of the inhibitory portion of
Section 10, the Federal Government had taken exclusive control of the river,
and defendant had no power to modify the volume and current; and that the
defendant must, therefore, be made to respond. .
(1) This theory of liability is not merely outside of, it is repugnant to,
the Scope of the libel. Libelants came into court asserting the legality of
the permit, and a legal right in themselves to recover on the strength of
defendant’s assumption of responsibility in the third condition. Even if we
perceived any merit in the present contention, we should not be warranted
in giving libelants a decree on a matter concerning which there is no issue
of fact or of law in the pleadings, thus rewarding them for disavowing their
libel. - - -
(2) The Federal Government's expenditure of money for the improvement
of the river did not evidence an intent on its part to exclude the State from
all dominion and control over this waterway which lies wholly within the
State. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 13, 8 Sup. Ct. 811, 31
L. D. Ed. 629; Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 32 Sup. Ct. 472, 47 L.
Ed. 525. -
(3) A decision of the question whether legislative power was delegated to
the Secretary (see Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294;
Buttfield v. Stranahan. .192 U. S. 470, 24 Sup. Ct. 349, 48 L. Ed. 525) is
unnecessary, for the reason that libelants are in error in assuming that sec-
tion 10, thus emasculatéd, would remain in force. Congress, acting under the
commerce clause, said to Illinois, which would otherwise be sovereign, “You
are not to change the Course of the river unless you first obtain the Secre-
tary's approval of your plan.” The sentence in its entirety—the subjunctive
clause as well as the indicative—expressed the will of Congress. The ex-
pressed intention was not to exclude Illinois utterly from exercising her
police powers over the river for the welfare of her citizens (and that Sug-
gests a nice and delicate question), but to permit the continuation of the
exercise upon condition. Now, if the conditional clause is to be deleted, it is
not for the courts to construct a new congressional policy Out of the frag-
ment. Compare Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. S. 105, 23 Sup. Ct. 735, 47
L. Ed. 965. -
(4) If section 10 stands, libelants’ attack fails, because defendant obtained
the permit and complied with its conditions. If section 10 falls, what is the
result? If a matter affecting commerce is of national scope and susceptible
of uniform legislation, the failure of Congress to speak to the subject is
deemed equivalent to a declaration that the State shall let the matter alone;
but if the matter is local, and concerns the public policy of a State, though
it may incidentally affect interstate and foreign commerce, congressional in-
action is a recognition that the subject is fitter for local regulation, and is an
invitation that the State continue in the unimpeded exercise of its police
powers, on the understanding, however, that Congress may thereafter inter-
vene to the extent, at least, Of destroying and forbidding whatever unneces-
sarily embarrasses commerce. Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S.
204, 14 Sup. Ct. 1087, 38 L. Ed. 962; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173
TJ. S. 285, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702, and cases therein cited. The bridg-
ing, dredging, purification of a navigable waterway wholly within a State are
matters of the latter class. Escanaba Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678,
2 Sup. Ct. 185, 27 L. Ed. 442; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365,
17 Sup. Ct. 357, 41 L. Ed. 747. With the commerce clause in abeyance, Illinois,
as to every being in the World except future Congresses, was absolute Sov-
ereign in the premises. The absolute sovereign may change the grade of
highways or may vacate them, may alter the courses and currents of rivers
or may dam or fill them up, and neither alien nor subject traveler and navi-
gator may complain. No one can claim a wested right to have the United
States interfere with Illinois, nor can a cause of action arise from want of
interference. . .
The decree is affirmed.
9.1739–24—PT 2—61
1210 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
I would like also at this time and place to set out in full the
permit to which the court refers in his decision. This permit is
as follows: 4.
Whereas by section 10 of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, en-
titled “An act making appropriations for the constructions, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes,” it is provided that it shall not be lawful to alter or modify the
course, the location, condition, or capacity of the channel of any navigable
water of the United States unless the work has been recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning
the same; and whereas the Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal corpora-
tion organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, has constructed an
artificial channel from Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport, and has been
heretofore granted permission by the Secretary of War to make certain im-
provements in the Chicago River for the purpose of correcting and regulating
the cross section of the river So as to Secure a flowage capacity of 300,000
cubic feet per minute, with a velocity of 134 miles an hour, it being 'intended
to connect the said artificial channel with the West Fork Of the South Branch
of the Chicago River at Robey Street in the said city of Chicago; and whereas
the said Sanitary District of Chicago has now applied to the Secretary of
War for permission to divert the waters of said Chicago River and cause them
to flow into the said artificial Channel at Robey Street, as aforesaid :
I would like to have the balance of the permit set up in italic
type, and if that may be done I will read:
Now, therefore, the Chief of Engineers, having consented thereto, this is
to certify that the Secretary of War hereby gives permission to the said Sani-
tary District of Chicago to open the channel constructed and cause the water
of the Chicago River to flow into the 8ame, 8wbject to the following conditions:
1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the intention of the Secretary
of War to 8wbmit the question connected with the work of the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago to Congress for consideration and final action, and that this
permit Shall be subject to 8wch, action a8 may be taken by Congress.
2. That if at any time it becomes apparent that the current created by Such
drainage works in the South and Main Branches of the Chicago River be
wnreasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary
of War reserves the right to close such passage through said channel or to
*modify it to such eastent as may be demanded by navigation and property
interest8 along 80id Chicago River and its South Branch.
3. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume all responsibility for
damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction of
a current in Chicago River.
Witness my hand this 8th day of May, 1899.
R. A. ALGER,
Secretary of War.
JoBIN M. WILSON,
Brigadier General, Chief of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. You have read the decision of the court and also
the permit which was under discussion by the court?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir, and these are the things that I have been
speaking about.
As I said before, Mr. Goulder, attorney for the libelant, took the
position that inasmuch as the flow through Chicago River was
greater than 300,000 cubic feet per minute mentioned in the preamble
of our permit, that the sanitary district was responsible for the cur-
rent created thereby, and responsible, as a result thereof, for the
damages caused to the barge Algeria.
The CHAIRMAN. And the court simply held that they were not
liable to third parties. That is all that I understand that they de-
cided, so far as he is concerned. 4 . . . . . ;
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1211
Mr. BARRETT. That is not as I read the decision.
The CHAIRMAN. As between him and the sanitary district.
Mr. BARRETT. It seems very plain to me that the court in this
case decided, among other things, that the permit under which the
sanitary district altered the flow of the Chicago River did not con-
tain any limitation as to flow and that the second condition in this
permit provides a method of preventing excessive current in the
South and main branches of the Chicago River, and I wish again,
particularly on this subject, to read the following from the opinion
of the court:
(1) It is outside of the scope of the libel. No averment respecting
rate of current was made. Liability was predicated on the introduction of a
current (any current) that would render navigation more difficult and ex-
pensive than it was previously.
(2) The grant of permission was not conditioned upon defendant’s keeping
within a stated maximum. The second condition indicates the secretary’s
intention to observe the effect of defendant’s canal Operations, and thereafter,
if he should deem it necessary in behalf of the public interests committed to
his care, to regulate the rate and volume of the current.
(3) In the grant of permission no reference to rate is found. The only
reference is in the second clause of the preamble to the grant. But a preamble
can not be resorted to except to help solve an ambiguity in the body of the
grant Or enactment. The grant here is unambiguous.
(4) But, if the preamble be taken up, the reference to rate is found to be
a recital of defendant’s purpose in asking an earlier grant of permission to
correct and regulate the cross section of the river. Observe that defendant
asked leave to do a certain thing to accomplish a certain result. Certainly
defendant thereby neither bound itself to do the work, nor guaranteed the
resulting rate, nor covenanted to remove the abutments and piers of bridges
which it had no right to touch.
To my mind the position of the court is plain.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so at all. I think the court holds
against you on both propositions.
Mr. BARRETT. He held against us and still beat Goulder.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That was as to third parties.
Mr. BARRETT. The circuit court of appeals said:
The grant or permission was not conditioned upon defendant’s keeping within
a stated maximum. The second condition indicates the Secretary’s intention
to observe the effect of defendant’s canal Operations, and thereafter, if he
should deem it necessary in behalf of the public interests committed to his care,
to regulate the rate and volume of the current.

What current is he talking about? Only the current in the Chi-
cago River?
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you about that.
Mr. BARRETT (reading):
In the grant of permission no reference to rate is found.
Mr. BoycE. Is there anything to be gained by a further discussion
of this mater? -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so.
Mr. BARRETT. A denial on my part and an assertion on his, a reit-
eration on my part and a further reiteration on his accomplishes
nothing. i. - - º,
Mr. BoycE. If the rest of the committee were sitting as judges we
would undertake to decide as between the two.
Mr. BARRETT. I am satisfied to rest where I am.
1212 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I have another question to propound to you. You
Said that water power was sold at cost by the sanitary district.
What is the cost? - -
Mr. BARRETT. What do they get for it?
The CHAIRMAN. No; what is the cost? You say you sell it at cost.
What is the cost?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Some of you must know.
Mr. BARRETT. We will get that for you when the engineers go on
the stand. I did not try to find out.
The CHAIRMAN. Haven’t they got it, roughly?
Mr. BARRETT. I do not believe the man is here who could give it to
you, Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Is there anybody here from the sani-
tary district that knows what you sell it for?
Mr. BARRETT. You mean how much a horsepower?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. LANGDON PEARCE. $26.40 a horsepower is the figure for the first
three years of operation. That was the cost.
The CHAIRMAN. I just want to call your attention, Judge, to the
fact that there is a difference, then, not only in the amount of horse-
power which can be produced at Niagara, but, as you contend, the
horsepower at Niagara costs only $4.50 to produce, and it costs
$26.50 to produce it at Chicago. -
Mr. BARRETT. Yes. If those are the facts, I won’t quarrel with
you on that; but what is the proposition?
The CHAIRMAN. No proposition.
Mr. HULL. He wants that 10,000 feet at Niagara, because he can
make it that much cheaper.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think he wants that; but if he has some
thought on the subject I would like to discuss it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is a highly significant fact, just as
highly significant as the increased power, that it costs over five
times—about five and one-half times—as much to produce it. It
costs $26.50 as against $4.50. I think that is equally significant
and has an equally important bearing.
Mr. BARRETT. If there was not any question here but the question
of water power, if we were taking it down there for water power
only, and you people were taking it out at Niagara for water power
only, and the question at issue was the conservation of national re-
sources, and the power commission were determining that ques-
tion only, stripped of any rights that we might have to protect the
health of our people or any rights that we claim as the result of all
the things I have talked about, I would expect that they would
determine that it should be used where it could be produced at
$4.50. tº
Mr. NEwToN. I thought that that claim of $4.50 only applied to
the Welland Canal; that the other was very much higher.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not make any claim that it can be produced
at $4.50. That was the judge's claim simply and not my claim.
Mr. BARRETT. Don't misunderstand me. I did not make that
claim. I said Sir. Adam Beck made the claim. -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is correct.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1213
Mr. BARRETT. That is not all. If you take and analyze more of
Sir Adam Beck’s figures, you will find that the Ontario development,
the Ontario Power Co., does not cost greatly in excess of $4.50 per
horsepower, and that they are making out of 5,333% second-feet at
the Ontario Co., which produces 160,000 horsepower, profits greater
than I indicated were being made at De Ceuw Falls. .
The CHAIRMAN. I remember you said that they had bought that
plant and would pay for it entirely in 25 years out of profits.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes; and would have a complete plant in first-
class condition at the end of that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I remember. -
Mr. BARRETT. Which shows that out of 5,333% second-feet they
are able to produce a profit of over $2,000,000 a year net. -
The CHAIRMAN. My next question is this— - .
Mr. NEWTON (interposing). Just one question. My impression
was that under the treaty water power was the lowest order of use
recognized. * * - - - *
Mr. HULL. That is what the treaty says. . . . .
Mr. NEWTON. That if either sanitation or navigation came first,
that they should take priority over water power. - -
The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad to take that up in just about a
minute. Now, Judge, you said the sanitary district considers it had
rights to 10,000 cubic second-feet. As I understand it, your claim
is based on two grounds—one the treaty and the other these various
acts of Congress and the acquiescence of the Government besides?
Mr. BARRETT. The treaty, as I said the other day, shows that the
Government of the United States entered into a contract with the
British Government for the benefit of the people of Chicago and
the power companies at Niagara; and inasmuch as the Congress of
the United States kept faith with the power interests at Niagara
and passed the Burton Act and then the power act under which
they are now being permitted to divert water mentioned in the
treaty for power purposes, we believe that Congress should and
will give to Chicago the water provided for it under the terms of
that treaty. ' - . . . . . "
The CHAIRMAN. That was not my question.
Mr. BARRETT. I thought I was answering it. ... • -
The CHAIRMAN. My question is quite different and can be an-
swered, I think, in just a word. -
Mr. BARRETT. Perhaps I did not understand.
The CHAIRMAN. Generalizing, as I understand it, your claims of a
right to the 10,000 cubic feet per second are based (1) upon the
treaty; (2) upon certain acts of Congress with regard to the im-
provement of the Illinois River; and (3) upon the fact that the
engineers have from time to time approved plans for improvements
of these waterways leading down from Lake Michigan to the Illi-
nois River. Is that a summary of it? * -
Mr. BARRETT. You don’t make it as broad as I would. -
The CHAIRMAN. I did not intend to make it either broad or
narrow. . . . . .
Mr. BARRETT. I would say that all of the acts of the legislature of
our State which provided for the construction of this canal having
1214 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
been enacted at a time before anybody contends that the rivers and
harbors act made any effort to occupy the field, that they were abso-
lute, definite, fixed, and positive. We say, in addition to that, that
the act of 1827 and everything done pursuant to it down to the
obtaining of the permit from Russell A. Alger, Secretary of War,
and all of the things done subsequent to it, and then we add to that
the fact that the Government of the United States in making this
treaty particularly determined that at Chicago this investment which
then amounted to many millions of dollars and which would in
process of completion amount to over a hundred million dollars
should be protected, as was the investment at Niagara Falls. That
in a general way is what we base our claim upon.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, please hand me that 137 Federal Reporter.
Mr. HULL. The diversion at the Welland Canal existed at that
time and the diversion at Chicago existed at that time, and were
not both of them taken into consideration on the same basis?
Mr. BARRETT. I would say so. I know that the Canadians insist
that they are entitled to it at the Welland, but they dispute us at
Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge, with reference to the claim that the
State Legislature of the State of Illinois acted before that rivers
and harbors act, quoted a few moments ago, was passed, I call your
attention to the very last expression of the court in this Corrigan
case against the sanitary district:
CongreSS not having acted under the commerce clause of the Constitution
with reference to the regulation or control of the current introduced into
the Chicago River, lying wholly within the boundaries of Illinois, by the
improvement of the Chicago Sanitary District constructed under consent of
the Secretary of War, such regulation was within the jurisdiction of the State
as to all the world except future Congresses.
Mr. BARRETT. What is the point, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. This case just cited, as I understand, by you
seems to lay down the doctrine squarely as to this particular im-
provement that you are within the jurisdiction of any Congress act-
ing subsequent to the time of your improvement? *
Mr. BARRETT. Have you all the facts in your mind now as to what
the court says? Mr. Goulder raised the question as to whether or
not the Secretary of War had the power to issue this permit, and in
discussing it the court says that if he did not have the power, then
as to everybody in the world except future Congresses the action
of the State of Illinois was positive, absolute, and complete. I will
grant you this, Mr. Chairman, that unless our rights are fixed by
reason of all the things which have occurred in this case in the last
century then we are still within your jurisdiction, but if our rights
are vested you can not interfere, we believe. -zº
The CHAIRMAN. This case seems to me to be a direct authority
against the contention that the action of the Illinois Legislature
would give you vested rights.
Mr. BARRETT. That was not even considered there, but our su-
preme court, in volume 272, expressly decided that our sanitary
district channel is a compliance with the 1827 canal act passed by
your Congress.

ILLINois AND Mississippi Rivers, Etc. 1215
The CHAIRMAN. Here is what the court said. I read from the
syllabus before, but now I am reading from the opinion:
If section 10 falls, what is the result: If a matter affecting commerce is
of national scope and susceptible of uniform regulation, the failure of Con-
gress to speak to the subject is deemed equivalent to a declaration that the
States shall let the matter alone; but if the matter is local and concerns the
public policy of a State, though it may incidentally affect interstate and for-
eign commerce, congressional inaction is a recognition that the subject is fitter
for local regulation and is an invitation that the State continue in an unim-
peded exercise of its police powers, on the understanding, however, that Con-
gress may thereafter intervene to the extent, at least, of destroying and forbid-
ding whatever unnecessarily embarrasses commerce.
Mr. BARRETT. There is no disagreement between us on that.
Mr. NEwTON. Is there anything in there about any improvement
that does not embarrass or interfere with commerce? That is a
Question I would like to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. No. This simply deals with this question.
Mr. HULL. How can that interfere with commerce?
The CHAIRMAN. What we are talking about is lowering the levels
of the Great Lakes. r -
Mr. NEwTON. Does that recognize anything as legal which does
not interfere with commerce?
Mr. BARRETT. We were discussing the question raised by Mr.
Goulder in this Corrigan case as to whether or not the Secretary
of War had the power to permit the sanitary district to alter the
course of the Chicago River, and on this point Judge Baker said:
(3) A decision of the question whether legislative power was delegated to
the Secretary (see Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed.
294; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 24 Sup. Ct. 349, 48 L. Ed. 525) is
unnecessary, for the reason that libelants are in error in assuming that Section
10, thus emasculated, would remain in force. Congress, acting under the
commerce clause, said to Illinois, which would otherwise be sovereign, “You
are not to change the course of the river unless you first obtain the Secre-
tary's approval of your plan.” The sentence in its entirety—the subjunctive
clause as well as the indicative—expressed the will of Congress. The ex-
pressed intention was not to exclude Illinois utterly from exercising her
police powers over the river for the welfare of her citizens—and that sug-
gests a nice and delicate question—but to permit the continuation of the exer-
cise upon condition. Now, if the conditional clause is to be deleted, it is not
for the courts to construct a new congressional policy out of the fragment.
(Compare Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. S. 105, 23 Sup. Ct. 735, 47 L. Ed.
965.)
(4) If section 10 stands, libelant's attack fails, because defendant obtained
the permit and complied with its conditions. If section 10 fails, what is the
result? If a matter affecting commerce is of national scope and susceptible
of uniform regulation, the failure of Congress to Speak to the subject is deemed
equivalent to a declaration that the State shall let the matter alone; but if
the matter is local and concerns the public policy of a State, though it may
incidentally affect interstate and foreign commerce, congressional inaction is
a recognition that the subject is fitter for local regulation and is an invita-
tion that the State continue in the unimpeded exercise of its police powers,
on the understanding, however, that Congress may thereafter intervene to
the extent, at least, of destroying and forbidding whatever unnecessarily
embarrasses commerce. (Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204,
14 Sup. Ct. 1087, 38 L. Ed. 962; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S.
285, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702, and cases therein cited.) The bridging,
dredging, purification of a navigable waterway wholly within a State are
matters of the latter class. (ESCanaba Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678,
2 Sup. Ct. 185, 27 L. Ed. 442; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S.
365, 17 Sup. Ct. 357, 41 L. Ed. 747.) With the commerce clause in abeyance
1216 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Illinois, as to every being in the world except future, Congresses, was absolute
SOVereign in the premises. The absolute Sovereign...may change the grade of
highways or may vacate them, may alter the courses and currents of rivers
or may dam or fill them up, and neither alien nor subject traveler and navi-
gator may complain. No one can claim a wested right to have the United
States interfere with Illinois, nor can a cause of action arise from want Of
interference. ... * !
The decree is affirmed. - { -
Now, answering your question, Mr. Newton, as to whether or not
the courts have recognized as legal legislation which does not gen-
erally interfere with interstate commerce. I wish to say that I can
find a hundred different decisions, possibly, in which the Supreme
Court of the United States has upheld State legislation having
an indirect effect upon interstate commerce.
The only thing they quarreled about was a general act directly
affecting commerce. That we have no right to do. We would have
no right to say to Missouri, “You can not run a boat into the State
of Illinois,” but we have a right to say to the citizens of Missouri
and every other State in the Union, “If you send this article of
commerce into our State you must label it just so and tell us what
is in it,” and they have held that to be good, and they have said
that this does not generally affect commerce. - -
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say in answer to your question—
I was pursuing an entirely different thought, and that is the reason
I did not answer it at that time, Mr. Newton. My understanding
of this article 8 is this. I admit that it is a very complicated
Question. O
Mr. NEwTON. I know it is, and I want to understand it. -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not pretend to solve the questions presented
by this treaty, but only to study them and get as near as we can
to what they mean. Article 8, as I understand it, provides for an
International Joint Commission to control the waters on both sides,
subject to the provisions of this treaty.
Mr. BARRETT. It is strictly boundary waters.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. BARRETT. The International Joint Commission is concerned
only with boundary waters. *
The CHAIRMAN. That is true. I think you are right about that.
If these boundary waters, of course, don’t affect Lake Michigan
Mr. BARRETT. So far as their functioning is concerned, they have
no jurisdiction over Lake Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is only as to their functioning that that
order of precedence is prescribed. When they act upon matters
which are within ; their jurisdiction under this treaty, then they
observe that precedence. That is the only provision. I think there
are two reasons why that does not apply here. First, the one sug-
gested by Judge Barrett, that Lake Michigan is not a boundary
stream, and it is only brought within this treaty by the provision
that it shall be within the treaty for navigation purposes. Second,
that there is no contention here that the International Joint Com-
mission has acted as to this water and distributed it in accordance
with these provisions. . . . . . * x s * * • , , * *
Mr. BARRETT. But, Mr. Chairman, the rule they set forth there
as to the method and the rule of precedence is a principle of con-
• ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1217
duct. It is a rule which applies in a proper case whether the water
be boundary or nonboundary water.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not say that that was not so.
Mr. BARRETT. All right. * Q
The CHAIRMAN. I do say that I think there is considerable force
in that argument, and all I was answering was what Congressman
Newton propounded. I think there is a good deal of force in what
you say.
Mr. BARRETT. Are there any questions, because we have a witness
here from Indiana that we would like to have go on. I do not
want to limit you at all if you have any questions that you wish to
ask me.
The CHAIRMAN. No; we are ready for the Indiana man.
Mr. NEwTON. I would like to ask a couple of questions. I think
you made a statement in the record yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I
wondered whether it ought to stand just as it was made. As I
remember, the statement was made that we are not dealing with what
has been done in the past, but we are dealing with present and future
conditions.
The CHAIRMAN. What I meant by that was this: There has been
some talk here—the sanitary district has said that their relations are
not always as pleasant with the War Department as they would
have wished they might have been, and I meant that we would take
this up without any feeling at all.
Mr. NEWTON. I get you now.
The CHAIRMAN. I meant nothing more than that, and I did not
mean that we would not pay due regard and give due weight to all
that has transpired in the past, but I meant that we would not con-
sider it with any feeling. 3.
Mr. NEwTON. I do not think your statement was quite clear.
Mr. BARRETT. I think, too, Mr. Newton, and you, Mr. Chairman,
that some attention in that connection should be paid to the portion
of the report of one of the members of the Corps of Engineers which
was read by Congressman Larson from Minnesota, in which he went
along with a long discussion as to what he considered were our dere-
lictions and that we were not entitled to consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. I made in Substance the same remark at the time
Judge Barrett said something about it.
Mr. NEwToN. I see, and that clarifies it.
Mr. BARRETT. Is there any question that any of you gentlemen
want to ask me, so that we can call this gentleman from Indiana.”
Mr. STRONG. I would like to ask a question. In view of the fact
that it is declared in the treaty itself that the prohibition shall not
apply to diversions of water for sanitary or domestic purposes, what
has the treaty got to do with Chicago, or why should Chicago bother
about the treaty?
Mr. BARRETT. Our position with reference to that clause and gen-
erally is this: That they particularly provided for our 10,000 second-
feet in all of their discussions, and that there is a clause in there
which settled our rights, not in the exact language which says that
to the Sanitary District of Chicago, there shall be awarded 10,000
second-feet, but general language which is positive and absolute, and
then your proposition that they have not anything to do with water
91739—24—PT 2—62
1218 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
taken for sanitary and domestic purposes would apply to us; but it
has been suggested by, I think, perhaps the chairman, and if not by
the chairman then by some of the people who have talked against us,
that when they mentioned that word they meant the water that we
were drinking, the water that we needed to wash our dishes in, and
it was not the water which was needed for these other purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not made that suggestion.
Mr. BARRETT. I remember now that you did not, and I apologize;
but I do recall that the remark was made here.
The CHAIRMAN. The suggestion I made was this: That that article
to which Congressman Strong refers is the article dealing with the
diversion at Niagara exclusively. It has no reference to any part of
the navigable waters. -āº
Mr. BARRETT. You know when they passed the Burton Act to give
them their diversion for power purposes at Niagara Falls they speci-
fied there should not be any restriction on diversions for domestic
and sanitary purposes. You know we are taking from the lake at
Chicago—perhaps all of you had better know this—I think any-
where from 1,200 to 1,600 second-feet of water for our domestic pur-
poses through our intakes into our dwellings, and if, as has been Sug-
gested here, we are to get 1,000 second-feet of water, all that would
go down the Illinois Valley would be pure sewage. We do not ask
that we be given 10,000 feet of water out of our lake for use in con-
nection with sanitary purposes. We ask for 10,000 cubic second-feet
to be made up of sewage, rain water, and water from Lake Michigan.
Mr. HULL. What was that? I did not get that.
Mr. BARRETT. The 10,000 second-feet includes sewage and rain
water as well as fresh water from the lake.
Mr. HULL. You figure that at Lockport?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; every bit goes to Lockport. We have a
man here from Indiana who is connected with their health depart-
ment, and if you are through with me, I will step aside.
General BIxBY. Can I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. General Bixby, yes; I would suggest that while
we have listened with great interest to Judge Barrett as an exponent
of the law, he will produce engineers on the engineering questions,
and we are not going to follow him particularly on the engineering
problems.
General BIxBY. The judge referred to a statement or recommenda-
tion by Colonel Judson in his 1921 report.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
General BIXBY. I want to ask him whether that was simply the
personal opinion of Colonel Judson, or what was the action of the
board of engineers and the Chief of Engineers on it?
Mr. BARRETT. I will say this in that respect: General Bixby spoke
to me immediately after the adjournment at noontime and asked me
that same question, and I said to him that what I read was that that
was the statement of Colonel Judson.
The CHAIRMAN. You are entirely right; that is correct.
Mr. BARRETT. I have been in the habit, and we in Chicago have
been in the habit, of having investigations made by engineers on the
ground, and then having them opposed by others who were not on
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1219
the ground, and I presume that happened to Judson as it happened
to us; but that does not change the possibility of Judson being right.
Mr. ADCOCK. I wonder if we could file, Mr. Chairman, a state-
ment of Mr. Geupel’s qualifications, to be copied by the reporter?
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
STATEMENT OF MR. L. A. GEUPEL, DIRECTOR OF WATER AND
SEWAGE DEPARTMENT OF INDIANA, INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Geupel.
Give us your place of residence, your full name, and your age.
Mr. GEUPEL. Indianapolis is the place of residence. My name is
L. A. Geupel, and my age is 36, and my position is director of water
and sewage department of the Indiana State Board of Health.
Mr. BEHAN. How long have you been in that position?
Mr. GEUPEL. I have been in this position since September, 1921.
Mr. ADCOCK. And you appear for the State board of health.
Mr. GEUPEL. I appear as the respesentative of the State Board of
Health of Indiana.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by that that the State board of
health sent you here?
Mr. GEUPEL. I came under the authority of Doctor King, secre-
tary of the Indiana State Board of Health. In fact, he authorized
me to make this trip.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The document handed in by Mr.
Adcock will be received, and then you may proceed.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
Graduated 1910, Purdue University, B. S., C. E., with special work in mechani-
Cal engineering.
1910–11. Field engineer for the Central Station Engineering Co., constructing
the Public Service Co. at EVanSville. r
1911–1914. Engineer employed by Alvord & Burdick, engineers, Chicago.
1919–20. Design of pipe payouts and general office work. Superintendent of
construction sewers and sewage disposal plant, South Milwaukee, Wis. Engineer
on hydrograph, north branch, Chicago River. Engineer on investigation new
water System at La Crosse, Wis, Superintendent of construction at La Crosse,
Wis. Work included pumping station, twenty 10-inch wells, five well houses,
1,000,000-gallon low-service reservoir, 5,000,000-gallon high-service reservoir,
Stack, installation of equipment, pumps, alternators' piping, boilers and switch-
board and transmission line. Investigations in Office, including design of dam at
Belvidere and at Des Moines. Superintendent of construction, Ironwood water
plant, including Construction of a pumping Station, two dwellings, 5 miles
16-inch force main, low-service reservoir, 16 wells, installation of machinery,
and Operation. - -
1914–15. Assistant general manager, York (Pa.) Water Co.
1915. Superintendent of construction, Princeton filter plant, International
Filter Co., Superintendent of construction Great Lakes Naval Training Station
for International Filter Co. Superintendent of construction Jasper and Park
Falls pressure filter construction.
1915–16. Engineer with Indiana Public Service Commission. Appraisal of
Indianapolis Water Co.
1917. Contractor member of White-Geupel Co.
1917–18. Sanitary engineer, city of Evansville, Ind., in charge of filtration.
1918–1920. Area engineer, assistant water supervisor, water supervisor, as-
sistant chief engineer, and chief engineer United States Old Hickory powder
plant for the Du Pont Engineering Co., and the United States Ordnance De-
partment in charge of 70,000,000 gallons per day filter plant, 120,000,000 gallons
per day intake, 54,000-boiler horsepower boiler plant, 17,000-kilowatt power
X 220 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
plant, 5,000-ton coal handling and crusher plant, air and high-pressure water
plant, 1,600-ton circulating refrigeration plant. The mechanical department
controlled the combined shops, consisting of mill, foundry, forge, pipe, inspec-
tion, tin, Carpenter electric, railroad, Sheet metal, and welding shops. The
Chief engineer office had charge of everything mechanical, including mechanical
Salvage, maintenance of 3,490 buildings. 3. -
1921–1924. Director water and sewage department, State board of health,
Supervision of water supply, sewage, and garbage problems of the State of
Indiana.
Mr. GEUPEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
going to endeavor to tell you the situation in Indiana bordering along
Lake Michigan. I have a good many facts and figures in my pos-
Session here, so if you will grant me permission I will refer to this
memorandum that I have here.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me make a suggestion to you, if it meets with
the approval of the sanitary district, that you give us verbally as
briefly as you can, without interfering with its accuracy or what you
"i" accomplish, what you have to say and then file the statement
II] TU111.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think that is entirely fair, because we really
do not know what this man is going to say. We have heard from
many of the States the things they wanted to say, and I have under-
stood that the State Board of Health in Indiana was definitely and
positively satisfied of the need of this water for Chicago, because
we are draining a lot of Indiana, and they know what is going to
happen if we start floating sewage down there. *
The CHAIRMAN. The only thing I had in mind very briefly, judge,
was that we would like to adjourn at 4.30 if possible. How long
will you take?
Mr. GEUPEL. I have approximately about 13 pages; that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Then proceed. º
Mr. GEUPEL. The Calumet district of Indiana, which is that area
located within the drainage areas of the Grand Calumet River and
Little Calumet River in the State of Indiana, is located at Lake
County adjacent to Chicago. The Calumet district of Indiana in-
cludes the cities of Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, and Gary,
with a combined population of 180,000. Each of the four cities
border on Lake Michigan. The west corporate limits of Hammond
is the Illinois-Indiana State line, and East Chicago and Whiting
are located so close to Hammond on the east that the corporate limits
of one is boundary of the other. The State line is an improved
street which separates Hammond, Ind., from West Hammond, Burn-
ham, and South Chicago, Ill. . .
IIammond, East Chicago, Gary, and Whiting are great industrial
centers and such plants as the United Steel Co., American Steel &
Tube Co., Inland Steel Co., Interstate Steel Co., Hubbard Steel Co.,
Republic Iron & Steel Co., Sement Solway Co., Sinclair Oil & Refin-
ing Co., Standard Oil of Indiana, Grasselli Chemical Co., and many
others are located inside their corporate limits. In a study of gen-
eral conditions in this section persons living in the south section of
Chicago are employed in Indiana, and vice versa. Most of the trunk-
line railroads from the East pass through corporate limits of at least
one of these cities. There is a constant intermingling of population
between South Chicago and the Indiana cities.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1221
Gary is located about 5 miles to the east of East Chicago: The
cities of Hammond, East Chicago, and Whiting discharge their sew-
age and industrial wastes into the Grand Calumet River, while only
the waste water from the United States Steel Co.'s plant goes into
the Grand Calumet at Gary. The sewage of Gary is discharged
into the Little Calumet River. º *'.
Mr. HULL. Does the sewage of these towns go down into the Illi-
nois River? . -
Mr. GEUPEL. Through the Calumet-Sag only.
Mr. HULL. Then it goes into the Illinois River?
Mr. GEUPEL. Not all the time. . . . -
Mr. NEwToN. What are the exceptions? - . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you point it out on the map to us, if you
will. - • , - -
Mr. GEUPEL. This is the Grand Calumet River, which originally
had an opening in Lake Michigan east of Gary, and it also has an
opening into Lake Michigan at South Chicago, in Illinois. The
Little Calumet River rises— - - - - -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a minute. Let us get that so
we will understand it. Does the river flow from the lake to the lake?
Mr. GEUPEL. Originally it did, but now it is closed by sand dunes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, the Indiana opening is closed?
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes, sir; and there is also another opening near the
Indiana Harbor Canal, which connects through Indiana Harbor to
Lake Michigan and also connects from Lake George. . . . . . . - -
Mr. WILSON. This river that bends around through Indiana and
Illinois is more or less of a lagoon, isn’t it? *
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes, sir. -
Mr. WILSON. It flows both ways?
Mr. GEUPEL. The tendency is to flow toward South Chicago, be-
cause the Illinois Steel Co. discharges a good volume of water in
there. - - * -
The Little Calumet River has its source in northwestern Indiana,
flows westerly through Porter and Lake Counties, reversing its
direction of flow to the east in the southeastern section of Blue Island,
Cook County, Ill., and joins the Grand Calumet near Burnham, Ill.,
and empties into Lake Michigan at South Chicago. The Little
Calumet River has a drainage area of approximately 806 Square
miles, with 455 square miles in Indiana and 351 Square miles in
Illinois, and has a variable flow which averages from 13,000 cubic
feet per second in maximum flood time to dry-weather flow of less
than 200 feet per second. Very little sewage is emptied into the
Little Calumet in Indiana. There is, however, one 5 by 9 foot sewer,
which carries the storm water and domestic sewage from East Gary,
emptying into the river at the Broaday Street Bridge, and a part
of the sewage from the city of Hammond also flows into the river.
In Illinois, however, the Little Calumet flows through or close to
Burnham, Dolton, Harvey, Phoenix, Posen, Riverdale, Robbins,
South Holland, and West Hammond, which communities lie within
the limits of the sanitary district, with a combined population of
25,200. Communities in Illinois in the drainage area of the Little
Calumet River not included within the limits of the sanitary dis-
trict are Crete, East Hazel Crest, Glenwood, Hazel Crest, Homewood,

1222 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Lansing, Matteson, South Chicago Heights, Steger, and Thornton,
with a combined population of 9,818. The Sanitary District of
Chicago may at the present time include the above-named com-
munities.
The Grand Calumet River is a waterway which originally had
two outlets into Lake Michigan—one at the east side of the present
city of Gary, Ind., and the other at South Chicago, Ill. The outlet
at Gary was practically closed with sand drift, and since the United
States Steel plant has grown to such large proportions has been
completely filled. At about the same time the eastern opening at
Gary was being closed the Indiana Harbor Land Co. promoted,
financed, and constructed a canal for harbor purposes, reaching from
the lake at the harbor of the Inland Steel Co. to the Grand Calumet
River. This canal also has an arm extending into Lake George.
From the junction of the canal at East Chicago the Grand Calumet
extends in a northwesterly direction and is joined by the Little Calu-
met at a point southeast of Lake Calumet. From this point there
is an almost continuous flow, which empties into Lake Michigan at
South Chicago. There are times, however, with a strong northerly
wind that a strong current is noticed up the harbor at South Chicago,
which causes the river to back up and sometimes appears to flow
away from the lake. At this time the South Chicago Harbor is filled
with clear lake water, but during flood times and when offshore
winds prevail the river flow has a high velocity and a murky current
may be seen in the lake for several miles, reaching to the northeast
as far as the Sixty-eighth Street crib of the Chicago water works and
to the east as far as the Hammond intake, depending on the currents
in the lake which prevail at that time.
The dead arm of the Grand Calumet River, extending from Gary
to the canal at East Chicago, has a tendency to flow toward East
Chicago, as the United States Steel Co. empties into the stream at
Gary approximately 250,000,000 gallons of wash and waste water
daily. The depth of the Grand Calumet varies from 4 to 8 feet,
until it reaches Lake Calumet, from which point it has an average
depth of 21 feet, which is maintained by continuous dredging, and
is used by the freight vessels plying the lakes for docking purposes.
The length of the river is approximately 25 miles, the width varies
from 25 to 300 feet, and the flood has been as high as 1,400 cubic
fet per second. The botom of the stream up to the point where it
has been dredged consists of soft black muck, made up of silt and
organic matted, which in Some places is over 10 feet deep. The
Grand Calumet River, as was shown in the report made by the
Indiana State Board of Health of 1910, is a very heavily polluted
stream, receiving the Sewage in most part from the cities of Gary,
East Chicago, Hammond, the thickly populated district of South
Chicago, and the trade wastes from practically all the manufactur-
ing plants located on its banks.
Mr. HULL. Does that go into this Illinois River finally, what you
are saying there?
Mr. GEUPEL. It will finally.
Mr. HULL. Does it now %
Mr. GEUPEL. A portion of the time.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1223
The CHAIRMAN. It goes into Lake Michigan, and it goes into the
Illinois River in the sense that there is a diversion which reaches
the Illinois River. You can say in the same sense that the water
from any other river which empties into Lake Michigan goes into
the Illinois River.
Mr. HULL. What I wanted to get at was if it went there direct.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; it empties into Lake Michigan.
. Mr. GEUPEL. There is the Calumet-Sag Canal, you know, which
is draining this Calumet River, which at times will take a certain
ºt of this water into the canal and into the sanitary district
CàIlal,
The CHAIRMAN. That is the Calumet-Sag Canal?
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Which is a different thing.
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes, sir. A number of the plants have made good
progress in the disposal of their waste products, but there still
remains a great deal of waste recovery and sewage disposal to be
done in the future.
The city of Gary has increased in population from 17,000 in 1910
to approximately 60,000 in 1922. Gary has a combined sewer system,
which empties into the Grand Calumet River in three points,
namely, through a 96-inch sewer east of Virginia Street, a 90-inch
Sewer on the west side of the Bridge Street Bridge, and a 96-inch
sewer at Colfax Street extended. The sewer system at Gary was –
planned and so constructed ith the view of installing a sewage dis-
posal plant at some future date. The sewage discharged into the
Gränd Calumet from Gary is of the usual composition of household
sewage and wastes. Hardly any effect is noticed upon the sanitary
condition of the Grand Calumet by the entrance of the Gary sewage,
due to the dilution the sewage obtains from the water discharged
from the United States Steel mill through three sewers flowing into
the river on both sides of Virginia Street. During the time the
United States Steel plant was operating over full capacity the
discharge into the Grand Calumet River was approximately 400,-
000,000 gallons per day, which consisted of wash and cooling water.
In 1922, with the plant operating at 70 per cent capacity, approxi-
mately 250,000,000 gallons per day is discharged into the Grand
Calumet. Such a great amount of water from the steel plant was
emptied into the river that the opening under the Chicago, Indiana
& Southern Railroad, Lake Shore & Michigan Railroad, and the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad tracks had to be made larger, and this
was done by excavating a channel through an unused viaduct located
to the west of the main stream.
The proposed Burns ditch will connect the Little Calumet in East
Chicago to the lake at a point east of Gary. The main purpose of the
Burns ditch as planned will be to drain the lowlands lying along the
Little Calumet River. This construction, which will probably be
carried forward in the near future, will tend to lessen the flow into
the lake at South Chicago. It will not, however, change the sanitary
condition, since it will not stop the flow of the Calumet River into
Lake Michigan in flood times even after the Calumet-Sag Canal is
Open. ł
1224 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The Gary water supply is taken from Lake Michigan from a sub-
merged crib, located about 1% miles out in the lake, connected to the
plant by a 6-foot tunnel. While it is not easily determined whether
the water supply of Gary is dangerously affected by the pollution of
Lake Michigan from the Calumet Rivers, yet the supply must be
chlorinated. -- }.
The city of East Chicago, which includes Indiana Harbor, shows
an increase in population from 20,000 in 1910 to 26,000 in 1920. The
city sewage is pumped from two stations and discharged through a
5-foot sewer at Mogoun Avenue extended and at Cline Avenue. The
Mogoun Street sewer handles the surface water and domestic Sewage
from West East Chicago, and discharges approximately 4,500,000
gallons daily into the Grand Calumet, and the Cline Street sewer,
which drains the Indiana Harbor subdivision and the remainder of
East Chicago handles the surface run-off, domestic Sewage, and some
ground water which seeps through from the lake, and discharges ap-
proximately 8,000,000 gallons daily into the river. The Indiana
Harbor Canal, with the connecting arm to Lake George, lies in East
Chicago, and receives the sewage waste and cooling water from the
manufacturing plants located adjacent to same.
At the outlet of the canal and the lake a large area has been filled
in on the east by the Inland Steel Co., and on the west by the Steel
& Tube Co. of America since 1913. A new breakwater also has been
constructed, forming a good harbor at the canal entrance. There
are three sewers from the Inland Steel Co.'s plant, discharging ap-
proximately 41,000,000 gallons daily into the harbor, of which 28,-
000,000 gallons per day is from the coke plant sewer. The American
Steel & Tube Co.'s plant also has a sewer into the harbor, discharging
approximately 15,000,000 gallons per day. Some distance inland
from the lake there are two sewers from the Inland Steel Co., which
discharge 35,000,000 gallons per day, and from the American Steel
& Tube Co., which discharge about 15,000,000 gallons a day into the
canal. Most of the wastes discharged back into the harbor and canal
from the Steel & Tube Co. and the Inland Steel plant consist of
cooling and wash water, though the effluent from the coke plant of
the Inland Steel Co., which discharge into the harbor at the mouth
approximately 3,500 feet from the East Chicago Water Co.'s intake,
evidently contains a large quantity of coke oven wastes. Emptying
into the canal from the lake to the Grand Calumet River are numerous
sewer lines, including the fourth Inland Steel Co. sewer, discharging
50,000,000 gallons per day; Semet-Solvay, discharging 10,000,000
gallons per day; Sinclair Refining Co. sewer, discharging 30,000,000
gallons per day; Mark town site sewer, Interstate Iron & Steel Co.
sewer, Hubbard Steel Foundry sewer, the Republic Iron & Steel Co.'s
sewer, and many others, The Grasselli Chemical Co. has a larger sewer
which discharges into the Grand Calumet River. Manufacturing
plants are located on both sides of the Grand Calumet and the canal,
and while a great number of them are using some method of disposal,
yet the pollution of the river has become a nuisance, as was shown in
the report of the Indiana State Board of Health, 1910. -
The water supply of East Chicago is taken from the lake through
a 36-inch steel pipe line, which extends into the lake 3,500 feet. The
water supply is settled, filtered, and chlorinated. Bacteriogleally,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1225
through close, efficient, and technical operations, the Supply is satis-
factory, but a decided taste is noticeable in the water, due to the vast
quantities of industrial wastes which are emptied into the lake within
a mile of the East Chicago intake. It is evident, however, that the
tastes in part come from the volatile oil wastes which are emptied
into the canal and lake at Whiting and East Chicago in large quan-
tities; though, on the other hand, should there be a combination be-
tween the chemical discharged into the lake from the Inland Steel
Co.'s coke plant with the chlorine, there would also be a decided
taste. On a comparison of the tastes of the Whiting and East
Chicago supplies, one discovers that they are somewhat similar,
though not so pronounced, in the East Chicago supply. On heating
the East Chicago water the oder and taste is unbearable and nau-
seating. - -
The city of Hammond, Ind., shows an increase in population from
26,000 in 1910 to 36,000 in 1920. Wolf Lake and Lake George occupy
a part of the northern section of the city. In the main, this section
is low and unimproved, and the drainage is into Lake Michigan
through a shallow sewer, which also receives in part the domestic
sewage and surface run-off from Whiting. The business and resi-
dential section lies in the south section of Hammond, and the drain-
age is into the Grand Calumet River through two intercepting
sewer outlets connecting to the nine old outlets located on each side
of the river at Columbia Avenue, Calument Avenue, Sohl Street, and
Hohman Street, and from the north side at Sheffield Avenue ex-
tended. Six of the old sewer outlets were 48 inches, one 42 inches, the
other two 36 inches, of which five are submerged below the surface.
The two intersecting sewers located on each side of the river were
constructed in 1922 and 1923, and the two main outlets are so con-
structed that they can be led to a disposal plant to be constructed in
the future. As in East Chicago, besides the storm water and do-
mestic drainage which the river receives, there are numerous manu-
facturing plants located on its banks in Hammond. The Grand
Calumet River is greatly polluted and becomes a grave nuisance and
a menace to health, articularly through Hammond. Various re-
ports made by the Sanitary District of Chicago, Lake Michigan
Water Commission, and the Indiana State Board of Health, and
others, made in the last 14 years, prove this fact.
The water supply at Hammond is taken from the lake from a sub-
merged crib, located approximately 5,100 feet out in the lake. With
the present installation the water is conducted from the crib through
a 42-inch line for 3,000 feet, where the line is split into a 30-inch line
and a 24-inch line. A new pumping station with new equipment and
boilers is in operation. Chlorine is used as a sterilizing agent at the
new station. The distance between the mouth of the Calumet River
at South Chicago and the canal outlet at Indiana Harbor is 6.5 miles,
with the Hammond intake located in the center.
The city of Whiting has grown in population from 6,500 in 1910 to
10,100 in 1920, and while the domestic sewage and storm run-off
does not discharge into the Calument River, it should be mentioned,
inasmuch as it is discharged into Lake Michigan. The Standard Oil
Co. at Whiting has three large sewers emptying into the lake, which
discharge is daily approximately 50,000,000 gallons of cooling, wash,
1226 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
and waste water. The larger amount of wash and waste water going
into the lake contains large amounts of volatile oil wastes which give
a distinct gasoline or oil smell and taste. It was learned that the
Standard Oil Co. has worked on the recovery of these oil wastes, and
has accomplished certain results, in So far as the company recovers
a large quantity per month from their former wastes. It was also
learned that the manufactured recovery has reached approximately
the limit, since the cost of recovery may be excessive. This company
is in a position to treat their wastes and divert same from the lake
into the canal, provided the discharge of the canal does not go into
the lake. These types of waste have not been purified successfully
in modern practice, and the best remedy would be to keep waste out
of the lake and away from the water supplies.
The Whiting water supply is taken from the Standard Oil Co.'s
intake, which extends out into the lake approximately 1,200 feet
from shore line and is pumped from the Standard Oil Co.'s plant
to the Whiting filter plant. The filter plant is a modern plant, hav-
ing been constructed in the last few years, contains an aerator in
which all water is brought in contact with the air. It is noticed
that the water passing into the sedimentation basin has a strong
odor from oil, and after going through the filters still contains the
oilish odor and taste. It was learned that the taste is perceptible
more in winter than in summer. To gain a water free from tastes
and odors at all times will take considerable investigation.
The typhoid death rate in the Indiana cities located in the Calumet
district is very high. It appears that 1916 was the year of the
highest typhoid death rate, Hammond having a death rate of 86.1
per 100,000; Gary, 25 per 100,000; East Chicago, 33.3 per 100,000;
and Whiting 59.4 per 100,000. In 1920 the typhoid death rate
dropped off to 41.7 per 100,000 for Hammond, 25 per 100,000 for
East Chicago, 10.7 per 100,000 for Gary, and 29.7 per 100,000 for
Whiting. In 1923 the typhoid death rate for Hammond was 19.4,
East Chicago 5.8, Gary 1.8, and Whiting is not known. The lower-
ing of the death rate may be attributed to the fact that in 1920 the
industries were slowing up production, and this may be further
proved by the lowering of death rate in 1921 of Hammond to 22.2
per 100,000, Gary to 7.1. East Chicago remained the same, 25, and
Whiting dropped to 9.9. Industries in 1921 in these cities were oper-
ating with a very small force. The average typhoid death rate
for the four cities for the past seven years is as follows: Hammond,
47.2; Gary, 15; East Chicago, 30.9; and Whiting, 28.2. The aver-
age typhoid death rate for the State of Indiana for the seven years,
including 1922, was 13.3. From comparison with other cities in the
State, Gary compares favorably, while Hammond, East Chicago,
and Whiting have a death rate twice as high. Compared with
Chicago, with an average rate of less than 1.3, the death rate of the
three Indiana cities is enormous.
There is no general outlined flow of water in Lake Michigan and
the movements of the water are entirely dependent on local winds
which drive the water one way or the other, according to their direc-
tion, velocity, and duration. The atmospheric temperature, and
the influence of large streams entering the lake have their effect.
The friction of the wind blowing over the surface of a large body of

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1227
water tends to produce surface movement, and if the wind continues
to blow from one direction a general drift of the surface water is
created. The War Department proved that there were no positive
currents in Lake Michigan, and that they may run in any direction
at any time due to the influence of the wind and atmospheric condi-
tions. Counter currents may be found and the Government engi-
neers making a survey of the bottom of the lake from Gary to South
Chicago in 1908 encountered three distinct currents going in opposite,
directions within a linear distance of 2 miles. A reason for counter
currents may be explained on the south end of the lake is that the
frontage of Hammond, Whiting, and East Chicago might be called
a pocket lying between Gary and South Chicago, and that currents
caused by southwesterly winds starting at South Chicago would
strike the projection at Gary and be compelled to return against the
direct wind current. The &l. River, owing to its large drain-
age area, which includes the Little and Grand Calumet drainage
areas, discharges some water into the lake practically at all times,
but with a strong northerly wind a decided current up the harbor is
observed. This current occurred before the Sag Canal was com-
pleted. While the river is always naturally turbid, the water in the
harbor appeared the same as lake water. During flood times and
when off-shore winds prevail the river current has a high velocity
and a current of turbid water can be seen out into the lake for several
miles, reaching as far as the Chicago south side crib on the west and
to the east in front of Hammond. -
I wish to refer to the charts made from the survey of 1908 by
the Indiana State Board of Health. You may note in Chart No.
2 the general layout of the cities as of 1908. Station No. 47 is the
Sixty-eighth Street crib of the Chicago Water Works; station
No. 251/2 is the new Hammond submerged crib; station No. 14 is
the Whiting intake and No. 3 station the East Chicago intake.
During the bacteriological survey of 1908 samples for examination
were taken 10 feet below the surface of the water. Chart No. 3
shows the maximum bacterial counts obtained at all sampling
points during the period August 19 to September 27, 1908. In
explanation the distance between station 18 and station 19 was
approximately 1 mile. These charts while made in 1908 show the
effects of currents due to wind action and atmospheric conditions
around the waterworks intakes. Chart No. 5 shows distribution
and effect of pollution September 4 and 5, 1908; chart No. 7 shows
the distribution from the west, chart No. 8 shows distribution from
the east, and chart No. 9 shows distribution by northerly and South-
erly currents. In explanation as to points of sampling, these points
were all located and marked by buoys. While this report was
made back in 1908 it proves by concrete examinations that pol-
lution was carried out into Lake Michigan at that time to a distance
of at least 5 miles, with the increasedſ pollution of the present day
it is fair to assume that the pollution is carried a great deal further.
It may also be stated that Lake Michigan water outside of any
range of pollution is almost sterile and satisfactory for drinking
purposes. The above information is given to show that the cities
of Indiana even though the project seemed practical from an engi-
neering project could not bond themselves for sufficient money to
construct an intake crib out 8 to 10 miles in the lake and still be
faced with the hazard of a probable pollution.
1228 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
It will be stated that the sewage from these cities must be puri-
fied and the industrial wastes eliminated or purified. This in
theory is admitted by all engineers in general practice, but prac-
tically has sewage treatment progressed sufficient to say that all
Sewage or industrial wastes are actually made sufficiently pure so
that they may be used as drinking water even though filtered and
chlorinated. All these cities in Indiana have combined sewers,
that is to say, receive domestic and industrial wastes, also carry
off the storm run-off water from the streets. Purification plants
are built to treat the normal dryweather flow and the excess dis-
charge, which is storm water and sewage mixed, by-passes the plant
and flows direct into the stream or lake, and dependence is placed
on the excess storm water to dilute the sewage and not cause con-
centrated pollution. It is easily seen that this pollution in part
even though diluted is carried into the Grand Calumet hence forced
out into Lake Michigan. Reviewing the operation of a purification
plant while the settled solids are reduced, say 70 to 75 per cent, still
the 25 per cent is passed through plant and into stream depending
On dilution of sufficient water in stream to eliminate the nuisance.
In referring to a city treating its sewage such as Cleveland about
60 to 75 per cent of the solids are removed and the effluent chlo-
rinated at certain periods. The remaining organic matter goes
into the lake and still causes a hazard to a water supply taken
nearby. Presume the Indiana cities will in the future treat their
Sewage in a way accepted by modern practice there still would
remain after treatment of all wastes sufficient pollution to make a
hazard for a filtered and chlorinated water supply. Other cities
situated on the Great Lakes probably are congratulating them-
selves that they are not similarly situated as these cities includ-
ing Hammond, Gary, Whiting, East Chicago, and even Chicago
itself. It is not a matter of 5 or 10 years to undo the work of
pollution which has been carried on for 50 years or longer. There
is in the Grand Calumet River bed approximately 10 to 15 feet of
black muck and filth, even now the question arises what to do with
this spoil if the river should be dredged.
It is admitted in this testimony that all water supplies of these
three lake cities should be aerated, settled, filtered, and chlorinated.
The East Chicago Water Co. and the Whiting water department
have modern filtration plants, technically controlled, yet one can
barely drink these supplies at certain periods due to industrial-waste
pollution, which includes oil wastes and probably chlorophenols.
Bacteriological tests are of no use in control of the chlorination of a
filtration plant at East Chicago, since it takes 48 hours for even the
presumptive tests or indicative tests. Physical tests are made every
four hours at East Chicago, and even with this control undertreat-
ment or overtreatment may occur. While in the plant at East Chi-
cago on April 3 the raw-water supply changed in two hours, chang-
ing the chlorine dosage with a residual of 0.1 part per million to a
residual of 0.16 part per million, which may have caused a taste and
odor. On examining physically the East Chicago filtered and treated
water after same had been heated the odor was nauseating and the
taste bad and unpalatable. The East Chicago Water Co. uses about
6 pounds of chlorine per million gallons treated, carrying a residual
chlorine of 0.1 par per million, and yet the bacteriological reports for
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1229
February show a more or less questionable water supply. Ham-
mond, without chlorination, is using 8% pounds of chlorine per
million gallons of water treated without filtration. Gary introduces
2 pounds of chlorine per million gallons of water treated, and occa-
sional examinations show fairly satisfactory. If Hammond and
East Chicago were to use 2 pounds per million gallons of water
treated, their cities would be burdened with sickness. Hammond at
present has 26 cases of typhoid due to undertreatment of their supply
with chlorine. In reviewing East Chicago's plant operation, which
is technical and efficient, it is the opinion of sanitary engineers that
the raw water is so polluted that our modern methods are not suffi-
cient protection and the plant is overburdened. The East Chicago
filter plant has a capacity of 8,000,000 gallons per day, delivering
from four to six million gallons per day to the city.
Several of the large industries discharge large amounts of coke-
oven wastes into the Indiana Harbor Canal and Grand Calumet
River. These wastes contain phenols.
Tastes can be produced after chlorination in solutions containing 1 part of
phenol to 500,000,000 parts of water. The only practical method of maintaining
a satisfactory water supply to avoid tastes of this nature is to keep this par- .
ticular kind of effluent out of the water supply. No water Supply Which is
polluted with coal-tar derivatives and where chlorine is used as a sterilizing
agent can be made palatable for drinking purposes. t
Above statements were taken from the results of the Milwaukee
investigation of 1919, which is printed in the Engineering News
Record, volume 82, issue No. 4, January, 1919, entitled “Cause of
obnoxious tastes in Milwaukee water.” }
Not only do the phenols give a taste, but they nullify the efficiency of the
chlorination process. The Ordinary processes of water purification have not
been successful in dealing with phenol wastes. Oil wastes are objectionable,
known as “feetings,” due to washings from certain oil operations. These
wastes have created disagreeable odors in water Supplies.
Statement taken from the article entitled “Industrial wastes in
relation to water supplies,” by Wellington Donaldson, printed in the
American Journal of Public Health, March, 1921, Volume XI, issue
No. 3. Arguments may be advanced that the control of industrial
wastes should be regulated by State health officers. º
The result that One State exercising prudent control over the pollution of its
waters may find itself helpless to cure evils originating outside its jurisdiction.
It is hard-to conceive that a united public Sentiment in the near future support-
ing general regulation, and, on the other hand, it is easy to foresee many diffi-
culties in the way of applying such laws to varied conditions in the several
States, the prosperity of which frequently hinges in a large measure upon this
or that principal industry. f
In summarizing the above information—
1. Let us admit that modern filtration methods and chlorinatio
should be in use by the Indiana cities. -
2. Let us admit that modern Sewage-disposal plants should be
installed and operated efficiently. - -
3. Let us admit that all sewage and industrial wastes should be
eliminated from direct discharge into Lake Michigan.
4. Let us also admit that purification of industrial wastes should
be adopted wherein modern engineering practice can give methods
of practical, efficient treatment. With the best methods in use all
industrial pollution, such as oil and phenol wastes, can not be en-
tirely eliminated. . . . . . . . .
1230 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
With the above considerations taken into account, the health of
the Indiana cities, namely, Hammond, East Chicago, and Whiting,
depends a great deal on the elimination of the Calumet River water
from Lake Michigan. Inasmuch as the Calumet Sag Canal is con-
structed for 2,000 cubic second-feet, it should be allowed to divert this
amount of water to limit the discharge of the river into Lake Michi-
gan for the following reasons:
1. That the Grand Calumet River will be overburdened with pol-
lution even though all sewage and industrial wastes receive treatment
now in general practice.
2. That there is not a proper treatment in modern practice which
has successfully handled many of the industrial wastes discharged
into the Grand Calumet River.
3. That average storm run-off and the polluted matter contained
therein would be kept from the lake.
4. That sources of water supplies of Hammond, Whiting, East
Chicago, and Gary would be safeguarded and protected. Inasmuch
as the city's water supply is most important, these cities would be
better fitted to live in.
5. That the effect of 50 years of industrial activity and the results
of many years of pollution can not be changed in a few years.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, your city of Gary has not been in
existence for over a third of that time, and that is the place you are
talking about. g
Mr. GEUPEL. I was talking about Gary.
The CHAIRMAN. That is your largest place.
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes; but Hammond is 40,000, and East Chicago is
right next to it.
Mr. HULL. Hammond would probably be more important from a
sanitary standpoint, because it has more wastes on account of its
manufacturing establishments.
The CHAIRMAN. I admit the force of your argument to this ex-
tent, that we have been doing what you say in the country in a
general way for the time you state, but of course you have not been
doing it in these communities as they now exist except for a very
few years. +
Mr. GEUPEL. What I wanted to explain to you was that these
cities are scattered over a large area. These industries have filled
in low ground there that were formerly marshes, and the communities
are scattered around.
It is the purpose of the Indiana State Board of Health to main-
tain the health and healthy living conditions for the citizens of the
State of Indiana, and with our knowledge of the past we know that
the diversion from the lake through the sanitary district drainage
canal and the Calumet Sag Canal of all liquid wastes is the best
means or method of maintaining satisfactory water supplies and
general good healthy conditions in South Chicago, and the three
Indiana cities, namely, Hammond, East Chicago, and Whiting.
Mr. HULL. What do you expect to do with that sewage? You
don’t intend to put that into the Illinois River, do you?
Mr. GEUPEL. After it is treated it would go into the Grand Calu-
met River. - -
Mr. HULL. And then go into the Illinois River?
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1231
Mr. HULL. You fellows have got another guess coming. You
want to put that into the Wabash River. I will see that you don’t
put that into the Illinois.
Mr. GEUPEL. That is not the fact. Mr. Congressman, we have
been trying since 1908 to make those cities clean up and dispose of
their sewage.
Mr. HULL. But you are putting it back into the lake.
Riº GEUPEL. No; we are getting a part of it through the Illinois
IVēI’.
Mr. HULL. That is, it goes through the lake first?
C º GEUPEL. No; it goes up through the Grand Calumet to South
Icago.
The CHAIRMAN. Show us on the map where this canal is that you
are talking about.
º witness explained on the map different points inquired
about. .*
Mr. GEUPEL. I would like to file a few exhibits which are a matter
of record.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will adjourn until to-morrow
morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. NEwTON. I would like to ask a question. Do you think from
the health standpoint that diversion is necessary?
Mr. GEUPEL. Yes; it is absolutely necessary for us, unless you wish
to curtail the future of the cities of Hammond and East Chicago.
Mr. NEWTON. I don’t understand it, because the attorney general
of your State is on record as being opposed to this diversion.
Mr. GEUPEL. When I was here previously I heard a statement
made by the attorney general of Wisconsin that he had the indorse-
ment of our State's attorney general, and the fact of the matter is
I went back to Indianapolis and it was called to his attention,
through Dr. William F. King, State health commissioner. He at-
tended a meeting at the invitation of the attorney general of Wis-
º and it is my impression that he did give an indorsement
there. -
Mr. NEwTON. In other words, you don’t understand that the State
stands back of that indorsement?
Mr. GEUPEL. The attorney general indorsed it.
Mº, NEwTo.N. Do you think the State stands back of that indorse-
ment?
Mr. GEUPEL. I can not say at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. All you can say at the present time is that the
attorney general has joined with the other attorneys general, but
that your department has protested, and you are in hopes that if
it comes up again he will reconsider.
Mr. GEUPEL. The attorney general of Indiana has given his in-
dorsement. On further consideration, I am certain, his action will
be determined by the facts presented to him.
Mr. HULL. In other words, he will back up.
The CHAIRMAN. Adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 5.05 p.m., the committee adjourned.)
(Following are the exhibits filed by Mr. Geupel:)
1232 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
REFERENCES
1. Indiana State Board of Health Report, 1908, “The sanitary condition
of the southern end of Lake Michigan bordering Lake County, Ind.,” page 439.
2. The Sanitary condition of the southern end of Lake Michigan, by J.
Herbert Brewster. Reprinted from the proceedings of the American Water
WorkS ASSOciation, 1909. Substantially the same as the report in the Indiana
State Board of Health Report, 1908.
3. Indiana State Board of Health Report, 1910, “An investigation of the
Calumet River district draining, Lake County, Ind., and Cook County, Ill.,”
page 357.
4. First report of the Lake Michigan Water Commission, 1909. -
5. Second report of the Lake Michigan Water Commission, 1909.
6. “Cause of obnoxious tastes in Milwaukee water.” Engineering News
Record, volume 82, issue No. 4, January, 1919. -
7. “Industrial wastes in relation to water supplies,” by Wellington Donald-
SOn. American Journal of Public Health, March, 1921, Volume XI, issue No. 3.
8. Progress report on agencies for the control of pollution by industrial
wastes. Committee on industrial wastes in relation to Water Supply. 'American
Water Works Association, March 14, 1924.
EXELIBITS ACCOMPANYING TESTIMONY
1. Typhoid death rates of Gary, East Chicago, Whiting, Hammond, Chicago,
and Michigan City. -
2. Typhoid fever death rate, State of Indiana.
3. Hammond raw lake water, January 24–March 11, 1924.
4. Hammond chlorinated city supply, January 24–March 11, 1924.
5. Hammond chlorinated city supply, weekly analyses act, October, 1923–
April, 1924.
6. Whiting raw lake water, January 30–March 1, 1924.
7. Whiting filtered and chlorinated city supply, January 30–March 1, 1924.
8. East Chicago raw lake water, January 1—March 1, 1924.
1% East Chicago filtered and chlorinated city water, January 1–March 1,
10. Gary raw lake water, February 1–March 1, 1924.
11. Gary chlorinated city water, February 1–March 1, 1924,
Typhoid fever death rates, Chicago and the Lake County (Ind.) cities

[Deaths per 100,000]
East - - Ham- - Michigan
Year Gary Chicago Whiting mond Chicago City
1900 * * *m as sº sº. - - - - - - - -, * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * : - - - - - - - - - - 20 l----------
1901---------------- * 91 29 |----------
1902------ - - - 45 ----------
1903__ - - - - - - - - - 121 32 ----------
1904-- - - 38 20 ----------
1905-------------------------------------------- 61 17 ----------
1906 56 19 ----------
1907 - - - - 80 18 ----------
1908------ - 154 16 ----------
1 39 13 ----------
1910 - - - 101 26 60 57 14 ----------
1911 24 29 43 37 11 ----------
1912__ - 0 40 28 70 * 7.6 |----------
1913 0 46 27 64 11 ----------
1914 0 12 12 49 6.9 ----------
1915 26 11 2 13 36 5.3 14.5
1916 83 38 75 122 5. 1 33. 1
1917--------------------------------------- 23 43 62 96 1. 6 44.4
1918------- - - 11 37 25 2 54 1.4 l----------
1919 31 72 24 51 1.2 ----------
1920– 10 3 25 3.29 41. 7 1.1 , 5.1
1921 7.2 25 9.9 22.2 1.2 10.2
1922----------------- 7.2 () 19.7 8.4 1.1 ----------
1923 —r 1.8 5.8 () 19.4 |---------- 5. 1
1 Chlorination began in January. 8 Filter plant installed.
2 Chlorination began. * No record.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1233
Typhoid fever, State of Indiana

*| Rate per Rate per
Year Number | 100,000 Year Number | 100,000
of deaths | popula- of deaths | popula-
tion . tion
1903-------------------------- 1,013 37.5 || 1913-------------------------- 701 25.3
1904-------------------------- 1,013 37. 5 || 1914-------------------------- 591 21. 1
1905-------------------------- 913 34.3 || 1915-------------------------- 415 14.6
1906-------------------------- 913 34.4 || 1916-------------------------- 604 21. I
1907-------------------------- 933 34.3 || 1917-------------------------- 497 .17. 1 :
Average for 5 yearS.----- 960 37.6 Average for 5 years----- 561 19.8
1908-------------------------- 885 32.4 || 1918-------------------------- 398 13.7
1909-------------------------- 875 32.0 || 1919-------------------------- 338 . 11. 5.
1910-------------------------- 874 34.6 || 1920-------------------------- 282 9.6
1911-------------------------- 736 27.2 || 1921-------------------------- 360 12. 3.
1912-------------------------- 652 23.8 || 1922-------------------------- 229 7. 8.
Average for 5 years----- 804 30. 0 Average for 5 years----- 321 10.9,
1923-------------------------- 207 7. I
Hammond water supply—Raw lake water before chlorination

Bacteria per c. c. B. coli in- r B. coli per—
Remarks
Date 20° C. 37° C. confirmed
gelatin, agar, 10 c. c. 1 c. c. 0.1 c. c. 0.01 c. c. 1 C. C. 100 C. c.
48 hours 24 hours
1924
Jan. 23----------------- 7,600 1,100 * -º- amºs º *-* 10 -------- +
Jan. 24 650 gº º * * + +- 100 +
Jan. 25 1,600 * * * * + + 100 -------- - . . .
Jan. 28----------------- 2,700 * = 4-ºxº + <-- 10 +
Jan. 29----------------- 6, 100 320 | + &= ** + 4-º-º: 10 +
Jan. 30----------------- 19,000 | . 35. tº º * = * *- 1 -------- +
Jan. 31----------------- 3,600 ----------| + º, ºr + — 10 +
Feb. 1.----------------- 24,000 2,800 «º º tº º + + 100 +
Feb. 2.----------------- 165,000 3,900 sº- tº mº –H * 10 +
Feb. 4----------------- 78,000 260 amºms * == + tº- 10 +
Feb. 5----------------- 5, 100 140 * * * = «E. tº- 1 -------- tº-º:
Feb. 7, broken. 3. - s #.
eb. 8 56 * *- * = &Eº g- 1 +
Feb. 11---------------- 42, 500 120 || -- - - º tº- l +_º.
Feb. 13---------------- 6,000 6 *4 = * * —H· tº- 10 +* .
Feb. 14---------------- 52, 500 140 *** * * *º- + 10 + T |
eb. 15---------------- 47,000 270 - * *º- + *- 10 -------- +
Feb. 16---------------- 4,800 690 * * * = + Rºº- 10 +
Feb. 18---------------- 9,000 1 * * * * + wº- 10 -------- +
Feb. 19.---------------- 27,000 1,250 * - &= - 4- — 1 -------- +
eb. 20---------------- 1, 1 5 *º- -4- + *Eº 10 + .
Feb. 21 250 *- + + *= 10 + .
Feb. 23---------------- 63,000 140 tº mº * - + + 100 + ;
Feb. 25---------------- 39,000 1,000 * *-*. <-- *g * *e 10 -------- + Ҽ
Feb. 26---------------- 51, 1,000 * * * * + + 100 -------- +
Feb. 27---------------- 540, 70 * * * * + — ” 10 + k
eb. 28---------------- 400 200 * * *º- + + 100 -------- + ".
Mar. 3----------------- 380,000 650 * = —l- + eº 10 -
Mar. 4----------------- 120, 2, 100 tº º as ºse &= - º 1
ar. 5----------------- 11,000 800 || -- tº º + + 100 * * *
Mar. 7 * 70 * * -- *-ºr Eº I
Mar. 8----------------- 18,000 130 -T- -T- + º 10 ----------------- sº
Mar 10---------------- 900, 230 + + + + 100 ----------------- tº-º:
Mar. 11---------------- 540,000 180 + -- + tº-ºº º 10 ------------------
1234
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI BIVERS, ETC.
Hammond water supply—Chlorinated city supply

Bacteria per cc. B. coli per presumptive B. coli in-
Date 20° C. 37° C.
gelatin agar, 10 CC 1 CC. 0.1 CC. 10 CC. 1 CC. 0. ICC.
48 hours | 24 hours
Jan. 23 1924 +, 3 - 5
all 23--------------- 1,300 5 || 2–H,3- º tº- º *-º-º: *
Jan. 24 700 5+ + ' - 5-H + *
Jan. 25--------------- 15 14 5+ * --> --> 1+,4— – *
Jan. 28--------------- 2 8 5– * tº-º-º: 5– e- º
Jan. 29--------------- 2,900 58 5-H + &= -º 5-H + *
Jan. 30--------------- 4 10 5– --> i- 5– * sº
Jan. 31 5+ + + 5+ + +
Feb. 1.---------------- 15 30 || 2–H, 3– 5– º- *
Feb. 2* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 7 b— 5— tº-3 4-º'-
Feb. 4---------------- 8 7 5+ 1+,4– 3-ºxº *
Feb. 5---------------- 3 33 5+ 5— tº- *
Feb. 7---------------- 5 10 5— 5– º sº
Feb. 8---------------- 3 6 4+, 1— + 3+, 2– *E. tº-3
Feb. 9---------------- 1,900 105 5-H 5-H &= $E-
Feb. 11--------------- 2 16 5– 5– * tº-
Feb. 18--------------- 8 6 5-H 5- &= -º ex-
Feb. 14--------------- 5 5 5-H 5— * tº-
Feb. 15--------------- 3 23 5+ 2+, 3– * *
Feb. 16--------------- 14 5-H 2+, 3– *-*. *
Feb. 18--------------- 2,800 550 3+, 2– + + 3+, 2– + +
Feb. 19 510 5+ + + 5 + +
Feb. 20 800 5+ 3+, 2– + +
Feb. 21 23 5+ | + + 5+ + +
Feb. 23 600 5-H + + 5+ + +
Feb. 25----- 390 5-H + + 5-H + tºº-->
Feb. 26 190 5+ + + 5-H + +
Feb. 27--------------- 180,000 40 5-H + + 5+ + +
Feb. 28--------------- 360,000 190 5+ + + 5-H + +
Mar. 3--------------- 6 6 5– {-º sº
Mar. 4--------------- 5,600 125 5– &=º sº
Mar. 5--------------- 3 18 5– tº E. º
Mar. 10-------------- 70 36 5– 4-ºxº sº
Mar. 11-------------- 27 12 5– 4- gº
Hammond public supply—Chlorinated
Lactose - Samples positive
Date Count º: Lactose
10 cc. 1 cc. 0–5 || 4–5 || 5-5
1923
Oct. 9 1,000---------- * * * * * tº gº v- =
Oct. 31 5 º sº tº sº sº —— =
Nov. 6 240 ++––– * =ºf 2– ==
Nov. 20- 3. +++--- * * 3– :
Nov. 27 120 sºm m sº as wº 4- ºr -º :=
Pec. 4 ------------------ 2,700---------- +++++ ++ |1-H, 3A1– 4+ F - - - - - -
Dec. 11----- 5 ++——— * = 2– :=
1924 &
Jan. 24 3 * *º º sºme tº *s emº ==
Jan. 30 3 +--- tº e- ºr -º º tº sº ==
Feb. 19------------------ T. M. C.------ +++++ ++ 5A 5-H -:
* *------------------- 10 Spr.--------| ––––– tº sº. =
Mar. 12- 5 tº tº º ºs * * 1A 1— | = *
Mar. 26------------------ 2,700---------- +++++ + 1+ ,4A 5— | =
Apr. 1.----- +— — — tº sº. 2– =
Apr. 9---- 20 Spr * * sº sm sº I sº sº. :=
Apr. 15------------------ 10 Spr.-------- +----- * * 1— == sº sº º
Apr. 22----- * smº mass amº º tº gº 3:

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1235
IResults of bacteriological analysis, Whiting—Raw water

Bacteria per cc. B. coli in-
B. coli
Remarks
; Pate | 20° C. gela-| 37° C. P. confirmed
tin, 48 agar, 24 || 10 cc. 1 CC 0.1 CC. 0.01 CC. * *
hours . hours
1924 -
Jan. 30 15,000 90 + + + - 10 +
Jan. 31 10, 500 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 1 y + - - - ... 1 +
Feb. 2 2,700 + + + + 100 +
Feb. 4 23,400 11,000 + + + + 100 +
Feb. 8 20 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 9 2,800 180 + - * - ... 1 +
Feb. 11 360,000 3,200 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 13 30,000 350 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 14 600,000 240 + + + - 19 — -H
Feb. 16--------------------- 14,700 1,200 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 18 7,600 190 + + * + - 10 +
Feb. 19 2,000 85 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 20 150 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 23 19,000 210 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 26----------------------------------- 380 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 27 1,800,000 200 + + + - 10 +
Feb. 28 600,000 90 + + --> - 1 + .
Feb. 29 1,500 + + + + 100 +
Whiting filtration plant—IFiltered and chlorimated
Bacteria per CC B. coli in-
| B. coli per * *
Date 20° C. 37° C. presumptive, -
gelatin, agar, 24 10 cc. 1 cc. 0.1 CC. .
48 hours al hours
1924 -
Jan. 30--------- - 3,700 14 3+, 2– |2+, 3– * *
Jan. 31----- 2 5— . 5- º
Feb. 1, broken.
eb. 2.--------- 135 3 5— . 5– sºme a-
Feb. 4--.... 9,800 1,200 5+ (1 cc.)+ |. 5+ + -
Feb. 8.... 4 5+ |4+, 1– ==- -
Feb. 9.... 3 11 5– 5- * -
Feb. 11-. 2, 600 38 3+, 2– |2-H, 3– *- -
Feb. 13.... 1 5 5– 5- * -
Feb. 14.... 900 2 5– 5– cº- -
Feb. 16... 3 23 5– 5– * - -
Feb. 18... 7,400 3 3+, 2– 2+, 3– º -
Feb. 19---... 3 5– 5- * -
Feb. 20- 3 5– 5- &= -
Feb. 23.------ 1,800 31 2+, 3– 2+, 3– - -
Feb. 26... 75 17 5– 5- -> *
Feb. 27.... 30 2 6– 5– º -
Feb. 28.... 50 10 5– 5– º º-

+ or * + + + | 0%. QQQQi III.I.I.I.I.I.I. 8& ‘q95.
+ OI * + + + 000 “I 000'09 ||--------------------- T93 °C(9,51
sº tºº sº me • * * * * | IO " * — a- — Of 00I '8 |--------------------- Tgz ‘q9,8.
+ | I — *- + —H | OI gg "Iz ‘q93.
+ I * tº- + + || 0: $ºnºr. , 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T0z ‘q93.
+ 0I * + + + | OFG Q003I III.I.I.I.I.I.III T6I ‘q93.
' + I º tº + + | OI QºI III.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.III 8I ‘q93.
+ I * •== tºge -H 0gg 00:3 * * TT9D “q98.
+ T * * + + | Q3. QQQ'º. III.I.I.I.I.I.I. Tgl ‘Q9,51
+ I sº *- + + | 00: ‘z QQQ 98. III.I.I.I.I.III. j/I ‘q93.
-- I * *- + + 00I QQQQQI £I ‘q93.
+ . . I * * + + | 000 ‘VI |0.0341 II “q93.
—H. I sº &= -º + + 0g.8 008'0I T6 "q95.
+ I smºs tº- + + | 0%, & 8 “Clºſ
•º º is sº * * * * * = I0 ° mº *=º *ge T | 0083 0.06% i T. A. Q.93.
+ 0I — + + | + | 00I '8 || 00038 "g "q9&L
—H OI &=º + + + |004% ſº " " -g ‘q93.
+ I tºº º-º: + + | Q092 || 09:01 " " -ī, ‘qed
+ I *= *--> + +, 0gz º. 000 ſº ---------z ‘qod
—H . 0I +- *-> + —H· & QI gº Ig ‘ueſ
+ 0I sº + + + | 000 I 008: 08 "ugſ
—H· 0I sº + + + || 096 “I Q08.91 62 °ueſ
+ 0I mº + + + |Q13, 008 “EI 82 ºuteſ
+ 00I + + + + || 002. ‘I 00: ‘9T 92 °ueſ
'uoxoid ‘gz ‘ueſ
+ 0I. * + + + | OIZ (90% ~~~%, ’ueſ
Gº I'. amº * -- + OI; 009 “I "-gz ‘ueſ
+ . T &=ºe * + f gº, $8, zz ‘ueſ
+ I sº — + | . 0g/, ‘I ſº. 6 || 6I ‘ueſ
+ 01 | – | + | + | + | 0% 0%. 8I ‘ueſ
+ I . * * sº + |9, 009 ‘61 EI ‘ueſ
–H 00: + + + +...] Q03% |000% 9I ‘ueſ
+ 0T * + + -------- 090'z & gT ‘ubſ
+ 0E - || -- || + |_+...] 004. |0.08% #I ‘ubſ
+ or | – || + | + || --~~~~ Q09 I ſº. [. £I ‘ubſ
+ . 00: + + . + |. 089 z 000 II zI ‘ugſ
... +. 0I. mºne + + -------- 000°F | 000 gl II ‘ueſ
.-- H — | – | + |^*~~~~~~ g8 008: ||. 6 °ueſ
' ' -- T &ºe * + |z------- 00% 93.8 8 ºutſ
+ I. º *g, + 0% & 00I '# ------------------------ 1. ‘Utºſ
+ 001 || + | + | + |***~~~~~ 00I 2 & gºueſ
+ - 0: * + + + | 0.6% 003 “A z ‘ueſ
#261
t *...*|††
‘90 IO'0 || “OO I'0 || “oo I “oo 0I “Ig uppete
*:::::: *|ºiled *O ol.8 "O odó 948CI
-uIoo HOO 91
-Up HOO '91 OO 10d by 181989.
aeroo, own—todaph Tºwn!puſ pup. offoo! Mø 180g. ‘ºup1d woºp.44??, I
“OLGI ‘stigaſh, Ida ISSISSIWI (INV. SIONITTI
3.
98&I

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
1237
Filtration plant, East Chicago and Indiana Harbor—Filtered and chlorinated

Bacteria per co. B coli in-
- B coli per
IDate 20° C. 37° C. presumptive t
gelatin, agaſ, 10 cc. 1 CC. 0.1 cc.
48 hours 24 hours
1924 -
Jan. 2 490 23 4+, 1– 3+, 2– - *
Jan. 3 - - 70 5– 5– - *
Jan. 7 470 2 5– 5– — - .
Jan. 8 315 13 2+, 3– | 1+, 4– - —
Jan. 9 1 1 5– 5– - *
Jan. 10 2 7 5– 5– - º
Jan. 11 780 4 5— 5— — '-
Jan. 12- 510 192 5+—— 5+ — . —
Jan. 13 9,000 265 4+, 1– 4+, 1– - –
Jan.14 250 5-H-I-— + + . -:
Jan. 15 210 || 4+, 1––H– 4+, 1– + —
Jan. 16 44 4+, 1----— 4+, 1– – *
Jan. 17 11 5– 5— | - —
Jan. 18 11 30 || 4-H, 1–—— 4+, 1– || – - .
Jan. 19 ... 5-H-H – 5+ + –
Jan. 22 63 5 5– 5– - –
Jan. 23----- 675 4 2+, 3– 1+, 4— | – —
Jan. 24 520 5 - 5— — — -
Jan. 25 800 170 4+, 1— 4+, 1– - -
Jan. 26 2,000 154 4+, 1++– 3-H, 2– + —
Jan. 28 1,900 15 3+, 2– || 3-H, 2– - —.
Jan. 29------ 3,850 16 1+,4— | 1+, 4– - –
Jan. 30- 6,300 450 5-H+— 5-H + | –
Jan. 31------- 1,700 5-H-H – 5-H + *
Feb. 2 9,600 810 3+, 2– 5– - *-
Feb. 4 6 11 5– 5– - *
Feb. 5 8,800 400 1+ 5— - *
Feb. 6 - - 6,600 450 5-H++ 5-H + +
Feb. 7 1,860 4 5– 5— - -º
Feb. 8 59 5+ 5-H - -
Feb. 9.-- - * 830 |. 125 2+, 3— 2+, 3– - -º-
Feb. 11 - 2,400 660 3+, 2— 3+, 2– - *
Feb. 13------- 1,350 5-H 5-H -> e-ºs-
Feb. 14 140 4 5— 5– - º-
Feb. 15 170 4+, 1– 4+, 1– - e-º
Feb. 16 2,600 2 1+,4— 1+,4— | – * *
Feb. 18 1 5 2+, 3— 2+, 3– - ºms
Feb. 19 23 5– 5– - -
Feb. 20 2 1+, 4– 5– - *
Feb, 25 - - - - - - * * * * * 75 5 5– 5- - sº
Feb. 26 --------------- 50 9 5– 5– º -i-
Feb. 28 225 10 1+, 4- 1+, 4– º- gº

4-
1238
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Gary—Raw
Bacteria per CC. B. coli in—
B. coli #.
... CO Iſlar.
Date 20° C. 37° C. per 1 CC. COIl-
gelatin, ar, 10 cc. 1 cc. 0.1 cc. |0.01 cc. firmed
48 hours 24 hours
1924
Feb. 1.-------------------- 16,000 600 + +- * *E* 1 &=e
Feb. 2 1,600 50 | + * -> *Eº ... 1 +
Feb. 4 4, 100 90 + +- ºs - 1. s==
Feb. 5 4,700 30 || – * * sº 3 ----------
Feb. 6-------------------- 2,300 70 || – s=º. T - - - - - - - - .01 ----------
Feb. 7-------------------- 150 800 * sº gºs -01 ----------
Feb. 8 35 *-*. * T - - - - - - - - -01 ----------
Feb. 9-------------------- 1,700 115 + —H· {-º-º-º: * 1. +
Feb. 11 125,000 750 | + + ºf *E* 1 +
Feb. 13------------------- 9,000 100 + +- *- emºs 1 +
Feb. 14 33,000 40 | + +- * * 1 +
Feb. 15------------------- 70,000 50 | + +- + * 10 +
Feb. 16------------------- 190 60 * tºº-ºº: * cºm .01 ----------
Feb. 18 100 70 + +- * 4-º 1 +
Feb. 19------------------- 550 + + gºe cº-º 1 + .
Feb. 20 10 + tºº e-º. wº- ... 1 +
Feb. 21 90 40 + * -º-º: 4-ºf ... 1 -H.
Feb. 23------------------- 6,000 7 + tº-e $º- * --> - 1 +
Feb. 25* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ºr sº 1, 500 35 + * cº 4-º ë l +
Feb. 26------------------- 3,900 20 + sº e-8 *= ... 1 +
Feb. 27------------------- 15,600 40 *--> * tºº * .01 ----------
Feb. 28 3,700 30 || -- *E* gº tº-º ... 1 *
Feb. 29------------------- 33,000 150 + sº gº tº-º: - 1 ----------
Gary—Chlorinated
Bacteria per cc. Confirmed B. coli in—
B. coli
Date 20° C. 379 C. presump-
gelatine, agar, 24 | * 10CC. | 1 CC. 0.1 cc
48 hours hours. }
1924
Feb. 1 57 2+, 3– 5— — * >º
Feb. 2 30 1 5– 5– sº gºe
Feb. 4 21 3 5– 5– sº sº
Feb. 5 2 4 5– 5- tº º smº
Feb. 6 1 9 5– 5– * == gº
Feb. 7 gº º 4 7 5– 5– * tºmºe
Feb. 8 6 5 5– 5– * *
Feb. 9 5 8 5– 5– * -º tºmº
Feb. 11 3, 100 8 5– 5— | – $º
Feb. 13. .5 6 : 1+, 4– 5– * Eºs
Feb. 14 11 4 || 3-H, 2– 5— — sºme
Feb. 15 190 6 4++ 5– * gº
Feb. 16 7 13 || 3-H, 2– 5– * *
Feb. 18 1 7 5– 5– sº *
Feb. 19 2 6 5– 5– * sº
Feb. 20 2 || 3-H, 2+ 5– º *
Feb. 21 32 13 2+, 3– 5— — sº
Feb. 23 6 2 5– 5– *ge *
Feb. 25 25 5 1+, 4– 5– * sºme
Feb. 26 9 6 || 2+, 3– 5– tºº *
Feb. 27------------------------------------------ 20 5 5– 5– * &=º
Feb. 28 60 20 5– 5– sº tºº
Feb. 29---- 4,800 40 || 3-H, 2– 1-F, 4– º smºs



ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1239
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs.
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Thursday, May 15, 1924.
The committee met at 10.40 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Demp-
sey (chairman), presiding.
ARGUMENT OF LOUIS BEHAN, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE SANI-
TARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as a
prelude to what I have to say, I can not overlook the opportunity of
expressing my admiration for the inner working of Congress as I
have had opportunity of seeing them in the past four or five weeks.
We in different sections of the country from time to time have
listened to criticisms of Congress for talking and doing nothing;
but having been on the inside of a committee room, as we have been
in the last few weeks, it is easy to understand why there is very
little ill-considered legislation which passes Congress, and I am
sure all of us on our side of the table, as well as those across the
table from us, will leave this committee hearing at the end of your
labors well satisfied with the wholehearted, patient, earnest consid-
eration that this big question has been given.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have gathered that we are not going to
continue after noon to-day, and this treaty subject is, to my mind,
the real big question which this committee must first dispose of, and
as it is now almost 11 o’clock, I am going to devote the hour, or
thereabouts, which is at my disposal to a general discussion.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say, Mr. Behan, that unless some meas-
ures are taken up in the House in which we are very much interested
we will sit until 12.30 or even until 1 o'clock.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, I will talk as long as I can, but, to be frank
with you, I do not want to open up my discussion of the treaty
proper and then have it interrupted by a lapse of a few days, be-
cause it is my thought that the troubles and difficulties of the Sani-
tary District of Chicago, as Judge Barrett has unfolded them to
you, along with its history, is going to be the secondary question
for this committee to solve.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we can give you two hours, probably.
Mr. BEHAN. I won’t begin to get warmed up in that time, Mr.
Chairman, because I was about to say when we came down on this
legislation a few months ago
The CHAIRMAN. The greatest speech that was made in the Senate
on the League of Nations occupied just 2 hours and 45 minutes. It
was the most wonderful legal argument on a public document I
have every heard made, and it was made by a very wonderful lawyer.
Mr. BEHAN. That, perhaps, was made by an international law-
yer, and at the outset I want to say that I am not appearing before
this committee in the guise of an international lawyer, and for two
reasons, first, because I have not been trained along those lines, and,
secondly, I do not believe that it requires the skill and the ability and
the training of an international lawyer to discuss this treaty for the
purpose of clearing away any ambiguity which might exist to a
Congress of the United States. - l
1240 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Perhaps it would require the skill of several international lawyers
to make this treaty clear to our Canadian and British friends, be-
cause those that do not want to see won’t see. But to explain this
treaty to a committee of the Congress of the United States does
not require the services of an international lawyer. To my mind all
that is required is a fair ability to talk in the language which we
learned in our American school system.
There is no bogey about this treaty so far as the rights of the
United States are concerned, and, as Judge Barrett explained in
one of his discussions, the treaty settled the rights of the United
States and of the Dominion of Canada as represented by Great
Britain. We do not claim that this treaty in specific words points
out that the Sanitary District of Chicago shall have 10,000 cubic
second-feet diversion at Chicago; but we do insist that the treaty
absolutely and finally settles the rights of the respective Govern-
ments.
Our contention is that so far as Great Britain and the Dominion
Government are concerned their lips were sealed when that treaty
was entered into and that they are in honor and good faith bound
to respect it. -
So that the Sanitary District of Chicago has no contest with the
Government of the United States as to its rights; we have no con-
flict to dispose of before this committee with our sister States. We
think that the big question involved in these hearings now, and the
first question, the primary question, to be determined by this com-
mittee before it considers the engineering phases of the diversion at
Chicago, before it considers whether Chicago shall have this diver-
sion, is to settle now at this session of Congress, once and for all,
and make it positive and clear to the British and Canadian Govern-
ments, that their lips are sealed, and that any further attempts at
interference with our domestic affairs will be resented by this Con-
gress. That is the big question.
As I started to say a few moments ago, when we came down here
at the preliminary meeting of this committee and listened to the dis-
cussion of the Hull bill and Rainey bill and participated in the
discussion of those bills, and also the Madden bill, the affairs of the
Sanitary District of Chicago were more or less local; but events
and things which have occurred since the consideration of those bills
were taken up has made this a national question, and more than the
rights of the Sanitary District of Chicago must be disposed of by
the committee.
When these bills were introduced the people of Chicago and the
Illinois valley were interested in the proposed legislation because
it affected them, it affected their future, it affected their happiness
and their health. But to-day, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, the eyes of the people of the United States are centered
upon the committee room of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors
of this Congress, and why? Because the attempt, as we claim, of a
supposedly friendly sister nation to repudiate a just and solemn obli-
gation has been called to the attention of this committee, and the
ublicity given to these charges has made this a subject of more or
É. national discussion, and if there is any doubt about that state-
ment in the minds of the members of this committee a call at the
reference libraries and an inspection of the newspapers from all
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1241
sections of the country will easily demonstrate that I am not far
Wrong in that statement.
At the outset of my discussion there is one thing I would like to
call to the attention of the committee. My comments on it are
going to be more or less brief. I am going to state some facts to you
and then it will be for this committee to draw its own conclusions.
. I am not a diplomat and have never been in the Diplomatic Serv-
ice, and I do not know the arts of diplomacy; but, as I understand
it, diplomacy, as understood and practiced in European countries at
least, is really the art of being able to out-lie the other fellow, to
trick him by using specious and soft language. Now, we in the
United States do not use that language and do not conduct our
affairs in that manner, and we are not skilled, I guess, in the art of
diplomacy. Thank God, while we were not given a full quota of
diplomatic skill, we were given as a nation and as a people perhaps
more than our full quota of a sense of honor to our obligations.
My recollection is that the first hearings on these bills were sched-
uled for early in February, somewhere about Lincoln's birthday.
Mr. Hull will remember. -
Mr. HULL. The 17th of February, I think.
Mr. BEHAN. We were here then, and I think the chairman was ill,
and the hearings were postponed. We came down again about the
middle of April. These bills were set for hearing, and it was pub-
licly announced and it was generally known that these bills, which
involved the right of the Sanitary District of Chicago to divert
water, would be taken up for consideration by this committee. At
that time we went into a consideration of the Hull bill, and days
and days were spent listening to the very interesting matters in
support of the Hull bill.
When those considerations were concluded it was arranged that
beginning last Friday the Sanitary District of Chicago would begin
to put in its evidence and make its arguments in support of its
right to divert water at Chicago. And then a singular thing oc-
curred. We concluded the hearings on all these other bills on a
Friday or a Saturday, proceeding for two weeks, and we were to
come back last Friday on these bills, and the sanitary district was to
unfold its case. And then this surprisingly singular thing occurred.
I am not saying this by way of criticism of our State Department,
because I have studied this proposition and have thought it over,
and all that I can see out of the statement of facts that I am about
to make to you is the fine Italian hand of the Dominion Government
and the British Government, and it proves to me that there has been
just a little bit too much officious intermeddling by the British
Embassy and by the Dominion Government with affairs that are
purely domestic. . It occurs to me that the incidents of the last 10
days on behalf of some one—and that some one in my opinion is in
the British Embassy and in the Dominion Government—amounts to
an attempted intimidation of this committee and this Congress or
an attempted, premeditated interference and intermeddling with the
consideration of legislation by the Congress of the United States.
Now, here is what I have in mind: I do not know whether you
saw this in the public press, but it was heralded throughout the
western country at least with great headlines. I have in my hand
91739–24—PT 2—63
1242 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
copies of correspondence passing between the British Government,
the Dominion Government, and the State Department of the United
States which was sent out to the press under date of May 3, 1924,
Mr. Chairman, just a few days before the hearings of the sanitary
case were to begin.
It is headed “Confidential. Release for publication in the morn-
ing newspapers of Monday, May 5, 1924, and not to be previously
published, quoted from, or used in any way.”
The subject matter is “Canada.” -
The Department of State made public the following correspondence with the
British Embassy in regard to the diversion of Water from Lake Michigan for
the proposed navigation canal by the Sanitary District of Chicago.
The correspondence begins with the date December 29, 1923, being
a letter from the British Embassy to the Secretary of State of the
United States.
The next letter is dated January 21, 1924, an acknowledgment of
that communication by our State Department. --
Another one on February 16, 1924.
Another one from the British Embassy under date of February 9,
1924, to the Secretary of State.
Another one of February 18, 1924, in which the State Department
grants the request of the Canadian Government that Mr. W. J.
Stewart of the Dominion Government, be granted permission to ap-
pear before the sessions of the Senate special committee, which was
to consider the 9-foot waterway. -
Then another long communication from the British Embassy, sev-
eral pages, under date of February 13, 1924, which is the “British
and Canadian position as to the claims of the Sanitary District of
Chicago and noting its objections to the provisions of the bills which
this committee had been for some time previously considering and the
consideration of which had not been disposed of.” ;
Then another letter under date of February 15, 1924, and one under
date of April 2, 1924, addressed to his excellency, the Right Honorable
Sir Somebody, with a lot of initials after his name, ambassador of
Great Britain, from the Secretary of State.
Now, I happen to know that the State Department of the United
States did not make this release to the Associated Press and to the
newspapers of this country voluntarily and of its own accord. That
release was made at the request of the British Government, and I say
to you, Mr. Chairman—and I may be all wrong, but it does not gibe
well with my training in American history, with the manner in which
I was taught to respect my Government—that after waiting from
December 29, 1923; the British Government was not sufficiently inter-
ested in making public this series of correspondence until just on the
eve of the beginning of the hearings by a committee of the Congress
of the United States of the Sanitary District of Chicago's portion
of this presentation.
Now, I am not making mention of that because the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago, or because the people of my city or of my State
are fearful that the influence of the British Government or of the
Dominion Government can enter our halls of Congress and change
legislation or influence legislation against us; we are perfectly willing
to take our chances with the committee of this Congress or with the
Congress of the United States at any time, and particularly when
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1243
the issue at stake before that committee and before Congress is the
treaty obligations of Great Britain and the Dominion on the one
hand and the rights of the United States on the other. I make men-
tion of this, and I would like the committee to keep that thought
in mind during the remainder of these discussions.
I recall several times since I have been paying attention to public
matters that this Government has had occasion to ask for the recall
of representatives of foreign governments because of officious inter-
ference and meddling with the domestic affairs of our Government.
I recall that the Senate of the United States just a few weeks ago
showed its resentment of the interference by the Japanese Govern-
ment into a question which the Senate and Congress was then consid-
ering by unanimously adopting the Japanese exclusion act almost im-
mediately after the Japanese ambassador had been foolish enough to
put his fingers into our clean domestic pie, and that is exactly what
the British Embassy and the Dominion Government have done in this
instance.
I say to you that this committee has a bigger question than the
local rights of the sanitary district or of the people of Chicago to
determine. You have got before you now the opportunity of deter-
mining the rights of the United States as embodied and set forth
in this treaty. -
The question of what was intended to be covered by that treaty
ought to have been determined a long time ago. It has been a bone
of contention on the part of the Dominion Government and the
British Government. I do not believe it has worried the people of
this country very much. I believe the people of this country will,
just as you gentlemen will when you retire to executive session, read
this document through and give it the construction that you believe
Senator Root, or Secretary Root, gave to it when he drafted it. I be-
lieve there is going to be no question as to what your ultimate de-
termination is going to be; but that question should have been de-
termined a long time ago, when it first arose, by the Department of
State or the Department of Justice or a combination of both. In
my opinion, gentlemen, the question of the construction of treaties is
a matter for the State Department, and I am frank to say to you,
without attempting to criticise anybody, that when this long series of
correspondence began to be received at the State Department from the
British Government, the State Department should have gotten busy
and instructed or directed or advised the Congress of the United
States just what are our rights, because this Congress, this committee,
does not want to go wrong. If the United States is fooling itself and
if we have no right to that 10,000 cubic feet under that treaty, you
are wasting your time, it seems to me, or any lawyer or any other
individual talking about our rights under that treaty are wasting
your valuable time.
Now, so much for the vicious intermeddling into the domestic
affairs by the British Government. I do not know whether Mr. Mor-
gan of Ohio was present, but if he was not here during all of my
discussion I hope he will read the record as to the statement of facts I
made with reference to the unnecessary and vicious, arrogant, at-
tempt to interfere in the deliberations of this congressional com-
mittee by the British Embassy. *
1244 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MORGAN. I did not hear it, but I am frank to say that I feel that
this matter of the interpretation of the treaty is now up to the State
Department. -
Mr. BEHAN. You understand that it is?
Mr. MoRGAN. Yes.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, we understand the same thing, and I might say
that the matter of release of this correspondence to the public press
of the United States, that information came to us in this manner.
We had heard that the British ambassador had sent some letters to
the State Department objecting to our rights and complaining about
Some of the provisions of this proposed legislation. Judge Barrett
and I went to the State Department and asked if we might read what
the British Government had to say in this letter of objections. That
request was courteously denied to us, because it was confidential.
They were State Department letters. But at that time we were told
that the British Government had made a request of the State Depart-
ment that that correspondence be given out to the public press four
days later, and while Judge Barrett and I were on a train bound for
Chicago, in the morning papers that were brought into the dining
car we saw the headlines as to what Great Britain thought about
this proposed legislation.
So that before you gentlemen begin to determine whether our
engineers are right or wrong, or whether the acts of 1822 and 1827
mean anything to us now, you first must determine what, if any,
rights the United States Government acquired under and by reason
of that treaty to the diversion at Chicago.
Now, as I stated a little while ago, in the time at my disposal I
am going to discuss, as far as possible, incidental matters, and re-
serve my discussion of the treaty until we begin on next Wednesday
morning, because to my mind it is too important a subject to just
begin to unfold and then have to close the book and resume at a
later time. I think when I begin on my discussion of the treaty
and its provisions on Wednesday of next week I can finish in very
short order, probably more to your satisfaction, and I know more
to my satisfaction, than I could if I had to quit in the middle of
something that may be interesting.
I would like now to take up the question which the chairman
suggested to Judge Barrett the other day he would like disposed
of by me in my discussion.
The chairman said:
Let me suggest that Mr. Behan in his discussion consider this aspect of the
treaty. Itight up to the time of the adoption of the treaty you were asking
the Secretary of War for a permit to divert more than 4,167 feet and the Sec-
retary of War was steadily refusing. * *
I was going to state that we have a commission, I suppose, representing the
Secretary of State, recommending 10,000 cubic feet, and then the question iS
whether or not it is embodied in the treaty. Now, I ask you in your discus-
sion of the treaty to discuss the question whether or not it is reconcilable to
say that the Secretary of War was at one and the same moment saying that
he would not grant you 4,167 feet——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). More than 4,167 feet.
Mr. BEHAN. I have the stenographic report of the record. If that
is incorrect I would be glad to answer the question as it should be
out. I will make it read “more than 4,167 feet.”
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1245
*
I ask you in your discussion of the treaty to discuss the question whether
or not it is reconcilable to say that the Secretary of War was at one and the
same Imoment saying that he would not grant You more than 4,167 feet and
was insisting that you be granted the 10,000 feet that you asked.
I assume that what you said was that while the Secretary was
declining to give us more than the 4,167 cubic feet, we were at the
º time asking that we be given more than that, or 10,000 cubic
eet.
The CHAIRMAN. No; the point I make is this
Mr. BEHAN. If you will put the question again, then.
The CHAIRMAN. This is the thing that occurs to me as inconsistent
and which I suggested that you reconcile. Your position is that the
Government negotiated in your interest the concession of 10,000 cubic
feet for you by this treaty, and you said that at the same time
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). No ; that is not our position. We do
not say that the Government of the United States got this 10,000
cubic feet per second for us from Canada as any concession at all;
we say that the Government of the United States in negotiating this
treaty with Great Britain for the time being, or for the purposes of
the treaty, limited the diversion at Chicago to 10,000 cubic feet, but
not as any concession from Great Britain.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will put it in this way: It is the fact,
about which there is no dispute, that the Secretary of War steadily
refused to grant more than 4,167 cubic feet.
Mr. BEHAN. No.; that is not the record. The Secretary of War
did not steadily refuse, because he was not steadily requested for
any change in that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, whenever he was requested, as often as he
was requested, he refused to grant you more than 4,167 cubic feet,
and that was the position right up to and during the time this
treaty was being negotiated. Now, how do you reconcile his refusal
to grant more than 4,167 cubic feet with the contention that you
were given 10,000 cubic feet per second upon negotiation by the
Government in this treaty 2 The two things seem to me to be irre-
concilable and directly opposite to each other. -
Mr. BEHAN. Well, I am not going to take the time to argue with
the chairman about his assumption of facts. They are not altogether
right, but we will make short work of those by assuming some of
your assumption. In the first place, there was no discussion pending
with the Secretary of War as to an increase for Chicago at the time
this treaty was negotiated.
The CHAIRMAN. When was the last application made 2
Mr. BEHAN. The last application was made in 1912.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean previous to the negotiations of the treaty.
Mr. BEHAN. The last and only application was in 1912. Prior to
that time in about 1903.
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Then let us take it the other way.
Mr. BEHAN. The last application for any change in the figures in
the permit was in 1903, when the Secretary of War increased the
amount during the closed season of navigation for a part of the
year.
The CHAIRMAN. And then cut it down.
1246 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BEHAN. No; he did not cut it down. We went back to the
4,167 on the 1st of April, and there it stayed until 1912, after this
treaty was arrived at and negotiated.
The CHAIRMAN. Then I will change my question in conformity to
the facts as stated by you. How do you reconcile your contention
that you were granted 10,000 cubic feet per second under the treaty
with the application of 1912 to increase the 4,167 cubic feet and the
denial of the Secretary of War of your request?
...Mr. BEHAN. Well, of course, I am not going to undertake to recon-
cile the denial of the Secretary of War at that time. I think it can
be reconciled by Mr. Adcock, who is going to handle that phase of
it. I will reconcile our application, however, by this statement,
Mr. Chairman, that our unlimited flow which was given to us at
the time of the first permit from Secretary Alger, and which was
subsequently reduced to 4,167 feet because of the increased current
in the Chicago River—and that was the only ground upon which
that flow was reduced to that figure (and I might say by way of
passing that it is going to be demonstrated to this committee that
that figure of 4,167 cubic feet per second has absolutely nothing to
do with the amount necessary for dilution but is purely and simply
a figure arrived at after a careful computation by the engineers of
the War Department that that flowage was the flowage which under
the then existing condition of the Chicago River would make it
safe for navigation), that that permit to 4,167 cubic feet was granted
on its face because of the danger to navigation at that time by a
higher flow. e
Now, the Sanitary District of Chicago at that time was engaged
in the work of spending between twelve million and fifteen million
dollars upon the widening and deepening and straightening of the
Chicago River. That work was in process of completion from 1904
until at or about the time that the application was made to Secretary
Stimson. We then felt that having spent, upon permission of the
United States Government, from twelve million to fifteen million
dollars in putting the Chicago River into such shape and condition
as to enable it to carry a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second without
endangering navigation in that river, that we were then entitled to
resume our flow at the original unlimited permit granted by Secre-
tary Alger, and we do not think our position is inconsistent or
irreconcilable. º
I will now read you an extract from our application to Secretary
Stimson, which I think will clearly show our position.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman did not say that your position was
inconsistent; all the chairman suggested was that there was an in-
consistency which was irreconcilable between the claim that 10,000
cubic feet per second was granted by the treaty and the action of
the Secretary of War in refusing to increase the 4,167 cubic feet per
second.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, of course, we are not going to attempt to recon-
cile Secretary Stimson's mind. Now, if we were all of the same
opinion it would be a monotonous world to live in; our courts would
not be able to exist and our lawyers would be out of a job.
Mr. SEGAR. What was the amount in cubic second-feet that Sec-
retary Alger allowed?
Mr. BEHAN. An unlimited flow.
*
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1247
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that depends on the construction of
the permit itself. ->
Mr. BEHAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The chairman is of the opinion that it was limited,
and limited to an amount specified in the permit itself, and states
that the court so construed it in 137 Federal. That is simply a con-
test between lawyers as to the construction of the Government, and
by the way, Judge Boyce, did you have that case presented to you?
If you did not I would like you to look at it; if it is here, I would
like to have you examine it. I wish you would mark that paragraph
that is in question here, Mr. Adcock.
Mr. ADCoCK. I will give Judge Boyce the volume containing that
C2S6.
Mr. BEHAN. I think Judge Barrett and the chairman discussed
pro and con—
Mr. BoxOE (interposing). Would it not be better that I give my
attention to the argument now, and take this other matter up be-
tween now and next week.
The CHAIRMAN. That would be better, no doubt. (`
Mr. BEHAN. We are very glad to leave a discussion on that de-
CISIOIl.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan. g
Mr. MoRGAN. What is there of record or is the record showing
what the diversion was at Chicago at the time the treaty was nego-
tiated between the United States and Great Britain?
Mr. BEHAN. Those figures I think are in the record, and if they
are not in as part of the Hull case
The CHAIRMAN. (interposing). They are in the record several
times. My recollection is that the amount diverted at that time was
about 3,400 cubic feet per second.
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, no; oh, no; it was left at 10,000 cubic feet.
The CHAIRMAN. It was left at 5,000 cubic feet.
Mr. BEHAN. Regardless of that, Congressman, I simply ask you
to keep an open mind, because as part of my discussion I believe
that from the records, and not only the American records but out
of the mouths of the Canadian commissioners who furnished to
Secretary Root and Ambassador Bryce the data upon which they
worked in framing that treaty, I think I am going to speedily and
readily demonstrate to this committee that what the treaty had in
mind and intended to cover, and what the waterways commission
had in mind and was covering, was not the diversion that was
actually occurring at that time but was what were our rights under
our law and what would be our requirements when our work which
was then under way was fully completed. I think we will be able
to establish that to your satisfaction, Congressman, that we have the
right to 10,000 cubic feet per second regardless of what we were
actually taking.
Mr. MoRGAN. That is what I wanted—what was the diversion at
that time, the known diversion?
The CHAIRMAN. I think it was 3,400 cubic feet. Is not that true,
Mr. Adcock?
1248 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. ADCOCK. No; it was something over 2,000 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, will you look that up? 4. • .
Mr. ADCOCK. We have the actual flow as computed. We had this
situation in 1907. The power plant was installed, and there was a
certain amount of water went through the waterwheels for 1908,
1909, and 1910. They were not calibrated and the amount of the
flow was not determined until some time after that. So in the
records of the sanitary district there appeared only the amount of
water that passed over the bear trap dam, which had been calibrated
and measured and worked out.
The CHAIRMAN. How much was that?
Mr. ADCOCK. That is the amount that is shown there.
The CHAIRMAN. How much?
Mr. ADCOCK. About 3,400 feet. r
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is the state of the evidence up to this
point. -
Mr. MORGAN. That is what I wanted to get at.
Mr. ADCOCK. That was purely a mistake and given out inad-
vertently, º it was not until 1912 that the actual amount of water
that passed, through the water wheels was determined, and the flow
was corrected for those years, because it is perfectly obvious—you
look at 1907.
The CHAIRMAN. We won’t have any question about correcting
any mistake, but I was quite sure that the record up to the present
time was 3,400 cubic feet per second.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is true so far as this committee is concerned.
We will put on the engineer who made the calculations in 1912 of
the flow through the waterway.
Mr. BEHAN. And Colonel Warren calls attention in his report to
the fact that those figures are understated. That will be brought
Out.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to see it.
Mr. BEHAN. Now, at the time we made our application to Secre-
tary, Stimson, in February, 1912, after our expensive work of
straightening and widening and deepening the Chicago River was
practically completed, and the reason for the reduction to 4,167
cubic feet per second had been obviated, we made this application,
and here is the real important portion of it. We have not with us
the complete application, but I happened last night in thinking
over the chairman's questions to remember that there was this
portion of it in this volume of the Supreme Court Records. Here
is the position we took, and which we think shows on the face that
our position was not at all inconsistent with what had gone before—
was not irreconcilable with our claimed rights under the treaty, Or,
rather, the rights which we claimed accrued to the United States
under the treaty:
While we are entitled to the use of the waters of Lake Michigan as a matter
of right, we also believe that we are entitled to this permit from the Secretary
of War in order that there may be evidence that the spirit of harmony and
conciliation which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments stand-
ing in the relation which that of the Nation and the States bear to each other;
as expressed by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (9
Wheaton, p. 1), and also to make manifest that which was referred to by
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1249
Mr. Justice Johnson in the same case, as that frank and splendid cooperation
for the general good which should always take place when there is a seeming
blending of the power of the two governments and an apparent conflict.
Now, of course, the chairman does not take the position that the
attitude, or position of the sanitary district was inconsistent or
irreconcilable.
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. BEHAN. But, as I understand it, you have asked me in my dis-
Cretion to explain away the inconsistency of the attitude of Secretary
of War Stimson.
The CHAIRMAN. What I have said is this: I can not understand
if the Government secured 10,000 cubic feet per second for you in
the treaty, why they should deny it to you in 1912, and so far as I
have been able to find in the opinion of Secretary Stimson—and I
am reading it very carefully again for that purpose—I do not
think that the treaty question was even urged before him. At any
rate, it is not referred to so far as I have been able to ascertain
thus far in his opinion.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, of course I can only speak from the records.
Neither Judge Barrett nor I was in the matter at that time. I do
know, however, that the Canadian Government and the Canadian
power interests appeared before Secretary Stimson in full force.
Now, just to what extent the matter was presented to Secretary Stim-
son from our standpoint I am frank to say I can not tell you. But
regardless of that, Secretary Stimson, I think, in his opinion, or in
his letter, takes the position that he is purely and only an adminis-
trative officer, and I do not think he was called upon to dispose of
our application upon the ground that we were or were not entitled
to it under that treaty. -
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me clear that if you were entitled to
10,000 cubic feet per second and applied for it that it was his duty
to grant it to you.
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will agree with you in that. You
and I not being in the War Department, I will agree with you; but
I assume that the War Department and its officials feel that they
must hew to the line. Outsiders—you and I and members of this
committee—I believe would feel that if the sanitary district was en-
titled º that 10,000 cubic feet diversion by the treaty it should be
ranted it. *
g The CHAIRMAN. My observation has always been that the War
Department seeks very carefully to observe any law, whether it be
by treaty or by statute, and they go into the minutest details in con-
sidering whether they have the authority or lack it.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, I will agree with you, and that is one of the
reasons for the troubles of the sanitary district—because the War
Department and its board of engineers, who are trained in the science
and skill of engineering and not in that of law, and the construc-
tion of laws and treaties, have too frequently attempted to cross the
line and infringe upon the rights of the State Department or the
Department of Justice, and indulge in giving, gratuitously, opinions
on legal questions which were not covered by the proper performance
of their duties.
91739—24—PT 2—64
1250 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. But Secretary Stimson is one of the most able
and prominent lawyers in the country.
Mr. BEHAN. My remark was not with reference to him person-
ally; it was with reference to a report on the pending Madden bill
by the War Department.
The CHAIRMAN. I was referring to Secretary Stimson. He is a
partner of Elihu Root. -
Mr. BEHAN. May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad to have you.
Mr. BEHAN. Is it your position that the decision of Secretary
Stimson settled the question as to the rights of this Government
under that treaty?
The CHAIRMAN. I would say that I would be inclined to pay a very
high respect and regard to the opinion of Secretary Stimson for sev-
eral reasons. First, he is a very experienced and eminent lawyer;
Secondly, he was a successor of Elihu Root and Secretary Taft, and
as Secretary of War he quotes the opinion of Secretary Taft in his
Opinion. w
Mr. BEHAN. But he does not quote the opinion of Secretary Root
to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations when it was consid-
ering this treaty. -
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have not that before me, but he denied
your application, and denied it upon the ground that to grant it
would be to injure navigation, and that the matter should be pre-
sented to Congress?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. Secretary Alger had taken the same position,
and neither one of them referred it to Congress, and yet Mr. Stim-
son, notwithstanding his great legal ability, was not consistent. I
will demonstrate that to you. He took the position in denying our
application that he was denying it because that diversion at Chicago
tended to lower the lake levels and injure navigation, and yet the
War Department up to the time of the passage of the water power
act continued to grant permits for diversion of water at Niagara
Falls in the face of a lowering of levels due to those diversions.
Mr. MoRGAN. Was that during the period of the question of your
permit?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes, sir.
General BIxBY. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
General BIxBY. I was Chief of Engineers at the time the treaty
was under discussion, at the time the treaty went through. The law
officer of the Chief of Engineers, Mr. Koonce, was present before
the committee that was drawing up the treaty. He was present at
all of the meetings. He assisted in the discussions whenever called
upon. He listened to all that was done. After the treaty went
through he informed the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of
War on such legal points as the Secretary of War asked about.
Mr. Koonce was also in close touch with Mr. Tawney all the time,
who was instrumental in getting through the treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Tawney?
General BIxBY. Yes; and a Congressman who was afterwards the
chairman of the International Joint Commission. They were in
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1251
close touch, and they discussed all these points of law, as to what the
treaty meant, during the time that it was under discussion and at
the time it was passed. And after it was passed the Secretary of
War always referred to me many points in regard to the treaty, as
Chief of Engineers, and at times asked my opinion as to the points
that were, so to speak, legal, as to what I understood by the treaty,
and then he told me what he understood by the treaty. *
The CHAIRMAN. And you always had the advice of Judge Koonce?
General BIxBY. Yes; in every case, and I referred matters to him,
because he was present when the treaty was being drawn, and we
then had the treaty as it was after the treaty was drawn.
Mr. BEHAN. Let me interrupt.
General BIxBY. One minute.
Mr. BEHAN. Make it short. -
General BIxBY. I will make it short. The Chief of Engineers never
gave any opinions on legal points except when requested to do so
by the Secretary of War.
Mr. BEHAN. Did Secretary Stimson request an opinion of Mr.
Koonce?
General BIxBY. He requested an opinion of me as Chief of Engi-
neers, and I requested the opinion and advice of Mr. Koonce, and on
what Mr. Koonce said and what I then thought, I advised the Sec-
retary, and the Secretary then decided for himself as to what was
the action that the War Department must take.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. MoRGAN. I would like to ask the general a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan.
Mr. MoRGAN. You were Chief of Engineers at the time the treaty
was negotiated?
General Bixby. I think I was; I was Chief of Engineers from
1910 to 1913.
Mr. MoRGAN. Do you happen to know what the diversion was
at Chicago at the time the treaty was entered into ?
General BIxBY. I do not know it exactly. That question did not
come up before me. But when any legal opinion came up I had
the assistance of my predecessor, and the original treaty discussions
were during the time of my predecessor.
Mr. SweeT. Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Sweet.
Mr. SweFT. I would like to make one little comment here. You
had recognized, Mr. Chairman, the former Chief of Engineers,
General Bixby, and the witness saw fit to interrupt him, and General
Bixby asked that he be allowed to conclude his statement, and I
think the remark on the part of the witness to “make it short ’’
was entirely uncalled for. -
Mr. BEHAN. I am sorry the Congressman misunderstood what I
meant. The Congressman must understand that our time is limited,
and we have been proceeding under a rule laid down by the com-
mittee that the witness may proceed without interruption until he
has concluded. The chairman has followed that ruling
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would not have recognized General
Bixby except with the consent of Mr. Behan.
1252 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. |
Mr. BEHAN. Have you finished your questions, Congressman?
Mr. HULL. There is one question that I would like to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hull.
Mr. HULL. The chairman has asked a question about the 10,000
cubic feet per second, whether you should not have been entitled to
the whole 10,000 cubic second-feet, but you were only receiving 4,167
cubic second-feet. The real truth of the matter is that at the time
you made the request you did not need the whole 10,000 cubic feet
per second. Is not that true?
Mr. BEHAN. What request are you referring to?
Mr. HULL. For water. Did you need the 10,000 cubic feet per
second 2 -
The CHAIRMAN. In 1912. *:
Mr. HULL. At that time? -
Mr. BEHAN. It was our right, we felt, and we needed it. The
channel was completed and the work of the Chicago River was
completed, and we felt we were entitled to the unlimited flow we
contended had been granted by Secretary Alger.
Mr. HULL. But previous to that time you had 4,167 cubic feet, and
then it went up to 6,000 cubic feet per second, did it not, or some-
thing like that?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes; there were a couple of contemporary changes,
from 4,167 cubic feet for a few months during the closed season of
navigation; but that only lasted for a few months, and my recollec-
tion is from April 1, 1904, up to the time of the application to Secre-
tary Stimson in February, 1912, there had been no application on
our part to the War Department for any increase, because we were
at that time working upon the widening and deepening of the Chi-
cago River.
Mr. HULL. That is what I meant.
Mr. BEHAN. So we made our application to Secretary Stimson
when we felt we were in position to demonstrate to him that the need
for the reduction to 4,167 cubic feet had been obviated.
Now, the only thing that I can find in Secretary Stimson's opinion
or letter that has a bearing on the treaty is this, the fourth conclusion
at the end of the letter:
Titat the provisions of the Canadian treaty for a settlement by a joint Com-
mission of questions or matters of difference between the United States and
Canada form a further reason why no administrative officer should authorize
a further diversion of Water manifestly so injurious to Canada against
C:t 11adian protest.
I do not think by that language Mr. Stimson said or intended to
hold definitely that the United States was not entitled to dispose
of that diversion at Chicago.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been absent, and I would like
to have cleared up one thing in my mind, although it may be in the
record. I would like to know the date when it became officially
known to the officers of the United States, as well as those of Canada,
as to the amount of diversion at Chicago at the time the treaty was
entered into.
Mr. BEHAN. I can not personally answer that.
The CHAIRMAN. I can answer that.
Mr. BEHAN. If it is not in the record I will supply it.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1253
The CHAIRMAN. It is in the record. Judge Adcock and I agree
about it.
Mr. BEHAN. We have not put in our evidence on that.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you have, I think, you have put in Soine
evidence. There is this evidence, that it was discussed by the Inter-
national Joint Commission, which Mr. Adcock certainly remembers,
a couple of years in advance of the treaty. It does not appear from
their report just how much was being diverted at that time.
Mr. BEHAN. I think I can straighten you out on that. In Solne
other report of the International Waterways Commission, which I
will discuss next week, it does appear that they reported that the
actual diversions then were about the amount that the Secretary
of War had granted a permit for 4,167 cubic feet. &
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan, do you get that? Mr. Behan says
that in some of the reports of the International Joint Commission
it would appear that the 4,167 cubic feet which has been permitted
was about the amount diverted.
Mr. BEHAN. No ; I said it would appear from some of the reports
of the International Waterways Commission, which I will discuss
next week, that the commission discussed the diversion as being the
figure permitted by the Secretary of War, namely 4,167 cubic feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think we agree. It is my understanding
that the chairman of the two commissions have agreed that several
of these reports that have been published as reports of the joint
commission are not reports of the joint commission at all.
Mr. BEHAN. I don’t understand that.
The CHAIRMAN. I have the correspondence sent to me to that
effect, and I will furnish it to you.
Mr. BEHAN. Is that an opinion of an individual member of the
commission?
The CHAIRMAN. No; it is the opinion of the chairmen of the two
commissions that they have united in a statement to that effect
and agree that certain documents which were published as official
documents of the commission were not in fact such. -
Mr. BEHAN. You mean at a subsequent date to the presentation
of their reports to their respective Governments these two officials
are attempting to deny and change these official publications? y
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they were attempting to deny or
change them, but they are trying to get before the public that cer-
tain papers have been published through oversight as documents of
the joint commission which were not such. That has been furnished
to me as data. I have not examined the papers as yet myself, but
I thought you would like to consider them during the recess and
find out what there is to it.
Mr. BEHAN. We will, and we thank you; but so that my position
in the beginning of this discussion on the treaty is clear, we, of
course, are relying upon the official reports of these joint and sep-
arate commissions which, we are advised by the Dominion Parlia-
ment, are official. Now, if these reports and the reports promulgated
by our own Government are not correct, of course, we have stepped
off on the wrong foot, and we ought to be set right. We will most
strenuously object and protest to any attempt on the part of any
member of either commission to vary or attempt to vary or change
any official report made to his Government.
1254 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know how far it goes, but I will give
you all the information I have. I have not as yet, as I say, gone
sufficiently into it to find out what are referred to.
Mr. BEHAN. Because, Mr. Chairman, to add a word on that, the
very reports upon which our argument is predicated are the reports
which were presented to the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions by the State Department when that committee was considering
whether or not this treaty would be ratified, so that if we have
stepped off on the wrong foot then the Senate committee also stepped
off on the wrong foot; but we will be very glad to look at these
communications.
And, now, I am frank to say, I do not know where I was before
we started the deluge of conversation. Speaking of deluges and
floods—if you will permit a slight digression—Judge Barrett and
I took a drive last night to see the rising waters of the Potomac
River, and we were very much interested in finding that the propa-
ganda bureau of the Dominion, Government had nothing published
in the morning papers charging that flood to the diversion at
Chicago. s
But these interferences and these protests and objections to what
we do in Chicago have been constant—sometimes to the point of
absurdity—from the Canadian Government. . I happen to be gen-
eral counsel of the South Park Commission in Chicago. It is the
park commission which operates the greater part of our boulevard
system and our wonderful southside parks; it is the commission
that built our Jackson Park and boulevards and are spending a
hundred million dollars in the improvement of that lake front, in-
cluding the wonderful harbor district. . .
In 1915, when the South Park Commission undertook to drive
some pilings out on the shore line fronting one of its lake-front
parks, for the purpose of filling in with sand back of those pilings,
the British ambassador sent a communication of protest to our
State Department, and our work was help up for a short while until
the Canadian Government was set right on it. Now, that is just a
little incident. Another incident of the inconsistency of the Cana-
dians on this treaty. They ought to be made once and for all to
take either one horn or the other of the cow and not take inconsist-
ent positions. This treaty, I think the chairman will agree, pro-
vides
The CHAIRMAN. Of course we must remember that we have had
100 years of peace with the country on the north, which is a wonder-
ful thing, and we are going to celebrate it at Buffalo by the erection
of a bridge.
Mr. BEHAN. I understand that, and appreciate it, and I believe
in living in peace with my neighbors; but I believe that as an indi-
vidual and as a nation, our rights are our rights, and I think that
when we are too quiet and too sauve, and too diplomatic Sometimes
our rights are interfered with.
The CHAIRMAN. We have never had a greater Secretary of State
than Hughes, and I think he will take care of our interests ade-
quately and properly. ge
Mr. BEHAN. Undoubtedly; but we can have such a thing as too
much pacificism.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1255
There is one provision of the treaty to the effect that remedial
Works shall not be built on either side of the line, or on both sides
of the line, without the matter being presented to and receiving
the approval of the International Joint Commission. Now, several
years ago, down in your State, Mr. Chairman, there was an appli-
cation presented to the International Joint Commission. That
was in 1908. That was for the approval of a submerged weir in
the South channel of the St. Lawrence River near Massena, N. Y.
This application was made in 1918. Representatives of the United
States and Canada appeared before the commission at Atlantic
City on their various hearings. Then here is the important thing.
The Canadian Government objected, first, on the ground that this
construction by private interests would injure the later develop-
ment by the two Governments of the entire St. Lawrence system,
and then this second, and to my mind absurd and inconsistent
objection, which the commission apparently, from this report, never
disposed of
The CHAIRMAN. The first one is in accordance with the general
power act and in accordance with the policy of this committee.
We believed that there should be constructive development of the
stream
Mr. BEHAN. We have no quarrel with them, but here is the
second one:
Objection was also filed by the Government of Canada on the
ground that the commission was without jurisdiction in the matter
because of a provision in the Webster-Ashburton treaty that these
waters should be equally open to the ships and boats of both parties,
and that this provision precludes the construction of such a work.
Now, the provision in the boundary-waters treaty giving jurisdic-
tion on that very subject to the International Joint Commission
abrogates or is the limitation upon the Ashburton treaty, but the
United States Government responded to this objection.
. The United States Government contended that this provision in
the Webster-Ashburton treaty had been superseded by the Water-
ways treaty of January 11, 1909, which placed all such questions
within the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission, and
I think the lawyers on this committee will agree with the United
States Government that that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. That is my understanding of article 8 of the
treatW.
: BEHAN. Absolutely. And that shows you that we in Chicago
are not the only ones that are annoyed and delayed by these petty
objections from the Canadian Government; you folks in New York
have had a sample of it. So in your consideration of what this
treaty meant you should consider the attitude of the Canadian
Government on these matters. • Q
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to dispose of just one other little
incidental matter, and then I am going to crave the indulgence of
the committee to let me resume the discussion of these treaty provi-
sions next Wednesday, because, as I said, I do not want to chop off
and then have to begin again. e tº a s tº
just one further word about the evils of permitting men not
trained in law, but trained in engineering or other Sciences, to step
1256 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
outside of their proper functions and attempt to give legal opinions,
and particularly attempt to construe treaties.
Personally I have had an acquaintance with General Beach for
many, many years, and I think he knows his business from the engi-
neering standpoint about as well as any man who ever occupied that
Fº He is a credit to the institution from which he graduated;
e has been a credit to the United States Army; but in the opinion
of the Secretary of War and the chairman—and I am assuming that
the Secretary of War is a busy individual, that it is not possible for
him to personally study every routine matter that comes into that
department and dictate every letter that he signs—
The CHAIRMAN. He is quite a wonderful man—Secretary Weeks.
Mr. BEHAN. He is a big, able man; but even he would break
down if he undertook to personally know about every matter that
comes under his direction in the office, and I assume that naturally
he must rely on his subordinates, in whom he has confidence.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you the opinion here?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. In the opinion of the chairman on this bill, as
in the opinion of the Secretary of War, and on the Michaelson bill
of two years ago, here is the concluding paragraph of that—and
I am assuming that in the Ordinary manner in which the depart-
ments are handled that this was prepared by some one in the de-
partment and it was signed by the Secretary of War, believing it
was all right.
The CHAIRMAN. Probably collaborated by Judge Koonce and
General Beach?
Mr. BEHAN. Well, Judge Koonce is a fine man, too. I happen to
have met Captain Koonce—if that is his title; anyway, he is in the
Army. I think he is in the Judge Advocate's department and is
detailed to the Engineer Bureau, and I do not believe that Captain
Roonce would claim that he had been trained in the construction of
treaties.
The CHAIRMAN. One of the best lawyers in the United States is
General Crowder.
Mr. BEHAN. But General Crowder is not Captain Koonce. Here
is the concluding paragraph of this letter:
As a further matter for your consideration I may point out that the com-
pensatory work provided for in this bill could not be constructed without the
consent of the Canadian Government.
Now, on that we take issue. We will argue that as long as we can
build our regulating or compensating works on American soil and
do not increase or raise the natural levels of the stream, we do not
have to ask Canada or Great Britain or the Emperor of Japan, or
any person, except the officials of our own Government, for permis-
sion to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought down there at Atlantic City our com-
missioners contended that it was subject to article 8, and that they
succeeded?
Mr. BEHAN. Do you mean in the Massena case?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BEHAN. They did not decide that; but the point was that
those works were to be built on land Canadian and American, and
we think we will be able to demonstrate to you that these works
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1257
aſh lso lº-- . 1 4-l il 2, 4: 4. TT., e º *
can be built on the soil of the United States. We will concede if we
l
have to go into Canada to build any part of these works that in that
case perhaps the matter would have to be referred to the Inter-
national Joint Commission; but I do not want to discuss that phase
of the treaty. Now, then, it goes on
The CHAIRMAN. You will discuss that later 2
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. In those few words the Secretary of War
steps aside in an attempt to give a legal construction to that treaty,
and we say that is wrong. The treaty is too solemn a document to
be lightly treated and construed. If it is in dispute—and there is
serious dispute—it ought to be construed by the State Department,
and I am glad to hear from Mr. Morgan that the State Department
is working on that, and I hope the State Department will give a full
and complete opinion on that. It will be helpful, and it ought
to largely settle the issue.
But this report goes on, “It is not established that this consent
would be granted.” - -
Now, I would be very much surprised, as I believe you would be,
if you believed that before you could go ahead and pass this legisla-
tion the burden would be placed on the sanitary district to show
beyond a reasonable doubt some action that the Canadian Govern-
ment might or might not take in the future. Our position is that
these things can be built on American soil, and that being the case,
we do not require the consent of Canada or the joint commission.
We further say that perhaps the real way to present the bill
would be for this Congress to prepare the bill that they think fits:
the situation, and then if it develops that the legislation can not
be carried out until the consent of Canada or the joint commission
has been obtained, of course the legislation would be ineffective.
But it is not proper for the War Department to infringe upon the
functions of the State Department, and it is not proper to gratui-
tously give opinions upon the construction of a treaty, nor is it
proper to be forecasting what action the Canadian Government will
take.
I am frank to say that we in Chicago would not attempt to advise
you as to what action the Canadian Government might take in the
future on some occasion, and I do not know that the War Depart-
ment is in a position to be able to give you that information, either, as
to the future; and certainly as a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, you are not
going to insist that we must first prove to the satisfaction of the
officials interested in any legislation that Canada will give its con-
sent. I do not think that you will insist on that, first, because you are
too good a lawyer, and, second, you are too much of a red-blooded
American.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose he meant by that that if legislation was
passed and his construction of the treaty was correct that then we
would have to make it conditional on that?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. I merely mention that in passing It is not that
we resent this communication, but we think it would have left a
better taste in the mouth of both the proponents and opponents of
the bill if the War Department and the Engineering Department had
confined their objections to the bill purely on objections which engi-
neers, men skilled in that science, would make, and not infringe on
1258 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the rights of lawyers, because if the War Department undertakes
to give legal opinions to this Government they may undertake to
§§ opinions to private parties, and that will seriously interfere
with us.
General BIXBY. I protest against that statement.
Mr BEHAN. I would like now, in view of the fact that you are
going to have a long session, to resume next Wednesday.
General BIXBY. I protested against that last statement. I know
positively things to the contrary. The gentleman said “if the Sec-
retary of War is to depend on the Chief of Engineers.” I know posi-
tively, because Secretary Stimson told me so, that at times in his
administration he consulted the Attorney General on points of law
as well as the Judge Advocate General on points of law, and not
merely and simply the Chief of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. HULL. This evening a matter came to my notice that aston-
ished me in reference to those cities in Indiana concerning the sewage
in the Illinois River, and in order to make a record of it I have writ-
ten a small protest that I want to go into the record that I would
like to read.
The testimony of L. A. Geupel, sanitary engineer of the State
Board of Health of Indiana, was astonishing from the fact that sev-
eral northern Indiana towns—namely, Hammond, Gary, Whiting,
and East Chicago—were dumping their sewage not only into the lake
but also in the Calumet River, and a great quantity of this sewage
is then eventually emptied into the Illinois River through the Sag
Channel. It impels me to protest before this committee against two
things: First, that any portion of the 10,000 cubic feet of water now
being diverted from the Lakes and being used for navigation and
sewage disposal purposes should be taken away from the Illinois
River until it is demonstrated that sewage-disposal plants can take
care of all sewage, and further that the Government of the United
States should pass some law to compel such cities to put in sewage-
disposal plants in order not to interfere with navigation.
R. reason for doing that is this: We have got so much coming
before this committee on just subjects as this, like the Wilson
bill yesterday, that I can see the importance of this committee taking
up not only this subject in this particular case, but all over the
country.
You can see yourself that if they allow in those four cities, which
will eventually probably be as large as a portion of Chicago, because
they join Chicago, and their trade waste now, in my judgment, is
equal to a million people, if they allow them to float their sewage
down through a channel that goes down the valley it is going to be
impossible for people in that valley to withstand that situation.
That is why I put this in. The further I go into this the clearer I
can see the necessity of making thorough investigations of that whole
thing out there, and in some way or other if we can put some legisla-
tion before the Congress of the United States that will give us
protection.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1259
Mr. MoRGAN. Do I correctly understand, then, that a great per
cent of the pollution from sewage of which the people down the
Illinois River Valley complains comes from these cities?
Mr. HULL. Yesterday evening we had a statement from the chief
engineer of the Sanitary District of Indiana, and he illustrated on
the map that Hammond, Gary, Whiting, and East Chicago, all in
Indiana, were turning their sewage into what we call the Calumet
River, and it eventually trickles down and goes into this Illinois
River. You can see what that means and what is going to happen to
the Illinois River some day unless this committee will in some way
or other provide for the prevention of that pollution.
The CHAIRMAN. This committee will adjourn now until Wednes-
day morning next at 10.30 o'clock a. m.
(Thereupon, at 12.05, the committee adjourned.)
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
Hous E OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, May 21, 1924,
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Demp-
sey (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to proceed, Mr. Behan.
STATEMENT OF MIR. LOUIS BEHAN–Resumed
Mr. BEHAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think that our little
vacation has enabled us to perhaps give the committee a surprise,
because I believe that the two or three days relaxation has enabled
us to shorten the remaining phases of our discussion here. If we
had continued last week the probabilities are that we would have
required four or five days in addition to what we will take now.
I am going to talk fast and be brief. It is not my thought, Mr.
Chairman, that in order to have a proper idea of what was intended
by this treaty in regard to the diversion at Chicago; it requires an
analysis of all of the various articles of the treaty. To my mind the
controversy, if there is a controversy, centers around some of the
language in article 2. It is necessary to determine, from the opposi-
tion side, at least, what was meant by this language of the treaty,
and I read from the language of the first paragraph of article 2:
that this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to cases ex-
pressly covered by special agreement between the parties hereto.
In other words, what was meant and what did the treaty nego-
tiators have in mind when they used the language “shall not apply
to cases already existing”? Were they referring to the Chicago
case solely as a case? Were they referring to the capacity of the
channel? Were they referring to the amount of diversion at that
time authorized or permitted by the Secretary of War—4,167 feet—
or did they have in mind some other figures?
It is our contention that that provision of the treaty means and
the treaty contemplated, and Secretary Root, representing this Gov-
ernment, had in mind and contemplated that by the case existing at
Chicago was meant the Chicago diversion up to and not exceeding
1260 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
10,000 cubic feet per second. We believe that we will be able to
demonstrate from the preliminary proceedings in the waterways
commission, by the joint reports of that body, by the separate
reports of the American commissioners and of the Canadian com-
missioners, that those men did not have in mind a diversion of
4,167 feet or 5,000 feet, but they had in mind the amount that at that
time was generally conceded and understood would be the amount
which we would require—10,000 second-feet. I think that a reading
of these reports—and it will not be necessary to read at length all
of these reports; they are very voluminous. We have reprinted the
main reports; we have also culled out the main sections of the
Various reports bearing upon the Chicago situation, and those we
will read to the committee, and at the end of the discussion we will
offer in evidence for the record a printed book—the reprints—and
that will obviate the necessity of going at any greater length into
the published reports.
The CHIRMAN. Do you think article 2 refers at all to the question
that we have here? It refers to waters on one side of the interna-
tional boundary line which would either flow across the boundary or
into the boundary waters. That is all it refers to. For instance, if
a river flowed either from the United States into Canada or from
the State of Michigan into Lake Huron, that is what it refers to.
It is restricted except to that and does not deal with anything else
whatever.
Mr. BEHAN. That may be the construction which the chairman
places upon it, but I do not agree with that construction. I con-
tend that section 2 covers the situation at Lake Michigan, and I
think that we will be able to convince this commttee that that is
the construction which the State Department places upon it and
which the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations placed upon it,
and which Mr. Root placed upon it. Let us read article 2.
The CHAIRMAN. You can read a very small part of it, and you
will get it all.
Mr. BEHAN (reading):
Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself—
The CHAIRMAN. Let us cut it just as short as we can. “Each of
the high contracting parties reserves to itself what?
Mr. BEHAN. “The exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use
and diversion, whether temporary or permanent *—
The CHAIRMAN. Of what?
Mr. BEHAN. “Of all waters on its own side of the line which in
their natural channels would flow across the boundary or into
boundary waters.”
The CHAIRMAN. That is all there is to it.
Mr. HULL. What about Lake Michigan?
The CHAIRMAN. That is not a stream that flows across the
boundary.
Mr. HULL. It flows into the waters.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a very good suggestion, and I think, per-
haps, that is correct.
Mr. BEHAN. That is the thought which the State Department had,
and that is the construction which they placed upon it.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1261
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. BEHAN. And that is my theory.
The CHAIRMAN. I am very ready to be corrected.
Mr. HULL. It seems to me clear that Lake Michigan flows into the
waters, and that is what it says.
B º CHAIRMAN. I am inclined to think that is so. Go ahead, Mr.
€18.Il.
Mr. BEHAN. Now, to my mind, to all of us on this side of the con-
troversy, we believe that that is the only section which really needs
any discussion. We believe, so that all of the committee and all of
the Members of Congress might accept our view of it, that it is
necessary to go into the preliminaries in order to determine what was
meant by that clause which I read “cases already existing.”
Before I go into that, let me refer to the preamble. It is well to
consider the motives, the things which it was contemplated would be
disposed of by the treaty. The preamble recites that the Govern-
ments of Great Britain and the United States, “to prevent disputes
regarding the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions
which are now pending between the United States and the Dominion
of Canada involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either,”
etc., “join in this treaty.”
There was a controversy or a dispute existing at the time that this
treaty was drafted and negotiated between the United States or in-
terests in the United States and Canada or Canadian interests as to
this diversion at Chicago and its effect upon lake levels. One of
the things which was called to the attention of the waterways com-
mission at the time of their appointment was to make a report after
an investigation upon the lake levels, and the effect of diversions
upon lake levels, and a short study of the meetings of the commis-
sion at various places will indicate and demonstrate that there was a
controversy or a dispute existing all during the life of the water-
ways commission relative to the diversion at Chicago and to its
effect upon lake levels.
This idea of the boundary waters treaty or of the boundary waters
commission did not originate in the United States. It was originally
a Canadian idea. Away back in 1894, at an irrigation congress held
in Albuquerque, N. Mex., one of the Canadian delegates to the con-
vention introduced a resolution which embodied the idea, which later
culminated in the appointment of the International Joint Com-
mission.
At the same irrigation congress at a later session in the following
year at Denver the resolution was reintroduced by a Canadian dele-
gate. In 1895 Canada, was interested in the diversion or contem-
plated diversion at Chicago, interested to the extent that the com-
missioner or minister of marine and fisheries sent out to Chicago
Mr. O’Hanley, a civil engineer of considerable note, to investigate
and make a thorough study of the canal situation, what was planned
and what was contemplated, and particularly what the effect of the
opening of that canal would have upon lake levels. Mr. O’Hanley
made his report, and it is a very extended document, filled with a
good bit of technical information, and I am not going to tire the
committee by reading any portion of it, because I do not believe that
1262 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
is necessary. We will, however, offer it for the record; but it
demonstrates that Mr. O'Hanley at the direction of his Government
made a careful, close, exacting study of this situation.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What year was that?
Mr. BEHAN. 1895 he was requested to make this report, and he
made his report in 1896. Mr. O’Hanley expresses his thanks in
the concluding portion of his report to the officials of the sanitary
district, to its engineers, for the data and the information and the
help they gave him; to the Engineering Corps of the United States,
and particularly to General Poe, who had been chairman or was at
that time chairman of the commission which made one of the valuable
reports having a bearing upon the question of the Sanitary canaſ
and the effect of its diversion. He undertook to procure for his
Government a copy of the Poe report, but at that time the Poe
report had not been published. Through the courtesy of the Chief
of Engineers, General Craighill, he was furnished with a complete
reprint of the Poe report, not as issued by the Government but as
printed in the Engineering News, by the consent of the United States
Government.
Mr. O’Hanley reported all of these things to his Government and
gave his opinion as to the effect of the diversion upon lake levels,
substantially arriving at this conclusion, that there would be an
adverse effect upon lake levels by the diversion of 10,000 to 14,000
feet out of Lake Michigan by the sanitary district. At that time, of
course, the channel had not been opened—the work was then in
progress—and the channel was not opened until five years later, but
he agreed in toto with the conclusions reached by General Poe that
there would be a diversion of from 4% to 6% inches.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You mean a lowering?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. That shows that there was a controversy or a
dispute at least existing or about to exist in the minds of the Cana-
dian Government, and therefore we must consider that in arriving
at this figure and in negotiating it, it was the sincere, honest, earnest
intention of both of the Governments to for once and forever end
the disputes then existing as to this diversion and as to other things,
and to lay out a plan which would obviate or overcome disputes
which might arise in the future, and that latter thought was cov-
ered by the recommendations in the waterways report and by the
inclusion in the treaty of a provision for the appointment of the
International Joint Commission, which since its organization has
undertaken to settle disputes arising since the date of the treaty.
In 1896, about the time or shortly after the O’Hanley report was
made, the Canadian Government, through the British Embassy,
sought the appointment of an international commission to adjudicate
conflicting rights. Nothing was done by the State Department, or
by this Government until in 1902 the rivers and harbors act, section
4. provided that the President of the United States should be au-
thorized to request of Great Britain the appointment of three com;
missioners for each Government, and in 1905 the International
Waterways Commission was created. Three were appointed from
this Government and three to represent the Canadian Government.
The directions to those commissioners are lengthy, but one or two
paragraphs will show that this diversion or the diversions upon the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1263
Lakes were among the specific things given to these commissioners
to investigate and report upon, and I read just briefly from the first
paragraphs of the report of the Canadian members of the Interna-
tional Waterways Commission, dated Ottawa, December 24, 1905. It
first recites Section 4 of the rivers and harbors act under which the
commissioners were finally appointed, and it refers to the organiza-
tion of the Canadian section, the United States section, it refers to
the meeting of the Canadian section at Ottawa, and then refers to a
letter sent to each commissioner and to the secretary of the commis-
sion, by the honorable the Secretary of State for Canada, dated Janu-
ary 16, 1905, from which the following is an extract: ºf
Among the Subjects that may come up for consideration before this commis-
SiOn are, first, the proposed diversion of the Minnesota Canal & Power Co.;
second, the diversion in the St. Marys River—
Some specific diversions.
third, inquiry into the effect of the lake levels of Lakes Huron and Erie by the
COnstruction of the Chicago Drainage Canal.
And many other things, so that that was one of the things that
was especially pointed out to these commissioners; and the same
directions, in substance, were given to the American commissioners
by the Secretary of State.
Mr. HULL. Who was that letter by ? *
Mr. BEHAN. It was from the Secretary of State of Canada to the
Canadian members. -
Mr. HULL. Is his name there?
Mr. BEHAN. I can find it for you.
Mr. HULL. Never mind; it is not important.
Mr. BEHAN. I will get that for you in a moment. But substan-
tially the same directions, or the same directions in substantially
the same language, were given to each of the American commissioners
by the Secretary of State of this Government. tº
In 1905 this question was discussed at one of the early meetings
of the commission. On September 16, 1905, at a meeting held at
Hamilton, a public meeting, Colonel Ernst, who was then the chair-
man of the American section, had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, the Chicago Drainage Canal has never been entirely Com-
pleted. It was designed to take up eventually a volume of 10,000 cubic feet
a second. Ten thousand cubic feet a second is less than 5 per cent Of the
flow over Niagara Falls, which is about 220,000 cubic feet per second. So it
does not bear a very important relation to the total volume of water coming
down here. But even of that the Chicago Drainage Canal takes now less than
half. It taps the Chicago River. Perhaps you know the Chicago River is the
interior harbor at Chicago. It is a narrow, obstructed stream which is not
capable of carrying a large volume of water ; and the War Department, in its
powers of conservancy, to protect the navigation in that river has limited the
volume of water which can be taken through it into the Chicago Drainage Canal
to 250,000 cubic feet a minute, which is about 4,166 cubic feet a second. The
drainage canal has not been fully at work and the effect upon the Lakes is
inappreciable; it can not be detected except by very prolonged measurements.
I believe that answers the question as to what the Chicago Drainage Canal
has done. If the plans are carried out, it will eventually take out 10,000 cubic
feet a Second.
The CHAIRMAN. That was an answer, then, I take it, to some ques-
tion which was propounded to him?
1264 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BEHAN. I have not been able to find that, Mr. Chairman, in a
study of the preliminaries, but on the next P. of that report—
and this appears on page 133 of the compiled reports of the Inter-
national Waterways Commission—and on page 134 Mr. Coste, one
of the Canadian members—and my recollection is that he was secre-
tary of the Canadian commission—had this to say:
I might supplement the remarks of Colonel Ernst by saying that I have here
the figures given by General Poe of the probable effect of the drainage canal
•on the water of these lakes when the canal is in full Operation—that is, taking
10,000 cubic feet per second, which they are authorized to take. It would lower
Lake Huron 0.521 foot; St. Clair, 0.455 foot; Lake Erie, 0.379 foot. And then
the action ceases, and there is no appreciable effect on Lake Ontario. The time
that this movement will take is about five years. After they have taken the
full supply of water it will take five years for that loss in height to take place ;
then the lakes will again be in equilibrium and no further lowering Willl take
place. I have looked over this report very carefully, and I think the conclu-
isions reached by General Poe are reasonable and perfectly clear.
Now, I read that merely to show that this was one of the topics of
discussion from the very outset of the International Waterways
Commission; that you will find as you roam through this volume and
through their reports that that was mentioned in almost all of their
reportS.
§: BoycE. Is that a report on what happened before, at the time,
or after the treaty?
Mr. BEHAN. The report from the very beginning.
The CHAIRMAN. But what you just read
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). This was in the first few months of the
commission’s existence in 1905.
Mr. HULL. The treaty was in 1910.
Mr. Boy CE. Prior to the treaty?
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, yes; several years prior to the treaty. In August,
1905, a subcommittee of the International Waterways Commission
visited Chicago for the purpose of examining, investigating, inspect-
ing, and reporting upon the Chicago Drainage Canal and its work.
As a matter of fact, the International Waterways Commission
created several subcommittees, and each subcommittee was given the
work of examining and making an initial report upon each of the
various things outlined in the directions from the State Department.
Mr. BoycE. Who composed it, if not too many—the International
Waterways Commission?
The CHAIRMAN. Three on each side. g
Mr. BoxcE. That is three on the Canadian side and three on the
American side?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BoycE. That is enough to get that into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. And some colonel was chairman of the com-
mission.
Mr. BEHAN. Colonel Ernst, a retired brigadier general of the
United States Army. After I have passed these preliminaries I
will step along faster, gentlemen. I appreciate that you have
listened very patiently to me.
This subcommittee reports as follows:
The members of the subcommittee left St. Paul on Wednesday evening
August 23, for Chicago, in view of making a visit to the Chicago Drainage
Canal, and a preliminary investigation on a question submitted to the Com-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1265.
mission at its meetings of June 14 and 15 in Toronto, viz, “the effect of the
diversion by the Chicago Drainage Canal of 10,000 cubic feet per second on
the levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario and on the River St.
Lawrence.” r
Mr. BOYCE. That was a subcommittee of what committee?
Mr. BEHAN. Of the International Waterways Commission. They
then spent some time in reporting on the harbor at Chicago, and
then section 20 of the report of the subcommittee has to do solely
lº the Chicago Drainage Canal, and I will read only portions
of it.
One of the interesting features of Chicago is the drainage canal, which
unites the Thicago River and the Mississippi River system and saves the
lake from being polluted by the drainage of Chicago’s sewerage system. This.
canal has already cost $34,000,000 and probably another sum of $30,000,000.
Will be required to complete it.
Then they give the dimensions of the canal, which I will not
read.
This canal is not yet entirely completed. It was designed to take up
eventually a volume of 10,000 cubic feet per second, about 5 per cent Of the
flow over Niagara Falls, which is about 222,400 cubic feet per second. The
Chicago Drainage Canal, when completed, will, according to a Calculation
furnished by Mr. Louis Coste, the engineer of the Canadian section of Lake
commission, lower the level of Lake Huron by 6 inches and the level of Lake
Erie by 4% inches.
The diversion from waters of Lake Michigan by the drainage canal had
its origin in the sanitary needs of the city of Chicago.
Then they go into the early history of Chicago, the early history
of our water and drainage supply, and into the early history of the
organization of the Chicago Drainage Canal, all of which is elabo-
rated upon in the final special report of that entire joint commission
upon our canal, which we have reprinted so that it is unnecessary to
read what the subcommittee says about it.
The canal was not built only for sanitary purposes. It was evidently pro-
posed in connection with it to construct a navigable waterway from Chicago by
way of the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the work per-
formed from 1892 and 1904 by the sanitary district constitutes nearly two-
thirds of the entire cost of creating a channel from Chicago to Mississippi which
would be navigable for the largest boats which will be able to ply between St.
Louis and New Orleans after the present plans for the improvement of the
Mississippi will have been completed.
And again on page 265 of these compiled reports:
This important question, in view of the effect that the canal may have upon
the levels of the Lakes, has occupied the attention of the Canadian Government
from time to time.
And that about concludes what the subcommittee has to say on
the matter.
Now, from time to time thereafter reports were made by the sub-
sections of this commission, by the American members to the Ameri-
can Department of State, and by it officially transmitted to Con-
gress, by the Canadian members to the proper official of the Dominion
Government and by him transmitted to the Canadian Parliament; and
then they presented joint reports, and there was not one of the re-
ports which is not unanimous, and that is true of the joint report of
the two commissions as well as the two separate reports to the two.
separate sections. They were unanimous in all of their conclusions.
1266 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
In 1906, March 19, pursuant to a joint resolution of Congress, the
American or United States section of the waterways commission
made a report to Congress. That appears beginning on page 440 of
these compiled reports of the International Waterways Commission.
I will read only the important extracts from that, the entire report
being in the reprint.
Mr. BOYCE. Before you proceed, may I inquire, is it your conten-
tion, based upon the readings which you have just made, that before
and at the time of the entrance into the treaty by the British Govern-
ment and the Canadian Government and the United States, that the
British Government and the Canadian Government not only had
knowledge of the diversion at Chicago, but made the treaty with that
fact in view 2
Mr. BEHAN. That is our position exactly. And, furthermore, that
all through the reports—and they contend that the reports were used
in and about the final conclusion of the treaty by Secretary of State
Root and Ambassador Bryce; we contend that the 10,000 as a maxi-
mum was recommended again and again, and that is the amount
which they had in mind to be covered by the language “cases already
existing.”
On March 19, 1906, pursuant to the resolution of March 15, 1906,
the American members of the International Waterways Commission
made a report entitled “Report on preservation of Niagara Falls.”
This report was submitted to the Senate and House of Representa-
tives by the President of the United States on March 27, 1906, and the
President's communication submitting said report recommends the
enactment into law of the suggestions of the American members of the
International Waterways Commission for the preservation of Ni-
agara Falls, without waiting for the negotiation of a treaty.
The commission in that report found what the existing waters
were at Niagara Falls on the American side and also on the Canadian
site of the boundary. It found a total diversion on the Canadian
side for power purposes to be 36,000 cubic second-feet, and the total
diversion on the American side 28,500 cubic second-feet, which in-
cluded the diversion by or for the city of Chicago, or the Chicago
Drainage Canal. Its recommendation was in this language:
We relied upon these reports And also in that report they had this
to say:
That legislation be enacted which shall contain the following provisions, viz:
(a) The glory of Niagara Falls lies in the volume of its water rather than
in its height, or in the Surrounding scenery.
(b) Works are now authorized and partially completed at the Falls which
will divert from the Niagara River above the Falls about 27 per cent of the
average discharge, and about 33 per cent of the low-water discharge, which
is more than double the quantity now flowing over the American Fall. In
addition to this, water naturally tributary to the Niagara River is being
diverted through the Chicago Drainage Canal, and for power in addition to
navigation purposes through the Erie and Welland Canals.
34. One of the effects of such legislation would be to give to Canada the
advantage of diverting 7,500 cubic feet per second more than is diverted in the
United States. The advantage is more apparent than real, since the power
generated on the Canadian side will to a large extent be transmitted to and
used in the United States. In the negotiation of treaty, however, the point
should be considered.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1267
And that is one of the points that the Canadians or the British
make, that the Canadians be given a greater diversion at Niagara
Falls than were the Americans on the American side because a
great portion of the water diverted on the Canadian side was to be
converted into water power and imported into the United States,
and that, therefore, the United States was really getting a diversion
of the water instead of Canada.
The Burton Act was passed by Congress on June 20, 1906. That
Was, the act which was passed after this report which I have just
read was made to Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of the report?
Mr. BEHAN. The date?
The CHAIRMAN. The International Waterways report.
Mr. GouldFR. That is the American section?
Mr. REHAN. That is the American section.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. -
Mr. BEHAN. March 19, 1906. It was submitted to the Senate and
IHouse of Representatives by the President on March 27, 1906, and
on June 20, 1906, the Burton Act was passed. That bill was intro-
duced by Congressman Burton on April 11, 1906, it was referred
to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and it was reported back,
and I am going to go very briefly into the history of the Burtor:
Act, because we contend that while the recommendations of the
American section were not specifically put into the Burton Act they
were covered in the general language of section 1, and that is
made very, very clear from the discussion which was held in the
Senate when the conferees of that body reported back the results
of the negotiations. The bill was reported back by the Rivers and
IIarbors Committee with amendments, and passed the House. When
it reached the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
and later rereferred to the committee on Foreign Relations. Amend-
ments were made in that committee, and on the floor of the House
it was passed with that amendment (No. 6) offered by Senator
Albert J. Hopkins of Illinois, as follows:
J’rovided, however, That nothing contained herein shall be construed to hold
or concede that the waters of Lake Michigan or other lakes or rivers wholly
within the territory of the United States are subject of international nego-
tiation.
Thereafter the House nonconcurred in the Senate amendments
and asked for conference. Senate insisted upon its amendments and
asked for conference, appointing as Senate conferees Senators Lodge,
Cullom, and Morgan. House conferees appointed were Messrs. Bur-
ton, IBishop, and Lester. At the conference the House and Senate
conferees agreed upon various amendments proposed by the Senate,
but the House refused to concur in amendment No. 6, above men-
tioned, introduced by Senator Hopkins, and the Senate conferees
receded. The debate and report upon the Senate conferees' report
to the Senate taking place on June 25, 1906, as shown by the Con-
gressional Record, volume 40, page 9097, is in part as follows:
The CHAIRMAN. That is the conference report?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. *
1268 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. Lodge Submitted the following report:
The Committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 18024) for the control and
regulation of the waters of Niagara River, for the preservation of Niagara
Falls, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 6.
Which was the amendment of Senator Hopkins. The other por-
tions of the report do not affect us, and I won’t take time to read
them. Then this debate occurred:
Mr. HoPKINS. Mr. President, I regret very much that the conferees on the
part of the Senate have felt constrained to recede from the amendment which
was offered by me and accepted by the Senate to the section of the bill pro-
Viding for an international agreement with reference to the waters of the
Great Lakes. In order that the Senate may properly and fully understand the
SCOpe and character of that amendment I will read the same to the Senate.
After the Section that looks to an international agreement it says:
“Provided, however, That nothing contained herein shall be construed to
hold or concede that the waters of Lake Michigan shall be or are subject of
international agreement.”
The reason why I offered that amendment when this bill was pending in
the Senate arises from the fact that the International Waterways Commission,
Which has been appointed under the authority of Congress by the President,
have made a report in which they have included the waters of Lake Michigan,
and they held it was the subject Of International agreement, the same as the
waters of Lake Ontario, or Lake Erie, or any of the lakes that are the dividing
line between Canada and the United States.
It seems that the Legislature of the State of New York has authorized the
use of a certain number of cubic inches of Water per second for manufactur-
ing purposes. The contention of the Canadian commissioners is that all the
Waters that flow down the Niagara River should be equally divided between
Canada and the United States. They insist that because Chicago is using a
certain number of cubic inches of water per second for sanitary and domestic
purposes that that amount of Water should be considered in determining the
rights Of Canada. Or Great Britain upon the One hand and of the United States
upon the other.
NOW, Mr. President, I contend as a representative from Illinois that the
waters of Lake Michigan are not a subject of international agreement. That
great lake is no part of the dividing line between Canada and the United
States. It is wholly Within the limits of the United States and subject en-
tirely to the laws of our country. The waters are not owned by the United
States. Those waters are owned by the States that border upon that great
lake. Every person who is familiar with the boundary lines of the great
State of Illinois knows that when that Territory was admitted as a State.
the Territorial lines were extended at the southern extremity of Lake Michi-
gan to the center of the lake, and then north 51 miles, and then west to
the lake, and then north 51 miles, and then west to the Mississippi River,
giving us the southwestern portion of that lake as a part of the Territory of
Illinois. sº
The supreme court of Our State has held that that water is just as much a
part of the State of Illinois as the land itself ; that it is just as much within the
jurisdiction of Illinois as any portion of the land lying within the limits of
that great territory. So much for that.
Now, this International Waterways Commission, in their report to the
President, use this extraordinary language, showing that they have disregarded
not only the rights of Illinois as to her interests in Lake Michigan but also the
rights of the States of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In their report they
Say :
“3. The commission therefore recommend that such diversions, exclusive Of
water required for domestic use or the service of locks in navigation canals, be
limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second and on the United
States side to 18,500 cubic feet per second ; and in addition thereto a diversion
for sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second be authorized
for the Chicago Drainage Canal, and that a treaty or legislation be had limiting.
these diversions to the quantities mentioned.”
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1269
So you can See, Mr. President, that the commission in negotiating with the
Commissioners appointed by Great Britain have assumed that the people of
Chicago had no more right in the waters of Lake Michigan bordering upon that
great City than had the people who lived down upon the St. Lawrence River ;
that we have no more right to divert any water from that great lake than the
people at Cleveland, Ohio, or at Buffalo, or upon the Canadian side, as the
Water flows down the Niagara River.
In this contention, Mr. President, I claim that they have ignored the well-
recognized domestic law of the country and international law as well. I claim
that under the domestic law the State of Illinois is entitled to that lake, or
that portion of it within its territorial boundary, and is entitled not only to
10,000 cubic feet per second, if the Sanitary and domestic needs of Illinois re-
Quire that amount, but is entitled to double and treble that amount if, at any
time in the future, the necessities of this great commercial center shall demand
a doubling or a trebling of this quantity of water.
Yet these commissioners, who have been appointed by the President to
represent the Government of the United States, have conceded to the commis-
sioners of Great Britain that Chicago should be limited in any legislation or
in any treaty that may be negotiated between the two countries to 10,000
cubić feet per second. It is against that that I raise my voice in protest, and
it is because of that that I protest against the confirmation of this report here
to-day, which excludes the amendment that was adopted by the Senate providing
that the waters of Lake Michigan shall not be the subject of international
agreement.
This is long, and Senator Lodge's remarks, the apropos part of it,
in which he makes it clear to the Senate, in answer to Senator Hop-
kins's long debate, that our rights are covered by the Burton Act in
general language. Mr. Lodge says:
Mr. President, I had supposed that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Hopkins)
realizes that the report of this bill in its present condition would not in any way
endanger the rights of Chicago to have water from the lake. Certainly I
should have adhered to the amendment if I had thought that the drainage canal
of Chicago would have been in any way endangered by the commission. The
House would not accept this amendment. It is attached to a glause which re-
quests the President to enter upon negotiations. It, of course, is merely ad-
visory. Congress can not possibly restrict the powers of the Executive in
making a treaty. The result of putting on this clause beforehand would have
been to have made any negotiations impossible. No country would enter into
negotiations with a limitation on the other side like that.
The first section of the bill protects the rights of Chicago. No treaty would
be made by our commissioners which would impair or infringe those rights.
Moreover, Mr. President, the fact that it must be a matter of treaty, while
it is a protection also, I think, warrants me in Saying that what Canada de-
sires is not to limit in any way the Outflow of water at Chicago but to be able
to have a corresponding amount Credited to her when they come to an agree-
ment as to how much water each country may divert from the stream.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to read the first section
of the bill to us? -
Mr. BEHAN. Yes; I will. [Reading:]
That the diversion of water from Niagara River or its tributaries in the
State of New York is hereby prohibited, except with the consent of the Secre-
tary of War as hereinafter authorized in section 2 of this act: Provided, That
this prohibition shall not be interpreted as forbidding the diversion of the
waters of the Great Lakes or of Niagara River for sanitary or domestic pur-
poses Or for navigation, the amount of which may be fixed from time to time
by the Congress of the United States or by the Secretary of War of the United
States under its direction.
The CHAIRMAN. Right at that point—I won’t take over a second—
didn't Congress act perfectly consistently in striking out section 6
and then enacting articles 1 and 2 of the treaty?
1270 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BEHAN. You mean of the Burton Act, articles 1 and 2 of the
Burton Act 2
A..." CHAIRMAN. I say, in striking out section 6 of the Burton
Ct
Mr. BEHAN. The Hopkins amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and then in following that by articles 1 and
2 of the treaty. Article 1 provides
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). You are referring to the treaty now?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Article 1 provides that the navigation of all
navigable boundary waters shall thereafter continue free and open to
the inhabitants of both countries equally?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The second paragraph provides: ,
It is further agreed to that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this
Same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all
Canals Connecting boundary waters—
Which is an affirmative action, instead of simply negative, as it was
in striking out section 6 of the Burton Act.
Mr. BEHAN. I am frank to say that I do not quite understand the
chairman's point. I can not see what bearing article 1 of the treaty
has upon section 6 of the Burton Act. The Burton Act was several
years prior to the negotiation of this treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; but I say that here the two things were,
as it seems to me, in perfect harmony. You follow that by article 2.
Mr. BEHAN. In other words, article 1 of the treaty has to do with
free navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BEHAN. And article 2 of the treaty has to do with the di-
version. * *
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and free navigation means that we are going
to have a stream to navigate.
Mr. BEHAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, article 2 provides for exclusive control by
each Government of waters on its own side of the line which in
their natural channels flow across the boundary, or into boundary
waters; and the second paragraph of that article provides that
neither party surrenders any right which it may have to object to
any interference with or diversions of waters on the other side of
the boundary, the effect of which would be productive of material
injury to the navigation interests on its own side. It seems to me
that that makes a connected whole, the two articles, in regulating
the navigation of Lake Michigan to just about the same extent as
you regulate the navigation of the other Great Lakes. ... e
Mr. BEHAN. But you are about six laps ahead of my discussion.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not intend to do that. º
Mr. BEHAN. Solely with the idea of showing what was in the
mind of Congress when it passed the Burton Act in 1906, which was
merely a temporary expedient to cover the situation of this diversion
pending the conclusion of the work of this waterways commission,
and pending the ultimate negotiation and conclusion of a treaty
The CHAIRMAN. But the ultimate effect of striking out section 6
is this, that the House, without discussion, insisted and prevailed
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1271
in the conference on striking it out; that Senator Hopkins protested
in the Senate, and Senator Lodge said he did not have any cause for
protest, and then the Senate passed the bill.
Mr. BEHAN. Senator Hopkins made his argument.
The CHAIRMAN. It is equivalent, practically, to a dissenting
Opinion.
Mr. BEHAN. But it is very apparent to me, and obvious from a
reading of the Congressional Record, that after Senator Lodge had
made the statement and had explained to Senator Hopkins that the
rights of Chicago were covered by this proviso in section 1 of the
Burton Act that Senator Hopkins accepted it.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Will you let me see the discussion? I
wanted to see whether Senator Hopkins said anything after Senator
Lodge's remarks.
Mr. BEHAN. It is toward the end. My recollection is that he did
not.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, following Senator Lodge's remarks to
which the gentleman referred, Senator Hopkins says, despite all
that Senator Lodge suggested as a palliative:
The reason Why I raise my protest at this time is because of the fact that
American Commissioners On this WaterWays commission seem to have con-
ceded to England the Same rights in Lake Michigan that the States have.
And that is exactly the effect of the treaty, as I read it.
Mr. BEHAN. His protest, though, was the granting to Great
Britain of the same rights to diversions in Lake Michigan as were
the rights of the United States, and these provisions in the treaty,
article 1, which you have referred to, have solely to do with the
right of free navigation in the Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one other thing that I would like to call
your attention to. As I have listened to what you have read this
morning, the International Waterways Commission in recommend-
ing the diversion at Niagara Falls of 36,000 cubic feet by Canada
and of 18,500 by the United States, recommended just the amounts
that were being diverted on the Canadian side, and upon the basis
of the statement that the difference was not substantial or real but
only apparent, because the difference in the amount to be diverted
on the two sides was made up in this way—to be sure, the 36,000
cubic feet was prodced into power in Canada, but the difference was
consumed on the American side, and that, therefore, it made no
real difference.
Mr. HULL. There was the Welland Canal, which was not included
in that, but that might run it up to 39,000.
Mr. BEHAN. I think the chairman has fallen into this error. The
commission, in saying that the 7,500 excess, that the difference was
more apparent than real and should be considered in the drafting
of a treaty, had reference to the 7,500 in excess of the 28,500 which
was recommended for the American side, and which included 10,000
at Chicago. You see, with the 10,000 at Chicago, there was given to
the United States the right to divert the 28,500 second-feet, and to
the Canadian side 36,000, a difference of 7,500, and it is that 7,500
which they say is more apparent than real.
1272 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will be good enough, before you pass to
Something else, to hand me that so that I may read it
Mr. SWEET. Does it appear in the record here anywhere as to the
exact amount of diversion at Chicago at the time of the negotiation
of the treaty? -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. It appears several times. It was something
over 2,700 cubic feet when the negotiation was commenced and it
was something over 3,400 cubic feet when the treaty was proclaimed,
according to our records. Chicago makes this claim, that while
the engineers report that those were the amounts which were being
diverted at that time, they say now that that was an incorrect meas-
urement, and on a correct measurement, instead of 3,400 cubic second-
feet there would be something like 6,000.
Mr. BoycE. Don’t they say further that before the treaty was
entered into, it was in contemplation to divert 10,000?
Mr. BEHAN. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; there is no question about that, but I
was simply answering Congressman Sweet’s question.
Mr. MICHAELSON. Would it be an answer to Congressman Sweet
that 10,000 was constantly referred to ?
The CHAIRMAN. No. The question of how much was actually
being diverted at the time the treaty was made was Mr. Sweet's
question; and the chairman gave him the figures as furnished by the
sanitary canal engineers at that time.
Now, the city of Chicago, or the sanitary district, claim, as I un-
derstand it, that they measured simply the water that was converted
into power, or something of that kind, and the engineers will tell
us when they come on that that was an incorrect and insufficient
measurement, and that the correct measurement showed something
in excess of the amounts that I have stated. Colonel Warren in his
report says that while the figures furnished by the Sanitary District
of Chicago were what I have stated, 3,400 at the conclusion and 2,700
when it was undertaken, that in his opinion those amounts were too
low by from 5 to 12 per cent, and to get the correct amount you
should increase it from 5 to 12 per cent.
Mr. HULL. In order to clear up the question I made the statement
a while ago that the Welland Canal was in addition to the 36,000
cubic feet. Am I correct in that?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think anybody knows.
Mr. BEHAN. As I understand it, it is claimed by the Canadian
power interests and by the Canadian Government that they have the
right to divert at the Welland Canal—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). For navigation purposes.
Mr. BEHAN. Well, and also, under a general provision in the
treaty, they claim a right to divert. I will cover that later in my
discussion.
Mr. BoxcE. Mr. Behan, passing by the object and purpose of the
high contracting parties to provide for equal rights of the two Gov-
ernments in the matter of navigation, is or is it not your contention
that the purpose of the contracting parties with reference to the
diversion of water was for the diversion for other objects and pur-
poses than those of sanitation and navigation? I do not know
whether I make that clear or not.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1273
The QHAIRMAN. I think you have made it perfectly clear, Judge.
Mr. BEHAN. Let me see if I understand you, Judge. The treaty
provides for the distribution of the diversion at Niagara for power
purposes. -
Mr. BoxCE. I purposely omitted any other kind of purposes.
Didn't the contracting parties have in mind the diversion of water
for other purposes, whatever they may be, than sanitation and navi-
gation? -
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. - - t
"... Mr. BoxCE. And did the contracting parties in these treaties spe-
ºnly deal with the question of diversion for sanitation and navi-
gation 4 . . . . . . . . . . w -
Mr. BEHAN. It is our opinion absolutely that that was done, that
they dealt with it. ,
The CHAIRMAN. Will you come to that hereafter ? -
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. The chairman a moment ago, in speaking of the
amounts recommended for diversion at Niagara Falls by the Ameri-
can Section prior to the passage of the Burton Act, said that those
were the amounts which were then being actually diverted. That is
not the fact, according to our analysis of these reports. These allot-
ments were made both to the American side and to the Canadian
side at Niagara Falls for the purpose of supplying what had been
constructed or, was being constructed; in other words, what their
capacity would be when the works were in full operation, and I
think I can show you that that was the fact. . . .
Mr. BoxCE. Permit me to suggest, if I made my first question
clear, that at Some time during the recess you look at it and see if
you won’t make the answer which you did,
J *; BEHAN. I will read the question and see if I got it clear.
l] Cl98. - º ... * *
º: a showing of what the Canadian members of this commission
had in mind by the existing diversion and as showing that the
Canadian parties did not have in mind any diversion less than
10,000, that they did not have in mind the amount authorized by the
Secretary of War or any lesser amount, but that they did have in
mind 10,000 cubic second-feet, let me read what occurred at public
hearings held in Chicago by the International Waterways Commis-
sion in the month of October, 1906. - r
The CHAIRMAN. Have you the full report of that hearing?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. That is in these compiled reports, a complete
report of the meetings. .
The CHAIRMAN. When you read from that will you be good
enough to let me have one, if you have one extraº
Mr. BEHAN. We have not two copies of this book.
The CHAIRMAN. When you have finished, let me have it, then.
Mr. Gould ER. What page in this Canadian compilation are you
reading from ?
Mr. BEHAN. The particular part that I am going to read appears
on page 1185. The proceedings at Chicago begin several pages
ahead of that. Later I will give you the beginning to the end of
the pages, but in March, 1906, remember, gentlemen, that the com-
mission had recommended the 10,000 diversion be permitted and au-
thorized at Chicago. It is apparent from a reading of the proceed-
91739—24—PT 2—65
1274 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ings at Chicago and from a reading of the special report on the
Chicago drainage canal made in 1907 after the recommendation that
the diversion be limited to 10,000, the officials in control of the
sanitary district were not satisfied with it. They were of the same
opinion that Senator Hopkins expressed on the floor of the Senate,
that their rights were unlimited and that it was not proper to limit
us to 10,000 or to any other figure, and they protested against the
recommendations of the waterways commission. So this meeting at
Chicago was undoubtedly held for the purpose of listening to evi-
dence and statements upon that and of making a final report, which
they did, and in which the commission turned down the theory of
the sanitary district and again recommended that they be limited
to 10,000. ; , , , ~ - * , , . . . . . ſ
In the proceedings at Chicago on October 17, 1906, the Hon.
Mr. Gibbons, who was chairman of the Canadian section of the
waterways commission, was present, and during the course of the
proceedings had this to say, in response to the argument of the
sanitary district: . . . s -
The desire of the commission, of course, is to meet the wishes of the people
of Chicago as far as possible, consistent with other interests, and I thought
possibly it might Shorten the discussion to suggest to these gentlemen that
the difficulty the commission is meeting with is this: The gentlemn who has
just spoken, has said that Chicago, is more interested in the maintenance of
the lake level than any other city. We agree with him that that is so. The
Lake Carriers’ Association, representing millions of capital, say to us, “We
don’t want you to do anything that is going to further lower the level of the
Great Lakes. It is low, now—too low now.” . So that we are met with this
difficulty. The commission appreciates the enormous difficulties of the city
of Chicago, with its 2,000,000 people. If you get to the 4,000,000 mark, you
will very likely want 20,000 cubie feet per second, Your experts, tell us 10,000
cubic feet per second will 'lower, Lake Erie 6 inches, and double that amount.
20,000 cubic feet per second, will lower the level 1 foot. I only make these
suggestions so that you can see the difficulties of the commission. It would
seem to me— . . * * , in º'
Now, this is the chairman of the Canadian section speaking,
gentlemen. - t
It would seem to me that the commission already have assented to the work
which you have done and the work, which will be necessary to be done for
some years, that 10,000 cubic feet will provide for you. ... It would seem to me
that it is up to Chicago, in its own interests as well as in the interests of the
country, now to see whether or not there is some other system that could sup-
plement this system, that would make the maximum that you would require
of water in this water. Other cities have found it, and although a committee
reported, as you say, back in 1885 and 1886, possibly you can supplement the
present system. Your interests are our interests. We are all in the same
boat in the matter of the preservation of the lake, and everybody concedes
the necessity of preserving your health. You need not argue that to the
commission, because we, Canadians, as well as the Americans concede that
Chicago ought to have what is absolutely necessary to preserve the health of its
citizens. That has been the stand of the Canadians all the way through ,
but if consistent with that you can do something else to prevent injury to
the Great Lakes system you ought to do it.
They have changed it in the last few years, since the question of
additional power at Niagara has become of such importance.
It seems to me, now that you have your 10,000 cubic feet, you ought to
be content with that at the present and see whether or not there is not Some
other system such as is used in other great cities that would enable you to do.
away with the necessity of increasing the water supply.
* |
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1275
Now, bear in mind, gentlemen, that prior to the meeting at which
these remarks were made, the commission had recommended that the
10,000 cubic feet at Chicago be either included within a treaty or be
covered by legislation, and it is very clear to me, after reading what
Mr. Gibbons has to say, that Mr. Gibbons as well as the entire
Canadian and all of the American members felt that they had given
and had recognized the right of Chicago to the 10,000 cubic feet,
and that they would not concede Chicago's claim to any additional
diversion. That is the phase of the situation.
Mr. GouldFR. The commission’s report was in 1907, in January.
Mr. BEHAN. The special report on the drainage canal was on
January 4, 1907.
Mr. GouldFR. And that is found at page 515?
Mr. BEHAN. That is beginning on page 515 of these compiled
reports. Later, in 1906, on November 27, the American section
made another report, and that appears, beginning on page 424 of the
compiled reports of the waterways commission, and I will only read
briefly from that. This was the report of progress to Secretary of
War Taft. Paragraph 8 of that report had to do with the situation
at Chicago, and it is as follows:
And discussion of the preservation of Niagara Falls would have been incom-
plete without some reference to the Chicago Drainage Canal, which was
designed to divert from the southern end of Lake Michigan 10,000 cubic
second-feet of water naturally tributary to the Falls. A discussion of the effect
of Such diversion upon water levels, and consequently upon the navigation
interests of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence Valley, could find no
proper place in the Niagara Falls report. In recommending the allowance of
10,000 cubic second-feet to the Chicago Drainage Canal the commission ig-
nored those important questions. It believed in so doing that it was accepting
a general tacit agreement that some such amount was required to protect the
health of Chicago, and that that city should have it without further question,
whatever the effect upon navigation might be.
On December 31, 1906, the Canadian section of the commission
made a further report to the Minister of Public Works of the
Dominion of Canada in which there was discussed the division of
water at Niagara Falls and the diversions for power purposes, ap-
proving the recommendations and statements contained in the
American section, and adhering to its former report earlier in the
year 1906. In 1907, on January 4—
Mr. Gould ER (interposing). Where is that, Mr. Behan? I have
here something I got from a Government office, and this is the
Canada Compiled Reports of the International Waterways. Are you
reading from the same thing? - *
Mr. BEHAN. I have what is entitled “Canadian Compiled Re-
ports, International Waterways Commission, printed by order of
April, 1913.”
Are you asking, Mr. Goulder, with reference to the December re-
port of the Canadian members?
Mr. GouldFR. Yes. What page is that?
Mr. BEHAN. Pages 388, 389, 390, and 391 is that report, and it
runs through to page 392. -
Mr. GOULDER. December, 1906?
Mr. BEHAN. I have read December 31, 1906, and in that report.
which is to the Minister of Public Works of the Dominion, they
refer to the recommendations made in the report of April 25, 1906,
1276 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
referring particularly to these and several other of their recom-
mendations. Paragraph E:
This Would give an apparent advantage to the Canadian interests, but as the
diversion is not of serious injury to the Falls, does not materially affect the
interests of navigation, it is more than counterbalanced by the complete diver-
º of 10,000 cubic feet by way of Chicago Drainage Canal to the Mississippi
River.
And then also paragraph 3 in that report:
The Commission therefore recommends that such diversions, exclusive of
Water required for domestic use or the service of locks in navigation canals,
be limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second and on the
United States side to 18,500 cubic feet per second, and in addition thereto a
diversion for Sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second be
authorized for the Chicago Drainage Canal, and that a treaty or legislation
be had limiting these diversions to the quantities mentioned.
They refer to the former recommendation that there be 36,000
cubic second-feet of diversion on the Canadian side and 18,500 on
the United States side, in addition to the diversion for sanitary
purposes at Chicago, not to exceed 10,000 cubic second-feet.
Mr. GouldFR. I find on page 396 that—
"The Commission hopes at an early date to be able to agree upon conclusions
and recommendations in regard to the important subject and Submit the same
in a Special report. -
Mr. BEHAN. Then follows the special report, which I am now up
to; that is, the joint special report on the Chicago Drainage Canal,
of January 4, 1907. . .
That report consisted of 11 printed pages, and was joined in unani-
mously by all American and Canadian members. Attached to it was
a copy of the report made in 1887 by the Drainage and Water Sup-
ply Commission of Chicago, and also the report of Lyman E.
Cooley, sanitary engineer, made at the request of the American sec-
tion of the International Waterways Commission, and also the report
of Randolph Hering and George W. Fuller, sanitary engineers, made
at the request of the international commission, on the amount of
water necessary to dilute sewage at Chicago. The report contains
an exhaustive discussion of Chicago, its sanitary conditions and
methods of sewage disposal, the sanitary district channel, its cost
of construction, the diversion at Chicago and its effect upon the levels
of the Great Lakes, as well as a general discussion of the Illinois
and Des Plaines Rivers.
I will only read a few brief extracts from that report, because
that report we have had reprinted in full, and will see that each
member of the committee has a copy of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you an extra copy now Ż
Mr. BEHAN. I will see that you have this copy, and we will give
the reporter another printed copy. Here are just a few of the more
important quotations from that general report. Paragraph 10 in
that report:
The channel of the Chicago River is not large enough to transmit that
volume from the lake to the canal except at velocities which are an obstruc-
tion to navigation. The amount which the Secretary of War has thus far per-
mitted the sanitary district to pass through the river is 4,167 cubic feet per
Second. In order to Obtain authority for a large amount the trustees have
undertaken to enlarge the channel of the river and have accomplished a large
amount of work in that direction.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1277
Section 19 of the report:
In the expenditure of $40,000,000 for the drainage canal the people of Chi-
cago, with its population of 2,000,000, incurred a burden equivalent to that
due to an expenditure of $1,600,000,000 by the United States, with its population
of 80,000,000—that is, enough to build eight or more Panama Canals. It Was
a very serious effort and has commanded the admiration and Sympathy of
all observers. The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michi-
gan affects other interests adversely, but these interests have Withheld their
opposition, seeming to believe that 'Some such amount was necessary, and ap-
parently willing to contribute their share to protect the lives and health. Of
the people of a great city. The plans calling for that amount have been
under public discussion for some years. Although withholding formal ap-
proval, the Federal authorities have taken no steps to prevent their execution.
Congress has called for a plan and estimates, for an improvement of the water-
ways eonnecting with it, the scope of which is fixed by that amount. There
appears to be a tacit general agreement that Chicago needs, or Will need about
10,000 cubic feet of water per second for sanitary purposes and that the city
should have it without further question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. HULL. What is that report? . . .
Mr. BEHAN. That is the joint report of the International Water-
ways Commission specially upon the Chicago Drainage Canal.
Subparagraph (g) of that report: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Illinois law which authorized the Canal required a flow of 333 Cubic feet.
per second for each 100,000 of population in order to render the sewage in-
offensive. This amount of dilution is probably not excessive. * .
. . ;
t
# *
r
Subparagraph (m) : . . . .
The diversion of large bodies of water from Lake Michigan for supplying
the drainage canal has not been authorized by Congress, but there appears
to be a tacit general agreement that no objection will be made to the diversion
of 10,000 cubic feet per second, as originally planned. •
Paragraph 42: ". º ... "
The preservation of , the levels of the Great Lakes is imperative. The
interest of navigation in these waters is paramount, subject only to the right
of use for domestic purposes, in which term is included necessary sanitary
purposes. In our report of November 15, 1906, we recommended, among other
things “ that any treaty which may be entered into should define the uses to
which international waters may be put, by either country without the neces—
sity of adjustment in each instance, and would respectfully suggest that such
cases should be declared to be (a) uses for necessary domestic and sanitary
purposes; (b) service of locks for navigation purposes ; (c) the right to
navigate.” It is Our Opinion that so far as international action is concerned
a treaty provision of that kind is all that is required in this case. We accord-
ingly renew our recommendation of November 15, 1906, just quoted. »
Paragraph 43:
A careful consideration of all the circumstances leads us to the conclusion
that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago River
will, with proper treatment of the sewage from "areas now sparsely settled. pro-
vide for all the population which will ever be tributary to that river, and that
the amount named will therefore suffice for the sanitary purposes of the city
for all time. Incidentally it will provide for the largest navigable waterway
from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, which has been considered by
Congress. . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . .” . . . . . . -
We therefore recommend that the Government of the United States prohibit
the diversion of more than 10,000 cubic feet per second for the Chicago Drain-
age Canal. - . . . . . . . . º
Mr. GouldFR. The report of 1906 referred to was in the other case,
the Minnesota Canal case.
t
1278 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BEHAN. Yes... And I might say this: That Rudolph Hering
and George W. Fuller, whom the joint commission characterized as
the most eminent engineers in their line, were employed by the joint
commission to make a report upon the Chicago situation and upon
the amount of dilution necessary, and in the report to the commission
by Hering and Fuller, those two gentlemen—
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What is that page?
Mr. BEHAN. That is on page 43 of the book, which you have.
Hering and Fuller quote in their report the instructions which they
received from the waterways commission, which were as follows:
To examine the sanitary situation at Chicago, so far as it is affected by
sewage disposal, and to report whether it is or is not necessary to the health
of the city to extend to outlying territory the system which was adopted in
1889 for the main city. - - -
And then the engineers are directed in these directions to map out
a policy as to what they have in mind, because this is the language of
the commission: -
The commission desires an emphatic opinion from, authoritative sources as to
whether the system of diverting the water of Lake Michigan in large quan-
tities into the Illinois Valley is the only way to preserve the lives and health
of the people of Chicago. It does not desire an investigation of the effect upon
the navigation interests of the Great Lakes. It has satisfied itself upon that
point. Nor does it wish to reopen the case of the Chicago, Drainage Canal as
designed and built. It accepts that as a fixed fact, with its attendant diversion
of 10,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago River. -
On March 9, 1908, the Canadian members of the International
Boundary Commission made their report for the calendar year end-
ing December, 1907, to the minister of public works of the Dominion,
and after referring to the joint report made to the Secretary of War
of the United States and to the minister of public works of Canada
under date of January 4, 1907, the Canadian members, in what is
termed the “fourth progress report of the Canadian Section,” say—
and this appears on page 627 of the Canadian Compiled Reports, as
follows: - … *
The CHAIRMAN. What page are you reading from ? g
Mr. BEHAN. I am reading a portion of one of these reports of the
Canadian commission, and which is not printed in that book.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that quotation?
Mr. BEHAN. March 9, 1908: .
Vast interests are involved. The amount by which the mean level will be:
lowered by the discharge of 10,000 cubic feet now authorized through the
Chicago Canal is estimated at about 6 inches in Lake Huron and Michigan,
about 5 inches in Lake Erie, and about 4 inches in Lake Ontario. Any further
diversion would mean the necessary expenditure of a very large amount Of
money to restore depths in harbors and to maintain a uniform draft of 14
feet in Our Canal System. . * ... t.
And again the Canadian section, in the same report, appearing
on page 636 of the Canadian Compiled Reports, on the subject of
Niagara Falls power development, the Canadian section says: ".
The citizens of the United States had also diverted 10,000 cubic feet of water
per second at Chicago which in its natural course would have flown over
Niagara, and this Was taken into consideration. . . - - ,
It is manifest that some arrangement must be arrived at between the two
countries with regard to the regulation and use of boundary waters, otherwise
chaos will prevail. At Niagara, on each side of the river, charters have been
}
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1279
granted under which water in unlimited quantities could have been taken at
points farther up the river. On our side it was sought to use the Chippewa
River to drain the waters of Niagara into a new outlet—a canal to be built
to a point near St. David’s. Another Canadian charter sought to divert the
Waters of Lake Erie to a point near Jordan.
And then I skip down in that same paragraph:
The direct diversion from Lake Erie to the Jordan River is especially
objectionable. - f
That is a diversion which was being discussed.
The CHAIRMAN. Simply a Canadian charter for it?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes, [Reading:] -
The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second would have a more serious
effect upon the level of Lake Erie than the diversion from Lake Michigan at
Chicago of a like amount. * * *
It is needless to say that navigation interests of both countries would refuse
‘to Submit to such an injustice. 4.
, And they are referring to the proposed diversion of 10,000 cubic
Second-feet from the lake for this canal near Jordan on the Canadian
side, and then they say this: . . . . . . . -
Chicago sought to justify itself by the necessity of preserving the public
health, and evidenced their good faith by the expenditure of about $50,000,000
Ulp@n the project. * *
Referring to the Jordan diversion on the Canadian side, they say:
Navigation interests would be very seriously affected merely for the pur-
*
pose of a profit by the production of power.
I have read that quotation from the Canada report merely to
emphasize that at the time the waterways commission was function-
ing, and at the time and preliminary to the negotiation of this treaty,
the good faith of Chicago in building a sanitary canal was not
Questioned by anyone on either side of the line.
On March 3, 1908, the joint committee reported to the Rivers
and Harbors Committee of the House, in response, evidently, to a
request from the chairman of the committee—that appearing on page
682 of the Compiled Canadian Reports; that report is dated March
3, 1908, and it is addressed to the Hon. T. E. Burton, chairman of
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives,
and is signed by General Ernst, the chairman of the American sec-
tion, by Mr. Clinton, and by Mr. Haskell, members of the American
section, and by two of the Canadian members, Mr. Gibbons and Mr.
Stewart, , I am not going to read that report. I cite that report
largely if not altogether for the purpose of bringing to your atten-
tion the right or proper rule which ought to prevail in the diversion

*
of waters. In this report they say:
The general rule which should govern the diversion of the water between
the two countries is that each side should be entitled to one-half.
Which of course was not done when they divided the waters at
Niagara Falls. If we accept the construction placed upon the lan-
guage of this treaty by our opponents, and we eliminate the 10,000
which we claim was recognized at Chicagó, it would leave a very
unjust and disproportionate diversion at § ara Falls. . . .
On January 11, 1909, a treaty was signed; Marth 3, 1909, the Sen-
ate approved it; May 19, 1911, it was accepted by the Canadian
|Parliament. ' ' ' ; : " . . . . . . . . . . . , – . -
i


1280 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Article VII of this boundary waterways treaty provided for the
creation of what was to be known as the International Joint Com-
mission, which was to have jurisdiction of disputed questions aris-
ing after the negotiations and acceptance of the treaty. That joint
commission was organized in 1912, and I think that the Presidents
from time to time, since then, in appointing that commission, have
been very zealous in choosing the men with experience and former
legislators of experience, always of wide experience, and generally
conversant with the situation throughout this country; in 1924 the
members of the International Joint Commission were Mr. Clarence
D. Clark, whom I think was a former Senator. . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. . . t
Mr. BEHAN. Marcus A. Smith, whom I think also was a Senator
3. Arizona, or was a former Member of one of the branches of
On O'TeSS. f
The CHAIRMAN. From either New Mexico or Arizona.
Mr. BEHAN. And Charles E. Townsend, who was a former Sena-
tor, and was for a long time a Member of this House? ;
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; a Senator from Michigan. i
Mr. BEHAN, Mr. James A. Tawney, of Michigan, was a member
of that commission at one time. g
The CHAIRMAN. And a hard-working man, so long as he lived.
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. You gentlemen who were in the House know
that he was a hard-working, earnest, able man. But the Inter-
national Joint Commission published a report or a pamphlet or a
booklet—I assume that it is a report, and I so term it; it is not
labeled in its own language as a report, but it was issued by that
commission and purports to be a detailed statement as to the origin
of the international commission and its possibilities, and in the
course of that booklet they undertake to analyze the treaty of 1909.
And the Canadian members of that joint commission at this time
are men equally eminent in their country.
The CHAIRMAN. I think at this point we will have to adjourn
until 2.30. * * k
(Whereupon, at 12.30 p.m., a recess was taken until 2.30 p.m.)
AFTERNoon SESSION
The committee resumed its hearings at 2.30 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr.
Behan, we are ready to proceed. I would say, gentlemen, that this
afternoon we are interested in a matter that will come up about
4 or 4.15 affecting our own localities, many of us, and so we will
have to adjourn at about 4 o’clock probably. $
Mr. BEHAN. I will be finished by that time.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. -
STATEMENT OF MR. Louis BEHAN–Resumed
Mr. BEHAN. At the adjournment this noon, Mr. Chairman, I had
just finished a brief outline of the organization and work and fung:
tions of the International Joint Commission, which was created
by reason of treaty provisions, and had said that the International
Joint Commission, in the report or statement issued by it in 1924,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1281
had anaylzed and made comment upon the treaty and its various
provisions. The only comment or analysis, if it might be termed
that, by the joint commission as to which there will be interest here
will be in, my mind, the one with reference to Article V.
The CHAIRMAN. What page? d
Mr. BEHAN. This is on page 12 of the report of the International
Joint Commission. I will file this with the clerk after the meeting
has adjourned. *: -
Mr. Gould ER. Is that the report of the commission?
Mr. BEHAN. That is a report of the International Joint Commis-
sion, a report or a statement. They do not call it a report, Mr.
Goulder. They do not call it anything; but it is their publication,
and it is the publication, by the way, gentlemen, that Mr. Ferris,
representing º power commission of New York, used in his dis-
cussion of this subject before the committee, and this report, re-
member, was made in 1924, 14 or 15 years subsequent to the enact-
ment of this treaty legislation. • * :
The commission say: . 4
Article V fixes the authorized diversion from the Niagara River above the
Falls, for power purposes, in the case of the United States at a daily diversion
at the rate of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second, and in the case of Canada
at a daily diversion at the rate of 36,000 cubic feet of water per second. The
only statement in the article as to the object of this limitation is that “It is
expedient * * * to limit the diversion of waters from the Niagara River SO
that the level of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be appreciably
affected.” There appears to be no record showing the reasons for fixing the par-
ticular amounts allowed to be diverted by each country. It is understood that
in allowing the larger amount to Canada the facts were “aken into account that
the great bulk of the Horseshoe Falls lies in Canadian territory and that Chicago
was diverting a considerable amount of water from Lake Michigan which
would otherwise go over Niagara Falls; also that consideration was given to
the expectation that some of the power generated on the Canadian side Would
be transmitted to and used in the United States, as is actually the case.
I read that because it is in line with our theory and with my prior
discussion that in allotting to the Canadian Government 36,000 feet
for diversion at Niagara and only 18,500 on the American side, our
10,000 was taken into account, which is the only real, apparent reason
for the great difference in the division, in view of the statement in one
of the reports of the International Waterways Commission that the
waters generally should be divided on an equal basis. .
Mr. SEGER. In the previous statement made by the witness he
showed where the different amounts of water were to be taken in com-
puting this 20,000 feet, and in this there is no such computation.
Mr. BEHAN. No; this is by the International Joint Commission.
The other report from which I quoted was the waterways commission,
whose work preceded the Canadian treaty, and the negotiations lead-
ing up to it. t -, , , ,
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they are two different commis-
sions, and this which was last read seems to be very general in its
language.
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, yes; there is just their idea 14 or 15 years later as
to some of the reasons which might account and will account for the
36,000 to Canada, and only 18,500 at Niagara to the United States,
tending to show that in arriving at these divergent figures the water-
ways commission and the treaty commissioners must and did take
91739—24—PT 2—66
1282 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
into account the 10,000 which we were using or were authorized to
use at Chicago. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. But they say that Chicago was diverting a con-
siderable amount of water from Lake Michigan which would other-
wise go over Nº. Falls. .." . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. BEHAN. Yes; that is true, all right. After Secretary of State
Root, who represented the United States in the negotiations with
Great Britain, and Ambassador Bryce, representing the:British Gov-
ernment, had concluded their draft of the treaty, the matter was re-
ferred to the Senate. for ratification. . It was in the usual course of
events referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and it
appears from the printed proceedings of that committee, which are
not available for our use in this committee, but which I assume this
committee can obtain/from the Senate committee—Mr. Redmond,
the clerk of that committee advised us that there was only one printed
volume of the proceedings kept, and that is kept for the use of that
committee, so I assumed that a committee from this branch of Con-
gress would have no trouble in obtaining the printed proceedings
of that committee during the consideration of that treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. We could have Mr. Redmond come over with it
Some time. * * + r -
Mr. BEHAN. We have, however, through the courtesy of the State
Department several years ago, had access to certain of the papers
prepared in that department, and some of the papers we could not
get because they were of a confidential nature; but it, appears that
while the treaty was pending before the Senate committee Mr.
Chandler Anderson, who was for many years and was at that time
Solicitor for the State Department, prepared a memorandum for
the use of that committee in answer to objections which were made
by many of the members of that Committee on Foreign Relations
about various articles and provisions. It was Mr. Anderson's duty,
representing the State Department, to prepare a memorandum an-
swering the objections of the Senators. He pointed out in that
memorandum to the Foreign Relations Committee the fact that the
waters of Lake Michigan did not come within the definition of
boundary waters as defined in the preliminary article; and of course
we all agreed on that and called attention of the committee to the
fact that the waters of Lake Michigan are not included among the
boundary waters of the Great Lakes system but are covered by a
special provision in the Second paragraph of Article I.
Objection was made by one of the members of the Senate Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations that the article as provided might in-
terfere with the diversion of waters from Lake Michigan for the
purposes of the Chicago Drainage Canal. It is sufficient at this
time for us merely to quote Mr. Anderson's construction of the
treaty in so far as that question is concerned. His statement in
his memorandum to the committee covering that objection said this,
and this is his own language: t -
In response to this objection attention is called to the express provision in
this article that it shall not apply to cases already existing, which would Seem
to cover and was certainly intended to cover the canal system at Chicago.
In the light of these discussions and reports of the International
Waterways Commission, and in the light of the language of sec-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1283
tion 1 of the Burton Act, and in the light of the construction put
upon Section 1 of the Burton Act by Senator Lodge in response to
the objections of Senator Hopkins we can not now understand how
there can be any reason for further or other disputes as to the cor-
rectness of our contention when we read what the Solicitor for the
State Department had to say on this very subject to a committee of
the Senate which was considering the ratification of the treaty.
And bear in mind, gentlemen, that at the time this treaty was be-
fore the Senate the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
was Senator Cullom, from Illinois. Certainly, if the rights of Chi-
cago and the Chicago Sanitary District were to be disregarded and
were not fully protected by that treaty, it is only human to imagine
and to suppose that Senator Cullom, the Nestor of that body at that
time and the chairman of that committee, would not have been in.
favor of the approval of that treaty; and it is fair to assume, in the
light of the memorandum prepared by and presented to that com-
mittee by Mr. Anderson, that the Senate Committee on Foreign Re-
lations, in so far as that objection is concerned, was satisfied with.
his explanation that the rights of Chicago were covered and pro-
tected by section 2, and that that satisfied them to the extent that.
they ratified the treaty. Now, we go beyond that. . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cullom does not seem to have partici-
pated in the debate. Was he present or voting? ... -
Mr. BEHAN. I can not answer that. The proceedings of that
committee, which are available to this committee, will show that:
but, regardless of whether Senator Cullom participated in the debate
of that committee or whether he was present at the sessions of the
committee, it is sufficient to say that that committee did approve the
treaty and sent it out onto the floor of the Senate with its approval
and recommendation that it be ratified. . . . • ,
The CHAIRMAN. The point in controversy here is the conferee's
report. º • . * •
º: BEHAN. You misunderstood me, Mr. Chairman, and I per-
haps did not make myself clear. I was not discussing this con-
feree's report on the Burton bill. I disposed of that this morning.
I have just recently been discussing the deliberations of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations as to the ratification or nonrati-
fication of this particular treaty in 1909 and 1910. The Burton Act
was discussed, as I said this morning, in 1906. This document that
I have been speaking of was a memorandum prepared by the Solici-
tor for the State Department for the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations and used by that committee at and during the time that
it was considering the question of ratifying the treaty, several years
after the Burton Act. . . . ' ' . . . - * . .
The CHAIRMAN. The memorandum that seems to deal, with the
water was so used. That seems to be the language of the solicitor,
as you read it. . . . : - • *
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, no. . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. What does he say? * , - # , a
Mr. BEHAN. What I have said was in reference to Article II of
the treaty, which is the article which contains the language that I
set out this morning to analyze from my viewpoint, namely, that
; )
1284 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
What was meant by “cases already existing” meant the diversion at
Chicago. Mr. Anderson bears us out in that, because here is his
exact language. - -
The CHAIRMAN. What does he say as to the use of water at Chi-
cago? Doesn’t he refer to the existing use?
Mr. BEHAN (reading): º &
Objection was made by one of the members of the Senate Committee on For-
eign Relations that the article might interfere with the diversion of waters
from Lake Michigan for purposes of the Chicago Drainage Canal.
Now, here is a portion of his response, the portion which is appli-
cable to that objection: :
Attention is called to the express provision in this article—
meaning and intending Article II.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BEHAN (reading further):
that it shall not apply to cases already existing, which would seem to cover,
and Was certainly intended to cover, the actual system at Chicago.
Mr. HULL. That is plain. |
The CHAIRMAN. The actual system?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. - -
The CHAIRMAN. And existing uses. - -
Mr. BEHAN. Now, we can go beyond that. Secretary Root, a man
who sat across the table from Ambassador Bryce and wrote this
treaty and presented it to the Executive and to the Senate, appeared
before the Senate committee while it was considering this treaty, and
here is a portion of Mr. Root's statement, which you gentlemen will
find in this printed volume of the proceedings of that committee.
The CHAIRMAN. What page?
Mr. BEHAN. I can not tell you the page; it is in the proceedings
of that committee. They have a printed volume, Mr. Chairman,
which has to do solely with this treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. +
Mr. BEHAN. And there were no other prints made—just the one
copy printed for that committee. It was prior to the ratification of
the treaty, and while the consideration of it was pending before
that committee Mr. Root had this to say:
The great bulk of the Water goes on the Canadian side, and the waterways
commission that was appointed Some time ago to deal with the question of the
lake levels reports, I think, that 36,000 feet can be taken out on the Canadian
side and 18,500 on the American side without injury to the Falls. I thought
it wise to follow the report of the commission and put in 1,500 feet in addi-
tion to get round numbers— . . . . -
That made the American diversion at Niagara 20,000–
so our limit is higher than we want, but their limit would not be cut down
below what it is, because there are three companies on the Canadian side
who have works there. Then there is this further fact why we could not
object to this 36,000 cubic feet on the Canadian side: We are now taking
10,000 cubic feet per second out of Lake Michigan at Chicago, and I refused
to permit them to say anything in the treaty about it. I would not permit them
to say anything about Lake Michigan. I would not have anything in the
treaty about it, and under the circumstances I thought it better not to kick
about this 36,000. They consented to leave out of this treaty any reference to
the drainage canal, and we are now taking 10,000 cubic feet per second for
the drainage canal, which really comes out of this lake system.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1285
That is what our Secretary of State, our representative in nego-
tiating this treaty, had to say to the Senate committee which ap-
proved and recommended the ratification of the document.
Now, gentlemen, if we are wrong in this controversy and if the
right of the United States to the 10,000 or to control the 10,000
Second-foot diversion at Chicago is not made clear in the treaty,
then the State Department through Chandler Anderson was wrong,
Secretary of State Root did not understand the situation, and we
must then admit and confess that the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations in recommending the ratification of this treaty did so
under a misapprehension of the facts. But it has been so clear to me
as I have read through these reports of the waterways commission
and as I have read the language of section 2, which I think covers
the situation, and is really the only clause in the treaty which has
a bearing on the Chicago case, seems really a useless taking up of
the time of a group of busy, busy gentlemen to discuss it.
Now, I have been brief in my discussion of this treaty, first, because
we have taken, perhaps, considerably more time than you gentlemen
had contemplated that we would require in the first instance. We
still have some others to follow, and I really can not think of any
other comment to make on this treaty. . .
In conclusion and when I conclude I will be very glad to answer
any questions which I can. * * $
Mr. HULL. Doctor Kindred has been interested in this, and he
has just come in, and I would like for you to read that Root
matter over again to all of us, because I think we would all like
to understand it thoroughly. Just read what Mr. Root said, and that
is, I think, a point well taken, and I would like to have it read
2.98.IIl. - + - & P
"Mr. BritAN. All right. While the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations was considering the ratification of a boundary waters
treaty, Secretary Root appeared before that committee and discussed
the provisions of the treaty with the members of the committee.
Among other things the Secretary had this to say: - i
The great bulk of the water goes on the Canadian side, and the waterways
commission that was appointed some time ago to deal with the question of
the lake levels reports, I think, that 36,000 feet can be taken out on the Cana-
dian side and 18,500 on the American side without injury to the Falls. I
thought it wise to follow the report of the commission and put in 1,500 feet in
addition to get round numbers—
That is where we get the 20,000 provided by the treaty for the
American side, the 18,500 recommended by the commission and the
1,500 which Secretary Root put in to have round numbers—
so our limit is higher than we want. but their limit, would not be cut dowri
below what it is because there are three companies. On the Canadian Side Who
have works there. Then there is this further fact why we could not object to
this 36,000 cubic feet on the Canadian side : We are now taking 10,000 cubic
feet per second out of Lake Michigan at Chicago, and I refused to permit them
to say anything in the treaty about it. I would not permit them to say any-
thing about Lake Michigan. I would not have anything in the treaty about it,
and under the circumstances I thought it better not to kick about this 36,000.
They consented to leave out of this treaty any reference to the drainage canal,
and we are now taking 10,000 cubic feet per second for the drainage canal.
which really comes out of this lake system.
1286 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. Goulder. Do you understand that to be a quotation or a para-
phrase? -
Mr. BEHAN. I understand that to be a quotation.
Mr. KINDRED. May I ask if Secretary Root, when he made that
statement, was at that time Secretary of State?
Mr. BEHAN. Yes; he was. .
Mr. GouldFR. That does not agree at all with the fact as stated by
the sanitary district. . . .
Mr. BEHAN. You mean as to the amount of water that was actually
being taken 2 , - * { #
Mr. GOULDER. Yes. * - ! -
Mr. BEHAN. I will brush that aside with this answer. . We say
that what the treaty meant when it said this “shall not apply to
existing cases,” they were putting the Chicago Sanitary Canal in the
position in which they had placed the Canadian and American power
companies at Niagara and were recognizing the right not only of
Chicago to what it was then taking but to its capacity, the amount it
was intended it should have.
* CHAIRMAN. I understand what Secretary Root said was
Mr. GouldFR (interposing). I do not want to argue, but while you
are on the point, the last part, that “we are now taking 10,000
cubic feet per second for the drainage canal,” does not agree with the
report as given here, which shows that up to 1910 the highest taken
In any year was 5,100. The report of the sanitary district
Mr. BEHAN (interposing). First tell us what report are you
quoting? . . . . . . . . . . . g * * * . *
Mr. GOULDER. The yearly mean flow of the drainage canal from its
opening until 1917, as reported by the engineers of the sanitary dis-
trict, as given in Table No. 11. This is in Colonel Warren’s report,
Table No. 11, yearly mean diversions through Chicago Sanitary
Canal, as reported by engineers of the sanitary district in cubic feet
per second. Now, in 1909 that table gives 2,766; in 1910, the year
of the treaty, 3,458.
Mr. BEHAN. Yes; and what is your point?
Mr. Gould ER. The point is, I was wondering whether you were
quoting from Secretary Root when in the face of this that they were
taking out any more water than was reported by the sanitary canal
district?
Mr. BEHAN. I am quoting Secretary Root's exact language.
Mr. Gould ER. All right.
Mr. BEHAN. And I reconcile that with the Warren report in this
way: Secretary Root was assuming when he stated that “we are now
taking 10,000 second-feet at Chicago’’ and the Canadians were not
objecting to it; he was assuming the amount which we had a right to
take when our canal was complete and in full operation. It is not
to be contended that Secretary Root was attempting to give the
exact flowage of water at the time he was talking. It is our conten-
tion, as I said this morning, regardless of what our actual flowage
was at the time this treaty was negotiated, and regardless of the
authorized diversion by the Secretary of War, by reading and analyz-
ing the recommendations of the Waterways Commission and of all of
these men who had to do with the preliminaries and the final nego-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1287
tiation of that treaty, it is plain and clear that they all had in mind
the diversion as it would exist when we were taking the requisite
amount for the population existing then or at a subsequent time.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, he either meant that, you contend,
or else he was misinformed, one of the two?
Mr. BEHAN. Well, I do not contend he was misinformed.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not saying that you contend that.
Mr. BEHAN. He was figuring just as the Waterways Commission
had figured when they recommended that we would require 10,000,
and that we be permitted to take up to 10,000. s
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand the Secretary’s testimony, he
States that the treaty does not deal with this question at all, and
º: would not permit Great Britain to deal with Lake Michigan
at allº - .* - . . . . .
Mr. BEHAN Specifically. º
The CHAIRMAN. So, if we adopt that construction of the Secretary,
the treaty is not involved at all? . . ‘. .
Mr. BEHAN. Oh, no. I won’t agree with the chairman on that.
Mr. MICHAELSON. It is, then, a special article?
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the treaty. I am talking
about the Secretary's interpretation. . -
Mr. MICHAELSON. But this is after the treaty had been agreed upon
and it was before the Senate, so it was in the treaty?
Mr. HULL. It was in the treaty then. 4
The CHAIRMAN. The idea of Mr. Behan in reading this quotation
from Secretary Root is to show the Secretary's interpretation of the
treaty which he was submitting to the Foreign Relations Committee
for its consideration. t - * *
Mr. MICHAELSON. Yes. . . . . . . . . .
The CHAIRMAN. And my understanding of what he says is that he
would not permit Great Britain to include in that treaty any pro-
vision as to Lake Michigan at all, and that he does not include any
provision as to Lake Michigan. . . . . . . " ; :
Mr. BEHAN. No; he said he had refused to permit Great Britain
to say anything about Lake Michigan, and the reason for that is
apparent, and that is this: Great Britain was undoubtedly trying to
have Lake Michigan included as a boundary water, and Mr. Root
would not permit that. He insisted that, in so far as that water was
concerned, it was not a boundary water and it had no place in a
boundary water's treaty. I read that solely for this purpose, to
show that in granting Great Britain 36,000 cubic second-feet on the
Canadian side, and only granting to the American interests, or to
the United States, on the Američan side 20,000, Secretary Root, in
agreeing with Ambassador Bryce on those divergent figures, had
taken into consideration, as Ambassador Bryce had taken into con-
sideration, the 10,000 which we were using or entitled to use in
Chicago, and that that 10,000 was charged against us. In other
words, none of us around this table or in this room will for a moment
believe that in 1909 and 1910 Secretary Root would have sat silently
by and permitted the Canadian interests to have gotten the better of
us by a matter of 16,000 feet without some consideration on our side
of the table, and I have read his statement to the Foreign Relations
Committee to show that that 10,000 feet was considered.
1288 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.

Mr. STRONG. That statement of Secretary Root answers the re-
marks I made a couple of weeks ago when Judge Barrett was talk-
ing to us. I could not understand why Chicago was not considered
in that treaty, and made a comment along that line, and this explains
that, because Mr. Root says he would not permit Chicago to be in-
cluded in the treaty, not mentioned in it. , , . . . .
Mr. BEHAN. Specifically referred to. .
The CHAIRMAN. He says, “We are now taking 10,000 cubic feet
per second out of Lake Michigan at Chicago, and I refused to permit
them to say anything in the treaty about it.” -
Mr. STRONG. Yes. -
. The CHAIRMAN. Just exactly as I understood it.
Mr. HULL. Go on and read it all; - *
The CHAIRMAN. I will read it just as rapidly as I can, every
sentence and word. . . . . -
Mr. HULL. You want these fellows to believe that Mr. Root was
throwing some dust into their eyes, when he was not.
The CHAIRMAN (reading further): +
I would not permit them to say anything about Lake Michigan. I would
not have anything in the treaty about it, and under the circumstances I thought
it better not to kick about this 36,000. . . . . . * , " ,
Mr. HULL. It is apparent, when he says that, that he had it in his
mind that we had the 10,000 and that we were going to keep it.
The CHAIRMAN. It is apparent that he thought you were taking
10,000 cubic feet, whereas you were only taking 3,400.
Mr. HULL. It does not make any difference what we were taking.
We had the right. - -
The CHAIRMAN. He does not say anything about the right, but he
said you were taking it. . He, as the head of the great State De-
partment, did not know his details. - I
Mr. MICHAELSON. We were taking it for future use.
The CHAIRMAN. Prospectively. . . , - -
Mr. HULL. Doesn’t it always say not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet?
The CHAIRMAN. This does not say, anything about that. They
consented to leave out of this treaty any reference to the drainage
canal, and we are now taking 10,000 cubic feet per second for the
drainage canal, which really comes out of this lake system. And
that is exactly as I understood it. . . . . . - º
Mr. BEHAN. And that fits in with the quotation I read this morn-
ing from the report of the Canadian section to its Government and
to the joint report, to this effect, that there appears to be a tacit
agreement that Chicago needs or will need about 10,000 cubic second-
feet of water for sanitary purposes, and that the city should have it.
But, for the purpose of my discussion on this treaty, there is only
one point involved. * . r
The CHAIRMAN. I can not see how, if we are to adopt Secretary
Root's contention, that the treaty has anything to do with it. He
says he would not permit the treaty to say anything about it.
Mr. BEHAN. Specifically by name. That is the clear intendment
of his language. " ... . . .
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not think so. -
Mr. BEHAN. Because he would not permit the British ambassador
to sew Lake Michigan up as a boundary water.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1289
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have just come in. This is the
very issue that has been troubling my mind. As I understand the
Secretary's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, in
explanation of the treaty provisions, it is that he understood that
10,000 cubic feet of water was being diverted.
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. MoRGAN. Then, if a less amount was diverted and he did not
permit Lake Michigan's diversion or Lake Michigan to be discussed,
any lesser amount is a matter of adjustment domestically with the
War Department, or it is a domestic adjustment. Is not that the
situation? -
The CHAIRMAN. I should think that that could very well be
argued.
Mr. BEHAN. Bear in mind this, gentlemen, that in all of my
brief discussion of this treaty I have proceeded on this personal
thought, that the committee should first determine what the rights
of the United States were under this treaty; eliminate, if you will,
for the time being any right which the Chicago Sanitary District
claims or may claim or may have claimed as to the 10,000 feet
diversion. Let us first determine and settle upon what did the
United States acquire under that boundary-waters treaty. First,
they acquired the right to divert 20,000 cubic second-feet at Niagara.
Falls for power purposes, and Canada received 36,000 cubic feet
diversion; we contend that the United States, in addition to the
20,000-foot diversion at Niagara for power purposes, was conceded
by Great Britain and Canada the right to have an additional di-
version of 10,000 cubic feet at the lower end of Lake Michigan.
Mr. KINDRED. Which was not subject to any terms of the treaty—
which latter 10,000 for the Chicago drainage district is not subject
to any terms of the treaty?
Mr. BEHAN. I contend that Great Britain conceded that the
United States, without any further objection from Canada on any
ground whatsoever, had the right to continue to divert at Chicago
10,000 feet. w
Mr. Kisman. Which would not be subject to any terms of the
treat V ,
* § BEHAN. No; would not be subject afterwards. -
The CHAIRMAN. There is the difficulty as it strikes me. My un-
derstanding of Sercetary Root's testimony is that they did provide
specifically as to 36,000 cubic second-feet and as to 20,000 cubic feet;
that the Secretary refused to negotiate with or to discuss as to Lake
Michigan, and that that was left out of the treaty. If that is so,
and the 10,000 cubic feet is not provided for at all in the treaty; the
question that at once arises is this: Does that remain simply a
question for the United States and the States adjoining the Great
Lakes, or could Canada claim that she has her common-law rights
as a boundary nation, because Lake Michigan is one of the feeding
waters of a boundary stream, to wit, Lake Huron? That is the
question that arises in my mind. In other words, as great a lawyer
as Secretary Root is, and I suppose he is the greatest lawyer in the
country, did he leave that question open so that it is debatable?
Mr. HULL. Didn’t he leave it open because he did not want to
consider Lake Michigan as a boundary water?
1290 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he did.
Mr. HULL. But he consideréd it at the same time.
Mr. MICHAELSON. Didn't he, on the contrary, sew it up in that part
of the treaty where he says, “We won’t discuss existing diversions
and consider this is an existing diversion?”
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty with that contention is—maybe this
can be explained away—but it seems to me that under his testimony
the only construction possible is that Lake Michigan and the diver-
sion there were not considered; were not dealt at all with in the
treaty. If that is true, you can not say that they were included for
certain purposes, but he says broadly and generally that they were
not considered and were not dealt with at all in the treaty. Then
can you come back to the treaty and say that you are mistaken?
Mr. MICHAELSON. But he says we are taking it.
Mr. BEHAN. But Mr. Root does not say that they did not consider
º He said that he refused to let them say anything in the treaty
about it.
Mr. SEGER. Is there anything in the testimony before the com-
mittees which have considered this diversion which would show that
the Canadian officials were aware of and conceded the right to 10,000
feet diversion at Lake Michigan?
Mr. MICHAELson. Wasn’t that read this morning when he was
quoting some of the Canadian members of the commission?
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Seger was not here at the time. I think you
had better read that again. Congressman McDuffie was not here or
Doctor Kindred. It is very plain. . .
The CHAIRMAN. He is talking now, as I understand, about the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations? -
Mr. SEGER. Anywhere. +
The CHAIRMAN. There are some things which would be of interest
here which he read this morning, but I was going to say, in answer
to the specific question, that this committee will call upon the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations and ask them to send over by
messenger to-morrow morning the entire testimony, so that we can
see whether there is anything of the nature as to which you inquire.
Mr. BEHAN. There is this thought, Congressman: I read this
morning quotations from reports from time to time of the Interna-
tional Waterways Commission and of the Canadian commissioners
and of the American commissioners to their respective Governments
Mr. MoRGAN. May I make an inquiry”
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Morgan.
Mr. MoRGAN. Have the lake levels been affected since the treaty
was negotiated? Have they been lowered since the treaty was
negotiated?
Mr. BEHAN. Congressman, if you are driving that question to me,
I will have to renig and pass that on to some one else.
The CHAIRMAN. As to that, Congressman, I think the testimony
of General Bixby covers that fully.
Mr. BARRETT. May we have the question read?
The CHAIRMAN. And I think that the sanitary district engineers
when they are on the stand will answer that question.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 129 |
Mr. BARRETT. May we have the question read by the reporter? I
did not understand it.
(The reporter read as follows:) -
Mr. MORGAN. Have the lake levels been affected since the treaty was negoti-
ated? Have they been lowered since the treaty was negotiated?
Mr. BARRETT. I would say this, in answer to that, that at the time
this treaty was promulgated in 1910 we had not at that time opened
up our river channel so that it could flow the complete 10,000 second-
feet. We were then taking, I would say, something between 6,000
and 7,000 second-feet, and the difference in lake level between what
would be lowered by from 6,000 to 7,000 feet and what we are now
taking, approximately 10,000, has occurred since the promulgation
of the treaty—a very small difference. -
The CHAIRMAN. The records show up to this point, and the testi-
mony before us up to this point shows, that the amount that was
taken up to the time of the negotiation of this treaty, the maximum
amount, was 3,400, and the Chicago Sanitary District expects to
introduce evidence that these reports by the engineers of the sanitary
district were incorrect; that they did not measure correctly. Now,
Colonel Warren says in his report that while the sanitary district.
reported that in 1909 the diversion was two thousand seven hundred
and some cubic feet and in 1910 it was three thousand four hundred
and Some cubic feet, he says that he is of the opinion that there was
a greater diversion by from 5 to 12 per cent. You can see that 5 per
cent would be 170 cubic feet and 12 per cent would be about 400
cubic feet. - : ! -
Mr. BARRETT. Have we answered your question satisfactorily?
Mr. MoRGAN. No. I want to know if there are figures to be pre-
sented to show if the lake levels have been affected since the treaty
was negotiated, and to what extent.
Mr. BARRETT. Let me answer it in this way: All the figures that
have been given here would indicate, according to the engineers, that
when 10,000 second-feet at Chicago has been taken for a period rang-
ing from two to four years that there would be a lowering on Mich-
igan, Huron, and Erie of approximately 5% inches. At the time
this treaty was promulgated in 1910 we could not and did not take
the 10,000 second-feet, because our river was not then in shape to
take care of it. We say that we were taking approximately 6,000
second-feet. At that time the Lakes had been lowered by the 6,000
feet, and there has been since that time a progressive lowering,
bringing it up to the 5% feet, which is entirely complete now.
Mr. MoRGAN. I see. -
Mr. BEHAN. And which the waterways commission had discounted
even before we were taking 10,000. In other words, their computa-
tions took into consideration what the lowering would be when 10,000
was being taken.
Mr. MoRGAN. I understand that.
Mr. BEHAN. Getting back to Secretary Root, you can not avoid
reading what Mr. Root had to say to the Senate committee in con-
junction with the memorandum as prepared by the Solicitor of the
State Department for use before that committee, and the only effect
of all of that is to do this, to my mind, to first make it easy for this
committee to determine this question: Under the boundary waters
1292 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
treaty was the United States conceded by Great Britain and Canada.
the right to control an additional diversion up to 10,000 feet at Chi-
cago? If you answer that in the affirmative, gentlemen, then it is
up to you. We have our ideas and they will be outlined here, and
they have been outlined, but we say that for the purpose of consider-
ing this treaty and what we gained under it there is just one thing
for this committee to solve, and that is, What did we get and what
did the Canadians, get? If the Canadians by that treaty conceded
to this Government the additional 10,000 cubic feet at Chicago, then
that additional 10,000 may be disposed of by this Congress in any
manner that it may see fit, and without any cause or ground for
objection on the part of Canada. º -
I will say this: That perhaps if the diversion at Chicago should
exceed 10,000 feet Canada under the terms of this treaty might have
a right to make an objection to the greater diversion, if it interferes.
with her interests in any way, but we say that up to the 10,000 diver-
sion her lips are sealed by this treaty. , And we say that is the only
fair construction that can be put upon it. e
Just one final word and then I will answer any questions that I
am able to answer. , My colleagues and myself have tried to study
this and discuss this case and its various phases in a cool, quiet
manner, and I want to say that if during any of these discussions.
either I or any of my colleagues have or do show any apparent
rising of the hair or coloring of the cheeks when the question of
Canada enters into it, we want you gentlemen to be sympathetic
and to put yourselves in our position and bear this in mind. We
undertook to build this canal. We had spent at the time that this.
waterways commission began to function about $40,000,000. We
relied upon these reports and recommendations of the commission.
We relied upon what we believed to be a recognition of our rights.
in section 2 of the treaty, and we continued to spend millions and
millions of dollars until we have now spent approximately $100,-
000,000 on this work, and we are only humans in Chicago. We do
not like to be called thieves and pirates, and it would make your
blood boil if the people of Chicago—that being your home city—
were attacked on the floor of a legislature of a neighboring country
by language saying that the people of Chicago were water thieves.
and pirates and buccaneers. Those are the things that have tended
to make our blood boil. ,
So I say that if in this discussion in the past, or now, or in the
future any of us from Chicago, representing the sanitary district,
apparently boil over, please be indulgent with us and put yourselves
in our positions, and we believe that you would be just as resentful of
those terms of opprobrium as we are.
Now, I will be glad, if I can, to answer any question that is.
asked me. - b
Mr. KINDRED. Don't you think that the members of the committee
and the American people as a whole would be more influenced
by the complaint of the people in the river valleys, our own people.
than we are influenced by anything that is said in the Canadian
Parliament or in Canada?
Mr. BEHAN. Well, of course, Doctor, we hope that you won’t be
influenced by either of those things, but if you are to be influenced
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1293
you would be perfectly justified in being influenced by things that
any of our neighboring States might say, or the people in the Illi-
nois Valley.
Mr. KINDRED. Don’t you think that we should consider what our
American people are saying, those in the States who claim to be
damaged, more so than by anything that is said in Canada?
Mr. BEHAN. We hope that you look at it in that light. In other
words, we would feel very badly if we thought that you gentlemen
would consider seriously these things that are said unkindly about
us in foreign countries, and we are willing to have those things
iromed out by this committee. -
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the question arises as to what hour
we shall meet to-morrow morning. I am willing to get here and
can get here at an earlier hour than we have been meeting if the
committee think that they can get here. . .
Mr. MICHAELSON. I would like to know how much more time the
gentlemen need? -
The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you consider that matter with them
and let us know what they say. . . . . . . * , l
Mr. STRONG. I want to suggest to the gentleman how I am im-
pressed now. That statement of Secretary Root cleared up what
as been troubling my mind since these hearings began, why the
Chicago Drainage Canal was not mentioned in the treaty. That
is cleared away. The way the Secretary made his statement that he
refused to permit the Chicago Drainage Canal to be mentioned in
the treaty implies, of course, that it was under discussion; otherwise
he would have had no occasion to refuse.
Mr. BEHAN. Yes. . . * * * , . . . . .
Mr. STRONG. Now, that, to my mind, suggests the advisability on
your part to submit what collateral evidence you have that they did
discuss it there and that it was recognized, although off of the record
so far as the treaty was concerned. That is one point.
Mr. BEHAN. Let me answer that in this way. I think that I have
answered that by reading to the committee what Mr. Chandler
Anderson, the Solicitor for the State Department, had to say to that
same committee and at the same session that Secretary Root ap-
peared when he said to the committee that Chicago's rights were
included in that general language in section 2.
The CHAIRMAN. Those two things are in conflict.
Mr. STRONG. The point is to have it fastened upon the Canadian
representatives that at that time it was under discussion and they
recognized it, although at Secretary Root's 'insistence, for reasons
which he had, it was not advisable to permit Canada to have any-
thing to say about what he referred to as an inland water; fixing
that upon the Canadian commissioners, that they did participate in
a discussion with reference to the Chicago Drainage Canal is one
thing. After that is cleared up there is just one remaining point.
Regardless of any treaty arrangement, and regardless of any under-
standing before the commission in reference to the Chicago Drainage
Canal, is a further diversion of water detrimental to the system of
lakes? -
Mr. BEHAN. We say absolutely no, that the effect of the diversion
has been already reached.
1294 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. KINDRED. Then you have got to consider the further question
as to whether or not it is detrimental to many people. w
Mr. STRONG. That is the same thing.
Mr. MICHAELSON. To navigation?
Mr. KINDRED. Not only that, but to people whose property has
been affected farther down on the river. -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think Congressman Strong means that
those are all the questions that were involved. ;
Mr. STRONG. For the present moment that is what is disturbing
my mind—those two things. -
The CHAIRMAN. The committee is adjourned until to-morrow
morning at 9.30 o'clock at the committee's own committee room, and
we will try and be here at 9.45. #
Mr. BEHAN. May I put in evidence this entire memorandum of
Mr. Anderson to the Senate committee?
The CHAIRMAN: You may. t
Mr. BEHAN. I read an extract, but I would like the whole to be
incorporated into the record.
(The document in full is as follows:)
MEMORANDUM FoR FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
[Submitted by the State Department when the Treaty of May 13, 1910, was under
‘. . . . - . . . . . . consideration] 3.
In discussing the questions which have been raised in regard to certain
provisions of the pending treaty relating to the use of waters along the
boundary between the United States and Canada, it is important to have in
mind certain general features of the treaty which may be briefly stated as
follows:
(1) The distinction which is drawn in the preliminary article between the
boundary waters and waters which are tributary to boundary waters and
waters of rivers flowing across the boundary is carefully observed in Articles
II and III of the treaty. . . . .
(2) Article II applies only to waters which in their natural channels
would flow across the boundary or into boundary waters; that is, before they
have passed the boundary or become part of boundary waters; and it can
not by any construction of its provisions apply to the use or obstruction or
diversion of boundary Waters.
(3) Article III by its express provisions applies only to uses, obstructions,
or diversions of boundary waters, and can not by any construction of its pro-
visions have any application to the use, obstruction, or diversion of tributary
waters or waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.
(4) Article IV, exclusive of the paragraph thereof relating to the pollution
of waters, applies only to Waters of rivers flowing across the boundary after
they have passed the boundary and can have no application to waters tribu-
tary to boundary waters or to waters of rivers flowing across the boundary
before they have passed the boundary.
(5) The jurisdiction of the international commission is strictly limited by
Article VIII to cases arising under Articles III and IV; and it will be observed
that under Article IV the cômmission is given no jurisdiction over cases arising
under the pollution clause of that article; it is evident, therefore, that the inter-
national commission can have no jurisdiction over cases arising under
Article II. x * *
(6) The right of action for damages provided for in Article II applies to
private or individual interests in distinction from public or governmental
interests. Any question on, this point is set at rest by the use of the words
“injured parties.” Wherever the word “party" is used in the treaty refer-
ring to the High Contracting, Parties, a capital P is used, so that the absence
of the capital and the use of the word in the plural indicates that it. can
refer to individuals.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1295
The purpose of this provision of Article II is to permit parties Who are
injured on the other side of the line to secure the same damages that they
would be entitled to if the damages had been done within the same jurisdiction
where the cause of the damage originated ; but their claim is subject to
the laws of the jurisdiction where the cause of the damage arises, and they
must come into the courts of that jurisdiction and prove their case on ex-
actly the same footing as if the property injured was within that jurisdiction.
(7) The provisions of Articles II, III, and IV do not apply to cases pro-
vided for by special agreement between the Parties, and Article VIII defines
such special agreements as “not only direct agreements between the High
Contracting Parties but also any mutual arrangements between the United
States and the Dominion of Canada expressed by current or reciprocal legis-
lation on the part of Congress and the Parliament of the Dominion.”
Turning to the questions raised with respect to the pending treaty, it will be
found that most Of them can be answered conveniently by reference to the
above numbered paragraphs. - - - . . .
Taking up the first point made by Senator Nelson, it appears that a larg
tract of swamp or marsh lands is located near the northwest border of the
State of Minnesota, which the State intends some day to reclaim by drainage.
The drainage will have to be done through a number of rivers flowing from this
tract into the Rainey River within a space of 30 or 40 miles from where it
empties into the Lake Of the WOOds. Those rivers under the definition in the
preliminary article of the treaty are tributary waters in distinction from
boundary waters and come under the provisions of Article II of the treaty.
Senator Nelson raises the point that under the damage clause in Article II,
if the drainage of this swamp increases the flow of these tributary rivers to
such an extent that damage is done on the other side of the line, a right of
action which would not otherwise exist with respect to such damage is created
by the treaty. His objection to the provision is understood to be that under
existing conditions the State would not be responsible to its own citizens for any
damages that may occur, and should not be made responsible to foreigners for
damages suffered by them. It will be observed, however, as pointed out in
paragraph (6) above that the right of action given by Article II is a private
right in distinction to a public right, and can be asserted only by individuals
in distinction from the Government; and that such parties are given only the
same right of action which they would have if they actually were within the
State of Minnesota. Therefore, if the State of Minnesota is now at liberty to
drain this swamp land as proposed without being liable to any one for damages
on its own side of the boundary, it is not believed that this provision will give
any right of action to anyone on the other side of the boundary.
Moreover, owing to the height of the banks of the Rainy River on the Can-
adian side for the most of the distance through, which it flows would be in-
creased on account of the drainage of this Swamp land, it does not seem likely
that any important damage could result to individual owners there, and in any
event is is doubtful if the provisions of the treaty contemplated giving a right
of action for such an improvement as this, which is not a diversion of waters
from their natural watershed but simply, in, effect, an acceleration of the pas-
Sage of such waters through the river to which they are naturally tributary
to the natural outlet which they would ultimately find if left undisturbed.
Moreover, normal conditions would be restored as soon as the Swamps were
drained. So far as any damage from overflowing the banks of the Lake of the
WOOds on the Canadian Side is concerned on account Of the Water released
from these Swamps, here again the shores on the Canadian side are higher than
On the American Side, and any Overflowing that would result from Such in-
creased volume of water would be more seriously felt on the Americn side than
on the Canadian. In this connection, moreover, it will be remembered that the
outlets of the Lake of the Woods are all on the Canadian side, and the present
level of the lake is maintained by dams at these outlets and can be controlled
within a range of 8 or 10 feet by the insertion or removal of stop logs in these
dams. The Canadian authorities have control of these dams and at present
maintain the level of the lake 6 or 8 feet above its natural level. It is evident,
therefore, that if the level should be further raised by draining these swamps
into the Lake of the Woods the responsibility for damage resulting on the
Canadian side would rest with the Canadian authorities and not with the
State of Minnesota. . . . . .
1296 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Senator Nelson's second objection is that important improvements on tribu-
tary streams on the American side of the boundary could not be made except by
the Consent of the Government of the United States and of the International
Joint Commission.
In answer to this point, reference is made to paragraphs Nos. 2, 3, 4, and
5 above. It will be noticed that the application of Article III by its own
terms is limited to the uses, obstructions, or diversions of boundary waters
affecting the level or flow of boundary waters; and, as the rivers to which
he refers are tributary streams to boundary waters and come under Article
II and not under Article III, the treaty. can not fairly be constructed to give
the international commission any jurisdiction over the case he refers to.
The point which Senator Nelson raises above the pollution clause in Article
IV is considered separately below.
Taking up Senator Heyburn's objections in the order in which they are stated
in his memorandum, his first point raises the objection that the Lake of the
Woods should not be included with the other boundary waters under the pro-
vision extending mutually the privilege of free navigation on both sides of the
line. This objection seems to be based on the view that this provision is a
surrender of jurisdiction over the portion of the Lake of the Woods which
lies wholly, within the United States, but it is submitted that the provisions
of the treaty are no susceptible of that construction. By the provision of Article
I, the privilege of free navigation is expressly subjected to any laws or regula-
tions of either country within its own territory not inconsistent with such privi-
lege of free navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the
inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries. Moreover, unless the
Lake of the Woods is given the same treatment under Article I as all other
boundary waters, it would be impossible to include it among boundary waters
under Article III of the treaty, and the advantages to the United States of so
doing are obvious, as the outlets are all on the Canadian side.
Furthermore, it would seem that there could be no serious objections to plac-
ing the Lake of the Woods. in the same category as the Great Lakes system,
including Lake Michigan, in which the right of free navigation is given under
Article XXVIII of the treaty of 1871, although its waters are wholly within the
territory of the United States.
Senator Heyburn's second objection is answered by reference to paragraphs
Nos. (1), (2), and (6) above.
Senator Heyburn's third objection raises the point that under the provisions
of Article IV the international COmmission might undertake to control the use
Of the waters of the Kootenai Or Columbia Rivers as far away as 800 miles from
the boundary. Reference to the provisions of the article will show that it
applies to the construction or maintenance of remedial or protective works or
dams or obstructions “in waters flowing from boundary waters or in waters at
a lower level than the boundary rivers flowing across the boundary, the effect
of which is to raise the natural level of the waters on the other side of the
boundary.” It would seem to be clear from this provision that it applies only
to cases where the effect of obstructions on One side of the boundary in the
waters referred to would result in overflowing lands on the other side of the
boundary. Such obstructions, therefore, would have to be in immediate prox-
imity to the boundary. A particular case in point will be found in the drain-
ing of Rosseau River by the Canadians immediately below the point where it
crosses the boundary, the result of which has been to raise the natural level of
its waters so as to overflow its banks on the American side. It is only in such
a case as this that the commission is given jurisdiction under this article, and
it is not believed that any case could possibly arise over which the jurisdiction
of the commission would extend to any obstruction at any great distance from
the boundary. - *
The fourth point raised by Senator Heyburn is that the rules or principles
adopted under Article VIII for the regulation of the use of the boundary
waters are inconsistent with the uses of waters as fixed by the laws and
constitution of the State of Idaho. It will be observed, however, that these
rulés and regulations apply only to the use of waters defined in the treaty
as boundary waters, and that there are no waters of that description along
the boundary of the State of Idaho. Such rules and regulations, therefore,
can not in their practical application come into conflict with the laws and
constitution of the State of Idaho. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1297
The pollution clause in Article IV: Objection has been made to the clause
On the ground that its enforcement might interfere with the existing drainage
Systems in the large cities along the boundary lakes and particularly at Lake
Champlain. An examination of this clause will show that cases arising under
it are not subject to the jurisdiction of the international commission. Its
Construction and application therefore rests with the parties themselves. It
Will be Observed that, by the terms of the clause, it applies Only to cases in-
Volving an injury to health or property on the other side of the boundary,
and in the light of scientific knowledge of the present day, there would seem
to be Only a remote possibility that any such cases could arise On account
Of the drainage of sewage systems into any of these lakes. It will be remem-
bered that in the case of the Chicago Drainage Canal, the State of Missouri
Sought to show that the discharge of the Chicago Sewage into the Illinois
River rendered the Waters of that river and of the Mississippi unfit to drink,
but the Supreme Court of the United States held in that case that “It is
proved that the great volume of pure water from Lake Michigan which is
mixed with the sewage at the start has improved the Illinois River in these
respects to a noticeable extent. Formerly it was sluggish and ill-Smelling;
now it is a comparatively clear Stream to which edible fish have returned.
Its water is drunk by the fishermen, it is said without evil results.” -
It is a well-known scientific fact that flowing water or large bodies of open
waters purify themselves very rapidly, and in view of the situation which the
Supreme Court has found to exist in the case of the Illinois River it seems
hardly possible that anywhere along the boundary waters any injury to
health or property would result from the discharge of drainage systems into
them. The clause under consideration was intended to apply more particu-
larly to the pollution of waters by chemicals or dye stuffs or other poisonous
Substances used in various manufacturing processes. Such practices are neces-
sarily injurious to health and destructive of food fishes in these waters,
and inasmuch as there are many CaseS Of this kind On both Sides Of the
boundary and unless checked by joint action of the two countries will result
in great injury to the general interests of both countries along the border.
It seemed desirable that some provision should be made for governmental
control over them, and it was for this purpose particularly that this clause
Was inserted in the treaty.
Lake Michigan : The waters of Lake Michigan do not come within the
definition of boundary waters as defined in the preliminary article of the
treaty, and it will be noted that in Article I of the treaty the waters of this
lake are not included among the boundary Waters of the Great Lakes System
but are covered by a special provision in the Second paragraph of that article.
The question has arisen as to the effect upon Lake Michigan of the provisions
of Article II which deals with tributary waters or rather with all waters which
in their natural channels flow acroSS the boundary or into boundary waters,
and the Objection is made that if provisions of this article apply to Lake
Michigan; the right to recover damages for injuries resulting on the other
side of the line On account of the diversion of tributary waters might inter-
fere with the diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan for the purposes of
the Chicago Canal. - -
In response to this objection, attention is called to the express provision in
this article that it shall not apply to cases already existing which would seem
to cover and was certainly intended to cover the canal system at Chicago. But
in any case an examination of the provisions of the article will show that, as
pointed out in paragraph No. (6) above, the right of action for damages applies
to private or individual interests in distinction from public or governmental
interests, and such interests are given only the same rights which similar
interests on the American side of the line would have in the absence of this
treaty. • * - w
In effect, this provision brings the Canadian interests within the jurisdiction
of the United States for this purpose. The treaty therefore recognizes that
the settlement of the question of the use of the waters of Lake Michigan is
purely a domestic question and leaves undisturbed the governmental rights
of the United States with respect to it. But this is the view of Great Britain
and Canada as shown by the last paragraph of the article which reserves to
each of the high contracting parties any right which it may now have to object
to any interference with or diversion of waters on the other side of the bound-
ary, the effect of which would be productive of material injury to the navi-
1298 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
gation interests on its own side of the boundary. This provision relates to
public interests in distinction from private interests, and would be wholly unnec-
essary if under the preceding provisions of the article any right was given to
recover damages for injuries to public interests on the other side of the line.
CHANDLER ANDERSON.
Mr. BEHAN. I now offer in evidence report of the International
Waterways Commission, dated March 19, 1906; also second Progress
Report, Canadian Section of the International Waterways Commis-
sion, dated April 25, 1906; also joint report of the International
Waterways Commission, dated May 3, 1906, and the special joint
report on the Chicago Drainage Canal by the International Water-
ways Commission, dated January 1, 1907, and ask that these docu-
ments be printed in the record and considered as a part of the sani-
tary district case.
The CHAIRMAN. The reports will be made a part of the record.
º: the committee adjourned.)
The following are the reports filed by Mr. Behan :)
REPORTs of INTERNATIONAL WATERw AYS CoMMIssion CoNCERNING THE CHICAGO
DIVERSION AND TERMS OF TREATY-O’HANLEY'S REPORT TO THE CANADIAN GOV-
ERNMENT (1896)
rººt: from Compiled . Reports of the International Waterways Commission, 1905 to
1913, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36, Section 37, of the
Revised Statutes of Canada—Printed by order of Parliament—Ottawa, 1913.]
N
SECOND INTERIM REPORT OF THE CANADIAN SECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
WATERWAYS COMMISSION
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, April 25, 1906.
Hon. C. S. HYMAN,
Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, Ontario.
SIR : The Canadian members of the International Waterways Commission
have the honor ot submit the following report:
At the last joint meeting of the International Waterways Commission, held
in Toronto, On March 6 and 7, 1906, the chairman of the American section
presented the following letter: .
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, February 13, 1906.
The Honorable SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR : Several months ago the State Department and the British ambas-
sador took up the subject of a possible treaty between the United States and
Great Britain relating to the use of the waters of the Niagara River and the
preservation of the Falls.
On November 13 the ambassador transmitted to the department a report
of the Canadian Privy Council approved November 2, 1905, to the effect that a
report from the Canadian section of the waterways commission stated that the
commission was studying the Subject, and expected to be able to make a joint
report to the Government of the United States and to the Government of
Canada before long, recommending the adoption of rules and regulations
which would prevent, in the future, the destruction of Niagara Falls by the
use of its waters by manufacturers.
In the report of the American section, made to the Secretary of War on
December 1, 1905, Ocurs the following statement: “The commission have made
good progress in the collection of data bearing upon some of these questions,
particularly those relating to the use of water at Niagara Falls.”
On October 20, 1905, the commission appears to have adopted the following
resolution : -
“Resolved, That this commission recommends to the Governments of the
|United States and Canada that such steps as they may regard as necessary to be
taken to prevent any corporate rights or franchises being granted or renewed
by either Federal, State, or provincial authority, for the use of the waters of
the Niagara River, for power or other purposes, until this commission is able to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1299
collect the information necessary to enable it to report fully upon the con:
‘ditions and uses’ of those waters to respective Governments of the United
States and Canada.”
The negotiation relating to a treaty on this subject has been suspended
awaiting the further report of the commission, in accordance with the state-
ments to which I have referred. There are many indications of active pub-
lic interest in this subject, and a joint resolution having in view the preserya-
tion of the falls, pending in the House of Representatives, has been favorably
reported by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. The indications are that if
an agreement can presently be reached between the two countries as to the
action necessary to accomplish the purpose, any legislation to give the agree-
ment effect on the part of the American authorities would receive favorable
consideration at the present session of Congress and at the present session of
the New York Legislature. * - • ‘
It seems desirable, therefore, to press forward the negotiations for such an
agreement without any unavoidable delay. May I ask you to make such a report
Tupon the subject as may furnish a basis upon which the State Department and
the ambassador may take and proceed with the negotiations. §
I have the honor to be, Sir, -
Your obedient servant, * * . . . -
- ELIHU ROOT.
The American section then urged that the question of the preservation of
Niagara Falls be taken up, before all other subjects, as being more immediately
preSSing. * * * - . . .
The commission spent two days considering the details of a report upon the
conditions at Niagara Falls. When the commission had partly agreed upon the
facts, a Series of recommendatons was suggested by the American section, to the
effect that a treaty be concluded between the two countries wherein it should
be agreed to preserve for all time the scenic beauties of Niagara by pledging
each other to cancel all charters, other than those under which works had been
actually constructed, and by agreeing, to prohibit all other diversion of water
which is naturally tributary to Niagara Falls, except such as may be required
for domestic use and for the service of locks in navigation canals.
The Canadian Section opposed any hasty action, and an adjournment was
made until April 26, at Washington.
Intimation. Was given at the meeting that unless the joint commission was
prepared to report promptly the American section might be called upon to give
an independent report, in compliance with the following resolution which had
been Submitted to Congress: ‘. .
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the members representing the United
States upon the international commission, created by section 4 of the river
and harbor act of June 13, 1902, be requested to report to Congress at an
early date what action is, in their judgment, necessary and desirable to prevent
the further depletion of water flowing over Niagara Falls; and the said members
are also requested and directed to exert in conjunction with the members of
the said commission representing the Dominion of Canada, if practicable, all
possible efforts for the preservation of the said Niagara Falls in their natural
condition,” and that in that case it was likely that action would be taken looking
to the negotiation of a treaty without further reference to our joint Commission.
and on March 19 the American section made a report to the Secretary of War,
which has been transmitted to Congress by the President of the United States
by message, dated March 27 (copy of which is hereby appended, marked “A”).
In order that you may understand the situation we desire to give you a Short
summary of the facts and conditions as they now present themselves to us: , ,
The volume of water discharged at Niagara Falls varies from 180,000 cubic
feet per second at low stage of Lake Erie to 280,000 cubic feet per second at
high stage of the lake, the mean discharge being 222,400 cube feet per second at
mean level of Lake Erie (elevation 572.86). . . . - -
There are now five companies engaged in furnishing or preparing to furnish
electricity, two located on the American side and, three on the Canadian side Of
the river, above the Falls. - . . .
The American companies when in full operation will develop about 340,000
horsepower and use, about 26,400 cubic feet of water per second, while the
companies on the Canadian side will have a capacity in all of about 415,000
• *.
1300 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
horsepower and use about 32,100 cubic feet of water per Second, the result
being that from 27 to 33 per cent of the total volume of water which would
Otherwise go over the Falls will be used for power purposes.
It is conceded by the American section that as the diversions of water on
the Canadian side are made at or below the crest of the rapids they do not
affect in any degree the flow over the American fall.
The Opinion of experts is that when these Works are in full operation, while
there will be a noticeable, diminution of the Water flowing over the Falls, it will
not have the effect of destroying or seriously impairing the scenic beauty of
the Falls; indeed, our own engineer is of the opinion that while the limit of “de-
Velopment has been reached, even exceeded, On the American Side, a considerably
larger use could be made for power development on the Canadian side without
injury to the Falls. With this latter contention the American engineer does not
now agree. Both, however, are of the opinion that this latter question can be
much more definitely and properly settled when the consequence of the present
developments has become apparent. -
Both the companies whose works are on the American side of the river, viz,
the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co. and the Niagara
Falls Power Co., will distribute all their power in the United States. Two
Of the companies on the Canadian side, viz, the Canadian Niagara Power
Co. and the Ontario Power Co., intend using a large part of their power on
the American side. In fact, the former has laid a wire on the traffic bridge,
immediately below the Falls, and intends laying wires across the river between
Fort Erie and the city of Buffalo. The latter company has laid wires across
the river at a point above Lewiston, known as the Devils Hole. Neither of
these two companies has made any serious effort to distribute its power in
Canada. The third, company, the Electrical Development Co., are erecting
transmission lines as far as Toronto, and intimate their intention to build other
lines to supply the western, section of the Province as far as London. -
The Cataract. Power Co., who take their water from the Welland Canal
and use of escarpment at DeCews. Falls, is the only other company operating
in the same section ; they are at present developing about 14,000 horsepower
and use 600 cubic feet per second. This company, together with the Electrical
Development Co., can supply, all the immediate Canadian demand.
The only condition in the agreement between the park commissioners and
the three companies operating on the Canadian side at the Falls relating to
exportation of power is as follows:
“(II) The company, whenever required, shall from the electricity or pneu-
matic power generated under this agreement supply the same in Canada (to
the extent of any quantity not less than one-half the quantity generated). at
prices not to exceed the prices charged to cities, towns, and consumers in the
United States at similar distances from the Falls of Niagara for equal amounts
of power and for similar uses, and shall whenever required by the lieutenant
governor in council make a return of prices charged for such electricity or
power, and if any question or dispute arises involving the supply or prices
of electricity or power for consumption in Canada the high court of justice
of Ontario shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the same and en-
force the facilities to be given or the prices to be charged.”
It will be seen that this provision possibly does not afford much protection ;
the companies themselves will not be inclined to build transmission lines in
Canada while they have a much better market across the river, and no one on
this side is at present in a position to demand power. The provision, in Our
opinion, creates, however, a moral obligation which your Government should
put itself in a position to enforce. At present, necessarily, if these companies
are to be made to pay dividends they must sell their power where there is a
market for it, so that to entirely refuse to allow them to export would be ruin-
ous to them and not justified by the existing conditions. The park commission
will receive a revenue of about $250,000 a year from the three companies operat-
ing under agreements with them. This sum represents a very small proportion
indeed of the yearly value of their franchises. It is estimated that the Saving
in cost of power at the point of production in favor of falling water over any
other method is at least $25 per horsepower. This benefit should be appor:
tioned in a reasonable degree between the producing companies and the general
public. It will be a misfortune if the companies holding Canadian Charters
are not restricted in their exportation by regulations distinctly understood
and accepted, which will compel them to carry out the spirit of their agree-
ments by distributing power in Canada as demand is created at reasonable
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1301
prices. In the opinion of this commission adequate returns for their investment
Can thus be secured to the companies, while at the same time the Canadian
Dublic will obtain great advantage from the use of their natural advantage.
If there was a market in our country for one-half the power that could be
generated at Niagara, its value put into millions per annum would be start-
ling ; but there is no Such immediate demand, and it seems to your commission
that the present purpose of all concerned will be best served by preserving
Niagara Falls and at the same time making such provisions as are necessary
to insure to Our people the benefit of all the cheap power required. If we keep
OurSelves in a position to control the distribution of the power generated on
the Canadian side of the river, it will enable us to Supply the requirements of
Our people for years to come without any further development.
The Dominion Parliament has granted charters to three corporations which
are still in force, viz, the Niagara Welland Power Co. and the Jordan Light,
Heat & Power Co., organized for the purpose of diverting water from the
Welland River, which water would be taken from the Niagara River by back
flow, and the Erie & Ontario Power Co., which would take its water from the
Grand River and Lake Erie. These Companies Seem to be unlimited as regards
the quantity of water that they may use or the power they may generate.
Quite irrespective of the question of injury to Niagara Falls, the charter
granted to the Erie & Ontario Power Co. is subject to the further serious
objection that its operation would have the effect of lowering the level of the
Water in Lake Erie. - * - ... . w
As we already have at Niagara and DeCews Falls a development three
times the Canadian demand, it would seem to be the sheerest folly to increase
the development until our own market requires it. It is very little advantage,
indeed, to this country to develop power which is to be transmitted to the
United States. We are therefore of opinion that it would be wise to enter. into
an arrangement with the United States limiting the amount of Water to be
used on the Canadian side at Niagara River and elsewhere on the Niagara
Peninsula to 36,000 cubic feet per second. This will permit of the completion
of the works now in Operation on the Niagara River to their fullest capacity.
It will also permit the Cataract Power Co. to continue its operations and Will
give us a few thousand cubic feet per second for additional developments. t
At Chicago the Americans have built a drainage canal, which when in full
operation will use about 10,000 cubic feet of water per second.
The quantity of water required for the purposes of a ship canal is Com-
paratively small, but the character of this drainage canal at Chicago is such as
to involve a continuous flow of water, which will have the effect of lowering
Lake Michigan by over 6 inches and Lake Erie by 4% inches. The nature of
this work may be judged when we state that the expenditure will be Over
$40,000,000 and that power works are in course of construction on the Canal
which will generate some 30,000 horsepower.
As the diversion from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River is of a much
more serious character than the temporary diversions from the Niagara River,
It is felt that the amount of water to be taken on the American side of the
Niagara River should be limited to 18,500 cubic feet per second, ,
But in the opinion of your commission the preservation of Niagara Falls
is a minor matter as compared with the preservation of the interests of navi-
gation on the Great Lakes. w º e
Lake Erie, as you know, is a shallow lake, and the navigation interestS
already represented by capital investments of $1,000,000,000 are very much
alarmed and are very insistent that the interests of navigation Should be
paramount and that there should be no further diversion whatever for power
purposes which will interfere in any way with the mean level of the Lakes,
on the other hand, the demand for the use of power is growing every day, and
the time has come when it is absolutely essential that Some dominant hand
should intervene as between these conflicting interests and settle how and
when, if at all, diversion is to be allowed of these boundary waters for power
purposes. º g tº
It is exceedingly important in the interests of navigation, both to ourselves
and the people of the United States, that the diversion by way of the Chicago
Drainage Canal should be limited. It is equally essential in the interests Of
both countries that no diversion or interference should be allowed in streams
crossing the boundary which would interfere with the interests of navigation in
either country. It is all important that while we are settling the policy as to
1302 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Niagara Falls we should at the same time establish certain principles which
Shall be applied in settlement of all classes of disputes which can arise between
the two countries with regard to the use of boundary waters or of streams
Which Cross the boundary from one country to the other.
If our proposal is carried out the diversions will be about as follows:
- - Cubic ;
Diversions of the American side: pel' Second.
Niagara Falls - 18, 500,
Chicago Drainage Canal____ 10,000.
Total , - ------------------------------------------------------ 28, 500,
Diversions On the Canadian side :
Niagara Falls and on the Niagara Peninsula –––. 36,000.
It is quite apparent that no further diversions can be made on the Niagara
River Without injury to the scenic effect of the Falls as a whole, and there
Should be no further diversion from Lake Erie or any other of the waters of
the Great Lakes System which will be injurious to navigation. Your commis-
Sion is therefore of opinion that the time has come when it is desirable to
make a treaty limiting these diversions, and we have prepared a series of
resolutions Which we intend to. Submit at the next meeting of the joint com-
mission, as follows: -
Whereas in the Opinion of this Commission it is desirable that the whole.
question of the uses and diversions of the Water adjacent to th boundary line.
between the United States and Canada, and the uses and diversions of all
streams which cross the international boundary between the said countries
should be Settled by treaty. , , , , , *
Therefore, this commission recommends that a treaty be had between the
United States and Great Britain, in framing which it should be recognized:
that— • - y *
1. In all navigable waters, the use for navigation purposes is of primary and
paramount right, and therefore diversions should not be permitted which inter-
fere With. Such use. .
2. The Great Lakes System, on the boundary between the United States and
Canada, and finding its outlet by the St. Lawrence to the Sea, should be main-
tained in its integrity, and no diversions Of Water tributary to spich streams:
should be permitted by either country, except as hereinafter provided.
3. Permanent or complete diversions Of Such waters are wrong in principle
and should hereafter be absolutely prohibited. The diversions by the Chicago
Drainage Canal should be limited to the use of not more than 10,000 cubic feet
per Second. -
4. Diversions Of international Waters elsewhere than at Niagara River or the
Niagara Peninsula sluould only be permitted : -
(a) For domestic purposes and for the service of locks in navigation canals.
(b) Temporary diversions, where the water taken is returned again, only
on the recommendation of a joint commission; such diversions not to interfere:
in any way with the interests of navigation and to be allotted in equal propor-
tions to each country and SO that each may have a like benefit.
5. It should be declared to be a principle with relation to the use of all
navigable rivers and streams Crossing the international boundary that no ob-
struction or diversion should be permitted, either on such rivers or their
tributary streams, which will interfere with navigation in either country.
6. As to the diversions from Niagara River and on the Niagara Peninsula :
(a) In the opinion of this commission it would be a sacrilege to destroy the
Scenic effect of Niagara Falls unless and until the public. needs are so impera-
tive as to compel and justify the Sacrifice.
(b) It is possible to preserve its beauty and yet permit the development on
the Canadian side of the Niagara River itself and elsewhere by diversions on
the Niagara Peninsula to Lake Ontario of water for power purposes to the
extent of not more than 26,000 cubic feet per second, exclusive of water
required for domestic uses, and for the service of locks in navigation canals.
(c) It is likewise possible to allow the diversion of waters for power pur-
poses on the American side to the extent of 18,500 cubic feet per second, ex-
clusive of the amount required for domestic uses, and for locks in navigation
canals, without serious injury to the scenic aspect of the Falls. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1303.
(d) Your commission are of opinion, therefore, that for the present the
º should be limited to the quantities mentioned in subsections (b)
3 Il C).
(e) This would give an apparent advantage to Canadian interests, but, as.
the diversion is not of serious injury to the Falls and does not materially affect
the interests of navigation, it is more than counterbalanced by the complete
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet by way of the Chicago Drainage Canal to the
Mississippi River. - t
7. Magnificent as are the scenic effects of the Falls of Niagara, the com-
mercial value of the power which its waters can produce is so very great, and
the future need may be so pressing, that, in the opinion of your commission, it
will be sufficient that a treaty with regard to the diversions there should be.
limited to the period of 25 or 30 years.
8. As to nonnavigable streams flowing in either direction across the inter-.
1)ational boundary line, diversion for irrigation or other than “innocent uses,”
be allowed so that each country shall have an equal benefit from such diversions:
and that a joint commission shall have power to deal with and regulate such
UlSeS.
Suggestions have been made that the mean level of Lake Erie can be raised:
by the erection of a dam at the mouth of the Niagara River, but to this course
Strong objection is made by the parties in interest at Montreal and elsewhere.
who apprehend that the result would be to lower the level of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River. It is admitted on all sides that if such will be the
effect the work can not go on. Your commission in due course will be able,
tº report upon this important question. -
Respectfully submitted. -
- GEO. C. GIBBONS,
Chairman Canadian Section,
LOUIS COSTE, *
W. F. KING,
Members Canadian Section,
THOS. CoTE,
Secretary Canadian Section.
\ *-mºº ºms -
Joint REPORT of THE CoMMIssion on THE ConDITION's ExISTING AT NIAGARA
FALLS, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
BUFFALo, N. Y., May 3, 1906.
The honorable the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS of Canada and the honorable.
the SECRETARY OF WAR Of the United States : -
The International Waterways Commission has the honor to submit the fol-.
lowing report upon the preservation of Niagara Falls:
The commission has made a thorough investigation of the conditions existing:
at Niagara Falls, and the two sections have presented reports to their respective
Governments setting forth these conditions, to which attention is invited. The
following views and recommendations are based upon a careful study of the
facts, and conditions Set forth in these reports : • . J
1. In the Opinion of the commission, it would be a sacrilege, to destroy the
'Scenic effect of Niagara Falls.
2. While the commission are not fully agreed as to the effect of diversions of
water from Niagara Falls, all are of the opinion that more than 36,000 cubic.
feet per second on the Canadian side of the Niagara River or on the Niagara
Peninsula, and 18,500 cubic feet per second on the American side of the Niagara
River, including diversions for power purposes on the Erie Canal, can not be
diverted without injury to Niagara Falls as a whole. - - -
3. The commission therefore recommend that such diversions, exclusive Of
water required for domestic use or the service of locks in navigation canals, be
limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second and on the United
States side to 18,500 cubic feet pér second (and in addition thereto, a diversion
for sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second, be authorized
for the Chicago Drainage Canal). and that a treaty or legislation be had limit-
ing these diversions to the quantities mentioned.
The effect of the diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage Canal upon the
general navigation interests of the Great Lakes system will be considered in a
separate report.
1304 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The Canadian section, while assenting to the above conclusions, did so upon
the understanding that in connection therewith should be expressed their view
that any treaty Or arrangement as to the preservation of Niagara Falls should
be limited to the term of 25 years and should also establish the principles ap-
plicable to all diversions or uses of water adjacent to the international boundary,
and of all streams which flow across the boundary.
The following principles are suggested: . ' +
1. In all navigable waters the use for navigation purposes is of primary and
paramount right. The Great Lakes System. On the boundary between the United
States and Canada and finding its Outlet by the St. Lawrence to the Sea should
be maintained in its integrity. . .
2. Permanent or complete diversions of navigable waters or their tributary
streams, should only be permitted for domestic purposes and, for the use of
locks in navigation Canals. -
3. Diversions can be permitted of a temporary character, where the water is
taken and returned back, when such diversions do not interfere in any way with
the interests of navigation. In such cases each country is to have a right to
diversion in equal quantities.
4. No obstruction or diversion Shall be permitted in Or upon any navigable
water crossing the boundary or in or from Streams tributary thereto, which
would injuriously affect navigation in either COuntry.
5. Each country shall have the right of diversion for irrigation or extraordi-
nary purposes in equal quantities of the waters of nonnavigable streams cross-
ing the international boundary. . - -
6. A permanent joint commission can deal much more satisfactorily with the
settlement of all disputes arising as to the application Of these principles, and
should be appointed. -
The American members are of opinion that the enunciation of principles to
govern the making of a general treaty is not within the scope of their func-
tions; moreover, the jurisdiction of the American members is restricted to the
Great Lakes. System. . . .
Geo. C. Gibbons, chairman Canadian Section ; W. F. King, commis-
sioner; Louis Coste, commissioner; Thos. Cote, Secretary
Canadian Section; O. H. Ernst, colonel, Corps Of Engineers,
United States Army, chairman American Section ; George Clin-
ton, commissioner; Geo. C. Wisner, commissioner; L. C. Sabin,
secretary American Section.
REPORT OF THE AMERICAN MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS
CoMMISSION REGARDING THE PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS
INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN OF AMERICAN SECTION,
*> Washington, D. C., March 19, 1906.
SIR : 1. The American members of the International Waterways Commission
have the honor to submit for transmittal to Congress this report, in Compliance
with the following joint resolution approved March 15, 1906: *
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the members representing the United
States upon the International Commission created by Section 4 of the rivers
and harbor act of June 30, 1902, be requested to report to Congress at an early
date what action is in their judgment necessary and desirable to prevent the
further depletion of water flowing over Niagara Falls; and the said members
are also requested and directed to exert, in conjunction with the members of
said commission representing the Dominion of Canada, if practicable, all pOS-
sible efforts for the preservation of the said Niagara Falls in their natural
COndition.” "
2. The surplus waters of Lake Erie are discharged through the Niagara
River into Lake Ontario, the mean level of Lake Erie being 572.86 feet and that
of Lake Ontario being 246.61 feet above the sea. Leaving Lake Erie at Buffalo,
the river is navigable and flows with a moderate slope to a short distance below
Welland River, or Chippewa Creek, about 19 miles, in which distance it has a
fall of about 14 feet. The slope here is suddenly increased and the river ceases
to be navigable. In the next half mile it has a fall of about 50 feet, forming
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1305
the rapids above the Falls. It is divided by Goat Island into two arms of
unequal size, that on the Canadian side carrying about seven times the Volume
of water carried by that on the American side. At the foot of Goat Island the
waters of both arms plunge over a vertical precipice, constituting Niagara
Falls proper, that on the Canadian side being usually known as the Horseshoe
Falls and that on the American side as the American Fall. The height Of
the Horseshoe Fall is about 161 feet, and that of the American Fall 165 feet.
Immediately below the Falls the river is again navigable for a short distance,
and then assumes the character of rapids as far as Lewiston, 7 miles from
Lake Ontario, where it again becomes navigable and remains So until it enters
the lake. -
3. The volume of water flowing varies with the level of Lake Erie, which level
is subject to variations of several feet, depending upon the rainfall, barometric
pressure, and direction and force of the wind. At the mean level of the lake
(elevation, 572.86) the volume of discharge is 222,400 cubic feet per second.
At a very low stage (elevation, 571) the volume is 180,000. (See Annual Re-
port Chief of Engineers, United States Army, for 1900, p. 5361.) For short
periods in midwinter or with prolonged adverse winds, it has sometimes been
even less.
4. It is the great volume of water in the Falls themselves and in the rapids
which makes the place unique. The tremendous display of power in wild turbu-
lence fascinates the mind, and gives to the question of Niagara's preservation
a national interest.
5. The local authorities on both sides of the river have recognized their
responsibilities in this matter, but have taken somewhat different views as to
what these responsibilities are. As long ago as 1883 the State of New York
provided for the acquisition of the lands in that State adjoining the Falls,
with a view to creating a public park, and in 1885 it declared that these lands
“shall forever be reserved by the State for the purpose of restoring the scenery
of the Falls of Niagara to and preserving it in its natural condition, they shall
forever be kept open and free to access to all mankind without fee, chârge, or
expense to any person for entering upon or passing to or over any part thereof.”
A commission of five was created to carry out the purposes of the act. The
State reservation now includes 412 acres, part of which is under water, and
an annual appropriation of some $25,000 is made for its care and maintenance.
The commission has no jurisdiction beyond the limits of the reservation, but
it has never throughout its existence failed to protest and bring all its influ-
ence to bear against the depletion of the Falls by the abstraction of water
above and beyond the limits of the reservation. Nevertheless, the State legis-
lature has granted numerous franchises for the diversion of water, as will
appear further On.
6. Soon after the creation of the New York State reservation a public park
was created on the Canadian side, called the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls
Park, and was placed under the control of five commissioners. This park now
extends practically the whole length of the Niagara River from Lake Erie
to Lake Ontario, and embraces an area of about 734 acres. Py an act of the
Ontario Legislature (62 Victoria, cap. 11) it was, enacted that “the said com-
missioners, with the approval of the lieutenant governor in council, may enter
into an agreement Or agreements with any person or persons, company, or
companies to take water from the Niagara River or from the Niagara or Wel-
land Rivers at certain points within or without the said park for the purposes
of enabling such person or persons, company, or companies to generate within
or without the park electricity, or pneumatic, hydraulic, or other power con-
ducting or discharging said water through and across the said park or other-
Wise in Such manner, for such rentals, and upon such terms and conditions as
may be embodied in the agreement or agreements and as may appear to the
lieutenant governor in council to be in the public interest.” In 1903 this act
was amended by adding thereto the words “but no such agreement shall be
operative unless and until ratified and confirmed by the legislative assembly.”
(3 Edward VII., chap. 7.) Inasmuch as the park receives no aid from the
legislature in the way of annual appropriations for its support, the commis-
sioners have felt justified in using with some freedom the power thus granted
in order to obtain a revenue for the general improvement and maintenance of
the park. Prior to the amendment of 1903 they entered into four important
agreements for the diversion of water, and caused an investigation to be made
as to the availability of additional sites for power works. Two of these agree-
ments were with a single corporation, which has thus far utilized only one.
91739—24—PT 2—67
I806 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
7. The great water power available at Niagara Falls naturally attracted the
attention of engineers at an early date, but it was not until it could be trans-
mitted and used in the form of electricity that its development on a large scale
became financially practicable. There are now five principal corporations en-
gaged in furnishing or preparing to furnish electricity for commercial purposes
obtained from the water power, two of them located on the American and three
on the Canadian side. A brief description of each is here given. It is to be
remarked that none of the diversions have been Sanctioned by the United States
Government.
8. (I) Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co.—This company
was organized in 1877 under the general laws of the State of New York. It
purchased a canal which had been constructed before the Civil War, leading
from Port Day, above the Falls, through the city of Niagara Falls, to the edge
of the cliff below the Falls, where a grist mill had been established. The length
Of this canal was about 4,400 feet, its width 36 feet, and its depth 8 feet. A
width of 70 feet and depth of 10 feet had been projected. In 1881 the com-
pany established its first station for Supplying electricity for lighting, this
being the first public distribution for commercial purposes of electricity derived
from Niagara Falls. The increasing demand for electricity and the improved
methods of transmitting it led to a steady development of the works of this
Company and to the establishment of others. In 1895 an important enlargement
Of the canal having been begun, the right of the company to take water from the
river was questioned by the commissioners of the State reservation of Niagara.
An Opinion was obtained from the attorney general of the State of New York,
in which it was held that the Niagara River is a navigable river in law ; that
the company had no right to increase the capacity of its canal; that it had no
right to divert any water from the river; and that a diversion of water
Sufficient to diminish the flow over the Falls was a nuisance and could be
TeStrained.
The New York Legislature thereupon passed an act (chap. 968, Laws of
1896), if which the right of the company “to take, draw, use, and lease and
Sell to others the use of the waters of Niagara River for domestic, municipal,
and Sanitary purposes, and to develop power therefrom for its own use and
to lease and sell to others its use for manufacturing, heating, lighting, and
Other business purposes, is hereby recognized, declared, and confirmed.” No
limit as to the time during which these rights were to exist was fixed, but the
amount of water to be taken was limited to that which could be drawn by a
Canal 100 feet wide, with such depth and slope as would maintain at all times
a depth of 14 feet. The amount of water thus described is not specific. It is
computed to be about 9,500 cubic feet per second for the works now under
construction, but it would be possible to construct works under different plans
Which would use a much greater quantity of water. The company is now using
about 4,000 cubic feet per second. It is extending its works, and expects to
develop about 134,000 horsepower, in addition to which its tenant companies
Will develop about 8,000 horsepower. It has paid nothing to the State for its
privileges. Its managers estimate that the power plant and the industries
dependent upon it for power represent an investment of $10,000,000. -
9. (II) Niagara Falls Power Co.—In 1886 the New York Legislature granted
a charter to a company, called the “Niagara River Hydraulic Tunnel Power
& Sewer Co. of Niagara Falls,” subsequently amended in 1886, 1889, 1891,
1892, and 1893. In 1889 the name of the company was changed to “The Niagara
Falls Power Co.” It is authorized to take water sufficient to generate 200,000
horsepower, computed to be about 17,200 cubic feet per second. Its franchise
is for 50 years from March 31, 1886. Beginning about a mile above the Falls
a short intake canal is constructed nearly at right angles with the river shore.
Upon each side of the Canal deep pits are excavated in the rock, at the bottom
of which are placed the turbines, and over which are placed the power houses.
The Water, after passing through the turbines, is carried off by a tunnel about
21 feet in diameter under the city of Niagara Falls to the lower river, a dis-
tance of about 7,000 feet. The company has in operation two power houses
having a combined capacity of about 105,000 horsepower.
It is working the plant nearly to its full present capacity, using about 8,000
cubic feet per second, in addition to which one of its tenant companies is
using about 600 cubic feet. It paid nothing to the State for its privileges
but is bound to furnish free of charge electricity for light and for power and
also water for the use of the State in the State reservation at Niagara and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1307
the buildings thereon, when requested to do so by the commissioners of the
State reservation. It distributes electric power over a wide area of territory
and to a great variety of commercial interests in Niagara Falls, Tonawanda,
Olcott, and Buffalo, in Some cases over 35 miles distant. The investment is
stated by the managers to be over $6,000,000 in the power plant and $7,000,000
or $8,000,000 in other industries established on its lands at Niagara Falls and
dependent upon it.
\10. (III) Canadian Niagara Power Co.—This company is an allied company
of the Niagara Falls Power Co. just described. It was incorporated by an act
of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario in 1892, which also confirmed an
agreement dated April 7, 1892, between the company and the commissioners for
the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park. In 1899 an act was passed conferring
upon those commissioners authority to modify this agreement and to make other
agreements for the construction of power works, as specified above. The agree-
ment was modified July 15, 1899, and June 19, 1901.
11. The company is authorized to construct certain works, which works will
have a capacity of 110,000 horsepower, and by inference to take the quantity
of water required for that purpose, although the agreement does not in terms
limit the capacity of the works or the quantity of water. The amount required
to supply the works which have been approved and are under construction is
computed to be about 9,500 cubic feet per second. The location of the works
is shown upon the map. They are of the same general type as those of its
allied company on the American side. Water is taken from the river about a
Quarter of a mile above the Falls through a short canal and fore bay and dis-
charged through penstocks into turbines near the bottom of a deep wheel pit
excavated in the solid rock, over which is placed the power house. After
passing through the turbines the water is carried off by a tunnel about 2,000
feet long, and discharged into the river below the Falls. The works are not
completed, and less than half of the generators have been installed, the quantity
of water used thus far being about 2,600 cubic feet per second. They are
operated in connection with those of the allied company on the American side.
They represent an investment of several million dollars.
12. The company agrees to pay for its privileges an annual rental of $15,000,
for which it may generate 10,000 electrical horsepower or less; for all above
10,000 and under 20,000 horsepower it pays in addition to the above $1 per
annum for each horsepower; for all above 20,000 and under 30,000 it pays a
further sum of 75 cents per annum for each horsepower; and for all above
30,000 it pays a still further sum of 50 cents per annum for each horsepower;
that is to say, the annual rental for generating 30,000 horsepower will be
$32,500 and for generating 110,000 horsepower will be $72,500.
13. The period for which the privileges are granted is 50 years from May 1,
1899, but the company is entitled, at its option, to three renewals of 20 years
each, the rentals to be adjusted at the time of each renewal, if the lieutenant
governor in council so desires, and at the end of the third renewal the lieu-
tenant governor in council may require a still further renewal of 20 years;
the entire period thus covered by the agreement being 130 years.
14. (IV) Ontario Power Co.—This company was incorporated by an act of
the Dominion Parliament in 1887, and was empowered to take water from the
Welland River, or Chippewa Creek, near its mouth at Chippewa—that is,
indirectly from the Niagara River. On the 11th of April, 1900, it entered into
an agreement with the park commissioners to construct works for that pur-
pose, but before progressing far in the work of construction it changed its
plans, and on the 28th of June, 1902, it made another agreement with the com-
missioners, under which it is now working. It claims that the first agreement
is still valid and may be utilized hereafter if the company so desires. Under
the agreement of June 28, 1902, the company is authorized to construct works
according to certain plans submitted, which works will have a capacity of
180,000 horsepower, and by inference to take the quantity of water required
for that purpose, although the agreement does not in terms limit the capacity
of the works or the quantity of water. The amount required to supply the
works, which have been approved and are under construction, is computed to
be about 12,000 cubic feet per second. The location of the works is shown
upon the map. Water is taken from the river at Dufferin Island, about half a
mile above the intake of the Canadian Niagara Power Co., or three-quarters
of a mile above the Falls, and after passing through an elaborate system of Screens
enters a gatehouse and there is transmitted through three underground con-
1308 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
duits, each 18 feet in diameter, to a power house located near the foot of the
cliff below the Falls. The length of the pipe line to the nearest penStock is
6,180 feet and to the most distant penstock about 1,000 feet more. The works
Which represents an investment of several million dollars are not completed,
only about 2,000 cubic feet per second now being used. * .
15. The company agrees to pay for its privileges an annual rental of $30,000,
for which it may generate 20,000 electrical horsepower or less. For all above
20,000 and under 30,000 horsepower it pays, in addition to the above, $1 per
annum for each horsepower; for all above 30,000 and under 40,000 it pays a
further sum of 75 cents per annum for each horsepower; and for all above
40,000 it pays a still further sum of 50 cents per annum for each horsepower;
that is to say, the annual rental for generating 40,000 horsepower will be
$47,500, and for generating 180,000 horsepower will be $117,500.
16. The period for which the privilege is granted is 50 years from April 1,
1900, but the company is entitled, at its option, to three renewals of 20 years
each, and after the third renewal the lieutenant governor in council may require
a fourth renewal of 20 years, the rentals to be adjusted at each renewal, the
entire period thus covered by the agreement being 130 years.
17. (V) Electrical Development Co.—On January 29, 1903, the commissioners
for the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park entered into an agreement with
three citizens of Canada subsequently transferred to “the Electrical Develop-
ment Co. Of Ontario (Ltd.).” incorporated by act of the Legislature of Ontario.
(5 Edward VII, ch. , 12.) Under this agreement authority was given to take
from the Niagara River water sufficient to develop 125,000 electrical horse-
power. The amount computed to be 11.200 cubic feet per second. The location
Of the works is shown upon the map. Water is taken from the river about
midway between the intakes . Of the Canadian Niagara Power Co., and the
Ontario Power Co., or about half a mile above the Falls. A gathering dam
about 750 feet long extends out into the river obliquely upstream, designed to
divert the required, amount of water into the power house, which is located
upon the Original Shore line. Under the power house is a wheel pit, excavated
in the solid rock to a depth of 158 feet, at the bottom of which are placed the
turbines. After passing through the turbines the water is covered by a tunnel
to the base of the Falls and discharged about midway between the Canadian
and American shores. The works are not completed and no water is now being
used. They represent an investment of Several million dollars.
18. The company agrees to pay for its privileges an annual rental of $15,000.
for which sum it may generate 10,000 electrical horsepower or less; for all
above 10,000 and less than 20,000 horsepower it pays, in addition to the above,
$1 per annum for each horsepower: for all above 20,000 and less than 30,000
it pays a further sum of 75 cents per annum for each hosepower; and for all
above 30,000 it pays a still further sum of 50 cents per annum for each horse-
power; that is to say, the annual rental for generating 30,000 horsepower will
be $32,500, and for generating 125,000 horsepower will be $80,000. . . . .
19. The period for which the privilege is granted is 50 years from February
1, 1903, but the same provisions are made for renewals as in the cases of the
other companies, and the entire period covered by the agreement is thus 130
years. -
20. In the case of each of the Canadian companies the authorities reserve
the right to require that one-half of the power generated shall be supplied to
places in Canada.
21. Water is diverted also by the Park Electric Railway under authority of
the commissioners, the quantity to be used under plans now in execution being
estimated at 1,500 cubic feet per second, developing about 8,000 horsepower,
while the actual present use is about 600 cubic feet per Second.
22. In addition to the foregoing, six charters were granted by the New York
Legislature between the years 1886 and 1894 to corporations organized to take
water from the Niagara River, but it is believed that all, with the possible
exception of two, have expired by limitation. In one case, the Niagara, Lock-
port & Ontario Power Co., an act to renew its charter passed the legislature in
1904, but was vetoed by Governor Odell in his message of May 14 of that year.
The company, however, claims the rights granted under its original charter
and is constructing works for the distribution of electrical energy developed by
other companies, but is not itself diverting water. Another corporation, the
Niagara County Irrigation & Water Supply Co., has done some work, and
claims that its charter has thus been preserved, but it has diverted no Water.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1309
23. The Dominion of Canada has granted charters to two corporations in
addition to those already mentioned, organized to take water from the Niagara
River for power purposes. It has chartered two other corporations, organized
to take for power purposes water from Lake Erie, which would naturally be
tributary to the Niagara River. These companies have not finally developed
their plants, and it is believed that their franchises are therefore not perfected,
although all but one are still in force. In one case the charter has expired by
limitation. The charters fix no limit to the amount of water which may be
used. A charter was granted in 1889 by the Province of Ontario to the Hamil-
ton Cataract Power, Light & Traction Co. This company is using water from
the Lake Erie level of the Welland Canal, which water would otherwise be
tributary to the Niagara River. The volume now being used is estimated at
about 1,800 cubic feet per second, and is to be increased.
24. The Chicago Drainage Canal, constructed under the authority of the
State of Illinois, was designed to divert about 10,000 cubic feet per second of
water which would naturally flow over Niagara Falls. It has not been fully
completed, but it now has a capacity of about 5,000 cubic feet per second. The
amount which it is actually diverting has thus far been limited by the Secre-
tary of War to about 4,200 cubic feet per second. In addition to the foregoing,
about 333 cubic feet per second of Lake Erie water is now taken for power
purposes from the Erie Canal at Lockport. t
25. Full and precise information concerning the plans and legal rights of
the companies which have not begun or completed their works has not been
obtainable. In the cases of the corporations now furnishing or preparing to
furnish electricity for commercial purposes, the franchises are vague as to the
volume of water to be used, which is the feature of greatest interest here. We
have computed the volumes from the available data and have endeavored to
make the figures conservative. It must be understood that these figures are
fair approximations. In proceeding to an examination of the effect upon
Niagara Falls of the works proposed, the subject is much simplified by consider-
ing only those companies which derive their water from the Niagara River
itself, and that is the course here pursued. Any effects caused by these works
will be exaggerated by the other works mentioned. -
26. The total quantity of water to be taken from the river by works now
authorized is : -
Cubic feet
Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co 9, 500
Niagara Falls Power Co-_____________ - -, .-- 17, 200
Canadian Niagara Power CO--__ 9, 500
Ontario Power Co., not including well and river development__________ 12, 000
Electrical Development Co--- - - - *** - - - - - - - - - -- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11, 200
Niagara Falls Park Railway Co--___ –––––––––––––––––––– 1, 500
Total --- - - - * *- - - - - *** - - - - * *- - - - º ºs- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -º- 60, 900
Of this amount 26,700 cubic feet are to be taken on the American side and
the remainder, 34,200 cubic feet, on the Canadian side. That is, 27 per cent
of the average discharge and 33 per cent of the low-water discharge of the
Niagara River will cease to pass over the Falls when these works are completed
and in full Operation. The quantity to be diverted is more than double the
Quantity which now passes over the American Falls, which at the average stage
is about 27,800 cubic feet. That this will in general have an injurious effect
upon the Falls seems self-evident. The volume of water to be diverted is about
the equivalent of the entire discharge of Lake Superior over the Sault Ste. Marie.
The amount thus far actually diverted is but 17,800 cubic feet per Second and
has had an appreciable effect upon the Falls. To foretell with accuracy the
effects in detail of the full diversion authorized would require a more COmplete
knowledge of the bed of the river than is now obtainable. The water taken
on the Canadian side below the crest of the rapids will affect the Horseshoe
Fall alone. If all that taken on the American side should affect the American
Fall alone it would practically leave it dry; but it seems probable that only
a part of this diversion will be at the expense of the American Fall.
jºxactly what portion that will be can not be stated with precision, but
from a study of the channels and reefs, so far as they are known, a reasonable
estimate is that the water would come from the two arms in about the propor-
tion of one-sixth from the American Fall and five-sixths from the Horseshoe
Fall. Exactly what form the changes in the two cataracts will take, whether
1310 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
they will be made narrower or be broken up into a greater number of Streams
Or simply reduced in volume, retaining in general their present form, can not
now be foretold, for the reason that there is no accurate knowledge of the form
of the bed and depth of water on the crests. If 60,900 cubic feet per Second be
diverted the loss will be important, but if the diversion be limited to this amount
or reduced, as hereafter indicated, it may not prove disastrous. This can not
be definitely determined until the works now under construction have been
completed and put in operation. When that happens, if it be found that the
Falls have not suffered serious damage as a scenic spectacle, it does not follow
that additional water may be diverted with impunity. Additional diversion
would be an experiment even more dangerous than that now being tried, and
in Our opinion should not be permitted.
27. In return for the impairment of the Falls thus far authorized the State
of New York will receive practically nothing for the 342,000 horsepower author-
ized on that Side, and the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park will receive an
annual rental of $270,000, or an average of 65 cents per horsepower for the
415,000 horsepower authorized on the Canadian side. These figures do not
include the 8,000 horsepower being developed by the electrical railway nor the
power developed by the Hamilton Co. with water from the Welland Canal.
28. If all the water and all the head from the top of the upper rapids to the
foot of the Falls could be utilized there would result over 4,000,000 mechanical
horsepower. Probably space could be found, if desired, for works which would
utilize about half of this, or, Say, 2,000,000 horsepower, or possibly more. As
they could not utilize all the head they would use much more than half the
water. It will require time to create a market for all this power, but it is reason-
ably certain that it will in due season be found if the development of the power
itself is to go on unchecked. The difference in cost in favor of falling water
over any other method of developing pºwer is so great that all other methods
are sure to be abandoned where sufficient water power is available. The differ-
ence at Niagara Falls is probably not less than $15 or $20 per annum per
horsepower. The cost of transmission to distant points increases with the
distance, and finally becomes so great as to be unprofitable; but electrical engi-
neers are engaged in improving the methods and reducing the cost. An average
difference of cost for each horsepower can not now be given with any close
degree of approximation, but the difference, whatever it is, is a perpetual annual
saving which, if capitalized, will show that the commercial value of the power
at Niagara Falls is very great and is to be measured by the hundred millions
Of dollarS. y
29. Whether this Commercial asset shall be utilized to such an extent, as to
seriously impair the majesty and Scenic beauty of the Falls depends upon the
public will. In our opinion the commercial advantages of a large increase in
development of power will not compensate for the great loss to the World, of the
inspiration, aesthetic education, and opportunity for recreation and elevating
pleasure which the mighty cataract affords. The direct advantages to the public
from revenue is nothing on the New York side of the river and comparatively
slight on the Canadian side. There is, of course, an indirect advantage due to
added taxable wealth and reduction in the cost of power, but these advantages
are, in our opinion, slight in comparison with those which spring from the
preservation of the beauty and majesty of the Falls in their natural condition.
Over 800,000 people visit the Falls annually, deriving pleasure and inspiration
from them. The nations of the world have always recognized the great Value of
parks and reservations, and throughout the civilized world they have preserved
places of natural grandeur and beauty and furnished parks, artificially beauti-
fied, for rest, education, and the elevation of their people. An illustration may
be given in the case of the city of New York, one of many hundreds. There the
municipality has acquired in Central Park property which is estimated to be
worth $225,000,000, and has spent millions upon its improvement and Ornamenta-
tion. The United States Government has reserved lands of Striking picturesque:
ness, grandeur, and interest, regardless of their value. These illustration would
seem to prove conclusively that the people are not inclined to Offset mere CODO-
mercial values against the intangible but none the less great advantages found
in the preservation of the great Works of nature.
30. It is probably not expedient to attempt the recovery of the rights
granted to companies which have taken full advantage of them. In the case of
the Niagara Falls Power Co., On the American side, the franchises authorize
it to develop 200,000 horsepower. It has constructed works having about half
that capacity, but has not begun the construction of the additional works, and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1311
We believe has no present intention of doing so. In the case of the Ontario
Power Co., on the Canadian side, the construction of works under the agree-
ment of April 11, 1900, has been indefinitely postponed. The authority for the
additional works in both these cases could probably be withdrawn without
inflicting an unreasonable hardship. All franchises of which advantage has not
been taken should be extinguished.
31. The following is a summary of the foregoing statement of facts:
(a) The glory of Niagara Falls lies in the volume of its water rather than
in its height or in the Surrounding Scenery.
(b) Works are now authorized and partially completed at the Falls which
will divert from the Niagara River above the Falls about 27 per cent of the
average discharge and about 33 per cent of the low-water discharge, which is
more than double the quantity flowing now Over the American Fall. In addition
to this, water naturally tributary to the Niagara River is being diverted
through the Chicago Drainage Canal and for power in addition to navigation
purposes through the Erie and Welland Canals.
(c) The effect of this withdrawal of water is to injure both the American
and the Horseshoe Falls in nearly equal proportions. While the injury will be
perceptible, it may be not destructive Or disastrous.
(d) Improvements in the transmission of electric power and increased
demand will make a market for all the power which can be developed at Niagara
Falls and will cause a destruction of the Falls as a scenic spectacle if the devel-
Opment be allowed to go on unchecked.
(e) Charters have been granted to corporations which propose to divert addi-
tional amounts in quantities not now limited.
(f) The sums of money invested or being invested in the works now in Opera-
tion or under construction and in the industries dependent upon them amount
to many millions of dollars. It is probably not expedient to attempt the with-
drawal of the rights thus utilized.
(g) The commercial value of the water power at Niagara Falls is very great,
but if compared with values set aside by wealthy communities elsewhere for
park purposes this value is not too great to be devoted to similar purposes:
The place is visited annually by about 800,000 people.
, , 32. If the Falls are to be preserved, it must be by mutual agreement between
the two countries. As a Step in that direction we recommend that legislation
be enacted which Shall contain the following provisions, Viz:
(a) The Secretary of War to be authorized to grant permits for the diver-
Sion of 28,500 cubic feet per second, and no more, from the waters naturally
tributary to Niagara Falls, distributed as follows:
Cubic feet
Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co 9, 500
Niagara Falls Power Co 8, 600
Erie Canal or its tenants (in addition to lock Service) 400
Chicago Drainage Canal 10, 000
(b) All other diversion of water which is naturally tribuary to Niagara Falls
to be prohibited, except such as may be required for domestic use or for the
service of locks in navigation canals.
(c) Suitable penalties for violation of the law to be prescribed.
(d) The foregoing prohibition to remain in force two years, and then to
become the permanent law of the land if, in the meantime, the Canadian Gov-
ernment shall have enacted legislation prohibiting the diversion of water which
is naturally tributary to Niagara Falls in excess of 36,000 cubic feet per second,
not including the amounts required for domestic use or for the Service of locks
in navigation canals. It is assumed, however, that an understanding upon this
subject would be reached by treaty.
33. The object of such legislation would be to put a stop to the further deple-
tion of the Falls and at the same time inflict the least possible injury upon the
important interests now dependent upon this water power. The amount to be
diverted on the Canadian side has been fixed with a view to allowing to the
companies on that Side the amounts for which they now have works under con-
Struction, Which are:
Cubic feet
Canadian Niagara Power Co 9, 500
Ontario Power Co \, 12,000
Electrical Development Co 11, 200
Niagara Falls Park Railway Co 1, 500
Welland Canal or its tenants (in addition to lock service).-----------— 1,800
1312 ILLINGIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
34. One of the effects of such legislation would be to give to Canada the
advantage of diverting 7,500 cubic feet per second more than is diverted in the
United States. The advantage is more apparent than real, since the power
generated On the Canadian side Will to a large extent be transmitted to and used
in the United States. In the negotiation of treaty, however, the point should
be considered.
35. The substance of this report was submitted to our Canadian colleagues
before the passage of the joint resolution, with a view to uniting in a joint
report under the general law providing for the commission. There was a sub-
stantial agreement in the statement of facts, and such differences as developed
With respect to the recommendations which ought to be made did not seem
inSuperable, but Our colleagues desired time for further consideration. We have
no doubt as to their sympathetic interest in carrying out that part of the instruc-
tions contained in the resolution, which requires us “to exert in conjunction with
the members of said commission representing the Dominion of Canada, if prac-
ticable, all possible efforts for the preservation of Niagara Falls in their natural
COndition.
Very respectfully,
O. H. ERNST,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Chairman.
GEORGE CLINTon,
Member American Section.
GEO. Y. WISNER,
11 ember American Section.
The SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C.
*
INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS CoMMISSION PROGREss IREPORT-REPORT UPoN THE
CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL BY THE CoMMIssion, JANUARY 4, 1907
INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS COMMISSION,
Toronto, Ontario, January 4, 1907.
The honorable SECRETARY or WAR of THE UNITED STATEs and the honorable
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CANADA :
The International Waterways Commission has the honor to submit the fol-
lowing report upon the Chicago Drainage Canal :
1. The headwaters of the Illinois River, an important tributary of the Mis-
Sissippi, approach within 10 miles of Lake Michigan near its southerly end,
Where Stands Chicago. The river, called here the Des Plaines, is separated
from the lake by a low and narrow divide running nearly north and South.
In the divide are two depressions, about 8 miles apart, in which the height is
only about 10 feet above the surface of the lake. The area eastward of the
divide is drained by two Streams, the Chicago and the Calumet Rivers, which
empty into Lake Michigan.
The city of Chicago Was originally built on the Chicago River, and, although
it is now spreading into the Calumet region, it was for many years drained
exclusively by the Chicago River, and its principal parts are now so drained.
This river constitutes the main Sewer of Chicago. The lake furnishes the
city's water supply. To prevent the pollution of the water Supply by Sewage
has always been the most important problem with which Chicago has had to
deal. Its solution has from a very early day been found in diverting a part
of the river's flow into the valley of the Des Plaines through the most north-
erly of the two depressions mentioned above. The Illinois and Michigan
Canal, which was opened to navigation in 1848, was at once utilized for this
purpose, and all subsequent improvements consisted in efforts to force more
sewage through that canal until, in 1889, it was decided to build a new and
greatly enlarged channel which should completely divert the Chicago River
from Lake Michigan and draw from that lake a body of pure Water large
enough to make the sewage inoffensive to the communities by whose doors
it must pass.
2. Before embarking upon this work the city, in 1886, appointed a COm-
mision of three engineers “to consider and report on any and all things which
relate to the matter of water supply and drainage of the city of Chicago.”
In January, 1887, the commission submitted a report to the mayor and city
council of Chicago which it styled a preliminary report. It intended to Sub-
mit an additional or final report in which the data upon Which its conclu-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1313
Sions were based should be given in greater detail, but such additional report
Was never submitted. After remarking that “almost every conceivable way of
dealing with these questions had been suggested and in some form applied
during the past 30 years,” the commission stated that “among the possible
methods of getting rid of the Chicago sewage there are but three that have
been deemed worthy of consideration, namely, a discharge into Lake Michigan,
a disposal upon land, and a discharge into the main river.” It considered the
first method too expensive, involving as it does a wide separation between the
Outlets of the sewers and the intakes of the water supply. It pronounced the
Second inapplicable to the metropolitan district as a whole under the topo-
graphical conditions existing, but thought that it might be employed for the
extreme northern and southern parts, the latter including the Calumet region.
It recommended the third method. It was uncertain as to the quantity of
Water required to dilute the sewage so as to make it inoffensive ; but in order
to prepare an estimate of cost it was compelled to assume some approximate
Size of channel, and it did assume a size large enough to discharge 600,000
Cubic feet per minute, that being the estimated amount of water falling upon
the area tributary to the canal during the storms and not otherwise disposed
Of. It includes the drainage basins of the upper Des Plaines and of the Chi-
cago Rivers, but not that of the Calumet River. With a channel of less dimen-
sions in times of storms and floods the Chicago River would not be fully
diverted into the Des Plaines, but would back up into Lake Michigan. The
result was a supply of 24,000 cubic feet per minute for each 100,000 people
in a population of 2,500,000, the population which the commission thought it
desirable to provide for, and the opinion was expressed that this would equal
the maximum requirements.
3. Following this report the Illinois Legislature passed an act approved
May 29, 1889, “to create a Sanitary district, and to remove obstructions in
the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers,” of which the twenty-third and twenty-
fourth paragraphs read as follows, viz:
“PAR. 23. If any channel is constructed under the provisions hereof by means
of which any of the waters of Lake Michigan shall be caused to pass into
the Des Plaines or Illinois Rivers, such channel shall be constructed of Suf-
ficient size and capacity to produce and maintain at all times a continuous
flow of not less than 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, and to be of a
depth of not less than 14 feet, and a current not exceeding 3 miles per hour,
and if any portion of such channel shall be cut through a territory with a
rocky stratum where such rocky stratum is above a grade sufficient to pro-
duce a depth of water from Lake Michigan of not less than 18 feet, such por-
tion of said channel shall have double the flowing capacity above provided
for and a width of not less than 160 feet at the bottom, capable of producing
a (lepth of not less than 18 feet of water. If the population of the district
draining into such channel shall at any time exceed 1,500,000, such channel
shall be made and kept of such size and in such condition that it will pro-
duce and maintain at all times a continuous flow of not less than 20,000 cubic
feet of water per minute for each 100,000 of the population of such district,
at a current of not more than 3 miles per hour, and if at any time the Gen-
eral Government shall improve the Des Plaines or Illinois Rivers, so that the
same shall be capable of receiving a flow of 600,000 cubic feet of water per
minute or more from said channel and shall provide for the payment of all
damages which any extra flow above 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute
from such channel may cause to private property SO as to Save harmless the
said district from all liability therefrom, then such sanitary district shall
within one year thereafter enlarge the entire channel leading into said Des
Plaines or Illinois Rivers from said district to a sufficient size and capacity
to produce and maintain a continuous flow throughout the same of not less
than 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, with a current of not more
than 3 miles per hour, and such channel shall be constructed upon Such
grade as to be capable of producing a depth of water of not less than 18 feet
throughout said channel, and shall have a width of not less than 160 feet at
the bottom. In case a channel is constructed in the Des Plaines River, as Con-
templated in this section, it shall be carried down the slope between Lockport
and Joliet to the pool Commonly known as the upper basin of Sufficient width
and depth to carry off the water the channel shall bring down from above.
The district constructing a channel to carry water from Lake Michigan of
any amount authorized by this act may correct, modify, and remove obstruc-
tions in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers wherever it shall be necessary so
9.1739—24—PT 2—68
1314 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to do to prevent overflow or damage along said rivers, and shall remove the
dams at Henry and Copperas Creek in the Illinois River before any water
shall be turned into the said channel. And the canal commissioners, if they
Shall find at any time that an additional Supply of water has been added to
either Of Said rivers by any drainage district or districts to maintain a depth
Of not leSS than 6 feet from any dam Owned by the State to and into the first
lock of the Illinois and Michigan Canal at La Salle, without the aid of any
Such dam, at low water, then it shall be the duty Of Said Canal Commissioners
to CauSe Such dam or dams to be removed. This act Shall not be construed
to authorize the injury or destruction of existing Water-power rightS.
“PAR. 24. When such channel shall be completed, and the Water turned
therein, to the amount of 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, the same is
hereby declared a navigable stream, and whenever the General Government
Shall improve the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers for navigation, to connect
with this channel, said General Government shall have full control over the
same for navigation purposes, but not to interfere with its control for sanitary
or drainage purposes.”
By this act a flow of not less than 20,000 cubic feet per minute is required for
each 100,000 inhabitants and provision is made for a population of 3,000,000.
The evidence before the legislative committee which framed the bill as to the
Quantity required was contradictory. The amount fixed for dilution of the
Sewage Was a minimum.
4. Under this act the Sanitary District of Chicago was organized, embracing
all of the city north of Eighty-seventh Street and some 43 square miles of
Cook County outside of the city limits. The total area of the district was 185
square miles, and did not include the Calumet region nor the north Shore. The
trustees held their first meeting January 18, 1890. The Chicago Drainage Canal
was then constructed, water being turned into it for the first time in January,
1900. It was not then and has not since been completed to its full capacity as
designed. In places where the excavation was in rock the full dimensions of
the prism were taken out, but in earth a considerable volume was left to be
removed by the easy method of dredging hereafter. When fully completed it
was designed to have a capacity of 600,000 cubic feet per minute, or 10,000 cubic
feet per second, flowing at a velocity of 1.25 miles per hour in earth and 1.9
miles per hour in rock.
5. The canal is 28.05 miles in length. For a distance of 7.8 miles from its
junction with the Chicago River at Robey Street its dimensions are 110 feet
width at bottom, side slopes 1 on 2, depth of water 22 feet at low stage of Lake
Michigan, with a grade of 1 in 40,000, the material being earth. This section is
eventually to have a width of 200 feet at bottom.
6. For a farther distance of 5.3 miles, although the material is principally
earth, the dimensions are 202 feet width at bottom, side slopes 1 on 2, minimum
depth of water 22 feet, with a grade of 1 in 40,000. This section is completed.
7. For the remaining 15.95 miles the canal is excavated wholly or partially
in rock. Where the natural rock does not come to the surface walls of masonry
have been built upon the rock surface, thus artificially carrying it to a height 5
feet above datum. The dimensions here are 160 feet width at bottom, 162 feet
width at top, minimum depth of water 22 feet, with a grade of 1 in 20,000. This
Section also is completed.
8. The controlling Works are situated near the town of Loºkport at the
western end of the canal. They consist of a bear-trap dam 160 feet wide, with
a vertical play of 17 feet, and of seven sluice gates of the Stoney type, each 30
feet wide and having a vertical play of 20 feet. The works provide a very
efficient means of controlling the flow of water through the canal.
9. The project of the Sanitary district for the disposal of sewage by the
canal when completed is briefly as follows: All sewers will discharge into the
Chicago River, either directly or through intercepting sewers. From the mouth
in Lake Michigan to the point where the north and south branches unite the
river will flow 8,000 cubic feet per second, Iess such quantity as may be pumped
into the upper portion of the north branch, which under the original project
Was 200 cubic feet per second admitted through a conduit at Fullerton Avenue.
From this point the combined flow will be 8,000 cubic feet to the point where
the south fork enters the south branch, where it will be increased to 10,000
cubic feet by Water pumped from Lake Michigan at Thirty-ninth Street and
flowing through a large conduit in Thirty-ninth Street to the south fork. The
volume which will finally enter the canal under this project will be 10,000 cubic
feet per second.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1315
10. The channel of the Chicago River is not large enough to transmit that
volume from the lake to the canal except at velocities which are an obstruction
to navigation. The amount which the Secretary of War has thus far permitted
the sanitary district to pass through the river is 4,167 cubic feet per second. In
Order to obtain authority for a larger amount the trustees have undertaken
to enlarge the channel of the river and have accomplished a large amount of
WOrk in that direction.
11. By act of the Illinois Legislature in 1903 the sanitary district was en-
larged by annexing thereto the north shore district, containing 78.6 square miles,
and the Calumet district, containing 94.48 square miles. The total area of the
Sanitary district is therefore now 358.08 miles. The same legislature author-
ized the development of the water power created by the diversion.
12. The plans for the north shore region involve two additional conduits
from the lake to the north branch of the Chicago River, One at Lawrence
Avenue, into which 583 cubic feet per second, and One at Wilmette, into which
1,000 cubic feet per second, are to be pumped. As this water is to form a part
of the 10,000 cubic feet originally to be taken out through that river, it does not
add to the amount of water to be taken from Lake Michigan.
13. The plans for the Calumet region involve a treatment of the Calumet
River similar to that of the Chicago River. The river is to be diverted into the
Des Plaines Valley. For this purpose a new channel is to be cut through the
southerly depression in the divide and to join the present drainage canal at
Sag, about 11 miles from the controlling works at Lockport. From Sag to
Lockport the drainage canal must carry the flow from the Calument River in
addition to that from the Chicago River. It was designed to accommodate the
latter river alone, or 10,000 cubic feet per second, but improved methods of
excavation, particularly channeling in rock, gave it a greater capacity than was
computed; and the hydraulic formulas with which its dimensions were figured,
being adapted to smaller streams, gave results which proved to be too large.
It is found that the portion completed in rock, which includes the reach from
Sag to Lockport, will carry an amount Stated by the chief engineer to be
14,000 cubic feet per second. The difference, 4,000 cubic feet per second, is the
amount which it is proposed to divert from the Calumet River. For this pur-
pose it is proposed to excavate a channel having in earth a bottom width of 72
feet, with side slopes 3 on 5, and in rock a bottom width of 90 feet with vertical
sides, the depth in both cases to be 25 feet.
14. Work in the territory annexed in 1903 has been limited to Surveys, and
the preparation of plans, and the expenditures in that territory have been small.
The amount expended upon the drainage canal and accessory works, including
the above, to December 31, 1905, is $40,873,629,71; in addition to which $1,556,-
226.56 has been expended for the development of water power and $7,290,101.27
has been paid out for interest.
15. Although the primary object of the Chicago Drainage Canal was the
discharge of Chicago sewage its function as a channel for navigation was
kept in view from the beginning. All of the bridges over it are drawbridges
with ample openings. A provision of this kind, as well as the care exercised
to make the sewage inoffensive by liberal dilution, was necessary to conciliate
the interests in the valley of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, which would
Otherwise be adversely affected. It can hardly be doubted that the canal will
eventually form a part of an improved waterway between the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi River, though its full depth will probably not be required for
that purpose. Congress has not adopted any scheme for this improvement, but
by its dirction a survey was made, and plans with estimates for a waterway 14
feet deep were submitted by a board of engineers in a report dated August 26,
1905. The board found that for a distance of about 100 miles from Chicago the
improvement must be with locks and dams, and as the quantity of water required
would be merely that needed for the service of locks and other incidentals,
the extent of the improvement or depth which could be obtained in that part
Of the route was without limit So far as it depended upon the amount of water
available. For the remaining distance, about 223 miles, the improvement would
be an enlargement of the open channel and the degree to which it was practi-
cable was entirely dependent upon the quantity of water flowing. The board
assumed that the Chicago Drainage Canal would eventually be permitted to
take 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan, and it expressed the
opinion that with that volume added to the natural low-water discharge of
1316 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the Illinois River a depth of 14 feet in the open channel could be maintained :
also that if a much greater depth Was to be secured a much larger volume
of water must be taken from Lake Michigan.
16. In the neighborhood of Lockport the natural level of the ground falls
away rapidly and excellent facilities are found for the development of water
power. Under the State legislation of 1903 the sanitary district is now en-
gaged in utilizing this incidental advantage of the drainage canal. The plans
provide for an extension of the canal 10,700 feet between concrete walls and
earth and rock embankments to the Site Selected for the power house and for
the excavation of a tail race 6,800 feet long, 160 feet wide, and 22 feet deep.
If the maximum quantity of water which the sanitary district now claims to
be necessary for sanitary purposes—14,000 feet per second—be utilized it will
be possible to develop about 40,000 electrical horsepower under a head of 34
feet. With 10,000 cubic feet per second about 28,000 horsepower can be de- .
veloped. A power house is being erected Which Will accommodate eight tur-
bines, each capable of generating 5,000 horsepower.
17. The sanitary district has acquired land on both sides of the canal
throughout its length, the width of the strips varying from 200 to 800 feet.
This land is offered to manufacturers at moderate prices, and it Seems probable
that they will in the course of time be attracted thereto, particularly after
arrangements for furnishing them with cheap power from Lockport are com-
pleted.
18. The diversion of large bodies of water from Lake Michigan for supply-
ing the drainage canal has not been authorized by Congress. The plans of the
sanitary district, except those for the enlargement of the Chicago River, have
not been submitted to any Federal authority for approval. It was only after the
opening of the canal that application was made to the Secretary of War for
permission to divert the quantity of water required by the State law. The
secretary granted permission for such quantity as would pass through Chicago
River without detriment to navigation, a quantity considerably less than that
required by the State law. After experimenting with various amounts it was
fixed at 250,000 cubic feet per minute, or 4,167 cubic feet per second, and that
is the amount now authorized. It is “subject to such modification as, in the
opinion of the Secretary of War, the public interests may from time to time
require.”
19. In the expenditure of $40,000,000 for the drainage canal the people of
Chicago, with its population of 2,000,000, incurred a burden equivalent to that
due to an expenditure of $1,600,000,000 by the United States, with its popula-
tion of 80,000,000—that is, enough to build eight or more Panama Canals.
It was a very serious effort and has commanded the admiration and sympathy
of all observers. The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake
Michigan affects other interests adversely, but these interests have withheld
their opposition, seeming to believe that some such amount was necessary,
and apparently willing to contribute their share to protect the lives and
health of the people of a great city. The plans calling for that amount
have been under public discussion for some years. Although withholding
formal approval, the Federal authorities have taken no steps to prevent their
execution. Congress has called for a plan and estimates for an improvement
of the waterways connecting with it, the Scope of which is fixed by that
amount. There appears to he a tacit general agreement that Chicago needs
or will need about 10,000 cubic feet of water per second for sanitary purposes
and that the city should have it without further question.
20. It was not generally known until after the publication in March last
of the report of the American section of this commission upon Niagara Falls
that an amount greater than 10,000 cubic feet per second would be asked for.
In that report, subsequently concurred in by the Canadian section, it was
recommended that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet be allowed. The preserva-
tion of Niagara Falls alone was considered, and that in the light of the tacit
agreement above described. It was supposed at the time that this was all that
Chicago needed, but the recommendation gave offense to the officials of the
sanitary district, and the further demand then came out in the form of appeals
to the committees of Congress and to the Secretary of State. It is necessary
now to take up the question anew, and, after considering it in all its bearings.
to reach Some COnclusion as to whether there should be a limit to the amount
of water to be diverted at Chicago, and, if so, as to what that limit is.
21. That the abstraction of water from Lake Michigan has a tendency to
lower the level of that lake and of all the waters to which it is tributary is
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1317
self-evident; but the exact effect of abstracting a given amount can be ascer-
tained only from prolonged observation of the natural outlets under the vary-
ing conditions to which they are subjected during a series of years. An elab-
orate investigation of this subject was made under the office of the United
States Lake Survey in Detroit, the results of which were published in the
annual reports of the Chief of Engineers for 1900, page 5401; for 1902, pages
2779 and 2825; and for 1904, page 4120. Further observations are needed to
be made when the difference of level between Lake Erie and Lake Huron
is greater or less than when the existing observations were made, but the
results Obtained from the latter are believed to be reliable within one-tenth
of a foot. The amounts by which the mean level, as derived from observations
of the last 46 years of various waters, will be lowered by a discharge of 10.000
and also by 14,000 cubic feet per second are given in the following table:
Water level lowered
by diversion at
Chicago of—
Location |
10,000 14,000
Cubic feeticubic feet
per Sec- per Sec-
ond Ond ,
Foot Foot
Lakes Huron and Michigan--------------------------------------------------------- (), 52 0. 70
Lake St. Cla ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 64
Lake Erie--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 64
Lake Ontario----------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 49
St. Lawrence River and at Rapide Plat --------------------------------------------- 40 56

From this table it appears that all the waters, including Lakes Michigan
and Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence
River, besides the important connecting channels, the Detroit and St. Clair
Rivers, will be lowered by amounts varying from 414 to 614 inches for 10,000
culmic feet and from 6 to 8% inches for 14,000 cubic feet per second. The length
of time res;uired to produce this effect is about five years ; about half of it will
be produced at the end of 18 months. The above figures give the effect at
average level ; they are much more considerable during low-water periods.
22. Variations in the level Of the lakes’ Surface, due to Winds and to
change of barometric pressure, are frequent and irregular and at times violent.
Variations of more than 6 inches are very Common, often occurring hourly ſor
many hours in succession, while variations of 2 or 3 feet within an hour are
riot uncomunoll. Besides these irregular variations there is a regular annual
variation due to difference in rainfall, evaporation, and run-off, the Water level
being highest in midsummer and lowest in midwinter. The levels are affected
also by the greater or less severity of the winter, and the consequent greater
or less decrease in the discharging capacity of the Outlets by ice. In order to:
study the annual oscillations it is necessary to eliminate the irregular oscilla-
tions, and that is accomplished by using the average levels for a month. Using
the monthly mean levels it is found that regular fluctuation in Lake Huron-
Michigan usually does not exceed 2 feet in any one year, but in a long Series
of years there is a great difference in the height to which high water will rise.
The highest high water (monthly mean) recorded for that lake was in June,
1886, and the lowest high water in June, 1896, the difference between the two
being over 31% feet. The first is what navigators of the Great Lakes call a
high-water year and the second a low-water year. -
23. It is evident that the average level of the lake may be lowered con-
siderably without the change becoming immediately apparent, and that fact has
been used as an argument to prove that the lowering caused by the Chicago
Drainage Canal is of no consequence to those interested in navigation. Since
they can not see it they will not know it and will not feel it. The argument is
fallacious. It is true that they can not see it immediately, but they will SOOn
feel it and will know it through the most costly means of acquiring knowledge—
the injury to their material interests. The oscillations will remain the same
as before, but low water will fall lower and high water will rise less high. The
1818 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
average draft of vessels must be diminished by the amount that the average
level is lowered unless the depth be restored by remedial works.
24. The most important lake traffic is now carried on in large freight
arriers which are loaded down to the greatest draft that can be carried into
the harbors or through the channels between the lakes. With the depth now
available they are usually loaded to a draft of about 19 feet, but careful watch.
is kept on the stage of the waterways and advantage is taken of any temporary
increase cf stage to load the vessels deeper. In the modern vessel each inch of
increased draft adds about 50 tons to the carrying capacity. To lower the water
Surface 6 inches is to reduce the capacity of the vessel about 300 tons. If the
freight rate on iron ore be taken at 55 cents per ton, exclusive of the cost of
lowding and unloading, and the number of trips during the season at 22, there
appears a loss of over $3,600 for the season for each vessel. The number of ves-
Sels ravigating the Great Lakes which draw 19 feet or more is 417, and their
tonnage is I,541,414 tons, which is about three-quarters of the total tonnage of
the Great Lakes. It is a conservative estimate that the loss to the navigation
interests resulting from a reduction of 6 inches in the depth of water is $1,500,-
000 per annum, which, capitalized at 4 per cent, amounts to a loss of $37,500,-
000. With a greater reduction of depth the resulting loss would be proportion-
ately greater. The number of deep-draft vessels and the share of lake traffic
Which they carry is increasing each year, while the lake traffic itself is increas-
ing with rºmarvelous rapidity. The total number of tons of freight which passed
through Detroit River in 1905 was about 58,000,000, valued at about $615,000,-
000. The records for the year 1906, so far as they are made up, indicate that
the number of tons which passed through the Detroit River in 1906 exceeded
65,000,000, valued at $690,000,000. The loss will be even greater in the future
than it is now. It is quite certain that the loss will not pass unnoticed, and
that the Governments will be compelled to restore the depth either by additional
excavations or by regulating works.
25. ('areful estimates have been made of the cost of deepening the channels
between the lakes 1 foot. To deepen the Detroit River is estimated to cost
$4,115,430. In Lake St. Clair the full depth of the lake is now utilized, and
any lowering of its surface involves the excavation of an artificial channel
elitirely across the lake, a distance of 18 miles, of which it has been necessary
heretofore to artificially deepen only one-third. To deepen the channel here
and at certain shoal places in St. Clair River and at the foot of Lake Huron is
estimated to cost $1,080,720. It results in replacing cpen lake navigation hy
Canal navigation for a distance of 12 miles in Lake St. Clair, a decided dis-
advantage.
26. The data are not at hand for an accurate estimate of the cost of re-
storing the depths in the harbors of the Great Lakes, but an approximation
may be reached from a consideration of the cost of improvements heretofore
made. The depth to be gained being Small, the cost will not vary largely,
whether that gain be a few inches more or less. The United States has im-
proved 35 harbors on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, and has expended
thereon about $20,000,000, of which about one-quarter was for maintenance.
The average increase of depth is 10 feet and the cost per foot of increase was
therefore about $1,500,000, but as the cost of a small increase would be much
greator per foot than an increase of 10 feet, and as several harbors on Lake
Ontario are to be added, the cost per foot in this case would probably be not
less than $2,000,000 for harbors in the United States. The Canadian Govern-
ment has improved over 50 harbors on Georgian Bay, Lakes Huron, St. Clair,
Frie, and Ontario. A large amount, say $3,000,000, must be added for increas-
ing the depth of these harbors.
27. The depth in the Welland Canal and in the six canals employed to
overcome rapids in the St. Lawrence River is now 14 feet, of which every inch
is needed. At the head of the Cornwall Canal in the St. Lawrence River the
abstraction of 14,000 cubic feet of water per Second at Chicago will lower the
surface about 6% inches at mean level and much more at low water. To
restore the depth in these canals involves the reconstruction of all the end
locks and deepening the approaches thereto, and is estimated to cost $2,500,000.
28. The total cost Of restoring the depth in the harbors of the Great Lakes
and the channels between the lakes is therefore roughly $10,000,000, and of
restoring it in the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals is $2,500,000 additional,
or $12,500,000 in all.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1319
29. The shores of the Great Lakes are very far from being fully developed,
and it is highly probable that many harbors not now in existence remain to be
created, or if in existence remain to be improved. The lowering of the Lakes’
Surface increases the difficulty and cost Of Such improvementS. This considera-
tion is of importance, although no money value can now be given it.
30. The expenditure of the sums mentioned above will restore the depths
now existing, but it will not prevent very serious annoyance to the navigation
interests during the execution of the work. The time required will be Several
years, and in the meantime the vast commerce Of the Great Lakes will be
hampered, not only by deficient depth, but also by the Occupation of the chan-
nels, already crowded with commerce, by the excavating machines.
31. It is evident from the foregoing that large bodies of water can not
be diverted by the Chicago Drainage Canal without very Serious detriment to
the naviagtion interests of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence Valley.
The greater the amount of water diverted the greater the injury. Chicago
being one of the principal lake ports, there will be very few communities which
will feel this detriment more than She Will.
32. In the presence of these interests, the effect upon Niagara Falls may
be simply mentioned with a reference to our former reports upon that subject.
The volume of Niagara Falls will be reduced by the full amount diverted at
Chicago.
33. The city of Chicago was organized as a city in 1837, with a population
of about 4,000. Its population in 1840 was 4,479 ; in 1850, 28,269; in 1860,
112,172; in 1870, 298,977; in 1880, 503,185; in 1890, 1,099,850; and in 1900 it
was 1,698,575. It is estimated now to be about 2,000,000. Should the rate of
growth continue which prevailed between 1880 and 1900, the population will
be 3,000,000 in the year 1922 and 4,000,000 in the year 1939. It is impossible
to foretell its future growth, but there is no reason to doubt that it will in
time greatly exceed the largest of these numbers. The city is the commercial
center of an empire still in its infancy. It is entirely reasonable to expect
a population of five or six millions or more. It will cover territory not now
covered. Methods of sewage disposal appropriate to One portion of it may not
be appropriate to other portions. If the diversion of 20,000 cubic feet per
minute (or 3334% cubic feet per Second) for each 100,000 of population, as
required by the State law, is accepted as the standard, then from 17,000 to
20,000 cubic feet per second will be required, and the 14,000 cubic feet now
contemplated will not be sufficient. Even more than 20,000 cubic feet will
be required for a population greater than 6,000,000. The diversion of 20,000
cubic feet per second would lower Lakes Michigan and Huron about 13 inches,
and Lake Erie about 11 inches. Plans which lead to this result Should be
carefully scrutinized.
34. One of the reasons given in 1889 for adopting this method of disposing
of Chicago sewage was that it offered the advantage of furnishing a navigable
waterway from Chicago to the Mississippi River. The navigable depth or
capacity of such a waterway has never been authoritatively fixed. Congress
has considered a depth of 14 feet to the extent of ordering a Survey and esti-
mates of cost for that depth, but the Illinois Legislature has declared its policy
to be to secure the construction of a deeper channel, not limiting its proposed
capacity in terms, but defining it to be “of the greatest practicable depth and
usefulness for navigation.” A fair interpretation of this language gives a
proposed depth of 20 feet, that being the depth required to accommodate the
most important vessels now navigating the Great Lakes. It will require a
volume of water greater than the 10,000 cubic feet per Second originally
contemplated.
35. The amount which it is proposed to divert from the Calumet River,
4,000 cubic feet per second, is fixed by accident rather than by design, being
the excess which the Chicago Drainage Canal is found capable of carrying
after providing for the 10,000 cubic feet from the Chicago River, for which it
was originally constructed. It is certain that no greater amount than 4,000
cubic feet can be diverted from the Calumet without checking the flow from
the Chicago River, and thus giving relief to a suburban portion of the city at
the expense of the richest and most populous centers.
36. It is equally certain that the diversion of 4,000 cubic feet or less will
not at all times afford the desired relief to the Calumet. In the first place, it
provides for a population of only 1,200,000, a number which will in all prob-
ability be greatly exceeded at a day not remote. At present the population is
estimated at about 200,000, but for the present necessities it is not a question
1320 ILLINo.1s AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of population, but of drainage area and rainfall. A flood discharge of the
Calumet has been measured at Riverdale, about 10 miles from its mouth, of
about 13,300 cubic feet per second from a drainage area of about 700 square
miles, and even that amount may at times be exceeded. The total drainage
area of the Calumet region, including the Sag Valley, is about 825 square
miles, and assuming the discharge to increase in proportion to the area, the
flood discharge to be provided for is over 15,700 cubic feet per second. The
diversion of only 4,000 cubic feet will not prevent a heavy discharge into Lake
Michigan in time of flood. To Overcome this difficulty it is proposed, if suitable
legislation can be secured, to divert the upper Calumet into Lake Michigan
through an artificial channel to be excavated in Indiana about 171/2 miles east
of the State line. Indiana has not authorized such diversion but supposing
it to be accomplished, there will Still be times when the discharge from the
drainage area remaining to be cared for by the canal, 238 square miles, will ex-
ceed 4,000 cubic feet per second. The excess must enter Lake Michigan through
the mouth of the Calumet, and at such times the system will fail. Of course,
it makes no provisions for the future occupation of the upper Calumet region
and the pollution of the lake from that Source. It thus appears that the
diversion of the Calumet River as now proposed by the sanitary district will
not be complete even for the present, and will not make adequate provision
for the future.
37. The diversion of 4,000 cubic feet per second provides for a population
of 1,200,000 by the standard fixed by the State law. The population of the
Calumet region is now about 200,000, and until it reaches 1,200,000 only a part
of the flow will be needed for sanitary purposes during a large part of the
year; but the channel must be there, available for the full flow, if this method
of Sewage disposal is to be useful to any population, however small. Likewise
the channel from the Chicago River must be, as it is, large enough to provide
for a population of 3,000,000, whether that number of people are ever to be-
come tributary to the Chicago River or not. The channels having once been
constructed, any reduction of flow below their fullest capacity is a dead loss
to the water power dependent upon them. It has been said that it would be
absurd to develop water power at the cost per horsepower which this water
power costs if the drainage canal be included, and that is true. But being
given the channels, it would not be absurd to use them to their fullest capacity.
The Chicago Drainage Canal having been constructed with a capacity, as it
turns out, of 14,000 cubic feet per second, full power development will call for
the whole of that amount, and in fact power works are now under construction
at Lockport to utilize it. Inasmuch as the sanitary requirements by the
standard fixed in the State law are only 6,667 cubic feet per second for the
present population of 2,000,000, it is evident that power development, inci-
dental though it be, does lead to demands for water not required for sani-
tary purposes. *
38. It remains to be seen whether any diversion, complete or otherwise, is
necessary to preserve the health of Chicago. Upon this point the commission
sought the advice of two eminent sanitary engineers—Messrs. Rudolph Hering
and George W. Fuller—whom it instructed as follows, viz.: “To examine the
Sanitary situation at Chicago, so far as it is affected by sewage disposal, and to
report whether it is or is not necessary to the health of the city to extend to
outlying territory the system which was adopted in 1889 for the main city.
* * * The Commission desires an emphatic opinion from authoritative
Sources as to whether the system of diverting the water of Lake Michigan in
large quantities into the Illinois Valley is the only way to preserve the lives
and health of the people of Chicago. It does not desire an investigation of the
effect upon the navigation interests of the Great Lakes. It has satisfied itself
upon that point. Nor does it wish to reopen the case of the Chicago Drainage
Canal as designed and built. It accepts that as a fixed fact, with its attendant
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago River. The ex-
tension of the System to the Calumet River alone is in question, and the ques-
tion is : Are there not other methods of sewage disposal which can be applied
here at a Cost not exceeding much, if at all, the cost of the method proposed.
and which will be equally effective in preventing the pollution of the lake?
It desires a report upon the various systems which may be found available
for application here, with a statement of their relative efficiency. It also
desires a statement of their relative cost, so far as that can be given, without
the preparation of detailed plans. The latest conclusions of sanitary engineers
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1321
as to the amount of dilution which is required to make sewage inoffensive
should be given.” These gentlemen visited Chicago, and after a thorough
examination of the situation submitted a report. The entire report should be
carefully studied. Its conclusions only are here quoted. They are as follows,
VIZ .
“The latest conclusions of sanitary engineers as to the amount of dilution
which is required to make sewage inoffensive are that a dilution of 3% cubic
feet per second for each 1,000 persons connected with the sewers, as provided
for in the enactment of the Illinois Legislature in 1889, is as low a figure as it
is now possible to State.
“We believe that with the elimination of objectionable trade Wastes and the
occasional dredging of the river this amount of dilution will be sufficient to
prevent offensiveness.
“The extension of the dilution method to the outlying territory is not the
only way to preserve the lives and health of the people of Chicago. The appli-
cation of this method, with flow of 10,000 and 14,000 cubic feet per second,
respectively, for the area tributary to the present drainage canal will serve
populations not exceeding 3,000,000 and 4,200,000, respectively. For greater
populations other methods of sewage disposal will be required.
“For the Calumet area, as well as other districts, there are Several methods
for the disposal of sewage as effective as the present method of dilution in
preventing the pollution of the lake waters.
“All these methods involve intercepting sewers and pumping stations to
collect and deliver the Sewage at suitable sites. Septic tanks are used for par-
tially clarifying the sewage, which may then be applied to any one of three
methods of filters, viz, intermittent sand filters, contact filters, and sprinkling
filterS.
“All of these filters if well built and well managed remove the suspended and
organic matters so that the effluents are practically clear and nonputrescible.
The removal of bacteria by these three types of filters averages at least 98, 80,
and 90 per cent, respectively. Such effluents may be discharged into any of the
watercourses of the Calumet region.
“The approximate total costs, liberally estimated, without the preparation
of detailed plans, for a population of 1,200,000 are as follows:
“A.—Intermittent sand filters
“Construction 1. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $11,063, 000
“Annual cost of operation, $866,000, capitalized at 5 per cent____ 17, 320, 000
28, 383,000
“B.—Contact filters
“Construction__ • * - $11,787, 500
“Annual cost of operation, $551,000, capitalized at 5 per cent---- 11,020, 000
22, 807, 500
“C.—Sprinkling filters -
“Construction ------------------------------------------------- $9,257, 500
“Annual cost of operations, $419,000, capitalized at 5 per cent____ 8, 380, 000
17, 637, 500
“The present population on the Calumet area of the sanitary district being
less than 200,000 would naturally require but a portion of the cost of estimated
works and of their operation to be expended at the outset.
“Of the available methods of disposing of the sewage of the Calumet area
other than by dilution, the sprinkling-filter method, being the cheapest, both
in cost Of construction and of operation and accomplishing an adequate degree
of purification, is clearly the most advantageous one.”
These engineers stand in the front rank of their profession as sanitary ex-
perts. One of them, Mr. Hering, was chairman of the commission of 1887, whose
report to the mayor and city Council of Chicago was the foundation of the
subsequent legislation and led to the construction of the drainage canal. The
conclusions reached are those of friends of Chicago and not of her enemies or
rivals.
1322 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
89. A method of sewage disposal for the Calumet region is proposed, which,
for a population of 1,200,000, is estimated to cost $17,637,000. For the present
population of about 200,000 only a part of the expense need be incurred, and
the Works can be developed as the population increases. It Can, When the
necessity arises, be applied with a population much exceeding 1,200,000. The
cost of diverting the Calumet River into the Chicago Drainage Canal is esti-
mate at $12,000,000. The greater efficiency at present and in the future of
the method now proposed would justify a considerable increase of cost, but in
View of the fact that the entire expense of the diversion must be incurred at
the OutSet, While by the new method the expenditures will be regulated by the
growth of population, the difference in cost may be considered unimportant.
SUMTMARY
40. The following is a Summary of the more important facts recited in this
report :
(a) Chicago obtains its water supply from Lake Michigan, and to avoid
pollution it must either dispose of its séwage otherwise than in the lake or
place its intakes for water at a great distance from the city.
(b) The topography of the country favors the discharge of the sewage into
the Des Plaines River, a tributary of the Mississippi, through two depressions
in the divide which separates that river from Lake Michigan.
(c) The slope on the lake side of the divide is drained by two streams—the
Chicago River and the Calumet River—into which the sewers of the city
empty. By a cut through the northerly depression the flow of the Chicago
River, has been reversed and diverted into the Des Plaines River instead of
into Lake Michigan, and by a cut through the Southerly depression the same
process can be applied to the Calumet River.
(d) To make this reversal effective the channels must be large enough to
take all the water which falls upon the respective drainage areas during the
most violent rainstorms. This amount is estimated at 10,000 cubic feet per
Second for the Chicago River and 15,700 cubic feet per second for the Calumet
River.
(e) The city of Chicago was originally built upon the Chicago River, and
that Stream now drains the richest and most populous part of the city. It is
now Spreading over the Calumet region.
(f) In 1899 the plan of diverting the Chicago River into the valley of the
Des Plaines was definitely adopted, and the Chicago Drainage Canal was
undertaken. It was designed to carry 10,000 cubic feet per Second. Though
not entirely completed, it has been in use since January, 1900. The amount ex-
pended upon the canal and accessory work is about $41,000,000.
(g) The Illinois law which authorized the canal required a flow of 333 cubic
feet per second for each 100,000 of population in order to render the sewage
inoffensive. This amount of dilution is probably not excessive. It is reasonable
to expect a population in a future not remote of five or six million or more,
involving the diversion by this standard of some 20,000 cubic feet per second.
The Chicago River with its 10,000 cubic feet provides for a production of
3,000,000. The present population of the city is about 2,000,000.
(h) It is now proposed to apply to the Calumet River a treatment Similar
to that applied to the Chicago River, viz.: to reverse its flow, So that instead
of discharging into Lake Michigan it shall discharge into the Des Plaines, but
for a part of then route it must follow the drainage canal already excavated
for the Chicago River.
(i) Although the Chicago Drainage Canal was designed to carry 10,000 cubic
feet per second, it is found to have, in its completed rock portion, an actual
capacity of 14,000 cubic feet. This additional capacity fixes the amount which
it is proposed to divert from the Calumet at 4,000 cubic feet per second. Any
greater amount from the Calumet will overtax the drainage canal at the
expense of the richest part of Chicago and for the benefit of a suburban part.
(k) The diversion of only 4,000 cubic feet will not be effective at all times,
since a much greater amount must be diverted from the Calumet during heavy
rainstorms if the lake is to be protected. Moreover, it provides for a popula-
tion not exceeding 1,200,000, which number will probably be exceeded at a date
Ilot far distant. º
(l) The large channels necessary to provide for the contingencies of rain-
storms are capable of discharging a volume of water largely in excess of Sani-
tary requirements during the greater part of the year, but the development
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1323
Of water power creates the demand that they be employed to their full capacity
throughout the year. § r
(m) The diversion of large bodies of water from Lake Michigan for supply-
ing the drainage canal has not been authorized by Congress, but there appears
to be a tacit general agreement that no objection will be made to the diversion
Of 10,000 cubic feet per Second, as originally planned.
(m) The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second will lower the levels of
Lake Michigan–Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St.
Lawrence River, besides the important connecting channels, the Detroit and
St. Clair Rivers, by amounts varying from 414 to 6% inches for the different
waters, and the diversion of 14,000 cubic feet will lower them from 6 to 8%
inches. The diversion of 20,000 cubic feet will lower Lake Michigan–Huron
about 13 inches and Lake Erie about 11 inches.
(o) The lake traffic which passed through the Detroit River in 1905 was
about 58,000,000 tons, valued at about $615,000,000. It is increasing annually
with marvelous rapidity. The records for the year 1906, so far as they are
made up, indicate that the number of tons which passed through the Detroit
River in 1906 exceeded 65,000,000, valued at $690,000,000. The lowering of the
water surface has a very injurious effect upon this traffic, and upon that of
the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals. Chicago being one of the principal
latke ports, there will be very few communities which will feel the injury more
than She will.
(p) The cost of restoring the depth in the harbors of the Great Lakes and
the channels between the lakes is estimated at $10,000,000, and restoring it
in the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals at $2,500,000. This expenditure would
not prevent very serious annoyance to the navigation interests during the
execution of the remedial works, which would occupy several years. In Lake
St. Clair navigation of the open lake would be replaced by that of an artificial
channel or canal with Submerged bankS.
(q) The extension to the Calumet region of the method of Sewage dis-
posal already applied to the Chicago River is not necessary to preserve the
health of Chicago, there being other and better methods available for the
Calumet region. The final cost of these methods is somewhat greater than
that of the one proposed, but the works can be developed as the population
increases, and only a part of their cost need be incurred at present, while
their greater efficiency justifies the increase of final cost.
(r) The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second at Chicago will
render practicable a waterway to the Mississippi River, 14 feet deep.
Any greater depth must be obtained by the abstraction of more water from
Lake Michigan and at the expense of the navigation interests of the Great
Lakes and of the St. Lawrence Valley.
(3) The effect upon Niagara Falls of diverting water at Chicago is of
secondary importance when considering the health of a great city and the
navigation interests of the Great Lakes and Of the St. Lawrence Valley, but
it is proper to note that the volume of the falls will be diminished by the full
amount diverted at Chicago.
RECOMMENDATIONS
41. The waters of Lake Michigan in the United States, the waters of Georgian
Bay in Canada, and the waters of Lake Superior partly in the United States
and partly in Canada, all form sources of Supply of the Great Lakes system,
finding their way by the St. Lawrence to the sea. All are independent and
there can be no diversion from any of them without injury to the whole
system. By Article XXVI of the treaty of 1871 it is provided that “navigation
of the River St. Lawrence, ascending and descending from the forty-fifth parallel
of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two
countries, from, to, and into the sea, Shall forever remain free and open for
the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any
laws and regulations of Great Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, not in-
consistent with such privileges of free navigation.” It is desirable that in any
treaty arrangement the waters of Lake Michigan, Georgian Bay, and all
Other waters forming part of the Great Lakes system should be declared to
be “forever free and open for the purposes of commerce" to the citizens
of the United States and the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, subject to
any laws and regulations of either country not inconsistent with such privi-
lege Of free navigation. * t
1324 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
42. The preservation of the levels of the Great Lakes is imperative. The
interest of navigation in these waters is paramount, Subject only to the
right of use for domestic purposes, in which term is included necessary sani-
tary purposes. In our report of November 15, 1906, upon the application of
the Minnesota Canal & Power Co. to divert certain waters in Minnesota we
recommended, among other things, “that any treaty which may be entered
into should define the uses to which international Waters may be put by either
country without the necessity of adjustment in each instance, and would
respectfully suggest that such uses should be declared to be (a) uses for
necessary domestic and sanitary purposes; (b) Service of locks for naviga-
tion purposes; (c) the right to navigate.” It is our opinion that So far as
international action is concerned a treaty provision of that kind is all that
is required in this case. We accordingly renew our recommendation of
November 15, 1906, just quoted.
43. A careful consideration of all the circumstances leads us to the con-
clusion that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago
River will, with proper treatment of the Sewage from areas now sparsely
occupied, provide for all the population which will ever be tributary to that
river, and that the amount named will therefore suffice for the Sanitary
purposes of the city for all time. Incidentally it will provide for the largest
navigable waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, which has
been considered by COngreSS.
We therefore recommend that the Government of the United States pro-
hibit the diversion of more than 10,000 cubic feet per second for the Chicago
Drainage Canal. -
All of which is respectfully submitted.
* * * O. H. ERNST,
Brigadier General, U. S. Army, retired, Chairm an American, Section.
GEORGE CLINTON,
E. E. HASKELL,
Members American Section.
GEO. C. GIBBONs,
Chairman, Canadian Section.
W. F. KING,
Louis CôSTÉ,
Members Canadian Section.
Attest: -
W. EDw ARD WILSON,
Q Secretary American Section.
THOMAS CôTÉ,
Secretary Canadian Section.
APPENDIX I
REPORT OF DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION
CHICAGO, January, 1887.
To the honorable Mayor and City Council of the city of Chicago.
GENTLEMEN: On January 27, 1886, your honorable body passed a resolu-
tion authorizing the creation of a drainage and water supply commission.
After being annended, February 23, it read as follows:
“Whereas pure water and scientific drainage are necessities of this com-
munity, and the people demand a system of water supply and drainage adequate
to meet the requirements, not only of the present, but of years to come, nor
will any temporary expedient or makeshift satisfy them ; and
“Whereas a thorough and permanent system of supplying pure water to our
citizens and caring for the drainage of the municipality can not be paid for out
of current taxation, therefore it is desired that a plan shall be devised and
perfected before the next meeting of the legislature to the end that necessary
legislation may be had. t
“For the purpose of carrying into effect the objects sought there is recom-
mended the appointment by the mayor of a commission to consist of one expert
engineer, whose reputation is So high that his opinion and report will command
the respect of the community, and with him one or two consulting engineers of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1325
like experience in engineering and sanitary matters. The duty of this drainage
and water supply commission, made up as above set forth, should be to consider
all plans relating to drainage and water supply which may be brought to its
attention to make Such examinations and investigations and Surveys as may
be deemed necessary; to collect all information bearing on this problem ; to
consider all recent developments in the matter of sewage disposal and their
application to Our present and future needs; to consider and meet necessity of
increasing our water supply and of protecting the same from contamination ;
to remedy Our present inadequate methods of drainage and Sewage disposal;
to consider the relations of any system proposed to adjacent districts, and
Whether there may not be a union between the city and its Suburbs to solve
the great problem ; to determine the great question as to the interest which
the State and the United States may have in the disposal of sewage by way
of the Illinois River and to devise plans to meet any objections thereto, if such
a System shall be thought best ; and in general to consider and report upon any
and all things which relate to the matter of water supply and drainage of the
City of Chicago.
“The commission should report on the whole matter committed to it in the
most full and Comprehensive manner, With maps, plans, and diagrams complete.
and accompany the report with estimates Of the first cost and annual require-
ments for the maintenance of the System proposed. - -
“The report of the commission should be made as early as practicable and
not later than the convening of the next Session of the Illinois Legislature III
January, 1887.
“In consideration Of the foregoing, be it -
“Resolved, That the mayor be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to
employ on behalf of the city one expert engineer of reputation and experience
in engineering and sanitary matters, at a salary not to exceed $10,000 per
annum, and also to employ Such Consulting engineers. not exceeding two in
number, as may Seem necessary, and Such assistant engineers as may be re-
quired, all to be paid according to services rendered, for the purpose of carrying
out the objects set forth in the preamble hereto. For the fees of said assistant
engineers and for expenses connected with said work there shall be allowed
not to exceed the sum of $20,000. All fees, salaries, and expenses connected
with said work shall not exceed in the aggregate the sum of $30,000, and the
Same Shall be paid from the water fund Of the City upon vouchers audited by
the mayor and City COmptroller.”
In accordance with the terms expressed herein his honor Carter H. Harrison
appointed Rudolph Hering as chief engineer, Benezette Williams and S. G.
Artingstall as consulting engineers, who together should constitute a commis-
sion. Mr. Hering entered upon duty March 28, Mr. Williams September 17.
and Mr. Artingstall December 21, 1886.
The investigation designated by the resolution was a formidable one, com-
prising no less a task than the consideration of the entire subject of the
future water supply and drainage of Chicago. It appeared doubtful from the
beginning that a report such as was demanded could be furnished within the
specified time, for the simple reason, of for no other, that observations of the
lake phenomena and of the flow of certain rivers should be extended Over at
least one year, covering four consecutive seasons, in order to draw satisfactory
deductions.
But the large amount of work alone that was asked for made it impractic-
able to present a complete report in so short a time. It was expected, however,
that results could be reached sufficent to indicate the character of legislation
required to carry Out any project that might be determined upon, and that
therefore a preliminary report having this end in view could be made at the
stated time, leaving to a later date the presentation of a report Outlining the
detailed features of the Scheme recommended and embracing the minor results
of the entire inquiry.
The present communication is to cover the ground indicated for the pre-
liminary report, and besides containing the conclusions reached 1'egarding the
'main features of the proposed project, it contains also a brief review of the ,
work done during the past year and of what still remains to be done.
The month of April was devoted to a general examination of the subject
of the territory to be investigated and of the various suggestions that had
been made toward effecting a solution of the problem- -
1326 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The examination disclosed the fact that the city is sometimes greatly suf-
fering from the offensive conditions of parts of the Chicago River and its
branches, caused by the discharge of sewage into the same, and from the occa-
sional contamination of its water supply brought about by the discharge of
the polluted contents of the river into the lake. It also disclosed the fact
that almost every conceivable Way Of dealing with these questions had been
suggested and in some forms applied during the past 30 years. r *
The problem therefore demands the attainment of two ends—the protection.
of the water supply and the removal Of the river nuisance. As the water
must be taken from the lake, it is evident that both its pollution and the
objectionable condition of the rivers should be prevented by a better disposition
of the sewage. It is, therefore, the latter question which constitutes the main
object of this investigation. w * ,
Among the possible methods of getting rid of the Chicago sewage there are
but three that have been deemed worthy of an extended consideration, namely:
A discharge into Lake Michigan, a disposal upon land, and a discharge into
the Des Plaines River. The preliminary work has, therefore, been confined to
these three projects and was classed as topographic, hydrographic, and mis-
Cellaneous.
At the time when the present commission began its labors the topographical
work had already received some attention. Surveys were being made of the
Des Plaines River from Bridgeport westward under the direction of Mr.
Artingstall. city engineer. These surveys were continued, and have now been
completed as far as Joliet. They include contours of the entire valley and
borings to rock between Bridgeport and Lemont. In order to understand the
hydrography of the Des Plaines Valley above the point where the Chicago
sewage could be discharged into it, and also to ascertain the probable magni-
tude and effect of floods in the river, a Survey was made of its bed as far north
as Northfield Township. To determine the area of the basin, its entire divide
was located. To ascertain the practicability of diverting the flood waters from
the upper portion of the Des Plaines and North Branch watersheds directly
into the lake, and thus avoiding the difficulties which would arise from their
passing through the Chicago River, all feasible lines were surveyed. Finally, a
few levels were taken of the area adjoining the city wherever no connected
levels existed to show the general topographical features of the territory over
which the future city will spread out and from which the drainage will require
artificial removal.
The hydrographic work consisted in ascertaining the flow of the Des Plaines
River, the rainfall upon its area, its flood discharges, the character of its bed,
and the probable effect of discharge of the Chicago sewage into it when diluted
by a large and constant stream of water from the lake. It consisted, further, in
examining the nature of the currents in the lake and in studying the rise and
fall of its level, and in ascertaining the amount and character both of the sew-
age discharge into it and of the deposits in the river and lake in front of the
city to determine the effects of the present sewage disposal.
Inquiry and surveys were made to show the feasibility of purifying the
Chicago sewage by filtration on land. Land damages were carefully estimated
for the different schemes; existing records were searched concerning borings
and excavations made in and about the city, so that the practicability of certain
lines of tunnels could be discovered ; the probable growth of the city and its
suburbs, as well as the probable distribution of the future population, received
careful attention. and, finally, a large number of data were compiled which
pertain to the existing Works of water supply and sewerage in Chicago and
the adjoining towns.
In reporting the result thus far gained we will present them in the order
most convenient for discussion, but before doing so will briefly describe the
present manner and effect of the sewage disposal, as shown by this in-
Vestigation.
PRESENT SEWAGE DISPOSAL
The sewage works of Chicago and suburbs have been planned on what is
called the combined system, in which the sewers serve for the removal both of
sewage and rain water. In the town of Evanston they empty into the lake.
In the town of Lakeview they partly discharge into the lake and partly into
the North Branch. From the north and west divisions and part of the South
division of Chicago the drainage enters the Chicago River and its branches,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1327
and from the remaining part of the South division it flows into the lake at
three outlets, situated, respectively, at Twelfth, Twenty-second, and Thirty-fifth
Streets. . The sewers of Hyde Park discharge into the lake, excepting those of
Pullman, where the sewage is disposed of on land. The town of Lake, includ-
ing the Stock Yards district, drains into the South Fork of the Chicago River.
When the sewage works of this city were designed, 1856, by Mr. E. S.
Chesbrough, it was apprehended that ultimately some means would have to be
found to change the water in the river from time to time or to keep the sewage
entirely out of it. The first step toward improving the condition of the river
Was taken by deepening the Illinois & Michigan Canal, so as to cause a cur-
rent from the lake to the Des Plaines River at Lockport; the next step was
the building of the Fullerton Avenue conduit in order to produce a circulation
in the North Branch, and the last step was the erection of the canal pumping
Works to increase the flow in the river, which had become greatly polluted.
The influence of these works is confined to the main river and its north
and SOuth branches. But the South Fork of the latter, receiving a large amount
Of Sewage from Chicago and the town of Lake, and charged with the waste
frm the Union Stock Yards and packing houses, has no artificial means for a
circulation of its water, and as a consequence is in a condition of great filthiness.
The accompanying diagram has been prepared to show the present pollu-
tion of the Chicago River and its branches during the time when all of their
water is discharged into the canal by the Bridgeport pumps. On the left are
shown the main river and the North Pranch, one above the other, their com-
bined waters forming the South Branch, and reaching Bridgeport on the right,
where they are lifted into the canal. -
At the latter point the South Fork is shown as joining it. The shaded
portions indicate the amount of Sewage entering and passing the respective
points, and the blank portions the lake water diluting it. The degree of dilu-
tion is shown by the relative areas. It diminishes in the North Branch from
Fullerton Avenue to the South Branch, and becomes still less toward Bridge-
port, and finally receives the foul waters of the South Fork.
The depth and character of Sewage deposits in the river and harbor, as
might be expected, vary considerably. They are not great in the track of the
vessels. but increase toward the docks and quieter portions of the slips, where
they reach a depth of from 1 to 4 feet. While the deposits in the channel are
of a heavier kind. Such as cinders, those in the docks are mostly a foul mass
of deCOmposing Organic matter, No form of life is found to exist above Clark
Street Bridge as far north as Clybourn Place and as far South as Ashland
Avenue. The effect of this condition of the river is to endanger the purity of
the water supply whenever the river, with its accumulated deposits, flows into
the lake, which occurs when the rain water that finds its way into the river
exceeds the amount pumped into the canal. If this excess is great, as in the
Spring and occasionally in the summer months, the contamination of the lake
is considerable, and must constantly increase.
From the foregoig it is seen that the present method of disposal of the
Sewage from Chicago and its suburbs is partly by discharging it into Lake
Michigan, but mainly, except during flood, by discharging it into the Des
Plaines River.
FUTURE POPULATION
The first question which requires an answer. and upon which many of the
subsequent inquiries depended, was the population which it is economical and
advisable to consider at present, and the extent of territory upon which Such a
population will be located.
The growth of Chicago has been frequently quoted as phenomenal. Esti-
mates made thereof for various purposes have turned Out to be rather under
than over the actual result.
It is taken for granted that Chicago and is suburban towns will have to
dispose of their sewage so that the water supply for the entire community
residing near the lake from the south line of Hyde Park to the north line of
Evanston will be guarded against pollution by the Sewage from any one of its
separate communities. For this purpose the whole populated area within the
above limits is considered as forming one city with a common interest.
The growth of this metropolis was obtained partly from the United States
census and partly from the school census of Cook County, which gave a record
up to the summer of 1886. In order to forecast the probable ratio of the future
1328 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
increase, it was desirable to compare this growth with that of other cities. By
Considering the ratio of increase elsewhere, and including the natural suburbs
of each city, a fair and instructive basis of comparison was obtained ; and by
realizing the respective natural advantages for growth in each of the com-
munities the probable ratio for Chicago was determined with a satisfactory
degree Of exactness.
The accompanying diagram shows the results of this comparison. It rep-
resents by curves the population of the largest cities in the country since 1790,
not as usually quoted from the census, giving the inhabitants on certain arbi-
trary areas fixed by law, but as virtually making up the population of the re-
Spective municipalities, by including adjacent towns and natural suburbs, the
Only method which enables the true growth of the great cities to be recognized.
For instance, New York center naturally includes Brooklyn, Jersey City,
Hoboken, Newark, and other suburbs, and Chicago, the entire territory from
Hyde Park to Evanston.
The diagram indicates that the character of growth of the different cities
permits them to be divided into two distinct classes. Philadelphia, Boston,
St. Louis, and Cincinnati show very much the same character of increase and
represent by comparison the more conservative Communities. New York and
Chicago, on the other hand, while showing a remarkable resemblance to each
Other, form Quite a contrast to the rest of the cities, and might be called the
more progressive communities. The diagram finally indicates the time when
the Chicago Curve, which was the lowest one prior to 1864, intersected in turn
those of St. Louis, Cincinnati, Boston, and there is a high degree of probability
of its intersecting the Philadelphia curve in or before 1891— i. e., in four years
from now—after which Chicago will be the second largest center of population
in America.
As it is not practicable in so young a city as Chicago to forecast a definite
line of growth, it is preferred to give the probable maximum and the probable
minimum between which the true line will most likely be contained. The
minimum line represents a growth resembling that of New York, and the maxi-
mum line assumes the ratio of increase per decade to be constant instead of
gradually decreasing, as in most other cities. The result indicates that the
population of Chicago and suburbs will be 2,500,000 between the years 1905 and
1915, or about three times the present population in 18 to 28 years.
In providing public works for large communities it must be borne in mind
that it is economical to invest only such sums as will bring a return within
a certain number of years, leaving expenditures for benefits that will be real-
ized only at a later time to a later generation. This fact, together with the
probable growth of Chicago, Shows it to be economical and judicious at present
to plan works sufficiently extensive to dispose of the sewage of not less than
2,500,000 inhabitants.
In addition to the population, the area that will be occupied by it has to
he determined. While this is a far more difficult task, owing to the many ac-
cidental causes influencing the distribution of the population, it is possible,
nevertheless, to outline the area sufficiently close for present purposes.
The future metropolis with a population three times as great, will be dis-
tributed along the lake from South Chicago to Evanston, and will reach in-
land to the Plue Island Ridge in the south to the Des Plaines River in the
center, and to the higher parts of Niles Township in the north. Outside of
these general limits a more or less dense population will extend for some dis-
tance along the lines of railroad.
As inferred above, it is proper to consider at this time the wants of the
population that will reside upon this entire territory.
DISCHARGE OF THE SEWAGE INTO LAKE MICHIGAN
, To discharge the sewage from cities into comparatively large bodies of
water is not only the usual, but often the best method for its disposal. Dilution
and dispersion thoroughly expose it to the action of the oxygen contained in
both the water and the superincumbent air ; it is thereby gradually oxidized.
Where the body of water is a large river with strong current, the best Con-
ditions for such purification are found. Where it is a lake in which the
circulation is slight and irregular, the efficacy of the method is less and de-
pends for its success on the character of the currents and the relative amount
of sewage to be discharged into it.
..ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1329
The hydrographic surveys of the lake made during the past SeaSOn Were
therefore partly for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, the laws govern-
ing the currents, so that we would know their effect in dispersing the Sewage
discharged into the lake. The trend of the shore currents was actually ascer-
tained by daily recording the direction of spar buoys placed at the Chicago
waterworks crib, at Michigan City and at St. Joseph. A large number of
bottle floats were thrown into the lake at different points and different times
for the same purpose. They were partly single surface floats and partly
double, the lower one being placed at varying depths, according to the depth of
the water. More than half of them have been picked up and returned with
place and (late noted. The currents were also observed by means Of large Can
buoys and an anchored tugboat at different points in the lake extending from
Hyde Park to Evanston, about six miles from the shore. Two general lake
trips were undertaken, one to St. Joseph and back to Grosse Point, and another
One parallel with the shore around the head of the lake. -
When the observations are completed and Compiled in (letail, Some valuable
information will be available for the question of water supply. Light will be
thrown On the movement Of the water under different Winds and the Sudden
changes of temperature of the water at the crib and on the turbidness of the
Så Iſle.
The following results have a bearing On the Question of sewage disposal :
Where not affected by local conditions, the Currents practically go with the
winds in water of moderate depth and quickly respond to any change. In deep
water also the surface currents run with the wind, but at the bottom. and even
at mid depth the direction is usually different. The prevailing current along
the shore of Cook County during the past Summer has been Observed to be
toward the north, but it is possible that this result may be different during the
winter months. In the open lake, wave action seems to be effective in pre-
venting the permanent deposits down to a depth of about 60 feet; inside of the
breakwater Sewage deposits are found on the bottom.
The general deduction from these results is clear that, as no constant current
exists which would carry the sewage away in one direction, it should be dis-
charged into the lake at one end of the future city, while the water supply
should be obtained as far away from it as practicable toward the other end,
a conclusion which is being acted upon in the other large lake cities. The
proper place from which to bring the water would be opposite Grosse Point,
and the sewage discharge should be opposite Hyde Park. While it might be
practicable to allow the Sewage in its crude form to enter the lake under
such conditions for many years, the necessity would arise later for clarifying
it at least partially previous to its discharge. It could not be allowed to run
into the river as at present, but the dry weather flow and a considerable
amount of Storm water would have to be intercepted and carried to the out-
fall through many miles of special conduits. This entire quantity would have
to be raised by pumping in order to get sufficient head to empty into the
lake, while the diluted sewage during storms, in excess of the capacity of the
intercepting Sewers would be allowed to discharge directly into the river.
The Water supply would have to be brought from Grosse Point in large
Conduits to the several pumping stations scattered over the city and its present
Suburbs. The circulation of water in the Chicago River and branches would
have to be maintained practically as it is at present, because the removal
merely of the dry-weather flow of sewage would not altogether prevent its
pollution. -
DISPOSAL OF LAND
We shall at this time enter into a general discussion of the principles under-
lying land purification of Sewage or make historical references showing the
success or ill success of the method as practiced elsewhere. We will simply
state that With good management under ordinarily favorable conditions a dis-
posal on land proves satisfactory, so far as the purifications of the sewage is
concerned, and that with proper conditions in the way of good markets and a
favorable soil and climate Sewage farms can be operated on a large scale after
the sewage is delivered upon the same without financial loss.
In Speaking of a Sewage farm of the magnitude required for the metro-
politan area of Chicago, it is not understood as being land devoted primarily
to the raising of crops, using the sewage only when and where it would most
promote the growth of vegetation. The primary object would be the purifica
1330 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
tion of the Sewage on an area of land as small as could serve the purpose.
Technically Speaking, the sewage disposal would be by means of intermittent
filtration rather than irrigation. To carry out such a scheme for Chicago
involves the following:
(1) The acquirement of sufficient land suitable for the purpose.
(2) A comprehensive system of intercepting and collecting sewers carrying
the sewage to the farm. -
(3) Pumping works of a capacity to handle all the dry-weather flow of
SeWage and a certain proportion of Storm Water.
(4) A thorough underdrainage, leveling, and preparing of beds for the
filtration areas.
(5) A system of underground conduits and surface carriers for distribut-
ing the Sewage Over the ground and a system of open ditches for removing the
purified water to the nearest water courses.
(6) Buildings, roads, and a complete farming outfit.
(7) An Organization for properly distributing the sewage, for carrying
On the farming Operations, for conducting the business of disposing of the crops
in the best market.
In making estimates for the size of intercepting sewers, conduits, pumps,
and area of Sland required We have used as a basis a population of 2,500,000
people, with an average dry-weather sewage discharge of 150 gallons, or 20
cubic feet, per head daily, and made provision for Storm water equivalent to
One-fifth of an inch in 24 hours over all portions of the district now drained or
likely to be drained by a combined system of sewers, allowing surplus water to
eScape into the rivers and lakes.
The dry-weather flow of sewage would therefore be 50,000,000 cubic feet
per day, and the maximum flow of storm water 65,000,000 cubic feet per day,
making a total maximum discharge of 115,000,000 cubic feet. -
From an examination of rainfall tables We COnclude that the annual amount
of storm water that would be carried off by such an intercepting system would
range from 9 to 12 inches, an average of which in round numbers may be taken
at 40,000 cubic feet per acre per annum over the area drained by a combined
System of Sewers. It is practicable, however, to exclude the Storm water from
the Sewers over a large portion of the future city by adopting the Separate
system of sewerage. The area north of the town of Jefferson and of the middle
of Lakeview may be treated to advantage in this way, and also a large portion
of Hyde Park, Lake Calumet, and other adjoining towns.
Assuming that the area which does not allow the storm water to be entirely
excluded is 140 square miles, the average daily amount becomes 10,000,000
cubic feet, which gives, when added to the sewage, 60,000,000 cubic feet, or 24
cubic feet per head of population per day to be provided for on the farm.
As the amount of land required to purify sewage can only be determined
by experience, and as this has been very limited in our own country, we are
forced to rely mainly upon that of Europe. Without going into details at
present, we will simply state that a fair consensus of this experience justifies us
in the conclusion that from 10,000 to 15,000 acres of land would be required to
dispose of the sewage from the entire mertopolitan area.
The only available territory for sewage filtration in the neighborhood of
Chicago consists of two Sandy ridges in the town of Thornton, extending across
the State line into Indiana, and in a Sandy ridge crossing the town of Niles.
The soil is quite favorable, but the character of the surface is such that the
necessary preparation to make it suitable for filtration beds would be compara-
tively expensive. An enormous cost is, however, represented by the fact that
the sewage would have to be collected by large intercepting sewers, lifted alto-
gether 90 feet, and carried about 20 miles before reaching the farms. We
therefore consider such a project entirely impracticable.
The land treatment can Only be seriously thought of in connection with the
sewage disposal from the Smaller areas mentioned above and comprising the
extreme northern and southern parts of the future metropolis. The drainage
of parts of Evanston, Lakeview, and Niles might be taken to the sandy ground
in the latter town, and that of the Calumet region to the sandy ridges in
Thornton, should this method be found most advantageous when compared with
OtherS.
The preliminary investigation made for this purpose consisted in an ex-
amination of the grounds, in the projection of a farm, and in an estimate of the
cost of preparing the same and delivering the sewage to it by intercepting
sewers and conduits.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. - 1331
DISCHARGE OF TEIE SEWAGE INTO THE DES PLAINES RIVER
A third solution of the drainage problem is rendered practicable by the fact
that the divide between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi Valley lies about 10
miles West of Chicago, with so slight an elevaton that it is not a difficult matter
to carry the sewage from the city westward into the Des Plaines River, and
thence into the Mississippi River. The method of disposal, as previously ex-
plained, is in fact mainly the present one, most of the Sewage now being
Carried across the divide by the Illinois & Michigan Canal.
Ther are two low depressions between the future metropolis and the Des
Plaines River—the Mud Lake Valley, with the present canal, and the Sag
Valley, west of Lake Calumet. Neither is more than 10 feet above the lake,
nor do they present any engineering difficulties for canal construction. It is
therefore quite feasible to carry all the drainage from the territory ultimately
to be occupied by the metropolis, extending from Lake Calumet to Evanston,
into the Missisippi Valley through these depressions, avoiding thereby all
pOSSible lake pollution and permitting the Supply Of Water to be drawn from
any number of Convenient points in front Of the city.
The possibility of this solution was recognized as early as 1856 by Mr. E.
S. Chesborough, and the first step toward its adoption was taken, as already
mentioned, by turning the Sewage into the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Not
until quite, recently, however, has it become practicable to consider the con-
struction of a special waterway for sewage removal, because when the popula-
tion Was Smaller the expense Of the undertaking Was too great.
The sanitary requirements demanded a flow of water large enough to dilute
the Sewage sufficiently to make it inoffensive along the river at all times. Be-
yond this, any increase in the size of the channel to provide for the storm water
which naturally enters it should be kept at minimum. A glance at the map and
an examination of the ground show the possibility of diverting the greater
part of the storm water from, the metropolitan district without serious dif-
ficulty. Both branches Of the Calumet River can be diverted west Of the In-
diana State line into Wolf Lake, and thence into Lake Michigan. The Des
Plaines River can have its flood Waters diverted into the North Branch near
the north line Of the town of Jefferson, and the COmbined waters can be led .
from Bowmanville directly into the lake. Salt Creek, a branch of the Des
Plaines River, can readily be turned southwardly near Western Springs, through
a watercourse known as Flag Creek, at one time evidently its old bed, dis-
charging into the Des Plaines opposite Sag, and thus reducing the necessary
storm-water capacity in the new channel between Sag and Summit.
In order to determine the probable quantity of flood water which can thus
be excluded, it was necessary to ascertain the maximum flood discharge from
all the watershed in question. This requirement called for a gauging of Des
Plaines, North Branch, and Calumet Rivers; a gauging of the rainfall, which is
a measure of the Stream flow ; a Survey of the watersheds; and an examination
of the river channels. It was also necessary to make a reconnoissance of all
possible lines for diverting the Des Plaines, North Branch, and Calumet Rivers,
and Salt Creek, and Survey of those which were most important. s
The results indicate that each one of these diversions is both practical and
economical. By adopting the “Separate System ’’ Of Sewerage for the territory
lying north of the proposed Bowmanville channel, the surface drainage from
this territory can be safely turned into the lake. º
A second branch of the investigation extends to the elements governing the
proper size of the waterway from which a large proportion of the Storm water
has been excluded. The area still draining into it will consist largely of paved
streets and roofs, allowing of no absorption and shedding the water rapidly.
It requires a careful consideration to determine the maximum quantity of water
that may enter the proposed channel, and for which an ample allowance must
be made to prevent a back flow of the polluted water to the lake.
The proper degree Of Sewage pollution in the new channel demanded a
careful investigation. When sewage is mingled with a sufficiently large quan-
tity of water, it not only becomes inoffensive but readily finds the oxygen which
gradually purifies it. When the surface is covered with ice, a greater dilution
is necessary for this purpose than at Other times when there is a constant
replenishment of oxygen from the air. The proposed waterway should, of
course, provide immunity from offense at all times. -
l332 - ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The information upon which definitely to decide this question will be given
in the final report, as the data have not yet been all collected, owing to the
necessity of making actual tests of the oxidation of the canal water under the
ice, which is being done for the use of the commission by Dr. J. H. Rauch,
secretary of the State board of health. The summer conditions are presented
in his late report on the water supply and sewage disposal of Chicago. The
result of these analyses will be compared with those of other streams that are
also polluted with sewage, in order to show the rate of Oxidation with varying
degrees of dilution and aeration.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the water channel we have as-
sumed 3,600 square feet for the cross section and a velocity of water 3 feet
per second, or 2 miles per hour. This gives a discharge of 600,000 cubic feet of
water per minute, or 24,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 persons, which we believe
equal to the maximum requirements of a population of 2,500,000 people.
A third branch of the inquiry covers the selection of routes for the proposed
canals.
Between Chicago and Summit three lines are practicable—one following
the West Fork and Ogden ditch, and another extending from the southwestern
end of the South Fork in a westerly direction to the Ogden ditch, and thence to
Summit, and a third being an enlargement of the present canal. We are of
the Opinion that eventually both the first and second Of these lines should be
adopted, but that the Second One Should be built first in order to Secure cir-
culation in the South Fork. From Summit Westward the bed Of the river and
the present canal were the only lines to be considered. The best location has
not yet been finally (letermined.
For the drainage of the Calumet region a simple inspection shows that a
canal should start from the river at the southern point of Blue Island and ex-
tend almost directly westward to the Des Plaines Valley at Sag.
A fourth branch of the inquiry relates to the study of such data as have
reference to Securing a proper circulation for the waterways within the city.
To throw light upon this point, the variations of the lake level have been
recorded since last Spring by means of an automatic gauge, indicating an al-
most continual fluctuation averaging several inches and recurring at periods of
about 20 minutes. During a low pressure of the atmosphere the amplitude of
these oscillations increases and not infrequently reaches several feet. The
accompanying diagram shows the level of the lake on August 16, 1886, at a
time when an area of low barometer passed over it. From 6.40 a. m. to 6.55
a. m.—that is, in 15 minutes—the water fell 2 feet 10 inches.
A rising level causes an overflow to the river and drives the water of the
latter into the slips, where it deposits a portion of its suspended Sewage matter
and becomes foul. A falling level reverses the flow, and the slips empty their
foul water into the river and lake. During heavy fluctuations of the latter,
such as the one referred to above, it has been traced more than a mile in the
direction of the crib.
As the proposed Canal from BOwmanville to the lake will lower the water
of the North Branch at this point to the lake level, provision must be made
for its circulation. The Size Of the Fullerton Avenue COInduit is not Sufficient
to furnish the water required for a current in both directions, nor would such
an arrangement be satisfactory Or economical. It will be necessary to establish
a flow toward the South Branch from the lake opposite Bowmanville in order
to prevent a future lake pollution by the proposed channel. This can be ac-
complished by placing a lock in the North Branch at any point that may be
found most desirable and raising the water at same time about 1 foot. If
such a lock is placed at Fullerton Avenue, the present pumping works, with
slight modifications, can be utilized.
Finally, it must be mentioned that circulation can be secured in the pro-
posed waterways of the Calumet region, into which the sewage is discharged,
by a gravity flow from Lake Michigan into the I)es Plaines Valley through
Lake Calumet and the Sag. The detailed features of this project have not yet
been wholly matured, the estimates of cost being based on a channel having a
capacity of 1,000 cubic feet per second.
C()MPARISON () F PRO.JECTS
In the foregoing we have outlined the main features of the only three
feasible method of disposing of the metropolitan sewage, and have given the
results of the investigation reached to date. A general conclusion as to the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1333
preferable method may be given at present, and also an approximate estimate
Of cost. But We are not able as yet to give either conclusions or detailed state-
ments of the probable expense regarding all parts of the proposed work, and
Imust defer them until the final report.
In Comparing the projects we will first mention their probable cost and then
their relative advantages.
The discharge of the sewage into the lake from a population of 2,500,000
in the manner described above, including the extra expense, otherwise not nec-
essary, of taking the water supply of Grosse Point, would cost at least $37,-
000,000, with an annual expense for interest and operation of at least $2,400,000.
It Would require an immediate investment of about $20,000,000.
To dispose of the entire metropolitan sewage by filtration on land would
require an investment of about $58,000,000, with an annual expense of over
$3,000,000 for interest, pumping, and maintenance, after deducting the profit
from the sale of crops. It would be necessary to invest at once about $34,000,-
000. Land disposal for the Sewage from the Calumet region alone, with a future
population of 300,000, would require an investment of about $4,000,000 and an
annual expense of at least $250,000. -
Finally, the cost of the Des Plaines project is approximately estimated as
follows : g
1. A channel from the South Fork to Joliet of the capacity heretofore
given will cost between $17,000,000 and $21,000,000.
2. A diversion of the flood Waters Of the Des Plaines, the North Hranch,
and Salt Creek will cost between $2,500,000 and $2,800,000. -
3. Pumping works and locks for the North Branch will cost about $150,000
4. A separate system of Sewers to collect the sewage now discharged
directly into the lake and to carry it into the river will cost about $600,000.
5. A channel from Lake Calumet to Sag will cost between $2,500,000 and
$3,000,000.
6. A diversion of the flood Waters of the Calumet River will cost between
$350,000 and $400,000.
The total cost Of the Des Plaines drainage project would therefore be,
for the main district, between $20,250,000 and $24,550,000; for the Calumet
district, between $2,850,000 and $3,400,000. The annual cost, including interest,
etc., is estimated a about $1,300,000 per annum. -
The pollution Of the lake can be decreased and the present condition of
the Chicago River, and particularly of the South Fork, can be improved by the
immediate construction of the following works, which, with the exception of
the pumping works at the South Fork discharging into the Illinois & Michigan
Canal, are all a part of the final plan :
1. Channels diverting the flood waters of the Des Plaines, North Branch,
and Salt Creek, as described above.
2. A modification of the Fullerton Avenue pumping Station and the con-
struction of locks for the purpose of getting circulation in the North Branch.
3. A separate system of sewers to collect the sewage now flowing into the
lake from the SOuth diversion and to discharge it into the South Fork.
4. A Waterway extending from the western end of the South Fork to the
Illinois & Michigan Canal, with a new pumping station to promote circulation.
5. Py raising the banks of the canal and by removing deposits this capacity
can be increased 40 per cent at a small cost, and thus provide for a greater
flow of water in the Same.
The COSt Of the Works comprised under these five items is estimated to be
between $5,000,000 and $5,500,000. They could be finished in three years, and
would greatly lessen the liability of polluting the water supply, while the sew-
age would be disposed of in the best practicable manner until the final comple-
tion of the Des Plaines project.
It therefore appears that this project is decidedly the least expensive one
for the present as well as for the future.
Besides the economical advantages of the Des Plaines scheme, its superiority
is still further emphasized by advantages of another kind. The proposed canal
Will, from its necessary dimensions and its regular discharge, produce a magnifi-
cent waterway between Chicago and the Mississippi River, suitable for the
navigation of boats having as much as 2,000 tons burden. It will establish an
available water power between Lockport and Marseilles fully twice as large as
that of the Mississippi River at Minneapolis, which will be of great commercial
value to the State. The Calumet region will be much enhanced in value by
having a direct navigable channel to the Des Plaines River and by a lowering
1334 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of the flood heights of Calumet Lake and River. Within the city the water of
the Chicago River and its South Branch will get a much better circulation if
it flows by gravity than if it has to be pumped, the necessity for which would
remain even if the sewage should be discharged through intercepting sewers,
either into the lake or upon land. Upon either of the latter conditions an
occasional Overflow from the sewers into the river during heavy rains would
be more objectionable than a constant discharge of sewage into a more rapidly
flowing stream. Flood waters entering the lake by way of the Chicago River
would carry into it much filthy matter, either suspended or deposited, notwith-
Standing the existence of intercepting Sewers, but the proposed diversion of Such
waters before reaching the populated districts will for all time obviate this
undesirable occurrence. Lowering the level of the North Branch at Bowman-
ville by its diversion to the lake will be equivalent to raising the low prairie
extending toward Evanston and Niles and greatly benefit parts of these towns.
THE WATER SUPPLY
In reaching the conclusion that the sewage of the city should be discharged
into the Mississippi Valley the question of water supply is materially simplified,
because the lake will then at all times furnish good water wherever intake are
desired for an extension of the works.
The preliminary inquiry made with a view to ascertain the main features
of an increased Supply comprised, first, a compilation of data concerning the
existing works both in Chicago and its suburban towns, which were Collected
mainly through the courtesy of the respective authorities; and, Secondly, a
study into the most economical method of distributing the water over the
metropolitan area. The following is a brief description of the existing works:
The present intake for the public water supply of Chicago is located in Lake
Michigan, about 2 miles from shore, and the water is conducted to the city
in two circular brick tunnels 5 and 7 feet in diameter. They extend par-
allel to each other under the bed of the lake, and 50 feet apart, to the north
pumping works, where they are connected and where the 5-foot tunnel termi-
nates. The 7-foot tunnel is continued under the city for a distance of 20,500
feet, to supply the west works, on Ashland Avenue and Twenty-Second Street.
The tunnels from the source to the shore are built at a depth of 80 feet below
city datum, or low water in the lake, and the 7-foot tunnel is continued on the
same level for a distance of about 11,500 feet, where, to avoid rock excavation,
it is inclined upward until, at the west pumping station, the iOp is but 21 feet
below city datum. The economical capacity of the two tunnels is between 90,-
000,000 and 100,000,000 gallons per day, or less than the present average daily
consumption of water. Their maximum capacity is reached when delivering
about 150,000,000 gallons per day, which is now nearly equaled by the demand
during the hours of greatest consumption, and at the present rate of increase it
is estimated that during the summer of 1887 the maximum demand for Water
will be at the rate of 145,000,000 gallons per day; during 1888, 150,000,000 gal-
lons per day; during 1899, 167,000,000 gallons per day; and in 1909, 180,000,000
gallons per day.
To provide against accident or obstruction from ice or other cause in the
main tunnels, and to provide against an inadequate Supply in the near future,
which appeared inevitable, a new tunnel is in progress of construction. The
intake is located 1,500 feet from shore, and connection is made with the Other
tunnels at the north pumping WOrks.
The distribution of the water is effected by pumping it directly into the Water
mains at the north and west stations. At the north works the three tunnels are
so arranged and constructed that any one of them can be emptied when desired
for repairs or cleaning, and both the pumping stations still be supplied With
water from the other tunnels. The total pumping capacity of this Station is at
present 67,000,000 gallons per day, but it will be increased to 91,000,000 gallons
per day as soon as the new pumps now in process of erection are in operation.
The connections between the pumps, standpipes, and the distribution mains
at these works have become so complex by the successive additions to the plant
that an unnecessary loss of head is the consequence. As this can be remedied
to some extent without great expense, we recommend that it be done at the first
favorable opportunity. The station being on the shore of the lake. is not Cen-
trally located with reference to any part of the city, Which renders it neCeSSary
to use a greater length of main pipe, with a consequent loss of pressure, to reach
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1335
the Consumers than would otherwise be the case. The total pumping capacity
Of the West Side station is 60,000,000 gallons per day, and the connections be-
tWeen the pumps, Standpipes, and mains are simple and effective, and the loss
Of pressure from this cause is a minimum. The location is better adapted to
Secure economical and Satisfactory results than that of the north works, and
With reference to additional pumping stations, which will later be necessary in
Other parts of the city, these works.are well situated.
The following table compiled from the annual reports for 1884 and 1885 gives
a detailed comparison of the cost of pumping at two stations, anthracite coal
being used at the north side and good bituminous coal at the West side:
Cost of pumping 1,000,000 gallons 1 foot high

1884 1885
Nature of expenditures
North side West Side | North side | West Side
Salaries-- $0.01488 $0.02022 $0.01560 $0.01667
Fuel -- . 05313 . 02855 .04590 .02482
Lubricants . 00064 . 00186 . 00057 . 0.0160
Miscellaneous .00323 . 00417 . 00133 . 00401
Total.--- .07188 . 05480 . 06340 . 04710
The hydraulic merits of the system are shown on the diagram of water pres-
Sures from a Survey made in December, 1886. The pressures have all been re-
duced to a Common height above City datum and to a uniform height of water
at the works. That diagram shows a greater loss of head in the vicinity of the
north side station than at the west side. This is accounted for by the complex
arrangements heretofore mentioned and also by the relatively small area of
mains, being only 16% square feet at the north side and Over 21 square feet at
the west side. Nearly equal quantities of Water are pumped at each of the sta-
tions during the middle of the day. º
The following table shows the pumping capacity of all the Suburban towns
having a public water supply and the pressure ordinarily maintained at the
works. With the exception of South Evanston, all take water from Lake Michi-
gaſ) : y

Individual pump
Capacity Total º
e pumping ead at
Locality g k C it º Puº; in.
ps . . Capacity per day ee
Pumps per day
Gallons t
Hyde Park-------------------------------------------- | 2 | 3,000,000 ------------|------------
Po------------------------------------------------- 1 | 12,000,000 | 18,000,000 103–150
Lake----------- * 2 4,000,000 |------------|------------
Do------------------------------------------------- 2 2,000,000 | 12,000,000 100–190
Lake View--------------------------------------------- 1 5,000,000 ------------|------------
Do------------------------------------------------- 1 3,000,000 || 10,000,000 92
DO gº sº as ºs º ºss tº sº sº dº º ºs tº se s º sº tº dº º sm º ºs tº º ºs sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2,000,000 |------------ 92
Village of Evanston I 3,000,000 3,000,000 92
Total.--- 11 ------------ 43,000,000 |------------
At the artesian well supplying the village of South Evanston there is a head
of about 53 feet.
The pressure at different parts of the pipe system is very irregular. In Hyde
Park it varies from 165 feet at the pumps to 10 or 12 feet at Forty-third Street.
In the town of Lake the average head at the town hall is reported about 10
feet, with 188 feet at the pumps. In Evanston, South Evanston, and Lake View
the difference of head in various parts of the villages is not very great.
1336 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The following table gives a comparison of the consumption and cost of water
in Chicago and the suburban towns:

Cost of
* Average | Average § § pumping
Locality Year head at daily galions 1,000,000
* pumps | pumpage delivered #.h
OO
Chicago (north side).------------------------------- 1885 113 || 38,369, 134 $7, 17 | $0.06034
Chicago (west Side) -------------------------------- 1885 105 53,280,880 4.95 . 04071
Evanston (village).--------------------------------- 1886 113 787,000 17. 00 . 15000
Lake View ---------------------------------------- 1886 - - - - ------ 1,983,000 11.85 ----------
Town of Lake ------------------------------------- 1886 163 || 7,292,023 8. 80 . 05400
Hyde Park ---------------------------------------- 1886 - - - - - - - - - - 3,410,000 8. 92 ||----------
The Second point of inquiry was a study into the most economical method
of distributing the water over the metropolitan area. We will at present refer
to it but Very briefly, mentioning only such conclusions as pertain to the im-
mediate demands and leaving a fuller discussion of the details of this im-
portant question to the final report. - -
The comparatively level area upon which the city is located, and the prac-
ticability of taking the water from the lake along the city front at any desired
point, after the sewage has been diverted, permits the most economical distribu-
tion to be ascertained by mathematical investigation to a much greater degree
of exactness than is usually possible.
It is found to be less expensive for the densely populated areas to have
pumping Stations about 2 or 3 miles apart, because the loss of head and cost of
mains and pumping to obtain the least allowable pressure are thus reduced to
a minimum. In planning new works this fact should be considered and locations
so selected that they will he advantageous for the future as well as for the
present.
The localities which we believe to be most suitable for additional pumping
stations are near Twelfth Street, in the central part of the city; near the Union
Stock Yards; near Humboldt Park, and near Fullerton and Racine Avenues.
When it is considered that at the present time the pumps are delivering
during the busy part of the day at the rate of 120,000,000 gallons in 24
hours, which is nearly the maximum capacity of all the machinery, and that
even with this large consumption of water it is impossible in some parts of the
city to obtain water in the second story of the buildings, it becomes evident that
an increased supply is imperatively required, and being a work of years to build
new tunnels, inlets, buildings, and machinery, the necessity of deciding upon the
location of the new works as soon as possible is readily seen. The locality which
is suffering most from the want of water is the business section and the south
part of the city, the lowest pressure extending from Twelfth Street to the city
limits. It will become necessary in the future to have two stations in this
territory—one between Harrison and Twelfth Streets and the other to be some-
where east of the Union Stock Yards. We are strongly of the opinion that of
the two stations it will be advisable and most advantageous to build the one
north of Twelfth Street first, for the following reasons:
1. It will require a shorter tunnel from the lake to the proposed station
and less expenditure for main discharge pipes to connect with the present system
than would be the case with the proposed southern station. This is equivalent
to less cost and a Saving of time in construction.
2. If the southern station is built first it will require mains of larger
capacity leading toward the city than will be ultimately necessary when the
central Station is built.
3. The location recommended is near the center of the greatest consumption
of water, and will be a gain not only in obtaining greater pressure in the
business district, but in removing the cause for complaint on the south side by
increasing the pressure so that the water will flow to the upper floors of the
highest dwellingS. *
4. All other parts of the city will gain by the construction in this location,
as the north and West works will be relieved of the enormous drain upon them
to supply water for the business part of the city. They will be better able to
give a good head on the north and west sides, where the population is increasing
very rapidly, and which will very soon be in the same unsatisfactory condition as
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1337
now obtains in the southern end of the city unless relief is afforded in the manner
indicated.
The other pumping stations will gradually become necessary as the popula-
tion increases, and for a population of 2,500,000 there will be a need for a total
combined capacity of 375,000,000 gallons to provide for a daily consumption of
150 gallons per head. With several intakes and tunnels the danger from stop-
page of the water supply by ice Or accident will be reduced to a minimum, aS
it is not probable that more than one of them would be so endangered at the
same time.
We believe that a submerged intake will afford a more reliable and safer
structure, so far as injury from passing vessels and stoppage by ice are con-
cerned, than a structure projecting above the water.
With the sewage kept out of the lake there is no need of locating the intake
farther than 2 miles from the shore, where water can be obtained sufficiently
free from suspended earthy matter, and where a depth of about 30 feet is
generally found, which is the least depth desirable for a submerged inlet.
GENERAL REMARES
After presenting the results thus far gained, indicating the general solution
Of the Chicago drainage and water-supply problem, it remains to point out
certain facts which may be useful in discussing some of the legal measures
required to carry out the proposed work. We desire to state that in order to
reach the best results it is imperative to have all the main drainage works, Such
as intercepting Sewers, waterways, and pumping stations, executed and main-
tained under a single management. It would be economical also to design and
operate the main works for supplying water to the entire metropolitan area
on a uniform plan and under one management, for the same reason that it is
economical to keep the north and west side pumping works under one control,
thus giving facilities as far as practicable for a supply proportioned to the
demand to the entire metropolitan area, including the towns not bordering on the
lake. We do not wish to imply, however, that such a general authority need
necessarily extend further than to the COnstruction and maintenance of the
tunnels and conduits furnishing water to the respective pumping works.
Regarding the limits for metropolitan drainage, the investigation has shown,
as already indicated, that topographical conditions clearly define two districts
for the future metropolis. The main district extends from the line of Eighty-
. Seventh Street On the South to the north line of Evanston and from the lake
westward to the Des Plaines River. Its sewage is collected into one channel
and discharged into the Des Plaines Valley at Summit. The Calumet district
extends over the natural drainage area of Calumet Take and River South of
Eighty-seventh Street, and has its outfall channel running from Blue Island
to Sag. -
The final report will contain Several maps, showing certain features of the
metropolitan area, namely, the distribution of the population in 1886, the exist-
ing works and main distribution pipes for water supply, and the existing main
sewerage works and 5-foot contOur lines Over nearly the entire area. It will
also contain maps and profiles of the proposed waterways and storm-water
diversion channels mentioned in the present report, and a map showing the lines
of the main collecting and intercepting sewers of the proposed drainage districts,
and also the lines of new tunnels and the general distribution of the water
Supply.
In carrying on the present investigation its various branches are placed in
charge of the following gentlemen, of whose ability and industry we desire to
make special mention : Mr. L. E. Cooley, principal assistant, had special charge
of the hydrographic work; Mr. Charles H. Swan, of the sewage disposal on
land; Mr. Francis Murphy, of the topographical work; Mr. O. Guthrie, of the
river pollution, land damages, etc., and Mr. T. T. Johnson, of the water supply,
sewerage, and miscellaneous work.
Respectfully submitted.
RUDOLPH HERING,
Chief Engineer.
BENEZETTE WILLIAMs,
SAMUEL G. ARTINGSTALL,
Consulting Engineers.
91739–24—PT 2—69 r
1338 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
REPORT OF LYMAN E. CooDEY ON DILUTION RATIO IN CHICAGo DRAINAGE CANAL.
CHICAGO, June 29, 1906.
DEAR GENERAL: On May 28 I replied at length to your inquiries of May 26
concerning the final report of the JDrainage and Water Supply Commission.
and the disposition of the materials which had been collected. Under date of
May 31 you now ask for—
º The Sanitary authority upon which rests the requirement of the Illinois
State law that 20,000 cubic feet per minute must be diverted into the Chicago
Drainage Canal for every 100,000 inhabitants.”
And again—
“How much water is really required to dilute the sewage?”
The proper anSWer to your questions involves a review of the considerations
which determine the ratio of dilution in the sanitary district law and the
justification for the same. I have therefore delayed this answer in order to
consult Original documents and memoranda. I have not undertaken to refer
exhaustively to my records, as I am pressed for time, and my memory is entirely
clear upon the essential facts.
The eSSence Of the law is COntained in Sections 20 and 23 of “An act to
Create Sanitary districts and to remove obstructions in the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers ” (passed May 29, 1889, in force July 1, 1889). Section 20
states: “Any channel or outlet * * * shall be of sufficient size and capacity
to produce a continuous flow of water of at least 200 cubic feet per minute
for each 1,000 of the population of the district drained thereby, and the same
shall be kept and maintained of Such size and in such condition that the water
thereof will be neither offensive nor injurious to the health of the people of this
State.” Section 23 states: “Such channel shall be made and kept of such size
and in such condition that it will produce and maintain at all times a continuous
flow of not less than 20,000 cubig feet of water per minute for each 100,000 of
the population of such district.”
Section 23 states further: “Such channel shall be constructed of sufficient
size and capacity to produce and maintain at all times a continuous flow of not
less than 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, * * * and if any portion
of any such channel shall be cut through a territory with a rocky stratum
* * * such portion of said channel shall have double the flowing capacity
above provided for.”
You will see that the law insists on a sanitary condition, and that the flow
Of Water Shall be continuous (at all times), and that the minimum dilution shalf
be (not less than) 20,000 cubic feet of water per minute for each 100,000 people.
This indicates that the general assembly did not regard the ratio of dilution as
a positive determination, and this accords with the facts. You will note further
that the channel was to be cut through the rock with a minimum capacity of
600,000 cubic feet per minute, and that the channel in the clay was to be subject
to progressive enlargement from a capacity of 300,000 cubic feet per minute
with the growth of population above 1,500,000.
As a matter of fact, the rocky Stratum extended from Lockport to Summit,
and the channel was actually constructed of the larger capacity, leaving only
7.76 miles between Summit and the waters Of the Chicago River for future.
enlargement. When the channel was opened January 17, 1900, the population
of the district exceeded 1,500,000 and was, in fact, 1,637,972 by the Federal
census of 1900. By act of the general assembly in 1903 the district was enlarged,
and the population by census, within the new boundaries, was 1,775,596.
I had everything to do in determining the prime essentials of the sanitary
district law above quoted. I projected the work in its substantial Outlines in
a report which I drafted for the committee of the Citizen's Association in
September, 1885. (Ossion Guthrie, Dr. Frank Reilly, and Lyman E. Cooley
were a subcommittee to examine the situation and report.) . As chief assistant
to the drainage and water-supply commission in 1886–87, I had charge, among
other things, of the canal solution. I was consulting engineer to the State
board of health in 1887–1889, and again in 1891 while its elaborate chemical
investigation of the stream between Lake Michigan and St. Louis was under
way. I was consulting engineer to the joint committee of the legislature
(mayor of Chicago, ex-officio, chairman) that framed the Sanitary district act,
and as such determined the features of the law referred to. I later represented
before the general assembly the several organizations of Chicago which Were
engaged in promoting legislation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1339
ſº
The State of Our information in 1887 in regard to dilution and the capacity
of Channel required is discussed at some length in my testimony of April 7,
1887, before the joint committee of the general assembly. A few hundred
copies of this were printed, but I do not know where an extra copy is to be
had. I refer to this especially because it is the only published matter of that
period after the preliminary report. I will also refer you to an elaborate
paper Which discusses the subject matter, read on June 10, 1896, before the
National Conference of State Boards of Health at Chicago. This was published
by the Secretary at Columbus, Ohio, and is hard to get. There were, of course,
Inany fugitive and fragmentary discussions not considered worthy of preserva-
tion.
You will note in the preliminary report and in later testimony that the
drainage and Water-supply commission refers to a dilution of 24,000 cubic
feet per minute as ample for a sanitary condition, and I believe that Wir.
Hering, the chief of that commission, has stated that was his personal view of
the requirements. As a matter of fact, the capacity of the channel was fixed
at that time at 600,000 feet as required to remove the flood water from some
420 square miles of territory (after the diversion of the Upper Des Plaines
River), and prevent the same from backing into the lake. The basis of popula-
tion used in considering land disposal and other alternative solutions proposed
was 2,500,000, and this figure was applied to the proposed channel capacity,
giving the ratio of 24,000 cubic feet per minute for each 100,000 people as
above stated. At that time only preliminary consideration had been given to
the question of dilution, as the chief force of the investigation had been applied
to Other alternative Solutions. s
I think it is also in evidence before the joint committee of the general
assembly in 1887, by Doctor Rauch, secretary of the State board of health,
that 14,000 cubic feet per minute would be sufficient. Doctor Rauch had
undertaken an investigation Of the subject preliminary to the elaborate studies
of 1888–89. After the adjournment of the legislature and the failure of the
Hurd bill in 1887, little further attention was given to the matter until it
was taken up by the special committee appointed to frame a law and report
to the next general assembly. -
This committee had several hearings and developed much diversity of
opinion. Personal opinions ranged from 14,000 feet per minute to 30,000
feet, and some wished to leave the matter entirely open. As no agreement
could be reached, the whole subject was referred to the consulting engineer
late in 1888, and after a painstaking investigation he reported, and the
results were embodied in the draft of the bill and subsequently became law.
The data available are referred to as follows: &
“Special investigations of the filth-producing industries of Chicago, and an
elaborate investigation of the Chicago River and branches in the autumn of
1886, and after the flood of 1887, also the Illinois and Michigan Canal; a care-
ful investigation of the history and condition of sewage in the Des Plaines; and
Illinois Rivers for the 15 years prior to 1887, between Joliet and La Salie;
the chemical investigations by the State board of health over the route from
Lake Michigan to the city of St. Louis, and of tributary streams, and a special
investigation of the conditions produced by the distillers at Peoria and Pekin.”
The above data were probably more ample than had ever been brought before
to the consideration of a similar problem. In addition, there were the following
documents: Reports on the condition of the Seine at and below Paris; reports.
on the sewage-disposal works at Berlin, then being inaugurated; three reports
by parliamentary commissions on river pollution in Great Britain ; reports on
pollution of streams by the State board of health of Massachusetts; reports by
Doctor Chandler of the pollution of the Passaic River, N. J. - º
In addition, the consulting engineer had made special notes on the low-water
condition of the Ohio River and of the Upper Mississippi River and on several
other Streams, in comparison With population. * s
The general result arrived at was that 14,000 cubic feet per minute would
be adequate for a normal city population such as usually obtained in New
England and in Europe, but that this ratio should be increased about 50 per
cent on account of the special industries characteristic of Chicago and tâé
quality of her site—flat topography, with impermeable Subsoil. At that time—-
and we still have great industries based on animal and other organic prod-
ucts—the wastes coming from the stockyards and rendering establishments
alone were estimated as the sewage equivalent of a normal city of 700,000
people. Every effort had been made, and is still being made, to utilize these
1340 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
organic wastes, and great progress had been made in the previous 20 years,
but nevertheless it was thought wise to provide sufficiently for all conditions
rather than Subject any industry to special burdens. These consideraions
raised the dilution ratio to 20,000 cubic feet per minute as a minimum, and
it Was SO recommended.
At that time we had distilleries in Chicago which were serious offenders,
but they have since closed down. I examined the distilleries at Peoria in
1891, when 40,000 head of cattle were fed on the slops, and I found that the
fish were destroyed for 24 miles down the river in the low-water season. It
was noted that the conditions were worse when the raw slops were run
directly into the river, as the cattle were not then present to reduce the decom-
pósition by several stages. In this industry I understand that these wastes are
Ilow evaporated and pressed into cake and sold for stock food.
In the rendering business there is a highly concentrated effluent from the
tanks, which would resemble consomme if it were filtered and deodorized, and
this has defied all chemical science for its salvation. Hopes were entertained
of converting it into commercial ammonia by destructive distillation, but this
did not prove practicable on a commercial scale. I believe that Sometime these
valuable wastes will be commercially utilized, and when this is done a great
burden Wil be taken off the Chicago Drainage Canal. It seemed to me that if
it was not possible to make an economic use of these concentrated effluents, the
profitable disposal of household sewage with the enormous volumes of water
used in American cities was absolutely hopeless. At that time the sentiment of
sanitarians was very strongly against what we proposed as a barbarism. The
experience of nearly 20 years since has fully borne out the noneconomic char-
acter of sewage-disposal works, and the Chicago solution has come to be ac-
Cepted as rational where the conditions permit.
I was not satisfied with our data in regard to the stockyards district, and
when chief engineer of the sanitary district in 1890 I undertook a special
Chemical investigation, continued over a period of time, Of every Outfall enter-
ing the south fork. The work was completed, but I ceased to be chief engi-
neer before the results were fully worked out. At the same time I made a
continued series of chemical analyses of the Illinois & Michigan Canal, which
was then being operated to a capacity of over 50,000 cubic feet per minute.
These investigations cost some $6,000. I became satisfied that I had not over-
estimated the Special source of filth. It was my intention to carry the inquiry
Over the entire city and do what had never been done before—ascertain the
Sewage of a great municipality as a whole. If I had had my way in the mat-
ter we would have had more positive data as to the sewage equivalent and
the volume of Lake Michigan water required. Our boards of trustees have not
since encouraged the resumption of any such work, and, indeed, it has been
regarded as needless by those in authority after the sanitary district law had
been passed and the work actually entered upon.
No extended investigations were again undertaken until the biological and
chemical examinations of 1899 and 1900 were made by the cooperation of the
health department of the city of Chicago, the Chicago University, and the
TJniversity of Illinois. } -
This investigation was instigated by Dr. Frank W. Reilly, then and now
assistant health commissioner of Chicago, after consultation with the writer.
Doctor Reilly was assistant Secretary of the State board of health during the
investigations of 1881–1885, and in 1886 collated the results of Prof. J. H.
Long's chemical examinations of the contents of the Illinois & Michigan Canal
and of the Illinois River and its tributaries as far South as Peoria. These
examinations were projected by Dr. J. H. Rauch, secretary of the State board.
and were directly supervised by Doctor Reilly. His study and collation of
Professor Long's analyses demonstrated that all trace of Chicago sewage
pollution disappeared in a flow of 48 miles from its source—that is, between
Bridgeport at the entrance of the Illinois & Michigan Canal and the town of
Channahon on the Des Plaines River, after this stream had received the dis-
charge from the canal. This demonstration completely upset the time-honored
digtum of previous water analyses “that no river on earth is long enough to
purify itself after it has become contaminated with organic wastes.” Six
years later, in 1892, Pottenkofer fully corroborated Doctor Reilly's demonstra-
tion.
iſłoctor Reilly and myself were associated in all the early promotion of the
sanitary project, and he is the only person that I know upon whom you can
call for a history of the subject matter of this letter.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1341
The biological examinations were entirely confirmatory of the results of the
investigations of 1888–89, but have the merit of less confusion in interpreta-
tion. The State board of health has since recompiled and extended the re-
sults of its stream examinations, and published a report in 1903. The Uniyer-
sity of Illinois has been making for several years past a biological investiga-
tion of the waters of the Illinois River, but with no special reference to the
matters under consideration. I do not refer to data of an ex parte character
gathered in the Chicago–St. Louis suit recently decided by the United States
Supreme Court. " . .
None of this later material nor the added experience and reflection of 11éarly
20 years has changed my mind in regard to the ratio of dilution as given in
1888 and incorporated in the sanitary district law. I do not think I could make
a better determination at this time. I feel bound to say, however, that We have
not yet had the final demonstration of experience. We shall not positively
know until the intercepting Sewer System is completed and in Operation, the
south fork in active circulation, and also the north branch, so that the canal
rečeives the entire output of the city north of Eighty-seventh Street in a colm-
paratively fresh condition. I have been apprehensive that these contributions
would be made before the Chicago River is sufficiently improved to furnish
the necessary volume Of Water to promptly dilute the same. The analyses
show a higher ratio per capita for chlorine and nitrogen, but this was antici-
pated. They also show a large proportion down the old canal, which, owing
to the situation of its inlet, receives largely the output of the south fork, but
this was also anticipated. The evidence as to chlorine is to be taken with
caution on account of the large use of salt in many of our industries, but the
indications are that Chicago Sewage may be even richer than I had presumed
in comparison with the Sewage of normal cities. I have no forebodings, how-
ever, other than as to the policy which may be pursued by the authorities of
the sanitary district. Based on the advice of the consulting engineer the law
is abundantly cautions in stating the ratio of dilution and the capacity of
channel as minimums and in insisting on a continuous flow, but unhappily
there has been a disposition in many quarters to interpret these minimum re-
quirements as maximums. *
You will find in the testimony of 1887 and the paper before the National
Conference of State Boards of Health in 1896, persistent reference to the neces-
sity of maintaining the flow in the winter time. The investigations show
clearly that the Sewage travels farther down the stream in the winter season
and is more dangerous to fish life when the oxygen can not be renewed owing
to an ice cover. The necessity’ for dilution is then paramount. In the original
studies of an economic channel, made under my direction, first by William A.
Lydon in 1886–87, and later by Thomas T. Johnston in 1890–91 the carrying
capacity of a channel covered by ice was fully considered. On the present
channel the Capacity Will be reduced by nearly 40 per cent, or to something
Over 60 per cent of the capacity of an open channel.
In making the Studies for the main channel we adopted the most conservative
coefficients. The channel depth was made nominally 22 feet, with an allowance
Of Over 2 feet for fall between the lake and the head of the channel at Robey
Street, but it was understood that any proper improvement of the Chicago River
and by Other inlets Would give a depth of 24 feet or more. The channel itself
Was made of better character than originally anticipated, owing to the use of
the channeling machine. The effect has been to give a channel of nearly 40
per cent greater capacity than the minimum stated in the law. It was my hope
and intention to produce a channel 30 feet deep, with a capacity of 1,000,000
feet, but I Was not able to reach farther than I have stated.
Under the original theory the channel is not sufficient even now to carry
600,000 feet of water per minute under an ice cover. It has been ingeniously
answered that this objection could be removed by the use of ice boats, but I
have a mental resistance to all solutions of sanitary problems that are not
automatic in action, for Sooner or later they go awry, to the prejudice of the
public health.
It is fair to Say, however, that thus far little ice has formed upon the main
channel, and that the flow has been little interfered with from this cause.
This has been attributed to the large volumes of warm water from households
and from manufacturing plants, and it is supposed also that, active Sewage
decomposition may have something to do with it, and, further, that a sur-
face film of oleaginous matter may afford some protection. Perhaps these ex-
planations are after the facts and therefore speculative. Whatever may be
the cause, the effects should be relatively less when the channel shall be carry-
|
1342 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ing the full volume. And, again, the grand law of average will give us more
Severe Winters than we have been having since the channel was opened.
The estimates of the carrying capacity of the main channel are based as
follows (report of expert commission ; see proceedings of board of trustees of
sanitary district, June 19, 1901, p. 7248) : -
“Within the past two weeks the results of special observations made since
this commission Was Organized, and other relevant data, has enabled an approx-
imate determination of coefficients by which to determine the capacity of the
main Chalanel under the conditions specified. TO determine these matters
finally, however, requires a special set of observations under better weather
Conditions and with the canal operated for this purpose.”
The expert Commission of 1901 estimated the capacity of the channel on a
depth of 24.4 feet at Willow Springs, at 836,280 cubic feet per minute, in
conjunction with a radical improvement of the Chicago River such as would
furnish the entire water supply without detriment to navigation. The same
commission estimated the capacity on a depth of 24.2 feet at Willow Springs,
at 827,040 cubic feet per minute, in conjunction with a moderate improvement
Of the Chicago River north of Sixteenth Street and an inlet direct to the lak. :
adjacent to Sixteenth Street on the South. In both cases the lake was assumed
at Chicago datum, or low water of 1847. Both of these treatments were in
harmony with the theory of the law and the original project.
The Sanitary district has adopted, at least for the present, a channel through
the Chicago River 200 feet wide, which the expert Commission estimated would
carry 390,000 feet of water per minute without detriment to navigation. I
understand that it is expected to feed to the channel 600,000 feet through the
Chicago River and the Thirty-ninth Street conduit, and that one-fifth of this is
to come by way of the conduit and the South Fork. I understand, further, that
it is proposed to construct a channel from the Calumet region through the Sag,
with a capacity of some 240,000 feet of water per minute. The total is 840,000
per minute, or the 14,000 feet per Second which has been mentioned in the
hearings at Washington and before your commission.
You will note in the testimony of 1887 that the considerations which origi-
nally fixed the channel at a capacity of 600,000 cubic feet per minute was the
flood volume from an area of 420 Square miles. Assuming the channel to have
a capacity of 840,000 cubic feet per minute, the flood equivalent would represent
a territory of not over 700 square miles. To add more territory is sure to result
at some time in the backing of the waters into the lake. Sewage pollution is
to be regarded as most dangerous when the sewage is carried out in a fresh
condition during floods and when the city is virtually taking a bath, and it was
such erruptions of flood waters from the populated area which the drainage and
water-supply commission Sought particularly to avoid.
I am therefore strenuously opposed to all propositions which propose to add
unlimited territory to the present channel and which propose in any manner to
sacrifice part of its capacity in the carrying of floods from upland and rural
territory. All the great filth-producing industries and the great population is
new tributary, and will so remain, to the Chicago River, its branches, and the
main channel; and I do not think that the provision which has been made for
this territory is more ample than should have been provided for a reasonable
future growth. The capacity on the present scale of minimum dilution, pre-
suming it to be sufficient, is the equivalent of a population of 4,200,000. This
may not be actually realized, but I feel sure that the progressive Saving of
wastes will eventually reduce the per capita Output of Sewage to more nearly
the normal for other cities. We know that such utilization has already taken
place in connection with the distilleries. We also have the police power, and
can compel the care of specific sources of nuisance when necessity requires;
but as already remarked, such a policy in connection with our great industries
has not been considered wise.
I anticipate, therefore, that as conditions develop in the future, the channel
may prove sufficient for five or six millions of people, provided the original
plans can be carried out in their entirety. That means, however, that, the
capacity of the main channel shall be reserved substantially (and it has been
planned and constructed on that idea) for the territory of the original district,
and that only such provision shall be made for Outlying territory as the actual
necessities of its people require. If we study the relative growth of population
and the character of the industrial development in such outlying territories,
we shall be persuaded that such a policy will do no injustice and Will Conserve
the sanitary purpose in the highest degree.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1343
What is to be the future population of Chicago no man can foresee. I think
We may rest for the present on an assumption of five to six million people. In
laying out the main channel its tangents were made paralell to and at a fixed
distance from the Illinois and Michigan Canal where was possible. The
idea under this location was that the old canal would maintain the reservation
for future use and that the time might come when another canal alongside
Would be desirable. My thought in this matter was not so much an ultimate
thought on the sanitary question as it was that we might wish to carry more
Water to the Illinois River in the interest of deeper navigation. If any such
proposition is considered beyond the provision which has already been made,
the whole continent should join, and we may dismiss it from the present con-
Sideration. I do not believe, however, that the time will come when public
Opinion on this continent will be sufficiently broad to make the best use possible
Of the waters of the Great Lakes, in the interest of the deepest possible naviga-
tion from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, and I do believe
that the project which Chicago has so happily inaugurated as the incident of
a Sanitary necessity will come to be looked upon as a monumental foresight.
I think I have covered the subject matters of your inquiry. If you wish
the documents which I have especially referred to, I will loan them to you, as
I do not know where duplicates are to be had.
Yours very respectfully,
- LYMAN E. COOLEY.
Gen. O. H. ERNEST,
Chairman of the American Section,
International Waterways Commission, Washington, D. C.
REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL WATERw AYs CoMMIssion on THE DISPOSAL
OF SEWAGE OF CHICAGO AND WICINITY, BY RUDOLPH HERING AND GEORGE W.
FULLER, DECEMBER 18, 1906
NEw York CITY, December 18, 1906.
To the INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS COMMISSION :
SIRs: In response to your recent request we beg to report herewith upon
Several propositions connected with the question of extending the method of
disposing of the sewage of Chicago and vicinity by means of dilution with Lake
Michigan water. Your instructions may be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Examination into the Sanitary situation at Choago so far as it is affected
by Sewage disposal.
2. Latest conclusions of sanitary engineers as to the amount of dilution
which is required to make sewage inoffensive.
3. IS the extension of the dilution method to the Outlying territory the Only
way to preserve the lives and health of the people of Chicago?
4. For the Calumet area, are there not Other methods of Sewage disposal
which may be applied at a cost not exceeding much, if at all, the cost of the
method of dilution proposed, and which will be equally effective in preventing
the pollution of the lake waters?
5. Description of the various Systems of Sewage disposal which are avail-
able for the Calumet area, With a Statement Of their relative efficiencies.
6. Statement of the approximate relative costs of the last mentioned so far
as they can be given without the preparation of detailed plans.
You further state clearly in your letter of instructions that you do not de-
sire an investigation into the effect of the present method upon the navigation
interests of the Great Lakes, as that has already been officially considered by
yourselves. Further, you state that you accept as a fixed fact the Chicago
Drainage Canal as designed and built, with its attendant diversion of 10,000
cubic feet per Second of lake water through the Chicago River and its branches.
In accordance with further instructions, we have not given consideration to
guestions of a legal or legislative nature. We have viewed this problem solely
at an engineering proposition without regard to interstate questions and other
features associated with the fact that a portion of the future metropolitan area
of Chicago will obviously lie within the State of Indiana. It is further under-
stood that under the existing circumstances we are to give you our opinion
without entering into such details as would be required by additional surveys
or other field work beyond a personal inspection of the areas.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL AT CEIICAGO
Drainage canal.—Nearly all of the sewage from the population of Chicago
now connected with Sewers is diluted with Lake Michigan water, which, since
1344 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
January 17, 1900, has been allowed to flow through the new drainage canal and
thus reach the valley of the Illinois River. This method of disposal is the
Outcome of Various investigations, particularly of a commission on the drainage
and water supply of Chicago in 1886–87. It was formally adopted in 1889 by
State legislation, creating the “Sanitary District of Chicago,” specifically pro-
viding that the volume of lake water for purposes of dilution shall be 314 cubic
feet per second for each 1,000 of population connected with the sewers, or 20,000
cubic feet per minute for each 100,000 population.
Early methods.-In early days part of the sewage of Chicago flowed directly
into the lake and part into the Chicago River and its branches. From the latter
a portion of the water and Sewage, beginning over 35 years ago, has been
pumped at Bridgeport into the Illinois and Michigan Canal, as is true to Some
extent to-day. It is understood that the old canal is to be discontinued by
legislative action as Soon as equivalent transportation and power facilities
can be arranged for by means Of the new Canal.
Area of Sanitary district.—In 1903 an act of legislature was passed extend-
ing the area of the Sanitary district from 185 to 358.1 Square miles, and
including the “north shore addition * of 78.6 square miles, and the “Calumet
addition ” of 94.5 square miles. The area of the city of Chicago is 190,638
square miles, leaving 167.462 square miles as the area of the present sanitary
district outside of the city limits.
There are Several features to be noted in COnnection with the method of
sewage disposal of the city of Chicago as adopted in 1889. It had been found
to be the cheapest method then available for disposing Of the Sewage SO that
it would not pollute the public Water Supply, which was then and is now
derived from Lake Michigan through a Series of intake Cribs located at various
distances from Shore. .
Intercepting sewers.--To prevent such pollution it was, of course, necessary
first to divert all of the Sewage into the Chicago River. A pure-water com-
mission was appointed by the mayor in 1897 to consider the question of inter-
cepting sewers for that purpose. It was recommended among others a large
intercepting sewer to collect the Sewage from the area along the lake front
between Seventy-third and Thirty-first Streets, and about a year ago a 20-foot
conduit was completed on Thirty-ninth Street, through which the diluted
sewage from this area now passes to the South fork of the South Branch of the
Chicago River. At present there is a gravity flow of lake water ordinarily of
about 40,000 cubic feet per minute. Pumps are now in process of erection by
which ultimately there will be pumped through this conduit about 120,000
cubic feet of lake water per minute, or 2,000 cubic feet per Second.
On Twenty-second Street there was formerly a main sewer draining the
area bordering on the lake front between Thirty-first and Sixteenth Streets
and discharging into the lake. In 1898 the flow in this sewer was reversed so
that its contents now discharge into the river.
On Twelfth Street in 1898 the flow in the main Sewer was also reversed.
In the heart of the city, or business Section, the Sewers have always dis-
charged into the river and not into the lake. The same is true of a considerable
area lying north of the Chicago River and along the lake shore. To facilitate
this discharge a conduit was put in Service in 1880 at Fullerton Avenue, through
which there has been pumped about 12,000 cubic feet of lake water per minute
into the North Branch of the Chicago River.
At the present time there is no sewage entering the lake between Surf Street
(just north of Lincoln Park) on the north side and Seventy-third Street on the
South Side Of Chicago. -
Plans are under way for the construction of the necessary works to collect
the sewage along the lake front between Seventy-third and Eighty-seventh,
Streets and to pump it into sewers west of Halsted Street, which lead to the
Chicago River. There is a very little or no sewage from this area now reach-
ing the lake, as the district is yet practically unsewered.
On the north side there is an area between Surf Street and the northern
city limits and between the lake shore and the ridge between the lake and the
river which now discharges sewage into the lake, but which will be diverted
next summer. This Sewage is to be collected by interceptors conducting it to
Lawrence Avenue, where Will be located a pumping station and a conduit for
pumping the sewage and about 35,000 cubic feet of lake water per minute
into the North Branch Of the Chicago River.
Farther north, at Wilmette, a conduit is proposed to be built with a pumping
station near the Northern Railroad bridge in Evanston, where about 60,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1345
Cubic feet of lake water per minute will be diverted into the north branch of
the Chicago River.
Summary of flow to canal.—The projected flow of the lake water to the
Canal through the Chicago River and its branches to the drainage canal may
therefore be divided and summarized as follows:

Cubic Cubic
feet per | feet per
minute | Second
Main stream, Chicago River---------------- * * * - - - as sº as --- * * * - - - -º ºr am - - - - * * - - - * 373,000 6, 217
Thirty-ninth Street conduit--------------------------------------------------------- 120,000 2,000
Fullerton Avenue conduit--------------------------------...] 12,000 200
Lawrence Avenue conduit---------------------------------------------- 35,000 583
Wilmette conduit------------------------------------------------------------------- 60,000 1,000
*------------------------------------------------------------------------- 600,000 10,000
The Volume for the mainstream of the Chicago River, as above stated, is
obtained by deducting the remaining quantities from the total.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REVERSAL OF FLOW IN THE CHICAGO RIVER
The Satisfactory disposal of the sewage of Chicago by means of the new
drainage canal requires that at and after heavy rainfalls the storm water and
Sewage from the watershed of the Chicago River shall not flow into Lake
Michigan, and therefore it is necessary to secure a practical reversal of the
original flow in the Chicago River.
The drainage area of the Chicago River is about 270 square miles. Flood
flows in the river have reached a maximum of about 10,000 cubic feet per
second, or 600,000 cubic feet per minute, and this fact was also an important
element in fixing the minimum size of the present drainage canal.
As to the efficiency of arrangements for the reversal of flow, our inquiries
lead us to believe that this has been accomplished in a satisfactory way.
Up to the present time and Owing to the insufficient waterway of Some parts of
the Chicago River the volume of Lake Michigan water going through the river
has not approached the Volume above Stated, but there have been times When a
continuous flow of the Chicago River has been toward Lake Mchigan for per-
haps two or three hours. This time is necessary to properly regulate the
water level at the controlling works near Lockport.
POPULATION OF CHICAGO NOW SEWERING INTO THE DRAINAGE CAN AI,
We find that the present population of Chicago is, in round numbers, 2,000,000
people, of which between 100,000 and 200,000 reside south of Eighty-seventh
Street tributary to the Calumet district but within the city limits. Of the
remaining population about 300,000 reside in the Southern lake front district.
This area is tributary to the Thirty-ninth Street pumping station, which, since
about January 1, 1906, has brought about the diversoin of the sewage from the
lake into the South fork Of the South branch Of the Chicago River.
There is still an area in the northwestern part of the city north of Lincoln
Park, spoken of as the northern lake front district, which drains directly into
the lake. Its population may be very roughly estimated at 70,000.
There is a considerable area South of Seventy-third Street and west of
Halsted Street and also a portion of the northwestern part of the city which
are of a semisuburban character. Some portions have been provided with
sewers and receive the Overflow from Cesspools.
So far as we are able to ascertain from local officials and without making
a personal canvass as to details, it appears that there are now, in round numbers,
about 1,500,000 people sewering into the drainage canal. In addition to the
sewage there enters it a considerable quantity of trade wastes, notably about
industrial establishments, Such as tanneries, Wool-pulling establishments, etc.,
as stated by the sanitary inspector in the last report of the health department.
It is our understanding that the present sewage-disposal project for Chicago
is not intended to provide for the disposal of trade Wastes now discharged into
the sewers. While comparatively little has been done as yet to remove them
from the Sewers, we have been informed that it is proposed to take up this
matter actively.
91739—24—PT 2—70
y
1346 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE ON CHICAGO WATER SUPPIfy
The City of Chicago receives its water Supply from Lake Michigan through
a Series of tunnels of various lengths ranging from about 1 to 5 miles from
Shore. Most of them extend from the shore about 2 miles. The total pumping
capacity for this supply is stated to be 529,000,000 gallons in 24 hours. In 1905
the average daily pumpage was recorded as 399,000,00 gallons.
Since the removal of the sewage through the drainage canal was systemati-
cally begun in January, 1900, the appearance of the water of the Chicago River
has shown marked improvement.
The effect of the drainage canal upon the hygienic Quality of the public water
Supply may be studied in connection with the typhoid fever death rates at
Chicago, which are recorded in the next table, together with corresponding
death rates for a number of other American cities. It is not to be assumed that
typhoid fever is entirely due to the pollution of the public water Supply at
Chicago or elsewhere, as it is well known that there are other means of trans-
mitting this disease. But its relation to the public water supply is so intimate
that it gives, perhaps, the best general idea of the sanitary quality of the water,
and therefore it frequently has been used as a rough means of such measurement.
There are other factors beside the drainage canal to be considered carefully
in connection with the typhoid fever statistics at Chicago, and some of which
should be mentioned here. Prior to 1900 there was a substantial improvement
in the public water Supply, partly due to the extension of some of the intake
Cribs and tunnels farther into the lake and partly to the reversal of the flow
of a number of Sewers from the lake into the river, Such as those at Twelfth
and Twenty-second Streets in 1898. These are important factors in explaining
the absence in the late nineties Of Such excessive typhoid death rates as Were
noted at the beginning of that decade.
Since the opening of the drainage canal typhoid fever at Chicago has been
rather unusually prevalent at times. This was especially true in 1902–3, when
it is understood portions of the supply became contaminated after leaving the
intake crib. These accidental pollutions have Since been corrected. -
The report of the city chemist of Chicago, as given in the last annual report
of the department of health, shows that on an average in 1905, the city water
supply was considered by him to be safe about 85 per cent of the time. *
While there has been a marked improvement in recent years in the quality
of the Chicago water supply, due to progressive elimination of Sewage from the
lake, there is still room for more improvement. These improvements refer to
the pollution along the lake front north of Lincoln Park, which is being cor-
rected, and to the “Calumet area " south of Eighty-seventh Street, which is
now under consideration.
Comparison of the annual number of recorded deaths from typhoid fever per
100,000 population at Chicago and other American cities, 1890–1905

.3: º:
3 "c * | 5 || 2 | #
º O Ç gº ©
Year § # # # | 3 || 3 | g | > | # à | #
© §: $ 4 :- é Ç º : .cº. 3. tº
º : 3 ,3 E. 5 3 Q2 º ": cº;
5 s ſº C prº §: | tº Z | f | tº B.
1890------------------------------ 83 33 18 69 44 80 43 21 64 57 89
1891------------------------------ 60 33 13 50 56 90 33 22 64 34 86
1892------------------------------ 103 31 64 59 38 40 25 14 40 42 72
1893------------------------------ 42 37 29 52 37 40 26 20 40 47 72
1894------------------------------ 31 26 27 29 62 20 23 17 32 49 72
1895------------------------------ 32 25 24 35 28 30 32 17 40 28 69
1896------------------------------ 53 18 23 43 22 24 32 16 34 37 51
1897------------------------------ 29 11 15 23 19 18 33 16 33 37 42
1898------------------------------ 38 17 18 34 29 16 34 20 51 38 64
1899------------------------------ 26 17 13 32 26 19 30 16 75 30 82
1900------------------------------ 20 21 18 54 27 19 25 21 35 37 77
1901------------------------------ 29 21 20 36 27 16 25 20 33 27 67
1902------------------------------ 44 16 17 33 33 13 35 21 44 42 79
1903------------------------------ 31 17 17 144 35 15 20 18 70 36 48
1904------------------------------ 19. 13 16 48 91 22 18 17 ------ 36 43
1905------------------------------ 16 20 12 15 23 ------ 20 16 48 36 45
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1347
LATEST CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE REQUIRED DEGREE OF DILUTION FOR THE DISPOS.AL
OF SEWAGE WITHOUT NUISANCE , - '
The disposal of Sewage by dilution depends on the amount of Oxygen in the
diluting water being sufficient to prevent putrefaction of the organic matter in
the Sewage as the latter undergoes bacterial decomposition. If the oxygen is
deficient, bacterial decomposition produces what is called “putrefaction,” with
its various attendant bad odors, such as noted for years in Chicago at “Bubbly
Creek.” If there is a sufficient amount of Oxygen dissolved in the water to
combine with this organic matter, decomposition goes on without any foul
Odors and the Organic matter is reduced to inert matter in an inoffensive way.
This question is One Of balancing the amount of Oxygen in a given volume
of water with the amount of decomposing Organic matter in the sewage, which
naturally must vary greatly.
There are many observations of more or less accuracy available to give figures
for this relation. The Massachusetts State Board of Health made a special
inquiry into this subject for all local rivers in 1902, with conclusions, stated
on page 452 of their annual report for that year, as follows: ' ,
“The results of the investigations show that where the quantity of water
available for the dilution of the Sewage in a stream exceeds about 6 cubic feet
per second per 1,000 persons discharging sewage, objectionable conditions are
unlikely to result from the gross pollution of all the water of a stream in (lry
weather. Under favorable circumstances. Such as in cases where the Sewage
is discharged at many outlets into a large body of water, objectionable contli-
tions may not result where the dilution is somewhat less than 6 cubic feet per
second per 1,000 persons; but objectionable conditions have resulted in all of
the cases thus far examined Where the flow has been less than 3.5 cubic feet
per second per 1,000 persons discharging sewage into the stream.”
These conclusions apply for the most part to comparatively Small streams
into which much manufacturing waste is discharged and upon which mill ponds
are Situated. - -
There are times when the flow of water in the drainage canal appears to
have been insufficient to eliminate objectionable odors entirely. How far
this may be explained by confusion on the part of the observers of the putrefa C-
tive odors emanating from the Illinois and Michigan Canal with those of the
new canal, and how far it may be due to temporary reductions in the ratio of
flow in the new canal and river to facilitate construction work, and also to
the effect of rainfalls and to old deposits in the South Fork, we are unable
to Say.
The new canal appears to serve at present about one-half the population for
which it was designed, and through it flows a volume of lake water which is
variable, but which averages not far from one-half of the ultimate quantity.
It is our judgment that for large canals with the trade wastes eliminated
a dilution of 344 cubic feet per second for each 1,000 population connected
with the sewers also receiving storm water is as low a figure as it is now pos-
sible to State. Local conditions, especially temperature, which affects bacterial
activities and the coefficient of absorption of Oxygen by water, and still other
matters, bear upon this question, the detailed discussion of which is not now
necessary. We feel certain that a dilution of 21/, cubic feet per second would
cause offense at times, and probably also a dilution of 3 cubic feet per second.
FUTURE POPULATION OF AN AREA TRIBUTARY TO THE CHICAGO RIVER AND DRAIN \ (#E
CANAI, WITH REFERENCE TO SEWAGE DISPOSAL
On the basis of the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per Second of Lake Michigan
water, on the present assumption of 3% feet per second as being the Volume
to be provided for each 1,000 population connected with the sewers, and on the
assumption of eliminating objectionable trade wastes, the present method of
disposal may serve until the population on the drainage area of the Chicago
River reaches 3,000,000 people.
On the further assumption that through the Chicago River and various
conduits connected with its branches there will be a flow equal to 14,000 cubic
feet per second, which is the capacity of the rock section of the drainage canal,
the maximum population which might be taken care of in this way is about
4,200.000 people.
I 348 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
t
With a large portion of the 270 Square miles drainage into the Chicago
River, but not yet built up, even on a suburban basis, it is evident that in
future years there will be a much greater population than now exists.
We have considered that rate of growth of Chicago from various viewpoints,
notably the density of its population, and have compared its growth with that
of other metropolitan districts. There is, of course, no way of predicting ac-
Curately how rapidly will be the growth of Chicago in future years; but it is a
reasonable assumption that before many years it will become a city of some
five or six millions of population. It seems reasonable to infer that the popula-
tion residing upon the area tributary to the Chicago Hiver and its branches
Will ultimately exceed both the 3,000,000 and 4,200,000 estimates above men-
tioned. In other words, the present dilution method will certainly not alone
for all time take care of the crude sewage of this area.
There are several available methods for the purification of sewage depend-
ing upon the degree of purification desired, as will be noted beyond in connec-
tion with the Calumet area.
It is not probable that the sewage of the Old part of Chicago will ever be
purified by artificial means, as it would be proportionately much more difficult
and C Xpensive to deliver the sewage to suitable sites for purification than to
continue the present dilution method. It is different with the outlying districts
trilºutary to the Chicago River. In the future, when these districts become
built up SQ. that the population exceeds the limits above stated, the installation
of sewage purification works will necessarily follow.
PROPOSED CALUMET CANAL
The luore essential features of this proposed canal, as obtained from local,
officials, may be summarized as follows:
I,ocation.—The canal would extend from a point on the Little Calumet
River near Blue Island, through the Sag Valley, and enter the drainage canal
near Sag Station.
Territory tributary.-The total drainage area of the Calumet River is $25
s';uare ruiles, of which 473 are in Indiana. Within the limits of the Sanitary
District of Chicago and south of Eighty-seventh Street, the area is 94.5 square
niiles, with a population of about 100,000 in 1900. It is stated that the popula-
tion has nearly doubled within the past six years, and it is expected to reach a
million people or more within a fairly short period, as the conditions for f*
n: , Ilul facturing district are very favorable.
Size.—The size of this canal, as proposed, is such as to give a flow of
4,000 cubic feet per second.
Reversal of flow.—The natural flow of the Calumet River exceeds 12,500
cul)ic feet per second. It is proposed, if suitable legislation can be secured, to
construct at dam below Thorn Creek, at the SOuthern boundary of the sanitary
district, and divert into Lake Michigan, through a channel to be built about 17%
miles east of the State line, the flow of this stream, with a drainage area of
ahout 587 square miles. The size of the proposed Calumet Canal is too small
to secure aſ all times a reversal of flow of the remaining portion of the area,
which is aloout 240 square miles. It is proposed to put a controlling lock on the
canºl east of Blue Island to prevent flood waters from this lower area entering
the Canal, at which times sewage entering the river on the lake side of the lock
would go into the lake.
The proposed canal is insufficient to carry in the future all the storm flows
of the Sag Valley itself. These would, at least, in part, require diversion
through present or Other channels.
Cost.—The estimated cost of this proposed canal is $12,000,000.
I’opulation to be served.—On the assumption already stated, this canal, by
diſution, would dispose of the sewage of about 1,200,000 people, not including
O}, i.ectionable trade wastes. This makes the cost of sewage disposal $10 per
capita for the entire future population, or about $60 for the present population.
The sewage would for the most part reach the canal by gravity through the
Calumet Hiver, so that the cost of maintenance would be comparatively Small.
In passing, we may say that the Calumet area, both in Illinois and Indiana,
is certain to develop rapidly, and its population will eventually far exceed the
above figure.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1349
RELATION OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR THE CALUMET AREA TO THE WATER SUPi ‘l.Y
OF CHICAGO
For the reasons above stated in connection with the reversal of flow, the
sanitary effect upon I.ake Michigan water at the Hyde Park intake and Vicinity
of this proposed Calumet Canal would not be nearly as effective as that Of the
Imain canal for the Chicago River territory and neighboring intakes. This fact
is important in connection with the degree of sewage purification required by
artificial purification works to give a sanitary effect equal to that of the pro-
posed Cartal.
There seems to be no doubt that at times the sewage entering the Calumet
River under present conditions from this district pollutes the lake water from
tite Hyde Park intake crib. It may pollute the Water at other intakes, bilt
our evidence is not conclusive. In the future, when the Calumet area is built
up, it is possible that intake cribs may be built nearer to the mouth of the
Calumet River than is the Byde Park intake.
In view of the fact that the proposed Calumet Canal can not keep all
sewage out of Lake Michigan at times of heavy rainfall, it is important to
lmote that the water supply of this section of Chicago will eventually have to
be purified by modern filtration works. This can be done at moderate cost.
and it will be the cheapest and best solution of this problem to filter the water
supply of this district and to purify the sewage to such a degree that the
effluent will be fairly clear and nonputrescible, that is, free from disagreeable
Odors. With additional expense the Sewage effluent (Of the quality just State(1)
call be given a supplementary purification, making it practically free of bacteria
by treating it with a germicide or by filtering it according to water purification
practice. *
Under existing conditions we are firmly of the opinion that all the purifica-
tion required of the sewage of the Calumet district is to make it fairly diear
and nonput rescible. -
CONCLUSIONS
In recapitulating the substances of the foregoing inquiry and referring
specifically to your instructions, summarized at the outset, we conclude as
follows :
1. The examination into the sanitary situation at Chicago, So far as it is
affected by sewage disposal, revealed that since removing the Sewage through
the drainage canal the appearance of the water of the Chicago River has
shown marked improvement. As regards the hygienic quality of the publie
water supply there has also been an improvement, due to the progressive
elimination of sewage from the lake, which elimination should be completed
within a few years. . . * &
2. The latest conclusions Of Sanitary engineers as to the amount of dilution
which is required to make sewage inoffensive are that a dilution of 314 cubic
feet per second for each 1,000 persons connected with the sewers, as proviſieti
for in the enactment of the Illinois Legislature in 1889, is as low a figure as
it is now possible to state. We believe that with the elimination of Objection-
able trade wastes and the Occasional dredging of the river this armount of
dilution will be sufficient to prevent offensiveness. s
3. The extension of the dilution method to the outlying territory is not
the only way to preserve the lives and health of the people of Chicago. The
application of this method with flows of 10,000 and 14,000 cubic feet per
second, respectively, for the area tributary to the present drainage Canal will
serve populations not exceeding 3,000,000 and 4,200,000, respectively. For
greater populations other methods of Sewage disposal will be required. *
4. For the Calumet area, as well as other districts, there are several methods
for the disposal of sewage as effective as the present method of dilution in
preventing the pollution of the lake waters.
5. All of these methods involve intercepting Sewers and pumping stations
to collect and deliver the sewage at suitable sites. Septic tanks are used for
partially clarifying the Sewage, which may then be applied to any one of three
methods of filters, viz, intermittent sand filters, contact filters, and sprinkling
filters.
All of these filters, if well built and well managed, remove the suspended
and organic matters so that the effluents are practically clear and are non-
I'850 - ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
putrescible. The removal of bacteria by these three types of filters averages
at least 98, 80, and 90 per cent, respectively. Such effluents may be discharged
directly into any of the watercourses of the Calumet region.
>}: Sk >k >}: :k ::: :::
Of the available methods of disposing of the sewage of the Calumet area,
other than by dilution, the sprinkling filter method, being the cheapest, both
in cost of Construction and of operation, and accomplishing an adequate degree
of purification, is clearly the most advantageous one.
Very respectfully,
RUDOLPH HERRING.
GEORGE W. FullLER.
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RELATING TO BOUNDARY WATERS AND QUESTIONS ARISING ALONG THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON JANU-
ARY 11, 1909
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelarid
and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the
United States of America, being equally desirous to prevent disputes regarding
the use of boundary waters and to Settle all questions which are now pending
between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, involving the rights,
obligations, or interests of either in relation to the Other or to the inhabitants
of the Other, along their common frontier, and to make provisions for the ad-
justment and settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise, have
resolved to conclude a treaty in furtherance of these ends, and for that purpose
have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries:
His Britannic Majesty, the Right Hon. James Bryce, O. M., his ambassador
extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Washington; and
...The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of
State of the United States;
Who, after having communicated to one another their full powers, found
in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE
For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters
from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and Connecting water-
ways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between
the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms.
and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural
channles would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing
from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across
the boundary.
- ARTICLE I
The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable
boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of
commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries
equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within
its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation, and
applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels,
and boats of both countries.
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this
same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan, and to
all canals connecting boundary waters and now existing or which may hereafter
be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties
may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its
own territory, and may charge tolls for the use thereof; but all such rules and
regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens Of
the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the
high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the
use thereof.
* > . ARTICLE 2
Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself, or to the Several
State Governments on the one side and the Dominion or Provincial Government
on the other, as the case may be, subject to any treaty provisions now existing
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1351
with respect thereto, the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and
diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all Waters On its OWI) side Of
the line which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary Or into
boundary waters; but it is agreed that any interference with or diversion from
their natural channel of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting
in any injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the Same
rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such
injury took place in the country where such diversion or interference Occurs;
but this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or cases expressly
covered by special agreement between the parties hereto.
It is understood, however that neither of the high contracting parties intends
by the foregoing provision to surrender any right which it may have to object
to any interference with or diversions of waters on the other side of the boun-
dary the effect of which would be productive of material injury to the naviga-
tion interests on its own side of the boundary.
ARTICLE 3
It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions here-
tofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement between the
parties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether
temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affect-
ing the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line
shall be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of
Canada within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval, as herein-
after provided, of a joint commission, to be known as the International Joint
Commission.
The foregoing provisions are not intended to limit or interfere with the
existing rights of the Government of the United States on the one side and
the Government of the Dominion of Canada on the other, to undertake and
carry on governmental works in boundary waters for the deepening of channels,
the construction of breakwaters, the improvement of harbors, and other gov-
ernmental works for the benefit of commerce and navigation, provided that such
works are wholly On its Own Side of the line and do not materially affect the
level or flow of the boundary waters on the other, nor are such provisions
intended to interfere with the ordinary use of such waters for domestic and
sanitary purposes.
ARTICLE 4
The high contracting parties agree that, except in cases provided for by
Special agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or main-
tenance on their respective sides of the boundary of any remedial or protective
works or any dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from boundary
waters or in Waters at a lower level than the boundary in rivers flowing across
the boundary, the effect of which is to raise the natural level of waters on the
Other side Of the boundary unless the construction or maintenance thereof is
approved by the aforesaid international joint commission.
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and
waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the
injury Of health Or property on the other.
ARTICLE 5
The high Contracting parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diversion
of Waters from the Niagara River so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow
of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both parties
to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments which
have already been made in the construction of power plants on the United
States side of the river under grants of authority from the State of New York,
and on the Canadian side of the river under licenses authorized by the Dominion
of Canada and the Province of Ontario.
So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the waters of
the Niagara River above the Falls from the natural course and stream thereof
shall be permitted except for the purpose and to the extent hereinafter pro-
vided. - * * -
- - ------
1352 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State
of New York for the waters of the Said river above the Falls Of Niagara, for
power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of
20,000 cubic feet of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the Province of Ontario,
may authorize and permit the diversion within the Province of Ontario of the
waters of Said river above the Falls of Niagara for power purposes, not exceed-
ing in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 36,000 cubic feet of water
per Second.
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for
sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of Canals for the purposes of
navigation.
ARTICLE 6
The high contracting parties agree that the St. Mary and Milk Rivers and
their tributaries (in the State of Montana and the Provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan) are to be treated as one stream for the purposes of irrigation
and power, and the waters thereof shall be apportioned equally between the two
Countries, but in making such equal apportionment more than half may be taken
from One river and less than half from the other by either country SO as to
afford a more beneficial use to each. It is further agreed that in the division
of Such waters during the irrigation season, between the 1st of April and 31st
of October, inclusive, annually, the United States is entitled to a prior appro-
priation of 500 cubic feet per second of the waters of the Milk River. or so
much of Such amounts as constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow, and that
Canada is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of the
flow of St. Mary River, or So much of Such amount as constitutes three-fourths
Of its natural flow.
The channel of the Milk River may in Canada be used at the convenience of
the United States, for the conveyance, while passing through Canadian terri-
tory, of waters diverted from the St. Mary River. The provisions of article 2
of this treaty shall apply to any injury resulting to property in Canada from
the conveyance of such waters through the Milk River. 4.
The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used by each
COuntry shall from time to time be made jointly by the properly constituted
reclamation officers of the United States and the properly constituted irrigation
officers Of His Majesty under the direction of the International Joint Com-
mission.
ARTICLE 7
The high contracting parties agree to establish and maintain an Inter-
national Joint Commission of the United States and Canada composed of six
commissioners, three on the part of the United States appointed by the Presi-
dent thereof, and three on the part of the United Kingdom appointed by His
Majesty on the recommendation of the governor in council of the Dominion of
Canada.
ARTICLE 8
This International Joint Commission shall have jurisdiction over and shall
pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction or diversion of the Waters
with respect to which under Articles 3 and 4 of this treaty the approval of
this commission is required, and in passing upon such cases the commission
shall be governed by the following rules and principles which are adopted by
the high contracting parties for this purpose:
The high contracting parties shall have, each on its own side of the
boundary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined
as boundary waters. *
The following order of precedence shall be observed, among the various uses
enuemrated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which
tends materially to conflict with or restraint any other use which is given
preference over it in this order of precedence—
1. Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;
2. Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of
navigation ;
3. Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
w
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1353
The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses
Of boundary waters on either side of the boundary.
The requirement for an equal division may in the discretion of the Com-
mission be suspended in cases of temporary diversions along boundary waters
at points Where Such equal division can not be made advantageously On account
Of local conditions, and where Such diversion does not diminish elsewhere the
amount available for use On the other side.
The commission in its discretion may make its approval in any case con-
ditional upon the construction of remedial or protective works to compensate
So far as possible for the particular use Or diversion proposed, and in Such
cases may require that Suitable and adequate provision, approved by the com-
mission, be made for the protection and indemnity against injury Of any in-
terests on either Side Of the boundary.
In cases involving the elevation of the natural level of waters On either
side of the line as a result of the construction or maintenance on the other
side of remedial or protective works or dams or other obstructions in boundary
Waters or in waters flowing therefrom or in waters below the boundary in
rivers flowing across the boundary, the commission shall require, as a condition
Of its approval thereof, that Suitable and adequate provision, approved by it,
be made for the protection and indemnity of all interests on the Other side of
the line which may be injured thereby.
The majority of the commissioners shall have power to render a decision.
In case the commission is evenly divided upon any question Or matter presented
to it for decision, Separate reportS shall be made by the COmmissioners On each
side to their Own Government. The high contracting parties shall thereupon
endeavor to agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter of difference,
and if an agreement is reached between them, it shall be reduced to writing
in the form of a protocol and shall be communicated to the commissioners,
who shall take such further proceedings as may be necessary to carry out such
agreement.
ARTICLE 9
The high contracting parties further agree that any other questions or
matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations, or
interests Of either in relation to the Other Or to the inhabitants of the Other,
along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of
Canada, shall be referred from time to time to the International Joint Com-
mission for examination and report, whenever either the Government of the
United States or the Government of DOminion of Canada Shall request that
such questions or matters of difference be so referred.
The International Joint Commission is authorized in each case so referred
to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances Of the particular
guestions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and recommenda-
tions as may be appropriate, Subject, however, to any restrictions or exceptions
which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of the reference.
Such reports of the commission shall not be regarded as decisions of the
questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or the law, and shall in
no way have the character of an arbitral award. -
The commission shall make a joint report to both Governments in all cases
in which all or a majority of the commissioners agree, and in case of disagree-
ment the minority may make a joint report to both Governments, or Separate
reports to their respective Governments.
In case the commission is evenly divided upon any question Or matter
referred to it for report, separate reports shall be made by the commissioners
On each side to their Own GOvernment.
ARTICLE 10
Any questions or matters of difference arising between the high eontracting
parties involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States or
of the Dominion of Canada, either in relation to each other or to their respective
inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the International Joint Commission
by the consent of the two parties, it being understood that on the part of the
Dnited States any such action will be by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty’s Government with the consent of
1354 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
the governor general in council. In each case so referred the said commission
is authorized to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of
the particular questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions
and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any re-
strictions Or exceptions which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms
Of the reference. -
A majority of the said commissioners shall have power to render a decision
or finding upon any of the questions or matters so referred.
If the said commission is equally divided or otherwise unable to render a
decision or finding as to any questions or matters so referred, it shall be the
duty of the commissioners to make a joint report to both Governments, or
separate reports to their respective Governments, showing the different con-
clusions arrived at with regard to the matters or questions so referred, which
questions or matters shall thereupon be referred for decision by the high con-
tacting parties to an umpire chosen in accordance with the procedure prescribed
in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of article 45 of the Hague convention
for the pacific settlement of international disputes, dated October 18, 1907.
Such umpire shall have power to render a final decision with respect to those
matters and questions so referred on which the commission failed to agree.
ARTICLE 1.1
A duplicate original of all decisions rendered and joint reports made by
the commission shall be transmitted to and filed with the Secretary Of State
of the United States and the Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada, and
to them shall be addressed all Communications of the Commission.
ARTICLE 12
The International Joint Commission shall meet and Organize at Washington
promptly after the members thereof are appointed and when organized the
commission may fix such times and places for its meetings as may be neces-
sary, subject at all times to special call or direction by the two Governments.
Each Commissioner, upon the first joint meeting of the COmmission after his
appointment, shall, before proceeding with the work of the commission, make
and Subscribe a solemn declaration in writing that he will faithfully and im-
partially perform the duties imposed upon him under this treaty, and such
declaration shall be entered on the records of the proceedings of the com-
mission. -
The United States and Canadian Sections of the commission may each
appoint a secretary, and these shall act as joint secretaries of the commission
at its joint Sessions, and the commission may employ engineers and clerical
assistants from time to time as it may deem advisable. The Salaries and
personal expenses Of the Commission and of the Secretaries shall be paid by
their respective Governments, and all reasonable and necessary joint ex-
penses of the commission, incurred by it, shall be paid in equal moieties by
the high contracting parties.
The Commission shall have power to administer oaths to witnesses, and to
take evidence on Oath whenever deemed necessary in any proceeding, or in-
quiry, or matter within its jurisdiction under this treaty, and all parties in-
terested therein Shall be given convenient opportunity to be heard, and the
high Contracting parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate
and necessary to give the Commission the powers above mentioned on each
side of the boundary, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas and for com-
pelling the attendance of witnesses in proceedings before the commission.
The Commission may adopt such rules of procedure as shall be in accordance
With justice and equity, and may make such examination in person and
through agents or employees as may be deemed advisable.
ARTICLE 1.3
In all cases where special agreements between the high contracting parties
hereto are referred to in the foregoing articles, such agreements are under-
stood and intended to include not only direct agreements between the high
Contracting parties, but also any mutual arrangement between the United
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1355
States and the Dominion of Canada expressed by concurrent Or reciprocal
legislation on the part of Congress and the Parliament of the Dominion.
ARTICLE 1.4
The present treaty shall be ratified by His Britannic Majesty and by the
President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and Consent
of the Senate thereof. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as
soon as possible, and the treaty shall take effect on the date of the exchange
of its ratifications. It shall remain in force for five years, dating from the
day of exchange of ratifications, and thereafter until terminated by 12 months'
written notice given by either high contracting party to the other.
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty
in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their Seals.
Done at Washington the 11th day of January, in the year of Our Lord One
thousand nine hundred and nine.
[L. S.] JAMES BRYCE.
[L. S.] ELIHU ROOT.
The above treaty was approved by the United States Senate On the 3d day
of March, 1909, with the following resolutions:
Resolved. That the Senate advise and COnsent to the ratification of the
treaty between the United States and Great Britain providing for the settle-
ment of international difference between the United States and Canada, Signed
On the 11th day of January, 1909.
Resolved further (as part of this ratification), That the United States
approves this treaty with the understanding that nothing in this treaty shall
be construed as affecting, or changing, any existing territorial, or riparian
rights in the water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either
side of the international boundary at the rapids of the St. Marys River at
Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to
the requirements of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation canals,
and without prejudice to the existing right of the United States and Canada,
each to use the waters of the St. Marys River, within its own territory ; and
further, that nothing in this treaty Shall be construed to interfere with the
drainage of wet, Swamp, and Overflowed lands into streams flowing into bound-
ary waters, and that this interpretation will be mentioned in the ratification
of this treaty as Conveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will, in effect,
form part of the treaty.
PROTOCOL OF EXCHANGE
On proceeding to the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty signed at
Washington on January 11, 1909, between Great Britain and the United States,
relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the boundary between
the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the undersigned plenipoten-
tiaries, duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, hereby (le-
clare that nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting, or changing,
any existing territorial or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the owners
Of lands under water, On either Side of the international boundary at the
rapids of the St. Marys at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters
flowing over such lands, subject to the requirements of navigation in boundary
waters and of navigation canals, and without prejudice to the existing right
of the United States and Canada, each to use the waters of the St. Marys
River, within its own territory; and further, that nothing in this treaty shall
be construed to interfere with the drainage of wet, swamp, and overflowed
lands into streams flowing into boundary waters, and also that this declara-
tion shall be deemed to have equal force and effect as the treaty itself and to
form an integral part thereof. ! *
The exchange of ratifications then took place in the usual form.
In witness whereof, they have signed the present protocol of exchange and
have affixed their seals thereto.
Done at Washington this 5th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and
ten.
4
JAMES BRYCE. [SEAL.]
PHILANDER. C. KNOX. [SEAL.]
1356 . ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
LAws of THE Dom(INION OF CANADA—LEGISLATION ENACTED BY THE PARLIAMENT
OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FoR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE.
PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF JANUARY 11, 1909, CREATING THE INTERNATIONAL
JOINT COMMISSION
(1–2 George V)
Chap. 28. An act relating to the establishment and expenses of the Inter-
national Joint Commission under the Waterway treaty of January the eleventh,
nineteen hundred and nine.
(ASSented to 19th May, 1911)
His Majesty, by and with the advice and Consent of the Senate and House-
Of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. The treaty relating to the boundary waters and to questions arising
along the boundary between Canada and the United States made between His
Majesty and the said United States, signed at Washington the eleventh day of
January, one thousand nine hundred and nine, and the protocol of the fifth day
Of May, One thousand nine hundred and ten, in the schedule to this act, are:
hereby Confirmed and sanctioned.
2. The laws of Canada and of the Several Provinces thereof are hereby
amended and altered so as to permit, authorize, and sanction the performance.
of the obligations undertaken by His Majesty in and under the said treaty :
and So as to Sanction, Confer, and impose the various rights, duties, and disa-
bilities intended by the said treaty to be conferred or imposed or to exist
within Canada.
3. Any interference with or diversion from their natural channel of any
waters in Canada, which in their natural channels would flow across the
boundary between Canada and the United States or into boundary waters (as
defined in the said treaty) resulting in any injury on the United States side of
the boundary, shall, give the same rights and entitle the injured parties to the
same legal remedies as if such injury took place in that part of Canada where
such diversion or interference occurs; but this section shall not apply to cases.
existing on the eleventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nine, or
to cases expressly covered by special agreement between His Majesty and the
Government of the United States.
4. The Exchequer Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction at the suit of any
injured party or person claiming under this act in all cases in which it is sought
to enforce or determine as against any perSon any right Or Obligation arising
or claimed under or by virtue of this act.
5. The International Joint Commission, when appointed and constituted
pursuant to the said treaty, shall have power, when holding joint sessions in
Canada, to take evidence on Oath and to compel the attendance of witnesses
by application to a judge of a superior court of the Province within which such
session is held, and such judge is hereby authorized and directed to make all
orders and issue all processes necessary and appropriate to that end.
CoMMITTEE on RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Thursday, May 22, 1924.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to proceed.
Mr. ADCOCK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Francis C. Shenehon, who is a
consulting hydraulic engineer and lives at Minneapolis, will state or
discuss certain problems connected with this proposition. He has
been, practically. during his entire professional career, connected
with #. hydraulic problems and projects of the Great Lakes. He
was head of the Lake Survey for a number of years and had charge
of the gauging of the St. Lawrence River and the Niagara River
and various projects connected with the improvement of navigation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1857
As
After being head of the Lake Survey, he was for a number of years
dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Minnesota,
and I will file a detailed statement of his qualifications.
The CHAIRMAN. Received.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
1888. Hydraulic engineer for William Chandler on water power in the
Tapids at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
1890–1898. Engineer for United States on building of the Poe ship lock—
the largest ship lock in the world at that time—at St. Marys Falls Canal.
Also on channelization of St. Marys River. Also hydraulic measurements of
the flow of St. Marys River. Experiments on the hydraulics of ship locks.
1898. Hydraulic engineer for board of engineers on deep waterways in meas-
urements of the flow of the Niagara River and other hydraulic investigations.
1899–1900. Hydraulic engineer for United States Lake Survey in continuation
of extensive hydraulic measurements of Niagara River. The purpose of all
these hydraulic measurements in the Niagara River was for the proper design
and construction of regulating Works.
1900–1902. Hydraulic engineer for United States Lake Survey in charge of
the measurements of the volume of flow Of the St. Lawrence River and other
hydraulic investigations ; also SOundings and SurveyS for navigators' charts of
the St. Lawrence River. The hydraulic investigations above referred to were
taken for the purpose of the design and construction of regulating works and a
deep waterway from the Great Lakes to tidewater in the Atlantic Ocean. They
form the basis of the present design for the St. Lawrence waterway to the Sea.
1903–1905. Surveys of the Great Lakes, including sounding and the use of
the long wire drag or sweep invented by Mr. Shenehon in 1902 and now used for
the detection of pinnacle rocks throughout the world.
1906. Hydraulic engineer for United States Lake Survey in extensive investi-
gations at Niagara Falls, having in view the protection of the scenic grandeur
Of the cataracts. Mr. Shenehon’s report On the effect of water diversions in the
Great Lakes on the Niagara River and on the cataracts is a volume of 16 chap-
ters published by the Government Printing Office.
1906—1909. Principal civilian engineer of the United States Lake Survey in
charge, under the direction of an officer of the Corps of Engineers, of hydraulic
work on the St. Clair River, the Niagara River, and the St. Lawrence River,
and Surveys of the Great Lakes for the purpose of making navigators' charts.
1908. Expert witness for the United States in the sanitary district case.
1909–1917. Dean of the college of engineering of the University of Minnesota
and consulting engineer during the same period.
Consulting engineer for Hydraulic Power Co., Niagara Falls, on water
Cliversions and compensation for the Same.
Expert hydraulic engineer for the United States in the celebrated Chandler-
Dunbar case, condemning the Water power at Sault Ste. Marie. Expert for
United States in continuation of Sanitary district case. -
1918. Consulting hydraulic engineer to the Sanitary District of Chicago in
matters relating to the regulation of Lakes Ontario, Erie, Michigan, and Huron.
Before undertaking this work, the approval of the United States attorney,
James H. Wilkerson, and an officer of the Corps of Engineers was Secured.
1917 to date. Consulting hydraulic engineer for many large water-power
projects, including the building of the El Dorado water-power development in
California, the Falls of the Ohio development at Louisville, Ky., Coon Rapids
development on Mississippi River, and water powers on the St. Croix, Chippewa
and Red Cedar RiverS.
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS C. SHENEHON, HYDRAULIC
ENGINEER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
Mr. SHENEHON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
shall speak as an engineer on the physical hydraulic elements of the
situation which confronts the Great Lakes, their navigation and water
power, and the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls. What I shall at-
tempt to do is to make simple elements which must appear very
1358 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
complex to men who have not dealt largely with hydraulic questions
such as are involved in this particular case.
We might feel very much embarrassed in the fact that we are
before Congress at a time when the Lakes are abnormally low; but
to me it seems there could have been no better time to be before
Congress, unless it were in the year 1895, when we had a similar
low stage of the Great Lakes, before Chicago had started to divert
water. I want to tell you what these present low surface levels of
the Lakes mean to navigation. The elevation of Lakes Michigan and
Huron for the best practical navigation under present conditions
is elevation 582 feet above sea level. The present levels are 33
inches below that desirable stage of the Lakes for good navigation.
Now, of these 33 inches, Chicago is responsible for 5 inches. The
lowering, when Chicago has taken 10,000 cubic second-feet consecu-
tively, will be 5% inches, but at the present time the lowering is not
greater than 5 inches. So we have 28 inches of lowering, for which
Chicago is in no way responsible, which is due to the low precipita-
tion conditions on the Great Lakes system and in the country in
general. This lack of rainfall reaches from California, where I have
been building a water power, to the Mississippi River, which during
the past winter has had the lowest flow in its record, and it involves
the Great Lakes system as well. So, out of the 33 inches that Lakes
Huron and Michigan are low, 28 inches are assignable or chargeable
to other agencies than the Sanitary District of Chicago.
It appears to me that this is tremendously significant, because that
28 inches (assuming that an inch of draft may be worth $440,000)
means a loss for this season's navigation of over $12,000,000. It may
be thought that Chicago is really responsible for this lowering, so
I would like to refer to the low stages of the year 1895, five years
before Chicago started to divert water. Lake Erie at that time was
26 inches low. The recurrence of a period of that kind would mean
$13,000,000 loss in one year. Lake Erie at the present time is about
24 inches low, and Chicago is responsible for about 5 inches of that:
so Edie is about 19 inches low, aside from Chicago's effect, for this
season of the year. I have corrected for the rise that will occur
between now and July. We have this condition for this year, with
the probability of a very heavy traffic. There were 92,000,000
tons carried on Lake Erie during the past year.
The CHAIRMAN. 1923? e
Mr. SHENEHON. 1923. Ninety-two million tons passed through
the Detroit River in 1923.
The CHAIRMAN. All of the reports to us have been 121,000,000.
Mr. SHENEHON. I have the report, Mr. Chairman, page 24.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand the 121,000,000 comprehends all
that passes through and Some that does not go down through the
lower Lakes but to Lake Michigan through the Soo and the straits.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is correct. Now, I will give you for Lake
Erie the 1895 level, and show you the loss there of about $13,000,000
for a recurrence of that stage. Of course, 1895 was prior to the
opening of the Chicago canal, but these low stages of the lake are
certain to recur. I have used a figure here of half a million dollars
for an inch of draft; and that is a figure derived from a statement
made by Gen. Charles Keller. He said that an inch on Lake Erie is
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. I 359
worth from $450,000 to $600,000 a year, based on the traffic and
freight rates of 1918.
The CHAIRMAN. He was formerly president of the Board of Engi-
neers for Rivers and Harbors.
Mr. SHENEHON. He has been a colleague of mine. I took him
away from the Federal Government and he is now in the same
Organization I am. *
Mr. Goulder’s figures, I believe, are very considerably larger for
the damage caused by an inch of loss of draft on Lake Erie, but for
purposes of this discussion I shall use that figure of $500,000 an
inch and a great many other figures as illustrative rather than
exact. A half a million dollars to the inch is a reasonable statement
as to the traffic of Lake Erie. Where only Michigan and Huron are
concerned it would be about 88 per cent of that.
The CHAIRMAN. I think Adam Cornelius, who is as good and
practical man as there is on the earth; agreed with your figures. He
testified here as a witness. - -
Mr. DEAL. He agreed on what figures?
The CHAIRMAN. I think he agreed with the figures that an inch
represented $500,000, as suggested by Mr. Shenehon.
Mr. SHENEHON. There is another verification in what we call
the Warren report. Colonel Warren had very little to do with the
report except to give it his name, I understand. I shall refer to
that later. There the figure is given of $590,000 for a tenth of a
foot. That would be very close to half a million for an inch based
on a 1917 traffic. I think that is in the Taylor report, which is a
part of the volume which we speak of as the Warren report.
There was a five year period from 1883 to 1887 when the mean
elevation during the season of navigation for Lakes Michigan and
Huron was 582.8, and I have called that the plane of the eighties.
Then there was another elevation of Lakes Michigan and Huron
which I have called the plane of the nineties—that was the period
from 1895 to 1899—and the difference between those two planes is
29 inches. The present level of Lakes Michigan and Huron is a
little below the 1895 level. The loss for that five year period, assum-
ing the conditions—that is, the traffic and the vessel draft, prac-
ticable in 1918—was $12,000,000 a year. The total loss for that
five year period, 1895–1899, assuming a recurrence of it, you under-
stand, would be $60,000,000.
In Lake Erie we have a similar situation, except that based on
that lake the loss for that five year period, assuming its recurrence,
would be $50,000,000.
These are very big figures, I appreciate that, and I am going to
deal—I must deal with some very large figures as I go on. You will
find in all of the discussions, including that of Mr. Goulder, these
very large figures. I think at times they are extravagant. I myself
made an error once in assuming that the saving each year in the
Great Lakes was $100,000,000. How much do you make that, Mr.
Goulder?
Mr. GouldFR. Colonel Warren said $250,000,000 based on 1917.
Based on 1923, I would put it something over $300,000,000.
Mr. SHENEHON. I wrote that in all good faith, just as Mr. Goulder
doubtless made his statement in all good faith, but here is the
1360 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
situation. If it cost ten times as much to move the freight by rail
as it does by boat, the iron ore would lie in the ground in Minnesota.
That would be the result. We would get our ore from Norway,
Sweden, Spain, Tennessee or somewhere in the South. The Lakes
serve to bring the ore and the coal together. So we are sometimes
talking not quite accurately when we speak of these savings.
The CHAIRMAN. Also, when we measure the saving by what the
loss in freight rates is, we are not very accurate because that does
not measure the saving. That is simply what the carrier loses in
freight charges? -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But that does not measure at all the loss to the
shipper of not being able to transport his products in a congested
year. r
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, I am trying to state to this committee with
all the accentuation or emphasis possible the fact that the Lakes
do get low, and that their getting low is not Chicago's fault except
to the extent of 5 inches, when the level of the lake may be 33 inches
low. I wish to make this particular point now, because we are lead-
ing up to the regulating works that will keep these lakes deep in all
seasons and take care of all diversions, whether at Chicago 10,000,
or Welland 4,000 or 4,500, and the lowering coming from the di-
version of water for power purposes at Niagara Falls. All of these
diversions are good things, and I shall show in the end that they
have no hurtful influence on navigation but instead aid navigation
substantially.
Mr. McDUFFIE. May I ask if I understood from your testimony
that the Lakes are now lower than they have ever been?
Mr. SHENEHON. Lake Erie is a little higher. Takes Michigan and
Huron are at the bottom.
Mr. McDUFFIE. How does that compare with former years?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is what I mean. We have consecutive, ac-
curate records back to 1860 and some records back to 1838—daily
readings of several gauges on each lake—so we have an intimate,
definite knowledge of the Great Lakes for 64 years. It is one of
the most complete masses of hydrological data existing, and for
that reason we can speak with positiveness on all of these matters,
and predict what will happen in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether you got it, what his
answer was. He says Lake Erie was at its lowest stage.
Mr. SHENEHON. No; Lakes Michigan and Huron.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I think you misunderstood him. I think he said
Lake Erie was not at its lowest stage.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think I would better explain that.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The point I want to get at is whether the Lakes
are now at this particular time lower than they have ever been.
Mr. SHENEHON. The levels of Michigan and Huron are lower than
they have ever been before.
Mr. BARRETT. Will you tell how much lower they are now in
inches than they were at the previous low, according to the historical
data, whether it is 1 or 2 or 3 inches?
Mr. McDUFFIE. It is very small.
Mr. BARRETT. It is not large,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 136].
Mr. SHENEHON. I have that data. I will bring that up later,
if you please.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be all right.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think I would like to give you the reason why
Lakes Michigan and Huron are low as compared with Lake Erie.
We have a very remarkable situation that really enters into that
matter of the regulation of the Great Lakes, and that is that nature
itself has a regulating method that is spasmodic and can not be
counted on, and that is the formation of ice in the St. Clair River.
We have had an open winter, and Lakes Michigan and Huron have
run down about 7 inches because there was no ice blockade. Some-
times the ice blockade cuts off two-thirds of the flow, Lake Erie,
on the other hand, is this year the beneficiary of the water that is
drained out of Lakes Michigan and Huron, so that it is a little
higher than it otherwise might be.
The Cºmmºn. What is the average period of the ice blockade?
Mr. SHENEHON. It begins in January or February and sometimes
runs into March.
The CHAIRMAN. From four to six weeks? *
Mr. SHENEHON. Mr. Sabin—I think you know him, Mr. Demp-
sey—makes the statement that the effect of the ice holding up the
level of Lakes Michigan and Huron is about 7 inches in certain
€8.I’S.
y Mr. NEwTON. The ice serves as compensating works?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; but you can not count on that always.
Mr. NEWTON. But it illustrates what it can do.
Mr. SHENEHON. It illustrates, what ice can do, and it does not
interfere with navigation, that is right.
I spoke of the exaggeration of figures when I spoke of half a
million loss, which Mr. Goulder made very considerably larger. The
engineers of the International Waterways Commission, of whom
Mr. William J. Stewart was one, in discussing compensation used a
very much higher figure for a unit. There is this to be taken into
account in figuring losses, that coal, which is an upbound cargo, is
about 22 per cent of the freight, and that a great many vessels go up
light with water ballast, so any loss on the upbound trips strikes me
as very indifferent. Another thing is that a portion of the vessels
are unable to load to any greater depth than available, especially in
the years when the Lakes are not particularly low. I am inclined
to think that perhaps half a million dollars loss for an inch of draft
is a sufficiently good illustrative figure.
The CHAIRMAN. I think there is evidence before us as to just what
the size of the vessels are. I know we had considerable testimony
along that line.
Mr. SHENEHON. You will find some considerable data in that vol-
ume which I have placed in your hands (which is the Statistical Re-
port of Commerce Passing Through the Soo Locks in 1923), on ves-
sel dimensions and the growth of vessel dimensions. The Soo traffic,
the traffic passing through the various locks at Sault Ste. Marie in
1916—which, is the highest peak we have—is 92,000,000 tons; and
through the Detroit River that year 101,000,000 tons. That is the
high point. In 1921 only 48,000,000 tons went through the Soo
Locks; and through the Detroit River only 64,000,000 tons. In
I362 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
that particular year more vessels were available to carry freight
than there was freight to be carried. We can not count that year
as a year when draft losses should be regarded as commercial losses.
The CHAIRMAN. In reckoning all the vessels of greater size, the
whole tendency of the time and of economy is larger vessels, and as
we are looking to the future we would have to practically consider
for future times the larger and more economical vessel.
Mr. GouldF.R. Mr. Chairman, I will file a statement, which is in
preparation, that will show that the ships which would not be affected
are regarded now as obsolescent.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask a question of Mr. Goulder.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Hull.
Mr. HULL. I listened to this talk about these big ships, and we
have also heard Mr. Peavey complain about taking the boats off of
the smaller harbors. It has occurred to me, and I would like to
know for my own satisfaction, if the shipping on the Great Lakes
would not be better off if it was not confined to the large boats en-
tirely, but was split up among smaller boats. Would not the condi-
tions of smaller places be more benefited? It looks to me like these
large ships that you speak of, which are even larger than the depth
of the harbors, would only be beneficial to one set of people, and I
can not get in my mind but what we would be better off with 50 per
cent of them small and 50 per cent of them large ships. You are
going to drive the small ships off entirely with the large ships if you
do what you try to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest in that connection this: Wouldn’t
it be well for the railroads to go back to the 10 and 15 ton freight
car, instead of the 40 and 50 ton car?
Mr. HULL. There is not any comparison at all. You can not
camouflage it with that, because this is a proposition with itself.
The CHAIRMAN. That depends on the view of the man who pro-
pounds it.
Mr. GouldFR. I will answer your question. I am just now wiring
for certain affidavits on the particular subject you are speaking of,
the trade for these smaller ships. The trend has been, the evolution
has been, of the larger ships, and the papers that I am sending for
and will give to the committee were used in an application or a dis-
cussion in the Treasury Department on the evolution of the ships
and the obsolescence of the ships by the demands of trade—not of the
ships, but the demands and the compelling demands of trade; and the
question was what to do with these small ships, and you will find a
problem and a very serious problem about the use of this side trade.
Theoretically, it is a very simple thing, as, for example, the American
Steel & Wire Co. thought that they would have 3,000-ton-capacity
ships—and it is not the registered tonnage in the customhouse, but
it is the carrying capacity that I shall use. The 3,000-ton ship could
be adapted very well to a side trade, but the difficulty found in that
and several other enterprises was with terminals, the accumulation of
a cargo and this side trade in the smaller ports, and the handling at
the smaller ports, and these affidavits which were filed utterly irre-
spective of any question of the Chicago drainage canal, but as illus-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1363
trative and historical, will I think show just exactly what you are
:asking. -
Mr. HULL. I would like to see them.
Mr. GOULDER. And you will find that there is an essential difference.
You have not been in the transportation business? } -
Mr. HULL. That is the reason I asked the question.
Mr. GouldFR. And you will find, Mr. Hull, a very distinct line of
demarcation upon what may be regarded as theoretical transportation
and the actualities of transportation. . w
Mr. HULL. That is probably so.
Mr. GouldFR. I merely call your attention to that.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman Ż
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Morgan.
Mr. MORGAN. I am greatly interested in the testimony given, be-
'cause of the standing of the witness, and I should like if we can to
follow the rule adopted here and make notes of questions desired to
be asked, and get the entire statement of the witness. I am greatly
interested in following the trend of his talk.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the suggestion is a very good one, and we
will endeavor to follow it, Congressman.
Mr. SHENEHON. I would like to answer this question regarding low
levels. In February, 1895, the level of Lakes Michigan and Huron
was 578.95; in January, 1924, the level was 578.58, which is about
4% inches lower than the previous low record. For April, 1896, it
showed 579.28, for 1924 it shows 578.87.
During the recess in the latter part of April I took an oppor-
tunity to go up to Sault Ste. Marie, where I had spent 10 years
as a young engineer. My first contact with hydraulic work on the
Great Lakes was at the Soo, in 1888, where I was engineer for
William Chandler in his water power which later, about 1900,
entered into the Chandler-Dunbar case. In that celebrated case I
was an expert for the United States in the condemnation of that
water power, serving as expert for the United States with the full
knowledge of the United States that William Chandler had been
an old client of mine, and with the full consent of Mr. Chandler
that I serve as an expert for the United States. It was a case of
‘ascertaining the fair value; it was not a case of cutting down the
value of the water power. It found at Sault Ste. Marie the latter
part of April last that perhaps 1,600 to 2,000 cubic feet per second
of water was being taken out of the rapids or out of the river for
the purposes of the ship locks there. I think for the average year
1,500 cubic feet per second is a fairly accurate volume. I found
that about 50,000 cubic feet per second was being diverated from the
head of St. Marys River, which is just an extension of Lake Su-
perior, for water power.
We are considering at this hearing a diversion from Lake Michi-
gan at Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet per second, a diversion in the Wel-
land Canal of 4,000 or 4,500 cubic feet per second, and diversions at
Niagara Falls which have an effect (if uncompensated) on Lake
Erie of a diversion direct from the lake of about 4,000 cubic feet
per second. But here in Lake Superior, the great fountain head of
the traffic of the commerce of the United States (where 92,000,000
1364 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
tons passed through the locks in 1916), I found 50,000 cubic feet
of water diverted; and this diversion has just exactly the same effect
on Lake Superior as if that water were diverted into the Illinois
Valley or into the Rainey River Valley leading toward Hudson Bay.
Here, for purposes of water power, 50,000 cubic feet are diverted—
five times the amount at Chicago—and the result of this diversion
is to make Lake Superior a better navigable waterway.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you point out to us on the map with a
pointer just where the ships pass through the locks, and just where
the diversion is made and where it returns?
Mr. SHENEHON. I might say, first, Mr. Chairman, that from Lake
Superior or Whitefish #. the St. Marys River is a very broad,
deep stream, with a length of about 6 miles. It is really an arm of
Lake Superior; and the drop in that distance of 6 miles is about
half a foot. So, when a diversion from St. Marys River above the
locks is made, it is substantially the same as a diversion directly
from Lake Superior. There is no hydraulic difference: This is
the St. Marys River [indicating on map.], and this is Whitefish
Bay. Here is the railway bridge leading across the river, inter-
rupted by swing
Mr. ADCOCK (interposing). What map are you referring to, SO.
that the reporter will get it?
Mr. BOYCE. At what point—you will pardon me for interrupt-
ing—did I understand you to say that there were 50,000 feet di-
version?
Mr. SHENEHON. Fifty thousand feet per second or more.
tºº,ancock. And what portion of that is the flow of St. Marys
IVOI
Mr. SHENEHON. I will come to that very shortly.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to start over again?
I am sure that I have not got what you have said up to this time.
about the locations there. -
Mr. SHENEHON. The ship locks at Sault Ste. Marie (where the
water makes a descent of about 20 feet from the upper level of St.
Marys River, which is practically the same, or one-half a foot
lower than Lake Superior itself) are about 6 miles downstream from
Whitefish Bay. The river itself is deep and broad, and any di-
version made at Sault Ste. Marie above the rapids is substantially
the same, almost exactly the same, as a diversion made directly out
of Lake Superior at Duluth or West Superior or Marquette or at
any other point.
The CHAIRMAN. There is the 6 miles of the river, however.
Mr. SHENEHON. There is the river, which is practically an arm
or extension of Lake Superior.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I can understand that larger map better
than I can this small one.
Mr. BoycE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr. SHENEHON. I will point it out first on the little map, or first
on the larger map, as you prefer.
Mr. BoycE. I have not yet understood when the diversion of 50,000
cubic feet per second was allowed.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he has come to that yet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1365
Mr. SHENEHON. I am inclined to think this Lake Survey general
chart of Lake Superior shows things better than any other. ... I
have marked a line on that chart and denominated it “A.” St.
Marys River lies to the southeast of that line, and you will observe
that it is not very different from Whitefish Bay, and that this arm
of the lake, which is the river, is 6 miles long from Lake Superior
to the head of the rapids. The sandstone ledge there holds in check
Iake Superior. And that is where the ship locks are, 6 miles down
the St. Marys River, and at that point for water-power purposes
50,000 cubic feet per second—five times the amount diverted at
Chicago—are taken out of Lake Superior and used to generate about
70,000 electrical horsepower.
Mr. BARRETT. Is that taken at the upper end of the 6 miles or
at the lower end ?
Mr. SHENEHON. At the downstream end, but above the rapids.
Mr. BoycE. Is that the diversion for the two water powers which
have been, mentioned heretofore in the testimony?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think so.
Mr. BoycE. One on the American and one on the Canadian side?
Mr. SHENEHON. About 20,000 is diverted on the Canadian side
at the present time, and it is contemplated to divert about 10,000
more there. About 30,000 is diverted on the American side through
water-power canals.
º CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a question. This is what you call
8, O2, Vº
. SHENEHON. That is Whitefish Bay.
The CHAIRMAN. We will call that “A.”
Mr. SHENEHON. “A,” Whitefish Bay.
The CHAIRMAN. And at the southeast end of Whitefish Bay starts
the St. Marys River?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes, sir. -
The CHAIRMAN. And ends here at Lake Huron. It starts prac-
tically where this line is drawn and it empties into Lake Huron at
this point?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; about 58 miles down the stream.
The CHAIRMAN. We will call St. Marys River “B.” Now, from
the end of “A” down to the end of “B,” Lake Huron is how far?
Mr. SHENEHON. Fifty-eight miles.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, at a point 6 miles south of the end of “A”
we have the locks? 4.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. We have a red sandstone ledge forming
the natural dam which holds in check the waters of Lake Superior
in a state of nature, and then the waters made a descent of 18 feet
in a state of nature down the rapids.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will call the locks “C.” Those locks
permit a descent and an ascent of 20 feet?
Mr. SHENEHON. Twenty feet, after artificial changes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, where, with reference to the locks, are the
by-passes for power?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think the answer to that, Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Let us see if we can get it on this
map, approximately.
Mr. SHENEHON. On the south or American side of the locks.
The CHAIRMAN. Starting just above the locks?
1866 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; starting just above the locks is the Michigan-
Northern Power Co., and that makes a loop of about 1 mile through,
the town of Sault Ste. Marie.
The CHAIRMAN. We will call that “D.” Where, approximately,
does the canal by-pass and empty again into the St. Marys?
Mr. SHENEHON. It passes through the town of Sault Ste. Marie.
easterly for about a mile and empties into St. Marys River a quarter-
of a mile below the locks.
The CHAIRMAN. Would this indicate where I have put the pencil,
where the canal ends? .
Mr. SHENEHON. It is rather far down. The scale is too small.
The CHAIRMAN. Up here [indicating] }
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. We will call that “E.” All of the 50,00 cubic feet
which is taken out at “D’’ is returned to the St. Marys River at
& E ”
Mr. SHENEHON. The 30,000 which is taken out at “D’’ is returned
at “E.” &
The CHAIRMAN. Where is the other 20,000?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is on the Canadian side.
The CHAIRMAN. How wide are the locks?
Mr. SHENEHON. The locks are 60, 80, and 100 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. There are four locks?
Mr. SHENEHON. There are five locks in all, of which four—three
on the American side and one on the Canadian side—are in operation.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, how far from the foot of the locks is “E”?
Mr. SHENEHON. About a quarter of a mile.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us pass to the other side. That is 30,000
cubic feet. Let us pass to the other side; and does the canal on the
other side start also just above the head of the locks?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That we will call “F.” And does that empty
out at substantially the same point as the American canal, only a
little farther east?
Mr. SHENEHON. About half a mile farther upstream, but still in
the level of the river below the locks.
The CHAIRMAN. We will call that “ G.”
Mr. SHENEHON. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the detail of these
locks and canals is better shown on this map, marked “Hydroelectric
power plants at Sault Ste. Marie, 1924.”
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. We will go over this in the
same way and mark it. *
Mr. HULL. Haven’t we got charts that show all of these things?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. g
Mr. HULL. Then what is the use of going through all of this?
Mr. NEwTON. We are getting them into our heads now.
Mr. HULL. But we are here to hear the statements.
Mr. NEwTo.N. I think this is important that you should get these
things into your head.'
Mr. HULL. It takes up a lot of time.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we are wasting any time. Mr.
Shenehon, the American power canal empties a little below the locks
and the Canadian power canal empties practically at the foot of the
locks -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1367.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes, sir. The mouth of the Canadian canal is
about due north of the entrance of the American canal.
Mr. HULL. This gives it to you better than that [indicating plat].
The CHAIRMAN. That gives it very plainly there, I think.
Mr. BoycE. Do I understand that the water power here on the
Canadian side—
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes?
Mr. BOYCE. Has a diversion of 20,000 cubic feet?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. -
Mr. BOYCE. And there is one here on the American side?
Mr. SHENEHON. Of about 25,000, and then the United States power-
plant at this point [indicating], which I will mark “ U. S.,” that was
the power plant taken over by the United States in the Chandler-
Dunbar case.
Mr. Boyce. And there is a diversion there of about how much?
Mr. SHENEHON. About 2,400 cubic feet per second.
Mr. BOYCE. Is the diversion at these three points outside of the
diversion here between Buffalo and Niagara Falls?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. It goes back into the stream.
Mr. BoycE. No; I am not talking about that.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it in addition to?
Mr. BoycE. Yes. These three points, one in Canada and two on
the American side—is that in addition to the diversion here at
Niagara Falls.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes - *
Mr BoycE. Will you kindly tell me, if you know, what effect the
diversion here at the Soo has upon Lake Michigan? O
Mr. SHENEHON. Practically none.
*: BoycE. But it does immediately affect Lake Superior; is that
right?
§. SHENEHON. Yes. I am just coming to that, Judge.
Mr. BoxcE. Just a moment more. The diversion at these three
points, however, does not affect the lower lakes?
Mr. SHENEHON. No. The water is all returned to the St. Marys
River. -
Mr. BoycE. The diversion here near Niagara does affect these
lower lakes?
Mr. SHENEHON. No ; not unless the regulated discharge is very
different from that of a state of nature
Mr. BoycE. Did you understand my question ?
Mr. SHENEHON. I would like to have you repeat it. Perhaps I did
not. *
Mr. Boyce. The diversion between Buffalo and Niagara Falls does
affect the lakes next to it? - +
Mr. SHENEHON. The lakes above; yes.
Mr. BoycE. In other words, the diversion there is not returned
to the lake, but below the lakes?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not returned to the lake from which it is
taken? # t
Mr. BoxcE. It is returned to Lake Ontario, which is below the
Falls? } .
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
1368 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. You made a statement there that I would like to have
you amplify, that it made a better navigable waterway of Lake
Superior.
Mr. SHENEHON. I will come to that later.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to ask why there has never been any
treaty with regard to this power development at the Soo. There
is no treaty about that, is there?
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I have no knowledge as a matter of
fact in regard to it, but I should imagine that they have divided
that power there by some kind of an agreement.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It seems, though, that the United States is get-
ting 10,000 cubic feet additional.
Mr. BARRETT. I understand they started out there without any
definite arrangement at all, about 1902, when they started in to erect
those regulating works, and you have legislation covering that; but
they are taking out on each side a similar amount. We may be tak-
ing a few thousand more second-feet now, but they are preparing
to equalize that on the other side, and it will be an equal division
between them.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Was this taken into consideration in the division
of the power at Niagara?
Mr. BARRETT. In general terms, I would say no. If it was taken
into consideration at all, it was on the theory of diversions previously
existing.
The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is that there is testimony before
us that that was taken into consideration in making up the figures.
Mr. BARRETT. Not in determining what each should get, because
you won’t find in any report of the commission that they took those
into consideration, except in general terms. The Welland Canal
diversion for power purposes was in existence prior to the time the
treaty was in existence, so if it was considered at all
Mr. SHENEHON (interposing). I might say, gentlemen, that I
think as I go on I will possibly make the statements that your quick
minds anticipate, as my slow statement drags along. I will get to
them ultimately. With this diversion of 50,000 cubic feet per second
for water power (and this water power is mainly used for the grind-
ing of pulp and the making of carbide, although some small portion
is used for public utility purposes) if Lake Superior had been
neglected as Lake Erie has been neglected, and as Lakes Michigan
and Huron have been neglected, the lowering would have been two
and one-half feet because of these diversions.
In a state of nature the Sault de Sainte Marie was a beautiful
rapids; it was a place for tourists to shoot the rapids with Indians;
and Indians were catching the whitefish. Eighty thousand cubic
feet per second tumbled over bowlders and over sandstone ledges.
But, in April this year, 4,000 cubic feet per second only was flowing
in the rapids; and the object of this 4,000 feet was to keep alive the
whitefish.
In Minnesota there are men who believe in a waterway going over
the divide from Lake Superior into the Mississippi and creating
navigaton. The obstruction to that is the high level between the
lake and the Mississippi. But if we should divert 50,000 cubic feet
per second from a supercut in this divide (I do not think it is prac-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1369
ticable), the effect, so far as the navigability of Lake Superior is
Concerned, would be no different from the diversion of 50,000 cubic
feet per second at Sault Ste. Marie for water-power purposes.
Now I want to speak of this matter of the treaty. The amount of
Water power Secured at Sault Ste. Marie is about 70,000, and the
difference between the amount on the American and the Canadian
side at present may amount to about 13,000 electric horsepower.
The Canadians eventually will take the other 10,000, and it will be
80,000 horsepower in all and a 50-50 division. The thing was so
trivial that it was immaterial in the treaty arrangement.
Mr. SwSET. Without desiring to break your line of thought, but
before you pass on, do you know the difference in the elevation of
the point of discharge of Lake Superior and the upper Mississippi
and the point of cutting through that high divide?
Mr. SHENEHON. I should say there is a rise of several hundred
feet in between. There is no geological channel, as at Chicago, for
any diversion out of Lake Superior at that end of the lake.
. BARRETT. Are you talking about this end here [indicating on
map
Mr. SweFT. The witness mentioned that there had been thought
that they might couple up the upper Mississippi with Lake Superior
for navigation purposes.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am informed that the height of that divide is
about 400 feet. I have stated that the lowering of this great navi-
gable waterway, in the absence of any compensation or regulation,
would be about 2% feet; and if that same amount of water were
taken out of Lake Michigan, Lake Michigan would be lowered a less
amount. In other words, what we call the increment—the effect of
10,000-feet diversion—50,000 is less on this particular Lake Superior
than it is on Lakes Michigan and Huron or Lakes Erie and Ontario.
Mr. ADCOCK. It is less on Lake Michigan?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. If we took that amount of water out of
Michigan we would have had a less lowering. Lake Superior is the
largest fresh-water lake in the world and has over 32,000 square
miles of area and is about three-fourths the size of the State of Ohio.
It has a length of 390 miles. Coming down Lake Superior in a
steamer at the rate of about 11 miles an hour it takes 36 hours to
travel from Duluth to the Soo locks. The width of the lake is 160
miles, and it has depths, as you know, of a thousand feet. That is
already in the testimony. It is for the most part navigable, as it is
a very deep, capacious lake. It is about 602 feet above the sea level
at New York.
I have already stated that the St. Marys River is the outlet, and
that the lake itself is formed by one of nature's dams of sandstone
ledge rock. This natural outflow weir or dam has a cross-stream
length of about 2,000 feet, and the lake rises and falls with the vary-
ing amounts of supply from precipitation, and run-off, taking into
account evaporation also. Some years it is low and some years it
is high. It is low in March, and when the spring break-up comes,
with the tributary streams in flood, it rises. These seasonal changes
are shown in these hydrographs which I have placed on the table.
That illustrates the oscillation in the state of nature, when nature’s
9.1739–24—PT 2—71
1370 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
only object is to dispose of the surplus waters, and nature has little
thought of navigation or water power.
In order to make that statement complete I would like to speak of
the relative size of the Lakes. If we think of Lake Superior as 100
per cent, then Michigan is about 69 per cent, and Huron is 72 per
£ent. The total of Michigan plus Huron is about 40 per cent bigger
than Superior. Lake Erie is only about—
Mr. MANSFIELD (interposing). Michigan and Huron are approxi-
mately the same area?
Mr. SHENEHON. They are two lobes of a single body of water.
Mr. SweFT. He means, comparatively speaking.
The CHAIRMAN. What he said was that Michigan was 69 per cent
of Superior and Huron 72 per cent of Superior.
Mr. SHENEHON. Lake Erie is about a third the size of Lake Su-
perior, and Lake Ontario is a little less than a quarter the size of
Lake Superior.
In Lake Superior we have a range of about 242 feet in Seven
months in one year. The ordinary fluctuations during the season is
about a foot to a foot and a half in a state of nature. The water is
very cold and it is very deep, as I have stated. They say that if a
man is drowned in Lake Superior he lies eternally preserved in the
bottom of the lake on account of the coldness of the water. I men-
tion this because of the fact that Lake Superior is 300 miles farther
north than Lake Erie and because later on I shall discuss ice, and ice
enters into that fact of latitude.
Mr. MANSFIELD. In Lake Huron do you include Georgian Bay as
a part of it?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that is on the same level and a part of the
same lake. Now, I want to speak of a little discrepancy that per-
haps has occurred to you as I have talked. I said in a state of nature
the fall from above the locks to below the locks was 18 feet. At the
present time we think of it as 20 feet, and the reason for that is the
opening up of the various channels of the St. Marys River in order
to get more capacious and deeper channels and letting water out of
the pool at the foot of the locks. "I myself was an engineer in the
excavation of the Middle Neebish Cut, as well as on the building of
the Poe Lock, which at that time was the biggest ship lock in the
world. I also had to do—I think, to make my statement complete, I
ought to mention these personal details—I made some hydraulic
measurements of the outflow of the St. Marys River, and derived
the law of the outflow, the equation by which we express the relation
between the elevation of Lake Superior and the quantity of water
that flows out. We found at that time that in a state of nature Lake
Superior when it was at one elevation, which we might call 602, it
had a certain discharge, which might be 80,000 cubic feet per second,
but when the lake was a foot higher the discharge was 100,000 cubic
feet per second. In other words, the change of a foot in the elevation
of the lake changed the outflow 20,000 cubic feet per second.
It is quite obvious, I think, that if you should divert 10,000 cubic
feet per second out of that lake, you would lower the surface 6 inches.
That is an absolutely obvious arithmetical proposition, after you once
have the law of discharge.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1871
Historically, I think this interruption to navigation by the rapids
is tremendously interesting, and I do not know whether you are go-
ing to give me time to touch on the historical points or not.
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.
Mr. SHENEHON. Back in 1850 Lake Superior was a navigable body
all by itself. Navigation came from below up as far as the foot of
the rapids, and then on a portage they carried the freight from the
lower level up to the upper level, and reembarked it on Lake Su-
perior vessels. It cost a dollar a ton to make that portage and trans-
shipment.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the transshipment?
Mr. SHENEHON. That was a tramway shipment from the vicinity
of the foot of the locks (before they had any locks) up to the river
above the rapids. The tramway had oak rails. Prior to the war we
shipped iron ore from Two Harbors, Duluth, and West Superior to
Lake Erie ports, nearly a thousand miles, for 66 cents a ton. So this
land portage at a dollar a ton was significant in the early days of
navigation. There was a little lock on the Canadian side where the
voyageurs avoided the dragging of their bateaus up the little rapids
by the use of a little lock. That has been preserved and can be
Seen to-day.
The CHAIRMAN. By whom was that built.
Mr. SHENEHON. That was built probably by the Hudson Bay Co.
It is just an interesting little foreshadowing of the locks of the
present day. In 1840 agitation began in the State of Michigan for
a land grant to aid the State in building a lock to overcome the
18 feet of rapids at Sault Ste. Marie. One of the interesting things
in that connection is that at that time the constitutional right of
the United States to expend money for the improvement of inter-
state or international waterways, had not yet emerged. President
Pierce. I believe, vetoed an act to appropriate money for the im–
provement of waterways on the ground that it was unconstitutional,
but later money was expended on the theory that it would aid the
movement of a fleet of war vessels. It came under the war clause
of the Constitution rather than the commerce clause.
The CHAIRMAN. Had not Clay put through highway improve-
ment bills before that ?
Mr. SHENEHON. I am not sure of that. I am not a lawyer.
The CHAIRMAN. I rather think he had.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I am satisfied he had urged it, whether he had
gotten it through or not.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he had.
Mr. McDUFFIE. He was very wedded to the proposition.
Mr. SHENEHON. In 1852 land was granted by Congress very much
the same as land was granted in the State of Illinois, where, I imag-
ine, the State was under the same handicap as the State of Michi-
gan; and in 1855 a lock was built at Sault Ste. Marie that had two
chambers. Vessels went up 9 feet in one chamber and the other
9 feet in the next. This lock was a little one, 70 feet by 350, with a
12-foot draft. I might say that that lock was perhaps a little bigger
than the present locks of the Laurentian or St. Lawrence system
built by Canada. That Sault Ste. Marie lock was known as the
lock of 1855. -
1372 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RrvKRs, ETC.
The interpretation of the Constitution had proceed to a point some
time in the late seventies when a lock was undertaken by the
United States known as the Weitzel Lock, and this was built and de-
signed by a very notable engineer—I think the ablest waterway en-
gineer this country has produced—Alfred Noble. I do not know
whether, Mr. Dempsey, you ever came in contact with him or not.
I will tell you some of the things he did before I get through.
He built that lock, and in the culvert system or filling system,
which he designed at that time, no engineer has been ever able to
better. The locks built both on the Canadian side since that time
and on the American side and, I think, the lock of the Panama
º have followed the design set down by Alfred Noble back in
880.
This lock was built for a 14-foot draft, but on account of the
drop of the water at the foot of the lock the present draft over the
fills is probably about 12% feet.
In 1896 the Poe Lock was completed, named after one of the most
distinguished men of the Corps of Engineers, Gen. Orlando M.
Poe. It was my privilege to have had a part in the design and the
building of that lock. As I have said before, it was the biggest
ship lock in the world at the time it was built. It was 800 feet
long by 100 feet wide.
Mr. NEwTON. What is the depth of these locks?
Mr. SHENEHON. The Poe Lock was designed for 20 feet, but the
pool lowering makes it about 18% feet. I think I have already
stated that this lock, completed in 1896—the Poe Lock—had 20
feet over the miter sills. Those are the sills that limit the draft in
entering through the gates.
Mr. SweFT. Will you indicate which of these locks it is on this
picture? -
Mr. SHENEHON. It is the second one from the bottom. That lock
was 800 feet long by 100 feet wide, and it was regarded as a quad-
ruple lock—that is, for four vessels—and in building it the designers
had in mind provision for the future, because it was intended that
four vessels each having a length of 400 feet and a beam of 50 feet,
would occupy the lock at the same time. In the face of the 600 footers
of the present day, the vision of those men was a little dull.
Later on the Davis Lock, which is 1,350 feet long by 80 feet wide
and 241/2 feet over the miter sills at an extrenue low stage, was con-
structed. In other words, they put it down to 26 feet, as compared
with the level of the water for which they built the Poe Lock at 20
feet. I think I am correct, that the sill of the Davis Lock is 6 feet
lower down than the sill of the Poe Lock.
The CHAIRMAN. That is called the third lock on this plan?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is called the third lock and that is named
after General Davis, a distinguished engineer officer. This lock is
200 feet longer than the locks of the Panama Canal.
Then, completed in 1919 (built during the war period of high
jº is the Sabin Lock, sometimes called the fourth lock and this
ock, similar in dimensions to the third or Davis Lock, cost $2,500,-
000. I want to give that cost, because I shall refer to it later on in
my discussion. . This lock has been called the Sabin Lock after the
very distinguished engineer who is serving as a United States en-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1373
gineer at Sault Ste. Marie in charge of the designing and building
of these locks and in charge of the operation of the canal. Sabin
was a young engineer at the time I myself was on the building of
the Poe Lock, and he remained there after I departed. When I Say
that he had charge of the design of these locks, I must defer to Gen-
eral Bixby and say that they were under the direction of an engi-
neer officer at Detroit. Sabin is one of the best men in the Service,
and as you gentlemen have a bill before you to increase Salaries of
these civilian engineers, I might say to your that his salary is $4,500
a year. Outside of the Federal service he would earn not less than
$10,000. He remains in the Federal service on account of the impor-
tant big things he is able to do professionally.
Mr. SweBT. And his love of the profession?
Mr. SHENEHON. His love of the profession, and the ability to live
in a little way and be happy.
General BIxBY. I would like to interject and say a word, that
Sabin felt that his salary was so low that he wanted to get out of
the service years ago, and I begged him to stay and finish those locks,
and he finally consented to do so. It was against his interest to do it,
but he has stayed and done the work.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think before I leave the matter of the outflow
of Lake Superior I ought to explain that the Lakes have been treated
in the highest professional way so far as the keeping of records of
their surface levels every day of the year is concerned, back to 1860.
And some of the most accurate, precise measurements of the outflow
that have ever been made have determined the law of outflow, so
when we talk of regulating works or we talk of the lowering due to
a fixed diversion, we are speaking with exactness. It is difficult for
the layman to know how we are sure of 51% instead of 5% or 5%
inches in the lowering of a lake.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the record will be more complete, Mr.
Shenehon, if I ask you a question now. Here is what I can not
understand—or I will precede it with this question: Does the with-
drawal of 50,000 cubic feet per second, 30,000 on the American side
and 20,000 on the Canadian side, for power purposes withdraw more
water from Lake Superior than would flow out of that lake into the
St. Marys River if this withdrawal for power was not made?
Mr. SHENEHON. The answer to that is yes, when you need to have
more water flow out of the lake to avoid extreme high stages. That
is a great advantage, as I will explain later. But the average amount
of outflow year in and year out is just the same as before the canals
were built.
Mr. Sweet. The power withdrawal serves as a regulating device?
Mr. SHENEHON. The power withdrawal in connection with regu-
lating works maintains the level at a better and higher level than in
the absence of this diversion. The state of nature has been much
improved upon.
The CHAIRMAN. You said, as I understood you, that the with-
drawal of 50,000 cubic feet from the west end of Lake Superior, if
that were conceivable, through this rise in ground down to the Mis-
sissippi would have exactly the same effect and no greater effect upon
the levels of Lake Superior than the withdrawal of the 50,000 cubic
feet for power.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is right.
1374 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. The 50,000 cubic feet, if withdrawn from the west
end through the rise to the Mississippi River, would leave Lake
Superior and the lake system permanently.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I am not talking about the St. Marys River
below the locks. I am talking about Lake Superior above the locks
and, just this body of water that has been isolated by regulating
works. It is that body of water, with 92,000,000 tons of commerce
passing over it, that I am talking about; but later I shall come down
through all the Lakes in the same way, and you will have an oppor-
tunity on Lakes Huron and Michigan to make the same analysis.
The CHAIRMAN. The only question that remains is this: "If you
withdraw the same amount, anyway, whether it is used for power
purposes or whether it is withdrawn without being used for power
purposes, what difference does it make or how can it make any dif-
ference in lowering the level of Lake Superior that, instead of having
all of it flow through the bay there and through the St. Marys River,
two canals are dug, one on each side, and of a length of a mile, and
it is diverted through canals instead of through the St. Marys River,
the discharge being the same in both instances?
Mr. SHENEHON. It will not be the same every day or every month
or every year.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the answer is that while the aggregate
amount for the year is the same the dithdrawals are made in a differ-
ent way throughout the year. Is not that the answer?
Mr. SHENEHON. The answer is that while the average of perhaps
two or five or six years is just the same, that the regulating works,
aided by the lateral canals, in times of high water keep Lake Supe-
rior down, from getting too high at flood periods, and permit it to be
held up at times of low supply by means of the manual regulating
works which I have told you about. In other words, you have as-
sumed control of the natural outflow of Lake Superior, and there-
fore you will make it a better waterway and have water power in
addition.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the final question is this, that these canals
for power purposes, instead of being a hindrance to navigation, aid
it and act with the other regulating works which you are going to
describe in controlling the level of Lake Superior advantageously 2
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; and the other answer to that question, Mr.
Chairman, is this, that the flow through the power canals will be
constant, while the flow through the rapids, as the gates are raised
or lowered in the regulating works, will be variable. You get the
best results when you can run your water for power continuously.
In the specifications written for the power company they are re-
stricted very severely in case of the necessities of Lake Superior for
navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they are absolutely within the
control of the Government for navigation purposes?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; so far as the United States power company
is concerned. I do not know about the Canadians. And the op-
eration of the regulating works, I will tell you about shortly, is
by an international board.
Mr. SweBT. And takes care of the peak high flow 2
Mr. SHENEHON. It avoids both the high and the low level.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1375
Mr. NEwToN. If the compensating gates were not there and the
channel over the rapids was as it originally was, and you had these
additional withdrawals through the power channels, then what
would be the effect on Lake Superior?
Mr. SHENEHON. Lake Superior would be 2% feet lower.
Mr. NEwTo N. So that the compensating works, while permitting
the use of water for electricity in great quantities, enough to lower
the lake 2% feet, yet the compensating works are sufficiently effec-
tive that the water can be diverted to private use and still maintain
the level of the Lakes?
Mr. SHENEHON. The regulating works—which I think is the better
term—are an instrument of conservation. They permit navigation
to go on with better lake levels and at the same time they permit the
electric current to be generated from the water that flows down.
Mr. BARRETT. And they do restore the 21/2 feet loss in level caused
by the diversion for power purposes?
Mr. SHENEHON. They not only restore the 21/2 feet, provided it
had been allowed to drop, but maintain better levels than in a
state of nature before the works were installed.
Mr. BARRETT. That is what I wanted to clear up.
Mr. STRONG. So far as the purpose of this hearing is concerned,
I can not get it through my head what effect or what information we
get in reference to the Soo has to do with it. The same amount of
water is flowing from Lake Superior to Lakes Huron and Michigan
that formerly flowed. The only difference is that some of it now is
diverted for power purposes. You might enlarge the power channels
until there would be no water coming over the rapids at all, and
all of the water might go to the same power channel, and it would
have no effect whatever on the lower Lakes.
Mr. BARRETT. That is true.
The CHAIRMAN. But, as I understand it, the witness is going ti
draw a comparison between the effect here and what he is going to
Suggest.
Mr. BARRETT. But this is what we have in our mind here, so you
will get what we are trying to do with Mr. Shenehon. We have
been asserting here and we still assert that it is possible to withdraw
all the water they are taking for power at Niagara, all the water
they are taking for power and navigation at the Welland Canal, all
the water they are taking for navigation anywhere from Lake Erie,
all the water they are taking for power and navigation at any place,
all that we are taking for navigation and sanitation at Chicago,
that by the construction of the regulating works you can have all
of that for all of those purposes and have better lake levels, and
more constant lake levels throughout the year, and we show as one
step in that the regulating works at the Soo, and while they have
taken out this 50,000 feet for power and thereby the lake would have
been 2% feet lower, they have absolutely regulated the flow of Lake
Superior and they have maintained the level constant and restored
2% feet. This is only one step in a chain where we will demonstrate
beyond question that regulation is not only possible but feasible and
absolutely certain.
Mr. NEWTON. All of these attorneys general are protesting here
that we are lowering their lake levels. #
1376 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. STRONG. I know, but you can not have the same water flowing
through two channels.
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me clear that up. I would like to put it
this way, that I am considering now the navigability of Lake Supe-
rior alone.
Mr. STRONG. I appreciate that.
Mr. SHENEHON. And it does not make any difference where the
water goes, if you divert 50,000 cubic feet per second, you have the
ability to hold your lake up higher because there is no danger of
flood with your additional outlet capacity, and I will follow down
the lakes and show you we can do the same thing everywhere.
Mr. GouldFR. That does not add anything to the water of Lake
Superior.
Mr. SHENEHON. No.
Mr. MICHAELSON. It would conserve it.
Mr. HULL. It does not take anything away from it.
Mr. MICHAELSON. You can not make water.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am going to explain to you gentlemen how we
conserve the Sierra snows and make water power out of them, and we
can do the same thing with the excess water of the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you will say a little bit more about the
regulating works later.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I think I have this statement fairly com-
plete. I want to state that the object of this present 50,000 cubic
foot diversion and the 60,000 that is contemplated finally is just for
the generation of electric current. In other words, it is water power,
.# want to say further that the amount of water power they will
get out of the 60,000 is only 80,000 electric horsepower, while in the
Illinois River, by the diversion of 10,000 cubic feer per second there
will be upwards of 100,000 horsepower. Water power anywhere,
at the Sault Ste. Marie, on the Welland Canal, or in the Illinois
River, does not hurt navigation, but is helpful to navigation.
Mr. HULL. I think you made this plain, but I want to be sure.
Sixty thousand horsepower in Lake Superior
Mr. SHENEHON (interposing). Eighty thousand horsepower.
Mr. HULL. Eighty º;i with a 60,000 diversion, will be just
about the same as 10,000 diversion at Chicago, in the way of horse-
Ower?
p Mr. SHENEHON. We will get over 50 per cent more water power in
the Illinois River with 10,000 cubic feet than you can get by 60,000
cubic feet diversion at Sault St. Marie.
Mr. HULL. It is about the same in figures?
Mr. SHENEHON. No.
Mr. HULL. Is the horsepower—we will say the horsepower is 80,000
in Lake Superior against a 60,000 diversion.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is right.
Mr. HULL. And the horsepower in the Illinois River is 70,000
against a 10,000 diversion?
Mr. SHENEHON. The horsepower in the Illinois River will be over
100,000 for 10,000 cubic feet diversion. e e
Mr. Hú... in other words, we get more for 10,000 in the Illinois
River than we do for 60,000 at Lake Superior?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1377
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I want to say now that our thrifty Govern-
ment collects tolls for this water. The water-power company on the
American side pays $2 a year per cubic foot per second for primary
water and $1 for secondary.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not catch that.
Mr. SHENEHON. The United States charges rental for the use of
the water on the American side, $2 a year a cubic foot per second
for primary water—that is, for the first 25,000, and if there is any
excess water they pay a dollar a cubic foot per second for that.
The CHAIRMAN. That is intermittent?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; the primary water is supposed to be 25,000
on the American side, and if there is flood water to spare they can
divert more when available.
I thing I spoke of the fact that I was engineer for William Chand-
ler back in 1890, and that this water power has been taken over by
the Federal Government. The Canadians were the first to develop
a water power and take the water out of the St. Marys River or
out of Lake Superior, and I think there was some complaint—I
do not know the exact facts about it—on the part of the United
States, that if they diverted water from Lake Superior they would
lower its level, and so they agreed to put in compensating works
or regulating works and I think that was the only international
sanction that these first works, built in 1901, had. The Canadians
in effect said: “We are doing something now over here, we are
taking water on our side and we will block up a part of the space,”
and the United States evidently stood for it. That was the way
things were done at that particular time. I want to accentuate that
the Canadians brought in Alfred Noble, who built the Weitzel
Lock at Sault Ste. Marie, and has done many other notable things
that I will tell you about. He designed these Stoney gates, and
put in four of them. The Stoney gate is a steel structure that
lifts up just as the sash in a window does. Each gate is 52 feet
long, separated by masonry piers, and they are counterpoised just
as the window sash has weights. Two men will open one of these
gates in 15 minutes and let out from five to six thousand cubic feet
of water per second.
When they needed more gates on the American side, and needed
to complete the series on the Canadian side, they could not, find
any improvement in the design of Alfred Noble, so they built on
exactly, almost precisely, the same plan as Alfred Noble had
designed and used in 1901.
The CHAIRMAN. When were the second ones put in 2
Mr. SHENEHON. The second ones in 1914. There were four Sec-
tions of 52 feet each in the first works put in in 1901; and then
the United States put in eight sections in 1916, completed them in
that year; and the Canadians then filled up the gap by putting in
four more sections in 1918; so that we now have 16 of these gates,
covering a length of about a thousand feet, roughly.
The CHAIRMAN. And each one operates separately? -
Mr. SHENEHON. Each one operates separately. Each gate is
52 feet long with about 8 feet of concrete pier, with granite pro-
tection in part; and this whole river now is under absolute manual
control. I want to repeat that if this river had been neglected
91739–24—PT 2—72
1378 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
for twenty-odd years, as the Niagara River has been neglected, that
Lake Superior would not be the good navigable waterway it is at the
present time. It would be 3 feet shallower. But it has been im-
proved, made a better waterway, instead of being allowed to drop
down. And I want to add right here that the conditions for
putting in regulating works at the head of the Niagara River are
i. little better, I think, than they are at the head of the St. Marys
IVēI’.
The CHAIRMAN. If you are going to continue this afternoon, I
think I will telephone down and have General Beach come up. I
think he would be interested in what you are saying.
Mr. STRONG. Why not have General Taylor here also :
Mr. SHENEHON. I would be very glad to have them both here.
Now, I mentioned to you that I had a part in the hydraulic measure-
ment made at Sault Ste. Marie from the International Bridge, away
back in 1906, and at that time I think I myself had not conceived
that these small diversions were going to have any lowering effect
on these great bodies of water. It was not until about three or four
years later that I began to think that if you increased the outflow
capacity of one of the Great Lakes it was sure to drop. The lake
seemed so tremendously big that it did not occur to one. But in
1897—and I want to point out now that this year 1897 is very
shortly after the record low water of 1895—that low water of 1895
got men to thinking about the navigation of the Great Lakes.
That was the same kind of a period that we have now, and we are
thinking hard now, I hope. In that year, 1897, a commission was
appointed, and the members of that commission were President
Angell, of the University of Michigan; John E. Russell, I think it
was, and Lyman Cooley. This was recognition that Lyman Cooley
was a great hydraulic engineer. He was the only engineer on the
commission. He was the same stalwart Lyman Cooley who stood
pat for so many years on the proposition that Chicago might take
14,000 cubic feet a second, if it pleased, out of the Great Lakes
system, and no less. The other brother stalwart of Cooley’s was
Isham Randolph, the other eminent engineer, whom I will mention
later in connection with the Panama Canal. But these men, with
their high ability and that stalwart westernism that characterizes
Chicago, represents some of the reasons why this matter that we are
discussing now was not adjusted a long time ago.
When I was expert witness for the United States against the
sanitary district, with regard to the right of the sanitary district
to take 10,000 or 14,000 or any other amount of the Great Lakes
without authority that larger volume was involved, as well as certain
other questions that I might speak of. Our Federal attorneys said
to Chicago: “You are in the wrong pew in the law courts, go to
Congress,” and I am here now telling you gentlemen that the certain
damage done by Chicago to the navigation of the Great Lakes is
remedial. It will mean the expenditure of money and the authority
of Congress, but it is the damage remedial; and the reason that you
are going to deny Chicago 10,000 feet, if you do deny them 10,000
feet, will not be on account of the navigation of the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. Your thought in there, as you go on, is that there
would be a point, I suppose, where you could not remedy it, and you
will no doubt treat that in your discussion.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1379
Mr. SHENEHON. When it comes up, Mr. Chairman, if you make
that point I shall be very glad to discuss it as I see it. I have already
stated the dates of the building of these regulating and storage
works. I would like to add the term “storage * to my statement
concerning regulating works. 1901 and 1902, the first four sections;
1914–1916, the eight sections of the United States; and 1918, the
Canadian—and these whole works, controlling the outflow of the
greatest fresh water body on earth, built partly in the war period of
high prices, cost about one-half million dollars; and it is the only
possible way that water could have been taken out of Lake Superior
for the conservation purpose of water power. I have some pictures
of the regulating works that I think perhaps will be interesting.
This is not very illuminating, but it shows a little Something.
The CHAIRMAN. This is the International Bridge here about which
you speak [referring to photograph]?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; the Canadian Pacific bridge.
The CHAIRMAN. What type of bridge is that, Mr. Shenehon'
Mr. SHENEHON. What is the name of the truss?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Is it a jack-knife bridge?
Mr. SHENEHON. They have basqule bridges over the canal, Mr
Chairman, at the present time, and a swing bridge, I think, on the
Canadian side. The old crossing was a pivot swing bridge.
In the statistical report of the Soo locks which I have placed in
your hands, on page 26, you will find a half tone of the regulating
works, and I should like to describe those so that they will be en-
tirely understandable. This is the report of 1920. You will observe
that there are piers there spaced about 60 feet between centers, with
a clear opening of about 52 feet, and I have told you that these
works as a whole are about a thousand feet long, with 16 of these
sections. You will observe that there is a steel operating platform
running across the top from pier to pier, and there are windlasses
or hoists on each of these piers. The gate itself is a ponderous steel-
riveted structure, 54 feet long, and as I told you it has roller bear-
ings against which it slides, and it moves very easily. It simply
slides up as a window sash does. With two men to operate it, it takes
about 15 minutes, and releases, as I before stated, from five to six
thousand cubic feet of water per second.
Mr. NEWTON. Each gate? ©
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; for each gate. So that the full series give
a discharge through the rapids of something less than 100,000 cubic
feet of water per second, while you have the additional ability to
discharge through your canals 50,000 feet more. The total discharge
is, say, 152,000 cubic feet per second, where in a state of nature the
discharge capacity was only 122,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty thousand additional?
Mr. SHENEHON. You have got 30,000 additional. That is in-
surance against Lake Superior raising so high that it will do ri-
parian damage. You have 30,000 to discharge to keep the lake
down where it threatens to get too high. And with that ability to
avoid high or flood stages, that might cause riparian damage, we
can keep the level higher than we could without these works, while
1380 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
on the other side the control is regulated to so much water as is
necessary in the rapids for white fish.
Now, you have this intimate, easy control by rules that have been
worked out. I think it is being operated a little on the conservative
side at the present time, but a little experience in handling the thing
will work that out.
The CHAIRMAN. They were completed in 1917, so they have had
about five years?
Mr. SHENEHON. The period of operation is not quite as long as I
wish it were, since all the gaps were filled up. That is, there were
certain gaps under certain spans later filled in. The original rapids
were 2,000 feet wide and the regulating works are only 1,000 feet.
I should add that in addition to these regulating gates there are
three 33-foot gates at the foot of the American water-power plant,
so that we have a little additional capacity there. That would add
about 10,000 cubic feet more, making forty-odd thousand cubic feet
per second available for flood discharge to avoid high water. I have
already told you that this whole regulating scheme cost about half a
million dollars.
Mr. HULL. Are those of wood?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; the gates are of steel and the piers of the best
kind of concrete.
The CHAIRMAN. We don’t quite understand the use of those gates
at the foot of the power canal.
Mr. SHENEHON. In the Uhited States canal—perhaps I would
better point that out—they ran a dike out in the rapids there ex-
tending down to the power house. They take the flow of three spans
of the bridge, and in time of high water they have an additional
outlet capacity equivalent to two of the larger gates.
Mr. NEwTon. When the water is high the level of the water above
goes down through those gates?
Mr. SHENEHON. It will drop a little passing through just to gen-
erate velocity head, and there will be water 10 feet deep passing
through each gate and running very fast.
Mr. NEWTON. This lower gate is not at the bottom of the rapids, in
the sense that we think of rapids?
Mr. SHENEHON. They are about one-third of the way down. The
tail race is excavated all the way down.
Mr. NEwTON. But the level above must come down to the gate?
Mr. SHENEHON. Sure.
Mr. NEwTON. Otherwise the gate would not be effective?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is right. Now, as the Congressman asked
a while ago, what is the connection between Lake Superior and the
lakes that are lowered by the diversion at Chicago? I wish to fix
very definitely certain principles. . It happens that in the regulation
of the Great Lakes we began at the wrong end and regulated Lake
Superior first instead of regulating Lake Ontario or Lake Erie first.
The proper way would be to regulate the lowest down, and then the
next upper one and so on consecutively. But it happened, not
through the pressing need of navigation, as I understand, but of
water power, Lake Superior was improved first. This principle of
the larger outflow capacity; that is, the continuous operation of
canals, reserving the natural channel itself to receive its original
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1381
volume of flood flow additional to the water running through these
lateral canals—that is a big, vital principle, and is the first thing
to be done in all regulation projects. Get a bigger outflow capacity
from the lake first and then we can carry the lake at higher levels,
because the danger of high water is absent. I shall point that out
for each of the lakes. I am stating principles. That is clear, is it?
The CHAIRMAN. I think we understand perfectly what you are
Saying.
§ SHENEHON. I want to be sure that this does not get away,
because this principle is very important to this whole situation. I
want to read now from the Canadian Engineer of October 21, 1920,
an article by Mr. Louis C. Sabin, who, as I told you is the engineer
at Sault Ste Marie who built the Davis and Sabin Locks, and is in
charge, under an engineer officer, of the operations of the American
locks. I want to read first, as indicating the trend of thought on
the Canadian side of the boundary—this is a Canadian journal—an
editorial which precedes this article.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the publication from which you are
reading:
Mr. SHENEHON. The Canadian Engineer.
Regulation of the levels of Lakes Erie and Ontario is a live subject at
present on account of the increasing development of power at Niagara Falls,
and the proposed development of the St. Lawrence powers, and this subject
undoubtedly will Soon receive further attention from the International Joint
Commission ; more than usual interest attaches, therefore, to the following
article On the regulation of the level of another of the Great Lakes, for which
we are indebted to the Military Engineer, the organ of the professional
engineers in the United States Army Engineer Corps.
That view is the trend of regulation as seen by the editor of that
magazine.
Mr. Sabin in ending his article states:
When the works are entirely completed the flexibility of the system will be
increased, since the entire flow will be under control; the degree of regulation
will not be materially improved, however, but a greater use of water for power
Will be permissible. What will be accomplished, then, is the continuous use
Of the natural minimum flow, equal to about 75 per cent of the mean discharge
Of the river, and a reduction of the fluctuation in monthly mean levels from
a range of 3.8 feet to a range of about 2.6 feet. The economic advantage of
power development to the extent of some 80,000 horsepower is thus combined
With improvements of navigation conditions.
I want to read also from a magazine entitled “The Michigan
Technic” of November, 1921, an article by Mr. Sabin, and I read
from page 27:
Had the present canals and controlling works been in place for the past 60
years, and this rule followed in the operation of the gates, the level of Lake
Superior, as measured by monthly mean levels, would have gone below 602.1
during 32 months, the lowest level being 601.5 in April, 1911; these low levels
would have occurred, however, mainly before the opening of navigation, and
the level would have been always above 602.1 by the middle of June. The
level of the lake would have risen above the desired maximum, 603.6, in Only
two years, namely, 1869 and 1876, and then would not have exceeded the
level which existed under natural conditions in those years. In 1869 the Water
levels indicate a supply to the lake of 3.87 feet in six months, and in 1876
a supply of 3.24 feet in five months. Considering the area of the lake surface,
it will be evident that under such conditions of supply an unreasonable dis-
charge capacity would be required to prevent an extreme rise in level.
1382 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
With the rates of supply to the lake that have prevailed in the past and the
natural conditions of discharge of the outlet, the elevation of the lake surface
as measured by the monthly mean levels would have fluctuated between limits
of 604.1 and 600.3, a range of 3.8 feet. Under the same conditions of supply
and the present controlled outflow the range would have been between 604.1
and 601.5, or 2.6 feet. It thus appears that while the outlet of the lake gave
Inaturally a high degree of regulation, it is possible to improve it by avoid-
ing periods of extreme low water, and, at the same time, permit the use of
the minimum flow for power purposes.
The result of the development has been then to permit the continuous use of
three-quarters of the mean discharge of the stream for power purposes, while
reducing the fluctuation of level by one-third. By means of this control the
advantage of power development has been accompanied by improved naviga-
tion conditions, so that these two interests, commonly considered antagonistic,
have been brought into coordination.
I now want to quote from the Richmond report, this volume we
have spoken of as the Warren report, but it is really made up of
three different articles in chief, the research and the detailed state-
ments of Mr. W. S. Richmond, a report by Colonel Warren himself,
fairly brief, and then the very able review by the Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors, of which General Taylor was chairman. I
am going to speak later of that review by the Board of Engineers,
and I will be very º indeed if General Taylor is here at that time.
The CHAIRMAN. I am very sorry to say that General Taylor is out
of town, but General Beach will be here. -
Mr. SHENEHON. This is from page 370 of the Richmond report:
In 1914 the question of increased use of water for power purposes and the
£onstruction of compensating works was brought before the International
Joint Commission of the United States and Canada. The commission approved
a plan for putting into operating condition the four gates built in 1901 on the
Canadian side of the river, the construction of 12 additional gates extending
from the South end of the four built in 1901, to a point above Pier 5 of the
bridge, and the construction of a dike above span 5 connecting the end of the
gates with the dike of the headrace of the United States power plant.
Mr. HULL. Where is that, in the Niagara section or the Superior?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; this is Superior; that is at Sault Ste. Marie.
Mr. HULL. I see. --
Mr. SHENEHON. Then on page 371:
When the compensating works are completed and the several power canals
enlarged to their proposed capacity, it is expected that the needs of naviga-
tion can be served, a minimum of 60,000 cubic feet per Second can be used for
power and the level of Lake Superior can be regulated within a maximum
range of 2.5 feet, and ordinarily within a range of 1.5 feet, or between eleva-
tions 602.1 and 603.6.
I may say that Mr. W. S. Richmond, who was the research man in
making all the investigations of the Great Lakes and collating them
in this volume that we have spoken of as the Warren report, began
his actual hydraulic career on the Great Lakes as my assistant at
Niagara Falls, leading up to the preparation of a report by me
entitled the “Preservation of Niagara Falls.” That will appear in
evidence. He is a man of very keen; precise, mathematical mind,
combining all those research qualities that are desirable in such a
matter as this, but when he comes to recommendations I think he is
a little bit outside of his own field. He lacks the vision as to regu-
lating works shown by the Board of Engineers in the Taylor review.
The CHAIRMAN. Is his description of the effect of regulating works
in the Warren report—is that his work?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1383
Mr. SHENEHON. In the Warren report. Mr. Chairman, Colonel
Warren and Mr. Richmond, or Mr. Richmond and Colonel Warren,
recommended the use of submerged sills, compensation as opposed
to regulation, but in the report of the Board of Engineers the imme-
diate building of regulating gates at the head of the Niagara River
is emphatically urged. The difference in principle there I want to
accentuate, because I am taking up these principles one at a time,
first the increased outlet capacity for a lake to avoid high water,
next the compensating works as less desirable than regulating works.
I would like to quote from the Taylor review on page 18.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the Warren report?
Mr. SHENEHON. The Board of Engineers’ review signed by Gen-
eral Taylor, which is a review of the Warren report.
This diversion—
Speaking of the diversion at Sault, Ste. Marie—
The diversion is nearly 60 per cent of the average flow of the river which is
75,000 cubic feet per second, but its effects and those of the diversions for navi-
gation are fully compensated by regulating works—a set of Stoney gates above
the International Bridge. The control afforded by these gates is so complete
that, in addition to the diversions for navigation, 60,000 cubic feet per second
may be used for power, while Lake Superior is ordinarily held between eleva-
tions 602.1, and 603.6, and its maximum range is restricted to 2.5 feet. Since
1860 the monthly mean stages of this lake have fluctuated between a low of
600.50 and a high of 604.10, a range of 4.6 feet. Daily mean stages have, of
Course, shown a greater range, so that the regulating works are obviously
beneficial to navigation. The advantage of developing all the water power
possible is also plain, for the locality is a remote one and coal is expensive.
The regulating works must effect the oscillations of the lakes below, but up to
the present this effect has been slight and apparently no damage has been done
to navigation.
I want to emphasize again that Lake Superior was not the proper
lake to regulate first. We should have begun at the other end.
Lake Ontario already has the Gut Dam, Lake Erie needs regulating
works.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is in answer to the last sentence which
you have just quoted? - w
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 2.30.
Mr. Gould ER. In connection with Mr. Shenehon's reference to Mr.
Richmond, on page 371 of the Warren report, we shall make a note
of remedial works on page 377 and two or three pages which cover
the whole ground, including the Chicago Sanitary District. It all
comes in together in that one connection.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shenehon was referring to the review by the
Board of Engineers.
Mr. ADCOCK. Don't you think it would be better to let Mr. Shene-
hon go on as he has been, rather than to have his remarks broken in
upon?
Mr. GouldFR. No. I think when he quotes from page 371 in that
same connection we should refer to page 377.
Mr. SHENEHON. I should prefer not to have it. You can add
that later on, because I want my thought to be consecutive as far
as I can make it.
Mr. GouldFR. Very well.
1384 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have that at the end of Mr. Shenehon's
statement. We will now take a recess until 2.30.
ſººn at 12.30 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2.30
p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met pursuant to the taking of recess.
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS C. SHENEHON.—Resumed
Mr. SHENEHON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we had been dis-
cussing the regulating works at Sault Ste. Marie, at the head of the
rapids there, and I told you that these works cost about half a million
dollars. I am not sure that I stated that half of that was paid by
the Canadians and half by the Americans; but perhaps that state-
ment is not quite accurate, because the Canadians took care of their
end of the regulating works, the eight sections on the Canadian side,
and the American water-power company took care of the eight sec-
tions on the American side.
I told you also that a rental was charged for the use of the water
of $2 per cubic foot per second for primary water—that is, the 25,000
that is always available—and when there is an excess they may have
5,000 more at $1 per cubic foot per second. This is about six times
the rate per electric horsepower paid by the American companies at
Niagara Falls. I understand the administration charge under the
Federal water power act is 25 cents a horsepower. Here it would
amount to about $1.50 a horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. Under what authority do they make that charge?
Mr. SHENEHON. That administration charge?
The CHAIRMAN. The charge at the Soo. Do you know? If you
do not know, we will pass that.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am not sure; but I do know that the amount paid
by the lessees of the American waterpower company, the Edison-
Sault Co. there, is a charge of $12 per electrical horsepower, the Gov-
ernment owning the works, including the hydraulic and electric
machinery, and the company operating. Under those circumstances
the charge is $12. That was one of the arrangements made in the
Chandler-Dunbar case, in order to get rid of the valuation of all the
local property, including all local distribution lines and the intangi-
bles, they made a lease for 30 years at that rate.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the Government have anything for lease more
than just the right to develop the power?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; they leased the developed water power itself.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, the small power?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But did they have anything except just the right
to develop power in the rest?
Mr. SHENEHON. You mean the Federal Government?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. The Federal Government took over the whole bed
of the stream, including all riparian rights except the uplands. The
upland property was paid for by the Federal Government in the
water-power case, and the developed power was also taken and paid
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1385
for. As you will recollect, the undeveloped water power was re-
ferred to by the Supreme Court as not subject to any payment, that
the owner held the right in the bed of the stream, subject to the para-
mount right of navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. That does not differ, then, from the conditions
elsewhere under the general water power act?"
Mr. SHENEHON. No; the only point there in the charge made to
the Michigan Northern Power Co. is the difference in the rate from
that charged under the Federal water power act. That 25 cents is
just an administrative charge to take care of the cost of handling the
Federal water power act. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is all they have a right to charge under the
Federal water power act and I do not believe they are charging
anything at the “Soo "except for the administration of property.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is the $2 charge.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I think under the Federal water power
act the Federal Government may make a charge for the benefits
coming from head works and the reservoirs created; that means
that in addition to the 25 cents, they may charge something for
regulating works,
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; I have no doubt of that in the world.
Mr. SHENEHON. My attorneys are likely to call me to account for
discussing legal matters, so I do it with apologies to my lawyers.
I mentioned Mr. W. S. Richmond, as having written the bulk of
what we call the Warren report, and I gave you my slant on his
characteristics. After his earlier work with me I employed Mr
Richmond, I took him away from the Federal Government. That
was about 1917. I took him away to do instrumental work, in
measuring the flow of the Illinois River. That was for the Mar-
seilles Land & Water Power Co., one of the little water power com-
panies on the Illinois River, and Mr. Richmond has now gone to
Marseilles as manager of that water power company, leaving the
Federal Government on account of the small salaries the Govern-
ment pays, and his interest now is to get at least 10,000 cubic second
feet through the sanitary canal for water power purposes at Mar-
seilles. That does not mean he will work for that, but that is in
the interest of his company.
Now, we have used various terms—remedial works, controlling
works, regulating works, compensating works—and I have noticed
that even the makers of this large chart on the wall here used “com-
pensating works” where they should have said “ regulating works,”
and used “regulating works” where they should have written “com-
pensating works.”
Remedial works, I think, is the general term for all sorts of things
that may better the conditions. Regulating works and controlling
works have about the same meaning and indicate that yon have a
grip on the situation; that you can raise or lower your gates and
modify the flow at will, and that you have taken in hand this out-
flow from Lake Superior and store the water or let the water out.
in excess quantities at will. This means conservation of navigation
and water power.
1386 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC,
Now you can create storage by regulating works when there are
flood conditions or the water supply is large, and you can let that
water out when you need it. That means beneficial storage. In the
same way we store water in the mountain valleys in the Sierras in
California.
Compensating works, on the other hand, are exactly what the
term implies; they serve simply to undo or offset a certain diver-
sion, and have a tendency to accentuate high water as well as im-
proving a little low water. A little dynamite might represent man-
ual control at flood stages. It will appear later in our discussion
that after having put in a fixed obstruction to the flow, it may
sometime be desirable to get rid of it. I want to make that dis-
tinction clear, that compensating works give no usable storage, be-
cause you can not open gates when you need to, and storage may
go too high; you lack the ability of manual control.
Now, I am passing right by the problems of Lakes Huron and
Michigan, the St. Clair *:::.. Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River,
Lake Erie, and getting down on the St. Lawrence, so that I may
converge and come back to this big project of the regulation of the
Niagara River. Before I do that I should like to think of ourselves
as being aboard one of these 600-footers, going down the Lakes and
see just what the trip is, see what the Lakes are, and note the dis-
tances. I think it will possibly be interesting to you.
I have already told you it is about 400 miles from Duluth to the
“Soo,” and about 36 or 36% hours are required to go that distance.
That would be at a speed of about 11 miles an hour. That is about
the speed of the freighters, although they can go somewhat faster
than that; but it is not economical to run too fast with big cargoes.
Then we go down the St. Marys River 50 miles to the Straits of
Mackinac and Lake Huron. In that 50 miles of river the river
makes a descent of about 1 foot. That depth of a foot represents
the potential or waterpower necessary to pass the water through 50
miles of river. In a state of nature the depths were small: in
certain sections were little rapids, just below the “Soo' and in the
various Neebish channels. In order to get deep navigation in these
rapids it is necessary to cut channels 400 feet wide and 21 or 22
feet deep, and the commerce is so congested that it was necessary to
cut duplicate channels So that vessels could take one channel down-
bound and another channel upbound to avoid accidents which occur
in narrow channels, especially where there is a current.
I was with Joseph Ripley, the engineer in charge of the middle
Neebish Cut, when I was a young engineer, and I remember very
distinctly that we piled the excavated material so as to fill up
other sections of the river, with a view of compensating for the
water lowering that must come when we cut this deep gorge through
the shallow rock in the rapids.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you narrowed at the same time
you deepened the channel?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; we narrowed at the same time we depeened.
Now, see what the effect of that is. If you compensate and hold the
water up at the Soo Locks and maintain your 22-foot depth on the
sill of the locks, these deep channels develop pretty high dangerous
velocities; and so in the end it is found better engineering to let the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 138.7
water drop down and dredge a foot or two rather than have the
dangerous currents. So it was a good practice to let the water
drop down a foot or a foot and a half at the locks, especially as
other locks were building.
But only 80,000 cubic feet per second passes down the St. Marys
River, and I want to accentuate the fact here that this 80,000 cubic
feet a second is water enough for navigation with a seasonal or a
yearly peak of 92,000,000 tons. I am going to come back later to
the question of how much water we need in the Great Lakes for
the purposes of navigation alone, and the fact is that in St. Marys
River 80,000 cubic feet per second is enough for 92,000,000 tons of
commerce, and if 150,000,000 tons of commerce had to go down the
river there would be no difficulty so far as the volume of water
was concerned. If a lesser volume flowed and gave slower velocities
it would be to the advantage of navigation.
To continue our journey from Lake Huron, after we have reached
the mouth of the St. Marys River, to the head of the St. Clair River
* is about 200 miles, requiring about 18 hours' running. Then
about eight hours' running through the St. Clair River, Lake St.
Clair, and the Detroit River, a distance of 85 miles.
As we enter the mouth of the St. Clair River we pass through the
gorge, where the water is about 60 feet deep and running very fast—
about 5 miles an hour. It is one of the difficult points in the navi-
gation on the Great Lakes. And in the whole distance of about 30
miles, from above Port Huron, which is near the head of the St.
Clair River, down through the Flats Canal to Lake St. Clair, the
descent is 51% feet.
Then Lake St. Clair is an enlargement of this stream, a delta for-
mation; the silt and detritis brought down has filled up and created a
shallow body of water about 20 miles across; shallow, all of it.
The Government has done dredging there as well as at the foot
of the St. Clair River, and the vessels themselves have served as
instruments in excavating the channel 1,000 to 2,000 feet wide across
Lake St. Clair. That is interesting in showing how vessels will
often excavate their own channels to travel in. The propeller was
so near the bottom in this case that it turned up the silt, and part
of that silt settled back in the channel and part of it outside the
channel. Thousands and thousands of vessels passing through there
in the end dredged out their own channel; and the width of the
channel depends on how much they vary from their straight course
across Lake St. Clair.
Then we reach the Detroit River after 20 miles travel across Lake
St. Clair, and the Detroit River is about 35 miles in length. It is
º deep, and the fall between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie is
3.1 feet.
At the foot of the Detroit River we have the Livingstone Channel
through a rock formation, and there very extensive improvements
have been made; and the Livingstone Channel, I understand, is ex-
cavated to a depth of 22 feet below the very low plane to which the
ºl
river and harbor improvements are now made.
So I imagine at the present time, passing through the Livingstone
Channel, vessels have over 22 feet of water, notwithstanding the
low stage of Lake Erie.
1388 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Now, Lake Erie at its west end corresponds somewhat with Lake
St. Clair. It is in part a delta formation—material brought down
through countless ages, filling up the lake bottom, so that the west
end of Lake Erie may be thought of as a little lake about 40 miles
in diameter and fairly shallow.
Lake Erie itself is the shallowest of all the Great Lakes, and the
need of regulation for the maintenance of the elevation of the water
surfaces in the shallowest of the lakes would seem to stand out very
clearly in the minds of engineers. The limiting depths for many
years, I think, were on Lake Erie. Then the very shallowness of
the lake means that under storm conditions we have rather more
extraordinary conditions than occur in such a lake as Superior, the
deepest of the lakes, and the one least needing regulation.
It is 240 miles, the length of Lake Erie, to Port Colburne, which is
the entrance to the Welland Canal; and Buffalo is abreast of this,
about the same distance. The travel from Duluth on the route we
have discussed is, roundly, a thousand miles. It is 985 miles; so I
think 1,000 miles is a convenient round figure to remember. ‘.
Port Colburne is about 10 miles less. The old Welland Canal,
which leaves Lake Erie here, is limited in its vessel dimensions and
descends, in 26 miles of canal, 326 feet to Lake Ontario.
In reaching the entrance to the Welland Canal at Port Colburne
I should have added that we have been traveling about 90 hours
down the Lakes. That is almost four days. I suppose a fast vessel
might take three and a half days to make the trip. I think some
of the biggest vessels make the round trip between Buffalo and
Duluth in about a week, although I am not quite certain about it.
It takes about 12 hours to go through the Welland Canal.
Now, Lake Ontario is 160 miles long and it takes about 14 hours
to go from Port Dalhousie to the east end. At the east end of Lake
Ontario we enter the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. We are still
in Lake Ontario, 247 feet above the level of the sea. We go 70 miles
down the St. Lawrence before reaching the first rapids, known as
the Galops. The St. Lawrence here is for the most part a very deep,
stately river. Here is the region of the Thousand Islands, one of
the beautiful places on our Canadian frontier. In reaching the
Galops Rapids we have traveled 1,231 miles from Duluth, and it has
taken about 120 hours. If we go on down to Montreal it is another
100 miles through rapids, rapids and lakes, and by the time we reach
Montreal we have traveled about 1,330 miles and about 133 hours.
I have a record here that indicates that one of the big lake carriers
running between Buffalo or Cleveland, I imagine, and Duluth is
running about 75 per cent of the time, and is in port about 25 per
cent of the time. That appears from a reduction of some figures
appearing in the statistical report of the “Soo’’ Canal as a season's
good record.
Now, the St. Lawrence River, after it has left the Galops Rapids,
which, as I say, are 70 miles down the river, travels for 40 miles
over rapids and in narrow channels, where it forms the boundary
line between the United States and Canada. That is known as the
international section in all these discussions of the St. Lawrence
deep waterway to the sea; and in this international section the river
makes a descent of 92 feet, and about 88 feet of that I think is avail-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. I389
able for water-power development. Assuming 88 feet and a flow
of 220,000 cubic feet per second we have for the amount of water
power available 1,464,000 electric horsepower in the international
Section. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is on the international section?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Everybody speaks of that commonly as a million
and a half.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think they have used rather large efficiencies
in their estimates, although a million and a half is close enough,
referring to it in round figures.
The CHAIRMAN. I know that is the way Mr. Hugh Cooper speaks
of it. He speaks of that as a million and a half and the national
section as three and a half million. That gives us 750,000 on our
side and Canada four and a quarter million on their side.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, from Lake St. Francis down I think the
most the Canadians could get would be about two and a half million.
I think the total available water power on the St. Lawrence is 4,000,-
000, of which one and a half million is on the international section.
The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Cooper contends—and I have spoken
with him several times on the same platform—that you can develo
three and a half million below and that while it will cost some addi-
tional money that the extra amount will be more than well capital-
ized, that it will pay a very large return.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I think probably he figures on a high river
flow. That is a matter of judgment among engineers, as to what
river flow you use. The loss coming to water power for a diversion
of 10,000 cubic second-feet, assuming that there are no regulating
works to adjust matters, would be about 40,000 horsepower lost to
the Canadians on the international section, and about 120,000 lost
to the Canadians on the Canadian lower national section, a total
loss of 160,000 electric horsepower. -
The CHAIRMAN. That is to the Canadians?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is for the Canadians. Our loss would be
about 40,000 on the international section, for the Americans. I
shall come back to that when I am discussing later, just what all
this means, in the conservation of the water, comparing the value
of water going out at Chicago with the value of water coming on
clown the lakes. I simply wish to state here that the St. Lawrence,
in my judgment, is a very admirable opulent water-power stream,
but that there are some unsolved ice difficulties, and the Canadians
themselves lack a market to utilize the power. In other words, they
are so rich in water power in other places that they can not utilize
all the St. Lawrence flow. That is something I will come back to
later.
I may say that the present Canadian developments out of this
possible 3,250,000 which they may develop when they have a market
for it—because market is as much a part of water power as the
water itself is, and the American market seems to be the only
available market—out of this 3,250,000 available they have developed
already 218,000 horsepower, which is less than 7 per cent.
Now, it is tremendously interesting to examine the water-power
resources of Canada as bearing upon how much she needs, and
1390 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
consider in this connection this little 10,000 cubic feet per second
which Chicago thought she had the right to use, and which use
you are adjusting.
The CHAIRMAN. You are coming back, are you not, to the ques-
tion of the use of this power?
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, yes; I will discuss that fully.
The CHAIRMAN. Because I wanted to say something on that and
I do not want to say it at this point.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. But one of the streams of Canada is the
St. Maurice, and this river rises on what is known as the Height, of
Land, which is 1,300 feet above the St. Lawrence River.
Mr. STEwART. It is about half way between Quebec and Montreal,
on the north shore of the river. It comes in at Three Rivers.
Mr. SHENEHON. And this river comes from the Height of Land,
1,300 feet above the St. Lawrence River, something over 700 feet
of the fall of that river is available, I understand, for water power,
with very good heads. I think it is Shawanagan Falls where they
have a development under a head of about 150 feet, and at Grand
Mere they have a head of 78 feet. There are other possible water-
power developments—44 feet, 88 feet, 212 feet, 93 feet, 45 feet.
The Canadians have recently been building at the headwaters of
the St. Maurice, the La Loutre Dam, at a cost of $2,500,000, which
has created the largest artificial reservoir in the world.
Now, this development of other streams in the St. Lawrence is
very significant, because the St. Lawrence is under the watchdog
eyes of one Government at least, and, in part, of two. I refer, of
course, only to the international portion as under two guardians.
So those who wish to use water power for the cheapest possible
uses, where they need a lot 6f power on a product that has not a
very high sale value in the end, especially where the electric furnace
is used and in grinding wood pulp, go where the water power is
cheapest. That is what has made Niagara Falls, Mr. Chairman, as
you know.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true; and has made it within a very
short time the leading electrochemical center in the world, pro-
ducing during the war from 80 to 90 odd per cent of many of the
necessary ingredients for war purposes and ammunitions.
Mr. SHENEHON. You and I will not disagree the least bit about the
tremendous value of water power. I myself see no reason why
water power in any project should be kept up anybody's sleeve. I
think it is a thing that has to be recognized as of conservation value,
the same as any other use of water, for navigation or for sanitation.
In the St. Maurice territory the run-off is about twice what it is
in the Great Lakes region. The precipitation is heavy there and this
regulation and conservation of the water by storage I think has
about doubled the primary power of the stream—I am not sure where
it is; I rather think it is on the Saguenay or on the St. Maurice—
where Duke, the tobacco man, has developed 500,000 horsepower and
has in mind the development of 500,000 more.
The Saguenay is another one of those beautiful water-power
streams of the Canadians. It is down below Quebec, and it has for
its reservoir the natural Lake St. John. It is an excellent water-
power stream.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1391
Then there is the Ottawa River, one of the great rivers of Canada,
having its origin near Georgian Bay, and swinging over toward
Ottawa, Canada. Then there are other rivers—the Richelieu and
others—that are rich in water power.
The development cost on these streams appears to be less than it
is on the St. Lawrence for water-power purposes alone.
So there is not any poverty on the part of the Canadians when it
comes to water power. It is not necessary for them to fine-tooth
comb the Great Lakes system to look for a few thousand horsepower,
with all these resources available and unused.
Now, in the report of the engineers for the St. Lawrence waterway
to the sea the intent is to develop only the international section at
first, with its about one and a half million horsepower.
The earliest time that water power may be developed—and it
may be very much more—is 10 years—two years of incubation and
eight years to build. That is the engineers’ report, as I have it in
mind. And then, after they have tried out this water power and
found out what the ice complications are on the St. Lawrence River,
then they will take up the developments of two other powers on the
national section. &
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cooper has some ingenious theories as to
how to meet that ice proposition, which he illustrates by pictures
shown on the wall. He has a series of pictures illustrating his theory
of disposing of the ice difficulties. -
Mr. SHENEHON. I know Mr. Cooper very well, and I have great
admiration for his ingenuity.
The CHAIRMAN. Has he ever talked with you about that?
Mr. SHENEHON. He sent me a copy of the book he wrote, and I am
going to read it within the next month.
The CHAIRMAN. I have heard him speak several times and have
spoken with him several times, and he used the lantern for those
V10 WS.
Mr. SHENEHON. I have pointed out that on the St. Maurice, which
is a fine power stream, with a beautiful reservoir to regulate the flow,
we have available over 700 feet of head. On the St. Lawrence the
total developable head is only 220 feet. Now, as illustrating the
trend of things, the fall from the Galops Rapids—that is where the
long 70 miles of the St. Lawrence touches the first descent, with a
fall of about 5 feet—the fall from that point down to Cornwall, the
head of Lake St. Francis, where the St. Lawrence departs into alien
territory, is 92 feet, and one of the remarkable things is that the
report of the engineers indicates a development of only 74 feet, with
18 feet discarded. And 18 feet out of 92, where the volume of water
is so large, means that they were not very economical of their water
power. They evidently judged they had more water power than
they had market. I am only trying to point out that we have not
reached the age of poverty in water power for the Canadians yet.
The discarded power, with provision for regulating head, is fully
220,000 horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if that is not due to the fact, as stated
in the record, that this is only a preliminary study, and they do not
pretend to have developed it in detail or with exactitude.
1392 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think that is true. Perhaps next November I
may be able to talk to you with more detail of the waterway through
the St. Lawrence to the sea, because I am to deliver an address at
the meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which is to
be held in October. I have spent a good deal of time studying the
conditions in reference to this river, having been a hydraulic engineer
in connection with work along the river in 1900 to 1902, as well as
spending much time besides that on work in connection with regu-
lating works. -
Now, I have said these few things on Canadian water power so
i. to lay the foundation for what I am going to say to you a little
ater. w
I want to speak now on navigation in the St. Lawrence River
before I take up again the matter of compensation and regulation.
On page 391 of the Richmond report it is shown that the tonnage
or commerce of the Laurential Canals is three and three quarter
million tons, and this I think is the maximum of about 1921.
The CHAIRMAN. That is through the St. Lawrence system?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that is through the St. Lawrence system.
The CHAIRMAN. Does that represent the tonnage through the Wel-
land Canal also } -
Mr. SHENEHON. The tonnage through the Welland Canal is a
little less.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do you mean that includes the ocean tonnage as
well, from the St. Lawrence?
Mr. SHENEHON. No. That is about 13,000,000 tons, from Mon-
treal.
Now, the present canal system of Canada, along the St. Lawrence,
begins at the Galops Rapids and goes on down, with 14-foot drafts
and vessels carrying about 2,000 tons. You see we have now reached
diminutive scales as compared with our new 600-footers on the
Lakes that I have been telling you about at the “Soo.” But the
effort of the Canadians in constructing this canal system, and on
which they have expended I suppose $100,000,000, is one of the most
magnificent efforts put forward by any nation of less than 10,000,000
people. There is only one comparable case that I know of, and that
is the effort of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. We have spent in New York something over
$200,000,000 on our Erie Canal, with about the same population as
Canada. -
Mr. SHENEHoN. How many people are there in the State of New
York & -
The CHAIRMAN. About 12,000,000 at this time. ..
Mr. SHENEHoN. Well, I add New York to my list of those who
have done great things.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what the tonnage was on our canal
last year?
Mr. SHENEHON. The barge canal?
The Cºmman. Yes. I think it is about 3,000,000 tons, about the
same as the St. Lawrence.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I know it is not very much. º
The CHAIRMAN. But it has grown from nothing to 3,000,000 Since
the war.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1393
Mr. MANSFIELD. Did you not have any commerce of any conse-
quence before that?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McAdoo announced that he needed all the
tonnage for his railroads and would not permit it to go by water.
He made that announcement not only once but several times.
Mr. SHENEHON. I mentioned the amount of water power devel-
oped by the Canadians on the St. Lawrence. We have two more
developments on the American side. One is at Massena, where the
Aluminum Co. of America is located, which also makes aluminium
at Niagara and at Shawenegan Falls; I think those are the three
plants of the Aluminum Co. of America. At Niagara Falls they
have a very low rate for power. *
The CHAIRMAN. My recollection for that is that they had a special
contract which the power company was willing to continue for its
life; but when the general water power bill was enacted my under-
standing is that in some way it was decided that that was just like
the law in reference to the regulating of the rates of railroads by the
Interstate Commerce Commission; that is, that you could not give a
special rate to one man; that the same rate had to be given to every-
body, and I think they had a rate of $7 or $8. -
Mr. SHENEHON. That was with the company for which I was
engineer for about three years, the Hydraulic Power Co.
The CHAIRMAN. The water power act had some effect, as I under-
stand it, upon rates; that is, it had the same effect with reference to
water-power rates that the interstate commerce act had with refer-
ence to interstate commerce rates.
Mr. SHENEHON. The Federal water power act gave the Govern-
ment, I understand, the right to regulate rates provided the States
had not agencies to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct; yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. But New York State had such agency.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. And at Massena this company, an ally of the
Aluminum Co. of America, has developed 86,000 horsepower, taking
the water out of the St. Lawrence in the Little Sault Channel,
which is an all-American channel, and leading the water to the
Grass River and developing under a head of about 35 feet. They
take out 28,000 or 29,000 cubic feet per second. They take their
water out of a pool, which is above the entrance to the Cornwall
Canal. Just what compensation in that canal was made so as not to
injure the entrance to the canal, I do not know. If no compensation
had been made it would have lowered the water about 14% inches,
but undoubtedly some compensation was made.
But a situation arose during the war when aluminum was needed
by the United States, Great Britain, and France for war purposes,
and an application was made by the Massena Co. to build a fixed
weir, or to complete the existing weir clear across this American
channel, the Little Sault Channel. And extended hearings were
held before the International Joint Commission, and they were
finally given a permit to build this weir, at a cost of $125,000, and
keep it there for a period of five years. This weir was of broken
rock, rising about 10 feet from the bottom, with a concrete crest, and
it appeared that it raised the water in this pool, giving greater
1394 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
depth in the entrance to the Cornwall Canal. But the building of
this weir was protested by Canada and by the State of New York;
and the Canadian protest was based on the fact that the water was
raised in the pool and that no private company should be allowed to
acquire any additional privileges for water power in the St. Lawrence
River, even on our own side of the river, and that the whole river
must be conserved for this big development of a waterway to the sea
that is coming later. That shows the impediment to development
on the international portion of the stream.
The CHAIRMAN. That is not the case where the question of the
ownership of the bed of the stream was decided to be in the bed of
the stream?
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not know about that. The weir did block a
channel that was navigable, in law at least, because you could go
down it in a rowboat if you wanted to take the risk.
The CHAIRMAN. That was decided upon the ground that you could
not grant the rights to a private company because they belonged to
the people of the State of New York.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. Well, in this case the weir or dam must
remain under international control, and, as I say, the permit was a
temporary one granted for emergency purposes. Incidentally it
raised the water about six feet at the power house and gave about
18,000 electric horsepower more, which would more than pay for
the $125,000 cost of the weir.
What I want to accentuate here is that this weir raised the water,
say, a foot in the entrance of the Canadian Canal, whereas it was
claimed in the sanitary district case it lowered the water about 5
inches. That raising was protested by Canada.
The other thing to accentuate is the trivial cost of undoing any
little damage caused by a diversion on the river at the canal entrance.
Here was a case where the potentiality of the future, that is the St.
Lawrence waterway to the sea, 10 years at least in the future, ham-
pers a water power already operating as a conservation asset of the
United States. It was handicapped; it still is handicapped for the
future big things.
One of the interesting things also—and this I think illustrates a
principle in the difference between compensation and regulation—is
that at the expiration of the 5-year period a new permit was issued
for two years, and in the new permit they were required to put sluice
gates in the dam, so as to prevent any possibility of high water.
These sluice gates were recommended by me for the Gut Dam.
Now, the other water-power development on the St. Lawrence is at
Waddington. It is about 600 horsepower. There are some peculiari-
ties about this situation. I lived there for a time while in charge of
the hydraulic investigations of the St. Lawrence, and I know about
it. This will illustrate that there are many kinds of water power.
When you hear that water power is worth so much a horsepower
year you must find out whether it is a Ford horsepower or a Packard
horsepower that you are talking about.
Here was the situation at Waddington. I lived in the hotel, and
about 11 o'clock at night there was a little wink of the electric light,
and that wink was a notification that the current was about to be
turned off for the night. There was just one man who tended the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1395
water power there. Now we have an automatic control in many
places where it can run 24 hours a day. But at the time I am speak-
ing of, when this man was ill for a time we had no electric light. If
the young people of the town wanted to have a dance and keep on the
º until 1 or 2 o'clock they had to get a special order to have that
OIlê.
That is one kind of electric light. Now, the very remarkable
thing about this development at Waddington is that it is in Little
River, a channel of the Rapide Plat, where the fall is about 11 feet,
and the entrance to the Morrisburg Canal is on the Canadian side
of the river opposite.
In this channel in a state of nature about 30,000 cubic feet per
Second flowed, and when that channel was stopped up, previous to
the Civil War, the water was doubtless raised in that pool above the
Morrisburg Canal, 18 inches to 20 inches. And that is the particular
place where Mr. Richmond in his precise and microscopic analysis of
the losses caused by the Chicago Drainage Canal on the St. Lawrence
River shows that the loss to the St. Lawrence navigation is $434,-
000 a year
The CHAIRMAN. In navigation or to the power?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; simply navigation. This 10,000 cubic second
feet taken at Chicago would lower this pool, and that the loss per
year is $434,000. If you would capitalize that at 5 per cent, which
is proper, I should say, for Government money, it would show $8,680,-
000 that you might spend in remedial works.
The CHAIRMAN. Roughly, $9,000,000?
Mr. SHENEHON. $9,000,000, and it is my judgment it might be
remedied for four or five thousand dollars. It is this sort of figuring
that sometimes makes me think that the sanitary district has not
quite had a fair deal in these Government publications. I suppose
I have done as much as anybody, as engineer for the United States.
The decision of Judge Carpenter indicates that I put the demonstra-
tion of navigational damage of the United States Government in
tolerably good shape. I do not know that I ever made any figures
like that to show the damage. I think I played tolerably fair in
matters of that kind.
The CHAIRMAN. After all the two things are consistent; one
is the damage that you were suffering up to the time of the remedy,
and the other is the estimated cost of the remedy of the situation.
Mr. SHENEHON. The business is now before Congress, and here are
all the ramifications which can, I think, be very properly explained.
Now, notwithstanding the trifling damage or the trifling expense
involved in remedying the damage, the sanitary district offers to
put up a million dollars for regulating works to be built in the Ameri-
can channel at the Galops—that is the upermost rapids. There the
St. Lawrence flowed originally in three channels—in the Canadian
channel, which carries the biggest quantity of water; the American
channel, a rapids, nonnavigable in fact; and then in this Gut Channel
that we have heard about before, between Adams Island and Galops
Island—the boundary line running down through the Gut Channel.
About 1902 or 1903 the Canadian Government wrote to our State

1396 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Department for permission to build a dam in the Gut. I do not know
that this has been explained in detail before.
Our State Department, our Secretary of State, referred it to the
Secretary of War. The Secretary of War referred it to the Chief of
Engineers, the Chief of Engineers referred it to the United States
Lake Survey, and the officer there referred the matter to me, and I
made a report in which I analyzed the whole situation, forecasted
what the effect would be on the water levels, and recommended that
thº put in a dam with sluice gates; in other words, regulating works.
he CHAIRMAN. You were at that time in charge there, were you?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; I think I was the assistant engineer, and I
am not sure who our officer in charge was. There was an officer of
the corps in charge, and I was simply an assistant civil engineer.
But this matter was referred to me. I think the Chief of Engineers
recommended a dam with removable gates, but as a matter of fact
they put in a fixed obstruction. I imagine that that dam did not
cost over $50,000, and that that little plug in one of the three outflow
channels of the St. Lawrence River has raised the upper St. Lawrence
River and Lake Ontario 6% inches, undoing any possible damage
that Chicago had done to Lake Ontario or the Upper St. Lawrence.
Now, in my recommendations for regulating works to be paid for
by the sanitary district, Lake Ontario itself is regarded as a mill
pond, or storage reservoir, and the flood waters of the lake are to be
held up. I worked out the budgeting or outflow of the water, so that
in the fall of the year greater volumes of water would go down
than in a state of nature, having in mind that the greatest draft needs
at Montreal came in the months of September, October, and Novem-
ber. And the other thing is that the winter flow is to be increased
so that the ice situation may be dealt with in the winter. The whole
scheme is to make better navigation in Lake Ontario and the Upper
St. Lawrence. It is to make better water power and make better
navigation at Montreal.
While the sanitary district diverts at Chicago 10,000 cubic feet per
second under the scheme of regulation proposed, Montreal Secures
stored water from Lake Ontario much in excess of the Chicago
diversion. In October Montreal has a contribution of 6,000 and in
November 10,000 cubic feet per second more than would flow in a
state of nature with no diversion whatever at Chicago. The Chicago
diversion with regulation is better than no diversion without regula-
tion. In other words, the situation will be taken care of by storing
up flood water and giving out the stored water at the time of the
year when navigation needs it most.
The CHAIRMAN. While you told us that they had a fall of 700
feet on the St. Maurice River, you did not tell us what the poten-
tial water power there was, or on these other streams, the Richelieu
or the Saguenay.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am not sure whether I have figures on that or
not; I will see what I can get.
The CHAIRMAN: While what you said indicates power, of course
we as laymen would not have any idea of how much power there
would be. #
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, let me see now.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say that this committee has found out
in hearings recently held that we are going to develop 3,000,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1397
horsepower down on the Tennessee River and its tributaries aside
from Muscle Shoals.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I think I have some figures, and I will
try to get them for you on that point, Mr. Chairman—how much
power there is in these Canadian rivers.
The CHAIRMAN. You were stationed near Niagara Falls for quite
a long time, and you know the geography of the situation there?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes, sir. º
The CHAIRMAN. You know the bend in the river where it
pours over the cataract, runs nearly straight west, and then makes
a right angle turn there. Would it be practicable to have a canal
such as the Welland Canal on the American side, starting at La Salle
and terminating at Lewiston, or about there, that would be a canal
about 7 miles long?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that was planned and estimated in detail
by the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways in 1900.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that so? Where will I find that?
Mr. SHENEHON. I have the volumes right here, and I will refer to
them a little later on. If you care to see this layout on the Galops
Rapids, where I put a blue mark is the site of the regulating works
in the American Channel. I think this book with the plate will
give you a clear impression of what was intended on the St. Law-
rence River [presenting a book, “Regulation of the St. Lawrence”
to the chairman].
Now I want to accentuate what I have mentioned before, and that
is the precision with which we know just what will happen under
certain circumstances. We have for Lake Ontario the same as we
have for Lake Superior and for all the rest of the Lakes, we have
records of the elevations of the lake for every day since 1860. We
know just how much is flowing out of the lake every day and every
week and every month. We know just what is flowing in. Just
let me show you how simple it is to know how much water there is.
We know how much is coming in from Niagara, because we know
the elevation of Lake Erie on a certain day, and we know how much
is going out of the St. Lawrence River every day. If the lake
raises 6 inches during certain periods, we know exactly what the
rate of supply is, we know how much is coming out of the drainage
basin and how much goes out by evaporation (but we do not separ-
ate those two things), so we have definite knowledge of what the
water supply is. 'We have taken care of the situation at the outlet
of each of the Great Lakes. We know definitely, we have the best
hydraulic data in the world, we have that at our command. I spent
nearly two years in measuring the flow and studying the hydraulics
of the St. Lawrence River and as long on the Niagara River. These
reports on the regulation of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers
were made in 1918. I think that is as complete a study as to storage
and regulation of the St. Lawrence River as could be made, having .
in mind the utilization of the water for all the purposes for which
water may be used, saving up the water just as we do in the moun-
tain valleys of the Sierras, and using it to the best advantage in-
stead of letting it drain to the sea as it does in a state of nature.
I do not need to go into any great detail regarding this report.
I would be glad to put a copy in the hands of each member of the
committee. The length of controlling works indicated for the Ameri-
1398 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
can channel of the Galops Rapids was about 1,000 feet, and some
dredging was indicated to enlarge the waterway on the same prin-
ciple that we had at the “Soo,” that we ought to have more outlet
capacity as a safeguard. --
In my estimate I allowed a million dollars, while 1,000 feet of
regulating works at Sault Ste. Marie cost a half million dollars.
So I think I was probably safe in my estimate, although the founda-
tion conditions are more difficult in the Galops Rapids.
I discussed in this St. Lawrence report the practicability of out-
flow control, the operation of the regulating works, the information
we have in the known elevation of Lake Erie at all times as to how
much is coming down (that is where the bulk of the water supply
comes from for Lake Ontario), the central office management show-
ing how we operate the thing. They do it the same way at Sault
Ste. Marie, except it is under an international commission.
Lake Ontario secures about 86 per cent of its water from the
Niagara River, and we know definitely how much water is flowing
down the Niagara River.
Now I am going to give you what the effect of regulation will be.
In my examination and analysis I took two 10-year periods. I
took the low-water period from 1893 to 1902 and I analyzed what
would happen if the water were stored and intelligently released.
Then I analyzed another decade of normal supply, from 1907 to 1916.
I found that for the former period we could increase drafts on the
upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario by 211/4 inches. I
found we could stabilize the flow so that water power would have a
more nearly constant volume instead of being very slack at times and
having too much at other times.
All this is shown in detail in this report. As I told you, I sent
more water down the St. Lawrence during the winter to take care
of ice conditions, which are always difficult in water-power opera-
tions. During the normal supply period, from 1907 to 1916, Lake
Ontario was raised 121/4 inches. I am assuming in all this that
Chicago takes 10,000 cubic feet per second during all this period
as I have indicated, 10,000 cubic feet per second from the natural
supply. -
The CHAIRMAN: Do you mean by that that you assume that it
was actually taken, or you made your calculations on the basis of
its being taken? ſº
Mr. SHENEHON. I subtracted the 10,000, so the condition would
be just as if the 10,000 had been diverted starting back in 1860. I
made computations—all of my computations were made on a basis
of the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second—and for 20 years
the average gain for water-power purposes in January and February
was 17,000 cubic feet per second. That means if Chicago's 10,000
cubic feet is absent we have 7,000 cubic feet per second gain anyway.
This simply shows that if you use the water, having in mind the
real mill-pond value of the lake which has been provided by nature—
these most magnificent reservoirs in the world, Superior, Michigan,
Huron, Erie, and Ontario—that you have a resource which is
wonderful for waterpower—a tremendous unusual asset. -
The CHAIRMAN. Is this a convenient place for you to suspend?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes, sir.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. I 399
The CHAIRMAN. Then, we will adjourn until to-morrow morning
at 10 o’clock. tº *
(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Friday, May 23, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
Hous E OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, May 23, 1924.
The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF MER. FRANCIS C. SHENEHON-Resumed
Mr. SHENEHON. I started in to talk as an engineer on these ques-
tions relating to the water of the Great Lakes, with its uses for
navigation, water power, and sanitation, to make clear and simple
the various hydraulic principles and constructions that are involved
in the use of these waters. I am not sure that I have not been rather
perplexing and confusing rather than making things clear and sim-
ple, and I am conscious of the fact that I have been talking for a
long time. But it is a very big subject and I can not abbreviate it.
Mr. Deal asked me a question after the session of yesterday, which
I think might be well to put in the record. That is, the con-
tribution of each of the lakes to the water supply that flows out at
the Galops Rapids into the rapids of the St. Lawrence River.
The average outflow of Lake Superior is about 80,000 cubic feet
per second. The contribution of Michigan–Huron is about 120,000
cubic feet per second. The contribution of Lake Erie is about 10,000
cubic feet per second. The contribution of Lake Ontario is about
30,000 cubic feet per second. This makes a total of 240,000 cubic
feet per second as a normal outflow for the St. Lawrence. That in-
dicates a very large contribution from the twin or dual lakes,
Michigan and Huron.
Mr. HULL. Does that mean with the present diversion ?
Mr. SHENEHON. No. Taking the present diversion out, we have
110,000 as the residual or net contribution of Michigan and Huron,
10,000 cubic feet for Erie, and 30,000 for Ontario, making a total
of 230,000 cubic feet into the St. Lawrence as a normal or average
condition, with 10,000 cubic second-feet of the water undiverted at
Chicago.
Mr. DEAL. The idea I had in mind, Mr. Chairman, was to ascer-
tain the contribution of this outflow from Lake Michigan, which
would appear to be about 60,000 cubic feet per second, and this
water lies wholly within the boundary of the United States, and
which Mr. Root objected to being considered as of the boundary
waters of Canada. ºw
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I recollect what was read.
Mr. HULL. Yes; we are contributing 60,000 cubic feet to the
water power of Canada according to that.
Mr. DEAL. And we are diverting in that particular locality 10,000
cubic feet per second which does not seem an abnormal demand in
1400 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
view of the contribution which Lake Michigan makes. That is the
idea I have.
Mr. HULL. I think that is a good point.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; but the Lake Michigan contribution is a
little less than half.
At the conclusion of yesterday's Session I was talking about
the regulation of the St. Lawrence River by works constructed
in the American Channel at Galops. Rapids, and these regulating
works were to be built with a contribution from the sanitary dis-
trict of a million dollars. I spoke of the benefits to navigation in
a series of years, 1893–1902, and Lake Ontario and the upper St.
Lawrence will be 21 inches higher with this regulation in effect than
otherwise; and water power will receive a contribution during the
winter season that will be in excess of any diversion at Chicago.
But I did not make the point that the installation for waterpower
in a stream like the St. Lawrence, , when it is developed, will
probably be for something less than the average flow, the low water
flow; and if we bring up the volume of the low-water flow, we
increase our primary power; and primary power, the power that
runs continuously 24 hours a day for 365 days in the year, is the
high-priced power, the most valuable power. The power that may
run only eight months in the year with the full cost of installa-
tion carries an overhead that makes it less valuable than the primary
OWeI’.
p I also spoke of the effect of this regulation on Montreal Harbor
of contributing, when Montreal needs it, more water than is taken
out of Lake Michigan by the Sanitary district, contributing 16,000
to 20,000 at a time when Chicago is taking out only 10,000 cubic
feet per second. So regulation gives a benefit to the harbor of
Montreal—to water power—and to Lake Ontario and the St. Law-
rence navigation.
I may say that one of the unfortunate things that always comes
with the publication of such a report as the Richmond report or
the Warren report is a statement or tabulation showing a lower-
ing in Montreal Harbor of about 8 inches due to the diversion at
Chicago. This to me, with such investigations as I myself have
made, which are not extensive, is probably four to eight times as
much as the real effect of the 10,000 cubic feet diverted at Chicago,
and I have an impression that a very small expenditure in some of
the channels downstream from Montreal, perhaps at Sorel, above
Quebec, will take care of that little lowering of 1 or 2 inches, which
I believe is the true amount.
Mr. HULL. In other words, you do not think it is 8 inches?
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, no; I think that is one of those extravagant
statements that enters into a Government publication and there-
after becomes a very unpleasant thing to face. The truth, as it
was explained to me, was that investigations were made by Mr.
Haskell (and I am not sure whether Mr. Stewart took part in those
investigations or not, but I think he did), and when they plotted
up the observations they found they could not get any law of re-
lationship between volume of flow and river level.
The CHAIRMAN. Who is Mr. Haskell?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1401
Mr. SHENEHON. Mr. Haskell was dean of engineering at Cornell
University, and he preceded me as the chief civilian engineer on
the Lake Survey prior to 1906. Then he went to Cornell as dean,
and his example made me go to Minnesota later as dean—the in-
fection of an example. O
The other reason that I think this 8 inches is an extreme exaggera-
tion is the fact that during the spring months—May, for instance—
the Ottawa River itself contributes about 150,000 cubic feet of
water per second and the watershed that would be affected in the
St. Lawrence probably contributes as much more, making 300,000
cubic feet per second to elevate the plane of the St. Lawrence River,
and the change in the harbor level does not often exceed between
May and August 3 feet.
That would be 36 inches divided by 30, or an effect of an inch
and a half. It may be twice that much but not more.
I should like corroboration of the 8 inches. I do not find any
explanation of it in the Warren report or the Richmond report,
but it may be there. It appears to me that the Canadians, with some
benefits received by them in the making of the treaty and some
benefits received by them in the right to lower Lake Erie through
diversions in the Welland Canal, it seems to me that they might
spend $100,000 or $250,000 in making good any loss of water level
in Montreal Harbor. -
If the ice is a complication in blocking any of these channels,
removable structures are entirely practicable as an engineering
proposition.
Now, I have not made it clear just how we know when to close
the gates of the regulating works to store water in Lake Ontario
and what our rule of release is. I may say that Colonel Wooten.
in his report on the regulation of the St. Lawrence, has reduced
the thing to graphical forms, so he does not have to go into the
question of whether Lake Erie is high or what is happening in the
upper lakes. But I want to read a paragraph from my report on
the regulation of the St. Lawrence River, at page 50, paragraph
14, which is entitled “Central office management.” [Reading:]
Weekly or fortnightly orders should be issued by the hydrographic officer in
charge to the Superintendent of the controlling works, giving permissible river
flow. This officer should have at hand weekly returns of the heights of all of
the Great Lakes and their outflow rivers. In addition he should have monthly
returns on the water discharged through the various canals and regulating
works in the St. Marys River at the foot of Lake Superior and those in the
Niagara River ; meteorologic data of the Great Lakes Basin—rainfall. tempera-
tures, humidity, etc.—from the Weather departments of the United States and
Canada ; stream gaugings of tributary rivers, including the Ottawa River.
This information will permit Some forecasting of approaching low or high
water periods for Lake Ontario and allow some husbanding of water to meet
the possible low or permit a more opulent flow in view of plenty to come.
The operation of the works will be entirely safe without forecasting, but will
he more effective with a knowledge of the visible supply conditions in the
Great Lakes Basin. - -
Lake Ontario secures normally about 86 per cent of its water from the
Niagara River, and the major part of this 86 per cent comes from Lakes Michi-.
gan and Huron, which in turn get perhaps a third of their supply from Lake
Superior. It takes many months for the precipitation and run-off in these lakes
to reach Lake Ontario. When these lakes are full, Ontario may anticipate by
several months abundant water : When these lakes are low, a possible deficiency
in Lake Ontario is forecast. The controlled outflow from Iake Erie will always
91739—24—PT 2 73
1402 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
be partially determined by Ontario's needs. Within its own Watershed, as
Well as in the watersheds of the upper lakes, the depth of snowfall will help
to forecast the supply of March and April. It should be emphasized that the
Conditions for comprehensive control are simpler for Lake Ontario than for any
of the other lakes by reason of its terminal position. Its variations of outflow
affect no other lake.
I should like to go over this report in very much detail. It is
rather exhaustive, and I think it touches on the vital elements con-
cerned in this matter of utilizing a great basin like Lake Ontario
to Save up the water when we have opulent water supply in the Lakes
to make certain that we shall not have a meager, lean flow in the St.
Lawrence River.
Now, I am not alone in this matter of regulation, although I would
like to think of myself as something of a pioneer. But in the report
of the engineers for the St. Lawrence waterway, Colonel Wooten was
the American engineer—an officer of the Corps of Engineers—as-
signed to study the St. Lawrence waterway to the sea in conjunction
with Mr. Bowden, the Canadian engineer. Colonel Wooten became
very much interested in the matter of regulation, and I understand
spent a great deal of his own personal time on the problem, and he
personally writes the report which is contained in Senate Document
179, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session. This is entitled “St
Lawrence waterway; report of the United States and Canadian
Government Engineers on the improvement of the St. Lawrence
River from Montreal to Lake Ontario made to the International
Joint Commission.” ... * *
I want to review as rapidly as I may Colonel Wooten's conclu-
sions - -
The CHAIRMAN. That is the report of what year? -
Mr. SHENEHON. This is for 1921. This report of Colonel Wooten
was dated June 24, 1921.
The CHAIRMAN. A report to the joint commission?
Mr. SHENEHON. To the International Joint Commission; yes. .
On page 45, paragraph 2, he says:
2. Lake Ontario has an area. Of Such extent that depth of 1 foot over its Water
surface provides sufficient storage to maintain a flow of almost exactly 80,000
cubic feet per second for one month. As the mean net supply of the lake for the
past 62 years has been about 249,000 cubic feet per Second, it is evident that an
entire stoppage of flow of the St. Lawrence for one month of mean supply
would cause a rise in Lake Ontario of slightly more than 3 feet. -
You will observe he uses 249,000 where I gave you 240,000. That
is a little variation that might occur between two engineers in a
matter of this kind. [Reading:]
The effect of the great storage capacity of Lake Ontario and the upper lakes
is to cause an excellent natural regulation of the St. Lawrence River and to
give it a much more uniform flow than can be found in rivers not provided
with such reservoirs. This natural regulation can be somewhat improved by
artificial means, but the extent of the possible improvement is limited, and
nothing approaching uniformity either in the levels of Lake Ontario or the
flow of the St. Lawrence River can be attained.
That was found to be true in my own investigation. We can not
get any exact regulation either in the level of the lake or the outflow.
Reading further from the report:
An improvement of the St. Lawrence River, which includes the dredging of
the Galop Rapids and the construction of a dam with gates which will enable
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1403
the water above the dam to be held at the level of Lake Ontario if desired,
and which, on the other hand, can be opened so as to pass the greatest flood
flows which may occur in the river, gives a means of exercising as Complete
a control of the level of Lake Ontario and the flow of the St. Lawrence River
as the conflicting interests involved will permit.
I want to call attention to the fact that he includes in his report
the project of the dredging of the Galop Rapids so as to make the
natural outgrow bigger, to avoid high stages; and the only reason
for avoiding high stages is that you are holding your lake at a
higher level for deeper draft navigation and for storage. The ad-
vantage he mentions as gained at Galop Rapids was gained at Sault
i. Marie by the building of the water-power canals, as explained
y me.
The question to be considered, then, is how the control afforded by
the dam may most advantageously be exercised. [Reading:]
In Studying this question the purpose has been to determine rules for cori-
trol, the consistent application of which, if they had been in effect since 1860,
Would not have caused the level of Lake Ontario to rise higher or drop lower
than the extreme levels actually reached, but would also have increased the
flow of the St. Lawrence during low-water periods, particularly during the
autumn months when Montreal Harbor and the ship channel below it are
usually at their least depths. The rules which seem best adapted to the needs
Of the situation are embodied in a diagram attached hereto.
He has specific, graphic diagrams to show just what to do each
month of the year when the level of the lake is at a certain point.
[Reading:
By these rules,the flow is made dependent upon the elevation of Lake Ontario.
As the elevation of Lake Erie gives an indication as to whether the supply
for the ensuing months will be greater Or less than normal, a study was made
to see what weight, if any, Should be given to its stage in determining the
flow of the St. Lawrence River. In the course of this study it was observed
that Lakes Erie and Ontario have their cycles of high and low water so nearly
simultaneously that, if suitable weight be given to the stage of Lake Ontario
in determining the flow of the St. Lawrence, no consideration need ordinarily be
given to the stage of Lake Erie. -
* , * º
You see how simply that works out. You have the elevation of
Lake Ontario and the month is May. . The diagram tells you how
much water to release. In testing out the rules with the levels of
the lakes from 1860 down to 1921 he found that they would have
no lower water than they had in a state of nature, and no higher
under these rules, and it is very remarkable that Colonel Wooten in
his discussion seems to give weight to making the flow of the St.
Lawrence uniform rather than making the levels of Lake Ontario
uniform. - - w
That is what we do when we want to get more water power out
of a stream rather than better navigation. But he does contribute
the flow in the fall of the year so that Montreal Hârbor—and of
course the whole St. Lawrence River itself at all these points where
it may be low—is benefited. Then paragraph 6, at page 46:
The rules proposed herein for determining the discharge to be permitted
for any given month may be briefly stated as follows: The flow will always
be maintained at 210,000 cubic feet per Second or more, and will never be
allowed to exceed 320,000 cubic feet per Second. Between these limits the
flow depends upon the elevation of Lake Ontario at the beginning of the
month and is read directly from the diagram. The flow once determined is
maintained unchanged throughout the month, although in actual practice it
might be found desirable to regulate it every 10 days.
1404 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Regulation every 10 days is my own recommendation in my report
of 1919, two years earlier than this report. In paragraph 9, page
46, he states: r i
The greatest beneficial effect is shown in the low-water period of 1895 to:
1897, when the minimum flow under regulation would have dropped to 210,-
000 cubic feet per second and the level of Lake Ontario would have fallen to
243.67. Under the conditions which actually existed the minimum flow during
this period was 186,000 cubic feet per second and the lowest level of Lake
Cºntario was 243.41. i *-
That shows a gain for the volume of flow in that river of 24,000
cubic feet per second, and that means that the primary power in
the stream has increased from the power coming from that volume
of flow. The level was pulled down to nearly what it was in a
state of nature, in Ontario, on the assumption that waterpower
needed the water more than navigation needed it. Then he showed
that the maximum elevation was a little less in the regulation than
it would have been in a state of nature. That is, about 4 inches
lower. In paragraph 10 he says: - f
The effect of regulation would have been generally to increase the discharge
during the fall months, when it is ordinarily low. This effect is most notice-
able in November and to a less extent in October. Of the 61 Octobers con-
sidered the regulated flow would have been below 240,000 cubic feet per
second for 11 months, as compared to 22 months in which the unregulated
flow was below that quantity. In the 61 Novembers the regulated flow would
have been below 240,000 cubic feet per second for 9 months, as against 30
months for the unregulated flow. Considering only months in which the un-
regulated flow would have been less than 250,000 cubic feet per second, the
regulation would have increased it by an average of 15,000 cubic feet per
second for November and an average of 11,000 cubic feet per second for
October. This would have resulted in a beneficial increase in depth at Mon-
treal during those months. . *
In my own report the improvement in the four months is some-
what greater than indicated by Colonel Wooten, but in my own
report I gave the principal weight to the needs of navigation rather
than water power, and that is a matter of adjustment that needs
to be worked out very carefully. Colonel Wooten appears to have
worked for water power and Shenehon appears to have worked for
navigation, although Shenehon did not neglict to send more water
down the St. Lawrence River during the ice season so that water
power would also receive a very considerable benefit. H
The diagram of Colonel Wooten is printed here and I will simply
hold it up for your examination, to show you how simple a thing
may be used to regulate so tremendous a mill pond as Lake Ontario
and Secure advantages to navigation and to water power. And there
is no doubt expressed by Colonel Wooten as to the entire feasibility
of accomplishing this. . . . r
I may say that in the scheme of the engineers for the St. Lawrence
waterway they dredge out the Galop Rapids, as I have mentioned
before, and they put the regulating dam down at Waddington, at
the head of the Rapide Plat. I myself have taken soundings all
through the Rapide Plat and it is beautiful, hard, red sandstone,
an excellent place for the location of regulating works on bed rock.
At this point the St. Lawrence would have a fall, I think, of
about 18 feet—at the point of the regulating works—and in that
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1405
drop there would be no water power development in the original
engineers’ construction.
Mr. HULL. Is that on Canadian soil or on American soil?
Mr. SHENEHON. The boundary line follows down the main channel.
Mr. HULL. Half and half Ż
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. The Little River I spoke of before, that
was dammed before the Civil War, is an American channel. At that
point Ogden Island is an American island. The Canadian engineer
also reported on regulation, and his report is a little
Mr. HULL (interrupting). Can I ask you a question just to satisfy
my own mind? Are these regulating works you are figuring on in
Ontario similar to the ones in Superior or different?
Mr. SHENEHON. I imagine that they are a different type, but I
have not seen the plans. The chances are that they are a little differ-
ent form of gates.
Mr. HULL. But on the same general order?
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, yes; the same general principle.
Now, the Canadian engineer, Mr. Bowden, speaks of the regula-
tion as taking place part of the year at the Rapids Plat and part of
the year farther down—down near Massena—and his reason for that
is the winter slope under the ice, which causes a drop down of about
6 feet. But the most noticeable thing about Mr. Bowden’s report is
that he uses his regulating works to shut off part of the flow, prob-
ably in December or January, to slow up the velocity of the water,
so that it will freeze over. The formation of frazil will be less.
He expresses no doubt as to the ability to construct regulating works,
and he mentioned Chicago in his report. It is very difficult for
some people to write anything without mentioning Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Wooten mentioned Chicago also.
Mr. SHENEHON. Colonel Wooten makes the statement that in his
computations he had always taken into consideration the diversion at
Chicago. He takes the natural flow of the St. Lawrence instead of
the flow lessened by the diversion at Chicago. In my own computa-
tions I used the flow lessened by the 10,000 feet diverted at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. I notice what Colonel Wooten says at page 47
in the eleventh paragraph. 4. w
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that is right.
The CHAIRMAN. What has become of Colonel Wooten; is he still
with the engineers?
Mr. SHENEHON. He is at some school, I think, where the engineer
officers go. I am not sure just where he is. General Bixby could
probably tell us.
General BIXBY. I do not know where he is at present. They have
moved around a good deal recently, and I have lost track of him.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am informed that he is in the War College at
the present time.
At page 62 of this report Mr. Bowden says:
In the regulation herein suggested the discharges of the river have been
increased by the amounts of water said to have been diverted at Chicago, and
therefore the results are as they would have been had no diversion taken place.
Should a diversion of 5,000 cubic feet per second be allowed in future it
would probably lower the average elevation of Lake Ontario about 0.23 foot.
That would be a little under 3 inches. Of course, it would not. I
want you to get your grip on this as an engineering proposition.
1406 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
After building a system of regulating works and a canal which con-
verts the whole St. Lawrence River into a series of ponds instead of
a series of rapids and holding Lake Ontario at any elevation you
wish, limited only by your desire to protect riparian rights, Mr.
Bowden makes the statement that if Chicago had taken that water
out there would have been a lowering of 0.23 foot. Absolutely an
€I’I’OI’.
Mr. MoRGAN. You mean it is an error so far as the lowering is
concerned?
Mr. SHENEHON. There would be no lowering whatever in any of
the lakes due to Chicago's taking out the water after building regu-
lating works. Instead of a lowering you would have water levels
higher by more than that amount.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that statement needs explanation to
this extent: If you take Chicago or any other point, your regulating
works would perform the same office and the water would be just
that much higher by the amount that you ceased to divert. •
Mr. MoRGAN. I understand that.
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me say that the top of your gate might be
0.23 of a foot higher than otherwise. No limit is set to the high
lake level after regulating works are built except the avoidance of
riparian damage. The lake might be kept 10 feet higher if shore
property were not damaged.
At the top of page 63 Mr. Bowden makes a statement that is tre-
mendously interesting for those who feel that we will regulate all
our lakes within a few years. He says:
The regulation as proposed is susceptible of improvement by applying further
connections derived from the consideraton of less direct factors. Under actual
operating conditions the amount of water held in Lakes Huron and Superior Will
undoubtedly be worked in as a factor to determine discharge.
Then he states:
Had the outlet of Lakes Huron and Superior not been altered previous to
1895, it is probable that the flow would not have fallen as low as it did during
that period. It shows a regulation that can be carried out with the Works pro-
posed in the St. Lawrence,
I think he means the level of the lake would not have fallen. That
brings in a controversional point as to whether or not the discharge
of the St. Clair River has been increased by artificial means. There
was a claim that Lakes Michigan and Huron had been lowered about
a foot by changes in the regimen of the St. Clair River.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not understand that statement you have just
read. It looks as if it meant that he thought that just the opposite
of what we have been considering has been effected by the regulating
works, that the lake had been lowered instead of raised.
Mr. SHENEHON (reading):
Had the outlets of Lakes Huron and Superior not been altered previous to
1895, it is probable that the flow would not have fallen as low as it did during
that period.
I think instead of flow he meant lake level, and yet there was
a change in the flow of Lake Superior that I did not explain, be-
cause it would take rather too long. The building of the bridge
piers across the head of the rapids had a tendency to store water
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1407
to the detriment of the lake below while the rise was going on,
and there were some other small changes.
The CHAIRMAN. In interpreting his language as he uses it in-
stead of substituting other language, he seems to make the state-
ment that the lake did fall lower instead of being increased in eleva-
tion owing to the regulating works.
Mr. SHENEHON. You see at that time, the time he is speaking
of prior to 1895—there were not any regulating works.
The CHAIRMAN. What does he mean by “altered ”; had the out-
lets of Superior and Huron not been altered previous to 1895?
Mr. SHENEHON. I can point out to you in these volumes where
the board of engineers makes a statement that the regimen of the
St. Clair River had been changed after the high water of 1886 and
prior to 1895, so that now the Lakes are about a foot lower than
they would have been. That, I imagine, is what he has reference
to. I have not always accepted that fact, although I am going to
speak of that a little bit later.
It is very remarkable that a Canadian engineer of eminence—as
I assume Mr. Bowden is—should give all his time to the considera-
tion of the ice conditions in the St. Lawrence River at a time when
there is no navigation there. His concluding paragraph is:
More uniform quantities of water can be discharged from Lake Ontario
in ordinary winters by assisting the formation of an ice cover from the foot
of Galops Rapids to the Ogden Island Dam than by not doing so, and an
ice cover between Ogden Island Dam and the Long Sault Dam is essential,
and no attempt should be made to prevent it. t
I think it will be observed here that both the Canadian and the
American engineer, Colonel Wooten, accept all the principles of
storage—perhaps Colonel Wooten in particular—and the budgeting
of the water, which means to expend it as you might expend money in
a budget system, as set down in my report of 1919.
Now, I would like to speak briefly, because it really enters into
the discussion, about the St. Lawrence deep waterway to the sea,
and I want to prelude that by a statement that it is probable that
the lake carriers, the Pittsburgh Steamship Co., all those largely
interested in the Great Lakes system, will work for 25-foot naviga-
tion in the Great Lakes in the next few years. -
What I want to accentuate here is the fact that the Canadians
believe that this waterway to the sea is assured and that they evi-
dently have their minds very definitely fixed on the water power
in that stream, as indicated by Mr. Bowden's method of regulation
and also Colonel Wooten's method of regulation.
A report was made by a board of engineers on deep waterways in
1900. I have already mentioned that report. I have it before me,
in two volumes. This board consisted of Mr. Alfred Noble, George
Y. Wisner (who is father of the present distinguished consulting
engineer of the sanitary district), and Colonel Raymond. They
were the members of this board, and their appointment, with appro-
priations from Congress that, in the end aggregated $485,999, fol-
lowed the recommendation of the earlier commission that I men-
tioned before, consisting of President Angell, of the University of
Michigan, John Russell, and Mr. Lyman Cooley. This earlier inves-
tigation was to block out in a large, sketchy way the possibility of
1408 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
deep-waterway connections to the Sea, and this later board, appointed
about 1896 and reporting in 1900, took up the detailed examination
of the routes. -
The CHAIRMAN. Was President Angell the only engineer on the
earlier board & -
Mr. WISNER. Mr. Cooley was the engineer.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I see.
Mr. SHENEHON. And he was, perhaps, one of the engineers of the
sanitary district at the time !
Mr. WISNER. No; not at that time.
The CHAIRMAN. He was the sole engineer member, was he
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Was the survey of a route across the State of
New York by way of Oswego made at the same time as this 1900
report, or was that made subsequently
Mr. SHENEHON. That was part of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, that was included in it? -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I think in that first volume you will find a
concise statement.
The recommended route, Mr. Chairman, was from Lake Erie at
Buffalo, into the Niagara River as far as La Salle; then by-passing
the rapids and cataracts and reentering the river at Lewiston, and
then by Lake Ontario to Oswego; then climbing up to the line of
the present barge canal and descending through the Mohawk Valley
to the Hudson, and from the Hudson to the port of New York.
I may say that under instructions of Congress all waterways to
the sea were to terminate in the port of New York. I mention this
here in a preliminary way simply to show that Lake Ontario, whose
regulations or the maintenance of whose level we have been discuss-
ing, is involved in the navigation as far as Oswego.
And another route followed down the St. Lawrence River to the
foot of Lake St. Frances, which is in Canadian territory, and from
Lake St. Frances it made a cut through Canadian territory to Lake
Champlain, and followed down by Lake Champlain to the Hudson,
reaching the port of New York.
I may say that not only was the regulation of Lake Erie involved
in this scheme but the regulation of Lake Champlain. Whenever
engineers of the type of Mr. Noble, or Mr. Wisner operated they
regulated and raised the water surface rather than deepening by
dredging. It is a very simple proposition. This board estimated
routes for 21-foot navigation and also for 30-foot navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. In accordance with this plan of a waterway from
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, page 55, the total cost is $250,000,000,
which multiplied by three for present prices
Mr. SHENEHON. No; that is too much; if you take double that will
be enough. I think perhaps from Duluth down to the Hudson a
little over $300,000,000 is the estimate, and they show the difference
in cost when you regulate the water surfaces and when you do not
for a 30-foot channel. There is a difference of about $9,000,000 as to
whether you do or do not regulate the water surfaces.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not suppose anyone at the present time would
consider over a 23-foot channel, would they?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1409
Mr. SHENEHON. I think we must contemplate a 25-foot channel
in the Great Lakes at a very early date, Mr. Chairman, and with
regulation in effect we will have more than that depth over the sills
of the two new locks at Sault Ste. Marie; and with regulation in
effect we will have a 25-foot depth in the Livingstone Channel at
the foot of the Detroit River.
The International Joint Commission report of 1921 estimates
25-foot navigation and 30-foot navigation. The change that comes
in the St. Lawrence River for about 100 miles is only a canalization—
that is, about 100 miles in the St. Lawrence from the Galops Rapids
to Montreal. And this development or canalization changes this
river, which is now a series of the most beautiful rapids in the world,
to simply a series of ponds, and with water power developed at
each of the drops. - t
These ponds are simply slack-water pools, and the elevation of
any one of the ponds is absolutely independent of any diversion at
Chicago. The diversion at Chicago ceases to be an element in any
respect except for water power. The water will have some loss. The
height of each of the Great Lakes is limited under regulation only
to the level where riparian damage is not prohibitive. -
In the St. Lawrence waterway to the sea the first pool is above
Montreal. The Lachine Rapids come in at Montreal, and Lake
St. Louis will be the regulated pool. It might lighten our minds
to stop for a moment and find out how they happen to be called the
Lachine Rapids. Are you familiar with the origin of the name,
Mr. Chairman Ż * *
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am possibly not correct in what I have heard
as to the origin of the name, but this is the story as I have heard it.
These early explorers were looking for a route to the Orient, and
when they came up the St. Lawrence about 700 miles and reached
these rapids they thought they were getting pretty close to China.
I think it was Cartier, I am not sure of that, who had prepared a
very elaborate silk robe for himself, so he might be presented to the
Emperor of China. And so they called the rapids Lachine, the
Chinese Rapids. -
The next pool above Lake St. Louis is the St. Francis pool, and
that extends to the Canadian boundary. The backwater in Lake
St. Francis extends to the international section; and then the inter-
national pool from Cornwall to Ogden Island; and then above is
the upper St. Lawrence, this stately river I have already described.
coming out of Lake Ontario. Under this scheme the elevation of
any one of these pools will be absolutely arbitrary, determined by
the engineers instead of by God Almighty. -
I have already pointed out the fact that in developing water power
the commission engineers omitted to utilize 18 feet of head at Rapide
Plat, at the side of the regulating works. I suppose some sacrifice of
head is desirable in order to get the flow, even with a very long dam.
But this 18 feet of head out of 92 feet in all represents a very con-
siderable block of water power, more than would be lost by the diver-
sion of 10,000 cubic feet per second at Chicago. They felt so rich
in water power that they tossed away in this engineering method
91739–24–pt 2–74
1410 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Water power amounting to over 220,000 horsepower or more, which
; more than the loss coming from Chicago's diversion of 10,000 cubic
eet.
I have already shown the complete regulation of Lake Superior
and stated to you that notwithstanding the fact that 50,000 cubic
feet have been diverted in Lake Superior for the purposes of water
power, and that 60,000 cubic feet per second will ultimately be
diverted from Lake Superior, that Superior with regulating works
is a better navigable body of water than it was before. I have
mentioned the compensation at Massena, at Waddington, and at
the Gut; and the proposed regulation of the St. Lawrence and Lake
Ontario. But the most important waterways carrying the highest
tonnage begin at the foot of the locks at Sault Ste. Marie and the
lower St. Marys River; and they consist of Lake Michigan and
Lake Huron, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River,
and Lake Erie, and this whole long waterway of nearly 700 miles,
has been absolutely neglected so far as the maintenance of water
levels is concerned, while various artificial engineering works have
tended to deplete the water surface, and now the recurrence of the
low water of 1895 has come. The water supply of the Great Lakes
System has grown very meager, while the accumulated water has
been allowed to drain off into the sea. I am not sure that I men-
tioned the widespread effect of this drought—that in the water
power I have been building on the west slope of the Sierras in
California—in the El Dorado region, where Mark Twain and Bret
Harte lived and wrote—the country made famous by the gold
mining of 1849—we had about 20 inches of snow in the high Sierras,
where normally we ought to have 15 feet, and that the Mississippi
River at Minneapolis in January last had its lowest recorded flow,
about 600 cubic feet a second, where the former low record was
about 1,000 feet.
So this lack of water supply in the Great Lakes might reason-
ably have been anticipated. I anticipated it myself 25 years ago,
and ºned attention to the fact and predicted it later during that
€I’IOCl.
p I have stated to you that Lakes Michigan and Huron for this
year's navigation are likely to be 33 inches lower than they should
be, and that the diversion at Chicago is responsible for 5 inches,
Lake Erie diversions are responsible for 2 inches, so that 26 inches
are due to other causes than the diversion in the various canals and
for all used water power at Niagara. Chicago’s contribution to this
low level is 15 per cent, or one-sixth or one-seventh. Last year,
1923, these same lakes were 29 inches low at a time when we had
a tonnage of 92,000,000 tons coming through the Detroit River.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is the Detroit River. There was 121,-
000,000 tons, but the rest went down to Lake Michigan.
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, I want to call attention to the microscopic
care being exercised in the maintenance of the levels of the Great
Lakes. While these big things I have been talking about have been
absolutely neglected, much attention has been given to the loss
coming from the diversion of water for sanitary purposes at Chi-
cago, for a lowering of 5 inches with a great deal of worry and

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1411
anxiety. But perhaps the best illustration of this microscopic
Cà.I’ê
The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that was due to the fact that
the layman can see diversion but the layman knows nothing about
the effect of regulating works, and laymen constitute 9,999 out of
every 10,000 people?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is my job now to en-
deavor to bring some of these things clearly to the attention of the
laymen who are most influential in remedying the situation. But
I want to show you how microscopically we have viewed this sit-
uation. &
It appears that it was desirable for the navigation of the Great
Lakes by the lake carriers to have two channels, (one for upbound
vessels and the other for downbound vessels) toward the head of the
St. Clair River. I pointed out earlier that this is a difficult reach
of the river for navigation, that it is dangerous, that many accidents
have occurred there; and it is very proper that they should have a
duplicate channel. So they excavated a channel about a mile long,
with a depth of 21 feet, and they concluded that that might lower
Lakes Michigan and Huron half an inch, and so they made applica-
tion to the International Joint Commission to construct a weir or
sill in the bottom of the St. Clair River downstream from this cut.
And this submerged weir was to cost $6,000, and with a maintenance
charge of about $1,000 a year. That would be a total cost per half
an inch of about $6,600. They were going to hold up Lakes Michigan
and Huron by this half inch. An application was made and the
order and opinion were delivered in 1917, the application being made
in 1916. And the latest report we have indicates that they have
dredged the channel and taken the material and built a sill across
the bottom of the river, and they are making observations to see
whether or not Michigan and Huron have been lowered, and they
have calculated that it has been about compensated.
Mr. NEWTON. Where is that? i
Mr. SHENEHON. That is at Port Huron, toward the head of the
St. Clair River. I simply want to show you with what care—
Mr. MANSFIELD. I have not been able to attend all the hearings.
Has there been evidence as to the plan of these weirs, how they are
constructed?
The CHAIRMAN. The only plan I think we have had is a description
by Mr. Shenehon yesterday of the regulating works at the Soo, and
then this morning Colonel Wooten's diagram accompanying his
report as to his suggestion in the St. Lawrence.
Mr. NEwTON. Are you going to discuss what would be practical
regulating works in the Detroit River or between Huron and Erie?
Mr. SHENEHON: I shall simply touch on that. I am going to make
a very daring proposition to you gentlemen, or a suggestion as to how
we might handle the Great Lakes system. ->
Now, one good thing I think is indicated by this Port Huron
business, that when anything is done that interferes with the level
of the Great Lakes that it should be an international affair. I con-
cur in that.
1412 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Now, I think perhaps I have gone far enough to raise the question
of where the responsibility lies for the neglect of this tremendous
right of way of the Great Lakes. It is difficult for me to place this
responsibility. I think I would rather place it on the lake carriers.
With the Lakes 33 inches lower than they ought to be for this season,
I think the responsibility for low levels of the Lakes belongs to
the lake carriers. I am sure it does not belong on the shoulders of
the Canadians, because their commerce is only about 7 per cent of
the commerce of the United States, only about Seven million as
against ninety-three million, and I am not prepared to believe that
they have obstructed regulation.
The CHAIRMAN. There probably has not been obstruction by any-
body, has there? If this is practical it should be done. There has
simply been neglect.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is the point I am making. You see we
are making a criminal out of Illinois, one of our greatest States,
and Chicago, one of our greatest cities, while somebody, or some
body, is responsible for a much more serious situation. I want to
make that very, clear: That there is nothing new about the sug-
gestion I am going to make now; I made it in an address I made
in 1908, and I suggested it in an official report in 1900: but what I
am getting at is that we have the lake carriers represented by their
very eloquent counsel, Mr. Harvey Goulder, speaking emphatically
about the lowering of the Great Lakes—5 inches or 5% inches—by
the Sanitary District of Chicago for the sanitary purposes of the
great city, for the creation of a waterway to the Gulf of Mexico.
And he hesitates in any criticism of the lowering of the Lakes—some-
thing over 2 inches—through the Welland Canal diversion, and the
lowering of the Lakes and inch or two by the use of water for power
at Niagara Falls. Now, it is not Chicago's 5 inches and not the
lowering from the Welland Canal diversion in Lake Erie, and not
the lowering because of power use at Niagara Falls: it is the
neglect of remedial work and the permitting of the surplus waters
of the Great Lakes to go to the ocean without serving as they
should. There is a lack of vision and guardianship somewhere.
The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps that is to be attributed partly to this
committee?
Mr. SHENEHON. I may get to that before I am through : but I
have to be very respectful in what I say to the committee.
We have a situation, and after that situation is remedied, after
we take care of the 26 inches of lowering chargeable to God Al-
mighty's diversion—because the supply of water in the Great Lakes
is low, we do not need worry about these little artificial diversions.
In the end these artificial diversions permit us to hold the Lakes at
a higher level than without them.
Mr. NEwTon. Do you understand that the lowering on account of
the Chicago diversion is now complete? -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; except as they complete the diversion. Not
to exceed half an inch more. But, of course, the Lakes are going
to come back again. This low period is a temporary thing, just as
the 1895 period was. But after the lake has gone down so that the
amount going out of the St. Clair River is less, because the depth
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1413
is 5% inches less and the velocity is a little less—the lowering
stops. t
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, when it equalizes itself
Mr. NEWTON. That is provided you have your maximum with-
drawal. * * -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course then the Lakes would still be subject
to the same fluctuations from the natural conditions from year to
year.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, there are two remedies for that, are there
not? If you lower your harbors, if you deepen your harbors.
Mr. NEWTON. Deepen the channels.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if you deepen the channels
Mr. SHENEHON. I am going to touch on that a little later. -
We have a statement in the Warren report that the harbors and
channels in the Lakes and the St. LáWrence would cost about $12,-
500,000 a foot, pre-war, to dredge and about $25,000,000 now, I
think is the inference. - * >
Mr. NEWTON. And the other remedy is regulation. t
Mr. SHENEHON. And the other remedy is regulation, yes; and the
value of regulation is that every little inlet, every little town that
can not afford to have its harbor dredged can afford to have its
water surface raised by regulation. And if there is a shoal in the
middle of the lake where a vessel might strike in low water, the
vessel may not strike if we hold the water up to its best level.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What would be the comparative cost of the two
propositions?
Mr. SHENEHON. Regulating works for the Niagara River have
been figured out at three quarters of a million dollars prior to the
war. In 1919, my last report, reported about a million and quarter.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to this in passing.
The Warren report refers simply to Federal work, the deepening
of the channels of the outer harbors. Now, the work in the inner
harbors has cost a great deal more than the Federal work; but it
has been done by the municipalities, and so does not figure in that
estimate. I have, as a matter of fact, at the request of Congressman
Deal, obtained a partial estimate of the whole work, and I will
present that before we finish. The figures are staggering.
Mr. WISNER. Mr. Chairman, at Chicago the Government did
considerable work on the inside harbor. -
The CHAIRMAN. There have been a few exceptions, but, generally
speaking, the Government has not done any work on the inner har-
bors. The most notable instances where the Federal Government
has done such work is the River Rouge at Detroit. We have spent
about $700,000 there; and we have spent quite large sums at about
six other places, but only six at the outside, and we are just adopt-
ing one inner project in the present bill.
Mr. NEWTON. Which one is that 2
The CHAIRMAN. That is at Seattle, Wash., and the circumstances
there were very exceptional. The city had done a tremendous amount
of work at an enormous cost and the work remaining to be done is
# *
1414 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
work which should be done by the Government, entirely aside from
the fact that they had made an enormous contribution. * *
Mr. NEWTON. And we had not done any outer harbor work there?
The CHAIRMAN. No; the Government has not done any outer
harbor work there; and this is work we could do much better than
they could. -
Mr. SHENEHON. I was on the question of responsibility. Pos-
sibly that is not an engineering affair, but I do want to discuss it a
little bit. * -
I am very certain if the lake carriers had come down to you with
all the insistence and all the demonstrations of need with which they
have come down on other occasions that they would have gotten
what they wished. - *
The CHAIRMAN. The only trouble is we would have first had
staring us in the face this Warren report, which says that regulating
works are problematical in their effects, that it is a new field and
experimental to a large degree. We would have had, in order to
reach a conclusion, to have summoned prominent engineers, like
yourself, who believe in their efficacy, and that has been demon-
strated by the experiment at the Soo.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think the answer to what you say, Mr. Chairman,
is that if less attention was paid to the many pages in the Warren
report that were written by Mr. Richmond and by Colonel Warren
himself, and more to the recommendations of a very able Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, signed by the present Chief of
Engineers or one who will shortly be—General Taylor—that you
would have been convinced that the regulating works should be im-
mediately installed. And as I discuss the problem of water power at
Niagara Falls you will see how useful these regulating works are.
The CHAIRMAN. I am going to say to you that I think the discus-
sion of it at this time is most helpful for general use by the committee,
and that it is helpful not alone in this particular question that is
being considered but in a very general way.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, the point I am trying to make—and I do
not wish to lay too much stress on responsibility—is this conspiracy
against Chicago as it appears to me—these gentlemen coming in here
who excuse the diversion of the Welland Canal—and I do too, because
I am going to show you it is beneficial—and excuse these diversions at
Niagara Falls—and I do too agree with them. I am pointing out all
these things and showing you that if Chicago is a criminal, then the
Welland Canal is a criminal and Niagara is a criminal; there is no
great difference in the effects upon the lake levels as to where the
water is taken out.
The CHAIRMAN. The only difference between the different diver-
sions is the claim that Chicago has not been authorized to take any
water—about which I am not expressing any opinion—that is the
claim, whereas there is no question that the diversion at Niagara is
authorized.
Mr. HULL. I think you are almost convinced, or must be, that this
treaty would give Chicago the 10,000 cubic feet per second, and that
is what you fellows are working on at Niagara and the Welland
Canal, are you not? r -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1415
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding of Mr. Root's position is that
InOt º was Chicago not included in the treaty but was not even dis-
CUISSéC1.
Mr HULL. But you are not going to get away with that with fellows
who have listened. Everybody understands that the reason Mr. Root
didn’t give that up was because he was not going to give up his
claim that Michigan was not a boundary water.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not saying that is not so. All I was doing
was to answer your questions.
Mr. Hull. And you answered it different from the way you really
believed.
The CHAIRMAN. You asked me whether it was included in the
treaty, and I simply say that one of the witnesses from Chicago, Mr.
Behan, read this testimony of Mr. Root, and I was quoting. -
Mr. HULL. Yes; but that is not what he meant and everybody
knows it.
Mr. NEWTON. Has there been any act of Congress under which
those other diversions are authorized?
The CHAIRMAN. Not except the approval of the treaty by the
Senate, and, of course, the Senate has sole jurisdiction of treaties,
against which we have the original power to appropriate money.
Mr. NEwTON. Then if it is purely a treaty matter why is it not
just as necessary to have legislation one place as another? Or if
it is purely a treaty matter perhaps legislation is not necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t quite catch that.
Mr. NEwTON. It seems to me if no legislation is necessary for
New York then it is only a question of interpretation, it seems to me.
The CHAIRMAN. But legislation is necessary. I am not arguing,
and I did not bring this up as a disputed matter. There has been
the only legislation there could be on an international matter. You
can not have legislation except in this sense: After a treaty has
been negotiated by the Executive and confirmed by the Senate, that
is the law of the land. Now, Congress has a "right to repeal that
legislation at any time by the terms of the treaty. Of course, good
faith would require that they should not do it except for cause; but
they have the undoubted power. So we would have the right to
repeal the diversion at Niagara at any time. Now, on the other
proposition, all I answered—and I am Sorry I got into a discussion
at all, because I did not intend to get into a dispute—was that my
understanding of what Secretary Root said—and I am simply giv-
ing my understanding and every member of the committee has a
... right to his own understanding—is that the Senator said it was not
included in the treaty. &
Mr. BARRETT. Well, you do not take the position that there never
was any legislation covering your diversions there, do you?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. BARRETT. And that all you have is the treaty?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. BARRETT. There is the Burton Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. The treaty itself would not give any power to the
Niagara people to divert water. ſº
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it gives it to the United States.
1416 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, Etc.
Mr. BARRETT. It gives the United States the right to divert water
at Niagara for power purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. And then we passed the general water power
bill, and then a license was applied for and a 50-year license granted.
Mr. BARRETT. And you know for many years after the expiration
of the Burton Act Congress did something which to me seems novel;
they passed resolutions attempting to revive a completely extinct act.
The CHAIRMAN. What we did was this: Those resolutions were
introduced by me personally. The Burton Act gave the right to
divert only 15,600 cubic feet out of our 20,000 cubic feet of water,
and war necessities came along and we needed to use all the power.
So annually we introduced a resolution for the use during the year
only of the remaining 4,400 cubic feet, and that was granted only to
the extent of the installed machinery. They were not permitted to
install new machinery but they were permitted to use such part of
the 4,400 cubic feet with the machinery already installed as they
could, and they continued until the license was granted under the
water power act.
Mr. BARRETT. Well, that was not continuous, Mr. Chairman. You
had several open stages when the War Department granted permis-
sion without reference to any resolution. -
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think that was continuous from the time I
had anything to do with it.
Mr. BARRETT. That may have been; but there were open spots
when the War Department granted it.
The CHAIRMAN. I rather think that is so, but that was before I
had anything to do with it. I am rather glad that the judge re-
minded me that I had failed to call attention to the general water-
power act and the license granted under that act. . .
Mr. SHENEHON. I am not going to discuss the legal aspects of the
treaty, but I shall give you some engineering facts to convince you
that what the treaty gave to the United States was not quite what
they intended.
I told you about this lowering of the St. Marys River, which is a
part of this great system of the Lakes above Port Huron, where a lock
built for 20-foot navigation in 1896 has about a foot and a half less
water over the sills than when it was built, owing to the building of
deep duplicate channels, and the effect of that is to put out of com-
mission two of the locks there. There remain only two available for
deep-craft navigation this season.
I took an attitude earlier that there had not been any change of
regimen in the St. Clair River; that I thought that was a mistake;
it was one of those things that got out and was premature. I took
that attitude in the Chicago Drainage Canal case. But the con-
tinual prevalence of low waters on Michigan and Huron for the past
10 years since begins to make me wonder whether I analyzed that ju-
dicially. If Lakes Michigan and Huron were held up to elevation
582 feet, which is practical, we would have in operation four locks
now instead of two.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the operation of four locks needed there?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1417
Mr. SHENEHON. I doubt it. I think the past year, which was a
low-water year, they put through eighty and some odd million tons;
So I imagine that they did get on with two locks.
Mr. HULL. Is that in the St. Clair River?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; that is the “Soo "locks in the St. Marys River.
There are no locks in the St. Clair River.
Now, we have a proposal to undo this small damage done by the
sanitary district to the Great Lakes, with our eyes microscopically
fixed on this one lowering coming from the diversion of the city of
Chicago, in a report of a board of engineers of which General Bixby
was a member in 1914. This, however, would not help very much in
the present situation of the Great Lakes. They proposed to raise
the levels a few inches by putting in submerged weirs, just as they
put in submerged weirs at Port Huron and raised the level half an
inch. Each weir accumulates a little rise, perhaps a half an inch.
The water is a little Swifter, and it gives a little rise on the upper
side. This proposal of 1914 was for a series of masonry weirs 5 or
6 feet high in the bed of the St. Clair River, at a cost of $325,000.
This would probably cost $500,000 or $600,000 now. But doubtless
at that price, or double that price, it would make good these navi-
gable waterways so far as this little lowering caused by Chicago is
concerned. But since 1914 10 more years have gone by, with nothing
done except this little half-inch business that I spoke about.
And this brings me to something left unfinished. I do want to
absolve this committee from any responsibility for things neglected,
because action should have been secured in 1900 or 1901. I want to
speak to General Bixby about that, too, about the responsibility
and the attitude of the Corps of Engineers toward the responsibility
for permitting a great waterway to become inefficient. I think their
attitude is that they are not promoters. They will call attention to
things in the course of their duty and report upon projects that they
have been ordered to report on, but they will not go ahead and make
suggestions outside of what they are called upon to consider.
The CHAIRMAN. No ; the practice is this, Mr. Shenehon. The thing
resolves itself into the duty of the Lower House. Any Member who
is so located that his district is interested in a waterway asks initially
for a survey, and the survey indicates what he thinks should be done.
Now, Congress either grants or refuses that survey for that work. If
they grant it, then it goes to the Corps of Engineers and they investi-
gate and report. Under the law the engineers can not of their own
motion make a report on anything that seems to them to be of great
importance; but I do not recollect of their having done that in any
way except upon a survey requested by a Member and adopted as a
law in a rivers and harbors bill.
Mr. NEwTON. I never read those engineering reports, they are too
big; but it seems to me that the engineers being the official represen-
tatives of the Government, supplied with funds and training, know
more about these water problems than any other agency of the Gov-
ernment; know first hand, as they have the opportunity to know, of
the needs of the Government, and they ought to have imposed upon
them the duty of calling the attention of Congress and initiating
legislation necessary to correct things such as the witness has called
attention to, and other matters throughout the country where water-
way problems are involved.
1418 ILLINois. AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right; but you can see how it does
not work out that way. †. Board of Engineers are very busy and
they are i. occupied and, in fact, they have to have all their
engineers to do their ordinary duties throughout the year.
Mr. MANSFIELD. They have troubles of their own.
General BIxBY. Mr. Shenehon referred to me and so I want to
make a reply. I can only speak for my own administration as Chief
of Engineers. During that administration we never made any re-
ports at all until they were called for by Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. That was my understanding.
'General BIXBY. And then we reported specifically on what Con-
gress asked us and we did not go beyond the instructions of Congress.
After we had made our report we ended all of our connection with
it until Congress made an appropriation in continuation
The CHAIRMAN. First, until Congress adopted your report.
General BIxBY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And then after the report was adopted until they
financed it by the appropriation of money.
General BIxBY. Yes. When they assigned work for us to do, then
we executed it, as Congress calls for, and that is as far as the engi-
neering department considered it should go and as far as it ever did
go during my administration.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the practice, Mr. Shenehon, but I
think we have rather got into a rut in it, and while the practice is an
exceedingly commendable one for many reasons, and has been for
years, that on the other hand if this committee at the beginning of
these sessions had the same kind of a document from the Chief of
Engineers, which the President gives to Congress in general, dealing
with those things that come within our jurisdiction, that it would
be helpful.
Mr. STRONG. I have before me a map prepared by the United
States Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways, dated June 30, 1900,
from which I find regulating works projected at the head of the
Niagara River. Now, the witness speaks of placing responsibility
for the neglect to build these regulating works, and I wanted to
suggest to him that he can not put his criticism in language too
caustic so far as I am concerned, because here we have it, 24 years
ago, the regulating works projected by the United States Board of
Engineers. -
he CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether those were regulating
works or not.
Mr. STRONG. It says so.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; they were. That is what I say, they should
have been built in 1900. am going to speak not caustically but
very constructively. I want to touch on this matter of the dignified
attitude taken by the Corps of Engineers which, as you say, Mr.
Chairman, is very commendable; but things have not been done
which ought to have been done.
When I was dean of engineering at the University of Minnesota
we had as dean of the medical school Doctor Wesbrook, who was
later president at Vancouver. We also had a very scholarly presi-
dent at Minnesota, Doctor Folwell, in the earlier days. Doctor Fol-
well felt that the University of Minnesota ought to move from the
city of Minneapolis and get out into the country, where there would
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1419
not be so many diversions for the students. Doctor Wesbrook said,
“Well, what did you do about it, Doctor Folwell”? And Doctor
Folwell replied, “I made a recommendation to the board of regents,
and there my responsibility ended.” *
Doctor Wesbrook’s comment was, “If I had wanted to move that
university out there, I would have eaten dirt to do it.” I think that
is the attitude we ought to take when we want something done that
ought to be done. In this 10-year period I was speaking of, since
1914, the loss in the Great Lakes system has been about $100,000,000.
I have spoken of the fact that †. Erie, being the shallowest of
the Lakes, perhaps, needs regulation more than any of the other
Lakes; and that we have an accumulation of lowerings there from
the water-power companies at Niagara Falls, from the Welland Canal,
and from Chicago, plus the lowerings coming from a deficient rain-
fall. Nature sometimes fails to help, leaves the ice out of the St.
Clair River and lets Huron and Michigan down and lifts Lake Erie
up. But ice, with a little dynamite, is not a difficult thing for engi-
neers. I have little fear of ice gorges that we can not dislodge.
I myself spent the years 1903 and 1904, in a steamer on Lake Erie,
and I regard myself as a friend of navigation. I was working to
make navigators’ charts at that time, and I used in a large way, for
the first time, the long wide drag or sweep for the detection of shoals,
a device which is now used all over the world. I used that in 1902
on the St. Lawrence River. So I am speaking as a friend of naviga-
tion and I am speaking for the maintenance of the greatest naviga-
tion system in the world. The Panama and the Suez Canals combined
do not equal the tonnage on the Great Lakes, and it means very much
in the wealth of two nations. So if I speak critically I shall not
speak caustically and I will try not to speak unkindly.
Now, what we can expect in the future is that Chicago's total lower-
ing of Lake Erie will be 5% inches; that the Welland Canal will lower
Erie over 2 inches—2.8 inches—that the Black Rock navigation lock
will lower it less than half an inch; the barge canal and Niagara
Falls diversions combined make about 3.2 inches; which means prac-
tically one foot lowering. . Now that is of the future.
When I speak of these things, of these lowerings occurring, I mean
if no compensation is made. In this statement I have in mind what
is known as the Chippewa or Grass Island Pool; that the water is
taken out and that no compensation is made. A suggestion may be
made that there has been compensation by dumping excavated mate:
rial; but there has not been any authorization by the International
Joint Commission, and any compensation that has been made may be
so trivial that a heavy river flow or ice will wipe it out.
Mr. ADCOCK. Do you mean 4% or 5% for Lake Erie.”
Mr. SHENEHON. Five and a half for Chicago, with 10,000 cubic
feet per second, there would be a lowering of 5% inches on Erie.
Mr. ADCOCK. On Erie?
Mr. SHENEHON. On Erie; yes. wº
Mr. HULL. In putting in these works in the Niagara River, if they
were put in, that would take care of the 5.8 inches, or whatever it is,
of the Welland Canal and the Niagara part, the same as it would at
Chicago; is not that correct?
1420 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. SHENEHON. It would take care of any lowering coming from
the power companies at Niagara, any diversion, 4,000 or 5,000 in the
Welland Canal, and the diversion at Chicago.
Mr. HULL. It would take care of all of that?
Mr. SHENEHON. It would take care of all of that and add two
inches or more besides.
The CHAIRMAN. We here have before us, as I understand it, only
the figures of the Warren report as to the diversion of the Welland
Canal, which were made at a time when the old canal was in exist-
ence, and they included not alone the water necessary for the opera-
tion of the canal but for the development of a certain power. Now,
we have been told repeatedly here that the power development there
is to be discontinued with the opening of the new canal, but we do
not know, as I understand it, how much water will be used for navi-
gation alone when the power development is discontinued. Do you
know the facts? t
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, at the “Soo' an all-the-year-round average
of 1,500 cubic feet per second is enough. The locks are in operation
actively only eight months of the year. If you use 2,000 cubic feet
per second during the eight months of navigation and a very little
flow to maintain the current during the balance of the year, you
would not have much over 1,500 cubic second-feet during the year.
The CHAIRMAN. Average. -
Mr. SHENEHON. The thing I can not get at, though, is that with
the treaty authorization for whatever was flowing in the canal or was
permitted at the time of the signing of the treaty why there should
be any stopping of flow there. I am going to show that that is
beneficial to navigation, that water flowing in the Welland Canal—
I am not anxious to have it stopped.
Mr. ADCOCK. Does not the Warren report show that the new canal
will take 5,300 cubic second-feet? -
Mr. SHENEHON. I think so, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. My understanding of that is, although I may be
in error, that the new canal will take 800 feet more than the old
canal. Now, the old canal with the power to take 4,300 cubic feet,
and the only way you will reach 5,100 cubic feet is by adding your
800 cubic feet and the 4,300; but that does not deduct the amount
used for power.
Mr. ADCOCK. The Warren report states that they required 2,000
cubic feet for navigation, which would be in addition to the 3,400
cubic feet used for power purposes. That is what it states.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you find that. That has been somewhat
hazy in my mind.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you a question. In the Welland Canal
they have, we will say, 3,400 cubic feet for power purposes, the old
Welland Canal. Now, then, that is a part of the extra power that
the Canadian Government gets of the 36,000 cubic feet, that is in
addition to it. Now, they say that they are going to discontinue
it in the Welland Canal, but they don't intend to discontinue the
use of the power somewhere else, do they?
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t know. *
Mr. HULL. They naturally would not. I think that is where you
are confusing us, in telling us that they are going to take it out
of the new canal, but they don't say that they are going to give up
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1421
that much water for power purposes, and of course they are going
to continue to take it away somewhere else. So I don’t think we
ought to confuse this committee with a statement that they are going
to give up that much water for power.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any evidence on that
question before the committee.
The only thing I see we can do is to be guided by the testimony
before us, and I do not know under what rights they developed the
power originally after the treaty.
Mr. HULL. They claim that was one of the original diversions.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know, Mr. Shenehon—I do not know, and
it is not in evidence here except, as judges frequently say, on the
testimony of lawyers—but is it a fact, and as an engineer you may
know, that the development of power at the Welland Canal was in
addition to the 3,600 cubic feet?
Mr. SHENEHON. Here is the fact, as I recollect it. When I was
making an investigation of the conditions at Niagara and making
a report on the effect on the scenic beauty of the Falls, about the
time of the Burton Act, in fact under the Burton Act, my recollec-
tion is that in the figures made by the International Waterways
Commission, which were the figures used in the treaty itself, that
with these little amounts added by Mr. Root, that the amount going
into the Welland Canal was not mentioned, that what happened was
that this little “heretofore permitted ” was slipped in—well, I had
better leave the treaty alone, Judge Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT. You used some very significant language, sir, when
you said it was slipped in.
The CHAIRMAN. The members of the committee are 15 minutes
late now. We have to meet on the floor.
Mr. SHENEHON. Prior to your adjournment I would like to make
One Statement.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will be glad to hear it.
Mr. SHENEHON. Whether or not any present diversion in the
Welland Canal is to be discontinued and cut down to 2,000 or 1,500
cubic feet, the fact is that since the date of the treaty, and prior
to that, 1908, this diversion, so far as I am informed, has been in
effect, and I am going to speak of the damage to our navigation
caused by that diversion in that period. And so what they are
going to do in the future does not really matter. If I were a
Canadian citizen I should keep it, go ahead and divert, and I hope
the Canadians will.
(Thereupon, at 12.30 p. m., the committee took a recess until 3
o'clock p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee resumed its hearings at 2.45 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to proceed, Mr. Shenehon.
STATEMENT OF MP, FRANCIS C. SHENEHON-Resumed
Mr. SHENEHON. The question arose this morning regarding the
use of water in the combined Welland Canals after the new deep
waterway between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario was completed, and
1422 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
I read now from page 22 of the Taylor report, contained in the
volume we have spoken of as the Warren report, the concluding
sentence of paragraph 24. Referring to the new Welland Canal, it
States: . . . .
Its operation is estimated to require a diversion of about 2,000 cubic feet per
Second, and the total diversion of the Welland Canal will then be about 5,300
cubic feet per second. j
That answers your question, I think, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. gº
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, I do not wish to leave in the minds of this
committee any impression that the regulation of Lake Erie, the
Niagara River, and the St. Lawrence River was a thought that came
to me after I was retained by the sanitary district to find a means
of undoing any damage that might come to the Great Lakes system
by reason of the diversion of 10,000 feet at Chicago. And to make
this quite clear, I would like to read the beginning of the report
made by me in the year 1900, and I may state that I was hydraulic
engineer for the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways in the
hydraulic examinations of the Niagara River and later on of the
United States Lake Survey, which took up this work, continuing
and completing it. This is from page 5,326 of the Report of the
Chief of Engineers of the United States Army for 1900, report of
Mr. F. C. Shenehon, Assistant Engineer, and dated July 18, 1900:
SIR : The outflow of the Niagara River affects the surface levels of all the
Great Lakes, except Superior, together with the connecting, waters of all, involv-
ing at the extreme west St. Marys River and at the east the St. Lawrence.
In any project to maintain lake and interlake channels of uniform depth in
all seasons and years by regulating weirs this river therefore holds a pivotal
position. # -
The interests of the vast lake commerce demand permanent channels that
will not shallow up with a dry season, that are just as deep in December as in
June, and are invariable year in and year Out.
Is it practicable to hold in check these seasonal and yearly rises and falls
of the water level by intelligent human control of the outlets and realize this
demand?
If so, its execution is a clear business proposition.
The feasibility of the control of Lake Erie, at least, hinges on the Niagara
Triver, its volume, and the laws of its flow.
The hydraulics of this stream are therefore worthy of elaborate study and
investigation, to measure the possibilities of regulation and to establish a
basis for the design of regulating works.
With these ends in view, the Board of Engineers on Deep Water-
ways made a series of observations on the discharge and slope of the
river under the general charge of Mr. E. E. Haskell, member Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers, in 1897 and 1898, the latter year
under my immediate charge as resident engineer.
Now, I would like to follow this with a few quotations from a
rather large volume containing a report in 16 chapters written by me
in 1906.
The CHAIRMAN. This was a report to whom ?
Mr. SHENEHON. I will give you the title of this. This is Senate
Document No. 105, Sixty-second Congress, first session, “Preservation
of Niagara Falls,” printed by the Government Printing Office in 1911.
My report was a report made to the officer of the United States Lake
Survey.
*Massrºw. That is the War Department?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1423
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. My report was a report to the officer of the
United States Lake Survey at that time, Maj. Charles Keller, later
engineer commissioner of the District of Columbia, and one of the
ablest, I think, of the officers of the Corps of Engineers. I read
from page 23. This is 1906, about three years before the sanitary
district case began—that is, the case of the United States v. The Sani-
tary District of Chicago. I will read from Chapter IV on “The out-
flow of Lake Erie ’’:
The hydraulic work of the United States Board of Engineers On Deep Water-
Ways in 1897 and 1898 and that of the Lake Survey in 1898, 1899, and 1900, had
in View the raising and regulation by controlling works of the surface level of
Lake Erie and, by backwater effect, of the levels of the Detroit River, Lake
St. Clair, the St. Clair River, Lakes Huron and Michigan, and St. Marys River
to the foot of the rapids. As this project was designed to confer immense
benefit on the commerce of the Great Lakes, the hydraulic investigations relat-
ing to the volume of outflow through the Niagara River, and the laws governing
its variations, were undertaken on a scale commensurate with its great impor-
tance. * -
III, this work it was aimed to make all measurements with the highest attain-
able precision. Special instruments and apparatus' were invented, and more
accurate methods of sounding, of measuring relative current velocities, and of
Calibrating the current meters were practiced than had been customary in
the gauging of great rivers. It may be confidently stated that the hydraulic
Work of the Lake Survey on the connecting and outflow rivers of the Great
Lakes, of which the work was a part, is without a parallel. Neither time nor
money Was Spared. The examinations were deliberate and careful, and have
proved trustworthy. - ! . -
At that time the danger to navigation, or to the cataract, from diversions for
pOWer purposes at Niagara Falls was not realized. . The diversions were incon-
siderable, and the radius of profitable transmission of power llad not been
demonStrated. -
I read now, from page 52 of the same report. After speaking of
the effect of the diversion of the water for power purposes at Niagara
Falls superimposed on diversions in the Lakes above Niagara River,
and superimposed upon a season of low natural supply, I say:
If, however, compensating works are established and a surplus of water accu-
mulated against dry seasons, no such serious lowerings will occur. During the
Closed SeaSon of navigation some portion of the water that passes to the ocean
through the St. Lawrence River might be retained, and impounded in the Great
Lakes to the betterment of navigation and of power interests at Niagara Falls.
The impediment to outflow caused by the formation of ice does, to some extent,
make the Winter Season a time of conservation. Lake Ontario is raised an aver-
age of 7 inches annually through ice checking the flow, and Lakes Michigan and
Huron in SOme years nearly as much. What is now done by ice in a haphazard
Way should be done systematically by compensating works under engineering
COntrol. -
You will see in both these quotations that I am confusing the
term “compensating works” with “regulating works.” I spoke in
my report of 1900 of weirs, and then I spoke of regulating works,
but I think my thought then was always regulating works—works
with movable gates. -
Mr. HULL. What is the difference between compensating works
and regulating works?
Mr. SHENEHON. Compensating works are fixed; regulating works
are movable. When you once get compensating works there they
stay. They accentuate high water but raise low water; that is the
general tendency.
I also read from page 75, where I am concluding this report, and
recommending that the volume of diversion established by the Bur-
1424 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ton Act may be exceeded. I am not sure but that I should read
that whole conclusion, although it is a little premature on some
points. I think I will read it, so as to get it into the record. This
is page 75, Chapter XVI:
CONCLUSION
While this report has dealt with injurious effects on the IRapids and Falls
of the Niagara River and with interferences with navigable ways in river
and lake and has shown these up in their limiting, hurtful amounts, it seems
proper to suggest certain remedial measures that may serve to harmonize
the preservation inviolate of the scenic grandeur with the useful application
of the Splendid power of the Falls. Both of these things are eminently de-
sirable and feasible.
A volume of 210,000 cubic feet per second with a descent between the
“dead line" and the upper gorge of 220 feet has a potential power of over
5,000,000 horsepower. This is the power of 15,000,000 strong draft horses,
each limited to an 8-hour day. If it takes 10 able-bodied men to do the work
of one of these draft horses, the work potential in this fall is that of
150,000,000 men, nearly twice our population of men, women, and children.
The great companies at the Falls have created in good faith power
plants to lessen the hardships of human labor, to aid transportation, to il-
luminate the night hours, and to add to the wealth of two nations. The
power houses for the most part are architecturally excellent, harmonizing with
the Scenic Surroundings, and the mechanical wonders wrought in solving the
engineering problems of the utilization of this great head and volume of water
rival as a spectacle the scenic grandeur of the Falls and add to the attractive-
ness Of the region.
It therefore appears proper to permit and foster such ultimate developments
in addition to those already in force as are compatible with the perpetuation
of the scenic grandeur appreciably undiminished.
The water, however, and the power that is in it should be regarded as a
national resource, and its use should be under definite conditions and regulationS.
No water should be used wastefully. Uses of water should return in mechan-
ical or electrical power all the energy that can reasonably be derived from
it. The wasteful use of this national resource is illustrated by the expenditure
of 1,332 cubic feet of water per second by the Hydraulic Co. (see Chapter
XIII) to secure 7,991 horsepower, or 6 horsepower to the cubic foot. As the
water has a potential of 25 horsepower, or 19 horsepower on the shaft, more
than two-thirds of the power is wasted. The balance of the water of this
company is used economically.
The Niagara Falls Power Co. (see Chapter XII) expends over a third of its
potential power in getting the water to and from its turbines.
The use of the water by the Canadian companies in some cases shows cor-
responding waste.
The Supervision of the economical use of the water should extend to all
details of canals, sluices, fore bays, penstocks, tail-bays, tailraces, and tunnels,
. to all water wheels, generators, transformers, transmission lines, and
In Oto I’S.
Supervision and regulation should extend to rates charged for power or light.
. right to use a public resource implies the right of the people to an economic
enefit.
I may say that all of these things are in effect now under the
Federal water power act which I recommended in 1906.
The maintenance of scenically harmonious premises and surroundings should
be required.
Provided there be no large increase in up-lake diversions the possibilities of
continued and extended use of power at the Falls are conditioned upon the
construction of regulating works in the Niagara River to avoid the wasteful
outflow of the water of Lake Erie. The injury to the scenic grandeur of the
Falls, and the interference with the navigable waters of the Niagara River and
Lake Erie, due to up-lake diversions, and the injury and interference coming
from periods of drought would be largely obviated by impounding in the lakes
a portion of the winter outflow. During the months of December to April. In-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1425
clusive, enough water may be saved to hold the lakes to a proper and eco-
nomical level to the betterment of navigation, and yield a surplussage to
partially Offset diversion at the Falls. This is a practicable engineering propo-
Sition, but as the power companies are beneficiaries they should pay a fair
share of the cost of the work.
The lessened winter flow over the upper rapids and Falls would not scenically
injure either, because ice and frost effects are an added attractiveness that
COVer up unsightly shoals, or unwatered crest lines.
A final consideration should be stated. The Falls are operative only as a
Scenic spectacle during the daylight hours. When the night shuts in partial
depletion would not be scenically injurious.
Should permits issue for half of the flow of the river from sunset to sunrise,
Or for 12 or 16 hours every day, a tremendous power would become available
that would furnish its own light, and factories might work by night instead
of by day.
The temporary lowering of the river would immediately readjust itself
When the sunrise shutdown came. The interference with night navigation on
the river would not be prohibitive in view of the benefits to be conferred in
Cheap power and light. The use of the night power at Niagara implies regu-
lation of Lake Erie's outflow.
I might say that in another part of this report I recommended
that weirs be established in the rapids above the cataract to dis-
tribute the water evenly over the Falls. In other words, these things
that appear in the Warren report were recommended by me in 1906
in this report.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is probably the most important
thing at Niagara because the Horseshoe Falls which are 3,000 feet
wide, are largely destroyed, the whole of the water being poured
down in a width at the center of probably 25 feet. The result of that
is twofold; first and most important, it destroys the scenic beauty;
and, second, it is wearing away the Falls.
Mr. SHENEHON. At the apex; yes. .
The CHAIRMAN. And what could no doubt be remedied would, I
suppose, be very much more difficult to remedy as you wear that
hole in there?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. One of the things we did at the time this
investigation was made was to determine the crest line as of 1906 and
compare it with the crest line determined in 1876, and found out
that the Falls were going upstream at the apex at the rate of about
5 feet a year. That is my recollection of it.
There is one interesting thing. You are speaking of the Horse-
shoe Falls, and you will remember that on the Canadian side about
1895 or 1896 they built a wall out on the Canadian end on a por-
tion of the crest of the Falls. Do you remember that?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. 1895 was the record low-water year, and every-
body thought that that lowering on the crest of the Falls was due
to this cutting back at the apex, and therefore the water would not
come back, but as a matter of fact it was just a temporary unwater-
ing, because there was not much water running through the river.
It is a very remarkable thing that at that time they should build an
embankment out on the crest line believing that the water was per-
manently low.
• In this volume it may be interesting to note the fact that in dis-,
cussing this matter of water power and the preservation of the
Scenic grandeur, I assume that there were lake diversions of 18,700
feet, and that was 14,000 at Chicago and some larger amount at
1426 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Welland than was in force at the time. You see, there is 4,700, aside
from Chicago's 14,000, and that was the basis of my determination.
We did not know what limitation was going to be imposed on
Chicago in those days. { • .
In speaking of this matter of how precise our hydraulic work was,
this probably is not very comprehensible to anybody except an en-
gineer, but this plat which I hold up shows the line representing
the law of discharge in the Niagara River, and that was extremely
precise work. The flow of that stream was measured 350 times,
each time taking two or three hours to do it, and the range of lake
stage was about 4 feet; that is, we measured it at Lake Erie elevations
574 and 573 and so on down to 570, so that in the end we knew just
how much water was going out at every tenth of a foot elevation
of Lake Erie. It is the most precise piece of hydraulic work in
stream measurement, I think that was ever done. I had a large part
in the work, and some of the most precise work was done later by
the gentleman we have mentioned in this report, Mr. W. S. Rich-
mond. I think he took the groundwork laid out by me in my early
work and went considerably beyond me in precision. That was the
type of his mind and is the type of his mind to-day. He is a very
able man.
I have spoken enough, I think, concerning the lake as a basin. I
think you all understand that if a lake goes down 6 inches in a
given period and we know a certain amount is going out, that we
know very definitely the amount that came in. This difference in
elevation of the lake gives us the measure in cubic feet per second of
the storage loss, and the amount going out to the river gives us the
flow, and with those two factors, we determine with great precision
the water supply. For that reason we can go back to 1860 and re-
produce new lake levels with the flow artificially regulated, and show
just what would have happened for sixty-odd years if we had
handled the regulation in this particular way, according to a fixed
set of rules.
One of the fine things from the point of view of regulation which
I am leading up to now of the Niagara River is that the head of the
river is of what is known as Niagara limestone, an exceedingly
tenacious bedrock, and even a more tenacious rock than we have at
Sault Ste Marie, and that this gives the very best conditions for
foundations. We have at the head of the river a gorge or neck, which
is only 1,800 feet wide and 18 feet deep, and this narrowing of the
river, very similar to the narrowing at Port Huron, although not
Quite so constricted—there, I think it is about 600 feet wide—creates
a condition of sluiceway flow, so that it does flow under a definite
law, or outflow relationship to Lake Erie level. The precision of a
statement that the lowering of Lake Erie is 51% inches when Chicago
diverts 10,000 cubic feet per second, is precise. It is not 514 inches,
and it is not 5% inches.
It may be very difficult for you gentlemen to understand that, but
the precision of that curve indicates that it may vary one-eight of an
inch from the 51%, but it can not vary very much more than that.
This is extremely fortunate, not from the point of view of incrimi-
nating Chicago for interference with navigation of the Great Lakes,
but from the point of view as hydraulic engineers of restoring and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1427
working out the scheme of regulation. In 1900, at the time I
wrote the report I spoke of, and at the time that this report of the
Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways was issued, we had already
measured and determined approximately the law of relationship. A
great many other things were done in all of these hydraulic investi-
gations of the Niagara River, in which I myself had some consider-
able part. I am inclined to think I would like to place in your
hands a few plates, if I can locate them. I do not know whether you
gentlemen would be interested in these or not. It is just a study
showing the hydraulic conditions and showing how the water passes
down over one weir after another as it goes through the Niagara
River. It shows the hydraulic conditions on the Niagara River, and
each of these
F § HULL (interposing). Is this above the Falls or under the
8, IIS :
Mr. SHENEHON. The upper one is Lake Erie, after the water
passes from Lake Erie over what really amounts to a dam. I have
shown it there so as to represent a dam. It then goes into a pool
above the rapids at the Falls, and then goes over the cataract.
Mr. HULL. That is where the power is, then?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; between the cataract and the second drop.
Mr. HULL. But here is where the water power is; right here
ſindicating] }
Mr. SHENEHON. As it drops to the next pool.
The CHAIRMAN. It is created by the drop which you see there. It
is generated through the drop.
Mr. SHENEHON. Then that drop of the cataract is into what is
known as the Maid of the Mist Pool, and then from the upper rapids
into the whirlpool, and then into Lake Ontario at Lewiston, which
is on Niagara River at about Lake Ontario level. -
There is a rather interesting thing, as you are so very familiar
with Niagara Falls, Mr. Chairman, and that is the action of the
water in the whirlpool. As a matter of fact the water coming into the
whirlpool passes along on the surface and then swings around,
and the water loops the loop and goes out under the incoming water.
The CHAIRMAN. I was at a boarding school on the American
side of the whirlpool for several years.
Mr. SHENEHON. You have probably been through there.
The CHAIRMAN. And I was just elected a trustee the other day.
I used to go down there pretty nearly every day. As a matter of
fact, aside from that first straight section of the bank—the first
40 feet there—the boys used to climb that entire bank without any
reference to the stairs at all. I won’t say “climb,” but we used to
go down, and we planted our feet in that shallow and then leaned
back, and we would simply go down.
Mr. SHENEHON. What I would like to impress on you men of
this committee is that this is no highbrow stuff I am giving you,
it is just the plain common sense of engineering measurements and
deductions. One of the things that has entered into this discussion
is the lowering of Lake Erie, which comes from taking water out
above the rapids at Niagara Falls, and in this investigation it was
determined that if you took 40,000 feet out at Chippewa, it is just
1428 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the same as taking 10 per cent of that out of the Lakes and the effect
would be the same, provided there is no compensation. In the rapids
above the cataract there is a slope of about 60 feet in three-quarters
of a mile, the water descending over cascades, and then the fall in
the cataract of about 160 feet, as I have it in mind.
The CHAIRMAN. You get your 220 by 60 feet in the descent in
the three-quarters of a mile above the Falls and 160 at the Falls?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. That gives 220, and that is the head under
which the Hydraulic Power Co., or the Niagara Falls Power Co.,
utilize the power. Then from this Maid of the Mist Pool, where the
water comes in the first power development of 220 feet, there is
about 90 feet in the two lower rapids, and that 220 feet is all, except
in one case, that is utilized at the Falls. º
The CHAIRMAN. On the American side. On the Canadian side
they are now using the full current. º
Mr. SHENEHON. They are utilizing about 330 feet, or a little less
than that. º
The CHAIRMAN. Three hundred and twenty-six. The question on
the American side is whether the utilization of that extra 90 feet
can be economically used; that is, whether it will cost us too much
per horsepower.
Mr. SHENEHON. They would have to raise the price of the current.
probably, and that would drive away the electric furnace; possibly
that is what you have in mind? - -
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That can only be done through a tunnel;
isn’t that so? -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. Mention has been made of the days when
the water of Lake Superior and Michigan–Huron went over the
divide at Chicago into the Illinois River Valley and thence down
the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. It is tremendously
interesting in visiting Niagara Falls to see this narrow gorge down
below the Maid of the Mist pool, beginning at Suspension Bridge,
about 600 feet wide, and the water coming down, I think, is one
of the most prodigious sights, to see the energy of that water smash-
ing down to the whirlpool and then looping the loop and going out
over the lower rapids. Geologists have determined that before the
Lakes broke through, in the St. Clair River, at the time when these
Lakes were emptying over the divide at Chicago, that the stream
that cut this little channel from Suspension Bridge down to Lewis-
ton carried just the outflow from Lake Erie; and then the upper
lakes broke through, and we had this tremendous energy of the
falling water cutting the wide gorge to the Maid of the Mist Pool, a
distance of about 2 miles, to a depth of perhaps 200 feet, the water
picking up the rock masses and scouring or cutting out the bottom
with its tremendous rotation. But here is the evidence in the Niagara
River itself that the water did go over the divide at Chicago, and
there was a little stream which was the outlet of Lake Erie alone,
although the volume of the flow was very much greater in those days,
I imagine, than now for Lake Erie's contribution.
Mr. SEGER. Do I understand from the testimony that this volume
of water went down through Chicago and into the Mississippi River
instead of going out over Niagara! r -
Mr. SHENEHON. That is true.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1429
Mr. SEGER. And for what reason, then, did this stream, which was
formed by this tremendous amount of water, fill up and is not now
doing the same thing?
Mr. SHENEHON. The cutting through the gorge from Lewiston
up I suppose occupied many thousands of years, and the little stream
cut the little channel, 600 feet wide or less, through the rapids
there—it is a very narrow channel. Then, when the upper Lakes
broke through and we had the volume of all the Great Lakes, pos-
sibly even greater than it is now, the deep gorge from Suspension
Bridge up to the cataract was cut. These Falls have been receding—
geologists figure it took about 5,000 years to make that cut.
Mr. MoRGAN. What is the channel through which this water found
the Mississippi River after leaving Lake Michigan?
Mr. SHENEHON. Through the Illinois River.
Mr. MoRGAN. This very same river they are talking about?
d Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. Chicago just restored a geological con-
ition.
The CHAIRMAN. The condition of 5,000 years ago?
Mr. HULL. Mr. Dempsey’s cataract was formed after mine, and
so I am ahead of him.
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, we have taken a little diversion—not the
kind at Chicago—but going down to Niagara Falls and talking
about geology and all sorts of things; and I want to come back now
to the real meat of what I am endeavoring to present, and that is
regulation. I have told you that I was engineer for the Board of
Engineers on Deep Waterways in these Niagara hydraulics, and
that this board spent $485,000 in investigating a deep waterway of
21-foot depth and 30-foot depth from the Great Lakes to tidewater
at the port of New York. And I have mentioned that the board
was composed of Colonel Raymond, of the Corps of Engineers, who
I imagine was an expert on navigation; Alfred Noble, waterways
engineer; and George Y. Wisner. George Y. Wisner, the father
of the present engineer of the sanitary, district, was one of the most
eminent hydraulic engineers of his day, and at the time of his
death was a member of the International Waterways Commission.
What year was that? -
Mr. WISNER. In 1906.
Mr. SHENEHON. Up to 1906. g • ,
Mr. BoycE. In order that I may be clear about it, I would ask
if the gentleman would tell me exactly what he alludes to when he
says New York had developed a waterway from the Great Lakes to
the port of New York? - -
Mr. SHENEHON. I think perhaps I might have misspoken. This
was a board of engineers appointed by act of Congress of the
United States. I rather think they were under the Secretary of
War, or reported to the Secretary of War, and they were instructed
in the act of Congress which created the board to make the Atlantic
seaboard terminal at the port of New York. They had no option
as to going down the St. Lawrence River through alien territory.
I would be very glad to discuss the routes which these engineers
examined and put into evidence anything that you wish regarding
their conclusions as to cost, but I want to speak mostly about the
engineers themselves and the weight that we can give to their recom-
1430 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
mendations, and the conclusions they reach with regard to the regu-
lation of Lake Erie. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr Shenehon, as I have understood General Beach,
there have been at various times three reports on that proposed
waterway connecting the Lakes with the ocean at New York?
Mr. SHENEHON. One was the Angell-Russell-Cooley report, about
1896 or 1897. $ -
The CHAIRMAN. That was the first one? W
Mr. SHENEHON. And then the Raymond-Wisner-Noble report in
1900.
Mr. HULL. How does that route go?
Mr. SHENEHON. All brought up at New York.
Mr. HULL. By the St. Lawrence way or through the canal?
The CHAIRMAN. They could not go through the St. Lawrence to
New York.
Mr. SHENEHON. They went through the St. Lawrence in one
of the routes proposed to the foot of Lake St. Francis, and shot
across a corner of Canadian land into Lake Champlain, and then
into the Hudson and down the Hudson to the port of New York.
But they had to go to New York.
Mr. BoycE. Mr. Shenehon was speaking in a low tone of voice,
Mr. Chairman, and I evidently did not understand what he said.
Mr. SHENEHON. Is that straightened out now %
Mr. BoycE. Yes; that is straight now.
The CHAIRMAN. You say the first was the Angell report; the
second was this report in 1900? * -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; and the third is evidently this report of
Colonel Wooten and Mr. Bowden on the St. Lawrence route to the
sea. That is right, isn't it? -
The CHAIRMAN. I think so. -
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not know of any other report, and this
must be very clearly understood, that the first report made by
President Angell and Russell and Lyman Cooley was a report made
without much expenditure of money and only from investigation
of existing data. It was not a report made after extensive surveys
and examinations. This board of 1900 spared no pains to secure
the most elaborate and comprehensive investigations of all of the
elements that entered into a waterway of this kind, including the
regulation of Lake Erie and the regulation of Lake Champlain.
Mr. KINDRED. May I ask Mr. Shenehon to elaborate a little bit
on this report which was so comprehensive?
The CHAIRMAN. The secretary of the committee tells me that there
is a third report made a few years ago, which he will procure for us.
Mr. SHENEHON. I probably know about it, but I do not have it in
mind now.
Mr. KINDRED. In the meantime, will he elaborate on the one he
calls the most efficient?
The CHAIRMAN. That is the Noble report?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is the report of 1900, and I will stay with
that report for quite a little while.
The CHAIRMAN. And you regard the Nable report the better be-
cause Noble was one of the greatest engineers?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1431
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; and Mr. Wisner also stood very high in the
profession.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Was that the Lake Champlain route which you
are going to speak of now %
Mr. SHENEHON. I will speak of the several routes just to dispose
of them. Each route began at Buffalo, and each route proceeded
toward Lewiston. All of them came down the Niagara River as
far as either Tonawanda or La Salle. One of the routes branched
off after reaching Tonawanda and followed down probably the line
of the present barge canal to Olcott.
The CHAIRMAN. To Lockport, and then 18 miles down the creek
to Olcott. -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; it then followed down and reached Lake
Ontario at Olcott, down the creek 18 miles. The other took a short
cut, utilizing the Niagara River from Buffalo to La Salle, which
is not very far above Niagara Falls, then by-passed the Falls in a
canal and went over the Niagara escapement in a series of locks, and
entered the Niagara River again at Lewiston, which is at the foot of
the last rapids below Niagara Falls.
(The chairman here explained the routes referred to on the map
to the committee.) - 4.
Mr. SHENEHON. So far as reaching the west end of Lake Ontario
is concerned, these routes were not particularly different. One route
departed from Lake Ontario at Oswego and climbed up to the line
of the barge canal, followed the Mohawk Valley down to the Hudson
River, and through the Hudson River down to New York. The
other route followed down the St. Lawrence River 40 miles along the
boundary line to Cornwall, and then down Lake St. Francis in
Canadian territory to a point where it departs toward the south,
making a cut over the divide to Lake Champlain, and then down the
Hudson River to the port of New York. The Oswego route, with
the approach through La Salle and Lewiston, I believe was the pre-
ferred way of travel. #
The CHAIRMAN. Of course a new thought has come to us since
1914, and that is that a route further inland than the La Salle-Lewis-
ton route might be preferable on account of the possibility of war.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That would be wholly inland. It would start
from and go continuously inside the border. . .
Mr. SHENEHON. These exits from the Great Lakes are tremen-
dously interesting. The exit from Lake Michigan through the
drainage canal and the Illinois River and the Mississippi River is,
I think, a certainty, and the exit in that way does not preclude the
exit through the Ši. Lawrence, and the exit through the St. Law-
rence does not preclude the exit over the line of the barge canal into
the Oswego and the Hudson River and thence down the Hudson
River to New York. The Lakes and the commerce on them and
the importance of the matter of water transportation warrant all
of these routes.
The CHAIRMAN. Has there been such progress in mechanical de-
vices, dredges for instance, and other mechanical devices used in the
building of a ship canal, that a reestimate of the feasibility, and in-
1432 ILLINors AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
cidental to that of the cost of a ship canal across the State of New
York, would be advisable?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think so. I think a reestimate would be very
advisable, especially, Mr. Chairman, after you suggest that it might
cost three times as much now as it did in 1900.
Th; CHAIRMAN. Aside from the development of mechanical de-
vices?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, for instance, in all of the
dredge work, in spite of the increase of cost, I understand that all
the work that is done by dredges is very much less expensive to-day,
even with the increased cost, than it was previously, because of the
greater effectiveness of the dredges.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Am I correct in that? •
Mr. SHENEHON. You are absolutely correct. I remember the time
in St. Marys River, when Mr. Dunbar, whose son was later of the
Chandler-Bunbar Co., was a pioneer in the matter of this submarine
excavation of rock. He took a contract and made a great deal of
money on it, because he was genius enough to do it in a workman-
like manner. We are using tremendously bigger dippers now in our
dredges.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Isn't it a fact that the construction of the Panama
Canal by the Americans, with the mechanical devices they had at
that time, was far more effective and less expensive than those in use
when the French attempted to dig the canal there?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think one of the greatest advances in the han-
dling of material was in the sanitary district canal, and Alfred Noble
was the designer of some of the mechanical devices there.
Mr. WISNER. Yes; and I think that the building of the Chicago
Drainage Canal tended to the development of machinery that helped
in the successful building of the Panama Canal.
Mr. SHENEHON. What was the year that the Panama Canal was
begun? I am a little doubtful.
Mr. WISNER. It was begun around 1900, when we had practically
finished.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shenehon, as I recollect the testimony of
General Taylor before this committee, we were going to include in
our last bill an item for quite a considerable number of dredges, and
General Taylor testified that the modern dredge was so much more
efficient than the dredges on hand that it would pay for itself in an
incredibly short space of time, the mere saving by the day being
tremendous.
Mr. SHENEHON. In the old days the dredge used to drill and blast,
and then pick up the rock. Even before I left Sault Ste. Marie,
dredges were going in there with great powerful dippers and strip-
ping up this stratified rock without blasting.
The CHAIRMAN. Might not we find, then, that the cost of a ship
canal across the State of New York would be less instead of more
than that made in the estimates of 1900 show?
. Mr. SHENEHON. I should say not less, but it might not be very
much more.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1433
Mr. WISNER. You have so much concrete work which does cost
more than the excavation. I do not think the cost of earth excava-
tions, even with modern dredges, as compared with 1900, would be
less now than it was then. At least, that is the experience we are
having in Chicago. We used to have dredging on the drainage
canal along in 1900 at about 35 cents a cubic yard, and the last bid
for similar work was about 52 cents a yard.
The CHAIRMAN. Take your cost of rock.
Mr. WISNER. The cost of rock is cheaper now than it was in 1900,
on account of machinery, but everything connected with it is more,
like dynamite, where you have to blast.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And concrete work?
Mr. WISNER. That is about twice as much.
The CHAIRMAN. There would not be a great deal of concrete work,
would there? º
Mr. WISNER. Wherever you have locks, there would have to be
concrete and iron and steel.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one question more, and I am doing this, I
am frank to say, with reference to our pending bill.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am very glad to be helpful in any way I can.
The CHAIRMAN. Have there been advances in engineering science
which make the problem of the construction and the supply of water
for a ship canal across the State of New York less expensive and
less difficult than they appeared to be in 1900?
Mr. SHENEHON. No. I think the Summit supply—that is what
wou have in mind I take it—I think that came out of the Black
River. That was investigated very fully by some of our best hy-
daulic engineers at that time. George W. Rafter, I think, was in
that investigation, and it was very fully and adequately and com-
petently done. I think in these volumes, if you have the time to look
them over fully and carefully, you will find information and very
modern designs for the structures. That is a remarkable thing, and
it is because of the engineers who were on the job; they were a great
group of engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. There have been tremendous advances in the de-
sign ºf boats and in the capacity of boats of given dimensions, haven’t
there'ſ
Mr. SHENEHON. You mean that they are building better boats
now Ż
The CHAIRMAN. They are building them so that with given di-
mensions they have a greater carrying capacity ? -
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I guess they are using box sections very
largely instead of tapering down as ocean vessels do, but Mr. Goulder
perhaps could tell you more definitely on that than I could myself.
That is getting a little out of my territory.
Mr. KINDRED. Before you leave the question of the surveys of the
proposed waterways from the lakes to New York Harbor, would you
care to express an opinion, or would you express an opinion, as to
which of those routes which you described impresses you as being the
shortest and the best and the most useful for all-American purposes?
Mr. SHENEHON. I should accept the decisions or recommendations
of the board itself, Doctor. - -
Mr. KINDRED. Of the Noble Board?
91739—24—PT 2 75
1434 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. .
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; of the Noble-Wisner-Raymond Board; and
that would be by the way of Ontario to Oswego, and then following
up toward the present barge canal and then the Mohawk Valley to
the Hudson and by the Hudson to New York.
Mr. KINDRED. I thank you.
Mr. SHENEHON. I should be guided by the recommendations of
the board. I have made no personal investigation.
Mr. KINDRED. And knowing the standing of the engineers—
Mr. SHENEHON (interposing). There was never a greater group of
engineers gotten together.
The CHAIRMAN. I have this report to which reference was made a
moment ago, and it is headed “Letter from the Secretary of War
transmitting, with a letter from the Chief of Engineers, report on
preliminary examination of such routes between the Great Lakes and
the Hudson River as may be considered as practicable by the Chief
of Engineers with a view of forming a waterway from the sea at
New York for ocean-going vessels to the Great Lakes.”
There is not anybody left now who believes that ocean vessels are
going to navigate these inland streams. The most that is hoped by
inland waterway advocates, and the practical result that is aimed
at, is the use of lake freighters or of large-sized barges plying from
the Great Lakes to the ocean. There are a great many reasons that
can be advanced why the ocean-going vessels would not be admitted
to the Great Lakes, aren’t there?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think that is a debatable point. This commis-
sion, the Raymond-Wisner-Noble Commission, had Mr. Frank E.
Kirby, of Detroit, whom Mr. Goulder doubtless knows, a very compe-
tent marine architect of the Great Lakes, design and estimate on
vessels that would be interchangeable; that might go through this
route and operate in Salt water as well as in fresh water. -
The CHAIRMAN. I remember very well that Senator Ransdell made
the statement that the average cost per ton per mile for transporta-
tion on the ocean was 3 mills; on the Great Lakes, 1 mill.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And I do not see how you are going to substitute
3 mills for 1 mill and save money.
Mr. SHENEHON. Of course, you have got to take this into con-
sideration, that the vessels of the Great Lakes are winter bound for
four months every year; that if they could be released for ocean
traffic that would add 50 per cent to their earning capacity.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Are they types of vessels that would be suitable
for ioint traffic?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. You could not do that with vessels you
have in the fleet now. It costs very much more, from several stand-
ards, to build an ocean freighter than it does to build a lake freighter,
and the ocean freighter carries very much less in proportion to its
cost than the lake freighter; the lake freighter has a very much
larger capacity. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. Your idea is that it would be handled on different
types of vessels and transported cheaper?
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, undoubtedly. I do not think there is any
question about, that. The only point I was making—I was not
particularly asking for your opinion on the initial question, but I
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1435
think this last report is absolutely useless, because it deals solely
with the problem as to whether you could not have a ship canal
sufficient for ocean-going vessels. I do not see how it is of any
value at all, because that problem I think is settled by every man
who has studied the question. I do not think any man to-day
among those who are familiar with the question contend that either
by the St. Lawrence or by a ship canal you will have an ocean
vessel go farther than Montreal and possibly to Albany.
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not know what attitude the engineers of the
International Joint Commission take on that point.
Mr. KINDRED. Before Mr. Shenehon leaves the general question of
this proposed waterway across New York State, or in that general
direction, and before you leave the subject of whether steamships
have been designed suitable and practicable for interchangeable
navigation of the Lakes and the ocean, have any of the engineers
you know of I am asking for information; I am not seeking to
provoke a controversy—reported or suggested any designs of ships
that would be interchangeable and that would be economical for
trans-Atlantic transportation?
The CHAIRMAN. I think you had better amend that and ask, not
whether they have designed them, because that would be theory
still, but have they ever constructed them and operated them and
demonstrated their feasibility and economical use?
Mr. KINDRED. Yes. I think that would be a fair modification of
the question, but in the absence of any opportunity to demonstrate
them, have any engineers agreed that it was a practical idea, other
than the one mentioned?
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me answer that in another way.
Mr. KINDRED. I know it would be a matter of theory at first.
Mr. SHENEHON. Clyde-built vessels have been to Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. In very few numbers and on only a very few
occasions.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; but I would like to think that this is still
an open question. If we bring 30-foot navigation up through the
St. Lawrence River, or up through a route through New York State
and the Hudson to Lake Ontario, it is not because we need immedi-
ately 30-foot draft boats on the Great Lakes. The Canadians them-
selves in the Welland Canal are completing locks with the miter sills
for 30-foot navigation, spending I do not know how many millions
of dollars, fifty million or more, aren’t they, Mr. Stewart? -
The CHAIRMAN. About seventy-five million, isn’t it, Mr. Stewart?
Mr. STEwART. All of that; I think about ninety million.
h Mº, KINDRED. What draft did those ships that came to Chicago
3.We
Mr. SHENEHON. They must have been limited to 14 feet.
Mr. KINDRED. That is not a very large ocean-going vessel.
Mr. SHENEHON. No.
The CHAIRMAN. That is not a practical, ocean-going vessel.
Mr. KINDRED. I had in mind that the vessel would be so small
that under all economic conditions it would be cheaper to change
your cargo. That is the point involved, isn’t it?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. The only point, Doctor, is that changing cargo is
a tremendously expensive affair, and it depends on the cargo. If it
1436 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
is wheat it can be sucked out, and it can be changed quickly, but if
it is coal or ore, it can not. -
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it costs you very much. I think
the cost of loading and unloading coal and ore along the Great Lakes
is pretty nearly negligible.
Mr. SHENEHoN. I doubt that.
* CHAIRMAN. They unload one of those vessels in a few hours, I
thlnk.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I think Mr. Goulder said 12.
Mr. GOULDER. Oh, no; about eight hours.
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me tell you that I was discussing this very
matter of the unloading of coal at Duluth with one of the coal men
of Minneapolis, and he told me that it cost just as much to unload
coal now as in the days when they used a horse and a half barrel
and loaded the coal into the barrel by men with shovels. I think
the impression that he left on my mind was that it cost 50 cents a
ton to unload coal.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say as to that, Mr. Goulder? Do
you know anything about it?
Mr. GouldF.R.. I do not know, but I think that is an overestimate.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think that he had in mind the maintenance of
the docks and the storage of the coal. I think this cost of 50 cents
took that into consideration. *
Mr. Gould ER. I think it costs from 5 to 10 cents a ton to unload a
gross ton of ore which includes putting it in the cars, and I can not
imagine that it costs five times as much to unload a net ton of coal,
because the coal and the ore are unloaded very much in the same way
by these mechanical grabbers, but owing to the greater density and
weight in the space of the ore, they can unload that quicker. For ex-
ample, they take up 20 tons in one of those grabbers of iron ore, gross
tons. Coal weighs very much less. It is very bulky by weight.
and the process is slower, but it is a similar process.
Mr. KINDRED. I want to thank Mr. Shenehon for enlightening us
on this whole subject.
Mr. SHENEHON. I have left you in doubt on this proposition of the
interchangeable vessels.
The CHAIRMAN. You have left us just where the state of the art is.
Mr. SHENEHON. Very good engineers have felt that we could have
interchangeable types, but I think the predominant view is that we
could not. I want to read you the cost of the Poe Lock, which was
finished in 1906. That was 100 by 800 feet, and it cost $3,000,000.
The fourth lock, completed in 1919 and built during the war period
of 1913 to 1919, cost $2,500,000. That is a difference in the art, pos-
sibly, Mr. Chairman. That Poe Lock, that I myself was an engineer
on the building of, was of cut-stone masonry, the coping and the
facing of the lock, with back filling of rock, using natural cement
which was gotten down at Louisville. Engineers do not use any
natural cement at all nowadays, and they use very little cut-stone
masonry. They use it sometimes in breakwaters and on the cutting
edges of a pier.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What do you mean by natural cement?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is a cement that was made where they found
rock that had all the elements of cement, and simply burned it. The
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1437
ºland cement is a combination of two things, burned clay and
IIIlé.
Mr. KINDRED. How did this natural cement compare in cost with
the Portland cement?
Mr. SHENEHON. It probably cost at that time one-half of the cost
of Portland cement. In those days we got our Portland cement from
either England or Germany, but at the present time it is very largely
made in this country. A great deal of it is made in the vicinity of
Chicago—slag cement. That comparison there is a substantiation of
the suggestion made by you that in changing our processes from
cut stone to concrete and molding it that we have saved money.
Mr. KINDRED. What did you say was the name of this concrete that
cost half as much 3
Mr. SHENEHON. That is the Louisville natural cement.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is not used any longer?
Mr. SHENEHON. They have gone out of business absolutely. I
have been down all over that ground in Louisville, because I have
been designing a water power at the Falls of the Ohio, and you can
See the remnants of the old Louisville works for the manufacture of
natural cement. 4
Mr. KINDRED. Does that mean that you have to go back to the use
of old standard cement at double the cost?
Mr. SHENEHON. You get double the result also.
Mr. KINDRED. In other words, it was not a success?
Mr. SHENEHON. It was a success during the period when we had to
import. I think perhaps that is the best way to put it. When we
began to manufacture ourselves and got cheaper methods, then we
had better use the stronger Portland cement.
It is very dangerous to mention a subject that has so many rami-
fications as routes from the inland seas to the Salt seas, and I am
going to try to stick to the development of the discussion of the
Great Lakes, subject to any questions you gentlemen may wish to ask
Iſle.
Mr. HULL. Why is it dangerous—jealousy %
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I am taking a lot of time, and that is one
danger. I do not like to absorb so much time.
Mr. HULL. I see.
Mr. SHENEHON. And I am not only taking my own time and that
of my colleagues, but I am taking the time of the members of this
committee, and I am not getting along with my own line of thought.
Mr. HULL. I thought maybe you feared that each one of us had a
route to get to the Sea.
Mr. SHENEHON. Some day I would like to discuss this with you—
these routes to the sea. I want to tell you something about Alfred
Noble. I have lived in a place where he was regarded as a hero.
I have never known a man so much regarded as a hero as Alfred
Noble was at Sault Ste Marie. When I went there to assist in the
building of this Poe Lock, the tradition of Alfred Noble was in
Sault Ste. Marie that he was the greatest man who had ever been
there. He graduated at Michigan, and served when quite a lad in
the Civil War as a private, I think, and then was an assistant engi-
neer of the United States and worked under the direction of an engi-
neer officer, just as I myself have and Mr. Sabin does. But he de-
1438 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
signed this Weitzel Lock at Sault Ste. Marie, and I have told you that
he designed a culvert system that has never been bettered, and he
designed these regulating gates for the Canadian end of the works
at the head of St. Marys River, and they could not better the design.
When they came to finish up and put in 12 more sections they could
not improve on Alfred Noble's design. He was spoken of, I think,
as the dean of American engineers. He was president of the Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers, and his address as president of the
American Society of Civil Engineers was on the “Commerce of the
Great Lakes.”
The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?
Mr. SHENEHON. That address?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; about when 2
Mr. SHENEHoN. Oh, that must have been about 1910 or 1912, some-
where along there.
The CHAIRMAN. He is dead now?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; he died several years ago. He blocked out
the channels in St. Marys River, the Hay Lake Channel, and then
after having served the Federal Government for a while he con-
cluded that he would be a railway engineer and that he would give
up his position with the Federal Government and go in as a rodman
and learn the thing from the ground up, and he went with George S.
Morrison—I think you gentlemen probably know Morrison was
probably the greatest bridge engineer this country has ever pro-
duced—and he worked with Morrison on the Memphis bridge over
the Mississippi River, and then he was in Chicago and worked with
the contractors in perfecting apparatus and mechanisms for doing
the excavating work in the Chicago Drainage Canal. He built the
Galveston Sea wall. He was the engineer for the Galveston sea wall.
He was on the board of consulting engineer for the Panama Canal
and dominated the conclusion of that board. *
You will remember, I think, that a minority of the board—that
minority included Joseph Ripley and Isham Randolph, who was one
of the early engineers of the sanitary district canal—this minority
reported in favor of an 85-foot level-lock canal at Panama instead
of following the old French scheme of a sea-level canal. It is tre-
mendously interesting to understand that the experience in St. Marys
River was utilized to show that the accidents in a waterway occur in
the narrow, restricted channels instead of in a lock. .
So what happened at Panama—and this shows the genius, I think,
of Alfred Noble and the men who stood with him on that, and I am
sure he dominated the situation—they got a canal where for 80 per
cent of the way a vessel could steam ahead under full speed. If
they had taken a sea-level canal, they would have had a canal where
for 80 per cent of the way a vessel would have had to run at slow
speed, and if she met another vessel she would have had to tie up to
the banks until the other vessel passed. Then the experience of what
is called the Gaillard Cut, with the land slides that you are all fa-
miliar with, if they had gone down 85 feet further it would have
been a very serious situation.
So the genius of Alfred Noble, I think, is to be credited with our
canal at Panama. Mr. Roosevelt was President at that time, and
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1439
with his customary courage accepted a minority report instead of a
majority report. -
The CHAIRMAN. And Noble was in the minority?
Mr. SHENEHON. Noble was of the minority report, and as I know
Noble and as other engineers know him he was the man who domi-
nated and led the situation through pure mentality and flot through
any quality of bulldozing the other fellows. And in this work on a
deep waterway to the sea are some of the best discussions of the
speed and conditions of vessel movements in canals that have ever
been written.
The CHAIRMAN. What, in a general way, are the conclusions, if
you can state them?
Mr. SHENEHON. You mean as to speeds?
The CHAIRMAN. No; as to the building of Šuch a waterway as
they were commissioned to investigate?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think they simply reported the results, with
estimates, recommending the Oswego route, but as to whether or not
it should be built. I do not think they went that far, to urge the
building of it. That is my recollection.
I have said so many things about Alfred Noble, because I am
leading up to the fact that he designed regulating works at the head
of the Niagara River, and that these were incorporated in the
reports of which this is one volume [indicating], made in 1900.
And I have so much confidence in anything that Alfred Noble
recommends that I assure you gentlemen that it would have worked
in 1900, and we would have saved over $50,000,000 if they had spent
the three-quarters of a million estimated at that time.
Mr. HULL. Are these regulating works that he has designed there
similiar to the ones at Lake Superior? -
Mr. SHENEHON. They were designed just about the same time.
Mr. HULL. I mean, are they similar? *
Mr. SHENEHON. They are similar in the fact that they have piers
and Stoney gates; that is the gate that slides up like a window
sash and is counterpoised as with sash weights, but the gates are
longer. Those at Sault Ste. Marie are 52 feet, while the clear
opening of the Niagara works is about 80 feet, but the same prin-
ciples apply. The works are shown on the map which I have
placed in the hands of a number of the men of this committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to explain this to us?
This series of dots at the head, I suppose, is the rock foundation at
the bottom’
Mr. SHENEHON. You will see a certain zone of the river where
soundings are shown, and contour lines showing the elevation of
the rock. The reproduction of this map is so small that you can
not see the elevation of the rocks, but toward the lower left-hand
side you will see the Erie Basin, that is the entrance to the Erie
Canal, and also to the Black Rock Canal, although the Black
IRock Lock was not built at that time.
The CHAIRMAN. And it has since gone out of commission?
Mr. SHENEHON. From the breakwater the plan was to construct
a submerged concrete weir about 6 feet below the elevation of the
lake surface, and there were 2,900 feet of that wall on the two
sides of the river. Then in the center of the river and in the deep-
1440 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
est water there were 13 of these big Stoney gates, with piers about
12 feet wide, masonry and concrete piers, granite I believe they
were at the water edge, and these great steel gates sliding up and
down. The whole system of gates as reported could be operated in
about 45 minutes, and these powerful regulating works were to have
cost about $750,000 at that time. They would probably cost about
a million and a half now.
I wish to point out that Mr. Wisner and Mr. Noble reached the
conclusion that if you desired to regulate Lake Erie at any lower
elevation than extreme high water in a state of nature, you
would have to increase the outflow section by rock excavation at
the head of the river—the very principle I have been showing you
all through this discussion—the need for greater outflow capacity
at the head of the rapids. Increase your outflow and then you can
regulate safely at a higher level than otherwise.
And then another thing—and I think this will be a point where
it will be proper for me to stop—where you have traffic that must get
by the regulating works, which is the case in the Niagara River,
vessels must reach Tonawanda particularly, and vessels that come
down as far as Chippewa and Port Day (those were actual vessel
landings), you must have a lock after your river head is closed.
They proposed, with these regulating works, to close open river
navigation. As I have told you already, the head of the Niagara
River is not quite a series of rapids, the water does not break, but
the current is running 8 to 10 miles an hour through this swift
gorge. So these engineers of 1900 recommended that a ship lock
be built, by-passing the rapids, entering the river again below the
International Bridge, below Squaw Island, and below the swift
water; and that the building of this lock should either go hand in
band with the building of regulating works or precede the regu-
lating works.
Now, this is as far as the regulating works at the head of the
Niagara River have proceeded. They did build the ship lock so
that we could lock up from the open lower river a ship lock with
21 feet of water, 60 or 80 feet wide, and the length of our longest
vessels. And that lock is in operation for the vessels trading at
Tonawanda to-day. So that the building of regulating works was
proceeded with only so far as the preliminary measure to accom-
modate the vessel commerce and trading at Tonawanda and on the
Niagara River. But, you see. they did get a start. They got that
far. *
This was put up to Congress—the regulating works—in a special
document, so as to give it to Congress before the printing of the
main report. It was so urgent that this should be done, in the
minds of the engineers, that they did that. There is no question
about the recommendation of the regulating works. -
The CHAIRMAN. What is the document?
Mr. SHENEHON. I have tried to get a copy of that special docu-
ment and I have not succeeded. I do not know its number, but I
think it can be gotten. It is entitled, I think, “The Regulation ”
Mr. KINDRED. What time was it gotten out?
Mr. SHENEHON. I imagine that was put in about 1899.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1441
Mr. HULL. I want to ask you a question. I think you stated it
a while ago, but I want to get it again. You contend that we ought
to have started these regulating works in 1900 at Lake Ontario, as
I understand it? -
Mr. SHENEHON. In Lake Erie. There was no suggestion at that
time, because they reached a conclusion that Lake Ontario would
not be adversely affected.
Mr. HULL. You made a statement awhile ago, but I want you to
repeat it. What saving is your estimate that it would have been
to the traffic of the lakes if it had been done?
Mr. SHENEHON. If I should give that it would be rather a guess.
Mr. HULL. Give us a guess on it. I think it is an important
question. *
Mr. SHENEHON. I should say from one to two hundred million
dollars. That is, counting the elimination of low-water stages as
well as any loss coming from diversions.
Mr. KINDRED. Is that the same thing as saying that by maintaining
certain levels there would have been that much saving?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
l * KINDRED. Then you get back to the cost of lowering these
€Ve IS.
Mr. SHENEHON. Doctor, you have not been here. I am claiming
that there is only one real reason why we are suffering the low-lake
stages of the present, when Lakes Michigan and Huron are 33 inches
low compared to what they ought to be; and that loss probably
means for this single year $15,000,000. I am claiming that Chicago is
not responsible and the Welland Canal is not responsible and the
water powers at Niagara Falls are not responsible, but the negligence
of the Federal Government is responsible, the Federal Government
and the Dominion of Canada (and I have no doubt Canada would
have given her consent if urged), but we have a case of negligence.
Chicago is chargeable for 17 per cent only of the present low levels
of Lake Michigan–Huron, with 17 per cent only of the lowering.
One-seventh of the total lowering is chargeable to Chicago, and the
rest is just negligence. The point I have been making is that we
should have built the regulating works in 1900. Nobody appears
to be responsible for this negligence; it was just one of those things
that happened. And the second point that I am making is that we
are dealing microscopically in charging Chicago with damaging the
Great Lakes or charging the Welland Canal with damaging the
Great Lakes, or charging the water-power companies at Niagara
Falls with damaging the Great Lakes. It is a bigger thing than any
artificial diversion.
Mr. KINDRED. If the Government should correct and cure this
negligence that you speak of, will that restore the lake levels now?
Mr. SHENEHON. Absolutely, and it will not only restore the lake
levels, but it will permit you to carry better lake levels than with-
out these diversions.
Mr. KINDRED. With the regulating system, the gates?
Mr. SHENEHON. Absolutely.
Mr. HULL. Bring another point out to him, and that is that it has
improved and kept the lake from getting too high instead of too low.
and these regulating works will do it.
91739—24—PT 2—76
1442 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. KINDRED. I do not think you need to take the time of the com-
mittee to go over this again, because I will read your testimony.
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not mind that, provided I can accentuate it
again with the other gentlemen of the committee. I want the thing to
be absolutely clearly understood.
The CHAIRMAN. The thing you have to bear in mind is, Doctor,
that Mr. Shenehon's contention and his argument as an engineer,
based on experiences which he has narrated to us at the Soo, is that
these regulating works will, through conserving the water at high
times and distributing it at low times, enable you to have an equal
flow with the greater level. Of course, if you divert from that level
you would divert just so much regardless of whether you had a high
or a low level. You are diverting, for instance
Mr. KINDRED. He will make that high enough so that this diver-
sion will not hurt you?
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that is his argument.
Mr. SHENEHON. Here is the point, and perhaps I have not made
myself quite clear. There is only one limit to the high level that
you can carry everywhere in the Lakes, and that is the point where
you create riparian damage.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course. I understand that.
Mr. SHENEHON. The regulating works will lift the Lakes to any
level we wish to have them.
Mr. KINDRED. And keep them raised?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; but here is the danger. Sometimes we have
a year of unusual rainfall. You remember in 1913, the year of
the Dayton floods, at a cost of a hundred million dollars of damage.
Mr. KINDRED (interposing). I happen to have been through that
section and saw the flood.
Mr. SHENEHON. That was a year of very unusual precipitation,
and it is the year when Lake Erie came up fastest. Those conditions
will arise, and if we have held our lake high, so as to have good
drafts, good depths under keels, and rapid speed in our boats, be-
cause they have plenty of water under their keels, then between the
limiting high level of the water and the level we are using, we
haven’t much range. But if you have outlets as at Chicago run-
ning all the while, you have less flood water to pass out of the Ni-
agara River. I will show you later on that the Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors in the Taylor report think they ought to
increase the waterway to 400,000 cubic feet per second in the Niagara
River.
Mr. KINDRED. Can you regulate the Illinois River Valley in the
same way? If you do not you would have the same flow there.
Mr. SHENEHON. It is already regulated. gº
Mr. KINDRED. But they are suffering from overflows there at times.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is chargeable to the elements, I am afraid.
Mr. HULL. And the dikes being too close together.
Mr. KINDRED. May I ask the cost of the regulating system as Com-
pared with the so-called compensating?
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not believe that there would be a great deal
of difference, if you have adequate compensating works, in the cost
as between regulating works. But compensating works are dan-
gerous and of limited usefulness.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1443
Mr. HULL. What did the regulating works cost in Superior?
Mr. SHENEHON. Half a million dollars.
Mr. HULL. What will it cost in Lake Erie Ż
Mr. SHENEHON. Three-quarters of a million at the time the report
was made in 1900, and probably a million and a half at the present
time. You See, for an expenditure of a million and a half dollars
Mr. HULL (interposing). You would save 200,000,000?
Mr. SHENEHON. If we had spent $1,200,000 back in 1920 or 1921,
we would have saved a hundred to two hundred million dollars.
Mr. HULL. And Mr. Goulder could have run these big boats, too.
Mr. KINDRED. Do I understand that General Taylor has recom-
mended the system 3 -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I will read that into the record, the recom-
mendation of General Taylor, and he recommends that they be built
immediately.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Shenehon, before you finish, will you
just let me ask you one or two questions, not with reference to what
you have been saying, however. Here is the conclusion reached by
Noble and Wisner and Raymond. Most of it is thanks to various
persons, except one short paragraph. There are three-quarters of
a page occupied with thanks, and about 6 lines to recommendations.
Mr. SHENEHON. They were courteous gentlemen.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is what they say:
As the result of this investigation, it appears that the 21-foot waterway
promises a much greater return of value relatively to the cost than the 30-foot.
The main advantages of the 30-foot waterway are they would furnish the
lowest cost of transport of the property to foreign markets and permit the
Construction of the largest seagoing vessels on the Lakes.
In other words, in a measure they forecast what has developed
since from the increase of the size of the vessels on the Lakes and a
distinctive type of boat entirely different, flat and low, instead of the
high, narrow boat of the ocean. They forecast in a measure, not
going into the details of it, but they forecast the best opinion of to-
day that you could not navigate the Great Lakes with ocean-going
vessels, that the 21-foot waterway was the waterway you wanted and
not the 30. Isn’t that a fair conclusion?
Mr. SHENEHON. That appears to be at that time. I think the con-
ditions have changed since 1900, with the volume of traffic we have.
The CHAIRMAN. It has changed so that what they forecast is
being very greatly accentuated.
Mr. SHENEHON. But I want to put one thought in the minds of
the men of this committee in thinking of these outlets to tidewater,
and that is that when the market makes it feasible to develop the St.
Lawrence River power, that the sale of the power will pay for the
interest on the cost of the navigation canal.
The CHAIRMAN. That is an entirely different thing, and I abso-
lutely agree with you.
Mr. SHENEHON. As to the desirability of an alien channel, there
may be two opinions about that.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a different thing. I do not think there
can be any conflict of opinion at all on what you have said. We will
adjourn now until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
(Thereupon, at 4.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.)
1444 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Saturday, May 24, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a.m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF MIR. FRANCIS C. SHENEHON-Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. Before you continue your argument, I would like
to as you one thing I have had in mind. Referring to these reports
as to the routes to the sea from the Great Lakes, and reaching a
conclusion as to their desirability between themselves, is it not true
the result has been reached by the consideration of engineering rather
than business and economic facts?
Perhaps I can illustrate that by a little statement. I am told by
a near relative of Henry M. Flagler that when he was about to build
the Key West extension he called in his engineers and asked them
whether it was physically possible to build it. They said at once
“Yes; Mr. Flagler, it is physically possible, but economically and
from the standpoint of a return on the money investment it is not
possible.” He said to them, “Gentlemen, I did not consult you and
am not asking your opinion upon that question at all: all I am asking
§. is as to the engineering possibilities,” and they said it could be
OIle.
Now, it is true that from the time this extension was completed
down to last year that section of the road did not pay and was a
draft upon the other parts of the system; but last year it pulled out
even. In other words, it has now reached the point where it is self-
supporting, and it has now the advantage of completing what would
have been practically a stub railroad and making it a railway system
connecting with the South. And so it is an illustration of the fact
that the engineering view in end of itself is important but in many
instances is far from controlling, and all I am asking is that in the
instances of these reports, the reports on their face have indicated
that they were on the engineering situation, it being easier and more
practicable from that standpoint to build by one route than by the
other, but not taking into account the greater population, the local
business, the communities to be served, the immense benefits to be
derived both from people all along the great waterway, not alone
on that which is to be constructed but that with which it connects.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think you are right in your statement concern-
ing both the report of the engineers on deep waterways in 1900 and
the report of the engineers on the St. Lawrence waterway to the
sea, that these projects were so vast that there was a subdivision as
between the engineers and the economists. On the other hand, it
has been my practice to always regard the economic element as part
of the engineering problem, and in the analysis of a water power—
and I have made many analysis of water powers—I must always take
into consideration whether or not this would serve to pay interest
on the bonds and stocks. And beyond that is still a bigger element
indicated by your illustration of the Flagler railway, and that is
the high financiers, men who think in a very large economic way,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1445
taking into account the future as well as the present, and dominating
engineering considerations.
I do know cases where water powers have been purchased where
the immediate economic value was not in sight, but in the judgment
of these men of vision, the purchase was a desirable one just the
Same. I know cases of that kind.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can see it just comes down by the
Florida Keys Railroad. I have been told by people that ought to
know that Flagler was the greatest financial genius of his generation
in that group; Mr. Rockefeller, I understand, says that of all the
Standard Oil group he was incomparably the biggest man in that
domain, and I do not believe there is any better illustration here
than that. It seems to me that we are to give to a report not alone
the weight that should be given it as an engineering document but we
forget that there is the economic feature, and that while the engineer
is undoubtedly a leader in his domain and an expert upon the ques-
tion on which he reports, there is the second question, and there are
experts on that question whose opinion would be more valuable than
the Opinion of the engineer.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I have in mind that when I was on the
campus of the University of Minnesota one of the professors of
economics said to me that when he wanted to get the real truth in
reference to some economic question he read the transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers; and the engineering analysis
in the end that does not contain the economic element you speak of
is incomplete; whether or not the engineer in question was making
the analysis or was turning it over to an economist or a business man,
is, of course, the other consideration.
The engineering mind, however, is trained to these analytical dis-
cussions, and I am inclined to think that engineers have served very
well in economic things; that a project is not purely a mathematical
affair; that economics enter into their conclusions on projects.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I have no doubt at all that is so. We have
illustrated here repeatedly that the engineers have to study and do
study the problems presented; but it has seemed to me that you can
very well supplement it by a study of those who are experts in the
field of political economy and actual transactions.
Mr. SHENEHON, I think that is very desirable indeed, Mr.
Chairman. -
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed, Mr. Shenehon.
Mr. SHENEHON. In my discussion of yesterday, where I made
suggestions concerning the responsibility for what I conceded to be
a very bad state of affairs in the levels of the Great Lakes, I did not
intend to discredit anyone in particular. Perhaps I intended to
point out the fact that there is no agency which might look after
this waterway unless it were the vessel men themselves, with their
association known as the Lake Carriers, because the maintenance of
the right-of-way of the Great Lakes is very close to their hearts and
their purses.
I mentioned the Corps of Engineers, and I intended no criticism
of the Corps of Engineers in what I said. It is probably very wise
that the officers of the Corps of Engineers should not promote one
thing as against another thing, but should act in a judicial capacity
1446 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
rather than as promoters. I am inclined to think that is not only the
dignified attitude but possibly a very wise attitude. -
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred
the friends of a project or improvement will bring it to the attention
of the engineers in the customary way.
Mr. SHENEHON. It has been my experience to serve with very able
engineer officers. I have already mentioned General Poe, who was
in charge at the time we were building the Poe Lock. My view
has never been changed of him, that he was not only a very able
think perhaps he is one engineer officer who did promote things; I
think perhaps we can credit him with this 20 and 21 foot project in
the Lakes; and the building of the Poe Lock is to his credit, the lock
bearing his name. That was the lock with 20 feet of water on the
miter sill.
I served also under General Lydecker later on, I believe on the
same lock. He always reminded me very much of Thackery’s
Colonel Newcome; and I might remark here that some one has said
that if the type of gentleman should disappear from the earth
that it could be reproduced from the character of Colonel New-
come, in Thackery’s novel.
I reckon General Bixby as one of my friends. He is a scholarly
engineer of high dignity and is a very kind man. General Beach
I have dealt with in a very friendly attitude on all matters except
the Chicago affair. Notwithstanding that General Beach knew that
I had given much study to the whole situation and that my ex-
perience on the Great Lakes might give weight to my conclusions,
I do not think I have ever had 15 minutes discussion with (Feneral
Beach on the rights or wrongs of this Chicago question. His general
attitude toward me was “Well, Shenehon, we have never done
anything to you, have we?” Well, it struck me that we had to
legitimatize this diversion child rather than just take the water.
To take the water appeared enough for General Beach.
General Keller, who was assistant chief engineer in France, was
Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia when I needed
a very able man in the building of this big waterpower in California
that I have mentioned (the El Dorado development, where the water
operates under a head of 1,900 feet instead of 220 feet, as at Niagara
Falls). I took General Keller away from the Federal Government
and placed him in charge of that work.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought I saw General Keller here within a
week.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, he is in Chicago and he might have come
to Washington. The work at El Dorado is finished, and he is now
a citizen of Chicago and probably will be a taxpayer in Chicago.
General Taylor, who becomes Chief of Engineers very shortly, is
a strong man. He once offered me the position of his principal
assistant engineer in the building of the canal and ship lock at Lake
Washington, Seattle. But Colonel Lydecker—he was a colonel at
that time—would not let me go.
I know General Taylor is a strong man because of the report which
was signed by him, the report of the board of engineers appearing
as a review of the Warren report; and, because he recommends that
regulating works, at the very site selected by the Board of Engineers
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1447
on Deep Waterways back in 1900, be built at the earliest possible
moment.
And Colonel Keller, Chief Engineer of the Federal Power Com-
mission, is unusually able. So I speak with the utmost respect and
mºtion of the men of the Corps of Engineers. But there is one
thing
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, in that time General Goethals and
General Shuntz were also active.
Mr. SHENEHON. I knew neither of them, as it happened, although
of course I know of their records. But the defiance of the Federal
Government—the insistence on the rights of Illinois of the men who
built and were the parents of this great drainage canal, created an
antagonism that still lives. That is one subject, the subject of the
Chicago Drainage Canal, on which my friend General Keller can not
talk reasonably. It is remarkable. He is a most able man, and we
are the greatest of friends, but nothing doing on Chicago with him.
The thing is so remarkable it seems to be handed down from general
to colonel and from colonel to major and from major to captain
and from captain to lieutenant, like the laying on the hands in the
church. I think you have seen it in this room. I think you have
observed here the anxiety of General Bixby, notwithstanding his
kindness and Scholarliness and research and his ability as an engi-
neer—you have observed his hesitation to think that it is possible
that Chicago is protected in this treaty with Great Britain, and you
have seen his hesitation as to the practicability or regulating works,
his hesitation to admit that they were practical. I do not imagine
that is because they would help Chicago, but it is so.
And that is the reason, that when you suggest that a tribunal decide
this thing, that the sanitary district might think that it would be a
tribunal of officers of the Corps of Engineers and that this ancient
antagonism— an antagonism of a quarter of a century nearly—would
be the controlling thing. I am going to illustrate that a little later
in a recommendation in the Taylor report of the Board of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the suggestion which has been made is that
an impartial tribunal be created, and that tribunal would have to be
considered impartial by Chicago, I would say, as well as by the Gov-
ernment. I do not think there would be any disposition to select
a tribunal of that sort if one was provided for, which Chicago might
consider prejudiced or having feeling.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, a make-up similar to that of an arbitration
committee might be proper—Chicago to appoint one member and the
Federal Government another member, and those two to select a
third member.
I should also mention among the men of the Corps of Engineers
Colonel Judson, whom I regret to say died a year or so ago. He was
one of the ablest, kindest, and most judicial of officers, and a man who
realized the needs of the sanitary district in the highest judicial way.
I should also mention the young Major Putnam, at Chicago now.
He is a man I think of fine abality and fine attitude. Colonel Jud-
son was in charge prior to Major Putnam's coming from 1914, until
a year or so ago. So I say there are exceptions to this hereditary
antagonism to Chicago, which I have referred to.
1448
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Ó anº aº ſ
OOIOGO$40%|9
- →�6933
ºs 3 ºn I v^J ： O B ºn º DSO NWT3A3 （T1)�%ſº
ș Yoºvoi Ho
ș
oº9N
ſý7374.77 þegº 574067trº■N
~c_v 4.974 º 570，3/&/?S A/t/37/W§ PR
ſy/ſy 70 ZS BZX/ſz/7}Ņ
OnvºlºnºĶĒø ºx{gººgºººººººº$R
s--iw）, www.ewi.N\，zººººººººººº§§
è)
3，4ýnºſy;3%§§
NÇ
ĶĪNOÈ Q)
*Togº,
4/º
©®^º SN3O90
şgſºff%%
ſėZA.
3%º
%ø
Ķow
Á，
„…za/ae/ ºſºb， zò•sxoo7 º/aes. №
�º lwww als „Linwſ
6/6/…º -
>/-77/V/9/V/. 7 §)^///7/79/VO_2-4>ax
/\/CA/37/\/37A/S "JD S/2/\/\/º/-/^2\,Aº
//V.37 ZS AS S 37>/ſ^7 _Zſ/E72/€)<>
•+/OO
aſſº/V „Kl：7X/2^
sèy?A/è/ 72/727/Mt/7 Zs (7/Viz tzè/bºſ/AV
_-/O /VO/_/b/7/79272/
Q9țZO///Q _ZO ZJ/è/_/S/C7 º(2/ſ/Z//V/S







ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1449
Now, I absolve in the matter of responsibility for negligence in
the Great Lakes system, this particular committee of the Congress
of the United States; but since Secretary Baker transmitted to Con-
gress on December 7, 1920, the recommendations of the Board of
Engineers signed by General Taylor, recommending the immediate
construction of regulating works at the head of Niagara River, and
stating in unqualified terms their feasibility, it is squarely up to
Congress at the present time. That is the job of this committee from
this time on.
Now, I am sorry I have to take up these engineering matters and
describe regulating works to you. I know it is tedious, but I have a
little of it to go through with, and I want to take up this report of
the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways. That was the report
of Alfred Noble and George Y. Wisner and Colonel Raymond; and
I brought with me larger plates this morning, which will show
more definitely the lay-out of the regulating works. -
I think the location there is clearly defined and I am inclined to
think that should be reproduced in the record, Mr. Chairman, that
these plates should be reproduced in the record.
On this plate, which is No. 84, taken from the report of the Board
of Engineers of Deep Waterways, 1900, is shown the head of the
Niagara River, with Buffalo on the south or American side, and
Fort Erie on the north or Canadian side. And this map shows the
trumpet-like entrance, as the water of Lake Erie converges to go
down through the narrow gorge of the Niagara River opposite Fort
Erie. At Fort Erie the width is about 1,800 feet and the water about
18 feet deep, and it is running about 8 miles an hour. It is a very
restricted section. It forms a sluiceway or construction which holds
Lake Erie in check and makes a reservoir or mill pond of that lake.
Beginning on the Canadian side and at the left-hand side of this
sheet is shown a solid black line starting from the Canadian shore
and proceeding southwesterly toward a place where the continuity
of the line is broken. That solid line is a submerged weir which is
shown in cross section on plate No. 85. This cross section of sub-
merged weir is on the right-hand corner of this latter plate [exhibit-
ing plate to committee].
There are 2,900 feet of this weir, and then a series of 13 Stoney
gates; and these Stoney gates while large are of the same type as
those built at the Sault Ste. Marie, which were described and illus-
trated in my earlier talk.
Thirteen of those gates supported by piers 12 feet thick of
masonry, granite as I recollect it; and these gates themselves are
80 feet long; there is a clear opening of 80 feet for each of these
13 gates. -
Mr. HULL. Were they the lifting gates?
Mr. SHENEHON. They are lifting gates that go up just the same as
a window sash, and they were counterpoised with weights of a
reat many tons. The window sash is the best illustration of the
toney gate except that the Stoney gate itself is a massive steel
structure, and friction is avoided by roller bearings on the down-
stream side of the gates and at the end. I made the statement that
the 13 gates could be opened up in 45 minutes, which gives a very
elastic control. From the end of this gates section, and proceeding
1450 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to the breakwater toward the South is a continuation of the sub-
merged weir. These gates, and the whole system, were to be built
to cost less than $800,000, a little over three quarters of a million
dollars, and to be begun in 1900. In order to get a greater outflow
capacity for the Niagara River—and I have accentuated this as
much as I can—the #. thing to be done in our regulation is to
increase the outflow area of the river, either by lateral canals as at
Sault Ste. Marie, where 60,000 cubic feet per second will be diverted,
or by excavating in the river itself. The object of this greater out-
flow capacity in the river itself or in lateral canals is to avoid high
stages of the lake, where riparian damage might be done.
We have, as I have told you, 64 years of records showing how
high the lake has been; and the lake is likely in the future to be
just as high as it has been in the past, unless by increasing the
outflow capacity of the river we are able to hold it down to some
particular level rather than let it reach the flood stage. -
Mr. HULL. Is it your idea that the lake levels should be kept
uniform the year round; in other words, with these gates it should
never get much higher or lower?
Mr. SHENEHON. My idea is it might have a range of a foot and a
half.
Mr. HULL. Either way?
Mr. SHENEHON. Because we are up against two things. We must
take care of water power as well as navigation. So it does no par-
ticular harm if we have a slight fluctuation there.
In answering that question, Mr. Hull, I might refer you to Colonel
Wooten's report on the St. Lawrence, where his attempt was to
make a uniform flow in the river. Where we make the flow uniform
we do it at the expense of some fluctuation in the lakes; and that
fluctuation within limits does not matter very much; I would say
it would not matter within the limits of a foot and a half.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask one question to make it plain to
me, although I think I understand it. You say the first thing to do
is to make the outflow of a greater capacity?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
Mr. HULL. Just why is that?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, because we have a year of high precipita-
tion, as for instance, in 1913 I have already referred to the fact that
that was the year of the great floods on the Miami near Dayton and
that vicinity, where the damage amounted to $100,000,000. The
precipitation on Lake Erie was very heavy that year and not only
the precipitation but the run-off from the drainage area, the floods
coming in, made the lake rise. Of course, more water then goes out
through the out-flow channel. If we want to hold the lake at an
elevation lower than the elevation in a state of nature, we must have
more out-flow capacity from the lake. In place of rock excavation at
the head of Niagara River, the Welland Canal serves the same pur-
pose, as does the Chicago Canal also, and any additional flow created
from Lake Erie by lowering the water at Niagara Falls. So all
these diversions are good in the initial steps in the regulation of the
Great Lakes, if we wish to avoid flood stages as well as keep them
from periods of low water.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1451
That is what I meant when I said the Welland Canal and its
diversion of water were to be regarded as benefits to the Great
Lakes rather than deficits, provided we have regulation. If we do
not have regulation, of course we lower the lake levels as at the
present time they are lowered.
Now, I said, Mr. Chairman, in my discussion that one of the
other steps in regulation is to keep navigation going, so as to not
block vessels that may wish to go to Tonawanda; and the United
States has already built a ship lock that permits vessels to pass
around the site of the regulating works and go through a ship canal.
This is called the Black Rock Harbor [indicating on map.], and
vessels pass through a ship lock into the river perhaps 2 miles
farther down.
This ship lock was recommended in this 1900 report, and has been
built. To that extent regulating works have already been begun
on the Niagara River. But it stopped there.
Now, I want to make a correction in an answer made yesterday
to a question shot at me rather rapidly, as to how much money might
have been saved if these works had been put in in 1900. I think
I said that there might have been saved from $100,000,000 to $200,-
000,000. I think I would rather make that a little more conserva-
tive and say that from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 might have been
saved. There are several elements entering there.
Mr. MICHAELSON. To whom would this money be saved; would
it be saved to the people in general?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I think that is the proper allocation of it.
I think Mr. Goulder allocated it with the common people.
Mr. MICHAELSON. In the way of freight rates?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; it would be saved by keeping the lakes up
higher and vessels could load deeper.
Mr. MICHAELSON. That is what I mean; it would be saved to the
people in lower freight rates?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; your question should be answered yes; but
I had in mind in first answering the question that these works
would have a larger effect on Lakes Michigan and Huron than
they really would. That is, these works were intended to raise the
level of Lake Erie above its low plane about 3 feet, and by back
water effect to raise Lakes Michigan and Huron 1 foot. And this
provision for additional outflow capacity was to regulate the lake
at a lower level than the engineers contemplated, if it was found
desirable.
I think as I am mentioning this matter of high water in the
lakes I would like to say a little something, suggested by Mr. Rich-
mond’s discussion as to whether high lake levels or low lake levels
are desirable from the riparian point of view.
I read now from page 395 of the volume which is called the
Warren report.
The title of the paragraph I read is “Effect upon riparian in-
terests.” -
The shore line of the Great Lakes and their connecting channels is more
than 8,300 miles in length. Over the greater part of the distance the shore
has the following characteristics: A sloping “beach '' extends from some dis-
tance below the low-water mark to above Ordinary high water. This beach
1452 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
may consist of Sand, gravel, bowlders, Or even of ledge rock. Behind it,
in most places, is a sort of mound or barrier composed of material cast up
by the greatest storms. If this material is sand it may be built up by the
winds into dunes Several hundred feet in height. Behind the mound
the natural upland country is found, be it forest, arable land, or marsh. .
A lowering Or raising of the lake level along most of those shores has no
effect whatever on the value of the land. It merely moves the water line a few
feet up or down the beach, covering or uncovering a little of the valueless sand
or gravel. If the level is lowered the landowner's holding of dry land is in-
creased a trifle, but he is none the richer thereby. No marketable grass or
other crop will grow upon the barren Strip thus exposed. He can build no
permanent structure on it, for, whether the stage be high or low, the greatest
Storms Will hurl their destructive waves clear acroSS the beach to the barrier
in the rear. If the level is raised the owner loses a few square feet of land,
but it is land which was of no value to him, and he is none the poorer.
The above Statements hold true Over by far the greater part of the shore line
of the Great Lakes, but there are places where changes in the level of the Lakes
are a matter of interest to the riparian owners. In places marshy lands adjoin
the Lakes or their tributaries, and the value is increased by low stages of the
Lakes. The land in the delta of the St. Clair River is a typical example. Here
are many Square miles Of low, wet land on Which grOWS a heavy crop Of coarse,
wild grasses. In wet seasons, when Lake St. Clair is high, these can not be
harvested, but if the lake level is low the marsh dries out enough to carry the
weight of men and horses, and considerable quantity of what is known as
“ marsh hay ” is gathered. This is not suitable for stock feed but has a small
market value, being used largely as a packing material.
Large areas of land such as this are found around Saginaw Bay on Lake
Huron and around Maumee Bay On Lake Erie. Some is also found on the
South shore of Lake Ontario and the east shore of Lake Michigan, and there is
a little on Lake Superior. Although this land amounts to a good many Square
miles, the increase of value of low Stages amounts to very little, as the crop
brings a very low price which barely pays for harvesting it, and over much of
this area marsh hay is not gathered at all.
Wherever land of this type is found there is usually a Small area of land Of
a much more valuable nature. This is rich, black muck, which can be used
to raise celery and Other Valuable truck in seasons of low water, but is too
wet for Successful culture in other years. A low stage of water is a very
valuable asset to the OWner of land of this type. The total amount of such
land is small. The most important examples are at Irondequoit Bay on Lake
Ontario and in some of the harbors on the east shore of Lake Michigan.
Along the tributary and connecting rivers and the sheltering inlets of the
Great Lakes the owner of the riparian lands is usually benefited by moderately
high stages of water. In such places nearly every riparian owner has a boat
of Some sort, and Small docks, boathouses, dredged slips, and similar structures
are found in great abundance. These are usually built to suit the prevailing
stages and lose a great deal of their value if the level falls to a lower stage.
In summer-resort districts, such as the Thousand Islands and the St. Clair
Flats, hundreds of such structures are to be found within a few miles. The
advantage due to higher Stages is not universal even in such instances, for in
places like Buffalo. along Buffalo Creek, the damage from floods is increased
and sites for houses are made less dry and desirable.
I want you to give particular attention to the paragraph that I
am about to read:
It has been the general experience of the War Department that years of
abnormally high water Cause but little comment, but that every season of un-
usually low stage brings a great number of complaints of damages done and
requests for information as to the cause of these low levels and the possibilities
of preventing them.
With the data at hand it is impossible to evaluate these effects in dollars
and cents. It is believed they do not form a very large or important factor of
the problem of lake levels.
You will note here that there are a great many requests for in-
formation as to the cause of these low levels, and I think that is
what we are discussing now; and I am stating that the cause of these
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1453
ſow levels is the neglect of the Federal Government to maintain the
right of way of the Great Lakes at a proper level—that the lower-
ing due to the Welland Canal or due to the power companies at
Niagara Falls or due to the Chicago Drainage Canal is a trivial
thing compared with the low stages coming from other causes.
Now, among these plates relating to the regulating works pro-
posed by the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways, Plate No.
85—to which I have referred as having the submerged weir -
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). When were these prepared?
Mr. SHENEHON. This is 1900; this is a part of the report of the
Board of Engineers. * ,
Mr. HULL. But they have never been executed?
Mr. SHENEHON. It depends on what you mean by executed. Do
you mean killed off?
Mr. HULL. I mean they have never been built?
Mr. SHENEHON. Only the beginning, at Black Rock. On this
Plate 85 we have in elevation an illustration of the bridge or plat-
form extending from pier to pier. That bridge work, of course,
carries the operating machinery used in the raising and lowering of
the gates. The gates are shown—the mechanism and the piers—
and the piers are built of granite. Whether or not it is granite all
the way through or concrete on the inside is not disclosed.
Now, I imagine that cut granite would add a good deal to the
expense of the works as compared to concrete.
You raised that question yesterday, Mr. Chairman, as to the cost
of the works.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is not the true type of dam that is in opera-
tion on the Ohio River, is it? - -
Mr. SHENEHON. No; those on the Ohio are knockdown dams for
the most part. There is a dam, the uppermost one, which I have
never seen, which I understand is a fixed dam. * * :
Mr. MANSFIELD. Are they operated similarly to these?
Mr. SHENEHON. I don’t know. The wickets on the ordinary river
dam simply fall down, there is nothing left. I am going to speak a
little somthing about the Ohio later in connection with the ex-
haustion of coal. g
Plate No. 86 is a detail of the gates, the Stoney gates of these regu-
lating works of the board of engineers, and Plate 87 is a detail of
the operating mechanism—the hoist.
I would like the committee to see with what detail these structures
have been designed. They were ready for construction in 1900, not
quite a quarter of a century ago, and, as I have said before, a special
message to Congress (we have not located that yet, however, have
we?) was made so that this thing might be facilitated and hastened.
At least I am assuming that is the reason.
The CHAIRMAN. Have we any such message, Mr. McGannº Do
you know whether we have any report transmitting these plans to
Congress in 1900? -
The CLERK. Yes, sir. The report was printed in House Document
No. 149, Fifty-sixth Congress second session.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Shenehon, you have referred to these gates as
Stoney gates, frequently. When you explain them in detail, how-
1454 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ever, you call them steel gates. I do not understand the word
“Stoney.”
Mr. SHENEHON. Stoney is the man's name—Stoney; the gates are
very massive steel structures with horizontal ribs and steel sheathing,
strong enough to take the thrust of ice and the smash of waves.
I call your attention to the fact that the year this report was
made, 1900, was the year that the Sanitary District of Chicago be-
gan taking water out through the Chicago River. I want to call
your attention to the fact also that that subject was presented before
a socitey of engineers, either the Detroit Society of Engineers or the
Western Socitey of Engineers. Mr. C. B. Stewart, one of the hy-
draulic engineers working with Mr. George Y. Wisner, showed how
much Lake Erie would be lowered by the diversion of 10,000 cubic
feet in the Chicago Drainage Canal. All that data was before the
public at that time—at least the technical public.
Among the causes or responsibilities for the failure to build these
regulating works, Canada has been mentioned; and it has been fre-
quently stated that the reason we have done nothing is because it is
an international problem. Now, I wish to state that in my judgment
the Canadian Government is not inflicting the great injury that Mr.
Goulder has indicated on the commerce of the United States
by any abstraction to the building of regulating works. In
fact, I am going to show you later on that the Canadians, in con-
junction with the Americans, recommended the lifting of Lake Erie
by a small amount, and that Mr. W. J. Stewart was one of those who
worked on it, Mr. Stewart being one of the Canadian gentlemen who
is present at this hearing.
Mr. HULL. Would these regulating works all be on the American
side?
Mr. SHENEHON. No.
The CHAIRMAN. I find these maps which accompanied this report
were made by Messrs. Raymond, Noble, and Wisner, and that they
are a part of that report. -
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; there is big folio of maps and drawings,
Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The reason I call that to the attention of the com-
mittee is because I understood that you are of the impression that
there was some separate document accompanying these maps.
Mr. SHENEHON. No; perhaps it should be noted in the record that
these form part of House Document 149, Fifty-sixth Congress, Sec-
ond session. These maps were also appended to the special report
that was made on regulating works alone, that I have in mind Was
submitted earlier than the full completed two volumes you now
have in your hands.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that might be; but as a matter of fact
they were submitted with this report, and the House document num-
ber is on the maps and is on this report, which identifies them as a
part of the same thing.
Mr. SHENEHON. I would like very much to have these reproduced
as a part of the evidence that I am giving in this case.
I *i. I should state that while the costs of the upper works was
less than $800,000, that the dredging recommended to increase the



Plate NQ 85
... --. . .92'-o" & b c : : -----. -— »e. --— . . ~ 92°o" cho
GENERAL, ELEVATION
&# /a/~z&ez’
NEW YORK
— — . .30-0'C/ar02/y.-----— ..
47%ay 4a/e 4.eyº/ .3" //ºr/e/e/ ſºft
º º G *:::::::::::::::::::::: # *-*. ::::::::::: 6% * * : ****{{= 3---. º: Laki -: imº pººl * ---, -, -º = - Hº- - – º, . . % & Ş, º **
%. |\ºſºft|ZſſWºllº/ſº i * E.--...----...-E.- ...". -- - ºr - // %|WINº||Yºyº &
º - % |\ º º iſi lſ; | | Öğ W | % º ) 4|| ; * i El-º ºra # * * - - ; “. Fº ań. . ſº a y Tººthin # Im H = H |. m mº m in ºn ºn # # * ii### an ºil ºn * m tº # * #ºn ºf pººl /*
PºSº
E ºf $4 gh
4.
I lik |k + r. E.
J&A Bººks sº * # ph ſº I 4. * #. º + F , ----~ * *** * * * * * * ###4 ºkº º ſº. Hisā + 1 * I kiºi tº mi iſ sms i Hº.
- i F. rºl ## * - º i. ſº # *g * º º:
r
PLAN of TOWER AND HALF TRUSS - PLAN OF CANTILEVER ARMAND TOWER
... /*-6%-4** ***... . . . ----------- - ~€82%.
W I .k. -4 2-6'4/25 ºz.
XXX %Nº. 28.2%.2 || || || || || ||
l = -— == i :*:::::::::=#########xº~Tr"
A.
ºf # 4 ſº $.
sº Sº"Sº ěž 2.1–1. —nº-E-m. Lº-º-º-º:
- ă ă # 3 + # = ºi E ºn tº ºr # 3 is # tº ºf ºl ºr =
####: *-*- - - - - - - - T - - - - - - º -- fº-º-º: --~~~~ . . . . . . . L.----
+-fi ſã tº 4 # - + - Fr. § tº: l * - F73 o” .*...*** ::::::: E - ; :-º-º: * Hi + 1 + 3 +, | i jº ſº. . .” - H # = ſº ſº I Lº, ſº # . . . . . . ****** i
Hi-ji |- sº sº-º-º-º: .# # H. :===_z= = ++...+ === = + ,-- E-F# = = -k- * : *- = -: * # # = # h # h a!...+ 2 + 3 + 4 ai ºf H H = H ºf is ºn is a li + # Jº º ºr ºl ºf jº. A ſº ſº ſº al- I i º ºſ a tº ſº ſº tº . }.
º > iº º º *- º Fºº
Kº- N
Zºrzóeq!.
º
%
t§* .
# *§if
§
t
!
|
|
!.. 'H. | 2}.
DETAILS OF ROLLER BEARING § lſ || || **** Nº ||
º: f s . . " º in - St. Nº. -ºº º *-ºs
SECTIONAL, ELEVATION ...] [... ºr p-ºr, ſº f *%%.4%.ez #ºjº
tº H ===== * * * * * * * * I iſ it " i H'l- *:::::: *::::::::: Zºº A22%, 45%.72 *** |Hº H H = Hº-
*::::::::::: *- : zººlſ agº. | | || || || || | ** &ziążxxx xxxx:Sãºll_i_XXXXX, * ... º. ººmºº
sIDE ELEVATION OF PIER AND ToweR -U-
º º º -: r - gº Fº. y i. k - † : : *- . *r —# T +: # -- ºr * ========---------------.
(&or;, *c.e A/3%é." 26%-73* aº/eº –437 &2×572? - S-2" Aſºo% 2-a"A /a,3-º-º/ ~3%z
i
<—--— . . //-//". – ... — ... — ... —- “”. - - Q,
- º § -
|#2 * : ELEVATION OF TOWER AND HALF TRUSS : ELEVATION OF CANTILEVER ARM AND TOWER
º º rº- **m; F= -*-m ‘m * & 4. 2x2% 4. k---- 9–o" ---—--—--> --- – -- ** ---------->
* = , = F * º * - - * ...º A ** º ' ' - at | * s # * . . * # . . is
4 º I <--— ... & “o ...— ... -->{------. c5?'-0" . . — -. —#— -- — . . --~ 3°o --—->}-------, 3-2" --—--->}}— — —--—7°/ſ.--—-- ... —-... 3°2 * * * * * = – Zºo”.9 //y— J Leader/ // //y * iſ | ſz's go”.9%/
.S. S.C.' * :
*J * *
| 2 º \ ==º. | F i ź. * -º ź. 4. T S. * i “… R - +. S. º —º +z=azarząż. Fº 2-9%/y
ſº | r * º Ş ‘ezaz; d I
. |S <S § &
, § l “s K. !/
2% N N * * § § º
| 4: S, * Sº §, § % sº
=^)/ º ; § º tº) § - % 2 V2; *
º Q * Ü # * ~...~7.Y § 3, § § & 2-agas” at sº-
g 2% (2.6% (25 & Ö) }% § º | Le-cºasteº. -- H ----X-
. º N ,-,-,-4"A.A. 2-2%.7% * ... %9%.7 ** $ S/2.47%%2°2% º
| R& A.A. 2 º H/ºx \ 3.2
| <--> Sº, º/ 2-2 +7-3/* § % § Aº
º
| B -
: — --|--!!!!! -, -i- J - – - - – - .8 23°3. 2 . -
! || || Jº 2^\º NY & . . . . . . . . ]]||: $...f...? * __--" Fº **2
| §§ | Ssi * t <22 º
i. * Hººd - sº M = - Rs: - * wº
1. Tº Tºlº T-Tº ******* 34.47%
+—k | *:::
% i. º Fºº
s § º º I
i C - | |
& §§e sº->
| <--e." ->
ERIE REGULATING WORKS
MAs ONRY AND supers'TRUc'TURE
Designed under direction of
:"Qi
i
- SECTION
ON A.A. ON BB
§
N
i
*N
i
º
§
|
|
|
~ N NN .
N
i
s.t;
s . | s i U.S. BOARD OF ENGINEERS ON DEEP WATERWAYS *
Nă #4. Nà * —- by =<e— A
4:42 -
S.H.V O ODAR D
To accompany Report of June 50th 1900
i§
&k-ºx4"/# TF
9 – *3 %.
Z//e37&ze Scale
15ft.
O
5
|O
Z//ześćze
\ |
*
\\ GATE
\\ ||
º CROSS SECTION OF SUBMERGED WIER
\\ |
Øzz7//e
&z/e
|I|TFIIHITT || || ETH II º
Z/resºze ſ º
|LITHITI =mº ºn iºn ºf sºm.
LHi II. HIT Lill li-ill illill \ . —- - -
|III. HIII I. H. L.L. I. * === * +
Lij IIITT III ITTT
H.T. Ii. Tº | Hº III. Tº |
| | | | | II. HIT || || || ||
I L.J. Hiſ
{ITTITUI
H.I.T.T.T. II T. LLIII.T.
ELIT ITIII]
| | | | | Iºlº'ſ ... --
t | TººHº
III （TTI
IIT LILE III III. III
II IIHTTT IITT *===º
|IH ITT TH |LITTI
HIHTT II. III
i I TLIII. T. * — *ºn Hºmº ºmº
|IHHH LI ITTTTTT 42 àe:- - - - -
LIHITTTTTTT J.L. III iſ I 3.31% ~! ©
HITTTTTT || || || || - rf
III. THE TIII |
ILITTT II
I
l
I
|
|
|
|
- º Nº
* º, Sº º: r
yºffs §4. IX. §º. sº sº #yºšTHYT.
ºS$ % Wil; * §% 2%W Žg}\}{i} \ſº )ºft#Silſº §§ >|# §§2×jūlīāºš
JITETTTTTT
* - Cl- *>}}º Ø
HHHHHHH HHHHH! ºl.
| l r &|Wºś
**, #S$ |ſſºs
|
º
º
º
(3 * -ºº ºr
| TITUTT. - rt- º C \ *=ºº
57%-AA (ºr
ſº Lalº
\
|
|
|
*
º:
sº º à--> ºf
Ž$fiſºgº Wºź §§§ſ||
ºn = **** ---fºrsº; Éliſſº : :::::::: }%W %
ºº::=.
§
º
*::III:22, Wºź Zºść
f *::\W/ ...? AE - º ::3%2: #: ſ º ** *º
45% Pºgº |||} §§§ §§ fºliº 'N º §%ilſ
K-----. — . . — . . —- - - - - - , , — . . — . . — ...— . F : * : * ~ * * * * * ... —--—- – -— . .32°o ---------------------------> k——---/*-o".----------->
PLAN of PIER |
k—º-------'A' * ... < *, " ... -- . .>|<- 3°64%-3–2–7–/2°3%". —---. & . ºn tº. * * , * " ... — ... — —. ..
/Voza:
A/ers to 4e of concrere
| faced' //? &/ºzz/#
N ama/Aal/? 4%º ass/ow/7
Ahºyuun hy 7% A*k,
ENGIN E E R RE PRODUCTION PLANT, U S ARMY, WASHINGTON BARRACKS, D, C,
- 55.59


































































































































Plate N986
-T- H
LAKE ERIE REGULATING WORKS
SLUICE GATE AND COUNTERWEIGHT
Designed under direction of
U.S. BOARD OF ENGINEERS ON DEEP WATERWAYS
S.H.VV O ODA R D
To accompany Report of June 30th 1900
*-
H== =#"
S. c ale
Fig.5 Fig 6 - - . Fi - - - º Fig.7
- 1g.I - SLUICE GATE Fig.2
HALF ELEVATION OF UP STREAM SIDE A
END ELEVATION SECTION ON AA Fig.1 VERTICAL FRAMING
HALF ELEMATION OF DOWN STREAM SIDE
g— — — 2. - ***, q’’ 3-AEs:#" G
9°/% º # ==º º f + - " - 3'A/227&
| ** F. Af º,éreº Zs
: º Žiž%-z'2%zz § 2.
§ | | § §
S : º s NS º
& sº º * § –22%"Aºzé 26–25%/-. • ‘ t
[N \o –34% Azé 26%%zz- * s Q at t
N \o ºr I r N E. E. Q +
º I : : $ | - I Vy \ %
§ | | i : t : N. º \
6:%, ||º 24seº || . : - 2%//*2°oºz * * * * * Q § N | | | |
t?'-//% N. : - i "Aº -29%.” N S- (o 63-6 ..
y- r A i. l W. ** r 62.6% z-
- * * *= * * —k. /.2%"A/27& Z9–d?/27 | Ş &#4%% s %
| | %2 24 Coºr/? . Ž § .
§ § A&# *. § 2%&er//*
§ § alº , | * s
,3}. * § & : 73% Aze 26-24%z - + | º §
§ \o Y. F | * 2 /2& –73% A* 2élé%z W at $
º \\ ; : - i # º FF $
B—||—|---—--|--|--B| * | | | | | : § §
* , , , . *62%- –2 4° 23-25 º L - - “ - *r * /~/A2/.5%, ºf 2)” *
6×4×4 Z. 2.É. &e: $ 24.2%%-72% - &*/4"/22 223.4% ºoſ/22 & /awa&#Z. eels.
w | 4- * * * *- : * , kº *5
(T R - *- —t # *S § –234"//zé Ž-4"/62– º ! - § exe33% +– H ze
§ zºzºzº —- ; , , SO º V)
- + t & Y. t - t § * !
N H še. Ş : \\ \) NS N
Ş|| R. \o ^\_*- § . -74.3% Aze 26-4 /øy- § –73%"Aº 26' 3"/622- at o
Ś || |x \o sº | |RS 9 º § G G º
iš |$ . ** * º § f s º - Q
§ 24." 24 &&# ºn º S * SJ
Sl|| || 6%-44%. Z. A363&# 1. A33.4% * , ,- M Q \o * - / ºr * \)
S |º * /+ e^Zzz 24séſe * * 24. Arº --Z'-." 27% A*, 3–2. * A rº *
§ 2% Sº, | 2. + zy ---, + * | N ** . . . .” f* $7%% -zºo - céeº- S 6×6%Z.
§ is . §h i SS —x – /2%" A7%zé 79% “ f
# § § - - l - | .
s § Sl N * > 2. ~ "Z-., - * —º %2×4&ye
§ § | JN- | N 2°2%zz r \\ 43.4%ŽS %2% Cººr/3%
\! : ‘O : SN - + º i + 2 - NT -
QS. TN | Q); sº i i º | § /*e Zózz §
§ & w § § | i I s $ '') §
^ f ** - i N)
& * X \o - §. i ** A ** , ºf * 27% AZ% : | ; - § at § § |
Ş. s"Y : -&#3% //zé 26'-Z4%zz- \o * <2%% H H § {.S
} S. \\ | 'KO *. 2/ m | § §| |\
S. N Nſ| I ^*. h 2^_^_*. I t ... } Q 3. º º
** ** , ºf I _A. | * - / .” a ºr ," F# ** /Zºlf i
ſ º - **4%-26%z_l - 24s exaº:3’ & ‘/4% - *3% ºf .
* A/ /ø/7 º- + —sk #- - | 6xex:3/3 ----as + dered.
«Ž2 . - V; . . .º *# —r-ſºº. 's ! ºss s
! &T ... . ; 2456.6%P" lººſ are 242 ºz. ... N. * \cºſzczº tº J.
* i | * – fºr Zºx/ "Žºr : if evºč - º 2x/ %r
tº — 42% —s k−. —-- 7" (2 - – - – -> K----- 7-0 –
!
Fig. 3 - Fig. 4
HALF PLAN OF GIRDERS + - INVERTED HALF PLAN OF BOTTOM GIRD
TOP OF END GIRDER ENLARGED SECTION ON BB Fig.5 – 222 – 4. RD - + --------- - - F * - a-- - - - - mºm-mº- - - -º-º: - - *-* * * . F H F RDER
Fig.8 Fig.9
-º-º: - ----- - - -º-º-º- + - +----------|- -
2. " *r A,” 22.2%.7% 27% 2. ~7. o:2%
sº." ** *s %m. 2.4% g-o/27%
S– r x - G - ** f
cº rºo o' 2, 2 Q %2. -:4%//*-
* * Ö * Q_º-º" - - -º- f * r * Ay
9. Q) * 2 is 6% a'ká ./ - * S. " A/////#- SU 6 2%% O 427/7/o/eO *//&Aº- §
Ql Q s S! * O O § Fi I4
Ş Q o sºr • * - \\ g.
Si s C}| Q) * NS * \\ 43/44. zº 6&e:#2 &/- eſſ %. #7 & a 24% 2x/"Žºr 6×6%2., 3/ 5%
Sº - $ * 67/ /3 *6225 - & Z A3 & Z. & e º zoº, -----------
Q. CŞ 2 Q) St | -- J.------- y
SN § §§ __ ===-- **** * END E. LEVATION
$ Q Q G G G |9 SA º sº 4%/Zé zºº – a : ! i *** | -
s r A/7. * 2° //4% C s \ -) º , -27. - Szº— 42 -º- 3'4"–4–3–2–3–32 ––3–2–2–34 –3–34°–3–34 –4–3–2–3–3'-º'--><- 3%-3-3°. --→ - – -—--— . .
- 2///č3 e5.2% 2 //#/z. Q) + <--...------, - ... — . …— ...— ... — . . ––. -- . . — . . ––. – — . . — --- – -20°– /o" – – – —- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *\ .
§ N 2 < * /2 * so Ş. § 9 @ | * º -23 – /o | O cºo O
§ §§ * * § 4 |& s of ol i ſo 9/ºo o
sº lo lº –4%/24- ** k & Q is & s / ºG).
§ ", ſº * 2. N \l 9 & SM 2436x63:?") /e º, e.” Q Q
\\ * / ^ N ‘N %ax4/s × ºft ..) 7- - | : © Q)
}: r ~! & 2-º-º: 6*62% As & °o Q Q @ Q Q} Sº, ºr - 4.5/7/47% - : - ; Q @ G G Q Q
Q : I — , — ... — . .” - 2" ... — . . -— . . Qºl-Ş - - , , , , § Fº - + - - * --→ -
5T ºf 41 - O - - N zºº ź." .*** Ž%2//Z2 --- -- | - 7- -- | @ @
$) e Zé - - - .
N 2 D++----|||——lº-D
- - l - + : 9. @N
| Scale for Details #. w - tº I §
º 2. º Hºr
Fig.13 Fig.12 - ELEVATION OF COUNTERWEIGHT ; :
ºfAzás 4 rº r Ç -
º J. Ar ºr". * * * &”zzzz /42% : :
CAST IRON WEI GHT ENLARGED SECTION ON C C Fig.10 | 2 /2.2% zezetz' 4.3% Co/e/- Aſºzá /2 2 *— *-i-rurill r-d--d--d--d--d--- ----|--|--|--f º, . . . .\ r—il– Hl-I-i-I-'l-Hil–h F-1–r–4–r—u—T-1-1 r-1–r—u—H! | sº | º gº--
K– 2-4– * - T: ... Nº. 2 k -- n - - º; --- f 3-, + 3 ºr **- n ** i ets *-i- K-- |-º |-r -- ---, * @ * @ |
i *—#– (Ö sº | § - JB-zººlºº |||s Si S! ||| | ||2| || olº
- \l/ \ º * , sº º a -3.” N 's *Q S. # rº t | l
— **teatºzºtº. Tº sº * | *%- ||*** * * § ſº s s 48%/4/24- ||*o-2%z * | * lo olº
i ºšTaºğx3 Z’’:Sã# r & - g * * || || *X • ? sº : ** => f" ** | I
R^3NS §§ſ | - T 7 - -ºr rº-ca -ººk ea × 2.
it is ſ º | i ... . * , ºr i . . . . - a # , ºf * , ºf razz | * f | .r | _Y if ... 2.37. Tº
| S$ ºft §. º | | r—- o " ... -->< —— 4./ c *— – 4- ... --><. — . .374/* - - – -> <- - - – -- 4 -/* - - -—º- - - – -6°-/" " ------->|< − - – - 6 -/* ... — ><-- . . ~~ é’ -? –– →k. —- – -6-2%." - *-- - - ge– -* =n- + + 6-/* ----->|- – £5"/" + = ºrº-rº--- - - —k. *-i- + - J 4/". –––. --><-- — . . J-Z" –->|<– —-4*/" – . . -4"/" —ºk —-Zºo” –
. § V- §§ S § J º § . . - - A & - | Fi
| SM is is # |\ || | k—. . . . . . . — . . — . . ~... — . . — . . — . . — . . — . . —— -— . . — — . . — . . .- ... — . . — - - - - - -— . . — . . — — . . — . . — . . — — . . —- – – 3/- 3" — — — . . — — . . — — — — — — . —- – - – - – - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - 1g. I5
§ \\ jº s ºn , s
| išŠ sº ſ Sºf N \, t Fig. II TA &
i. i. 3||| Zººlºº 1g. II HORIZONTAL SECTION ON DD Fig.14
+ N. N: | | | r th <– – ſº —-
H | • º | A º - tº . ~ 2: ...~~<2." § 2%/2%
|| || SN | PLAN OF COUNTERWEIGHT sºil”
| §§ |s - - k * -- ~~ + †ºl.
§ - ê dy 9Njº
*{ij || “. | ==E== - - tº jºš.
9 ... it, | - exaº Z. # 8.3. sºft
Y. — erºzººl J , +-------...- :- —t. *. *.c. : , " : *r." -- - - - - --- T. ...E."..."... *ſ- *-- "...* *t → -:. .” - “F-F" -E" -------- , ºft
– Z * ---> ºf Nºſ Nº. 34:
× — . . — . . — “2 --J" — . . — » º - . *23%2's, |
< — – c. 2'-5 --— ... —
Zrzzzzz Áy ZZAZassozskº
ENGIN t E R RE PROſ) UCI ON PLANT, U. S ARMY, WASHINGTON BARRACKS, D. C.
, 5559


















































































Plate NQ 87
*.
VIEW ON SECTION A-A
->}. < —- – -- /* 9" -— »
T_2 - k– Z'-2' –2.2% & 3
SIDE ELEVATION
LAKE ERIE REGULATING WORKS
HOISTING GEAR FOR SLUIC E GATES
i§
st
Designed under direction of - > 2'k 7" # – /2" -->
# F Jºzº i -6.5%
A U.S. BOARD OF ENGINEERS ON DEEP WATERWAYS zºº
26— — . .4-7 : - ~ + → 2- - -—
| g —- by =<—
| /...” S.H.VV O ODAR D
k– – 7-64" --> ! K-º-º/-az --> +
: H.--— Tººl To accompany Report of June 30th 1900 º
-2'Z so"/S //-////72– | @ H== H # # =4" &
* º * ! ––2 S C tale | º
Q Q Q ogº a e4}^**4%& a 2 2 !
Q Q fº. 392 2. ; : &Q & °s @ G /22% (2/22/7%
Q @ : Q 9 @ Q Q @ Q Q 3 || @ @ @ @ Gº
Q @ Q } \ Q|Q @ Q @ J’ x.3% .
& º /23/aze i. © 2 | 9.5%:27%
i, 24" . J/ZZ
4%x4%~ C §§ Ç 24% Aº |,
QN} | Q §| || || 4p || . . . . -z".5%
Q) * --> –F ! - 2 Q | A3% 7%zz
Ç Q —77 /22* &–2%zz— : } || @
JN G)|| @ Nº \. /2 o/ø : / ) |Q|9 % -ø/3 /2.5% 732 &zz' 2-az /*
Qū. *– —l i lººp Q – Q - G - Q @ @ @ @ g
* \— f A. 4.
Gº as ſº a º Tö ; : Q 2 Gºl;2 ... Q 723 /zzº” */º"Zaºz
S. /2ZT # /2- % i wº G) Q} -->
• N G || 9 @ 9 @ Jor-o-ozazz. : 2 2 & 2 |G: , 2 . Q} -
G \\ 2& 3) @ Q @ Q : 2 2 2 a dºo” . Q}
G) @ Q) @ : 2 2 2 (2 @ G) @ © G)
-2/x4"Aºzzé - ! * r * , f
2/3 243%z @ G) 2/24"//7& 2'-9%/77 | * * , a G.
G) Q (3) (3) ./ ; Q @ || @ Q
G) @ | 9 @ @ @ Gà-
G) G) la © @ Q /Vož–
* 24/maſer/ofsſee/w/ass offerſ/se noſed
: 27% A*/e
; 2.3%/
§ :
—/2" --— § #
N § #
\S “) § {
N \ | ! s
N * q : k—ſe -
Ş S. : \
º : &
F--------- \
§ ; : tº (S sº
§ : #, s 2.
§ N ; ; N
s § (3) ; CŞ Sº
§ § (? ! #$! §
$ \ * : ; Q
slº) § ! #º
sº ! i
Q !
=0 (? §§ !
! , , %2%" Zazºº/,
(?) Q (? º {{ 24%. &º-277&
Q | |} (22% 7.2 - 2 – a "A -/o37 –
Q & : # 3%: % ** * *
Q Q) (3) (3) ~ * | | * ... 2 ºf
~1 \, # *S* 24"A | AºA,%
Q) G) Q | \! : Å 2% A/ | 2°0%zz
Q) º ; :------| - |
f ! ------> |
! ,” N ~
# O ) + SECTION B-B
º jº. ...' - sº -—z | t
§ | | | Zºe $ |
—- s | Casſ /v | §§ |
o] § ſo cºs ºji-, -ºlº
i s^ § ----$4 i ağāºš |
( © i.e.---> O - §
© Q ići. C. §- ºft
© © ſ S. º § ;
*— J (\{ |
º Q @ m #2. - * * * ~~ * . H ~ jº KX 3--—s. .
ſº Q @ 9 @ Q Q) @ V 2 S— . . —S * : l
End of Counterweight | 9 | B -B oz \ –- }
P a o o a o o oſº || “.....” - Aºye.9%e.
Q} Q @ 9 @ Q @ Q : |
9 94|| . f
G) @ <–3% -->
} 24||
Q) 9 || ||
24|| |
Q) - © ! Zº
| *---- ...” |
Y- |
l]- ST?
- | \ i
Upper end of Gate f f -/-0"--— — .
| 9–s =x. % "Ças Aze K ----- * ~ *-m-º: s = -w- * * ****
º * ) ZParr, Ay 7./A/ossows4. & O/rer B. Harden
+
*
º*
sº*
*º
rº*
**
*
)
i.;º
*S.*
º**#
*sº
*º
*# *
*::F*
*
*.
*
.."
*f
*
*
º
ENGINEER RE PRODUCTION PLANT. U. S ARMY. WASHINGTON BARRACKS. D. C.
5553








































































AAGU/A7/ø/ OF AAA AAA
！”）， o�ae：
ſ 44 ºvo//zººtº/57|×ſz/*
tae
5575
-
-
---
→--- -
-
+-
ENGINEER REPRODUCTION PLANT L S ARMY was ºngºon Bannacks. D. C.
4%/mom Mezzº. A/ow /zºooo
T
T
W/7///V/A5/0// OA /(2000 CAS AT CA/CAGO
A/VO W/7//00/7 // VA/75/OW
-
*m.ºu
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
~t）·…Ntw?ºS
3^x， vºvº-taº，”º， ， ， ， º/）


ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1455
outflow capacity of the river was about $400,000 additional, making
$1,200,000. I imagine these works could be built at the present time
for, perhaps, $2,500,000.
Mr. HULL. Including the dredging and everything?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; including the dredging and everything.
Mr. HULL. And the locks?
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, the lock already built is a separate affair.
Mr. HULL. Is that lock you have there now adequate for these
regulating works?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; it is a modern lock, caring for the modern
freighters with 21 feet or 22 feet of water over the miter sill and
... ample chamber length for 600-footers. I have a note here which,
perhaps, is a little unkind, but it is significant as to the loss occa-
sioned in the Welland Canal diversion for power purposes alone in
three years. This loss is two and a half million dollars, which would
have paid for these works built even at the height of war prices.
Now, I think there was a hearing, Mr. Chairman, on this project,
but I do not have the minutes of that hearing, as to what objections
were presented. I wonder if you gentlemen have ever held a hear-
ing where there were not some persons coming in and objecting.
It seems to be a traditional and proper thing that objections are
raised. One of the reasons for objection was, that when Lake Erie
tilted up in storm time the water would be higher at Buffalo if
these works were in, because they stopped up the entrance and the
water could not get away as quickly as if they were not there. That
is a little childish, because where the shore line is an obstruction to
the movement of the water, there is no tangible lifting of the water.
Again the fact that the Lakes are carried on a higher level would ac-
centuate the damage coming with this lifting of the lake; but if these
works had been built in 1900, Buffalo would long ago have adjusted
herself to the situation. I am not sure that in the intervening
quarter of a century Buffalo had not put in certain things that
might be a little damage, that might have to be corrected, if we
hold the Lakes at a high level.
Mr. HULL. When Buffalo interests were here they complained
about the reduction and rotting out of their docks and things of
that kind. Now, if you put in these regulating works and put that
water back that would take care of that, would it not? That would
raise the water enough, would it not?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think it would take care of everything com-
plained of by these gentlemen who are called opponents, although I
do not think they are really opponents. I think they are all going
to be for regulation before we get through. But all these things
that are the results of low water would have been corrected nearly
a quarter of a century ago if these works had been built, and there
would have been a great saving to commerce. That would have been
the undoubted result.
The emphatic way in which the board of engineers and General
Taylor recommend the immediate building of these works now indi-
cates the present attitude.
Now, the other principal objection was that if these works were
put in the ice fields of Lake Erie would be held up, and that this
1456 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
would be detrimental to the climate of Buffalo. I would like to
analyze that in this way: I was at Sault Ste. Marie for a good while;
I spent 10 years there, and had the opportunity to see the ice go
out of the St. Marys River, which is 300 miles farther north than
Buffalo. I can assure the people of Buffalo and I can assure this
committee that a better way to take care of the ice is to hold it up
in the lake and let it honeycomb. The March and April sunshine
honeycombs the ice, until finally the ice breaks into needles. Many
people think the ice in the Lakes sinks, but that is contrary to the
physical laws that I have been taught and can not forget. But this
impression illustrates the silent and subtle disappearance of the ice.
The CHAIRMAN. That is to say, these regulating works would hold
the ice back?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think that was the chief objection raised; and
possibly ice jams would form and Lake Erie might rise a little.
But, as I stated before, we are now masters of dynamite and T. N. T.,
and I have not much apprehension on ice jams. I am not sure that
there should not be some modification of these works; and in my
own design I did give very much consideration to the ice problem.
But I want to say now as affecting the climate when ice is retained
at the east end of Lake Erie that the temperature of melting ice
is 32° F. and the temperature of water just melted is 32°. There-
fore if the ice does go out at this time of the year the temperature
would still be 32°. In other words we would have a water-surface
temperature of about 32° and a little damper climate after the ice
went down the river. As a matter of fact, the ice is a long time going
down the river, and it is an obstruction to water power, and water
power is a thing that we must give tremendous attention to. Even
Buffalo believes that, but when these works were recommended water
power was scarcely a consideration. When the board of engineers
on deep waterway made their plans for a waterway to the port of
New York, going down the St. Lawrence to Lake St. Francis, and
making a descent of 92 feet, water power was not regarded as an asset
but as an obstruction, something to be gotten out of the way. Mas-
sena was in operation at that time, or about that time, as I remember.
But we have changed our views now of the relative importance of
navigation and water power.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no study, so far as I have been able to
ascertain, and I have gone through it carefully, in this report of
1900 on economic conditions at all.
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not recollect any.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no attempt to study economic conditions,
but there is one significant illustration of how fallacious prophecies
may be, and they quote one by the chief statistician of the Agricul-
tural Department, to the effect that for a period of 30 years, referring
to the next 30 years, the entire wheat crop of our country would be
needed by our own people, to the exclusion absolutely of any ex-
portation of wheat from the United States. That was the prophecy.
We are trying now, at the end of that period of 30 years, to decide
what is best to be done with our surplus wheat, because we have an
enormous surplus. Bearing on that there is pending the McNary-
Haugen bill. So we are not taking all the wheat nor even a fraction
of the wheat according to that prophecy.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1457
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, prophecy, Mr. Chairman, appears to be a
very dangerous thing.
The CHAIRMAN. That is on page 118 of the report.
Mr. SHENEHON. I was looking up the commerce passing through
the Soo locks in 1900, at the time of the writing of this report, and
I find that there passed through the Soo locks 25,643,073 tons—about
twenty-five million and a quarter tons—as compared with 92,000,000
tons in 1916, 16 years later.
So the growth of commerce on the Great Lakes has been unpre-
cedented. The amount of traffic passing through the Detroit River
is not given for the year 1900. They began in 1902 to keep that
record. Of course, there is a psychological element which, perhaps,
ought to be considered. That refers to the situation at Buffalo
This psychological situation applies to timid people. There is a
great deal of this terror as to what will happen if we trifle with
nature.
If we did not have these precise measurements and data showing
the levels of the Lakes year after year we might have a problem that
would terrify the uninitiated; but men of standing like General
Taylor and General Keller have given us something on which we
can depend, and I think those men are thinking pretty clearly with-
out any timidity.
In 1914 a report was made by the International Waterways Com-
mission, still existent, although the International Joint Commission
had come into life in 1910. But the International Waterways Com-
mission was retained to complete the location of the international
boundary; and they also went on with this study of a method of
raising Lake Erie to undo damage coming from the diversion at
Chicago. Mr. William J. Stewart, one of the observers from Canada,
in the room to-day, was a member of the International Waterways
Commission at that time, and he, with Mr. Haskell, who was dean
of engineering at Cornell at that time, studied the problem of this
compensation. They had very elaborate experiments made at Cor-
nell to find the extraordinary type of dam that they might put
across the lower Niagara River. I mean the river above the first
rapids, above Chippewa and Port Day. They brought out a plan
for a very long weir, 7,600 feet long, stretching diagonally across
the river from Gill Creek down toward Chippewa. They designed
a section which at low water (with the backwater effect reaching
up from Niagara Falls or from Port Day and Chippewa), gave a
greater effect than it did in high water. That was the object I
think of a great many weir experiments made in the laboratories at
Cornell under Mr. Haskell's direction.
They recommended this weir across the river at a cost of $3,492,540,
or roundly three and a half million dollars, and at mean stage this
would raise Lake Erie 4% inches. In other words, this large ex-
penditure of money which would raise the water in that portion of
the river about 3 feet was reckoned to raise Lake Erie an amount that
would not quite compensate for the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per
Second at Chicago, and would do nothing toward the compensation
for diversion in the Welland Canal, although it would offset entirely
any effect of diversions for power purposes at Niagara Falls.
1458 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
My criticism—and I am glad Mr. Stewart is here personally to
listen to my criticism—is, first, that it is compensation instead of
regulation. Compensating works are dead things lying in the bot-
tom of the river and raise the water surface. They undo something
that somebody has done somewhere else, as at the Welland Canal or
at Chicago; but they are not regulating works. Regulating works
are something that are operated by rules. I think our Latin word
was regle—regulation. Something operated. It is a live thing; it
is operated by rules and confers many benefits, as we will show, a
little later on.
My other objection is that it obstructs the river; instead of in-
creasing the natural outflow section it decreases it.
In other words, it violates the first principle of regulation, which
is to give a greater outflow section than we had before. I imagine
Mr. Stewart would reply that we already had a larger outflow section
because we had Chicago and the Welland Canal, and that they had
not quite offset the adverse effect, the lowering effect of Chicago and
the Welland Canal; and therefore they had a little remnant of addi-
tional outflow capacity. But it was too trival, and of course it was
pretty expensive.
Mry chief objections are two: One is that it is inelastic—it can not
be used for the many purposes we need in regulating works—and the
other is that it may accentuate high water.
The CHAIRMAN. It would accentuate high water, would it not?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; it is bound to; and a large amount of their
effort was directed to the form of weir that would give a little less
rise in time of high water.
The CHAIRMAN. This is from their report?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I am reading now from this report of mine
of the regulation of the Niagara River on page 8.
The statement is here that the cost of the weir was estimated at
$3,492,540, and it was stated that the money value of restoring the
4% inches to the mean level of Lake Erie was worth many times the
cost of the weir. -
“The money value of restoring 4% inches is many times the cost
of the weir.”
This would indicate, if it means three times the value of the weir,
it is about $2,200,000 an inch for Lake Erie. That is the money
value of an inch. That is a rather large value.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that?
Mr. SHENEHON. $2,200,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Annually? -
Mr. SHENEHON. No; that is capitalized, I think. But there is this
point to be considered here: That it is stated that the cost of dredging
1 foot in the Great Lakes, not including the St. Lawrence or Lake
Ontario, was, prior to the war, $12,500,000. If costs are twice as
much now, a foot of dredging would cost about $25,000,000 to-day.
So this is probably close to the waterway commission estimate; but
this is only Lake Erie, which is included in the value of $2,200,000
for an inch of draft.
The CHAIRMAN: We have a statement prepared at the request
of one of the members of the committee, showing the cost on a small
part of the lake, and it was very much higher than any of us anti-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1459
cipated. They give that simply as illustrative, saying that it was
practically impossible to furnish the full data. I will produce that
and put it in evidence.
Mr. SHENEHON. I delivered an address in 1908 before the Detroit
Fngineering Society, on the Right-of-Way of the Great Lakes, and
in that paper—written prior to the beginning of the sanitary district
case—I discussed the regulation of the Great Lakes and showed that
the method pursued by the Federal Government had been dredging
rather than lifting up the water surface. We have two ways of get-
ting better drafts; we can lift the water up, or we can take the
bottom out. But we can not take the bottom out in every inlet and on
every shoal.
The CHAIRMAN. To make your statement complete let me say this:
You either lift the surface, and that way you have to lift the entire
surface, which means the whole volume of water, or you may deepen;
and in deepening you deepen only the channel, which is deepening
only a very small percentage of the entire volume of water. That
makes your question quite a different question; do you not think so?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. Where you raise the surface you do raise
it for every farmer who utilizes a little inlet for his boat, as sug-
gested by Mr. Richmond in discussing the question of riparian
damage.
The CHAIRMAN. All I intended to accentuate by my question is
that it seems to me you have a much bigger problem aside from the
question of cost in trying to create an additional level with this
enormous mileage surface than simply creating deep channels where
they are needed, which is only an exceedingly small percentage of
the entire surface.
Mr. SHENEHON. That, I think, is the proper view as I see it, Mr.
Chairman; that when you raised the whole water surface you deepen
every square mile of the lake, and where you deepen the channel
you have a constricted deepening but the rest of the lake remains
shallow.
The CHAIRMAN. If one is equally easy with the other then you
have a fair comparison. The question is which is the easier result
to obtain?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that is true. I think the cost analysis is
proper in considering the whole matter.
The CHAIRMAN. And the element of time.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; the element of time began in 1900 for regu-
lating works.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we can not consider omissions. As
far as the committee is concerned we are taking a fresh start, with
open minds, and with no feeling against anyone.
Mr. SHENEHON. I was tremendously interested when you said we
were wiping the slate clean as to the lapses of the sanitary district.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is only one course to pursue
on the part of this committee. This little cosmopolitan city of the
West, little old Chicago, has been made a criminal by the accumu-
lation of unfair complaints. Everybody wanted to know, when
God Almighty withheld the rainfall, why Chicago was permitted
1460 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to lower the lake level. That is the point I am trying to accentuate;
and if I fail to get that to you, gentlemen, it is not my fault; I am
doing all I can.
Now, there was another board of engineers, not a commission, of
which General Bixby was a member, and I think he signed the re-
port. I think he acquiesced in it. This was made in 1914. They
proposed to place some masonry weirs in the upper Niagara River
in the vicinity of Squaw Island (which is 2 or 3 miles below the site
of the regulating works proposed by the Board of Engineers on Deep
Waterways). These weirs would come up about 4.2 feet from the
bottom and cost about $150,000. They were going to undo the dam-
age of the Chicago diversion for $150,000. That were going to undo
the damage of the Chicago diversion for $150,000. That was back in
1914, 10 years ago. -
Mr. GouldF.R. What is the title of that report?
Mr. SHENEHON. I have not that here.
Mr. ADCOCK. That was a report on waterways from Utica to the
mouth of the Illinois River. It is H. R. 762, Sixty-third Congress.
Mr. Goulder. There is another report correcting that in the next
session of the next Congress. That is Document No. 7.
Mr. SHENEHON. This same board of engineers, of which General
Black, I think, was chairman, recommended weirs of the same type
for the St. Clair-River, to be built at a cost of $325,000, and to raise
the level of Lakes Michigan and Huron to undo any damage coming
from the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second in Chicago.
The discussion, as I think I have already stated, of this project and
the solution was sent me by General Keller, who was a member of
that board. He asked me for my slant on it and I told him I thought
that it would do what they estimated it would do. Later on I con-
cluded that it would take more weirs. But that was their slant at
that time, and it was my slant at that time that it would accomplish
what they had in mind.
Mr. NEwTON. You think it could be done without the necessity of
any locks?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; to that extent—to undo any damage charge-
able to Chicago. I am coming to the question of locks at the head
of the St. Clair later on.
Now, here is a remarkable situation. The Sanitary District of
Chicago about the same time proposed to advance the money to put
in these regulating works; and about the same time they approached
me as to whether I would advise them as to the regulation of the
Great Lakes. I conferred with General Keller and the United
States attorney; and they saw no reason why I should not serve
Chicago in this way, and I became very much interested, as you may
observe, in the whole problem.
I advised Chicago that I thought the many problems involved in-
dicated regulating works rather than compensating works; that com-
pensating works were really a makeshift thing; that regulating
works would serve all the interests concerned; and that it would be
unfortunate if simply compensating works were put in the rivers of
the Great Lakes.
It is a rather remarkable fact that my judgment on this has been
concurred in by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, in
the Taylor report, which is really a review of the Warren report.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1461
That was my view back in 1918; and I am very glad to have these
able officers of the Corps of Engineers confirm my judgment now.
Incidentally, the Sanitary District of Chicago could have adjusted
the lake levels for less money, but I am not going to let them get
out of it to the injury of the Great Lake system—I had that in mind.
You will observe that I advised the most constructive course—not
the deepest makeshift; and I had in mind the preservation of the
Scenic grandeur and water power at Niagara Falls. And I had in
mind also that Chicago wished to do the right thing—not the
cheapest thing.
The CHAIRMAN. But practically, aside from opinions, this is the
situation, is it not, Mr. Shenehon? There have been no regulating
works installed except at the “Soo "?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, the Gut Dam had been put in in 1903; but
no regulating works. 'You are right as to that.
The CHAIRMAN. And those were installed in what year—com-
pleted in what year?
Mr. SHENEHON. The first four sections were put in in 1901. The
American sections, eight of them, were completed in 1916; and the
closing of the gap, four more sections, by the Canadians, in 1918.
The CHAIRMAN. So the situation is this: That we had those regu-
lating works completed in 1918, and we have had such adjustment
of that as there has been, aided so far as it could be by a study of the
effects of those regulating works?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I think engineers had no doubt as to the
forecast of effects, Mr. Chairman. I have a high opinion of the
men of my profession. They have done so many things—and this
is a very simple problem, there is nothing complex about it—it is
remarkably simple.
Mr. HULL. In other words the engineers decided in their own minds
that it would operate just as it is operating?
Mr. SHENEHoN. In 1900, when Mr. Alfred Noble decided it would
operate there was no question about that. I think I neglected to say
that Mr. Noble at the time of his death was the chief engineer of
the Pennsylvania Railroad's East River tunnels, a very important
submarine problem, as you know.
Now, what you have said, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely correct—
that we have had a change in conditions on the Great Lakes that
makes the type of works somewhat different from what they might
have been in 1900. And it was for this reason that when I myself
was called upon to design regulating works for the Niagara River I
designed a different type of works; and yet I must hasten to say that
in my judgment the works designed by Alfred Noble in 1900, would
have done most of the things proposed in my report of 1919.
I do not like that submerged weir portion of the Noble-Wisner pro-
ject: because it would permanently close a portion of the river. It
is not in accordance with my own conviction as to creating larger
outflow capacity in the inter-lake streams. The reason why my own
project was preferred was because it avoided the placing of fixed
weirs. I had in mind that we could put in weirs in the Niagara River
to accomplish all the results desirable and make these weirs re-
1462 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
movable. My cue in that respect was taken from the ice jams in the
St. Clair and the St. Lawrence. How Lake Ontario is raised on the
average about 7 inches every year by the freezing over of the upper
river has already been stated. And Lakes Michigan and Huronar
held up about 6 inches. -
I mentioned this ice regulation in my 1908 address, showing that
by May not a vestige of ice was left behind to block the river. That
principle was in mind when I designed removable gates for the
Niagara River. © -
In my report of 1919 on the regulation of the Niagara River, I
designed a series of gates that were of vessel type. These gates were
to be towed into place. Each was 220 feet long. They were practi-
cally vessels with an arrangement for placing them on concrete im–
placements in the bottom of Niagara River in this narrowest section
at the gorge—where the water is 18 feet deep, and the river 1,800 feet
wide. These gates were designed to swing just as a draw-bridge
swings on the railroad, or as the butterfly dam does in the Sanitary
Distract Canal.
The works would be used for three purposes: One purpose was to
maintain higher levels in the Lakes; and my computations indicated
that during a low period, such as 1893 to 1895 we could make the
Lake Erie about 14 inches higher. I think I have referred to that,
and that the back water effect, reaching up into Michigan and Huron,
and raise these lakes nearly 5 inches.
In order to make these regulating works as simple as possible, I
divided this section of the river into two channels.
Mr. HULL. What river?
Mr. SHENEHON. The Niagara River at the gorge section, where
it is 1,800 feet wide and 18 feet deep, south of the town of Fort
Erie. In the plan proposed the river was divided into two chan-
nels, the American channel and the Canadian channel, by a mid-
stream division wall. Then gates were placed in the American
channel. There was no intent to place the works in American ter-
ritory as opposed to Canadian territory, having in mind that we
might do that without violating any terms of the treaty. I do not
think that can be done. The object was to concentrate the works
so that they had a length of only 800 feet.
I had in mind three things here. First, the growth of commerce;
second, the vast importance of waterpower (the report of 1900
being made when waterpower had not come into being as a tre-
mendous thing to be given the highest consideration and help), and
the third thing was that the principal reason for the treaty was to
protect the scenic grandure of the Falls. I had written a book on
that subject and was keenly interested in it. º
So these gates were designed to have these three functions:
First, holding up Lake Erie, not only to the extent of undoing the
damage caused by Chicago's diversion, undoing damage caused by
the Welland Canal's diversion, undoing any lowering from water-
power companies at Niagara, but also adding about 3 inches on
top of that; second, aiding waterpower; third, preserving the
cataract. These were to be built at a cost of about $1,250,000. The
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1463
sanitary district offered to finance these works the same as they did
the works in the St. Lawrence River.
The CHAIRMAN. We must adjourn at this time, but I would like
to ask you one question, aside from the subject you were discussing
Do you not find on examining this report that while, as you say,
it would be highly advisable for an engineer to investigate the eco-
nomic side of the question of the deep waterway to the sea, that
.* º,examined, but simply the engineering question in the report
Of 1900?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely
right, that in this whole project of building a waterway to the sea,
it was up to Congress to act on the waterway and on the things
that did affect the existing commerce of the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one other question as to the three men on
the commission. One was Mr. Noble, and the other was Mr. Wisner,
both being engineers. Who was the third man on the commission?
Mr. SHENEHON. Colonel Raymond, of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. WISNER. I do not know whether it is in the book or not, but
in talking with my father on the economical aspect of the question,
I can say that he was convinced that at that time a 30-foot channel
would not pay, whereas, probably a 21-foot channel would pay,
might be a paying proposition, and would be worth while to the
country.
(Thereupon, at 12.30 the committee took a recess until 2.15 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The hearings were resumed at 2.45 p. m.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready, Mr. Shenehon.
STATEMENT OF MIR. FRANCIS C. SHENEHON-Resumed
Mr. SHENEHON. I made a statement yesterday that on account of
low water only two of the locks at Sault Ste. Marie out of five were
available for deep-water navigation. I wish to check up my state-
ment and wired Sault Ste. Marie to find out with regard to the matter,
and am now informed that in the Poe Lock, during the last part of
April the depths were 17 feet and 6 inches; the first half of May,
17 feet and 5 inches; and in the Canadian lock about 2 inches deeper.
That is, for the last half of April the Canadian Lock had about 17
feet 8 inches and for the first half of May about 17 feet 7 inches of
water over the lower miter sill. That is a bad state of affairs; this
great ship lock would be the sole reliance of Canada if she did not
have these big deep-draft new American locks—the Davis and the
Sabin locks—loading would be seriously, interfered with. The
reason for this shallowness over the lock sills is, of course, the very
low stage of Lakes Michigan and Huron with their back water re-
flection up the St. Marys River—a slope probably of less than a foot
now in 50 miles of the river; and the further facts that the river had
been lowered here by these deep-cut duplicate channels which I
1464 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
have already referred to. I shall simply put into the record a con-
firmation of the statement that I have made.
(The telegram referred to is as follows:)
["Western Union telegram]
SAULT STE. MARIE, MICH., May 24.
S. C. SHENEHON, §
Washington Hotel, Washington, D. C.:
Depths Poe Lock last half April, 17 feet 6 inches; first half May, 17 feet
5 inches; Canadian Lock about 2 inches deeper.
SABIN.
My attention has been called to the fact that my earliest work in
regulation for the sanitary district had to do with the St. Lawrence
River; and in that I was given absolute freedom of determination;
that I was instructed to go ahead and find out what ought to be done;
and that I made a report prior to my report on the Niagara River.
That was in 1918, as I have it in mind, and later I recast the St.
Lawrence River report, showing the budgeting of the water due to
the regulation, and coordinated with Lake Erie also regulated. The
amount of water coming down the Niagara River was not the natural
flow, but the amount of water that came under the scheme of regu-
lation that I had worked out for Lake Erie. The point I wish to lay
stress on was that the sanitary district put this matter absolutel
in my hands, and when I advised them to do—not the makeshi
thing—but the thing that contributed both to navigation and to
water power, although it cost more. ... They concurred in my views
and offered to put up the million dollars for the St. Lawrence and
the million and a quarter for the Niagara.
I was describing the regulating works suggested by me for the
Niagara River; that is, these removable gates that are put in place
after the ice has ceased flowing in April or May, and removable at
the end of navigation in December. The scheme of control was to
raise Lake Erie, (and by back water reflection through the Detroit
River, Lake St. Clair and the St. Lawrence River to Michigan-
Huron) during the flood months, when all the streams in the tribu-
tary area were pouring large volumes of water into the lakes, and
when the rainfall was large. This would raise the level for naviga-
tion to the end of the navigable season, about December 15. Then
these gates would be removed by simply floating them and towing
them into a slip for the winter. The lake would then run down
during the winter, lowering it to such an elevation that it was very
certain to have room enough to receive the flood flow of April, May,
and June—those are the flood months. Putting in gates that are
removable—not movable, but removable—that will swing open
when we wish to have a large outflow of water; and that are pro-
vided in addition with valves so that we can let a lesser amount of
water through with great ease, is novel. The word used I think in the
Board of Engineers Review of the Warren Report was “daring.”
I am not sure that General Bixby's term “experimental" might not
properly be applied to a design so very unusual.
But I had in mind that engineers were tending toward remov-
able structures. They were using the flotation value of the things
that they were dealing with. I had in mind that in building the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1465
International Bridge across the river at Buffalo from the American
side to the Canadian side, the trusses of the bridge were built upon
Scows of pontoons, and these scows were towed in between the piers
and the trusses were lowered into place.
I had in mind that one of the most stable and I might say endur-
ing of all structures (comparable with the chamber of a ship lock)
was a dry dock, and that we have reached the point that instead of
always taking the ship to the dry dock we sometimes took the dry dock
to the ship. i had in mind the Detroit River tunnel of the Michigan
Central Railway, where they built the tunnels in sections in a ship-
yard and then floated them into place—a series of steel tubes. I
had in mind also that lock gates and dry dock gates are sometimes
of the vessel type—you float them out of the way when you don’t
want them and I had in mind also recommendations, which I think
were carried out, of Colonel Judson (one of the able engineers of
the corps, mentioned this morning) of constructing a breakwater
by building reinforced concrete sections of the breakwater on ship-
ways; launching them as you would a ship, towing them into place
and sinking them, thus forming the breakwater.
So, while this project of mine seems rather unusual and “daring,”
I think it was an advance in practice. The conservative mind, I
think, does conceive of such things as “daring,” adventurous, and
“experimental *; but the sanitary district said that they would put
in these or something else. So there was no hazard involved in the
securing of regulating works. If these did not work they would not
do any harm. They could be dynamited out of place or towed out
of place if they did not work, but I am sure they would work.
You know it has always been interesting to me to see the attitude
of men toward anything that conflicts with traditionary things.
The chairman and other members, I have no doubt, are familiar
with literature and know about Darius. Green and his flying ma-
chine.
The CHAIRMAN. We have heard a very much better variation of
that. Uncle Joe Cannon told us on the floor of the House of how
Professor Langley came to the Appropriations Committee for a
$10,000 appropriation for the first flying machine there was, and
which did cross the Potomac here, and he told that in a most ex-
tremely interesting way. He told us that during the war to illustrate
the fact that the flying machine had become so important a factor.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, the present status of the flying machine and
the attitude of Oliver Wendell Holmes toward Darius Green and
his early attempts, I think, make very interesting things to think
about. The battle of the kegs was another poem, I think, written
about the floating of kegs down the river and those kegs blew up the
warships of the British. It was very funny that they should do
'such things as that, but I am sure that during the World War they
did more remarkable things, using the flotation and the current. The
history of the submarine is very much the same. But I do not wish
to imply that the gates recommended by me are as experimental as
submarines, or airplanes, or torpedoes floating down a waterway.
The intent was not to make the Great Lakes the best possible water-
way. That was not the problem of the sanitary district. It was the
undoing of the damage done by its own diversion. The lift of the
Q1739–24—PT 2––––77
1466 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Lakes was sufficient to cover the purposes of restoration, and a little
bigger lift of Lake Erie, because we needed that in order to get the
back-water reflection to reach Michigan-Huron. And the compensa-
tion in Michigan-Huron was a little incomplete and would have
required some of these submerged weirs, rock weirs, that have been
mentioned. The use of these weirs to a limited extent to raise the
level, perhaps 2 inches, may be a very desirable and proper operation.
The St. Clair River is a little too big anyway, and some contraction
there is practicable.
We really are more concerned at this stage in the results to be
Secured, rather than in the instrumentality of regulation. I myself
hope that I am still young enough to keep on thinking a little better
one year than I did the last, and I have been very much impressed
with some of the statements made in the review by the board of engi-
neers, signed by General Taylor, regarding the flushing of ice in the
Niagara River by the use of regulating works. The scheme as I
designed it gave a larger winter flow, but it did not give this elastic
ability to send down the river, as they say, from 300,000 to 400,000
cubic feet a second—double the normal flow of the river—to flush
out ice gorges. I will come to that a little later—how Colonel
Warren limits the flow that can be used in the Niagara River by
the amount that is necessary to pass the ice through the river, and
how General Taylor gains 20,000 cubic second-feet for water power
use by the manipulation of regulating works.
I would like to pass from the description of the structures them-
selves to the estimate of cost, which was roundly a million and a
quarter dollars. This scheme did not contemplate any enlargement
of the channel of the Nigº River, because it contemplated pre-
serving a level of Lake Erie that was entirely safe against flood
stages, when taking into consideration 10,000 cubic feet per second
flowing through the sanitary district canal and the amount flowing
through the Welland Canal; but I underestimated the Welland flow
at that time. - - -
I would like to show you the results of the budgeting as deter-
mined in my report on the Regulation of the Niagara River, of date
1919. I am taking the results from page 5 of this report. You see,
we have three things that we must do at Niagara. We must protect
and make better navigation in Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake
St. Clair, the St. Clair River, and in the lakes above, to the extent
of the lowering caused by Chicago's diversion. If we can do so, it
will be desirable to take care of Welland's diversion also, and any
lowering coming from the water power diversions at Niagara Falls.
But we must also help water power—this tremendous asset of water
power—and under the very terms of the treaty and carrying out its
intent, this scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls must be taken care of.
So we have three things that regulating works must do. But
it was not contemplated that the works should do any more than one
thing when Noble and Wisner worked out their scheme in 1900... I
have found in a time of low supply—1893 to 1902—with regulation
the elevation of Lake Erie would be 14% inches above its condition,
with Chicago diverting 10,000 and without regulation. During the
period of normal supply—1907 to 1916—the level of the lake would
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1467
be raised about 12 inches. The average for 20 years was about 13
inches, and the raising of Lakes Michigan-Huron would be about
4 inches. In the low 10-year period the rise in Michigan and Huron
would be nearly 5 inches—one third of the lift of Erie. The Detroit
River would receive a substantial increase in height, as would Lake
St. Clair and the St. Clair River.
I found that the Niagara River flow could be stabilized and that
we could get larger volumes through the river during the Winter
months. In the 10-year period of low flow the increased Winter
flow shows 25,000 cubic feet per second for January, 22,000 for Feb-
ruary, 18,000 for March, and 14,000 for April; and during the 10-
year normal period 18,000 cubic feet per second increase for January,
15,000 for February, 15,000 for March, and 8,000 for April. These
are substantial benefits to water power during the difficult period
of ice conditions.
Those who have had to do with the Falls, and the chairman in
particular, know of the difficulties that come with the winter season
at the intake or above the intake in the vicinity of Port Day; and on
the Canadian side as well; and that this larger volume of flow is
a very desirable thing. If the limitation of the amount that can be
used for power is to be determined by the winter flow, it is very
clear that these regulating works contribute very materially to
water power at Niagara Falls. *.
My report on the regulation of the Niagara River is rather a
comprehensive one. It discusses a great many things—the value of
an inch on Lake Erie—but I think I have sufficiently discussed that.
It goes into Some mathematical things that I am going to spare you,
gentlemen. The report is available and if it is desirable may be
incorporated in my testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. File it as an exhibit, anyway, and if there are
any parts you want to reproduce you may do so.
Mr. SHENEHON. I have put a copy in your hands and I think I
have another copy.
Mr. HULL. Mark in your report before you file it the particular
paragraphs that you think our attention ought to be called to, and
we can print those and not the whole report.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. I think it is very well to spare the committee the
reading of mathematical details and to give them something that
they can get at very quickly.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a good suggestion.
Mr. SHENEHON. I will carry that out.
The CHAIRMAN. And file the document itself as an exhibit.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I will do that.
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, I have spoken of the contribution of regu-
lating works to water power; and I have mentioned ice flushing; and
the value to navigation, which is always the dominent thing even
with the advances made in our thought and in our economic views.
We have got to regard this traditionally paramount thing still as
a vastly important thing. It is a tremendous element in our economic
life.
But scenic grandeur, how are we going to protect that? Lake Erie,
of course, is a mill pond. This great water-power development has
1468 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
converted what was known to our ancestors as a navigable waterway
into a mill pond. It continues to be a navigable way still, and with
regulating works will be more effective than it was before the drain-
age canal started its diversion. But its mill-pond potentialities are
the things that we must give the highest consideration to if we are
to get the utmost energy out of the falling waters of the Niagara
River. I have already pointed out to you that change in thought of
an engineer officer, Colonel Wooten, in his discussion of the St.
Lawrence regulation, where the desirability of uniformity of flow,
not alone for navigation but for water power also, is the dominent
thing; and in the Warren report and in the review of the Board of
Engineers this change of heart and thought of the Corps of Engi-
neers is one of the most remarkable things. I remember when I
was consulting engineer for Hydraulic Power Co., at Niagara
Falls, about 1911, and was endeavoring to induce the Corps of Engi-
neers to give Hydraulic Power Co. the remaining water possible
under the treaty -
f The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Four thousand four hundred cubic
eet?
Mr. SHENEHON. Hydraulic Power Co. had at that time 6,500 cubic
feet per second and the Niagara Falls Power Co. had 8,600; so there
was about 3,000 cubic feet per second still unused, 500 going through
the Erie Canal down to Lockport, as you will remember.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. And I am not sure that these water-power people
at Niagara Falls in those days were not regarded much as the
Sanitary District of Chicago people are regarded now—as unde-
sirable citizens. There was very little assistance in securing that
water under the very peculiar circumstances that existed at Niagara
Falls. I think you know this very well, Mr. Chairman, but per-
haps the other members of this committee do not. I happened to
be making investigations at Niagara Falls leading up to the prepara-
tion of my report on the preservation of Niagara Falls at the time
that Taft when he was Secretary of War held a hearing at Niagara
Falls, and got pretty well the slant of things at that time; and I
remember Taft's reasons in apportioning the water under the Burton
Act—15,600 that was—why he gave the Niagara Falls Co. 8,600 and
gave Hydraulic Power Co. only 6,500. Here is the remarkable situa-
tion and the thing that we have now gotten absolutely away from
since the Federal water power act. The company that he gave the
most to, 8,600, were getting 10 electrical horsepower out of a cubic
foot of water. The company that he gave the lesser amount to was
getting 20 electrical horsepower out of a cubic foot—twice as much
energy—but he gave the one that was getting half as much over
2,000 cubic feet per second more water. The basis of that appor-
tionment was the fact of contractual obligations; that is, the Niagara
Falls Power Co. had contracts to supply the power from their full
plant, and they needed 8,600 cubic feet per second.
The other company had contracts for not over 4,000 cubic feet per
second, as I recollect it, but he assigned to them 6,500 cubic feet per
second because they were building for 6,500; they had not made their
installations and had not completed their canals for the larger
amount, but they were building them. And that situation is very
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1469
much the same as in the sanitary district canal situation. But Taft,
in that ruling, gave them what they were building for as the least
amount representing fair dealing. And that was a private company.
That represents the generosity and fair dealing of the present
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States toward a
corporation doing business for profit. A municipal corporation
is entitled to no less.
I have been leading up to the mill-pond use of Lake Erie. I have
been building, as I told you, a water power out in California in the
high Sierras. These things are all pertinent; I do not bring them
in for a reason that does not seem to me good. But in the high
Sierras in El Dorado County, which is a little north of east of San
Francisco, the snow falls to a depth of 15 and sometimes 20 feet; and
we expended $800,000 in building a great earth dam there 7,000 feet
above the sea to hold the melted snows; and then all through the
dry season this water is released by regulating gates as it is needed,
and the water comes down into a forebay, which is 1,900 feet above
the water wheels where the current is generated. And this forebay,
which holds a very limited amount of water, is drawn on just when
the peak load comes—when 5 o'clock comes and the people have their
stores still lighted and they are preparing dinner in the kitchens
and the lights are on in the kitchens and they are getting ready for
dinner, and the bedrooms and the parlors are lighted and people
are going home on the street cars, the trolleys—that is the time when
there is a big demand, and so the water is released as it is needed.
That is the mill-pond use of water. Store it until needed, then
use it.
In the sanitary district a similar procedure comes in, only it is
less accentuated. The canal itself has some reservoir value. It can
be pulled down a foot or two when the park lights come on at
nightfall.
In Wisconsin the company with which I am connected has a water
power with a lake of about 10 square miles, and because of these
10 square miles of lake that power is tremendously valuable for
peak-load operation; and has installed about 50 per cent more wheels
and generators than it could without this mill pond. This lake can
be drained down 6 inches or a foot at the time the peak-load opera-
tion comes On.
There is a limit to peak-load use of the water power at Niagara
Falls, but here is a suggestion: The natural flow of the Niagara River
ought in considerable volume to pass over the American Falls and
over the Horseshoe Falls during the daylight hours. There is not
any particular reason why these falls should be running full and
wasting water at midnight or at 3 o'clock in the morning. So it
seems entirely practicable to me that we should conserve in Lake
Erie—say 16 hours a day—enough water so that the water power
companies will use this stored mill-pond water instead of the natural
stream flow. -
In other words, if the companies could use 40,000 cubic feet per
second of mill-pond water, then 40,000 cubic feet of natural stream
flow is going over the cataract in addition to whatever other volumes
are available for the cataracts. So this daylight operation of regu-
lating works will permit a higher use of water for power purposes
1470 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
in the Niagara River at Niagara Falls by at least 40,000 cubic feet
per second, while the Scenic grandeur of the Falls will remain what
it was before. This is not turning the water on and off of the cata-
racts, it is doing what we are doing everywhere—using the mill-pond
flow of the reservoir above. It is very remarkable that in the 16
hours of storage of the immense quantity of water that is saved,
the change in the level of Lake Erie will not be over an eighth of
an inch. This reservoir of Lake Erie, this great mill pond of Lake
Erie, is a splendid asset that should be fully utilized. The Board
of Engineers have reached that conclusion, so we are making prog-
TëSS.
ſ'; CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hull, we should say that to the Department
Of State.
Mr. SHENEHON. I hope anybody who needs it will see to the
getting of it. I am going to give some of my time to this problem
of the Great Lakes from now on. I have been too busy recently,
but I am going to give some time to it. It will be and excellent
thing for our ěří. friends, I think, to understand through the
State Department—and they are our friends I am sure—that no
more water is going to be taken out of the Niagara River or out of
Lake Erie until regulating works are completed. In my judgment,
that should be the attitude of our State Department, as well as of
our engineers and of Congress. The limitation—and I stated that
in 1906 in this very report I read you the other day—is that the
increased use of water at Niagara Falls for power is dependent upon,
and awaits the construction of regulating works at the head of the
Niagara River.
Now, I will turn to navigation for a little while.
The CHAIRMAN. You have not spent any time on the question of
jºine the flow. Are you going to say anything about that
at all
Mr. SHENEHON. You mean increasing the flow %
The CHAIRMAN. Spreading the flow.
Mr. SHENEHON. I mentioned that. That is recommended in my
report of 1906; and the detail of it I am willing to leave to those
who may take it up. The Board of Engineers gave consideration
to that in their review of the report of Colonel Warren and Mr.
Richmond. It is a very desirable thing. An estimate of $6,000,000
is set down in the recommendations of the Board of Engineer
signed by General Taylor for that purpose. -
The CHAIRMAN. What report is that? -
Mr. SHENEHON. That is the Warren report.
Mr. ADCOCK. The $6,000,000 was for what?
Mr. SHENEHON. For submerged weirs at Niagara Falls.
The CHAIRMAN. For spreading the flow on the Canadian side, on
the Horseshoe Falls?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. ſº
The CHAIRMAN. Why isn't it mathematically true and why isn’t
it simply a mathematical problem, Mr. Shenehon, if the American
Falls are a thousand feet wide and they have, as everybody knows,
an abundant flow with their 10,000 cubic feet, that the Canadian
Fall of 3,000 feet width only needs the proportionate increase if
the water there is properly spread? -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1471
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I think anyone who views the Falls reaches
the conclusion that I announced in this book here, that it was very
difficult to differentiate between the beauty of the American Falls
and the tremendous energy of the Horseshoe Falls. I am not pre-
pared to state, Mr. Chairman, that I think there ought to be less
than a hundred thousand going over the combined falls. That is
the recommendation approximately of the Board of Engineers. I
think General Keller had very much to do with it, because he was
the officer of the Lake Survey at the time this report of mine came
out and studied these problems very intimately himself; and he is
a very keen engineer. You know General Keller, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, indeed, and have a very high respect
for him.
Mr. SHENEHON. So do I. I indicated it by taking him away from
the Federal Government. - -
Now, I want to come to the Taylor report and to point out the
fact, as I have already pointed out in passing, that this board of
engineers—and I think it was a very able board—has recommended
the immediate construction of regulating works; and they denominate
the site picked out by the Noble-Raymond-Wisner Board—the board
of 1900. They estimate the cost of these regulating works at the
head of the Niagara River at $8,000,000. There is only one way to
explain this large estimate; and that is that they propose to spend
about $5,000,000 in rock excavation to make the outflow channel of
the Niagara River more capacious, following that very principle
I have called your atention to over and over again in my discussion;
and they go further than I ever attempted to go myself, and I am
going to try to tell you how much further.
They recommend that the river should be made so capacious that
for purposes of flushing ice in the winter season release could be
made from Lake Erie of from 300,000 to 400,000 cubic feet of water
per second. The normal flow of the river is about 200,000, so that
nearly double the normal flow of the river—for the purpose of flush-
ing ice out when needed—was recommended. Since General Warren
limited the total diversion for power purposes to 80,000 cubic feet
per second and required that 40,000 must be returned to the Maid
of the Mists pool, so retain the full river flow except 40,000 cubic
feet per second to get ice over the lower rapids. It is a tremendous
gain in water power capacity to be able to use 100,000 cubic feet
per second and use it for the 310-foot fall, instead of taking 40,000
with 220-foot fall and 40,000 with 90-foot fall. It is a tremendous
gain in water power to use regulating works for ice flushing.
The CHAIRMAN. Tell me that again, Mr. Shenehon. I was look-
ing here and trying to check up on this report and I missed what you
said. -
Mr. SHENEHON. Colonel Warren seemed to find the limiting ele-
ment for the volume of flow that might be used for water-power pur-
poses that water which could be spared from the river flow without
danger of an ice blockade. He was a soldier as well as an engineer
and doubtless knew about dynamite and TNT; but he thought that
of this 80,000 recommended for water power, 40,000 cubic feet per
second must return to the Maid of the Mists pool; in other words,
1472 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
he would have a 220-foot drop for one half of the 80,000, and a 310-
foot drop for the remaining 40,000 cubic feet per second.
The CHAIRMAN. How would you get that ? You would not get
that by existing development.
Mr. SHENEHoN. Yes; in the Chippewa-Queenston development.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the Canadian development.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that is the only high head plant now, but
we will have that on the American side also ultimately.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course you can do it. ,
Mr. SHENEHON. I think the Schoellkopf people have the right of
way for that canal now.
The CHAIRMAN. I know they have.
Mr. SHENEHON. It will be a shorter canal than on the Canadian
side, because they have to follow the bend of the river on the
Canadian side.
The CHAIRMAN. This canal I would say would be at least a third
shorter. How long is your power canal, Mr. Stewart, to your new
works? -
Mr. STEwART. I do not know exactly, somewhere about seven or
eight miles, I think. Isn’t it, Mr. White?
Mr. WHITE. The Welland River from Chippewa to Montrose is
41/2 miles, and the canal itself is 81% miles long from Montrose to the
forebay at Queenston. -
The CHAIRMAN. Our American canal would not be
Mr. SHENEHON (interposing). Not over 6 miles in length.
The CHAIRMAN. We would start at La Salle. It would be just
what we have been talking about for a canal for navigation.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be about 7 or 8 miles, I should think.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. Well, I had an impression that the Schoell-
kopf interests- had the right-of-way for that canal.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been purchased.
Mr. SHENEHON. It has!
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I know that. i
Mr. SHENEHON. I may say that I believe the purchase desirable.
The CHAIRMAN. A rival concern, or a concern that was talking of
organizing, bought part of the right of way, and that was acquired
by the Schoellkopfs. Let me ask you this: General Black told me
a number of years ago when he was Chief of Engineers that he be-
lieved an open canal there for navigation and power was feasible.
I do not think that is what the Schoellkopfs contemplate. What
do you think about that proposition, whether you can profitably
combine the two?
Mr. SHENEHON. I do know that a very able engineer advised the
Chippawa-Queenston people to build a tunnel instead of an open
canal. That was R. D. Johnston. These closed conduits have
certain advantages in the winter season, while ice is a problem in
a long open canal. But all of these projects we have been talking
about and have gradually afforded a greater volume of waste per-
missible because of regulating works—enable us to get a tremendous
amount of energy out of Niagara Falls, not at present possible.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you go on I would like to say a word to
the representatives of the sanitary district. I do not see any way
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1473
in which we can avoid taking a recess Monday night for probably
2 or 3 days. We will be able to sit all day Monday, with the ex-
ception of going over to vote on the revenue bill, but we will have
to be there as long as the revenue bill is on the floor. We will
all want to be there during the entire time that it is being con-
sidered. It will probably not be over an hour or an hour and a
half, but I think that you should be advised of that now.
Mr. SHENEHON. I was speaking, Mr. Chairman, of the amount
that the board of engineers in their report recommended for the in-
creased discharge capacity of the Niagara River. The amount
(when Lake Erie is at elevation 574, which is a tolerably high stage)
is 60,000 cubic feet per second more water through the river for
the purpose of ice flushing and for the purpose of holding the
lake as high as possible for the benefit of navigation, while avoid-
ing possible flood damage. That 60,000 cubic feet, you see, is about
the amount that is or will be diverted at Sault Ste. Marie for power
purposes—and that is the minimum proposed for the Niagara River.
They say from 300,000 to 400,000. That is somewhere between
60,000 and 160,000 that General Taylor wants as excess capacity in
the Niagara River. I think their upper figure is rather extreme,
and can not be realized.
Here is the recommendation of the statement of the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in the review of the Warren
report, and this is signed by General Taylor. I read from page
46, paragraph 89: -
Because Of these great it ind positive benefits, we recommend the construc-
tion of the above regulating dam at the foot of Lake Erie close to the site
selected by the Deep Waterways Board.
That is the Noble-Wisner-Raymond Board.
No detailed plan has been made for this dam. It is an international matter
and should be clearly defined in an appropriate agreement with Canada.
We have, however, made a tentative analysis and estimate which show that
the plan of control is feasible and that it would not cost more than $8,000,000.
This cost should be defrayed by Canada and the United States upon such a
basis as might be agreed to. -
No suggestion is made of payment by the Sanitary District of
Chicago or by the Canadian water-power interests at Niagara Falls
or of those of the State of New York.
The CHAIRMAN. I see in the next paragraph they follow with this
statement, paragraph 90:
The regulating dam would not completely compensate for existing losses of
depth in the St. Clair River and in Lakes Huron and Michigan and it would
not, of course, permit any increases in the diversions that affect those depths.
Mr. SHENEHON. I will continue the reading, Mr. Chairman.
Furthermore, the oscillations of these two lakes and consequently of the St.
Clair River would be practically unaffected in range. It is seemingly out of
the question to control the oscillations of the Detroit River and of the chan-
nels and lakes above it, and, subject to adequate model experiments is to
the submerged weirs, we therefore recommend the dredging of Lake St. Clair
and the compensating Weirs in the St. Clair River proposed by the diversion
engineer for raising the levels and increasing depths, all at an additional
cost of $2,160,000. ” -
The CHAIRMAN. I think paragraph 91 is important, too.
91739—24—PT 2 7S
1474 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I am going to read that. Paragraph 91
is as follows: k r
This regulating dam and the dredging and submerged weirs give practical
assurance of the operation of the present type of large vessels with a minimum
of inconvenience and uncertainty, and their installation would represent full
and liberal provision for the preponderating interest of navigation. They
Should be begun and completed at the earliest possible moment. -
Mr. Adcock has called my attention to the statement on page 47,
toward the end of paragraph 94, which reads:
By completing the regulating dam at the head of the Niagara River before
work is begun on these remedial works at Niagara Falls it would be possible
to reduce the discharge of the river practically at will, and thereby greatly
to facilitate the construction of these works.
This is another use of regulating works, which is somewhat
similar to the recommendation of Mr. Bowden, the Canadian engi-
neer, in stopping the flow of a portion of the floor of the St. Law-
rence River so as to let it freeze over.
Mr. GouldF.R. Why not finish that paragraph?
Mr. SHENEHON. I am not familiar with what the rest is, Mr.
Goulder, but I will read it if you suggest:
We therefore recommend that no attempt be made to start the remedial
works until the regulating dam has been completed and is in operation. The
submerged weir for preserving the flow of the American Fall is necessary,
and it should be built whenever rock is made available, possibly as a result
Of the remedial work above the Horseshoe. These remedial works are also
international in their Scope and therefore call for appropriate diplomatic
agreement as to their construction and payment.
I think all the work recommended is to be paid for internationally,
as I have it in mind.
I would like to read on page 49 in paragraph 99:
The immense quantity of ice discharged each year by the Niagara River
certainly must receive attention in fixing the limits within which diversions
are permissible.
That is diversions for power purposes out of Niagara Falls.
We believe that appropriately designed regulation works at Buffalo Will
not only not endanger but in reality will increase the river's ability to
dispose of unusual accumulations of ice at the foot of Lake Erie. The power
at any time to release from 300,000 to 400,000 cubic feet per second and Send
this volume swiftly down the river will permit us to flush the channel clean
throughout its length and thereby largely solve the ice problem throughout
the river. The division engineer has stated that a minimum flow of 50,000
cubic feet per second must exist above the Falls so that the ice may be
safely carried over them. We are recommending a minimum of 70,000 to 80,000
cubic feet per second, and to this increased discharge have added the Valuable
sluicing effect of an occasional maximum flow of 300,000 to 400,000 cubic
feet per second, as may be judged to be needed. In all human probability,
ice as a serious limiting factor above the Falls may therefore be disregarded.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Shenehon, that
since this report was written the power company has made material
advances in conrolling the ice trouble.
Mr. SHENEHON. They have been studying that for years, and I
know Mr. Harper has devised a method of guiding the ice formation
so as to leave a free channel toward Port Day. Harper is the chief
engineer of the Niagara Falls Power Co. Incidentally, Harper is a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1475.
* of the committee, of which I am chairman, to study ice prob-
€UY).S.
The CHAIRMAN. He is a very capable engineer.
Mr. SHENEHON. He is very able.
The CHAIRMAN. A canal for navigation and power combined
would, of course, be a larger canal than a canal for power alone,
wouldn’t it?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. You are thinking now of Bowen's scheme.
The CHAIRMAN. No ; not at all. I am thinking about the problem
of whether the Schoellkopf development there—whether we could
utilize a navigation canal in connection with a power development
and get reasonable navigation and efficiency out of the power.
Mr. SHENEHON. Of course, the size of the canal for navigation
would be considerable, so that velocities might be kept low. We
have the situation in the canal of the sanitary district, as an illus-
tration of how much current velocity we might have, and find that
running 10,000 through the canal leaves navigation reasonably good.
The CHAIRMAN. I may be entirely wrong, but as a layman it seems
to me strange that a navigation canal should have been developed on
the Canadian side—and I am saying this in all kindliness and not in
any spirit of controversy, but simply to get information. It seems
to me strange that the development should be there where it is 27
miles long, and navigation in a restricted channel is necessarily slow
navigation, when you can have the same development on the
American side only 7 or 8 miles long, and I can not quite compre-
hend why we on this side should not have undertaken that. It seems
to me it would have been to the benefit of both countries. They are
just as much interested on the Canadian side, they have spent a lot
of money; but aside from their present investment they are just as
much interested in having a waterway between the two lakes in as
few miles as possible. Why is it that it was not done the other way,
and why is it that it is not more advantageous to have it on this side?
Mr. SHENEHON. Is it not just historical that the Canadians made
their big settlements along the St. Lawrence River? It was to get
access to the chain of upper Lakes that they had to climb up the
Niagara escapement at Welland. We have no Montreals. Ogdens-
burg is the largest American town on the St. Lawrence River.
The CHAIRMAN. That is only about 13,000 people or 15,000. Is
there any reason why a canal on this side would not be just as useful,
just as susceptible of good navigation, as the Welland?
Mr. SHENEHON. I see none. The only question now is as to the ne-
cessity of a duplication of canals.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand that. What I was interested
in particularly was, I could not understand how it happened to be
done in that way unless there was some engineering reason or navi-
gation reason.
Mr. SHENEHON. You see, at Sault Ste. Marie we did the first work
there on the American side; that is the first large lock built by the
State of Michigan; and later the first United States lock, the lock
of 1881

1476 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. MANSFIELD (interposing). When was the first Welland Canal
constructed? *
The CHAIRMAN. How long ago, Mr. Stewart?
Mr. STEwART. Oh, it is a long way back. It was about 100 years
ago, I think. -
Mr. SHENEHON. I have an impression it was in the twenties. I
may be in error about that.
Mr. WHITE. I think it was in 1822. -
The CHAIRMAN. If you have not considered it, I do not want you
to give me any opinion upon it, but if you have considered it, I
would like to have, if you feel free to express it, your opinion as to
whether it is feasible to construct an open canal on the American
side which would give us the most efficient power development and
at the same time furnish us with good navigation; whether that
would be as good a power development as one through a tunnel.
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not know that I would like to express an
opinion on that, Mr. Chairman. -
Mr. GOULDER. On your last question, on page 117 of the Warren
report, you will find the history showing that the Welland Canal was
begun in 1824.
The CHAIRMAN. The Welland 2 -
f Mr. GouldFR. Yes; and completed in 1833. The depth was 74%
feet. ~
Mr. SHENEHON. What is the date?
Mr. GOULDER. Begun in 1824 by a private corporation and opened
in May, 1833, with a depth of 71% feet.
Mr. SHENEHON. In the review of the board of engineers, which I
have spoken of as the Taylor report, on page 51, toward the bottom
of paragraph 102, is this statement showing that additional di-
versions for power purposes at Niagara Falls must await regulating
works:
As will be explained hereafter, not even the initial increases should be made
until the construction of the regulating dam, upon whose operation the in-
creases clearly depend, has been agreed to. funds provided, plans completed,
and contracts let. -
In other words, the proposition that no more water may be di-
verted at Niagara Falls until we have regulating works is concurred
in by this distinguished board of engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. They seem to contemplate in the paragraphs
which you read just preceding the last one the installation of a dam
just above the Falls, and then of the regulating works at the head
of the river, but the dam is to precede
Mr. ADCOCK (interposing). No. -
Mr. SHENEHON. The one at the head of the Niagara River will
precede, which will control the flow. :
The CHAIRMAN. That is to be completed before the other is started?
Mr. SHENEHON. The one to distribute the water over the cataracts
is to follow the completion of the dam at the head of the Niagara
River to regulate Lake Erie.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they can hold up that water and
assist in the construction of the second one?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1477
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I think it has become apparent that the
ability to throttle the Niagara River at will, just as we are able to
shut the gates at the head of the navigation canal at Sault Ste.
Marie, and to drain the canal so as to repair the revetments—this
ability to throttle the Niagara River is a tremendously valuable thing.
Of course, for power reasons you can not do that completely. We
must keep our wheels going; but the ability to manipulate the out-
flow from this tremendous mill pond is a thing of incalculable value.
So we take care of all three interests in Lake Erie and at Niagara
Falls. I have spoken of our water powers in California. I have in-
vestigated a couple of water powers in the mountains to the eastward
of San Diego, and the amount of flow which we may develop is about
10 cubic feet per second. Water in the south of California has the
value of diamonds. When you get a little farther north it has the
value of gold, and when you get farther north it becomes a baser
metal. But this water near San Diego is so valuable that we can
not use it for one purpose alone. You must use it for water power
and then drink it; or we must use it for water power and then use
it for irrigation.
We are not satisfied with getting just one use out of our water.
You will remember the proposition for the water supply of San
Francisco, where they went into a very beautiful valley of the Sierras
and built a great arch dam, creating a mountain lake for the fur-
nishing of the water supply of the city of San Francisco. Mr. John
R. Freeman—I do not know whether you know him or not—a very
distinguished hydraulic engineer, sent me a copy of his report, and
in a conversation he told me “I could not let anybody know how
much water power there was along the route of this aqueduct, be-
cause the people would begin to say that this was a water-power
project instead of a water-supply project”; but now the people know
that in getting water from the high level in the Sierras—I do not
know the elevation; perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 feet—we might just as
well take the energy out of that water and turn it into kilowatt
hours and use it before drinking it. That applies to the great
Mocassin Creek Plant, which I visited myself this present year. The
plain truth is, if we can get two uses for water instead of one it is
twice blessed; and if we get three uses it is thrice blessed. At
Niagara Falls we can get two uses. We can get navigation—that
is, not interfered with after you have held it up to the proper
heights—and we can get water power; and the two are not incom-
patible. They go together; they are coordinated. Of course, you
can not get both water power and Scenic grandeur, but you can save
water up in Lake Erie and use it more advantageously to supply the
water powers and leave the natural stream flow for scenic grandeur.
So we have at Niagara Falls a situation where the economic use of
water indicates at least two uses and if we can use it in three ways,
as I have stated, it is thrice blessed.
I may say that it would have been a great monument to the retir-
ing Chief of Engineers, General Beach, if he could have built these
regulating works at the head of the Niagara River following this
Review of the Board of Engineers in 1920. Possibly the time was
1478 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
; short for the international adjustment and the preparation of
plans.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the real trouble, Mr. Shenehon, was this.
The House, during the war and for about three years after the war,
appropriated no money for rivers and harbors, except during the
war such as was necessary for war purposes and maintenance, and
later simply for maintenance. We appropriated in this country for
all our rivers and harbors only about twelve or thirteen million dol-
lars a year for two or three years.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I appreciate that situation.
. The CHAIRMAN. And I suppose the Chief felt that that policy was
ironclad and that he was not able to go beyond that and we have only
started in on appropriating the amounts that are really necessary
about twe years ago—well, three years ago. I have forgotten the
amount of increase then, but two years ago the appropriation was
increased from $27,000,000 to $58,000,000, and a like but not qtlite
So large an increase was made the year before. Those were the first
large efforts towards resuming work of this nature.
Mr. SHENEHON, Well, I imagine there are great many reasons,
that a person with an intense interest in a particular project, does
not always see. I am a person tremendously interested in this prob-
Hem of the Great Lakes, as you perhaps have discerned by this time.
But I hope that during General Taylor's administration of affairs
this dam may be built and that his name may be attached to this
dam—I think the Taylor dam would be an appropriate name for
that structure. This report of the board of engineers, as I have
stated, is an able report in many particulars.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we will have to adjourn now.
General BIxBY. May I have two minutes?
The CHAIRMAN. General Bixby.
General BIXBY. Mr. Shenehon referred to the Chief of Engineers
and the engineer officers as being somewhat biased against Some of
the things that he is advocating.
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not think so. My understanding, Gen-
eral, was that what he said was that the chief and the board as they
existed from time to time had some feeling with regard to the
Chicago diversion, not with regard to the regulating works.
General BIXBY. That is what I was referring to. In 1892 to 1895
I was on duty in Newport, R. J., and when I was first there the
Secretary of War had ordered a bridge to be opened, to be finished
by the 1st of July following. When it came along about May I re-
ported that nothing had been done in the past year and it would be
imposible to finish the work that he required by the 1st of July; and
the reply came back that until the 1st of July arrived the engineer
officer had no responsibilities, and when the 1st of July did arrive, I
would make the report and then the Secretary would take action.
I went to Detroit in 1901 to 1903, and when I got there the North-
ern Superior Co., or the Lake Michigan-Superior Co. was at work
on its canal, and I said to my predecessor “This canal is sure to have
a great effect on the navigation of Lake Superior, and yet they are
are at work on it,” and he said in effect that he had protested against
the digging of that canal when they started it, or when they wanted
to start it, and that the Secretary of War had said that he had no
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1479
authority to prevent the digging of a ditch or a canal in lands owned
by anybody as long as they were not actually concerned to the Lakes
and the navigation; that he had no way to stop them no matter how
extensive or expensive their construction was until they commenced
to flow water from the Lakes through that canal, and that conse-
quently the engineer officer had nothing to do until the connec-
tion was actually made and water was started through, and then
he, as Secretary of War, would have to consider what would be the
effect of the flow, and up to that time he could do nothing and the
engineer officer could do nothing.
That was Secretary Alger; and then about two years after they
opened it up and a board was appointed to go up there and take
action with reference to the flow.
I speak of that because the engineer department may have appeared
to possibly pose as objecting to diversions as they occurred, but the
fact was then and has always been since that the engineer depart-
ment has been simply confining itself to the instructions of Con-
gress and the instructions of the Secretary of War. The officers
might some of them have different views, but the duty always im-
posed upon us was to follow the law as laid down by Congress and
the Secretary of War. So that our action often appears as if it
might be prejudiced or biased against certain things, but as a matter
of fact it is simply that we are always restricted to the duty that is
put upon us—to obey Congress and to obey the Secretary of War.
The CHAIRMAN. Adjourned until 9.30 Monday morning.
(Whereupon the committee, at 4.10 p.m., adjourned.)
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORs,
House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Monday, May 26, 1924.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey
(chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF MIR. FRANCIS C. SHENEHON-Resumed
Mr. SHENEHON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the en-
durance and patience of this committee in listening to the very long
story that I have had to present. x.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, Mr. Shenehon, that we have not
only been interested but we have been very greatly benefited and
have learned much which I am sure is of great value and interest
to us.
Mr. SHENEHON. And I want to add that the tedious recital is
approaching a close. I shall occupy a very short time this morning,
just hitting a few of the high points, and passing along.
I find that for the regulating works, as recommended by the Board
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in the Taylor review of the
Warren report, that a total expenditure of a little over $10,000,000
is involved for the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River,
and for the head of the Niagara River. And for the distribution of
water over the Horshoe Falls at Niagara, giving a good deal of
1480 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
water to the American Falls as well, an additional six million is
estimated.
I find in summing up that the use of regulating works and the
continuous larger use of water at Niagara means a tremendous
capitalized saving for this total expenditure of $16,000,000. I find
in navigation alone, if we raise Lake Erie about 12 inches, we have
a capitalized saving of about $60,000,000. Also I want to point
out that this 12 inches could be secured for much less by dredging
in the lake and in the channels and harbors. But the dredging
would not help out the situation in Cleveland Harbor, for instance,
where the gentlemen had the dock piles exposed and where the water-
supply engineer had to lift his water a little higher. The one thing
that would serve all interests, including the little inlet where the
fisherman would like to run his tug in, is to raise the water levels.
That represents a capitalized saving of about $60,000,000 a year.
And, figuring electric horsepower as worth $10 a year, there is a
large saving by the larger use of water that comes with the ability
to do all the things— -
Mr. HULL. If you put in regulating works in Ontario, as I call
it, or as you speak of it, in the Niagara River—that is what you
call it, is it not, and is that the same thing?
Mr. SHENEHON. No; Ontario is a separate affair.
Mr. HULL. Well, if you put in regulating works in the Niagara
River, will that increase the value of the water in the Niagara power
lant? -
p Mr. SHENEHON. It will permit a very much larger use.
Mr. HULL. I can not get that in my head. They are allowed so
many cubic feet per second—20,000 cubic feet. Now, by putting
these regulating works would that increase the value of the 20,000
cubic feet per second?
Mr. SHENEHON. Under the present treaty there will be no large
increase except that the winter flow will be very much better, and
that improves the conditions: but with the recasting of a new treaty,
which I think is imminent, instead of a limitation of 56,000 cubic
feet the limitation will be not less than 100,000 cubic feet per sec-
ond—a gain of 44,000 cubic feet per second of water for power uses.
This additional water will yield from 1,100,000 to 1,300,000 addi-
tional electric horsepower with a capitalized value of not less than
$80,000,000.
Mr. HULL. That answers the question.
Mr. SHENEHON. So we have a value, only possible with these
regulating works and in the spreading weir at Niagara Falls, of
ten times their cost or, in round numbers, $160,000,000. This repre-
sents real engineering and real economic vision. I feel sure that
Canada will come on in, because the water is fine.
The regulation of Ontario, of course, should go ahead, and the
sanitary district has offered to put up the money.
Mr. HULL. That is a separate proposition from the Niagara River?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; it is 200 miles or more away.
Mr. HULL. And that is the one that the sanitary district proposes
to É. in. That is the contribution of a million dollars to put in
WOPRS.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1481
Mr. ADCock. We also offer to put in money for the works at
Niagara.
r. SHENEHON. Yes; also at Niagara. I want to speak for a
moment on the relative navigation losses coming from these two
diversions, considering the two countries: Canada's loss above Buffalo
by reason of the Chicago diversion and the loss to the commerce of
the United States because of Canada's diversion in the Welland
Canal. I am assuming the figure of half a million dollars for each
inch a year as the loss. With the 5% inches loss due to the Chicago
diversion, that means two and three-quarter million dollars a year.
Now, Canada's commerce—vessel traffic on the Great Lakes—is
about 7 per cent of the total commerce, as indicated by the records
at the “Soo' Locks. That means she is losing $192,500 a year on
the basis of large, deep-draft vessels. The chances are that her
vessels for the most part are shallower draft and the loss may not
be as great as that. On the other hand, the 93 per cent coming from
the diversion in the Weſland Canal of 4,000 cubic feet per second—
I have taken only 4,000 cubic feet per second—with a lowering of
2.2 inches coming from this Welland Canal diversion, the loss to the
United States is a little over a million dollars a year from Canada's
diversion in the Welland Canal.
The excess loss to the United States is about $830,000 a year, which
at 10 per cent means something over $8,000,000 as the capital-
ized loss. As I see it, that is one of the things that Canada secured
in this treaty—the right to lower the level of Lake Erie and to
injure American commerce much in excess of the Canadian loss due
to the Chicago diversion.
Regulating works, of course, will undo this, and there will be no
further complaint of lower levels. It appears to me that any loss
in the St. Lawrence River navigation may be remedied out of the
profits of this Welland Canal diversion. Canada has a profitable
enough thing there to care for any loss in the St. Lawrence River.
Now, I want to come immediately to the question of how much
water is needed for navigation on the Great Lakes. There was a
gentleman by the name of Thompson, I think, who came here from
Cleveland, who gave us a rule. Engineers have a tendency to make
rules for everything, you know. It is a part of the attitude of the
engineer's mind to get things down to rules; and so this gentleman,
to solve the situation of the Illinois River, finds that in the St. Marys
River he only needs 1,500 cubic feet per second or 2,000 cubic feet
per second—I don’t remember his figures—and that we put through
the locks there sometimes 92,000,000 tons of commerce in a year.
I am going to take the tonnage there, as a fair average, at 80,000,-
000 tons a year. How much water do we really need to care for
that navigation, not through the locks alone but down the St. Marys
River?
It is very clear we need the average flow of the river. But if
that volume of flow is moving along—that is about 80,000 cubic feet
per second—we might move a hundred million tons. But we need
for a commerce of 80,000,000 tons in the St. Marys River, 80,000
cubic feet of water per second.
1482 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Let us think of it in that way, that we need a thousand cubic feet
per second for each million tons; and that is so because the St.
Marys River must be kept full; it is a sloping stream and that
stream is as much a part of the navigable waterway as the Lakes
are. How much does Canada need in the St. Lawrence for naviga-
tion? Two thousand cubic feet per second, I think, according to Mr.
Thompson’s rule, would be more than ample. But as a matter of fact
she needs over 200,000 cubic feet per second on account of these
sloping river channels. After the deep waterway to the sea is built,
so far as navigation alone is concerned, she won’t need any more
water than is needed in the St. Marys River. I am not speaking of
water power now, you understand: I am speaking only of the
amount of water needed for navigation.
We have mentioned, and I will not dwell on this, that we have
taken out 50,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Superior for
water-power purposes and will eventually take 10,000 cubic feet
more (50–50 on each side of the river). And these large diversions
make a better navigable body of water out of Lake Superior. I
want to make an assumption now, and this assumption is, that we
take 50,000 cubic feet per second at Chicago. Not that there is any
intention of doing it, because Chicago's limit is 10,000 cubic feet per
second, that is all she wants and all she asks for. But I wish to
treat this matter from the navigation standpoint alone and find out
what would happen if Chicago did take 50,000 cubic feet per second
from Lakes Michigan and Huron. We would then have remaining
going down the St. Clair River about 140,000 cubic feet per second;
and according to our rule we might then run 140,000,000 tons of
commerce down through that river. But incidentally, as in Lake
Superior, we would have to have regulating works at the head of
the St. Clair River to make that much diversion. That is not true,
of course, for a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second. The Lake
Erie regulating works and a few weirs will bring Lakes Michigan
and Huron back to what you lawyers call the status quo ante, the
condition before diversion.
One of the things that would happen if we had this outflow
through the Illinois River of 50,000 cubic feet per second, is that
we could hold Lakes Michigan and Huron at a higher level without
danger of floods, without danger of the lake getting too high; SO
there would be a distinct advantage to navigation by 50,000 cubic
feet per second diversion; and if that diversion were through a by-
pass channel at the head of the St. Clair River, instead of going
into the Illinois River we would secure the same benefits.
Mr. HULL. Assuming we took 50,000 cubic feet per second into
the Illinois River, would regulating works hold the levels up to
what they should be; that is, adding 5 inches?
Mr. SHENEHON. Regulating works would not only undo all losses
coming from diversions, including the 50,000 cubic feet per second
assumed, but would permit the Lakes to be maintained at a higher
level, with the great advantage to navigation, than they can be at
the present time even with Chicago's diversion stopped. So there
is a distinct advantage in this; and it has been shown in every
intelligent scheme for regulation, that you must get more outlet
capacity to start with—that is the first thing to be done—and So
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1483
far as it goes Chicago's 10,000 cubic feet of diversion will help to
the extent of a few inches on the level of the lake. They can be
held a little higher by reason of this continuous outflow at Chi-
cago; just as the 50,000 cubic feet of water diverted in the power
canals at Sault Ste. Marie, continuously running aids navigation
on Lake Superior.
Mr. HULL. Let me understand that. You mean to say that the
water continuously running into the Illinois River is an advantage
to the lake levels?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes, provided the Lakes are regulated; and the
reason for that is that as soon as we take out 50,000 cubic feet
through an independent channel the natural channel can take care
of all the water it has to take care of now and 50,000 cubic feet per
second additional in case of need.
Now, I want to go a little further with this. I have stated that
if you do this we would need to have regulating works at the head
of the St. Clair River and have vessel locks there. I am not pro-
posing that, but I am saying that this may come when we want
25-foot navigation on the Great Lakes. When that time cames and
we hold Lake Michigan–Huron up to 582.6 feet with our present
channels dredged 20 feet below the low-water plane, we will then
have 23-foot navigation in Michigan–Huron; and we will have
27.5 feet depth over the sills of the new locks vessel at the “ Soo.”
This will give 23 and 24 foot navigation instead of 20 and 21 foot,
according to the present scheme. Locks at the head of St. Clair
will have a lift of about 4 feet; and the passage of boats through
them would be very rapid. I imagine that might be objected to
by the lake carriers as an impediment to navigation; but I am
not proposing that for the immediate future—not until the time
comes when we need deeper-draft navigation. A start is made
in the 25-foot prism in the new Welland Canal, and in the deep-
draft locks at Sault Ste. Marie. These were built in anticipation of
future navigation needs.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you not really think that on the 50,000 cubic
feet per second illustration, and with the statement that all Chicago
is asking is 10,000 cubic feet per second, that you are getting into
an unnecessary controversial field, where you might meet some
contradiction which might not occur on lesser amounts?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I rather prefer to follow this down the
Lakes; it will be very brief.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought you had finished, or I would not have
made the suggestion.
Mr. SHENEHON. Not quite. I wish to suggest that if we could
divert 50,000 cubic feet per second additional from Lake Erie across
the Niagara Peninsula—I don’t say the Welland Canal—that Lake
Erie, with regulating works, would be a better navigable waterway;
there would still be 100,000 cubic feet of water flowing down the
Niagara River for the purpose of scenic grandeur; but there would
not be a great deal for water power, because with the assumptions
made we have taken a great deal of water out of the Great Lakes.
But I am talking about navigation alone now—how much water is
needed for navigation. And there would be enough for scenic

1484 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
grandeur and ice flushing and all purposes necessary to keep the
Niagara River running; but Niagara Falls would be short on power
and St. Lawrence River would have less power. -
This whole Scheme is based on the assumption of the release chan-
nels flowing continuously 50,000 cubic feet per second of water; and
these diversions will make better navigable waterways of the Great
Lakes. That is all I am trying to get clear. The St. Lawrence
would then have 170,000 cubic feet and Lake Ontario could be
carried at elevation 247.0 or higher without damage. And I end
this illustration with the Galops Rapids. When we get below these
rapids on the St. Lawrence, we have the same situation that exists on
the Illinois River and on the St. Marys River. We must have a
large volume of flow to take care of these portions of the river where
the volume of water is necessary to maintain depths. That is espe-
cially true in the Illinois River, as I will mention later on.
The objections that have come before this committee have been
in the name of navigation, this traditional aristocrat. That had great
economic weight before we began to think of water power; and it is
still tremendously important economically; but other things have
emerged. There are places where the water power in the stream is
more valuable than the navigation. We have that situation in the
high dam at Minneapolis. But the objections here to the Chicago
diversion are all in the name of navigation. Mr. Larson, Congress-
man from my own State, admitting that Chicago is making a water-
way that will be of assistance to Minnesota—passing down through
the Illinois Valley to the Gulf of Mexico–objects to Chicago having
water enough to run that waterway unless she can run it on a
thousand cubic feet per second, or some smaller amount. It seems to
me we are after a constructive program, and all the objections these
gentlemen have been making in the name of navigation must be
set aside. We are coming to 25-foot navigation on the Lakes; I
have no doubt of that. I myself have been up against the same
necessity of invoking the paramount right of navigation. It was
necessary in the sanitary district case to prove that the interstate and
the international waterways of the United States were damaged—to
prove that was my job. They were damaged in the absence of
remedial measures. a "
In the investigation of the damage done at Niagara Falls by the
diversion of the water for power purposes it was my job to show
that the navigable interstate and international waters of the United
States were lowered even though the commerce was small. That
gave the Federal Government à legal grip on the situation.
So all objectors come in the name of navigation.
Now there is a character that might have existed in real life.
His name is Monsieur Lecoq, Was it Gaborian, Mr. Chairman, who
created that wonderful detective, Lecoq'. When he had an unusual-
ly mysterious case that seemed hard to unravel he gave us that
well-known motive-searching dictum—Cherchez la femme! Look
for the woman' -
Now, I have shown you that navigation does not need this water;
but we all know that water power does. All these objectors came in
the name of navigation. But in the end with the mask removed
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1485
it means water power. And the interesting thing to note in this
connection is that in all the meetings of this committee there has
been silence regarding water power—that is an amazing thing.
I am going to talk about water power because it is the thing that
really counts. This St. Lawrence waterway to the sea is absolutely
impossible for many decades without water power. This is the
reason water is wanted, it is wanted for water power, and the re-
ports of the engineers, Colonel Wooten and Mr. Bowden, show that
fact unmistakably. That is what we are after—water power. But
it would not be a pleasant thing for anyone else except the govern-
mental agencies of Canada—the Hydro Electric Commission, rep-
rensented here I think by Mr. White—to attempt to hold up the
welfare of a municipality, of a municipal corporation, for the bene-
fit of a private corporation generating water power. And that is
the reason for this silence—which is rather ominous, it seems to
me—before this committee.
Now, taking water out at Chicago does lessen the water power
content of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers; but regulation, on
the other hand, by saving up the flood waters and sending them
down when the water power needs them in the wintertime, as a
means of flushing ice as recommended by the Board of Engineers
in the Taylor Review, retrieves this loss in part. So we are not
fully damaged even on the water power end of things; but I as-
Sume that we will be short 10,000 cubic feet per second for water
power.
Now, the available water power at Niagara within the treaty
limits—and assuming it is all used with the full drop of something
over 300 feet, and that we get 30 electric horsepower out of each
cubic foot per second is over 1,600,000 horsepower. We are
using a little over a million, as I have it figured out, at the present
time; with about 700,000 horsepower still unutilized. Perhaps this
is not quite true, because I do not think we can take it out of the
gorge under the present treaty; but it is true with a limitation of
56,000 cubic feet per second and with the treaty modified to permit the
full-head development.
Now, with the gain made by the Board of Engineers, in recom-
mending 100,000 cubic feet per second diversion for power purposes
at Niagara we will have another 1,300,000 horsepower more showing
available at Niagara Falls over 2,000,000 horsepower, still unused.
Of course the market is always a tremendously important thing,
in all these water power propositions, and that of course is what is
lacking on the St. Lawrence. That is definitely stated in the roports,
that the market for this power is not yet visible. And therefore
they propose to develop only the international section; and after
that is done. which may be 10 years hence, after a period of incu-
bation and the development of markets: then a development down
stream, at the next rapids and so forth; perhaps 30 years in all in
the process, starting 10 years from now.
I would like to inquire now as to what water is really worth.
We have had some very remarkable statements, very interesting,
and very indefensible statements made as to the value of water at
Niagara Falls. But we have a little mix-up. What we have are
statements as to the value of water power and not as to the value
1486 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
of water. Chicago is taking only water. Water power is a product,
the same as flour is a product of wheat. We can think of flour when
we talk of wheat, but flour is the manufactured product. So when
we speak of cotton we may think of cambric cloth, which is made
from cotton. We are dealing with water in this diversion at Chi-
C8, CO. *
"find an illustration of this form of confusion when I was called
as an expert for the United States in this condemnation proceedings
in the Chandler-Dunbar water power at Sault Ste. Marie. An expert
for the Chandler-Dunbar people had built up a very large value for
that undeveloped water power. He showed how they were going to put
in a dam and turbines, and grind pulp, chute that over to the paper-
mill and make newspaper; then take that newspaper to Chicago and
make $5 a ton on it. They got paper, which was a product; but what
we were talking about there as here was water. And when I testi-
fied I was asked, “Do you think the method of deriving the value
of water in St. Marys is correct?” -
“Well,” I said, “I think the expert for the other side has not gone
#. far enough; he ought to figure in the profits of a publishing
Q OllS62.
I believe the judge of that court agreed with me in that proposi-
tion. So, I say, we are dealing with the value of water and not water-
power. I think the value of water at Niagara Falls may be derived
in this way. Let us assume that in the installations to convert this
water—this raw material—into electric energy, we have an invest-
ment of about $100 for electric horsepower. This is an average value.
Let us assume that we can get money at 7 per cent. I think that is a
little high -
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is what is being paid by the strong-
est companies. - * * - -
Mr. SHENEHON. And that maintenance and depreciation are about
2 per cent; and taxes, insurance, and operation, about 1 per cent;
making about 10 per cent, or $10 as a fixed cost. Now, all new power
on the American side can be sold for about $20 an electric horsepower
year. Some of the old contracts, are less, and the average price on
the American side is about $15, I understand. That is stated in a
New York State publication. But if you can sell your current after
it is generated and deliver at the factory in Niagara Falls for $20,
and your fixed charges on your capital, including operation, are $10
a year, then the water right is worth $10 a year.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, just one moment. I think your analysis as
to Niagara is correct; but the undisputed evidence here is that it costs
$26.50 at Chicago to develop a horsepower.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I am going to bring that out a little later.
So what I am talking about now is the value of water at Niagara—
the crude, raw water. I say it is worth $10 a horsepower year.
That is water enough to generate an electric horsepower is worth
$10 a year; and that is the figure we will take in certain analyses
I wish to make for illustrative purposes.
On the Canadian side I suppose the hydroelectric commission
gets its money at about 5 per cent; and the same analysis would
indicate, if they can develop it for $100 an electric horsepower, that
they can sell their current over there for $18 a year and still make a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1487
profit of $10 a year. In other words, water enough to generate an
electric horsepower over there may be worth $10 a year, but it is
not worth any more.
The CHAIRMAN. At Niagara 2
Mr. SHENEHON. At Niagara, on the Canadian side.
The CHAIRMAN. Alone.
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, you can not say that if some company wants
to come in to make aluminum or carbide or carborundum or bleach-
ing powder—some of the products made at Niagara Falls—that we
must think of power costs in terms of steam; because these compa-
nies, if they can not get cheap power at Niagara, will go down to
the St. Lawrence River or to some other place where power is cheap.
The CHAIRMAN. But what would we do if we were in the situation,
as we were during the war, we had to have 80 to 90 per cent of the
necessary ingredients of ammunitions from Niagara and could not
get them anyhere else; if they were over in Canada and we were
having war not with Great Britain but with some country that was
at peace with Great Britain, and where permitting us to manu-
facture munitions there would be a breach of neutrality with Great
Britain, what would you do in such a situation? That is what might
confront us. - -
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I think myself that the law relating to
normal water-power values does not contemplate what might hap-
pen if Great Britain and the United States were at war.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about a case where Great
Pritain and the United States were at war, but where the United
States and another power were at war, another country with which
Great Britain was at peace, in which case their permitting us to
manufacture at these plants would be a breach of neutrality. . .
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I had in mind the Saguenay and the St.
Maurice and some of those other Canadian rivers as illustrations,
but we ourselves have an immense amount of water power in Cali-
fornia and Oregon. -
Mr. HULL. And in Tennessee. -
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I don’t know about Tennessee so well.
The point I am trying to get at here is that under the law if we
should condemn a man’s water power which was in New England,
he could collect on the basis of what it would cost him to generate
the same power by coal, unless some other company near him would
sell him electric power cheaper. So the true value is what a man
might collect in condemnation proceedings, taking into consindera-
tion the cheapest substitute for his water power. This is not neces-
sarily steampower, it is the cheapest substitute. Where a factory
is not yet located, it is free to go down around Pittsburgh, where
they have these pit-mouth steam plants and cheap coal, with big
units giving high efficiencies. A water value of $10 is quite enough
at Niagara Falls.
The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you as to your legal measure.
I think, however, the committee would take a little broader view of
the question and think that they should take into account the
benefit to the country from the most efficient use of power.
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I would concur in that view absolutely;
Mr. Chairman; because I am leading up to the economic value of
1488 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
water at Chicago. That is the most vital principle of the Federal
water power, act; and it is a principle that I shall discuss fully,
but I want first to analyze what Canada gets out of her bargain
in the treaty of 1910.
The CHAIRMAN. I see where you are driving and follow you
perfectly.
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, in the Warren report the value is set down
for a cubic foot of water per second at Niagara of $834 a year. I
want to read this very brief paragraph of Colonel Warren, which
is to be found at page 94 of his report. After discussing various
things he states:
If the time comes, however, as it may in 20 or 30 years, when the diversions
at Niagara Falls are limited because of the lack of water in Niagara River,
the value of water at Niagara Falls will have to be charged against the Chicago
diversion. This has been given as $834 per cubic foot per second per annum,
the value to Chicago being only $800.
Mr. HULL. You mean he makes only $34 difference?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; $34 difference. Colonel Warren then makes
this most remarkable suggestion: That when that time comes, Chi-
cago should pay a rental of $34 a year as representing the difference.
I myself have been dealing with water power very much recently,
where the municipal applicant had preferential rights under the Fed-
eral water power act. So that it seems most amazing to me that
Colonel Warren should suggest that a municipality of the State of
Illinois should pay $34 a year for each cubic foot of water per second
that might otherwise be utilized at Niagara Falls by private corpo-
rations. I have great respect for private corporations. I am engi-
neer for many. e
The CHAIRMAN. The only possible difference, so far as the public
is concerned, the only possible difference between a Government or
State development of power and that by a private corporation is
any difference in cost to the consumer, it is the consumer who is
considered in any possible distinction. ſº
Mr. SHENEHON. May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. !
Mr. SHENEHON. You are so familiar with matters at Niagara Falls
that I would like to ask you this: Are prices of power at Niagara
Falls under the regulations of a State commission? -
The CHAIRMAN. I think they are, because they have a charter
under the general water power act.
Mr. SHENEHON. And as a matter of fact when they charge $20
a year for electro horsepower that is underwritten by the State
commission. .
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; because the general water power act pro-
vides that the State commission shall fix the price, and that if there
is no State commission then the commission set up by the act shall
fix it.
Mr. MoRGAN. It occurs to me, in the matter of water power, that
so far as water power relates to our industrial situation, it is really
an economic situation so far as affects the whole country generally.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you are right. -
Mr. SHENEHON. And in this economic situation I think we must
remember that human life and health have the highest economic
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1489
value—we must protect these to get the most out of all these other
economical things. - -
The CHAIRMAN. Before we get away from this, I see that Colonel
Warren fixes his $834 on the then price of coal.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. -
The CHAIRMAN. That was in what year?
Mr. SHENEHON. 1921.
The CHAIRMAN. I guess the price is about the same now.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I think I would like to touch on that.
Mr. GoulDER. Before you leave that, referring to page 94 of the
Warren report, do you understand that Colonel Warren’s thought
there is to collect that difference from Chicago, or is that a method
of comparison? Let me read what I refer to. You perhaps did not
read that, but you paraphrased it:
If the time comes, however, as it may in 20 or 30 years, when the diversions
at Niagara Falls are limited because of the lack of water in Niagara River,
the value of water at Niagara Falls will have to be charged against the
Chicago diversion. .
Now, not against Chicago, but against the Chicago diversion.
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me give you the interpretation of the board
of engineers on that. --
Mr. GouldFR. Well, I do not care what the board of engineers
say, but what does that mean? - - -
Mr. SHENEHON. I will tell you what they think it means, and
they are a fairly intelligent group. - - *
The CHAIRMAN. Let me read this at page 94:
In case of the Niagara diversions the beneficial results of the diversion are
three or four times as great, while the damage done is only one-fifth as
much. The estimated figures are—benefits, $25,000,000 per annum ; damages,
$526,000 per annum. -
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). I think that is only a comparison
of values. :
Mr. HULL. And then the last sentence you did not read.
The CHAIRMAN. The last sentence in that paragraph is:
The annual COSt Of Compensating for the effect of these diversions is only a
few thousand dollars.
Mr. SHENEHON. On page 60, which is the last page of the report
of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, signed by H.
Taylor, in the second paragraph I see this language: -
As to (2), relating to the Chicago Sanitary diversion, we believe that the
maximum should be 6,800 cubic feet per second, and that the provision for
exacting payment is inexpedient.
I did take that to mean a rental.
Mr. ADCOCK. At page 101, in Colonel Warren’s report, he sug-
gests:
That the expense of Supervision shall be paid for partly at Stated inter-
vals by the Sanitary District of Chicago, that no dangerous conditions shall
be created in navigable waters, that the Sanitary district agrees to be
responsible for any damage claims arising because of the diversion, that it
shall pay its share as determined by the Secretary of War of the cost of Such
compensating works as the Federal Government considers necessary because
of diversions of water from the Great Lakes system, * * * that it shall
pay to the United States for water used for power purposes at a rate per
cubic foot to be paid upon the relative value of the power as developed and
, that which could have been developed by its use at Niagara Falls, New York.
1490 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. HULL. Does that mean that they would expect the munici-
pality or the sanitary district, whatever section was benefited, to
pay to these private corporations that amount of money?
Mr. Gould ER. The United States, it says.
Mr. SHENEHON. No. The private corporation pays $5 a year for
a cubic foot as an administration charge to the Federal Power
Commission. -
Mr. Gould ER. To the Government.
Mr. SHENEHON. To the Treasurv of the United States. So this
suggestion was to charge Chicago $34.
Mr. HULL. Against the $5.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I was calling attention to this thing. I
imagine myself there is no danger in it, but I simply want to give
this slant of Colonel Warren.
The CHAIRMAN. You think Colonel Warren wrote this and not Mr.
Richmond?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think Colonel Warren was influenced by Mr.
Richmond.
The CHAIRMAN. Most of these good things you are attributing to
Mr. Richmond, but I see when you come to a thing you regard as
questionable you think Colonel Warren wrote it. -
Mr. SHENEHON. My view is that the man who occupies the swivel
chair in Buffalo while the other man is doing the practical work out
on the Lakes should take a larger and fairer judicial attitude than .
the man who is out doing the actual work. -
(Thereupon at 11.30 the committee took a recess until 2.30 p.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met at 2.30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the taking of
recess, Mr. Nathan L. Strong presiding.
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS C. SHENEHON-Resumed
Mr. SHENEHON. We were discussing at the close of the morning
session the value of a cubic foot of water at Niagara Falls and the
value fixed by Colonel Warren of $834 per cubic foot per second and
at Chicago $800 per cubic foot. Now, having in mind this value
of º Warren's of $834 per cubic foot it is very pertinent to
inquire what Canada gained by the terms of the treaty of 1910; that
is, what advantage Canada gained over the United States in what
she received. I have hesitated to use so large a value for a cubic
foot of water, but wish to illustrate its propriety.
Using this large value, Canada gained 6,000 cubic feet per second
over the allotment to the United States, which amounts, roughly, to
$5,000,000 a year, and she gained the right to take upwards of 3,000
cubic feet per second in the Welland Canal with a lesser head there.
The total value per year is about $7,000,000.
This total amount may be capitalized at 5 per cent. So it seems
that the Canadians have an advantage capitalized of about $142,-
000,000. And Canada has additionally the right to injure our navi-
gation by another $8,000,000, making a total of $150,000,000.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1491
Now, if in addition Canada has the right to make useless or par-
tially useless—say one-half useless—the project at Chicago, costing,
perhaps, $60,000,000 for this purpose of sanitation, it makes a total
advantage to Canada of about $180,000,000 in this treaty of 1910.
I am assuming that all those things are part of the treaty. Now
if, on the other hand, the value of a cubic foot of water is based on
$10 an electric horsepower, Canada gained an advantage of about
$40,000,000 on the same basis. That is assuming that Chicago is
taking 10,000 cubic feet per second, and of course she gained this
$8,000,000 in the right to lower Lake Erie and injure the commerce
of the United States. And if she gained also the right to cut in half
the diversion at Chicago, it is a matter of $78,000,000 to be gained in
the treaty.
I have figured that the capitalized present worth of any injury to
Canadian water power amounts to about $7,000,000. That computa-
tion perhaps is a little complex. The injury at the present time is
nothing, but the present worth of power valuable in 10, 20, or 30
years must be allowed. The present worth is the amount of money
deposited at the present time at 5 per cent interest which will equal
the capitalized value in the course of time. You understand that
any loss only begins on the St. Lawrence after all the water, less
10,000 cubic feet per second, is in use.
I have also stated that if there is any damage to navigation on the
St. Lawrence that this item of $8,000,000 injury to navigation on
Lake Erie, growing out of the Welland Canal diversion, will take
care of that. Canada can handle that. And in addition the sanitary
district has not withdrawn its offer, and I do not think intends to
withdraw its offer, to spend $1,000,000 in regulating works at the
Galops Rapids on the St. Lawrence.
I intended to discuss this obvious Canadian advantage on the
basis that the water value was $5; but it is an arithmetical affair
and we can pass that by. I am not sure that $10 is not a rather
large value to use for water at Niagara. I happened to hear Mr.
Pierce Butler before he became Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States discuss value. He stated that value is the money
equivalent. The money value of water at Niagara Falls appears to
be $5 or $10, whichever way we may work it out.
I think I have already stated that it is a little understandable
why we have so much silence about water power and so many wit-
nesses opposing Chicago on the basis of navigation. I myself be-
lieve that water power is one of our greatest economic assets, and
that we can not afford to sidetrack it. And I know there is no
conflict between water power and navigation, or that if any conflict
appears in taking some water at Chicago that the diverted water
yields considerable water power, and this water power has a higher
unit value than water power at Niagara Falls on account of its
public-utility use.
I have already spoken of the multiple uses of water—that water
has not fully served when it has just turned the turbine wheels in a
water-power plant. I spoke of the case in California where it must
be used for power and for drinking water—that being two uses. At
Chicago we have the most remarkable situation where the water has
1492 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
four uses. In other words, by the withdrawing of this water into the
channel of the sanitary district Chicago is supplied with fresh,
clean, pure Lake Michigan water. The diversion protects to a
considerable extent the water supply, and when the problem of filtra-
tion of the water supply comes it will be at less expense because of
the lesser pollution of the lake water. And then, second, the water
disposes of, transports away, the sewage, and this is a function of
water, a part of the power of water, and a legitimate use of water, to
digest sewage. Where I live, in Minneapolis, and in St. Paul, the
sewage comes into the Mississippi and the Mississippi digests it.
That is part of the water power in a stream. And third, the water
carrying sewage passes through the turbine wheels which convert
it into electric current and kilowatt hours without loss by reason of
the sewage content. I am told that the water is a little heavier on
that account and therefore is somewhat better for water power, and
it has some warming value in the winter as against ice formation.
And last, this fourth use, a navigable channel to the Gulf of Mexico .
is created. Four uses! And the actual water value is very close to
$800 a cubic foot per second. Mr. Pierce, the sanitary engineer,
will discuss the sanitary value of the water, and I will touch very
lightly in the short time at my disposal upon the water-power value.
I want to inquire, first, whether or not this project at Chicago is a
water-power project. The sanitary district has an investment of
$60,000,000, and gets 30,000 horsepower out of it. Thinking of that
as water power, let us see whether or not Chicago has made a good
water-power deal.
The investment per electric horsepower would be $2,000. With
8 per cent as a basis for interest depreciation, maintenance, and opera-
tion it would cost about $160 a year per electrical horsepower. Of
course we could make it for about $50 out of steam. So it is abso-
lutely not a water-power project for the sanitary district—except as
an incidental by-product.
Now, the next question is whether or not it is a water-power proj-
ect for the whole combination of things, the sanitary district’s proj-
ect, plus the Illinois waterway and the Mississippi River waterway
to the Gulf of Mexico. There we will have $60,000,000 investment
plus $20,000,000 and get perhaps 120,000 electrical horsepower.
Mr. HULL. Who gets the most horsepower, the sanitary district or
the State of Illinois, in this project?
Mr. SHENEHON. The State of Illinois gets about three times as
much as the sanitary district. This waterpower in Illinois has as
its cheapest substitute steam-generated power, and the market is ab-
solutely unlimited so far as it relates to this quantity, 120,000, of
which 90,000 is available in the waterway. &
Mr. Insull could absorb all this current into his system for public
utilities throughout the State of Illinois. Now, in speaking of
public utilities, I want you to understand that under the Federal
Waterpower act the use of power to go into the homes of the people,
to light the homes, to do the little things on the farm, the churning,
the pumping of water, to go into the surgeon's office for the X ray and
all these uses that are closest to the life of the people, are regarded
as the highest use of water power. And the lowest uses of water
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1493
power are the industrial uses, the making of carborundum and
carbide and aluminum and bleaching powder and such things.
I have had occasion to discuss the order of desirability of water
power in a hearing before the Federal Waterpower Commission in
behalf of certain public utilities. Here is the way I size up the value
of water in the Illinois River. Where a dam is built for navigation
and for locks, the investment for water power is comparatively
small. I should say the additional investment for the power house,
foundations, and for the turbines and electrical machinery is about
fifty or sixty dollars per electric horsepower. Is that fairly correct,
Mr. Wisner? Thinking of that as State money, we have about $5
as the cost per electric horsepower per year. All the balance be-
tween whatever the current may be sold for and $5 is the water
value per year.
Assuming now that we can get $3 coal (and Mr. Insull puts down
the cost of coal as $4.50)—assuming that in the vicinity of Utica
coal may be bought for $3 a ton, it takes about 7 tons, that is $21
worth of coal. With a capital investment in steam turbo-generators
of $100 a horsepower, and 12 per cent of this to cover the interest on
the investment, the depreciation (which is large in a steam plant),
the maintenance, and the operation, makes a total cost for steam
of about $33 per electrical horsepower. That means that $28–
that is, $33 minus $5—is about the value of the water. This $28 value
is nearly three times what the water is worth at Niagara Falls.
Mr. Barnes, in his statement, said that water power on the Illinois
River was worth about three times the value of water power on the
Niagara River. I think he was very close to being correct about that.
This development of water power as an incident of a navigation
scheme is absolutely legitimate, and I have stated before that we
can not have any St. Lawrence waterway to the sea unless there is
a water power to pay the larger proportion of the interest on the
cost of the building and development.
And on the Illinois River, if we can develop some water power and
sell it, then the freight cost, the transportation cost, is less. This
strikes me as an excellent economic use of that water aside from its
other three uses. t
Now, I want to inquire, following along the lines I did before—
and I am nearing the end of what I have to say—how much water
is required on the Illinois River for navigation ? We found this
morning that the St. Marys River needs about 80,000 cubic feet a
second for 80,000,000 tons, and hence a million tons for a thousand
cubic second-feet. Mr. Barnes estimates that soon after the opening
of the barge canal we will have 10,000,000 tons and later on we will
have many more tons. Now, 10,000 cubic feet per second for navi-
gation is a reasonable amount. If Mr. Thompson is correct the St.
Lawrence needs about 1,500 cubic feet per second. As a matter of
fact the St. Lawrence needs 220,000 cubic feet or 230,000 cubic feet
for navigation uses, because of these long sloping river channels.
The Illinois River down to Grafton, where it reaches the Mis-
sippi River, is 225 miles long. That is, after we pass the lock sec-
tion ending at Utica, this whole sloping section is dependent
for its depth on the volume of river flow. Colonel Judson states you
will get an 8-foot channel with 7,500 cubic feet, and a 9-foot chan-
1494 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
nel with 9,000 cubic feet per second. So you must not be misled
in thinking, because locks require only 1,000 or 2,000 cubic feet per
Second, that 225 miles of river can get along with the same amount
of water. If we put in four dams to intercept the flow of the river
and create slack-water pools by reason of lessened river flow we have
four interruptions to navigation. An interruption of navigation by
putting in locks at the head of the St. Clair River may need con-
sideration, but where we have four interruptions it is very serious
indeed, with these fleets of barges that will navigate the Illinois
River, instead of the single steamships of the Great Lakes.
I am not proposing regulating works at the present time for the
head of the St. Clair River. That will come, I think, with 25-foot
navigation; but the interruption is a thing that must be taken clearly
into account. - *
Mr. HULL. Have you studied this so you can answer it? If not
do not try to answer the question. The Illinois River, as you know,
is a sluggish stream.
Mr. §. I understand it is.
Mr. HULL. I have been under the impression all the time that we
would need at least 7,500 cubic feet of water to make a 9-foot channel
without the locks.
Mr. SHENEHON. Without the slack-water locks and dams?
Mr. HULL. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. We will need 10,000 cubic feet for that, according
to Colonel Judson, of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. HULL. I said that would be the minimum. What is your
opinion about that?
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not think my opinion is worth very much on
that question. I merely follow out Mr. Barnes's view of it. Mr.
Barnes, by the way, is one of our best waterway engineers. That is,
Mr. M. G. Barnes. While Mr. Barnes appeared before this com-
mittee as an invalid, he gave one of the strongest talks that I have
heard. It was one of the clearest-cut statements that I have listened
to. The doctor told him that if he came here he would probably go
back in a coffin. I might say in this connection that I have just had
a letter informing me that Mr. Barnes has undergone an operation
at the Mayo Hospital at Rochester, Minn., and that he feels 10 years
younger.
Mr. STRONG. We are glad to hear it.
Mr. SHENEHON. I hope he will be here later.
In the matter of floods, in connection with the navigation question,
I suppose this 10,000 cubic feet per second must mean a foot higher
levees. The reason of high flood water is, I think, very largely that
the embankments that have been constructed have confined the river.
It appears to me not a very consequential element in this whole dis-
cussion, for the reason that flood damage is taken care of by the
sanitary district where it is chargeable to them, anyway.
I happen to know about the foulness of the water on the Illinois
River. I spent some time on the river and often had my hands in
the water and waded in it; and I can say that after you have had your
hands in that water you don’t want to put your finger in your mouth.
One does not want to take any ice or use any ice that is made out of
the water from that river. But they have artesian water supply
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1495
along there; their water supply comes out of deep artesian wells,
and they do not use the water of the river. You know about the water
at Peoria, Mr. Hull. If the water is foul, I suppose lessening the
amount won’t make it less foul. I suppose more dilution would add
Somewhat to the cleanness of the water.
Now, I want to speak of the recommendations of the Board of
Engineers. I have already mentioned the fact that the Board of
Engineers recommend for Chicago 6,800 cubic feet per second di-
version from Lake Michigan; but I do wish to read into the record
the motive that appears to have impelled the Board of Engineers to
what appears to be an ungenerous conclusion.
This is at page 55 of the Taylor report.
After discussing the situation, they say:
Chicago is, therefore, debarred from any claim for indulgence as to work
done and expenditures incurred in recent years. If, in defiance of the opposi-
tion Of the Government and in Open disregard Of the law, the Officials of the
Chicago Sanitary District have continued to expend the money of their con-
stituents in the prosecution of unwise and illegal plans, these officials and their
constituency are to blame, and they should expect no great indulgence for the
general public whose Government they have ignored and whose interests they
have disregarded.
I like much better the attitude of Chairman Dempsey, who says
we will wipe the slate clean and start fresh. I think this curtailed
diversion is the one petty thing in that very admirable, magnanimous
report. The punitive motive is unworthy.
Mr. HULL. Is that the Warren report?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is the Taylor review. It is to be found in
the Warren report. It is in the review of the Board of Engineers
signed by General Taylor. -
It appears to me that if generosity is to be used on the Great
Lakes system, possibly the one great municipal corporation in-
volved here should be treated as generously as this great water-
power company at Niagara Falls, the great transportation agencies,
the Pittsburgh Steamship Co., or the Lake Carriers as a whole.
Both navigation and water power have been treated generously.
I have the utmost respect for private corporations; I am very
close in my employment to many large corporations and have no
doubts about the actual, fine, economic service performed by these
companies that we speak of as public utilities companies; but I do
know that under the Federal water-power act a certain preference
is given to a municipality over that of a private company, and I
am going to read you briefly about this from the Federal water-
power act. I read from page 53 of the Federal water-power act:
Municipality means a city, county, irrigation district, drainage district, or
other political subdivision or agency of a State competent under the laws
thereof to carry on the business of developing, transmitting, utilizing, or dis-
tributing power. * * * “Municipal purposes” means and includes all
purposes within municipal powers and defined by the constitution or laws of
the State or by the charter of the municipality.
Now, I spoke of municipal preference, and section 7 of the
water-power act reads:
That in issuing preliminary permits hereunder or licenses where no pre-
liminary permit has been issued and in issuing licenses to new licensees
under section 15 hereof the commission shall give preference to applications
1496 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
therefor by States and municipalities, provided the plans for the same are
Cleemed by the commission equally well adapted, or shall within a reasonable
time to be fixed by the commission be made equally well adapted, to conserve
and utilize in the public interest the navigation and water resources of the
region ; and as between other applicants the commission may give preference
to the applicant the plans of which it finds and determines are best adapted
to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the navigation and
Water resources of the region if it be satisfied as to the ability of the appli-
cant to carry out such plans.
Now, as to the word “region,” I suppose region must mean the
State of Illinois as contiguous to the Great Lakes system. It is a
little remarkable to me that in the wide range of transmission we
can use this same water that comes out of Lake Michigan into
power at Niagara, electric power, and transmit it to Windsor,
Ontario, on the opposite side of the river, from Detroit, Mich.
There seems to be nothing in the location of Windsor showing why it
should be entitled to water-power privileges from the Great Lakes.
It is on the shore of the Detroit River, but the water power does
not come out of the Detroit River, but the water power does come
out of Lake Michigan. And the water that comes out of Lake
Michigan eventually generates electric power at Niagara Falls that
will operate mills in New England, and, of course, New England is
not in the region of or in the watershed of the Great Lakes. I
wonder if it is more appropriate to convert into light and power the
energy of Lake Michigan water, using turbine wheels on the St.
Lawrence and transmitting it into New England, than to take the
water itself without this long transmission and all the transmission
losses, and turn turbine wheels in the Illinois Valley, at the same
time developing the navigable resources as well as the water-power
resources of the region. In this water-power act a great conception
was made by Congress of the economic utilization of public resources.
It is one of the great public acts of this half century. There is no
question on earth that if Chicago appeared before the Federal
Power Commission in opposition to Niagara Falls, and presented
its case as to economic benefits conferred by the use of water going
down the Illinois River serving Chicago sanitarily, creating navi-
gation, creating water power, protecting the water supply, that the
license would go to Chicago under the municipal preference clause
as well as on general rule of annplest benefits in the water use.
Now, my feeling is, that in disciplining Chicago in this recom-
mendation of 6,800 cubic feet per second instead of 10,000 cubic feet.
per second, the Board of Engineers, with their enlightened view of
the benefits of regulation and the security of navigation, should make
this little saving of water 3,200 cubic feet per second, and cutting
down by this water parsimony the investment of Chicago in the
use of its $60,000,000 project by $20,000,000. This will save a little
something for water power and incidentally discipline this unruly
metropolis of the Middle West. If we were to build no regulating
works, this little 3,200 cubic feet per second of diversion would lower
Lakes Huron and Michigan about an inch and three-quarters. More
than this 3,200 cubic feet of water is taken by the Welland Canal for
waterpower purposes and not in the interest of navigation.
I am almost through. I mentioned that in 1906, when Mr. Taft
assigned water at Niagara Falls to what was then Hydraulic Power
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1497
Co., under the Burton Act, that that company was building its plant
So as to utilize about 6,500 cubic feet of water per second; but it was
only using I think between 3,000 and 4,000 cubic feet per second. Mr.
Taft assumed that what they were building for was a criterion of
what they ought to have, and gave them 6,500 cubic feet per second.
Since then the total amount of water allotted to the waterpower
companies at Niagara Falls is nearly 50 per cent greater than it was
at the time of the Burton Act. So they have been treated gener-
ously, and properly treated generously. I want to mention also in
passing that Chicago started in under an Illinois charter to build her
canal, having a prior congressional right. It was an Illinois charter
with certain reservations in it as to ratio of dilution, etc. And in
New York these power canals I have been mentioning, Hydraulic
Power Co. and the Niagara Falls Power Co. started in the same way
under charters of the State of New York. And as far as I am aware
there was no application to the United States to permit these uses at
Niagara Falls, which incidentally lower the waters of the United
States and Canada, an interstate and international navigable stream.
They did not apply for any license from the Federal Government
until six years after Chicago had done so—about the time of the
Burton Act in 1906.
My own judgment is that the same treatment accorded to the
Niagara Falls power companies in the 50-year term of the license
º the rigid application of the rules and supervisions should
obtain.
Now, I want to thank you gentlemen very much for your en-
durance and for your patience and for the unfailing courtesy with
which you have listened to this long technical discussion.
Mr. BARRETT. Is there any member of the committee who cares
to ask Mr. Shenehon any questions?
Mr. STRONG. I can assure Mr. Shenehon that every member of the
committee has enjoyed—and it seems that I ought to think of even
a better word—your statement and testimony, which has been the
most informing. I think we all need education along the line
of your discussion and I am sure we are all glad to have heard
you. -
Mr. SHENEHON. Thank you very much. It is very good of you
to say SO.
Mr. BoxcE. May I express my regret that because of attention to
duties in the House I have not been able to be present with the
committee more during the last two or three days. I assure Mr.
Shenehon that I will read the record containing his statement. As
much as I have heard of his statement is has greatly interested me.
Mr. HULL. I was talking with Mr. Shenehon before dinner and I
made the suggestion that perhaps he would like to edit his remarks
and in places condense his statements to some extent. I presume
that is permissible. He has made a long statement, and it
might be that he would like to condense it somewhat.
Mr. STRONG. I do not think there is any objection to that. He
has a right to revise it.
Mr. BARRETT. Now, we are going to change the subject just a
bit and we are going to call Dr. W. A. Evans, who is a physician of
Chicago. I want to tell you a few things about Doctor Evans be-
91739–24––PT 2 79
1498 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
fore he begins. I do not think his talk will exceed an hour to an
hour and a half. Doctor Evans did not originate in the State of
Illinois, but, like many other of our great men, we have adopted
him from parts beyond. He was born in Alabama, Mr. McDuffie's
State. He graduated from the Agricultural College of Mississippi
with the degree of master of science, and with a doctor's degree of
medicine from the Tulane University. He has been practicing
medicine about 40 years, 6 of those years in the South and 34 of
them in our city. He was health commissioner of the city of Chi-
cago for a period of 4 years. He is now and has been for a long
time on the advisory board of the State of Illinois, the board of
health of the State. He occupies the same position in an advisory
capacity on the board of health of the city of Chicago. He has
been president of the American Public Health Association and has
been president of the Chicago Medical Society. He has been for
16 years professor of public health at Northwestern University.
For 17 years he has been professor of pathology at the University
of Illinois. He has been and now is health editor for the Chicago
Tribune.
I have had occasion to listen to Doctor Evans in a number of dis-
cussions on public health. We think in the State of Illinois that
he is, is on this subject, the peer of any man in the United States
or beyond our own borders. I know of no man in the medical pro-
fession who contributes any more time in an effort to protect the
public health. I know of hours he has put in attempting to bring
order of what was considered a few years ago by many to be a
chaotic condition in the treatment of men confined for crime prior
to their trials, and he has worked up in our community a system
which we believe to be the greatest system of taking care of men
who either unfortunately or willingly by their own acts, are confined
awaiting trial or incarcerated for crimes. - -
Doctor Evans has made a particular study of health conditions in
Chicago before the opening of the sanitary channel and since, and
he will undertake to discuss this subject and its effects not only
from the viewpoint of Chicago, but from the entire surrounding
country. - - -
STATEMENT OF DIR. W. A. EVANS
Doctor Evans. I am here as a health man only. Frankly, I
know nothing about power, nothing about navigation, and compara-
tively nothing about engineering. I have no interest except health.
It is that in which I have worked throughout my life. I have no
interest in appearing here except as an advocate of the people of
my community and the people all over America, that their health
interests may not be lost sight of when you are considering the use
to whiêh this water is to be put. -
I take the privilege of reading to you a statement which consti-
tutes my basic belief on the matter. It is the substance of that
which I will present to you:
STATEMENT
First. The right to life and health is paramount. It transcends all other
rights.
Second. The necessary use of water to protect health takes precedence over
the use of water for power and for navigation.
ILLINQIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1499
Third. Chicago has the best method of protecting health and life against
the harmful effects of polluted water.
Fourth. Because it is the best method and because health is paramount,
Chicago should be allowed to retain the method.
Fifth. All other methods are Substitutes. Although all of them are good,
none of them can show results that are equal to diversion—the best method.
Sixth. The cost of polluted water, expressed in the cost of typhoid fever,
exceeds the cost of impairment of navigation and the loss of power production.
Seventh. The matter at issue before this Congress is not a local question, as
I have heard it called by speakers before this committee more than once. . A
bad situation in Chicago would endanger all parts of the United States.
° DISCUSSION.—FIRST POINT, THIRD, FourTH, AND FIFTH STATEMENTS
The method of protecting the water supply used in the city of Chicago is .
the best method. Lives and health are at Stake. Therefore, we should be
allowed to retain it.
It is necessary to measure the harm done by polluted water by the typhoid
rate of the community concerned. This brings typhoid into prominence in
every discussion of water pollution.
Typhoid fever is SOmething more than a disease. It is an index of the
regard of a city, of a State, a nation, or, for that matter, of an individual,
for the decencies of life. That you may get clearly in your minds the nature
of the Cause of typhoid fever, I cite the following quotations:
“Typhoid fever is contracted by taking into the body through the mouth,
human filth that has come from the body of some one who has or has had
the disease.” (Louisiana State Board of Health circular on typhoid fever,
July, 23, 1923, p. 1.)
This statement is typical of statements on the subject found in health
department bulletins issued in various parts of the country.
Dr. H. W. Hill, now of the University of London, Ontario, when connected
with the Minnesota State Board of Health (American Journal Of Public
Hygiene, Vol. XIX, No. 2, May, 1909), said: “Typhoid is nothing but the
transfer of typhoid infected urine, feces, and Saliva from the patient con-
valescent or carrier to other people's mouths # * *. The degree of likelihood
of typhoid infection may be determined by estimating the amount of normal
fecal and urinary infection which ordinarily enters the food and drink supply.”
In 1873 Budd wrote (Budd, Typhoid fever, 1873) : “The feces of one sick
with typhoid fever may transmit the disease to others. This is the master
fact in the history of typhoid fever. The transmission of typhoid is always
caused by the transfer of the feces and urine from the infected, either directly
or indirectly, to the mouth of the one who receives the infection. A sewer
is only a prolongation of the alimentary tract of the infected person.”
The typhoid record of Chicago as compared with that of other cities shows
the diversion dilution method for the disposal of Sewage to be the best
method.
TABLE II.—Death, rate from typhoid fever per 100,000 population and from all
causes per 1,000 population, hy years and by decades, of Chicago, Milwaukee,
Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo

* All - All
Year Typhoid CauSeS Year Typhoid CallSeS
CEICAGO CHICAGO-Continued
1871-------------------------- 61 20.87 || 1881-------------------------- 105.2 26.11
1872-------------------------- 142.6 27.64 || 1882-------------------------- 82.4 23. 60
1873-------------------------- 71.6 25, 15 || 1883-------------------------- 62. 2 19.92
1874-------------------------- 53. 4 20.30 || 1884-------------------------- 56. 2 19, 80
1875-------------------------- 51. 7 19.72 || 1885-------------------------- 74.6 18. 76
1876-------------------------- 41.2 21.03 || 1886-------------------------- 68. 6 19.47
1877-------------------------- 37 18, 67 || 1887-------------------------- | 50.3 20. 27
1878-------------------------- 33.4 16.99 || 1888-------------------------- 46.7 19. 65
1879-------------------------- 42.3 17. 53 || 1889-------------------------- 48.4 18. 12
1880-------------------------- 34 20.79 || 1890-------------------------- 91.6 19.87
Decade, 1871–1880, in- Decade, 1881–1890, in-
clusive---------------- 56, 82 20.86 clusive---------------- 68, 62 20. 55
66 FI 9 ‘Iz ---------------- 3AISnto 08 ‘81 g-gg --------------- *Alsnº
-up ‘OI61-1061 “apºoed -up ‘0681-1881 ‘optoe CI
Z '91 oz ------------ -------------- Q161 || ——|__________________________
#1 oz ------------ + → - r - - - - - - - - - - 606I || 8 '8I If |IIII 0681
A '91 gz -------------------------- 8061 8 '91 gz -------j 688ſ
6 FI ez -------------------------- 1061 || 9 '81 zº I-------------------------- 888E
2. "QI zz -------------------------- 906.I 9 81 I9. ----------------- -------- 1881
8 “EI tº -------------------------- goóI || 3.81 03 III.388:
6 FI 11 -------------------------- #06 I 6 º: 83 III 988 I
8 ‘gſ oz -------------------------- £06L 8 8. [8 |III-IIII #88[
9 'gl tº -------------------------- 306 I £ '8I £ III. 988].
8 g| og -------------------------- I06 I 6 03 zº j Ø881
I ‘ZZ If |-------------------------- I88I
09 '8I # zg ---------------- oA:sno ||===|__________.
t -Up ‘006I-I68I ‘3p309CI A.8 '0% 0 °g? t *Asn12
§: gz -------------------------- §: -up ‘088I–II.8L ‘opt:09CI
'91 gt --------------------------6681 || —— . . . . . . . . . .
9 *gſ Iz -------------------------- 868 I 9 '0% 13 …------------------- 0881.
6'9I gt I-------------------------- 168|| 6 'LI 83 |III_______ ] 618ſ
I "Aſ gz -------------------------- 9681 $1 W3 |III____________ 8/8][
Ž '8I tº I-------------------------- 968 I 6 ‘Iz, $8 |Illlllllllllllllllll A8T
# ‘SI & I-------------------------- #68L || 7 & 98 || IIITIII 9/81
9 "IZ at I-------------------------- 968t # '91 9. [...III. 9A.81
# *z, to I-------------------------- 3681 º, "Cº. 91 -------------------------- $718I
6-6T | #8 -------------------------- I68I 9 & 16 -------------------------- 8/81
#8 • *gg, I gº gº i = a- - - - -, * * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
# 'gz 98 || III. 3/8T
6I 61 -------------------------- 068 I 8 '61 gy -------------------------- I/81
*. JLIO'HJLSICI 3ICI Aſl WAATIWI
90'0I 8'ſ -------- º 3AJS & ‘II * T ------------------- 9Aſs
-nouſ '826I-IZ61 UI.O.I.'ſ -nouſ ‘gz6I-IZ6I UIOI, I
8'OI 1 -------------------------- 836L || 01. ‘II 16 ºr ------------------------- T836ſ
8.6 § 3 |III 336|| || 3: “It 1 r ------------------------- TøZ6I
9 ‘6 6 ‘I © I661 | 80 ‘II 1 r -------------------------- IZ61
$g ºſ 88:01 |--------------- 3ApSnto *I gr "g ---------------- 9AISnIo
-Ug ‘0261-II6I ‘opt:09GI 83 # I 'g -up ‘Oz6I-II6I ‘opt:09CI
9 ‘II zº I-------------------------- 0.66L || 11 ZI 1 r ------------------------- T0.361
II ; : [III] 6L61 || zgºſ gºt -------------------------- 616I
8 FI 89 |III 816I || 10 ºf * T -------------------------- 8I6I
* EI & 9 |IIII 1.16|| || 61 °FI 9 ºr -------------------------- AI6I
8&I 91 III. 916I || z; †I tº -------------------------- 9I6I
* II 33 || I]. 9I6I || 91 +I gº ------------------------- "GI6I
I ºl & 8 III. WI61 || 36 ‘gſ 6 o |------------------------- Tiº I6I
§§l }} |III.]...…. $161 || 66%I 9 or ------------------------- T816I
*::I 96 || III. &I61 || 8 FI 9-1 -------------------------- &I6I
8'2.É 6|| II61 || 8; ‘FI 1 or ------------------------- T II6I
£6 &I g-gz --------------- 3AISn(9 g3 ºf 10 ga I---------------- 9AISnto
-up ‘OI6I-I06I ‘9pt:09CI -up ‘OI6I-I06I “oppooCI
3.81 * III. 0I61 || @I g| 1 gri-------------------------- 0I6I
%3. #3 || III.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. 606L || 89 FI 9 at ------------------------- T6061
£ºl 9I III. 8061 || 65 FI 8 gr -------------------------- 806 I
3 : 9% III.IIII 2061 || &l, gL a ‘st ------------------------- T 106 I
# "gº 18 III.I.I.I.I.I.III 9061 || #g #I g at I------------------------- T906.I
[3] & IIII 906 I j 96 gL 6 or ------------------------- Tç06I
$3. *I III. j06I || g8 ‘gſ 9 at ------------------------- Tjø6I
§3. ll IIII 806L || 29 g|I site ------------------------- T906 I
23i GI III. 3061 || 69 FI g ºf I------------------------- T206H
6 &I z -------------------------- I06I || 36 gL reg F------------------------ TIO6I
QI '91 0-gz --------------- aAſSmio #6'1. I #9 69 |---------------- 9AISnto
-Up ‘006I-I68I ‘opt:03CI -Up ‘006I–I68I ‘9pgoodſ
83. It |-------------------------- 006L || 89 FI sat ------------------------- T006.I
* 81 11 j 668I || 89 g|I zºz ------------------------- T668I
6. 11 III.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.III 868 I || #9 #I 8 or ------------------------- T868I
I '8T &I III 1681 || 89 FI gºz ------------------------- T 1681
ºl 81 |III9681 || 62 gi 9 gº -------------------------- 9681
gºl 9. III. 9681 || Zſ, 'LI 6'13 III g68I
9|| % IIII £681 || 93, '81 g 18 IIII "W68I
3.81 gg III 868 || IQ "IZ gºgg -------------------------- 868 I
3.0% 08 [-------I...… &681 || g8 ‘I3 rtzt F------------------------ TZ68I
6 "[& ge -------------------------- I68I || 9 || PZ sºrt ------------------------- TI68I
pønulºud9—GISIXiſh WAATIW pønuſ!UIO9—Os)VOIHO
S&SIttºo
IIV pyoud AI, IºaX º ppoud KJ, 189 A.
‘UOO–'913. ‘uotºndod 000'00I .194 ſaaaſ pyoud/i4 uo.uſ app., up pad—'II & Iav L
‘OLSI ‘SaGLAIH Ida ISSISSIW. O.N.V. SIONITTI
009 I

G1. "ZI 16 g ------------------ 9AIS
-nouſ ‘gz6I–IZ6I UIOI, I 28 ‘FI 8-12 --------------- 3AISuto
g|I '8I 60+ ------------------------- T836H -up ‘OI6I–IO6I ‘3pt;99CI
8 &I 9 *g - T226 I
£z ZI gz + -------------------------- IZ6I || 60 ºf I 81 -------------------------- OI6I
99 '8H gt -------------------------- 606 I
g/ ‘9 I gº II --------------- 9AISITIO 36 °31 zt [-------------------------- 806.I
-Up ‘Oz6I–II6I ‘optoacI 99 GT SI -------------------------- 106]
8% º 81 I IIIQ261 || #9 gi 61 -------------------------- 906 I
8 ‘g I 99 j T616I || 90 °FI gz +1 -------------------------- 906 I
1803 || 4 || |III IIII816I || 90 gi gº -------------------------- #06 I
88 °g I 1. "6 III.I.III/I6I || 81 '91 g 801 ||-------------------------- 806.I
9I II III •r 9I6I || 39 g| 9.18 -------------------------- Z061
98 ºf I of ------------------------- Tg|I6I || g6 FI 98 |-------------------------- I06I
g ‘g| 9I ------------------------- T}I6I
## # [.................... º; soºt ITF --------------- 3AISI/O
*** * * : - - - - - * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Uſ ‘006I–I68I ‘opt:09CI
g? WI gz ------------------------- TII6I I ‘006 I–I6 p
- - - - - - - - - - - - g; ‘g I 19 --------------------------0061
98 FI 8 gº, - - 9AISno 90 FI zg |-------------------------- 668I
-UI ‘OI6I—I06I ‘9peoacI 29 '91 #8 -------------------------- 868I
Z9 '91 8I III.I.I.I.IIIQI61 || 08 VI gz -------------------------- 1681
! ºl %jº I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.III.306 || IL VI gº I-------------------------- 968||
99 °FI l 03 * * * * - - - - * * * - - - - * * * - - - - -m. 8061 68 °g I gg -------------------------- 968I
89 °gſ & 33 . ------------------------ IZ061 8; ‘LI 6z -------------------------- #68.I
#8 9] 9 '92, - - - 19061 g|I '8T zg -------------------------- £68I
#I #I .#3 IIII I906I || z0 '81 69 |-------------------------- 2,681
Ig ‘FI # "Tº f06I || LI '6T 0g -------------------------- I68I
g6 FI 4.93 III.8061
A '91 6.88 |III.308|| || 98.81 I z9 |--------------- 9AgSn(9
89 FI # LZ TT I06] -up ‘068I-ISSI ‘opt:39CI
g/ ºg I 90-gg --------------- 9AISIIIo 80-6T | 69 --------------------------
-Up ‘006I-I68I ‘9p609CI ; ‘8I º * - - - as sº as as - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * §:
6I “FI g-gz ------------------------- T006|| || 8, 81 * -------------------------- 888[
69 ‘ZI 1. ‘go, - - * * * * * - - - * * * - - - - * * * * - - - - T668 I Z0 "6 I Ž9 - - -, * * * = * * * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1881
gz ZI # 62 ------------------------- T868I # *LI 99 |-------------------------- 988[
Z} ‘ZI 6I - - * * * * - - - * * * * - - - - * * * - - - - - TZ68I 9% "LI #9. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * 988[
&A. ‘ZI ZZ - - * * * * - - - tº mº m ºn - - - - * * * - - - - - T968I 8I 09 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * #88[
g6 ‘8T gz ------------------------- T968I || IF ET go -------------------------- 988[
91. ‘9T 69 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thé8I 9 ‘Oz, 89 - - - - - sº as a “ - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Z88I
90 '6I 28 ------------------------- T968I 9 'ºZ, 96 -------------------------- [881
96 (61 #8 ------------------------- T368I
Af ‘92, [g -- * * * * - - - - * * * - - - * * * * - - - - - TI68I 9. '6I * * * * * - * * * * : - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * 9AſSnto
-TTT 4 -T / *3D?03
91, '0% 9 '68 --~~~~~ s -is " ; up ‘088I–II.8L '9pè09GI
-up ‘O68I–I88I CI || nº | ++, --------------------------
Zg 61 o, TE: *.*.*.*-ossi || , ; * [… º:
1881 Q8 III.I.I.I.III.688 || z iſ gg -------------------------- 8/81
9% 13 63 III III I888I 8 ‘81 69 -------------------------- //81
II 93, #9 - - - - E.88I l ‘Iz, 09 - - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - - - * * * - - - - - 9/8L
Z0 °6'I gz ------------------------- I988I | g {: zg -------------------------- 9/81
6131 £g [..I.I.I. T. g381 1.I 89 -------------------------- #181
8/. *I Zy - I#88I I '6I 09 •- - -, * * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * * * 9/81
60 0% #9 888I º Oz ----------|-------------------------- Z/81
90 ºz. 69 - - III.388 || z ři ----------|-------------------------- IL31
ZZ "93. 19 ------------------------- TI88I - 4.
O'IVºſlº - GINWTGIAGITO
IQ 'OI # z ------------------ 0AIS £8 ‘II 6+ ------------------- 3AJS
-n(Oug ‘826L–IZ6I UIOIJI * -nouſ ‘926T-IZ6I UIOIGI
Z8 ‘OI 1-1 ------------------------- £Z61 || 7 &I. # -------------------------- 936 I
92, '0T zz -------------------------- ZZ61 || 9 II g -------------------------- 336 I
g ‘OI # 8 -------------------------- IZ61 II 3 g -------------------------- IZ61
I8 °g I # 1 --------------- 9AISn[O 10 ºff gº II ---------------- 3AISn()
-Uſ ‘026 I–II6I ‘opt:29CI -Uſ ‘026L–II6I ‘oppoo CI
9 &I g -------------------------- 0.361 # '91 I g -------------------------- 0.36ſ
F. ZI 62 -------------------------- 616I Z, ‘ZI g"g -------------------------- 6I6I
Z '8T # g -------------------------- 8I6I 8 FI I-8 -------------------------- 8I6I
I ºf I zº I-------------------------- ZI6I Z ºf I 81 -------------------------- EI6I
6 &I 1 g ------------------------- T916I Z “gſ gt -------------------------- 9I61
6I '91 g-1 ||-------------------------- g|I6I || 8 'ZI 01 -------------------------- QI6I
If, º, I g-1 |-------------------------- #16I | I ºf I II -------------------------- #I6I
#I #I #1 -------------------------- 9I6I || 8 °g I gz -------------------------- 9I6I
89 "gſ * 9 -------------------------- ZI6I || 9 ºf I 91 -------------------------- ZI6I
8/. 91 #1 -------------------------- II61 || & VI 91 -------------------------- II6I
pønuſºu.00—CINVTGIAGITO pønuſ? D.O.0—LIO'HL3CI
SøSTAt30 SøSūt:0
ſº plouds L Ibø X. IIV ppoqd KJ, 189 K
"Hoo-oo 'uouvindod 000001 42d toao! proudfit wo.uſ 2104 lapag-II atavu,
I09 I
‘OLH ‘SAGIAIH Ida ISSISSIWI (INV SIONITII


1502 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Table I shows the typhoid death rate and the death rate from all causes
by years and by decades of Chicago from 1871 to 1923; and the same rates
for Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo in so far as the figures for
the latter cities are available. The figures on this table show that the range
from high death rates both from all causes and from typhoid fever, in Chi-
cago, is greater than that shown by other cities. The comparison is shown
graphically by Figure I. In no other city is the drop from high to low as
great as that shown by Chicago. Figure II, also taken from Table I shows
the average typhoid rates of each of the cities for the years 1921–1923. Chi-
Cago is low. Figure III shows the decrease in prevalence in typhoid fever
in Chicago between 1871 and 1921 by years and decades. Figure IV shows the
decrease in typhoid since 1907 in Chicago.
Typhoid fever, as important as it is, is not the only measure of harm that
is done by a polluted water supply. A number of years ago Mills and Reineke
discovered that in addition to the deaths caused by bad water, in which the
disease is diagnosed as typhoid fever, there is a considerable number of deaths
that are not the result of this one disease. Some six or eight years later Hazen
further elucidated on the subject—reduced it to figures—made it computable
in a certain measure. Hazen's theorem is: For every death from typhoid
fever which we prevent by improving the Water Supply we prevent three other
deaths due to other causes. Or, in other words, the measure of harm which
would be done by polluted water in the city of Chicago to-day, were we to
go back to the typhoid rate of 1891, would not be the 5,250 deaths from typhoid
fever, but would be four times 5,250, or something over 20,000 deaths—the
result of drinking polluted water—part of them due to typhoid and part to
diseases less tangible and less come-at-able.
Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin, of the United States Public Health Service, made
an effort to find Out what Some of those Other diseases were. He related the
infant mortality rate to polluted Water. He showed a parallelism between the
death rate of babies and the death rate from typhoid fever.
TABLE II.-Death rates of Chicago for certain years—All causes per 1,000 popu-
lation—Typhoid per 100,000 population—Infant mortality rate per 100,000
population (all ages)
ſ
i General | Typhoid Infant
Year death death mortal-
rate rate ity
1891---------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. 16 173.8 697
1901---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.93 29. 1 288
1911----------------------------------------------------------------------- 14.48 ... 10. 7 280
1921---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.08 1. 1 182
|
Table II shows the improvement in the death rates from all causes, from
typhoid fever, and in infant mortality rates in Chicago, from 1891 through
1901, 1911, and 1921. .*
In addition to disease and deaths there are other harmful effects Of a
polluted water supply. When a people habitually drink polluted water they
will have low sanitary standards—low standards of health, vigor, and strength,
and, perhaps other low Standards., -
If you will recall the opening statement as to “the index of regard for
the decencies of life" and the quotations which follow that statement, you
will understand what is meant. Proof of this point can not be reduced to
statistics. It is offered for your consideration without proof.
If the typhoid rate of the 10-year period just preceding the opening of the
drainage canal (1891 to 1900) had prevailed in 1923, we would have had
1,770 deaths from typhoid fever. Instead, we had 56—a saving of 1,714 lives.
According to the Hazen theorem, the real number of lives Saved in that year
was 6,856. º •
This great saving in lives, and the saving in sickness which it carries Wi
it—a saving that is greater than that made by comparable cities—is the proof
that I offer that the method used in Chicago is the best method. It is health
proof and life proof–offered by a lifetime worker for health and life.
à
*===s==
CHICAGO MILWAUKEE DETROIT CLEVELAND BUFFALO
#. SSITEGITISI 188||1891 iāāITISSITECTTBI #: 5|TSOITISTITISZTTT57|TT55TT55TT50TTISTITISzi
BollºSQ1900 1910|IS20 1890, 1900 1890.1900.1910||920 1880, 1890, 19001310|19201923|1880;1890.1900;1910|19201923
68.62
23 es!—ff-
| \
tº 62.10
zzzāso | \ 64 §
O uſ
F 5 4. 2 | \
jº #ss Q.8 \
§ 2 aſſº Rºps \
à:20.550 !
3 3 I.
919 gas | QQ j9.3O \
p: - | d * |350 | ". t
Lil º $ y
* Isāao * \! R * r §4.
uſ 0. 1794 Y - 3 lº
—l • {
5 º iº | \º
#17 :35 wº 3 § * r—
#! 3 \ 33. \l bike 3240° à *
$ 16 uso e * |\ºn
o: p. \ \ e & ſº * : I wº |5.75
I dº \ Å
º: 15°25 º \ \ 1499 5.80
uj it 14.65 tº 14.83CA-A
O º: 22. On Rºse isºtº 3O sº - º: \
§ 14;20 i. \ ** Aoi
al \ W1 W Wº 3
5.5 \ \b \
L I3: 15 }* ſizsä &
: $: \ § is: wish sº
12" to \ IO.38 * 11.75
\ \ W No Laz \
silk |32 | . - - \
| | 5 Yo - \ S’490 \, ibs 3.97b
|8O 2,409 T'
| O O º jøO #s
FIGURE I.—The comparative falls in the general death rates and typhoid death rates of Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit,
Cleveland, and Buffalo (by decades).










1504
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
O ſu Juºſ puu puluſo Aoſ O ‘ļļo.Iļa(I ‘èºx{nuº A\IĻIN ‘o3tæðțųO JO 9:36 I–Iz6 I poļ.IÐČI „It’à K-90.1ųļ 0ų į toſ soļuſ.t uſ ! uol) þț0ų (IKJ) ----‘II ȘI H1) :) IJI
NOI LWT/mdOd OOOºOOI （J3d 3 LVN H LW3C] QIOHdKL
OT\/-|-|[\º
CINN/TH/\ ETIO
LIQ)}}_LBC]
BIEX|[^\//\/\TIVN
O Đ\/O|HO






#
°iz's assº's sºlº assºs'ssº's assº's sºlºsa'ssº's soºz's assº's sºiºsa
YEARS dº
l’IGURE III.-The typhoid death rates of Chicago, by years and decades, 1871 to 1923

1506
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.

3
Of
Qs§
o
Cot-
:
uo
:
cost
S
gO
3
CD
OO
tº-
Go to St to S – o on co r- (o to st to ou
OOO'001 83d Blve ALITV Laow dioHaAL
;
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1507
The task of telling you of the superiority of the method used in Chicago,
Over that used in other cities from the technical, sanitary engineering stand-
point has been assigned to Mr. Langdon Pearse, sanitary engineer. I would
like to briefly state the qualities of the Chicago method in comparison with
those of other methods without going into technical details.
The Chicago method is one of diversion and dilution. All of our sewage is
diverted from Lake Michigan. Neither sewage nor the flow of the Chicago
River nor Storm water flows into the body of water from which we take Our
drinking Water. In the course of time a large part of our sewage will be
purified by chemical and bacteriological processes—the so-called, modern,
Scientific methods. The Chicago plan is to divert that purified sewage also-
not to allow that to go into the drinking water supply. So much for the
diversion features.
Now for the dilution or purification features. In Order that the sewage
which has been diverted may not harm or be offensive to the people who live
On the Chicago, Des Plaines, and Illinois Rivers and the Chicago Drainage
Canal, we purify it by dilution.
The rock parts of the Canal were dug to carry 10,000 cubic feet of water.
When the sewage from 3,000,000 people is diluted up to this point by clean
Water, rich in Oxygen, it is properly prepared to purify itself. Since the
canal can only be made to carry 10,000 second-feet of water we are prepared
and are preparing to purify the Sewage from all the population in excess of
3,000,000 by other methods, as the need develops.
The processes employed in purifying Sewage are Sedimentation, chemical
action, bacterial action, and the action of Sunlight. The dilution method
which we employ embraces sedimentation, chemical action, bacterial action,
and the action of sunlight. When diluted Sewage can flow along enough dis-
tance and through a long enough time, it Will purify better than if treated
by any Other method.
When communities are so located that they can not get a flow that is long
enough, Or an exposure that is long enough, or can not dilute, they are forced
to employ some substitute method—such as sedimentation, tank action, sprink-
ling filters, or activated sludge. All of these substitute methods employ Sedi-
mentation, chemical action, bacterial action, and light action—any one of
these or several in combination. They employ no other principle. They make
use of no principle not used in the dilution method. They are sometimes
called modern, scientific methods. They are scientific and some of them are
modern, but they are no more scientific than is the dilution method. That
method is all-embracing. It makes use of all the principles Of purification.
It gives results. It is Scientific in method and in results. In all places where
it can be employed, it is the preferred method. All Other methods are Sub-
stitutes, albeit, scientific and admirable ones—made necessary by the limita-
tions of the place of use. We have no quarrel with those who call their sub-
stitute methods Scientific. We are glad to call them Scientific, but those
methods have no peculiar qualities that give them the exclusive right to use
that term.
Summarizing: The proof that we offer that the method employed in Chicago
is the best method is:
1. It saves more lives.
2. It protects the water supply by diversion of sewage, river water, and
Storm Water.
3. Never to let pollution in is better than any method to take it out once
it is in.
4. It purifies the diverted sewage by an all-embracing, scientific, established,
and widely used method.
SECOND POINT (SIXTH STATEMENT) —THE COST OF TYPHOID FEVER
A moment ago I said that were we to go back to the conditions that pre-
vailed in Chicago in 1891, that we would have 5,250 deaths a year due to
typhoid fever alone. Contrast that, if you please, with the actual number
who die from typhoid fever per year now in that city of 3,000,000 people.
Thirty has been the average for a number of years—30 deaths a year. In
1923 it went to 56. -
We ordinarily estimate that about 10 per cent of the people who contract
typhoid fever die with it, or, in other words, that the number of people who
1508 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RrvERs, ETC.
have the disease is about ten times the number who die. In all probability
the typhoid case fatality rate is not 10 per cent; the number of cases per
year is more than ten times the number of deaths. But using 10 per cent
as Our figure, we find that under present conditions we have in the city of
Chicago about 300 cases of typhoid fever every year. If the 1891 rate were
prevailing we would have 52,500 cases every year.
TABLE III.-Economic loss from typhoid fever, Chicago, 1912–1923

Cost 1887–
CoSt 1890–
iº ||...
º: d tº applies piéâ ;
COST, O3Se O popu-
Year on 10 cases | lation 1912 Pºn
per death and 1923 1923 (aver-
(averaged aged be-
; between) tween)
1912--------------------------------------------------------------- $2, 185, 575 || $31,909,395 || $17,996,649
1914--------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 109,761 32,646,246 18,412, 193
*--------------------------------------------------------------- 2,085,663 33,383,097 | 18,827,736
*--------------------------------------------------------------- | 1,648,543 || 34, fig, 348 19,243,279
1910--------------------------------------------------------------- 1,608, 592 34,856,799 || 19,658,822
1917--------------------------------------------------------------- | “...#| #; ; ; ; ; ;
*--------------------------------------------------------------- 474, 582 36,330, 501 908
*--------------------------------------------------------------- 387, 159 || 37,067,352 | 20,905, 451
*--------------------------------------------------------------- 374,670 37,804, 203 || 21,320,994
*--------------------------------------------------------------- 374,670 || 38,541, 0: 21,736,537
*--------------------------------------------------------------- , 1 39,277,905 22, 152,080
*--------------------------------------------------------------- 711, 873 | 40,014,756 22, 567,623
Total-------------------------------------------------------- 13,885,279 || 431, 544,906 243,385,637
Table III shows an estimate of the cost of typhoid fever in Chicago in 1923
to the families and the costs had the rates of other years prevailed. The
estimate cost in 1922 of the 30 deaths and 300 cases was $711,873. Had the
rate of 1890–1893 prevailed the cost would have been $40,014,756. On the basis
of the typhoid rate of 1887–1899, the cost would have been $22,567,623. This
table was compiled by the Chicago Health Department according to established
methods and on a basis of pre-war CostS. º
The first computation of this sort which came to my notice was that made
in the Pittsburgh survey. The method has the approval of Prof. G. C. Whipple,
of Harvard. Various computations are found in the chapter on Costs of Typhoid
Fever in his book on typhoid fever. In figuring costs they include loss of Wages
of the sick person and of some members of his family, physicians' and nurses'
fees, hospital charges, charges for drugs, burial expenses, and the compensation
value of life for those who die. The method is open to some objection, but it
is the standard method and contains about as few intangibles as are found in
other estimates of losses. - f
If lives and health of human beings are to be counted only in terms of
money and considerations of the humanities are to be disregarded, we still have
the better of the argument. Compare the difference between $40,000,000 a
year and $711,000 with the figures for annual money loss to navigation and
power which have been given to you in the hearings held in this room.
DUBLIN’S DEMONSTRATION
The deaths caused ultimately and indirectly by typhoid fever are considerable
in number. Dr. L. I. Dublin (American Journal Public Health, December,
1914) proved that perSons who have had typhoid fever and recovered had a
death rate during the next three years which was twice the expected death
rate.
During the first year after convalescence it was nearly three times the
normal, during the second it was more than twice the normal, while the average
for the three years Was as stated.
Dublin estimated that in 1914 there were 200,000 cases of typhoid fever;
20,000 died; 180,000 recovered. Among those 180,000, within three years,
about 8,000 died who would not have died had it not been that they had had
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1509
typhoid fever. The extra deaths were due to increase in such causes as con-
Sumption, heart disease, and Bright's disease. The total number of deaths
due directly and indirectly to typhoid, therefore, was about 28,000 instead of
20,000, the number of typhoid deaths.
Applying this to Chicago in 1922, the number of deaths due to typhoid fever
directly was 30 ; directly and indirectly, 41. On the basis of the 1891 rate, the
figures would have been : Direct, 5,250; indirect, 2,100; total, 7,350. **
Some part of the extra deaths due to typhoid fever under the Hazen theorem
are covered by the Dublin demonstration, but just what part can not be de-
termined. However, in estimating the financial cost of typhoid fever, the
Dublin increase of deaths due to typhoid is not taken into Consideration. The
losses of typhoid are figured in One of Our calculations in terms of money; in
the others, in terms of lives. These additions are made to the latter but not
to the former.
In a study of the vital and monetary losses in the United States due to
typhoid fever made in the departments of mathematics and insurance, of the
IJniversity of Michigan, under Prof. J. W. Glover, by Mendenhall and Castle
(quarterly publication of the American Statistical Association, June, 1911)
occurs the statement: “In finding the total loss to a community which may
be prevented by sanitary measures, it should be remembered that the losses
from other diseases which spring from the Same causes is so great that the
typhoid mortality represents less than half of the total loss due to the condi-
tions which produce typhoid fever.” They are Speaking of financial losses,
since that is the subject of their study. Professor Whipple, of Harvard, is
quoted as concurring.
E. S. Tisdale, reporting on typhoid in West Virginia (Reducing the Typhoid
Toll in West Virginia, West Virgina State Department of Health) says: “The
total money cost of these 19 (small) outbreaks amounts to nearly half a
million dollars.”
THIRD POINT (SEVENTH STATEMENT)—A TYPHOID SITUATION IS NOT A LOCAL
QUESTION
Typhoid in the city of Chicago is of interest to the people in the home town
of each member of this committee. A polluted water supply in the city of
Chicago would endanger the entire country. People in all parts of the United
States would be hazarded as to their lives, their health, and their economical
well being by the wide prevalence of typhoid fever in the city of Chicago.
The cost of a local disaster is always spread over a nation ; is reflected in
the trade balances of the nation in its entirety. But I quite agree with you
that this is intangible, that on it I can not talk facts nor give figures.
Typhoid reservoirs: In 1891 typhoid reservoirs were not definitely recog-
nized as such.
It is commonly held that the Soldiers of the army of Charles VIII spread
syphilis over Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There is
controversy as to the part of the world in which this disease originated and
when it first appeared in Europe, but it is generally agreed that the army of
Charles was the reservoir from which Europe was Syphilized.
W. T. Sedgwich, then of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gives it
as his opinion that the Union troops returning to their rural New England
homes in 1865 spread typhoid fever among the civilian population of that
section. They typhoidized New England just as the troops of Charles' army
syphilized Europe.
On the other hand, in 1908 Prof. George C. Whipple wrote in his authori-
tative book on typhoid fever: “No doubt much of the typhoid fever in the
South to-day represents a legacy left by the armies engaged in the Civil War.”
Vaughan (Epidemiology, Vol. II) cites numerous illustrations of invading
armies acting as reservoirs from which typhoid was spread to native popula-
tions in different parts of Africa.
In spite of these earlier instances, I have never heard the term “typhoid
reservoir “ employed until I heard Pittsburgh so designated about 1909.
Some 15 years ago Pittsburgh had lagged behind many other large cities in
reducing its typhoid rate. About the time of the Pittsburgh survey that com-
1510 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
munity was frequently referred to as a typhoid reservoir. It was accused of
feeding typhoid into the surrounding country and even into places far remote.
This bad reputation operated against the development of the city.
Prof. G. C. Whipple, of Harvard University (typhoid fever), says:
“For many years the cities of Pittsburgh and Alleghany, Pa., have been in
the throes Of a typhoid-fever epidemic which has spread its baneful influence
Over the western part of the State and Scattered the disease even more widely
through the agency of many an unfortunate visitor and traveling man. It
is one of the black records in the Sanitary history of our country.”
Since then the term “typhoid reservoir' has been in somewhat general use,
being applied here and there as it seems to fit conditions.
Speaking of typhoid conditions in Iowa, based on a study made in that
State in 1910 to 1916, Levine and Middleton (Journal Iowa State Medical
Society, February, 1918), says:
“There is undoubtedly contact transmission from the city to the country
through shippers, merchants, and Convalescents. From the country the
typhoid is brought back to the city via foods, water, milk, and vegetables.”
PEOPLE W HO CONTRACT TYPHOID FEVER IN ONE PLACE AND HAVE THE DISEASE,
IN ANOTHER
The incubation period of typhoid fever varies from one to three weeks.
After a person begins to run fever in typhoid a week may elapse before he
becomes bedfast. Therefore, between the time of infection and the time when
the typhoid subject becomes bedfast, there is a period of from two to four
weeks during which he may travel far.
Perhaps the best known epidemic due to a person who contracted a disease
in one place and exposed people in another is not one of typhoid but is an
epidemic of smallpox which occurred in Montreal about 30 years ago. A
negro Pullman porter contracted smallpox in the city of Chicago. He went
with his train from Chicago to Montreal. He was sick with smallpox in
Montreal and exposed many people. Before the epidemic had been brought
to a close, several thousand people in that city had died of smallpox.
In an epidemic of water-caused typhoid fever occurring in Santa Ana, Calif.,
January, 1924, some of the cases did not get sick until they reached Missouri
and Illinois.
Dr. R. M. Olin, Michigan health commissioner (Michigan Department of
Health Reprint, Series No. 3, December 24, 1921), reports the cases of C. S.
and his sister. These parties contracted typhoid fever in Indiana, but Were
sick elsewhere. C. S. went to Hillsboro, Mich., and was there responsible
for 83 cases of typhoid fever and 8 deaths in 45 families. The sister went to
Washington, D. C., and developed typhoid there.
So numerous are the cases of typhoid which contract the disease in One
place and are sick in another that a phraseology for designating the large group
has been adopted. Among the terms used are “vacation typhoid,” “out-of-
town typhoid,” and “nonresident typhoid.”
In the first quarter of 1924 the New York City Health Department reported
that of 145 cases of typhoid fever investigated 7 were residents who contracted
the disease elsewhere and 11 were visitors who contracted the disease else-
where—12 per cent. (Weekly Bulletin, N. Y. City Health Dept., May 31, 1924.)
Dr. R. G. Perkins (Public Health Reports, May 20, 1921) reported that in
1918–1920 24 per cent of the typhoid in Cleveland was contracted elsewhere.'
The health department annual reports give the percentages of cases 0
typhoid fever in Chicago, where infection occurred elsewhere, as : *.
1916 29. 5 || 1920 48. 27
1917 40. 2 | 1921 56.66
1918 51. 03 || 1922 _ 50. 8
1919 43.42
(Annual reports, Chicago. 1911–1918, 1919–1921, and 1922.)
The percentage for Detroit is: 1914 to 1917, 28.4; 1918–1921, 35.8.
(Vaughan's Epidemiology, Vol. II.)
It is not so easy to get accurate statements on typhoid contracted, say, in
Chicago, where the patient becomes bedfast elsewhere. However, I have here
a record furnished me by Dr. I. D. Rawlings, State director of health of
Illinois, which gives the names and addresses of a dozen people who contracted
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1511
typhoid fever in Chicago in the last three months of 1923 who were sick in
Other parts of Illinois.
In reporting an epidemic of typhoid fever which occurred at Old Salem, Ill.,
near Lincoln’s early home, H. F. Ferguson (Illinois Medical Journal, October,
1916) told of cases who were infected at Petersburg, Ill., but who were taken
Sick in San Francisco, Calif., and Haskins, Iowa, and in 26 Illinois com-
munities—some fairly distant from Salem.
TYPHOID CARRIERS–THE TYPHOID CARRIER AS A FACTOR IN THE SPREAD OF TYPHOID
TEVER
A typhoid carrier is a person who, though well, excretes typhoid bacili and
in that way endangers others. J)r. Oscar Dowling's definition of a typhoid
carrier is “a person who has apparently recovered from the disease but still
has the germs in his system.” (Bulletin on Typhoid Fever, Louisiana Board
of Health, July, 1923.)
When a person has become a chronic typhoid carrier, typhoid bacilli have
taken up their permanent abode in his gall bladder, his intestines, his kidneys,
Or elsewhere in his System. Like bees, they live in a certain place and throw
off swarms. Carriers excrete bacilli principally in the feces or urine. Women
are far more liable than men to become carriers. This is impotant because .
the women usually handle the food, and it is through food and drink that
typhoid is generally conveyed.
That carriers are responsible for the spread of Some typhoid fever has been
known for about 30 years. Books have been written on the subject. The best
known of these are Simon's Human Infection Carriers and Nicoll and Long
Carriers in Infectious Diseases. The best American studies of carriers have
been those of Gay (University of California) and Garbat (Rockefeller Institute
of Medical Research). So well recognized are carriers that health officials now
divide them into such subgroups as acute carriers, active carriers, convalescent
Carriers, and intermittent carriers.
Of those who have had typhoid and recovered a rather large proportion be-
came chronic carriers. Ten weeks or more after recovery they are still excret-
ing typhoid bacilli. The percentages of chronic carriers to all recovered cases is
given by different authorities as follows:
Per cent. Per cent.
Park 1 Kirschner 5
Lentz 3. 75 | Frosch 2.47
HetSch 4.62 Mayer –––– 4
Fornet . 9 Rosenau –––– 2–4
Keyser 5 Gay 4–5
The proportion of the total population who are carriers is given by the
following authorities as follows:
Gay 3 per 1,000.
Simon 3 to 4 per 1,000.
Albert 1 per 1,000.
These percentages will be found to decrease as typhoid becomes less prevalent.
Obviously the percentage of carriers in Chicago to total population was higher
in 1891, when there was estimated to have been about 18,000 cases of typhoid
fever, resulting in about 540 chronic typhoid carriers, than it was in 1922,
when there was only an estimate of 300 cases of typhoid, with the production
of 9 chronic carriers (a rate that had not been exceeded during the three pre-
ceding years). Should the typhoid death rate continue as low as 1 and the case
rate as low as 10 for a period of 10 years longer, the number of carriers in our
community should fall far below 1 per 1,000, or even 1 per 100,000.
The proportion of the total typhoid fever which is caused by carriers is given
by different authorities, as follows: &
Simon 40
Frosch (Strassburg, 1906–7) 20
Gay * * 25–30
Garbat * * 55
Schumacher, quoted by Garbat --- 44
1512 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The best-known carrier case is that of a cook known as “Typhoid Mary.”
Her case has been well established scientifically and legally, having been verified
by many scentists and having been passed on by the courts.
In 1906 typhoid developed in a family in Oyster Bay. When the diagnosis
was announced the comparatively newy hired cook complained that everywhere
she went she had to cook for typhoid patients. This chance remark directed
attention to the cook. -
Examination showed her to be a chronic carrier. Investigaton of her
history showed that since 1901 typhoid has developed in nearly every house-
hold where she had worked. It was reasonably Well proven that Since 1901
she had caused 26 cases of typhoid in many families in New York and near-by
communities. There was some proof that She had caused the great Ithaca
epidemic, in which there were 1,300 cases of typhoid. Since 1907 “Typhoid
Mary’” has occasionally escaped the health department, to be found later
working as a cook and causing typhoid wherever she worked.
The well-known Barmore case, passed on by the Illinois Supreme Court,
concerned a carrier.
S. H. Osborn, director Connecticut Department of Health (Modern Medicine,
September, 1920), says:
“Probably 50 per cent of the endemic typhoid in Massachusetts is caused
by carriers. The intermittent typhoid carrier is probably the greatest single
factor in causation of typhoid in Massachusetts to-day.”
Chesley and others say (Journal American Medical Association, June 23,
1917) :
“The tables (for Minnesota) show that 220 cases, including 12 fatalities,
have been traced to these 37 carriers.”
J. G. Cumming, California State Board of Health, says (Journal American
Medical Association, April 21, 1917) :
“In an epidemic of typhoid fever affecting 23 persons and killing 3, occur-
ring in Helm, Calif., in 1916, the cause was infected ice cream. The ice cream
was infected by “Mrs. Y,” who had been a carrier since she had had typhoid
fever in Kansas 17 years before. During the last Six years four out of Six
School teachers who had boarded with “Mrs. Y' had had typhoid.”
Drs. McDaniel and Wade, Minnesota Board of Health (American Journal of
Public Health, August, 1916) report the continued prevalence for years of
typhoid in the Minnesota School for Feebleminded and Epileptics. Seven car-
riers were found in the institution.
In discussing this report, Dr. P. S. Schenck, of Norfolk, Va., said:
“I believe that all public-health workers are of the opinion that a vast
majority of all our cases of communicable disease are due to carriers.”
And Dr. L. D. Bristol. then of North Dakota, told of an epidemic of typhoid
fever in Lehigh University due to a carrier who worked in the kitchen of the
college COmmonS. r --
Dr. W. J. Calvert, professor preventive medicine, University of Missouri,
says (University of Missouri Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 2) :
“Probably more than half of all cases of typhoid fever are derived from
typhoid carriers.”
New York City School Health News, December, 1923, tells of an epidemic
of typhoid in a Manhattan hospital which affected the matron, six nurses. One
interne, a table helper, and a porter. It was caused by a carrier who sliced
bread. This man had recently left a hospital in which he had been an inmate
for years. º
One of the very interesting pieces of epidemiological work reported recently
is a study of rural typhoid fever made by R. B. Norment, jr., in Washington
and Frederick Counties, Md., in 1916 to 1920. Doctor Norment reports (United
States Public Health Reports, September 1, 1922) :
“Direct contact with carriers is the most prolific source of rural typhoid.
It does not seem an exaggeration to state that probable more than 30 per Cent
of cases of endemic rural typhoid reported each year in these counties are
traceable to chronic carriers.”
Ravenal. then of the University of Wisconsin, now of the University of
Missouri, reported a carrier who moved from Minnesota to Wisconsin and
caused 21 cases of typhoid in the latter State.
Boldnan and Noble (Journal American Medical Association, 1912, Volume
58, page 7) report a carrier who began spreading typhoid in 1863 and who was
responsible for 380 cases.
&
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1513
Sawyer (Journal American Medical Association, volume 38, page 1336) re-
ports a ship making California ports which had difficulty in getting and keeping
crews because it was known as a typhoid ship. It was found that a typhoid
carrier, for several years one of the crew, had been the source of infection.
This man had typhoid fever in New Orleans. Most of the people he infected
were in California. This case was reported by Williams in United States Public
Health Service Reports, July 8, 1921.
In October, 1923, the New York State Department of Health published a
bulletin of their Health News Service, which was entitled “A Dangerous
MOther-in-law.” It told Of a woman Who Was a typhoid carrier and whose
Specialty was giving typhoid fever to the men and women who had the
temerity to marry into her family.
Citations almost beyond number COuld be made from reports such as these.
The reports relate instances of carriers who had been spreading typhoid fever
for 60, 50, 40, 30, 20 years and down.
Of the danger of carriers, Waughan (Epidemiology, Vol. II) says:
“It is not the man who is sick in bed With typhoid who is a source of
danger to the community SO much as is the man Who is Supposed to be well
and mingles with Others.”
Simon (Human Infection Carriers) says:
“The healthy carrier is far more dangerous than the patient because in
the latter danger is suspected; in the former it is hidden.”
Park, of New York, says (Public Health and Hygiene) : -
“Another important method of transmission of infection in this disease,
which is comparatively common, is by means Of SO-called carriers.”
In 1922, 30 people died of typhoid in Chicago and about 270 had the disease
and recovered from it. Of these 270, 9 became chronic carriers.
Had the 1891 typhoid rate prevailed, in 1922 we would have had 52,500 cases,
of whom 5,250 would have died and about 47,250 would have recovered.
Of these, about 1,418 would have remained chronic carriers, threatening the
Country with the disease for years. There is a vast difference between the
hazard to health and life of a city which makes 9 chronic typhoid carriers
a year and One that makes 1,400 yearly. The number of chronic typhoid
carriers made yearly by any place is about one-third the number of deaths
from typhoid fever.
Mr. SEGER. I would like to ask what is meant by the term “walk-
ing typhoid"?
Doctor Evans. A case of typhoid where the individual is not sick
enough to be confined to his bed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You spoke a while ago of the excreta being in-
fected for some time after the patient is cured. About how long
is that period of infection?
Doctor Evans. There are certain cases in which the infection is
permanent. About 4 per cent of the people who recover from ty-
phoid fever excrete typhoid bacilli for the remainder of their lives.
Convalescent carriers are people who have bacilli in their feces and
urine for a comparatively short time, usually for a month or six
weeks after they have convalesced from the disease.
The percentage of the convalescents who are convalescent carriers
is about 17. That is, about one-fifth of the people who have typhoid
fever excrete typhoid bacilli for, say, about two months after they
have gotten well.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Then an epidemic of typhoid in one of our great
cities is liable to affect the whole country?
Doctor Evans. That is the point I am making.
TRAINS WATERED IN CHICAGO
Another way in which the disease rate due to polluted water in Chicago is
a matter of concern to the remainder of the country is through the use of
the city water on trains. The water tanks in 1,634 cars are filled in Chicago
each day. These cars are occupied by an average of 101,000 passengers
daily.
1514 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The number of cars watered in Chicago in a year is 586,410 and the number
of passengers riding on them is 36,865,000. Some of these cars travel several
hundred miles and are several hours en route before being watered again.
During these hours the water in the tanks is the only available source of
drinking water. A fair part of the population of the country ride at least
Once a year On cars watered in Chicago.
So important to the general health does the United States Public Health
Service hold the water supplied on trains to be that they have adopted rules
and regulations for the water supplies of trains which the railroads are com-
pelled to conform to. These rules and regulations include bacteriologic and
chamical standards of purity. Under several of the alternatives which will
be discussed presently, Chicago could not meet these standards.
In 1921, Dr. R. G. Perkins, writing of the Cleveland water supply (U. S.
Public Health Reports, May 20, 1921, p. 1120) says: “The division of health
believes that the water which is supplied to the people of Cleveland should at
all times reach the standards required on railroad trains.”
In a report on a sanitary survey of railway coach yards in Chicago, made
in 1921, by a representative of the United States Public Health Service, it is
stated that the following cars are watered and iced in these yards daily:
Coaches ------------------------------------------------------------ 727
Pullman ------------------------------------------------------------ 542
Dining cars ------------------------------ -** - sºme, sº -º ºr ºf sº- * * * * * *-* * * * * * 105
Mail and baggage cars--__ * * * * * * * * * --- - - - - -º am -- - - - - - - 268
Total ------------------------------- --- 1, 642
According to “Statement 9A” of the 1921 Reports of Statistics of Railways in
the United States, issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the average
Seating capacity per passenger car in Service Qn Class I carriers of the western
district, on December 31, 1921, was as follows:
Coaches ------------------------------------------------------------ 66.33
Combination passenger----- --- * * * * = = ** = = ** - *-* * * * * * * * * = *-* * * * ~ * * 36
Immigrant. - am. *-*. a-ºº: * * * *m ºrº - amºn mºm º ºsmº - - * * 56
Parlor ------------------------------------------------------------- 42. 79
Sleeping --- * *-* - * * * * * * * * * * *m, ºm amº am me ºr mºtº ºrº- ºr *-* * * * * * * * * * 36
Cars on incoming trains are, as a rule, prepared for departure within 24
hours. On this schedule, assuming that each car which arrives or departs
from railway terminals in Chicago, is full to three-fourths of its seating ca-
pacity, and using the above figures for coaches and Pullmans (parlor and
sleeping cars) over 101,000 passages are taken daily on interstate trains ar-
riving at and departing from railway terminals, in Chicago.
This does not include boats which fill their drinking-water tanks while in
Chicago, from the Chicago water mains; nor the passengers carried by boats.
DAILY PASSENGER TRAFFIC INTO AND OUT OF CHICAGO
Table IV is a combination of an estimate made in 1913 by the sanitary dis-
trict and one made in 1920 by the Association of Cornmerce. The figures for
1923 is an estimate based on these two estimates. These indicate that about
300,000 passengers pass through Chicago railroad depots daily, or 109,500,000
a year. This should be supplemented by the number of passengers reaching
Chicago on Steamboats and interurban cars and by means of automobiles.
We have no estimate of those.
TABLE IV.-Daily passenger traffic through Chicago depots in certain years
Daily traffic
Year | C
Subur- OIIl-
.." | Through bined
1913---- sº ºr -------------------------------------- 124,000 | 81,800 205, 800
1920---- * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sº sº, ºr a sº * * * * * * * * * * = a -s as as as as as ºs e s = = - 191,678 60,860 252, 538
1923 (about) –- - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * = 210,000 70,000 300,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1515
An approximate gauge of the transient population is the number of rooms
available in the city. The best information of the Association of Commerce in
1922 was that the normal capacity of hotels and clubs in the loop or down-town
district was about 25,000 people per day, and in the district outside the loop
75,000 people per day. This makes a total of 100,000 people as the possible
number of transients. The combined floating or traveling population may be
taken approximately at 350,000 daily in 1920. An allowance of 50,000 for in-
Crease in each decade would seem reasonable.
We have no information as to the length of Stay of these visitors from out
Of town nor the amount of duplication.
Since the eighteenth amendment became operative, it is assumed that each
visitor to Chicago takes one or more drinks of Chicago water. These figures
are approximations at best. It is not intended that they shall be accepted as
meaning that the entire population of the United States visits Chicago yearly.
The purpose is to emphasize the fact that during the course of the year Chicago
water is consumed by people from outside of Chicago, many of them from States
Other than Illinois. If that water be typhoid infected, it endangers many
people elsewhere in Illinois and in States other than Illinois.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Chicago is something of a food-producing center. There are a few articles
of food and drink that can be infected with typhoid and can, therefore, infect
those who eat them.
I quote from a report made by Levine and Buchanan, of Ames, Iowa, to the
Iowa manufacturers of carbonated beverages, January 7, 1924: “Of 11 bottles
of uncarbonated mineral water examined, 7 contained more than 100,000
bacteria per C. C., and One of these two contained intestinal bacteria.” (Ten
bottles of carbonated mineral water contained very few bacteria per C. c.).
One plant was located in a town where the city water supply was poor. -
They had a water filter in the plant, but they operated it wrong. The munici-
pal water contained 1,480 bacteria per C. C., of which one was an intestinal
species. The bottled water contained 62,000 bacteria per c. c., of which 10
were intestinal bacteria.
It is not probable that food packed or processed in Chicago is the source of
any considerable amount Of typhoid fever or will ever be.
FLIES
Flies are Occasionally Carried long distances by trains. I have seen flies in
Pullman Sleeping and dining cars that appeared to have been transported from
California and New Orleans to Chicago. These flies were observed in cars
entering Chicago in midwinter and during zero weather, at which time no flies
were at large in the Open air nearer Chicago than several hundred miles.
One name for the housefly is the typhoid fly. In this way a highly typhoid-
ized Chicago would hazard the remainder of the country. The danger from
that Source Would be trivial. --
SUMIMARY
A high typhoid rate in Chicago would be a source of danger to all parts of
the country. Chicago Would become a typhoid reservoir. People would con-
tract typhoid fever in Chicago and be sick with the disease in all parts of the
country. Typhoid is a contagious disease.
A large number of chronic typhoid carriers produced yearly in Chicago
would be fed into other cities and States.
Many people from all parts of Chicago drink Chicago water in trains. The
number of people from elsewhere who visit Chicago and drink Chicago water is
large.
Mr. MORGAN. Are there statistics to show what the difference in
the number of cases of typhoid fever is between cities that use water
dilution for their sewage and the cities that use the so-called scientific
improved methods of treating their sewage?
Doctor Evans. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAN. What are the statistics?
1516 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Doctor EVANs. I will leave with you “Typhoid in the large cities
of the United States in 1923,” twelfth annual report reprinted from
the Journal of the American Medical Association, February 2, 1924.
This is an annual report made by the Journal of the American Medi-
cal Association as to the prevalence of typhoid fever in all of the
cities of the United States with more than 100,000 inhabitants. This
does not give the method of sewage disposal. The facts as to the
method of sewage disposal used in the different cities will be
furnished by Mr. Langdon Pearse, who is to speak next.


FOURTH POINT (SEVENTH STATEMENT)—w ATER POLLUTION AT THE FOOT OF LAKE
MICHIGAN IS AN INTERSTATE MATTER—TYPHOID IN THE LAKE CITIES OF INDIANA
Table V shows that typhoid is much more prevalent in the Indiana lake cities
than it is in Chicago. For the years 1919–1922 the average rates were: Gary,
7.2 ; East Chicago, 12.5; Whiting, 14.8; Hammond, 15.3 ; Chicago, 1.15.
TABLE V.—Typhoid fever death rates of Chicago and the Lake County (Ind.)
Cities
[Deaths per 100,000)
- East - - - Ham- || Michigan -
Year Gary Chicago Whiting mond City Chicago
1900---------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------|---------- 20
1901---------------------------------------|------------------------------ 91 ---------- 29
1902-------------------------------------------------|----------|---------- 64 1---------- 45
1903--------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 --------- '- 32
1904--------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 ---------- 20
1905---------------------------------------|------------------------------ 61 ---------- 17
1906---------------------------------------|------------------------------ 56 ---------- 19
1907--------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 ---------- 18
1908--------------------------------------------------------------------- 154 I---------- 16
1909---------------------------------------|------------------------------ 39 I---------- 13
1910--------------------------------------- 101 26 60 57 ---------- 14
1911--------------------------------------- 24 29 43 37 ---------- 11
1912--------------------------------------- 0 40 28 70 ---------- 1 7.6
1913--------------------------------------- 0 46 27 64 |---------- 11
1914--------------------------------------- 0 12 12 49 |---------- 6.9
1915--------------------------------------- 6a 11 13a. 36 14.5 5.3
1916--------------------------------------- 83 38 75 122 33. 1 5. 1
1917--------------------------------------- 23 43 62 96 44, 4 1. 6
1918--------------------------------------- 11 37 25 * 54 |---------- 1.4
1919--------------------------------------- 31 72 24 51 |---------- 1.2
1920--------------------------------------- 10 3 25 3 29 41. 7 5. 1 l. 1
1921--------------------------------------- 7.2 25 9.9 22.2 10. 2 1.2
1922--------------------------------------- 7.2 0 19. 7 8.4 |---------- 1. 1
1923--------------------------------------- 1.8 5.8 (4) 19.4 5. 1 1.97
1 Chlorination began in January.
3 Filter plant installed.
2 Chlorination began. 3 NO record.
All of these cities take their water from Lake Michigan. Gary uses unfiil-
tered and untreated water; East Chicago and Whiting, filtered water; and
Hammon, chlorinated water. In all of them except Gary, most of the sewage
is not diverted, practically Speaking, nor diluted, nor otherwise treated. The
water in the lake of all these cities except Gary is so badly polluted as to
approximate the point beyond which neither filtration alone nor chlorination
alone can guarantee protection. -
The United States Public Health Service has laid down standards of pollu-
tion, and waters more polluted than these standards allow should not be used
even after filtration. Mr. Streeter, of the United States Public Health Service,
is now investigating the load of pollution which can be carried by a filtration
plant.
The limitation beyond which chlorination in doses which the public will
allow have been discovered in Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere.
It would seem that the degree of pollution of the near shore waters at the
foot of Lake Michigan in Indiana, especially after rains which flush the Calu-
met River into Lake Michigan, approaches the point where diversion or dilu-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1517
tion or some other method of sewage treatment will be required in addition to
filtration of the water or its treatment by chlorine, or both.
This brief study of typhoid prevalence and water pollution in Indiana Lake
cities ShoWS :
1. That typhoid situations do not respect State boundaries. They are not
local.
2. Not even filtration of water or chlorination will properly protect the water
supplies at the foot of Lake Michigan if there be not diversion, dilution, Or
Some Substitute form of Sewage treatment.
FIFTH POINT (THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH STATEMENTS)
What would happen under the various alternatives, each of which have
been argued for by one or more of those who have appeared in opposition to
this group of bills, before this committee? Some of the proposals to limit
the amount of water which Chicago Would be allowed to take from Lake
Michigan would result in nation-wide disaster. Others would be less harmful.
But all would work unjustified harm except allowance of 10,000 cubic feet
Of flow.
First alternative.—Chicago not to be allowed to take any water from the
lake for any purpose.
The Chicago area has very little ground water. There are no near-by
mountains or streams that could be diverted. The city would be wiped out.
Billions of property values would be lost. No one considers this alternative
Seriously.
Second alternative.—Chicago to be allowed to take as much water as it
needs for domestic purposes, but to be required to meter its water Supply and
uSe Water more economically than it now uses it.
Under this method Chicago would be allowed to take somewhere between
400 and 600 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan, and that water having
been used for domestic purposes would find its way into the sewers and
WOuld go down through the drainage canal to the Illinois River. To take
even this amount of water from one watershed and put it into another is
Objected to by Some people. The answer to them is that in fact Chicago
has been in the Mississippi Valley watershed since 1848—76 years ago—if it
ever was wholly out of it.
The first canal, built in 1848, took water from the lake and sent it down
the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. The present canal has been diverting
Water (and Sewage) since 1900—24 years. Seventy-six years ago the country
Was Only 72 years old, and Chicago and the upper valley had been settled less
than, Say, 20 years.
The Objections are these :
The allowance would not furnish as much water as is needed for the develop-
ment of waterways down the valley, according to the information that I have
heard given to the committee. There would be distinctly too little water for
purposes of dilution in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. In consequence
these streams would be sluggish and offensive, would breed moquitoes, and
Would be a Source of nuisance.
The Chicago River would flow into Lake Michigan practically every day in
the year. Whenever the Chicago River flows into Lake Michigan it carries
the filth that has been accumulated there out into the lake and endangers
the water Supply. It would not be possible, with that amount of water to
properly protect the health of the people. The pollution of the water in Lake
Michigan under those conditions would be so great as that it would be be-
yond the power of chlorine to make it safe.
We are very near the point now, where the use of Lake Michigan water
can no longer be made safe by the use of chlorine. We are now using about
as much as the people will permit us to use, and using that amount, the
water is Safe for drinking purposes under ordinary circumstances.
In August, 1923, we had a small typhoid epidemic which was due to the
fact that the Water for the time being was more highly polluted than it was
in the power of chlorine to purify.
Third alternative.—Chicago to be allowed to use the amount of water that
is pumped for What is known as Sanitary or domestic purposes, and that
this amount of water and sewage be allowed to go down the canal.
We are pumping a little less than 300 gallons per inhabitant per day and
that figures about 1,400 cubic feet of flow. Engineers have figured it as high
1518 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
as 2,000; it is somewhere between 1,200 and 2,000; not very far from 1,400
Cubic Second-feet. 3.
Mr. BOYCE. Are you now speaking of the water used in homes
and places of business in the city?
Doctor Evans. Yes. The water that goes into the water mains
and is used for drinking and other purposes in the city. r
. Mr. Boy GE. General home consumption, trade use, street clean-
ing, Sprinkling, fire purposes and such purposes?
Doctor Evans. General home consumption; yes. It takes about
1,400 cubic feet per second to supply that demand. . That water
then finds its way into the sewage, flows down into the canal and
is measured against us in the allowance of water that Chicago is
allowed to flow down the canal.
Mr. Boyce. And your contention is that if you were restricted
to water used for domestic purposes and which enters the drain-
age system, it would not be sufficient to prevent the sewage empty-
ing into the Chicago River from returning to Lake Michigan
which would infect the drinking water? g
Doctor Evans. That is my contention exactly. The Chicago
River is always polluted and perhaps always will be and there is no
possibility of having it otherwise. Periodically, that water will
flow out into the lake, as has been made clear to you. The Chi-
cago River has been changed so that the water flows uphill, as it
were, and it is not planned that it at any time will flow into the
lake. Whenever it does, it endangers the purity of the water supply.
In August, 1923, we had a storm that made the river flow out into
the lake, and as the result of that one storm, a condition of af-
fairs that continued for less than 12 hours, our typhoid rate was
raised from 1.1 where it had been running for about five years, to
1.9—the result of a condition that did not continue for 24 hours.
[Reading:]
From our standpoint, the objections to this limitation are these : It
might not furnish as much water as the valley would need for the develop-
ment of waterways.
The Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers would be very foul and offensive.
They would breed mosquitoes. Use of these rivers for bathing and boating
would be impossible. The fish would be killed off. There might be some in-
crease of typhoid along the canal and the rivers due to causes not fully de-
termined.
It would necessitate Chicago spending the millions required to purify it in
plants the sewage of the three millino people now cared for by sewage di-
version. A needless waste of the millions we have already spent.
With only that amount of diversion and dilution, the Chicago River would
become offensive, polluted, and infected even though the sewage be treated.
A river running through the congested parts of a very large city can not
be kept clean. It would flow into the lake twenty or thirty times a year.
This would mean periodic infection of the water supply. We would soon
pass beyond the limits of protection offered by chlorination. Occasional il-
lustrations of such limitations are furnished by the histories of Chicago,
Cleveland, and Indiana towns.
We would be required to spend millions for filters. In all probability the
degree of pollution would soon be beyond the powers of filtration to protect.
The water would be more polluted than the limit for waters to be delivered
to filters set by the United States Public Health Service.
Cleveland is even now filtering, and then lightly chlorinating.
There would be an increase in typhoid—just how great nobody knows—and
the entire country would be hazarded.
Fourth, alternative.—Chicago to be allowed to use 4,167 cubic feet per
Second. That would mean that in addition to the 1,400 cubic feet which We
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1519
now pump for what is ordinarily known as domestic purposes, we would be
allowed to use some 2,700 cubic feet per second for the purposes of dilution.
The insufficiently diluted sewage would be diverted down the valley.
The objection to that alternative is that it would be too little dilution for
the Des Plaines and for the Illinois Rivers. These rivers would be a Source
of nuisance to the people who live along them. They would breed mosquitoes.
The principal growth of population of Chicago and suburbs is westward.
The number of people who live in the Des Plaines Valley, both inside the
city limits and outside them, is very large and growing very rapidly. The
same is true of what may be termed the “canal valley.” Some of these
people are settling in the country; some in the smaller towns and Some in
larger places. Many of the rapidly growing towns and villages will not be
able to build Sewage-treatment works for years. 3.
The upper Illinois River is bound to be increasingly polluted independently
of Chicago. A diversion of only 4,167 second-feet will cause great complaint
down the valley. It will become increasingly difficult for them to prevent
typhoid infection coming from sources that they can not establish. -
The canal would not be used to its full capacity and this would mean a
waste of money. In spite of everything that we could do in the way of
sewage treatment the Chicago River would be polluted. It would flow into
the lake about ten times a year, and the Calumet at least fifteen times a year.
The South end of the lake would become a cesspool.
TABLE VI.--Typhoid death rates per 100,000 population per year in counties
adjacent and tributary to the Illinois River º
[Compiled by the Sanitary District of Chicago]



County 1904 1905 | 1906 || 1907 | 1908 || 1909 | 1910 | 1911 || 1912
Brown --------------------------------------- 36 9 9 0 9 O 19 19 0
Bureau --------------------------------------- 27 7 2 5 5 5 5 2 0
Calhoun *------------------------------------- 38 25 13 12 0 4 23 23 23
Cass'----------------------------------------- 35 41 76 37 18 29 12 17 34
Champaign------------------------------------ 17 34 13 9 13 21 21 15 l------
Christian-------------------------------------- 25 13 13 18 9 6 20 17 ------
k------------------------------------------ 21 16 18 18 16 13 14 11 ------
De Kalb--------------------------------------- 10 13 6 21 10 12 6 6 l------
PeWitt--------------------------------------- 28 22 28 11 0 5 11 5 l------
Pu Page--------------------------------------- 21 18 7 6 7 6 0 0.|------
Ford------------------------------------------ 22 0 6 11 11 6 6 12 ------
Fulton --------------------------------------- 28 13 4 13 24 24 20 22
Green ---------------------------------------- 43 17 39 84 13 40 18 18 18
Grundy'-------------------------------------- 17 4 17 24 13 8 8 4 18
Hancock--------------------------------------- 34 25 15 7 7 29 10 1------
Iroquois--------------------------------------- 15 21 11 5 11 14 5 6 ------
Jersey’---------------------------------------- 14 36 28 49 7 7 7 14 7
Kane------------------------------------------ 38 14 17 17 13 23 14 29 17
Rankakee------------------------------------- 27 14 30 14 8 25 20 7 10
Kendall--------------------------------------- 9 0 0 9 0. 0 0 9 ------
Knox------------------------------------------ 48 21 44 22 14 17 26 26 ------
ake------------------------------------------ 3 32 11 36 15 25 60 30 I------
La Salle -------------------------------------- 16 8 15 30 12 10 16 11 l
Livingston------------------------------------ 7 4 2 5 0 5 17 10 1------
Ošan ----------------------------------------- 18 25 11 10 11 0 13 17 ------
Macon---------------------------------------- 27 20 5 10 10 19 20 11 il------
Macoupin------------------------------------- 12 21 12 12 16 8 4 14 ||------
Marshall ------------------------------------- 6 25 0 0 0 0 0 19 6
Mason --------------------------------------- 12 24 12 0 12 12 6 23 6
McDonough----------------------------------- 25 43 29 24 11 19 15 4 ------
McHenry------------------------------------- 7 14 7 10 14 12 3 12 l------
McLean--------------------------------------- 31 24 19 16 11 16 22 21 |------
Menard--------------------------------------- 14 21 0 \ 35 0 0 55 0 8
Morgan *-------------------------------------- 29 46 26 28 17 23 23 15 29
Peoria ---------------------------------------- 92 28 56 20 28 25 22 14 15
Piatt ------------------------------------------ 18 18 12 6 18 12 37 0 |------
Pike *----------------------------------------- 42 13 24 13 24 25 18 18
Putnam -------------------------------------- 75 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
Sangamon------------------------------------- 32 30 28 66 28 21 12 16 25
Schuyler ------------------------------------- 25 25 6 24 6 7 27 7 7
Scott------------------------------------------ 10 10 10 20 20 0 0 0 0
Stark------------------------------------------ 10 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 ------
Tazewell ------------------------------------- 6 12 3 3 12 15 0 15 0
Warren---------------------------------------- 35 9 25 15 4 17 39 26 ------
ill------------------------------------------- 22 18 16 27 26 19 33 26 26
Woodford------------------------------------- 14 19 19 9 14 5 5 10 |------
1 On the Illinois River.
1520 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RrvKRs, ETC.
TABLE VII.--Typhoid fever mortality
[Death rate per 100,000 population for fiscal years]


1917–18 1918–19 1919–20 1920–21 1921–22 1922–23
County N
Num- Num- UIIIl- Num- Num- Num-
ber Rate ber Rate ber Rate ber Rate ber Rate ber Rate
Bureau -------------------- 5 11. 7 2 4.1 0 ------ 1 2, 3 2 4.1 1 2.3
Fulton--------------------- 6 | 12.4 0 ------ 3 6.2 1 2.07 1 || 2,07 0 l------
Grundy-------------------- 1 5.3 2 || 10.3 1 5. 3 1 5. 3 1 5.3 0 1------
La Salle-------------------- 7 7. 6 5 || 5.4 4 || 4.3 4 4.3 0 l------ 3 3.1
Marshall------------------- 0 ------ 1 || 6.5 1 6, 5 2 13.5 1 6.5 3 || 20.0
Peoria--------------------- 11 || 10. 0 8 || 7.2 5 4.4 7 6.2 3 2, 6 4 3.4
Putnam------------------- 0 ------ 1 || 13.2 0 ------ 0 ------ 0 ------ 0 ------
Tazewell------------------- 5 | 13.0 3 || 7.8 2 : 5. 0 3 7.6 2 5.0 2 || 5.0
ill----------------------- 14 15. 0 15 | 16.1 13 || 14, 0 9 9.6 11 |11. 6 5 5. 2
Woodford------------------ 3 || 15. 5 0 ------ 0 ------ 0 ------ 0 ----- - 1 5. 1
NOTE.-Fiscal year ends June 30. Compiled by the Illinois State Department of Health.
I do not think any engineer would guarantee, or even give an opinion that
our typhoid rate could be held where it now is, even though we built sewage
treatment works and in addition, filtered water, were we limited to so little
Water as 4,167 cubic Second-feet.
Fifth alternative.—Allowed to flow 10,000 cubic feet of water per second
through the canal. That would mean about 1,400 to 2,000 cubic feet of water
for what is ordinarily known as domestic purposes, and the additional amount
for the purposes of dilution and purification of our sewage. Under those
circumstances, the river might flow into the lake about once a year after
the territory is all built up and the streets paved. The Calumet River might
flow into the lake about three times a year.
The sewage from 3,000,000 people would be diverted and purified by
dilution. The Sewage from the other millions—in excess of the canal capac-
ity—would be purified by treatment and the effluent would be diverted from
the lake.
In essence, our contention is: It is better never to let sewage enter drink-
ing water rather than to allow it in and them to take it out. The plan pro-
posed keeps the sewage out of the lake. Keeps the effluent out and keeps
the the Storm waters that reach the Chicago and Calumet Rivers out.
The water in the upper part of the Illinois can be kept pure enough not
to menace health. As sources of fish life, these waters can be kept in better
condition than they were before the canal was built. There would be ample
water for waterways.
TJnder such circumstances it should be possible to make the water Supply
safe and continue the health conditions that have been developed in the City
of Chicago, to continue the same standard of health that we have enjoyed
for a number of years. -
Mr. Boyce. May I inquire if your sewage system depends wholly upon water
diverted from the lake for dilution of the sewage when it reaches the Illinois
River, or is something else used for purposes of purification?
Doctor Evans. Our sewage is put into the drainage canal and diluted With
water. At present we purify the sewage from about 100,000 people by
Other means.
Mr. BoxcE. What I wish to know is whether you rely upon water alone?
Doctor Evans. We do for the sewage from about three million of our popula-
tion. For over 165,000 of the population we are relying upon other methods.
We are building disposal works to take care of the growth of the population.
It is estimated that by 1927, there will be 800,000 people whose sewage Will
be disposed of by these other methods. Our system of Sewers, the arrange-
ment of sewers, the entire scheme has been developed upon the thought that
we would continue indefinitely to protect our water supply for these 3,000,000
people by the diversion-dilution method.
Mr. BoxcE. Then, so far as I understand, your system seeks to purify the
sewage which empties into the drainage canal, by use of water for the pur-
pose of dilution?
Doctor EVANS. That is right.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1521
Mr. BoxCE. And is confined to dilution?
Doctor EVANs. It is confined to dilution.
Mr. BoycE. Within the drainage canal? -
Doctor EVANs. That is correct. No other method of purification is employed
Or ever has been employed, or was ever contemplated, except the purification
of that sewage by settling, by oxidation, by bacterial action, by the action of
sunlight, all of which occurs in the flow in the canal—all this, dilution makes
possible. 4.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does dilution destroy disease germs that are in
the water? -
Doctor Evans. Dilution, of itself, using the word narrowly, does
not. In fact, dilute sewage is really a better medium for typhoid
bacilli than sewage undiluted, as was demonstrated in Chicago by
Professor Zeit. But here is what happens: Dilution supplies such a
content of oxygen, so many purifying germs, so many opportunities
for oxidation and bacterial action and sunlight as that in a rela-
tively short time those agencies have purified the sewage. Does
that make it clear 2 -
Mr. MANSFIELD. I think so.
Doctor Evans. The dilution of itself does not purify; but the
dilution supplies agencies that do. -
Mr. HULL. Is there anything in the theory that as sewage goes
down to 60 or 70 miles the river that it purifies from the fact
that it runs down the river, just by the flow %
Doctor Eva N.S. Yes.
Mr. HULL. What I mean is this: Take the distance from Utica
to Peoria; would the sewage purify itself in that flow :
Doctor Evans. Yes; very careful studies have been made on that
oint.
p Mr. BoycE. The element of time and flow enters into it, as I
understand it?
Doctor Evans. Time and distance. Mr. Pearse will furnish you
with detailed data as to the bacterial content of the water at different
points on the Illinois River. The pollution of the sewage com-
mences to decrease in Chicago, and by the time Peoria is reached it
is all gone. There is no Chicago pollution left in the water by the
time it gets to the lower end of Lake Peoria.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does that mean, Doctor, that the germs of
typhoid fever in the water leaving Chicago would be destroyed be-
fore they reached Peoria?
Doctor Evans. Certainly.
There is no more certain method for destruction of bacteria than
the method we are employing. I have a report of the State board
of health as to the various counties along the Illinois River and the
Des Plaines River. There is no evidence in their typhoid rates
that they are getting any typhoid from Chicago. Their typhoid
rate is declining—not as rapidly as ours—but is declining.
Mr. HULL. We get our water supply from a different source: we
get it from wells.
Doctor Evans. That is quite true. There is no evidence that the
Illinois River has contributed to typhoid fever in the towns along
the Illinois River. Is not that true, Mr. Hull?
Mr. HULL. I think so.
1522 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BoxCE. In other words, so far as you know, the valley dis-
º: º, not endangered by the drainage down the Chicago canal
system :
Doctor EVANs. There is no doubt about that. Not only has that
point been passed upon in the quite celebrated Chicago-St. Louis
case—judicially passed upon—but it has been made the subject of
* feat many investigations and the data on the matter is quite
llll.
Mr. BoxCE. My question was intended to inquire whether the
Valley district was endangered.
Doctor Evans. No.
Mr. HULL. I would like to clear up one thing. The question
Was, of course, the valley is not endangerd by typhoid, but it is
inconvenienced and endangered by the fact that we are getting the
Sewage down the river. In other words, you take Joliet and places
like that. . Of course, they are endangered from the fact that the
Sewage is in the river there, so strong that you can hardly stand it
in the summer time. I don't know that it would affect the health,
but it affects the people.
Mr. BOYCE. My question was directed to typhoid.
Doctor Evans. The water in the upper reaches of the Illinois
River is not as agreeable and pleasant as it was before the sewage
went into the river. It is, at times, somewhat offensive. Bathing in
the river is interfered with, boating on the river is less pleasant than
it was, and it is quite possible there is a little typhoid by reason of
what we have somewhat indefinitely referred to as shore infection.
º, is * very definite and it is not very provable, but there may be
a little.
The valley can very well stand, without any material influences
upon their health or comfort, the river water as it now comes down.
Were they to attempt to drink it above Peoria they would be infected
thereby unless they went to considerable trouble and expense to
purify it before they drank it. *
If we were to reduce the flow below what it is now, the nuisance of
the river, the discomfort, if we might so put it, the limitations upon
*ś swimming and boating would be materially increased.
Mr. HULL. In the summer time if you cut the flow off, my judgment
is they could not live along the river on account of the smell.
Doctor Evans. I don’t know about living, but it certainly would be
less comfortable than it now is.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The question I started to ask was this: Suppose
Chicago sewage was emptied back into Lake Michigan, but treated
scientifically like other great cities on the Great Lakes, would that,
or would it not be a greater menace to the health of the city than
the present system?
Doctor Evans. It would be a greater menace to health than the
present system for the following reasons. While it would be making
use of good, scientific methods, they would be used in lieu of what
we claim to be the best method. One of the proofs we offer that it
is the best method is the result on health. Mr. Pearse will offer you
other proof. There is not a thing in these other methods that does
not form a constituent part of our method. The diversion-dilution
method is more foolproof than the other methods. One difficulty
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1523
about any method of sewage purification is that it is difficult to make
them foolproof. We know that under all those systems they have
an outbreak every now and then, this year or the next year or some
other year, due to the fact that something did not work quite right.
It is impossible to make any of those methods as foolproof as the
diversion-dilution method is.
They are all under more or less experimentation, the very best of
them. They are good methods. But there is not one of them the
efficiency of which has been demonstrated so thoroughly and over so
long a time as the method which we are employing and which we
claim to be the best method. Another reason: If we used these
methods we would still have with us the Chicago River in the
middle of the city and the Calumet River at the south end of the
citv. *
Wir. HULL. Right there, if you please, when you put in these treat-
ment plants, as I call them, would they not dispose of that pollution
in the Chicago River and in the Calumet River?
Doctor Evans. They would dispose of much of the pollution. At
the same time the Chicago River always will be, under any system you
devise, a badly polluted stream, and you will never in any kind of
purification work so completely divert the sewage from these rivers
that those streams will not be polluted streams. Given the right
direction of wind and storm and the water of the Chicago River will
be carried out into the lake; likewise the water of the Calumet River,
and that polluted water will find its way to the water intakes, and we
will have epidemics of typhoid fever. I would not have you under-
stand me as saying that we can not put in works that will prevent
conditions as bad as those in 1891. But we will never be able to
put in works that will permanently hold our rate as low as we have
gotten it under this system.
And do not forget this. We have constructed our entire sewer
system there on the basis of expectation of use of them by about
3,000,000 people. We are going to have more than 3,000,000 people.
We are going to build sewers for this growth to carry the sewage to
points where it can be purified according to the system that rep-
resents the very best development of the art, and then divert the
effluent. - -
Mr. HULL. What effect upon the situation, favorable or unfavor-
able, would the proposed development of the navigation of the
Chicago River and the Mississippi River have upon the situation?
Would it help it or not? I mean your sanitary situation.
Doctor Evans. I don’t know whether I can intelligently answer
the question.
Mr. BoxcE. If the Chicago River was deepened and you continued
to receive the present quantity of water—10,000 cubic feet per
second—and if the Mississippi River was deepened, as may be done
in the near future, for the purpose of navigation, would that help
the situation?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do you mean the Des Plaines River and the
Illinois River instead of the Chicago River?
Mr. BOYCE. Yes.
1524 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Doctor Evans. When that water is mixed with the sewage and
that sewage is turned away from the lake, the purposes of sanitation
are conserved. In that sense, it would not add anything to the com-
pleteness of it to have the water used for the purposes of navigation,
but in an indirect way it would be helpful, in that it would guarantee
the permanency of that method of procedure; guarantee that that
water would continue to flow. In that indirect way it would be a
great service to health.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And with an adequate quantity of water for the
dilution. -
Doctor Evans. Yes. My answer presupposes that we are given
enough water to properly dilute the sewage from 3,000,000 people.
Mr. BARRETT. Before you go, I think there is one thing you ought
to have before you, before the doctor closes. With reference to these
treatment plants, I do not know a city in the country, and I do not
believe there is a city in the world, which in any system of sewage
treatment ever contemplates or could possibly finance a plan greater
than to take care of what is known as its dry-weather sewage flow,
plus 50 per cent for safety. So that the total that our sewage dis-
posal at a cost of approximately $200,000,000 can possibly take care
of will be approximately 2,000 cubic second-feet of water. So that
when we have a flood flow or those times of the year when we have
above 2,000 cubic second-feet of precipitation, if we do not have the
10,000 cubic feet per second going down the valley it would be flow-
ing out into the lake, and there is no system of sewage treatment
that can take care of it; and a complete system would cost us prob-
ably $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000.
I wanted to leave that with you, so when they start to develop
that through the sanitary division you will have that.
SIXTH POINT (FIRST AND SECOND STATEMENTS)
Health is paramount. When health, navigation, and power are in Com-
petition for the use of water owned in common, health comes first and others
follow.
Constitutional power—The proposal now under consideration is the passage
of a law the purpose of which is to protect health. The same clauses of the
Constitution which give Congress the right to pass laws relating to navigation
impose on Congress the right and duty to legislate for health. So far as the
power bestowed by the Constitution to Congress is concerned, neither health
nor navigation is paramount. They are on a par.
Mr. HULL. The treaty makes domestic and sanitary purposes come
first.
Doctor Evans. I was going to develop that next.
POWER UNDER THE SANITARY TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT
BRITAIN, RATIFIED MAY 5, 1910
On this subject the treaty says: “The following order of precedence shall
be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter for these Waters:
First, uses for domestic purposes and sanitary purposes. Second, navigation.
Third, power and irrigation. ”
The report of the International Waterways Commission, October, 1914, says:
“The preservation of the levels of the Great Lakes is imperative. The interest
of navigation in these Waters is paramount, Subject only to the right of use
for domestic purposes, in which terms is included necessary and Sanitary
purposes.”
C. On the ground of Common Sense.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1525
Water as fundamental necessity ranks second only to air. When water is
needed for drinking purposes, common sense revolts against the taking of it
for other purposes to the exclusion of drinking.
Says Kipling: “Everyone in the jungle can Scramble along somehow when
only game is scarce, but water is water, and when there is but one source of
supply, all hunting stops while the jungle people go there for their needs. The
reason is that drinking COmes before eating.”
The same principle applies to any use of water which would result in its
pollution to the detriment of health. The health and well-being of the people
is basic. In times of great epidemics this principle permits health work to
become militant and Supersede all law. In Ordinary times We accept the prin-
ciple though we may not make it our main motive. When the issues are
directly joined, the common sense of every man tells him that the protection
of health and life takes precedence of the interests of navigation or of power
production.
M. J. Rosenau, Harvard University (hygiene and preventive medicine),
says: “Water is a prime necessity of life. Centers of population sprang up
in ancient times around those points where pure water was most readily
available and great expenditures of labor and treasure were made to carry it
to places where it was not naturally plentiful.”
Aristotle says: “The greatest influence on health is excited by those things
which we most frequently and freely require for our existence, such as water
and air.”
I thank you. -
Mr. STRONG. Having in mind your preliminary remarks, I think
the committee will agree that you rank fully as high in your
profession as Mr. Shenehon does in his. I am of the opinion
that if this committee is privileged to hear many more such eminent
witnesses we will all be ready to qualify for some university degree.
Mr. GouldFR. I would like the privilege of asking a few questions
when we resume this evening.
(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 7.30 p.m.)
EVENING SESSION
The committee met at 7.30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the taking of
I'êCGSS. *
FURTHER STATEMENT OF DR. W. A. EVANS
Mr. STRONG. The meeting will come to order. Mr. Goulder, do you
wish to ask the doctor some questions?
Mr. GOULDER. Yes. Doctor, I think you said that you are not an
engineer.
Doctor Evans. Correct.
Mr. GOULDER. Not a sanitary engineer or hydraulic engineer, as
they call it. I want to call your attention to certain things, and you
will kindly overlook it if I do not use the correct technical terms. If
I understand you correctly, you put the raw sewage into the drainage
canal at Chicago. Do you remember the proportion of dilution?
Doctor EVANs. Three and a fraction to one.
Mr. GOULDER. I think 314 is stated.
Doctor Evans. Yes.
Mr. GouldFR. Isn’t that pretty low %
Doctor EVANS. That is an engineering question. I would suggest
that you ask that of one of the engineers. Three and one-third was
arrived at after careful study and I understand that the engineers
1526 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
who have investigated all of its angles are of the opinion that that
comes pretty nearly being the right figure.
Mr. GouldFR. That you would preferably refer to the engineers? .
Doctor Evans. I think that you would get an answer that would be
more enlightening and more authoritative if you asked that of the
engineers.
Mr. GOULDER. Now, you did speak of dilution. I take it that is
the oldest method. -
Doctor Evans. Oh, yes. I would say that it has been used since the
beginning of time. -
Mr. GouldFR. Did you hear the testimony of one of the witnesses
here that they started in at Chicago after the fire to follow the cheap;
est method on account of the great loss they had suffered and their
consequently impoverished condition there?
Doctor Eva Ns. No; I didn’t hear that.
Mr. Gould ER. I don’t recall who said that, but I am certain that
Some one did.
Mr. BARRETT. That it was done because it was the cheapest method?
Mr. GouldFR. Yes; that the fire had injured Chicago very much.
Mr. BARRETT. The only discussion there was with reference to the
fire was that Chicago had installed the pumps and had cut down the
level of the Illinois and Michigan canal and had financed it them-
selves, and later on, after the fire, the State of Illinois had returned
the money—something in the neighborhood of $3,500,000. I think
that was the only mention made. I have heard nobody else refer to it.
Mr. GouldFR. Then we will go to the record. I distinctly recall
that statement having been made. But it is not very important.
Now, this present method now in use was taken up definitely about
40 years ago, was it not?
Doctor Evans. In the late eighties the sanitary district was or-
ganized.
Mr. Gould ER. It had been discussed before that? -
Doctor Evans. It really goes back in some degree to 1848.
Mr. GouldFR. That was about the canal. I am speaking now of
the method of sanitation. Along in the eighties they came forward,
and along in the late eighties some action was taken 3
Mr. BARRETT. Of course, we started the dilution system and the
trip down the Illinois Valley in 1848. -
Mr. GouldFR. Very well, instead of being 40 years, it is 75 years
OICl.
Mr. BARRETT. Somewhere in that neighborhood.
Doctor Evans. In the late eighties they recognized the fact that
they had to provide an additional precaution. They got engineering
advice from everywhere, the best engineering advice that was to be
had in America. This method grew out of the advice of a board of
engineers some of whom were local but most of whom were from
other parts of the country. They studied the situation very care-
fully and recommended the method to Chicago and also to Cleve-
land.
Mr. GouldFR. I am not asking with reference to that. I think
that has all been fully covered by other witnesses in the case, and
perhaps with no dispute. Are you familiar with the views of Sani-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1527
tary engineers throughout the country and perhaps throughout the
world on this subject of dilution?
Doctor Evans. Well, I think that I am reasonably familiar with
it. Of course, that is a question that may be variously answered.
Mr. GouldFR. Let me read you a list of names, which I am taking
from a Government report. John Thompson, K. C. He is a lawyer.
Are you acquainted, either personally or by reputation, with Dr.
Frederick Mantasabart, director of public health of the Dominion of
Canada?
Doctor Evans. I know him very well indeed.
Mr. GouldFR. He is a man of standing, is he not?
Doctor Evans. He has not been active in public health work for
several years, but he is a man of standing.
Mr. GouldER. He is versed in the subject?
Doctor EVANs. Yes.
Mr. GouldFR. Dr. Charles A. Hodgetts.
Doctor Evans. I know him very well.
Mr. GouldFR. A man of standing?
Doctor Eva Ns. Yes.
Mr. Gour DER. Dr. John A. Amyot?
Doctor Evans. These are all Canadians. I know them all; and
they are very capable men.
Mr. GouldF.R. Doctor McCullough 2
O Doctor Evans. He is health commissioner of the Province of
1.tario
Mr. GouldFR. F. A. Dallyn. He is a civil engineer.
Doctor Evans. I don’t know him.
Mr. GouldER. He was the provincial sanitary engineer for the
Province of Ontario. You wouldn’t know the sanitary engineers,
perhaps. $
Doctor Evans. I think that some of our other witnesses can give
you a very much better opinion as to them than I can.
Mr. Gould ER. A. H. Seymour, secretary state department of health,
Albany. Do you know him :
Doctor Eva N.S. No.
Mr. Gould ER. Mr. Horton, chief engineer, state department of
health at Albany ?
Doctor Eva Ns. Theodore Horton 7 I know him.
Mr. Gould ER. A man of standing?
Doctor Evans. A man of standing.
Mr. Gould ER. Dr. Edward Clark, State board of health; George
H. Norton, deputy engineer commissioner, department of public
works of Buffalo. Do you know them?
Doctor Evans. No.
Mr. Gould ER. Dr. Francis T. Fronczak'?
Doctor Evans. Yes.
Mr. Gould ER. H. A. Whittaker, Minnesota State Board of Health?
Doctor Evans. I quoted from him to-day.
Mr. Gould ER. John W. Hill, Cincinnatiº
Doctor Eva Ns. I do not know him.
Mr. Gould ER. Doctor Bartow, of Urbana, Ill.' '
Doctor Evans. Now of Iowa City. Yes.
*>,
1528 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. GouldFR. Those men in the list whom you do know, either in
person or by reputation, are men of standing in this profession?
Doctor Evans. That is correct. -
Mr. GOULDER. Let me call your attention to these names. Mr.
George W. Fuller, of New York City.
Doctor Evans. I know him very well.
Mr. GouldFR. That was one of the men that sat with and acted
with Hering?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. GouldFR. Prof. Earle B. Phelps, United States Public Health
Service.
Doctor Evans. A man of ability and standing.
Mr. GouldF.R. Lea, of Montreal?
Doctor Evans. I don’t know him.
Mr. GouldFR. Lafronaye, of Quebec }
Doctor Evans. I know him.
Mr. GOULDER. Do you know that these last-named ones worked
with the International Joint Commission of the United States and
Canada on the subject of the treatment of sewage, including dilution?
Doctor Evans. I don’t know that I know it, but I think that it is
uite probable. I would be quite willing to accept your statement that
they did. I suppose that some of them were on the boundary waters
commission.
Mr. GouldFR. They were, Doctor.
Mr. BARRETT. While they confined themselves to border waters,
they treated the subject generally. -
Mr. BoycE. Do you mean that the International Joint Commission
took up the subject of the best means of sanitation? :-
Doctor Evans. Yes, sir.
Mr. BoxcE. But it was not embraced in the treaty 2
Mr. MoRGAN. What was the object of taking it up at that date so
far as it related to the international commission?
Mr. GouldFR. The question of border waters was mentioned under
a reference. It says here “Second branch of the reference.” That
was a reference to this joint commission.
Mr. MoRAN. What reference is that, again; Mr. Goulder?
Mr. GouldFR. To the International Joint Commission.
The following questions were submitted by the Government of the United
States and the Dominion of Canada to the International Joint Commission
under date of August 1, 1912:
To what extent and by what causes and in what localities are the boundary
waters of the United States and Canada polluted so as to be injurious to the
public health and unfit for domestic or other uses?
That would exclude Chicago, as Lake Michigan is not a border
Water. sº
Mr. MoRGAN. That is what I was thinking.
Mr. GouldFR. But it had to do with the subject, as you see from
the next paragraph. They say that that would apply anywhere and
not necessarily be confined to the limit and scope of the other sites
that they examined.
Mr. BoycE. Did it enter into the question of diversion?
Mr. GouldFR. No. They were to say this:
In what way or manner, whether by the construction of operation of simple
drainage canals or plants, is it possible or advisable to prevent the pollution of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1529
these waters, and by what means or arrangements can the proper construction
Or Operation of remedial or preventive work, or any System or method of render-
ing these waters sanitary and suitable for domestic and other purposes be best
secured and maintained in order to insure the adequate protection of all inter-
ests involved on both sides of the boundary and to fullfil the obligations in
Section 4.
In the engineers in their report and the commissioners in their re-
port say it has a border application, and the same thing would be true
wherever you go as to remedial or prevention work.
Mr. BoxcE. Congress is likely to adjourn at an early date, and
members of the committee should be in attendance upon the House
as far as possible, and I suggest that in order to bring the hearings
to a close, it is important that we confine ourselves to relevant
matters. I fail to see the relevancy of this question to any testimony
given by the doctor.
Mr. GouldFR. The doctor has said that dilution is far and away
the best and the presently accepted method of sewage treatment.
Mr. BoxcE. Did the International Joint Commission say anything
to the contrary?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boy CE. Let us have that.
Mr. GouldFR. I read this: -
It is feasible and practicable without imposing an unreasonable burden
upon the offending communities to prevent or remedy pollution both in the
case of boundary waters and crossing the boundary : (a) In the case of city
sewage this can best be accomplished by suitable collection and treating.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Goulder, doesn’t that deal with the subject of
the pollution of the waters? It doesn’t make a comparison between
the systems of dilution and modern scientific methods.
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes; it does. It says:
The engineering investigations were naturally and necessarily much less
detailed than WOuld be those in Connection with a city about to construct new
ones. They were, however, in sufficient detail to develop feasible and workable
plans for the collection and treatment of their sewage. \
In another case they give preference. For instance, saying:
While realizing in certain cases the passage of crude sewage into boundary
waters may be without danger, it is our judgment that effective sanitary
administration requires the adoption Of a general policy that no untreated
sewage from cities or towns shall be discharged into the boundary waters.
It don't make any difference whether it is boundary water or some
other water. *
Where some pollution is inevitable and where the ratio of the volume of
water to the Sewage is large, it is our judgment that the method of sewage
disposal by dilution represents a natural resource, and the utilization of
this resource is justifiable for economic reasons, providing that an unreason-
able burden of responsibility is not placed upon any water purification plant
and no menace to the public life is occasioned thereby. -
Doctor Evans. I think that I can answer that.
Mr. Gould ER. Let me finish. -
After a great deal of consideration the COmmission has, in view of all the
circumstances of the case, come to the conclusion that the communities
responsible for the discharge of raw sewage into them.' should purify it to the
extent that the safe loading of the purification plant shall not be exceeded.
91739–24—PT 2—81 * , * s . . . ;
f
&
1530 ILLINo.1s AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. BoycE. In the case under consideration it does not appear
that Chicago has emptied any sewage into any of the boundary.
waters, or ; Lake Michigan itself, which doesn’t come within the
meaning of boundary waters. -- • .
Mr. Got LDER. That is true; but my point is—for what it is worth-
that the witness proposes that dilution is the best way; that the others
are mere substitutes and are not so good. The point of my cross-
examination is to show—and I will file the report of the committee
when my time comes to offer evidence—that there are ways, and
better ways, and that the dilution and introduction of raw sewage
stands under the condemnation of the profession. - -
That is all, Doctor. -
Doctor Evans. I think that I can save time by just answering it,
so long as the point has been raised, and since the gentleman is quite
confused.
He asked me awhile ago if this sewage was deposited in the canal
as raw sewage; which is correct, of course, but it is not deposited in
the lake as raw sewage, nor is it deposited in the lake at all. It is
diverted from the lake. -
I know most of the gentlemen, and I know of that report. It is
Quite clear from the reading of it, as Judge Goulder read it, what
they were talking about. They were advising that no raw sewage,
untreated sewage, should be put in boundary waters, particularly
boundary waters that were to be very soon thereafter used as a source
of drinking water. a * -
Now, there isn’t any doubt at all but that that conclusion on that
point is correct. The commission found against it and said that
the treatment of sewage was preferable to depositing raw, untreated
sewage in waters used for drivking supplies. --- *
At the time this report was written we were hearing of another
method of treatment of sewage that they perhaps had some thought
of. It was particularly considered in the Canadian sources. That
was sterilization, chemical sterilization of sewage. So-called purifi-
cation is preferred over chemical sterilization. -
I quite agree with everything he has read there. It does not alter
a particle of what I have said. Unquestionably sewage should be
treated by the activated sludge method or the Imhoff tank method,
sprinkling filter method, or some other method before that sewage
should be put into Lake Michigan or any other body of water used
for drinking purposes. Unquestionably it is better to treat it the
way they have indicated there than to chemically sterilize it. There
isn’t any question about that. -
The question of disposing of sewage according to the method that
we employed in Chicago was not considered by those gentlemen at
all. There was no reason why it should have been considered.
It doesn’t apply to any boundary water anywhere whatsoever. Of
the various methods that they were comparing, I quite agree that the
method that they recommend is the better. : '
As I talked this afternoon I said that the proof I was offering
was the reduction in the death rate; that the discussion of the tech-
nical engineering features would be by others. -
I am simply going to offer this common-sense thing. The points
that Mr. Goulder did not seem to get straight was this: We put
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1531
the raw sewage into the canal. Our whole purpose is to keep that
sewage out of Lake Michigan. We proceed upon the theory, that the
method of keeping feces, urine, and typhoid fever out of the water
is better than any method of putting it in and then removing it
from the water. That is a simple way to put it. - . . .
Mr. Gou LDER. Is this not an equally simple way to put it: You
can or you can not treat Sewage without dilution and effectively
treat it ! That is a simple question. I understand you to have said
that you couldn’t do it sufficiently and do it well except by diversion.
Therefore the water should be furnished, taken out of a navigable
stream and furnished and run down in order that it does not spoil
the territory below. -
Doctor Eva Ns. I hope, gentlemen, that none of the balance of yout
understood me that way, because that was not what I said. The
places like Milwaukee that purify their sewage are getting fairly
good results—quite good results. Other places where the sewage
is being purified by these chemical and bacteriological methods com-
bined they are getting very good results. My statement was that
we were getting better results. I think that was clear to all of you
gentlemen—that we claim we have the best method because we get
the best results. . . . -
Mr. MoRGAN. Judged from the health standpoint %
Doctor Eva Ns. From the health standpoint. Somewhat inci-
dentally I did refer to engineering features; but I said to you, if you
will recall, that those features would be much more authoritatively
covered by others. -
I think that Milwaukee, is doing very well, but I would hate to
have Chicago forced back to the Milwaukee typhoid level. We are
doing better. That is my statement. I wish that they could do like
we do. I wish that Cleveland could, and I think that Cleveland
will wish so, too, some day. They have a good method, but we have
a better one.
Mr. GouldFR. One other question: As a general proposition, is it
not now held that none of the water in the Great Lakes is fit in its
raw state for drinking and cooking purposes? - : * *
Doctor Eva Ns. No: that is not correct. Of course, it is not cor-
rect as to cooking purposes, nor is it correct for drinking purposes.
Mr. GouldF.R. Do you know whether it is a fact that every ship of
any size on the Great Lakes is required to have a distillation plant,
no matter where she takes her water from in the Great Lakes—the
middle of Lake Superior or anywhere else?
Doctor Evans. I know that that is the law, and I know how it
came to be the law. I had something to do with having it made
the law. - -
In 1910. about, we organized the Lake Michigan Water Com-
mission. That was organized out of my office. We found that
about the worst offenders around were the lake carriers. You will
find a report on the lake carriers and their practices in the report
of the Lake Michigan Water Commission.
An investigation was made by Doctor Cobb, marine hospital,
Public Health Service, located in Chicago. He investigated the
methods of the lake carriers and made a report, I should say, about
1911—somewhere along in there—in which he showed that the men
employed on the lake carriers had a higher typhoid rate than the
1532 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
‘communities from which those men were drawn and that it was
quite plain that their methods were faulty. -
e investigated those methods and found that they were in the
habit of taking water into the containers, into the tanks, while
still in the harbors.
He found that there was no limitation upon the discharge of
Sewage from the steamers and from their crews and passengers
whilst in the immediate vicinity of the ports, not only for Chi-
*# but for other cities.
The information that he gathered was supplemented by informa-
tion that came from other sources. For instance, several epidemics
of typhoid fever of considerable proportions on the Northland and
other boats. A number of years ago at Sault Ste. Marie there
was some interference with traffic there, and a great many boats—
about 200—were held up there for two or three days. At the ex-
piration of the two or three day period an epidemic of typhoid
}. broke out in Sault Ste Marie. They had a considerable num-
ber of deaths, and that was investigated, and it was found that
these boats had very badly polluted the water.
Subsequently another investigation was conducted and it was
found that after the boats had cleared out and the waters had a
chance to purify themselves that the water was not unusable, that
it was a pretty good grade of water. ... : " -
As a result of this information which came from several different
sources, the Federal Government imposed certain restrictions on the
Lake carriers, and I feel pretty certain from what I know that most
of the Lake carriers are living up pretty well to the restrictions
imposed by the Federal Government. Most of the impetus for these
restrictions came from Chicago and investigations in that vicinity.
They were found to have been pretty bad offenders in this typhoid
matter.
They are required to desist from emptying their sewage within a
certain distance of water intakes. They are required to have water
sterilizers on board. Those are matters of Government provision.
At the same time I don’t think they are quite up to the standards
that are imposed on the railroad carriers as yet, and not up to the
standards that are imposed in Canada. If I am correctly informed,
the boats in Canadian cities are only allowed to load their water
tanks from approved municipal supplies. That is quite true in
Toronto. n
Mr. GouldFR. That is true everywhere.
Doctor Evans. It is not true. They take water out of the various
lakes, but they are required to sterilize that water with the violet
rays or other apparatus.
Mr. GouldFR. When they take it from a port, they take it from an
approved city Source. - , ', ! . . . . ;
Doctor Eva NS. I think that is correct. That is one of the abuses
we found to exist, that they would take water right in the harbor—
the harbor water. Now they are allowed to take water out in the
lake. - -
...That leaves a part of your question unanswered, and that is as to
the safety of the great body of water out in Lake Michigan and Lake
Superior. That water is still safe enough to drink and probably
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1533.
will be. possibly, for all time; certainly it will be for a great many
years to come, away from the dead ends, such as the lower end of
Lake Michigan. At the lower end of Lake Michigan, from Chicago
to Indiana Harbor, the water is too badly polluted.
Mr. GovIDER. Now, Doctor, you spoke very freely on that subject
of the lake carriers being offenders. Do you know, or don’t you,
whether the lake carriers, at the request of the health department,
and Doctor Cobb, who represented the health department on the
lake, adopted a system of disposition and put several hundred dol-
lars’ worth of machinery on board each boat when the law did not
require that they should do it?
Doctor Evans. I know this angle of it
Mr. GouldFR (interposing). Can you answer my question ? Do
you know whether or not they did that without any requirement of
law and upon the request of the health department?
Doctor Evans. I can not answer that question. Doctor Cobb is
with the United States Health Service. I know that I took it up
with lake vessels myself, and on no occasion until the United States
Public Health Service proffered a request did I get any action. I
am quite ready to believe that the request from the United States
Public Health Service was more potent than my request.
Mr. Got LDER. You mean the Lake Carriers’ Association or the boat
owners?
Doctor Eva Ns. I should say boat owners.
Mr. GouldF.R. Not the Lake Carriers’ Association? You never
had any communication with them?
Doctor Evans. No.
Mr. Got LDER. One other question. There was for a long time in
each of the lakes what was called an immune or pure-water zone,
wasn't there, where any ship, Canadian or American, or any other
ship could take water for use in the galley and for drinking without
having any distillation. Do you know that? -
Doctor Eva Ns. No; I didn’t know that.
Mr. GOULDER. Do you know that afterwards, on fuller considera-
tion of this water pollution in the Lakes, it was concluded at a con-
ference and on request of the health department to abandon these
zones? That is, with the Lake Carriers' Association, representing
a large number of ships, that zone idea was abandoned. That was
not upon compulsion, but by common consent and agreement that
the water should be taken from certified sources in port, and any
water taken out in the lake should be taken under the direction of one
of the leading officers of the ship, and all water taken from any port
of the lake should be distilled or treated. - •
Doctor Eva Ns. Treated with ultraviolet rays.
Mr. GouldFR. Violet rays. Do you know that history?
Doctor Eva Ns. I do not.
Mr. Got LDER. Very well; then I suggest you ought not to speak of
these people as offenders—the people who are willing to do that.
Doctor EvaNs. I am speaking out of my own experience. I am
not speaking of the Lake Carriers’ Association, because I have never
had any contact with that orgranization; but I have had consid-
erable experience with boat operators in the Chicago Harbor and
I know what I am talking about as to that experience.
1534 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
I can quite understand that after they had put in apparatus that
everybody would agree that the thing to do was to use that appa-
ratus all the time rather than a part of the time. That is good sense.
Mr. GOULDER. I don't ask any credit for it, but I don’t like to
have our people criticized after we did that.
Mr. STRONG. Is there anything more, Mr. Goulder 2
Mr. Gour,DER. No. -
Doctor Eva Ns Before I leave I would like to offer these. Here
are some resolutions Gr, rather, communications from the Illinois
State Medical Society, signed by the president, to the chairman of the
committee having under consideration the regulation of the sanitary
district. - .
The health and well-being of fully 3,000,000 people in the city of Chicago
are dependent upon à ma ntenan -e of a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second
of water from Lake Michigan via the drainage canal. Surely there can be no
reason sufficiently important to counter}}alance the necessity of these 3,000,000
people for pure, whole one drinking water. I sincerely hope that your com-
mittee alm (l Congress will see the justice of this request an il the need for per-
mitting the Sanitary district to divert this amount of water through its canal
in order to safeguard the health of the Chicago population.
That is signed by Dr. Edward H. Ochsner.
And at the regular meeting of the Chicago Medical Society, held
Tuesday evening, April 8, 1924, a resolution was presented by Dr.
Emmet Keating, and formally adopted, which was as follows:
Whereas the Saliitary District of Chicago is seeking congressional sanction
for its diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second of water from Lake Michigan
at Chicago, and various legislative measures are now pending in the Senate
and House of Representatives of the United States through which such diver-
sion may be secured; and . . . . . . **
Whereas the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois
has issued an injunction restraining the sanitary district from diverting more
than 4,167 cubic feet per second of water, but has provided by its Order that
such injunction shall not become operative until the case has been decided by
the Supreme Court of the United States; and -
Whereas the provisions of the act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois,
under which the sanitary district was Organized and is now being Operated and
maintained, require for the disposal of sewage by dilution and for the protec-
tion of the municipal water supply from Contamination by Sewage that a
dilution of 3.33 cubic feet per second for every 1,000 people he maintained, and
the present population of the sanitary district on this hasis under the provisions
of said act now requires a flow of approximately 10,000 cubic feet per second ;
and -
Whereas expert investigation from engineering and sanitary standpoints has
conclusively shown that a flow of less than 10,000 cubic feet per second Would
result during certain periods of more or less frequent occurrence in a backing
up of the Chicago River into Lake Michigan and a consequent contamination
Of the city’s water Supply ; and
Whereas it is clearly established by the report of the commission of health
of the city of Chicago that such a polution of the city’s drinking Water Supply
would be immediately reflected in the death rate of the said city, through an
epidemic of typhoid fever and other diseases; and .
Whereas the death rate of the city of Chicago from typhoid fever, Owing to
the purity of its drinking water, according to the latest statistics, has been
decreased below 1 in 100,000 of population and is the lowest of any large city
in the United States ; and - -
Whereas the sanitary district has now under construction plants and Works
for the purification of sewage by modern sewage treatment methods, at a Cost
estimated at $28,000,000, and is as rapidly as possible within its constitutional
financial limitations doing everything in its power to carry out the program
adopted by the board of trustees of the santary district for the construction of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, Etc. 1 535
, the requisite number of sewage-treatment plants to take care of a population
of 4,252,000, which will entail the expenditure of approximately $105,000,000:
Now therefore be it - -
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Physicians' Fellowship Club that the
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second of water from Lake Michigan at Chi-
cago is necessary for the proper dilution of the sewage of this metropolitan
area and for the protection of Chicago's drinking-water supply, thereby safe-
guarding the health of the 3,250,000 inhabitants of the district and preventing
epidemics of typhoid fever and other diseases; and be it further
Resolved, That it is the desire of the Physicians' Fellowship Club that a legis-
lative measure providing for a flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second through
the main channel of the sanitary district immediately be given favorable con-
Sideration by Congress to the end that such flow may be secured to the district :
and it is further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be at once sent by the Secretary of
the Physicians' Fellowship Club to all Congressmen representing inhabitants of
the sanitary district and to the two Senators from Illinois; be it further
Resolved, That these resolutions be submitted to the council of the Chicago
Medical Society with the request for concurrence, and that the secretary of the
Chicago Medical Society notify the above Senators and Congressmen of the
action Of the Council.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t hear all of your
statement. You take the position, I presume, that 10,000 cubic feet
per second is absolutely necessary for the health of Chicago'
Doctor Eva Ns. I should say that 10,000 cubic feet per second is
absolutely necessary for that standard of health which we now have
in Chicago.
Mr. McDUFFIE. That is what I mean. That standard of health,
according to your statement this afternoon, is above the average,
probably better than any other lake city, and better than any other
large city in the United States, as I understood your statement.
Doctor Evans. We are disposed to claim that. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Any less amount than 10,000 cubic feet per second
would not permit you to maintain that high standard?
Doctor Evans. That is our contention, sir.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the doctor's
statement could be separated from the rest of this testimony, pub-
lished in a pamphlet by itself, instead of including it in the whole
testimony.
Mr. HULL. You can do that.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The doctor's statement, so far as typhoid germs are
concerned, is the most interesting and informing one that I have
heard, and it has occurred to me that it would be very well to have
that not only in your library but it would be a very good document
to send down to the doctors of your district.
Mr. HULL. We can have that done.
Mr. McDUFFIE. That is the reason I would like to have it separated,
so that I can send out a few copies.
Mr. BARRETT. May I suggest this, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, that you permit Doctor Evans to edit this report in
his own way, so that when you get it you will have a complete treatise
on this. We will have him do that. -
Doctor Evans. I shall be very glad, gentlemen, to do anything I
CàI]. -
Mr. HULL. I make a motion that we have it made up in a separate
pamphlet after he has edited it.
1536 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. DEAL. I would like to offer a resolution:
Whereas these sessions of Congress are drawing to a close and there are
matters of vast importance to be acted upon, and whereas each Congressman
should post himself in some measure before casting his vote, and whereas the
question before this committee will not and Can not be acted upon during this
SeSSion : Therefore be it r
Resolved, That from this moment all witnesses be limited to 30 minutes
within which to present their testimony.
It may be more desirable and advisable that we fix a time at which
these hearings will be closed, and that that time be divided equally
and placed under the control of some person agreed upon, so that
we may handle that.
We have got two or three very important matters coming up. Per-
haps other members of the committee have posted themselves, may
have read the hearings on the subject and may be prepared to cast
their votes, but I haven’t read the hearings. {
Mr. NEwton. Did you understand that the Chicago people were
to finish to-morrow or to-morrow evening?
Mr. DEAL. I didn’t so understand.
Mr. BARRETT. They are going to finish to-morrow evening cer-
tainly, and sooner if possible. That is the reason for this hearing.
The committee was good enough to sit to-night so that we could do
that, and we are going to do everything we can.
Mr. NEwTo.N. If they can’t get it all in they will extend some of
their remarks.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Will there be any rebuttal testimony ?
Mr. NEw'TON. Mr. Goulder will know about that.
Mr. STRONG. I think, Mr. Deal, that after this long hearing we
are finally on a subject that is of the greatest importance to the
country, and I can not see that it would be right or that we would
be doing our duty to the country when men of exceptional ability
come here to testify before us in cutting them down. I think that
we should give them sufficient time to exhaust the subject. The
same on rebuttal, the same on the other side.
As I sat here listening to this gentleman I was thinking to myself
that if the experts on the two sides lock horns over an important
Question like that of the dilution of Waste, all we would have to do
would be to sit still and let them fight it out, and in the end we
would get something upon which we could base our judgment.
I don’t know of anything going on over in the Capitol that will
measure up in importance with what we are doing here.
Mr. DEAL. I quite agree with all you have said, and I want to give
these gentlemen every opportunity in the world to present their case.
I would be willing to stay here after Congress adjourns and give
them the time, but we are now in the closing days of the session, and
we have important measures there. While they may not be so im-
portant as this, they are important measures, and this question is not
going to be settled during this session of the Congress anyhow.
Mr. STRONG. Another thing, Mr. Deal, after the hearings are all
over and they are printed, then it is that those of us who want to get
to understand it necessarily must study the hearings, because there
is not one member of the committee who has been present during all
the hearings. . .
Mr. HULL. I have been here.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1537
Mr. STRONG. Yes; you have. I want to say that I feel that if I am
called over there and I want to go over to the Capitol to attend the
session, and you gentlemen want to sit here and permit these gentle-
men to make up their records, that is all right. They are here at
great expense.
Mr. MoRGAN. You will give us permission to leave at any moment.
|Laughter.]
Mr. NEwTox. What the members of the committee want is to get
all the information we can. Now, the opponents of the bill have
testified and finished with their primary case. Those in favor of
the diversion are testifying. They say that they can finish by to-mor-
row night. They may have to do some revising. The thing that will
help this committee most is if the two sides will sit down and read
these hearings and then come in and file supplemental reports, after
studying them, and each answer the other in the shortest possible
Space
Mr. DEAL. There is an immense amount of testimony in here. I
will withdraw the resolution that I just offered.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The chairman of this committee made a statement
at the outset that both sides would be heard as long as they wanted
to be heard. So far as I am concerned, while I must plead guilty of
not having been here all the time, I think that we ought to carry out
the suggestion made in the beginning. -- .
Mr. BARRETT. We have a man here who has had a wire from his
home that his father is very ill, and if it is agreeable, I would like
to have him take the stand at this time.
In order that the committee may know who he is, and for the record,
I will state that Horace P. Ramey is assistant chief engineer of the
Sanitary district. He is a graduate engineer, with a degree of civil
engineer from the University of Michigan, who has been with the
Sanitary district continuously since the time of his graduation. He
has been 17 years with the district and has had personal contact with
practically all of its operations during that time.
STATEMENT OF MR. HORACE P. RAMEY, CHICAGO, ILL.
Mr. RAMEY. I am going to state briefly what the sanitary district
has done in the past in the way of construction and operation of its
dilution project; what it has done in the way of experiments in the
way of artificial sewage treatment; what it has done in the way of
construction and operation of sewage-treatment plants; what is now
being done along this line and what is proposed for the future.
A statement of the real facts in the case may offset the impres-
sion that may have been made by the testimony given at the pre-
vious hearings implying that Chicago has been backward in adopt-
ing modern methods of Sewage disposal. &
The fact is that Chicago is the leader in such work; that the adop-
tion of the so-called modern method of sewage disposal is not a
policy of recent origin with the sanitary district, but it antedates
the adoption of such methods by any of the other Great Lakes cities:
and in artificial sewage treatment Chicago is many years ahead of
any city in the United States at all comparable with it in size.
This policy may be said to date back to 1890, when the main sani-
tary and ship canal was designed so as to have a capacity of 10,000
91739—24—PT 2—-82
1538 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
C. f. S. in compliance with section 23 of the sanitary district act of
May, 1889, which required that the channel should have a “size and
capacity to maintain a continuous flow throughout the same of not
less than 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, with a current of
not more than 3 miles per hour.”
This channel, according to the ratio of dilution required by the
same statute, namely, 3.33 c. f. s. for every 1,000 people, would dis.
pose of the sewage of 3,000,000 people, a figure which at that time
was estimated would be reached some time after 1920.
This channel was designed for 30 years in the future, the same
practice which is to-day followed in municipal and sanitary engi-
neering. Long before the 30 years had passed and before the human
population had increased to 3,000,000 (the capacity of the canal for
dilution), the sanitary district had begun the study of artificial
sewage treatment and the construction of sewage-treatment plants
to supplement the dilution project.
This study was begun in 1909, and in the first report made on the
subject in 1911 the chief engineer recommended the construction of
sewage-treatment plants. Elaborate study was required; trade
wastes were becoming a serious problem; the last canal of the dilu-
tion project (the Calumet-Sag Channel) was under construction;
then the World War came on. Everyone knows how that slowed
construction work and increased cost. It even stopped certain con-
struction work, and at times certain construction material was
unobtainable. -
After the war things moved faster, and to-day no one who knows
what progress is being made in Chicago on construction of sewage-
treatment projects and who desires to be fair will say that any com-
munity could do more.
All the facts are given in the booklet entitled “Memorandum for
the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army Concerning the
Drainage and Sewerage Conditions in Chicago and the Diversion of
10,000 c. f. s. from Lake Michigan at Chicago,” dated October, 1923.
This report describing the comprehensive plan which the sanitary
district had worked out for treating its sewage so as to render it
inoffensive and innocuous and at the same time reduce to a minimum
the quantity of water necessary for its dilution and transportation
was transmitted to the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army
in October, 1923. - -
All the facts are also given in two reprints of the memorandum of
October, 1923, both dated December, 1923, and both entitled “Memo-
randum Concerning the Drainage and Sewerage Conditions in Chi-
cago and the Diversion of 10,000 c. f. s. from Lake Michigan at
Chicago.”
To complete the record, here are copies of the memorandum fur-
nished to the Chief of Engineers and copies of the reprints dated
December, 1923. . -
These reprints are identical with the memorandum furnished to the
Chief of Engineers in October, 1923, except that on pages 35 to 51
has been added an appendix stating a few historical facts regarding
the diversion at Chicago, and on pages 53 to 82 is reprinted a review
written by Francis C. Shenehon, December, 1921, of the facts con-
cerning “The Withdrawal of Water, from the Great Lakes System
by the Sanitary District of Chicago.”
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1539
These booklets were reprinted because of the great demand for the
information contained in the original booklet. -
I want to call to the attention of the committee just a few of the
statements of fact in this memorandum :
On pages 3, 4, and 5 is a very brief statement of the conditions
leading up to the creation of the sanitary district. This has been
covered in other testimony by Judge Barrett.
On pages 6, 7, 8, and 9 is a description of the dilution project. It
is illustrated on the map folded in there as Exhibit A. I am not
going to discuss that, because that will be covered thoroughly by
other witnesses. -
At the top of page 10 is an itemized summary of the construction
cost of the dilution project. The total is practically $100,000,000.
This should be printed in the record. . .
(The summary in question is printed in full, as follows:)
st MMARY OF coxs'TRUCTION costs
This concludes the construction program of the sanitary district as regards
the disposal of sewage by dilution. Its cost may be summarized as:
Main drainage canal--------- - - --- $27,357, 668. 27
Des Plaines IRiver improvement------------------------------ 2, 333, 571. 72
Main channel extension------------------------------------- 3, 167, 003. 05
Chicago River improvement--------------------------------- 12, 903, 619, 48.
North Shore ('hannel__________________ _ _ _ . ––––––––––––––––– 4, 106,489. 84
Calumet-Sag Channel--------------------------------------- 14, 035, 529. 28.
Sewage pumping stations–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 804, 640. 93
Auxiliary sewers------------------------------------------- 833, 465. 87
Auxiliary Sewers-------------------------------------------- 833, 465. 87
North shore sewers---------------------------------------- – 2, 453,996. 55
Bare construction cost–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 68,808, 239.65
Administration, legal expense, Clerical expense, damages, etc. — 5, 765, 404. 33
Interest on bonds for Construction.-------------------------- 16, 313, 221.63
Expenditures by city of Chicago–––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––– 6, 706, 804. 37
Total------------------------------------------------ 97, 593, 669.98
In addition to the $97.593,669.98 expended for construction, the sanitary dis-
trict has expended some $11.434,857.95 on maintenance, administration, and
operation, bringing the total expenditures on account of the dilution project to
well over $100,000,000. - n
As a result of this expenditure, there is available a system of
canals and sewers which will for 365 days out of every year keep
the sewage of the Chicago district out of Lake Michigan, the source
of the municipal water supply. This system, if worked up to its
designed capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second of flow, will, at
the rate of dilution required by the State law, dispose of the sewage
of 3,000,000 people. -
Mr. DEAL. Does that include the stockyards?
Mr. RAMEY. That is the capacity of the channel. It will dispose
of the sewage of 3,000,000 people.
Mr. DEAL. I understand that the stockyards and these corn mills
are equal to another million people.
Mr. RAMEY. The stockyards waste is equal to about a million
people. - -
Mr. DEAL. That goes into the canal?
1540 ILLINCIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. RAMEY. That is going into the canal now, and the canal is
slightly overloaded. . . .
Mr. NEwToN. Do you have those corn-products plants in the city?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes; the corn-products plant is at Argo. -
Mr. NEwToN. Those plants are established down the river, too?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes; there is a large one at Pekin.
Mr. NEwToN. There are really none in the city proper?
Mr. RAMEY. No.
Mr. HULL. These are in the sanitary district?
Mr. RAMEY. They are in the sanitary district.
Mr. BARRETT. They are just a mile or two outside the limits of
Chicago. -
Mr. NEwToN. And they have more of them down the river ?
Mr. McDUFFIE. You say that these are in the Chicago district,
these corn plants, and the stockyards?
Mr. RAMEY. Just one.
Mr. McDUFFIE. And all their waste goes into this river?
Mr. RAMEY. At the present time.
Mr. NEwTON. There is no other place where it can go. is there?
Mr. McDUFFIE. There is no way to take care of it except putting
it in the river?
Mr. RAMEY. We have in contemplation a treatment plant to take
care of it. It is one of the projects to be built in the not distant
future.
Mr. NEwTON. As a matter of fact, the waste from these plants is
harder to handle than any kind of waste from the sewage plants in
the city?
Mr. RAMEY. I understand that it is.
Mr. NEwTON. The stockyard is equal to a million. What does
the waste from the corn plant equal? r
Mr. HULL. About 350,000, I think.
Mr. PEARSE. It depends on the grinding. It would run from
350,000 to 400,000 people.
Mr. HULL. Then, your waste from the stockyards and the corn-
products plant alone would be about a million and a half?
Mr. BARRETT. We have figured a million, six hundred thousand,
or a million seven hundred thousand from the known waste, the
tanneries, the Argo plant, and the stockyards. -
Mr. RAMEY. All those figures are given on page 24 of this memo-
rândum. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. Is most of that waste deleterious to fish life?
Mr. RAMEY. I don’t know about that.
Mr. HULL. I think the corn products are the most deleterious of
anv. We have one at Pekin. :
Mr. McDUFFIE. This river and canal seem to be the sewer for in-
dustry as well as the whole city of Chicago.
Mr. NEwTON. Yes; and for about a dozen cities in Indiana.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It looks to me as if they want to make it a common
sewer for the whole territory up there. If it is destroying fish life
and making it unpleasant for the people on the lower river r . *
Mr. NEwton. Hull wants to put it in the Wabash River.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1541
Mr. RAMEY. There are just 49 incorporated cities and villages in
the sanitary district outside of the city of Chicago. There are 50
all in Illinois, including Chicago. .
Mr. DEAL. Adding an increased population? -
Mr. RAMEy. That is all included in the total population of 3,200,000-
Mr. BARRETT. And, of course, everything on the Illinois River is
the same. -
Mr. RAMEY. We will come to that.
The main drainage canal was constructed as a sanitary and ship
canal and the Chicago River was improved in such a way as to make
it navigable to ships plying the Great Lakes. Navigation features
added considerably to the cost of the Calumet-Sag Channel. A study
of the construction costs of the dilution project indicates that if the
channels had all been constructed of their present flow capacity, with
the same ultimate flow capacity of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds for the
main outlet, with navigation features omitted, there could have been
effected a saving of $8,500,000. This is the amount the Sanitary dis-
trict has contributed to the cost of the navigable waterway. .
If in the beginning the amount of diversion from Lake Michigan
had been determined and fixed at 4,167 cubic foot-seconds, and the
sanitary district had constructed the various branches of the dilution
project as they were built, but of a total ultimate capacity of 4,167
cubic foot-seconds, instead of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds, with no navi-
gation features, there could have been effected a saving of $25,300,000.
The diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago benefits navigation
in the Mississippi Valley. A flow of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds
through the drainage canal will not only raise the low-water stage of
the Illinois River, but will raise the low-water stage of the Mississippi
River between St. Louis and Cairo approximately 11% feet. To in-
crease and maintain the low-water depth of the Mississippi River at
this place by any other means would cost the Federal Government
many millions of dollars.
Mr. McDUFFIE. There is about 10,000 feet going in there now Ż
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
Mr. McDUFFIE. And it is that much higher by virtue of it going
in there !
Mr. RAMEY. Yes. That is on the discharge curve of the Missis-
sippi at St. Louis.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Ramey, aren't you a little mistaken about 1.5 feet?
Isn’t it 3 feet {
Mr. RAMEY. This is the Mississippi between St. Louis and Cairo.
The Illinois River would be raised more, of course.
The result of the operation of the dilution project has been all
that could be expected. Though continually attacked in previous
testimony before this committee, it requires no defense. It stands
on its record and vindicates the engineers on the drainage and water
supply commission who recommended its adoption back in 1887.
It is not an antiquated process, and is a process such as is used to-day
to its limit by every city located on a water course. -
Water-borne diseases have been practically eliminated in Chicago.
The death rate from typhoid fever is the best measure of these re-
sults. The rate in Chicago has declined from a maximum of 172
per 100,000 population in 1891 to 1 per 100,000 population in 1922.
1542 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Credit for the total decrease in typhoid fever death rate should not
be given entirely to the operation of the dilution project or the
drainage canal. Up-to-date sanitary science has lessened the rate
in all cities. By the amount the Chicago rate has decreased more
than the rate of other large cities can the effect of the dilution project
be measured.
Exhibit B in the memorandum is a tabulation of statistics of the
typhoid fever death rate in Chicago and nine other large cities, three
of which are adjacent to the Great Lakes.
These figures indicate that the average yearly death rate per
100,000 population for the 10-year period from 1890 to 1899, in-
clusive, the 10 years immediately preceding the opening of the
drainage canal, was 64.4 for Chicago and 38.5 for the group of nine
cities, Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, New York,
Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington. The average yearly rate
for the past three years, 1920 to 1922, inclusive, was 1.1 for Chicago
and 3.5 for the group of nine cities. Chicago's rate is now 1.7 per
cent of what it was prior to 1900. The average rate of nine other
large cities is now 9.1 per cent of what it was prior to 1900.
Mr. DEAL. How many large cities are there in the United States
that have disposal plants other than water dilution? * *
Mr. BARRETT. Can you wait for Mr. Pearse? He is our sanitary
engineer, and he has all those figures at his fingers’ ends.
Mr. RAMEY. I would like to have Exhibit B, which is published
opposite page 13, printed in the record. That is a table showing the
comparisons of the typhoid fever death rates of large cities. I show
Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, New
York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Washington, and the average of nine
cities, as well as Chicago.
(The table in question is printed in full as follows:)
ExHIBIT B
Typhoid fever death rate per 100,000 population

Average yearly rate for periods
Popula-
City tion
* 1890-1894.1895–1899.1900–1904/1905-1909/1910–1914|1915–1919.1920–1922
Baltimore------------------- 733, 826 44. 0 36. 6 36.8 34.4 27. 6 14.4 4. 7
Boston---------------------- 748,060 32, 4 32. 0 23.0 18.2 9. 1 3.4 2. ()
Cleveland------------------- 796,841 50, 6 32. 6 56.8 15. 2 12. 1 5, 6 2.9
Detroit --------------------- 993, 678 43.4 19. 2 22.0 21, 6 18.2 10.3 5.4
Milwaukee------------------ 457, 147 32.0 17. 6 17. 4. 23.0 22. 0 7.5 2. 2
New York------------------ 5, 620,048 21. 6 17. 4 17.0 14.4 9.3 4. 1 2. 3
Philadelphia ---------------- 1,823, 779 50.2 45.8 49, 2 48. 4 13.9 5.9 2.8
St. Louis-------------------- 772,897 48. 4 20.4 39.0 18.0 14.2 7. 9 3. 5
Washington.----------------- 437, 571 86.2 64.8 63. 2 41.6 18.4 10. I 6.1
Average of 9 cities-----|---------- 45.4 31.8 36.0 26, 1 16. 1 7.7 3. 5
Chicago--------------------- 2,701, 705 92.2 36. 6 29, 2 16. 6 10. 1 2.9 1. I
Much has been said about the water-power development at the
end of the sanitary and ship canal. It has even been claimed that the
only reason a diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds is requested for
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1543
Chicago is that it may be used in the development of power. The
Government engineers, however, refute this statement.
On page 193 of Colonel Warren’s report on the diversion of water
from the Great Lakes and Niagara River is a statement: “At the
downstream end of the Chicago Drainage Canal 6,800 cubic feet
of water per second are on the average used in the production of
hydroelectric power. The use of this water is secondary and inci-
dental to its primary use in diluting the sewage of Chicago under the
present disposal system.” The average flow in the sanitary canal in
1917 was 8,726 cubic foot-seconds. According to Warren’s figures
only 87 per cent of this was used for power.
In the 4-mile reach below the Lockport controlling works the
water flowing from the main channel dropped approximately 34
feet. Much potential power was running to waste during the first
few years of operation of the canal. The sanitary district act was
amended in 1903, further authorizing the development of this power
and the furnishing of the energy generated therefrom to munici-
palities within the district. Between 1904 and 1907 the main
drainage canal was extended over this 4-mile reach, the fall con-
centrated in one spot, and a power house installed for the develop-
ment of water power.
The water power is merely a by-product, and it conserves some-
thing that otherwise would be wasted. Colonel Warren is right
when he states that the use of this water for power is a secondary
use. No water has ever been used for power that was not diverted
and needed for sewage dilution according to the statutory ratio of
3.33 cubic foot-seconds for each 1,000 of population. The power
is used in operating the electrically driven sewage pumping stations
and the machinery in the Sewage-treatment plants of the sanitary
district itself and for street lighting in the city of Chicago and
other municipalities within the sanitary district, to whom it is
furnished at cost. The small amount of day load, originally sold to
commercial consumers to balance the load curve, is now being
dropped as rapidly as possible, and the sanitary district is using
more and more of this current in its own plants as they are com-
pleted and put in service from time to time. . Ultimately the sani-
tary district will require the total output of its Lockport, power
plant for its own use and will have to buy additional power besides.
For the operation of pumping stations and the sewage-treatment
plants now being constructed under the program outlined in this
memorandum some 30,000 horsepower will be needed on an aver-
age, with a peak-load, demand of 50,000, horsepower, and about
30,000 horsepower is all that could be obtained at Lockport.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The power generated by this 8,000 or 10,000 cubic
feet which is now being diverted is used wholly within the sani-
tary district, is it? -
Mr. RAMEY. It is.
The theoretical power at Lockport with a 34-foot head and a
flow of the designed capacity of the main channel, 10,000 cubic
foot-seconds, making allowance for water for lockage and to regu-
late flow, is approximately 36,000 horsepower, or 27,000 kilowatts.
1544 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI REVERs, ETC.
With an overall efficiency of 80 per cent, the possible output would
be 21,600 kilowatts. The actual output of this plant for the past 10
years has been — - º
Kilowatt hours
1918---------------------------------------------------------- 98,000, 000
1914------- - - ____ 107,000, 000
191?---------------------------------------------------------- 110,000, 000
1916 -- –— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 113,000, 000
1917------ - * -- - - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 119,000, 000
1918--------- - - - - - * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 120,000, 000
1919––––––––––– - - - - - - - - - sºme - - - - - - - 126,000, 000
1920------------------------------------------------------- ___ 121,000, 000
1921---------------------------------------------------------- 117, 000, 000
1922---------------------------------------------------------- 122, 551, 800
1%---------------------------------------------------------- 124, 084, 900
Mr. McDUFFIE. How much horsepower is that?
Mr. RAMEY. About 19,000 horsepower, on an average.
Mr. Boy CE. When was the sanitary district completed :
Mr. RAMEY. The sanitary district was organized in 1889.
Mr. BoycE. When was the canal completed?
Mr. RAMEY. The main channel was completed and opened in Jan-
uary, 1900.
Mr. BoxcE. How soon thereafter was there a diversion of 10,000
cubic per second? - "-
Mr. RAMEY. Well, there wasn’t a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet
per second until probably 15 years afterwards. When the canal
was first opened the water was diverted according to the State law,
which required so many second-feet per 1,000 inhabitants, and the
demand was less than 5,000 second-feet for the first few years.
When the canal was first opened the Chicago River was not im-
proved and there was a restriction as to the amount of water that
could be flowed through, and it was actually impossible at that
time to flow 10,000 second-feet through there.
Mr. Boyce. There was a time during the period of construction
that 10,000 cubic feet per second could not be diverted, because it
would interfere with navigation?
Mr. RAMEY. That was up until 1912, at which time the river im-
provement was practically completed.
Mr. BoycE. Was that about the time 10,000 cubic feet was first
diverted Ž
Mr. RAMEY. We didn’t reach 3,000,000 population until after
1920, and our State law did not require the dilution of 10,000 feet
up until that time.
Mr. BoycE. I understand it is not denied that 10,000 cubic feet
per second is being diverted at this time?
Mr. RAMEY. Oh, no; it is not denied.
Mr. BARRETT. We are flowing that now and have been for some
time. There is one part of our canal not yet completely in oper-
ation.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The more your population increases the more
power you are going to need?
Mr. RAMEY. No. The capacity of this channel is 10,000 second-
feet: “We can’t get any more through it. - -
Mr. McDUFFIE. You can’t divert more than 10,000 cubic feet,
even if you desire to do so?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1545
Mr. RAMEY. No; we can not, unless the lake would go up a foot
or two, in which case we could divert a little more.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Is that 10,000 cubic feet per second furnishing
all the power that is being used, or have you steam plants? "
Mr. RAMEY. No; it is not furnishing all the power being used.
We have pumping stations operated by steam, and one stand-by.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I mean the electrical power, of course.
Mr. RAMEY. No–I didn’t quite get that.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I want to know whether or not this water that
is being diverted now is making power sufficient for your needs
within the sanitary district, and does it make all the power that
you use, electric power, or have you some steam plants generating
power
Mr. RAMEY. Well, it makes just about enough to operate the
present plants of the sanitary district, but some of these plants are
steam plants. They were built as steam plants before we had this
power plant and are still operating.
Mr. STRONG. I understand you are talking about the plant that
you operated within the district. Did I understand you to say that
they were using some of that electricity to light the city of Chicago?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes; and some of it to operate our newer electrically
driven pumping stations. I say that ultimately the district will
require all the power generated at Lockport. -
Mr. McDUFFIE. That is what I was trying to get at. Isn’t the
district requiring all now, and won’t you require more than it can
possibly generate in the future?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. And we will have to go outside and buy it?
Mr. RAMEY. I made the statement that we would have a peak load
demand of 50,000 horsepower, and 30,000 is the most that can be
generated at Lockport.
Mr. NEwTON. The purposes of the district require as much elec-
tricity as is produced by the water going through the canal? You
are using some electricity made by steam in operating your district,
and you are letting out some electricity to the municipality?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes. -
Mr. NEwTON. But if you abolish your steam plant, you won’t
have any more electricity manufactured through the diversion than
you actually need and use in the district?
Mr. RAMEY. That is correct.
Mr. NEWTON. And as your flow increases from time to time with
your 10,000 cubic feet, it will be necessary, even taking all the elec-
tricity used for purposes other than the sanitary district, and divert-
ing that to operating the district—it would still be necessary to go
outside and secure some electricity ?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwToN. So that none of the electricity will be sold in the
market?
Mr. RAMEY. No.
Mr. McDUFFIE. May I ask another question? I would like to
know how much power the district is selling annually. What do
you get annually for the sale of power generated by this water that
is diverted now, other than what you use for your own purposes'
1546 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. RAMEY. That is a matter of bookkeeping. We have one de-
partment there, the electrical department, that sells that power to
the engineering department.
Mr. NEwTon. But the engineering department is a part of the
sanitary district? w
Mr. RAMEY. It is a part of the sanitary district.
Mr. McDUFFIE. The lighting of the streets is not a part of your
sanitary work?
Mr. RAMEY. No.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I want to know how much you are getting for
the power you are selling over and above that necessary to run your
district.
Mr. BARRETT. The reason that we are not able to answer that
question is this: That never occurred to us. It is all bulked. What
they sell from the electrical department to the engineering division
is charged on the books. What they sell on the outside is not kept
separate in our figures. We will have to wire to get what you want
to know, which is how much we are selling to the city of Chicago,
and what it produces, and what we are selling to the park boards and
what it produces. We don’t have those figures here. All our figures
are bulked. I understand, according to the method of bookkeeping,
if one division of the organization obtains power it is charged on
the books. We will have to separate those figures for you.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Well, you can put it in the record at any time
before it is printed if it is convenient.
Mr. RAMEY. The total on the books shows about $1,000,000 that
is produced one way or another, either from outside sources or any
others. That is gross.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Annually?
Mr. RAMEY. Annually. That comes in from our own organization
and goes on the books, as well as that which comes from the parks
and the city. What percentage comes in from the parks and the
city of Chicago I don't know. I will put those figures in.
Mr. McDUFFIE. In short, the river is producing $1,000,000 of
power?
Mr. RAMEY. According to the way they handle it on our books.
Mr. BARRETT. That is the gross. It is the total amount. It has
not the cost of production deducted.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Oh, no. I was sure of that.
Mr. RAMEY. The average annual gross income has been $845,000
for the years 1908 to 1923, inclusive. The maximum gross income for
one year has been $1,083,600, which was in the year 1919. I don’t
know how much of that came from the city of Chicago and how much
from the engineering department of the Sanitary District.
b Mr. NEwton. I think it is important that that statement should
e put in.
Mr. HULL. I think that you ought to show, while you are at it,
what the real expense is. -
Mr. RAMEY. There isn’t any actual profit or expense.
hº HULL. There is some expense in generating this power, isn't
there? - • ,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1547
Mr. NEWTON. Well, the Government doesn’t get anything by sell-
ing electricity from the State Department to the Department of
Commerce.
Mr. HULL. Isn’t there some expense in generating this?
Mr. NEwTo.N. As I understand it, they have an electrical depart-
ment that belongs to the sanitary district, and the electrical depart-
ment sells electricity to the other departments. They take it out
of one pocket and put it in another.
Mr. RAMEY. It is sold at cost, and we sell it to Chicago at cost.
Mr. HULL. As I understand it, you are not to-day generating any
more electricity than you need if you applied it all to the work of
the ºnitary district, although you do sell some to the city of Chi-
Cago? -
Mr. RAMEY. We are not producing any more than we would need.
Mr. HULL. But you do have some steam plants and that makes
it possible to sell some to the city. . -
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
Mr. HULL. I think that you ought to put in a statement that shows
that fact.
Mr. RAMEY. That shows the disposition of the power? .
Mr. HULL. In other words, if the sanitary district is generating
power and selling it for a profit and speculating on the electricity,
this committee ought to know it.
Mr. BARRETT. You can be absolutely sure that there is nothing
like that. Our machines with which the power is generated are
not big enough to take care of our present flow. I think that they
only use about 6,700 cubic second-feet.
Mr. WISNER. I think they are large enough to take care of our
present flow under present conditions. We have not always been
able to use all the water for power purposes. Congressman Newton
is right. We are using considerable power for our own purposes.
Up to the time we commenced installing these sewage disposal
plants we did not need it, and it was there, and it was used for
lighting city streets, the parks, and other municipal corporations
within the city, the public library, the county building, the city
hall, and that power was sold to the city at cost.
Now, as we build these plants and have need for the electricity
for our own use, we are doing away with outside customers and
bringing it in to the sanitary district, but in the meantime not
letting it go to waste.
Mr. NEwTON. As you have increased, the Government has de-
manded that you build these treatment plants.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. And every time you build one you need more elec-
tricity? *
Mr. WISNER. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. And after a while you will consume all of the
electricity you are producing?
Mr. WISNER. And then some. Maybe twice, at the peak load,
what we can generate. º e -
Mr. HULL. You have not made any profit out of your electricity—
you sold it at cost? - -
1548 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. WISNER. We sold it at cost. With this exception: At the be-
ginning we had no municipal load to speak of except city lighting.
As you gentlemen know, we do not need to run electric lights in
the day time. This water was going 24 hours a day. We did sell
Some of that upon a commercial scale.
Mr. NEwTON. During the day time?
Mr. WISNER. During the day time, and any surplus we had at
night, on which we did make a profit for a few years, but as we
gradually got away from this commercial custom. I think we are
making no profit, and are just breaking even.
Mr. McDUFFIE. You are not selling any commercially now?
Mr. WISNER. We are selling very little, if any. If there are any
commercial customers left, they are those whose contracts extend
into some future period. We are making no new commercial con-
tracts.
Mr. McDUFFIE. I think it very well to have those figures in the
record covering the operation of the power derived from this river.
May I ask how long, if you know, or let your statement show, how
long your gross income from power generated by this stream has
been approximately $1,000,000 per annum. In other words, it may
be well to make it from the installation of your power plant, if
possible, and trace it on up to 1923, in order that the committee may
be able to answer any questions which may be asked if this matter
should get to the floor, as to whether or not it is being sold for
commercial purposes, or whether it is a fight between power and
either end of Lake Michigan.
Mr. RAMEY. I have said that the gross annual income was $845,000,
which is the average from 1908 to 1923. The maximum was the
other figure I gave you, $1,083,600 for the year 1919. I thought
that I had covered the point just raised when I said that the small
amount of day load, originally sold to commercial consumers to
balance the load curve, is now being dropped as rapidly as possible
and the sanitary district is using more and more of this current
in its own plants as they are completed and put in service from
time to time.
The gross income derived from the operation of the Lockport
power plant has been approximately $1,000,000 per annum for the
past 10 years. The cost of maintenance and operation is now and
for some years past has been approximately the same amount,
$1,000,000 per year. There has been no actual profit to the sanitary
district since the plant started—and certainly no saving of $1,000,-
000 per year.
At the present time the gross revenue of about $1,000,000 per
year is derived from the following sources: City of Chicago for
street lighting, $350,000; other municipalities, parks, etc., $310,000;
engineering department of sanitary district, $90,000; commercial
consumers, $250,000. Seventy-five per cent of the income is de-
rived from municipalities and 25 per cent from commercial Con-
sumers. A little more than 80 per cent of the electricity is used by
municipalities and a little less than 20 per cent by commercial con-
Sunſler’S. - -
Mr. HULL. They are building a new lock at Lockport?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1549
Mr. HULL. Does that belong to the city or to the sanitary district 2
Mr. RAMEY. To the State of Illinois.
Mr. WISNER. It is on sanitary district property.
Mr. HULL. You will then cease to get power from that :
Mr. RAMEY. There is no power through that lock, but they use a
certain amount of water. In stating the amount of power that
could be obtained from the Lockport plant I made an allowance
for water for lockage. g
} Mr. McDUFFIE. There.can't be any power generated at this new
ock 2
Mr. RAMEY. That is where our Lockport power plant is. Our
power plant will continue to operate, I hope, and this lock will be
alongside of it and take a certain amount of water.
Mr. McDUFFIE. It is just a lock in the dam :
Mr. HULL. The dam is there.
Mr. RAMEY. I stated that the output in 1923 was 124,000,000 kilo-
watt hours. The output of the Commonwealth Edison Co., operat-
ing within the Chicago city limits, for the year 1923 was 2,573.286,-
700 kilowatt hours, about 20 times the output of the sanitary dis-
trict plant. This is enough to show that the sanitary district is
not a factor in the power situation in Chicago.
Now, as to the flow through the Chicago Sanitary Canal. Many
questions have been raised as to the amount of the flow through the
Chicago Sanitary Canal. Prior to 1908 the flow through the canal
was regulated through sluice gates and over the bear-trap dam at
the old controlling works at the lower end of the canal just above
Lockport. The quantities of flow for these years were computed
by the ordinary formula for flow over weirs and through orifices,
and it is believed that these figures are correct within 1 or 2 per
cent.
Since 1908 much of the water has passed through the wheels of the
Lockport power house, a small amount has been used in operating
a lock at this place, and the balance has passed over a movable
dam built between the lock and the power house for regulating the
flow. This is at a point 2 miles downstream from the old con-
trolling works. The old controlling works are now used only
occasionally. -
The flow over the newer regulating dam is computed by the
ordinary weir formula and the figures are probably correct within
1 or 2 per cent. The quantity used for lockage and leakage is just
estimated and is subject to error, but its amount is a very small
part of the total flow, so that the percentage of possible error
in the total, due to this, is very small.
The bulk of the flow now is through the water wheels and is com-
puted as the turbine discharge. In the Lockport power house there
are seven main water-wheel units and three exciters driven by small
water wheels. Each of the main units consists of six runners, or
water wheels, mounted on one horizontal shaft. When the turbines
were purchased, one runner out of the six in each unit was tested
in the testing flume of the Holyoke Power Co. at Holyoke, Mass.
These tests were made under a head of 14 feet with the wheel operat-
ing on a vertical shaft; and the power output, discharge, and ef-
ficiency of the wheel were determined. When the six wheels were
1550 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
assembled as a unit on one horizontal shaft at Lockport it was as-
sumed that the efficiency of the whole unit was the same as the one
typical wheel tested and that the power output and discharge varied
with the head. -
The seventh and last unit was installed in 1911, installation being
completed October, 1911, and it was after this that the Holyoke tests
on all the units were worked up and curves and tables prepared from
which the discharge of the turbines could be computed. The curves
and tables, prepared between August 29, 1912, and October 18, 1912,
are used to this day, although we know that they give figures too
low, because the turbines have deteriorated with age and their ef-
ficiencies have gradually become less. We have made no change in
this method, because we do not know how much this change has been,
and no engineer can tell.
The figures for flow have been furnished regularly to the United
States district engineer in Chicago and to other interested parties,
when requested, and always with an explanation of how they were
derived. -
The figures for 1908, 1909; and 1910, worked up before the turbine
discharge curves were derived, which was in 1912, said figures show-
ing only the flow over the dams at Lockport and not including the
flow through the turbines, were evidently furnished to the United
States district engineer at Chicago when and as computed in those
years, because these figures are shown in Colonel Warren’s report,
on page 176. The turbine flow has been computed for these years
and records of the same are available. - -
By the way, there are some figures talked about in all these hear-
ings for the flow in 1910. Those figures are just the flow over the
dam, and not the flow through the turbines. - -
Mr. HULL. Would that increase it, the flow through the turbines?
Mr. RAMEY. It would just about double it. On page 177 of
Colonel Warren’s report he speaks of the discharge through the
Chicago Drainage Canal, and says:
All the values of discharge given in the preceding paragraph are either
taken direct or derived from the figures subunitted by the chief engineer of
the sanitary district. It is believed that they are too small by 5 to 12 per
cent. The monthly averages of reported flow through the Main Canal have
been checked against the flow of the Des Plaines River at Joliet as measured
by the United States Geological Survey.
For the 34 months, March, 1915, to I)ecember, 1917, both inclusive, the
drainage-canal discharge, as computed from the discharge data of the Geo-
logical Survey, averages 12 per cent greater than as reported by the Sanitary
district, the excess for the month of maximum difference being 19 per cent
and for the minimum 5 per cent. Such measurements by the Geological
Survey are usually considered reliable within 2 or 3 per cent, with 5 per
cent an outside limit. The values given by the sanitary district, on the other
hand, are Obtained by computing the discharge of turbines at the power
house and of flow over spillways. In computing turbine discharge the mal-
chine efficiency is assumed to be that shown by a new model wheel. Usually
turbines deteriorate with age and their efficiency becomes less, so that they
consume more water in producing a given amount of power. It is thought
that proper allowance has not been made for this factor. It is also believed
that the flow over the wasteways is somewhat greater than as given by the
formula used. -
Another reason for believing the sanitary district figures too small is that
they give smaller values for the flow on certain days in December, 1913,
than actual measurements by the United States Iake Survey.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1551
We agree with Colonel Warren. In fact, our conclusions have
been almost identical, and we submit the following as the flow
through the Chicago Sanitary Canal for the past 24 years.
This table shows in the first column the year, the second column
the population of the sanitary district, the third column the flow
authorized by State law, the fourth column the flow as actually
computed from these old Holyoke curves, and in the fifth column
a table of percentages which we have assumed, as Colonel Warren
assumed in his report, is the proper amount to increase the com-
puted values in order to get the actual value. It is the per cent of
increase due to loss of efficiency of the turbines. The last column
is the actual flow as corrected.
Flow in main channel, Sanitary District of Chicago
Increase
ſº * ... º Actual
* . . 1zed Ilow yearly OSS O *.
Yeal Population by state flow is efficiency tº ta
- law Computed of tur- COrrec
bines
Cubic feet | Cubic feet & Cubic feet
per second per second Per cent per second
1900----------------------------------------------- 1,640,000 5,467 2,990 - - - - - - - - - - 3.
1901----------------------------------------------- 1,688,000 5, 627 4,046 '-- - - - - - - - - 4,046
1902----------------------------------------------- 1, 736,000 5,783 4, 302 ---------- t 4,302
1903-------------------------------------------- --- 1,934,000 6,447 4,971 ---------- 4,971
1904----------------------------------------------- 1,985,000 6,617 4, 793 ||---------- 4,793
1905--------------------------------------------- --| 2,035,000 6, 783 || 4, 480 - - - - - - - - - - 4,480
1906----------------------------------------------- 2,090,000 6,967 4,473 - - - - - - - - - - 4,473
1907----------------------------------------------- 2, 144,000 7, 147 5, 116 ---------- 5, 116
1908------------------------------------------- - - - - 2, 195,000 7,317 6, 195 - 4 6,443
1909----------------------------------------------- 2,250,000 7, 500 6, 186 5 6,495
1910----------------------------------------------- ,308,000 7, 693 6, 446 6 6,833
1911----------------------------------------------- 2,370,000 7,900 6, 445 7 6,896
1912----------------- * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 432,000 8, 107 6, 424 8 6,938
1913----------------------------------------------- 2,509,000 8,363 7, 192 9 7,839
1914----------------------------------------------- 2,589,000 8,630 7, 105 10 7,815
1915----------------------------------------------- 2,652,000 8 6,971 11 7, 738
1910----------------------------------------------- 2,716,000 9,053 7,322 12 8,200
1917----------------------------------------------- 2,782,000 9, 273 7, 791 12 8,726
1918----------------------------------------------- 2,846,000 9,487 7,811 13 8,826
1919----------------------------------------------- 2,916,000 9,720 7,606 13 8,595
1920----------------------------------------------- 2,986,000 9,953 7, 321 14 8,346
1921----------------------------------------------- 3,063,000 10, 210 7,329 14 8,355
1922----------------------------------------------- 3, 143,000 10, 477 7, 703 15 8,858
1923----------------------------------------------- 3,214,000 10,713 7, 259 15 8,348
1924 (first 4 months) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,817 15 8,990
-- - - *-º-º-º-
Mr. WISNER. You personally computed the flow for the years
1908, 1909, and 1910? .
Mr. RAMEY. No; I personally worked up these Holyoke tests and
derived the curves from which these values were taken. t
Mr. WISNER. That made it possible for a clerk to take the figures
and work them up?
Mr RAMEY: Yes; it was merely a matter of taking the tables I
had made and taking a reading showing the head at Lockport, and
another reading which showed the power ottput, and from the
tables figure out the amount of flow. That is merely clerical work.
Mr. ADCOCK. And the power plant was completed on the 28th of
December, 1907 ? -
Mr. RAMEY. The first three units were installed in 1907 and were
started. This last unit was not installed until October, 1911, and
1552 ILLINo.1s AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
it was in October, 1912, when I finished the work on the graphs
derived from the Holyoke tests.
Mr. Adcock. That was the first time you could determine the
complete flow for 1908, 1909, and 1910?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes; after October, 1912, was the first time that
could be determined. -
Mr. WISNER. What was the flow for those three years?
Mr. RAMEY. In 1908 it was 6,443 second-feet : 1909, 6,495 second-
feet; and in 1910, 6,833 second-feet. The United States Geological
Survey has maintained a gauging station since December, 1914, about
2 miles downstream from the Lockport power house, and has meas-
ured the flow through the sanitary canal at this place. The com-
parison between the actual flow as corrected by the sanitary district
and the flow, as computed by the United States Geological Survey,
is as follows: -

Flow Flow
computed F.º d computed º d
Year by United | Sº y” by United º
©al States by Chicago Year States by Chicago
Geological iº Geological †.
Survey SLT1Ct. Survey 1SUTIC
Cubic feet Cubic feet Cubic feet | Cubic feet
per second per second per second per second
1915---------------------- 7, 740 7, 738 || 1920 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8, 610 8, 346
1916---------------------- 8, 348 8, 200 || 1921 • * * * * * * * * * 8, 433 8,355
1917---------------------- 8,833 8, 726 || 1922- - - - - - ---------------- 8, 883 8, 858
1918---------------------- 8,833 8,826 || 1923 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 8, 388 2 8, 348
1919---------------------- 8, S43 8,595
| 9 months. * . 2 12 months.
Now, as to sewage treatment. It has long been recognized by the
sanitary district that in a city growing as is Chicago, a limit would
be reached beyond which it would not be feasible to dispose of
sewage entirely by dilution. The capacity of all the channels would
be taxed and the amount of water that could be withdrawn from
Lake Michigan for sewage dilution would be limited to the capacity
of the channels, which is 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Accordingly, as far back as 1908 a thorough study of methods of
sewage treatment, other than dilution, was begun. A laboratory
was established at Thirty-ninth Street and experts were employed
for this study which is still in progress. Experimental sewage-
testing stations have been built and operated; at Thirty-ninth
Street, on domestic sewage, from 1908 to 1911; at the stockyards,
on its special trade wastes, from 1912 to 1914; and on the activated
sludge process, from 1915 to 1918; along the north branch, on tan-
nery wastes, from 1919 to 1922; and at Argo, on the special wastes
of the Corn Products Co., from 1920 to date. Nothing has been
overlooked which would give the sanitary district the best and
most up-to-date information on sewage disposal. The cost of these
studies has been upward of half a million dollars.
The time devoted to the study and investigation of sewage treat-
ment was absolutely necessary to precede the initiation by the Sani-
tary district of its vast and expensive sewage-treatment program.
It would have been the part of folly for the sanitary district to have
entered upon a plan for the disposal of sewage by artificial treat-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1553
ment supplementary to the diversion work without having first
made a complete and exhaustive study. The art of sewage disposal
has been for a great many years in a state of continuing change
and still is in that state. Almost as soon as plans for sewage
disposal had been adopted they were discarded as obsolete for some
other plan.
Mr. Pearse will discuss in detail the subject of sewage treatment.
As a result of the studies of sewage treatment there was adopted
by the sanitary district a program and project for the construction
of artificial sewage-treatment plants to be operated supplementary
to its sewage, drainage, and water-diversion works. This program
provided for the construction each year of certain plants so that at
the end of 25 years only half the amount of sewage and waste then
passing through the drainage canal would be discharged into the
Des Plaines River. The sanitary district has been divided into six
divisions and six major treatment projects have been outlined, as
shown on the Exhibit C, opposite page 16 in the memorandum.
The Des Plaines River project is designed to treat the sewage
of the towns draining into the Des Plaines River just west of
Chicago. This covers an area of 18.5 square miles between North
Avenue and Twenty-second Street, and west of Harlem Avenue,
having a present population of over 40,000.
The sewage-treatment plant, located just west of the Des Plaines
River and south of Twelfth Street, serves the towns of Maywood,
Melrose Park, Forest Park, River Forest, the northern part of Oak
Park, and the United States Government's Speedway Hospital. In
this plant the activated sludge process is used. Construction was
started on the project in 1918, delayed considerably by war condi-
tions, and completed and the plant put in operation in August, 1922.
Additional sewer connections are planned to be made in the very
near future to bring the sewage of Broadview and Bellwood in
from the west and River Grove from the north. The cost of the
project has been :
Des Plaines River sewer____________________________________ $1,458. 218.46
Sewage-treatment plant.-------_________________ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1, 441, 835. 01
Total to January 1, 1923–––––––––––––––––.------------- 2. 900, 0.53. 47
Future Connections and extensions___________________________ 550, 000. 00
Of the future connections and extensions to the plant two con-
tracts have been let within the last two months for a total of $415,-
000, and his work is now under way.
The Calumet project covers the entire region south of Eighty-
seventh Street, some 42.5 square miles, having a present population
of about 180,000. The sedimentation process is used in this
project. I
This project was started back in 1915 with the beginning of the
construction of the Calumet intercepting sewers. There are more
than 13 miles of large-sized sewers involved, all now completed.
The sewers are designed for 30 years in the future.
The Calumet pumping station was built 1917 to 1921. t
The Calumet power plant, a Diessel engine plant for stand-by
service for the pumping station, was built 1920 to 1922.
1554 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The construction of the Calumet treatment plant itself was be-
gun in 1920, the sedimentation, tanks completed and put in, opera-
tion in September, 1922, and the tanks for the activated sludge
process put in service in May, 1923. The Ninety-fifth Street pump-
ing station is now being constructed, which will complete the
entire Calumet project except for future extensions. .
The sewage-treatment plant, located at One hundred and twenty-
fifth Street and "Cottage Grove Avenue, is now treating the sew-
age of about 115,000 people in the Calumet district. In this plant
there are 30 units of double deck Imhoff tanks in which the sewage
is settled and two units in which the activated sludge process is
used. Experiments on a real working scale are now being con-
ducted, comparing sedimentation plus sprinkling filters with acti-
wated sludge, to determine the policy of future expansion at this
plant as well as knowledge for design of the larger plants soon to
be built in other sections of the city. -
Future extensions of this project, to be made when the popula-
tion justifies them, include sewers to connect Burnham, Hegewisch,
West Hammond, Dolton, Riverdale, and Blue Island to the treat-
ment plant; also additions of trickling filter units to the plant
itself. The construction costs have been : - -
Calumet intercepting Sewers ------------------------- $5,049, 400. 61
Calumet pumping Station------------------------------------ 1. 499, 402. 02
Calumet power plant- - - - • . - 1, 164,458. 59
Ninety-fifth Street pumping station-------------- ------------ 5,496. 07
Calumet treatment plant------------------- 6, 124, 866. 62
Total to Jan. 1, 1923–––––– - 13, 843, 623.91
Estimated cost to complete ----- - -- 3,518,000
Future extensions---------------------------------------------- 3,125, 000
Of that $3,518,000 estimated cost to complete, about $2,500,000
worth of this work was done last year, 1923, and the balance for
building the Ninety-fifth Street pumping station, at a cost of
$1,040,000, is contracted for. .
Mr. NEwTON. What do you do at the pumping stations?
Mr. RAMEY. Pump the sewage up through the treatment plant.
Mr. NEwTON. Are you pumping the water out of the lake there?
Mr. RAMEY. No: that is just sewage.
Mr. NEwToN. That is where you are treating the sewage?
Mr. RAMEY. Treating the sewage. &
Mr. NEwToN. You pump it into the plant?
Mr. RAMEY. It has to be forced through the tanks. The sewage
comes in at a low level in the sewers, which are underground. The
tanks are built up over the ground, and the water is pumped up into
the tanks.
Mr. NEwTON. You have to take the sewage up into the tanks.
Mr. RAMEY. And we pump it high enough so that it goes through
the outlet sewer into the Calumet-Sag.
Mr. NEwTo.N. Who is going to explain about the “good bugs” and
the “bad bugs?” -
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Pearse. He is the bug man.
Mr. RAMEY. He will go into the sewage treatment methods.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1555
}
I know that this must be dry stuff I am giving you, but I am trying
to explain this. It is nothing but figures, but I want to show that we
have been doing some work on sewage treatment at Chicago.
The next is the North Side sewage treatment plant.
Mr. HULL. Is that the yellow one? i.
Mr. RAMEY. The yellow on that map indicates plants either conn-
pleted or under construction. The Des Plaines River plant is conn.
pleted, the Calumet plant is completed, and the North Side plant is
under construction.
Mr. NEWTON. Well, you are making some progress on your con-
struction.
Mr. RAMEY. We think we are.
The North Side sewage treatment project covers the district lying
north of Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, extending to the north line of
Cook County, an area of approximately 62 square miles, with a popu-
lation (1920) of 737,000. Construction on this project which em-
braces the whole north side of the city and the north shore towns is
now under way, work having begun in January, 1922. The treat-
ment plant, the third of the large treatment plants to be constructed
by the sanitary district, will be the largest activated sludge plant in
the world, having been designed for 800,000 people. r
A tract of 180 acres of land was acquired in 1921, located just west
of the north shore channel and north of Howard Avenue, as the site
for this plant. A contract for the construction of the aeration and
settling tanks, with the necessary conduits and pipe work was entered
into on August 9, 1923, in the amount of $5,602,635.50. Within the
past two months about $1,200,000 worth of contracts were let on this
plant for aeration plates, sludge thickeners, sluice gates, air and water
meters, additional concrete, motors and blowers. Other contracts for
work on this plant, such as construction of a pumping station, grit
chambers, screen house, blower house, laboratory, etc...will be let in
the near future. The estimate cost of the treatment plant is $13,-
500,000. -
The system of intercepting sewers leading to the North Side treat-
ment plant involves the construction of about 14 miles of sewers
ranging in size from 4 feet to 15 feet in diameter. Sewers will be
constrficted along both sides of the North Branch of the Chicago
River and the north shore channel, with one branch leading over from
the Lawrence Avenue pumping station. One branch of this sewer
system, 4 miles long, leading down from the north shore sewer at
Wilmette, along the west bank of the north shore channel to the site
of the treatment plant, was constructed in 1922. The estimated cost
of the balance of the system of collecting sewers is $10,300,000. A
contract was awarded May 8, 1924, for the construction of 2 miles of
the largest intercepting sewer in this project, at a price of $2.625,000.
Mr. BoycE. Having in mind these treatment plants, what becomes
of the sewage? . - .
Mr. RAMEY. Well, the effluent from the treatment plants, which is
the purified sewage, will go, in the case of the North Side treatment
1556 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
plant into the north shore channel and then down the river into the
South Branch of the river, and eventually through the main channel.
Mr. BoxcE. All of it will eventually go through the main channel?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes. We don’t want any of it to go into the lake.
because we prefer not to drink it.
Mr. BoycE. It will ultimately go down the channel, all of it?
Mr. HULL. I get it all, Boyce. They are going to leave the heavy
stuff at Chicago, and I am going to take the light.
Mr. BoycE. The refuse from the treatment plant, it is claimed, is
not specially dangerous. -
Mr. RAMEY. The estimated cost of this project is over $25,000,000.
The date of completion has been set for 1928.
The total expenditures on this project have been :
North Side sewer–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– $2,023,662. 00
Treatment plant, site, etc.------------------------------------ 304,394. 55
Total to Jan. 1, 1928–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2, 328,057,54
Estimated cost to complete----------------------------------- 23, 800,000. 00
Making a total of over * * * *-* - * * * * *-* * *-* * - smº - * * * * * * * * * me sº *s, * * * * 25, 000, 000.00
Then comes the industrial wastes treatment project.
The industrial wastes treatment project covers, first, the treat-
ment of the wastes of the stockyards and packing houses and, second,
the treatment of the wastes of the Corn Products Co. at Argo.
Mr. HULL. Is the sanitary district putting in that plant or the
Argo people?
Mr. RAMEY. No; that is still to be settled.
Mr. HULL. Is it being constructed now?
Mr. RAMEY. No. The plant will be planned, and we plan to com-
plete that work by 1927.
Packingtown and the stockyards occupy an area of only 1.5 square
miles, but the strong trade wastes from this small district is equiva-
lent to domestic sewage of about 1,100,000 people. Preliminary
plans have been prepared for a plant to treat this sewage and a site,
not entirely satisfactory because of its small size, has been acquired.
Negotiations are under way with the packing interests relative to
the proportional payments to be made for construction and opera-
tion. The construction cost is estimated at $7,350,000.
At the present time the sanitary district is bringing action in the
local courts to determine the relative rights of the packers and the
Sanitary, district in the matter. It is hoped that this action will
bring this project to a head in the near future.
The wastes of the Corn Products Co. at Argo are equivalent to
the domestic sewage of 380,000 people and are concentrated in one
main sewer. Experiments have been practically completed on these
wastes and in the near future a plant will be planned for their treat-
ment. The date for completion is set for 1927. The construction
cost is roughly estimated at $1,800,000.
The industrial-waste program also covers the taking care of other
wastes, principally from tanneries along the North Branch of the
Chicago River.
The fifth project is the west side sewage-treatment project.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1557
p-
The west side project covers an area of 57.5 square miles, lying
between Fullerton Avenue and Thirty-first Street, and extending
east from Harlem Avenue to the lake front, including the loop dis-
trict. This is by far the most important sewage-treatment project
in the sanitary district on account of its size, the population involved
being now 1,340,000. Negotiations are now under way for a site
for the treatment plant, a small tract of land having been already
acquired. One intercepting sewer, the Fifty-second Avenue sewer,
has been built at a cost of $283,379.50, forming one of the branches
of the collecting system. Some 16 miles of large-sized sewers, need
to be built, located mostly in the busy part of the city. There will
be about 4 miles of Sewers from 20 to 22 feet in diameter in this
project. Preliminary layouts, have been made on this project and
surveys will be started within this year. The estimated cost is
$24,200,000, and the time of completion is set at 1940.
The last large project is the Southwest side sewage-treatment
project. tº e - s
That project covers all that portion of the city lying south of
Thirty-first Street and the drainage canal and north of Eighty-
seventh Street. The area of this region is 59 square miles and the
population is now 910,000. Some parts of this district, are now
sparsely settled, and it was deemed advisable to make this project
the last one on the program.
Studies and reports have been made of changes in certain sewers
in this district, and all new sewer construction is planned with the
ultimate view of collection in One spot for treatment. The cost of
this project is estimated at $17,850,000, and the date of completion is
set at 1945.
Then, in addition to the six major Sewage treatment projects out-
lined above, a number of small projects have been planned for the
outlying towns and villages. The sanitary district includes 49 in-
corporated cities and villages outside of Chicago, many of which are
so located as to make it economical to solve their problems separately.
The building of sewage treatment plants was begun by the sanitary
district with the construction of a small settling tank and a trickling
filter plant for the isolated village of Morton Grove in 1914. This
plant serves a population of only 1,200 and has been of more value for
experimental purposes than for any real relief to the sanitary situa-
tion. The cost of its construction was $65,964.31. * *
Then we have been building a sewage treatment plant for the vil-
lage of Glenview, with a population of about 1,000. This is now
practically completed at a cost of about $65,000.
We have under contract a small treatment plant for the village of
Northbrook, or Shermerville, at a cost of $64,000. . We are also build-
ing a sewer outlet for Park Ridge at a cost of about $200,000.
... Mr. HULL. Is that paid for by the sanitary district or the towns
themselves? . - * *
Mr. RAMEY. The sanitary district. - -
This will be one of the intercepting sewers leading to the sewage
treatment plant for the upper Des Plaines towns which will be built
within the next few years. - - t
1558. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, Etc. .
We will probably combine a number of towns in the upper Des
Plaines Valley into one treatment project.
Plans have been made for an outlet for Niles, at a cost of about
$75,000. This sewage will be treated in the large north side treatment
plant. * - * * - -
Other miscellaneous treatment plants and sewer's under considera-
tion right now :
Project for La Grange, Brookfield, and La Grange Park, at a cost
of $600,000.
Treatment plant for Schiller Park, $30,000.
Sewer for Oak Forest, Posen, Robbins, $300,000.
Treatment plant for Harvey, an industrial town south of Chicago,
$500,000. -
Mr. BOYCE. Is the Des Plaines River a natural stream :
Mr. RAMEY. A natural stream, and drains naturally into the Illi-
nois River and thence into the Mississippi.
The total estimated cost of these miscellaneous treatment plants
under consideration right now is $2,000,000.
In addition to these projects under consideration we estimate that
other miscellaneous plants and sewer outlets will cost the sanitary dis-
trict about $10,000,000 in the next 20 years. < .
Exhibit D, opposite page 16 of the memorandum, is a tabulated
statement of expenditures by the sanitary district on artificial sewage
treatment up to the end of the year 1922. This shows the expenditures
on the various items on each project each year. You can note that
from 1909 to 1913 the expenditures were small and mostly for sani-
tary improvements or experiments. -
In 1914 construction was under way and has been increased from
year to year. The total expenditures by years have been in round
numbers:
1914-----__ $178,000 1919 * 1, 610, 000
1915 108,000 | 1920 2, 208, 000
1916 . . . . 664, 000 | 1921 __ 5, 238, 000
1917 ---__ 1, 168, 000 | 1922 7, 160,000
1918 ---__ • 1, 150, 000
That exhibit is our answer to the many suggestions made at these
hearings that “Chicago should adopt modern methods of sewage
disposal.” Such methods have already been adopted, are being
carried out to the limit of our ability.
Mr. BoycE. When you speak about the limit of your ability do you
mean to confine it to financial or physical, or both
Mr. RAMEY. Both.
Mr. STRONG. How many municipalities did you say are included
in the sanitary district outside of Chicago?
Mr. RAMEY. Forty-nine.
Exhibit E, also opposite page 16 of the memorandum, is a tabulated
statement of the proposed expenditures on the future construction
program of the sanitary district up to 1945. The estimated figures
are given by projects and by years. *
. This table should be printed in the record.
(The table in question is printed in full as follows::)
#

*
The Sanitary District of Chicago, future construction schedule
ExHIBIT E
+.
Estimated º …
Project project cost 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931
Des Plaines River treatment project: . i. s. # ... -
Extension. Des Plaines treatment plant---------- $100,000 $20,000 *0,000 ------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------
Broadview Sewers.------------------------------ 200,000 |------------|------------ $100,000 || $100,000 |------------|------------ ------------------------------------
Elmwood Park Sewers.-------------------------- 250,000 |------------ 100,000 150,000 ------------|------------|------------ ------------------------------------
Totº----------------------------------------- 550,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
Calumet sewage-treatment project: - * *.*.*.*, *-*.
Calumiet treatinent plant----------------------- ; 370,000 379,999 ------------|------------|------------|------------|------------------------|------------|------------
Ninety-fifth Street pumping station------------- 1,000,000 4% º 600,000 ------------|------------|------------|------------ ------------------------------------
Avenue Nºsewer-------------------------------- 1,276,000 | 1,276,000 ! ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------
Harbor Avenue sewer.--------------------------- 672,000 72,000 300,000 ------------|------------|------------|------------ '------------------------------------
Calumiºt Sewers, contract. No 1 ------------------ 200,000 |- - - - - - - - - - - - } 200,000 ------------|------------|------------------------------------------------|------------
Extension Blue'ſsland sewer- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 425,000 |- - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------ $425,000 ------------|------------|------------
Sewer to Riverdale and Dolton - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 200,000 |- - - - - - - - - - - - !------------------------------------------------ y VVV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - * * - - - - - - - - -
Sewer, to Burnham, Hegewisch and West - -
Hammond-------------------------------- - - - - 500,000 |- - - - - - - - - - - - |------------|------------|------------|-- - - - - - - - - - - 500,000 ||------------|-- - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - -
Extension Calumet plant and trickling filter- - - - 2,000,000 |- - - - - - - - - - - - :------------------------|------------|------------|------------ $1,000,000 $1,000,000 |------------
Total.--~~~~ 6, 643,000 || -- - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ !--------------- ---------
North side'sewage-treatment plant: . . . . . - –
North side treatment plant--------------------- 13, 500,000 500,000 | 2,500,000 || 2,000,000 | 1,500,000 $3,700,000 || 3,300,000 ------------------------|------------
North side Sewers.----------------------------- 7,800,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 | 1,000,000 00,000 |- - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Remodeling Lawrence Avenue pumping station- 500,000 |------------|------------ 250,000 | 250,000 ||------------------------|------------ ------------------ - - - - - -
Extension north side treatment plant----------- 2,000,000 !------------|--------------------- * * * = | * * * ~ * = a- * * = * * * is sº “ ºr sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1,000,000 || $1,000,000
Total.---------------------------------------- 23,800,000 ------------|------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------ !------------
Industrial wastes treatment project: - | -- -- -----—
Çorn products treatment plant----------, - - - - - - - - 1,800,000 |------------|------------ 100,000 300,000 900,000 ------------|------------ ------------------------
Stock yards treatment plant demonstration----- 350,000 |------------|------------ i 150,000 200,000 ------------|------------|------------------------|------------
Stock yards, pumping station, sewers, and screens 1,000,000 ------------|------------ | 500,000 500,000 ||------------|------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stock yards treatment plant- ------------------- 6,000, * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,000,000 || 2,000,000 1,500, CC0
Total----------------------------------------- 9, 150,000 ||------------|------------ ------------|--~~~~~~~~ |------------
West side sewage-treatment project: *-*- -- ––––––––––
West side treatment plant (Imhoff) ------------- 10, 900,000 ||------------|------------ !------------------------------------------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
West side Sewers-------------------------------- 13, 300,000 |------------|------------ !------------------------------------------------ !------------------------|. 900,000
Total ----------------------------------------- 24, 200,000 ------------|------------------------------------|------------------------ |------------|------------ |------------
§

The Sanitary District of Chicago, future construction schedule—Continued
$ Estimated
Project project cost 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931
Southwest side treatment project:
Remodeling Thirty-ninth and Seventy-third -
streets pumping stations---------------------- $1,250,000 |------------ $200,000 $150,000 ||--------- * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * =
Southwest side treatment plant (Imhoff)-------- 7, 200,000 |-- * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = & º º sº as ºs is sº as m, sº * * * * * = * * me m
Southwest side Sewers--------------------------- 9,400,000 * ºn I º 'º - º * * * * * * * * me. * * * * * * * * * * *
Total.----------------------------------------- 17,850,000 * * *
Miscellaneous treatment plants and Sewers:
Glénview treatment plant----------------------- 61,000 $61,000 sº sº as sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sº I gº ºr sº as ss sº sº, º sº sº, sº as
Park Ridge Sewer outlet ------------------------ y vvv - - - - - - - - - - - - 100,000 100,000 ------------------------------------|------------------------------------
Park Ridge sewer and treatment plant---------- 550,000 |------------|--- $200,000 $200,000 $150,000 ------------------------------------
Northbrook treatment plant-------------------- 60,000 ------------ 60,000 ------------|------------------------ . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sº I º ºs sº º sº as * * * * * * | * * * * * * sº as sº as sº ms
La Grange Sewer and treatment plant----------- 600,000 200,000 400,000 ------------------------------------|------------|------------------------
Sewer for Oak Forest, Posen, and Robbins------ 300,000 300,000 |------------------------|------------ as sº em. gº
Niles outlet Sewer * * * 75,000 |------------ 75,000 ------------|------------------------|------------|------------------------------------
Harvey treatment plant------------------------- y vº" - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - sm º ºs & $250,000 $250,000 ------------
Schiller Park treatment plant ------------------- 30,000 ------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------------------ $30,000
Miscellaneous treatment plants and Sewers------ 10,640,000 ||------ * ~ EF wº 350,000 350,000 540,000
Total.--------------*- - - - - - 13,016,000 ||------ sº º
Miscellaneous work: -
Thirty-ninth Street conduit--------------------- 1,983,000 | 1,983,000 * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * = g º ºs = * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * B = = *s, * * * * * * = as as I sº sº ºr as * * * * * * * * * * * = * ~ * * * * = ** =s
California Avenue bridge----------------------- 1,000,000 400,000 60,000 ------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------
Cicero Avenue bridge--- 1,000,000 y 500,000 400,000 ------------------------|------------|------------------------
Crawford Avenue-bridge 1,000,000 ------------------------------------|------------ 500,000 500,000 ------------|------------|------------
Harlem Avenue bridge 1,000,000 ------------|------------|------------|------ 100,000 900,000 ------------|------------
Roosevelt Road bridge .º. 600,000 400,000 200,000 ------------|------------------------------------
Regulating works–Niagara and St. Lawrence
Rivers - - - 2,500,000 425,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,075,000 ||------------|------------|------------|------------
Bredging Calumet River--- 1,000,000 |-|-- sº sº sº 500,000 500,000 l------------|------------
Highways--- 1,000,000 200,000 500,000 300,000 ------------------------ * * * * = I as sº as * * * * * * * * * i = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = ** = **
“. Lemont outlet Sewer---------------------------- 30,000 * * * 30,000
Total.---------- - 11, 113,000 - * * * * * * * * * * - * * * *
Grand total 106,322,000 5,582,000 7,615,000 || 7,425,000 || 7,350,000 || 7,575,000 | 6,475,000 || 5,000,000 || 4,600,000 4,000,000
#

Project
1932
1933
1934
1936
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942–1945
Industrial waste-treatment project:
Stockyards treatment plant----------
West side sewage-treatment project:
West side treatment plant (Imhoff) --
West side Sewers---------------------
sº tº gº º 'º - E - ſº º º ºr
$600,000
2,000,000
Per year
Southwest side treatment project:
Remodeling Thirty-ninth and Thirty-
Seventh Streets pumping stations---
Southwest side treatment plant
(Imhoff)--
Southwest side sewers-
Miscellaneous treatment plants and
SeVOrS
Grand total.----
900,000
1, 200,000
$1,400,000
1,660,000
$1,450,000
1,460,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
800,000
800,000
3,500,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,660,000
3,710,000
* g
1562 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Exhibit F, following, shows the resources of the sanitary district
up to 1945. The figures in this table are based on the existing laws
and past experience as to tax rates and issuing of bonds.
This table should be printed in the record.
(The table in question is printed in full as follows:)
ExHIBIT F
The Sanitary District of Chicago, revised construction program—Statement esti-
mating revenue from taayes and bonds and costs, values, population, etc.
[Basis: 1923 and 1924 collections on a taxing rate of 40 cents per $100 valuation gross or 36 cents net; all
subsequent collections at the rate of 45 cents gross or 40% cents net]

Receipts Liabilities
Adminis-
From &
From Total Bond tration,
Year direct | 4 **t of 1-2 and redemp- #: mainte- §,
tax .. 7-8 tion nance, and
operation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1923-------------- $6,425,000 || $8,000,000 |$14,425,000 || $2,296,000 || $1,308, 580 || $3,100,000 $6,704, 580
1924-------------- 6,900,000 6,000,000 || 12, 900,000 , 530, 1,469,960 || 3, 200,000 7, 199,960
1925-------------- 7, 950,000 || 7,000,000 || 14,950, 000 2,730,000 | 1,601, 060 3,300,000 7,631,060
1926-------------- 8, 150,000 7, 000,000 | 15, 150,000 3,024,000 | 1,664, 160 || 3,400,000 8,088, 160
1927-------------- 8,350,000 9,000,000 || 17, 350,000 , 674,000 1,915, 500 || 3,500,000 9,089, 500
1928-------------- 8, 550,000 7,000,000 15, 550,000 || 4,076,000 || 2, 113,340 3,700,000 9,889, 340
1929-------------- 8,800,000 | 8,000,000 16,800,000 || 4,426,000 || 2,215, 100 4,400,000 || 11,041, 100
1930-------------- 9,000,000 7,000,000 | 16,000,000 4,701,000 || 2,342,860 4, 500,000 || 11, 543,860
1931-------------- 9, 250,000 6,000,000 || 15, 250,000 || 4,473,000 || 2, 533, 620 4,600,000 | 11,606, 620
1932-------------- 9, 500,000 | 6,000,000 | 15, 500,000 || 4, 670,000 || 2,467, 500 4,700,000 | 11,837, 500
1933-------------- 9,700,000 6,000,000 || 15, 700,000 || 4,470,000 2, 513, 500 5,600,000 | 12,583, 500
1934-------------- 10,000,000 | 7,000,000 || 17,000,000 || 4, 770,000 2,569, 500 5,700,000 | 13,039, 500
1935-------------- 10, 200,000 || 7,000,000 || 17, 200,000 || 5, 120,000 2,653, 500 5,800,000 | 13, 573, 500
1936-------------- 10,450,000 || 7,000,000 || 17,450,000 || 5,370,000 || 2,723,500 || 5,900,000 | 13,993, 500
1937-------------- 10,700,000 | 8,000,000 | 18, 700,000 || 5,720,000 2,783, 500 6,000,000 || 14, 503, 500
1938-------------- 11,000,000 || 7,000,000 | 18,000,000 5,970,000 || 2,941, 500 6, 100,000 15,011, 500
1939-------------- 11,250,000 || 8,000,000 | 19, 250,000 | 6,320,000 2,905,000 || 6,200,000 | 15,425,000
1940-------------- , 550,000 || 8,000,000 | 19, 550,000 | 6,620,000 2,967, 500 | 6, 500,000 | 16,087, 500
1941-------------- 11,800,000 | 8,000,000 | 19,800, 6,990, 000 || 3,013, 500 | 6,600,000 | 16,603, 500
1942-------------- 12, 100,000 || 9,000,000 21, 100,000 || 7,000,000 || 3, 150,000 | 6,700,000 | 16,850, 000
1943-------------- 12,400,000 | 8,000,000 20, 400,000 || 7,300,000 2,984, 000 | 6,800,000 || 17,084,000
1944-------------- 12, 700,000 9,000,000 21, 700,000 || 7,300,000 || 3, 124,000 | 6,900,000 17, 324,000
1945-------------- 13,050,000 8,000,000 || 21,050,000 7,450,000 || 3,218, 7, 200,000 17,868,000
Total.------- 229,775,000 |171,000,000 |400,775,000 |117,000,000 57, 178,680 |120,400,000 294, 578,680
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1563
The Sanitary District of Chicago, revised construction program—Statement esti-
*nating revenue from tares and bonds and costs, values, population, etc.—Con.
. New construction * TMemoranda
© ; | --
Assessed valuation Bonds
Balances | Construc- e - -,--> -- - --—-------> ------- – -—- - - --- : ---
S & Î a r.or, it . capacity Standing
Total capita 3 ºr cent | january
(8) (9) (10) (11) ! (12) (13) (14)
| - -
i
* - - - - - - - - $7, 720, 420 $5,582, 000 3, 213,000 $1,915, 000,000 $596 $53, 500,000 $27,300, 000
*-* * * * * * * * * * 5, 700,040 7, 615,000 || 3, 284, 1,965, 000,000 598 || 57, 450,000 || 33,004, 000
* = * * * * * * * * * * 7, 318, 940 7,425,000 3,355,000 2,015,000, 000 600 58,950, 000 36,474, 000
- - - - - - - - - -] 7,061, 840 7, 350,000 3, 426,000 2,065,000,000 603 || 60,450,000 40, 744, 000
* * * * = * * * sº as 8, 260, 500 7, 575,000 3, 497,000 2, 115,000,000 605 61,950, 000 44, 720,000
- sº - * * * * * * = * 5, 660, 660 6, 475,000 || 3, 568,000 2, 170,000,000 608 || 63,450,000 50,046,000
* * * * * * * * = <- 5, 758,900 5,000,000 , 639,000 2, 225,000,000 611 65, 100,000 52,970,000
* * * * * * * * * * ~~ 4, 456, 140 4, 600,000 || 3, 710,000 2, 280,000,000 615 66,750,000 56, 544,000
* * * * * * * * ~ * = s.s. 3, 643, 380 4,000,000 3,782,000 2,345,000,000 620 68,400,000 || 58,843, 000
* * * * * * * * * * * * 3, 662,500 3, 500, 3, 854,000 2,400,000,000 623 70,350,000 60,370,000
* * * * * * * * * * * * 3, 116, 500 || 3, 500,000 3,926,000 2,460,000,000 627 | 72,000,000 || 61, 700,000
* * * * * * * * * * * * 3,960, 500 3, 600,000 3,998, 000 2, 520,000,000 630 | 73,800,000 63,230,000
* * * * * * * * * * * * 3,626, 500 3, 600,000 || 4,070,000 2, 580,000, 000 634 75,600,000 || 65, 460,000
* * * * * * * * * * * * 3, 456, 500 3,600,000 4, 142,000 2,645,000,000 639 77,400,000 || 67,340,000
* -- * * * * * * * * * * 4, 196, 500 3, 600,000 4, 214,000 2, 710,000,000 643 79,350,000 | 68,970,000
* * * * * * * * * * = ** 2,988, 500 3, 600,000 4, 288,000 2,780,000,000 650 81,300,000 || 71,250,000
• * * * * ~ *-* = * ~ * = 3, 825,000 3,600,000 || 4,354,000 2,850,000,000 654 83,400,000 | 72, 280,000
* * * * * - - - - - - = 3, 462, 500 3, 600,000 : 4,425,000 | 2,920,000,000 660 85,500,000 | 73, 960, 000
* * * * - - - - - -e ss - 3, 196, 500 3, 660,000 || 4, 497,000 2,990, 000,000 665 87,600,000 || 75,340,000
* * * * * * * * * * * * 4, 250,000 || 3, 710,000 4, 569,000 || 3,065,000,000 671 | 89, 700,000 || 76, 350,000
* * * * * = = ~ * = = - 3,316,000 3, 710,000 4, 641,000 3, 140,000,000 677 91, 950, 000 || 78, 350,000
* - * * ~ * * * - ---| 4,376,000. 3, 710,000. 4, 713,000 3, 220,000,000 683. | 94, 200,000 || 79,050, 000
* * * * * * * * * * = a- 3, 182,000 3, 710,000 4, 785, 000 3,300,000,000 690 96,600,000 80, 750,000
- - - - - - - - - - sº *-*. . * * * * * = <= <= ~ *- := == i < * = * = a- = = * ~ * *- : * * ~ * = - - * ~ * * * * * * * * ~ * ~ * ~ * * * * * * - E - - - - - * ~ *- - - 99,000,000 || 81,300,000
- - - - - 100, 19632010,322,000...............--------|--------------------|--..........
!. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- º'- - --- ---- - - -- - |
SU M M A FY.
Taxes----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $229,775, 000
Bonds-------------------------------------------------------------------- $171,000, 000
Less retired-------------------------------------------------------------- 117,000,000
— 54,000, 000
Deficit---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125, 680
283, 900, 680
liabilities: ---
Construction---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106,322,000
Administration, maintenance, and operation - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------- 120, 400,000
Interest on bonds----------------------------------------------------------------------- 57, 178,680
283, 900, 680
About the middle of page 23 of the memorandum is a summary
of costs of construction of artificial sewage-treatment projects up
so January 1, 1923. The total expenditure shows as $25,478,651.58.
Complete detail figures for 1923 are not available as yet, but
expenditures on the more important contracts within the past year
will add $4,622,000 (with no overhead), bringing the total expendi-
ture by the Sanitary District of Chicago on artificial sewage treat-
ment to date up to $30,000,000, in round numbers.

1564 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
At the bottom of page 23 is a table showing the cost of the future
construction program of the sanitary district, 1923 to 1945. In a
booklet there is a misprint in the latter date, showing 1924. This
table should be printed in the record. -
(The table in question is printed in full, as follows:)"
Summary of costs of Semyage treatment
Construction to Jan. 1, 1923: -
Experiments ___ $256,967.
Des Plaines River project 2,900,053.
Calumet project 13, 843, 622,
North side project__ 2, 328,05 :
West side project 283, 39-
Miscellaneous Small projects 67,906
Bare construction COSt 19, 697, 98
Administration, legal expense, clerical expense, etc.-------- 1, 197, 49."
Interest On bonds for COnStruction 4, 601, 1653
Total expenditures on sewage treatment 25, 478, 651.
|Future construction program (1923-24) : - f
Des Plaines River treatment project 550, 000.
Calumet treatment project 6, 643, 000.
North side treatment, project 23, 800,000.
Industrial wastes treatment project 9, 150, 000.
West side treatment project_ 24, 200, 000.
Southwest side treatment project 17, 850, 000s
Miscellaneous Small treatment projects 13, 016, 000
Total - 95, 209, 000. ( ;
Ultimate total for sewage treatment 120,687, 651. t.
The $4,622,000 mentioned as having been already expended should
be deducted from the total of the table of $95,209,000 to get the
future cost of this program as of to-day. The ultimate total for
Sewage treatment will remain the same—$120,000,000.
At the top of page 24 of the memorandum is a table showing the
amount of water which should be diverted, if it were possible under
present conditions, to properly dilute, according to the statutory
ratio, all the untreated human sewage of Chicago plus all trade
wastes. This table, though prepared eight months ago, is substan-
tially correct to-day, and shows a need of over 15,000 cubic foot-
Seconds. -
Even though the diversion of this amount should be permitted, it
could not be used because the capacity of the dilution system is but
10,000 cubic foot-seconds. The figures indicate that the sanitary
district is behind in its sewage-treatment schedule. It is behind,
because conditions during and after the World War not only ma-
terially increased costs but slowed construction, while Chicago's pop-
ulation increased at its regular rate. The program adopted for the
years 1923 to 1945, providing for the expenditure of $106,322,000 on
new construction, will use up all of the resources of the sanitary dis-
trict, but it will enable it to catch up in the matter of sewage dis-
posal with the growth of the community. The population of the
sanitary district is increasing at the rate of 71,000 per year. It is
not a simple little proposition to take care of the sewage of a com-



ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1565
munity which adds to its population the equivalent of a city like
Washington once in every six years. This table was prepared eight
months ago, but is substantially correct to-day, and shows a need,
as I said, of over 15,000 second-feet.
Mr. HULL. It shows a need?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
Mr. HULL. That is, provided you do not have any treatment.
Mr. RAMEY. Yes; and provided we include all trade wastes. -
Exhibit G, opposite page 24, shows the amount of water needed
rom year to year and how this need will be cut down to 10,000
- bic foot-seconds as the various sewage-treatment plants go into
!9% vice. t
#No account is taken of the sewage from the towns in the northwest
#ºner of Indiana draining into the sanitary district by way of the
§ºumet River. These towns, now have a population of 180,000,
i; brding to the statement of Mr. Geupel, made at the last hearing.
#either has been considered the transient or floating population of
£hicago.
†- The diversion at Chicago includes the run-off from the Chicago
#River watershed. During times of rain, when the flood run-off
#Tuals the capacity of the canal, or 10,000 cubic foot-seconds, there
i; no direct diversion from the lake. Our friends from the Illinois
i; alley seem to have assumed that the canal carries these flood waters
# addition to the regular diversion, but such is not the case.
#Mr. HULL. Is there any way to utilize these flood waters in your
'nitation?
Mr. RAMEY. They are all utilized.
T: Mr. HULL. Only on the main channel.
* Mr. RAMEY. Yes; but those same flood waters wash off the streets,
and serve that purpose.
Mr. HULL. Where do they go?
Mr. RAMEY. Through the sewers and the canal.
Mr. HULL. When your treatment plants are all done, will the
flood waters go through the treatment plants?
Mr. RAMEY. No, sir. The treatment plants will take only 50 per
cent in excess of the dry-weather flow.
Mr. HULL. That is one of the main objections in my district, on
account of these flood waters coming down and increasing the flow.
In other words, they claim they can probably stand a 10,000 cubic-
feet flow, but in the flood time, when there is another extra 5,000,
that is when there is trouble.
Mr. RAMEY. You didn’t get the statement I just made.
Mr. HULL. Yes; I did. That is the reason I asked you the
question.
Mr. RAMEY. The diversion includes the run-off from the Chicago
River watershed. When that equals the flow in the canal there is
no direct diversion on the lake. All that is flowing then is the
flood run-off.
Mr. HULL. Here is a good chance to settle this question in my
mind. You have your regulating works. Where are they located?
Mr. RAMEY. At Lockport, at the lower end of the channel.
Mr. HULL. Have you any regulating works to let the water in 2
Mr. RAMEY. No ; it is held at the lower end and not allowed to
go out to exceed 10,000.
1566 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. HULL. When we have flood water it is not allowed to go out
of the lock? -
Mr. RAMEY. There is none that gets out.
Mr. HULL. Then it would never increase below the Lockport Dam
beyond 10,000 feet. -
Mr. WISNER. No. There has been one question asked here that
I don’t know that Mr. Ramey made quite clear. It was whether we
treated all the waters that came off the street. We don’t treat them
all. I would be absolutely financially impossible to build plants
that would treat the combined sewage and rain run-off, but we do
build our plants large enough to take the first flush of the streets
when the rain comes. When the rain comes the flood commences
to increase, and all that first flood washes into the sewer the street
cleanings or the manure that may be on the street, and that is run
through the treatment plant, but after that we have to by-pass it
and not let it go through the treatment plant.
Mr. RAMEY. The drainage area of the Chicago River is 307
Square miles, of which 219 square miles runs into the North Branch
and 88 square miles into the South Branch. A flood run-off of 13.6
cubic feet per second per square mile over this area will exceed
4,167 cubic feet per second. Such a run-off occurs from seven to
eight times per year under present conditions, with 156 square miles
sewered, and 151 square miles not sewered. As the built-up sections
of the city increase, the sewered area will increase and the run-off
rate will increase.
The flood run-off from the drainage area of the Chicago River ex-
ceeds 4,167 cubic foot-seconds from seven to eight times per year.
It exceeds 5,000 cubic foot-seconds from five to six times per years,
exceeds 7,500 cubic foot-seconds from three to four times per year,
and exceeds 9,500 cubic foot-seconds about one time per year.
The sewers in Chicago between Howard Avenue on the north and
Eighty-seventh Street on the south, discharging into the Chicago
River and Drainage Canal, have a total flow capacity of 10,500 cubic
foot-seconds when running full with hydraulic slopes parallel to the
bottom grades of the sewers. There are few of these same sewers
which do not operate under a head and discharge much more during
only moderate rains.
With the surface of Lake Michigan at elevation 0.0, Chicago City
datum, the water surface in the main drainage canal at Lockport
must be at approximately minus 1.2, Chicago City datum, to produce
a flow of 4,167 cubic foot-seconds through the Chicago River and
Calumet-Sag Channel.
The water surface at Lockport must be at approximately minus 7,
Chicago City datum, to produce a flow of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds.
It is not uncommon for the surface level of Lake Michigan at Chi-
cago to drop as much as 6 inches due to a change in the direction of
the wind or a change in the barometer. Such a change can happen
in an hour, and if the drainage canal was flowing only 4,167 cubic foot-
seconds at such a time the upper 40 per cent, or 14 miles, of the chan-
nel and river would be above lake level. This would cause flow into
Lake Michigan, principally from the North Branch of the river. . If
the drainage canal was flowing 10,000 cubic foot-seconds at such, a
time only the upper 7 per cent, or 2.5 miles, of the river, would be
above lake level. It requires a lapse of time of three or four hours
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1567
for the effect of change made in the flow of the canal at Lockport to
be even noticed in the upper Chicago River; at least eight hours to
cause any considerable change in the condition of the Chicago River,
and about 24 hours for the full effect of the change to be established
in the river. For this reason it is necessary to have a safe flow estab-
lished at all times. The difference between 4,167 cubic foot-seconds
and 10,000 cubic foot-seconds is the difference between almost constant
danger of pollution to the water supply and reasonable safety.
. The actual time required, as mentioned above, to alter flow condi-
tions in the Chicago River by changing the flow through the Lock-
port controlling works was determined by a series of elaborate
experiments made in February, March, and September, 1914, and
the results can not be questioned.
As to the need of diversion at Chicago, the sanitary district re-
quests a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michi-
gan at Chicago for the following reasons:
First. It has at an expense of $97,600,000 constructed a system of
canals, auxiliary sewers, and pumping stations, and has made im-
provements in the Chicago River and Des Plaines River, completing
in every detail a project that has a capacity of 10,000 cubic foot-
Seconds for the dilution of sewage, a project that will provide for
3,000,000 people. . The capacity of the project, as designed and built,
was that specified in the act of the General Assembly of Illinois on
May 29, 1889. . The construction of the drainage canal was given
the greatest publicity. It was inspected by eminent engineers, rep-
resentatives of the Federal Government and of foreign powers, dele-
ations from various States of the Union and from civic bodies.
All phases of the project were widely discussed in the public press
and in technical journals. The construction of the north-shore and
the Calumet-Sag channels was given the same publicity.
The main drainage canal is the most expensive and the most
important link in the waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of
Mexico. Its capacity of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds makes it a help and
not a hindrance to navigation. While it was being constructed no
hint was given from any source that it should not be used to its full
capacity; that it should be completed and rank as almost one of the
wonders of the world and then be used to only 41.67 per cent of its
capacity. This dilution project has cost the people of the sanitary
district, in round figures, $100,000,000, a per capita exenditure
which if applied to the whole United States would raise a sum
sufficient to build 12 Panama Canals or retire the third Liberty loan.
The taking away of the right to divert 10,000 cubic foot-seconds and
use this project to its full capacity will destroy this investment and
will work an unreasonable hardship on the people of our com-
munity.
Second. Although the sanitary district has already expended
$30,000,000 on the construction of sewage-treatment projects and
plans to spend $90,000,000 more for the same purpose in the next
22 years, the diversion of more than 10,000 cubic foot-seconds is
needed to properly dispose of the sewage of this community during
this construction period, and a diversion of at least this amount will
be needed at the end of the period to provide for the 2,531,000 and
more of people who will live here then and whose wastes must be
treated by dilution in the present sewage-treatment program.
1568 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Another consideration is the fact that this artificial sewage treat-
ment is not 100 per cent efficient and not 100 per cent sure. With
10,000 cubic foot-seconds of water available for use to dilute sewage no
harm could come to the community should a treatment plant tempo-
rarily cease to function. This diversion is needed to take care of the
filth which will be washed off streets during rains, the treatment
plants not being designed to handle the extra sewer flow caused by
rains, also to handle sewage originating in certain areas where it is
not feasible to collect it for treatment.
Third. A diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds is needed to pre-
vent the Chicago River from reversing and flowing into Lake Michi-
gan during a heavy rain. With a flow slightly less than this amount
past records indicate that the river would reverse on an average of
once a year. With lesser flows the number of reversals would be
more frequent, and a flow as low as 4,167 cubic foot-seconds would
permit a reversal seven or eight times per year, or every time there
was an ordinarily hard rain.
If the water supply of Chicago is to be protected from possible
contamination by sewage, it is necessary that a flow of 10,000 cubic
foot-seconds be maintained in the drainage canal at all times.
The past and future expenditures in connection with sewage dis-
posal and the incidental work arising therefrom in the sanitary dis-
trict of Chicago are summarized in round numbers as follows:
Past construction :
Dilution and navigation project, capacity 3,000,000 people,
with 10,000 cubic foot-seconds diversion $97,600,000
Water-power development — 1,400,000
Sewage treatment –– 30, 000, 000
Total to date 129,000, 000
Future construction, 1924 to 1945: -
Sewage-treatment projects 90,000, 000
Miscellaneous WOrk 11, 000, 000
Total COnStruction 230,000, 000
These lavish expenditures demonstrate that the sanitary district.
has done and will do all that any community can do to protect the
health of its inhabitants. Its future program provides for as much
new work as any organization can promise to perform and carry
out. It pledges all its resources for the next 25 years to preserve
the health of 5,000,000 of people. The value of the lives saved by
keeping pure and undefiled the waters of Lake Michigan more than
compensates for any damage caused by temporarily slightly lowering
lake levels, and these can be easily restored. In addition, the great
contribution of the sanitary district in aid of navigation is an ele-
ment to be given great consideration.
Much has been said about overflow in the Illinois Valley. There
isn’t time to go into an extended discussion of this subject now. It
has been discussed in all of its phases by Alvord & Burdick, con-
sulting hydraulic engineers, in a report to the Rivers and Lakes Com-
mission of Illinois, published as a “Report on the Illinois River and
its bottom lands.” This report was reprinted in 1919 by the division
of waterways of the State of Illinois. The subject is also discussed
by Mr. M. G. Barnes, chief engineer, division of waterways, State of
Illinois, in his report on “Flood in Illinois in 1922,” a copy of which
he introduced in the record in these hearings.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1569
Here are a few pertinent facts and figures taken from these
reports:
The flood of 1904, which attained a greater height at Peoria than
than any flood since 1844, which was the greatest on record, was
measured at several places along the river by the United States engi-
neers, who happened to be collecting data for the Ernst board for
a report on the waterways in the Illinois River.
The maximum flood volume in 1904 was 117,000 cubic foot-seconds
at Pearl, 43 miles above Grafton; 115,000 at Beardstown; 100,000
cubic foot-seconds at Havana; 90,000 cubic foot-seconds at Peoria;
85,000 cubic foot-seconds at Ottawa.
The flood of 1913 had a volume of 73,000 cubic foot-seconds at
Peoria.
The flood of 1922 had a maximum volume of 109,000 at Beards-
town; 68,000 at Havana; 56,000 cubic foot-seconds at Peoria.
The flood height at Beardstown in 1922 was 5 feet higher than in
1904, yet the volume was 6,000 cubic foot-seconds less, or 109,000
cubic foot-seconds in 1922 compared with 115,000 cubic foot-seconds
in 1904. This indicates the effect of levees on flood heights.
The flood heights at Havana in 1922 was 2.75 feet higher than
in 1904, yet the volume was 32,000 cubic foot-seconds less, or 68,000
cubic foot-seconds in 1922 compared with 100,000 cubic foot-seconds
in 1904. Greater difference in volume at Havana indicates that much
of the 1922 flood came from the Sangamon River.
Flood height at Peoria in 1922 was 1.75 feet higher than in 1904,
yet the volume was 34,000 less, or 56,000 cubic foot-seconds in 1922
compared with 90,000 cubic foot-seconds in 1904. -
At La Salle the 1904 flood height was about 1.06 feet higher than
the 1922 flood. This was at a point so far upstream above the levees
that their backwater effect could not be noticed, and the stream was
normal. The greater volume of 1904 gave the greater flood height.
The sanitary district flow in the flood of April, 1922, actually in-
creased the flood height 6 inches at Beardstown, 12 inches at Havana,
and 18 inches at Peoria. f
A flow of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds from the drainage canal at
Chicago will raise the extreme flood height of the Illinois River 0.6
foot at Beardstown, 1.3 feet at Havana, and 2 feet at Peoria.
It will raise the Illinois River in low water 2.8 feet at Beardstown,
3.3 feet at Havana, and 6.6 feet at Peoria.
Let me call to your attention a few of the points brought out in
the report of “Floods in Illinois in 1922 ”:
The division of Waterways, a State agency with no interest other than Serv-
ing all the people of the State, began its investigations before the crest of the
flood was reached, and found that while diversion of water from Lake Michigan
by the Sanitary District of Chicago was a contributing factor, construction
of levees along the Illinois River for reclamation of land had so narrowed the
natural flood plain of that river that the flood heights were materially raised.
This was especially true of conditions immediately below Beardstown, created
by construction of levees that reduced the discharge width of the river to
approximately 1,200 feet. This is and will prove true of other streams if con-
tinued in the future as in the past. This work has been done without super-
vision by any Federal or State agency. Present State statutes give the division
of waterways Some control, and it is possible review of plans in future may
curtail to some degree additional flood damage by preventing future unreason-
able encroachments upon natural flood plains of Streams.
91739—24—PT 2—84
1570 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Barnes, in referring to the report of Alvord & Burdick, says:
The recommendations made by these engineers have been public for about
Seven years, but have remained unheeded.
Again he says:
When the early pioneers settled on the Mississippi River they found it
possible to protect themselves with a levee some 3 feet in height. This was
accomplished at extremely low cost. As Settlement increased and ever increas-
ing areas were protected, it was found that the levees must be made pro-
gressively higher. Each recurring flood Overtopped them and their heights
were increased until now many of them exceed 30 feet. Formerly the river
Overflowed to a depth of a few feet and spread out over an area of from 20
to 1,000 miles in width along the lower valley, creating immense temporary
reservoirs that prevented the river from reaching great heightS. Many of
these reservoirs have now been cut off by the levees and although the flood
discharges of the river do not greatly exceed those of former days, the river
must reach much higher stages in Order to discharge its Waters.
The history of the Miami and Mississippi Valleys is no different from the
history of the Illinois Walley, except possibly in the latter case collateral factors
have contributed to increase flood heights. In 1916 Mr. L. K. Sherman, chief
engineer of the Rivers and Lakes Commission, said that since 1908 the levee
districts along the Illinois River had reduced the flood plain or area of land
covered by flood waters 40 per cent, equal to 172,000 acres. This encroach-
ment has continued until now Over 200,000 acres have been reclaimed Out Of
the original flood plain, thus reducing the reservoir capacity Of the Stream.
The Illinois River drains about 40 per cent of the land area of the State.
Its slopes are unusually flat especially in the northeastern part of the State.
Hence the necessity of drainage. In the first 50 miles of the river below the
junction of the Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers the slope is a little more
than 1 foot per mile. In the next 80 miles the slope or fall is only 6 feet.
The lower 153 miles have a fall of 27 feet. Because of this flat slope the
stream does not discharge its waters rapidly. Below La Salle the Valley is
from 14% to 7 miles wide. In nature, about 400,000 acres of this land Was
subject to overflow. The banks and lowlands are in most part covered With
a rank growth of trees, shrubs, and vines which present almost an impassable
barrier to the discharge of water outside the river channel. Many Small
lakes are found along the valley through which part of the Water flows at
flood periods.
The mean annual rainfall in the north end of the State is 34.3 inches. In
the central portion, 37.5 inches, and in the south end 42.5 inches. The South
half of the State lies in the path of the great cyclonic Storms Which pass OVer
the COuntry annually.
In discussing greater flood run-offs due to improving land by
filling, drainage ditches, and straightening channels and streams, he
Says:
In many instances the discharge capacity of the new channel is made twice
the capacity of the stream in its natural form and the distance between
tributaries has been shortened at least one-third with the result that at least
three times the amount of water may reach the lower sections of the Stream
in the same period of time that it formerly required. A very good example
of such improvement is found on the Kankakee River. This stream has
been improved for a distance of approximately 70 miles from the State line
back into Indiana, and whereas originally the stream was flat, winding, and
shallow, now it is straight and deep with fully twice its original discharge
capacity. The adjacent land has been drained into this new channel by Open
ditches and filling so as to afford relatively free run-off from lands that Were
formerly large lakes and Swamps.
There is no question but that the natural flow conditions of the
Illinois River have been changed to a marked degree.
The natural flow of the Illinois River at Peoria has apparently
been as low as 200 to 300 cubic foot-seconds.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1571
I have already stated the effect of the flow of 10,000 cubic foot-
seconds on low-water stages. These extra depths are of great value
to navigation. -
The effect of the drainage canal flow on flood heights has been
small. At Beardstown in the flood of 1922 this flow amounted to
only 7 per cent of the total stream flow and raised the flood height
only 6 inches. Levees built between 1904 and 1922 raised the flood
height more than 4 feet 6 inches.
Barnes states that—
Levee districts have already reclaimed more than half of the lowlands
formerly forming part of the natural reservoir system. The volume thus
eliminated from storage is sufficient to take the entire flood discharge of
the river for a period of five days. In many instances the flood plain has
been reduced by these levees at least 80 per cent, and in Some cases it is
restricted to a narrow gorge 1,200 to 1,500 feet wide.
It requires no technical discussion to demonstrate that to discharge a given
amount of water the river must be deeper and therefore higher after the
levees are Constructed than before. It has been estimated that in general the
great floods prior to extensive levee construction traveled 40 to 50 per cent
over the lowlands and 50 to 60 per cent by the channel proper.
The greatest amount of land reclamation has taken place within a dis-
tance of 50 miles either side of Beardstown.
The United States district engineer at Chicago reported on the
flood of April, 1922, and stated:
On April 1 there were known to be 47 drainage and levee districts along the
Illinois River between Peoria and the mouth, inclosing approximately 220,000
acres, which had their levees practically Completed. A very few of these
had not installed pumping plants, but most Of them had been in cultivation .
for a number of years, some of them previous to the survey of 1902–1904.
The levees inclosing 17 of these districts were broken during the present flood,
rendering many people homeless, destroying much of last year's crops, and
preventing the raising of any during the present season.
The United States district engineer estimated the damage to
the levee districts by this flood at $2,016,000, distributed over the
various districts, as shown by the following table.

Miles
Name County from Acres Damages
Grafton
Fairbanks-------------------------------------- Greene---------------- 33 9,000 $265,000
Hartwell---------------------------------------|----- do----------------- 39 9, 500 285,000
Scott County---------------------------------- Scott------------------ 57 10,000 365,000
Anderson Lake--------------------------------- Pike------------------ 1 62 5,000 10,000
Oakes------------------------------------------ Scott------------------ 58 400 10. 000
Mauvise Terre---------------------------------|----- do----------------- 59 1,800 40,000
Meredosia Lake-------------------------------- Morgan-CaSS---------- 73 4,300 110,000
Kerr & Crane---------------------------------- Brown---------------- 77 800 8,000
Kerr-------------------------------------------|----- do----------------- 78 400 13,000
Crane Creek----------------------------------- Schuyler-------------- 84 5, 100 150,000
Coal Creek------------------------------------------ do----------------- 85 7,400 300,000
Lost Creek------------------------------------- Cass------------------ 89 3,000 45,000
Kelly's Creek----------------------------------- Schulyer-------------- 98 3,000 35,000
Thompson Lake------------------------------- Fulton---------------- 1 120 7,000 10,000
Chautauquè----------------------------------- Mason.---------------- 1 121 5,000 8,000
Liverpool-------------------------------------- Greene---------------- 1 128 4, 500 7,000
Lemarsh--------------------------------------- Peoria----------------- 151 3,000 130,000
City of Beardstown (not protected by levee) ---|------------------------ 88 ---------- 200,000
Village of Naples (protected by a levee, but had ||------------------------ 65 500 25,000
no pumping plant).
* * * * - - - - - - 77,500 2,016,000
1 Levees not completed to full height.
1572 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
In a postcript to his report he says:
Estimates of the amount of damage caused by the flood are much larger
than the total given in paragraph 4. One firm of civil engineers at Beards-
town placed the total at $20,000,000.
This $20,000,000 bears a ratio to the disinterested estimate of the
United States Fngineers of approximately $2,000,000, of 10 to 1.
Perhaps some similar ratio might apply to the $4,539,980 of claims
for damages from overflow against the sanitary district.
I want to read the summary of what Barnes found to be the causes
of increased floods in the Illinois Valley:
1. The construction of levees along the Illinois River which restricted the
discharge capacity of the stream and eliminated natural reservoirs.
2. Reclamation of land and drainage into tributary streams permitting greater
quantities of water to reach the river in a given period of time.
3. Straightening and draining the Kankakee River in Indiana.
4. Addition of approximately 8,000 cubic feet per Second of water by diversion
Of water from Lake Michigan.
5. Silt brought to the Illinois River and valley from tributary streams due
to higher velocity created by river improvements. From the investigations
made by the division of waterways a flood as great as that of 1922 must be
looked for approximately once in 10 years and greater floods may be expected
at longer intervals and higher flood elevations may be looked for in the future
as additional lands are reclaimed and greater restriction is placed on the
discharge capacity of streams, if flood plains of the streams are encroached
upon as seriously in the future as they have been in the past.
I wish to introduce as an exhibit for the information of the com-
mittee a publication of the Illinois State Geological Survey, desig-
nated as Bulletin No. 42, entitled “Engineering and Legal Aspects
of Land Drainage in Illinois.” Several marked passages will be
found in there, to which I would call your attention, and which I
ask to be printed in the record.
On page 15 is a statement which applies directly to present condi-
tions in the lower Illinois Valley.
The drainage of the lands at the upper end of the watersheds has resulted
in increased flood flows below and in decreased low-water flow during the Sum-
mer. Along the lower ends of streams, districts which at first were fairly
Successful, are now in bad condition because of this increased flow ; and al-
though, under the common law, the servient tenant has to take the water which
comes from the higher lands, yet the owners of the lower lands feel with Some
Justice, that the artificial drainage of thousands of square miles of uplands
has placed a burden upon them which is unfair and which was not appreciated
in the early days of drainage when only small areas were involved.
On page 20 is the following statement regarding lands naturally
subject to overflow.
The damage from overflow varies; but in all cases the losses warrant the
formation of drainage districts for improving conditions. On the average,
crops are lost at least half the time, and along the larger streams crops are
rarely harvested oftener than once in four years. A large part of the bottoms
is still in timber ; and there are many owners who have given up trying to
farm the bottom land even where the timber has been removed. Lands which
at one time raised Crops often enough to pay for farming them, are now idle
because of increased floods due to the thousands of square miles at the heads
of the watersheds which have been organized into districts. Frequently, Cer-
tain rivers get out of their banks in the middle and lower reaches when there
is no rain at all locally, but heavy storms at the upper end of the watersheds.
The following appears on page 21 of this bulletin:
In the past, districts have been scattered at random along the streams, each
one working independently and with no thought as to the effect its plans might
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1573
have on the lands above and below. Where levees have been built, they have
as a rule been placed too close to the stream, to the detriment of the lands on
th opposite side; and where levees have been built on both sides, sufficient
floodways have not been left, with disastrous results to the levees themselves
or to the lands above. In other words, there has been no coordination and it
has been a case of each district for itself. Also no attempt has been made to
get at the root of the trouble and to reduce the flood heights in the Streams.
It is now realized that the overflowed land can not be reclaimed in this Way.
There is one problem which is common to all the bottom lands in each Valley,
namely, that of removing all obstacles to the flow of the stream, So that the
water can get away and not be held in storage for days or even Weeks at a
time. This means straightening and cleaning the streams as much as is eco-
nomically possible so as to make the distance which the Water has to travel
less and to reduce the friction between the flowing Water and the banks and
beds of the Stream.
On pages 213 and 214 is the following discussion of the effect of
channel improvements on concentration of floods.
The straightening of an old channel brings the tributaries closer to each
other so far as the time required for the water to travel between them is
concerned. In the assumed problem, the length of the old channel has been
halved, and the velocity of the water doubled, so that water from any point
in the valley will reach any other point in just one-fourth the time it formerly
required. The water entering the new channel at the upper end of the Valley
will reach the lower end of the Valley in just One-fourth the former time ; Since
the water is being discharged from the lower end of the Valley Only twice as
fast as under the old conditions, the result must be a piling up of the water
at the lower end and a more Serious flood condition. There will be less Water
at the upper end of the Valley and more Water at the lower end. This is a
phase of stream straightening which has not been given sufficient consideration.
In the foregoing discussion, a free Outlet at the end of the valley was
assumed. This is a condition which does not exist if the Outlet Stream is
also at flood Stage which is usually the case during the more Severe Storms.
The high Stage in the Outlet Stream decreases the Slope at the lower end of
the Stream under COnSideration and the Water Will not leave the Valley at
twice its former rate. -
If the reclamation of the bottom lands rests upon the cooperation of indi-
vidual landowners to make the investigation and Studies necessary for an
intelligent solution of the channel Straightening problem, the lands will never
be reclaimed, unless it be in a piecemeal fashion, each locality protecting
itself without a thought as to the effect Of its work upon the lands above and
below. Too much of this has been done already, and should not be permitted
to continue. It would seem that the work Of Scientific investigation and the
making of plans and recommendations might Very properly be a function of the
State.
The following, quoted from page 218 of this bulletin, is a state-
ment of the effect of levees on flood heights:
During flood periods the bottom land of a river valley is overflowed because
the flood water is brought to the valley by the tributary streams faster than
it can be carried away by the river Channel. Thus the flood plain becomes a
temporary reservoir for storing the Surplus water until such time as the
channel can Carry it aWay.
When the waters are confined by levees on each side of the river, the
artificial reservoir thus formed is much narrower than the natural one—
probably only one-tenth as wide. Since approximately the same volume of
Water must be stored—ignoring the increase in Velocity due to greater depth
of flow—the crest of a flood will reach a greater height than formerly. Just
how high and how far apart the levees will have to be depends entirely upon
the volume Of Water to be carried between them.
Gentlemen, on this hydrograph, showing the results of a study of
the regulation of Lake Erie, which I will introduce in the record
and ask to be printed, you will find in the full line the regulated
1574 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
stage with a diversion of 10,000 second-feet and the dotted lines a
regulated stage without diversion and the dash line the natural
stage. Mr. Shenehon has talked at length on the benefits that will
accrue to all interests, particularly the power and navigation in-
terests, from regulation of lake levels. Regulating works will be
built at the outlet of Lake Erie. Such construction is inevitable.
They are needed now in this period of deficient rainfall and low
Water, and this need will not be lessened as the years go by.
He has also mentioned the advantage of having additional outlet
capacity along with regulating works. Such additional outlet ca-
pacity enables the discharge of more than the natural outflow when
wanted, and can be used to prevent the lake being regulated from
rising above a predetermined stage even in flood time. This can
be utilized to prevent riparian damages from high water. In the
case of the regulation of Lake Erie the additional outlet capacity
is already provided by the Chicago Drainage Canal, 10,000 cubic
foot-seconds, the Welland Canal, 5,000 cubic foot-seconds, or a total
of 15,000 cubic foot-seconds.
Now, if we assume that it is safe to regulate Lake Erie between
a maximum level of 573.50 and a minimum of 572.50 with its full
natural supply of water, we can with a constant diversion of 10,000
cubic foot-seconds through an outlet separate from the Niagara
River just as safely regulate the lake up to a maximum level just
5.5 inches higher and avoid flood-damage hazard. This 5% inches
is, of course, the lowering due to a 10,000 cubic foot-seconds diversion.
I have made a study on this basis, computing the effect of regu-
lation, allowing the lake level to rise to an elevation of 574 with a
diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds and allowing the level to rise
to elevations of 573.54 without any diversion. Both cases are the
same as regards flood-damage hazard.
The result of this study is shown on the hydrograph I introduced,
first for 10 wet years, or years of abundant supply, 1880 to 1889, and
for 10 dry years, or years of scant supply, 1890 to 1899.
These studies show that in the 10 dry years, when additional
draft is needed most, that the depth of Lake Erie could have been
increased 13 inches without any diversion taking place, and an aver-
age of 15% inches with a diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds being
made at all times.
The minimum flow would have been 175,000 cubic foot-seconds in
either case under regulation as against a natural minimum flow of
169,000 cubic foot-seconds with a minimum supply of 149,000 cubic
foot-seconds, a gain of 6,000 cubic foot-seconds for power in the
lowest month on record.
To figure the gain to navigation by regulation assume 100 tons
per inch for each vessel and 200 vessels, each making 25 trips per
season. Then 100 times 200 times 25 equals 500,000 tons per inch.
Regulation without diversion would have increased depths during
the 10 years 1890–1899 an average of 13 inches. *
Thirteen times 500,000 tons equals 6,500,000 tons per year, or
65,000,000 tons in 10 years.
At 80 cents per ton the value of this increased depth would have
been $5,200,000 per year, or $52,000,000 in 10 years.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1575
Regulation with a diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds would
have increased depths during these same 10 years an average of
15% inches.
Fifteen and one-half times 500,000 tons equals 7,750,000 tons a
year, or 77,500,000 tons in 10 years. +
At 80 cents per ton the value of this increased depth would have
been $6,200,000 per year, or $62,000,000 in 10 years.
Regulation with a diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds would
have given depths in the 10 years 1890–1899 greater than regulation
without diversion by an average of 21/2 inches.
Two and one-half times 500,000 tons equals 1,250,000 tons per year,
or 12,500,000 tons in 10 years. -
At 80 cents per ton the value of this increased depth would have
been $1,000,000 per year, or $10,000,000 in 10 years, for the advantage
of regulation with 10,000 cubic foot-seconds diversion over regula-
tion without diversion.
Mr. ADOCK. You made the calculations from which this hydro-
graph was prepared?
Mr. RAMEY. I made the calculations, and that study is quite simi-
lar to the study made by Mr. Shenehon on regulation of Lake Erie.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is a chart entitled “Regulation of Lake Erie,
with diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds at Chicago, and without
diversion.”
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
Compensating works can be built on the American side of the
boundary sufficient to compensate for any slight diversion, or for
a lowering of 5 or 6 inches, without materially raising the levels at
any point above the natural level.
The meaning of the word “compensating” implies this. Works
properly designed to compensate for an artificial change would just
undo the effect of this change and no more; would just restore nat-
ural conditions, and this can be done without damage on either side
of the line.
Now, as to the use of water at Niagara Falls and in the Welland
Canal:
In the first part of December, 1923, I made an investigation of the
amount of water being used by the hydroelectric power plants at
Niagara on both the United States and Canadian sides of the river.
In this investigation I made an inspection of the plants, talked
to engineers who could give information on the subject, and looked
up published reports on the matter.
As a result of this investigation I reached the conclusion that
during the first week of December, 1923, there were being diverted
for the production of hydroelectric power at Niagara, on the United
States side, 19,500 cubic foot-seconds, all by the Niagara Falls Power
Co. This is based on information furnished by Maj. Paul S.
Reinecke, United States district engineer at Buffalo; John L.
Harper, chief engineer; and Norman K. Gibson, hydraulic engineer
of the Niagara Falls Power Co.
On the Canadian side the diversion was approximately 42,000
cubic foot-seconds. - -
The exact figures of my estimate are: Diversion by International
Railways Co., 125 cubic foot-seconds; Toronto Power Co., 12,400
1576 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
cubic foot-seconds; Ontario Power Co. plant at the foot of the Falls,
11,200 cubic foot-seconds. (All of which figures are taken from
the report of Colonel Warren.)
Canadian Niagara Power Co., 10,000 cubic foot-seconds. (From
statement of John L. Harper, chief engineer of the Niagara Falls
Power Co., which owns and operates the plant.)
Queenstown-Chippewa plant of the Hydroelectric Power Com-
mission of Ontario, 8,000 cubic foot-seconds. (This figure de-
termined as a result of rough flow measurements made in the canal
leading to the power plant on December 4 and 5, 1923.)
On page 223 of the Warren report is the comment on the then
proposed Queenstown plant:
It appears that the present Canadian diversions really amount to about
33,325 cubic feet per second, and that when the Ontario Power Co.'s new
units are put in service the amount will be more than 35,400. This would
leave less that 600 cubic feet per second available for the new plant. Ap-
parently, therefore, the commission must shut down a part of the Ontario
Power Co.'s plant when ready to start operating the new plant or else secure
an extension of the treaty limits.
Five units were completed and operating in this plant on De-
cember 1, 4, and 5, 1923. A sixth unit was practically completed.
Draft tubes had been constructed for the seventh and eighth units
alid preliminary construction was being done on the ninth and
tenth units, and none of the Canadian plants at Niagara Falls were
shut down and apparently no such procedure was in contemplation.
The Queenstown plant is a new plant, built since the ratification
of the boundary waters treaty, which was intended to protect the
investment in the plants at Niagara Falls. It takes water from the
Niagara River from a point well above the Falls through the
Welland River or Chippewa Creek and passes it around all the
lower rapids.
I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to state whether or not
the diversion for this plant is allowed by the treaty.
Mr. ADCOCK. You visited these plants at different times?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes. I am quite convinced that this is the amount
of water that was being diverted at that time.
Now, as to the Welland Canal, the figures given in Colonel War-
ren’s report relative to the use of the water in the Welland Canal
may be taken as representing the probable average conditions. On
page 198 of Warren's report is the statement:
The diversion from Lake Erie through the Welland Canal for power pur-
poses appears to be approximately 3,400 cubic feet per second. This is a
primary use of the water as it is diverted from the Lake Erie level of the
canal before having been used in any manner for the benefit of navigation.
In fact, it may be said that the diversion is slightly detrimental to navigation
in that it increases the Small current in the canal.
He further gives this table showing the number of cubic feet per
second diverted from Lake Erie:
Teiversions into the Welland River *. 440
Diversions down the Old Canal 800
IDiversion to the DeCew Falls plant 2, 125
Total diversion for power 3, 365
Water used for navigation only 1, 100
Total flow from Lake Erie 4,465
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1577
Mr. ADCOCK. That is in addition to the power diversion
Mr. RAMEY. In addition to the power diversion at Niagara Falls.
There is only one diversion of consequence for power on the Wel-
land Canal. This water leaves the present canal at Allanburg and
flows down for a short distance in a series of ponds and then into
the DeCew Falls plant of the Hamilton Cataract Power, Light &
Traction Co. The estimate of 2,125 cubic feet given in the Warren
report appears to be reasonable.
On page 119 of the Warren report is the statement:
It has been officially reported that the maximum diversion of water from
Lake Erie required by the new Welland Canal for navigation purposes will be
approximately 2,000 cubic foot-Seconds.
Mr. GouldFR. Is it true that questions with regard to the Sanita-
tion, what these plants are doing, and how they operate, and So on,
can be answered by Mr. Pearse as well as yourself?
Mr. RAMEY. Probably better.
Mr. Gould ER. Well, I wouldn’t say that necessarily; but can he
cover that?
Mr. RAMEY. Yes.
Mr. GouldF.R. You don’t think I will lose any opportunity of ask-
ing questions of the character you can see I would ask by passing
that over until to-morrow for Mr. Pearse?
Mr. RAMEY. Either Mr. Pearse or Mr. Wisner. -
Mr. Gould ER. Then I will forego asking questions until to-
ITO OPI’OW. ? &
Mr. STRONG. We will adjourn now until 9.30 o'clock to-morrow
morning. *
(Whereupon, at 10.20 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 9.30
o'clock to-morrow, May 27, 1924.)
CoMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
- House of REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, May 27, 1924.
The committee met at 9.30 o'clock a. m., Mr. Nathan A. Strong
presiding.
Mr. STRONG. I understand Mr. Goulder wants to ask Mr. Shenehon
some questions. º te
Mr. GouldER. Now, Mr. Shenehon, we both, I think, recognize
the desire of the committee to expedite. So I am not going to ask
many questions, and we will get along as fast as we can.
You were a witness in the suit of the United States against the
waterway, the one that stands on appeal now in the United States
Supreme Court? & e -i º
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; I testified, I think, in 1908 and 1909, and
again in 1914 on rebuttal. gº
Mr. GouldER. You left the Government employ in the fall of
1909, did you not?
Mr. SHENEHON. That is correct—September, 1909.
Mr. GouldER. And went to Minneapolis. How long were you up
there? What I want is how long was it until you went into the
1578 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
employment of the drainage canal? If you will give me the latter
year
Mr. SHENEHON. I was dean of the college of engineering until
1917. . I resigned in May, 1917. I have an impression it was about
that time; it was after I think the vertical decision of Judge Landis
in the case.
Mr. GOULDER. After his decision?
Mr. SHENEHON. After his verbal opinion. That is my recollec-
tion. Now, I may be in error about that.
Mr. GoulDER. I think you are in error about that; I don’t think
that opinion of his was delivered until long after that.
Mr. SHENEHON. My report is dated 1919. It was some time in
1918 that I made an earlier report on the regulation of the St. Law-
rence River.
Mr. GOULDER. In your testimony in that case an entry was based
on an abstraction or diversion of 4,000 cubic feet. I find you were
asked by Mr. Wilkinson the general question of the effect, and, as I
find here, you answered: -
It is certain to be followed by a lowering of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
Then this question:
NOW, Mr. Shenehon, what do you say as to the extent of the lowering of Lakes
Huron and Michigan as the result of the diversion of 4,000 cubic feet per
Second at Chicago? On what do you base your answer?
And your answer is:
The lowering would be about 2 or 2% inches.
Q. And would that answer apply proportionately to the diversions of other
quantities of, say, 14,000 cubic feet or 15,000 cubic feet?—A. Yes. .
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me explain that. Perhaps I might make a
general explanation of my testimony, as a friend of this committee,
and there is substantially no difference between my testimony as a
friend of this committee and what it was as a friend of the court in
the sanitary district case, and meanwhile, since my early testimony,
15 years ago, and since my later testimony, 10 years ago, I trust there
has been Some professional maturity since that time, but in the es-
sential facts that bear on the situation I have not, to the best of my
knowledge, veered to any extent. My original plat—Shenehon Ex-
hibit No. 1–in the first volume of the record shows a lowering of 5
inches. That is a very clear-cut statement—exactly 5 inches—for a
diversion of 10,000 cubic feet. -
Mr. ADCOCK. You have placed the increment of the St. Clair at
24,000, then?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. I think I can clear this up. I would like to
speak on this general subject. To impeach anything I have stated
before this committee on the ground that 15 or 10 years ago I might
have said something that appears to the counsel—not for the navi-
gation of the Lakes but for the lower levels of the Lakes—strikes
me as a little ungenerous, to start with ; and I do not feel the slightest
embarrassment in the situation, because, as I have told you, I have
spoken to you as a friend of the United States, and as a friend of
water power, of navigation, and of the sanitary district besides, and
I have spoken with the utmost sincerity, and I think you will See also
with the utmost interest and intensity. The reason for any change
&
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1579
in my attitude now as to the general lowering of the Great Lakes, was
to put it, instead of 5, as I originally testified, now 5%; and I have
never put out a report for the sanitary district and never written a
review for the sanitary district that I did not set it down that this
abstraction of 10,000 cubic feet per second will lower the Lakes sub-
stantially 5% inches, to the substantial hurt and damage of naviga-
tion. That is all there was in the case. If the sanitary district did
that, they are entitled to lose in the lawsuit. Whether or not you
could spend many thousands of dollars or a million or two of dollars
and retrieve it, did not enter into the lawsuit. Moreover, the attor-
neys for the United States said go to Congress
Mr. GouldFR. Well, if the committee want to hear the discussion,
which will be unilateral, I don’t think the time ought to be charged
to me.
Mr. BARRETT. Go ahead and ask questions, Mr. Goulder.
Mr. STRONG. I don’t see anything that Mr. Goulder has developed
thus far that shows any inconsistency. -
h Mr. SHENEHON. I thought I might save a little time by heading
im off.
Mr. NEwTON. At that time you were looking rather,into the dismal
future and now you are looking back to see what happened. Is not
that true? -
Mr. SHENEHON. I think I am looking constructively to the future
now in the attitude I take.
Mr. NEwTON. I mean as to the effect of the diversion; at that time
it was more or less theoretical and now is more or less practical.
Mr. SHENEHON. It is the same situation now except we have more
records on the St. Clair River now, and there seems to be a general
agreement that a lowering of 5% inches is about right. -
Mr. GOULDER. Two to two and a half inches for 4,000 feet would be
practically 5% inches for 10,000 cubic feet. -
Mr. SHENEHON. No; it would be a little more, Mr. Goulder.
Mr. GouldFR. That is followed simply with a statement that—when
asked what would be the effect upon Lake Erie, the answer is in the
form of a question, “That is, of 4,000?” -
Q. Yes.—A. Lake Erie would be lowered, all of the Lakes below Superior, be-
low the locks at the foot of St. Marys River Would be lowered.
Now, I want to call your attention to this. Or, by way of getting it
into the record in consecutive order, I will read: -
Q. What have you to say as to the effect of the fluctuations of the Lakes due
to natural causes in making this loss of 2 or 3 inches, which would result from
the diversion of this water more or less Serious?
That is speaking of 4,000 feet.
A. I don't now see tinat the fluctuation has any bearing On the case.
Q: Why do you say that?—A. Because whatever the water level is, if it had
been lowered, say, 2 inches by the diversion, you will still be Short your 2 inches
where you needed it in the critical places. 'The natural fluctuations due to Winds
and to seasonal conditions are independent of the drainage canal and the loss
in draft is always measured by the amount of the lowering. You are always 2
inches closer to the bottom in such a case, whether the lake is raised or Whether
the lake is tilted up or not, you are always 2 inches closer to the bottom than
you would be otherwise, and when you are running over critical areas 2 inches
may count, perhaps I should say when you are attempting to run over Critical
à Tea S.
1580 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Q. As to the effect of the loss of 2 or 3 inches in the draft of vessels, do
you give any consideration to that ; do you add anything to the statements that
have already been made on the Subject, and do you know the statements that
have been made?—-A. I have been familiar with the Subject for Some time and I
have spoken of the loss of draft or of the loss of carrying power on one of
the large lake freighters, due to loss of draft, as about a thousand tons of 2,000
pounds to the foot. That would be 83% tons to the inch. That is an approxi-
mate statement. That is, say between 19 and 20 feet, that is near the low limit.
Of course a ship when you first begin to load her goes down a little
faster until she gets her bearings, and you are speaking here of the
ship when she has got down. That was the idea, was it not, Mr.
Shenehon 2
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. Is there a question?
Mr. GouldFR. You gave that testimony? a
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; and I absolutely underwrite it now. It was
the truth then and it is the truth now.
Mr. Gould ER. You are speaking there of a blockade or retardation
of water by ice in the river St. Clair?
Mr. ADCOCK. Mr. Chairman, in order to save time, seeing that
there are no questions involved here, this record was printed by the
sanitary district and the Government together, and I suggest we will
3,30'E'ee: . . .
*::: GOULDER (interposing). Only one or two questions. . . .
Mr. ADCOCK. I think that the record is correct. < *;
Mr. GouldFR. I think we can get through while we are discussing
it, Mr. Adcock. . º
After a statement of the average ice season in the Straits of Macki-
naw, from January 6 to April 15, 99 days, and in the St. Clair River,
the St. Clair Flats, from, say, December 15 to April 15, then the
question:
Q. What is that ice effect?—A. It is a lessening of the discharge through the
ice retardation.
Q. What is the effect of that upon the lowering which would be caused by the
diversion at Chicago?—A. Whatever retardation comes from that and whatever
lifting of the Lakes Michigan and Huron there is something I should say navi-
gation was entitled to irrespective of the Chicago Drainage Canal. If the ice
Shuts off half the flow of the river, as it does at times, the presumption is that
the increment is lessened, and if the increment is lessened during that time the
tendency of Lakes Michigan and Huron is to lower at a greater rate than indi-
cated by the open season. By that I mean that if the increment becomes 10,000
cubic feet per Second instead of 24,000 and that should be a continuous condition,
the lowering would be 4 inches for 4,000 instead of 2 inches for 4,000, and during
that period that the ice is in place the tendency of that lake to lower is greater,
due to the Chicago Drainage Canal. It is rising at the same time the drainage
canal is affected.
Is that correct?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that was correct when I wrote it, and I
see no reason to alter the statement. -
Mr. GoulDER. I call your attention to one other thing. The dis-
charge observations made in 1908, the corroboration of those of the
earlier discharges, seems to be evidence of no change of the regimen
in the river, speaking of the St. Clair River. What is the regimen?
Mr. SHENEHON. I suppose that is the rule under which it flows
with a fixed channel.
Mr. Gould ER:
Q. What can you Say as to the effect on Lake Erie of the diversions at
Niagara Falls? -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1581
Mr. SHENEHON. One moment as to that question of the change of
regimen in the St. Clair, a river I had already referred to in my
testimony, and stated that during the progress of the sanitary
district case I presented exhibits and held that any change of regi-
men was not demonstratable; that I thought it was a mistake. I
stated, moreover, that I thought the continuance of the low levels
of Lakes Michigan and Huron had made me wonder whether or
not my analysis of that question was correct. I am open-minded
on that at the present time. Lake Erie and Lake Huron are out
of step at the present time.
Mr. GouldFR. You say, after having studied that and worked over
the data 15 years ago, and in the meantime worked over it again,
your mind is now, we might say, in a state of flux on that question?
Mr. SHENEHON. Let us call it open, and let us add that we have
the records of 15 more years as a guide in the matter, which is a
very essential accumulation of data on which to base these conclu-
sions. I have not said that I think there is a change in the St.
Clair River; but some of these suggestions of putting this weir
at Port Huron to offset the dredging makes one wonder whether
Some of the earlier dredging did not have some effect. The pre-
Sumption is always in that direction. +
Mr. GouldFR. Well, you will recall that either Warren or Rich-
mond said this whole thing, this whole regulating business, is a
matter of judgment among and between engineers and is prob-
lematical, the subject of experiments, and not to be determined
without experiment, practice, and observation. That is the sub-
stance of what he says, is it not?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I prefer
Mr. GOULDER. Just as General Bixby said the same thing verbally
to the committee?
Mr. SHENEHON. I think General Bixby's attitude was a little
colored and not quite clearly understood on regulation. In the
meanwhile, Mr. Goulder, regulation is in operation at Sault Ste.
Marie, and a weir has been set on the bottom of the St. Clair River
and no effect came from the dredging; and in the minds of us who
have given very intense study to the matter over a period, in my
case of 24 years, there is not any question about the ability to either
compensate or regulate.
Mr. GouldFR. Well, that is the opinion—that is your own opinion?
Mr. SHENEHON. And that of the Board of Engineers, in the re-
port signed by General Taylor.
Mr. ADCOCK. That is in the Warren report.
Mr. SHENEHON. That is a review of the Warren report.
Mr. GouldF.R. Yes; but there goes with that in the other sources,
the qualification that I speak of. There is no example in the world
of the regulation from Montreal or below, and between that and
Duluth and Chicago and such waters, those conditions do not ap-
pear anywhere else, do they? -
Mr. SHENEHON. We have the Gut Dam as an illustration of com-
pensation. That is an illustrated fact. We have the Massena
Weir as another demonstrated fact; I don't know exactly the effect.
We have the regulating works at Sault Ste. Marie. And I would
rather take the judgment of Alfred Noble and George Y. Wisner
1582 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
on the regulating works at the head of the Niagara River than of
Warren and Richmond; and I would like to add the judgment of
General Taylor, our present Chief of Engineers, and General
Keller, who collaborated with General Taylor in making that re-
port; and I would rather take the judgment of the board of engi-
neers of which General Bixby was a member back in 1914, when
they stated this could be done, and when General Keller was good
enough to refer the matter to me. So we have a very considerable
mass of judgment, Mr. Goulder.
Mr. GouldFR. Does this you are talking about go any further
than to show the contrariety of opinion and judgment about it.
You say that Colonel Warren and Richmond questioned these
things and therefore Stewart was wrong when he said
Mr. SHENEHON (interposing). You are asking for authority and
I am giving it to you.
Mr. GouldF.R. You are arguing the thing out. It is a very plain
proposition, whether there is an example of this character.
Mr. SHENEHON. I say yes.
Mr. Gould ER. Whether it is demonstrated
Mr. SHENEHON. I say that at Sault Ste. Marie is a demonstra-
tion.
Mr. GouldF.R.. I will have to ask you a few questions about that,
then. Except for Sault Ste. Marie can you suggest any parallel
problem, condition, or waterway system in its regulation or at-
tempted regulation?
Mr. SHENEHON. I don’t think we have anything comparable, Mr.
Goulder.
Mr. GouldF.R. Let us end it there, I don’t care to go into discus-
sion about it. lº
Mr. SHENEHON. I do want to go a little further myself and Say
that when you take out 10,000 cubic feet from that lake there is
not any experiment about the fact you are going to lower the lake
level; and when you fill up the Gut channel of the St. Lawrence
and raise Lake Ontario, there is no experiment about that; and
when you put gates across the foot of a lake like Superior and those
gates can vary the flow, it seems to me we have passed beyond the
time when we talk about experiments—when these millions upon
millions of dollars you have talked about as a hurtful effect upon
the Great Lakes system call for remedial engineering. *
Mr. GouldF.R. Within your knowledge has there been a measure
of improvement in encroaching upon navigable waters, running
navigable waters, that has not developed very much discussion,
much or little according to the importance, with reference to cross
currents and the character of currents created?
Mr. SHENEHON. I don’t know what you refer to. I may say that
the Gut Dam, to which we have referred, had as one of its objects
the cutting off of the cross current in the Galops Rapids...I may say
in speaking of the lower St. Marys River, that the putting out of
wing dams for compensation, which was early begun there, soon
developed the fact that it would be better to let the river surface go
down and do some dredging or else bring the Lakes up from belºw.
That was the situation. You have always the economic desirability
of dredging or of raising the water levels.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1583
Mr. GouldFR. Did you say this in your testimony in the Govern-
ment case (reading at page 328)—
A. Yes. At the middle Neebish there was some compensation ; a dam was
run through the shallow water, but I think the compensation was incomplete.
and yet I speak without full knowledge of the hydraulics of that lower river.
A Compensation, I think, at Little Rapids was attempted also. I do not know
to what extent it was effective.
Do you know more about that now?
Mr. SHENEHION. Yes: I know it was navigation. Is that the 1909
testimony or later? That is volume 1. We know very definitely
about that and I expressed my judgment as an engineer that the
course pursued there was correct.
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, there was a difference there of engineers and
engineering judgment, was there not, even about those comparatively
simple things?
Mr. SHENEHON. Very little. The hydraulic analysis would indi-
cate that your wing dams would not entirely compensate.
Mr. GOULDER. The same thing was true, was it not, this contrariety
of judgment, as to the Livingstone Channel improvement &
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; there was a good deal of discussion there.
You are speaking of one kind of compensation where you put in
lateral works. t
Mr. GouldFR. I am not talking about compensation other than to
the point of contrariety of opinion. It is not true—I will put the
question this way: It is not true that there is some fixed formula or
some fixed example and that all you have to do in seeking to regu-
late this Great Lakes system from one end to the other would be to
equip or modify some general system according to the fixed rule; that
is not true, is it?
Mr. SHENEHON. I am inclined to think that when in 1900 the
Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways fixed the regulating works
at the head of the Niagara and built them at the head of the St.
Marys River—or when Alfred Noble built them—that we had
reached a demonstration that this was a practical, proper thing to do.
Mr. GouldF.R. Let us take your first instance there, at the head of
the Niagara River in 1900, where you had the gates and so on.
How many times has that been—well, for the want of a better expres-
sion—turned down by a subsequent board and commission?
Mr. SHENEHON. I have not any definite information regarding
that.
Mr. Goul DER. Was it not recommended against by even the Inter-
national Waterways Commission?
Mr. SHENEHON. The International Waterways Commission, as I
have testified, have recommended a weir.
Mr. GOULDER. I am speaking now about this identical thing that
was elaborated by you and shown in maps. Was not that rejected
by the International Waterways Commission and their engineers?
Mr. SHENEHON. My information regarding that is a little meager.
Mr. GoulDER. Then, you had better not state; we will get that
from another source.
Mr. SHENEHON. Just let me go on, please
Mr. GOULDER. Well, I do not want you to go on speculating on it,
if you say your information is meager, you are not informed about
it; why spend time on it? Let us get somebody that does know.
1584 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. MORGAN. For the information of the committee, I would like
Mr. Shenehon to answer the question.
Mr. GouldFR. I have no objection. .
Mr. SHENEHON. I have already stated, gentlemen, that the Inter.
national Waterways Commission—of which Mr. Stewart is here
representing some Canadian interests, or observing—with Mr. Has-
kell, who was dean at Cornell, that they recommended a submerged
weir with a backwater effect of 4% inches at mean water stage on
Lake Erie, and to that extent there is a divergence of opinion as to
what is the best thing to do. I think it is clearly a matter of demon,
stration that what they did at Sault Ste. Marie is the thing to do
at the head of the Niagara River. And then there was a long discus-
sion amongst the engineers and the report of the International
Waterways Commission, showing the fluctuations for a long time.
I think General Ernst was on that board. Some of these things are
a little hazy. I don’t think any men comparable in large experience
in waterways matters and men who have accomplished so much in
big thinks in the world as Alfred Noble have ever passed on this
subject adversely. I do want to argue this for a minute, if I may.
You see the method employed by the counsel. His question, “Does
not somebody else think differently?” Is there ever a time when
somebody else does not think differently? And do not engineers go
ahead and do things, even build boats, even dredge channels? Sup-
pose, now, that the wrong kind of regulating works should be put
in, they would serve some purpose, and later on we could put in
something better; and we save $10,000,000 while we are experiment-
ing. It is better to go ahead. And the one fatal thing in this whole
situation is donothingism. It strikes me that Mr. Goulder's attitude,
if he truly represents the navigation of the Great Lakes and the
welfare of the people of the United States and Canada dependent
on these channels, is most remarkable.
Mr. GouldF.R. Mr. Chairman, I rather object. I have heard
Canada scored, but I do not want to be scored for trying to bring
out the facts. -
Mr. SHENEHON. You have not heard me score Canada, Mr.
Goulder.
Mr. GouldF.R. No; but I have heard you now start off to score me,
and my life work has been in this business, and I have never been
scored before; no one has ever suggested that I am not in good faith
in what I do.
Mr. SwºT. Mr. Chairman, I assume that these two gentlemen
appear here as witnesses for the committee. If so, is it essential
that one witness shall cross-examine another?
Mr. STRONG. Well, Mr. Sweet, I would say in answer to that that
we have finally reached that point in our investigation of this sub-
ject which is to my mind most important, and we have before us
now an expert witness on the one side, being interrogated by emi-
nent counsel representing the transportation interests on the Great
Lakes. Now, I take it that Mr. Goulder is not disposed to interro-
gate, do what Mr. Shenehon says, just for the purpose of doing
it; but I assume that he would be delighted, and the interests he
represents would be delighted, if they could be convinced that the
position taken by Mr. Shenehon, that by the installation of regu-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1585
lating works, the level of the lakes might be not only maintained,
but possibly improved, can be substantiated and shown to be the
true position. Mr. Goulder, as counsel, of course wants to dig into
the bottom of the subject, in the interest of the people he represents,
and he is simply employing methods with which Judge Barrett
and other members of his profession are familiar, in order to de-
velop truth. I am perfectly willing, as a member of the committee
to listen to the discussions and the little conflicts of opinion as
between the counsel and the witness. What we are after is all
the information we can get, and I do not think we should be critical
in abridging the opportunities of a witness to say all he wants to
Say, nor should we be technical in indicating to counsel that he
ought not to press a witness too far. So far as I am concerned, I
am willing that they should go to the mat.
. SHENEHON. I agree in your view; that would suit me all
right.
r. STRONG. We have been having some very interesting discus-
sions, when you were not present, Mr. Sweet, and I think we are
deriving a good deal of information from this discussion.
Mr. MoRGAN. As a member of the committee, however, I think
that it is only fair that when a question is put that a full answer
should be permitted.
Mr. STRONG. Yes; and I am sure Mr. Goulder is willing that Mr.
Shenehon should answer fully. I think Mr. Goulder will give him
ºlºne rope he wants, in the hope, possibly, that he will hang him-
Seliſ.
Mr. SHENEHON. I do not see that I have much control of that.
Mr. Gould ER. I think he will take it all. Now, then, we will
leave that at the head of Niagara River on paper, and about the
Soo, when was the present installation there completed? You give
that as an example of proving some part of your theory I think.
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. -
Mr. Gould ER. Now, we are pretty familiar with the Soo. When
was that completed?
Mr. SHENEHON. When the final gap was closed I am not certain.
Mr. Gould ER. Can you tell approximately?
Mr. SHENEHON. I imagine it was in 1922, the last sections of the
regulating works closing the Canadian end of the gap, the mid-
stream end of the gap on the Canadian side, was completed in 1918.
There was still an earth embankment or filling to be placed, and
that was running free I think for a number of years afterwards.
Mr. GouldF.R. When Clergue first went up there and put his pulp
mill in on the Canadian side the water of the Soo ran over some
little islands, did it not?
Mr. SHENEHON. Some channels; yes.
Mr. GouldFR. The Soo itself never was navigable; I mean the
rapids.
K. SHENEHON. In the Chandler-Dunbar case it was made navi-
gable; the logs came down the stream.
Mr. GouldF.R.. I had in mind navigability for ships.
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, no.
Mr. GoulDER. It was a stony place.
Mr. SHENEHON. Only small vessels; yes.
1586 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. GouldFR. Used to shoot the rapids there as a matter of great
interest. . . g
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes.
Mr. GouldFR. And the Clergue people closed up without per-
mission of anybody, they closed up some of those little spaces be-
tween the islands, little creeks.
Mr. SHENEHON. At least one; I am not certain how many, but
at least one.
Mr. GOULDER. Now, the controlling or regulating works, com-
pensating works, or whatever they are termed, the works that were
introduced were along the international bridge span, were they not?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; upstream.
Mr. GouldFR. That the committee may understand it—and you
can correct me if I am not right—from the westward the railroad
bridge goes over our canals and there is a bascule bridge there.
Then it continues unbroken right across the Soo until you get over
on the Canadian side, with no lift, no swing, or opening of that
character, and then they have another bridge, I think a swing bridge,
over the Canadian locks canal; so that all along that Soo is a bridge,
a low bridge, built upon piers, and in between those piers gates or
whatever the construction is
Mr. SHENEHON. Upstream from the bridge and parallel to it.
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, in connection with it, close to that bridge.
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, perhaps a hundred or a hundred and fifty
feet above.
Mr. GouldFR. And those gates were constructed so that they could
be raised hereafter or sunk—which was it?
Mr. SHENEHON. When the gate is down, resting on the sill, on
the bottom, then it may be lifted just as a window sash is lifted.
Mr. GouldFR. The opening is made by lifting up the gate and not
by sinking it down?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; that is true.
Mr. GouldFR. And how many of those are there?
Mr. SHENEHON. There are 16 of those gates, with, I think, a 52-
foot clearance between the piers.
Mr. GouldFR. And how many of those have ever been used, and
how often, do you know about that? May I put the question an-
other way? Is it or not true that only one of them has ever been
lifted, and that was for the special purpose of letting some water
down? Do you know the fact about that?
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, at the time I was at the Soo I think there
was one gate open and about 4,000 cubic feet was flowing down the
river to keep the white fish active, I understand, and as to the facts
of how often they have been raised or lowered, I have not the in-
formation.
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, there would be some sort of information as
to that, would there not?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. The main point here, I think, is that some-
where between 40,000 and 50,000 cubic feet per second is diverted
into alien or artificial channels and still Lake Superior maintains
a relatively good elevation. When I say relatively good, in the
whole period since those works have been in, we have not had a
time of ample supply in the Great Lakes system. I stated that point,
!
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1587
that they have not yet raised the elevation of Lake Superior to the
point to which I think it can be safely carried. And the other thing
is that the other lakes have not been regulated from the lowermost
up, as I suggested; and I can imagine the emergency or the need
coming at times of releasing some water from Lake Superior to take
care of Michigan and Huron. Even under the rules of regulation
when the water gets to a certain low stage they do take care of
Michigan and Huron to the extent of the natural flow of the river.
Mr. GouldFR. I thought you said in another connection that with
a 19-foot fall at Soo any effects in the raising of water and so on
would reach up only to that pool or up to the floor possibly of the
Poe Lock, which is the bottom of that?
Mr. SHENEHON. You mean in backwater effect, coming from rais-
ing Michigan and Huron 3
Mr. Gould ER. Yes.
Mr. SHENEHON. That would only come to the floor of the locks,
that is true; but if you had 2 or 3 feet of depth in Lake Superior and
at a time like this could release it, it would have good value for
Lakes Michigan and Huron. &
Mr. Gould ER. Oh, I am not questioning that; I am only question-
ing the reverse of what you are now stating about it, going up
above and jumping that 19-foot fall.
Mr. SHENEHON. When I make any statement of that kind, Mr.
Goulder, I won’t be lucid for that particular period.
Mr. GouldFR. About what proportion of the Soo rapids crossed
by that system of gates which when down constitutes practically a
pier or dam? -
Mr. SHENEHON. About 900. Let me figure that a little more
accurately. Nearly a thousand feet, and then in addition to that are
the gates of the Chandler-Dunbar sluiceways, another hundred
feet. I would say 1,100 feet.
Mr. GouldFR., Would you mind giving it this way. About what
proportion of the width, whether a quarter or a half or three-
quarters, or what, approximately?
Mr. SHENEHON. I would say about 60 per cent.
Mr. GouldFR. And since that was put there at any time has there
been more or less water coming down from Lake Superior to the
lower Lakes?
Mr. SHENEHON. I don’t know; I have not that information, Mr.
Goulder. I should say in the average of the time
Mr. GouldFR. If you don’t know, possibly you had better not
state. You were asked a question in this wise (p. 328 of the
record):
# * is if not f" a ten lency of all the Government improvements to lower the
level of the Ilakes where an improvement is being made, and reducing the
: , , , (, ; 2
You were speaking then about the improvements in rivers and
channels.
A. I should Say not.
There follows then some question about dredging.
Mr. SHENEHON. Let me touch that.
1588 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. GOULDER. Let me finish the question. You were then asked
about some details of dredging, etc., and then the question is repeated:
Q. Well, now, going back to the other question, would it not then be in all
improvements of this character to lower the bodies of the water where the im-
provements was being carried on ?—A. I should say the tendency would be on
the side of the lowering rather than on the other side, but it is very Small aside
from the one case, that I have testified about regarding the Water Over the
floor of the Poe Lock. The tendency in creating channels has been to create a
bigger opening and a disposition of material elsewhere has tended to make
Smaller Openings elsewhere. There has been compensation to a considerable
extent and the whole question of the lowering has to be taken together. .
Mr. SHENEHON. That is right. • 3.
Mr. GoulDER. And then I think elsewhere you said compensation,
the building of docks at Detroit and elsewhere, had made it so that
after all the improvements between Huron and Erie may not be said
to have appreciably reduced the levels, if any, or very slightly...
Mr. SHENEHON. Well, I am not prepared, with the additional 10
years of Lake Michigan and Huron elevations as shown by the Lake
Survey Hydrograph, to maintain that earlier view and, as I say now,
mysmind is open on the thing. I would be very glad indeed to make a
study of that and to put a memorandum in this case. I wish you
would please understand that the one thing that I care very much
about as an engineer and as a citizen is the system of the Great Lakes.
It has been the place where my most important engineering work has
been done and I have a tremendous interest in these Lakes and their
navigation, and I speak as a public-spirited citizen as well as an
engineer in these matters. I have never, in any case, supported the
views of my clients against my convictions in a situation of this kind.
It does appear doubtful now, and perhaps if that phydrogroph was
spread before the committee it could see the situation. I think it
would be rather illuminating.
Mr. GOULDER. Well, Mr. Shenehon, you do not desire to convey even
an intimation that the able and competent men connected with this
lake engineering business are prejudiced and do subordinate their
real thoughts. Take me like General Wetzell, General Poe, General
Davis, Colonel Lydecker, General Wheeler, Sabin, Warren, and
Townsend; the present man, Cosby—why, there have been fifty very
forward and very prominent engineers, with world-wide promi-
nence—is not that true—in connection with these Lake matters?
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes. You mentioned General Weitzel; but you
did not mention Alfred Noble.
Mr. GOULDER. Well, Noble was never connected with the Govern-
ment. I am speaking of the Government now. º
Mr. SHENEHON. Yes; up to the time that the Weitzell Lock was
completed, Alfred Noble was the engineer who designed and built it.
Mr. GoulDER. Was he in the Government service?
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, yes.
Mr. Gould ER. I didn’t know that.
Mr. SHENEHON. Oh, yes; in the Government service, and very
much of his life thought was spent on the problems of the Great
Lakes. When he became president of the American Society of Civil
Engineers his address was on “The commerce of the Great Lakes.”
And you mentioned Sabin. There is no question where Sabin stands
on regulation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1589
l Mr. GOULDER. I am not asking you as to where they stand on regu-
ation.
Mr. SHENEHON. I am going to tell you where General Davis stood
also. Sabin's two articles I quoted from as to the value of these
regulations. He is one of the ablest civilian engineers in the employ-
ment of the Government. I mentioned him before. His views are
well worth following, Mr. Goulder, and there is no question as to
where he stands on this matter of regulation. He has written these
articles.
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, I do not think it is proper for a witness to
quote and paraphrase another. Mr. Sabin is a very able man and
so are the others, and his reports, conveying his own meaning in
his own language, are before this committee in detail and in full.
Mr. MoRGAN. Mr. Chairman, if the witness is being quéstioned
about certain engineers it certainly should follow that the witness
can refer to the engineers pertinently so far as their views are con-
cerned on the matter under consideration.
Mr. SHENEHON. I may have misunderstood Mr. Goulder's sug-
gestion here, but it appeared to me that he thought these men differed
from the views I have put forth.
Mr. Gould ER. I did not intend to put it so at all.
Mr. SHENEHON. Now, I am going to give you General Davis's
view. I mentioned the fact that I delivered an address myself in
1908 before the Detroit Engineering Society on the “Right of way
of the Great Lakes,” and I quoted General Davis in this report in
this way. I said: “Colonel Davis in his reports on the 20-foot
channel has for several years past reiterated—like the ‘Carthage
must be destroyed of the Roman Senator—this statement: ‘The
improved channels were made available in 1897, but as the water
levels have been almost continually below the mean stage the actual
depth has been 1 to 3 feet less than 20 feet.’”
These men form a group of very able men, and here is Colonel
Davis year after year in his annual report calling attention to the
iºnal the level of the lakes is 1 to 3 feet lower than a desirable
level.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Goulder, I do not get the relative statement that
you made. You name a lot of men. Do I understand that those
men all oppose Mr. Shenehon's statement?
Mr. Gould ER. No; I never said that.
Mr. HULL. What was the object of mentioning their names. I
think everybody understood it that way.
Mr. MORGAN. That is the reason I wanted the witness to state
about that.
Mr. HULL. There was an inference that these men opposed his
statement, and if that is not your intention you ought to change
the record.
(Upon direction the reporter read at some length from the record
as above recorded.)
Mr. HULL. Now, that is an inference that they are opposed to
his contention, as I understand it.
Mr. MoRGAN. No; I don’t think he said that. He predicated his
inquiry on Something else.
1590 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. GouldFR. I am glad this little riffle has come up, because I
was drifting into the idea that there was some inclination to be
overcritical of my examination, and I think I know how to conduct
an examination so as to not call for any reprobation from the court
or anybody else. -
To clear this up, for Mr. Shenehon's benefit as well as my own,
the idea that he intended or could intend, or anybody else, that all
these other men were not in the same class, that none of these other
men could be charged with misrepresentation or subordinating
public welfare or their real thought or something of that kind, that
was all under heaven I was driving at.
Mr. BARRETT. I think the whole thing is due to a statement on Mr.
Shenehon’s part that he did not intend to make. I do not think
Mr. Shenehon meant at any time to impugn the motives of any
engineer, but it was a twisting of words. So I think the whole thing
is well over.
Mr. Gould ER. I have finished.
Mr. SHENEHON. I would like it if you would ask Mr. Goulder
whether he thinks it worth while to experiment, to try to undo
this tremendous damage he has referred to, whether or not the lake
carriers are inclined to help contribute to the welfare of the people
by doing something. I do not know whether an attorney wishes
to answer a question of that kind, but it would seem to me very
pertinent, because the whole thing seems to me tremendously re-
markable. - : w
Mr. GouldF.R. Well, I would say to the committee, Mr. Chair-
man, that so far as experts on the subject are concerned, I am
going, as I see it now, to refer you gentlemen to your Chief of
Engineers and your Engineering Corps, who are the natural ad-
visers of the committee. They should be competent, and I have no
doubt they are competent, and they have the general interests at
heart, just as this committee does, and in the same manner, and I
suppose in the same degree.
Mr. HULL. Can I ask Mr. Goulder a question, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. STRONG. Yes. -
Mr. HULL. I am interested, of course, in the deep waterway from
Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico. The contention is that it
will lower the lakes. Would your organization favor regulating
works if it would raise the lake levels to the regular level?
Mr. GouldF.R. Now, you put a qualification there, if the United
States will take the responsibility of deciding that. Let them
decide it; I won’t decide it.
Mr. HULL. I don't want you to dodge the question. That is the
way you did the other time.
Mr. Gould ER. No; I didn’t.
Mr. HULL. The question comes up, we have got to do something,
and that is this. We want to build the waterway, and this com-
mittee is as much interested as I am in not interfering with the
lake levels, and if we can put in the regulating works and bring the
levels back and they are brought back, are you satisfied?
Mr. GouldF.R.. I would be satisfied when that is done—
Mr. HULL. That is all.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1591
Mr. GouldFR. And demonstrated and is absolutely reliable; but
I would not take the chance. Let me give you an illustration. I
would not take the chance of saying that you can regulate the works
in that way. You are asking me would I do it. Say no, because
in the history of the Detroit River bridge, treating of the question
of navigation, what navigation requires, there was a board, and
General Poe, I think, was a member of that board. That was a
long time ago. The proposition was to put in down at Stony
Island, or between that and the Canadian shore, a bridge, a low
bridge, and it was to have two draws, 166 feet each, and the effort
was made then, and many, many people came forward in good faith
and said they believed that those two draws, of 166 feet, would for
all time answer the purposes of navigation. One of those men was
Secretary Alger; the other was afterwards Senator McMillan. The
plan was not adopted for putting in the bridge, a fixed span with
166 feet clearance. And in the nineties the railroad companies
brought forward a plan of a high bridge, 150 feet clearance and
1,100 feet of span, across the Detroit River. Engineer after engi-
neer came forward in that matter, some on one side and some on the
other.
Mr. HULL. What has that got to do with these regulating works?
Mr. GouldFR. This: That the question of what will do in the
future, what will be needed in the future, what will be needed, is
the very thing that this committee has to deal with and always has
had to deal with. It was in Cleveland’s administration that a propo-
sition was refused in the Hudson River, in the upper end of New
York, where the transportation—the traffic—was less than a third,
perhaps a quarter, of the traffic on the Lakes; they refused to let
piers be put in the river 2,000 feet apart. Now, it is all because of
the uncertainties—the uncertainties of navigation and gales of wind
and all those things that enter into this. Therefore I would tender
in the most proper way your Government experts, your Chief of
Engineers, and on the other proposition your Public Health Depart-
ment to advise you in any way you may choose to request rather than
to bring expert witnesses, as in court, to testify on the subject.
Now, that is not impugning anybody, and it is not criticizing any-
body, and I resent the idea that I should be criticized for taking that
position, which I think is the frank and open and manly position
for me and my people. We have our committee. We have our
Government experts. On the face of the thing, we have given and
shall give you any facts that we know that do not come within the
ordinary business experience of experts, engineers, the engineering
corps, or of this committee. Now, any facts we can give we will be
very glad to give. I don’t care to go beyond that. e
And, on the question of expert testimony, my own notion about
the value of that—and, again, I don’t want anybody to look at me
and say I am accusing—on the value of expert testimony, I would
think no one so valuable on such an occasion and for such a purpose
as the Government experts, who have no reason, no possibility of
even subconsciously being influenced in their thought.
Mr. SHENEHON. I would like to make just one little statement,
and if I have said anything that was unkind or discourteous to Mr.
Goulder I am very sorry. But he has answered your question that
1592 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
he is willing to take the views of the Chief of Engineers and the
Corps of Engineers. General Taylor in this report, which is a
review of, the Warren report, unmistakably says that regulating
Works at the head of the Niagara River should be undertaken imme:
diately. And General E. on page 13 of this Warren report,
paragraph 2, states: 4.
This report has been referred, as required by law, to the Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its report herewith, dated
August 24, 1920. The board has reviewed in detail and commented upon the
Several problems involved and in the last few pages sums up its conclusions
and recommendations, in which I concur, except in so far as the diversion to
be permitted to the Sanitary District of Chicago
So we have the present Chief of Engineers agreeing with the
incoming Chief of Engineers, General Taylor. What more do you
want? Your Government engineers have spoken.
Mr. GQULDER. What more you want—and this committee will give
it careful thought and attention—whether you are going to dip into
the waterway that you say needs regulation so badly and has got to
be put in Swaddling clothes, whether you, in advance of that, in
accepting anybody's theory that that can be done you are going to
impose a perpetual withdrawal of an amount of water, take it out
of that waterway and out of that system, and for what purpose you
will allow that and to what extent, and, when you get right down to
it, with all of our days of speech and days of testimony and all that,
and all the theorizing and that sort of thing, this committee is going
to come down to the unescapable question, which I am sure they
would not endeavor to escape if there were a possibility of it, of
what are you going to do with that practical question?
I was struck very much with the suggestion—I think it was Mr.
Sweet's suggestion—yesterday about confining ourselves to the par-
ticular thing that is involved here, and when you get to studying
this record, and when you get to considering it, you will go back to
what I said in my opening statement. You have a great responsi-
bility, you have a great duty here, and you have a big question here
about what you are going to do in taking out that water, and your
Question of regulating works is ancillary to that; and if they start
regulating works, as General Bixby says, or Richmond says, if you
are going to start regulating works, they have got to be demon-
strated. We must consider these various currents, criss-cross cur-
rents in some places, in other places no current at all, and in other
places 7 or 8 miles an hour—all kinds of currents and different
depths, and the complicated matter of navigating ships in those
waters, which for the good of everyone must load down to the lowest
depths they can with propriety and safety and carry all they can as
a unit with safety. Now, you have got all those things to consider,
and, as Mr. Sweet so aptly put it yesterday, how far afield are we
going? Everything to be taken into account; yes; but the action
will be rather confined.
Mr. STRONG. Well, Mr. Goulder, speaking for myself, I am im-
pressed with the idea that this question of regulating works is the
most important thing before us just at present. It is not necessary
to review the desire of Chicago for so much water, and our Canadian
friends for all they can get; but we have before us the fact that the
United States Board of Engineers in 1900 went so far as to project
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1593
regulating works at the head of Niagara River. We have that map
before us. I gather from what you say that the reason these regula-
ting works were not installed was because the engineers, after hav-
ing projected them, made up their minds they would not be practi-
cable; that they would not work. 4.
Now, on the other hand, we have engineers, like Mr. Shenehon,
testifying before us that they would be practicable. Having in mind
that if regulating works were installed and should prove to do what
Mr. Shenehon says they will do, the entire problem would be solved.
Then Chicago might have all the water she wanted. We could have
more water at Niagara Falls on our side, our Canadian friends could
have more, and we would still have the Lakes in a state of nature or,
as Mr. Shenehon says, with navigation actually improved. Now,
what the committee wants, I think, is that we are perfectly willing
that you men shall thrash this thing out. For myself, I am very
glad to give men of the engineering standing of Mr. Shenehon all
the opportunity they want to discuss the matter exhaustively, and
perfectly delighted to have men like yourself, Mr. Goulder, with
your ability as a cross-examiner, to go after them and subject them
to any kind of an examination that you consider proper. I think
both sides should have a free hand. When, on the other hand, your
people submit what you want to submit as against Chicago, the
counsel for the sanitary district should have a free hand in cross-
examining you and your side. I don’t think we should bind our-
selves down to any technical rules of court relating to the cross-
examination of witnesses. We are laymen, and we want to sit here
as spectators and, as I said awhile ago, let you people thrash it out
exhaustively.
Mr. GouldFR. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not sought really to
cross-examine, and concerning your other suggestion about the
matter being settled, I will say this for myself. I wish Mr. Living-
stone were here. I regret very much that he is ill. He has been 60
years connected with lake navigation. We celebrated his 60 years
connection with lake navigation recently with a complimentary din-
ner to him. But, as I say, he is ill and the doctor has told him he
could not come. I have been a long time connected with the Lakes.
Now, whatever anybody else’s mind may be on the subject, in view
of my experience, I think—and I can not help thinking, although
I may have it removed from my mind—to talk about compensation
invites controversy, and that does not settle anything.
Mr. ADCOCK. Does not this relate more to the argument—
Mr. GOULDER. I will not say another word.
Mr. SweFT. I think we ought to call another witness.
Mr. STRONG. Yes. Who is your next witness.
Mr. ADCOCK. The next witness on behalf of the sanitary district
is George M. Wisner, who is at present general consulting engineer
of the sanitary district and has been since 1920. Prior to that time,
between the years 1907 and 1920 he was the sanitary district chief
engineer. Prior to that, from 1901 to 1907, he was the assistant
chief engineer, and he came to the sanitary district in 1892 just
then having graduated from the University of Michigan and re-
ceiving the degree in the acedemic department, and also his degree
of civil engineering. As you know, the activities of the sanitary
91739—24—PT 2—-85
1594 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
district involves all sorts of engineering problems—the building of
canals, the improvement of waterways, the improvement of the Chi-
cago River, the construction of bridges, and even railroad bridges
and railroads—and also in the last 14 or 15 years the engineering
department has had to take up propositions connected with hydrau-
lics of the Great Lakes and I think Mr. Wisner has intimately
studied all those propositions and has actually himself designed
various works of this character, and has been also intimately con-
nected with the administration department and administration work
in the sanitary district, and he will discuss various problems con-
nected with this matter. The year 1892 marked almost the begin-
ning of construction work of the sanitary district in connection with
its main channel.
Mr. STRONG. It is now 11 o'clock. There will be a vote in the
House at 12 o'clock and we will have to adjourn promptly at that
time.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE M. WISNER
Mr. WISNER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to make this as
brief as possible and take up in a general way some historical facts
and the feeling of the people as this canal developed.
I went with the district in 1892 and not as was said before the
work started, but really before any actual construction started. The
real construction work did not start until 1893.
The first few years of my experience was on the construction of
the works around Lockport, that you have heard so much about.
But before I go into that I want to state that in some 32 years I have
been with the sanitary district, the engineers, although this has been
a political organization, have not been interfered with politically.
They used to fire the lawyers, but they could get other lawyers that
were just as good from the other party. We have not been under
civil service, but the technical men, the engineers, have been left
alone as a general rule, and when they have quit they have resigned.
Possibly there was one exception, but since the organization that has
been generally true. They have had such men as Rudolph Hering,
Lyman E. Cooley, Mr. Benezette Williams, Mr. Ardinstoll, Mr.
Isham Randolph, and others employed as their chief engineers, men
that were internationally known and were employed not for any
political reason, but on account of their ability, either engineering
or executive, or both.
I may mention this because the idea does get out that it is a
political organization, and I want you to understand that so far as
the engineers are concerned they have not been removed for political
Tea,SOI)S.
When the World's Fair was being built most of the local avail-
able engineers were employed there. I remember I wrote over and
asked for a position, and they wanted me to come before I could
graduate. So I say that the engineering department has been left
entirely alone so far as removing men for political reasons are
concerned. -
In addition to these men that have been connected with the execu-
tive end, every time that a difficult problem has come up the sanitary
district has sought, and with no idea of buying up the engineering
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1595
profession so that they might be with us in some of our difficulties,
it has sought to get the best engineering advice it could. and it has
employed, I suppose, 50 per cent of the real topnotchers of the
engineering profession, either directly or indirectly, through con-
tractors, or to advise and help in difficult lawsuits where engineer-
ing questions were involved, as they were in this suit between the
Government and the Sanitary district. There we had such men as
Freeman, Stearns, Fuller, and many others.
Well, in the early days the work started and had been going
about a year and the World’s Fair opened. The rock excavation
was well along, and much of the earth excavation. Thousands of
people came to Chicago to see the World’s Fair and they went down
the drainage canal. The Santa Fe Railroad used to run excursion
trains every Saturday and Sunday afternoon, carrying 10 or 12
cars of people down to see this wonderful engineering work, which
was exciting the comment and the admiration, not only of the
engineers of this country but of the laymen, and those that are
interested in public works. And this continued throughout the
construction of the canal, which was practically finished. except in
spots, by 1899. I remember that I used to eke out my small Salary
by going along on these trains as a lecturer every Saturday and
Sunday, and not only were the people of that kind along the canal,
but also engineers from all over the world came there. It really
excited the admiration, and it was regarded as an engineering
wonder. There was no adverse comment in those days. Chicago
was complimented upon the boldness of the stand it took in solving
this difficult problem.
I don’t know how many of you gentlemen visited Chicago during
the World’s Fair or before 1900 and observed the condition of the
Chicago River. It was a disgrace to any civilized community to
have such a condition of affairs. There were floating islands of
sewage sludge in the main river, held up by the generation of gases,
generated on the inside of it, and as the gas would break through
sometimes these islands, 20 or 25 feet across, would sink, and then
would come up a big bubble of dirty, stinking mud. This in the
heart of a big city The North Branch got so bad that it caught
on fire. That is absolutely true. There was so much of waste
product being allowed to escape from the gas company’s plant
which had floated upon the surface of the water that it caught on
fire; and the peculiar thing of watching a fire engine coming down
to put out a river that was burning was something to remember.
And also chickens crossed the river on this sludge; it is actually so :
chickens could often walk across on sewage sludge in certain parts
of the river.
Mr. HULL. When was that?
Mr. WISNER. That was in 1892 and prior thereto, and up to 1900,
when the drainage canal was opened. It was so bad that Pubbling
Creek by the stockyards became known all over the world. I have
heard a Member of Parliament in England ask “How about your
Bubbly Creek?” They even know about it over there.
Well, we went along with construction. There was no talk about
anything except to get through as soon as possible, and the only
danger staring us in the fact at all was that we were afraid that
1596 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
St. Louis, through the State of Missouri, would stop us from open-
ing the drainage canal. That was the only fear we had. The Gov-
ernment officials as I said, and members of your committee, the
chiefs of engineers, many of their staff, all visited this work. There
was no obstruction of any sort except the State of Missouri. St.
Louis at that time was taking its drinking water directly from the
Mississippi River, just above or about opposite where the Illinois
River came into the Mississippi. They had some fear that their
water supply would be polluted; that it would not be fit to drink.
So when it did come to the opening of the canal we had to get a
permit from the governor, and we kept a train waiting for three
or four days, under steam, to go to Lockport to open those works
before the State of Missouri stopped us by injunction proceedings.
We did go down one night, left Chicago about 1 o'clock and ran
down there as fast as we could and opened the canal the next morn-
ing, and, as I recall it, Missouri filed her application for an injunc-
tion a few hours or at least a day or so after we got the canal
opened.
The statement was made here the other day, but I would like to
bring it out a little better, that the building of our canal and the
opening of our sanitary channel from a mechanical standpoint was
more interesting to the layman and in fact to the engineer than
was the construction of the Panama Canal. I agree with that, and
I saw the Panama Canal when it was under construction. That is
so for this reason. At the time this work was started there had
never been any work done, at least in this country, upon any such
large scale, and probably no such work anywhere in the world.
Each contractor was trying some different kind of machinery, and
as one would walk or ride along the channel—and it was mostly
walking in those days—in one section or for one mile or so there
would be one class of machinery, and in the next section another
kind. That was most interesting to the engineer and would be inter-
esting to the layman. I suppose there were probably fiteen or twenty
methods or variations of methods in the way of taking out rock
and excavation of the channel. -
The result was very interesting and the canal was visited, as I
have said, by the principal engineers of this country, and other parts
of the world.
The result of this was that it not only demonstrated what was
the most economical and best machine to use on a work of that
kind, but it also developed the strengthening of these machines.
The drainage canal had been finished when the Panama Canal was
taken up—I think it had been finished about five years before. I
remember Mr. Randolph, our chief engineer, was one of the com-
missioners sent down there, among other engineers, and Mr. Alfred
Noble, and some foreign engineers, to determine what kind of
a canal ought to be built, whether it should be a sea-level canal
or a lock canal. Fortunately a lock canal was decided on. Through
my conversations with Mr. Noble and Mr. Randolph, the prin-
cipal proponents of the deep-level canal, I know, were the for-
eign engineers from France and England—and I don’t remember
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1597
whether there were some from Germany or not, but I think so—
and their private opinion (of course, this is long past now) was in
favor of a deep-sea-level canal for the reason that those foreign
engineers thought it would cost us so much that it would nearly
break this country. That was their opinion, and I don’t know but
what it would have put a crimp in us at that time, although I guess
we could get by with it cheaper than we did with the World War;
but this work did develop the best type of machinery and strengthen
it and make it strong enough so that in a way, along with the
health conditions which had been improved on since the French
were there, I think it made it possible for the successful completion
of this wonderful work. -
I know when I visited there in 1909 I saw many things that were
developed on the sanitary district channel, not only machinery, but
I saw many men. I don’t know how many as I went through there
came up and shook hands with me, men whom I knew on the Chicago
Canal. There were steam-shovel runners and all kinds of workmen
that I had known. So we not only developed the machinery on the
Chicago Canal, but we developed the men that knew how to run it.
I am not now referring to engineers at all. - +
At the beginning, when the drainage canal was first considered
and Chicago had to take care of its sewage, from gossip that I got
as a young man and from what I read afterwards, I don’t think
they ever could have gotten it through the Illinois Legislature only
upon the condition of calling it a sanitary and ship canal. At that
time up and down the Illinois River and the Mississippi the senti-
ment—public opinion—was absolutely more in favor of a ship canal
than it was of taking care of Chicago's sewage. Of course, Chicago
wanted to get rid of its sewage, but it also had visions of ocean boats
coming up the Mississippi River, through the Illinois River, through
the drainage canal and into the Great Lakes. Here we are some
30 or 40 years afterwards trying to get a 9-foot channel through.
But at that time they really wanted a ship canal and it was a pop-
ular slogan, “Sanitary and ship canal,” and they could not have
gotten it through the legislature without that feature in it. For
that reason Chicago was compelled to spend many million dollars
on the ship or navigation end of this work.
The popular slogan was “A deep waterway to the Gulf,” and
there were books and technical papers written on it. . *
During the time of this construction there were engineering papers
written upon all subjects connected with the canal and there were
investigations and reports made by Government engineers. I think
it was shown here in the testimony that General Poe made a report
in which he predicted the lowering of the lake levels, and there
were engineering papers and discussions in the engineering societies
at that time on the probable effect of the withdrawal of this water.
I am stating that to show that the engineers at least, even if the
Congressmen or other public officials or business men did not, knew
and gave notice of this. I am not surprised, for the simple reason
that it was not until after 1900 that these deep-draft boats, carrying
thousands of tons of ores, were perfected, and it was after that that
the lowering effect on the Lakes began to become of importance to
navigation, and it was also after that that the question of the
I598 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
amount of water going over Niagara Falls became of so much im-
portance. It was at first not limited on account of the power propo-
sition, as I understand it, but only on the preservation of the scenic
beauty of Niagara Falls. . I understand that there were thousands of
letters written in protesting against marring the scenic grandeur of
the Falls, and the strange thing, perhaps, is that over 95 per cent
of those letters came from people who had never seen the Falls.
I spoke about the condition of the Chicago River and how filthy
it was. It had no outlet except into Lake Michigan, except a
small quantity that was pumped into the old Illinois-Michigan Canal,
land run down, and had for many years been run down through the
Des Plaines River and the Illinois River. It was not enough so
that you could notice any perceptible current toward the pump-
ing plant; it was such a small quantity, probably no more than the
sewage that was coming in, and you could not see any current in
the river at all. The only current you would see in the river would
be some days the lake would fall and following that a big bunch
of filth would flow out into the lake, and some of it would be pumped
back through the intakes, where the drinking water was pumped
up from the lake, and, of course, that meant pumping in filth that
would cause typhoid fever. Then when a big rain would come along
it would fill up the river, the river would be scoured out, this filth
would go out into the lake, and the contamination could be traced
miles beyond the water intake cribs.
In that connection, speaking of how far the cribs were out, they
started in having them built 1,000 feet out, and then the filth came
more and more as the city grew into the lake, and they put the cribs
out farther and farther, until finally they got them out about 4 miles.
㺠filth still went beyond those cribs and the typhoid epidemics
resulted.
I have seen pictures of floods going down the narrow south branch
of the Chicago River that would raise the river until it was up over
the docks, 5 or 6 feet higher than the ordinary surface of the river,
and at that time all that filth would be scoured out into the lake.
Mr. SweeT. Would not the wind have its effect on the elevation of
the river?
Mr. WISNER. Not particularly on the river, although it has effect
on the water in the lake. Take a southwest wind at Chicago and
it will lower the lake surface if it blows long enough, or take a
northeast wind, that will pile the water up there.
Mr. SweBT. And in that way drive it into the river, will it not?
Mr. WISNER. Yes; that is true.
Mr. SweBT. That is the point that I meant to make.
Mr. HULL. Since you have turned the flow of the river that way
is there any time outside of probable storms that the water of the
river will go back into the lake?
Mr. WISNER. No, sir. In heavy rainstorms there have been times
in the past when it often went into the lake. That was in the early
stages, between 1900 and 1910. If you will follow those typhoid
charts, you will notice that the typhoid rate did not get down as
much as it should have done until after 1910. That is explained
because many of our works were not completed up until about that
time, to completely divert the sewage from Lake Michigan, and also
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1599
the upper part of the drainage canal had not been built large
enough at that time to take much over six or seven thousand cubic
feet of water per second, and the result was when those heavy rains
came on, the Chicago River backed up into the lake and polluted
the water supply.
Mr. WILSON. You spoke of putting the cribs out .4 miles into
the lake. Is it not a fact that if they were out 6 miles that would
be far enough so that the water would not be contaminated?
Mr. WISNER. Not at those times, it would not have been so. At
this time, I don’t know. I don’t think we have carried our bac-
terial tests out much beyond the cribs. If we have Mr. Pearse can
tell you about it.
Mr. WILSON. There is a 6-mile distance.
Mr. WISNER. There is this difficulty, though, that when you get
out 6 miles you are getting out into such depths that it is expensive
and almost impossible to work under the necessary air pressure
that you have to have there, because 6 miles out you have to go
below 60 feet in depth, and you have to run tunnels below that level.
Mr. WILSON. What is the depth at 4 miles?
Mr. WISNER. About 25 or 26 feet. They have tunneled out be-
neath that and had a crib that they sunk down, and the water comes
into the top of a tube and down into the tunnel and then into the
pumping stations on the shore.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is your tunnel, concrete? -
Mr. WISNER. I think, in those early days they were brick tun-
nels, but the later ones have been built, some with brick and Some
with concrete, as I recall it. I think the most recent are concrete.
Now, I am not going to say anything more about typhoid. You
have had that well illustrated. The statements made by Doctor
Evans are correct so far as statistics are concerned, and he knows
more about typhoid than I do. Well, we got along and finally got
a permit, in 1899, from Secretary Alger, to open the canal. I am
not going to touch on that any more than to just bring it in here,
and the canal was opened in January, 1900.
As I said before, the river was sluggish and only flowed generally
toward the lake, or from it when the lake rose or fell or when it
was driven out by floods, and there was quite a good deal of com-
merce on the Chicago River and they had been used to pulling boats
around and coming up under their own steam. There was no cur-
rent. Then when they introduced this current those boats ran
into the bridges and piers and docks and there was a great deal
of complaint. But as they got used to the current there were not
so many accidents. But before they did that they did bring enough
influence to bear to have our permit to open the canal changed to
the extent of limiting the amount of flow. First we had 300,000
cubic feet per minute and then it was cut, and finally 250,000 cubic
feet per minute or 4,167 cubic feet per second, the celebrated number
that we have heard so much about. The only reason for all this,
or the only thing that worried them at all was this current in the
river. There wasn’t any talk at that time about any lowering of
the lakes. The only reason that there was any limitation put upon
the permit was that difficulty in regard to the current in the Chicago
River, and everybody thought we could take the water, nobody
1600 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
seemed to care, and we thought we owned it. Lake Michigan was
in our front yard and we thought it belonged to us and we could
use the water to the best advantage.
Mº, HULL. And you never had any complaints from the Govern-
ment'.
Mr. WISNER. No; not a complaint. Now, the Chicago River at
that time was a crooked stream. The city had grown fast and was
poor, and the river was filled up with a lot of broken-down bridges
most of them the center pier type of bridge, and these bridges had
wooden protections in many places to keep boats from running into
them, and the river was clogged up. Some of these bridges would
not permit a boat wider than 40 feet to get through. It was alone
about 1897 that they began to improve the river.
I am speaking particularly of the South Branch, the branch from
which the drainage canal starts out and not the North Branch. The
Government had deepened the river to 17 feet and had wideng,
it at certain places where property owners in the past had encroached
upon it. Then we came along and we appreciated we must improve
the river if we were going to put 10,000 cubic feet of water through
it, or the current in the river would be too fast. Some places it
was only 90 feet wide, and other places from 90 to 100 feet wide.
When we saw our limitation was being held down as to how we
could flow the water in the river we set out on a scheme of removing
the center pier bridges. Before that we had improved the river
with the approval of the Chief of Engineers, but after we got it
open a little there was so much trouble with the shipping interests,
in fact they were our worst enemies for awhile, the shipping inter-
ests right there in Chicago, and for some years, and then we set out,
as I say, on a scheme of removing the center pier bridges and widen-
ing the river everywhere so it would have at least 200 feet width,
and we built new docks, and we deepened the river from 17 feet
to 26 feet, and condemned property. Now, you gentlemen, many of
you, are lawyers, and you know even though we may have the right
of eminent domain it is sometimes a slow process to get property
that is needed, where there is a dispute about it, and some of this
property was of that class, we had difficulty about it. Take it right
there where the Pennsylvania Railroad comes in, the depot, and also
the Chicago & Alton Railroad and the Burlington, right there in
the heart of Chicago. We had to tear down buildings. Of course,
that took time. Anyway we spent some thirteen or fourteen million
dollars cleaning up this situation, so we could get our water through
it, and it was approved by the authorities in Washington.
We would naturally. take it for granted that when these im-
provements were made and we were allowed to spend this money
that we were not going to have any difficulty in getting our 10,000
cubic feet per second. We did not need to spend a cent on the
Chicago River to improve it, if we could only have 4,167 cubic feet
of water per second, that was being allowed to go through the river
then, without the improvements. And since that time we have spent
this money, and then as we improved the river, and knowing the
purpose for which we were improving it, and needing the water
to properly dilute the Sewage as we cut off the worst places and
widened it at the worst places and took out the worst bridges, we
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1601
gradually increased the flow, having in our minds only that this
limitation was put upon us on account of the current in the Chicago
River.
Along with that the restriction was that we should keep the
current down to a mile and a quarter an hour. There would be
places where it would be more than that if we flowed over the
Ł 4,167 cubic feet, and so we did that first, and as we did that
we increased the flow. We did not think we were thieves, we
thought we were acting in good faith, and there was no intention
to wave a red flag at the War Department.
| Mr. NEwTON. You thought you were obeying the order, did you
lot?
* Mr. WISNER. Yes; we thought we were obeying the order. We
had to from the State’s standpoint.
, Mr. HULL. Did not the State compel you to put in 10,000 cubic
... set in the law Ż
Mr. WISNER. It did when our population reached 3,000,000
people; yes.
Mr. NEWTON. Has it reached that population yet?
Mr. WISNER. Yes; it has. At the time we opened we needed
about 5,000 cubic feet, and I am going to say that up to recently,
in spite of the fact that it has been heralded from one end of this
country to the other and into Canada, that we have been taking
water for power purposes, that is strictly untrue. We have not
from the time of the opening of the channel up to very recently
! aken as much water as the State law required. There may have
been a day or two when we have done it on account of rains but
taking it throughout the year we have not taken as much water as
the law and statutes of Illinois said we should take. That is
capable of verification and any other statement is just propaganda.
Mr. NEWTON. In other words, you say you have never taken any
water for electric power purposes?
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEwTON. You took it for other purposes but electricity was
not the purpose?
Mr. WISNER. No: it was not.
i Mr. NEWTON. And after you took it you tried to salvage what you
#ould out of it?
Mr. WISNER. Yes.
Mr. NEwTON. That is your position, is it?
Mr. WISNER. Yes; and that is so.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And if you had not used it for power you would
have taken the same amount?
Mr. WISNER. Yes; I think a little more. We used to vary our
flow a little. It would involve a rather technical explanation to
go into that, but I think it is true to say that if we had just used
it for power we would have taken a little more.
Mr. NEwTON. Does the use of the electricity help you to reduce the
expenses of Operating these treatment plants?
Mr. WISNER. It saves us buying power.
Mr. NEwTox. In other words, you have to use electricity in your
treatments of the sewage 4
9.1739–24—PT 2 S6





















1602 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir. You see, Chicago is different from a great
many cities in this respect. It might be well to say this in passing:
It is built on a swamp, as somebody expressed it. That is not quite
So; it is not quite built on a swamp, but it is awfully low land, and
there were places where it was a swamp. The grades of the streets
of the city have been raised artificially, and some miles back from
the lake the elevation of the streets is now only about 14 feet above
the river level. The result has been that we have had to build large
Sewers on a flat slope. Take Milwaukee or Cleveland, where they
are located on a bluff; they are up high and their water runs down-
hill, and they can get along with comparatively small sewers; in fact,
a small Sewer in such a city serves better than a sewer twice the size.
in a city such as Chicago. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. How much fall do you have to give to those
sewers? **-
Mr. WISNER. It depends on the size, and I am afraid I would com-
plicate the record by trying to explain the situation in that respect.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Anyway, it has to be enough ; you have to have
enough fall to drain the water and the sewage 4
Mr. WISNER. Yes; we have to have enough fall to carry the water
along fast enough so it won’t let the solid matter of the sewage settle
in the bottom of the sewer and gradually clog it up.
Mr. HULL. Do all your sewers run on gravity, or do you have to
pump in some cases? -
Mr. WISNER. We let them run on gravity to a certain extent, and
then we have pumping plants and pump up the sewage and water
into another sewer; it is a combination of gravity and pumping. :
Mr. WILSON. I would like to ask you before you leave that ques-
tion, speaking of your power for electricity that you use there in
your treatment plants—this water that is used for power purposes
is not wasted, is it? It is also used for sewage purposes, is it not?
Mr. WISNER. And for navigation.
Mr. WILSON. And for navigation purposes.
Mr. WISNER. But that water is used for sewage purposes, as you
say, and in being used for sewage purposes and digesting and oxidiz-
ing the sewage it accomplishes what it would take about forty or ;
fifty thousand horsepower to do.
Mr. WILSON. Otherwise it would be wasted as power Ž
Mr. WISNER. Yes; and at the same time it generates power. -
Mr. Wilson. But it would be wasted if you did not use it for
OW €I
p Mr. WISNER. Yes. Mr. Pearse tells me, Mr. Mansfield, that, illus-
trative of one of our big sewers, it has a slope of 1 foot in 10,000;
that is about a foot in a little less than 2 miles.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is as slight a grade as would be practical, I
think.
Mr. WISNER. Yes: I think so. It is pretty close to the limit.
Mr. NEwTON. I should think there would be a deposit accumulate
with that flow.
Mr. WISNER. No; we figure it with the depths; we figure what it
is. Mr. Pearse can tell you.
Mr. PEARSE. We have tried to keep it up to a minimum of a foot
and a half a second, and when there is a storm there would be from








ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1603
3 to 3% feet a second. That tends to keep the grit moving; and, on
the other hand, a good deal of it is built in clay; so we don’t have as
much sand as there is in many other parts of the country, like
Rochester or Atlanta, Ga., or other sections.
Mr. NEwTON. And the sand is the thing that clogs it up 2 .
Mr. PEARSE. The grit or sand is what clogs it up. I might add
some of the deepest sewers have been 30 to 40 feet below the surface.
Mr. NEwTon. What is the diameter of that big sewer?
Mr. WISNER. Seventeen and a half feet. We have some that are
20 feet in diameter. Those are the largest that have been built.
As I stated, between the years 1900 and 1910 the development of
iron ore carrying vessels became quite active on account of the pros-
perity of the country, and they kept getting bigger and bigger; and
when it happened that through natural causes there was unusually
low water in the Great Lakes they would throw up that drainage
canal proposition, saying that the drainage canal was lowering the
levels of the lake.
During this time and prior thereto, my father, Mr. George Y.
Wisner, who has been referred to, was a member of the International
Waterways Commission; and I had many talks with him, naturally,
as a boy. As has been stated here, that commission was organized
for the purpose of getting up just what has been stated—an agree-
ment between the two countries for the diversion of water and the
preservation of the beauty of Niagara Falls. Up to 1906—and most
of the preliminary work had been done prior to that, and a great
deal of it by him—he stated that all you would have to do was, just
as soon as you got your Chicago River completed, to go down and
get that restriction on your permit removed, and there wouldn’t be
any objection to that.
I am stating that as corroborating the general feeling in Chicago
and to get away from the idea that we were doing things in defiance
of the Government, which was not the intention at all.
There was, however, at that time a difference of opinion between
lawyers and engineers as to how much water this canal would carry;
and there was a report that part of it would carry 14,000 cubic feet
per second in the rock section instead of 10,000 cubic feet per second,
as it was designed for, and for that reason some of the engineers and
attorneys and citizens of Chicago wanted to get an extra 4,000 cubic
feet to run through the Calumet River, which comes in at the south
end of Chicago and discharges its filth from Indiana and from
Ilinois into our drinking water; and they went to get a permit for it,
and then the fun started. They said, “You ought to be satisfied
with what you are going to take,” and the opposition to taking what
was proposed was strong in Chicago. The attorneys said we had
the right under the police power, and personally I felt that they
should take the 10,000 and then get the rest when the time came that
it was needed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. When was that ?
Mr. WISNER. That was along in 1906 and afterwards, and that was
the reason that when we applied for the permit to build Sag Canal,
from President Taft or President Roosevelt, they said, “Let the State
start a friendly suit.” A friendly suit was started. I remember I
1604 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI BIVERS, ETC.
went down and started to dig a shovelful of earth and when I began
I was served with a paper. The fellow who served the paper came
up to me and said, “You can not build a canal.” Of course I did not
want to build a canal. So they started a friendly suit, and before it
got through it was not quite so friendly. I have often wondered if
there is such a thing as a friendly suit.
Mr. BARRETT. There are some suits that are friendly now, but not
the kind you mean.
Mr. WISNER. I am sincere when I say there was an honest differ-
ence of opinion between the Government officials and the people of
Chicago. We may have been selfish in our idea that we could take
an unlimited supply there, but we never had any intention of taking
over about 14,000 cubic feet, if we could get that much.
It was early recognized by myself, along in 1906 and 1907 (I think
it was about then that I commenced to wake up somewhat) that this
disposal system of Chicago, by the dilution method, had to be helped
out, that we could not go on drawing water forever from Lake
Michigan, but we had to put in something to supplement that when
Chicago grew much larger, and, of course, it was growing all the time,
and between 1905 and 1910 we had a very able and industrious board
of trustees. The president and coeditor, Col. R. R. McCormick, of
the Chicago Tribune, was the president of the drainage board, and at
the beginning of his administration I was assistant chief engineer,
and during that time Mr. Randolph resigned and I was made chief
engineer. Colonel McCormick is a student and he got deeply inter-
ested in this work. We came to the conclusion that we should really
get prepared to help out the sitution. So he appointed a commission
consisting of myself and some others to get up a report on Sewage
disposal other than by dilution, the idea being to supplement the work
of the dilution method to take care of the increasing population and
the trade wastes.
In 1911 I made this report with the assistance of Mr. Pearse, and
in a large Sense and generally I can say that what is contained in there
is practically what we are trying to do now. But it seems that the
Sanitary district being a political organizaton, and the trustees elected
by the people, there seems to be a difference of opinion among the
men of the same party. There are factons. I presume you have
them down here, and sometimes the Democrats were in control and
Sometimes the Republicans were in control. Well, between the time
of being ordered to write this report and the time it was published
the administration changed from Republican to Democratic and the
report was suppressed and nothing was done for several years.
Mr. ADCOCK. You published it at your own expense, did you not?
Mr. WISNER. I published it at my own expense. There were five
Republicans on the board and four Democrats and one of the Demo-
crats was president and had a veto power, and one side said that if
I published it they would fire me, and the other side said if I didn’t
publish it they would fire me. And so I stayed on. But it is unfor-
tunate, although we can not help it in our form of government, that
there are changes due to political influences that often retard the most
necessary work. That has been so in connection with the Sanitary
district work: there have been changes in the officials, and as I say
that is excusable as long as we have our form of government.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1605
Mr. NEWTON. And the fellow who is out frequently sees the impor-
tance of reforming the fellow who is in. .
Mr. WISNER. Along in 1904 to 1906 or 1908, along about that time,
I became acquainted with General Bixby. He was a division engi-
neer at Chicago. I had, as I recall, many interesting interviews with
him. I think at that time he was rather in sympathy with our
having 10,000 cubic feet per second, but did not think we should
take any more than that. After he left Chicago I happened to be
in St. Louis, and I called upon General Bixby. That was a short
time before he became Chief of Engineers. We had a talk, and as
I recall the substance of our conversation he thought at that time that
Chicago should be allowed to take 10,000 cubic feet per second, Ör
at least he made no objection to it. After he became Chief of Engi-
neers I had several interviews with him, first about getting a permit
to open the Calumet-Sag Channel, which he finally recommended,
as I recall it, in 1910; and then after that I had more interviews
with him to see if we could not obtain a permit of 10,000 cubic
feet per second or get the limitation removed. I think that General
Bixby down in his heart would have liked to have given us that
permit. And yet there were some people that were objecting even
before a public hearing was called, and I think he appreciated that
Chicago needed it—provided they would be satisfied with that, and
at that time I think we would have been satisfied with that. At afiy
rate, as a result of this, a hearing was called before Secretary of
War Stimson and the permit was denied, the Secretary saying that
he did not have the power; that it would have to go to Congress.
Mr. HULL. Was that in 1910? * * *
Mr. WISNER. That was in 1912, I think. ‘. . .
Mr. ADCOCK. The hearing was in 1912 and the refusal was January
8, 1913.
Mr. WISNER. That hearing, I always felt, was an unfortunate affair
for Chicago in that it created a feeling, cemented the opposition, and
a lot of people went on record without understanding what Chicago’s
intentions were. Many of them were strong men, and once having
taken a position it looked as if they simply wanted to stick to it.
They apparently took the position, “Having said this, I am going to
stick to it.” But it did cement the opposition, and it has caused us
considerable trouble since. :
I do not want to bore you with my troubles, but you can readily
see that this right to take 10,000 cubic feet per second denied, and
with a suit pending in the court, and the engineering problems need-
ing to be settled, and all the while having to take care of a growing
population in Chicago, and having to put in one kind of works if
permitted 10,000 cubic feet of water and another kind if less water
was allowed, that I was in an awful position; and that is the prin-
cipal reason why we tried to settle this thing by agreement among
the conflicting interests, so we could tell what to put in. As long as
we did not know whether we were going to get 4,167 cubic feet or
10,000 cubic feet, or some other figure, we did not know what kind
of works to design. g
Mr. HULL. That applies to the waterway, too. You can not tell
what kind of a canal you are going to build until you know how
much water you are going to get. If you are going to get 10,000
1606 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
cubic feet then you will build one kind of a canal, and if you are
only going to get a thousand cubic feet you have to build locks and
another kind of canal. So the same proposition applied.
Mr. WISNER. Yes; that is so. Realizing these things kind of over-
lapped and interlapped, it is rather difficult to explain them in se-
quence; but realizing that we had to help out the channel, on my re-
commendation we began to employ sanitary experts. I think the first
one was Mr. Pearse in 1909, and we began to study the question of the
disposal of sewage by what were known as modern up-to-date
methods. Some of the most modern ones did not work. But we
carried on a conscientious study, and we have spent I think $500,000,
and I really think that our first two works we put in are more or
less experimental, at least to this extent, that if those were an abso-
lute success and we knew how to handle them we would not have
spent what we have spent at the Calumet sewage station or at May-
wood. I don’t know how many hundred thousand dollars we spent
there.
. Mr. PEARSE. I think at the Maywood plant we could have saved
a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and probably at the Calumet
plant we could have saved half a million dollars.
Mr. WISNER. Anyway we have tried to get these plants on a
workable basis; we have tried to find out what is best to be done.
The district has probably expended—not wasted, but expended—
in the neighborhood of a million and a quarter dollars, not counting
the salaries of men that have been employed in experimentation.
* I just want to say, in passing, in my opinion the art of sewage dis-
posal is in more of an experimental stage than is the problem of the
regulation of Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Ontario. To my
mind that is a simple engineering proposition without any risk com-
pared with the mistakes and expenditures we may make in trying
to arrive at the most economical and best way of taking care of
sewage of the city of Chicago other than by the dilution method.
These studies will be gone on with : experimenting has already been
carried on on all kinds of sewage and on trade wastes at the stock-
yards and on corn products and tannery wastes. We had a great
deal of opposition in Chicago on the part of certain interests, prin-
cipally the shipping interests, to the way we were disposing of our
sewage, and in the early days they said “Here, shouldn’t you put
in up-to-date methods of taking care of sewage and not continue to
use that obsolete method you are using?”
Well, this obsolete thing has been going on successfully and is now,
and the things that they called up-to-date, scientific methods in
early 1900 and up to 1905 are now being discarded. There were
people then that advocated putting in sewage farms such as Berlin
has. Such a thing may sound wonderful. I visited the sewage farm
in Berlin in 1910. I think the idea became rather prevalent that the
sewage had a manurial fertilizing value. It is not so. Its value
consisted of the irrigation value of the sewage rather than in any
manurial value. This sewer farm was located out beyond Berlin a
short distance and, as I recall it, it had pretty nearly as much area
as the whole city of Berlin. In Berlin they have a rainfall of 18 to
20 inches a year. They need water for irrigation of this farm. . If
they are going to work it as a farm they need water for irrigation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1607
In Chicago we have 33 inches of rainfall; we have all the water we
need, as a rule, for vegetation.
As I Say, there were many advocates of the plan of sewage dis-
posal as carried out in Berlin, and it was reported to be a financial
success. The only way it could be shown to be a financial success was
by adding to the receipts from operation the estimated increase in
the value of the real estate due to the city of Berlin building out
toward the sewage farm. As a sewage-disposal machine it was not
worth any more than it was before the property became more valu-
able. If this increase in value of the real estate were taken ad-
vantage of, the sewage farm would have to be moved farther from
the city of Berlin, necessitating the building of conveying sewers
and pumping stations. This construction cost would be more than
any increase in the value of the real estate of the sewage farm.
Another thing, Berlin has a milder climate than we have. It has
a loamy soil on top of sand and gravel. It is a perfect natural filter.
The sewage goes out there and flows around in little ditches and
irrigates their little gardens. It is let out to small farmers, and they
use it for irrigation and then it filters off through the soil, and the
water comes out looking pure and good. There may be bacteria in
it, but it looks clear. It is a natural thing. But take Chicago. Chi-
cago is built on a clay foundation, and there is nothing in the nature
of a natural filter in the soil. If we had a sewage farm around
Chicago it would require 100 square miles of property. Then, too,
we have a severe winter. I ask you gentlemen to imagine what this
100 square miles would look like when the March thaws came along
after sewage had been running out on the land during the winter.
It would be a disgrace to the city.
Mr. HULL. And the smell would be worse than the looks.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That system would not be practical anywhere
where there is ample rainfall.
Mr. WISNER. No. But a gentleman reads in the papers about this
plant in Berlin, or he visits Berlin, and he says to us, “Why are not
you gentlemen able to have such a sewage farm as this one over in
Berlin 2 ° It is such talk that has hurt development of this science
more than anything I know. ©
(Thereupon, at 12.10, the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock
p.m.)
AFTER RECESS
The committee reconvened at 2 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the tak-
ing of recess. te e
r. STRONG. We will hear you, Mr. Wisner.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE M. WISNER—Resumed
Mr. WISNER. I have just been speaking of the impracticability of
sewage farms. I want to go back a ways further. There has been
some comment made upon the matter as to how the dilution ratio
was arrived at. I do not want to go into it too deeply, but I do want
to say from my own knowledge, from the reports made, and from the
experiments that we have carried on, that in a way, it is surprising
that the engineers in those days when sewage disposal had not
^,
1608 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RrveRs, ETC.
become an important thing, so far as public health is concerned,
should arrive at a figure that was about the right one from a mini:
mum standpoint. -
I think what they did not appreciate, however, was the great
amount of trade waste that came from a city like Chicago. It has
been said—I think maybe one of our witnesses said this figure was
arrived at arbitrarily. Now, that is not strictly so. We have vol-
umes of evidence taken from the hearings before the committees in
the State legislature, in which Doctor Herring appeared, and Doctor
Roach and other gentlemen, and they described what the dilution
Was in certain streams in Massachusetts; and also the Massachusetts
State Board of Health made an investigation, and investigations
Were made in England, and also before this, as I said, diluted sew-
age was pumped down the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Like most of us engineers, they were human in those days and
different somewhat, but the general consensus of opinion was it
needed 140 to 180 cubic feet per minute per thousand people to prop-
erly dilute the sewage. *
The figure finally adopted was 200 cubic feet per minute per thou-
Sand people, and it was the best information upon which we could
base anything at that time; that is, they took advantage of the very
best advice they could get, and it was not determined arbitrarily,
but determined upon this advice. At that time there had not been
any so-called artificial sewage-disposal works in this country, except
possibly sedimentation.
There were some plants of this kind in the New England States,
where the rivers were smaller and the population more dense, but in
the general run of the United States they were not much bothered
about sewage disposal and in many of our cities not about sewers.
It is only in the last few years that New Orleans put in a sewerage
system.
Chicago was fortunately situated where it could use the dilution
and diversion system. Cleveland a few years later called in the
same experts we had, among them Mr. Rudolph Herring. They
wanted to dispose of their sewage by taking water out of Lake Erie
and running it into the Ohio, or branch of it, but it was so expen-
sive that they had to abandon it. They were figuring on taking
care of their sewage. That was in 1895. tº * *- ſº
Well, of course, the Chicago Canal was some 10 years in building
and in the meantime there had been little forward movement in
sewage disposal, but there was not much progress until along about
1905 or 1906, when, I think, Columbus, Ohio, put in a system of
sewage disposal that consisted of sedimentation tanks, sprinkling
filters, and possibly secondary sedimentation tanks.
A sedimentation tank is a large tank that permits the Sewage to
flow through it so slowly that a large percentage of the visible
solids settle to the bottom of the tank. The liquid effluent from this
tank then passes to the sprinkling or trickling filter. These filters
consist of beds of crushed stone or some similar material, 8, 10, or 12
feet in depth, upon which the liquid sewage is sprayed through
nozzles resembling somewhat the nozzle on a hose that is used for
sprinkling a lawn. These nozzles are from 8 to 10 feet apart. The
stone aggregate of these beds become coated with bacteria which live
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1609.
upon organic matter and oxygen. The liquid sewage in passing
through the bed becomes purified by the action of the oxygen and
the bacteria. At times these filters unload certain solids that result
from the sewage purification, and in order to further purify the
effluent coming from the filter, it is then run through a secondary
sedimentation tank where any remaining solids are settled out.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That does not get the disease germs.
Mr. WISNER. It does not kill them all, but when the organic mat-
ter gets away they have nothing to live on.
If you want to go that far, then from the sprinkling filter you
run it into another sedimentation tank, because every once in a while
this filter will take a notion to unload, as accumulated solids clog
the filter and these solids are settled out in the secondary settling
tank. If you want to kill all bacteria you chlorinate the effluent of
this second tank. With a process like that it is not possible, in a
practical way, to get over 90 per cent of the impurities out, but the
effluent would be in pretty good shape, and it has been one of the
most successful of recent ways of taking care of sewage. I mention
that to show how the treatment of sewage is in a condition of flux,
and more or less experimental—we think we have got the right prin-
ciples, but we have not got it down to a point where we can treat
sewage economically. It is expensive and costs lots of money.
From 1906 on, considerable improvement was made in the sprink-
ling filter method of sewage disposal, but it was not until within the
last few years that the so-called activated sludge method of sewage
disposal came into use, and has to some extent displaced other
methods of sewage disposal. It consists of large tanks into which
the sewage is flowed and there retained from one to five hours, and
through which compressed air is forced through porous plates lo-
cated along the bottom of the tank. This requires that the air be
compressed, and, although the method is very efficient, it is uneco-
nomical, as is shown by the fact that only about 5 per cent of the
oxygen contained in the compressed air is utilized. This necessarily
makes the method very expensive.
I do not want to bore you with my foreign trips, but I was in
England, Germany, and France in 1910. I think England was fur-
ther advanced in sewage disposal by the so-called artificial means
than any of the other countries, even Germany, although Germany
has done wonderful things, but the only point I want to bring out is
that when I was there again in 1923, although many of the appli-
ances that were in use in 1910 were still being utilized, there had
been many changes made upon them. Also there were many appli-
ances that had been in use that had been abandoned and were being
replaced or modified, and where additional facilities were needed to
take care of the increased amount of sewage, different methods were
employed than had been used upon my first visit.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do the larger cities over there have systems simi-
lar to the larger cities of this country?
Mr. WISNER. In this country, Mr. Congressman, the rivers and
bodies of water are generally large and the cities were not compelled
through force of circumstances, until recently, to install sewage-
disposal works, while in England the streams are small and their
population centers have been large, so that the people were com-
1610 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
pelled to install sewage-disposal plants at an earlier date in order
to prevent foul smells nd nuisances in the streams into which the
sewage discharged.
A great deal has been heard about the wonderful sewage-disposal
System of the city of London and the wonderful things that have
been accomplished there. The River Thames, which is a tidal
stream, is located in the heart of London, and as the tidal rise and
fall twice a day, opposite the House of Parliament, is 24 feet, this
causes the water to rush in from the ocean on the rising tide and to
rush toward the Ocean on the falling tide. In the beginning the
Sewers were discharged into the Thames and the accumulated solids
and fecal matter floated up and down the stream, depending upon
the tide. It became an “eye sore” and caused disagreeable odors.
So it was determined to divert the sewage by means of intercepting
Sewers to large Sedimentation tanks located one on each side of the
Thames, some miles below the heart of London, where the solids
were settled out and the effluent again discharged into the river.
This purified the sewage to possibly 33 per cent. The settled sew-
age sludge was pumped from the tanks into steamers and taken to
the ocean and dumped. This improved the looks of the River
Thames, and as this is a tidal stream and the water not fit to drink,
it is probably all that is necessary to be done. If cities like Chicago
could get by with a treatment of this kind their problem would be
comparatively simple.
I have heard talk about cities that are purifying their sewage,
whereas many of them that claim to be doing so are only partially
purifying, and in some cases accomplishing no purification. They
speak of how cheap it is being done and how little it costs to con-
struct the works and operate them. Naturally it follows that if a
very small percentage of complete purification is accomplished, it
is much cheaper to construct the plants and operate them than it
would be to completely purify the sewage, as is necessary to be
done in Chicago in case the amount of water taken from Lake
Michigan is limited to less than 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The truth of the matter is that there is no per-
fect system.
Mr. WISNER. I do not think there is any perfect system that will
work as perfectly as the dilution system, which works automatically,
and does not depend on the human elements to take care of it. It
does it naturally. Every other type of sewage purification requires
direction and careful study, and it is a delicate process, and I regret
to say, especially since the war, that I do not believe that we are
getting as careful supervision in our public works as we did before
the war and back in 1910. At least that has been our experience
in Chicago, and we do not know how it can be remedied. It is not
the fault of anyone in particular. It is the fault of conditions.
One of our big problems was to take care of the waste of the
stockyards, and, as has been stated, waste coming from these stock-
yards is equivalent to the waste coming from 1,100,000 people. That
is larger than the city of Cleveland. It is a big proposition. It
has never been handled, and it took us several years to run experi-
ments.
Sewage is different in the winter than in the summer, and acts
differently, depending upon the different kinds of waste you are
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1611
treating, and there was not any data on which to gº. We carried
out some elaborate experiences, and Mr. Pearse and I gºt up what
we thought was an elaborate report, and We Were complimented on
it, and it contained valuable data. The solution was good, and the
print had hardly gotten cold before some man named Fowler, I
think it was, had to be mean enough to discover a new project for
taking care of sewage, and we tried it out in connection with the
stockyards for a year, and it was better than what. We had before
recommended, but when we made this report we did not know of
this new process, and so the first report was changed and the other
method recommended.
Mr. HULL. What is that method?
Mr. WISNER. The activated sludge.
Mr. HULL. Is that what the stockyards are using?
Mr. WISNER. They are not using any.
Mr. HULL. Is that what you intended they should use?
Mr. WISNER. That is what we intended they should use.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you a question right there. . The stock-
yards sewage all goes direct into the channel, doesn’t it? .
Mr. WISNER. It goes right into the South Branch of the river.
Mr. HULL. And into the main channel.
Mr. WISNER. And into the main channel; yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. Just as it comes from the stockyards?
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. There is nothing done to it?
Mr. WISNER. Except that we have some of the plants use tanks
to take out a part of the suspended solids, but not enough.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do they not utilize everything they can for fer-
tilizer and manure?
Mr. WISNER. Not to any large extent, as yet.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It looks like it would pay them to do so.
Mr. WISNER. There is one thing that works against that. We
were hopeful for that, but the war came on and labor prices went
up so high and freight rates went up so high that this material that
we get from the sludge, it has a fertilizing value, but there is so
much that has not, that the bulk makes it almost prohibitive to ship
it any distance, and we can not use it all locally.
Mr. HULL. They used to have a manure rate on the railroads, but
that has been taken off.
Mr. WISNER. We can not afford to ship it.
Mr. HULL. It is almost treble, the rates on fertilizer. I am in
the fertilizer, business. I manufacture a peat, and ship it to the
Southern territory, and they have almost trebled the freight rates:
in other words, it costs almost $300 a car to ship a carload of peat
from Peoria to Savannah. If we have this water rate, we would
get a better rate.
Mr. WISNER. The first report on the stockyards situation, in
which I said we represented certain things, was made in 1914, and
the second we furnished in about 1918, or thereabouts.
I just want to touch on that stockyard situation and the kind
of political things that happened in our city. We developed this so-
called activated sludge process. We thought it the best to use. It
1612 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
absolutely deodorizes sewage, and we got the stockyards’ industries
up to the point where they were willing to assume 60 per cent of the
cost of taking care of these wastes, and the sanitary district, from
its general fund, 40 per cent, not only of the cost of installation, but
the cost of operation. Just about that time along comes an election,
When we are already to sign up, and another faction gets in control
of the drainage board, and its idea was to undo the thing that had
been done before, on the theory that anything that had been done
before must be wrong, because the other side did it. The result
has been that that improvement, instead of being working to-day,
is not yet started.
The negotiations leading up to that have been in progress for
two or three years. The packers did not want to pay for any part
of it. Then they said they would pay 40, then 50, and then 60
per cent, and it was agreed to; and at that particular time the pack-
ing industry was making money, but when business slowed up in
1920 the packers commenced to lose money, so that to-day I suppose
they will fight paying anything; but in order to push this thing
along I will say for the information of you gentlemen that the
drainage board is not holding back. We have thrown the thing into
court and do not intend to let it drag out in the courts, even if we
have to build it ourselves and finance it—I think that will be the
policy—and collect afterwards. • - •
Mr. HULL. If those two big plants, the packing industry and
Corn Products, could be treated, we will say, in the next three or
four years, as an illustration, would not that be of greater advantage
for the time being in the sewage disposal, so far as down the valley
is concerned' It always appeared to me that those two things were
the real bad things that we had in the river. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. WISNER. You are practically right. I stated before the waste
coming from the packers was equivalent to the waste from 1,100,000
people. That would be no better than treating 1,100,000 from the
other part of the city. -
Mr. HULL. Especially the Corn Products is a harder proposition
in the river than common sewage, the sewage of people.
Mr. WISNER. And it is a harder thing to treat.
Mr. HULL. It is harder after it gets in the river.
Mr. WISNER. It gets down in our canal and goes down the river,
and it was only just recently that we found something that looked
as though we could treat this waste successfully, and there is no
need of trying to treat it until you find out how to do it, and we are
doing the best we can.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask this question. What do you do with the
Corn Products?
Mr. WISNER. We have finished up the experiment on a method
of treating the wastes.
Mr. HULL. Will they pay for part of the service?
Mr. WISNER. Then we will start our negotiations. I think pos-
sibly they will. They seem to act in a very fair manner. These
things all take time, gentlemen, and even the political delays take
time, and you can’t help it, and I do not want you to think the
sanitary district has been derelict. The war was here and we could
not get materials. There were pressing things we had to do, and I
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1613
Was sent to Washington several times to beg on my knees to get
material. Some of my prayers worked and some did not.
Mr. HULL. You did not bring the right prayer book.
... Mr. WISNER. I want to go back to the dilution ratio again. I said
it Was very near right. I think they would have been indeed close
if they had eliminated trade waste, and Mr. Cooley told me several
times, and he was one of those that had to do with fixing the ratio,
that they did not mean to include the trade waste. They meant to
exclude those, but it never has been done, and the result is that the
Illinois River is not in as good condition as it should be, and we
regret it, and the trustees regret it, and they are doing everything
to remedy it, and we are doing it in spite of the fact that we do
not know how it will come out, and we are aiming to do more than
would be necessary under the Illinois statute, even if we win
this suit, and could have our ten thousand. We do not think it is
right to send this stuff down the Illinois Valley, so as to make a
local nuisance. The people down there will not want to use it for
the drinking supply, even if we do not put anything in it. In
summer that river gets down to a small stream, sluggish; the
fertilizers from fields come in from the land and it would not be
a fit water supply anyway. They do not need it for that, but there
has been some talk about polluting the water supply below us.
We do not do it like Detroit does, or Buffalo does to Niagara Falls.
There is nobody below us who wants to use it, and why should
it not be used as a drain and get one of the uses of water out of it,
for the disposal and diversion of sewage, which by other methods
would cost one hundred fifty to two million dollars to dispose of
and this expenditure would be an economic loss to the Nation.
Mr. HULL. I do not agree with you on that statement altogether.
I think it is necessary to use the Illinois River for sewage disposal,
but I do think quick action should be taken to take as much of
the impurities out of the sewage as you can, and I also think it is
an absolute necessity that we have these ten thousand cubic feet to
take care of it. -
Mr. WISNER. You and I do not disagree. I agree with that
statement. I may be wrong, and would ask the privilege, Mr.
Chairman, to correct any dates or slips in figures. I am talking
mostly from memory, but I think it was the year 1918 when I
had an interview with General Black, then Chief of Engineers.
It was friendly in every way. There was not any difference of
opinion. There were no exceptions. I thought we should get
this thing settled. As I stated this morning, I was trying to
design works to take care of the proposition, if we had four thou-
sand cubic feet on the one hand and on the other the ten, I did not
know what to do, and I was afraid I would make mistakes and go
on the wrong theory, and perhaps waste millions of dollars putting
in works, that if the case went the other way from which acted
on, they could not be utilized—so I was trying to do things that
would work in either case, but there were a lot of problems where
that could not be done. There had been a report made in which
regulating or compensating works that were suggested in the Niagara
and St. Clair Rivers at a low cost—it reported upon these works
favorably, and for that reason we went down to see General Black
1614 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
and offered for the sanitary district to pay for the construction
of these regulating or compensating works. This was discussed at .
Some length. He then wanted to know what the sanitary district
were going to do with the Sewage coming from its increasing popu-
lation. I told him that the district was going to install sewage
disposal plants to supplement the dilution method and by that means
take care of the sewage increment. -
After some discussion, it was suggested that this entire matter
be taken up with Colonel Judson, the division engineer officer in
charge at Chicago.
Now, of the engineering officers that have been in Chicago and
have become acquainted with our troubles and what we had to con-
tend with, there has not been any of them but what sympathized
and figured we were trying to do the proper thing. We were not
getting opposition there. Colonel Judson was that way. He was
a big man, was military attaché during the Russian-Japanese War,
and had much to do in keeping the Russians in the World War as
long as they stayed there after they commenced to lay down. He was
a big man and wanted to settle this problem. We had many inter-
views with him and finally came to a sort of understanding as to
what the sanitary district could do with the finances it had, and also
what it could do physically and from an engineering standpoint, as
to how much work we could absolutely accomplish, and he came to
the conclusion that if within 25 years (up to 1945) the sanitary dis-
trict would take care of half of the pollution that was going into
the drainage canal, so that at the end of that period there would
only be one-half of the pollution going into the drainage canal as
is now going, and in addition, gentlemen, the increasing population
of the city of Chicago: Now, you hear about the city of Cleveland.
The city of Chicago increases in population just about as much in
10 years as is the present population of the city of Cleveland.
Mr. STRONG. You mean to say that you will finally take care of
one-half? *
Mr. WISNER. Of what is going in there at present and all of the
increasing population, and better if we can.
Mr. HULL. In 20 years?
Mr. WISNER. Up to 1945; yes, sir.
Now, we have had memorandums here in those exhibits to the
Chief of Engineers, studies made of what our probable income will
be from the sale of bonds, and taxes, and the way we are fixed now
we can just about finance that in 20 years, taking care of these works,
in addition to the other expenditures that a city like Chicago, the
sanitary district, has to meet; but even let us admit we have plenty
of money and there would be no kick on increasing the taxes, I doubt
with our present form of government, particularly, and that applies.
to every city in the United States, whether we could do more than
that if we had plenty of money, and that for the particular reason
there are very few engineers in this country that are capable or who
have had the education or experience to design works of this kind,
and you can not design a piece of work that will cost $25,000,000
overnight, and you can’t build it in a short time; and, in my opinion,
if the sanitary district accomplishes what it says it is going to try
to accomplish and will accomplish in that time, it has done a won-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1615
derful thing in Sewage disposal and a bigger wonder than any other
city in the United States or the world has as yet performed.
When a representative from Cleveland comes here and says that
Chicago ought to be able to install works that would purify all of
its sewage in five years, six at the outside, and states that Cleveland
# done it, and why should not Chicago, let us see what Cleveland
1C1.
It first had a report in 1895 by Mr. Rudolph Herring. Cleveland
wanted to dispose of its sewage in the same manner as Chicago is
doing—by diverting it into some stream which would flow into the
Ohio River. It found it was not practicable on account of its cost.
So nothing was done until along in 1903, when some investigation
was made. No work was done until 1915, when the city started to
build sewage-disposal plants and water-purification plants. The
Cleveland managers stated that three sewage-disposal plants had
been built. It is reported to me by one of our representatives who
went to Cleveland that only one sewage-disposal plant has been
built. The one plant that has been built will remove about 33 per
cent of the impurities, and is a sedimentation tank of the Imhoff
type. The other works, which is claimed to be a sewage-disposal
plant, consists of a large pipe running out on the lake bottom,
discharging its sewage at the bottom of the lake. The sewage,
before it is allowed to enter this pipe passes through a sewage
grit chamber. The only thing this grit chamber does is to remove
sand and gravel that may be carried in the sewage.
According to the Cleveland manager, their works will be com-
pleted in two years, which means that it has taken the city of Cleve-
land 12 years to build two little plants; one which will remove 35
per cent of the impurities and the other which removes none—
yet, he says Chicago should be able to entirely purify its sewage in
six years. These plants were put in to improve the looks of the
water along the shore, particularly where the beach is used for
bathing purposes. I would not care to bathe there, although the
water has been chlorinated to kill some of the bacteria.
We have in Chicago been educated to not want to drink our sew-
age, even after purification. In Cleveland they discharge out into
the lake, and can not do anything else. They have got to do that.
That is the only place it can go. Chicago is fortunately situated,
and we want to take advantage of it, the same as the power interests
want to take advantage of the power at Niagara. We would if we
had it at Chicago. At Chicago we have a way to get rid of our
sewage, which is better than any other city on the Great Lakes.
Why should we not take advantage of it?
Mr. STRONG. While this might be some repetition, I would like
you to make it clear, if you can—why, if at the end of 20 years you
have disposed of one-half of the sewage, why you can not dispose
of it all? Just get your mind on that thought, because that is what
we are going to get up against. If you dispose of a portion of it,
why not all? Is it physically possible, or financially possible, or
could no system be devised which would purify it absolutely?
Mr. WISNER. I think I understand your question. Why, if we
can do part of it
Mr. STRONG. Why can you not do it all?
1616 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. WISNER. Why can we not do it all? In the first place, you
have the right idea, we could not finance ourselves in that time, and
the next is I do not believe we can accomplish any more in that
time. -
Mr. HULL. You mean physically? t
Mr. WISNER. Physically and engineeringly, if that is the proper
expression, and do it properly. It would cost many, many millions
of dollars. -
Mr. HULL. After you complete this tank, say, in 20 years, will
it be possible then to complete the other half in the same way?
What I am getting at is whether all the sewage can eventually be
taken care of artificially.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do your plans contemplate in the long run com-
pleting it as to all?
Mr. WISNER. Taking in and treating everything?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WISNER. And using no water for dilution?
Mr. HULL. No.
Mr. WISNER. Using that water for dilution, everything is com-
pleted in 1945 with these artificial purification works.
Mr. HULL. I want to get that in the record, as I would like to
have it. I am taking for granted that at the end of the 20 years
you will take care of 3,000,000 people, in 1945, and with the addi-
tion of the trade wastes you will have to take care of 6,000,000
people. Is that true?
Mr. WISNER. Yes.
Mr. HULL. Of course, if we pass the bill, you will have to take
care of the balance. Say another 20 years would elapse, can you
take care of the other half, so that you would at some time arrive
at a point when you would be taking care of all the sewage by
artificial means? Now, remember you will still be allowed a cer-
tain amount of water for dilution purposes, but what I was trying
to get at is, would you have enough plants to take care of 6,000,000
people at the end of 20 years?
Mr. WISNER. With your last assumption, that we would be allowed
a certain amount of water for dilution purposes.
Mr. HULL. You will have to have 10,000 feet when you take care
of all of it. I want to know if you can ever take care of all of it.
Mr. WISNER. Let us assume, not committing us to it, that we are
allowed 10,000 feet a second for dilution purposes, I will say, then,
that the plants, together with the diluting water, we say we will
have in by 1945, will take care of all the sewage of the city of
Chicago. There will be no objectionable things coming down the
Illinois Valley, comparatively objectionable, and I mean by that
there may be some things that get in locally that you can not keep
out of the river, but there will be no sediment sludge banks down in
the Illinois River, even up around Ottawa.
Mr. STRONG. You understand one reason why we ask these par-
ticular questions is because legislation has been introduced, you
know, to absolutely prohibit the disposal of sewage in our inland
waterways. -
Mr. HULL. Before 20 years is up you will have a law in the United
States that will not allow anything to be put in a river like the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1617
packing-house products, or anything else, because that is coming
about very rapidly. That does not only mean Chicago, but other
places in the United States.
Mr. WISNER. I think it would be one of the largest economic mis-
takes in the world, in the United States.
Mr. HULL. It will come, though.
Mr. WISNER. That means a terrible blow if you gentlemen by
any legislation did prohibit a dumping into the streams of any
sewage. It is an economic problem.
Mr. STRONG. Well, I am of record in other hearings to the effect
that every city of any importance in the country, and every manu-
facturing enterprise of any consequence in the country, is located
where it is because of the stream of water, and to absolutely pro-
hibit all discharge impurities into these streams will probably
impose a greater burden upon the people than would now exist. In
other words, the remedy would be worse than the evil.
Mr. WISNER. Absolutely; I do not mean to say, gentlemen, that
any city should be allowed to create a nuisance to its neighbor below.
it on a running stream, but I do want to bring out again in the
Illinois River there is nobody using that stream for its water
Supply.
Mr. STRONG. Mr. Wisner, put it this way: Referring again to
Chicago and the inquiries of Mr. Hull and myself, that if permitted
to use 10,000 cubic feet of water per second for dilution purposes,
then in that case in 20 years you will have abolished all impurities?
Mr. WISNER. The local nuisance; yes.
Mr. STRONG. Without the use of, say, 10,000 cubic feet of water,
then, do you mean to say it would be impossible to do it, physically
impossible, or scientifically impossible, or just financially impossible?
Mr. WISNER. I would say both financially and physically impos-
sible to do that within the next 20 years.
Mr. HULL. If you will continue to do it—I want to get this in the
record, if I can. The point that comes up with me is this: I under-
stand the situation probably as well as you do in that respect. You
have got $100,000,000 to spend. You can take care of 3,000,000
people with that in 20 years. In that 20 years you will accumulate
through increase in population and trade wastes another 3,000,000
people, or the equivalent of sewage of 3,000,000 people, so you will
have 6,000,000 people instead of three. Then that would mean that
3,000,000 people would be taken care of through disposal plants
and 3,000,000 people would be taken care of by dilution by the 10,000
cubic feet. My people want to know whether in another 20 years
if you can put in disposal plants enough to take care of the other
3,000,000 people. That is what I am after. That is the second
period. &
Mr. WISNER. I see, but I can not quite understand. Let our minds
get together. If that was done what would be the use of this dilu-
tion, except to keep the Chicago River from going into Lake
Michigan.
Mr. HULL. The thing is this: I am speaking now from the valley
standpoint, that what they want down there is to get the river back
as near as possible to normal. You are trying to get the river back
where we will not be plagued with the sewage of Chicago. Now,
1618 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
if you could only take care of 3,000,000 by dilution, you would still
be in the same position practically as you are to-day, but, on the
other hand, if you could build plants to take care of 6,000,000 people,
and have 10,000 feet, then there is a possibility of getting that river
back to its normal state. That is what I am trying to get out of you.
Mr. WISNER. Mr. Hull is a little bit wrong on one thing. At the
Present time we have through trade wastes
Mr. HULL. I can not use people all the time—you have got 3,000,-
'000 people and one and a half million trade wastes. That is four
and a half million people. I am only figuring that you would ad-
vance up to 6,000,000 inside of 20 years, trade wastes and all.
Mr. WISNER. We would have the equivalent in 1945, from trade
wastes and all, for instance, all the wastes produced by the human
beings, 6,783,000.
Mr. HULL. It is about that.
Mr. WISNER. I want to get it right. See what we propose to do, the
waste that will be treated at that time, is the equivalent of 4,250,000
people in round numbers.
Mr. HULL. In 1945. -
Mr. WISNER. In 1945; and there will be going into the channel and
down the river the equivalent of 2,500,000 people. Let me explain
further. All the objectionable matter, or practically all that is
visible, the settling solids, will have been removed from the Sewage.
Mr. HULL. All of it in 1945.
Mr. WISNER. Practically all. In other words, your stream will be
not a bad looking stream.
Mr. HULL. The way I have this in my mind (not being an engi-
neer) is that you will never be able—I have contended with my com-
mittee you will never be able to complete disposal plants that will
take care of more than 60 per cent of the actual sewage from trade
wastes and the population; that is, I mean actual sewage.
Mr. MoRGAN. Why?
Mr. HULL. Because I think the effluent that goes off will have
enough in it to contain 40 per cent. If you take out 60 per cent solids
and deleterious matters, that effluent will have considerable sewage
properties in it, that will require dilution and will need a flow of
water to take care of. -
Mr. MoRGAN. If you were to remove 60 per cent, including solids,
and the objectionable matter, you would not need this water for
dilution
Mr. HULL. You would have this. You would not need as much
dilution, but when you got your basis up to 6,700,000 population, you
would have that much more effluent and need that much more Water
to take care of it.
Mr. MoRGAN. You referred to the fact as an economic proposition
that cities will need water for dilution, and they can not install mod-
ern sewage-disposal plants to take care of all the plants. What do
you mean by economicſ?
Mr. WISNER. I said there was some remark made that cities would
be prevented from dumping their wastes in streams or bodies of
Water.
Mr. MoRGAN. You said it could not be done as an economic propo-
sition.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1619
Mr. WISNER. I said from an economic standpoint, it would be a
calamity. I mean the streams are the natural drains of the country,
and unless they are more valuable for some other purpose, they should
º used for carrying off the wastes, as running waters purify them-
SelVeS. -
Mr. MORGAN. You mean as an economic standpoint or as a health
standpoint?
Mr. WISNER. Both. Why make the cities, where it does not do
anybody any harm, cease to use the streams to dispose of the waste
matters?
Mr. MoRGAN. And that is a matural method as against the artificial
method.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. What I am getting at, does your plant contemplate
taking care of the sewage of Chicago?
Mr. HULL. Just change that and say without the diversion.
Mr. MoRGAN. I mean ultimately taking care of it independently of
the dilution method and 10,000 feet.
Mr. WISNER. No, sir; they do not. They contemplate that 10,000
i. is necessary to keep the filth of Chicago from going into the
a Re.
Mr. MoRGAN. How much diversion is necessary?
Mr. WISNER. Ten thousand cubic feet a second.
Mr. MoRGAN. To prevent it from reversing itself?
Mr. WISNER...Yes, sir. .
Mr. MoRGAN. Your contention is based upon dilution, and also
the public health, so far as the river reversing itself into the lakes.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAN. Contaminating the lake waters.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir; that is my contention.
Mr. HULL. My contention is they ought to keep building these
plants for 20 years after 1945 to equal what they are doing in the
next 20 years. -
Mr. WISNER. We will go on building plants as long as Chicago is
there and keeps growing.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That would not be done if the diversion should
cease. Suppose the diversion by some power or process of law
should be terminated at the end of 20 years.
Mr. BARRETT. Let us assume that at the end of 20 years, take
1945, we will be taking care of, if our plan matures, 4,000,000 ap-
proximately. The city in 1945, according to the best estimate,
will be 50 per cent larger than now in human population, which
will give us about 5,000,000 people, and our trade wastes, increas-
ing, would give us about, say, two and a quarter million, seven and
a quarter to seven and a half million. We would be taking care
of our sewage in 1945—we will say 4,000,000 people. There will
still be three and a half million that we have not treated. Let us
assume we could not send it down the river. The result is the
moment we did that, the first time we had a rain of a greater
amount than we were able to keep every bit of scouring from our
sewers would be right out into Lake Michigan, and one scouring
is enough to cause an epidemic, and we have to-day demonstrated
1620 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
that probably twenty-five times in a year we will have a greater
outflow than 2,000 second-feet. That is the capacity of these tanks,
2,000 second-feet, when they get through treating them, so that
every bit of the balance of that, when we would have two, three,
four, or five thousand, or in flood times 10,000 feet, our sewage would
be out in the water. Have I made it clear?
Mr. MoRGAN. I can see your contention is that you need 10,000 feet
to protect the drinking water of the river from reversing itself
and polluting your drinking water, that you need 10,000 feet for
dilution purposes, after taking the solids out. Is that the situation?
Mr. BARRETT. That is the situation. If the time comes, and these
engineers had a talk with Mr. Pearse on the way down, hoping to
be able to get him to tell he expected something revolutionary in
the way of sewage treatment, and he said he does not see anything
revolutionary in the sky on that subject, but if the time comes that
we get some revolutionary methods so that, with not an ordinary
expenditure of money but an extraordinary one, we would be able
to treat all our sewage, both in flood extraordinary and ordinary
flood plus the average flow of sewage, then we would probably be in
much better shape, but we do not know when that will be. If we
were told that we had to build plants and treat all of the out-
flow of our sewer system, it would cost, according to—it is more of a
guess—they estimate about $750,000,000 to do it, because we would
have to build a plant big enough to take care of the flood flow.
Mr. MoRGAN. What would be your situation then, so far as the
river reversing itself is concerned?
Mr. BARRETT. We would then be in a position where if we treat
it at all, and we had this very good effluent that Mr. Pearse talks
about, we would be forced to put in filtering plants to take care of
that, after dumping in the lakes, which according to the best guess
they have now is $250,000,000.
Mr. MoRGAN. How much diversion of water is necessary to cause
the water to flow from Lake Michigan down the Illinois Valley.
Mr. BARRETT. During flood time?
Mr. MoRGAN. Any time.
Mr. BARRETT. During flood time not less than 10,000 feet.
Mr. HULL. He means the natural flow.
Mr. MoRGAN. In normal times.
Mr. BARRETT. I suppose in normal times if we were forced to and
did not have to pay attention to the extraordinary time, we might be
able to do with five or six thousand feet, but when the flood times
come we would be in trouble, and in the investigations made by our
engineers show that if we had only a flow of 5,000 second-feet, and
rain started, and the flood period was imminent, we could not change
the flow of the stream in time to prevent this outflow into the lake.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Did I understand your position to be that you
propose to go through there, to put in there the best improved modern
appliances for the so-called scientific treatment 2
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; as far as money and ability go.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is possible to do under existing conditions?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Within about 20 years you will accomplish so
much. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1621
Mr. BARRETT. In 20 years they estimate they will be able to treat
over 4,000,000 human beings. **.
Mr. MANSFIELD. But after that time you will still need 10,000 cubic
feet diversion.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Just the same as now.
Mr. BARRETT. In order to prevent during Scouring heavy rains and
floods from washing our sewers into the lake and, as Mr. Wisner
said, from completely scouring the Chicago River out in the lake.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You do not only mean this as a temporary propo-
sition, but as a permanent proposition.
Mr. BARRETT. As far as we can now see, we take the position that
nobody knows what our situation will be in 1945 or 1950. I think
an attempt has been made to determine what our growth will be,
and it has been said that the population of the United States in 1950
will be 150,000,000 people, and the report is just out to-day. We are
growing faster than the average in the country at Chicago.
Mr. STRONG. Judge, I think the committee would like you and
your people and Mr. Goulder to join in with us, and we will locate
the points of controversy. There is no controversy over the fact
that a diversion and withdrawal of water lowers the lake level.
Everybody agrees to that. As I listen to the discussion, I keep asking
myself, “Now, then, what are the remaining points of controversy %
As I have it, there are two: Chicago says, “We must have 10,000
cubic feet of water in our drainage canal.” The opposition to Chicago
says that you can put in disposal plants and take care of your sewage
without withdrawing any water from Lake Michigan. That is a
point of controversy. That is one of them. Now, the other one that
I have in mind is a controversy of how to take care of the lake levels.
It has been developed here that it is entirely practicable to put in
regulating works and take care of the situation. So far as I have
heard the opposition to you, they have said that this is a dream im-
practicable. There are the two points of differences that stand out
in my mind.
Mr. MoRGAN. May I suggest there might be another one included,
that for the purposes of navigation the lake shippers are not looking
with favor upon an Illinois River waterway and the diversion of
water for transportation purposes. Is not that another conflict?
Mr. STRONG. No; I do not see that it would come in as a point of
controversy.
Mr. HULL. It comes in from the point that they do not want to
give up the water.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me one moment.
Now, we are taking for granted that it is conceded that the Lake
levels have been lowered 5% inches, as I understand it.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir. +
Mr. MANSFIELD. But it is not also conceded that a continuation
of this diversion will not lower it any more? -
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir. -
Mr. MANSFIELD. That has already been done. Suppose the ques-
tion was up to this Government to restore the lake levels to what
they were originally, there could be but two methods, as I under-
1622 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
stand, by which it could be done, one to cut off this diversion, or
try some other method suggested.
Mr. STRONG. To dam up some other outlet. There is always a
time in a controversy of this kind, it seems to me, when the con-
fusion should crystalize into certain points so that we can put our
finger on it and see what we are disputing about, so that we can
say we are disputing about that, and then let the testimony and
evidence bear on that.
Mr. WISNER. We have tried to give you what we consider the
points of conflict by expert testimony.
Mr. STRONG. We appreciate that.
Mr. BARRETT. We have given you the best that we can. We
suggest that that which has been said in opposition to our expert
testimony has been mere conversation, and we would like to have
these gentlemen to come in and meet us on the same ground and
with the same kind of testimony.
Mr. STRONG. All right. Let us go back to the witness.
Mr. WISNER. In regard to this program and to what we can ac-
complish up to 1945; this was a few years ago, and I, as an engineer,
do not want to say what we will be able to do 25 years from now.
We thought that was far enough ahead to say what we could do and
would do.
Colonel Judson, the Government engineer, was satisfied that was
the best we could hope to accomplish, and with that I will pass that
by, and that is practically what we say we will do in spite of the
fact that this controversy has not been settled.
I spoke about the estimate of six years as being sufficient to ac-
complish this, in spite of what the city of Cleveland, with a much
smaller problem, has said, and it has taken them 10 years, and it
will take them two more years to finish; and Milwaukee, a city of
500,000 people, and located in a State that is one of our principal
opponents, has been putting in a Sewage-disposal plant and work-
ing upon it since 1914, I believe, and I was there a few weeks ago.
and visited the plant and was told by Mr. Hatton, the chief en-
gineer, it would be two years yet before they had it in operation,
and there is a city of 500,000 people, which only represents the
growth of Chicago in six or seven years, and they have been, or will
have been, 13 or 14 years in doing it, so when we say what we pro-
pose to do in 20 years, they say we are not doing it sufficiently fast.
They are mistaken; and in passing I would like to state in talking
with Mr. Hatton—and he is the chief engineer of the sewage-disposal
works in Milwaukee—that he thought if the people of Milwaukee
and Wisconsin understood the problem of the Sanitary District of
Chicago, what Chicago was doing in good faith, he thought there
would be no objection from Milwaukee or Wisconsin, but they would
be with us. He said they would be with us. I am quoting the sub-
stance of his remarks.
I am going to just touch upon this, and I do not want to get in a
discussion about it. So far as any damages along the Illinois River,
the sanitary district is willing to pay any damages for which they
are legally liable or morally liable. If some man has neglected his
legal right, I do not think we would quibble with him, and we do not
want to fight with him.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1623
Mr. HULL. I do not know if you are competent to answer this ques-
tion; and if you are not, please do not answer. Of course, the delay
in making those settlements with land fellows is one of the main
things that has caused this trouble you are having. What I would
like to know is, Is it the policy of your organization to settle with
those fellows, as you have just stated?
Mr. WISNER. Well, it is.
Mr. HULL. Are they doing it?
Mr. WISNER. Yes; they are doing it. They just settled eight cases.
We tell you, for the benefit of the committee—it may have been the
fault of both sides—there were some men along the Illinois River
who were asking exorbitant things, and then we got into fights.
Mr. HULL. It was a good starting point to get those things settled.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
I am not going into the subject of lake regulations, except to say
that I have given it considerable thought, and I agree with Mr.
Shenehon they can be built. I will say this, as Mr. Shenehon stated,
an additional outlet, by means of this additional outlet at Chicago,
Lake Erie’s level can be held at about five and a half inches higher
than it could without the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet at Chicago.
Taking a period of 10 years of low water in Lake Erie, such as 1891
to 1900, it would have been possible, if regulating works had been in-
stalled and the diversion had been completed at Chicago, to have car-
ried a yearly average of 1,200,000 tons of freight more with the same
boats and the same number of trips (estimating 200 boats and 25 trips
each annually) than they would have been able to carry if the diver-
sion at Chicago was not in existence but regulating works had been
installed in the Niagara River.
In addition to this, on account of the 5% inches of additional
storage that can be safely held in Lake Erie, practically the same
amount of power can be obtained at the Niagara Falls Peninsula
whether there is diversion at Chicago or not, and the Lakes can be
held at a higher elevation, as stated above.
Mr. HULL. How do you account for that?
Mr. WISNER. The water is deeper, and they say they could carry
100 tons of freight for. 1 inch more of draft.
Mr. HULL. That is, with the regulating works in Ž
Mr. WISNER. That is, with the regulating works in ; yes. Gen-
erally the value of power at Chicago is about three times what it is
around Niagara Falls.
Mr. HULL. Do you mean they would pay three times as much
for it?
Mr. WISNER. No.
Mr. HULL. You ought to explain it.
Mr. WISNER. I mean the net value of it is about three times as.
much.
Mr. HULL. Why is that?
Mr. WISNER. Because it costs so much to make it at Niagara Falls,
and costs so much to make it in Chicago. In Chicago it costs $26.40
per horsepower to make the power; and we were selling it for $55
per horsepower, where we sold it commercially, I mean. That means
a profit of about $29. They are not making more than $5 to $10 per
1624 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
horsepower at Niagara Falls. It figures out that the value of this
power under those conditions is just about as much going down the
Illinois as it is going over the Falls and down the St. Lawrence,
particularly up to the time that power is developed.
Mr. HULL. It has been stated here by Mr. Shenehon that there
were some things in reference to power, and that was sale of power.
Is not that a fact that Chicago is so large a city that the sale of
power would be so much greater for the power developed in this case
than it would be on the St. Lawrence River that one would balance
the other; in other words, they get more power for the amount of
water at Niagara than we do in the Illinois River, but on account of
the extraordinary demand in Chicago it would equal it in that
respect. Am I correct in that statement?
Mr. WISNER. You are nearly correct. Something has been said
about the flow in the drainage canal in 1908, 1909, and 1910, and
through an error the wrong discharge was gotten out and was
printed. The figures that were given out were simply the waste
water that went over the Bear Trap Dams, and it was not until after
1912, as I recall it, that they were corrected to include the amount of
water that was used for the generation of power, and the figures as
now given are correct.
Mr. HULL. Are you making that statement in reference to the
Question that has come up, that at the time the treaty was signed you
were only making 3,400 cubic feet?
Mr. WISNER. Yes.
Mr. HULL. What is your statement?
Mr. WISNER. My statement and the figures were put in last night,
and it was between 6,400 and 7,000 cubic feet per second in those
three years.
Mr. NEWTON. When was that?
Mr. WISNER. In 1908, 1909, and 1910. Now, at the time this
treaty—at the time this treaty was being negotiated, and the time it
was signed, the diversion works at Chicago for sewage dilution were
completed practically to the limit of 10,000 feet capacity. There re-
mained nothing to do on the improvement of the Chicago River, and
all of the other work had been completed; and they had started to
work on the Calumet Channel, at which time they were in hopes they
could get 2,000 cubic feet additional to put through that.
Mr. HULL. It has been stated here, I think twice, that the reason
that the 10,000 cubic feet was not put in the treaty was because
you wanted 14,000, and you helped to keep it out, and I heard it
was kept out because it was not considered that Lake Michigan was
a boundary water.
Mr. WISNER. I do not remember whether or not we tried to keep
the amount out of the treaty. At that time, with the frame of
mind they were in, they would have had it put in the treaty 14,000,
if there was any effort made, and there was not. I am sure I
would have known of it, as I was chief engineer at that time, and
I never heard anything to that effect. I am just going to read
into the record a few statements made by eminent engineers, the
first one being Mr. F. P. Stearns, an eminent hydraulic engineer
of international reputation, which he made under oath. None of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1625
these statements were controverted by any witnesses of the United
States Government, and it applies to the subject. [Reading:]
The canal was built for 10,000 cubic feet a second, and it was built to
reverSe the current of the Chicago River, So that that river which receives
the Sewage should not be turned into the lake, and time is an important
element in producing any change in sanitary conditions, and I do not believe
if the quantity were diminished to 4,167 cubic feet a second, the city could
Catch up with those conditions.
That speaks for itself. The next is from the testimony of George
W. Fuller, of New York, who is an eminent hydraulic engineer,
and has been a sanitary engineer and made sanitation a special
study all his life, and I particularly want to use this in connection
with something that Mr. Goulder brought out yesterday, in which
he read the names of several health officials, and two or three
engineers, among those George W. Fuller, who made a reoprº upon
the pollution of streams, and boundary waters, and it should not
be done. I have not read the report, but it was the report made
to the joint commission. Here is what Mr. Fuller said under oath,
and it is uncontradicted, and he was talking with reference to a
water supply and sewage purification.
Mr. MoRGAN. You say under oath ?
Mr. WISNER. The suit between the United States Government
and the sanitary district in regard to the injunction. [Reading:]
In my opinion the protection of the Chicago water Supply is Secured in a
more simple, effective, economical, and therefore better way than could be
secured by any other means of treating the sewage than by the present method,
and that applies to the art of 1889, and also to the art as known to-day in
the matter of Sewage diversion and Sewage treatment.
I would say, gentlemen, this was in the year 1914, comparatively
recently, that the testimony was taken. I see Mr. Fuller occasionly,
and he has never reversed his opinion. * -
The next I wish to have in the record is taken from the testimony
of Mr. A. E. Phillips, who at that time had charge of the sewage
work here in Washington. -
Mr. MoRGAN. On what occasion? e
Mr. WISNER. In the same suit of the sanitary district against
the United States Government. There was no contradiction on any
of this testimony. [Reading:]
Record, volume 3. 1522, 1523: The very first consideration in weighing various
possible plans in any case would be the protection of the water supply. The
absolute necessity of this, even where a water supply is in reasonable proximity
to the works, that is, in the discharge, for example, Of the effluent of artificial
works, or sewage for dilution within a certain range of distance, Subjects the
water supply to pollution and serious injury, at distances further removed,
that becomes less important. In any case the method should be Such and the
design of works such as to absolutely prevent at any time the pollution of
the water supply. if that is within the range of possibility. That is, even the
contingency of pollution should be prevented.
Then, there was the question, “That is, when you say pollution,
do you refer to pollution that may be accomplished by the discharge
of raw sewage or any effluent from the so-called purification works
that you have mentioned?” And he said, “And it involves both the
raw sewage and effluent, because there is absolutely no certainty that
with the most modern works, most carefully designed and planned.
there will not be periods when raw sewage will not be discharged.”
91739–24—PT 2—87
1626 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Now, there is a further quotation from the testimony in the same
case from L. E. Cooley, an eminent engineer, volume 3, page 1765:
I Will say in regard to the subject of efficiency, there is no method at the
present time available that can compare in efficiency with the method which
We have adopted here in Chicago. There is no alternative which could be
adopted which would give us a water supply of any character approaching
that which we may enjoy in connection with the dilution.
Gentlemen, in my opinion, the filth coming from a city of 3,000,-
000 people and dumped right into the limited lengths of our lake
front, from which we take our water supply, is much more danger-
ous to the people of that city than it is to a people in the city of
Cleveland, where they have only a population as big as Chicago had
40 years ago. It becomes intensified. If more sewage is dumped
into the same body of water it is more apt to pollute the supply,
and I doubt very much if this filth were allowed to be dumped in
Lake Michigan that you would have a safe water supply, even
with the installation of water filters. It would be too much of a
load upon those filters, and they would be apt not to do their duty.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is not the condition at Chicago different from
#. large cities on the Great Lakes? You are at the end of the
&LRCS.
Mr. WISNER. In the southwest corner; yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If you were up, say, 100 miles, where you have
a straight shore, the condition really would not be as bad as it
would be at the southern end of the lake, where it is congested and
held there.
Mr. WISNER. I think there is some truth in that, and also down
at the end of the Lakes the waves wash up the sand, and it is shoaled
up more. At Chicago you have to go out 6 miles before you get water
60 feet deep.
Mr. MoRGAN. You have referred to the Cleveland sewage system
and dilution. How much dilution water is necessary to dilute the
Cleveland sewage after the solids are taken out.
Mr. WISNER. As a matter of fact they do not take the solids out,
except in one plant. They have two plants, but they only take out
the solids in one.
l Mº; MORGAN. They use the water for washing it out in the
akes?
Mr. WISNER. It mixes up with the lake water. The sewer pipe
goes out and discharges the sewage on the bottom of the lake.
It has been touched upon that we need the 10,000, because of run-
off of the Chicago River Basin. That is questioned. I want to
show that is a true statement of fact, that the river on occasions
would reverse itself unless we had that flow.
The statement made that it would take 24 hours to change the
flow 4,000 to 10,000 is correct. I carried on the experiments my-
self, and at two different times they were made, because we wanted
to know the truth, and it is so.
The question has been asked several times why are we trying to
get this thing settled, and I said it was because we wanted to know
what kind of engineering works to put in, and we did make a
sincere effort to Settle this. Mr. Adcock and others and myself
went to Montreal to see the harbor board and while there on a sec-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1627
Ond trip, Mr. Stewart, sitting in this room, and Mr. Haskell were
called in. They have been retained to see what Montreal could do
to better its harbor depth, and it was during this interview with
their harbor engineer, Mr. Cowie stated it was proposed to put in
weirs down below Montreal to raise the water at Montreal, but he
thought the ice might occasion a flood—flood the docks at Montreal.
Then he stated it was only during the latter part of September,
October, and November and the early part of December that they
needed this water, and the rest of the time there was enough water
from the rivers that drained into the St. Lawrence above Montreal,
so that they had plenty of water, and the idea occurred to me why
not store the surplus flood waters in Lake Ontario and let it out
when they need it, because in the springtime they have more water
going down than they need. Upon that we came back to Chicago
and talked it over with our people, and this idea appealed to Mr.
Cowie and Mr. Stewart. We decided that we would hire some man
who was an expert upon lake levels and had made a study of them,
and the board of trustees gave us authority to do that.
We have quite a bit of respect for Mr. Shenehon. We got re-
spect for him during this suit, and we took it up with him and
he said he wanted to consider the matter. I said, “Mr. Shenehon,
we do not want to give you any instructions just because we are
hiring you. You go ahead and do as you please, but give us the
best of your advice.”
He took it up with Mr. Wilkerson, who was the attorney on the
Government side. He is a judge in the Federal court in Chicago.
Also with the members of the Engineer Corps in Washington.
They could see no ethical reason why he should not accept the em-
ployment, and from that resulted the reports and studies which
Mr. Shenehon made, and that is why we had him. We did that so
that we might satisfy the Canadian interests by restoring to them
not only the loss in water levels, but also to give them a better dis-
tribution of their water for future and present power development.
It was done in good faith.
Following that up, along about the same time we had two inter-
views with Judge Gary, the president of the United States Steel Co.
The reason we went to see him was this: His company was inter-
ested, and I believe the Pittsburgh Steamship Co. is a subsidiary of
the United States Steel; but they were more interested in the main-
tenance of lake levels than any other company, at least. We had
two interviews with Judge Gary, and one of them was quite lengthy;
lasted all one Saturday afternoon. We had the board of directors,
including Mr. Corey, who was president. Judge Gary was chairman
of the board. There was a frank and open discussion, and when we
got through—as near as I can recall, that was in 1918—Judge Gary
said that if this scheme of regulation could be put through and
would meet the approval of the Government engineers that he could
not see where his companies or the lake carriers, for that matter,
would have any objection, and we went ahead on that theory of try-
ing to get that thing through. Of course, it has not gotten through
yet. The idea was to settle up with the different conflicting inter-
ests to see if we could not get them to agree to something. The
I 628 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
president of the Lake Carriers’ Association was present at one of
those meetings.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Did he seem to take the same view 2
Mr. WISNER. I do not just remember what he did. I did not hear
any objections, but I do not recall that he said anything, one way or
the other.
I have had some interviews with the engineer and vice president
of the power company on the American side of the Falls at Niag-
ara—the Niagara Falls Power Co. The interviews were amiable
and satisfactory. They did not seem to have any objections. They
did not commit themselves as to whether they would favor our
Scheme or not, but the idea I had in mind was these regulating works,
with certain works around Niagara Falls; the idea that I had was
that more water could be taken from Lake Erie and from Niagara
River for power purposes and the scenic value of the Falls main-
tained, and Chicago could continually use 10,000 cubic feet for some
years to come without damage to anybody. That was my idea.
Why should we not use it if nobody needed it as yet?
I want to say here that Chicago is a big city in the United States,
and a large percentage of its population is big and broad enough
so that if this water was of greater benefit to the country at large—
and I will include Canada in that, as our interests are common—
Chicago would be willing to give up this water; but the point that
appeals to us is, why should ge give it up until the water is needed
for some other more useful and better purpose?
Mr. MoRGAN. As I understood you, you could not give it up.
Mr. WISNER. Without danger to our health and well-being, and
that it will take us a long time to right ourselves, or, as Mr. Stearns
expressed it, for Chicago to “catch up with itself.” Our attempt to
have some satisfactory interview with the Canadian power interests
has not been satisfactory. *
Mr. HULL. I would like to bring out a point that was made last
night. Perhaps you are familiar with it. Mr. Ramey said last
night in his statement that in December he had been through all the
Canadian power companies, and he itemized each one and figured up
that they were using 42,200 cubic feet. Do you know anything
about that?
Mr. WISNER. I know nothing about it personally, except I saw Mr.
Ramey's report, and his report says somewhere between 42,000 and
43,000 second-feet.
Mr. HULL. That was in December of last year?
Mr. WISNER. Yes; it was about that time. I was at the Falls
several times this last year, and I do not suppose it is testimony
that should be put in here, but you gentlemen will get the same thing
if you visited there. The people were talking around generally that
Canada was taking more than the treaty allowed. That was gossip.
If they are, I do not know.
Mr. Gould ER. Is not that the same matter that came up at the
very beginning in respect to which the chairman, Mr. Dempsey,
said there was some commission investigating that, and would have
a report. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1629
Mr. HULL. The statement was made by Mr. Ramey. Mr. Ramey
said he had visited every power plant in Canada personally, and
he itemized each plant, and he figured up 42,000 second-feet.
Mr. STEwART. It is my recollection when he spoke of using 42,000
that the chairman announced, there was a committee investigating
that subject, and the report of that commission of engineers Was
expected to be in, and the committee would rely on that.
Mr. HULL. He did not say the committee would rely on that.
Mr. GouldFR. He said it is his judgment.
Mr. HULL. I do not think the report would be pertinent, but I
do not see why Mr. Dempsey should say the committee should rely
on it. He is only one of the committee. te
Mr. Gould ER. He did not speak for the committee. I have no in-
terest in this, except the chairman said “Probably ’’ that he would
probably rely upon the report of the commission that went specially
to investigate.
Mr. HULL. In case the committee does not report, we would have
this other evidence. That is the reason I wanted to verify it.
Mr. STRONG. I understand our Canadian friends deny that.
Mr. HULL. They have not proved it up.
Mr. MANSFIELD. They are not taking any part. I would like to
ask Mr. Wisner -
Mr. STEwART. Speaking as a member of the board appointed to
measure the water at Niagara, I would like to say that we have
started measuring the water on the American side. *
Mr. HULL. The board appointed by whom?
Mr. STEwART. By the two Governments, the one your chairman
spoke of. On the Canadian side we have about completed it. I
have been out of Ottawa a good deal in the last month or six weeks,
but the engineers associated with us are busy at the works. We
will have a report sometime in the coming season. No one could tell
from a casual inspection.
Mr. HULL. I wanted to verify the statement.
Mr. WISNER. Do you know how much they are using?
Mr. STEwART. No, sir.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to get one point clear, if I can. Now,
the treaty with Canada provides for 56,000 cubic feet at Niagara,
36,000 to Canada, and 20,000 to the United States, and also I under-
stand authorizes other existing diversions, whatever that may be.
Now I would like to know if Mr. Wisner has knowledge of the facts,
or an opinion upon the facts, will this diversion of 10,000 feet at
Chicago interfere with this 36,000 at Niagara, or with other diver-
sions existing.
Mr. WISNER. No, sir.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Or will it detract from the beauty and grandeur
of Niagara.
Mr. WISNER. I can answer that best by saying that I have been
there before and after, and I can not notice any difference in the
Falls, so I would say, in answer to your questions, no.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If you are correct in your judgment on that, the
only persons who might reasonably object would be the traffic on the
grounds that they object to the lowering of the lake levels.
1630 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
. Mr. WISNER. When you say “reasonably ” I agree with you; yes,
SII’.
Mr. Chairman, I am through, but I want to say this as a last
remark: This controversy has been going on for years, and I hon-
estly believe that the interests of the power companies on both sides
of the Niagara River, the interests of navigation, and interest of the
Sanitary District of Chicago, and you might say the interest of
the “June brides” in the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls, can all be
preserved by these regulating works, and we gentlemen who repre-
sent these interests ought to be getting together and agreeing on the
Solution, for a term of years at least.
Mr. HULL. That would relieve this committee of a lot of work.
Mr. WISNER. We should listen to each other reasonably.
Mr. STRONG. What you say in conclusion is in harmony with what
Mr. Goulder joins in with you and Judge Barrett and Mr. Shene-
hon. We had a little outside caucus a few minutes ago and the idea
was expressed that the people interested should get together and
talk it over, because we are coming to the conclusion that the whole
matter might be easily solved.
Mr. WISNER. It could be if so many misstatements had not been
made through lack of information.
Mr. NEWTON. There is probably more controversy about it now
than 10 years ago.
Mr. WISNER, Twenty years ago we could have gotten 10,000 feet
without opposition.
Mr. NEWTON. And just as the desire for water power increases the
controversy will be more difficult to solve.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEWTON. This country has rights and Canada has rights, and
the whole country has interests, as well as the power interests of
Niagara, and by merely giving a temporary solution to the thing
have we not passed on for 15 or 20 years that which will be more
difficult, and why not face it now and finish the job, whatever we
have got a right to do, and finish it up? If I understand this situa-
tion, I think I ought to ask one or two questions to verify it—it is
this: If regulating works are effective, and the evidence of engineers
indicates that they are—if regulating works are necessary, then the
lake levels can not only be preserved but raised as far as the riparian
rights will permit. -
Mr. WISNER. Yes; that is right.
Mr. NEwTON. As I understand it, this 10,000 feet has been going
two or three years, substantially. What are the facts about that?
I missed part of your testimony.
Mr. WISNER. They have been going for some time. Just how
long I do not know.
Mr. HULL. You have been taking an average of between six and
ten for 10 or 15 years.
Mr. WISNER. More than that.
Mr. NEWTON. If the 10,000 feet has been going for three years,
then the lowering must be complete.
Mr. WISNER. It might be a fraction of an inch yet.
Mr. NEwTON. It is substantially finished.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1631
Mr. NEWTON. If no regulating works are put in and this flow is
continued at Chicago on the other side, the Lakes will stand as they
are now, so far as diversion is concerned.
Mr. WISNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEWTON. By putting in compensating works, there is a good
deal of testimony here that we could put the 6 inches back and 6
inches more, if desirable. If that is true, then the people who are
interested in navigation on the Lakes, and the people on the water
fronts, when that is done their interest is over.
Mr. WISNER. I would seem so.
Mr. NEwTon. The only thing is the diversion at Chicago takes
out, it takes out of Niagara Falls about 5 inches that might con-
tinually be used for power.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Provided they wanted the increase.
Mr. NEWTON. I said continually, and it will not be necessary at
Niagara until they use all the waters down the St. Lawrence River
that is available.
Mr. HULL. Here is what the Canadian and those at Niagara are
figuring on, a new treaty, and they want the 10,000 cubic feet to
supplement 50-50.
Mr. WISNER. Mr. Newton said there has been testimony about
regulating works. The sanitary district has enough confidence in
their practicability that we will pay for them, and if they do not
work we are willing to take all the risk. We do not think we are
gambling. We know we are not.
Mr. MoRGAN. From the testimony it seems to me all these interests
want to protect their respective interests, and they all want to be
fair, and if they will reach an agreement it will be better than an
agreement by any other agency.
Mr. STRONG. We all agree to that. 3.
Mr. WISNER. The observation made by the various members of the
committee as to what they have gleaned from the hearings have
brought that possibility much nearer than ever before.
(Mr. Wisner filed with the committee a diagram entitled “Regu-
lation of Lake Erie with diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds at
Chicago and without diversion,” and it is hereto attached.)
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1924.
Mr. BARRETT. The next witness is Mr. Langdon Pearse, who has
been the sanitary engineer with the sanitary district since 1909.
He was graduated from Harvard College with a degree of A. B. in
1899, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1901 in civil
engineering with a degree of B. S., and was given a degree of M. S.
from the same college in 1902. Since that time his work has been
almost entirely connected with the questions of sewage disposal
and protection of water supply. I am not going to enumerate Mr.
Pearse's many achievements in this engineering field, but I think
it can be fairly said that Mr. Pearse is known throughout the
United States, particularly among the sanitary engineers, as an
authority. He has carried on all of the investigtions made under
the sanitary district for many years past.
I will file herewith with the committee a detailed statement of
his qualifications.
1632 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Harvard College, A. B. 1899; Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, B. S. 1901 in civil engineering; M. S. 1902 in civil engineer-
Ing.
Experience, 1901 to 1909, levelman Massachusetts Harbor and
Land Commission (Weymouth-Fore River-to-Taunton Ship Canal);
assistant engineer, Charles River Dam Commission, under John R.
Freeman; Commission on Additional Water Supply, New York
City, Hering-Burr-Freeman; to George C. Whipple in work for
Augusta water district, Cleveland and Jersey City, also Missouri v.
Illinois; assistant engineer, improved water and sewage works,
Columbus, Ohio (water filtration and sewage treatment); greater
water supply, Peoples Water Co., Oakland, Calif. (water filtra-
tion); 1909 to date, assistant engineer, division engineer, and since
1917 sanitary engineer with the Sanitary District of Chicago, in
charge of all sanitary work involving laboratory, chemical, and
bacterial work; studies of canal and river, and industrial wastes.
Testing stations, domestic sewage of Thirty-ninth Street; packing-
house waste; tannery waste and corn-products wastes.
Design and construction of intercepting sewers, size 8 inch to
23 feet—North Shore intercepting sewer; stockyards intercepting
. Calumet intercepting sewer; Fifty-second Avenue sewer
Outlet.
Design of Sewage pumping stations—Evanston; Des Plaines;
Calumet; Ninety-fifth Street and remodeling Lawrence Avenue.
Design of sewage-treatment works—Morton Grove; Calumet: Des
Plaines River; Glenview; North Side and Northbrook.
In charge of operation of sewage-treatment works—Morton Grove,
Calumet, Des Plaines River, Glenview.
Special reports; responsible preparation of data for testimony in
Federal suit.
Employed as consultant by United States Public Health Service
on stream pollution. In joint charge with United States Public
Health Service of joint survey of Illinois River over one year.
In private capacity as consulting engineer with George W. Fuller
designed and built Evanston water filters.
With Pearse, Greeley & Hansen, designed and built. Decatur
(Ill.) dam; Whiting, Ind., water filters; Winnetka, Ill., water
filters; Benton Harbor, Mich., water filters; addition to Evanston
filters; made reports for, designed, and built work for sanitary dis-
trict of Decatur; North Shore sanitary district; Downer Grove sani-
tary district; sanitary district of Champaign and Urbana; made
reports for Kansas City, Mo.; Oklahoma City; Bloomington and
Normal sanitary district. Also miscellaneous reports on industrial
wastes for Holland-St. Louis Sugar Co.; Standard Oil Co. of Indi-
ana, and others. &
Member of American Society of Civil Engineers, American Insti-
tute of Consulting Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers (Lon-
don, England), etc. e
Mr. STRONG. It is now 4 o'clock, and we will continue the hearing
until 5 o'clock, and then adjourn until 7.30. In view of the fact that
Richard Pearson Hobson, the hero of Santiago, will occupy this
room to-night to make an address, we will hold our meeting in Our
regular committee room.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1633
STATEMENT OF ME, LANGDON PEARSE
Mr. PEARSE. I am going to endeavor to give you a general view
of the art of sewage treatment, and also of the treatment of water,
so that you can better understand just what our friends and critics
have been talking about.
I feel as though there has been some misinformation spread as to
the value of what different cities are doing and the cost and the time
it has taken to do it. I do not see how you can understand such evi-
dence and weigh it without some knowledge of the art, and that is
the reason why I am going into some detail, and will file with your
committee a few chronological tables. I will not attempt to read
them, but they will give you the history of the art, as we know it, in
the last hundred years, the different cities, what they have done, and
what they have accomplished. I will also try to outline what some of
our larger cities in the United States have done and what the larger
cities around the Great Lakes have done. I will give you a yard-
stick of the accomplishments. I think you can better understand
what it is we are trying to do, and why we believe we have got the cor-
rect solution for our particular problem.
The modern city needs for its successful operation and the preser-
vation of the health of its citizens an abundant and pure-water sup-
ply, an adequate system of sewers with proper sewage disposal, free
from offense to its neighbors, and the successful removal and dis-
posal of garbage and other household refuse. Of these, the need of
a pure-water supply is paramount.
In many parts of the country, as, for instance, in Maine at Augusta,
in Boston, New York City, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and San Fran-
cisco, the water supply is taken from one source which is entirely re-
mote and distinct from the body of water into which the sewage is
discharged. Consequently the watershed and the water secured there-
from may be subject to careful supervision and pollution entering
therein may be regulated or eliminated. The successful use of stored
waters by Boston, New York City, San Francisco, and other cities
having sources of supply of this type is adequate proof of the value
of such procedure. However, not all cities are so situated that they
can keep the sewage out of their own drinking water or that of a
neighbor. Along the Great Lakes many cities, like Milwaukee and
Cleveland, have through force of circumstances discharged their
sewage into their drinking water and have suffered from epidemics
of typhoid and other intestinal diseases. In some cases, like Detroit
and Buffalo, the sewage has been discharged into a channel with a
definite current wherein the sewage is carried away from the intake
of the city from which the sewage originates. However, in those
cases the supplies of others have been polluted, in particular on the
Niagara River, to a dangerous extent. Where it is possible, the sani-
tarian has desired to divorce the sewage from the drinking water.
For that reason the project at Chicago has been so successful through
the removal of the sewage from the lake. It is only natural that
human beings should prefer to drink water primarily free from
sewage rather than to use water which contains purified sewage or to
use purified water containing Sewage.
91739–24—PT 2—88
1634 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
In the light of present-day knowledge, where a pure drinking water
is sought from a source exposed to pollution, the treatment of the
water is generally taken up first; but 35 years ago knowledge of
methods and experience was very meager, so that naturally engineers
endeavored to divert the sewage from the drinking water.
In bringing up-to-date developments in municipal practice started
many years ago, it is a sound, economic program to endeavor to use
whatever parts are available to their utmost. Consequently, in the
development of sewerage in a city, once a program has been in-
augurated the cost of a vast change is frequently prohibitive, as
witness the suggestion of the State Board of Health of Pennsyl-
vania to the city of Pittsburgh some years ago to change from a com-
bined sewer system to a separate sewer system, namely, two distinct
systems—one for sanitary sewage and one for storm water. The cost
was prohibitive and the need not clear. Therefore, in this and simi-
lar problems, the province of the engineer has been to try and solve
the problem by the expenditure of money in the most practical way
to produce the best results with the funds available.
The need of a pure and safe water is paramount for the health
of the community. From the health standpoint the typhoid fever
record is commonly taken as an index. This is a yardstick of the
effect on the community of the bacterial quality of the water. There
still remains the esthetic side, namely, freedom from turbidity or
sediment and from tastes and odors. Therefore, the material enter-
ing the water supply is important not alone from the standpoint of
bacterial pollution but also from the standpoint of its likelihood to
create tastes and odors. From the standpoint of the community
itself, the water supply is of the highest importance, and its relation
to the disposal of sewage, if the sewage is discharged into the com-
munity’s own water supply. However, if the sewage is not dis-
charged into the water supply of the community, the question of
sewage disposal is one of interest from the standpoint of others.
An adequate sewerage system is also of importance to remove the
sewage promptly and by carrying off storm water to prevent flooding
of basements and keep the streets dry. In the United States two
systems of sewerage have been developed; namely, the so-called
combined system, in which both sewage and surface water are
carried in one set of sewers as against the so-called separate system,
in which two distinct sets of sewers are installed, one for carrying
the sanitary sewage and the other for storm and surface waters.
Most of the larger cities in the United States are sewered on the
combined plan, but Baltimore is one of the exceptions, being sewered
on the separate plan. Where a city is sewered on the combined plan
and treatment is proposed, it is practically impossible to treat the
entire storm water flow, which may be from ten to twenty or even
thirty times the dry weather flow. As a general rule one and one-
half to two times the dry flow is treated in the United States, the
balance being spilled over in its raw state mixed with storm water at
convenient overflows to the nearest water course. This point should
be kept in mind later with reference to the situation in Chicago and
the other lake cities, because the treatment of sewage in itself does
not include the treatment of the entire flow in a combined sewer.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1635
A review of the progress of sewage treatment and water purifica-
tion in the United States shows that the present municipal practice
on a large scale has been chiefly developed since 1900, and that much
of the present practice, particularly as regards Sewage treatment,
dates from 1907. The art has been in a state of change, and has de-
veloped much more rapidly since 1900 than in the period of 10 to
20 years prior to 1900. The principles of treatment are now much
better understood—from the physical, biological, chemical, and bac-
terial standpoint, and the methods of carrying out the processes are
vastly improved.
The Sanitary District of Chicago fills a dual rôle, in that to func-
tion successfully it must carry out two essentials, (1) the diversion
of the sewage to protect the water supply, and thereby the health
of Chicago and the other towns in the sanitary district; (2) the dilu-
tion of the sewage, supplemented by treatment to clean up the Illinois
River and restore fish life in the upper river above Chillicothe. In
this program it has become evident that the retention of the Settling
solids—or sludge, so called—from the sewage is an important feature
in the program from the Illinois River standpoint.
The diversion of sewage as a means of protecting the water supply
of the city of Chicago and the surrounding towns has been successful,
as is shown by the yardstick of typhoid fever death rates in the
attached exhibit (fig. 1). The rates have been successfully lowered
since the opening of the canal by the continued application of the
principle of diversion, by removing the sewage from the lake by in-
tercepting sewers. The introduction of chlorination of the water
has also helped, and has added in protecting against sudden shots of
pollution, particularly from the Calumet River. At present the
Calumet River is still in somewhat of an unbalanced condition, the
flow from the lake not being sufficiently determined at all times to
make a complete diversion.
The dilution method of disposing of the sewage was a success
from the start, but with the growth of the industries in the sanitary
district and the additional load of population the burden upon the
available flow became too great, so that supplementary methods of
treatment have had to be sought.
Studies were begun in 1909 and have continued to date. Up to
date the Sanitary district has spent over three-fourth of a million
dollars in experimental work under my direction in four testing
stations, and has further expended the sum of about $26,000,000 up
to date in the construction of intercepting sewers, pumping stations,
and treatment work, exclusive of the expenditures made by the city
of Chicago in intercepting sewers and pumping stations, the total
figure looking toward sewage treatment approximating $30,000,000.
In the treatment of sewage the first and obvious method was the
discharge into the nearest water course. This was called the dilution
method of sewage treatment. It may therefore properly be called
the standard method of Sewage treatment. For many years the be-
lief prevailed in the minds of many that dilution was only a tem-
porary expedient, but at present it is recognized by sanitary engineers
as a proper method of Sewage treatment within its limitations. This
may be best introduced to your committee by a quotation from re-
1636 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
print No. 580 from the Public Health Reports of the United States
Public Health Service, dated January 16, 1920, the treatment and
disposal of sewage by five of the sanitary engineers of that service,
who have the following to say:
The disposal of Sewage by dilution consists of its discharge into natural
bodies of water, in Some cases with and in others without preliminary treat-
ment. In the former instances it COnStitutes a Single and COmplete method
of disposal. In the latter it may be regarded as the final step of a more or
less elaborate System of treatment in which it is employed in conjunction
with one or more artificial processes. Wherever sewage or a sewage effluent
is discharged into a natural watercourse, dilution constitutes an integral
part of the disposal process. Dilution has for a long time been the most
common means of Sewage disposal practiced in the United States. Formerly
it was regarded as a temporary and undesirable expedient to be ultimately
abandoned as soon as sewage purification became Sufficiently developed. Dur-
ing recent years, however, the economic need for utilizing to the greatest
possible extent the self-purification capacity of natural watercourses has been
apparent with the result that the disposal of community wastes by natural
dilution has become recognized as a legitimate and desirable process where
Carried Out in Such a manner as not to endanger the public health.
The study of the dilution ratio or the amount of water required
to dilute the sewage of 1,000 people has progressed with the devel-
opment of sewage treatment in the United States. For the con-
venience of your committee, I have abstracted all the available ref-
erences on the dilution ratio, which is offered as an exhibit here with.
In order to bring before your committee briefly the perspective of
the art I have further divided the exhibit into two parts. First,
the state of the art prior to 1889 when the planning of the canal
was undertaken, and second, the state of the art subsequent to that
date. In this connection, I desire to offer two other exhibits, one
being a copy of the testimony taken before the joint committee of
the senate and house of representatives of the Illinois Legislature
on March 2, 1887, covering testimony given by Mr. Hering, chief
engineer of the Water Supply and Drainage Commission, and the
other a report of a hearing by the same committee on April 7, 1887,
containing the testimony of Mr. Lyman E. Cooley, and others.
From these exhibits, it is clearly evident that the original planners
of the drainage canal at Chicago were working on a scientific basis
and from a study of the available engineering data of that day
had recommended to the legislature the dilution ratio expressed in
the organic act of the sanitary district as 3.33 cubic feet per second
per 1,000 people. The evidence clearly shows that this ratio was
regarded as a minimum and not as a maximum, as some had sup-
posed, and that it was the intention of the planners to flow more
Water when the needs of sanitation demanded, in order to preserve
the cleanliness of the Illinois River.
In none of these references since 1887 has a dilution less than
3% cubic feet per second per 1,000 population been recommended
for actual use.
The evidence also shows that the original planners of the channel
looked ahead, and figured by 1920 or thereabouts that supplemental
methods would become necessary, according to the rate of growth
of the city and its industries, and further according to the actual
working results obtained by the canal.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1637
To supplement dilution by treatment, the first step is the removal
of the coarser solids which may float or sink. For this purpose,
coarse screens have been used, as at Cleveland, with Openings not
finer than three-fourths of an inch. Such bar screens remove only
the very coarsest material and have practically no effect, where a
real purification is required. Fine screens with openings from one-
eighth to one-thirty second of an inch do more work, but ordinary
practice seldom extends much beyond a finer opening than one-
sixteenth of an inch. Such screens have been installed in cities in
different parts of the world, the largest being in Dresden, where
rotary screens approximately 26%, feet in diameter are installed
with slot openings about one-twelfth of an inch wide to remove the
coarse solids. In the United States screen openings have been used
more commonly of about one-eighth to one-sixteenth of an inch in
width, the most recent installation being at Los Angeles (opening
one-sixteenth inch), where the entire flow is screened for discharge
into the Pacific Ocean. Screening, however, at its best will only
remove a very small proportion of the total solids or of the sus-
pended matter, and in its effect upon dilution has but little actual
result from the standpoint of oxygen required.
For the removal of settling solids, sedimentation by gravity is the
most common. Tanks of one story, as in the case of Baltimore, or
the early plant at Columbus, Ohio, have been used, but latterly a
double deck type of tank with an upper settling chamber and a lower
chamber for the digestion of sludge has become popular. This is
the so-called Imhoff tank, first introduced in the Emscher district
in Germany. It has the advantage of settling the sewage without
contact with the digesting sludge, and of producing a well-digested
sludge which dries readily on prepared sand beds with a minimum
volume. Settling as such may remove from 50 to 90 per cent of the
settling solids and has an effect upon the amount of dilution required
of about 30 to 40 per cent according to the character of the sewage.
One of the earliest forms of sewage treatment was chemical pre-
cipitation, in which lime was added to the sewage with or without
the addition of copperas or ferrous sulphate and the solids precipi-
tated thereby. This process in general is believed to do somewhat
more work than plain sedimentation, but owing to the cost of the
chemicals and the large additional bulk of sludge produced, has
gradually gone out of favor. The largest chemical precipitation
plant in the world at London, England, finally abandoned the use
of lime and copperas some years ago. In this country one of the
earliest plants was Worcester, Mass., where chemical precipitation
is now being abandoned for the Imhoff tank, followed by sprinkling
filters. I mention chemical precipitation because at the time the
sanitary district was planned in 1887 chemical precipitation was
about the only method of sewage treatment known other than sand
filtration or sewage farming.
Apparently the earliest attempt to treat sewage was by the use
of the liquid in sewage farming. It was thought at first in England
and on the Continent that the sewage had some fertilizer value.
However, later developments indicated that the value was largely
for the water content. Except where sandy soils are available in
regions where the natural rainfall is low, sewage farming has fallen
1638 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
into disuse. In the United States it is solely of value in the arid
regions of the West. Sewage farms are still found in different parts
of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, where the
water has value for irrigation. The amount of population which
can be treated by a sewage farm is very low per acre, so that for a
city of the size of Chicago the use of Sewage farms, even if suitable
soil were available, is absolutely prohibitive. With a clay soil the
sewage farm at Pullman built in the early eighties, was promptly
abandoned.
In the effort to improve on sewage farms, it was early discovered
that the intermittent application of Sewage, either raw or settled,
to prepared sand beds with suitable underdrains was successful in
producing a clear well nitrified effluent. Consequently in the glacial
regions where sand is cheap and available like New England, this
process became valuable and has flourished in Ohio and Iowa like-
wise. For the smaller installations up to 5,000 people, the process
still has merit. Very few plants have been built for populations
much over that size. An exception is Brockton, Mass., where Sand
filters are installed for a larger population, but these are to be aban-
doned for other more intensive methods.
Inasmuch as a sewage farm could only treat from 10 to 20 people
to the acre and intermittent sand filters would only treat 1,000 to
2,000 people to the acre, it was necessary to find more intensive
methods, in order to handle the sewage of large cities. In the process
of time, contact beds were developed in which beds containing broken
stone were filled from the bottom with sewage and allowed to stand
for a number of hours. At the present time such a process is seldom
applied on account of the lower efficiency and the higher cost over
more intensive methods.
The development of the sprinkling filter or trickling filter in
which sewage is spread over beds of crushed stone marked a great
advance in the intensive treatment. With this process from 10,000
to 25,000 people could be handled per acre according to the
strength of the sewage and depth of the filter. A well-nitrified
effluent was produced. The stones furnished a workshop for the
bacteria, which attacked the material coming in the sewage and
converted it into humus, nitrifying the organic matter and deliver-
ing an affluent, which, after settling, was fit to run down the stream:
without dilution. A sprinkling filter, unlike a water filter, manu
factures solids. These must be settled out.
For a great many years engineers had been fascinated by the
thought of purifying sewage by seration in one manner or another.
It had long been suspected that aeration was effective in purifying
sewage in streams and lakes through natural causes. However, it
was not until the so-called activated sludge process was worked out
that a true and complete aeration process was developed. In this
process the sludge is accumulated at the start in the presence of air
and kept aerated. After some 10 days have elapsed this sludge
acquires the property of nitrifying the sewage and coagulating the
solids in suspension, both in coarse and fine form. The process
consists essentially in serating the sewage in contact with the
sludge and settling out the sludge in settling tanks, the clear liquid
going to the river and the settled solids being returned to mix with
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1639
the incoming sewage. From the system a certain amount of mate-
rial is removed daily when a balance is once established. This
process is practically free from any nuisance and will perform the
greatest amount of purification upon a given area of land. The
Solids have the highest value of the various sewage sludges and
appear to have considerable value as a fertilizer. It is hoped in the
development of this process that the value of the sludge as a fer-
tilizer will repay the cost of preparation of the sludge. There is no
indication, however, at present that the sludge so produced will pay
for the cost of the entire process.
At the time that the water supply and drainage commission
rendered the report in 1887, which led to the formation of the Sani-
tary District, the art of sewage treatment and of water purification
was in its infancy. Available data was meager; practice was re-
stricted and applications were few. There was no precedent in the
United States or England for the practice required for treatment,
either of water or sewage, on a scale required at the time the canal
was planned. It was therefore a very sane and wise decision to
work out the diversion of the sewage from the drinking water and
cause its dilution by mixing with lake water. Of all the processes
available at that time this scheme is the only one which could have
survived in the light of modern practice. The works constructed
are still available and will be indefinitely to perform their functions
successfully with a diversion of 10,000 second-feet.
In order to present this matter more forcibly before your com-
mittee, I will briefly outline the history of the art of sewage treat-
ment so that you may have a correct perspective of the situation.
This is elaborated in the exhibit attached herewith, which I hereby
file with your committee (Table 1). Most of the early practice in
the United States was based upon English and foreign experience.
Chesbrough, who planned the Boston sewers, was employed by
Chicago in 1855 to lay out the system of sewers, many of which
are still in use to-day. In 1875 a chemical-treatment plant was
installed in Brewster, N. Y. In 1876 broad irrigation was tried at
the Worcester Hospital for the Insane in Worcester, Mass. In 1881
sedimentation tanks were built in Amherst, Mass., in connection
with land disposal. The Pullman, Ill., sewage farm was laid out,
But rather shortly thereafter was abandoned.
In 1889 great impetus was given to the interest in methods of
sewage treatment by the historic experiments in sewage treatment
inaugurated at Lawrence, Mass., by the Massachusetts State Board
of Health. Following these experiments intermittent sand filters
were built in 1889 in Framingham, Mass., and the Worcester chemi-
cal precipitation plant in 1890. From 1890 to 1900 many other
intermittent sand filters were built, and also chemical precipitation
plants. About 1900 the septic tank began to come into vogue. Its
capabilities were much overrated, but it served to bridge a gap
between sedimentation and the double-deck Imhoff tank. In 1905
experiments made at Columbus, Ohio, led to the construction of the
first large tank and sprinkling filter installation in the United
States. This was followed rapidly by other plants at Reading, Bal-
timore, and Washington, Pa., in which tanks and sprinkling filters
were built, the design being predicated upon the work at Columbus.
1640 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
In 1908 the double-deck Imhoff tank came to the notice of engineers
in the United States largely through the efforts of Mr. Hering. In
1909 the sanitary district began its experimental work and continued
these experiments on a scale hitherto not attempted in the United
States, extending its experiments not only to domestic sewage but
to packing-house, tannery, and corn-products wastes. In the period
from 1912 on the Atlanta (Ga.) plant was built, consisting of ſmhoff
tanks and sprinkling filters. Rochester, N. Y., built Imhoff tanks.
In 1914 the activated sludge process came into notice and was
keenly investigated at Houston, Milwaukee, Chicago, Urbana, and
other places. After years of investigation plants were started under
construction at Milwaukee and in Chicago. Two plants are in oper-
ation at Chicago and two at Houston.
A great deal of the practice in the United States is based upon
results obtained in Sewage-testing stations. Of this the most historic
is the work at Lawrence, Mass., aforementioned. Other testing sta-
tions have been operated at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Philadelphia, Gloversville, Akron, Cleveland, and by the
United States Public Health Service. In this connection the work
done by the sanitary district stands out as of the largest magnitude
and of the greatest importance, particularly from the standpoint of
handling three difficult and troublesome industrial wastes on a scale
never before attempted.
In the treatment of sewage the processes outlined are not of equal
value. Screening does the least work, removing only the very coarse
material, while sedimention is more effective, removing the larger
portion of the settling solids and further making a reduction in the
amount of dilution required for the effluent, roughly, around 30
per cent. Settling also reduces the bacteria slightly. Where bac-
terial protection is required a sterilizing material like chlorine is
used. The biological processes, such as sprinkling filters or activated
sludge, when properly operated produce a high-grade effluent,
requiring no dilution, in which fish can live. The effluent further
will create no nuisance and can be turned into a water course, even
though dry, without fear of consequences. Such a process removes
around 80 to 90 per cent of the bacteria. However, where bacterial
removal is desired, sterilizing agents must be employed.
In the case of the sanitary district the sewage discharged into the
Illinois River does not affect any water supply. In the case of
lake cities where the sewage is discharged into the drinking water
or where bathing beaches are located near the sewer outlets, sterili-
zation of the sewage may be necessary in addition to the purification
of the water supply by chlorination or filtration, or a combination
of both.
This general sketch of the sewage treatment problem indicates that
the amount of treatment given to sewage must depend upon the con-
ditions surrounding the project. The value of the different treat-
ment processes varies greatly. Your honorable committee should
bear this point in mind in applying my outline to the statements
made by representatives of other cities around the Great Lakes.
The basic data upon which the organic act of the sanitary district
was formed was the best available engineering information of the
time, coupled with the experiments made by the Illinois State Board
of Health and observation of the Illinois River. From this data
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1641.
was inserted in the act the minimum dilution ratio of 3.33 cubic feet
per second per 1,000 people. The testimony before the joint legis-
lative committee in Springfield in 1889 and the conversations held
by me with Mr. Hering, the engineer, who was responsible for the
original plan, indicate that this ratio was looked upon as a minimum
ratio and that the exact amount of water required per 1,000 people
would be determined as time went on from the actual circumstances.
In 1909 Mr. Hering outlined to me that he had looked forward to
that time as the critical period in the history of the main channel,
and further stated that he felt that some time between 1909 and 1920
supplemental methods of treatment would be required. My connec-
tion with the district began in February, 1909, and has extended
continuously to date. One of our earliest problems was to determine
the condition of the canal and the Illinois River in order to ascertain
what must be done to meet the growth, not alone in population but
of industry. As a result of our early studies the Wisner report of
1911 was written, which outlined very thoroughly the general pro-
gram to be followed. Further study from time to time of the con-
ditions, together with a joint survey lasting over 14 months with the
United States Public Health Service have given data upon which we
have predicated the program outlined in the memorandum to the
Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, by which the sani-
tary district offers to treat sewage of over 4,250,000 people by 1945.
The sewage treatment problem of the sanitary district differs from
that of other cities in the United States in the tremendous load of
organic waste resulting from three large industries, namely, the
Union Stock Yards and Packingtown, called Packingtown for short;
the Corn Products Refining Co. at Argo; and the tanneries. These
industries together as a group are estimated to be equivalent to a
population of over one and one-half millions. At the time our inves-
tigations began there was no practical way known of treating the
wastes from any one of these industries to meet our conditions. The
way had to be found by tests.
The problems introduced by the industrial wastes, together with
the domestic sewage on such a large Scale, were so unique that four
testing stations were planned and carried out as rapidly as circum-
stances permitted.
The study of the domestic sewage was begun by a testing station
at Thirty-ninth Street and Lake Michigan, operating on sewage
coming from an area of over 22 Square miles and from a population
at that time of 270,000 and over. This was very free from industrial
wastes. In this station were tried all the practical methods of sewage
treatment then known, including septic tanks, Imhoff tanks, biolytic
tanks, sprinkling filters, etc. This station was operated from Octo-
ber, 1909, to January, 1915. The results indicated that with the
more dilute sewage found in Chicago of domestic origin, liberal pro-
vision for treatment was required. The value of Imhoff tanks and
sprinkling filters was clearly demonstrated It was of this station
that Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin, of the United States Public Health
Service, wrote in Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin 83, page 136, when
he said:
The work done at this station was not only of immense value in determining
the most economical and efficient method of Solving Chicago's sewage problem,
but is destined to have an educational value far wider than this.
1642 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The study of the Packingtown situation was begun in January,
1911. A preliminary investigation showed the lack of knowledge
for handling such waste. Consequently a testing station was es-
tablished in 1912, and operated until September, 1918. These studies
showing that the activated sludge process was the most promising
of success on packing-house waste. In connection with the investi-
gation, a thorough inspection was made of every packing house in
the Sanitary distrist, the flow from each being gauged and analyzed
before entering the sewer. In 1911 all the packing houses were ex-
amined. In 1917 the work was repeated, the flow of 31 houses being
measured and analyzed in a period of about three months.
The study of the tannery situation was begun in 1912. A recent
investigation showed 20 tanneries and 10 wool pulling or wool scour-
ing establishments all located on the North Branch of the Chicago
River. After a number of inspections a tannery testing station was
established in December, 1919, and operated up to December 31,
1922. In this the various processes applicable to handling tannery
Wastes were tried, including sprinkling filters and activated sludge.
A survey of the industry was also made, house by house.
The Corn Products Refining Co. at Argo was early recognized
as an outstanding source of Organic pollution. After some prelimi-
nary work, a testing station was established in 1921, by which ex-
periments have been conducted to date, using activated sludge and
sprinkling filters. The flow of the plant has been measured and
analyzed and correlated to the grind. -
This plant manufactures primarily starch and glucose, and is the
largest of its kind in the world, grinding upward of 75,000 bushels
of corn every 24 hours.
There are other sources of pollution from industry investigated by
us which add to the load upon the Channel, but they are not so im-
portant as those above listed. Among them may be included a beet-
Sugar factory, miscellaneous butterine factories, paint and glue
works, gas works, paper mills, and wire mills.
To show the population equivalent of the industrial load I have
prepared this table (Table 2), which I hand you. In order that you
may understand how these figures were arrived at I will sketch
briefly the method employed, as it shows the time required and the
research necessary before a statement as simple as this exhibit is,
can be prepared. That table is the work of many men extended over
a period of many years.
The method by which I have arrived at the population equivalent
of the industrial wastes is based on the dissolved oxygen required to
oxidize the putrescible matter in sewage. Continued research over
many years in the laboratory of the sanitary district has shown this
to be a reliable and accurate measure of the strength of sewage, in-
asmuch as it utilizes exactly the same biological activities which are
effective in the stream. Essentially the test depends on mixing with
the sample sufficient standard water saturated with dissolved oxygen
to supply enough dissolved oxygen to oxidize the organic or putres-
cible material in 5, 10, or 20 days and leave a small amount of
oxygen over at the end of a period. The amount of dissolved
oxygen required is expressed in parts per million. For purposes of
comparison, a 10-day period is chosen, inasmuch as 90 per cent of the
oxidation of the putrescible material is generally completed in
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1643
sewage within that period. Such a test is called the biochemical
Oxygen demand, and has been widely used by the United States
Public Health Service, the sanitary district, and other research
workers, as being more delicate and expressive than the old line
chemical determinations. In some instances nitrate of soda has been
added in known, amounts in place of dissolved oxygen.
The first step in the study of our sewage was to determine the
amount of dissolved oxygen required per capita to oxidize the putres-
cible matter in human sewage. Prior to the work of the sanitary
district this figure had never been determined. Experiments were
made on the sewage at Thirty-ninth Street pumping station during
the year 1914. This sewage was chosen because a thorough inspection
of the area tributary showed no industrial wastes likely to upset the
tests. On 179 days, hourly portions were collected during the 24 hours
and daily composites made up. These were analyzed. The flow of the
sewer was measured. The population tributary was estimated.
From the data the average figure was determined that 100 grams
of oxygen are required per capita per day to properly oxidize the
human sewage, or 0.22 pounds. Subsequently other research chem-
ists have confirmed this figure.
The next step was to determine the amount of putrescible material
requiring oxidation from the different industries. This has been
done from time to time as follows: -
For Packingtown and the Union Stock Yards, the investigation
was made in the summer of 1917 between July 9 and October 6.
At that time 30 firms were actively engaged in the packing and allied
industries, in addition to the stockyards. All these houses were
examined, and the flow gaged and analyzed from 41 outlets, besides
the public sewers, and certain outlets from the stockyards. In all
cases (except three of the smaller houses where the examination
lasted two days) the sampling and gauging continued a week, night
as well as day.
The flow was read as frequently as every 10 minutes in most cases.
For analysis, individual portions were taken every 10 minutes and
combined into hourly composites, which in turn were combined into
day or night composites, weighted according to flow. From determi-
nation of the biological oxygen demand and the flow, the total oxygen
requirement was calculated. Based on the 0.22 pounds per capita,
the effect of the stockyards and Packingtown was found to be
practically 1,000,000 people. This investigation alone cost $5,661.97.
From the tannery industry, the investigations made between 1911
and 1919 had given an indication of the equivalent. However, the
most detailed survey was made in the summer of 1921, when 20
tanning houses were inspected. For each house, the flow was gaged
and analyzed, the work being done substantially in the same manner
as for the packing house survey. The determination of the biological
oxygen demand and the flow showed a total oxygen requirement
equivalent to 70,000 people, on a normal capacity rating. . In addi-
tion 7 wool pulleries and 3 wool securing houses were examined.
From the Corn Products Refining Co., the investigation was made
in December, 1921, and January and February, 1922, in connection
with the testing station in operation on the Corn Products wastes.
The flow gauged and sampled throughout the 24 hours, analyses
being made on 24-hour composites. The resulting oxygen demand
1644 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
shows that the population equivalent was 411,000, at that time
when grinding 64,500 bushels. Since then the grind has increased.
I am going to leave with your committee a blue print (Figure 2)
which shows the amount of killing that has been carried on in the
stockyards since 1870, with the number of animals killed and
weights. You will notice that since 1908 there has been a decided
growth in the industry. One of the problems we had at the time
Mr. Wisner spoke of in our first report, was to ascertain what the
packers would do in the future. In 1910 or 1911 the packers said
they did not expect to grow in Chicago, but the war came, and you
will see that they expanded to the extent of killing about two billion
pounds more material than they ever did before. That had its
effect upon the Illinois River. They killed something like twelve
million head of animals.
Mr. NEwton. How many?
Mr. PEARSE. Twelve million. You will find on that chart on one
side the number of animals, extending in the past as high as four-
teen million, and into the billions of pounds, approximately four
billion, eight hundred million. The figures became so big that they
are stupefying. t
Mr. HULL. Is this point at the top—the war peak?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes; that was the highest point. The packers said it
was the highest they expect to have. They slipped down, and now
they are coming back.
Mr. HULL. Does that mean 17,000,000, where they stand now Ż
Mr. PEARSE. The top line represents weights. This is the weight
line [indicating on blue print], and this is the number of animals [in-
dicating on blue print]. I put the weight on because you realize Some
animals weigh 1,000 pounds on the hoof and others weigh only 100.
This diagram shows what has happened, in studying the condition
of our streams since 1914 and 1915, that we have had a vast increase
in loading.
The diversion of sewage in its protection of the water of Chicago
has been successful, we believe, from the yardstick of typhoid fever
death rate. Doctor Evans covers that very thoroughly, so I will not
go into it further, except to say that we believe this has been helped
by the use of chlorine in the water, which protected us against certain
shots of pollution which come from the Calumet River, because the
Calumet River is in an unbalanced state of flow from the lake. The
reason for that is because the Chief of Engineers of the Army has
refused to give us a permit to dredge a channel so that we could flow
through into that channel the water that would enable us to develop
its capacity and keep the flow out of the lake, except for two or three
days in a year. The Calumet River is in an unbalanced state. In
connection with the Indiana Steel Co., which was mentioned by Mr.
Geupel, the Indiana Sanitary engineer, there is a tendency to force out
the pollution constantly into the lake and keep the water supply in the
Indiana towns in a state of pollution and also a potential danger to
the Southern cribs in Chicago.
Now, in our studies I early took up the treatment of our sewage. I
think we have spent more money perhaps than has been mentioned.
here by others. The amount is nearly three-quarters of a million,

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1645
closer to that amount than it is to a half a million, on our testing sta-
tions, which has been done under my direction.
Now to return to the history of sewage treatment and illustrate
the high points. The first and obvious method is dilution or the dis-
charge into the nearest water. We call that the standard method of
sewage treatment, and it is still the method used by most cities. It
has not been used in England so much because the rivers are not
available. Great Britain does not contain the vast areas of country
that we have here for the water to drain. I have recently been writ-
ing a chapter for an English engineer who is preparing a book on
Sewage disposal. He wanted to know the American practice. I
found in studying the relations of the two countries, and the com-
paratively small area of England, the very striking fact that in this
country we have a vastly different problem with the large water
courses, like the Mississippi and Ohio. Our rivers are able to receive
and digest vast amounts of sewage. I use the illustration of the Ohio
River, which along its entire length receives untreated sewage, and
yet is drunk by practically every town along its length. The pollu-
tion is reaching such a point, however, that the United States Public
Health Service, with whom I have the honor to be a consultant on
stream pollution, is studying all phases, but in that river sewage that
has flowed 250 to 290 miles is drunk, mixed with the river water, by
towns below, and is discharged again. The raw water is filtered and
chlorinated before use. The loading of pollution is increasing. The
health of these communities is good, but is not showing as low a
typhoid fever death rate as we do in Chicago. This does illustrate,
however, the possibility of a stream of the type of the Ohio, of using
that stream for sewage disposal, using that stream for drinking
water, with suitable purification, and preserving a health balance.
The Mississippi is one of the best examples. Go to New Orleans,
for instance, and you will learn that the real need of New Orleans in
water purification is to get the mud out. With all the vast drainage
of the Mississippi River basin flowing by New Orleans the bacterial
problem is not important. The real aim is to remove the mud, which
makes the water aesthetically unpleasant to drink.
The Mississippi is one of the biggest dilution streams in the world.
The cities of Kansas City, Kans.; Kansas City, Mo.; Minneapolis,
St. Paul, St. Louis, Memphis—all the way down—put their sewage
into the Mississippi absolutely untreated, and yet the river is free
from nuisance. I have been along it. You can go to New Orleans
and drink the water. If it were not for the mud, you could drink it
with safety and pleasure. You can drink it with the mud in with
safety so far as bacterial pollution is concerned. When you think
of the millions of people who have put sewage in, it is a tribute to
the natural method of sewage treatment.
Possibly the earlier engineers regarded the use of dilution as a
temporary expedient. The history of the sewage art since that bears
that out, but I think of recent years those of us who have had to con-
sider these problems from an economic standpoint have felt it is a
proper method of sewage treatment within certain limitations, and
that is well borne out by a quotation from Reprint 580 of the Public
Health Service, which I have previously referred to, which has been
filed with your committee. In case it is not available, I will leave
1646 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
one with you. . Five of their engineers have said the following about
the disposal of sewage by dilution:
Where dilution is successfully applied, it must, in general, accomplish one
Or both of the two following results, depending upon the uses to which the
receiving body of water is to be subsequently devoted:
The limitation of bacterial numbers present in the receiving watercourse to
Within boundaries safely consistent with the hygienic safety of whatever
Sources of water supply, bathing beaches, or shellfish areas may be dependent
upon Such a Watercouse.
The maintenance of a sufficient reserve supply of dissolved oxygen in the
receiving watercourse to insure its freedom from objectionable odors or other
Conditions, either locally or at more distant points.
In general, the degree of dilution necessary to satisfy the first of these re-
Quirements is much higher than that required for the second, although this
principle may not necessarily hold if careful local precautions relative to the
proper dispersion of Sewage are neglected.
(The reprint referred to on “Treatment and disposal of sewage *
is filed with the committee.)
For the convenience of your committee and not to bother you, I
will leave with the reporter, to put in the record, a compilation of
the references that we have been able to discover on the art of sewage
disposal by dilution. It is a very interesting record, which I have
Summarized for your committee as Table 3. It shows up to 1887
what was the knowledge upon which Mr. Hering and Mr. Cooley and
others who planned our works based the sound engineering practice
of that day. It appears meager to-day, but it was their best infor-
mation. They used Doctor Rauch, of the Illinois State Board of
Health, in making certain experiments in the old I. and M. Canal
and the Illinois River. In the references since 1890 it is of great
interest to see how the different engineers, in recommending their
projects, like Mr. Hering, who laid out the present method in Wash-
ington, the discharge into the Potomac, in 1895, and in other cities,
have harked back to the minimum ratio of dilution set for the sani-
tary district, and it is further of interest to say that in practically all
instances that ratio has been taken as a minimum.
A great deal of our knowledge comes from Massachusetts. We
reverence the work of Mr. Stearns, because he was the chief engineer
of the State board of health in those early days, when it was making
history, and in his later years head of the metropolitan water board
in Boston, that laid out the present works, and he later was consult-
ing engineer for many of the large projects put through all over the
country. He is the Mr. Frederick P. Stearns mentioned by Mr.
Wisner.
I will leave with you this table (Table 4) showing the increase
from 1920 to 1960, the Sanitary District of Chicago population
estimates.
TABLE 4.—Population estimates
Industrial
Year Human equivalent Total
1920 – - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3,000, 000 1,500,000 || 4, 500,000
1930---------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 710,000 1,700,000 5,410,000
1940---------------------------------------------------------------- 4,425,000 | 1,900,000 6, 325,000
1945---------------------------------------------------------------- 4,782, 000 2,000, 000 6,782,000
1950---------------------------------------------------------------- 5, 140,000 2, 100,000 7, 240,000
1955---------------------------------------------------------------- 5, 500,000 2, 200,000 7, 700,000
1960---------------------------------------------------------------- 5, 860, 000 2,300,000 8, 160,000
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1647
In 1960 I do not expect it will be my problem. Some one else will
have the floor.
Mr. SEGER. In the cities where they treat the sewage that has been
diluted, do they chlorinate it?
Mr. PEARSE. In some cases. That has been more largely done to
protect bathing beaches along the Jersey coast and at Cleveland.
Mr. SEGER. Does it take out the typhoid bacillus?
Mr. PEARSE. Chlorine tends to kill it. But when you handle
sewage which has 5,000,000 bacteria to the cubic centimeter, when
you take out 99 per cent you have 1 per cent left, which is 50,000,
and you have a pretty big problem, so even chlorination would not
make sewage fit to drink. But chlorine tends to protect the bathing
beaches, and is used to protect the drinking water by chlorinating
to a certain extent.
Recently, Mr. H. P. Eddy (Engineering News Record, April 17,
1924) published an article on the advance in the art of sewage treat-
ment in the last 50 years. In this he cites the following data of the
space required for treatment of the sewage from a city of 600,000
by three different systems.

Acres Space
System COW- required
ered (cubic feet)
Settling tanks, sludge beds, and intermittent Sand filters---------------------------- 800 140,000,000
Imhoff tanks, sludge beds, and trickling filters-------------------------------------- 60 17,000,000
Activated Sludge-------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 5,000,000
To this might be added, where soil permits, sewage irrigation or
farming, 60,000 acres.
These figures indicate the progress made in the art by developing
intensive methods.
Mr. STRONG. We will adjourn now until 7.30 o'clock this evening,
and you understand we meet in our regular committee room.
(Whereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 7.30
o'clock p. m.)
AFTER RECESS
The committee reassembled pursuant to the taking of a recess at
7.30 o'clock p. m. +
STATEMENT OF MIR, LANGDON PEARSE
Mr. PEARSE. Mr. Chairman, the first topic I want to discuss for a
few minutes is the effect of the changes in the art.
Mr. Wisner spoke of that this morning. I consider it was of
rather vital importance to us, because we had no sooner completed
our set of tests on the Packingtown wastes and issued the first volume
of our report in 1914 and were discussing negotiations with the
packers than the activated sludge process came up; and as a result,
we made a second set of tests, which in their conclusions were ac-
cepted both by the packers and ourselves as convincing that the
activated sludge process offered the most practical solution of the
tremendous problem of packinghouse waste.
1648 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Although the reports signed by Dr. W. D. Richardson and myself
in 1917 outlined a practical engineering solution, the war tem-
porarily stopped any action. In 1919, however, the matter was dis-
cussed with the packers and a tentative agreement drawn up, which
has never been executed. At the present time the packers have re-
fused to enter into any agreement. As a result, injunction proceed-
ings have been started by the sanitary district to determine the legal
Status.
The experiments did, however, lead to this: That the packers, for
the first time in their history as a collection of individuals, and col-
lectively as a body, acknowledge that there was a process of sewage
treatment applied by us that was capable of handling their waste.
They would not admit that on the first report. They did on the
second report, and we felt that we had accomplished something; that
in twenty-odd years we had at last shown how to handle their waste.
I am now coming to a discussion of the Illinois River. I am sorry
Mr. Hull is not yet here, because this is a subject close to his heart.
Our early work very clearly demonstrated the importance of a
continued and detailed study of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers
from Joliet to Grafton to inform us of the sanitary condition of the
waterway.
Some work of this character had been done at the time of the
Missouri-Illinois suit. It was not, however, until 1921 that the com-
plete detailed study conducted jointly for 14 months by the United
sº Public Health Service and the sanitary district became avail-
2, Ole.
The results of this are summarized briefly in four charts, which I
will introduce as exhibits. (Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6.) I think they
ought to be reproduced, and they are introduced not as a complete
history of the investigation but to show typically what happens in
the winter and summer to the oxygen in the stream, which is an index
of the Self-purification, and also to the bacteria; and to show why it
is that at Peoria the bacteria have died at such a tremendous rate in
their travel down there—6 to 10 days—that the damage to the lower
Illinois River, at least from the standpoint of bacterial and sewage
pollution, is largely from Peoria and the towns south thereof.
These charts are typical of the winter and summer conditions and
show the bacterial death rate as well as the oxidation which occurs
in the Illinois River. -
They are of particular interest in that they indicate clearly that
the pollution from Chicago is practically purified by the time it
reaches Peoria and that so far as the lower Illinois River is con-
ºned, the pollution from Peoria and Pekin is the important fac-
OI’.
These results are remarkable, in that they confirm the opinion of
the Supreme Court of the United States in the Missouri-Illinois case,
that the Sewage of Chicago has no effect upon the water supply of
St. Louis.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you right there this question. They tell
me sewage has reached the Peoria Lake; that is, they discovered it
from the bottom of the river. What effect would that have eventu-
ally upon Peoria?
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1649
Mr. PEARSE. I do not think it will have much effect upon Peoria,
judging by this record. The only effect is to destroy the clean water
life that lives on the bottom of the stream, that is, the mussels and
other low forms of animals.
Mr. HULL. Would it kill the fish?
Mr. PEARSE. If it is of sufficient extent, accompanied by the absence
of oxygen in the stream itself, the fish will die, but the fish can live
with moderately dirty bottom water conditions if there is oxygen
in the water above, exceeding two and a half parts per million.
Accompanying those charts is a brief paper by Mr. J. K. Hoskins,
of the Public Health Service, which I would introduce also as an
exhibit, which is given on pages 350 and 351 of the proceedings of
the sanitary district of May 18, 1922. This same paper was also
printed in the Engineering News Record December 21, 1922. -
“SOME OBSERVATIONS ON NATURAL PURIFICATION IN THE ILLINOIS RIVER,” BY
J. K. Hoskſ NS, OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, MARCH
23, 1922. .
In continuance of the studies which have previously been made upon the Ohio
River, the United States Public Health Service, with the active cooperation
and assistance of the Sanitary District of Chicago, Mr. Albert W. Dilling,
chief engineer, is at present carrying on an intensive study of the pollution
and the processes of natural purification in the Illinois River. This study,
begun in the spring of 1921, is projected to continue throughout a full year.
For such a study the Illinois River affords exceptional advantages by reason of
its considerable length—nearly 300 miles—the gross pollution in its upper
reaches, immediately below the outlet of the Chicago Drainage Canal, and its
freedom from further considerable pollution except in the vicinity of Peoria,
thus preventing long stretches in which the operation of natural agencies of
purification may be observed. A further consideration of great importance
is that for some years the sanitary district has carried on most thorough
Studies of the amount and character of the wastes discharged into the drainage
canal, including a variety of industrial waste, and of conditions in the drainage
canal, and is thus enabled to furnish basic data which must otherwise be col-
lected at great expense.
The study of the Illinois River is organized as a separate unit of the general
organization for stream pollution investigations under the division of scientific
research of the United States Public Health Service with an advisory board
consisting of three consultants: Mr. Langdon Pearse, Sanitary engineer of
the Sanitary District of Chicago; Dr. E. O. Jordan, professor of bacteriology of
the University of Chicago; and Dr. Stephen A. Forbes, chief of the State
Natural History Survey of Illinois and professor emeritus of University of
Illinois, representing the fields of sanitary engineering, bacteriology and fresh
water biology, respectively.
Headquarters and a main laboratory for the field studies were established
early in 1921 at Peoria, Ill., located midway between the headwaters and mouth
of the river, and three branch laboratories were equipped at Joliet. Beardstown,
and Kampsville, points to which samples can be delivered promptly from
practically any section of the river. These laboratories, with the exception of
the one at Beardstown, will be operated for a full year, to record the effect of
Seasonal and other changes that may modify the phenomena of purification.
The field work as at present conducted comprises the daily collection of
representative samples of river water from carefully selected stations dis-
tributed throughout the length of the river, and transporting these samples to
the nearest accessible laboratory, where bacteriological, chemical, and biological
examinations of the Specimens are made. The bacteriological examination com-
prises total counts on gelatin at 20° and on agar at 37° centigrade, and quanti-
tative estimates of B. coli by fermentation tests. The most important item in
the chemical examination is determination of the dissolved oxygen present in
each sample by immediate titration and of the biochemical oxygen demand
as calculated from the oxygen loss after incubation for five days at 20°.
centigrade.
1650 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Since it apears in studies of this character the value of frequent elaborate
chemical analysis is not sufficient to justify their expense, composite samples
COVering a period of 10 days and preserved with sulphuric acid are used for
determination of total nitrogen, free ammonia, Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrogen
Oxides, and Oxygen consumed. Samples of bottom sediment and of water from
the Surface and from middepth are collected regularly from selected stations
for macroscopic and microscopic biological examinations, involving the measure-
ment and identification of plankton forms.
In addition to the laboratory field work, supplementary observations of
Stream flow are in progress in cooperation with the United States Geological
Survey, to determine the daily flow of all important tributaries discharging to
the Illinois as well as that of the main stream, and the kinds of flow from
point to point throughout the river are being calculated from stream flow data
and CrOSS-Sectional areas taken from the river bed, contour maps of the United
States Army Engineer Corps.
The results of the bacteriological and chemical determinations can not be
Satisfactorily analyzed until they have been extended over a longer period and
until calculations of time intervals have been completed; but in the meantime
Certain gross conditions and changes are obvious, as shown in charts 1 to 4.
AS to bacterial pollution, charts 1 and 2 showing monthly averages at all
Stations for the months of September and December, respectively, illustrate
the following points:
(1) During the summer months the total bacterial counts on agar at 37°
(24 hours) immediately below the drainage canal ranged from 2,000,000 to
5,000,000 per cubic centimeter, whereas in winter months, so far, they have
ranged from 100,000 to 300,000 (monthly averages). Since the Volume of the
Illinois River at stations 292–286 is nearly constant, this indicates a wide
SeaSOnal Variation in the total bacterial content of the Sewage of the sanitary
district. Similar Seasonal variations are noted in the gelatin count and
B. coli. This is in accordance with observations at Cincinnati and Louisville
On the Ohio River.
(2) During the Summer months the gelatin (20° C.) and agar 37° C.)
counts throughout the river are approximately equal; but with the onset
Of Winter, they diverge, the agar counts becoming much smaller than the
gelatin counts. This likewise is in accordance with Observations on the
Ohio River.
(3) The decrease in bacterial content from the outlet of the drainage
Canal to Station 166 (immediately above Peoria) is at all times very great,
and is practically parallel in the agar count, the gelatin count, and the
B. coli. The decrease is absolutely and relatively much greater in Summer
than in winter. Dilution by tributaries is a very small factor in this de-
Crease, Which is largely due to death of the bacteria. From a bacterioligioal
Standpoint, the river immediately above Peoria about 125 miles below the
Outlet of the drainage Canal, is not highly polluted, not more than many
Streams draining rural Sections.
(4) The pollution resulting from wastes received in the Peoria district
is very considerable in Summer, and the decrease below this point, though
steady, is less rapid than in the upper half of the river. Near its mouth
the Illinois shows approximately the same degree of bacterial pollution as
does the Mississippi above the junction.
Conditions as to the dissolved oxygen content and biochemical oxygen
demand during a Summer month and a winter month, respectively, are
shown in charts 3 and 4. From these it is seen that in the upper river
the Oxygen demand greatly exceeds the Supply as represented by the dis-
Solved Oxygen Content, but that in passing downstream from Joliet to
Peoria, the dissolved Oxygen progressively increases, and the biochemical
oxygen demand decreases until the former exceeds the latter at a point well
above Peoria, establishing an “small oxygen balance.” In summer the
extent of Oxygen recovery in passage through Peoria Lake—a large body
of wide shallow Water between stations 179 and 166—is remarkable; in
winter less marked, but noticeable. Below Peoria the oxygen demand in-
creases gradually to a point just above Beardstown, with, in summer, a cor-
responding decrease in dissolved oxygen and reversal of the oxygen balance.
Although a distinctly measurable increase in oxygen demand below the urban
district of Peoria is to be expected, this gradual increase over a distance of
50 miles is not yet fully explained.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1651
AS to Observations so far made upon the Illinois River, it is as yet impos-
sible to correlate them in any fundamental way with Observations on the
Ohio until they have been more thoroughly analyzed in relation to time in-
tervals, temperature, and amounts of polluting wastes involved; but so far
aS may be judged at present the two sets of observations appear "to Check
rather closely, justifying the expectation that, when taken together, they will
give fundamental information regarding the laws of natural purification.
Besides the studies of self-purification, an investigation has been
made of the effect of sewage upon fish life and of the conditions
necessary in a stream for the maintenance of fish life, using live fish
under laboratory control. This was necessary in order to determine
a reasonable minimum standard for the dissolved oxygen content of
the river.
In a discussion of sewage treatment of the sanitary district, its
relation to the Illinois River Valley must not be overlooked, because
the valley cities are vitally interested, I believe, in the maintenance
of the diversion of 10,000 second-feet.
The population of the Illinois River Valley is given in the exhibit
which I have here (Table 5). This shows the present population
based on the 1920 census of over 200,000.
We estimate that by 1930 there will be 229,000 on the banks of the
Illinois River from Joliet to the mouth of the river, and of this popu-
lation over 200,000 in 1920; 186,000 between Joliet and Pekin. In
other words, the lower river had only 14,500 people. In addition to
the human population there are also a number of industries and the
State penitentiary, all of which contribute pollution.
We made a survey in 1921, which indicated that from Joliet to
Pekin there were 16 industrial establishments engaged in either
zinc, steel work, machine shop or hardware lines, 9 brewing estab-
lishments, 4 corn-products plants, 4 chemical or paint industries, 10
paper mills, 6 packing houses, 1 mill, and 1 State institution.
Of these, the Corn Products Refining Co. in Pekin is probably the
most important, grinding about 25,000 bushels of corn per day, with
an equivalent of over 125,000 people. -
I would also point out that in the length of the Illinois Valley out-
side of the sanitary district, from Joliet to the mouth, we have
found that there are 479 public sewer's and private drains entering
the river, carrying sewage or industrial waste, and discharging, as
near as we can estimate, about 428 cubic feet a second.
Hence the Illinois Valley would have a real sewage treatment
problem of its own if the diversion were cut or the use of water
eliminated. #
The natural dry-weather flow of the Illinois River at Peoria was
very low, and even before the drainage canal was opened frequently
was below 1,000 cubic feet a second. The flow was, of course, in-
creased from a state of nature by the discharge of the Illinois and
Michigan Canal, so that the actual natural flow may have been below
700 second-feet. These flows manifestly are insufficient for the
proper dilution of the pollution from the metropolitan area of Pekin
and Peoria.
It would, therefore, seem highly probable that with the growth of
industry along the Illinois River Valley, unless the diversion from
Take Michigan is maintained at 10,000 second-feet, sewage treat-
1652 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
ment will be required, not only for the industrial wastes of the
valley, but also for the domestic sewage.
The Illinois River fish crop is an interesting topic because the
Illinois. River is one of the most important fish producing streams
Jn the United States and for many years was second only to the
Columbia River. The industry has grown from about 6,000,000
pounds in 1894 to a maximum of nearly 24,000,000 in 1908.
The catch declined to 4,000,000 pounds in 1921, but in 1922 had
risen again to 10,600,000. .
The data is compiled in part 5 of the Alvord and Burdick report
to the rivers and lakes commission on the Illinois River and its
bottom lands, a copy of which has been filed as an exhibit with your
committee.
Mr. HULL. How do you account for that? Have you made any
diagnosis of the reason for that terrible decline there?
Mr. PEARSE. I am going to come to that; yes, sir. There seems
to be no question from an extended study made by the Natural
History Survey of the State of Illinois and by others that the intro-
duction of the sewage of Chicago produced in its self-purification.
a tremendous crop of food, upon which increasing crops of fish
grew up to 1908. -
I think that 1908 was about the time that the packers began to
increase their production, if you follow this angle from the chart.
On the other hand Alvord and Burdick have pointed out that the
area reclaimed in the Illinois River bottoms increased from 6,700.
acres in 1899 to 124,205 acres in 1914. The Natural History Survey
adds that by 1921 over 322,360 acres had been reclaimed. This
leaves remaining only some 115,000 acres still subject to overflow.
The reclamation of overflow lands, which were the breeding grounds.
of the fish, has done more than any one factor to injure the fisheries.
of the Illinois River.
In a bulletin of the Natural History Survey of the State of
Illinois, issued in April, 1919, the following is of interest.
There are four factors to which this rise and fall of production
may be attributable; that is, the rise that I speak of from 6,000,000
up to 24,000,000.
Mr. HULL. What year was that 24,000,000? -
Mr. PEARSE. That was in 1908 and then it declined to 4,000,000
in 1921.
You See, we do not obtain yearly figures, as they are not available,
being very hard to get, but in 1921 and 1922, on account of work of
the Public Health Service, Professor Forbes and myself prevailed
on the Bureau of the Census and on the Bureau of Fish Industry in
Washington to attempt to get the catch in those years, and these
figures we give you are the information that comes to me from the
State of Illinois, from Professor Forbes, as to the catch. This is.
what Professor Forbes, as the head of the survey, has to say:
There are four factors to which this rise and fall of productions may be
attributed :
1. The Opening Of the Sanitary canal and the diversion of nearly all ther
Chicago Sewage from lake to river.
2. The rapid multiplication of the European carp, which by 1908 yielded 64
per cent of the whole product of the river fisheries.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1653
3. The great stimulus to fishing which this enormous increase of the Carp
prº º rapid progress of reclamation operations from 1900 onward.
The first three of these factors tended to increase the actual yield, but the
last, the cause of decline, has more than overbalanced their joint effect.
In other words, gentlemen, the reclamation operations in the lower
river, which have reclaimed over three-quarters of the overflow lands,
have destroyed the breeding grounds of fish, and in the opinion of a
man who has studied the river and knows it more intimately than
any other man in the United States, from a natural-history stand-
point the reclamation operations have done more than any other
factor to destroy the increase in fish which the Chicago Sewage had
produced.
In other words, our sewage was producing large crops of fish,
because in that lower river the self-purification had put the Sewage
into a form where it fed life upon which fish lived. Hence we do
not feel like being charged up with the destruction of fish in the
Illinois River.
I will briefly cover the state of sewage treatment abroad before I
go on to the next topic on water treatment. * -
In England at present sewage treatment is almost at a resting stage
produced by enforced economies resulting from the war. In the
early days England was the leader. The history of Sewage treat-
ment and sewerage can be traced very closely in the development of
London. American engineers in 1854 went over to visit the London
sewerage works, but it was not till 1889 that London began to treat
its sewage with the completion of the works at Barking for chemical
precipitation. In 1891 the entire sewage of London was treated, the
sludge being carried out into the North Sea by boats. -
In the inland cities of England the problem has been more diffi-
cult. At Birmingham since 1859 various methods of treatment were
tried, which proved unsuccessful, until in 1871 land irrigation was
begun. This was in use for many years. In 1872 until 1900 all the
sewage was precipitated with lime. With the extension of the popu-
lation a drainage board was formed in 1877, which in 1903 began the
construction of sprinkling filters. Various experiments have been
carried on along the line of sludge handling and the like with modifi-
cation and changes in the plant. The history of the Birmingham
Sewage developments shows the changes in process with the aban-
donment of the early apparatus, together with continued experi-
ments. At the present time the authorities are considering means
of supplementing the sprinkling filters to increase their capacity.
At Manchester the situation is of interest, since the sewage is dis-
charged into the Manchester Ship Canal. The method of treatment
in vogue is open Septic tanks with contact beds. The sludge is taken
to sea with tank steamers. Manchester, however, has been experi-
menting with activated sludge, and has developed the process to a
point where it is being tried on a unit of a million gallons per day.
The history of Sewage treatment in England has been the aban-
donment of the sewage farm for irrigation systems, the abandon-
ment of chemical precipitation and the adoption of tanks, followed
by biological processes, with a present-day interest in activated
sludge. -
§ far as I can learn, none of the large cities discharge their
sewage into their own water supply or their neighbors'. Some of
1654 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the smaller villages discharge their sewage into their sources of
Water supply, but in this case treatment is available with intermit-
tent sand filters, which is effective.
In the popular mind Paris has long been prominent with its sew-
age farms. For many years, however, the French experts have been
considering the abandonment of the sewage farms and have tested
other processes, including activated sludge. I receive letters from
French engineers asking me what we are doing and telling me what
experiments they are carrying on. Some experiments were carried
on at Lille, but work stopped when the Germans marched in, and it
has not been resumed since. For this reason sanitary engineers do
not look to France for practice at the present time.
In Germany likewise the sewage farms of Berlin have attracted
popular fancy. As a matter of fact, Sewage farms are possible there
Only because of a combination of circumstances. The establishment
of the sewage farms dates from 1873. The area of the city in 1910
was only 25 Square miles, as compared with a territory of about 185
Square miles in Chicago at that time.
The soil is sandy and the rainfall low, averaging about 20 inches
per year. The area in Sewage farms amounted to 40,000 acres in
1910, just about two and a half times the area of the entire city.
A portion of the farm lands is rented out to truck farmers, who
produce about one-third of the garden truck used in the city. The
balance of the farm land is operated as a poor farm. The sewage
flow averaged about 35 gallons per capita. The most interesting
feature of this whole development is the speculative increase in the
value of the lands which will ultimately accrue to the city.
Of far greater interest to the sanitary engineer has been the devel-
opment in the Emscher and the Ruhr districts along the lines of
drainage boards, which handle the removal of sewage and the storm
water. In this development many valuable features of practice
have been made, the most important being the Imhoff tank.
Prior to the war German cities were developing along broad,
modern lines, utilizing the available dilution of rivers or harbors,
with sufficient preparation of the sewage to avoid offense. Where
enough dilution was not available, sedimentation was resorted to;
and where that was not sufficient, sedimentation with biological
treatment was used. For this reason German practice has extended
over a much wider range than the French. The war, however,
stopped the experimental work for which the Imperial Testing Sta-
tion in Berlin was noted. As a consequence the activated sludge
process is not in use in Germany. Further, the effect of the war has
been to reduce the available revenue of the cities, so that at present, I
am informed by Doctor Imhoff, many cities have abandoned the
operation of sewage-treatment works and others have resorted to
overloading and many economies in order to get by.
Consequently, at the present time there is little applicable to the
Chicago problem to be learned from either German or French prac-
tice. As a general observation the cost of sewage treatment in
Europe has been held down by the extremely low per capita use of
water, and the cost of collection has also been kept down by the
density of population.
I will now discuss briefly the subject of water treatment.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1655
In the United States the early development of water treatment
from the standpoint of removal of bacterial pollution was very
slow and prior to 1890 was based largely upon European practice.
Apparently Kirkwood's Historical Report of 1868 was the first com-
prehensive study of water filtration in the United States.
In
London the so-called “slow sand filters ” had been first installed in
1829, but their use did not become general until 1855.
Of the small
filter plants built prior to 1887 in the United States, about as many
were failures as successes, and those tried on turbid waters did not
give encouraging results.
tice available at the time the Sanitary District of Chicago was
organized was so meager and unsatisfactory that no consideration
was given to filtration of the water with the sewage pollution in it
as a practical solution of the Chicago problem.
The application of coagulants to the art of water purification in
1884 with the experiments carried on by George W. Fuller at Louis-
ville and Cincinnati in 1895 and 1898 gave a big impetus to water
filtration in the United States and made possible the subsequent
developments after 1900 of specially designed water-filtration plants
handling large quantities of water, such as the plants at Cincin-
nati, Columbus, Louisville, New Orleans, Cleveland, etc.
Consequently the water-filtration prac-
Filter-plant construction
Place Year built Type Remarks
Chelsea Water Works | 1829----------- Slow Sand------- Treated Thames River water.
Co., London, England.
All London supply ------- 1855----------- -----do---------- From Thames and River Lea.
Poughkeepsie, N. Y. ------ 1872-----------|----- do---------- |Uncovered.
Hudson, N. Y ------------ 1874-75--------|----- do---------- Do.
West Point, N. Y - - - - - - - - 187----------------- do---------- Do.
St. Johnsburg, Vt - - - - - - --| 187------------|----- do---------- Do.
Lowell, Mass------------- 187----------------- do---------- Unsuccessful because of large amount of
suspended matter.
Columbus, Ohio --- - - - - - - - 187----------------- do---------- Do.
Toledo, Ohio ------------- 187----------------- do---------- IDO.
Zurich, Switzerland - - - - - - 1885-----------|----- do---------- From Lake Zurich. .
Altona, Germany.-------- Prior to 1892. - |_ _ _ _ _ do---------- Treating water from River Elbe.
Hamburg, Germany------ 1893-----------|----- do---------- O.
Atlanta, Ga-------------- 1893----------- Rapid Sand----- sº faken from Chattahoochee River
TěateC1.
Lawrence, Mass----- * = ** * = ** 1893----------- Slow Sand------- Merrimack River very polluted.
Berlin, Germany--------- Prior to 1895--|-----do - - - - - ----- Filtered water from Rivers Spree and
Havel, suburbs supplied by filtered
ground Water. . º.
New Orleans, La--------- 1893----------- Rapid sand-----| From Mississippi River—proved failure.
Breslau, Germany-------- Prior to 1895__| Slow sand------- From River Oder.
Budapest, Hungary------|----- do-------------- do----------- From Danube River. In 1894 filters were
only used to supplement the ground
water supply, and it was hoped that they
could soon entirely abandon the filters.
Edinburgh, Scotland.-----|----- do-------------- do----------- sºr from the Pentland and Moor-
OO S. -
The Hague, Holland-----|----- do-------------- do----------- Collected from drains in the Sand dunes.
Liverpool, England-------|----- do-------------- do----------- From Vyrnwy River to remove color and
from wells.
Paris, France-------------|----- do-------------- do----------- Experimenting, but none in use.
Rotterdam, Holland------|----- do-------------- do----------- From River Moas.
St. Louis, Mo ------------ 1894----------- Large Sedimen- From Mississippi River.
tation basins.
Warsaw, Poland---------- Prior to 1895- -] Slow sand------- 50 per cent of city used filtered water from
Weichsel River.
Ashland, Wis.------------ 1895-----------|----- do----------- First covered filter in America.
Reading, Pa-------------- 897-----------|----- do----------- For elimination of tastes and odors.
Elmira, N. Y------------- 1897 (?) -------|----- do-----------
Berwyn, Pa-------------- 898---------------- do-----------
‘Nyack, N. Y------------- 1899-----------|----- do-----------
Superior, Wis------------ 1899–1– -----do ----| Iron-removal plant.
Albany, N. Y------------ 1899-----------|----- do ----
Middletown, N. Y -------| 1900----------- Rapid sand-----| Enlarged in 1909.

1656
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Filter-plant Construction—Continued
Place Year built Type Remarks
East Jersey Water Co., at | 1902----------- Rapid sand.---- Reinforced concrete first used, better
Little Falls, N. Y. Coagulent control introduced.
Denver, Colo------------- 1902----------- Slow Sand-------
East St. Louis, Ill -------- 1902 (?) ------- Rapid Sand----- Larger coagulating basins used.
St. Joseph, Mo ----------- 1902 (?) -------|----- do---------- Do.
Binghamton, N. Y. -------| 1902-----------|----- do----------
Oberlin, Ohio ------------ 1903---------------- do---------- Water Softening plant.
Chester, Pa. -------------- 1903---------------- do----------
Osaka, Japan.------------- 1903----------- Slow sand-------
St. Louis, Mo------------ 1903----------- Chemical pre- | Use of lime and iron process in connection
cipitation. with long sedimentation introduced.
Hackensack Water Co., 1904----------- Rapid Sand----- Concrete filter bottoms and troughs used.
Hackensack, N. J.
Watertown, N. Y -------- 1904---------------- do----------
Philadelphia, Pa--------- 1905----------- Slow sand------- Work in progress 1900 to 1914.
Washington, D.C.-------- 1905---------------- do----------
Harrisburg, Pa. ----------- 1905----------- Rapid sand-----
New Milford, N. J.-------| 1905-----------|----- do----------
Lincoln Water Co., Lon- || 1905----------- Slow Sand------- Hypochlorite of soda introduced to supple-
don, England. ment filtration.
Providence, R. I.--------- 1905-----------|----- do----------
Springfield, Mass--------- 1906-----------|----- do---------- Elimination of tastes and odors (date also
given as 1910).
Cincinnati, Ohio ---------| 1907----------- Rapid Sand-----
Lorain, io-------------| 1907---------------- do----------
Columbus, Ohio---------- 1908---------------- do---------- Water-softening plant.
Union Stock Yards, Chi- || 1908-----------|----- do---------- First plant in America to use hypochlorite
cago, Ill. of lime for furnishing water treatment.
McKeesport, Pa---------- 1908-----------|----- do---------- Water-Softening plant.
Jersey City water Supply, 1908-----------|----- do---------- Use of hypochlorite of lime begun as a treat-
Jersey City, N. J. ment supplementary to filtration.
Pittsburgh, Pa. ----------- 1908----------- Slow Sand-------
Louisville, Ky------------ 1909----------- Rapid Sand-----
New Orleans, La --------- 1909---------------- do----------
Wilmington, Del --------- 1910–---------- Slow Sand-------
Toronto, Canada.--------- 1910-----------|----- do----------
Iowa City, Iowa---------- 1910----------- Rapid Sand - - - - - Iron removal.
Scranton, Pa------------- 1911---------------- do----------
Cleveland, Ohio ---------- 1911----------- No filters - - - - --- Introduced hypochlorite treatment.
Erie, Pa------------------ 1911---------------- do---------- Do.
Clarksburg, W. Val ------ 1911----------- Rapid Sand-----
Montreal, Canada.-------- 1912---------------- do----------
Evansville, Ind----------- 1912-----------|----- do----------
Middleboro, Mass-------- 1913-----------|----- do---------- Iron removal.
Minneapolis, Minn.------- 1913---------------- do----------
Urbana, Ill--------------- 914-----------|----- do---------- DO.
Mount Vernon, Ill-------- 1914-----------|----- do----------
Rock Island, Ill---------- 1914---------------- do----------
Evanston, Ill------------- 1914---------------- do----------
T}elfast, Me--------------- 1914---------------- do----------
Baltimore, Md----------- 1915---------------- do----------
Cleveland, Ohio ---------- 1918---------------- do----------
St. Louis, Mo - - - --------- 1916 (q)-------|------------------
Briefly speaking, the difference between the slow sand filter and
the rapid filter may be given as follows.
liminary sedimentation is followed by the filtration of the water
through beds of sand from 30 to 40 inches deep at a comparatively
low rate of filtration, varying from two to five million gallons per
acre per day. The so-called “rapid filter’ consists of a bed of
sand with special underdrains to which water is applied which has
been coagulated by sulphate of alumina or iron and lime.
In the slow sand filter pre-
The sand
is coarser than in the slow sand filter and the rate of filtration is
much higher, averaging 125,000,000 gallons per acre per day with
possibilities of overload of 50 per cent in many cases.
The essential
difference between the two processes is that the slow sand filter is a
natural process relying on the accumulation of a filtering media in
the upper layer of the sand, whereas the rapid filter relies on a fil-
tering media composed of particles of hydrate of alumina carried
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1657
over from the coagulating basin. The slow sand filter must be
cleaned by scraping at intervals of about one month, whereas the
rapid filter is cleaned daily, as a rule, by reversing the flow of
water and forcing filtered water upward to the sand bed, some 30
inches deep, at a rate high enough to lift the sand grains and to
allow the accumulated bacteria and mud to be washed out. The
slow sand filter is applicable largely only on waters of low turbidity
without sudden changes in character. The use of coagulants has
permitted economical handling of very muddy waters like the Ohio
#. Mississippi, as well as of the varying waters from the Great
8 keS.
A rapid filter plant will remove from 90 to 99 per cent of the
bacteria in the raw water in well operated plants. With few bac-
teria in the raw water, the per cent of removal is lower than with
large numbers. The introduction of filter plants made a great re-
duction in the typhoid fever death rate of the cities receiving fil-
tered water. Not only was the bacterial quality vastly improved,
but color was removed and a sparkling clear water served. How-
ever, as the pollution increased in rivers or lakes used for supply,
additional precautions were found necessary. In somé cases double
filtration has been considered, but in general the first line of attack
has been the sterilization of the filter plant effluent. For this
various means are available, but the most common and generally
used is disinfection by chlorine. By the use of such an agent the
bacterial quality of the water may be kept at a high pitch. The
use of chlorine in water supplies in the United States dates largely
from 1908, when bleaching powder was used in treating the water
in the filtration plant handling a mixture of water and sewage
taken from Bubbly Creek in Chicago. The amount of steriliz-
ing agent used was so great that the water always had a taste.
Liquid chlorine was introduced at a later date, so that to-day with
the exception of some of the smaller plants most filtration plants
are equipped with chlorination apparatus. .
With the introduction of the use of bleaching powder on water
supplies in 1908 and chlorine gas in 1910, very effective means
were given to sanitary engineers for controlling in an emergency
way polluted sources of water. Threatened typhoid epidemics were
cut short. On water supplies normally clear, such as are taken from
the Great Lakes or smaller bodies of water, the use of bleaching
powder or chlorine became attractive as a means of reducing the
bacterial content to a minimum. A great many cities installed ap-
paratus for this purpose. It was soon found, however, that on
waters with varying quality that the regulation of the dose was
difficult in order to produce the necessary bacterial efficiency with-
out creating troublesome tastes. Continuous and careful observa-
tion is required to make this method reasonably successful on a
large scale. Sanitarians, therefore, have regarded chlorination,
where a water is exposed to grave pollution, as a temporary measure
rather than as a permanent treatment, considering that the best
method of treatment is filtration followed by chlorination as a
finishing process. -
Where certain industrial wastes enter the water from by-prod-
uct coke plants or gas works, not only is a taste produced in itself,
91739—24—PT 2—89
1658 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
but the application of chlorine intensifies the taste. It is therefore
important to remove from a water supply which is chlorinated
Such taste-producing elements. ; -
As a general rule, sanitary engineers have felt, that it is highly
desirable to keep sewage out of the drinking water supply of a
community. At the time the sanitary district was organized in
1889 such was the only safe procedure.
In 1900 when the canal was opened the diversion of the sewage
was still the most practical way of handling this problem. Water
filtration and sewage treatment had not then advanced to a stage
tested on a large scale under the conditions existing in Chicago.
And even to-day, with much better tools at hand, the continuation of
the diversion of the sewage from the lake appears the most practical
and best solution of the problem in order to keep out of the drink-
ing water a large bulk of pollution and prevent sudden shots of pollu-
tion caused by storms from the Chicago River and the Calumet River.
This feature is particularly important because the scheme of sewage
treatment practical under the conditions existing in the sanitary dis-
trict, will ultimately handle only one and a half times the dry flow
of sewage. Consequently, at every storm over 160 sewer outlets will
discharge into the Chicago River and its branches with a mixture
of sewage storm water and street wash. This pollution would be
carried into the lake with greater frequency the lower the diversion.
Such pollution if it is permitted to occur would make more difficult
chlorination as now practiced and would necessitate commencement
of filtration at a very early date.
The policy of keeping sewage out of drinking water is still upper-
most in the minds of prominent sanitary authorities. A quotation
from a recent report of the Massachusetts State Board of Health
is very pertinent.
This is a report which was issued in January, 1922, and is Massa-
chusetts House Document No. 1550. It is as follows:
The following general principles should be considered as representing the
Massachusetts policy for protecting the purity of her surface water supplies:
(1) Choice of unpolluted sources as far as practicable; (2) utilization of
the natural agencies of purification to the greatest practicable extent; (3)
prevention of pollution by land purchase and by the enforcement of Sanitary
rules and regulations; (4) filtration of water (a) when the population On the
watershed is relatively large, (b) when it is desired to permit boating and
fishing in the sources of supply and, (c) when the water is unsatisfactory in
its appearance, taste, or odor; (5) the choice of filtration and other purifica-
tion methods to be governed by the nature of the Supply, by cost considerations,
and by the desire to produce a water hygienically safe, attractive in its appear-
ance, tasteless and odorless, and without corrosive properties; (6) the Com-
bination of these various natural and artificial protective methods according
to local conditions and economical considerations; (7) the storage of filtered
water in covered basins as far as this is practicable. -
The opinion of other sanitary engineers is shown by the following
excerpts from testimony given in the case of the U. S. A. v. the Sani-
tary District of Chicago. e
George W. Fuller, eminent engineer of water and sewage purifica-
tion works, consulting engineer for Buffalo, Kansas City, New York
City, Philadelphia, etc., said (p. 1421): . *
Q. What is your opinion as to the hygienic improvement in the Chicago Water
supply due to the drainage canal and its appurtenances, in comparison with
what may reasonably have been scoured with water filters and other means
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1659
of improving the local water supply, as known to the art of 1889?–A. The
hygienic improvement in the Chicago water supply due to the drainage cana;
is decidedly greater and better than could have been obtained by innproving
the water supply in other ways as known to the art of 1889. In other Words.
the diversion of the sewage from the lake and from the Chicago water supply
was far better than to have attempted to try any other means for getting a
pure water supply, as those means were known in those days.
Also as of November, 1914 (p. 1429):
Q. Taking into account all the facts and conditions that you have mentioned
relating to the Chicago Drainage Canal, referring to the protecting Of the
water supply and preventing sewage nuisance, what is your opinion as to the
standing to which the drainage canal project is entitled, when Viewed in
the light of the art of 1889, and also to-day?—A. In my opinion, the protection
of the Chicago water supply is secured in a more simple, effective, economical
and therefore better way, than could be secured by any other means of treating
the sewage than by the present method ; and that applies to the art of 1889,
and also to the art as known to-day, in the matter of Sewage diversion and
Sewage treatment.
Further, on pages 1448 and 1489:
Q. Have you, in your study of this subject, given any consideration to the
proposition that it is only a matter of a few decades when it will be not only
advisable, but perhaps necessary for Chicago to filter or otherwise treat its
water supply from Lake Michigan 2–A. No ; I have not so considered it, because
I believe if the sewage is kept out of Lake Michigan the hygienic aspects will
then be taken care of Satisfactorily. There is still left, Of course, the matter
of the aesthetic side, the Occasional turbid water that comes following heavy
St0rms.
Frederic P. Stearns, eminent engineer of water and sewage treat-
ment works, consulting engineer for the Metropolitan Water and
Sewerage Board, San Francisco, etc., said (p. 1049, U. S. A. v. The
Sanitary District of Chicago): -
It is therefore in my judgment impossible for the Sanitary District of
Chicago to reproduce by any Other method of sewage disposal than that now
used as Sanitary conditions in relation to its water supply and sewage as
can be maintained by the use of the Chicago Drainage Canal, with the right
to take from Lake Michigan the quantity of water, commensurate with the
needs of the district from time to time.
And further (p. 1058):
Q. From all your investigations, and from the facts concerning which you
have testified, have you reached any conclusion as to whether any system for
sewage disposal other than the One now in use, that is by means of the sani-
ary district, is a practical, feasible, proper, efficient method for sewage disposal
or that district?—A. I believe the method in use is by far the best method ;
and I think it is also the only practicable and efficient method of taking care
yf the sewage and protecting the Water Supply ; but there may be some combi-
nations of purification, or there may be some partial purification of the
sewage which could be used in connection with the present method. But I
lo not see how the present method could be abandoned or greatly restricted
n the quantity of water and obtain results that should be obtained.
"Where sewage enters a water supply the pollution may increase
o a point which renders difficult the operation of a water filtration
lant and renders necessary either supplemental preliminary treat-
ent of the water or extensive sewage treatment at the sources of
ollution.
The extent of treatment of the sewage will depend upon circum-
tances. In the report to the International Waterways Commission,
ade in 1907, by Messrs. Hering and Fuller, the complete treat-
ent of the sewage of the Calumet region in the Chicago Sanitary







































1660 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
District was recommended by tanks and sprinkling filters if the
effluent was to be discharged into Lake Michigan. Undoubtedly
to-day the additional sterilization by chlorine would have been
recommended, and the filtration and chlorination of the drinking
water in the immediate vicinity.
At the present time the two filter plants operating in the Calu-
met region in Indiana at Whiting and East Chicago are having
difficulty in producing a potable, safe water because of the bac-
terial pollution, and the industrial taste producing wastes. The
supply of Hammond, taken from the same general source and
treated only with chlorination, is in much worse shape. If the
water be chlorinated to a point sufficient to secure the bacterial
results necessary, the tastes are such that no one cares to drink the
water. Gary is situated better, inasmuch as its intake is more re-
mote from the bacterial and industrial pollution. However, the
net result is that typhoid is still kept alive in the Lake County
reservoir of Indiana, as shown by the typhoid fever death rate of
the four towns of Whiting, East Chicago, Hammond, and Gary.
The typhoid fever data is given in exhibit, Table V, of the testi-
mony of Doctor Evans, which I should like to refer to at this time.
Typhoid fever death rates, Chicago and the Lake County, (Ind.), cities—Deaths
per 100,000 -
Year Gary ciº,O Whiting ; Mººn Chicago
1900-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------- 20
1901--------------------------------------------------------------------- 91 ---------- 29
1902--------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 ---------- 45
1903-------------------------------------------------|-------------------- 121 ---------- 32
1904--------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 ---------- 20
1905-------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , sº as mºs - - - - - - - 61 ---------- 17
1906--------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 ---------- 19
1907-------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - -- * * * : * = * * * * * * * - I - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 80 ---------- 18
1908--------------------------------------------------------------------- 154 ---------- 16
1909------------------------------------------------ - I - - - - - - - - * * : * * * * * * * * - - 39 ---------- 13
1910--------------------------------------- 101 26 60 57 ---------- 14
1911--------------------------------------- 24 29 43 37 ---------- 11
1912--------------------------------------- 0 40 28 70 ---------- l 7, 6
1913--------------------------------------- 0 46 27 64 ---------- 11
1914--------------------------------------- 0 12 12 49 |---------- 6.9
1915--------------------------------------- 2 6 11 2 13 36 14, 5 5.3
1916--------------------------------------- 83 38 75 122 33. 1 5. 1
1917--------------------------------------- 23 43 62 96 44, 4 1.6
1918--------------------------------------- 11 37 25 * 54 ---------- 1.4
1919--------------------------------------- 31 72 24 51 |---------- 1.2
1920--------------------------------------- 10 3 25 3 29 41. 7 5. 1 1. 1
1921--------------------------------------- 7. 2 25 9.9 22.2 10, 2 1.2
1922--------------------------------------- 7.2 0 19, 7 8.4 ---------- 1. 1
1923--------------------------------------- 1. 8 5.8 (4) 19.4 5. i 1.97
1 Chlorination began in January.
2 Chlorination began.
As a general rule, most of the cities situated directly on the Great
3 Filter plant installed.
* No record.
Lakes take their water supply from the Lakes and discharge their
Sewage back into the Lakes. No other group is so happily situated
as the cities and villages of the Sanitary District of Chicago in being
able to divert their Sewage to a different watershed apart from the
water supply. Some of the cities on the rivers connecting the Great
Lakes, like Detroit, approach this condition, but, owing to the pollu-
tion of the water supply of Smaller cities or of parts of their own
entering above the intake, the result is not the same as at Chicago.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1661
Considering the cities on the Great Lakes and the connecting
rivers as groups, the following divisions may be reached.
Cities using the lake as drinking-water supply:
(A) Discharge the sewage into the water supply.
(B) Discharging the sewage below their own intake into their
neighbor’s. .
(C) Discharging the sewage by diversion into another watershed.
Cities using other sources of supply: -
(A) Discharging their sewage into the Lakes or rivers connecting
the Lakes. -
(B) Discharging into other watersheds than the Great Lakes.
An analysis based on the cities of the United States having a popu-
lation of 10,000 or more on the shores of the Great Lakes, including
Lake Michigan—I have omitted the Canadians in this—shows 48
cities, according to the 1920 census. gº
So far as can be learned, these have water supplies taken as fol-
lows: -
From the Great Lakes or connecting rivers, a population of 6,469,-
299. From other sources, 635,204.
The distribution by the treatment of water is as follows:
Those using lake water: Filtration, 2,287,374 population; chlorina-
tion, 2,905,851.
No treatment, 1,126,974.
Those using wells, 110,761.
Surface water other than lake: Filtration, 243,164; chlorination,
none; no treatment, 281,279. - & -
That shows that the cities around the Great Lakes have not agreed
upon any particular method of handling their situation. -
A similar analysis based on all the cities known to have water-
works, in both the United States and Canada, around the Great
Lakes shows very nearly the same type of data. -
I will merely submit this table which I have written out to be
inserted in the record (Table 6).
. - Population
From the Great Lakes or connecting river________________________ 7, 661, S39
From Other SOurceS__ * = ** *-* - - - - - - --- *-* *-* = - sºme = -r, s- ºr- a-- = == 747, 774
The distribution by treatment of water is as follows: -
Lake Water : -
Filtration - — — — — — — — — — — — — ___ 2, 430, 949
Chlorination - * * * * * *-* * *-* = ** = a- - - - - - - - = ** = - sº- sº- m ºr ~ *- := a- a-- -- == - 4, 873, 237
No treatment - -- * * * *-* - - - " " * - * *-* *** * * * * * *-* = ~ *- - *-* = *-ºs = -s. -- * = ... = = -- a-- a-- = = <-- *- :=s 357, 653
Well water :
NO treatment * 117, 161
Filtration . * 12, 233
Surface water, Other than lake :
Filtration --- - * * * * - - 243, 164
Chlorination____ - - - - -
NO treatment ___ 357, 653
Combined Source, no treatment------------------------------------ 17, 563
An inspection of the chart of the Great Lakes shows that the
Sanitary District of Chicago and the adjoining territory in Indiana
are located on the Southern end of Lake Michigan in a region with
very restricted circulation. Milwaukee and Cleveland are located
at points midway on the axis of Lake Michigan or Lake Erie and
Detroit and Buffalo are located on rivers with definite currents.
1662 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The investigations of the United States Weather Bureau and the
United States Engineer office have shown no pronounced currents
in Lake Michigan or Lake Erie. We have, however, an extended
lake frontage and pollution that shoots in occasionally from the
Calumet River. If we had no diversion or the diversion was cut,
the pollution coming in would be greater than for any of the other
lake cities, and there is no possibility that I can see of concentrating
our intake at any one point. The city of Chicago at present takes
its water at four groups of intakes scattered along its water front
over a distance of about 15 miles. There is something like 35 miles
of frontage in the sanitary district, with water intakes every 3 or 4
miles and sometimes every 2 miles. We can not divorce our sewage
from the intake, as was suggested in 1895 at Cleveland by Mr.
Hering, who recommended that there be 7 miles from the main
sewer outlet to the intake and push all the sewage to the east. We
can not do that. Neither can we get the distance in force at Mil-
waukee.
Mr. HULL. Does Milwaukee put all her sewage into the lake?
Mr. PEARSE. It is all going into the lake at present. The sewage-
treatment plant will not be ready to operate for at least one year
and possibly two. The effluent will have to go into the lake at the
center of the city.
Mr. HULL. Does the flow of the lake go from Chicago to Mil-
waukee or from Milwaukee to Chicago?
Mr. PEARSE. As near as we can see, there is no particular current.
Some people have held there was a drift along the west shore to the
south and around up the east shore of Lake Michigan, but the investi-
gations made by Lyman Cooley away back in the nineties do not
bear that out. Colonel Judson told me there were no currents in
the lake, so far as he could ascertain. f
Mr. HULL. Would it be possible, if Chicago put all her sewage
in the lake and Milwaukee put all hers in, that they would eventu-
ally reach each other and contaminate the waters of both cities?
Mr. PEARSE. If we were to annex all the towns up the county line
and Milwaukee was to do likewise, in about 50 years, that might
happen, but with the present centers of gravity, 90 miles apart,
it is rather inconceivable that what Milwaukee does will affect us,
but what we do does affect our 35 miles of shore line and also the
Indiana shore line for some 10 miles.
However, it is obvious that a location midway on the axis of the
lake is exposed to better circulation than a location in a pocket.
The effect of discharging pollution at the southern end of Lake
Michigan would be much worse than is the case to-day at Milwaukee
or Cleveland, not only because of the much greater volume of the
sewage from the human population but also the tremendous load of
industrial waste.
In Indiana the pollution is forced out more continuously than
would normally occur from the Grand Calumet River by the pump-
ing of condenser water through the Indiana Steel Co. plant at Gary,
Whereas Milwaukee and Cleveland, with single intakes and Con-
centrated discharge in dry weather of sewage at points somewhat
remote, may be able to operate to-day with population of moderate
size, the situation along the shore line of the sanitary district and of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1663
Lake County, Ind., is vastly different with four groups of intakes
placed along the water front of Chicago alone and other intakes to
the north and to the south. The concentration of intake and of
sewage discharge at points remote is practically impossible to-day,
and was dismissed as undesirable in 1887.
For the smaller towns the cost of an intake extension into the
lake is great. The investigations of the Lake Michigan Water
Commission in 1908 point to the difficulty of extending far enough
into the southern end of Lake Michigan to secure a satisfactory
supply without treatment under present conditions.
Both Detroit and Buffalo are favored by the discharge of their
sewage into a flowing stream with defined current. The report of
the International Joint Commission in 1916, however, indicated that
at that time the pollution produced by those cities was great enough
to be a burden upon the water purification of their downstream
neighbors. The condition to-day is very much worse than in 1916.
Where sewage is discharged into a drinking water, as in the case
of the larger cities around the Great Lakes, it is clear that the
growth of the cities and the growth of their neighbors is introduc-
ing changes at all times and rendering it increasingly difficult year
by year to preserve an effective balance and secure good drinking
water. Further, such a survey indicates that the ultimate solutions
have not yet been reached and are still in the future with added
expenditures of money. . .
The plea that Chicago should adopt different and more scientific
methods of handling its situation can be introduced only by reasons
other than scientific, for what can be more scientific and essentially
sound than the principle of keeping sewage pollution out of a drink-
ing water supply, where possible, as is the case in the sanitary
district 2 To turn around to-day and discharge the sewage of the
sanitary district into drinking water simply to do what other cities
are forced to do by circumstances of location beyond their control
would not be a scientific solution of the problem.
After all the most effective measure of the accomplishment of the
sanitary district purpose is the decline in typhoid in the Chicago
district. The rates in Chicago are given in table 7. While these
figures show a reduction from the maximum annual typhoid fever
death rate of 174 per 100,000 in 1891 to a figure of around 1.1 for
1920, 1921, and 1922, the most effective result has been to remove
the explosive epidemics which occurred prior to 1900. Inasmuch
as Doctor Evans has discussed the health aspect of the problem
and in particular the typhoid fever, I will not go into detail. I
would, however, present table 7, which shows the typhoid fever
death rates per 100,000 of the cities around the Great Lakes with
a population of 100,000 or more, both in Canada and the United
States. This tabulation shows that of the cities listed, Chicago has
reduced its typhoid fever death rate to as low a point as any and
to a considerably lower rate than either Toronto, which has filtered
water from Lake Ontario, or Toledo, which has filtered water from
the Maumee River. The rates are less than those of Cleveland,
which now has a partly filtered water with part treatment of the
sewage. In the other cities listed the water is only given a chlorine
treatment, with the exception of Detroit, where the filters went into
1664 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
service within the last 12 months. Taken all in all the typhoid-fever
statistics offer no inducement to Chicago to adopt the methods used
by any of the other cities in the broad sense. Such statistics cer-
tainly are a very strong argument for the correctness of the principle
of keeping the sewage out of the drinking water.
. It is evident in studying typhoid fever death rates from 1870 to
date that a remarkable decrease has been caused by improvements
in municipal sanitation. This improvement began with the estab-
lishment of sewerage systems and has continued with the introduc-
tion of purified water supplies. Some weight must also be given
to the other angles of attack upon disease, namely, in the pasteuriza-
tion of milk, the elimination of privies, the control of flies, the more
careful and accurate following up of reported cases of typhoid, the
general endeavor for higher standards in restaurants and public
eating places, and a better knowledge of the control of carriers.
Use of typhoid inoculation on a large scale has also been helpful. If
it were not for certain smaller cities with polluted water which tend
to keep alive reservoirs of typhoid, it is conceivable that before
many years typhoid may be still further reduced. The net result,
however, of comparing reductions in typhoid fever death rate in
Chicago by five-year periods with the other Lake cities is very en-
couraging and indicates that Chicago not only held its own but was
able to better the reductions made in any of the large cities sur-
rounding the Great Lakes district (Table 8).
Doctor Evans has analyzed the typhoid situation so thoroughly
that I will not go into it again. I will, however, point out that the
cost of water filtration, according to estimates made by us, would
necessitate a very considerable expenditure in at least four locations
along the lake front; namely, between 1930 and 1945 the amount
of about $73,500,000, with an annual cost of $8,500,000 in 1945. That
means a cost of construction in 1945 of $18.75 per capita and an
annual cost of $2.16. Those are considerable expenditures, which
some believe we should enter upon immediately. We do not feel
that it is necessary at the present time, and certainly not for many
years to come, with a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet-seconds.
Now, I will come to the question of answering what some of the
men here have been asked: What are other cities doing?
Some two years ago I made a study of the different cities in the
United States for a committee, of which I was chairman, in the
American Public Health Association, and I found that of the 68
cities in the United States with a population of 100,000 and over in
1920, 51 cities disposed of their sewage by dilution alone, and that
only 17 of those cities had provided any form of treatment what-
soever by 1924. Of those 17 cities only 6 had gone to the extent of
treatment which is now planned for Chicago in the present program
outlined by the sanitary district. -
Compared with the large cities of the world, the program out-
lined by us is the boldest and most complete ever contemplated,
and in the extent of treatment planned and the degree, is without
precedent.
Mr. BARRETT. May I ask, Mr. Pearse, if you have any list of cities
tabulated for the record?
Mr. PEARSE. I only have a rough tabulation.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1665
Mr. BARRETT. I think we should have that introduced in the record
at this point.
Mr. STRONG. I think it would be a very good thing to do.
Mr. PEARSE. Where dilution is not available or where the amount
available is not sufficient, various supplementary methods adopted
have run all the way from screens to remove the coarse floating
material to sedimentation tanks which will remove all the Settling
solids which might form deposits in the stream and form banks
of sludge. Such screening devices have been installed in parts of
New York, in Los Angeles, Miami, and other places where ample
dilution exists and only coarse material needs to be removed.
In other cities, like Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse, N. Y., Phil-
adelphia, and Cleveland, settling tanks have been installed, in part
or in whole, of various types. Where more treatment is demanded
than can be secured by the removal of floating or suspended solids,
biological methods, so-called, have been resorted to, either sprinkling
filters or activated sludge.
Tanks and sprinkling filters have been installed by Baltimore,
Fitchburg, Schenectady, Akron, and Columbus under varying con-
ditions, and activated sludge by Houston and parts of the sanitary
district.
None of the plants built to-day employing the degree of treatment
that we have, contemplate for the activated sludge a population of
800,000 or more. In fact, the largest plant yet built is for 600,000
people, and that is under construction.
Mr. HULL. Where is that 2
Mr. PEARSE. At Milwaukee.
Now, I tried to get some figures in the United States in addition,
and as far as we can tell in 1920 there were 12,000,000 people out
of the total population of 105,000,000 people—that is a little less
than 12 per cent—that had sewage treatment works of any kind
whatsoever. And inasmuch as the population treated increased
3,926,000 since 1910, there appears to be no eager rush to abandon
dilution where it is available. That is, all the coast cities and those
on large rivers have stuck to the dilution method.
I have further found that of the 219 cities having a population
of over 10,000 and less than 100,000, 193 used the dilution method
and had no treatment at all, and 51 used the dilution method out
of 68 cities having a population over 100,000.
I will not burden you by giving the catalogue here of the cities
on the various large rivers. It is almost a roll call of the United
States along the Mississippi River and the Ohio River, along the
Seacoast from Washington to New Orleans, and from San Diego
up to Portland, Oreg., and Seattle and Alaska—all the way through.
And even some of the cities on small inland streams are doing the
same, thing. And we find in Canada, Montreal and Quebec using
the St. Lawrence River, and Ottawa using the Ottawa River, and
Winnipeg. Victoria, and Halifax-in fact, all the large and up-
to-date cities. *
Mr. STRONG. What does Toronto use?
Mr. PEARSE. It has a large treatment plant with sedimentation,
and I think three small plants on small tributary streams that dis.
charge into the lake. t
91739—24—PT 2—90
1666 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Where sufficient dilution does not exist suitable treatment must
be given so the effluent will contain sufficient, oxygen to effect its
own self-purification, subject to aeration in the stream and other
local conditions. Usually such an effluent is well nitrified and
reasonably clear, thus being free from suspended matter. To pro-
duce such an effluent four methods are available: Intermittent Sand
filtration, tanks and contact beds, tanks and trickling filters, and
activated sludge. *
To produce the high degree of effluent that we require, and even
in our drainage canal with the 10,000 cubic feet per second to take
care of our future growth and industrial waste, there are only two
methods available, the use of tanks and trickling filters, and acti-
vated sludge.
Mr. HULL. Which of those two do you consider the best ?
Mr. PEARSE. It is hard to say which is the best for the reason
that the choice is largely a matter of cost.
I have found in the towns of 50,000 and up to, in many cases,
100,000, but particularly around 50,000, that they can not afford to
finance activated sludge on account of the cost. In our case on
800,000 people with the area required to put around the sprinkling
filters we find the activated sludge cheaper even with the higher
Operating cost.
The activated sludge method produces somewhat the clearer ef-
fluent and occupies less space per thousand people treated. In
either case there is a sludge problem which, on a large scale, is not
an easy situation. With tanks and filters a smaller volume of sludge
is produced which dries readily but is low grade, containing less than
2 per cent of nitrogen. Activated sludge produces a large volume
of sludge, requiring special processing, but of higher grade, con-
taining around 5 per cent of nitrogen. This has some fertilizer
value, and I am at this point, as long as you, Mr. Hull, have raised
the question, going to show the committee what it is we are producing
here, and just explain that we do not believe there is going to be a
mint of money in it, although the impression might have been gained
from some of the testimony, if I am not incorrectly informed, that
this is likely to be a source of great profit.
Now, the best price I have been able to get to date on this stuff—
and I produce a ton and a half a day—has been $15 a ton, and it is
costing at present about $40 a ton to make it, because we have got
apparatus in service that has four or five times the capacity required
for the actual work. This sludge contains 5 per cent of nitrogen
and about from 2 to 4 per cent of phosphate, and is used as nitrogen
fertilizer at some of the golf clubs around Milwaukee and Chicago.
The clubs are eager for it. We hope to increase the price somewhat.
Milwaukee expects to receive $20 per ton next year, if running.
Mr. HULL. How much do you get a ton for it?
Mr. PEARSE. The most we have been offered is $15. I sold it last
winter at $9 a ton to Armour and Swift.
$ Mr. HULL. That is a pretty good price. We sell peat at $5.50 and
6 a ton.
Mr. PEARSE. Here is the point, Congressman: All we hope to do
by that process is to pay for getting this sludge out of the water.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1667
As it comes out of our settling tanks it contains from 98 to 99 per
cent water and we have to filter press it down to 80 per cent water,
which means taking out over 45 pounds of water for every pound
of solid.
Mr. HULL. Did you ever try a drying plant?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes; this is heat dried. This sludge has been put
through a heat dryer, but you have to reduce the water to 80 per cent
before you can put the material in the heat dryer.
All we hope to do by that process is to cover the cost of prepara-
tion for the market. It does, however, offer a possibility of getting
the sludge off our hands, because there is only a limited market for
sludge, which contains 2% per cent of nitrogen. Rochester, for in-
stance, has gotten rid of their sludge to the orchards around
Rochester within a 3 or 4 mile radius, but we have not the orchards
around our way and it will be slow work getting the truck farmers
educated up to taking it. -
Mr. HULL. How does it work on truck farms ?
Mr. PEARSE. Very nicely. We raised corn and beans last year, and
sugar beets, and we are going at it very scientifically to ascertain
its value. We believe it will hold its own with nitrogen in fertilizer.
It has done very well in growing gladiolas, and in other uses, par-
ticularly on golf greens. It has produced the best grass in the Mil-
waukee district, I am told; better than any fertilizer yet tried under
scientific observation.
Mr. SEGER. What do the packers pay?
Mr. PEARSE. They have offered us about $9 a ton.
Mr. HULL. That can be used as a filler or a dryer. When they
use the fertilizer they have to have a certain amount of dryer to put
in so that when it runs through the drills it will let it go through.
Mr. PEARSE. The packers make a lot of fertilizer. That is largely
the use—as a filler. In normal times it could be shipped south to
the cotton industry, but with the present freight rates we can not
find any way to get it down South.
Mr. HULL. You have to have at least 4 per cent ammonia for use
down there. -
Mr. PEARSE. This runs 5 per cent nitrogen or 6 per cent ammonia.
Mr. PEAVEY. What is the chemical analysis of this compared with
the fertilizer of Swift and Armour?
Mr. PEARSE. I can not tell you offhand. It is very much richer
than sheep manure, but I do not carry those figures in my head. I
am not enough of a farmer to be posted on that.
Mr. PEAVEY: What I was getting at, is the compound you have
given here higher in nitrogen than the normal commercial fertilizer
as sold by Swift and Armour, which contains 2 per cent of nitrogen,
8 per cent of phosphate, and 10 per cent of potash? Those are the
three principal ingredients.
Mr. PEARSE. Yes.
Mr. PEAVEY. Now, for fertilizer over in the State of Wisconsin we
pay some $26 to $38 a ton.
Mr. PEARSE. We would have to add potash to this and also more
phosphate to make it the equivalent of that, because this is a nitrogen
ºr with 6 per cent ammonia and not over 4 per cent of phos-
phate.
1668 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. PEAVEY. And potash is the most expensive part.
Mr. PEARSE. I think the potash is.
Mr. HULL. And ammonia is an expensive part.
Mr. PEARSE. Yes; if you want additional ammonia.
Mr. HULL. Ammonia is worth on the basis of $4 a unit.
Mr. PEARSE. This would figure at $15 a ton, I think; a little less
than $3 a unit for the ammonia in there. But I speak of it here be-
cause I do not see at present, unless we go into the fertilizer business,
and it is a gamble under present conditions—I do not see any outlet
or hope of recovering much more than the cost of processing. In
good years we might make more and in some years we might lose some-
thing. But it does offer an outlet for getting rid of an accumulation
of material that is very troublesome, and where cities can now dump
it in liquid form without treatment; but we do not feel like dumping
it into Lake Michigan, because the boats go right by the intakes. We
would hate to carry out the tonnage we will produce in a year.
There is too much risk of pollution of the intakes.
I thought it might interest you to just mention briefly the cities in
the United States which have been using a high degree of sewage
treatment; that is, a supplementary method on a large scale to dilu-
tion. There are only six at present in commission: Houston, Tex.,
with activated sludge. Columbus, Ohio, with tanks and trickling
filters; and this plant is only run about six months in the year be-
cause of lack of funds. Baltimore, Md., with tanks and trickling
filters. Akron, Ohio, with tanks and trickling filters, the plant at
present being entirely rebuilt on a new site. Mr. Eddy is its engi-
neer, from whose summary of sewage treatment I read you a quota-
tion this afternoon. Atlanta, Ga., has tanks and trickling filters.
Reading, Pa., has tanks and trickling filters with a plant that is very
inadequate for the present population. *.
Under construction and not yet in operation are five plants: Mil-
waukee with activated sludge; Indianapolis, activated sludge; Chi-
cago, north side, activated sludge; Worcester, Mass., tanks and trick-
ling filters; and Fort Worth, Tex, tanks and trickling filters.
- Ånd, by the way, gentlemen, Fort Worth has a packers’ problem
and, as far as I can learn, has not yet induced the packers to do any-
thing in handling their situation. We are having the same trouble
in securing actual cooperation in cleaning up.
I will give the details of these different plants to show what those
cities that are remote from the Great Lakes are doing.
Houston is served by two plants, built and put in operation in
1917 and 1918. In both compressed air is used to aerate and mix
the sludge and sewage. The effluent is discharged into a bayou and
thence through the Ship Canal to Galveston Bay. The sludge is
lagooned, when not used for experimental work in dewatering.
The Houston plants were the first large installations, and are still
the largest in operation (138,276 population in 1920).
Columbus is served by one plant, built and put in operation in
1908. Since that time the tanks have been remodeled. The plant
is now greatly overloaded. Enlargements have not been made to
keep up with the growth of population. Running short of funds,
the plant is only operated during a few months of the year, to pre-
vent a nuisance in the Scioto River, which, in the summer, would
be dry were it not to receive the sewage flow.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1669
Baltimore is served by one plant built and put in operation on
October 30, 1911. The plant is the largest trickling filter plant in
the United States, serving a population of 733,826 in 1920. The
sludge is used by farmers. The degree of treatment installed was
to prevent damage to the oyster beds.
Akron is served by one plant, which was put in operation in
1914. This plant is now greatly overloaded. Plans are being drawn.
for new treatment works.
Atlanta is served by three plants, put in operation in 1912, 1913,
and 1914. The plants in general are overloaded, as Atlanta has
grown very fast. -
Of the plants under construction, the north side sewage treatment
works of the Sanitary District of Chicago is the largest in the
United States. At Milwaukee construction began in 1918 and will
probably not be finished this year. Ten years were spent in pre-
liminary experiments. At Indianapolis construction began in 1919
and should be finished this year.
At Worcester, chemical precipitation has been in use since June
25, 1890. Owing to the cost of the old method and the need of a
better effluent, after 24 years of experiment, with the approval of the
Massachusetts State Board of Health, work commenced on Imhoff
tanks and sprinkling filters in 1922, which may be completed within
a year.
Of the 48 cities in the United States around the Great Lakes with
a population over 10,000, few have done more than utilize the
standard method of dilution. The Chicago Sanitary District has
four plants in operation at the present time, from 1,000 up to 115,000
people in size, discharging into the canal.
Milwaukee has an activated sludge plant under construction.
Cleveland has two plants, one Imhoff tank, the other simply coarse
Screen and grit chamber, a very elementary form of treatment, as
I have shown you.
Rochester has three plants, one an Imhoff tank, another tank, a
small one, and a small tank and sprinkling filter on about 10,000
of the total population.
The North Shore Sanitary District, between the Chicago district
and the State line, has three tank plants discharging into the lake.
The Government has done somewhat better at the Great Lakes
ºing Station and has a tank, and at Fort Sheridan a tank and
ilter.
Escanaba has an activated sludge plant operating, I am told, some-
what indifferently. -
Muskegon Heights has a tank and sand filter; Lakewood has a
tank, Sandusky a tank, Oswego a tank, and Lackawanna a tank and
contact beds.
So that of all these 48 cities around the Lakes there are three with
Some activated sludge, one with tank and sprinkling filter, and one
tank and contact beds, and the rest of them are merely tank plants.
Mr. HULL. What do you mean by tank plants?
Mr. PEARSE. I mean merely a tank, either one or two stories. In
Some cases, as nearly as we can tell, it is simply an old-fashioned tank.
Our investigations have led us to believe from the experience in
1670 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Illinois and along the Wisconsin shore that they are rather indiffer-
ently operated. *
These are a very small proportion of the cities on the Great Lakes,
and indicate a widespread use of dilution and the absence of supple-
mentary treatment, except in some localities where it is doubtless
needed to protect bathing beaches and water supplies.
When a sanitary district is formed like the Chicago district or the
i. º Shore district better operation can be secured than where iso-
ated.
So that of the population of the towns around the Great Lakes
Basin about 8,409,000 have waterworks in the United States and
Canada.
Of the population in the United States, omitting Milwaukee and
the sanitary district, only 1,237,000 have any kind of sewage treat-
ment. Making adjustment for the partial treatment in Cleveland,
it means that less than 10 per cent of the population of the United
States around the shores of the Great Lakes have tank treatment,
with in one or two cases something a little better.
Mr. SEGER. Mr. Pearse, are the sanitary engineers making a study
of sewage disposal with a view to improving the present methods?
Mr. PEARSE. I would say every engineer in the country in this line
of work is endeavoring to improve methods, and we have submitted
to us often from week to week various schemes, and I have two or
three across my desk usually every month of one kind or another that
people would like us to try, and we are constantly trying. We are
at present trying two or three schemes for cutting the cost of acti-
wated sludge. I imagine as long as there is sewage treatment there
will always be attempts to cut the cost and improve the method.
and make the operation more useful. That has been the history for
the last 30 or 40 years since sewage treatment was put on a scientific
basis. I imagine it will be the history for a great many years to
COIOle.
Now, I am just going to touch briefly on what the principal lake
cities have done, because we are anxious that your committee should
have a correct perspective of the situation at Milwaukee, Detroit,
Cleveland, and Buffalo, inasmuch as those cities seem to believe that
we ought to do what they are doing, and in some cases claim that
they have done much better than we have done in point of time and
the like.
Now, take Milwaukee. In 1874 the original waterworks for tak-
ing water from Lake Michigan were completed. The sewage was
discharged into the Milwaukee River and its tributaries, and created
such a nuisance that flushing into the lake was resorted to by works
built on the Milwaukee River in 1888. In other words, gentlemen,
in order to stop the nuisance on the river they originated the idea of
flushing the pollution into the drinking water continuously. That
seems rather crude to-day from the health standpoint.
In 1889 a report was made recommending that the intake be located
in deep water off North Point and the sewage dispersed into the lake
at the southeast end of the city. While the intake was built the
sewage was allowed to run into the lake and additional flushing
works were built in 1907, which tended to increase the continuity of
pollution. Naturally typhoid fever was prevalent. *
3.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1671
In 1911—and that is the same time that Mr. Wisner made his
report to Chicago—a report was made by Alvord, Eddy, and Whip-
ple—and that is the Mr. Eddy I have referred to before, and Mr.
Whipple is one of my former employers—in which the construction
of a water-filtration plant was recommended for the protection of
the water supply, and a comprehensive system of intercepting sewers
was advised, with the diversion and treatment of the sewage at a
point to the south of the city.
Two years later an enabling act was passed establishing the pres-
ent Sewerage commission, which took office and began experiments
in 1914. In the meantime, chlorination of the water supply had
begun in 1910. . The experiments, however, have continued up to
date, over a period of nearly 10 years, in order to endeavor to elimi-
nate all risk from the program. Now, that is 10 years, with a popu-
lation not yet 600,000.
The Milwaukee Sewage-treatment plant may go into service next
year. The estimated cost of the sewage-treatment works, with inter-
cepting sewers and appurtenances, is about $12,000,000. The present
population of Milwaukee is about 500,000. ..a
To carry out the program of Sewage treatment of a city of around
500,000 people a period of over 10 years has been required. In the
meantime the city has made experiments upon the filtration of the
water and has been advised by, I believe, Mr. J. W. Ellms, of Cleve-
land, that a filtration plant should be built. Considerable opposi-
tion has arisen to this additional expenditure, so that when the sani-
tation program of Milwaukee will be completed is a matter of con-
jecture.
In the program of sewage treatment the intercepting sewers built
have an ultimate capacity not exceeding 50 per cent in excess of the
dry-weather flow. In 1930 about two and one-half times the dry
weather can be carried. This means that in almost every storm
sewage will be discharged into the rivers from overflows and by the
Milwaukee River conveyed directly into the lake. That is similar
to the condition we have called attention to in our case. What the
effect will be on the Milwaukee water supply of these shots of pollu-
tion is open to conjecture and must be carefully watched.
In Detroit, unlike Milwaukee and Cleveland, the city is located
upon a running stream with a well-defined current. The conditions
were investigated by the International Joint Commission in 1914
and remedies suggested in a report of 1916. In the interval Detroit
has constructed a water-filtration works which has just gone into
service, but with the increase in population even now Detroit is con-
sidering additional sources of water supply. While studies have
been made upon intercepting sewers, very little has been done, and
nothing has been done on treatment, so that the sewage of Detroit
enters the Detroit River and flows along, polluting the water supply
of the towns below.
At Cleveland the water supply and sewage-treatment problem of
the city has been one of interest to engineers, because it is one of the
large and prominent cities in the lake region which discharges its
'sewage into its drinking water. Personally, I have been greatly
interested in its development, because for two months in 1904. I. rep-
resented Mr. George C. Whipple, now of the firm of Hazen, Whipple
& Fuller, in making a complete sanitary survey of the water-supply
1672 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
conditions of Cleveland, which led to a report in 1905. I have kept
in touch with the work there by personal visits from time to time and
have followed it with a good deal of interest, because Cleveland
hired one of our chemists to operate its sewage-testing station, and
we have always had a friendly feeling for what was being done by
its sanitary engineers.
Cleveland was very deliberate in its procedure, as most cities of its
size are, as the following record will show. It first pumped water
into its mains in 1856, about five years after Chicago had established
its own waterworks. With the increasing pollution of the lake a
report was made in 1895 by Mr. Hering, associated with Messrs.
Benzenburg and Fitzgerald, in which the construction of intercepting
sewers was recommended to carry the sewage as far east as possible.
I brought in a map, gentlemen, that I thought might show a little
more clearly what Cleveland was doing. It has the essential dimen-
sions marked upon it. (Fig. 7.)
In 1896 work was begun upon the intercepting sewers along the
lake front. This work proceeded so slowly that by 1912 Mr. R. W.
Pratt reported that the intercepting sewers proposed in 1895 were
only one-half done. There are 17 years to build the intercepting
sewers along a lake front and only half done, I submit, at that.
In the meantime the water supply became more and more polluted,
and explosive typhoid epidemics began to occur. In 1905 the
Whipple report was made, which stated that filtration was not then
needed but would be in the near future. This was followed by the
Jackson report of 1909, which recommended chlorination. But in
the meantime the city had done good work in installing meters and
cutting down the per capita water consumption. In 1912 it became
evident that something must be done not only upon the completion
of the intercepting sewers and sewage treatment proposed, but also
to protect the water supply by filtration. A sewage testing station
was operated in 1913 and 1914, and the work continued until 1916
by experiments with activated sludge. This is another case where,
when the work was done, activated sludge came along and was tried
out for two years. -
In 1914 construction was also begun on the West Side water filtra-
tion works—that is, on the west side of the Cuyahoga River—which
went into service in 1918. In 1922 the easterly and westerly sewage-
treatment plants were put into service. The westerly plant is de-
signed to handle about 30 per cent of the total city. It consists of
Imhoff tanks, grit chambers, and coarse screens. The sewage is
carried out into the lake from the plant by a submerged outfall, dis-
charging about a half mile off shore in 30 feet of water.
As I understand it, the sludge problem in this plant was originally
intended to be solved by carrying the sludge out into the lake in
barges and dumping it, but apparently the city has not carried that
plan out. We did find at the time of the Whipple report that some
of the water pollution was caused by dumping of dredgings too near
the intake.
The easterly plant receives about 50 per cent of the city’s popula-
tion, and consists essentially of coarse bar gratings with 1%-inch
and three-fourth-inch clear openings, followed by grit chambers 60
feet long, with a maximum detention period of 2 minutes. In these
Imhoff tanks that I have described in general we provide a detention
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1673
period of from 1% to 3 hours. You can imagine, therefore, how
much will be settled out in 1% minutes if it takes 1% to 3 hours to
settle sewage more or less completely. The screens and grit chambers
will remove only the coarser floating material and such sand or grit
as will drop in a velocity of not less than one-half foot per second.
The discharge is through a multiple outlet into the lake about a half
mile off shore.
Now, these two plants account for about 80 per cent of the Sewage
of the city. A southerly works is planned upon the Cuyahoga River,
which is at present badly polluted; but the plans are not even started,
so far as I can learn.
Therefore, at the present time Cleveland has in service Sewage-
treatment plants for only 80 per cent of its population, and of these
Fº the larger one, handling 50 per cent of the population, is
from the standpoint of treatment which Chicago faces, giving
practically no treatment at all, in that it removes only a very small
percentage of the material in the sewage.
I do not mention this to criticize what Cleveland is doing for their
own situation, but to point out how inadequate it is to transfer
bodily the conditions of Cleveland to our own place and to Say
that if we did what they are doing our conditions would be satisfied
and the health of our community preserved.
Mr. HULL. According to your idea, the Cleveland plan will never
be adequate? - -
Mr. PEARSE. I am inclined to think they will encounter difficulty
in the future as the population grows, and will have to watch the
conditions that develop in the future.
Work is also in progress at the present time upon the construc-
tion of a water filtration plant for the east side of the city. Not
all of this work is yet under contract, but it is hoped to complete
the project in about two years. From the general survey of the
situation, roughly speaking, it would appear that instead of having
carried out a complete system at the present time, Cleveland had
only accomplished half of what is proposed to be done, and instead
of having done this in the short period of four or five years, it has
taken 29 years, and is likely to take a few more.
I just mention that to show you how erroneous a snapshot im-
pression may be of the time required to carry on work.
Mr. Wisner and I discussed at the time the 1911 report was made
the carrying of our sludge into the lake as Cleveland had proposed
to do on the westerly plant and did not believe it safe or desirable.
With the population we have of over 3,000,000 there is too much
risk in going by the intakes, as we would have to do because the
vessels pass right by our intakes at the mouth of the river, even
though 2 miles off shore and in some cases 4 miles. With the kind
of men operating such scows and tugs, even with comparatively clean
dumping, the city has to maintain a constant watch, and if it wants
the work properly carried out an inspector is required on each
scow to see that the dump goes where designated. We did not feel
it was a safe method to pursue. It is all right for London to run
sludge out into the North Sea where there is nothing to be disturbed
and no drinking water to pollute, but it is an entirely different prob-
lem on the Great Lakes.
1674 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Buffalo is situated at the entrance of the Niagara River. It takes
its water from a point off the mouth of the Black Rock Harbor and
United States harbors, so that pollution from ships as well as from
Smokes Creek may reach the intake. The report of the consult-
ing sanitary engineer of the International Joint Commission in
March, 1916, outlined an intercepting sewer program with sewage
treatment to relieve the pollution caused by Buffalo in the Niagara
River, but so far as we can ascertain nothing has been done about
sewage treatment. Recently a bond issue of $4,000,000 was secured
and a water filtration plant has been put under contract.
Mr. HULL. Let me ask you a question. Is there any city in the
United States that depends wholly upon treatment plants?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes. Baltimore is treating all its sewage. It is the
only large city that has a separate system of sewers. The type
of treatment was put in to protect the oyster beds, and, in fact,
was ordered for that purpose by an act of the legislature. A verg
high degree of treatment was fixed by legislative action. The city
has been operating a plant for a number of years and producing a
high grade effluent to go out in the bay.
Mr. HULL. But that treatment has nothing to do with water
supply?
Mr. PEARSE. The Baltimore treatment works have nothing to do
with water supply. The water supply is taken from impounding
reservoirs and filtered by a recently constructed up-to-date plant.
General BIxBY. What is the population of Worcester, Mass..?
Mr. PEARSE. My population figures for convenience are based on
the 1920 census. The population was 179,754 in 1920.
General BIxBY. It has to depend entirely on treatment plants?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes. Strange as it may seem, only 90 to 95 per cent
of the population are actually sewered to the works, and in some of
the cities where treatment is used, like Baltimore, the report I had in
1922 was that only 73 per cent of the population reached the treat-
ment works. That is, many still use cesspools, privies, and other con-
veniences, I presume, because of the colored population. And at
Houston, for the same reason, only 70 per cent of the population is
going to the works, although night soil is dumped in.
Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Pearse, on that point, I understand your contem-
plated program for sewage disposal for Chicago contemplates ap-
proximately 20 years from the present time, about 1945; is not that
the case?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEAVEY. And is that based upon your financial possibilities,
or could that be very materially increased if the funds were avail-
able? I mean, could the number of years necessary to produce that
condition be reduced if you had funds available?
Mr. PEARSE. I based the program upon what I was told were the
available financial resources. If the funds were made available
the time might be shortened up a little, but our experience, and my
experience personally, upon this work, and my study of the work
and of other works, would lead me to believe that no one in my
position would care to say that that work could be done in much
less than 20 years. Of course, as far as I am concerned as an indi.
vidual I would say to your committee or to any citizen that we will
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1675
do the work as fast as we can. Our whole interest is to get the work
done, providing the money is given us. But I would not care to say
that you could start out and do it in 15 years, offhand. I do not
think you could unless everything was in your favor and there were
no hitches, because in this kind of work there are a great many un-
expected developments. There is right of way to obtain, easements
of lands to secure, adjustments to make with all the different
utilities. -
You See, in the construction of the intercepting sewers we go
through the busiest section of the city, just west of the new Union
Station, we have to locate every utility whose lines we cross,
not only the telegraph companies, two of them, but the telephone,
gas, and electire lights, and some of the old pneumatic tubes there;
water pipes and sewer pipes, and unknown things that we try to de-
termine in the street and put in the contract drawings, and that
takes time. We have to plan the program of carrying on the work.
Then there is the making of the organization. You might say, why
not put on more men? We have scoured the country for men capable
of doing this work. I have had a place open for a year at $5,000,
and I can not find a man who knows the work to fill it, a man who
could go to work efficiently the day he comes into the office. I could
hire a man and educate him, but it would take a year to coach him
so that he could carry the work on. We have that difficulty. It is
easy to get the draftsmen and the younger fellows, but it is not easy
to get the men to direct the squads to carry out the work.
Another difficulty in a city of our size—and we have talked this
over with Mr. Hill, who constructs the sewers, which work is done
by the Board of Local Improvements, is that if we come into the
city and spend $5,000,000 a year we are going to have trouble to get
the labor to do more work than that. We have union conditions, and
only those work on the sewers who are union labor of Chicago crafts.
There are not enough men in the unions to do any more work than
that. If the union will not let any more men in, what can we do?
Mr. NEwTon. Do you find competition between communities in
their efforts to get tanks?
Mr. PEARSE. There is some in the outlying communities, outside
the big treatment projects. We try to adjust that and do a certain
amount of work each year and not to the detriment of big projects.
We are working, for instance, now in the office upon completing the
North Side treatment works.
Mr. NEwTON. Did you have any trouble in locating the North
Side plant?
Mr. PEARSE. We had a great deal of trouble quieting Evanston,
whose boundary joined up on the east. Evanston sent deputations
down, and even had the attorney general of the State come in to
plead with us to move the plant. Our sewer approaching the plant
cost $1,000,000 a mile. Evanston said we could afford to go 5 miles
away and spend $5,000,000 simply to move the plant from their door.
We had the report of Mr. Eddy, Mr. Hatton, and Mr. Fuller, whose
names have been mentioned here, that the plant was in a reasonable
location, yet it took a year to placate those people and create a state
of mind such that their prominent citizens, like James A. Patten,
officials of the Northwestern University, and others would not enjoin
1676 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
us. I went over and talked to 40 of their prominent citizens, both
men and women, who said we were justified in spending any amount
of money to build the plant somewhere else. So we are up against
the problem of sites.
Mr. PEAVEY. Let me ask on that point, would you not find your
course made much easier if it became generally known to all the
different divisions of the city affected that some action by Congress
or decision by the Supreme Court, or something of that kind made
a different course necessary? Would not they stop some of their
opposition and some of these different moves, and would they not
lend their aid to some of the different moves necessary?
Mr. PEARSE. I think that Congress would be our best bond sales-
man, in helping to raise money to build these works, because many of
my friends do not realize that the canal is not adequate for more than
the 3,000,000 people, a load which came upon it years ago. They can
not understand until I explain to them, why we have to go into
Sewage treatment. They think we are just throwing money in the
gutter. Whatever action Congress may take would be the best pos-
sible means of selling the project to the community, and that means
to the community as a whole and does not mean selling it to the
man who must live next to the plant.
We had a somewhat similar situation in the city council at one time
when it was discussing the location of garbage works. There was so
much opposition to locating the plant in each location suggested
that finally one of the aldermen, at the end of his patience said,
“Well, gentlemen, I do not see any way out except to build a disposal
plant in each ward to take care of the garbage of that ward, because
none of the other wards are willing to have the garbage brought over
from their neighbors.”
We find much of that same feeling. And while Mr. Wisner and
I for the last 15 years have been suggesting the purchase of sites to
acquire them ahead of time, we are up against the inertia which you
meet in our American form of government. Consequently every
year it becomes more and more difficult to obtain sites.
Mr. PEAVEY. That is why I asked the question if an act of Con-
gress should make a certain definite course necessary, or if the city
had to reach a certain position of development by a certain given
time, if that time could not be shortened very materially.
Mr. PEARSE. Well, if I may answer the question, I do not believe
we can safely promise much better; that is, not better than this
20-year program. I am willing and every man in the district is
willing to do the best he can, but when you come to put the stipula-
tion in black and white and say the work must be done in a certain
time, you should allow a certain come and go.
You have seen where Cleveland has been 29 years on a program
and is not through yet, and Milwaukee has been 10 years on their
very modest program, and that is only a small portion of what we
have to do.
Mr. PEAVEY. I take it for granted Chicago people would not be
expected to take any faster natural course than either of the cities
you have cited, but what I had in mind was that if there was some
influence brought to bear on them so that they thought it was neces-
sary for them to comply with it, and that there was not any other
course open to them, it might change their attitude.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1677
Mr. PEARSE. Well, Mr. Peavey, I believe that the health aspect of
this problem from my standpoint is the paramount one, but the
matter is largely one of the economic expenditure of money. We
have only got so much money that we can raise for this purpose, and
we are going to spend all we can raise for this purpose. That is all
we can do, and we will carry out this purpose as fast as we can. It
does not hasten matters by creating conditions that can not be met.
Mr. BARRETT. You know, Congressman, we only collect about six
and a half million in taxes, and our program contemplates the ex-
penditure of $120,000,000 in the next 20 years, and we have to antici-
pate growth in our city in order to realize where the money is going
to come from to pay for it.
Mr. PEAVEY. I understand that is true in the natural course of
things, but my own experience in two cities upon the bay, which I
believe is similar, is that they took the same attitude in several differ-
ent matters relating to health regulations laid down by the State
board, and the State board came along with absolute authority and
said you do so and so and have it done by a certain date, and we got
busy and complied with those instructions.
Mr. BARRETT. You know we had to organize this district in order
to get the money to build what we have now got. We could not
have done it in Chicago.
Mr. NEWTON. Suppose you construct all these plants by 1945, all
you contemplate, and get them finished, how much water do you
think will be necessary to take care of your needs at that time?
Mr. PEARSE. Ten thousand cubic feet per second. That is what
the program is contemplated on.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you think you could put in plants that would
enable you to get along with substantially less than that?
Mr. PEARSE. I do not, because I do not see where we can raise the
money, and, on the other hand, I can not see the economic desira-
bility of asking a city like this to scrap what is still of service. We
built a machine for the disposal of sewage and put our money into
it and it would be merely throwing it away for no useful purpose.
I can not say you have not the right to tell us to throw it away,
but I do say that with the need of cutting taxes and doing every-
thing possible to save money nowadays, you are putting us in a
position quite inconsistent with the desires of Washington and
elsewhere in the country to be economical. In other words, you
would be asking us to.throw away money that we have already spent,
to serve no useful purpose except to duplicate facilities and that
merely to please critics rather than for any scientific reason that we
can find.
Mr. ADCOCK. Does not the maximum run-off of the drainage area
fix the amount we must have?
Mr. PEARSE. The maximum run-off of the drainage area fixes the
the amount we must have unless we spend the additional amounts
I have mentioned for water filtration. We can not raise the money
and neither can the city.
I will say in conclusion, as we look back at our progress since
1909, with our studies of the Illinois River, testing stations, and
various reports, I feel the sanitary district organization has made
good progress, considering the magnitude of the problem and the
many features of treatment involved, which are without precedent.
1678 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Further legal complications have developed from time to time
which had to be overcome. The period of the World War also
slowed up the work, not only the time the United States was in
action, but also in the period before. -
I have heard some laymen and an occasional engineer speak as
though the sanitary district, or its engineering department, was
overawed by the problem whenever it considers these complete
sewage treatment works for Chicago. Such is an easy statement to
make but it is not borne out by the facts. I have generally found
those engineers who are best posted and know what procedure is on
work of large magnitude are not prone to be overawed, but they
do attempt to make an intelligent estimate of the time required to
carry out the work and the difficulties that have to be met. On a
problem such as this, of sewage treatment to a degree and on a scale
unprecedented, with expenditures of over a hundred million dollars
involved, certainly consideration of all the angles is essential and
necessary to a correct solution. -
Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Pearse, I would like to ask you in what way is
your city or the sanitary district directly and legally charged with
the responsibility of solving the sewage problem of the packing
plants? Is there not some way you could be relieved of that re-
Sponsibility and place it on the industry? -
Mr. PEARSE. Mr. Congressman, we have a bill at present in the
Tederal courts, and I understand there is one to be filed in the State
courts, to enjoin the packers from depositing their sewage in the
stream with the polluting material in it. We have endeavored to
make a friendly arrangement with the packers whereby they would
pay 60 per cent and we would pay 40 per cent of the cost. That was
almost signed up when political changes in the board occurred and
a new board took hold. The whole agreement fell by the wayside
and the packers have since refused to sign the agreement that was
in type as a tentative agreement. -
There is no medium that we have found yet that can prevail upon
the packers to do the work. We must therefore go into court and
put the injunction over to find out what their rights are under the
existing laws. I am not a lawyer so I will not say what the United
States could do to them, but I have my doubts whether you can speed
up the matter very much.
We have outlined the engineering possibilities on the Packingtown
situation so thoroughly that I reported to our board recently that
there was not any use of my spending time on the engineering studies
of that problem until the board had reached an agreement on the
financial side. I still feel that until our people do work out a finan-
cial program I can put my time to better effect in other ways than by
studying that problem.
Mr. PEAVEY. The packers do admit that they have a financial re-
sponsibility in the Solving of the problem, do they?
Mr. PEARSE. They do not admit to-day that they have any re-
sponsibility whatsoever. They did admit it three years ago or more,
but as the agreement was not put into signed shape, to-day they deny
that they have any responsibility, and the lawyers inform me that
they even deny that they are polluting the stream, so the thing is in
status quo, and has to be fought out. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1679
Mr. ADCOCK. That was under negotiations about 10 years, was it
not
Mr. PEARSE. The discussion started about 1912, I think, and has
continued to date. It is over 11 years.
Mr. PEAVEY. In other words, they take the position of every good
lawyer and do not admit anything until it is proven’
Mr. PEARSE. Yes, sir.
I would like to leave with the clerk as exhibits certain documents
here that are of interest to your committee for reference, I think.
I have not attempted to read them here.
The most important, perhaps, from our standpoint show the amount
we have spent for sites (Table 10), and then certain documents which
give the history of dilution and the proceedings before the special
joint committee in the State legislature in 1887 which led to the for-
mation of our district. It illustrates what was done at that time, and
the reasons why the work was built, described in the language of
Mr. Hering and Mr. Cooley. And I will state to the committee that
these two documents are out of print so far as I know, and I have the
only copies we know of in the United States, which came to my part-
ner, Mr. Greeley, from Mr. Hering on his death. He left us his
library and we have the documents in it.
Mr. STRONG. Do you want to lend those to the committee?
Mr. PEARSE. These are copies. I had them typewritten.
Mr. ADCOCK. I think Mr. Goulder said he wanted to ask some
questions. r
Mr. PEARSE. I would be very glad to answer any questions that
Mr. Goulder wants to ask. -
Mr. GouldF.R.. I wanted to get from you, Mr. Pearse, the meaning
of some technical expressions here, such as 0.1 cc.
Mr. PEARSE. One-tenth of a ce.
Mr. GOULDER. What is a ce? -
Mr. PEARSE. Cubic centimeter. In laboratory practice it is cus-
tomary to make a test record and take a certain proportion of the
water. You take 0.1 cc or 0.01 cc. - -
Mr. Gould ER. That is one-tenth Ž
Mr. PEARSE. One-tenth of a ce.
Mr. GOULDER. B. coli ?
Mr. PEARSE. That is bacillus coli, a form of bacillus found in
the intestines of man and animals and is taken as a index of pollution.
Mr. Gould ER. It is all Greek to me.
Mr. PEARSE. We use the B. coli as a test of pollution, because
it is a form of intestinal. bacillus and can be readily traced, while
typhoid bacillus could not be readily traced in water.
Mr. GouldER. You put in this bulletin 580, that you read from ?
Mr. PEARSE. Yes, sir.
Mr. GouldFR. Here is one by the man you spoke of Eddy. That is
a published document, is it not? -
Mr. PEARSE. The one referred to is not this one; no, sir. The
one I referred to was printed in the Engineering News-Record and
was a little summary that Mr. Eddy made of the study of the art
of sewage disposal at the present time.
Mr. GouldF.R.. I think this is the same thing.
Mr. PEARSE. It is the same man, but I do not think it is the same
paper.
1680 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Gould ER. Let it be stated in the record this reprint 831 is
a reprint of an address apparently by Harrison F. Eddy. He is the
one you speak of ? º
Mr. PEARSE. He is the one I speak of; yes, sir.
Mr. ADCOCK. Mr. Chairman, we just have one other witness, and
that happens to be myself, and my idea was that perhaps I might
discuss some of the legal questions and make some statements with
reference to certain facts with which I am particularly familiar due
to being attorney for the sanitary district for about six or seven
years after 1912. However, I think that what I have to say can
just as well be written up and sent to the reporter and will serve
just as good a purpose as to state it now. There are only a few
members of the committee here, and if that would suit I think
probably it will have a little space in the record also.
Mr. NEwTON. When the next session comes and the proceeding
has to be taken up there ought to be a refreshing statement made to
the committee, and it seems to me Mr. Adcock could be very helpful
to the committee at that time, and he ought to make the statement
to the whole committee at that time. He knows those legal phases
probably better than anyone, because he has been through them.
Mr. STRONG. If there is no objection, it can be done that way.
Mr. ADCOCK. What I would say now would be very short and
only for the purpose of cleaning up our case as it stands, and only
a few questions that ought to be taken up and disposed of So that
the members would have the record. If I could have that inserted
it seems to me that would be the better way.
Mr. NEwTON. That will be satisfactory.
Mr. BARRETT. I just want to make a statement here. It may be
that as we read this record things will occur to us that need further
amplification. I understand from the statements made by Mr.
Dempsey and also by the present chairman and by various members
of the committee that there will be no objection to that. We are
going to edit those statements that have been made. Each man
will edit his own statement, the purpose being to get for this com-
mittee a simplified statement and to remove obscurities which may
be present in the more or less extemporaneous discussion of the Sub-
jects as they have been made here.
It will be our effort during the summer to put this matter in a
readable condition for you gentlmen, to make your work just as
easy as possible. It is going to be difficult in any event. If it is
satisfactory to the committee we will undertake to index and Set
forth where each subject is discussed and by whom discussed so as
to simplify matters for you.
Mr. ADCOCK. And abstract it.
Mr. BARRETT. And, of course, we will abstract the thing. But
what I had particularly in mind was that we will give you a sub-
ject index and a name index, or witness index. It would seem that
we had been a little bit careless if I did not also say that during
the weeks and months that we have been down here we, as citizens
of Chicago and the State of Illinois, feel gratified at the kind and
character of men who are elected from various States of the Nation
to the Congress of the United States. It has been called the great-
est legislative body in the world, and you men, by your patient care
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1681
and thoughtfulness, here demonstrate that it is just as true to-day
as it has ever been.
. . We appreciate more than any words that I can command the
kind and patient consideration that you have given to us. We
came here asking only to be given an opportunity to tell the truth
about Chicago, and you men have been more than patient. In fact,
you have been helpful in more ways than merely by giving us a
patient and considerate hearing. The suggestions that have come
from various members of the committee have been very helpful.
I might say that many things of value have been put into the
record because of the questions asked by the members of this com-
mittee.
It has been made evident to me and to Mr. Adcock and to Mr.
Behan and to the commissioners of our sanitary district that the
purpose of the committee is, first, of course, to take care of the
entire United States but at all times to be wholly fair to the great
city of Chicago and the State of Illinois. We have not any doubt
of your absolute and utter fairness.
It has been suggested not by one but by many members of this
committee that this problem is one that might well be worked out
by interests within the United States if each understood the other
and a common ground was reached.
Early in this hearing I stated with the full knowledge and con-
sent of the Sanitary District of Chicago, and I might say with the
consent of every person in Chicago who has given the matter any
thought, that we were ready to do everything within our power
to bring back any lowering of lake levels with which we might hon-
estly be charged. We want to do that, first, because we believed
that Illinois and Chicago should live on terms of fairness with
neighboring States. We ask nothing of Wisconsin, Michigan, In-
diana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New York that we feel
that we would not readily and gladly give to them under reversed
circumstances.
We have suggested to this committee, and before this committee
started to function we stated that we were prepared to pay in real
money every penny of the cost necessary to bring back to the Great
Lakes Basin 51/2 inches of levels with which these engineers and
navigation interests charge us with responsibility.
The testimony here, however, has developed that there is a lower-
ing due to diversions for power purposes, and a much greater lower-
ing due to lack of precipitation, and to some extent to dredging in
various channels, making a total lowering in the surface of the
Lakes at this time of about 33 inches.
We feel that it would be little short of folly to attempt to re-
store only 5% inches of levels to the Lakes. We feel that we are
doing our duty as citizens of the United States when we offer and
are ready to pay for what we are responsible for in this situation.
We believe that it would be eminently fair for the power interests
to meet us on the same common ground. We do not ask the ship-
ping interests to make any contribution. We feel that these Lakes
should not have any lowering which would unduly affect naviga-
tion, and the only thing that we ask of the navigation interests is,
that inasmuch as as they are more interested in lake levels than
1682 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
other classes of our citizenship, that they do something construc-
tive, that they make an investigation for the purpose of learning
the facts, and we are sure that when they have completed it they
will reach the conclusion that Mr. Shenehon has already reached,
that i. that by installing regulating works lake levels can be re-
Stored.
I believe then that with all interests in agreement, Congress will
quickly legislate to take care of everybody’s rights to proper levels
in the Great Lakes, and again I offer upon the part of the sanitary dis-
trict to pay immediately the money necessary to restore the 5% inches
which have been charged to us.
I make that offer now in order that an opportunity may be
afforded to everybody to begin negotiations. We are ready to talk
to anybody on this subject at any time.
Mr. GouldFR. I do not know whether we are going to separate
without closing. In response to what Mr. Barrett has said I think
it might be well to outline what seems to have come here as the
question.
The question of reductions and the effect I do not think there will
be any question about.
I will leave with the clerk statements of the gentlemen who are
down here on that subject, and there is nothing new in it at all, and
there was a letter written by ex-Secretary of War Baker to the
chamber of commerce in the line of their report. I think that
ought to be sent in. -
r. ADCOCK. When was it written, Mr. Goulder?
Mr. GouldF.R. Since their report that was presented here. You
remember the report of the Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland?
Mr. Adcock. You mean just recently?
Mr. Gould ER. Yes; they filed their report here and Baker wrote
a letter. -
Mr. ADCOCK. They filed a resolution or something.
Mr. GouldF.R. They filed a protest and a report to the board of
directors. You remember. It is in the record.
Mr. ADCOCK. I remember.
Mr. Gould ER. Now, it looks as though out of all this there is a
very serious condition, not one to be trifled with ; and no matter
how it grew upon us and how it was drawn upon the people, it is
there. And, as Mr. Shenehon said, with the oscillations and natural
causes and inevitable causes that loss is there and you have got to
suffer it.
As I said in my opening suggestions, it is not the shipowner alone;
it is everybody who cares anything about cheap navigation and the
best utilization of it. And to get rid of that and restore our Lakes
to a condition as good as they would be without a fixed factor of
permanent diversion, of taking out the water, which is the situation
to-day, and the inevitable result to-day of conditions, there are two
methods, two things to be considered. e
I am not going to argue this case and I will only be five minutes
in what I have to say, because we will have some refreshing sum-
ming up, as has been suggested by Mr. Newton, I think, when we
come together and have everything before us. & e
Now, one is to find a way of avoiding that diversion except so
far as may be really necessary for navigation purposes, and I should
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1683
ask the committee when they come to study the record to have in
mind the testimony of Mr. Pearse on the subject of treatment of
sewage without dilution, and in addition to that keep in our minds
two facts, one, that Chicago has evidently given a great deal of
attention to this and as a result of the experience of the world they
are to have expended, or have undertaken to further expend, some-
º: ºver $100,000,000, I think; a very large sum; over $100,000,000,
think.
As those two things are put together I view them in my mind as
very conclusive evidence that that method is possible in and of
itself in the dipsosal of the sewage. To that may be added the
proposition of the gentleman representing the Sanitary District of
Chicago that they will by such means have disposal of 4,000,000
population by 1945. That takes in the financial and physical and
all the other features. They think they will be able to do that. I
do not suppose anybody would necessarily hold them to that as a
bargain, or anything of that kind, but they evidently expect that
will be done.
And also it appears from Mr. Pearse's testimony—he takes to my
mind a very much more hopeful view than Mr. Sackett—that a
way will be found to care for those trade wastes from the stock-
yards which are extremely difficult and obnoxious things in their
present state. Now, if those trade wastes are eliminated and there
is provision for 4,000,000 people that would be perhaps two-thirds,
very roughly speaking, of the expected population of 6,000,000,
speaking now of population and equivalents in stockyards, which
very likely will be limited.
So I will ask the committee when you are studying the record
over preparatory to our presenting these matters in more formal
and a fuller manner to think of that.
Now, as to the question of regulation, it goes without saying that
if regulation can certainly accomplish certain things, that is de-
sirable. There is no argument about that. There is no argument
about it. But, as you study and think that over, we might have in
mind what I think Mr. Shenehon in his very unfortunate contro-
versy did not appreciate, that engineers are not universally in
accord.
I recall various engineers. There is Richmond, whose report
seems to be adopted and accepted by Warren, as he included it in
his own report, and there is General Bixby, thoroughly qualified,
who, while not disputing the possibility of the probability or even,
if you please, the practical assurance in other minds, that some
time there may be regulation and it may take care of this thing,
yet it is problematical and, as Mr. Shenehon said, there is no
precedent.
This I am speaking of now has never accomplished, now has it
ever been tried. I mean now the regulation of the whole thing,
and involved in that the giving of fixed withdrawals, etc., for any
purpose.
Mr. BARRETT. Of course, we have no other Great Lakes basin in
the world.
Mr. GoLLDER. That is true.
1684 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Mr. BARRETT. Consequently there can not be any thing else.
Mr. GOULDER. I am not speaking in a critical mood and not dis-
puting any one and have no intention to. I am simply calling at-
tention to certain things that I think you, Judge, and I, and the
committee, and anyone who has any responsibility however small
in this matter, should have in mind and think about in connection
with this testimony and that that goes in our reports, and all that
Sort of thing, some idea of starting at the lower end and testing
out and working along. *
Now included in that Mr. Shenehon stated in answer to my ques-
tion that there is involved always the question of cross currents as
affected in all the variety of channels and formations, and every-
thing of the kind in this system of lakes and rivers. There goes
with that some consideration of the handling of ships, etc., which I
sought to call attention to in connection with the Detroit River
Bridge, keeping things out, not obstructing navigation, and watch-
ing out for things of that kind which are very serious. And we
have not anything in the nature of regulating works designed to be
or capable of being used except those that have been put up at the
“Soo,” which up to date have simply served the purpose of a pier
or a dam, and there has been no occasion or opportunity to use
them and test them—test the subject of regulation, because only
one of these gates has ever been lifted, and that was for the minor
purpose of getting water down there at the “Soo' in connection
with whitefish, which are very important down there. It was a
minor thing. It was not an attempt to regulate.
Mr. BARRETT. May I interrupt?
Mr. GOULDER. Yes.
Mr. BARRETT. I understood there was a suggestion that that might
be the fact, but there is nothing in the record to indicate they have
never been used except
Mr. GouldF.R.. I beg pardon.
Mr. BARRETT. Who said that?
Mr. GOULDER. Mr. Shenehon.
Mr. BARRETT. No: he did not.
Mr. Gould ER. What did he say?
Mr. ADCOCK. He said he did not know.
. Mr. GOULDER. The record will show.
Mr. HULL. That was what wou said, but he did not say so. I was
very close to you on that. You said that, but he did not say so.
He did not even admit it.
Mr. Gould ER. You will find the record on that.
Mr. ADCOcK. All right.
Mr. GouldER. I am convinced.
Mr. ADCOCK. I am satisfied you are convinced, and the record will
show.
Mr. NEwToN. I asked him the question about the extra burden for
electricity at the Soo, and he said what the lowering would have been,
and he said but for the compensating works the lakes would have
been lowered some 35 inches, whereas as a matter of fact they have
been raised.
Mr. GouldER. I am not speaking of that, Mr. Newton. What I
am speaking of it is there to operate as a dam and the water has
not come up so high that they would employ the regulating feature.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1685
Mr. NEWTON. In other words, they are still raising the water and
when they get it to the level they will raise the gates and let it out?
Mr. ADCOCK. Yes.
Mr. GOULDER. I am not disputing anything on this occasion, that
it will have the effect of raising, but there are other causes operating,
and as a matter of fact my understanding is that Lake Superior
is lower not, of course, by reason of the dam of anything of that
kind, but from these other causes.
Mr. NEWTON. Will not that be true on each of the Lakes while
they are raising the level? While they are raising the compensat-
; wºrks they will have to let water out until the raising is com-
leted . *
r Mr. GOULDER. Mr. Newton, I wish you would excuse me from an-
Swering that, because I do not want to take on engineering questions.
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word before we adjourn?
Mr. STRONG. Yes; Congressman Peavey wants to say something.
Mr. PEAVEY. If Mr. Goulder has finished I would just like to ask
Judge Barrett one question. Representing a district on Lake Supe-
rior that has five harbors and which takes a very great interest in
this question before the committee, I would like some information
upon this point. Before any talk or negotiations leading to a com-
promise the suggestion of settlement of this question, either for
myself or as a member of the committee, or the committee's recom-
mendation to Congress is made, etc., I would like to know what the
position of the sanitary district is in this particular. It does not
seem to me quite reasonable that the sanitary district should ask or
expect that I or the other members of the committee in considering
this question could accept or should accept for those we represent
a theory only—and I understand it is that up to this point—of any
settlement of a great practical question that is even national in its
Scope—now I am trying to make my question as short as possible.
Mr. BARRETT. I understand you perfectly.
Mr. PEAVEY. So I am putting to you directly this question as to
why you have not in the past, or why you are not directing yourself
at this time, to some manner of satisfying these interests that Mr.
Goulder represents and satisfying the people I represent and the
others on the Great Lakes in some practical demonstration of the
practicability of our regulating works as to solving the problem
which you claim they will solve?
Mr. BARRETT. Do you want me to answer the question?
Mr. PEAvEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BARRETT. You are on Superior, are you not?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes sir.
Mr. BARRETT. You gentlemen on Superior have demonstrated the
feasibility and practicability of regulating works. If you did not
have the regulating works at the Soo the testimony here in this
record—and it is undisputed—is that there would be a lowering of
30 inches in Superior, and you have held it up with your regulating
works on the Soo.
The testimony further is that when they closed the Gut Dam at
Gallops Rapids in the St. Lawrence they raised Ontario 6 inches.
The testimony further is that General Taylor and the board which
1686 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
reviewed the Warren report recommended regulating works to re-
store lake levels. *
The testimony further is that Warren himself has suggested the
building of weirs or regulating works in Erie for the purpose of
holding up the level of Erie in order that 80,000 second-feet of
water may be taken for power purposes by the American and
Canadian power plants. He suggested, however, that there be
given to the Canadians only 4,000 of the additional 24,000 cubic
fººt and 20,000 to the Americans in order to equalize the
thing. &
So the testimony shows, Congressman, that there is a wealth of
absolutely good engineering data which will demonstrate and does
demonstrate the feasibility and practicability of doing the very
thing we are talking about. For instance, there is testimony here
from engineers that have satisfied me of their ability—I do not
know what the committee thinks about them—they will demonstrate
that later—you unfortunately were absent, probably due to the fact
that you had a great many things to do in the House, but the state-
ment was made that by raising Erie 15 inches we would raise Huron
and Michigan 5 inches each by the construction of regulating or
compensation works in Erie. ,
You people have demonstrated the very thing that we need dem-
onstration of. If you took out your regulating works now you
would lower your lake 30 inches. "
Now, this much more. This is not the first time we have tried to
dispose of this matter, and it came to us from the War Department.
They suggested discussion and disposition of it by friendly conver-
sation. We came down here a long time ago and we offered a million
dollars to the Government, and it was real money; Congressman,
and that money will be available at any time you are ready to start.
The fact of the matter is our board takes this position: We do not
ask you to gamble. We are so convinced from reputable and reliable
engineers of the feasibility and practicability of this thing that we
are willing to put them up now to bring back our 5% inches and
take the chance with our own money.
Mr. STRONG. Yes; Mr. Peavey, everything the Judge says is in
the record and it is only turning over old straw.
Mr. PEAVEY. I do not want to do that.
Mr. HULL. I want to make a statement with reference to my
situation on the Illinois River that conflicts somewhat with what
Mr. Goulder has stated in this respect.
We are confronted on the Illinois River, remember, with two
things. First, we are after this navigation, but, Second, we are con-
fronted with the sewage proposition out of Chicago going down the
river, and it is going to be necessary, according to our theory, to
maintain this diversion for the 20 or 25 years, at least until these
treatment plants can be built, and I want to leave that with the
committee, because I want my bill that is here to stand in statu
quo until next December, when it may be modified or changed to suit
all the conditions.
As far as I am concerned as a member of this committee, a Mem-
ber of Congress, and the proponent of the bill, I am willing to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1687
change the bill to fit the conditions, and I have already said to Mr.
Goulder that if he will write what he wants in the bill it will have
the same consideration as others will have.
In conclusion, I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is the greatest
question that is going to be before Congress in a good many years,
and I am interested because I am interested in the city of Peoria,
and I am going to extend an invitation to the members of this com-
mittee to visit Chicago and the Illinois River down, we will say, to
St. Louis or Memphis, or to go through the Great Lakes and then
down the river and on down to St. Louis or below, if necessary, some-
time the latter part of August or September; and I hope before we
adjourn we will have enough of our members here so I can get an
expression on it. I am doing this of my own motion, and the reason
is that I am so interested in the situation that I think it is necessary
that the committee should see all these different points in order that
they may act intelligently, and I extend that invitation to all.
STATEMENT OF MR. W. J. STEWART, OF OTTAWA, CANADA
Mr. STEwART. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, be-
fore you formally adjourn this hearing I would like to express, on
behalf of the Government of Canada, which sent me down here, and
for myself, the deepest gratitude for the courtesies extended to us
in allowing us to appear at these hearings and to listen to a lot of
very valuable and interesting talk.
Canada, of course, is a small country as compared to the United
States, but we have interests that are very vital to us. Our marine
interests on the Great Lakes are small as compared to those of the
|United States; but, in proportion to the size of the country, they
are very important, and in the carrying trade taking out the prod-
ucts of the Northwest the route is very valuable.
In the upper part of the Lakes the United States has spent väst
sums of money in deepening the channels and in building the locks
at Soo Sainte Marie. For that reason Canada has not been called
upon to spend much money in those localities, except the one lock at
the Soo, which has been of very great importance to American ship-
ping at various times, particularly during the construction of the
third and fourth locks when there was only the one lock to go
through and there was a little more water on the Canadian side.
Below Lake Erie you have, as you all know, the Welland Canal,
which connects and enables us to carry our commerce on down to
Lake Ontario. On the St. Lawrence we have five or six important
canals leading down to tidewater at Montreal. These canals are all
affected to some extent by diminution of the water on the sills and
require attention.
£elow Montreal we have deepened the river from 9 feet to 30 feet
now, enabling boats drawing 27 and 28 feet—Ocean-going boats—to
come to Montreal and load to capacity. We have difficulty, in the
fall of the year with low water, particularly at the present time. .
We admit that Chicago is responsible for some of this, but she is
not responsible for the whole of it., Nature has taken a hand, in it
and cut off precipitation, so that all the waters connected with the
Great Lakes are suffering from low water at the present time.
Just a few moments ago we had a little dispute over the works at
Soo Sainte Marie. I had a great deal to do with the placing of
1688 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
those works there and took an active part in the hearings before
the International Joint Commission when they were decided upon,
and upon the order being passed by the commission, I was ap-
pointed a member of the board of control to represent Canada. At
§: Pºnt time Colonel Markham, of Detroit, represents the United
8,00S.
The works were completed some three or four years ago, and
owing to low water the gates were lowered, and they have not been
moved since, except in the spring of the year to let out some ice.
There is one gate that it has been said was left open to supply water
to Some fish. I have my own idea there was something else besides
fish. But the dam has never been operated as a controlling work.
The board has framed certain rules for its guidance as the water
rises or falls. We have not yet had to apply those rules. That is no
fault of anyone except the fact that the water is not there. Lake
Superior has fallen.
The commission put a limit on the low water and on the high water,
between which limits the board is supposed to operate to keep the
level. We have not been able to do that, I think, principally because
the supply of Lake Superior has lately been lower than it had been
up to the time the gates were raised, and in all the complications
that took place before that period we had a minimum quantity of
water, which has been lessened since.
That is all I have to say at the present time. Thank you for your
courtesy.
Mr. STRONG. Mr. Stewart, I want to assure you on behalf of the
committee that we have been glad that you were with us during these
hearings, and we want to assure you and our other Canadian friends
that we will always be glad to have you with us when we are holding
hearings on matters in which we are mutually interested. You will
º, find the latchstring hanging out, so make yourself at home
WIt Il UIS. - -
Gentlemen of the committee, I want to ask the members of the
committee if they know of any commitments made by Chairman
Dempsey that would prevent an adjournment of these hearings until
Congress meets in December? -
Mr. HULL. When Mr. Dempsey talked with me he said we would
get through with the witnesses, and he talked about Mr. Bruce want-
ing to come back.
Mr. STRONG. Do you know, Mr. Secretary, of any reason why we
should not formally adjourn to next December?
Mr. McGANN. No, sir.
Mr. STRONG. Then, without objection, the acting chairman will
declare these meetings adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman
when Congress meets next December, when the hearings will be
resumed.
(Whereupon the committee adjourned sine die.)
STATEMENT OF EDMUND D. ADCOCK ON BEHALF OF THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF
- CHICAGO
According to the arrangement of the work of presenting to this honorable
committee the facts and case of the Sanitary District of Chicago concerning the
diversion by it of 10,000 cubic second-feet of water from Lake Michigan, a dis.
cussion of some of the legal questions has fallen to me.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1689
Since the latter part of the year 1912—for six years as the sanitary district's
Chief attorney and later as its special counsel—I have been intimately con-
nected and familiar with the facts and questions involved, the various steps
taken in the litigation pending, and the progress of negotiations begun in the
early part of the year 1918 looking to a settlement of the controversy through
COngreSSional action.
Before discussing the powers of Congress to legislate with reference to this
diversion I desire to call attention briefly to certain salient facts that stand
Out as guideposts in this hearing.
The diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago for Sanitary and navigation
purposes is a part of and of a piece With not only the commercial and
physical development of Chicago, but also with the development of the Middle
West. Chicago, located at the lower end of Lake Michigan, and the gateway
from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin to the great Mississippi Valley
Basin, with its immense Waterway System reaching and touching many
States, among them the great grain centers Of the world, early became a great
center of population ; Chicago, starting in 1837 as an incorporated city with
less than 4,000 inhabitants, grew by leaps and bounds, until in 1880–1890 it
had a population of almost a million people, greater than that of any other
city On the Great Lakes, until now, with a population of over 3,000,000 people,
it almost equals the combined population on the Great Lakes of all cities
of upward of 30,000 inhabitants. The great railroads terminating at Chicago,
leading to it, have provided it with an immense floating population. Its
business development and Opportunities and its health conditions have been
and are now of great importance to every one throughout the United States.
Every City of any size located on the shores Of the Great Lakes, not in-
cluding those located on the connecting rivers of the Great Lakes, has a
problem of sewage disposal different from that of any other city in the United
States. That is, the natural drainage of these lake-shore cities is into the
lake, Which is the Source, and Only source, Of Water Supply for a large popula-
tion. Therefore, the question of sewage disposal is One necessarily connected
with the protection of the water supply, whereas for other great cities the
pure water supply is one problem by itself, sewage disposal another, which has
no connection with the water supply of that city.
Take New York. It disposes of its sewage into the Hudson River and New
York Bay. The purification of the sewage itself has nothing to do with
its water supply—can not come in contact with it. Its water supply is ob-
tained from the Croton River drainage area. Philadelphia disposes Of its
Sewage into the Delaware River and Obtains its water Supply from another
Source. Baltimore’s Sewage is turned into the Ocean. Washington uses the
Potomac River below the city, and its water Supply is obtained from another
Source. But the lake shore cities, such as Cleveland, Duluth, Toronto, and
Others, must turn their Sewage, Or an affluent from purification works, into the
lake, and from that Same lake they must also obtain their drinking and
domestic water supply. Chicago would be in the same situation if it were
not for the Chicago Drainage Canal diverting not only the Sewage but the
drainage of the city away from Lake Michigan into the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers, which rivers have not been and are not now used as a SOurce
f water supply. Thus Chicago, over a third of a century ago, by the simple
eans of diverting its Sewage and drainage, protected its Water Supply in the
nly way it could then or can now be done. Apparently until a population
with sewage draining into the lake, reaches considerable size, it has been
ossible to, without purification, obtain a fair water supply from the lake.
hus Cleveland, one of the largest of the cities located on the shores of the
reat Lakes, has just recently been compelled to look to sewage purification
:o prevent, as far as possible, pollution of its water supply. Its population
ow and its problem now, Chicago had over 40 years ago, by reason of the
act that at that time Chicago's population was as great as Cleveland's now.
The basic principle of the protection of Chicago's water supply is the diver-
ion from Lake Michigan of at least 10,000 second-feet. That is the maximum
'un-off of the Chicago River drainage area. If the Chicago River flows into
he lake, it must take with it pollution. This it will do at various times in
ase of storm, the danger increasing as the sewered and paved area increases,
nless there can be diverted at all times the full maximum run-off Of the
Shicago River drainage area.
91739—24—PT 2 91





































1690 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Therefore it is evident that the greatest degree of purification of Sewage
known would not protect the water supply if the diversion is less than the
10,000 second-feet. The population of Chicago now, including its waste equiva-
lent in population, is approximately four millions and three-quarters. By
1945 it is estimated it will be upward of 7,000,000, including waste equiva-
lent. Assuming 90 per cent purification treatment, which is the most that
could possibly be expected, you would then have going into Lake Michigan,
Chicago's water supply, pollution equal to the population of 700,000 people.
Can anyone ask Chicago to turn her sewage back into Lake Michigan and
drink polluted water? The people of Chicago, having for many years enjoyed
an unpolluted water Supply, with consequent good health conditions, Would
be so shocked at the thought that they would cease drinking Water. Suppose
an individual had for himself and his family an Opportunity Of unpolluted
Water supply. Can you conceive of that person polluting the Supply with filt
and then filtering it, when there was some other means possible for him to
adopt whereby he would keep his Water Supply pure for himself, his wife,
his children, and his babies. Yet that in a nutshell is what the opponents o
the Chicago diversion are asking Chicago to do. And this in face Of the fact
that each inhabitant only asks for one three-hundredth of a cubic second-foo
Of Water in Order not only to dispose of his sewage drainage but to perform
the greater duty of protecting and providing an unpolluted Water supply.
The highest use of water is Sanitation. That is recognized by all, includin
the perSons who have studied and reported upon this proposition. It is recog
nized in the treaty concerning Canadian boundary Waters between the Unite
States and Great Britain of 1910. The protection of the public health, and
the preservation of lives is of the first importance. Health measures or meas
ures to protect the public health become more important as centers of popu
lation become greater. When a city is small the problems of Sewage dis-
posal are Of little importance. So we find that in the early history of thi
Country transportation by railroads and upon water was given great con
sideration. The centers of population could not be produced without trans
portation facilities. So when Chicago was laying the foundation for her
great development she was using a makeshift for the protection of her wate
Supply. She used the Illinois & Michigan Canal by enlarging it in 1871 at th
COst Of three and a half million dollars, whereby some water could be diverted
through the Chicago River to the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, thus divert
ing Some Sewage and drainage from the water supply. Her population in
creased rapidly, and this makeshift proved entirely inadequate, and so i
1881, pursuant to resolution of the General Assembly of Illinois, she installe
pumps at Bridgeport, the northern terminus Of the Illinois & Michigan Canal
whereby an additional amount of water could be diverted to better the con
ditions. These pumps provided a diversion of 1,000 cubic second-feet Of water
This was recognized, however, to be but a makeshift. The increasing popula
tion, causing extraordinary pollution of the water supply, compelled an imme
diate Solution in a comprehensive way.
Chicago set about it deliberately, acquiring the best engineering advice, an
the drainage and water supply commission was formed in 1885. It investigated
the problem and made its report On January 30, 1887, and recommended th
Carrying Out of the plan that has been put into effect by the Sanitary Distric
of Chicago, and it is admitted that this was the best and only plan that coul
then protect Chicago’s water supply. So it is now. And in providing th
means by which these drainage works could be constructed and Operated th
General Assembly of Illinois was exercising the highest of police powers
police powers that had never been Surrendered by the State under the Consti
tution of the United States or under any other instrument. In fact, the Stat
Could not perform the functions required of it under our dual scheme of gov
ernment, if any such power was surrendered or curtailed.
So the drainage works were built by the sanitary district, and the necessit
of diverting the water to Operate them was at all times recognized. The grea
engineers on the International Waterways Commission in 1906–7, in reportin
with reference to terms of treaty, recognized the necessity. So did Congres
in the act for the preservation of Niagara Falls, in this language: -
“Provided, That this prohibition shall not be interpreted as forbidding th
diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes or of Niagara River for sanitar
or domestic purposes.”







































ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1691
In discussing an amendment proposed by Senator Albert J. Hopkins, of
Illinois, Senator Lodge interpreted the above quotation from section 1 of the
act for the preservation of Niagara Falls, as follows (Congressional Record,
vol. 40, p. 9097) :
“Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I had supposed that the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. Hopkins] realizes that the report of this bill in its present condition.
would not in any way endanger the rights of Chicago to have water from Lake
Michigan. Certainly I should have adhered to the amendment if I had thought
that the drainage canal of Chicago would have been in any way endangered
by the commission.”
It must be remembered that the International Waterways Commission re-
ports and the action of Congress on the preservation of Niagara Falls followed
very closely the Spanish War and the investigation made as to the numbers
of lives that were lost through poor health COnditions in that war. Apprecia-
tion of the importance of protection of health has not receded, but, on the con-
trary, has grown within the last 20 years. In the remembrance of all of us,
we have seen measures adopted for protection of milk supply, requiring the
highest degree of care, drinking cups and drinking fountains have been required
in all public places, on trains and elsewhere; Spitting in public places has been
made unlawful; Segregation of persons having contagious diseases is required,
not to mention the abolishment of the famous only Saturday-night bath. When
years ago one bathroom sufficed for a family, we now have numbers. Numerous.
public bathing beaches have been established in Chicago, when 20 years ago.
the most it had were two public bathing beaches, privately run, with con-
veniences slight. We have witnessed the growth of public and private recrea-
tion grounds, golf courses, tennis courts, parks, boulevards, and the like. So,
having the transportation facilities established and the great centers of popu-
lation thereby developed, the thing of the greatest importance, therefore, has:
become protection of health and preservation of lives. But our opponents
would have us step backward and pollute with our own sewage the water
supply that has been free therefrom and protected for a quarter of a century.
General Dougherty, of Michigan; General Ekern, of Wisconsin; Mr. Harvey
D. Goulder, of the Lake Carriers' ASSOciation ; and Mr. Curtis, of the Water
Power Commission of New York, all lawyers, have spoken on this proposition.
The points principally raised by them are:
(a) No settlement of this matter by act of Congress should be made until
the Supreme Court decides the litigation.
(b) Sanitary district caught with goods now. Has no semblence of legal
right to build the drainage works for the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet
of water from Lake Michigan.
(c) Congress has power over navigation only. No power to legislate with
reference to the Chicago diversion.
(d) States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and New York are injured by this diversion, and therefore it must not be
recognized.
(e) The treaty of 1910, with reference to Canadian boundary waters be-
tween the United States and Great Britain, forbids the diversion.
(f) The sanitary district started to secure congressional action only after
suit decided against it.
The rivers and harbors act of September 19, 1890, was the first legislation
in which Congress attempted to exercise its dormant power over navigation
in any comprehensive Way. Section 10 of that act provided : “That the crea-
tion of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by law to the navigable
capacity of any waters in respect to which the United States has jurisdiction
is hereby prohibited. The Section then provided penalty.
In the case of United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211,
the United States Supreme Court held that an obstruction authorized by State
law was one “authorized by law,” and thus a lawful structure.
Section 10 of the rivers and harbors act of March 3, 1899, is somewhat more
comprehensive, and is as follows:
“SEC. 10. That the creation of any obstruction, not affirmatively authorized
by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United
States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the
building of any Wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, wier, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty,
or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable
river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines,
ar
1692 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended
by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall
not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course,
location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, Canal,
lake, harbor of refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or
of the channel of any navigable water of the United States unless the work
has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Sec-
retary of War prior to the beginning the same.”
The Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers, during the period of con-
struction of the drainage works, and afterwards, and until the refusal of
Secretary of War Stimson on January 8, 1913, to remove the limitation of
4,167 second-feet, construed the various congressional acts as Only authorizing
jurisdiction by the Secretary of War over the excavation or filling or chang-
ing the course and current of the Chicago River, its South Branch and West
Fork. If obstruction to navigation resulted from the Construction and Opera-
tion of the sanitary district’s works on other waters than the Chicago River.
such as the Great Takes and their connecting channels. Such obstructions
were considered to have been authorized by Congress, or to have been lawful
to be imposed by the State of Illinois under its police power. Such obstruc-
tions were only incidental to the exercise by the State of its police power
in diverting the Sewage and drainage of Chicago from Lake Michigan, to-
gether with the necessary amount of Lake Michigan water to Oxidize and
purify such drainage and Sewage. That is, the sanitary district act was
passed by the State in the exercise of a power reserved to the State, and was
not in any sense an attempt by the State to regulate or directly burden inter-
state commerce. Furthermore, Congress had failed to occupy the field thus
taken by the State. Its nonaction left the State's acts and authority supreme,
and amounted to consent by Congress to the exercise of this authority by
Illinois.
Congress has authorized the diversion by the State under the act of Con-
gress of March 2, 1827. It will be remembered that this act was preceded by
One passed March 30, 1822, authorizing the building of a canal to connect
the Illinois River with the southern end of Lake Michigan. This act di-
rected that 90 feet on each side of the canal should be reserved for future
use. This act, however, ceased to have force or effect, due to the failure of
Illinois to exercise certain rights thereunder within the period fixed by the
act.
The act of March 2, 1827, granted to the State of Illinois certain lands “for
the purpose of aiding the State in opening a canal to unite the waters of the
Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan.”
The act did not fix the size of the canal, the amount of water that should
be diverted from Lake Michigan to operate it; the canal could not be oper-
ated, as it is obvious, without the diversion. The amount of the diversion for
WaterWay purposes was left entirely within the discretion of the State. Like-
Wise, the dimensions of the canal. It was contemplated, of course, and it was
the duty of the State in accepting the grant, not only to construct a canal
practicably Suitable for the needs of commerce, but it was further contem-
plated it was the duty of the State to enlarge the canal as navigation de-
manded. Unless this act of 1827 later was limited, and it hasn't been, by Con-
gress, the State in enlarging or replacing or supplanting the canal as contem-
plated, as in its Opinion navigation required, had the discretion to provide for
the diversion of such amount as it should deem necessary for the waterway. Its
powers in future enlargement or replacement with reference to the amount
of the diversion and dimensions of the canal were the same as were its powers
When the canal Was first constructed, and the State immediately demonstrated
that this Was the construction it placed on the act, and assumed the duty
imposed of keeping this canal or providing means suitable for the future re-
Quirements of navigation. So the act under which the canal was first con-
Structed, passed January 29, 1836, entitled “An act for the construction of the
Illinois and Michigan Canal,” provided that it shall “not be less than 45
feet Wide at the Surface, 30 feet at the base, and of sufficient depth to insure
navigation of at least four feet, to be suitable for ordinary canal-boal navi
gation, to be supplied with water from Lake Michigan and such other sources
as the Canal Commissioners may think proper, and to he constructed in the
manner best calculated to promote the permanent interests of the Country.
reserving 90 feet on each side of said canal to enlarge its capacity whenever in
the opinion of the board of canal commissioners the public good shall require it.”
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1693
This 90 feet was reserved, and the canal was constructed. In 1861 the gen-
eral assembly, in considering the enlargement of the canal and the use of Water
from Lake Michigan for waterway purposes, not only in the canal, but in the
Illinois River, provided for a survey which would appropriate to this Water-
way “a free flow, ample and never-failing supply of water, sufficient for the
navigation of the Illinois River at all seasons.”
This brought about immediately surveys by the Engineer Corps of the
United States Army, pursuant to acts of Congress. Beginning With 1866,
many such surveys were made, and a deep WaterWay Was always considered
as feasible and proper from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico, using a
large diversion from Lake Michigan to produce such WaterWay. It Was
further pointed out that the most expensive and difficult link in the WaterWay
to the Gulf of Mexico, existing over and through the Chicago divide, Where
the present main channel of the sanitary district is located. When Chicago
was considering means for the protection of its water supply for health pur-
poses, this deep waterway was in contemplation and considered by everyone
to be necessary and its completion impending. So the Sanitary district act
was passed May 29, 1889, authorizing the construction of the Canal, fixing
its minimum capacity at 10,000 cubic second-feet Of Water. The act pro-
vided that it should have a depth of not less than 18 feet, and that the
current thereof should not be greater than 3 miles per hour, thus protecting
navigation, and that its width should not be less than 160 feet. It further
authorized the sanitary district to enter upon, use, Widen, deepen, any Canal,
river, or waterway of the State. It contemplated, necessarily, the enlarge-
ment of the flowage capacity of the Chicago River, and, if necessary, the
enlargement of the old Illinois & Michigan Canal, and the use of the 90 feet
On each side reserved for future enlargement. So all through the act all-
thorizing the construction of these drainage works we find navigation was one
of the purposes contemplated. The direct evidence that the State of Illinois
considered it was acting within its lawful rights and for the purpose Of
enlargement and improvement Of the canal provided for under the March 2,
1827, act, is shown by the joint resolution of the General Assembly of Illinois
passed May 28, 1889, the day before the sanitary district act was passed—
“Whereas works now projected by the city of Chicago will form part of a
waterway of large proportions from Lake Michigan via the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers to the Mississippi River, of which the dams and locks upon the
alluvial Section of the Illinois River can form no part, and which, if allowed to
remain, will increase, overflow. and be detrimental to the welfare of the Illinois
Valley and the interests of the State : Therefore be it
“Resolved by the Senate (the house of representatives concurring herein), (1)
That it is the policy of the State of Illinois to procure the construction of a
waterway of the greatest practicable depth and usefulness for navigation from
Lake Michigan via the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers to the Mississippi River
and to encourage the construction of feeders thereto of like proportions and
USefulneSS.”
The International Waterways Commission, in its report of January 4, 1907,
on the drainage canal, interpreted the above resolution as follows:
“The Illinois Legislature has declared its policy to be to secure the Con-
struction of a deeper channel not limiting its proposed capacity in terms, but
defining it to be “the greatest practicable depth and usefulness for navigation.’
A fair interpretation of this language gives a proposed depth of 20 feet, that
being the depth required to accommodate the most important vessels now navi-
gating the Great Lakes. It will require a volume of water greater than the
10,000 cubic feet per second originally contemplated.”
The State of Illinois, in the enactment of the sanitary district act, was not
without the advice of great lawyers. In 1887 a joint committee was provided
by the General Assembly of Illinois to study this proposition. John P. Wilson,
Harvey B. Hurd, and other lawyers of national reputation were among this
committee’s advisers. Mr. Wilson was the special counsel for the sanitary
district during its organization and during most of the period of the construc-
tion of the drainage works.
While the district was making surveys for its main channel and making plans
for the construction, the board of trustees passed an ordinance appropriating
the Chicago River, South Branch, and West Fork, under the statute, as part of
its drainage Works, and then provided for the entering upon, using, widening.
1694 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
and deepening and improving it as a supply channel for the main channel
projected. As the canal's construction progressed, it became necessary to en-
large the Chicago River, its South Branch and West Fork, to accommodate
the population when the canal would be opened in about the year 1900. The
population Was then approximately a million and a half. So, pursuant to the
Ordinance of April 21, 1891, copies of which were sent to the Chief of Engineers
and Secretary of War, the sanitary district applied for and obtained a permit
dated July 3, 1896, for the making of certain improvements, with this purpose
in mind, and the only jurisdiction the Secretary of War attempted to assume
was that Over the excavating or filling or changing the capacity of the Chicago
River. Following this same policy, the district secured other permits, and
When the channel was opened, it obtained, on May 8, 1899, after the rivers and
harbors act of March 3, 1899, was passed, a permit to open the channel which
Was unlimited as to the amount of the flow, at least limited only by the maxi-
mum capacity of the channel, namely, 10,000 cubic second-feet. The Secretary
of War imposed only one condition as to the right of modification of flow. This
Condition was undoubtedly imposed solely and only because of his assumption
as to jurisdiction only over the Chicago River, its South Branch and West
Fork, and because at that time the channels of these rivers were tortuous,
shallow, and narrow, and would require enlargement when the flow should
be increased, according to the increase of the population of the sanitary district.
This condition merely provided that the Secretary of War might modify or
reduce the discharge through the channel in the event a current in the Chicago
River should be created injuriously affecting navigation thereon. This can
have no other interpretation. It was so interpreted in the case of Corrigan
Transit Co. v. Sanitary District, 137 Fed. 851. The channel was opened January
17, 1900. The sanitary district having then completed the major project, namely,
the construction of the main channel with its capacity of 10,000 second-feet,
immediately set about to provide the other works and improvements necessary
to provide this flow. July 11, 1900, permits were granted by the Secretary of
War to enlarge the channel capacity of the Chicago River, the South Branch
and West Fork, by deepening them to 26 feet and widening them to 200 feet,
for the express purpose, as stated by the sanitary district in its application for
the permits of taking through the river the full 10,000 second-feet without
creating a current injurious to navigation. Detailed plans were approved
by the Secretary of War on January 17, 1902. Upon the acquirement of right of
way, the river improvement proceeded. At the same time the construction of
intercepting sewers to divert sewage directly emptied by sewers into Lake
Michigan, through the Chicago River, was begun and completed about the year
1907. t
The Calumet-Sag Channel was provided for by act of legislature of 1903,
to reverse the Calumet River and divert water through it, thus completing the
plan for the diversion to the 10,000 second-feet.
The North Shore Channel was completed in 1910, a further adjunct and part
of the general plan. So that by the years 1909 and 1910 the Chicago River
improvement, the North Shore Channel, and intercepting Sewers, the main
channel of the district, had been substantially and practically completed for
the full diversion of 10,000 second-feet.
In the meantime, the International Waterways Commission had studied the
subject. It had found that there was a tacit general agreement that Chicago
should have at least 10,000 cubic second-feet of water from Lake Michigan to
operate its works. This was treated by the commission as an existing diversion
and the diversion as an a CCOmplished fact.
When the International Waterways Commission had their hearings at Chi-
cago in the fall of 1906 in regard to this withdrawal, General Bixby, then
division engineer at Chicago, was present, as he stated in his examination
before this committee. If General Bixby, as representative of the War De-,
partment, had indicated to this commission that the United States objected, such,
a finding by the commission would not have been made.
The first litigation involving the right to divert water from Lake Michigan,
was instituted on March 23, 1908, by the United States in the form of a bill in"
equity filed in the circuit court of the United States against the sanitary dis-
trict. By this bill the United States sought to enjoin only the sanitary district
from reversing the flow of the Calumet River, building the Calumet-Sag Chan-
nel, and diverting through it 4,000 cubic second-feet of water in addition to the
10,000 cubic second-feet through the Chicago River, making 14,000 in all. The
right to divert 10,000 second-feet through the Chicago River was not involved
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1695
in this suit. The suit followed the refusal of Secretary of War Taft in 1906 to
grant a permit for the reversal of the flow of the Calumet River and the with-
drawal through the river and the Calumet-Sag Channel of this additional
4,000 cubic second-feet of water. The ground of Judge Taft's refusal was that,
as it appeared that the withdrawal of the water would materially obstruct
navigation by lowering the lake levels some 2% inches, he did not believe that
the Secretary of War was authorized to grant a permit to create an obstruction
to navigation. The board of trustees of the sanitary district had theretofore
passed an ordinance, pursuant to the act of the general assembly of 1903, men-
tioned by Judge Barrett, providing for the construction of the Calumet-Sag
Channel and reversal Of the Calumet River, the canal to have an ultimate
capacity of diverting through it water from Lake Michigan to the amount of
4,000 cubic second-feet, in addition to the 10,000 second-feet through the Chi-
cago River. After Judge Taf's refusal, the board of trustees took the matter
up with President Roosevelt, and it was arranged that thereafter litigation
should be instituted to test the right of the sanitary district, exercising the
police powers of the State in this respect, to divert through the Calumet-Sag
Channel the additional 4,000 cubic second-feet of water. Thereupon the suit
was instituted, as stated, and Some testimony was taken.
On February 5, 1912, the Chicago River having been improved to carry
through it 10,000 second-feet of water without creating a current injurious to
navigation, the sanitary district asked the Secretary of War to remove the
limitation of 4,167 second-feet fixed by the Secretary of War in 1901 and 1903
solely because of the then condition of the Chicago River. It had not then been
improved so that it had the requisite flowage capacity for the total diversion
contemplated. The Secretary of War had limited the flow because of ob-
jections of navigation interests on the Chicago River, as his order expressly
provides. This limitation was made pursuant to condition No. 2 of the original
permit of May 8, 1899, granting the right to open the main channel and divert
water from Lake Michigan to its capacity—10,000 cubic second-feet of water.
This condition is as follows:
“2. That if at any time it became apparent that the current created by such
drainage works in the south and main branches of the Chicago River be un-
reasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the Secretary
of War reserves the right to close such discharge through said channel, or to
modify it to such extent as may be demanded by navigation and property in-
terests along said Chicago River and its South Branch.”
The original permit being unlimited in amount and subject only to the con-
dition as to modification by the Secretary of War, namely, current injurious
to navigation on the Chicago River, and the Chicago River having then been
enlarged expressly for the diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet through it, it
was assumed, of course, the Secretary of War would remove the limitation of
4,167 second-feet. However, after a hearing on January 8, 1913, the Secretary
of War refused to remove the limitation previously made on the principal
ground that he did not believe the Secretary of War was authorized to grant
a permit to create an obstruction to navigation. The only injury to navigation
considered by the Secretary of War was the effect upon navigation by the
claimed lowering of the surface elevations of the Great Lakes and their con-
necting channels. No objection was considered as to current in the Chicago
River affecting navigation in its then (1912) improved and enlarged condition
for the full withdrawal to the capacity of the main channel of the district.
The sanitary district had theretofore been withdrawing from Lake Michigan
through the Chicago River water in excess of the 4,167 second-feet, and amounts
at various times in such excess as the Chicago River Channel would permit,
Without injury to navigation thereon by reason of current. These amounts
Were, of course, dependent at various times, beginning with about the year
1904, when the sanitary district commenced the enlargement of the channel of
the Chicago River and its south and west branches, upon the progress of such
Chicago River improvement work. The average yearly amounts of the with-
drawal have been stated by Horace P. Ramey, assistant chief engineer of the
Sanitary district.
After Secretary Stimson's refusal to remove the limitation of 4,167 second-
feet mentioned, the sanitary district was in a dilemma. The State law ex-
pressly commanded and directed it to withdraw at least 20,000 cubic feet of
Water per minute for each 100,000 of the population of the district. The Sec-
retary of War, by refusing to remove the limitation, therefore objected to the
Withdrawal of more than that amount, which was about half what the State
law required.
1696 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
In the early part of March, 1913, the trustees of the sanitary district received
from the Engineer Corps of the United States Army a letter calling attention
to the fact that the Sanitary district was diverting from Lake Michigan more
than the 4,167 second-feet and stating that the Engineer Corps would refer the
matter to the United States district attorney for penal action. Thereafter, and
about March 20, 1913, I saw the Chief of Engineers, General Bixby, explained
the situation in which the trustees of the sanitary district were placed by
reason of the conflict of the State law and the order of the Secretary of War
as to the diversion, and stated that if the United States desired to file a sup-
plemental bill or a new suit raising the question of the right of the sanitary
district to withdraw water from Lake Michigan in excess of the 4,167 second-
feet through the Chicago River, the sanitary district would, in cooperation
With the United States attorneys, facilitate the hearing, and that the evidence
taken in the Calumet-Sag Channel case instituted March 23, 1908, so far as it
Was material and relevant, could be deemed to be offered in the suit that might
be instituted involving only the withdrawal through the Chicago River. .
Thereupon, and on the 6th of October, 1913, a bill was filed in the district
court of the United States at Chicago against the sanitary district, asking
that the district be enjoined from diverting from Lake Michigan, through the
Chicago River or by any other means, water in excess of 4,167 second-feet.
The sole ground of this injunction was that this diversion would lower the
Surface elevations of the Great Lakes and their connecting channels to such
an extent that it WOuld materially injure navigation thereon. No mention was
made of injury to navigation on the Chicago River, and it was assumed that
the Chicago River had been improved and enlarged so that a current would
not be created by the 10,000 second-feet withdrawal injurious to navigation
thereon. Testimony was taken, much documentary evidence was presented
before a commissioner, the record was printed, consisting then of seven vol-
umes, and the case was submitted on February 15, 1915, to Judge Landis.
Printed briefs and argument were filed on behalf of each party.
In 1914, while the evidence was being presented, the report of the special
board of engineers entitled “Final report on waterway from Lockport, Ill.,
to the mouth of the Illinois River '' (H. Doc. No. 762, 63d Cong., 2d sess.) was
made to Congress and became public. This board was required by the rivers
and harbors act of 1910 to report upon the means of offsetting or compensating
for any diversion of water from the Great Lakes. This board considered the
effect of 10,000 second-feet diversion at Chicago and recommended that Com-
penSating works be constructed in the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers at a COSt
of approximately $475,000. The board found that such compensating works
would offset for the effect of any diversion at Chicago, and that there was no
Occasion for installing any works in the St. Lawrence River, as the COnStruc-
tion of the gut dam in 1903 had fully compensated for any effect on Lake
Ontario.
The Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors reviewed this report of the
Special board and recommended :
“The board believes that the total volume Of water to be diverted from the
natural discharge channels of the Lakes should be definitely fixed by Congress;
that a project with estimate of cost for works neeSSany to compensate for such
diversion should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Chief of Engineers and
the Secretary of War before any diversion is made beyond that at present exist-
ing, and the State of Illinois shall transfer to the Secretary of War the funds
necessary for such works as given by the approved estimate of COSt ; that the
works shall be built by the United States with the funds so provided, and that
the control and maintenance shall be in and at the cost of the United States.”
The Board of Engineers report and recommendation was signed by Gen.
William M. Black, its senior member.
At the beginning of the year 1918 and for SOme time thereafter General
Black was Chief of Engineers. The Sanitary district assumed that if it
accepted the suggestion of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors,
above mentioned, to pay the COSt Of Constructing the compensating works
described and recommended to be installed in the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers,
that such proposal would have the recommendation and approval of the Chief
of Engineers, General Black, and the Secretary of War. Consequently, on
January 5, 1918, an ordinance was passed by the board of trustees of the sani-
tary district reciting the recommendation of the Board of Engineers of the
Rivers and Harbors, signed by General Black as its Senior member, and
offered to pay to the United States, pursuant to such recommendation, the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1697
amount of money estimated or any other amount that the Engineer Corps
might determine necessary to construct said works.
On January 29, 1918, Congressman Gallagher, of Chicago, Ill., a member of
the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, introduced in Congress a
bill providing for the diversion at Chicago, and requiring the sanitary district,
as a condition to such diversion, to pay the cost of constructing compensat-
ing works in the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers, as recommended by the Engineer
Corps. The bill was referred to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the
House and by it referred to the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers.
About the middle of February, 1918, General Black, as Chief of Engineers,
sent to the chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee a letter in regard
to said bill, stating that it was his understanding that objections existed on
the part of Canada because of the claimed effects of the withdrawal on the
surface elevation of the water in the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. Ac-
cordingly, Mr. Wisner and I went to Montreal and got in touch with the
Chief engineer of the harbor board of Montreal, which board has control of
the harbor, shipping, etc. We were informed that a commission had been
appointed, at the instance of the Canadian Government, to investigate the
effect of the diversion at Chicago upon the surface elevation of the water
in the St. Lawrence River at Montreal, and to determine means by which
any lowering might be offset. On this commission there were Mr. W. H.
Stewart, chief hydrographer of Canada, who has been in attendance at most
of the hearings of your committee, and Mr. E. E. Haskell, then dean Of
engineering of Cornell University, and another gentleman whose name I do
not recall. Finally, Mr. Haskell and Mr. Stewart came to Montreal, and it
appeared that the commission of which they were members did not have
sufficient data upon which to determine the effects, if any, of the diversion,
or the means by which the surface elevation in Montreal Harbor might be
raised. A conference was had between Mr. Wisner and myself and MeSSTS.
Haskell and Stewart extending over some days.
Finally it developed that during the entire year, except the months of Sep-
tember, October, and November, the depths of water at Montreal Harbor were
sufficient for all navigation. Mr. Wisner then suggested that it was his
opinion that regulating works could be placed at the head of the St. Lawrence
River which would have the effect of conserving the water of Lake Ontario
so that during the months of September, October, and November an amount
Over and above the natural flow could be let down the St. Lawrence IRiver,
thus offsetting for any possible diversion at Chicago and generally delivering
into the St. Lawrence River water during those months greatly in excess Of
the 10,000 second-feet Chicago diversion. It was generally understood that
if such a plan could be worked out no objection would be made So far as
navigation was concerned in the St. Lawrence River. It was also suggested
that the operation of these regulating works would have the effect of provid-
ing a more even flow, thus benefiting any water-power development on the
St. Lawrence.
Mr. Wisner and I stated that we would consult with the board of trustees
of the Sanitary district, and would recommend that the district em-
ploy a hydraulic engineer of national reputation, and particularly familiar
with the hydraulics of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, the
engineer to be instructed to design proper regulating works for the head of
the Niagara River and to report upon the effect of their operation.
Accordingly, the matter was taken up with the board and the board ap-
proved. Mr. Francis C. Shenehon was employed, as has been stated. He
designed works and made a preliminary report in the year 1918 upon the regu-
lation Of Lake Ontario. He has stated what the effect would be, namely, pro-
viding more even Surface elevations for Lake Ontario, greater depths during
the period of natural low water, and providing a flow in the St. Lawrence
River during September, October, and November over the natural flow greatly
in excess of the amount of the Chicago diversion.
A Conference was had with General Black. He was advised of what we
Were attempting to do, and he also suggested that a memorandum be pre-
sented stating the sanitary district's position. -
In Working out the regulation of Lake Ontario Mr. Shenehon suggested
that he believed that regulating works should be put in at the head of the
Niagara River instead of compensating works, as recommended by the
Special board of engineers on waterway from Utica to the mouth of the
9.1739—24—PT 2 92
1698 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Illinois River, above mentioned, and that the Lakes should all be regulated,
that it Would cost considerably more, but that if the sanitary district was
offering to do anything in connection with the restoration of lake levels it
should offer to pay the cost of constructing and operating the best works.
The board of trustees approved, and thereupon Mr. Shenehon was instructed
to design works for the regulation of Lake Erie, to be placed at the head
Of the Niagara River. He performed this duty and has described the works
and their effects as not only offsetting for any diversion at Chicago but pro-
Viding for navigation a greater depth during low-water time, when naviga-
tion needs the greater depth, than would exist in a state of nature. The
Works also when operated as provided by him would give a more even flow
to the Niagara River; that is, a greater flow in the winter time, benefiting
Water-power development at Niagara Falls.
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, known as the Taylor
Board, which in reviewing the Warren report has agreed with Mr. Shene-
hon's position and definitely and unmistakably recommends the immediate
installation of these works at the head of the Niagara River.
The sanitary district, in taking the matter up with Mr. Stewart, the chief
hydrographer of Canada, and Mr. Cowie, chief engineer of the harbor board,
stated that it was the Sanitary district's purpose to settle the controversy,
compose the various interests involved, and that, regardless of prior dis-
putes, it was the purpose of the Sanitary district to offer to do those things
which would entirely remove injury and damage to navigation and help
Water power, so that Chicago Could exercise the right of withdrawing from
Lake Michigan the 10,000 cubic second-feet of water necessary to protect
the health of its people without navigation interests, either in the United
States Or Canada or others, feeling that they were being injured thereby.
The same position was taken by the district’s representative in the con-
ference with Judge Gary and Mr. Livingston, president of the Lake Carriers'
Association, described to your committee by Mr. George M. Wisner. -
Col. William W. Judson, division engineer at Chicago from about the year
1914 until his death in 1922, was instructed by the Chief of Engineers to co-
operate with the Sanitary District of Chicago in the study of the Sewage-
disposal problems. Various conferences were had between representatives
of the sanitary district and Colonel Judson. Finally, on August 7, 1919, the
board of trustees passed an ordinance, approved by Colonel Judson, laying
out a project for the purification of sewage and stating:
“To supplement the works of the Sanitary District of Chicago now con-
structed or in the process of COnstruction for the diversion of Sewage Or
drainage, and to aid said works in better accomplishing the purpose for
which they were constructed, the sanitary district does hereby lay out and
adopt a program for the construction and operation of works for the purifi-
cation of sewage or the removal of Organic Or inorganic matter from human
sewage and the removal of trade wastes and other wastes and for the carry-
ing on of such work at such a rate as continuously after the lapse of four
years to diminish the amount of sewage, including all Wastes passing into
the Des Plaines River by way of the main channel of the Sanitary District
of Chicago, so that within the period of 25 years such purification works
shall be constructed and in operation that the amount of Such raw Sewage
and wastes so passing into said Des Plaines River shall be at least 50 per
cent less than that passing now.”
In other words, by the year 1945 the sanitary district was required by this
ordinance to purify the sewage and wastes of the increasing population and
industries, and also half the wastes and Sewage that existed before, thus
removing nuisances existent upon the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. This
program is being carried out, as has been shown by the testimony of MeSSrs.
Ramey, Wisner, and Pierce.
Colonel Judson, in making a report to the Chief of Engineers on May 24,
1921, approximately two years after this ordinance was passed, stated:
“In the meantime the sanitary trustees are proceeding energetically With
their plans for Sewage treatment and disposal.”
On June 19, 1920, Judge Landis rendered an oral opinion or decision of the
case, in which he directed a decree to be drawn enjoining the sanitary district
from diverting Water from Lake Michigan in excess of 4,167 second-feet.
Thus it is perfectly obvious that an immense amount of negotiations had been
carried on prior to Judge Landis's decision, for the purpose of settling the
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1699
Chicago diversion controversy through congressional action. These facts
ought to answer the imputation of Congressman Larson, of Duluth, that the
district had sought congressional sanction for its 10,000 second-feet diversion
only after adverse decision of the lower court. Thereafter, and on July 12,
1920, the sanitary district filed a motion in the district court asking that
Judge Landis reconsider his directions or decision as to an injunction limiting
the Chicago diversion to 4,167 second-feet, and asking that the injunction
only limit the Chicago diversion to 10,000 second-feet, on condition that the
sanitary district pay the cost of constructing compensating or regulating
works to offset for the Chicago diversion. This motion was pending when
Judge Landis resigned. It was argued before Judge Carpenter. The motion
was denied, and he entered a decree on June 18, 1923, enjoining the Sanitary
district from diverting more than 4,167 second-feet from Lake Michigan. In
granting the appeal Judge Carpenter directed that the operation of the
injunction be suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court. Record
was filed, and the case is now pending there.
Our opponents have suggested that it is improper for the Sanitary district
to seek legislation settling this controversy. Almost every permit issued by
the Secretary of War with reference to the sanitary district works, and the
one authorizing the opening of the channel states that the Secretary proposed
to submit the matter to Congress. The United States Supreme Court has
expressed itself in unmistakable language (New York v. New Jersey and
Passaic Valley Sewage Commissioners, 256 U. S. 296 (313)) :
“We can not withhold the suggestion, inspired by the consideration of this
case, that the grave problem of sewage disposal presented by the large and
growing populations living on the shores of New York Bay is one more likely
to be wisely solved by cooperative study and by conference and mutual COn-
cession on the part of representatives of the States so vitally interested in it
than by proceedings in any court, however constituted.”
This Statement was made with reference to thie possible pollution of the
waters of New York Bay and the impairment of navigation by such pollution.
In the case the United States had intervened. There was no question of the
protection of the water supply for a great population of over 3,000,000 people.
How much stronger would the Supreme Court have spoken, if it were possible
to use more pointed words than it did use, if this additional element were
involved? (See Virginia v. West Virginia, 246 U. S. 565; Hon. John W. Davis,
American Bar Association Journal, February, 1922, vol. 8, pp. 77–82.)
Judge George A. Carpenter of the district court, northern district of Illinois,
in granting the injunction against the sanitary district at the request of the
United States, fully appreciated the necessity of compromising the matter
through Congress (vol. 8, Record Supreme Court, 129) : -
“The record shows that the Sanitary District of Chicago has expended in
its work some hundreds of millions of dollars ; and the evidence shows rather
conclusively that no other system. Of disposing of Sewage in the great district
covered would work so well as that devised by the sanitary district. The
city of Chicago since the drainage district began to operate has practically
doubled in population. The district served by the sanitary district holds
more people than over 40 States in the Union. The rate of typhoid fever since
the completion of the drainage canal has been reduced (fol. 235) from 75
per 100,000 to a negligible number.
“The testimony of Government engineers shows that it would take from 10
to 25 years for the drainage district to erect sewage treatment and disposal
works to handle the sewage within the drainage district if the flow of water
was reduced from 10,000 to 4,167 cubic feet per second. .
“This matter is a subject which needs the consideration of thinking people
not Only in the State of Illinois but in the whole United States. The treaty
with Canada entered into some years ago seemed to contemplate an acquies-
cence on the part of the Canadian Government to the withdrawal of 10,000
cubic feet a second by the drainage district. However that may be, the Sec-
retary of War has not given his official consent. Whether the increased with-
drawal should or should not be made is properly a political and not a legal
Question, in the absence of consent by the Secretary of War. The Legislature
Of the State of Illinois, the various civic bodies, the association of commerce,
and Senators and Representatives should see to it that at the earliest possible
Imoment the Situation here is brought to the attention of Congress, so that by
1700 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
appropriate legislation the health and welfare of this great community may
be safeguarded. I have no doubt that when the matter is properly presented
it will be taken up by Congress and by the State Department, and Some plan
devised which will bring about adequate and the desired results.
“It goes without saying that this court will not issue an injunction to be
effective forthwith. It can not impose the conditions so (fols. 236 and 237)
strenuously urged by the attorneys for the sanitary district. It is doubtful
Whether the State of Illinois could authorize expenditures to be made in foreign
States and foreign countries to restore the water levels. -
“On the testimony of the Government engineers the court might, in the ex-
ercise of a sound discretion, delay the effectiveness of its injunction for
from 15 to 25 years to enable the sanitary district or the State of Illinois to
arrange for other means of disposing of the sewerage now handled by the
Sanitary district.
“Believing as I do that it is a matter for the immediate action of Congress,
a decree may be prepared finding the facts as stated in the bill and enjoin-
ing the defendant from withdrawing from Lake Michigan in excess of 4,167
cubic feet a second, the decree, however, not to go into effect for six months.
“The matter must necessarily go to the Supreme Court of the United
States for final settlement, and no doubt, if need be, when the record is there
filed application may be made to that court for a supersedeas or further stay.”
The United States Supreme Court considered the acts of March 30, 1922, and
March 2, 1927, mentioned, and considered the question of diversions from one
watershed to another in Missouri v. Illinois (200 U. S. 496). Missouri brought
suit against Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago to enjoin it from Op-
erating its sewage diversion works by discharging through its channels, the
Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, sewage into the Mississippi River. The com-
plainant there claimed that the sewage polluted the water supply of the city
of St. Louis and also changed the course and current of the Mississippi River.
This latter contention is stated in complainant’s brief, appearing at page 508
of said volume, as follows:
“The complainant has the right to the use of the Mississippi River in its
natural and accustomed flow. Defendants have no right to change or alter
the velocity of the stream or the volume of water passing down it.”
The court, as to this question, said (526) :
“Some stress was laid on the proposition that Chicago is not on the natural
watershed of the Mississippi, because of a rise of a few feet between the
Des Plaines and the Chicago Rivers. We perceive no reason for distinction
On this ground. The natural features relied upon are of the Smallest. And
if under any circumstances they could affect the case it is enough to say
that Illinois brought Chicago into the Mississippi watershed in pursuance not
only of its own statutes but also of the acts of Congress of March 30,
1822 * * * and March 2, 1827, * * * the validity of which is not
disputed.”
The Supreme Court of Illinois has considered the main channel of the Sani-
tary district to have been authorized under the act of Congress of March 2,
1827. In Mortell v. Clark (272 Ill. 201, 213) the court said:
“Said act of 1903 permits the crossing of the Illinois & Michigan Canal near
Sag Bridge and provides for the abandoning of certain portions of said canal.
Counsel for appellant argue that this is in violation of the Federal grant of
1822, under which the Illinois & Michigan Canal was constructed, which pro-
vides, among other things: “If said ground shall ever cease to be occupied by
and used for a canal suitable for navigation, the reservation and grant hereby
made shall be void and of none effect.” (Hurd's Stat. 1913, p. 88.) The canal
was built under the authority of the act of Congress of March 2, 1827, the act
of 1822 having been mutually abandoned by the State and Federal Govern-
ments. (Werling v. Ingersoll, 181 U. S. 131; Wells v. Wells, 262 Ill. 320.)
This Federal act did not provide just where the canal should enter Lake Mich-
igan, simply stating that the land was granted for the purpose of opening “a
Canal to unite the waters of the Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan,”
etc. (Hurd's Stat. 1913, p. 88.) The sanitary district’s main channel as now
constructed practically complies with this act and furnishes a canal more suit-
able for navigation than the Illinois & Michigan Canal. Furthermore, the Sag
Channel or cut-off is required to be navigable by said act of 1903, and the proof
shows that the Calumet River is navigable to the point where it is interSected
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1701
by the Sag Channel. This cut-off would therefore also practically comply with
both of said Federal acts as to furnishing part of the canal for connection of
the Illinois River with Lake Michigan.
“Acts passed by the legislative authorities of the State in the exercise of
police power for the public welfare, particularly for the benefit of the health of
the people of the State, having also a reasonable relation to the object sought
to be accomplished by the legislature, are valid, even though Such act or acts
may Operate upon interState COmmerce. The inaction of Congress in not legis-
lating directly with reference to such legislation of the State will be deemed
to be consent that the legislation shall remain of full force and effect. Con-
gress may, therefore directly express its consent by the passage of the proper
legislation.” (Columbus v. Mercantile Trust Co., 218 U. S. 645, 658.)
“No higher police duty rests upon the municipal authority than that of
furnishing an ample Supply of pure and wholesome water for public and
domestic uses. The preservation of the health of the community is best Ob-
tained by the discharge of this duty.” (Corrigan Transit Co. v. Sanitary Dis-
trict, 137 Fed. 851; Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, April 11, 1905.)
The transit Company brought Suit to recover damages to certain of its
vessels due, as it claimed, to excessive current in the Chicago River. The
permit of May 8, 1899, known as the Alger permit, was before the court. The
libelants claimed, first, that the Sanitary district had not complied with the
permit ; Second, that the Secretary of War had no authority to grant the
permit under Section 10 Of the rivers and harbors act. The Court found as to
the first contention that the sanitary district had complied with all condi-
tions ; as to the Second Contention the court said (857) :
“If section 10 falls, what is the result? If a matter affecting commerce is
of national scope and Susceptible of uniform regulation, the failure of Congress
to speak to the subject is deemed equivalent to a declaration that the States
Shall let the matter alone; but if the matter is local, and concerns the public
policy of a State, though it may incidentally affect interstate and foreign
Commerce, COngressional inaction is a recognition that the subject is fitter for
local regulation and is an invitation that the State continue in the unimpeded
exercise of its police powers, on the understanding, however, that Congress
may thereafter intervene to the extent, at least, of destroying and forbidding
whatever unnecessarily embarrasses Commerce. (COvington Bridge Co. v.
Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204; 14 Sup. Ct. 1087; 38 L. Ed. 962. Lake Shore, etc.,
Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285; 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702, and cases
therein cited.) The bridging, dredging, and purification of a navigable water-
way wholly within a State are matters of the latter class. (Escanaba Transp.
Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678; 2 Sup. Ct. 185; 27 L. Ed. 442. Lake Shore, etc.,
Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365; 17 Sup. Ct. 357; 41 L. Ed. 747.) With the
commerce clause in abeyance, Illinois, as to every being in the world except
future Congresses, was absolute Sovereign in the premises. The absolute
sovereign may change the grade of highways or may vacate them, may alter
the courses and currents of rivers or may dam or fill them up, and neither
alien nor subject traveler and navigator may complain. No One can claim
a vested right to have the United States interfere with Illinois, nor can a
cause of action arise from want of interference.”
In City of New York v. Miln (11 Pet., 102, 131–132 et seq.) it appears that
the Legislature of New York passed an act concerning passengers and vessels
arriving in the port of New York under which it was provided that the master
of every such vessel was required, under penalty, within 24 hours after arrival
to make a report in writing containing the name, age, and last legal Settlement
of every person who shall have been on board the vessel commanded by him
during the voyage.
An action of debt was brought by the city of New York against Miln, the
master, for failure to make a report as required by the statute. The court
Said : . - -
“* * * There is then no collision between the law in question and the
acts of Congress just commented on ; and, therefore, if the State law were to
be considered as partaking of the nature of a commercial regulation it would
stand the test of the most rigid scrutiny if tried by the standard laid down
in the reasoning of the court, quoted from the case of Gibbons against Ogden.
“But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant
ourselves in what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That
a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction Over all persons
1702 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation, where that juris-
diction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United
States. That by virtue of this, it is not only the right but the bounden and
solemn duty of a State to advance the Safety, happiness, and prosperity of its
people and to provide for its general welfare by any and every act of legisla-
tion which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over
the particular Subject Or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or
restrained in the manner just stated.”
Congress, in the exercise of its delegated authority in the interest of naviga-
tion, may limit the diversion at Chicago unless there is some vessels right
affected. It legislated with reference to the preservation of Niagara Falls.
The limitation of the diversion was in the interest of navigation. Likewise
the limitation of the diversion at Chicago may be considered within the dele-
gated authority as in the interest of navigation.
On June 29, 1906, Congress passed an act entitled “An act for the control
and regulation of the waters of the Niagara River, for the preservation of
Niagara Falls, and for other purposes.”
The first Section of this act provided that diversion of water from the
Niagara River in New York was prohibited, except with the consent of the
Secretary of War under section 2 of the act, and that nothing contained in
the act should be construed as limiting or forbidding diversions of waters of
the Great Lakes Or Niagara River for sanitary or domestic purposes.
Section 2 authorized the Secretary of War to grant permits for the diversion
of water from the Niagara River in New York for power purposes, with certain
limitations as to groSS amount, but the principal Object was to enable the
Operation of existing power plants.
Section 3 provided a penalty upon persons diverting water contrary to the
provisions of the act.
Section 4 requested the President of the United States to open negotiations
with the Government of Great Britain looking toward the making of a treaty
for regulation and control of the waters of the Niagara River and its tribu-
taries.
Section 5 provided the act should remain in force for three years.
Section 6 appropriated $50,000 to carry out the provisions of the act.
Section 7 reserved the right to alter, amend, or repeal the act.
There was absolutely no provision of the act relating to navigation, except
as the limitation of the diversions from the Niagara River might indirectly
affect it.
The condition imposed upon the sanitary district by the various bills before
this committee, namely, that the district shall Construct and place in Operation
sewage-disposal works so that they will take care at certain times of named
populations, is within congressional authority. The Des Plaines and Illinois
Rivers are navigable waters of the United States. It is admitted without
question that Congress has the right to legislate as to the pollution of navigable
waters. The effect of the condition providing that the sanitary district shall
install artificial sewage-purification works is in the interest of reducing
the pollution of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. In New York v. New
Jersey (256 U. S. 296), the United States intervened on the ground that the
Passaic Valley sewage commissioners, in discharging Sewage into New York
Bay, injured navigation. The defendants in that suit entered into a stipula-
tion providing that within a certain period of time the Passaic Valley Sewage
commissioners would install and operate Sewage-purification works to purify
the sewage to be discharged to a certain degree. Thereupon, the United
States withdrew from the suit. The Supreme Court, as stated, commended
this agreement in no uncertain terms, thus recognizing the authority of the
United States, even by an administrative officer, to make a similar agreement.
There can be no question about the regulating Or Compensating Works, as that
is directly within the scope of the commerce clause of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Illinois, in a number of cases with reference to the
character of the legislation establishing the Sanitary district and the Works
constructed under this act, has held that it was in the exercise of the police
power and for sanitary purposes.
In Wilson v. Board of Trustees (133 Ill. 443 (465) the Court said:
“The preservation of health is one of the paramount objects of government.
(1 Blackstone's Com. (Sharswood's ed.) 132–133.) It belongs to the police
power, “subject to the proper exercise of which,’ says Dillon (Mun. Corp., Sec.
93), ‘either by the State legislature directly or by public corporations to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1703
which the legislature may delegate it, every citizen holds his property.” It
includes the making of sewers and drains for the removal of garbage and
filth, the boring of artesian wells and the construction of aqueducts for the
purpose of procuring a supply of pure, fresh water, the drain of malarious
swamps, and the erection of levees to prevent overflow. (See Dillon on Mun.
Corp., sec. 93–96; Cooley on Taxation (1st ed.), 101.)
“It is too plain for argument that the drain here in contemplation falls
within this power, and perhaps no one will question the competency of the
general assembly to invest cities, towns, and villages with the power to Con-
Struct like drainS.”
In People v. Nelson (133 Ill. 565 (579)), the court said: “Sanitary districts are
municipal corporations which, in their constituton and purpose, are unlike any
class of muſicipal corporations heretofore existing in the State. They are, so to
speak, a new product of the creative power of the legislature. Their character
and purpose are both indicated and limited by the word “sanitary,” and it
must be admitted that the general objects and purposes Of the municipal
corporations organized under said act must be restricted to such as are
fairly to be implied from the use of that word. The word “sanitary is de-
fined by Webster to mean, ‘pertaining to, or designed to Secure, Sanity or
health ; relating to the preservation of health.” It would seem to follow that a
sanitary district is, ex vi termini, a municipal corporation organized to secure,
preserve, and promote the public health.”
In Judge v. Bergman (258 Ill. 246 (250)) Judge, a taxpayer, filed a bill to
enjoin the sanitary district from construing an intercepting sewer within the
limits of the city of Evanston to carry the sewage of Evanston into the north
shore channel. The court said :
“The primary object in organizing the Sanitary District of Chicago was to
dispose of the sewage without pollution of the waters of Lake Michigan. This
purpose was accomplished, at the cost of many millions of dollars, by construct-
ing the main channel of the sanitary district canal with such adjuncts and
additions thereto as were necessary or proper to carry the Sewage to said main
channel. The north shore channel was constructed for the purpose of conveying
the sewage of Evanston and other municipalities north of Chicago to the main
channel of the sanitary district. * * * The improvement is a necessary
part of the general purpose to avoid the pollution of the waters of Lake Michi-
gan, and its construction will confer benefits on the whole people of the sanitary
district of the same general character as those that result from the construc-
tion of the main channel of the Sanitary district.” g
In Pittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Co. v. Sanitary District
(218 III. 286 (295)) the court said:
“Especially must this be true when it is remembered that the Sanitary Dis-
trict of Chicago is not a corporation for pecuniary profit, but a municipal
corporation organized for the purpose of furnishing an outlet to the sewage of
a great city and thereby protecting the health of its inhabitants, and that the
act under which it was Organized was passed especially with reference to the
conditions which were known to exist in the territory which was to be em-
braced within Said district when Organized.”
Much has been said as to injury to the different States about the Great Lakes.
It can not be forgotten that the State of Illinois acted cautiously and with due
regard to the rights of all persons in providing for the Chicago diversion to
the amount of 10,000 second-feet. It acted under authority of the act of Con-
gress of March 2, 1827, and under its police powers. Congress not only has not
legislated against it but has by numerous acts provided for surveys to utilize
the diversion. It has provided for surveys and reports to provide means to
offset for the diversion by constructing regulating or compensating works.
They have been recommended by the Engineer Corps. The State did not act
under cover. It acted Openly. The building of the canal was a great engineer-
ing feat, known to every one. It was commenced about the time of the World's
Fair, when people from all these different States, including the officials, visited
Chicago. These drainage works and the diversion of water to Operate them
was considered a public necessity. It has been so found by the International
Waterways Commission. Senator Lodge, in connection with the conference
report on the bill for the preservation of Niagara Falls, expressed the feeling
not only of the Senate but also that of the House managers.
A State in attempting to enjoin this diversion would be compelled to show
a clear legal right. In Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46) Kansas brought
1704 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Suit to enjoin Colorado from diverting the waters of the Arkansas River for
irrigation purposes. It was claimed that this diversion seriously injured the
people of Kansas, and that Colorado had no right to such diversion. The
Court, in Summing up its conclusions, stated (117) :
“* * * That the result of that appropriation has been the reclamation of
large areas in Colorado, transforming thousands of acres into fertile fields,
and rendering possible their occupation and cultivation when otherwise they
WOuld have continued barren and unoccupied ; that while the influence of
Such diminution has been of perceptible injury to portions of the Arkansas
Valley in Kansas, particularly those portions closest to the Colorado line,
yet to the great body of the valley it has worked little, if any, detriment, and
regarding the interests of both States, and the right of each to receive benefit
through irrigation and in any other manner from the waters of this stream, we
are not Satisfied that Kansas has made out a case entitling it to a decree.”
See also New York v. New Jersey, et al. (256 U. S. 296, at p. 309).
“With the record in this State we come to consider the evidence introduced,
but Subject to the rule that the burden upon the State of New York of sus-
taining the allegations of its bill is much greater than that imposed upon a
COmplainant in an ordinary suit between private parties. Before this court
can be moved to exercise its extraordinary power under the Constitution to
Control the conduct of one State at the suit of another, the threatened invasion
Of rights must be of serious magnitude and it must be established by clear and
convincing evidence. (Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496.)” *
Furthermore, as stated by Judge Barrett, the Supreme Court exercises and
applies Whatever principles of law may be necessary to properly Settle the
Controversy, including the principles of international law. The State of
Illinois, as between sister States, is in the position of an independent
SOvereignty. The waters of Lake Michigan are within her boundaries. She
has the right to divert them.
In Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46) the court quoted from the same case
when it was on demurrer (185 U. S. 125) as follows:
“Sitting, as it were, as an international as well as a domestic tribunal, we
apply Federal law, State law, and internationl law as the exigencies of the
particular case may demand.”
The court then said (597) : .
“One cardinal rule underlying all the relations of the States to each other
is that of equality of right. Each State stands on the same level with all the
rest. It can impose its own legislation on no one of the others and is bound
to yield its own views to none. Yet, whenever, as in the case of Missouri v.
Illinois, Supra, the action of one State reaches through the agency of natural
laws into the territory of another State, the question of the extent and the
limitations Of the rights of the two States becomes a matter of justiciable dis-
pute between them, and this court is called upon to settle that dispute in such
a Way as Will recognize the equal rights of both and at the same time establish
justice between them. In other words, through these successive disputes and
decisions this court is practically building up what may not improperly be
Called interState Common law.” - -
Chief Justice Marshall said, in Schooner Exchange v. McFadden (7 Cranch,
p. 136) : .. & *
“The jurisdiction of the Nation within its own territory is necessarily ex-
clusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.
Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply
a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an invest:
ment of that Sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose
Such restriction. -
“All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within
its own territory must be traced up to the consent of the Nation itself. They
can flow from no other legitimate source.” - -
Of course it is admitted that all claimed injury to navigation or the harbors
of the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and New York would be entirely removed by the construction and operation
of the regulating or compensating works proposed. -
The treaty of 1910 relating to Canadian boundary waters has been much
discussed during these hearings. I can not add anything to my colleague, Mr.
Behan’s admirable presentation of the sanitary district's contention in regard
to the treaty construction. However, after Mr. Behan made his argument
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1705
Certain questions have been put by the chairman and other members of the
Committee, which I believe should be mentioned.
The chairman has referred to certain statements of Secretary of State Root,
made before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations when it was consider-
ing the ratification of the treaty. Mr. Behan in his argument referred to Mr.
Root's statement. It is as follows:
“The great bulk of the water goes on the Canadian side and the waterways
Commission that was appointed Sometime ago to deal with the question of the
lake levels reports, I think, that 36,000 feet can be taken out on the Canadian
side and 18,500 on the American side without injury to the Falls. I thought
it wise to follow the report of the commission and put in 1,500 feet in addi-
tion to get round numbers, so Our limit is higher than we want, but their limit
would not be cut down below what it is because there are three companies
On the Canadian side who have works there. Then there is this further fact
Why We Could not object to this 36,000 cubic feet on the Canadian side : We
are now taking 10,000 cubic feet per second out of Lake Michigan at Chicago,
and I refused to permit them to say anything in the treaty about it. , I would
not permit them to Say anything about Lake Michigan. I would not have
anything in the treaty about it, and under the circumstances I thought it better
not to kick about this 36,000. They consented to leave out of this treaty any
reference to the drainage canal, and we are now taking 10,000 cubic feet per
Second for the drainage canal, which really comes out of this lake system.”
The particular words seized upon by the chairman as supporting his ap-
parent contention that the treaty did not preclude Canada from objecting to
the diversion of 10,000 second-feet of water were the last few sentences,
where the Secretary said:
“I refused to permit them to say anything in the treaty about it. I would
not permit them to say anything about Lake Michigan. I would not have any-
thing in the treaty about it. * * * They consented to leave out of this
treaty any reference to the drainage Canal.” -
The chairman took these words to mean that the Secretary's statement could
not be reconciled with the sanitary district’s contention, namely, that Canada
has consented to and is precluded from objecting to the diversion at Chicago
to the amount of 10,000 second-feet. Undoubtedly the chairman would find
the Secretary’s statement easily reconciled if he would consider that the treaty
was not a grant of powers, but merely a limitation of powers or rights. That
is, the two Governments agreed that as to certain things they would limit the
exercise of their sovereignty. This was true, of course, of the clause of the
treaty relating to the Niagara diversion and all others. Article 2 of the treaty
recognizes the sovereign rights and expressly provides that those sovereign
rights shall not be disturbed or limited as to nonboundary waters, except that
citizens of one country might sue in the courts of another for injury or damage
to them as to cases not then existing, and either high contracting party might
object as to cases not then existing, only on the ground of injury to navigation.
This is clear from the provisions of the treaty, from the following words:
“Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself, or to the several
State governments on the one side and the Dominion or provincial government
on the other, as the case may be, subject to any treaty provisions now existing
with respect thereto, the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and
diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all waters on its own side of
the line which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary or into
boundary waters.” -
This meant that whatever sovereign power the United States or a State
government had over nonboundary waters was reserved. There is no grant,
but merely a reservation. Thus Secretary Root meant when he made the
statement that he did, above quoted, that he refused to agree on behalf of
the United States to any limitation of this sovereign power of the United
States or of the State of Illinois with reference to Lake Michigan.
The very opening sentence of the treaty states that it is the purpose “to
settle all questions which are now pending between the United States and
the Dominion of Canada involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either
in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other along their common
frontier and to make provision for the adjustment and settlement of all such
questions as may hereafter arise.” .
Section 4 of the rivers and harbors act of June 13, 1902, states the powers
of the International Waterways Commission. The commission was organized
1706 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
“to be composed of three members of the United States and three who shall
represent the interests of the Dominion of Canada.” -
The commission was thus established by reciprocal legislation of the
Dominion of Canada and of the United States. The Canadian members rep-
resented Canada, and officially. The International Waterways Commission
was no informal body. Thus when the commission investigated the diver-
sion at Chicago and the Canadian members agree to the diversion of 10,000
second-feet at Chicago and accepted the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per
second through the Chicago River as an existing fact, then only the diver-
Sion beyond that amount was a question to be settled. There was no question
between the Governments at the time the treaty Was made as to that diver-
Sion. Likwise the American members bound the United States to the propo-
sition that a diversion beyond the 10,000 second-feet was not an existing fact,
and was a question to be later settled under the terms of the treaty.
The American members likewise bound the United States to the right Of
the citizens of the Canadian Government in case of injury due to a diversion
Of more than 10,000 Second-feet to Sue for damages and to the right of the
Government of Great Britain to object to a diversion beyond 10,000 second-
feet in the event it should injure navigation. At the time the treaty was made
the diversion works for 10,000 second-feet had been completed. The diversion
actually existed. The money had been extended. The 10,000 second-feet
diversion was required at that time or in the very immediate future. It was the
purpose of the treaty to protect existing investments. There is no question
about that being the construction of article 5 relating to the diversion for power
purposes at Niagara. Is it p0SSible that the high contracting parties con-
sidered the investment of moneys in private corporations or for power pur-
poses more sacred than the public money invested by the sanitary district
in the diversion works in the interest of public health? -
The Canadians have built a canal from above Niagara Falls clear down to
Lake Ontario to divert from the Niagara River above the Falls 10,000 second-feet
of water to Lake Ontario, where the potential power is converted into elec-
tricity. This is known as the Chippewa-Queenstown development, and the
Water to operate this plant when once diverted from above the Falls is never
returned to the Niagara River. The treaty does not permit this diversion and
the development of Water power by means of it. This Canadian Queenstown
new plant is contrary to the terms of the treaty. When the treaty was made
the water diverted from the Niagara River above the Falls for power pur-
poses, was returned very shortly below the Falls, and then it flowed to
Ontario through the Niagara River. The opening paragraph of article 5
demonstrates this fact:
“The high contracting parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diver-
sion of waters from the Niagara River so that the level of Lake Erie and the
flow of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both
parties to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments
which have already been made in the construction of power plants on the United
States' side of the river under grants of authority from the State of New York,
and on the Canadian Side of the river under licenses authorized by the DO-
minion of Canada and the Province Of Ontario.” -
To carry out the objects expressed in the above clause, “the United States
may authorize and permit the diversion within the State Of New York
* * * ,” etc., and “the United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or
the Province of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the
Province of Ontario of the waters of Said river * * *.”
The only purpose of the permits of diversions of the Niagara River above
the Falls was to protect the then existing investments and to affect the flow
of water in the Niagara River as little as possible. It never contemplated
the complete diversion from the river above the Falls, and thus provide an
additional development and investment such as the new Canadian Chippawa
Power Development, with its attendant diversion of 10,000 second-feet entirely
from the Niagara River from above the Falls.
The chairman has, on many occasions, referred to the second paragraph
of article 1 of the treaty—the sentence as follows:
“It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this
same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan.”
From this sentence he argues that, as Canada had the right of navigation
on Lake Michigan she Would have a right to object to anything done that
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1707
Would affect navigation thereon. What was granted there was that the in-
habitants or citizens of Canada should have the same right of navigation
that citizens and inhabitants of the United States had. In other words,
Whatever facilities of navigation were provided by the United States on
Lake Michigan, the inhabitants and citizens of Canada could enjoy. This
is shown by the first paragraph of article 1 of the treaty. Furthermore,
article 2 of the treaty reserved exclusive jurisdiction and control over Lake
Michigan, a nonboundary water. If there was anything to the chairman's
Contention as to the sentence of article 1 quoted, it was certainly limited by
the express provisions of article 2.
It has been demonstrated by the evidence presented that the protection
of the health of 3,000,000 people requires the full diversion of 10,000 second-
feet. Compensating Works, that is fixed weirs, may be placed in the St. Clair
and Niagara Rivers, entirely on the American side, without violating the
treaty, to which it is unnecessary to obtain Canada’s consent. The evidence
has disclosed beyond the shadow of a doubt that regulating works may be
installed at the head of the Niagara River to provide better navigation fa-
cilities with the Chicago diversion existing, than could be done if there were
no diversions at Chicago.
The same is true as to the regulation of the levels of Lake Ontario, and
Canada can not refuse her consent to the construction and operation of regu-
lating works So necessary for navigation regardless of diversions. Thus, if
the sanitary district’s proposal is here accepted and regulating works are
built at the places provided all damage to navigation and water power will be
removed ; the interests Of all Will be composed ; no objection can exist on the
part of the different States about the Great Lakes and on the Niagara River.
for there WOuld be n0 possible injury. The Lake Carriers’ Association and
other navigation interests would not only be protected, but benefited. Any
injury to Canada is removed, and, in any event, Canada can not object for
she has consented by the treaty to the 10,000 second-feet diversion.
Respectfully Submitted.
EDMUND D. ADCOCK,
Of Counsel for the Sanitary District.
(The papers filed by Mr. Goulder May 27, 1924, are as follows:)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHODS, PROCESSES, AND STRUCTURES USED IN THE TREAT-
MENT AND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY."
[By H. B. Hommon, J. K. Hoskins, H. W. Streeter, R. E. Tarbett, and H. H. Wagenhals,
associate sanitary engineers, United States Public Health Service]
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum has been prepared for the purpose of calling attention to
methods, structures, and special processes for the treatment and disposal of
sewage in the United States.
The descriptions have been made brief and of a very general nature, since it
would be impossible to include a Complete history Of Sewage disposal in Such
a memorandum on the Subject in the limited time available. The information
is sufficient, however, to give a general idea of the various methods of disposal,
and references have been made to literature where Complete data may be
obtained on the design and operation of any combination of treatment devices
discussed in the text.
There is given in the appendix a list of certain reports submitted with the
memorandum covering investigations and recommendations, together with Other
data relating to Sewage disposal for Some of the larger cities of the United
States. Especial attention is called to the Report of the Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission of New York City and to the reports of the Sewerage Commission
of the City of Milwaukee. The former contains a very comprehensive review
of modern Sewage disposal practice and the latter contains the latest data. On
the recently developed activated Sludge process of treatment.
* Prepared at the request of the Brazilian Embassy for a brief memorandum on modern
sewage disposal practice in the United States. Reprint from the Public Health Reports,
vol. 35, No. 3, Jan. 16, 1920, pp. 101–131.
1708 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
DILUTION
The disposal of sewage by dilution consists of its discharge into natural
bodies of water, in Some cases with and in others without preliminary treat-
ment. In the former instances it constitutes a single and complete method of
disposal. In the latter it may be regarded as the final step of a more or less
elaborate System of treatment, in which it is employed in conjunction with one
or more artificial processes. Wherever sewage or a sewage effluent is dis-
charged into a natural watercourse, dilution constitutes an integral part of the
disposal process. *
Dilution has for a long time been the most common means of sewage disposal
practiced in the United States. Formerly it was regarded as a temporary and
undesirable expedient, to be ultimately abandoned as soon as sewage purifica-
tion became Sufficiently developed. During recent years, however, the economic
need for utilizing to the greatest possible extent the self-purification capacity
Of natural watercourses has been apparent, with the result that the disposal
Of Community Wastes by natural dilution has become recognized as a legitimate
and desirable process, where carried out in such a manner as not to endanger
the public health. º
Where dilution is successfully applied, it must, in general, accomplish one
Or both of the two following results, depending upon the uses to which the
receiving body of water is to be subsequently devoted:
1. The limitation of bacterial numbers present in receiving watercourse to
Within boundaries safely consistent with the hygienic safety of whatever sources
Of Water Supply, bathing beaches, or Shellfish areas may be dependent upon such
a WaterCOUIrSe. w
2. The maintenance of a sufficient reserve supply of dissolved oxygen in the
receiving watercourse to insure its freedom from objectionable odors or other
conditions, either locally or at more distant points. -
In general, the degree of dilution necessary to satisfy the first of these
requirements is much higher than that required for the second, although this
principle may not necessarily hold if Careful local precautions relative to the
proper dispersion of Sewage are neglected. -
The prescription of definite quantitative standards with reference to the
dilution of normal Sewage has for a long time engaged the attention of Sanitary
engineers. The first authoritative standard of this sort proposed in the United
States was that of Hering, Williams, and Artingstall” in 1887, who concluded
from a study of data for the design of the Chicago Drainage Canal that the
minimum flow of the canal safely consistent with the avoidance of objectionable
conditions should be 3.3 cubic feet per second per thousand of waste-contrib-
uting population. This standard was widely accepted for many years.
More recently, however, a further knowledge of the variable part played by
self-purification in determining the capacity of water courses for pollution
has resulted in a greater degree Of Caution in attempting to adopt and apply
widely any fixed standard of dilution which must be met at the point of sewage
Outfall. On the Contrary, the present tendency in the United States is in the
direction of prescribing standards as to maximum bacterial loads imposable
upon water purification plants at the intake, and as to the minimum permissible
degree of dissolved oxygen saturation at critical points consistent with the
avoidance of nuisance. An example of the former is the So-called International
Joint Commission standard,” which states that the maximum safe bacterial
load imposable upon a modern efficient Water purification plant should be such
that no more than 50 per cent of 0.1. C. C. portions of the raw water, tested
regularly throughout the year, should contain B. coli. In terms of the con-
monly employed B. coli index, this is equivalent to a yearly average bacterial
load of not exceeding 500 B. coli per 100 C. C. An example of the second
type of standard noted above is that which was proposed by Black and Phelps *
as governing the minimum permissible dissolved oxygen content of New York
Harbor. This standard, which was given as not less than 70 per cent oxygen
saturation, is not concurred in by Fuller, who states" that 20 per cent for
winter conditions and 30 per cent for Summer (each equivalent to about 2.5
parts per million of dissolved oxygen) represent a more practical and generally
accepted minimum.
* Hering, R., Transactions of Am. Public Health Assoe, Vol. XIII. * ~ *
8 International Joint Commission, Final Report on Pollution of Boundary Waters.
4 See reference No. 14 in bibliography to present section.
5 Fuller, G. W., Sewage Disposal, 1st edition, pp. 217–218.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1709
Still more recently the United States Public Health Service has conducted in
the Ohio River Basin probably the most intensive scientific study of stream
pollution which has ever been carried out. The results obtained from this
Study, the publication of which is now under way, have thrown considerable
Inew light upon the entire matter of standards of dilution as well as upon the
fundamental principles underlying the disposal of community wastes by this
method. They have emphasized the great need for caution in applying any
fixed standards of dilution to widely varying conditions. At the same time
they have shown conclusively that the combined resources of natural dilution
and self-purification represent a tremendous economic asset which, in a given
Case, may be evaluated in definite quantitative terms through properly planned
preliminary studies. Such resources should be utilized to the fullest possible
extent in connection with any proposed project of Sewage treatment involving
artificial processes in order that the cost of the latter may be minimized. .
A full description of the theory and practice of dilution processes is given by
Metcalf and Eddy and by Fuller in the general references (15 and 16) accom-
panying the present discussion. -
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Disposal of sewage by dilution at Rochester, N. Y.” Engineering Record,
vol. 61, p. 654; vol. 62, p. 423.
“Discussion of discharge of sewage into Lake Erie at Cleveland, Ohio.”
Engineering Record, vol. 63, p. 207.
“Chicago Drainage Canal—Efficiency of disposal by dilution.” Engineering
Record, vol. 63. p. 79.
“Sewage-disposal plans for New York City—Report of Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission.” Engineering Record, vol. 66, pp. 99, 441, and 569.
“Sewage in sea water—Investigation by Adeney, Letts, and Richards.” En-
gineering Record, vol. 65, p. 12.
“Dilution and sewage treatment—Testimony of sanitary experts on pollu-
tion of Great Lakes boundary waters before International Joint Commission.”
Engineering Record, vol. 70, pp. 128 and 174.
“New York Harbor conditions of rainfall, sewage, storm, and tidal waters—
Report by Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.” Engineering Record, February
7, 1914.
“Chicago should no longer depend upon sewage dilution.” Engineering Rec-
ord, September 25, 1915.
“Sewage disposal by dilution.” Times Eng. Supp. No. 527, p. 188 (British),
September, 1918. (Experimental investigation of British royal commission
on sewage disposal into the self-purifying capacity of rivers.)
“Sewage disposal by dilution, including chlorination of sewage effluent and
treatment of sludge.” W. C. Easdale. Surveyor (British), pp. 227–229 and
244–246, March 21 and 28, 1919; also Engineering and Contracting, pp. 456–459,
April 30, 1919. (Concerning removal of maximum percentage of solids in sus-
pension ; maintenance of sewage in fresh condition ; treatment of sludge in such
a manner as to facilitate its disposal without causing fouling of tank effluent.)
“Diffusion of sewage in Šalt water.” Municipal Journal, January 18, 1917
(experiments in laboratory and in New York Harbor with sewage discharged
below the surface).
“The disposal of sewage by dilution—A biochemical method of purification.”
W. E. Adeney. Journal Inst. San. Engrs. (British), January, 1916. (With
discussion.)
“Disposal of Greater New York's sewage.” Charles E. Gregory. Municipal
Journal, November 4, 1915. (Abstract of paper before Municipal Engineers of
New York. General plan outlined ; discussion of digesting power of harbor.
A valuable and practical paper.)
“The discharge of sewage into New York Harbor.” W. M. Black and E. B.
Phelps. Report made to board of estimate and apportionment, New York City.
1911. -
GENERAL REFERENCES
“Sewage disposal.” G. W. Fuller. 1st edition, 1912, Chapters VIII, IX,
and X.
“American sewerage practice.” Vol. III, Disposal of Sewage. Metcalf and
Eddy. 1st edition, 1915, Chapter VII; also pp. 201–203.
“Sewage disposal.” Kinnicutt, Winslow, and Pratt. Second edition, 1919.
tº
1710 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
“Final report of the International Joint Commission on the pollution of
boundary waters.” Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Annual reports Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, New York City, 1912
and 1914.
Report on Sewage-disposal system of Rochester, N. Y. E. A. Fisher, city
engineer, April, 1913.
GRIT CHAMBERS
In Combined Sewerage Systems considerable amounts of coarse mineral mat-
ter enter the Sewers. Where sewage is pumped or treated, or both, it is gener-
ally advisable to remove this matter in order to prevent injury to the pumpS
and interference with the treatment processes. To accomplish this removal
the Sewage is passed through small tanks so designed as to reduce the velocity
to a point where deposition of this suspended mineral matter will take place,
but not to a point where deposition of the organic matter in suspension will
take ºnce In general, this velocity should not average less than 1 foot per
SeCODOl.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Cleveland's Sewage treatment by revolving screens and novel grit cham-
bers—Details of plant.” George B. Gascoigne. Engineering Record, March 25,
1916. (Illustrated; 3,000 words.)
“Grit Chambers and fine screens for part of New York sewage.” Charles E.
Gregory. Engineering News-Record, April 3, 1919, pp. 672–674. (Five illus-
trations. Screens of the revolving-disk type. Plant serves 345 acres, of which
about 17 per cent is built up with apartment houses.) -
GENERAL REFERENCES
American Sewerage Practice. Vol. III, Sewage Disposal, Chapter VIII.
Metcalf and Eddy.
Sewage Disposal. George W. Fuller, pp. 396–417.
Sewage Disposal. Kinnicutt, Winslow, and Pratt, pp. 73–75, 170–171, 332.
Report on Test at Sewage Testing Station, Cleveland, Ohio. City of Cleve-
land, Ohio, 1914. Hoffman, Pratt, Hommon.
Report on Sewage Purification at Columbus, Ohio. George A. Johnson, 1905.
Report to the director of public service, Akron, Ohio, on “Sewage treatment
and trade wastes.” H. B. Hommon, 1912. *
SCREENING
Screens have beeen used in connection with Sewage disposal Since the instal-
lation Of the first Sewage-pumping plants. Originally they were installed to
remove coarse material that would tend to clog and break the pumps, but
later they came into use for removing the finer particles from sewage that
CauSed trouble in Operating treatment plants Or producd nuisance in bodies of
Water receiving raw sewage. Those used for protecting sewage pumps have
been classed as coarse screens, while those installed to remove finer particles
have been referred to as fine screens. There is no general agreement as to
what constitutes a coarse or a fine Screen except as to the purpose for Which
they are installed.
There are many designs for coarse screens, but the type most generally used
consists of vertical bars spaced 1 inch to 4 inches apart and Set in frames
inclined 30° to 45° from the vertical. They may be cleaned in place by hand-
raking, or they may be lifted mechanically and raked. There are no particular
difficulties involved in designing screens of this type. For special references
to installations in this country attention is called to the bibliography at the
end of this Section.
Fine screens first came into prominence in Europe, but recently they have
been given considerable attention in this country. The first large installation
was the revolving cylindrical Screen at Reading, Pa. It was operated to
remove the coarse suspended matter from raw sewage SO as to prevent the
heavy scum formation in the septic tanks and the clogging of the Sprinkling
nozzles. At Baltimore, Md., a large cylindrical screen was operated to remove
the floating particles from the effluent of the septic tanks that had caused
clogging of the nozzles of the filters. The original screen at Reading Was COV-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1711
ered with 40-mesh monel metal wire cloth, protected by a 5%-inch mesh screen
Of No. 12 copper wire. In later installations of this type of screen at other
Cities by the designer, 30 and 32 mesh wire cloth were recommended. The
Baltimore Screen was covered with 26-mesh monel metal cloth supported by
heavy copper-wire cloth. There was only a small amount of material to be
removed by the Baltimore screen, and the cost of operation was very low ;
While at Reading the suspended matter removed from the raw sewage was
relatively high, and the cost of operation likewise was in proportion. These
tWO Screens represent the practice of Screening sewage where treatment plants
are in Operation.
Fine Screens have also been considered extensively in connection with the dis-
posal of sewage by dilution. The visible surface pollution of the water fronts
Of many of Our rivers and harbors has become a nuisance before the diluting
Capacity Of the body of water has been reached. In Such cases it has been
recommended that the sewage be passed through fine Screens in order to remove
the material that rises to the surface. The Riensch-Wurl Screen has been
installed in many places in this country to remove coarse material from Sew-
age, preparatory to discharging into watercourses. The tests of this Screen
at Cleveland, Ohio, and Brooklyn, N. Y., are of Special interest, and the report
of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York City throws much
light on the whole subject of fine screens. References to the reports mentioned
above and all other important installations or tests are given in the bibliog-
raphy at the close of this Section.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Removal of organic matter by screens and tanks.” Emil Kuichling. Engi-
neering Record, vol. 61, p. 669, 1909.
“Screens with automatic cleaning mechanism, Richmond, England.” Engi-
neering Record, vol. 62, p. 130, 1910.
“German experience in removing suspended matter from crude sewage—
Comparison of revolving screens of several types, data concerning their opera-
tion and cost, and relation of screens to settling tanks.” Kenneth Allen. En-
gineering Record, vol. 67, p. 470, 1913.
‘Sewage screening at Daytona, Fla..” (Design.) Municipal Journal, vol. 37,
p. 884, 1914. -
“Clarifying Sewage by fine screens,” Kenneth Allen. Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. XL, No. 6, August, 1914. Discussion:
Proceedings American Society of Civil Engineers, November, 1914; December,
1914; January, 1915; March, 1915. (Mr. Allen's paper and the discussion that
followed brought out practically all the information available on fine screens
in this country and abroad up to 1914.) -
“Clarifying sewage by fine screens.” Municipal Journal, vol. 39, pp. 143, 186,
220, 1915. (Review of Mr. Allen's paper.)
“Cleveland’s sewage treatment by revolving screens and novel grit cham-
bers—Details of plant.” George B. Gascoigne. Engineering Record, March 25,
1916. (Illustrated ; 3,000 words.)
“Report to the city engineer on tests of operation of Riensch-Wurl screen at
Cleveland, Ohio.” George B. Gascoigne, January 15, 1917.
“Considerations leading to recommendations of fine screens, sprinkling filters,
humus tanks, and sludge recovery as a sewage-disposal method for Indianapolis,
Ind.,” from a paper by George W. Fuller, presented to the Indiana Sanitary
and Water Supply Association. Engineering and Contracting, April 10, 1918.
(4,000 words.)
“Operation of fine screens at Long Beach, Calif.” Engineering News-Record,
May 22, 1919. pp. 1012–1013. (Report indicates removal of 16.3 per cent solids.)
“Grit chambers and fine screens for part of New York sewage.” Charles E.
Gregory. Engineering News-Record, April 3, 1919, pp. 672–674. (5 illustrations.
Screens of the revolving disk type. Plant sewers 345 acres, of which about
17 per cent is built up with apartment houses.)
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sewage Disposal. Kinnicut, Winslow, and Pratt. Chapter III. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Sewage Disposal. George W. Fuller. Chapter XII. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.
1712 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
American Sewerage Practice. Metcalf & Eddy. Vol. III. Disposal of Sew-
age, Chapter IX. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Sewage Sludge. Elsner, Spillner & Allen. (Many references throughout the
book. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.) ;
Report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York, 1912—1914.
(Important documents on the disposal of sewage from large cities located on
tidewater.)
SEWAGE TREATMENT TANKS
In order to remove from sewage finely divided suspended and colloidal matter
which readily passes through screens and grit chambers, sedimentation has been
Widely used. Sedimentation processes are of two general types: Plain sedi-
mentation, where mechanical settling is alone attempted, and sedimentation
Combined with some form of sludge digestion for reducing the volume of sludge
obtained in the settling process in which the bacterial action plays a part.
Plain sedimentation.—Plain sedimentation of sewage may be effected either
by allowing the liquid to stand in tanks for a certain period of time or by
allowing it to flow slowly and continuously through tanks while the suspended
matter settles to the bottom. Owing to practical difficulies of operation of the
former method, continuous-flow tanks are preferred. Many studies of sedi-
mentation have been made, the results of which are to be found in the literature
On the Subject. The period of detention is an important factor in the design
and ranges from 30 minutes to 6 hours. Longer periods are generally unnec-
eSSary and may even prove detrimental if the effluent is to undergo further
treatment.
Plain Sedimentation tanks may be either of the horizontal or vertical flow
type. Horizontal tanks may have level or inclined bottoms, the latter usually
being deepest at the inlet end. Circular, vertical-flow tanks may have conical
bottoms for sludge storage, with the inlet above the conical section and the
Outlet at the top of the tank. In order to operate, the upward velocity of flow
in Vertical tanks must be less than the downward rate of travel of the settling
material. The Dortmund and Watson tanks are examples of the vertical-flow
principle.
Chemical precipitation.—In order to hasten and extend the action of plain
sedimentation, chemicals of various kinds may be added to the sewage which
will coagulate and envelop or combine with the Suspended, colloidal, or soluble
matter, and carry it to the bottom of the tank. The most common chemicals
used are lime, alum, ferrous Sulphate. ferric Sulphate, and alumino-ferric. The
degree of precipitation effected depends upon the amount of chemicals used.
From 65 to 90 per cent of suspended matter is generally removed by this
method, though the COSt is at times prohibitive. The effluent is comparatively
clear with decreased bacterial content. Large quantities of sludge are formed,
Which is usually costly to dispose of, and this is one of the principal objections
to the method.
Septic tanks.-Various forms of tanks have been devised to liquefy the set-
tled material and make its further disposal less costly and objectionable. The
Cameron Septic tank was one of the first steps in this direction. . It consisted
of a tightly covered horizontal-flow tank, in which the period of detention was
from 8 to about 24 hours. Considerable quantities of gases are generated, which
in escaping tend to nullify in part the Sedimentation process. The effluent often
has a marked Odor, and it may contain Substances that render its further
treatment difficult. This form of tank has been practically abandoned in favor
of more satisfactory types.
Travis tanks.--This type of tank was designed and patented by Doctor
Travis, at Hampton, England, in 1903. It is frequently referred to as the
Hampton two-story tank, and its installation at Hampton marks the first
important step in the development of a new principle for tank treatment of
sewage. The tank is divided into three longitudinal Sections (see Fuller,
Sewage Disposal, fig. 35), two of which are called sedimentation chambers
and the third the liquefying chamber. The latter is separated from the
sedimentation chambers by sloping longitudinal division walls, supported at
the ends of the tank and Open at the sides. In the Operation of the Original
tanks about 87.5 per cent of the raw sewage passed through the sedimentation
chambers and 12.5 per cent through the liquefying Section. The solids re-
moved in the sedimentation chambers dropped through the openings or slots
between the separating walls and the sides of the tank into the liquefying
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1713
ection. The sewage remained in the settling chambers approximately 5
Ours and in the liquefying chamber 15 hours.
This design of tank appeared to be a great improvement over the Septic tank
that the digestion Of the sludge took place in a Section. Of the tank prac-
ically separate from those through which the fresh Sewage flowed, SO that
he gases and products of decomposition of the sludge came in contact only
with the 12.5 per cent of sewage flowing through the liquefying cinamber.
hese features, together with the Stone-filled hydrolyzing chambers which Were
ncluded as a part Of the design Of the Original tank to receive the tank
filuent for the purpose of removing finely divided Suspended particles, caused
a very favorable impression to be formed regarding the practicability of
his type of settling tank. Before it had gained general recognition in this
ountry, however, Dr. Karl Imhoff, Of the Drainage District Board in Germany,
ade some modifications of the Original design that appeared SO practical
nd in Operation gave such excellent results that the Imhoff tank, described
n the next Section, rapidly SuperSeded the Travis design.
Imhoff tanks.-The most Satisfactory type of two-story Sedimentation and
ludge-digestion tank in general use is known as the Emscher, or Imhoff
tank, named for its inventor, Dr. Karl Imhoff. This tank is similar in many
respects to the Travis tank, except that no Sewage is allowed to enter the
sludge chamber and the Sedimentation period is shorter.
Imhoff tanks are of two general types: the radial or down-and-up flow
and the longitudinal flow. The former type is circular in plan, while the latter,
which is generally used, may be circular, Square, or rectangular. The sedi-
mentation chamber forms the upper story and has a sloping bottom with slots
through which the settled sludge slides into the digestion chamber under-
neath. The slots are trapped in such manner as to prevent the passage of
gaSes through the Sedimentation Chamber.
The detention period of sewage in the Imhoff tank ranges from 2% to
3 hours, and the velocity is approximately 0.6 foot per minute through the
sedimentation chamber. The amount of suspended matter removed varies
with different Sewages, but in general it ranges from 55 to 75 per cent. The
sludge chambers are usually designed to hold from Six to eight months'
accumulation Of Sludge.
Advantages claimed for the Imhoff tank method of treatment are the pro-
duction of a fresh, nonseptic effluent, in Offensive, and readily dried. Many
large-sized installations of Imhoff tanks have been made, the literature Of
Which is quite complete.
$ REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“The final decision regarding the Septic-tank patents.” Engineering Record,
vol. 57, p. 99, 1908. (Excellent review of claims of patentee.)
“Septic tanks at Ithaca, N. Y.” Engineering Record, vol. 57, p. 136, 1908.
“Sewage purification, Baltimore, Md.” Engineering Record, Vol. 57, p. 163,
08
“ Concrete septic tanks for country homes.” Cement and Engineering News,
March, 1917.
“Construction and Operation of septic tanks.” Metal Worker, April 30, 1915.
“Concrete septic tanks.” Cement and Engineering News, December, 1914.
“Construction of concrete septic tanks.” Metal Worker, December 11, 1914.
“Travis tank and sprinkling sewage filters, Paqueta Island, Rio de Janeiro.”
Engineering News, January 18, 1918.
“Hydrolytic sewage tanks at Luton, England.” Engineering News, August
3, 1916.
“The Hampton doctrine in relation to sewage purification.” W. O. Travis.
The Surveyor and County Engineer, vol. 34, pp. 625-654, vol. 35, p. 7, 1908.
“Chemical precipitation at Providence, R. I.” Engineering Record, vol. 66,
p. 123.
“Chemical precipitation at Worcester, Mass.” Engineering Record, vol. 65,
pp. 513–581.
“Imhoff-tank sedimentation, Philadelphia.” Engineering Record, vol. 63,
p. 537.
“Peachtree Disposal Works, Atlanta, Ga.” Engineering Record, Vol. 62, p.
769.
“Imhoff-tank design.” L. C. Frank and F. Fries: Engineering Record, vol.
68, p. 452.
















1714 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
“Imhoff tanks and stone sprinkling filters, Fitchburg, Mass.” Engineerin
Record, vol. 67, pp. 622, 633.
“Results of experiments with settling tanks and filters of several type
Akron, Ohio.” Engineering Records, vol. 67, p. 387.
Baltimore, Md., “28 units, 16 sludge digestion tanks operating methods.
L. C. Frank. Engineering Record, July 4, 1914.
“Drainability of Emscher sludge.” Municipal Journal, vol. 38, p. 427.
“Sewage-disposal plant, Fitchburg, Mass.” Municipal Journal, Vol. 37,
379.
“Multiple-flow chambers in Imhoff tanks.” Engineering Record, April 3
1915.
“Imhoff tanks and Sprinklers for sewage of Brighton district, Richester
N. Y.” Engineering Record, May 29, 1915.
“Operating records of Atlanta sewage-treatment plant show adequate d
gree of purification.” C. C. Hommon. Engineering Record, July 3, 1915.
“Columbus Changes septic tanks to Imhoff type.” Engineering Record
December 4, 1915.
“A comparison of the activated sludge and the Imhoff tank trickling filter
processes of sewage treatment.” Harrison P. Eddy. Western Society o
Engineers, December, 1916.
“Completion of the sewerage system of Baltimore.” G. J. Requardt. Engi-
neering News, May 4, 1916.
“Remarkable efficiency test of Imhoff tanks.” Engineering and Contracting,
September 13, 1916.
“Operation of Imhoff tanks and other sewage-disposal plants.” F. W. Ham-
merly. Western Engineer, August, 1916.
“Separate sludge digestion improves Imhoff tank operation by keeping
Sewage fresh.” Engineering Record, July 22, 1916.
“Imhoff tank and Dunbar filters at Ennis, Tex, Engineering News, May
4, 1916.
“Largest Imhoff tank plant nearly ready to treat Rochester's sewage.”
C. Arthur Poole. Engineering Record, February 12, 1916.
“Eight years of Imhoff-tank design and operation.” Engineering News,
January 6, 1916. -
“Operating results of Imhoff tank sewage-disposal works of Fitchburg,
Mass.” Engineering and Contracting, June 13, 1917.
“Experience and results of four years' operation of coarse screens, grit
chambers, Imhoff tanks, and trickling filters at Atlanta, Ga.” C. C. Hommon.
Engineering and Contracting, December 13, 1916.
“Rochester’s Sewage-disposal plant in Operation.” Municipal Engineering,
June, 1917. -
“Dallas builds Imhoff sewage works.” Engineering News, July 5, 1917.
“Septic tanks reconstructed as Imhoff tanks at Columbus.” Engineering
News, May 31, 1917.
“Concrete Sewage-treatment plant at Rochester, N. Y.” Cement and Engi-
neering News, May 31, 1917.
“Harrisonburg Imhoff tanks.” Wm. G. Myers. Engineering News, January
25, 1917. t
“Imboff tanks and contract beds at Alliance, Ohio.” Municipal Engineering,
May, 1918. -
“Imhoff tanks and sand filters at Xenia, Ohio.” Municipal Engineering,
April, 1918.
“Specific suggestions on the design of Imhoff sewage settling tanks.”
Charles F. Mebus. Municipal Engineering, April, 1918.
Features of design of Philadelphia Imhoff tanks.” Municipal Engineering,
March, 1918. -
GENERAL REFERENCES
Report on “Sewage purification at Columbus, Ohio.” George A. Johnson.
1905.
Report to the Common Council of the city of Gloversville, N. Y., on “Sewage
purification experiments and sewage disposal.” Harrison P. Eddy and
Morrell Vrooman. 1909.
Report to the director of public service, Akron, Ohio, on “Sewage treatment
and trade wastes.” H. B. Hommon. 1912.
Report on the “Sewage disposal system of Rochester, N. Y.” Edwin A.
Fisher. 1913.

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1715
Partial report on the “Comprehensive plan for the collection, purification,
and disposal of the sewage of Philadelphia.” Philadelphia Bureau of Surveys.
1911.
Report on the “Collection and treatment of the Sewage of the city Of
Philadelphia.” Philadelphia Bureau of Surveys. 1914. -
Report on “Tests at sewage testing station, Cleveland, Ohio.” City of Cleve-
land, Ohio. 1914. Hoffman, Pratt, Hommon.
Sewage Đisposal. George W. Fuller, Chapters XI, XIII, XIV. XV.
Sewage Disposal. Kinnicutt, Winslow, and Pratt, Chapters IV, V, VI.
American Sewerage Practice. Metcalf and Eddy. Vol. III, Chapters I, VI.
X, XI, XII. -
SLUDGE
The disposal of the sludge that accumulates in the various forms of tanks
that have been developed for removing suspended matter from Sewage has
been one of the most difficult problems that sanitary engineers have been
called upon to solve in connection with the purification of Sewage. Three
methods of disposal have been used: (1) hauling the sludge out to Sea and
dumping it; (2) air-drying on open shallow filter beds; (3) dewatering in
filter presses.
Disposal at sea.—The method of dispsal at Sea, obviously, is applicable Only
to cities located on the seashore. The sludge is pumped from the Settling
tanks into tanks steamers and hauled out to Sea and dumped. It is practical
and probably the cheapest way to dispose of sludge. There are no cities in the
United States located on the seaboard that have disposal plants which dispose
of their fresh sludge in this manner. The city of Providence, R. I., however,
hauls the pressed sludge to sea and dumps it.
Air-drying on open beds.-Air-drying on open beds is the method generally
practiced in this country. The beds are ordinarily composed of 1 foot of Sand,
about 4 inches of coarse gravel, and tile underdrainage. Earth embankments
are thrown up around the sand and the sludge is run on to a depth Of 8 to
10 inches. If more than 8 to 10 inches of sludge is applied to the beds
it will dry at the surface and the sand will clog at the top, thus leaving a
layer of wet sludge in between. In shallow layers the surface cracks will
extend through to the sand, and the sludge will dry to a Spadable condition
in 15 to 20 days during the summer time. After drying, the sludge is hauled
away either in small cars or on wagons to dumps. In a few places it is SOld
as fertilizer to farmers at a nominal Sum. For Smaller cities this method is
practical and economical; but for the large centers of population it may be
expensive, and may also give rise to nuisance from the odors arising from the
exposure of such a large area of fresh sludge. No other method, however, has
been developed to take the place of air-drying that is economically feasible.
Sludge pressing.—The pressing method of removing water from sludge so
that it can be hauled away and be disposed of has been in use in this country
and abroad for many years. At Worcester, Mass., filter presses were installed
in 1898 and at Providence, R. I., about 1901, but the principle has never been
generally accepted as the most economical method. Within the last few years,
Thowever, considerable interest has been taken in sludge pressing, owing to
new developments in treating sewage by the activated sludge method. By
this system a large volume of sludge of a high water content (98 per cent) is
obtained that has high fertilizing ingredients. In Order for this method to be-
come practical it is necessary to develop Some Scheme for dewatering the sludge
that is more practical than air drying and less expensive than filter pressing
with the older types of presses. This subject has been investigated by several
municipalities during the last few years, and progress is reported especially at
Milwaukee, Wis. References to reports on experiments made there are given
on pages 122–123, and references are given at the end of this chapter to other
reports that have been made not only on filter pressing but on other methods
employed to dewater and dispose of sludge.
Screenings from coarse and fine screens may be considered as sludge as re-
gards the methods of dewatering. The coarse material can be easily pressed
in most any form of machine with success. At many plants presses that are
ordinarily used for pressing cider out of apples have been found to work satis-
factorily. Centrifugal machines have been used at Reading, Pa., with good
results. The dried screenings are burned under the boilers of the pumping
1716 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
stations. The suspended matter removed by fine Screens is not as readily
pressed as that from the coarse screens; but with this material pl’esses have
given excellent results, and centrifugal machines have also been found satis-
factory.
The second and third methods referred to in the preceding paragraphs are
employed primarily for drying the sludge. This is, however, the most diffi-
cult and expensive part of the disposal, as the actual hauling away of the par-
tially dried cake is not a difficult matter. To offset the cost of drying many
attempts have been made to obtain grease and fertilizer from the sludge. Until
the development of the activated sludge process little headway was made; but
recently the tests made at Milwaukee and at the Stock Yards at Chicago indi-
cate that sludge may be disposed of as a commercial product and the entire
cost of drying repaid by the sale of the sludge.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Notes on sludge disposal.” G. W. Fuller. Engineering Record, Vol. 57, p.
64, 1908.
“Sludge disposal.” W. B. Ruggles. Engineering Record, vol. 63, p. 79, 1911.
“Sludge digestion.” Charles Saville. Engineering Record, Vol. 65, pp. 563,
579, 1912.
“Sludge utilization.” Engineering Record, vol. 65, p. 701, 1912.
Baltimore, Md., “28 (Imhoff) tank units; 16 sludge digestion tanks; oper-
ating methods ; radial flow and the selection of Small units ; Costs.” L. C.
Frank. Engineering Record, July 4, 1914.
“Methods of treatment of sewage sludge.” P. Gillespie. Canadian Engineer,
December 24, 1914. (Abstract from Paper to Can. Sec. Civ. Eng. Reviews
methods in Europe and America.)
“Seven years’ experience with a large sludge-pressing plant.” John T.
Thompson. Surveyor, July 23, 1915. (4,000. words; experimental works: ma-
nurial value of sludge; by-products.) *
“Handling Sewage sludge.” Municipal Journal, vol. 38, p. 222, 1915. -
“Drainability of Emscher tank sludge.” Municipal Journal, vol. 38, p. 427,
1915. f
“Separate sludge digestion improves Imhoff tank operation by keeping
sewage fresh.” Dr. Karl Imhoff. Engineering Record, July 22, 1916. (2,000
words. Illustrated. Auxiliary sludge chamber provided.)
“Methods and costs of pressing sludge.” Kenneth Allen. Engineering
and Contracting, February 13, 1918. (4,000 words. Extract from paper read
before the American Society of Municipal Improvement. Types of presses,
Sludge cake, cost, and general consideration.)
“The utilization of sewage sludge.” John P. Watson. Surveyor, July 4,
1919, pp. 5–8. (Diagram illustrating method of purifying sewage at Birming-
; England. Paper presented at annual meeting of Inst. Munc. and County
Ingr.
“Two important sludge problems.” Arthur J. Martin. Contract Record,
Nov. 27, 1918, pp. 941–942. (Suggestions in regard to use of compressed air and
removal of water contained in sludge.) •
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sewage Disposal. Kinnicut, Winslow, and Pratt. Chapter VII. John Wiley,
& Sons, New York. * *
Sewage Disposal. George W. Fuller. Chapters I, XIII, XIV, XV. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York. * * * *
Sewage Sludge. Elsmer, Spillman, and Allen. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York. :
American Sewerage Practice. Metcalf and Eddy. Vol. III, Disposal of
Sewage, Chapter XIII. McGraw-Hill Book Co. ;
Report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York, 1914, Pa
IV, Chapter I. . . . . .
SEWAGE FILTERS
There are three general types of filters which are at present employed in the
United States in Connection with Sewage treatment. These are as follows:
(1) Contact filters; (2) trickling or sprinkling filters; (3) intermittent sand
filters.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1717
The main function of all three types of filters is primarily the stabilizing
of the organic constituents of sewage oxidation, though intermittent sand
filters in addition remove very high percentages Of bacteria. Each type of
filter will be discussed briefly.
Comtact filters.-The contact type of filter, which is described fully by Met-
calf and Eddy" and by Fuller," consists of a tight tank filled with broken stone
and provided with regulating devices for controlling both inflow and outflow.
The ordinary cycle of operation of these filters consists of filling them with
sewage, allowing them to stand full for a specified period (termed the “con-
tact period *), emptying them, and allowing them to rest for a relatively long
period (termed the “rest period"). Metcalf and Eddy (loc. cit., p. 223) give
the following as an average Operation Schedule :
Hours
Time of filling emº sºme - * * 1. 00
Time Of COntact —— . 75
Time of emptying . 25
Time of resting ___ 6.00
Time of Cycle.--------------------------------------------------- 8.00
The contact bed, which was developed previous to the sprinkling filter,
represents what was virtually the first logical step in evolving an intensive
oxidizing machine following plain tank treatment. For this purpose it has
been largely supplanted by the trickling filter, which has proved to be fully
as efficient and considerably more economical in its per capita cost. Many
filters of this type are in successful operation, however, particularly in the
Smaller plants. When properly operated they have one advantage over trick-
ling filters when installed in the immediate neighborhood of residences ; namely,
their greater degree of freedom from odors. They also have the advantage
over sprinkling filters of requiring less loss of head in their operation, the
difference often deciding whether a pumping plant will be required. Their
economic disadvantages, however, combined with their greater difficulty of
Successful Operation, especially in large installations, have in general forced
them to give way to the trickling filter.
Trickling filters.--The trickling (sometimes termed “sprinkling ” or “per-
colating ”) filter represents a further step in the evolution of the contact bed
in an effort to produce a more efficient and economical apparatus for Oxidiz-
ing the putrescible matters of sewage. The filtering medium employed is
similar to that which is used in contact filters, but is is so arranged as to
facilitate as far as possible the free access of air throughout the interior of
the bed. The method of applying Sewage to this type of filter consists of
spraying it as uniformly as possible over the surface of the bed, allowing it
to percolate freely through the medium to a tight underdrain floor, whence
the effluent is conveyed to outflow conduits. Ordinarily the sewage is applied
intermittently, the regulation of dosage being automatic. An average opera-
tion schedule consists of about 5 minutes of application followed by about 10
minutes of rest. The particular Schedule adopted depends upon local condi-
tionS.
The active purifying elements of trickling filters consists of films of bacterial
zooglea which form On the Surfaces of the broken Stone or slag composing the
medium. Until these films and the filter is “ripe,” it accomplishes practically
no work. The material composing the films, which is virtually activated
sludge.” removes, by adsorption and absorption, the suspended and dissolved
organic Substances brought into contact with it. The activities of aerobic
bacteria growing within the films then bring about the oxidation of such sub-
stances, the basic supply of oxygen for this process being supplied by the air
circulating within the bed. The stabilized products of oxidation resulting
from this process are gradually returned in solution to the films of percolat-
ing sewage and thus carried off in the effluent. This, in brief, is the mecha-
nism of the Oxidation process.
The depth of trickling filters at present in use in the United States varies
from about 5 feet (as at Columbus, Ohio), to as much as 9 feet (as at Balti-
more, Md.). Still deeper filters have been proposed for Indianapolis, Ind., by
* Metcalf and Eddy, American Sewerage Practice, Vol. III, Disposal of Sewage, pp.
223–227 : also Chapter XLV.
7 Fuller, G. W., Sewage Disposal, Chapter XX.
8 See discussion entitled “Activated Sludge,” p. 26.
I 718 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Mr. Fuller, as described in reference No. 16 of the bibliography of this section.
In general, the permissible rate of application of sewage to trickling filters
consistent with good results varies roughly according to their depth. This
rate varies from about 2.0 million gallons per acre daily for 5 and 6 foot depth
filters to about 2.5 million gallons for those of 9 foot depth.
Trickiing filters perform efficiently under a wide range of seasonal conditions,
their general activity, however, being somewhat less in winter than in sum-
mer. During the cold season the bacterial films accumulate to their maximum
thickness. With the advent of spring and an increasing activity of numerous
worms and larvae inhabiting the beds, the films become loosened and Slough
off, producing the self-cleansing or unloading phenomenon which is character-
istic of this type of filter. Periodic unloadings may occur throughout the sum-
D1621”.
Well designed and operated trickling filters ordinarily produce an effluent
containing, in the form of nitrites, nitrates, and dissolved oxygen, fully 90 per
cent of the total oxygen required to satisfy its residual oxygen demand. Ex-
cepting during unloading periods such filters also bring about a considerable
degree of clarification and bacterial removal. Since the Suspended matter
contained in the filter effluent is more or less agglutinated and readily Subsides,
a comparatively brief period of sedimentation following filtration will bring
about a marked improvement in the physical and bacterial characteristics of
such an effluent.
The trickling filter is frequently employed in conjunction with preliminary
sedimentation and screening processes for the purpose of producing a highly
stable effluent. Where a high degree of removal of suspended matter and
bacteria is also desired, secondary sedimentation of the filter effluent, followed
in Some cases by disinfection, is practiced. In order to prevent the clogging of
Spray nozzles it is customary to pass the sewage through fine Screens before
applying it to the filters. This type of filter is at present considered the most
practicable and economical means available for Oxidizing Sewage. A full de-
scription of it is given by Metcalf and Eddy in Chapter XV, and by Fuller in
Chapter XXI, of the general references numbered 25 and 24, respectively, of the
bibliography accompanying the present section. An outline of the theory under-
lying this type of filter is given by Metcalf and Eddy on pages 227 to 231 of
the former reference.
Intermittent samd filters.--The application of intermittent sand filtration to
the treatment of Sewage, which was inaugurated at the Lawrence (Mass.) Ex-
periment Station in the late eighties marked practically the first important step
in the development of sewage purification in the United States. The subse-
Quent use of this process, however, has largely been confined to the New
England States and to other areas, principally along the Atlantic Coast, where
natural deposits Of Sand are abundant.
The intermittent sand filter is extremely simple in construction, consisting of
a layer of sand about 4 feet deep graded to a level surface and underdrained
with either a deposit of natural sand Or a tile underdrain system. It is pro-
vided with apparatus, usually radiating surface troughs, for distributing the
Sewage evenly Over the filter, and, in some cases, with automatic devices for
controlling the intermittency of application of the sewage. -
The action of an intermittent sand filter consists of both mechanical Straining
and biochemical Oxidation. The former mechanically removes a high propor-
tion of the suspended matter and bacteria contained in the applied sewage,
while the latter, by biochemical processes very similar to those taking place
in the trickling filter, brings about an oxidation of dissolved organic matter
into stable products. A large proportion of the mechanical straining action
takes place in the upper layer of the filter, this being aided materialy by the
“ripening ” for the Sand grains and the deposition of a gelatinous zooglea mat
at the surface. After a certain period of operation of the bed, it becomes clogged
and must be cleaned. This is usually accomplished by removal of the top
layers of sand and the accumulated mat. While, as noted above, the oxidiz-
ing action of this type of filter is similar to that of the trickling filter, the degree
of nitrification which it accomplished is in general greater. -
The Operation of intermittent filters is simple, consisting of the intermittent
application of Sewage from One to three times daily, following by draining and a
period of rest Sufficient in length to permit the circulation of air throughout
the bed. At the beginning of the operation of a new or a recently cleaned bed
the distribution of sewage over it will not be very uniform, since the greater
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1719
proportion of it will seep through the sand near the distributors. As this area
becomes partially clogged, more and more sewage will seek the distant points
and the uniformity of distribution will be increased. The permissible rate of
filtration consistent with good results varies with the character of sewage
applied, but on the average it ranges from 25,000 to about 100,000 gallons per
acre daily. Filters of this type will successfully treat either raw or settled
Sewage, though they will require more frequent cleaning in the former case.
From the standpoint of the character of effluent produced, intermittent Sand
filters are by far the most efficient of the three types which have been considered.
When they are performing at their best they produce an effluent which is clear,
practically Odorless, almost entirely free from Suspended matter, and very
stable. They also remove a very high percentage of bacteria from the applied
sewage. Since, however, an average of, roughly, thirty times as much area of
this type of filter as of trickling filters is required to treat similar amounts of
sewage, the relative economy Of the intermittent Sand filter is very low as Com-
pared with the latter type, excepting where land is cheap and large deposits Of
Suitable Sand are available at the immediate site of the Works. For this reason
its use has been confined to comparatively Small local areas in the United
States.
Full descriptions of this type of filter are given by Metcalf and Eddy and
by Fuller in general references numbered 25 (pp. 231–236 and Ch. XVI) and
24 (Ch. XIX), respectively, in the bibliography of the present Section.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Depth of trickling filters,” H. P. Eddy, H. W. Clark, and G. W. Fuller,
Municipal Journal, vol. 38, p. 222, 1915.
“ Economics of sewage filters.” G. W. Fuller. Municipal Journal, vol. 37,
November, 1914, p. 741.
“Fitchburg sewage disposal plant.” Municipal Journal, vol. 37, p. 379, 1914.
See also paper by D. A. Hartwell, Proceedings Boston Society of Civil engi-
neers, June, 1915. -
“Design of intermittent filters.” Paul Hansen. Engineering Record, vol.
61, pp. 80 and 646.
“Operation of sewage works, Columbus, Ohio.” Engineering Record, vol.
59, p. 508. -
“Works at Pennypack Creek, Philadelphia, Pa.” Engineering Record, vol.
62, pp. 48 and 726.
“Peachtree disposal works, Atlanta, Ga.” Engineering Record, vol. 62,
pp. 769 and 775.
“Andover, Mass., filtration.” Engineering Record, vol. 65, p. 121.
“Columbus, Ohio, remodeling of tanks and filters.” Engineering Record,
vol. 68, p. 64.
“Fitchburg, Mass., Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters.” Engineering Rec-
ord, vol. 67, pp. 622 and 633.
“Akron, Ohio, results of experiments with settling tanks and filters of
several types.” H. B. Hommon. Engineering Record, vol. 67, p. 387.
“Tanks and sprinkling filters for sewage of Brighton district.” Engineer-
ing Record, May 25, 1915.
“Sprinkling filter system and auxiliaries versus the activated sludge
process.” T. C. Hatton. Municipal Engineer, 1918. (Advantages and disad-
vantages of the two methods.)
“A comparison of the activated sludge and the Imhoff tank trickling filter
processes of Sewage treatment.” Journal Western Society of Civil Engineers,
December, 1916. (An engineering study of two processes based upon com-
parative designs for Fitchburg, Mass. ; analysis of relative costs of construc-
tion and Operation.)
“Development of sewage treatment.” Kenneth Allen. Municipal Engineer,
June, 1918. (Early and recent methods of sewage disposal outlined.)
“Considerations leading to recommendation of fine screens, sprinkling fil-
ters, humus tanks, and sludge recovery as a sewage disposal method for In-
dianapolis, Ind.” Engineering and Contracting, April 10, 1918. (Abstract
of paper by G. W. Fuller read before the Indiana Sanitary and Water Supply
ASSOCiation.)
“Operation of Baltimore sewage disposal plant.” G. J. Requardt. Municipal
Journal, November 2, 1916. (Facts and figures concerning building and
1720 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
operation of large works. Extensive use of relatively deep filters of Sprink-
ling type at this plant.)
“New type of trickling filter.” G. C. Nasmith. Surveyor, January 5, 1917.
(Brushwood, pressed into bundles, used with success.)
“ Brushwood as a medium for sewage filters.” George Phelps. Canadian
Engineer, February 8, 1917. (Experiments at North Toronto, using brushwood
and slag as filter media.)
“The economic depth of trickling filters.” H. P. Eddy. Proc. Boston So-
ciety of Civil Engineers, February, 1915. Also discussion by G. W. Fuller in
same journal disagreeing with Mr. Eddy.
“The depth of filtering material, and trickling filter efficiency.” H. W.
Clark. Proc. Boston Society of Civil Engineers, February, 1915.
“Sewage-disposal plant for Akron, Ohio.” Municipal Journal, July 15, 1915.
(Serial; first part. Sprinkling filters described.)
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sewage Disposal (1st ed., 1912). G. W. Fuller. Chapters XIX, XX, and
XXI.
American Sewage Practice: Volume III, The Disposal of Sewage. Met-
calf and Eddy, Chapters XIV, XV, and XVI.
Report on Sewage Testing Station, Philadelphia, Pa., 1910.
Report of Tests on Sewage Disposal, Cleveland, Ohio, 1914.
DISINFECTION
Disinfection in the treatment of sewage removes from the sewage the dis-
ease-producing organisms which may be present. For this reason it is gen-
erally used in connection with other methods of treatment and as the final
process before discharge of the sewage into the receiving body of water.
While proper disinfection of sewage will remove the greater part of the
putrefying organisms there are generally a sufficient number of such organisms
present in the receiving body of water to again start putrefying action in
the organic matter; hence nuisance is not abated by the use of disinfection
alone.
As a rule disinfection of Sewage and sewage effluents has been adopted only
where protection of water supplies, of shellfish beds, and bathing beaches
during bathing season has been required.
As at present practiced disinfection consists in dosing or treating the sewage
or sewage effluent with calcium hypochlorite or liquid chlorine. At the present
time the liquid chlorine is rapidly replacing the hypochlorite.
In operation the hypochlorite or chlorine in solution, or the chlorine as a dry
gas, is added to the sewage or sewage effluent, after which a short period of
detention is allowed, in order that proper action of the chemical may take place.
At present the tendency appears to be more toward the purification and disin-
fection of water supplies than toward the disinfection of sewage and sewage
effluents in order to protect the water supplies.
w
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 229, 1909. E. B. Phelps.
“Chemical disinfection of sewage.” E. B. Phelps. Engineering Record,
vol. 61, pp. 80, 646, 1910.
“Copper sulphate and chlorine experiments in Ohio.” Engineering Record,
vol. 56, p. 547, 1907.
“Sewage-disposal problem of New Haven.” Report of commission, pp. 40,
66–70, 1918.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sewage Disposal. Kinnicutt, Winslow, and Pratt. Chapter XII.
Sewage Disposal. George W. Fuller. pp. 726–731.
American Sewerage Practice, Vol. III, Sewage Disposal. Metcalf and Eddy.
pp. 737–782.
BROAD IRRIGATION
The disposal of sewage upon the lands dates back to the development of
sewerage itself. The development of broad irrigation began in England in
1858, following the report of, the Sewage of Towns Commission, and for a
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1721
number of years was used extensively in Europe and to some extent in the
United States. The method, as its name implies, is the irrigation of cultivated
land with sewage.
For the purpose of operation of this method of disposal large areas of light
Sandy soil are required. On account of the inability to properly handle the
Sewage upon areas of more dense or heavier soils, this method has been largely
replaced by more modern methods, except in arid regions and in regions where
large areas of otherwise waste Sandy soil exist. -
In general the area necessary will vary according to the character of soil;
the rates range from 3,000 to 10,000 gallons per acre per day.
In so far as American practice is concerned, this method of disposal is but
little practiced.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sewage Disposal. Kinnicutt, Winslow, and Pratt. Chapter VIII. -
American Sewerage Practice. Vol. III, Sewage Disposal. Metcalf and Eddy.
* Chapter XVII. -
Sewage Disposal. George W. Fuller. Chapter XVIII.
(The above three books give numerous references on the subject.)
Iland Treatment of Sewage. Herbert T. Scoble. St. Bride's Press (Ltd.),
London.
ACTIVATED SILUDGE
During the past five years a new method of sewage disposal has been de-
veloped which gives great promise Of Success—the activated sludge method.
This method is beyond the experimental stage at present, excepting the methods
Of handling and disposing Of the sludge. At the present time a few plants
have been constructed and several are contemplated.
Theory.—Aeration Of Sewage with minute air bubbles causes the suspended
and colloidal matter in the sewage to gather, forming a flocculent precipitate
in which large numbers Of bacteria are accumulated. Conditions in the
flocculus thus formed in the presence of air appear to be very favorable for the
multiplication of nitrifying organisms. Sludge thus formed and “seeded ”
with nitrifying bacteria is known as “activated sludge " When such activated
sludge is added to fresh Sewage and the whole aerated for short periods with
air, a nitrification of the sewage, a high removal of bacteria, and a quick-
setting sludge formation takes place. The effluent from plants of this type
shows a bacterial reduction of over 90 per cent and is clear and stable.
The sludge formed contains approximately 98 per cent water and is therefore.
voluminous. The proper handling and disposing of the large amount of
putrescible sludge has constituted one of the objections to this type of plant.
Outline of plant.—A plant of the activated-sludge type consists in general of
continuous flow Sewage aerating tanks, Settling tanks, sludge aerating tanks,
sludge disposal apparatus, and the mechanical equipment for pumping, Com-
pressing air, etc.
Process.—The process is in general as follows: Thoroughly activated sludge
is added to the raw sewage in the proportion of about 20 per cent of the
volume of the aerating tank. As the sewage with its added activated sludge
passes through the tank it is constantly aerated by air fed through diffusers
in the tank bottom. From the aerating tank the mixed Sewage and Sludge pass
to the settling tank, in which the sludge settles rapidly, the Supernatant matter
passing off through the effluent outlet.
From the settling tank a portion of the sludge is drawn off to the sludge
aerating tanks and further aerated to prepare it for addition to the incoming
fresh sewage. The sludge accumulations in the settling tank are drawn off
for dewatering and disposition.
Advantages and disadvantages.—The advantages of this type of treatment
are the small area required, the reduced cost of construction, and the highly
nitrified effluent produced.
The disadvantage at present is the question of sludge disposal.
General.—Following rather exhaustive experimenfs, the city of Milwaukee,
Wis., has adopted the activated sludge process of sewage treatment and has
constructed one large unit, which is being operated as an experimental unit.
Description of the experiments, the construction, etc., will be found in the
second, third, fourth, and fifth annual reports of the Sewerage Commission of
the City of Milwaukee, Wis., and in articles published in various engineering
publications listed hereinafter.
91739—24—PT 2—93
1722 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
A plant of the activated type has been recommended for the treatment of
the sewage and packing-house wastes of Packingtown, the stockyard, and
packing-house district of Chicago.
Several small plants have been constructed, the largest which is at Houston,
Tex. Reference to these plants and to experiments will be found in the bibliog-
raphy.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING IITERATURE
“Conclusions on the activated sludge process at Milwaukee.” T. Chalkley
Hatton. Engineering News-Record, November 1, 1917. (Discusses many fea-
tures of sewage treatment works.) *
“Sewage treatment by activated sludge.” Municipal Journal, vol. 39, p. 257,
1915.
“Summary and latest results of experimental work on activated sludge at
Milwaukee.” T. Chalkley Hatton. Engineering and Contracting, February 2,
1916. - *
“Winter experience with activated sludge process of sewage disposal treat-
ment at Milwaukee.” William R. Copeland. Engineering and Contracting,
April 9, 1916. r
“Activated sludge experiments at Milwaukee.” R. O. Wynne. Canadian
Engineer, May 25, 1916, - - *
“Sewage disposal by the activated-sludge process.” T. Chalkey Hatton.
Canadian Engineer, June 1, 1916.
“Results and conclusions from a year’s operation of the activated-sludge.
treatment plant at Milwaukee.” T. Chalkey Hatton. Engineering and Con-
tracting, November 8, 1916.
“Activated-sludge process of sewage disposal firmly established.” T. Chalkey:
Hatton. Engineering Record, January 6, 1917.
“Some conclusions reached at Milwaukee on the treatment Of Sewage by the
activated-sludge process—Results of observations and studies of operation of
the sewage testing station.” Municipal Engineer, December, 1917.
Joint committee representing the Chicago Sanitary District and the packers
recommend a 50-million gallon per day activated-sludge plant, but advise a
six month's trial operation of a 1.5-million gallon single unit: Engineering
News-Record, June 21, 1917.
“Activated sludge at Houston, Tex.—Methods and results.” Municipal
Journal, April, 27, 1916.
“Activated-sludge plants at Houston, Tex.” Engineering News-Record, Feb-
ruary 8, 1917. (Details of two plants having a combined capacity of 19,000,000.
gallons per day.)
“Activated-sludge results at Cleveland reviewed.” R. Winthrope Pratt and
George B. Gascoigne. Engineering News, December 7, 1916.
“The activated-sludge method of Sewage disposal.” Journal of Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, July, 1916. (Nine papers by different authors,
presented at the April meeting of the American Chemical Society.)
“Status of the activated-sludge treatment.” George T. Hammond. Engi-
neering News, April 27, 1916. (Visits to American plants.)
“Air diffuser experiments with activated-sludge tanks.” Engineering News,
July 20, 1916.
“Activated-sludge treatment.” Municipal Journal, October 19, 1916. (Ab-
stracts of papers giving results at 11 plants.)
“Some remarks on activated sludge.” William T. Carpenter and Murray
P. Horowitz. Journal of the American Public Health Association, November,
1916. (Engineering and laboratory data, and some general principles.)
“The purification of sewage in the presence of activated sludge.” Edward
Bartow, F. W. Mohlman, and J. F. Schnellbach. Journal of the Western'
Society of Engineers, February, 1917. t
“Modern sewage treatment.” T. Chalkey Hatton. Journal of the Western.
Society of Engineers, February, 1917. (Modern methods in Europe and Amerº
ica, with a plea for the activated-sludge process.) -
“Some remarks an the biochemical treatment of sewage, with special refer-
ence to the activated-sludge method.” George T. Carpenter. Journal Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, April, 1917.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1723
“Purification of sewage by aeration in the presence of activated sludge.”
Edward Bartow. Journal Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, September,
1917.
“The fertilizer value of activated sludge.” George C. Nasmith and G. P.
McKay. Journal Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, May, 1918. (Report
of experiments showing it a most valuable fertilizer.)
“Tests of air diffusers for the activated-sludge process.” Engineering and
Sontracting, July 9, 1919. (Filtros plates said to be more effective under tests
than the perforated pipes or basswood blocks.)
“A comparison of the activated sludge and the Imhoff trickling filter process
of sewage treatment.” Harrison P. Eddy. Journal of the Western Society of
Engineers, December, 1916. (Discussion of construction and Operating costs
based on Studies Of the two methods.) *
“Sprinkling filter system and auxiliaries versus activated-sludge process.”
T. Chalkey Hatton. Municipal Engineer, 1918. (Advantages and disadvan-
tages of the two systems.)
GENERAI, REFERENCES
" Annual reports (2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th) of the sewerage commission, city of
Milwaukee.
“Activated sludge experimental work at Milwaukee.” Canadian Engineer.
June 14, 1917. (Extracts from the annual report of the Milwaukee sewerage
COmmission.) e
Reports on “Industrial wastes from the Stockyards and Packingtown in
Chicago.” Sanitary District of Chicago. w
Activated-sludge process of sewage treatment. General Filtration Co., New
York. (Bibliography of the subject up to 1917.)
MILES ACID PROCESS
The Miles acid method of sewage treatment, a patented process, while not
Vet used at any full-sized plant, seems from various experimental plants to
possess considerable merit. The patent claims that the process “(1) Consists
in introducing on inorganic acid as the sole effective agent,” and “(3) Consists
in introducing sulphurous acid into the sewage.” Mr. R. S. Weston, one of the
eXperimenters With this method of sewage treatment, explains the method as
follows: “The Miles process attempts, by the addition of an acid, to precipitate
the bulk Of the solids from sewage in the form of a sludge which can be dried
and degreased, thereby producing a readily salable and greaseless fertilizer,
as well as recovering valuable grease. Either sulphuric or sulphurous acid
may be used, and the process contemplates the manufacture of the acid at the
disposal works.”
Acid is usually added in the form of sulphur dioxide, generated by roasting
pyrites, to a part of the sewage by means of an absorption tower and this
overtreated part mixed with the entire sewage flow. An acidity of 50 parts
per million as calcium carbonate has been found to be sufficient. After acidifi-
cation the Sewage contains bisulphites, and Some free sulphurous acid,
also lime and magnesium SOaps, which are attacked by the acid, liberating
the free fatty acids. While passing through the sedimentation tanks
part of the bisulphites and Sulphurous acid are oxidized to bisulphates and
sulphuric acid. A §edimentation period of four hours is allowed to the acidi-
fied Sewage, after which the effluent is drawn off and the sludge (lriedl and
degreased.
Claims for the process are an effluent almost sterile, stable, and clear, and
a sludge from which by-products such as grease and fertilizer will eliminate
the costs of treatment. Experimental plants have been operated at Boston,
Mass., by R. S. Weston, and at New Haven, Conn., by C. F. A. Winslow, the
results of which have been published. Some difficulty seems to have been
encountered in securing a salable grease, though the sludge was at all times.
stable and a high percentage removal of bacteria was effected in the effluent.
The effluent seems to have a serious deoxygenating effect on the diluting water
into which it is discharged, which may necessitate aeration of the effluent
before discharge. Owing to the acid nature of the effluent, Considerable de-
structive effects on aquatic life existing in the diluting water may also take
place. - -
1724 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Tests of a new process of sewage purification with grease recovery and
apparent profit,” American Journal of Public Health, April, 1916. Engineering
News-Record, May 11, 1916; May 25, 1916. Engineering and Contracting,
April 11, 1917.
“Recovery of grease and fertilizer from sewage comes to the front.” Engi-
Ineering News-Record, February 14, 1918.
“Miles acid process of sewage disposal.” Chemical and Metallurgical Engi.
neer, June 1, 1918. &
“Deoxygenating effect of effluent from the Miles acid process of sewage
treatment.” Engineering News-Record, August 1, 1918.
“Promising results of M les acid process of sewage treatment in New
Haven tests.” Engineering News-Record, December 5, 1918.
“Report on the sewage problem of New Haven, Conn.” C. E. A. Winslow,
chairman, committee in charge, 1918.
“The disposal of sewage by treatment with acid.” Boston Society of Civil
Engineers, April, 1919.
“Results of exper ments with Miles acid process of sewage treatment.”
Engineering and Contracting, May 14, 1919.
ELECTROLYTIC PROCESS
The electrolytic process of sewage treatment consists of passing sewage
through an electrolytic cell having iron plates, the sewage being untreated or
treated with lime before entering the cell.
The action of the cell is to hasten precipitat on of the solids in the sewage
and to disinfect the sewage through the formation of hypochlorite.
The electrolytic method of treatment may be used simply as a disinfection
process, in which case it follows other more or less complete treatment proc-
esses. Where the lime electrolytic method is used, the cell is preceded by fine
screens and followed by sedimentation tanks and sludge handling apparatus.
Prior to 1914 such experiments as were made and such plants as were in-
stalled depended upon the electrolytic action alone, no chemicals being added
to the sewage. A brief history of the electrolytic treatment is covered in
“Sewage D’sposal,” by George W. Fuller, pages 550 to 576.
As far as known, but few plants of any size have been installed using the
electrolytic type of treatment alone. There is one at Santa Monica, Calif.,.
and another at Oklahoma City, Okla. Neither of these plants can be con-
sidered as complete sewage-disposal plants. Description of them will be
found in Engineering and Contracting, April 19, 1911; Municipal Journal and
Engineer, February 8, 1912, and the Engineering News, March 21, 1912. The
last-mentioned journal also has a comprehensive review of the whole Subject
of electrolytic treatment up to the date given.
In order that nuisance may be avoided in the body of water into which the
sewage is ultimately discharged the plain electrolytic method of treatment
will require a plant comprising grit chambers, fine screens or preliminary
tanks, electrolytic cells, and possibly sludge-disposal apparatus. A small plant
having Imhoff tanks preceding the electrolytic apparatus is in operation at
Durant, Okla. The description, with results of tests made at this plant, Will
be found in the Engineering News, volume 76, page 547.
In the past few years experiments have been carried on with the lime-
electrolytic method of sewage treatment. This process, patented by C. P.
Landreth, of Philadelphia, Pa., consists of first adding lime to the sewage, after
which it is passed through the electrolytic cell.
So far as is known no municipal plants of any size are in operation or con-
templated.” -
In 1914 an experimental and demonstration plant was installed at Elmhurst,
Borough of Queens, Brooklyn, N. Y.; in 1916 one at Decatur, Ill. ; and in 1918
one at Easton, Pa. º -
Descriptions and comments upon the first-named plant will be found in. the
Engineering Record, volume 70, pages 285, 299, 315, 429, and 430. Other articles
covering the operation of this plant will be found in Metallurgical and Chemical
Engineering, volume 13, Nos. 12 and 13, October 15 and November 1, 1915; in
• Since this report was prepared technical papers have announced contemplated instal-
lations of two plants. See Engineering News-Record, vol. 83, p. 909, 1919.
º,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1725
the Canadian Engineer, November 5, 1914; and the Municipal Journal, Novem-
ber 5, 1914. *
Attention is also called to a report on Sewage disposal at Lexington, Ky.,
by Surgeon W. H. Frost and Sanitary Engineer R. E. Tarbett, of the United
States Public Health Service, dated January 13, 1916, and to a report by Prof.
E. B. Phelps, of the Hygienic Laboratory, United States Public Health Service,
upon the electrolytic method. Both of these reports are on file at the Bureau
of the Public Health Service. Reference to the Decatur, Ill., plant Will be
found in the Municipal Engineer, February 18, 1918, and the Engineering
News-Record, volume 74, November 11, 1916, pages 575 and 596. The last-
named reference is an abstract of a report by Edward Bartow, director Of
the Illinois State Water Survey, on comparative tests of the lime-electrolytic
process and of lime treatment alone. According to this report, the results
would indicate that the lime-electrolytic treatment is little better than lime
treatment alone. Unfortunately the tests were of rather Short duration, as
the company controlling the patents, objecting to comparative tests, dismantled
the plant.
An abstract of the report on tests made at the Easton, Pa., plant by the
Engineering Division of the Pennsylvania State Department of Health and
by a committee of the Franglin Institute will be found in the Engineering
News-Record, volume 83, September 18, 1919, pages 569–573. A complete re-
port of the committee of the committee from the Franklin Institute is pub-
lished in the Journal of the Franklin Institute for August, 1919.
The plant layout, which was more or less similar in each of the three installa-
tions, was as follows:
1. Coarse bar Screens followed by fine Screens.
2. Pumping equipment for lifting sewage and furnishing a sufficient Operat-
ing head.
3. Lime-mixing tanks.
4. Mixing chambers or channels for mixing the lime solution with the
Sewage.
5. Electrolytic cells.
6. Final sedimentation tank, with a sedimentation period of 4% hours.
7. Sludge-disposal apparatus.
The effluent obtained from the Landreth “ lime-electrolytic " or “direct-
oxidation ” method of treatment, judging by the results published, is very
Satisfactory. The Operating costs are, however, far in excess of the cost neces-
sary to obtain effluent of comparable quality by means of methods now in
general use.
The sludge formed appears to be comparable with the sludge from the
chemical precipitation method, both as to quantity and characteristics. The
recommendation of the patentee are, apparently, that this sludge be handled
by filter pressing, as is the sludge from the chemical precipitation plants where
lime is used. -
SU M M ARY
Plain electrolytic treatment.—Judging from Such tests as have been made of
the electrolytic treatment for the sterilization of sewage, operation is erratic
and results show great variations. The costs of operation are greater and
results less reliable than is the case when calcium hypochlorite or liquid
chlorine is used for disinfection.
Lime-electrolytic or direct-oaxidation method.—The process is in the experi-
mental stage. The cost of operation is excessive. The practicability of the
process has not as yet been recognized by the engineering profession.
CONCLUSIONS
In its present status any installation of the lime-electrolytic or direct-
Oxidation method on a large scale should be preceded by the installation of a
test unit. This unit should be operated for a period sufficiently long to detect
any inherent mechanical defects in the apparatus and to demonstrate its
ability to maintain a uniform efficiency.
In view of the fact that equally good results are claimed with the use of
lime alone, COmparative tests should be carried on simultaneously in Order
to prove or disprove this contention. -
All tests should be under the direction of disinterested parties, but in co-
operation with the patentee or his representative.
I 726 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
REFERENCES IN CURRENT ENGINEERING LITERATURE
“Description of the electrolytic sewage plants at Santa Monica, Calif., and
Oklahoma City, Okla.” Engineering and Contracting, April 19, 1911. -
Same as above: Municipal Journal and Engineer, February 8, 1912.
“Comprehensive review of the electrolytic treatment prior to 1912.” En-
gineering News, March 12, 1912.
“Electrolytic treatment of sewage at Oklahoma City.” Engineering Record,
vol. 66, p. 55. - -
“Description and abstract of tests of an Imhoff tank electrolytic plant at
Durant, Okla.” Engineering News, September 21, 1916, p. 547.
Second Annual Report of the Sewage Commission of City of Milwaukee,
1915, pp. 69 and 106–108.
“Report on electrolytic treatment (Elmhurst Plant).” P. M. Travis. Com-
ments by C. P. Landreth and E. B. Phelps : Engineering Record, vol. 70, pp.
285, 299, 315, 429, 430.
“ Electrolytic treatment of sewage—Information from a report by Elmer W.
Futh upon the operation and results obtained at Elmhurst (N. Y.) disposal
plant by the method patented by C. P. Landreth.” Canadian Engineer, No-
Venuber 5, 1914.
“Electrolytic sewage treatment tests in a plant treating 750,000 gallons
per day.” Municipal Journal, November 5, 1914.
“. Description of the lime-electrolytic method of sewage disposal.” Metal-
lurgical and Chemical Engineering, vol. 13, October 15 and November 1, 1915.
“Treatment of sewage with electricity and lime.” Municipal Engineer,
December, 1915. t
“Tests on the Decatur plant.” Edward Bartow. Engineering Record, vol.
74, pp. 575 and 596. (Finds electrolytic treatment of sewage little better than
treatment with lime alone.) +.
“The electrochemical sewage treatment process as operated at Decatur,
Ill.” Municipal Engineer, February, 1918.
“Sewage treatment at Easton, Pa.—Details and methods of operation of
plant of 1,000,000 gallons capacity by “direct-oxidation type.’ ” Municipal
Journal, November 16, 1918.
Abstracts of l'eports by the Pennsylvania State department of health and
il COmmittee from the Franklin Institute on tests of the direct-Oxidation
( electrolytic) plant at Easton, Pa, Engineering News-Record, September
18, 1919, pp. 569–573.
Report of committee appointed to investigate the direct-oxidation method of
Sewage (lisposal as demonstrated at the Easton (Pa.) plant (not the exact
title) : Journal of the Franklin Institute, August, 1919,
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sewage I)isposal. George W. Fuller. Pp. 550–576.
American Sewerage Practice, Vol. III, Sewage Disposal, p. 738. Metcalf
all (l Eddy. e **
CON CLUISIONS
In the preceding sections relating to current practice of sewage disposal
in this country, an attempt has been made to give the essential features con-
cerning each process used in designing purification plants. The particular
combination of these processes to be used by an individual city will depend
upon local conditions. It is quite apparent that a city, even though it be
very large, located on a large river or other large body of water, would not
find it inecessary to purify its sewage to the same extent that a smaller city
would, located on a Small Stream. In SOme places the body of water receiving
sewage has sufficient diluting capacity to digest the organic matter without
causing a nuisance, while in other cases fine screens will be required to re-
move from the sewage, material which floats and causes objectionable driftS.
At the other extreme there are a large number of cities located on small
rivers where the minimum flow in Summer time is very low, where it is
necessary to design treatment plants producing effluents which are thoroughly
oxidized and will not draw upon the OXygen of the receiving body of water.
Current practice, therefore, includes one of the processes or any combina-
tion of them, described under the various section headings, depending upon
the local conditions governing at each city. To Obtain a comprehensive un-
derstanding of sewage disposal in this country, it is suggested that the en-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1727
gineering magazines, reports, and books on sewage disposal referred to in
this report, and not inclosed, be secured. Practically all of them can be ob-
tained by writing to the authors or publishers. -
The .more recent books published on sewage disposal have been referred
to by title and author and the name of the publishers given. The titles of
Some of the magazines interested in sewage disposal have, however, been
changed in recent years, and some of them may be confusing as they have
appeared in the references. The correct titles and the publishers are given
below.
The Engineering Record and the Engineering News were formerly separate
journals, but they have been combined and are now published under the
name of the Engineering News-Record by the McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., of
New York City.
The Municipal Journal is now the Municipal Journal and Public Works
and is published by the Municipal Journal and Engineer, at New York City.
Articles appearing in Engineering and Contracting are published in the
“Waterworks and Hydraulics " issues, which are printed twice each month.
This journal is published at 608 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill.
APPENDIX.
LIST OF PUBLISHED REPORTS ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN THE UNITED STATES,
SUBMITTED WITH THIS MEMORANDUM
1. Reports relating to sewage disposal for New York City and Brooklyn :
(a) Report of Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York City,
August 30, 1914.
(b) Report on the Main Drainage and Sewage Disposal of the Area Tribu-
tary to Jamaica Bay, April 23, 1917.
(c) Report of Engineers on the Electro-Chemico Corporation Process of
Sewage I’urification as Operated at the Elmhurst Disposal Plant.
(d) Article on Sewage and Dissolved Oxygen in New York Harloor, by
Kenneth Allen, Engineering News-Record, July 31, 1919.
2. Reports relating to sewage disposal for the Sanitary District of Chicago:
(a) Report of streams examination, chemic and biologic, of the waters
between Lake Michigan at Chicago and the Mississippi River at St. Louis.
Sanitary status of Drainage Canal in 1902.
(b) Report on the Disposal of Sewage from the Calumet Subdivision of
the Sanitary District of Chicago. 1907. -
(c) Fingineering Data, the Sanitary District of Chicago. 1910.
(d) Report on Sewage Disposal. 1911.
(6) Sewerage System of Chicago, also Review of Sewage Disposal in the
United States and Abroad. 1911.
(f) The Diversion of the Waters of the Great Lakes by Way of the
Sanitary and Ship Canal of Chicago. 1913.
(g) Water Power Development—Report by Commission on Sewage Disposal
and Water Power Development.
(h) Iłeport on Pollution of Des Plaines River and Remedies Therefor by
the Sanitary District of Chicago. 1914. A
(i) The Electric Department of the Sanitary District of Chicago. Power
Developed from I) rainage Canal. 1916.
(j) The Laws of and in Reference to the Sanitary District of Chicago, with
Ann Otations. 1916. -
(k) Report of Existing Lake Levels of Lake Michigan. 1917.
(l) Experimental Engineering ; Particular IReference to the Construction of
Testing Stations on Water and Sewage Problems. 1917.
(m) The Activated Sludge Process for Handling Packingtown Trade
Wastes. 1917.
(n) History and Growth of the Sanitary District of Chicago. 1919.
(O) Memorial : Data on the Drainage Canal.
(p) Maps Showing Territory Sewered by the Sanitary District of Chicago.
(q) Miscellaneous reports on sewage disposal by Langdon Pearse, sanitary
engineer for the Sanitary District of Chicago.
3. Reports relating to sewage disposal for Cleveland, Ohio :
((t) Report on Tests at Sewage Testing Station. 1914.
(b) Reprint from Engineering News on results of activated sludge treat-
Iment. 1916.
1728 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
4. Reports relating to sewage disposal at Providence, R. I. :
(a) Annual Report of City Engineer. 1918.
(b) Plans and Photographs of Disposal Plant (with a description of the
plant attached).
5. Brief Description of Sewage Disposal Plants at Atlanta, Ga., 1919.
, 6. Teport' of Sewage Testing Station at Akron, Ohio. 1912.
7. Report of Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission. 1916.
8. Report on Sewage Disposal and the Sewage Experiment Station, Glovers-
ville, N. Y. 1908.
9. Report on Sewage Disposal System of Rochester, N. Y. 1913.
10. Reports relating to sewage disposal at Columbus, Ohio :
(a) Annual Report, 1913.
(b) Annual Report, 1914.
(c) Annual Report, 1915.
(d) Annual Report, 1916.
(e) Annual Report, 1917.
(f) Annual Report, 1918.
11. Reports relating to sewage disposal at Milwaukee, Wis.
The art of sewage treatment has advanced to such an extent that it can be
stated with assurance that Ordinary municipal Sewage Can be treated Success-
fully to almost any required extent. The more or less popular impression that
the art is in the experimental stage and that, therefore, the construction of
treatment plants may well be postponed, and that little progress has thus far
been made, is erroneous. Sanitary engineers should take advantage Of every
opportunity to counteract this impression. The accomplishments in this field
have been great, and much credit is due to the investigators and practicing engi-
neers through whose efforts the advance has been made.
With the advent of each new process there is a popular inclination to look
upon it as a substitute for those processes which have gone before. Experience
has shown, however, that in general each problem presents its own peculiar
Conditions, and that there is a field of usefulness for every process which has
proved to be of practical merit.
The most vital difficulty in the field of sewage disposal lies in securing efficient
Operation. As a rule, sewage is not treated for the benefit of the citizens pro-
ducing it, but to protect those living in neighboring communities who are neither
Citizens nor taxpayers of the city in question. It is unpopular to appropriate
funds which are to be expended for the benefit of those living outside the com-
munity. The value of operation records and analytical tests is not often
appreciated by city officials and too seldom by engineers.
The treatment of industrial wastes in many respects resembles that of
municipal sewage. Most of the processes applicable to the latter are useful in
the former. Many industrial wastes problems, however, are much more compli-
cated and difficult than the ordinary sewage-disposal problem.
This is a comparatively new field of activity for the sanitary engineer, and
the Opportunity for research and accumulation of knowledge is very great.
FINAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATION AT, JOINT COMMISSION ON THE POLLUTION
JF BOUNDARY WATERS REFERENCE—WASHINGTON.—OTTAw A
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
United States: Obadiah Gardner, chairman ; James A. Tawney, R. B. Glenrº.
Whitehead Kluttz, secretary.
Canada : Charles A. Magrath, chairman: Henry A. Powell, K. C., P. B.
Mignault, K. C. Tawrence J. Burpee, secretary.
IETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
SEPTEMBER 10, 1918.
SIR : We have the honor to inclose herewith the final report of the Interna-
tional Joint Commission in the matter of the reference of August 1, 1912, Sub-
mitted by the Governments of the United States and of the Dominion of
Canada, under the provisions of Article IX of the treaty of January 11, 1909,
between the United States and Great Britain.
We have the honor to be, sir, your obedient Servants,
WHITEHEAD KILUTTZ,
LAWRENCE J. BURPEE,
The honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE, Secretaries.
Washington, D. C.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1729
FINAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF
THE REFERENCE BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE DOMINION OF CANADA
RELATIVE TO THE POLLUTION OF BOUNDARY WATERS
I.—INTRODUCTION
Under the terms of Article IX of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between
the United States and Great Britain, the following questions were Submitted
by the Governments of the United States and of the Dominion of Canada to
the International Joint Commission under date of August 1, 1912, for exami-
nation and report upon the facts and circumstances connected with the pol-
lution of boundary waters, and for such conclusions and recommendations as
might be appropriate : -
“1. To what extent and by what causes and in what localities have the
boundary waters between the United States and Canada been polluted SO as to
be injurious to the public health and unfit for domestic or other uses?
“2. In what way or manner, whether by the construction and Operation Of
suitable drainage canals or plants at convenient points or otherwise, is it pos-
sible and advisable to remedy or prevent the pollution of these waters, and by
what means Or arrangement can the proper construction or operation Of
remedial or preventive works, or a system or method of rendering these waters
Sanitary and suitable for domestic and other uses, be best Secured and main-
tained in order to insure the adequate protection and development of all
interests involved on both sides of the boundary and to fulfil the obligations
undertaken in Article IV of the waterways treaty of January 11, 1909, between
the United States and Great Britain, in which it is agreed that the waters
therein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary
. not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the
Other ?”
The expression “boundary waters ” is used in the treaty with a special
meaning, being therein defined as follows: -
“For the purposes of this treaty, boundary waters are defined as the waters
from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting water-
ways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between
the United States and the DOminion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms,
and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural
channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing
from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across
the boundary.” g
In this report the term “boundary waters ” shall have the meaning
attached to it by the treaty.
The reference as thus Submitted is broad enough to require an investigation
of all boundary waters as the same are defined in the treaty without regard
to the present or future transboundary effect of their pollution on either side;
but when it first came before the commission at its Ottawa meeting in October,
1912, a doubt arose as to whether or not the two Governments intended that
pollution in all boundary waters was to be included in the investigation, and
a letter was addressed to both Governments requesting an expression of their
views in such manner as they might deem proper—
“As to whether or not the broad scope of the inquiry is to be circumscribed
by construction so as to confine the same to cases of pollution of the boundary
waters upon one side of the boundary which may extend to and affect the
boundary waters upon the other side.”
By letter under date of November 19, 1912, the commission was informed by
Mr. Knox, Secretary of State, that the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain had— -
“ reached an accord that the inquiry is to be confined to cases of pollution of
boundary waters on one side of the boundary which extend to and affect the
boundary waters upon the other side.” - -
The original submission as modified by this limitation constitutes the
reference under which the commission is acting.
The treaty, in addition to prohibiting such pollution of boundary waters as
would have the effect of injuring health or property on the side of the bound-
ary line opposite to that in which it originates, prohibits the pollution of
rivers flowing across the boundary line which has an injurious transboundary
effect. The first question omits entirely any reference to pollution in these
91739—24—PT 2 94
1730 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RTVERs, ETC.
rivers, although it is involved in the second question submitted. The facts.
Connected with pollution in rivers crossing the boundary line, however, call
for no Special investigation; and the commission regards it as clear that the
treatment prescribed in the case of rivers which are boundary waters should
be made applicable to them.
The reference has imposed upon the commission grave responsibilities.
From the language of the submission and this prohibitory clause of the treaty,
it is evident that the object which the two Governments had in view in making
the reference was to see that their reciprocal obligations with respect to the
pollution of those waters should be fulfilled. By the traditions of each coun-
try a treaty obligation is of Supreme Sancity and is the highest law of the
State. Any conclusions the commission may reach and any recommendations
it may make, may, if acted upon, affect the physical health of millions of
people who dwell along these waters, as well as the financial and other interests
Of eight States of the United States and three Provinces of the Dominion.
The people of both countries possess in the splendid immensity of the series.
Of Waterways through which so much of their common boundary passes a
heritage of inestimable value. M.llions of people dwell in their watersheds.
Along the banks of the rivers and Great Lakes communities which a few
years ago Were mere V.llages are now in population, in social and industrial
development, among the most important on the continent. Industries which
have Suddenly Sprung up have an annual output of manufactured products
aggregating in value $10,000,000,000. Agriculture and m ning have kept pace
With manufacturing in the line of expansion. According to official informa-
tion the rural population of the watersheds cultivate to-day over 100,000,000
acres of land, and the yearly yield of the mines is valued at $300,000,000.
The boundary Waters are the natural channels of interstate and international
Commerce. The world possesses no other water thoroughfare comparable with
the highway leading from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the head of Lake
Superior. While nature left comparatively little for man to do in adapting
these Waters to commercial needs, canals had to be constructed at certain
points and rivers, channels, and harbors deepened or created. These works
involved an expenditure on the part of Canada of $250,000,000 and on the
part of the United States of $135,000,000. Vessels drawing 19 or 20 feet can
In OW navigate the Great Lakes from Duluth or Chicago to Buffalo. Some idea
Of the magnitude of the commerce on these waters may be gleaned from the
fact that the vessel passages up and down the Detroit River in 1916 amounted
to 37,852, the registered tonnage of the vessels reaching 76,677,264, their
passengers, including ferry passengers, numbering 15.000,000, and their freight
exceeding 100,000,000 tons, valued at something over $1,000,000,000.
The Thousand Islands and hundreds of other attract.ve spots along the St.
Lawrence River, the Great Lakes, and their connecting waterways, as well
as in that Splendid chain of boundary waters still farther west which lie
within the Lake of the Woods watershed, afford unexcelled opportunities for
rest, recreation, and pleasure, which are taken advantage of by a very large
floating population during the summer months. #
The directness Of the Water route from the Atlantic Ocean to the head of
Lake Superior, the adaptation to water carriage of the freight borne by the
lake boats, and the cheapness with which this freight can be transported by
them, the completion of the barge canal from Buffalo to New York, the pro-
posed enlargement of the Welland and other' canals along the boundary rivers
permitting the passage of Vessels of 28 or 29 feet draft from the ocean to the
heart of the continent, the future settlement of the great wheat belt of Canada,
the fringe only of which has been touched, and the possible utilization of the
3,375,000 dependable horsepower of the boundary rivers, render the con-
clusion inev.table that the commerce and shipping on these waters and the
Wealth, the industries, and the population along their banks must in the near
future reach dimensions far exceeding their present attainment, and may ulti-
mately far surpass any area of similar extent in the world. In working out
the enormous possibilities of this vast section of the continent the proper
observance of international sanitary requirements will be a most essential
factor.
The first branch of the reference expressly calls for an inquiry into three
Subjects: (1) The location and extent of the pollution of boundary waters, (2)
the sources from which this pollution is derived, and (3) the localities, if any,
in which the pollution has a transboundary effect injurious to health or
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1731
property. Involved in this last subject is the determination of what is an
injury to health or property within the meaning of the reference and of the
treaty. The Second branch of the reference calls for the recommendat on Of
measures and methods for remedying or preventing existing or future evils.
II. PLAN OF PROCEDURE IN THE INVESTIGATION
While the answer to the question in the first branch of the reference covers
chiefly matters of fact, the proper procedure to be followed in the investigations
required the most careful consideration of everything involved, Of the geo-
graphical and experimental limitations that might with advantage be imposed
on the scope of the work, of the most suitable form of organization for carrying
Out the necessarily extensive examinations thoroughly, expeditiously, and evo-
nomically, and of the minor details of technique and general procedure. Many
of the matters involved called for expert assistance, and the commission enlisted
the sympathetic aid and cooperation of sanitary experts, health officials, and
others interested in both the United States and Canada in the preparation and
carrying out of a plan of procedure. A conference was held at Buffalo on
December 17, 1912, at which, on the invitation of the commission, the following
officials and experts were present and participated : Mr. John Thompson, K. C.,
representing the Dominion Government ; Dr. Frederick Montizambert, director
general of public health for the Dominion of Canada ; Dr. Charles A. Hodgetts,
medical advisor, commission of Conservation, Ottawa : Dr. John A. Amyot,
director of laboratories, provincial board of health, Toronto; Dr. J. W. S.
McCullough, chief health officer for Ontario; Mr. F. A. Dallyn, C. E., provincial
sanitary engineer for the Province of Ontario; Mr. Theodore J. Lafrenière,
sanitary engineer, provincial board of health of Quebec : Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin,
United States Public Health Service, Washington ; Hon. George Clinton, Buf-
falo ; Mr. A. H. Seymour, secretary State department of health, Albany; Mr.
Theodore Horton, chief engineer, State department of health, Albany; Dr.
Edward Clark, medical health officer, State board of health, Puffalo : Mr. George
H. Norton, deputy engineer commissioner, department of public works, Buffalo ;
Dr. Francis E. Fronczak, health commissioner, Buffalo; Mr. H. A. Whittaker,
assistant director, laboratory division, Minnesota State Board of Health : Mr.
Jo’n W. Hill, State board of health, Cincinnati, Ohio : Dr. Edward Bartow,
director State water survey, Urbana, IJl. : Mr. W. M. Mills, president Niagara
Frontier Pure Water Conference, North Tonawanda, N. Y. ; Dr. W. G. Palmer,
member of the Niagara Pure Water Conference, North Tonawanda ; and Mr.
Irving L. Pruyn, Oneonta, N. Y. Representatives from the health departments
of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, although requested to do so, were
unable to attend.
The conference was organized, Mr. A. H. Seymour, secretary of the New York
Department of Health, being appointed chairman, and Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin,
of the United States Public Health Service, secretary.
The commission requested the advice of the conference as to the points in
houndary waters where investigations should be made. the general nature of the
investigations at these points, and other matters of detail.
The conclusion was reached that the points of investigation should include
Rainy River, St. Marys River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River,
the St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to a point as far below the inter-
national boundary line as should be thought necessary ; the lake waters in the
vicinity of Port Arthur, Fort William, and Duluth, the lower end of Lake Huron
in the vicinity of Sarnia and Port Huron, the western end of Iake Erie in the
vicinity of Cleveland and Port Stanley, the eastern and western ends of Take
Ontario, and Sections of the latter lake at Rochester and Toronto. It was con-
templated that other points On the boundary outside of the Great Lakes system
should be examined if subsequently deemed desirable. -
The conference further advised the commission that the investigation should
include a bacteriological examination of samples taken, including the bacterial
count, the qualitative and quantitative estimation of B. coli according to stand-
ard methods, and Such chemical examination as might subsequently be deemed
necessary.
In February, 1913, a detailed plan for conducting the investigation in its
entirety was adopted, and Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin was employed as chief sani-
tary expert and director of field work. With him the commission associated
1732 ILLINors AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Dr. J. W. S. McCullough, Dr. John A. Amyot, and Mr. F. A. Dallyn, C. E. For
the sake of convenience these four gentlemen will hereafter be referrd to as
“the sanitary experts.”
The carrying out of the adopted plan involved what is probably the most
extensive bacteriological examination of waters the world has ever known. It
embraced Rainy River, parts of Rainy Lake, parts of Lake of the Woods,
Thunder Bay in Lake Superior, St. Marys River, Mud Lake, Detour Passage,
lower Lake Huron, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, the western
end of Lake Erie, the central portion of Lake Erie, the eastern end of Lake
Erie, Niagara River, the western and eastern portions of Lake Ontario, the
St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to Cornwall, and the St. John River
so far as it forms the international boundary. The number of sampling points
exceeded 1,500, and the number of samples collected at them was over 18,000.
The following table shows the location of the laboratories, the waters examined,
the dates of the examination, the number of Sampling points, and the total
number of samples:

;| Total
Date Waterway Location of laboratories l number
*...* samples
points
1913
July 8–22-------------------- |Rainy River ---------------- Fort Frances, Ont--------- , 192 955
July 28-Aug. 15------------- º Superior (Thunder | Port Arthur, Ont--------- 66 922
3y).
June 28-July 16------------- Lº Superior, St. Marys | Sault Ste. Marie, Mich---- 104 1,065
IVer.
July 25-Aug. 25------------- Lake Huron, St. Clafr River. Sarnia, Ont--------------- 142 1,606
September–Oct. 10 - - - ------- Lake St. Clair, Detroit River_j Windsor, Ont------------- 174 1,755
September–Oct. 3- - - - - - - - - - - IDetroit River, Lake Erie----| Amherstburg, Ont - - - - - - - - 114 1,306
October--------------------- Lake Erie, Port Stanley----- Windsor, Ont------------- 51 214
May 26–June 17- - - - - - - - - - - - - Lake Erie, Niagara River ---| Fort Erie, Ont. ----------- 133 1,375
May 27–June 12- - - - - - - - - - - - - Niagara River--------------- Niagara-on-the-Ilake, Ont- 59 840
Apr. 10–May 23------------- lº Ontario, St. Lawrence Kingston, Ont------------ 113 928
IVer.
May 23-Aug. 27------------- St. Clair River, Lake St. Detroit, Mich------------- 70 1,812
gº Detroit River, Lake
r1e.
June 12–July 23- - - - - - - - - - - - - Lake Erie------------------- U. i revenue cutter Mor- 20 480
I'lll. . .
May 12–July 29------------- Iake Erie, Niagara River - - - Buffalo, N. Y. -- - - - - - - - - - - 60 1,624
August---------------------- Iº Ontario, St. Lawrence | Clayton, N. Y. ----------- 32 482
IV’er.
October--------------------- St. John River -------------- Van Buren, Me----------- 32 672
Julv 3–Aug. 13--------------| Lake Huron, St. Clair River Port Huron, Mich - - - - - - - - 45 720
Aug. 1–21------------------- Niagara River, Lake Ontario || Youngstown, N. Y-------- 42 338
August---------------------- St. Lawrence River --------- Montreal, Quebec--------- 8 480
Points for the collection of samples were carefully located, but positions
which might show exceptional pollution at sewer outlets were avoided, except
in certain cases where information touching them was desired for special
reasons. Owing to the extraordinary amount of navigation on these waters,
fixed buoys were not feasible for the purposes of locating sample collection
points and the work was carried on by a time and course method, the Samples
being collected at prescribed time intervals and along definite courses laid down
on the charts of the waters. In swift-running water, as in the Niagara,
Detroit, and St. Clair Rivers, diagonal courses were necessary in order to
give some length to the cross sections and allow Sufficient time intervals be-
tween the taking of the samples. The various field parties were all furnished
with United States War I)epartment maps showing a great deal of the to-
pography of the areas under investigation, and also with copies of the sewer
maps for the adjacent municipalities.
In addition to the examination at these points, samples were collected to
show the relation between local situations and municipal water supplies and
to ascertain the character and extent of the pollution which might be due to
vessels navigating boundary waters. Both surface and deep samples Were
simultaneously taken at Certain points in the St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara
Rivers in order to determine the effect of stratification. While some situa-
tions show definite stratification, it may be accepted in interpreting the re-
sults that for the waters under investigation surface samples measure di-
rectly the extent of bacterial pollution.
*
(ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1733
The investigations were essentially bacteriological and the Work was con-
tinued at each sample-collection point during a period of time sufficient to
observe the quality of water, irrespective of minor variations.
Besides this bacterial examination, some float and temperature observations
were made and inquiries were carried on the data collected and compiled as
to area, population, location of water-supply intakes, quantity of Sewage
discharged for each of the several municipalities in the areas under investi-
gation.
Meteorological data relative to the several points of investigation for the
periods of examination were furnished by the meterological departments of
the United States and Canada, and the State and provincial health bodies
assiduously supplied the commission with such vital statistics as were avail-
able. From these statistics the death rate from typhoid fever per 100,000
has been computed for each of the municipalities either abstracting water
from or draining into the boundary waters.
The immense amount Of information thus gathered and presented to the
commission appears in the report Of the Sanitary experts. Maps were pre-
pared to show the location of Sample collection points, and charts and tables
to show the bacterial counts, B. coli averages per 100 cubic centimeters for
each of the sample-collection points, together with the dates of collection and
the maximum announts encountered during the period of examination. This
material was published with the progress report of the commission under date
of January 16, 1914."
With the object of obtaining information in addition to what had been
gathered by the Sanitary experts in their exhaustive investigation, the
commission held sittings at many places along the border and took the evi-
dence of a large number of people Who Were acquainted with the insanitary
conditions of several of the districts affected by pollution. Members of the
commission also personally examined most of the points where pollution was
strongly complained of.
Messrs Streeter and POWell, as a committee of the commission, took evidence
at Buffalo in the month of June, 1913, touching the extent of pollution in the
Niagara River and the effect of this pollution upon the riparian towns on the
United States side of the river.” Subsequently, during the months of Sep-
tember, October, and November, 1914, and the months of June and August,
1916, meetings of the commission, at which the pollution of boundary waters
was inquired into, were held at a number of places along the Niagara, Detroit,
and St. Clair Rivers.”
In Order that the Commission should, in a matter of such vital importance
as was being investigated, know the attitude of leading exponents of sanitary
science, it prepared and submitted a series of questions to a number of sanitary
engineers of large experience and wide reputation in the United States and
Canada, namely: Mr. George W. Fuller, of New York City; Prof. Earle B.
Phelps, of the United States Public Health Service ; Mr. George C. Whipple, of
Harvard University ; Mr. W. S. Lea, of Montreal ; Mr. T. J. Lafrenière, of the
Provisional Board of Health of Quebec ; and Mr. F. A. Dallyn, of the Provincial
Board Of Health Of Ontario. These Six engineers afterwards, on the invita-
tion of the commission, attended a conference with it in the city of New York.”
They are hereafter referred to as the “advisory engineers.” Some days were
spent in their examination, but the lengthy testimony they gave was condensed
by them into a résumé of 14 points, as follows: "
“1. Speaking generally, Water Supplies taken from streams and lakes which
receive the drainage Of agricultural and grazing lands, rural Communities, and
unsewered towns are unsafe for use without purification, but are safe for use if
purified.
1 Progress report of the International Joint Commission on the reference by the
United States and Canada in re the Pollution of Boundary Waters, including report of
the sanitary experts. 1914.
2 Preliminary report of committee having general supervision of the investigation re-
lating to the pollution of boundary waters ; with documents * * * relating to the
petitions of the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. for permission to divert 6,000
second-feet from Lake Frie. , 1913. -
3 Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the pollution of
boundary waters between the United States and Canada. 1914.
4 Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the pollution of
boundary waters between the United States and Canada. 1916.
4 Conference with sanitary engineers at New York City, May 26 and 27, 1914.
5 Hésumé of testimony of consulting sanitary engineers in the matter of the pollution
of boundary waters, New York, 1914.
1734 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
“2. Water supplies taken from Streams and lakes into which the sewage of
Cities and towns is directly discharged are safe for use after purification, pro-
Vided that the load upon the purifying mechanism is not too great and that a
sufficient factor of safety is maintained, and, further, provided that the plant
is properly operated.
° 3. AS, Ill seneral, the boundary waters in their natural state are relatively
Clear and Contain but little organic matter, the best index of pollution now
available for the purpose of ascertaining whether a water-purification plant is
Overloaded is the number of B. coli per 100 cubic centimeters of water expressed
as an annual average and determined from a considerable number of confirma-
tory tests regularly made throughout the year. *
“4. While present information does not permit a definite limit of safe loading
of a Water-purification plant to be established, it is our judgment that this
limit is exceeded if the annual average number of B. coli in the water de-
livered to the plant is higher than about 500 per 100 cubic cent: meters, or if in
0.1 cubic centimeter samples of the water B. coli is found 50 per cent of the
time. With Such a limit the number of B. coli would be less than the figure
given during a part of the year and would be exceeded during some periods.
“5. In waterways where some pollution is inevitable and where the ratio of
the Volume of water to the volume of sewage is so large that no local nuisance
Can result, it is our judgment that the method of sewage disposal by dilution
represents a natural resource and that the utilization of this resource is justi-
fiable for economic reasons, provided that an unreasonable burden or responsi-
bility is not placed upon any water-purification plant and that no menace to
the public health is occasioned thereby.
“6. While realizing that in certain cases the discharge of crude sewage into
the boundary waters may be without danger, it is our judgment that effective
Sanitary administration requires the adoption of the general policy that no
untreated Sewage from cities or towns shall be discharged into the boundary
WaterS.
“7. The nature of the sewage treatment required should vary according to
the local cond.tions, each Connllmunity being permitted to take advantage of its
Rituation with respect to local Conditions and its remoteness from other com-
munities, with the intent that the Cost Of Sewage treatment may be kept reason-
ably low. -
“8. In general, the simplest allowable method of sewage treatment, such as
would he suitable for small communities remote from other communities, should
be the removal of the larger suspended solids by screening through a one-fourth
inch mesh or by sedimentation.
“9. In general, no more elaborate method of sewage treatment should be re-
quired than the removal of the suspended solids by fine screening or by sedi-
mentation, or both, followed by chemical disinfection or sterilization of the
clarified sewage. Except in the case of some of the smaller streams on the
boundary, it is our judgment that such oxidizing processes as intermittent send
filtration and treatment by sprinkling filters, contact beds, and the like, are
unnecessary, inasmuch as ample dilution in the lakes and large streams will
provide sufficient oxygen for the ultimate destruction of the organic matter.
“10. Disinfection or sterilization of the sewage of a community should be re-
quired wherever there is danger of the boundary waters being so polluted that
the load on any water-purification plant becomes greater than the limit above
mentioned.
“11. It is our opinion that, in general, protection of public water supplies is
more economically secured by water purification at the intake than by sewage
purification at the sewer outlet, but that under some conditions both water
purification and sewage treatment may be necessary.
“ 12. The bacteriological tests which have been made in large numbers under
the direction of the International Joint Commission indicate that in most
places the pollution of the boundary waters is such as to be a general menace
to the public health should the water be used without purification as sources
of public water supply or should they be used for drinking purposes by persons
traveling in boats.
“13. It is our judgment that the drinking water used on vessels traversing
boundary waters should not be taken indiscriminately from the water traversed,
unless subjected to adequate purification, but should be obtained preferably
from safe sources of supply at the terminals.
“ 14. While recognizing that the direct discharge of fecal matter from boats
into the boundary waters may often be without danger, yet in the interest of
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1735
effective Sanitary administration it is our judgment that the indiscriminate dis-
charge of unsterilized fecal matter from vessels into the boundary waters
Should not be permitted.”
These views of the advisory engineers were given after most mature consid-
eration. On their part, and not only have they been of great assistance to the
tºo in mission in arriving at the conclusions and recommendations expressed in
this report, but their thoroughness and exhaustiveness have been recognized
by Scientists on this continent and in Europe, frequent applications having been
Ina de to the Commission for Copies of both the testimony and the résumé.
It was necessary that the commission should form some reliable estimate of
the COSt Of installing the requisite remedial works, and it determined to carry
On its investigations in such (letail that the engineering possibilities and diffi-
culties would be fully considered and the cost of the ultimate projects deter-
milled Witlı in reasonably close lilnits. Prof. Earle B. Phelps, of the United
States Public Health Service, was engaged as the commission's consulting
engineer and Was put in charge of the investigation. Engineering offices were
established at Detroit and Buffalo, each office comprising a small but well-
Orgailized force, under Professor Phelps's Süpervision but in immediate charge
of a district engineer. The Detroit office had charge of the investigation in the
cities and towns bordering upon the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, and the
IBuffalo office had charge of the investigation along the Niagara River. The
investigations covered the following cities and towns:
In the United States: Port Huron, St. Clair, Marine City, Algona C, Detroit,
River Rouge, Ecorse, Ford City, Wyandotte, Trenton, Lackawanna, Buffalo,
Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, Lasalle, Kenmore, Niagara Falls, Lewiston,
and Youngstown.
In Canada : Sarnia, Ford, Walkerville, Windsor, Sandwich, Amherstburg,
Fort Erie, Bridgeburg, Chippewa, Niagara Falls, Queenston, and Niagara-on-
the-Lake.
All of these cities and towns were asked to assist in the investigations in
which they were respectively concerned. The examinations at Detroit and
Buffalo were of much greater magnitude than the others, and this fact, coupled
with the wish of the commission that these cities should be associated With the
investigation in which they were interested, led to an invitation being ex-
tended to their Officials to Collaborate with the Consulting Sanitary eingineer
in the prosecution of his work ; and the commission expresses its appreciation
of their sympathetic and efficient COOperation,
On December 5, 1914, Detroit appointed Mr. Clarence W. Hubbell, a Con-
sulting sanitary engineer, to review the data and the conclusions of the Com-
mission’s sanitary experts and to report What means, if any, Should be
adopted by the city for the purification of its sewage and to what extent it
would be justified in incurring expense for that purpose. Mr. Hubbell’s Office
cooperated most closely with the commission's Detroit office during the whole
period of the investigation so far as the work related to Detroit, all (1 the COm-
mission is pieased to report that his recommenſlations to the City and the reC-
ommendations of the consulting engineer of the commission are in Substantial
accord. Buffalo furnished office space and equipment for the Commission's
staff at that city and furthered the progress of the investigation by Supplying
all information in its possession and by rendering Valuable assistance to the
commission's engineers in addition to making readily available all city maps
and documents required.
The commission also expresses its satisfaction with the readiness and
promptness with which the smaller cities and towns furnished the maps, data,
and information in their possession. The Provincial and State health authori-
ties also afforded the commission's engineers valuable assistance by providing
them with maps and data in their possession relating to the Sewerage Systems
of those cities and towns. This was particularly the Case in the Province of
Ontario. The reports of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army
supplied hydraulic data of great importance, especially the (lata dealing with
Great Lakes levels, river discharges, and elevations. .
The investigations began in March, 1915, and were completed in March, 1916.
In carrying them out it was necessary to prepare plans for treatment works
adapted to local requirements and sufficient for the general needs of the situ-
ation. For economic reasons the consulting engineer adopted the existing
sewerage systems as points of departure. When available, sites for treatment
works were tentatively determined upon and the necessary collecting Systems
were planned to bring the sewage to these points. This procedure was neces-
1736 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Sarily largely experimental, as there were usually several possible and avail-
able sites for treatment works and frequently more than one pOSSible System
of main drainage. It was also necessary to plan these works with due regard
to the future growth of the cities, and consequently in some instances sewer
interceptors were planned for sections thereof almost wholly undeveloped.
This procedure generally led to the tentative adoption of several major proj-
ects, all of them feasible and practicable but differing in the type of treatment
Works, in the number and location of the concentration points for treatment,
the arrangement of trunk-line interceptors, and the substitution in some cases
Of pumping-station plants for deeper interceptor construction. In each case
these various projects were worked out in detail, the necessary structures were
designed to a point sufficient for comparative cost estimates, and they were
then Compared upon the basis of cost and general desirability. No attempt was
made to exhaust all the possibilities, and it is not assumed that the remedial
Works planned are the most economic or desirable. Neither time nor funds
were available for field surveys, except in some minor instances, such surveys
not being considered essential to the work. The engineering investigations
were naturally and necessarily much less detailed than would be those in Con-
nection with a city about to construct new works. They were, however, in
sufficient detail to develop in the case Of all cities and towns feasible and
workable plans for the collection and treatment of their Sewage. The esti-
mated cost is ample for the application of satisfactory remedial measures.
Details of the proposed plans for collecting and treating the sewage of the
various cities and towns are set forth in the report of the consulting engineer."
As soon as this report was submitted to the Commission it was printed, and
copies were supplied to the different municipalities along the Niagara, Detroit,
and St. Clair Rivers, with an invitation to attend the meetings of the COm-
mission, held, as before mentioned, at Buffalo and Detroit in June, 1916.” At
these meetings the remedies suggested by the consulting engineer were dis-
cussed with the representatives of the various municipalities interested. A
meeting of the commission was also held at Ogdensburg in August, 1916, at
which a large number of the municipalities on the upper St. Lawrence were
represented by their mayors, city engineers, and health officers.
The commission also devoted considerable attention to the investigation of
existing methods of Sewage disposal.
III—EXISTING POLI,UTION
The first question in the reference is—
“To what extent and by what causes and in what localities have the
boundary waters between the United States and Canada been polluted so as to
be injurious to the public health and unfit for domestic or other uses?”
To enable the commission to answer this question the detailed bacterio-
logical examination hereinbefore described was made by the sanitary experts.
A brief epitome only of their report can be given here. An extensive exami-
nation was made of the waters in Thunder Bay and White Fish Bay of Lake
Superior, the lower end of Lake Huron, and the eastern ends of Lake Erie
and Lake Ontario. They were found to be practically free from B. coli in
100 cubic centimeter quantities and to have a bacterial Count of less than
10 on agar at 37° C. This then is the condition of the water as it enters
the St. Marys, St. Clair, Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers. The lower por-
tions of Lake St. Clair and Rainy Lake, the sources of the Detroit and Rainy
Rivers, respectively, While appreciably polluted by agricultural and other drain-
age, show a remarkable freedom from extensive bacterial pollution.
The waters of Rainy River, St. Marys River, St. Clair River, and of the
Detroit and Niagara Rivers in consequence of the unrestricted discharge of
Sewage from vessels and to Wils are no longer fit for domestic use unless sub-
jected to extensive treatment in water-purification plants. Below the cities
of Detroit and Buffalo the waters of the Detroit and Niagara Rivers, re-
spectively, are so intensely polluted that it is highly questionable whether by
the aid of any ordinary purification plant they can be made at all suitable
for drinking purposes.
* Report of the consulting, sanitary, engineer upon remedial measures, Mar. 8, 1916.
* Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the pollution of
boundary waters between the United States and Canada. 1916.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1737
The Waters of Rainy Lake, Rainy River, and Lake of the Woods were exam-
ined during the period from July 8 to July 22, 1913. In this examination 995
Specimens were collected and reported upon. The waters of Rainy Lake, sub-
jected to agricultural drainage, showed a pollution amounting to 19 B. coli per
100 cubic centimeters, presumably the effect of this drainage, and of the con-
struction of a big fill for railway purposes. The drinking water of the towns
of Fort Frances and International Falls is taken from the head of Rainy River,
and was found to be seriously contaminated owing to the discharge of polluting
matter in the vicinity of the respective WaterWorks intakes. Below the falls
a very considerable pollution, averaging about 300 B. coli per 100 c. c., exists
throughout the length of the river. This is mainly attributed to the discharge
of raw sewage by these towns. The polluted condition of the river is aug-
mented by drainage from farms and Small villages located at intervals along
its banks, and markedly by Sewage from the towns of Rainy River and
Baudette.
An examination Was made Of the Water in the Lake of the Woods in the
vicinity of the mouth Of Rainy River and Showed an average of only 34 B. coli
per 100 c. c. It appears that the Self-purification and dilution had here operated
to lessen pollution in the river.
Rainy River throughout its entire Course has been rendered unfit for domestc
uSeS Owing to the unrestricted discharge Of Sewage and Other wastes. The
population along the banks is Sparse, with the exception of that of the villages
and towns. If Subjected to extensive water purification, the river may be used
as a SOurce of drinking-Water Supply.
The waters of Thunder Bay were examined during the period from July
28 to August 15, 1913. In all, 922 samples of water were collected and reported
upon. Thunder Bay is extensively polluted in the neighborhood of the towns
º Port Arthur and Fort William, but not to such an extent as to effect Lake
uper 101'.
The waters of the St. Marys River were examined during the period from
June 28 to July 16, 1913, 1,065 samples being collected and reported upon.
The results of the investigation ShoW that Lake Superior at the head of St.
Marys River is practically pure. In White Fish Bay the pollution measures
6.5 B colº per 100 C. C. The discharge of Sewage from vessels was shown to
Seriously pollute the waters in the lanes Of Vessel travel. Especially does vessel
pollution menace the Water supplies of the towns Of Sault Ste. Marie (Mich.)
and Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario). The average pollution at the Waterworks
intake Of the former city during investigation was about 25 B. coli per 100
c. C., and at the waterworks intake of the latter Over 200 B. coli per 100 C. c.
Below the towns the pollution was shown to increase to 291 B. Coli per 100
c. c. A serious condition of the river continues, although in a less pronounced
degree, down to Neebish Island.
The pollution present in this river, due to the discharge of raw sewage by
vessels and by the two towns Of Sault Ste. Marie, effectS very Seriously the
only available water supplies for summer residents and for pleasure boats
frequenting its waters. Water examined in the Straits of Mackinac proved
to be quite pure.
The laboratories stationed at Port Huron, Detroit, and Sarnia were in
operation during May, June, July, and August, 1913, for the examination of
the waters of the lower end of Lake Huron, River St. Clair, and Lake St.
Clair. In all, 2,336 Samples were examined and reported upon. The examina-
tion showed that the Wº ers Of Lake Huron at the head of the river WOuld be
practically free from L. coli were it not for the pollution from vessel Sewage.
Samples taken about 10 miles up the lake showed absence of B. Coli even in
100 C. C., while the water at the lower end, where VeSSel pollution is COncen-
trated, showed an average of 9 B. coli per 100 c. C. Below the towns of Port
Huron and Sarnia the waters of the St. Clair River for a stretch of about 34
miles are quite unfit for drinking purposes unless extensively treated, the
B. coli content found in the river water exceeding 200 per 100 C. C. The pol-
Iution below these towns is due to the combined effects of the discharge Of
untreated sewage from vessels and the towns along the shores. Any tendency
toward self-purification of the river by natural agencies is Counterbalanced
by the sewage and drainage from the small villages and residences along its
COUIrSe.
Lake St. Clair, which receives the discharge of the river, showed less evi-
dence of pollution. Natural agencies promote in the lake a purification not
found in the river.
1738 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The laboratories for the study of the Detroit River and the western end of
Iake Erie stationed at Detroit, Windsor, Amherstburg, and on the United
States revenue cutter Morrill, were operated during the months of May, June,
July, August, September, and October, 1913. Some 5,353 samples were col-
lected and examined, including those taken in the western end of Lake Erie
and at the mouth of the Detroit River. The situation with reference to the
Detroit River is described by the sanitary experts in their report to the com-
mission in 1914,” as follows: -
“The results of our analysis of Samples taken above the intake for the
Detroit city water supply showed this to be an unsafe source of supply without
careful treatment. * * * Samples taken along the several cross sections
from th S point to the site Of the Michigan Central tunnel showed a marked
increase of pollution in the shore samples. -
“The water intakes of Walkerville and Windsor are both located in danger-
OuS Situations, Owing to the discharge Of Sewage above these intakes and to
a potential danger of climatological variation diverting the intense shore pollu-
tion to points from whence it would affect the water intakes. In Spite Of the
efforts made by these towns to protect their supplies by means of chlorination,
the typhoid rates remain too high. At t mes the pollution is so great that the
quantity of chlorine required to overcome it gives an objectionable taste to the
Water.
:: sk sk : 2k >}: $:
“Samples taken from a cross section over the Michigan Central Railroad
tunnel showed gross pollution at sample points near the Canadian and United
States shores, and a considerable pollution extending across the entire river.
Samples taken from Several cross Sections showed gross pollution throughout
the entire river from the Michigan Central Railroad tunnel to Fighting Island.
“From Fighting Island to the mouth of the river the water is grossly pol-
luted and totally unfit as a source of water Supply. It is our opinion that Such
raw water would impose an unreasonable responsibility on any known method
of purification, even with the most careful Supervision. Unfortunately, Wyan-
dotte, Trenton, and Amherstburg are taking their water supplies from this part
Of the river.” • * -
The extensive pollution of the Detroit River is perhaps better indicated by
saying that at its head the B. Coli count is approximately 5 per 100 C. C., and
in the lower portions just below Amherstburg it reaches the enormous figure
of 10,592 B. coli per 100 c. c.
The pollution in the Detroit River is occasioned by the discharge of raw
sewage from its riparian communities, notably the city of Detroit, and by the
Sewage from VeSSelS. -
The investigations at the laboratories at Detroit, Windsor, and Amherstburg
show that while the waters of the western end of Lake Erie are extensively
polluted by the flow of the Detroit River, this pollution does not extend past
the islands which separate this end from the remainder of the lake.
Lake Erie, outside of this polluted area and the polluted areas at the mouths
of its tributaries and its littoral waters, affords a remarkable instance of
self-purification. The purity of the main body of the lake was amply estab-
lished by examination of its water at Several widely separated Stations.
The laboratories for the study of the Niagara River established at Buffalo.
Port Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake, and Youngstown were operated during the
months of May, June, and July, 1913, 4,137 samples of water being collected
and examined. This investigation showed that above Niagara Falls the great
bulk of the pollution in the river, and due to the discharge of Sewage therein,
is confined to the marginal waters of the country in which it originates and
that the sewage of Buffalo is polluting to a serious extent the available water
supplies of the two Tonawandas and the city of Niagara Falls, N. Y.
The effect of the pollution of the lower Niagara is to render the river water
totally unfit for domestic uses unless purified. All of the lower municipalities
have been forced to install and operate water-purification plants, and the
results of their operation show only too clearly that the use of the water is
accompanied by no proper margin of Safety.
9 Progress report of the International Joint Commission on the Reference by the
United States and Canada in re the Pollution of Boundary Waters. Including report of
the sanitary experts. 1914.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1739
The investigation revealed the fact that the waters of Lake Ontario are
comparatively free from B. coli, with the exception of an 18-mile radius from
the mouth of the Niagara River, Of limited areas at the mouths of other riverS,
and of the littoral waters Of the lake and of the lanes of vessel travel.
The laboratories Operated at Kingston and Clayton, as well as at Montreal,
during the mºnths of April, May, and August, 1913, for the purpose of examin-
ing the waters of the St. Lawrence River, collected and examined 1,890 samples.
The St. Lawrence River is the Only water supply available for the Summer
residents at the Thousand Islands and for the communities along its banks.
During the period of examination it was observed that the present practice
of unrestricted discharge of sewage renders certain areas unfit sources of drink-
ing water. Before the tourists appear in June, with the consequent increase
of boat traffic, the waters are in a remarkable state of purity. Below the
Thousand Islands population is denser and considerable polution exists through-
out the river, the source of which is the discharge of sewage from vessels and
from the riparian communities. -
The laboratories siationed at Van Buren in October, 1913, for the Study Of
the St. John River collected and examined 672 samples. The pollution in this
river amounted to about 125 B. coli per 100 cubic centimeter in the late fall.
This is excessive in comparison with the figures in the Detroit and Niagara
Rivers, population and stream flow considered. This abnormal condition is
attributable in large measure to the potato-starch factories located along this
river, the waste from which contains large numbers of bacteria capable Of
ferment ng lactose.
Reference has already been made to the numerous vessels navigating boundary
waters and their enormous floating population and the pollution resulting
therefrom. This pollution not only clearly exists in boundary rivers, in harbors,
and in the vicinity of water intakes, but was found to a harmful extent in
the Great Lakes, where its presence is due to the fact that vessels navigating
lake waters ply in comparatively narrow lanes in Order to avoid collision in the
nighttime or during fog. Upbound vessels follow Gne track and down-bound
º follow another, and the pollution is confined to the vicinity of these
&l IléS. i §
Poljution from vessels is of two kinds: (1) Raw sewage in the Shape of
human excreta, garbage, etc., and (2) water ballast discharged by vessels on
approaching ports of designaticn. This pollution is a Serious menace to public
health, not alone through the possible contamination of the public water Sup-
plies near their intakes, but also by reason of its effect upon the water Sup-
plies of other vessels following or crossing the same routes.
Complaints were made to the commission regarding a form of pollution
which is not of a bacteriological character, existing in the St. Johns and Rainy
Rivers. . It results from the deposit of sawdust and other sawmill wastes in
the streams, frequently causing nuisances by making the shores and bed of
the stream unsightly, unclean, and malodorous. This pollution is also injurious
to fish life. At International Falls and at Fort Francis Objection was also made
to the discharge of wastes from the pulp mills on the Rainy River. Like Com-
plaints were made with respect to the St. Croix River, which in part forms
the boundary line between New Brunswick and the State of Maine. The pol-
Hution CCnmplained Of in the case of the pulp mills was chiefly due to Chemical
waste resulting from the manufacture of pulp. This form of pollution is also
injurious to fish life and the fishing industry. The pollution from sawmill
and pulp-mill wastes has in every instance transboundary effects detrimental to
property and health.
With the exception of sawmill and pulp-mill wastes no reference has been
made to industrial and chemical wastes as a source of pollution. Contami-
nation from these SOurces is at present SO limited and local in effect that the
commission did not regard it as of Šufficient moment from an international
standpoint to call for any extensive scientific investigation. Unquestionably
in the future, unless preventive measures are taken, pollution from all these
wastes will have a very injurious effect, and the commission has not been
unmindful of this fact in preparing the recommendations hereinafter made.
The grossly polluted condition of boundary waters is doubtless the cause
of the abnormal prevalence of typhoid fever throughout the territory border.
ing thereon. -
1740 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The table following gives the statistics of death from typhoid fever in the
cities and towns therein mentioned for a period of 14 years, beginning with
the year 1903:
Typhoid death, rates per 100,000 of population

1903 || 1904 || 1905 || 1906 || 1907 || 1908 || 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 || 1915 1916.
Rainy River:
International F a l l s,
0
Baudette, Minn---------|-----|-----|----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
Rainy River, Ontario--- 0 0 || 200 | 200 0 0 0 0 || 63 0 0 0
St. Marys River:
Sault Ste. Marie, Mich-- 115 52 | 68 59 || 17 | 73 56 24 54 || 23 22 ; 7 7.
0
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario 152 26 || 150 | 191 91 | 68 90 154 || 280 85 127
St. Clair River:
Port Huron, Mich------| 25 | 35 | 15 56 || 46 21 58 74 || 48 || 197 10 5 || 30
Sarnia, Ontario --------- 116 || 34 || 33 55 | 87 || 110 || 82 | 101 || 148 139 || 45 26 || 34 60
Detroit River:
Detroit, Mich----------- 20 17 20 || 21 25 19 || 20 23 16 17 29 || 13 13 15,
Walkerville, Ontario ----| 0 || 47 0 | 40 .0 35 0 0 || 30 57 25 0 0 0.
Windsor, Ontario ------- 30 59 42 || 41 || 78 || 63 56 || 49 || 34 || 38 || 10 || 27 || 35 0.
Sandwich, Ontario------ 122 || 182 57 || 54 52 96 || 47 47 0 || 173 35 | 34 35 0
Wyandotte, Mich------- (1) (1) (1) | 72 | 107 | 123 87 75 12 54 92 || 33 || 47 63
Trenton, Mich----------|----- 166 0 | 164 || 163 || 80 80 0 | 163 0 243 0 | 80 0
Amherstberg, Ontario---| 0 0 0 || 83 0 0 | 40 0 78 118 37 0 || 42 85.
Niagara River:
Buffalo, N. Y----------- 34 24 || 24 || 23 28 || 20 24 20 || 25 | 12 ----- sº º m º ºs º ºs º ºr * | * * * * *
Fort Erie, Ontario, -----| 0 || 108 0 || 0 || 99 0 0 || 0 || 87 0. 0 || 0 0 || 0
Bridgeburg, Ontario_---| 0 0 0 0 0 | 68 O O 0 0 || 56 0 0 0
North Tonawanda, N. Y|-----|-----|----- 28 || 46 || 53 || 51 42 | 97 || 16 15 60 29 36
Niagara Falls, N. Y----- 127 | 1.40 | 181 | 150 || 131 103 || 87 98 || 194 | 67 || 23 10 O 10
Niagara Falls, Ontario -- 0 || 14 0 40 || 38 || 84 26 60 | 90 44 85 34 9 27
Lewiston, N. Y---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|----- * = * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * 0 0 0 0.
Youngstown, N. Y------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|----------|-----|-----|----- 0 0 0. 0.
Niagara-on-the-Lake,
Ontario--------------- 0 || 78 78 () 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.
St. Lawrence River: §
Cape Vincent, N. Y-----|-----|-----|----------|-----|-----|----------|-----|----- 0 0 0
Kingston, Ontario------- 100 22 38 , 38 27 | 32 || 32 80 26 || 32 25 43 28 5.
Clayton, N. Y----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|----- m me. * * * m eme -e ºs - ºr * * * * : * * * * * 0 0 0 53
Gananoque, Ontario ----| 55 0 0 0 || 27 0. 0 || 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.
Alexandria, N. Y-------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|----- sº ºr sºr ºs º f * * * * * * * * * * * 0 || 48 || 48 0
Brockville, Ontario -----| 66 | 66 22 109 || 21 43 32 10 || 42 64 10 || 72 | 162 0
Ogdensburg, N. Y ------| 54 || 61 | 40 86 39 || 32 25 | 50 31 37 -----|----- - - -
Prescott, Ontario-------- 0 0 34 34 103 || 34 0 70 || 36 0 0 0 O 36
Cornwall, Ontario------- 30 || 45 || 30 | 90 || 75 | 111 || 64 64 48 61 15 30 | 77 73
1Average for years 1889–1905, 85 deaths.
It may be incidentally mentioned that there is a marked improvement in the
statistical showing in the period since the commission's investigation in
1913. This is largely attributable to the fact that in consequence of this
investigation greater efforts have been made to protect water supplies by the
use of bleaching powder and liquid chlorine. The condition, however, is still
far from satisfactory. Notwithstanding the general improvement, violent
outbreaks of typhoid fever have occurred, and the potential danger must Con-
tinue to exist in view of the extensive pollution of these waters and the
limitations and inefficient cooperation of water-purification plants. Not only
have the border communities suffered from this condition, but the navigation
interests have also been injured very severely from the disastrous outbreaks
consequent on the use of polluted boundary water. *
IV.-TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS OF POLLUTION
This report so far has dealt with pollution generally in boundary waters.
The reference as amended calls for a further inquiry into pollution of the
waters on one side of the boundary line which may extend to and effect those
upon the other side. Some persons who appeared before the commission
argued for a literal interpretation of the language of the amended reference
and suggested that the only pollution with which the commission is concerned
is that which actually crosses the boundary line and has a transboundary
effect. While the commission does not accept this narrow interpretation, it
e
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1741
must consider the extent to which, and the places at which, pollution has such
an effect.
The most intense and the most clearly demonstrable cases of pollution
crossing the boundary exist in the Detroit and Niagara Rivers. The city of
Detroit discharges into the former all the raw Sewage from its estimated
population of 850,000. On the United States side opposite Amherstburg the
pollution of the river reaches the enormous figure of 10,392 B. coli per 100 c. c.,
and its waters from that point to Lake Erie and the waters of that lake within
a radius of about 4 miles from the mouth of the river are very greatly polluted.
Beyond question the pollution from Detroit and the towns lower down the
river crosses the boundary line and affects detrimentally health and property
On the other side. A notable example of this is to be found in the condition
of the shore waters of Bois Blanc Island, a summer resort on the Canadian
side of the River, which is extremely popular, especially with the inhabitants
of Detroit. The island shore waters are very greatly polluted by the sewage
from that city. The transboundary effect of this pollution may be estimated
from the data given in Tables XII, XIII, and XIV, and the maps opposite
pages 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of the Progress Report. Transboundary effects
are detectable along the lower stretches of the river generally. Owing to the
Comparative Smallness of the towns on the Canadian side, it is not at present
possible to trace pollution from them across the boundary, but these towns are
growing rapidly, and if they ever attain anything like the size of Detroit or
Buffalo, unless successful preventive or remedial measures are adopted, the
river will be absolutely unfit for domestic purposes. * -
In the Niagara River, owing to the discharge into it by the city of Buffalo
of the sewage of an estimated population of 500,000, the waters below the city
on the United States side are grossly polluted. This pollution is increased
by the sewage from towns on both its banks but particularly from towns on
the United States side. Until the Falls are reached the great bulk of the pol-
lution, as has already been stated, is confined to the marginal waters into
which it is discharged. At the Falls and in the rapids below the Falls, how-
&ver, the waters are thoroughly intermixed ; and the entire river from the
whirlpool to Lake Ontario shows an intense pollution from shore to shore and
from the Surface to the bed Of the stream. The flow of Such an enormous
quantity of grossly polluted water into the lake contaminates its waters for a
radius of about 18 miles from the river's mouth. The intensity of this pollu-
tion may be judged from the data given in Table XIX on page 48 and on
the map facing that page of the Progress Report. This map shows that the
maximum average of B. coli per 100 c. c, at several points in this polluted area
Of the lake during the period of examination by the sanitary experts was
10,000. The Canadian area of this portion was found to be much more
densely polluted than the United States area, the map showing at some points
in the former, distant about 10 miles from the mouth of the river and about 6
miles from the international boundary line, a maximum average count of
1,000 B. coli per 100 c. c. -
There is a well-marked crossing of pollution from one side to the other in
the Case of the Rainy River, the St. Marys River, and the St. John River,
although much less pronounced than in the cases of the Detroit and Niagara.
In the remaining boundary rivers pollution does not exist to as great an
extent as in the Niagara and Detroit : and its transboundary effect, where
such effect exists, is not easy of detection. The communities along their
banks which have sewerage systems all discharge raw Sewage into the streams.
It was contended that the polluting material discharged into them “hugs their
shores,” and while the effect may he very harmful to the health and property
of lower communities on the same side of a river, its effect upon the waters
on the other side of the boundary may be, and in the case of the larger rivers
is, practically nil. In judging of the transboundary results of pollution
people are ordinarily influenced by the lack of palpable effect at or near the
point where the sewage is discharged. In all of the boundary waters, not-
withstanding the disposition on the part of the urban sewage they receive
“to hug the shore ” (assuming there is such a disposition), winds, cross
Currents, eddies, rapids, shoals, reefs, ice jams, differences in specific gravity
between the Sewage and the water of the streams, the form and varying courses
of the channel, and the churning of the waters by the propellers of steamboats
may, and in some cases do, cause such a commingling and diffusion of their
waters that the pollution originating on One side is carried to some extent
1742 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
to the Other Side of the stream, although the contaminating element may be
SO Colorless as not to be detectable by the eye. Even in cases where trans-
boundary evil results can not be proved the probability of the pollution on one
side passing over or affecting the waters on the other side of the boundary
line is so great that the inhabitants On the latter side should not be forced to
run the consequent risk to life, health, and property. The idea is deeply rooted
in the minds of many that running Water always purifies itself. This belief
was put forward by some as a reason why no action should be taken in re-
spect to these rivers. Undoubtedly water does purify itself if it receives no.
accretions of contamination and runs in its Course a sufficient length of time.
The banks of these remaining boundary rivers are generally densely peopled,
and the communities along their Course discharge their sewage untreated into
them, thus more than counteracting this cleansing or purifying influence.
The waters of the Great Lakes constitute a class by themselves, and except
at the points where the Detroit and Niagara Rivers enter Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario, respectively, there is no pollution in them which crosses from one side
of the boundary line to the other, except it may be vessel pollution. This is
clear when the condition of the central portions Of the Lakes is considered.
Outside of a margin along their shores and the polluted areas at the mouths
of the rivers tributary to them, these Waters are, with the exception of places
where pollution from vessels exists, in their pristine purity. Take Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie for examples. Notwithstanding the facts that these
lakes are fed entirely by streams more or less polluted, including the Niagara
and Detroit Rivers, with their immense flow of extremely contaminated water,
and that there is poured into them the raw sewage of several very large c'ties
and towns, so efficacious is the self-purifying power of water that, with the
exception of this littoral margin and of those limited areas at the mouths of
the tributary rivers, their waters, when unaffected by vessel pollution, are
absolutely pure. This condition is an interesting one. The purifying power of
nature, assisted by time, accomplishes here What human agencies and human
resources find it impossible to duplicate.
Vessel sewage, which was found on examination by the Sanitary experts to
be a much greater factor in polluting boundary waters than is generally
supposed, is a matter of great international moment and must be referred to
in this connection. The commission does not COmnit itself to any view Of
the fiction or theory of vessel territoriality, which has been much discussed
by writers of international law ; but a vessel may, and for the purpose of this
investigation the commission thinks should, be looked upon as a portion Of
the territory of the State from which she hails or in which she is registered.
If sewage is discharged by a vessel on her own side of the boundary and then
passes over the line and there affects harmfully health and property, the
treaty is violated both in letter and in spirit. Is violation of the treaty, how-
ever, limited to cases of this kind? The words Of the treaty are broader than
the language of the reference. The latter, taken literally, deals with pollution
in boundary waters on one side of the boundary, which extends to and affects
the waters on the other ; or which, in other words, has both a transboundary
extension and a transboundary effect. To bring pollution within the treaty
it need only have one of these features—a transboundary effect.
It might not be straining too much the language of the treaty, “health and
property on the other ” (meaning the other side of the boundary line), to regard
it as indicative of national ownership or sovereignty rather than location.
This construction, for instance, would prohibit the pollution of Canadian
boundary waters that might injure citizens of the United States who for the
time being were exercising their treaty right to free and Open navigation of
these waters, and would also prohibit pollution of the United States boundary
waters by Canadian vessels discharging their sewage therein. If the language
is susceptible of this interpretation, such a construction would certainly be
consonant with the spirit of the treaty.
Independently of the point whether this construction is or is not warranted,
the relations of the United States and Canada, especially with regard to
boundary waters, demand that the question of their pollution should be treated
on the broadest possible lines. *
The international situation along the boundary line is a phenomenal one.
Not Only is it one of the most vital practical importance to each country, but
it is One on which each nation may felicitate itself as affording a great object
lesson to the world, showing how two liberty-loving, morally directed, and
law-abiding peoples can live side by side in the spirit at once of friendly rivalry
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1743
and perfect peace. Along the thousand miles of their territorial contact from
the Atlantic to the Pacific there is nothing which suggests the existence of
enmity or the possibility of military strife. The provision of the treaty of
Ghent that “there shall be a firm and universal peace between His Britannic
Majesty and the United States, and between their respective countries, terri-
tories, cities, towns, and people of every degree, without exception of places
Or persons,” has happily fair promise of perpetual observance. Practically the
two peoples commingle with all the freedom consistent with the physical and
political barriers which separate them. This condition has led to an inter-
weaving Of interests which makes the bond between them. One of more than
international comity. The treaty right of navigation is exercised at present
to an enormous extent, and in the future will be exercised to a still greater
extent. Along the boundary waters the citizens of both countries fraternize
socially, Select and patronize their summer resorts, invest their capital, and
engage in industries and enterprises almost without regard to territorial
sovereignty. Such freedom of intercourse, however laudable, has the at-
tendant danger of being conductive to the spread of disease and infection if
either country fails to observe sanitary principles. The pollution of drinking-
water suppkies and of bathing waters at Bois Blanc Island, on the lower
Niagara, at the Thousand Islands, or at other summer resorts, or of the
Waters navigated by vessels and yachts, might not only be an injury to the
immense number of citizens of both countries who would be brought im-
mediately in contact with the pollution, but would indirectly be a source of
great peril to hundreds of thousands more. To illustrate the danger the fol-
lowing citation is made from the United States Public Health Service Report
for 1914, volume 29, page 393:
“It is rferred that during one short period of the summer's cruise (refer-
ring to the voyage of a lake boat) 77 cases of typhoid fever developed as
the result of the use of impure drinking water taken from the Detroit
River. * * *.
“* * * Investigations by this service of similar outbreaks on three
Great Lakes vessels during the summer of 1913 showed that Out of a total
of 750 people there were over 300 cases of diarrhea and 52 cases of typhoid
With 7 (leaths.”
The lamentable prevalence of typhoid fever referred to previously calls for
consideration in this broad international view of the question of pollution of
boundary waters.
V.—INJUIRY TO HEALTH AND PROPERTY WITH IN THE MEANING OF THE REFERENCE
The commission having ascertained the necessary facts, both as to the extent
and effects, including the transboundary effects, of existing pollution, Was
confronted with the very difficult problem of deciding whether or not the
effect of this pollution was an “injury " to health and property within the
meaning of the reference. From the language of the Second question in the
reference it is evident that the object which the two Governments had in
view in making the submission was, as has been previously stated, to See
that the treaty was observed in its integrity. This object is expressed as
follows : *
“In order * * * to fulfill the obligations undertaken in Article IV of the
treaty.”
Article IV, so far as it is necessary to quote it, reads as follows:
“It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and
waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the
injury of health or property On the other.”
The controlling words of this prohibition are “to the injury of health or prop-
erty on the other.” It is necessary to consider the meaning which is to be at-
tached to the word “injury.” Does it mean simply harm Or damage, actual Or po-
tential, to health or property, without regard to any extrinsic considerations,
Such as justification or excuse on the part of those who cause the damage Or
ease of avoidance on the part of those who cause the damage or ease of avoid-
ance on the part of those who suffer from this harm or damage? It appears
to the commission that a broader and more liberal View should be taken
than would suggest an affirmative answer to this question. It is necessary
to consider the language of the reference and Of the treaty, and also the law
and practice of both countries with respect to the pollution of waters.
1744 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
The common law respecting rights in streams is admirably set forth in the
leading textbooks of both countries on “waters,” and is especially well sum-
marized by Lord Macnaghten in the case of Young v. Sankier Distillery Co.
et al., decided by the British House of Lords in 1893.”
“A riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water of the stream, on the
banks of which his property lies, flow down as it has been accustomed to flow
down to his property, subject to the ordinary use of the flowing water by upper
proprietors, and to such further use, if any, on their part in connection with
their property as may be reasonable under the circumstances. Every riparian
proprietor is thus entitled to the water of his stream, in its natural flow. with-
Out Sensible dimunition or increase and without sensible alteration in its char-
acter or quality. Any invasion of this right causing actual damage or calculated
to found a claim which may ripen into an adverse right entitles the party injured
to the intervention of the COurt.”
These principles are applicable to public bodies as well as private persons.
While private rights, however, may be overridden by the acquisition of a pre-
scriptive right, public rights can not. Without exception the riparian communi-
ties which pollute the waters of the boundary rivers do so in violation of the
principles of the common law.
It must be observed, however, that the circumstances under which these
principles were evolved have greatly changed, and the physical features of
the boundary rivers differ very much from those of the streams of England,
where the common law originated. When settlements had been made along
Our boundary waters to an extent that urban communities commenced to grow,
and sewerage systems in consequence of this growth began to be installed.
such was the immensity of these rivers that settlers living farther (lownstream
probably neither noticed nor protested against the discharge into them of what
was relatively an infinitesimal amount of pollution. When these communities,
therefore, installed Sewerage works they took advantage of the diluting powers
of the rivers, and resorted to the simple and inexpensive expedient of dis-
charging into them their sewage in its raw condition. The custom of doing so
has now become universal. The Selfishness of Wested interests, familiarity with
evil conditions, which has begotten an indifference to both the doing and the
suffering of wrong, an ill-directed spirit of economy averse to the assumption
of financial burdens to remedy what was only regarded as an existing or poten-
tial evil to other communities, and the disinclination to change ingrained
in humanity, have resulted in a situation alcng the frontier which is generally
chaotic, everywhere perilous. and in some cases disgraceful. The common law
having proved inadequate to the task of controlling affairs, it has been Sup-
plemented or superseded by legislative enactments, which in their practical
working have about as signally failed. -
The great difficulty is that in the United States and in Canada, as in all
Countries, in fact, modern development, social and economic, has introduced a
number of new elements into the question of sewage purification which call
for the reconsideration of views and methods which have fallen into disuse.
It must be admitted that the conservation of public health is of paramount
importance under the treaty. This is evident from Article IV to which refer-
ence has been made. The significance of sanitary considerations is also evi-
denced by Article VIII of the treaty, which contains the following provisions:
“The following order of procedure shall be observed among the various uses
enumerated hereafter for these waters (meaning boundary waters), and no use
shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other
use which is given preference over it in this order of procedure:
“1. Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes.
“2. Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of
Inavigation.
“3. Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.”
Although this order of procedure is in respect to certain uses enumerated in
this particular article, it may be taken as indicative of the view of the high
contracting parties regarding the importance of sanitation. Notwithstanding
this, the discharge of Sewage into streams can not be looked upon exclusively
from the standpoint of its harmful effects upon health and property. The
10 Appeal cases, House of Lords and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1893,
. 698.
º
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1745
reference itself does not so look upon pollution. One of the questions in its
second branch is, “By what means or arrangement can * * * a system.
or method of rendering these waters sanitary and suitable for domestic and
Other uses be best Secured and maintained in Order to insure the adequate
protection and development Of all interests involved on both sides Of the
boundary?” The growth and development of riparian communities would be
Seriously arrested if pollution were looked upon from this standpoint exclu-
sively. While public health is the paramount consideration. it must be looked
upon, however, as only one of a large number of elements in the many-sided
and complex question of the public weal.
The pollution of rivers in England has been the subject of investigation by
royal commissions which have been studying the question very thoroughly and
almost continuously for about 50 years. Their investigations have covered
nearly all the rivers of England and practically all the various phases of the
problem of river contamination, and the voluminous reports submitted by them
from time to time are very valuable and deserving of careful study. The Con-
clusions and recommendations made in these reports, while recognizing Sanitary
considerations as first in order of precedence, are based upon the implied as-
Sumption that the solution of the problem lies in the proper banancing of the
Various conflicting elements existing in the individual cases.
The parties who appeared before the commission discussed the question of
“injury '' almost entirely as viewed from two standpoints: First, from the
Standpoint of the relation between the riparian communities which pollute
the waters of the streams and those communities which suffer in COnsequence
of the pollution of their water supply; and, second, from the standpoint of the
agriculturists, the floating population of Summer resorts, casual visitors, pick-
nickers, campers, yachtsmen, and crews and passengers of vessels frequenting
boundary waters.
The difficulties ar'sing from viewing the situation from the first standpoint
Will appear by Considering the supposititious case of town “A ’’ and town
“B,” the first town being situate above the other on the same bank of a
boundary stream, the former discharging raw sewage from its sewerage system
into the river, the latter being obliged to drink the water thus contaminated
or to purify it at its own expense. To compel “A” to purify its sewage
absolutely or completely would, under present conditions and in the present
State Of Sanitary engineering practice, involve a financial burden too great
for that town to bear, a burden which might retard its progress both indus-
trially and in respect to population. On the other hand, to permit “A” to
relieve itself of any reasonable financial burden by throwing its raw sewage
on the waterworks intake of “B” and thus compelling that town either to
drink contaminated water, or to assume an unreasonable financial burden in
purifying it, would be an act of injustice which no fair-minded community,
with a proper appreciation of the evil inflicted, would perpetrate or continue,
and One to which no community should be asked to submit. If the harm
which would be done “B” could be remedied, however, by the assumption of
a financial burden which would be reasonable under all the circumstances Of
the case, there would not be an “injury '' within the meaning of the reference
and the treaty. '• *
From the second standpoint, that of the agriculturist, the floating population
of Summer resorts, etc., the question of “ injury.” under the reference is a
much more difficult one. The shores and islands of the boundary rivers and
lakes must particularly be considered. Their scenic attractions, their pure
air and salubrious climate, their opportunities for bathing, fishing, and yacht-
ing, and their ease of access, affording facilities for rest, enjoyment, and
health restoration to unlimited numbers, are invaluable assets, factors in
progress and civilization which should not, unless under the pressure of
absolute necessity, be destroyed. The harm done by existing pollution to
bath'ng resorts can not be remedied except by preventing the discharge of
Sewage into the waters which flow to them. Contamination of the sources of
the drinking Supplies Of these classes of people is a most serious matter. The
millions whom it affects or may affect are more exposed to danger than are
the urban inhabitants who draw their water supplies from public water sys-
tems. Such Systems have been installed hy sanitary engineers and generally
afford a reasonably pure drinking water. These classes, however, have no
such protection and it is difficult to devise adequate means of protection which
they could utilize. The fact that they consist in a large measure of children.
1746 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
A
especially at the Summer resorts, must also be taken into account. What
would, therefore, be an “injury " to them might not be an “injury" to riparian
COmmunities with water-purification SystemS. . . '
The commission regards the word “injury" when used in the reference or
treaty as having a special signification—one somewhat akin to the term “in-
juria " in jurisprudence. It does not mean mere harm or damage, but harm
or damage which is in excess of the amount of harm or damage which the
sufferer, in view of all the circumstances of the case, and of all the coexistent
rights (if it be permissible to use the term in this connection); and of the
paramount importance of human health and life, should reasonably be called
upon to bear. -
In the case of the Detroit and Niagara Rivers pollution exists on one side
of the boundary line which unquestionably is an “injury '' within the meaning
Of the treaty to health and property on the other.
In the case of the Rainy River and the St. John River, pollution also exists
on One Side of the boundary line which is an “injury '' within the meaning
of the treaty to health and property on the other.
In the case of these four rivers the pollution is transboundary both in its
effect and extension.
In the case of the other boundary rivers the commission is unable to say
that at the present time pollution does exist on either side of the boundary
line to the injury of property upon the other, although it is of the opinion
that at times it does. AS populations along their banks grow, pollution having
both transboundary extension and transboundary effect will doubtless increase.
In the division of this report which treats of pollution having transboundary
effects a broader View of the question of pollution is taken than the literal
words of the reference and treaty might be thought to justify. In the broad
view there expressed pollution exists throughout the whole range of boundary
waters, which is aſſº, “injury " to health and property in both countries, and
comes within the spirit of the prohibition of Article IV of the treaty. It is
now necessary to Consider the limits of permissible pollution, or the extent
to which pollution which might cause this “injury " should be restricted.
VI.-LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE POLI,UTION AND STANDARDS OF SEWAGE PURIFICATION
Two distinct lines of policy with regard to the disposition of Sewage in
boundary waters were suggested to the Commission. (1) To look upon them as
open sewers for the reception of riparian pollution of all kinds, and (2) to
restore the purity of the boundary waters as far and as fast as a comprehen-
sive and adequate appreciation of all interests involved will permit.
The first policy would not only be contrary to the treaty and the principles
of international law, but the continued discharge of untreated sewage into
boundary waters by either country would, in the case of the Niagara and De-
troit Rivers especially, be increasingly injurious to its own riparian communi-
ties farther down Stream.
The advisory engineers in their résumé, which has already been Set forth in
full in this report, say:
“While realizing that in certain cases the discharge of crude sewage into
the boundary waters may be without danger, it is our judgment that effective
sanitary administration requires the adoption of the general policy that no
untreated sewage from cities or towns shall be discharged into the boundary
waters. (Sec. 6...),
“Water supplies taken from streams and lakes into which the sewage of
cities and towns is directly discharged are safe for use after purification, pro-
vided that the load upon the purifying mechanism is not too great and that a
sufficient factor of safety is maintained, and further provided that the plant is
properly operated. (Sec. 2.)
“In waterways where some pollution is inevitable and where the ratio of
the volume of water to the volume of sewage is so large that no local
nuisance can result, it is our judgment that the method of Sewage disposal
by dilution represents a natural resource and that the utilization of this
resource is justifiable for economic reasons, provided that an unreasonable
burden or responsibility is not placed upon any water-purification plant and
that no menace to the public health is occasioned thereby.” (Sec. 5.)
This “burden Ör responsibility " is a very important element to be con-
sidered in arriving at a standard of purification or the limits of permissible
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 174'ſ
pollution. The advisory engineers were interrogated very fully on this sub-
ject at the New York conference and were pressed to define this limit in as
exact terms as possible. Their answer is contained in the fourth section of
their résumé:
“While present information does not permit a definite limit of safe loading
of a water-purification plant to be established, it is our judgment that this
limit is exceeded if the annual average number of B. coli in the water de-
livered to the plant is higher than about 500 per 100 cubic centimeters, or if
in 0.1 cubic centimeter samples of the water B. coli is found 50 per cent of the
time. With such a limit the number of B. coli would be less than the figure
given during a part of the year and would be exceeded during some periods.”
It is scarcely necessary to remark that the engineers are speaking of bac-
terial pollution only. In View of the present stage of progress in Sanitary
Science, this limit or standard must be regarded as tentative. Their evidence
Shows that they regarded the question as profoundly affected by conditions
and in no sense capable of absolute generalization. The commission agrees
With the Statement Of principles Set forth in these four sections. It therefore
recommends that all sewage should, before being discharged into boundary
Waters, receive some purification treatment, and the degree of such treatment
is to be determined in a large measure by the limits of safe loading of a
water-purification plant. .
To determine the extent of remedial treatment required in each particular
Case would involve Consideration of the varied lines that have been followed
by the commission throughout the present inquiry; the existence of pollution
and Of harm, actual or potential, to domestic or other uses, to public health,
Or property ; the results of the engineering studies of feasible remedies ; and
the economic facts relating to the conservation of stream resources. It would
require the balancing of the value of remedial measures in the terms of
public good against the cost of the requisite improvements.
On the One hand, it is evident that the paramount importance of public
health and the binding obligations of the treaty must be borne in mind.
These make impossible the recommendation of such lenient remedial measures
as would work economic injustice or would indorse officially the continued
Spoliation of a natural resource to the injury of the citizens upon both sides
of these waters.
On the other hand, sewage-treatment requirements must not be made so
excessive and unreasonable as to involve the cities and towns along these
waters in an expenditure entirely unjustifiable. They should be reasonable
and feasible from the standpoint of engineering construction, of adaptibility
to local Conditions, of the availability of necessary lands, Of Outfalls and
incident structures, and of costs.
In view of the fact that pollution in the Detroit and Niagara Rivers, and
its transboundary effects therein, are much greater than in the other bound-
ary waters, these two rivers will be treated as one class and the remaining
boundary Waters as another class.
The problem of necessary bacterial purification of the sewage (lischarged
into the two former is one of extreme perplexity, owing to the difficulty or
impossibility of obtaining definite and ample data and the relative importance
to be attached to many of the factors which enter into it.
After a great deal of consideration the commission has, in view of all
the Circumstances Of the case, come. to the conclusion that for the present
and as an immediate step in the way of restoration of the purity of these
Streams, the communities responsible for the discharge of raw sewage into
them should purify it to such an extent that the resulting average cross-
Sectional pollution in each river will not exceed the limit of safe loading for
a water-purification plant. - -
In other words, the standard of purification required of these communities
should be such that the streams after receiving their treated sewage would
have a mean annual cross-sectional average of B. coli not exceeding 500 per
100 cubic centimeters. .
Compliance with the requirements of this standard would not impose upon
the riparian communities along these rivers discharging their sewers therein
a burden which would be unreasonable or greater than that ordinarily imposed
upon urban communities which purify their sewage. g”
1748 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
It necessarily follows that this standard of sewage purification, being based
upon a tentative standard of safe load ng of water-purification plants, must
itself be tentative. The growing appreciation of Sanitation, the Consequent
demand for a higher degree of purity in water supplies, and the constant im-
provement that is taking place in the processes of Sewage treatment tend to
make a proper standard of sewage purification one of ever-increasing Stringency.
The discovery of a new and much more economical or possibly a profitable
method of d’sposal of sewage, for example, would naturally lead to the adop-
t’ on of a stricter standard of permissible pollution in heavily polluted Streams.
Furthermore, any limit of permissible impurity that might be established even
temporarily for a given stream must be influenced largely by Strictly local
considerations.
The data necessary for the formulation of a fixed standard either of
sewage purification or of water purification are not sufficiently Well estab-
lished at the present time. By more precise methods of experimental Study
there will doubtless be obtained in the future a more ample and accurate
command of facts, which will admit of the determination of a more definite
Standard.
In v’ew of the difficulties and uncertainties of bacteriological technique
it is distinctly advantageous to have, if possible, a working rule Which is
more accurate and readily determinable than the bacteriological Standard
suggested. Professor Phelps, the consult ng engineer, taking the results of
the extensive investigations reported upon in the progress report as an
index of the conditions actually existing, worked out, as Will appear from
his calculations on page 9 of his report to the commission, Such a rule or
Standard.
He found that if the sewage of the cities be d' luted in a stream flow of
4 cubic feet per second per capita of the population the resulting water
will contain approximately 500 B. coli per 100 cubic centimeters. If the
dilution is proportionately less than this, a corresponding degree of puri-
fication of the sewage will be necessary to maintain th s final stream con-
dition. Further investigations will no doubt make possible a more accurate
statement of these relations, but as the entire matter of standards is always
subject to revision in the light of accumulated knowledge it is considered that
for all purposes of a present inquiry the practical equivalence of the dilution
and the bacteriological standards may be accepted.
These standards are not applicable to rivers other than the Niagara and
Detroit, but it is in no sense to be inferred, however, that remedial or pro-
tective measures are not required in their case where the effect of pollution
based upon the entire Cross section Of the streams exceeds in every instance
4 feet per second per Capita of the population.
As has been Stated, the view of the advisory engineers is adopted that
no untreated sewage should be discharged into boundary waters, but the
commission considers it inadvisable at the present time to prescribe what
the amount of treatment should be in the case of these remaining rivers.
The sewage from each Community along their banks must be considered
by itself in respect of the degree of purification that is necessary, basing
the standard on the reasonable use of the waters, the practical possibilities
of remedial and protective measures, the economic value of stream purifica-
tion, and also the economic value of stream pollution, proper regard being
had to the public health. *
After giving much attention to the question of standards of purification in
these Six boundary rivers the commission has come to the conclusion that
the fixing Of Standards for them and the subsequent modifications of those
standards from time to time should be left as hereinafter recommended to
some authority clothed with the necessary power to deal with the ques-
tion. This authority should also have power to vary from time to time as
conditions demand the Standards of sewage purification in the Detroit and
Niagara Rivers.'
VII.-REMEDIAL TREATMENT REQUIRED
The second branch of the reference is concerned with remedying and pre-
venting pollution in boundary waters.
“In what way or manner, whether by the construction and operation of
suitable drainage Canals Or plants at convenient points or otherwise, is it
possible and advisable to remedy or prevent the pollution of these waters,
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1749
and by what means or arrangement can the proper construction or operation
Of remedial or preventive works, or a system or method of rendering these
Waters sanitary and suitable for domestic and other uses, be best secured and
maintained in order to insure the adequate protection and development of all
interests involved on both sides of the boundary, and to fulfill the obligations
undertaken in Article IV of the waterways treaty of January 11, 1909, between
the United States and Great Britain, in which it is agreed that the waters
therein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary
Shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the
Other ?”
The question of securing treatment of the sewage discharged into boundary
waters is one in respect of which, fortunately, the communities responsible
for the poklution are inclined to take a reasonable view. At several meetings
held by the commission the representatives Of the various communities inter-
ested generally recognized the intolerable condition of boundary waters from
a sanitary standpoint, and expressed their assent to any reasonable remedial
measures the commission might Suggest. Some Objections were made to any
disturbance of the existing Order of things, but the commission was pleased
with the sympathetic reception generally met with in dealing with this problem.
In this connection the following extract is given from the report made by
Mr. Clarence W. Hubbell, consulting sanitary engineer of the city of Detroit,
in November, 1016. It is at One and the same time the expression of the
Opinion of a well-known sanitary engineer and an evidence of the commendable
attitude taken by him and the city of Detroit with respect to Sewage purifi-
Cation.
“In regard to the Second part of the problem, as to what expense would be
justified for sewage treatment it is difficult to formulate an answer in terms
of money alone. However, it is believed that, aside from tºe international
features of the problem, the combined benefits which would accrue from a
more cleanly water front, purer water at the bathing beaches an l S immer
playgrounds, reduction in typhoid and other water-borne diseases due to the
use of sewage-laden water along the river front ; betterment of raw-water Sup-
plies for the municipalities below the city, and the protection of Detroit's
water from gross sewage pollution at times when the Detroit River flows back-
ward, amply justify the expenditure required for sewage-treatment works as
above outlined. In round figures, the cost would be about $6,000,000 and in my
judgment the expenditure of this sum would be justifiable.”
The duty devolving upon the commission in answering the first Question
contained in this branch of the reference is not to lay down any particular
Scheme of remedial works which the communities interested should adopt,
but to ascertain whether or not there is any means by which the pollution of
boundary waters can be prevented or remedied which is at once practicable
and within their financial ability. Subject to the requirement that the reme-
dial works should be ample to accomplish the desired results, the adoption
of the particular type of works to be installed should be left to the communi-
ties themselves, which may be able to select more efficient and less expensive
methods than those which the COmmission has found Sufficient to work Out
the desirable standards Of Sewage purification.
The art of sewage treatment has developed along divers lines, and there are
available at the present time various types of treatment adaptable to the needs
of varying conditions. The most important type of pollution is the bacterial
contamination of drinking-water supplies. Sewage-polluted drinking water
constitutes an actual Or potential menace to health, so much so that the pres-
ence of the bacterial Organisms of water-borne diseases in the Sewage of an
urban community should always be assumed. While bacterial pollution is
most serious in the Case of waters used as sources of drinking-water Supply,
it is also serious in the case of waters used for bathing, boating, and other
pleasurable exercises, and also, although to a less degree, in the case of shore
waters on account Of possible indirect infection through cattle and insects.
Certain types of Sewage treatment processes, such as Sand filters, having
as their chief function oxidation of sewage, are incidentally more or less
efficient as a means of disinfection ; but Sewage disinfection as a primary
requirement is most economically and efficiently carried out by chemical means.
Among the various chemical agents that have been proposed from time to time
and extensively used for this purpose, calcium hyperchlorite or bleaching
powder has proved most satisfactory.
1750 ILLINoLS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
A second type of pollution or nuisance arising from the discharge of sewage
into boundary waters is physical and relates primarily to the condition of
streams, as floating matter, turbidity, deposits upon the bottom or banks, and
unsightly appearances. Sewage screening by means of so-called coarse screens
will remove a considerable portion of the larger and more undesirable floating
matter and improve the appearance of streams. Efficient sedimentation will
remove a substantial part of suspended matter generally and nearly the whole.
of the suspended matter which is capable of settling and producing bottom
deposits of an offensive character. Fine Screening is intermediate in effective-
ness between coarse screening and sedimentation. The requirements of each
particular situation and the relative cost of the installation and Operation
of these three systems must determine in each case the type of treatment to
be adopted. There is a third type of nuisance, chemical in its nature, which
arises from changes in the chemical characteristics of streams—reduction in
the normal degree of aeration, development of Offensive Odors, and discolora-
tion and banishment or destruction of fish life. It is due to the Oxidizable
character of the polluted waters. Partial improvement results from screening
or sedimentation by the removal of a portion Of the oxidizable matter. Bio-
chemical oxidation of sewage, which is the most effective treatment, is brought
about by passing it through natural Or Specially prepared beds of Sand or over
the surface of stones or Other coarse material Or by passing it through tanks,
with artificial aeration in contact with sludge properly cultivated (activated
sludge), for the development of oxidizing Organisms.
With the extension of stream pollution by increasing population these three
kinds of nuisance appear in the chronological order in which reference has been
made to them. A minor physically undetectable pollution may seriously injure
a stream bacterially, and a stream may be physically affected by floating débris.
and deposits, and yet, from a chemical standpoint, be normal or practically
so. The final result of continuously increasing pollution is the chemical break-
down of a stream, resulting in the most objectionable conditions, examples
of which are becoming increasingly common in the more densely Settled sections.
of both countries. In purely local situations in the Niagara, Detroit, and St.
Clair Rivers, for instance, notably in the vicinity of Sewer outlets and the
mouths of tributary streams, and in the inner harbor at Buffalo, the waters.
are polluted to the extent of definite chemical nuisance. At these points the
difficulty is due to incomplete dispersion of the Sewage permitting the Overload-
ing of the immediate waters. The rivers as a whole, however, are far removed
from this condition. *
It is advisable to consider the Niagara and Detroit Rivers as a class by them-
selves so far as remedial and preventive systems are concerned. As has been
stated, the most serious condition existing is the bacterial pollution of these
streams. To remedy this evil, Sewage treatment should be applied in Connection
with dilution. So far as is necessary to bring their waters to the Standard
mentioned—a mean annual cross-Sectional average Of B. coli not exceeding 500
per 100 c. c. This necessary sewage purification can be effected by fine screen-
ing or sedimentation, and when necessary by chemical disinfection, at a cost
which will impose no unreasonable burden upon the urban community re-
sponsible for the present pollution.
The consulting engineer, Professor Phelps, investigated the question of installing
remedial works at Detroit and Buffalo. The results of his investigation are
given in his report to the commission, to which those desirous of looking into
this question at length are referred.” A summary of his conclusions, however,
is given in the following table:

First cost Annual charges
Intercept- Other i -- Operat- Per
OrS structures | Pand Total Fixed ing Total capita
Detroit----------- $2,560,000 || $2,690,000 || $680,000. $5,930,000 || $295,000 $216,000 || $511,000 $0.54
Buffalo - - - - - - - - - - 1, 560,000 1,770,000 270,000 3, 600,000 203,000 187, 000 || 390,000 . 65

The estimated first cost Of necessary remedial works for Detroit is about
$6,000,000, and for Buffalo Something less than $4,000,000. In each case about
in Report of the Consulting Sanitary Engineer Upon Remedial Measures, Mar. 6, 1916.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1751
one-half of the total costs is for treatment works proper, the remainder being
the amount chargeable to the collection of Sewage. The annual charges in-
clude interest, maintenance, and Operating expenses, and amount on a per
capita basis to 54 and 65 cents, respectively.
The United States Census Bureau furnishes data “ respecting the combined
yearly charges per capita for water and sewage works in American cities.
Tabulated, these data are as follows:
Cities over 500,000 population----- - - * * ---- $3.48
Cities from 300,000 to 500,000______ 4.01.
Cities from 100,000 to 300,000 - - - 3. 92
Cities from 50,000 to 100,000 3. 71
Cities from 20,000 to 30,000 - 3. 65
Average of all cities over 30,000 population____________________________ 3.94
These estimated yearly costs per capita for required sewage treatment de-
termined by Professor Phelps do not appear to the commission to be unreasonable,
either in view of the combined water and sewerage costs in the United States
cities or in view of the financial Standing of the communities interested.
The Sewage pollution of the Rainy, St. Marys, St. Clair, St. Lawrence, St.
John, and St. Croix Rivers differs from that of the Detroit and Niagara Rivers
in degree, but not in kind. The less concentrated populations on these six
rivers have not yet brought about the regrettable conditions existent in the
other two. A fortunate opportunity, therefore, is afforded them to avoid the
dilemma of the more dense populations along the Detroit and Niagara Rivers
and to profit by recent advances in Sanitary Science and provide at an earlier
stage in their development facilities and arrangements for sewage purification,
the absence of which makes stream protection in the Niagara and Detroit
Rivers a matter of such serious expense and difficulty. Despite the fact that
the effects of pollution in these six streams are largely local and confined in
fhe main to shore conditions, the Commission has no doubt as to the advisability
Of their adopting remedial measures in the immediate future. The extent
of treatment required is controlled by local rather than by general conditions.
By this statement it is meant that while conditions exist in many instances
which are in substantial contravention of treaty obligations, their immediate
local effect is much more serious than their effect upon the stream as a whole.
Remedies Sufficient to meet the local conditions would be ample to meet the
international Situation.
In the case of these streams any remedial works installed in compliance
with the existing legislation and the regulations of the States and Provinces
directly affected should have in view the safeguarding of international in-
terests, present and future. These interests require as a minimum measure
the planning of a sewer system with provisions for the collection of sewerage
at One or more points suitable for treatment, the installation Of tanks Or
other devices sufficient for the removal of the larger portion of the suspended
solids capable of settling, and ample equipment for the chemical disinfection
of all sewage at such times as may be found necessary, the time for taking
these remedial measures to be left to the discretion of the authority hereinafter
recommended. -
The consulting engineer also investigated the question of the cost of adequate
remedial works at the following towns in the Province of Ontario: Windsor,
Sarnia, Amherstburg, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Bridgeburg, Chippewa, and
Queenston; at the following towns in the State of Michigan : Port Huron, St.
Clair, Marine City, Algonac, River Rouge, Ecorse, Ford City, Wyandotte, and
Trenton; and at the following towns in the State of New York : Tonawanda,
North Tonawanda, Lasalle, Niagara Falls, Lackawanna, Kenmore, Lewiston,
and Youngstown.
In the case of these cities and towns the estimated annual charges in COn-
nection with these works, including interest, maintenance, and Operating ex-
penses, range from 44 cents to $2.49 per capita, averaging 77 cents per capita
of their population. These estimates, as well as the estimates in the case of
Detroit and Buffalo, are based on ordinary prices and not on the exceptional
prices which, owing to the war, are ruling at the present time. These charges
also appear to the commission to be reasonable, both in view of the financial
standing of the towns and cities and in view of similar charges in the case
Of other towns and Cities in the two COuntries.
12 U. S. Census Bureau. Financial Statistics of Cities, 1912. Washington, 1913.
1752 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Although the commission felt itself more concerned with results than meth-
ods, it devoted considerable time and attention to the investigation of im-
proved processes of Sewage treatment and disposal. The science of sanitation,
as has been remarked, is a progressive one, and its advance is marked by
important developments from year to year.
Mr. T. Chalkley Hatton, sanitary engineer for the city of Milwaukee, gave
evidence before the commission on this subject.” One of his statements illus-
trates the active spirit of research along this line which to-day characterizes
the World of sanitary science. He says:
“Before deciding upon the methods of sewage disposal for Milwaukee we
built rather an elaborate experimental station, in which we tried to put all
those modern methods of sewage disposal now prevalent in this country and
abroad, and I think we had 23 different processes going on there at one time—
One Of the largest experimental stations carried on in this country for sewage-
disposal purposes.”
A Controlling factor in the disposal of sewage is the cost of dealing with
the Sludge. Great care must be taken in disposing of the settleable solids
Of Sewage in order to prevent local nuisances, and under certain conditions
very large expenditures must be made to prevent the substitution of nuisances
On land for nuisances in the water of the diluting streams. What sanitary
engineers generally are seeking for is some effective process by which the
disposal of the sludge can be made a commercial success.
The activated sludge process, which has apparently been finally adopted by
Milwaukee, is one of the most promising of modern methods and is meeting
with the approval of a large number of sanitary engineers.
A Sludge-treatment process Operated in England was discussed before the
commission by Mr. Edward A. Paterson, chemical engineer of Ilondon.* The
object of this process is to dry prepared sewage sludge so that it can be used
as a fertilizer and extract as by-products during destructive distillation, am-
monia, oils, gas, fat, phenol, and other materials suitable for drugs and dyes.
Mr. Paterson claims that the sludge can be and is being treated by this process
in England at a fair profit. Of her processes were looked into. Of all of them
it may be said that they are still in their experimental stage, and while their
results So far have under certain circumstances been verv oncouraging, they
have not been fully tested by time and conditions. A full discussion by the
commission of these various processes in their present stage of development
would not Serve any useful end, and its opinions would not be taken, and could
not he exneoted to he tºken, as conclusive as to their respective meritS.
So far remedial methods have Only been dealt with in connection with
urban communities. Sewage from vessels, water ballast discharged from
vessels, garbage, industrial and manufacturing wastes call for consideration
with regard to remedial methods.
The discharge of sewage from vessels has been shown to constitute a
serious menace to public health in both countries, not only through the pos-
sible contamination of water Supplies near their intakes, but also by reason
of its effects upon the water supplies of other vessels traversing the same
areas. Experiments undertaken by the United States Public Health Service
have shown that by the use of steam this sewage can be easily disinfected
before discharge. A practical test of an automatic apparatus designed for
this purpose carried out through two complete seasons upon the D. C. Kerr,
a lake steamship, met with entire success both as to mechanical operation
and bacteriological efficiency. The installation of this apparatus would be
quite inexpensive and all steamships on boundary waters should be com-
pelled to sterilize their sewage. Since the navigation of these waters is
almost entirely by steamship, the evil now caused by this sewage would be
practically remedied. In the case of other vessels some system of purifica-
tion can doubtless be found which is cheap and practical.
Pollution by water ballast constitutes a more difficult problem. There has
not yet come to the notice of the commission any feasible means of purifying
the rather large quantities of water which vessels while in the polluted areas
of inner harbors frequently take on board for purposes of ballast, and which
they afterwards discharge upon approaching their ports of destination, often
while passing water intakes. It will probably be sufficient for the present
13 Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the pollution of
º *::: between the United States and Canada, 1916, p. 99.
101., D. .
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1753
at least to control this practice by suitable regulations, designed to limit or
prevent the discharge of water ballast in the neighborhood of intakes. In
the event of the failure of such control by regulations, more expensive and
time-consuming methods of treatment will have to be developed and pre-
SCribed.
The floatable character of garbage generally renders it liable to be carried
by winds to the shores of the rivers and lakes, where, within a limited radius,
it becomes particularly offensive. In the case of one American city of con-
siderable size a substantial part of its garbage was being disposed of by
dumping it into the main outfall sewer near its mouth. Such a practice is
highly censurable and out of keeping with the usual practice of American
cities. The remedy for pollution from this source is to prohibit the discharge
Of all garbage into boundary Waters. -
Pollution from industrial Wastes has received a great deal of attention, and
expensive works for its purification have been installed both in this continent
and in Europe. In SOme of these Works valuable by-products have been
recovered, and the cost of treatment thus reduced. The immensity of the
boundary waters, and their consequent capacity for dilution, will probably
for Some time to come prevent pollution from this source other than sawmill
and pulp mill Wastes becoming an international question. Having regard for
the future, however, it is well to provide for its regulation. Specifically the
dumping Of large quantities Of Sawdust and other sawmill waste, and the
discharge of wastes from pulp mills, have been brought to the attention of
the commission. Sawmill waste has in many States and Provinces been
prohibited by laws, more honored in their breach than in their observance.
It is possible that there will come a time, and not in the very distant future,
When all Sawmill Wastes will become valuable and be utilized in manufactur-
ing; but in the meantime these wastes should be burned, or otherwise pre-
vented from being discharged into boundary waters. At present the St. John
Lumber Co.'s Sawmill on the St. John River at Van Buren, Me., disposes of
all its sawmill waste in connection with the pulp mill in its vicinity, and
none of it is permitted to enter the St. John River. Other cases, including'
wastes from manufacturing and chemical industries, may demand further
investigation of a somewhat detailed character before it will be possible to
determine the extent of the resulting injury and the feasibility of remedial
measures. The nature of the treatment of this waste and the degree of its
purification necessary will have to be determined upon the facts and circum-
stances of individual cases as they arise. The dealing with this class of
pollution should be left to the authority hereinafter recommended.
The reference specifically calls for consideration by the commission of
drainage canals as a possible way or means of remedying or preventing the
transboundary effect of pollution. The only suggestion that has been made
before the commission of a drainage canal project is of that promoted by
the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Company. This company was Organized
primarily for power purposes, but among the objects in its application for
incorporation is remedying the pollution of the Niagara River by the con-
struction of a canal starting at or near the mouth of Smokes Creek in the
city of Lackawanna and thence running through a well-settled country
to Lake Ontario. It is proposed that the canal should be used free of charge
by the cities of Lackawanna, Buffalo, Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, Niagara
Falls (United States), and Lockport, and by all other municipalities and Com-
munities on the United States side of the Niagara River to carry off their
sewage and storm flows, which are now discharged into Lake Erie and the
Niagara River, provided each city or town make its own connection with the
canal without expense to the company. The company applied to the Secretary
of War for the United States by application dated April 23, 1912, for permis-
sion to divert for its purposes 6,000 second-feet of water from Lake Erie and
and the Niagara River. The necessary authority for the diversion of this
water was denied by the Government of the United States, but the company
desired to secure from the commission an approval of the canal as a feasible
solution of the pollution problem in the Niagara River. Opportunities were
afforded the company to appear before the commission on several Occasions.
The company’s president, Mr. Millard F. Bowen, its counsel, Mr. George Clinton,
and others On its behalf made at the different sittings able and lengthy argil-
ments, and briefs were submitted to the commission containing statements of
fact and arguments from Messrs. Randolph, Clinton, Bowen, and Shiras in
91739–24—PT 2—95
1754 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
support of the scheme. Quite a large amount of evidence was taken, as Will
appear on reference to the records of the commission.” The financial and Sani-
tary features of the project did not, however, appear to have been Sufficiently
investigated. The plans and data submitted were consequently referred to the
consulting engineer for further investigation and report. His report Was de-
cidedly adverse to the undertaking for two principal reasons (1) It proposes
to receive sewage in its raw condition into the canal, thus creating a large
open sewer. A condition of serious menace would therefore obtain throughout
its length ; and if the sewage were allowed to pass into Lake Ontario, Condi-
tions there would be at least no less objectionable than they are at present. (2)
The treatment required to prevent nuisance in such a canal would necessarily
be more complete and correspondingly more expensive than treatment re-
Quired for the protection of the Niagara River—a result due to the compara-
tively small volume of diluting water available in the canal and the consequent
necessity for thorough treatment of the sewage by expensive oxidizing methods.
These reasons would apply with much greater force in the future. Buffalo and
the towns below are rapidly growing. Should their combined population reach
a total of 1,000,000, the diluting power of the diverted water would be so inade-
quate that during the summer months the waters of the canal would be devoid
of oxygen, dark in color, and foul Smelling. One nuisance would be abated by
the creation of a much greater nuisance, which could only be corrected by the
most intense sewage purification. The commission, after full consideration of
all the features of the project, is of the opinion that besides being objectionable
On other grounds it is inadvisable as a Sanitary measure.
On the general question of drainage canals as a method of Sewage disposal
the commission is unable to express any opinion, as each case must be decided
upon its meritS. Consideration of any Scheme involves a Study of the amount
of water available for diversion, the water-carrying capacity of the canal, the
amount of raw Sewage to be discharged into it, the character and cost of treat-
ment of the sewage to be carried, and the consequent interference with the
many other interests which may be affected, all of which elements vary accord-
ing to local circumstances and conditions.
In the discussion of Sewage standards and purification and other matters
in this report it was recommended that they be dealt with by Some authority
which should be clothed with the necessary power. In view of what has been
said under the heading of “Transboundary effect of pollution,” the commission
is of the Opinion that to the extent that is consistent with a proper degree
of autonomy by the urban communities interested, all boundary waters, so far
as pollution is concerned, should be subject to the regulations prescribed by this
authority. If, during the investigation, one thing impressed itself more than
another upon the attention of the commission, it was the view that while pollu-
tion which has a transboundary effect must in consequence of the obligation
resting on both countries under the treaty be distinguished from pollution which
has not such an effect, the distinction is, from a practical standpoint, highly
technical and artificial. The question of pollution, if a narrow construction be
placed upon the treaty and reference, is but a part of the larger question of
pollution in boundary waters generally, in the solution of which both countries
are, as has been shown, Vitally interested. The present international situation
is not the result of any desire on the part of the inhabitants of either country
to ignore international obligations either of comity or of law, but is the out-
Come of the failure on the part of the urban communities in each country,
respectively, to recognize from a Sanitary standpoint any right in other com-
munities to river Waters, especially communities on their own side of the
boundary line. Every border community in the United States and Canada
has in the matter of Sanitation considered its own immediate interests ex-
clusively. The result is that while those communities have been tolerably
Successful in the management of sanitary affairs within their own territorial
limits and have installed water and sewerage systems fairly ample for their
OWn present needs, they have recognized no responsibility whatever resting
upon themselves with regard to their sewage effluents, and by discharging them
untreated into river Waters they have compelled their neighbors to submit to
intolerable conditions. The present practice of discharging sewage in this
& te f
* Preliminary report of committee having general supervision of the investigation re-
lating to the pollution of boundary waters, with documents * : *, * relating to the
petitions of the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. for permission to divert 6,000
second-feet from Lake Erie, 1913.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1755
manner must be restricted until an equilibrium, so to speak, of the rights of
all communities in the waters of the boundary rivers is established, in which
each may discharge its sewage into these waters, but only to such an extent
and of such a degree of purification as shall not interfere with the reasonable
employment by other communities of their rights.
The situation on the boundary waters is not unique; marly like it exist else-
Where, although not on so large a scale. A close parallel exists in the case.
Of the boundary waters between England and Scotland. By act of the British
Parliament passed in 1898 the local government board for England and the
secretary for Scotland may, on certain steps being taken, “together constitute
a joint committee representing all or any of the countries through or by which
Such river or any specified portion or tributary thereof passes; and Such
committee may have all the powers of a sanitary authority with respect to
pollution in such waters.”
In this connection reference may be made to the views of the British royal
commissions already mentioned whose extensive and exhaustive investigations
into river pollution, most scientifically conducted for a lengthened period, en-
title their opinion to great weight. Their reports, especially the reports of
the last commission, repeatedly emphasize the great necessity, for sanitary
purposes, of having a river as a Whole under One management.
Under existing sanitary laws and their administration the pollution evil
has been steadily growing along the boundary. The indifference to injury done
others, the financial interests of the different communities, and the practical
difficulties in arriving at concerted action are so hard to Overcome that the
only assurance of betterment lies in the constitution of Some authority which
shall have jurisdiction over boundary waters and be clothed with ample power
to prevent their being unduly polluted. Consistently with the exercise of its
powers by Such an authority the installation of remedial works and the ex-
penditures in connection therewith would all be in the hands of the local
authorities. The only interference with the latter on the part of the Suggested
authority would be to prescribe the necessary capacity of the sewage-purifica-
tion works and the degree of efficiency with which they should be operated.
From the international standpoint this capacity and degree of efficiency need
not exceed those which should prevail for the protection among themselves
of the communities on either side of the boundary line.
As has been remarked, the question of the pollution of those waters gen-
erally is a matter of great international moment. In view of this fact and
of the variety and possible conflict of National, State, provincial, and munici-
pal authorities it is too obvious to require discussion that the recommended
authority should be jointly created by the high contracting parties. As the
international joint commission is under the treaty clothed with jurisdiction
over the use, obstruction, and diversion of boundary waters, together with
jurisdiction over other international matters, it is recommended that the
necessary jurisdiction and authority in respect of the pollution of boundary
waters and waters crossing the boundary be conferred upon it; and for the
purpose of giving effect to the jurisdiction and authority so conferred that
the commission be authorized to make such rules, regulations, directions, and
orders as in its judgment may be deemed necessary; and that power be also
given to the commission to appoint such engineers and employees as it may
consider advisable.
VIII. CONCLU SIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a summary of the conclusions the commission has arrived
at, and of the recommendations it submits to the two Governments: t
1. The Great Lakes beyond their shore Waters and their polluted areas at
the mouths of the rivers which flow into them are, except So far as they are
affected by vessel pollution, in a State of almost absolute purity. With the
exception of these pure areas the entire stretch of boundary waters, including
Rainy River, St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River,
St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to Cornwall, and the St. John River
from Grand Falls to Edmundston, New Brunswick, is polluted to an extent
which renders the water in its unpurified state unfit for drinking purposes.
This pollution has its origin chiefly in the sewage and storm flows from the
riparian cities and towns and the sewage from vessels. It is very intense
along the shores of the Detroit and Niagara Rivers and in the contaminated
areas in the Lakes. Throughout the whole length of the boundary waters
1756 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
where sewage is discharged from the Sewerage works of cities and towns the
pollution is most concentrated in the shore waters on the side of the boundary
on which it originates. These shore waters, besides being in places unsightly,
malodorous, and absolutely unfit for domestic purposes, are a source of serious
danger to Summer residents, bathers, and others who frequent the localities.
So foul are they in many places that municipal ordinances have been passed
prohibiting bathing in them.
2. In the Detroit and Niagara Rivers conditions exist which imperil the
health and welfare of the citizens of both countries in direct contravention of
the treaty. This is true, though in a less marked degree, of the Rainy and St.
John Rivers.
3. In the St. Marys, St. Clair, and St. Lawrence Rivers pollution exists which
is in substantial contravention of the spirit of the treaty, and unless these con-
ditions are improved, and the rivers placed under the control of competent
authority, the resulting injury will be much more pronounced as population
increases. -
4. Wessel pollution in certain parts of boundary waters exists to an extent
which causes substantial injury to health and property. It is derived from two
sources—sewage waste from vessels and “water ballast ’’ which is taken in by
lake vessels at their ports of departure and emptied into these waters at or
Inear their ports of destination. Vessel pollution is distinctly traceable in
boundary waters in lanes and channels which vessels traverse in navigating
them, their waters being thereby rendered unfit for drinking purposes.
5. In some cases sawmill and other mill wastes, garbage, Offal, earcasses,
and other refuse matters are discharged into boundary waters. This practice
results generally in a contravention of the treaty.
6. It is feasible and practicable, without imposing an unreasonable burden
upon the offending communities, to prevent or remedy pollution, both in the
case of boundary waters and waters crossing the boundary.
(a) In the case of city sewage this can best be accomplished by the installa-
tion of suitable collecting and treatment works, the latter having special refer-
ence to the removal of bacteria and matters in suspension. -
(b) In the case of vessel sewage, a feasible and inexpensive remedy lies in
the employment of recognized methods of disinfection before it is discharged
In the case of water ballast Suitable rules and regulations should be pre-
scribed with a view of protecting the water intakes.
(c) The discharge of garbage and Sawmill waste into boundary waters should
be prohibited, and industrial and other wastes, which are causing appreciable
injury, should be discharged subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed.
7. In order to remedy and prevent the pollution of boundary waters and to
render them sanitary and Suitable for domestic purposes and other uses, and
to secure adequate protection and development of all interests involved on
both sides of the boundary, and to fulfill the obligations undertaken in Article
IV of the treaty, it is advisable to confer upon the International Joint Com-
mission ample jurisdiction to regulate and prohibit this pollution of boundary
waters and waters crossing the boundary.
Hereto annexed is a schedule showing the reports made to and by the com
mission, and of the minutes of its sittings, which have already been printed, or
which the commission contemplates having printed.
Dated at Atlantic City, N. J., this 12th day of August, A. D. 1918.
CHARLES A. MAGRATH.
OBADIAH GARDNER,
HENRY A. POWELL.
JAMES A. TAWNEY.
P. B. MIGNAULT.
R. B. GLENN.
SCHEDULE
List of publications of the International Joint Commission relative to the
pollution of boundary waters:
1. Preliminary report of the committee having general supervision of the
investigation relating to the pollution of boundary waters, with documents on
file in the United States War Department relating to the petitions of the Erie
& Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. for permission to divert 6,000 second-feet from
Take Erie for the purpose of remedying the existing pollution of Niagara River.
Washington, 1913.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. : 1757
2. Progress report of the International Joint Commission on the reference by
the United States and Canada in re the pollution of boundary waters, whether
Or not such pollution extends acroSS the boundary in contravention of the treaty
of January 11, 1909, and if so, in what manner or by what means is it possible
to prevent the same, including report of the sanitary experts. Washington,
1914.
3. Pollution of boundary waters. Conference with sanitary engineers at New
York City, May 26 and 27, 1914. Washington, 1914. -
4. Résumé of testimony of consulting sanitary engineers in the matter of the
pollution of boundary waters. Conference at New York City, May 26–27, 1914.
Washington, 1914.
5. Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the
pollution of boundary Waters between the United States and Canada, held at
Niagara Falls, Ontario, Buffalo, N. Y., Detroit, Mich., Windsor, Ontario, Port
Huron, Mich., and Sarnia, Ontario, September 25 to October 2, inclusive ; De-
troit, Mich., November 10 and 11 ; and Washington, D. C., December 14 and 16.
1914, Washington, 1914. -
6. Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the
pollution of boundary Waters between the United States and Canada, being pub-
lic hearings held at Buffalo, N. Y., and Detroit, Mich., June 21–27, 1916, and
Ogdensburg, N. Y., August 25, 1916. Washington, 1917.
7. Report of the consulting sanitary engineer upon remedial measures.
March 8, 1916. Washington, 1918.
8. Final report of the International Joint Commission in the matter of the
reference by the United States and the Dominion of Canada relative to the
pollution of boundary waters. Washington, 1918.
MAY 20, 1924.
MR. E. B. GREENE,
President Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Cleveland, Ohio.
MY DEAR MR. GREENE: I have read with great interest the report of the com-
mittee on river and harbor improvement of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce,
dated April 7, 1924, dealing with the diversion of water from Lake Michigan
through the Chicago Drainage Canal. I agree with the conclusions of the Com-
mittee and desire to express my appreciation of the public service performed by
the committee and the chamber in bringing these important facts to public at-
tention With Such clearness and force. *
When I became Secretary of War in 1916, there was in operation a temporary
permit granted in 1903, which limited the abstraction of water from Lake Michi-
gan to 4,167 cubic feet per second. My attention was directed at frequent inter-
vals by the Chief of Engineers to the fact that in defiance of the limitation con-
tained in this permit, the sanitary district was withdrawing water at the rate
of about 8,000 cubic feet per second and that all efforts had been unavailing up
to that time to procure a decision of the suit then pending in the United States
district court at Chicago, wherein the Government, at the instance of the War
Department, was seeking to enforce an observance of the limitation contained
in the temporary permit. I took the matter up with the Department of Justice
several times in the hope that fresh representations from the Government would
procure action in the court. - . -
In the meantime, under legislation of the State of Illinois, a modified project
Was authorized and a committee of representatives of the State of Illinois, the
drainage district, and the city of Chicago, appeared before me to argue in favor
of authorization from the Secretary of War for the changing of certain dams
and other works in accordance with the modified project. Governor Dunn, of
Illinois, was the spokesman of this delegation. Extensive arguments were laid
before me and I was urged to grant the permit on two grounds; first, that no
additional water was required by it from Lake Michigan, and, second, that the
War Department and the Government were in some way committed by acqui-
escence to tolerate the amount of water then being withdrawn from the drainage
Canal. I declined this permit after a very careful examination of the whole
Subject. The Government was not only not committed in any manner, but had
in the most definite and repeated ways declined to bind itself to any permanent
diversion. Having had some experience with the question of sewage disposal
and inaugurated extensive projects for the city of Cleveland during my mayor-
alty here, I was fairly familiar with the possibilities and satisfied myself that
1758 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Chicago not only could dispose of its sewage in a sanitary way, but that she
ought to be required to do so, and not permitted to spread it over a great area
of the Mississippi Valley on the fanciful theory that it would become auto-
matically immunized by the journey through the drainage canal and the system
of minor rivers relied upon to carry it to the Mississippi.
I was satisfied, too, that the effect of the abstraction of this water from Lake
Michigan was to lower the water levels in the entire lake system, call upon the
Federal Government gradually to deepen harbors and reconstruct harbor works
and deprive the country of the Supreme power possibilities of the water so with-
drawn when used at the great head provided at Niagara Falls. I recognized,
of course, the serious problem faced by Chicago and the expenditure already
made by that great city but, taking the long view, felt then as I feel now, that
the real commercial and industrial interests of the country are prejudiced by
the diversion of any water from the lake system westward, and that the sani-
tary situation created by the continuance of the Chicago plan simply postponed
and accumulated for future Solution the difficulties the city would have to face
sooner or later. Those who know the rapidity of Chicago's growth and develop-
ment, and have any appreciation of what even the immediate future means to
that great center of population, must desire to see Chicago begin at once a real
solution of her drainage problem.
Cordially yours,
NEWTON D. BAKER,
STATEMENT OF G. A. ToMLINSON
I am now and have been for several years last past manager of a fleet of
cargo-carrying vessels, now numbering 16, operating on the Great Lakes. These
vessels are owned by various companies, of several of which I am president.
Altogether the vessels comprise what is known as the “Tomlinson fleet.” The
ships range in carrying capacity, on a 20-foot draft, from approximately 13,000
gross tons of ore, 14,500 net tons of coal, or 425,000 bushels of wheat, down to
2,800 gross tons of iron ore, 3,000 tons of coal, or 100,000 bushels of wheat. The
trade in which these vessels engage is that of carrying iron ore from upper
Lake ports, such as Duluth, Superior, and Ashland, to lower Lake ports, prin-
cipally on the south short of Lake Erie; in carrying coal from ports On Lake
Erie to ports on Lake Michigan and on Lake Superior, and in carrying grain
from Lake Superior ports, Duluth, and Fort William, Port Arthur—or to some
extent from Lake Michigan—to Lake Erie ports, principally Buffalo Or to
Georgian Bay ports in Canada.
As illustrative of the carrying capacity of One of these ships I take the
steamer Frank C. Ball, which I operated in 1920, as well as in 1923. The di-
mensions of this vessel are : Length, between perpendiculars, 530 feet (Over all
550 feet) ; breadth, 56 feet; depth, 31 feet. The Ball is in the 11,000 gross
tons class, having about that carrying capacity of ore when drawing full 21
feet. Were it not for the shallow channels, particularly in Lake St. Clair and
at the lower end of the Detroit River, this ship could navigate with a draft of
not less than 23 feet, and with that draft she would carry approximately 12,500
gross tons of ore, 13,000 net tons of coal, or 400,000 bushels of Wheat. -
In 1920, when the draft was at times up to 21 feet, this vessel carried, down-
bound, 20 cargoes of ore, 1 cargo of storage grain, to Lake Erie; and, upbound,
7 cargoes of coal. Her maximum cargo of ore in 1920 was 11,016 gross tons,
loaded at Duluth on August 24, 1920, and unloaded at Huron on August 29,
mean draft 21 feet 2 inches. Her maximum cargo of coal was 12,028 tons,
loaded at Lorain on July 31 and unloaded at Superior on August 4, mean draft
20 feet 8 inches. In 1923 this vessel carried 21 cargoes of ore, downbound; 1
cargo of storage grain, downbound; and 11 cargoes of coal, upbound. Her
maximum cargo to Lake Erie during this season of 1923, of 9re: was 10,371
gross tons, loaded at Superior on August 28 and unloaded at Ashtabula on Sep-
tember 1, mean draft 19 feet 11 inches; of coal, 11,463 tons, loaded at Toledo
on August 11 and unloaded at Superior on August 15, mean draft, 20 feet. .
The performance of the ship mentioned, the Ball, is typical of other vessels
of the fleet. e
Bulletins as to permissible draft and as to stages of Water are received by
vessel owner and managers, including myself, and like bulletins are posted at
all loading ports, and our masters are instructed to strictly observe and follow
the bulletins, and not to load beyond the recommended draft.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1759
I am able to Say definitely that variation in depth of water, even to the ex-
tent of 1 inch, has a direct effect upon the ampunt of cargo loaded upon our
lake vessels. Without attempting to be strictly accurate, I would say that for
a vessel the size and type of the Ball, each inch of draft of water means a dif-
ference of from 80 to 90 gross tons of ore.
G. A. TOMLINSON.
STATEMENT OF A. E. R. SCHNEIDER
I reside in Cleveland and am vessel manager of the Cleveland Cliffs Iron CO.,
which company now operates 31 lake steamers. These vessels range in carrying
capacity, on a 20-foot draft, from 12,000 gross tons ore, 13,000 met tons coal, or
420,000 bushels of wheat, to 4,800 gross tons ore, 5,000 net tons coal, or 175,000
bushels Of Wheat. {}
To show the effect of draft of water I select a representative ship Of Our
fleet, the William G. Mather, a vessel known as a 10,000-ton ship, which means
that she will carry about 10,000 gross tons of ore on a draft of about 20 feet.
The dimensions of the Mather are: Length between perpendiculars, 513 feet;
breadth, 60 feet; molded depth, 31 feet; registered gross tonnage, 6,838.
The vessels of our fleet are engaged in carrying ore from the upper lakes to the
South shore of Lake Erie and in carrying coal from Lake Erie to Lake Michigan
and Lake Superior, and occasionally they carry grain from Duluth or Fort
William/Port Arthur to Buffalo. If the water was deep enough, these ships
Could safely load to a draft of about 23 feet, and at that draft the steamer
William G. Mather would carry about 13,000 gross tons of ore, 13,000 net tons
Of coal, or 450,000 bushels of wheat.
In 1920, when for a time, by reason of the depth of water, vessels could load
to almost, if not quite, 21 feet draft, the Mather carried 20 cargoes of ore
downbound, the average load being 10,625 goss tons. She carried four cargoes
Of Coal upbound, the average load being 10,931 net tons. The maximum cargoes
carried by the Mather in 1920 were: Ore, 11,302 gross tons, with a draft of
20 feet 5 inches forward, 20 feet 8 inches amidships, and 20 feet 11 inches
aft; coal, 11,635 met tons, with draft 19 feet 10 inches forward, 20 feet 2 inches
amidships, and 20 feet 3 inches aft. In 1923 the Mather carried 21 cargoes
Of Ore downbound, the average load being 10,132 tons; 4 cargoes of coal up-
bound, the average load being 10,706 net tons. The maximum cargoes of the
Mather in 1923 were: Ore, 10,795 gross tons, with a draft of 20 feet forward,
20 feet 4 inches amidships, and 20 feet 7 inches aft; of coal, 11,092 net tons,
draft 19 feet 3 inches forward, 19 feet 7 inches amidships, and 19 feet 9
inches aft.
I think that the performance of this ship, the Mather, is fairly representative
and is typical of all the vessels of our fleet that we had in the two years, 1920
and 1923.
In loading the ships strict attention is given to the draft in the shallow chan-
nels, as reported by bulletins from the Lake Carriers' Association. These bul-
letins come to the Office of the company and are also posted at each of the load-
ing docks, and the masters are under instructions to load in accordance with
these bulletins. On a ship the size and type of the Mather, I would say that
each inch of draft of water means from 70 to 80 grOSS tons of Ore. Variation
of the depth of water in the channels means a direct and absolute variation in
the amount of cargo of the ships.
A. E. R. SCHNEIDER.
STATEMENT OF C. J. PFCK
I reside in Cleveland and am now and have been for several years operating
manager at Cleveland of five large cargo-carrying vessels, known as the
Shenango fleet. These vessels are: Col. James M. Schoonmaker, William P.
Snyder, jr., and Shenango, owned by the Shenango Furnace Co., and steamers
William P. Snyder and Wilpen, owned by the Shenango Steamship Co. The
grOSS registered tonnage of these vessels is as follows: Schoonmaker, 8,603
tons; Snyder, jr., 8,603 tons; Shenango, 8,047 tons; William P. Snyder, 6,939
tons; and Wilpen, 7,612 tons. The dimensions of the Schoonmaker are:
Length, Over all, 617 feet; breadth, 64 feet; depth, 33 feet. The Snyder, jr.,
is the same size; the other vessels somewhat smaller and of varying size.
1760 ILLINorS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
If there were sufficient water, these ships could safely load to a draft of
about 23 feet, and with that, draft it is estimated that the Schoonmaker and
Snyder, jr., would carry approximately 16,000 gross tons of ore, 15,000 net
tons of coal, or 500,000 bushels of wheat. In 1920, when for a time the ships
loaded to a draft of 21 feet and Over, the Schoonmaker carried in all 17
cargoes of iron ore downbound. The aggregate amount of ore so carried was
222,688 gross tons, the average cargo being 13,099 gross tons, the maximum
cargo being 14,010 gross tons, loaded at Superior, Wis., on August 17 and
unloaded at Ashtabula, Ohio, on August 23; draft, 20 feet 8 inches forward
and 21 feet 7 inches aft. In 1923 the Schoonmaker carried downbound
18 cargoes of ore, with a total of 215,453 gross tons and an average Cargo
of 11,964 gross tons, the maximum cargo being 12,431 gross tons, loaded
at Duluth-Superior on August 23 and unloaded at Cleveland, Ohio, On
August 28; draft, 19 feet 8 inches forward and 20 feet 3 inches aft. The
performance of the other steamers as to maximum cargoes in these dif-
ferent Seasons were very similar.
For example, the Snyder, jr., in 1920 carried 16 cargoes of iron ore down-
bound, the largest cargo being 13,920 gross tons, loaded at Duluth on August
28 and unloaded at Ashtabula on September 7; draft, 20 feet 6 inches
forward and 21 feet 7 inches aft. The average ore cargo of the Snyder, jr.,
in 1920 was 13,039 gross tons. In 1923 the Snyder, jr., carried down-
bóund 18 cargoes of ore, with an aggregate of 216,802 gross tons, the
average load being 12,044 gross tons, and the maximum cargo being
12,624 gross tons, loaded at Superior, Wis., on August 6 and unloaded at
Ashtabula, Ohio, on August 9; draft, 19 feet 8 inches forward and 20 feet
2 inches aft. A comparison of coal cargoes would show similar results.
For example, the Schoonmaker’s maximum cargo of coal in 1918, with a
draft of 20 feet forward and 20 feet 10 inches aft, was 14,767 net tons,
and in 1923, with a draft of 19 feet, the maximum coal cargo carried by the
Schoonmaker was 13,860 tons; draft, 19 feet 4 inches forward and 20 feet 3
inches aft.
The size of the cargo on these ships up to the maximum capacity is
regulated by the draft of water in the shallow channels, particularly
Lake St. Clair and at the lower end of the Detroit River. There was a
shoal place at Vidal Shoals above the Soo, but the channel there has
been deepened.
Operators of ships and masters load according to the bulletins issued
by the Lake Carriers' Association as to draft of water, which bulletins
are posted at all loading docks. An inch difference of water to a vessel
of the capacity of the Schoonmaker would, I should say, make a difference
in the amount of cargo of about 90 or 100 grOSS tons. C. J. Pr
. J. PECR.
STATEMENT OF R. W. ENGLAND
I am now marine superintendent of the Interstate Steamship Co., which
company now owns and operates four freight-carrying steamers on the Great
Lakes. These steamers are : B. F. Jones, Willis F. King, James Laughlin,
and Thomas Walters. I sailed many years and prior to the war I was for
five years master of the steamer B. F. Jones ; pictures of the steamer, by the
way, appear in Colonel Warren's report regarding the diversion of water on
the Iakes. During the war I was with the United States Shipping Board,
and I have been for four years in my present position of marine Superintendent
of the Interstate Steamship Co.
The steamer Jones has a registered tonnage of 6,939 gross tons. Her di-
mensions are: Ilength, over all, 552 feet; breadth, 56 feet ; depth, 32 feet.
The dimensions of the steamer Willis F. King are : Length, over all, 605 feet;
breadth, 58 feet; depth, 32 feet; registered tonnage, 7,568 gross. On a 19-
foot draft the carrying capacity of the Willis King, as shown by a recent
cargo, is 10,833 gross tons of iron ore. With this cargo she would have
aboard somewhat between 100 and 150 tons of fuel coal. At 19-foot draft
the King has 13 feet free board. Were it not for the shallow channels, par-
ticularly in Lake St. Clair and at the foot of the Detroit River, the King
could load to not less than 23 feet. In 1920, when the draft was 21 feet and
over, the King's maximum cargo of iron ore was 12,706 gross tons, loaded at
Superior on August 1, draft 20 feet 6 inches forward. 21 feet 6 inches aft.
$
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1761.
In 1923, when the draft was limited to about 20 feet, the King's maximum
Cargo Of iron Ore was 11,643 gross tons, mean draft 20 feet. The steamer
B. F. Jones in 1920 carried as her maximum cargo of iron ore 11,199 gross
tons, draft, mean, 20 feet 10% inches. In 1923 the maximum cargo of the
Jones was 10,343 gross tons of iron ore, loaded at Allouez, August 11, draft
19 feet 8 inches forward and 20 feet 1 inch aft.
Speaking as a former master of lake-freight-carrying vessels, and as super-
intendent of a company that operates ships, I am able to state without
Qualifications that cargo-carrying ships on the Great Lakes are restricted
in the size of their cargoes by the draft of water. At all the loading docks,
Ore docks at the upper lakes and coal docks at the lower lakes, bulletins
are always posted showing the recommended drafts and the extent to which
the vessels can with Safety be loaded, and masters and managers observe
these bulletins and follow them. The steamer Jones is known as a 10,000-ton
ship ; that is, her normal capacity is 10,000 gross tons of ore, at about 20
feet draft. As to that vessel I would say that every inch of difference of water
means from 70 to 80 gross tons of ore, at about 20 feet draft. The King is
known as a 12,000-ton ship ; that is, she is expected normally to carry 12,000
grOSS tons of ore, at 20 feet draft. As to that vessel I would say that every
inch of difference of draft means from 90 to 100 gross tons of ore cargo.
What I have stated above as to the Jones and King applies in the same man-
ner to Our two other ships, the Laughlin and the Walters, and I am able to
Say from my own knowledge and obesrvation it applies likewise to all of the
re, Coal, and grain-carrying ships On the Lakes that are of the same type as
the boats of our fleet, and that means substantially all of our Great Lakes
Vessels, for they are all of the same general type, varying as to size and to some
extent as to COnStruction.
Perhaps it should be added that at times there is a seeming variation in the
tonnage of cargoes of the same vessel at a , given draft. This may be due to
differences in the weighing systems or scales. The ship accepts the weights
as given by the loading dock. I mention this only to be accurate. Our records
of cargo weights will show sometimes that ore taken from different docks
will have variation in weight, even though the ship is loaded to the same draft.
This variation may amount to from 200 to 300 tons on a large ship.
R. W. ENGLAND.
STATEMENT OF J. S. WOOD
I reside at the city of Cleveland, Ohio, and am now and have been for Some
12 years superintendent of the Wilson Transit Co., which company now owns
and operates 10 lake freighters, ranging in size from the largest, the Mac-
Naughton, a 12,000-ton vessel, down to the W. D. Rees, a vessel of less than
half the size, being known as a 5,000-ton ship. The dimensions of the Mac-
Naughton are: Ilength over all, 605 feet; breadth, 60 feet; depth, 32 feet; regis-
tered gross tonnage, 8,299. The dimensions of the Rees are: Length over all,
415 feet; breadth, 45 feet; depth, 28 feet; registered gross tonnage, 3,760.
Among other ships that we own is the J. E. Upson, the dimensions of which
are: Length over all, 524 feet; breadth, 54 feet; depth, 30 feet; groSS regis-
tered tonnage, 6,309; normal carrying capacity on a 20-foot draft, about 9,000
tons, this vessel being known as a 9,000-ton ship. t
Prior to becoming fleet superintendent of the company I had for a long time
sailed on the Great Lakes, many years as a master of freight-carrying Ships.
The ships of our line carry ore from upper lake ports principally to Lake
Erie, but sometimes to the south end of Lake Michigan. They also carry coal
from Lake Erie to Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, and some grain either from
Iake Michigan ports, Chicago or Milwaukee, or from Lake Superior ports,
Duluth, Fort William, Port Arthur, to Lake Erie ports, principally Buffalo, or
to Georgian Bay ports.
For the purpose of illustrating the carrying capacities of ships with varying
drafts, I take the steamer J. E. Upsom, the dimensions Of which are given above.
If there were water enough a ship Such as the Upson, could carry a cargo to
a draft of about 23 feet, but on account of the depth Of water in the channels
such as in Lake St. Clair and lower end of the Detroit River the ships are
limited in loading to the available water in such channels. With a draft of 23
feet the Upson would carry approximately 12,000 gross tons of ore. Freeboard
of 7 feet on a vessel like the Upsom would be sufficient for safe navigation. In
91739—24—PT 2—96
1762 ILLINors AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1920 vessels could load to 21 feet or over. The maximum ore cargo carried to
Lake Erie by the Upson in 1920 was 10,267 gross tons, loaded at Duluth on
June 25 and unloaded at Ashtabula On July 2. The Upson’s draft was 20 feet
10 inches forward and 21 feet 2 inches aft. In 1923, when the water was much
lower, the Upson’s maximum cargo of ore carried to Lake Erie was 9,278 gross
tons, loaded at Superior on August 26 and unloaded at Conneaut on August 30.
The draft was 19 feet forward and 19 feet 11 inches aft. On both of these
trips the Upson, would have aboard between 100 and 150 tons of fuel coal at
the time of loading the ore. The figures given as to the Upson, are substan-
tially similar as to those that could be given for the other ships of our fleet.
The draft to which vessels may load has a direct bearing upon and, indeed, con-
trols the amount of cargo that can be loaded. Bulletins issued by the Lake
Carriers’ Association showing the available draft to which ships may safely
load are posted at all loading docks, and masters of steamers load in coordnce
there with.
An inch variation of water means a difference in cargo according to the size
of the vessel; I would say that in a small ship the size of the Rees—that is, a
5,000-ton vessel—an inch variation in draft would mean between 30 and 40
grOSS tons of cargo. In a vessel the size and type of the Upson—that is, a
so-called 9,000-ton ship—an inch variation of draft means from 60 to 70 gross
tons to the inch, and on one of the largest ships, such as the MacNaughton, a
12,000-vessel, an inch variation of water means from 90 to 100 gross tons of
Cargo. - º
As to coal and grain, larger cargoes can be carried with deeper water within
certain limits. The construction of some of the ships, particularly as to side
tanks, is such that with coal or grain, both of which are lighter than ore, the
holds of the ship would be entirely filled before the vessels would get down to
a low draft such as 23 feet, but as between 19 feet draft and 21 feet draft, on
nearly all the ships there would be a variation in net tons of coal or bushels
of grain carried in very much the same proportion as with ore cargoes.
J. S. WOOD.
STATEMENT OF GORDON B. HOUSEMAN
I reside in Cleveland and am now and have been for several years vessel
manager for Harvey H. Prown & Co., which company now operates four cargo-
Carrying lake vessels. These vessels, with their gross registered tonnage, are:
Harvey H. Brown, 6,634 tons; Harry W. Croft, 6,223 tons; Fayette Brown,
6,377 tons; and M. A. Bradley, 5,539 tons. The dimensions of the Harvey H.
Brown are: Length over all, 552 feet; breadth, 58 feet; depth, 31 feet. The
other vessels range in length, over all, from 480 feet to 534 feet.
If there were sufficient water, these ships could safely load to a draft of
about 23 feet, and with that draft the Harvey H. Brown could carry approxi-
mately 13,000 gross tons of ore. *
I take the steamer Harvey H. Brown as illustrative.
In 1920, when for a time the ships loaded to a draft of 21 feet or over, the
Harvey H. Brown carried in all 17 cargoes of iron ore down bound. The
aggregate amount of Ore so carried was 183,695 gross tons, the average cargo
being 10,805 gross tons and the maximum cargo being 11,395 gross tons, loaded
at Superior on September 5 and unloaded at Erie on September 9; draft, 20 feet
5 inches forward, 21 feet aft. In 1923 the Harvey H. Brown carried down
bound 14 cargoes of ore, with a total of 143,713 gross tons, the average cargo
being 10,172 gross tons and the maximum cargo being 10,468 gross tons, loaded
at Duluth on August 26 and unloaded at Ashtabula on August 30. The per-
formance of other steamers as to maximum cargoes in these different SeaSOnS
were very similar.
The cargoes on lake freighters up to maximum capacity is determined by
the draft of water in the shallow channels, particularly Lake St. Clair and at
the lower end of the Detroit River.
Ships are loaded according to the bulletins issued by the Lake Carriers” .
Association as to draft of water, which bulletins are posted at all loading
docks. An inch difference of water to a vessel of the capacity of the Harvey
H. Brown makes a difference in the amount of cargo of from about 70 to 80
tons.
GORDON B. HousEMAN.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1763
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, INCOME TAX UNIT
In the matter of the obsolescence of the bulk-freight vessels upon the Great
Lakes.
STATE OF OHIO,
Cuyahoga County, S8:
H. N. Herriman, of Cleveland, Ohio, on his oath, says that he is lake man-
ager of the American Bureau of Shipping and was for many years manager
of the Great Lakes Register; that he was chairman of the engineers' Com-
mittee of the United States Shipping Board at Cleveland during the War; that
he has been connected with the bulk-freight business upon the Great Lakes
for about 25 years in connection with the building and designing of such ships;
and that during the past 18 years it has been one of his duties to inspect these
vessels and Superintend the repairing, modernizing, and general improvements
of these ships; that he attended the general hearing had in the above matter
before the committee on appeals and review on December 10, 1919, and there
testified as an expert ; that he heard all the testimony given at Said hearing,
and especially that he heard read at said hearing the affidavits of H. Coulby,
John H. Smith, and Henry S. Pickands, which affidavits were at that time filed
with Said committee.
Deponent further says that at first the iron and steel bulk-freight vessels
upon the Great Lakes were of the stanchion type, with Small hatches; that
these stanchions Or beams, as they were Sometimes called, Supported the deck
of the vessel and were spaced throughout the hold; that this type of vessel
construction continued until about the year 1905, but that the demands Of the
trade for quicker unloading facilities and the larger unloading buckets that
came intô use called for a different type of vessel without these stanchions
or beams, which interfered with the modern unloading machinery ; that the
hatches Of these Older boats were also inadequate and not adapted to this
modern unloading machinery which has been developed, as stated in Said affi-
davit of Henry S. Pickands.
Deponent further says that about the year 1905 a radical departure took
place in the type of construction of these bulk freight vessels, in that the
So-called arch type Was designed. This arch type of vessel has no stanchions
Or beams, but the Whole cargo hold is free from any obstructions, the vessel's
deck being Supported by Steel arches springing from the side frames. With
this change to the arch type came the change in the hatches to fit the modern
dock machinery. y
Deponent says that all of the iron and steel vessels up to those carrying
about 6,800 to 6,900 tons and a few of the so-called 7,000-ton vessels, which
actually Carry about 7,400 to 7,500 tons, were of the Old Stanchion or beam
type, with Small Old-fashioned hatches; that of these the 5,000-ton vessels and
the 6,000-ton vessels were constructed at the average date of 1901, and the
6,500-ton vessels, carrying about 6,800 tons to 6,900 tons, as well as said
So-called 7,000-ton vessels Of the Stanchion type, were Constructed at the aver-
age date of 1903. Deponent further says that the majority of Said so-called
7,000-ton vessels of the stanchion type have since been modernized—that is,
changed to arch construction and with modern hatches, and that many of Said
Smaller vessels have been similarly modernized. -
Deponent further says that after the vessel of the arch type, with modern
hatches, was introduced no more of the old stanchion type were constructed ;
that the so-called 7,000-ton vessels (but actually carrying 7,400 to 7,500 tons)
of the arch type, with modern hatches, were constructed at the average date
of 1908: that the so-called 8,000-ton vessels (but actually carrying about 8,500
tons) of the arch type, with modern hatches, were constructed at the average
date of 1908; that the so-called 9,000-ton vessels (but actually carrying about
9,500 tons) of the arch type, with modern hatches, were constructed at the
average date of 1909; that the so-called 10,000-ton vessels (but actually carry-
ing somewhat larger tonnage) of the arch type, with modern hatches, were
constructed at the average date of 1909.
These vessels of the arch type, with modern hatches, from the So-called
7,000-ton to the 10,000-ton, were at first regarded as too large, and there Was
also question as to their strength and durability, and question as to this con-
tinued for some time, and they did not establish their usefulness and Control
1764 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
fººde until the year 1910, from which time on this group dominated the
I concur in the statement made by said H. C. - # cº º
mentioned, wherein he says: Coulby in his affidavit above
º Meanwhile from about the year 1905 onward larger vessels began to be
built—from 7,500 tons to 10,000 tons and one or two vessels of even larger
size; but there was question at first as to whether or not these vessels would
be too large, and they did not establish their usefulness and control the trade
until about the year 1910, from which time on they dominated the trade.”
Since the year 1910 the vessels larger than the so-called 10,000-ton vessel
have been built in great numbers. They are the vessels ranging from So-called
11,000 tons to 13,000 tons, and there are about 57 of these vessels now on the
Great Lakes. They were constructed at the average date of 1914. At first they
were regarded as too large for practical use, but docks have been gradually
improved and modernized and larger unloading machinery more generally
installed, the widening and deepening of the channels has continued, the Soo
Locks have been enlarged, and the ability of the shippers to provide and the
Consumers to receive larger cargoes has gradually increased. While these
developments in docks, channels, locks, and ability to furnish and receive
larger Cargoes were progressing, the so-called 7,000 to 8,000 ton vessels of
modern construction, especially for some years after the average date of their
building, were generally regarded as the handy boats of the Lakes, for they
Could take cargoes of shippers that had not yet adapted themselves to the
larger boats as well as cargoes of those that had and were adapted to the
Smaller docks as well as the larger, and so could generally rely upon getting
a full Cargo both up and down the Lakes. But in the last few years the
larger developments have become more general and this advantage has dis-
appeared.
Deponent says that he has examined the schedule of net earnings per mile
of the vessels of the Interlake Steamship Co., and that said schedule reveals
the fact that these largest vessels, i. e., those constructed at the average date
of 1914, had by the end of the year 1916 demonstrated their larger earning
power and their ability to dictate the rates under normal conditions.
Deponent further says that in his opinion, speaking generally, Vessels in
the bulk-freight trade upon the Great Lakes, if built at the average date of
their class, have practically no obsolescence attaching for about seven or eight
years from. Such average date.
Deponent further says that the 5,000 and 6,000 ton vessels above mentioned
which appeared at the average date of 1901 did not, in his opinion, have ob-
solescence attach until about the year 1910, for the reason that the new type
vessels of the arch construction did not begin to appear on the average until
about the year 1908 and were at first questioned as to their strength and
durability, and also whether they were not too large for the trade, and that
these arch-type vessels of the so-called 7,000 tons to 10,000 tons capacity did
not dominate the trade until the year 1910.
Deponent further says that so many of the so-called 7.000-ton boats of the
stanchion type have been remodeled that the so-called 7,000-ton vessels gen-
erally may now be fairly classed as vessels of the modern type so far as con-
struction is concerned, and that the same thing is true of the so-called 8,000-
ton vessels, and that as these were, as above testified, regarded as the handy
boats of the Lakes their obsolescence did not in his opinion start until about
the beginning of the year 1915.
Deponent further Says that after the arch-type vessel had become demon-
strated as the practical boat of the Lakes, the changes in new vessels were in
respect to capacity ; and that by the year 1917 there were 53 of the largest
size (11,000 to 13,000 tons) above mentioned constructed and in operation, of
which 44 were of the so-called 12,000-ton class or larger, and that in deponent’s
opinion they had so far demonstrated their economies and had so indicated
a shipbuilding program for the future that obsolescence attached in the year
1917 to the vessels of the so-called 9,000-ton class up to and including the so-
called 10,000-ton class.
Deponent has already given his opinion, in the form of an affidavit, as to
the time when these various VeSSels will become Obsolete, and On further Con-
sideration he sees no reason for changing his views as expressed in that affi-
davit. Deponent has compiled and sets forth herein a tabulation of the average
dates at which the various classes of vessels were constructed, the dates at
which obsolescence attached, and the dates when the vessels will be completely
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1765 .
obsolete, in accordance with his former testimony, which schedule is as follows,
the vessels being classified on 19-foot draft:

º Date obso- Date when
|cºre- lesſenge at- vessels will
tion taches be obsolete
5,000 to 5,900 tons------------------------------------------------ 1901 Jan. 1, 1910 Jan. 1, 1922.
6,000 to 6,900 tons------------------------------------------------ 1903 Jan. 1, 1910 Jan. 1, 1923.
7,000 to 7,900 tons--------------------------------------- * * * * * * * * * 1908 Jan. 1, 1915 Jan. 1, 1925.
8,000 to 8,900 tons------------------------------------------------ 1908 Jan. 1, 1915 Jan. 1, 1927
9,000 to 9,900 tons------------------------------------------------ 1909 Jan. 1, 1917 | Jan. 1, 1930s
10,000 tons------------------------------------------------------- 1909 Jan. 1, 1917 | Jan. 1, 1935.
OVer 10,000 tons------------------------------------------------- 1914 -----------------------------
Deponent further says that in his opinion obsolescence does not attach as
rapidly during the earlier years of its existence as during the latter years, but
that the varying degrees of obsolescence can not be definitely calculated, and
in any event Would result in a complicated and cumbersome calculation. In
View of this fact deponent assumes that for the purposes of practical applica-
tion this obsolescence should be spread evenly through the periods of obsoles-
cence set forth in the above schedule, or through such portion thereof as the
law may provide. The vessel on becoming obsolete before she is 33 years
old has a residual value which depends upon her age at the time she becomes
obsolete. This will differ as to the individual vessels. I have already testified,
however, and am Of Opinion, that on the average a vessel is not worth more
than 20 per cent of her cost at the time she is 20 years of age, and that this
residual value decreases proportionately during the remaining years of her
physical life. -
The following is an example of the application of this obsolescence : A 10,000-
ton vessel built in December, 1910, will be obsolete on January 1, 1935. She
will then be 24 years old, and if the original owner continued in Such ownership
he will have deducted 72 per cent for physical depreciation. By the time this
10,000-ton vessel is 24 years of age She has a residual value of 14 per Cent of
her cost—computed on the basis of 20 per cent residual value when 20 years
old. Adding together the 72 per cent of depreciation and the 14 per cent of .
residual value we have 86 per cent of her cost accounted for, and there remains
14 per cent to be deducted for obsolescence, to be spread evenly through the
years 1917 to 1934, inclusive, or through such portion thereof as the law may
provide.
J) As another example, a 5,000-ton vessel built in December, 1900, will be obso-
lete on January 1, 1922. . She will then be 21 years old, and if the original
owner continued in such ownership he will have deducted 63 per cent for
physical depreciation, but by the time this vessel is 21 years of age she has a
residual value of about 18 per cent of her cost–computed on the basis of 20
per cent residual value when 20 years old. Adding together the 63 per cent
of depreciation and the 18 per cent of residual value we have 81 per cent of her
cost accounted for, and there remains 19 per cent to be deducted for Obsoles-
cence, to be spread evenly through the years 1910 to 1921, inclusive, or through
such portion thereof as the law may provide.
Without attempting to give the actual cost price of the various vessels under
normal pre-war conditions, for these prices fluctuated somewhat from year to
year, the following table shows a fair approximation of those costs:
Wessels over 10,000 tons $460, 000
Vessels of 10,000 tons---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 400, 000
Vessels of 9,000 tons–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 320, 000
Wessels of 8,000 tons---- m. ºs 305, 000
Wessels of 7,000 tons---------------------------------------------- 270, 000
Vessels of 6,000 tons–––––––––––––– a- -ºm sºme ºm. * * = ** - * * * * * - * * * * * - *-* - * 250, 000
Wessels of 5,000 tons * * * * 225,000
These figures, taken in connection with the above-mentioned Schedule Of
net earnings per mile of the vessels of the Interlake Steamship Co., demonstrate
in my judgment the obsolescence which I have set forth herein.
H. N. HERRIMAN.
Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this 25th day of July,
1921. WM. WISNER WHITE, Notary Public.
1766 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, INCOME TAx UNIT-CoMMITTEE on
APPEALS AND REVIEW
Affidavit of Henry S. Pickands in the matter of the hearing as to the proper
amount of physical deterioration and obsolescence in respect to the bulk freight
Steel vessels upon the Great Lakes.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Ss:
Henry S. Pickands, being duly sworn, says that he is a partner of the firm of
Pickands, Mather & Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, and is, and has been since its
Organization, vice president of the Interlake Steamship Co.; that for more than
20 years he has been familiar with the bulk freight transportation on the
Great Lakes, particularly familiar with the methods and machinery used in
loading and unloading cargoes, and that for all this time he has acted as
general manager of various loading nd unloading docks.
Deponent further says, with reference to the development of lake shipping.
particularly with reference to receiving and discharging of cargoes and the
development in the design of ships to meet the new conditions brought about
in unloading, perhaps the most effective way is to present chronologically the
developments in the industry since the beginning.
The unloading about 1870 was done by first shoveling the ore by hand into
half barrels, and raising by horsepower to the level of the stage which was
built out over the boat, and loading into wheelbarrows, which were trundled over
a platform, and ore was finally deposited on a pile. Subsequently, a portable
steam engine displaced the horse.
This method was later Superseded by rope tramways which handled buckets
of 1-ton capacity into which the Ore was showeled, and the buckets, carried
back on their ropeways and the ore deposited on the pile.
Later the Brown high-level tramway was devised, which was a portable
structure handling 1-ton buckets into which the ore was shoveled, which were
run back on a bridge structure, and the ore was dumped into the cars or on
the dock as the occasion demanded. During this period also the 1-ton rotary
McMyler derrick had a considerable vogue.
These developments follow logically up to about 1900.
While the high-level Brown machine was in use the machines were operated
in batteries and generally worked on 24-foot centers, and one machine was gen-
erally rigged to each hatch on the boat. At that time a 12-hatch boat was a
very large One, and this would mean that there was a machine rigged in each
hatch, and the boat Would be unloaded evenly at the rate of about 30 tons
per machine per hour, or about 3 600 tons per day.
These developments above recited came not uniformly but in periods, and
there was a considerable period of about 10 years when the Brown hign-level
type of unloader was accepted as the modern method of unloading.
The next development came in about 1900 with the development of the
Hoover-Mason clamshell bucket of about 5-ton capacity, which dipped into the
hold of the boat and raised the ore at the rate of about 5 tons to a trip and
made trips at the rate of about one per minute. These unloaders, being mounted
On a steel structure in groups of usually not more than four or Six, could
not reach all parts of the boat at One time, which necessitated shifting the boat
at the dock, working first in the forward and then in the aft until the cargo
was discharged. Other machines were devised by other builders to meet the
competition of the Hoover-Mason machine, the power changed from Steam
to electric, and the development of the Hulett unloader has been the final
development which we have so far experienced. Even this unit has progressed
from a unit of 10 tons to 15 and 171%.
There has now been designed by the Brown Hoisting Machinery Co. a ma-
Chine which is to be even faster than the Hulett and handles ore in units of
20 to 25 tons to a trip, the production of which has been held up, due presum-
ably to war conditions and retarded development due to the railroad situation
and other causes.
The types of machinery here mentioned, including this latest Brown hoisting
design, are well illustrated in the new catalogue of the Brown Hoisting Ma-
chinery Co., which takes the history from the wheelbarrow down through the
Prown Hoisting machinery and to the present 20 to 25 ton unloader.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1767
This development of the machinery means that instead of taking boats as
they came on the Lakes and fitting one machine into each hatch and unloading
them uniformly throughout until the cargo was discharged, that We are now
putting into them machines which will discharge an entire cargo of the largest
boats in five hours, and comparatively little attention is paid to what part of
the boat the ore comes from except as to the quality of the ore. The Whole
program is one of dispatch and prompt unloading.
The boats which were unloaded by the old horse docks were Schooners and
wooden steamers of 600 to 1,000 tons, which were the prevailing type of ore
carriers on the Lakes in the eighties. The competition on the Lakes at the
constantly reducing rates necessitates larger vessels, always with a view to
larger cargoes and more rapid unloading, so that instead of four or five days to
discharge a 1,000-ton cargo in the early eighties, we are now discharging a
cargo. of 12,000 to 14,000 tons in five hours.
The changes on the ships, even in the days of the wooden vessels, Went SO
far as to eliminate the main deck, with a view to expediting unloading. The
wooden ship progressed until the size of 3,000 tons was reached, and in about
1890 the iron and steel ships began to displace the wooden ships. In 1895 the
steamer Victory, with a capacity of a little over 5,000 tons, on the then draft
Of water, was built and was then the largest ship on the Lakes.
At the time the first automatic unloaders were built in about 1900 ships of
the class of the Hill and Gates, carrying then about 7,500 tons, were the largest
ships, and while they were considerable in size the adoption of the automatic
machinery brought about some very great inconveniences in their interior con-
struction, due to the stanchion and stringers being placed in the hold, hindering
the free operation of the grab buckets. -
The steamer A. B. Wolvin came out in 1904, and this ship typified the present
ore carrier on the Great Lakes. She carried a little less than 10,000 tons, had
hatches placed at 12-foot centers, had no stanchions or stringers, and was built
in conformity to the modern unloaders, and is somewhat typical of the vessels
which are still being built to-day, although in size they have developed to a
point Where twelve to thirteen thousand tons is the accepted modern boat,
against about 9,500 carried by the Wolvin.
The boats that we are unloading to-day on the Lakes with the modern ma-
chinery are generally classed in the minds of the dockmen in three classes.
The SO-Called “Class A” boats are those which have no beams or stanchions in
the hold, and whose hatches are either arranged on 12-foot centers or have
12-foot hatches arranged on 24-foot centers. The next class, or “class B,”
Would be those boats originally built with beams and stanchions which have
been modernized to such extent that they are reasonably convenient for modern
unloading, having had a part or all of the beams and stanchions removed and
hatches enlarged to meet modern conditions. Then there is a third class of
boats, to which little has been done since they were built, and these are ex-
tremely slow and inconvenient to unload and lose a great deal of time at the
docks, and in dull times with the supply of tonnage on the Lakes exceeding the
... demand, they would likely find it very difficult to receive and to secure cargoes.
The methods of unloading coal are not very different than those recited above
for unloading ore, except on account of the great bulk and lesser weight of the
Coal as Compared with ore the same rates of speed are not obtained, and there
are. Still in the Coal business quite a number of small docks that somewhat
resemble the older type of ore dock, which is practically extinct in the ore
business.
In the loading of cargoes there has been less radical development. The
ore is still shot from the elevated pockets into the boats as it was 30 years ago.
The development in this connection has been in capacity and speed. The docks
to-day are higher, the pockets larger, and the chutes more ample, so that the ore
is shot into the vessel with very great dispatch, the record, I believe, being
about 10,000 tons loaded in 30 minutes.
This increase, in capacity for the rapid loading of ore, while necessary to
meet the conditions arising from the increased size of the Steamers, has con-
tributed considerably to the depreciation and obsolescence of the smaller type
of boats. In many cases in loading ore into the smaller and older boats
from the high modern docks it is almost impossible to control the flow of the
*
.1768 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Ore SO as to load the boats evenly as intended. To a certain extent the same
is true at the unloading docks, where the modern machinery, built to meet
the needs of the modern boats, has so far outgrown the older boats as to
. SOme Of these Older ships unfit to unload at all at some of the modern
OCKS.
One feature, perhaps, in the loading of vessels that has developed is that
in days gone by it was generally customary for each ship to carry a certain
grade of ore, and on arriving at the dock it was loaded with Qne grade. With
the development in the increase in the size of the ships it is the general
practice to-day, Or at least very common, to load two, three, or more grades
Of Ore in the same cargo. This necessitates loading the ship not as a whole
but in Sections, it frequently being necessary for the ship to move from one
loading dock to another during the process of loading. This means that
frequently some of the compartments in the ships are fully loaded and others
are entirely empty, thereby causing very uneven strain.
In the loading of coal more progress has been made. Whereas in the days
of the 1,000 and 2,000 ton boats coal was shoveled by hand into 1-ton buckets
which were swung aboard the boats and dumped; to-day with the development
Of the modern machinery the boat is loaded by having the coal dumped into
it in Carload lots, starting usually at the aft end of the boat and progressing
forward until the cargo is completed, thus putting a varying strain on the
ship as the load progresses from aft forward.
What the future development of Lake transportation, will be is beyond human
imagination. I can remember Old-time vessel men telling how one ambitious
man had gone crazy when he built the steamer George T. Hope, with a capacity
Of 2,100 tons, and within my own recollection I can remember wise heads
being shaken when the steamers W. M. Mills and De Graf were built with
60-foot beams, and even within the last few years doubts were expressed
among vessel men with the building of the Snyder, jr., and Schoonmaker,
which have 64-foot beams. With the building of larger locks at the Soo,
however, and the deepening of the channels, I can see no real reason why the
early future should not produce conditions which would call for a boat
carrying from 15,000 to 20,000 tons and make our present 7,000 to 10,000 boats
entirely obsolete in Our principal lake trade, which is Ore, Coal, and grain.
What development may be expected in propulsion machinery for the boats
can best be left to the imagination. It is quite conceivable that some develop-
ment of the Diesel crude-oil engine, or possibly the turbo-generator electric
drive may render the present boats so competitively uneconomical that they
will be forced to retire. The possibilities as to the unloading devices are
also another factor. These are limitless. With the development of electricity
in connection with unloading, it is impossible to attempt to define the methods
of unloading of the future, or how far they will render our present vessels
obsolete, or just when this will occur. We can only judge the future by the
past. We have seen the development of the unloading devices, as well as the
development in the loading devices, which has been followed by the vessels,
and the changes in the types and sizes of the vessels have occurred in cycles
of about 10 years. It is only fair to presume that this will continue in the
future, so that we may assume that in the next 10 years vessels will be
carrying from 20,000 to 25,000 tons, and will be adapted to loading and un-
loading machinery of such a character that the present boats will be abso-
lutely worthless.
The Lake transportation business is highly competitive. The largest, which
are the most economical boats, set the price, and the Smaller boats which are
unable to make any profit in competition with them under normal conditions,
except the period of the war when abnormal conditions have prevailed, but
even to-day the smaller boat can be used only as a unit in the larger fleets,
and it is used by these larger fleets as a matter of accommodation to certain
customers, although it is operated without profit and frequently at more or
leSS loSS. -
¥ HENRY S. PICKANDS.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1769
UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, IN.com E TAx UNIT-CoMMITTEE on
APPEALS AND REVIEW
Affidavit of H. Coulby, in the matter of the hearing as to the proper amount
of physical deterioration and obsolescence in respect to the bulk-freight steel
VeSSels upon the Great Lakes.
STATE OF OHIO,
Cuyahoga County, 88:
H. Coulby, being duly sworn, says that he is and has been for more than 30
years past engaged in the business of managing bulk-freight vessels upon the
Great Lakes, and is now and for many years has acted as the general manager
Of the fleet of Vessels engaged in the bulk-freight trade on said Great Lakes
OWned by the Interlake Steamship Co., which fleet consists of 52 vessels.
Deponent further says that the history of the growth of vessels upon the
Great Lakes is as follows: From the year 1870, when the bulk-freight business
upon the Great Lakes began in volume, to 1880, the typical vessel engaged in the
bulk-freight trade was a 600-ton Sailing schooner. At about the year 1880 a
few vessel owners began to build wooden steam barges of about 1,600 to 1,800
tons, and these Soon became the typical bulk-freight vessel and dominated the
trade from 1880 to 1890. In the latter part of the eighties the first iron and
steel bulk freighters began to be constructed, of about 2,200 to 2,500 ton type.
These SOOn became, in turn, the typical vessel in this trade and dominated the
trade from 1890 to 1900. In the late nineties the building of the 5,000-ton steel
steamers became active, and from 1900 to about the year 1910 these vessels in
turn dominated the trade. Meanwhile, and from about the year 1905 onward,
larger vessels began to be built, from 7,500 tons to 10,000 tons, and one or two
vessels Of even larger size, but there was question at first as to whether or not
these vessels would be too large, and they did not establish their usefulness and
control the trade until about the year 1910, from which time on they have
dominated the trade. Since then more vessels of the 12,000 to 13,000 ton type
have been constructed. Keeping pace with the growth in size of these vessels
through the periods above mentioned have come the improvements in the docks,
widening and deepening of the channels, the enlargement of the locks at the
SOO, and the ability of the shippers to provide and the consumers to receive
larger cargoes, and improvements in loading and unloading devices, all of
which have through the progress Cited enabled the larger vessels in the Cycles
above enumerated to in turn dominate the trade in such cycles, and such ves-
sels have controlled the rates of freight, and, the business being highly com-
petitive, they have during the respective cycles forced the freight rates down
to a point where vessels dominating the previous cycle have found it almost
impossible, and sometimes entirely impossible, to make any profit.
In general the result has been that a vessel has become obsolete in the ore,
coal, and grain trade on the average at the end of about 20 years from the time
of her construction. There have been Some exceptions, where such vessels SO
obsolete in said trade have been provided with a fairly profitable trade in
What is termed here upon the Lakes as the side trade, but there is not sufficient
side trade, to provide for all of these or even any large proportion of vessels
in the regular trade of coal, ore, and grain as they become obsolete therein.
There is the further fact that even where there is any such side trade the
cargoes are small, the ports are not adapted to the larger vessels, either in
respect to their channels or their docks, and vessels of more than 3,000 tons
carrying capacity find it impossible to exist profitably in this side trade, even if
they can secure business, for the delays connected with this side trade are
excessive. The cargoes are not sufficient to fill the larger vessels, and So the
vessels would have to operate with about a half cargo, and, as I have ahove
stated, there is not enough of this side trade to accommodate even the 3,000-
ton vessels as they have become obsolete. Occasionally one of the large fleets
is able to use one or two of these smaller vessels as a convenience to its ship-
pers, but such vessels are not operated at a profit and are usually operated at a
loss, the loss being absorbed in the general earnings of the fleet. The 3,000-
ton vessels have very largely disappeared from the Great Lakes. Some have
been lengthened and otherwise modernized to about 4,500 tons capacity. Some
have in the course of years been lost and many have been remodeled, Strength-
1770 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ened, and sent to the ocean, but not being really adapted to the ocean, a great
many. 9f these vessels that have gone there have been lost, as the history of
the Shipping Board will show in connection with the Great Lakes vessels which
were bought during the war and converted and taken to the ocean. The bulk-
freight Steamers Of the Great Lakes, while not subject to the corrosion which
is SO present in Ocean Steamers, have their own peculiar conditions to meet in
Connection. With their physical deterioration. The necessities of the trade have
required that they be constructed with only one deck, thus losing the very
material Strengthening furnished by the second deck prevalent in the ocean
Steamer. The One deck which these boats have is so largely opened up by
the many hatches extending almost across the full beam of the vessel that even
º: One deck can not be counted on for strength, as the spar deck of the Ocean
SIllp.
In addition to this the modern machinery, which is of the grab-bucket type,
having to go down through these numerous hatches, is constantly coming in
Contact with the various parts of the boat more or less violently, and on
account Of the grab buckets removing the cargo more or less at random to
meet the Condition of car supply and dock situation is constantly setting
up unexpected and unknown strains in the hull of the ship. These grab
buckets, many of which will lift as high as 20 tons at a single load, cause
continual damage to the side tanks, the floor, hatch combings, and general
COnStruction.
These bulk-freight vessels are divided into several compartments. This
is made necessary by the requirements of the trade, as the cargoes are
frequently supplied by different shippers or with different grades of a com-
modity of the Same shipper, which have to be kept separate. These lots
Of commodities SO required to be kept Separate are varying in amount of
tonnage, and frequently Of necessity are SO disposed in the vessel that
the Strains are uneven, not only during the period of loading and unloading
but to SOme extent throughout the VOyage. This is, perhaps, more marked
in the loading, where vessels have to proceed from one dock to another, or
from One place to another at the same dock, to make up their full cargo.
The bulk-freight vessels On the Great Lakes are not to be compared with
the Ocean-going vessels either in structure or in connection with the business
which they do. The Ocean Wessels usually make long trips, where they do
not load or unload more than Once a month, and When they do unload it
is by very deliberate progress, extending usually over days, and usually the
cargo is of such a character that it is not unloaded by these enormous grab
buckets, but picked out piece by piece. The bulk freighter on the Great
Lakes on the other hand load or unload every three or four days, and so are
Subjected to many times the damageS resulting from loading and unloading
within any given period that the Ocean Wessels incur. For instance, a lake
freighter is sometimes loaded in about 45 to 50 minutes, and these on other
Occasions may take an hour and a quarter Or Sometimes longer, according
to the necessity Of Shifting the vessel at the dock and the nature of the
cargo ; but the loading is in all instances wery rapid—the Ore is shot into
the boat from large pockets high above the vessel, and SO pounds down upon
the floor and sides, and is hardly ever trimmed in the Sense that ocean
vessels are trimmed. The unloading is often accomplished within four
hours, and this is done by means of the large grab buckets, the operation of
which has been explained above. The coal is shot into the boats in Carload
lots, the car being picked up bodily and turned over. The unloading of coal
is not very different from the unloading of ore, above mentioned.
The Ocean vessels are not in port nearly So frequently as these lake Wessels,
and so are not subjected to such frequent contact with dock walls and the
congested condition of harbors, which on the Great Lakes are relatively smaller
than on the ocean, with the result that there is much more liability to damage
in this maneuvering about. Then, too, the ocean vessels generally are not
required to pass through canal locks, which is a necessary incident twice on
every round trip to Lake Superior. In passing through these locks, which
are not much wider than the beam of the vessel, there is the contact of
the sides of the vessel with the masonwork Qf the dock and the frequent
touching of the bottom upon the sill, which involves a constant wear and
strain upon the hull of the vessel. Similar action occurs to a very large
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1771
tºº.
extent in landing at and leaving many of the loading and unloading docks,
which are built of concrete. - -
On account of the fact that the depth of the lake vessels is limited to the
depth of the channels and locks and the fact that the shallow waters of .
the Lakes are Subjected to a very quick stirring up of large seas there is a
Constant racking and straining in the hulls of these ships, due to the fact
that they are not, as Ocean vessels are, of deep enough draft to reach far
below the surface to the quieter waters, and these strains and rackings tend
to shorten the physical life of the vessel, and this condition is accentuated
fy the fact that the cargoes generally are carried low in the hold, being
of bulky and heavy material, giving the ship less buoyancy than she would
have with a miscellaneous cargo loaded on various decks, and also accom-
panying this is the fact that the cargo can not always be evenly distributed.
Due to the fact that the navigation of the Great Lakes involves in a con-
siderable measure navigation of long and tortuous river and harbor chan-
nels, accompanied in many cases by swift currents, and also the congestion
of traffic in these channels, these boats are frequently required to stop, start,
back, and Shear violently to avoid collisions and groundings, involving strains
upon their machinery and hulls which are frequent in the lake vessels and
rare in navigation of the high seas.
The ice problem with the ocean vesels is very different and very much less
a factor With the Ocean vessels from what it is with the Great Lakes vessels.
Ice trouble On the Ocean is usually a collision with an ice berg, and a matter
Of total loSS or considerable insured damage, whereas on the Lakes, in spring
and fall, it is not infrequent that navigation involves constant moving through
fields of more or less heavy ice, which ocasionally does damage of such
extent as to be a matter of reconstruction, or usually results in an accumulated
and continual increasing corrugation and wear to the plates and loosening
rivets and general distress in the structure of the ship. Owing to the shal-
lowness of the Waters in the Great Lakes, it is especially true in the spring
of the year that the ice shifts and masses until it forms bergs which are
grounded on the bottom of the channel, and through these fields of bergs the
vessels have to make their way in the course of their journeys. The ice fre-
quently does not disappear from the lakes until early in June and sometimes
later. In the fall of the year the vessels are encountering new ice before
the 1st of December and frequently by the middle of November.
In my experience upon the Great Lakes, no bulk freight vessel has lived
for 50 years. I may further add that in my said experience I have, known
no bulk-freight vessel to live as a useful vessel, without reconstruction and
modernizing, for more than 30 years, and those which have reached this
later age have been very few in comparison with the others which have disap-
peared at much earlier periods.
Speaking of physical deterioration only, it is my judgment that in spite
Of all the repairs, maintenance, and replacements that can be made on lake
bulk-cargo carriers, the physical usable life of Such ship never has been and can
not be expected to be more than 30 years and probably somewhat less than that.
In my view, such a vessel is not worth more than her scrap value, regarding her
only from the standpoint of physical deterioration at the end of said period
of 30 years, and from my experience Such Scrap value is not in any case
more than 10 per cent of her cost and would be very much less than this,
depending on the COndition of. Some of her auxiliary machinery and would
probably not average much over 5 per cent. The boat might be so situated
on the Great Lakes that her scrap value would be nothing, but if she hap-
pened to be near a market for such scrap there would be a different value.
In my long experience with the bulk-freight business upon the Great Lakes,
and the changing of types of vessels and the modernizing of docks as above
set forth, my Opinion is that these bulk freighters become obsolete and unable
longer to complete in this bulk-freight trade by the time that they on the
average reach the age of 20 years, unless they are really made over and
changed into new boats by lengthening and modernizing of their hatches and
other improvements necessitated by the changing conditions of the trade. If
a vessel has been constructed at the beginning of one of the 10-year cycles
to which I have above testified, she would not begin to feel the effect of Ob-
solescence or really be regarded as being affected by obsolescence until about
the end of the 10-year period. If, however, she were built nearer the mid-
1772 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
dle of Such 10-year cycle, the obsolescence would attach at the end of about
5 years, and we have on the Lakes well-known cases of ships where ob-
solescence had progressed in the case of a ship after she was designed, so that
the ship had made apparent progress in the direction of obsolescence at the
time she was launched. In other WOrds, the Owner of the vessel last men-
tioned happened to misjudge the future. I would say on the average obso-
lescence is not a material factor in the first 10 years of the life of one of
these vesels, but thereafter attaches very rapidly.
Deponent further says that he has been sometimes asked whether the perma-
nent type of vessel for the bulk-freight trade on the Great Lakes has not
now been established. In answer to this I would Say that with each type
of vessel that has been developed through the 10-year cycles above men-
tiond, such vessel has been heralded as the ultimate type for the Lakes, and
when a bold owner has ventured to construct a larger vessel, he has been ridi-
culed and his judgment severally criticized. No one can tell when the tilti-
mate bulk-freight vessel for the Great Lakes will be, if ever, designed. Even
now, the unloading machinery for iron ore has posibilities of large improve-
ments. It is by no means certain that the present reciprocating Steam en-
gines and Scotch boilers are the last development in propulsion of ships.
There has been so much developed in connection with the use of oil and elec-
tricity, that it is imposible to say what this may lead to. The channels are
being constantly widened and deepened, locks are made larger and larger,
and it would be by no means visionary to predict that the 15,000 or 20,000
ton Vesel will be the commanding vessel upon the Great Lakes than it was
regarded visionary 10 years prior to the construction of the steamer Wolvim,
the first 10,000-ton boat, to predict that she would be the typical boat upon the
Great Lakes.
H. COULBY.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, INCOME TAx UNIT-HEARING BEFORE Comſ MITTEE on
APPEALS AND REVENUE
Affidavit in the matter of the depreciation and obsolescence of bulk-freight
vessels On the Great Lakes.
STATE OF OHIO,
Cuyahoga County, 88:
John H. Smith, being duly sworn, says that he is a marine architect and
that his Office is at Cleveland, Ohio ; that he has been a marine architect in
connection with vessels on the Great Lakes for more than 20 years last past,
and has had a great deal of experience in connection with appraisal of all
types of vessels upon the Great Lakes and has been constantly supervising
the repairs and construction of such vessels.
Deponent further says that he has also had experience in operating ship-
yards On the Great Lakes and the Operation of vessels themselves.
Deponent further says that referring to the bulk-freight vessels on the
Great Lakes, deponent's experience is when these vessels lived their useful
physical life they have no scrap value in any material amount; frequently the
remainder of the vessel is of no value whatever by reason of the fact that it
would be financially a loss to attempt to bring the Yessel to a shipyard where
she could be cut up and the Scrap sold ; that even under the best conditions,
where such vessel was adjacent to facilities to cut her up and dispose of the
scrap without transportation, the material of the vessel Čan not be regarded
as being of a Value, On the average, of more than $12 per ton under normal
conditions of the market for scrap iron and steel, and that under such normal
conditions it costs at least $10 per ton to cut the vessel up and make the
Scrap available for Sale.
Deponent further Says that his experience is that the scrap value of these
bulk freight vessels on the Great Lakes is not more than 2 per cent of the
Original COSt.
Deponent further Says that, from his experience with these bulk-freight
vessels upon the Great Lakes and the rough treatment that they receive at
the docks and through the violent storms in the narrow channels and through
the canal locks, with the uneven loading and the methods of loading and un-
loading, the physical deterioration of these vessels is from 3 to 3% per cent
per year.
º
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1773
Deponent further says that from his said experience in connection with
the bulk-freight vessels upon the Great Lakes, they become obsolete and un-
profitable for the recognized trade of the Great Lakes, which is the trans-
portation of ore, coal, and grain, on the average, about 20 years after they
have been constructed. There is little side trade for these vessels, not enough
to give any large percentage of them employment, and while now and then One
Of these vessels may find employment in this side trade, the majority Of them
are unable to do so. Moreover, this side trade is not adaptable for vessels of
more than 3,000 tons, for the harbors where this side trade is available have
not been modernized either as to docks Or Channels, and there are no Cargoes
of Sufficient size to justify the employment of any larger boats, nor is there
sufficient of this trade to employ the 3,000-ton vessels.
The experience on the Great Lakes has shown that the type of these bulk-
freight vessels has changed about every 10 years, and, in my judgment, as
above stated, a vessel becomes obsolete to the freight trade at the end of
about 20 years. This obsolescence does not attach so rapidly during the
earlier part of their life.
On the average, in my judgment, it does not attach at all during the first
five years of their life. During the second five years I would estimate their
obsolescence at 1 per cent a year, but from the time the vessel attains the age
of 10 years, obsolescence attaches very rapidly, and has worked its effect by
the time the boat is 20 years old. From that time on, she remains practically
worth her physical value, less the depreciation, which should be taken off
from year to year.
Deponent further says that his other engagements makes it impossible for
him to attend the hearing in the above-entitled matter, and there give his
testimony, and so makes this affidavit in lieu of being personally present.
JOHN H. SMITH.
ExHIBITS ACComPANYING TESTIMONY OF LANGDON PEARSE, HEARING BEFORE
RIVERS AND HARBORS CoMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C., TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1924
FIGURE Typhoid fever death rate in Chicago.
FIGURE Kill of animals in Chicago.
FIGURE Bacterial count in Illinois River, September, 1921.
FIGURE DiSSolved Oxygen Content and Oxygen demand in Illinois River,
September, 1921.
Dissolved Oxygen Content and Oxygen demand in Illinois River,
December, 1921.
FIGURE 7. Map of city of Cleveland.
1.
2.
3.
FIGURE 4. Bacterial count in Illinois River, December, 1921.
5.
6.
FIGURE
LIST OF TABLES ACCOMPANYING TESTIMONY OF LANGDON PEARSE, HEARING BEFORE
RIVERS AND HARBORs CoMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C., TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1924
TABLE 1. Significant data in sewage treatment in the United States.
TABLE 2. Population equivalents for industrial wastes.
TABLE 3. Summary On dilution ratio.
TABLE 4. Population estimates (given in text).
TABLE 5. Urban population of Illinois River Valley.
TABLE 6. Analysis of Sources of Water Supplies of all towns and cities around
Great Lakes.
. Typhoid fever death rate per 100,000 population. Cities of over
100,000 population in Great Lakes region.
TABLE 8. Typhoid fever death rate per 100,000 population. Cities of over
100,000 population in Great Lakes region. Five-year period aver-
ageS.
TABLE 9. Information on water Supply and Sewerage of cities in the United
States containing over 100,000 population.
TABLE 10. Expenditures for sites for sewage-treatment works up to 1924.
7
TABLE
;
;
DEATH Rare PER 100,000
e a g g s g g s 3 & 8 a 3 g 5 § 3 à 3 & 8
1870
|88O
:
3.
-U
O
1890 O ; 5-
E {E_-_º
yr- 5 3 ºn
> In
§ 3 ;
o a m
|SOO N! RANAGE CANAL.-JANUARY 2,1900. F \, 20 -
O
| | | | rt R. C.
w w —w W- t 2. C. In —
OPENING OF THE SOUTH SIDE INTERCEPTING SEWER. O º >
PENING 9F THENQRTH $105 INTERGEPTING, Sºywg?. 5 * =
| 9 |O º-Al Hºlls Aº QN , ºf Milºš lºſſºſº.º. ºxlºº & S}|Q e as º —
CHLORINATION OF WATER STARTED - JANUARY 1912. Z 2U
H––––––––. *—
COMPLETE CHLORINATION OF WATER - OECEMBER 1916. rºl
192O
opening OF CALUMET-SAG CHANNEL-AUGUST26,1922.
à


suo||ųw uſ s6oH puodaauſs 'seaĮoo ºſłłpo jo poeH Ipſºl
‘spung Jo suo||ig uſ pº!!!) spuļuw 30 {{{6!?M
§ • • ► se ſe º ſe s = s • • • • • • • • —�
TII-II-T|×|||||ſ-l ocsi
~~~~）_Žè
4–***<se ^O26||
___-----
|>NJ
2，<， 0||6||
ºſ =N
IĘN
±-→H OQ@l
*<NJ
È~#~?>
●?
-º#Tz$3O69||
^}-{}-(/)<�
C2·5,5*
lı- §- ŠIE>Q98||
}.9）（~~~
?（~,
~~Oſºſ
Ë
O99||
OG9||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|L-|-|-|-1 over
laen<r.wÐQN«…）»

ºsnsueO sm ulog suoſ||ſw uſuoſłoļndą）,
(Face p. 1774.) No. 1
91739–24.
F|G. 3
of Illinois | River in
ng
iles
5a
Station
September 1921
91739–24.
(Face p. 1774.) No. 2

FIG. 4
S+ations Illinois | River in
Lines 3. of
les
pling
LEGEN
Toł-al a
E.
M
Orn ał 20°
On ał- 37°
coli multiplied
Gra
+ions
in 48
in 24 hours
December 1921
91730–24. (Face p. 1774.)
3.

15
+- § ºš Q) Esſ-TE E
.9 § #5 # = 5 # # ſº
To § tŠ 3 : Q _0}
|4 -> § 5S 2- I. TºS # E
F. § 5 3.
CD O E
*s to a sº
| "Nº-
12 \
| {\ LEGEND
\ Initial Dissolved Oxygen me
Oxygen Demand in Five-Day I am me
| W Incubation al- |20° C.
Mississippi River at Hamburg O
S
8}
7 /N
e! 7 >s
5 Z N-
Z
3
2
Miles ak,
Station of Illinois River in
2
O - : 200 ?
l | lines †Lo
# ©
September 1921.
|
91739–24.
(Face p. 1774.)
No. 4












F|G. 6
<!- &º - Scrº ſū § E
H Tº #| | # 3 § # 5 &
()
16 *3 # 3 d ſi- # # _º #
U # ; : 3.
| * = #
|S .*. X
| Al \–
- |LEGEND
13 \ Initial |Dissolved. Oxygen ] =
Oxygen Dernand in Five - Day |
\ Incubation at 120°C. ——F
12 U Mississippi River at Hamburg O -
IO \ ºr
9 N
8 J
M
A
\--N
5
2-4s
N / Y--
A
*T. *N *~E C zł
N
3. *4–23
Stations of Illinois | River in Miles above Graf For
2 275 25O 225 2OO I75 | |25 |OO 75 5O 25
Lines showing ſpeatiºn of Sampling Shahions
§:II:3 tº 3. **** gº § 33
CN) gº º tº-
Decennber 1921
91739—24. (Face p. 1774.) No. 5

TE TE T Đ TE TFTTG
AA I A. -
- - - - - - F | G. 7
- - - - - -----------------
-
----- ---
---------
- - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - --------
-------------
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -, --, -, i.e. -
- - - - ---------------- -----
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
------------------ -
- -
- - - - -
- - - - º------ -
-- - - -------- ------ -
- - - ------- -
-
*** - ---
-----
-** - in -------
-
-- ºr ºr- ---ºr -- ---------
-----------
-- - - --------- - - - - - -----------
------------- ----------.
*** **** - in ºil-º- ----, ------- tº-ºn-
----
* -- a-- sº
- - - - - - - - *******-i- -
- -
- - -
- - -
- -
º, º
- |-----------
- ---
- -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - --------
0.1730–24. (Face p. 1774.) No. 6












































ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1775
TABLE 1.-Significant dates in sewage treatment in the United States
1823. Boston sewers receive fecal waste.
Original sewers built piecemeal late in eighteenth century.
1855. Chicago sewers designed by Chesbrough.
1865. Illinois & Michigan Canal in use.
1875. Boston Sewerage Commission discusses requirements.
Brewster, N. Y., chemical treatment.
1876. Broad irrigation (30 to 40 acres).
Worcester Hospital for the Insane (Mass.).
1880. Fullerton Avenue tunnel in use. *
1881. Amherst, Mass., builds sedimentation tanks with land disposal.
Pullman, Ill., Sewage farms laid out.
Metropolitan Drainage Commission (Boston).
1882. Lawrenceville, N. J., tank built.
1883. Bridgeport pumping station opened.
Cheyenne, Wyo., sewage farms.
1884. Boston main drainage completed.
1886. Long Branch, N. J., chemical precipitation.
Massachusetts reorganizes State board of health.
1887. Coney Island, N. Y., chemical precipitation. .
Massachusetts State Board of Health began studies at Lawrence.
POWERS PATENT
1888. Milwaukee River flushing tunnel completed.
East Orange, N. J., chemical precipitation.
Mystic Valley works built near Boston.
1889. Framingham intermittent sand filters.
Charter issued to the Sanitary District of Chicago.
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission chartered for Boston.
1890. Worcester, Mass., chemical precipitation.
Many Sewage farms in arid West.
1891. Work begun on main channel of Chicago Drainage Canal.
Gardner, Marlboro, Meridan Sand filters (intermittent).
1893. Canton, Ohio, chemical precipitation.
1894. Brockton, Mass., intermittent Sand filters.
1898. WOrcester intermittent Sand filters added.
1900. Plainfield, N. J., septic tank and double-contact beds.
Main channel of Chicago Sanitary District completed.
New Orleans, La., main drainage completed.
1901. Providence, R. I., chemical precipitation.
Madison, Wis., sprinkling filter.
Wauwatosa, Wis., septic tanks and intermittent filters.
1902. Passaic Valley sewage district created.
Mansfield, Ohio, Septic tanks under contract.
1903. New York Bay Pollution Commission created.
Saratoga Springs, N. Y., Septic tanks and sand filters.
1904–5. Columbus experiments by Johnson and Fuller. ... --
1906. Redbank experiments by Phelps.
Metropolitan Sewage Commission replaces New York Bay Pollution Cont-
mission.
1907. North shore channel of Sanitary District of Chicago begun.
1908. Columbus, Ohio, septic tanks and sprinkling filters completed.
Reading, Pa., Sprinkling filter and Septic tanks. w
Washington, Pa., Septic tanks and sprinkling filters.
1907–1909. Gloversville, N. Y., experiments.
1910. Fitchburg, Mass., sewage disposal commission organized.
North shore channel of Chicago Sanitary District completed.
1911. Calumet-Sag channel work begun at Chicago.
Baltimore, Md., sprinkling filters and hydrolytic tanks.
Brooklyn, N. Y., Gowanus Canal flushing tunnel.
Imhoff tanks built at Chatham, Madison.
1912. Atlanta, Ga., Emscher tank and sprinkling filter.
Rochester, N. Y., discharge into Lake Ontario with grit chamber and
fine Screen recommended.
PaSSaic Valley, Construction started.
Gloversville, N. Y., plant completed.
1776 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
TABLE 1.-Significant dates in 86 wage treatment in the United States --Con.
POWERS PATENT—Continued
1913. Alliance, Ohio, grit chambers, bar screens, sedimentation tanks, inter.
mittent filters, and sludge beds.
Milwaukee, Wis., sewage commission established.
1913–14. Cleveland, Ohio, experiments with settling tanks. .
1914. Detroit, Mich., sterilizes sewage with liquid chlorine. * .
International Joint Commission makes report on pollution of Great Lakes
Milwaukee, Wis., activated sludge experiments begun.
Fitchburg, Mass., sprinkling filters and Imhoff tanks.
1914–15. Houston, Tex., activated sludge experiments.
1915. Schenectady, N. Y., Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters.
Rochester, N. Y., Brighton plant for 10,000 completed.
Alliance, Ohio, plant enlarged by Pratt.
Baltimore, Md., additional tanks installed.
1915–1917. Cleveland, Ohio, activated sludge and fine-screen experiments
1916. Columbus, Ohio, septic tanks remodeled to Imhoff tanks.
w International Joint Commission report on remedies.
1917. Rochester, N. Y., Irondequoit plant for 430,000 completed.
Indianapolis, Ind., sanitary district created.
Houston, Tex., one activated Sludge plant Operating.
Akron, Ohio, Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters.
1918. Milwaukee, Wis., first contract let for treatment plant.
Lexington, Ky., Sprinkling filters and Imhoff tanks.
Houston, Tex., Second activated sludge plant operating.
1917–1919. Pasadena, Calif., experimental work.
1919. Schenectady, N. Y., plant remodeled.
New York, N. Y., Dychman Street, screening plant.
Indianapolis, Ind., contracts let for part of plant.
Albany, N. Y., Imhoff-tank plant completed.
1919–1921. Indianapolis, Ind., testing station operation.
1921. Bridgeport, Conn., screening plant completed.
Rochester, N. Y., Charlotte works for 10,000 completed.
LOS Angeles, Calif., Whipple, Fuller, and Mulholland make report.
1922. Calumet Sag Channel completed.
Cleveland, Ohio, easterly (grit chambers only) and westerly (Imhoff
tanks) plants completed.
Calumet sewage treatment works in Operation at Chicago.
Des Plaines River sewage treatment works in Operation at Chicago.
1923. New York, N. Y., fine-screen installations completed—one in Manhattan,
one in Brooklyn, three in Queens under construction, one in Manhattan,
and one on Staten Island. Purchasing land for large plant on Wards
Island.
1924. Pasadena, Calif., activated sludge plant completed.
Indianapolis, Ind., plant to be completed.
Los Angeles, screens installed.
TABLE 2.-Population equivalents for industrial wastes

Population equivalents for year
Industry
1920 1930 1940
Packingtown------------------------------------------------------- 1,000,000 | 1, 100,000 1, 200,000
Corn Products----------------------------------------------------- 370,000 400,000 450,000
Tannery---------------------------- as a • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 70,000 100,000 125,000
Miscellaneous------------------------------------------------------ 60,000 100,000 125,000
Total--------------------------------------------------------- 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,900,000
These are conservative figures, and may be exceeded in prosperous busy years.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1777
TABLE 2.-Population equivalents for industrial wastes—Continued
Dstimated loadings on main channel from the sanitary district of Chicago


Industrial |
Year , Human equivalent Total
*~~~~ 2,976,000 | 1, 500,000 || 4,476,000
1930---------------------------------------------------------------- 3,710,000 | 1,700,000 5,410,000
1940---------------------------------------------------------------- 4,425,000 | 1,900,000 6, 325,000
TABLE 3.—Summary on dilution ratio historical data prior to 1889
There is ample evidence to indicate that the senators and representatives
of the Illinois State Legislature and Mr. Hurd, who were drafting the
Sanitary district bill, had before them competent engineering facts and opinions
Whereby the ratio for dilution was definitely indicated. The amount fixed in
the act is clearly based on engineering recommendations.
Further, Mr. Rudolph Hering, as chief engineer of the drainage and water
Supply Commission, had a study made of available data both in the United
States and Europe on which he must have based his opinion. This was checked
by the experiments and tests conducted by Doctor Rauch for the Illinois State
Board of Health. &
The sources of evidence are:
1. Personal conversations of Langdon Pearse with Rudolph Hering.
2. Record of testimony given by Rudolph Hering before the special joint
Committee of the Senate and house of representatives, General Assembly of
Illinois, March 2, 1887. In this Mr. Hurd brought out the proposal of Mr.
Hering to use 18,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000 population (180 cubic
feet per minute per 1,000 population), and further to design the channel to
Carry 10,000 cubic foot-seconds, to keep the sewage out of the lake.
3. Record of testimony of Doctor Rauch before aforesaid joint committee,
in which Mr. Hurd brought out that over 18,000 cubic feet per minute were
required in the winter per 100,000 population. -
4. Testimony of Lyman E. Cooley before aforesaid joint committee on
April 17, 1887, in which Cooley suggested 24,000 cubic feet per minute per
100,000 population and a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second to prevent
Contamination of the water supply.
5. Testimony of Benezette Williams (consulting engineer to the drainage
and Water supply commission) of data from France, Massachusetts, and
Doctor Rauch, and further saying that 140,000 cubic feet per minute per
100,000 population was not enough. - -
6. Ossian Guthrie gave testimony before the aforesaid joint committee on
flows through the Illinois & Michigan Canal. -
7. Rudolph Hering, in a paper before the American Public Health Associa-
tion in 1887, cited cases of stream pollution in the United States and Europe
and discussed the ratio of dilution in the Illinois River at Peoria (170 cubic
feet per minute per 1,000 population). He also credits to Doctor Rauch the
ratio of 180 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population for use at Chicago.
He points Out that 140 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population was in-
sufficient in the Blackstone River. After a general discussion of conditions
in England and Europe he points out that dilutions are required at least
from 150 to 200 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population.
8. The preliminary report of the drainage and water supply commission,
January, 1887, signed by Rudolph Hering, chief egnineer, Benezette Wil-
liams, and Samuel G. Artingstall, consulting engineer, shows that engineering
studies were made and tests were also conducted on the dilution required, and
that for purposes of estimate 24,000 cubic feet per minute were used per
100,000 population. . -
9. Reference was made to Chicago conditions by Hering, Gray, and Stearns
in 1890 in a report on the sewerage of the District of Columbia, in which the
recommendation was cited of 4 cubic feet per second per 1,000 population.
10. Dr. John H. Rauch in a report of April 3, 1889 (Illinois State Board
of Health), stated that at least 14,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000 popula-
1778 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
tion was required as a minimum and more in winter, based upon his field
observations and tests. Liberal quotations are made from the drainage and
Water supply report also with reference to dilutions, mentioning four sets
of observations made in summer of 1886, winter of 1886–87, summer of 1888,
and January, February, and March, 1889.
11. F. P. Stearns, in Massachusetts State Board of Health, December,
1889, Summarizes the knowledge of the time and cites the Merrimac and
Blackstone Rivers. He limits the debatable ground for dilution between
2.5 to 7 cubic feet per second per 1,000, believing less than 2.5 will be a
nuisance, the exact amount to be determined by circumstances.
12. German data is given by Baumeister in a book The Cleaning and Sewer-
age of Cities (1890), showing conditions in streams of Europe. \
13. Dr. James A. Egan, in May, 1901, refers to past history of dilution and
Says Illinois State Board of Health determined in 1886, 1887, and 1888 that
about 17 volumes of Lake Michigan water will dilute 1 Volume of Chicago
sewage and form a mixture which should not create a nuisance in the Illinois
Valley.
HISTORICAL DATA, 1889 TO 1921
This data indicates the trend of engineering judgment and cites opinions
based On Observations from various States.
1890. Massachusetts State Board of Health—F. P. Stearns points out that
debatable limits fall within range of 2.5 to 7 cubic feet per second
- per 1,000 population. -
1897. Ohio State Board of Health—Allen Hazen stated that in sluggish
- Streams the quantity required for dilution may become either 6.8 or
- 10 cubic feet per second per 1,000 population.
1900. Rudolph Hering testified in Missouri v. Illinois that 240 cubic feet per
minute (4 cubic foot-Seconds) per 1,000 population was required at
Chicago.
1901. Rideal quotes Dupre as stating that fouling is prevented by 2 cubic
feet per second per 1,000 population (English data). -
1902. Massachusetts State Board of Health—Goodnough states that in Massa-
chusets, where the flow was less than 3.5 cubic foot-Seconds per 1,00
population, objectionable conditions result. With 6 cubic foot-seconds
- per 1,000 population or greater objectionable conditions are unlikely.
1902. J. Herbert Shedd testified before the committee on Charles Tiver Dam
- (Mass.) that about 5 cubic foot-Seconds per 1,000 population wa
required. -
1903. X. H. Goodnough testified before committee on Charles River Da
reiterating his Opinion of 1902. - - - - -
John R. Freeman said in report on Charles River Dam that a flow o
less than 8 cubic foot-seconds per 1,000 population Should be ampl
and that 6 cubic foot-seconds per 1,000 population should be suffi
cient to prevent objectionable conditions.
1906. Hering and Fuller in report to International Waterways Commission Sa
that 3.33 cubic feet per second per 1,000 population is as low a dilutio
as it is now possible to State.
1907. Emil Kuichling, reporting on conditions at Rochester, N. Y., Says a flo
200 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population should suffice.
1908–1913. Goodnough investigated the Merrimack River for the Massachusetts
State Board of Health and other rivers, finding a nuisance wherever
flow occurred Of less than 3.4 cubic foot-seconds per 1,000 population
1910. Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York reported in 1910 a flo
of 4.7 cubic foot-seconds per 1,000 population occurred in New Yor
Harbor.
1912–13. H. P. Eddy reported to the city of Cincinnati that at least 3 and a
much as 6 cubic foot-seconds per 1,000 population may be required t
prevent offensive conditions.
1913. G. W. Fuller told the Western Society of Engineers that from 3.7 to
cubic foot-seconds per 1,000 population was required.
1914. Connecticut State Board of Health reported that from 4 to 6 cubic foot
Seconds per 1,000 population is commonly required, in some instance:
running as high as 14.
























ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1779
1915. Kershaw notes that in England the eighth report of the Royal Sewage
Commission allows a dilution of 500 to 1 (equivalent to 31 cubic foot-
seconds per 1,000 population.)
1916. Professor Phelps reported to the International Joint Commission that
about 6 cubic foot-Seconds per 1,000 population was required for a
drainage canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
1918–1921. Connecticut State Board of Health stated that in two rivers of its
State 3.86 and 6.7 cubic foot-Seconds per 1,000 population were required
to avoid nuisance.
TABLE 5.—Urban population of Illinois River Valley

Towns on Illinois or Des Plaines River 1920 1930 1940 1945 1950 1955
J oliet to Chillicothe (inclusive).------------ 92,597 105,921 | 114,815 || 119,262 123,709 128, 156
Peoria and Pekin------------------------- 93,349 || 106,456 119, 703 || 126,326 132,950 139, 573
Havana to mouth------------------------- 14,526 17, 147 18, 715 19,499 20, 283 21,067
Total.------------------------------- 200, 472 229, 524 253,233 265,087 276,942 288,796
TABLE 6–Analysis of sources of water supplies of all towns and cities around
Great Lakes
SOurce: - Population
From Great Lakes or connecting river 7, 661, 839
From Other SOUrces 730, 211
From lake and Otlıer SOurces 17, 563
Total - 8,409, 613
Treatment of water:
Lake Water—
Filtration 2, 430, 949
Chlorination Only 4, 873, 237
NO treatment 357, 653
Well Water—
No treatment 117, 161
- Filtration - 12, 233
Surface water Other than lake—
Filtration 243, 164
Chlorination Only -- 0
NO treatment 357, 653
Combined SOurces—
No treatment 17, 563
Total - l 8,409, 613
paprilouſ q0U gz6I put ZZ6I SIB3A
‘populouſ 10U £Z6L I69X 2
'popniouſ 100 0881 Ibo X a
'popniouſ 10UI ISSI pub 088T SIB9A 1
9 & 5 IO ºf 8 GI & gz ºf 9 & Z0 '9 88 "I zg'I ------------- £36T-0361
I. 8 Zg ºf 91, ’8 6 9 "G 9 ‘II 8; 1. 62 ------------- 6L6L-g|6|I
# "Iz, 80 ºl 9 OI 1.I I & I Z '8I & I 01 ------------- fºL6T-0L61
83. # 61 # ‘ZI # ‘ſº Z, "QI 9 ‘IZ 9& 9 '91 ------------- 606I-906 I
9 '6I # ‘g I Z "QI # '63, 8 '99 ZZ .# II z 62 ------------- #06L-0061
9 "IZ Z '8T Z '06 # ‘gº, # 88 # 61 8I 9-12 ------------- 668I-Q68T
3, 29 9 ºz. 9 ‘ſº 2, ## 8 “Ig # 95 8'38 # 96 ------------- #68 (–068T
8 & 9 # 69 99. 8 '8% 9 &Q 9? 8 “Ig 8:19 ------------- 688[–988.[
gg ---------- #8 £9 & Z, A9 89 I # 58 8:19 |------------- j98I-088T
Jø B (39
O}UOIOJ, *H asºn OI8p119ſ ..º | Toneq |-ne ºw O309|UIO
$960.1200 pop.lad ſpaſi-90ſ ‘MOyſia. 89.3/10T 41,949 w! woº!plm.000 00000I
Jaao 10 894.449 “wop.101m000 000'00I 490 24 p. 114t,9p .1909.j p!oudfi,L–8 GITAVL
* - - - - - * * * *
* * * * * * * - - -
6 ‘I 60% ! I y I 16. I IIII 826L
- - - - - - - * * * 8 & Q & 9 '8 2, 3, 9. Q & I ‘I IIIzzóI
8 A. " Z 'g 92 ºf # 'g 8 "g 6 ‘I I ºf I------------------ IZ61
& Z '6 I 9. £ 9 ‘g I 'Z I I I------------------ 0.361
8 'Z # 'g # 8 9 '9 6 & 8 ‘g A '8 z I ------------------ 6L61
I '8 A '8 8 "I 1 l # "g I '8 8 '9 # I ------------------ 8I61
8 "g 8 ‘g 6% A 6 & Z. 8I Z "9 9-1 |------------------ AI6I
6 '9 6 8 8 y II I ‘g QI 9I 1 g ------------------ 9I6'ſ
6 "I 8 ‘g 6'9 0I 9 */ 0I & 'Q 8 g I------------------ gT6I
Z '6 6 '9 0I 9I 8 L. II & '8 6-9 ------------------ #I6I
£I 9I 6'8 9I #I Q& II II ------------------ £I61
#I g "8 II II Z "9 9I 93, 9-1 ------------------ &I6I
#& jø 0I 93, #I 9I 6I II ------------------ II61
£f 9I 9I 8I 8I £2, 9% #1 ------------------ 0I6I
93. 9I 6 % §I IZ, Iº, gi i------------------ 6061
IZ 6I ZI IZ ZI 02, 9I gſ ------------------ 806.I
Zºº, #I #I 6% 8I 93, 9& 81 ------------------ A061
6% 8% 9I #3 6I IZ, 08 61 ------------------ 906I
8I 0% II #& #I 02, 82, II ------------------ 906 I
8% QI QI % Zy 81 #I 0g ------------------ #06I
03, A. ZI 98 III 03 AI z8 ------------------ £06I
£I. £I II #8 98 % 9I g; I------------------ Z061
A.I. 6I 6I 1% #8 0% Ø, 62 ------------------ I06I
0% 82, 6I 93, 29 82, 61 02 ------------------ 006 I
03 93, 8I % £8 9I DI 1z ------------------ 668T
9I ZI #I 1& % 33, AI If |------------------ 868 I
8I OT 82, 0% 8× QI ZI 62 ------------------ A68I
A& 08 AI 0% 8; 82, 8I gg ------------------ 968I
A& #I 6% 9% 98 #2, 9% gg ------------------ 9681
9% jø ZI 69 6% 8% 93. gg ------------------ #68.I
ºf . 3I I? 18 39 Zº G8 #g ------------------ £681
Ajº. 0& I9 #8 69 #6 08 #21 ------------------ 2681
00I 0% 18 I9 09 #8 88 #11 I------------------ I68I
£6 Af Z8 0? 69 6I I? z8 ------------------ 068I
95. Af 08 08 $1. I9 8% g; ------------------ 688 I
Zg Ziff, ## 6& /º 9? Zy If |------------------ 888[
T9 89 38 $g Z9 99 I8 0g ------------------ A88I
9; $8 6% 8% 99. 68 08 69 ------------------ 988[
69 ZZ 08 gº, #8 6; 8% g, I------------------ 988 I
39 III & & 09 89 I9 . 99 ------------------ #881
18 ---------- 0% #8 99 09: 93, z0 ------------------ 888 I
11 ---------- I8 69 89 ___#9 Z8 Z8 Z88.I
99 ||---------- 82, A9 66 * * Ajº. go! ------------------ I88I
## £3, ## 18 #8 ------------------ 088I
UI J UTB
O4UIOIOJ, O+ *g 0181ſt).{ ..º, qolºog. wºn 03:30puo
!.
*10962.4 893/107 ºpa.1%) up u0,411mdod 00000I
.4240. Jo 824440 “wokºzºndod 000'00'ſ .42d 240.4 wºoap 42aal pyoudſ, D-1, 31&V.I.
'O.T.T. ‘Saa AIH IdäISSISSIW (INV. STONITII
081. T


:

TABLE 9.—The sanitary district of Chicago, information on water supply and sewerage of cities in the United States containing over 100,000
population
Water supply Sewage disposal
Popula-
City tion, 1920 e
CellSUIS Source Purification subjeº : P” | Discharge into— *:::::: * Stream flow Dilution Treatment
New York--------- 5,620,048 || Manhattan and Hypo filtration | Casual policed--| Ti d e water, None----------------------------- By tidal waters--|.None except
Bronx, Surface | as required on North and East isolated SeC-
water. Brook- || Long Island. River, Bay. tions annexed,
lyn largely as Coney Is-
wells. Some land, etc. Fine
S u r f a c e. screens on few
Queens, Same. outlets.
Croton Aqueduct ------------ Croton Reser- Chlorination----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission. voir im-
pounded.
Board of water |------------ Ashokan Reser- |------------------ Casual policed--|------------------|------------------|------------------|----------- * - - - - -
Supply. §. º ESOpus
IſèëK.
Chicago.----------. 2,701, 705 || Lake Michigan-- Chlorination----| At Sixty-eighth All sewage from Sixty - eighth 7,000 to 8,000 || 3% cubic feet | A c t i v a t e d
Street crib, not | Eighty-seventh Street crib. cubic feet per per second per | sludge, Imhoff
otherwise and | Street to north | Ot he r w is e ] second. 1,000 popula- tanks, trickling
by shipping. city limits is Ilone. tion. filters.
diverted from
e lake by Drain-
e age Canal.
Philadelphia------ 1,823,779 || Delaware and | Slow sand fil- || Marked--------- Delaware and | Own, Chester, Mean for 1911, By Delaware A small plant
Schuykill Riv- tration. Schuylkill Riv- and Camden. 2,080 cubic feet River. at Pennypack
©rS. ers (tidewater). per . Second; Creek. Imhoff
minimum, 197 tanks and trick-
cubic feet per ling filters.
Second.
P. No. 301.
Detroit-----------. 993,678 Lake St. Clair | Nominal sedi- | Creek and ship- | St. Clair , and Wyandotte------ 160,000 to 220,000 || Nuisance at | None.
and St. Clair | m ent at ion. ping. Detroit River. cubic feet per | docks.
River. Detroit Rapid sand fil- Second.
River. tration and
chlorination.
Cleveland--------- 796, 841 Rapid sand fil- | Shipping and Lake Erie and Intake of water | Lake------------|------------------ Part of city grit
tration; chlori- Cuyahoga Riv- Cuyahoga Riv- supply 4 miles chamber coarse
nation.
er (0.4 of Sew-
age).
er and tribu-
taries.
from mouth of
river and 9
miles from
SeVer.
ScreenS on east
side. Imhoff
tank on west
side.

;

TABLE 9.—The sanitary district of Chicago, information on water supply and sewerage of cities in the United States containing over 100,000
population—Continued
voir, O we n S
River im -
pounded.
Water supply Sewage disposal
Popula-
City tion, 1920 tº -
CôInSUIS Source Purification | * used : P” | Discharge into— º Stream flow Dilution Treatment
St. Louis---------- 772,897 || M is sissipp i Coagulation || Yes------------- M is sissippi |------------------ M is s is sippi | By Mississippi
River. se di m ent a- River below River om- River.
tion (lime and intake. m i S S i o n.
iron). Rapid M axi m u_m
f sand , filtra- 1,146,000 cubic
tion; chlorina- feet per second
tion. May 21, 1892;
e In 1 Il I IIl Ul III
§º Jan. 27,
Boston------------ 748,060 || C och it u a t e | Storage and Sed- || Very casual | Tidewater, BoS- | None-----------|------------------|------------------
Lake, Sudbury | imentation. policed. ton Harbor.
River, Wachu-
sett Reservoir. *
Metropolitan water 1, 206,849 |----- do---------- None----------- Casual policed--------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------
Metropolitan ------------|------------------|------------------|------------------ Boston Harbor, None; affects |------------------ By tidal waters. None.
, SøWerS. Hut Is I a n d, shell-fish beds.
Deer Island,
* Moon Island. g
Baltimore--------- 733,826 Jones Falls and | Stored in reser- || Yes------------- Arm of Chesa- | None; may af- | Tidal-----------|------------------ Settling tanks,
Gun Powder | voir. Filter peake Bay. fect shell-fish sprinkling fil-
River. plant now be- beds. ters. Secondary
4 in g built . settling tanks.
Rapid s a n d
filtration, and
r chlorination. - e e e
Pittsburgh.-------- 588,343 || All e g h en y | Sedimentation | do------------- A l l e g h en y | Towns below----| Mississippi |------------------ None.
! . . . River. and slow Sand and Mononga: R i V e r Com-
filtration, chlor- hela River and mission obser-
ination. Ohio River. Vation 1867–
1869, m in i -
mum, 2,000;
maximum not
t given. *
Los Angeles------- 576,673 || Driven wells None------------ Very casual----- Pacific Ocean---| None------------|------------------ By P a c if i c | Fine screens.
and Los An- - Ocean.
geles Réser -

;
506, 676
457, 147
437, 57.1
414, 524
401, 247
387,219
380, 582
Spring Valley
Water Co.,
storage lakes,
and u in d e r -
ground filter
galleries, Ala-
meda Creek.
Lake Michigan
1% miles off
Shore.
Potomac River
at Great Falls.
Reservoir -------
Ohio River, 8
miles a b ove
city (Broad-
way).
Mississippi
River above
the city.
M is S is sippi
River.
tion.
None. Infiltra-
tion rapid sand
filtration.
Chlorination
Only.
Sedimentation
slow sandfiltra-
tion, Coagula-
tion at times.
Sedimentation,
aeration, and
chlorination.
Sedimentation,
Coagulation,
filtration (use
iron and lime),
chlorination.
Sedimentation,
coagulation,
filt.r a ti on
(rapid Sand),
chlorination.
Sedimentation,
coagul at i on,
filtration (rap-
id Sand), chlo-
rination,
San Francisco
Bay and ocean.
Lake Michigan--
Potomac River,
4 miles below
city.
Newark Bay, 40
per cent; Pas-
saic River, 54
per cent.
Surface drainage
into Lake Pon-
chartrain; Sew-
age into Missis-
sippi River. .
Mississippi
River.
North Toma:
wanda, Lock-
Ort, Niagara
allS.
Milwaukee in-
take 3% miles
from mouth of
river and Sew-
age.
Ohio River wa-
ter should not
be used for wa-
ter Supply un-
til purified.
öö0 cubic feet
per Second.
Tidal plus Sac-
ramento River;
approximate
In a X 1 In ll In ,
387,000 cubic
feet per seccmd;
m in im u m,
7,199 cubic feet
per second;
mean, 33,350.
low in river,
464,000,000 gal-
lons; pumpage,
734,000,000; to-
tal, 1,198,000,-
000 gallons per
24 hours.
1,260 second-feet
to 131,250 cubic
feet per Second.
** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8,000 cubic feet
per Second.
* - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
River.
By tidal waters-
5 to 5.2 cubic feet
per Second per
1,000 popula-
tion.
Average Imonthly
64 to 1 up to 873
to 1.
By Passaic River
and tidal wa-
terS.
16 cubic feet per
Second per 1,000
inhabitants, in-
cluding adjoin-
ing population
in Kentucky.
By Mississippi
River.
By Mississippi
River.
None. Activated
sludge under
construction.
Passed through
grit chamber,
COarS0 SCI00IlS
skimming tank.
Discharge at
mid ch a n n e l
under 28 feet of
Water.
None.
Do.




;
TABLE 9.—The sanitary district of Chicago, information on water supply and sewerage of cities in the United States containing over 100,000
population—Continued
Water supply Sewage disposal
Popula-
City tion, 1920 "e -
CenSUS Source Purification subſeº: P” | Discharge into– *º Stream flow Dilution Treatment
Kansas City------- 324, 410 || Missouri River.--| Sedimentation, | No-------------- Missouri River; Independence, Mississippi | Estimated at | None
coagulation, Blue River, Mo., 8 miles | River Com- || 1:900 to 1 :
Sterilization. tributary of away. mission maxi-
above Brush mum 370,000
River, tribu- cubic foot-Sec-
tary of Blue; onds June 28,
Kansas River. 1883; mini-
Id Ul Iſl 19,000
Nov. 4, 1895. e
Seattle------------ 315,312 Cedar River----| None----------- No-------------- Puget Sound----| None.----------- Tidal----------- By tidal waters- Do.
Indianapolis------- 314, 194 | Surface water | Sedimentation | Occasional ------ White River - ---|----- do ----------| Minimum, the By White River-| None: Activated
from old canal. | slow Sand fil- Sewage. sludge plant
White River tration, sterilize under construc-
and wells. with hypo. tion.
Jersey City-------- 298, 103 || Rockaway River | Chlorination.----|----- do----------- Hackensack and |----- do-----------|------------------ By Hu d so n | None.
g feeding Boon- e Hudson River, River and tidal
ton reservoir. . Newark a n d waters,
New York
- -- • Bays.
Rochester--------- 295, 750 | Hemlock Lake--| None------------ Casual---------- Lake Ontario----------------------|------------------------------------ 3 plants; Imhoff
tanks in all; 1
plant for 10,000
population has
e - trickling filter,
Portland, Oreg---- 258,288 || Bull Run River-|----- do----------- No-------------- William et t e | None------------ Minimum 4,000 | By Williamette | None. -
River. k cubic feet sec- River, 20 cubic
onds. - feet per second
per 1,000 popu-
lationand over.
Denver ----------- 256,491 | (1) Lake Chees- |------------------ Casual----------|------------------ sº º tº as º ºse as sº º sº ºne as ºs sº * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Do.
man, 48 miles
on South Fork
of South Platte,
dam and reser-
voirs. (2) Platte
Canon, 23 miles
on Platte River
and Marston
Lake, settling
10 acres, slow



;
Providence--------
Columbus - - - - - - - - -
243, 164
237, 595
237,031
234,891
234,698
sand, 16,000,000
gallons daily,
rapid filter. (3)
Bear Creek Val-
ley below Mor-
rison, 16 miles.
Dam 12,000,000
gallons daily,
rapid filter. (4)
South Platte at
Mississippi
Street. Infiltra-
tion galleries.(5)
Chelry Creek
3miles in filtra-
tion galleries.
Maumee River.--
Pawtuxet River-
Scioto River
storage dam.
Ohio River------
Lakes north of
city and arte-
sian Wells.
8 hours sedi-
m ent a tion,
alum rapid fil-
tration.
Sedimentation
and slow sand
filters.
Softening, sedi-
mentation, CO-
agulation, rapid
filtration, chlo-
rination.
Sedimentation,
Coagulation,
rapid filtra-
At times due to
Variation in
lake levels and
wind.
Yes; mills, etc.---
Casual----------
Practically none-
Maumee River
and Ton Mile
Creek,
Dischargeis into
Narragan Sett
Bay.
Scioto River----
- - ºr sº sº tºº - * * * * - - - tº sº - -
No town before
entry into the
Neal Sherwood,
miles above
Toledo, DiS-
charge, maxi-
m u m 9,680,
minimum 370,
1906; m e a n ,
Minimum about
20 cubic feet
Ohio River. per Second.
Ohio River
Mississippi |------------------ Mississippi
River. River Commis-
SIOn; Iſlax1-
mum, 117,000
cubic foot-Sec-
ond, July 27,
1867; Imini-
Inum, 1,056
cubic foot-Sec-
ond, Feb. 4,
1895. Leech
Lake Reser-
V O ir h a S
changed mini-
mum flow.
* * - - - as sº sº - - - sº ºne tº - - as as
By tidal waters-
None at low
flow.
By Ohio River--
By Mississippi
River.
Screened, Set-
tling tanks,
Sludge dumped
at Sea, hypo dis-
infection.
Imhoff tanks,
sprinkling fil-
ters, secondary
Settling.
None.
DO..
TABLE 9.—The sanitary district of Chicago, information on water supply and sewerage of cities in the United States containing over 100,000
population—Continued
Water supply Sewage disposal &
Popula-
City tion, 1920 tº - -
CôIlSUIS Source Purification subjeº P” | Discharge into— *::::: * Stream flow Dilution Treatment
Oakland----------- 216, 261 || Lak Chabot | Rapid sand fil- || Very casual ----- San Francisco | None.----------- Tidal----------------------------- None.
- - A 1 v ar a do I tration. Bay. -
wells, Little
Lake Chabot,
miscellaneous;
- impounded. * -
Akron------------- 208,431 C u y a hog a | Rapid Sand fil: ------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------ I m p ou n d in g
River; im- tration and tanks, trickling
pounded. chlorination. filters. Plan-
ning new trick-
- - º - . $ ling works.
Atlanta------------ 200, 616 | Chattahoochee | Coagulation, No-------------- Peachtree, in- | None.----------- Maximum, 10 || Maximum, 1 to 1 || Grit chamber,
River above | Sedimentation, trenchment, 000,000 gallons | sewerage; mini- || i ###
Pe a ch tree rapid filtra- Proctor Creek. daily; mini- mum 1 to 1% tank, sprinkling
Creek. tion. mum, 3,000,000 sewer a ge; filters. . -
gallons daily; mean, 1 to 1 || .
mean, 5,000,000 | Sewerage.
gallons daily.
Omaha------------ 191,601 || Missouri River- Treatment by Surface con- Missouri River--| Possible sewage | Missouri River | By Missouri | None.
- Sulphate of tamination and contamination v. = 2.72 miles | River.
alumina, sedi- possible Sewage at St. Joseph, I per hour. Dis-
mentation and contamination Mo. charge = 30,-
chlorination. from Sioux 000 cubic feet
City. per Second. *
Worcester--------- 179,754 || 2 reservoirs in None----------...------------------ Blackstone River! None.----------- Minimum ap- || Practically none. Chemical precip-
Tatnuck Brook proximately 20 itation and sand
Storage reser- cubic feet per filt rat i on .
voir on Lynde Second, Sludge pressed.
Brook; 4 reser- {m m ers i on
voirs on Kettle tanks and
Brook, Sprinkling fil-
‘. ters under con-
• . - struction.
Birmingham------- 178,806 | Five Mile Creek, Filtration, rapid ------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| Sedimentation,
Little and Big | Sand filtration, septic tanks,
Cahaba Rivers; and chlorina- contact filtra,
dam. £ion,
tion,

3
Syracuse-----------
New Haven -------
Memphis.----------
San Antonio-------
Dallas-------------
Dayton------------
Bridgeport --------
Houston-----------
Hartford, Conn.----
Scranton - - - ----`---
171,667
162, 537
162,351
161, 379
158, 976
152, 559
143, 555
138,276
138,036
137, 783
Sk a n ca teles
Lake.
Various sources,
including Lake
Saltonstall and
impounding
dams 3Cl’OSS
Streams.
80 artesian wells
having average
depth of 400
Trinity River
impounded.
93 8-inch driven
wells 40 to 50
feet deep about
1 mile north-
east of center of
city.
Upland supplies
impounded,
private com-
- - - - - * * - - - -
Impounded - - - - -
Reservoirs on
Stafford, Mea-
do w brook,
Roaring Brook,
Little Roaring
Brook, and
Leggett Creek.
Water from Mill
River purified
by Sand filtra-
tion and chlo-
rination.
Rapid filtration
and chlorina-
tion.
Chlorinated ----
- * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To a small extent
• * * * - - - - - * * * * * - - - -
* * ~ * ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * * *
• * * * - - - - - - - as e - - - - -
- * * * - - - - -
James River- - - -
Onondaga Lake
to Seneca River
to O S we go
River to Lake
Ontario.
Harbor----------
Mississippi and
Wolf Rivers.
Trinity River.--.
Great Miami
River.
Long Island
Sound.
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *- - - - - - - º nº - - - - -
** sm - - - - - -
Connecticut
River.
E, a C kaw a n n a
River.
* * * * - - - - - - -s sm • - - - - -
* * * * * * - * * * * * * * * - - -
* * * * * - - - - * se eme sm - - - - -
* * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
* * * * - - - - - - * sºn ºn tº - - - -
* * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
Discharge is into
O n on d a go
Lake, which
acts as a huge
Settling tank.
No evidence of
Sewage in the
outlet 5 miles
from p O in t
where Sewage
is discharged.
Tidal
* * * * * - - - * * * * * *- - - - -
* * * * - - - - - * * * * - - - - -
* * * * - - - - - sº as * * * *- - - -
se see sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * - - - - * * * m = - - - -
* * * * * * - - - - ºr ºs as ºn as - - - -
* * * * - - - - - * * * * *- - - - -
By James River-
* * * * * - - - * * * * * - - - - -
By Mississippi
a n d W 0 l f
Rivers.
By Trinity
River.
By Great Miami
iver.
By tidal waters.
* * * * * - - - - -e ºn tº as wºn - - - -
By Connecticut
River.
• * * * * *z ºr - ºr * * * * * * * * *
None.
None. Settling
tanks, short pe-
riod of deten-
tion, under con-
struction.
None.
DO,
irriga-
Sewage
tion.
Imhoff tanks.
None.
Fine Screens.
2 a C t i v a t e d
Sludge plants,
. None.




water supply and sewage of cities in the United States containing over 100,000
Table 9.—The sanitary district of Chicago, information on * } H.
- population—Continued &
* ** OS)
Water supply Sewage disposal
Popula-
City tion, 1920 Subject t ll Affects wat
CenSUS e UlDjeCú CO 90ilu- TY; * ©CES W3Cer - & º f is
Source Purification tion Discharge into— Supply of— Stream flow Dilution Treatment
Grand Rapids----- 137,634 || Grand River.----| Rapid Sand fil- | Some -----------| Grand River----| None_-_________ By Grand River. None.
tration plant;
lime, alum,
hypo.
Paterson.----------- 135,875 | East Jersey | Coagulation, Occasional ------ Passaic River---|------------------|------------------ By Pass a ic Do.
Water Co., rapid filtration. River.
Passaic River.
Youngstown------- 132,358 Mahoning River *ical fil- Mahoning River ------------------|------------------|------------------
Tatºl OOl.
Springfield-------- 129,614 | Westfield and | Slow sand fil- |------------------ Connecticut ------------------|------------------ By Connecticut g
p y Little Rivers tration. River. §. €CU1CUI Do
impounded. *
Des Moines------- 126,468 || Raccoon River.-- Infiltration gal- Dès Moines |------------------|-----
leries and chlo- River.
New Bedford 121. 217 | Pond rºom. Tidal wat
€W be Clºor Cl- - - - - - y OnClS----------- OD8- - - - * * * 1981 Waters----|------------------|------------------ By tidal waters--
Fall River.--------- 1948: Nº Watuppal-do.... Fall River------|------------------|------------------ ####". Do.
8. K&.
Trenton.----------- 119,289 Delaware River-| Rapid sand fil- Delaware River-l------------------|------------------ By Delaware Do.
tration a n d River. -
chlorination.
Nashville---------- 118, 342 | Cumberland Co a gulation Cumberland ------------------|------------------ By Cumberland DO.
River, with hypo. River. River.
Salt Lake City----- 118, 110 || M ou n ta in One----------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * } = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e = }• = • * = - - - - - - - - - - - - - || -- ~ * = a- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stream *
Camden, N. J.----- 116,309 | Wells-----------|----- do---------------------------- Delaware River-l------------------|------------------ º, Delaware | Dilution.
IVěr.
Norfolk------------ 115, 777 |----- do---------- º Sand fil-l------------------ Tidal Waters----------------------|------------------ By tidal waters--
Tall'OIl. - .
Albany------------ 113,344 || Hudson River---| Sedimentation || Yes------------- Hudson River--- Poughkeepsie, Minimum, 1,500 | Can not be de- || Grit chamber,
prefilters, slow Rhine cliff, cubic feet per | termined, due screens, Iſºl-
sand. filters, State hospital. Second. to pollution hoff tanks.
sterilization. by cities im-
- m e d i a t e ly
g º above Albany.
Lowell------------- 112,759 || Driven wells----| Iron removal; ------------------ M 9 r rim a cK Lawrence-------| Average 6,000 to | By Merrimack | None.
slow sand fil- River. 8,000 cubic feet | River.
*
tration.
per Second.

:
Reading, Pa-------
Fort Worth
* * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * = ** -
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * *
110, 168
109,694
107,784
106,482
104,437
101, 177
100, 176
341, 991
ran dy w in e
Creek.
Storage reser-
voir on Stony
Brook and on
Hobbs Brook.
Impounded.-----
Lake Worth,
wells.
Missouri River__
Saw Mill River
and Creek im-
pounded.
Lake Ontario---
Slow Sand fil-
tration and
chlorination.
Rapid filters
and chlorina-
tion.
Slow sand fil-
tration and
chlorination,
Rapid sand fil-
tration a n d
chlorination.
Rapid sand fil-
tration.
Slow Sand fil-
tration and
chlorination.
Slow sand and
hypo.
sm * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
sm, sº sº sº sº sº me º sºme tº º sm tº * * * * *
as ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sanitary sewage
in the metro-
politan Sewer.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| Trinity River---|-
Spokane River.--
Kansas River.---
Hudson River --
Lake Ontario---
ë.
* * *s amº as sº m sº sº, sº * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
as ºs º ºr m = * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * =
* = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = sm.
T or on to and
Surb urbs ob-
taining supply
from Lake On-
tario.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1909–1912, 230
cubic feet per
Second.
From 2,000 to
30,000 cubic feet
per second.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By T r in it y
River.
Sanitary flow in
dry weather is
from 25 to 30
cubic feet per
Second.
By K a n S a S
River.
By EIuds on
River.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
None.
Septic tanks,
trickling filters
Ex perimental
plant for Pack-
ingtown wastes.
None.
Sedimentation,
effluent chlori-
nated. Sludge
pumped into
portion of har-
bor Set apart
for that pur-
pOSé.



1790
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
TABLE 10.-The sanitary district of Chicago—Earpenditures for sites for sewage
treatment works up to 1924
*

Amount When
Treatment plant paid for site acquired
Fifty-second Avenue, treatment plant--------------------------------------- $39,505.88 || Mar. 31, 1913
Calumet pumping station--------------------------------------------------- 12,423.40 || May 27, 1915
Evanston pumping station-------------------------------------------------- 11, 341.60 Apr. 20, 1916
Des Plaines treatment plant--------------------------- * - - 25, 194.00 Oct. 4, 1917
Calumet treatment plant--------------------------------------------------- 159,636.00 Feb. 13, 1920
North Side treatment works------------------------------------------------ 269,995.00 Apr. 21, 1921
Glenview -------------- - - - * * * * - - - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - - - * * * (1) -, 1922
Northbrook----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) —, 1923
Ninety-fifth Street pumping station----------------------------------------- 12,000.00 Nov 22, 1913
Calumet pumping station--------------------------------------------------- 29, 382.26 Do.
1 Gift of village.
(The following papers were filed by Mr. Pearse) :
EXHIBIT 1
BEFORE SPECIAL Joint CoMMITTEE OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF ILLINOIS
I’ROCEEDINGS
SPRINGFIELD, March 2, 1887.
Committee met in parlor 2 of Leland Hotel at 7:30 p. m. Present: Senators,
Reinhardt, Crawford, Bell, and Pierce, and Representatives, Sawyer, White,
MacMillan, Riley, Craft, and Meyer.
Mr. Sawyer was chosen chairman.
Senator Reinhardt stated the substance of the joint resolution under Which
the committee was appointed, as follows:
“'The resolution was to the effect that the people in the district I represent
along the Illinois River are afraid that the drainage system for Chicago will
do us Some injury from the amount of water proposed to be sent down there,
as Well as the Sewage it will contain. That is the reason I introduced the
resolution. The people fear they will be drowned out. Since the dams have
been built the channel is filling up in that neighborhood and it requires only
a Small addition of water to make it Overflow. It has already done consider-
able damage tº the bottom lands, and, I believe, damaged them at least 30
per Cent. We don't care to stand any more of this damage, and before this
improvement for the drainage of Chicago is carried out, we propose to find
Out how it will affect us in that section. The sewage water was so polluted
• in 1883 that the fish died in the water and the people had to stand the ex-
pense of burying them. That is not a very nice state of affairs, surely. We
thought it was the effect of the sewage. If you can persuade us it was not,
all right. I would like to hear from these gentlemen from Chicago as to
what “they have to say on the subject.” - -
Mr. RUDOLPH HERING was examined by Mr. Harvey B. Hurd and testified as
follows:
Q. What Dosition do you occupy, Mr. Hering?—A. I am chief engineer of
the Drainage and Water Supply Commission of Chicago.
Q. HOW is the Sewage of Chicago disposed of at the present time?—A. Nearly
all of it is discharged into the Chicago River, and, during nearly all the entire
year, it is pumped into the Illinois and Michigan Canal by pumps at Bridge-
port in the city of Chicago. It follows the canal down as far as Lockport and
there enters the Des Plaines River and thence goes into the Illinois.
Q. What is the amount of dilution of the water as it is now pumped into
the Canal and sent South ?—A. The amount of dilution during nearly the entire
Meal' When Ordinary Conditions prevail, that is, when the water from the Chicago
River is pumped into the canal with the sewage, it consists of one part of
SeWitge, and four partS Of lake water.
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) How did you arrive at that conclusion?—A. There
is an average of 45,000 cubic feet of water per minute pumped into the canal.
We know how much Sewage enters the river by knowing how much water is
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1791
supplied to the city which drains into the river through the sewers; we find
this to be about 9,000 cubic feet per minute.
Q. (By Mr. BELL.) You mean that is pumped into the canal?—A. Yes, Sir
Q. What dilution does this produce?—A. At present the city pumps about
6,000 cubic feet a minute to every 100,000 persons.
Q. Is that a sufficient dilution of sewage water?—A. That is not sufficient
to prevent considerable nuisance at times—it would give considerable Odor.
Q. By increasing the pumping capacity, could you give the proper dilution?—
A. Not through the Illinois & Michigan Canal, it is not large enough. f
Q. What would be the proper dilution of the water so that it would be inof-
fensive to the smell and innoxious?—A. The English river commission have
made a very thorough examination of this question, and the amount which they
thought would be barely enough to prevent nuisance in their rivers (reducing
it to the terms we use here) would amount to 9,000 cubic feet per minute for
every 100,000 people, or 50 per cent more than Chicago is now pumping. I
have proposed in Our plan, for the disposal Of the Sewage of Chicago, to assume
a quantity equal to double the limit in England—or in other words, 18,000
cubic feet per minute for every 100,000 inhabitants. I do that because. We
do not assume that the English limit would be proper in the Illinois River. We
propose to have an abundance Of Water, SO as to leave no doubt as to the con-
dition of the river being good at all times, Winter and Summer.
Q. Have you been engaged in making plans for a sewage system for the city
of Chicago, alone or in conjunction with anybody?—A. Yes; in conjunction
with my associates, Benezette Williams and Smith G. Artingstall, at present
city engineer at Chicago.
Q. Have you come to a conclusion in regard to the plans to be adopted for
the purpose of sewage?—A. We have come to the general conclusion that the
problem that we were instructed to solve is best solved by discharging the
Sewage, highly diluted into the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers. ' . l
Q. Give the committee an outline of the work to be done for that purpose.—
A. The sewage of the city is now, in time of flood, carried out into the lake
and pollutes the Water Supply ; We propose, in the first place, to divert these
flood waters into the lake north of the city; then it is proposed to excavate
a channel from Chicago following the valley of the Des Plaines River between
Chicago and Joliet to a point below Joliet, and into this channel discharge
the sewage of the city, diluted by Water from Lake Michigan. . '
Q. Where do you commence this channel in Chicago?—A. It will have two
points of commencement, one at what is the west branch of the South Fork,
west of the stockyards, and running thence to near the bridge of the Belt
Railway near Ogden ditch, about half mile north of the canal. It thence
follows the Ogden ditch to the Des Plaines. -
Q. Give the direction of the Ogden ditch from the point where the proposed
channel enters it.—A. The direction of the proposed channel from the point
where it intersects the Ogden ditch is Southwest.
Q. From the point where you strike the Des Plaines running Southwest,
what do you follow 2–A. Substantially the Des Plaines River.
Q. What is the Ogden ditch?—A. The Ogden ditch is a trench that was
excavated from the Des Plaines at Summit to the West Fork of the Chicago
River. A part of the Water during a freshet comes by way of the Ogden ditch
into the Chicago River. -
Q. Speaking of this Ogden ditch, what was the purpose of its construction?—
A. To drain the lowland lying east of the summit. It drains into the Chicago
River and thus into the lake.
Q. Is there a dam constructed across that ditch, so as to raise the ground
equal to its original height before the ditch was constructed?—A. Yes, sir .
Q. (By Mr. CRAFTs.) At what point?—A. Across the Ogden ditch, at the
Summit, about a thousand feet of the Des Plaines River.
Q. (By Mr. HURD.) How much of a channel do you propose to construct
from Chicago River south to Joliet? Give its dimensions and capacity.—A.
The dimensions are not exactly fixed yet, but the capacity will be sufficient to
carry off the sewage, diluted as I have Stated, and, in addition, the flood waters
which collect from a certain area about Chicago, measuring about 130 Square
miles. Of course the plan must provide for the future growth of the city.
Q. What will be the capacity of the channel that you propose to construct?—
A. It was necessary to take a very broad view of the question, and we as-
Sumed for that purpose a very large population, SO that we could be sure that
at no future time Some other project than that Which We recommended would
1792 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
be the best. We assumed a population of 2,500,000 for our preliminary esti-
mate, and with that assumption we find it would require a channel capable
of carrying 10,000 cubic feet per second. It is not proposed, however, to
recommend the construction of a channel of that Capacity at present.
Q. About how big a channel would be required for 2,500,000 people?—A. We
figured for the preliminary estimate, 200 feet wide and about 18 feet deep. It
can, to advantage, be made deeper and of less Width.
Q. You mean 18 feet in depth of water?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. On what grade would you construct it?—A. A grade of about 3 inches
to the mile. The exact grade is not yet settled.
Q. How rapid a current would that give?—A. About a velocity of 3 feet per
Second, or 2 miles per hour.
Q. You say you have calculated the size for 2,500,000 inhabitants; on what
basis?—A. On a basis of about 18,000 cubic feet per minute for every 100,000
people. The channel must provide for not only the Sewage but the rainfall in
the territory that is to be drained.
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) You say the proposed dilution would not make the
water sent down the Illinois River offensive. Now, what is the dilution of the
water that you now send to the lake?—A. It is almost impossible to Say What
the dilution is, because the quantity of water is so irregular. I can give you
the dilution at any certain time, knowing the quantity of water that went Out
there, but it varies So much that, as I before stated, it is almost impossible to
give any exact statement of the matter.
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) If it is so offensive when it goes into such a large
body of water as Lake Michigan, I should think it would be more offensive
in your proposed channel.-A. When it is offensive in the lake, it is SO when
considering it as drinking water, but not in any other respect.
Q. (By Mr. CRAWFORD.) Is there any odor in the lake water, whatever that
is claimed to be polluted by sewage?—A. There was a slight odor to the first
mass of water that was belched out into the lake a few weeks ago during the
great freshet. It took out all at once a mass of filth, that had been in the
river since the last dredging. It was in a condition far worse than it can be
when brought down this way with a steady flow. The flood water had so great a
velocity that it stirred up the sediment from the bottom of the river and car-
ried it out into the lake. It drifted toward the crib, the wind being favorable.
Q. (By Mr. SAwYER.) Is it apt to be more polluted when driven that way
than if it poured out steadily like a river?—A. If the river had been steadily
flowing that way there would not have been a mass of Offensive matter to have
been carried out.
Q. (By Mr. HURD.) After a short time flowing in that way did the river
Continue to pollute the lake water?—A. The first that was carried out was
gradually dispersed by the currents and wave action.
Q. (By Mr. CRAFTs.) That is the only time you have known of its being
Offensive?—A. Yes, sir. -
Q. (By Mr. HURD.) Now, Mr. Hering, I wish you would state what is the
elevation of the banks along the river at the point where the proposed channel
Will enter the Des Plaines?—A. The elevation at the Summit is about 8 feet
above the lake.
Q. You say the Ogden Dam here prevents the water from flowing north-
easterly into the river?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. The height of the Ogden Dam is about equal to the height of the bank of
the river before the ditch was cut?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the ordinary height of water in the Des Plaines River at that
point?—A. About 2 feet below the dam.
Q. What is the level of the Water as compared with the lake?—A. About 6
feet above lake level.
Q. How many feet below the ordinary stage of water in the Des Plaines at
the point of confluence of your channel with the river will be the bottom of
the Channel?—A. The bottom Will be at least 26 feet.
Q. At the point, then, where this channel and the Des Plaines would unite,
there would be a fall of water from the Des Plaines into the channel?—A. Yes,
Sir ; of about 8 feet. º
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) You say that the declivity is 3 inches to the mile. I do
not see how you get a fall of 8 feet at that point.
(Mr. Hering here explains to the gentleman’s satisfaction, by using the map,
how it is obtained.)
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1793
Q. (By Mr. HURD.) Now, Mr. Hering, is that fact important in connection
with your plan for the disposal of the waters of the upper Des Plaines River. 2–
. It is. t
Q. Explain that to the committee. Why is it that you must divert the flood
Waters of the Des Plaines by a cut-off above this point?—A. At present the
Des Plaines River splits its waters during freshets into practically two halves;
One-half goes down one way into the Illinois River and the other into Lake
Michigan through the Ogden ditch.
Q. Explain to the committee, please, why it is that you have to dispose of
this flood water by a cut-off in that connection. 7—A. Unless we take it off
some other way we would have to provide for this additional amount of storm
water by a much larger channel, or it would still flow into the lake through
the Chicago River. The additional width of channel would cost far more
money than to carry the water across into the lake by the proposed cut-Off.
Q. Have you made any estimate of the amount of water that passes Riverside
down the Des Plaines?—A. Yes, Sir.
Q. How much water passes that point in feet?—A. During the last freshet
about 10,300 feet per Second.
Q. Would that water pass down the channel in the plan as proposed by
you?—A. No, Sir. *.
Q. Where do you propose to divert the flood water of the Des Plaines River
into Lake Michigan?—A. We propose to take it from a point west of Norwood
Park by way of the North Branch to Bowmanville and thence into Lake
Michigan.
Q. From how much territory, in square miles, will you take the flood waters
and divert them into the lake, that now flow down the Des Plaines?—A. The
area of the wawtershed above this point is very nearly 500 square miles, and
we propose to take the flood waters from it.
Q. Would you, by the channel you propose with this cut-off, increase the
maximum flood waters in time of flood in the Des Plaines River? At the
point of its confluence with this proposed channel will there pass that point
down the Des Plaines toward Joliet a large body of Water after this channel
is completed than passes now in time of flood?—A. We have not been able to
Secure sufficient data to tell us exactly what proportion of the Des Plaines
water goes down the Des Plaines and what proportion goes down the Ogden
ditch.
Q. Ten thousand three hundred cubic feet a second passed Riverside dur-
ing the last freshet. Did that all go down?—A. No, sir; it divided at the
summit. Some went east into the lake and Some followed down the Des
PlaineS.
Q. I want to know if by your contrivance you propose to take off so much
water that no greater amount shall pass the point where your channel will
unite with the Des Plaines. On its Way South than now in time Of freshet?—
A. It is Our endeavor to accomplish that result.
Q. Do you think you canº—A. I think so.
Q. Why do you say you can not positively tell?—A. We can not determine
until we get positive data of more than one flood. We are now comparing
the results we got two or three weeks ago with the old flood marks which we
have along this river. I think this will enable us to ascertain the maximum
that goes down the river below Summit.
Q. Considering that the level of the proposed channel will be some 8 feet
below the Des Plaines at the point of confluence, and the size which you
propose to make it, WOuld not the flood waters raise the water in the channel
at that point to Such an extent that it will not only neutralize the current
Southerly but would cause it to flow back into the Chicago River and out
into the lake and thus cause the same trouble you are trying to overcome—
the pollution of the lake?
Q. (By Mr. MEYER.), We want to know if your channel would be sufficient
to carry off the water without its backing into the lake? A. The channel we
propose WOuld not carry the Des Plaines River flood water.
Q. (By Mr. HURD.) Consequently you would either have to greatly increase
your channel, or have this backwater?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. I Want to know if in building this proposed cut-off your purpose is to
prevent the flood water going below, as well as to prevent the flushing of
the Chicago River into the lake?—A. Yes, sir. It is as necessary for the
purity Of the lake Water as to prevent an increased flow down the Des Plaines
in time Of flood.
91739—24—PT 2—98
1794 ILLINoſs AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Q. How much does it cost a foot to widen your proposed channel from
the summit to Joliet?—A. At a rough calculation, $85,000 a foot, the entire
distance.
Q. To make this channel wider than you have proposed would cost $85,000
a foot for each additional foot in width ?—A. Yes, sir; that is a rough
estimate.
Q. About how wide do you think it should be to give the necessary dilution
for 2,500,000 inhabitants?—A. We have made a preliminary assumption that
it will be 200 feet in width and 18 feet in depth. If we decrease the depth
slightly, we could materially increase the width. The dimensions have not
yet been fully determined. We are waiting for certain data that are neces-
sary § make this channel suitable not only for the sewage but for naviga-
tion also.
Q. About how much will it cost as you have proposed?—A. I must repeat
that the first estimate we made embodied only a preliminary report, as we
had to decide which of the three schemes was the best, but had not proposed
to recommend the channel as large nor exactly in the way we have assumed.
Q. (By MR, RILEY.) What other schemes have you?—A. One was to dis-
charge the sewage of this entire district into the lake, so that the water supply
for the entire population would not be injured. We would take the water
8 or 12 miles north of Chicago, and conduct the sewage into the lake 8 or
10 miles south. The other scheme was to collect the sewage by intercepting
sewers, and carry it down into Thornton Township, and dispose of it by
irrigation on the sandy territory, after the system that is practiced in Berlin
and Paris. These Systems would cost vastly more than the One we recom-
mend, the first above $39,000,000 and the second about $58,000,000, with a much
larger annual outlay.
Q. (By MR, HURD). If you change your plan in any way, it would be to
make the channel less expensive. You have no thonght of making it larger?
A. No, sir; we took a very broad view of it, and assumed a very large popula-
tion. The present needs do not demand anything like so large a channel.
Q. In speaking of this irrigation System, whatever fertlizing quality there
is in the sewage is all taken out by filtration, is it not?—A. Yes sir; and
COnsumed by vegetation if the land is cultivated. Of course, in winter you
have to filter it. The nutriment is all lost then. The sediment remaining has
almost no value as a manure.
Q. In the construction of this channel down the Des Plaines Valley, do
you propose to interfere with the Illinois and Michigan Canal?—A. It is
not proposed to interfere with the Canal at all beyond the point where we
CrOSS it at the City limits of Chicago,
Q. In the construction of this work—this channel—have you any idea
that it will be any benefit in any other respect than for the Sewage?—A. It
will be a channel of sufficient size and depth and Velocity to be equal to a
navigable river. ,
Q. In the construction of ship canals by the Government, about how wide
are they constructed?—A. The proposition of the Government for the improve-
ment of the Des Plaines River is to make it 160 feet wide.
Q. The channel which you propose would be of sufficient depth and ve-
locity to be suitable for a ship canal?—A. That is the idea exactly.
Q. Have you examined the river below Joliet, to know how the proposed
channel will affect that section? Have you any measurements to know how
it will affect it?—A. We have inspected the river.
Q. Take it below Joliet or at Joliet, will this proposed channel damage
any property?—A. It undoubtedly will damage some property, which We have
estimated in the expenSe.
MR, RILEY. Mr Chairman, the committee wants to get some information
outside of what has been talked of between Mr. Hering and Mr. Hurd. He
...has got clear below Joliet now, and I don't think we have got any farther.
It is like an attorney asking his client all the questions, while the other side
has nothing to say. I don’t want to sit here all night, and I think the balance
of this committee feel a good as I do in the matter. I Want to ask Some
questions here. It is now 9 o'clock, and I don’t think this committee Wants
to spend all night here without having the liberty to ask Mr. Hering SOIſle
questions [turning to Mr. Hering]. I would like to ask, sir, isn't it a fact that
your pumping works at Bridgeport are of no use for fully one-half the year, if
the water does not come down the Ogden ditch and flow right around to the
pumps and is pumped into the canal instead of the Chicago Sewage?—
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1795
A. When that condition of things prevails it is of no use and the pumps are
Stopped. - - . -
Q. (By Mr. CRAWFORD.) About one month in the year?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) What is the amount of water running down the Des
Plaines past Summit all the time?—A. An insignificant amount of water runs
down that way 10 or 11 months a year. At that time the pumps at Bridgeport
are pumping the water into the canal from the Chicago River.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) If I understand you correctly, you said it required aſhout
18,000 cubic feet per minute to dilute the water so that it would not be offensive.
You propose to fix the channel for the population of 2,500,000 people.
Q. (By Mr. MEYERs.) How much would that be per second —A. Seven
thousand five hundred cubic feet per second, or 450,000 cubic per minute.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Now, where do you calculate to empty the water into
the Des Plaines River?—A. At the Summit. *
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) You told us you propose to give this channel a declivity
of 3 inches per mile. Don’t you know that the bed of the river at Lockport is
75 feet below the river above?—A. At Lockport it falls very rapidly. The river
is comparatively level until it gets to Lockport; then it falls very rapidly.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Now, 3 inches to the mile creates a current in a stream
200 feet wide, 18 feet deep, of 2 miles per hour. Of course, it will create a
greater velocity of water in that size channel than in a smaller one. Now, if this
is a fact, it will create a current of 2 miles an hour in 27 miles at a declivity of
6 feet; what current will be produced by the declivity of 26 feet? You propose
18 feet below the surface of the water in Lake Michigan, the water running out
to a point 20% feet below the surface of the water of Lake Michigan—that is
to say, coming at 26 feet declivity instead of 6 feet. I don’t see how it is
going to retain a Current of 2 miles an hour.—A. In One case you are taking
the top and in another the bottom. You must take the top in both cases.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) But isn’t it a fact that at Lockport you are 26 feet below
the surface of Lake Michigan?—A. But at Lockport there is to be a dam.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Between Lockport and the penitentiary there is a fall
in the Des Plaines River Of 27 feet?——A. About 25 feet.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) A dam will stop the flow of your sewage?—A. No, sir;
it simply regulates the velocity. We would have an enormous velocity if we
did not thus regulate it; we could not have navigation.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Why dig it so deep?—A. We have to dig it deep to get
the requisite capacity in the most economical Way. -
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) It is not necessary to build a dam is it? What is the
use to build a channel 29 feet into the rock and go to another place and build
a dam?—A. You could, of course, discharge the water without a dam, but you
would have a torrent that would wash everything Out.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) You don’t make your channel at the declivity you say
you do?—A. Yes, sir; about 3 inches per mile. •
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) How many dams do you propose to have in the
whole distance?—A. Lockport is the place for the first dam. [Map here ex-
hibited and Mr. Hering explains the various positions of the dams.]
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) You do not consider that there would be any more water
on account of a freshet So it would overflow Mr. Reinhardt’s district; that is,
it would be regulated by the size of your proposed channel and the declivity
yóu give it?—A. I anticipate no trouble in that line. The channel will have
only a certain capacity. If you empty more into it at the Summit than it will
carry, it will flow out into the lake through the Chicago River.
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) They have been talking about damages. How much
damage will it made down there?
Q. (By Mr. CRAwFORD.) I don’t know whether Mr. Hering has ever made an
examination to determine what amount of water passes La Salle at the present
time. What percentage of the water below the mouth of the Kankakee comes
down the Des Plaines River? It is not over 5 or 6 per cent, is it?—A. It is
about 6 or 7 per cent.
Mr. REIN HARDT. In the Spring Of the year we have not so much objection.
It is Only in the Summer.
Mr. HURD. Mr. Reinhardt, I suppose you understand that the Ordinary stage
of water in your section will be raised. I was going On to show how much
and what we proposed to do about it.
Mr. SAwYER. Any further questions that the committee wish to ask 2
1796 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Q. (By Mr. CRAwFORD.) Mr. Hering what is the amount of water during
floods in the neighborhood of Morris and Peru?—A. At Morris in extreme
floods it is estimated as being 100,000 cubic feet per second.
Q. (By Mr. CRAWFORD.) The whole water coming in from the Kankakee and
Des Plaines?—A. Yes, sir; roughly estimated.
Q. (By Mr. CRAWFORD.) Six or seven per cent of this comes from the Des
Plaines?—A. Yes; 6,000 or 7,000 comes down from the Des Plaines.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) But how much water a second do you propose to bring
down your channel with the declivity you intend to give it? What Mr. Rein-
hardt Wants to know is if that amount will be added to the amount you say
the Des Plaines sends down in time of flood.—A. We propose to take the entire
flood water into the lake by means of our cut-off. We estimate to take out
10,000 feet if there should be so much.
Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Suppose, now, you don’t take it across there at all
£pointing to a place on map where cut-off is to be built] but you let it all come
into your channel at the Summit; Would any more pass down the channel?—
A. Yes, sir; that is, we would have to make a channel large enough to carry
it, but it would be too expensive to make it practicable.
Q. Your channel, as you propose it, Will be from 6 to 8 feet below the
Des Plaines at that point (Summit) and being of the size and grade
you say, would not the water in excess of what the channel would carry
South run out through your channel into the Chicago river and into the
Lake?—A. Of course it WOuld.
, Q. (By Mr. CRAwFoRD.) When your plans are in Operation will more water
pass Morris and La Salle than pass it now?—A. We propose to keep the
flood water of the Desplaines out of the channel, so that the flow through it
will not exceed the present maximum at Summit.
Q. (By Mr. CRAwFoRD.) The trouble with Mr. Reinhardt and the people
along the river is not so much what might take place in the freshet but
during the summer.—A. You [addressing Mr. Reinhardt] don’t care any-
thing about the freshet. . . .
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) We have to have a freshet, but want to know
what we will have in the summer time. [Map exhibited showing the amount
of water passing La Salle and Morris.]
Mr. REINHARDT. With Our present drainage law a man who wishes to
drain his land has to get permission from the man below him? *
Mr. HURD. We must first buy or condemn and pay for land before we
can take or damage it. We do not expect to take anybody’s property any
more than a railroad can, until we pay for it. This the constitution guarantees
and we are willing to put it into the bill. The estimates of the cost of the
work include $1,000,000 for damages.
. Q. (By Mr. BELL.) How far down do you think property will be damaged?—
A. There will be very little damage below Marseilles.
Mr. HURD. If the Government should take charge of the river before we
get our channel constructed and erects dams as its engineers recommend,
it is possible the Government will pay Some portion of the damages, perhaps
all. It would not be possible for Chicago or any municipality to take land
without paying for it, and I have prepared an amendment to the bill which
I propose to . offer When it comes up in the committee; we must condemn in
the regular way and make settlements with the Owners; our condemnation
Suits to be in the COunty Where the land is located.
Mr. WHITE. What interest would the General Government have in taking
charge of it?
Mr. HURD. In taking charge of the navigation. It is already proposed to
improve the river by Slack water and to construct a channel from Joliet to
Chicago. If Chicago should construct the one proposed, it would not Only
answer the purposes of the Government plan but bring a speedy solution of
the waterway problem.
Mr. SAwYER. Do we understand, then, that it would raise the river below
Joliet?
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) Where does the damage come in 2—A. The regular
discharge down there will not make the river leave its banks.
Mr. SAwYER. I think our water has been raised much quicker Since the
country has used so much tiling.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I think there is no doubt of that.
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) What is an estimate of the raise at Marseilles?—
A. About 2 feet.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1797
r
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) Is that a fair estimate?—A. Yes, sir; it is rather
less than 2 feet. - r -
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) Did I not understand you to say 5 feet?--A. That
is above Marseilles, below where the Kankakee comes in. It is different in
different places, depending on the width of the river bed. Five feet applies to
Morris. It would be less than that below. At the foot of Lake Joliet it is Only
raised about 4 feet. Of course, where the water spreads out it Will not raise it
so high.
Q. *By Mr. REINEARDT.) You estimate the damage at a million dollars below
Marseilles? !
Mr. HERING. We have not yet made an estimate of the damages at that
particular point.
Mr. CRAFTs. It would not make any difference, would it, whether it Was
one or five million? It would have to be paid.
Mr. HURD. Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. REINHARDT.) You think this dilution of 18,000 cubic feet a
minute would be sufficient for each 100,000 people?—A. Yes, Sir.
Q. (By Mr. CRAwford.) How much water would pass down this channel
when it is made?—A. That depends on its size, .
Q. (By Mr. CRAwFoRD.) Taking it as you etimated?—A. Six hundred:
thousand cubic feet per minute. $ . . .
Q. (By Mr. CRAwFoRD.) If this canal should be constructed Smaller than
that; say, a channel suitable probably for double the present population?—
A. A capacity of about 250,000 feet a minute. But I think it should not be
constructed for less than 360,000 feet per minute. * . -
. (By Mr. CRAwFORD.) Does not the Des Plaines carry down past Joliet
over 500,000 feet a minute?—A. It has done that, but it was due to an ice
gorge.
Q. (By Mr. CRAFTs.) As the committee understands, between Riverside and
near Lockport there is a sag and the country is quite flat?—A. It is quite flat.
There is no regular river bed below Summit. It is unfortunately mostly rock.
The water flows over a large part of the country now.
(Dr. John H. Rauch testified as follows :)
Mr. CRAWFORD. I suggest we hear Doctor Rauch on pollution. • *-
Doctor RAUCH. This is a subject I have been interested in for the last 20
years. For the last 10 years I have made the sanitary condition of the river
a special study. Have been over the river from Chicago to Peoria several
times between the years 1877 and 1879; cut holes in the ice Several times at
various places; discovered a per cent of Sewage as far down as Peoria. -
Mr. REINHARDT. Did they use this water for domestic purposes?
Mr. RAUCH. I believe they did sometimes. At that time there was only
about 9,000 cubic feet of water passing through the canal and passing Lock-
port per minute from Chicago; that is, before the erection of the pumps.
As it went over the dam at Joliet the odor was offensive; SO much so that it
was like emptying the contents of a privy Vault at times. &
In December, 1897, I Wrote a report which was based on my personal
investigation, and also had a chemical analysis of water from Chicago,
Peoria, and all the different points. I practically at that time represented the
State in that matter. I consulted with the governor before making the report
and also with the canal commissioners, and recommended that a pump be
constructed at Bridgeport with a capacity of 60,000 cubic feet per minute.
I made this report in 1879 and made a report also to the common Council of
Chicago, and the result was the common council of Chicago made an appro-
priation. “There is another view of the case to which the attention of the
municipal authorities should be called, which is that that city has no right
to unnecessarily injure the material and Sanitary interest of any other part
of the State. The community of interest which exists between the citizens
of Chicago and the inhabitants of the country lying along the canal and river
forbids the injury of either by the other.”
The agitation resulted in the completing of the pumping works, which were
constructed a year or two after, but instead of a capacity of 60,000 cubic feet
per minute had only a capacity to pump about 40,000 cubic feet per minute.
In last February and March I had the waters of Peoria examined every week
during the freshet period. There was no contamination from Chicago sewage
whatever. Then in the last part of June I commenced another series of
examinations at Chicago extending to Ottawa. The sewage at that time, with
1798
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
45 cubic feet of water pumped into the canal by pumps, was in ex
Condition to make this test.
The result is as follows:
The result of the test
Cellent §
In 1,000,000 parts
Albumi- ---- - ©
Płaces Free.| Percent | *...* | Percent | Oxygen | Percent
ammonial of loss ammonia of loss used of loss
Bridgeport--------------------- -----------| 26. 563 ---------- 1.633 ---------- 26.20 ----------
Poçkport---------------------------------- 12. 773 52. 1 . 753 || 3: 53.9 11.01 58.
Joliet.-------------------------------------- 9. 416 26, 1 . 432 42.7 | 7.34 33.4
Total per cent of loss between Bridge- -
port and Joliet.-------------------- 64, 6 70.36 |---------- 72 -------- * *

Now, I was with the governor and the canal commissioners making an in-
spection of the canal, and I carefully observed the condition of the water
as we went along the canal and also the effect of the entrance of the Kan-
kakee feeder, and there was no pollution perceptible to the eye. This was
in June, and in my investigation afterward, during this period covering nine
weeks, the sewage disappeared from the Des Plaines River below Joliet about
13 miles and no pollution was perceptible at Ottawa, and none at Peoria.
Mr. BELL. Was there just as much coming in all the time? • -
Doctor RAUCH. Yes, “sir." -
Mr. REINHARDT. What month? - : - | .
Doctor RAUGH. July and August, and they were exceedingly favorable for
making this experiment. I could not have had a more favorable opportunity
if I had been in the finest laboratory. I then made the following in my report:
“After a careful investigation I am satisfied that with 50,000 cubic feet of
water passing into the head of the canal per minute the Chicago Main River
and South Branch will be purified; no nuisance will result from Sewage at
Joliet and below, and the potability of the water in the Illinois River at
Peoria will not be in the least affected from that source. An increase of
water to 60,000 cubic feet per minute would, in my opinion, take in addition
the sewage of the North Branch after it has once been cleaned out, and Would
diminish the nuisance in the south fork at the South Branch at least three-
fourths.”
Every development since that time has corroborated the Conclusion then
arrived at, and the practical experience of the past 12 months amounts to a
demonstration. At the date when the estimate of the number of cubic feet
per minute necessary to secure the above results was made, the population of
the city was less than 500,000, of which number fully 20 per cent, or, say
100,000, furnished no share of the sewage pollution of the river, either for
want of sewer connections or because it was discharged directly into the lake.
So that the figures 50,000 and 6,000 cubic feet per minute represent a minimum
of 12,250, and a maximum of 15,000 feet of water per minute, to be removed
from the South Branch of the south river into the canal for every 100,000
inhabitants, whose household and manufacturing wastes are discharged into
the river and its branches.
In summer, when oxidation proceeds most rapidly owing to favorable light,
heat, and motion, the minimum quantity would have sufficed ; but in winter,
when oxidation is retarded by ice formation shutting out light and air, by low
temperature and impeded motion, it is probable that the maximum dilution
would be necessary. Since the time when this estimate Was made, there has
Been a decrease of the waste from certain industries, notably from the
slaughter and packing houses. This diminution is likely to continue as these
wastes are more fully utilized, so that it is probably safe to assume that the
maximum concentration of the sewage effluent of the Chicago River has been
reached, and that in the future a lesser, rather than a greater percentage of
dilution will suffice than the above figures would require.
For the information of the gentlemen of the committee, I will state all the
sewage below Twelfth Street goes into the lake.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1799
Mr. BELL. Under the proposed plan, it is proposed to send all the sewage
down the river and none into the lake, is it not? - º
Doctor RAUCH. That is the proposed plan. As it is now about 45,000 cubic
feet of water is pumped. The full set of pumps are not in operation, so that
I estimate that 45,000 feet of water to every 100,000 people will so pollute it.
The Subject of pollution of streams is one that I am greatly interested in and
the question of water supplies for the different cities and towns. Now, at
Peoria during the summer there was no evidence whatever of pollution, but
at times we discovered various other conditions of vegetable and organic
matter. That is not exactly a fair test as far as Chicago sewage is con-
cerned. The inlet pipe of the Peoria waterworks—the small branch—lays
but a few feet from where the drains of the territory where 5,000 people live
empties. The present mayor told me that brook formerly run down behind
Where the waterworks were and now it runs above. That makes quite a
difference. -
Mr. CRAwFoRD. How does the city of Peoria dispose of the sewage?
Doctor RAUCH. Generally into the river below, but that does not interfere
With the waterworks now. --
During the winter when the river was frozen over I did not have time to
make data. When the canal was frozen over from Chicago and the Illinois
River to Peoria this winter I detected sewage to a limited extent at Peoria.
To show you, on December 27, at Joliet there was almost as much evidence
of Organic matter in the water there as there was in Chicago during the
SUlm Iner.
Mr. REINEIARDT. Under the ice? *
Doctor RAUCH. Yes, sir; this will give you a little illustration and a pretty
fair one of the condition of the sewage. Bridgeport, 17.6; Joliet, 13.20;
Ottawa, 8.20 of free ammonia, while at Peoria it was 3.60. Of course, some
oxidation takes place in fumbling over the dam, and the 14,000 cubic feet
estimated in the summer will prevent the people below from nuisance. In the
winter time it will require more. It will require 18,000 cubic feet per minute,
That is, to make it certain. º
Mr. REINHARDT. What effect will it have above the dam at Lockport; will
the Sediment fall down there? - *
Doctor RAUCH. There is no sediment. In ithe Chicago River, where the
velocity will be slow, it would be deposited to some extent, but it will not be
found down the channel. Tumbling over the dam would help purify the
water. Eighteen thousand cubic feet per minute for each one thousand people
will prevent a nuisance at Joliet and below that. Now, last Summer I know
that a large portion of the people used river water. There was no Chicago
Sewage there then, nor is there now. But when the river was frozen Over it
was different. As I remember there were times when only 9,000 feet of
water went through the Canal, SO that what went there was almost like the
deposit of a privy vault. •
Mr. MACMILLAN. Will this plan as suggested by Mr. Hering cause this
purification to take place after the river comes over the dam at Lockport?
Doctor RAUCH. I should not like to drink it there, but it would not be a
Inuisance. -
Mr. SAWYER. Do I understand correctly that with the volume and velocity
specified it would be perfectly safe as far as Chicago sewage is concerned?
Doctor RAUCH. Yes, sir; as far as the Chicago Sewage is concerned.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Chicago, I Suppose, has a right to pump that sewage out
at Bridgeport until some other means is provided'. -
Mr. MACMILLAN. Doctor Rauch, will the taking in of this new system of
drainage Cleanse the Chicago River SO that the people at the Summit and
below will experience no nuisance from the water coming down there?
Doctor RAUCH. I think in three days you will see a very decided change.
(The committee adjourned subject to the call Of the chairman.) -
NOTE.—After this testimony Of Mr. Hering On March 2, 1887, there was
another hearing of testimony, and, later, on April 7, 1887, further testimony
was taken.
1800 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
ExEIIBIT 2
SPRINGFIELD, April 7, 1887.
Present: Senators Reinhardt, Crawford, Bell, and Pierce, and Represen-
tatives Sawyer, White, MacMillan, Riley, Craft, and Meyer.
Mr. Sawyer, chairman.
(Mr. Cooley was called and read his views, as follows:)
Before reading what I have prepared I wish to make a statement. I appear
before you not in accordance with my own wishes but at your request. I am
not here in an official capacity, but I am obliged to some extent to use in-
formation collected under official supervision. I assume that you wish my
Views on the merits of this question as an engineer and citizen.
_In his last official report as city engineer of Chicago, December 31, 1878,
Mr. E. S. Chesbrough speaks of the problem of sewage disposal as follows:
“To get rid of this filth is troublesome and expensive. To turn it over to
Our neighbors, especially if they are much fewer in number than we are and
have convenient receptacles, is very tempting. To send all our sewage that
now empties into the main river and branches down the Illinois and Michigan
Canal into the Illinois River is very economical and convenient, but the
deep and loud complaints heard from the cities along the Illinois River show
that even a continuance of the present system, in all its strength, much more a
deliberate increase of it, will be resisted.” “
In a paper read before the American Public Health Association in September,
1877, Mr. Chesbrough says:
“The great problem of the future is that of nearly, if not quite, every other
large city in the world: What is to be the final disposal of the sewage? There
is a growing sensit veness to the possibility that an increase of drainage from
the city into the lake will seriously affect the water supply. If, on the other
hand, all the Sewage of Chicago must pass through the Illinois and Michigan
Canal into the Illinois Rºver, unless the canal is enlarged, the South Branch
may, before the population of the city reaches 1,000,000, become again offensive.
To prevent this and to put Chicago in steamboat communication with St.
Louis and New Orleans, it is proposed to widen and still further deepen the
canal, which, in connection with the State improvement of the Illinois River,
would be one of the greatest works of the Nation.” ”
The engineer board of 1865, which recommended the canal deepening, con-
templated “ that it would always keep the man river and the South Branch in
tolerable condition.”
In September, 1872, the year after the canal was opened, Mr. Chesbrough
states that the condition of the South Branch is not such as to justify the
increase of its pollution by adding thereto the Sewage from the North Branch,
and that it must not be supposed that the canal is indefinitely adequate to d’s-
pose of all the sewage that may be turned into it.
In 1878 a conduit similar to that at Fullerton Avenue is suggested to cleanse
the South Fork. The necessity of working these conduits toward the lake is
dwelt upon, in order that the condition of the main river and South Branch
shall Inot become intolerable.
Mr. Chesbrough's various writings lead to the conclusion that an adequate
canal was not practicable, or, in the language of the report of 1878, not “within
the power and means of the city in the early future.”
The deep cut was opened in July, 1871, and continued to flow by gravity
until June, 1883, the flow varying from year to year with the lake level or the
amount of silt deposited in the canal from the Ogden-Wentworth ditch, from
15,000 to 35,000 cubic feet per minute (probably less than half under the ice).
The pumping works, with some interruptions, threw from 30,000 to 40,000 cubic
feet per minute during the open season up to the year 1886, and to date from
1 I. e., by adding the sewage from the North Branch and South Fork.
2 In the discussion Mr. Chesbrough said : “I think if it could be doubled in width and
deepened enough for steamboats, as has been proposed, it would be sufficient for more
than 1,000,000 inhabitants; but that, of course, depends upon how much, filth is made
by a city and what is done with it.” He suggests two or three feet additional—say a
channel 120 feet wide and 9 feet deep at low water. This channel at mean lake level
and on grade of present channel would carry about 140,000 cubic feet per minute,
or 14,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 inhabitants. On a grade of one-third foot per
mile it would carry 240,000 cubic feet per minute, or 24,000 cubic feet for each 100,000
inhabitants. The flow would be more or less with variation of lake level, and not over
one-half in winter.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1801
45,000 to 50,000 cubic feet per minute. Since the fall of 1885 the Fullerton
A Venue conduit has been operated from the lake, or the canal has received the
Sewage from the North Branch also.
Eight years have passed since Mr. Chesbrough wrote, a period of enormous
Clevelopment with practically no additional sanitary provision. If the condition
then was a menace to public health and intolerable to Our neighbors, it certainly
has not improved since. The adequate channel which he then deemed im-
practicable—and which We may well believe he at least regarded as the ulti-
mate solution of the problem—is now feasible.
The design Of this channel is governed by two requirements to which all
others are subsidiary.
What capacity must be provided to maintain a good Sanitary condition for a
reasonable time in the future?
How far may it be made to serve a commercial purpose?
The proper solution to these problems will not only be the sanitary and
commercial interests of Chicago, but equally to all the communities in a belt
of territory the length of the State. Whatever Sanitary Standard the COm-
munities along the route may define and enforce is in greater degree decessary
for the well being of Chicago. Whatever commercial benefits arise will be
theirs in greater ratio. The interests are mutual or can not be divorced, and
there should be n0 family jars.
Climate, season, and the other circumstances attending the disposal Of Sew-
age in bodies of water, have been so diverse as to give rise to varying opinions
as to the proper degree of dilution. Unfortunately, in analyzing sewage, or
determining its density, too little attention has been given to measuring the
volume, so that our knowledge of the Organic wastes produced by 100,000 in-
habitants under average or Special conditions is insufficient. I will therefore
content myself with the results of my own observations and the known facts
respecting Sewage disposal at present in Chicago,
Other circumstances being similar, time and motion measure the rate of de-
composition. In quiet bodies of water, Only moved by the winds, Sewage will
decompose, but more rapidly when in motion, as a flowing stream. Whether
it decompose without offense or not is, I take it, simply a question of an excess
of Oxygen in the water. If, with the contribution from the air, the oxygen is
always sufficient for fish to live freely, we may be sure that dilution has reached
the practicable limit of efficiency.
If Chicago were blessed with a proper system of separate sewers, the sewage
would reach the outfalls in its fresh and inoffensive state, before decomposition
had set in. If it were here dicharged into a sufficient body of rapidly flowing
water it is likely that its presence would never be obvious to the senses. If
the stream was deficient, offensive decomposition would manifest itself at Some
point more or less distant from the Outfall. It so happens, however, that Our
low grade COmbined Sewers are, at favorable Seasons veritable gas machines,
or their flow is undergoing rapid decompoistion by the time it reaches the Out-
fall. In this case the nuisance will no doubt be greatest at Our Own doors
and the stream Will improve until the Organic matter is disposed Of.
What is the actual case in Chicago? Except for about two weeks in October
and November, and again three weeks in December, 1886, 45,000 to 50,000
Cubic feet per minute, somewhat less under the ice, has been pumped into the
Canal. The report of the State Board of Health states that during the sum-
mer 72 per cent of the organic matter entering the canal had been decomposed
by the time it reached Joliet,” and that at the same rate it would disappear en-
firely by the time it reached a point opposite Channahon or at the mouth of
he DuPage River. Practically no water went down the Des Plaines by Sum-
it from July 21 until January 19,” or the volume of flow was not increased
y land water. The time required then was 34 hours to Joliet and four days
O Channahon, as near as it may be figured. . -
channel ways of the city from which sewage reached the canal are, the
ranch, main river, South branch, South Fork and West Fork, to which
of 33 miles and a fall of 52 feet. . To DuPage River, 44 miles and a fall of
r wing to leaks in Ogden-Wentworth Dam. A slight amount went down for four
weeks in September and October.











1802 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
there is tributary in Chicago, Lake, Hyde Park, and Lake View, a population
of 697,000, distributed as follows:*
North Branch 3. 169,500
Main River 66, 500
South Branch and West Fork - 385, 500
South Fork © - 75, 500
Total 697, 000
In addition there is a population of 12,500 in the southeast corner of Jef-
ferson which will soon be sewered to the north branch, of 81,000 in the city
and northern end of Hyde Park, now going to the lake, which it is proposed
to take in by a separate System, and of 5,000 in Lake View which it is not now
proposed to divert; in other words, 93,500 will be added and practically all of
Cicero, Jefferson, and a part of Lyons, as fast as sewered—a present total of
824,000 on a natural drainage district of 140 square miles, more or less. ”
These several channels and slips aggregate a total area of 453.1 acres, 342.6
acres of which usually contain sewage of more or less density, an area 50 per
cent greater than the canal (232 acres) from Bridgeport to Lockport. Over
this entire area decomposition is more Or less active.
Eaſtent of channel ways of the city of Chicago
Destination Miles Acres Remarks
N º Branch, Belmont to Fullerton 1. 60 27. 9 No sewage of moment.
Venue.
Fullerton to mouth---------------... = * * - - - 3. 80 93 Conduit changes water in 80 hours. Con-
Ogden Canal.--------------------------- 1.04 12.8 duit 15,238 cubic feet per mile in 1886.
Main river, above Illinois Central Ry. 1. 00 31.9 |{Pumps at canal change water in 30 hours.
bridge. - Taken at 48,000 cubic feet per mile in
South Branch to Bridgeport------------ 3.90 89.9 || in 1886.
Slips, river and South Branch, including 4. 20 51.3 | Charged with sewage.
waterworks slip.
$º: º: º - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3. º º 7 | Stockyards Sewage.
est Fork to Kedzie Avenue----------- 2. 59 *
Slips to waterworks--------------------- 1. 90 23. 6 }No Sewage of moment.
Total----------------------------- 23.44 43.1
Sewage area----------------------------|---------- 342.6
h - - - - - -º wº m - w - - - - - * * * *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : * * * * * * - - - _| 232 Bridgeport to Lockport.
Except in freshet time the water in the North Branch is changed once
in about 80 hours; the main river and South Branch in 30 hours, requiring
Over four days for the contents of the North Branch to reach the Canal. The
South Fork is only changed by fresh sewage contributions once in two or three
WeekS.
We have then this question to answer: If 72 per cent Of the organic matter
which enters the Canal is decomposed in 1% days, what proportion is de-
Composed within the City in the 1 to 14 or more days before it reached the
Canal at all? Unfortunately we have no data to determine. If all the Sewage
could be turned into the canal promptly before material decomposition had
set in, what would be the required dilution for each 100,000 inhabitants?”
The analyses consider the problem after the sewage enters the canal and d.
lmot furnish the answer. A Statement of fact may be significant. -
The sewage now enters the canal with a large excess of free ammonia, sho
ing that great decomposition has already occurred.
The South Fork and its arms contain 63.7 acres, 46.5 being below mail
sewer outfalls. In dry Weather the Contents are changed Only by the Waiº
supply (15,000,000 gallons per day) in about two weeks. The sludg
from two to four feet deep everywhere in September last, showing tº
the remoter arms are reached with facility, or that the actual tim,
greater.” * - º º
The Brennock, or Stock Vards sewer, receives about 95 per cºlt Ol Cº
slaughterhouse wastes. This sewage was analyzed last fall and found to b
* School census of 1886. - º
* Present nominal dilution, 7,000 cubic feet per minute for each 100,000 inhabitants.
* I'vaporation would also in Clease the time.








ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1803
‘equal to 225,000 pounds of dry organic matter per day, or nearly double the
estimated closet wastes (122,000 pounds of 700,000 people. In addition there
is the direct drainage of 70 acres Of Stock penS. -
The only other sources of special sewage of moment are slaughterhouse
wastes in the south branch, equivalent to 20,000 pounds, and two distilleries
in the north branch. Considering livery stables, kitchen wastes, etc., the
organic matter contributed to the South Fork would seem to be nearly One-half
that Of the entire City.
By far the larger portion of organic matter is practically in Solution, and
even the solids may be so digested as to be quite inoffensive when they have
settled in the bottom as sludge. This sludge. when dredged up, is not particu-
larly offensive, although it may be undergoing slow decomposition, forming
gas pockets which break the Surface in boils when the bottom is disturbed.
The soluble matter in the water is, however, undergoing ceaseleSS and rapid
cIlanges, forming small bubbles which break the surface like rain drops.
This is like any fermentation, a deposit of sludge going down and a SCum
rising to the surface. I take it that the sludge of the South Fork is largely
the result of decomposition. This spring it has been partially cleaned Out by
the freshets, and Such occasions prevent its filling up entirely.
If we study the circumstances of this case carefully I think it will Seem
probable that by far the larger proportion of this Organic matter, as Such,
never reaches the canal.”
The South branch last fall had from a few inches up to 2 or 3 feet of sludge,
and even morewin sheltered places. In the paths of vessels it was well threshed
Out, but elsewhere it retained its usual character. This branch WaS SWept
nearly clean this Spring. The slips near Bridgeport are virtually Sewage pans.
Every little fluctuation in the lake voids part of the COntentS and inductS a
new Supply. Active fermentation is going on in these slips, too, and the deposit
is 2 to 4 feet, except near the heads of the slips. They have been little affected
by the floods. *
The north branch had from 2 to 4 feet, some places much more, and it has
been partially swept out.
All the circumstances—the enormous sludge depositS, the ceaseless ebullition
Of gas, the great length of time before Sewage reaches the Canal, the active
movement of shipping (a stirring up equal to a great current), an area of
Over 300 acres exposed to the light and winds, decomposition already begun
even in the sewer itself—all these, coupled with the disappearance of 72 per
cent of the organic matter in 34 hours after entering the canal, with less
area to air and Sunshine—again, we ask, what proportion is decomposed before
it leaves the City Or enters the Canal at all? Observations in the Canal alone
Will not determine it. Until we can know the absolute amount of waste pro-
duced by the city, measured at the Sewer outfalls, as compared with the aggre-
gate actually entering the canal, we can not fix with any precision the dilution
required for a perfect sanitary condition.
The canal can be made to carry about 80,000 feet, although Mr. William
Thomas, superintendent for a number of years, doubts if it can be safely done.
We certainly can not add any fresh territory without adding to the present
nuisance along the Canal and river. The increased flow On the present sewage
supply may not bring expected relief, as the more rapid current may bring
the sewage in a fresher or less decomposed condition. In any event, the best
that can be done With the canal is to increase its flow with the growth of popu-
lation, so as to maintain its present efficiency until comprehensive measures
ºf relief can be Carried Out.
' The best existing Scale by which to judge the effect of dilution is found
within the city itself at the various points along the river, as additional sewage
is added. The north branch is practically clear lake water from Fullerton
'Avenue, down to the big Clybourn Place sewer and the Phoenix distillery.
# it becomes highly colored and offensive, but improves greatly in a few
* * , , Fresh accessions then make it steadily worse, until we reach the
T.T where it is generally bad. The flow is here equivalent to 9,000 feet
*; east 100,000 inhabitants, and the time about 80 hours to change the entire
, a i *—i. dents. 19.
1. In September, 1872, Mr. Chesbrough discussed the condition of the north branch. At
certain seasons it was like the South Fork, or devoid of circulation, and the question
was as to the effect of turning it down the canal, and whether any considerable propor-
tion then went into the South branch. The conclusion was * “ that during the
hottest and dryest portion of the year it may be said that the water of the north branch
does not go anywhere, but remains stagnant, sending forth its offensive and disgusting
exhalations.”
1804 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
North of Madison Street Bridge we have a population of 322,500 and a flow
equivalent to 15,000 cubic feet per minute for each 100,000 of population. The
Conditions here are hardly satisfactory, and grow worse as we go south. All
the great filth producers lie to the south of this point, and 15,000 feet here
means that far more would be required when they are included. This ratio
might be sufficient if this point represented fairly the sewage of the entire
city.
The Official recommendation of the commissioner, contained in the prelimi-
nary report, is based on 24,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 inhabitants and
Sufficient capacity of channel to meet the growth of 30 years. It is not safe
On present information to reduce this provision, and it is not economical to
design for a less time. If the dilution is in excess it is Our good fortune to
have a channel sufficient for a few years longer. • .
A channel to carry 600,000 cubic feet per minute is also required to keep
Our Sewage from backing out into the lake in times of flood to contaminate
Our water supply, when the city is virtually taking a bath. After the diversion
of all possible tributary water to Lake Michigan there will remain 125 square
miles of the future drainage district partly paved and sewered, and 295 miles
of country district below Summit, tributary to the new channel above the first
weir at Lockport. In this the lake water will be entirely replaced at times
by Storm water.
It Seems probable also that no less amount will effect what is desirable
as an improvement to the Illinois River by natural flow. Of this I will speak
later.
Before discussing the questions of channel and floods, it may be well to
present the facts in regard to the low water volume of the Illinois, River and
the observed effects of sewage. - -
The lowest water of which I find a record was taken below La Sałle by the
canal authorities (date not given) and equals 37,980 cubic feet. This is prob-
ably the lowest since the canal was undertaken in 1836, with the possible
exception of 1871. Mr. Robert Wilson, of Ottawa, measured the low-water at
that point in 1872 at what he regarded as a more than ordinarily low stage,
at 122,000 cubic feet per minute, one-third of which came from the Fox. This
result, he states, did not differ greatly from results obtained by Mr. Jenne
at Henry. If we allow 41,000 to the Fox and assume that the canal was
carrying 24,000 at that time, which is not far from the truth, we would have in
the Illinois above Ottawa 57,000, of which say, 42,000 came from the Kankakee,
leaving about 15,000 to the other tributaries.
In 1867, which is spoken of as a very dry year, we have measurements as
follows:
Henry (actual) 72, 000
Kankakee (actual) 30, 000
Fox (actual) 31, 500
Other tributaries - ____ 10, 500
Ordinary low water may be 50 per cent greater and the ordinary winter
flow perhaps less. Until all accessible data are collected and digested it will
not be possible to State the facts fully Or draw general conclusions.
It is possible that this may represent the general flow for several months of
1886. Let us assume that it does, and that the flow from the canal averaged
48,000 cubic feet per minute. Then from the United States low-water surveys
Of the river and a knowledge of the area and topography of the watersheds
we may compute the following approximate table:

º º
Distance Days ºf ake
Place from from oºl * Remarks
Chicago | Chicago | #. cßgo
canal datum
R. K. K. R-------------------------------- 48. 3 4% 97 93.7 || To junction.
Morris------------------------------------- 58. 0 5% 59 100.3 || Bridge.
Marseilles--------------------------------- 74. 0 7% 58% 102.8 || Below dam, 109.2.
Ottawa------------------------------------ 81. 5 7.8 43 132. 1 || Bridge below Fox
Peru--------------------------------------- 97.3 9. 0 40 142.3 || Mouth of canal.
Peoria------------------------------------- 158.4 3.0 39 147.7 | Bridge.
'Time to Joliet, 34 hours.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1805
The chief thing of note is the large percentage of the total flow (land
Water and canal water) which comes from the canal, equal to more than half
the volume above the Fox. As the land and canal water may both be less in
Winter than in summer, this ratio may apply to winter also. The time ele-
ment as influencing decomposition is also significant.
There are three things on which there is a general agreement from Joliet
to Peru—the water is not so pure as it was before the sewage was turned
in, the ice is not fit for domestic purposes, and the fish are not regarded as
Wholesome. No improvement has been generally noticed in the last two or
three years from the increased flow, though a few have a different impres-
Sion. This is not strange, as the yearly variation in the land water is too
great to make a moderate increase of flow specially noticeable, and again it
may be due to a different cause which will be mentioned later.
The general impressions in regard to the river are those of the past 15
years.
The smell at Joliet is simply bad. This is probably due to a high rate of
decomposition caused by the great fall; taking the rate shown by the analysis
in the canal as compared with that from Lockport to Joliet, 1 mile in the
city of Joliet, has a stink-producing power of at least 2 miles of canal, and
it is at its worst in Winter.
Nine miles below Joliet at the rapids at the foot of the lake (Treats Island)
it is generally Open in winter and Smells bad, but it is not so specially notice-
able in Summer.
At the canal aqueduct, one-half mile above the Kankakee River, it can be
Smelled in the open season but not in winter except through holes in the ice.
At Morris it sometimes smells and has been noticed 130 to 140 rods away.
At Marseilles it is not specially noticeable in Summer but in winter With
dam and rapids Open it reaches half a mile away at times.
At Ottawa it has been occasionally noticed from the bridge in low Water,
and especially when ice breaks up ; also through vent holes in the ice.
At Peru it is noticeable through holes in the ice. The pools Of the IOWer
river Sometimes generate gas from vegetable matter alone.
We have then a gradually diminishing smell, localized in winter at point
Of rapid fall and at open spaces in the ice cover. Some have noticed it more
the past fall and winter and others less.
Sludge is said to be deposited in the basins at Joliet and of an offensive
character. This may be most largely earthy matter from the Ogden-Wentworth
ditch impregnated witih sewage, such as we find in the canal proper after We
pass the first mile from Bridgeport.
A Survey of the river from Joliet to La Salle was made by Mr. DOran under
the direction of Colonel Macomb in 1874, and again by Mr. Wisner under Major
Benyand in 1883. Mr. Wisner reports that “there are no indications of any
material change of location having occured in the river bed for a number of
years.” A comparison of results with those from the survey made by Mr.
DOran in 1874 shows that scour has occurred in the bed of the river amount-
ing in Some instances to 12 feet in depth but otherwise the general Outline
remains the same.
This is the more remarkable as through Lake Joliet the water of 1886 would
not exceed a velocity of one-tenth mile per hour, and would be about one-half
mile in extreme flood. At the deepest part of the lake these velocities Would
not be One-half the above. -.
At Morris it was stated that an offensive mud bar formed in low water in
the lee of a point on the north side, also that the Des Plaines water could at
times be distinguished from the Kankakee on the south side, although SOme
10 miles below the junction.
Fish come up to the Adams Dam in Joliet in high water for a couple of weeks
and bullheads stay sometimes a month longer. Bullheads are found in Lake
Joliet at its foot and about springs and mouths of streams, and are Said to
have a “tarry flavor.” Other kinds are found in the latter locations. All
kinds are found in the vicinity of the acqueduct, especially in the mouths Of
streams and under the drip of the acqueduct, apparently in Search of fresh
Water".
On set lines across the river below the junction with the Kankakee fish are
never found on the Des Plaines side. At Morris fish are caught On the South
side when they can not be caught On the north Side.
The fishing is good at Marseilles Dam in proper season, but they go away
in winter. At Ottawa and Peru they are caught through holes in the ice.
Sometimes they are driven up into streams in Winter.
1806 - ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
In the fall of 1871 fish were driven up the streams and died by thousands,
and the Wheels at Marseilles were stopped by dead fish in the following spring
and the Smell from them lasted into the summer. Fall and winter, 1871–72;
Were remarkable for low Water. - -
The fish become bolder as we go down the river and do not appear to be.
much disturbed from their usual habits below the Fox. They do not probably
Winter in the main Stream above Marseilles and in summer keep out of the
Canal Water as much as possible. In freshets they go everywhere with
abandon. The fish is a discriminating sanitary detective.1 .
If We accept the evidence cited, the sewage is apparent as far as Fox River
in 10W water and much farther in winter. -
If the increased flow in the canal has substantially increased the purity of
the Stream in the last four years, should it not have been generally recognized?'
If the additional water were from the lake direct, an improvement would
undoubtedly Occur. It is not, however, but additional organic wastes from a
Source where dissolution is already going on and, within limits, we can not say
whether a more rapid flow or less time in the city may not give with greater
volume an equal proportion. If it be a less proportion, but greater in the aggre-
gate, as it will Surely be, then will the proportion of the land water be
diminished, practically masked, and the Stream may be no better. The fresher
condition Of the Sewage, the shorter time to reach a given point, and the less,
proportion of land water may all combine in such a result. - -
It WOuld Seem Obvious, then that no new Sources of Sewage can be made
tributary, and it is not entirely clear that an additional suply from the pres-
ent SOurces short of an approach to Sufficiency Of Water would be effective in a
bettered condition of the lower river. This sufficiency must come from the
Hake, as the land Water Will amount to little in low water and in Winter.
Perhaps these speculations are not valid, and in the absence of competent evi-.
dence all we can do is to give the Scotch verdict. . .
There is another view of the case more pleasureable to present. Without
water from Lake Michigan, what will the river become in time with the growth
Of population ? -
The flow of the Des Plaines River at Riverside reached as low as 260 feet
per minute during the last year, and for four months it did not exceed 1,000.
cubic feet; measurements have given as low as 300 feet above Lockport in
former years. If Joliet were sewered how far would this be equivalent to her:
20,000 of population and even if we suppose Hickory Creek and the balance.
of the watershed this side of Lake Joliet to bring it up to 2,000 feet in ordinary
years, how far would this be sufficient for the future city of 100,000 which
Juliet expects to become? About her several growing suburbs of Chicago,
already beginning Sewer Systems, a prospectively large population, are tribu-
tary to this same stream. Will Joliet then insist that the Des Plaines must:
go to the lake through its ancient bed in Mud Lake Valley?
Below La Salle we have a measured flow as low as 38,000 feet and an ordinary
fiow from 70,00 to 100,00 from a drainage basin of about 12,000 square miles.
Populous towns are growing up on the Fox, Kankakee, Des Plaines and
Illinois. As we go farther down the stream the current in places is not so
great as that in the Chicago river with Peoria and Other cities to Sewer in.
What will the condition be when the population reaches the density of New
England for instance? Probably worse, as the low water flow is less and more.
variable and yet river population is already there a serious problem.
We may say without hesitation that a proper channel for the city of Chicago
is in the future and even the present Saintary interest of the valley, and that
it will serve the additional population which may shring up On its course.
Let us consider the channel from Chicago, its functions, and the proportions
which will best serve them, on the basis of flow of 60,000 cubic feet per minute.
or 10,000 cubic feet per second, the usual unit of engineering Statement.
For about one-third the distance the excavation will be in clay. Here the
velocity should be less than 2 miles per hour, say 24% feet per second, giving
a section of 4,000 square feet. This is not a matter of serious moment as this:
item for excavation in the official prism to Lockport is but 6 per cent of the
1 I,ake Joliet is just tolerable to bullheads. Allowing rate of decomposition from
Lockport to Joliet, an analysis at head of Lake Joliet would be as follows:
IFree ammonia - - -
Albuminoid ammonia - - - -
Oxygen used –––––– - - - - --
.
;
;
* ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1807.
total estimate.” We must give it depth of 20 feet (the width will then be 200
feet) to meet the standard now set in the improvements about the Great Lakes,
and if more is desirable it may be easily obtained by dredging.
Below Summit the channel will be partially or wholly in rock. Here the
item of excavation is 90 per cent of the cost in this section (72 per cent of the
total) and the area and form of section become important. If we may adopt a
high Velocity, the area will be reduced, and again if we make it deep rather
than Wide, we will diminish the dead area, or that above the flow line, and the
amount of excavaton. In other words, a deep channel and high velocity wiłł
be most economical. There are other advantages of technical moment.
No material ol' sufficient advantage is gained by a channel deeper than one-
fourth the width, and it so happens in this location that a depth of about 24
feet is most economical ; 24 feet by 100 feet would be economical, but would
require a velocity of 3 miles per hour tolerable to navigation, but higher than is
desirable. A channel 150 by 24 feet with a velocity of 2 miles is every way
preferable and would be a better channel than the two interOceanic canals Suez
and Panama.
There is a popular misconception in regard to the merits of a deep channel,
both as an aid to navigation and an adjuster of natural flow.
It is the understood fact in western river navigation and a matter of fre-
quent personal observation that a boat will steer better, run faster, and labor
less in deep water; that she will “feel ground " in a depth under the keel less
than the draft, and that she may “go wild '' in meeting an abrupt shoal with
a Small clearance beneath the boat.
Superintendent Leighton, of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, stated to the
Writer in November last that with the canal 5 feet above city datum boats
would make the trip from Lockport to Bridgeport in two hours’ less time (that
is, 10 hours in place of 12) than with a stage of water 24% feet above city
datum. This simply means that against a current 14 per cent greater the boat
Can make the same distance in 83 per cent of the time, an increase in boat
effect of 31 per cent. So we conclude that depth is valuable, and that it prac-
tically enables us to tolerate a higher current. In the design of future canals
for steam navigation, when this question is fully investigated, I am persuaded
that a depth of Zone and one-half times the draft of boats will be found eco-
nomical, and that we can afford to Sacrifice width if necessary to obtain it.
The influence of lake fluctuations and of ice are important considerations.
in determining the channel. The general level of the lake may vary 4 feet in
a series of years; the annual level varies nearly 2 feet between Summer and
winter, and there are irregular fluctuations seldom exceeding 1 foot. Again,
an ice cover virtually adds to the resistance another bottom and always
forms at a low stage. These two influences greatly vary the flow in shallow
channels and much less in deep. The following table is based in a cross-
section of 3,000 square feet in channels of different proportions and shows
the influence of high water in the lake (3 feet above datum) and 1 foot of ice
below low water, compared with low-water-flow :
High Varia-
CrOSS Sections Ice Water tion
Per cent Per cent | Per ce???
69 138 69
250 by 12-----------------------------------------------------------------
00 by 15----------------------------------------------------------------- 70. 6 130 59. 6.
166% by 18--------------------------------------------------------------- 72 124 52
143 by 21----------------------------------------------------------------- 73. 3 120 46.7
125 by 24----------------------------------------------------------------- 74.6 117 42. 4
111 by 27----------------------------------------------------------------- 75.9 115 39. 1
100 by 30----------------------------------------------------------------- 77. 1 113 35.9
In the interest of navigation, Water power, and a uniform sanitary condition
it is desirable to make the flow as uniform as possible. The winter flow is
especially important, and the channel should be designed with sufficient grade
to obtain the quantity under the ice at a low lake level. This will require
about double the summer grade and is not costly.
Again, the relative effect of floods on channels of different proportions may
be inferred from the column showing the effect on flow of a high lake level.
1 $17,872,616 to Lockport from stockyards.
1808 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. *
In the actual case, in a channel 150 by 24 feet, the flood increase under the
conditions of the new district would not exceed 10 per cent. -
By comparatively simple works at the weir at Lockport, adjusted with the
Season for the general change of lake level or for ice, the variation of flow
need not exceed 5 per cent from the mean from these causes. The merit of the
deep channel for uniform flow must be conceded. g
Let us see What economies may be effected by a channel to carry 400,000
Cubic feet per minute, as has been suggested, with the same velocity. If we
keep the width at 150 feet, it will be 16 feet deep with a grade one and one-
half times greater. This channel will cost about 83 per cent and carry 66%
per Cent.
If we keep the same grade and assume that a vessel will navigate the more
rapid current of the deep channel with equal or greater facility, then may the
deep channel carry twice the water without diminishing its use for navigation.
This means that 20 per cent to the cost of the smaller channel will double its
Capacity. -
Whatever channel Chicago constructs she will outgrow, and an enlarged
canal will always be the cheapest relief. Whatever the amount of water
turned southward, its good effect on navigation not only throughout the length
of the State but in the Mississippi as well will make additional water desirable.
The Government is constructing reservoirs on the headwaters of the Missis-
sippi to aid navigation, but here we have a practically unlimited reservoir
which, for a great effect, can do more for river improvement than can be done
by any other equal sum that can be expended.
It so happens also that the channel to Chicago direct is the cheapest by
which to reach Lake Michigan. From the Sag above Lemont to the stockyards
at Chicago will not cost over 60 per cent of the cost to Lake Calumet, near
South Chicago, so that in considering a great channel for navigation the Chi-
cago terminus will be the cheaper even with a new cut to the lake direct, near
Thirty-ninth Street. 3.
It would be unwise, then, not to design for future enlargement. How this
may be done in detail we need not now consider farther than that it is feasible,
and may be wisely provided for without material increase of present cost. To
provide the additional right of way is inexpensive, as it is mostly needed for
spoil banks, and this item is but 2 per cent in the original estimates. On any
investment plan in which it may be looked at it will be cheaper to make it as
big as possible now. - -
Below Lockport to Lake Joliet we must expend a million dollars, as the
present channels are entirely inadequate. We must Open a channel from the
weir to basin No. 1 ; extend this basin up to the Canal lock and give it a
greater depth ; widen and extend basin No. 2 down toward Hickory Creek, the
farther the better, and do some work below to the head of the lake; in other
words, for one-half the distance from Lockport to Lake Joliet We are virtually
obliged to provide a navigable channel, a channel in which the velocity will
not exceed 2 miles per hour but more than sufficient to prevent the settling of
any offensive matter. We may make it wider to start with, and then we may
some time double the flow, perhaps by a channel to South Chicago, by adding
60 per cent to the depth, and with slight expense, if grades and approaches
are originally adjusted to such a possibility. To make the channel Completely
navigable below Lockport is a work for the State or Nation.
The diversion of the flood waters of the Des Plaines is in the Sanitary
interests of Chicago and is of minor moment to the valley. The Des Plaines
above Lockport has an area of 774 square miles, of which 663 lie above
summit. Of this it is proposed to divert to Lake Michigan 500 square miles,
leaving 274 to drain southward.
If this channel were to receive the entire flow of the Des Plaines in floods,
its volume at Lockport Would not be increased much over 20 per cent. This
would be bad for Chicago, as her sewage would then back into the lake,
One of the things which she desires to prevent in the future. To make the
channel bigger below Summit, in the rock, so as to accommodate the flood
increment, would be more expensive than the diversion.
In regard to the flood Volume and its effect, the notes are not yet fully
digested, and the data is far from complete. It is entirely probable that any
statement that can now be made will be very approximate and subject to
modification when the information even now in hand is fully considered.
An approximate determination from heights above the three dams at Joliet
would show that there have been three floods in 30 years that ranged between
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1809
6,000 and 7,000 cubic feet per second, and that the flood of this spring, an
unusual one, did not exceed 6,000 cubic feet per second. The ordinary flood
is probably 5,000 cubic feet per second or less. This means that about one-half
the flood volume in the Des Plaines, varying with ice and vegetation in the
Summit level, has gone to Lake Michigan ever since the country has been
Settled. There are physical evidences to show that this has always been the
CaSe.
So far as Joliet is concerned, the question is of no moment, as the water is
cared for through the city and to the lake. So far as the valley below is
COncerned, it will simply be an addition of water from the canal at all times
equal to the excess Over the present natural flow.
Inasmuch as the Des Plaines floods are not usually in sequence with other
tributaries, it means a little more than this excess, but still an increment to
flood volume less than the full capacity of the canal.
It is not practicable to regulate the flow so as to materially affect the
interests of the people of the valley. The spring floods are of little conse-
quence to the farming interests, and it is not material if these be increased
slightly. At such times Chicago needs the capacity of the canal in her own
interests, and can not afford to check the flow.
The floods of the tilling season are important. Any checking of flow at
Such times might produce a bad effect at home. The effect of such a checking
WOuld not be material in One day as far down as Ottawa. Meantime the
Summer floods are largely local—short streams running out quickly and filling
the channel, and followed by longer tributaries, Sometimes falling as quickly
as they rise. We can hardly expect a meteorological service so perfect as to
enable a certain and substantial regulation to be affected, and if it could be
it would be of doubtful merit. - - :
It will be then substantially 10,000 cubic feet per second constantly at
Lockport, and the effect on such floods below as would not naturally come in
part from the Des Plaines will be simply of that much more water. The dam-
age will be great to individuals, but not of moment in the aggregate when com-
pared with the sum necessarily expended. To the people as a whole the in-
creased flow will bring benefits.
In the further consideration of the effect of this volume, we will divide the
Valley into two parts at La Salle, parts that differ radically in character and in
the effects produced by a given body of water.
The upper part is rock bed, in such proportion that any Substantial deepening
of channel or increased capacity from the effect of the increased and more
uniform flow, is hardly probable. So far as the channel may be improved by
natural forces, and in the interests of navigation, it will have capacity for
greater Volume.
So far as preliminary information indicates, the effect at low water will
be to raise Lake Joliet and the rapids and pools down to the mouth of the
Kankakee River, from 4 to 5 feet ; thence from 5 to 6 feet past Morris until
the Marseilles Dam is approached, and 4 to 5 feet in the vicinity Of Ottawa and
below, until we meet the backwater from the lower river. No complete assump-
tion can be made as to damages, as some of the data are yet in doubt.
This stage of water would be practically equivalent to that produced by the . .
seven dams proposed by the Government in the survey of 1883 for the improve-
ment of the river for steamboat navigation between La Salle and Joliet. It
was then reported that “the damage to farming lands from raising low-water
surface so as to give a minimum depth of 7 feet, will not be of any great
amount.”
As to whether a Summer flood in this body of water will have a greater
effect Or rise higher than it would with the Seven dams and the present flow,
can not be now stated. I have stated that floods within the banks would
be raised from 2 to 3 feet, more or less, according to stage, say at 10 to 12
feet above low water. At extreme stage the rise might be a foot, possibly
more, if the river were held by levees. Fortunately, at Morris I found the
river at Substantially the stage and volume under discussion, and from those
familiar with the river I was able to form a preliminary judgment as to the
effects Of an increase of 2 to 3 feet in Summer floods. -
On such lands or low bottoms as are now flooded once in five years the effect
would be to give two to three floods or so destroy the certainty of a crop as to
result in practical ruin. The higher bottoms now exempt would be reduced to
the relative position of the low bottoms or flooded once in about five years.
I810 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
The net result of the inquiry would give 20 per cent of the lands as "ruined
for tillage and the balance reduced in value to an extent of 20 per cent, say,
as an outside figure, a total of 40 per cent. There are no considerable bottoms
above the Kankakee River if we except Treats Island and the Du Page
bottoms. From a short distance below the Kankakee to 3 miles above Mar-
seilies the vast body of land is included. From Marseilles to Ottawa very little
low bottoms are found, and again, they are of limited extent from Ottawa to
Utica. The total now reached by high water probably does not exceed 10,000
acres, 40 per cent of which at $50 per acre would be the round sum.
Probably three-fourths of these lands lie in such compact bodies as to permit
their protection by levees, a protection of value to the entire bottom area and
less expensive than the damages estimated. The extent of present damage
does not probably justify their construction.
The rise of 1887 was a notable one in the Illinois River, and I present a
preliminary estimate of the maximum flow at Wilmington on the Kankakee,
Dayton on the Fox, and Marseilles on the Illinois.
- Cubic feet per second
Wilmington 25, 000
MarseilleS –––––– __ 44, 000
Dayton 14, 000
The total at Ottawa less than __ 58, 000
At Peru not Over 60,000
The height at La Salle was 30.33 on the miter sill of the lower lock,
which is 26.4 feet above the old low water before the time of the Henry Dam.
The stage on March 17, 1887, was probably equivalent to about 10,000 cubic
feet per second. The water falling was 16.6 feet on the lower sill or 12.7 feet
above low water; in fact, within 3 to 4 feet of the top of the bank. -
In the river, above La Salle, two facts must not be lost sight Of:
First. The effect of the increased flow may enable the cost of the improve-
ment of the river from La Salle to Joliet, for steamboats drawing 7 feet Of
water, to be reduced from $3,500,000, the present estimate, to say $1,500,000.
The channel work would probably be reduced and the number of dams from
seven to three—one near the mouth of the Kankakee, the one at Marseilles,
and one above the Fox at Ottawa, giving free navigation from Ottawa down.
Second. The water power available in the vicinity of Joliet would be 60,000
horsepower, and about 15,000 at each of the three dams, below. This, when
developed, is worth $10 per annum per horsepower.
The Illinois from La Salle to Grafton is one of the remarkable streams of
the country, and it is, very difficult to say, without comprehensive data, what
effect a given volume would have.
The fall in low water is variously stated at 26 to 28 feet in a distance of
225 miles. It so happens that a high water in the Illinois usually occurs at
the same time as high water in the Mississippi, or that the high Water slope
is the same. There are great variations, however, as relative Stage in the two
streams may vary. The slope has been as great as 37 feet, the Illinois rising
and the Mississippi falling, and again backwater at times reaches nearly to
Peoria. -
In regard to character of bottoms we may quote from General Wilson's re-
port of 1868:
“The height of the bottom land above the water in the river, except such as
are now low and marshy and inundated by a slight rise of water, is generally
not less than from 10 to 15 feet. -
“The bottoms are bounded by terraces and are from 11% to 6 miles wide
covered in high water from 4 to 10 and 12 feet deep.
“The river varies in width from 500 feet at La Salle to nearly 1,400 feet at
Six-mile Island (near mouth), with an occasional widening to something Over
a mile.” (Lake Peoria, for instance.)
“It may be stated generally that bars and shoals in the upper portion of
the river are formed of sand and fine gravel, the velocity of the current being
insufficient to carry this material beyond the point where it enters the main
stream. Coarses gravel, the detritus of rocky bluffs, is found upon the Shoals
near the bluffs from whence it originated. At Beardstown, Apple Creek, and
other points the river bed is composed of blue clay, in which large quantities
of muscle shell are imbedded. At Otwells Bar a pole can be thrust from 20
to 30 feet in Sand and mud.
“The straight reaches are almost invariably deep with a muddy bottom.
The shallows occur at elbows, confluent channels, and at the mouths of Creeks.”
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1811
This walley is the old outlet of the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. It
has deteriorated since into a species of slough, faster no doubt as the drainage
30asin gives an increased supply of detritus from a denser inhabitation. The
£WO State dams at Henry and Copperas Creek are probably contributing to
this deterioration, and those at LaGrange and Kampville, now building, will
Work the same way though the stream has a better chance for life below the
Sangamon or near the mouth. -
The stream is peculiar in that the banks are only about halfway to high
Water and that the channel capacity is very limited. The channel from La
Salle to Henry will carry, say, 15,000 to 20,000 cubic feet per second, and near
the mouth from two to three times this amount. The flood volume going into
the head of the Valley may be 60,000 feet, while at the mouth measurements in
the Mississippi would seem to indicate a flood discharge of but 40,00 to
60,000, although we have an added basin 25 per cent greater than that above
J.a. Salle. All this simply means that this old abandoned channel, this slough,
is an equalizer, a sort of lake into which water flows and runs out at its lei-
sure or rapidly, according to the stage existing in the Mississippi. To deter-
mine just what to expect in this stream requires comprehensive data.
We have some measurements which are significant.
The survey of 1868 maintained gauges at several points, and from the rec-
ords a plane corresponding to a flow of 5,188 feet per second was interpolated
as follows: * &
Stage Navigable depth
La Salle--------------------------------------------------------------- 8.4
|Hennepin------------------------------------------------------------- 7.4 || 7 feet.
aCOD----------------------------------------------------------------- 4.4
Peoria----------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 0 || To Spring Lake.
Beardstown----------------------------------------------------------- 2.8 5 feet.
aples---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 0 || 4 feet to Naples Flats.
Westport-------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 4
Hardin---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.4 5. 3 feet to mouth.
'Grafton--------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 3

We have measured flows as follows:

Quantity | Stage
La Grange-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 746 4. 3
Naples------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10,366 3.9
Bradford---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 134 4. 0
I'l'Om Some computations on the records at dams at Henry and Copperas
Creek a stage of 12 feet to 14 feet is inferred in the reach below La Salle.
This corresponds closely to the estimate made while at Peru in March, at
the Stage then existing.
We may say then that probably 12 feet will be added at La Salle to low
water height before dam was erected, 9 to 10 at Henry, 7 to 8 feet at Peoria,
5 to 6 at Beardstown, and something like 5 feet to the mouth. In other
words, we shall have a good 7 feet throughout without the dams and add
something like 15 per cent to the normal low-water volume of the Mississippi
from St. LOuis to Cairo. -
The effect On high water can not now he forecast, but I would as soon as-
‘sume that in an extreme flood, or the lake stage in the valley, it would not
be noticeable. If we assume a lake of the same area as Covered by extreme
flood 10,000 cubic feet per second would raise the surface of this lake about
1 foot in three weeks. If we assume this lake to have a gradual movement
southward and to be continuously draining out into the Mississippi, the effect
would be much less. The river would rarely hold itself at extreme stage so
long as three weeks. If we consider the river as stationary at highest floods
and add the entire 600,000 cubic feet per minute it would raise the surface
about, five eights of an inch in 24 hours. Water is the salvation of this
stream. A continuous and large flow will doubtless effect great changes in
1812 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
the bed, so that, ultimately we may expect an improved channel from natural
forces alone of not less than 10 feet for navigation. We know that the present
pools are the result of bars formed by tributaries which the feeble stream has
not been able to move. Between these bars and over a very large proportion
Of the river the depth is already 10 feet or more, with an oozy bottom.
When the Mississippi is low there will always be a large volume of water
On a greatly increased grade. This grade will doubtless concentrate at first
near the mouth and on the bars and work them out up stream. Again, the
flow under the ice is a tremendous force in reducing channels to uniformity,
as Observed by the writer in his investigations on the Mississippi, and this
force, more than any other, will ameliorate the channel throughout uniformly.
If these forces are aided in difficult places by dredging and works of contrac-
tion We can hardly be too sanguine in expectations. It is certain that ulti-
mately Summer floods may be carried more readily. * :
Q. (By Mr. MEYERs.) How much in area do you expect to drain by this
proposed diversion?—A. About 500 square miles.
Q. Then what surface drainage do you expect to cut off? Do you expect to
make the channel large enough to take in all the water in flood time?—A. Yes,
large enough to take in all the floods.
Q. How much surface drainage would remain to be carried by the pro-
posed canal?—A. In the city about 125 square miles. Below the Chicago dis-
trict Would be 295 Square railes; that is, between Summit and Lockport.
Q. That would make in all 420 Square miles.—A. Yes, s r.
Q. (By Mr. BROWNE, of La Salle.) I would like to inquire of Mr. Cooley, if
in the last 15 years there has been a single writer upon sewerage or drainage
Who States anything else except to denounce a system of drainage by the pollu-
tion of running water with ºn his knowledge?—A. I refer you to Mr. Williams
On that subject.
Mr. BROWNE. I have been referred to Some one else every time I have asked
that question. - -
Q. Now, I would like to ask further of Mr. Cooley if he knows exactly how
much the land Speculators of Chicago are to make out of this System of drain-
age.—A. No, sir; I don’t know anyth'ng about such matters. -
Q. (By Mr. MYERs.) I would like to ask Mr. Browne what speculators he
refers to.—A. Not given.
Q. (By Mr. MEANs.) In regard to the drainage through the Des Plaines River,
you have put down the drainage as 439 square miles.—A. There are about 439
square miles of that basin proper, and there are about 60 square miles of Salt
Creek, a tributary basin, making a total of about 500 square miles to be
d verted.
Q. Then is there not, according to the report of the commission, 130 square
miles of Chicago proper that goes into this ditch that does not belong to that
drainage district?—A. There are 140 square miles in the Chicago d’strict, 125
of which will send its storm waters this way. This is not now tributary to
the DeS Plaines.
Q. Practically is it not 109 square miles less where the present cut crosses?—
A. There will be diverted 500 square miles and .125 miles of new, quick-
draining territory added.
Q. It was stated that it was 500 square miles.—A. It is less than that, the
difference of the figures g’ven.
Q. The only point I want to make about it is that there was an attempt
made to make it appear that the amount of water from the Des Plaines River
diverted into the lake is a matter of greater importance. I understand you to
say that it is a matter of no serious importance?—A. It is of no great im-
portance to the people of the valley, but important to Chicago.
Q. (By Mr. WARD.) Is it not a fact that some fish seek sewerage for
medicinal purposes?—A. I don’t know as to that.
Q. Was it not so reported by a prominent English sewerage engineer?–A.
Some fish may seek fresh sewage. It is well known of carp that they will
live in a swill barrel. You take Lake Joliet and allow the rate of oxidation
which occurs from Lockport down to Joliet and you will find there, in the
head of the lake, about the same amount of organic matter as you find in the
river at Ottawa, yet fish live freely at Ottawa and are not much found in
Lake Joliet in low water. The free ammonia, however, is several times that
shown at Ottawa. This means that decomposition has been rapid, or that the
organic matter is probably nitrogenous rather than carbonaceous, or of a
character to decompose rapidly.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1813
Q. There is one question that I would like to ask you, and that is if the
object of a certain ditch that is proposed to be cut is to turn more sewerage
from the south branch of the Chicago River to the Michigan and Illinois
Canal, opening and constructing the main ditch, is that the intention?—A. I
don’t know what the intention of Chicago is, I would very much like to know
Imy Self.
Q. (By Mr. CRAWFORD.) Do I understand you to recommend a ditch 200
feet wide with enough depth so that there would be a capacity of 600,000
Cubic feet for a population of two and a half millions? In your opinion would
the damage from overflow caused by the increase in the amount of water be
any considerable amount Compared with the cost of the Work?—A. It would
not be over 1 per cent of the total cost.
Q. It would be small.—A. You mean the damage caused by the Overflow 2 It
WOuld not be a matter Of Serious moment as a, whole. That is One of the
Questions we are to settle.
Q. (By Mr. REILEY.) You recommend the canal for this channel?—A. No,
Sir ; it would be cheaper to COnStruct a new One.
Q. I thought I understood you to say that the 600,000 cubic feet that you
propose, would not damage the property along the line Of the river more than
1 per cent.—A. Not the property. I meant to say that it would not amount
to over 1 per cent of the estimate that Chicago was obliged to pay for this
canal. In other words, the amount that I had in my mind for the construction
of the canal was about $20,000,000 and 1 per cent of that would be $200,000.
Q. That is your estimate is it?—A. Yes, sir. I base that estimate on the
amount of damage from Joliet down to Peru.
Q. Has your commission reported a complete system of sewerage yet?—
A. I don’t know as you can Call their report a final One. It is rather a
preliminary One, but the coin missioners Can Speak for themselves.
Q. (By Mr. BRowN.E.) I would like to ask Mr. Cooley if the entire civilized
world has not rejected any system of sewerage which necessitates the pollution
of pure water. A. They have never done anything else than turn sewerage into
the nearest stream or body of water except when obliged to. Other methods
have been too expensive. -
Mr. REINHART. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Roche, the mayor elect
of Chicago, is here, and we should like to hear from him as to what Chicago
proposes to do in this matter.
Mr. CRAwFORD. Would it not be better, Mr. Chairman, to take the testimony
of the experts first? I think we ought to do this and get through with the
matter if We Can.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are any further questions anybody desires to ask
these gentlemen they will please do So now.
Q. (By MR. WHITE.) I would like to ask what per cent of the sewerage now
passes down through the canal, and what would pass into the same if con-
structed as contemplated, and if you include the stockyard sewage?—A. In
speaking of this subject I did not include the stockyard sewage. I wish
I knew what per cent did pass down now so I could tell you.
Q. I would like to ask you then where does the sewerage of the stock-
yards go?—A. It passes off into the air. It remains stagnant until it de-
composes and goes into air. That is, the greater portion of it does.
Mr. WILLIAMs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was requested by your
chairman to appear before the committee and I have complied with his request.
I don’t know that I have any special phase of the Subject to present, except
as they may occur to you. If you have any questions to ask I will try and
answer them to the best of my ability.
The CHAIRMAN. The object of the Committee is to inquire, as I understand
it, as to what Chicago proposes to do. . There has been presented to the gen-
eral assembly two bills. There has been Some amendments submitted to
these which have as yet not been adopted. This committee 1s for the dis-
cussion and consideration of these bills and their amendments. The Com-
mittee will ask such questions as they may see fit. -
Mr. WILLIAMs. I can not undertake to state what the city of Chicago pro-
poses to do, and can only answer So far as my own opinion may go as to what
should be done. -
Mr. CRAwFORD. The committee desires to know whether it is feasible t
divert the fiow of sewerage down the Des Plaines River, and Whether it can
be done without injury to the lives of the people along the river; also the
amount of damage that will be caused by the additional overflow of Water, if
1814 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
your plan is to give an additional overflow 2—A. In regard to the first part of
your question, whether it can be done without injury to life and health, I car.
Say most certainly that it can. If the plan is carried out on the scale sug-
gested in the preliminary report of the commissioners there will not be the
least danger to life or health, nor will there be any odor in consequence of
the Sewage. It is needless for me to answer the second part of the question,
as Mr. Cooley has given all the facts so far as they are to be had, and I
have made no personal investigation to determine the amount of damages:
that will be caused by overflow.
Q. Do you think that it is feasible to turn any more sewerage into this
valley before the proposed canal is cut?—A. Yes, sir; it would be entirely
feasible if you turn in more water with it, and it is the only thing to do, until
Such time as the proposed channel is completed.
Q. How would you turn more water in 7–A. By increasing the capacity of
the Canal by raising its banks, and by putting in additional pumping ma–
Chinery, as was proposed in the report alluded to. In that case you would not
be damaged.
Q. This arrangement would be merely temporary?—A. Yes, sir; until the
final channel was completed.
Q. HOW long will this final construction take?—A. That will depend entirely
upon the finances. From an engineering point of view not to exceed two or
three years. Whether it can be completed in that time will depend upon the
raising of the money.
Q. (By Mr. WARD.) In case of an epidemic in Chicago the people along
the river would run some risk of disease from bacteria, would they not?—
A. All Sewage water contains bacteria, and as to whether there would be
risk depends upon Whether the bacteria. Of disease Should be taken into the
Stomach. - .
Q. Is it not a fact that disease is conveyed by water?—A. There have been
many cases in which disease germs were conveyed by drinking water when
the water was apparently uncontaminated by Sewage. -
Q. Dilution does not remove the risk of disease, then?—A. No, sir; not if
the bacteria Supposed to cause the disease are taken into the Stomach.
Q. (By Mr. McMILLAN.) Is it feasible for the sewerage of Chicago to be
carried into the lake by a flow of the river as it was years ago? Is this plan
as suggested by both these bills the only feasible plan for solving the question
of the sewerage of Chicago?—A. I consider it the only feasible plan. To be sure
lake and land disposal can be carried out but at a much greater expense.
Q. (By Mr. REILEY.) This is the most feasible plan because it is the
cheapest?—A. That is not the only reason by any means.
Q. Have the other plans been examined by the commission?—A. Yes, Sir.
Q. How extensively?—A. To sufficient extent to enable us to make approxi-
mate estimates of the COSt Of the Other Schemes. -
Q. Your commission was instructed to make investigation of all feasible
plans, was it not?—A. It was.
Q. What are the data obtained by the investigations of Scientiflc men from
which your conclusions were drawn as to the proportions of Sewage to be
mixed with pure water? In Other words, what is the ratio between Sewage
and pure water, and what is the distance necessary to be run in Order to
deoxidize sewage?—A. That is a pretty hard question to answer. The data
as to purification going on in the different streams charged with Sewage
consists in observations of different men taken at different points on Various
rivers beginning with the places where the sewage is discharged. There are
many such observations, as those upon the Seine, and upon the BlackStone in
Massachusetts, and those of Doctor Rouch upon the canal and Illinois River.
In such cases there is generally a continuous improvement from the place
where the sewage is discharged until the organic matter disappears to the
senses, though in the case of the Seine the most offensive part of the river
between the two main outfalls is just above the lower one at which point
the sewage from the larger and upper one has reached its most Offensive Stage
of decomposition. -
Q. Is this true of the Blackstone River in Massachusetts?—A. I think not,
though the Blackstone purifies itself. The Seine does not receive the whole
filth of Paris. At the time the observations were made it took all the Sewage
except such as was disposed of by dry removal and used on land. Since then
they have begun a system of purification by keeping a portion of the Sewage
out of the river and applying it to land. They take out less than 50 per
cent, I believe. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1815,
This examination of the Seine was carefully made, and it simply goes to
Show that the process of oxidation is continually going on, and that it
purifies itself in a comparatively short time. The best measure we have of
the degree of dilution required is to be found in the Chicago River where we
know the amount of sewage and the amount of water that passes a certain
point in the river. -
At the Adams Street Bridge in dry times there is a dilution of about 14,000.
Cubic feet per minute per each 100,000 people. This is not as good as it
should be, though no offensive Odors are given off by the river in the summer
time. -
Q. Has your commission ever reported a definite plan 2—A. Yes, Sir ; though:
not to the extent Of all the details, but definite in the practical Sense Of the
WOrd. --------" . .
Q. Please state your plan as considered by the commissioners.—A. The plan.
is to excavate a channel along the line of the Des Plaines River and the Ogden
ditch to Lockport, with a capacity of 600,000 cubic feet per minute, this main
channel to connect with the Chicago River by means of a Channel through the
west fork, and another one leading to the south fork. From the south fork it
is expected that a cut-off will have to be made to the lake in Order to get a
sufficient supply of pure water.
Q. Would the condition in the valley be more or less favorable?—A. Very
much more favorable. It would be vastly better than the condition of the river
at the Adams Street Bridge in dry weather.
Q. Is there any offensive smell from that water as it passes under that
bridge?—A. There is ordinarily no smell, but the water shows that it is pol-
luted. If is not sufficiently pure for fish to live in, nor do I think it is as good
as it should be in the main channel, as proposed.
Q. Is the water purified as it goes down below 2–A. It is.
Q. Where do the impurities go to?—A. Part goes into the atmosphere and
part is held in solution, while another part is precipitated or carried along with
the current. Whenever gases are formed they must go into the atmosphere,
except such as are held in solution. There are some salts and gases held in:
Solution.
Q. In turning in the increased sewage and diverting the pure water along
with it, does it increase the impurities also?—A. Not so far as they appear to:
the senses, and not relatively to the water.
Q. How is it—the more sewage you turn down, the more impurities you get
do you not?—A. But there is more water as well as sewage turned in, and that
keeps the water better. Beside the offensive compounds are converted into
inoffensive compounds, by Complete disintegration which come of an ample:
Supply of water.
Q. Don’t it throw off more impurities into the atmosphere?—A. The simple
answer to that question is that there is no stench thrown off from the water.
It is diluted to Such an extent as to be VOid Of Offense, and the Oxidation is so.
complete as to work to the same end. *
Q. Is it not a fact that these impurities cease to be impurities?—A. You take
the case of Only partly decomposed Organic matter and it is very bad. It is
like combustion. If you arrest combustion before it is completed, the gas is
much more offensive and dangerous than when combustion is complete.
Q. Then I understand that the water purifies itself and purifies the sewage
in the same way. That is by combustion as by fire.—A. Water does not do it
but it takes place in the water. It is oxidation caused by the bacteria that
brings about the result.
Q. (By Mr. BRowNE.) I would like to ask that if you had ever so good a
theory that the stench was absolutely obviated, and you should go down to
Peru and find the water was in such a condition that the family could not
stand the smell, would you stick to your theory.—A. It is not a theory; it is a
fact that with such a dilution as proposed there will be no offensive odors: The
theory advanced is merely used to explain the facts as they are found to exist.
Q. (By Mr. BRowN.E.) But the common people down there say it stinks.-
A. I was not aware that I advanced any theory or made any statement of facts.
relative to the river at Peru at the present time.
Q. When he river is covered with ice, as it is three and one half months
in each year, what is the process of Oxidation at that time?—A. Oxidation: is:
mainly caused by the action of bacteria in presence of absorbed oxygen. This
process is, of course, slower in the winter than in the summer.
1816 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Q. The only reason I ask this question is, that there is a great deal of differ-
ence of Opinion on this subject. Some times you say that running water has much
to do with it, and then again that it is carried off in the air. Now, when.
the Water is covered with ice does the bacteria go out into the air?—A. The
process of purification is much slower in wintertime than in summer.
Q. You made allowance for that did you not, in considering the subject?—A.
yeS, Sir. -
Q. Where did you propose to locate the additional pumping works?—A. The
proposition is to dig a channel, which is to be the permanent channel, from the
West end of the South fork in the direction of the Summit to the intersection of
the Canal, and at this point locate the pumping works.
Q. Did you say that you thought it was necessary to throw more sewerage
into the present canal before the completion of the ditch as contemplated?—
A.. I said that I thought it very desirable.
Q. (By Mr. McMILLAN). You don’t think that it is necessary but simply
desirable? In your plan as has been suggested by Mr. Means, what were
your calculations about taking care of the sewerage in wintertime?—A.
The calculation was to have the channel so proportioned and graded that the
flow of Water in winter would be kept the same as in summer. By having a
greater grade than the mere summer flow would require, and by the use of
gates at Lockport it could be done, and the flow would be evenly distributed
from Winter to summer.
Q. Would that proposed grade in the proposed channel keep the water free
from ice?—A. No, sir.
Q. You stated that the flow of water would keep the channel free of ice.—
A. Not of ice but the flow of water would be sufficient to maintain a high der
gree Of dilution.
Q. By cutting a channel as you propose and putting in additional pumping
Works, would that afford temporary relief for Chicago until the permanent
channel was completed?—A. Yes, sir; though it would not give us permanent
relief.
Q. NOW, gentlemen, if I understand you, you want to cut a channel from the
present canal and put in new pumping Works and Send us down the genuine
article not diluted at all? We don't get the sewerage now which this plan
Would give us, but now you propose to give it to us by this new arrange-
ment.—A. Yes, Sir ; but with more water.
Q. Where does this water come from ?—A. It comes from the lake. The
sewerage does get into the canal but in a largely diluted condition, the ad-
ditional Sewage Will more than be compensated for by additional water.
Q. From the stockyards?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there no other Outlet for this sewerage except that proposed of in-
creasing the capacity Of the Canal and giving us a lot more water, so that the
decomposed material will rot right under our noses rather in the city of
Chicago?—A. Not until the new channel is built.
(Mayor elect Roche, being called upon by the chairman, Spoke as follows:)
I am here as a private citizen to listen to the remarks Of the experts before
the committee. Chicago is Very much interested in this matter and intends
to do what is right. We don't intend to impose upon the people along the
river. There are a number of gentlemen here who are representative men of
Chicago. They are men upon whom you can depend. They will not mis-
represent to you. The people down the river and Chicago have a common in-
terest in this matter, and if they will all look at it dispassionately they will
See it SO.
(Mr. Means read the following extracts: Conclusions of Mr. Eliot. C. Clark,
engineer of the Massachusetts Drainage Commission.)
“The proper disposal of Sewerage is a difficult and expensive matter.
“The least expensive method is to turn crude sewerage into water; but this
should not be permitted if the water is liable to be used for domestic purposes.
In any event, there must be at all times enough water to dilute the Sewerage
twentyfold or more, and a current which will carry all of the suspended
particles to a distance and distribute them widely.
“It has not been found practicable thoroughly to clarify Sewerage by pass-
ing it through settling tanks or artificial filters.
“Sewerage may be clarified by chemical precipitation, but will not by Such
means be rendered fit to go into water used for domestic purposes Or into any
water course where it will not be greatly diluted. Such treatment could be
recommended only where land purification Was impracticable.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1817
... “The only practicable method yet discovered of purifying sewerage is by
its intermittent application to large areas of land. The purification will be
more effectually and more easily accomplished when land is devoted solely
to this purpose. -
“Excrement may be satisfactorily disposed of by the application of dry
earth to it. This treatment may often prove useful, but it is not of general
application and affects but slightly the question of sewerage disposal. Where
SeWerage is to be treated in any Way, it is better to keep it separate from the
rainfall in a distinct system of sewerage.”
Conclusions of Jos. P. Davis and Rudolph Hering, consulting engineers,
Massachusetts Drainage Commission :
“The particular manner in which sewerage should be treated after leaving
the sewers depends upon the use to be made of the brooks, rivers or other bodies
of water into which it will ultimately find its way either by direct discharge,
flowing Over the surface, or by perculating through the Soil.
“If they are to furnish Water for general domestic purposes, a high standard
Of purity is required ; the sewerage must be very thoroughly treated before
entering them to guard against the transmission of disease liable to be pro-
duced by specific poisons or infectious germs. It is not possible to set up an
absolute standard for this purpose. Although the Water may be clear and
chemical analysis may show it to be of good quality, it can still hold a virulent
oison from sewerage pollution. Mr. R. Pompelly has shown by experiments
upon the filtering capacity of soils that otherwise pure water carries bacterial
infection along with it When perculating through Sand and other Common ma-
erials of the ground.
“While there is some evidence which tends to show that such germs may
etain their dangerous qualities for a Considerable length of time, yet Our ex-
erience with water supplies proves that sewerage that has been made clear by
thorough land filtration before it is discharged into a relatively large body
f water, is rendered comparatively harmless, particularly after a Subsequent
Ow of Several miles.” -
“This may be accounted for in part by the aeration of the water and the
horough dilution and dispersion of the sewerage.”
Chemical News, April 16, 1880 (abstract) : Doctor Emmerich finds that
human excrement subcutaneously injected after being mixed with water,
produces fatal results, but when diluted with 20,000 parts is harmless. Hence,
e believes, water containing this proportion may be used for drinking. Into
'apids where the dilution must be at least 100,000 fold, sewerage may be dis-
harged without hesitation.
Chemical News, April 30, 1880, p. 207 (Glasgow sewerage) : Doctor Wallace
nds that when sewage is purified with lime, one ton per million gallons, or
with sulphate allumna and lime in succession and filtration through pounded
oke, when mixed with eight times its volume of pure (?) Clyde water, re-
aimed clear for six weeks, and Without Odor. Hence he concludes that when
hus diluted the organic matters remaining may be oxidized and purified. But
he crude sewage would not be thus purified.
He does not favor the Croyden irrigation. He found the ground quite
sodden, the vegetation by no means luxuriant, and the ground in some places
;warming with a small species of fly. The report is spoken of as very
Valuable.
HAINEs. The extent of the dilution Of the Sewage in a river with a large
ody of moving water of good quality is undoubtedly an important factor,
put this may be entirely counterbalanced by the fact of the water being taken
ery near a large Sewer.
As regards oxidation, the evidence in published papers of authorities on
he subject leads to the conclusion that the destruction of organic matter in
ewage is effected solely by the bacteria of purification, and since these can
xercise their functions Only at temperatures probably lying between 40 and
00 degrees it would appear, therefore, that no oxidation could occur when
he temperature approaches the freezing point. And further, as the Illinois
iver is covered with ice on an average of three and a half months each
-ear, aeration of the water in that period is suspended, and hence we have
bundant evidence in the Henry Dam pool and in the Illinois River Of strong
dor from the Openings cut in the ice on the river.
Dr. J. H. Rauch, of the Illinois State Board of Health, has devoted some
ime and has had a series of experiments made and published which are
alculated to mislead rather than instruct the public by making free am-
91739–24—PT 2—99



























1818 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
monia the prominent factor. It is to be regretted that the doctor was un-
fortunate in One attempt to get an analysis Of the Water in the river at La
Salle. I am informed that in the Winter, two years ago, he had several jugs
filled with the water from the river at that point sent to him at Chicago,
but the corks were blown Out by the gases before the jugs reached him, and
we have no report of the amount of free ammonia contained in that Sample
Of the Illinois River water.
Oxidation is the combination Of Oxygen With the Other elements, and in
all cases of Oxidation heat is developed. The Various elements enter into
combination with oxygen with very various degrees of readiness, but in the
case of hydrogen and oxygen (Water) it is necessary to start the reaction
with heat; that is, at a temperature above the freezing point. This disposes
Of the fallacy of the theory that an increased amount Of Water is all that
is required to Oxidize Sewage and remove the Odor and pois0nous germs Of
the Organic matter.
The conclusion of the report of the committee Of investigation (France)
in 1876, Schlolsing; reporter, were :
1. The delivery of the sewage water into the Seine can not be continued.
It is necessary at any cost to provide for the purification of these waters,
and at the Same time to secure as far as possible their utilization.
2. The unhealthfulness of sewage waters is derived from the Soluble and
in Soluble Organic matters they contain.
3. The best of all processes of purification is filtration through soil.
Journal Chemical Society, 1880. The rivers polution commissioners (Eng-
land) Say: “We are led to the inevitable conclusion that the oxidation of
Organic matter in Sewage proceeds with extreme slowness, even when the
SeWage is mixed with a large volume of unpolluted water, and that it is
impossible to Say how far such water must flow before the sewage becomes
thoroughly Oxidized. It will be safe to infer, however, that there is no river
in the United Kingdom long enough to effect the distraction of the sewage by
Oxidation.” -
Doctor Frankland says: “The results indicate the effect of oxidation which
Would be produced by the flow of a stream containing 10 per cent of sewage
for 96 and 192 miles, fespectively, at the rate of 1 mile per hour. In
the experiments here referred to he shook up water Containing 10 per cent of
Sewage and eXposed the same to air and light for 96 and 192 hours and finally
Syphoned Off the mixture three or four times from one bottle to the other. No
Change observed in organic carbon and nitrogen.”
Chemical News, 1880: Professor Tidy believes that organic matter of Sewag
Suffers oxidation by the oxygen of the air in a very short time. Doctor Frank-
lin opposes the conclusion of Tidy, and declares that the Question, Can run-
ning Water be at all times used for dietetic purposes a few hours or day
after it has been mixed with sewage? must be answered in the Inegative.
Special Engineer Hering, of the Chicago Water Commission, stated hi
observations at Chicago in February, 1887:
e “My observations were these : February 8, the mass of filth began pourin
into the lake. All that day none of it passed beyond a semicircle drawn withi
the breakwater. That night there was a Strong northwest wind. The Secon
day I found the river water, still unmixed with the lake Water, Occupying
Strip about 2 miles from the shore and eXtending from the mouth of the rive
SOUth to Thirty-ninth Street.
“That night, as if to help us with our work, the wind Changed to th
South, and early the next day we found the unclean mass moving directly
toward the Crib. It could have been seen as distinctly as if it had been
field, of Slush ice. I took measurements and found that the surface wa
Th9Wing at the rate of 27 feet per minute, with the bottom moving 18 feet pe
millite. At 5 p. m. that day the northern limit of the dirty water was onl
a few hundred yards from the crib, and when it began to grOW Clark its
presence could easily be detected by the smell. That night, before 9 o'clock
I Could both See and smell the impurities in the water drawn from the pipe
In my house On the North Side. That was the time the analysis was mad
by Professor Long, and his and our Observations agreed exactiv. The fourth
day the wind was from the east, and the impure volume was In eal'er th
Shore, and the crib emerged from it as from a cloud. These Observations wer
Of Value in sustaining the first and most important recommendation made by






















ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1819
my preliminary report. That is, the first thing needful is to get the flood Wa-
ters into the lake by other channels than the river. The natural drainage of
the river will not, until the city is much larger than at present be of sufficient
VOlume to force its way far enough into the lake to affect the Water at the
Grib.”
These observations of Special Engineer Hering are also of value in deter-
mining how long the impurities and the impure volume were detected by the
Sight and odor, and calculations can be made of how far these impurities can
be carried, if thrown or drawn into a current of 20 miles per hour. On the
night of the second day he could both see and smell the impurities in the
Water drawn from the pipes in a private dwelling in the city. On the fourth
day the impure Volume was intact, but had moved near the shore, but we
have no evidence of how much longer the impurities were held in suspension
or when or where or how they were dispersed, or how far they were distrib-
uted. It seems clear enough that the impure mass would have been carried
many miles down the Illinois River before it was distributed if it. COUld have
been turned into the Des Plaines and thence into the Illinois River, as is pro-
posed. |
Mr. REINEIART. Q. Would the Overflow of these dams remove your objec-
tions to this scheme?—A. We have two objections to this scheme. The high.
Water and the sewage. The Overflow of the dams would not help in that
respect.
Q. You know that the commission propose to pay for all damages done?—
A. Yes, I understand SO, but it is no favor to us to have to Sell Our property
and get Our damages at the end of a law Suit.
Q. Suppose you get a fair price for your property?—A. You take away
Our land instead of benefitting US ; it is a great injury to the people, as you
can See. If you destroy Our property and COmpel us to remove Our factory
from the town it would take 300 people out of the place. It would injure the
people of the town to that extent. In Peoria the conditions of things is just
this : . The manufacturing establishments are all down by the river, and if
you put in an addition of 600,000 cubic feet per minute of water, you have not
even an idea nor have you considered in your plan the extent Of the damage
that Will accrue.
Q. Your works are on the margin of the river, are they not?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have all the water you want?—A. Yes, sir. We have to pump to keep
Out Of the Water.
Q. If you should sell the property, as this corporation proposes by this law.
does it necessarily remove the factory from the city?—A. In this case it does
absolutely.
Q. You certainly could build another factory?—A. There is no proper loca-
tion for it.
Q. How many acres are flooded by this water?—A. One hundred and fifty
3.CI’éS. -
Q. How far above low-water mark are you?—A. We are 12 feet above low-
Water mark.
Q. Could you not dike and keep the water Out?—A. Yes.
Q. You have to dike to keep the water out now?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why can not you dike higher?—A. I can not raise it more than 6 inches
higher.
Q. I don’t understand why you can not raise it more than 6 inches higher?—
A. I suppose I might raise it from 10 to 12 inches higher.
Q. You are 10 feet below the railroad are you not?—-A. No, Sir ; I am on
the level with the railroad.
Q. You had to dike against the flood to keep the water out?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you aware that the bills propose to pay for the damages?—A. J.
don’t want to sell my property. I regard my property the same as you re-
gard yours. -
Q. Is not the overflow in consequence of the dam at Henry 3—A. That
has something to do with it.
Q. Suppose the dam was widened or lengthened, would that relieve you?—
A. On the 19th Of February the water going Over the dam was 41% feet deep
and 540 feet wide. -
Q. If that dam was widened to 1,000 feet would that relieve you?—A. Yes,
sir, somewhat.
Q. In a former meeting you referred to the fact that the dam was 1,000
feet wide, and that it was narrowed to 540 feet. Now if it was widened to
1820 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1,000 feet would that relieve you?—A. It would relieve at Peru and would
relieve the farm land, somewhat. It is not so much the quantity but the quality
I now speak of. Besides a good deal of the farm land would be ruined. There
are 75 to 80 acres of land there that is worth $40 per acre. If you put those
“improvements’’ in there as you expect to, they would be worth absolutely
nothing. The Commissioners and the men that don't Own the land are of the
Same Opinion. You do intend and you have damaged those people and
Wºn't intend to pay them more than 10 per cent of what the property is
WOI’tn.
Mr. Herring is here and would like to answer some of the objections to the
proposed Scheme.
Mr. HERRING. Mr. Chairman, I desire to answer some of the objections we
have heard. The drainage commission have inquired into three methods of
drainage. These methods depend upon where the sewage goes—whether on
the land, in the lake, or in the Des Plaines River. About these three methods
Of disposal I desire to say a word. In looking over the work everything
was carefully considered. Chicago, in a few years, will be the second largest
city in the United States, and the sewage disposal of Chicago is of as much
importance to the people along the Illinois River as to the people of Chicago.
Q. Have you taken into consideration the Scheme of removing the Sewage
into the lake?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. But this system of sending it down the Illinois River is the cheap-
est?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is why you recommend it?—A. Not altogether. In Order to dis-
charge it into the lake, it would have to be carried to the South end of the lake,
and this would require many miles of interSecting Sewers. The expense of this
would be enormous. For a population of 2,500,000 it would cost $37,000,000 for
Sewage disposal in the lake. Judging from the present condition of the finances
Of Chicago, She can not raise that amount of money. There is no question
at all but Chicago could dispose of her Sewage in the lake with success, but
it is Out of the question on account of the great expense it would be to the
city of Chicago. The main expense would be to separate Solid particles So
as to enable them to be taken on to the land. The Des Plaines River plan
is the only plan which Chicago can think Of adopting.
Q. What is the estimated cost of the Des Plaines River plan?—A. About
$25,000,000.
Q. That is the only scheme in the reach of the city?—A. In the present
condition of finances, I think it is.
Q. How can the sewage be made inoffensive to the people along the valley?—
A. By diluting it with sufficient water and purifying it. Let me speak to you
as to how this purification takes place. It is caused partly by oxidation and
partly by dilution. It accumulates on the surface of the water when the
sewage has a certain velocity and the impurities are carried off. When the
river flows slowly the solid particles settle. There is very little deposit in the
canal, as the velocity is greater than in the Chicago River. The practice of
discharging sewage into pure running water has been carried on for years
without any perceptible evil effect. In St. Louis, where the sewage is dis-
charged into the Mississippi River, there is less bacteria found in the water a
few miles below than is found a few miles above. In Cincinnati, where the
sewage of the city is discharged into the Ohio River, there is no perceptible
evil effect in the water. In Liverpool, where the pollution from over a million
of people is discharged into pure water, examination shows that the water
purifies itself. In , where the sewage is discharged into the Elbe, there is
no perceptible pollution of the water. In the city of Vienna, which empties its
sewage into the Danube, the result is the same. In this connection I wish to
submit the following extract from the report of the commission appointed to
consider a system of drainage for the Mystic, Blackstone, and Charles Rivers
in Massachusetts in 1886. It will show that solids extracted from Sewage have
little or no manurial value—considerable less than the cost of extracting it.
The application of the sewage directly to the land has proved but little
better even in England, where fertilizers are in special demand. Manure is so
abundant in Chicago that it is difficult to get rid of it as a gift, and large
quantities are burned for fuel and simply to get rid of it. When many people
drain into a river of limited capacity, so that the quantity of water is not
sufficient to dilute the sewage to the proper degrees, it becomes a necessity to
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1821
discharge the sewage upon the land and thus filter it before it passes into the
stream ; but this method is exceedingly expensive and the return from the
cultivation of the land, even in England, but a small proportion of the COSt.
Fortunately for Chicago and the growing population of the Des Plaines and
Illinois Valley, we have in Lake Michigan an inexhaustible fountain from
which we may draw in quantities equal to the requirements. There need never
be any lack of proper dilution, however populous Chicago and this Valley may
come to be. The great beauty of the whole matter, however, is that in pro-
viding for the necessities of drainage and pure drinking water there will be
at the same time a water power and highway for commerce which Will Center
in this valley—we may call it, if we include Chicago, the great distributing
center of the country—the greatest manufacturing and commercial interests Of
the United States.
“Systems of sewerage are to be found in all civilized countries, and in all
of them the prevailing method of disposal is turning the crude sewage into the
most accessible body of water. In England mainly have other methods been
used—methods which aim to eliminate more or less completely the noxious
elements from the water before permitting it to escape. Over 200 examples of
this method of purification exist in England and probably not much more than
20 in all other countries combined. -
“ Up to about the middle of the present century it was the universal custom
in England as in other countries to turn crude sewage into the most accessible
watercourses. At about that time experiments were made in treating the
sewage and purifying it more or less before letting it escape. The induce-
ment to this course was mainly the prospect of mitigating the great nuisances
caused by the discharge of crude Sewage but also a belief which had become
common, that the manurial elements might be saved and become a Source Of
great profit. Companies with large capital were organized to carry this
theory into practice, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were sunk in the
attempt. At first, efforts were made to extract Solid portable manure from
the sewage. It was easy enough to extract Solid matter in great quantity,
but it was found to be of no manurial value, Or if any, Considerably less than
the cost of extracting it. Hundreds of methods of making Solid manure from
sewage were invented, and not one of them has proven commercially profitable.
Nor by any of them has the sewage been so purified as to permit of its being
discharged into water courses without danger of causing a nuisance. All
idea of profit in this direction having been abandoned, the hope is entertained
that the manurial elements in the sewage might be utilized by applying the
whole of the Sewage directly to the land. It was known by chemical analysis
that each one hundred gallons of the average English town sewage contained
about 1 cent’s worth of manure, and it was believed that the soil WOuld
fix and retain this manure in condition to be taken up by vegetation. Experi-
ment proved that growing plants would take up and assimilate sewage which
reach their root but unless So intercepted the manurial constituents were not
retained and stored up in the soil. By applying sewage to land, the Soil
was not made more fertile and the manure in the sewage could be utilized Only
by applying it directly to the plants.
“ Unfortunately it was discovered that none of the commercially valuable
vegetables would flourish when dosed with a great quantity of water in which
the manure was dissolved. There is a limit to the size of farms which it is
practicable to procure and prepare for the reception of sewerage. To pro-
vide one acre for each one hundred persons contributing Sewage Would
require for a city the size of Boston, a farm as large as the whole town Of
Brookline, and even this large area would have to receive an amount Of Water
equal to two and one half the annual rain fall in addition to the rain itself.
Few crops, if any, would be benefited by such an amount of water and it Was
found in practice that only a few coarse grasses and roots would grow readily
under such conditions. The sewage comes in the night as well as in the day,
requiring the services of an extra night gang to attend to it. It Comes eVery
day in the year. In rainy seasons when the crops are already suffering from
too much rain, as well as in any weather when it is of Service. It was found
that farms which could be cultivated at a fair profit without sewage were
operated with a loss when sewage was continuously applied to the land. It
was found however that the sewage could be purified by passing it through
the land, and that by careful management some crops could be grown not-
1822 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Withstanding whose value would partly offset the cost of distributing the
SeWage. Since the purification of Sewage at whatever cost was the main
Object to be obtained, the fact that there is no profit in Sewage farm-
ing has not prevented its being very commonly adopted. The commercial
failure of this method of that method of treatment did not arise from any lack
Of Scientific Counsel and experiment. The subject was Studied and reported
On by SO many Committees and commissions, there has been a constant suc-
Cession of such commissions appointed by the Government. Thorough investiga-
tions and reports have been made from time to time by experts appointed
by the General Board of Health, Metropolitan Board of Works, the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, the Society of Arts, the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers, and the Royal Agricultural Society. ”
We can not well understand the extracts read by Mr. Means from the same
Teport, and from others, without taking into account the fact that the writers
Were Considering the proper degree of purity of the water for drinking and
Other domestic purposes. No means of purification in cases where the water
is to be thus used should be neglected. The water of the Des Plaines and
Illinois Rivers would not be fit for such uses if the Chicago sewage were kept
Out Of it. Even filtration will not, in all cases, take out the poisonous effects
Of polluted Water, if taken into the stomach. A proper dilution will, how-
ever, render it harmless except for domestic uses. -
Mr. Clark, engineer of the Massachusetts Drainage Commission, further
SayS: -
“Sewage water mixes readily with the clean water into which it is dis-
Charged, and the organic in solution is thereby diluted. If the dilution is very
great, Say twentyfold or more, no subsequent putrefaction is noticed, and the
Organic matter is oxidized by the Oxygen in the water with which it is diluted.”
The channel we propose to construct will be capable of carrying 600,000
Cubic feet per minute. This is necessary to take care of the storm water
from the 125 square miles that now drain into the Chicago River and must be
kept Out of it to prevent flushing the river into the lake and carrying the sewage
into our drinking water. The 600,000 cubic feet per minute will give a dilu-
tion of 60,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 people for a population of 1,000,000.
When the population reaches 2,500,000 it will give a dilution of 24,000 cubic
feet for each 100,000 inhabitants. We possess the advantage here which other
places do not have, that our fountain of supply is equal to any demand. If
at any future time the dilution should become unsatisfactory it can be added
to by adding greater capacity to the channel, Or adding another One.
To the joint special committee appointed to investigate in relation to the effect
of Chicago Sewage upon the rivers through which it passes.
GENTLEMEN : You will recollect that at your meeting of March 31, Mr. J. D.
Paige, representing the delegation from Joliet, contended that no benefit Would
be derived from dilution. In reply to my question, he said that no disagree-
able effects were ever experienced until after the deepening of the canal in
1871, and in this position he seemed to be supported by the whole delegation,
or at last was not contradicted by a single member. My object in questioning
Mr. Paige was to lay the foundation for introducing the following table show-
ing the operation of the Bridgeport pumping works from 1860 to 1867, inclusive.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1823
Bridgeport pumping record, 1860 to 1867, inclusive


ſº";
Running | Cubic . . . per
IDate time in feet per | * * :*. Remarks
minutes | minute 000 in:
habitants
1860 e
June 21-July 31---------------------------- 9, 171 12,000 11,009
Aug. 1-31---------------------------------- 4,891 8, 257 109,000 7, 575
Sept. 3-26---------------------------------- 3,011 || 14,000 12, 844
1861
June 23-Aug. 31--------------------------- 23, 100 11,000 124,000 8,800
1862
May 28–31--------------------------------- 2,810 18,000 13,000
June 22-30--------------------------------- 5,390 12,000 |} 138,000 |{ 8,834
July 1-19---------------------------------- 16,703 13,400 9,700
1863 -
July 5-31----------------------------------- 15,710 12,500 8, 170
Aug. 1-31---------------------------------- 16,430 10, 500 153,000 6, 860
Sept. 1–30---------------------------------- 10,915 10,000 6, 500
Oct. 1-15---------------------------------- (1) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6, 500
3. 1864
June 11–30 * - 10,800 - 6, 400 | This year showed
July 1-16---------------------------------- 13,995 10, 169,000 5,900 the first deposit
Aug. 11–31 --| 15,995 || 10,600 6, 200 of sludge in the
Oct. 1-31---------------------------------- (*) ----------|---------- 4,000 canal.
Sept. 1–30---------------------------------- (*) ----------|---------- 6, 200
1865
May 29–Oct. 25, inclusive----- * 290 ---------- 934,000 || Irregularly after
- this date.
- 1866
June 7–30 -> -- 24,480 10,000 | 200,000 5,000 | Irregular.
1867
June 19–30 15,840 12,340 225,000 35, 500 This pumping was
in excess of the
needs of Chicago.
July 1–Nov. 15----------------------------- 198,720 13,000 || 225,000 || 45, 500 Lockport millers
- wanted the Wa-
ter.
1 About like September. 3 Or an average 5,041.
* About Same as August. 4 Average.
The pumps were operated to the close of the year 1870. -
This record shows, particularly that in 1867, for a period of five months
almost the entire Sewage of Chicago (the city then containing 225,000 in-
habitants) was sent down the canal diluted by 5,000 cubic feet of water per
minute for each J.00,000 inhabitants, and passed Joliet unnoticed, as was
shown by her own delegation it had done. To a greater or less extent Chicago
sewage, it was also shown, had, since the opening of the Canal in 1848, passed
Joliet much of this time by reason of long delay in starting the pumps, the
Chicago River was in as offensive a condition as it has ever been since. This
evidence, with that of Mr. Paige undisputed, viz, that no inconvenience was
ever felt until after the deepening of the canal in 1871, seems conclusive that
sewage may be so diluted as to be inoffensive to the Senses. In addition to
the degree of dilution shown above, the flow of the Des Plaines River was
then uninterrupted, and summer packing, which now contributes largely to
the river pollution, was unknown.
Respectfully submitted.
O. GUTHRIE.
1824 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
EXHIBIT 3
HISTORICAI) DATA ON DILUTION FACTOR USED IN ENABLING ACT OF THE SANITARY
DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
[Computed by Langdon Pearse, March, 1924]
There is ample evidence to indicate clearly that the senators and repre-
Sentatives of the Illinois State Legislature, and Mr. Hurd, who were drafting
the Sanitary district bill, had before them competent engineering facts and
Opinions whereby the ratio for dilution was definitely indicated. The amount
fixed in the act is clearly based on engineering recommendations.
Further, Mr. Rudolph Hering, as chief engineer of the drainage and water
Supply commission, had a study made of available data both in the United
States and Europe, on which he must have based his opinion. This was
checked by the experiments and tests conducted by Doctor Rauch for the
Illinois State Board of Health.
The Source of evidence are:
1. Personal conversations of Langdon Pearse with Rudolph Hering.
2. Record of testimony given by Rudolph Hering before the special joint
Committee of the Senate and house of representatives, General Assembly of
Illinois, March 2, 1887. In this Mr. Hurd brought out the proposal of Mr.
Hering to use 18,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000 population (180 cubic
feet per minute per 1,000 population) and further to design the channel to
carry 10,000 cubic feet per Second to keep the sewage out of the lake.
3. Record of testimony of Mr. Rauch before aforesaid joint committee, in
which Mr. Hurd brought out that over 18,000 cubic feet per minute were
required in the winter per 100,000 population.
4. Testimony of Lyman E. Cooley before aforesaid joint committee on April
7, 1887, in which Cooley suggested 24,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000
population and a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second to prevent con-
tamination of the water Supply.
5. Testimony of Benezette Williams (consulting engineer to the drainage
and water supply commission) of data from France, Massachusetts, and Doctor
Rauch, and further saying that 140,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000 popula-
tion Was not enough.
6. Ossian Guthrie gave testimony before the aforesaid joint committee on
flows through the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
7. Rudolph Hering, in a paper before the American Public Health Association
in 1887, cited cases of stream pollution in the United States and Europe and
discussed the ratio of dilution in the Illinois River at Peoria (170 cubic feet
per minute per 1,000 population. He also credits to Doctor Rauch the ratio
of 180 cubic feet per minute for 1,000 population for use at Chicago. He
points out that 140 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population was insufficient
in the Blackstone River. After a general discussion of conditions in England
and Europe he points out that dilutions are required at least from 150 to
200 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population.
8. The preliminary report of the drainage and water supply commission,
January, 1887, signed by Rudolph Hering, chief engineer, and Benezette
Williams and Samuel G. Artingstall, consulting engineer, shows that engineering
studies were made, and tests were also conducted on the dilution required and
that for purposes of estimate 24,000 cubic feet per minute was used per 1,000
population.
9. Reference was made to Chicago conditions by Hering, Gray, and Stearns
in 1890 in a report on the sewerage of the District of Columbia in which the
recommendation was cited of 4 cubic feet per second per 1,000 population.
10. Dr. John H. Rauch, in a report of April 3, 1889 (Illinois State Board of
Health), states that at least 14,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000 popula-
tion was required as a minimum, and more in winter, based upon his field
Observations and tests. Liberal quotations are made from the drainage and
water supply report also with reference to dilutions mentioning four sets
of observations made in summer of 1886, winter of 1886–7, Summer of 1888, and
January, February, and March, 1889.
11. F. P. Stearns, in Massachusetts State Board of Health, December, 1889,
Summarizes the knowledge of the time and cites the Merrimack and Black-
Stone Rivers. He limits the debatable ground for dilution between 2.5 to
7 cubic feet per Second per 1,000, believing less than 2.5 will be a nuisance,
the exact amount to be determined by circumstances.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC. 1825
12. German data is given by Baumeister in a book, The Cleaning and Sewer-
age of Cities (1890), showing conditions in streams of Europe.
13. Dr. James A. Egan, in May, 1901, refers to past history of dilution and
Says Illinois State Board of Health determined in 1886–1888 that about 17
Volumes of Lake Michigan water will dilute 1 volume of Chicago sewage, and
form a mixture which should not create a nuisance in the Illinois Valley.
14. No other sources were found.
- - MARCH 11, 1924.
Mr. G. M. WISNER, *
Tower Building, Chicago, Ill.
DEAR MR. WISNER: In reply to your inquiry concerning the engineering data
available to the legislature committee at Springfield in 1887, when the sani-
tary district act was framed, I would say I have made an exhaustive search
Of the pamphlets, documents, and reports available in the past, and further
that I talked with Mr. Rudolph Hering about the legislation. I am summariz-
ing the essential details herein.
1. Conversation with Mr. Hering: Mr. Hering was chief engineer of the
Drainage and Water Supply Commission of the city of Chicago, which re-
ported in January, 1887, to Carter H. Harrison, mayor. About a year before
Mr. Hering's death I discussed with him the wording of certain clauses in the
Sanitary district act. Mr. Hering stated to me that he had given Mr. Hurd
a great deal of sanitary information. Further, he said that he had informed
Mr. Hurd that the 10,000 cubic feet per second capacity would probably serve
3,000,000 people, and that by 1920 or thereabouts, when such population had
been reached, supplementary treatment would be required. As I recall the
conversation, Mr. Hering stated that the scientific or sanitary features relat-
ing to possible treatment were not considered in the bill, because of the pressure
from the waterway advocates like Ilyman E. Cooley, who favored pure dilu-
tion, so that the act as passed contained no direct provision for sewage treat-
ment. As you know, this defect was remedied in 1921 by an amendment.
Mr. Hering always took the position to me that the minimum dilution ratio
fixed in the act was based on the best engineering data available at the time.
He never lost interest, however, in following up the results, and until his
death would always inquire about our plans for supplementary sewage treat-
ment and the dilution ratio which experience had proved safe.
This statement is corroborated in part by the notes given in this letter under
item 7. -
2. Testimony of Mr. Hering before the special joint committee of Senate
and House of Representatives, General Assembly of Illinois, March 2, 1887.
Mr. Harvey B. Hurd conducted the examination. Mr. Hurd is the attorney
who drafted the Sanitary district act.
After testifying that a dilution of 6,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000
was entirely insufficient, as then practiced in the Illinois and Michigan Canal,
the following was stated :
“Q. What would be the proper dilution of the water so that it would be
inoffensive to the smell and innoxious?—A. The English river commission have
made a very thorough examination of this question, and the amount which
they thought would be barely enough to prevent nuisance in their rivers (re-
ducing it to the terms we use here) would amount to 9,000 cubic feet per
minute for every 100,000 people, or 50 per cent more than Chicago is now
pumping. I have proposed in our plan, for this disposal of the Sewage of
Chicago, to assume a quantity equal to double the limit in England—or in
other words, 18,000 cubic feet per minute for every 100,000 inhabitants. I do
that because we do not assume that the English limit would be proper in the
IIlinois River. We proposed to have an abundance of water, so as to leave
no doubt as to the condition of the river being good at all times, winter and
Summer.”
Further on Mr. Hering states:
“We assumed a population of 2,500,000 for our preliminary estimate, and
with that assumption we find it would require a channel capable of carrying
10,000 cubic feet per second. This is calculated on a basis of about 18,000 cubic
feet per minute for every 100,000 people. “The channel must provide for not
Only the Sewage but the rainfall in the territory that is to be drained.”
91739—24—PT 2—100
1826 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
Further. On :
“Q. (By Mr. RILEY, a representative.) If I understand you correctly, you
said it required about 18,000 cubic feet per minute to dilute the Water, So that
it would not be offensive. You propose to fix the channel for the population
of 2,500,000 people?” - -
“Q. (By Mr. RHEINHARDT, a senator). You think this dilution of 18,000 cubic
feet a minute would be sufficient for each 100,000 people?—A. Yes, Sir.”
Mrs. Hering further brings out in his testimony the purpose of keeping the
flood waters of the Chicago River out of the lake (April 7, 1887).
“The channel we propose to construct will be capable of carrying 600,000
cubic feet per minute. This is necessary to take care of the Storm Water from
the 125 square miles that now drain into the Chicago River, and must be
Rept out of it to prevent flushing the river into the lake and carrying the
sewage into our drinking water. The 600,000 cubic feet per minute Will give
a dilution of 60,000 cubic feet per minute for each 100,000 people for a popula-
tion of 1,000,000. When the population reaches 2,500,000 it will give a dilution
of 24,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 inhabitants.”
3. Testimony Of Doctor Rauch. -
Doctor Rauch (Secretary of the Illinois State Board of Health) also testi-
fied before the joint committee on March 2, 1887. With reference to dilution
he says, after describing investigations and tests made on existing Conditions:
“Of course some oxidation takes place in tumbling Over the dam and the
14,000 cubic feet estimated in the Summer will prevent the people below from
nuisance. In the wintertime it will require more. It will require 18,000 cubic
feet per minute. That is to make it certain.”
The Context shows the above figures are per 100,000 population.
4. Testimony of Lyman E. Cooley before the Special joint committee Of
Senate and House of Representatives, General Assembly Of Illinois, April 7,
1887. e
After discussing the historical elements of the problem and the foul condition
of the Chicago River, Mr. Cooley says: -
“If all the sewage should be turned into the canal promptly before material
decomposition had set in, what would be the required dilution for each 100,000
inhabitants? - - -
“The Official recommendation of the Commissioner contained in the prelimi-
nary report is based on 24,000 cubic feet for 100,000 inhabitants and Sufficient
Capacity Of channel to meet the growth of 30 years. It is not Safe On present
information to reduce this provision, and it is not economical to design for a less
time. If the dilution is in excess it is our good fortune to have a channel suffi-
Cient for a few years longer. -
“A channel to carry 600,000 cubic feet per minute is also required to keep our
Sewage from backing into the lake in time of flood to contaminate Our Water
Supply.” - -
5. Benzette Williams testified also before the joint Committee that data had
been available from the Seine River in France, the Blackstone River in Massa-
Chusetts, and the tests Of DOCtor Rauch in Illinois. He further States that in
the Chicago River a dilution of 14,000 cubic feet per minute per 100,000 people
is not enough.
6. Ossian Guthrie testified before the joint committee on April 7, 1887, intro-
ducing a table of flows in the Illinois & Michigan Canal from 1860 to 1867
from the Bridgeport Pumping Works, stating that “this record shows particu-
larly in 1867 for a period of five months almost the entire sewage of Chicago
(the city then containing 225,000 inhabitants) was sent down the canal, diluted
by 5,500 cubic feet of water per minute for each 100,000 inhabitants, and passed
Joliet unnoticed, as was shown by her Own delegation it had done.”
7. Rudolph Hering, in a paper read before the American Public Health Asso-
ciation in 1887 (Vol. XIII, Transactions of the American Public Health Associ-
ation), entitled “Notes on the pollution of streams,” summarizes the data on
Self-purification then available and gives some notes on dilution :
“In our country instances are the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, receiving
the Sewage of Chicago ; the Blackstone River in Massachusetts, with the Sewage
of Worcester; and the Merrimac River in Massachusetts, with the sewage of
Lowell and Lawrence. In Europe the most instructive case is the River Seine
below Paris at the time when it repeived all the sewage from that city. Other
rivers are the Irwell, Mersey, and Darwin in England and the Oder, Isar, and
Elbe in Germany.

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1827
“The Sewage of Chicago, mixed in a proportion of about 1 of sewage to 4
Of lake water, or of 60 cubic feet per minute per 1,000 persons, is pumped into
a Canal and flows, without further increased dilution, for nearly 30 miles in
about as many hours, and its condition, which is quite offensive, is not changed
Very much. Then it descends Over several dams, mingles with the water of
he Des Plaines River, and within a few miles it is visibly improved. When,
45 miles below Chicago, it unites with the water of the Kankakee and forms
he Illinois River, the water caused a dilution twice as great as that in the
anal, and the river loses its offensiveness during the greater part of the year.
At Peoria, 158 miles below Chicago, the sewage has a dilution of nearly three
times that in the Canal, and, except when ice has covered the stream for Some
time, no odor can be detected, and the water is even partly used for the city’s
Supply. -
“Here there is a flow of 170 cubic feet per minute for every 1,000 persons
draining into it.
“Owing to the fact that the velocity in the canal is greater than that in
he rivers at its two ends, deposits are formed in the Chicago River before
entering the canal and again in the Des Plaines River after leaving it.
“I Will say that the analyses upon which these deductions are based were
made under the direction of Dr. John Rauch, secretary of the State Board of
Health of Illinois, and that the conclusion that in Winter 180 cubic feet of
Water per minute per 1,000 persons draining at Chicago would be sufficient to
prevent objectionable conditions all along the river is originally his.
“The Blackstone River, in Massachusetts, which is quite foul below Worces.
er, and receives much additional sewage on its way, becomes unobjectionable
at ordinary times for all but potable purposes about 15 miles below the city,
with a dilution at the rate of 140 cubic feet per 1,000 persons draining into it,
ogether with considerable manufacturing refuse, and after there has been a
hance for complete Subsidence and some Oxidation due to a large number of
Cia.II].S. -
“In Paris the sewage of nearly 2,000,000 people was turned into the River
Seine before the irrigation fields were put in operation. The organic matter
in this sewage per inhabitant is, from the analysis, härdly one-half that of
Our sewage, because excrementitious matter was almost wholly excluded from
the sewers. The dilution which rendered the polluted river entirely inoffensive
in Summer was 60 cubic feet per 1,000 people after a flow of 14 miles and after
Subsidence of the suspended matter had taken place.
“If we reduce the recommendations of Doctor Miller and others for England,
as mentioned above, to our measures, we find that they believe a dilution of
Say 120 cubic feet of water per minute for 1,000 persons to be sufficient to
guard against Offensiveness. But this recommendation probably applies to
Small cities not devoted to manufacturing.
“By comparing these results, and also those of the other rivers mentioned,
we can Observe much similarity and consistency, and, for the present, We may
jraw the following inference: Rivers not to be used for water supplies, but
to be inoffensive to communities residing a few miles below, to remain fit for
Ordinary manufacturing purposes, and to sustain the life of fish, may receive
he sewage from 1,000 persons for at least every 150 to 200 cubic feet of
minimum flow per minute, supposing that natural subsidence of the heavier
matter takes place immediately below the town discharging the Sewage.
“Where, for some reasons, it is necessary to dilute it at Once S0 that it is
uite inoffensive before subsidence, which cases are rare, a SOmewhat greater
ilution may be required. Inasmuch as the flow governing the minimum dilu-
ion occurs in Summer, no attention need usually be paid to the larger dilutions
required in winter, because the natural flow of the water is much greater at
Such time.
“Beyond the above limit it appears to be advisable, when arranging for a
sewage disposal, to resort to its purification at once by land or other filtration,
or by chemical precipitation, in order to prevent the river water from becom-
ing objectionable to others.” - -
Mr. Hering states: “This paper was prepared from data acquired while
working on the Chicago situation. The data is therefore of interest as it
learly indicates the reason why a dilution of 200 cubic feet per minute per
1,000 persons was indicated for the sanitary district act.”
1828 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
8. In the preliminary report of the drainage and water supply commissio
of the city of Chicago, dated January, 1887, signed by Mr. Rudolph Hering,
Chief engineer, and Messrs. Benezette Williams and Samuel G. Artingstall
Consulting engineer, the following statement is found :
“The proper degree of sewage dilution in the new channel demanded
Careful investigation. When sewage is mingled with a sufficiently large quan
tity of water it not only becomes inoffensive but readily finds the oxygen which
gradually purifies it. When the surface is covered with ice a greater dilutio
is necessary for this purpose than at other times when there is a constan
replenishment of oxygen from the air. The proposed waterway should of
COUl'Se provide immunity from Offense at all times.
“The information upon which definitely to decide this question will be give
in the final report, as the data have not yet been all collected, owing to th
necessity of making actual tests of the oxidization of the canal water under
the ice, which is being done for the use of the commission by Dr. J. H. Rauch,
Secretary of the State Board of Health. The summer conditions are presented
in his late report on the ‘Water supply and sewage disposal of Chicago.” Th
result Of these analyses will be compared with those of other streams that are
also polluted with sewage in order to show the rate of oxidization with varying
degrees of dilution and aeration.
“For the purpose of estimating the cost of the water channel we have as
Sumed 3,600 Square feet for the cross section and a velocity of the water 3
feet per second, or 2 miles per hour. This gives a discharge of 600,000 cubi
feet of Water per minute, or 24,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 persons, whic
We ºve equal to the maximum requirements of a population of 2,500,000
people.”
This Clearly indicates that the commission collected data and that Doctor
Rauch made tests to ascertain the proper minimum dilution. -
9. Reference to the foregoing data from the Chicago report is made on page
25 of the report upon the sewerage of the District of Columbia, of date June,
1890 (H. Ex. Doc. 445, 51st Cong., 1st sess.), by Messrs. Hering, Gray, and
Stearns : -
“The drainage and water supply commission of the city of Chicago recom-
mended that the sewage of Chicago be diluted with a volume of water equal
to 4 cubic feet, per second per 1,000 inhabitants (2.585 gallons per day per
perSon), and discharged through a canal into the Des Plaines River. Upon
the basis here given the ordinary low-water flow of the Potomac would take
Care of the Sewage of a population of 575,000. It should be borne in mind,
however, that the sewage of Washington would not require to be diluted as
much as that of Chicago, since at the latter place there is a large quantity of
foul matter from stockyards and slaughterhouses, in addition to the domestic
sewage.”
10. Dr. John H. Rauch, in a preliminary report to the Illinois State Board
of Health on the “Water supplies of Illinois and the pollution of its streams,”
April 3, 1889, makes certain statements of interest.
“It will be seen from the following pages that the opinions of the Secretary,
formulated more than 10 years ago, Concerning the essential sanitary in-
terests Of the communities in the Des Plaines and Illinois Valleys, have under-
gone no material modification, but are substantially corroborated by these
Subsequent investigations and study. For the remedy of the nuisance created
by the drainage of Chicago into the Illinois and Michigan canals and the Illinois
River, it is demonstrated that the minimum quantity of water pumped at Bridge-
port heretofore recommended is absolutely necessary. That quantity was fixed
by the Secretary in 1879 at 60,000 cubic feet per minute when the population
draining into the river was less than 400,000.
“Subsequently it has taken the form of a general statement, frequently re-
peated in reports to the board, that the sanitary interests of the communities
in the Des Plaines and Illinois Valleys demand that the sewage of Chicago
pumped into the Canal shall be diluted on the scale of 14,000 cubic feet per
minute for every 100,000 inhabitants as a minimum. In winter, when oxidation
is retarded by ice formation shutting out light and air, by low temperature
and by impeded motion, a greater rather than a lesser quantity should be
pumped. The recent analysis fully sustain this dictum.”
The preliminary report of the drainage and water Supply commission Of the
city of Chicago, published in January, 1887, also covered three methods, to wit:
(1) Discharge of the crude sewage into Lake Michigan ; (2) disposal on land
by intermittent filteration ; (3) discharge into the Des Plaines River. Plans
















ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1829
nd estimates for the first two methods were prepared in Sufficient detail to
emonstrate their impracticability. -
The discharge into Lake Michigan would involve an expenditure of at least
$37,000,000 and an annual expense of over $2,400,000 for interest and main-
tenance. Aside from the cost the commission rejected this miethod because,
While it might be practicable for some years to allow the sewage in its crude
form to enter the lake under the conditions prescribed, the necessity Would
SOOmer Or later arise for clarifying it previous to its discharge. The experience
of London and other large cities does not warrant the adoption of a plan in-
"Olving such a contingency.
As to the second method—that of disposal by land—it is apparent from the
tenor of the report that the commission was strongly predisposed in its favor,
and only abandoned it when it became obvious that suitable land in sufficient
uantity was not available within the borders of the State at any practicable
distance. Given a suitable body of land the plan of the commission for the
isposal Of the metropolitan Sewage alone, by intermittent filtration and Sew-
ge farming, would require an investment of about $58,000,000, with an annual
expense of over $3,000,000 for interest. pumping, and maintenance after deduct-
ing the profit from Sale of crops. The disposal of the sewage of the Calumet
region WOuld add about $4,000,000 to the cost Of this plan, or a total of $62,-
00,000.
Compelled to the rejection of both these plans, the commission next took up
he third solution of the drainage problem on the lines recognized by that dis-
tinguished engineer, Mr. E. S. Chesbrough, as early as 1856, and fully outlined
in the extracts—reprinted in the following pages—from a report of the Illinois
State Board of Health On the “Sanitary problems of Chicago,” made by the
ecretary in 1879. This solution consists in brief Of Such modification of the
onditions which have existed since 1871, when the “deep cut ’’ in the Illinois
& Michigan Canal was completed, as shall Secure a flow of water from Lake
Michigan into the Illinois River ample at all times to dilute the sewage beyond
he point of offensiveness to the Senses or injury to health. As shown on page
55 of the appendix to this preliminary report, there was in 1888 a population
of 842,300 inhabitants, “the sewage of which, so far as it is disposed of at all,
is discharged into the Illinois & Michigan Canal by the pumps at Bridgeport.
For present practical purposes the aggregate Water Supply may be assumed as:
the measure of the sewage product—any material Variation, either as to volume
or density, being compenSated for by the Storm-water discharge and its incident
pollution, the character of Wastes from Stockyards, Slaughterhouses, etc., so that
it will not be far out of the Way to State the daily Sewage product now tribu-
:ary to the canal at 150,000,000 gallons per day. During the summer of 1888,
as already Stated, the Bridgeport pumps discharged into the canal 45,000 cubic
eet per minute, or 485.280,000 gallons per day. Roughly stated, this was com-
posed of One part of sewage and two parts Of lake Water. During the winter
the proportion of sewage was somewhat greater in the ratio of 45,000 to 38,000—
he number of cubic feet pumped in the Summer and the winter respectively.
“The commission finally approved of the project for the construction of an
artificial waterway capable of carrying 6000,000 cubic feet per minute, through
:he Chicago River and the necessary conduits, from Lake Michigan to Lake
oliet. This quantity of water per minute represents 6,480,000,000 gallons
per day. If we admit that the ultimate population in the area to be drained
will reach 2,500,000, and that its average sewage product (150 gallons per
ead) will amount to 375,000,000 gallons per day, this quantity—6,480,000,000
gallons—would give a fraction over 17 dilutions, or more than 16 parts of
ake water to 1 of sewage, instead of 2 parts lake water to 1 of sewage
as now. It is to be noted that this would be the minimum dilution, and not
likely to be reached until some time between 1910 and 1915.
“From four different sets Of ObservationS, made in the Summer of 1886,
n the winter of 1886–87, in the summer of 1888, and in January, February,
nd March, 1889, there is no hesitation in Saying that even this minimum
dilution, for the maximum population which we are warranted in consider-
ng attainable, would suffice to prevent any nuisance from Chicago Sewage
long before it reached Lockport, and that the sanitary condition of the Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers would be greatly benefited in every respect. The
arge amount of dissolved oxygen in the lake water and its freedom from
rganic impurity would not only hasten the decomposition of the sewage,
resolving it into its harmless inorganic elements, but in the volume proposed
it would assist in the oxidation of the sewage from the river towns, as well
1830 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
as of the large amount of organic matter of vegetable origin contributed t
the Illinois by many of its tributaries. For further details in this connectio
the reader is referred to the report proper and to the two appendices.”
11. Federic P. Stearns, in a monograph entitled “The pollution and self
purification of streams,” published in December, 1889, but the Massachusett
State Board of Health, gave data on streams in Massachusetts and state
that the data available required a further study.
In the meantime, however, it is necessary to solve practical problems, an
it is therefore desirable to limit the debatable ground as far as may be justi
fied by the Observations. For this purpose two lines have been drawn acros
the table on page 789 to include those ratios of population to volume concern-
ing which there may be doubt. These lines include volumes from 2.5 to
º feet per Second per 1,000 persons, and free ammonia from 0.0399 to
..1116.
With Smaller volumes of water, the polution is so great as to be inadmissible.
With larger volumes, the pollution is so small as to be clearly admissible
from the standpoint of the offensiveness of the water. From other stand-
points, however, such as the use of water for certain manufacturing pur-
poses, the amount of dilution should be greater, and in a stream used for
domestic Water supply it can not be said, with our present knowledge, that
any degree of dilution will make the water entirely safe for use.
The other method of determining the ratio of population to flow of streams,
referred to in the early part of this section of the report, depends upon Obser-
Vations Of the effect Of discharging the Sewage of a given population into a
Stream Of known size. In this State there are but two StreamS Where
comparison of this kind is practicable; namely, the Blackstone and Merri
mack Rivers. The former has discharged into it the sewage of the city of
Worcester, with an estimated population, in 1888, of 76,500. The total popu-
lation above the point where samples were collected was at the same tim
77,500. The volume of water flowing in the river during working hours wa
determined, but not the total quantity flowing in the whole 24 hours.
The average flow of the Blackstone River for the period under consideration
reckoned upon this basis, was 122 cubic feet per second, and, if we assum
that the river received the sewage of 70,000 of the population, then th
Volume per 1,000 persons would be 1.77 cubic feet per Second. The amoun
Of pollution at this place, as already stated is much greater than is permis
sible. At Uxbridge, which is 16 miles further downstream the flow upon
the basis above given is 279 cubic feet per second, and, if we assume that the
Sewage of 3,000 persons enters the river between Worcester and Uxbridge
making a total of 73,000, the volume flowing per 1,000 persons was 3.88 cubi
feet per second. The water at Uxbridge was so much polluted that its qualit
TOr manufacturing purposes was affected, but it was not generally Offensiv
to those living upon the banks of the stream. The amount of pollution a
this place was increased somewhat by the manufacturing refuse turned int
the river below Worcester. '. ‘. . .
The Merrimack River will be considered with reference to the effect of th:
sewage of Lowell upon it. In this case observations for more than three ye.
are available. The average flow of the river has been 8,720 cubic feet
second, and the average population of Lowell for the same time 74,500; hen,
the volume flowing has equaled 117 cubic feet per second per 1,000 persor:
If, instead of the average flow, we take the low-water flow of 2,200 cubic fee
per second, and the population as given by the census of 1890, the Volume pe.
1,000 persons is 28 cubic feet per second. It will be observed that the formel
of these results represents a greater dilution than any indicated by the tabl
on page 789, while the latter shows a dilution four times as great as the high
est about which there is any doubt. The discharge of this sewage into the
river, added to that which has already entered it from cities and towns above,
together with a vast amount of manufacturing sewage, has not affected the
water enough to prevent the city of Lawrence, 10 miles below, from adopt-
ing and maintaining a water supply from this source; although the dange”
to health which has been found to exist in this water Supply has led the City
authorities to contemplate the introduction of Water from a new Source. This
is a striking instance of the extent to which a great river can dilute the
sewage of a very large population; but the fact that the water is not worse
than it is, is undoubtedly due in part to the so-called Self-purifying power of
streams, which will now be discussed.
















ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1831
The Blackstone River has long been known as one of the most highly pol-
Iuted streams in the East.
12. Baumeister in The Cleaning and Sewerage of Cities, published in Ger-
many in 1890, gives a table on page 114 of Goodell’s translation (N. Y. 1891)
from which the following data were taken, with the addition of a column
Showing the data calculated in cubic feet per minute per 1,000 population.
I believe some of the flows may be in error, but the data represent the knowl-
edge of the time, to which Mr. Hering doubtless had access through his ac-
Quaintance in Germany. º
. The pollution of rivers
& Cubic e Cubic
Subiº | fest ºf 9 ºbiº || feet ºf
feet of river feet of river
rl Ver Il Ver
City River Water lºo City River Water Yºo
it. popula- capita popula-
Çapça, £ion per p tion per
per day intº per day intº
Basel----------- Rhine------- 18, 754 13,000 || Mainz - - - ------ Rhine------- 24, 615 17, 100
Brunswick----- Ocker------- 35 24 || Magdeburg----| Elbe-------- 2,295 1, 590
Breslau -------- Oder-------- 212 147 || Munich-------- Izar--------- 494 344
Budapest ------ Danube----- 5,085 3, 530 || Neisse---------- Bielearn----- 459 319
Dresden.-------- Elbe-------- 600 416 || Nuremburg----| Pegnitz----- 247 172
Frankfort ------ Main------- 1,377 956 || Paris----------- Seine-------- 70 49
Halle----------- Saale-------- 1,059 734 || POSen.---------- Warthe----- 1,094 760
Hannover------ Leine------- 247 171 || Prague--------- Moldav----- 317 220
Kassel---------| Fuida------- 565 392 || Stuttgart------- Neckar------ 317 220
Cologne-------- Rhine------- 11,442 7, 950 || Vienna--------- Danube----- 106 74
Linz----------- Danube----- 39,636 27, 500 || Wurzburg------ Main ------- 1,765 1, 220
13. In a report entitled “Pollution of the Illinois River as affected by the
drainage of Chicago and other cities,” by Dr. James A. Egan, dated May, 1901,
reference is made to investigations on the self-purification of the sewage from
Chicago in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers in 1886, 1888, and 1889:
“This board determined from the analyses made by Professor Long in 1886,
1887, and 1888 that about 17 volumes of Lake Michigan water to 1 volume of
Chicago crude sewage would form a mixture which under the conditions of
flow and distance would not become a nuisance or menace to the inhabitants
of the Illinois River Valley and the act creating the sanitary district provides
for 20 volumes of lake water to 1 volume of Chicago Sewage, or 20,000 cubic
feet per second for each 100,000 inhabitants of the sanitary district.”
14. Other Sources searched revealed no further information.
From this array of statements it is clear that the senators and repre-
sentatives of the Illinois State Legislature, and Mr. Hurd, who were drafting
the bill, had before them competent engineering facts and opinions whereby
the ratio for dilution was definitely indicated. The amount fixed in the act
º, clearly based on engineering recommendations.
* Further, Mr. Hering, as chief engineer of the drainage and water supply
§mmission, had a study made of available data, both in the United States and .
Furope, on which he must have based his opinion. This was checked by the
Fexperiments and tests conducted by Doctor Rauch for the Illinois State Board
of Health. Judging by the perspective and the engineering customs of the
time, the methods of sizing up the problem were a distinct advance in current
practice. *
Yours truly,
LANGDON PEARSE,
Sanitary Engineer.
ExHIBIT 4
DILUTION FACTOR FOR RAW SEWAGE DATA FROM 1889 TO 1924
[“Notes on the pollution of streams,” by Rudolph Hering, Vol. XIII, Transactions Amer-
ican Public Health Association]
“Conclusions: Rivers not to be used for water supplies but to be inoffensive
to communities residing a few miles below to remain fit for Ordinary manu-
facturing purposes and to sustain the fish life, may receive the sewage from



1832 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
1,000 persons for at least every 150 to 200 cubic feet of minimum flow . pel
minute, Supposing that natural subsidence of the heavier matter takes place
immediately below the town discharging the sewage.”
NOTE:-This is 2.5 to 3.33 cubic feet per second (sanitary district note).
(From Fuller, Sewage Disposal, p. 230.)
[Drainage and water supply commission of Chicago, Ill.—Report by Messrs. Rudolph
Hering, Benezetto Williams, and Samuel C. Artingstall, engineers for the commission,
recommending the Chicago Drainage Canal in January, 1887]
“For the purpose of estimating the cost of the water channel we have
aSSumed 3,600 square feet for the cross section and a velocity of the water
of 3 feet per second or 2 miles per hour. This gives a discharge of 600,000
cubic feet of water per minute, or 24,000 cub'c feet for each 100,000 persons
(4 Cubic feet per 1,000), which we believe equal to the maximum requirements
Of a population of 2,500,000 people.”
The information upon which to definitely decide the question was to be
given ºn a final report, which was not made because of lack of funds. In the
course of the legislative hearings and other preliminary steps required for
the enactment of the proper laws, the above degree of dilution became reduced
to 3.33 cubic feet per second per 1,000 population. (From Fuller, Sewage Dis.
posal, p. 224.)
[Massachusetts State Board of Health, by Mr. F. P. Stearns, under the heading “Pollu-
tion and self-purification of streams ”I
No decisive conclusions are drawn, although the debatable limit according
to his observations falls within the range of from 2.5 to 7 cubic feet per
Second per 1,000 population. (From Fuller, Sewage Disposal, p. 231.)
[Massachusetts State Board of Health Report of 1890, Part I, p. 789, by Mr. Stearns]
It will be seen that the foregoing data are insufficient for reaching a definite
Conclusion, and a further study of the subject is very much needed. In the
meantime, however, it is necessary to solve practical problems, and it is there-
fore desirable to lim't the debatable ground as far as may be justified by the
observations. For this purpose two lines have been drawn across the table
on page 789 to include those ratios of population to volume concerning which
there may be doubt. These lines include volumes from 2.5 to 7 cubic feet per
second per 1,000 persons and free ammonia from 0.0399 to 0.1116.
With Smaller volumes of water the pollution is so great as to be inadmissible.
With larger volumes the pollution is so small as to be clearly admissible from
the standpoint of the offensiveness of the water. From other standpoints,
however, such as the use of water for certain manufacturing purposes, the
amount of dilution should be greater, and in a stream used for domestic water
supply it can not be sa'd, with our present knowledge, that any degree of
dilution will make the water entirely safe for use. (From report of committee
on Charles Rºver Dam (1903), p. 307.)
[Ohio State Board of Health, by Allen Hazen I
In 1897 the Ohio State Board of Health had an investigation of the condition
of certain Ohio rivers made under the direction of Allen Hazen. In discussing
the results he stated that in the case of sluggish streams, or of streams the
waters of which are already somewhat polluted, the quantity required for
proper dilution may become 6, 8, or even 10 cubic feet per second per 1,000
population. (Preliminary report of an investigation of rivers, p. 32.) (From
Metcalf & Eddy, American Sewerage Practice, p. 256, vol. 3.)
[Sewage, by Rideal. P. 17]
“Dupre states that on an average dilution with 30 volumes of fully aerated
river water prevents sewage from fouling and ultimately purifies it. Even a
less proportion, in my experience, has been effectual.”
NoTE.—At 40 gallons of Sewage per person per day (approximate average
for England at that time) the above dilution is equivalent to 2 cubic feet per
second per 1,000 population.)
t
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1833
Bollution of Illinois and Mississippi Rivers by Chicago Sewage, by Marshall. Q. Leighton,
# 1907, on the testimony of Rūdolph Hering in 1900, State of Missouri v. State of
: Illinois. P. 153]
The witness stated that in March, 1886, he was engaged as chief engineer of
the drainage and water supply commission of the city of Chicago, and in that
capacity made investigations. The question was very different at that time
from what it is at the present day, and the information available was afforded
by the observations of Dr. John Rauch, secretary of the State board of health
of Illinois, who in making investigations on the gradual change of the Water of
the old Illinois and Michigan Canal after it entered Illinois River, had fixed
a unit of flow of water equal to 180 cubic feet per minute for every 1,000
draining into the river at Chicago as sufficient to obviate any Substantial injury
to the water. From the results of other investigations made by the Witness, he
concluded that the Chicago Drainage Canal should have a sufficient capacity
to carry water at the rate of 240 cubic feet per minute for each 1,000 persons.
[Massachusetts State Board of Health, Goodnough's investigation]
In 1902 an investigation was made for the Massachusetts State Board of
Health by Goodnough. He narrowed the range of dilution fixed by Stearns,
Goodnough's predecessor, and summarized the results (report. State Board
of Health, 1902, p. 452) as showing that where the quantity of Water avail-
able for dilution of the sewage in a stream exceeds about 6 cubic feet per
second per 1,000 persons contributing sewage, objectionable conditions are
unlikely to result. Where sewage was discharged at many outlets into a large
ody of water he thought that objectionable conditions might not result from
omewhat less dilution than that named. In every case Where the flow was
ess than 3.5 cubic feet per second per 1,000 persons objectionable conditions
ad resulted. (From Metcalf & Eddy, American Sewerage Practice, p. 255,
vol. 3.
[Committee on Charles River Dam]
J. Herbert Shedd testified in 1902 before the committee on Charles River
Dam that about 5 cubic feet per second of the Ordinary flow of the river per
1,000 persons contributing sewage would render the presence of the sewage
unobjectionable. (Evidence, etc., before committee, p. 365.) (From Metcalf
& Eddy, American Sewerage Practice, p. 255, vol. 3.)
[H2eport of Committee on Charles River Dam, 1903, by X. H. Goodnough, sanitary engi-
neer. P. 307]
“Where the rate of dilution is less than 3.5 cubic feet per Second, Objec-
tionable conditions are likely to result from the discharge Of Sewage into a
stream, while in cases where the dilution exceeds 6 cubic feet per 1,000
persons objectionable conditions have not been produced.”
NOTE.-Domestic Sewage.
[Report of Committee on Charles River Dam, 1903, by John R. Freeman, chief engineer]
“Experience On the discharge of sewage into Other Massachusetts wa-
ters makes it appear entirely Safe to Say that a flow of less than 8 cubic
feet per Second Of Such water (Water Well Supplied with Oxygen) as now
comes down Over the Watertown Dam into this proposed “stagnant ’’ reservoir
will be ample to dilute and absorb the ordinary pollution from 1,000 persons
without offense if this pollution is well diffused through the water ; and
measurements Of the river flow at Waltham make it certain that the Summer
flow (May 1 to November 1) in all Ordinary years is more than sufficient for
this degree of dilution.” (P. 49.)
“It further appears that the basin will be thoroughly flushed out by flood
waters every spring, and that the 458,000,000 cubic feet of clean, fresh
water that it will contain could take care of the summer flow of sewage
for three months with no inflow of fresh water whatever.” (P. 51.)
NoTE.—With 10,000 people (estimated maximum tributary population) con-
tributing Sewage, the dilution in the basin for the above conditions would
458,000,000 gº ge
be (10×36,400x50-59) 5.9 cubic feet per 1,000 persons.)
tº £ 6 The flow of the Charles in all Ordinary seasons is more than sufficient to
give this degree of dilution of 6 cubic feet per second per 1,000 persons, and in








































I
1834 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
extreme drought the volume of upland water in storage will be more than
sufficient to keep the proportion of sewage far below this limit.” (P. 92.)
NOTE.-Mr. Freeman is referring to the 6 cubic feet dilution suggested by
Mr. Goodnough as the greatest dilution at which possible objectionable condi-
tions might occur.
It seems to be the opinion throughout the report that (with a flow into the
basin seldom averaging less than 70 cubic feet per second per 24 hours in dry
seasons, although this is reduced to 30 cubic feet per second for a month at a
time by storage in mill ponds, and with the basin capacity of 458,000,000 cubic
feet) sufficient dilution was available to take care of the sewage of 10,000
people, and a dilution would exist greater than that prescribed by experts as
the maximum dilution at which objectionable conditions might occur.
[Hering and Fuller’s report on the Chicago Drainage Canal in 1906]
It is our judgment that for large canals with the trade wastes eliminated a
dilution of 3.33 cubic feet per second for each 1,000 population connected with
the sewers, also receiving storm water, is as low a figure as it is now possible
to state. Local conditions, especially temperature, which affects bacterial
activities and the coefficient of absorption of oxygen by Water, and still other
matters, bear upon this question, the detailed discussion of which is not now
necessary. We feel certain that a dilution of 2.5 cubic feet per second would
cause offense at times, and probably also a dilution of 3 cubic feet per second.
(From Fuller, Sewage Disposal, p. 253.)
[Sewage Disposal System, Rochester, N. Y., report by E. Kuichling]
Kuichling mentions several instances during the low-water stage of the river,
when the dilution was 83, 78, and 116 cubic feet per minute for every 1,000
tºº, contributing sewage without offensive conditions having occurred.
On the basis of 200 cubic feet of river water per minute for every 1,000
persons contributing sewage, a constant flow of 1,000 cubic feet per Second
through the city would suffice for a population of not more than 300,000, and
after this limit is reached it will be necessary either to increase the storage” or
devise means for preventing a larger discharge of crude sewage into the stream.
It may be added that the aforesaid ratio, 20 to 1, for diluting sewage is re-
garded by Mr. Hering as applicable only when the most troublesome trade
Wastes are excluded from the sewers and that if no restriction in this respect
º a much larger ratio must be taken to secure satisfactory resultS.
[Massachusetts State Board of Health, by Goodnough]
In 1908 and 1913 Goodnough made for the board investigations of the con-
dition of the Merrimack River. The condition of other rivers was examined
to obtain corroborative evidence regarding pollution, and it was found that
Wherever the dilution was 3.4 cubic feet per second or less per 1,000 persons,
a nuisance followed. Where serious pollution was observed with higher rates
of dilution the nuisance was usually due to the discharge of large quantities
Of industrial wastes into the stream. (From Metcalf & Eddy, American Sewer-
age Practice, p. 255, Vol. 3.) -
[Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York, on New York Harbor]
The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York estimated in its 1910
report that the sewage discharge into New York Harbor was diluted with 32
parts of water, and that this ratio would become 1 to 13 about 1940. The
flow of diluting water in the harbor was estimated at 4.7 cubic feet per Second
per 1,000 population, Which would be reduced to 2.65 cubic feet in 1940. (From
Metcalf & Eddy, American Sewerage Practice, p. 256, vol. 3.)
[Report on a plan of sewerage, city of Concinnati, H. S. Morse and H. P. Eddy, engi-
neers. P. 549]
Many studies have been made to ascertain the quantity of water necessary
for the dilution of the Sewage of a given population. The quantities have been
1 Method for maintaining dry season flow of the river.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1835
Stated variously by different observers, but it is generally accepted at the
present time that at least 3 cubic feet per second per 1,000 persons must be
provided in practically all cases, and that as much as 6 cubic feet per second
may be necessary in Some Cases, to prevent the Creation Of Offensive COnditions.
[“Permissible dilution of sewage,” by C. W. Fuller, Journal Western Society of Engi-
neers, Vol. XVIII]
Permissible dilution of sewage, without treatment, in water courses with
fairly high velocities, ranges apparently from 3.7 to 7 cubic feet per second per
1,000 population, depending upon the manufacturing wastes in the sewage and
dissolved oxygen content Of the diluting water. For well-settled sewage, these
limits become about 2.5 to 5 cubic feet per Second per 1,000 population, according
to the present information. (P. 392.)
Degree of dilution.—On the assumption that floating and settling solid mat-
ters are removed from the Sewage and that disease germs are killed, where
necessary, by Sterilizing chemicals, we can now come to the discussion of what
the permissible limits are for the dilution of sewage. We can answer it by
Saying first that the limits should be such that there should be present at all
times and in all places Sufficient dissolved oxygen to prevent an aerobic or SO-
called putrefactive decomposition becoming established, and furthermore that
there should be a reasonable margin of dissolved oxygen to take care of fish
life unless it should prove in Some instances that the question of fish life is not
Of Sufficient Significance to justify consideration.
On the degree of dilution the first scientific data in this country were ob-
tained in the early days Of the consideration of the Chicago Drainage Canal,
and it is from the technical staff of the Chicago Sanitary District that engi-
neers have received their latest information bearing upon this important Sub-
ject. A few years ago and until quite recently all data as to the degree Of
dilution of sewage referred to crude sewage with its floating and settling Solids.
The Chicago Drainage Canal was established on the legal limit of 31% cubic
feet of water per second to dilute the sewage of each 1,000 persons connected
with the sewers. That linnit was prol)ably too low for the Crude Sewage of a
city which has such a large proportion of manufacturing wastes in its sewage
flow, as is the case here in Chicago. For a city without manufacturing wastes
it is probably a fair limit, although Some data obtained from Massachusetts
suggests that it might be wiser to provide a somewhat more liberal volume of
water for dilution.
To my mind a dilution of 4 cubic feet per second per 1,000 population is as
close a general figure for crude sewage as can now be obtained, although there
are various local factors which influence the dilution and may establish a
range as wide as from 3 to 7 cubic feet.
As to the degree of dilution necessary for settled sewage, present evidence
indicates that at least 2.5 cubic feet per Second per 1,000 population should be
provided for residential communities and where the diluting water is well sup-
plied with atmospheric oxygen. For manufacturing cities where the diluting
water is moderately depleted in Oxygen during the Summer months, this dilu-
tion may perhaps have to be doubled, that is, increased to 5 cubic feet per
second per 1,000 population. -
There is no precise rule now available and the above ranges establish as
closely as can now be done the permissable limits in the dilution which prop-
erly should be applied to settled Sewage in preference to raw sewage with
floating and settling solids in it. (P. 388.)
[Sewage Purification and Disposal, by Kershaw. P. 60]
“English rivers and streams are small in volume, and, save in somewhat
exceptional cases, unsuited to the burden of receiving crude or screened sew-
age. In the eighth report of the sewage disposal commission, however, dilu-
tion is countenanced whenever the ratio of the river to the volume of Sewage
discharged into it exceeds 500 to 1.”
NOTE.-At 40 gallons of sewage per person per day (amount used by Kershaw
for England) the above dilution is equivalent to 31 cubic feet per second per
1,000 population.
[State of Connecticut: Report on the Investigation of the Pollution of Streams, State
Board of Health, 1914. P. 8]
There is considerable difference of Opinion between authorities as to the
stream flow necessary for proper dilution but it may be safely said that with
a flow of 4 to 6 cubic feet per second to each 1,000 persons contributing,
1836 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
together with adequate dispersion, no nuisance will occur, provided the sewage
does not contain over 15 parts per 100,000 of suspended matter in which case
it Would require a flow as high as 14 cubic feet per second per 1,000 persons.
[International Joint Commission, Pollution of Boundary Waters. Report, by E. B.
helps, consulting Sanitary engineer on remedial measures. P. 17]
“With a dilution of 6,000 second-feet and with velocities of from 1.9 to 2.5
feet per Second, such as are indicated in the preliminary plans of the pro-
jected drainage canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and with the
present tributary population, Sedimentation would take place and local nuisan-
Ces arise especially in warm weather. Ultimate oxygen exhaustion would
probably not occur so that the discharge into the lower lake would probably
not be foul and offensive in a physical sense in the course of 17 hours the
estimated time of passage.
“With a future population of 1,000,000 conditions as regards lake pollution
WOuld be aggravated not only in proportion to the increase but to a far
greater extent because of the overtaxing of the dilution capacity of the canal
itself. ” *
NOTE.-A population of 1,000,000 and a canal capacity of 6,000 Second-feet
is equivalent to a dilution of 6 cubic feet per 1,000 population.
[Dilution 1918–1921, department of health, State of Connecticut, first and second bien-
nial reports of the industrial wastes board]
In order to dispose of the sewage without objection by dilution a stream
flow of at least 3.86 second-feet per 1,000 population contributing will be
required. (P. 254, with reference to the Naugatuck River.)
'The average required stream flow is 6.7 second-feet per 1,000 population
contributing. (P. 351, with reference to the Hockanum River.)
THE SEWAGE-TREATMENT PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF SLUDGE. º
[A progress *gº; presented to the American Society of Municipal Improvements, Cleve-
land, Ohio, October 5, 1922, by Langdon Pearse, chairman general committee on Sew-
erage and sanitation]
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION,
Cleveland, Ohio, October 17, 1922.
The purpose of this report is not to present anything novel, but to Summarize
briefly the conditions existing in the sewage treatment works of the Cities
Of the United States with populations of 25,000 and upward, indicating the
methods used and the results obtained from the standpoint of Sludge. Further,
the need of agricultural study and quantitative growing tests by soil and plant
expertS is necessary.
The material contained herein has been compiled for the joint use of the
American Society of Municipal Improvements and of the sludge committee of
the Sanitary Section of the American Public Health ASSOciation.
The data given herein is compiled from a questionnaire sent out to over
700 cities and towns in the United States. At first it was thought possible
to obtain information from all plants in towns from 1,500 population and up.
Only Some 80 replies being received, attention was concentrated on the larger
Cities With 25,000 population and up. From a few of these data is still lacking.
If members of the society or others can supply this before publication it would
be desirable. All population figures are given on the 1920 census. Thanks are
due to the various city and State officials who have generously answered
inquiries for the present completeness of the data.
The 1920 Census figures give the following number of incorporated municipal
ities having the population indicated or more: !
Population in 1920
Num-
ber of |--
Cities Limit Total of all
68 100,000 and up---------------------------------------------------------------------- 27,429,326
219 25,000 to 100,000-------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,340, 738
2,500 2,500 to 25,000---------------------------------------------------------------------- 16, 534,489
Of these cities those having Sewage-disposal works have been listed, and also
those with works under construction in each group.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1837
The populations of the cities with sewage-treatment works are as follows:

*T"----------- =--
With Sewage-treat-
ment works
Number
Group e 3 &
of cities | Popula- | Per cent
tion of of total
cities grOup
100,000 and up---------------------------------------------------------- 17 | 8,701, 747 31. 7
25,000 to 100,000--------------------------------------------------------- 26 1, 232, 993 11.9
The populations of the cities, having sewage works under construction are
as follows:

Sewage-treatment works under
construction
Group
Number Popula- | Per cent
of cities tion of of total
cities grOup
100,000 and up---------------------------------------------------------- 3 943,058 3.4
23,000 to 100,000--------------------------------------------------------- 2 71, 709 . 7
The data collected has been general, as well as applied to the sludge
problem. For all cities over 25,000 the data have been tabulated, divided into
the two groups.
GROUP 100,000 AND UP
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the data, classified by general plant and engineering
for the group Over 100,000. Most Of the cities have combined Sewer System.S.
Tables 4 and 5 show the data on amount of Screenings and grit, and on Sludge
from Imhoff tanks. Table 6 gives data on miscellaneous sludges.
The inquiry also shows that in the operation of the plants with the excep-
tion of Baltimore, practically no complaints are found, either on the plant
itself or the sludge disposal.
Table 7 shows the methods of sludge disposal. With the exception of Cleve-
land and Providence, practically all of the cities making air-dried sludge
dump it on land. Cleveland dumps liquid sludge in Lake Erie. Providence
dumps liquid sludge at sea. Five cities lagoon sludge. One plows some liquid
sludge into the ground. Four discharge sludge at flood in the river as Oppor-
tunity offers. Two have actually tried heat drying.
Table 8 shows the use of the sludge by farmers. Three report no use.
Seven cities report some use. Of these six say that the Same farmer may
call for sludge year after year. Only three report any receipts for the Sludge
and then only nominal amounts. +
The sludge analyses reported (Table 9) Imhoff or settling on the tanks
all show low nitrogen, ranging from 1.25 to 3.3 per cent on a dry basis. The
ether soluble ranges from 4.6 to 20 per cent. The activated Sludges reported
(Table 10) have a much higher nitrogen content.
GROUP 25,000 TO 100,000
Tables 11, 12, and 13 shºw the data, classified by general, plant, and en-
gineering for the group over 100,000. Most of the cities have separate Sewer
systems. Tables 14 and 15 show the data on amount of screenings and grit
and on the sludge from Imhoff tanks. Table 16 shows sludge data on mis-
Cellaneous plants. “y.
The inquiry also shows that in the operation of the plants, with the excep-
tion of Schenectady, New Britain, Fresno, Austin (before covering tanks and
trapping sewer outlet), and Plainfield, practically no complaints are reported
either on the plant itself or sludge disposal.
Table 17 shows the methods of sludge disposal with the exception of Madison,
which lagoons, and Fresno, Mansfield, and Plainfield, which run sludge Out
into the fields and plow in. Practically all the cities having air-dried Sludge
1838 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
dump it on land. One city discharges at flood into the river. None have
tried heat drying.
Table 18 shows the use of the sludge by farmers. Eight report no use.
Seven report some use. Of these six, five say the same farmer may call for
Sludge year after year, but one notes that the sludge is not used on the same
land. Only one city reports any receipts for sludge, and that only $2 per
cubic yard. This is the highest rate of sale reported. I
The sludge analyses reported on (Table 19) the Imhoff and Settling tanks
all Show low nitrogen, ranging from 1.21 to 2.6 per cent on a dry basis. The
ether Soluble content ranges from 2 to 7.5 per cent on a dry basis. The elec-
trolytic sludge from Allentown is very low in nitrogen, because of the lime
used, and is even higher in fixed solids than the Worcester sludge (Table 20).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSEs
Through the courtesy of Mr. H. P. Ramey, acting chief engineer the Sanitary
District of Chicago, and Dr. F. W. Mohlman, chemist, we present here with Table
20, showing analyses of typical sludges, shipped in from the various plants
shown, and analyzed in the laboratory of the sanitary district. This table shows
more clearly the variation of nitrogen content in the different types of sludge.
The activated sludge of the Corn Products Refining Co. testing station at Argo
Shows the highest, with the domestic activated sludges next in amount.
OPERATING DATA
The results of the inquiry show that the plants in the cities of 100,000 and
upWards in general have technical attention and in most cases a chemist in
Charge, even though money is not always available for continued or complete
Operation. In the cities from 25,000 to 100,000 only 6 have any complete control.
Among the most thoroughly operated appear Fitchburg and Plainfield. The
rest may have Some control by a city official, but not enough to keep any real
Operating data. One city frankly reports no funds.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
From the standpoint of sludge disposal and use, the very great preponder-
ance Of air drying and dumping as a means of disposal is of note. Further the
lack of interest by farmers and the general lack of income as yet from sludge
disposal are noteworthy. For this the low nitrogen content generally preva-
lent may be responsible. However there is the possibility of lack of publicity.
With Suitable publicity one of the smaller towns within 40 miles of Chicago
has been selling its Imhoff sludge for several years at $5 per load. Chemical
precipitation sludge appears to have practically no value.
STEPS NECESSARY
The Obvious step necessary to interest the farmer in sludge is the develop-
ment of a real yardstick of value. For this end the need of intelligent treat-
ment on experimental farms is urged. At the suggestion of Mr. Hatton, the
Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture has been requested
by various municipalities to allocate part of the budget of his department for
a thorough investigation trying sludges in different parts of the country and in
different CropS. The experimental stations of the States of Illinois and Wis-
consin have been urged by the Sanitary District of Chicago and the Mil-
waukee Sewerage Commission to cooperate. They have expressed a desire to
do so within the limits of their resources. Further, the Sanitary District of
Chicago is planning to undertake Some experimental work in the vicinity of
the truck farms around Chicago.
In order to determine all the elements of value trials extending over several
years will be needed. Such trials to be effective necessarily must be quantita-
tive. To properly apply the fertilizer and learn its true value, such trials
should be under the direction of trained agriculture experts who know what
fertilizers and what amounts are requisite for the different trial crops.
Doctor Schreiner, of the Bureau of Soil Fertility of the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, recommends trial crops typical respectively of roots, grain,
leaf, and fruit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the following year the recommendation is made that the committee
work be extended to COVer Some of the Smaller cities and to collate the infor-
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1839
mation on sludge use in various countries.
in England and Canada should be sought.
The cooperation of the authorities
Quantitative data may be secured
On methods and cost of sludge handling. Operating data should also be avail-
able from the Des Plaines River and Calumet sewage treatment works of the
sanitary district of Chicago.



TABLE 1.-General data, cities of 100,000 and up
Per cent Number of treat-
Popula- sewered ment plants
City tion, 1920 to treat- Sewers
CenSUS Iment
Works In use | Proposed
Philadelphia 1,823,779 0.2 | Combined.--- 1 1
Cleveland- 96,841 78. 0 |----- do 2 ----------
Baltimore-- 733,826 73. 0 | Separate--- 1 ----------
Rochester--- 295, 750 87 Combined Sewers 1-- 3 ----------
Providence------------------------- 237, 595 98 Combined 1 ----------
Columbus 237,031 |------------|----- do--------------- 1 ----------
Akron 208, 435 25-30 ||----- do--------------- 1 ----------
Atlanta 200, 616 |------------|----- do 3 ----------
Worcester -- 179,754 2 90–95 | Combined sewers 3-- 1 ----------
San Antonio 161,379 1 ----------
Dallas 158,976 80 Separate--- 1 ----------
Bridgeport -- 143, 555 ------------ 1 ----------
Houston , 276 8 70 Separate *----------- 2 ----------
Albany 113,344 92 Combined---------- 1 ----------
Reading, Pa 107, 874 Separate------------- 1 ----------
Sanitary District of Chicago.-------- 2,986,000 5. 5 Combined----------- 3 5.
Birmingham 178,806 85.4 | Separate------------- 2 ----------
1 Irondequoit plant served by combined sewers.
* In 1922, 69,813 miles combined, 117,169 miles separate.
* All night soil dumped into sewers reaching treatment works.
* Very small amount of combined sewers.
* TABLE 2.-Plant data, cities of 100,000 and up
T f Ol
Area ype of plant
provided Screen Tank Filter
Sanitary District of Chicago: Acres
Des Plaines------------------ 26. 52 | Bar and fine, G---| Activated sludge------ A. i;à v a t e d
- Sludge.
Morton Grove.--------------- 1.25 Trnhoff Trickling.
Calumet- 106.4 | Bar, G------------|----- do----------------
Philadelphia, Pennypack Creek - 6 Bar---------------|----- do---------------- DO.
Cleveland:
Westerly Bar, G------------|----- do----------------
Easterly--- --do-------
Baltimore 468.08 || Bar--------------- Hydrolytic------------ DO.
Rochester:
Irondequoit------------------ 315 Bar and fine, G ---| Imhoff
Brighton * * 22 Bar, G------------|----- do---------------- Do.
Charlotte-------------------- 0.7 ----- do----------------- do---------------- º
Providence * gº Bar--------------- Chemical precipita- || Chemical pre-
tion. cipitation.
Columbus----------------------- 30 ----- do---- Trnhoff Trickling.
Akron--------------------------- 60 Bar, G------------|----- do---------------- Do.
Atlanta:
Proctor Creek---------------- 19 ----- do----------------- do---------------- Do.
Intrenchment Creek--------- 30 ----- do----------------- do---------------- Do.
Peachtree Creek------------- 116.5 |----- do----------------- do---------------- Do.
Worcester------------------------ 00 |----- do------------ Chemical. precipita-
tion sedimentation.
Birmingham:
Valley Creek-----------------|----------|-------------------- Septic contact-------- Septic contact.
Ensley---------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *m. Sedimentation -------
San Antonio 1 - * * * * <=
Dallas---- 100 Bar, G------------ Imhoff----------------
Bridgeport - ---| Fine Screen.-------|---------------
Houston:
North side------------------- 3 Bar, G------------ Activated sludge------ A i.d v a t e d
SIllClge.
South side------------------- 1.5 Bar---------------|----- do---------------- DO.
Albany---------------- Bar, G------------ Imhoff---------------- º
Reading---------------- * Septic----------------- Trickling.
NOTE–“G” under screen column indicates grit chamber.
1 Irrigation by contract.
1840
ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
TABLE 3.—Engineering data, cities 100,000 and up

Sewage treated, Sus •
- - - - pended matter,
water | #s gallons ºmii.
& use, gal- *
City
- lons *
Capita i- -
Average *:::: Raw ; .
Philadelphia, Pennypack Creek - * * * 200 1 1. 25 2. 30
Baltimore-- 46. 6 66, 6 252 75
Rochester--- * * 90 l-------
Irondequoit----------------------------------------------- 32.6 66, 2 173 82
Brighton-------------------------------------------------- 1, 18 1. 86 150 29.4
Charlotte 0.27 0. 56 460 149
Providence--- 79.5 !----------|----------|----------|----------
Columbus * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86 22.6 36 218 108
Oſł wºe ºn tº 290–100 8 15 --------------------
Atlanta------- * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * - 90
Proctor Creek- 328 46
Intrenchment Creek 140 44
Peachtree Creek--- * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 145 59
Worcester------- - - - 83. 5 21.2 48.9 * 174 ----------
Dallas 6.3
Houston 70
North side * * * 6 9
South side---------------------------------------|---------- 1.8 2. 5 4 200 ----- -- - - -
Albany - * * * * 14, 3 19.9 |----------|----------
Reading º 6.2 132 96
1 Average, 9 years.
* 25 to 30 per cent of population is treated.
* Day, 278 parts per
* Parts per million in 1920, 174; 1921, 342; 1922
to May 19, 542.
illion; night, 151; effluent plain sedimentation, 200 parts per million.
TABLE 4.—Amount of Screenings and grit, cities 100,000 and up
$


e Screen Screenings Grit per
City openin per million million
p gS gallons gallons
Imches Cubic feet Cubic feet
Philadelphia, Pennypack Creek------------------------------ % 14 2
Ore------ 1 * 3.25 --------------
Rochester:
Irondequoit---------------------------------------------- 3, #x2, 3%x2 3 5. 17 || 4 1.81X1.90
Brighton.-- - - +} 1 5. 17 ... 7
Charlotte------------------------------------------------- # (*) --------------
Providence * * *- - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - 3 |, (**) --------------
Columbus * * * * - - - - *s 1; % 5 1–2 1. 7
Akron-------------------------------------------------------- 2 1 - 15 9
Atlanta
#:#d k * - 1% (1) 16.2
Intrenchment Creek-------------------------------------- 1 5. 4.—
Peachtree Creek - - - C. to C. }
Worcester - - -- * - sº * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * - - - - 2.7
EIouston:
North side----------------------------------------------- 1 ** 3.25 --------------
South side- - - 1. ** 2.93 I--------------
Albany----------------------------------------------------- 0.21 3
Reading---------- ----------------------------- (78) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sanitary District of Chicago:
Des Plaines-- - - - - 1, #x2 -
Calumet--- 1 *
1 Buried. 5 Spread on land.
* Sold to farmers. 6 Burned.
8 Dumped.
4 1.81 at plant; 1.90 before reaching plant.
7 355 pounds per million gallons.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1841
TABLE 5.—Sludge data, Imhoff tanks, cities 100,000 and up

Liquid sludge
Moisture
Number
City Cubic cubic air dºings!"...”
ards per Ul per year
*; yards per from beds
gallons year
Philadelphia, Pennypack Creek----------------------- 0.8 1 328 3 ------------
Rochester:
Irondequoit 2 2.5 29,704 13 49–62
Brighton 1. 03 444 6 56
Columbus-- 11. 5 45,000 6 30–40
Atlanta:
Proctor Creek
Intrenchment Creek-- tº º (s) 15–25
Peachtree Creek -
Worcester 6.95
allas-- (*) ------------
Albany--- 1.06
19-year average.
* The amount drawn corrected for storage gives the 1921 accumulation as 1.45 per million gallons and
17,329 cubic yards for year.
* Every 2 weeks.
* Every week.
TABLE 6.-Sludge data, miscellaneous cities 100,000 and up
Liquid sludge
Number Moisture
City Cubic cubic airings|*...*
yards per d Per year from beds
million yards per OL1 Oe
gallons year
Settling or septic tank:
altimorel- 6. 39 107,400 3% 68.7
Reading 2.9 -----
Chemical precipitation:
Providence gº º sº º º sº sº º 'º - sº º 'º º my ºesº = * * * * * tº sº tº 11, 17 116, 564 (2)
Worcester---- 18.9 121,000
1 Based on 6-year average.
* Sludge when filter pressed has 30 per cent moisture.
TABLE 7.-Sludge disposal, cities 100,000 and up
Dump Air dry | Runout Into
at Lagoon and and stream | Dry
S98. dump plow in at flood
Philadelphia--------------------- ---, Yes -----
Cleveland *----------------------------------- Yes-----|----------|---------- -
Baltimore-------------------------- Yes----- Yes,
Rochester----------------------- * * * Yes-----
Providence------------------------------------ Yes---------------|----------|----------|----------------
Columbus------------------------ Yes----- Yes----- eS-----|------
On--------------------------------- * * Yes-----|---------- Yes” ----|------
Atlanta------------------ * * * --| Yes----- Yes----- Yes-----------
Worcester? ---------------------- Yes---------------
San Antonio----------------------------------|---------- Yes-----|----------|----------|----------------
las------------------------------------------------------------- Yes----- am as as ºs * * *-
Bridgeport--------------------------- - ------------------- - - * * * *
Houston---------------------------- * Yes---------------|---------- Yes----- Yes
Albany--------------------------------------- Yes-----|--------------------|------
Reading---- -- - Yes-----------------------------------------

1 Dumped into Lake Erie.
2 Major portion of sludge discharged into river.
* No money appropiated to operate sludge presses since April, 1917.
1842
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
TABLE 8.—Sludge use, cities 100,000 and up

City Hauled by farmers Used year after year Money received
Philadelphia *------------------ Yes------------------- Yes------------------- No.
Baltimore *--------------------- Yes------------------- Sº, do and some 25 cents per load.
Rochester---------------------- Yes------------------- Yes------------------- 75 cents per load of 2
cubic yards.
Providence --- Small amount--------- No-------------------- O.
Columbus * * : * * * *s, sº sº º sº º mº as ºm sº º ºs = sº sº º sº as Yes------------------- No.
Akron--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta------------------------- Yes------------------- Yes------------------- Contract.
Worcester -- Some------------------ Some No.
Dallas ---. No--------------------------------------------
Bridgeport ------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sm ºmº m sº se sº º ºs sº as sº sº sº ºr * * * * * * * *
Rollston - No--------------------------------------------
Albany------------------------- No-------------------------------------------- l
Reading- (?)--------------------|------------------------ d
19-year average.
* Received from $374.47 to $2,689.94 per year from farmers and from sale to fertilizer company.
TABLE 9.—Sludge analysis as reported for Imhoff and other tanks, cities of
100,000 and up -
Per cent dry basis
* Specific
City gravity Ether
H2O Volatile Fixed Nitrogen S.
Philadelphia, Pennypack Creek----------- 1.065 85 41 59 20
Baltimore 1 1.020 91.6 74 26 2. 64 9
Rochester:
Irondequoit--------------------------- 1.025 89 44 56 1.95 6.0
Brighton 1.03 81.2 35 65 1.82 8.4
Charlotte- 1.02 84 41 59 1.7 7. 1
Columbus 1.02 1.2 ----------
Akron - - - - -
Atlanta----- 1.02 ---------- 39 61 1.25 6. I
Worcester 3 * * *-* * 1.06 91.9 46 54 3. 3 4.6
Dallas * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = sm º ºs. *
Albany----- º 1.04 86. 1 45.9 54. 1 1.6 6. 5
1 Hydrolytic. * Experimental.

TABLE 10.-Sludge amalysis as reported, activated sludge, cities 100,000 and up

y Per cent dry basis
Specific
Place gravity Eth
H2O Wolatile | Fixed Nitrogen sº
Worcester 1 sº 1.01 98.06 51–74 26–49 || 3.2–7. 35. 1.9–9.0
Houston.-- * -º º º 1.06 99.6 59–70 41-30 ||---------- 10
1 Experimental.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
1848
TABLE 11.-General data, cities 25,000 to 100,000
Number of treat-
Census ...; ment plants
City 1920 to treat- Sewers
Iment In use Proposed
Schenectady--------------------------------------- 88, 723 50 S ! ----------
Canton, Ohio-------------------------------------- 87,091 80 S ! ----------
Allentown- sº as sº s as sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 73, 502 (?) ---------- 1 ----------
Brockton sº ms was sº as * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sº mº 66,254 95 S 1 ----------
Pawtucket----------------------------------------- 64, 248 ----------|---------- (*) ----------
New Britain--------------------------------------- 59, 316 80 S 1 ----------
Pong Beach--------------------------------------- 55, 593 75 S ! ----------
Atlantic City-------------------------------------- 50, 707 |---------- * * : * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * *
Jackson, Mich------------------------------------- 48,374 ----------|---------- ! ----------
York, Pa------------------------------------------ 47, 512 33 S 1 ----------
Fresno * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * me. * * * * * * * * * 45,086 100 S 1 ----------
Mount Vernon ------------------------------------ 42, 726 |---------- S 1 ----------
*akewood----------------------------------------- 41, 732 277 (3) 1 ----------
Woonsocket-- * * * * * * * * * * sº sm sº mº m 'mº sº sºme sm sm. 43,496 75 S 1 ----------
*ington, Ky------------------------------------- 41, 534 |---------- C 1 ----------
Fitchburg----------------------------------------- 41,029 93 (4) 1 ----------
Stockton - * * * * * * = * * ~ * * * * * * * = * * = a- - - * * * * = g , 296 100 S 2 ----------
Springfield, Mo * * * * * * * - tº * * * * * * * * * * * * * 39,631 |---------- (?) ! ----------
*adison------------------------------------------- 38,378 100 S 1 ----------
Stamford------------------------------------------ 35,096 ||--|-- sms sº *
*ustºn--------------------------------------------- 34,876 80 S 1 ----------
Pontiac, Mich- 34,273 90 S 1 ----------
Colorado Springs--- - * º 'º ºn 30, 105 ||-------- sº as tº º sm sº sº º sº, sº me as ºs º sº me. * * * * * *
Marion * * * ºr 27,891 ----------|---------- 1 1.
Mansfield----------------------------------------- 27,824 90 S 1 ----------
Plainfield------------------------------------------ 27, 700 100 S 1 ----------
1 Portion of Sewage direct to Blackstone River, portion to works of Providence, R. I.
* 23 per cent is handled by Cleveland.
323 per cent of sewer system is combined, 77 per cent separate.
* Sewers 70 per cent, combined, 30 per cent separate.
TABLE 12.—Plant data, cities 25,000 to 100,000
Type of plant
Area
City provided,
in acres Screen Tank Filter
Schenectady------------------------- 22 Bar------- Imhoff---------------- Trickling.
anton------------------------------ 25 ---do------- -----do----------------- Contact.
Allentown--------------------------- 0. 57 | Mesh - - - - - Electrolytic----------- Electrolytic.
Brockton----------------------------- 170 Bar------- Settling--------------- 37 account Sand,
2 account trick-
ling.
New Britain------------------------- 90 Slot.-------|------------------------
Long Beach--------------------------|---------- ---ClO-------------------------------
York--------------------------------- 27 Bar------- Imhoff----------------
Fresno---------------- ** * ~ * ~ * = ** = - as * = ~ * 800 ------------ Septic----------------- Farm.
Mount Vernon-----------------------|---------------------- Settling--------------- Trickling.
Lakewood---------------------------- 10 Bar, G----| Imhoff----------------
Woonsocket--------------------------|---------- Bar------------------------------- Sand.
Lexington----------------------------|---------- ---do------- Imhoff---------------- Trickling.
Fitchburg---------------------------- 120 ---do------------ do----------------- Do.
Stockton: &
North 0. 5 R. W - - - - - Chlorination---------- Chlorination. .
South-- sº º ºs -----|----------|------------ Imhoff (chlorination).-- intº (chlorina-
1011),
Springfield---------------------------|----------|------------ OTſ---------------- Trickling.
Madison----------------------------- 40 Bar------- Separate digestion----- Do.
Austin * * 20 ---do------- ff----------------
Pontiac------------------------------ 16 ---do-------|----- 0----------------- Do.
Mansfield.------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = m, sº * * Imhoff and septic----- Contact.
Plainfield---------------------------- 92 Slot.------- Imhoff---------------- Trickling.
1844
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
TABLE 13.−Engineering data, cities 25,000 to 100,000

Sewage treated 8 ted matt
(mîion gaſions | Suspºoºººººter
Wºr per 24 hours) (P. P. M.)
City (gallons
ity) Maxi Applied
CapaCity 8XI- pplie
Average IIllinºl Raw to filter
Schenectady---------- - - * * * 158 6 9 146 34
anton s 5. 56 10. 02 268 92
Allentown 96–192
Brockton-- - * * 44 2.75 6 • 206 97
New Britain -- 70 " 4 129 ----------
Long Beach-- * * 45 3.5 4. 75 - -
York- __| 85–90 2.75 4 110 50
Fresno - -> --> 300 8 l-----
Lakewood---- 90 4 6
Woonsocket- = * = 56 1.5 171 ----------
Lexington, Ky----- * * * * * = ** - - - - - - 3
Fitchburg- - * * 100 2.4 10 389 60'
Stockton, North * * * 135 1.8 2.95 l--------------------
Madison - - - * - 100 5. 7 10 299 98
Austin--------------------------------------------------------- 2. 5 4.5 ----------|----------
Pontiac---------------------------------------------- 110 3. 8 6.5 200 5
Mansfield.---- * * * * r * * * * * * - - - - 2.5
Plainfield - - - - - * 100 3, 5 4.5 150 60–70
TABLE 14.—Amount of Screenings
and grit, cities 25,000 to 100,000

Screen- º
• Grit
; cubić
City Screen openings, feet per feet per
inches .#. million
allons
gallons g
Schenectady 1% (*) ----------
anton--------------------------------------------------------- 1 or %------------- 24. 02 0.22
Allentown---------- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ºr * * * * * - - - - - - % mesh----------- 1 2 9.9 4
Brockton - 1%---------------- (*) ----------
New Britain------ * * * * * * * * * * * - - - * by %----------- * 30 ----------
Long Beach-------- - - - # by 2------------ (*) ----------
Oſk----------------------------------------------------------- º
Takewood------------------------------------------------------ 2------------------ *1 ----------
Woonsocket---------------------------------------------------- 1------------------ (*) ----------
Lexington- ----| ?--------------------------------------
Fitchburg - - - - - - 1 - 95 4, 96
Stockton, North * - * by 2------------ * 27.1 ----------
Madison ---| 1%---------------- *2.75 ----------
Austin---------------------------------------------------------- %----------------- * 1 ----------
Pontiac e- * - tº E → * * *- :- - - - - - - - 1% and 1---------- 1 3. 5 . 75
Plainfield------------------------------------------------------- * by 2------------ ** 13.5 ----------
1 Buried. 3 Spread on land.
2 Burned. * Dumped.
TABLE 15.-Sludge data, Imhoff tanks, cities 25,000 to 100,000
Liquid sludge
Number *
t - air per Cen
City º, Cubic dryings on removal
'.§: yards per per year from beds
gallons year
Schenectady---------- * *- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - 8–10 ------------
Canton.------------- * * * * * * * * * * 13.8 28, 126 65
York--- - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - * * * = * * * = ºr 2.44 707–2,820 6 65-
Lakewood---------------------------------------------------------- 1. 2 ------------
Fitchburg----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5. 02 4, 514 5. 73 46
Pontiac - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - * = = * * * = * 2
Plainfield---------------------------------------------- 3. 1 4,000 7.7 75
*418 cubic yards per year dried sludge reported.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
1845
TABLE 16.—Sludge data, special, cities 25,000 to 100,000

Cubic * Moisture
4- yards per Cubic Number per cent
City million yards per air dryings OEl al
year per year Terno V
gallons from bed
Allentown- 30 12 75
Brockton--- 6.3 7,415 2 65
Madison, Wis 27
TABLE 17.—Sludge disposal, cities 25,000 to 100,000
Air Run Into
Dump at Sea Lagoon | dry and out and stream
dump plow in at flood
Schenectady-- Yes- Yes.
Canton Yes * * * * *
Allentown- Yes-----
Brockton--- Yes-----
Jackson * Yes-----
York Yes-----
Fresno Yes-----
Lakewood-- Yes-----
Lexington--------------------------- Yes-----
Fitchburg------------------------------------------------------|---------- Yes----- Yes-----
Madison * * * * Yes--------------- Yes-----
Alistin * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yes-----
Pontiac- Yes-----
Mansfield gº º Yes-----
Plainfield- * = Yes-----
TABLE 18.-Sludge use, cities 25,000 to 100,000
Hauled by farmers Used year after year Money received
Canton Yes- Yes- No.
Allentown Some - - - No.
Brockton Yes; tried but abandoned ---| Not on Same land.----------- No.
New Britain No
York- No
Fresno NO
Lakewood No
Lexington.-------------- Yes; 50 per cent------------- Yes –
Fitchburg-------------- Yes-
Stockton- NO -i.
Madison No
Austin No; too much oil
Pontiac Yes; 20 per cent $2 per cubic yard.
Mansfield-------------- Yes-
Plainfield Some One 1
1 Grows good corn, but use is handicapped by grease.
Local board of health prohibits carting or use.
TABLE 19.-Sludge analyses as reported, cities 25,000 to 100,000
Per cent dry basis
Cit Specific Type of
y gravity * * & Ether plant
H2O Volatile | Fixed Nitrogen Soluble
Schenectady---------------- 1.000 92.7 70 30 -------------------- Imhoff.
Canton . 997 94.3 5 95 2. 6 3.5 Do.
Allentown------------------ 1. 05 96 20–30 80–70 1–0, 7 2 Electrolytic.
Brockton 1.01 93.8 85. 5 14.5 - -
York- 93 ----------------------------------------
Fitchburg------------------ 1.05 87.5 41 59 1.88 7.2 | Imhoff.
TMadison - ºn 1.21
Plainfield ems mº m - sº dº sº as as * * * * * 94



1846 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
TABLE 20.-Analyses of sludges received from sewage-treatment works
[All analyses on dry basis per cent)

* Volatile #. Nitrogen
Source of sludge Nitrogen| Grease matter (inor- in volatile
(organic) ganic) Imatter
IMHOFF TANK
Fitchburg, Mass------------------------------------- 1. 71 4.6 35. 3 64. 7 4.84
Columbus, Ohio------------------------------------- 2.04 5. 5 45.7 54. 3 4.46
Batavia, N. Y--------------------------------------- 2.93 3. 1 47. 0 53. 0 6. 23
Plainfield, N. J.-------------------------------------- 2.91 4. 1 50, 7 49.3 5. 74
Cleveland, Ohio------------------------------------- 2.40 1, 6 40. 3 59. 7 5.95
Atlanta, Ga * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - m a.º. -> * * * * * * - - -- * * * * 1. 37 4, 8 34. 1 65.9 4.02
Average--------------------------------------- 2. 23 4.0 42.2 57.8 5. 28
SECONDARY TANKS RECEIVING EFFLUENT OF SPRINE-
LING FILTERS
Fitchburg, Mass------------------------------------- 2.25 4.6 43.4 56.6 5, 18
Plainfield, N. J.-------------------------------------- 3. 78 2. 6 57.6 42.4 6. 56
Average--------------------------------------- 3.02 3. 6 50. 5 49.5 5.87
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
Worcester, Mass------------------------------------- 1. 62 1.2 4.1. 8 58. 2 3. 88
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Sewage: &
Milwaukee, Wis--------------------------------- 5. 82 2, 2 67. 8 32.2 8.58
Houston, Tex------------------------------------ 4. 64 7, 1 62.9 37. 1
Average--------------------------------------- 5. 23 4.6 65.3 34.7 7. 98
Industrial wastes:
Argo, corn products sº m, mº, º m, sº sº, s = s.s se sº sº º sº me • * * * 6. 03 1.2 75.3 24. 7 8. 00
Chicago, tannery wastes------------------------- 2. 18 ... 2 49.4 50. 6 4.41
Chicago, stockyards' testing station ------------- 4, 17 6. 0 62. 6 37.4 6. 66
NOTE.-All these analyses were made in the laboratory of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
SUMMARY OF SANITARY DATA OF THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO
May 29, 1889–––––––. Sanitary district act approved by legislature.
July 1, 1889–––––––– Sanitary district act in force.
November, 1889_____ Sanitary district act ratified by referendum of voters.
Sept. 3, 1892–––––– —Construction of main drainage Channel begun.
Jan. 2, 1900––––––––. Water turned into main channel.
Jan. 17, 1900–––––––. Bear trap dam lowered and flow started in main channel.
May 14, 1903––––– —Amendment to act passed, annexing North Shore and
Calumet regions, and authorizing water-power develop-
ment.
1904 .Thirty-ninth Street pumping station in Service; partial
pumping of sewage from South Side.
1906 South Side intercepting sewer practically complete.
Thirty-ninth Street pumping station—complete pumping
of sewage gravity flushing flow to Bubbly Creek.
Aug. 27, 1907–------Main channel extension completed.
Nov. 26, 1907––––––– First electric current delivered to Chicago from Lock-
port power house.
1908 Thirty-ninth Street pumping station flushing pumps com-
pleted. North Side intercepting sewer system to. Law-
rence Avenue pumping station practically completed.
Sewage pumped February 1; flushing water pumped No-
º Vennber 28.
Mar. 1, 1909––––––– Study of sewage treatment begun ; sewage-testing sta-
tion built at Thirty-ninth Street pumping station.
Apr. 30, 1910–––––––.Operation of Thirty-ninth Street pumping station begun
by sanitary district.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1847
Nov. 29, 1910–––––Water turned into North Shore Channel.
1910 Conduit constructed in Western Avenue to flush west
arm of Bubbly Creek.
Dec. 6, 1910––––––. Operation of Lawrence Avenue pumping station begun
by sanitary district. -
Sept. 18, 1911————-Construction of Calumet-Sag Channel begun.
Oct. 12, 1911––––– Report On sewage disposal made by G. M. Wisner to
board of trustees advocating treatment on a large
Scale, to Supplement dilution.
Dec. 16, 1911---—— —Lyman E. Cooley, appointed as consulting engineer, op-
pOSed Sewage treatment until his death, on February
4, 1917. -
1912 Dredging begun on main channel between Robey Street
and Summit to enlarge Section.
1912 Stockyards sewage testing put into Operation.
Feb. 15, 1913–-——— Report, lake diversion at Chicago, by L. E. Cooley.
Mar. 31, 1913————— Purchased site for Fifty-Second Avenue treatment WorkS.
October, 1913------- Extended study of sewage treatment problem begun—
George W. Fuller, Allen Hazen, F. P. Stearns, and Asa
E. Phillips.
1913 Plans and specifications were prepared for Sewage treat-
ment Works at Fifty-Second Avenue.
Never let owning to opposition of L. E. Cooley.
Aug. 1, 1914––––––War began. - º
Aug. 13, 1914------- Report on pollution of Des Plaines River and remedies
therefor, by G. M. Wisner, advocating preparation for
+ treatment.
Oct. 15, 1914-------- Report industrial Wastes from the Stockyards and
Packingtown, Volume I, Recommending treatment of
packing-house waste. Wisner and Pearse.
Dec. 19, 1914________ Morton Grove sewage treatment works put in Operation.
Aug. 5, 1915 –––––––– Construction of Calumet intercepting Sewer began after
award of contracts was passed over veto of president
Of board. -
Jan. 10, 1916–––––––– Activated sludge tests begun on packing-house Waste.
Jan. 28, 1916–––––––– North Shore intercepting Sewer Completed.
Apr. 3, 1916 –––––––– Work commenced on stockyards intercepting Sewer.
Oct. 6, 1916–––––––– Work commenced on Evanston intercepting Sewer.
Dec. 10, 1916–––––––– Stockyards intercepting sewer finished.
Apr. 6, 1917 –––––––– |United States entered War.
Apr. 16, 1917 ––––––– Report on treatment of packing-house wastes, W. D.
Richardson and Langdon Pearse, presenting definite
engineering project.
Nov. 3, 1917 –––––––– Report of G. M. Wisner, chief engineer, on distribution of
pollution on Packingtown firms.
Sept. —, 1918—------ Stockyards testing station dismantled.
Nov. 11, 1918––––––– Armistice signed.
May 1, 1919 –––––––– First contracts let for Des Plaines River sewage treat-
ment WOrkS.
July 16, 1919 ––––––– Evanston intercepting Sewer completed.
Aug. 12, 1919 ––––––– Report on sewage disposal for the cities of East Chicago,
Gary, Hammond, and Whiting, in Lake County, Ind.,
Bridge, Cottingham, Pearse, Smith, Wallace, Wisner,
recommending immediate treatment.
Oct. —, 1919–––––––– Proposed form of agreement with packers drafted.
Dec. —, 1919 ––––––– Tannery testing put in Operation. +.
Mar. 30, 1920––––––– Agreement with Corn Products Refining Co. for testing
Station.
May —, 1920 ------- Corn products investigation began.
Oct. 13, 1920–––––––– Contract entered into for Calumet Sewage treatment
WOrkS. -
Jan. 20, 1921 ––––––– Report on Industrial Wastes from the Stockyards and
Packingtown, Vol. II, urging treatment of packing-
house waste. Dilling and Pearse.
Jan. —, 1921 ––––––– Evanston pumping station completed ; corn products test-
ing station put in Operation.
Mar. —, 1921––––––– Calumet pumping station completed.
1848 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
April —, 1921 –––––– Joint survey, Unite *States Public Health Service began
On Illinois River. -
Nov. —, 1921_______Operation of Ninety-fifth Street pumping station by sani-
tary district begun.
Feb. 27, 1922 ––––––– Report of commission, Eddy, Fuller, Hatton, indorsing
North Side sewage treatment works project, On ac-
tivated sludge basis.
Aug. 2, 1922-------- Des Plaines River sewage treatment works started op-
eration.
Aug. 26, 1922––––––– Calumet-Sag Channel in operation.
Aug. 31, 1922––––––– Joint Survey, United States Public Health service ended
On Illinois River.
Sept. 11, 1922 –––––– Operation of Calumet sewage treatment works begun.
Dec. 31, 1922 ––––––– Tannery testing station discontinued.
May 17, 1923 ––––––– Contract entered into for construction Glenview sewage
treatment WOrkS.
Aug. 2, 1923________Summary of Packingtown treatment situation, Report
Langdon Pearse, Sanitary engineer.
Aug. 9, 1923 ––––––––North Side treatment works, first contract let to John
Griffiths & Son CO.
Dec. 13, 1923 ––––––– Contract entered into for Ninety-fifth Street sewage pump-
ing station; completes main Calumet intercepting
System.
Feb. —, 1924 ––––––– Contract, entered into for Northbrook sewage treatment
WorkS.
Feb. —, 1924 ––––––– Inspection proceedings began against packers.
Mar. 6, 1924–––––––– Bids received for equipment North Side sewage treatment
workS. -
Mar. 13, 1924––––––– Bids received for NOrth Avenue Outlet Sewer.
The sanitary district of Chicago, Sources of industrial wastes on Illinois River .


Zinc
. Ch
WOr CIO =
2 * * * Corn & State
TOWIm. ..., | Pº |Pºl | prod. |...}. | Paper | * |Milling iº
chine 1Ing ling paints, IIlg. gº
shops, ucts etc. tutions
hard-
WBre
Joliet 3 2 1 2 2 -------- 1
Morris--- sºme sº as em. º 2 2 --------|--------
Marseilles *
Ottawa- 1 -------- 1 ----------------
La Salle--------------------- 3 gº tº sº 2
Peru------------------------- 6 3 --------|--------------
Depue----------------------- - 1
Chillicothel- - 1
Peoria 1 |-------- 2 2 1 1 1 1 --------
East Peoria------------------ 1 ------------------------------
South Bartonville----------- I
Pekin--- º 3 -------- 1 1
CHRONOLOGY OF TEIE MODERN WATERWORKS PARTICULARLY RELATING TO THE HIGH
POINTS IN TEIE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER PURIFICATION
1652. Oldest waterworks in America for supplying water to a city or town
built in Boston. It was a gravity system.
1754. First use of pumping machinery in America was in Bethlehem, Pa.
Pump cylinders were of lignum-vitae, with 5-inch bore.
1761. First recorded application of steam to water pumping was in London,
followed in 1787 by a second pump. A steam pump was erected in Paris in
1781 and another in 1783.
1801. First steam pump used in America was installed in Philadelphia at
the old center square pumping station, according to designs of Benjamin H.
Latrobe.
1810. First recorded use of slow sand filters was in Lancashire, England,
and in Scotland.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1849.
1828. First water report dealing ºth water purification was by the royal
Commission relative to the treatment of the London water supply.
1829. Mr. James Simpson, engineer of Chelsea Water Works Co., of Lon-
(ion, installed first slow sand filters in London. The installation provided “de-
Canting “basins in duplicate, followed by filters, each of 1 acre. Results were
SO good that the method was Soon adopted for the whole of the London sup-
plies and readily spread over all Europe. The original practice was to settle
the raw water for 12 to 24 hours in reservoirs, then to draw it off from near
the surface by means of floating arms and to discharge it onto filters of
about half the area of the settling basins.
1855. Filtration made compulsory in London.
1858. Engineer Gahn, at a Dusseldorf meeting of the German Public Health
Association in 1876, states that no town Of considerable Size since 1858 had been
supplied with unfiltered water. He gave the following table:
1858 1876
Supplied with unfiltered river Water-------------------------------------------- 460,000 460,000
Supplied with filtered river Water----------------------------------------------- | 1,060,000 1,697,000
1866. James P. Kirkwood sent to Europe to study water filtration for St.
LOuis, MO. - -
1868. Kirkwood makes his report, which, although not adopted, was the first
comprehensive study of water filtration in America. There is reason to
believe that Kirkwood also operated the testing station at St. Louis, which
showed that European practice for slow sand filters was not applicable to St.
LOuis COnditionS. - - . - * . .
1870. Efficient chemical methods of water analysis developed. Results applied
to slow sand filters disappointing and discourage their development to some
eXtent. .
1872. First filter plant built in America at Poughkeepsie, N. Y. This filter
plant was according to designs of Kirkwood, and consisted of a Settling basin
of about 1% to 2 hours storage, and a slow sand filter of about 1 acre. A
filtered water basin was also provided. The plant was still in use in 1899,
giving satisfaction. - :
1874 or 1875. Hudson, N. Y., built a slow sand filter which proved successful.
Following this, slow sand filters were built at West Point, N. Y. ; successful.
St. Johnsbury, Vt. ; successful. Lowell, Mass.; more or less a failure. Colum-
bus, Ohio; more or less a failure. Toledo, Ohio; more or less a failure. And
experiments on slow sand filters were run at Boston by Professor Nichols and
by Fetley and at Louisville, Ky., and elsewhere, but the results were not
ncouraging. - - + .
1884. Patent granted to J. W. Hyatt for mechanical filter. Prof. Albert R.
eeds was largely interested in the early development of the mechanical Or
'apid sand filter. This method met with some success and in the decade that
'oïlowed a number of plants were installed. There were divided between
supplies for small cities and for industries, mostly paper mills. The first
plant of this kind to treat a public water supply was built at Somerville, N.J.,
n 1885. In 1898 there were about 100 plants of this kind but none for large
'ities.
1885. Prof. P. F. Krankland applies bacteriological tests for the first time
ſo filtered water. The first reaction to these tests was to discredit Water filter
Dlants.
1887. Massachusetts State Board of Health began their investigations in this
rear, but devoted most of their attention at first to Sewage treatment. They
yegan their memorable studies on water purification in 1890.
1889. Sanitary District of Chicago organized. -
1890. According to Hazen only about 1% per cent of the urban population
n America were using filtered water at this time. An increasing side light On
•aterworks development is that up to this time some or all of the waterWorks
ompanies supplying London continued the so-called intermittent method of
-ater distribution : that is, the pressure was maintained on the mains Only a
part of each day. That practice was discontinued during this year.
1892. During this year occurred the classical outbreak of cºolera in Hamburg
nd Altona, Germany. Although Altona received the Sewage of Irelrly 800,000,
9.1739–24—PT 2—101


























1850. ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
her death rate with filters was only 213 per 100,000 as against 1,340 for Ham-
burg, with a cleaner raw water but without filters. Work on the main drain-
age channel at Chicago, begun. -
1893. This year saw the construction of a number of filter plants, notably
that at Lawrence, Mass., designed by the engineers of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health. Hazen says that “this plant was the first filter plant built
in America, for the express purpose of reducing the death rate of the popula-
tion Supplied.” He says further that “up to 1893 but little progress had been
made in understanding the process of mechanical filtration.” Fuller says that
the building of filter plants in America was delayed at this time because of
the uncertainty with regard to the development of mechanical filters.
1893–1894. Experiments on mechanical filters by Weston at Providence, R. I.
Partially. Satisfactory results obtained. --
1895. Ashland, Wis., builds first vaulted-roof, slow-sand filter in America.
1895–1897. Experiments on mechanical filters at Louisville, Ky., by Hermany
and Fuller. Most thorough study of mechanical filters up to this time.
1897. Experiment by Hazen and Knowles at Pittsburgh, Pa., on both mechan-
ical and slow-sand filters. Experiments, begun at Cincinnati, Ohio. Experi-
ments on elimination of tastes and odors at Reading, Pa. • ,
1899. Albany slow-Sand filters built. Ilargest and most carefully designed
plant built up to that time. Washington tests on rapid and slow sand filters
begun by Col. A. M. Miller and Hazen. Iron-removal plant built at Su-
perior, Wis. y
1900. Experimental plants Operated at Springfield, Mass., for elimination
of tastes and colors. At Richmond, Va., Philadelphia, Pa., and perhaps some
others. Main channel of the Chicago Sanitary District completed and water
turned in on January 2. -
1901. New Orleans begins tests on filter treatment of the Mississippi River
water under the direction of R. S. Weston. The designs for the Louisville
filter plant were also completed in this year, marking progress in filter-plant
design. . . . . . . . . , * * * -
1902. East Jersey Water Co. built the first rapid sand filter at Little Falls,
N. Y., using reinforced concrete tanks and embodying the improvements sug-
gested by the Louisville and other experimental stations. This plant really
marks the beginning of the present-day rapid sand gravity filter with,
coagulent control and properly constructed coagulating basins. During this
year also the engineering commission made their report to St. Louis, which
resulted in the building of the chemical treatment plant with large settling
basins at the Chain of Rocks station.
1905. A. C. Huston makes some experiments with SOdium hypochlorite at
the Lincoln water Supply for LOndon. -
1908. Notable results in reducing the bacterial content in water attained
at the Union Stockyards in Chicago, where the water from Bubbly Creek
was treated with 45 pounds of hypochlorite of lime per million gallons of
water treated about 7% hours before filtering. In this case they found it
more effective to add the hypochlorite before filtering than afterwards, which
is contrary to modern practice.
The following papers were filed by the chairman for inclusion
in the record :) --
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN–BOUNDARY WATERS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
[Signed at Washington, January 11, 1909; ratification advised by the Senate, March 3,
1909 ; ratified by the President, April 1, 1910; ratified by Great Britain, March 31,
1910 ; ratifications exchanged at Washington, May 5, 1910; proclaimed, May 13, 1910]
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAIMATION
Whereas a Treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty
the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, to prevent disputes re.
garding the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions which are now
pending between the United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the
* *
gº
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1851
rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the
inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier, and to make provision
for the adjustment and Settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise,
Was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington
On the eleventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nine, the
Original of which Treaty is word for word as follows:
“The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United
Ringdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond
the Seas, Emperor Of India, being equally desirous to prevent disputes regard-
ing the use of boundary Waters and to settle all questions which are now pend-
ing between the United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the
rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the in-
habitants of the other along their common frontier, and to make provision
for the adjustment and settlement Of all Such questions as may hereafter arise,
have resolved to conclude a treaty in furtherance Of these ends, and for that
purpose have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries :
“The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of
State of the United States; and . . "
“His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honorable James Bryce, O. M., his Am-
bassador Extraordinary and Pienipotentiary at Washington ;
“Who, after having communicated to one another their full powers, found in
good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles :
“PRELIMINARY ARTICLE
“For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters
from main Shore to main Shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting water-
Ways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between
the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays,
arms, and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their
natural channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters
flowing from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flow-
ing across the boundary.
“ARTICLE I
“The High Contracting Parties agree that the navigation of all navigable
boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of
COmmerce to the inhabitants and to the Ships, vessels, and boats Of both
countries equally, Subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either
country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free
navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants,
ships, Vessels, and boats of both countries.
“It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this
Same right Of navigation shall extend to the water of Lake Michigan and to
all Canals Connecting boundary waters, and now existng Or which may here-
after be constructed on either side of the line. Either Of the High Con-
tracting Parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use Of Such
Canals within its own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but
all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the
subjects or citizens of the High Contracting Parties and the ships, vessels,
and boats of both of the High Contracting Parties, and they shall be placed
On terms of equality in the use thereof.
“ARTICLE II
“Each of the High Contracting Parties reserves to itself or to the Several
State Governments On the One side and the Dominion or Provincial Govern-
ments on the other as the case may be, Subject to any treaty provisions now
existing with respect thereto, the exclusively jurisdiction and control over the
use and diversion, whether temporary Or permanent, Of all waters On its OWn
side of the line which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary
or into boundary waters; but it is agreed that any interference with or diversion
from their natural channel of such waters On either side of the boundary,
resulting in any injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to
the same rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as
if such injury took place in the Country where Such diversion or interference
1852 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RrveRs, ETC.
Occurs; but this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to cases
“expressly covered by special agreement between the parties hereto.
“It is understood, however, that neither of the High Contracting Parties
intends by the foregoing provision to surrender any right, which it may have.
to Object to any interference with or diversions of waters on the other side of
the boundary the effect of which would be productive of material injury to the
navigation interests on its own side of the boundary.
“A RTICLE III
“It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions here-
tofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement between the
Parties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether
temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting
the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall
be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada
Within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval, as hereinafter
provided, of a joint Commission, to be known as the International Joint Com-
mission.
“The foregoing provisions are not intended to limit or interfere with the
existing rights of the Government of the United States on the one side and
the GOvernment Of the Dominion of Canada on the other, to undertake and
carry On governmental works in boundary waters for the deepening of channels,
the construction of breakwaters, the improvement of harbors, and other gov-
ernmental works for the benefit of Commerce and navigation, provided that
such works are wholly on its own side of the line and do not materially affect
the level or flow of the boundary waters on the other, nor are such provisions
intended to interfere with the ordinary use of such waters for domestic and
Sanitary purposes. 4 -
“ARTICLE IV
“The High Contracting Parties agree that, except in cases provided for by
special agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or main-
tenance on their respective sides of the boundary Of any remedial or protective
WorkS Or any dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from houndary
Waters Or in Waters at a lower level than the boundary in rivers flowing across
the boundary, the effect of which is to raise the natural level of waters on the
Other side of the boundary unless the construction or maintenance thereof is
approved by the aforesaid International Joint Commission.
“It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and
waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the
injury of health or property on the other.
“ARTICLE V
“The High Contracting Parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diversion
of waters from the Niagara River so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow
of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both Parties.
to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments which
have already been made in the construction of power plants on the United
States side of the river under grants of authority from the State of New York,
and on the Canadian side Of the river under licenses authorized by the DQ-
minion of Canada and the Province Of Ontario.
“So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the Waters of
the Niagara River above the Falls from the natural course and stream thereof
shall be permitted except for the purposes and to the extent hereinafter pro-
vided.
“The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State
of New York of the waters of Said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power
purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of twenty
thousand cubic feet of Water per Second.
“The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the Province of On-
tario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the Province of Ontario
of the waters of Said river above the Falls of Niagara, for pover purposes. Thot
exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of thirty-six thousand
cubic feet of water per Second. -
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1853
“The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for
Sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes of
11avigation.
“ARTICLE VI
“The High Contracting Parties agree that the St. Mary and Milk Rivers and
their tributaries (in the State of Montana and the Provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan) are to be treated as one stream for the purposes or irrigation.
and power, and the waters thereof shall be apportioned equally between the
two Countries, but in making Such equal apportionment more than half may
be taken from One river and less than half from the Other by either COuntry
So as to afford a more beneficial use to each. It is further agreed that in the
division of such waters during the irrigation season, between the 1st of April
and 31st of October, inclusive, annually, the United States is entitled to a prior
appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of the waters of the Milk River, or
SO much Of Such amount as Constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow, and
that Canada is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of
the flow of St. Mary River, Or So much of such amount as constitutes three-
fourths of its natural flow.
“The channel of the Milk River in Canada may be used at the convenience of
the United States for the conveyance, while passing through Canadian territory,
of waters diverted from the St. Mary River. The provisions of Article II of
this treaty shall apply to any injury resulting to property in Canada from the
conveyance of such waters through the Milk River.
“The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used by each
country shall from time to time be made jointly by the properly constituted
reclamation officers of the United States and the properly constituted irrigation
officers of His Majesty under the direction of the International Joint Com-
II]] SSIOII.
“ARTICLE VII
“The High Contracting Parties agree to establish and, maintain an Inter-
national Joint Commission of the United States and Canada composed Of Six
connmissioners, three on the part of the United States appointed by the President
thereof, and three on the part of the United Kingdom appointed by His Majesty
on the recommendation of the Governor in Council of the DOminion of Canada.
“ARTICLE VIII
“This International Joint ('ommission shall have jurisdiction over and Shall
pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction or diversion of the Waters
with respect to which under Articles III and IV of this treaty the approval
of this Commission is required, and in passing upon cases the Commis-
sion shall be governed by the following rules or principles which are adopted
by the High Contracting Parties for this purpose:
“The High Contracting Parties shall have, each on its own side of the bound-
ary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined as
boundary waters.
“The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses.
enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which
tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given pref- .
erence over it in this order of precedence :
“ (1) Uses for domestic and Sanitary purposes;
“ (2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of
navigation ;
“ (3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
“The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or (listurb any existing uses
of boundary waters in either side of the boundary.
“The requirement for an equal division may in the discretion of the Com-
mission be suspended in cases of temporary diversions along boundary Waters
at points where such equal division can not be made advantageously on account
of local conditions, and where such diversion does not diminish elsewhere the
amount available for use on the other Side.
“The Commission in its discretion may make its approval in any case condi-
tional upon the construction of remedial or protective Works to Compensate
so far as possible for the particular use or diversion proposed, and in Such
1854 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
gases may require that suitable and adequate provision, approved by the
Commission, be made for the protection and indemnity against injury of any
interests on either side of the boundary.
º “In cases involving the elevation of the natural level of waters on either
Side of the line as a result of the construction or maintenance on the other side
of remedial or protective works or dams or other obstructions in boundary
Waters or in waters flowing therefrom or in waters below the boundary in
rivers flowing across the boundary, the Commission shall require, as a condi-
tion of its approval thereof, that suitable and adequate provision, approved
by it, be made for the protection and indemnity of all interests on the other
Side of the line which may be injured thereby.
“The majority of the Commissioners shall have power to render a decision.
In case the Commission is evenly divided upon any question or matter pre-
Sented to it for decision, Separate reports shall be made by the Commissioners
On each Side to their own Government. The High Contracting Parties shall
thereupon endeavor to agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter
of difference, and if an agreement is reached between them, it shall be reduced
to Writing in the form of a protocol, and shall be communicated to the Com-
missioners, who shall take such further proceedings as may be necessary to
Carry Out Such agreement. - -
* ARTICLE IX
“The High Contracting Parties further agree that any other questions or
matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations, or
interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other,
along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of
Canada, shall be referred from time to time to the International Joint Commis-
Sion for examination and report, whenever either the Government of the United
States or the Government of the Dominion of Canada shall request that such
Questions or matters of difference be SO referred.
“The International Joint Commission is authorized in each case so referred
to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the particu-
lar questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and recom-
mendations as may be appropriate, Subject, however, to any restrictions or ex-
Ceptions Which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms Of the
reference. - -
“Such reports of the Commission shall not be regarded as decisions of the
Questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or the law, and Shall in
no way have the character of an arbitral award.
“The Commission shall make a joint report to both Goverments in all cases
in which all or a majority of the Commissioners agree, and in case, of dis-
agreement the minority may make a joint report to both GovernmentS, or
separate reports to their respective Governments.
“In case the Commission is evenly divided upon any question or matter re-
ferred to it for report, separate reports shall be made by the Commissioners
on each side to their own Government. -
“ARTICLE x
“Any questions or matters of difference arising between the High Contract-
ing Parties involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States
or of the Dominion of Canada either in relation to each other or to their re-
spective inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the International Joint
Commission by the consent of the two Parties, it being understood that on
the part of the United States any such action will be by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's GOVerminent
with the consent of the Governor General in Council. In each case so re-
ferred, the said Commission is authorized to examine into and report upon
the facts and circumstances of the particular questions and matters referred,
together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate,
subject, however, to any restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed
with respect thereto by the terms of the reference. $
“A majority of the said Commission shall have power to render a decision or
finding upon any of the questions or matters so referred. -
“If the said Commission is equally divided or otherwise unable to render a
decision or finding as to any questions or matters so referred, it shall be the
duty of the Commissioners to make a joint report to both Governments, or
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1855
separate reports to their respective Governments, showing the different Con-
clusions arrived at with regard to the matters or questions so referred, Which
questions or matters shall thereupon be referred for decision by the High Con-
tracting Parties to an umpire chosen in accordance with the procedure pre-
scribed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of Article XLV of The Hague
Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, dated October
18, 1907. Such umpire shall have power to render a final decision with
respect to those matters and questions so referred on which the Commission
failed to agree.
º “ARTICLE XI
“A duplicate original of all decisions rendered and joint reports made by the
Commission shall be transmitted to and filed with the Secretary of State of
the United States and the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, and
to them shall be addressed all gommunications of the Commission.
“ARTICLE XII
“The International Joint Commission shall meet and organize at Washington
promptly after the members thereof are appointed, and when Organized the
Commission may fix such times and places for its meetings as may be necessary,
subject at all times to special call or direction by the two Governments. Each
Commissioner, upon the first joint meeting of the Commission after his appoint-
ment, shall, before proceeding with the work of the Commission, make and
'subscribe a solemn declaration in writing that he will faithfully and im-
partially perform the duties imposed upon him under this treaty, and such
declaration shall be entered on the records of the proceedings of the Commis-
‘SiOn. - r
“The United States and Canadian sections of the Commission may each
appoint a secretary, and these shall act as joint secretaries of the Commission
at its joint Sessions, and the Commission may employ engineers and clerical
assistants from time to time as it may deem advisable. The salaries and
personal expenses of the Commission and of the secretaries shall be paid by
their respective Governments, and all reasonable and necessary joint expenses
Of the Commission, incurred by it, shall be paid in equal moieties by the High
Contracting Parties.
“The Commission shall have power to administer oaths to witnesses, and to
take evidence on oath whenever deemed necessary in any proceeding, or inquiry,
Or matter within its jurisdiction under this treaty, and all parties interested
therein shall be given convenient opportunity to be heard, and the High Con-
tracting Parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate and
necessary to give the Commission the powers above mentioned on each side of
the boundary, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas and for compelling the
attendance of witnesses in proceedings before the Commission. The Commission
may adopt Such rules of procedure as shall be in accordance with justice and
equity, and may make such examination in person and through agents or em-
ployees as may be deemed advisable.
ARTICLE XIII
“In all cases where special agreements between the High Contracting Parties
hereto are referred to in the foregoing articles, such agreements are understood
and intended to include not only direct agreements between the High Contract-
ing Parties, but also any mutual arrangement between the United States and the
T}ominion of Canada expressed by concurrent or reciprocal legislation on the
part of Congress and the Parliament of the Dominion. -
ARTICLE XIV
“The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of
America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by
IHis Brittannic Majesty. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as
‘soon as possible and the treaty shall take effect on the date of the exchange of
its ratifications. It shall remain in force for five years, dating from the day
of exchange of ratifications, and thereafter until terminated by twelve months’
written notice given by either High Contracting Party to the other.
1856 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
“In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty in
(luplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals.
“DOne at Washington the 11th day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and nine.
“ELIHU ROOT [SEAL)
“JAMES BRYCE [ SEAL) ''
And whereas the Senate of the United States by their resolution of March
3 1909, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein) did advise and
consent to the ratification of the said Treaty with the following understanding,
to Wit : i.
“Resolved further, as a part of this ratification, That the United States
approves this treaty with the understanding that nothing in this treaty shall be
Construed as affecting, or changing, any existing territorial or riparian rights
in the Water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either side of the
international boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's river at Sault Ste.
Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the require-
ments of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation canals, and without
prejudice to the existing right of the United States and Canada, each to use the
waters of the St. Mary’s river, within its own territory, and further, that
nothing in this treaty shall be construed to interfere with the drainage of wet
Swamp and Overflowed lands into streams flowing into boundary waters, and
that this interpretation will be mentioned in the ratification of this treaty as
conveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will, in effect, form part of the
treaty ; ”
And whereas the said understanding has been accepted by the Government of
Great Britain, and the ratifications of the two Governments of the said treaty
were exchanged in the City of Washington, on the 5th day of May, one thousand
nine hundred and ten ;
Now, therefore, be it known that I, William Howard Taft, President of the
United States Of America, have caused the said treaty and the said under-
standing, as forming a part thereof, to be made public, to the end that the same
and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good
faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this thirteenth day of May in the year
of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and ten, and of the Inde-
pendence of the United States of America the ome hundred and
thirty-fourth.
W M H TAFT
By the President:
P C KNOX
Secretary of State.
IPROTOCOL OF EXCHANGE
On proceeding to the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty signed at
Washington on January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain,
relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the boundary between
the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the undersigned plenipoten-
tiaries, duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, hereby declare
that nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting. or changing, any
existing territorial, or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the owners of
lands under water, on either side of the international boundary at the rapids of
the St. Mary’s River at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over
such lands, subject to the requirements of navigation in boundary waters and
of navigation canals, and without prejudice to the existing right of the United
States and Canada, each to use the waters of the St. Mary's River,
within its own territory ; and further, that nothing in this treaty shall be
construed to interfere with the drainage of wet, swamp, and overflowed lands
into streams flowing into boundary waters, and also that this declaration shall
be deemed to have equal force and effect as the treaty itself and to form an
integral part thereto.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1857
The exchange of ratifications then took place in the usual form. -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, they have signed the present Protocol of Exchange
and have affixed their Seals theret O.
I joxE at Washington this 5th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and
tell
I’HILANDER C KNox [SEAL ]
JAMES PRYCE ſ SEAſ.]
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, May 19, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY.
Chairman ("on m if fee on Rivers and Harbors.
House of Representatives.
MY DEAR MR. DEMPSEY : 1. In accordance with your letter of May 7, I am
sending you a tabular statement containing such of the information requested in
your letter as is available as to the river and harbor improvement work that
has been done on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie. In this tabular statement
is included data on the St. Marys River, which connects Lakes Superior and
Huron, as the depth in the lower section at least of this river is affected by
any lowering of the surface of Lake Michigan.
2. The statement as to the betterments made by private interests and the
cost of these betterments is not complete. As you know, the Government merely
attempts to provide for general navigation, and all dredging of slips and around
terminals is done at the expense of private interests. How much this amounts
to in all the harbors listed is not known, nor could it be obtained except from
the concerns who have actually made the improvements. The time required for
securing this information would probably run into the years. The only im-
provements at private expense shown in the table are those on work which
would ordinarily be undertaken by the Federal Government and are really
contributions for Federal improvements.
3. It is also impossible to secure data as to the cost of creating an additional
depth of 5% inches in these harbors and the connecting channels without
making accurate surveys of each improvement. This would of course entail a
large expense and would also require a long time to do. As an example, how-
ever, of some of the costs which would be encountered in securing this addi-
tional depth of 5% inches, there may be taken the case of the Livingstone
Channel in the Detroit River. This channel runs through solid rock for a
distance of 30,000 feet and has been excavated for a width of 400 feet. This
width is sufficient to provide only for the traffic bound down the Lakes, the
upbound boats using the Amherstburg Channel. The excavation of this work
was done in a Cofferdam in the dry, and the bottom is therefore very smooth
and level and is almost exactly 21 feet below ordinary lake level. To make a
safe and practicable excavation of an additional 5% inches would be very diffi-
cult and would require the removal of a greater yardage than would be neces-
sary to remove the 5% inches additional depth. As a result this work would
be very expensive and, in my opinion, could not be done for less than $50 per
cubic yard, and the cost might well be twice that. Even if it were possible to
take out only the exact 5% inches, the cost of this deepening would be $10,-
184,000. The actual cost would be much higher, possibly double this figure.
Similarly, in other cases where rock is encountered the excavation of this small
additional depth would entail very heavy expenditures for an apparently small
amount of Work. In material other than rock the expense would be relatively
much less, but would by no means be a cheap proposition.
4. Referring to the request in the last paragraph of your letter for copies of
all permits issued by the Secretary of War covering the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan at Chicago, your attention is invited to the copies of all of
them printed on pages 208–216 of House Document No. 237, Sixty-third Con-
gress, first session. It is assumed that the document mentioned is available
to the committee and that the copies of permits printed therein will serve its
purpose.
Very truly yours,
LANSING H. BEACH,
Major General, Chief of Engineers
91739—24—PT 2—102
HARBORS ON LAKE MICHIGAN
| original |Prº*|Cost to United & 1 º' | Cost to private
Name ãºn rº, States Betterments by private interests interests .
United g * *
States -
- Feet Feet - . º r *
Manistique Harbor, Mich------ 18 $343, 560.55 Private enterprise had constructed 3,000 of slab pier and dredged channel to depth of 11 feet | Unknown.
& t - before work was started by United States. - w - -
Gladstone Harbor, Mich-------- 14–15 21 7, 532. 76 | None-l------- -------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------- ---------
Menominee Harbor and River, 5 18 531, 508. 91 |----- do------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -
Mich. and Wis. r - - - - .
Oconto Harbor, Wis------------- 3 15. 144, 730, 65 | Private enterprise dredged the channel to a depth of 4 feet--------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - Do.
Green Bay Harbor, Wis--------- 11 15–20 718, 416.73 | None-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michi- (1) 19 703,380. 60 | The canal and channel in Sturgeon Bay were originally constructed by a private corporation, Do.
gan Ship Canal. + to a depth of about 12 feet and width of 100 feet. | - -
Algoma Harbor, Wis------------ 3 14 351,721.69 | None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kewaunee Harbor, Wis----------- 3 18 298, 128. 65 - - - - - do-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Rivers Harbor, Wis------- 3— 4 14 388,986. 76 ||----- do-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitowoc Harbor; Wis---------- 4 18. 931,395.30 - - - - - do-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheboygan Harbor, Wis--------- 7 19 . l, 067,442. 10 Tº º fºnts of Sheboygan built parallel piers and dredged between them to a Do.
º:- . depth o €6.5. -
Port Washington Harbor, Wis---|---------- 16 230, 325, 10 | N9ne---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- I
Milwaukee Harbor, Wis--------- 4% 19 2,696, 794.87 | City of Milwaukee to construct inner commercial harbor---------------------------------- Do.
Racine Harbor, Wis------------- (1) I9 1, 138, 183.58 | Prior, to beginning of improvement by the United States local interests built two piers Do.
- and dredged channel between them 12 feet deep.
Kenosha Harbor, Wis------------ (1) 19 640, 460: 49 Certain improvement work was done prior to that done by the United States, but the ex- Do.
tent and by whom done is unknown.
Waukegan Harbor, Ill----- - - - - - - (2) 18 787, 635.74 008--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Joseph Harbor, Mich-------- 3- 7 15–18 1,023,035.99 ||----- do------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
South Haven Harbor, Mich----- 7–10 17–19 630,926. 34 || Local interests constructed 2,640 feet of revetment----------------------------------------- $35,000.
Saugatuck Harbor and Kalama- 5– 7 16 571, 104.86 || Prior to 1867 the mouth of the river had been improved by local interests with slab piers. | Unknown.
zoo River, Mich. Local interests also contributed $9,000 during 1922 for work on this project:
Holland IIarbor, Mich - - - ------- 5% 16 816,384. 14 | None---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grand Haven Harbor, Mich----- 9–12 18 1,436,254.69 || The Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad Co. built 3,185 feet of pile revetment and pier in 1857- Do.
Muskegon Harbor, Mich-------- 11–12 20 1,014, 799. 59 || Local interests constructed slab piers along, both sides of the channel prior to work by the Do.
- - United States and also donated land needed for the improvement. .
White Lake Harbor, Mich------ 5 16 396, 560. 79 || Local interests constructed slab piers on both sides of entrance channel-------------------- Do.
Pentwater Harbor, Mich-------- 4 16 346,820.00 Local interests constructed slab piers long side of entrance channel------------ ------------ Do.
Ludington Harbor, Mich-------- 7–8 18 1,954,819.99 || Local interests dredged the channel prior to improvement by United States and donated Do.
&Il Ci. • ‘
Manistee Harbor, Mich--------- 7–8 18–19. 4 992, 629; 86 || Local interests constructed Slab piers and donated land.----------------------------------- Do.
Portage Lake Harbor, Mich----- - 4 18 395,500.00 | Local interests constructed log and slab piers prior to improvement by United States.------ Do.
Arcadia Harbor, Mich----------- - 9 16 63,000.00 Tº * constructed by local interests and maintenance dredging has been done as $57,887. .
ate aS 1911. *. * • * * * * - “. .
3–4 18 564, 692.47 | Local interests constructed slab piers prior to improvement by United States and the Unknown,
Frankfort Harbor, Mich---------
Toledo & Ann Arbor R. R. Co, extended the south pier 400 feet at a cost of about $25,000.
º
*-- *

#
-º-º-º-3 º ºº: Tººgº º JTº J UTrºy tº º J 2. tºlºs - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Petoskey Harbor, Mich 14 15 136,500.00 | None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Harbor, Ill-------------- 3–4 21 4, 331, 940. 28 In 1864 the city of Chicago contributed $75,000, which was expended in dredging and extend-
#. º north pier 450 feet. The city also expended $3,508,517 for the construction of
ier No. 2.
Calumei, Harbor and River, Ill 4-7 20–21 3, 663,734. 38 Local interests donated land for turning basins-------------------------------------------- $35,700.
#111 (I LII (1.
Indiana Harbor, Ind------------ (1) 20–22 1, 171,849. 50 | Local interests constructed two piers and dredged between them prior to operations by the Unknown.
|United States.
Michigan City Harbor, Ind- - - - - 9 12–16 1,936,421. 10 || The Michigan City Harbor Co. expended the sum of $100,000 in the construction of a harbor. $100,000.
CONNECTING CHANNELS
St. Marys River, Mich---------- 5–17 21 $26, 160,058. 10 | The State of Michigan completed at the Falls in 1855 a canal having a draft of 11.5 feet, 5,400 | Unknown.
- feet long, which was subsequently turned over to the United States. The Lake Carriers'
* * * & Association removed 210 cubic yards of bowlders from the channel in 1917.
St. Clair River, Mich------------ 16–18 || 19–22 888,719.97 | The Lake Carriers' Association removed 348,911 cubic yards from the downbound channel DO
- & - - & - in front of Port Huron in 1922. i * , ,
Cºls in Lake St. Clair, 2–6 20–21 2,892,304. 63 | None----------------------------- - * * * * * * * = - * = -- * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------- - .
10/1. - : - • . - - - & .
I)etroit River, Mich------------- 12%–15 20–21 13,830,373. 18 The only work known to have been done with funds supplied by other sources than Con- $5,000.
gress was the removal of some bowlders from Limekiln Crossing by the Canadian Gov-
ernment prior to commencement of work by the United States.
HARBOR'S ON LAKE HURON º
Mackinac Harbor, Mich--------- 18 18 $78,048.52 | None - - - - - - - -.7: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------------------------------------------------
Cheboygan Harbor, Mich------- 6 18% 215, 700. 28 In 1872 the citizens of Cheboygan contributed $2,000, which was expended in dredging
. § inside the inner end of the channel provided by the United States.
Rogers City Harbor, Mich - - - - - - 11 14 5,809. 38 || Local interests provided wharf and dock facilities - - - - ------------------------------------- Unknown.
Alpena Harbor, Mich - - - - - - - - - - - 7 16% 105,491.46 | Prior to operations by the United States the State of Michigan improved the mouth of the $43,000.
: - • river by building piers and dredging. r
Ausable Harbor, Mich----------- 5 10 114,786. 12 | None----------------------------------------------------------------- *s ºs = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Saginaw River, Mich------------: 9 16%-18%. 1, 736,374.85 |-----do------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIarbor of refuge at Harbor (1) 21 —23 2, 555, 473. 02 - - - - - do------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach, Mich.
| Unknown.
? Not navigable.


g
HARBORS ON LARE ERIE
;a
Original ||Pºº" Cost to United * & © Cost to private
Name depth uña States Betterments by private interests interests
States
Feet Feet
Monroe Harbor, Mich-- - - - - - - - - - 5 11 $261,946. 81 | Prior to 1845 the city of Monroe improved the channel by cutting a canal about 1,300 feet | Unknown.
long, with a depth of 13 to 16 feet.
Toledo Harbor, Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - 4–10. 17–21 3, 457,813. 60 | None----------------------------------------------------------------------------, -------
Port Clinton Harbor, Ohio - - - - - - 5–10 ; 101,803.86 || ----- do------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... • * - - - -
Sandusky Harbor, Ohio --------- 10 18– 1,464,821.37 Local interests contributed $50,000 toward the work of improvements and also expended $100,000.
an additional $50,000 for removal of rock. -
Huron Harbor, Ohio---- - - - - - - - - - 18 19 636, 724. 27 | Local interests donated land and constructed necessary bulkhead - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jnknown.
Vermilion Harbor, Ohio - - - - - - - - - 2 10–12 17% 617.73 None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorain Harbor, Öhio III. 3-13 20. 1, 266, 122. 76 . The city of Lorain contributed $3,000 toward the extension of west breakwater-----------. $3,000.
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio -- - - - - - - - 3–15 19 7,831,011. 70 Th: ‘. Of Gºland has improved the inner harbor, consisting of about 6% miles in the $4,013,206.
Ulyanoga River.
Fairport Harbor, Ohio--- - - - - - - - - 6–8 20 * * *71-65 | None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio-- - - - - - - - 4 19–20 2,328,093. 24 The Pennsylvania R. R. Co., the New York Central R. R. Co., and the city of Ashtabula $384,000.
have cooperated by the construction of bulkheads and jetties.
Conneaut Harbor, Ohio - - - - - - - - - - 2–13 20 1,891, 756.40 | None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Harbor, Pa. ---------------- 6 16–20 1,919, 109.09 || In 1824 $10,000 was expended by the State of Pennsylvania in the partial construction of the $10,000.
breakwater south of the entrance channel.
Dunkirk Harbor, N. Y. -- - - - - - - - 10 16 1, 120,614. 74 ocal interests constructed a dock which is open to all on equal terms--------------------. Unknown.
Buffalo Harbor, N. Y - - - - - - - - - - - 8 19–21 6,818, 170.09 || The city of Buffalo, the State of New York, and local interests have expended large sums $10,500,000 (ap-
| g in the construction of piers and terminal facilities and in dredging connecting channels, proximate).
Black Rock Channel and Tona- 8–18 || 13%–21 5, 762,272. 79 || The State of New York has expended various sums for dredging, construction of ship lock, $1,397,600 (ap-
wanda Harbor, N. Y. | and extension of piers. The city of Buffalo contributed toward the cost of the Ferry proximate).
Street Bridge and constructed bulkheads
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1861.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 5, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors,
House Of Representatives.
SIR : I have the honor to transmit herewith for the informatioſi and use of
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors copies of a statement for the press con-
taining certain recent correspondence between the department and the British
Embassy in regard to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan, released by
this department for publication in the morning newspapers of May 5, 1924.
The note from the embassy dated February 13, 1924, a copy of which was
transmitted to you with my letter of April 14, 1924, is included in the press.
statement by an understanding With the British Embassy and the Government
of Canada for simultaneous publication at Ottawa and Washington on May 5,
1924, thereby being released of the confidential character which it had at the:
(late of my letter to you.
The note from the British ambassador dated March 21, 1924, a copy of whicly
was also inclosed to you with my letter of April 14, is not included in the press
statement, the British Embassy having informed the department that for
the present it is not proposed to lay any correspondence subsequent in date
to March 19, 1924, before the Dominion Parliament. Consequently, the am-
bassador's note of March 21, 1924, retains for the present its confidential char-
acter.
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
CHARLEs E. Hugh Es.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
- - May 3, 1924.
The Department of State made public the following correspondence with the
ritish Embassy in regard to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan for
a proposed navigation canal by the Sanitary D strict of Chicago: -
BRITISH EMBASSY,
- Washington, D. C., December 29, 1923–
Ion. CHARLEs E. Hug HES,
Secretary of State of the United States,
Washington, J). C.
SIR : My attention has been drawn by the Government of Canada to the fact
hat about the month Of June last the Government of the United States were:
tranted an injunction restraining the Sanitary District of Chicago from
liverting water from Lake Michigan, but that this injunction would not take
affect for a period of six months in order to allow time for the Sanitary District
yf Chicago to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. I understand.
hat such an appeal has been lodged, but that the Supreme Court has not yet.
cted upoll it. * :
I have the honor to inform you that the Government Of Canada have re-
eived numerous communications from various bodies and interests directly
oncerned with this question protesting against this diversion of water from
ake Michigal), and I would further explain that, Owing to the injurious.
ffects of such diversion both upon navigation and Water power, the Dominion,
#overnment still maintain their attitude of Opposition as already explained.
O the United States Government in Sir Auckland Geddes's note No. 285 of
pril 22, 1921, and previous correspondence. - -
In these circumstances, the Governor General of Canada has asked me toº
nquire the present status of the legal proceedings instituted by the Govern-
ment of the United States with a view to preventing any increase in the di-
ersion of water from Lake Michigan, and to add that the Dominion Govern—
ment confidently hope that these legal proceedings will be vigorously pressed:
y the United States Government. -
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir,
Your most obedient, humble Servant, * *
- - H. G. CHILTON-





















1862 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
º DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
. . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, January 21, 1924.
His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir AUCKLAND GEDDEs, G. C. M.G., K. C. B.,
Ambassador of Great Britain. . . . * , , ,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your embassy’s note, No.
1111, of December 29, 1923, regarding the diversion of water from Lake
Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago. . -
A copy of the note has been referred to the proper authorities to ascertain
the status of the legal proceedings pending against the Sanitary District of
Chicago, and a further communication in regard to the matter will be ad-
dressed to you upon receipt of their reply. - -
- Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . WILLIAM PHILLIPS
(For the Secretary of State).
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
. Washington, February 16, 1924.
Mr. HENRY GETTY CHILTON, . - .
Chargé d'Affaires a.d. interian of Great Britain. -
SIR : With further reference to your note of December 29, 1923, in regard to
the legal proceedings instituted by the Government of the United States against
the Sanitary District of Chicago to prevent the unauthorized diversion of
water from Lake Michigan, I have the honor to inform you that the Depart-
ment has been advised by the Solicitor General of the United States that an
appeal has been taken by the Sanitary District Of Chicago from the decision of
the United States district court in favor of the Government, and that the appeal
is still pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Solicitor
General further stated that as soon as the record of the case shall have been
printed a motion will be submitted to the court to advance the case for early
argument. r -- . . . - - -
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my high consideration.
'. LELAND HARRISON
(For the Secretary of State).
- BRITISH EMBASSY,
- Washington, D. C., February 9, 1924.
Hon. CHARLEs E. HUGHES, - -
, Secretary of State of the United States, Washington, D. C.
SIR: With reference to the special Senate committee which was appointe
by the Vice President to investigate the problem of a 9-foot channel in the
waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and to inquire int
the navigability of the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers, I have th
honor to state that the Government of the Dominion of Canada learns that th
hearings on this bill will commence in Washington on Monday next, and i
is proposed to send Mr. W. J. Stewart, chief hydrographer of the Dominion
Government, to Washington to be present at these hearings on behalf 0
the Canadian G0Vernment. . . . . . .
... I should be grateful if the necessary arrangements could be made, if there
is no objection, for Mr. Stewart's attendance at these hearings. - .
I have the honor to be with the highest consideration, Sir,
; : - Your most obedient, humble Servant, . . . .
H. G. CHILTON.
... DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, February 18, 1924.
Mr. HENRY GETTY CHILTON, . . . . . . - -
Chargé d'Affairs ad interim of Great. Britain. . . . . .
SIR: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 130, on Februar
9, 1924, in which you state that the Canadian Government wishes to sen
Mr. W. J. Stewart, chief hydrographer of the Dominion Government, t
Washington to be present at the hearings to be held by the committee ap

ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1863
‘point to investigate the problem of a 9-foot channel in the waterway from
the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and to inquire into the navigability
Of the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers. - *
Upon inquiry this department is informed that no time has yet been fixed
for the holding of hearings on this question. r-
Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my high consideration.
CHARLES E. HUGHES.
BRITISH EMBAssy,
Washington, D. C., February 13, 1924.
Hon. CHARLEs E. Hugh ES,
Secretary of State of the United States, Washington, D. C.
SIR : I have the honor to inform you that the Government of Canada have
recently noted that a Special committee of the United States Senate has been
appointed by the Vice President to investigate the problem of a 9-foot channel
in the waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and to inquire
into the navigability of the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers, with a
View presumably to exploring the possibility of establishing direct maritime
COmmunication between, the Great Lakes and the South Atlantic and Pacific
‘Oceans. The DoIminion Government further understand that certain legis-
-lation now before Congress proceeds, after defining the nature of the work
to be undertaken in the stretch above mentioned, to confer upon the Sanitary
District of Chicago the legal right to divert for sewage dilution and navigation
purposes 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan upon
condition that the said district shall pay into the Treasury of the United
States such sums as may be estimated to be its reasonable share of the cost
Of constructing compensating works at several points for the purpose of con-
trolling and restoring to the lakes in question the levels lost by reason of
this diversion Of Water. - - º
In this connection, the Dominion Government observe that no provision
is made for the restoration of the levels of the St. Lawrence River from
its head to tidewater. In other words, the restoration to be provided in the
legislation above named is to be in the waters where United States naviga-
tion predominates, but no such restoration is provided for the waters so ex-
tensively used by Canadian shipping. *
Reports submitted to the Canadian Government during recent months refer
not only to the loss of levels that affect navigation, but also to the diversion
Of Water for power purposes, both in the international stretches where Com-
pensation may be determined and in the international stretches below Corn-
wall, in the Province of Quebec. In that regard Lord Byng of Vimy deserves
me to point out that the limit of 10,000 cubic feet Of water per second as con-
templated by the proposed legislation is about 1,500 cubic feet per second more
than is being diverted at present and his excellency considers it possible that
the proposed legislation may mean that 10,000 cubic feet per second is allowed
for diversion and power at Lockport, while additional water power will doubt-
less be required for lockages. *
In view of the above I have the honor to inform you that the Government
Of Canada are unalterably Opposed to the proposed diversion of Water from
the Great Lakes watershod to that of the Mississippi, to the great detriment
of navigation from Sault Ste. Marie to tidewater. The diversion that has
already taken place at Chicago has lowered the waters of the Great Lakes
to an extent that is now common knowledge. This affects harbors upon which
many million dollars have been expended in deepening Operations. It also
affects the lock sills of the Sault Ste. Marie Canals, the Welland canal, and
the St. Lawrence canals, and further this diversion of water has a most
injurious effect upon the Ocean shipping channel between Montreal and the
sea, where the Government of the Dominion have spent many more millions
of dollars in dredging operations. How great have been the injuries sustained
by navigation-interests may be seen from the fact that every inch of navigable
water means an additional 60 to 80 tons of carrying capacity. The waters of
the Great Lakes are the heritage of both the people of the United States and
the 'people of Canada, and the Dominion Government are of opinion that it is
quite obvious that these waters should be conserved for the interests of both
peoples.; The Government of Canada, therefore sincerely hope that the Gov-
ernment of the United States will not only not permit any further diversion of
water from Lake Michigan but will intimate to and if necessary insist upon the
1864 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Sanitary District of Chicago adopting some more scientific method of sewage
disposal than is foreshadowed at present. - ; .
I have the honor to request that I may in due course be furnished with an
expression of the views of the United States Government upon the contents
of this note for communication to His Excellency, the Governor General of
Canada.
I have the honor to be with the highest consideration, sir,
Your most obedient, humble Servant,
H. G. CHILTON.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, February 15, 1924.
Mr. HENRY GETTY CHILTON, &
Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of Great Britain.
SIR : I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 144, of February
13, 1924, concerning the proposed building of a 9 foot channel in the waterway
from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, and the suggested further diver-
Sion by the Sanitary District of Chicago . Of waters of Lake Michigan.
The contents of your note have been communicated to the appropriate de-
partments of this Government for consideration, and upon receipt of their
replies I shall be glad to send you the expression of the views of this Govern-
ment for which you ask. t
Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my high consideration.
CHARLES E. Hugh ES.
IDEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 2, 1924.
His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir ESME How ARD, G. C. M. G. K. C. B.,
C. W. O., Ambassador of Great Britain.
ExCELLENCY : Further reference is made to the note from your embassy
No. 130 of February 9, 1924, in which is was stated that the Government of
the Dominion of Canada desired to send. Mr. W. J. Stewart, chief hydrographer
Of the Dominion Government to be present in its behalf at hearings of a spe-
cial committee of the Senate appointed to investigate the problem of a 9-foot
Channel in the proposed waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico,
and to the inquiry made in your note No. 256 of March 21, 1924. in regard
to the date on which these hearings will be held, and whether Mr. Stewart will
be at liberty to be present. - **
The committee of the Senate to which reference was made in the em-
bassy's note of February 9, 1924, has not held hearings during the present
Session of Congress or yet arranged to hold them.
I am informed by the chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors
of the House of Representatives that this committee has arranged to resume
hearings on April 15, on bills dealing with the diversion of waters from Lake
Michigan, the most important one, I understand, being known as the Hull bill
(H. R. 5475). The committee desires to obtain all the information it can
Which Will be helpful toward a correct determination of the matters which it
has under consideration. It will welcome the help of all who have informa-
tion of value relating to these matters, and will be glad to have Mr. Stewart
attend the hearings. ,
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
CHARLEs E. HUGHEs.
NEw York, N. Y., May 6, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, -
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives.
MY DEAR SIR: Hon. Murray Hulbert, president of the Borough of Manhat-
tan, and formerly a Member of Congress and a member of the Rivers and
Harbors Committee, has indicated that your committee would welcome in.
formation and opinions bearing on the matter of the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal, . . . - .
As I have given a great deal of attention to this matter since 1914, having
been retained by the Government in its action against the Sanitary District
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1865
of Chicago, and having made several Subsequent examinations of local çºn.
ditions, including a recent local investigation for the Merchants' Associatiºn
of New York, I beg to submit for your consideration the following:
I. There are, as you know, two actions, now merged into one, brought by
the United States against the Sanitary District of Chicago, to restrain the
diversion of all water in excess of 4,167 cubic foot-seconds, which merged
action was decided by the United States Circuit Court for the Northern Dis.
trict of Illinois in favor of the United States, but which action is now before
the United States Supreme Court on appeal, and is to be argued in No-
Wember, 1924.
There are also, as you know, a number of actions from several States bor-
der.ng on the Great Lakes, brought against the State of Illinois and the
Sanitary District of Chicago before the United States Supreme Court as
Original actions. -
Unlike the action brought by the United States which attacks only the
surplus diversion above 4,167 cubic foot-seconds, the original State actions
attack, in alternative form, the legality of any and all degrees of diversion.
The issue of the Chicago Drainage Canal diversion is, therefore, now fully
before the United States Supreme Court on the basis of the conditions and
the legal rights as they existed at the time the actions were brought, which
was before any of the diversion bills now before your committee were
introduced. º -
The decision of the Supreme Court on the clear-cut issues now before it is of
great importance to a large contingent of the general public, and hence nothing
should be allowed to delay or interfere with the clearness of the issues now
before the court. If, however, new legislation is enacted subsequent to the
filing of the several actions but before the court has rendered its decisions, new
legal conditions will be created which were not contemplated in the prepara-
tion of the various actions, the issues will be confused, and the decisions will
be on the basis of conditions not contemplated in the petitions and will be of
greatly diminished value. The present litigation is so far advanced, the issues
sc well defined, and the results which await the decisions—whatever those
decisions may be—are so important and So widespread that legislation enacted
at this time. Or at any time prior to the rendering of the decisions, would
Surely constitute an interruption and an interference with the pending litiga-
tion, a situation which good governmental policy, if not interdepartmental comity
and courtsey, should discourage. If the court is allowed to render its decisions
on the clear-cut issues now before it, the determination of the necessity and
the character of further legislation, if any, can then be made wisely, and as
can not now be made.
Regardless of the merits or the demerits of the diversion proposals, it there-
'fore appears clearly desirable to postpone all proposed legislation bearing
thereon until the present legal status of the whole matter has been passed on
by the Supreme Court. 2.
If, however, you desire to consider further the merits and the demer’ts of
the diversion itself, then I beg to summarize briefly the following objections
to the diversion itself and to the proposed legislation which seeks to legalize it:
II. (1) The existing divers on is without State authority. It has been
alleged by competent legal authority that the State of Illinois apparently ex-
ceeded its powers in attempting to authorize the diversion of water from
Take Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal and thereby from One in-
terstate watershed into another interstate watershed. e. ther for sanitary or
water-power purposes, and therefore that such diversion is apparently with-
out State authority. - - '. - . . .
The United States Supreme Court should be allowed to pass on the clear-cut
iSSue. - - - -
(2) A large portion or the whole of the existing diversion is without Fedºrº'
authority. It has been alleged by competent legal authority that the Secretary
of War apparently exceeded his authority in attempting to authorize the diver.
sion of water from Iake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal. and
therefore through a new and artificial channel from one interstate watershed
into another interstate watershed, for any purpose whatever, and certainly for
any purpose other than for navigation, and since thºt official has shown
(report of December 7, 1920) that of the 4,167 cubic foot-seconds of diversion
authorized by his predecessor in 1903, 500 cubic foot-seconds would have been
adequate for navigation puropses in the Chicago Drainage Canal, and 1.000
1866 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
Subic foot-seconds for navigation purposes in the Des Plaines and Illinois
Rivers; ºtherefore the whole, or a large portion of the 4,167 cubie foot-seconds
of diversion attempted to be authorized by the Secretary of War is apparently
Without Federal authority. .
* . ºited States Supreme Court should be allowed to pass on this clear-
Cut 18Sue. . . . - .
(3). The existing diversion is apparently in violation of international law.
The diversion of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage
Canal, and therefore permanently away from the Great Lakes and the St.
Iawrence River, which are international boundary Waters, without the con-
sent of the Government of Canada, would seem to be in violation of inter-
national law. --
The United States Supreme Court should be allowed to pass on this issue.
” (4) The existing diversion is apparently in violation of the Canadian Treaty
of 1910. The diversion of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago
Drainage and therefore away from the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence
River, Which are international boundary waters, for any purpose other than
for the benefit of commerce and navigation and without adequate authority of
both the United States and of the International Joint Commission, neither of
Which authority has yet been given, would seem to be in direct violation of
Article III of the international treaty ratified May 5, 1910, between the United
States and Great Britain, regarding the use of boundary waters between the
United States and Canada. -
The United States Supreme Court should be allowed to pass on this issue.
(5) The existing diversion is very greatly in excess of that for which any
Federal authority is claimed by the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chi-
cago. Although having repeatedly made application for an increased diversion,
for Which thus far no authority has been granted, the sanitary district trustees
have persistently ignored the lack of Federal authority, and have for many
years continued to divert from Lake Michigan water greatly in excess of the
4,167 cubic foot-seconds ostensibly authorized by the Secretary of War, and
for the past Several years have diverted more than double that amount. An
injunction to restrain this excess diversion is now before the United States
Supreme Collrt on appeal. This court should be allowed to pass on that in-
junction. !
(6) The diversion existing and that for which congressional authority is
asked has and will have the effect of materially and injuriously lowering lake
and harbor levels. The diversion now asked, and which is now frequently
made, viz, 10,000 cubic foot-seconds, has the effect of lowering the levels of the
surface of water in each of the Great Lakes except Lake Superior, and in all
the connecting channels and harbors, by amounts varying (according to U. S.
Engineer reports) from nearly 6 inches in Lakes Michigan and Huron to 8%
inches in the upper St. Lawrence River, and as alleged, by much greater
amounts at Montreal. This lowering of water surface has the effect of shoal-
ing all shallow channels and harbors, to overcome which involves either (a)
extensive and expensive dredging to restore original depth, or (b) the loading
of all vessels requiring the full depth to shallower drafts than would be the
Case Without Such diversion.
... . (7) The proposed regulating works for restoring the lake levels lowered by
the existing and by the proposed diversion have never been favorably reported
on nor approved by either the chief of engineers or the Secretary of War.
(8) Some of the diversion bills are ambiguous as to the proportion of the
total cost of these regulating works which the Sanitary District of Chicago
shall pay for. In some of the diversion bills now before your committee it is
not proposed that the Sanitary District of Chicago shall pay the total cost
of the regulating works for restoring the lake levels lowered by the present
and proposed diversion, but only its so-called “reasonable share,” an expression
of uncertain meaning, but quite certain to lead to argument and delay in
installing Or paying. g “ . . . . . . . ... •
(9) These regulating Works, even if Successfully built and operated. Could
have no effect, in restoring or compensating for the water actually diverted.
Even if such regulating works were to be approved, built, paid for, and Success-
fully operated, they could have no possible effect whatever in restoring, or in
compensating for, the Water actually diverted from , the Great Lakes to a
foreign watershed, nor for the waterpower on the Niagara and St. Lawrence
*
Rivers, lost on account of the present and proposed diversion.
: . . .''.
* ,
(>
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1867
(10) The diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds at Chicago causes a loss of
water power at Niagara Falls of 193,000 horsepower, worth at least $3,860,000
per annum, and a proportional amount on the St. Lawrence River. The per-
manent diversion away from its natural watershed of 10,000 cubic foot-Seconds
from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal causes a loss of
water power at Niagara Falls alone, assuming a head there of 200 feet Of
193,000 horsepower, worth at the lowest price paid at Niagara Falls, $3,860,000
per annum. The total fall on the St. Lawrence River is 208 feet. If fully
developed this would represent an additional loss of about the same amount
Of power as at Niagara Falls.
(11) The efficiency of water power development per cubic foot of water is
six times as great at Niagara Falls as at Chicago. Even if the diversion Of
water for water power purposes were legally permissible, which is not the
case, such use would be extremely uneconomical as each cubic foot Of Water
will produce six times as much power at Niagara Falls as at Chicago.
(12) The existing and proposed diversion seriously impairs the scenic beauty
of Niagara Falls. The diversion of 10,000 cubic foot-seconds at Chicago, by
diminishing by that amount the flow over Niagara Falls, tends to impair the
unrivaled Scenic beauty and the impressiveness of that wonderful international
spectacle, which belongs as much to the West as to the east, and to preserve
which was the principal purpose in negotiating the international treaty between
the United States and Great Britain, ratified May 5, 1910. This impairment
is not. Of course, diminished in any degree by the proposed regulating works
for restoring the original lake levels.
(13) The stipulated rate of building Sewage disposal works at Chicago is much
too slow and the stipulated degree of purification is too indefinite to be accepted.
The rate of progress in the development Of modern Sewage-disposal works to
take the place of the present discharge into the drainage canal, as stipulated
in the bills now before your committee, is much too slow to be tolerable, as
25 years is there to be allowed to elapse before the raw Sewage and wastes is
reduced to 50 per cent of the present amount. Moreover, no degree of purifi-
cation of the raw sewage anº. wastes is specified. A 5 per cent degree of puri-
fication would meet this stipulation.
(14) Economy in the choice of alternate methods for accomplishing a given
purpose is a proper consideration—sometimes. The apparently dominant
motive behind the original adoption of the method of canal and river discharge
of Chicago sewage, instead of a more Scientific method of sewage disposal,
and also behind the tardy rate of development of modern sewage disposal
works to take the place of the present crude system of Canal and river dis-
charge (onto somebody else) is the element of cheaper cost, reduced still fur-
ther by water power produced with war unlawfully diverted and uneconomi-
cally used.
(15) So also, as to providing a navigable waterway. The apparently domi-
nant motives behind the recent demands for a large amount Of diversion
(10,000 cubic foot-seconds) for open-river navigation on the Illinois River are
(a) the fact that it is thus much cheaper to' Secure a given navigable depth
than with the much smaller amounts of diversion (stated by the Secretary of
War at 1,000 cubic foot-seconds), requiring the more expensive locks and
dams, and (b) the fact that this diverted water can also be used to produce
water power, even though far less economically than if left to flow in the natu-
ral channels where it rightfully belongs.
d
(16) The apparent protection of life and property along the Illinois River
Valley in time of flood, as indicated in some of the diversion bills, is only
apparent, not real. The apparent provision in two of the diversion bills (H.
R. 5475 and H. R. 7044, sec. 5) for the protection of life and property in the
Illinois River Valley in time of flood is apparent only. The only actual
provision in these sections is that the flow through the drainage canal shall
always, be great enough to prevent, the waters of the drainage canal, or of
the Chicago. River, from reversing its present reversed direction of flow and
of discharging' into Lake Michigan, no matter how much water must be let
down the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers from the drainage canal in order
to accomplish this prevention. - -
(17) The method of preventing back flow into Lake Michigan in time of
heavy rainstorms by opening the gates at Lockport and letting an unusually
harge amount of water flow down the river valleys, at just the time when
they are already overburdened with their own flood waters, is cruel to the
1868 ILLINois AND MISSISSIPPI Rivers, ETC.
people living in those valley and is ineffectual as a preventive of the reversai
or flow. The method now followed for preventing back flow into Lake Mºchi-
gan in times of flood in the Chicago and Calumet Rivers, viz. by opening the
outlet gates at Lockport. is both unreliable and objectionable. Unreliable,
because since t requires many hours for the hydraulic effect of opening the
Lockport gates to reach (“hicago, the undesired back flow into Lake Michigan
in time of beavy rain may take place and the harm be doire before the pre-
ventive lowering from Lockport can reach the river mouths. Objectionable.
because it discharges unusually large amounts of water down the Des Plaiines
and Illinois River Valleys at just the times when those valleys are already in
flood from their own watersheds, thus greatly aggravating the floods. Another
reliable and feasible method for preventing this reversal, free from the above
serious objection, and not requ ring a large diversion, is readily available.
(18) The conditions along the Illinois River Valley arising from both sewage
pollution and from flood conditions are simply intolerable and are growing
worse from cumulative causes. Indemnities and fines are no deterrent.
Nothing but an injunction actually enforced after a reasonable but short time
for changing the system of sewage disposal w ll relieve the intolerable, in-
decent, insanitary, conditions in the Illinois Valley. ... - -
Very truly yours, r
- OH.I.N. H. TANDRETH.
* , , * NEW YORK, May 16, 1924.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, -
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors,
- . . . . - House of Representatires. -
DEAR SIR: We transmit herewith for your information a report concerning
“Diversion for the use of the Chicago Drainage Canal of waters necessary for
navigation,” embodying preambles and resolutions adopted by this association,
opposing pending bills authorizing such diversion. - . . ;
As the interests of the State of New York would he wrongfully affected by
the enactment of this proposed legislation, we respectfully request that you
Oppose, it. n -
By order of the board of directors.
Very respectfully, - - -
- THE MERCHANTs' ASSOCIATION of NEw York,
By S. C. MEAD, Secretary. - -
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON IN LAND WATERw AYS AND WATER STORAGE
Subject: Diversion of waters of Lake Michigan for use of Chicago Drainage
Canal. -
- - - APRIL 28, 1924.
To the Board of Directors, The Merchants ' Association of New York.
GENTLEMEN : There are now pending in Congress several bills the purpose
of which is to legalize the diversion of water from Lake Michigan to the
amount of 10,000 cubic feet per second, for the uses of the Chicago Drainage
Canal. w - . -
The primary purpose of such diversion is to so increase the flow of water
through the drainage canal as to enable it to dilute and transmit to the
Illinois River the entire volume of untreated sewage originating in the Sanitary
District of Chicago, having an area of 437 square miles and a present popula-
tion of 3,213,000. - -
The drainage canal draws its waters from Lake Michigan by connecting
with the Chicago and Calumet Rivers. All the sewers of the entire district,
directly or indirectly, discharge into it. It was constructed to abolish the
discharge of sewage into Lake Michigan, from which the city of Chicago derives
its water supply.
The plan was projected and adopted in 1889, and construction was proceeded
with under authority granted by the State of Illinois. During the early stages
of the project, little if any consideration seems to have been given: to the
question as to the right of the State of Illinois to authorize the diversion of
the navigable waters of Lake Michigan, jurisdiction of which rests with the
Federal Government.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1869
Upon the completion of the canal this question took practical form. Ap-
plication was made to the Secretary of War for authority to divert from the
Jake 5.000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago River and the drainage
Canal. This diversion was on May 8, 1899, authorized as a temporary measure;
and on March 31, 1903, the amount of the authorized diversion was definitely
fixed at 4.167 cubic feet per second.
With the passage of time and the growth of population, and the consequent
great increase in the Volume of sewage to be disposed of, repeated efforts were
made to obtain an increase of the authorization to 10,000 cubic feet per second.
These demands resulted in more thorough studies by the United States Army
Engineers of the effects upon navigation of the operation of the drainage canal.
It was developed that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second would result
in lowering the levels of the Great Lakes (except Superior) by nearly (;
inches in Lake Michigan and by 8% inches in the upper St. Lawrence River,
thereby shoaling all the channels and harbors. This condition would make
Irecessary large outlays for dredging all the important harbors on the Great
Lakes, or as an alternative would preclude the loading to capacity of all lake
Wessels of the first class, thus materially increasing carriage costs of lake
traffic. It would also seriously impair the potential water power derivable from
the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers—of particular importance to the State
of New York.
For these reasons the several applications to increase the authorized di-
version have been denied by the Secretary of War. Nevertheless the diversion
has been steadily increased without warrant of law during a series of years,
Such increase having kept pace with the increase in population and the cor-
responding greater volume of sewage to be disposed of by the drainage canal.
Since 1903, the diversion has continuously exceeded the 4,167 cubic feet per
second authorized by the Secretary of War. The average diversion in 1923 was
over 9,000 cubic feet per second and at times average amount was greatly
exceeded.
In 1912 the question was reexamined by the Secretary, on a renewed ap-
plication for authority to increase the diversion to 10,000 cubic feet per second.
He again denied the application on the grounds that the amount of water
asked had not been shown to he necessary for the proper sanitation of Chicago;
that other adequate systems of Sewage disposal were available and were in use
throughout the world, and might be employed at Chicago ; that the issue was in
fact simply a matter of cost to Chicago, since dilution and removal by canal
was cheapey than more scientific methods of disposal : and that the additional
water was desired not alone for necessary Sanitary purposes, but also for the
more extended operation of the city's power plant at Lockport.
The trustees of the sanitary district refused to conform to this decision.
restricting diversion to the amount of the original permit and declared their
purpose to continue diverting twice the permitted amount, unless restrained by
injunction.
The United States Attorney General therefore brought suit for an injunction
against any diversion from Lake Michigan in excess of the 4,167 cubic foot-
seconds previously authorized. Such injunction was granted in 1920, on the
ground that additional diversion would cause injury to navigation by lower-
ing the levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, with the result
of shoaling channels and harbors, necessitating large outlays for dredging, or
loss to shippers by reason of diminished cargo capacity of ships.
The sanitary district trustees have appealed from this judgment to the
United States Supreme Court, which is to hear argument thereon in November
next.
"In the meantime the State of Wisconsin and Michigan have brought suits
before the United States Supreme Court and injunctions to restain further
diversions of water by the Sanitary District of Chicago, Setting up the damage
to their commerce which will result therefrom. The Legislature of the State
of New York has by joint resolution directed the Attorney General to begin
similar proceedings, not only on the ground stated, but on the additional ground
of damage to its waterpower rights which would be caused by lessening the
flow of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. *
If the pending legislation is enacted, it will have the effect of empowering
the Sanitary District of Chicago to provide for its sanitary needs in a manner
which will inflict undeniable and serious damage upon all the States bordering
the Great Lakes. The State of New York in particular will suffer peculiar
damage by the impairment of its water powers.
1870 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
It Will burden the commerce and infringe the rights of five States in order
that Chicago may dispose of its sewage in the easiest and least costly manner,
dispite the fact that other adequate but more expensive methods of sewage
disposal are available, - ;
The powers of Congress should not be used in such manner or for such a
purpose. All the equities and the constitutional questions involved are now
before the Supreme Court for adjudication and will be dealt with upon their
merits, and no action should be taken by Congress pending judicial decision.
For these reasons, we recommend the adoption of the following: 4 -
PREAMBLES AND RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING THE DIVERSION FOR THE USE OF THE
CEIICAGO DRAINAGE CAN AL OF WATERS NECESS ARY FOR NAVIGATION
Whereas investigation by United States and other competent engineers
ShoWS that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second of water via the
Chicago Drainage Canal results in lowering of levels of the Great Lakes,
except Lake Superior, from nearly 6 inches in Lake Michigan to 8% inches in
the upper St. Lawrence River to the serious detriment of navigation ; and
Whereas the said diversion of water from Lake Michigan causes a loss of
Water power at Niagara Falls alone, assuming an average hydraulic head of
200 feet, of 193,000 horse-power of constant 24-hour power, worth at the lowest
price $3,860 per annum; and - \
Whereas even if the said diversion of water from Lake Michigan for water
power purposes were legally permissible, which is not the case, said use
WOuld be extremely uneconomical from lack Of head, as each cubic foot of
Water Would produce Six times as much power at Niagara Falls as at the
Chicago district ; and -
Whereas the diversion of the said 10,000 cubic feet per second by diminishing
the Same amount of flow over Niagara Falls tends to impair the Scenic beauty
and impressiveness of these world renowned Falls; and . .
Whereas all the foregoing objections to said diversion would be emphasized
during any period of low water in the upper lakes; and e .
Whereas, an action is now pending undetermined in the Supreme Court of
the United States in which the Government of the United States has denied
the right of the Sanitary District of Chicago to divert more than 4,167 cubic
feet per second of water from Lake Michigan, and various States have actions
pending undetermined in the Supreme Court of the United States in which the
power to divert any water whatever from Lake Michigan is denied: Now,
therefore,
Resolved, That the Merchants’ Association of New York is opposed to pas-
Sage of the bills now in Congress and others which may be Introduced which
authorize the diversion of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago
Drainage Canal in order that the several cases now before the United
States Supreme Court, brought by the United States Department of Justice,
the State of Wisconsin, the State of Michigan, and perhaps a case to be brought
by the State of New York, may be tried by the court and decided on their
merits, unhampered by new legislation introduced in Congress Since the filing
Of the CaseS. - - -
Resolved, That in order to protect the rights of the State of New York to
unimpaired navigation of the Great Lakes, and to undiminished flow of its
boundary streams, namely, the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers, and the
power rights dependent thereon, this association respectfully requests and
urges the attorney general of the State of New York to initiate and press
litigation in opposition to illegal or unwarranted diversion of waters for the
use of the Chicago Drainage Canal, as directed by a resolution of the State
legislature adopted April 9, 1924.
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to each Senator and Rep-
resentative in Congress from the State of New York and to the Attorney
General and Secretary of War of the United States, and to the Governor and
the attorney general of the State of New York.
On behalf of this committee, Professor Olin H. Landreth has made a Very
complete and careful study of all the facts and documents relating to this
case, and made a comprehensive report thereon, upon which the foregoing
summary is based. -
Respectfully submitted. r -
CoMMITTEE ON INLAND WATERw AY's AND WATER STORAGE,
R. A. C. SMITH, Chairman.
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1871
EAST CLEVELAND, OHIo, May 19, 1924.
Hon. THEODoRE BURTON, M. C., - -
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: Following is a copy of a motion passed by the East Cleveland
city commission at its regular meeting on May 6, 1924: - y
“Moved by Mr. Moxon, seconded by Mr. Sprague, that the commission go on
record as being opposed to, and does hereby protest, the passage of the so-
called “Hull bill,” or any other measure which would authorize the Sanitary
1)istrict of Chicago, Ill., to increase the amount of water diverted by it from
Lake Michigan, and so result in the further lowering of the level of Lake Erie,
and that copies of this motion be forwarded to the United States Senators and
Representatives in Congress from this district of Ohio. Carried. Ayes:
Moxon, Pattison, Siddall, Sprague. Nays: None.” -
Very truly yours, -
F. D. GREEN,
Clerk of the Commission.
LAKEwood, OHIO, May 19, 1924,
Hon. THEO. BURTON, . -
Member House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR : Attached hereto please find copy of a resolution passed by the
Lakewood city Council at a meeting April 21, 1924. * *
Yours very truly, -
THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD,
By A. I. KAUFFMAN, City Clerk.
Resolved, That the council of the city of Lakewood, State of Ohio, go on
record as being Opposed to, and does hereby protest, the passage of the So-called
Hull bill or any other measure which would authorize the Sanitary District
of Chicago to increase the amount of water diverted by it from Lake Michi-
gan, and so result in the further lowering of the level of Lake Erie; and be it
Resolved further, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the United
States Senators and Representatives in COngreSS from this district of Ohio.
CHICAGO DISTRICT ICE Association,
- Chicago, May 27, 1924.
IHon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, - - •.
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: At a meeting of this association held on May 21 a resolution was
adopted asking the support of all Members of Congress and the Senate in
securing the immediate passage of a hill permitting the diversion of 10,000
cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan, into the drainage canal,
at Chicago.
Approximately 85 per cent of all ice consumed in Chicago and vicinity is
manufactured from Lake Michigan water. The ice manufacturers in Chicago
and adjacent thereto view with great alarm, any possible contamination of
water supply (which has already occurred to a slight degree Several times),
for the reason that there is no practical method of removing such contamina.
tion before transforming the water into ice. The possibilities of a calamity
ensuing from the use of contaminated water in this city and vicinity are too
horrible to contemplate, and it is our earnest and sincere hope that you may.
view this matter in the light of the health of the people of Chicago and vicinity
as transcending in importance all other questions and lend us your Support
in having this measure enacted into law.
It is also proper to call attention to the fact that Chicago is the greatest
railway center in the world and, should such an epidemic become a reality,
water and ice used in railway refrigerator and Pullman cars might be Scat-
tered all over the United States, consequently people of the United States have
an interest in this matter second only to those who reside in Chicago and
vicinity. w
We feel that the first duty of our Congressmen and Senators is to consider
the health of all citizens rather than any navigation or power questions. ..
Yours truly,
E. C. HITT, Secretary.
1872 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERs, ETC.
('ongressman DEMPSEY,
('hairman of the Rivers and Harbor's Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, I). C.
19EAR SIR: With relation to the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan
fºr Sanitary purposes at Chicago, Ill., I wish to make the following Sugges
tions to your honorable body. I write this as a private Citizen, and alm not
representing any particular interest.
1. As to the natural flow of waters from Lake Michigan, geology teaches
that, during past ages the waters from the regions of Lake Michigan flowed
south down the Des Plaines River and finally into the Gulf of Mexico for
perhaps a much longer period than they have flowed down through the Lakes
Over Niagara Falls.
2. Lake Michigan, is wholly within the United States. There... is a constant
flow of waters into the lake from the many rivers draining its basin. In
addition much rain falls on its surface, and it is also fed by , springs in the
bottom, furnishing a great supply of water to the lake. Certainly, the States
which surround Lake Michigan are entitled to the use of all the water which
norinally flows into the lake, if they so choose. The 10,000 cubic feet per
Second requested by the sanitary district at the present time is an insignificant
portion of the water that is being constantly emptied into the lake through
rivers, streams, precipitation, etc.
3. The act of taking water for sanitary purposes by the Sanitary District
at Chicago is complained of by a foreign power. We lost our fur-seal arbitra-
tion with England because the arbitrators held we could not lawfully punish
Canadian sealers for killing female seals in the Bering Sea beyond the 3-mile
limit, even though they thus destroyed our valued herd on the Pribilof Islands.
The use of the waters of Lake Michigan, which is situated wholly within the
United States, at Chicago is a question for the United States.
4. Variations caused by natural conditions, such as winds, rainfall, evapora-
tions, possibly high and low pressure, and radio activity, are So great and
varied throughout a series of perhaps hundreds of years that reliable mean
lake levels for a specific time are very difficult to ascertain.
(a) Winds blowing from southwest, south, or southeast for any considerable
length of time may cause an apparent lowering of the lake levels at Chicago
of several inches. Much depends upon how, when, or where measurements are
taken.
(b) The taking of levels on opposite sides or ends of the lake at the same
moment may show great variations, and mean levels may be influenced in many
ways. The taking of levels under similar conditions a few hours later may
reveal still other variations ; lake levels frequently vary, even several inches,
without apparent cause. As wind and rain storms occur more frequently at
certain hours of the day, so lake levels may change to correspond with certain
conditions. If it were possible to take a great number, say 500, tests at as
many different points, covering the whole surface of the lake simultaneously
during every hour of the day for a great number of years, perhaps very satis-
factory conclusions might be reached.
(c) For a series of years climatic conditions may be Such as to produce
a great amount of precipitation. Again, during a series of years there may be
a drought, and the amount of evaporation may be excessive. All of these forces
of nature tend to increase or diminish the supply of water flowing into Or
entering Lake Michigan. The extent to which atmospheric conditions or
radio activity within the earth or other cosmic forces affect the levels of Lake
Michigan have not been fully agreed upon.
Lake Michigan covers an area of about 23,000 square miles and is about
300 miles long, north and South. Its present outlet is into Lake Huron. a
lake of about the same size. At places the outlet is claimed to be some 300
feet deep.
It is quite likely that in such a basin as Lake Michigan, where there is a
constant supply of water flowing in through its natural sources and there is
a constant outlet through a deep channel at one end, the effect of withdrawing
water at the other end (at Chicago) through a relatively shallow channel at the
rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second will be to decrease the amount of flow
through the deep channel to that extent, but in all probability the total amount
of water flowing from the lake will be the same, whether taken from one or
both ends of the lake, and consequently the lake will not necessarily be lowered
by reason of taking 10,000 cubic feet per second from the lake at Chicago. If
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1873
the waters do not flow through the canal at Chicago, they will flow north
into Lake Huron, for there is at all times an excess Of Waters flowing into
Lake Michigan through natural channels.
If the above suggestions, even to a small degree, help to Solve the question
before your honorable body, I will be greatly pleased.
Yours very truly,
THOMAS J. Holm ES.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[No. 161. October term, 1924. The Sanitary District of Chicago, appellant, v.
The United States of America. Appeal from the District Court of the
TJnited States for the Northern District of Illinois. January 5, 1925]
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill in equity brought by the United States to enjoin the sanitary
district of Chicago, a corporation of Illinois, from diverting water from Lake
Michigan in excess of 250,000 cubic feet per minute ; the withdrawal of that
amount having been authorized by the Secretary of War. It is alleged that
the withdrawal of more, viz, from 400,000 to 600,000 cubic feet per minute, has
lowered and will lower the level of the water of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron,
Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Sault Ste Marie, St. Mary's River,
St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, St. Lawrence River, and all
the harbors, etc., connected there with, all of which are alleged to be navigable
Waters of the United States, and will thus create an obstruction to the navigable
capacity of said waters ; and that it will alter and modify the condition and
capacity of the above named and their ports, etc., connected with them. The
prohibition of such alterations and obstructions in the act of March 3, 1899,
c. 425, section 10; 30 stat. 1121, 1151, is set out at length and relied upon but
the frame of the bill does not exclude a reliance upon more general principles
if they were needed in Order to maintain it.
The withdrawal practised and threatened is through an artificial channel
that takes the place of the Chicago River, formerly a little stream flowing into
Lake Michigan, and a part of its branches. The channel instead of adding
Water to the lake has been given an opposite incline, takes its water from the
lake, flows into the Desplaines River, which empties into the Illinois River,
which in its turn empties into the Mississippi. The channel is at least 25
feet deep and at least 162 feet wide ; and while its interest to the defendant
is primarily as a means to dispose of the sewage of Chicago, Missouri v.
Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, it has been an object of attention to the United States
as Opening water communication between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
and the Gulf.
The answer shows that the defendant is proceeding under a State act of
May 29, 1889, by which it was provided that a channel should be made of
Size Sufficient to take care of the sewage and drainage of Chicago as the in-
Crease of population might require, with a capacity to maintain an ultimate
flow of not less than 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, and a continuous
flow of not less than 20,000 cubic feet for each 100,000 of the population
within the sanitary district. It denies that the defendant has abstracted from
400,000 to 600,000 feet per minute, but as it alleges the great evils that would
ensue if the flow were limited to the amount fixed by the Secretary of War
Or to any amount materially less than that required by the State act of May
29, 1889, and as it admits present conditions to be good, the denial can not
be taken very seriously. The act sufficiently indicates what the State threatens
and intends to do unless stopped. The answer also denies that the abstrac-
tion of water substantially in excess of 250,000 cubic feet per minute will
lower the levels of the lakes and rivers concerned or create an obstruction to
the navigable capacity of those waters. It goes into the details of the con-
Struction of the channel ; the expenses incurred ; and the importance of it to
the health Of the inhabitants of Chicago, both for the removal of their sewage
and avoding the infection of their source of drinking water in Lake Michigan
Which had been a serious evil before. It shows the value of the channel for
the great scheme of navigation that we have mentioned; recites acts of Con-
gress and of officers of the United States alleged to authorize what has been
dOne, and to estop the United States from its present course, and finally takes
the bull by the horns and denies the right of the United States to determine
1874
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1875
he amount of water that should flow through the channel or the manner of the
OW. - -
This brief Summary of the pleadings is enough to show the gravity and im-
Ortance of the case. It concerns the expenditure of great sums and the
elfare of millions Of men. But cost and importance, while they add to the
lemnity of our duty, do not increase the difficulty of decision except as they
duce argument upon matters that with less mightly interests no one would
enture to dispute. The law is clear, and when it is known the material facts
re few. -
Th S is not a controversy between equals. The United States is asserting
is soverign power to regulate commerce and to control the navigable Waters
ithin its jurisdiction. It has a standing in this suit not only to remove Ob-
ruction to interstate and foreign commerce, the main ground, which We W.ll
eal with last, but also to carry out treaty obligations to a foreign power
ordering upon Some of the lakes concerned, and, it may be, also on the
oting of an ultiniate soverign interest in the lakes. The Attorney General
y virtue of his office may bring this proceeding and no statute is necessary
authorize the suit. United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273.
ith regard to the second ground, the treaty of January 11, 1909, with Great
ritain, expressly provides against uses “affecting the natural level or flow
f boundary waters ” without the authority of the United States or the DO-
in on of Canada within their respective jurisdictions and the approval of
he International Joint Commission agreed upon therein. As to its ultimate
terest in the lakes the reasons seem to be stronger than those that have
stablished a similar standing for a State, as the interests of the Nation are
ore important than those of any State. Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 584, 585,
99. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230. Hudson County Water
o. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355. Marshall Dental Manufacturing Co. v.
owa, 226 U. S. 460, 462. - - - - r
The main ground is the authority of the United States to remove obstruc-
ions to interstate and foreign commerce. There is no question that this
lower is superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or neces-
ities Of their inhabitants. In matters Where the States may act the act. On
f : Congress Overrides what they have done. Monongahela Bridge Co. º.
nited States, 216 U. S. 177. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S.
, 53. But in matters where the national importance is imminent and direct
ven where Congress has been silent the States may not act at all. Kansas
}ity Southern Ry. Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage District, 233 U. S. 75, 79. Evi-
ence is Sufficient, if evidence is necessary, to Show that a withdrawal of water
In the scale directed by the statute of Illinois threatens and will affect the
evel of the lakes, and that is a matter which can not be done without the
Onsent Of the United States, even Were there no international Covenant in
he Case. - - - - - - -
But the defendant says that the United States has given its assent to all
hat has been done and that it is estopped to take the position that it now
akes. A State can not estop itself by grant or contract from the exercise of
he police power. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408, 414.
tlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 558. Denver & Rio
rande R. R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U. S. 241, 244. It would seem a strong thing
o say that the United States is subject to narrower restrictions in matters
f national and international concern. At least it is true that no Such result
ould be reached if a strict construction of the Government’s act would
void it. This statement was made and illustrated in a case where it was
eld than order of the Secretary of War under the act of March 3, 1899, c.
25, the same act in question here, directing an alteration in a bridge must be
\beyed, and obeyed without compensation, although the bridge had been built
n Strict accord with an act of Congress declaring that if so built it should
be a lawful structure. Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States. 242 U. S. 409,
17. Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251. It Only re-
ha’ns to consider what the United States has done. And it will be as well
6 bear in mind when considering it that this suit is not for the purpose of
oing away with the channel, which the United States, we have no doubt,
would be most unwilling to see closed, but solely for the purpose of limiting
he amount of water to be taken through it from Lake Michigan.
The defendant in the first place refers to two acts of Congress: One of
arch 30, 1822, 3 Stat. 659, which became ineffectual because its conditions
were not complied with, and another of March 2, 1827, C. 51, 4 Stat. 234, re-
erred to, whether hastily or not, in Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 526, as
M







































1876 ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC.
an act in pursuance of which Illinois brought Chicago into the Mississip,
watershed. The act granted land to Illinois in aid of a canal to be open
by the State for the purpose of uniting the waters of the Illinois River wi
those of Lake Michigan, but if it has any bearing on the present case t ce
tainly vested no irrevocable discretion in the State with regard to the almoul
Of water to be withdrawn from the lake. It Said nothing on that subject. W
repeat that We assume that the United States desires to see the Canal mai
tained and therefore pass by as 'mmaterial all evidence of its having foster
the work. Even if it had approved the very size and shape of the channel b
act of Congress it would, not have compromised its right to control the announ
© - e t
Of water to be drawn from Lake Michigan. It seems that a less annount tha
now passes through the canal would suffice for the connection which th
United States has wished to establish and maintain. -
In an appropriation act of March 3, 1899, c. 425, section 10; 30 Stat. 112.
1151; Congress provided “That the creation of any obstruction not affirm
tively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the wate
of the United States is hereby prohibited : * * * and it shall not be lawfu
to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, locatio
Condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake. ha
bor of refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the chal
nel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has be
recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary
War prior to beginning the same.” By section 12 violation of the law is mad
a misdemeanor and punished, and the removal of prohibited structures ma
be enforced by injunction of the proper court of the United States in a Su
under the direction of the Attorney General. This statute repeatedly has he
held to be constitutional in respect of the power given to the Secretary of Wa
Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, 242 U. S. 409, 424. It is a broad ex
pression of policy in unmistakable terms, advancing upon an earlier act (
September 19, 1890, c. 907, section 10 ; 26 Stat. 426, 454, which forbade ol
struction to navigable capacity “ not authorized by law,” and which had bee
held satisfied with regard to a boom across a river by authority from a Stat
United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211. There is neith
reº SOn nor Opportunity for a construction that would not Gover the presel
Case. As now applied it concerns a change in the condition of the lakes an
the Chicago River, admitted to be navigable, and, if that be necessary, a
obstruction to their navigable capacity, United States tº. Rio Grande I)am
Irrigation CO., 174 U. S. 690, without regard to remote questions of policy.
is applied prospectively to the water henceforth to be withdrawn. This with
drawal is prohibited by Congress except so far as it may be authorized by th
Secretary of War. -
After this statute was passed the Secretary of War granted various permit:
which are relied on by the appellant although in their nature they all wer
revocable licenses. On May 8, 1899, the Secretary, on application of the al
pellant, granted permission to open the channel, assumed in the recitals
have a flowage capacity of 300,000 cubic feet per minute with a velocity C
144 miles an hour, on the conditions that the permit should be subject to ti
action of Congress (which was superfiuous except as a warning) ; that if :
any time the current created proved to be unreasonably obstructive to naviga
tion or injurious to property he reserved the right to close or modify the dis
charge : and that the sanitary district must assume all responsibility f
damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction (
a current in Chicago River. On July 11, 1900, improvements of the Chicag
River were permitted with the statement that the permission did not affect th
right of the Secretary to revoke the permit of May 8, 1899. On April 9, 190
the Secretary, Mr. Root, directed the sanitary district to cut down the dis
charge to 200,000 cubic feet per minute. On July 23, 1901, at the appellant'
request, he amended the order to permit a flow of 300,000 feet between 4 p. 11
:: nd 12 midnight, subject to revocation. On I)ecember 5, 1901, again on th
application of the appellant, leave was given to discharge not exceedin
250,000 feet per minute during the whole 24 hours, but subject to such mod
fication as the Secretary might think that the public interests required. O.
January 17, 1903, the allowance was increased to 350,000 feet until March 3
1903, after which (late it was to be reduced again to 250,000 feet. all subjec
to modification as before. On September 11, 1907, and on June 30, 1910, pel
missions were granted to make another connection with Lake Michigan an
to open a channel through Calumet River (this last refused by Mr. Secretar
Taft on March 14, 1907) on the understanding that the totil quantity of wate


































ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, ETC. 1877
ithdrawn from the lake should not exceed that already authorized by the
‘cretary of War. Finally on February 5, 1912, the appellant, setting forth
at the population of the sanitary district exceeded 2,500,000 and was in-
easing rapidly, and that the only method then available for disposing of
e Sewage of this population was by diluting it with Water flowing from Lake
ichigan through the canal, asked permission to withdraw not exceeding
),000 cubic feet per second, subject to such restrictions and supervision as
ight seem proper to the Secretary and to revocation by him. On January 8,
13, Mr. Secretary Stimson carefully reviewed the situation, including the
vious fact that so large a withdrawal would lower the levels Of the lakes and
e overwhelming evidence that it would affect navigation, and held that he
as not warranted in excepting the appellant from the prohibition of Con-
ess on the ground of even pressing sanitary needs. It appears to us that
e attempt to found a defence upon the foregoing licenses is too futile to need
ply.
States bordering on the Mississippi allowed to file brief as amici curiae sug-
st that they were not heard and that rights have not been represented before
e Secretary of War. The city of Chicago makes a Similar complaint and
gues that it is threatened with the loss Of a hundred million dollars. The
terest that the river States have in increasing the artificial flow from Lake
ichigan is not a right, but merely a consideration that they may address to
ongress, if they see fit, to induce a modification of the law that now forbids
nat increase unless approved as prescribed. The investment of property in
canal and the accompanying works took the risks that Congress might
nder it valueless by the exercise of paramount powers. It took the risk
ithout even taking the precaution of making it as Sure as possible what Con-
ress might do. But we repeat that the Secretary by his action took no rights
any kind. He simply refused an application of the sanitary board to remove
prohibition that Congress imposed. It is doubtful at least whether the Sec-
tary was authorized to consider the remote interests of the Mississippi River
the Sanitary needs of Chicago. All interests seem in fact to have been
piously represented but he certainly was not bound to give them a hearing
pon the application upon which he was requested to pass.
After the refusal, in January, 1913, to allow an increase of flow, the appel-
nt was notified by direction of the War Department that it was drawing
more water than was allowed and was violating Section 10 of the act of March
, 1899. In reply it intimated that it was bound by the State law to which
e have referred and in obedience to it had been flowing 20,000 cubic feet per
inute for each 100,000 of population and could not reduce that flow. It sug-
ested that its rights should be determined by a suit, and accordingly this bill
was filed on October 6, 1913. An earlier suit had been brought on March 23,
908, to prevent the construction of a second channel from Lake Michigan
hrough the Calumet River to the appellant’s main channel, leave to do which
ad been refused, as we have seen by Mr. Secretary Taft. (The permit sub-
equently granted on June 30, 1910, was with the understanding that it should
ot affect or be used in the “friendly suit ’’ then pending to determine rights.)
The earlier suit was consolidated with the later present one, and it was agreed
hat the evidence taken in that should be used in this, so far as applicable.
There was some delay in concluding the case, which the defendant naturally
would desire, but after it was submitted to the judge according to his own
tatement he kept it about six years before delivering an oral opinion in favor
f the Government on June 19, 1920. No valid excuse was offered for the
elay. There was a motion for reconsideration, but the judge took no further
ction of any kind until he resigned in 1922. On June 18, 1923, another judge
Intered a decree for an injunction as prayed, with a stay of six months to
nable the defendant to present the record to this court.
The parties have come to this court for the law, and we have no doubt that
$ the law stands the injunction prayed for must be granted. As we have
ldicated a large part of the evidence is irrelevant and immaterial to the issues
hat we have to decide. Probably the dangers to which the city of Chicago
'ill be subjected if the decree is carried out are exaggerated, but in any event
We are not at liberty to consider them here as against time edict of a paramount
lower. The decree for an injunction as prayed is affirmed. to go into effect in
ixty (lays—-without prejudice to any permit that may lie issued by the Secre-
jury of War according to law.
X
€




























ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, AND DIVERSION
OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
HEARINGS
ON THE SUBJECT
OF
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI
RIVERS, AND THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM
LAKE MICHIGAN INTO THE ILLINOIS RIVER
HELD BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SIXTY-EIGHTEI CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
CONSISTING OF
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, New York, Chairman.
RICHARD P. FREEMAN, Connecticut. JOSEPH. J. MANSFIELD, Texas.
NATHAN L. STRONG, Pennsylvania. JOHN McDUFFIE, Alabama.
CLEVELAND A. NEWTON, Missouri. JOHN J. KINDRED, New York.
JAMES J. CONNOLLY, Pennsylvania. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
M. A. MICHAELSON, Illinois. JOSEPH. T. DEAL, Virginia.
WALTER F. LINEBERGER, California. DANIEL F. MINAHAN, New Jersey.
WILLIAM M. MORGAN, Ohio. WILLIAM E. WILSON, Indiana.
WILLIAM E. HULL, Illinois. WILLIAM H. BOYCE, Delaware.
GEORGE N. SEGER, New Jersey. JAMES O'CONNOR, Louisiana.
HUBERT H. PEAVEY, Wisconsin.
THADDEUS C. SWEET, New York.
Joseph H. MCGANN, Clerk.
ELLA. F. PHALEN, Assistant Clerk.
APRIL 15 TO MAY 27, 1924, INCLUSIVE
PART 2
ºr
WASEIINGTON
* GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91739 1924
º
*
!
;
!
i
i
i
t
;
;
-- !
&
... * -
* |
... 1
- r". ,
... *
*** * 1 * .
! - * . . . .
: +
* * *
• |
! r -
i . . . .
3.
ai ' , -
. . . . . *
* , * , | | |
}
º * ***
** Tº r
# H #; } | -
* “...it’, º
| “…" … "
: * * * *- :
- . Frº” > -,
* , , - -
• 23 º' "...] ... * ,
• * -3 ºf . " '
3. -*... * * * -
# • * , ſº
, ' f y
{... • * ~.
* - E.
* * *
-: k
~ *
r: * : .
• * - }
t”
i
tº , k
# * .
~ ; , ... ?, -.
f : *r.
|
* &
* *
i
}
- --
" - st
* * * * }
is tº 8: ... fi : .
# , ºf º:
- g
%
#§§
;
*
º,
*
-
-
1.
*
*
f
º
*#): Jº
º, sº . .
: , ; ; , " .. 4 -
: ; * , 's .º.
*.*. ; : 5 -
*...*Tº º
# *
* r
º ſº =:
** : liºr.
tºº.º.º.º. º.º.
f : †: ; : *
jºº "ºº-ºº...”.
3r – 4. 3-w
3 i , , "...º.
|00Z & I Havi
EſhCI HIV Cl
swat, gativoab 10, Aepied 002:
uoiſ vinodio TVWHON 10, Aep led G2 Oś
A}-\º-lan NOINſ, VIGEW
NVoIHOIW HO AllSłłAINſ. HHl














i iſſil
M|CH|
EOUND
JUL 25 1935
UN V jF MICH,
LIBRARY
3 9015
O4980 4928
2

ſz:::
•&#######-#
&&&&&&&&