United States. So in fact the water is used in Canada but the power is used in the United States.

Mr. MICHAELSON. You mean it is sold in the United States?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICHAELSON. At a profit to the Canadians?

Mr. BAKER. Very likely; but the power comes over here.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, at least one of the power companies was an American company, which developed there and sent its power into the United States. Whether that has continued-yes, I am quite certain that the Niagara Falls Power Co. still owns a plant on the Canadian side.

Mr. BAKER. And they are still importing power to this country, because during the war they needed it and threatened to make some stoppage of it, but finally let it come.

Mr. NEWTON. I would like to ask one other question. Is it true that other cities around the Great Lakes are putting their sewage into the Great Lakes?

Mr. BAKER. I can not answer that, except about Cleveland. Cleveland pumps into the lake an immunized effluent. Some of the other cities, I think, are putting in raw sewage, but they are all making progress in not doing it.

Mr. NEWTON. I heard that Chicago was the only city that was not putting any sewage into the lake.

Mr. BAKER. I think it is atrocious, a repellant idea, to dump sewage into these great fresh water Lakes, and I object to it being dumped into the Illinois and Mississippi just as much as I do into Lake Erie.

Mr. CHALMERS. The Secretary has stated that Cleveland is not doing that.

Mr. NEWTON. He says that Cleveland is taking the solids out and putting the rest, with chlorine into the lake.

Mr. CHALMERS. I wanted to say for the record that Toledo is doing the same thing.

Mr. HULL. What becomes of the solids?

Mr. BAKER. The solids are extracted and taken off and used for fertilizer.

Mr. CHALMERS. They do not dump them into the lake?

Mr. BAKER. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we covered that very fully in the statement that Mr. Hopkins, from Cleveland, made before the committee. Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FREEMAN. Do I correctly understand you to say that the engineers' report that the continuation of the taking of 10,000 cubic feet a second at Chicago would not lower the present level of the Lakes?

Mr. BAKER. I think I did say that, and yet I am not sure that is what they say. They say that the continued taking of 4,167 cubic feet would not further lower the lake levels, but have they said that about 10,000 cubic feet?

Mr. HULL. General Bixby is on record at the last hearing as having said that.

Mr. MICHAELSON. I would like to ask this question: Is it not barely possible that the establishment of this great inland waterway be

tween Lake Michigan and the Gulf of Mexico would in an economic sense compensate for the great loss that you say has been incurred through the lowering of the lake levels in the Great Lakes?

Mr. BAKER. I think it is entirely inconceivable that it would ever compensate for the loss of the levels on the Great Lakes. That does not mean that I am opposed to the improvement of the inland waterways and the Mississippi River waterway system and its tributaries. but I think it is inconceivable that any possible gain or increase of water on the Illinois River would compensate for the injury that would be done to the Great Lakes system.

Mr. MICHAELSON. This injury has been sustained by the lake carriers, you say, and that means a private lake carriers' association? Mr. BAKER. $3,000,000 a year; yes.

Mr. MICHAELSON. That simply means less profit, and they are doing well, all of them, are they not?

Mr. BAKER. Oh, well, I hope we won't get the idea that special selfish profits to the lake carriers is involved. What we are interested in is carrying

Mr. MICHAELSON (interposing). It would interfere with the profits of the lake carriers. Is it not the same with the power interests? Mr. BAKER. Surely they are perfectly legitimate. It is a legitimate profit.

Mr. MICHAELSON. Individual corporate business?

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. MICHAELSON. That profit taken from the people generally.
Mr. BAKER. Taken from the people for a benefit in return.
Mr. MICHAELSON. Well, it is a questionable benefit.

Mr. BAKER. Oh, is this questionable? Let me read you this. Secretary Hoover says in an address before a committee of Congress that the cost of transporting a thousand bushels of wheat on the Great Lakes system is from twenty to thirty dollars.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Transporting it a thousand miles?

Mr. BAKER. Yes; transporting it a thousand miles. On the Great Lakes that cost is from twenty to thirty dollars. On the modern Mississippi barge system the cost is sixty to seventy dollars. On the railways it is from $150 to $200. Those are Mr. Hoover's figures.

Now, I do not think you ought to ask me to admit that that is a selfish advantage to the Lake carriers. The people of the United States, the farmers of the United States, are benefited by being able to carry their wheat for twenty or thirty dollars as against a railroad rate of $150 to $200.

Mr. MICHAELSON. Taking into consideration the question of transportation of other things that this Illinois waterway would be used for, would there not be a compensating gain to the other as the result of the establishment of this Illinois waterway?

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. MICHAELSON. And that that might equalize

Mr. BAKER. No

Mr. MICHAELSON. This law which you say has been so great.

Mr. BAKER. It is inconceivable that it would equalize. It would be an advantage to the extent that the Illinois waterway is used for carrying commerce. Obviously there will be an advantage to the

people who are served by the commerce as well as to the people who conduct the commerce, both advantages being proper and desirable. That there can ever be in any imaginative fashion that my mind can work any such commerce on the Illinois River as would make it compensate for an injury to the navigability in the freest way of the Great Lakes is wholly inconceivable.

Mr. MICHAELSON. On the other hand, would it not increase the business of the lake carriers to have this Illinois waterway established?

Mr. BAKER. You would think so, but what is the actual fact at this minute? The actual fact at this minute is that the lake level in Chicago is so low that they have not enough water for lake transportation in Chicago itself. So what Chicago has actually doneMr. MICHAELSON. For what reason?

Mr. BAKER. Because of the water she is taking out. She is using so much water for sewage disposal that she has not enough for navigation in her own harbor, and the likelihood is that that the great advantage of interchange between the Illinois River and Lake Michigan will be destroyed by the lower level of Lake Michigan making that impossible.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me call attention to this fact; this is the report of the engineers, page 7, the fifteenth paragraph, as follows:

As indicated in paragraph 20 of the board's report there are many facts which have a bearing on the matter of the amount of diversion, among these being the successful and economical operation of the immensely important commerce of the Lakes, whose magnitude and benefits far exceed those of any probable commerce now foreseen on the Illinois River and waterway.

Mr. HULL. Now, I want to ask you this question. How much does the withdrawal of water at Niagara Falls for power and canal purposes reduce the lake level?

Mr. BAKER. That takes in the Welland Canal?

Mr. HULL. Yes.

Mr. BAKER. I have here the Warren report, which is the best authority we have on the subject.

Mr. HULL. I want to get at what it is now. You are speaking of the lowering of the lake levels at the present time. The Warren report is 1921.

Mr. BAKER. I have no later figures than these.

Mr. HULL. You have made a statement about lowering the lake level at Chicago. I want to know whether you know where those diversions come from.

Mr. BAKER. Yes; I have a list of them here.

Mr. HULL. That is an old report. I mean at the present time.

Mr. BAKER. I have no later report.

The CHAIRMAN. The Warren report deals with the diversion of the new Welland Canal, what it will be and its effect, as well as all the other diversions. I think it deals with all of them.

Mr. BAKER. Yes; it does. This Warren report gives the amount of lowering in Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, and Erie separately from the Chicago Drainage Canal; and the Welland Canal, the Black Rock Ship Canal, the New York State Barge Canal, and the Niagara Power Co.

Mr. HULL. But there is another one you have not got in there. Mr. BAKER. Which one?

Mr. HULL. The clearing out of the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers at Detroit. That lowers it 8 inches.

Mr. BAKER. Let us get that straight

Mr. HULL. I am talking about the Lakes now, the harbors on the Lakes.

Mr. BAKER. So am I. I have heard that statement made over and over again, and I am advised-and General Bixby will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. HULL. I have a good engineer if you want to be corrected

Mr. BAKER. The United States Government engineers will correct me, I mean, if I am wrong. I am advised that it has been demonstrated that the clearing out of the St. Clair channels did not lower the lake levels. Am I right about it?

General BIXBY. There is no proof of it.

Mr. BAKER. It has not been possible to show it has had that effect. Mr. CHALMERS. As a matter of fact, it probably did not lower the lake levels.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the question is what these diversions at Niagara have resulted in separately and in the aggregate in lowering the Lakes.

Mr. BAKER. Yes; and the answer is this: Let us take Erie, which is most affected. The Chicago Drainage Canal, 0.38 of a foot; the Welland Canal, 0.20; the Black Rock Ship Canal, 0.03; the New York State Barge Canal, 0.01; the Niagara Power Co., 0.11.

Now, let me take Michigan-Huron. The Chicago Drainage Canal (I will read high the same as I read before) affects Michigan-Huron, 0.42; the Welland Canal, 0.04 of a foot; the Black Rock Ship Canal and the New York State Barge Canal, unappreciable, not measurable by any of these hundredths; the Niagara Power Co., 0.01 of a foot. Now, those are the figures of the Warren report. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions?

Mr. CHALMERS. I want to state, in line with what the Secretary has given us, that the commerce of the Great Lakes is suffering— now, I am not talking for the Lake carriers, but I am talking about the commerce of the Great Lakes. They were entitled under the project depth of the channels established by Congress to a 20-foot clearance. We now have 17 feet 9 inches, a loss of 314 feet, approximately 40 inches. Under the rule that I mentioned earlier a loss of an inch means a loss to commerce on the Great Lakes of approximately half a million dollars a year.

We are suffering at the present time over what we are entitled to-and I do not lay it all to the Chicago abstraction-we_are suffering to the extent of $20,000,000 a year on account of this lowering of Lake levels.

Mr. NEWTON. Right on that point, as to the 40 inches, my infor mation indicates that the diversion, that that 40 inches is made up this way: The diversion at Niagara Falls lowers the levels of the Lakes 2 inches; the retention of the water of Lake Superior by regulating works holding the water back lowers the levels of HuronMichigan 3 inches; the unusually light rainfall has lowered the level of the Lakes 22 inches. Of course, we can not control the rainfall.

All the tests of the Government show that the rainfall is 22 inches less.

The CHAIRMAN. Even if we waited until after the Supreme Court decision it would not be affected.

Mr. NEWTON. No; we can not remedy that. That is a big lowering, that decrease in rainfall. The lessening of the slope between Huron and Erie has lowered the level 8 inches. The diversion at Chicago has lowered the level 51⁄2 inches. This makes a total of 40 inches. So there is a good deal of complaint in the whole situation in addition to the complaint regarding the diversion at Chicago.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If the St. Clair River lowers Huron-Michigan by causing a great flow into Lake Erie, would it not raise Lake Erie? Mr. NEWTON. To be sure it would.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to get at the facts. Here is a question. We know that the Detroit River between Huron and Erie originally was, I think, 13 feet deep, 12 or 13 feet. Do you remember, General Bixby?

General BIXBY. No.

Mr. NEWTON. It was originally 12 or 13 feet. Then, in the interest of navigation Congress cut two channels through there. They cut one channel 600 feet wide and 10 feet deep between Huron and Erie; they cut another channel 440 feet wide and 10 feet deep to the bottom of the river. Now, there is a fall of some 8 or 9 feet between Huron and Erie. You have got an extra cut between Huron and Erie which ought to carry water throughout 1,040 feet wide and 10 feet deep, while you have a flow at Chicago 200 feet wide and 10 feet deep. Applying the ordinary rules of mechanics to that, the assumption would be that there would be ten times as much water coming out through this 1,000 feet as there would in the 200 feet width at Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty is that one is simply in the interest of navigation, that you have such an enormous commerce there that you have to have those channels.

Mr. NEWTON. Let me finish

Mr. CHALMERS. Would you not permit a correction? The Detroit River does not connect Huron and Erie.

Mr. NEWTON. I understand; but I am taking the whole flow Between Huron and Erie.

Mr. CHALMERS. But you must consider that as a water plane. It is different from Huron, the St. Clair plane is lower than the Michigan-Huron plane; the St. Clair is lower and Erie lower, but the Detroit River does not connect Huron and Erie.

Mr. NEWTON. No; but they cut those channels connecting Huron and Erie, through the St. Clair, and these channels were opened up. Mr. CHALMERS. Yes; but that is a different proposition. Mr. BAKER. May I make a suggestion?

Mr. NEWTON. Yes.

Mr. BAKER. The fact is, that all of the material, the stone that has been taken out to make these cuts, has been put back in the river in their places. So the amount of water flows through, but instead of flowing through a broad surface it flows through a narrow channel.