General TAYLOR. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what there is to it.

Mr. McDUFFIE. So, in the last analysis, according to your reports, this committee does not attempt to suggest how much water shall be taken out of the lake at Chicago, but that question is passed on to the Secretary of War and he is the man who has to say hereafter how much water will flow down the Illinois River?

General TAYLOR. I think eventually it will come to Congress, but I did not know that that question was before this committee at this time.

Mr. SOSNOWSKI. But this committee also has the interest of the other people who are directly affected by this problem.

Mr. MICHAELSON. General, the controversy that has arisen as between Illinois and other States has come up because of the fact, I think the evidence shows, that the lake levels have been lowered approximately 6 inches?

General TAYLOR. I do not think, as far as I know

Mr. MICHAELSON (interposing). Let me finish this question. I want to ask this question.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. MICHAELSON. I am stating that as a sort of a prelude..
General TAYLOR. No one disputes that fact, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. That there is a controversy.

Mr. MICHAELSON. All right. I do not dispute it, either. Now, your report says nothing about restoration of lake levels. My question to you is, why does the report not deal with the question of the restoration of the lake levels? Was it left out because you were not asked the question, or because the board did not want to take that matter into consideration along with the diversion?

General TAYLOR. I think it was not before the board at all. We were asked to report on the improvement of the Illinois River.

Mr. NEWTON. The resolution never called for that.

General TAYLOR. The department was not called upon to report upon the question of the restoration of the lake levels. It was an entirely different subject. It has nothing to do with this at all, and we were not asked to report on it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I can answer your question, Congressman. General TAYLOR. May I continue? I think we would have been entirely outside of our authority, and I think we would have been subject to a call down if we had reported on it.

Mr. MICHAELSON. Call down from whom?

General TAYLOR. By Congress. For reporting things that they had not asked us to report.

Mr. CHALMERS. It would not have been legal for them to have reported it.

General TAYLOR. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That question of the restoration of lake levels has been before the committee for, I should say, years, and this committee has acted upon it at this session, and within the past two weeks, by adopting the provisions to go into the present bill for an investigation by the engineering department to ascertain what shall be done, what can be done to restore lake levels, whether by additional dredging, whether by works of various kinds to be placed in

the Lakes, or by a combination of the two, or by anything else which the engineers as experts can discover and report to us. That whole matter is a separate matter and has been adopted by the committee already as a provision of the bill we are about to report.

Mr. CHALMERS. And including the costs of the channel?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. NEWTON. Isn't this true, in addition to that? I assume that the cities around the Great Lakes are sincere when they say that their only objection is lake levels. They say that is what they are all objecting to, and I assume they are sincere about that.

Mr. CHALMERS. And the free navigation of the water.
Mr. NEWTON. Yes, the open channel.

Mr. CHALMERS. But I want to say that the temporary permit is. for the abstraction of 8,500 feet, and that at the present time they are withdrawing 8,250 feet. As I understand it, for physical reasors no more water will run out unless the channel is lowered; and the understanding was when this temporary permit was issued that it would be modified in a downward scale from time to time.. Isn't that true?

Mr. MICHAELSON. Not within the five years. Would it be modified within the five years?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of the periods. General Taylor can tell us better as to that.

Mr. CHALMERS. Before I finish, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: I will put into the hearings some information I have. I have received a telegram from the mayor of Toledo, Ohio, representing the city, protesting against the continued diversion of water, and I have received a telegram from the chamber of commerce, signed by the secretary of the chamber, protesting; and I have received a telegram from the Toledo Port Commission, signed by the port commission, protesting the continued diversion of water in Chicago. I want to give the committee notice of these protests.

Mr. NEWTON. The situation, as I see it, is this: There are good reasons now for the report which the Chief of Engineers has brought in, which does not deal with the diversion question at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Except to leave it where it is.

Mr. NEWTON. Yes. I assume, as I said a while ago, that the cities around the Great Lakes and their representatives are sincere when they say that the only thing that they are concerned about is lake levels. In this survey that we are authorizing the engineers to make, it has been conclusively shown and admitted by both sides that the diversion at Chicago has resulted in a lowering of between 5 and 6 inches, and that that lowering is complete, that it won't go on any further. Now, if this survey discloses that by putting in compensating works or regulating works that the level of the lakes can be restored to their former level, without any injury to commerce and without any obstruction in the channel, then the cities on the Great Lakes, I assume, will withdraw all objections if they are sincere, because their commerce has been restored, and then if Congress decides, or the rest of the country feeling that they do not want to injure the Great Lakes, if they can take under their treaty with Canada a diversion at Chicago which will raise the Mississippi River a foot, and the treaty covers it, I assume, and we will deal with that

question when we come to it, but until we come to that it would not be logical to deal with the question of diversion until we know from the engineers absolutely what effect it would have on the lake levels. Isn't that about the situation?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; and I think in addition to that there are these litigations pending and of course we do not know now what the determination of those will be.

Mr. NEWTON. I think the only real argument for legislation now is that, so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we should provide for navigation. Your case is not presented and won't be presentedif you want to present the case squarely, that is the only argument for Congress dealing with navigation now, to give the Supreme Court a chance to pass upon it. The Supreme Court has not anything to pass upon, so far as the Mississippi Valley is concerned, on the question of navigation.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we are not attempting to fix the diversion.

Mr. NEWTON, No.

Mr. MOONEY. I would like to ask Mr. Newton a question. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that this suit contends that there is no power to divert water at Chicago for any purpose. Mr. NEWTON. And the whole issue before the Supreme Court is the right to divert it for sanitary purposes.

Mr. MOONEY. For any purpose.

Mr. NEWTON. They are only diverting for sanitary purposes. In the language of the lawyer, their decision on navigation would be obiter dictum; it will be outside of the case. We have a charge on one side of injuring the lake levels, interfering with navigation, and on the other taking water for sanitary purposes. That is the question that the Supreme Court is going to pass on.

Mr. HULL. Why ought we argue the Supreme Court part of it? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we had better.

Mr. HULL. I would like to ask a question of General Taylor. The CHAIRMAN. Congresman Hull.

Mr. HULL. I do not think we ought to go into this Supreme Court argument.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We won't appear in the Supreme Court this morning.

Mr. HULL. This report which you have made here was purposely made with the idea of not making any suggestions about diversion? General TAYLOR. That is correct.

Mr. HULL. That was your intention?

General TAYLOR. That was our full intention.

Mr. HULL. And the reason for that was that that is a matter for

Congress to settle?

General TAYLOR. That is correct.

Mr. HULL. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Has anyone else any questions?

Mr. STRONG. I would like to know when we are going to consider the bill that is before the committee.

Mr. CARTER. I think that is a very pertinent question.

Mr. SEGER. I want to assume, as Congressman Newton does, that these cities around the Lakes are sincere in wanting to keep up the Lake levels, but how are you going to reconcile the statement made

92637-26- -6

by Secretary Baker yesterday that if Chicago put in regulating works that all objections would be removed, to which he answered "No," that they would not be removed?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that is before us, and I do not think you can decide in advance what the conditions are going to be at a future time. All we have before us is just this report. General Taylor has come in and testified before us about this, that he thinks that there should be a 9-foot channel in the Illinois River; that it can be obtained by these changes in dams and this dredging which he recommends, at a cost of $1,350,000, with a maintenance cost of $126,000 annually. Now he supplements that by saying, "This work that I recommend, to be sure, will take the water that is coming down now and that can not go anywhere else, but that work is equally adaptable and equally useful for any lesser amount down to 2,000 cubic feet, and all that will have to be done if you decrease the amount will be to increase the amount of dredging." That is all we have before us, and it seems to me that all contentions or disputed questions are aside from the matter that is before us. That leaves the matter a very simple one. I think we all want to give the Illinois River a 9-foot channel, and if we do here is a simple and easy way to do it.

Mr. MOONEY. Supposing now that this bill is passed, General, and that you are authorized to go ahead with the work, how long would it take you to complete it?

General TAYLOR. I think that is stated in the report.

Mr. MOONEY. I mean approximately.

General TAYLOR. It would not take more than two years, approximately.

Mr. MOONEY. Under the temporary permit of the Secretary of War to the Sanitary District of Chicago, how much will Chicago be entitled to divert at the end of those two years, do you remember?

General TAYLOR. The permit was for a period of five years from the date of issue. It was represented that the works that were to be constructed were of very large proportions, and that they could not construct and put in operation any works within a year or two, for instance, that would do any particular good. I know that Chicago is going ahead very energetically in carrying out the program which was laid down by the Secretary of War. They have some very large disposal works under construction in the northern part of the city. That plant that is being constructed on the north side will, I think, provide for the equivalent of the sewage of 800,000 people, so that when that is put in operation probably a certain amount of diversion can be reduced.

Mr. MOONEY. When will that be completed?

General TAYLOR. I do not know. It is well along toward completion. I think some time within a year, and as the plants go into operation successively, then the diversion can be reduced, and the idea was by the end of the five years they would have sufficient plants in operation so that a material reduction in the diversion could be made without affecting the health of Chicago.

Mr. MOONEY. The permit did not provide for a certain amount of reduction each year?

General TAYLOR. No, sir.

Mr. MOONEY. It did provide, as I remember it, that the reduction should be down to 4,000 cubic feet or less in 1935. Is that right? General TAYLOR. No; it only went for five years. The permit did not go beyond the five years.

Mr. MOONEY. But didn't the Secretary of War write a letter at the time?

General TAYLOR. There was a statement made to the effect that if it would be practicable at no unreasonable expense to install such reduction works down to the neighborhood of 4,000 second feet in a matter of 10 years, it should be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions of General Taylor? The general has a very important engagement, and we have told him that we would examine him first and let him go. He will not appear again on this question, so if there are any further inquiries, let us have them now.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Do I understand that by adopting this report we can provide for 9 feet depth in the Illinois River, without specifying the amount of diversion?

The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly what we do do. We not only can, but we do. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Mr. HULL. I do not agree with you on that. I do not agree with you for this reason, that you have got to specify at some time or other how much you will get, in order that the Illinois waterway will be completed.

Mr. SOSNOWSKI. Then you are actually taking into consideration the diversion of water.

Mr. HULL. We expect to have a diversion of water.

Mr. SOSNOWSKI. But I understood that you were not considering diversion.

Mr. HULL. You can not have the waterway without water. Mr. SOSNOWSKI. But I understood that you were not considering the diversion of water at all.

General TAYLOR. May I answer Mr. Mooney's question a little more fully about the diversion?

The CHAIRMAN. We will be vry glad to have you.

General TAYLOR. On pages 12 and 13, beginning with paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16, that answers the question fully about the time that the sewage-disposal works can be installed.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Mr. Scott, of Michigan, wants to ask a question.
Mr. SCOTT. I do not want to impose on you.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it?

Mr. SCOTT. I want to ask General Taylor a question before he leaves the stand. I think the whole committee appreciates its importance, as to the policy of his department in recommending projects. I am referring particularly to my own section of the country. Your engineers base their recommendation on the amount of tonnage going in and out of the port involved?

The CHAIRMAN. That is, on the estimated amount of tonnage.
General TAYLOR. Generally speaking, yes.
That is the general

rule.

Mr. SCOTT. Are you losing sight of the fact that an impeded channel, I mean a channel that naturally fills in, naturally decreases the amount of tonnage in any port. and as a result of that naturai