The CHAIRMAN. Find me anything where they indorse the amount. Mr. NEWTON. Let us hear it again and see what it is. Mr. BARNES. If you will look at the top of page 16 The CHAIRMAN. I was talking about the chief or the boardMr. BARNES. I will follow this out and give you your answer. Page 16 (reading:) COSTS AND CONCLUSIONS For proposed depth and width, with 7,500 cubic feet flow, the estimated cost is $1,310,100, and the annual cost of operation and maintenance, $77,550. Now, turning to page 18, you will find that Colonel Judson recommends that flow, and he bases his recommendation for disbursements on the amounts that I have read you. The board said—and I will say the chief said, it is final-on page 2, at top of the page: It is estimated that under existing conditions a 9-foot waterway from Utica to that depth at the mouth of the Ohio will cost $3,067,700 for initial work, and $736,500 annually for maintenance, for the Illinois River; and $620,000 for initial work, and $75,000 for maintenance, for the Mississippi River. You will note that those are almost exactly the figures that I have read you. [Reading further:] mouth of Illinois to St. Louis, at which point there is now 8 feet, a total for the 8-foot depth of $1,930,000 for initial work and $152,500 annually for maintenance. It is the opinion of the board that the most advisable depth for this waterway is 8 feet, and it recommends improvement on that basis in accordance with the above estimates, provided the State of Illinois will convey to the United States such rights and title to the locks and dams at Henry and Copperas Creek as may be considered necessary to permit their removal, which is deemed advisable in connection with the enlarged projects proposed. Mr. MCDUFFIE. That is the report of General Beach. I thought you were referring to the report of General Taylor. Mr. BARNES. I did read that. The CHAIRMAN. I think these two reports are in the same condition as the present report. It seems to me that these two reports are the same in this respect; that, while they recommend the approval of this waterway, they do not fix in either one of them as far as I can find, either the chief or the board, the amount of water-certainly not in express terms. Mr. NEWTON. The district engineer recommends 7,500 cubic feet diversion at a cost of a certain amount of money. With that diversion we can get an 8-foot channel. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. NEWTON. And the board of engineers approved that plan of getting an 8-foot channel. Mr. BARNES. And they approve that appropriation. The CHAIRMAN. They do exactly the same thing in the present report. In the present report they recommend the construction of certain works. These works if constructed would have to use either 7,500 feet or 10,000 feet, but in neither report do they fix the amount of diversion. They say they will go on and build the works and take this water as it comes down, and the board of engineers expressly refers to that fact. Mr. McDUFFIE. And in the last report they expressly suggest that the committee do not fix the amount of water to be taken. Mr. HULL. No; they don't say that. The CHAIRMAN. If you take section 3 of the report of the board of engineers, page 3, you will see there what they say. Mr. McDUFFIE. Is that a recent report or the report made at the Sixty-seventh Congress? The CHAIRMAN. That is the Sixty-seventh Congress, document No. 2. All I am trying to bring out is whether there is any difference between these reports and I can not see that there is myself. It will be seen from the district engineers' report that the estimates for the Illinois River are largely influenced by the amount of water discharged into it through the Chicago Sanitary Canal. That is the language of the report (page 3, paragraph 3). That is exactly what your present report is. Then it goes on: The present permit authorizes the withdrawal of 4,167 second feet from Lake Michigan, but apparently the actual amount withdrawn is about 8,500 second feet. Estimates are given for a flow of 4,167, 7,500, and 10,000 feet. The district engineer believes that the minimum that will be withdrawn from Lake Michigan is 7,500 second feet- This is what he thinks is going to be done, I suppose, by either the Congress or by the Secretary of War and that it may eventually reach 10,000 second feet. Mr. HULL. What does he say it will cost to build it with 4,000 cubic feet? The CHAIRMAN. You mean 4,167? Mr. HULL. Yes. Mr. McDUFFIE. $1,465,800. Mr. BARNES. That is with all dams retained. Mr. NEWTON. Now, what does he say it will cost to build it with 7,500 cubic feet The CHAIRMAN. All I am trying to show is that I don't think the United States engineers have been inconsistent at all. Mr. HULL. I agree with you on that, but it is evident that they recommended 10,000 cubic feet by what they said on pages 18 and 19. Colonel Judson recommended that, and they accepted Colonel Judson's report. Mr. MORGAN. Well, let us read that. Let us have that clear. Mr. McDUFFIE. Take page 16, Mr. Newton. Take the estimate there for diversion of 7,500 cubic feet. The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that it is clear that whey did was not to fix the amount, but taking varied amounts, dependent upon what is used by Chicago for sanitary purposes, and which after it is used must be discharged down into the Illinois River, they give different estimates of what it would cost for the different amounts of water diverted. I do not see any inconsistency between the two reports. They both aim at the same thing. Neither one of them fixes what the amount shall be, but makes it a variable amount, which shall be fixed from time to time in accordance with the water that is taken for sanitation. Mr. McDUFFIE. May I interrupt you to say that this is a matter that we can discuss in executive session, and in order to save time I think we should hear the witness, although I am probably responsible for this diversion here The CHAIRMAN.I think it has been very helpful 92637-26-7 Mr. McDUFFIE (continuing). And that we let him go on and finish. Mr. BAKER. Although I have no right to interrupt, I would like to add this thought: When I was Secretary of War Governor Dunn, of Illinois, and the representatives of the Department of Public Works of that State appeared before me as Secretary of War, asking for a permit to construct the Illinois waterway. The hearings that were had before me were reported and they will be found to contain the express statement by Governor Dunn that no water for Lake Michigan was needed for this Illinois waterway at all; and when I issued a permit for the construction of this, you will find in Colonel Judson's report, Sixty-seventh Congress, Document No. 2, page 8, that I imposed this as one of the conditions to that permit. I will read it: That it is to be understood that such approval does not authorize the diversion of water from Lake Michigan. It merely expresses the approval of the Federal Government of the plans, so far as concerns the public right of navigation, and this provision is without prejudice to the use by the State of Illinois of such flow as may be existing at any time in the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers. I think it is important, and those hearings will bear me out, that representatives of Illinois at that time claimed publicly that their waterway did not depend on any water from Lake Michigan what ever. Mr. MICHAELSON. How could they make such a statement? You can not have a waterway without water. Mr. BAKER. They could have the water of the Des Plaines and Chicago Rivers. Mr. MICHAELSON. Have you ever seen the Des Plaines River? Mr. BAKER. I never have, I am sorry to say. I do not know whether you appeared at the hearing before me or not, Mr. Barnes, but if you did, you will recall that they claimed that this was not a diversion of Lake Michigan at all, and that their proposition was based on the report of the engineers, and the plan was to use other waterways. Mr. NEWTON. Now, I would like to read this report as to what this shows. Colonel Judson says, indisputably, that you could build a waterway with 7,500 cubic feet per second of water, with all locks removed, for $1,310,100. On page 18 he says: In my opinion, to most reasonably conform to the probable conditions in the future, an 8-foot project should now be adopted, based on a 7,500 secondfeet withdrawal for purposes of estimate and with all dams removed. Then, should Congress place the limit of the amount of water to be withdrawn from Lake Michigan at 10,000 second-feet, which I deemed probable and, under proper conditions, advisable, that increment would of itself increase the depth to 9 feet. Now, refer to page 5 of that report. General Taylor, reporting to the Board of Engineers, says: The board therefore reports that in its opinion it is advisable for the United States to modify the existing projects for the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers so as to provide a channel 8 feet deep from the vicinity of Utica, Ill., to St. Louis, Mo., approximately as proposed by the district and division engineers, at an estimated cost of $1,310,000— and that is exactly the figure that the district engineers report for a 7,500-foot diversion for original work and $77,500 for maintenance for the Illinois River and $620 for original work and $75,000 for maintenance for the Mississippi River. Now, they concur in the 7,500-foot flow, General Taylor's report does, that you can not build it for less than that. There is your district engineer approving exactly what the Board of Engineers reported, then General Beach comes along, and if you will turn to page 2 of his report this is what he says: It is the opinion of the board that the most advisable depth for this waterway is 8 feet, and it recommends improvement on that basis in accordance with the above estimate, provided the State of Illinois will convey to the United States such rights and title to the locks and dams at Henry and Copperas Creeks as may be considered necessary to permit their removal, which is deemed advisable in connection with the enlarged projects proposed. Then he concludes: After due consideration of the information presented, I concur in the views and recommendations of the board. Mr. HULL. That is Lansing H. Beach, who was chief of engineers? with it. Mr. NEWTON. Let us be fair. Here is what he says: In my opinion, to most reasonably confrom to the probable conditions of the future, an 8-foot project should now be adopted based on a 7,500 second-foot withdrawal Mr. MORGAN. I want to be clear about this, and maybe I am a little dense. Is it generally agreed that the board of engineers and the engineers reporting on the amount of water required for an 8-foot channel, reports that 7,500 cubic feet is required? Mr. BARNES. That was their recommendation. Mr. MORGAN. And the engineers reported that way? The CHAIRMAN. That is not my understanding at all. My understanding of the document is this. I agree that the district engineer did recommend the construction of these works at a certain cost. I agree that they were designed to use 7,500 cubic second-feet of water. I agree also that they were designed to take out the locks. Now, here is the only thing it seems to me we didn't agree on. I can not see where they recommend the permanent diversion of any amount of water; I do not find that. Mr. HULL. They say for Congress to do it. The CHAIRMAN. I can not find where they say anything about it. It seems to me the two reports are in perfect accord; and even if the engineers had made a report some four or five years ago and came in now with the report that is before us now, that is the one that we are to consider. Of course, we would give some consideration, if they are at variance with this; but I can not see where the variance exists. Mr. NEWTON. If the present report is absolutely consistent with this, then what do they mean when they say: In my opinion to most reasonably conform with the probably conditions of the future, an 8-foot project should now be adopted, based on a 7,500 secondfeet withdrawal. And then they say: Should Congress place the limit of the amount of water to be withdrawn from Lake Michigan, at 10,000 second-feet, which I deem probable and under proper conditions advisable. He says he deems that advisable to withdraw 10,000 cubic secondfeet The CHAIRMAN. We would not have adopted that document, we would have adopted the recommendation of the chief Mr. NEWTON. The board of engineers approved the district engineers report on the basis of the cost of this improvement The CHAIRMAN. That is right as to the nature of the improve ment Mr. BARNES. And the cost The CHAIRMAN. He does not recommend anything as to a permanent diversion. Mr. NEWTON. What does he say when he says: In my opinion, to most reasonably conform to the probable conditions of the future, an 8-foot project should now be adopted, based on a 7,500 secondfeet withdrawal. What does he mean? He says: Then should Congress place the limit of the amount of water to be withdrawn from Lake Michigan at 10,000 second-feet, which I deem probable and under probable conditions advisable The CHAIRMAN. I am not disputing what the district engineer reported. I agree with you that that is what he reported. Mr. NEWTON. And then they say that they agree with what the district engineer reported. The CHAIRMAN. No; simply that they concur as to the nature of the work. Mr. KUNZ. Let me call attention to page 3, paragraph 3: It will be seen from the district engineer's report that the estimates for the Illinois River are largely influenced by the amount of water discharged into it through the Chicago Sanitary Canal. The present permit authorizes a withdrawal of 4.167 second-feet from Lake Michigan, but apparently the actual amount withdrawn is about 8,500 second-feet. Estimates are given for a flow of 4,167, 7,500, and 10,000 second-feet. The district engineer believes that the minimum that will be withdrawn from Lake Michigan is 7,500 second-feet and that it may eventually reach 10,000 second-feet. The effect of this additional volume of water will be readily understood when it is considered that the normal low-water flow in the Illinois River is only about 500 second-feet. The existing locks and dams were found necessary to secure the project depth of 7 feet when the normal flow only was available. With the increased volume of 4,167 feet they are of doubtful necessity in connection with either an 8 or 9 foot channel, and with the probable minimum increment of 7,500 second-feet, or possibly 10,000 second-feet, the locks and dams become an obstruction to navigation rather than an aid and should be removed. Assuming an increment of 7,500 second-feet, the following estimates are given for improving the Illinois River from the vicinity of Utica to the mouth. I think that covers that point. Mr. MOONEY. I think so, too. The CHAIRMAN. I think it does, too. I think the introductory sentence shows it. They say that the estimates are based on the increment passing through the sanitary canal. That is the basis of the whole thing, and it is the basis of the present report. Everybody agreed, the engineers agreed then, and the engineers agree now, that so long as the sanitary canal is using a certain amount of water there |