« AnteriorContinuar »
The Illinois State law of 1889 provides that any number of channels may be added to carry the diversion into the Illinois River.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. Wilson. Why is there an uncertainty existing in the minds of you people down there? Mr. Brown. You will get it in the next statement.
On page 19 of the report of the hearings before the Senate select committee, on Senate bill 4428, the testimony is that in addition to the 10,000 cubic feet per second provided in the bill as coming from Lake Michigan, there are conditions occurring a few times each year when the watershed around Chicago, which formerly discharged into Lake Michigan, sends down the valley some 10,000 or 12,000 cubic feet per second. With more channel capacity it would be entirely possible that a total of 20,000 to 22,000 cubic feet per second could be sent down through the valley, and even this amount could be increased, unless there is definite limit provided, including in that limit the water from the watershed, aside from the lake.
I think that answers your question.
Mr. Wilson. Not exactly. The fear that you have there seems to be a fear that something will go wrong at Chicago, diverting the water from Lake Michigan, or is it the fear of the natural rainfall that will increase your river and cause it to overflow its banks?
Mr. Brown. It is not so much a fear as it is the possibility under the law as it exists to-day that additional channels might be constructed at some future time.
Mr. Wilson. What is the width of your river there at Peoria?
Mr. Wilson. Do they follow the bank or go out into the country to build the levee?
Mr. Browx. I could not answer that. Some of the levee people could probably answer that.
Therefore we are asking that all diverted waters which in the state of nature flowed into Lake Michigan be construed as Lake Michigan waters.
We are asking that in emergencies the United States Government officials shall take physical charge of the control of the flow, to insure a maximum daily average of 10.000 cubic feet per second.
In order to avoid long continued court procedure, we ask that a forfeiture clause be added, to be used in the event of nonperformance of contract by the party using the diversion.
These points are embodied in the suggestions of amendments to the bill under consideration, which we now offer in typewritten form, and which we desire incorporated in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to have them incorporated as a part of your remarks.
(The suggestions referred to are as follows:)
We suggest that the following be inserted after line 18 on page 14, immediately preceding section 8:
In case said Sanitary District of Chicago shall not immediately comply with any requirements or orders of said Secretary of War and/or of the Chief of Engineers in this regard then said Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized and empowered to take charge of such locks or controlling works and operate same for such length of time as may be necessary to carry out the objects and purposes of this section." Insert after the world population," in line 20. page 9, the following:
So that a definite program of construction of purifications works shall be commenced immediately upon the passage of this bill, said program to provide that by 1945 such puritication works shall be sufficient, and in operation so that the amount of raw sewage and waste passing through the sanitary canal into the Des Plaines and Mlinois Rivers shall be at least 90 per cent less than the amount now passing into said rivers."
Insert as section 11:
“In the event the said Sanitary District of Chicago shall violate, fail, or refuse to carry out any of the provisions of this act on their part, to be performed in the time and according to the terms hereof, then the Secretary of War shall have the right to immediately forfeit and annul all of the rights, powers, and privileges by this act granted to the Sanitary District of Chicago by giving to its officers written notice of such forfeiture and annulment."
On page 4 in line 24, change the period to a comma and insert "computed at that point or points where such waters are discharged into said Illinois waterway.”
In section 5, line 2, after the word withdrawn," iusert " and/or diverted from Lake Michigan."
At the end of line 7, change the period to a comma and insert "and in computing the same, water from any river or channel connecting with Lake Michigan which in the state of nature flowed into said lake shall be construed as water taken from Lake Michigan."
In section 7, line 15, insert after the word "said " the words " Secretary of War and/or.”
In line 17, after the word " said " insert " Secretary of War and/or.”
Mr. SWEET. During the springtime there is quite a perceptible increase in the flood run-off of the river, is there not?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SWEET. By the improvement of the river in the process of canalization they remove the natural barriers, strengthen the channel, and provide for the mean or low flood. By that improvement of conditions under low flow, would you intensify the liability of damage to the lower valley in the time of flood ?
Mr. Brown. I think so, and the people who are here from the lower valley could answer that question better than I could. It is something that I have not gone into.
Mr. PEAVEY. Do you serve in any official capacity at Peoria?
Mr. PEAVEY. Oh; I see. Might I ask what is the general nature of your business there? What business are you familiar with or acquainted with in business circles?
Mr. Brown. My own business?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes. I just want to get your viewpoint.
Mr. PEAVEY. Do you know whether or not the majority of the people, or what proportion of the people, there are friendly or favorable to this project, and those that aie opposed to it?
Mr. BROWN. Well, sir, we have never put out a referendum.
Mr. Brown. I should say that the big majority of the people are in favor of the waterway.
Mr. PEAVEY. And let me ask you whether or not a large number of your people in that section have been damaged, due to floods and so on, and sewage, from a diversion of those waters?
Mr. BROWN. Yés.
Mr. BROWN. I do not think so.
Mr. PEAVEY. Is it not true that in your papers at Peoria, and in the other towns up and down the river there, that is, in the last few months or few weeks—few weeks particularly—there has been a great display of newspaper advertising and propaganda carried in the newspapers on this proposition?
Mr. HULL. Let me inteject there, not in support of my bill. I do not want to mix that
bill. Mr. PEAVEY. No.
No. I mean in support of the proposition of the development of this river channel and the diversion of this water at Chicago.
Mr. HULL. The advertising you speak of is sanitary district advertising, isn't it?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What he is asking you is whether there has been such advertising
Mr. Hull. I do not want him to get my bill confused with that.
The CHAIRMAN. Whether there have been advertisements of the sanitary district in the local papers.
Mr. PEAVEY. All I am interested in is the question of damage. I do not care whether they do it under your bill or any other bill.
The CHAIRMAN. He has not answered that question.
Mr. PBAVEY. You have seen those big page advertisements and so forth?
Mr. BROWN. I saw one of them.
Mr. PEAVEY. In your local papers?
Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. May I ask at this time what difference it would make whether there were advertisements or not?
Mr. PEAVEY. I will tell you the only idea I had was to show the propaganda that is behind this proposition, and that it does not come to us in the usual course.
Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. That it is not the usual requirements of the situation but propaganda that is causing this agitation of the matter? Is that your idea?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes.
Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. That it is not the real requirements and the necessities of the situation so much as propaganda that is pressing this matter at this time?
Mr. PEAVEY. Yes; to educate the public back there for the influence it will have down here.
Mr. DEAL. I understood Mr. Brown to say that he favored the diversion at Chicago as a means of adding prosperity to the valley!
Mr. Brown. No, sir. The statement as I had it
Mr. DEAL (interposing). You did not in those words, but did not you imply as much? You said that the valley had not been prosperous, and by this diversion you would add to its prosperity ?
Mr. Brown. Oh, no. If you will read that when it comes out, you will see that that was just the opposite.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand that.
Mr. HULL. I will read this for you, " The valley can not prosper under present conditions."
Mr. DEAL. That is what I wanted to get at. Now, in what way would the diversion of the water at Chicago add to the prosperity of the valley ?
Mr. BROWN. You misunderstand the statement.
The CHAIRMAN. No; just try to answer his question. What you are complaining about is too much water, isn't it?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Í suppose what Mr. Deal means to ask is this: If you have too much water or so much you are suffering large loss, how would the increase in the water help you? That is the question.
Mr. DEAL. That was not what I had in mind. Read that again, Mr. Hull.
Mr. Brown (reading):
We believe that the Hull bill, 5475, with certain modifications, offers the best plan yet proposed. We come here with high hopes that all interested parties will now reason this matter out
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Just a moment. I do not think that helps any.
Mr. DEAL. That is not the point.
Mr. Brown. I am trying to answer the question. This bill provides for payment for levees.
Mr. Hull. That is, the sanitary district pays for the levees? Mr. Brown. Yes. Is that what you wanted to know?
Mr. DEAL. I think Mr. Hull read the section in which you said something about the valley had not been prosperous heretofore.
Mr. Brown. Under present conditions. Mr. DEAL. What I wanted to get at was in what way it was going to be made prosperous by this diversion.
Mr. Brown. It is not by the diversion. It is by the provisions
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Just as written in these statements. That is our statement,
The CHAIRMAN. That is all.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. G. LEGON, CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. LEgon. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to concur in what has been said, as representing the Chicago Shippers' Association, to corroborate just what Mr. Haynes and Mr. Field and Mr. Randolph have already said. I do not believe I can illuminate on that. We feel that we need some relief down there to give us the benefit of our geographical location. We think if this waterway is completed it will help us out. We feel that now is the best time to get all interested parties together to present ail facts before you people and ask you to give us the necessary relief.
The CHAIRMAN. What you are interested in, then, is having sufficient water in that river to give you a nine-foot channel?
Mr. LEGON. That is it. The CHAIRMAN. And that is what you are speaking in behalf; of? Mr. LEGON. In behalf of the transportation feature of it. The CHAIRMAN. That is all that is asked, a nine-foot channel! Mr. LEGON. We are not engineers, and we will have to leave that to the engineers, the ones that are to determine that proposition.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. P. PIXLEY, CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. PIXLEY, I represent Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., Chicago. I am here to indorse the testimony that has been otfered by the representatives of the Chicago Association of Commerce and of Peoria. The bulk of our business—we are one of the large shippers of Chicago~is done to the agricultural communities, and we believe that this bill, providing a waterway, will give cheaper transportation. The CHAIRMAN. What is the nature of your business? Mr. PIXLEY. Wholesale dry goods.
The CHAIRMAN, And your shipments are incoming and not outgoing? You are retailers ?