Imágenes de páginas

Government-LaGrange, Henry, Copperas Creek, and Kampsville; those locks and dams will have to be enlarged. This document or report does not show an estimate of cost with an increment of 1,000 second-feet.

The CHAIRMAN. The report shows that the volume of water which they say would be necessary would be sufficient to carry 100,000,000 tons of traffic per annum.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Put it through the locks?

The CHAIRMAN. No; they say that is what is needed for their waterway.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, if you have got a slack-water canal

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No; the report says, “such a waterway will require

År. RANDOLPH (continuing). If you have no flow at all except what goes through the locks, that will be sufficient; but you got to provide in addition to what you already have four more locks in the lower river, at a greatly increased cost for the entire project. Now, let me develop that, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Now, I can say right here that on the method of construction, of course, we would naturally be guided by the advice of the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The Chief of Engineers does not advocate that kind of canal; he has approved an 8-foot project.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; what he says will be necessary for the canal which he recommends

Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). Yes, sir and he has recommended an 8-foot project, with a flow of 4,167 second-feet minimum; that is what is under discussion here.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the recommendation as to the flow to which you refer?

Mr. RANDOLPH. In this report that is directed to you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Where is it in that report?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am referring to a letter of transmittal, signed by Lansing H. Beach, major general, Chief of Engineers, House Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session.

The CHAIRMAN. What page!

Mr. RANDOLPH, On page 2, where he gives you the estimate, he says:

It is estimated that under existing conditions a 9-foot waterway from Utica to that depth at the mouth of the Ohio

And so forth. Then he says paragraph 3 of that letter: After due consideration of the information presented, I concur in the views and recommendations of the board.

And the recommendations of the board follow. The question of the most advisable depth of the waterway covering this reach is most carefully considered in the reports under review. And the whole thing is predicated on existing conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not find anything of that kind, however, in the report.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The report was made in response to a resolution of this committee calling for a report.

The CHAIRMAN. That is always true.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. And they have asked the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review the reports printed in House Document so-and-so with a view to ascertaining the cost of a navigable channel 9 feet in depth from a point in the Illinois River, Ill., in the vicinity of Utica, Ill., to a connection with the 9-foot channel in the Mississippi River at or below Cairo, III.

In paragraph 2, page 2, subparagraph (a), it says:

The cost under existing conditions of an 8-foot channel in the Illinois River between Utica and the mouth

The existing conditions” meaning the conditions of a permit under which the flow is diverted at present.

Then they give you, under subparagraph (b), the cost under existing conditions of a 9-foot channel.

So I submit that that estimate of cost is an estimate and recommendation based on existing conditions.

Now," existing conditions” may mean a condition of fact or a condition of the permit. We will assume—and I think they assumethat it meant the condition of the permit, 4,167 cubic feet per second.

I think they would be unwilling to assume anything else. But the estimates of cost with the 4,167 cubic feet per second are given; and the recommendations are based upon that as an existing condition.

Now, the existing conditions of fact apply not only to that reach of the waterway-to the lower Illinois waterway—but they apply also to the navigable channel of the Mississippi River as far down as Cairo now.

An increment of 10,000 cubic feet per second in the lower Illinois River will raise the low-water plane of the lower Illinois River at Utica, the present head of navigation, 8 feet; it will raise the lowwater plane at Grafton, the mouth of the Illinois River, at its confluence with the Mississippi River, 2.2 feet; it will raise the lowwater plane of the Mississippi River at St. Louis 2 feet; and it contributes that added depth throughout that entire reach of the Mississippi River between St. Louis and the mouth of the Ohio River; and if you had not had the sanitary district flow this last summer the barge line would not have been able to operate.

Before the sanitary district flow was sent down packets were often unable at low stages of the river to get up from Cairo to St. Louis. When that flow has been sent down there there has never been a time when packet transportation has been suspended.

The CHAIRMAN. My understanding-of course, I may be wrong, and we will have the engineers here to testify—but my understanding as to the conditions in the Mississippi River is that it is a question of a channel, not a question of an insufficiency of water.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a question of depth over bars, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think what they need and what the testimony before our committee has always shown that they need in the Mississippi River is a continuous channel. I do not believe there is any deficiency of water in there.

Mr. RANDOLPH. There has been a deficiency of water this last season.

The CHAIRMAN. There may have been a deficiency of water in the sense of the channel not being continuous

Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). That they have not maintained the channel.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). But that is another question entirely.

Mr. RANDOLPH. One of the necessary aids to the maintenance of a channel is a sufficiency of water.

The CHAIRMAN. They have got that, according to the testimony which has been introduced before our committee.

Mr. RANDOLPH. You have got to have a continuous channel, if you have to have sufficient depth of water to maintain the channel.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they have to pump the water into the Mississippi River, in other words, in order to maintain a continuous stream; I think they have ample water to take care of that.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a continuous stream, except at the bars; and they have not been able to maintain a continuous channel over those bars; but the added increment from the Chicago Sanitary District has given them sufficient water to navigate it.

Now, it is possible to maintain a channel; but it has not been done. The added increment of depth will save several million dollars in the construction of a channel in the Illinois River, over the estimated costs

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Of course, you can readily understand, Mr. Randolph, that on these technical questions as to the construction of an approved waterway, the committee, while it is glad to hear from onexpert witnesses, would place very much more dependence upon witnesses who are experts on that question.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Naturally.

The CHAIRMAN. You can see that, on the general question of the importance of the waterway, on which I think we all agree, from a commercial standpoint, of course, the lay witness is probably more important than the technical witness. But on the other question, the technical engineering question, that requires a technical education and a life work.

Mr. RAND().IH. I understand that the Chief of Engineers is your technical adviser?


Mr. RANDOLPH. But I am not exactly in the position of a lay witness. I am a consulting engineer. I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. I have been president of the Illinois Society of Engineers, and I have made a lifelong study of this ques


I am not giving you technical advice here. I am giving you evidence of facts. These are the conditions as they exist. I am not attempting to advise this committee as to what ought to be done in the selection of the type, kind, or size of waterway. I am telling you that these conditions exist as to the added depth of flow created by this diversion through the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal.

Now, it has a value, whether it is considered technical or economical. If you can save several million dollars of the cost of digging a deep channel, by continuing this diversion, it ought to be considered from all of its economic viewpoints.

The (CHAIRMAX. As to this canal, the total cost of the construction of the water vily under consideration Was estimated as only $425.000—

Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). No; that is maintenance.
The (HAMLIX. I see that I am wrong about that.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The estimated cost for an 8-foot depth is $1,310,100 for initial work; and $77,500 for maintenance, on the Illinois River; and $020,000 for initial work and $75,000 for maintenance on the Mississippi River, from the mouth of the Illinois River to St. Louis, below which point there is 8 feet. That is a total of $1.930,000 for initial work and $152,500 annually for maintenance.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is less than $2,000,000 for improvement altogether in the two rivers ?

Mr. RANDOLPH. In the 8-foot project.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; so that you could not save very many millions of dollars out of $2,000,000 ?

Mr. RANDOLPH. You could save half of it, if not more, with the 10,000 second-foot increment.

The CHAIRMAN. And then would come the question as to whether you ought to take 9,000 cubic feet per second, in addition to what is needed, 1,000 cubic feet per second being needed, in order to save $1,000,000?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; but you are comparing it with a flow of only 1,000 second-feet; and if you do that, you can not compare it with that $2,000,000; you must compare it with $20,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. No: this is on the basis of the previous reports; and the previous reports say that they will only need 1,000 cubic feet per second.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not agree with you there. I take the liberty of disagreeing with you on that.

The CHAIRMAN. I know it is, however; you will see on looking it up that every one of these reports refers to the previous reports, and is based on the previous reports

Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). Just a minute. On page 3, paragraph 3, of this report, Document No. 2, I find this:

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 feet.

He does not base this estimate on 1,000 second-feet; and so far as I know, he has never made an estimate based on a flow of 1,000 second-feet; if he has, it has vastly increased that $2,000,000 estimate; it would come nearer $20,000,000.

Mr. O'CONNOR. May I ask you if that statement that you made expresses a view which is generally shared in by the people of that section; that is, that 8,500 second-feet is the amount withdrawn now?

Mr. RANDOLPII. That is in the evidence in the suit in the United States district court in Chicago.

Mr. O'CONNOR. How long has that flow been continued ?

Mr. RANDOLPH. That flow has been continued for the last eight years, according to the testimony.

Mr. O'Connor. It does not look like an extraordinary thing to you, to ask for 10,000 second-feet, if you have already been receiving 8,500 second-feet?

Mr. RANDOLPH. We maintain that we have a right to 10,000 secondfeet; and that right has not been adjudicated; it is still before the Supreme Court.

Mr. O'CONNOR. In other words, there is not a great difference between the figures now!

Mr. RANDOLPH. No; not right now.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Has it had any effect on the water level of the (reat Lakes?

Mr. RANDOLPH. No; I have not got to that yet; that will take quite an extended explanation.

While we are still on this waterway question, Mr. Chairman, you have not found any report of 1,000 second-feet, have you!

The CHAIRMAN. I have found this in the report of the Board of Engineers, in Document 1374. Sixty-first Congress, third session-

Nr. RANDOLPH (interposing). Does it give you the estimate of cost?

The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure that it does. Yes; it gives, for an 8-foot waterway, $1,050,000; for a 9-foot waterway, $4,500,000.

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is with an increment of flow of what?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as I understand it, that is the 1,000 cubic feet per second.

Mr. RANDOLPH. No; I think that is not. That same thing is listed in here as 4,167 cubic feet per second; that is what it is predicated on.

The CHAIRMAX. Well, that is what it seems to be based on here; the only reference that I can find which refers to the flow is that flow of 1,000 second-feet.

Mr. RANDOLPH. What is the date of that report?
The ('HAIRMAN. That is January, 1911.
Mr. Hull. That is 14 years old.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; that is 14 years old.

Mr. RANDOLPH. And the other report that you have before you is dated November 1, 1921; and you will find that it is predicated on 1.167 second-feet.

The CHAIRMAX. But you will find that the engineers in these current reports refer to those old reports.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir; and they also refer to an old report on a 14-foot waterway, with an estimate of cost and recommendations based thereon, in favor of the 14-foot waterway; but that is more than 14 years old; the estimates 14 years old are not of any value now.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the estimate as to costs might not be correct now; but the estimate as to the amount of water needed for a waterway ought to be just as sound in 1924 as it was in 1911.

Mr. RANDOLPH. There is no argument needed as to that, you can build a waterway with 1,000 second-feet; but it will cost you a great deal more than with a waterway of 4,167 second-feet.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I see that the Senate report makes an estimate on an 8-foot channel, with 4,167 cubic feet per second, as $3,134,400; with a 9-foot channel, $4,821,100.

« AnteriorContinuar »