« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, it depends upon what that estimate contains. It is estimated in several ways in this report: On an 8-foot depth, with an increment of 4,167 cubic feet, with all of the locks retained at their present size, 45 feet wide and about 350 feet long, and everything entirely intact-you could not get a Mississippiwarrior barge through them; they should be 1,000 feet long and 110 feet wide; the estimate of the engineers, retaining those two State locks and two Government locks in the lower river as they are, and estimating for an 8-foot waterway, is $1,465,000.
Now, with those same locks enlarged, the estimate is $6,525,000; that is, with a 4,167 second-foot flow.
With a 7,500-foot increment or a 10,000-foot increment you can take those locks out and you would not have any locks at all. There would be an open channel all the way.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we have reached this point of agreement, so that we mutually understand this situation : That this estimate seems to be based upon locks and dams; that is, the estimate which is before us?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No, it is not; not all of it.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Not the present report, no; it is not based upon locks and dams.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us put it more simply: What the engineer recommends is an expenditure of something over $1,000,000, or less than $1,500,000; and you can increase or decrease the cost, accordingly as you decrease or increase the volume of water.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That does not change the navigation features at all; you can have your 8-foot channel at your minimum of cost, and with your minimum diversion; but you can have a less cost of construction
Mr. RANDOLPH (interposing). And a better channel.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). With an increased diversion. Now, that is about the situation, is it not?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, of course, then it comes down to us as to just what this report means.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir; and the best evidence there should be that of the Chief of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; now let us come to your second question; that is, your question of your sanitary canal.
Mr. RANDOLPH. All right--the question of diversion for sanitation; for sanitary purposes.
Mr. F. H. MACEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But please state your name and whom you represent?
Mr. MACEY. My name is F. H. Macey, State engineer of New York State.
I want to ask you this, Mr. Randolph: What the comparative velocities in the different sections are, for these various increments of flow?
The CHAIRMAN. Let me see if I understand that?
Mr. MACEY. I asked Mr. Randolph what the various velocities of water would be in that channel for these various increments of flow; that is, looking at it from the viewpoint of back traffic against the velocities.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what Mr. Macey suggests, is this, Mr. Randolph-in which I suppose you would concur: That as you increase the amount of water from Lake Michigan, that increases will bring an increase of velocity?
Mr. RANDOLPH. In the same size of channel, yes, sir; but this is not the same sized channel. The lower Illinois River is approximately 275 miles long. In that distance it has a fall of 27 feet; it is a stream of flat gradient. The normal low-water flow before the sanitary district increment was added—the minimum low-water flow-about 1,000 second-feet; it has a flood flow of pretty nearly 200.000 second-feet.
The CHAIRMAN. I think they estimate the normal flow at 500 second-feet in the Illinois River.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is the low-water minimum, absolutely-the irreducible minimum.
In a stream of that flat gradient you have no current that will prevent navigation upstream. You have more current and much deeper gradients in the Mississippi River, under present conditions. I can not give you offhand the velocities at the various places, but you can see that if you add 4,167 cubic feet per second, or 10,000 cubic feet per second, to your flood flow of 150,000 second-feet, it does not make much difference in a stream of that kind.
Mr. Macey. But can you operate during those flood flows?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir; we do operate during those flood flows. We have a very wide river, except where it is constricted by the levees which have been built; and at those points it is 1,000 feet wide at the narrowest. At Beardstown it is 1,000 feet wide. You have no parallel condition to that in the New York State Barge Canal at all.
Mr. Macey. But I think we have a parallel condition in our Mohawk Canal.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not think in New York you have anything like that, for any great distance, that is over 1,000 feet wide.
Mr. MacEY. What is the drainage area of the Illinois River in the canalized section?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I can not give you that offhand either. I can tell you
what the flow above that canalized section is; the flood discharge of the Desplaines River above the canalized section is somethink like 600,000 cubic feet a minute or 10,000 per foot-second; that is about the beginning of the canalized section. Below that we have the Kankakee River, which has a large drainage area.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Macey, did you want to know the drainage area of the Illinois River?
Mr. Macey. I wanted to know the drainage area of the Illinois River at the head of the canal.
The CHAIRMAN. The total length is 470 miles; and it drains an area of 27,900 square miles.
Mr. THOMAS (of Cleveland, Ohio). Mr. Chairman, in that connection may I ask the approximate dimensions of the canal section of that waterway?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; the least section of the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal is, in the rock section, 14 miles long; it is 160 feet wide on the bottom, 162 feet wide at the top, and it has a depth of 24 feet.
Mr. THOMAS. What would be the velocity there with an increment of 10,000 second-feet?
Mr. RANDOLPH. With 10,000 second-feet, the velocity there is about a mile and a quarter an hour.
Mr. THOMAS. Well, how much per second?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Well, you can figure that out; you can divide the cross-section area by the flow.
Mr. THOMAS. I know that can be calculated; but I did not want to go through the mental process; and I thought you knew.
Mr. RANDOLPH. About 3 feet a second.
The CHẢIRMAN. Yes; please state your name, and whom you represent.
Mr. KEEFER. My name is Keefer, representing the Province of Ontario.
I think you said, Mr. Randolph, that you could build a waterway with 1,000 second-feet flow and also one with 10,000 second-feet flow, and that it was a question of difference in cost. Did I hear you correctly; and if so, what would the difference in cost be between 1,000 second-feet and 10,000 second-feet?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is what I have not estimated, and what apparently the chief of engineers has not estimated.
Mr. KEEFER. Well, approximately?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will not approximate, because the chief of engineers will testify here. I will say that the 1,000 second-foot flow will be many times over the cost of the 10,000 second-foot flow. I will undertake to estimate for you, but not offhand.
Mr. KEELER. Well, if another owner in a neighboring State was vitally interested in that question, do you not think that cost should be taken into consideration, rather than deprive them of their rights? Mr. RANDOLPH. I think the equity should be considered; yes, sir. Mr. KEEFER. In what way? Mr. RANDOLPH. As to the respective rights of the several States.
Mr. KEEFER. And how would you deal with those-how would you compensate them?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I think it depends very largely upon the adjudication of those rights.
Mr. KEEFER. Well, if you deprive them of that much water, and they are entitled to some interest in it, how would you attempt to deal fairly with them?
Mr. RANDOLPH. If you assume that they are deprived of that much water to which they are entitled, and that there has been no prior agreement as to that diversion, they should be compensated.
Mr. REEFER. How would you compensate them?
Mr. RANDOLPH. You could so regulate the outflow
Mr. KEEFER (interposing.) You could regulate the level, perhaps?
Mr. RANDOLIH. You could regulate the discharge and the outflow so as to give them the benefit
Mr. KEEFER (interposing.) Suppose that water has an economic value for power, how would you compensate them for that, if it is taken away from the channel! What is the amount of power in 10,000 cubic feet per second flow, from the level of Lake Michigan to the sea-going over those two drops, the Niagara drop and the St. Lawrence drop? You are an engineer and can state that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Ten thousand second-feet.
Mr. KEEFER. The 10,000 second-feet that you are talking about, how much is that in horsepower!
Mr. RANDOLPH. Ten thousand second-feet is about 500,000 horsepower.
Mr. KEEFER. And it would amount to about 500,000 horsepower. Now, what is the economic value of that 500,000 horsepower taken away from that watershed !
Mr. RANDOLPH. Wait a minute. I am not going to be led that way. That assumes that you could develop all of the water that is flowing through that stream.
Mr. KEEFER. Well, take any discount that you want to for any losses on the way.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If it is an economic loss to the neighboring State, which is not the fact
Mr. KEEFER (interposing). How would you compensate for that?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would not, if it was left to me, compensate for it at all, because we have already compensated for it and paid for it in the unequal distribution of water in Niagara Falls.
Mr. KEEFER. That is quite a different matter, and that fact is not admitted at all.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is still to be adjudicated, sir, and is not to be adjudicated here.
Mr. KEEFER. Then, you have no other way of suggesting compensation?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would compensate for your level and your outflow and regulate your outflow, so that you could produce and develop twice as much power as you are developing now, with an equalized outflow.
Mr. KEEFER. And what would you do with the water-power value
Mr. Hull (interposing). You do not have to answer that, Mr. Randolph, if you do not want to.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, if the witness desires, we would like verv much to hear from him on the question of this sanitary district in Chicago. We have to adjourn at 4 o'clock, on account of other engagements of some members of the committee, and so we would like to hear you on that subject, if you will.
I will say to the gentleman from Canada that we will take that question up again at a later stage of the proceedings.
91739—24-PT 1 -5
Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of some of us who have recently come on the committee and do not know the details of this matter, will you tell us whether there is any difference between the Chicago Sanitary District, which has been referred to here, and the city of Chicago?
The ChairMAN. It is a separate corporation. Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a municipality imposed upon another municipality for this purpose.
Mr. O'CONNOR. How does it differ as to size of territory?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It includes the suburbs; it includes the city and the suburbs; I will say that it is the metropolitan area.
Mr. Wilson. I suppose it is something like the school districts? Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir.
Now, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to take up this question of the sanitary district, and the question of the lake levels, and the question of international relations, all in good time.
But I would like at this time, sir, to make an offer to show the committee, at your convenience, some reels of moving pictures which I have that show the physical conditions—the works of the Sanitary District of Chicago; to take you by these moving pictures down the Chicago River; the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal; and show you the water-power plant; and show you the sewage disposal plants; and animated charts of the sewer system and the operation of this sanitary system; and to show you animated charts of the hydrographs of the Great Lakes. If the committee cares to see these . pictures, I believe it would be of great help.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we would be very glad to see them. Are you going to be here another day?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will be here as long as necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. We have some one else we would like to put on to-day as he would like to leave town, and if you will pardon us we can hear you later.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will be very glad to defer to him with the understanding that I may later present the pictures.
STATEMENT OF MR. C. A. LIVINGSTON, REPRESENTING ILLINOIS
Mr. Livingston. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much of your time, because most of what I would say has been said in another way by previous witnesses.
We represent not all the manufacturers of Illinois but 90 per cent of the manufacturers of Illinois who have an annual output of upward of $5,500,000,000 worth of manufactured products a year.
All of its members are for this waterway; this Illinois waterway. The organization is about 25 years old; and it has worked for this water power for 25 years, and I will not go into any more details as to that,
But we are still for it, and we think that now is a good opportunity to get it through through this bill of Congressman Hull. Congressman Hull wired us to be present, and we think that this affords a practical solution of some difficulties which have been encountered in the past