« AnteriorContinuar »
result that the Rutland Railroad had to sell their boats, and a great loss was suffered by Ogdensburg and the people of that community, because hundreds of men had spent their lives in navigating the River St. Lawrence as sailor men, as engineers, as pilots, and as captains, and quite a portion of our city was depopulated on account of the fact that the railroads were prohibited from operating those boats.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Spratt, we had before us yesterday a witness who suggested that the decrease in the tonnage of Chicago, the port proper, decreased from 7,000,000 tons to less than 3,000,000 tons between 1890 and 1922. Calumet, an adjacent harbor, on the other hand, had an increase of about 50 per cent. That is, at the end of the time it was about 150 per cent what it was in 1907.
Now, the suggestion was made here that that decrease was due to the fact that the railroads owned the boats. Can you tell us about that, whether that had any influence or not; did the railroad tie these boats and cease to use them?
Mr. SPRATT. No; the life of the railroad to a great extent depends upon their ability to navigate and run a line of boats to and including Duluth, and when they had to dispose of those boats, a great portion of their tonnage was disposed of, and they were unable to pay a dividend. From that time on the Ogdensburg & Lake Champlain Railroad was unable to pay its owners a cent. For years, since those boats were sold, they had not been able to pay their owners one cent. Recently, however, I think a change has come over the international commission, and I think they have begun to run and that there is now a line of boats running again-they began last year. Our citizens are beginning to return home and to operate those boats, and if navigation is allowed to continue as it has been, there is no doubt that those boats will be maintained and they will earn a reasonable compensation to the railroad. But for any individuals in our country to maintain a line of boats, the amount of money would be so great that they could not do it, and we are so much interested in maintaining that line of boats because of the fact that so much money is paid out to our people who are sailors and people learned and educated in the line of operating boats, and it would be a very detrimental thing to again dispose of the boats they have in commission at the present time.
I desire to call attention particularly to the Ontario Power Co. It is a domestic corporation organized and owning land and water power at the village of Waddington. They have spent probably a half million dollars in obtaining the right condition of affairs to utilize the waters of the St. Lawrence River. If this water is diverted at Chicago it will destroy, to a great extent, their power there, and it will bring a severe loss on all the people that have rights of way pertaining to that part of the St. Lawrence River.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Spratt. What will a cubic foot of water produce at Lockport, Ill., in power, as compared with a cubic foot of water utilized for the same purpose at the point you name on the St. Lawrence River?
Mr. SPRATT. I could not answer that as I am not prepared to give you figures. I have just come here and did not have a chance to: bring any figures or papers with me. But if your honors will allow
us to file a brief with your body within a reasonable time we will take pleasure in furnishing the information you ask for.
The CHAIRMAN. What we want is the combined production of power from the Niagara escarpment down to the end of the St. Lawrence River as compared with like production at Lockport, Ill. Do you understand what I want!
Mr. SPRATT. I might say that the diversion of water between Niagara Falls and below is for the purpose of power, and that water is turned back again at Lewiston, so, so far as navigation is concerned, it does not affect it at all. It does not affect the navigability of the stream below. But where you divert 10,000 feet and carry it into the Mississippi River, that water is gone forever. It is like taking the life blood from the St. Lawrence River. We feel it will be striking a blow at our commerce and against our people that we can not recover from, and we certainly ask that Chicago, with all its power and wealth, will see to it that they will take the necessary ineans to dispose of their sewage in the ordinary and proper form, which is done in several cities.
Mr. HULL. I would like to ask one question. At the present time your power plant is running all right, is it not?
Mr. SPRATT. At the present time our power plant is running.
Mr. SPRATT. Owing to the question that has arisen between the high powers, that is to say, the Canadian commissioners and our own commissioners, that matter is still unsolved.
Mr. HULL. The boats are traveling, are they not?
Mr. SPRATT. No, not wholly. Several boats have stuck on the rocks. Last year, so great damage was done that the insurance companies have suffered severely.
Mr. HCLL. But the boats are running?
Mr. SPRATT. Yes. The boat went on the rocks and several people were rescued at great peril to their lives.
Mr. Hull. The boats running from Duluth east are running all right, are they not?
Mr. SPRATT. So far as I know, from Duluth up to the point where the St. Lawrence reaches Lake Ontario, I have not heard any fault found. The great difficulty we are laboring under is the insufficient water in the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Louis J. BEHAN of Chicago. May I ask what is the name of the power company you represent?
Mr. SPRATT. The New York & Ontario Power Co.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes; it is a New York State corporation. You might subdivide the river St. Lawrence. This power is on the American side and between the mainland and what is known as Ogden's Island
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt. The opportunity will be afforded to you to file briefs. I want to suggest that you get them in as soon as you conveniently can.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes, I will. I will be home in two or three days and we will go right to work at it and furnish it to the committee as soon as we can.
The CHAIRMAN. We will give you access to the minutes of this hearing if you want them.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes. I would be glad to have them as soon as possible, because it will enable us to be more clear in our report.
STATEMENT OF MR. ISHAM RANDOLPH-Continued. Mr. RANDOLPH. This is the butterfly valve at the head of the power extension of the main drainage channel [exhibiting lantern slide picture].
The original act did not provide for the development of the water power. In 1903 an act was passed by the legislature empowering the sanitary district to develop the potential power that existed at the end of the drainage canal, in the fall of 36 feet between the water in the canal and the water in the Des Plaines River. Work began in 1905 and it was put in operation in 1907.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the amount of power generated?
The lock shown in this picture is the Illinois and Michigan canal lock. The construction of the main drainage channel made it unnecessary to maintain that reach of the canal between Chicago and Lockport, and it was necessary to provide some means of access to the old canal below this point. So this lock, with a maximum lift of 41 feet, was constructed for that purpose. The new lock now under construction at this point by the State, 100 feet wide and 1,000 long, will be constructed this year alongside this little lock (picture]. That will be the first lock in the project.
The old Illinois & Michigan Canal is maintained to-day from this point on down to the head of navigation on the Illinois River. This canal was first opened in 1848. It was constructed by a grant of land from the United States Government made in 1822, granting alternate sections of land on each side of the canal for a distance of 5 miles, and amounting to 284,000 acres. It is obsolete, like your Erie Canal. It was 4 feet deep. It would not compete with the railroads, and it would be necessary to adopt a State project to meet the present demands of commerce.
All of the power developed at this point is now shipped to Chicago over high tension lines and distributed from the substation I showed you in the first picture. Most of it is used to light the streets and parks and boulevards, and to operate the sewage disposal plants of the sanitary district.
The CHAIRMAN. Who owns the water power?
Mr.RANDOLPH. The Sanitary District of Chicago, a municipal corporation created by the State of Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that simply a public utility or does it operate as a business corporation?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It did serve private consumers, but that is being discontinued. Ultimately they will use all this power for the operation of their sewage-disposal plants.
The CHAIRMAN. What I mean is, is it operated as a business concern?
Mr. RANDOLPH. No.
The CHAIRMAN. In the sense that people own stock in it, or is it a municipal corporation?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is municipally owned and operated-a corporation. It has no stock; it is returning its revenue to the people who paid for it, the taxpayers of the Sanitary District of Chicago.
Mr. KINDRED. You say it is a saving of $1,000,000 to the taxpayers. Over what period of time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Each year.
Mr. RANDOLPH. In the construction of this canal it was necessary to revert the flow of many of the sewers. The sewers that emptied into the lake had to be diverted into the canal so as to clear up the old condition of lake pollution.
These charts show the construction of the intercepting sewers cutting off all the old sewer outlets draining toward the lake and diverting them into the main drainage channel. In addition to the main drainage channel collateral channels draining the territory to the north of the city from Evanston to the Main River, and draining the territory south of the city in the Calumet area, were constructed to divert this drainage away from the lake.
This shows (showing another picture] the area north of the city. This shows the North Shore diversion canal, taking in the sewage from all that North Shore suburban territory.
It was necessary to create a current in this channel to carry this sewage, and as it is lake level all the way a pumping station was installed under this bridge with a screw pump that lifts the water about three feet, a maximum to produce a flow of a thousand cubic feet a second in this channel. This is not in addition to the volume of flow in the main channel; it is a part of the total. It enters the main river at the forks in the heart of the city. This channel is not navigable except for small boats and the bridges over it are fixed bridges, not movable bridges.
This channel carries a flow of a thousand feet, which the chairman thinks it would be necessary for a water-way down the Illinois Valley. I may say parenthetically that the old Michigan-Illinois canal, which has been abandoned, carried a flow of a thousand feet a second, with a depth of four feet, and they used 90 to 100 ton barges on it.
A VOICE. How much water in addition is being taken by these pumps?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is not an additional flow. The flow is measured in the rock cut in the neck of the bottle; it has got to go through the neck of the bottle. There are several different methods of taking the total, all included in the 8,500. This channel flows 2,000 cubic feet per second. Ths one to the south, the Calumet-Sag Channel, which goes into the rock cut at Sag is a part of the 8,500. That will be 10,000 ultimately, a flow of 7,000 cubic feet per second in the main river, 1.000 cubic feet in the south fork of the south branch, and 2,000 cubic feet through the Calumet-Sag Channel, making the total of 10,000 cubic feet.
This is the entrance lock [showing another picture of the Calumet-Sag Channel. This canal is not large enough to accomodate the Mississippi River barge service, 90 feet wide. They are towed side by side and each barge is 45 feet wide. This is purely a drainage canal, although it is possible to put a smaller barge through it.
This has been å progressive development. I told you the water was turned into the main channel in 1900. This collateral work has been going on ever since then, and the sewage disposal, sewage treatment work under the present program is now being actively prosecuted. That was a part of the original plan. Owing to the fatness of the terrain it was necessary to take all of this sewage from the interceptors into the main drainage channel.
This is the steam plant here [exhibiting another picture). This Lawrence Avenue conduit is 30 feet in diameter. It empties into the north branch of the Chicago River.
We have heard a great deal about modern methods of sewage disposal. Fifteen years ago the officials of the Sanitary District of Chicago started a sewage disposal laboratory and began their studies of the art of sewage disposal, and I want to say to you gentlemen that the ultimate in the art of sewage disposal has not been reached. There have been great developments in the last 15 years, but the problem has not been solved.
I want to say, further, that there is no city in the United States that has adopted the so-called methods of sewage disposal to the extent that they have been adopted in Chicago. This plant is typical of the most modern sewage disposal plants, the best practice known in the art.
This is an activated sludge plant, built to conserve the pollution along the Des Plaines, and it is a very large plant, an experimental plant. Every known device in the art of sewage disposal is nised in that plant.
The CHAIRMAX. When did they start the work on this plant?
Mr. RAYDOLPI. That plant was put in operation about two year's ago.
The CHAIRMAY. When did they start it?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes: it accommodates a population of 10,000 now, which drains naturally into the Des Plains watershed. It would not have gone into the lake: it had every right to go into the watershed and the Mississippi River. That was the natural drainage there.
" Modern methods of sewage disposal" is a very general term. There are 6i8 cities in the United States with a population of 100,000 or more, and only 17 of them make any attempt to treat the sewage in any way, and of those 17 only 7 treat 80 per cent of the sewage flow. When you speak of modern methods of sewage disposal or cewage purification, it is a comparative term; it is a question of what you mean by sewage purification. It may be the screening of sewnge. taking out the solids or sedimentation, taking out the suspended particles: or aeriation, by the use of sprinkling filters or otherwise, for the effluents. That does not produce a purified sewage. It may be futher treated chemically-hiolytic treatment. Very little sewage is teated to its ultimate of purification.