HD 
 
 Idia 
 
Commission of Conservation 
 Canada 
 
 PROTEST 
 
 AGAINST FUJITHER 
 
 Diversion OF Water 
 
 FR6M lMe MICHIGAN FOR THE 
 
 Chicago Drainage Canal 
 
 PR^ESENTED AT WASHII^GT€>N 
 
 MARCH 27th, 1912 ' 
 
 THM ROLL* L. CH*I« CJ ifHITBO; ttTTAJW*,, 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013845783 
 
II II i 
 
 Commission of Conservation 
 Canada 
 
 HON. CLIFFORD SIFTON, Chairman 
 JAMES WHITE, Secretary 
 
 PROTEST 
 
 AGAINST FURTHER 
 
 Diversion of Water 
 
 FROM LAKE MICHIGAN FOR THE 
 
 Chicago Drainage Canal 
 
 PRESENTED AT WASHINGTON 
 
 MARCH 27th, 1912 
 
 ROLLA L. CHAIN OO LIMITBD, OTTAWA, 
 
 -m 
 
389894 
 
QENERAI. PLAN OF THE CHICASO DRAINAQE CANAL AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT 
 
 . ^J'^xt^ii^S,'^^ ''■5™ reprinted from Engineering News, July 22, 1909. It shows also the auxfliary works: 
 1, the North Shore channel [then under construction] ; 2, the proposed Calumet-Sag channel: 3, the North side 
 and bouth side intercepting sewer systems and their tunnels connecting them with the river.) 
 
Erratum.--For pamphlet, "Protest Against Further Diversion of Water from Lake 
 Michigan for the Chicago Drainage Canal:" 
 
 <l[Page 3, 4th line from bottom should read: Michigan to the main Chicago river, which, 
 since the diversion for sewage dilution, flows westward from the lake to drainage 
 canal at Robey Street. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The recent application of the Board of Trustees of 
 the Chicago Sanitary District for a permit to increase the 
 diversion of water from lake Michigan to the waters of 
 the Mississippi river has been strongly protested by the 
 Commission of Conservation. 
 
 The Trustees applied for permission to increase the 
 diversion from the 4,167 cubic feet per second, authorized 
 by the permit of June 30, 1910, to 10,000 cubic feet per 
 second. On March 27, 1912, at a hearing at Washington be- 
 fore Hon. Henry L. Stimson, U. S. Secretary of War, protests 
 were made on behalf of the Government of Canada, the 
 Commission of Conservation, Dominion Marine Associa- 
 tion, Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Montreal Board of 
 Trade, Montreal Harbour Commissioners and others. At 
 this hearing the protest of the Commission of Conservation 
 was presented by the Secretary, Mr. James White. 
 
 After the hearing, the Secretary of War announced that 
 seven days would be allowed the Trustees of the Sanitary 
 District to fyle their brief, the Government of Canada to 
 be allowed to, later, fyle a counter-brief. 
 
 The following brief description of the work is necessary 
 for a proper understanding of the situation at Chicago 
 Two sluggish streams, the North branch and the South 
 branch of the Chicago river (see accompanying map) flow 
 through the city approximately parallel to the shore of lake 
 Michigan, unite, and flow eastward into the lake. For 
 many years the sewage of the city was discharged into these 
 streams, and, at least as early as 1860, the offensive condi- 
 tion of the South branch attracted oflScial attention. The 
 
Commission of Conservation 
 
 first complaints arose, not on account of contamination of 
 the water supply, but on account of the offensive odour. 
 In 1862, high water in the river and lowering of the lake 
 level by a southeast wind caused complaints respecting the 
 foul smell and taste of the water supply. 
 
 In 1871, the situation was partly relieved by cutting 
 down the summit level of the Illinois and Michigan canal^ — 
 connecting the Chicago and Desplaines rivers — and drawing 
 the water for the canal from lake Michigan. Later, it 
 was found necessary to install pumping machinery at 
 Bridgeport to maintain a current west through the South 
 branch and the Illinois and Michigan canal. In 1874-80, 
 another pumping plant was constructed to pump water from 
 the lake through the Fullerton Ave. conduit into the upper 
 waters of the North branch. 
 
 In 1880, after twenty-five years of struggling to get rid 
 of its sewage and prevent contamination of the water-supply, 
 Chicago was still looking for some means of purifying the 
 river from its filth and preventing a repetition of the great 
 epidemics of 1848 and 1854 which had led to the construc- 
 tion of the first system of sewers. 
 
 In 1889, a bill creating the Sanitary District of Chicago 
 with power to issue bonds to construct a system of drainage 
 passed the Legislature of Illinois. Work was prosecuted 
 vigorously and the canal was opened January 2nd, 1900. 
 Up to December 31, 1908, the Trustees had expended 
 $60,147,883 and, to date, the expenditure aggregates 
 $62,000,000. 
 
 The Sanitary Canal was opened "by turning into^t the 
 waters of the Chicago river. The admission of water was 
 unaccompanied by any formal ceremony and was, in fact, 
 conducted with a certain degree of secrecy, to avoid any in- 
 
Diversion of Water atlChicago 
 
 terference by the opponents to the work, who were supposed 
 to be ready to enjoin the Trustees from opening the canal." 
 
 Designed to carry 10,000 cubic feet per second, it was 
 found, after completion, that the western portion had a capa- 
 city of 14,000 c. f . s. The recent rapid growth of population 
 and of manufacturing plants in the southern portion of the 
 sanitary district and adjacent territory have resulted in pollu- 
 tion of the Calumet river that threatens to contaminate the 
 water-supply. To relieve this, the Trustees proposed to utilize 
 the extra 4,000 c. f . s. capacity of the canal by constructing a 
 canal from the Calumet river by the, so-called. Sag valley to 
 the Drainage canal near Lemont. The construction of this 
 canal, however, was forbidden by the Secretary of War. 
 The Trustees refused to recognize the authority of the 
 Federal Government and have appealed to the United 
 States courts. 
 
 When the Drainage canal was opened in 1900, it was 
 found that the proposed amount of water could not be 
 carried without danger to navigation owing to the rapid 
 current. As the three tunnels that carry Washington, 
 La Salle and Van Buren streets under the river prevented 
 deepening the river by dredging at these points, Col. O. E. 
 Ernst, U. S. Engineers, recommended that the tunnels be 
 lowered to give a depth of 26 feet in the river. These works 
 have recently been completed and the Trustees thereupon 
 applied for permission to increase the amount of water 
 discharged through the canal. 
 
 In this very brief review it has not been possible to do 
 more than sketch the principal occurrences that have led up 
 to the present proceedings, but it demonstrates that Chicago 
 has been obsessed with the 'dilution' method of treating its 
 sewage. This is due to a number of causes : 
 
6 Commission of Conservation 
 
 (1) The popular idea that it was cheap, whereas it has 
 already cost 62 million dollars; 
 
 (2) That there was no other feasible method of hand- 
 ling it. Its advocates have insisted that it is the only way, 
 and have talked vaguely respecting the experimental sewage 
 treatment plant now in operation there, evidently desiring 
 to disseminate an impression that it is only by extensive 
 experimentation that a feasible method of treating Chicago's 
 sewage can be discovered. To this, it is a sufficient reply 
 that thousands of engineers have experimented in the treat- 
 ment of sewage; that there are methods of treatment in use 
 in the great cities of the civilized world that have achieved 
 all the results that Chicago or any other city finds necessary, 
 and that Chicago's sewage does not differ from that of any 
 other great centre of population, except that most cities 
 forbid the discharge of foul manufacturing wastes, prefer- 
 ring to place the burden of eliminating them upon those 
 who cause them instead of upon the whole population of 
 the municipality. 
 
 (3) Dilution of sewage has been practised by Chicago 
 for many years and has proved a failure. Great quantities 
 of sludge have been deposited in the Drainage Canal and 
 must be removed by dredging. 
 
 (4) Every cubic foot of water diverted at Chicago flows 
 down the Desplaines and Illinois rivers to the Mississippi 
 and is absolutely lost to the river St. Lawrence. 
 
 (5) When the Drainage Canal was opened, it was 
 estimated that the full effect of the diversion would not be 
 apparent in the Great lakes until 1905. From 1902 to 
 1909, however, were "high-water" years and shipping 
 interests were not injuriously affected. In 1910, a "low- 
 water" cycle commenced and, in 1911, the level of lakes 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 
 
 Huron and Michigan was from 18 to 28 inches below the 
 mean level of 1860-99. Four inches of this loss was 
 due to the Chicago canal. As Major Keller, U. S. 
 Engineers, states that "each inch of draught for the modem 
 lake freighter is the equivalent of from eighty to one hundred 
 tons of profitable cargo," each modem lake freighter lost 
 from 320 to 400 tons of profitable cargo on each trip in 1911. 
 
 (6) Respecting the loss on the St. Lawrence at, and 
 below, Montreal, Mr. Andrew Allan, Allan Steamship Co., 
 stated that, in October and November, 1911, the "Virginian" 
 and "Victorian," owing to the low water, carried in six 
 voyages only 8,340 tons, as compared with their capacity 
 of 15,599 tons at ordinary full draught. At least 1,650 
 tons was loss due to the Chicago diversion. Mr. Allan 
 also stated that, if their cargo-carrying capacity was to be 
 still further reduced it would mean that vessels of over 
 about 10,000 tons would not ascend the river to Montreal. 
 
 (7) Advocates of the Chicago Sanitary Canal have 
 urged that it will serve as part of a deep waterway from 
 lake Michigan to the gulf of Mexico. They are not deterred 
 by the fact that such navigation is uneconomic and could not 
 profitably be carried on by ocean-going vessels. The fact 
 that 42 miles of the Chicago canal have cost 62 million 
 dollars; that the total distance from Chicago to the Gulf 
 is 1,500 miles, and that canal construction in the Mississippi 
 would be vastly more expensive than in the Desplaines 
 river, are considerations that are completely lost sight of 
 or ignored. 
 
 (8) From a Canadian point of view, the "compen- 
 sation " works proposed* are absolutely inadmissible. Sub- 
 merged dams and similar works can, undoubtedly, be con- 
 
 •See infra, pp. 17 and 22. 
 
8 Commission of Conservation 
 
 structed. The object of such constructions would be, of 
 course, to raise the level of the lakes in the low- water season. 
 But, in the low-water season, when every gallon would be 
 needed in the St. Lawrence, siich works would retain the 
 Great lakes — and, therefore abstract from the St. Lawrence— 
 the very water so urgently needed in that river and thus aggra- 
 vate the situation to an intolerable degree. Compensation 
 works of this nature must be international and should not 
 be admitted by Canada. 
 
 As appendices, the following have been included: 
 
 Appendix A. Application of the Board of Trustees 
 of the Sanitary District of Chicago for a permit to divert 
 10,000 cubic feet per second. 
 
 Appendix B. Statement by Gen. Bixby, U. S. Engin- 
 eers, respecting effect of lowering the level of lake Erie. 
 
 Appendix C. Memorandum by Gen. Bixby respecting 
 the diversion of water by the Sanitary District. 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 
 
 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 
 
 Ottawa, Canada, March 25, 1912 
 
 Hon. Henry L. Stimson, 
 
 Secretary of War, 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honour to present herewith the views 
 of the Executive Committee of the Commission of Con- 
 servation, Canada, in regard to the appUcation of the Board 
 of Trustees of the Sanitary Distrist of Chicago now before 
 you. 
 
 This subject has been considered by the following 
 members of the Executive Committee: 
 
 Hon. W. C. Edwards, 
 Sir Edmund B. Osier, 
 Hon. H. S. Beland, 
 Dr. J. W. Robertson, 
 Dr. C. C. Jones, 
 Mr. J. F. Mackay. 
 
 The views therein expressed are the unanimous opinions 
 of the Committee. 
 
 The proceeding is understood to relate to the application 
 of the Board of Trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, 
 for a permit to increase the diversion of water through the 
 Chicago Sanitary Canal from 4,167 cubic feet per second 
 to 10,000 cubic feet per second. 
 
 (1) In support of the application it is urged that the 
 increased quantity of water is necessary to prevent the 
 sewage of the Chicago Sanitary District affecting the water 
 of the Desplaines and Illinois rivers to such an extent as 
 to be a menace to the health of the inhabitants of the terri- 
 
10 Commission of Conservation 
 
 tory traversed by these streams. The charter of the San- 
 itary District provides that a dilution of 333^ cubic feet 
 per second shall be provided for every 100,000 inhabitants 
 of the District, which is double the dilution that the British 
 Rivers Pollution Commission consider necessary. 
 
 During the trial of the suit of the State of Missouri 
 against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago much expert evidence was adduced to cast doubt 
 upon the efficacy of dilution by a running stream. Be this 
 as it may, it is unquestionable that the city of Chicago 
 cannot reasonably expect that, with the wonderful growth 
 of her population, she shall be allowed to make additional 
 diversions to conform to the requirements of the Drainage 
 Act, regardless of all the important interests affected thereby. 
 
 It is urged, therefore, that no additional diversion be 
 permitted, but that the city of Chicago be compelled to 
 purify its sewage to such an extent that, with the increase 
 of the population, the effluent will still comply with the best 
 standards of sewage dilution. If based on the standard 
 established by the charter of the Sanitary District, the 
 present permitted flow of 4,167 cubic feet per second would 
 meet the requirements of the law for a population of 
 1,389,000. It is obvious that, with a bacterial reduction of 
 one-half, this flow would suffice for a population of 2,778,000, 
 or about 600,000 more than the present population (2, 185,283) 
 and would, therefore, suffice till about 1918. A bacterial 
 reduction of two-thirds would suffice for 4,157,000 people 
 — the estimated population in 1941. 
 
 (2) To proposals that Chicago treat her sewage, it 
 has been objected that there "is no system of sewage puri- 
 fication now in practical use which can be relied upon to 
 turn sewage into drinking water." To this, it is a sufficient 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 1 1 
 
 reply to say that it is not proposed to transform "sewage into 
 drinking water." All that is urged is that the effluent be 
 partially treated and sterilized sufficiently to prevent the 
 bacterial content of the Illinois and Desplaines rivers rising 
 above the best sanitary standards. To the objection that 
 this does not comply with the strict wording of the Sanitary 
 District charter, it is a sufficient answer that it complies 
 with the spirit of it; that, lacking a permit from the Secre- 
 tary of War, it would not be possible to secure the increased 
 flow proportional to the increase of population; that the 
 result aimed at in inserting this clause in the charter had 
 been attained and that the clause must be interpreted in 
 the light of reason. 
 
 (3) Respecting manufacturing wastes, the Committee 
 on Engineering, on May 11, 1910, reported that manufac- 
 turers in the southern portion of the city and adjacent 
 territory are allowed, unchecked, to discharge through the 
 Calumet river into lake Michigan, industrial wastes, that 
 endanger the water-supply of Chicago. Nowhere, however, 
 is there any intimation that Chicago has taken, or intends 
 to take, any legal action to prevent the discharge of these 
 wastes, some of which are stated by the Committee to be 
 "highly favourable to the growth of bacteria" . 
 
 (4) Up to December 31, 1908, the Trustees of the 
 Sanitary District had expended $60,147,883 and, to date, 
 have expended about $62,000,000. Had they adopted 
 a channel of a more moderate size, they would have effected 
 a very considerable economy, and, had the money thus 
 saved been expended on sewage sterilization works, the 
 city of Chicago would not now be applying for a permit 
 for the diversion of an additional amount of water. 
 
 (5) It has been urged that the question at issue is: 
 
12 Commission of Conservation 
 
 which has the more just claim upon the waters of the 
 Great lakes, the Sanitary District of Chicago or the other 
 users of the water? So far as Chicago's water-supply is 
 concerned, if contaminated, it is polluted by the residents 
 of the city and vicinity, and it is incumbent upon these 
 residents to prevent this contamination and to purify their 
 water-supply by some system of filtration. 
 
 The great city of London, with a population of seven 
 and one-third millions, filters its water-supply and treats 
 its sewage, but Chicago urges that it is impossible for her 
 to do either. Her extravagance is put forward as an 
 excuse for a diversion that injuriously affects the water-line 
 on four thousand miles of shore — an action that injuriously 
 affects a multitude of interests in two nations, and that 
 injuriously affects the riparian rights in a vast territory. 
 
 (6) If imposing upon Chicago filtration of her water- 
 supply, and sterilization of her sewage, results in checking 
 or reducing the present extravagant use of water and, if it 
 results in preventing the present unchecked discharge of 
 wastes from stock yards, glucose factories, etc., refusing 
 her application for an increased diversion of water will 
 prove a blessing in disguise. 
 
 (7) Though a permit has only been granted for a 
 diversion of 4,167 cubic feet per second, the Special Board 
 of United States Engineer ;, of which Gen. W. H. Bixby 
 was Chairman, in its report to Congress, on February 9, 
 1911, stated that: 
 
 "The War Department while awaiting the definite 
 action of Congress, has, so far, permitted the diversion 
 of 4,167 second-feet and the Sanitary District is understood 
 to be using 7,000 second-feet." 
 
 Evidently, therefore, the Sanitary District is, without 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 13 
 
 any permit or authority whatsoever, diverting 3,000 second- 
 feet in excess of the authorized amount. 
 
 (8) In terms of comparison, the Sanitary District is, 
 at present, diverting from the St. Lawrence system an 
 amount equal to the extreme low water flow of the Ottawa 
 river at the city of Ottawa, where it carries the drainage of 
 34,600 square miles of territory. It is proposed to divert, 
 in a few years, one and one-half times this flow and the 
 Sanitary Canal has been constructed to carry an amount 
 equal to double the low water flow of this, the greatest tribu- 
 tary of the mighty St. Lawrence. 
 
 (9) Respecting the contention that the diversion will 
 be required for purposes of navigation, the United States 
 Special Board of Engineers has stated that "for purposes 
 of navigation a diversion from Lake Michigan of less than 
 1,000 second-feet of water is all that will be necessary"; 
 and, again, that "the claim that more than 1,000 cubic 
 feet per second is required for purposes of navigation 
 can not be maintained." 
 
 (10) Many estimates of the fall in levels of the Great 
 lakes caused by the diversion at Chicago, have been made. 
 The accompanying profiles show the levels of the Great 
 lakes from 1860 to 1911. 
 
 The loss of level due to the abstraction of 7,000 second- 
 feet is coloured blue* and the periods during the season of 
 navigation 1860-1911, when the water was below the mean 
 level for the forty-year period, 1860-99, have been coloured 
 in redt- This indicates diagramatically what is disclosed by 
 a study of the gauge readings, viz., that since 1890, less 
 water has flowed down the St. Lawrence to the sea than 
 
 *BIack in profile as printed. 
 fNot reproduced. 
 
14 
 
 Commission of Conservation 
 
 in the thirty years preceding that date. While part of this 
 deficiency is due to the clearing of the forests, draining of 
 swamps and other operations incident to the development 
 of the country, it is undeniable that a part of it is due to 
 the Chicago Drainage Canal. The net result is: that, while 
 navigation is handicapped by the unavoidable loss of margin 
 due to what may be called "development operations", the 
 situation is further aggravated by the decrease due to the 
 Chicago diversion. 
 
 The International Waterways Commission estimated 
 that the amounts by which the mean level of the Great lakes, 
 as derived by observations from 1860-1907, would be 
 lowered by the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second 
 are as follows: 
 
 Water Level IjOwered by Diversion at Chicago 
 
 
 7,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 14,000 
 
 
 cu. ft. 
 
 cu. ft. 
 
 cu. ft. 
 
 
 per sec. 
 
 per sec. 
 
 per sec. 
 
 
 inches 
 
 inches 
 
 inches 
 
 Lakes Huron-Michigan. . 
 
 4i 
 
 n 
 
 8i 
 
 Lake Erie 
 
 H 
 
 5* 
 
 7| 
 
 Lake Ontario 
 
 s 
 
 H 
 
 6 
 
 River St. Lawrence and Rapide 
 
 
 
 
 Plat 
 
 n 
 
 H 
 
 6| 
 
 It is to be noted, however, that these reductions are 
 calculated for mean water and would be increased at low 
 water, thus aggravating the injury to the interests of navi- 
 gation. Thus, during 1911, the stage of lakes Huron and 
 Michigan was between 579 and 580, at which stage the 
 levels were lowered 5J inches by the diversion of 7,000 
 cubic feet per second at Chicago. A diversion of 10,000 
 second-feet would have lowered them 7| inches, and 14,000 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 15 
 
 3econd-feet would have lowered them 10^ inches. As the 
 average annual range of these lakes is 1.21 feet, it is appar- 
 ent that even the present diversion is affecting their levels 
 to the extent of 35 per cent, of the annual range. It is 
 contended that such diversion is in contravention of Article 
 III of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which forbids 
 the construction of works that "materially" affect the level 
 of International Boundary waters. 
 
 (11) Respecting the contention that the changes in 
 level caused by the Drainage Canal diversion do not con- 
 cern shippers, and that, at most, the effects would be trifling, 
 the United States Board of Engineers in reporting on this 
 subject said: 
 
 "If one watched carefully the course pursued by ship- 
 pers, one would see that, as a rule, each vessel carries all 
 that it can take and get out of its port, or into that it intends 
 to reach, ^'essel owners and managers are very shrewd, 
 watchful men; they know what they can safely carry, 
 allowing for storms and short detentions arising from 
 passing causes; they average pretty well the practicable 
 
 depths, and carry all the channels will stand 
 
 Should it be certain that these average depths were reduced 
 three inches, or six inches, they must load accordingly — 
 and not only the large boats but also the small ones using 
 the small harbours that the large ones cannot go into — 
 all must lose the three or six inches as it may be; and not 
 for one or more trips, but for all trips and for all time; 
 a diminution of capacity is not a single tax but a continuous 
 one." 
 
 The Board estimate that a loss of draught of three 
 inches will decrease the cargo-capacity of a vessel of 20 feet 
 draught by three per cent., and of a vessel of 12 feet draught 
 
16 Commission oj Conservation 
 
 by four per cent. With a loss of draught of six inches, the 
 capacity would be reduced by six per cent, and eight per 
 cent., respectively. 
 
 The Government of Canada has, at enormous cost, 
 completed a waterway for vessels of 14 feet draught at low 
 water from Fort William to Montreal, and, for vessels of 
 SO feet draught, from Montreal to the sea. Every inch 
 abstracted from the available depth represents a loss of 
 cargo capacity and a loss of income which is aggravated 
 during low- water years like 1911. 
 
 In view of the foregoing, it cannot be seriously contended 
 that the effects of the diversion are of little importance. 
 
 (12) The engineers of the Sanitary District have never 
 concealed their intention to develop the full amount of water- 
 power possible and to utilize the full capacity of the Sanitary 
 Canal, viz., 14,000 second-feet. Mr. L. E. Cooley, late 
 Chief Engineer of the Sanitary District, has declared that 
 it was his "hope and intention" to excavate a channel with 
 a capacity of 16,667 cubic feet per second. 
 
 Mr. Cooley has also stated that: "It is estimated that 
 the flow of water that will eventually come from Lake 
 Michigan through the Chicago Drainage Canal, together 
 with the natural flow of the river, will produce 173,000 
 horse-power, and, with the revenue therefrom, the State 
 of Illinois proposes eventually to recoup itself for its expend- 
 itures and contribution to the deep waterway." 
 
 Every cubic foot of water abstracted at Chicago reduces 
 the water power that could be generated at Niagara Falls 
 and in the rapids of the St. Lawrence, thus injuring the 
 Provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the State of New York, 
 and owners of power on these rivers. In addition, the 
 development of power on the Desplaines and Illinois rivers 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 17 
 
 represents a great economic waste. Water used at Lock- 
 port, Illinois, under 34-feet head, has only from one-fifth 
 to one-seventh the efficiency obtainable at Niagara, to say 
 nothing of the other power sites on the St. Lawrence. The 
 electrical art is practically in its infancy and, with its develop- 
 ment, the value to the community of great water powers 
 will be enormously increased. No alienation of this valu- 
 able asset should be permitted. 
 
 The use of waters belonging essentially to International 
 Boundary waters, entirely diverted from their natural chan- 
 nels, for the purposes of water-power development, is a 
 use that can not justly be sanctioned. 
 
 (13) It has been proposed that the Chicago Drainage 
 District erect compensation works. While the treaty of 
 1909 provides for works of this character, nevertheless, it is 
 not the intent of the treaty to permit water diversions on 
 the plea that compensation works may, or will, be built. 
 Such works should only be a possible remedy to be applied 
 in extreme and absolutely unavoidable cases. Clearly, 
 neither the United States, nor Canada, could ever conserve 
 the integrity of the levels of the Great lakes by allowing to 
 be instituted, so to speak, a policy of "diversion and com- 
 pensation." Finally, no compensation works could com- 
 pensate Canada for the injury done to her interests in the 
 river St. Lawrence by the abstraction of water at Chicago. 
 
 (14) It is further contended that this diversion is in 
 contravention of international law. Thus, Oppenheim, in 
 his "International Law," I, 175, says: 
 
 "Just like independence, territorial supremacy does 
 not give a boundless liberty of action. Thus, by customary 
 International law a State is, in spite of its territorial suprem- 
 acy, not allowed to alter the natural conditions of its own 
 
18 Commission of Conservation 
 
 territory to the disadvantage of the natural conditions of 
 the territory of a neighbouring State — ^for instance, to stop 
 or to divert the flow of a river which runs from its own into 
 neighbouring territory." 
 
 (15) The Ashburton treaty, 1842, provides that certain 
 channels in the Detroit, St. Clair and St. Lawrence rivers 
 "shall be equally free and open to the ships, vessels and 
 boats of both parties." It is contended that any action 
 such as the Chicago diversion is in contravention of the 
 treaty inasmuch as it tends to destroy the navigable capacity 
 of these channels. 
 
 For the above reasons, the Executive of the Commission 
 of Conservation expresses the opinion that the application 
 is without even the semblance of necessity and desires to 
 place on record its unqualified opposition to the proposition 
 which is before you. 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 H. S. BifiiiAND, 
 
 For Chairman 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 19 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO 
 
 Chicago, February 5th, 1912 
 Sir,— On behalf of the Board of Trustees of The 
 Sanitary District of Chicago, I have the honour to apply 
 for enlargement of the terms of an instrument executed by 
 the Secretary of War, May 8, 1899, as modified by instru- 
 ments similarly executed on December 5, 1901, and June 30, 
 1910, respectively, in the following particulars and in view 
 of the facts hereinafter set forth, to-wit: 
 
 The flow of water from Lake Michigan through the 
 canal of The Sanitary District of Chicago is now limited by 
 the said instruments to 4,167 cubic feet per second. 
 
 The population of the Sanitary District, the sewage of 
 which is to be disposed of through the channels constructed 
 and to be constructed by the said District, exceeds 2,500,000 
 persons, and is rapidly increasing. The only method at 
 present available for disposing of the sewage of this popula- 
 tion is by diluting the same with water withdrawn from 
 Lake Michigan and flowing through the Chicago Drainage 
 Canal. The least amount of water necessary to render 
 sewage innocuous by the dilution method has been estimated 
 by well recognized sanitary experts as 1,000 feet per second 
 for every 300,000 inhabitants; so that the amount permitted 
 to be withdrawn by the instruments to which reference has 
 been made is much below the amount at present needed by 
 the District. 
 
 The Sanitary District has been for some time engaged in 
 investigating methods and devising plans for the treatment 
 of the sewage with a view to requiring less water for its safe 
 dilution in the future. The methods of other states and 
 
Commission of Conservation 
 
 countries for such treatment of sewage are not as yet entirely 
 satisfactory to all concerned, and any changes of methods 
 for large cities must necessarily require several years. 
 
 Until these experiments are concluded and proper works 
 installed, the use of additional water from Lake Michigan 
 is essential to the health of the large population of the city 
 of Chicago and of the Sanitary District and of those who live 
 adjacent to the Des Plaines and Illinois rivers, into which 
 such waters are discharged. 
 
 Subject therefore to such restrictions as to you may seem 
 proper for the protection of the public interest, and to such 
 a method of supervision as you may suggest to promote the 
 general welfare, and pending the completion of the investi- 
 gations now being conducted to render the use of increasing 
 quantities of water in the future unnecessary, I have the 
 honor to apply for permission for The Sanitary District of 
 Chicago to withdraw from Lake Michigan through the 
 Chicago river and Calumet river — not to exceed ten thousand 
 cubic feet of water per second ; such permission to be revoc- 
 able at any time by The Secretary of War, and subject to 
 such action as the Congress of the United States may see 
 fit to take in the premises. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 George M. Wisner, 
 
 Chief Engineer. 
 Hon. Henry L. Stimson, 
 
 Secretary of War, 
 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago SI 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 
 STATEMENT AS TO THE EFFECT ON LAKE ERIE COMMERCE OF 
 
 A PERMANENT LOWERING OF ONE INCH IN THE 
 
 WATER SURFACE OF LAKE ERIE 
 
 To accompany the hearing of Brigadier General Wilham 
 H. Bixby, Chief of Engineers, upon the Diversion of Water 
 from the Niagara River for power purposes, before the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. 
 
 In view of the general interest in the very important 
 question of the water levels of the Great Lakes, referred to 
 incidentally at the public hearings relative to the Niagara 
 Falls diversion, it is deemed pertinent to invite attention of 
 the Committee to the statement of Brigadier General William 
 L. Marshall, Chief of Engineers, in transmitting to the 
 Secretary of War, Major Keller's report of November 30, 
 1908. (Page 8, Senate Document 105, 62nd Congress, 
 first session), to the following effect: 
 
 "As each inch of draft for the modern lake freighter 
 is the equivalent of from eighty to one hundred tons of 
 profitable cargo, the aggregate loss per season for the 
 entire fleet using Lake Erie ports as terminals becomes a 
 very large amount." 
 
 Major Keller in his report (Page 15, Senate Document 
 105, 62nd Congress, first session) said: 
 
 "The earning capacity of each freighter will be 
 reduced to the extent of $75.00 to $100.00 per trip. 
 During an average season the loss for each vessel would 
 total $2,500.00 to $3,000.00." 
 
 The total commerce using Lake Erie ports may be 
 stated as approximately sixty-three million tons per annum 
 
22 Commission of Conservation 
 
 of which from thirty million to forty million tons is now 
 carried in vessels of ten thousand tons burden or over, 
 which may be affected in any lowering of the water surface. 
 Based upon the above figures and assuming that cargo is 
 available in quantity to permit the loading of each vessel, 
 on each trip, to the maximum draft permitted by the con- 
 trolling depths of Lake Erie ports, the total potential loss 
 to Lake Erie commerce due to a permanent lowering of 
 one inch in the water surface may be taken at from $250,000 
 to $350,000 per annum; and this potential figure will in- 
 crease with the anticipated natural increase in the number 
 and size of the larger vessels, and in the total commerce 
 of the lake. When the time comes that a matter of inches 
 becomes a question of immediate importance to Lake Erie 
 commerce, any lowering of that lake due to the Niagara 
 diversions (which affect only Lake Erie and Upper Niagara 
 River) can be readily controlled by proper regulation works 
 in Niagara River*; although such slight effect and ready 
 control will not be true of the Chicago diversion which is 
 several times greater in amount, and must affect all four 
 lower lakes and the St. Lawrence River, to a serious extent, 
 unless controlled at several places by regulation works of 
 great final cost in time and money. 
 
 (Extract, Report of Hearings before the Committee on 
 Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives on Pre- 
 servation of Niagara Falls). 
 
 *See supra, pp. 7-8. 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 23 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 
 war department 
 office of the chief of engineers 
 
 Washington, February 28, 1912. 
 Memorandum for The Secretary of Waii: 
 
 (As to the Sanitary District diversion of water from 
 Lake Michigan, through the Chicago River, Sanitary 
 District Canal, IHinois River to the Mississippi Valley.) 
 
 There are several special features of this Chicago Sani- 
 tary District diversion and Illinois River power and waterway 
 proposition which need special explanation to any one 
 studying the proposition. 
 
 For purposes of navigation alone by canal and canalized 
 river from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, on the 
 Illinois River and its headwaters and connecting canals and 
 to keep the locks and pools full, a diversion from Lake 
 Michigan of less than 1,000 second-feet of water will easily 
 supply any reasonable demands and is all that will be actu- 
 ally necessary; and any greater diversion is a greater injury 
 than benefit to navigation. The works of the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago originally constructed mainly for pur- 
 poses of sanitation, were designed to allow the diversion of 
 10,000 second-feet, which they now request, and they are 
 now found to be large enough for a total diversion of 14,000 
 second-feet, the additional 4,000 second-feet having been 
 requested by them and refused by the War Department a 
 few years ago (injunction suit still in progress), the extra 
 water to be taken from Lake Michigan through the Calumet 
 River and a connecting canal following the Sag route. The 
 
24 Commission of Conservation 
 
 amounts requested, while perhaps needed at the present 
 time, will not be necessary later, after the full installation 
 of the more modern improved methods of treating sewage. 
 The War Department, while awaiting the definite action 
 of Congress, has so far permitted the diversion of 4,167 
 second-feet. The Sanitary District, by its own recent state- 
 ments, is understood to be using about 7,000 second-feet. 
 While it appears to have been assumed at times that the 
 Sanitary District will be finally allowed by the United States 
 to divert 10,000 second-feet so long as actually necessary 
 for sanitary purposes, the diversion of the waters of the 
 Great Lakes from their natural outlet so far as desired 
 merely for aid for power development is of doubtful legality 
 by reason of the terms of the recent treaty between the 
 United States and Great Britain, which appears to require 
 the approval of such a diversion by the International Joint 
 Commission created pursuant to said treaty. The treaty 
 enables riparian owners of Canada, as well as of the United 
 States, who consider themselves injured by such diversion, 
 to bring suit in United States courts to protect their interests. 
 The treaty also, although recognizing as proper the use of 
 water necessary for sanitary purposes, provides for action, 
 if necessary, by the Commission after request from the 
 United States Congress or the Canadian Parliament, and 
 no other organization has power of final decision. It is the 
 opinion of the Engineer, Lakes to the Gulf Waterway Board 
 (January 23, 1911), that, in view of the rights and interests 
 of navigation, only such water should be diverted from Lake 
 Michigan as is indispensable for sanitation, and then only 
 with a provision for construction and maintenance of proper 
 compensating works in the outlets of the lakes to prevent a 
 lowering of their levels; and that although water thus 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 25 
 
 diverted may be used incidentally for power purposes, great 
 care must be exercised by the War Department, when 
 waiving the objections of navigation to the diversion of 
 water for sanitary purposes, to not extend such waiver 
 beyond the amount actually necessary for sanitation alone. 
 
 Diversion of water from Lake Michigan and the St. 
 Lawrence basin into the Illinois River and the Mississippi 
 River basin is seriously objectionable from many stand- 
 points, and should be permitted under the recent treaty with 
 Canada only to such extent as is necessary for sanitation of 
 the City of Chicago. The objections to such diversion of 
 water are briefly as follows: 
 
 (a) The levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, 
 for the last twenty years, and at the present moment, are 
 lower than their average of the last fifty years; and their 
 levels are now again falling. Every foot of draft in the 
 harbors of these lakes and in the connecting rivers — St. 
 Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit — ^is exceedingly valuable to 
 navigation; and every cubic foot per second of water flow 
 taken out of Lake Michigan in excess of its natural outflow 
 through Lake Huron and the St. Clair River is a permanent 
 loss to the waterflow of the St. Lawrence basin, and tends 
 to injure navigation over the entire waterway from Lake 
 Michigan to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. While compensat- 
 ing works at the outlets of Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, 
 Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario may be possible to an extent 
 sufficient to maintain the existing and past levels of these 
 lakes they will be very expensive and can not in any case 
 prevent loss to the St. Lawrence basin, of any water diverted 
 into the Mississippi basin; and any loss of water by such 
 diversion will make necessary further expensive contrac- 
 tion works or dams or dredging in St. Clair, Detroit, and 
 
Commission of Conservation 
 
 St. Lawrence Rivers in order to maintain channel depths. 
 Moreover the same loss of water will permanently injure 
 and diminish the water-power development capacity of the 
 Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers. 
 
 (b) Moreover, the dmnpage of sewage into rivers while 
 heretofore allowable, is becoming more objectionable every 
 year and is being prevented more and more every year by 
 enactments of State legislatures throughout the country. 
 Chicago, with reference to the Illinois River, is in much the 
 same situation as Worcester, Mass., with reference to the 
 Blackstone River. In days long past the sewage of Wor- 
 cester flowed into the Blackstone and was carried down 
 through the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island into 
 Narragansett Bay. The danger and damage to the people 
 and industries of the Blackstone River led to enactments of 
 laws by the Massachusetts Legislature forbidding further 
 sewage contamination of any of the State rivers, thus forcing 
 the inland cities of Massachusetts to the disposal of sewage 
 by modern improved methods based upon mechanical and 
 chemical treatment. As Chicago and the cities along the 
 Illinois River increase in population, it is to be expected 
 that the results of the sewage contamination of the river, 
 and the legislative action of Massachusetts will be practi- 
 cally duplicated in Illinois where the remedy will be possible 
 at a lower cost per head of population; after which the 
 diversion of large quantities of Lake Michigan water into 
 Illinois River, being then no longer necessary for the sanita- 
 tion of Chicago, and neither now nor then for navigation* 
 
 ♦Even on the supposition that the waterway from Lake Michigan to the 
 Mississippi River should at some future time provide for the passage of boats 
 of over 20 feet draft or any other greatest draft useful in the Great Lakes, such 
 a navigation can be maintained with a diversion of Lake Michigan water less than 
 one-fifth of that at present in progress and less thsiti one-fourteenth of that desired 
 at present by the State authorities. 
 
Diversion of Water at Chicago 27 
 
 between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River, and 
 being already of detriment and serious danger to the import- 
 ant interests of navigation of the Great Lakes system, will 
 no longer have any reason for continuance except for local 
 benefit inside the State of Illinois. 
 
 (c) Looked at from the point of view of conservation 
 of water power, every cubic foot of water diverted from Lake 
 Michigan into the Illinois River is an economic loss to the 
 United States as a whole, as well as to Canada, because the 
 local conditions as regard river slope and fall are such that 
 this water, if sent through the Niagara and St. Lawrence 
 Rivers to the Atlantic can develop twice as much power in 
 the State of New York and, at the same time, twice as 
 much power in the Dominion of Canada as it can develop in 
 Illinois if sent through the Illinois and Mississippi rivers 
 to the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 From the above it is evident that it is of the greatest 
 importance to the United States that the diversion of water 
 from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River should be 
 limited to merely such amount as is actually indispensable 
 to sanitation; and that the United States should reserve to 
 itself the right to redetermine such amount every few years 
 as local conditions change. 
 
 W. H. BlXBY, 
 
 Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. 
 
1876 
 
 1893 
 
 a >• o > 
 
 < 3 w 
 b. X < f: 
 
! 
 
 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 
 
 1902 1903 1904 
 
 1905 1 1906 1 
 
 907 I9&6 1909 
 
 910 1911 ELEV 
 
 fi >• c v m >■ o ^ n >^ <!i > a ^^ 'i > n >: p: ja. >i o > 
 
 lil^30u<30til<POw<SOU<30U<SO 
 
 ittir 
 
 « ;h 
 u, 6 p 
 
 1^ s <; 
 
 § 
 » 
 
 H < 
 
 O > p > 
 p O « •" 
 
 < >^ b, ; 
 
 ■ >• n 
 
 S P M 
 
 i t. x i^ 
 
 <P0W<S0U<S30Iil 
 
 ^ ii ^ a ^ 6 if ABOVE 
 
 . X. j....±.... jjEYjEL 
 
 ' [jif -i-ltttt] IN FT 
 
 :x|xx|x:::::::: 6t)4jO 
 
 1 «■! 
 
 xxxixxxx ::-:xxxixxxxxxx|x?:| xxxxjxxxiXrx 
 
 1 1 
 ;--;:;;;;;-;;;;x;:,;:^;;xx"l;;;;:;:;;;;;;;:x-;;;x;:;:: 
 
 xxxxxx xxxxx xx«'xxx x^xxxx xxx xx: xxxxxx: 
 
 ■■■- — ■!? — ::::: = ?::!!■ = =:!: !i! ^!!:! !!!! ^^ ! ^ !;: : !!! ^ !: = ! ^ :: = ===="": ■ 
 
 mmMm 
 
 Milii 
 1 1 ll 1 
 
 _ X! r -1 ' i+r -1 
 
 .......... ^'^ - - - - -"^ - - - - 
 
 xxx:i 
 
 ;,- - 
 
 xl 
 
 Li 
 
 ^ .. . .. 
 
 : 
 
 - " 
 
 (xxjxx 
 
 " m 
 
 ^•■ 
 
 '■lll 1 
 
 ; 1- -X- 
 
 ■iiiElljfe:: 
 
 L| 1. 1 
 
 IIIII II lllj] 
 
 :;;::;::!::;i:::::!;;i;:!;!::::;p; 
 
 ... ,. 
 
 1 ' [11 Ifll 1 llt'l 
 
 ..2^. Ijl 
 
 ixxiixixxlxxxxxxixxi 
 
 t — , 
 
 - . s» ! . .. ,- , 
 
 -■""xxxiiixi;:: eos.o 
 
 :xxxx 
 
 -x-i;-|;xxtx?; 802.0 
 
 -?5x:rx:±x,xx: 
 
 liPxixxxixx: 601.0 
 _yjjl^|^||||||^ 
 
 irmmh j^ 600.0 
 
 .[^^i^:|:|:j:ji|^:[M^ 
 i:|x4x|:ixx: 582.0 
 
 xxxxxxxxixxxxxxx-xxxxi'iixxxxxxxxxp^xx 
 
 :^j;r^^r-^:|!-f^-^|-^;;-xx:-^^x|i;^ 
 
 .,,i ZL . -- 
 
 I- g: + ±^-- i - ' 
 
 tt HiTrnn 
 
 WmSmm 
 
 Bliti 
 
 ;;:xx::xx?xxxxx 
 
 ........ 
 
 _• 
 
 :: = !-( = 
 
 :c: 
 
 ...J. 
 
 / 
 !i'x: 
 
 x;t;;;;:i 
 
 xxsx-x 
 
 . - 1 . . , 
 
 xx::xx! 
 
 xxxiij: 
 
 ^;;x; |x 
 
 Ill 
 
 :i;"::::;:::;"::::":';ip:l 
 
 iijxxixSxix:! 581.0 
 
 ;|t:;:Bx:x;:;; 583.0 
 
 X :pxT::^:i::::: 582.0 
 j:-"±TH:inx 
 
 III 11 IWHIlliW 
 11 lliMiilMl 
 
 siXxxxxx: I 
 
 :=::^^::::::^^ r^^^Sxx! xx-^xxi! ! ! !' xxx:?x; xx; xxxxxi: 
 
 ;xxix!;;x;x:xx| 
 
 xi^^xxlsxxlxixxf 
 ^5,^xxx;'; = 'xxx:x 
 
 m 
 
 — ,- •- - 
 
 |:/xx: 
 
 - L - 
 
 ■J 
 
 - - -■] 
 
 : XX : 
 
 . ., — . . . 
 
 — i . . . . t 
 
 2 — - 
 
 :Sxx x: 
 
 iiilX- 
 
 ::ii!::i--!' 
 
 m 
 
 ■■I 
 III 
 
 xj::x||xx:|x 581.0 
 
 ixxxxJxxxxix 579.0 
 
 i;xxxxx|xxx 574.0 
 
 ijSxxxxxxxx 573.0 
 
 liilii 
 
 ■1 
 
 1 1- ■ 
 
 ;;;;:i'^:;;x;;;X; 
 
 m 
 
 ;;Nx;xi 
 
 ■ : 
 
 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 f< 
 
 XSX XX 
 
 x: : XX 
 
 ■ 4- ■ JtH-lfl 
 
 iiiiiii::: 
 
 TrrnTnffl 
 
 ■■I 
 
 II 1 
 
 !xx!|.:xj!jx: 572.0 
 
 ;xx|x'x;x|x:: 571.0 
 
 xxS xxxxx 570.0 
 
 xxxx:|:x::p 248.0 
 
 -"-TfrH- ---t--XX .. . 
 
 xx|:ffixxxxx 247.0 
 
 
 .... 
 
 -1 — 
 
 iilil 
 
 : 1 : : X X X X . ! 1 -f - ■ 
 
 ::::xx xxxxxxx :xxxxxxx:x: 
 
 ::::::xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:;xx:x: 
 
 1 
 
 i::x:xxx:xx: 
 
 .... 
 
 
 u- - . 
 
 liinjiiiii 
 
 
 xxxx||!xx:|:j 245.0 
 
 xx:^ffixx:|: 244jO 
 xxxx:±x:t±|: 243.0 
 
 So/id blacky 1903 -II shows loss of le^^el due 
 toihl 7000 cf «. abstracted at Chicago.