International Joint Commission, established under the treaty, are still uncertain of their powers, but I think when they get into the matter their powers will develop.

Now, in order that I may have something to talk on, from a viewpoint of the bills that are before this committee, I have certain suggestions to make in regard to the wording of the preamble of both bills. First, in the bill (H. R. 7694) introduced by Mr. Simmons, why not strike out "fifth article of the " and leave it, " to give effect to the treaty," and not confine it to a simple interpretation of one article? That article is limited.

Now, in line 3 of the Simmons bill I would insert, after the word "from," the words "Lake Erie in Erie County, New York, or.'

It was asked me by Chairman Tawney the other day whether this water taken from the head of the river could be construed as water taken from the river under this treaty. I interpreted it this way. Right at the head of the river there enter into the river an average of 220,000 cubic feet per second. If we take part of that away, it is taking water from Niagara River, although technically it might be at the head of the river. Now, from the sanitary point of view, right there, half of the 6,000 feet ought not to go into Niagara River or Lake Erie. A year ago the marine hospital sent Dr. McLaughlin to make an examination. Dr. McLaughlin has been called before your committee, and he may explain his report. It says that 160,000,000 gallons of water a day flow back into the river, polluted, from Buffalo alone.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say that Dr. McLaughlin was here, but he could not wait, so he will come before the committee next Tuesday. Mr. BOWEN. Let me point out some of the principal points, then, and he will go into the details. That 160,000,000 feet ought never to go back into the river polluted. That does not include stream waters that are polluted, so that polluted stream waters, together with other polluted waters that flow back to Niagara River can be said to be more than 3,000 cubic feet per second.

The CHAIRMAN. To give this authority to the International Boundary Commission we would have to put in a new bill.

Mr. BOWEN. I think that they would accept your putting into this bill "the use of 1,600 feet for sanitary purposes." That is the provision of article 4. The commission say that it only needs some action on the part of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you desire to have that in the pending bill? Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir; so that the sanitary feature of this bill can be passed upon by the international commission. Now, then, all that we are asking for, practically, is 3,000 cubic feet to dilute the sewage of the frontier, in addition to the 3,000 cubic feet that ought never to enter the lake and river in a polluted condition.

The CHAIRMAN. How far would that extend west? You say that it would be sufficient to prevent the pollution of the waters between Canada and the United States?

Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir. The east end of Lake Erie and Niagara River. This report shows that the sewage of Cleveland, Erie, and even of Dunkirk, is taken care of in the waters of Lake Erie, so that the dangers are very remote at Buffalo, as Dr. McLaughlin says. Therefore, taking all the streams south of Lackawanna, and even

Hamburg, turning back all the streams at and near Buffalo into this canal is very comprehensive.

I have given instructions to the engineers that they shall construct the sanitary canal and make it comprehensive (as Jim Hill said), so comprehensive that engineers 50 years hence will not be able to greatly improve it.

Mr. LEGARE. Mr. Bowen, it seems to me you are wrong in your proposition to use more than is allowed in the treaty. For instance, at the foot of clause 5 you are unquestionably given the right to use this water for use of canals and domestic uses, or for the purposes of navigation. Now, under that you could use your 1,600 in addition to the 56,000.

Mr. BOWEN. What we ask for is 4,400 cubic feet per second for power and 1,600 cubic feet per second additional, under the last clause of Article V of the treaty for sanitation and navigation.

Mr. LAGARE. That is why I don't think your scheme is practical. Under that clause you have the right to use that in addition to 56,000, but you go further and say you want to use it for water-power purposes. You say that your scheme also includes power purposes. Now, article 8, that you mentioned here, seems to me to confine itself clearly to the 56,000 feet mentioned in the treaty. It says "these waters" only. It says "these waters," meaning these waters that are mentioned back here.

Mr. BowEN. If you take that viewpoint, then we are entitled to the diversion we ask for, on the grounds that we use it for conservation of both health and power. The Government is pledged to stop pollution of international waters.

Mr. LEGARE. But you are asking for 6,000.

Mr. BowEN. We are asking for the whole diversion for both conservation of health and power.

Mr. GARNER. The only difference between Mr. Legare and Mr. Bowen seems to be the difference between 6,000 feet and the 4,400 feet.

Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir. The Hydraulic Co., with 6,500 cubic feet, and the Niagara Falls Power Co., with 8,600 cubic feet at the falls, are generating less power than we will generate with 6,000 feet.

Mr. GARNER. But could you utilize this-unless you had enough to make a business of it

Mr. BOWEN. We need the full 6,000 cubic feet to make a commercial success. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bowen, how long do you think it will take you to conclude?

Mr. BOWEN. I have some information in regard to electrical contracts that you have sought for and also some suggestions as to what action has been taken before in similar applications.

The CHAIRMAN. We will go on until 5 o'clock.

Mr. BowEN. In addition to the change in the title of the bill (Mr. Bowen refers to the Simmons bill), I have a correction where it says "above the Falls of Niagara within the State of New York for power purposes." Now, my suggestion is to change that to read: "For all purposes mentioned in the treaty." Furthermore, in line 8 of the Simmons bill, after the words "such diversions," I would suggest inserting these words: "And who shall conserve the usefulness of the water to its fullest extent." Now, furthermore, to cover

the point of the additional 1,600 feet, after the word "nine" in line 12, insert "to wit: Twenty thousand cubic feet per second for power and one thousand six hundred cubic feet per second for sanitation and navigation," covering the point that I have explained. Then, on page 2 of the Simmons bill, lines 3 and 4, strike out commissioners on the part of the United States in the," leaving it to read: "That no such permit shall be granted allowing diversions of water exceeding in the aggregate fifteen thousand six hundred cubic feet per second without the consent of the State of New York and of the international joint commission provided for by said treaty;" and adding at that point, in line 5: "And all further diversions shall be governed by the rules of precedence and preference made in the treaty, and shall be limited to such amounts as shall not injure or interfere with the navigable capacity of Niagara River, or its integrity and proper volume as a boundary stream, or the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls," leaving it in the discretion of the Secretary of War to decide whether any application shall come within the terms of the treaty. I think, with those corrections, there is no objection to the Simmons bill, and almost the same corrections could be inserted in the Smith bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made the corrections in both bills? Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir. I started to refer to a part of the case as presented in a case before the Rivers and Harbors Committee on the Alexander bill on January 6, 1911. There we showed our case very completely in its essential points. To further illustrate the points, I have here a signed statement issued by Mr. Isham Randolph, of Chicago, stating the reasons why the grants should be made to the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co.:

Reasons why Congress and the International Joint Commission should grant to the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. the right to divert from Lake Erie and use 6,000 cubic feet of water per second.

In presenting an argument to Congress and the International Joint Commission on behalf of the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal, the following points should be brought out:

First. Buffalo is discharging its sewage in a raw state into the Niagara River and the waters of said river are thereby polluted and rendered unfit for potable use.

This river is the natural source of supply for cities and villages on both sides of its channel, and the inhabitants of said cities and villages have learned by sickness and death, which medical science has truly traced to the water supply, that the water of Niagara River was unwholesome and laden with pathogenic germs.

To secure relief from this deplorable condition, resort has been made to artificial means of purifying the water taken from the river for potable use, with results not always satisfactory, but always expensive. This condition will continue to affect the inhabitants of the Niagara frontier just as long as the unpurified sewage of Buffalo flows into the river. An adequate purification system for the city of Buffalo means an initial expenditure of many millions of dollars and an annual outlay for operation and upkeep which would represent the interest on many millions more. The alternative to sewage purification would be to abandon the Niagara River as an open sewer and the discharge of the sewage into some channel or channels which would carry it off. This proposition is practicable, but its cost would be very great, probably as great as the creation, operation, and upkeep of an adequate purification plant.

Here arises the opportunity for private enterprise to do for the city what it hesitates to do for itself. Seeing this opportunity the projectors of the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal have formulated a project and offered it as a means of diverting the sewage of Buffalo from the Niagara River.

Briefly stated, this project contemplates reversing the flow of the Buffalo River and Smokes Creek through a tunnel several miles in length. The flow into which from the south is through an open channel, and away from which on the north is through an open channel, which finally discharges into the gorge of Eighteen Mile Creek. As an auxiliary to the construction described, it is proposed to use that part of the Erie Canal along the water front of Buffalo and extending north to the adopted project for the barge canal.

This costly project is not offered as a free gift; there are but few philanthropists in the world who can make such a kingly donation to humanity; the projectors believe that they can be compensated for their outlay by a gift which will cost their beneficiaries nothing. That gift is a right in perpetuity to abstract from Lake Erie to feed the channels which they will provide 6,000 cubic feet of water per second. This water in passing from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario will drop 326.42 feet; taking the mean level of Erie from 1860 to 1906 as 572.60 above sea level, and the mean level of Ontario for the same period as 246.18 (see General Chart of Northern and Northwestern Lakes, issued by the War Department, Jan. 6, 1908, Catalogue A). If we assume 14.42 feet as the loss of head due to slope and other causes, there remains a power-producing drop of 312 feet; at an efficiency of 80 per cent, 1 cubic foot dropping 11 feet will produce 1 horsepower; therefore, if we divide 312 by 11 and multiply by 6,000 cubic feet per second, the result will be 170,160 net electrical horsepower. Now in the conservation of a natural resource that use is best which yields the greatest amount of service and consequent benefit to the human race. This condition will be reached in the highest possible degree of attainment in carrying out the project put forward by the originators and developers of the plans for the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal.

This statement is borne out first by the fact that by means of this project the sewage of Buffalo will be kept out of the Niagara River, leaving that stream an unpolluted and healthful source of supply for the towns and villages along its banks, both on the American and on the Canadian sides-a result which will be recognized as of primary and vital importance; secondly, in no other way can the volume of water which it is proposed to extract from Lake Erie be made as useful commercially or caused to produce so high a revenue. The amount of that revenue, it must be remembered, is not to be measured by the net electrical power indicated at the switchboard, for it is well known that electrical companies are enabled to sell from 25 to 50 per cent more power than they are theoretically producing, by reason of the fact that all patrons are not synchronous users of power.

Under Article V of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to boundary waters between the United States and Canada, proclaimed May 13, 1910, the United States "may" authorize and permit the diversion within the State of New York of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second. "The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for purposes of navigation." Under the operations of the Burton bill, the taking of water from the Niagara River on the American side has been limited to 16,600 cubic feet per second, so that there is a margin of 4,400 cubic feet per second which may become available for water-power purposes. For this surplus water there are rival applicants; two of these are companies now in successful operation; one of these companies is the Niagara Falls Power Co., operating under a head of 136 feet, or only 41.66 per cent of the total difference in level between Lakes Erie and Ontario; the other is the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co., operating under a head of 210 feet, or 64.33 per cent of the total difference in level between Lakes Erie and Ontario.

The Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. proposes to operate under a head of 312 feet, or 95.58 per cent of the total difference in level between Lakes Erie and Ontario.

As a further comparison of the useful work at each of the power sites named, it may be stated that one cubic foot of water used by the respective companies on an efficiency basis of 80 per cent gives:

For the Niagara Falls Power Co...

For the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co..

For the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co..........

Horsepower,

15. 4 23.86

35.45

The Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal development shows an efficiency 311 per cent higher than the most efficient of the other two companies in this material phase of power produced, and as a conservator of life and health it stands 100 per cent above any competitor.

Objections to abstracting water from Lake Erie and from Niagara River.

The valid objection to abstracting water from Lake Erie lies in its diminishing slightly the depth of navigable water and thus harmfully affecting lake commerce. This objection can be met in one or other of several ways. A dam such as was recommended by the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Seaboard (see p. 293, H. Doc. No. 149, 56th Cong., 2d sess.) would meet all objections raised by navigators on the score of reduced depth. This method is opposed by the American section of the International Waterways Commission, because of the increased danger of flood damage to Buffalo, "and for the postponement of the date of opening navigation in the spring" (see pp. 7 and 8. Sixth Progress Report of the International Waterways Commission, Nov. 1, 1910).

The construction of the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal would care for the flood conditions which inspired the apprehension of the commission, by affording outlet for the high waters; the commission however believes that regulating works can be constructed which will accomplish the purposes for which the dam (which they condemn) was designed. (See p. 8 of the report of Nov. 1, 1910,

published as H. Doc. No. 779, 61st Cong.)

An alternative treatment which will secure the regulation of depth in Lake Erie is that suggested by Mr. J. Edward Thebaud and illustrated on page 619 of House Document No. 26688, Sixty-first Congress, second session.

As an engineering problem there is and can be no doubt of a successful solution which will bring about the regulation of Lake Erie for an expenditure which will be within reasonable limits.

We now pass on to the Niagara River. The abstraction of water from the Niagara River diminishes the volume of flow over the American and Canadian Falls and tends to lessen the grandeur and beauty of that wonderful work of the Great Creator. The consensus of opinion of the members evidenced by the report of the International Waterways Commission is that the flow over the Falls may be reduced approximately 66,000 cubic feet per second without materially detracting from the beauty and sublimity of the spectacle.

In our judgment it is within the scope of engineering accomplishment to construct such diffusion works above the Horseshoe Falls as will increase the beauty of the Falls and admit of a still greater diversion of the water for commercial uses. The contour of the Falls changes steadily. The escarpment is being worn away year by year to an extent which attracts the attention of any close observer who has the privilege of seeing the Falls constantly or even at long intervals.

The Horseshoe Falls has lost the form which gave it that familiar designation, and it is gradually assuming a V shape. At the apex of this V the water is of great depth and its destructive force is gigantic. The approach to the apex of the V is through a deep channel, and the way to arrest the rapid erosion which is going on is to choke this deep channel or thalweg, until the waters are forced to flow in greater depth over the entire rim of the Falls.

The writer has developed a project for doing what he here suggests. He explained it to President Taft in 1909 and received his approval as a layman, not as an engineer. In February of the present year Mr. Taft gave the writer a letter of introduction to Mr. Fielding, minister of finance, Dominion of Canada. bringing the writer's proposition to his attention. This letter was presented to Mr. Fielding in Ottawa on February 13 last. Mr. Fielding introduced the writer to Dr. Pugsley, minister of public works of the Dominion, and to him and to his engineering advisers, Mr. Louis Coste and Mr. A. St. Laurent, he explained the methods of creating diffusion works which would tend to arrest the rapid recession of the three Horseshoe Falls, and diffuse the volume of water evenly over the crest of the Falls and add greatly to the beauty of the cataract and permit a more liberal use of the water for commercial purposes. The creation of this diffusion work must be accomplished under a treaty between the United States and Canada, and it should be created as an international work.

ISHAM RANDOLPH.

CHICAGO, August 2, 1911.