711.4216 M 58/68
The British Chargé (Chilton) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 17.]
Sir: At the request of the Governor General of Canada I have the honour to inform you that the Government of Canada has carefully [Page 566] considered your note of June the 15th last on the subject of the interpretation of the permit granted by the United States Secretary of War on the 3rd of March, 1925, for the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago.
The Government of Canada is constrained to point out that despite repeated protests against the diversion of water from Lake Michigan, the above-mentioned permit of March 3rd, 1925, authorizes a diversion in amount over twice that stipulated in any previous permits.
In this connection I have the honour to state that the Canadian Government also views with apprehension the interpretation which has been placed upon the permit in your note under reference. As set forth in the note which I had the honour to address to you on this subject on May the 7th last, the Government of Canada believed that the present permit, as in the case of previous permits, would limit the amount of the total diversion and be applicable to all waters passing Lockport. The interpretation of the permit of the 3rd March, 1925, as contained in your note under reference, would indicate, however, that the point of measurement is changed from Lockport to the intake works of the Sanitary District and through such change the permit recognizes an actual diversion much in excess of the stipulated amount of 8,500 second feet set forth in the permit. In other words, it is clearly stated that the permit does not embrace water diverted by the City of Chicago’s pumping stations which at the present rate of pumping amounts to some 1200 second feet thereby increasing the authorized diversion from 8,500 second feet to 9,700 second feet.
In addition, it would appear that if measurement be made at the intake from Lake Michigan the result would be to exclude from the operations of the permit the intercepted flow of the Chicago and Little Calumet Rivers, which varies in amount but is equal, it is understood, to an annual average of about 1300 second feet. In these circumstances it would appear that the effect of the permit of the 3rd March would not merely authorize an average annual diversion of 9,700 second feet as above noted, but would recognize and permit of a total diversion passing Lockport of 11,000 second feet.
While it is understood from your note of June the 15th that the Government of the United States anticipates that at the expiry of a five year period the annual diversion may be reduced between 1,750 and 3,000 second feet, this is far from reassuring since even if the larger suggested reduction becomes effective, the diversion at the beginning of 1930 will still be almost double that authorized by the Secretary of War of the United States when action for an injunction against the Sanitary District of Chicago was commenced in 1908.
[Page 567]Furthermore, the Government of Canada would point out that works dependent on the levels and flow of the Great Lakes System cannot be confidently projected or economically carried out if diversions from the watershed are permitted without mutual assent thereto. Moreover, in this connection the continued and increasing impairment of the natural levels and discharge of the Great Lakes System, due to the diversion from Lake Michigan, raises the question as to the extent to which the Canadian Government would be warranted in giving consideration to any further improvements therein until there is an assurance of definite curtailment of such diversion.
In connection with this matter the attention of the Canadian Government has been called to a permit dated the 30th April, 1925, from the United States Acting Secretary of War, authorizing the Sanitary District of Chicago to carry out certain dredging work in the Calumet river system, which it is understood will involve an expenditure of $1,500,000 and enable the Calumet-Sag Channel to bypass 2000 second feet into the main drainage canal. If the report of this large expenditure is correct, it would appear to indicate that the Sanitary District is proceeding in expectation of continued diversion.
The Canadian Government is therefore compelled to conclude that despite repeated protests no immediate or definite reduction has been provided and, furthermore, that if the above interpretation of the permit of 3rd March, 1925, is confirmed, the effect will actually be to authorize a greater diversion than is now being made.
I accordingly have the honour to request that you will be so good as to communicate the above consideration to the competent authorities of the United States Government and to enquire whether it is not their intention to take measures to ensure immediate as well as more definite and more substantial future curtailment in the amount of water which is being diverted with such serious results from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence System.
I have [etc.]