magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings can not be extended even in part to lands or structures as to which the States have not given their consent and which are not used for the purposes that are enumerated in the Constitution.

In opposition to the arguments outlined above it has been said that an individual who leases land can bind his tenant to submit to the lessor's regulation of rates so long as there is no conflict with State law and authority, and that similarly the Federal Government in leasing public lands, or as a condition to its consent for structures in navigable rivers, can bind the grantee to abide by its regulation of rates, service, and issuance of securities until such time as the State undertakes regulation, and that in doing this the Federal Government would be exercising only proprietary rights. That the Federal Government should do this, it is asserted from this point of view, is necessary as a matter of policy, since it should insist that its grantees of rights connected with water powers should at all times be subject to regulation in the respects which are in question. At any time regulation by the Federal Government became objectionable to a State it could be ended through the State itself undertaking regulation.

It is also urged that as many developments will supply electric energy only to a particular industry, like a pulp mill or a nitrate works, and will not offer to serve the public generally, they will not at any time be subject to State regulation of public utilities and will be unregulated unless they are by contract made subject to Federal regulation.

VIII. The report takes the ground that there should be no preference among applicants which amounts to the granting at the expense of the Federal Government of a subsidy creating unequal competition in the same market. With reference to this recommendation it may be argued that, with the principle granted that the terms of no grant should be such as to give unfair advantage as against other grantees offering power in the same market, the law should not tend to place the first grantee in a particular territory in such a position that other sites from which power might be offered in the same market could not be developed, or give it any advantage other than the benefit derived from its own energy and ability in developing and serving the market.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, it has been understood by unanimous consent that we will have another day for a hearing, that can not now be determined, for the purpose of hearing Mr. Bowen, Sir Adam Beck, and two or three Members of Congress; after which the only other persons to be heard are the two Secretaries that have not been heard; also Mr. Bulkley and Mr. Merrill. Now is that the understanding of the committee? Is there any objection to that being the general order of business?

(There was no objection.)

Mr. Escн. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee to the resolution which created this special water-power committee. It specifically exempts boundary waters from our jurisdiction.

(Whereupon, at 5.50 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman.)

COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, April 4, 1918.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Thetus W. Sims (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr. Bowen. you may proceed.

Mr. Escu. Before Mr. Bowen proceeds I would like to have made part of the record a letter which was addressed to me by Mr. Pierce,

giving in substance a portion of a letter written to him by Hon. John H. Roemer, of Chicago, formerly chairman of our State railroad commission, with reference to water development in our State under the Wisconsin law.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be made part of the record.

The letter referred to follows:

Hon. JOHN J. ESCH,

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 2, 1918.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. ESCH: During the recent hearings upon the water-power bill, before the House committee, you will remember that you asked me if I was familiar with the Wisconsin water-power law, and that I replied that I was not. I quote from a letter just received from Hon. John H. Roemer, of Chicago, who was formerly chairman of the Wisconsin Public-Service Commission, and to whom I wrote for information relating to the above-named subject:

"The 30-year permit issued by the State of Wisconsin to the WisconsinMinnesota Light & Power Co., giving permission to construct a power develop ment in the Chippewa River was merely incidental to other large developments which had been made by the company. Before making this development, the company, entered into a contract with the Northern States Power Co., by which the latter company will take practically all the current produced at this development. I do not believe that that project, although incidental to the other developments of the company, could have been financed except for the contract made with the Northern States Power Co. Before making any development, the contract was made with the Northern States Power Co., and that contract was the means of financing this particular development. I am inclosing the Wisconsin law and also the decision of the commission granting the Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co., the franchise in question. You will observe on bottom of page 5 and on page 6 the provision of the Wisconsin law relating to recapture. Under the Wisconsin law, as you will see by the decision of the commission, the company not only gets the reproduction value of its physical property, but also intangible values, etc., when the State or municipality attempts to acquire the property after 30 years."

My reading of the copy of the Wisconsin water-power law sent me by Mr. Roemer would indicate that Wisconsin issues 30-year permits for power development, indeterminate after that period and with the privilege to the State to acquire the property after 30 years by paying just compensation therefor; i. e., if the State or municipality takes over the property, they pay not only the reproduction value, but in addition thereto the going value of the dam site, flowage rights and all other property.

I thought that you might perhaps desire to have the information contained in this letter incorporated in the hearings.

Yours, very respectfully.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Bowen.

H. J. PIERCE.

STATEMENT OF MR. MILLARD F. BOWEN, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BOWEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is one point that seems to be of tremendous importance, that has scarcely been touched upon at all in this bill, and not at all in any other hearings. The treaty with Canada, which is the supreme law of the land, sets forth that neither country shall be allowed to pollute the waters of the other country, and the whole subject of stopping the pollution of international waters is so tersely told in the few references in the treaty with Canada that I will read the following extracts from the treaty. In article 4 of the treaty with Great Brit

ain in regard to the boundary waters between this country and Canada, the last clause of article 4 states:

It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.

And in order to carry out that provision of the treaty it further states that in reference to Niagara River, article 5, the last clause:

The prohibitions of this article, limiting the amount of water to be used for power [to be diverted from Niagara River for power] the prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the divers on of water for sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes of navigation.

Thereby allowing additional diversion for both sanitation, domestic purposes, and navigation.

Then, in order to make the meaning of the contracting powers clear and plain in regard to the use of these diverted waters, article 8 says:

The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which tends materially to confl'ct with or restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this order of precedence:

First, uses for domestic and sanitary purposes.

Second, uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation.

Third, uses for power and irrigation purposes.

Thereby putting at the head of all uses of these international waters to be diverted, sanitary purposes, the stopping of pollution. I think that this bill should in some such terse language as is included in this treaty include that feature of the use of not only international waters but all waters throughout the country. The time has come when we must take notice of that, as the supreme law of the land has already taken notice of it, and make it a special feature, and not simply say, as in the two references on page 15 of the draft of the bill under consideration, the only reference to health being in subdivisions B and C, wherein it says:

That except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation, life, health, or property, no substantial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans shall be made to any dam or other project works constructed hereunder.

Then further on it speaks of health in the same relation, but there is nothing, not a word in the whole bill, that will enforce that idea of stopping the pollution of our waters, and this of all times I think is the proper time to bring that forward as a policy of the Government relating to the whole of the country, and not confined simply to the international waters.

Mr. PARKER. Will you give the date of that Canadian treaty?
Mr. BOWEN. 1909. Here is a copy of it.

Mr. Escн. Mr. Bowen, doesn't the joint commission between the United States and Canada, of which ex-Senator Gardner, of Maine, and ex-Congressman Tawney, of Minnesota, are the American members, have jurisdiction of the pollution of all boundary waters, and have they not made a very thorough investigation of the whole subject, especially as it pertains to the Great Lakes?

Mr. BOWEN. Yes, but they have no power. That is one of the troubles with all these commissions, they have no power. All they can do is to recommend; and my own city, Buffalo, is thwarting all their efforts in trying to get a plan adopted for stopping pollution, and so without power such a commission is limited in its usefulness. The CHAIRMAN. You think the present bill ought to be amended so as to give the commission jurisdiction over questions of pollution? Mr. BOWEN. I think so, undoubtedly, that now is the time to enforce such a rule.

Mr. PARKER. And that they should be given power to enforce their rules?

Mr. BOWEN. Yes, power by all means.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you drafted a suggested amendment?

Mr. BOWEN. The terse terms of the treaty are so thoroughly and leading that there is no need of drafting anything better than that. Mr. PARKER. Do you think that to incorporate the language of the treaty would absolutely prevent pollution?

Mr. BOWEN. Absolutely, yes, sir.

Mr. PARKER. But you say that this bill does not give them that power?

Mr. BowEN. No, sir.

Mr. STEPHENS. To whom do you want to give that power, this international boundary commission?

Mr. BOWEN. No, to the commission provided for in this bill. This committee ought to be all-embracing. I have been trying for 10 years to get a full hearing on this whole question, and it is impossible with any commission or committee that I have heretofore appeared before to get consideration of these vastly important things, with power behind them to act; and I feel very strongly that this committee is, of all committees that have ever been formed by Congress, the one committee that ought to have jurisdiction of all waters, and not divided up among other committees.

Mr. HAMILTON. Hasn't that boundary commission referred to by Mr. Esch been conducting extensive hearings on this subject of pollution of international boundary waters?

Mr. BOWEN. Why, yes; for years.

Mr. HAMILTON. Has it made any recommendations?

Mr. BOWEN. Not officially. I believe that on Tuesday they were to have a further meeting, and a further meeting will come after that, and so on ad infinitum.

Mr. HAMILTON. And they will continue to have further meetings! Mr. BOWEN. Yes; and they have no power to act after they get through with all their meetings.

Mr. CANDLER. The terms of the treaty to which you refer do not prescribe any penalty for violation.

Mr. BOWEN. Well, I would say put that in.

Mr. CANDLER. You want some penalties put in?

Mr. BOWEN. Let it be put in in each particular license by this commission.

The CHAIRMAN. That they shall protect the streams from pollution in connection with the operation of their works?

Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know myself-perhaps you do as to whether establishing these hydroelectric plants on the streams has any tendency to pollution or anything of that sort?

Mr. BowEN. It is not only that; it is the pollution from sewers. It is pollution from every source.

The CHAIRMAN. But within themselves, the building of a dam and the establishing of water power hydroelectric plants does not of itself create pollution, does it, or tend to?

Mr. BOWEN. Not to any appreciable extent; no. But each company ought to take upon itself the burden of keeping those streams pure, just as in the case that I have particularly in my own management, the Sanitary Canal Co., which I organized in 1908 for this particular purpose-I organized it with that first and foremost idea, to follow the success of the Chicago drainage canal in stopping typhoid fever, so I named it the "Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co.," and so I have been fighting for these nearly 10 years to bring about a condition there on the frontier where our drinking water will not be polluted and where we can purify all of the sewage of all the cities of the Niagara frontier in this canal; and every company that gets a license ought to be willing to assume such a burden to keep the drinking waters of our country pure. Mr. HAMILTON. How is this purifying accomplished? Mr. BOWEN. The experts have various plans for that.

Mr. HAMILTON. You referred to the Chicago drainage canal. Mr. BOWEN. That is not sufficient. The Chicago drainage canal is a step in the right direction, but it is not sufficient.

Mr. HAMILTON. I was wondering whether you regard it as sufficient.

Mr. BOWEN. By no means; no, sir.

Mr. DOREMUS. Take the city of Detroit, for instance. The water supply of Detroit, as you know, is drawn from the Detroit River a short distance above Belle Isle. Now as to the pollution of the waters of the Detroit River from the towns above it, do you think that jurisdiction in a case of that kind should be vested in the committee proposed to be created by this bill, or in the International Joint Commission to which Mr. Esch has referred?

Mr. BOWEN. I will make the same statement again, that the International Joint Commission has no power, and whether this power is to be vested in them or not is a question that both Governments would have to agree upon.

Mr. DOREMUS. What I would like to get is your opinion as to where that power should rest, whether in the commission that has already been created, the International Joint Commission, or in the commission that is proposed to be created here?

Mr. BOWEN. În regard to the particular case with which I am most familiar it should rest with this committee and the commission under which the committee plans will be carried out; and that will be all powerful in carrying out its orders. We only want the opportunity to go ahead and do such things as should be done.

Mr. STEPHENS. What would be the situation, however, if on the Canadian side a city should dump its sewage into the river, and our commission prevented it on this side, if this power was placed in our own commission rather than in this joint commission?