| ey Tipe we Is Chicago a culprit? | \ 4Y STAN LYNN ater pated States stealing py te 0m the Great Lakes? - Thoreine Gesidents along the fe Georgian Bay, now lve, are below the normal ng look asking that question ity mefee ward Chicago, a %, for an {aaa 4, mil- an) Te j « People believe ‘that Ut than ;°© Water being taken ber of Ha Tealized,” one Mem- ently j ‘ament from the area SS 3 SS 3 Se — SSS =F hem >. i) { ang W levels onG 7 cotigetke H eorgian Bay uron have aff Ze affected y to Dut paces, are threatening ta have S€s out of business, ltilding Vn affected ship- Contr . nd acts at Owen Clon : There is . even @ le a strong suspi- further els may go down Problem on inade- - Asked what could pera Affairs Min- ain ; ae g suggested; Ut 5; Vi Diefenpe PPOSition Leader John vation €t asked: “What is the ision ha Chicago? Is the di- te is takin lace mich €xtending beyond _ that tion P&tmitted by the inter- : agreement?” in te . PatlionS also a suggestion by ‘bing ment that a six-foot % Us. pperation carried out thy Clair : Y engineers in the levels Ver ‘may have caused of Lake Huron and tres er ( ormed his colleagues. . Water piracy mn Great Lakes Georgian Bay to drop. Chicago has been known to cheat on its water extraction before. Requesting an inquiry “into the amount of water being taken out of the Great Lakes at Chicago and _ elsewhere,” G. H. Aiken (PC, Parry Sound- Muskoka - said: “This question has been raised year after year and we are still in doubt as to whether or not the amount of water being removed from the Great Lakes system by Chicago is that which is con- templated by the international agreement.” A news report in the Water Works Engineering journal of December, 1962, noted that the . Chicago area uses over 1 billion gallons of- water daily. The magazine went on: “the city’s 49 pumps can supply about 2.7 billion gallons of water daily, indicating a reserve capacity of about 170 percent.” Many of the city’s main pump- ing stations had increased capa- city by installing new equip- ment. In the Engineering News Re- cord (May 16, 1963), Chicago’s engineer of water distribution, William R. Lemm, is quoted as saying: “Over $185 million has been expended in the last eight years to improve and expand Chicago’s water system, which now pumps over 1 billion gal- lons of water per day.” Thus, both sources are hazy on the actual amount, putting Qn, Snaq ) : Under @ needs more water management schemes such as the Wor. -cnstruction above. With the world’s richest supply of experts estimate one-half) we have plenty for our Lake Huron dock is high and dry this year because of dropping water level. it somewhere over a billon gal- lons a day. But Weekend Ma- gazine in 1963 said: “Chicago alone gulps more than two bil- lion gallons of Lake Michigan water a day. And this is not enough. The city claims that if it doesn’t get another half bil- lion gallons:a day for sewage disposal, it will rot in its own filth.” Present pumping capacity ex- ists to suck more than 2.7 bil- lion gallons a day out of the lakes. It is difficult to believe the equipment is not going to be used if the water is needed. Of course every city on the lakes takes out water. But they all put most of it back. Chicago _ is in a unique position because its used water is flushed into a, drainage canal which ultimately empties into the Mississippi River system. Water taken out by Chicago is lost to the Lakes forever. It can’t be dumped back into Lake Michigan because it is par- tially treated sewage. If Chi- cago’s water went back into the lakes system, Lake Michigan would become a gigantic cess- pool. The United States’ painful need for fresh water has promp- ac TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT ted a suggestion by one North- ern Ontario engineer, Tom Kie- rans, to divert Quebec’s Harri- canaw River from James Bay into the Great Lakes. In Parliament, Northern Af- fairs Minister Laing mentioned the possibility of diverting other rivers such as the Albany and Severn, and one river, the Ogo- ki, was diverted some years ago from Hudson Bay into the Great Lakes. Canada probably has the rich- est fresh water resources in the world. One Member of Parlia- ment estimated that half the world’s fresh water supply is located here. No one wants this country to be a dog in the manger as far as its water is concerned. There is no doubt Canadians would fa- vorably regard water diversion plans which would benefit both ourselves and the United States. But where is the assurance that the federal government will make and carry out plans truly in the interest of Canada? The outstanding test case is the Co- lumbia River, and the govern- ment hasn’t measured up. “Alberta’s farm fields already crying for rain,” shouts a recent headline in the Edmonton Jour- own needs and could develop storage and diversion schemes which would benefit the whole continent. But the key is to keep Canada’s interests primary. nal. Another article in the same paper a few days later (May 2) reports that “sharp concern over water supplies in Eastern Al- berta was expressed this week: as 200 people discussed the pro- posed Red Deer River diversion scheme.” The item continued: ‘General feeling expressed at the meeting was that the multi-million dol- lar project was a paramount im- portance to people of Central- Eastern Alberta and that some- body should be doing something about it.” : One aspect of the Columbia River Treaty is that it excludes future diversion of part of the waters of that river into the South Saskatchewan River, where it could aid irrigation of the prairies. The government ‘claims the treaty allows diver- sion for consumption — but only if diverted water is not used to generate power. This means Columbia water cannot be diverted into the Saskatche- wan because power stations are already being built on that river. In the Parliamentary debate on a national water policy, sparked by low levels in the Great Lakes, the emphasis often swung over to the Columbia. “I want to know about the situation 30 years from now,” declared C. O. Cooper (PC, Rosetown-Biggar). ‘What are you going to do about the prai- ries if you sell our birthright to the United States in the Co- lumbia project? What are we going to do for water on the prairies?” As is emphasized by New Democratic Party Leader T. C. Douglas, what Canada needs is a policy of development in ever} field instead of a desire to sel: everything to the U.S. that can be sold at a profit. This means scrapping the Columbia River Treaty in the first place. Negotiations should begin with the United States for water agreements which wil} benefit both countries, including the diversion of rivers into the Great Lakes. But Canada’s own water plans must be based on a _ nationa! energy policy that encourages the development of industry ir this country, and a raw mate- rials policy that encourages al! levels of manufacturing here. This is what has to be stresseo. in the present crisis over water. May 22, 1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7