OCCASION FOR LEGISLATION

It is not the purpose of this legislation to set this area aside as a park, but as has been heretofore set forth, the primary purpose of this legislation is to conserve the scenic beauty, including the timber and shore lines, and prevent any further alteration of existing water levels through the construction of dams or other artificial barriers.

There are paper, pulp, and power interests located at International Falls, Minn., and Fort Francis, Ontario. These towns lie opposite one from the other on the Rainy River, a boundary water. These power interests filed an application on August 15, 1920, with the minister of lands and forests in the provincial government of Ontario at Toronto for the right to construct a series of dams extending from Rainy Lake on the west to Saganaga Lake on the east. A copy of the petition is attached herewith in the appendix and is marked "Exhibit A." In general, it can be said that the plan proposed embodies a slight raise in the existing artificial levels of Rainy and Namakan Lakes and substantial raises on other lakes approximately as follows:

Little Vermilion-an 82-foot dam. The effect would be to raise the level of Little Vermilion, Loon Lake, and Lac La Croix into one great storage reservoir. The level of Lac La Croix would be raised from 12 to 17 feet. The effect upon the shore lines and the timber is obvious. There are numerous small timbered islands in Lac La Croix which would be submerged, or partially submerged, if this were permitted.

Lac La Croix-a dam is proposed there at the outlet which would divert waters from the natural outlet through Namakan River, thereby diverting the waters naturally flowing this way from Lac La Croix to Loon, Little Vermilion, and Sand Point Lakes into Namakan.

Iron Lake an 8-foot raise is suggested. This would materially affect the beauties of Rebecca Falls.

Bottle Lake-a 15-foot raise is proposed.

Crooked Lake-a substantial raise is proposed by the construction of a dam at Curtain Falls. This would materially affect the beauties of this scenic waterfall.

Basswood Lake-a slight raise is proposed there not to exceed 5 feet. Birch Lake-a 25-foot raise is proposed.

Knife Lake-a 35-foot raise is proposed, thereby substantially affecting the levels of both Knife and Cypress Lakes.

Saganaga a substantial raise is proposed which would affect the natural levels of Saganaga, Northern Light Lakes, and possibly other

waters.

The construction of a series of dams above proposed or anything approaching them would merge several beautiful bodies of water now connected by channels into a great artificial mill pond. Natural shore lines would be covered up, islands would be submerged, timber would be drowned out; desolation would replace where now exists marvelous scenic beauty.

Proposals to do this were submitted to the Ontario government in 1920. This was followed by a series of conferences growing out of the flooding of land on both sides of the boundary and relating to the waters of Lake f the Woods. This lake is many miles west of International Falls. In these conferences in which these power

HR-71-2-VOL 2- 69

interests were represented, suggestions were made, while settling the question of the water levels on Lake of the Woods by treaty, an arrangement be entered into looking toward an agreement between the two Governments covering the installation, or authorization for the installation, of these storage reservoirs and dams in the lakes and waters above described.

As a result, when the Lake of the Woods treaty was negotiated, it contained a reference to the International Joint Commission relating to these waters and which reference was as follows:

Question 1: In order to secure the most advantageous use of the waters of Rainy Lake and of the boundary waters flowing into and from Rainy Lake, for domestic and sanitary purposes, for fishing purposes, and for power, irrigation, and reclamation purposes; and in order to secure the most advantageous use of the shores and harbors of both Rainy Lake and the boundary waters flowing into and from the lake, is it, from an economic standpoint, now practicable and desirable, having regard for all or any of the interests affected thereby, or under what conditions will it become thus practicable and desirable—

(a) To regulate the level of Rainy Lake in such a manner as to permit the upper limit of the ordinary range of the levels to exceed elevation 1108.61 sea-level datum?

(b) To regulate the level of Namakan Lake and the waters controlled by the dams at Kettle Falls in such a manner as to permit the upper limit of the ordinary range of the levels to exceed elevation 1.120.11 sea-level datum?

(c) To provide storage facilities upon any or all of the boundary waters above Namakan Lake?

Question 2: If it be found practicable and desirable thus (1) to regulate the level of Rainy Lake and/or (2) to regulate the level of Namakan Lake and the waters controlled by the dams at Kettle Falls, and/or (3) to provide storage facilities upon all or any of the boundary waters above Namakan Lake(a) What elevations are recommended?

(b) To what extent will it be necessary to acquire lands and to construct works in order to provide for such elevations and/or storage, and what will be their respective costs?

(c) What interests on each side of the boundary would be benefited? What would be the nature and extent of such benefit in each case? How should the cost be apportioned among the various interests so benefited?

Question 3: What methods of control and operation would be feasible and advisable in order to regulate the volume, use, and outflow of such waters in each case in accordance with such recommendations as may be made in answer to questions 1 and 2?

Question 4: What interests on each side of the boundary are benefited by the present storage on Rainy Lake and on the waters controlled by the dams at Kettle Falls? What are the nature and extent of such benefits in each case? What is the cost of such storage and how should such cost be apportioned among the various interests so benefited?

When ratified, the treaty contained the above reference to the International Joint Commission.

The International Joint Commission was created by a convention between the United States and Great Britain pertaining to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada. It was signed at Washington January 11, 1909. The commission was given jurisdiction over these international waters under certain circumstances and conditions, including the obstruction or diversion of these waters.

The International Joint Commission, pursuant to the reference, submitted a questionnaire in May, 1925, to interested parties. In answer to this questionnaire the same power, paper, and pulp interests answered on September 27, that year; their answer is marked "Exhibit B" and is made a part hereof and will appear in the appendix of this report. Generally speaking, it is an elaboration of the

proposals originally submitted by those interests to the Ontario government in 1920.

On September 28 these same interests submitted to the International Joint Commission, other or similar proposals covering the same area and the same waters. This proposal is marked "Exhibit C" and will be found in the appendix. Generally speaking, it is supplementary to, and an elaboration of, the original proposals to the Ontario government. In this proposal marked "Exhibit C" the petitioners requested the Governments of the United States and Canada to stand one-half of the expense of the building of these dams and the construction of these reservoirs and the remaining one-half to be paid by the petitioners.

Further examination discloses that the petitioner frankly admitted the flooding of about 25,000 acres in the United States and 14,000 or 15,000 acres in Canada. No estimates of flooding were submitted as to some of the lakes the levels of which were to be raised for the forming of storage reservoirs. This was true of Little Vermillion, where an 82-foot dam is proposed.

At public hearings conducted by the International Joint Commission at International Falls in September, 1925, the petitioner appeared in general support of his proposals, above referred to. Substantial protest against the carrying out of his proposal was made at this meeting.

At the session of Congress following a substantial appropriation was made to enable Army engineers on this side of the line to cooperate with Canadian engineers in order that the International Joint Commission might be fully informed as to all of the facts, and thereby be better able to submit its conclusions and recommendations growing out of the reference.

The engineers on both sides of the line have completed their field investigations and have submitted their preliminary report. This has been printed and is now available. It is expected that the International Joint Commission will consider this preliminary report in the near future and that further hearings will be held by that body during this summer.

With the above situation in mind, H. R. 12780 was introduced by Representative Newton in the Seventieth Congress and H. R. 6981 by Representative Nolan in the Seventy-first Congress. Following the introduction of the bill by Mr. Newton hearings were held before the committee extending over a period of several days. During the summer of 1928 a substantial number of members of this committee spent about one week in the westerly portion of the area affected. The introduction of the bill by Mr. Nolan was followed by hearings before the committee. Again a period of several days was taken in hearing testimony on this subject.

The committee is of the opinion that the shore lines, rapids, waterfalls, beaches, and other natural features of this region should be preserved in an unmodified state of nature, and that there should be no further alteration of the natural water levels of any lakes, channels, or streams abutted by Federal lands within, or bordering upon, the designated area unless specifically authorized by Congress. The committee does not feel that the private need and demand for the somewhat meager power resources of this region are at all commen

surate with the public need, demand, and value for recreational purposes requiring that these waterways be left in an unmodified natural state.

EFFECT OF LEGISLATION

(1) Public lands of the United States within the area described are withdrawn from entry under the public land laws, but subject to prior existing legal rights under those laws.

(2) Sets forth legislative policy and establishes principle of conserving natural beauty of shore lines or recreational use of Federal lands bordering upon waters within the area.

(3) To carry out the policy and principle certain logging restric tions upon Federal lands are prescribed.

(4) To further carry out the principle and policy no official or commission of the United States is to have authority to grant by permit, license, or otherwise, any further alteration of the natural water levels of any of these waters until specific authority therefor shall have first been obtained by special acts from Congress.

This legislation is supported by innumerable organizations not only in Minnesota but throughout the Nation. The State of Minnesota has officially indorsed it as indicated by the memorial adopted by the 1929 session of the Minnesota Legislature:

STATE OF MINNESOTA

▲ CONCURRENT RESOLUTION—S. F. NO. 166, INTRODUCED BY MESSRS. MACLEAN, LILYGREN, ANDERSON, AND SWENSON-MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO PASS THE (S. 3913) SHIPSTEAD-NEWTON (H. R. 12780) BILL

Whereas there has been introduced, and is now pending before the Congress of the United States, introduced in the Senate by Senator Henrik Shipstead, as Senate bill 3913, and introduced in the House by Congressman Walter H. Newton, as House bill 12780, that certain bill now commonly known as the Shipstead-Newton bill which prohibits any and all further alteration of the natural water level of any lake or stream within or bordering upon the area now known as the Superior National Forest, and all other public lands of the United States situated north of township 60 north in the counties of Cook, Lake, and St. Louis, in the State of Minnesota, including the natural shore lines of Lake Superior and of the lakes and streams forming the international boundary so far as they lie within this area, which will result in flooding lands of the United States therein, without the consent of Congress, and places restrictions upon logging and upon all forms of entry or appropriation under the public land laws of the United States in such area; and

Whereas this region, a part of the 14,500 square miles covered by the Rainy Lake watershed, lying in Ontario and Minnesota, and the immediately adjacent lands and waters, constitutes the only remaining vast wilderness area in the central part of North America; and

Whereas this region contains the only remaining extensive coniferous forests in the Middle West with unusual potentialities for the development of a future continuous supply of forest products; and

Whereas this region is blessed with precious international historic values, rare scenic qualities, and unique recreational facilities within easy reach of 100,000,000 residents of both Canada and the United States; and

Whereas this area affords an unusual opportunity to preserve, perpetuate, restock, and increase various species of wild life of invaluable economic and aesthetic importance to both nations; and

Whereas this region is now a great and beautiful pleasure grounds for lovers of nature and wild life, visited annually by ever increasing thousands of recreationists; and

Whereas the unrestricted development of this region may destroy or substantially injure the said forests, lakes, and streams for recreational purposes,

and may hinder the enactment of proper regulatory legislation for the development of this region consistent with the general purposes of such recreational area. Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, By the Senate of the State of Minnesota, the House of Representatives concurring, that the Congress of the United States be memorialized that it is the sense of the members of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, that such bill should be enacted into law, and such action be taken before the adjournment of Congress now sitting: Be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of the senate forthwith_transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Secretary of Agriculture, to the United States Senate, to the House of Representatives, to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to the House Committee on Public Lands, and to each Senator and Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota.

Passed the Senate the 21st day of February, 1929.

W. I. NOLAN, President of the Senate.

G. H. SPAETH, Secretary of the Senate.

Passed the House of Representatives the 28th day of February, 1929.

Approved March 8, 1929.

Filed March 9, 1929.

JOHN A. JOHNSON,
Speaker of the House.
JOHN S. LEVIN,

Chief Clerk, House of Representatives.

THEODORE CHRISTIANSON,
Governor of the State of Minnesota.

Wм. W. HOLM,
Secretary of State.

This memorial was adopted by a vote of 59 to 6 in the senate and 119 to 5 in the house.

A copy of a telegram from the Governor of Minnesota appears below and indicates the sentiment of the State of Minnesota:

Hon. W. I. NOLAN,

MARCH 15, 1930.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Minnesota sentiment overwhelmingly favors prompt passage of ShipsteadNolan bill to prevent exploitation of border waters by private interests. There is no present need for the sacrifice of these scenic and recreational values. If the time comes when it becomes necessary to sacrifice them in the interest of industrial development the use of these waters should be reserved to the people. There is no justification for permitting their exploitation by private interests.

THEO. CHRISTIANSON, Governor of Minnesota.

REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTS

The Department of State, Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture report either that they have no objections to the enactment of the legislation or that they approve of the same. Their letters so doing are as follows:

Hon. DoN B. COLTON,

Chairman Committee on the Public Lands,

House of Representatives.

MARCH 18, 1930.

SIR: I refer again to your letter of January 30, 1930, concerning proposed legislation in regard to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, especially those lying along the northern border of Minnesota.

I have received inquiries concerning H. R. 6981, introduced by Mr. Nolan at the present session of Congress, and I believe that, on account of our treaties