main lock with provision for mitigation and recreation expenditures. Section 3 withdraws from the Corps any existing authority to study the feasibility of deepening the channel in the Mississippi tributaries north

of the mouth of the Illinois and requires specific Congressional authorization prior to any future study. The bill does not address the closely related question of a 12-foot channel on the Illinois River. Section 4(a)(b)&(c) provides for preparation of a master plan for the river, aimed at reconciling the objectives of the various federal programs relating to the river and based on studies of the environmental and economic impacts of different levels of traffic. Section 4(c) calls for development of guidelines for channel maintenance, water quality, fish and wildlife and other environmental values along with enforcement mechanisms. Section 4(d) directs that certain studies be performed as part of the planning process. Section 5 prohibits construction of the second lock of the new L & D 26 or other upstream expansion until the master plan has been approved.

The essential provisions of S. 790 are similar to those of S. 712, with two exceptions. First, S. 790 finds that barge operators should

contribute toward the cost of the inland navigation system in Sect. 1; in Sect. 5 establishes a system of user charges designed to eventually recover 50 percent of the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the waterway system; in Sect. 5(f) establishes a Waterway Improvement (trust) Fund; and in Sections 6,7, and 8 provides for enforcement and assessment of the system of user charges. Second, Sect. 4 requires that prior to replacing

L & D 26 with a new structure, the Corps study the feasibility

of rehabilitating and adding a single 1200 foot lock to the existing

structure.

Focusing on S. 712, we find that Senator Stevenson's bill appears

to be based on the assumptions that the three crucial issues of (a) replacement; (b) systemic expansion; and (c) future traffic levels can be separated and dealt with as discrete questions, and further, that repair or rehabilitation of the existing facility does not present an option worthy of serious consideration. We do not share the Senator's faith in any of these

assumptions.

First, we believe that the option of rehabilitating the existing structure demands the most serious consideration. The evaluation of rehabilitation alternatives released by the General Accounting Office on December 6, 1976 confirmed the feasibility of repairing rather than replacing the existing L & D 26, and showed that the cost of rehabilitation could be as low as $84 million. That report also recognized that two engineering assumptions underlying the low cost rehabilitation proposal needed to be confirmed, ie that (a) the gate bays can be individually dewatered and (b) no lock-wall monoliths need replacement. We submit that it is premature to reject the possibility of rehabilitation until the simple field tests that would be needed to confirm or deny these assumptions have been carried out. In addition, we understand that the DOT has just embarked on an effort to secure an independent reanalysis of the Corps' ́engineering data in order to determine the level of risk involved in rehabilitation of the existing structure. We believe that Congress should defer its choice between repair and replacement until it has the benefit of the DOT study.

Second, as discussed previously, we are not persuaded that a statutory prohibition will prevent the eventual construction of a 12-foot channel. Each navigation structure that is upgraded to a 12-foot capability will significantly increase the "sunk" costs and decrease the accounting costs

of a 12-foot channel. If the Corps is permitted to incrementally replace aging existing structures with new facilities that are able to accommodate 12-foot navigation, there will come a day when the remaining costs of providing a 12-foot channel will be so outweighed by the economic benefits that Section 3 of S. 712 will become politically indefensible. As this committee well knows, laws are not immutable, and the lawmakers who seek to protect the environment today may not be around to defend it ten years from now. We firmly believe that any reliable guarantee against a future decision to construct a 12-foot channel must be embodied in the physical capabilities of the lock structure. At some future date, when the merits

of a 12-foot channel hang in the balance, concrete will weigh more heavily

than paper.

Finally, we are convinced that the replacement and expansion of

L & D 26 authorized by S. 712 will lead to sharply increased volumes of barge traffic, jeopardizing the environmental values we seek to perpetuate. As outlined earlier in this statement, we believe that (a) traffic levels well below 86 million tons per year may pose an unacceptable risk to the riverine environment; (b) the effective or economic capacity of the proposed facility has been grossly understated and its potential environmental and intermodal impacts therefore seriously underestimated; and (c) that construction of the replacement as proposed will in all probability lead to any of several forms of systemic expansion of the Upper Mississippi - Illinois waterways. These questions of capacity and carrying capacity are integral parts of the decision the Congress is called upon to make; they cannot responsibly be severed from the discussion by invoking a fictional 86 million ton limit on the capacity of a 1200 foot lock or by defering their consideration until the concrete has been poured.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, there exists, at present a precarious balance between commerical navigation and the many alternative uses and values of the Upper Mississippi. We are concerned that the replacement and expansion of L & D 26 as proposed by the Corps of Engineers and by S. 712 and S. 790 would lead to a major increase in the volume of barge traffic upsetting this equilibrium, causing irreparable harm to the living resources of the river, and effectively committing the Upper Mississippi to a single use. We are concerned that replacement and expansion of L & D 26 as proposed by the Corps may lead to the eventual construction of a 12-foot channel, but we believe that the increase in the volume of 9-foot navigation poses an equal and more immediate threat to the biological and recreational values of the river.

In short, we are opposed to construction of any facility that will lead to environmentally damaging increases in barge traffic, either directly

or as the first step in system-wide expansion of capacity. We believe that the proposed facility with a 1,200 foot lock and 18-foot sills is subject to both of these liabilities.

As an alternative to immediate, and in our view dangerously precipitate, authorization of the Corps' proposal, we urge this committee to direct the Corps to promptly take steps to stabilize and repair the existing structure, to insure its continued safe operation, and to institute non-structural operating procedures as needed to widen any bottleneck and relieve undue congestion of traffic. With the legitimate, immediate concerns of the commerical navigation interests thus resolved, there should be ample time to carry out the studies that are needed if Congress is to plot a rational, coherent course for the many competing uses of the Upper Mississippi.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF

DR. RICHARD H. BRICELAND

DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

TO THE

TASK FORCE ON LOCKS & DAM 26

OF THE

MIDWESTERN CONFERENCE, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
CLAYTON, MISSOURI
November 18, 1976

Good morning. I am Richard H. Briceland, Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Before presenting my statement, I would like to thank the Task Force for its invitation to take part in this session. I would also like to commend the Midwestern Conference of the Council of State Governments for convening this meeting. As you well know,

the debate over the Corps of Engineers' proposal to replace Locks and Dam #26 on the Mississippi River at Alton has assumed much greater significance than just a discussion over what should be done with, and to, this individual facility. Many states and many state programs will be affected, directly or indirectly, significantly or marginally, by the decision which is made, and the views of the Council and its member state governments should be known and understood

Let me make it clear that I am not here today to present a position on this project on behalf of Illinois State government