INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

HEARINGS
OF THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

IN RE

REMEDIES FOR THE POLLUTION OF
BOUNDARY WATERS BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA

BEING PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD AT BUFFALO,
N. Y., AND DETROIT, MICH., JUNE 21-27,
1916, AND OGDENSBURG, N. Y.,
AUGUST 25, 1916

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1917

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION.

HEARINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION IN RE REMEDIES FOR THE POLLUTION OF BOUNDARY WATERS.

International Joint Commission,
Buffalo, N. Y., Wednesday, June 21, 1916.

The commission met at Buffalo, N. Y., Wednesday, June 21, 1916, at 10 o’clock a. m.

Mr. Gardner. Gentlemen, you will kindly come to order. Perhaps it would not be amiss to say a word concerning the purpose of the International Joint Commission in meeting here at this time.

As you know, the United States and Great Britain entered into a treaty that was proclaimed in May, 1910, in which, among other things, they agreed that the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary should not be polluted to the injury of the health or property of the people on the other side. With the promulgation of that treaty the International Joint Commission came into existence. Its functions are dual; it has both judicial and investigative duties. In respect to this particular case the duties of the commission are purely investigative.

The question was referred to this commission to determine whether or not the boundary waters were being polluted in contravention of the treaty. The commission issued a progress report early in 1914, which set forth very clearly what had been ascertained, what had been demonstrated, up to that time. Subsequent to that, in following out the line of the second question of reference, the commission employed Prof. Earle B. Phelps, of the United States Public Health Service, to devise plans that might be applicable, especially to Buffalo and Detroit. Prof. Phelps has completed that work and his report has been submitted to you for your investigation.

The International Joint Commission has thought it wise to come here to Buffalo and hold these conferences with you for the purpose of determining whether or not we are in full accord with respect to the report made by Prof. Phelps, and, if not, in what way we differ and whether or not it will be possible to reconcile our differences, because the commission is anxious to work in harmony with you, as I apprehend you are with the commission.

NOTIFICATIONS OF THE SESSION.

By direction of the chairman the secretaries then read the notice of the meeting to be held at Buffalo, which was sent to interested municipalities and officials in the United States and Canada, together with copies of the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, and also the list of the municipalities and officials to whom said notice and report were sent.

The notice and list are as follows:

NOTICE.

May 15, 1916.

Dear Sir: I have the honor to inform you that the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada will meet at Buffalo on the 21st day of June, beginning at 10 a. m., for the purpose of finally hearing those interested upon the question of remedies for the pollution of boundary waters. You are cordially invited to be present, together with your engineers, appropriate heads of municipal departments, and any others who may be interested.

I have sent you under separate cover several copies of the report of the commission’s consulting sanitary engineer upon remedial measures and have also sent a copy to your clerk. I will be glad to supply additional copies if desired. Will you kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter and the copies of the report?

Through the courtesy of the city of Buffalo the hearing will be held in the Buffalo City Hall.

Very respectfully,

—— ——, Secretary.

MUNICIPALITIES AND OFFICIALS TO WHOM NOTICE WAS SENT.

• The mayor, Buffalo, N. Y.
• The mayor, Tonawanda, N. Y.
• The mayor, North Tonawanda, N. Y.
• The mayor, La Salle, N. Y.
• The mayor, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
• The mayor, Lackawanna, N. Y.
• The mayor, Fort Erie, Ontario.
• The mayor, Kenmore, N. Y.
• The mayor, Trenton, N. J.
• The mayor, Lewiston, N. Y.
• The mayor, Youngstown, N. Y.
• The Boards of Health of the States of New York, Ohio, and Michigan.
• The Federal Board of Health.
• The mayor, Bridgeburg, Ontario.
• The mayor, Queenstown, Ontario.
• The mayor, Niagara Falls, Ontario.
• The mayor, Chippewa, Ontario.
• The mayor, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.
• J. H. Jackson, Queen Victoria Park, Niagara, Ontario.
• Owen McKay, Walkerville, Ontario.
• William Simmons, clerk, Fort Erie, Ontario.
• H. S. Phillips, Toronto, Ontario.
• F. J. Anderson, city engineer, Niagara Falls.
• W. C. Jepson, assistant engineer, Niagara Falls.
• R. H. Field, Queenstown, Ontario.
• J. S. Newman, civil engineer, Windsor, Ontario.
• M. E. Brian, city engineer, Windsor, Ontario.
• R. A. Land, clerk, Bridgeburg, Ontario.

(The chairman, specifically mentioning each municipality in the above list, called for the names of persons appearing in their behalf, as well the names of any others who desired to enter an appearance, and the following appearances were announced.)

APPEARANCES.

Prof. Earle B. Phelps, of the United States Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., consulting sanitary engineer to the commission.

F. C. Tolles, Mount Vernon, N. Y., assistant to Prof. Phelps.

W. J. Stewart, Ottawa, Canada, chief hydrographer of the Dominion of Canada.

F. A. Dallyn, Toronto, Canada, sanitary engineer, Provincial Board of Health of Ontario.

Dr. Edward Clark, of Buffalo, representing the Department of Health of the State of New York.

Dr. Francis E. Fronczak, health officer of the city of Buffalo.

Arthur Kreinheder, commissioner of public works and councilman of the city of Buffalo.

John F. Malone, commissioner of parks and public buildings and councilman of the city of Buffalo.

Charles B. Hill, commissioner of finance and councilman of the city of Buffalo.

Capt. George H. Norton, city engineer of Buffalo.

Carl L. Howell, assistant engineer in charge of sewers, department of public works, city of Buffalo.

George Clinton, of Buffalo, representing the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co.

F. C. Perkins, of Buffalo, N. Y.

R. L. Seelbach, of Buffalo, N. Y.

George R. Milks, secretary chamber of commerce, Lackawanna, N. Y.

O. E. Carr, city manager, Niagara Falls, N. Y.

William B. Bennett, city engineer, Niagara Falls, N. Y.

Secretary Kluttz read the following letter received from Mr. Theodore Horton, chief engineer, New York State Department of Health, under date of June 20, 1916:

New York State Department of Health,
Albany, June 20, 1916.

Mr. Whitehead Kluttz,
Secretary International Joint Commission,
Southern Building, Washington, D. C.,
City Hall, Buffalo, N. Y.

Dear Sir: Commissioner Biggs wishes me to explain to you that owing to extreme pressure of duties in the department at this time it does not seem possible for him to have a representative of this department at the meeting of the International Joint Commission at Buffalo on June 21.

The commissioner wishes to assure you, however, of our continued interest in this subject, and to assure you also of our extended cooperation and assistance at any time so far as it is within our resources.

Very truly, yours,
Theodore Horton, Chief Engineer.

Mr. Gardner. Mr. Clinton, do you appear in behalf of anyone other than yourself?

Mr. Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Erie & Ontario Canal Co., which has a plan that will take care of all this sewage. That plan has been presented to this commission three times, and I, therefore, did not propose at this time to speak upon the subject. You have among your records a full exposition of the plan and what it is expected to do. I am here this morning rather as a listener. I expect subsequently to present our views to the council of the city of Buffalo, they having had no opportunity to investigate the questions. I have read your report, and I must say that it exhibits not only thorough research but also some——

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Clinton, will you allow me to interrupt you in order to ask a question? You have read the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, have you not? I refer to that part of it at least which deals with the project in which you are interested as a means of sewage disposal.

Mr. Clinton. Yes. In the press of business I have read it rather hastily and without making it a study.

Mr. Tawney. I wanted to ask if you took issue with the report of the consulting engineer with respect to the conclusions which he has reached regarding the drainage or diversion canal. Do you appear for the purpose of making any criticism of those conclusions?

Mr. Clinton. No; not at this juncture. If the commission will permit me, I may subsequently submit a printed brief without taking the time here by either criticizing or attempting to modify in the minds of the commission the views of the experts. I think it would be a loss of time now and result in no good.

Mr. Gardner. Mr. Kreinheder, I believe you were about to make a statement and were interrupted.

Mr. Kreinheder. I was merely going to say that the city of Buffalo extends its greetings to this commission. Since your last meeting in this city Buffalo has taken on an entirely new cloak in that it is now governed under a new form of government, the commission form of government. All the powers for conducting the city’s business are vested in five men. The propositions that this council has to deal with are many. One of them is the pollution of boundary waters, the subject that you gentlemen have under consideration at this time. The new administration since the issue of your report has not had time to go into it thoroughly in order to determine which of the six plans that you suggest is feasible. It may be that your commission can suggest which one of those plans is feasible. However, if that is left to the different cities it will be necessary, in order to satisfy our municipality and the taxpayers, to employ an engineer to go over your suggestion with respect to these different plans and determine which of them is the most feasible. After that determination is made there comes a question of providing the money, and that may possibly take considerable time, because without money these big projects can not be carried out.

Now, that in toto is our proposition to-day. The council is represented here and is very glad to extend to the commission every courtesy and at the same time do all we possibly can in order to bring out the points involved and see whether we can carry this matter to a proper solution. That is the attitude of the city of Buffalo, and we would like you gentlemen to so understand it.

Mr. Clinton. May I be permitted to ask a question? The jurisdiction of this commission depends entirely upon the determination of the question as to whether the pollution of boundary waters affects the waters on both sides of the boundary lines. If it does not, the commission of course has no jurisdiction, and it is not an international question. But I understand that the commission has heretofore determined that in the case of the Niagara River the discharge of sewage by the city of Buffalo does affect the international waters, and that therefore the question involved in this vicinity is an international question. Since the final determination of the location of the boundary line I think the prior attitude—if I may call it an attitude—assumed by the commission in that regard is strongly fortified; but I do not understand whether the commission has yet decided that the present and inevitable growth of the discharge of sewage into the Niagara River so affects the health, the welfare, and I may say, to a certain extent, the business of both communities—that is, the community on either side of the line—as to make it necessary that no sewage from the city of Buffalo—and I may add Lackawanna—shall be discharged into the Niagara River through the lake. I do not recall in the reports any such decision.

Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact that the bacteriological examination of the Niagara River shows conclusively that the waters are being polluted clear across the stream to an extent that is injurious to health and property on the other side?

Mr. Clinton. I drew that conclusion from one of the reports made by the commission.

Mr. Tawney. That is included in the progress report, the report of the bacteriologists.

Mr. Clinton. Yes; but I am not aware that the commission has decided that the extent of that is such that the discharge of sewage must be stopped.

Now, I regard that as of considerable importance not merely to my people but to the city of Buffalo, and I wish to say to this commission that I am more deeply interested on the part of the city of Buffalo than I am on the part of our proposed corporation. The expense to the city of Buffalo in caring for that sewage, if it must be taken out of the Niagara River altogether, will be tremendous. That is the reason I asked the question.

Your honorable commission will say to our people eventually that this sewage must be taken out. I think some limit has been placed upon it, but I regard that as merely tentative; it must be taken out eventually. Then it becomes a mere question for the city authorities to determine upon the methods of caring for the sewage.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Clinton, speaking for myself as a member of the commission, I would say that the report of our sanitary experts submitted to the commission in January, 1914, shows quite conclusively that the waters of the Niagara River, together with the waters of other connecting rivers, are being polluted in violation of the treaty.

Mr. Clinton. Yes; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Tawney. It is not the function of the commission in this investigation to decide anything finally or to decide in advance whether or not we should recommend to the two Governments that the cities be called upon to do thus and so, but in the event that these waters are found to be polluted in violation of the treaty we are required by the two Governments to recommend to them what remedies we propose for this pollution, which is being allowed to go on in contravention of the treaty.

For the purpose of ascertaining the most feasible remedy the commission has employed consulting sanitary engineers, who have been engaged now for more than a year on investigations at Buffalo, Detroit, and other places. They have embodied in their report to the commission certain suggestions and recommendations with respect to remedies.

This report was sent out six weeks before this meeting to the various municipalities in order that they might familiarize themselves with the proposed remedies for the pollution which has been found to exist in violation of the treaty, and our purpose in being here is to confer with the representatives of the various municipalities that are affected to ascertain what their judgment is as to the remedies which have been proposed by our consulting engineers. This information is desired by the commission before we submit to the two Governments a final report embodying our recommendations. We desire to see what suggestions or criticisms these municipalities have to make, because there is no denying the fact that pollution does exist in contravention of the treaty. That fact has been established by bacteriological examination. Nor is there any question that it must stop from an international standpoint. That is, both Governments, having solemnly agreed by treaty that such pollution should not be permitted to the injury of the health or property of the people of either country, that treaty obligation will have to be observed. Of course, it is the hope of the commission that these municipalities will cooperate as far as possible in agreeing upon some recommended remedy that will be practicable and feasible so that the two Governments may reach an agreement as to what should be done hereafter. As stated by the chairman, that is the purpose of our being here.

Mr. Clinton. I understand the purpose of the commission in being here, and the purpose as stated by you is the position which the commission has taken from the beginning. I must beg the pardon of the commission in using the inaccurate word “decided.” I should have said “concluded.”

The problems, it seems to me, are of such a nature—I do not know that I ought to say this, as it seems to be offering advice to the commission—that after the city authorities have had ample opportunity to investigate the matter for themselves you would be able to arrive at results, and it would be more satisfactory to yourselves and to the city than to attempt to do it at this time.

Mr. Tawney. As I understand it, our consulting sanitary engineers have been working here with the officials of Buffalo for over a year.

Mr. Clinton. That is true.

Mr. Tawney. They were even advised when the report was submitted to the commission what the report would be, and we supposed by giving them six weeks’ time in which to study the specific recommendations made by the consulting engineers that the municipal authorities here would be able to give the commission some information as to whether or not the proposed remedies reasonably meet with their approval.

Mr. Clinton. Although I ought not to speak for the city government, as I am on my feet, will you permit me to say that a suggestion has been made and I will be presumptuous enough to answer it. It is suggested by our commissioner of public works and also a member of the city government that the recent change in our form of government has thrown upon the members of the council such a tremendous burden of work that it is impossible for them to determine from all points of view, financial and otherwise, in such a short time as six weeks what they will be willing to recommend to the citizens. The time has been too short, in other words.

Mr. Tawney. I do not think the commission contemplates asking any of the municipalities to join with it in recommending any specific remedies, but we want to hear what the municipalities have to say with respect to the practicability or advisability of the remedies that are proposed. Of course the question of finance is one that will have to be taken up later.

Mr. Clinton. It is a very serious question in this city and is directly involved in determining what they will recommend. While fully agreeing with the report of your experts, they might think that something less costly, something that would extend the burden over a greater period of time, would answer all the purposes and be of a nature that would satisfy your experts and accomplish the same results.

Mr. Tawney. Well, the commission has had this under consideration for nearly three years, as you will recall, Mr. Clinton; and the municipalities, especially Buffalo and Detroit, must have been studying the subject from the international standpoint, fully realizing, no doubt, that the time has come when they must cease using these rivers as open sewers and make some other provision for sewage disposal. It is not the desire of the commission to make arbitrary recommendations to the two Governments without conferring with the municipalities in order to get their views and to recommend that which is feasible and also desirable within their financial ability to comply with. That is one reason why we are trying in every way to cooperate with the municipalities that are interested.

Mr. Clinton. No doubt that is a very gracious and wise decision on the part of the commission. I was simply trying to point out that it would be impossible, it seems to me, for the city government at this time to undertake to give views upon this subject. Councilman Hill is present and can speak upon that subject.

Mr. Hill. Why do you not let the city government speak for itself?

Mr. Clinton. I have been drawn into this argument.

Mr. Malone. As this is the last analysis of the financial proposition, I think Commissioner Hill, of the department of finance and account, as representing the city government, might throw some light on the matter from a financial standpoint.

Mr. Hill. With regard to that I would suggest that the commission, having held these hearings for several years, has probably found the simple and expeditious way of moving along. I would suggest that Prof. Phelps be called on for a statement. He would enlighten us as to his ideas regarding what ought to be done and the different methods proposed. Of course, the financial proposition come in eventually. When we have heard what methods the commission has to present we will be in a better shape to take the matter up.

Mr. Malone. It was that thought that prompted me to suggest to our distinguished friend, Mr. Clinton, that “John speak for himself.”

Mr. Hill. I think the only difference is that it would be better for us to speak later. I think we would save time in that way.

Mr. Perkins. Mr. Chairman, would you hear a brief statement on the general subject? The question before the commission, I believe, relates to the effect on the people in the various cities of the pollution of the waters of the Niagara River that are used for domestic and sanitary purposes. Is it not true that, if there is not involved the water that is to be used for drinking purposes in the various cities, then very largely the pollution of the Niagara River is a matter that is not of such great importance? For instance, the city of Buffalo has pumping stations that will take care of the whole Niagara frontier. If arrangements can be made through legislation whereby the cities of Niagara Falls, the Tonawandas, and Lockport can be supplied with pure water from these tremendous pumping stations, and the cost of water to them, as well as to the city of Buffalo, can be very largely reduced by taking care of the enormous overhead charges, it will very largely do away with the expenditure of $3,600,000 by Buffalo and smaller amounts by the other cities that are discharging sewage into the Niagara River.

The health of the people is affected only by the drinking of the water of the Niagara River, and the solution can be obtained at very much less expense to the city of Buffalo and the other cities involved.

The smell that arises at Niagara Falls, and regarding which complaint has been made, is not due to the pollution of Niagara River by Buffalo sewage, because oxidation of that sewage occurs and the tremendous current takes away any stench before it reaches Niagara Falls. The difficulty at Niagara Falls is due to the dumping of the sewage into the Niagara River and there being thrown back upon the people of Niagara Falls their own sewage; it is not due to the sewage of Buffalo or any other city on the Niagara River. The city of Chicago built a drainage canal, which, as you say, is an open sewer. It went to the expense of $100,000,000 to build that drainage canal, because formerly it was discharging its sewage into its own lake, the source of its water supply. It had no natural drainage canal such as Buffalo has through the Niagara River to carry off that sewage in a sanitary manner.

Congressman Mann, within the last few day, in discussing in Congress the La Follette amendment requiring Chicago not to take more than 250,000 cubic feet per minute from the lake through this drainage canal, when they are now taking practically double that amount, pointed out that any other way of correcting the sewage proposition for Chicago would have cost that city $250,000,000 instead of the $100,000,000 that it did cost, and yet that canal is a very slow-moving stream, carrying only 4,167 cubic feet per second, as required under the treaty. That is equivalent to only one-sixtieth of the amount of water that is passing through the Niagara River. If there were a drainage canal built from the city of Buffalo to Lake Ontario, it would carry only about 6,000 cubic feet per second under the treaty, and that is one-fortieth of the amount going through Niagara River at a tremendous rate of speed. The necessity for this tremendous expenditure is, I think, overestimated. I think when the drinking water of all those cities is provided for the expense will be absolutely nil. The water, as it absorbs the sewage in the drainage canal at Chicago, has its purification entirely through the free oxygen that is in the drainage canal as it passes along. Here in the Niagara River we have 60 times as much water to absorb the sewage, and it has more than 100 times the value on account of the tremendous current that forces the sewage up to the surface and utilizes the oxygen in the air to purify it long before it reaches those cities.

I would like to ask whether the question of the pollution of the Niagara River as it is considered by you is not entirely from the standpoint of the health of the people on both sides of the line, not only as to the odors that come from it, but also as a drinking proposition; that is, whether those are the only two problems that are being considered?

Mr. Mignault. You have probably forgotten one thing which is very important, and that is that this is an international question. Even if you could supply water to these municipalities on your own side, that would not prevent the Niagara River being polluted to the danger of people living on the other side of the line.

Mr. Perkins. On account of the tremendous current in the Niagara River, with the sewage from this side passing down, the cities of Bridgeburg and Fort Erie are free to take their water for drinking purposes on their side of the river, so that the international feature, I think, is largely eliminated, and the only other city is Niagara Falls, Ontario. There a great power canal is about to be installed, developing 3,000 horsepower and taking pure water from Lake Erie through the Welland Canal. There is a vast supply of which only a mere fraction is necessary for the city of Niagara Falls on the Canadian side. So you have eliminated all the troubles, so far as drinking water is concerned, of all those cities, and the question of drinking water, I think, is of vital importance. But we are going to spend $3,600,000 on the sewage proposition when a mere fraction of that amount will take care of the subsewage which without the slightest doubt needs renovating, especially in view of the fact that no solution in the way of chemical treatment could possibly make that water available to those people for drinking purposes along the lower Niagara. The chemists have confidence in both the sludge proposition and the other treatments. For instance, at Milwaukee they will even take a glass of the effluent and drink it, but it does not follow that the people of Tonawanda and Lockport should want that kind of drinking water when we can give them pure water from Lake Erie cheaper, on account of the tremendous pumpage facilities we have here, than they can pump it for themselves.

We need a filtration plant, and by spending $1,500,000 of that money for that purpose we could have a plant that would supply all those cities with the purest water 365 days in the year. It is true that during the stormy seasons we have periods when the water is in a very bad condition. The danger from typhoid, however, can be taken care of by treating the water with chlorine.

Mr. Gardner. The difficulty is that there is no question referred to this International Joint Commission by the two Governments as to whether or not the people in any particular locality are getting pure water for drinking or domestic purposes. The question submitted to us to determine is whether the international waters are being polluted to the injury of health or property on either side of the line. The people here are interested in the question of pure water, and that applies all the way to Niagara Falls, but the people on the other side of the line would not be concerned at all about that. So that the question for the commission to determine is not whether or not it is possible for Buffalo and these contiguous towns to get pure water; but the question for us to determine is whether or not these waters are being polluted, in contravention of the treaty; and if so, what remedy we propose.

Mr. Perkins. But the reason for the consideration of the pollution is the health of the people on both sides of the river. If the health of the people on both sides of the river can be taken care of, and it is only for drinking purposes, and you are producing an effluent of 200,000,000 gallons that has been treated and used for drinking purposes by either side, it is dangerous, ultimately, because with the growth of this city to a million people, we will include the whole Niagara frontier as one city. It means taking care of the Canadian side, too, but what cities are there on the other side that are being injured?

Mr. Gardner. I am not familiar enough with it to say.

Mr. Perkins. There is not a town outside of Bridgeburg that is utilizing water from the Niagara River. There is only Fort Erie and Bridgeburg, and they have the purest water to take it from. They have the Niagara River, which runs at the rate of 6 or 7 miles an hour. They can get the purest water—and the finest of fish live there—if they take it from the upper intake. I believe the whole question is one that is very easily solved by economical means for the benefit of the people on both sides, at one-hundredth of the expense of the tremendous sewage disposal plant, which in itself will be unsatisfactory. You can not take the sludge and compress it within the city limits and dry it and sell it as fertilizer and not produce a worse sanitary condition than you have now. Then, the drainage canal from here across to Lake Ontario would be a slow-moving stream, as proposed by the Lake Ontario power canal sanitary proposition. That would cost $25,000,000, and would not be a solution of the difficulty, because it would be an open sewer, and would be in a worse condition than at present, because it would be a sluggish stream. There is no question but that this matter should be considered carefully.

Mr. Gardner. I agree with you fully in that last statement.

Mr. Tawney. Do you say there is no pollution of these waters on the Canadian side by reason of dumping of raw sewage on this side of the Niagara River?

Mr. Perkins. I say there is no place where they are using it for drinking purposes, and there is 60 times as much water passing through the Niagara River as at the Chicago Drainage Canal. That would not in any way interfere with the health of the people on the Canadian side; so that I do not think the Canadian side is interested as much as the American side.

Mr. Tawney. The hearing at Niagara Falls a year ago last September showed conclusively that the waters on that side are polluted from the intake or from sewage dumped into the river from this side.

Mr. Perkins. Some of it gets across.

Mr. Tawney. Are they using that water for drinking purposes there?

Mr. Perkins. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. I am referring to Niagara Falls intake.

Mr. Perkins. I think the sewage at Niagara Falls can be taken care of by taking the drinking water from Lake Erie through the Welland power canal they are talking about.

Mr. Tawney. We have not power to compel the people over there to accept water from this side.

Mr. Perkins. I was referring to the power canal proposed to be constructed by the Ontario government. There will be pure water to supply Niagara Falls, Ontario, and they will have better water than any water that has been treated after the sewage of Buffalo has been treated and these cities have gone into it.

Mr. Dallyn. We have been producing water from the lower Niagara River, at lower Niagara, for some 15,000 troops and a population of 5,000.

Mr. Perkins. In reference to the aeration of the water, the Niagara Falls is the finest sanitation plant that could possibly be built—far better than any sanitation plant that could be built—for chemical treatment or otherwise, because the air is thoroughly distributed all through the water that comes down. The water becomes atomized, and the aeration of that water absolutely purifies it.

Mr. Tawney. In the lower Niagara?

Mr. Perkins. As it goes over the Falls. Every bit of water that goes over the Falls is aerated.

Mr. Tawney. The experts show it is polluted from shore to shore.

Mr. Powell. Do you mean that by sedimentation the heavy parts go to the bottom?

Mr. Perkins. I mean the parts of sewage are so thoroughly diffused into the water and oxidized on the way down Niagara River that after going over the Falls it is practically sterilized.

Mr. Powell. By what special creation have we some 30,000 or more bacilli or bacteria to the cubic centimeter on the Niagara River below the Falls? You evidently have not read the report. The thing is a perfect sewer below the Falls.

Mr. Perkins. It is not from Buffalo sewage; it is the city of Niagara Falls sewage, which is dumped over the river bank and atomized, sending the odor back over the city.

Mr. Powell. You will have to knock out of existence a great many facts that have been shown by a scientific examination of the water if you establish your proposition.

Mr. Perkins. Has there been any report that it is Buffalo sewage that has caused the difficulty or the city of Niagara Falls sewage dumping into the lower river, with no aeration and a long trip through the Niagara River for 20 miles or more?

Mr. Powell. There must be some peculiarities about Buffalo sewage——

Mr. Perkins. I mean the water is good above the Falls but polluted by the sewers of the city of Niagara Falls, not Buffalo.

Mr. Powell. We assume the excreta from the people of Buffalo is about the same as the excreta from the people in Tonawanda and other places downstream.

Mr. Perkins. It is a question whether the Buffalo water has not been purified on the way down the Niagara River for 20 miles.

Mr. Powell. Running water might purify itself.

Mr. Perkins. The city of Milwaukee is aerating the water by putting compressed air through tanks, and that is one of the sewage-treatment propositions adopted recently. The Imhoff tank requires all kinds of arrangements; but they claim that the compressed air and activated sludge system is a far better scheme, using the free oxygen in the air to oxidize the impurities of the water. So that if Buffalo can give all these cities drinking water, and if they can also get it on the Canadian side from the lake, it would seem as though it would largely obviate the difficulty.

Dr. Sy. Years ago I used to take the water below the Falls, and there is practically no purification by aeration.

Mr. Powell. That statement is borne out by the report. The aeration is not sufficient. It does not purify it by going over the Falls.

Mr. Perkins. Just one statement in reference to that Milwaukee sterilization plant. It is stated that they have the free oxygen of the compressed air for the oxidation of it. But here is the proposition: Chicago is taking care of the sewage without any treatment whatever through a drainage canal of 250,000 cubic feet per minute, and we have in Niagara River a natural drainage-canal proposition of 60 times the value of that drainage canal for diluting the water, with many, many times greater swiftness of current, or 25,000 cubic feet per second. The drainage canal at Chicago moves so slowly you can hardly see it. Why is it necessary to throw away the advantages of this tremendous Niagara River drainage canal which we have now, when it is not affecting the water, as far as the health of either American or Canadian citizens from typhoid is concerned?

Mr. Tawney. To what extent is the drainage canal of Chicago used for sanitary or domestic purposes?

Mr. Perkins. It is simply a power and drainage canal; it is not supposed to be used at all for drinking purposes. If you can not use Lake Erie water, and if Niagara River must be used for drinking only after treatment, then I will acknowledge it is absolutely necessary to do something in reference to this pollution, but if it is possible to use the Lake Erie water in Canadian towns without this expense, it seems to me it is wise to do it; at least, for the immediate situation. When a great city is found on the Canadian side and they must draw their water from the Niagara River for drinking purposes, then it is time to take action. It would seem to be a tremendously expensive experiment to make with very little return.

Mr. Tawney. I want to read a paragraph from the report of our sanitary expert, the best that could be obtained in both countries. He says:

The examination of samples taken from cross section below Buckhorn and Navy Islands showed undiminished pollution on the United States side. On the Canadian side, the water, though less polluted, was still dangerous, and should not be used without a most careful treatment; otherwise its use is liable to give rise to periodic epidemics of intestinal diseases.

The results from the examination of samples collected in the gorge just below the two Falls demonstrate that the pollution coming over is more uniformly distributed. There is a popular impression that the action of the Falls tends to purify sewage. It does not remove it or its dangers. It simply mixes it more thoroughly with the water. The pollution below the Falls is gross.

Mr. Perkins. Do you think your commission will recommend, even with the expenditure of $100,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 on the river for sewage treatment, the use of that water for drinking purposes?

Mr. Tawney. Have you read the report of the engineers as to how much was necessary to be expended for such treatment?

Mr. Perkins. No; I have not.

Mr. Tawney. You are out ninety-seven millions.

Mr. Perkins. The expenditure of between $3,000,000 and $3,500,000 means a vast amount to the taxpayers of this city and all those along the frontier. Will your commission recommend, after such a plant has been built, that water from Niagara, containing this large amount of bacteria, regardless of the chemical treatment, should be suitable or desirable to be taken for drinking purposes when pure water can be delivered from Lake Erie by pumping stations on both sides at a far cheaper rate than they can build a plant to take care of the sewage? The small cities can not do it with the tremendous overhead charges and the inefficiency of small pumping stations, while we have two large pumping stations that cost, with intake tunnel, $10,000,000, and we can supply drinking water to all the frontier, if we only obtain the legal right to do it, cheaper than they can pump Niagara River water even after treatment.

Mr. Powell. That is an alternative scheme you suggest. I think we are drifting away from the subject matter. There is no question the commission has come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that a condition of affairs exists on the Niagara frontier that must be remedied; that the evil results of depositing sewage on one bank of the stream is felt on the other side of the boundary line, more particularly that which comes from the United States than the Canadian. We are here having gone to great expense in the formulation by our experts of schemes for the solution of this difficulty. We have not absolutely adopted any scheme as yet, but we have laid this scheme before the people on this frontier and up the Detroit River for their consideration. A couple of months’ time has been at their disposal to take it up and consider it. We are here to see whether you accept it, or whether, instead of accepting it, you have any scheme to offer in place of this; and what you have to suggest, taking what you say at its face, is entitled to a great deal of consideration, but we can not take your ipse dixit for these matters as against scientific men. Is the city, and are the others who are interested, prepared to lay schemes before us, with any data that will reasonably back them up, for our consideration? That is the question.

Mr. Perkins. But you are considering the drainage power canal from Buffalo to Lake Ontario, which means an open sewer which you are condemning as existing in Niagara River.

Mr. Powell. We are not condemning anything. From a sanitary standpoint there is a condition of affairs which needs a remedy. Our expert has taken into consideration all the schemes, and he has made a report; and we have laid it before you and desire to know if you accept it or if you reject it, and have you anything to advance as a substitute for it.

Mr. Perkins. I did not say you were condemning the sanitary canal but the pollution of Niagara River.

Mr. Powell. We are not condemning anything.

Mr. Perkins. You are condemning the pollution of the Niagara River as an open sewer.

Mr. Powell. No. We have had Prof. Phelps and others to suggest a scheme, and we lay the results of their investigations before you, and we ask you, Do you accept it; and, if not, have you anything to offer in its place? We have not come to the point of deciding or rejecting anything yet. That will arise later.

Mr. Perkins. Do you consider that a solution?

Mr. Powell. I am not saying anything about that at all.

Mr. Perkins. In the matter of a solution, we supply all the drinking-water requirements without the necessity of taking the water from the Niagara River but from Lake Erie, and therefore you have ten times better conditions than the Chicago Drainage Canal, which has cost $100,000,000. If you can give us something better by spending $3,000,000 than the Chicago Drainage Canal, which cost $100,000,000—and we have just as good a thing here——

Mr. Powell. We have nothing to do with Chicago at all. We are here for Niagara and the lake.

STATEMENT OF MR. O. E. CARR,
CITY MANAGER, NIAGARA FALLS.

Mr. Carr. I am not here to criticize the findings of the commission in any way. I wish to represent my views and the views of the people for whom I speak. I wish to say the city of Niagara Falls expended something like $600,000 for the purpose of treating the impure waters which came down from Buffalo and points beyond, which water they had to drink. We have now in the Falls pure water, and we do not need their water. I want to say that in the construction of our sewer system something like a million and a half has been expended, and that while we did not have authority from the United States Government to construct the sewers as they were constructed they acquiesced in that construction, and now to spend something like $800,000 on new construction in order to treat the waters would be looked upon by the people there as a considerable hardship. I say that because we have already spent better than $600,000 for the purpose of treating our waters, in order to make them satisfactory. One point this gentleman raised seems to me to be good. That is, that even if all the suggestions which this commission has made with regard to the treatment of waters in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Tonawanda, North Tonawanda La Salle, and other places are carried out, the waters even then in the Niagara River will not be fit for consumption. As long as the country tributary to the various small streams which flow into the Great Lakes and the Niagara River are used in a more or less direct way for carrying off refuse the waters of the Niagara River will be contaminated to some extent; and any city will find it advisable to treat their waters before using them for drinking purposes.

In regard to that same matter, that is covered very thoroughly by the report of an investigation in reference to Cincinnati by Harrison P. Eddy, consulting engineer at Boston. He brought out the fact that the sewage of Pittsburgh, Liverpool, and all the cities above Cincinnati was thrown into the Ohio River, and that all those cities which took their water from the Ohio River found it necessary to treat it before using for domestic purposes, and the cities below Cincinnati would find that treatment also necessary before the water was used, and therefore he felt—and his report bears out his feeling—that a sewage-treatment plant for Cincinnati was at that time unnecessary, inasmuch as the waters of the Ohio River were sufficient to dilute the sewage which the city of Cincinnati threw into the Ohio River to such an extent that it was not a nuisance and did not give forth any bad odors. If it is true of Cincinnati, it is a thousand times more true of Niagara Falls, a city of 50,000 people, and the Niagara River, whose flow is perhaps five or six times the dry-weather flow of the Ohio River; and not only that, but through the gorge and rapids the tendency is to very thoroughly mix the sewage and the water of Niagara River to such an extent that at no time would there be any bad odor coming off from the water. I had just two points to make: One is that the saddling of the cost of this treatment plant, something like $800,000, on the municipality of Niagara Falls would be a hardship on the people, and the maintenance of that plant would be an additional cost to the city, and I feel, as far as the city of Niagara Falls is concerned, that city being the last city on the line, it ought to be the last city that would be required by the United States Government to treat its waters, and especially so on account of the very thorough mixing of the sewage that comes from the Niagara Falls in the Niagara River. There is one more point in that same connection: I believe the chemical plants in Niagara Falls are discharging into the sewers, which tends to destroy the bacteria which normally would exist.

Mr. Powell. Do you purify your water in the city?

Mr. Carr. Yes. We were disgraced by having the highest typhoid death rate in the United States. At that time our water was not being treated.

STATEMENT OF MR. R. L. SEELBACH,
OF BUFFALO, N. Y.

Mr. Seelbach. I would like to ascertain if it is mandatory on the city to accept any plan the commission recommends?

Mr. Tawney. It would be mandatory if the two Governments, by treaty, agreed to the adoption of the recommendation; but as far as the commission’s recommendation is concerned it is not mandatory. If the commission recommends certain remedies, and the two Governments, by convention or treaty, adopt the recommendation, it becomes the supreme law and would be mandatory upon the municipalities.

Mr. Seelbach. If it could be shown to the commission in a reasonable time that a certain system would be more economical and hygienically superior to the proposition of the commission, would that be accepted?

Mr. Tawney. You appeared before the commission in 1914?

Mr. Seelbach. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. And presented a plan of treatment?

Mr. Seelbach. It was more upon the garbage proposition; but I have taken up this matter and submitted a plan. I have a scheme to burn the sludge.

Mr. Gardner. The commission is here at this time for the discussion of the plans submitted by our engineer, as to whether or not they are acceptable; if not, what particular objection these different municipalities have to the plans as submitted in this report, and we can not take up anything that is purely outside of that question.

Mr. Seelbach. I submitted my proposition to you people, and I never heard anything about it.

Mr. Tawney. I can say to you that it was disposed of as not coming within the purview of our investigation.

Mr. Seelbach. I would like to know the facts in connection with that.

Mr. Tawney. I do not think it was formally disposed of, but that was the consensus of opinion it did not fall within the scope of the investigation.

Mr. Seelbach. If I can show to the city of Buffalo that my system is more hygienic and more economical, would it have your approval?

Mr. Gardner. I have no doubt it might have the approval of the commission informally, but I doubt whether they could take it up properly and consider it under the reference.

Mr. Seelbach. But the city of Buffalo?

Mr. Gardner. They can do as they please.

Mr. Powell. Have you laid your scheme before the city authorities?

Mr. Seelbach. Not as yet; I would like to.

Mr. Gardner. You have not as many men to deal with as you had years ago.

Mr. Seelbach. If the commissioners could find my statement there, I would like to make a correction.

Mr. Tawney. We have not it with us. You can address the secretary at Washington, or see him here personally, and give him any corrections you want to make.

Mr. Gardner. I was going to make the suggestion that you might be allowed to make your correction at this time, if you care to. But we have not your statement here.

Mr. Seelbach. I can not make it without the statement before me.

Mr. Gardner. We do not seem to be getting anywhere; we are traveling around in a circle. I submit this proposition to you—whether or not we could take a recess, and your engineers or your representative men and our engineers spend the remainder of the day in going over this report, to see whether or not you can not come in here to-morrow with some tentative agreement at least as to what your differences are, whether they are irreconcilable, or what may be the prospect of coming to some understanding with each other. I want to repeat again that, under the terms of the reference, this commission has nothing whatever to do with the supplying of pure water to any of these municipalities. The question referred to us is to determine whether or not these boundary waters were polluted to the injury of health and property on the other side of the line, and if they were—and it has been clearly demonstrated that they were—what remedy we would advise and submit to the two Governments for their adoption. We are anxious to have the cooperation of the people here in Buffalo and elsewhere to work out a plan possibly that will answer the terms of the reference and make it as easy as possible for the people interested here and elsewhere. That is what we are here for. The commission could sit down in its offices in Washington or Ottawa and develop a plan, but we want to consider you people here; we want to work with you to devise a scheme that will be best for you and acceptable to the Governments at the least possible cost. That is my idea of the situation in a nutshell.

Mr. Powell. I would suggest that Mr. Seelbach prepare a typewritten brief and give a copy to each member of the commission. If his idea is good, I, for one, would like to take advantage of it and have it considered, but you understand we can not adequately consider any scientific scheme here by simply an oral statement. You had better typewrite your brief and submit it.

Mr. Seelbach. I can submit it. How long will you remain here?

Mr. Gardner. We can remain here two or three days.

Mr. Powell. And if it is not ready you could send copies to the Washington or Ottawa offices.

Prof. Phelps. I would like to suggest that we have not heard from all the officials of Buffalo. Capt. Norton looks as though he had something to say, and it might be well to fill in time hearing what these people have to say.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. GEORGE H. NORTON,
CITY ENGINEER, OF BUFFALO.

Capt. Norton. I have had the honor of appearing before you several times in this matter, and at the earlier hearings I believe that you asked the city of Buffalo if we had any plan to suggest at that time, and, as city engineer, I said to you that I thought the ordinary procedure would be for you to hear the outline of such results as you expected should be accomplished, and I believe that was the opinion and advice of your sanitary consulting engineer—that the commission should outline a tentative policy and submit such to the city, and I am very much pleased that that has been done in the excellent way in which it has been done. In speaking of the plan itself as worked out in detail by Mr. Tolles and Prof. Phelps and your commission, the general plan for Buffalo for the collection of its sewage has followed the idea which the city has had as the probable solution, accepting the suggestion of your Mr. Tolles, which looks very reasonable—that we divert certain of our sewage from the easterly side of the city to the southern outlet instead of our middle outlet in Niagara River. That is a matter which can only be determined, as to its extent and advisability by making detailed plans both ways. That is a matter which will require careful engineering estimate. I believe Mr. Tolles has gone through that to some extent, but I do not think to the extent of the estimate of the parallel construction. That, then, would bring us down to the question of the extent of treatment, if such is to be undertaken. The suggestion which I have made heretofore was somewhat in parallel with what Mr. Carr has suggested, that there is one limiting condition of pollution in the Niagara River which, I believe, is not thoroughly covered by the examination of the experts as to the condition of pollution, and that was whether or not the pollution from surface drainage at times did not materially exceed the proposed limitation, that the conditions here at times make this river less desirable by reason of surface pollution; then we have a limiting factor in there which we have not met in the tentative plans proposed by the consulting engineers, and I think it should be given consideration in this study; that is, that you have at times conditions from surface drainage pollution which will exceed the limitation set up by sanitary engineers as one to be worked to in treatment of it. I think the engineers will agree that if you have that condition existing 10 or 15 days a year, which is detrimental to the citizens, it is not the average condition, but should be given consideration.

Mr. Gardner. Is there any material increase in the sources of pollution?

Capt. Norton. It would be in keeping with the normal population of the community. It is different here and on the other side of the river. I believe the normal rate of increase of pollution over there is not as great as that of the cities. The extent of this treatment as recommended, I would say, would be rather more than I would have in mind for the city of Buffalo as being a solution of the problem, for this reason, that the report of the sanitary expert, which established a condition of water which might not impose an undue burden on the water-filtration plant, is based on the average pollution of the entire cross-section, and I should think that was a very reasonable solution for the smaller stream, but the question comes with the larger stream, where we can get a thread of water which is materially less polluted than the average, as to whether that should be given material consideration in a stream as large as this; that, instead of putting our basis of 500 B. coli per cubic centimeter over the whole cross section of the river, whether we should not take that for the whole section of the river, which is liable to furnish variable water to the various municipalities along the stream, allowing for all contingencies in the way of change of currents at various times. These are broad problems which can only be settled by the highest advice, and it would be well for the city to have that advice and go over these two or three different points before accepting in toto that extent to which the clarification or purification should be considered.

Mr. Gardner. That is what the commission did. They advocated the employment of the best sanitary engineers.

Mr. Tawney. Besides the plan you have been speaking of, what would you say as to whether or not the commission would be justified in recommending to the two Governments that no raw sewage be deposited in any of the boundary waters?

Capt. Norton. I believe that principle is correct, and that there should be some sewage treatment.

Mr. Tawney. You do not think these international waters should be used for discharging raw sewage from the cities bordering on them?

Capt. Norton. No; I do not; and that is the consensus of sanitary opinion at the present time—that such a thing should not be allowed. With regard to Mr. Perkins’s suggestion as to furnishing the water supply along the Niagara frontier, I have a reference to my first suggestion which I made to you when the matter was first submitted to the city, which you will find in the hearings of the International Joint Commission, in the document of 1915, on pages 41, 43, et seq., when that matter was discussed on behalf of the city as a possible solution. I am not in a position to speak as to whether the city of Buffalo would want to insist on that as a solution. It is one of the probable and reasonable solutions of the whole problem, but I suppose we are dependent upon your action in covering the conditions as they exist at large along the waterways. You must make some reasonable recommendation that will cover the whole situation, and if you do that what your attitude would be in regard to making an exception here would be an open question. There are many problems here, and I do not think the city has had a chance to give it detailed study. If they wish to go into this and arrive at a reasonable solution it might be well for the city to have some expert advice and go over the matters in detail.

Mr. Tawney. Has the city of Buffalo in the last year been making any study of this problem independent of the study made by the sanitary engineers of the commission?

Capt. Norton. No, sir.

Mr. Tawney. I did not know whether Buffalo had or not.

Capt. Norton. No.

Mr. Tawney. Do you think the city council or commission, whichever it is, will act upon your advice and take steps to obtain expert advice with respect to the modification which you suggested in regard to the plan proposed by our sanitary engineers?

Capt. Norton. I think the council can answer better themselves.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES B. HILL,
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND COUNCILMAN, OF BUFFALO.

Mr. Hill. I might take the liberty of speaking for the new council in that regard, and in answer I would say that we have a very high regard for our engineering department, and I have no doubt the council would follow the advice of the department in that respect. Of course, I am not in a position to speak authoritatively as to the policy of the new council.

Mr. Tawney. My reason for asking is this: We have had this matter under consideration now for about three years, and if the city of Buffalo contemplated in the near future taking up the study of the problem along the line suggested by Capt. Norton, the commission might hereafter delay final report until we had the judgment and advice or the conclusions of your city. It is not the desire of the commission to arbitrarily make recommendations without taking into consideration the wishes and the desires of the various communities affected. We want to give them a reasonable time.

Mr. Hill. I think the council feels that it is its duty to cooperate in every way with this commission and to take this matter under advisement in the way that Capt. Norton suggests. For myself—and I am in the same position as the other commissioners—I may say we took office only the 1st of January. This matter came to our attention only when the notice came in, and we have had time but for one informal discussion with the engineering department, so that, as a representative body, we are unable at this time, as I feel, to do justice to the matter at this hearing. I agree with the suggestion of the commission, and I think that that is the disposition that ought to be made of the matter, and give us time to take the matter up, which we will do.

Mr. Tawney. Speaking for myself, we want the cooperation of the two large cities on our side of the line in working out this problem, so that when it is worked out and embodied in our recommendation it will reasonably meet the approval of the people of these two great municipalities; and in that case it would be comparatively easy for the two Governments to follow the recommendations and make the necessary provisions. In that case our work will not be futile, otherwise it might go for naught. For that reason we want the cooperation of both cities.

Mr. Hill. Absolutely right, and I take the liberty of speaking for the council, and I say we are of a mind to give that cooperation, and we will certainly do it.

Mr. Gardner. Can you give us approximately the time you will require to consider it?

Mr. Hill. You all know how such matters go.

Mr. Powell. Or, rather, don’t go.

Mr. Hill. I can say the matter will not be neglected.

Mr. Powell. Have you done anything since you got the report in the way of considering the recommendations, or having them considered?

Mr. Hill. We had one meeting and one discussion with Capt. Norton occupying over two hours, perhaps.

Mr. Powell. Will you really take it up seriously?

Mr. Hill. We will, because we appreciate the situation.

Mr. Powell. This thing has been hanging three years.

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCIS E. FRONCZAK,
HEALTH OFFICER OF BUFFALO.

Dr. Fronczak. First of all, I want to congratulate the commission and engineers on the excellent report published in the document issued last March. It shows a most thorough study, and also shows that, notwithstanding statements made this morning, there is greater contamination below than above—at least more contamination. But there is one thing forgotten by the engineers in this report apparently that Capt. Norton has mentioned—that the surface drainage is not considered. I do not believe any city is justified in turning raw sewage into any stream of that kind. But even if we do treat sewage that way, we will still have an immense amount of surface drainage from contaminated streams.

Mr. Powell. You mean outside of the cities?

Dr. Fronczak. No, not outside; and that surface drainage will have to be considered all the time; in other words, no matter what is done about the disposal of sewage, you still must purify the water after it gets to the mains for drinking purposes. In Buffalo we have most excellent results; and I want to place in the record of the commission the fact that the use of chlorine gas has considerably reduced the number of typhoid cases in Buffalo. Last year, 1915, shows that, notwithstanding the fact that Buffalo was larger and more populous than ever before, we had fewer cases of typhoid fever than ever before in the history of the department of health. We had fewer deaths from typhoid in Buffalo last year than at any time in the history of the department. We had this year, from January 1 to June 20, only 61 cases of typhoid in Buffalo, and only 16 deaths, which is so low that the United States Government, the New York State department of health, and the scientific societies have complimented the city on the results attained, and this was due to the purification of the water supply by chlorine gas; and that is a thing that must be considered all the time on the question of pollution of these streams, not only the removal of the solids, the sterilization, or the removal of as much pollution as is possible, but the removal of danger of contamination from surface drainage. Incidentally I might state that since August, 1914, when the chlorine gas was used in Buffalo, the total number of bacteria, which, I believe, have run into thousands day after day in Buffalo, have fallen as low as four per hundred centimeters; and while in former years we had colon bacilli in the water, since 1914 to date only on one single day did we find colon bacilli. So that shows conclusively that the use of chlorine gas, the way we are using it, renders the water more safe, and that this will have to be considered in connection with the pollution of these streams.

Mr. Tawney. When did you commence the use of chlorine gas?

Dr. Fronczak. August, 1914.

Mr. Tawney. Two years?

Dr. Fronczak. Yes; only on one single day in all this time did we find colon bacilli where we formerly found it repeatedly, and the death rate of Buffalo for typhoid fever to-day is below 10 per 100,000 population. The fall has been so steady the last five years, and especially within two years, that the State department of health sent congratulations to the mayor of Buffalo and to the department.

Mr. Powell. What was your death rate before?

Dr. Fronczak. Seventeen, 19, 25; last year it was below 10. It is growing less all the time, and Buffalo is a growing city.

Mr. Tawney. Were there any other changes made in your system to which any part of this could be attributed?

Dr. Fronczak. Yes; the new tunnel. With the construction of the tunnel we found a difference, and the fly exterminator contributed some. But the use of chlorine gas is the best investment Buffalo has made for the reduction of death rate that I know of.

Capt. Norton. We started using water from the new intake in January, 1912, but it was not used entirely. There was some water used from the old intake. For 1912, 1913, and 1914 the death rate was 13½ per 100,000, and for the 10 years previous to the opening of the new intake it was 24½. So that we had a reduction prior to the introduction of chlorine gas of 12 per 100,000, and last year it was 10, and this year it is below that.

Mr. Tawney. You can not attribute the favorable result entirely to the use of chlorine gas?

Capt. Norton. Two things. The other is getting into the best thread of the current, which was done on the advice of Mr. George Fuller, and that worked out well; and one of the points I tried to bring out before your commission—that where you had the thread of the current, which was apparently pure, compared with the remainder of the stream, perhaps the average condition over the whole thread of the current would impose somewhat of a hardship on the city of Buffalo in the way of reduction of 90 per cent which you propose here, which seems to me too high.

Dr. Fronczak. I would like to place some figures before the commission as to the death rate in Buffalo, as follows:

[1] Does not include stillbirths.

Mr. Seelbach. I refer you to a journal published by the Society of Economic Industry, of London, England, dated June, 1915, a lecture given by J. Grossman on the disposal of sewage sludge. The article is very long, and I will quote the following:

It is to be hoped that draining this enormous waste of material which should go back to the land, and which represents a value of at least £2,000,000 per annum in this country, will not continue indefinitely, and that it will be recognized that sewage sludge is a national asset which should be dealt with by the Government in the interest of agriculture, to which a cheap and inefficient manure will be of incalculable benefit.

Mr. Perkins. I will call attention to a statement by the commissioner of health of Chicago, Ill., that “For the 10-year period preceding the opening of the tunnel the typhoid rate was 57.9 per 100,000, and after the opening of the tunnel it was reduced to 5.39 per 100,000. I believe not only the drainage canal but the introduction of chlorine gas had an effect on that.” This is from the remarks of John Dill Robertson, commissioner of health of Chicago, Ill., published in the Congressional Record. Here it is a question of international boundary streams; but what is there so sacred or so holy about international streams that they are different from the Mississippi River, where they encourage the introduction of all the Chicago sewage and everything into the river? There are millions of inhabitants on that river who take that water for drinking purposes, where here we are expected to spend two or three millions for sewage treatment, for the benefit of whom? On the American side they have the chlorine proposition, which has reduced the death rate of Niagara Falls. Here you have investigated the proposition years ago, before the chlorine gas was available for the sterilization of the water, and it is said we must decide on spending $3,000,000 of money to avoid pollution of Niagara River. It is entirely unnecessary.

Mr. Powell. Can something practical come out of this? If you have a scheme to submit, put it on paper.

Mr. Perkins. Inasmuch as all drinking water can be supplied from Lake Erie, for various purposes, that is a solution in itself. We have already a solution.

Mr. Powell. Tell us what the cost of the trunk main is going to be.

Mr. Perkins. Merely a few thousand dollars.

Mr. Powell. Down to Niagara?

Mr. Perkins. Through to Tonawanda, on this side; and this water-pipe line becomes the means for the distribution of a greater city, with its suburbs, which must have water anyhow.

Mr. Powell. I doubt very much if $50,000 would dig your ditch.

Mr. Perkins. I am simply talking of the main; I am not talking about the Canadian side; but I said $50,000 or $100,000 would carry the necessary water main for Tonawanda, or even as far as Niagara Falls, depending, of course, upon its size, providing for the future needs.

Mr. Powell. We want facts, not the imagination.

Mr. Perkins. The engineers could state this better; but it would be a mere bagatelle as compared with $3,000,000 for the sewage treatment necessary, and then the river water would not be desirable for drinking purposes.

Mr. Gardner. Could Prof. Phelps make a statement in regard to the cooperation we are seeking and the desirability of it, and also what the gist of the reference is. It should be fresh in our minds before we talk ourselves.

Mr. Powell. We have had it from Capt. Norton and the others. Ask the authorities of Buffalo city exactly what they want. Do they want a postponement of the hearing; and if so, how long?

Mr. Kreinheder. How long would it take your engineer to make this study?

Mr. Powell. Your engineers are working with them. They collaborated on this.

Capt. Norton. The work the city did was in furnishing the information and discussing the differences here. We had a good many talks over the local conditions and getting such ideas as they had. There was no work done by the department of public works on the report further than a discussion in this way.

Mr. Powell. And it takes a much shorter time to revise than it would to work out the scheme in the first instance.

Capt. Norton. I do not suppose you would care to have us work out another plan?

Mr. Tawney. I was going to suggest that it might not be necessary to have a further hearing, as I understand Capt. Norton and Mr. Hill. What they contemplate doing is employing sanitary experts or engineers to go over this matter and consider such modifications as were suggested by Capt. Norton this morning, and their conclusions could be submitted to us in the form of a report to us without any further hearing. As I understand it the city of Buffalo does not wish to have any more hearings, but they wish to submit some considerations based upon reports from sanitary engineers.

Capt. Norton. That would be my engineering idea, and in connection with that suggestion it would occur to me that the other cities might join in an examination of that kind, so that we could have their ideas.

Dr. Clark. I am not able to speak for the council of Tonawanda or North Tonawanda, but I think that suggestion is a very good one, and they might cooperate in that.

Mr. Powell. Mr. Hill, you and the commissioner of public works were authorized to speak for the city in that regard.

Mr. Hill. I believe we were, informally.

Mr. Powell. The only point is that we have been so long over this there will be a good deal of criticism in regard to it. Now, we want a matter of hard and fast business. We do not want to hurry you at all, but to have some definite understanding.

Mr. Hill. In regard to that, after Mr. Tawney made some remarks to Capt. Norton, I thought perhaps I should say, speaking for myself, and indirectly for the council, I would not want it understood, so far as I am concerned, that we are committing ourselves to a possible modification of the plan that has been suggested.

Mr. Tawney. It is not so understood by me or anybody else. I used that merely as an illustration.

Mr. Hill. I wanted to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

Mr. George Clinton, Jr. The last remarks made brought to my attention something that has been running through my mind during this hearing, and that is that it might be of some assistance if the city officials clearly understood the scope of this investigation. I have no doubt perhaps they might, but I confess I have not been able to get it clearly.

Mr. Tawney. We were just going to call on Prof. Phelps, our consulting engineer, to make a statement.

Mr. George Clinton, Jr. I wish to ask one question in regard to it, and I will be through. The sanitary experts of the commission have determined that the city pollutes the water of the Niagara River by the discharge of sewage, and they have recommended certain means of stopping that pollution. Now, is not the province of this commission to determine the result that is to be obtained—that is, the cessation of that pollution—leaving it to the city authorities to determine the means of putting a stop to it, with the advice merely of the commission? Is that statement correct?

Mr. Tawney. Not exactly, as I understand it.

Mr. Powell. That has been my idea all along, but that is not the idea of the majority of the commission. My idea is that we should demand or ask for certain results. As to how those results are to be brought about, leave it entirely to the judgment of the municipalities. But we have gone further than that and have had the methods investigated.

Mr. Magrath. This is merely to show they are practical.

Mr. Tawney. The second clause of the reference clearly indicates that the two Governments expect the commission, in its final report, to recommend to them what remedies are advisable or necessary to prevent the pollution which we found existed in contravention of the treaty. The second clause of the reference reads:

In what way or manner, whether by the construction and operation of suitable drainage canals or plants at convenient points or otherwise, is it possible and advisable to remedy or prevent the pollution of these waters, and by what means or arrangement can the proper construction or operation of remedial or preventive works, or a system or method of rendering those waters sanitary and suitable for domestic and other uses be best secured and maintained in order to insure the adequate protection and development of all interests involved on both sides of the boundary, and to fulfill the obligations undertaken in Article IV of the waterways treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, in which it is agreed that the waters therein 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?

So that we must not only determine the effect of the pollution, but we must also recommend a remedy, and in order to recommend a remedy we have had these investigations made by the engineers and studied the problems.

Mr. George Clinton, Jr. I had construed that as requiring a recommendation that was merely advisory.

Mr. Tawney. That is right; it is advisory and not mandatory. That is for the Governments to determine after we render our advisory judgment. It is then for the Governments to say whether that advisory judgment should be executed.

Mr. Hill. Answering the question of the commissioners as to the time the city may require to make this report which has been suggested, we would say six months.

Mr. Mignault. Do you suggest that we hold another hearing in the city of Buffalo?

Mr. Hill. No; we acquiesce in the suggestion of Mr. Tawney in that respect.

Mr. Gardner. Prof. Phelps, we have a few minutes left before recess, and the commission will be glad to hear any statement you may desire to make.

Prof. Phelps. Mr. Chairman, my suggestions are contained in this progress report, and I can only in the briefest way allude to the main features for the purpose of summarizing the whole matter and, perhaps, clarifying the present status as I see it.

When the commission met last in Buffalo, about a year and a half ago, it had arrived at the conclusion, based upon what is possibly the most elaborate investigation of stream-pollution conditions ever made, that the Niagara River, in common with other frontier rivers, was being polluted in contravention of certain treaty rights. At that time the commission had had suggested to it by its engineers the proposition that it should prepare plans and make recommendations to the cities. The commission had not acted upon that recommendation, but had it under consideration. The cities were heard at that time, and the city engineer of Buffalo stated that it was the duty of the commission to make the first definite suggestion rather than to ask the city what it proposed to do on the mere statement of the fact of pollution.

The commission undertook thereafter the investigation of which you have just received the final report. It was not the purpose in making this investigation to attempt to determine the most feasible plan of remedy; it was merely the purpose to determine a feasible plan, a plan which, in the opinion of the engineer, would satisfy the requirements of the commission and would serve as a suitable remedy, under the terms of the treaty and the reference, for the conditions which the commission had found to exist. It seemed satisfactory to us if we could determine, as a result of the comparatively brief survey, a single suitable solution of this problem. In the search for such a solution many alternative plans were naturally investigated. I think the commissioner is a little mistaken in his suggestion made here that six alternative plans have been presented to the city for consideration. We have in fact presented all the facts and figures in connection with our studies, but definite recommendations along a single specific line are made.

Mr. Powell. That simply means that you consider six schemes.

Prof. Phelps. Yes, sir; and selected from those six the one that seemed to us the most advisable. We do not pretend that this rather brief engineering study is a sufficiently complete one for the city’s needs. We do not doubt that, with the fuller engineering studies which will be necessary on their part before any plans are adopted, they will be able to arrive at even more satisfactory results than we have reached. The progress of sewage purification is so rapid that since the beginning of this investigation processes have been developed that look to-day most promising, and which may, before we arrive at any final conclusion in this matter, demonstrate a very great saving in expense. These things we have had in mind and have fully considered, but our purpose has been to show that at a certain definite figure the city can accomplish the results desired by the commission and by the two Governments.

In order to accomplish that result the commission first felt it necessary to interpret the terms of the reference, which were somewhat indefinite. It is stated in the reference and also in the treaty that the waters shall not be polluted on either side of the line to the injury of health or property on the other side.

Mr. Magrath. May I interrupt you to inquire if that international burden is greater than the ordinary national burden?

Prof. Phelps. It is not so great; no, sir.

Mr. Magrath. I thought you might bring that out.

Prof. Phelps. It was not so simple to determine just what——

Mr. Powell. Pardon me. You say that the burdens imposed by the treaty on communities like the city of Buffalo are not so great as the law of the United States or the law of Canada would impose upon these communities. Is that what you mean?

Prof. Phelps. No, sir. May I return to that point later? I was about to say that it was not self-evident in the terms of the treaty and the reference just how much pollution could be permitted without permanent and definite injury to the health and property of those on the other side. It was necessary to seek advice upon that point, and it seems to me that that point is the only one susceptible of any difference of opinion. It must be understood, in the first place, that rivers of this sort can not be maintained in their pristine purity. They must serve for the natural drainage of populous areas, and they must be polluted to a greater or less extent. Furthermore, the city sewage can be treated to almost any condition desired. We can make drinking water out of it if we want to, but the cost would be prohibitive. We can purify it to any degree varying from mere screening up to the drinking-water standard.

Now, how much pollution shall we permit in these rivers—how much ought we to permit, considering the economic aspect of the situation, and also to comply with the obligations of the treaty? Upon this point the commission sought the best engineering advice available, and obtained a definite statement of a limiting standard of purity beyond which it was deemed unwise to go for drinking-water supplies.

Now, there is no question here of using these supplies in their raw state; it is assumed to be the duty of all cities using these rivers to purify them to the best of their ability. It was only proposed that the rivers should not be polluted beyond a fit condition for further purification for domestic purposes. It is the most moderate and conservative standard that we can possibly propose.

Having arrived at this point of departure with respect to a standard, which is capable of some flexibility, and is, after all, only an opinion, the remainder of the work was purely an engineering study of the means necessary to accomplish the desired results. Those means, as I have stated, we have studied in some detail. We are satisfied that our figures are correct. We are satisfied that the city can do what has been recommended to the commission within the estimated cost. As I have stated, we believe they can do it for less money. The progress of sewage purification and the necessary additional engineering studies will undoubtedly bring about further economies. We are content, however, to rest upon the figures given. We believe that those figures are a reasonable and justifiable burden to impose upon this city.

Now, as to the standard itself. That is, of course, open to discussion. It may be too severe. The city of Niagara Falls seems to be quite content to purify this water as it is to-day. Other cities are not. There are upon record several cases of water filters or purification plants, treating water worse than our proposed standard, which have on occasions failed. The best engineering devices fail at times, and the water filter, or a sterilization plant, is at most a fallible engineering device. It is fairly satisfactory, but at times it fails, and it is our duty as sanitarians to provide a raw water for treatment at such plants of a character which will not impose too much of a burden upon the water plant, which will not reduce the margin of safety below a reasonable point.

We had all these matters in mind in fixing the standard alluded to, and if any further discussion is desired as to the reasonableness of that standard, we shall, of course, welcome it.

Capt. Norton’s suggestion this morning that instead of considering the entire cross section, we should consider the fact that the water is naturally better in some strips than it is in others, seemed to me to be a point well taken. Of course that is not a matter that we can deal with in figures. The only way we could handle the matter in figures was to assume that the sewage was mixed throughout the cross section, and it is shown in the report that that is probably the most extreme assumption. It gives us the worst water, because if it is not mixed throughout the cross section, then there are necessarily better and worse streaks than the average, and the better streaks would be available for a source of water supply. On the other hand, the flow of water in streams or lines is a matter which is not capable of definite engineering study. It is a matter which can be discovered only by experimental work on the river, and it is a matter upon which we do not dare to place too much reliance. There are in most rivers changes in the channels, in the drift of the current as effected by the direction of the wind; then various elevations and rates of flow modify the drifts to a certain extent. So I think we should be a little cautious in assuming that there are available at all times streaks of water better than the average. I do not doubt that there are in most cases just such conditions.

Mr. Tawney. Prof. Phelps, are these purer streaks, as you call them, continuous or liable to change?

Prof. Phelps. They follow, in general, lines parallel to the river channel. As the river channel bends, if there is a heavy pollution on one shore, it tends to keep on that shore. The farther downstream we go the less definite become these stratifications.

Mr. Tawney. But these purer streams that Mr. Norton spoke of?

Prof. Phelps. They follow too. The whole flow tends to be in parallel lines. Between here and Niagara Falls there is very definite evidence that the pollution tends to hug the shore and the water in the center of the river remains for the most part relatively purer. Below the Falls, in the gorge and the whirlpool, there is a complete mixing, so that with respect to the water supply below that point we would have to accept an average mixture.

Now, in answer to Mr. Magrath’s question regarding these standards from an international viewpoint and the question of how much pollution crosses the boundary waters, I would say that the standards are much less severe than they would be if we had to consider the local situation. On the other hand, Mr. Powell mentioned the national laws. The State and National laws are very weak in our country, as is evidenced by the present situation, so that our international requirements as contained in these standards are more stringent than existing laws, but if a proper law against stream pollution, or any standards such as the commission is considering, were adopted by the Federal Government the local requirements would be more excessive than the international requirements. The pollution, in any event, tends to keep on the same side of the stream. That is, it does not cross the boundary in any such concentration as exists along the shore of its origin.

The question has been raised here and seems to have been left a little bit in doubt as to whether the recommendations and particular devices of this report shall be mandatory. My personal opinion is that in general they should not. If the city wishes to take advantage of any of the newer processes of sewage purification and can save money thereby, we say Godspeed. We want you to do it. The commission wants to accomplish and is obliged to accomplish certain things, and it wants to see those things accomplished in the most economical manner. On the other hand, I think the gentleman who last raised this question had in mind the proposed drainage canal. That would, of course, accomplish all that is desired so far as the Niagara River is concerned. The commission is obliged to look beyond that, however, and if it is not satisfied that that remedy would accomplish all that should be accomplished as regards Lake Ontario, and if it is also convinced, as has been recommended, that that remedy will not be a satisfactory one from the point of view of the citizens of New York State, then I do not think that the commission would feel justified in accepting that as an alternative, even though it seemed more desirable for this immediate locality.

Mr. Tawney. What have you to suggest about the pollution from surface drainage which has been discussed here this morning and which it is claimed your report does not deal with?

Prof. Phelps. I recall that Capt. Norton raised that point at our last hearing, and I have been unable to see that it is of very serious significance. There are two distinct classes of drainage which come under that classification, and I have no doubt Capt. Norton has them both in mind. First, there is the drainage of the rural community about here, and it is undoubtedly the fact that the little streams and brooks which flow into the river in this region in times of bad weather contain a great deal of surface wash and are undoubtedly highly polluted. Capt. Norton mentioned that specifically at the last hearing in this city. Then, there is the second class—the run-off during storms. It is an obvious source of pollution. In regard to the first matter, consideration of the populations existing in these rural regions in comparison with the populations of the cities will show, just from the point of view of the human population and human pollution, that their total effect must be rather small. The effect of animal pollution, while it is undesirable and places a load upon water filters, can be dismissed as regards direct effect upon public health and the quality of drinking waters.

The most serious aspect is the storm-water overflow from the city sewers. There is a very serious and heavy pollution, and in the present state of our knowledge it seems to me is one that we have just got to let pass.

I do not quite agree with Capt. Norton, if I understood him correctly, that the maximum condition of pollution during heavy storms fixes the limits or should in any way modify our limits of pollution. This is a thing added to all the rest. If we have a certain amount of sewage coming in we have something added in time of storm. That something may be a large thing, but it does not occur very many times in the year. Our computations show the actual amount of sewage discharged in storm overflow during the year to be but a very few per cent. It surely is our duty to cut off the main source of pollution from the public sewers, even though we do have to ignore this storm wash which we admit is serious at times.

Capt. Norton. If I may interrupt on that one point, I had that in mind, especially in connection with the threads of the currents which gave us the pure and impure waters, and that largely entered into the element of pollution at times.

Prof. Phelps. Your thought is that the storm flow tends to mix those streams more than they would naturally be mixed?

Capt. Norton. No; but that was one of the elements that would give us the average. Some of the elements of our street washing from our sewers was confined largely to the shore line and did not reach any thorough admixture.

Prof. Phelps. In making these averages we used our best ingenuity to get a fair average from the analytical results. It is, of course, a difficult matter, and my only satisfaction in thinking that these averages are anywhere near correct is the fact that after the detailed study to which they were submitted they seemed to agree very well among themselves and as between the various cities. The pollution per capita of population in the Niagara River agreed very well indeed with that in the Detroit River, and I think, on the whole, by averaging the many thousands of analyses we were able to arrive at a fair statement. But you will recall that the individual figures did vary enormously. I have no doubt that the analytical results included a certain amount of this storm wash, and that the degree of purification which we have asked for will not probably bring down the result quite as low as we would figure. On the other hand, I do not think that the additional pollution due to storm wash is many per cent of the total and its significance is certainly not in proportion to its amount. I believe that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tawney. Is there anyone present from Tonawanda or North Tonawanda? Lackawanna, I understand, was represented here this morning. Perhaps the representative of the State board of health, Mr. Chairman, will have something to say this afternoon.

Dr. Clark. Is there any particular question you wanted to ask with reference to Tonawanda or North Tonawanda?

Mr. Tawney. We wanted to know if the suggestions made in the report are satisfactory?

Dr. Clark. I do not know whether they have any representative here or not.

Mr. Tawney. They were notified, and they can not complain that the commission did not give them an opportunity to be heard.

Dr. Clark. You spoke about the chlorination of water. I think one of the most remarkable instances of reduction of typhoid fever in treating water with chlorine gas was manifested in the city of Lockport. Getting water from the same source for the 12 months before they used the chlorination process they had 53 cases of typhoid fever, and in the 7 months after chlorination of the water in the following year they had 3 cases. The Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, and Lockport intakes are all in practically the same thread of water.

Mr. Tawney. What effect has chlorination upon the potability of the water?

Dr. Clark. There is a difference of opinion with regard to that. A great many people in Buffalo complained of the chlorine tasting in the water before the chlorine was ever put into it. After it was put in they did not complain. Dr. Fronczak received dozens of letters asking that they stop using chlorine when there was no chlorine whatever being used. The amount of chlorine that is necessary to destroy pathogenic life can not be tasted.

Speaking of this surface-water drainage I think that is a question that applies more largely and more directly to smaller communities. It is well known that in some of the rural communities there have occurred some of the greatest typhoid-fever epidemics that we have ever had. In Plymouth, Pa., there occurred one of the greatest typhoid-fever epidemics that the world has ever seen. A little trout stream was contaminated by a patient that came in there. The discharges were simply not disinfected by the physician or the nurse, but were thrown out upon the ground, and when the spring rains came a serious epidemic occurred. An epidemic through surface contamination occurred at Ithaca. I think it applies more to rural communities. The State Department of Health of New York has recommended the chlorination process, and I think it has been proven beyond any peradventure that if the apparatus is carefully watched and the proper amount of gas is liberated into the water it is almost a sure preventive of typhoid fever, but an apparatus such as is manufactured now becomes corrupted to a certain extent, and unless cylinders are provided for weighing the chlorine you can not rely on the automatic weighing. Through the North Tonawanda intake recently we had quite a number of cases of typhoid fever, and by positive demonstration we discovered that they were using less than half the amount of chlorine they were supposed to use because the treating apparatus did not work.

Mr. Tawney. The State Board of Health of New York has had this report of the consulting sanitary engineer now for some two months for study. Have you given any study to the problems that are discussed in that report?

Dr. Clark. That would be a matter beyond my jurisdiction. It would be taken up entirely by the engineer division of the department at Albany.

Mr. Tawney. Do you know whether or not they have studied those problems?

Dr. Clark. Located here, I have charge of five counties in western New York. I represent the department locally, but I am not connected very much with the Albany office.

Mr. Powell. Prof. Phelps, I would like to have you bring out clearly before the gentlemen present the object and policy in making your studies. It was not with the idea, I presume, of imposing on the city of Buffalo or the city of Detroit any particular system, but it was to show to both communities that the result you thought advisable could be worked out at a certain cost, and if they could work them out more cheaply than that it is not your purpose to interfere with them. Was that your idea?

Prof. Phelps. Yes, sir.

Mr. Powell. That is one object. The other was in the capacity of an adviser to point out some feasible method by which it can be done if they choose to adopt it, and I understand you to say that they might, by further study, reduce the cost or make changes in particular features of the scheme which might be more feasible than even the scheme which you have recommended?

Prof. Phelps. Yes, sir.

(Thereupon, at 1 o’clock p. m., the commission took a recess until 3 o’clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The commission reconvened at the expiration of the recess.

Mr. Tawney. Gentlemen, the principal purpose of the session this afternoon is to afford an opportunity to the representatives of any of the cities and towns in the vicinity of Buffalo that were not present this morning to appear at this time and be heard in their own behalf with respect to the report of the consulting engineers. Tonawanda and North Tonawanda are two of the principal towns, I believe, that were not represented this morning. Is there anyone now present representing those communities? If there is no one to be heard, I do not know of anything further.

It is the wish of the commission to have a conference before leaving Buffalo, if possible, with the mayor and the members of the city council on this subject, with a view to seeing just what can be done to facilitate the matter of their considering and reporting to the commission their views with respect to the remedies that are proposed by our consulting engineer. I understand that they are engaged officially this afternoon in the council chamber.

(Upon the arrival from the council chamber of the members of the city council the commission went into executive session.)

International Joint Commission,
Detroit, Mich., Monday, June 26, 1916.

The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.

Mr. Gardner presided.

Mr. Gardner. Gentlemen, in calling this meeting to order I think I can truly say that the International Joint Commission obtain as much pleasure in coming here to Detroit at this time as it is possible for any body of men to receive that are engaged in trying to analyze and work out to a practical solution a question of the nature of the one that brings us here. We are especially glad because of the good spirit that has been manifested by the people of Detroit and this community in times gone by.

As you know, the two Governments referred to this commission for determination the question as to whether or not the boundary waters or waters flowing across the boundary were being polluted in contravention of the treaty, in which they agreed that the waters on neither side of the line should be polluted to the injury of health or property on the other. The commission in determining the first question of the reference employed that eminent bacteriologist, Dr. Allen J. McLaughlin, who made the investigations. Early in 1914 the commission issued a progress report in which it was very clearly set forth that the waters along some portions of the boundary were being seriously and grossly polluted. Following that the commission employed Prof. Earle B. Phelps in reference to the second part of the reference, which requires this commission to report to the two Governments—

In what way or manner, whether by the construction and operation of suitable drainage canals or plants at convenient points or otherwise, is it possible and advisable to remedy or prevent the pollution of these waters, and by what means or arrangement can the proper construction or operation of remedial or preventive works, or a system or method of rendering these waters sanitary and suitable for domestic and other uses, be best secured and maintained in order to secure the adequate protection and development of all interests involved on both sides of the boundary, and to fill the obligations undertaken in Article IV of the waterways treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, in which it is agreed that the waters therein 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.

Prof. Phelps completed his work some two months ago, and copies of the report have been submitted to the authorities of the city of Detroit and the other municipalities involved in this investigation. The commission thought it advisable, before issuing its final report to the two Governments, to come here and have a conference with you to see in what way, if any, there is going to be any serious disagreement in regard to the projects submitted by Prof. Phelps. I say projects, because he has submitted in five different methods or plans his ideas as to how this result can be best obtained. We have come here this morning with the expectation that you will take up these several projects and discuss them with the commission to show wherein, if in any way, we differ and whether or not such differences can be reconciled.

Before proceeding with the discussion of these several projects I will ask the secretary to read the call for the meeting.

(The secretaries then read the notice of the meeting to be held at Detroit which was sent to interested municipalities and officials in the United States and Canada, together with copies of the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, and also the list of municipalities and officials to whom said notice and report were sent.

The notice and list are as follows:)

NOTICE.

May 15, 1916.

Dear Sir: I have the honor to inform you that the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada will meet at Detroit on the 26th day of June, beginning at 10 a. m., for the purpose of finally hearing those interested upon the question of remedies for the pollution of boundary waters. You are cordially invited to be present, together with your engineers, appropriate heads of municipal departments, and any others who may be interested.

I have sent you under separate cover several copies of the report of the commission’s consulting sanitary engineer upon remedial measures, and have also sent a copy to your clerk. I will be glad to supply additional copies if desired. Will you kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter and the copies of the report.

Through the courtesy of the city of Detroit the hearing will be held in the Detroit city hall.

Very respectfully,
—— ——, Secretary.

MUNICIPALITIES AND OFFICIALS TO WHOM NOTICE WAS SENT.

• The mayor, Detroit, Mich.
• The mayor, Port Huron, Mich.
• The mayor, St. Clair, Mich.
• The mayor, Marine City, Mich.
• The mayor, Algonac, Mich.
• The mayor, River Rouge, Mich.
• The mayor, Ford City, Mich.
• The mayor, Ecorse, Mich.
• The mayor, Wyandotte, Mich.
• The mayor, Trenton, Mich.
• The Boards of Health of the States of New York, Ohio, and Michigan.
• The Lake Carriers’ Association.
• The mayor, Sarnia, Ontario.
• The mayor, Amherstburg, Ontario.
• The mayor, Windsor, Ontario.
• The mayor, Ojibway, Ontario.
• The mayor, Mooretown, Ontario.
• The mayor, Corunna, Ontario.
• The Dominion Marine Association.
• The Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

(The chairman specifically mentioning each municipality in the above list, called for the names of persons appearing in their behalf, as well as the names of any others who desired to enter an appearance, and the following appearances were announced:)

APPEARANCES.

Prof. Earle B. Phelps, Washington, D. C., United States Public Health Service, consulting sanitary engineer of the commission.

H. C. McRae, Baltimore, Md., assistant to Prof. Phelps.

Leslie C. Frank, Washington, D. C., United States Public Health Service, representing the Federal Health Service in relation to steamboat pollution.

Dr. J. W. S. McCullough, Toronto, Canada, Provincial Board of Health of Ontario.

F. A. Dallyn, Toronto, Canada, sanitary engineer, Provincial Board of Health of Ontario.

W. J. Stewart, Ottawa, chief hydrographer of Canada.

Hon. Oscar B. Marx, Detroit, Mich., mayor.

Edward D. Rich, Detroit, Mich., State sanitary engineer.

James W. Follin, Detroit, Mich., assistant to the State sanitary engineer.

E. L. Waterman, Detroit, Mich., assistant to the State sanitary engineer.

George H. Fenkell, Detroit, Mich., Department of Public Works of Detroit.

Clarence W. Hubbell, consulting engineer, of Detroit.

John F. McKinlay, Detroit, Mich., secretary Detroit Board of Health.

Henry Vaughan, Detroit, Mich., epidemiologist, Detroit Board of Health.

R. U. Pryer, director of laboratories, Detroit Board of Health.

Dr. William H. Price, Detroit, Mich., health officer, Detroit.

Col. William Livingstone, Detroit, Mich., representing the Great Lakes Carriers’ Association.

Morris Knowles, of Pittsburgh, Pa., representing the Great Lakes Carriers’ Association.

A. H. Dittoe, chief engineer, Ohio State Board of Health, representing State Board of Health of Ohio and also the Great Lakes Pure Water Association.

Francis King, K. C., Kingston, Ontario, representing the Dominion Marine Association.

Alexander Adams, Ecorse, Mich.

Russell A. Murdock, C. E., Ecorse, Mich.

Mason L. Brown, River Rouge, Mich.

William G. Perry, Ford City, Mich.

Dr. W. Lambert, Wyandotte, Mich., mayor.

H. L. Blomshield, C. E., Trenton, Mich.

Max Jennings, St. Clair, Mich., mayor.

W. M. Barron, superintendent of waterworks, St. Clair, Mich.

Prof. C. L. Weil, C. E., St. Clair, Mich.

William Wollatt, Walkerville, Ontario, president Essex Border Utilities Commission, representing Ford City, Walkerville, Windsor, Sandwich, Sandwich West, and Ojibway, Ontario.

C. J. Montrieul, Ford City, Ontario, mayor.

A. W. Jackson, Windsor, Ontario, mayor.

M. E. Brian, Windsor, Ontario, city engineer.

Adolph Sloman, Detroit, Mich.

Mr. Fenkell. Mr. Chairman, we were notified of the meeting to-day, but we had no notice of the time at which the meeting would be held.

Mr. Tawney. The notice that was sent to the mayor stated that the meeting would be held at 10 o’clock a. m.

Mr. Fenkell. The mayor had been out of the city for several days, and about a week ago he came home sick. He has been ill in bed ever since. He hopes to be at the city hall some time to-day if possible. He intended to be here at the beginning of your meeting, and his absence is accounted for by his sickness.

Mr. Tawney. Well, he has relied, I presume, for his information upon the studies of those problems that were made by yourself and your assistants, has he not?

Mr. Fenkell. I may say that Mr. Hubbell’s report was turned over to the printers as soon as received. A copy of my letter transmitting the same to the council and the summary in his report were printed in the council proceedings. We have not received printed copies of his report yet. Mr. Hubbell, the engineer who made our investigation, told me this morning that he hoped to have copies by noon.

Mr. Tawney. Is Mr. Hubbell here?

Mr. Fenkell. He is not here. He will be here some time this morning. He came in and asked me what time the meeting would be held, and I told him that I had not heard, and he went out. That was about half an hour ago.

Mr. Gardner. What time do you use here, eastern or central time?

Mr. Fenkell. We use eastern time. I sent notices to the members of the board of health, the health officer, the sanitary engineer, members of the board of water commissioners, their secretary and general superintendent, the common council, members of the committee on health and city hospitals, members of the committee on sewers, Mr. Hubbell, and perhaps others. I told them of the meeting to be held to-day, but I did not state any time. Very likely a notice giving the time of the meeting at 10 o’clock was received in my office, but I do not remember seeing it. It is probably an oversight on my part.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Rich, before beginning the hearings the commission would like to know what the relation of the State is to the public health and the sewage question of the city of Detroit. Has the State board of health supreme control?

Mr. Rich. That, Mr. Commissioner, is set forth in a law known as act 98 of the public acts of 1913, of which I think we furnished you a copy some two years ago.

Mr. Tawney. When we were here before?

Mr. Rich. Yes. As we understand it, that gives the State board of health authority to order whatever changes may be deemed necessary in any water in the State for purposes of public health.

Mr. Tawney. Has that authority been questioned heretofore by the city of Detroit?

Mr. Rich. Not in court. I do not know whether it has elsewhere or not.

Mr. Tawney. Mayor Marx, have you any information on that subject?

Mr. Marx. I do not recall any.

Mr. Rich. The matter of Highland Park was involved to some extent, but that has been settled.

Mr. Tawney. So up to the present time under the existing law the State board of health has the power to order any remedial measures that it may deem necessary to protect the public health?

Mr. Rich. That is the way we understand the law, and that was the intention when it was passed. It has not been definitely tested in court yet.

Mr. Tawney. At the suggestion of the chair we will proceed to hear the representatives of the State of Michigan with respect to the remedies that are proposed by the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission. It is our understanding, Mr. Rich, that your office has been giving considerable attention and study to the various alternative plans proposed by the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission. I think it would be advisable to hear the representatives of the State first.

Mr. Rich. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commission, I regret to say that we have not given the alternative plans very much consideration. We have not had the report long enough to be able to do so. It seems to me that the function of the office which I represent is to judge not so much the economical features that arise with respect to the various questions coming before us as the sanitary features, although we are always glad to give the municipalities what assistance we can in the economical solution of their problems. But we understand that the law first contemplates our passing upon the plans from the sanitary standpoint and giving our opinion as to whether or not they will produce the results desired, with perhaps not very much regard to the cost, although as engineers we could hardly pass by that important feature as a matter of conscience.

We have been very much interested in the studies being made, and, in fact, have done quite a little in the way of investigation ourselves since the termination of the work of this commission. We have in progress now a report of our studies of the municipalities below Detroit, having for its object the determination of the factors entering into the production of the abnormal typhoid death rate which has existed for a number of years. A careful study has been made of each particular case so far as we were able to find it.

Mr. Powell. How long before your report will be printed?

Mr. Rich. Probably two or three months. After that we expect to proceed to remedial measures at once; that is, the different municipalities will probably be called before the State board of health for a hearing, giving them a chance to express their opinion as to what should be done and what they are willing to do; and if they are not willing to do anything, or if they seem to be too slow, undoubtedly the State board of health would set a time within which they must conform to its orders. That has been done to some extent already with the city of Monroe, and proceedings are going forward as rapidly as we could expect there for a purified water supply. Some steps are being taken looking to the treatment of sewage. We hope that similar results may be obtained in the other municipalities below Detroit.

Mr. Powell. Have you adopted any standard for purification of sewage?

Mr. Rich. We feel that we are indebted to this commission for a very fine determination of that point, and I might say that we are practically relying upon that entirely.

Mr. Powell. Then you agree with us in that?

Mr. Rich. We have accepted the views of your consulting engineers almost entirely. We feel that it was very wise indeed.

Mr. Tawney. Have you gone sufficiently into the proposed remedies for sewage disposal to enable you to express any opinion whatever with respect to the efficiency of the remedies proposed by our consulting engineer?

Mr. Rich. In a general way; yes. From what we have been able to learn with regard to the proposition for screening sewage and afterwards treating it with a disinfectant we would not feel sufficient confidence in that to recommend it. The other methods proposed we would concur in. We concur in the judgment of the engineers with reference to the methods, but regarding the particular location of plants we are unable to express our opinion at the present time owing to the fact that we have not gone into that as carefully as we would like to do. In fact, I hardly think we would have time to go into it enough to feel sufficiently justified in expressing a very definite opinion as to the particular location of plants; in other words, as to the economics of the question, but we do feel like approving fully the views of Prof. Phelps, Mr. Hubbell, and Mr. McRae in these matters. I think they will agree with me that screening is hardly to be relied upon.

Mr. Tawney. Have you given any consideration to the proposed consolidation of the various villages around Detroit into one general or Detroit metropolitan sanitary district?

Mr. Rich. I have given some personal thought to it, but there have been no steps taken as yet looking toward a special investigation of that matter. I am very much interested in it. I am at the present time very much in favor of a thorough study as to the feasibility of such an organization. I believe it is the only feasible solution of the whole problem.

Mr. Tawney. From an economical standpoint, do you think it would be advantageous both to the city and to the surrounding municipalities?

Mr. Rich. I do, yes; and I think it would be advantageous from every standpoint.

Mr. Tawney. Are you conducting your studies, then, with reference to the consolidated sewage district suggested by the consulting sanitary engineer?

Mr. Rich. No; we are not. We have not gotten as far ahead as that yet. We are simply studying the present condition, and whatever we recommend will probably be of such a nature that no great amount of money would be lost if consolidation should be effected later, but it would be more immediately available for the alleviation of existing conditions.

Mr. Tawney. Are you contemplating any improvement in the matter of sewage disposal for the city of Detroit independent of any recommendations of this commission?

Mr. Rich. No; we are not.

Mr. Tawney. Have you made any bacteriological examination of the waters of the Detroit River independent of the examination which was made by our bacteriologists?

Mr. Rich. We have made some this summer in connection with the water as it is supplied to the other municipalities, not making a study of the river as a river, but, taking it as it comes through the means of these municipalities below, we have made some studies.

Mr. Tawney. How does your examination compare with the examination of the cross sections of the river made by our bacteriologists?

Mr. Rich. They could not be compared, because all the water that is taken from these intakes comes from a single point in the river. We have not taken any samples in the river any more than last year we took some few samples from the western end of Lake Erie which coincided in a general way with the findings of the bacteriologists of this commission, except that our samples were taken at other points and showed what might be expected from theirs.

Mr. Tawney. As the chief State sanitary engineer, what would you say, Mr. Rich, as to the thoroughness and completeness of the work of the consulting engineers in their study of the problems that are involved here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. Rich. I think it has been very fine, indeed. I do not believe I could speak too enthusiastically upon that point. I am very much pleased, indeed, with the results obtained and the way in which the work was done, and that especially in connection with Mr. Hubbell’s work on the part of the city. It is a fine thing.

Mr. Magrath. You feel that we were justified in undertaking the work?

Mr. Rich. I do, indeed; and I think it is a great contribution to the future as indicating the way in which such problems ought to be attacked and worked out.

Mr. Powell. Have you given any consideration to the disposal of the sludge that would be the result of screening and sedimentation?

Mr. Rich. Not any more than our general reading of the subject. We have not made any studies of local conditions. Sludge obtained from fine screening would probably need to be disposed of by incineration or else taken to a long distance from the city and buried; but probably that would be too much for the city of Detroit.

Mr. Powell. The city of London has installed, and the city of Glasgow, Scotland, was about to install when the war broke out, a system which makes it a decided success from an economical standpoint. They produce a lot of chemicals from the sludge. You have not given any attention to that?

Mr. Rich. You do not know what they produce?

Mr. Powell. Yes; some of the things they produce are gasoline, carbolic acid, and a pitch. I think there are nine by-products that they dispose of.

Mr. Rich. No; I am not familiar with the details of that.

Mr. Tawney. I understand you to say, Mr. Rich, that, while you have read the different alternative plans or remedies proposed by our consulting sanitary engineer, you have not given them sufficient study to determine what, in your judgment, would be the most desirable and the most economical in practice?

Mr. Rich. No; I do not think so.

Mr. Tawney. You do not desire to express an opinion on either one of them?

Mr. Rich. Only that I think we would be justified in saying that we believe the tankage method, followed by sterilization, would be superior to screening methods.

Mr. Mignault. That is, you prefer the process of sedimentation to that of fine screening?

Mr. Rich. That is it. That is as far as we would feel justified in going.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any opinion to express as to whether there should be one hour or two hours of sedimentation?

Mr. Rich. No. I think that would depend considerably upon the character of the sewage. We have made no tests whatever of the time required for the Detroit sewage. In fact, we have made no tests of any sort on the Detroit sewage.

Mr. Tawney. Have any of your assistants anything to offer independent of what you have set forth?

Mr. Rich. The two men who made the actual studies down the stream from here are present, and if you would like to hear from them at this time or at a future time they will be available. Mr. Follin had charge of the field work in the investigation at Ford City, Wyandotte, and Trenton.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES W. FOLLIN, OF DETROIT,
ASSISTANT TO THE STATE SANITARY ENGINEER.

Mr. Follin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the survey which Mr. Rich has explained to you and which Mr. Waterman and I made at Ford City, Wyandotte, and Trenton, was made primarily to determine the conditions existing in connection with the high typhoid death rate in those communities and to determine what should be done to remedy those conditions. I have here a digest of the work as we planned it and carried it on which I will go over with you. The necessity for these surveys was shown by the high typhoid death rates in these communities.

Mr. Tawnet. What were those death rates?

Mr. Follin. They are given in this statement which I will read:

A sanitary survey in the villages of Ford and Trenton and in the city of Wyandotte has recently been made by E. L. Waterman and J. W. Follin under the direction of the State sanitary engineer and by authorization of the State board of health. The necessity for such surveys was shown by a study of the typhoid fever death rates in these communities. This study disclosed the following facts:

In Ford the average death rate during the period of 1904-1915, inclusive, was 364.5; the maximum was 849, occurring in 1907; the minimum was 126, occurring in 1908.

In Wyandotte the average death rate during the period of 1900-1915, inclusive, was 87.2; the maximum was 144, occurring in 1913; the minimum was 12, occurring in 1911.

For Trenton the average death rate during the period 1904-1915, inclusive, was 94.8; the maximum was 243, occurring in 1913; the minimum was 0, occurring in 1905, 1910, 1912, and 1914.

The objects of these surveys were to determine in each community—

1. The general sanitary condition.

2. The quality of both private and public water supplies.

3. The adequacy of present sewerage systems and the extent of their use.

4. The amount of typhoid fever and probable reasons for its presence.

The surveys were begun on February 15 and completed on May 1, 1916. They were carried on simultaneously in each community. Frequent bacteriological tests on the public and private supplies were made, the location of existing sewers was determined, also the number and character of connections to them, the history of the typhoid-fever cases occurring during 1914, 1915, and the first four months of 1916 was ascertained. A study of the data collected shows that the following conditions exist:

The village of Ford obtains its water supply from the Detroit River through an intake located at the harbor line. This water is supplied to the consumers without treatment. A 12-inch and 42-inch sewer empty into the river above this intake and a 36-inch sewer discharges at a point some distance below. A private sewer from the industrial plant of the Michigan Alkali Co. discharges into the river at a point about 50 feet downstream from the water intake. Float measurements made at a time when a southeast wind was blowing showed that the effluent from this sewer was undoubtedly carried past the water intake. The results of bacteriological analyses on the village water showed that it was badly contaminated at all times and at no time fit for drinking purposes. The histories of typhoid-fever cases in Ford showed that in practically all cases the infection was obtained from the village water supply. There was a remarkable absence of secondary or contact cases. The general use of outside closets which discharge into the sewer, but which are not provided with flushing devices, is to be deplored.

The city of Wyandotte obtains its public water supply from the Detroit River, the intake pipes extending out a distance of approximately 150 feet from the shore. In March, 1914, hypochlorite of lime treatment of the water was begun. Our bacteriological analyses show that out of 35 tests the treated water was satisfactory in only 15 instances, or 43 per cent of the time. The city sewerage system has four points of outlet—all into the river, but at points below the water intake. Many of the connections to the sewers are of the same nonflushing, outside closet type that is prevalent in Ford. The typhoid-fever case histories all point to the city water supply as the probable source of infection. There are a few private water supplies which are obtained from wells. An examination of these supplies shows that most of them are uncontaminated at present.

The village of Trenton gets its water supply from the Detroit River, the intake pipes extending out about 200 feet from the shore line. This water is supplied to the consumers without treatment. Bacteriological examinations show that this water is polluted at all times and absolutely unfit for drinking purposes. There are many private wells in Trenton and nearly all of them show sewage contamination. This is probably due to the fact that there is no general sewerage system in the village and consequently outdoor privies are common. Where plumbing has been installed the sewage is carried to open drains in most cases, where direct connection to the river is not feasible. There are 20 private sewers emptying into the river above the water intake, and the village authorities have recently decided to add a public sewer to this number. General sanitary conditions in the village are exceedingly poor and the village authorities seem very unconcerned when these conditions are called to their attention. The study of the typhoid-fever cases occurring in Trenton during 1914 and 1915 shows that a majority of the cases are due to the polluted public water supply, but that some may be attributed to general insanitary conditions, such as open drains, outside privies, and polluted well supplies.

REMEDIAL MEASURES.

Filtration of the public water supplies is necessary in all these localities. It is advisable to install intercepting sewers in Fort which will carry all sewage to a point near the southern boundary of the village where a treatment plant consisting of Imhoff tanks followed by chlorination should be installed. This will protect the Ford water supply from contamination by sewage from the village and also lighten the load on the Wyandotte water filtration plant. Better raw water can be secured at Wyandotte and Ford by the extension of the intake pipes into the river channel. The best location for the intakes can only be determined by a careful investigation of the quality of the water at different points in the cross section.

At Trenton filtration of the public water supply and a general sewerage system which will properly sewer the entire village and carry the sewage to a point well below the water intake are the essential measures immediately necessary for the proper safeguarding of the public health. As Trenton is the farthermost downstream community of importance, we do not feel that a treatment plant is necessary at the present time. However, we shall insist on a design for the sewerage system which will contemplate treatment of the sewage should such treatment become necessary in the future.

Below Trenton on the Michigan side of the river we have only one city of any size; in fact, only one community which takes its water supply from water which is affected by the Detroit River. That is the city of Monroe, of about 7,500 people. It is situated on the River Raisin, which obtains its water from the western end of Lake Erie. The studies made by the engineers of this commission have disclosed the fact that the sewage of the Detroit River contaminates the waters of Lake Erie to a point as far as the islands which separate that portion of the lake from the rest of Lake Erie.

Mr. Tawney. How many miles is it?

Mr. Follin. I do not know exactly.

Mr. Tawney. About 18 miles, is it not?

Mr. Follin. It is probably a little farther than that. Last summer we made an investigation with respect to typhoid fever conditions at Monroe and found that although not started by the city water, the city water then did spread an epidemic of typhoid fever in the town. We made some investigation of the waters immediately in the western end of the lake next to their waterworks intake and found that they were not of sufficient quality to enable the water there to be made fit for domestic purposes by chlorination alone. We accordingly called a meeting of the State board of health, at which the officials of Monroe and the officials of the Monroe Water Co., a private company, were called in for consultation. They expressed their willingness to go ahead and complete the filtration works for the city. Those details are now being worked out. No definite order was made by the board of health in that instance because it was not deemed necessary.

So our statement that possibly the village of Trenton alone need to immediately treat its sewage is based on our local conditions along the Michigan shore and not on any study of conditions that might exist on the other side. But our recommendations to them are that their plans be so drawn that treatment works can be installed when necessary. Trenton is now very seriously in need of the installation of a good public water supply, and we would certainly endeavor to hasten the time when they can have such a supply.

Mr. Tawney. All the sewage of these cities that you have mentioned is deposited in the Detroit River in a raw state?

Mr. Follin. In a raw state; yes, sir. There is no treatment whatever.

Mr. Gardner. They are all below the city of Detroit?

Mr. Follin. They are all below Detroit.

Mr. Tawney. You are a sanitary engineer, are you not?

Mr. Follin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. You are a graduate of the State university at Ann Arbor?

Mr. Follin. I am a graduate of the State university at Ann Arbor; yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. How long have you been in practice?

Mr. Follin. I have been with Mr. Rich, at Lansing, for one year and have been graduated three years.

Mr. Tawney. Have you given any study at all to the report of our consulting sanitary engineer in regard to remedies for the pollution of the Detroit River?

Mr. Follin. I have given only general consideration to it in the same way that Mr. Rich has, realizing that your problem was——

Mr. Tawney. From the study that you have given to it, what have you to say as to the thoroughness of the work that was done?

Mr. Follin. We consider that the work has been very thoroughly carried out, and that the recommendations made are very feasible.

Mr. Tawney. Does the State Board of Health of Michigan agree with the sanitary experts generally that no raw sewage should be deposited in any stream that supplies other municipalities or localities with water for domestic and sanitary purposes?

Mr. Follin. Personally we feel very strongly that way, but we realize that those opinions can not be forced within a very short time onto the municipalities in Michigan; but such an ideal condition must come slowly.

Mr. Tawney. What have you to say as to the standard of purification recommended by the consulting engineers in this progress report?

Mr. Follin. I do not feel that I am in a position to comment on that, although from the little study I have given the matter I believe it is very reasonable. I might explain one other thing. Our reason for studying only Ford City, Wyandotte, and Trenton below Detroit on this side of the river and not studying the river at River Rouge and Ecorse was because the Detroit water supply is furnished to River Rouge and Ecorse and that the river supply is first used below Detroit at Ford City. It was our intention to first study those conditions because they related to the purity of the water in the Detroit River.

Mr. Powell. I understood you to say that in one of these municipalities in which the water was treated it was found afterwards on examination to be unfit for drinking purposes.

Mr. Follin. Yes; I did say that. During the course of our investigations we made 35 examinations of the treated water at Wyandotte, covering a period of several months. During that time we found only 15 of those samples to show the water fit for drinking purposes only 35 per cent of the time.

Mr. Powell. That is, after it had undergone the process of sterilization?

Mr. Follin. After it had undergone the treatment of hypochloride of lime.

Mr. Powell. Have you figures as to the condition before it underwent the treatment?

Mr. Follin. We have those figures. In no case was the raw water fit for drinking purposes without treatment.

Mr. Powell. Can you give the result of your bacteriological examination?

Mr. Follin. We have a report now under preparation which will give these figures in detail, and we hope to have that out within several weeks.

Mr. Powell. You can not speak from memory?

Mr. Follin. Yes; the raw water was not fit.

Mr. Powell. But that is a general statement. Do you remember how many B. coli to the cubic centimeter there were?

Mr. Follin. We have not that data with us; no, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Will your other assistant have the figures?

Mr. Rich. I would like to have Mr. Waterman speak with reference to the attitude taken by the municipalities which we investigated. The statement read by Mr. Follin is the advance sheet of our report. It is the conclusions that are come to in our report. The report will contain more than this contains, but this is a digest of what will be the findings.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. L. WATERMAN.

Mr. Waterman. I can not add very much to the statements which Mr. Rich and Mr. Follin have already made, but I would like to say something in regard to the attitude which the village and city authorities in the places which we have investigated have taken toward these surveys. We found that at Ford village the authorities were very enthusiastic toward this investigation. They evidently wanted to learn just what the conditions were, and they were eager to get our opinions as to the means of correcting the conditions now existing. At Wyandotte the city authorities showed some enthusiasm, but we did not find them as enthusiastic as we felt they should have been over an investigation of this kind. I might say that the city of Wyandotte has been struggling with the problem of public water supply for some eight years, and that during that time many bacteriological examinations and chemical examinations of the water have been made at the State board of health laboratory, and at one time a consulting engineer was employed to make preliminary plans for a water filtration plant; that this proposition was defeated by a vote of the city; and that since that time very little has been done. The only thing was the introduction of a hypochlorite of lime treatment in March, 1914. As already stated, our investigations showed that a hypochlorite treatment is not adequate to give the city of Wyandotte a safe water supply. In the village of Trenton, I am sorry to say, the attitude of the village authorities has been more unfavorable than favorable. They do not seem to realize the importance of improvements in the sanitary conditions, and we have met with very little cooperation from the authorities themselves. I think that this is about all that I can add to the statements already made.

Mr. Gardner. Do you think there is any growing interest in this matter?

Mr. Waterman. I should say that in Ford village and Wyandotte there is undoubtedly a growing interest, and that among a very few people in Trenton, that you might call thinking people, there is a growing interest, but the general attitude is not favorable.

Mr. Gardner. They are not all thinking people.

Mr. Powell. There is one point you are clear on, and that is that chlorination is not sufficient for the purification of the water down there for drinking purposes?

Mr. Waterman. Yes.

Mr. Powell. It would have to be supplemented or preceded by sedimentation or screening?

Mr. Waterman. You are speaking of the water itself?

Mr. Powell. Yes.

Mr. Waterman. We feel that filtration of the water supply is necessary, followed by chlorination.

Mr. Tawney. Is this contamination of the waters of these various places due to the sewage which they themselves deposit in the water raw, or is it due to the pollution that is put in above raw, that goes farther out in the stream?

Mr. Waterman. In the case of Ford City, I would say that the sewage of the village itself undoubtedly contaminates an already polluted supply, and the same is true of Trenton, although undoubtedly the pollution which enters the river from the city of Detroit is more or less mitigated before reaching Trenton. At Wyandotte the sewers are all below the water intake, but the sewers from the village of Ford are above and undoubtedly pollute that supply.

Mr. Tawney. How far above?

Mr. Waterman. I would estimate the nearest one was about a mile above the intake, and there are two others within a distance of 2 miles from the intake, both entering directly into the river at the harbor or dock line——

Mr. Tawney. And the intake at Wyandotte is how far out?

Mr. Waterman. The intake at Wyandotte is approximately 150 feet out, so that whatever pollution comes in at this point 1 mile or 2 miles above would probably be diffused that distance from the shore at least, probably more.

Mr. Mignault. What is exactly the position taken by the citizens of Trenton?

Mr. Waterman. I do not think the citizens, as citizens, have had very much opportunity thus far to express themselves on the question. It is really the village authorities.

Mr. Mignault. Well, substitute in my question “the village authorities” for “the citizens”; what position do they take exactly?

Mr. Waterman. They take the position that everything is all right down there, and that there is no reason in the world why they should not go on putting in sewage in the water.

Mr. Mignault. They are not impressed by the statistics which have been read here.

Mr. Waterman. Those statistics have not yet been presented to them.

Mr. Tawney. Nevertheless they have been informed of those facts.

Mr. Waterman. Yes; they have been informed of the facts, and the majority of the village council have, by their acts, shown that they do not appreciate those statistics which have been brought to their notice.

Mr. Mignault. What exactly were the powers of the State board with regard to a city like Trenton, in order to compel it, if necessary, to take the necessary measures for water purification or treatment of sewage?

Mr. Waterman. The powers of the State board, I think, have been outlined by Mr. Rich, and if I repeat, I am trying to repeat what he said, that the State board has the power to order any improvements in the sewage systems of the village necessary in the opinion of the State board for the betterment of public health.

Mr. Mignault. No such order has been given so far?

Mr. Waterman. No. We feel, and are rather certain, that such orders will be given, if necessary, after the completion and adoption of our present report.

Mr. Powell. I suppose they would rather run the risk of death than face the certainty of increased taxation.

Mr. Waterman. That seems to be the opinion, although one useful fact has been brought out by our investigations, and that is that the old residents of these towns and cities are, for the most part, immune to typhoid fever. It is the newcomers who come on, usually within six months time of taking up their residence there, who are liable to take it.

Mr. Powell. The old ones are immune.

Mr. Waterman. They have either had it some time in the past or have become so used to the water supply that the typhoid germs diffused into their system do not affect them at all.

Mr. Powell. There is such a thing as being immune from it.

Mr. Waterman. I think so.

Mr. Powell. I may say, Mr. Rich, as you are aware, the commission has had before it since August, 1914, the pollution investigation. We have carried on two distinct pieces of work. I am not looking for any compliments to the commission, but, as the representative of the State of Michigan, are you willing to go on record, first, as to the value and character of the work which we have done under the two branches of the investigation, and, second, the diligence and thoroughness with which both have been conducted?

Mr. Rich. I am heartily so. I believe that there has been no previous examination of this wide character and extent carried on anywhere—at least, none has come to my notice—and I feel that the work of the commission has been of great value to us in our work, not only in the specific material studied and the ground covered but in the general principles evolved from that study. We feel that we have been equipped with ammunition that is going to be very useful to us.

Mr. Tawney. You mean useful throughout the State?

Mr. Rich. Yes; and for all time to come, as assisting us in formulating our policy in a great many cases. We also feel that the investigation, after the first study, has been very thoroughly carried on, indeed. Mr. McRae’s studies here were prosecuted with keen insight into the requirements of the question. As far as speed is concerned, I do not well see how the results could have been obtained any more promptly than they have been. The only delays that I have been able to notice in the procedure from the start to the finish was while the material was in the printer’s hands, and I do not see how that could be construed as delay in the ordinary sense. There was the unavoidable wait for the material to be placed in such shape that it could be put before the people.

Mr. Tawney. Dr. McCullough, you represent the Province of Ontario, which has jurisdiction along the water front, has it not? Can you give the commission any opinion with respect to the work of the Province in connection with the subject and water purification on your side of the line?

Dr. McCullough. Would you like me to outline the policy of the Province?

Mr. Tawney. Yes. We have had the policy of the State on this side and it would be appropriate to have the policy of the Province of Ontario on the other side.

STATEMENT OF DR. J. W. S. McCULLOUGH,
OF TORONTO.

Dr. McCullough. In the Province of Ontario the provincial board of health has control of the establishment of waterworks and water-purification works, sewage works, and sewage-disposal works of all kinds. No water plant can be established by any municipality or by any individual for public use unless the consent and approval of the provincial board of health, to which body all plans must be supplied, is obtained.

Mr. Gardner. How long has that condition existed?

Dr. McCullough. Since 1912; it exists in its present state since 1912. It did exist previously for some years, but not in a satisfactory condition. No municipality can raise money on debentures without the approval of the provincial board of health for works of the character I have mentioned, and we have further power to force extensions. We have also power, under certain circumstances, to allow the municipality to establish works of this kind and raise money without the consent of the people, and in a number of cases that has been done.

Mr. Gardner. Without limitation?

Dr. McCullough. Without the vote of the people and without any limitation.

Mr. Tawney. Except the exigency of the case.

Dr. McCullough. Yes; it is the policy of the board, of course, as a rule, not to interfere in that way, but to have the people vote on a money by-law. Now, there is another way a municipality can establish works of utility, and that is by having a two-thirds vote of the council. It is a sort of local improvement; that is, for extension of sewers.

Mr. Gardner. The provincial council?

Dr. McCullough. No; the municipal council.

Mr. Tawney. Has your board recently made any surveys for the purpose of ascertaining the conditions along the Detroit River on your side in regard to the villages or cities located there?

Dr. McCullough. We were concerned in making the first progress report. The Provincial Board of Health of Ontario, as you will remember, supplied laboratories.

Mr. Tawney. You were associated with Dr. McLaughlin in that—you and Mr. Dallyn?

Dr. McCullough. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. I thought it was well to get in the record the policy of the provincial board.

Dr. McCullough. The policy of the provincial board is, broadly speaking, along public-health lines. We are satisfied that the water supplies are accountable for a good deal of disease of an intestinal character, and it is our object to lessen the amount of pollution of the boundary waters as much as possible and have the waters purified as much as possible. Just recently we have been able to secure a purification plant at Niagara, on the Lake, where there is a military concentration camp, under an arrangement of this kind. The municipality is bearing half the expense and the Federal Government is bearing the other half, because it is such an important matter from the point of view of having the troops there supplied with good water.

Mr. Mignault. Is that water furnished to the municipality generally, or simply to the camp?

Dr. McCullough. At Niagara-on-the-Lake it is a municipal water supply. They simply pump it from the Niagara River and clarify it. It requires to be very heavily chlorinated, because it is badly polluted. Then, in addition to that, the military authorities have provided this year a portable violet-ray plant, whereby the water supplied for cooking and drinking purposes to the soldiers’ camp is purified.

Mr. Mignault. That is merely for the water supplied to the camp?

Dr. McCullough. Yes; but not that will be further improved by the town having a filtration plant, the cost of which will be borne jointly by the Federal Government and by the municipality.

Mr. Gardner. Do they take the water from above or below the Falls?

Dr. McCullough. Niagara-on-the-Lake is at the mouth of the river, away below the Falls; about 12 miles below the Falls.

Mr. Mignault. Some members of the commission had the advantage of seeing the filtration plant at the camp last week.

Dr. McCullough. That is the violet-ray plant. It does the work very well; but, of course, it is only a small affair.

Mr. Powell. There is filtration in connection with that?

Dr. McCullough. Oh, yes. That plant was designed by the engineer of the provincial board of health, and by him supplied to the military authorities.

Mr. Tawney. What is the standard of purity that your board of health follows?

Dr. McCullough. With regard to the sewage?

Mr. Tawney. Yes; standard of purification.

Dr. McCullough. We think that, for these international waters, there should be sedimentation and chlorination. We would be satisfied with that.

Mr. Tawney. The standard of purification is 90°, is it not?

Dr. McCullough. The standard as to purification for water——

Mr. Tawney. I mean for sewage. What is the standard for sewage?

Dr. McCullough. I think it is something like that laid down in the report.

Mr. Tawney. I wanted to find out if it corresponded with the standard established by the engineers in this report.

Dr. McCullough. We would be satisfied with that; but we are not satisfied to confine it to two areas, as proposed in the report to-day.

Mr. Tawney. Two areas?

Dr. McCullough. That is the Detroit area and the Buffalo area. We think there are other points to which the investigation and purification should extend.

Mr. Tawney. It should not be limited to these two areas?

Dr. McCullough. No.

Mr. Mignault. Would you kindly say at what points on the international waterways you consider these methods should be employed?

Dr. McCullough. I think at all the points indicated in the first progress report. In that report this commission says that the waters are polluted to the detriment of either one or the other side. We think the commission should stick to that, and carry along its work to include all of these areas.

Mr. Magrath. You are just reiterating the position you took at Washington?

Dr. McCullough. Exactly, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Dallyn, you are the chief engineer of the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario, are you not?

Mr. Dallyn. Yes.

STATEMENT OF MR. F. A. DALLYN,
OF TORONTO.

Mr. Dallyn. I am the provincial sanitary engineer, attached to the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario.

Mr. Tawney. Have you anything to add to what Dr. McCullough has said regarding the policy of the Province with respect to the purification of sewage and water for domestic and sanitary purposes in these boundary waters?

Mr. Dallyn. There is one matter, I think, that is worthy of further note, and that is as to whether it would be any advantage to either the municipalities, the Provinces, or the States, to be restricted, as they are in the report of the commission, to a specific method of meeting the commission’s requirements. There seems to be some doubt as to the proper way to interpret the reference—as to whether the commission is supposed to report some definite way in which a standard is to be attained or whether the two Governments meant that a prescribed standard could be reached at a reasonable expense through at least one method. Speaking as an engineer, not as the engineer of the Province, I would say we do not want to be hampered by any restriction in that respect on the part of the commission. We do need a standard of purity for sewage effluents. It is very necessary. We can hardly advance any further without one, but we do not want to be hampered by any particular way of arriving at any desired result. As to whether we will adopt two hours’ sedimentation and Imhoff tanks, or a different type of tank, and one, two, or four hours’ sedimentation is a question that requires study for each separate municipality. It will depend upon the character of the local sewage. And with the developments that are taking place in sewage disposal it is quite conceivable that half an hour’s sedimentation may be a practical limit, with some particular type of tank. We do not want to be tied down to two hours’ sedimentation. And then as to the method of sterilizing the effluent, your report indicates that bleaching powder, or liquid chlorine, will be the agents to effect this. Possibly we will not want to be hampered by a provision as to these. The experiments at Milwaukee indicate that a higher bacterial removal than you are calling for on these waters can be obtained by aeration of sewage by the activated sludge process. This method may not be practical at all centers; it will be practical at some.

That is just the position, I think, that most of us engineers will take with reference to your report upon remedial measures. We are very much in sympathy with the effort toward setting a standard of purification for these boundary waters. It is needed. Some of us feel that the only feasible and practical way of accomplishing the desired end is by standardizing the sewage effluent, by saying just what percentage of matter in suspension you want removed and what bacterial removal you want. I think the sewage treatment standards suggested by Prof. Phelps are practical ones and will occasion very little disputing.

Mr. Magrath. You do not want to be hindered from going as far as possible?

Mr. Dallyn. We certainly do not, sir. As to the construction and location of interceptors, of course, it is recognized by the engineers that the commission has had a very difficult problem, and that, with the time available, they have made a very valuable report as to the feasible way of handling the question, but there are a great many studies that will be required to be made before a municipality should be tied down to any particular route. Your proposal may show the natural route to utilize, but there might be difficulties in construction which can not be anticipated, without a great deal of survey work, by testing the substrata, finding what is below, whether sand, rock, quicksand, or clay, which might be overcome by deviating from the prescribed route, even though the excavation were heavier. Surveys can not be made in a short time. I feel also that our municipalities heretofore have not had appropriations with which to make investigation as to whether the routes suggested by you are practicable. The money that the commission has expended on this work, of course, is not adequate to make a very minute survey; and when you realize that in order to examine this report properly each of these municipalities has to spend from $10,000 to $20,000 you realize that it is quite a large undertaking for them to do at a very short notice. It is work that will require probably a year to investigate. I believe that is all I desire to say.

Mr. Powell. You mean, by further investigation, having soundings and test pits along the route?

Mr. Dallyn. Oh, yes; and by cross sections of sewer, whether it is cheaper to use brick, or concrete, or vitrified block. There is a good deal of research work to be gone into before deciding upon work costing large sums of money.

Mr. Powell. You speak of the purification of the effluent up to a certain standard. Would you have that standard fixed without regard to whether the effluent is flowing into a small or large stream? Can you fix it absolutely, without regard to the size of the stream, or the quantity of water that was in the stream to dilute it?

Mr. Dallyn. The sedimentation part of it should be fixed absolutely. I do not see any difficulty in doing that. There appears to be no practical or structural difficulty in requiring a certain percentage removal, or a given number of parts per million, of residual suspended matter. As to the number of bacteria to be removed, I think that could be more flexible, depending entirely upon the use the stream was to be put to, whether as a channel of commerce, or used largely as a pleasure resort, or whether it had no particular value in either of those spheres. We have in our Province a great deal of trouble by reason of townships complaining against the discharge or raw sewage, or even treated sewage, from some of the municipalities, saying it affects cattle. It is a disputed matter, but they certainly have the law on their side, and can compel the municipalities to purify to a much greater extent than some of you might think advisable.

Mr. Powell. What is the growing consensus of opinion in respect of the purification of the effluent before allowing it to go into the stream?

Mr. Dallyn. Well, there seem to be two schools—the school of cranks, asking a high standard, and the conservation school, who want to use our natural resources to the utmost extent, and who sometimes overlook some of the changing factors which are not usually taken into consideration. I belong to the school of cranks, as I told you before, and I would like to see some better standard adopted than might immediately appear necessary, as in education we require to learn more than our vocation appears to demand when measured by practical methods of the conservation school.

Mr. Powell. Great Britain seems to head the movement in purification of streams.

Mr. Dallyn. They have much smaller streams.

Mr. Powell. It is a different problem, on account of the different quantity of water in the streams.

Mr. Dallyn. They lack the water-supply problem, and have to treat the sewage from the æsthetic point of view more than any other. I have in mind the ability of the stream to take up the putrescible matter, without giving out odors. In places where several centers must utilize the same stream there must needs be a more intense purification than where one center only enters it. With your problem the purification as to bacterial removal will have to be some function of the population in the congested centers. In other points, like Sarnia and Port Huron, the bacterial degree of pollution is not very heavy, not reaching the 500 standard Prof. Phelps recommends as being considered a contravention of the treaty, and the function of population does not amount to very much, so here you would have to treat it very much better than you apparently need. As a rule, when you use chemicals to disinfect sewage, you get no action at all until you remove about 60 per cent. You get a 60 per cent removal or you get nothing. It seems to be inert; and then you have to increase your quantities till you get up to 100 per cent removal, the last 10 per cent taking almost half as much again as the 90 per cent.

Mr. Powell. Your idea is that under no circumstances should there be any discharge into the large or small stream without purification to the extent of sedimentation?

Mr. Dallyn. I believe our civilization has reached a point now where, as far as self-respect goes, we are required to separate the gross solids from the liquid matter before discharging them into any stream.

Mr. Tawney. Do you desire to be heard at this time, Mr. Sloman?

Mr. Sloman. Not necessarily at this time, but at such a time as is convenient to the commission.

Mr. Tawney. Do the representatives from any of the cities on the United States side wish to be heard before taking recess?

STATEMENT OF MR. MASON L. BROWN,
RIVER ROUGE, MICH.

Mr. Brown. As the representative of the River Rouge Village, I wish to say a word. I have also been authorized to make objections for the village of Ford and the city of Wyandotte. My objections have been placed before the commission by the gentleman who has just spoken, and I think I can add nothing more to his remarks. The objections are purely local and are engineering features, and as to the desirability of purifying the sewage before entering into the stream, I think all these villages are in accord, and very anxious to do whatever is right and necessary on that. In regard to River Rouge, I may say that we have a separate system there. We realized what was coming some six years ago, and we provided for it, and all we have to do now is to put in the purification plant. Our objection in regard to River Rouge is a local one, and the engineer who has just spoken has outlined it, and if we are not tied down to the exact locality, as shown on your engineer’s plan, we are thoroughly satisfied. We would rather object to the location, if we have to follow his suggestion. We can only say that the present pumping plant there is ample, without putting in an intercepting sewer, saving some $20,000 odd.

Mr. Tawney. Are the municipalities you are now speaking for included in the proposed consolidated sewage district, referred to in this report?

Mr. Brown. They are not.

Mr. Tawney. Then the plan for sewage treatment recommended by the consulting engineers does not apply to the municipalities you represent?

Mr. Brown. It does. The Rouge and Wyandotte are both specifically mentioned, and it is for those I am speaking. We are very anxious to have this carried out. It is simply a matter of local detail. We would like to have some changes, and we would get the same and possibly better results and at a great saving to these cities. In other words, we could do away with the interceptors.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any plan to suggest?

Mr. Brown. Taking the report of your engineer as it stands, it calls for an intercepting sewer. The treatment plan is per capita, and the maintenance the same. In looking over this report I find there is very little difference in regard to the cost of construction and maintaining the treatment plan for either a small population or a large one. In other words, in the village of Ford we have three outlets, and instead of building an intercepting sewer, tearing up all their pavement, why could we not put in those three plants, dividing it up, providing the figures in that report are correct? The same as to Wyandotte. I am simply taking the report as it stands. I do not see any necessity for an intercepting sewer.

Prof. Phelps. I may merely say, in reference to what Mr. Dallyn has said, that it is not anticipated that we would be fortunate enough to find in our brief survey the most feasible and the most economical plans. There is no intention of insisting upon the plans specifically, and if the cities and towns interested are able to save money and accomplish the result the commission desires to accomplish, we say Godspeed. It is results we are after. It is quite proper that the city shall take advantage not only of their more detailed and accurate engineering knowledge of the local situation, but also of those tremendous improvements in sewage disposal which are going ahead so fast it is difficult to keep track of them.

Mr. Powell. Take that particular point of treating all the sewage at one point, or at three points; that is, having an intercepting sewer or not having one.

Prof. Phelps. The engineer can advise him if he is correct. My personal experience would lead me to doubt whether he can save money by building three plants instead of one. However, if he can save money let him do it.

Mr. Brown. I just took the statement of the report itself. It took so much per capita and disregarded the population entirely. We have never made an detailed figures. This came up hurriedly, and we have nothing to suggest. We are heartily in favor of the improvements, but in regard to the commission tying us down as to details, we would like to know how much limit we have if we get results.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any objection to or criticism upon the standard of purification set forth in the report, or, in other words, have you any criticism upon the result that is to be attained with respect to purification of water mentioned in the report?

Mr. Brown. No criticism whatsoever.

Mr. Tawney. The municipalities you represent are entirely in accord with the report, so far as it relates to standardization?

Mr. Brown. Absolutely.

Mr. Powell. You recognize the obligation of your community to get rid of the sewage, but you want to do it as economically as possible.

Mr. Brown. That is exactly the fact.

Mr. Powell. You do not quarrel with the onus being thrown upon you to do it in some way?

Mr. Brown. No. All these villages seem to be very willing to do something, and they are anxious. They know of this investigation, and they have delayed works on that account, and they are very anxious to do the best possible good for all.

Mr. Tawney. Your present population is 15,000?

Mr. Brown. That is the population they gave for River Rouge, but I think it is not as large as that. I think you will find the present population is only about half of that.

Mr. Tawney. Is there anyone here representing any of the other municipalities on the United States side?

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ADAMS,
OF ECORSE, MICH.

Mr. Adams. I am here representing Ecorse, and the council there met and said they were in accord with the arrangement. They wanted some system of treating the sewage, but nothing has been done at all. The water supply there is furnished by the Detroit water board.

Mr. Tawney. The council has taken action in the matter, you say?

Mr. Adams. No; they have not taken action.

Mr. Tawney. Have they taken any action in approving or disapproving of the report of our sanitary engineer?

Mr. Adams. They approve of the idea set forth in the report.

Mr. Tawney. With respect to the treatment of sewage and the purification of the water?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. Then is Mr. Murdock here?

Mr. Adams. I represent Mr. Murdock.

Mr. Tawney. Is there anything further? Do you occupy any official position in the village?

Mr. Adams. None at all.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any information as to whether or not the council contemplate, in the near future, proceeding with work which they recognized as being necessary for the purpose of purifying the sewage, and so forth?

Mr. Adams. They have not yet. They have proposed to put in some extensions to the present system, but not purifying it.

Mr. Magrath. You understand that they anticipate looking for certain results in the way of improvement in the treatment of the sewage?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Powell. You are to be congratulated, because you recognize the obligation and propose to face it like men.

Mr. Adams. Yes; it is our opinion something should be done, and we want it to be the best arrangement.

Mr. Tawney. Anyone here representing Trenton?

Mr. Blomshield. Yes. I would like to take it up this afternoon. I have thought of some notes I would like to jot down.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Jennings is here, representing the city of St. Clair. What is your official position, if any?

Mr. Jennings. Mayor of the city of St. Clair.

STATEMENT OF MR. MAX JENNINGS,
OF ST. CLAIR, MICH.

Mr. Jennings. I am mayor of the city of St. Clair.

Mr. Tawney. Have you or your sanitary engineers received the report of our consulting engineers with respect to remedying the pollution of these waters?

Mr. Jennings. We have.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any suggestions or criticisms?

Mr. Jennings. No.

Mr. Tawney. Or any statement you would wish to make?

Mr. Jennings. I was in hopes we would have the engineer with us to-day. He is not here. I presume he will be here this afternoon. It has been placed in his hands, and he assured me he would be here to present his views this afternoon. The superintendent of the electric light and waterworks understands the situation better than I do.

Mr. Tawney. You have had the report studied by your engineer?

Mr. Jennings. It has been placed in the hands of Mr. C. L. Weil; he is not our engineer, but is the consulting engineer of the Diamond Crystal Salt Works, and it may be he will be here right after lunch.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM WOLLATT,
OF WALKERVILLE, ONTARIO.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Wollatt, you represent Walkerville?

Mr. Wollatt. In connection with the Essex Board of Utilities Commission.

Mr. Tawney. That is for Essex County?

Mr. Wollatt. For the municipalities in Essex County, opposite Detroit, beginning with Ford, Walkerville, Windsor, Sandwich, Sandwich West, and Ojibway. That is running down the river.

Mr. Magrath. The extreme distance between the two points is what?

Mr. Wollatt. Probably about 12 miles.

Mr. Gardner. Have you full jurisdiction over the whole territory?

Mr. Wollatt. This bill which I have in my hand gives the commission complete jurisdiction. This is an act passed by the Ontario Legislature last session. We just simply wish to report that this act has been granted to the utilities commission, and we are getting busy. We have a meeting this week, at which action will be taken as to what the outcome will be of the matters under discussion. We are in deep sympathy with the water question and the sewage matter; but just what the utilities commission will do we can not say at the present moment. We are not that far advanced yet, except to say, of course, that we will have to be governed by the provincial board of health.

Mr. Tawney. You are subject to the Ontario or Provincial Board of Health?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. Have you given any study, or have your engineers given any study, to the report of the sanitary engineers of this commission?

Mr. Wollatt. No; not yet.

Mr. Magrath. Have you organized yet?

Mr. Wollatt. Just last week, so far as the appointment of a chairman and secretary; but no further organization. We will do that this week.

Mr. Magrath. What are your purposes?

Mr. Wollatt. The bill sets out that we may construct main waterworks, which will be a system taking in from Ford to Ojibway and sewers in similar manner, if they are thought desirable. Whether it will be done under this or individually the commission have not got that far yet. We are in a preliminary stage in regard to that yet. We thought we would come here and let you gentlemen know we are alive to this situation, and that we have taken action in having this bill passed.

Mr. Magrath. Your utility commission exists purely for water problems?

Mr. Wollatt. Water and sewage. We are hoping to include other matters later, such as town planning, and so on. That will come later.

Mr. Mignault. Is your commission already named?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes; and the commission has been appointed.

Mr. Mignault. Is the commission appointed named in the bill?

Mr. Wollatt. The municipalities are named in the bill, with power in the municipality to name their commissioners, the mayors being ex officio members.

Mr. Powell. Have you copies of that bill?

Mr. Wollatt. No. I can let you have this, and we can probably secure more for you, if necessary.

Mr. Mignault. The commission has been formed already and constituted?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes.

Mr. Mignault. And proposes to consider these problems?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes.

Mr. Mignault. And that is the position you take?

Mr. Wollatt. That is our position.

Mr. Mignault. You have doubtless received the report of our sanitary engineer?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes.

Mr. Mignault. Have you any remarks to make with respect to it?

Mr. Wollatt. No: I must confess that I have not, because I have not studied the situation.

Mr. Magrath. Who are the officers of the commission?

Mr. Wollatt. Myself, as chairman—William Wollatt—and J. E. Hoan, Walkerville, secretary. We have no further officers appointed yet, although this bill empowers us to engage engineers and various other officers as we may find necessary as we proceed. The municipalities, we may say, have all consented; that is, the municipalities named and included in this for the commission to take the matter of sewer and water out of their hands and place it in the hands of the commission.

Mr. Magrath. What led to the obtaining of that commission? Was it dissatisfaction with the present conditions over there?

Mr. Wollatt. Not altogether. We had in view a very large growth on that side of the border, and we were not as well provided with water as we thought we ought to be, and that was one of the main things; then the unsatisfactory conditions entered into it.

Mr. Tawney. I suppose economic considerations entered into it?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes; that entered into it partly.

Mr. Magrath. Are you prepared to indorse the results of the examination and the recommendation by our sanitary experts?

Mr. Wollatt. That is a question I would hardly like to answer at this time without having the proper consultation with the engineer who may be appointed to go into the matter in detail. We are heartily in sympathy with the proposition to obtain pure water. That is what we want, but just how we shall obtain such we can not at this moment say.

Mr. Magrath. But you realize that you must live up to the treaty conditions; that you must not pollute water to the injury of health or property on this side of the boundary?

Mr. Wollatt. Yes; and we presume they will not do anything on this side to injure us.

Mr. Tawney. Have you copies of the report?

Mr. Wollatt. I believe we have.

Mr. Tawney. One has been sent to all the villages, and I did not know whether your board had one.

Mr. Wollatt. Yes; we have one.

(Adjourned till 2.30 p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The commission reconvened at the expiration of the recess.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Jennings, we will hear you now.

Mr. Jennings. Gentlemen, I am not prepared to say very much on this preliminary report that has been made, the engineering part of it being out of my line, but I will say for the city of St. Clair that we indorse this project in principle, although perhaps the engineering points of it we might not agree with.

Mr. Tawney. You mean that your city indorses the results of the investigations so far as they relate to the treatment of sewage and the purification of water?

Mr. Jennings. Yes, sir; we are heartily in sympathy with the purification of water. We think it is necessary and we certainly shall do all we can to push the project along.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any criticism to make in respect to the standards proposed for the treatment of the water?

Mr. Jennings. Nothing that I know of. The preliminary plans as drawn up by your engineer I will leave for Prof. Weil, of St. Clair, to discuss with you. He is the consulting engineer of the Diamond Crystal Salt Co., and a man who is well up in his line.

STATEMENT OF PROF. CHARLES LEWIS WEIL,
OF ST. CLAIR, MICH.

Prof. Weil. Mr. Chairman, Mayor Jennings asked me to look over the plans and the report of the consulting engineer of the commission, which I have done. I am not here to report upon these plans from the standpoint of an engineer, but I am here simply as one having some interest in what should be done. What I have to say could hardly be construed as other than the impressions of one who has read the report and looked over the plans and is interested in the outcome. In fact, until Mr. Gardner made some statements to me here to-day I did not know just what the object of this meeting was. I understood that we were here to be instructed and not to make comments. So that, as I am trying to emphasize, what I have to say will be rather in the way of my impressions than carefully thought out criticisms or considerations.

As Mayor Jennings has said, I was impressed with the report in its entirety and not only as it relates to St. Clair but, seeing it for the first time yesterday, I admit that I read pretty nearly the whole report.

I was impressed with the fact that the plan proposed for St. Clair divides the city into two sections, with the point of purification as a division, and that might be objectionable from a real estate standpoint. It may not be practicable to do otherwise, but that is what they have done at St. Clair. Sewage disposal should be at the outskirts and not in the center of the city.

Again, I was impressed with the fact that the Diamond Crystal Salt Co., which is the chief industry located at St. Clair, is at the proposed point of purification and disposal. That might constitute a hardship for the leading industry of the town. The Diamond Crystal Salt Co. has recently expended a great deal of money for a new intake pipe 24 inches in diameter and 350 feet long. It has recently expended a large sum of money for a filtration system to filter all the water that goes into the plant, to the salt beds, and through its vessels. It is expending a large sum of money for sterilizing the brine and carrying it to a temperature of 280° F. before it is used.

It may be known to this commission that experiments made in France show that pathogenic germs live for six months in brine not subjected to a temperature of 100° C. The department in France that made the experiments corresponds to our bureau in the United States having to do with pure foods and drugs. In France they were even going so far as to prohibit the sale of so-called natural salt, sea salt, and so forth, for the table, on the basis of impurity. The ordinary vacuum plant, as you may know, carries a temperature of only about 120° F., and that does not destroy pathogenic germs in brine.

As I have stated, the Diamond Crystal Salt Co. has gone to a very large expense to produce pure salt. The location of a plant of the kind mentioned at that point, notwithstanding the amount of proof that could be brought to bear to show that harmful results would be a minimum, might possibly be very objectionable. I can say that, in my individual opinion, and not speaking for the company, I feel that the company would be willing to cooperate with the city of St. Clair to secure a location that would be more advantageous to this plant. I am not criticizing the proposition, but simply stating that the proposed location may be objectionable, and I may be wrong with regard to that.

Another impression that I got from the report was this: I found that it says that the population of this city has not increased in 25 years. I think that is about right. I also found in looking over the report that they would pay over 2 to 1 to maintain this plant if it were put in as proposed; that is, the cost of maintenance would be, roughly speaking, 2 to 1: say, 50 cents perhaps in Detroit and 90 cents in St. Clair, something like twice the expense on a city that is in no way an increased menace if it has not changed its conditions at all. Therefore it would appear to me as a taxpayer and one interested from the outside that the installation of such a plant at the undivided expense of a small city like St. Clair might perhaps be a burden, and hardly a just burden, on the taxpayers when this is, in a measure, an international matter. I understand from Mr. Barron that the city would be subject to a considerable expense through its change in pavements if the plan at present proposed is carried out.

The summation of what I have had to say is probably this: That interested in the improvement of and desirous to combine in this plan, a small city like St. Clair has to be very guarded in its commendation or acceptance on account of the conditions that might be imposed through a too hasty conclusion in the matter. I think that is about all I have to say.

Mr. Powell. What is the population of St. Clair?

Prof. Weil. Three thousand.

Mr. Tawney. You probably observed in reading the report of the consulting sanitary engineer that three possible sites for the treatment plant were studied, and I understand that the one that is recommended here is the one that you are objecting to.

Prof. Weil. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Have you considered the objection stated by the engineers to either of the other two?

Prof. Weil. Yes; as I recall, I have. I think it was simply a matter of expense. Is that correct?

Mr. Tawney. Yes. One of them was abandoned without detailed study, because it obviously required an unduly expensive intercepting line. Another site located on the west side of Pine River was studied in detail, but was found to require a more expensive system of interceptors than the one east of Pine River, which is shown on plate No. 16, and that is the plan that I understand you object to.

Prof. Weil. May I ask the commission a question?

Mr. Tawney. Certainly.

Prof. Weil. Is it good engineering to reject the most expensive site on the ground of expense when it is an international matter?

Mr. Tawney. I did not quite catch your question.

Prof. Weil. Would the commission consider it good engineering to reject a certain site on the ground of expense when it is an international matter?

Mr. Tawney. It would be if an equally available site could be obtained for a less expense.

Prof. Weil. Is this not a third selection, this last one that was selected?

Mr. Tawney. Yes; it was selected in preference to the other two.

Prof. Weil. On the grounds of expense?

Mr. Tawney. Yes.

Prof. Weil. That means, then, that the expense is to fall on the municipality?

Mr. Tawney. No; the selecting of the third site, as I understand it, was to save expense to the municipality.

Prof. Weil. But that means that the expense must fall on the municipality?

Mr. Tawney. Yes.

Prof. Weil. In a big question of sanitation like this, should the matter of expense be the question of a municipality that is not growing?

Mr. Tawney. Here is the situation: These waters into which you are discharging your raw sewage are international waters. The result is the contamination or pollution of these waters, which, whether it does now or not, may in the future result in a violation of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The two Governments, which have agreed that neither will permit on their respective sides the pollution of these waters to the injury or health or property on the other, have a right to put a stop to it by requiring the municipalities which are thus offending against the treaty to either treat their sewage or discharge it elsewhere than in these international waters.

Now, the purpose is to find the most practicable and economical method for the treatment of the sewage by these cities that are using these international waters as open sewers. We are engaged in an effort to carry out the provisions of the treaty, or to advise the two Governments how the provisions of the treaty may be carried out with the least possible expense to the municipalities that are using these waters as open sewers for the purpose of disposing of their raw sewage, and the only methods that our consulting sanitary engineers have been able to devise and recommend are those which are proposed here.

I did not quite get your objection to the third site suggested by the consulting engineer—I mean the site east of Pine River, which is indicated on plate No. 16.

Prof. Weil. I made two objections to it, one the location with regard to the main manufacturing industry of the town.

Mr. Tawney. How would it affect this salt industry?

Prof. Weil. I have tried to explain how it might affect it. I think you will appreciate that all I have said is tentative. I have explained that the company has gone to a very large expense to do what, in so far as I know, no other salt company in the world is doing—filter all the water that goes into the beds and into its plant and sterilize the brine. Now, the location of this plant in the immediate vicinity of the salt works might have a very bad effect, so far as impression is concerned.

Mr. Tawney. Sentimental?

Prof. Weil. Not at all; but actual physiological and psychological effect.

Another point I tried to bring out was that it divided the town into two districts, when in my opinion it would be to the advantage of the town to have this proposed plant for purifying located on the outskirts of the town.

There is one question that I would like to ask now: Is it likely to be the recommendation of the commission in furtherance of what you have cited in regard to the treaty that these things shall be carried out even if they constitute a hardship on the particular ownership, municipality, or village?

Mr. Tawney. That depends altogether upon whether the sewage which they are discharging crosses the boundary and constitutes what the treaty describes as an injury to health or property on the other side. If it does, it would have to be prevented, or else the treaty obligations between the two nations would be violated. Of course, if the water beyond the boundary is not polluted at all by reason of the discharge of raw sewage on either side, then the discharge of that sewage would not be in contravention of the treaty; but if it crosses the boundary into another country to the injury of the health or property of the people of that country, it would have to stop or the two Governments would have to rescind or enforce their treaty obligations. It would be a question of fact as to whether or not the pollution extends across the boundary to the injury of the health and property of the people on the other side. If it does it would have to be stopped, no matter what expense might be imposed on the people who are offending against this provision of the treaty. That is my interpretation of the provisions of the treaty, and I think it is the interpretation of the members of the commission generally.

You can readily understand and appreciate the position that this commission is in. We are created an international tribunal for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of a treaty which has been entered into by two great countries. There will be no hardship imposed upon any community if that community is not offending against the provisions of the treaty. If the people of any community are offending against the provisions of the treaty, they will have to take some means of preventing that which constitutes a violation of the treaty. I do not say that St. Clair is doing that, but if the conclusion of the commission should be that that is a fact with respect to St. Clair, it would have to adopt some method for the treatment of its sewage.

Prof. Weil. Then, what is the object of this meeting?

Mr. Tawney. To ascertain what objections the various communities have to the plans proposed by the consulting engineer for the treatment of the sewage, so as to avoid any violation of this treaty.

Prof. Weil. If I understand your last remarks, it is perfectly immaterial what objections we may have.

Mr. Tawney. No; if the communities have any better method than the one proposed, one that would be less expensive and equally as efficient, the commission would be very glad to hear of it. This is simply a report to the commission by the consulting sanitary engineer employed by the commission for that purpose. The commission has not formulated its conclusions, and before formulating them it desires to hear from the various communities affected by the recommendations of our consulting sanitary engineer.

Prof. Weil. Of course, you understand that what I have said has been in the way of interrogation rather than criticism.

Mr. Tawney. Well, we are endeavoring to answer your interrogations to the best of our ability.

Mr. Mignault. We would like to hear any criticism that you think proper to make as to the methods suggested by the consulting engineer.

Prof. Weil. In a general way I have already stated what the objections are.

Mr. Magrath. The objection that you have stated is one relating to the location. Is there any objection with respect to the burden that this proposed plan would entail upon the community?

Prof. Weil. Yes.

Mr. Magrath. The burden is fixed here, an actual charge per capita.

Prof. Weil. What is it for Detroit?

Prof. Phelps. It is 54 cents.

Prof. Weil. Then, it is nearly twice as much for St. Clair as for Detroit. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Powell. That is the necessary result of doing things on a larger scale.

Mr. Jennings. On our plan there for interceptors I notice that they are running down Riverside Avenue. It might be a question for your engineer to consider, whether it would not be possible to place these interceptors one street farther back from the river. Riverside Avenue is a paved street. It is a concrete pavement, and perhaps the expense of digging that up and repaving it would be more than it would cost to take a street farther back from the river.

Prof. Phelps. That is absolutely immaterial to us, sir.

Mr. Jennings. They can be placed anywhere?

Prof. Phelps. Anywhere that you please.

Mr. Powell. Prof. Weil, I suppose you and the community in which you live recognize the necessity of doing something to prevent this evil?

Prof. Weil. I think you will find I stated at the outset that we recognize that very fully and are anxious to cooperate in its prevention.

Mr. Powell. You recognize that something should be done to prevent the raw sewage from going into the river?

Prof. Weil. Yes, sir.

Mr. Powell. All that you are aiming at is to have it done as inexpensively as possible?

Prof. Weil. Yes; and not arbitrarily.

Mr. Powell. There is no desire to take anybody by the throat; this is a friendly consultation.

Prof. Weil. I understand that, but we would like know what is going to be done.

Mr. Powell. To the general scheme proposed by Prof. Phelps you have no objection; your objections apply only to the details of working it out?

Prof. Weil. As to the general scheme for St. Clair?

Mr. Powell. Yes.

Prof. Weil. Do you mean the use of the interceptors, and so forth?

Mr. Powell. Yes.

Prof. Weil. That is so very general that I could hardly have any objection to it. There is nothing different in that from what has been done for years.

Mr. Powell. It is only the details of working out the scheme to which you object?

Prof. Weil. Yes.

Mr. Powell. And those objections you have spoken of?

Prof. Weil. Yes; I have tried to cover them.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Knowles, we will hear you now, as representing the Great Lakes Pure Water Association.

STATEMENT OF MR. MORRIS KNOWLES,
OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
REPRESENTING THE GREAT LAKES PURE WATER ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Knowles. As I stated this morning, there is another representative of the Great Lakes Pure Water Association, Mr. Theodore M. Leison, who will speak for that organization. He could not be here this afternoon, but will be present to-morrow morning. You may consider that he will be the official representative of and will speak for the association.

While I am on my feet, and speaking entirely personally, I would say that I was very much gratified to hear the remarks of Prof. Phelps that the suggestions in the report should be considered as such and not necessarily as determinative plans, because it seems to me that, above all, the initiative should be left to the communities to work out their own salvation as long as that may result accordingly in a general, well-defined policy; I think it is helpful to us as engineers to realize that as coming from your engineer, Prof. Phelps. It seems to me that this policy is a well-considered one, so that all of us who are interested in sanitation ought to work toward the fruition of such a plan. It is necessary that separate places shall have separate solutions dependent upon topographical conditions.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Knowles, you have had sufficient time and opportunity, have you not, to give some study to the report of our consulting engineers?

Mr. Knowles. I think I may have had sufficient time, but I do not know that I have given it sufficient study, because I have many other things to do.

Mr. Tawney. From the time you have given to the study of the report have you any criticism or suggestion to make as to the result, especially with respect to the standards of purification which have been recommended by our consulting engineers?

Mr. Knowles. As long as they can be considered generally and subject to consideration for each particular locality by a continuing body, no; but if they should be made once for all determinative, I would think that would be an error, because the art is changing so fast that such a position ought not to be taken by any body of men at any time.

Mr. Tawney. Let me understand you. You mean, do you, that there should be sufficient flexibility in the standard fixed to enable a continuing administrative body charged with the duty of supervising the execution of the recommendations to make such changes as are necessary to suit local conditions?

Mr. Knowles. And changes in the art as time goes on.

Mr. Tawney. Changes in the art of treatment; that is what you mean?

Mr. Knowles. Yes, sir; changes in the art both of treatment of sewage and the purification of the water.

Mr. Tawney. Then, from your studies of the proposition do I understand you to suggest that the most efficient and satisfactory results would be obtained by the creation of an international administrative body for the purpose of looking after the purification of water and treatment of sewage along these international boundary waters?

Mr. Knowles. I have not studied the machinery of legislation closely enough to express an opinion upon that final thing. I do believe that no effective progress can be made without some continuing body being on the job all the time. I presume it goes without saying that this being an international question it shall finally rest in some international body. I, however, couple that with the thought that the initiative should not only rest with the given municipality, but probably a still further initiative with the governing body representing that Province, that State, or that Government; the final question being left to the international body to determine the larger questions of policy. The way to get good work is to put responsibility for detail upon the person who carries it out.

Mr. Powell. That is good policy in all government, political or otherwise.

Mr. Knowles. That is right.

Mr. Powell. While we all recognize that sanitary science is in a condition of change or progress, yet we can not sit still and do nothing. We must live up to the light that we have for the time being. So that we could not lie by and do nothing simply because there is a possibility of other methods being invented or coming to light within a certain period of time in the future. We have to do what is best at the present moment under the present light. You understand that condition?

Mr. Knowles. If you ask that as a question, I would say, yes, that is true. It is neither necessary to stand still nor to fix a criterion that is good forever. The way in which those things are handled by the departments of health in the States, and I presume in Dr. McCullough’s department, is that a given project is acted upon at a given time with the light that the people then have, but frequently there are clauses which say that if at any time it appears that the works are not adequate, or something else is required, the right is reserved to the governing body to stipulate further requirements.

Mr. Powell. That is, you do not want the process of evolution to cease?

Mr. Knowles. No, sir. The important thing to consider is that this is not the only measure of public health which is before the people at this time. There are many other things upon which public money can be spent, and it is the measure of this thing with the other things to help public health that should be considered in any large questions of policy.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Knowles, are you prepared to give the commission any information regarding the treatment of sewage by aeration?

Mr. Knowles. No, sir.

Mr. Magrath. Do you think we are proceeding along the right lines in making these engineering suggestions as to these interceptor sewers? Do you think that those suggestions will be in line with any future development?

Mr. Knowles. Well, the relative advantages of long interceptors compared with small unit plants is all a question of finance coupled with some question of real estate development policy, but, of course, with any large body of water directly in front of a long community the place to which the sewage must go is that body of water. The most direct means is generally the most economical means, and the measure of cost of a number of plants compared with the cost of an interceptor is what is needed to find out whether the interceptor is advisable or not. No one can say what is most acceptable in either case.

Mr. Tawney. What is your position, Mr. Knowles?

Mr. Knowles. I am a consulting sanitary engineer in general practice.

Mr. Tawney. Located where?

Mr. Knowles. In Pittsburgh, Pa. That is my home now. I have practiced over the United States.

Mr. Tawney. Are you connected officially with the Great Lakes Pure Water Association?

Mr. Knowles. Yes, sir; I am a member of that association.

Mr. Tawney. From your knowledge of the reference submitted to the commission by the two Governments and your knowledge of the scope of the investigation, what have you to say with reference to whether or not thus far the investigation has proceeded practically and as speedily as would ordinarily be expected under the circumstances? I am asking you the same question that Mr. Magrath asked this morning of the chief sanitary engineer of the State of Michigan, merely for the purpose of getting on the record an expression of your views.

Mr. Knowles. I think good progress and good judgment up to date have been shown, provided the criteria be taken as not too absolute; and the statement made by Prof. Phelps this morning is very helpful along that line.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any knowledge as to the time that was consumed in the investigation of a similar subject in the Mississippi River on account of the alleged pollution of that river by the Chicago Drainage Canal?

Mr. Knowles. No; I do not know the exact time. It was some considerable time. I think it must be remembered that in any of these matters it not only takes time for an investigation, but it takes a good deal of time for necessary assimilation and education.

Mr. Tawney. Yes; and time thus spent is well spent.

Mr. Knowles. It is not lost.

Mr. Tawney. We will now hear what Mr. Sloman, a member of the bar of the city of Detroit, desires to say on this subject.

STATEMENT OF MR. ADOLPH SLOMAN,
OF DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. Sloman. Prefacing what I have to say, I desire to state that I was born and brought up in the city of Detroit. I have practiced law during the past 37 years. I have had a summer home during the past 18 years at what is called Sans Souci on the St. Clair River about midway between Detroit and Port Huron.

Some little time before your commission was appointed, on an occasion when my eldest daughter was down in the city and there was apparently an epidemic of typhoid she contracted typhoid fever, and we came near losing her. It was that which caused me to interest myself very much in this question of the water supply and its pollution.

Our summer home has a frontage of about 1,400 feet on the river, on the south channel, where all the boats pass. Only as recently as two weeks ago last Saturday there came down the river a quantity of oil in the form of scum that covered the river from the center clear to the shore. An east wind that was prevailing at the time blew that stuff over to the shore, and the launches and rowboats stationed at the dock were covered with that oil clear to the gunwales. It was almost a day before we could get a drop of drinking water from the river. It was that situation that I called to the attention of the minister of fisheries, to which the letter that I have here is a reply. The oil supply supposedly came from the Imperial Oil Co. at Sarnia. The quantity was simply enormous. It came down in spots, covering an area of over 40 feet square. It looked like filth.

Mr. Powell. Was it black?

Mr. Sloman. No; it was a dark brown.

Mr. Gardner. Was it raw oil as it comes from the earth?

Mr. Sloman. Evidently so. Underneath that, of course, the marks of the oil were apparently in the usual form in which it is found floating on the water.

Mr. Tawney. Has that condition happened only once?

Mr. Sloman. No; it has happened before, but not to the extent that it did at the time I refer to. No one who has lived up there and has seen conditions and is at all familiar with fishing can help but realize that another happening of that kind will interfere seriously with fishing.

Mr. Magrath. You had better read that letter that you received from the minister of fisheries.

Mr. Sloman. This letter comes from the deputy minister of the naval service. When this condition presented itself I at once got in touch with the United States Engineer office in the expectation that some one on the American side who had the power would take some steps to prevent its recurrence. Upon calling up the Engineer office I found that Col. Patrick was about to start for the Mexican border, and he could not give it any attention. He was fearful that the matter might not receive proper attention from his office, and it was not strictly in his line. Inasmuch as the stuff had apparently come from the Canadian side, I got in touch with the minister of fisheries, because I understood that on a former occasion they had gone after this oil company. It is not an uncommon occurrence to find oil in large quantities coming down the river there. Over in Mitchells Bay large quantities of carp have died as the result of an accumulation of that stuff that has floated or drifted over there on account of the wind. In reply to my communication I received the following letter:

Ottawa, June 22, 1916.

Sir: I have your letter of the 19th instant with regard to the pollution of the Michigan side of the St. Clair River by heavy deposits of oil, apparently coming from a plant operating at Sarnia, Lambton County, Ontario.

Your representations will be referred to the department of game and fisheries, Toronto, which administers the fishery regulations for Ontario, and immediate attention will be requested in the matter. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. J. Desbarats,
Deputy Minister of the Naval Service.

Adolph Sloman, Esq.,
Counselor at Law, Suite 330, Penobscot Building, Detroit, Mich.

In trying to ascertain what was the real prolific cause of the fouling of the water supply I tried to decide in my own mind in watching the boats pass by to what extent they were responsible for the contamination of the water supply. I wish you gentlemen could have the privilege of standing with me on my dock some night to see the condition of the water. You would raise your hands in holy horror and say, Is it possible that this is the stuff which the people are obliged to drink? The rays of light penetrate the water and show the impurities in it. There are no words that can express the foul condition of that water, and we get our drinking water from that source.

Mr. Tawney. What is the relation of the boat traffic on the river to this pollution?

Mr. Sloman. With regard to the sewage?

Mr. Tawney. Yes.

Mr. Sloman. I believe that at least a quarter if not a third of the foul matter that is deposited in the river comes from the vessels. And I want to say to you that I have never been able to understand how the rights of human life ought to be set to one side for the rights of property, what earthly justification there is for allowing these vessels to deposit their foul matter in the river when they could take care of it by incinerating plants. They may say it would put them to some inconvenience. What of it? I think we have a right to have health considered first. Not only that, but take the condition that existed 25 years ago. The water of the Detroit River was considered the finest in the world for drinking purposes. The city was comparatively small as considered to its population of to-day; the tonnage was small as compared with what it is to-day; but with the increase of this tonnage and the increase of population, together with the fact that vessels have been built in the past few years of heavy draft, it has been utterly impossible for nature to take care of what it would ordinarily take care of in the matter of pollution.

It is usually said that water purifies itself every 7 miles. These vessels coming along there churn that water up above the intake pipe and the northeast winds blow that stuff over. Those boats with big drafts churn up that stuff all the way up to the ship canal, and with the wind blowing from the northeast, it riles over the city supply intake.

Mr. Mignault. Where is your property?

Mr. Sloman. At Sans Souci, which is on Harrisons Island, about 3 miles southeast of Algonac, on the south channel of the St. Clair River.

Mr. Mignault. How far from Sarnia?

Mr. Sloman. It is about midway between Detroit and Sarnia, and Sarnia is directly opposite Port Huron.

Mr. Mignault. Then, it would be about halfway between Sarnia or Port Huron and Detroit?

Mr. Sloman. Approximately.

Mr. Mignault. Of course, the pollution which you mentioned comes from above.

Mr. Sloman. It comes from above. At Algonac the oil apparently does not go down the north channel, but goes down the south channel. When an east wind is blowing it can be plainly seen on the shore. For a week no woman could attempt to step on that shore without ruining her dress.

Mr. Mignault. Did I understand you to say that your property is on an island?

Mr. Sloman. It is on Harrisons Island; directly opposite is Squirrel Island, and directly opposite that is Warpool Island.

Mr. Mignault. Your property is on the American side?

Mr. Sloman. It is on the American side.

Mr. Powell. Did you make any inquiries as to how the Imperial Oil Co. allowed this stuff to escape?

Mr. Sloman. No; I did not get up there. It has not been my privilege to get up there since this occurrence, but I at once got in touch with the authorities that I thought would handle that situation.

Mr. Powell. It may have been due to carelessness.

Mr. Sloman. It looked as though they had let go what might be considered a tremendous quantity of oil. No ordinary quantity could have made a showing such as that did.

Mr. Mignault. How often has it happened?

Mr. Sloman. In different forms it has been going on for four or five years. It has come down two dozen times—not in that quantity, but the water would show traces of oil below the surface and on the surface.

Mr. Mignault. Do you mean that it has happened two dozen times in a year?

Mr. Sloman. No; during that period of the past four or five years. But it is not only that; when an east wind blows we get on our shore the garbage and foul matter that comes from the vessels. This year it is particularly hard on us because there never were so many vessels going up and down the river as there are to-day.

Mr. Powell. How long ago since this happened?

Mr. Sloman. Two weeks ago last Saturday.

Mr. Powell. Coming up the bay this morning, at this end of the Livingstone Channel, just about the Limekiln Reef, there was a lot of stuff on the surface that looked like raw sewage.

Mr. Sloman. Well, there probably was; but the Limekiln crosses below the city of Detroit, while this was above.

Just a thing or two more I would like to say in that connection. As I say, I was born and brought up here in the city of Detroit, and I will give way to no one in the matter of loyalty to the city of my birth, but Detroit is confronted with a problem that she must absolutely take care of, no matter what the cost is. It is merely a question of time when the water supply will be absolutely unfit for drinking purposes. We are drinking to-day chlorinated water. It was only a matter of a year or two ago when they cleaned out the reservoir of the waterworks, and I would hate to tell you what they found. There were two skeletons among the objects found there and a lot of very foul matter. The middle and wealthier classes are not drinking Detroit water; they are drinking well water, simply because if they use Detroit water they must drink this chlorinated water. The question is whether Detroit ought not to build in the future so as to conserve life rather than property or expense.

The city of Grand Rapids was confronted with a similar condition in 1913. Grand Rapids is a city of about 115,000 inhabitants. They undertook to discharge their sewage into the Grand River, and one of the towns below there filed a bill in the State court for an injunction to restrain the city from letting its sewage go into the river. I would like to call your attention to that case because it is full of facts; it is full of the testimony of the engineers.

Mr. Powell. The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded?

Mr. Sloman. Yes; the injunction was granted, and the city of Grand Rapids was given one year in which to take care of that sewage matter. When it comes to the question of what Detroit should do in the way of purifying its waters, I am not prepared to give any technical information—that is for the engineers—but I do wish to say to you that if you will examine this case you will find testimony of some of the ablest engineers in the State of Michigan as to what ought to be done. If I may be permitted, I would like to call attention to some features of that case.

Mr. Powell. Give the full citation of the case.

Mr. Sloman. The case is reported in One hundred and seventy-fifth Michigan, page 503. The title is Attorney General ex rel., Township of Wyoming v. City of Grand Rapids.

Mr. Powell. That suit was brought on behalf of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Sloman. It was brought on behalf of the village of Grandville, which felt the effects of the foul matter that was being deposited in the river. The court in that case said:

This is a proceeding by information in the nature of a bill in equity filed in the name of the attorney general upon the relation of the township of Wyoming, through its township board, its board of health, and its supervisor, and upon the relation of the village of Grandville in said township and certain riparian owners upon Grand River in said township against the city of Grand Rapids, its common council, its board of public works, and board of health, to declare and to abate and restrain the continuance of an alleged public nuisance. The nuisance is claimed to result from acts of the city of Grand Rapids in conveying through artificial means its sewage into the Grand River, which flows down the river and is cast upon the land below that city, and particularly upon those lands which are adjacent to and within the village of Grandville, and there created a public nuisance. It is also claimed that the emptying of sewage into the river so pollutes its waters as to constitute a nuisance in the waters themselves by reason of the odors therefrom and the contamination therefrom.

The city of Grand Rapids is located upon both sides of Grand River: its population in April, 1909, when the bill was filed, was upward of 110,000; its sewage is carried into the Grand River through sewers, which aggregate upward of 171 miles in length, without purification of any character. In addition to this the night soil from the outlying houses which have no sewer connection is collected in barrels and dumped into the Present Street sewer, and flows into the river. The township of Wyoming is located south of the city of Grand Rapids; the river, after passing through the city, flows southerly and westerly between the townships of Wyoming and Walker. On the south bank of the river, at a point where it turns abruptly to the west, and about 7 miles below the city of Grand Rapids, is located the village of Grandville, with about 750 inhabitants. Considerable area in Grandville is low; there is a ridge of high ground along the river bank, which is 5 or 6 feet higher than the low ground behind it.

It appears that the river overflows its banks once or twice a year; at these times of overflow a large area in Grandville is flooded, and the river becomes very much wider than it is ordinarily and the current increases rapidly. As the river goes down and after the water ceases to flow back into the river a pond of about 20 acres is left in the edge of the village, the escape of the water back into the river by flowage being prevented by the higher ground next to the river. The water left in this pond is from 4 to 6 feet deep, and gradually disappears through evaporation and seepage into the soil.

It is the claim of the complainants that the emptying of the large amount of sewage produced in Grand Rapids into the river contaminates its waters and fills them with impurities which are carried down the stream as it flows to, and into, or through the village; that, as the water goes down, the substances and impurities which are in it, due to the sewage, whether visible or invisible, are left upon the surface of the ground, and there decomposition creates such odors as to constitute a public nuisance in the village. The most of the houses in Grandville surround the flooded area, and there are four houses and eight privies within the area covered by water in ordinary flood. There are many more houses and privies covered by the highest water known in Grandville.

Now, you have identically the same situation here that they had. You have the towns below us here of Wyandotte, Trenton, and others that abut on the Detroit River. They occupy the same position with regard to the city of Detroit as did this town of Grandville with regard to the city of Grand Rapids, and, inasmuch as the city of Detroit sooner or later is going to be confronted with the question of whether or not they must take care of the sewage as between those towns and it, just so the question might as well be disposed of by Federal legislation.

Mr. Powell. In the absence of any special statutes on the part of your State, your common laws are precisely the same as the Canadian common law of Ontario, and the principle is very clear. I do not think there is any necessity of citing any authority on it. Every lower party is entitled to have the water flow to him in its crystal purity.

Mr. Sloman. There is no denying that proposition. This case is only interesting, gentlemen, with reference to the fact that it involves the inquiry as to what could or might be done to overcome the difficulty. In that respect it applies here very strongly. That is why I read portions of this authority at this time:

The bill of complaint, among other things, states that the system of sewers in the city of Grand Rapids does not cover the entire city, there being about one-quarter of the inhabitants of said city who do not discharge their refuse, of the character ordinarily discharged into and carried away by sewers, into the sewers of the city, but who discharge and deposit their filthy and unhealthy refuse into vaults and cesspools; that in the past such refuse, night soil, and unhealthy substances have been, and were at the time of filing the bill, collected by scavengers for said city and carried into the country, outside of said city, where the same was buried in deep beds, without creating any nuisance and without injury to the health of the surrounding neighbors; that there was, at the time of the filing of the bill, under contemplation by the said city of Grand Rapids, and its said authorities had recommended and intended and threatened to put into operation, a plan whereby the said refuse and night soil, then collected by its scavengers, would be carried to and emptied into the said Prescott Street sewer in said city; that the authorities had voted and determined to dispose this refuse and night soil, and they were about to commence the emptying of said sewage and night soil into the said sewer and were at the time taking steps, or about to take steps, through the expenditure of public money, for the emptying of said refuse and night soil into the said sewer.

The bill states that the night soil so collected amounted at that time to from 150 to 180 barrels a day, and if emptied into the said sewer would be carried into the Grand River and would greatly add to the pollution and contamination of its waters, and that the same would create a public nuisance in the rendering of the waters of said river injurious to users thereof; and by the overflows of said river and through deposits along the banks thereof of deleterious, unhealthful, and noxious substances and through the creation of noisome and unhealthful odors arising from the waters of said river so contaminated an additional public nuisance would be created; that the township board of health of the township of Wyoming had taken action in the matter, in accordance with the statute, and had published this action, in which it protested against the emptying of sewage and night soil into said sewer, as contemplated by the city, and had declared the same to be a nuisance and a source of filth and cause of sickness in said township, and injurious to the health of the people thereof. * * *

The bill further claims that the use of the waters of said Grand River by the said city in the manner which was then contemplated would be improper, unwarranted, and unlawful, and would constitute a daily menace to the lives, health, and comfort of the persons residing along said river and in the township of Wyoming and in the village of Grandville and would fill the air with noisome and noxious odors and pollute the air in the neighborhood and render it unfit to breathe; and that the said city could satisfactorily and economically dispose of its refuse matter, night soil, and sewage in any other manner or through different methods than were then contemplated, without injury to the health or lives of persons and without creating a public nuisance.

The bill prays that a permanent injunction be granted against the city of Grand Rapids and its said boards, officers, and agencies, restraining and preventing it, or them, from continuing to discharge the sewage which it then discharged into Grand River and requiring it to abate the nuisance which it then maintained in the pollution of the waters of said river. It also prayed that an injunction issue restraining said city and its said officers and agencies from carrying into effect their threatened and contemplated plan of emptying into said sewer the refuse matter and night soil then being collected by the scavengers of said city for the purpose of conveying the same into the Grand River, and that they be restrained and prohibited from taking any action or in any manner ordering the performance of any act on the part of any of its officers or boards having the tendency to carry into effect the said threatened action, which would result in said nuisance.

The court in this case enters very largely into a discussion of the expert testimony that was given with regard to the relative situation of the town, the amount of filth that was deposited in these waters, the extent of the pollution, the size of the city, and the means and ways whereby this pollution might be overcome. It gives the testimony of the experts, and one of them I have particularly in mind was a witness named George S. Pierson.

The witness, George S. Pierson, called by the complainant, testified that he was a civil engineer and had made a specialty of sanitary engineering for 25 or 30 years; that his work in a large measure required the supervision of plants for water purification and installation of septic tanks; that he had supervised sewage purification plants at Hermosa, Cal.; El Paso, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; Fond du Lac, Wis.; Jackson, Durand, Ithaca, Bay View, Charlevoix, and Lake Cora, Mich., and quite a number of smaller installations; that he had visited most of the plants in operation in Massachusetts, including those in Worcester, Amherst, Andover, Gardner, Framingham, Natick, Brockton, Lawrence, and others; that those plants were in successful operation when he visited them; that he had experience in estimating the cost of erection and maintenance of such plants. The witness described modern methods of sewage disposal, including septic tanks, and that the septic tank is almost universally used in this country in the first and even in the final stage of the process; that this accomplishes sufficient purification of the sewage so that it can be emptied into a stream without damage or creating a nuisance; that the septic-tank process is in successful operation in cities the size of Grand Rapids; that the recent tendency had been to relieve streams from pollution by purifying the sewage; that a sewage purification plant of a city the size of Grand Rapids is feasible; that the cost of operation of a septic tank is nominal, only an occasional cleaning, at periods varying from three months to six years; that the water consumption of a city is an indication of the amount of its sewage, because practically the entire water consumption finds its way into the sewers; this may be increased by rains carrying with them the street washings; that in providing a septic tank to ascertain its size we ascertain the daily total flow.

The witness further testified that he had made a general estimate which would be sufficiently large to cover the cost of a sewage-disposal plant for Grand Rapids, and he could positively say the cost would not exceed his estimate; the approximate cost would be $1 per capita; for a city the size of Grand Rapids it would be about $100,000; this is based upon separate septic tanks without the cost of connecting the sewers; that the cost would not vary much whether one or more tanks were used; that if a separate tank were installed at each sewer outlet the cost would be slightly more, probably not more than 25 or 50 per cent; that there is a slight odor from a septic tank, not materially different from the odor of any sewer discharge; if the tank discharges below the water level the odor is masked; the septic tank alone reduces the amount of organic matter in the sewage and the number of disease germs and brings it into such condition that upon discharge it is rapidly purified; that the odor would not last long after the discharge; it would be very much minimized from the sewage being put into the water and the duration of the odor would be less, and it would disappear within a very few hours; that in his judgment the sewage of Grand Rapids in Grand River would not purify itself before it reached Grandville; that unless the stream has a very rapid flow there is immediate sedimentation when sewage is discharged into a watercourse; that it continues until a good part of the solids are lodged on the bottom of the stream; that if there is a considerable sedimentation between Grand Rapids and Grandville the effect of high water would be to dislodge it and carry it on; that the pollution of the stream at that time would be much increased from what it would be if the current did not take up this discharge; that the increased pollution of the water caused by this would be apt to leave deposits at Grandville that would increase the smells.

On cross-examination the witness testified that his statement as regards the sediment on the bottom of the river was not based on actual tests in Grand Rapids; that it depended to a considerable extent on the rapidity of the flow; that material settling to the bottom of the stream would not cease to be contaminating for quite a long time and would never become pure with additional material from day to day; that he was not familiar with the river between Grand Rapids and Grandville; that sewage odor from a stream within clearly defined banks would not be particularly noticeable for a great distance, it might for 5 miles, but would be reduced; that he had made no test between Grand Rapids and Grandville to see what settled to the bottom of the river; that his statement was general from what he supposed, and that he did not know the velocity of the stream between the two points; that while there is no great amount of purification in a sluggish stream in a distance of 6 or 7 miles, the faster a stream flows the farther the impurities are carried in a given time; that it might be said it was the general rule in Michigan for cities having sewer systems to carry the sewage into streams; that Grand River at Jackson is smaller than at Grand Rapids, and that Jackson has the largest municipal sewage-reduction plant that he knows of in this State; that the sewage there is purified by filtration; that the largest plant he ever established is at Auburn, N. Y. (50,000 to 75,000 inhabitants); that Worcester, Mass., with a population of 125,000 to 150,000, has such a tank; that the contaminating influences of the sewage of the city the size of Grand Rapids would not be as great if the sewage were not carried out into the river by artificial means, as there would be purification of the organic matter by the soil; and if it were not for the sewers there would be very little contaminating influence upon the waters of the river.

And they then proceed to discuss the judgment of other experts, who are referred to in the opinion. The opinion is somewhat at length, and I do not care to take up the time of the commission by reading it, but will be very glad to leave the book with you during your visit, or you can take it along with you and return it to me.

Mr. Mignault. What was the order?

Mr. Sloman. Requiring them to proceed to establish a septic tank, and at a later time the court gave the city a year in which to do it. That same situation presents itself with regard to Detroit. Every one of these towns and cities abutting on the river are in identically the same position as the city was when it filed the bill.

Mr. Powell. Why did the owners not file a bill before?

Mr. Sloman. I think they were guilty of doing the very same thing as the city of Detroit was. If you gentlemen had a large farm and a lake upon it, and anybody filled it with excreta, you would not drink the water, but we are drinking from a pond in which millions, I might say, deposit their filth and excreta. I took this matter up, when my daughter took ill, first with the city board of health. Mr. Keefer was the health officer, and he attributed the typhoid to the milk supply rather than the water, but was willing to cooperate in any measure that would bring about a change in the conditions that existed. I then took it up with the State board of health, and finally with Washington, and shortly afterwards it was found that there was an arrangement between Great Britain and the United States for the appointment of an International Joint Commission, and finally your body was appointed. I got in touch with Chairman Tawney, giving him some data in regard to this matter, and I had hoped to be present at the former meeting of the commission, but was unavoidably called from the city, which made it impossible for me to appear before you. Upon the land we take care of our sewage through cesspools, which consist of practically a large dry-goods box, made of 2-inch boards, rather than of the thin material of which dry-goods boxes are made, inverted, with the opening off, so that the opening is right under the soil and the sewer pipes are connected with it. The soil is of a sandy, gravelly character, which carries off the impurities.

Mr. Tawney. How deep are your cesspools?

Mr. Sloman. We can not go down below 4 feet before we strike the water, but there are proprietors above me who run their sewers into the river.

Mr. Mignault. All these sewers are private sewers?

Mr. Sloman. Yes.

With a view of getting the latest thought on the subject, I got in communication with the health board at Lansing, and desire to submit Bulletin No. 2 of the public health board of this State, for the sewage disposal of single houses and small institutions, in which they deal with the question of disposing of the sewage of the schools where they have not sewer facilities. They also give a diagram of a septic tank, by which it is claimed the solid matters are taken up with the earth, while the water that comes out of the septic tank is pure water. If it were possible to build septic tanks for Detroit, whereby the excreta might be disposed of in the soil and the pure water brought to the river, the danger would be reduced to the minimum, but unless Detroit takes some active and effective measure along that line we will be confronted in a short time, especially with the tremendous increase in our population and with the great increase in the industries, with an increased death rate. It is merely a question of time when the death rate will be appalling. I say that with a due sense of the responsibility I am assuming and an appreciation of the facts. I have watched this thing very carefully and studiously. One moment more on the question of cost. The question of cost ought not to be taken into consideration at all. You can not measure the loss of lives by cost, and the city of Detroit can not afford to destroy the unique position it occupies among the States of the Union by being backward in the matter of taking care of its sewage and by losing such a water supply as it had years ago, when it was the proud boast of the city of Detroit, which to-day it is not. To-day it is a stench in the nostrils of every community where they take the water from the river passing by their doors. I sincerely hope the Federal Government will take the matter in hand in such a way that it will not be optional with the cities to determine whether or not they will spend the money, but that measures will be passed providing means for dealing with the waters on the Great Lakes, and that the engineers will deal with the question in the best light; but foremost of all, you must stop the boats from depositing excreta in the water, and if you do not, no matter what you do, you can not take care of this pollution. It is simply awful. Just think of the traffic running up and down the river, and all that foul stuff and oil and grease and dirty water deposited in front of your doors. We have the boats passing in front of our doors every day, and when you stop to think of it, it is an awful matter and Congress should not wait a moment to take action on it. If you do not the upshot will be you will kill every fish in the river; you can not help do it. If we have a continuation of what has occurred during the past two or three weeks, from my knowledge and experience as a fisherman who has been going up along the river for the last 30 years, you will kill every fish in the river, because the foulness gets to the bottom and permeates that entire body of water, and nature, struggling as hard as she will, can not possibly take care of it.

I just wish, as a lay citizen, only having the interests of my city at heart, and feeling that the matter of life and health is of greater concern than profit, to urge that you will in your report, as far as it lies in your power, bring to the attention of Congress the really awful condition that exists along our shores, and ask that some measures be taken to remedy something which, if it is not remedied soon, will result in a tremendous loss to the city, which you will be sorry for in later days.

I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Tawney. We will proceed now with the statements of those who are here to speak for the lake traffic associations, and before doing so we will hear Prof. Phelps on the subject of pollution by means of lake traffic.

Prof. Phelps. The progress report of the commission has sufficiently placed on record the statement of the extent and distribution by shipping interests. It will not be necessary for me to make any further statement than to bring out two points of distinction between this peculiar type of pollution and that with which we have been dealing in the case of the cities. The first of these is due to the movable character of this sort of pollution, whereby it may and does pass within close proximity to the waterworks intake of the city. The second of these is due to the fact that the steamboat traffic is confined in lines, the result of which practice is the pollution of the steamboat’s own water supply by steamboats which have preceded it. The importance of this matter, which was emphasized in the progress report, led us in the United States Public Health Service to undertake a solution, a possible means of remedying the situation which would satisfactorily dispose of these things without undue expense or undue inconvenience to the city interests. These investigations have been proceeding now for nearly two years, and I am going to ask Mr. Leslie C. Frank, the sanitary engineer of the United States Public Health Service, to describe to you the character of the investigation and the type of apparatus which he has designed to meet the situation, together with some remarks upon the application of the apparatus at the present time.

Mr. Tawney. State what investigations the Government has made and the results.

STATEMENT OF LESLIE C. FRANK,
OF WASHINGTON, D. C., SANITARY
ENGINEER,
UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.

Mr. Frank. As Prof. Phelps has told you, the Public Health Service, realizing the probable future necessity of treating the sewage from vessels in some way or another, has endeavored to find a practicable solution. So that for the past two years we have been studying various methods, and we have been experimenting with what seemed to be the best method.

The method of traffic-sewage control is to provide storage tanks for the sewage so equipped that the sewage is both automatically disinfected and automatically discharged by means of steam or other heating element when it has reached a certain predetermined level in the tank. This method has been described in Reprint No. 247 of the Public Health Service reports. Briefly, the device consists of a tank, as shown in the illustration, with a sewage influent pipe penetrating nearly to the bottom; a discharge pipe having its influent end near the bottom of the tank, and rising up through the tank to a point above it; a float and valve with a lost-motion connection; and a steam influent pipe. The operation of the tank is simple. When the sewage has reached a certain predetermined level the float automatically turns on the steam, which escapes into the sewage through a number of small holes. All of the heat of the steam, of course, is given up to the sewage, which rapidly approaches the boiling point. As soon as the boiling point is reached, but not before, pressure is developed in the tank and the sewage is forced up and out through the discharge pipe. When, owing to this discharge, the sewage level in the tank has dropped to a predetermined minimum the float, through its lost-motion connection, turns off the steam and the tank is ready for the next cycle of operation.

There are a number of distinct advantages of this method:

(a) It depends upon heat for its disinfection efficiency, and heat is generally acknowledged, as above noted, to be very thorough in its action.

(b) Its action is entirely automatic. This eliminates the uncertainties of manual operation by a large number of employees.

(c) If fresh sewage enters the device while it is being discharged, the discharge immediately ceases.

There is no danger, therefore, of fresh sewage being carried out untreated. This advantageous feature is due to the fact that as soon as any fresh sewage enters the device its contents are chilled to a temperature at which pressure is impossible. The new mixture must again be brought to the boiling point before further discharge will take place.

(d) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked over drinking-water areas.

(e) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked while waiting in stations. This latter has, of course, no public-health significance, but it does concern very nearly the comfort of the passengers. In lieu of locking the toilet doors while standing in stations, the porter has merely to turn off a steam valve penetrating the car floor external to the toilet. The tank can be designed with a sufficient reserve capacity to care for any reasonable period of waiting. The objection will be raised immediately, of course, that the porter may forget to turn on the valve when the train leaves the station. This is true, but forgetfulness of this sort will rapidly create its own remedy. For, at the station stop immediately subsequent to the complete filling of the tank and its consequent dribbling, the fact of the porter’s forgetfulness would be made painfully evident by toilet discharges upon the station platform. It should be remembered in this connection that the porter can not help himself in such an emergency by locking the toilet doors.

The above device is now being experimented with upon a stationary basis in order to secure the maximum simplification of details and to secure data upon steam consumption, and bacterial efficiency. As soon as these studies are completed experimental devices will be placed upon vessels and railway coaches and tested in actual service. It is believed that the cost of operation will be extremely low. Rough preliminary office estimates indicate that the cost of disinfection with the above device should not be over two-tenths of a cent per cubic foot of sewage disinfected. This preliminary estimate is based upon the assumption that 1 pound of coal in the average modern locomotive will evaporate 6 pounds of water, and that locomotive coal costs $1.50 per ton delivered into the locomotive. This certainly should be more than sufficient allowance for radiation.

Based on the above estimate, sewage disinfection for a railway coach which used 10 cubic feet per day for toilet flushing will cost about 2 cents per day. The cost for steamers will probably be somewhat higher owing to the greater amount of water used per toilet flush.

An estimate of 5 or 10 cents per closet per day would seem reasonable. The steamers could, of course, reduce this considerably by substituting railway toilets for their present equipment.

That is, briefly, a description of the manner in which the tank works.

Mr. Powell. What temperature is the water?

Mr. Frank. We have been experimenting with the tank since January, and in none of our tests has the temperature at which discharge began been lower than 190° F., and that has only been when I have put steam in at such a high rate that it rose through the water so rapidly to the surface as not to condense as in the usual adjustment. In practically all of the experiments where I have so adjusted the steam valve—mind you, this has an automatic adjustment, too—as to cause the time of heating to be about 15 or 20 minutes, the temperature has always been between 200 and 212, practically boiling, always above the killing temperature for pathogenic organisms. I should say it was, roughly, about——

Mr. Powell. One hundred and seven?

Mr. Frank. No; about 160° F., which is equivalent to 60° C. The device may be regulated so that the discharge is never under 200. I think that the effect of the temperature can be illustrated by the results of our tests. We have never in any case been able to recover B. coli from the effluent, except once, in a great many tests. I have forgotten how many there were. In this one case I put the steam at such a high pressure that the discharge took place in only two or three minutes. Now, it is possible, in the manner of installing the device upon a vessel, to make it absolutely impossible for that to take place. I say that because I have been operating with 100 pounds steam pressure in Washington and reducing it down to about 5; and it is always possible on some vessels to make the line carry anything you want by a proper reducing valve. And if this line can be brought to somewhere about 10 to 15 pounds per square inch it is physically impossible for the discharge to take place in anything less than 10 or 15 minutes.

As regards what has been done toward installing the device on vessels, this experiment has been almost entirely due to the courtesy of Col. William Livingstone, president of the Lake Carriers’ Association. As you will remember, some time ago he offered to provide for the commission one or more vessels for experimentation. He has now made good that promise, and last week I was in Cleveland, and initiated the installation of the apparatus with which I have been experimenting in Washington since January upon the D. G. Kerr, just recently off the ways, and now completed, I believe, from what I heard in Cleveland. The installation of the device will be completed about to-morrow, and the first trip of the vessel is scheduled to begin Wednesday morning. I expect to make that trip on her. In regard to the future experimental work with the device, I do not think it ought to be too quick. I think we ought to take a fair amount of time to satisfy ourselves as to the manner in which the device works. I do not think one or two trips are enough to tell whether it will work or not. We have been experimenting with the device upon a stationary basis at a pumping station. That means no motion of the device; and it is certainly desirable to determine how it will act on a rolling vessel, and that will be the object of the present experiments during the coming season.

Mr. Mignault. Do you foresee that the rolling of the vessel will make any difference?

Mr. Frank. At present I can not see any definite trouble that is likely to result. With the rolling of the vessel I foresee that when the tank is half full the surface of the water in the tank may be caused to sway at an angle depending upon the rolling of the vessel.

Mr. Mignault. What is the size of the tank?

Mr. Frank. This tank with which I have been experimenting, which is designed for a group of toilets, is 24 inches in diameter by 30 inches long, and I have instructed them to place it longitudinally with the ship, so that the least wave action will take place from rolling. The ship on which this has been placed, for example, is 500 or 600 feet long and does not receive much effect from pitching. It is too long for that on the Great Lakes, but it does experience rolling, so that I have exposed the short portion of the tank to the rolling. The only thing that I can see might happen is this, that before the tank fills to the point where, normally, the steam is turned on automatically, the wave action will turn on the steam so that steam will enter the device. Also, if the tank is in the act of discharging, and the vessel rolls, and, say, if it is half discharged, then if one side of the tank on which the float is situated should be temporarily depressed, it would shut off the steam before the sewage had quite discharged. But I can not see any harm in it. It simply, momentarily, during the storm, reduces the capacity of the tank and makes the steam turn on oftener and reduces the capacity of the tank. That is the only effect I can see. I am also anticipating a possible knocking of the float on the inside of the tank by the insertion of stoppage lugs fitted by buffer springs. If the rolling were serious the buffer might be knocked against the top of the tank and be water-logged, and I am endeavoring to stop that by the insertion of buffer lugs.

Mr. Tawney. What is the capacity of your tank in gallons?

Mr. Frank. About 70 gallons.

Mr. Tawney. Would that suffice for a fairly large vessel?

Mr. Frank. That would suffice only for about half a dozen toilets, and if a vessel had a group of half a dozen toilets in the rear and half a dozen forward they would require to have two tanks. It is not necessary to delimit the side of the tanks to say how large the tanks should be. I think it would be much wiser to let that problem be solved for each particular vessel. The older vessels have a great many toilets, and would require more tanks. The newer vessels, which have fewer toilets, would have correspondingly fewer tanks.

Mr. Tawney. What is the cost of the outfit?

Mr. Frank. It is difficult to say, but I should say it would not be expensive. The experimental tank which we have built in Washington, which is designed for six toilets, cost $600, but remember that is experimental, and one of the engineers whom I had to help me put three-sixteenths steel. That is more like building a warship, and it does not require to be so heavy. In practice it would not come to that.

Mr. Mignault. Could you install it in vessels already built?

Mr. Frank. It depends on the character of the vessel. I think it is comparatively easy. The D. G. Kerr has been built already and had the soil pipe already inserted. The master mechanic, with whom I was talking yesterday about the installation of the device, stated that he thought it would take, roughly, 24 hours to install that tank.

Mr. Mignault. In what part of the vessel is it placed?

Mr. Frank. This particular experimental tank is being placed aft. Of course the tanks in practice would be placed wherever the soil pipes happened to be built.

Mr. Tawney. Is this a freight vessel?

Mr. Frank. Yes. The cost of the operation, I think, will be almost negligible. We had this experimental device installed in the sewage pumping station in Washington, where we had a steam pressure of about 100 pounds per square inch and boilers of about 100 horsepower. It was impossible at any time to observe any effect whatever on those boilers when this device was receiving steam at its maximum flow, and I simply mentioned that to indicate that there would be no observable, even temporary, effect upon the steam supply for the engines in the vessels. There is no such great consumption of steam. I can explain to you steamboat people when I say that a half or three-quarter inch pipe will carry all the steam you need.

As regards the cost of operation, I have not the figures with me just now, but I computed, theoretically allowing 100 per cent additional cost for radiation, and I got 13 per cent for everything, including the amount by which the steam had already condensed in the pipe lines. I think the cost of operation goes away down to point zero something. If you figure it out upon the theoretical heat units that are known absolutely to be in the steam, there is no other conclusion but that the cost of operation of the device is negligible, and that the only thing which really need concern you is the cost of installation of the device. However, as regards operation, I think it would be better to wait for confirmation after the device is tried.

Mr. Tawney. Is the only contamination of the water by steamboats that which is discharged from closets?

Mr. Frank. I think it can safely be assumed that the only part of steamboat discharge which has a pathogenic significance is that coming from the closets and urinals. I do not think any other particular discharge need concern us.

Mr. Tawney. The meats, or anything of that kind, can not become affected, being thrown into the water? Would that not have some effect?

Mr. Frank. I do not know, but I think that the frequency of occurrence of infected meats upon vessels would be so low that any infection of the waters due thereto would be negligible and would be dissipated quickly.

Mr. Powell. You could take care of that as a separate problem; give it a dose of steam.

Mr. Frank. I think some kitchen rules could be formulated that would take care of that.

Mr. Powell. What temperature Fahrenheit would you say?

Mr. Frank. You could so regulate the device that it would be physically impossible——

Mr. Powell. But what degree of heat?

Mr. Frank. Between 200 and 212. The device can be regulated so that it will never discharge under 200, and is practically always 210. At centigrade the pathogenic temperature is 60.

Mr. Tawney. Don’t you think the complete sanitary requirements should call for some sterilization of refuse matter of the kitchen? If you were prescribing sanitary rules to be observed by the lake carrying trade, would it not be wise to make some provision for sterilization of refuse matter from the kitchen in the form of infected meats, or anything of that kind?

Mr. Frank. I do not think I would be prepared, without a good deal further thought, to say so. I have not given it any thought in the past.

Mr. Tawney. I was trying to get at whether your system would be complete in itself for the purpose of preventing contamination of these waters by reason of steamboat navigation.

Mr. Frank. I believe it could be safely said that, inasmuch as probably away over 99 per cent of all infected pollution which is discharged from the vessel is discharged through the toilets and urinals, emphasis might reasonably be laid only on those for the present, until it is definitely shown that real infection can result from the meats or kitchen waste. As I say, I have not thought of the problem in connection with the kitchen, and I really do not know whether you could, by discharging this waste, produce much affection or any affection.

Mr. Powell. It would not be a difficult matter to sterilize them with an iron tank with a cover to prevent the escape of steam and a cock to turn on the steam. It is easy enough.

Mr. Frank. Yes. If the meat or any of the feed were in large pieces, all that would be necessary would be to chop it up into relatively fine pieces.

Mr. Powell. It would not cost more than $25 or $30.

Mr. Frank. I would not place it quite so cheap.

Prof. Phelps. It could all be burned in the furnace.

Mr. Powell. There is very little new under the sun. Very nearly this same appliance has been in use on the Muskoka Lakes in their steamboats.

Mr. Frank. Then I will be interested to know how it works.

Mr. Mignault. You are not in a position to estimate the cost.

Mr. Frank. I would prefer to wait until these experiments furnish me with actual figures on board ship.

Mr. Tawney. It is comparatively small.

Mr. Frank. I think it could be safely said to be negligible, as far as steam consumption is concerned.