Part 13
Mr. TAWNEY. That being the case, in order to get something which would be satisfactory to the steamboat companies, we would have to install this or some other apparatus on two or three boats, or a sufficient number of them to satisfy the steamboat companies that they were feasible and practicable, at the expense of the two Governments, which this commission has not the power to do. The question was whether or not, to carry out your idea, if we could possibly do so, the steamboat companies were not willing to install a few of these machines on these boats at their own expense, for the purpose of testing their feasibility and practicability.
Mr. KING. I am not in a position to give an answer on that point on behalf of the companies.
Mr. TAWNEY. We are not in a position to commit the two Governments.
Mr. KING. I do think both associations are willing to do whatever you would consider reasonable in that way, and I think it might be possible here and there to effect an installation, in order to get a sure test of the appliances. I do not say that should be done, but I think the vessel owners are willing to do it. I think the first cost should be borne by the public till the inspection is done.
Mr. TAWNEY. I am glad to get your idea.
Mr. KING. Our attitude is one of absolute fairness in the matter. May I say one more thing in regard to the point I was urging, perhaps unduly? That is the lack of necessity for haste in the case of a vessel. You spoke of the steamboat population of the boats. May I point out that that population is a population as individuals for periods averaging from an hour to a day. They are not engaged in the pollution of the waters for 365 days in the year. That consideration is somewhat overlooked. One more remark: It was suggested by Prof. Phelps that steamboats ought to be dealt with at present, in spite of the municipalities’ pollution, because of the fact that they pass the intake pipes for the waterworks systems. May I suggest that while the tests are going on, it would be a simple matter to devise rules whereby lavatory doors are locked just as they are locked on trains, at times when the contamination might take place? They could be closed when they are passing in close proximity to the intakes. A move in that line might possibly meet what was in Mr. Phelps’s mind.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that there is danger also on account of vessels taking their water for drinking purposes in polluted areas?
Mr. KING. I do not think that is a danger which the commission should deal with. I think we can carry it out by orders that the water should not be taken except in certain restricted areas.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that considerable typhoid fever has been caused by that means in the past?
Mr. KING. I can not admit that. I know of one case where a suit was entered at Rochester, and tried, but no decision yet. I know of no other cases.
Mr. TAWNEY. I know of several cases in southern Minnesota attributed to that.
Mr. KING. At the same time, I must admit that contamination does exist.
Mr. MIGNAULT. There is a great probability of contamination.
Mr. TAWNEY. In the matter of taking water ballast in polluted areas and discharging that ballast in less polluted areas, as they arrive near the ports--what have you to say to that? Would it be a hardship if they were required not to take on water ballast in polluted areas, or else not to discharge it in the less polluted areas?
Mr. KING. I do not think it would be a hardship, except in cases where the exigencies of navigation required them to fill their tanks before they got out of a certain area. There are cases where boats must have their tanks filled before they get out of the landlocked harbor. A boat coming from Kingston must have her tanks filled before she gets into Lake Ontario.
Mr. TAWNEY. Could there not be some regulation in regard to the discharge of that ballast in the vicinity of intakes?
Mr. KING. I think that could be sufficiently covered with the one provision. They have to keep her sufficiently trimmed in stress of weather.
Mr. SLOMAN. You spoke a moment ago about the cost of trying out the question and solving the problem--that it should not be thrown upon the vessel owners. Mr. Livingstone had made an offer--at least he has done something toward experimentation at considerable cost----
Mr. KING. Excuse me; it is at no cost to Mr. Livingstone or the Lake Carriers’ Association. I understand it is borne by others.
Mr. SLOMAN. Is that so?
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.
Mr. SLOMAN. Would it be any cost to your vessels to try out the incinerating of your garbage by putting it in your furnace?
Mr. KING. I do not think so.
Mr. SLOMAN. Would it involve a large cost to have a septic tank in your holds, running your closets to that tank, sterilizing the contents and bringing it to port, and carrying it away to the land somewhere? Would that involve a large cost?
Mr. KING. I think it would, but I do not know. I have no direct knowledge of that.
Mr. SLOMAN. What do you think as to whether or not that would be a practical way of solving the problem?
Mr. KING. I would not set my judgment up against that of Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank, who have gone more deeply into the subject than I have.
Mr. FRANK. I think that may be answered by saying that in order to store all of the sewage for a voyage until a port is reached the tank would have to be many times as large as this small stream tank which I have described, and the cost would be almost, although not quite, proportionate to the volume. In addition, the expense of disposal after the land was reached would have to be met. I think it may be stated without any doubt whatever that any device holding the sewage throughout a whole voyage would obviously cost much more than a device for holding it for about two hours.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. King, you are willing to do anything that we may prescribe, but you ask us not to recommend that you be required to spend money on schemes that in their experimental stage may prove abortive?
Mr. KING. Quite true.
Mr. TAWNEY. I understand that the representatives of the city of Detroit will not be ready to proceed until the session to-morrow morning. Is there anyone else here who desires to be heard?
STATEMENT OF MR. H. L. BLOMSHIELD, OF TRENTON, MICH.
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I would like to speak on behalf of the village of Trenton. I am sorry that I am here to represent a village that has shown such half-hearted interest in the recommendations of your consulting sanitary engineer, Prof. Phelps. The attitude taken by the village authorities is no doubt due to the fact that local conditions have called for much quicker action on the part of the State board of health in recommending certain remedial measures for their local benefit.
It has already been stated that there are about 12 sewer outlets above the intake, and it has been urged upon the village authorities to construct a 12-inch intercepting trunk sewer to divert this sewage below the intake.
It has appeared to the majority of the residents that the tail end of the district has been tackled first. I can say that I believe they will be in hearty accord with any remedial measures your commission may adopt for the entire district.
From a standpoint of economy and future supervision, I believe a metropolitan district could best serve the Michigan side. I derived this thought from a lecture on the “Metropolitan District of Boston,” by Mr. Frederick Fay before the District Engineering Society several months ago.
I have read several press reports on this subject as viewed by Mr. Hubbell, our district consulting sanitary engineer. As outlined, I believe the district would extend from the Macomb to the Monroe County lines. It appeals to me more forcibly in that each community will be served alike and pay pro rata for benefits derived.
In going over the past history of improvements recommended for Trenton, I will say that about seven years ago an extensive combined sewerage system was planned at an estimated cost of approximately $50,000, which the people voted down. They have never had the opportunity to vote on a sanitary system, which I believe would cost about $18,000.
The finances of the village are in such shape that this price would go beyond the 5 per cent mark of bonded indebtedness. I might give the figures showing the present condition of the finances. In the meantime, before I give that I would like to ask a question. If recommendations are carried out in the several districts, does the commission give any method of raising the funds necessary to carry on such work?
Mr. TAWNEY. That is a matter that the commission has not yet considered at all, and I do not know whether it is within the scope of our work.
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. If the several districts had the funds with which to do it, I believe that some of these measures would have been taken up long ago. The assessed valuation of our village in 1915 was $555,200, bonded as follows: Highway-improvement bonds, $6,500; electric-light plant, $7,500; other bonds, $6,125; total, $20,125; of which $3,500 has been paid off, leaving a balance to be paid of $16,625. One per cent, which is the allowable limit for any improvements in any one year for any special kind of improvements, would make $5,552; or 5 per cent, which is the total limit of bonded indebtedness, would make $27,760, of which $16,625 has already been bonded, leaving a balance of $11,135, which you see is very much less than would pay for a sanitary sewerage system which the village surely needs.
I have acted as village engineer for Trenton during the past year, and without funds to promote any measures of sanitary work or water purification we are very much handicapped. If the commission in recommending any remedial measures could also embody any method of raising funds to carry on the work, it would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. POWELL. Why do you recommend the metropolitan district--on account of the saving?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. On account of the saving to the smaller districts per capita.
Mr. POWELL. You would not have the overhead charges to meet?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is it; and that is something that the smaller communities could not stand.
Mr. MIGNAULT. What is the borrowing power of Trenton to-day?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Five per cent; but they have $11,000 yet to borrow.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Is there no provision to meet a case like that where certain improvements are ordered by the State board of health?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I believe 5 per cent is the point set by the State law for villages.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is set by your constitution, is it not?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes.
Mr. MIGNAULT. In a case like that, where it is a matter of public necessity, have you not the power to levy a special assessment?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Nothing we know about yet. We have asked several authorities on that and we have not been enlightened on that subject.
Mr. POWELL. As a matter of fact, what is your head of taxation, the village?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. The village. The village takes in a very small area. It should be enlarged. That is one method that would be furthered.
Mr. POWELL. Have you a county tax besides that?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes.
Mr. POWELL. And a State tax?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. And a State tax. Our taxes now are $17.50 per thousand, or $1.75 per hundred. That is the total tax for the village.
Mr. POWELL. That is all combined?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is all combined.
Mr. POWELL. Well, you are happy boys.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand your chief objection is lack of funds with which to carry out the improvements?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is it.
Mr. MIGNAULT. If that were removed, there would be no difficulty?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. There would be no difficulty. As I say, if some system were laid out for the entire district the village of Trenton would be heartily in accord with such a system. Due to the local conditions which have prompted immediate action, they feel that they are being called out to start the thing.
Mr. MIGNAULT. There is no intention to single them out.
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I realize that.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Our desire would be to treat them all alike.
Mr. MALONE. Do you not think that if the Federal Government were to impose a penalty for not putting in a filtration plant that they would find ways and means of getting the necessary money to put it in?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I guess they would.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is there any other person here that desires to be heard this afternoon? As there is not, the commission will take a recess until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning.
(Thereupon, at 4.15 o’clock p. m., the commission took a recess until 10 o’clock a. m. Tuesday, June 27, 1916.)
* * * * *
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, _Detroit, Mich., June 27, 1916_.
The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.
Mr. GARDNER. Gentlemen, the hearing this morning is for the purpose of listening to the representatives of the city of Detroit, and, as I understand that we will have to vacate this room at 4 o’clock this afternoon, it will be necessary for us to get busy. We will first hear from Mr. Fenkell.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE H. FENKELL, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Fenkell, will you please state what the city of Detroit has done in connection with the consulting engineer of the commission in the matter of investigating the remedies for existing pollution? Before you go into the technical matters, kindly give a sort of summary or history of the part your city has taken and what they are doing.
Mr. FENKELL. Your commission met in Detroit about a year and a half ago, and immediately after that meeting I asked the common council for funds to begin work on an investigation as to conditions existing in the Detroit River. Only $15,000 has been provided. Shortly after that Mr. Clarence W. Hubbell, of Detroit, was engaged to make an investigation and report. A little later he occupied joint offices with Prof. Phelps.
That investigation was carried on until Mr. Hubbell’s report was submitted, about four weeks ago. It was put into the hands of the printer immediately and yesterday we received the first copies. I was able to deliver only three copies to you yesterday. I hope soon to have more from the printer. That report was submitted to the council shortly after it was received from Mr. Hubbell. The summary was printed in the council’s proceedings, a copy of which, I believe, was mailed to your commission.
Because of the haste in getting the report to the printer the typewritten report was not read generally. In fact, I think I was the only one that was able to look the report over before it went to the printer. None of the Detroit officials is familiar with Mr. Hubbell’s report except such portions as appeared in the council’s proceedings.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Hubbell and the sanitary engineer of the commission, then, were working together for the last year, were they?
Mr. FENKELL. I think so. Just how they divided the work and how they carried out the details I am unable to state.
Mr. TAWNEY. They were jointly studying the same problem at the same time.
Mr. FENKELL. They were.
Mr. TAWNEY. Now, what have you to say, Mr. Fenkell, in regard to the plans recommended by the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, and how do these plans compare with the plans or remedies proposed by Mr. Hubbell, your sanitary engineer?
Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state exactly. I have read Mr. Hubbell’s report through twice, and I have read Prof. Phelps’s report through, but I have been unable to make any extended study of the matter. So far I hardly think anyone has, except it be Mr. Hubbell.
Mr. TAWNEY. Has your municipal government here considered the question of the standards for sewage treatment and water purification recommended by the sanitary engineers of the commission?
Mr. FENKELL. So far as I know, it has not received any extended study, except by Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell’s report was transmitted to the common council, and it was submitted to the proper committee, but the committee have been unable to take any action in the matter, or study it, because of our inability to furnish copies of the report.
Mr. TAWNEY. Has the city at this time in contemplation anything looking toward sewage treatment, independent of any international question involved in the pollution of the Detroit River?
Mr. FENKELL. No more than is covered by Mr. Hubbell’s report.
Mr. TAWNEY. You have no specific plan in preparation, is what I mean.
Mr. FENKELL. No, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are you treating your sewage here at all?
Mr. FENKELL. In no way whatever.
Mr. TAWNEY. You are discharging raw sewage into the Detroit River?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is the outlet for all your sewerage system?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. All of your sewers discharge into the Detroit River?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir. Some do not discharge directly into the river, but they reach the Detroit River eventually.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Ultimately all of the sewage goes into the Detroit River untreated?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Where do you get your water from?
Mr. FENKELL. It is taken from a point about 700 feet above Belle Isle, in the American Channel.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you a filtration plant there?
Mr. FENKELL. Detroit has no filtration plant.
Mr. TAWNEY. Do you chlorinate the water?
Mr. FENKELL. The process in use is chlorination. Mr. Leisen, the general superintendent for the water commission, is present and can explain that to you in detail.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Magrath calls my attention to the fact that we went into that matter when we were here a year and a half ago.
Mr. FENKELL. I think, if I may be permitted to make the suggestion, that there have been some changes in the method of treating the water since then.
Mr. TAWNEY. Well, that is important. Now, Mr. Fenkell, before we hear Mr. Hubbell, is there anything else in relation to the subject that you desire to bring to the attention of the commission at this time?
Mr. FENKELL. There may have been explained to the commission the ordinary way in which the city would proceed to get the funds and go ahead with work of this kind. My understanding is that it would first be necessary for the council to direct that the matter be voted on by the people. It would then go up at a regular election, and in order for the work to be authorized or the bonds to be issued it would have to receive 60 per cent of the votes cast. The work would be carried out by and through the department of public works working with the common council. I can give you still further details regarding that, if you wish, as well as copies of the law relating thereto.
Mr. TAWNEY. What is the present bonded debt of the city of Detroit?
Mr. FENKELL. I will secure that data and give it to you later.
Mr. TAWNEY. You have a limited amount of bonded indebtedness to which the city can obligate itself, have you not?
Mr. FENKELL. It is limited. I will give you that data later.
Mr. TAWNEY. That limit is 5 per cent of the assessed value of the property, is it not?
Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state.
Mr. GARDNER. Any such limitation as that is a constitutional provision of the State, is it not?
Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state the amount. Detroit now has home rule, and just what the limitation is when the people vote on a question of that kind I am unable to state. Would the chairman like to have me secure that data?
Mr. GARDNER. We would like to have it.
Mr. FENKELL. I would suggest that if you have any other questions of that kind you give me a list of them, and I will secure the desired information for you, or you can call on the city comptroller and secure the information from him.
Mr. TAWNEY. We desire simply to ascertain what the position of the city would be with reference to carrying out any plan looking to the prevention of this pollution which now exists. That would be the only way in which it would be material for us to know whether the city was situated so that it could carry out any reasonable recommendations that might be made.
Mr. MAGRATH. You are filing with us a copy of the report of Mr. Hubbell, are you not?
Mr. FENKELL. So far I have furnished 3 copies. I have received only 12 printed copies and have been able to give reports to only three of the departments of the city that I thought would be interested. I shall be pleased to furnish the commission additional copies as soon as we receive them. We hope to receive them to-day or to-morrow.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand you to say that no action has yet been taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report.
Mr. FENKELL. No action whatever. Upon its receipt it was transmitted to the council, and within 48 hours it was in the hands of the printer.
Mr. MIGNAULT. It was referred to the committee, I suppose, for consideration and printed as all public documents are printed. Is that correct?
Mr. FENKELL. The report was referred to the committee on sewers. Only my letter transmitting the report and the summary of Mr. Hubbell’s report were printed in the council’s proceedings because of the necessity for cuts, maps, and so forth.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Is it contemplated to take any action on Mr. Hubbell’s report?
Mr. FENKELL. That is something that I am unable to say. The matter is now before the sewer committee of the common council, and in the natural course of events it would be considered by that committee and a report thereon submitted to the common council. The matter could then be acted on by the common council, or any action could be taken that the council saw fit.
Mr. TAWNEY. How many members constitute the council?
Mr. FENKELL. There are 42 members.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand you also to say that before any final action would be taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report the matter would be submitted to the taxpayers.
Mr. FENKELL. In order to issue bonds.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Simply to issue bonds?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Otherwise, it would not be submitted to the taxpayers?
Mr. FENKELL. Probably not unless it required a change in the city’s charter. A change in the charter requires a vote of 50 per cent or more.
Mr. MIGNAULT. And to issue bonds you require 60 per cent?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes; 60 per cent. The vote on the Belle Isle Bridge bonds a year ago failed because it received only 58 per cent.