Part 14

Mr. MIGNAULT. That was the case of a contemplated bond issue?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes.

Mr. MAGRATH. Mr. Fenkell, I see that in your letter to Mr. Hubbell, dated November 25, 1914, you decided to submit certain problems for his consideration, the second one being, “To what extent does the city of Detroit sewage pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?” Mr. Hubbell’s reply to that certainly has the right ring to it. It is stated in paragraph No. 7 of his report, which reads as follows:

In regard to the second part of the problem as to what expense would be justified for sewage treatment, it is difficult to formulate an answer in terms of money alone. However, it is believed that, aside from the international features of the problem, the combined benefits which would accrue from a more cleanly water front, purer water at the bathing beaches and summer playgrounds, reduction in typhoid and other water-borne diseases, due to the use of sewage-laden water along the river front; betterment of raw-water supplies for the municipalities below the city, and the protection of Detroit’s water from gross sewage pollution at times when the Detroit River flows backward amply justify the expenditure required for sewage-treatment works as above outlined. In round figures, the cost would be about $6,000,000, and in my judgment the expenditure of this sum would be justifiable.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this commission should put itself on record with Mr. Fenkell to the effect that we have been in a delicate position and have had a delicate piece of work to attend to, and the city of Detroit has played up magnificently in connection with this investigation. I think it is only fair to make that admission to these gentlemen. So far as I am concerned as a member of this commission, I appreciate the good work that the city of Detroit has done, and I am quite confident that the city of Detroit will do its duty in the matter. I think, Mr. Fenkell, that we are indebted to you and to your mayor and the members of your city council for the way in which you have always met us here in connection with this problem.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that I think that expresses the views of the commission generally. There have been certainly very high appreciation and cooperation in the city of Detroit, and we have every reason to believe that the city will join in any recommendation we may make to the two Governments for the purpose of solving this problem.

Mr. FENKELL. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been our endeavor to work along the lines laid down by the commission, and I know it is the wish of the mayor to do what he can to further your efforts and to work in cooperation with the cities and towns on the Canadian side of the river. He feels that the American cities and the Canadian cities are so closely knit together that the welfare of one must work for the welfare of the other. I know that he wants to do everything he can to further anything that will be beneficial to the cities on both sides of the river.

I want to thank the members of this commission, both officially and personally, for your kindness in the matter, and to assure you that we shall welcome any suggestion that you may have to offer, and we will continue to work along lines that may seem to you and to your commission to be proper and right.

If there is any further information that I can give you, I shall be pleased to do so. The mayor would have been here this morning had it been possible, and he may be here later. Should there be any information that you would like me to secure, I would be glad to obtain it from the comptroller, the corporation counsel, or any of the other city officials.

Mr. TAWNEY. I think the information that the commission would like to have, Mr. Fenkell, is the present bonded indebtedness of the city, and, if there is a limitation upon the power of the city to incur obligations of that kind, what that limitation is and how near you have reached it. If you will kindly have prepared a statement along that line, we will incorporate it in the record as a part of your statement of this morning. If you have nothing further to say, we will now hear Mr. Hubbell.

(The information called for with respect to the assessed valuation of property and the bonded indebtedness of the city of Detroit appears in the statement of Mr. George Engel, the city’s comptroller.)

STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE W. HUBBELL, CONSULTING SANITARY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Hubbell, I think you had better state for the record what work, if any, you have done in connection with the consulting engineer of the commission and what duty you were required to perform in connection with this problem. First, let me ask you if you reside here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are a consulting sanitary engineer, practicing here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. How long have you been engaged in the actual practice of your profession?

Mr. HUBBELL. I graduated from the University of Michigan in 1893 and have been engaged in engineering work ever since. About a year and a half ago Mr. Fenkell, the commissioner of public works for the city of Detroit referred to me three problems to be reported upon.

The first problem was that I review the data and conclusions of the international joint commission for the purpose of enlarging on any phase of the matter that might be necessary in order to determine what preventive or remedial measures are required with reference to Canadian waters.

The second problem was, to what extent does the sewage of the city of Detroit pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?

The third problem submitted was, by what means, if any, should the city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage, and what expense would be justifiable for that purpose?

Mr. TAWNEY. That was in November, 1914, was it not?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. Since that time have you been engaged in working out these problems for the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. During that time was the sanitary consulting engineer of the commission engaged in the study of the same problems here in the city?

Mr. HUBBELL. During a portion of that time he was.

Mr. TAWNEY. And you worked in conjunction with him?

Mr. HUBBELL. Through the cooperation of Prof. Phelps and Mr. McRae, who was in charge of the Detroit station, we engaged joint offices for the study of what to me was the third problem submitted. The cooperation was very close in working out the details connected with the third problem submitted to me.

Mr. MIGNAULT. That is as to remedial measures?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; by what means, if any, should the city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage.

Mr. TAWNEY. Since the report of the commission’s consulting sanitary engineer has been made have you had an opportunity to examine and study it?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have examined it; I have not studied it closely in all its details.

Mr. TAWNEY. You have made a final report to the city council of Detroit as a result of your investigation and study?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; a copy of which report I have here.

Mr. TAWNEY. So far as the remedies for the pollution of the Detroit River as it extends beyond the boundary are concerned, do you know to what extent your report corresponds with the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission?

Mr. HUBBELL. In working out the problem jointly we came to a practical agreement in the matter.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are familiar with the alternative propositions which the consulting sanitary engineer has submitted to the commission, are you?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; entirely so.

Mr. MIGNAULT. There are six alternative measures referred to. Our consulting engineer has expressed a preference for two of those measures. Did you agree practically with his choice?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes; we were practically agreed as to the methods that were most desirable and most fitted for the conditions that exist at Detroit.

Mr. TAWNEY. You also agree with the consulting engineer of the commission with respect to the Detroit metropolitan drainage district; that is, taking in the suburban villages around here, as I understand it?

Mr. HUBBELL. I think that such a plan, if it could be consummated, would be desirable.

Mr. TAWNEY. Two main reasons that are given for the consolidation of this area into one drainage district are, first, preventing disputes between the various communities, and, second, effecting economies and producing more satisfactory conditions generally by means of comprehensive planning. Your studies were made along the line of a metropolitan district such as is described here in this report?

Mr. HUBBELL. They do not depend on that entirely for their carrying out. The success of the scheme for purifying or treating the sewage should not depend solely upon the establishment of a metropolitan district.

Mr. POWELL. It could be worked out as an independent system?

Mr. HUBBELL. It could be done so, although it would be an advantage to have it worked out as a metropolitan district. I might say, in connection with that, probably an easier and more feasible way of working that out would be by annexation by Detroit of territory that immediately needs development, and that would not require the machinery or legislation that the other scheme would.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Are there many outlying districts which would have to be annexed to the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. No; there are not many; if a working basis could be arranged between the existing municipalities as has already been done through the courts in the case of Highland Park.

Mr. TAWNEY. In your report to the city council, Mr. Hubbell, do you recommend the same standards of purification recommended by the consulting engineers of the commission, both as to sewage and water, or do you treat the standards at all?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have gone into some detail in regard to the 500 B. coli standard, and I believe it to be conservative and reasonable as borne out by data and facts.

Mr. TAWNEY. Did you go into the matter of standard of purification of sewage or treatment of sewage, to what extent it should be purified?

Mr. HUBBELL. In a general way only. Accepting the 500 B. coli standard, the indications are that approximately 90 to 95 per cent purification would be needed bacterially to our sewage to meet that standard. That, however, is a question for the future to determine. It is, in my opinion, a little doubtful as to just what percentage of bacterial removal would be required in order to produce that result, but from my studies I concluded that from 90 to 95 per cent would be required.

Mr. MIGNAULT. And could be realized?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes; and could be realized; there is no question about that.

Mr. POWELL. I gathered the impression from your report, by a hasty glance at it, that while you did not quarrel with the standard of 500 B. coli per 100 cubic centimeters you inclined rather to a more severe standard.

Mr. HUBBARD. Well, that question is involved with the one of seasonal variation. I made quite extensive studies to determine the seasonal variations in the Detroit River independent of the data that was shown in the International Joint Commission’s first report. I found that for normal conditions in the Detroit River the number of B. coli present was, perhaps, two and a fourth times the average in the summer time, and about one-quarter of the average in the cold months, following approximately the temperature curve.

Mr. TAWNEY. To what condition do you attribute that increase in the summer? In your judgment, has navigation anything to do with it?

Mr. HUBBELL. In my judgment, the navigation has very little to do with it, because the curve falls before navigation stops.

Mr. POWELL. What is the crisis in the curve--in what month?

Mr. HUBBELL. June, July, August, and September are the high months. The highest point of the curve which I determined for the entire river was in September, but for the waterworks’ intake it was in August.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Is it possible to explain why pollution is higher in the summer months than in the winter months?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have made no attempt to explain that. I merely report the fact that it is so on the Detroit River.

Mr. MIGNAULT. I gather that that is a fact which can not be questioned, but is not so easily explained.

Mr. HUBBELL. I concur in that expression; yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. If I understand you correctly, then, Mr. Hubbell, your recommendations to the city on this subject are practically in accord with the recommendations of the consulting engineer of the commission as to the remedies for the existing pollution?

Mr. HUBBELL. We reached the same conclusion as to the method to be adopted, if any is adopted.

Mr. TAWNEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to have Mr. Hubbell’s report made a part of the hearings for the purpose of using such portions of it in the proceedings as the commission may hereafter desire.

(The report of Mr. Hubbell was received as a part of his statement before the commission on the question under consideration.)

Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anything further, Mr. Hubbell, that you desire to present to the commission on this question?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have expressed myself fully in my report, and there is nothing further, unless there are some questions that you wish to ask me.

Mr. GARDNER. I think your report is an admirable one and does you great credit.

Mr. TAWNEY. Will the comptroller of the city of Detroit kindly state for the record the assessed value of the property of the city and the present bonded indebtedness?

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE ENGEL, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. ENGEL. I had rather have about 15 minutes for the purpose of preparing such a statement and submit it to you in writing. Our gross debt at this time is about $20,000,000 in round figures; the net debt about $12,000,000. Our limitation is 4 per cent, and the assessed valuation something over $700,000,000. So you see we have a leeway, of something over $16,000,000. Our net debt is very small, probably smaller than that of any city of its size in the United States. I will have a statement prepared for you.

Mr. TAWNEY. We will incorporate your statement in the record.

Mr. POWELL. Do you mean the assessed value of real estate or the combined real and personal valuation?

Mr. ENGEL. Combined real and personal.

Mr. TAWNEY. And the limitation applies to the combined valuation?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir; and that is 4 per cent.

Mr. POWELL. Have you any rule that you observe in respect to valuation?

Mr. ENGEL. We are supposed to assess at cash value, full value, 100 per cent.

Mr. POWELL. The market value?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARDNER. What is your rate?

Mr. ENGEL. About $18.50 per thousand for next year.

(Mr. Engel later submitted to the commission a statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit, which is copied into the record in full, as follows:)

_Statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit._

Assessed valuation, 1916 $731,991,960.00

Limitation of debt: Four per cent of assessed valuation $29,279,678.40 Less water bonds authorized 2,000,000.00 -------------- 27,279,678.40 Outstanding bonds: Public sewer $5,604,000.00 Public improvement 535,000.00 Public lighting 1,406,000.00 Public school 8,767,000.00 Public building 1,493,000.00 Boulevard improvement 700,000.00 Park improvement 650,000.00 Park and boulevard 497,000.00 Museum of art 50,000.00 Hospital 100,000.00 Library 750,000.00 Grade 150,000.00 Annexed district 484,756.63 Water bonds 1,947,000.00 ------------- 23,133,756.63 Exempt from limitation: School 8,767,000.00 Library 750,000.00 Annexed district 44,000.00 Water 1,947,000.00 ------------- 11,508,000.00 ------------- 11,625,756.63 June 1, 1916, sinking fund: Cash 184,461.95 Securities 4,736,608.57 Annexed district 24,287.00 ------------- 4,945,357.52 School and library apportionment 1,046,485.09 ------------- 3,898,872.43 ------------- Net debt under limitation 7,726,884.20 -------------- 19,552,794.20

STATEMENT OF T. CHALKLEY HATTON, OF MILWAUKEE.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are here on the invitation of the commission, and the invitation was extended to you because of your experience in the matter of sewage treatment in the city of Milwaukee and also because of the efficiency with which we are advised your plant is being operated. Give such information to the commission as you are prepared to give us concerning the method you have in use there, and also as to its efficiency and operation. We will be very glad to have you give us any opinion, based on your knowledge and experience, that you care to.

Mr. HATTON. It may be that I can best describe this process and the results we are getting from it by giving you the situation in Milwaukee, which is somewhat, as I take it, comparable with some of the situations here. We discharge the crude sewage from the city of Milwaukee into three rivers, from whence it flows into Lake Michigan, and 3½ miles away from the harbor entrance we take our water supply, in a depth of 50 feet. At the present time the water supply is being partially or entirely sterilized by the use of liquid chlorine. There is at the present time about an average of sixty millions of sewage per day being discharged into Lake Michigan.

Mr. TAWNEY. Sixty million gallons?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; and during this time the lake for an area of about 25 square miles has become polluted, B. coli being retained in that entire surface of the lake; and at all times we find the presence of B. coli at the intake of our water supply, but the treatment of liquid chlorine has, with one exception, enabled us to sterilize the water with about twenty-eight hundredths to thirty hundredths part of liquid chlorine. Last February we got a little larger quantity of B. coli than usual because of four or five days of southeastern storm, and in spite of the fact that we put all the liquid chlorine in and more than the water would absorb, we got a typhoid-fever epidemic in three or four weeks of about two hundred and some odd cases. Now, that is the situation in Milwaukee, and for the purposes----

Mr. POWELL. Before you pass on, you say 25 square miles has become polluted?

Mr. HATTON. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. How far into the lake would the pollution extend?

Mr. HATTON. About 5 miles; 3 miles on either side of the harbor and 5 miles from the shore. The city is located on Milwaukee Bay, which is a long crescent, about 10 miles from point to point.

Mr. POWELL. How far from the outlet of the sewer to the intake?

Mr. HATTON. Three miles and a half; and in addition to that, there is a breakwater, which is supposed to partially prevent the water from flowing from the harbor toward the intake.

Mr. POWELL. You pursued your investigations beyond the 5 or 6 miles?

Mr. HATTON. Yes. Prof. Whipple was employed to do that, and he did it very thoroughly for many more miles than 25 square miles.

Mr. POWELL. Did he discover traces of it farther than that?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; even farther than that; traces of it 6 miles away to the north of the intake, but faint traces. It was a question with us, when the matter of sewage disposal came before us, of not only treating the sewage so that the water could be properly treated by filtration or chlorination subsequently, but it was also a question of getting rid of the sludge from any sewage-disposal treatment which we might put in, because there was no waste ground in the vicinity of Milwaukee upon which sludge could be disposed of, and the consensus of opinion of the citizens of Milwaukee was that the sludge should not be deposited in the lake, no matter how far out. The feeling was very strong. I might say, in introducing that matter, that in 1910 a board of consulting engineers advised that disposition of the sludge, and that feeling had been growing in the minds of the citizens for three or four years before I went there, until it had assumed the attitude that it would not be public policy to discharge the sludge into the lake, no matter how far out, partially due to the large amount of shipping which is and was expected to come into the harbors of Milwaukee, and also from the fact that ships did take their water supply from that lake before entering the city; so that it was a matter of taking care of our sludge----

Mr. POWELL. Before you pass to that, how does the current compare with the current in the other Lakes? There is less current in Michigan Lake?

Mr. HATTON. Yes. The currents are influenced particularly by the winds.

Mr. POWELL. There is very little setting of the water out toward the strait?

Mr. HATTON. Very little. The general idea has been advanced, by those who have studied the matter, that the water passes south on the west side of the lake and to the north on the east side of the lake, requiring approximately 10 years to make the entire circuit.

Mr. POWELL. Is there any continuous flow out of the lake, or does it flow in, on account of evaporation?

Mr. HATTON. I think there is a flow out of the lake. I think the record was taken some 12 or 14 years by the United States engineer at that time, and he printed quite an elaborate report.

Mr. TAWNEY. Through the straits?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; but just what that report contains I am not familiar enough with it to say.

Mr. POWELL. The flow is always out?

Mr. HATTON. Yes.

Mr. MAGRATH. I have an idea that the water works inward sometimes?

Mr. HATTON. Well, it comes down, as I say, on the west side, passes round Chicago, and comes up on the east side, and passes out in the straits; at least, that is my opinion.

Mr. MAGRATH. I may be wrong, but I had an idea that the current moved inward sometimes, and sometimes outward.

Mr. HATTON. Well, possibly so. This is the general tendency of it, but I think it does sometimes pass out and in, according to the direction of the winds.

Mr. POWELL. The Chicago Drainage Canal is not equal, I suppose, to the inflows from the surrounding country. It does not balance it?

Mr. HATTON. Well, I think not. It is claimed here very recently that the waters taken from the Chicago Drainage Canal have lowered the waters in the connecting streams some 5 or 6 inches. How true that is I am not prepared to say. Now, before deciding upon the method of sewage disposal for Milwaukee we built rather an elaborate experimental station, in which we tried to put all those modern methods of sewage disposal now prevalent in this country and abroad, and I think we had 23 different processes going on there at one time--one of the largest experimental stations carried on in this country for sewage disposal purposes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. When was it established?