Part 4

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:

Total number of deaths for 1915 6,853 Total number of cases of typhoid fever for 1915 259 Total number of deaths from typhoid fever in 1915 46 Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive, 1916 [1]3,374 Total number of typhoid cases to June 20 61 Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive 16

[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.