Part 9

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._