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 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:

Total number of deaths for 19156,853
Total number of cases of typhoid fever for 1915259
Total number of deaths from typhoid fever in 191546
Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive, 1916[1]3,374
Total number of typhoid cases to June 2061
Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive16

[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 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.