Hearings of the International Joint Commission in re remedies for the pollution of boundary waters between the United States and Canada

by International Joint Commission

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?