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. 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.