Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

HEARINGS
OF THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

IN RE

REMEDIES FOR THE POLLUTION OF
BOUNDARY WATERS BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA

BEING PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD AT BUFFALO,
N. Y., AND DETROIT, MICH., JUNE 21-27,
1916, AND OGDENSBURG, N. Y.,
AUGUST 25, 1916

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1917

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION.

CANADA. UNITED STATES.

CHARLES A. MAGRATH, _Chairman_. OBADIAH GARDNER, _Chairman_.
HENRY A. POWELL, K. C. JAMES A. TAWNEY.
P. B. MIGNAULT, K. C. R. B. GLENN.

LAWRENCE J. BURPEE, _Secretary_. WHITEHEAD KLUTTZ, _Secretary_.

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 mayor, Buffalo, N. Y.
The mayor, Tonawanda, N. Y.
The mayor, North Tonawanda, N. Y.
The mayor, La Salle, N. Y.
The mayor, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
The mayor, Lackawanna, N. Y.
The mayor, Fort Erie, Ontario.
The mayor, Kenmore, N. Y.
The mayor, Trenton, N. J.
The mayor, Lewiston, N. Y.
The mayor, Youngstown, N. Y.
The Boards of Health of the States of New York, Ohio, and Michigan.
The Federal Board of Health.
The mayor, Bridgeburg, Ontario.
The mayor, Queenstown, Ontario.
The mayor, Niagara Falls, Ontario.
The mayor, Chippewa, Ontario.
The mayor, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.
J. H. Jackson, Queen Victoria Park, Niagara, Ontario.
Owen McKay, Walkerville, Ontario.
William Simmons, clerk, Fort Erie, Ontario.
H. S. Phillips, Toronto, Ontario.
F. J. Anderson, city engineer, Niagara Falls.
W. C. Jepson, assistant engineer, Niagara Falls.
R. H. Field, Queenstown, Ontario.
J. S. Newman, civil engineer, Windsor, Ontario.
M. E. Brian, city engineer, Windsor, Ontario.
R. A. Land, clerk, Bridgeburg, Ontario.

(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.