Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

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 1915 6,853
Total number of cases of typhoid fever for 1915 259
Total number of deaths from typhoid fever in 1915 46
Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive, 1916 [1]3,374
Total number of typhoid cases to June 20 61
Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive 16

[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:)