Chapter M: E. Brian, Windsor, Ontario, city engineer (2)

Mr. BROWN. As the representative of the River Rouge Village, I wish to say a word. I have also been authorized to make objections for the village of Ford and the city of Wyandotte. My objections have been placed before the commission by the gentleman who has just spoken, and I think I can add nothing more to his remarks. The objections are purely local and are engineering features, and as to the desirability of purifying the sewage before entering into the stream, I think all these villages are in accord, and very anxious to do whatever is right and necessary on that. In regard to River Rouge, I may say that we have a separate system there. We realized what was coming some six years ago, and we provided for it, and all we have to do now is to put in the purification plant. Our objection in regard to River Rouge is a local one, and the engineer who has just spoken has outlined it, and if we are not tied down to the exact locality, as shown on your engineer’s plan, we are thoroughly satisfied. We would rather object to the location, if we have to follow his suggestion. We can only say that the present pumping plant there is ample, without putting in an intercepting sewer, saving some $20,000 odd.

Mr. TAWNEY. Are the municipalities you are now speaking for included in the proposed consolidated sewage district, referred to in this report?

Mr. BROWN. They are not.

Mr. TAWNEY. Then the plan for sewage treatment recommended by the consulting engineers does not apply to the municipalities you represent?

Mr. BROWN. It does. The Rouge and Wyandotte are both specifically mentioned, and it is for those I am speaking. We are very anxious to have this carried out. It is simply a matter of local detail. We would like to have some changes, and we would get the same and possibly better results and at a great saving to these cities. In other words, we could do away with the interceptors.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any plan to suggest?

Mr. BROWN. Taking the report of your engineer as it stands, it calls for an intercepting sewer. The treatment plan is per capita, and the maintenance the same. In looking over this report I find there is very little difference in regard to the cost of construction and maintaining the treatment plan for either a small population or a large one. In other words, in the village of Ford we have three outlets, and instead of building an intercepting sewer, tearing up all their pavement, why could we not put in those three plants, dividing it up, providing the figures in that report are correct? The same as to Wyandotte. I am simply taking the report as it stands. I do not see any necessity for an intercepting sewer.

Prof. PHELPS. I may merely say, in reference to what Mr. Dallyn has said, that it is not anticipated that we would be fortunate enough to find in our brief survey the most feasible and the most economical plans. There is no intention of insisting upon the plans specifically, and if the cities and towns interested are able to save money and accomplish the result the commission desires to accomplish, we say Godspeed. It is results we are after. It is quite proper that the city shall take advantage not only of their more detailed and accurate engineering knowledge of the local situation, but also of those tremendous improvements in sewage disposal which are going ahead so fast it is difficult to keep track of them.

Mr. POWELL. Take that particular point of treating all the sewage at one point, or at three points; that is, having an intercepting sewer or not having one.

Prof. PHELPS. The engineer can advise him if he is correct. My personal experience would lead me to doubt whether he can save money by building three plants instead of one. However, if he can save money let him do it.

Mr. BROWN. I just took the statement of the report itself. It took so much per capita and disregarded the population entirely. We have never made an detailed figures. This came up hurriedly, and we have nothing to suggest. We are heartily in favor of the improvements, but in regard to the commission tying us down as to details, we would like to know how much limit we have if we get results.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any objection to or criticism upon the standard of purification set forth in the report, or, in other words, have you any criticism upon the result that is to be attained with respect to purification of water mentioned in the report?

Mr. BROWN. No criticism whatsoever.

Mr. TAWNEY. The municipalities you represent are entirely in accord with the report, so far as it relates to standardization?

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely.

Mr. POWELL. You recognize the obligation of your community to get rid of the sewage, but you want to do it as economically as possible.

Mr. BROWN. That is exactly the fact.

Mr. POWELL. You do not quarrel with the onus being thrown upon you to do it in some way?

Mr. BROWN. No. All these villages seem to be very willing to do something, and they are anxious. They know of this investigation, and they have delayed works on that account, and they are very anxious to do the best possible good for all.

Mr. TAWNEY. Your present population is 15,000?

Mr. BROWN. That is the population they gave for River Rouge, but I think it is not as large as that. I think you will find the present population is only about half of that.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anyone here representing any of the other municipalities on the United States side?

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ADAMS, OF ECORSE, MICH.

Mr. ADAMS. I am here representing Ecorse, and the council there met and said they were in accord with the arrangement. They wanted some system of treating the sewage, but nothing has been done at all. The water supply there is furnished by the Detroit water board.

Mr. TAWNEY. The council has taken action in the matter, you say?

Mr. ADAMS. No; they have not taken action.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have they taken any action in approving or disapproving of the report of our sanitary engineer?

Mr. ADAMS. They approve of the idea set forth in the report.

Mr. TAWNEY. With respect to the treatment of sewage and the purification of the water?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mr. TAWNEY. Then is Mr. Murdock here?

Mr. ADAMS. I represent Mr. Murdock.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anything further? Do you occupy any official position in the village?

Mr. ADAMS. None at all.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any information as to whether or not the council contemplate, in the near future, proceeding with work which they recognized as being necessary for the purpose of purifying the sewage, and so forth?

Mr. ADAMS. They have not yet. They have proposed to put in some extensions to the present system, but not purifying it.

Mr. MAGRATH. You understand that they anticipate looking for certain results in the way of improvement in the treatment of the sewage?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. You are to be congratulated, because you recognize the obligation and propose to face it like men.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes; it is our opinion something should be done, and we want it to be the best arrangement.

Mr. TAWNEY. Anyone here representing Trenton?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes. I would like to take it up this afternoon. I have thought of some notes I would like to jot down.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Jennings is here, representing the city of St. Clair. What is your official position, if any?

Mr. JENNINGS. Mayor of the city of St. Clair.

STATEMENT OF MR. MAX JENNINGS, OF ST. CLAIR, MICH.

Mr. JENNINGS. I am mayor of the city of St. Clair.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you or your sanitary engineers received the report of our consulting engineers with respect to remedying the pollution of these waters?

Mr. JENNINGS. We have.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any suggestions or criticisms?

Mr. JENNINGS. No.

Mr. TAWNEY. Or any statement you would wish to make?

Mr. JENNINGS. I was in hopes we would have the engineer with us to-day. He is not here. I presume he will be here this afternoon. It has been placed in his hands, and he assured me he would be here to present his views this afternoon. The superintendent of the electric light and waterworks understands the situation better than I do.

Mr. TAWNEY. You have had the report studied by your engineer?

Mr. JENNINGS. It has been placed in the hands of Mr. C. L. Weil; he is not our engineer, but is the consulting engineer of the Diamond Crystal Salt Works, and it may be he will be here right after lunch.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM WOLLATT, OF WALKERVILLE, ONTARIO.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Wollatt, you represent Walkerville?

Mr. WOLLATT. In connection with the Essex Board of Utilities Commission.

Mr. TAWNEY. That is for Essex County?

Mr. WOLLATT. For the municipalities in Essex County, opposite Detroit, beginning with Ford, Walkerville, Windsor, Sandwich, Sandwich West, and Ojibway. That is running down the river.

Mr. MAGRATH. The extreme distance between the two points is what?

Mr. WOLLATT. Probably about 12 miles.

Mr. GARDNER. Have you full jurisdiction over the whole territory?

Mr. WOLLATT. This bill which I have in my hand gives the commission complete jurisdiction. This is an act passed by the Ontario Legislature last session. We just simply wish to report that this act has been granted to the utilities commission, and we are getting busy. We have a meeting this week, at which action will be taken as to what the outcome will be of the matters under discussion. We are in deep sympathy with the water question and the sewage matter; but just what the utilities commission will do we can not say at the present moment. We are not that far advanced yet, except to say, of course, that we will have to be governed by the provincial board of health.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are subject to the Ontario or Provincial Board of Health?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you given any study, or have your engineers given any study, to the report of the sanitary engineers of this commission?

Mr. WOLLATT. No; not yet.

Mr. MAGRATH. Have you organized yet?

Mr. WOLLATT. Just last week, so far as the appointment of a chairman and secretary; but no further organization. We will do that this week.

Mr. MAGRATH. What are your purposes?

Mr. WOLLATT. The bill sets out that we may construct main waterworks, which will be a system taking in from Ford to Ojibway and sewers in similar manner, if they are thought desirable. Whether it will be done under this or individually the commission have not got that far yet. We are in a preliminary stage in regard to that yet. We thought we would come here and let you gentlemen know we are alive to this situation, and that we have taken action in having this bill passed.

Mr. MAGRATH. Your utility commission exists purely for water problems?

Mr. WOLLATT. Water and sewage. We are hoping to include other matters later, such as town planning, and so on. That will come later.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Is your commission already named?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes; and the commission has been appointed.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Is the commission appointed named in the bill?

Mr. WOLLATT. The municipalities are named in the bill, with power in the municipality to name their commissioners, the mayors being ex officio members.

Mr. POWELL. Have you copies of that bill?

Mr. WOLLATT. No. I can let you have this, and we can probably secure more for you, if necessary.

Mr. MIGNAULT. The commission has been formed already and constituted?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. And proposes to consider these problems?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. And that is the position you take?

Mr. WOLLATT. That is our position.

Mr. MIGNAULT. You have doubtless received the report of our sanitary engineer?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Have you any remarks to make with respect to it?

Mr. WOLLATT. No: I must confess that I have not, because I have not studied the situation.

Mr. MAGRATH. Who are the officers of the commission?

Mr. WOLLATT. Myself, as chairman--William Wollatt--and J. E. Hoan, Walkerville, secretary. We have no further officers appointed yet, although this bill empowers us to engage engineers and various other officers as we may find necessary as we proceed. The municipalities, we may say, have all consented; that is, the municipalities named and included in this for the commission to take the matter of sewer and water out of their hands and place it in the hands of the commission.

Mr. MAGRATH. What led to the obtaining of that commission? Was it dissatisfaction with the present conditions over there?

Mr. WOLLATT. Not altogether. We had in view a very large growth on that side of the border, and we were not as well provided with water as we thought we ought to be, and that was one of the main things; then the unsatisfactory conditions entered into it.

Mr. TAWNEY. I suppose economic considerations entered into it?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes; that entered into it partly.

Mr. MAGRATH. Are you prepared to indorse the results of the examination and the recommendation by our sanitary experts?

Mr. WOLLATT. That is a question I would hardly like to answer at this time without having the proper consultation with the engineer who may be appointed to go into the matter in detail. We are heartily in sympathy with the proposition to obtain pure water. That is what we want, but just how we shall obtain such we can not at this moment say.

Mr. MAGRATH. But you realize that you must live up to the treaty conditions; that you must not pollute water to the injury of health or property on this side of the boundary?

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes; and we presume they will not do anything on this side to injure us.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you copies of the report?

Mr. WOLLATT. I believe we have.

Mr. TAWNEY. One has been sent to all the villages, and I did not know whether your board had one.

Mr. WOLLATT. Yes; we have one.

(Adjourned till 2.30 p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The commission reconvened at the expiration of the recess.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Jennings, we will hear you now.

Mr. JENNINGS. Gentlemen, I am not prepared to say very much on this preliminary report that has been made, the engineering part of it being out of my line, but I will say for the city of St. Clair that we indorse this project in principle, although perhaps the engineering points of it we might not agree with.

Mr. TAWNEY. You mean that your city indorses the results of the investigations so far as they relate to the treatment of sewage and the purification of water?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir; we are heartily in sympathy with the purification of water. We think it is necessary and we certainly shall do all we can to push the project along.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any criticism to make in respect to the standards proposed for the treatment of the water?

Mr. JENNINGS. Nothing that I know of. The preliminary plans as drawn up by your engineer I will leave for Prof. Weil, of St. Clair, to discuss with you. He is the consulting engineer of the Diamond Crystal Salt Co., and a man who is well up in his line.

STATEMENT OF PROF. CHARLES LEWIS WEIL, OF ST. CLAIR, MICH.

Prof. WEIL. Mr. Chairman, Mayor Jennings asked me to look over the plans and the report of the consulting engineer of the commission, which I have done. I am not here to report upon these plans from the standpoint of an engineer, but I am here simply as one having some interest in what should be done. What I have to say could hardly be construed as other than the impressions of one who has read the report and looked over the plans and is interested in the outcome. In fact, until Mr. Gardner made some statements to me here to-day I did not know just what the object of this meeting was. I understood that we were here to be instructed and not to make comments. So that, as I am trying to emphasize, what I have to say will be rather in the way of my impressions than carefully thought out criticisms or considerations.

As Mayor Jennings has said, I was impressed with the report in its entirety and not only as it relates to St. Clair but, seeing it for the first time yesterday, I admit that I read pretty nearly the whole report.

I was impressed with the fact that the plan proposed for St. Clair divides the city into two sections, with the point of purification as a division, and that might be objectionable from a real estate standpoint. It may not be practicable to do otherwise, but that is what they have done at St. Clair. Sewage disposal should be at the outskirts and not in the center of the city.

Again, I was impressed with the fact that the Diamond Crystal Salt Co., which is the chief industry located at St. Clair, is at the proposed point of purification and disposal. That might constitute a hardship for the leading industry of the town. The Diamond Crystal Salt Co. has recently expended a great deal of money for a new intake pipe 24 inches in diameter and 350 feet long. It has recently expended a large sum of money for a filtration system to filter all the water that goes into the plant, to the salt beds, and through its vessels. It is expending a large sum of money for sterilizing the brine and carrying it to a temperature of 280° F. before it is used.

It may be known to this commission that experiments made in France show that pathogenic germs live for six months in brine not subjected to a temperature of 100° C. The department in France that made the experiments corresponds to our bureau in the United States having to do with pure foods and drugs. In France they were even going so far as to prohibit the sale of so-called natural salt, sea salt, and so forth, for the table, on the basis of impurity. The ordinary vacuum plant, as you may know, carries a temperature of only about 120° F., and that does not destroy pathogenic germs in brine.

As I have stated, the Diamond Crystal Salt Co. has gone to a very large expense to produce pure salt. The location of a plant of the kind mentioned at that point, notwithstanding the amount of proof that could be brought to bear to show that harmful results would be a minimum, might possibly be very objectionable. I can say that, in my individual opinion, and not speaking for the company, I feel that the company would be willing to cooperate with the city of St. Clair to secure a location that would be more advantageous to this plant. I am not criticizing the proposition, but simply stating that the proposed location may be objectionable, and I may be wrong with regard to that.

Another impression that I got from the report was this: I found that it says that the population of this city has not increased in 25 years. I think that is about right. I also found in looking over the report that they would pay over 2 to 1 to maintain this plant if it were put in as proposed; that is, the cost of maintenance would be, roughly speaking, 2 to 1: say, 50 cents perhaps in Detroit and 90 cents in St. Clair, something like twice the expense on a city that is in no way an increased menace if it has not changed its conditions at all. Therefore it would appear to me as a taxpayer and one interested from the outside that the installation of such a plant at the undivided expense of a small city like St. Clair might perhaps be a burden, and hardly a just burden, on the taxpayers when this is, in a measure, an international matter. I understand from Mr. Barron that the city would be subject to a considerable expense through its change in pavements if the plan at present proposed is carried out.

The summation of what I have had to say is probably this: That interested in the improvement of and desirous to combine in this plan, a small city like St. Clair has to be very guarded in its commendation or acceptance on account of the conditions that might be imposed through a too hasty conclusion in the matter. I think that is about all I have to say.

Mr. POWELL. What is the population of St. Clair?

Prof. WEIL. Three thousand.

Mr. TAWNEY. You probably observed in reading the report of the consulting sanitary engineer that three possible sites for the treatment plant were studied, and I understand that the one that is recommended here is the one that you are objecting to.

Prof. WEIL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you considered the objection stated by the engineers to either of the other two?

Prof. WEIL. Yes; as I recall, I have. I think it was simply a matter of expense. Is that correct?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes. One of them was abandoned without detailed study, because it obviously required an unduly expensive intercepting line. Another site located on the west side of Pine River was studied in detail, but was found to require a more expensive system of interceptors than the one east of Pine River, which is shown on plate No. 16, and that is the plan that I understand you object to.

Prof. WEIL. May I ask the commission a question?

Mr. TAWNEY. Certainly.

Prof. WEIL. Is it good engineering to reject the most expensive site on the ground of expense when it is an international matter?

Mr. TAWNEY. I did not quite catch your question.

Prof. WEIL. Would the commission consider it good engineering to reject a certain site on the ground of expense when it is an international matter?

Mr. TAWNEY. It would be if an equally available site could be obtained for a less expense.

Prof. WEIL. Is this not a third selection, this last one that was selected?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes; it was selected in preference to the other two.

Prof. WEIL. On the grounds of expense?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.

Prof. WEIL. That means, then, that the expense is to fall on the municipality?

Mr. TAWNEY. No; the selecting of the third site, as I understand it, was to save expense to the municipality.

Prof. WEIL. But that means that the expense must fall on the municipality?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.

Prof. WEIL. In a big question of sanitation like this, should the matter of expense be the question of a municipality that is not growing?

Mr. TAWNEY. Here is the situation: These waters into which you are discharging your raw sewage are international waters. The result is the contamination or pollution of these waters, which, whether it does now or not, may in the future result in a violation of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The two Governments, which have agreed that neither will permit on their respective sides the pollution of these waters to the injury or health or property on the other, have a right to put a stop to it by requiring the municipalities which are thus offending against the treaty to either treat their sewage or discharge it elsewhere than in these international waters.

Now, the purpose is to find the most practicable and economical method for the treatment of the sewage by these cities that are using these international waters as open sewers. We are engaged in an effort to carry out the provisions of the treaty, or to advise the two Governments how the provisions of the treaty may be carried out with the least possible expense to the municipalities that are using these waters as open sewers for the purpose of disposing of their raw sewage, and the only methods that our consulting sanitary engineers have been able to devise and recommend are those which are proposed here.

I did not quite get your objection to the third site suggested by the consulting engineer--I mean the site east of Pine River, which is indicated on plate No. 16.

Prof. WEIL. I made two objections to it, one the location with regard to the main manufacturing industry of the town.

Mr. TAWNEY. How would it affect this salt industry?

Prof. WEIL. I have tried to explain how it might affect it. I think you will appreciate that all I have said is tentative. I have explained that the company has gone to a very large expense to do what, in so far as I know, no other salt company in the world is doing--filter all the water that goes into the beds and into its plant and sterilize the brine. Now, the location of this plant in the immediate vicinity of the salt works might have a very bad effect, so far as impression is concerned.

Mr. TAWNEY. Sentimental?

Prof. WEIL. Not at all; but actual physiological and psychological effect.

Another point I tried to bring out was that it divided the town into two districts, when in my opinion it would be to the advantage of the town to have this proposed plant for purifying located on the outskirts of the town.

There is one question that I would like to ask now: Is it likely to be the recommendation of the commission in furtherance of what you have cited in regard to the treaty that these things shall be carried out even if they constitute a hardship on the particular ownership, municipality, or village?

Mr. TAWNEY. That depends altogether upon whether the sewage which they are discharging crosses the boundary and constitutes what the treaty describes as an injury to health or property on the other side. If it does, it would have to be prevented, or else the treaty obligations between the two nations would be violated. Of course, if the water beyond the boundary is not polluted at all by reason of the discharge of raw sewage on either side, then the discharge of that sewage would not be in contravention of the treaty; but if it crosses the boundary into another country to the injury of the health or property of the people of that country, it would have to stop or the two Governments would have to rescind or enforce their treaty obligations. It would be a question of fact as to whether or not the pollution extends across the boundary to the injury of the health and property of the people on the other side. If it does it would have to be stopped, no matter what expense might be imposed on the people who are offending against this provision of the treaty. That is my interpretation of the provisions of the treaty, and I think it is the interpretation of the members of the commission generally.

You can readily understand and appreciate the position that this commission is in. We are created an international tribunal for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of a treaty which has been entered into by two great countries. There will be no hardship imposed upon any community if that community is not offending against the provisions of the treaty. If the people of any community are offending against the provisions of the treaty, they will have to take some means of preventing that which constitutes a violation of the treaty. I do not say that St. Clair is doing that, but if the conclusion of the commission should be that that is a fact with respect to St. Clair, it would have to adopt some method for the treatment of its sewage.

Prof. WEIL. Then, what is the object of this meeting?

Mr. TAWNEY. To ascertain what objections the various communities have to the plans proposed by the consulting engineer for the treatment of the sewage, so as to avoid any violation of this treaty.

Prof. WEIL. If I understand your last remarks, it is perfectly immaterial what objections we may have.

Mr. TAWNEY. No; if the communities have any better method than the one proposed, one that would be less expensive and equally as efficient, the commission would be very glad to hear of it. This is simply a report to the commission by the consulting sanitary engineer employed by the commission for that purpose. The commission has not formulated its conclusions, and before formulating them it desires to hear from the various communities affected by the recommendations of our consulting sanitary engineer.

Prof. WEIL. Of course, you understand that what I have said has been in the way of interrogation rather than criticism.

Mr. TAWNEY. Well, we are endeavoring to answer your interrogations to the best of our ability.

Mr. MIGNAULT. We would like to hear any criticism that you think proper to make as to the methods suggested by the consulting engineer.

Prof. WEIL. In a general way I have already stated what the objections are.

Mr. MAGRATH. The objection that you have stated is one relating to the location. Is there any objection with respect to the burden that this proposed plan would entail upon the community?

Prof. WEIL. Yes.

Mr. MAGRATH. The burden is fixed here, an actual charge per capita.

Prof. WEIL. What is it for Detroit?

Prof. PHELPS. It is 54 cents.

Prof. WEIL. Then, it is nearly twice as much for St. Clair as for Detroit. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. POWELL. That is the necessary result of doing things on a larger scale.

Mr. JENNINGS. On our plan there for interceptors I notice that they are running down Riverside Avenue. It might be a question for your engineer to consider, whether it would not be possible to place these interceptors one street farther back from the river. Riverside Avenue is a paved street. It is a concrete pavement, and perhaps the expense of digging that up and repaving it would be more than it would cost to take a street farther back from the river.

Prof. PHELPS. That is absolutely immaterial to us, sir.

Mr. JENNINGS. They can be placed anywhere?

Prof. PHELPS. Anywhere that you please.

Mr. POWELL. Prof. Weil, I suppose you and the community in which you live recognize the necessity of doing something to prevent this evil?

Prof. WEIL. I think you will find I stated at the outset that we recognize that very fully and are anxious to cooperate in its prevention.

Mr. POWELL. You recognize that something should be done to prevent the raw sewage from going into the river?

Prof. WEIL. Yes, sir.

Mr. POWELL. All that you are aiming at is to have it done as inexpensively as possible?

Prof. WEIL. Yes; and not arbitrarily.

Mr. POWELL. There is no desire to take anybody by the throat; this is a friendly consultation.

Prof. WEIL. I understand that, but we would like know what is going to be done.

Mr. POWELL. To the general scheme proposed by Prof. Phelps you have no objection; your objections apply only to the details of working it out?

Prof. WEIL. As to the general scheme for St. Clair?

Mr. POWELL. Yes.

Prof. WEIL. Do you mean the use of the interceptors, and so forth?

Mr. POWELL. Yes.

Prof. WEIL. That is so very general that I could hardly have any objection to it. There is nothing different in that from what has been done for years.

Mr. POWELL. It is only the details of working out the scheme to which you object?

Prof. WEIL. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. And those objections you have spoken of?

Prof. WEIL. Yes; I have tried to cover them.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Knowles, we will hear you now, as representing the Great Lakes Pure Water Association.

STATEMENT OF MR. MORRIS KNOWLES, OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
REPRESENTING THE GREAT LAKES PURE WATER ASSOCIATION.

Mr. KNOWLES. As I stated this morning, there is another representative of the Great Lakes Pure Water Association, Mr. Theodore M. Leison, who will speak for that organization. He could not be here this afternoon, but will be present to-morrow morning. You may consider that he will be the official representative of and will speak for the association.

While I am on my feet, and speaking entirely personally, I would say that I was very much gratified to hear the remarks of Prof. Phelps that the suggestions in the report should be considered as such and not necessarily as determinative plans, because it seems to me that, above all, the initiative should be left to the communities to work out their own salvation as long as that may result accordingly in a general, well-defined policy; I think it is helpful to us as engineers to realize that as coming from your engineer, Prof. Phelps. It seems to me that this policy is a well-considered one, so that all of us who are interested in sanitation ought to work toward the fruition of such a plan. It is necessary that separate places shall have separate solutions dependent upon topographical conditions.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Knowles, you have had sufficient time and opportunity, have you not, to give some study to the report of our consulting engineers?

Mr. KNOWLES. I think I may have had sufficient time, but I do not know that I have given it sufficient study, because I have many other things to do.

Mr. TAWNEY. From the time you have given to the study of the report have you any criticism or suggestion to make as to the result, especially with respect to the standards of purification which have been recommended by our consulting engineers?

Mr. KNOWLES. As long as they can be considered generally and subject to consideration for each particular locality by a continuing body, no; but if they should be made once for all determinative, I would think that would be an error, because the art is changing so fast that such a position ought not to be taken by any body of men at any time.

Mr. TAWNEY. Let me understand you. You mean, do you, that there should be sufficient flexibility in the standard fixed to enable a continuing administrative body charged with the duty of supervising the execution of the recommendations to make such changes as are necessary to suit local conditions?

Mr. KNOWLES. And changes in the art as time goes on.

Mr. TAWNEY. Changes in the art of treatment; that is what you mean?

Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir; changes in the art both of treatment of sewage and the purification of the water.

Mr. TAWNEY. Then, from your studies of the proposition do I understand you to suggest that the most efficient and satisfactory results would be obtained by the creation of an international administrative body for the purpose of looking after the purification of water and treatment of sewage along these international boundary waters?

Mr. KNOWLES. I have not studied the machinery of legislation closely enough to express an opinion upon that final thing. I do believe that no effective progress can be made without some continuing body being on the job all the time. I presume it goes without saying that this being an international question it shall finally rest in some international body. I, however, couple that with the thought that the initiative should not only rest with the given municipality, but probably a still further initiative with the governing body representing that Province, that State, or that Government; the final question being left to the international body to determine the larger questions of policy. The way to get good work is to put responsibility for detail upon the person who carries it out.

Mr. POWELL. That is good policy in all government, political or otherwise.

Mr. KNOWLES. That is right.

Mr. POWELL. While we all recognize that sanitary science is in a condition of change or progress, yet we can not sit still and do nothing. We must live up to the light that we have for the time being. So that we could not lie by and do nothing simply because there is a possibility of other methods being invented or coming to light within a certain period of time in the future. We have to do what is best at the present moment under the present light. You understand that condition?

Mr. KNOWLES. If you ask that as a question, I would say, yes, that is true. It is neither necessary to stand still nor to fix a criterion that is good forever. The way in which those things are handled by the departments of health in the States, and I presume in Dr. McCullough’s department, is that a given project is acted upon at a given time with the light that the people then have, but frequently there are clauses which say that if at any time it appears that the works are not adequate, or something else is required, the right is reserved to the governing body to stipulate further requirements.

Mr. POWELL. That is, you do not want the process of evolution to cease?

Mr. KNOWLES. No, sir. The important thing to consider is that this is not the only measure of public health which is before the people at this time. There are many other things upon which public money can be spent, and it is the measure of this thing with the other things to help public health that should be considered in any large questions of policy.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Knowles, are you prepared to give the commission any information regarding the treatment of sewage by aeration?

Mr. KNOWLES. No, sir.

Mr. MAGRATH. Do you think we are proceeding along the right lines in making these engineering suggestions as to these interceptor sewers? Do you think that those suggestions will be in line with any future development?

Mr. KNOWLES. Well, the relative advantages of long interceptors compared with small unit plants is all a question of finance coupled with some question of real estate development policy, but, of course, with any large body of water directly in front of a long community the place to which the sewage must go is that body of water. The most direct means is generally the most economical means, and the measure of cost of a number of plants compared with the cost of an interceptor is what is needed to find out whether the interceptor is advisable or not. No one can say what is most acceptable in either case.

Mr. TAWNEY. What is your position, Mr. Knowles?

Mr. KNOWLES. I am a consulting sanitary engineer in general practice.

Mr. TAWNEY. Located where?

Mr. KNOWLES. In Pittsburgh, Pa. That is my home now. I have practiced over the United States.

Mr. TAWNEY. Are you connected officially with the Great Lakes Pure Water Association?

Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir; I am a member of that association.

Mr. TAWNEY. From your knowledge of the reference submitted to the commission by the two Governments and your knowledge of the scope of the investigation, what have you to say with reference to whether or not thus far the investigation has proceeded practically and as speedily as would ordinarily be expected under the circumstances? I am asking you the same question that Mr. Magrath asked this morning of the chief sanitary engineer of the State of Michigan, merely for the purpose of getting on the record an expression of your views.

Mr. KNOWLES. I think good progress and good judgment up to date have been shown, provided the criteria be taken as not too absolute; and the statement made by Prof. Phelps this morning is very helpful along that line.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any knowledge as to the time that was consumed in the investigation of a similar subject in the Mississippi River on account of the alleged pollution of that river by the Chicago Drainage Canal?

Mr. KNOWLES. No; I do not know the exact time. It was some considerable time. I think it must be remembered that in any of these matters it not only takes time for an investigation, but it takes a good deal of time for necessary assimilation and education.

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes; and time thus spent is well spent.

Mr. KNOWLES. It is not lost.

Mr. TAWNEY. We will now hear what Mr. Sloman, a member of the bar of the city of Detroit, desires to say on this subject.

STATEMENT OF MR. ADOLPH SLOMAN, OF DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. SLOMAN. Prefacing what I have to say, I desire to state that I was born and brought up in the city of Detroit. I have practiced law during the past 37 years. I have had a summer home during the past 18 years at what is called Sans Souci on the St. Clair River about midway between Detroit and Port Huron.

Some little time before your commission was appointed, on an occasion when my eldest daughter was down in the city and there was apparently an epidemic of typhoid she contracted typhoid fever, and we came near losing her. It was that which caused me to interest myself very much in this question of the water supply and its pollution.

Our summer home has a frontage of about 1,400 feet on the river, on the south channel, where all the boats pass. Only as recently as two weeks ago last Saturday there came down the river a quantity of oil in the form of scum that covered the river from the center clear to the shore. An east wind that was prevailing at the time blew that stuff over to the shore, and the launches and rowboats stationed at the dock were covered with that oil clear to the gunwales. It was almost a day before we could get a drop of drinking water from the river. It was that situation that I called to the attention of the minister of fisheries, to which the letter that I have here is a reply. The oil supply supposedly came from the Imperial Oil Co. at Sarnia. The quantity was simply enormous. It came down in spots, covering an area of over 40 feet square. It looked like filth.

Mr. POWELL. Was it black?

Mr. SLOMAN. No; it was a dark brown.

Mr. GARDNER. Was it raw oil as it comes from the earth?

Mr. SLOMAN. Evidently so. Underneath that, of course, the marks of the oil were apparently in the usual form in which it is found floating on the water.

Mr. TAWNEY. Has that condition happened only once?

Mr. SLOMAN. No; it has happened before, but not to the extent that it did at the time I refer to. No one who has lived up there and has seen conditions and is at all familiar with fishing can help but realize that another happening of that kind will interfere seriously with fishing.

Mr. MAGRATH. You had better read that letter that you received from the minister of fisheries.

Mr. SLOMAN. This letter comes from the deputy minister of the naval service. When this condition presented itself I at once got in touch with the United States Engineer office in the expectation that some one on the American side who had the power would take some steps to prevent its recurrence. Upon calling up the Engineer office I found that Col. Patrick was about to start for the Mexican border, and he could not give it any attention. He was fearful that the matter might not receive proper attention from his office, and it was not strictly in his line. Inasmuch as the stuff had apparently come from the Canadian side, I got in touch with the minister of fisheries, because I understood that on a former occasion they had gone after this oil company. It is not an uncommon occurrence to find oil in large quantities coming down the river there. Over in Mitchells Bay large quantities of carp have died as the result of an accumulation of that stuff that has floated or drifted over there on account of the wind. In reply to my communication I received the following letter:

OTTAWA, _June 22, 1916_.

SIR: I have your letter of the 19th instant with regard to
the pollution of the Michigan side of the St. Clair River
by heavy deposits of oil, apparently coming from a plant
operating at Sarnia, Lambton County, Ontario.

Your representations will be referred to the department of
game and fisheries, Toronto, which administers the fishery
regulations for Ontario, and immediate attention will be
requested in the matter. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. J. DESBARATS,
_Deputy Minister of the Naval Service_.

ADOLPH SLOMAN, Esq.,
_Counselor at Law, Suite 330, Penobscot Building,
Detroit, Mich._

In trying to ascertain what was the real prolific cause of the fouling of the water supply I tried to decide in my own mind in watching the boats pass by to what extent they were responsible for the contamination of the water supply. I wish you gentlemen could have the privilege of standing with me on my dock some night to see the condition of the water. You would raise your hands in holy horror and say, Is it possible that this is the stuff which the people are obliged to drink? The rays of light penetrate the water and show the impurities in it. There are no words that can express the foul condition of that water, and we get our drinking water from that source.

Mr. TAWNEY. What is the relation of the boat traffic on the river to this pollution?

Mr. SLOMAN. With regard to the sewage?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.

Mr. SLOMAN. I believe that at least a quarter if not a third of the foul matter that is deposited in the river comes from the vessels. And I want to say to you that I have never been able to understand how the rights of human life ought to be set to one side for the rights of property, what earthly justification there is for allowing these vessels to deposit their foul matter in the river when they could take care of it by incinerating plants. They may say it would put them to some inconvenience. What of it? I think we have a right to have health considered first. Not only that, but take the condition that existed 25 years ago. The water of the Detroit River was considered the finest in the world for drinking purposes. The city was comparatively small as considered to its population of to-day; the tonnage was small as compared with what it is to-day; but with the increase of this tonnage and the increase of population, together with the fact that vessels have been built in the past few years of heavy draft, it has been utterly impossible for nature to take care of what it would ordinarily take care of in the matter of pollution.

It is usually said that water purifies itself every 7 miles. These vessels coming along there churn that water up above the intake pipe and the northeast winds blow that stuff over. Those boats with big drafts churn up that stuff all the way up to the ship canal, and with the wind blowing from the northeast, it riles over the city supply intake.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Where is your property?

Mr. SLOMAN. At Sans Souci, which is on Harrisons Island, about 3 miles southeast of Algonac, on the south channel of the St. Clair River.

Mr. MIGNAULT. How far from Sarnia?

Mr. SLOMAN. It is about midway between Detroit and Sarnia, and Sarnia is directly opposite Port Huron.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Then, it would be about halfway between Sarnia or Port Huron and Detroit?

Mr. SLOMAN. Approximately.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Of course, the pollution which you mentioned comes from above.

Mr. SLOMAN. It comes from above. At Algonac the oil apparently does not go down the north channel, but goes down the south channel. When an east wind is blowing it can be plainly seen on the shore. For a week no woman could attempt to step on that shore without ruining her dress.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Did I understand you to say that your property is on an island?

Mr. SLOMAN. It is on Harrisons Island; directly opposite is Squirrel Island, and directly opposite that is Warpool Island.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Your property is on the American side?

Mr. SLOMAN. It is on the American side.

Mr. POWELL. Did you make any inquiries as to how the Imperial Oil Co. allowed this stuff to escape?

Mr. SLOMAN. No; I did not get up there. It has not been my privilege to get up there since this occurrence, but I at once got in touch with the authorities that I thought would handle that situation.

Mr. POWELL. It may have been due to carelessness.

Mr. SLOMAN. It looked as though they had let go what might be considered a tremendous quantity of oil. No ordinary quantity could have made a showing such as that did.

Mr. MIGNAULT. How often has it happened?

Mr. SLOMAN. In different forms it has been going on for four or five years. It has come down two dozen times--not in that quantity, but the water would show traces of oil below the surface and on the surface.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Do you mean that it has happened two dozen times in a year?

Mr. SLOMAN. No; during that period of the past four or five years. But it is not only that; when an east wind blows we get on our shore the garbage and foul matter that comes from the vessels. This year it is particularly hard on us because there never were so many vessels going up and down the river as there are to-day.

Mr. POWELL. How long ago since this happened?

Mr. SLOMAN. Two weeks ago last Saturday.

Mr. POWELL. Coming up the bay this morning, at this end of the Livingstone Channel, just about the Limekiln Reef, there was a lot of stuff on the surface that looked like raw sewage.

Mr. SLOMAN. Well, there probably was; but the Limekiln crosses below the city of Detroit, while this was above.

Just a thing or two more I would like to say in that connection. As I say, I was born and brought up here in the city of Detroit, and I will give way to no one in the matter of loyalty to the city of my birth, but Detroit is confronted with a problem that she must absolutely take care of, no matter what the cost is. It is merely a question of time when the water supply will be absolutely unfit for drinking purposes. We are drinking to-day chlorinated water. It was only a matter of a year or two ago when they cleaned out the reservoir of the waterworks, and I would hate to tell you what they found. There were two skeletons among the objects found there and a lot of very foul matter. The middle and wealthier classes are not drinking Detroit water; they are drinking well water, simply because if they use Detroit water they must drink this chlorinated water. The question is whether Detroit ought not to build in the future so as to conserve life rather than property or expense.

The city of Grand Rapids was confronted with a similar condition in 1913. Grand Rapids is a city of about 115,000 inhabitants. They undertook to discharge their sewage into the Grand River, and one of the towns below there filed a bill in the State court for an injunction to restrain the city from letting its sewage go into the river. I would like to call your attention to that case because it is full of facts; it is full of the testimony of the engineers.

Mr. POWELL. The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded?

Mr. SLOMAN. Yes; the injunction was granted, and the city of Grand Rapids was given one year in which to take care of that sewage matter. When it comes to the question of what Detroit should do in the way of purifying its waters, I am not prepared to give any technical information--that is for the engineers--but I do wish to say to you that if you will examine this case you will find testimony of some of the ablest engineers in the State of Michigan as to what ought to be done. If I may be permitted, I would like to call attention to some features of that case.

Mr. POWELL. Give the full citation of the case.

Mr. SLOMAN. The case is reported in One hundred and seventy-fifth Michigan, page 503. The title is Attorney General ex rel., Township of Wyoming _v._ City of Grand Rapids.

Mr. POWELL. That suit was brought on behalf of the Commonwealth?

Mr. SLOMAN. It was brought on behalf of the village of Grandville, which felt the effects of the foul matter that was being deposited in the river. The court in that case said: