Chapter M: E. Brian, Windsor, Ontario, city engineer (4)

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Sometimes it is thrown into the Lakes, but I do not claim to make any point on that, because it is not handled as well as it should be handled, but we do the best we can with the facilities we have. However, I want to emphasize one thing--that the orders are peremptory that in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers no garbage shall be thrown, and you know that I know whereof I speak. The man that is reported for doing that will get the short shrift. Of course it is clearly understood that we have careless employees the same as anybody else. Sometimes on a dark night, if the cook thinks it is too much trouble to put the garbage into a receptacle which we provide for it, he throws it over the rail. I presume that sometimes happens, but I am speaking of the general orders. If I have not filed the sanitary rules which we have published, I will be glad to file them. These rules are given to all the members of the crews.

Mr. SLOMAN. Have you ever ascertained the rules in Europe on the vessels? You have traveled on them?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I know nothing, except being a passenger on the ocean. I know the methods of taking care of the garbage for the cities generally.

Mr. SLOMAN. Would you think burning garbage by an incinerating plant on the vessel, and keeping the excreta from the closet in a sealed can and distributing on the land would cost more than the apparatus your engineers are figuring on?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I can not answer that question. I have to refer these matters to those men who are experts.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Would it be possible to incinerate the garbage?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Oh, yes; I think it would. I am not prepared to say just how. You can do anything, but the question is as to how practical it will be. It may be so difficult to carry out as to make it impossible. There is nothing you can not do if you try.

Mr. POWELL. You can throw it into the furnace. That is incinerator enough.

Mr. MIGNAULT. That would hardly be a method.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I am not here to suggest a plan. I am here to tell you we will adopt any feasible plan you suggest. We simply say the experiments have not gone far enough.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. King, have you anything to offer as the representative of the Dominion Marine Association?

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS KING, K. C., OF KINGSTON, REPRESENTING
THE DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION.

Mr. KING. Just a word. I will ask the commission to pardon me if I should repeat a little of what the President of the Lake Carriers’ Association has said, as I was not able to catch all that he said--in fact I must confess that I failed to hear a great part of his remarks, owing to the noise outside. But I began to pay strict attention when this gentleman [Mr. Sloman] preferred that very vehement indictment against the vessels passing through the waters in question. I am not going to say very much on that point, but I ask the commission to weigh the accuracy of his statements in some measure by the accuracy of his knowledge of the position of the owners of these vessels. I do not think I have to repeat to the commission, but I will say it again for this gentleman’s benefit, and the commission will pardon me. What we said at the previous session of the commission at Detroit--and what I am sure Mr. Livingstone has already said, although I could not hear him--was that we were in an attitude of cheerful willingness to place ourselves in the hands of the commission, and I speak on behalf of all the tonnage on the Canadian side between Port Arthur, the head of the Lakes, and Montreal. We place ourselves in the hands of the commission, trusting the commission will only bring into force, or recommend that the respective Governments pass legislation that will be fair and reasonable. We want to do what is right. We are as much interested as anybody in preventing the pollution of the waters, and I urge--and I wish to emphasize it very strongly--that nothing should be done without the fullest and most complete test. I think the commission is at one with that suggestion and will act upon it.

With regard to what has been done by Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank, I trust that nothing will be done until you have had the fullest and most complete test of the proposals. I submit the test should be had not only on one trip but throughout the season, that it should include all weather and should include all seasons, and it should deal with the question of interference by frost, that the test should be carried out not only on the large freighters but on passenger boats, on which the conditions may vary, and that it should be carried out on boats of different sizes and engaged in different trades. It would be a matter of multiplying the test by three or four or five in order to cover the various conditions; but I do ask that this delay should take place, not for the purpose of postponing unduly any action that ought to be taken by vessel owners, but because the conditions are so different from those in regard to municipalities. In a municipality a tremendous amount of money is going to be spent before one knows absolutely what the effect is to be, and you are practically committed to that scheme. In the case of a boat you have an opportunity to decide upon the best scheme, having regard to the practicability, the cost and effectiveness, and I trust the commission will be governed to some extent by the consideration of cost, if it is to be granted.

Mr. TAWNEY. Would you consider it a hardship if the steamboat companies were required to place an apparatus on one of their boats at their own expense, with the understanding that if satisfactory they should complete the equipment on all their vessels; otherwise it would go no further?

Mr. KING. I do not quite understand the suggestion.

Mr. TAWNEY. Would the companies consider it a hardship if they were required to install one of these machines at their own expense for experimental purposes, that they should pay for it at their own expense----

Mr. KING. And if it was bad not to install it on the others?

Mr. TAWNEY. Let the commissioners decide whether they should go on or not?

Mr. KING. The vessel owners are willing to do whatever is right, and possibly this machine may not be the best. We do not know what may be invested in the next year or two. In view of the infinitesimal proportion of the sewage which can be credited to the boats, immediate haste is not necessary, and if it is going to take 5 or 10 years to settle the question with regard to the municipalities, it would be better to spend the money for the purpose of testing rather than committing ourselves to one appliance which may not answer the purpose. I am not urging delay for the sake of delay.

Mr. TAWNEY. I gather from your statement that the steamboat companies would not be willing to install this apparatus on all of their boats simply upon the result of one test.

Mr. KING. No.

Mr. TAWNEY. That being the case, in order to get something which would be satisfactory to the steamboat companies, we would have to install this or some other apparatus on two or three boats, or a sufficient number of them to satisfy the steamboat companies that they were feasible and practicable, at the expense of the two Governments, which this commission has not the power to do. The question was whether or not, to carry out your idea, if we could possibly do so, the steamboat companies were not willing to install a few of these machines on these boats at their own expense, for the purpose of testing their feasibility and practicability.

Mr. KING. I am not in a position to give an answer on that point on behalf of the companies.

Mr. TAWNEY. We are not in a position to commit the two Governments.

Mr. KING. I do think both associations are willing to do whatever you would consider reasonable in that way, and I think it might be possible here and there to effect an installation, in order to get a sure test of the appliances. I do not say that should be done, but I think the vessel owners are willing to do it. I think the first cost should be borne by the public till the inspection is done.

Mr. TAWNEY. I am glad to get your idea.

Mr. KING. Our attitude is one of absolute fairness in the matter. May I say one more thing in regard to the point I was urging, perhaps unduly? That is the lack of necessity for haste in the case of a vessel. You spoke of the steamboat population of the boats. May I point out that that population is a population as individuals for periods averaging from an hour to a day. They are not engaged in the pollution of the waters for 365 days in the year. That consideration is somewhat overlooked. One more remark: It was suggested by Prof. Phelps that steamboats ought to be dealt with at present, in spite of the municipalities’ pollution, because of the fact that they pass the intake pipes for the waterworks systems. May I suggest that while the tests are going on, it would be a simple matter to devise rules whereby lavatory doors are locked just as they are locked on trains, at times when the contamination might take place? They could be closed when they are passing in close proximity to the intakes. A move in that line might possibly meet what was in Mr. Phelps’s mind.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that there is danger also on account of vessels taking their water for drinking purposes in polluted areas?

Mr. KING. I do not think that is a danger which the commission should deal with. I think we can carry it out by orders that the water should not be taken except in certain restricted areas.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that considerable typhoid fever has been caused by that means in the past?

Mr. KING. I can not admit that. I know of one case where a suit was entered at Rochester, and tried, but no decision yet. I know of no other cases.

Mr. TAWNEY. I know of several cases in southern Minnesota attributed to that.

Mr. KING. At the same time, I must admit that contamination does exist.

Mr. MIGNAULT. There is a great probability of contamination.

Mr. TAWNEY. In the matter of taking water ballast in polluted areas and discharging that ballast in less polluted areas, as they arrive near the ports--what have you to say to that? Would it be a hardship if they were required not to take on water ballast in polluted areas, or else not to discharge it in the less polluted areas?

Mr. KING. I do not think it would be a hardship, except in cases where the exigencies of navigation required them to fill their tanks before they got out of a certain area. There are cases where boats must have their tanks filled before they get out of the landlocked harbor. A boat coming from Kingston must have her tanks filled before she gets into Lake Ontario.

Mr. TAWNEY. Could there not be some regulation in regard to the discharge of that ballast in the vicinity of intakes?

Mr. KING. I think that could be sufficiently covered with the one provision. They have to keep her sufficiently trimmed in stress of weather.

Mr. SLOMAN. You spoke a moment ago about the cost of trying out the question and solving the problem--that it should not be thrown upon the vessel owners. Mr. Livingstone had made an offer--at least he has done something toward experimentation at considerable cost----

Mr. KING. Excuse me; it is at no cost to Mr. Livingstone or the Lake Carriers’ Association. I understand it is borne by others.

Mr. SLOMAN. Is that so?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.

Mr. SLOMAN. Would it be any cost to your vessels to try out the incinerating of your garbage by putting it in your furnace?

Mr. KING. I do not think so.

Mr. SLOMAN. Would it involve a large cost to have a septic tank in your holds, running your closets to that tank, sterilizing the contents and bringing it to port, and carrying it away to the land somewhere? Would that involve a large cost?

Mr. KING. I think it would, but I do not know. I have no direct knowledge of that.

Mr. SLOMAN. What do you think as to whether or not that would be a practical way of solving the problem?

Mr. KING. I would not set my judgment up against that of Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank, who have gone more deeply into the subject than I have.

Mr. FRANK. I think that may be answered by saying that in order to store all of the sewage for a voyage until a port is reached the tank would have to be many times as large as this small stream tank which I have described, and the cost would be almost, although not quite, proportionate to the volume. In addition, the expense of disposal after the land was reached would have to be met. I think it may be stated without any doubt whatever that any device holding the sewage throughout a whole voyage would obviously cost much more than a device for holding it for about two hours.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. King, you are willing to do anything that we may prescribe, but you ask us not to recommend that you be required to spend money on schemes that in their experimental stage may prove abortive?

Mr. KING. Quite true.

Mr. TAWNEY. I understand that the representatives of the city of Detroit will not be ready to proceed until the session to-morrow morning. Is there anyone else here who desires to be heard?

STATEMENT OF MR. H. L. BLOMSHIELD, OF TRENTON, MICH.

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I would like to speak on behalf of the village of Trenton. I am sorry that I am here to represent a village that has shown such half-hearted interest in the recommendations of your consulting sanitary engineer, Prof. Phelps. The attitude taken by the village authorities is no doubt due to the fact that local conditions have called for much quicker action on the part of the State board of health in recommending certain remedial measures for their local benefit.

It has already been stated that there are about 12 sewer outlets above the intake, and it has been urged upon the village authorities to construct a 12-inch intercepting trunk sewer to divert this sewage below the intake.

It has appeared to the majority of the residents that the tail end of the district has been tackled first. I can say that I believe they will be in hearty accord with any remedial measures your commission may adopt for the entire district.

From a standpoint of economy and future supervision, I believe a metropolitan district could best serve the Michigan side. I derived this thought from a lecture on the “Metropolitan District of Boston,” by Mr. Frederick Fay before the District Engineering Society several months ago.

I have read several press reports on this subject as viewed by Mr. Hubbell, our district consulting sanitary engineer. As outlined, I believe the district would extend from the Macomb to the Monroe County lines. It appeals to me more forcibly in that each community will be served alike and pay pro rata for benefits derived.

In going over the past history of improvements recommended for Trenton, I will say that about seven years ago an extensive combined sewerage system was planned at an estimated cost of approximately $50,000, which the people voted down. They have never had the opportunity to vote on a sanitary system, which I believe would cost about $18,000.

The finances of the village are in such shape that this price would go beyond the 5 per cent mark of bonded indebtedness. I might give the figures showing the present condition of the finances. In the meantime, before I give that I would like to ask a question. If recommendations are carried out in the several districts, does the commission give any method of raising the funds necessary to carry on such work?

Mr. TAWNEY. That is a matter that the commission has not yet considered at all, and I do not know whether it is within the scope of our work.

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. If the several districts had the funds with which to do it, I believe that some of these measures would have been taken up long ago. The assessed valuation of our village in 1915 was $555,200, bonded as follows: Highway-improvement bonds, $6,500; electric-light plant, $7,500; other bonds, $6,125; total, $20,125; of which $3,500 has been paid off, leaving a balance to be paid of $16,625. One per cent, which is the allowable limit for any improvements in any one year for any special kind of improvements, would make $5,552; or 5 per cent, which is the total limit of bonded indebtedness, would make $27,760, of which $16,625 has already been bonded, leaving a balance of $11,135, which you see is very much less than would pay for a sanitary sewerage system which the village surely needs.

I have acted as village engineer for Trenton during the past year, and without funds to promote any measures of sanitary work or water purification we are very much handicapped. If the commission in recommending any remedial measures could also embody any method of raising funds to carry on the work, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. POWELL. Why do you recommend the metropolitan district--on account of the saving?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. On account of the saving to the smaller districts per capita.

Mr. POWELL. You would not have the overhead charges to meet?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is it; and that is something that the smaller communities could not stand.

Mr. MIGNAULT. What is the borrowing power of Trenton to-day?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Five per cent; but they have $11,000 yet to borrow.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Is there no provision to meet a case like that where certain improvements are ordered by the State board of health?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I believe 5 per cent is the point set by the State law for villages.

Mr. TAWNEY. It is set by your constitution, is it not?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. In a case like that, where it is a matter of public necessity, have you not the power to levy a special assessment?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Nothing we know about yet. We have asked several authorities on that and we have not been enlightened on that subject.

Mr. POWELL. As a matter of fact, what is your head of taxation, the village?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. The village. The village takes in a very small area. It should be enlarged. That is one method that would be furthered.

Mr. POWELL. Have you a county tax besides that?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. And a State tax?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. And a State tax. Our taxes now are $17.50 per thousand, or $1.75 per hundred. That is the total tax for the village.

Mr. POWELL. That is all combined?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is all combined.

Mr. POWELL. Well, you are happy boys.

Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand your chief objection is lack of funds with which to carry out the improvements?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is it.

Mr. MIGNAULT. If that were removed, there would be no difficulty?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. There would be no difficulty. As I say, if some system were laid out for the entire district the village of Trenton would be heartily in accord with such a system. Due to the local conditions which have prompted immediate action, they feel that they are being called out to start the thing.

Mr. MIGNAULT. There is no intention to single them out.

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I realize that.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Our desire would be to treat them all alike.

Mr. MALONE. Do you not think that if the Federal Government were to impose a penalty for not putting in a filtration plant that they would find ways and means of getting the necessary money to put it in?

Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I guess they would.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is there any other person here that desires to be heard this afternoon? As there is not, the commission will take a recess until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 4.15 o’clock p. m., the commission took a recess until 10 o’clock a. m. Tuesday, June 27, 1916.)

* * * * *

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
_Detroit, Mich., June 27, 1916_.

The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.

Mr. GARDNER. Gentlemen, the hearing this morning is for the purpose of listening to the representatives of the city of Detroit, and, as I understand that we will have to vacate this room at 4 o’clock this afternoon, it will be necessary for us to get busy. We will first hear from Mr. Fenkell.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE H. FENKELL, COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Fenkell, will you please state what the city of Detroit has done in connection with the consulting engineer of the commission in the matter of investigating the remedies for existing pollution? Before you go into the technical matters, kindly give a sort of summary or history of the part your city has taken and what they are doing.

Mr. FENKELL. Your commission met in Detroit about a year and a half ago, and immediately after that meeting I asked the common council for funds to begin work on an investigation as to conditions existing in the Detroit River. Only $15,000 has been provided. Shortly after that Mr. Clarence W. Hubbell, of Detroit, was engaged to make an investigation and report. A little later he occupied joint offices with Prof. Phelps.

That investigation was carried on until Mr. Hubbell’s report was submitted, about four weeks ago. It was put into the hands of the printer immediately and yesterday we received the first copies. I was able to deliver only three copies to you yesterday. I hope soon to have more from the printer. That report was submitted to the council shortly after it was received from Mr. Hubbell. The summary was printed in the council’s proceedings, a copy of which, I believe, was mailed to your commission.

Because of the haste in getting the report to the printer the typewritten report was not read generally. In fact, I think I was the only one that was able to look the report over before it went to the printer. None of the Detroit officials is familiar with Mr. Hubbell’s report except such portions as appeared in the council’s proceedings.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Hubbell and the sanitary engineer of the commission, then, were working together for the last year, were they?

Mr. FENKELL. I think so. Just how they divided the work and how they carried out the details I am unable to state.

Mr. TAWNEY. They were jointly studying the same problem at the same time.

Mr. FENKELL. They were.

Mr. TAWNEY. Now, what have you to say, Mr. Fenkell, in regard to the plans recommended by the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, and how do these plans compare with the plans or remedies proposed by Mr. Hubbell, your sanitary engineer?

Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state exactly. I have read Mr. Hubbell’s report through twice, and I have read Prof. Phelps’s report through, but I have been unable to make any extended study of the matter. So far I hardly think anyone has, except it be Mr. Hubbell.

Mr. TAWNEY. Has your municipal government here considered the question of the standards for sewage treatment and water purification recommended by the sanitary engineers of the commission?

Mr. FENKELL. So far as I know, it has not received any extended study, except by Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell’s report was transmitted to the common council, and it was submitted to the proper committee, but the committee have been unable to take any action in the matter, or study it, because of our inability to furnish copies of the report.

Mr. TAWNEY. Has the city at this time in contemplation anything looking toward sewage treatment, independent of any international question involved in the pollution of the Detroit River?

Mr. FENKELL. No more than is covered by Mr. Hubbell’s report.

Mr. TAWNEY. You have no specific plan in preparation, is what I mean.

Mr. FENKELL. No, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. Are you treating your sewage here at all?

Mr. FENKELL. In no way whatever.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are discharging raw sewage into the Detroit River?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. That is the outlet for all your sewerage system?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. All of your sewers discharge into the Detroit River?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir. Some do not discharge directly into the river, but they reach the Detroit River eventually.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Ultimately all of the sewage goes into the Detroit River untreated?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. Where do you get your water from?

Mr. FENKELL. It is taken from a point about 700 feet above Belle Isle, in the American Channel.

Mr. TAWNEY. Have you a filtration plant there?

Mr. FENKELL. Detroit has no filtration plant.

Mr. TAWNEY. Do you chlorinate the water?

Mr. FENKELL. The process in use is chlorination. Mr. Leisen, the general superintendent for the water commission, is present and can explain that to you in detail.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Magrath calls my attention to the fact that we went into that matter when we were here a year and a half ago.

Mr. FENKELL. I think, if I may be permitted to make the suggestion, that there have been some changes in the method of treating the water since then.

Mr. TAWNEY. Well, that is important. Now, Mr. Fenkell, before we hear Mr. Hubbell, is there anything else in relation to the subject that you desire to bring to the attention of the commission at this time?

Mr. FENKELL. There may have been explained to the commission the ordinary way in which the city would proceed to get the funds and go ahead with work of this kind. My understanding is that it would first be necessary for the council to direct that the matter be voted on by the people. It would then go up at a regular election, and in order for the work to be authorized or the bonds to be issued it would have to receive 60 per cent of the votes cast. The work would be carried out by and through the department of public works working with the common council. I can give you still further details regarding that, if you wish, as well as copies of the law relating thereto.

Mr. TAWNEY. What is the present bonded debt of the city of Detroit?

Mr. FENKELL. I will secure that data and give it to you later.

Mr. TAWNEY. You have a limited amount of bonded indebtedness to which the city can obligate itself, have you not?

Mr. FENKELL. It is limited. I will give you that data later.

Mr. TAWNEY. That limit is 5 per cent of the assessed value of the property, is it not?

Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state.

Mr. GARDNER. Any such limitation as that is a constitutional provision of the State, is it not?

Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state the amount. Detroit now has home rule, and just what the limitation is when the people vote on a question of that kind I am unable to state. Would the chairman like to have me secure that data?

Mr. GARDNER. We would like to have it.

Mr. FENKELL. I would suggest that if you have any other questions of that kind you give me a list of them, and I will secure the desired information for you, or you can call on the city comptroller and secure the information from him.

Mr. TAWNEY. We desire simply to ascertain what the position of the city would be with reference to carrying out any plan looking to the prevention of this pollution which now exists. That would be the only way in which it would be material for us to know whether the city was situated so that it could carry out any reasonable recommendations that might be made.

Mr. MAGRATH. You are filing with us a copy of the report of Mr. Hubbell, are you not?

Mr. FENKELL. So far I have furnished 3 copies. I have received only 12 printed copies and have been able to give reports to only three of the departments of the city that I thought would be interested. I shall be pleased to furnish the commission additional copies as soon as we receive them. We hope to receive them to-day or to-morrow.

Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand you to say that no action has yet been taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report.

Mr. FENKELL. No action whatever. Upon its receipt it was transmitted to the council, and within 48 hours it was in the hands of the printer.

Mr. MIGNAULT. It was referred to the committee, I suppose, for consideration and printed as all public documents are printed. Is that correct?

Mr. FENKELL. The report was referred to the committee on sewers. Only my letter transmitting the report and the summary of Mr. Hubbell’s report were printed in the council’s proceedings because of the necessity for cuts, maps, and so forth.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Is it contemplated to take any action on Mr. Hubbell’s report?

Mr. FENKELL. That is something that I am unable to say. The matter is now before the sewer committee of the common council, and in the natural course of events it would be considered by that committee and a report thereon submitted to the common council. The matter could then be acted on by the common council, or any action could be taken that the council saw fit.

Mr. TAWNEY. How many members constitute the council?

Mr. FENKELL. There are 42 members.

Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand you also to say that before any final action would be taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report the matter would be submitted to the taxpayers.

Mr. FENKELL. In order to issue bonds.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Simply to issue bonds?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Otherwise, it would not be submitted to the taxpayers?

Mr. FENKELL. Probably not unless it required a change in the city’s charter. A change in the charter requires a vote of 50 per cent or more.

Mr. MIGNAULT. And to issue bonds you require 60 per cent?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes; 60 per cent. The vote on the Belle Isle Bridge bonds a year ago failed because it received only 58 per cent.

Mr. MIGNAULT. That was the case of a contemplated bond issue?

Mr. FENKELL. Yes.

Mr. MAGRATH. Mr. Fenkell, I see that in your letter to Mr. Hubbell, dated November 25, 1914, you decided to submit certain problems for his consideration, the second one being, “To what extent does the city of Detroit sewage pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?” Mr. Hubbell’s reply to that certainly has the right ring to it. It is stated in paragraph No. 7 of his report, which reads as follows:

In regard to the second part of the problem as to what
expense would be justified for sewage treatment, it is
difficult to formulate an answer in terms of money alone.
However, it is believed that, aside from the international
features of the problem, the combined benefits which would
accrue from a more cleanly water front, purer water at
the bathing beaches and summer playgrounds, reduction in
typhoid and other water-borne diseases, due to the use of
sewage-laden water along the river front; betterment of
raw-water supplies for the municipalities below the city,
and the protection of Detroit’s water from gross sewage
pollution at times when the Detroit River flows backward
amply justify the expenditure required for sewage-treatment
works as above outlined. In round figures, the cost would
be about $6,000,000, and in my judgment the expenditure of
this sum would be justifiable.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this commission should put itself on record with Mr. Fenkell to the effect that we have been in a delicate position and have had a delicate piece of work to attend to, and the city of Detroit has played up magnificently in connection with this investigation. I think it is only fair to make that admission to these gentlemen. So far as I am concerned as a member of this commission, I appreciate the good work that the city of Detroit has done, and I am quite confident that the city of Detroit will do its duty in the matter. I think, Mr. Fenkell, that we are indebted to you and to your mayor and the members of your city council for the way in which you have always met us here in connection with this problem.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that I think that expresses the views of the commission generally. There have been certainly very high appreciation and cooperation in the city of Detroit, and we have every reason to believe that the city will join in any recommendation we may make to the two Governments for the purpose of solving this problem.

Mr. FENKELL. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been our endeavor to work along the lines laid down by the commission, and I know it is the wish of the mayor to do what he can to further your efforts and to work in cooperation with the cities and towns on the Canadian side of the river. He feels that the American cities and the Canadian cities are so closely knit together that the welfare of one must work for the welfare of the other. I know that he wants to do everything he can to further anything that will be beneficial to the cities on both sides of the river.

I want to thank the members of this commission, both officially and personally, for your kindness in the matter, and to assure you that we shall welcome any suggestion that you may have to offer, and we will continue to work along lines that may seem to you and to your commission to be proper and right.

If there is any further information that I can give you, I shall be pleased to do so. The mayor would have been here this morning had it been possible, and he may be here later. Should there be any information that you would like me to secure, I would be glad to obtain it from the comptroller, the corporation counsel, or any of the other city officials.

Mr. TAWNEY. I think the information that the commission would like to have, Mr. Fenkell, is the present bonded indebtedness of the city, and, if there is a limitation upon the power of the city to incur obligations of that kind, what that limitation is and how near you have reached it. If you will kindly have prepared a statement along that line, we will incorporate it in the record as a part of your statement of this morning. If you have nothing further to say, we will now hear Mr. Hubbell.

(The information called for with respect to the assessed valuation of property and the bonded indebtedness of the city of Detroit appears in the statement of Mr. George Engel, the city’s comptroller.)

STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE W. HUBBELL, CONSULTING SANITARY
ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Hubbell, I think you had better state for the record what work, if any, you have done in connection with the consulting engineer of the commission and what duty you were required to perform in connection with this problem. First, let me ask you if you reside here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are a consulting sanitary engineer, practicing here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. How long have you been engaged in the actual practice of your profession?

Mr. HUBBELL. I graduated from the University of Michigan in 1893 and have been engaged in engineering work ever since. About a year and a half ago Mr. Fenkell, the commissioner of public works for the city of Detroit referred to me three problems to be reported upon.

The first problem was that I review the data and conclusions of the international joint commission for the purpose of enlarging on any phase of the matter that might be necessary in order to determine what preventive or remedial measures are required with reference to Canadian waters.

The second problem was, to what extent does the sewage of the city of Detroit pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?

The third problem submitted was, by what means, if any, should the city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage, and what expense would be justifiable for that purpose?

Mr. TAWNEY. That was in November, 1914, was it not?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. Since that time have you been engaged in working out these problems for the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. During that time was the sanitary consulting engineer of the commission engaged in the study of the same problems here in the city?

Mr. HUBBELL. During a portion of that time he was.

Mr. TAWNEY. And you worked in conjunction with him?

Mr. HUBBELL. Through the cooperation of Prof. Phelps and Mr. McRae, who was in charge of the Detroit station, we engaged joint offices for the study of what to me was the third problem submitted. The cooperation was very close in working out the details connected with the third problem submitted to me.

Mr. MIGNAULT. That is as to remedial measures?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; by what means, if any, should the city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage.

Mr. TAWNEY. Since the report of the commission’s consulting sanitary engineer has been made have you had an opportunity to examine and study it?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have examined it; I have not studied it closely in all its details.

Mr. TAWNEY. You have made a final report to the city council of Detroit as a result of your investigation and study?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; a copy of which report I have here.

Mr. TAWNEY. So far as the remedies for the pollution of the Detroit River as it extends beyond the boundary are concerned, do you know to what extent your report corresponds with the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission?

Mr. HUBBELL. In working out the problem jointly we came to a practical agreement in the matter.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are familiar with the alternative propositions which the consulting sanitary engineer has submitted to the commission, are you?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; entirely so.

Mr. MIGNAULT. There are six alternative measures referred to. Our consulting engineer has expressed a preference for two of those measures. Did you agree practically with his choice?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes; we were practically agreed as to the methods that were most desirable and most fitted for the conditions that exist at Detroit.

Mr. TAWNEY. You also agree with the consulting engineer of the commission with respect to the Detroit metropolitan drainage district; that is, taking in the suburban villages around here, as I understand it?

Mr. HUBBELL. I think that such a plan, if it could be consummated, would be desirable.

Mr. TAWNEY. Two main reasons that are given for the consolidation of this area into one drainage district are, first, preventing disputes between the various communities, and, second, effecting economies and producing more satisfactory conditions generally by means of comprehensive planning. Your studies were made along the line of a metropolitan district such as is described here in this report?

Mr. HUBBELL. They do not depend on that entirely for their carrying out. The success of the scheme for purifying or treating the sewage should not depend solely upon the establishment of a metropolitan district.

Mr. POWELL. It could be worked out as an independent system?

Mr. HUBBELL. It could be done so, although it would be an advantage to have it worked out as a metropolitan district. I might say, in connection with that, probably an easier and more feasible way of working that out would be by annexation by Detroit of territory that immediately needs development, and that would not require the machinery or legislation that the other scheme would.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Are there many outlying districts which would have to be annexed to the city of Detroit?

Mr. HUBBELL. No; there are not many; if a working basis could be arranged between the existing municipalities as has already been done through the courts in the case of Highland Park.

Mr. TAWNEY. In your report to the city council, Mr. Hubbell, do you recommend the same standards of purification recommended by the consulting engineers of the commission, both as to sewage and water, or do you treat the standards at all?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have gone into some detail in regard to the 500 B. coli standard, and I believe it to be conservative and reasonable as borne out by data and facts.

Mr. TAWNEY. Did you go into the matter of standard of purification of sewage or treatment of sewage, to what extent it should be purified?

Mr. HUBBELL. In a general way only. Accepting the 500 B. coli standard, the indications are that approximately 90 to 95 per cent purification would be needed bacterially to our sewage to meet that standard. That, however, is a question for the future to determine. It is, in my opinion, a little doubtful as to just what percentage of bacterial removal would be required in order to produce that result, but from my studies I concluded that from 90 to 95 per cent would be required.

Mr. MIGNAULT. And could be realized?

Mr. HUBBELL. Yes; and could be realized; there is no question about that.

Mr. POWELL. I gathered the impression from your report, by a hasty glance at it, that while you did not quarrel with the standard of 500 B. coli per 100 cubic centimeters you inclined rather to a more severe standard.

Mr. HUBBARD. Well, that question is involved with the one of seasonal variation. I made quite extensive studies to determine the seasonal variations in the Detroit River independent of the data that was shown in the International Joint Commission’s first report. I found that for normal conditions in the Detroit River the number of B. coli present was, perhaps, two and a fourth times the average in the summer time, and about one-quarter of the average in the cold months, following approximately the temperature curve.

Mr. TAWNEY. To what condition do you attribute that increase in the summer? In your judgment, has navigation anything to do with it?

Mr. HUBBELL. In my judgment, the navigation has very little to do with it, because the curve falls before navigation stops.

Mr. POWELL. What is the crisis in the curve--in what month?

Mr. HUBBELL. June, July, August, and September are the high months. The highest point of the curve which I determined for the entire river was in September, but for the waterworks’ intake it was in August.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Is it possible to explain why pollution is higher in the summer months than in the winter months?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have made no attempt to explain that. I merely report the fact that it is so on the Detroit River.

Mr. MIGNAULT. I gather that that is a fact which can not be questioned, but is not so easily explained.

Mr. HUBBELL. I concur in that expression; yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. If I understand you correctly, then, Mr. Hubbell, your recommendations to the city on this subject are practically in accord with the recommendations of the consulting engineer of the commission as to the remedies for the existing pollution?

Mr. HUBBELL. We reached the same conclusion as to the method to be adopted, if any is adopted.

Mr. TAWNEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to have Mr. Hubbell’s report made a part of the hearings for the purpose of using such portions of it in the proceedings as the commission may hereafter desire.

(The report of Mr. Hubbell was received as a part of his statement before the commission on the question under consideration.)

Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anything further, Mr. Hubbell, that you desire to present to the commission on this question?

Mr. HUBBELL. I have expressed myself fully in my report, and there is nothing further, unless there are some questions that you wish to ask me.

Mr. GARDNER. I think your report is an admirable one and does you great credit.

Mr. TAWNEY. Will the comptroller of the city of Detroit kindly state for the record the assessed value of the property of the city and the present bonded indebtedness?

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE ENGEL, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY
OF DETROIT.

Mr. ENGEL. I had rather have about 15 minutes for the purpose of preparing such a statement and submit it to you in writing. Our gross debt at this time is about $20,000,000 in round figures; the net debt about $12,000,000. Our limitation is 4 per cent, and the assessed valuation something over $700,000,000. So you see we have a leeway, of something over $16,000,000. Our net debt is very small, probably smaller than that of any city of its size in the United States. I will have a statement prepared for you.

Mr. TAWNEY. We will incorporate your statement in the record.

Mr. POWELL. Do you mean the assessed value of real estate or the combined real and personal valuation?

Mr. ENGEL. Combined real and personal.

Mr. TAWNEY. And the limitation applies to the combined valuation?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir; and that is 4 per cent.

Mr. POWELL. Have you any rule that you observe in respect to valuation?

Mr. ENGEL. We are supposed to assess at cash value, full value, 100 per cent.

Mr. POWELL. The market value?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARDNER. What is your rate?

Mr. ENGEL. About $18.50 per thousand for next year.

(Mr. Engel later submitted to the commission a statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit, which is copied into the record in full, as follows:)

_Statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit._

Assessed valuation, 1916 $731,991,960.00

Limitation of debt:
Four per cent of assessed valuation $29,279,678.40
Less water bonds authorized 2,000,000.00
-------------- 27,279,678.40
Outstanding bonds:
Public sewer $5,604,000.00
Public improvement 535,000.00
Public lighting 1,406,000.00
Public school 8,767,000.00
Public building 1,493,000.00
Boulevard improvement 700,000.00
Park improvement 650,000.00
Park and boulevard 497,000.00
Museum of art 50,000.00
Hospital 100,000.00
Library 750,000.00
Grade 150,000.00
Annexed district 484,756.63
Water bonds 1,947,000.00
------------- 23,133,756.63
Exempt from limitation:
School 8,767,000.00
Library 750,000.00
Annexed district 44,000.00
Water 1,947,000.00
------------- 11,508,000.00
-------------
11,625,756.63
June 1, 1916, sinking fund:
Cash 184,461.95
Securities 4,736,608.57
Annexed district 24,287.00
-------------
4,945,357.52
School and library
apportionment 1,046,485.09
------------- 3,898,872.43
-------------
Net debt under limitation 7,726,884.20
--------------
19,552,794.20

STATEMENT OF T. CHALKLEY HATTON, OF MILWAUKEE.

Mr. TAWNEY. You are here on the invitation of the commission, and the invitation was extended to you because of your experience in the matter of sewage treatment in the city of Milwaukee and also because of the efficiency with which we are advised your plant is being operated. Give such information to the commission as you are prepared to give us concerning the method you have in use there, and also as to its efficiency and operation. We will be very glad to have you give us any opinion, based on your knowledge and experience, that you care to.

Mr. HATTON. It may be that I can best describe this process and the results we are getting from it by giving you the situation in Milwaukee, which is somewhat, as I take it, comparable with some of the situations here. We discharge the crude sewage from the city of Milwaukee into three rivers, from whence it flows into Lake Michigan, and 3½ miles away from the harbor entrance we take our water supply, in a depth of 50 feet. At the present time the water supply is being partially or entirely sterilized by the use of liquid chlorine. There is at the present time about an average of sixty millions of sewage per day being discharged into Lake Michigan.

Mr. TAWNEY. Sixty million gallons?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; and during this time the lake for an area of about 25 square miles has become polluted, B. coli being retained in that entire surface of the lake; and at all times we find the presence of B. coli at the intake of our water supply, but the treatment of liquid chlorine has, with one exception, enabled us to sterilize the water with about twenty-eight hundredths to thirty hundredths part of liquid chlorine. Last February we got a little larger quantity of B. coli than usual because of four or five days of southeastern storm, and in spite of the fact that we put all the liquid chlorine in and more than the water would absorb, we got a typhoid-fever epidemic in three or four weeks of about two hundred and some odd cases. Now, that is the situation in Milwaukee, and for the purposes----

Mr. POWELL. Before you pass on, you say 25 square miles has become polluted?

Mr. HATTON. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. How far into the lake would the pollution extend?

Mr. HATTON. About 5 miles; 3 miles on either side of the harbor and 5 miles from the shore. The city is located on Milwaukee Bay, which is a long crescent, about 10 miles from point to point.

Mr. POWELL. How far from the outlet of the sewer to the intake?

Mr. HATTON. Three miles and a half; and in addition to that, there is a breakwater, which is supposed to partially prevent the water from flowing from the harbor toward the intake.

Mr. POWELL. You pursued your investigations beyond the 5 or 6 miles?

Mr. HATTON. Yes. Prof. Whipple was employed to do that, and he did it very thoroughly for many more miles than 25 square miles.

Mr. POWELL. Did he discover traces of it farther than that?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; even farther than that; traces of it 6 miles away to the north of the intake, but faint traces. It was a question with us, when the matter of sewage disposal came before us, of not only treating the sewage so that the water could be properly treated by filtration or chlorination subsequently, but it was also a question of getting rid of the sludge from any sewage-disposal treatment which we might put in, because there was no waste ground in the vicinity of Milwaukee upon which sludge could be disposed of, and the consensus of opinion of the citizens of Milwaukee was that the sludge should not be deposited in the lake, no matter how far out. The feeling was very strong. I might say, in introducing that matter, that in 1910 a board of consulting engineers advised that disposition of the sludge, and that feeling had been growing in the minds of the citizens for three or four years before I went there, until it had assumed the attitude that it would not be public policy to discharge the sludge into the lake, no matter how far out, partially due to the large amount of shipping which is and was expected to come into the harbors of Milwaukee, and also from the fact that ships did take their water supply from that lake before entering the city; so that it was a matter of taking care of our sludge----

Mr. POWELL. Before you pass to that, how does the current compare with the current in the other Lakes? There is less current in Michigan Lake?

Mr. HATTON. Yes. The currents are influenced particularly by the winds.

Mr. POWELL. There is very little setting of the water out toward the strait?

Mr. HATTON. Very little. The general idea has been advanced, by those who have studied the matter, that the water passes south on the west side of the lake and to the north on the east side of the lake, requiring approximately 10 years to make the entire circuit.

Mr. POWELL. Is there any continuous flow out of the lake, or does it flow in, on account of evaporation?

Mr. HATTON. I think there is a flow out of the lake. I think the record was taken some 12 or 14 years by the United States engineer at that time, and he printed quite an elaborate report.

Mr. TAWNEY. Through the straits?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; but just what that report contains I am not familiar enough with it to say.