Prof. Earle B. Phelps, of the United States Public Health Service,
Washington, D. C., consulting sanitary engineer to the commission.
F. C. Tolles, Mount Vernon, N. Y., assistant to Prof. Phelps.
W. J. Stewart, Ottawa, Canada, chief hydrographer of the Dominion of
Canada.
F. A. Dallyn, Toronto, Canada, sanitary engineer, Provincial Board of
Health of Ontario.
Dr. Edward Clark, of Buffalo, representing the Department of Health
of the State of New York.
Dr. Francis E. Fronczak, health officer of the city of Buffalo.
Arthur Kreinheder, commissioner of public works and councilman of the
city of Buffalo.
John F. Malone, commissioner of parks and public buildings and
councilman of the city of Buffalo.
Charles B. Hill, commissioner of finance and councilman of the city
of Buffalo.
Capt. George H. Norton, city engineer of Buffalo.
Carl L. Howell, assistant engineer in charge of sewers, department of
public works, city of Buffalo.
George Clinton, of Buffalo, representing the Erie & Ontario Sanitary
Canal Co.
F. C. Perkins, of Buffalo, N. Y.
R. L. Seelbach, of Buffalo, N. Y.
George R. Milks, secretary chamber of commerce, Lackawanna, N. Y.
O. E. Carr, city manager, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
William B. Bennett, city engineer, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
Secretary Kluttz read the following letter received from Mr. Theodore
Horton, chief engineer, New York State Department of Health, under
date of June 20, 1916:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
_Albany, June 20, 1916_.
Mr. WHITEHEAD KLUTTZ,
_Secretary International Joint Commission,
Southern Building, Washington, D. C.,
City Hall, Buffalo, N. Y._
DEAR SIR: Commissioner Biggs wishes me to explain to you
that owing to extreme pressure of duties in the department
at this time it does not seem possible for him to have a
representative of this department at the meeting of the
International Joint Commission at Buffalo on June 21.
The commissioner wishes to assure you, however, of our
continued interest in this subject, and to assure you also
of our extended cooperation and assistance at any time so
far as it is within our resources.
Very truly, yours,
THEODORE HORTON, _Chief Engineer_.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Clinton, do you appear in behalf of anyone other
than yourself?
Mr. CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Erie & Ontario Canal Co.,
which has a plan that will take care of all this sewage. That plan
has been presented to this commission three times, and I, therefore,
did not propose at this time to speak upon the subject. You have
among your records a full exposition of the plan and what it is
expected to do. I am here this morning rather as a listener. I expect
subsequently to present our views to the council of the city of
Buffalo, they having had no opportunity to investigate the questions.
I have read your report, and I must say that it exhibits not only
thorough research but also some----
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Clinton, will you allow me to interrupt you in
order to ask a question? You have read the report of the consulting
sanitary engineer of the commission, have you not? I refer to that
part of it at least which deals with the project in which you are
interested as a means of sewage disposal.
Mr. CLINTON. Yes. In the press of business I have read it rather
hastily and without making it a study.
Mr. TAWNEY. I wanted to ask if you took issue with the report of the
consulting engineer with respect to the conclusions which he has
reached regarding the drainage or diversion canal. Do you appear for
the purpose of making any criticism of those conclusions?
Mr. CLINTON. No; not at this juncture. If the commission will permit
me, I may subsequently submit a printed brief without taking the time
here by either criticizing or attempting to modify in the minds of
the commission the views of the experts. I think it would be a loss
of time now and result in no good.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Kreinheder, I believe you were about to make a
statement and were interrupted.
Mr. KREINHEDER. I was merely going to say that the city of Buffalo
extends its greetings to this commission. Since your last meeting
in this city Buffalo has taken on an entirely new cloak in that it
is now governed under a new form of government, the commission form
of government. All the powers for conducting the city’s business
are vested in five men. The propositions that this council has to
deal with are many. One of them is the pollution of boundary waters,
the subject that you gentlemen have under consideration at this
time. The new administration since the issue of your report has
not had time to go into it thoroughly in order to determine which
of the six plans that you suggest is feasible. It may be that your
commission can suggest which one of those plans is feasible. However,
if that is left to the different cities it will be necessary, in
order to satisfy our municipality and the taxpayers, to employ an
engineer to go over your suggestion with respect to these different
plans and determine which of them is the most feasible. After that
determination is made there comes a question of providing the money,
and that may possibly take considerable time, because without money
these big projects can not be carried out.
Now, that in toto is our proposition to-day. The council is
represented here and is very glad to extend to the commission every
courtesy and at the same time do all we possibly can in order to
bring out the points involved and see whether we can carry this
matter to a proper solution. That is the attitude of the city of
Buffalo, and we would like you gentlemen to so understand it.
Mr. CLINTON. May I be permitted to ask a question? The jurisdiction
of this commission depends entirely upon the determination of the
question as to whether the pollution of boundary waters affects
the waters on both sides of the boundary lines. If it does not,
the commission of course has no jurisdiction, and it is not an
international question. But I understand that the commission
has heretofore determined that in the case of the Niagara River
the discharge of sewage by the city of Buffalo does affect the
international waters, and that therefore the question involved
in this vicinity is an international question. Since the final
determination of the location of the boundary line I think the prior
attitude--if I may call it an attitude--assumed by the commission in
that regard is strongly fortified; but I do not understand whether
the commission has yet decided that the present and inevitable
growth of the discharge of sewage into the Niagara River so affects
the health, the welfare, and I may say, to a certain extent, the
business of both communities--that is, the community on either side
of the line--as to make it necessary that no sewage from the city
of Buffalo--and I may add Lackawanna--shall be discharged into the
Niagara River through the lake. I do not recall in the reports any
such decision.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that the bacteriological examination
of the Niagara River shows conclusively that the waters are being
polluted clear across the stream to an extent that is injurious to
health and property on the other side?
Mr. CLINTON. I drew that conclusion from one of the reports made by
the commission.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is included in the progress report, the report of
the bacteriologists.
Mr. CLINTON. Yes; but I am not aware that the commission has decided
that the extent of that is such that the discharge of sewage must be
stopped.
Now, I regard that as of considerable importance not merely to
my people but to the city of Buffalo, and I wish to say to this
commission that I am more deeply interested on the part of the city
of Buffalo than I am on the part of our proposed corporation. The
expense to the city of Buffalo in caring for that sewage, if it must
be taken out of the Niagara River altogether, will be tremendous.
That is the reason I asked the question.
Your honorable commission will say to our people eventually that
this sewage must be taken out. I think some limit has been placed
upon it, but I regard that as merely tentative; it must be taken out
eventually. Then it becomes a mere question for the city authorities
to determine upon the methods of caring for the sewage.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Clinton, speaking for myself as a member of the
commission, I would say that the report of our sanitary experts
submitted to the commission in January, 1914, shows quite
conclusively that the waters of the Niagara River, together with the
waters of other connecting rivers, are being polluted in violation of
the treaty.
Mr. CLINTON. Yes; there is no doubt about that.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is not the function of the commission in this
investigation to decide anything finally or to decide in advance
whether or not we should recommend to the two Governments that the
cities be called upon to do thus and so, but in the event that these
waters are found to be polluted in violation of the treaty we are
required by the two Governments to recommend to them what remedies
we propose for this pollution, which is being allowed to go on in
contravention of the treaty.
For the purpose of ascertaining the most feasible remedy the
commission has employed consulting sanitary engineers, who have
been engaged now for more than a year on investigations at Buffalo,
Detroit, and other places. They have embodied in their report to the
commission certain suggestions and recommendations with respect to
remedies.
This report was sent out six weeks before this meeting to the various
municipalities in order that they might familiarize themselves with
the proposed remedies for the pollution which has been found to
exist in violation of the treaty, and our purpose in being here is
to confer with the representatives of the various municipalities
that are affected to ascertain what their judgment is as to the
remedies which have been proposed by our consulting engineers. This
information is desired by the commission before we submit to the
two Governments a final report embodying our recommendations. We
desire to see what suggestions or criticisms these municipalities
have to make, because there is no denying the fact that pollution
does exist in contravention of the treaty. That fact has been
established by bacteriological examination. Nor is there any question
that it must stop from an international standpoint. That is, both
Governments, having solemnly agreed by treaty that such pollution
should not be permitted to the injury of the health or property of
the people of either country, that treaty obligation will have to
be observed. Of course, it is the hope of the commission that these
municipalities will cooperate as far as possible in agreeing upon
some recommended remedy that will be practicable and feasible so that
the two Governments may reach an agreement as to what should be done
hereafter. As stated by the chairman, that is the purpose of our
being here.
Mr. CLINTON. I understand the purpose of the commission in being
here, and the purpose as stated by you is the position which the
commission has taken from the beginning. I must beg the pardon of the
commission in using the inaccurate word “decided.” I should have said
“concluded.”
The problems, it seems to me, are of such a nature--I do not know
that I ought to say this, as it seems to be offering advice to
the commission--that after the city authorities have had ample
opportunity to investigate the matter for themselves you would be
able to arrive at results, and it would be more satisfactory to
yourselves and to the city than to attempt to do it at this time.
Mr. TAWNEY. As I understand it, our consulting sanitary engineers
have been working here with the officials of Buffalo for over a year.
Mr. CLINTON. That is true.
Mr. TAWNEY. They were even advised when the report was submitted to
the commission what the report would be, and we supposed by giving
them six weeks’ time in which to study the specific recommendations
made by the consulting engineers that the municipal authorities here
would be able to give the commission some information as to whether
or not the proposed remedies reasonably meet with their approval.
Mr. CLINTON. Although I ought not to speak for the city government,
as I am on my feet, will you permit me to say that a suggestion has
been made and I will be presumptuous enough to answer it. It is
suggested by our commissioner of public works and also a member of
the city government that the recent change in our form of government
has thrown upon the members of the council such a tremendous burden
of work that it is impossible for them to determine from all points
of view, financial and otherwise, in such a short time as six weeks
what they will be willing to recommend to the citizens. The time has
been too short, in other words.
Mr. TAWNEY. I do not think the commission contemplates asking any
of the municipalities to join with it in recommending any specific
remedies, but we want to hear what the municipalities have to say
with respect to the practicability or advisability of the remedies
that are proposed. Of course the question of finance is one that
will have to be taken up later.
Mr. CLINTON. It is a very serious question in this city and is
directly involved in determining what they will recommend. While
fully agreeing with the report of your experts, they might think
that something less costly, something that would extend the burden
over a greater period of time, would answer all the purposes and be
of a nature that would satisfy your experts and accomplish the same
results.
Mr. TAWNEY. Well, the commission has had this under consideration
for nearly three years, as you will recall, Mr. Clinton; and the
municipalities, especially Buffalo and Detroit, must have been
studying the subject from the international standpoint, fully
realizing, no doubt, that the time has come when they must cease
using these rivers as open sewers and make some other provision for
sewage disposal. It is not the desire of the commission to make
arbitrary recommendations to the two Governments without conferring
with the municipalities in order to get their views and to recommend
that which is feasible and also desirable within their financial
ability to comply with. That is one reason why we are trying in every
way to cooperate with the municipalities that are interested.
Mr. CLINTON. No doubt that is a very gracious and wise decision on
the part of the commission. I was simply trying to point out that it
would be impossible, it seems to me, for the city government at this
time to undertake to give views upon this subject. Councilman Hill is
present and can speak upon that subject.
Mr. HILL. Why do you not let the city government speak for itself?
Mr. CLINTON. I have been drawn into this argument.
Mr. MALONE. As this is the last analysis of the financial
proposition, I think Commissioner Hill, of the department of finance
and account, as representing the city government, might throw some
light on the matter from a financial standpoint.
Mr. HILL. With regard to that I would suggest that the commission,
having held these hearings for several years, has probably found the
simple and expeditious way of moving along. I would suggest that
Prof. Phelps be called on for a statement. He would enlighten us
as to his ideas regarding what ought to be done and the different
methods proposed. Of course, the financial proposition come in
eventually. When we have heard what methods the commission has to
present we will be in a better shape to take the matter up.
Mr. MALONE. It was that thought that prompted me to suggest to our
distinguished friend, Mr. Clinton, that “John speak for himself.”
Mr. HILL. I think the only difference is that it would be better for
us to speak later. I think we would save time in that way.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, would you hear a brief statement on the
general subject? The question before the commission, I believe,
relates to the effect on the people in the various cities of the
pollution of the waters of the Niagara River that are used for
domestic and sanitary purposes. Is it not true that, if there is not
involved the water that is to be used for drinking purposes in the
various cities, then very largely the pollution of the Niagara River
is a matter that is not of such great importance? For instance, the
city of Buffalo has pumping stations that will take care of the whole
Niagara frontier. If arrangements can be made through legislation
whereby the cities of Niagara Falls, the Tonawandas, and Lockport can
be supplied with pure water from these tremendous pumping stations,
and the cost of water to them, as well as to the city of Buffalo,
can be very largely reduced by taking care of the enormous overhead
charges, it will very largely do away with the expenditure of
$3,600,000 by Buffalo and smaller amounts by the other cities that
are discharging sewage into the Niagara River.
The health of the people is affected only by the drinking of the
water of the Niagara River, and the solution can be obtained at
very much less expense to the city of Buffalo and the other cities
involved.
The smell that arises at Niagara Falls, and regarding which complaint
has been made, is not due to the pollution of Niagara River by
Buffalo sewage, because oxidation of that sewage occurs and the
tremendous current takes away any stench before it reaches Niagara
Falls. The difficulty at Niagara Falls is due to the dumping of
the sewage into the Niagara River and there being thrown back upon
the people of Niagara Falls their own sewage; it is not due to the
sewage of Buffalo or any other city on the Niagara River. The city of
Chicago built a drainage canal, which, as you say, is an open sewer.
It went to the expense of $100,000,000 to build that drainage canal,
because formerly it was discharging its sewage into its own lake, the
source of its water supply. It had no natural drainage canal such as
Buffalo has through the Niagara River to carry off that sewage in a
sanitary manner.
Congressman Mann, within the last few day, in discussing in Congress
the La Follette amendment requiring Chicago not to take more than
250,000 cubic feet per minute from the lake through this drainage
canal, when they are now taking practically double that amount,
pointed out that any other way of correcting the sewage proposition
for Chicago would have cost that city $250,000,000 instead of
the $100,000,000 that it did cost, and yet that canal is a very
slow-moving stream, carrying only 4,167 cubic feet per second, as
required under the treaty. That is equivalent to only one-sixtieth
of the amount of water that is passing through the Niagara River. If
there were a drainage canal built from the city of Buffalo to Lake
Ontario, it would carry only about 6,000 cubic feet per second under
the treaty, and that is one-fortieth of the amount going through
Niagara River at a tremendous rate of speed. The necessity for this
tremendous expenditure is, I think, overestimated. I think when
the drinking water of all those cities is provided for the expense
will be absolutely nil. The water, as it absorbs the sewage in the
drainage canal at Chicago, has its purification entirely through
the free oxygen that is in the drainage canal as it passes along.
Here in the Niagara River we have 60 times as much water to absorb
the sewage, and it has more than 100 times the value on account of
the tremendous current that forces the sewage up to the surface and
utilizes the oxygen in the air to purify it long before it reaches
those cities.
I would like to ask whether the question of the pollution of the
Niagara River as it is considered by you is not entirely from the
standpoint of the health of the people on both sides of the line,
not only as to the odors that come from it, but also as a drinking
proposition; that is, whether those are the only two problems that
are being considered?
Mr. MIGNAULT. You have probably forgotten one thing which is very
important, and that is that this is an international question. Even
if you could supply water to these municipalities on your own side,
that would not prevent the Niagara River being polluted to the danger
of people living on the other side of the line.
Mr. PERKINS. On account of the tremendous current in the Niagara
River, with the sewage from this side passing down, the cities of
Bridgeburg and Fort Erie are free to take their water for drinking
purposes on their side of the river, so that the international
feature, I think, is largely eliminated, and the only other city is
Niagara Falls, Ontario. There a great power canal is about to be
installed, developing 3,000 horsepower and taking pure water from
Lake Erie through the Welland Canal. There is a vast supply of which
only a mere fraction is necessary for the city of Niagara Falls on
the Canadian side. So you have eliminated all the troubles, so far as
drinking water is concerned, of all those cities, and the question
of drinking water, I think, is of vital importance. But we are going
to spend $3,600,000 on the sewage proposition when a mere fraction
of that amount will take care of the subsewage which without the
slightest doubt needs renovating, especially in view of the fact that
no solution in the way of chemical treatment could possibly make
that water available to those people for drinking purposes along
the lower Niagara. The chemists have confidence in both the sludge
proposition and the other treatments. For instance, at Milwaukee they
will even take a glass of the effluent and drink it, but it does not
follow that the people of Tonawanda and Lockport should want that
kind of drinking water when we can give them pure water from Lake
Erie cheaper, on account of the tremendous pumpage facilities we have
here, than they can pump it for themselves.
We need a filtration plant, and by spending $1,500,000 of that money
for that purpose we could have a plant that would supply all those
cities with the purest water 365 days in the year. It is true that
during the stormy seasons we have periods when the water is in a very
bad condition. The danger from typhoid, however, can be taken care of
by treating the water with chlorine.
Mr. GARDNER. The difficulty is that there is no question referred
to this International Joint Commission by the two Governments as to
whether or not the people in any particular locality are getting pure
water for drinking or domestic purposes. The question submitted to us
to determine is whether the international waters are being polluted
to the injury of health or property on either side of the line. The
people here are interested in the question of pure water, and that
applies all the way to Niagara Falls, but the people on the other
side of the line would not be concerned at all about that. So that
the question for the commission to determine is not whether or not it
is possible for Buffalo and these contiguous towns to get pure water;
but the question for us to determine is whether or not these waters
are being polluted, in contravention of the treaty; and if so, what
remedy we propose.
Mr. PERKINS. But the reason for the consideration of the pollution is
the health of the people on both sides of the river. If the health
of the people on both sides of the river can be taken care of, and
it is only for drinking purposes, and you are producing an effluent
of 200,000,000 gallons that has been treated and used for drinking
purposes by either side, it is dangerous, ultimately, because with
the growth of this city to a million people, we will include the
whole Niagara frontier as one city. It means taking care of the
Canadian side, too, but what cities are there on the other side that
are being injured?
Mr. GARDNER. I am not familiar enough with it to say.
Mr. PERKINS. There is not a town outside of Bridgeburg that is
utilizing water from the Niagara River. There is only Fort Erie and
Bridgeburg, and they have the purest water to take it from. They
have the Niagara River, which runs at the rate of 6 or 7 miles an
hour. They can get the purest water--and the finest of fish live
there--if they take it from the upper intake. I believe the whole
question is one that is very easily solved by economical means for
the benefit of the people on both sides, at one-hundredth of the
expense of the tremendous sewage disposal plant, which in itself
will be unsatisfactory. You can not take the sludge and compress
it within the city limits and dry it and sell it as fertilizer and
not produce a worse sanitary condition than you have now. Then,
the drainage canal from here across to Lake Ontario would be a
slow-moving stream, as proposed by the Lake Ontario power canal
sanitary proposition. That would cost $25,000,000, and would not be
a solution of the difficulty, because it would be an open sewer, and
would be in a worse condition than at present, because it would be a
sluggish stream. There is no question but that this matter should be
considered carefully.
Mr. GARDNER. I agree with you fully in that last statement.
Mr. TAWNEY. Do you say there is no pollution of these waters on the
Canadian side by reason of dumping of raw sewage on this side of the
Niagara River?
Mr. PERKINS. I say there is no place where they are using it for
drinking purposes, and there is 60 times as much water passing
through the Niagara River as at the Chicago Drainage Canal. That
would not in any way interfere with the health of the people on the
Canadian side; so that I do not think the Canadian side is interested
as much as the American side.
Mr. TAWNEY. The hearing at Niagara Falls a year ago last September
showed conclusively that the waters on that side are polluted from
the intake or from sewage dumped into the river from this side.
Mr. PERKINS. Some of it gets across.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are they using that water for drinking purposes there?
Mr. PERKINS. Yes.
Mr. TAWNEY. I am referring to Niagara Falls intake.
Mr. PERKINS. I think the sewage at Niagara Falls can be taken care of
by taking the drinking water from Lake Erie through the Welland power
canal they are talking about.
Mr. TAWNEY. We have not power to compel the people over there to
accept water from this side.
Mr. PERKINS. I was referring to the power canal proposed to be
constructed by the Ontario government. There will be pure water to
supply Niagara Falls, Ontario, and they will have better water than
any water that has been treated after the sewage of Buffalo has been
treated and these cities have gone into it.
Mr. DALLYN. We have been producing water from the lower Niagara
River, at lower Niagara, for some 15,000 troops and a population of
5,000.
Mr. PERKINS. In reference to the aeration of the water, the Niagara
Falls is the finest sanitation plant that could possibly be
built--far better than any sanitation plant that could be built--for
chemical treatment or otherwise, because the air is thoroughly
distributed all through the water that comes down. The water becomes
atomized, and the aeration of that water absolutely purifies it.
Mr. TAWNEY. In the lower Niagara?
Mr. PERKINS. As it goes over the Falls. Every bit of water that goes
over the Falls is aerated.
Mr. TAWNEY. The experts show it is polluted from shore to shore.
Mr. POWELL. Do you mean that by sedimentation the heavy parts go to
the bottom?
Mr. PERKINS. I mean the parts of sewage are so thoroughly diffused
into the water and oxidized on the way down Niagara River that after
going over the Falls it is practically sterilized.
Mr. POWELL. By what special creation have we some 30,000 or more
bacilli or bacteria to the cubic centimeter on the Niagara River
below the Falls? You evidently have not read the report. The thing is
a perfect sewer below the Falls.
Mr. PERKINS. It is not from Buffalo sewage; it is the city of Niagara
Falls sewage, which is dumped over the river bank and atomized,
sending the odor back over the city.
Mr. POWELL. You will have to knock out of existence a great many
facts that have been shown by a scientific examination of the water
if you establish your proposition.
Mr. PERKINS. Has there been any report that it is Buffalo sewage that
has caused the difficulty or the city of Niagara Falls sewage dumping
into the lower river, with no aeration and a long trip through the
Niagara River for 20 miles or more?