Mr. PERKINS. I mean the water is good above the Falls but polluted by
the sewers of the city of Niagara Falls, not Buffalo.
Mr. POWELL. We assume the excreta from the people of Buffalo is about
the same as the excreta from the people in Tonawanda and other places
downstream.
Mr. PERKINS. It is a question whether the Buffalo water has not been
purified on the way down the Niagara River for 20 miles.
Mr. POWELL. Running water might purify itself.
Mr. PERKINS. The city of Milwaukee is aerating the water by putting
compressed air through tanks, and that is one of the sewage-treatment
propositions adopted recently. The Imhoff tank requires all kinds of
arrangements; but they claim that the compressed air and activated
sludge system is a far better scheme, using the free oxygen in the
air to oxidize the impurities of the water. So that if Buffalo can
give all these cities drinking water, and if they can also get it on
the Canadian side from the lake, it would seem as though it would
largely obviate the difficulty.
Dr. SY. Years ago I used to take the water below the Falls, and there
is practically no purification by aeration.
Mr. POWELL. That statement is borne out by the report. The aeration
is not sufficient. It does not purify it by going over the Falls.
Mr. PERKINS. Just one statement in reference to that Milwaukee
sterilization plant. It is stated that they have the free oxygen
of the compressed air for the oxidation of it. But here is the
proposition: Chicago is taking care of the sewage without any
treatment whatever through a drainage canal of 250,000 cubic feet
per minute, and we have in Niagara River a natural drainage-canal
proposition of 60 times the value of that drainage canal for diluting
the water, with many, many times greater swiftness of current, or
25,000 cubic feet per second. The drainage canal at Chicago moves so
slowly you can hardly see it. Why is it necessary to throw away the
advantages of this tremendous Niagara River drainage canal which we
have now, when it is not affecting the water, as far as the health of
either American or Canadian citizens from typhoid is concerned?
Mr. TAWNEY. To what extent is the drainage canal of Chicago used for
sanitary or domestic purposes?
Mr. PERKINS. It is simply a power and drainage canal; it is not
supposed to be used at all for drinking purposes. If you can not use
Lake Erie water, and if Niagara River must be used for drinking only
after treatment, then I will acknowledge it is absolutely necessary
to do something in reference to this pollution, but if it is possible
to use the Lake Erie water in Canadian towns without this expense,
it seems to me it is wise to do it; at least, for the immediate
situation. When a great city is found on the Canadian side and they
must draw their water from the Niagara River for drinking purposes,
then it is time to take action. It would seem to be a tremendously
expensive experiment to make with very little return.
Mr. TAWNEY. I want to read a paragraph from the report of our
sanitary expert, the best that could be obtained in both countries.
He says:
The examination of samples taken from cross section below
Buckhorn and Navy Islands showed undiminished pollution on
the United States side. On the Canadian side, the water,
though less polluted, was still dangerous, and should not
be used without a most careful treatment; otherwise its use
is liable to give rise to periodic epidemics of intestinal
diseases.
The results from the examination of samples collected in
the gorge just below the two Falls demonstrate that the
pollution coming over is more uniformly distributed. There
is a popular impression that the action of the Falls tends
to purify sewage. It does not remove it or its dangers.
It simply mixes it more thoroughly with the water. The
pollution below the Falls is gross.
Mr. PERKINS. Do you think your commission will recommend, even with
the expenditure of $100,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 on the river
for sewage treatment, the use of that water for drinking purposes?
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you read the report of the engineers as to how much
was necessary to be expended for such treatment?
Mr. PERKINS. No; I have not.
Mr. TAWNEY. You are out ninety-seven millions.
Mr. PERKINS. The expenditure of between $3,000,000 and $3,500,000
means a vast amount to the taxpayers of this city and all those along
the frontier. Will your commission recommend, after such a plant has
been built, that water from Niagara, containing this large amount of
bacteria, regardless of the chemical treatment, should be suitable or
desirable to be taken for drinking purposes when pure water can be
delivered from Lake Erie by pumping stations on both sides at a far
cheaper rate than they can build a plant to take care of the sewage?
The small cities can not do it with the tremendous overhead charges
and the inefficiency of small pumping stations, while we have two
large pumping stations that cost, with intake tunnel, $10,000,000,
and we can supply drinking water to all the frontier, if we only
obtain the legal right to do it, cheaper than they can pump Niagara
River water even after treatment.
Mr. POWELL. That is an alternative scheme you suggest. I think we
are drifting away from the subject matter. There is no question the
commission has come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that a
condition of affairs exists on the Niagara frontier that must be
remedied; that the evil results of depositing sewage on one bank
of the stream is felt on the other side of the boundary line, more
particularly that which comes from the United States than the
Canadian. We are here having gone to great expense in the formulation
by our experts of schemes for the solution of this difficulty. We
have not absolutely adopted any scheme as yet, but we have laid this
scheme before the people on this frontier and up the Detroit River
for their consideration. A couple of months’ time has been at their
disposal to take it up and consider it. We are here to see whether
you accept it, or whether, instead of accepting it, you have any
scheme to offer in place of this; and what you have to suggest,
taking what you say at its face, is entitled to a great deal of
consideration, but we can not take your ipse dixit for these matters
as against scientific men. Is the city, and are the others who are
interested, prepared to lay schemes before us, with any data that
will reasonably back them up, for our consideration? That is the
question.
Mr. PERKINS. But you are considering the drainage power canal from
Buffalo to Lake Ontario, which means an open sewer which you are
condemning as existing in Niagara River.
Mr. POWELL. We are not condemning anything. From a sanitary
standpoint there is a condition of affairs which needs a remedy. Our
expert has taken into consideration all the schemes, and he has made
a report; and we have laid it before you and desire to know if you
accept it or if you reject it, and have you anything to advance as a
substitute for it.
Mr. PERKINS. I did not say you were condemning the sanitary canal but
the pollution of Niagara River.
Mr. POWELL. We are not condemning anything.
Mr. PERKINS. You are condemning the pollution of the Niagara River as
an open sewer.
Mr. POWELL. No. We have had Prof. Phelps and others to suggest a
scheme, and we lay the results of their investigations before you,
and we ask you, Do you accept it; and, if not, have you anything to
offer in its place? We have not come to the point of deciding or
rejecting anything yet. That will arise later.
Mr. PERKINS. Do you consider that a solution?
Mr. POWELL. I am not saying anything about that at all.
Mr. PERKINS. In the matter of a solution, we supply all the
drinking-water requirements without the necessity of taking the
water from the Niagara River but from Lake Erie, and therefore you
have ten times better conditions than the Chicago Drainage Canal,
which has cost $100,000,000. If you can give us something better
by spending $3,000,000 than the Chicago Drainage Canal, which cost
$100,000,000--and we have just as good a thing here----
Mr. POWELL. We have nothing to do with Chicago at all. We are here
for Niagara and the lake.