Dr. FRONCZAK. First of all, I want to congratulate the commission
and engineers on the excellent report published in the document
issued last March. It shows a most thorough study, and also shows
that, notwithstanding statements made this morning, there is greater
contamination below than above--at least more contamination. But
there is one thing forgotten by the engineers in this report
apparently that Capt. Norton has mentioned--that the surface drainage
is not considered. I do not believe any city is justified in turning
raw sewage into any stream of that kind. But even if we do treat
sewage that way, we will still have an immense amount of surface
drainage from contaminated streams.
Mr. POWELL. You mean outside of the cities?
Dr. FRONCZAK. No, not outside; and that surface drainage will have
to be considered all the time; in other words, no matter what is
done about the disposal of sewage, you still must purify the water
after it gets to the mains for drinking purposes. In Buffalo we have
most excellent results; and I want to place in the record of the
commission the fact that the use of chlorine gas has considerably
reduced the number of typhoid cases in Buffalo. Last year, 1915,
shows that, notwithstanding the fact that Buffalo was larger and
more populous than ever before, we had fewer cases of typhoid fever
than ever before in the history of the department of health. We had
fewer deaths from typhoid in Buffalo last year than at any time in
the history of the department. We had this year, from January 1 to
June 20, only 61 cases of typhoid in Buffalo, and only 16 deaths,
which is so low that the United States Government, the New York State
department of health, and the scientific societies have complimented
the city on the results attained, and this was due to the
purification of the water supply by chlorine gas; and that is a thing
that must be considered all the time on the question of pollution of
these streams, not only the removal of the solids, the sterilization,
or the removal of as much pollution as is possible, but the removal
of danger of contamination from surface drainage. Incidentally I
might state that since August, 1914, when the chlorine gas was used
in Buffalo, the total number of bacteria, which, I believe, have
run into thousands day after day in Buffalo, have fallen as low as
four per hundred centimeters; and while in former years we had colon
bacilli in the water, since 1914 to date only on one single day did
we find colon bacilli. So that shows conclusively that the use of
chlorine gas, the way we are using it, renders the water more safe,
and that this will have to be considered in connection with the
pollution of these streams.
Mr. TAWNEY. When did you commence the use of chlorine gas?
Dr. FRONCZAK. August, 1914.
Mr. TAWNEY. Two years?
Dr. FRONCZAK. Yes; only on one single day in all this time did we
find colon bacilli where we formerly found it repeatedly, and the
death rate of Buffalo for typhoid fever to-day is below 10 per
100,000 population. The fall has been so steady the last five years,
and especially within two years, that the State department of health
sent congratulations to the mayor of Buffalo and to the department.
Mr. POWELL. What was your death rate before?
Dr. FRONCZAK. Seventeen, 19, 25; last year it was below 10. It is
growing less all the time, and Buffalo is a growing city.
Mr. TAWNEY. Were there any other changes made in your system to which
any part of this could be attributed?
Dr. FRONCZAK. Yes; the new tunnel. With the construction of the
tunnel we found a difference, and the fly exterminator contributed
some. But the use of chlorine gas is the best investment Buffalo has
made for the reduction of death rate that I know of.
Capt. NORTON. We started using water from the new intake in January,
1912, but it was not used entirely. There was some water used from
the old intake. For 1912, 1913, and 1914 the death rate was 13½
per 100,000, and for the 10 years previous to the opening of the
new intake it was 24½. So that we had a reduction prior to the
introduction of chlorine gas of 12 per 100,000, and last year it was
10, and this year it is below that.
Mr. TAWNEY. You can not attribute the favorable result entirely to
the use of chlorine gas?
Capt. NORTON. Two things. The other is getting into the best thread
of the current, which was done on the advice of Mr. George Fuller,
and that worked out well; and one of the points I tried to bring out
before your commission--that where you had the thread of the current,
which was apparently pure, compared with the remainder of the stream,
perhaps the average condition over the whole thread of the current
would impose somewhat of a hardship on the city of Buffalo in the way
of reduction of 90 per cent which you propose here, which seems to me
too high.
Dr. FRONCZAK. I would like to place some figures before the
commission as to the death rate in Buffalo, as follows:
Total number of deaths for 1915 6,853
Total number of cases of typhoid fever for 1915 259
Total number of deaths from typhoid fever in 1915 46
Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive, 1916 [1]3,374
Total number of typhoid cases to June 20 61
Total number of deaths January to May, inclusive 16
[1] Does not include stillbirths.
Mr. SEELBACH. I refer you to a journal published by the Society of
Economic Industry, of London, England, dated June, 1915, a lecture
given by J. Grossman on the disposal of sewage sludge. The article is
very long, and I will quote the following:
It is to be hoped that draining this enormous waste of
material which should go back to the land, and which
represents a value of at least £2,000,000 per annum in this
country, will not continue indefinitely, and that it will
be recognized that sewage sludge is a national asset which
should be dealt with by the Government in the interest of
agriculture, to which a cheap and inefficient manure will
be of incalculable benefit.
Mr. PERKINS. I will call attention to a statement by the commissioner
of health of Chicago, Ill., that “For the 10-year period preceding
the opening of the tunnel the typhoid rate was 57.9 per 100,000, and
after the opening of the tunnel it was reduced to 5.39 per 100,000. I
believe not only the drainage canal but the introduction of chlorine
gas had an effect on that.” This is from the remarks of John Dill
Robertson, commissioner of health of Chicago, Ill., published in the
Congressional Record. Here it is a question of international boundary
streams; but what is there so sacred or so holy about international
streams that they are different from the Mississippi River, where
they encourage the introduction of all the Chicago sewage and
everything into the river? There are millions of inhabitants on that
river who take that water for drinking purposes, where here we are
expected to spend two or three millions for sewage treatment, for
the benefit of whom? On the American side they have the chlorine
proposition, which has reduced the death rate of Niagara Falls. Here
you have investigated the proposition years ago, before the chlorine
gas was available for the sterilization of the water, and it is said
we must decide on spending $3,000,000 of money to avoid pollution of
Niagara River. It is entirely unnecessary.
Mr. POWELL. Can something practical come out of this? If you have a
scheme to submit, put it on paper.
Mr. PERKINS. Inasmuch as all drinking water can be supplied from Lake
Erie, for various purposes, that is a solution in itself. We have
already a solution.
Mr. POWELL. Tell us what the cost of the trunk main is going to be.
Mr. PERKINS. Merely a few thousand dollars.
Mr. POWELL. Down to Niagara?
Mr. PERKINS. Through to Tonawanda, on this side; and this water-pipe
line becomes the means for the distribution of a greater city, with
its suburbs, which must have water anyhow.
Mr. POWELL. I doubt very much if $50,000 would dig your ditch.
Mr. PERKINS. I am simply talking of the main; I am not talking about
the Canadian side; but I said $50,000 or $100,000 would carry the
necessary water main for Tonawanda, or even as far as Niagara Falls,
depending, of course, upon its size, providing for the future needs.
Mr. POWELL. We want facts, not the imagination.
Mr. PERKINS. The engineers could state this better; but it would be a
mere bagatelle as compared with $3,000,000 for the sewage treatment
necessary, and then the river water would not be desirable for
drinking purposes.
Mr. GARDNER. Could Prof. Phelps make a statement in regard to the
cooperation we are seeking and the desirability of it, and also what
the gist of the reference is. It should be fresh in our minds before
we talk ourselves.
Mr. POWELL. We have had it from Capt. Norton and the others. Ask the
authorities of Buffalo city exactly what they want. Do they want a
postponement of the hearing; and if so, how long?
Mr. KREINHEDER. How long would it take your engineer to make this
study?
Mr. POWELL. Your engineers are working with them. They collaborated
on this.
Capt. NORTON. The work the city did was in furnishing the information
and discussing the differences here. We had a good many talks over
the local conditions and getting such ideas as they had. There was
no work done by the department of public works on the report further
than a discussion in this way.
Mr. POWELL. And it takes a much shorter time to revise than it would
to work out the scheme in the first instance.
Capt. NORTON. I do not suppose you would care to have us work out
another plan?
Mr. TAWNEY. I was going to suggest that it might not be necessary
to have a further hearing, as I understand Capt. Norton and Mr.
Hill. What they contemplate doing is employing sanitary experts or
engineers to go over this matter and consider such modifications as
were suggested by Capt. Norton this morning, and their conclusions
could be submitted to us in the form of a report to us without
any further hearing. As I understand it the city of Buffalo does
not wish to have any more hearings, but they wish to submit some
considerations based upon reports from sanitary engineers.
Capt. NORTON. That would be my engineering idea, and in connection
with that suggestion it would occur to me that the other cities might
join in an examination of that kind, so that we could have their
ideas.
Dr. CLARK. I am not able to speak for the council of Tonawanda or
North Tonawanda, but I think that suggestion is a very good one, and
they might cooperate in that.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. Hill, you and the commissioner of public works were
authorized to speak for the city in that regard.
Mr. HILL. I believe we were, informally.
Mr. POWELL. The only point is that we have been so long over this
there will be a good deal of criticism in regard to it. Now, we want
a matter of hard and fast business. We do not want to hurry you at
all, but to have some definite understanding.
Mr. HILL. In regard to that, after Mr. Tawney made some remarks to
Capt. Norton, I thought perhaps I should say, speaking for myself,
and indirectly for the council, I would not want it understood, so
far as I am concerned, that we are committing ourselves to a possible
modification of the plan that has been suggested.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is not so understood by me or anybody else. I used
that merely as an illustration.
Mr. HILL. I wanted to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
Mr. GEORGE CLINTON, Jr. The last remarks made brought to my attention
something that has been running through my mind during this hearing,
and that is that it might be of some assistance if the city officials
clearly understood the scope of this investigation. I have no doubt
perhaps they might, but I confess I have not been able to get it
clearly.
Mr. TAWNEY. We were just going to call on Prof. Phelps, our
consulting engineer, to make a statement.
Mr. GEORGE CLINTON, Jr. I wish to ask one question in regard to it,
and I will be through. The sanitary experts of the commission have
determined that the city pollutes the water of the Niagara River by
the discharge of sewage, and they have recommended certain means of
stopping that pollution. Now, is not the province of this commission
to determine the result that is to be obtained--that is, the
cessation of that pollution--leaving it to the city authorities to
determine the means of putting a stop to it, with the advice merely
of the commission? Is that statement correct?
Mr. TAWNEY. Not exactly, as I understand it.
Mr. POWELL. That has been my idea all along, but that is not the idea
of the majority of the commission. My idea is that we should demand
or ask for certain results. As to how those results are to be brought
about, leave it entirely to the judgment of the municipalities. But
we have gone further than that and have had the methods investigated.
Mr. MAGRATH. This is merely to show they are practical.
Mr. TAWNEY. The second clause of the reference clearly indicates that
the two Governments expect the commission, in its final report, to
recommend to them what remedies are advisable or necessary to prevent
the pollution which we found existed in contravention of the treaty.
The second clause of the reference reads:
In what way or manner, whether by the construction
and operation of suitable drainage canals or plants
at convenient points or otherwise, is it possible and
advisable to remedy or prevent the pollution of these
waters, and by what means or arrangement can the proper
construction or operation of remedial or preventive works,
or a system or method of rendering those waters sanitary
and suitable for domestic and other uses be best secured
and maintained in order to insure the adequate protection
and development of all interests involved on both sides of
the boundary, and to fulfill the obligations undertaken in
Article IV of the waterways treaty of January 11, 1909,
between the United States and Great Britain, in which it
is agreed that the waters therein defined as boundary
waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be
polluted on either side to the injury of health or property
on the other?
So that we must not only determine the effect of the pollution, but
we must also recommend a remedy, and in order to recommend a remedy
we have had these investigations made by the engineers and studied
the problems.
Mr. GEORGE CLINTON, Jr. I had construed that as requiring a
recommendation that was merely advisory.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is right; it is advisory and not mandatory. That
is for the Governments to determine after we render our advisory
judgment. It is then for the Governments to say whether that advisory
judgment should be executed.
Mr. HILL. Answering the question of the commissioners as to the time
the city may require to make this report which has been suggested, we
would say six months.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Do you suggest that we hold another hearing in the city
of Buffalo?
Mr. HILL. No; we acquiesce in the suggestion of Mr. Tawney in that
respect.
Mr. GARDNER. Prof. Phelps, we have a few minutes left before recess,
and the commission will be glad to hear any statement you may desire
to make.
Prof. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, my suggestions are contained in this
progress report, and I can only in the briefest way allude to the
main features for the purpose of summarizing the whole matter and,
perhaps, clarifying the present status as I see it.
When the commission met last in Buffalo, about a year and a half ago,
it had arrived at the conclusion, based upon what is possibly the
most elaborate investigation of stream-pollution conditions ever
made, that the Niagara River, in common with other frontier rivers,
was being polluted in contravention of certain treaty rights. At that
time the commission had had suggested to it by its engineers the
proposition that it should prepare plans and make recommendations to
the cities. The commission had not acted upon that recommendation,
but had it under consideration. The cities were heard at that time,
and the city engineer of Buffalo stated that it was the duty of the
commission to make the first definite suggestion rather than to ask
the city what it proposed to do on the mere statement of the fact of
pollution.
The commission undertook thereafter the investigation of which you
have just received the final report. It was not the purpose in making
this investigation to attempt to determine the most feasible plan
of remedy; it was merely the purpose to determine a feasible plan,
a plan which, in the opinion of the engineer, would satisfy the
requirements of the commission and would serve as a suitable remedy,
under the terms of the treaty and the reference, for the conditions
which the commission had found to exist. It seemed satisfactory to
us if we could determine, as a result of the comparatively brief
survey, a single suitable solution of this problem. In the search for
such a solution many alternative plans were naturally investigated.
I think the commissioner is a little mistaken in his suggestion made
here that six alternative plans have been presented to the city for
consideration. We have in fact presented all the facts and figures
in connection with our studies, but definite recommendations along a
single specific line are made.
Mr. POWELL. That simply means that you consider six schemes.
Prof. PHELPS. Yes, sir; and selected from those six the one that
seemed to us the most advisable. We do not pretend that this rather
brief engineering study is a sufficiently complete one for the city’s
needs. We do not doubt that, with the fuller engineering studies
which will be necessary on their part before any plans are adopted,
they will be able to arrive at even more satisfactory results than
we have reached. The progress of sewage purification is so rapid
that since the beginning of this investigation processes have been
developed that look to-day most promising, and which may, before we
arrive at any final conclusion in this matter, demonstrate a very
great saving in expense. These things we have had in mind and have
fully considered, but our purpose has been to show that at a certain
definite figure the city can accomplish the results desired by the
commission and by the two Governments.
In order to accomplish that result the commission first felt it
necessary to interpret the terms of the reference, which were
somewhat indefinite. It is stated in the reference and also in the
treaty that the waters shall not be polluted on either side of the
line to the injury of health or property on the other side.
Mr. MAGRATH. May I interrupt you to inquire if that international
burden is greater than the ordinary national burden?
Prof. PHELPS. It is not so great; no, sir.
Mr. MAGRATH. I thought you might bring that out.