Mr. POWELL. Pardon me. You say that the burdens imposed by the treaty
on communities like the city of Buffalo are not so great as the law
of the United States or the law of Canada would impose upon these
communities. Is that what you mean?
Prof. PHELPS. No, sir. May I return to that point later? I was about
to say that it was not self-evident in the terms of the treaty and
the reference just how much pollution could be permitted without
permanent and definite injury to the health and property of those on
the other side. It was necessary to seek advice upon that point, and
it seems to me that that point is the only one susceptible of any
difference of opinion. It must be understood, in the first place,
that rivers of this sort can not be maintained in their pristine
purity. They must serve for the natural drainage of populous areas,
and they must be polluted to a greater or less extent. Furthermore,
the city sewage can be treated to almost any condition desired. We
can make drinking water out of it if we want to, but the cost would
be prohibitive. We can purify it to any degree varying from mere
screening up to the drinking-water standard.
Now, how much pollution shall we permit in these rivers--how much
ought we to permit, considering the economic aspect of the situation,
and also to comply with the obligations of the treaty? Upon this
point the commission sought the best engineering advice available,
and obtained a definite statement of a limiting standard of purity
beyond which it was deemed unwise to go for drinking-water supplies.
Now, there is no question here of using these supplies in their raw
state; it is assumed to be the duty of all cities using these rivers
to purify them to the best of their ability. It was only proposed
that the rivers should not be polluted beyond a fit condition for
further purification for domestic purposes. It is the most moderate
and conservative standard that we can possibly propose.
Having arrived at this point of departure with respect to a standard,
which is capable of some flexibility, and is, after all, only an
opinion, the remainder of the work was purely an engineering study of
the means necessary to accomplish the desired results. Those means,
as I have stated, we have studied in some detail. We are satisfied
that our figures are correct. We are satisfied that the city can do
what has been recommended to the commission within the estimated
cost. As I have stated, we believe they can do it for less money.
The progress of sewage purification and the necessary additional
engineering studies will undoubtedly bring about further economies.
We are content, however, to rest upon the figures given. We believe
that those figures are a reasonable and justifiable burden to impose
upon this city.
Now, as to the standard itself. That is, of course, open to
discussion. It may be too severe. The city of Niagara Falls seems to
be quite content to purify this water as it is to-day. Other cities
are not. There are upon record several cases of water filters or
purification plants, treating water worse than our proposed standard,
which have on occasions failed. The best engineering devices fail at
times, and the water filter, or a sterilization plant, is at most a
fallible engineering device. It is fairly satisfactory, but at times
it fails, and it is our duty as sanitarians to provide a raw water
for treatment at such plants of a character which will not impose too
much of a burden upon the water plant, which will not reduce the
margin of safety below a reasonable point.
We had all these matters in mind in fixing the standard alluded to,
and if any further discussion is desired as to the reasonableness of
that standard, we shall, of course, welcome it.
Capt. Norton’s suggestion this morning that instead of considering
the entire cross section, we should consider the fact that the water
is naturally better in some strips than it is in others, seemed to
me to be a point well taken. Of course that is not a matter that we
can deal with in figures. The only way we could handle the matter in
figures was to assume that the sewage was mixed throughout the cross
section, and it is shown in the report that that is probably the most
extreme assumption. It gives us the worst water, because if it is not
mixed throughout the cross section, then there are necessarily better
and worse streaks than the average, and the better streaks would be
available for a source of water supply. On the other hand, the flow
of water in streams or lines is a matter which is not capable of
definite engineering study. It is a matter which can be discovered
only by experimental work on the river, and it is a matter upon which
we do not dare to place too much reliance. There are in most rivers
changes in the channels, in the drift of the current as effected
by the direction of the wind; then various elevations and rates of
flow modify the drifts to a certain extent. So I think we should be
a little cautious in assuming that there are available at all times
streaks of water better than the average. I do not doubt that there
are in most cases just such conditions.
Mr. TAWNEY. Prof. Phelps, are these purer streaks, as you call them,
continuous or liable to change?
Prof. PHELPS. They follow, in general, lines parallel to the river
channel. As the river channel bends, if there is a heavy pollution on
one shore, it tends to keep on that shore. The farther downstream we
go the less definite become these stratifications.
Mr. TAWNEY. But these purer streams that Mr. Norton spoke of?
Prof. PHELPS. They follow too. The whole flow tends to be in parallel
lines. Between here and Niagara Falls there is very definite evidence
that the pollution tends to hug the shore and the water in the center
of the river remains for the most part relatively purer. Below the
Falls, in the gorge and the whirlpool, there is a complete mixing, so
that with respect to the water supply below that point we would have
to accept an average mixture.
Now, in answer to Mr. Magrath’s question regarding these standards
from an international viewpoint and the question of how much
pollution crosses the boundary waters, I would say that the standards
are much less severe than they would be if we had to consider the
local situation. On the other hand, Mr. Powell mentioned the national
laws. The State and National laws are very weak in our country, as
is evidenced by the present situation, so that our international
requirements as contained in these standards are more stringent than
existing laws, but if a proper law against stream pollution, or any
standards such as the commission is considering, were adopted by the
Federal Government the local requirements would be more excessive
than the international requirements. The pollution, in any event,
tends to keep on the same side of the stream. That is, it does not
cross the boundary in any such concentration as exists along the
shore of its origin.
The question has been raised here and seems to have been left a
little bit in doubt as to whether the recommendations and particular
devices of this report shall be mandatory. My personal opinion is
that in general they should not. If the city wishes to take advantage
of any of the newer processes of sewage purification and can save
money thereby, we say Godspeed. We want you to do it. The commission
wants to accomplish and is obliged to accomplish certain things, and
it wants to see those things accomplished in the most economical
manner. On the other hand, I think the gentleman who last raised this
question had in mind the proposed drainage canal. That would, of
course, accomplish all that is desired so far as the Niagara River is
concerned. The commission is obliged to look beyond that, however,
and if it is not satisfied that that remedy would accomplish all that
should be accomplished as regards Lake Ontario, and if it is also
convinced, as has been recommended, that that remedy will not be a
satisfactory one from the point of view of the citizens of New York
State, then I do not think that the commission would feel justified
in accepting that as an alternative, even though it seemed more
desirable for this immediate locality.
Mr. TAWNEY. What have you to suggest about the pollution from surface
drainage which has been discussed here this morning and which it is
claimed your report does not deal with?
Prof. PHELPS. I recall that Capt. Norton raised that point at our
last hearing, and I have been unable to see that it is of very
serious significance. There are two distinct classes of drainage
which come under that classification, and I have no doubt Capt.
Norton has them both in mind. First, there is the drainage of the
rural community about here, and it is undoubtedly the fact that
the little streams and brooks which flow into the river in this
region in times of bad weather contain a great deal of surface wash
and are undoubtedly highly polluted. Capt. Norton mentioned that
specifically at the last hearing in this city. Then, there is the
second class--the run-off during storms. It is an obvious source
of pollution. In regard to the first matter, consideration of the
populations existing in these rural regions in comparison with the
populations of the cities will show, just from the point of view of
the human population and human pollution, that their total effect
must be rather small. The effect of animal pollution, while it is
undesirable and places a load upon water filters, can be dismissed as
regards direct effect upon public health and the quality of drinking
waters.
The most serious aspect is the storm-water overflow from the city
sewers. There is a very serious and heavy pollution, and in the
present state of our knowledge it seems to me is one that we have
just got to let pass.
I do not quite agree with Capt. Norton, if I understood him
correctly, that the maximum condition of pollution during heavy
storms fixes the limits or should in any way modify our limits of
pollution. This is a thing added to all the rest. If we have a
certain amount of sewage coming in we have something added in time
of storm. That something may be a large thing, but it does not occur
very many times in the year. Our computations show the actual amount
of sewage discharged in storm overflow during the year to be but a
very few per cent. It surely is our duty to cut off the main source
of pollution from the public sewers, even though we do have to ignore
this storm wash which we admit is serious at times.
Capt. NORTON. If I may interrupt on that one point, I had that in
mind, especially in connection with the threads of the currents which
gave us the pure and impure waters, and that largely entered into the
element of pollution at times.
Prof. PHELPS. Your thought is that the storm flow tends to mix those
streams more than they would naturally be mixed?
Capt. NORTON. No; but that was one of the elements that would give
us the average. Some of the elements of our street washing from our
sewers was confined largely to the shore line and did not reach any
thorough admixture.
Prof. PHELPS. In making these averages we used our best ingenuity to
get a fair average from the analytical results. It is, of course, a
difficult matter, and my only satisfaction in thinking that these
averages are anywhere near correct is the fact that after the
detailed study to which they were submitted they seemed to agree
very well among themselves and as between the various cities. The
pollution per capita of population in the Niagara River agreed very
well indeed with that in the Detroit River, and I think, on the
whole, by averaging the many thousands of analyses we were able to
arrive at a fair statement. But you will recall that the individual
figures did vary enormously. I have no doubt that the analytical
results included a certain amount of this storm wash, and that the
degree of purification which we have asked for will not probably
bring down the result quite as low as we would figure. On the other
hand, I do not think that the additional pollution due to storm wash
is many per cent of the total and its significance is certainly not
in proportion to its amount. I believe that is all I have to say, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anyone present from Tonawanda or North
Tonawanda? Lackawanna, I understand, was represented here this
morning. Perhaps the representative of the State board of health, Mr.
Chairman, will have something to say this afternoon.
Dr. CLARK. Is there any particular question you wanted to ask with
reference to Tonawanda or North Tonawanda?
Mr. TAWNEY. We wanted to know if the suggestions made in the report
are satisfactory?
Dr. CLARK. I do not know whether they have any representative here or
not.
Mr. TAWNEY. They were notified, and they can not complain that the
commission did not give them an opportunity to be heard.
Dr. CLARK. You spoke about the chlorination of water. I think one
of the most remarkable instances of reduction of typhoid fever in
treating water with chlorine gas was manifested in the city of
Lockport. Getting water from the same source for the 12 months before
they used the chlorination process they had 53 cases of typhoid
fever, and in the 7 months after chlorination of the water in the
following year they had 3 cases. The Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, and
Lockport intakes are all in practically the same thread of water.
Mr. TAWNEY. What effect has chlorination upon the potability of the
water?
Dr. CLARK. There is a difference of opinion with regard to that. A
great many people in Buffalo complained of the chlorine tasting in
the water before the chlorine was ever put into it. After it was put
in they did not complain. Dr. Fronczak received dozens of letters
asking that they stop using chlorine when there was no chlorine
whatever being used. The amount of chlorine that is necessary to
destroy pathogenic life can not be tasted.
Speaking of this surface-water drainage I think that is a question
that applies more largely and more directly to smaller communities.
It is well known that in some of the rural communities there have
occurred some of the greatest typhoid-fever epidemics that we have
ever had. In Plymouth, Pa., there occurred one of the greatest
typhoid-fever epidemics that the world has ever seen. A little
trout stream was contaminated by a patient that came in there. The
discharges were simply not disinfected by the physician or the nurse,
but were thrown out upon the ground, and when the spring rains came a
serious epidemic occurred. An epidemic through surface contamination
occurred at Ithaca. I think it applies more to rural communities.
The State Department of Health of New York has recommended the
chlorination process, and I think it has been proven beyond any
peradventure that if the apparatus is carefully watched and the
proper amount of gas is liberated into the water it is almost a sure
preventive of typhoid fever, but an apparatus such as is manufactured
now becomes corrupted to a certain extent, and unless cylinders are
provided for weighing the chlorine you can not rely on the automatic
weighing. Through the North Tonawanda intake recently we had quite a
number of cases of typhoid fever, and by positive demonstration we
discovered that they were using less than half the amount of chlorine
they were supposed to use because the treating apparatus did not work.
Mr. TAWNEY. The State Board of Health of New York has had this report
of the consulting sanitary engineer now for some two months for
study. Have you given any study to the problems that are discussed in
that report?
Dr. CLARK. That would be a matter beyond my jurisdiction. It would
be taken up entirely by the engineer division of the department at
Albany.
Mr. TAWNEY. Do you know whether or not they have studied those
problems?
Dr. CLARK. Located here, I have charge of five counties in western
New York. I represent the department locally, but I am not connected
very much with the Albany office.
Mr. POWELL. Prof. Phelps, I would like to have you bring out clearly
before the gentlemen present the object and policy in making your
studies. It was not with the idea, I presume, of imposing on the city
of Buffalo or the city of Detroit any particular system, but it was
to show to both communities that the result you thought advisable
could be worked out at a certain cost, and if they could work them
out more cheaply than that it is not your purpose to interfere with
them. Was that your idea?
Prof. PHELPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. POWELL. That is one object. The other was in the capacity of an
adviser to point out some feasible method by which it can be done if
they choose to adopt it, and I understand you to say that they might,
by further study, reduce the cost or make changes in particular
features of the scheme which might be more feasible than even the
scheme which you have recommended?
Prof. PHELPS. Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, at 1 o’clock p. m., the commission took a recess until 3
o’clock p. m.)