Mr. BROWN. As the representative of the River Rouge Village, I wish
to say a word. I have also been authorized to make objections for the
village of Ford and the city of Wyandotte. My objections have been
placed before the commission by the gentleman who has just spoken,
and I think I can add nothing more to his remarks. The objections are
purely local and are engineering features, and as to the desirability
of purifying the sewage before entering into the stream, I think all
these villages are in accord, and very anxious to do whatever is
right and necessary on that. In regard to River Rouge, I may say that
we have a separate system there. We realized what was coming some six
years ago, and we provided for it, and all we have to do now is to
put in the purification plant. Our objection in regard to River Rouge
is a local one, and the engineer who has just spoken has outlined it,
and if we are not tied down to the exact locality, as shown on your
engineer’s plan, we are thoroughly satisfied. We would rather object
to the location, if we have to follow his suggestion. We can only say
that the present pumping plant there is ample, without putting in an
intercepting sewer, saving some $20,000 odd.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are the municipalities you are now speaking for included
in the proposed consolidated sewage district, referred to in this
report?
Mr. BROWN. They are not.
Mr. TAWNEY. Then the plan for sewage treatment recommended by the
consulting engineers does not apply to the municipalities you
represent?
Mr. BROWN. It does. The Rouge and Wyandotte are both specifically
mentioned, and it is for those I am speaking. We are very anxious
to have this carried out. It is simply a matter of local detail.
We would like to have some changes, and we would get the same and
possibly better results and at a great saving to these cities. In
other words, we could do away with the interceptors.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any plan to suggest?
Mr. BROWN. Taking the report of your engineer as it stands, it calls
for an intercepting sewer. The treatment plan is per capita, and
the maintenance the same. In looking over this report I find there
is very little difference in regard to the cost of construction and
maintaining the treatment plan for either a small population or a
large one. In other words, in the village of Ford we have three
outlets, and instead of building an intercepting sewer, tearing up
all their pavement, why could we not put in those three plants,
dividing it up, providing the figures in that report are correct? The
same as to Wyandotte. I am simply taking the report as it stands. I
do not see any necessity for an intercepting sewer.
Prof. PHELPS. I may merely say, in reference to what Mr. Dallyn
has said, that it is not anticipated that we would be fortunate
enough to find in our brief survey the most feasible and the most
economical plans. There is no intention of insisting upon the plans
specifically, and if the cities and towns interested are able to save
money and accomplish the result the commission desires to accomplish,
we say Godspeed. It is results we are after. It is quite proper that
the city shall take advantage not only of their more detailed and
accurate engineering knowledge of the local situation, but also of
those tremendous improvements in sewage disposal which are going
ahead so fast it is difficult to keep track of them.
Mr. POWELL. Take that particular point of treating all the sewage at
one point, or at three points; that is, having an intercepting sewer
or not having one.
Prof. PHELPS. The engineer can advise him if he is correct. My
personal experience would lead me to doubt whether he can save money
by building three plants instead of one. However, if he can save
money let him do it.
Mr. BROWN. I just took the statement of the report itself. It took
so much per capita and disregarded the population entirely. We have
never made an detailed figures. This came up hurriedly, and we have
nothing to suggest. We are heartily in favor of the improvements, but
in regard to the commission tying us down as to details, we would
like to know how much limit we have if we get results.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any objection to or criticism upon the standard
of purification set forth in the report, or, in other words, have you
any criticism upon the result that is to be attained with respect to
purification of water mentioned in the report?
Mr. BROWN. No criticism whatsoever.
Mr. TAWNEY. The municipalities you represent are entirely in accord
with the report, so far as it relates to standardization?
Mr. BROWN. Absolutely.
Mr. POWELL. You recognize the obligation of your community to get rid
of the sewage, but you want to do it as economically as possible.
Mr. BROWN. That is exactly the fact.
Mr. POWELL. You do not quarrel with the onus being thrown upon you to
do it in some way?
Mr. BROWN. No. All these villages seem to be very willing to do
something, and they are anxious. They know of this investigation, and
they have delayed works on that account, and they are very anxious to
do the best possible good for all.
Mr. TAWNEY. Your present population is 15,000?
Mr. BROWN. That is the population they gave for River Rouge, but I
think it is not as large as that. I think you will find the present
population is only about half of that.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anyone here representing any of the other
municipalities on the United States side?