Prof. WEIL. Mr. Chairman, Mayor Jennings asked me to look over the
plans and the report of the consulting engineer of the commission,
which I have done. I am not here to report upon these plans from the
standpoint of an engineer, but I am here simply as one having some
interest in what should be done. What I have to say could hardly
be construed as other than the impressions of one who has read the
report and looked over the plans and is interested in the outcome.
In fact, until Mr. Gardner made some statements to me here to-day I
did not know just what the object of this meeting was. I understood
that we were here to be instructed and not to make comments. So that,
as I am trying to emphasize, what I have to say will be rather in
the way of my impressions than carefully thought out criticisms or
considerations.
As Mayor Jennings has said, I was impressed with the report in its
entirety and not only as it relates to St. Clair but, seeing it for
the first time yesterday, I admit that I read pretty nearly the whole
report.
I was impressed with the fact that the plan proposed for St. Clair
divides the city into two sections, with the point of purification
as a division, and that might be objectionable from a real estate
standpoint. It may not be practicable to do otherwise, but that is
what they have done at St. Clair. Sewage disposal should be at the
outskirts and not in the center of the city.
Again, I was impressed with the fact that the Diamond Crystal Salt
Co., which is the chief industry located at St. Clair, is at the
proposed point of purification and disposal. That might constitute a
hardship for the leading industry of the town. The Diamond Crystal
Salt Co. has recently expended a great deal of money for a new
intake pipe 24 inches in diameter and 350 feet long. It has recently
expended a large sum of money for a filtration system to filter all
the water that goes into the plant, to the salt beds, and through its
vessels. It is expending a large sum of money for sterilizing the
brine and carrying it to a temperature of 280° F. before it is used.
It may be known to this commission that experiments made in France
show that pathogenic germs live for six months in brine not subjected
to a temperature of 100° C. The department in France that made the
experiments corresponds to our bureau in the United States having to
do with pure foods and drugs. In France they were even going so far
as to prohibit the sale of so-called natural salt, sea salt, and so
forth, for the table, on the basis of impurity. The ordinary vacuum
plant, as you may know, carries a temperature of only about 120° F.,
and that does not destroy pathogenic germs in brine.
As I have stated, the Diamond Crystal Salt Co. has gone to a very
large expense to produce pure salt. The location of a plant of the
kind mentioned at that point, notwithstanding the amount of proof
that could be brought to bear to show that harmful results would be a
minimum, might possibly be very objectionable. I can say that, in my
individual opinion, and not speaking for the company, I feel that the
company would be willing to cooperate with the city of St. Clair to
secure a location that would be more advantageous to this plant. I am
not criticizing the proposition, but simply stating that the proposed
location may be objectionable, and I may be wrong with regard to that.
Another impression that I got from the report was this: I found
that it says that the population of this city has not increased in
25 years. I think that is about right. I also found in looking over
the report that they would pay over 2 to 1 to maintain this plant if
it were put in as proposed; that is, the cost of maintenance would
be, roughly speaking, 2 to 1: say, 50 cents perhaps in Detroit and
90 cents in St. Clair, something like twice the expense on a city
that is in no way an increased menace if it has not changed its
conditions at all. Therefore it would appear to me as a taxpayer and
one interested from the outside that the installation of such a plant
at the undivided expense of a small city like St. Clair might perhaps
be a burden, and hardly a just burden, on the taxpayers when this is,
in a measure, an international matter. I understand from Mr. Barron
that the city would be subject to a considerable expense through its
change in pavements if the plan at present proposed is carried out.
The summation of what I have had to say is probably this: That
interested in the improvement of and desirous to combine in this
plan, a small city like St. Clair has to be very guarded in its
commendation or acceptance on account of the conditions that might be
imposed through a too hasty conclusion in the matter. I think that is
about all I have to say.
Mr. POWELL. What is the population of St. Clair?
Prof. WEIL. Three thousand.
Mr. TAWNEY. You probably observed in reading the report of the
consulting sanitary engineer that three possible sites for the
treatment plant were studied, and I understand that the one that is
recommended here is the one that you are objecting to.
Prof. WEIL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you considered the objection stated by the engineers
to either of the other two?
Prof. WEIL. Yes; as I recall, I have. I think it was simply a matter
of expense. Is that correct?
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes. One of them was abandoned without detailed study,
because it obviously required an unduly expensive intercepting line.
Another site located on the west side of Pine River was studied
in detail, but was found to require a more expensive system of
interceptors than the one east of Pine River, which is shown on plate
No. 16, and that is the plan that I understand you object to.
Prof. WEIL. May I ask the commission a question?
Mr. TAWNEY. Certainly.
Prof. WEIL. Is it good engineering to reject the most expensive site
on the ground of expense when it is an international matter?
Mr. TAWNEY. I did not quite catch your question.
Prof. WEIL. Would the commission consider it good engineering
to reject a certain site on the ground of expense when it is an
international matter?
Mr. TAWNEY. It would be if an equally available site could be
obtained for a less expense.
Prof. WEIL. Is this not a third selection, this last one that was
selected?
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes; it was selected in preference to the other two.
Prof. WEIL. On the grounds of expense?
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.
Prof. WEIL. That means, then, that the expense is to fall on the
municipality?
Mr. TAWNEY. No; the selecting of the third site, as I understand it,
was to save expense to the municipality.
Prof. WEIL. But that means that the expense must fall on the
municipality?
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.
Prof. WEIL. In a big question of sanitation like this, should the
matter of expense be the question of a municipality that is not
growing?
Mr. TAWNEY. Here is the situation: These waters into which you are
discharging your raw sewage are international waters. The result
is the contamination or pollution of these waters, which, whether
it does now or not, may in the future result in a violation of
the treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The two
Governments, which have agreed that neither will permit on their
respective sides the pollution of these waters to the injury or
health or property on the other, have a right to put a stop to it by
requiring the municipalities which are thus offending against the
treaty to either treat their sewage or discharge it elsewhere than in
these international waters.
Now, the purpose is to find the most practicable and economical
method for the treatment of the sewage by these cities that are using
these international waters as open sewers. We are engaged in an
effort to carry out the provisions of the treaty, or to advise the
two Governments how the provisions of the treaty may be carried out
with the least possible expense to the municipalities that are using
these waters as open sewers for the purpose of disposing of their raw
sewage, and the only methods that our consulting sanitary engineers
have been able to devise and recommend are those which are proposed
here.
I did not quite get your objection to the third site suggested by the
consulting engineer--I mean the site east of Pine River, which is
indicated on plate No. 16.
Prof. WEIL. I made two objections to it, one the location with regard
to the main manufacturing industry of the town.
Mr. TAWNEY. How would it affect this salt industry?
Prof. WEIL. I have tried to explain how it might affect it. I think
you will appreciate that all I have said is tentative. I have
explained that the company has gone to a very large expense to do
what, in so far as I know, no other salt company in the world is
doing--filter all the water that goes into the beds and into its
plant and sterilize the brine. Now, the location of this plant in the
immediate vicinity of the salt works might have a very bad effect, so
far as impression is concerned.
Mr. TAWNEY. Sentimental?
Prof. WEIL. Not at all; but actual physiological and psychological
effect.
Another point I tried to bring out was that it divided the town into
two districts, when in my opinion it would be to the advantage of
the town to have this proposed plant for purifying located on the
outskirts of the town.
There is one question that I would like to ask now: Is it likely to
be the recommendation of the commission in furtherance of what you
have cited in regard to the treaty that these things shall be carried
out even if they constitute a hardship on the particular ownership,
municipality, or village?
Mr. TAWNEY. That depends altogether upon whether the sewage which
they are discharging crosses the boundary and constitutes what the
treaty describes as an injury to health or property on the other
side. If it does, it would have to be prevented, or else the treaty
obligations between the two nations would be violated. Of course, if
the water beyond the boundary is not polluted at all by reason of
the discharge of raw sewage on either side, then the discharge of
that sewage would not be in contravention of the treaty; but if it
crosses the boundary into another country to the injury of the health
or property of the people of that country, it would have to stop or
the two Governments would have to rescind or enforce their treaty
obligations. It would be a question of fact as to whether or not the
pollution extends across the boundary to the injury of the health and
property of the people on the other side. If it does it would have
to be stopped, no matter what expense might be imposed on the people
who are offending against this provision of the treaty. That is my
interpretation of the provisions of the treaty, and I think it is the
interpretation of the members of the commission generally.
You can readily understand and appreciate the position that this
commission is in. We are created an international tribunal for the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of a treaty which has been
entered into by two great countries. There will be no hardship
imposed upon any community if that community is not offending against
the provisions of the treaty. If the people of any community are
offending against the provisions of the treaty, they will have to
take some means of preventing that which constitutes a violation
of the treaty. I do not say that St. Clair is doing that, but if
the conclusion of the commission should be that that is a fact with
respect to St. Clair, it would have to adopt some method for the
treatment of its sewage.
Prof. WEIL. Then, what is the object of this meeting?
Mr. TAWNEY. To ascertain what objections the various communities have
to the plans proposed by the consulting engineer for the treatment of
the sewage, so as to avoid any violation of this treaty.
Prof. WEIL. If I understand your last remarks, it is perfectly
immaterial what objections we may have.
Mr. TAWNEY. No; if the communities have any better method than
the one proposed, one that would be less expensive and equally as
efficient, the commission would be very glad to hear of it. This is
simply a report to the commission by the consulting sanitary engineer
employed by the commission for that purpose. The commission has not
formulated its conclusions, and before formulating them it desires to
hear from the various communities affected by the recommendations of
our consulting sanitary engineer.
Prof. WEIL. Of course, you understand that what I have said has been
in the way of interrogation rather than criticism.
Mr. TAWNEY. Well, we are endeavoring to answer your interrogations to
the best of our ability.
Mr. MIGNAULT. We would like to hear any criticism that you think
proper to make as to the methods suggested by the consulting engineer.
Prof. WEIL. In a general way I have already stated what the
objections are.
Mr. MAGRATH. The objection that you have stated is one relating to
the location. Is there any objection with respect to the burden that
this proposed plan would entail upon the community?
Prof. WEIL. Yes.
Mr. MAGRATH. The burden is fixed here, an actual charge per capita.
Prof. WEIL. What is it for Detroit?
Prof. PHELPS. It is 54 cents.
Prof. WEIL. Then, it is nearly twice as much for St. Clair as for
Detroit. I do not think that is fair.
Mr. POWELL. That is the necessary result of doing things on a larger
scale.
Mr. JENNINGS. On our plan there for interceptors I notice that they
are running down Riverside Avenue. It might be a question for your
engineer to consider, whether it would not be possible to place these
interceptors one street farther back from the river. Riverside Avenue
is a paved street. It is a concrete pavement, and perhaps the expense
of digging that up and repaving it would be more than it would cost
to take a street farther back from the river.
Prof. PHELPS. That is absolutely immaterial to us, sir.
Mr. JENNINGS. They can be placed anywhere?
Prof. PHELPS. Anywhere that you please.
Mr. POWELL. Prof. Weil, I suppose you and the community in which you
live recognize the necessity of doing something to prevent this evil?
Prof. WEIL. I think you will find I stated at the outset that we
recognize that very fully and are anxious to cooperate in its
prevention.
Mr. POWELL. You recognize that something should be done to prevent
the raw sewage from going into the river?
Prof. WEIL. Yes, sir.
Mr. POWELL. All that you are aiming at is to have it done as
inexpensively as possible?
Prof. WEIL. Yes; and not arbitrarily.
Mr. POWELL. There is no desire to take anybody by the throat; this is
a friendly consultation.
Prof. WEIL. I understand that, but we would like know what is going
to be done.
Mr. POWELL. To the general scheme proposed by Prof. Phelps you have
no objection; your objections apply only to the details of working it
out?
Prof. WEIL. As to the general scheme for St. Clair?
Mr. POWELL. Yes.
Prof. WEIL. Do you mean the use of the interceptors, and so forth?
Mr. POWELL. Yes.
Prof. WEIL. That is so very general that I could hardly have any
objection to it. There is nothing different in that from what has
been done for years.
Mr. POWELL. It is only the details of working out the scheme to which
you object?
Prof. WEIL. Yes.
Mr. POWELL. And those objections you have spoken of?
Prof. WEIL. Yes; I have tried to cover them.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Knowles, we will hear you now, as representing the
Great Lakes Pure Water Association.
STATEMENT OF MR. MORRIS KNOWLES, OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
REPRESENTING THE GREAT LAKES PURE WATER ASSOCIATION.
Mr. KNOWLES. As I stated this morning, there is another representative
of the Great Lakes Pure Water Association, Mr. Theodore M. Leison,
who will speak for that organization. He could not be here this
afternoon, but will be present to-morrow morning. You may consider
that he will be the official representative of and will speak for the
association.
While I am on my feet, and speaking entirely personally, I would say
that I was very much gratified to hear the remarks of Prof. Phelps
that the suggestions in the report should be considered as such
and not necessarily as determinative plans, because it seems to me
that, above all, the initiative should be left to the communities to
work out their own salvation as long as that may result accordingly
in a general, well-defined policy; I think it is helpful to us as
engineers to realize that as coming from your engineer, Prof. Phelps.
It seems to me that this policy is a well-considered one, so that
all of us who are interested in sanitation ought to work toward the
fruition of such a plan. It is necessary that separate places shall
have separate solutions dependent upon topographical conditions.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Knowles, you have had sufficient time and
opportunity, have you not, to give some study to the report of our
consulting engineers?
Mr. KNOWLES. I think I may have had sufficient time, but I do not
know that I have given it sufficient study, because I have many other
things to do.
Mr. TAWNEY. From the time you have given to the study of the report
have you any criticism or suggestion to make as to the result,
especially with respect to the standards of purification which have
been recommended by our consulting engineers?
Mr. KNOWLES. As long as they can be considered generally and subject
to consideration for each particular locality by a continuing body,
no; but if they should be made once for all determinative, I would
think that would be an error, because the art is changing so fast
that such a position ought not to be taken by any body of men at any
time.
Mr. TAWNEY. Let me understand you. You mean, do you, that there
should be sufficient flexibility in the standard fixed to enable a
continuing administrative body charged with the duty of supervising
the execution of the recommendations to make such changes as are
necessary to suit local conditions?
Mr. KNOWLES. And changes in the art as time goes on.
Mr. TAWNEY. Changes in the art of treatment; that is what you mean?
Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir; changes in the art both of treatment of sewage
and the purification of the water.
Mr. TAWNEY. Then, from your studies of the proposition do I
understand you to suggest that the most efficient and satisfactory
results would be obtained by the creation of an international
administrative body for the purpose of looking after the purification
of water and treatment of sewage along these international boundary
waters?
Mr. KNOWLES. I have not studied the machinery of legislation closely
enough to express an opinion upon that final thing. I do believe
that no effective progress can be made without some continuing body
being on the job all the time. I presume it goes without saying that
this being an international question it shall finally rest in some
international body. I, however, couple that with the thought that
the initiative should not only rest with the given municipality,
but probably a still further initiative with the governing body
representing that Province, that State, or that Government; the
final question being left to the international body to determine
the larger questions of policy. The way to get good work is to put
responsibility for detail upon the person who carries it out.
Mr. POWELL. That is good policy in all government, political or
otherwise.
Mr. KNOWLES. That is right.
Mr. POWELL. While we all recognize that sanitary science is in a
condition of change or progress, yet we can not sit still and do
nothing. We must live up to the light that we have for the time
being. So that we could not lie by and do nothing simply because
there is a possibility of other methods being invented or coming
to light within a certain period of time in the future. We have to
do what is best at the present moment under the present light. You
understand that condition?
Mr. KNOWLES. If you ask that as a question, I would say, yes, that is
true. It is neither necessary to stand still nor to fix a criterion
that is good forever. The way in which those things are handled
by the departments of health in the States, and I presume in Dr.
McCullough’s department, is that a given project is acted upon at a
given time with the light that the people then have, but frequently
there are clauses which say that if at any time it appears that the
works are not adequate, or something else is required, the right is
reserved to the governing body to stipulate further requirements.
Mr. POWELL. That is, you do not want the process of evolution to
cease?
Mr. KNOWLES. No, sir. The important thing to consider is that this is
not the only measure of public health which is before the people at
this time. There are many other things upon which public money can be
spent, and it is the measure of this thing with the other things to
help public health that should be considered in any large questions
of policy.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Knowles, are you prepared to give the commission any
information regarding the treatment of sewage by aeration?
Mr. KNOWLES. No, sir.
Mr. MAGRATH. Do you think we are proceeding along the right lines in
making these engineering suggestions as to these interceptor sewers?
Do you think that those suggestions will be in line with any future
development?
Mr. KNOWLES. Well, the relative advantages of long interceptors
compared with small unit plants is all a question of finance coupled
with some question of real estate development policy, but, of course,
with any large body of water directly in front of a long community
the place to which the sewage must go is that body of water. The
most direct means is generally the most economical means, and the
measure of cost of a number of plants compared with the cost of an
interceptor is what is needed to find out whether the interceptor is
advisable or not. No one can say what is most acceptable in either
case.
Mr. TAWNEY. What is your position, Mr. Knowles?
Mr. KNOWLES. I am a consulting sanitary engineer in general practice.
Mr. TAWNEY. Located where?
Mr. KNOWLES. In Pittsburgh, Pa. That is my home now. I have practiced
over the United States.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are you connected officially with the Great Lakes Pure
Water Association?
Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir; I am a member of that association.
Mr. TAWNEY. From your knowledge of the reference submitted to the
commission by the two Governments and your knowledge of the scope of
the investigation, what have you to say with reference to whether
or not thus far the investigation has proceeded practically and as
speedily as would ordinarily be expected under the circumstances? I
am asking you the same question that Mr. Magrath asked this morning
of the chief sanitary engineer of the State of Michigan, merely for
the purpose of getting on the record an expression of your views.
Mr. KNOWLES. I think good progress and good judgment up to date have
been shown, provided the criteria be taken as not too absolute; and
the statement made by Prof. Phelps this morning is very helpful along
that line.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any knowledge as to the time that was consumed
in the investigation of a similar subject in the Mississippi River
on account of the alleged pollution of that river by the Chicago
Drainage Canal?
Mr. KNOWLES. No; I do not know the exact time. It was some
considerable time. I think it must be remembered that in any of these
matters it not only takes time for an investigation, but it takes a
good deal of time for necessary assimilation and education.
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes; and time thus spent is well spent.
Mr. KNOWLES. It is not lost.
Mr. TAWNEY. We will now hear what Mr. Sloman, a member of the bar of
the city of Detroit, desires to say on this subject.