Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I would like to speak on behalf of the village of
Trenton. I am sorry that I am here to represent a village that has
shown such half-hearted interest in the recommendations of your
consulting sanitary engineer, Prof. Phelps. The attitude taken by the
village authorities is no doubt due to the fact that local conditions
have called for much quicker action on the part of the State board
of health in recommending certain remedial measures for their local
benefit.
It has already been stated that there are about 12 sewer outlets
above the intake, and it has been urged upon the village authorities
to construct a 12-inch intercepting trunk sewer to divert this sewage
below the intake.
It has appeared to the majority of the residents that the tail end of
the district has been tackled first. I can say that I believe they
will be in hearty accord with any remedial measures your commission
may adopt for the entire district.
From a standpoint of economy and future supervision, I believe
a metropolitan district could best serve the Michigan side. I
derived this thought from a lecture on the “Metropolitan District
of Boston,” by Mr. Frederick Fay before the District Engineering
Society several months ago.
I have read several press reports on this subject as viewed by Mr.
Hubbell, our district consulting sanitary engineer. As outlined,
I believe the district would extend from the Macomb to the Monroe
County lines. It appeals to me more forcibly in that each community
will be served alike and pay pro rata for benefits derived.
In going over the past history of improvements recommended for
Trenton, I will say that about seven years ago an extensive combined
sewerage system was planned at an estimated cost of approximately
$50,000, which the people voted down. They have never had the
opportunity to vote on a sanitary system, which I believe would cost
about $18,000.
The finances of the village are in such shape that this price would
go beyond the 5 per cent mark of bonded indebtedness. I might give
the figures showing the present condition of the finances. In the
meantime, before I give that I would like to ask a question. If
recommendations are carried out in the several districts, does the
commission give any method of raising the funds necessary to carry on
such work?
Mr. TAWNEY. That is a matter that the commission has not yet
considered at all, and I do not know whether it is within the scope
of our work.
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. If the several districts had the funds with which to
do it, I believe that some of these measures would have been taken up
long ago. The assessed valuation of our village in 1915 was $555,200,
bonded as follows: Highway-improvement bonds, $6,500; electric-light
plant, $7,500; other bonds, $6,125; total, $20,125; of which $3,500
has been paid off, leaving a balance to be paid of $16,625. One per
cent, which is the allowable limit for any improvements in any one
year for any special kind of improvements, would make $5,552; or 5
per cent, which is the total limit of bonded indebtedness, would make
$27,760, of which $16,625 has already been bonded, leaving a balance
of $11,135, which you see is very much less than would pay for a
sanitary sewerage system which the village surely needs.
I have acted as village engineer for Trenton during the past year,
and without funds to promote any measures of sanitary work or water
purification we are very much handicapped. If the commission in
recommending any remedial measures could also embody any method of
raising funds to carry on the work, it would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. POWELL. Why do you recommend the metropolitan district--on
account of the saving?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. On account of the saving to the smaller districts per
capita.
Mr. POWELL. You would not have the overhead charges to meet?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is it; and that is something that the smaller
communities could not stand.
Mr. MIGNAULT. What is the borrowing power of Trenton to-day?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Five per cent; but they have $11,000 yet to borrow.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Is there no provision to meet a case like that where
certain improvements are ordered by the State board of health?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I believe 5 per cent is the point set by the State
law for villages.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is set by your constitution, is it not?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes.
Mr. MIGNAULT. In a case like that, where it is a matter of public
necessity, have you not the power to levy a special assessment?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Nothing we know about yet. We have asked several
authorities on that and we have not been enlightened on that subject.
Mr. POWELL. As a matter of fact, what is your head of taxation, the
village?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. The village. The village takes in a very small area.
It should be enlarged. That is one method that would be furthered.
Mr. POWELL. Have you a county tax besides that?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. Yes.
Mr. POWELL. And a State tax?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. And a State tax. Our taxes now are $17.50 per
thousand, or $1.75 per hundred. That is the total tax for the village.
Mr. POWELL. That is all combined?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is all combined.
Mr. POWELL. Well, you are happy boys.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand your chief objection is lack of funds with
which to carry out the improvements?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. That is it.
Mr. MIGNAULT. If that were removed, there would be no difficulty?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. There would be no difficulty. As I say, if some
system were laid out for the entire district the village of Trenton
would be heartily in accord with such a system. Due to the local
conditions which have prompted immediate action, they feel that they
are being called out to start the thing.
Mr. MIGNAULT. There is no intention to single them out.
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I realize that.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Our desire would be to treat them all alike.
Mr. MALONE. Do you not think that if the Federal Government were to
impose a penalty for not putting in a filtration plant that they
would find ways and means of getting the necessary money to put it in?
Mr. BLOMSHIELD. I guess they would.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is there any other person here that desires to be heard
this afternoon? As there is not, the commission will take a recess
until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning.
(Thereupon, at 4.15 o’clock p. m., the commission took a recess until
10 o’clock a. m. Tuesday, June 27, 1916.)
* * * * *
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
_Detroit, Mich., June 27, 1916_.
The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.
Mr. GARDNER. Gentlemen, the hearing this morning is for the purpose
of listening to the representatives of the city of Detroit, and, as
I understand that we will have to vacate this room at 4 o’clock this
afternoon, it will be necessary for us to get busy. We will first
hear from Mr. Fenkell.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE H. FENKELL, COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Fenkell, will you please state what the city of
Detroit has done in connection with the consulting engineer of the
commission in the matter of investigating the remedies for existing
pollution? Before you go into the technical matters, kindly give a
sort of summary or history of the part your city has taken and what
they are doing.
Mr. FENKELL. Your commission met in Detroit about a year and a half
ago, and immediately after that meeting I asked the common council
for funds to begin work on an investigation as to conditions existing
in the Detroit River. Only $15,000 has been provided. Shortly after
that Mr. Clarence W. Hubbell, of Detroit, was engaged to make an
investigation and report. A little later he occupied joint offices
with Prof. Phelps.
That investigation was carried on until Mr. Hubbell’s report was
submitted, about four weeks ago. It was put into the hands of the
printer immediately and yesterday we received the first copies. I was
able to deliver only three copies to you yesterday. I hope soon to
have more from the printer. That report was submitted to the council
shortly after it was received from Mr. Hubbell. The summary was
printed in the council’s proceedings, a copy of which, I believe, was
mailed to your commission.
Because of the haste in getting the report to the printer the
typewritten report was not read generally. In fact, I think I was the
only one that was able to look the report over before it went to the
printer. None of the Detroit officials is familiar with Mr. Hubbell’s
report except such portions as appeared in the council’s proceedings.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Hubbell and the sanitary engineer of the commission,
then, were working together for the last year, were they?
Mr. FENKELL. I think so. Just how they divided the work and how they
carried out the details I am unable to state.
Mr. TAWNEY. They were jointly studying the same problem at the same
time.
Mr. FENKELL. They were.
Mr. TAWNEY. Now, what have you to say, Mr. Fenkell, in regard to
the plans recommended by the consulting sanitary engineer of the
commission, and how do these plans compare with the plans or remedies
proposed by Mr. Hubbell, your sanitary engineer?
Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state exactly. I have read Mr. Hubbell’s
report through twice, and I have read Prof. Phelps’s report through,
but I have been unable to make any extended study of the matter. So
far I hardly think anyone has, except it be Mr. Hubbell.
Mr. TAWNEY. Has your municipal government here considered the
question of the standards for sewage treatment and water purification
recommended by the sanitary engineers of the commission?
Mr. FENKELL. So far as I know, it has not received any extended
study, except by Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell’s report was transmitted to
the common council, and it was submitted to the proper committee, but
the committee have been unable to take any action in the matter, or
study it, because of our inability to furnish copies of the report.
Mr. TAWNEY. Has the city at this time in contemplation anything
looking toward sewage treatment, independent of any international
question involved in the pollution of the Detroit River?
Mr. FENKELL. No more than is covered by Mr. Hubbell’s report.
Mr. TAWNEY. You have no specific plan in preparation, is what I mean.
Mr. FENKELL. No, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are you treating your sewage here at all?
Mr. FENKELL. In no way whatever.
Mr. TAWNEY. You are discharging raw sewage into the Detroit River?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is the outlet for all your sewerage system?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. All of your sewers discharge into the Detroit River?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir. Some do not discharge directly into the river,
but they reach the Detroit River eventually.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Ultimately all of the sewage goes into the Detroit
River untreated?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Where do you get your water from?
Mr. FENKELL. It is taken from a point about 700 feet above Belle
Isle, in the American Channel.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you a filtration plant there?
Mr. FENKELL. Detroit has no filtration plant.
Mr. TAWNEY. Do you chlorinate the water?
Mr. FENKELL. The process in use is chlorination. Mr. Leisen, the
general superintendent for the water commission, is present and can
explain that to you in detail.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Magrath calls my attention to the fact that we went
into that matter when we were here a year and a half ago.
Mr. FENKELL. I think, if I may be permitted to make the suggestion,
that there have been some changes in the method of treating the water
since then.
Mr. TAWNEY. Well, that is important. Now, Mr. Fenkell, before we hear
Mr. Hubbell, is there anything else in relation to the subject that
you desire to bring to the attention of the commission at this time?
Mr. FENKELL. There may have been explained to the commission the
ordinary way in which the city would proceed to get the funds and go
ahead with work of this kind. My understanding is that it would first
be necessary for the council to direct that the matter be voted on by
the people. It would then go up at a regular election, and in order
for the work to be authorized or the bonds to be issued it would have
to receive 60 per cent of the votes cast. The work would be carried
out by and through the department of public works working with the
common council. I can give you still further details regarding that,
if you wish, as well as copies of the law relating thereto.
Mr. TAWNEY. What is the present bonded debt of the city of Detroit?
Mr. FENKELL. I will secure that data and give it to you later.
Mr. TAWNEY. You have a limited amount of bonded indebtedness to which
the city can obligate itself, have you not?
Mr. FENKELL. It is limited. I will give you that data later.
Mr. TAWNEY. That limit is 5 per cent of the assessed value of the
property, is it not?
Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state.
Mr. GARDNER. Any such limitation as that is a constitutional
provision of the State, is it not?
Mr. FENKELL. I am unable to state the amount. Detroit now has home
rule, and just what the limitation is when the people vote on a
question of that kind I am unable to state. Would the chairman like
to have me secure that data?
Mr. GARDNER. We would like to have it.
Mr. FENKELL. I would suggest that if you have any other questions of
that kind you give me a list of them, and I will secure the desired
information for you, or you can call on the city comptroller and
secure the information from him.
Mr. TAWNEY. We desire simply to ascertain what the position of the
city would be with reference to carrying out any plan looking to the
prevention of this pollution which now exists. That would be the only
way in which it would be material for us to know whether the city was
situated so that it could carry out any reasonable recommendations
that might be made.
Mr. MAGRATH. You are filing with us a copy of the report of Mr.
Hubbell, are you not?
Mr. FENKELL. So far I have furnished 3 copies. I have received only
12 printed copies and have been able to give reports to only three
of the departments of the city that I thought would be interested. I
shall be pleased to furnish the commission additional copies as soon
as we receive them. We hope to receive them to-day or to-morrow.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand you to say that no action has yet been
taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report.
Mr. FENKELL. No action whatever. Upon its receipt it was transmitted
to the council, and within 48 hours it was in the hands of the
printer.
Mr. MIGNAULT. It was referred to the committee, I suppose, for
consideration and printed as all public documents are printed. Is
that correct?
Mr. FENKELL. The report was referred to the committee on sewers. Only
my letter transmitting the report and the summary of Mr. Hubbell’s
report were printed in the council’s proceedings because of the
necessity for cuts, maps, and so forth.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Is it contemplated to take any action on Mr. Hubbell’s
report?
Mr. FENKELL. That is something that I am unable to say. The matter
is now before the sewer committee of the common council, and in the
natural course of events it would be considered by that committee and
a report thereon submitted to the common council. The matter could
then be acted on by the common council, or any action could be taken
that the council saw fit.
Mr. TAWNEY. How many members constitute the council?
Mr. FENKELL. There are 42 members.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I understand you also to say that before any final
action would be taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report the matter would be
submitted to the taxpayers.
Mr. FENKELL. In order to issue bonds.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Simply to issue bonds?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Otherwise, it would not be submitted to the taxpayers?
Mr. FENKELL. Probably not unless it required a change in the city’s
charter. A change in the charter requires a vote of 50 per cent or
more.
Mr. MIGNAULT. And to issue bonds you require 60 per cent?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes; 60 per cent. The vote on the Belle Isle Bridge
bonds a year ago failed because it received only 58 per cent.
Mr. MIGNAULT. That was the case of a contemplated bond issue?
Mr. FENKELL. Yes.
Mr. MAGRATH. Mr. Fenkell, I see that in your letter to Mr. Hubbell,
dated November 25, 1914, you decided to submit certain problems
for his consideration, the second one being, “To what extent does
the city of Detroit sewage pollute American waters so as to render
them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?” Mr.
Hubbell’s reply to that certainly has the right ring to it. It is
stated in paragraph No. 7 of his report, which reads as follows:
In regard to the second part of the problem as to what
expense would be justified for sewage treatment, it is
difficult to formulate an answer in terms of money alone.
However, it is believed that, aside from the international
features of the problem, the combined benefits which would
accrue from a more cleanly water front, purer water at
the bathing beaches and summer playgrounds, reduction in
typhoid and other water-borne diseases, due to the use of
sewage-laden water along the river front; betterment of
raw-water supplies for the municipalities below the city,
and the protection of Detroit’s water from gross sewage
pollution at times when the Detroit River flows backward
amply justify the expenditure required for sewage-treatment
works as above outlined. In round figures, the cost would
be about $6,000,000, and in my judgment the expenditure of
this sum would be justifiable.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this commission
should put itself on record with Mr. Fenkell to the effect that
we have been in a delicate position and have had a delicate piece
of work to attend to, and the city of Detroit has played up
magnificently in connection with this investigation. I think it is
only fair to make that admission to these gentlemen. So far as I am
concerned as a member of this commission, I appreciate the good work
that the city of Detroit has done, and I am quite confident that the
city of Detroit will do its duty in the matter. I think, Mr. Fenkell,
that we are indebted to you and to your mayor and the members of your
city council for the way in which you have always met us here in
connection with this problem.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that I think that expresses
the views of the commission generally. There have been certainly very
high appreciation and cooperation in the city of Detroit, and we have
every reason to believe that the city will join in any recommendation
we may make to the two Governments for the purpose of solving this
problem.
Mr. FENKELL. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been our endeavor
to work along the lines laid down by the commission, and I know it is
the wish of the mayor to do what he can to further your efforts and
to work in cooperation with the cities and towns on the Canadian side
of the river. He feels that the American cities and the Canadian
cities are so closely knit together that the welfare of one must work
for the welfare of the other. I know that he wants to do everything
he can to further anything that will be beneficial to the cities on
both sides of the river.
I want to thank the members of this commission, both officially and
personally, for your kindness in the matter, and to assure you that
we shall welcome any suggestion that you may have to offer, and we
will continue to work along lines that may seem to you and to your
commission to be proper and right.
If there is any further information that I can give you, I shall
be pleased to do so. The mayor would have been here this morning
had it been possible, and he may be here later. Should there be any
information that you would like me to secure, I would be glad to
obtain it from the comptroller, the corporation counsel, or any of
the other city officials.
Mr. TAWNEY. I think the information that the commission would like to
have, Mr. Fenkell, is the present bonded indebtedness of the city,
and, if there is a limitation upon the power of the city to incur
obligations of that kind, what that limitation is and how near you
have reached it. If you will kindly have prepared a statement along
that line, we will incorporate it in the record as a part of your
statement of this morning. If you have nothing further to say, we
will now hear Mr. Hubbell.
(The information called for with respect to the assessed valuation of
property and the bonded indebtedness of the city of Detroit appears
in the statement of Mr. George Engel, the city’s comptroller.)
STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE W. HUBBELL, CONSULTING SANITARY
ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Hubbell, I think you had better state for the record
what work, if any, you have done in connection with the consulting
engineer of the commission and what duty you were required to perform
in connection with this problem. First, let me ask you if you reside
here in the city of Detroit?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. TAWNEY. You are a consulting sanitary engineer, practicing here
in the city of Detroit?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. How long have you been engaged in the actual practice of
your profession?
Mr. HUBBELL. I graduated from the University of Michigan in 1893 and
have been engaged in engineering work ever since. About a year and a
half ago Mr. Fenkell, the commissioner of public works for the city
of Detroit referred to me three problems to be reported upon.
The first problem was that I review the data and conclusions of the
international joint commission for the purpose of enlarging on any
phase of the matter that might be necessary in order to determine
what preventive or remedial measures are required with reference to
Canadian waters.
The second problem was, to what extent does the sewage of the city
of Detroit pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a
source of raw water for filtration purposes?
The third problem submitted was, by what means, if any, should the
city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage, and what expense
would be justifiable for that purpose?
Mr. TAWNEY. That was in November, 1914, was it not?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Since that time have you been engaged in working out
these problems for the city of Detroit?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. During that time was the sanitary consulting engineer of
the commission engaged in the study of the same problems here in the
city?
Mr. HUBBELL. During a portion of that time he was.
Mr. TAWNEY. And you worked in conjunction with him?
Mr. HUBBELL. Through the cooperation of Prof. Phelps and Mr. McRae,
who was in charge of the Detroit station, we engaged joint offices
for the study of what to me was the third problem submitted. The
cooperation was very close in working out the details connected with
the third problem submitted to me.
Mr. MIGNAULT. That is as to remedial measures?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; by what means, if any, should the city of
Detroit undertake to purify the sewage.
Mr. TAWNEY. Since the report of the commission’s consulting sanitary
engineer has been made have you had an opportunity to examine and
study it?
Mr. HUBBELL. I have examined it; I have not studied it closely in all
its details.
Mr. TAWNEY. You have made a final report to the city council of
Detroit as a result of your investigation and study?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; a copy of which report I have here.
Mr. TAWNEY. So far as the remedies for the pollution of the Detroit
River as it extends beyond the boundary are concerned, do you know to
what extent your report corresponds with the report of the consulting
sanitary engineer of the commission?
Mr. HUBBELL. In working out the problem jointly we came to a
practical agreement in the matter.
Mr. TAWNEY. You are familiar with the alternative propositions which
the consulting sanitary engineer has submitted to the commission, are
you?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, sir; entirely so.
Mr. MIGNAULT. There are six alternative measures referred to. Our
consulting engineer has expressed a preference for two of those
measures. Did you agree practically with his choice?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes; we were practically agreed as to the methods that
were most desirable and most fitted for the conditions that exist at
Detroit.
Mr. TAWNEY. You also agree with the consulting engineer of the
commission with respect to the Detroit metropolitan drainage
district; that is, taking in the suburban villages around here, as I
understand it?
Mr. HUBBELL. I think that such a plan, if it could be consummated,
would be desirable.
Mr. TAWNEY. Two main reasons that are given for the consolidation of
this area into one drainage district are, first, preventing disputes
between the various communities, and, second, effecting economies
and producing more satisfactory conditions generally by means of
comprehensive planning. Your studies were made along the line of a
metropolitan district such as is described here in this report?
Mr. HUBBELL. They do not depend on that entirely for their carrying
out. The success of the scheme for purifying or treating the sewage
should not depend solely upon the establishment of a metropolitan
district.
Mr. POWELL. It could be worked out as an independent system?
Mr. HUBBELL. It could be done so, although it would be an advantage
to have it worked out as a metropolitan district. I might say, in
connection with that, probably an easier and more feasible way of
working that out would be by annexation by Detroit of territory
that immediately needs development, and that would not require the
machinery or legislation that the other scheme would.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Are there many outlying districts which would have to
be annexed to the city of Detroit?
Mr. HUBBELL. No; there are not many; if a working basis could be
arranged between the existing municipalities as has already been done
through the courts in the case of Highland Park.
Mr. TAWNEY. In your report to the city council, Mr. Hubbell, do you
recommend the same standards of purification recommended by the
consulting engineers of the commission, both as to sewage and water,
or do you treat the standards at all?
Mr. HUBBELL. I have gone into some detail in regard to the 500 B.
coli standard, and I believe it to be conservative and reasonable as
borne out by data and facts.
Mr. TAWNEY. Did you go into the matter of standard of purification of
sewage or treatment of sewage, to what extent it should be purified?
Mr. HUBBELL. In a general way only. Accepting the 500 B. coli
standard, the indications are that approximately 90 to 95 per cent
purification would be needed bacterially to our sewage to meet that
standard. That, however, is a question for the future to determine.
It is, in my opinion, a little doubtful as to just what percentage of
bacterial removal would be required in order to produce that result,
but from my studies I concluded that from 90 to 95 per cent would be
required.
Mr. MIGNAULT. And could be realized?
Mr. HUBBELL. Yes; and could be realized; there is no question about
that.
Mr. POWELL. I gathered the impression from your report, by a hasty
glance at it, that while you did not quarrel with the standard of
500 B. coli per 100 cubic centimeters you inclined rather to a more
severe standard.
Mr. HUBBARD. Well, that question is involved with the one of seasonal
variation. I made quite extensive studies to determine the seasonal
variations in the Detroit River independent of the data that was
shown in the International Joint Commission’s first report. I found
that for normal conditions in the Detroit River the number of B.
coli present was, perhaps, two and a fourth times the average in the
summer time, and about one-quarter of the average in the cold months,
following approximately the temperature curve.
Mr. TAWNEY. To what condition do you attribute that increase in the
summer? In your judgment, has navigation anything to do with it?
Mr. HUBBELL. In my judgment, the navigation has very little to do
with it, because the curve falls before navigation stops.
Mr. POWELL. What is the crisis in the curve--in what month?
Mr. HUBBELL. June, July, August, and September are the high months.
The highest point of the curve which I determined for the entire
river was in September, but for the waterworks’ intake it was in
August.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Is it possible to explain why pollution is higher in
the summer months than in the winter months?
Mr. HUBBELL. I have made no attempt to explain that. I merely report
the fact that it is so on the Detroit River.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I gather that that is a fact which can not be
questioned, but is not so easily explained.
Mr. HUBBELL. I concur in that expression; yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. If I understand you correctly, then, Mr. Hubbell, your
recommendations to the city on this subject are practically in accord
with the recommendations of the consulting engineer of the commission
as to the remedies for the existing pollution?
Mr. HUBBELL. We reached the same conclusion as to the method to be
adopted, if any is adopted.
Mr. TAWNEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to have Mr.
Hubbell’s report made a part of the hearings for the purpose of
using such portions of it in the proceedings as the commission may
hereafter desire.
(The report of Mr. Hubbell was received as a part of his statement
before the commission on the question under consideration.)
Mr. TAWNEY. Is there anything further, Mr. Hubbell, that you desire
to present to the commission on this question?
Mr. HUBBELL. I have expressed myself fully in my report, and there is
nothing further, unless there are some questions that you wish to ask
me.
Mr. GARDNER. I think your report is an admirable one and does you
great credit.
Mr. TAWNEY. Will the comptroller of the city of Detroit kindly state
for the record the assessed value of the property of the city and the
present bonded indebtedness?
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE ENGEL, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY
OF DETROIT.
Mr. ENGEL. I had rather have about 15 minutes for the purpose of
preparing such a statement and submit it to you in writing. Our gross
debt at this time is about $20,000,000 in round figures; the net debt
about $12,000,000. Our limitation is 4 per cent, and the assessed
valuation something over $700,000,000. So you see we have a leeway,
of something over $16,000,000. Our net debt is very small, probably
smaller than that of any city of its size in the United States. I
will have a statement prepared for you.
Mr. TAWNEY. We will incorporate your statement in the record.
Mr. POWELL. Do you mean the assessed value of real estate or the
combined real and personal valuation?
Mr. ENGEL. Combined real and personal.
Mr. TAWNEY. And the limitation applies to the combined valuation?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir; and that is 4 per cent.
Mr. POWELL. Have you any rule that you observe in respect to
valuation?
Mr. ENGEL. We are supposed to assess at cash value, full value, 100
per cent.
Mr. POWELL. The market value?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir.
Mr. GARDNER. What is your rate?
Mr. ENGEL. About $18.50 per thousand for next year.
(Mr. Engel later submitted to the commission a statement of the
bonded debt of the city of Detroit, which is copied into the record
in full, as follows:)
_Statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit._