Mr. POWELL. Except extreme cold?
Mr. HATTON. Yes. We have to use more air in the cold weather than we
do in the warm weather, in order to get the same quality of effluent,
approximately this winter 12 per cent more air.
Mr. POWELL. It means practically 12 per cent additional cost?
Mr. HATTON. Of the air alone; but this cost I have quoted is the
actual cost of summer and winter conditions.
Mr. FENKELL. May I ask a question? To what extent would it be
necessary to allow untreated water to escape because of rainstorm?
Mr. HATTON. We are anticipating at the present time, or will
anticipate in this plant, 150 gallons of rain water per capita; that
is all the rain water that will be carried to the plant, and that
rain water will be treated the same as the dry-weather flow. The
balance of the rain water will go into the river.
Mr. POWELL. That is per diem?
Mr. HATTON. Per capita; 150 gallons per capita per day.
Mr. DOW. May I ask the witness whether I am correct in my summing up
of the advantage of his method over the Imhoff tank method, in that
it tends to reduce the net cost by producing a readily marketable
fertilizer; that is the essential advantage. Am I correct in so
understanding?
Mr. HATTON. Not altogether, sir. As far as your statement goes, it is
correct, but to get a removal of 95 per cent of bacteria from the raw
sewage, it costs considerably more to do it by the Imhoff tank and
sterilization than it does by this process. I just quoted the figures.
Mr. DOW. Then initially, the advantage is that, with equal operating
costs a higher removal of bacteria is possible by this process?
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. DOW. And in addition thereto, there is a certain commercial
advantage, in that the product is readily marketable?
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. DOW. Much more readily marketed than the Imhoff product?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; that is true.
Mr. DOW. As regards the latter phase of the situation, am I correct
also in my supposition that the present prices for fertilizers are
abnormal, having regard to the prices prior to the war, say 1914?
Mr. HATTON. No; the price of two and a half per unit is the price
that existed prior to the war; the price of ammoniacal nitrogen
to-day is considerably higher than that.
Mr. DOW. The figures given are based upon what might be considered
normal markets, and not upon the present very abnormal prices?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; for instance, phosphoric acid is worth to-day 10
times as much as the quotations I have used in making my valuations.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any questions, Prof. Phelps?
Prof. PHELPS. No.
Mr. DALLYN. Just one point that Mr. Mignault brought out. Comparing
the results of your process with the Imhoff tank, Mr. Mignault rather
concluded that the Imhoff tank could be used in the same location
as your plant. Is it not true that the effluents from the two types
of treatment compare as the two samples on the table, activated
sludge effluent being clear, and that from the Imhoff tank turbid and
discolored, similar to raw sewage?
Mr. HATTON. That is true. I answered that with the idea of nuisance
to the adjacent neighbor.
Mr. DALLYN. What is your actual saving, as you actually contemplate
placing interceptors, collecting the sewage, in the adoption of your
method?
Mr. HATTON. We are saving about $2,000,000 in carrying out the
subaqueous tunnel a mile and a half out to sea, as the original board
of engineers suggested.
Mr. POWELL. I understood you to give that as the esthetic feature?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; not only esthetic feature, but the purification
feature; in other words, the local engineer has indicated that he
would not permit, with his sanction, any sewage disposal plant which
would deposit that much suspended matter in the harbor.
Mr. MIGNAULT. The question I put to you was to ascertain, in case
they decided to establish other treatment plants in order to avoid
constructing sewers, whether your system had any advantage over the
Imhoff-tank system?
Mr. HATTON. As I answered your question before, I was looking upon
it with a view to nuisance to the neighborhood. As to nuisance
which might arise from the discoloration of the water, I should
say the Imhoff tank would be far more deleterious in that respect
than our process; but as to nuisances arising in the waters due to
decomposition, assuming that the sterilization of the Imhoff tank
liquor is complete, then the two plants would be practically equal,
as to nuisances arising outside of the discoloration of the water.
Prof. PHELPS. In regard to the matter which Mr. Mignault has
brought out, I think it should be stated that, as far as the city
of Detroit is concerned, and also as far as Buffalo is concerned,
the question of interceptors, or of local plant, was not determined
by the character of the treatment, but was determined solely by the
physical conditions--that is, it was impossible for us to locate the
local plants and thus save the interceptors, by reason of the levels
of the sewers and the inaccessibility of available land. We did
consider local treatment, and if it had been feasible it would have
represented considerable saving. The determination is not conditioned
by the character of the treatment.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you anything further to say?
Mr. HATTON. No.
Mr. TAWNEY. On behalf of the commission, I desire to extend to
you our sincere thanks for your appearing before us, coming from
Milwaukee for that purpose, and giving us the very interesting and
clear statement you have concerning the operation of your plant in
Milwaukee and the process of it.
Mr. POWELL. We can all assent to that.
Mr. GARDNER. Without any question.
Mr. MIGNAULT. You refer to the published report of the city of
Milwaukee. Is that available?
Mr. HATTON. I would be glad to give it to the commission. I am sorry
to say it is the last one.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is the only one you have?
Mr. HATTON. Except our own office copy.
Mr. MIGNAULT. And the process is described?
Mr. HATTON. Quite well; and the results.
Mr. MAGRATH. I suppose it is impossible to get copies of this any
place?
Mr. HATTON. Well, there are some of them in public laboratories
throughout the country and among engineers; but we had a pretty
lively demand for them and we only had 500 copies issued, and they
are all gone. That is a copy I picked up on my desk yesterday.
Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement here regarding lake
currents which would elucidate what Mr. Hatton was not quite familiar
with.
Mr. Goddard, assistant engineer at Grand Rapids of the United States
engineer office, read a paper before the Engineers’ Club, of Grand
Rapids in April, 1916, which included his own experience, as well as
a compilation of the results of the studies of others and covering a
number of years. His conclusions were that the currents in the Lakes
are produced primarily by the winds and secondarily by variation in
barometric pressure.
Wind currents follow the direction of the wind.
Pressure currents flow from high to low pressure areas.
The flow through the Straits of Mackinac in either way, according as
the above conditions prevail.
STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE A. LEISEN, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT
OF THE WATERWORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Leisen, you are the president of the Great Lakes Pure
Water Association, are you not?
Mr. LEISEN. No, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are you connected with that association?
Mr. LEISEN. I have a letter from the secretary asking me to represent
the association at this meeting.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you examined this report of the consulting engineer
of the commission?
Mr. LEISEN. I regret to say that I did not see that report until
yesterday at noon, and I think you can realize that I have not.
While I had endeavored to read over a part of it I have not been
able to digest it.
Mr. TAWNEY. What are the functions of your organization?
Mr. LEISEN. The functions are largely the questions from the sanitary
point of view of preserving the purity of the waters of the Great
Lakes.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is a voluntary organization?
Mr. LEISEN. It is a voluntary organization without any official
standing. It is simply an auxiliary to the health departments in an
unofficial way, I should say.
Mr. TAWNEY. Where are the headquarters located?
Mr. LEISEN. Practically they have no headquarters.
Mr. POWELL. Who are the officers?
Mr. LEISEN. Mr. Paul Hansom, of the Illinois State Board of Health,
is the secretary; and Dr. Charles J. Hastings is president.
Mr. POWELL. Has your organization followed the work of the
International Joint Commission in this investigation?
Mr. LEISEN. My familiarity with the organization is almost nil. As
I say, I had a conversation with Mr. Hansom in New York relative to
the matter a few weeks ago, and he asked me if I was still a member
of the association. As a matter of fact, that did not come to a
definite point until I got his letter asking me to represent them
here. Officially, I am not in a position to say very much about the
association or what they have done. It is a newly organized body.
Mr. POWELL. When was it organized?
Mr. LEISEN. Some time during the past years.
Mr. POWELL. What are its purposes?
Mr. LEISEN. I think the preservation of the purity of the waters of
the Great Lakes.
Mr. TAWNEY. And also the connecting rivers, I suppose?
Mr. LEISEN. Well, yes.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any statement which you desire to make to the
commission in respect to the pollution of these waters?
Mr. LEISEN. As you understand, I am the general superintendent for
the board of water commissioners here in Detroit, and as such have
charge of the water supply. So, naturally, my interest from that
point of view would be toward----
Mr. TAWNEY. You appeared before the commission two years ago, when we
were here, did you not?
Mr. LEISEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. And at that time you gave us full and detailed
information concerning the water purification?
Mr. LEISEN. I believe the points were generally covered then.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you the same process now that you had at that time?
Mr. LEISEN. With this difference: At that, time we were treating the
water with hypochloride of lime as a disinfectant. We have since
changed to liquid chlorine treatment.
Mr. TAWNEY. What has been the result?
Mr. LEISEN. There has been no radical difference in the result. The
results obtained from the use of hypochloride of lime have been
almost identical with those obtained from the use of liquid chlorine;
possibly some elimination of the taste in the water. I do not
believe the complaints of taste of chlorine have been of any moment
at all since the liquid-chlorine process was adopted. To that extent
I consider it an improvement and it is a little more cleanly. It is a
nicer process, more methodical, and more mechanical in its methods.
Mr. TAWNEY. You have only one intake?
Mr. LEISEN. Yes.
Mr. TAWNEY. What is its capacity?
Mr. LEISEN. It is 10 feet in diameter and a little over 300 feet
long. Its capacity, of course, would vary with the head permissible
on the shore end.
Mr. TAWNEY. How many gallons are you consuming per day?
Mr. LEISEN. We are consuming at the present time about 130,000,000 to
160,000,000 gallons per day.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is, a day of 24 hours?
Mr. LEISEN. Yes. Our highest hourly capacity for any one period was
at the rate of about 190,000,000 gallons per day of 24 hours.
Mr. TAWNEY. The hour consumption was at that rate?
Mr. LEISEN. That was the peak load, yes; for one hour during the past
year.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you studied this problem in connection with the
matter of sewage disposal at all, or do you deal entirely with the
water end of it?
Mr. LEISEN. I have no official connection with the sewage disposal
proposition; but my interests are simply those of an engineer in the
problem, and as a citizen.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you had any cases of typhoid fever in the city of
Detroit in the last year or two?
Mr. LEISEN. Yes; there have been cases, not abnormal. The
typhoid-fever death rate has been reasonably constant for the last
few years and comparatively low.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you gentlemen any questions to ask? If not, that is
all, Mr. Leisen. Are there any other gentlemen here representing the
city of Detroit who wish to be heard on this subject? I see that the
mayor of the city has just come in, in time to witness the closing of
these hearings. He may have something to say. If he has we shall be
glad to hear from him.
Mr. MARX. I do not know really what you have done this morning.
Mr. TAWNEY. Well, gentlemen, it seems that this closes the hearing.
In concluding the hearing I have been requested, on behalf of the
commission, to extend to the mayor of the city of Detroit and the
council of the city our sincere thanks for the courtesy which has
been extended to us in giving us the use of this council chamber. I
can assure the mayor and the council that the commission sincerely
appreciates, not only the courtesy that has been extended to us,
but also the hearty cooperation which we have received from the
officials of the city since the beginning of the investigation, and
we sincerely hope that when our final recommendations are made to the
two Governments they will receive the approval and support of the
city of Detroit and of the neighboring cities as well. Thanking you
gentlemen for your appearance and courtesy, I will state that the
hearings are now closed.
Mr. MARX. I want to assure you of our continued cooperation.
(Thereupon, at 12.30 o’clock p. m., the hearings were closed.)
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
_Ogdensburg, N. Y., Friday, August 25, 1916._
The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.
Mr. Gardner presided.
Mr. GARDNER. Gentlemen, you will kindly come to order. In August,
1912, the Governments of Canada and the United States jointly
referred to the International Joint Commission for investigation and
report, under the terms of Article IX of the treaty of January 11,
1909, certain questions relating to the pollution of boundary waters.
Briefly stated, these questions are: What are the extent, causes, and
localities of such pollution? How may such pollution best be remedied?
It is safe to say that of all the questions with which the commission
has had to deal this is by far the most important. Nothing can be
more vital than the conservation of health, and that is precisely the
object of this investigation. The population directly tributary to
the boundary waters between Canada and the United States amounts to
over 7,000,000, and it is estimated that over 15,000,000 are carried
annually in steamboats on these waters. The pollution of boundary
waters is a direct menace to every one of these millions of citizens
of the two countries. Its prevention will be of incalculable benefit.
In investigating the first question the commission was fortunate
enough to secure the services of Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin, of the
United States Public Health Service, and now commissioner of health
of Massachusetts. Associated with him were Dr. J. W. S. McCullough,
Prof. John A. Amyot, and Mr. F. A. Dallyn, of the Provincial
Board of Health of Ontario. Under the direction of these officers
bacteriological surveys were carried out throughout the boundary
waters, from the St. John River in the east to the Lake of the Woods
in the west. They also had the cordial cooperation of the Public
Health Services of both the Federal Governments and of the States and
Provinces on these boundary waters. The results of this investigation
were embodied in a progress report submitted to the two Governments
in 1914, to which was appended a very complete report by the sanitary
experts of the commission, outlining the extent of pollution in the
different localities and the causes to which it was attributed.
Having disposed of the first question, the commission took up the
second, as to remedies. As a first step, a conference was arranged
in New York with six eminent sanitary engineers, George W. Fuller,
Earle B. Phelps, and George C. Whipple, of the United States, and
F. A. Dallyn, W. S. Lea, and Theo. J. Lafrenière, of Canada, whose
testimony furnishes an invaluable record on the engineering side
of the question. As a result of this conference certain broad
fundamental principles were established, upon which any remedial
action must be based. The services of Prof. Phelps were secured
as consulting sanitary engineer to the commission, and under his
direction a series of careful studies were made, with particular
reference to the interception and treatment of riparian sewage on
the Detroit and Niagara Rivers, the chief areas of pollution. Public
hearings were held in the cities and towns along these waters in
1914, and again in the present year, to afford every opportunity to
the municipal and other authorities interested to put their views
before the commission.
In March, 1916, the consulting sanitary engineer submitted to the
commission his report upon remedial measures. Before closing the
hearings the commission deemed it desirable to give those interested
in health matters on the St. Lawrence an opportunity to come forward
and present their views. With that object in view it was decided to
hold a meeting in Ogdensburg to-day. Afterwards the commission will
proceed to prepare for submission to the two Governments its final
report, both as to the extent and causes of pollution and as to the
remedies best designed to safeguard the health of the Canadian and
American communities along the boundary.
Not only are we here to confer with those interested in health
matters, to find remedies for the removal of the causes of pollution,
but to ascertain to what extent and by what methods, system, or lack
of system are the boundary waters in this community being polluted
in contravention of the terms of the treaty made between the British
Empire and the United States, which provides that “These waters
shall not be polluted on either side of the line to the injury of
health or property on the other,” and also to serve notice that the
time is drawing near when no raw sewage will be allowed to flow
into these waters, and all communities in the near future will be
required to treat their sewage by some process of purification
before being allowed to use the waters of the boundary as an avenue
for its discharge. The commission therefore desires to hear from
representatives of the cities and towns bordering on the St. Lawrence
River as to what is being done at this time and what plans, if any,
are being considered for the future to remove the causes of pollution
in these boundary waters.
By direction of the chairman, Secretary Burpee then read the
notice of the meeting to be held at Ogdensburg, which was sent to
interested municipalities and officials in the United States and
Canada, together with copies of the report of the consulting sanitary
engineer of the commission, and also the list of the municipalities
to whom the notice and report were sent.
The notice and list are as follows: