* “*” ------. | D issue ENaIN. TD 52.5 N 5. A 9.5 1411 b | - / - - | ##### ،ĒĒĒĖĘĘ §§§§§§§§§§ ſae§§× × × × ×ºsas 、、。-ae|× ſº§§&##### ſºſ?!!！， ， ， ， ， ，，，，- ĒĒĒĒĒ�######§§§ |-，，...，∞， ∞; ∞, ∞ : x， ºrºſ！！！ §§§############## Ē№ ■&=&= º****** ∞∞， ∞ #####ğ˧§。*ş & ſ -- ***！ ！！！■** §* § （1） -，####§§§ 2&§§§§§©®°¶ ¡ ¿ ####### &=& ###### ĢĒ#####2 -- " - ... - - * --> - º ** - - * ~ * - tºº, *. . - - *. •. ‘. . . - - - *.*. -- * ~ * • . . . . . ." . - . . . . . . . . . . ; - - *~!yºff -- ~~~ AS sº tººlean, '' . . SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT | - ---. on the -r . . . DISPOSAL OF NEW YORK'S SEWAGE CRITICAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK SEWER PLAN | . COMMISSION ON THE PLANS OF MAIN DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROPOSED FOR NEW $º YORK BY THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE ||… . . . . COMMISSION AND REPLY THERETO -- --- ... < METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION - OF NEW YORK - GEORGE A. SOPER - *- JAMES H. FUERTES *. H. de B. PARSONS Commissioners - - CHARLES SOOYSMITH * JUNE 30, 1914 LINSLY R. WILLIAMS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT O N THE DISPOSAL OF NEW YORK's SEWAGE CRITICAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK SEWER PLAN COMMISSION ON THE PLANS OF MAIN DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROPOSED FOR NEW YORK BY THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION AND REPLY THERETO wºº (sº), METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION * * - - OF NEW YORK GEORGE A. SOPER JAMES H. FUERTES H. de B. PARSONS Commissioners CHARLES SOOYSMITH JUNE 30, 1914 LINSLY R. WILLIAMS CRITICAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK SEWER PLAN COMMISSION ON THE PLANS OF MAIN DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROPOSED FOR NEW YORK BY THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION AND REPLY THERETO HONORABLE JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, Mayor, City of New York. SIR: From 1910 to 1914 the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission was engaged in making plans of main drainage and sewage disposal for New York City.” This work was based on the investigations which the Commission had made from its creation in 1906; to the publication of its formal report of April, 1910. To facilitate the planning, the city was separated into four great divisions, according to the principal drainage areas which were tributary to the chief divisions of the harbor. The works for each division were prepared with the object of preserving the harbor in that degree of cleanness which the Commission and its various expert advisers considered necessary and sufficient in view of the digestive capacity of the waters and the uses to which the harbor was put.f When a plan for any considerable part of the city approached completion, the engineers in charge of the local sewerage systems which would be tributary to the new works were invited to the Commission's office in order to discuss the plans and give the Commission the benefit of their criticism. In some cases the plans were materially altered in order to meet the views of the Sewer Bureaus. The plans were then printed and copies of the reports containing them were distributed in order to give early information con- cerning the projects which the Commission expected to recommend in its final report. At various times the Commission employed consulting experts to criticize the various projects which the Commission had prepared and it was partly on the advice so received that some of the more important projects were decided upon. The critical reports of the experts were published and distributed. § At the beginning of the last year of its existence, the Commission undertook to obtain for the work such benefit as could be rendered by the consulting engineers of the several boroughs. The efforts made to secure co-operation consisted, first, of a conference with the consulting engineers. On this occasion the con- sulting engineers expressed their willingness to co-operate, but stated that they could not do so unless au- thorized by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. With the object of obtaining the necessary permis- sion, a second conference was held at the request of the Commission. The invitation was extended by the Borough President of Manhattan and the meeting took place at his office. All the Borough Presidents were requested to attend, but only the President of the Borough of Manhattan was there in person. The consulting engineers and the members of the Metropolitan Commission were present. At this meeting the Metropolitan Commission explained its work, renewed its request for co-operation and suggested that steps be taken by the Board of Estimate to give the consulting engineers the needed permission to assist the Commission in completing its plans. *Preliminary Reports"I to VII, inclusive, Sept. 1911–Feb. 1913. Metropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of April 30, 1914. fMetropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of April 30, 1910. fMetropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of August 1, 1912. * r * -- { §Metropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of August 1, 1912. - *- 4. At the meeting of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment following the conference held in the office of the Borough President of Manhattan, a resolution was introduced, appointing the consulting engineers and the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate a Commission to make main drainage and sewage disposal plans for the city. This was on June 26, 1913. The appointment of the city engineers to form a new Commission to undertake work which the Metropolitan Commission had nearly completed was not understood by the latter, and a letter was sent to the Borough President of Manhattan on July 21st to inquire if a mistake had not inadvertently been made. This letter recited the reasons which had led the Metropolitan Commission to invite the help of the con- sulting engineers and described the incidents which preceded the formation of the new Commission. A reply was received to the effect that there had been no mistake, the object of creating the new Commission being to provide for the co-operation desired by creating a semi-official body representing specifically the different boroughs. The letter stated: “I recognize that with the filing of the final report of your Com- mission will come the next, and very important, stage of the city’s sewerage plan, that of construction.” A letter was sent by the Metropolitan Commission to the members of the Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment on March 18, 1914, inviting attention to the plans of main drainage and sewage disposal made by the Metropolitan Commission and stating that in a report to the Mayor, dated January 7, 1914, the Metropolitan Commission had recommended that a new Commission be at once created, or an existing Com- mission designated, to proceed with the detailed study of plans which should form part of the construction of the necessary works. The Board of Estimate was informed that the members of the Metropolitan Com- mission had placed their resignations in the hands of the Mayor to take effect as soon as their final report could be completed, which, it was expected, would not be later than April 30, 1914.” There was appended to this letter a condensed statement of the Commission’s investigations, findings and conclusions, plans for main drainage and sewage disposal works and scheme of administration for construction and maintenance. At a special meeting of the Board of Estimate held on April 14, 1914, the work of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, and particularly its plans for main drainage and sewage disposal, were criticized by the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate, the Consulting Engineer of the Borough of Manhattan and the Chief Engineer of the Sewer Bureau of Brooklyn, representing the Sewer Plan Commission, which had been created by the Board of Estimate on June 26, 1913. It was stated that sufficient time had not been afforded in which to prepare an adequate criticism of the Metropolitan Commission’s work. The Board of Estimate requested that the criticisms of the city engineers be submitted in writing at a meeting to be held later. At the meeting of the Board of Estimate held about one month later, that is, on May 18th, a printed report of the city engineers criticizing the work of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission was presented and the conclusions which were appended to it were discussed. The meeting was then adjourned until the essential points of disagreement contained in the report could be defined and submitted for discussion to the Board of Estimate. Two meetings between the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and the city engineers were held in ac- cordance with this arrangement. The first meeting, held on June 1, showed that the main points of disagreement were upon the three following questions: J. *#. report, with the matured plans for works and much additional information, was delivered by the printer Ulně 3. is 5 1. Is it desirable to include a specific reference to oxygen in the standard of cleanness for the waters of the harbor 2 - 2. Are the Metropolitan Commission's plans for the relief of the Lower East river and Harlem suitable for adoption? 3. To what extent is it practicable and desirable to construct settling basins in the built-up sec- tions of the city? At the conclusion of the meeting it seemed possible to eliminate the oxygen question as a point of difference. The Metropolitan Commission thereupon suggested the possibility that further conferences might result in the elimination of all the disagreements and proposed that the Commission and the city engineers should meet again if a substantially complete agreement seemed possible. A second meeting was held at the office of the Metropolitan Commission on June 11 for the purpose of discussing the question of settling basins in the built-up parts of the city and the measures of relief suitable for the Lower East river and Harlem. At this second meeting it appeared that the Metropolitan Commission and the city engineers could make little additional headway toward an agreement without going into many details for which there was not time before the first of July, when the Metropolitan Commission expected to go out of existence. As a result of the conferences, it was decided to submit to the Board of Estimate a statement of the three most important points of difference and a brief memorandum of the arguments in favor of, and against, each point. These were not all the points of difference which existed between the Metropolitan Com- mission and the city engineers. In the critical report upon the Metropolitan Commission's plans, sub- mitted by the city engineers on May 15, 1914, there were over 100 misstatements or points of disagreement. The three points of disagreement which it seemed desirable to bring before the Board of Estimate, with the essential arguments relating to them, here follow: THE OxYGEN SPECIFICATION IN THE STANDARD OF CLEANNESS The Metropolitan Commission, in its report of August, 1912, recommended a standard of cleanness for the waters of New York harbor. The terms of this standard were based largely on the Commission’s studies of the condition of the water and the need of improving that condition. In arriving at its opinion, the Commission obtained the advice of eight experts especially qualified to consult in regard to the degree of permissible pollution, as considered from the standpoint of public health and decency. The standard which was formulated and the experts’ reports were printed in August, 1912, and are contained in the second of the three large volumes of reports which the Metropolitan Commission has issued. The standard, as originally drafted, included the minimum amount of oxygen which was, in the com. mission’s opinion, permissible for the harbor waters. Further studies carried on during a period of two years have convinced the Metropolitan Commission that it is not necessary or desirable to state a specific limit to the oxygen which may be present. The Commission is convinced that if the other requirements of the standard are complied with, there will be sufficient oxygen in the water. In fact the function of the oxygen is largely to permit the other specifications of the standard to be realized. The omission of the oxygen specification is in accordance with the opinions of the last two consulting experts employed by the Commission and has their endorsement.* * Metropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of April 30, 1914, p. 612 et seq. 6 The city engineers advise the retention of a specification with respect to oxygen and would have it vary in different parts of the harbor and be lower than any minimum heretofore proposed, but it has been impossible in the conferences which have been held between the Metropolitan Commission and the city en- - gineers to obtain a statement of the amount of oxygen which the city engineers consider necessary and sufficient. - It seems impracticable to the Metropolitan Commission to maintain different standards in the different parts of the harbor for the reason that the waters flow to a considerable extent from one to another and all vary considerably at different seasons of year. SETTLING BASINS IN THE BUILT-UP SECTIONs of THE CITY During a large part of its work of planning a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for New York, attention was given to the extent to which it would be permissible to employ settling basins for the partial purification of the sewage. As a result, works employing settling basins have been rec- ommended by the Metropolitan Commission for the following places: Wards Island, Tallmans Island, Clason Point, Barren Island, Jo Cos Marsh and the ocean island. The Commission is opposed to the use of Settling basins in built-up sections. - - - In considering the permissibility of using settling basins, the following investigations were made: 1. Studies for basins in various situations, including the following: (a) Along the waterfront be- neath the marginal streets; (b) in the parks; (c) in side streets; (d) on property to be acquired for the purpose. 2. The possibility of building settling basins (a) wholly beneath the street surfaces was inquired into, as was the practicability of constructing them so as to operate (b) under and (c) without the in- fluence of the tidal movements in the harbor. 3. Various types of settling basins were considered, including (a) Imhoff tanks ; (b) Dortmund tanks; (c) shallow depth settling basins. 4. Study was given to structural questions relating to settling basins and especially to (a) the cost of construction and (b) interference with other structures beneath the streets. 5. The impracticability of expanding a system of main drainage employing a large number of locally placed settling basins into a more effective system in case of necessity was carefully noted. 6. The probability that offensive odors would be produced by settling basins was discussed and the likelihood that popular objection would be aroused to works employing settling basins in the built-up sections was considered. 7. The inefficiency of various types of settling basin was investigated and consideration was given to (a) the gases produced, (b) sludge formed and (c) the final disposition of the sludge. 8. In order to obtain the most recent and reliable information possible concerning the use of settling basins, (a) visits were made by a member of the Commission to about twenty of the most important sew- age installations in Europe and America; (b) the inventor of the latest marked improvement in the form of settling basins was called in consultation and made a report to the Metropolitan Commission; and (c) the opinion of the engineers of the City of Philadelphia, where settling basins had been made the subject of special study, was obtained. - As a result of all this investigation, the Metropolitan Commission arrived at the opinion that it would be undesirable to construct settling basins in the built-up sections of the city and that such structures were 7 neither necessary from the standpoint of the disposal of the sewage nor defensible upon sanitary grounds. The conferences failed to bring from the city engineers any doſinite plans for the use of settling basins in the built-up sections of the city. PROTECTION OF THE EAST RIVER AND HARLEM RIVER A large part of the argument advanced by the city engineers against the Commission’s projects for the relief of the Lower East river and Harlem was based upon the opinion of the city engineers that settling basins could and should be constructed in the built-up sections of the city. Consequently some part of the argument just stated relating to settling basins applies here. Objection was made by the city engineers against the Commission’s recommendation to build intercep- tors along the Manhattan and Brooklyn shores, to carry the sewage to screening plants at a point in the Lower East river, these plants later to be connected by siphon, and the 200 million gallons of sewage which would be tributary to them to be carried by a tunnel to an island at sea. Objection was made to practically every feature of this part of the Metropolitan Commission’s project. No carefully worked out alternative was proposed. It did not appear that the city engineers had prepared a definite project which might serve as an alternative to the project recommended by the Metropolitan Com- mission. The nearest approach to definiteness was in the suggestion for an interceptor along the Brooklyn waterfront to extend to an island to be constructed south of Governors Island. At this island settling basins would be located and the sewage would be discharged into the neighboring waters. It was not claimed that the line to be followed by this interceptor or its length had been determined. The principal objections which the Metropolitan Commission finds to the scheme are (a) lack of pro- tection to the Lower East river; to take 200 million gallons from the Brooklyn shore and discharge it at Governors Island after settlement, allowing the Manhattan sewage to discharge either in raw condition or by screening or sedimentation would not be equivalent to removing 100 million gallons of sewage from the Manhattan shore and the same quantity from the Brooklyn shore and sending it to sea, as proposed by the Commission. (b) The project would not afford a final solution of the problem of disposing of the sewage of that part of Manhattan which is tributary to the Lower East river. (c) To extend the works so as to afford a greater protection to the water would be prohibitive from the standpoint of cost. (d) Assuming the efficiency of the settling basins as 30 per cent., there would be discharged about 70 per cent. of the polluting materials which would be discharged into the water if no works were built. (e) Further objection lies in the fact that the point of discharge would be within about two miles of the Passaic Valley sewer outfall to which New York has objected for years and concerning which there is a law suit now pending in the United States Supreme Court. The Passaic Valley sewer is expected to discharge 304 million gallons of sewage per twenty-four hours. To this quantity would be added the effluent from the new island, amounting to 200 million gallons per day. These two great loads of sewage would prove to be an excessive burden. (f) Another objection to the construction of a sewage island in the inner harbor would be odor. It is not possible, in the opinion of the Metropolitan Commission, to settle and discharge 200 million gallons of sewage at a point immediately south of Governors Island without producing odors which would be seriously objectionable to the heavy water traffic in the immediate vicinity. (g) The cost of collecting 200 million gallons of sewage from the Brooklyn waterfront and disposing of it on an island to be built south of Governors Island has been estimated by the Metropolitan Commission at about 8 $10,000,000 and the annual charges at about $780,000. If it became necessary in course of time to afford greater protection to the harbor than these works made possible, the next step presumably would be the construction of a tunnel to the ocean. The entire ocean outlet project, as proposed by the city engineers, would then be over $4,500,000 more expensive than the ocean island project of the Metropolitan Com- mission. For the relief of the Harlem, the city engineers proposed a scheme whereby as much as possible of the sewage of Upper Manhattan be diverted from the East river and Harlem to the Hudson river and the sewage of the Lower Bronx partly into the Hudson and partly into the Upper East river at Hunts Point or Rikers Island. No scheme for this territory has been described in detail and it was not brought out in the conferences that any careful planning and estimating had been done by the city engineers in connection with it. The Commission's project of concentrating the sewage from the same territory at Wards Island for treatment and discharge was criticized in practically every respect. The project to carry to the Hudson that part of the sewage of Upper Manhattan, which is naturally tributary to the Harlem river and Hell Gate, requires the construction of a number of tunnels and these, according to the city engineers' report, would discharge about 300 million gallons per day into the Hudson within a distance of about three miles. In the opinion of the Commission, serious popular objection would be aroused in regard to this scheme. The Hudson from 72nd Street to Spuyten Duyvil is practically all park with high shores from which such relatively small discharges of sewage as now take place are too plainly visible. The water is polluted and must eventually receive at least 100 million gallons of sewage per day chiefly from that part of Manhattan which lies to the south of the proposed tunnels. To multiply the pollution of the Hudson river at its most picturesque and attractive point would be to invite serious public criticism. The discharges would have to take place comparatively close to the Manhattan shore, inas- much as the most rapid currents exist there. Otherwise the outlets would have to be carried to an exces- sive depth. As to cost, the report of the city engineers gives no figures and it does not appear that any definite layout for works has been considered. It is proposed to build, in connection with the diversion of the sewage to the Hudson, a new system of collecting sewers, the present sewers being eliminated and in their place a system of storm water drains being laid close beneath the surface of the streets and a system of sewers for household sewage constructed deep underground. It seems unnecessary for the Commission to enter into a detailed discussion of this project. It may be of service, however, to point out that the reconstruction of the sewerage system of Upper Manhattan in the manner proposed would be costly and the interference with the commercial and other activities of the pop- ulation resulting from the tearing up of streets and alterations to the plumbing of the houses would be large. According to estimates furnished to the Commission by several plumbers familiar with such work, to reconstruct the present plumbing of a house on a 25-foot lot in Manhattan, north of 110th Street, with the proposed system of sewers would cost a little more than $400. The cost of diverting all the sewage of Upper Manhattan and a part of the Bronx to the Hudson river and of carrying to Hunts Point for disposal the sewage of that part of the Bronx to the east of Hell Gate, in accordance with the plan proposed by the city engineers, would involve more expense than the Commis- sion's project for the disposal of the sewage of the same territory and would, in the opinion of the Com- mission, arouse serious public protest against the pollution of the Hudson river. 9 No part of the Metropolitan Commission’s work has received more repeated, thorough and impartial investigation by eminent consulting experts than the works proposed for the Lower East river and Harlem. In their present form they have the unqualified endorsement of John D. Watson and Gilbert J. Fowler of England and Rudolph Hering and George W. Fuller of New York. f - Respectfully, ... • . METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION, GEORGE A. SoPER, President, JAMES H. Furtes, Secretary, H. DE B. PARSONS, CHARLEs SooYSMITH, LINSLY R. WILLIAMs. THE REPORT IN FULL AND SPECIFIG REPLIES THERETo CRITICAL REPORT May 15, 1914. Honorable Board of Estimate and Apportionment, City of New York: Gentlemen—The Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and the Consulting Engineers of the Boroughs, constituting the New York Sewer Plan Commission, have been asked to criticize the plan of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission for protecting the harbor of New York from pollution. In the short time available' it has not been possible to go into such detail as would be de- sirable, but we simply have described briefly the scheme as we understand it in its latest form, stated in what respects it is concurred in by us and presented a frank statement of criticisms and suggestions for alternative schemes. The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, as at present constituted, is composed of five members and has been employed continuously for a period of six years at an expense to the City of about $250,000 in an endeavor to find the most suitable solution of this problem. Previous to its appointment, the New York Bay Pollution Commission and an earlier Met- ropolitan Sewerage Commission had together been engaged upon the same problem for five years. It is reasonable to suppose that in this period of ap- proximately eleven years every question relating to this problem has been carefully considered and that all investigations which have a bearing on it have been made. It is understood that in addition to the voluminous reports which have been published, a mass of data has been collected which has neither been published nor otherwise made accessible.” A formidable array of scientific counsel has been employed. Each is an expert in his own specialty and his opinion upon subjects within the range of his particular investigations is undoubtedly worthy of respect. A number of these experts are profes- sors of chemistry and bacteriology and one is a doctor of medicine, but only three or four are sani- tary engineers and experts who are fully equipped to advise upon the whole problem in all its scientific features.” Two of the latter, whose advice is of especial value, were employed only a few months ago. REPLIES * About five weeks were consumed in writing this criticism. The plans of the Metropolitan Commis- sion were practically all published and distributed between September, 1911, and February, 1913. The Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate, who is the Chairman of the Sewer Plan Commission, had made a long report to the Board of Estimate on the Metro- politan Commission’s work in March, 1913. See City Record, April 18, 1913. The Commission’s work had been given wide cir- culation through many public addresses and technical papers. * All the information in the possession of the Met- ropolitan Commission has always been accessible to the engineers of the city. See Foreword to Metro- politan Sewerage Commission’s Report of April 30, 1910, page 5. * The experts were employed to answer specific questions upon which the Metropolitan Commission’s work was to be based.* *For reports of Experts, see Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission's Report of August 1, 1912, pages 80 to 168. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 11 Plan Proposed by Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- Sion. In some of its features the Metropolitan Com- mission’s plan agrees with what sanitary engineers employed by the City and others familiar with the situation here have, for a long time, recognized as the most feasible methods of treatment, in others it does not commend itself to them. Information regarding the plan as now proposed by the Metropolitan Commission has been obtained from statements made at the conference before the Board of Estimate on April 14, 1914; the letter from Dr. G. A. Soper, President, Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission, to Chief Engineer Lewis of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, dated April 16, 1914; and the letter from the Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission to the members of the Board of Estimate, dated March 18, 1914. Copies of the two letters are appended. The plan, as interpreted from this fragmentary information, including its most recent modifications, is briefly outlined in the follow- ing table and shown on the attached sketch.* * Full, not fragmentary, information was available. In addition to the sources of information stated, there should be mentioned the following official reports of the Metropolitan Commission: “Sewerage and Sew- age Disposal in the Metropolitan District of New York and New Jersey,” April 30, 1910, 550 pages; “Present Sanitary Condition of New York Harbor and the Degree of Cleanness Necessary and Sufficient for the Water,” August, 1912, 457 pages; Prelim- inary Reports I to XVII, inclusive, issued between September, 1911, and March, 1914, about 575 pages. Also the following conferences attended by the Con- sulting Engineers of the Boroughs and the members of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and at which the subject for discussion was the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s work: June 3, 1913, at the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s office; June 19, 1913, at the office of Borough President of Man- hattan. The only material alteration made in the Commission’s plans since the publication of Prelim- inary Report VI, dealing with the Lower East river project has been to separate the Lower East river project into two parts, the first to be constructed immediately and the second to be deferred until its necessity becomes apparent. See Letter from the President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission to the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, dated April 16, 1914, Appendix I of the City Engineers’ Critical Report. 12 Program of Construction and Estimate of Cost of the Main Drainage Works No. Structure. First Stage. A Manhattan-East Riverinterceptor, Broadst. to 26th st., pump station, submerged outfall and screening plant at Corlears Hook. Brooklyn-East River interceptor, Huron to Classon ave., pump station and screening plant at S. 5th St. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Lower East River, isolated screening plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Wards Island works, first installation. Manhattan interceptor, 106th st. to 148th st., Bronx, Brook ave.-149th St., pump station and treatment plant (to last until 1920). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e e D Northwestern Queens works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … … • * @ tº e e º & © e .. Total, first stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . Second Stage. A-1 Ocean Island-East River siphon, pumping station, etc A-2 Western Jamaica Bay interceptors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B More isolated screening plants, Manhattan and Brooklyn 1 Tallmans Island works, first installation 2 Classon Point works, first installation 3 Jo Cos Marsh works, first installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Richmond works. . . . . . . . . . . * * - © e º 'º e º e e º 'º e º 'º e º e º e º e o e º 'o e s e º e o e º e º e e s e º e e º e a e s e e e s a e e s e s e s e e s e D Wards Island works, complete installation - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * c e s e e e º e o e e e e e e º e e s s a * * * * * * * * * * * * c e s e < e e a e s s a e e s e e e s e e s e e a s e • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e. e. e. e. e. e s e a • e s a s • e e. e. e. e. a . e. e. e. * * * * * * * * * * * * * s • * * * * * * * * * e s s e e s e s e e e s e e s a e e s e e s e s e a e e e s e e • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -s e e s e e s e e o e s e e s s e e - Total second stage.…. & 6 º' e º e e º e g º e º e º e o º Total to about 1925. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Third Stage. A-1 Tallman's Island, complete installation....... 's e e º 'º e o 'º e º & . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Jo Cos Marsh, complete installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Northeastern Queens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to dº e º 'o e º e e Grand total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~e e s e e s • * * * * * * * * * * * Compiled from: (W) Statements at hearing before Board of Estimate, April 14, 1914; (X) Letter Dr of the Board of Estimate, March 18, 1914; (Z) Preliminary reports of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- 13 for New York City Proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission. When to Be Built. Cost. Cost Obtained From. At once (W) (X). . . . . . . . . . . $4,095,000 00 (X). At once (X). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710,000 00 (X). At same time or immediately thereafter. Completed be- fore 1920 (W) (X). . . . . . . . 5,000,000 00 (Y). Same time as Wards Island (W). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352,000 00 (Z). * * 6 tº e º º ſº e º 'º e º ºs e º ºs e e g tº e s e º a $10,157,000 00 To be completed in 1925 (X) $14,000,000 00 To be completed in 1925 (X) 4,000,000 00 To be completed in 1925 (X) 4,200,000 00 Begin before 1925 (X)....... 1,285,000 00 Begin before 1925 (X)....... 708,000 00 Begin before 1925 (X)....... 1,100,000 00 Begin before 1925 (X). . . . . . . 841,000 00 About 1925 (see First Stage C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,814,000 00 * * * * * * * * * * * g & e º e º 6 s g º dº e º 6 e $30,948,000 00 * † tº € 3 g g º e º gº & © e 9 & & g º ºs e º gº & © & $41,105,000 00 6 g º e 9 & & e º e º e a 6 e s 6 & & it is tº 3 e º & 676,000 00 e o e o e s & e º e º e º e s & 6 & © o e º 9 s a w 1,183,000 00 6 o' g e s is © tº e s e e s G e o e g g e º e º a 6 e 563,000 00 © e º g tº gº º s. º º cº e º is tº gº 9 s ſº º e º e º o gº $43,527,000 00 17,500,000 (X) minus 3,500,000 assumed cost of interceptors. (X). (X). (Y). (Z). (Y). (Z). 9,814,000 (z) minus 5,000,000 (First stage C). (Z) minus Second Stage C-1. (Z) minus Second Stage C-3. (Z). Soper to Chief Engineer Lewis, April 16, 1914; (Y) Letter Metropolitan Sewerage Commission to Members mission. 14 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES Apparently there are some Omissions in the pro- gramme as outlined in the correspondence. There is no mention of the Northwestern and Northeastern Queens Works, nor is it stated when the remainder of the Wards Island Works will be installed. The cost of some of the other works shown on the sketch is not given. It has been assumed that the Wards Island Works will be completed in the second stage (the first stage being required to be completed before 1920), that the cost of works, where not otherwise given, would be as stated in the various preliminary reports of the Metropolitan Commission, and that some , works shown on the sketch and estimated in the pre- liminary reports, but for which no date for construc- tion has been given, would be deferred until a third stage. It is not clear whether the estimates include the cost of land.” If not, about $5,000,000 should be added to the estimate. At the hearing on April 14, 1914, Dr. Soper stated that the total cost of all of the works planned was estimated at $51,459,000. There is also the possible additional tunnel from Wards Island to Ocean Island, which would probably cost not less than $25,000,000 in addition to the above figures.” In order to describe more fully the scheme of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, it is here divided into its five most important features: 1—Standard of Cleanness: A standard of cleanness for the waters of the har- bor is to be maintained by means of proposed works or by such other means as are deemed necessary by a proposed State and Federal Commission. This standard is as follows:" (1) Garbage, offal or solid matter recognizable as of sewage origin shall not be visible in any of the harbor waters. (2) Marked discoloration or turbidity, efferves- cence, oily sleek, odor or deposits due to sewage or trade wastes shall not occur except perhaps in the immediate vicinity of sewer outfalls and then only to such an extent and in such places as may be permitted by the authority having jurisdiction over the sanitary condition of the harbor. (3) The discharge of sewage shall not materi- ally contribute to the formation of deposits injuri- ous to navigation. (4) (This section has been recently aban- doned.)8 Except in the immediate vicinity of docks and piers and sewer outfalls the dissolved * The cost of land is included in the Lower East River, Hudson and Bay Division. In the others the larger plants (Wards Island and Barren Island and Jo Co.'s Marsh) would be on land now owned by the City or State. Probably $500,000 would cover the cost of land for the other plants. ° The construction of an additional tunnel, if re- quired at all, would be deferred to such a remote period as to make its inclusion in the present esti- mates unwarranted. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, page 39. See also reply to criticism 10. * The standard was proposed not as a rigid code of laws, but rather as a statement of conditions which, with suitable modifications and interpretations in the various parts of the harbor, it will be desirable to keep in mind in designing the main drainage works. See City Engineers’ Critical Report, “Matters of Substantial Agreement,” paragraph 6; also following replies to criticism 8, 23, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121. * The pronouncement as to oxygen has been omitted as unnecessary in the presence of the other specifi- cations. See City Engineers’ Critical Report, “Mat- ters of Substantial Agreement,” paragraph 6. Also see reply to criticism 7 and replies 23, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 15 oxygen in the water shall not fall below 3.0 cu. C. M. per litre with 60 per cent. of sea water and 40 per cent. of land water and at the extreme summer temperature of 80 degrees F. 3.0 cu. C. M. of 0 per litre corresponds to 58 per cent. of Satura- tion. Near docks and piers there should always be sufficient oxygen in the water to prevent nuis- ance from odors. (5) The quality of the water at points suitable for bathing and oyster culture should conform sub- stantially as to bacterial purity to a drinking water standard. 2—Intercepting Sewers: Intercepting sewers, to collect sewage for treatment and discharge are proposed along the South shore of Long Island, parts of both shores of the upper East River, the Harlem River and the lower East River. 3—Treatment Works: Sedimentation plants of large capacity are pro- posed at the upper end of Jamaica Bay, Tallmans Island and Wards Island. The latter plant is to be constructed very soon and will treat in 1940 302,- 000,000 gallons of sewage per day from The Bronx and Northern Manhattan. The sewage collected by the interceptors along the lower East River will be discharged at two points, after the removal by screen- ing of only 7% per cent, of the organic matter. In 1925 it is proposed that this sewage, amounting to about 200,000,000 gallons per day, will be pumped at a large and continuous expense to an island in the ocean, for treatment by sedimentation. About thirty-five” isolated screening plants are proposed at various points along the westerly shores of Manhattan and Brooklyn, along the northerly shore of Richmond and at a few points in the East River. The sludge from both screening and sedimentation plants will have to be removed by a fleet of sludge boats properly equipped and manned. 4—Ocean Island: It is proposed to build an island initially about twenty acres in extent in the ocean three and one-half miles off Coney Island shore in the direction of Sandy Hook, upon which will be located a sedimentation plant, berths for boats, quarters for men, etc. It is also proposed to build a tunnel, about 14 miles in length, extending from the interceptors in the lowest East River and passing under the City of Brooklyn ° There would be 30 local screening plants in the projects recommended. One in the Richmond Divi- sion; See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Pre- liminary Report V, page 17. Two in the Upper East River and Harlem Division, at Winthrop Avenue and Cryder's Point, Borough of Queens; see Metro- politan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report IV, pages 5 and 6. Twenty-seven in the Lower East River, Hudson and Bay Division; twenty-five at various points on the Hudson and Lower East rivers and the Upper bay, two at Corlears Hook and South 5th Street. 16 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES and the Ocean, to this island. A large pumping sta- tion will be necessary to force the sewage through this tunnel. The President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission has stated that when the volume of sewage effluent from the Wards Island plant shall have be- come too great for discharge into the East River, it was a part of their plan to construct a tunnel from Wards Island to the Wallabout, increase the pumping facilities at the latter point, and construct a second 14-mile tunnel for the delivery of this effluent to a greatly enlarged ocean island.10 5—Administration: An independent board or Commission, similar to the Board of Water Supply, is proposed to undertake the immediate construction of these works and their operation after they are built.” It is suggested that suitable legislation be secured empowering such a board to undertake the work. A supervisory State and Federal Commission is also proposed with powers to compel the taking of such measures and the building of such works as may seem necessary to said Commission for the maintenance of certain standards of cleanness in the surrounding waters. This Commission would have authority over seven hundred square miles of territory in the States of New York and New Jersey, including the City of New York and about eighty other municipalities.” MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT. Considered in the most general manner, but not with respect to the details” of design, the New York Sewer Plan Commission agrees with Metropolitan Sewerage Commission upon the following proposi- tions: 1. “That the digestive capacity of the harbor for sewage should be utilized as far as is consistent with due regard to public health and welfare.” 2. “That the system of main drainage and dis. posal should be built progressively.” 3. That the following schemes for the disposal of the sewage of the City, which have been consid- ered and worked out in detail14 by the Metropolitan Commission, are not worth serious consideration: (a) Collection at one central location for treat- ment at an estimated cost of $141,000,000. (b) Treatment upon land at a cost of $153,000,- 000. - (c) Disposal at sea at one point at a cost of $140,- 000,000. * The construction of an additional tunnel, if required at all, would be deferred to such a remote period as to make its inclusion in the present esti- mates unwarranted. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, page 39. See also reply to criticism 6. * The recommendation is that a new Commission be created or an existing Commission designated to begin the gradual construction of the necessary Works and their supervision or operation. See Met- ropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report XVI, March, 1914, p. 9. Also see replies to criti- cism 12, 13, 15, 19, 22, 98, 112, 113, 114 and 124. A Supervisory Commission was only recommended in case the two states, New York and New Jersey, should unite to protect the harbor. * The object of the central commission would be to co-ordinate the sewerage and disposal works of the eighty or more municipalities in the metropolitan district and, by causing each city and each State to do its share toward the reasonable protection of the harbor, put a stop to the unsanitary practices now existing. See reply to criticism 11. Also see replies 13, 15, 19, 22, 98, 112, 113, 114 and 124. *The Metropolitan Commission has not proposed any details of design. It has laid out a system of main drainage and sewage disposal upon general lines. It is intended to leave all detailed designs to the constructing authority. See Metropolitan Sewer- age Commission’s Preliminary Report XVI, page 11. Also condensed statement of the work of the Metro- politan Sewerage Commission, Appendix II, City Engineers’ Critical Report. See replies to criticism 11, 12, 15, 19, 22, 112, 113, 114 and 124. *No projects have been worked out in final detail by the Metropolitan Commission, but only with suffi- cient care to prove their practicability. See reply to criticism 13. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 17 (d) The establishment of filtration plants within the built-up portions of the City. These projects, with some others of a similar char- acter, which have been under consideration, are all so apparently impracticable to those whose knowl- edge of such matters and whose judgment is entitled to any respect that neither time nor money should be wasted upon them. 4. That the sewage which enters the North River from the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx can be properly treated by screening. This agree- ment does not apply to the type nor to the location of screens recommended.” The Sewer Plan Com- mission does not endorse the statement of the Met- ropolitan Commission that sedimentation or septic tank treatment" is impracticable for certain parts of this waterfront. Results obtained by such treat- ment are far superior to those obtained by screening.” The choice between screening or sedimentation plants, their location, and the question as to whether they should be preferred to some other method of treatment in each case, is largely one of economy and of distributing the load of pollution over the parts of the harbor best able to bear the burden, taking into account local conditions and physical difficulties or advantages. 5. That any rational scheme for sewage disposal in certain parts of the harbor obviously must include intercepting sewers, but their proper location and design depend upon the local conditions. Those proposed for the Manhattan and Brooklyn shores of the lower East River may or may not be necessary; in any case their design, location and point of discharge are disapproved. The same applies to the intercepting sewers proposed for the Manhattan and Bronx shores of the Harlem River.18 There is no criticism of some of the intercepting sewers proposed for the northern shore of the Bor- ough of Queens, but they have been largely forestalled by different plans. Intercepting sewers designed to accomplish the same purpose as those proposed by the Metropolitan Commission were advocated by Black and Phelps, and have been partially worked out in detail by the Borough authorities and partially constructed. In one case at least, large contracts are under way for portions of these sewers which make material modifications necessary in the proposed plans.” This is one of the places where better results may be obtained by substituting sedimentation for screening as a method of treatment.” The scheme proposed by the Metropolitan Com- mission for the Jamaica Bay district has, in its general features, been under consideration by the Borough authorities for years. It has always been * No specific types or exact locations have been proposed by the Metropolitan Commission. Such details belong to the Commission to be charged with Construction. See replies to criticism 13 and 14, also replies 29 and 98. * The Metropolitan Commission has not stated that septic tank treatment is impracticable for the Manhattan waterfront, although it holds that opin- ion. It has stated that sedimentation tanks are not suitable in closely built-up sections. See Metro- politan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report XIII, page 10. 17 Septic tanks would not be suitable on account of the large space required, the putrid character of the effluent, probability of odor, danger of explosion, interference with other underground structures and the strong public protests which would be made against them. See also Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission’s Preliminary Report XIII, page 4. See replies to criticism 16, 58, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 123. The Metropolitan Commission never stated that screening was equivalent to septic tank treatment or to sedimentation. 18 If the interceptors may be necessary, why are they here disapproved? 19 These modifications can easily be made, and it is expected that the constructing authority will make all necessary modifications. In the future all con- tracts should be made to conform to the main drain- age plans of the city or there will be unnecessary expense. See also replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 15, 22, 98, 112, 113, 114 and 124. 20 Sedimentation is proposed by the Metropolitan Commission for this territory except for a small part of the sewage. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- sion’s Preliminary Report IV, page 5. 18 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES recognized that an intercepting sewer along the shores, which would collect the domestic sewage from the territory south of the dividing ridge of the island, and deliver it at some point near the outlet of the Bay for treatment, will eventually be neces- sary. For the last fourteen years Barren Island has been looked upon as the most suitable location for a sewage disposal plant, and drainage plans now before the Board of Estimate for adoption contemplate this. The plans proposed by Messrs. Phelps and Black con- tained arrangements of a similar nature. So far, therefore, as the plans of the Metropolitan Commission contemplates the construction of inter- cepting sewers about the shores of this Bay, and the discharge of the effluent into Rockaway Inlet, the treatment of sewage on Barren Island, the treatment of Sewage at some point near the head of the Bay, and the discharge of the effluent into the Bay itself, are concerned, no novel idea is presented and there is substantial agreement.” The plan presented by the Metropolitan Commission is by no means thor- oughly worked out and can be materially improved and reduced in cost.”. 6. That the Metropolitan Commission has acted wisely in abandoning, even at this late date, the dis- solved oxygen standard of purity for the harbor of 58 per cent. of saturation.” An attempt to maintain it would have involved the City in an unnecessary expense and would never have been successful.” CRITICISM OF THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION'S SCHEME. The general plan proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission is criticised because it calls for an unnecessary expenditure which may ultimately amount to forty millions of dollars.” The plan apparently was prepared to meet the re- quirements of the needlessly high standard of clean- ness originally proposed and advocated by the Metro- politan Commission until recently when one of its most important elements was abandoned. Notwith- standing the change in the standard of cleanness no material modification has been made in the plan, except, perhaps, the possible postponement of the construction of the ocean island, outlet and tunnel.” The whole plan has been built, to a very great extent, around the idea of removing a large quantity of sewage from the inner harbor and discharging it into the Atlantic Ocean and of concentrating a large portion of the remainder for treatment and discharge at a central point where the harbor is least able to * Novelty is not claimed. See Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission’s Preliminary Report III. * Many details remain to be studied before con- tract plans are made, and it is expected that the esti- mates of cost can be reduced by the constructing au- thority. See replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 29, 112, 113, 114 and 124. * The dissolved oxygen specification in the stand- ard has not been abandoned. It has been omitted as unnecessary in view of the other specifications. See replies to criticism 7 and 8; also following replies 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121. * This list is not complete. The city engineers in other parts of its report agree with the Metro- politan Commission in other important principles. See also replies to criticism 27, 28, 32, 46, 47,49, 50, 51, 53, 94, 95, 98, 99, 111, 115, 116, 120 and 122. * The plans call for a much larger ultimate ex- penditure than that stated, all of which the Metro- politan Commission considers will be necessary. It is about $3.33 per capita. * The omission of the oxygen specification has not affected the severity of the standard nor caused any modification in the plans. See replies to criticism 7, 8 and 23; also replies 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 19 care for it.” In the opinion of the Sewer Plan Commission, sufficient protection from unsatisfactory conditions can be secured with much greater economy by arranging the main drainage works so that the quantities of sewage effluent produced will be distrib- uted throughout the harbor for digestion, each part to receive as much sewage as it can reasonably be expected to assimilate and that all interceptors as far as practicable will transport it progressively toward either the Atlantic Ocean or Long Island Sound.28 Standard of Cleanness: The standard of cleanness proposed by the Metro- politan Sewerage Commission in 1912 was divided into five parts and has been previously stated. The Sewer Plan Commission concurs in the rec- ommendations of part 1. Part 2 is indefinite and probably unwise in that it leaves the determination of the conditions in the immediate vicinity of sewer outfalls to individual judgment.” Part 3 is also concurred in. Part 4 is not concurred in and it is understood that this part has now been abandoned by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.80 Part 5 sets too high a standard for bathing beaches and waters used for oyster culture, so high that it might result within a few years in the abolition of many of the important bathing beaches in the neighborhood of the City.” Bathing can be permitted for some time to come in certain portions of the upper East River and Long Island Sound, as well as on the beaches of the Lower Bay. The bathing beaches in the upper East River will probably ultimately have to be abandoned, but with reasonable precautions they may be used for a considerable time in the future. Those on the south shore of Long Island should by all means be preserved.” The cultivation of oysters and their preparation for market is a matter which should be given further study before such exact requirements are fixed. The high standard proposed for the dissolved oxy- gen content of the water has led the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission to recommend some very ex- pensive works, which would not have been necessary had it been assumed at the time the standard was adopted that the waters of the harbor could be used to a greater extent in furnishing oxygen for the di- gestion of sewage.” That this high standard is un- necessary is evident. It is understood that to main- tain the waters in a suitable condition for major fish life would not have a value commensurate with its cost and it is generally admitted that such a policy would be inadvisable.* For like reasons it is appar- ent that the waters of the inner harbor cannot be 27 This is the very opposite of the fact, as stated by the Metropolitan Commission and as shown in the City Engineers’ Report, “Matters of Substantial Agreement,” sections 1 and 3, page 7, and set forth with much clearness in the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, dated Febru- ary, 1913, page 31. See reply to criticism 24. 28 This is the plan of the Metropolitan Commis- sion. To discharge the Harlem sewage into the Hud- son would be to transport the sewage away from the ocean in opposition to the principle followed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and here enunciated by the city engineers. See reply 24. 29 It is intended to leave something to the judg- ment of the authority having permanent jurisdiction over this question. See Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission's Preliminary Report XVI, page 11. Also Appendix II, part IV, of City Engineers' Critical Report. See replies 15 and 98. 80 The specification as to oxygen in the Metropol- itan Commission’s standard of cleanness has not been abandoned. The statement has been omitted as it is covered by the other provisions of the standard. See replies to criticism 7, 8, 23 and 26; also replies 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121. 31 Not if interpreted intelligently and with due regard to local circumstances. The Metropolitan Commission's opinion is that clean water is indis- pensable for bathing. 32 This is the opinion of the Metropolitan Com- mission. See reply to criticism 24. * The proposed works are not expensive when compared with the main drainage and sewage dis- posal works of other large cities. The Metropolitan Commission has planned the sewage distribution so as to utilize the oxygen in the harbor waters to the best advantage. * The Metropolitan Commission never considered it necessary to provide for major fish life. A fairly high oxygen figure is necessary in the main channels in order that there shall be sufficient oxygen among the docks and piers and in other quiet places. See replies to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26 and 30; also replies 35, 36, 51 and 121. 20 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES maintained in such purity as to safely permit their use for bathing or shell fish culture. While it is not economically feasible to maintain the waters to any particular degree of bacteriological purity, it is desirable that they be kept free from local nuisances which may offend the sense of sight or smell. If this is to be done they must never be entirely robbed of their dissolved oxygen, and while the high standard recommended by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission in 1912 was economically un- wise, the other extreme, recently proposed of disre- garding the quantity of dissolved oxygen in the water, is equally objectionable.” All the numerous expert authorities on the subject who were consulted and whose reports were published in 1912 agree that dissolved oxygen is one of the best single measures of pollution of the harbor waters, and the great preponderance of expert opinion among Sanitarians everywhere supports their conclusion. The Metropolitan Commission in completely abandoning this part of its standard, in an attempt to place itself in accord with the recommendations of experts re- cently employed, has now placed itself in absolute disagreement with the large number of experts pre- viously consulted, and whose recommendations they have published.” In support of the contention that a much lower dissolved oxygen content is permissible, the following is cited : New York Harbor at the present time is receiving the sewage from all the Greater City with practically no treatment at all, and without regard to proper distribution and diffusion. As a result the oxygen content in the East River and the Harlem River has fallen to a very low percentage during the past sum- mer. Notwithstanding this fact there has been no nuisance in the main channels. Whatever nuisance has occurred is directly traceable to local conditions along the shore front, or in the smaller bays or inlets and to the concentration of large quantities of un- treated sewage at the principal sewer outfalls. The fact that the waters in the main channels of the Har- bor have not become unduly polluted under present conditions is one of the best demonstrations available of the capacity of the harbor to digest enormous quantities of sewage, showing, as it does, that the oxygen may safely be depleted to a very low percent- age during the Summer months. The River Thames receives the sewage from the City of London after it has been treated by chemical precipitation, and while the flow in that stream is very much less than that through the various portions of New York Harbor, it has been maintained in a satisfactory condition with an oxygen content in the * The Metropolitan Commission does not propose to disregard the quantity of dissolved oxygen in the water. Its position is that if the other provisions of the standard of cleanliness are complied with, there will be sufficient oxygen present. See replies to criti- cism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30 and 34; also replies 36, 51 and 121. 86 The Metropolitan Commission has not aban- doned any part of its standard of cleanness, nor has it placed itself in disagreement with all its earlier experts. Of the eight experts consulted in regard to dissolved oxygen, only three suggested that a definite limit be placed. See reports of the experts pub- lished in full with a digest of their opinions in the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Report of August, 1912, Part II, Chapter II, page 71. Also see replies to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30, 34 and 35; also replies 51 and 121. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 21 summer months from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent.” This river, before treatment was begun, had reached a state where practically all of the oxygen was ex- hausted and it had become a positive nuisance. The experience in London covers a period of about 25 years and is one of the best examples of the great improvement which can be obtained through the elimination of only a part of the organic solids. The City of Hamburg, containing about 1,000,000 inhabitants, discharges its sewage into the Elbe after coarse screening.” The outfalls are located so as to obtain suitable diffusion, and the results have been entirely satisfactory, although the conditions are less favorable than in New York. No solid matter of sewage origin appears on the surface of the water” and no nuisance of any kind is apparent.” In ad- dition to the treatment by coarse screening, dredging is resorted to almost continuously to keep the river free from sewage silt.* The dissolved oxygen of this river seldom drops below 50 per cent. of satura- tion. The City of Dresden, located inland on a compara- tively small river, secures satisfactory results through fine screening and diffusion.* The Delaware River at Philadelphia is at the present time digesting large quantities of untreated sewage and although the oxygen content has been re- duced in certain localities to somewhat below 20 per cent. of Saturation during the summer months, yet no odors nor other nuisances have occurred.* The total amount of oxygen available for the di- gestion of sewage in New York Harbor has been estimated to be sufficient to oxidize the untreated sewage from approximately 7,000,000 people. These figures were based, however, upon a uniform dis- tribution of the sewage throughout the Harbor.44 Some recent estimates of the population of the entire Metropolitan District in both New York and New Jersey tributary to New York Harbor would place the present population at something more than 7,000,- 000. The fact that the Harbor in the main channels is now satisfactorily digesting this vast quantity of sewage, which is discharged without treatment and without proper distribution, makes it evident that the waters are capable of assimilating a far greater quantity than has been estimated.* When all the sewage reaching the harbor shall have been treated and properly distributed and dif- fused, it would seem perfectly safe to assume that the harbor waters will be capable of taking care of the effluent from a very much greater population.* The standard of cleanness adopted for the Harbor of Greater New York should take into account the various local conditions in the various parts of the 87 The condition of the Thames would not be satis- factory in New York. It is stated on the authority of F. Agliffe, Secretary of the Port of London Au- thority, the successor of the Thames Conservancy Board that the Thames smells of its sewage about 12 or 13 miles above and below the main outfalls, or for a total distance of about 25 miles. * The Hamburg outlets should not be imitated by New York. They turn upward and send the sewage to the surface where it can be seen by those who look in the proper place for it. - * Solid matter of sewage origin appears at the surface of the water in the vicinity of the main Ham- burg outfalls. The solids can be seen from landing stages and boats and the position of the Sewage stream in the river can be detected by the presence of large numbers of seagulls which feed upon the solid matters. 49 The conditions for diffusion are more favorable at Hamburg than in New York, since the water is not salt at Hamburg and the sewage consequently mixes more rapidly with the water. * Dredging in the Elbe has not been so much em- ployed to remove deposits of sewage origin as the natural silt of the alluvial river. It is due to ex- tensive dredging operations that the largest ships are now able to reach Hamburg from the sea. * Dresden carries its sewage to a single point where it is passed through fine screens and discharged into a river which, unlike the waters of New York harbor, always flows in one direction. The dilution is fairly large even in dry weather. * Philadelphia is making plans for an extensive system of main drainage and sewage disposal, it being “realized that with the increase in the popula- tion and the consequent added load placed upon the river, its oxidizing power will soon be overtaxed, and that the time to begin the building of the collecting and treatment works is at hand.” See paper by George S. Webster in the Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, May, 1914, page 283. * This estimate is a personal opinion and is con- tained in the report of Black and Phelps to the Board of Estimate, February, 1911, page 9, and is based on the theory that the sewage would be dis- charged at the two ocean entrances, an irºpracticable assumption. * The water in the main channels is not digesting all the sewage. The sewage not digested is producing nuisances among the docks, piers, bays and other quiet arms of the harbor. * This is the Metropolitan Commission’s belief. See reply to criticism 24. 22 CRITICAL REPORT FEPLIES Harbor such as the use to which the water-front is to be put, the Volume of clean water which enters that part of the Harbor, and the cost of, as well as the space available for treatment of the sewage." In order that specific requirements may be made for each locality, the Harbor may be divided for con- venience into 13 subdivisions or Harbor units as fol- lows:48 Harbor Unit 1. Hudson River, from Battery north to City Line. Harbor Unit 2. Lower East River, from south end of Governors Island north to Sunken Meadows. Harbor Unit 3. Upper East River from Sunken Meadows to Throggs Neck (excepting Flushing Bay). Harbor Unit 4. Flushing Bay. Harbor Unit 5. Long Island Sound, Throggs Neck to City Line. Harbor Unit 6. Harlem River, from 82d street north and west to Hudson River. Harbor Unit 7. Upper Bay, from Narrows to Hudson River off Governors Island. Harbor Unit 8. Newtown Creek. EIarbor Unit 9. Gowanus Canal. Harbor Unit 10. Kill-von-Kull. Harbor Unit 11. Arthur Kill. Harbor Unit 12. Tower Bay and Atlantic Ocean. Harbor Unit 13. Jamaica Bay. The relative cleanness of these various units at the present time may be taken as a guide for deter- mining what conditions may be economically main- tained in the future. It is assumed that bathing or the cultivation of shell fish will not be permitted in the inner Harbor,” but that they may be permitted in some of the outlying Harbor units until the growth of the City shall have changed conditions so as to render it no longer reasonably economical to maintain the waters in a suitable condition for such uses. Any standard proposed should not be considered in the nature of a rigid rule or law, but rather a statement of conditions which it is desired to maintain and to be used as a guide for the establishment of treatment works as rapidly as they become necessary.” The most important requirement in a standard of cleanness is the immediate abolition of all local nuis- ances in every part of the Harbor. Other require- ments would probably have to be modified from time to time with the growth of the City and the changing character of the water-front. In the final determin- tion of such a standard or guiding rules, the following requirements may reasonably be adopted: Treatment should be established to the extent nec- essary to keep all parts of the Harbor at all times free from visible solid matter of sewage origin, notice- able discoloration, fields of oily sleek, odors due to * This is practically a restatement of the Metro- politan Commission’s opinion as printed in the Com- mission’s report of August, 1912, pages 5-6, 69-70, and the report of April, 1910, page 46. See also reply 24. 48 In its August, 1912, report, page 15, the Met- ropolitan Commission described the ten main divi- sions of New York harbor as recognized by Govern- ment, State and municipal authorities, and the loca- tion, areas, tidal prisms and volumes of water flowing and other features of these divisions were fully described. The redivisioning of the harbor, as pro- posed by the city engineers with the inclusion of Gowanus canal, Newtown creek and Flushing bay as separate units, is unnecessary. 49 This is a restatement of the Metropolitan Com- mission’s position as indicated in its report of April, 1910, page 43. See also reply 24. 50 This was stated by the Metropolitan Commis- sion in its report of August, 1912, page 70, and in its Preliminary Report X, page 4, and elsewhere. See also reply 24. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 23 Sewage or trade wastes, material deposits of sewage sludge, and to maintain in each Harbor unit at all times, under the most unfavorable conditions of tide, depth, location, season and temperature, not less than certain specific quantities of dissolved oxygen.” It is belived that the dissolved oxygen in some of the units of the inner Harbor may safely be allowed at times to fall somewhat below 20 per cent. of Satur- ation. Other Harbor units, more closely connected with the sources of clean water, may consistently be maintained at a very much higher standard and tentative percentages may be adopted from time to time for each separate Harbor unit.” Such a guide would be useful for indicating the time and location for the construction of additional works. The works required for a long time to come will probably include only fine screening or sedimen- tation combined with proper distribution and diffu- sion into the main channels, except in Harbor units 12 and 13, and possibly 5, where further refinements in the treatment of sewage, even in some cases to the extreme of sterilization, may be required for the purpose of temporarily preserving bathing beaches and suitable conditions for the shell fish industry.” Ward's Island Project. The so-called Ward's Island project, with its inter- ceptors and treatment works, violates a fundamental principle which should be followed in preparing a plan of main drainage, viz.: that the sewage should be uniformly distributed and diffused through the Harbor waters.54 This scheme concentrates the sewage from a large area and discharges an enormous volume of a partially purified effluent into one of the shallowest” and nar- rowest portions of the harbor, so centrally located that it is a maximum distance from any source of clean water.” Furthermore, the float observations of the Metropolitan Commission indicate that the waters of the East river in this locality oscillate back and forth with but little resultant change in tidal flow. Other and larger bodies of water can be reached for the discharge of this sewage at no greater expense.” The sewage from the Manhattan area proposed to be tributary to Ward's Island can be diverted to the Hudson River, which, on account of its great mini- mum, daily resultant flow of 1,500,000,000 gallons and its large tidal prism, can digest all of the effluent from this source. The money required to build the pro- posed interceptors along the Harlem and East River fronts, the tunnel to pumping station and treatment works on Ward’s Island would not only pay for the works required to screen and discharge sewage into the Hudson River, but also would go far towards 51. These requirements were stated or provided for in the original standard of cleanness for the har- bor, as proposed by the Metropolitan Commission in its report of August, 1912, page 70. Also see replies to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30, 34, 35 and 36; also reply 121. * This is in agreement with the Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission. See reply to criticism 24. * This proposition is impracticable because de- cided differences cannot exist in the various neigh- boring parts of the harbor for the reason that water circulates more or less freely through all under the tidal actions. The Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- sion has already stated that the enforcement of its standard of cleanness should be left to the judgment of the proposed central Commission. See reply to Criticism 29. * These are the methods described in the Metro- politan Commission’s Preliminary Reports III to VI, inclusive, issued between November, 1911, and Feb- ruary, 1913. See reply 24. *The Metropolitan Commission's Wards Island project is not in violation of this principle, but in strict accordance with it. See reply 24. The high velocities and boils make Hell Gate a most desirable place for sewage diffusion. * Instead of being one of the shallowest, this is one of the deepest parts of the harbor. Depths of 150 feet are found close to the site of the proposed works. * Instead of being at a maximum distance from any source of clean water, the proposed outlet is comparatively close to the Sound entrance of the harbor. The cleanness of the water of the Upper East river near this point is shown by the high per- centage of oxygen present. See report of the Met- ropolitan Sewerage Commission, August, 1912, pages 57-60. * It would cost more to dispose of the sewage in the way proposed by the city engineers than by the Metropolitan Commission’s plan, when reckoned on the basis of annual maintenance and fixed charges. The cost of reconstructing the existing sewerage sys- tem and the great expense of making new household connections with the storm water and domestic sew- age should be added to the city engineers’ project. There is the further objection that public opinion would protest against discharging so much sewage into the Hudson from a drainage area not naturally tributary to it. 24 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES building an entirely new and much needed separate system of sewers for this area. Such a system is now being designed. Interference with the existing and proposed subway lines will be avoided by carrying the storm water across the tops of the subways di- rectly to the Harlem River, while the sanitary sewage will be carried in a low level system with trunk lines in tunnel below the Subways and sloping from the Harlem River, westerly to 8th avenue. Here the Sewage will be pumped up to gravity tunnels through which it will flow to the Hudson River. Probably two or three of these tunnels will be found to be economical. In this system much of the sewage from the higher area of Harlem along the easterly slope of the westerly ridge may be intercepted and turned back through the tunnels without pumping. Under the Metropolitan Commission’s scheme all of the sew- age would have to be pumped at an additional yearly charge of many thousands of dollars. The sewage from this system will be treated by fine screening and discharged from submerged outlets into the main channel of the Hudson River. If in the distant future further treatment should become desirable, sedimentation or other objectionable con- cealed works could be constructed along the water- front outside the railroad tracks. * It probably will be found feasible to tunnel Man- hattan Island at about 179th street and discharge all the effluent from the Harlem River-Bronx inter- ceptor north of Brook avenue through it into the Hudson River. Here, too, treatment similar to that for the Manhattan-Harlem district can be applied and the sewage from the easterly slopes of Manhattan intercepted and discharged without pumping. Estimates based upon the dilution in various por- tions of the harbor in 1940, as given by the Metro- politan Commission, indicate that should the plan be carried out as above outlined, the ratio of dilution in the Hudson River would still be ample for an in- definite length of time. The remainder of the sewage from the East Bronx interceptor from Brook avenue to Hunts Point can be treated and discharged at a convenient place near Hunts Point or on Rikers Island. The elimination of the expensive Ward’s Island project will relieve this most polluted portion of the harbor and become an important factor in making the construction of the Ocean Island project unnec- essary for as long a time as can be reasonably fore- seen.” If the Metropolitan Commission’s scheme is adopted, it is quite likely that ultimately not only one, but two tunnels to the proposed ocean island will be necessary as previously outlined.” * Sedimentation is objectionable in built-up Sections of cities, owing to the odors produced and the popular protests which are always aroused against sewage disposal works in the vicinity of dwellings and business places. The grease from the sewage would show at the surface of the water. This water- front is a park. The water is not deep enough nor swift enough to insure prompt diffusion except off Fort Washington Park, and it would not be feasible to discharge all of the sewage at that point. See replies to criticism 16, 17, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 123. * Why make the ocean island project unnecessary if it affords the cheapest and best means of disposing of the sewage? * This indefinite and sweeping statement is in- conclusive both as to cost and results. The Metro- politan Commission’s project has been carefully passed upon by the following experts: Gilbert J. Fowler, John D. Watson, Rudolph Hering, George W. Fuller. If the sewage of the Lower East river and Harlem were discharged into the Hudson, that stream might become overburdened and the adoption of proper remedial measures would then be exces- sively costly. The Hudson must receive a large in- crease in the sewage which is now discharged into it from the areas naturally tributary to it. By the city engineers’ project, over 300 million gal- ions of sewage would be discharged through two or three outlets within a distance of about 3 miles. Added to this sewage in the Lower Hudson would be about 100 million gallons from the population directly tributary. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES - 25 Ocean Island Project. The Ocean Island and tunnel with the pumping plant at the Wallabout have been recently disap- proved by Messrs. Rudolph Hering and George W. Fuller, the two experts whose reputations and pecul- iar fitness to pass upon the question compel the greatest respect for their opinions.61 Mr. Fuller, in reporting upon this project, states as follows: “As to the outlet island project for the sewage of the lower East River division as tentatively recommended early in 1913 by the Commission, I am of the opinion that the evidence now available does not warrant the conclusion that this project is a proper one.” Mr. Hering gives his opinion in regard to this project as follows: “The expense of construction and operation of this project is large. In justification thereof, you have given a number of reasons. I shall now comment upon them and feel obliged to maintain the view that the adoption of this project is not warranted at the present time.” A fair consideration of the facts relating to the necessity for this ocean island and tunnel seems to justify these opinions. The Metropolitan Commission has recently re- duced its estimate of cost of this island and tunnel from about $23,000,000 to $17,500,000. This re- duction in the estimated cost of construction is ap- parently accompanied by a reduction in the size and capacity of the works by the elimination of storm water.” The Metropolitan Commission also pro- poses an expenditure of about $4,000,000 for works required to deliver the sewage from the south shore of Brooklyn into the ocean tunnel and for additional treatment works at the island.” The total expendi- ture proposed for the island and appurtenances is therefore estimated at about $21,500,000. It has never been stated how this estimate of cost was ar- rived at, or what precedents or actual experience the estimators had to guide them. For some of the most important parts there is no precedent, and it is not known that any one with experience in the planning or construction of works of this character or magnitude was employed in making the estimate. The estimate, therefore, seems to be a very rough one at best, and it is possible, as stated by one of the experts, that the actual cost would be far in excess of $21,000,000.66 The President of the Metropolitan Commission states that he does not now recommend the immediate construction of these works, but rather that they should be deferred until the year 1925, or ten years from the present date; that in the meantime the tributary intercepting sewers and enormous screening * This project has been approved as a future pos- sibility by both experts referred to and the first step has been approved by both. See correspondence ap- pended to reports of Messrs. Hering and Fuller in the report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of April 30, 1914, Part III, Chapter I, pages 218 and 253. * Mr. Fuller has described himself as in favor of taking the first step in the Lower East river project and leaving the necessity for further work to be determined by experience. See correspondence ap- pended to Mr. Fuller's report in the report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of April 30, 1914, Part III, Chapter I, page 218. * See reply to criticism 62. * The reduction by the revision was about 11/2 instead of 4 million dollars. The $22,874,000 con- tained in Preliminary Report VI, page 47, includes, as stated, $4,072,000 for the Jamaica Bay Division, leaving $18,802,000 for the cost of the island project, as compared with the revised cost of $17,394,000. * The inclusion of this disposal for a part of the Jamaica bay sewage results, instead of a $4,000,000 additional expense, in a saving of $5,378,000 in first cost and $471,760 in annual charges. * The Metropolitan Commission’s estimate is not a rough one. This could readily be determined by the city engineers on inquiry. 26 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES plants should be built." These screening plants would treat 200,000,000 gallons of sewage per day, Concentrated at two points, one on each side of the lower East River, and would discharge it's in the neighborhood of Corlears Hook, and South 5th Street, one of the most highly polluted portions of the Har- bor. Float observations made by the Metropolitan Commission show that the tidal currents would not be effective in removing sewage, but that it would Oscillate back and forth for some time before it finally passes Southward through the Narrows.69 It is ad- mitted that the burden of pollution in this portion of the Harbor is already too great, and it must be plainly evident that the proposed removal of 7% per cent. of organic matter, or a total improvement in the condi- tion of the water of much less than this amount will not materially improve matters because the benefits will be nullified by the concentration at two points of a vast volume of sewage which is now discharged along a stretch of several miles of water-front.T0 It is also apparent that it will be necessary to commence the construction of the Ocean Island post haste, im- mediately after the completion of the intercepting Sewers and the screening plants.” These two screen- ing plans alone would cost a very large sum and would probably be useless as soon as the Ocean Island has been built.T2 It will require at least five years to complete this island and its tributary works, so that the claim of the President of the Metropolitan Commission that his Commission is in substantial agreement upon the matter with its two most recent advisors, does not appear to be warranted.” On the other hand, it does appear that it has been placed in the back- ground with the full expectation of making it the main feature of the scheme at a more opportune time, as it has been featured for the last year in the Commission’s reports and statements by its members, as well as by the press.” Lower East River. It is possible that if the Lower East river prob- lem is studied in a manner which its importance war- rants by those familiar with the possibilities in design and construction of Sanitary works of this character and magnitude, it will be found that there are three better alternatives than those proposed.” First—It is probable that the interceping sewers as proposed may be entirely done away with and greater economy secured both in construction and operation by the substitution of sedimentation tanks of proper design.” This is clearly feasible for a considerable portion of the water-front which the pro- posed intercepting sewers would serve, and where it " If the first step affords sufficient protection to the water, no further step need be taken to carry out the Ocean island project. If, on the other hand, further protection is found to be needed, it would be afforded by building the rest of the ocean island project. See condensed statement of the work of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, Section III, paragraph C, Appendix to the city engineers’ report here printed. The large cost of sedimentation tanks it is proposed to defer until a later date. *The discharge is intended to take place through multiple outlets and into water which, except for this discharge, would be very much cleaner than it is at the present time. * The sewage would not pass through the Nar- TOWs. It is practically all digested in the harbor. The processes of digestion seem to be misunderstood by the city engineers. They have been described by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission in its re- port of April, 1910, page 461, and Preliminary Re- port XV, page 23. : 79 This is not the opinion of the Metropolitan Commission nor of Messrs. Hering and Fuller. ** It is intended that there shall be sufficient op- portunity afforded after the completion of the first step to determine whether the second will be neces- sary. This question may well be left to the judg- ment of the new centralized authority. See reply 29. * The screening plants would be permanently use- ful in preparing the sewage for pumping and final disposal at the island; also to care for the future excess over 200 million gallons per day. This would amount to a large volume on the Brooklyn side by 1940. * The correspondence which shows that the Met- ropolitan Commission and its two recent advisers are in substantial agreement was offered to the city engineers and refused. It is found in Part III, Chapter I, pages 218 and 253 of the report of the Metropolitan Commission of April 30, 1914. ** This is an accusation of bad faith and need not be answered. * This sarcastic reflection upon the members of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, their staff and experts, and arrogant assumption of authority on the part of the city engineers need not be answered. * Sedimentation tanks would be costly, their odors would arouse popular objection and they would not lend themselves to a more efficient treatment of the Sewage in case more efficient treatment were found necessary. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report XIII, page 10. See also replies to criticism 16, 17, 58, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 123. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 27 is not, fine screening could be substituted. It being established" that the ocean island project will not be necessary, the only result of expending $4,000,000 for these interceptors in accordance with the scheme of the Metropolitan Commission will be to concen- trate at two points a very large volume of sewage from which only a small percentage of the coarser solids have been removed.” The burden of pollus tion in the river near the points of discharge will be so increased that local nuisances, especially near the shores, will appear within a short time.79 The main body of the river would not be relieved materi- ally of its burden of pollution. In order to obtain the maximum digestion of sew- age matters in the Harbor, it is obviously desirable to secure as uniform distribution and diffusion as practicable.80 This result can best be obtained by the use of a number of submerged outlets rather than two very large ones, thus saving the greater part of the cost of interceptors.81 The money which the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission proposes to expend for these interceptors would go very far toward the construction of sedi- mentation tanks of sufficient capacity to treat the sewage from the territory in Manhattan and Brooklyn which the proposed interceptors would serve.8° In Manhattan these tanks could be located under- neath the marginal street.8° Such treatment would remove fully four times as much of nuisance-produc- ing matter as the Hamburg screens proposed and would very materially relieve this part of the river from its present burden. The difficulties which the Metropolitan Commission expect will be encountered in the construction and operation of sedimentation tanks can be overcome without serious difficulty.** Second—Should further study indicate the desira- bility of building the intercepting sewers for the lower East river and works for the treatment of sewage at the point of discharge, they should be planned so as to secure the fullest benefits of clarification and dis- tribution which are practicable within the limits of the Harbor itself. If the sewage collected must be pumped, as proposed, sedimentation tanks can be used and the sewage freed of fully 60 per cent. of its suspended matter.” Should it develop for reasons which are not now apparent, that the use of sedimen- tation is impracticable, the alternative would be fine screening, by which about 35 per cent. of suspended matter can be removed.86 The effluent from this treatment should be discharged into the Harbor not in the highly polluted portion37 of the East river, but at some point south of Governor’s Island, where, with ebb tides, half of the whole volume discharged, both liquid and solid, would be carried directly through the Narrows and into the ocean.* The effluent dis- " It has not been established that the ocean island project will not be necessary. * The result indicated will not be the only one. Other results will be the prevention of nuisance at the present sewer outlets, in the docks and slips, the removal of much coarse suspended matter easily recognizable as of sewage origin and the placing of the sewage burden in those parts of the harbor where it can best be carried. *An unsupported and unwarranted assumption. * This is not necessarily so. It is necessary only to avoid overburdening the water at any point. * The Metropolitan Commission’s plans provide for multiple outlets. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, page 55. * The circumstances of construction and cost of Sedimentation tanks in various situations have been estimated. The lowest estimates for tanks to treat the sewage in the territory from Manhattan and Brooklyn which the proposed interceptors would serve is $9,191,580. See replies to criticism 16, 17, 58, 76, 83, 84, 85 and 123. 88 Tanks could not well be so located because of cost, size, interference with other structures and risk of explosion. See replies to criticism 16, 17, 58 and 76. See replies 84, 85 and 123. 84 The difficulties which the Metropolitan Com- mission expects are based on careful studies of the experience of other cities, a consideration of the local situation and on the advice of the most capable ex- perts obtainable. See Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission’s Preliminary Report XIII. See references to reply 83. 85 Sedimentation tanks cannot be employed in the built-up sections of cities except in unusual circum- stances. The experience of other cities is against such use and the conditions along most of the Man- hattan and Brooklyn waterfront are especially un- favorable. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, pages 32 and 33. See also replies to criticism 16, 17, 58, 76, 82, 83 and 123. 86 If practicable, fine screens should be used. The efficiency thus obtained would apparently remove the city engineers’ objections to the Metropolitan Com- mission’s plans for the Lower East river. 87 The discharge would take place into water which would be relatively clean as compared with the present polluted conditions. 88 This is a surprising statement and lacks con- firmation. 28 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES charged during the flood tides might, if the move- ments of the floats which the Metropolitan Sewer- age Commission used are to be taken as a guide, be carried into the East river, but would be carried entirely out of the Upper bay on the succeeding ebb tide.89 This sewage could be treated in sedimentation tanks located on the southerly end of Governor’s Island, or on an extension which might be built to this island.90 The President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission has stated that the matter of using this part of the island for such a purpose has been taken up with the authorities at Washington, and that the conclusion reached is that it would not be allowed.” The opinion of an official or officer of the army, more or less informally expressed in correspondence with the President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission, is not at all conclusive in this matter, and should it be deemed expedient the matter might be taken up by the Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment with quite a different result. Third—The adoption of an outlet south of Gov- ernor’s Island suggests another alternative for this part of the Harbor. Such an outlet from the inter- ceptors proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission would necessitate the construction of a sewer along the Brooklyn water-front from Wallabout to a point south of Atlantic Basin. This sewer would naturally intercept all the existing sewer outlets be- tween these points, and it might be found economical and more effective not to build an interceptor on the Manhattan side, but instead to make use of this outlet sewer along the Brooklyn water-front for inter- cepting an equal or greater quantity of sewage from Brooklyn for discharge at Governor’s Island. Under this plan sewage from the Manhattan side would be treated locally by fine screening or sedimentation. Although a careful estimate has not been made, it is thought that $6,500,000 would cover the cost of the second or third alternative. Either alternative sug- gested would be a permanent improvement, and would be sufficient for an indefinite length of time to come.92 Attention is called to the fact that lower Man- hattan has probably already reached its maximum de- velopment, so far as population is concerned, and there will be no material increase in the future of sewage matters which will be delivered to this part of the harbor from this borough. It is even possible that the future may see less resident population in this part of the city than at present. The portion of Brooklyn which contributes sewage to the lower East river is already fully occupied and improved and probably no great increase in density of population will occur in the future.98 * The Metropolitan Commission's float records do not support this assertion. The complete float records may be found in Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- sion’s Preliminary Report VIII, pages 15 to 46. 90 The United States Government would probably object, the odors would be offensive in the vicinity, the point of outfall would be too close to the Passaic Valley sewer outfall, which will discharge 300 mil- lion gallons of septic sewage per day within 2% miles of the proposed works. See Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission’s Report of April 30, 1910, page 327. - 91 The President never made this statement. 92 Before recommending this ocean island project, the Metropolitan Commission considered the cost of an interceptor and disposal plant such as is here suggested, except that the works would be located on an island opposite Red Hook and just below Gov- ernors Island, but did not consider it as good as the plans proposed. 98 The Metropolitan Commission expects a large increase in population in sub-divisions 22, 23, 24 and 25, which lie in Brooklyn. They contain 7482 acres and a present population of 903,400, which is 121 to the acre. These subdivisions naturally drain to the Lower East river between Newtown creek and Brooklyn bridge. CRITICAL REPORT & REPLIES 29 Jamaica Bay: The plans prepared by the Borough of Brooklyn for the collection and treatment of sewage on the south shore, when compared with those proposed by the Metropolitan Commission, show an economy in construction and capitalized cost of operation of ap- proximately $3,000,000.94 A discussion of these two schemes in too great detail is not attempted here because it is thought that it would consume too much time and perhaps would not be of sufficient interest to the Board at this time. - Briefly outlined, the Brooklyn and Queens plan includes: First—Treatment works at some point near the head of the bay, where the sewage from all the low lying district about the head of the bay and near the eastern boundary of the City will be treated as the conditions require. The exact location of these works should be given further study. The location either on Jo Co’s Marsh, as recommended by the Metro- politan Sewerage Commission, or at some point on the mainland as recommended by Black & Phelps, may prove to be desirable. Second—It includes a sanitary intercepting sewer extending from the present Twenty-sixth Ward Dis- posal Works easterly toward the easterly boundary of the Borough of Queens and works for the treat- ment of sewage collected in this sewer at a point near the present Twenty-sixth Ward Works, where the City already owns a large area of land purchased for this purpose. For many years, if not indefinitely, sewage can be treated at this location with economy and without objectionable consequences. Third—The delivery of all the domestic sewage which concentrates at the head of the Paerdegat Basin to Barren Island through suitable intercepting sewers. All plans thus far suggested have been in agreement in this respect. Fourth—It includes the work on Barren Island for the treatment of sewage not only from the Paer- degat, but also from the drainage area tributary to the Sheepshead bay works, and a large additional area on the south shore. The effluent is to be discharged into Rockaway Inlet after treatment sufficient to prevent undue pollution of the waters of the bay, and the fouling of the shores and beaches. The plans of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission up to the date of the previous hearing before the Board of Estimate” contemplated this site, and without any question it is the most available one for a sewerage treatment plant to be found about Jamaica bay. Such a disposition of the sewage can be made in this 94 This may be considered a fair agreement under the circumstances and suggests that the estimates made by the Borough of Brooklyn are not far wrong. See reply to criticism 24. 95 The Metropolitan Commission still favors this scheme unless the ocean island project is carried out, in which event it would save the city a large sum of money to send the sewage of the Western Jamaica Bay subdivision to the ocean island for disposal in- stead of disposing of the sewage by treatment works at Barren Island. See Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission’s Preliminary Report VI, pages 44 and 45. See reply 24. 30 CRITICAL REPORT & REPLIES manner that for a period of time beyond which it is not proper or customary to make provision, no ques- tion can be raised as to its sufficiency. Drainage plans are now before the Board of Estimate for adop- tion, which provide for the utilization of Barren Island for this purpose. It should be remarked here that the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission has laid considerable stress upon a criticism of the alleged intention of the City authorities to build numerous basins or short canals about the shores of Jamaica bay, which are to be- come receptacles for domestic sewage and trade wastes. It has been made so prominent that some of the experts employed have made it a point to concur in the Metropolitan Commission’s condemnation of such a project.” A more careful investigation would have disclosed the fact that these basins are absolutely necessary as outlets for storm water sewers; that the City has not for many years built sewers designed to discharge domestic sewage into such canals, but that on the contrary it has spent considerable money to avoid doing so. A State law of many years’ standing for- bids such a thing.97 Screening Plants: While the general project for screening the sewage from the westerly slopes of the Borough of Man- hattan and South Brooklyn and discharging it from submerged outlets beyond the pierhead lines is un- doubtedly feasible and proper, neither the type of screen proposed nor the locations for the plants as shown on the Metropolitan Commission’s plan are well chosen. Various reconstructions are under con- sideration in the Borough of Manhattan and radical changes in the sewer system are contemplated in con- nection with the proposed plan for improving the railroad and dockage facilities along the Hudson River, which probably will seriously modify the plans proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- sion.98 The large number of screening plants proposed are designed to be equipped with screens of the Hamburg type.” The Hamburg screen consists of bars spaced So as to afford openings of from 3% to 5% of an inch in width, which are cleaned by a specially designed type of comb. It will remove only the larger sus- pended particles and the machinery required in its operation is intricate and expensive. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classed as a fine screen and it is not effective in reducing the total organic or polluting matter in the sewage. The President of the Metropolitan Commis- sion at the hearing, stated that it was expected by * The Metropolitan Commission’s only mention of this point was in its Preliminary Report III, issued November, 1911, page 5. * The present condition of Paerdegat Basin and other Creeks discharging into Jamaica bay is not Such as to allay misapprehension in this direction. * Such modifications as are necessary can readily be made in the general plans which the Metropolitan Commission has proposed. See replies to criticism 15, 19, 24 and 29. * Any efficient type of screen would be equally acceptable. The Hamburg type has been mentioned because it has been found practicable to use it where the range of tide has been considerable. See replies to criticism 15, 19, 22, 24, 29, 98, 100, 101, 102 and 122. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 31 its use to remove about 15 per cent. of the matter in suspension. To understand the meaning of this statement it should be remembered that organic mat- ter is the source of all offensive pollution in sewage, that on the average about 50 per cent. of this organic matter is in solution and incapable of removal by any form of screening.499. Only about 7% per cent. of the total organic matter in sewage can therefore be removed by this screen. Considering the fact that large quantities of polluting matter reach the Harbor from sources other than domestic sewage, such as storm water, waste matter from vessels, etc., prob- ably the total improvement that can be hoped for by the use of this type of screen is not greater than 6 per cent.101 A sufficient commentary upon the esteem in which it is held by those who are most familiar with the subject is the fact that in the cities of Germany, where screening is quite generally a part of the system of treatment employed, this type has made no head- way.19% Fine screens which can remove suspended matter as small as % to */16 of an inch in diameter and effect a reduction of about 35 per cent. of the total suspended matter, are much more desirable and are available at a smaller cost, both for sites and for installation. Such screens are now working elsewhere in localities very similar to our own and can with a moderate amount of skill be adapted to the condi- tions to be met in this city.19% Local Nuisances: While no actual nuisances from smell now exist in the Harlem river, the Newtown Creek canal and Wallabout canal,194 it is very probable that within the next few years during the summer months both local and general nuisances will occur and that meas- ures should be taken for their abatement. Such nuis- ances existed for many years in the Gowanus canal, or until the present pumping station and tunnel was built for the purpose of improving its sanitary condi- tion. Notwithstanding the fact that the water in the canal is now practically as clean as that in the bay from which it is drawn, that it at all times con- tains a fair amount of dissolved oxygen and that fish are frequently seen near its upper end, it is stated by the Metropolitan Commission that its condition is not improved and that it is one of the danger points in the Harbor.1% It is well to correct these misrep- resentations because the plant has accomplished its purpose and has demonstrated that the sanitary con- dition of a polluted body of water of this kind can be satisfactorily improved in this manner. Such nuisances as exist in the Harbor at the pres- ent time and such as, in the natural order of things, 199 The composition of the sewage has been stated by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission in a num- ber of places. See report of April, 1910, Part III, Chapter X, pages 427-462; also report of August, 1912, Chapter III, pages 28-30; Preliminary Report VI, pages 16-19. Screenings contain a higher per- centage of organic matter than do the total suspended solids. See replies 101, 102 and 122. 101 The Metropolitan Commission has not advo- cated the Hamburg type of Screen as a means of re- ducing the oxygen-demanding properties of the sew- age so much as for the removal of a great part of the large solids separately recognizable as of sewage origin. The presence of these solids in the water violates the first provision of the standard of clean- ness which is agreed to by the city engineers and which says: “Garbage, oftal or solid matter rec- ognizable as of sewage origin shall not be visible in any of the harbor waters.” Considering the differ- ence between screenings and sewage sludge, 6 or even 71/2 per cent. is believed to be too low. See Metro- politan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, February, 1913, page 30. See replies 100, 102 and 122. 102 That this type of screen is thought to be well adapted to its work is proved by the fact that the new screening station at Hamburg was equipped with the same type of screen some years after the first in- stallation. See replies 100, 101 and 122. 198 The correctness of this opinion is open to doubt. 194 Decided nuisances both to smell and sight exist at these three places. 10° The Metropolitan Commission never made this statement. In Preliminary Report VI, pages 9- 10, issued February, 1913, appears the only ref- erence made to this canal. The water is described as being polluted to the point of being black and foul- Smelling. 32 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES will occur in the next few years are local and may be abated without great expense.” These nuisances are located, in most cases, in the immediate neigh- borhood of sewer outlets, which in time past have been improperly located at bulkhead lines, between piers or at other points where tidal currents are not effective in sweeping away and rapidly diffusing the Sewage. The existence of piers and other irregularities of shore line along the water front interfere with the tidal flow and inevitably cause some stagnation in the water along the shores. It follows naturally from the uses to which these piers are put, that the slips must gradually accumulate quantities of Solid matter which does not all come from the sewers but a large proportion of which is subject to putrefaction and as soon as the Oxygen in the water has become sufficiently reduced gives off offensive odors. Foecal matter” and other materials of sewage origin are often visible at existing sewer outlets and constitute nuisances offensive to sight. Practically all nuisances which exist in New York Harbor at the present time are due to the above easily understood causes. They may be abated by Submerging and extending all sewer outlets at least as far as the pierhead line198 or to points where they will be washed by tidal currents of sufficient strength to rapidly carry away and diffuse the effluent throughout the main currents of the Harbor and by dredging between the bulkhead and pierhead lines where sludge deposits occur, especially in the neighborhood of sewer outlets. Dredging is one of the first remedies that should be applied and pending the construction of works to prevent or reduce deposits, the removal of sludge by dredging from the slips and other places of de- posit will serve to very materially improve the general condition of the Harbor, as well as to eliminate local nuisances resulting from sludge deposits. Further- more, dredging can be made a permanently econom- ical and suitable adjunct to the disposal works, as has been done in harbors of other large cities, where the removal of sludge-producing matter by disposal works, has been only partial, as is proposed for New York. Dredging would also have special application to the removal of accumulations of wash from the streets which is carried directly into the harbor by the storm water sewers. Dredges of special design would be used, and the sludge taken to sea in scows.109 Status of Sewage Treatment. In answer to one of the questions asked by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, Mr. Fuller stated that “In my judgment the art of sewage *The nuisances are both local and general, as stated in the Metropolitan Commission's reports. The sanitary condition of the harbor is described with considerable particularity in the report of the Metro- politan Sewerage Commission, April 30, 1910, Part I, Chapter I, pages 15-62. . . . • * * A description of the objectionable conditions produced by piers and the improper location of sewer outlets occupies a large part of the Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission’s report of April 30, 1910. In Chapter X, pages 427-461, is given a description of the phenomena of diffusion and digestion of the Sewage materials after they are discharged into the water. It is stated that the whole problem of the disposal of sewage in New York harbor largely re- Solves itself into a question of how, and to what extent, diffusion and digestion may be carried on with the certainty of producing satisfactory results. *The solution here proposed, although it appears simple enough, is by no means easy of accomplish- ment. For the most part the sewers of Manhattan have already been carried to the outer ends of the piers without satisfactory results. . . . * Some dredging will always be necessary in New York harbor, and within economical and sanitary limits dredging affords a useful means of removing unavoidable deposits. Dredging, however, must be regarded as a partial and costly remedy rather than t a prevention. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 33 treatment has reached a point such as to warrant at this time the adoption of a definite policy and general plan for the main drainage works of New York.” While we consider this answer to be reason- able, its interpretation should not be such as to lead to the assumption that no substantial advances in the art are to be expected in the future.119 The time is already in sight when the sanitary con- ditions in the harbor will become intolerable and their improvement imperative. The cost of the work re- quired to secure the necessary improvement is so great that it goes without saying that there must be a comprehensive plan in accordance with which the various parts of the work should be built. The ne- cessity for this improvement is such that the time when it must be carried out cannot be indefinitely delayed, nor chosen at random, because the art of sewage treatment may be greatly changed and simpli- fied by discoveries and inventions that may be made. The only alternative is to make use of the most effec- tive and economic processes which are now available, even though other and better ones may hereafter be brought into use, which will cause the abandonment of the present ones within the next generation. The managers of our best equipped power plants are not blame-worthy because they are continually sending to the scrap heap machines which are still in good condition, to make way for others designed on more advanced lines and more economical in opera- tion. Many very able men are constantly employed upon problems relating to sewage treatment, and there is every reason to believe that advances in the art will continue in the future as they have in the past, although, perhaps, somewhat more slowly and along different lines. The possibilities of tank treatment, mechanical fil- tration or separation, sludge treatment, etc., are by no means exhausted, and the best results that are possible today may be far exceeded both in economy of treatment and in quality of effluent by the time the works proposed for this city can be put into complete operation. The City should proceed in such a manner that advantage can always be taken of any advances in the art which may be made with the least expense, and any works which are to be built should be de- signed so that the City would not be irrevocably committed to unnecessary expenditures such as has been proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- sion.111 Administration. And finally, there is nothing connected with the construction of the works proposed by the Metro- 119 If the report alluded to is examined, it is not likely that its meaning will be misunderstood. A copy of this report was transmitted to the Chief Tºngineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment, April 27, 1914. * This pronouncement is in strict accordance with the expressed opinions of the Metropolitan Com- mission except as to the last clause, which is irrele- want and incorrect. See reply 24. 34 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES politan Commission nor in the suggested modifica- tions of them which is so new or strange that it can- not be successfully carried out by the Borough au- thorities who are already engaged in designing and building works of a similar character, and in some cases of equal magnitude and difficulty, under the direction of the Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment.112 The interference of an expensive Federal and State Commission to control, and a Commission under State authority to construct and operate sewerage works is entirely unnecessary. The examples of other great cities in the execution of similar works which have been cited, such as Chicago, London, Paris and Berlin, bear out this belief if the analogies are strictly drawn.118 This problem is something more than merely the collection of data, the demonstration of the condition of the harbor and the making of reports and recom- mendations for its improvement. It is a problem of engineering, design and construction, of finance and administration, and its final settlement and decision should be in the hands of men of broad experience and intimate knowledge of such matters as they af- fect this City, and no body of men is so well fitted for this task as the Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment.114 Conclusions. 1. Divested of its supposed mystery and reduced to reasonable proportions, this entire problem is sim- ply one of placing the harbor in a condition free from all nuisances and fit for any reasonable and necessary use.” 2. Main drainage works should be designed to utilize the digestive capacity of the harbor to the greatest extent practicable by effective distribution of the sewage effluent.” 3. The Ward’s Island project and the lower East river interceptors and screens do not provide for proper distribution.” 4. The intentions of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission in regard to the Ocean Island scheme have not been made clear, but the initial steps pro- posed in their general plan are such as will ultimately make the island necessary.*** *** This opinion is in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Metropolitan Commission which favors the creation or designation of a central board to construct and maintain the necessary works. See replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 113, 114 and 124. * The main drainage and sewage disposal works of London and vicinity, Boston and vicinity, Chicago and many other cities have been built and main- tained by special commissions created for the pur- pose. See references to reply 112. * Excepting in its last phase, this statement is in strict agreement with the expressed opinions of the Metropolitan Commission. In the condensed state- ment of the work of the Metropolitan Commission appended to the city engineers’ report there will be found, in Appendix II, Section IV, the scheme of ad- ministration which the Metropolitan Commission rec- ommends and the reasons for this recommendation. * There is no mystery about this matter, so far as the Metropolitan Commission is aware. With re- gard to the rest of the proposition the Metropolitan Commission is in accord. See references to reply 112, also 24. * This is a fundamental principle underlying all the Metropolitan Commission’s work. See reply to criticism 24. * This is denied for the following principal reasons: In regard to the Wards Island project, mul- tiple outlets are a part of the design. The point for the outlets is where the water flows more rapidly than almost anywhere else in the harbor. The water is very deep. Over 150 feet of depth can be availed of for the purpose of mixing the sewage with the water, if such great depth is desired. In regard to the Lower East river project, there will be multiple outlets as for the Wards Island plant. The water is deep and the currents rapid. Under these circum- stances there would be adequate opportunity for dis- tribution. Distribution is essential before the diges- tion of Sewage can be accomplished. The sewage must be mixed with water before the water can render the sewage materials inert. This principle has been kept in mind throughout the Commission’s work of planning and has been fully described in the Metro- politan Commission’s Report of April, 1910, Part III, Chapter X, page 453. 118. This project has been announced for more than a year and there has been ample opportunity given to the city engineers to understand it. There has been but one alteration of material conse- quence in the plan and that is the introduction of . the progressive principle whereby the works would be built in two stages, but only the first stage com- pleted in case experience showed that to be sufficient. CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES - 35 5. With a suitable general plan the Ocean Island scheme is unnecessary.” 6. On the south shore of Long Island, at Barren Island and elsewhere, there are suitable sites for dis- posal plants discharging their effluent into Jamaica bay. These plants can be more economically used than the Ocean Island outlet.” 7. The standard of cleanness under which the works proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission were designed contained too high a require- ment for dissolved oxygen, but the late complete abandonment of the dissolved oxygen section was equally unwise.” 8. The Hamburg type of screen will not give as good results as can be obtained with some other types.” That the first stage would not make the second stage necessary is shown by the opposition of Consulting Engineers Hering and Fuller to the second stage and their endorsement of the first. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Report of April 30, 1914, Part III, Chapter I, pages 193 to 253. 119 After some years of study and the considera- tion of the best expert advice obtainable, the Metro- politan Commission has arrived at the opinion that the ocean island plan is a necessary thing to look for- ward to as an ultimate measure of protection. Before reaching this opinion, the Commission considered various other alternative projects, both in regard to cost and efficiency and obtained the most competent European experts to go over the ground and give their advice. In no other way at so little cost can the burden of pollution be so materially lessened. * If there is any point of general agreement be- tween the Metropolitan Commission and the city engineers it is in regard to this point. The Metropolitan Commission has suggested sites for works both at Barren Island and the upper part of Jamaica bay which appear to be approved by the city engineers. Only, in case the ocean island project is carried out, it would be more eco- nomical to take a large part of the Jamaica bay sew- age to that island than to build large works at Barren Island to purify the sewage. See Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, pages 45 and 46. Also see reply 24. * The term abandonment indicates that the speci- fication has been deserted, cast aside. It is quite the reverse. The Commission should not be misunder- stood or misquoted in regard to the oxygen require- ment. Its position is that if the other specifications of the standard of cleanness are complied with, there will be enough oxygen in the water to satisfy all the requirements. The two consulting experts of the Metropolitan Commission whom the city engineers have praised most highly are in full accord with the Metropolitan Commission’s present position with re- spect to oxygen. See correspondence appended to reports of Messrs. Hering and Fuller in the report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, April 30, 1914, pages 218 and 253. See replies to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 51. * The Hamburg screen is capable of removing a large part of the suspended particles separately recog- nizable as of sewage origin, and it has been suggested by the Metropolitan Commission for this reason and because it has been shown by years of experience to be efficient in operating where there is considerable range of tide. If a more efficient and economical screen can be found, the Metropolitan Commission would not be opposed to it. See replies to criticism 15, 24, 29, 98, 100, 101 and 102. 36 CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 9. Sedementation tanks under marginal streets are feasible, and in some cases desirable.128 10. The present organizations of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and of the Borough Presidents are fully capable of designing, construct- ing and administering a main drainage system.124 Respectfully submitted, - NEW YORK SEWER PLAN COMMISSION, NELSoN P. LEwis, Chairman E. P. GooDRICH, G. W. TILESON, J. W. F. BENNETT, FostER CRowHLL, LEWIS NIXON, . CHARLEs E. GREGORY, Secretary. *The Metropolitan Commission gave very care- ful consideration to the feasibility of locating sedi- mentation basins beneath the marginal streets and discussed this subject with some of its most experi- enced engineering experts. See reports of Karl Imhoff, Preliminary Report XIII, March, 1914; re- port of George E. Datesman in the report of the Met- ropolitan Commission of April 30, 1914, page 261. The Commission’s opinion is that only in exceptional situations should sedimentation basins be so located. See report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- sion, April 30, 1914, Part III, Chapter I, page 168. See replies to criticism 16, 17, 58, 76, 82, 83, 84 and 85. . * The opinion of the Metropolitan Commission is that in order to design, build and maintain a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for a city, there should be a central commission. The principal reasons for this opinion are contained in Part IV of the condensed statement of the work of the Metro- politan Sewerage Commission appended to Appendix II of the city engineers’ report. A central com- mission has been considered necessary by practically all those persons who have been consulted on this subject by the Metropolitan Commission, includ- ing two ex-Mayors of the City of New York. A strong argument for the creation of a central com- mission charged solely with the work of main drain- age is afforded by the report of the city en- gineers on the plan of main drainage for New York City proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com- mission which is here printed and under discussion. After having been authorized and directed for about a year to make plans of main drainage for New York and having been afforded during this time every facility to become familiar with the reports and other work of the Metropolitan Commission, the city en- gineers have produced a report consisting largely of misstatements and immature and illogical sug- gestions in criticism of the Metropolitan Commis- sion’s work. Apparently the great variety of duties performed by the city engineers has prevented that careful study of the main drainage and sewage dis- posal problem which the situation called for. Other reasons why it is now considered by the Metropolitan Commission better to place the con- structive work in the hands of a commission rather than in the hands of the boroughs or leave it to be built under the present organization of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment here follow: a. The sewage problem is essentially one problem, and not an aggregation of more or less loosely related parts. The pollution is not only local, but general, and the system which is to correct the conditions should be general also. Such divisions of the work CRITICAL REPORT REPLIES 37 as are necessary should depend upon the opportun- ities and necessities which the various parts of the city present and not upon political boundaries. b. The construction of a main drainage and sew- age disposal system requires a high degree of scien- tific and technical skill and may well receive the concentrated attention of a special board or commis- sion for construction. The experience gained in con- structing and operating the works in one locality should be completely available for all. This would be automatically provided for in a central construct- ing commission, but could never be perfectly realized if the works were built by the boroughs. c. For the gradual construction of the works there would be need of continuity and consistency of pur- pose and this could more certainly be insured through a commission than through the five separate boroughs. d. Borough construction, however appropriate for local sewerage, the object of which is to protect the land against pollution, is not so suitable for main drainage and disposal works whose purpose it is to improve and protect the general waterways of the city. Harbor work should be, and generally is, strongly centralized, as, for example, dredging and dock building. See replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 112, 113 and 114. METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION, GEORGE A. SOPER, President, JAMES H. FUERTES, Secretary, H. DE B. PARSONs, CHARLES SooysMITH, LINSLY R. WILLIAMS. 38 APPENDIX I METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, 17 BATTERY PLACE, NEW YORK CITY. NELSON. P. LEWIs, Esq., April 16, 1914. Chief Engineer, Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Municipal Building, New York City. DEAR SIR: You have asked in what order this Commission would have the City proceed to carry out the main drainage and sewage disposal works which were discussed at the Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment hearing on April 14, and you have expressed particular interest in the projects for the protection of the Lower East river and Harlem sections. This information is desired by you for the use of the Con- Sulting Engineers who have been requested to discuss the Commission’s work at a meeting of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to be held on the 11th of May. The first step recommended is the construction of the interceptors, grit chambers, screening plants and submerged outfalls for the Lower East river territory. The Manhattan interceptor would collect the sewage from Broad street to 26th street and discharge through a pumping station, grit chamber and screening plant, to be located at Corlears Hook. On the Brooklyn side the interceptors would extend between Huron street and Classon avenue, with the pumping station, grit chamber and screening plant at South 5th Street. The Manhattan works would deal with an estimated dry weather flow of 99,000,000 gallons and the Brooklyn works with 101,000,000 gallons per twenty-four hours. The estimated cost of construction is $4,095,000 and the maintenance and fixed charges about $361,000. There would also be severally isolated screening plants located along the Lower East river, estimated to cost $710,000, with total annual charges of about $75,000. At the same time, or immediately after, the foregoing works for the Lower East river are taken in hand, attention should be given to the works discharging at Wards Island. The first installation would include the following: An interceptor on the Manhattan shore of the Harlem, extending from 106th Street to 148th street, and in The Bronx from Brook avenue to 149th street, with tunnels. to Wards Island from 114th street in Manhattan and Willow avenue in The Bronx. On Wards Island there would be a pumping station and a treatment plant sufficient for the sewage to be expected in 1920. The Lower East river and Harlem works thus far referred to would probably be sufficient until the year 1925. When it became necessary to afford the Lower East river a greater degree of protection than the screen- ing plants at Corlears Hook and South 5th street could render, the sewage collected to these two points should be taken to the ocean island. This would involve the construction of a siphon from Corlears Hook to South 5th street, together with a pumping station at the latter point, force mains to Wallabout street, delivering to a main sewer which would carry the sewage to the ocean island and the construction of the island, the final instalation including the main pumping station, outfall tunnel and treatment works. The total cost for the entire instalation, including the first and second stages, would be about $17,500,000, with fixed charges and maintenance of about $1,312,000. To this should be added the cost of isolated screen- ing plants on the Manhattan and Brooklyn shores, $4,200,000, with annual charges for operation and fixed charges of $575,000. r. If the ocean island project is to be carried out by 1925, as the Commission thinks will be necessary, it will be desirable to carry to the island a large part of the sewage of the western Jamaica bay subdivision. The quantity of sewage thus provided for by 1940 will amount to 136,000,000 gallons per day. By sending this sewage to the outlet island a large saving can be effected in the cost of disposing of the sewage at Barren Island through works of high efficiency at that point. The size and cost of the tunnel from the mainland to the island would be increased, as would the settling basin capacity on the island and the total maintenance and fixed charges would be larger also. The comprehensive form of the ocean island project for which the Commission has made estimates represents a total cost of $21,466,000, including $4,072,000 for the Jamaica Bay division. The total maintenance and fixed charges amount to about $1,- 597,000, including $286,000 chargeable to the Jamaica Bay division. 39 Before the ocean island project is carried out it will probably be necessary to begin the construction of other parts of the general plan for main drainage and sewage disposal for the City, including the Tallmans Island, Clason Point and Jo Cos Marsh works and the small plants for the Richmond territory. The Commission considers it unwise and unnecessary to state with exactness how much work shall be built each year, preferring to leave this matter largely to the constructing body and to the judgment of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Very sincerely, (Signed) GEORGE A. SOPER, PRESIDENT. APPENDIX II METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, 17 BATTERY PLACE, NEW YORK CITY. March 18, 1914. To the Members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment: SIRs: In accordance with instructions from the Legislature and with appropriations aggregating ap- proximately $250,000 from New York City during the last eight years, the Metropolitan Sewerage Commis- sion has made investigations and general plans for a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for the entire city. - The investigations and planning have been carried on by the Commissioners, of whom four are En- gineers and one is a Physician, aided by a corps of trained assistants and with the advice of twenty con- sulting experts. The system proposed consists largely of interceptors running along the waterfront to collect the sew- age to a number of centrally located disposal plants, where sufficient of the impurities can be removed to permit the effluent to be discharged into the harbor Waters without producing danger or offense. No change would be made in the local sewers except to connect them with the interceptors. The system proposed is recommended both as a plan and policy for construction to be carried out in successive steps and not as one undertaking. Some parts are needed for the immediate future and should be taken in hand at once; the remainder can be deferred until required. The plans are sufficiently flexible to permit of the adoption of any discoveries or improvements in the art of sewage disposal which may be made. From the beginning the works will constitute a well co-ordinated scheme of main drainage for the city which will utilize the absorptive capacity of the harbor waters to the greatest extent consistent with due regard to the public health and welfare. In the Commission’s opinion, there is no need of further investigations or comprehensive planning. In the projects proposed the approximate location, size, capacity, cost and operating expenses are given. Detailed surveys, borings and the preparation of contract plans will be needed, and these can best be pre- pared by those charged with the work of construction. The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission has recommended, in a report to the Mayor dated January 7, 1914, that a commission be at once created, or an existing Commission designated, to proceed with the de- tailed studies and plans which should form part of the construction of the necessary works, and the members have placed their resignations in the hands of the Mayor, to take effect as soon as their final report, now in preparation, can be completed, which it is expected will not be later than April 30, 1914. Respectfully, GEORGE A. SOPER, JAMES H. FUERTES, H. deB. PARSONS, CHARLES SOOYSMITH, LINSLY R. WILLIAMS, Commissioners. Per GEORGE A. SoPER, President. Appended hereto is a condensed statement of the Commission’s I, Investigations; II, Findings and Conclusions; III, Plans for the Main Drainage and Disposal Works, and IV, Scheme of Administration, proposed. - - - 40 CoNDENSED STATEMENT OF THE WORK OF THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE CoMMISSION I. Investigations. 1. A thorough study of the chemical and bacteriological condition of the harbor waters and deposits beneath the waters, including about 6000 analyses covering all seasons of year and all sections of the harbor. 2. Tidal studies to determine the volumes of water flowing at different stages of tide in all the im- portant sections of the harbor. 3. An investigation of the present conditions of sewerage and sewage disposal in New York City and the other cities and towns within twenty miles of the New York City Hall. 4. The relation of the polluted water to health, especially through the medium of shellfish, bathing and the collection of driftwood. 5. The location and extent of nuisances to sight and smell, especially in large parts of the harbor, such as the Harlem and Lower East rivers and among the docks and piers of Manhattan and Brooklyn. 6. The present and probable future population and density of population in all parts of New York City. 7. Estimates of quantities of sewage with the weights of the various ingredients now discharged and likely in future to be produced throughout the city and neighboring territory in New Jersey. 8. Condition of the sewers of Manhattan as shown by inspections. 9. Experiments to determine the circumstances under which sewage may be discharged into the harbor without danger of producing nuisance or injury to the public health. 10. Studies of the main drainage and sewage disposal works of other large cities comparable with New York in respect to their topography, population and facilities for constructing sanitary disposal plants. II. Findings and Conclusions. 1. The excrement of over 6,000,000 people, discharged into the harbor through several hundred out- lets, flows backward and forward in plain sight from the shores, docks and shipping. 2. Deposits occur which putrefy and give off offensive odors. 3. Contact with the water through bathing, the collection of driftwood and otherwise is no longer Safe anywhere north of the Narrows. 4. The oxygen natural to the waters is already half gone and has been rapidly diminishing in the last few years. 5. By 1940 the population and the sewage produced will be more than twice the figures for to-day. 6. The processes of sewage treatment which can be employed in New York are restricted by the con- gested population and high cost of land to screening and sedimentation in deep settling tanks and, of these, only screening is suitable for the built-up sections of Manhattan and Brooklyn. 7. Several hundred million gallons of sewage naturally tributary to the inner harbor will eventually have to be taken to the open ocean for disposal and all works built to effect the relief now imperatively re- quired should be so designed as to be made part of an ocean outlet project. 8. Preparation of a final report answering all the queries which the Commission was created to study and proposing definite plans for main drainage and sewage disposal to serve The City of New York for the next thirty or forty years. 9. Formulation of a standard of cleanness for the harbor water to serve as a guide in the construction and operation of main drainage and disposal works. 10. The subject of protecting the harbor against excessive pollution by sewage has now passed suffi- ciently through the period of investigation and general planning to indicate the nature of the works required by New York. 11. A central commission should at once be created to take over the records and general plans of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and proceed with the necessary detailed planning and construction and operation of such main drainage and sewage disposal works as are needed. 41 III. Plans. 1. In general, intercepting sewers to connect with the local sewerage systems which now exist, or will in future be constructed, and carry the sewage to suitably located points for treatment and discharge. 2. The works to be built gradually, definite steps being taken as time proceeds and the necessity for further protection is recognized. Every step to form an indispensible part of the ultimate system. 3. Specifically, so far as can be stated here: a. Plant at the northeast corner of Wards Island. To this point would be brought dry-weather sew- age, eventually amounting to about 400 million gallons per day, from northern Manhattan and south- western Bronx. The first installation would be for about 170 million gallons which may be expected by 1920. The treatment would be sedimentation. The first cost would be about $5,000,000 and the annual operating charges at that date about $175,000. b. Plant at Tallmans Island. Here a large part of the sewage of northern Queens would be brought for treatment by sedimentation. The capacity by the year 1920 should be approximately 10 million gallons per day. The first installation would be about $1,285,000 and the operating charges in 1920 $30,000. c. Plants at Corlears Hook and various points on the Lower East river of Manhattan and Brooklyn and on the Hudson shore of Manhattan. At first all the works would include screens and submerged out- lets extending sufficiently far from shore to insure a prompt and thorough diffusion of the sewage. Later, as the quantity of Sewage increased and a more complete protection of the water was needed, a substantial part of the sewage tributary to the Lower East river would be collected to a central pumping station near the Brooklyn Navy Yard and discharged through a tunnel to the sea. This ocean island project, when com- plete, would cost about $17,000,000 with maintenance charges of about $408,000. The first stage, which is all that may be necessary for some years, would cost about $3,000,000 and for maintenance about $125,000. d. For Jamaica bay a plant at Jos Cos Marsh for the sewage of southeastern Queens and either a plant at Barren Island or a sea outlet for the sewage from the rest of southern Queens and southeastern Brooklyn. The quantity of sewage first to be provided for at Jo Cos Marsh would be about 10 million gallons per day and the first installation, with its interceptors, etc., would cost about $1,100,000 with an operating cost of about $46,000. For the portion carried to Barren Island, the first installation would treat 83 million gallons per day and would cost about $6,000,000. The operating charges in 1920 would be about $145,000. If the ocean island project (see c above) was carried out, the sewage which would otherwise go to Barren Island could be taken to the ocean island by works whose final cost would be about $4,000,000 with operating charges of less than $60,000 in 1920. e. For Richmond, five points where grit chambers and screening plants would be located. The first investment would be less than $1,000,000. IV. Scheme of Administration. 1. It is recommended that a new commission be created or an existing commission be designated to perform the following duties: a. Take over, continue and extend the work of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission. b. Make such detailed investigations, including surveys and borings, as may be necessary to make con- tract plans and estimates for the construction of a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for New York City. c. Prepare these necessary plans and estimates. d. Construct the main drainage and sewage disposal works required after they have been duly ap- proved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. e. Operate the works after construction, or, where parts are situated wholly within a borough, perhaps turn those parts over to the borough to operate under the regulation and control of the central commission. 2. The foregoing scheme of administration has been recommended after full consideration and consulta- tion with various persons familiar with the machinery of the city government, including ex-Mayors Low and McClellan. 42 3. Among the reasons why it is considered better to place the constructive work in the hands of a commission than in the hands of the boroughs are the following: a. The sewage problem is essentially one problem and not an aggregation of more or less loosely re- lated parts. The pollution is not only local, but general, and the system which is to correct the conditions should be general also. Such divisions of the work as are necessary should depend upon the opportunities and necessities which the various parts of the city present and not upon political boundaries. b. The construction of a main drainage and sewage disposal system requires a high degree of Scientific and technical skill and may well receive the concentrated attention of a special board or commission for construction. The experience gained in constructing and operating the works in one locality should be completely available for all. This would be automatically provided for in a central constructing commis- sion, but could never be perfectly realized if the works were built by the boroughs. c. For the gradual construction of the works there would be need of continuity and consistency of pur- pose and this could more certainly be insured through a commission than through the five separate boroughs. d. Borough construction, however appropriate for local sewerage, the object of which is to protect the land against pollution, is not so suitable for main drainage and disposal works whose purpose it is to im- prove and protect the general waterways of the city. Harbor work should be, and generally is, strongly centralized, as, for example, dredging and dock building. # # ; i ; ; ||| 3901 | ...--- - - ... ----------------------- - - - -> ******* * * * * * * **** * * * T UNIVERSITY OF | } - NOTE TO THE READER - The paper in this volume is brittle or the - inner raargins are extremely rarrow. t ; We have bound or rebound the volume - utilizing the best means possible. . PLEASE HANDLE WITH CARE - º