National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-04-01
OUR DRAINAGE.
ALL THE PLANS ABLY DISCUSSED.

II IL left for us now to draw some general con-
illusions from the several plans we have dis
cussed and TO indicate the ways by which we
may expect that an improvement OF the sanitary
| condition Of Washington can be most oftectualy
obtained The nrst question which should be
decided is the rectiRoation OF the river with the
| reclamation OF the fats, for on the plan adopted
will in great measure depend what alignmonts
and grades are the best 10 remove the sewage, the
! rain, and subsoil water
THEIRS ARE IN THE MAIN TWO PLANS
before us. one proposes the formation of new
channel along the present shore line OF Washing
ton, the other maintains the existing one. or
| Georgetown channel. rcCaming the flats between
\ Il and the shore The former was shown to have
no special advantages, but rather the disadvantage
of tending to raise the food heights rather than to
diminish them. II would also tend, below Essbys
Point to throw the deep.weter channel against
| the Virginia Shore and finally leave large ex-
tent Of territory on the Virginia side comparatively
useless and spreading malarial influence if It is
| not raised above the level Of high water. The adj
| vocates of maintaining
THE GroRGETowN CHANNEL
likewise recommend the preservation Of the WASH
ington channel below the Long Bridge and the
provision of suitable tidal basins above the latter
on the reclaimed territory, TO be used for flushing
the same. This compromise between the two
plans is without Objectionable features and II
should effect the speedy and final settlement Of
the veXed question, which has been nnXiously
awaited by the people of Washington for the last
decennum.
THE RECLAMATION OF THE FLATS
has, in general, received two solutions one is q
proposition TO ill the reolaimedla lands to level
above high water and toconvGrt q portion Of these
into park with extensive lakes The other is n
proposition TO maintain the submerged flats ut
their present height, 10 embunk the river, and to
gtt, tIa aft,,aI 1nttsu
slant pumping. Although we believe the latter to
be much less economical than might Mt first sight
be supposed, for reasons given before, we do not
think it sufficient to judge Of the comparative
merits of these two plans from an economical
point Of view alone, believing the most potent one
to be their sanitary effect. The preservation ofthe
present flats and their subdrainnge would greatly
EXPOSE TIE CRY
to the disseminn of malaria influence until
the ground has become thoroughly purified, and
to knowingly jeopardze the health Of the com.
munity during this interval does not appear to be
justihable The filling in Of clean earth or washed
silt, oil the other hand, would prevent this result
TO great extent if not altogether, md we there
one. Another question which should be decided
before extensive works are undertaken is the ne
cessity of purifying the sewage before its dis
charge into the river. Both the District engineer
and Colonel Wariug do not advocate the same fol
the present and from the figures furnished Thu
|
which might be considered now is an adjustment
of the elevation of the outlall sewers TO admit o
ready intcrccption at some future day
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DRAINAGE
of the heavy and damp subsoil in the lower dis
tricts of Washington has been indicated only IL
the suggestions OF Colonel Waring. That II SHOULD
mate connection that has been traced between tht
fuctuation of the subsoil water and pulmonar!
system of tile drainage which he suggests 4
; necessary Will depend on the quality OF the sol
at each locality. i seems hardly to be required
for the higher and gravely districts. In certain
. low grounds, however It would be very adyanta
ing the subsol water and even TO lift Ii eventually
4 TO an outall by pumping.
THE REMOVAL OF STORM WATER
is treated more or less differently in each of tn
4 four plans excepting the Boundary avenue inter
: cepting sewer which Is generally Endorsed
= While Mr. Karwiese recommends the removal 0
storm water and sewage in the same sewers, he ha
e added some water channels discharging di
rectly into the river, from which sewage Is 10 b
carefully excluded. The engineers ofthe Dlstric
advocate the combined removal for all territor
=, of the sewage for the grounds which II win b
necessary 10 drain below, Mr.. Seyerson seem
TO advocate the combined system exclusively
4 reno val in some Of the best built swers, adyo
s Gates, In general, only such from which rain
water is to be carefully excluded.
= THE RAIN-wATER CHANNEL
q proposed by Mr.. Karwiese to relieve the loy
grounds near Pennsylvania avenue were shown b
have no special advantages, and 1t was also indi
u Gated that the interccpon of sewage as PROPOSED
o by Colonel Wnrlng, together with the presen
sewers could not efficiently dispose of the storm
d to the foot of Capitol Hill which difficulty ais
h the scheme Of MIR. Severson would not avoid. Tn
= only ehectual plan TO prevent this frequent flood
70 ing seems TO be clearly the one interGepting n
y the stormy water that can be readily discharges
n into the river at high water. The Boundary ave
8 nue. sewer viii do i to great extent; lsrg
q now drains into tho street and 1iber Cree
sewers, could also be intercepted and the rain
J., water discharged ut Observatory Hill. The north
= ern slope OF Capitol Hill, which drains into tn
s. 1iber Greek, could likewise be Intercepted an
o the Storm water taken to the Boundary avenu
| sewer. In the southern part of the city simila
| relief could be rendered TO the same low ground,
WITH THESE PROVISIONS,
with proper rectlilcation Of the Potomac AM
with food gates at the lower outfall sewers
prevent an Inflow during high water the usuG
a foundations up to the foot Of Capitol Hill could
;, prevented, snilar treatment of the Slash Ru
u Valley by intercepting sewers has already bee
= proposed. The remaining problem Is the remova
d of the sewage proper. While Colonel Warning ad
o vocates Us separation from rain water, exoep
= where existing sewers are exceptionally well bull
n Mr.. Karwicse and Mr. ScverSon believe in th
:, efficiency of the combined system. The DistriC
!" engineers also advocate the removal Of both 4
. the same channels except where these are beloN
d tide We have already stated, when speaking O
Is Colonel Warnings suggestion, that whatever III
" merits Of separation may be, they are very great
reduced In city using such large quantity c
water per head of population and that the differ
is DtlNCCu tlic HHhHluR from tHc street
II and yards and the greatly diluted sewage woul
Il not warrant the construction of
G SEPARATE SYSTEM OF PIPES
: for the latter alone. If the combined sewers ar
properly designed and built no objection to theI
can be urged from sanitary point of view. An
g we think that the number of the present sewer
which could not be made suitable for the efieCtua
: removal Of sewage at a less expense than the cos
. OF new sewers Tor this purpose is Comparatively
II small We therefore believe that the proposition
n of the District engineers Is the more acccptabl
n one, conhning the separation mainly to the loy
n grounds, where 1t is advisable TO let the rain
h water flow ms much as possible over the surface
: besides making II more economical to pump tn
@ sewage alone, should this become necessary in tn
Il future.-Ihe Sanitary Engineer.
&Including 8. Il. Albert, United States Civil Eng
neer; Report to the Chief Of Engineers u 8. A., o
the Improvement OF the harbor OF Washington.
: c,A ~,