Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-04-01
WASHINGTON DRAINAGE.
No. w.
THE PLANS DISCUSSED.

HE fLANS DISCUSSED.
From the Sanitary Engineer.
1t is 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 SAM
tary condition CT Washington can be most effec-
tualy obtained.
The first question which should be decided is
the rectification of the river with the reclama-
ton of the flats, for on the plan adopted will in
great measure depend what alignments and
grades are the best to remove the sewage the
rain and subsOil water.
There are in the main two plans before u.s.
One proposes the formation of a new channel
along the present short line of Washington, the
other maintains the existing One or George
town channel, retaining the flats between It
and the shore. The former was shown to have
no special advantages, but rather the disadvan-
tage of tending to raise the flood heights rather
than to diminish them. 1t would also tend, be-
low Easbys Point, to throw the deep water
channel against the Virginia shore, and finally
leave large extent of territory on the Virginia
side comparatively useless and spreading ma
iarial influence. If 1t Is not raised above the
level of high water.
The advocates ofmaintaining the Georgetown
channel likewise recommend the preservation
OF the Washington channel below the Long
Bridge and the provision of suitable tidal basins
above the latter on the reclaimed territory, to
mise between the two plans is without objec-
tiOnable features, and it should effect the
speedy and final settlement of the vexed
question, which has been anxiously awaited by
the people Of Washington for the last decen-
MUM.
The reclamation of the flats has, in general
received two solutions One is proposition to
I'LL up the reclaimed lands to a level above high
water and to convert a portion of these into q
park with extensive lakes. The other is a
eOsft %
their present height, to embank the river and
to subdratn and dry the reclaimed low areas by
constant pumping Although we believe the
latter to be much less economical than might
at first sight be supposed, for reasons given be-
fore, 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 of the present fats and their
sub-drainage would greatly expose the city to
the dissemination OF malarial influences 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 justifable. The filing In of clean earth or
washed silt, on the other hand, would prevent
| this result to great extent if not altogether
and we therefore believe this latter plan to be
the preferable one
Another question which should be decided
before extensive works are undertaken, is the
necessity of purifying the sewage before its dis
OlSCIicG
| neers and Col Waring do not advocate the
same for the present, and from the figures
| furnished this conclusion seems a proper one.
| The only point which might be considered now
Is an adjustment of the elevation of the outfall
sewers to admit of a ready interrogation at some
| future day.
The importance the drainage of the heavy and
damp subsoil in the lower districts of Washing
ton has been indicated only In the suggestion
/ Of Col. Waring That it should be carefully
considered is evident from the intimate connec-
| ton that has been traced between the fiuctua-
| ton OF the subsoil water and pulmonary and
| typhoid diseases. Whether the extensive system
OF tile drainage which he suggests is necessary.
will depend on the quality Of the soil at each
locality. 1t seems hardly to be required for
| the higher and graveily districts. In certain
| low grounds however, 1t would be very adyan-
tageous to have special system of drains for
lowering the subsofi water, and even to lift it
eventually to an 0utfall BY pumping
| The removal Of storm water is treated more
or less differently In each Of the four plans, ex-
eepting the Boundary avenue intercepting
sewer, which Is generally endorsed.
Whlie MI. karwieSe recommends the removal OF
storm water and sewage In the sans sewers, he
mas added some rain water channels discharg-
| ing directly into the river. from which sewage
Is 10 De carefully excluded The engineers Of the
District advocate the combined removal for all
territory above tide, and the separate system.
with pumping ofthc sewage. for the grounds
which 1t will be necessary to drain below Mr..
Severson seems to advocate the combined sys-
TEN exclusively. Col. Waring although adj
hitting the combined removal In some Of the
best built sewers. advocates. In general. ONLY
excluded
The rsin water caannsls. proposed bv nr.
AarW1eees = rclieFe tic oWaxounda neor ~.