The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-10-29

The expensive interceptor, which Mr.
Rudolph Herring, the famous sanitary
engineer, advocates in his report, and
which report has been adopted by Coun-
Gil, is meeting serious opposition from
citizens in Roanoke, among whom are
practical engineers of unquestionable
ability. Should the report of the sewer
committee, which will be presented to
Council Monday night, again advocate
the building of this interceptor, which
means an expenditure of nearly 500, 900
for an incomplete sewer system, it is
probable that the gentlemen who are
opposed to this plan will ask Council to
reconsider its previous action.
1t is claimed that Mr.. Hering's idoa
is wrong because it diverts the drainage
from its natural location. The drainage
of Roanoke has always flowed down the
valley, emptied into Tinker creek and
80 on into the river. The fall of the
drainage Is sufficient for any sewerage
purposes. That is, the fall is such that
1T gives all the velocity that is even
asked for by experts in sewer matters.
The claim is made that Tinker creek
will not carry off the sewage, but it is
matter of record that Tinker creek has
carried 1t off, and engiueersstat that it
can carry off two or three times as
much as 1t carries off now IL the channel
OF the creek is improved, which can be
done at very moderate cost
Another serious objection to the pro-
posed interceptor is that the wrong
stream is Intercepted. That instead of
intercepting Trout run, Lick run
should be intercepted and carried into
Tinker creek, rather than intercepting
tho first named run and carrying it nto
the river across the country and
through heavy cuts.
The plan of the proposed intcrceptor
is to build it about 1000 feet northerly
from the river. In other words, the in
terceptor will be built through q sec
ton that does not need any such sewer
age system at present and it will neces-
sarily have to lie lido for some time.
In the language of an engineer we'll
known in Roanoke, Council is going at
the work backwards.
If MIR. Hering's plan is carried out a
rise OF twelve feet in the river will back
up the water clear to tho head of the
1nterceptor at the ice factory unless
flood gates are put in; but flood gates
are proposed and, therefore, when the
river is twelve feet high and tho flood
gates are down, the accumulated storm
water and sewage which should flow
into the river must be backed I'D by
those same gates either into the streets
or overflow at places along the inter
ceptor about farewell street, from
which podnt that surplus would have to
flow into Tinker creek.
Mr.. Herring states that tho OK treme
rain fall will probably be three inches
an hour, which is q heavy fall. If that
three inches of water fall during high
water instead of what he assumes NAV
fall when the river is high, quarter
OF an inch an hour, with the flood gates
shut down, that water is bound to take
It's proper course down to Tinker creek.
When the interceptor is not big enoue b
to drain the water Mr.. Herring depends
upon tinker creek to carry it off, and
yet he says this creek is not sufficient
Another point the opponents make to
the pro posed plan is this: Mr.. Herring
empties the sewage into the river, vet
ne has made no provision for improving
the bed of the river SO as to carry off
this matter. He specii es that the in
terceptor shall empty into the channel,
or current, OF the river, and whilst the
1nterceptor does empty in at point
where there is q current few hundred
feet below there is slack water. Mr..
Herring fully recognizes the SOW
| age should enter into tho q current
which is necessary to carry 1T off and
dilute 1t, and does not appear to take
cognlzance of the fact that the water a
| few hundred feet below is SO slack that
sewage will not be carried off.
good current can be obtained on
Tinker creek at q moderate cost by i'm.
proving the channel and lowering its
grade at high points. There is now an
example OF the way in which slack
water acts upon the sewage along Tin
ker creek. at q certain place in the
creek hole has beon made into which
the sewage runs and for lack of a cur
rent remains and becomes putred. 1t
is claimed that this Same trouble will
occur in the neighborhood of 1000 feet
along the river directly below the
mouth of the proposed interceptor.
1t is stated on good authority that il
this is the case damages can DO claimed,
but 1T is customary in laying out any
system OF sewerage that every question
which may arise in connection with it
should be taken care OF, in arranging
the details of the construction of the
sewer and in ma king an estimate of the
cost OF the came. In this case no such
precaution has been taken and very
large item OF COST namely, the prepara-
tion OF the channel of the river to re-
ceiye and carry off. in its own current,
the sewage, has not been estima ted for,
and hence largo ellen ent of cost has
been left out of the estimate.
1t has been said that Mr.. Herring, by
reason Of his great reputation as SAM
tary and sewage engineer, should not
be criticised, but in the arrangement of
the detailx of the sewer along Lick
run, he has specified sizes which do not
nnnafafant Enr Ill