Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-03-11
THE PROTECTION OF THE STREAMS

|
The question of maintaining the purity oi
our streams is brought forth prominently by
the bill pending in the Legislature. As to the
importance of such a measure in the abb
stract, there is no room for dispute. The
sanitary value and the public usefulness Of
pure water is beyond question. All, what
ever their individual interests, will agree
that anything that can be done to prevent
unnecessary pollution of the streams should
be authorized by law.
The bill under consideration takes this
view. 1t proposes to give the State Board
of Health power to act in cases Of pollution.
1t makes it unlawful to throw or to permit
to be discharged into State water courses
any substance, mineral or solution, that
will make the water unfit for domestic con-
sumption. 1t is stipulated that the act
shall not make it illegal to discharge into
the streams the drainage of coal mines or the
sewage of the cities. Here we have the
principle recognized that the magnitude of
certain interests so far overbalances the i'm
portance OF keeping the streams pure, that
the latter object is to be abandoned when it
comes into collision with the greater inter-
est. This is a very reasonable view, and
the only criticism that can be made Of the
bill is that it does not apply the principle
impartially.
Two interests have shown opposition to
the measure, namely, some of the tanning
establishments whose waste material is per-
mitted TO flow into streams, and the oil pro-
ducers whose wells often yield large guam
titles of salt water. There is no doubt that
in the present form of the bill both these
classes would be subject to its penalties. 1t
seems that the tanners could care for the
waste products of their establishments with
out vital increase of their expenses. But,
so far as the public knows. the possibility
of the oil producers preventing the outflow
of salt water from their wells only exists
concurrentIy with the stoppage of the in
dustry. With that presumption it is diff
cult to see why the exceptions made in favor
of city sewage and coal mine drainage
should not be extended to water from oil
wells.
Everyone knows it is possible to provide
streams; although the expense would made
it verv great undertaking. The coal mine
industry furnishes a case in which If the
drainage is not to be discharged into the
streams the industry must step. 1t is a
principle recognized in the bill that in such
a case the industry must be permitted to con-
tinue. But with that principle conceded,
the burden of proof is decidedly on the sup
porters of the measure to show why salt
water from oil wells should not be placed in
the same category as the sulphur and iron
impregnations from mines.
At the same time it is true that if all three
of these leading causes of deflement are to
go unchecked the purifcation of the streams
by this measure will be very slight The
bill might go further than it does with re-
gard to city sewage by directing inquiry
toward methods for preventing that form of
pollution, and the same inquiry might be
made with regard to the disposition of salt
water from oil wells. There is no question
that the latter trouble is becoming serious
one in some sections. If there is any
method of preventing it. without imposing a
prohibitive burden on alegitimate industry,
the demonstration of the fact may point out
the proper remedy. Until the possibility of
preventing the outflow is proved, however,
the oil wells have as good claim to exemp-
tion as the coal mines, and better one than
the city sewers.