Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-02
The PLANS IMMATURE
Mr.. McGowan's Sewerage Ideas Not Ap-
proved by the Commissioners
hroad streaks of Daylight shot
through His Specifications bya
Report-Not Practicable.

In accordance with the request OF the Dis
trict committee. the Comniss,ona-. ,h,.
AFTERNOON returned the plans OF sewerage
disposal as proposed by Mr.. MCGOWAN.
with the following report thereon:
The Commissioners have the honor 70
return herewith the petition to Congress OF
Mr. John Z. MCGOWAN. presenting his pro-
posal and plan for relieving the sewers and
for disposing Of the sewerage OF Washing
ton and Georgetown. which was referred 70
the Commissioners for examination and re-
port, and to submit the following I'm rela-
ton thereto, together with extracts of re-
ports from Capt. Derby, corps of engineers,
assistant to the Engineer Commissioner.
and from Mr.. McComb. superintendent OF
sewers
Mr.. McGowan's plans have twice been
reported upon unfavorably from this office
The Commissioners have now gone over
the plans and estimates of cost. as pre-
scented in the petition. and find no reason
to change the former conclusions
THE present adopted sewerage plans IN
clude large outlet sewer along the left
bank of the Eastern branch and Potomac
river, which can serve as an interceptor for
sewers for the suburbs on that bank Mr.
McGowan does not provide any sewers for
that side of the river.
The adopted plans contemplate efficient
means for protection of the low lands OF
Washington against overflow. Mr.. Nc
Gowan's plans do not include such means
The adopted plans provide outfall and
main sewers for population of 100000 and
district or branch sewers for a larger popu-
lation, and are intelligently proportional
and carefully arranged for an extension OF
the system into the county outside of WASH
ington.
MIR. MCGOWAN limits his plan mainly to
Washington and apparently does not pro-
vide for extension. His sewers for sewage
are of one size, and that small size. "a
inches diameter. These differences Of ex-
tent and character of plans account. in
large measure. for the difference OF stated
costs. A further difference is explained by
underestimate in the costs given by Mr.
MCGOWAN.
THE cost OF operation would be more
under the MCGOWAN plan than under the
adopted plan. The former has two pump
ing stations instead of one. and the sewage
is to be transported by hsrges down the
river instead Of flowing down in an out
fall sewer. as in the adopted plan. Separa-
ton OF steam plants means increased cost.
No plant deteriorates SO fast as floating
plant.
An Objectionable feature of the MCGOWAN
plan is the location of a sewage pumping
station on the reclaimed flats about 3 1oj
feet southwest of the Washington rnonu-
ment or not far from the middle of the
shore line OF the future Riverside Park
The transporta ton of sewage i'm dunn
scows along and below the city water
front would be highly detrimental to public
disposal of sewage by such method
would be uncertain from liability of in
terruption by frozen river. running ice
storms and fog. Mr.. McGowan's plan is
intended to be a separate system of sewer
age. His 24-inch pipe along the water
front lis to intercept all heavy sewage from
large lateral sewers, but he fails TO explain
how the separation at the functions is TO
be effected.
HE places two lines of 2i-inch pipe In
present main trunk sewers for recei,-inr
all the heavy sewage and to permit only
the clear fresher flowing water TO reach
the outflow of those trunk sewers but he
does not show how the heavy sewage is TO
be separated, neither what is TO become Of
the lighter liquid sewage nor how he can
give sufficient fall TO his pipes in these
small-grade trunk sewers for carrying heavy
sewage.
The Enclosed pipes with their supports
or hangings against curved walls would
decrease the capacity of the trunk sewers.
which at times Of great storms have beer,
overtaXed by flood waters.
1T is submitted that Mr.. McGowau's
plans are not practicable, and that they are
immature"