New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-04
THE PASSAIC SEWAGE PROBLEM
AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE THCNh
SEWER PLAN-PURIFICAT1oN
OF THE RIVER.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.


OF THE RIVER.
To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir. Very rarely am I impelled TO condemn any
editorial expression in Tbs Tribune. / am happy
10 find myself in hearty accord with your views on
nnos. oucstio:,s but am very sure that your edi-
torial to-day on Tho Passaic Sewage problem ~
serously mistaken The matter Is SO grave Ai.u
concerns the welfare of so many thousand pcoPie
that ] am sure you will permit me TO reply. .
On December 8, 1884, The Kearny Repuohcan'
established three months before. and OF which
was the editor. said:
The river should not be polluted one OF TWO
things should be done-either resolve .ne $50 eli
,r.o harmless and useful substances, OF unit an
contiguous cities and towns IN q cornprenensINe
sewer system. draining them az througn Ste 80 %
below Newark to preclude the possibility OF n
jury. 1870,
That expression WAS followed by many others
which believe caused tho movement which re-
emitted IN the creation Of the Passaic Sewerage
Commission However that may be. approacheu
the subject willing TO favor either local treatment
or the trunk-sewer plan. Careful STUDY OF tne
problem has convinced me that the iatter Is 'He
only feasible way out. .
1t seems to that your writer couid haroiy
Lava riven much attention to the report OF the
Passaic Sewerage Commission That report SHOWS
that even II every municipality Teaieo its o""
sewage locally each would be oDhsed 10 cohheC'
its several sewers, emptying into the river al
main sewer Newark and Paterson have plans 10
,bat End There would have TO be from dozen
70 twenty such intercepting sewers. II to the cost
of these sewers along the river-frohts De addeo
the cost of piping the sewage up over the riose
which bounds the Passaic River on the east, so as
10 conduct It to tho Hackensack Meadows Tor DIS
posal IN reservoirs l fear the amount would ex-
coed that or the trunk sewer P'op0'eu ny '''
Commission
The sewer farms suggested are not practicable
Between the Paterson and Newark boundaries inc
distance is but ten miles with several towns there
In: and farms could hardly be located there ana
certainly not In the towns on this side, such as
Kearny East Newark and Harrison 10 hhd any
s,itshle locations the sewage would all nave 10 Dc
numped I'D to the higher lands away from the
river or over the ridge TO the meadows Inc Hhore
practical plan II conversion OF the sewage ~ oe-
sired is 10 collect 1t all In one big sewer ana nave
ono disposal works on the Newark Bay meadows
below Newark. This is one OF the alternatives ID
the Commissions plan. though discharge INTO inc
hav is favored The latter could be tried, and II
found Objectionable the other could theh DE re-
sorted TO without difficulty. the proposed point
OF DISCHARGE is in front of the meadows, on "hlch
one of the two elevating stations is arranged lot
am informed that disposal works are not al
ways either profitable or sanitary. The one al
Summit is said TO be something of a nuisance ana
unsuccessful in purifying the LIQUID wnlch Is re-
turned river. lne political mlsmanaeemeht
of fifteen or twenty SUCH institutions Is worm
Creading AS business proposition' single one
combining the work OF ALL Is bound 10 De prefer,
BILE Cities IN Europe or America mat must ucdt
their sewage separately or pour II ilto ,h ~ ,e
have no proper cnoiee but II is not so r %.rn rie
ana should combine pool their issues ana not
waste land needed for homes by converting 1t INFO
How can you suppose that the Passsic River
would be robbed Of three-fourths Of its volume
were the sewage withheld from it? The report OF
the State GeolOgist water supply says mat the
Passaic River above Passac Fails drains an area
OF 797 square miles. will supply without stOr-
ago ST. 5os $50 gallons daily at That point with
out The year, il would supply six times as muen-I
say, 5So,cnclo gallons. me entire quanlitya OF
7oooc0 gallons. but this includes thai from an
i InS Du1des dam and is in reality only about
third inc average flow of the river. Only frac-
The river and, at all events. the river would be
better without the sewage, even II ii were reduced
The estimated cost of The trunk sewer should not
be held up as a bugbear. The Commission EN-,
integrity They say their estimates include lib,
era margin fer contingencies The amount named
Is SS5OOpp The number Of people now living III
the nineteen cities and towns to be drained is, by
the census OF 1895 4s42S The sever would cost
is proposed to be spread over thirty years, this
property The taxable valuation of the cities and
towns not counting adjoining properties. u.s. by the
10 speak Of the sever would be 81 20 the 500.
nine cents year for thirty years 49,. .,-
ton Will nave trebled. and the property values cor
respondngly increased. II is OF the utmost impor;
lance 10 the haf-millon people in this valley, and
TO all their interests. that the pollution Of this
great and beautiful river be stopped al the earliest
moment possible. The report OF the Commission
has been before the people for nearly year. Ii IS
the imperative duty Of the present Legislature 10
take steps Of actual progress In tho work. Whether
the trunk sewer should empty into Newark Bav or
be carried across BayOnne to New-York Bay. as
was suggested 10 the Legislative committee when
consulting recently with the Bayonne people. or he
taken across Staten Island to the Lower Bay
whether the sewage should be chemically treated
on the Newark meadows. is really minor and
adjustable matter. The main question is How can
the sewage be removed from the towns and the
river most effectively and inexpensively? To this
question | believe. with the Commission. that the
intercepting sewer is the only practicable reply.
J. ALBERT STOWE.