The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-16
NEW SEWERAGE PLAN
EsIch the Sewage viii Be Diverted
from the Bayou
rvo HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND
laced by the Councii--The
r,r.t Annual Report of the
chief of Police.

-. c,ty council meeting yesterday
ali the aldermen were present
4 Alderman Tuffly.
most important matter before the
4 was the adoption OF a plan of sewage
80, admitted by Consulting Engineer
i BY which it is proposed to divert
snv.. sewage from the bayou and
~ ., it in altering beds, the change
II svstem to cost in the aggregate
900.
(nsiueer Alex. Potter submitted the fol-
5ine report
n Brasheay Mayor and City
a,nc,I n. H. Dickson, Esq, Chairman
"a Sewer Committee. Houston, Texas.
sw York, May 10. 1s9o.-Gentlemen:
an architect who submits his drawings
nerspective of contemplated build
Win his estimate CT cost for his
,,,s approval. and for his authority
~ ahead and prepare details and con-
IN the work. so / come before you
n nv preliminary plans and estimate
[ost and ask your approval to the mstn
|,nres OF the scheme and the approval
5,be citizens to the expenditure Df the
Insv necessary to carry this plan into
fse plans presented herewith are suf-
3ently in detail to give a proper con-
ktion of how we propose to deal with
question Of sewerage. There Is such
{nite detail TO be considered and worked
Il seems unwise to do 80 before
70 has been an expression of the peo-
AZ to whether they want the improve
In or not, and n vote Of the council
Srerning the details of the olan--such
{ths adoption OF the general idea as
dressed in my plans, the precise To-
|, Inn and selection of site for the
Inning station out of several available
"a, and other matters. II left 70 my
A Judgment, might differ in nom
Ieptial points from the wish of the
Iiority OF the council where perfect
nv might Just as well prevail, and so
| compelled to do over again much I'M
jcessary work.
fbe government engineers restriction
IN all sewage must be removed from
! bayou and the proposed Improvement
/ be undertaken by the Federal govern
snt. contracts the field of possible solu-
M to the problem, and first of all makes
humping of the sewage an absolute
kential,
fhe general idea which has been here
lore suggested namely: that Of carry
\ the sewage in two large intercepJors
either side of the bayou, and deposit
Il In the bayou at point below the
IN, must Of course, be now abandoned
Il to the government restrictions that
wage must not be deposited into tho
Eou. This proposition, had it heen
rried out. would have involved BE con-
+uetion of two pumping stations for a
.vou crossing below the town would be
5ught with great uncertainty and ex-
*nse. 1t would have involved The con-
fuction OF sewers large enough Tor all
lure demands that might possibly be
bde upon It, for the difficulties of con-
tuctlon would be so great that nc
'ances could be taken in the building
the sewers, other than having them
Itremely large, and hence at an enormous
|pense. A scheme then that would Ell
the construction of but one pumping
Ation and will concentrate The existing
lvers with the least possible cutley
d expense, should be received with ia
n. This can be done by disregerding
tat might be considered the laws OF
3ture, and have some of the sewers lur
! the bayou instead of down. AS a mat
i Of fact the concentration of the sewage
lar the center of Its production is hotl
Rsbe and economical.
tWe can cross the White Oak bayou and
20 the Buffalo bayou above Main street
|thout' let or hindrance from the gov
fment, so that the neck of land be-
leen the streams and near their con-
3enee is the logical point of concentra'
This is so much the more true since
| examination of this locality shows
~ access to the coal roads. viz; the
Puston and Texas Central and Missouri
hsas and Texas, assuring a saving il
Of coal and rendering unnecessary
construction of switches.
ehother strong argument for the gen
location Of the central station al
poiat suggested is, because i. af-
as the most accessible outlet for thG
re sewage of the Houston Heights
lrict. city's trouble and annoyance
Pm sewage is twofold First, from ii
sewage and also from that cf us
snoor above. A scheme then that
provide ready relief for Housi III
snts should its sewage become trod
some land II surely wild, should nave
Ftrenee over any other suggested. l
NOT proposed to entail upon the cit'
houston any expense whatever to pro
sewerage facilities for Houston
shls, but the advantageous location
'Ie PROPOSED central station robs Hous
neights of any excuse for not DEALING
suuneally with their sewerage mat
'aFhg determined upon this point a
l,gst desirable for sewerage purposes
M De decidedly more economical I
an al this same point the electric
ns pant as we'll, as both can be ofe
~ N the one building and under TN
MANAGEMENT and general control
HI. ieuuclng the expense both of in
nslion and operation TO each.
n this statement II will be seer
.uere is no intention of using 70
ny hght or sewerage purposes the
.s'eh'ly purchased at the foot of Hill
az problem that now confronts us /
sS different from that which con
49, the council when the property
h,lgn was purchased. II the sewera g
lem mad not come up for considerable
~ SIa.len OF the electric light static
M Tue bayou would not have been ope
criticism that its construction a
swan pSan' would now render It. But /
|nsiaa.' can the purchase Of the lot b
ass sa as anything but a wise pun
{rs,h,a Is the only logical location fc
|cessilss'e erematory, isolated as 1t is. "
NM from both sides Of the bayoi
krb,va mere are no peroeptible odors fro
uAkA orematnrio-' - - ...-......