The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-12-19

~ hi'AhV oAioA
Mr.. Clemens Herschel. consulting En-
sineer !or MI. Pratt. when addressing your
mmf on November 50. 1850. remarked
that unless IL could be shown that the wa
ter could be brought from the Meramec at
q less cost than the cost of pumping with
the present works. plus the cost Of fltra-
ton. he presumed that the Board would not
give the proposition any further considera-
ton. (See exhibit "P"c
Mr.. Pratt and his associates estimate that
Uttered water from the Mississippi River
would cost $ao.9 per million gallons. (See
exhibit p" page 2S) Their estimate. how
ever. is In error in falling to note:
!. That certain charges against maintain
Ing and operating pumping stations and
settling basins will not increase In the same
2. That the cost Of pumping will be re-
duced when the new machinery now under
contract Is installed.
interest and sinking fund charges. and OPP
Grating and maintaining should be est
mated 1T about SO per million gallons. In
mated by them.
Mr.: Pratt and his associates propose 10
furnish unf1ltered water from the Mera-
mec spring and River. as previously
the annual average rate OF consumption is
efRhty-seven million gallons per law. but
the city can with its cwn works. as shown
by the estimates herein. furnish unfiltereI
water from the Mississippi River for Sls. 3;
per million gallons. and can furnish flferej
water from the Mississippi River for 81. ss
per million gallons. excluding from ali es-
Inmates the charges which would be com
mon to both systems.
1t would be proper to make an allowance
Tor the value of that portion of the pres
emit plant which might be sold or put to
other use II the Meramec scheme were
adopted and the present source of supply
were abandoned. but the salabIe value ex-
cept for waterwOrks purposes for the civ
of ST. Louis. Is not sufficient to materiaIiy
modify the result. and does not merit CON
m of cost Of the Meramec scheme.
which Is based on very meager data. More
over. even II the Meramec scheme were
adopted; 1t would probably be considered
advisable to retain the present pumping
plant to provide for emergencies.
Your committee IS OF the opinion:
First.That the flow of the Meramec
Spring Is not sufficient to supply the citv
S~econd-That the spring and Meramec
River combined. as proposed. might give a
sufficient quantity for the immediate future.
but each further increase would mean +.
greater percentage of impounded surface va
ter. Extensions would become Increasingly
expensive I'm first cost and in the cost N
protection against pollution.
-Third-That. assuming. the elevations and
distances as given on the plans submIrt ted
to be correct. the water could be furnished
present pressure in the high-pressure MARS
Fourth-That the water from the sUrinS
frequently becomes turbid and is not free
from SUSPICION of pollution. and tina, the
purity of the water in the Meramec River 70
still more questionable.
Fifth-That the unfiltered water of the
Mississippi River is probably not much in
ferior except that II contains more se,ii-
meru to a supply from the Meramec RIVER
~Sixth-That a supply of properly III
tered water from the Mississippi River is
mere desirable than an unfltered supply of
impounded water from the valley Of the
Meramec River.
Seventh-That the cost of water from
the Meramec would he much more than the
cost OF water from the Mississippi River.
E.ighth-That the Meramec proposition
would furnish water into the distribution
system when furnishing an average Of
eighty-seven million gallons per day for
5000 per million gallons. according To the
proposition made
our estimated cost of furnishing unGltersd
water from the Mississippi River is si3 a;
per million salons, and of furnishing III
s.. So per million gallons.
Your committee is further of the op,n-
ion:
1. That a water supply requiring about
eighty-five miles of conduit and pipe line
would be In LANCER of serious Interruption
from accident. and would be difficult and
costly to guard against accidental or inten-