Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-18

be that the land near I'latt's Mills be- comes sufficient in area for a number of years to purify the amount of sew age delivered ill excess of whGt can be properly diluted by the river warer without the preliminary process of chemical precipitation.
 When all of the city's sewage can no longer be properly purified on tus land 1t still remains possible to build q main sewer down the valley to Beacon lallS, and to receive there either the entire amount Of tte sewage of the c:ty or only the excess. f inc Platts Mills territory may be continued in use. In tie latter cas.e = k at o1.ce evident That tHc utilization of t-,is ter ritprE would be economical to-day. Iii tEe former case the question arises: Nih the saving of a. large investment for q number of years warrant the sub Sequent abandonment of a part of the works now to be built?
 To answer this question we may put the earliest time limit at fifteen years at which time the population may be nearly S0,00O. Further, during this period, allowing for interest and oper- atlnS expenses we can save on the average at least $15,OOO per annum. In fifteen years. therefore we have q sue of at least $225, 1000, which would offset any lost value due to a change in the location of the disposal grounds. should it later be found advisable. Thar sum- so far as we can see now. would be greater than such lost value. The subsequent abandonment of the land as a sewage filter would not leave it uniniurcd for building pur- poses. any more than any formerly ma nured fields are injured for such pur- poses.
 ! Economically. therefore, the cost of the present utilization of the Platt's | Mills area. even though it were sub sequently abandoned. does not initiate
 against it.
 From other financial considerations | we may say in favor of this project ! that whatever Improvements are made l in the methods of sewage disposal. i they tend towards using smaller areas
 and obtaining better results.
 In view of the large saving in the
 capital to be invested foi. the Platt's 1 Mills project, which may be in the 1 neighbCrhOod of half a million dollars
 and in the absence of any serious
 drawbacks to the former project
 present it to you for careful reconsid-
 eTatiCn in the light of recent experi
 ence.
 Since the conditions have
 changed from those assume q in my re
 port of 1896, it is necessary to revise
 the estimates Of cost. What would
 then have have been d proper size of
 sewer to build is now no longer q prop
 CT size. Instead of estimating for 73. | coo persons. we should to-day builG
 the main outfall sewer for the use o1
 lO0.OU0 persons. Instead of assuming
 a water consumption of S5 gallons pel
 head, it seems to be evident, since the
 introduction of the Branch supply. un
 der greater pressure. that 100 gallons
 per head is probably the least practi
 cable amount that should be consid
 cred.
 l have gone into the question of coS only far enough to roughly determine
 the main items. and am able to say tha the entire Rcacon Falls project if sool built would probably not cost muci less than S9U0,0G0 for q population o | l0C.G00 persons.
 , The PlattS Mills project. as her,
 proposed. would require an investmen of, not over S40J,O00, this amount an Swerin@ for it's entire development , The annual cost of oneration and in , ter"St would average about $2S.O00. These estimates are approximate ( . but liberal. and the treatment. if tn works are well designed and oDeratet
 with a high grade of intelligence which are necessary conditions ro works of this nature. would prevpn a nuisance ill the river and at tn works.
 . Two other conditions must still b ; kept in mind one was mentioned in m report of 1896. and refers to the vast , of water. It shonld be realized tha } the dispense of diSDOsinC of the use
 water sewage can be reduced almost i 2 tn same ratio as the useless and care ? less waste of water is prevented Tn = actual water consumption of to-day <. above my assumption for the Quantit t of sewage to be treated. When con s Darison is made with other cities, whe . | it is observed how successful som . Othr cities are in stopping leaks an
 WaStefrlneSs. it is only reasonable t X assume that facing, as you do. a 1are r expenditure of money for sewage di. S posal. similar effort may be success! . ful ir Waterbury.
 c The other condition mentioned in tfl C same report. and in a Still earlier I, - port in 1882. when the first sewer q were built in your city. refers to tl Il exclusion of rain water from the sev !, CTS. t It cannot be expected that the Ill It usual difficult situation. as regards U ' Durification of the sewage of Wate .~ bury allows of an inexpensive solution ,- It is, therefore particularly necessa1 r to economize to the greatest practfc; I extent, where such economy counts tf $ most. In the present case it is in tf T. reduction of the sewage to prop' 1t and reasonable quantity This can 1T done by the exclusion of all rain was > from the sewers and by the preSentic r Of all unnecessary waste of the city Il watr supply which is intended only fl e legitimate domestic public and cor el mercial purposes.
 Very respectfully. .J ETTnnT pH HETl1Nf4