Waterbury Democrat., 1901-01-08

even after all of the city sewage has been taken out. During short periods of high water sewage could perhaps be discharged without resulting Injury but as general principle We could not approve of it. In oRera ton there might and probably would be a tendency to use the river longer, and to t greater extent than would be acceptable to | any interests except those of the city, The other method is to take the sew age down the valley far enough to reach by gravity alone tracts of land or such size and character as will be capable of treating all the sewage by simple Intermittent filtra ton for the present and for some years to come In this way the question of sewage disposal can be settled on a reasona- bly permanent basis having room for development as the city expands. and when the area is finally exhausted, and no further filter beds can be protita- ply be constructed there. it will be possible greatly to extend it's useful ness by such methods as will be i'm mediately necessary at the smaller tracts near the city.
 It is unnecessary. in this report to enter into all the phases of this com-= l plicated question, Many points of ad- vantage and disadvantage in each of
 
 1 you. Of course the principal consid- eration is. the one of cost. This is suf- ficiently hserioussin .anE-case of sewage disposal. eresultPgFas it almost invari- 1 ably does in neither profit nor pleasure 1 to the party which bears the burden. In Waterbury's case the natural con ditions are such as to make the cost greater than ill, ordinary situations. 1 From all we can learn We believe that | the relative cost of the two proposed l plans are about as two to one. This is the original cost. The cost of main- 1 tenance will doubtless also be greate in the second plan, owing to the larger 1 interest charges. On the other hand, l ten or fifteen years pass quickly ill a l growing, thriving city, and it is almost 1 if not absolutely certain that any plant l located near the city will within that | period prove inadequate and have to be abandoned or supplemented by the 1 larger project ten miles down the | river. ar
 Were the city to stand still hereafter We would recommend the first plan. believing that bystaking every advan- tage of recent discoveries, and by ex- ercising greater restraint in the con- sumption of water, as well as eXclud- 1 ing as far as possible water from the 1 surface and below the surface, it could l be made to accomplish degree of | purification acceptable to the courts. ] But we have no ground for believ- ing that such will be the fact. On the contrary, all observation and experi ence compels the belief that within the lifetime of the present generation Wa terbury will number more than 10O, 900 people.
 Moreover, a knowledge of her people and their characteristics make us quite certain that that coming popu-a- tion will require all those sanitary ar engagements which impose liberal | use of water. For these reasons we are compelled to. believe that it will be a mistake for Waterbury, when it takes hold of this great problem, to do otherwise than adopt solution of it adequate for a population of 100000 l people, with works so located that they can De easily extended. <. Therefore, in answer to your ques- ton, this commission advises your honorable board that i'll it's opinion the best thing for Waterbury to do in the matter of sewage disposal is to con struct intermittent filtration gravel beds at or below Beacon Falls.
 The Connecticut State Sewerage Com 1 mission.
 E. H. JENKINS, Chairman,
 ROBERT A. CAIRNS. Sec'y.
 New Haven, January ,, 1901.
 The board adjourned for two weeks.