Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-08

 town of New Britain were not more suitable. To these pertinent questions the commission made an extended reply, carefully defining the situation. Of course they could not go into the real difficulty, namely, the propriety of one town running it's sewage into another town and there establishing a plant, to which, no matter how well man. aged ,'ehere probably always will be sentimental objection" Doubtless this case will be an interesting fea- ture of the proceedings in Hartford this winter.
 West Hartford.
 In May the following letter was re- ceived from the sewer commission of the town of West Hartford:
 West Hartford, Conn, May 8, 1900.
 ''The sewer commission of the town of West Hartford would respectfully request the state sewerage commission to inspect and advise as to the desira- bility of using certain tract of land for the disposal of sewage for a DOT ton of the town of West Hartford.
 Respectfully,
 "C. E. BEACH,
 ''For the Commissionrs.''
 Shortly after, Messrs Jenkins and Cairns went to West Hartford, and in company with the selectmen visited the site proposed, and made other in- vestigations. It appeared that imme diate action was not necessary. aS the town was not ready to begin construc- tion and also because the whole sys- tenn could be put in and the trunk sewer carried down to Park street re- gardless of the method of ultimate dis DOSal tO Da finally a0ODted
 For these reasons, and because the commission were at that time collect ing valuable information which was not yet available, it was agreed that decision should be deferred until fall.
 A meeting of the commission held January ,, 1901, there was adopted a careful and exhaustive report in which. after going over the different possible solutions, the town was ad- vised to secure an outlet through the Hartford system, if possible. If not. to establish bacterial filter beds at designated points.
 Waterbury
 Waterbury is a manufacturing city of 4o,So9 popula ton, covering 3,6OO acres, lying in a narrow valley shut in on the east and west by ranges of steep hills. The chief manufactures
 
 and brass goods. There are thirty five miles of sewers, built on the combined system. discharging into the Nauga- tuck river, which flows through the valley. The population of Waterbury shows q gain of 60 per cent in ten years. It's birth rate is said to be larger than that of any other city in the country. with two exceptions.
 Twenty miles above Waterbury the sewage of Torrington Is discharged into the stream. and below, on the river, before it's junction with the Housatonic, are five manufacturing towns or cities.
 In 1891 suit was brought against the city of Waterbury by Platt Bros ct al, on the grounds suggested below. The case was not brought to final trial until 1898, when a decision for the plaintiff was given.
 The final order of the court was that the plaintiff recover $500 dam- ages and that the defendant be en- joined against discharging the sewage from it's sewers into the Naugatuck river above the premises of the plain tiff. whereby such sewage should be carried down the river to said prem iseS during the months of June, July, August, September and October in each year, from and after the first day of December. 1902.''
 The case then went on appeal to the supreme court of errors, which at the October term of 1899 sustained the de cision of the superior court.
 On February '. 1900. the commission received request from the board of aldermen to report what would be the best plan of sewage disposal for the city to adopt. On March 21, a reply was made, announcing the intention of the commission to send a committee to England to examine just such cases as Waterbury's, and promising a com prehensive report later. This was made under date of January ,. 1901. and is notable from the fact that it recommends the Beacon Falls plan. as cheaper in the end than the Platts Mills plan, although costing nearly double at the start.
 English Experiments on Sewage Dis posal. % While much has been published re- garding the methods and results of bacterial sewage treatment <as prac- ticed in a considerable number of Eng fish cities, it was desirable that this commission, which was created to Sin vestigate methods of sewerage sys- lIuS auu sewage ulSpOSsile WOrkS, should personally inspect these works, and by personal interviews with those in charge learn the important details regarding the management efficiency and perlnanence of the systems. which brief published statements do not | often furnish. Accordingly Messrs Cairns, Woodruff and Gallagher visited England in the | spring of 1900, and spent two months in studying the recent experience and experiments there.
 The following places were visited and examined with the permission and very courteous attention of the officials in charge: London (Barking and Crossness), Manchester Stafford, Hale Knutsford, Accrington, Oldham, Leeds Huddersfield, Wolverhampton, Bolton Sheffield, Birmingham, Exeter, Yeovil Sutton-in-S Surrey, Hampton, Frierr Barnet, Wimbledon and Aldershot. l Of the above the report takes UT particularly the work done at Man chester London, Sutton. Exeter anG Accrington, and chiefly in it's bearing