Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1902-02-04

Will Have Bill introduced In the
Legislature Wednesday.


ing this session, either directly by an
Act, OF by failure to make an APP
preparation. Last year the expenses
of the canal exceeded receipts by
$126OOO, and Representative Buchtel
has assured Judge G.. NJ, Anderson,
chairman of the committee appointed
to look after Akron's interests in the
canal, that he believes u majority of
members of the Legislature are in fa-
vor of abandoning the property.
Anticipating the abandonment of
the canal, and that private corpora
tlons will seek to secure rights that
would endanger the interests of Ak
ron, the committee-Judge Anderson,
and Councilmen Walker, Seidell,
and Sawyer-prepared bin which, If
passed, will guarantee Akron protec-
tion for her interests. The bill pro-
vides that the City of Akron shall
have the rights of the State in the
canal, and the rights of the lakes,
from the feeder at Louis Young's to
Lock u, wEcn the State abandons
the canal.
Speaking Of this matter, before
Council Monday evening, Judge An
derson said: II 10 not. believe the
citizens of Akron fully appreciate the
Importance of the situations 10 say
the least, it will be very serious
matter to- them il the canal is aban-
doned,. and rights sold to private cor
porations. Their water supply will
be greatly affected-almpst entirely
shut off, and they win have lostswhat
l regard as an exceptionally import
ant opportunity forlea main sewer,
which would drain the whole city
Summit lake is little more than a
| reservoir. In case the canal is aban-
| doned, and the waters of Long Lake
turned back into the Tuscaru
river, you would find that Summit
lake could not begin to supply the
amount of water required for Akron.
In 1880, you remember, an engineer
tested Springfield lake when the pro-
ject to secure Akron's supply of water
from that source was being agitated.
He reported that the source was not
sufficient for the demand, even though
some water might be secured from
the Cuyahoga river. When you recall
that report, what do you think Of
Summit lake as the whole source for
Akron's supply? II the water in
Springfield lake was not enough in
1880, how about little Summit lake
and the size Of Akron at present? It's
absurd to think Of allowing private
corporations to walk away with rights
and jeOpardize our water interests.
Akron will probably not long be
without her own water works sys-
TEN. We could secure Summit lake
and use it as reservoir. An inter-
cepting ditch could be constructed all
around it, thereby keeping out all
swamp and surface water. The dam
at the feeder could be built up in a
more substantial manner and drive
ways could be arranged all along the
canal banks. 1t is not the amount of
water in Il lake that represents it's
capacity for supply but the outflow.
Were no water flowing into Summit
lake from Long lake. you would soon
find that the former would become
little more than a cess pool.
IF the outflow of Long lake is
turned back into the Tuscarawas
river, l doubt II we could ever get
it back again. Property owners and
towns all along the river banks would
object.
Another very important thing to
be considered ls the opportunity the
canal presents for main sewer. At
very small expense, the canal could be
changed into a sewer which would
drain the whole city, 1t is in a ma
tural location for a sewer and is bad
ly needed. The II locks could be
taken out and the stones used in con-
structing the sewerH
City Civil Engineer Payne said that
in case the canal rights were dis
posed of to private corporations, the
city would undoubtedly be put to
great Inconvenience aud expense
MANY of the city sewers now cross
the canal property or are connected
with 1t in some way or other" he
said, and private owners of the pro
uprtV wouId i,n,.,an .,o,.. ......l