Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1905-12-08

these things done and these precau-
lions taken. the water from these
sources Is good. In fact. as good as
the Village can hope To secure from
any source. II II evident. too. that II
a altering plant Is ever required
(Which would not appear TO be neces-
sary for this PLAN, that there Is no
place where II could be so Cheaply es-
tabllshed and so easily maintained as
In Pleasant Valley. and as a part OF
the plan known as Plan No. 4.
do not concur with the majority
report that local reports relative 10
North Pond water are not favorable.
AS ! am informed by the majority OF
the committee. this IL Incorporated
into the report upon the strength OF
what has been told by few different
parties. none OF whom live or have
! lived for any length OF time at the
North Pond. and none OF whom have
the means OF knowing that residents
at that point and property owners
there must have. l am Informed by
n large number who have reason to
know. that the quality of the water
there. from their own personal knowl-
edge. Is good and Is used by some for
domestic purposes there. ! make this
statement upon the authority OF such
men as f. L. Hildreth and II. W. Sar-
gent. who have for many years lived
there more or less of the time summer
time. and own property there, and X.
T. Gordon. q cottage owner there
But the only way to determine the
quality of the water Is by an analyu-
cal examination. Taking the major
ity report. the only condemnation OF
North Pond water. shown by the
analysis. as appears by the report. Is
that taken during the dry period Tin
the summer time when the cottages
We're occupied II shows sewage bac !.
terra" With the sewage disposed OF.
as must be. that fault is obviated. the
sample taken at the Ward Estey
Place, as reported in the majority re-
port, cannot have much bearing upon
this question, as II is more than a
mile below where the water Is to be
taken from Stickney Brook. according
to Plan No. 4. The question is, What
is the quality of water Of Marlboro
North Pond, with the sewage disposed
of? What is the quality Ot water IN
Pleasant Valley Brook. which must OF
necessity be commingled with the
Stickney Brook water? I have, since
reading the majority report, been
shown copies of analysis recently
made ut the State Laboratory, and
which did not come before the 1ull
board while / was present. These are
as follows.
Samu.e taken on Nov. II. 1905. from
Stickney Brook. near Denslow Stock
wells Ga little above where 1t Is to De
taken by Plan No. ~ taken by Or
Henry Tucker. the State Laboratory
reports that 1t is good water ano
makes no criticism upon il.
Sample taken by DR. Henry Iuckel
from Sunset Lake at the outlet on
Nov. II. 1905 the State Laboratory re-
ports that is good water and no criu-
cism upon 1t.
Sample taken by Dr.. Henry Tucker
on Nov. II. 1905, from Pleasant Valley
Brook. near the falls. and above Al
, kinson's fthe point where ii Is to bs
, taken by Plan No. ~ the state LABOR
. atory reports that it is good water ahe
! mo criticism upon 1t.
SAMPLE taken by DR.. Henry Tuckei
Nov. II 1905. from Sunset Lake nea
, Richardson's cottage. report OF TN
, state Laboratory is that " Is goo'
water and no criticism is mace.
feel that in view of these analyses
If which the Village should be in
, formed. the criticism of this water Il
the ma;ority report is not borne out:
: understand that many sample
have been taken both by Dr. Tucke
and nv Mr.. Crowell during the presen
summer and that the analysis o
these samples shows that where IN
sewage of the cottages goes In II con
teammates the water. ana where III
drainage from the Carpenter larI
buildings goes in. the water 10 ny
GOOD With these sources OF contain
inatiop removed the water Is good.
believe the only conclusion from IN
renort of the engineer and Of the ex
animation that has been made. Is tina
there is less possible source OF con
taniuation to the water OF MOTT
pond and Stickney Brook than to tn
water from any other source.
Municipal Ownership.
agree with the majority of tn
co,,noiftee that municipal OWNERSHIP
Of the water supply, under prope
conditions and the right clrcuil
stances is advantageous, Its chle
advantages to Brattleboro would ?
that the interest charge on the invest
ment would be considerably less IN Tn
case of municipal ownership than
lis with private ownership. linen. to'
i'm case of municipal OWNERSHIP ~
water rates should be and propapi
could be kept down 10 prdctiSals
,,7iniu1l;rn. Comparisons with an
ntta, rartiaular municipality are nc
Of great value. because conditions al
so diff4rent i'm different towns an
citias Brattleboro has this advantas
FOR any general water system elthef
n,,niciual or private ownership an
that is that there are large huiiipe
If owners of private water sflares
the various aqueduct companies. ah
therefore. the consumers are NOT =,
extensive with the population OF u
town. -. .ha, III
II should be borne in mind that "a
charter of the Chestnut Hin hese l W
company and the charter OF the Sut
set Lake Water company, both pre-
vide that the water rates. "a tney ai
unsatieeactory to the people, shaii i.
dyed nv the County Court. 80 that u
aronrietors of these water system
cannot fix and maintain any rate the
choose. 49, I.,ttIabo,
:. must necessarily. and properly snoui
II serve considerably more tnan the ~
Iaga of Brattleboro. Our village I'M.
les not co-eytensive with what is
Il ,aa,ity the Village: A large part
II western Avenue all of CenlerVIle,
II largo portion of the Brook R"ad ui'
Il trict and all of West Brattieporo, al
Il a norton of Esteyville are ouiS 'de u
II viIIaga limits. and these districts rea
II Il, belong to our municipality ne
II shonId he included in any scne'ne II
II tha furnishing of water by Tuiic
II aai;tv The Village is alreads pu
i sened with charges which make u
Il 80 ra,. within the Village limits d
,,,nst double what it is outside.