New-York tribune., 1906-12-23
SEWAGE IN NEW YORK WATERS.

In the course of q studied and In some re-
spects authoritative discussion Of the sewage
disposal problem Of the metropolitan district
Engineering News" says that the prOtestants
against the plans for running crude sewage from
the Passaic and Bronx valleys into the Staten
Island Kills and the Hudson River at YOnkers
are of two classes, those who, in New York.
Jersey City, Hoboken and Bayonne, are them
selves polluting the waters with sewage and
who selfshly oppose the repetition Of their own
acts by others, and those who demand far
reaching all inclusive remedial measures. The
former it not unjustly rules out of court while
it observes that the latter should not seek 10
solve the whole problem offhand by insisting
that the waters around a great city should be
kept as pure as those in a wilderness. The con-
clusion it reaches Is that further investigation
is essential TO a final solution OF the problem,
the first point for investigation being to what
extent the waters of this harbOr can be further
polluted without intolerable results.
From some features of its discussion we must
dissent. 1t seems to us that there is third and
not unimportant class of prOtestantS to be con-
sidered-namely, those who live along the Hud-
son from YOnkers to Peekskill and on the shores
Of the Staten Island Kills, who are not materi-
ally pOlluting those waters and who object to
having them polluted by the sewage of remote
communities. To-day the Hudson River above
for boating, bathing and fishing. Only minute
proportion of the foulness which is poured into
II below ever gets up far But If the ingress of
sewage in great quantities is extended ten miles
further upstream there will be disgusting pollu-
ton of miles Of river and shore which are now
clean. In the case of Staten Island also the sew
age which now comes down the PasSaic Is diluted
by the waters Of that river and its bay before It
reaches the shores of the Kills, but If It should
it reached the Kills, and were then beIched
forth it would be an immeasurably greater nui-
sance than at present. 1t does not seem I'M
reasonable for those people TO protest against
such defilement of the waters and shores. II is
not Illogical for Tarrytown, for example, while
1t lets It's own drains empty into the Hudson,
to protest against the piping of Mount Yer
mons sewage across country to its waterfront
any more than it would be for New York. while
letting its own sewers empty into this harbor
to object TO having the sewage of Boston and
Philadelphia also poured into the North and
East rivers.
No thoughtful man takes the view which "En-
gneering News" decres, that waters surround
ing great cities should be kept in pristine purity
But 1t is fact, we believe, that the waters of
some other great cities are kept much more
pure than those of New York and 1t IS found
to be profitable to keep them so. And we must
repeat the contention which we have made be-
fore, that the true point for consideration is
not how much we can pOllute the waters without
rendering them intoIerable but rather how free
from pollution we can keep them without incur
ring unreasonable expense It may be that
millions of gallons more sewage might daily be
poured into these waters without exceeding their
capacity for dilutiOn. But 1t would still be an
evil TO pour even a single gallon of sewage into
those waters unnecessarily. Nor can we alto
gether assent to the proposition that the metro
politan district is not surrounded by land avail
able for sewage disposal. If It is not actually
surrounded by ii in Il geOmetricaI sense it is
certainly adjacent to extensive tracts we'll suited
to the purpose. The engineering difficulties Of
diverting the sewage thither would not be in
superabe, nor even formidable save in the
amount of work TO he done, while the sanitary
| and economic gain would he inestimabe, as the
| examples Of Paris and Berlin have shown.