The Newark star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1909, 1909-07-27
CONDEMN
SEWER IN BEHALF
OF new YORK CITY
Engineers Say a Passaic Valley
Sewer Would Pollute New
York Bay.

along the Passaic river from Paterson
to be finally deposited in lower New
York bay. The engineers, Professor G.
II. Landreth, of Union College, and
Louis L. Tribus, of Richmond, say the
emptying of the sewage of Newark and
other cities along the Passaic river
would pollute the waters of the bay.
The question of whether the pro-
posed sewer can empty into New York
bay Is now before the United States
courts.
Sewer Engineer Edward s. Rankin
said today that the New York experts
had evidently made a report to suit
their employers" that the sewage of
New York, Brooklyn, Harlem and the
Bronx Is being dumped into the North
and East rivers and the bay, and that
the ocean tides carry the refuse to the
New Jersey shore resorts. Therefore.
the people of New York had no cause.
he said. to complain of the water of the
New York bay probably being polluted
by the Passaic valley sewer.
County Engineer James owen, who
has made a study of the Passaic val
ley trunk sewer question. was not at
his Office in the county Court House
today, but a member of the Board of
Freeholders said Mr.. Owen was of the
same opinion as Engineer Rankin.
what MIR. Lebkuecher Says.
President Lebkuecher, of the Passaic
Valley Sewage Commission, made this
statement today:
This Merchants Association is made
up of a body of men who are trying
to do good. 1t would seem to me-, there
fore, that instead of concerning itself
with our sewage work, that it might
deal with.the nuisance at it's own doors.
Over there they are dumping into the
streams sewage in it's raw state. 1t is
the sewage from a city of something
like 5000, 600 persons, and as such it is
a grave matter. Instead of attending
to that, this merchants committee is
busying itself with a comparatively
small matter in taking up the PasSaic
Valley work.
'Over there they have a real nuisance
and a present problem to consider in
their own sewage disposal. Here there
is nc nuisance as yet, and according to
our views and the judgment of our en-
gineers there never will be. There they
send their sewage out to the streams
in its raw state.
"Here-and when I say here, I NEAR
the proposed trunk sewer-the plan is
not to send the sewage out in it's raw
condition, but in a purified way after
1t has been screened and treated by
s~edimentation. Is that sewage n greater
menace or apt to be a bigger nuisance
than the raw sewage of New York,
| emptied not far out but at it's very
doors? Our plan is1known as the dis
posal by dilution plan. 1t amounts
simply to this: The sewage screened
and treated by sedimentation is flowed
into the water and actually disposed of.
1t does not float. 1t isn't carried along
the water. 1t is subjected to the chemi-
cal action of the water, n thus dis
posed of. How it can be a nuisance or
a menace Is hard to understand
Concerns Two states.
at is unfortunate that we are so
situated that the matter concerns two
States. In Boston, for instance, it's diff
ferent. There the sewerage system is
in reality divided into three sections,
o. parts. And each part, considered in
its chronological order, is better than
the one built before it. And our pro-
posed plan is better than the best of
the Boston systems. There is no COM
plant about the Boston sewage in Bos-
ton bay. Why then, with a better sys-
tenn, should there be any complaint
about ours? If we had only our own
State to deal with there probably would
be no complaint.
Mr.. Tribus says the plans would
seem to Indicate unsatisfactory results
in operation Well, that is merely a
matter of opinion. 1t is his view
against that of our engineers. Will he
and this professor set their judgment
up against hat of our engineers-Hazen
and others-who have declared over
their own signatures that the work will
be satisfactory?
Won't Change Plans.
viii these reports change the situa-
ton or cause us to modify plans
Oh, no. They are interesting as re-
poltot va lilty DlIu HO Olle. lucy ledNC
the whole case just where it was. And
IL seems to me That we a do no better
than to stick to the present plans. The
whole matter of sewage is big. 1t is a
thing that deserves careful study, and
for that reason l went to Europe &c
inspect the work there. l found that
things, generally speaking, were not en-.
tirely satisfactory, but l saw nothing
that was superior to our proposed plan
Yet this plan is criticised, but, l sup.
pose, so any other plan would also be
AS for these W r~eports-well, there Ii
nothing new in them"
Engineer Tribus holds that the plar
would seem to Indicate unsatisfactory
results in operation" He says:
Dealing with averages the net sur
plus of ebb tide over flood, considered
as a diffusion factor, compared will
the total volume of sewage at presen
empties into the harbor, added to tina
proposed from the Passaic Valley, tn,
dilution would Enthusiastically be sufi
|, cient to practically eliminate nuisance
though not disposition.
"TTpfortunatplv however the who'll