Norwich bulletin., 1911-02-04
CITY MEETING FAVORS STONY BROOK
Turns Down the Jordan Brock Proposition 35 to 18C Motion to Adjourn Fails to Prevail and Resolu- tions Passed to Effect that Emergency Pumping Station Be Started Earliest Possible Moment witL- cut Using Chemicals Sentiment of the Meeting is for Stony Brook Permanent Supply.

1 IaSIs meeting to lnvestigate the water l question and he remarked that if they had anything to say we should like to 1 hear it.
 pr. Hartman for Citizens Committee. Dr. Hartman said that the commit tee has report to make if it Is the desire of the meeting to hear it. There were cries of Yes! Yes!
 At the opening Dr. Hartman stated that he considered that the water speed with the emergency supply ahd unfortunately I think they have been held up on it. Personally I believe, said Dr. Hartman, that the fear is much exaggerated. (Applause.D A chemical analysis was made of the water by the state chemist and h,s conclusion was that bacteria rendered it somewhat unsafe for use. No dis ease germs were found, only sewerage contamination, which was known, but these sewers can be eliminated. fAp- plause.)
 The water board has been criticized that the pumps are not at work. l think that this is the true feeling, but the water board is unjustly criticized because under the conditions they did not think that they should use the water untreated and they know it is not popular to have treated water, so they have held off as long as possible. think if the most objectionable con- m1ndI1On IS removed the water VIII be perfectly suitable to use. If the citizens were not prepared to spend money he thought at the previ- ous meeting that the temporary supply would tide us over but he found since the plant was established that it would be cheaper to spend S200.0oo for per manent supply and he thinks the city should lose no time in getting a per- manent supply. We must look to pumps for an energ ency supply for 8 year or more yet.
 Committees Report. The report of the committee was read at this point as follows: fo His Honor. Charles F. Thayer, Mayor of the City of Norwich, and Fellow Citizens:
 At meeting of the citizens of Nor wich held in the town hall Nov. 30th, 1910, a committee of five was appoint ed and instructed to collect all neces- sary data on the various feasible sources of a permanent gravity supply of pure water for our city and to re- port the result of thair investigations at a future city meeting.
 The said committee has personally visited and inspected the various pos- sible sources of supply recently con- sidered as feasible propositions for the consideration Of the citizens.
 It was the intention of the commit
 
 Chandler & Palmer for the purpose of supplying the necessary data and esti- mates on several sources of supply but learning that the board of water com missioners had secured the services of the same firm for an identical purpose, the committee deemed it an unneces- sary and unwarrantable expense to employ the engineers to act in a dual capacity, inasmuch as we had implicit confidence and believed the citizens would have implicit confidence in the estimates furnished by said engineers.
 Estimates and all necessary data have been secured by the board of water commissioners upon three dif- ferant sources of supply, to wit Jor- dan brook, Gardner lake and Stony brook, and various plans for partial and complete development of these three sources have been submitted to the people.
 For reasons advanced by the engi- neers, the Gardner lake proposition would seem the least desirable of the three propositions, and the choice of a permanent gravity supply of water ap- pears to rest between the Jordan brook watershed and the Stony brook water shed.
 The committee has investigated as thoroughly as possible the respective merits of these two watersheds. It has had repeated interviews with the engineers. By courtesy of the mayor we attended meeting of the executive committee and the board of water commissioners last Monday evening, when the Jordan brook proposition was fully discussed.
 On Wednesday afternoon, Feb. 1st, the committee held conference with about forty of the representative citi- zens of Norwich, invited to meet and confer with us. irrespective of their political affiliations or previous opin- s--, result of our labors and a comparison of the estimates upon Jordan brook and Stony brook the committee be- lieves that the development of the Stony brook watershed is the more economical and businesslike proposi- elusions chiefly upon the following facts:
 From the analysis of the water re- gently made at Jordan brook and on record from Stony brook, from infor- nation and inspection of the water sheds, we believe there is practically little difference in the purity of the water and the absence of danger of contamination. Jordan brook has watershed of one and three quarters square miles, Stony brook two and three tenths square milas. Stony brook would therefore furnish on an average about 600,000 gallons per day in excess of Jordan brook.
 There are seven developed water rights affected by Jordan brook. There are two developed water rights on Stony brook and one of these is al- ready owned by the city. Stony brook is about five miles distant from the center of the city, Jordan brook over nine miles. There is a possibility of annexing additional watershed in both places. The cost of development with probable damages as submitted by Chandler & Palmer favor. in our opin- ion, the Stony brook proposition
 The opinions of at least five engi- neers, all of eminent standing, who have examined our various sources of supply, and whose opinions are on rec ord, to wit: Blake of Boston, Allen of Worcester. Shedd of Providence, Rich ards of New London and a previous report of Chandler & Palmer all favor the Stony brook watershed as an ideal and most desirable source of supply. We would therefore. in the event of unfavorable action upon the Jordan brook proposition. recommend that this meeting place itself upon record as urgently requesting that the board of water commi issioners and the court of common council take such action as will afford the citizens an opportunity at the earliest practical time of ex- pressing themselves for ot against the development of the Stony brook water shed, and. if favorably disposed. of ap- propriating sufficient funds for the da- velopment of the same as source of permanent supply of water for our city in accordance with plans submitted by Chandler & Palmer and designated as Plan c.
 Respectfully submitted
 fs1r rt- r IF