The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-11-07

10 Clte f1OnOraDie common council Gentlemen:-The communication sub- | mitted to the Board of Aldermen or October g, 1911 by parties favoring the l Herring Sewer System makes the claim ] that NO other sewer system has been offered in place of the projected Her. I ing Sewer SyStem.''
 As Bridgeport already has a sewer
 system in operation planned by En- gineer Scof1eld with large trunk sew
 CTS partially laid for completing his 1 suburban sewer system, there is nc | call to offer or substitute any other I sewer plan, as Engineer Scofeld's sew
 CT plans are ample for the needs ot ! our city for many years to come. They say, ''The Herring system would meet the present demands o1 our growing city. It would be both workable at this time and adaptable | for future conditions
 l The forty-five miles of little eight | inch and many more miles of ten inch sanitary sewers under the Herring sys- i tenn would be flushed by purchased water, meaning that the flushing Of these small sewers would be done on a limited scale. which many times would not be sufficient to thoroughly cleanse them, or avoid their being con- l tinually clogged up.
 Natures Provision. On the other hand, to save extra cost of purchased water, nature has provided for flushing our present sew CT system through plentiful rains, which will thoroughly cleanse them many times during the year in most
 thorough manner, and will not cost the city one cent for flushing purposes.
 This is an honest comparison of pres
 ent conditions and the saving of an
 enormous annual expense over the
 double sewer system, not taking into
 account the many other expenditures
 for continually keeping these small
 sewers open for use.
 They say, ''The Herring system will
 be an improvement upon the haphaz-
 ard plans of the past"
 There are no haphaZard conditions
 except those made by the deliberately
 tapping into the ends of our present
 large trunk sewers, by certain par
 ties with view of destroying their
 future usefulness. So far as the pres
 ent haphazard conditions exist, they
 can be easily remedied. And by con-
 tinuing the Scof1eld system as former
 ly planned, will remove opportunities
 for future favoritism, spoken of in
 their communication.
 Will They Explain.
 Will these parties mention the names
 of "The men who have had practical experience, in endeavoring to secure
 proper sewer facilities for their build
 ings, that know better than any one else how inadequate the past meth
 ods have been, and have learned by
 sad experience, that Bridgeport's meth
 cd has been practically no method at all"
 Personally I have failed to locate any of these gentlemen spoken of. They state, that, ''The Herring plan
 provides against future contingencies Many parties would like to know how this can be accomplished, They say, Tt is a question that ef- fects the health and well being and the lives of the city's residents Will they please explain wherein the health, well being and lives of the city's residents are at stake at the present time?
 They quote City Engineer Brown of Danbury in saying, Tt has been found that the storm water has actually
 worked such injury to the filtration
 beds of the Danbury Sewer System
 that the storm water must be dispos- ed of by other means or carried into
 the water courses
 What earthly comparison can be made between the destruction of filtra- ton beds in Danbury, against fifteen miles of water front on Long Island Sound for. the natural sewage of Bridgeport?
 They say, "s450, 900 would be a per
 manent economical investment be-
 cause the sewers thus built would fiji
 into the Herring plan urged for accept ance, whenever that plan was carried
 to final conclusion" They say, "A considerable portion of this amount
 would come back to the city in form ot assessments, and naturally such mon
 eys would. be available for the further carrying forward of the Herring plan. The above statement proves that sewer assessments collected against the property owners from this modified Herring system will be used for the continued building of the Herring sys- tenn in the future.
 Entering Wedge. They state, .The city will be able to
 pump it's sewage out into the Sound or on to filtration beds if the Herring plan is followed in the future build ing of sewers" Also that such pro- vision for the future is agreed to be wise.
 This simply means that the accept
 ance of any part of this modified form of the Herring sewer system is only
 a wedge with the intent of finally adopted the whole Herring system. The above statements made by these or idea of relinquishing the final build ing of the whole Herring system. It
 also proves they are willing to bond the city for an unlimited amount Of money.
 They say, "Intercepting sewers should be built and a number of our
 present sewer outlets tapped into the the same.''
 This means concentration of large amount of sewage to be discharged at a given point into the Sound This would create public nuisance and necessitates the building of a pumping station at once to remedy the trOu- ble which would be created by the building of intercepting sewers On the other hand, our present sew CT outlets deposit sewage into large bodies of water where dilution imme- diately takes place, and the results
 are hardly noticeable, because the sew
 age is distributed in small quantities
 at many points along our shores. Big Difference. They say, "The five intercepting
 sewers they recommend to be built at the present time, would cost $427,-
 OO0"
 This expense is only a small begin
 ming towards the final adoption of the Herring system.
 Whereas, $200,oO would extend the
 present trunk line sewers planned by
 MT. Scofeld to a point which would answer all sewer purposes for many years to come.
 The difference in the above estimates is apparent at glance My information as to the Sewage Dis- posal Works at Reading, Penn., was l secured mostly in the report of the
 City Engineer of Reading to the Com
 mon Council, dated January g, 1911. The LAWS of the State Of Ma asa chn-