Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-07
House Passes
 Sewerage Bill
TO PREVENT POLLUTION oF TIps
 AL AND INLAND WATERS.
NEW BILLBOARD LAW
Committee on Finance Reported Fay, erahly eH Act Authorizing Norwich to issue sso,ooo Bonds for Sidewalk Construction and Improvements,
Especial to The Buiietin.)


 ing the dispeeat of sewerage in inland and tidal waters of the state was the order of the day Thursday. The pill specifies that the term waters of the state shall include that portion of the Atlantic ocean and it's estuaries and Long Island sound and it's estuaries within the state and all springs, ponds, streams, lakes, rivers, wells and bodies of surface or underground water, whether natural or artificial, within to it's jurisdiction. Sewage shall mean human and animal excretions and all domestic and manufacturing wastes.
 Provisions of Sewage Act.
 The act provides farther that the state board of health shall inVesti- gate all points of sewage discharge and shall examine all existing or pro posed public sewage systems and refuse disposal plants, and may com- pei their operation In manner which shall protect the public health and welfare. or may order their alteration, extension or replacement by other structures. After the passage of this act no public sewerage system or refuse disposal plant shall be built filed with the state board of health.
 No person, corporation or munich pality shall place or permit to be placed or discharge or permit to flow into any of the waters of the state, any sewage, except as hereinafter provid- ed The provisions of this act shall not prevent the discharge of sewage from any private sewerage system or any public sewerage system owned and maintained by municipality, provided such sewerage system was in opera ton and was discharging sewage into the waters of the state on the date of the passage of this act; nor shall the provisions of this act prevent the dis charge into the waters of the state of sewage from any existing plant or sewerage system owned and maintain ed by any person or private corpora ton in an amount not exceeding that heretofore discharged into the waters of the state from such plant or sewer age system; but these exceptions shall not permit the continuance of any pollution of the waters Of the state which is prejudicial to the public health.
 Nothing contained in this act shall be construed as cognizing vested right in any person, corporation or municipality to discharge sewage into
 the waters of the state, or as legalizing such disposal of sewage.
 Declared Bill Too Mandatory. Mr. GrisWold of Berlin offered seV- eraI amendments, some of which were in the form of clerical corrections, and less mandatory, and removing some of the power of the state board of health, but the empowerment of suggestions. MT. Brooks of Torrington said the bill as originally presented was too strong and the amendments tend to modification and the teeth have been taken out of the bill, and he would vote for it as amended, but he be- | lieved it was still detrimental to mu- | nicipalities and manufacturers. He hoped the amendments would be passed.
 MT. Bowers of Manchester asked why the word shall should be | substituted for may, and was told that | if the word shall should be retained
 the members of the board of health would be required to investigate in | instances that should be optional.
 Bill Explained in Detail.
 MT. Griswold explained the entire bill in detail, which occupied consider | able time and gave all members in formation for intelligent action. He | said no bill before the legislature had received more careful consideration. This bill originated in the legislature | of 1913 and the tenor of the bill was not against municipality or manufac- | turer, but to clear the way for inn | proved sewerage system, and will an- | ticipate prospective orders of the fed eral government. While the original | bill has been modified, it has a few teeth left. He said the committee had given the matter genuine considera- | tion and moved that the report of the | committee be accepted and the bill | passed as amended, which included
 that the act take effect Jan. 1, 1916. The Billboard Law.
 The substitute billboard act was on | the calendar for action. It was | strongly opposed by MT. Chesbro of | Windham, who said the tax was pro- I hi L4 I11Ii ,esfi tn
 tional and that it was matched by those who desired to do away with this form of competitive advertising.
 MT. Shaw of Bedding favored the 1 measure as a source of revenue to the
 state. MT. Pelton of Clinton said the
 bill went too far, as it included the I advertising of Sunday school suppers | and library entertainments. MT. l Bowers of Manchester spoke in favor | of the substitute, as did also MT.
 Foord of Stamford, as he believed 1t | would tend to lessen the number of
 existing billboards. MT. Taylor of | Danbury offered amendment exempt | ing municipalities from the terms Of
 the law in advertising industries.
 MT. Schultz of New Britain favored | the bill by reason of the general dis
 fgurement throughout the state by
 billboards. MT. Hull of Plainville was | opposed to the bill and said so in un- | mistakable terms. MT. Chesbro said | that while the bill would practically | preclude billboard advertising it did
 not refer to advertising on barns and
 therefore this form of advertising would continue. MT. Aubrey of Meri- | den favored the bill as a tax pro
 ducer and the state needed the money. | MT. Rogers of Litchfield said outside | concerns were using Connecticut as
 advertising space and ought to pay for | the privilege. MT. Tyre said the law
 would not affect the owners of land
 where billboards are located, but the
 owners of the billboards would pay the | tax.
 MT. Thomas of Lebanon offered
 amendment so that the law would not | apply to space less than four feet | square, to permit of church advertis- (continued on Page Eiahtl