The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-02-03
Vl[l CONCLUDE SEWAGE
HEARING On FRIDAY
projection OF Oyster from Pollution
from City Drainage Topic Of
- Great Interest.
OTHER SANITARY LEGISLATION
Citfes which Get Their Water supply
from Limited Watersheds Must
Re Protected from Carelessness.

Whether it is necessary to protect
the oyster industry of Virginia from
any possibility of pollution and there
by to insure for the future the pres
ent high sanitary quality OF the VIZ
ginia bivalve is one of the questions
with which the Committee on General
Laws of the House Of Delegates is NO"
wrestling. Hearings on the supIee.
are in progress this week ana WIN. ~
is expected. be concluded rFioaS we
ming.
The bill which covers the poin. at
,ss,Ie in Senate bill 10t. of which SEN
atnr Fl. IA. Downing and Delegate J.
n. Rev are patrons. This bill would
p1va the state Board of Health the
rirht to issue regulations to protect
oyster rocks from pollution with sew
age. subject 10 appeal to and review
by the courts. =
Sentiment as to the necessity OF leg
t~iation was divided when the COM
n,ittee held its first hearing on the
bin Tuesday evening. Richard Mes
ser. on behalf of the State Board of
Health, and DR.. Hugh s. Cumming,
Of the United States Public Health
Service, appeared in behalf of tbs bill,
and Dr. Powhatan s. Schenck, of Nor
folk, and others from Norfolk ard
Portsmouth. appeared in opposition.
Would He Serious Blow.
The chief argument in behalf OF
this bill was that as no distinction was
made by Northern buyers as TO the
different kinds OF Virginia oysters.
the possible future contamination of
even Q few acres OF oyster rocks, ana
the condemnation in the North of
oysters taken therefrom. world be q
serious blow to the whole Oyster in
d,mtry of the State and would affect
all oystermen alike. 1t was also
argued that the carelessness OF few
jacent to some rocks might damage
oysters worth many thousa nd dollars,
when a few dollars expended In hani-
tary safeguards would prevent the
danger. These points, and the rea-
sonable character of the proposed icg-
,sfation were discussed at length by
DR.. Cumming. who In the United States
Governments expert on the sanitary
aspects OF the oyster industry pr.
proposed Virginia .aw was far less
drastic than laws already in effect
n Maryland and New Jersey.
Speaking OF the other provisions OF
the bill. Mr.. Messer, who 10 sanftNrr
engineer OF the State Board of Heath
dwelt on the necessity of giving bet
ter protection TO the forty towns ana
cities of the Commonwealth which get
their water-suppiy from limitel water
sheds and which. ct present, he de-
clared, have no adequate protection at
law against the carelessness OF per-
sons on or adjacent to their water
sheds. In this class OF cities he men
toned Alexandria, Lynchburg and
Newport News.
Mr. Messer also explained sections
of tho bill which would give the state
Board OF Health supervision over
streams twenty miles above cities and
towns which now deprive their water
from rivera or creeks. Among the
cities which he declared were in Feed
OF this protective legislation to sup
port the local authorities In their ef-
forts to get pure water are Richmond.
Fredericksburg. Danville and South
Boston.
DR.. Powhatan S. Schenck. who ap-
peared against the bill at the hear
ing Tuesday evening expressed him
self as entirely sympathetic with the
general purpose Of the bill. but stated
Thai NJ ii was admitted the sewage
from Norfolk was not polluting oyster
grounds, he believed that Norfolk
should not be subjected to possible
changes In her system OF sewage dis
posAl that would entail the expendi-
ture OF large sums. He did not think
II necessary. he said. 20 vest In the
state o3ard OF Health the powers pro-
posed under the terms of the bill;
At the continued hearing Friday
Eight. other eanitary authorities from
Tfdcwa.er will be heard for AMI
against the bill. Interest in the bin
il likewise growing, II Is said. among
the re;n esentatives from inland dis
tricts, some of whom feel that pro-
tective legislation Ia needed to safe
Euard the water supplies of their cities
and towns.
Senate bill 81. which has been con-
fused with No. 10i, was also consid-
cred by the committee at its hearing,
hut. as no opposition to it was offered.
it la expected to be reported faver-
ably shortly This bill deals with the
sanitary protection of public waters
after they reach the intake of water
works in towns and cities.