The independent. [volume] (Elizabeth City, N.C.) 1908-1936, 1919-10-17
WILL COMPULSORY
SEWERAGELAWGO
Ordinance Passed by Aldermen
May be Contested by Sewer
Company, as Illegal

Several very interesting and important
questions arise in connection with Eliz-
abeth City's new Compulsory Sewerage
law, which was passed by the Board OF
Aldermen in special session last Tues
day night. According to the provisions
of the new ordinance, every property
owner in the city whose holdings are ad
bacent to sewers must connect with
same as soon as the sewers are avail
able for use, all closets, privies, sinks
and urina1s within 60 days after notifi-
alton by the sanitary inspector. Failure
to comply with the ordinance carries with
it a fine of $50, and each successive day
after the expiration of the time limit
constitutes seperate offense. to be pun
ished as such. In other words, prop
erty owner who runs over his allotted
time week is subject to a fine of $3.50.
The questions which naturally arise
are, first, Is an ordinance requiring the
people of the city to patronize private
company-the Sewer Company lawful
under the constitution of the State? Of
ficials of the Sewer Company say that
it is not lawful; that compliance with
the State Sanitary Privy Law is all that
may be legally required of the individual
property holder, and this does not make
necessary the installation of plumbing
and sewerage. A member of the Board
of Aldermen, who is likewise. a lawyer,
says that the ordinance is legal, and that
it can be enforced. The inference is
hot &ha SToaify1 tho
cular company with which the property
owner must connect; in fact, he may
install a private sewer line of his own.
if he so elects, but he must connect with
some adequate sewerage system. The
fact that there is but one sewer line
and that privately owned, in the city, does
not enter into the argument at all.
| Another very pertinent question which
arises is, Can the present Sewer Com
pany, with the capital at its disposal, in
stall the many miles of additional sewer
necessary for a city-wide enforcement
of the law? Officials of the company
! speaking unofhcially, say that theS can
not; that at the present time they have
| their maximum capital already invested
4 that as q private eampanss operating
public utility, they cannot borrow suffi
Gent money to carry out such project
since the tendency of bankers is to tur1
down such loans, except to municipal
ties, which can offer as security the as
sets of the city, and which, as munici
palities, can compel compliance with
compulsory sewerage legislation. A hig]
city oficial-to be specific, the Cit
Manager himself-suggests. that it ma
be practicable to make an arrangemen
whereby the city may advance a par
of the cost on the necessary addition
to the present sewerage system, so as t
make it city-wide, instead of as at pre-
sent being available to only a third of tn
city.
/ The present Board of Aldermen ha
already gone on record as unequivocall
opposing the purchase of the holding
of the Sewer Company by the city. Th
State Board of Health has granted a
extension of a year, until October
: 1920, on the enforcement of the Stat
Sanitary Law in Elizabeth City, Near
5 while, it remains to be seen if the com
: pulsory sewerage ordinance passed
the Board of Aldermen can be carrie
into effect, and taxpayers of this cit
r will watch with interest the develop
! ments of this interesting and somewhs
complicated situation.