New Britain herald., 1927-08-22
MORE SEWER DISCUSSION


 The state water commission ap- parently sticks by its original report on the city's sewerage needs and the cost of bringing it up to date. Ii naturally would do so, anyway. 1t was this report, made last December, that aroused widespread interest in the needs of the city: and the fact that MT. Quigley when mayor also had been busy upon the sewerage problem led him to think there was room for a diversity of opinion.
 Mayor Weld held his first confer ence with Sanford H. Wadhams and Engineer William R. Copeland of the state water board in June a year ago. At that time estimates were made that an improved sew age disposal system would cost the city approximately s5Oo.00o." Then. in December, when a voluminous re- port was made, MT. Wadhams, direc- tor of the water board, surmised that the cost for a proper disposal would amount to s1,000,000. Since that time the city has purposed is- suing s2,0Q0,000 in water bonds evidently to be on the safe side. Now we learn once again, in answer to the Quigley criticisms, that the first unit in the improved system will cost only $500,00o. and that ultimately the entire system will not cost more than s1,0Oo,o0o; and that the waste from manufacturing es- tablishments are no deterrent in the sewerage system, being treated be- fore the mains are reached; in other words, that all is well to go ahead with the work.
 The state water board has been urging action ever since in con- formity with its plan. Last January it suggested such action and that the deferred payment plan be adopted Issuing bonds meets that suggestion.
 According to the water boards plans last January, the three sys- tems proposed vary widely in cost. Sand filters would cost s1.71s,000: an activated sludge system $9O0,00O; Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters s1,275,000. How much the sewerage will cost, therefore, depends upon what system is adopt ed after determination of what is best adapted to the needs of this city.
 One point citizens will not be im- pressed with is the variety in the figures which has distinguished this sewerage business from the first. The supposition naturally will be held that nobody knows exactly what the outlay will be. The fact that the city purposes to issue $2,0O0,oOO in bonds, instead of $1,0O0,0OO would indicate a lack of certainty about this point.
 The mayor is to be commended for attempting to get at the bottom of this perplexing situation before Influencing a decision as to what course to pursue. It is one in which the opinions of experts largely will determine the outcome. This being the case one must be sure of the in- of the experts. Such a high Is a serious matter to taxpayers, and mistakes occasionally have way of being very costly.
 The issue seems to be one resting primarily upon whether factory wastes really hinder the disposal of sewage if the factory acids are first properly made innocuous before dis posed of in the city's mains. It ap- pears logical that there must be cer- tainty in this connection before definite action can be taken. The state board says wastes from fac tories can be treated in a manner not to prevent the proper disposal of sewage and in fact are so treated. It would be foolish to expend a large sum for an improved sewerage sys- tenn if it could not be made to bring results on account of the wastes from manufacturing plants.
 Another point is that it may be well not to rely too much upon state departments. Politics are deep and sometimes nefarious in Connecticut. An investigation made by an outside source might throw more light on the subject.