The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-04-05
What Is Adequate Disposal?

The Meriden Journal notices that Wa
terbury is once more engaged In the
unpleasant task of paying to the Plat
Brothers and Company its annual dona-
ton for polluting the Naugatuck river and
thus interfering with the water rights
that this firm enjoys. In concluding its
observation the Journal says, "All this is
unusual, but even more novel is the lack
of adequate sewage disposal in city OF
10000 in this year and age" That doesn't
paint the picture in Waterbury quite
fairly.
In the first place we're getting fairly
adequate sewage disposal. At least us
our opinion from reading comments here
and there about the state that Waterbury
is no different than other cities and towns
in that she offends certain sanitary codes
by emptying raw sewage into an open
waterway. We admit our guilt in this
respect, but at the same time we declare
that we are doing our best, financially, to
change this condition. When pointed out
to us some years back that stream pollu-
ton in Connecticut must end Waterbury
voted to cooperate.
We doubt if there are few cities OF the
100000 class in the whole United States
that can boast sewage system any better
than ours. The number in this class pos
sessing complete disposal systems and
actually operating them is much smaller
than those that, as we do, utilize nearby
water sources. In our case it is the Nau-
gatuck river. 1t is badly polluted, not
alone by. Waterbury, but by every COM
nlunity along it's banks and even by the
mills that claim riparian rights are IN
jured by sewage pollution. Factory wastes
contribute largely to stream pollution.
We can only conclude from what the
eiitor of the Journal says that this clty's
sewage system is lacking in many re-
spects. That is not so. Of recent years
we have spent million dollars laying
trunk sewers up the Naugatuck river and
Steel brook and hitching laterals to them,
not to mention the new sewers that are
laid as matter of civic expansion annu-
ally. It will cost the city another million
probably to build the proposed trunk line
sewer up the Mad river, thus completing
the city's direct conduit connection with
disposal plant in South Waterbury. Incl.
dentally to operate such plant 1T VIII
cost the city in the neighborhood OF SlOo,-
900 year. o.,
The real history of the litigation with
the Platt Brothers dates beyond 1903, but
it was in that year that the Supreme court
awarded the company nominal damages
for injury to water rights by pollution: 1t
further enjoined Waterbury from polut-
ing the stream from June 1 to December
/ under penalty of paying $4,000 annual
". The various city fathers we have had
since then have preferred the latter
course of action, as less expensive than
building a Sewage plant, task which
proved far more difficult than it would
seem when attempted rs years ago.
It would be interesting to compare the
linear feet of sewers in Waterbury with
some of the other cities of Connecticut,
keeping in mind all the time Waterbury's
topography. 1t would be interesting to
compare the amount of money that these
same communities have spent in period
of ten to twenty years in developing their
sewer systems. We know Waterbury
won't fare badly in any such comparison.
Litigation over pollution of the Maui
gatuck river may level the spotlight
on us constantly, but it doesn't lessen the
fact that Waterbury protects the health OF
its citizens and that no serious epidemlcs
or plaques can be traced to the above
stream pollution.