Evening star., 1951-03-28
Council Pledges
Alexandra 10
Sewage Survey
By-Posses Request
By Arlington for
Cheaper Study

committee of area representatives.
By-passing a request of Arling-
ton County to favor shorter and
cheaper survey, the Alexandria
City Council last night agreed to
put up $4,000 as its share of the
survey cost. Fairfax County also
has voted to participate.
Albert A. Smoot, Alexandria
councilman who served on the in
terim committee. described Ar
lington County's action of last
Saturday as strange procedure
indeed" He was referring to the
Arlington boards resolution, spon-
sored by Robert Cox, urging en-
of an engineering firm
that proposed to do the survey
cheaper and quicker than the
firms recommended by the interim
committee.
Cox Headed Committee.
"Why Mr.. Cox is going over the
head of the committee I will never
know" said Mr.. Smoot.
Mr.. Cox was chairman of the
interim committee, which included
Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax and
Falls Church representatives. The
committees final report showed
that five of the seven members
present at the last meeting voted
for employment of Alexander
Potter Associates and Greeley &
Hansen. The two firms offered to
do the survey jointly for $4,000
and estimated it would require six
months.
A three-month survey costing
$4,000 by Alvord Burdick and
Howson was favored by Mr.. Cox
and by B. Alden Lillywhite. the
two Arlington representatives.
Noting that the Arlington
boards resolution urges the af-
fected governments to consider
this matter very carefully" Mr..
Smoot tersely declared that the
interim committee, in it's deliber-
ations, very carefully weighed the
proposal Of Alvord, Burdick and
Howson and other firms before
making its choice"
Engineers Heard.
He said representatives Of all
engineering firms that submitted
proposals had appeared before the
committee before any decision was
made.
And after all that" said Mr..
Smoot. "the committee members
present still voted 5 to 2 in favor
of a survey by Alexander Potter
Associates and Greeley & Han
SEN"
OF the five committee members
who voted In favor of the two
firms, Mr.. Smoot pointed out that
two of them are engineers-G.
Hubbard Massey Of Fairfax and
Luckett Watkins of Alexandria.
"Mr. Cox, to my knowledge, Is
not an engineer" he added.
Mr.. Smoot invited questions
from other council members about
the situation.
I'VE would like to have our
position stated publicly" he said.
The council member declared
he had been shocked" by an
editorial in The Star on Monday
about the sewer survey. The edi-
torial he referred to said that, if
an adequate engineering survey
could be completed in three
months instead of six, and at less
cost. it was hard to understand
why the longer and more expen-
sive procedure was recommended
by the interim committee.
Familiar With Area.
"The main reason the commit
tee-and particularly the engineer
members-favored the longer sur.
vey is because it was felt the two
firms which proposed it were more
familiar with the problems Of
this area" said Mr.. Smoot.
The Greeley and Hansen COM
pany has acted as consultant to
Alexandria on sewer problems in
the past, and Alexandria Potter
Associates has been a conslIltant
to Arlington.
Mr.. Smoot said the proposal
of Alvord. Burdick & Howson
would require engineering de-
partments of the various juris-
dictionS to supply certain in
formation.
And we have no way of know
ing how long it would take the
various engineering departments
to get together such information
as may be required" continued
Mr.. Smoot. explaining that this
might delay completion of the
survey beyond the three months
estimated by the sfirm.
Re-checkS Estimate.
He added that he had re-
checked the time estimate of the
two firms favored by the commit
tee and was satisfied the job
would be finished in six months,
Councilman James M. Duncan,
jr., wanted to know how the
State Water Control Board felt
about the survey.
II see no reason why the State
Water Control Board should not
agree to go along with the sur
vey if we appear before it in good
faith and present our problem"
said Mr.. Smoot. He pointed out
that the interim committees re-
port specifically provides that CO.
operation of the State Water Con-
troll Board be requested.