Evening star., 1951-01-10
Engineer Study
ByVirgiinidns
Committee Fuvors
Inter-County Survey
At Cost of $4,000


A survey by engineers to deter
mine the best method of disposing
of sewage from four suburban
Virginia communities is recon-
by a committee repre-
senting those areas.
Even before the preliminary re-
port was announced today by rep
resentatives of Alexandria, Arling-
ton, Falls Church and Fairfax, the
Alexandria City Council approved
the plan at meeting last night.
This was after Councilman Al
bert A. Smoot, a member of the
study committee, outlined the pro-
posal. The governing bodies Of
Arlington. Falls Church and Fair
fax County are expected to act
at their next meetings.
Cost of the survey is estimated
by the interim committee at be-
tween $4,000 and $35 900, but the
governing bodies at this time are
not asked to put up money.
Financing to Be Shared.
"It will, of course, be necessary
for all Jurisdictions to share in
financing the STUDY since all are
involved in the problem and all
realize that this is the only way
to determine the best possible So
luton" the report states.
A similar proposal for a joint
engineering study of nearby Vir-
ginia sewage problems fell through
two years ago when Arlington
County refused to put up any
money.
The report states that the big
factor in deciding the best method
Of sewage disposal is cost.
ut is our duty to the people we
serve to work out the best solu-
ton we can," declares the interim
group.
Plans Already Under Way.
1t is acknowledged in the re-
port that some of the participate
ing communities already are pro-
ceeding with plans for sewage
treatment. Fairfax County has
issued SO million in bonds for q
sewer improvement program, in
cluding construction of a treat
ment plan on Fort Hunt road.
Arlington County voters in No
vember approved a bond issue to
expand the county's present treat
ment plant.
"It should be noted that the
present plans of the two jurisdic-
tions are designed to take care of
short-term needs only" the report
comments.
Present plans in Arlington and
Fairfax, it is explained, contem-
plate primary treatment only.
While this may prove adequate
for the present." the report con-
tinued, these communities will
be faced with additional con-
struction by about 1860 to meet
the need for 10 per cent removal
of the total pollution load"
Other Courses Mentioned.
Four possible courses for sewage
disposal set forth in the report
are:
l. Construction and operation
of entirely separate sewage treat
ment facilities by the several jur-
isdictions. The report comments
that the principal disadvantage
to this method is that there would
be duplication of facilities within
the same drainage area. Fairfax
and Alexandria would construct
disposal plants practically in the
same neighborhood.
2. Construction of separate
treatment works by the several
Jurisdictions, but with agreements
between them in serving drainage
areas. This would eliminate dup
lication OF construction and opera
tion costs within the same drain
age areas.
8. Construction of sewer and
sewage treatment facilities as out
lined in alternative No. 2, but un-
der the authority of regional
sewer authority which would con-
struct and operate the system.
SiphOn Under River.
4. Construction of interceptor
and trunk sewers and a siphon
under the Potomac River to carry
nearby Virginia sewage into the
District plant at Blue Plains for
treatment.
The report notes that operation
of a single large plant is cheaper
than operation of numerous small
er plants, and initial construction
possibly would be cheaper for such
a system than for separate dis
posal plants.
ut is the unanimous opinion of
the committee that competent en-
glneering conSultantS should be
retained to study this problem and
to prepare a comprehensive re-
port as to the Short-run and long
run involved in the various pos
sible plans" the report says.