Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-11-23
Observer.

without unnecessarily in
creasing them.
Observer.
FHtr0tion Site
We on the washington
Suburban Sanitary Commits
sion have always admired
The Stars objectivity and
accuracy, as expressed in
your news columns and edi-
torials. It was with consid-
cradle shock and surprise,
therefore, that the commits
sion read your November 10
editorial concerning our plans
to build a filtration plant
near Watts Branch in the
Potomac area of Montgomery
County.
The editorial Is full Of
erroneous statements and
shows q complete lack of
understanding Of the rea-
sons for selecting the Watts
Branch site.
These reasons were fully
explained at meetings which
this commission has held over
q period of several months
with the residents Of the
Potomac area, the Maryland
National Capital Park and
Planning Commission. the
governing officials Of Mont
gomery and Prince Georges
Counties and the representa-
tives to the State Legislature
from both counties.
Members Of your news and
editorial stats were present
at the meetings and had
ample opportunity to ques-
ton our engineers and our
consultant, DR.. Abel Wolman,
internationally known water
resources and planning ex-
pert.
Despite this intensive and
widespread educational cam
paign, your editorial blithely
brushes aside or ignores the
facts in urging the commits
sion to shift the plant to
another location.
This project is Of vital
Importance to the 100000
people living in the sanitary
district in Montgomery and
Prince Georges Counties. 1t
Is our duty to provide them
with water as economically
and efficiently as possible.
Our studies have shown that
the new filtration plant must
be in operation by 1860 to
prevent a water shortage.
These same studies have
included thorough considers
ton of all the alternate sites
proposed by the opponents Of
the Watts Branch location.
Many of these alternates. in
GLIDING the Great Falls site
which your editorial describes
as preferable" had been in
vestigated even before they
were advanced by those OBJ
jecting to Watts Branch. It
is difficult to understand.
therefore, your advice to "go
slow and take q second look
at the problem" As q matter
of fact, we have been study
ing the problem in detail for
more than three years. It is
time, we think. to 60 for
ward. The people we serve
cannot afford any further
delay.
Your statement that there
is no overriding technical rea-
son for using Watts Branch"
Is blatantly untrue. There
are several compelling reasons
for selecting that site. They
include engineering. hydrau-
lie, geophysical and cost fac
tors. Neither the Great Falls
site nor any Of the other al
ternate sites qualities under
any Of these headings. In
fact, the Great Falls site
would cost the taxpayers Of
the sanitary district nearly
So million more and still
would not satisfy any Of the
other requirements.
Your contention that the
construction Of q filtration
plant at watts Branch would
shave an adverse impact
on the community also Is
exaggeratedly false. The COM
mission has said repeatedly
that 1t would design the ex-
terror Of the plant and land
scape the surrounding area
in such q manner that the
project would be attractive
and in harmony with the
area. And we are now study
ing q design for . masonry
plant Of Georgian architec-