a good raw water amenable to treatment is secured at any of the intakes under discussion. Outside of the question of safe water supplies, and to return to the question of sewage disposal to obviate nuisance, the projected canal as a sewage carrier, or as a recipient of a more or less purified sewage effluent, has distinct disadvantages compared with the Niagara River. The Niagara River, with a stream flow of 220,000 cubic feet per second, could take care of sewage in this area from an urban population of more than 50,000,000 without nuisance-obviously for a very long time in the future. The proposed 6,000 cubic feet per second of canal flow would be able to care for the sewage of these cities without nuisance for a much shorter time. Theoretically from 3 to 7 cubic feet per second of stream flow will care for sewage of 1,000 persons without nuisance. This would mean that the theoretical limit of disposal in this way by the canal would be reached when the population reached 1,700,000. Experience shows that the limit of sewage disposal by dilution is reached more quickly for certain reasons. Mr. SHARP. Where you differ with Mr. Bowen, you mean in that connection the sewage disposal proposition for each city so as to prevent it being thrown into the stream? The CHAIRMAN. He means filtered. Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes. No rule can be furnished which will cover every city. At present the raw water at the intakes 1,500 feet from shore is so good that many people contend that it doesn't even need filtration. But it is the plain duty to put in purification plants, because even after an ideal scheme of sewage disposal you couldn't make the water safe without purification. Mr. SHARP. What I had in mind was this: Quite a number of towns and cities are located on the streams, and the question has been raised in a number of those places as to the proper distribution of sewage in those towns, so that it will not escape into the rivers that run down into the lake which contaminate the lake quite as much at the towns located right on the lake, because the streams run direct from those towns into the lake. I know on Lake Erie there are quite a number of those towns. Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir. I made the survey of all of those from Toledo to Buffalo on Lake Erie. I might say here that we come in on that. Apparently, they consider it our duty as public health officers to consider bad odors and smells the same as disease, and that is true of all the town and village officers. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, what have you to say regarding the advisability of conferring jurisdiction on the International Waterways and Boundary Commission to prevent the pollution of the streams and lakes between Canada and the United States? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I really never thought of that, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Why wouldn't that commission be a good body to have jurisdiction? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I think the control of the pollution of the streams, within permissible bounds. should be taken care of by the Public-Health Service of the United States. 28305-12-18 The CHAIRMAN. Is the Public-Health Service of the United States doing anything to prevent the pollution of the waters between Canada and the United States? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't think the Public-Health Service has such power, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then between the International Waterways and Boundary Commission and the Public-Health Service of the United States, you think the jurisdiction should be in the Public-Health Service? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I believe that the officers of the Public-Health Service are qualified and competent and it would be in line of their work to make the necessary examination, which is the only way it can be controlled by a systematic control of the water. The CHAIRMAN. The International Boundary Commission can do that. Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir; very nicely. The CHAIRMAN. The International Boundary Commission would have jurisdiction on both sides-the Canadian side and also the United States side-and it could make rules and regulations by which the waters could not be polluted along these streams and lakes in the United States and Canada. Mr. SHARP. May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, in that connection, inasmuch as you have given some thought, evidently, to this, what would be the outcome of launching that power in that commission with reference to having any conflict with the boards of health in the different cities bordering on these lakes? The CHAIRMAN. I doubt if there would be much conflict, because you can give jurisdiction to the International Boundary Commission and that body would then formulate rules and regulations. Mr. GARNER. They are limited in their power. Under what provision of the Constitution are you going to turn over the regulation of the health of the people, either by the commission or by Dr. McLaughlin's department or any other department? How are you going to say-under what provision of the Constitution are you going to turn over the regulation of the health of the people from the State of New York to the Federal Government? The CHAIRMAN. I might answer, the general welfare clause. [Laughter.] Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. George M. Wisner, chief engineer of the sanitary district of Chicago, has found that, although theoretically Chicago should not reach the limit of disposal by dilution without nuisance before 1920, as a matter of fact the limit has already been reached, and a nuisance actually exists at the points on the drainage canal system. Certain urban wastes, such as stockyards refuse, etc., make the contribution for 1,000 persons from large cities richer in organic matter and putrescible materials than that from 1,000 persons in smaller communities. Mr. Wisner further shows that the oxygen of the fresh lake water, which is the agent which prevents nuisance, is robbed from the water by the deposits of septic fludge accumulating in long reaches of quiet flow, and consequently is not available for action on the fresh sewage. This being a power canal, with dams and long reaches, it will afford excellent chance for sedimentation and the formation of the fludge deposits which greatly rob the water of its oxygen. The growth, commercial and industrial, which will probably accompany this power development, will further approximate the condition against which Chicago is struggling. It is certain, if this proposed canal is used for the disposal of sewage by dilution, that nuisance will result before the urban population reaches one and three-quarters million. This will necessitate one of two things: 1. Increased stream flow through the canal for dilution purposes, or, 2. Purification of the sewage before discharge into the canal. The first solution, increased stream flow of the canal, may be impracticable because of laws and treaties existing or to be made. The second solution, purification of the sewage, will impose an excessive burden upon the city of Buffalo, which it will be difficult to justify, in view of the fact that the disposal by means of the Niagara River, whether by simple dilution or partial purification, will be found a much cheaper proposition. Mr. GARNER. Let me ask you a question, Doctor, if you will permit. You have given us a very interesting statement concerning what I might term the neglect of the officials of the different cities and the State of New York to preserve the health of their people. The question we have got under consideration is the carrying out of a treaty between Great Britain and the United States to utilize certain waters in the Niagara River, and the particular question we have got under consideration is the question whether we have utilized 4,400 feet not now authorized by statute, and whether or not we will let in from Canada certain power the question of power you have nothing to do with. Now, what conditions could Congress make in considering this question that would remedy the defects-the citizens themselves, or the neglect of the citizens themselves, to take care of their own health? What remedy could you suggest that Congress could provide to protect those people against themselves? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I think that in the interest of the general good, from an interstate standpoint, there should be official standards of water, raw water, in rivers used as sources of drinking supply. These standards should be a minimum to which the States could add such restrictions as they see fit under their laws. This should be the minimum requirement to give us protection in a State where there are no laws. Take the State of Michigan. I can speak of it because I am from Michigan. We have no laws controlling the water supply, and the city of Port Huron can pollute the waters of Lake Huron. Mr. GARNER. Then, if I understand you, you would have the Congress of the United States pass a law undertaking to go into a State and to compel the States to use a certain kind of water for drinking purposes, making a standard of water to be drunk in the State? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Making a standard that they shouldn't drink any water worse than that. Mr. GARNER. Under what provision would you get into the waters of the States that isn't interstate commerce? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I think that the undue prevalence of a dangerous disease in a great city of great industrial and commercial importance, for instance Pittsburgh, is something more than a local or State matter. I don't know what authority we have and we are under the impression that we haven't any authority. We have made a scientific investigation to show the necessity of that. Mr. GARNER. I think you are to be congratulated upon your efforts to take care of the public health. The only thing I was trying to get at was has Congress the power to regulate these matters or isn't it a matter that the people ought to take action upon themselves. And they ought to be educated up to the standard that you would have them go. Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. The position of our service is that the health machinery ought to be in the hands of the State. But we ought to have a standard just as we have in quarantine law. We helped them in the State of New York during the cholera epidemic. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, will you be good enough to leave your statement with the reporter? Mr. DIFENDERFER. This committee is after information bearing upon certain subjects that have been explained to you. Are you acquainted with the health officer, Robert Talbott, of Niagara Falls? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I met him; yes, sir; when I was there. He had just been appointed. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Do you know whether or not he is an efficient officer? Do you regard him as such? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't know anything about him. His predecessor had been there a great many years. Mr. DIFENDERFER. He has made a statement here which I have taken from one of the newspapers. It is entitled, "City's drinking water polluted by Buffalo and Tonawanda sewage." It is a short article and I would like to make this a part of the record, if you please, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection to that. CITY'S DRINKING WATER POLLUTED BY BUFFALO AND TONAWANDA SEWAGE-HEALTH OFFICER TALBOTT TELLS WHY THERE WERE 358 CASES OF TYPHOID AT NIAGARA FALLS LAST YEAR. NIAGARA FALLS, January 11. The most interesting chapter in the annual report of Health Officer Robert Talbott, submitted to Mayor Philip J. Keller yesterday afternoon, was that bearing upon the subject of typhoid fever in the city. The report showed that during the year there had been reported a total of 358 cases of typhoid fevernearly one for every day in the year. On the subject of typhoid, Health Officer Talbott said: "Typhoid fever seems to be the bugbear of all diseases in our city, and this year we have almost twice as many reported as we did last year. Is it any wonder that we have so much typhoid within our city? We are drinking water from Niagara River, which is the receptacle of all sewage water from Buffalo and Tonawanda, saying nothing of the polluted streams that empty into Lake Erie. We have voted on the water question, discussed it from all standpoints, spent plenty of money, and are still spending it, and yet our water is contaminated. We have experimented with the different processes and they have been found wanting, but for the sake of suffering humanity let us hope 1912 will put within our reach water that is pure and fit to drink. The past year we have had 358 cases reported, and I trust each physician has done his duty in reporting every case to show how many cases a city of 30,000 population has had during the year 1911. "Of course, our city has been visited by thousands of tourists, and I know of many who claim they got the dreaded disease while visiting here. Time and time again I have caused to be published in the daily press warning not to drink or use for domestic purposes water taken from the city mains, as it seemed to mean sure typhoid and maybe death, but those notices were not always heeded. Is that a fact our city should be called on the State laboratories have been most active and, indeed, most thorough in the examination of our drinking water, and each month have rendered a report of their findings, and to them, much as their warnings and labor, have been for the welfare of Niagara Falls' citizens, who are consumers of this water." Mr. DIFENDERFER. Now in connection with drainage, I would like to ask a few questions that I have mapped out here: About how much has the Chicago Drainage Canal cost, if you can answer that question? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I can answer approximately, although I don't have any right to give any information on that point. I think it was about $70,000,000. Mr. DIFENDERFER. About how long has it been in operation? Mr. DIFENDERFER. Now can you give the reduction in the percentage of typhoid and other such diseases in Chicago during that period? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. You will accept approximate figures? Mr. DIFENDERFER. Yes. Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. For 11 years previous to the installation of that drainage canal the rate of typhoid fever per 100,000 was 56, I think for the 10 years. I think for the last 7 years in Chicago the rates have been only about 17. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Seventeen per thousand? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Per 100,000. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Dr. Evans is health officer of Chicago? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. No, sir; a surgeon of our service is now there. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Was Dr. Evans at any time connected with it? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. He was health officer up to a year ago. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Do you know whether he attributes the increase to the purity of the drinking water? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. The decrease, you mean. Mr. DIFENDERFER. I meant to say decrease. Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir; I think very rightly so. There wasn't any question but what the diverting of the sewage from the lake front had a great effect in reducing typhoid fever. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Then, if that is the case, would it not be well for the Niagara frontier to obtain such a result if they could? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. Provided such results could be obtained without undue cost. The cases are not parallel. I don't see where you can compare a rapidly flowing river with the quiet water of a lake. Mr. DIFENDERFER. Well, if we continue to take water from the Niagara River 1,500 feet out from the American side, it won't flow as rapidly, will it, as it has been flowing? You reduce the depth, do you not? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. That would be a very small matter. Almost negligible. Mr. GARNER. Would the possibility for a slight deflection of the river be less from a canal running from the Niagara River than from the Chicago Canal, because of the greater rapidity with which it would flow? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't think there would be any difference in the quiet stretches of water behind the canal. Both canals would furnish excellent places for sedimentation. Mr. GARNER. The river? Dr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't know. I don't think there would be any great difference. |