Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Table 1.-Sewage-treatment improvements in Ohio under Federal-aid programs of

1934-36, inclusive, Mar. 15, 1937Continued
PART 2. UNDER WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION (WPA)-Continued

Municipality

Population

Estimated

cost

Status of project

Do.

Do.

Do.

(c) New sanitary sewer systems including sewage dis

posal works:
Amanda 3
Beach City
Belleville
Bethesda 3
Beverly 3
Brookville
Carrollton
Chesapeake.
Clarksburg 3
Coal Grove
Dalton
Doylestown 3
Eldorado 3
Fairfield..
Frankfort.
Germantown.
Grove City.
Holloway.
Johnstown
Killbuck.
Lewisburg
Mechanicsburg -
Miami Valley Chautauqua (Montgomery County) 3.
Mount Sterling-
Oak Hill 3
Osborn
Quaker City 3.
Reynoldsburg 3
Richwood 3
Rio Grande 3
South Charleston
Sugar Grove 3.
Union City
Waynesville.
Woodsfield.
Yellow Springs.

556
725

987
1, 187

600 1, 403 2, 286 1, 094

400 2, 181

656 1, 150

292 1, 240

764 2, 029 1, 546

772 1, 006

703

936 1, 424

300 1, 090 1, 578 1, 271

613

562 1, 573

400 1, 208

388 1, 305

697 2, 317

$30, 000 Pending release.

35, 000 Do. 110,000 Do. 90,000 50,000 Completed. 160, 000 Pending release. 205, 097 100, 950 Under construction.

70, 000 Pending release. 100, 000 Under construction,

75, 000 Pending release. 111, 354 Under construction, 26, 000 Pending release. 40, 000 55, 000 Completed. 150,000 Pending release. 174, 000 Under construction. 77, 000 Pending release. 85,000 Under construction. 67,000 Do. 60, 000 Pending release. 75, 000 Completed. 27, 100

Do. 125, 000 Under construction.

92, 347 Completed. 140,000 Pending release. 35,000 Under construction, 90, 000 Do. 60, 000

Do. 25, 000

Do. 75, 000 Pending release. 42, 500 Do. 130, 000 Do.

89, 360 Do. 100,000

Do. 40,000 Do.

1, 472

Total.
Total.

162, 585
22, 127

[blocks in formation]

3 New water-works systems were installed simultaneously with new sewer systems.

TABLE II.-Summary of table I, parts 1 and 2, Mar. 15, 1937

[blocks in formation]

(a) New sewage-disposal works:

Completed or under construction, P. W. A.
Completed or under construction, W. P. A.
Pending allocation, P. W. A..
Pending release, W. P. A.
Completed or under construction, P. W. A. and W. P. A.
Pending allocation or release, P. W. A. and W. P. A.-

Total.
(6) Improvements and additions to existing sewage disposal works:

Completed or under construction, P. W. A.
Completed or under construction, W. P. A.
Pending allocation, P. W. A.-
Pending release, W. P. A.
Completed or under construction, P. W. A. and W. P. A
Pending allocation or release, P. W. A. and W. P. A..

Total
(c) New sanitary sewer systems, including sewage disposal works:

Completed or under construction, P. W. A.
Completed or under construction, W. P. A
Pending allocation, P. W.A.
Pending release, W. P. A.
Completed or under construction, P. W. A. and W. P. A.
Pending allocation or release, P. W. A. and W. P. A.

Total.

[blocks in formation]

TABLE III.-Sewage-treatment improvements in Ohio constructed prior to Federal

aid programs and during 6-year interval, 1928–33

[blocks in formation]

Mr. WARING. Now, I thought that I would want to give, in relation to the second phase of our effort, something in connection with the cooperation with industry. In the surveys of 1923 and 1925, in Ohio, we enlisted the cooperation of industry. We found that they were very recipient to the cooperative method of attack. The enactment of the 1925 stream-pollution law of Ohio was endorsed by the industries, and resulted in the formation of a committee of the industries to work closely with our State sanitary engineers, in carrying out of the processes or changes in the processes or the installation of works to minimize pollution. We made rapid strides from 1925 until 1929. Since 1929 and 1930, due to the depression conditions, the industries have not been able to keep pace with the municipal improvements in our State.

As recently as this year, or as recently as last October, the Manufacturers' Association of Ohio, at their own initiation, requested me and requested Mr. Torbert of the United States Public Health Service to sit with them as a committee of the whole, so they could formulate plans to undertake immediately on industrial pollution in Ohio. I want to submit that as testimony that the industry is both willing and anxious to deal cooperatively with the authorities that are constituted to act upon this matter, and they have expressed to me that they favor this method of approach which they are using and which they are used to in our own State; and therefore, they have indicated, and I believe there is some testimony to insert here, that they are in favor of H. R. 2711.

The CHAIRMAN. What type of industries in your State principally contribute to the pollution of your streams?

Mr. WARING. We have a varied industrial situation. I would say possibly the steel industry is the largest one. Their pollution problem has been twofold: One of them has been mentioned by Mr. Tisdale, namely, the operation of the byproduct coke oven, in conjunction with their steel manufacturing. The byproduct coke industry used to produce a phenolic constituent in their waste, which was very injurious to the domestic water supply. For example, the waste from that sort of operation in Youngstown could and did ruin the Cincinnati water supply, a distance by river of possibly 500 miles.

At the instigation of our director of health, the late Dr. John Monger, the steel industry, together with the United States Public Health Service, sat around the table and decided, no matter what the cost, to eliminate that type of waste; and the late Judge Gary, by his own order, required all of the United States Steel corporations, and the subsidiaries thereof, to put into effect such a new process

The CHAIRMAN. That was a national problem at that time?
Mr. WARING. Yes, and his order was national in effect.
The CHAIRMAN. That was an acid that they used?

Mr. Waring. No. It was a paste-producing ingredient as it affected our water supply.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, while those things are very deleterious, is it not a fact that they will produce disease germs?

Mr. WARING. They will not, in that concentration. For example, a chemist has great difficulty in detecting the amount of phenolic acid which would cause you to refuse to drink the water of about one part in 50 million. That would be enough to cause a nauseating taste in the water, and a chemist would have difficulty in isolating that amount of phenol. Accompanied by the chlorine which we use in our water-purification process, that material is saturated about three times, making the problem most difficult to deal with.

The last thing I wish to talk about is the effort we recently made to cope with the interstate problem. As I mentioned at the outset, I am secretary of the Ohio Valley Treaty Conference. As soon as the Citron bill was effected, the Governor of Ohio issued a call or invitation to the Governors of the adjoining States, and all of those in the Ohio Valley, to send representatives to confer over ways and means that could be adopted to make more effective the control of stream pollution as it affected the Ohio River. A conference then of the delegates was held at Cincinnati November 20, 1936. At that conference there were representatives from Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania. These men were duly authorized by their respective governors to meet and initiate steps that would lead possibly toward interstate compacts. I will submit in the record there a list of those persons that gathered on this first effort toward an interstate compact in the Ohio River Valley.

One of the things that that compact committee determined upon was the necessity and wisdom of creating a subcommittee that would launch into the work of perfecting a tentative draft of interstate compact. That subcommittee was designated, and duly met at Louisville on December 18. I have here a copy of the tentative draft as prepared by that subcommittee. It is pertinent to state that we studied what literature there was upon the subject, and we did pattern this tentative

139603–37-16

draft largely upon the tri-State treaty of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and the efforts of the Delaware compact group, which have met, but have not yet made a compact. The personnel which met at Louisville is included in this memorandum which I am here submitting in evidence.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Ohio VALLEY TREATY CONFERENCE, HOTEL NETHERLAND-PLAZA,

CINCINNATI, NOVEMBER 20, 1936, 10 A. M.

INDIANA COMMISSIONERS

Present: W. H. Frazier, assistant director, division of public health, State department of commerce and industries representing Indiana commission.

Absent: Kenneth M. Kunkel, director, fish and game division, State conservation department and assistant commissioner ce servation department, and John W. Wheeler, member, Indiana State Highway Commission and chairman, State planning board.

ILLINOIS-REPRESENTATIVES

Present: C. W. Klassen, technical secretary, Illinois State Sanitary Water Board, chief engineer, Illinois State Department of Health; and C. B. Casey, chief, bureau of rivers and lakes control, division of waterways.

KENTUCKY-COMMISSIONERS

Present: Tom Wallace, chairman, editor, Louisville Times, Louisville, Ky.;F. C. Dugan, Kentucky State sanitary engineer, Louisville, Ky.; Forrest J. Alvin, executive secretary, chamber of commerce, Covington, Ky.

Guests: Hon. Neville Miller, mayor, Louisville, Ky.; Dr. Hugh R. Leavell, director of health, city of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.

NEW YORK-DELEGATE

Present: C. A. Holmquist, chief engineer, New York Department of Health, representing New York commission.

COMMISSIONERS

Absent: Frederick Stuart Greene, superintendent of public works; Edward S. Godfrey, Jr., commissioner of health; and Hon. Ogden J. Ross, state senator, chairman, New York State Flood Control Commission.

OHIO-COMMISSIONERS

Present: William F. Wiley, chairman, editor, Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, Ohio; F. E. Sheehan, city manager, city of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Ohio; Fred H. Waring, chief engineer, department of health, State of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio.

Guest: Hudson Biery, chairman, committee on stream pollution, Cincinnati, chamber of commerce.

PENNSYLVANIA-REPRESENTATIVES

Present: Charles Ryder, chief engineer, department of forests and waters, State of Pennsylvania; W. L. Stevenson, chief engineer, department of health, State of Pennsylvania.

TENNESSEE Not represented.

WEST VIRGINIA Not represented. SUGGESTED FORM FOR AN Ohio VALLEY WATER SANITATION

COMPACT

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The following proposed water-sanitation compact between States in the Ohio Valley was prepared by a subcommittee authorized by Ohio Valley Treaty Conference at its organization meeting held in Cincinnati on November 20, 1936. This subcommittee met in Louisville, Ky., December 18, 1936, and those attending any or all of the deliberations were: C. A. Holmquist, New York; E. S. Tisdale, West Virginia ; F. H. Waring, Hudson Biery, Ohio; W. H. Frazier, Indiana; F. C. Dugan, Tom Wallace, Kentucky; C. W. Klassen, Illinois; R. E. Tarbett, Washington, D. C.; and J. K. Hoskins, Cincinnati, representing United States Public Health Service. This proposed compact will now be laid before the entire group in the Ohio Valley conference at its second meeting to be held in Louisville, Ky., the latter part of January 1937.

F. H. WARING, Temporary Secretary. Whereas a substantial part of the territory of each of the signatory States is situated within the drainage basin of the Ohio River; and

Whereas the rapid increase in the population of the various metropolitan areas situated within the Ohio drainage basin, and the growth in industrial activity within that area, have resulted in recent years in an increasingly serious pollution of the waters and streams within the said drainage basin, constituting a grave menace to the health, welfare, and recreational facilities of the people living in such basin, and occasioning great economic loss; and

Whereas the control of future pollution and the abatement of existing pollution in the waters of said basin are of prime importance to the people thereof, and can best be accomplished through the cooperation of the States situated therein, by and through a joint or common agency;

Now, therefore, the States of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois do hereby covenant and agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

Each of the signatory States pledges to each of the other signatory States faithful cooperation in the control of future pollution in and abatement of existing pollution from the rivers, streams, and waters which flow into or border upon any of such signatory States, and in

« ForrigeFortsett »