* “*” ------.
| D issue
ENaIN.
TD
52.5
N 5.
A 9.5
1411 b |
- /
- -
|


#####
،ĒĒĒĖĘĘ
§§§§§§§§§§
ſae§§× × × × ×ºsas
、、。-ae|×
ſº§§&#####
ſºſ?!!！， ， ， ， ， ，，，，-
ĒĒĒĒĒ�######§§§
|-，，...，∞， ∞; ∞, ∞ : x， ºrºſ！！！
§§§##############
Ē№
■&=&= º******
∞∞， ∞
#####ğ˧§。*ş
& ſ -- ***！ ！！！■**
§*
§ （1）
-，####§§§
2&§§§§§©®°¶ ¡ ¿
#######
&=&
######
ĢĒ#####2

-- " - ... - - * --> - º **
- - * ~ * - tºº,
*. . - - *. •. ‘. . . - - - *.*.
-- * ~ * • . . . . . ." . - . . . . . . . . . . ; - - *~!yºff
-- ~~~ AS
sº tººlean, '' . .
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT |
- ---. on the -r
. . . DISPOSAL OF NEW YORK'S SEWAGE
CRITICAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK SEWER PLAN | .
COMMISSION ON THE PLANS OF MAIN DRAINAGE
AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROPOSED FOR NEW $º
YORK BY THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE ||… . . . .
COMMISSION AND REPLY THERETO
-- --- ... <
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION -
OF NEW YORK -
GEORGE A. SOPER -
*- JAMES H. FUERTES
*. H. de B. PARSONS Commissioners -
- CHARLES SOOYSMITH
* JUNE 30, 1914 LINSLY R. WILLIAMS
















SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
O N THE
DISPOSAL OF NEW YORK's SEWAGE
CRITICAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK SEWER PLAN
COMMISSION ON THE PLANS OF MAIN DRAINAGE
AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROPOSED FOR NEW
YORK BY THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
COMMISSION AND REPLY THERETO
wºº (sº), METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION
* * - - OF NEW YORK
GEORGE A. SOPER
JAMES H. FUERTES
H. de B. PARSONS Commissioners
CHARLES SOOYSMITH
JUNE 30, 1914 LINSLY R. WILLIAMS
CRITICAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK SEWER PLAN COMMISSION
ON THE PLANS OF MAIN DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PROPOSED FOR NEW YORK BY THE
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION
AND REPLY THERETO
HONORABLE JOHN PURROY MITCHEL,
Mayor, City of New York.
SIR:
From 1910 to 1914 the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission was engaged in making plans of main
drainage and sewage disposal for New York City.” This work was based on the investigations which the
Commission had made from its creation in 1906; to the publication of its formal report of April, 1910.
To facilitate the planning, the city was separated into four great divisions, according to the principal
drainage areas which were tributary to the chief divisions of the harbor. The works for each division were
prepared with the object of preserving the harbor in that degree of cleanness which the Commission and
its various expert advisers considered necessary and sufficient in view of the digestive capacity of the waters
and the uses to which the harbor was put.f
When a plan for any considerable part of the city approached completion, the engineers in charge of
the local sewerage systems which would be tributary to the new works were invited to the Commission's
office in order to discuss the plans and give the Commission the benefit of their criticism. In some cases
the plans were materially altered in order to meet the views of the Sewer Bureaus. The plans were then
printed and copies of the reports containing them were distributed in order to give early information con-
cerning the projects which the Commission expected to recommend in its final report.
At various times the Commission employed consulting experts to criticize the various projects which
the Commission had prepared and it was partly on the advice so received that some of the more important
projects were decided upon. The critical reports of the experts were published and distributed. §
At the beginning of the last year of its existence, the Commission undertook to obtain for the work
such benefit as could be rendered by the consulting engineers of the several boroughs. The efforts made to
secure co-operation consisted, first, of a conference with the consulting engineers. On this occasion the con-
sulting engineers expressed their willingness to co-operate, but stated that they could not do so unless au-
thorized by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. With the object of obtaining the necessary permis-
sion, a second conference was held at the request of the Commission. The invitation was extended by the
Borough President of Manhattan and the meeting took place at his office. All the Borough Presidents
were requested to attend, but only the President of the Borough of Manhattan was there in person. The
consulting engineers and the members of the Metropolitan Commission were present. At this meeting the
Metropolitan Commission explained its work, renewed its request for co-operation and suggested that steps
be taken by the Board of Estimate to give the consulting engineers the needed permission to assist the
Commission in completing its plans.
*Preliminary Reports"I to VII, inclusive, Sept. 1911–Feb. 1913.
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of April 30, 1914.
fMetropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of April 30, 1910.
fMetropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of August 1, 1912. * r * -- {
§Metropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of August 1, 1912. - *-
4.
At the meeting of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment following the conference held in the office
of the Borough President of Manhattan, a resolution was introduced, appointing the consulting engineers
and the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate a Commission to make main drainage and sewage disposal
plans for the city. This was on June 26, 1913.
The appointment of the city engineers to form a new Commission to undertake work which the
Metropolitan Commission had nearly completed was not understood by the latter, and a letter was sent to
the Borough President of Manhattan on July 21st to inquire if a mistake had not inadvertently been made.
This letter recited the reasons which had led the Metropolitan Commission to invite the help of the con-
sulting engineers and described the incidents which preceded the formation of the new Commission. A
reply was received to the effect that there had been no mistake, the object of creating the new Commission
being to provide for the co-operation desired by creating a semi-official body representing specifically the
different boroughs. The letter stated: “I recognize that with the filing of the final report of your Com-
mission will come the next, and very important, stage of the city’s sewerage plan, that of construction.”
A letter was sent by the Metropolitan Commission to the members of the Board of Estimate and Appor-
tionment on March 18, 1914, inviting attention to the plans of main drainage and sewage disposal made
by the Metropolitan Commission and stating that in a report to the Mayor, dated January 7, 1914, the
Metropolitan Commission had recommended that a new Commission be at once created, or an existing Com-
mission designated, to proceed with the detailed study of plans which should form part of the construction
of the necessary works. The Board of Estimate was informed that the members of the Metropolitan Com-
mission had placed their resignations in the hands of the Mayor to take effect as soon as their final report
could be completed, which, it was expected, would not be later than April 30, 1914.” There was appended
to this letter a condensed statement of the Commission’s investigations, findings and conclusions, plans for
main drainage and sewage disposal works and scheme of administration for construction and maintenance.
At a special meeting of the Board of Estimate held on April 14, 1914, the work of the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission, and particularly its plans for main drainage and sewage disposal, were criticized
by the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate, the Consulting Engineer of the Borough of Manhattan
and the Chief Engineer of the Sewer Bureau of Brooklyn, representing the Sewer Plan Commission, which
had been created by the Board of Estimate on June 26, 1913. It was stated that sufficient time had not
been afforded in which to prepare an adequate criticism of the Metropolitan Commission’s work. The
Board of Estimate requested that the criticisms of the city engineers be submitted in writing at a meeting
to be held later.
At the meeting of the Board of Estimate held about one month later, that is, on May 18th, a printed
report of the city engineers criticizing the work of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission was presented and
the conclusions which were appended to it were discussed. The meeting was then adjourned until the
essential points of disagreement contained in the report could be defined and submitted for discussion to
the Board of Estimate.
Two meetings between the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and the city engineers were held in ac-
cordance with this arrangement.
The first meeting, held on June 1, showed that the main points of disagreement were upon the three
following questions:
J. *#. report, with the matured plans for works and much additional information, was delivered by the printer
Ulně 3. is
5
1. Is it desirable to include a specific reference to oxygen in the standard of cleanness for the waters
of the harbor 2 -
2. Are the Metropolitan Commission's plans for the relief of the Lower East river and Harlem
suitable for adoption?
3. To what extent is it practicable and desirable to construct settling basins in the built-up sec-
tions of the city?
At the conclusion of the meeting it seemed possible to eliminate the oxygen question as a point of
difference. The Metropolitan Commission thereupon suggested the possibility that further conferences
might result in the elimination of all the disagreements and proposed that the Commission and the city
engineers should meet again if a substantially complete agreement seemed possible.
A second meeting was held at the office of the Metropolitan Commission on June 11 for the purpose
of discussing the question of settling basins in the built-up parts of the city and the measures of relief
suitable for the Lower East river and Harlem. At this second meeting it appeared that the Metropolitan
Commission and the city engineers could make little additional headway toward an agreement without
going into many details for which there was not time before the first of July, when the Metropolitan
Commission expected to go out of existence.
As a result of the conferences, it was decided to submit to the Board of Estimate a statement of the
three most important points of difference and a brief memorandum of the arguments in favor of, and against,
each point. These were not all the points of difference which existed between the Metropolitan Com-
mission and the city engineers. In the critical report upon the Metropolitan Commission's plans, sub-
mitted by the city engineers on May 15, 1914, there were over 100 misstatements or points of disagreement.
The three points of disagreement which it seemed desirable to bring before the Board of Estimate,
with the essential arguments relating to them, here follow:
THE OxYGEN SPECIFICATION IN THE STANDARD OF CLEANNESS
The Metropolitan Commission, in its report of August, 1912, recommended a standard of cleanness
for the waters of New York harbor. The terms of this standard were based largely on the Commission’s
studies of the condition of the water and the need of improving that condition. In arriving at its opinion,
the Commission obtained the advice of eight experts especially qualified to consult in regard to the degree
of permissible pollution, as considered from the standpoint of public health and decency. The standard
which was formulated and the experts’ reports were printed in August, 1912, and are contained in the
second of the three large volumes of reports which the Metropolitan Commission has issued.
The standard, as originally drafted, included the minimum amount of oxygen which was, in the com.
mission’s opinion, permissible for the harbor waters. Further studies carried on during a period of two
years have convinced the Metropolitan Commission that it is not necessary or desirable to state a specific
limit to the oxygen which may be present. The Commission is convinced that if the other requirements of
the standard are complied with, there will be sufficient oxygen in the water. In fact the function of the
oxygen is largely to permit the other specifications of the standard to be realized. The omission of the
oxygen specification is in accordance with the opinions of the last two consulting experts employed by
the Commission and has their endorsement.*
* Metropolitan Sewerage Commission's Report of April 30, 1914, p. 612 et seq.
6
The city engineers advise the retention of a specification with respect to oxygen and would have it
vary in different parts of the harbor and be lower than any minimum heretofore proposed, but it has been
impossible in the conferences which have been held between the Metropolitan Commission and the city en-
- gineers to obtain a statement of the amount of oxygen which the city engineers consider necessary and
sufficient. -
It seems impracticable to the Metropolitan Commission to maintain different standards in the different
parts of the harbor for the reason that the waters flow to a considerable extent from one to another and
all vary considerably at different seasons of year.
SETTLING BASINS IN THE BUILT-UP SECTIONs of THE CITY
During a large part of its work of planning a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for
New York, attention was given to the extent to which it would be permissible to employ settling basins
for the partial purification of the sewage. As a result, works employing settling basins have been rec-
ommended by the Metropolitan Commission for the following places: Wards Island, Tallmans Island,
Clason Point, Barren Island, Jo Cos Marsh and the ocean island. The Commission is opposed to the use
of Settling basins in built-up sections. - - -
In considering the permissibility of using settling basins, the following investigations were made:
1. Studies for basins in various situations, including the following: (a) Along the waterfront be-
neath the marginal streets; (b) in the parks; (c) in side streets; (d) on property to be acquired
for the purpose.
2. The possibility of building settling basins (a) wholly beneath the street surfaces was inquired
into, as was the practicability of constructing them so as to operate (b) under and (c) without the in-
fluence of the tidal movements in the harbor.
3. Various types of settling basins were considered, including (a) Imhoff tanks ; (b) Dortmund
tanks; (c) shallow depth settling basins.
4. Study was given to structural questions relating to settling basins and especially to (a) the
cost of construction and (b) interference with other structures beneath the streets.
5. The impracticability of expanding a system of main drainage employing a large number of locally
placed settling basins into a more effective system in case of necessity was carefully noted.
6. The probability that offensive odors would be produced by settling basins was discussed and the
likelihood that popular objection would be aroused to works employing settling basins in the built-up
sections was considered.
7. The inefficiency of various types of settling basin was investigated and consideration was given to
(a) the gases produced, (b) sludge formed and (c) the final disposition of the sludge.
8. In order to obtain the most recent and reliable information possible concerning the use of settling
basins, (a) visits were made by a member of the Commission to about twenty of the most important sew-
age installations in Europe and America; (b) the inventor of the latest marked improvement in the form
of settling basins was called in consultation and made a report to the Metropolitan Commission; and (c)
the opinion of the engineers of the City of Philadelphia, where settling basins had been made the subject
of special study, was obtained. -
As a result of all this investigation, the Metropolitan Commission arrived at the opinion that it would
be undesirable to construct settling basins in the built-up sections of the city and that such structures were
7
neither necessary from the standpoint of the disposal of the sewage nor defensible upon sanitary grounds.
The conferences failed to bring from the city engineers any doſinite plans for the use of settling basins
in the built-up sections of the city.
PROTECTION OF THE EAST RIVER AND HARLEM RIVER
A large part of the argument advanced by the city engineers against the Commission’s projects for
the relief of the Lower East river and Harlem was based upon the opinion of the city engineers that settling
basins could and should be constructed in the built-up sections of the city. Consequently some part of the
argument just stated relating to settling basins applies here.
Objection was made by the city engineers against the Commission’s recommendation to build intercep-
tors along the Manhattan and Brooklyn shores, to carry the sewage to screening plants at a point in the
Lower East river, these plants later to be connected by siphon, and the 200 million gallons of sewage
which would be tributary to them to be carried by a tunnel to an island at sea.
Objection was made to practically every feature of this part of the Metropolitan Commission’s project.
No carefully worked out alternative was proposed. It did not appear that the city engineers had prepared a
definite project which might serve as an alternative to the project recommended by the Metropolitan Com-
mission. The nearest approach to definiteness was in the suggestion for an interceptor along the Brooklyn
waterfront to extend to an island to be constructed south of Governors Island. At this island settling basins
would be located and the sewage would be discharged into the neighboring waters. It was not claimed that
the line to be followed by this interceptor or its length had been determined.
The principal objections which the Metropolitan Commission finds to the scheme are (a) lack of pro-
tection to the Lower East river; to take 200 million gallons from the Brooklyn shore and discharge it at
Governors Island after settlement, allowing the Manhattan sewage to discharge either in raw condition or
by screening or sedimentation would not be equivalent to removing 100 million gallons of sewage from
the Manhattan shore and the same quantity from the Brooklyn shore and sending it to sea, as proposed by
the Commission. (b) The project would not afford a final solution of the problem of disposing of the
sewage of that part of Manhattan which is tributary to the Lower East river. (c) To extend the works
so as to afford a greater protection to the water would be prohibitive from the standpoint of cost.
(d) Assuming the efficiency of the settling basins as 30 per cent., there would be discharged about 70 per
cent. of the polluting materials which would be discharged into the water if no works were built. (e)
Further objection lies in the fact that the point of discharge would be within about two miles of the Passaic
Valley sewer outfall to which New York has objected for years and concerning which there is a law suit
now pending in the United States Supreme Court. The Passaic Valley sewer is expected to discharge 304
million gallons of sewage per twenty-four hours. To this quantity would be added the effluent from the
new island, amounting to 200 million gallons per day. These two great loads of sewage would prove to
be an excessive burden. (f) Another objection to the construction of a sewage island in the inner harbor
would be odor. It is not possible, in the opinion of the Metropolitan Commission, to settle and discharge
200 million gallons of sewage at a point immediately south of Governors Island without producing odors
which would be seriously objectionable to the heavy water traffic in the immediate vicinity. (g) The cost
of collecting 200 million gallons of sewage from the Brooklyn waterfront and disposing of it on an island
to be built south of Governors Island has been estimated by the Metropolitan Commission at about
8
$10,000,000 and the annual charges at about $780,000. If it became necessary in course of time to afford
greater protection to the harbor than these works made possible, the next step presumably would be the
construction of a tunnel to the ocean. The entire ocean outlet project, as proposed by the city engineers,
would then be over $4,500,000 more expensive than the ocean island project of the Metropolitan Com-
mission.
For the relief of the Harlem, the city engineers proposed a scheme whereby as much as possible of the
sewage of Upper Manhattan be diverted from the East river and Harlem to the Hudson river and the
sewage of the Lower Bronx partly into the Hudson and partly into the Upper East river at Hunts Point
or Rikers Island. No scheme for this territory has been described in detail and it was not brought out in
the conferences that any careful planning and estimating had been done by the city engineers in connection
with it. The Commission's project of concentrating the sewage from the same territory at Wards Island
for treatment and discharge was criticized in practically every respect.
The project to carry to the Hudson that part of the sewage of Upper Manhattan, which is naturally
tributary to the Harlem river and Hell Gate, requires the construction of a number of tunnels and these,
according to the city engineers' report, would discharge about 300 million gallons per day into the Hudson
within a distance of about three miles. In the opinion of the Commission, serious popular objection would
be aroused in regard to this scheme. The Hudson from 72nd Street to Spuyten Duyvil is practically all
park with high shores from which such relatively small discharges of sewage as now take place are too
plainly visible. The water is polluted and must eventually receive at least 100 million gallons of sewage
per day chiefly from that part of Manhattan which lies to the south of the proposed tunnels. To multiply
the pollution of the Hudson river at its most picturesque and attractive point would be to invite serious
public criticism. The discharges would have to take place comparatively close to the Manhattan shore, inas-
much as the most rapid currents exist there. Otherwise the outlets would have to be carried to an exces-
sive depth.
As to cost, the report of the city engineers gives no figures and it does not appear that any definite
layout for works has been considered. It is proposed to build, in connection with the diversion of the
sewage to the Hudson, a new system of collecting sewers, the present sewers being eliminated and in their
place a system of storm water drains being laid close beneath the surface of the streets and a system of
sewers for household sewage constructed deep underground.
It seems unnecessary for the Commission to enter into a detailed discussion of this project. It may
be of service, however, to point out that the reconstruction of the sewerage system of Upper Manhattan in the
manner proposed would be costly and the interference with the commercial and other activities of the pop-
ulation resulting from the tearing up of streets and alterations to the plumbing of the houses would be
large. According to estimates furnished to the Commission by several plumbers familiar with such work,
to reconstruct the present plumbing of a house on a 25-foot lot in Manhattan, north of 110th Street, with
the proposed system of sewers would cost a little more than $400.
The cost of diverting all the sewage of Upper Manhattan and a part of the Bronx to the Hudson river
and of carrying to Hunts Point for disposal the sewage of that part of the Bronx to the east of Hell Gate,
in accordance with the plan proposed by the city engineers, would involve more expense than the Commis-
sion's project for the disposal of the sewage of the same territory and would, in the opinion of the Com-
mission, arouse serious public protest against the pollution of the Hudson river.
9
No part of the Metropolitan Commission’s work has received more repeated, thorough and impartial
investigation by eminent consulting experts than the works proposed for the Lower East river and Harlem.
In their present form they have the unqualified endorsement of John D. Watson and Gilbert J. Fowler
of England and Rudolph Hering and George W. Fuller of New York. f -
Respectfully, ... • .
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION,
GEORGE A. SoPER, President,
JAMES H. Furtes, Secretary,
H. DE B. PARSONS,
CHARLEs SooYSMITH,
LINSLY R. WILLIAMs.
THE REPORT IN FULL AND SPECIFIG REPLIES THERETo
CRITICAL REPORT
May 15, 1914.
Honorable Board of Estimate and Apportionment,
City of New York:
Gentlemen—The Chief Engineer of the Board of
Estimate and Apportionment and the Consulting
Engineers of the Boroughs, constituting the New
York Sewer Plan Commission, have been asked to
criticize the plan of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission for protecting the harbor of New York from
pollution. In the short time available' it has not
been possible to go into such detail as would be de-
sirable, but we simply have described briefly the
scheme as we understand it in its latest form, stated
in what respects it is concurred in by us and presented
a frank statement of criticisms and suggestions for
alternative schemes.
The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, as at
present constituted, is composed of five members
and has been employed continuously for a period of
six years at an expense to the City of about $250,000
in an endeavor to find the most suitable solution of
this problem. Previous to its appointment, the New
York Bay Pollution Commission and an earlier Met-
ropolitan Sewerage Commission had together been
engaged upon the same problem for five years. It
is reasonable to suppose that in this period of ap-
proximately eleven years every question relating to
this problem has been carefully considered and that
all investigations which have a bearing on it have
been made. It is understood that in addition to the
voluminous reports which have been published, a
mass of data has been collected which has neither
been published nor otherwise made accessible.”
A formidable array of scientific counsel has been
employed. Each is an expert in his own specialty
and his opinion upon subjects within the range of
his particular investigations is undoubtedly worthy
of respect. A number of these experts are profes-
sors of chemistry and bacteriology and one is a
doctor of medicine, but only three or four are sani-
tary engineers and experts who are fully equipped
to advise upon the whole problem in all its scientific
features.” Two of the latter, whose advice is of
especial value, were employed only a few months
ago.
REPLIES
* About five weeks were consumed in writing this
criticism. The plans of the Metropolitan Commis-
sion were practically all published and distributed
between September, 1911, and February, 1913. The
Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate, who is the
Chairman of the Sewer Plan Commission, had made
a long report to the Board of Estimate on the Metro-
politan Commission’s work in March, 1913. See
City Record, April 18, 1913.
The Commission’s work had been given wide cir-
culation through many public addresses and technical
papers.
* All the information in the possession of the Met-
ropolitan Commission has always been accessible to
the engineers of the city. See Foreword to Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission’s Report of April 30,
1910, page 5.
* The experts were employed to answer specific
questions upon which the Metropolitan Commission’s
work was to be based.*
*For reports of Experts, see Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission's Report of August 1, 1912, pages 80 to 168.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 11
Plan Proposed by Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
Sion.
In some of its features the Metropolitan Com-
mission’s plan agrees with what sanitary engineers
employed by the City and others familiar with the
situation here have, for a long time, recognized as
the most feasible methods of treatment, in others
it does not commend itself to them.
Information regarding the plan as now proposed
by the Metropolitan Commission has been obtained
from statements made at the conference before the
Board of Estimate on April 14, 1914; the letter
from Dr. G. A. Soper, President, Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission, to Chief Engineer Lewis of the
Board of Estimate and Apportionment, dated April
16, 1914; and the letter from the Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission to the members of the Board of
Estimate, dated March 18, 1914. Copies of the two
letters are appended. The plan, as interpreted from
this fragmentary information, including its most
recent modifications, is briefly outlined in the follow-
ing table and shown on the attached sketch.*
* Full, not fragmentary, information was available.
In addition to the sources of information stated, there
should be mentioned the following official reports of
the Metropolitan Commission: “Sewerage and Sew-
age Disposal in the Metropolitan District of New
York and New Jersey,” April 30, 1910, 550 pages;
“Present Sanitary Condition of New York Harbor
and the Degree of Cleanness Necessary and Sufficient
for the Water,” August, 1912, 457 pages; Prelim-
inary Reports I to XVII, inclusive, issued between
September, 1911, and March, 1914, about 575 pages.
Also the following conferences attended by the Con-
sulting Engineers of the Boroughs and the members
of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and at
which the subject for discussion was the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission’s work: June 3, 1913, at the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s office; June 19,
1913, at the office of Borough President of Man-
hattan. The only material alteration made in the
Commission’s plans since the publication of Prelim-
inary Report VI, dealing with the Lower East river
project has been to separate the Lower East river
project into two parts, the first to be constructed
immediately and the second to be deferred until its
necessity becomes apparent. See Letter from the
President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission
to the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and
Apportionment, dated April 16, 1914, Appendix I
of the City Engineers’ Critical Report.
12
Program of Construction and Estimate of Cost of the Main Drainage Works
No. Structure.
First Stage.
A Manhattan-East Riverinterceptor, Broadst. to 26th st., pump station, submerged outfall and screening
plant at Corlears Hook. Brooklyn-East River interceptor, Huron to Classon ave., pump station
and screening plant at S. 5th St. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B Lower East River, isolated screening plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C Wards Island works, first installation. Manhattan interceptor, 106th st. to 148th st., Bronx, Brook
ave.-149th St., pump station and treatment plant (to last until 1920). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e e
D Northwestern Queens works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … … • * @ tº e e º & © e ..
Total, first stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . .
Second Stage.
A-1 Ocean Island-East River siphon, pumping station, etc
A-2 Western Jamaica Bay interceptors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B More isolated screening plants, Manhattan and Brooklyn
1 Tallmans Island works, first installation
2 Classon Point works, first installation
3 Jo Cos Marsh works, first installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Richmond works. . . . . . . . . . . * * - © e º 'º e º e e º 'º e º 'º e º e º e º e o e º 'o e s e º e o e º e º e e s e º e e º e a e s e e e s a e e s e s e s e e s e
D Wards Island works, complete installation -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * c e s e e e º e o e e e e e e º e e s s a
* * * * * * * * * * * * c e s e < e e a e s s a e e s e e e s e e s e e a s e
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e. e. e. e. e. e s e a • e s a s • e e. e. e. e. a . e. e. e.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * s • * * * * * * * * * e s s e e s e s e e e s e e s a e e s e e s e s e a e e e s e e
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -s e e s e e s e e o e s e e s s e e
- Total second stage.…. & 6 º' e º e e º e g º e º e º e o º
Total to about 1925. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
Third Stage.
A-1 Tallman's Island, complete installation....... 's e e º 'º e o 'º e º & . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Jo Cos Marsh, complete installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B Northeastern Queens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to dº e º 'o e º e e
Grand total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~e e s e e s • * * * * * * * * * * *
Compiled from: (W) Statements at hearing before Board of Estimate, April 14, 1914; (X) Letter Dr
of the Board of Estimate, March 18, 1914; (Z) Preliminary reports of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
13
for New York City Proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.
When to Be Built. Cost. Cost Obtained From.
At once (W) (X). . . . . . . . . . . $4,095,000 00 (X).
At once (X). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710,000 00 (X).
At same time or immediately
thereafter. Completed be-
fore 1920 (W) (X). . . . . . . . 5,000,000 00 (Y).
Same time as Wards Island
(W). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352,000 00 (Z).
* * 6 tº e º º ſº e º 'º e º ºs e º ºs e e g tº e s e º a $10,157,000 00
To be completed in 1925 (X) $14,000,000 00
To be completed in 1925 (X) 4,000,000 00
To be completed in 1925 (X) 4,200,000 00
Begin before 1925 (X)....... 1,285,000 00
Begin before 1925 (X)....... 708,000 00
Begin before 1925 (X)....... 1,100,000 00
Begin before 1925 (X). . . . . . . 841,000 00
About 1925 (see First Stage
C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,814,000 00
* * * * * * * * * * * g & e º e º 6 s g º dº e º 6 e $30,948,000 00
* † tº € 3 g g º e º gº & © e 9 & & g º ºs e º gº & © & $41,105,000 00
6 g º e 9 & & e º e º e a 6 e s 6 & & it is tº 3 e º & 676,000 00
e o e o e s & e º e º e º e s & 6 & © o e º 9 s a w 1,183,000 00
6 o' g e s is © tº e s e e s G e o e g g e º e º a 6 e 563,000 00
© e º g tº gº º s. º º cº e º is tº gº 9 s ſº º e º e º o gº $43,527,000 00
17,500,000 (X) minus 3,500,000 assumed cost of interceptors.
(X).
(X).
(Y).
(Z).
(Y).
(Z).
9,814,000 (z) minus 5,000,000 (First stage C).
(Z) minus Second Stage C-1.
(Z) minus Second Stage C-3.
(Z).
Soper to Chief Engineer Lewis, April 16, 1914; (Y) Letter Metropolitan Sewerage Commission to Members
mission.
14 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
Apparently there are some Omissions in the pro-
gramme as outlined in the correspondence. There
is no mention of the Northwestern and Northeastern
Queens Works, nor is it stated when the remainder
of the Wards Island Works will be installed. The
cost of some of the other works shown on the sketch
is not given.
It has been assumed that the Wards Island Works
will be completed in the second stage (the first
stage being required to be completed before 1920),
that the cost of works, where not otherwise given,
would be as stated in the various preliminary reports
of the Metropolitan Commission, and that some
, works shown on the sketch and estimated in the pre-
liminary reports, but for which no date for construc-
tion has been given, would be deferred until a third
stage.
It is not clear whether the estimates include the
cost of land.” If not, about $5,000,000 should be
added to the estimate. At the hearing on April 14,
1914, Dr. Soper stated that the total cost of all of the
works planned was estimated at $51,459,000. There
is also the possible additional tunnel from Wards
Island to Ocean Island, which would probably cost
not less than $25,000,000 in addition to the above
figures.”
In order to describe more fully the scheme of the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, it is here divided
into its five most important features:
1—Standard of Cleanness:
A standard of cleanness for the waters of the har-
bor is to be maintained by means of proposed works
or by such other means as are deemed necessary by
a proposed State and Federal Commission. This
standard is as follows:"
(1) Garbage, offal or solid matter recognizable
as of sewage origin shall not be visible in any of
the harbor waters.
(2) Marked discoloration or turbidity, efferves-
cence, oily sleek, odor or deposits due to sewage or
trade wastes shall not occur except perhaps in
the immediate vicinity of sewer outfalls and then
only to such an extent and in such places as may
be permitted by the authority having jurisdiction
over the sanitary condition of the harbor.
(3) The discharge of sewage shall not materi-
ally contribute to the formation of deposits injuri-
ous to navigation.
(4) (This section has been recently aban-
doned.)8 Except in the immediate vicinity of
docks and piers and sewer outfalls the dissolved
* The cost of land is included in the Lower East
River, Hudson and Bay Division. In the others the
larger plants (Wards Island and Barren Island and
Jo Co.'s Marsh) would be on land now owned by the
City or State. Probably $500,000 would cover the
cost of land for the other plants.
° The construction of an additional tunnel, if re-
quired at all, would be deferred to such a remote
period as to make its inclusion in the present esti-
mates unwarranted. See Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, page 39. See
also reply to criticism 10.
* The standard was proposed not as a rigid code of
laws, but rather as a statement of conditions which,
with suitable modifications and interpretations in the
various parts of the harbor, it will be desirable to
keep in mind in designing the main drainage works.
See City Engineers’ Critical Report, “Matters of
Substantial Agreement,” paragraph 6; also following
replies to criticism 8, 23, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and
121.
* The pronouncement as to oxygen has been omitted
as unnecessary in the presence of the other specifi-
cations. See City Engineers’ Critical Report, “Mat-
ters of Substantial Agreement,” paragraph 6. Also
see reply to criticism 7 and replies 23, 26, 30, 34,
35, 36, 51 and 121.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 15
oxygen in the water shall not fall below 3.0 cu.
C. M. per litre with 60 per cent. of sea water and
40 per cent. of land water and at the extreme
summer temperature of 80 degrees F. 3.0 cu. C. M.
of 0 per litre corresponds to 58 per cent. of Satura-
tion. Near docks and piers there should always
be sufficient oxygen in the water to prevent nuis-
ance from odors.
(5) The quality of the water at points suitable
for bathing and oyster culture should conform sub-
stantially as to bacterial purity to a drinking water
standard.
2—Intercepting Sewers:
Intercepting sewers, to collect sewage for treatment
and discharge are proposed along the South shore
of Long Island, parts of both shores of the upper
East River, the Harlem River and the lower East
River.
3—Treatment Works:
Sedimentation plants of large capacity are pro-
posed at the upper end of Jamaica Bay, Tallmans
Island and Wards Island. The latter plant is to
be constructed very soon and will treat in 1940 302,-
000,000 gallons of sewage per day from The Bronx
and Northern Manhattan. The sewage collected by
the interceptors along the lower East River will be
discharged at two points, after the removal by screen-
ing of only 7% per cent, of the organic matter. In
1925 it is proposed that this sewage, amounting to
about 200,000,000 gallons per day, will be pumped
at a large and continuous expense to an island in
the ocean, for treatment by sedimentation.
About thirty-five” isolated screening plants are
proposed at various points along the westerly shores
of Manhattan and Brooklyn, along the northerly
shore of Richmond and at a few points in the East
River.
The sludge from both screening and sedimentation
plants will have to be removed by a fleet of sludge
boats properly equipped and manned.
4—Ocean Island:
It is proposed to build an island initially about
twenty acres in extent in the ocean three and one-half
miles off Coney Island shore in the direction of Sandy
Hook, upon which will be located a sedimentation
plant, berths for boats, quarters for men, etc. It is
also proposed to build a tunnel, about 14 miles in
length, extending from the interceptors in the lowest
East River and passing under the City of Brooklyn
° There would be 30 local screening plants in the
projects recommended. One in the Richmond Divi-
sion; See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Pre-
liminary Report V, page 17. Two in the Upper
East River and Harlem Division, at Winthrop Avenue
and Cryder's Point, Borough of Queens; see Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report
IV, pages 5 and 6. Twenty-seven in the Lower East
River, Hudson and Bay Division; twenty-five at
various points on the Hudson and Lower East rivers
and the Upper bay, two at Corlears Hook and South
5th Street.
16 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
and the Ocean, to this island. A large pumping sta-
tion will be necessary to force the sewage through
this tunnel.
The President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission has stated that when the volume of sewage
effluent from the Wards Island plant shall have be-
come too great for discharge into the East River, it
was a part of their plan to construct a tunnel from
Wards Island to the Wallabout, increase the pumping
facilities at the latter point, and construct a second
14-mile tunnel for the delivery of this effluent to a
greatly enlarged ocean island.10
5—Administration:
An independent board or Commission, similar to
the Board of Water Supply, is proposed to undertake
the immediate construction of these works and their
operation after they are built.” It is suggested that
suitable legislation be secured empowering such a
board to undertake the work.
A supervisory State and Federal Commission is also
proposed with powers to compel the taking of such
measures and the building of such works as may seem
necessary to said Commission for the maintenance
of certain standards of cleanness in the surrounding
waters. This Commission would have authority over
seven hundred square miles of territory in the States
of New York and New Jersey, including the City of
New York and about eighty other municipalities.”
MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT.
Considered in the most general manner, but not
with respect to the details” of design, the New York
Sewer Plan Commission agrees with Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission upon the following proposi-
tions:
1. “That the digestive capacity of the harbor for
sewage should be utilized as far as is consistent with
due regard to public health and welfare.”
2. “That the system of main drainage and dis.
posal should be built progressively.”
3. That the following schemes for the disposal
of the sewage of the City, which have been consid-
ered and worked out in detail14 by the Metropolitan
Commission, are not worth serious consideration:
(a) Collection at one central location for treat-
ment at an estimated cost of $141,000,000.
(b) Treatment upon land at a cost of $153,000,-
000. -
(c) Disposal at sea at one point at a cost of $140,-
000,000.
* The construction of an additional tunnel, if
required at all, would be deferred to such a remote
period as to make its inclusion in the present esti-
mates unwarranted. See Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, page 39. See
also reply to criticism 6.
* The recommendation is that a new Commission
be created or an existing Commission designated to
begin the gradual construction of the necessary
Works and their supervision or operation. See Met-
ropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report
XVI, March, 1914, p. 9. Also see replies to criti-
cism 12, 13, 15, 19, 22, 98, 112, 113, 114 and 124.
A Supervisory Commission was only recommended in
case the two states, New York and New Jersey,
should unite to protect the harbor.
* The object of the central commission would be
to co-ordinate the sewerage and disposal works of the
eighty or more municipalities in the metropolitan
district and, by causing each city and each State to
do its share toward the reasonable protection of the
harbor, put a stop to the unsanitary practices now
existing. See reply to criticism 11. Also see replies
13, 15, 19, 22, 98, 112, 113, 114 and 124.
*The Metropolitan Commission has not proposed
any details of design. It has laid out a system of
main drainage and sewage disposal upon general
lines. It is intended to leave all detailed designs to
the constructing authority. See Metropolitan Sewer-
age Commission’s Preliminary Report XVI, page 11.
Also condensed statement of the work of the Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission, Appendix II, City
Engineers’ Critical Report. See replies to criticism
11, 12, 15, 19, 22, 112, 113, 114 and 124.
*No projects have been worked out in final detail
by the Metropolitan Commission, but only with suffi-
cient care to prove their practicability. See reply to
criticism 13.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 17
(d) The establishment of filtration plants within
the built-up portions of the City.
These projects, with some others of a similar char-
acter, which have been under consideration, are all
so apparently impracticable to those whose knowl-
edge of such matters and whose judgment is entitled
to any respect that neither time nor money should be
wasted upon them.
4. That the sewage which enters the North River
from the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx
can be properly treated by screening. This agree-
ment does not apply to the type nor to the location
of screens recommended.” The Sewer Plan Com-
mission does not endorse the statement of the Met-
ropolitan Commission that sedimentation or septic
tank treatment" is impracticable for certain parts
of this waterfront. Results obtained by such treat-
ment are far superior to those obtained by screening.”
The choice between screening or sedimentation
plants, their location, and the question as to whether
they should be preferred to some other method of
treatment in each case, is largely one of economy and
of distributing the load of pollution over the parts
of the harbor best able to bear the burden, taking
into account local conditions and physical difficulties
or advantages.
5. That any rational scheme for sewage disposal
in certain parts of the harbor obviously must include
intercepting sewers, but their proper location and
design depend upon the local conditions.
Those proposed for the Manhattan and Brooklyn
shores of the lower East River may or may not be
necessary; in any case their design, location and point
of discharge are disapproved. The same applies to
the intercepting sewers proposed for the Manhattan
and Bronx shores of the Harlem River.18
There is no criticism of some of the intercepting
sewers proposed for the northern shore of the Bor-
ough of Queens, but they have been largely forestalled
by different plans. Intercepting sewers designed to
accomplish the same purpose as those proposed by
the Metropolitan Commission were advocated by
Black and Phelps, and have been partially worked
out in detail by the Borough authorities and partially
constructed. In one case at least, large contracts are
under way for portions of these sewers which make
material modifications necessary in the proposed
plans.” This is one of the places where better results
may be obtained by substituting sedimentation for
screening as a method of treatment.”
The scheme proposed by the Metropolitan Com-
mission for the Jamaica Bay district has, in its
general features, been under consideration by the
Borough authorities for years. It has always been
* No specific types or exact locations have been
proposed by the Metropolitan Commission. Such
details belong to the Commission to be charged with
Construction. See replies to criticism 13 and 14, also
replies 29 and 98.
* The Metropolitan Commission has not stated
that septic tank treatment is impracticable for the
Manhattan waterfront, although it holds that opin-
ion. It has stated that sedimentation tanks are not
suitable in closely built-up sections. See Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report
XIII, page 10.
17 Septic tanks would not be suitable on account
of the large space required, the putrid character of
the effluent, probability of odor, danger of explosion,
interference with other underground structures and
the strong public protests which would be made
against them. See also Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission’s Preliminary Report XIII, page 4. See
replies to criticism 16, 58, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 123.
The Metropolitan Commission never stated that
screening was equivalent to septic tank treatment or
to sedimentation.
18 If the interceptors may be necessary, why are
they here disapproved?
19 These modifications can easily be made, and it is
expected that the constructing authority will make
all necessary modifications. In the future all con-
tracts should be made to conform to the main drain-
age plans of the city or there will be unnecessary
expense. See also replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 15,
22, 98, 112, 113, 114 and 124.
20 Sedimentation is proposed by the Metropolitan
Commission for this territory except for a small part
of the sewage. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion’s Preliminary Report IV, page 5.
18 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
recognized that an intercepting sewer along the
shores, which would collect the domestic sewage from
the territory south of the dividing ridge of the
island, and deliver it at some point near the outlet
of the Bay for treatment, will eventually be neces-
sary. For the last fourteen years Barren Island has
been looked upon as the most suitable location for a
sewage disposal plant, and drainage plans now before
the Board of Estimate for adoption contemplate this.
The plans proposed by Messrs. Phelps and Black con-
tained arrangements of a similar nature.
So far, therefore, as the plans of the Metropolitan
Commission contemplates the construction of inter-
cepting sewers about the shores of this Bay, and the
discharge of the effluent into Rockaway Inlet, the
treatment of sewage on Barren Island, the treatment
of Sewage at some point near the head of the Bay,
and the discharge of the effluent into the Bay itself,
are concerned, no novel idea is presented and there
is substantial agreement.” The plan presented by
the Metropolitan Commission is by no means thor-
oughly worked out and can be materially improved
and reduced in cost.”.
6. That the Metropolitan Commission has acted
wisely in abandoning, even at this late date, the dis-
solved oxygen standard of purity for the harbor of
58 per cent. of saturation.” An attempt to maintain
it would have involved the City in an unnecessary
expense and would never have been successful.”
CRITICISM OF THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
COMMISSION'S SCHEME.
The general plan proposed by the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission is criticised because it calls
for an unnecessary expenditure which may ultimately
amount to forty millions of dollars.”
The plan apparently was prepared to meet the re-
quirements of the needlessly high standard of clean-
ness originally proposed and advocated by the Metro-
politan Commission until recently when one of its
most important elements was abandoned. Notwith-
standing the change in the standard of cleanness
no material modification has been made in the plan,
except, perhaps, the possible postponement of the
construction of the ocean island, outlet and tunnel.”
The whole plan has been built, to a very great
extent, around the idea of removing a large quantity
of sewage from the inner harbor and discharging it
into the Atlantic Ocean and of concentrating a large
portion of the remainder for treatment and discharge
at a central point where the harbor is least able to
* Novelty is not claimed. See Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission’s Preliminary Report III.
* Many details remain to be studied before con-
tract plans are made, and it is expected that the esti-
mates of cost can be reduced by the constructing au-
thority. See replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 15, 19,
29, 112, 113, 114 and 124.
* The dissolved oxygen specification in the stand-
ard has not been abandoned. It has been omitted
as unnecessary in view of the other specifications. See
replies to criticism 7 and 8; also following replies
26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121.
* This list is not complete. The city engineers
in other parts of its report agree with the Metro-
politan Commission in other important principles.
See also replies to criticism 27, 28, 32, 46, 47,49, 50,
51, 53, 94, 95, 98, 99, 111, 115, 116, 120 and 122.
* The plans call for a much larger ultimate ex-
penditure than that stated, all of which the Metro-
politan Commission considers will be necessary. It
is about $3.33 per capita.
* The omission of the oxygen specification has not
affected the severity of the standard nor caused any
modification in the plans. See replies to criticism
7, 8 and 23; also replies 30, 34, 35, 36, 51 and 121.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 19
care for it.” In the opinion of the Sewer Plan
Commission, sufficient protection from unsatisfactory
conditions can be secured with much greater economy
by arranging the main drainage works so that the
quantities of sewage effluent produced will be distrib-
uted throughout the harbor for digestion, each part
to receive as much sewage as it can reasonably be
expected to assimilate and that all interceptors as
far as practicable will transport it progressively
toward either the Atlantic Ocean or Long Island
Sound.28
Standard of Cleanness:
The standard of cleanness proposed by the Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission in 1912 was divided
into five parts and has been previously stated.
The Sewer Plan Commission concurs in the rec-
ommendations of part 1. Part 2 is indefinite and
probably unwise in that it leaves the determination
of the conditions in the immediate vicinity of sewer
outfalls to individual judgment.” Part 3 is also
concurred in. Part 4 is not concurred in and it is
understood that this part has now been abandoned
by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.80 Part
5 sets too high a standard for bathing beaches and
waters used for oyster culture, so high that it might
result within a few years in the abolition of many
of the important bathing beaches in the neighborhood
of the City.” Bathing can be permitted for some
time to come in certain portions of the upper East
River and Long Island Sound, as well as on the
beaches of the Lower Bay. The bathing beaches
in the upper East River will probably ultimately have
to be abandoned, but with reasonable precautions
they may be used for a considerable time in the
future. Those on the south shore of Long Island
should by all means be preserved.” The cultivation
of oysters and their preparation for market is a
matter which should be given further study before
such exact requirements are fixed.
The high standard proposed for the dissolved oxy-
gen content of the water has led the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission to recommend some very ex-
pensive works, which would not have been necessary
had it been assumed at the time the standard was
adopted that the waters of the harbor could be used
to a greater extent in furnishing oxygen for the di-
gestion of sewage.” That this high standard is un-
necessary is evident. It is understood that to main-
tain the waters in a suitable condition for major fish
life would not have a value commensurate with its
cost and it is generally admitted that such a policy
would be inadvisable.* For like reasons it is appar-
ent that the waters of the inner harbor cannot be
27 This is the very opposite of the fact, as stated
by the Metropolitan Commission and as shown in the
City Engineers’ Report, “Matters of Substantial
Agreement,” sections 1 and 3, page 7, and set forth
with much clearness in the Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, dated Febru-
ary, 1913, page 31. See reply to criticism 24.
28 This is the plan of the Metropolitan Commis-
sion. To discharge the Harlem sewage into the Hud-
son would be to transport the sewage away from the
ocean in opposition to the principle followed by
the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and here
enunciated by the city engineers. See reply 24.
29 It is intended to leave something to the judg-
ment of the authority having permanent jurisdiction
over this question. See Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission's Preliminary Report XVI, page 11. Also
Appendix II, part IV, of City Engineers' Critical
Report. See replies 15 and 98.
80 The specification as to oxygen in the Metropol-
itan Commission’s standard of cleanness has not been
abandoned. The statement has been omitted as it
is covered by the other provisions of the standard.
See replies to criticism 7, 8, 23 and 26; also replies
34, 35, 36, 51 and 121.
31 Not if interpreted intelligently and with due
regard to local circumstances. The Metropolitan
Commission's opinion is that clean water is indis-
pensable for bathing.
32 This is the opinion of the Metropolitan Com-
mission. See reply to criticism 24.
* The proposed works are not expensive when
compared with the main drainage and sewage dis-
posal works of other large cities. The Metropolitan
Commission has planned the sewage distribution so
as to utilize the oxygen in the harbor waters to the
best advantage.
* The Metropolitan Commission never considered
it necessary to provide for major fish life. A fairly
high oxygen figure is necessary in the main channels
in order that there shall be sufficient oxygen among
the docks and piers and in other quiet places. See
replies to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26 and 30; also replies
35, 36, 51 and 121.
20 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
maintained in such purity as to safely permit their
use for bathing or shell fish culture. While it is not
economically feasible to maintain the waters to
any particular degree of bacteriological purity,
it is desirable that they be kept free from local
nuisances which may offend the sense of sight
or smell. If this is to be done they must never be
entirely robbed of their dissolved oxygen, and while
the high standard recommended by the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission in 1912 was economically un-
wise, the other extreme, recently proposed of disre-
garding the quantity of dissolved oxygen in the water,
is equally objectionable.”
All the numerous expert authorities on the subject
who were consulted and whose reports were published
in 1912 agree that dissolved oxygen is one of the
best single measures of pollution of the harbor waters,
and the great preponderance of expert opinion among
Sanitarians everywhere supports their conclusion. The
Metropolitan Commission in completely abandoning
this part of its standard, in an attempt to place itself
in accord with the recommendations of experts re-
cently employed, has now placed itself in absolute
disagreement with the large number of experts pre-
viously consulted, and whose recommendations they
have published.”
In support of the contention that a much lower
dissolved oxygen content is permissible, the following
is cited :
New York Harbor at the present time is receiving
the sewage from all the Greater City with practically
no treatment at all, and without regard to proper
distribution and diffusion. As a result the oxygen
content in the East River and the Harlem River has
fallen to a very low percentage during the past sum-
mer. Notwithstanding this fact there has been no
nuisance in the main channels. Whatever nuisance
has occurred is directly traceable to local conditions
along the shore front, or in the smaller bays or inlets
and to the concentration of large quantities of un-
treated sewage at the principal sewer outfalls. The
fact that the waters in the main channels of the Har-
bor have not become unduly polluted under present
conditions is one of the best demonstrations available
of the capacity of the harbor to digest enormous
quantities of sewage, showing, as it does, that the
oxygen may safely be depleted to a very low percent-
age during the Summer months.
The River Thames receives the sewage from the
City of London after it has been treated by chemical
precipitation, and while the flow in that stream is
very much less than that through the various portions
of New York Harbor, it has been maintained in a
satisfactory condition with an oxygen content in the
* The Metropolitan Commission does not propose
to disregard the quantity of dissolved oxygen in the
water. Its position is that if the other provisions of
the standard of cleanliness are complied with, there
will be sufficient oxygen present. See replies to criti-
cism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30 and 34; also replies 36, 51
and 121.
86 The Metropolitan Commission has not aban-
doned any part of its standard of cleanness, nor has
it placed itself in disagreement with all its earlier
experts. Of the eight experts consulted in regard to
dissolved oxygen, only three suggested that a definite
limit be placed. See reports of the experts pub-
lished in full with a digest of their opinions in the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s Report of
August, 1912, Part II, Chapter II, page 71. Also
see replies to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30, 34 and 35;
also replies 51 and 121.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 21
summer months from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent.”
This river, before treatment was begun, had reached
a state where practically all of the oxygen was ex-
hausted and it had become a positive nuisance. The
experience in London covers a period of about 25
years and is one of the best examples of the great
improvement which can be obtained through the
elimination of only a part of the organic solids.
The City of Hamburg, containing about 1,000,000
inhabitants, discharges its sewage into the Elbe after
coarse screening.” The outfalls are located so as
to obtain suitable diffusion, and the results have been
entirely satisfactory, although the conditions are less
favorable than in New York. No solid matter of
sewage origin appears on the surface of the water”
and no nuisance of any kind is apparent.” In ad-
dition to the treatment by coarse screening, dredging
is resorted to almost continuously to keep the river
free from sewage silt.* The dissolved oxygen of
this river seldom drops below 50 per cent. of satura-
tion.
The City of Dresden, located inland on a compara-
tively small river, secures satisfactory results through
fine screening and diffusion.*
The Delaware River at Philadelphia is at the
present time digesting large quantities of untreated
sewage and although the oxygen content has been re-
duced in certain localities to somewhat below 20 per
cent. of Saturation during the summer months, yet
no odors nor other nuisances have occurred.*
The total amount of oxygen available for the di-
gestion of sewage in New York Harbor has been
estimated to be sufficient to oxidize the untreated
sewage from approximately 7,000,000 people. These
figures were based, however, upon a uniform dis-
tribution of the sewage throughout the Harbor.44
Some recent estimates of the population of the entire
Metropolitan District in both New York and New
Jersey tributary to New York Harbor would place
the present population at something more than 7,000,-
000.
The fact that the Harbor in the main channels is
now satisfactorily digesting this vast quantity of
sewage, which is discharged without treatment and
without proper distribution, makes it evident that
the waters are capable of assimilating a far greater
quantity than has been estimated.*
When all the sewage reaching the harbor shall
have been treated and properly distributed and dif-
fused, it would seem perfectly safe to assume that
the harbor waters will be capable of taking care of
the effluent from a very much greater population.*
The standard of cleanness adopted for the Harbor
of Greater New York should take into account the
various local conditions in the various parts of the
87 The condition of the Thames would not be satis-
factory in New York. It is stated on the authority
of F. Agliffe, Secretary of the Port of London Au-
thority, the successor of the Thames Conservancy
Board that the Thames smells of its sewage about 12
or 13 miles above and below the main outfalls, or for
a total distance of about 25 miles.
* The Hamburg outlets should not be imitated by
New York. They turn upward and send the sewage
to the surface where it can be seen by those who
look in the proper place for it. -
* Solid matter of sewage origin appears at the
surface of the water in the vicinity of the main Ham-
burg outfalls. The solids can be seen from landing
stages and boats and the position of the Sewage
stream in the river can be detected by the presence of
large numbers of seagulls which feed upon the solid
matters.
49 The conditions for diffusion are more favorable
at Hamburg than in New York, since the water is
not salt at Hamburg and the sewage consequently
mixes more rapidly with the water.
* Dredging in the Elbe has not been so much em-
ployed to remove deposits of sewage origin as the
natural silt of the alluvial river. It is due to ex-
tensive dredging operations that the largest ships are
now able to reach Hamburg from the sea.
* Dresden carries its sewage to a single point
where it is passed through fine screens and discharged
into a river which, unlike the waters of New York
harbor, always flows in one direction. The dilution
is fairly large even in dry weather.
* Philadelphia is making plans for an extensive
system of main drainage and sewage disposal, it
being “realized that with the increase in the popula-
tion and the consequent added load placed upon the
river, its oxidizing power will soon be overtaxed, and
that the time to begin the building of the collecting
and treatment works is at hand.” See paper by
George S. Webster in the Journal of the Boston
Society of Civil Engineers, May, 1914, page 283.
* This estimate is a personal opinion and is con-
tained in the report of Black and Phelps to the
Board of Estimate, February, 1911, page 9, and is
based on the theory that the sewage would be dis-
charged at the two ocean entrances, an irºpracticable
assumption.
* The water in the main channels is not digesting
all the sewage. The sewage not digested is producing
nuisances among the docks, piers, bays and other
quiet arms of the harbor.
* This is the Metropolitan Commission’s belief.
See reply to criticism 24.
22 CRITICAL REPORT
FEPLIES
Harbor such as the use to which the water-front is
to be put, the Volume of clean water which enters
that part of the Harbor, and the cost of, as well as
the space available for treatment of the sewage."
In order that specific requirements may be made
for each locality, the Harbor may be divided for con-
venience into 13 subdivisions or Harbor units as fol-
lows:48
Harbor Unit 1. Hudson River, from Battery north
to City Line.
Harbor Unit 2. Lower East River, from south
end of Governors Island north to Sunken Meadows.
Harbor Unit 3. Upper East River from Sunken
Meadows to Throggs Neck (excepting Flushing Bay).
Harbor Unit 4. Flushing Bay.
Harbor Unit 5. Long Island Sound, Throggs
Neck to City Line.
Harbor Unit 6. Harlem River, from 82d street
north and west to Hudson River.
Harbor Unit 7. Upper Bay, from Narrows to
Hudson River off Governors Island.
Harbor Unit 8. Newtown Creek.
EIarbor Unit 9. Gowanus Canal.
Harbor Unit 10. Kill-von-Kull.
Harbor Unit 11. Arthur Kill.
Harbor Unit 12. Tower Bay and Atlantic Ocean.
Harbor Unit 13. Jamaica Bay.
The relative cleanness of these various units at
the present time may be taken as a guide for deter-
mining what conditions may be economically main-
tained in the future. It is assumed that bathing or
the cultivation of shell fish will not be permitted
in the inner Harbor,” but that they may be permitted
in some of the outlying Harbor units until the growth
of the City shall have changed conditions so as to
render it no longer reasonably economical to maintain
the waters in a suitable condition for such uses. Any
standard proposed should not be considered in the
nature of a rigid rule or law, but rather a statement
of conditions which it is desired to maintain and to
be used as a guide for the establishment of treatment
works as rapidly as they become necessary.”
The most important requirement in a standard of
cleanness is the immediate abolition of all local nuis-
ances in every part of the Harbor. Other require-
ments would probably have to be modified from time
to time with the growth of the City and the changing
character of the water-front. In the final determin-
tion of such a standard or guiding rules, the following
requirements may reasonably be adopted:
Treatment should be established to the extent nec-
essary to keep all parts of the Harbor at all times
free from visible solid matter of sewage origin, notice-
able discoloration, fields of oily sleek, odors due to
* This is practically a restatement of the Metro-
politan Commission’s opinion as printed in the Com-
mission’s report of August, 1912, pages 5-6, 69-70,
and the report of April, 1910, page 46. See also
reply 24.
48 In its August, 1912, report, page 15, the Met-
ropolitan Commission described the ten main divi-
sions of New York harbor as recognized by Govern-
ment, State and municipal authorities, and the loca-
tion, areas, tidal prisms and volumes of water flowing
and other features of these divisions were fully
described. The redivisioning of the harbor, as pro-
posed by the city engineers with the inclusion of
Gowanus canal, Newtown creek and Flushing bay as
separate units, is unnecessary.
49 This is a restatement of the Metropolitan Com-
mission’s position as indicated in its report of April,
1910, page 43. See also reply 24.
50 This was stated by the Metropolitan Commis-
sion in its report of August, 1912, page 70, and in
its Preliminary Report X, page 4, and elsewhere.
See also reply 24.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 23
Sewage or trade wastes, material deposits of sewage
sludge, and to maintain in each Harbor unit at all
times, under the most unfavorable conditions of tide,
depth, location, season and temperature, not less than
certain specific quantities of dissolved oxygen.”
It is belived that the dissolved oxygen in some of
the units of the inner Harbor may safely be allowed
at times to fall somewhat below 20 per cent. of Satur-
ation. Other Harbor units, more closely connected
with the sources of clean water, may consistently
be maintained at a very much higher standard and
tentative percentages may be adopted from time to
time for each separate Harbor unit.”
Such a guide would be useful for indicating the
time and location for the construction of additional
works. The works required for a long time to come
will probably include only fine screening or sedimen-
tation combined with proper distribution and diffu-
sion into the main channels, except in Harbor units
12 and 13, and possibly 5, where further refinements
in the treatment of sewage, even in some cases to
the extreme of sterilization, may be required for the
purpose of temporarily preserving bathing beaches
and suitable conditions for the shell fish industry.”
Ward's Island Project.
The so-called Ward's Island project, with its inter-
ceptors and treatment works, violates a fundamental
principle which should be followed in preparing a
plan of main drainage, viz.: that the sewage should
be uniformly distributed and diffused through the
Harbor waters.54
This scheme concentrates the sewage from a large
area and discharges an enormous volume of a partially
purified effluent into one of the shallowest” and nar-
rowest portions of the harbor, so centrally located that
it is a maximum distance from any source of clean
water.” Furthermore, the float observations of the
Metropolitan Commission indicate that the waters of
the East river in this locality oscillate back and forth
with but little resultant change in tidal flow. Other
and larger bodies of water can be reached for the
discharge of this sewage at no greater expense.”
The sewage from the Manhattan area proposed to
be tributary to Ward's Island can be diverted to the
Hudson River, which, on account of its great mini-
mum, daily resultant flow of 1,500,000,000 gallons
and its large tidal prism, can digest all of the effluent
from this source. The money required to build the pro-
posed interceptors along the Harlem and East River
fronts, the tunnel to pumping station and treatment
works on Ward’s Island would not only pay for the
works required to screen and discharge sewage into
the Hudson River, but also would go far towards
51. These requirements were stated or provided for
in the original standard of cleanness for the har-
bor, as proposed by the Metropolitan Commission in
its report of August, 1912, page 70. Also see replies
to criticism 7, 8, 23, 26, 30, 34, 35 and 36; also
reply 121. *
This is in agreement with the Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission. See reply to criticism 24.
* This proposition is impracticable because de-
cided differences cannot exist in the various neigh-
boring parts of the harbor for the reason that water
circulates more or less freely through all under the
tidal actions. The Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion has already stated that the enforcement of its
standard of cleanness should be left to the judgment
of the proposed central Commission. See reply to
Criticism 29.
* These are the methods described in the Metro-
politan Commission’s Preliminary Reports III to VI,
inclusive, issued between November, 1911, and Feb-
ruary, 1913. See reply 24.
*The Metropolitan Commission's Wards Island
project is not in violation of this principle, but in
strict accordance with it. See reply 24. The high
velocities and boils make Hell Gate a most desirable
place for sewage diffusion.
* Instead of being one of the shallowest, this is
one of the deepest parts of the harbor. Depths of
150 feet are found close to the site of the proposed
works.
* Instead of being at a maximum distance from
any source of clean water, the proposed outlet is
comparatively close to the Sound entrance of the
harbor. The cleanness of the water of the Upper
East river near this point is shown by the high per-
centage of oxygen present. See report of the Met-
ropolitan Sewerage Commission, August, 1912, pages
57-60.
* It would cost more to dispose of the sewage in
the way proposed by the city engineers than by the
Metropolitan Commission’s plan, when reckoned on
the basis of annual maintenance and fixed charges.
The cost of reconstructing the existing sewerage sys-
tem and the great expense of making new household
connections with the storm water and domestic sew-
age should be added to the city engineers’ project.
There is the further objection that public opinion
would protest against discharging so much sewage
into the Hudson from a drainage area not naturally
tributary to it.
24 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
building an entirely new and much needed separate
system of sewers for this area. Such a system is
now being designed. Interference with the existing
and proposed subway lines will be avoided by carrying
the storm water across the tops of the subways di-
rectly to the Harlem River, while the sanitary sewage
will be carried in a low level system with trunk
lines in tunnel below the Subways and sloping from
the Harlem River, westerly to 8th avenue. Here the
Sewage will be pumped up to gravity tunnels through
which it will flow to the Hudson River. Probably
two or three of these tunnels will be found to be
economical. In this system much of the sewage from
the higher area of Harlem along the easterly slope
of the westerly ridge may be intercepted and turned
back through the tunnels without pumping. Under
the Metropolitan Commission’s scheme all of the sew-
age would have to be pumped at an additional yearly
charge of many thousands of dollars.
The sewage from this system will be treated by
fine screening and discharged from submerged outlets
into the main channel of the Hudson River. If in
the distant future further treatment should become
desirable, sedimentation or other objectionable con-
cealed works could be constructed along the water-
front outside the railroad tracks. *
It probably will be found feasible to tunnel Man-
hattan Island at about 179th street and discharge
all the effluent from the Harlem River-Bronx inter-
ceptor north of Brook avenue through it into the
Hudson River. Here, too, treatment similar to that
for the Manhattan-Harlem district can be applied
and the sewage from the easterly slopes of Manhattan
intercepted and discharged without pumping.
Estimates based upon the dilution in various por-
tions of the harbor in 1940, as given by the Metro-
politan Commission, indicate that should the plan
be carried out as above outlined, the ratio of dilution
in the Hudson River would still be ample for an in-
definite length of time. The remainder of the sewage
from the East Bronx interceptor from Brook avenue
to Hunts Point can be treated and discharged at a
convenient place near Hunts Point or on Rikers
Island.
The elimination of the expensive Ward’s Island
project will relieve this most polluted portion of the
harbor and become an important factor in making
the construction of the Ocean Island project unnec-
essary for as long a time as can be reasonably fore-
seen.” If the Metropolitan Commission’s scheme is
adopted, it is quite likely that ultimately not only
one, but two tunnels to the proposed ocean island
will be necessary as previously outlined.”
* Sedimentation is objectionable in built-up
Sections of cities, owing to the odors produced and
the popular protests which are always aroused against
sewage disposal works in the vicinity of dwellings
and business places. The grease from the sewage
would show at the surface of the water. This water-
front is a park. The water is not deep enough nor
swift enough to insure prompt diffusion except off
Fort Washington Park, and it would not be feasible
to discharge all of the sewage at that point. See
replies to criticism 16, 17, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 123.
* Why make the ocean island project unnecessary
if it affords the cheapest and best means of disposing
of the sewage?
* This indefinite and sweeping statement is in-
conclusive both as to cost and results. The Metro-
politan Commission’s project has been carefully
passed upon by the following experts: Gilbert J.
Fowler, John D. Watson, Rudolph Hering, George
W. Fuller. If the sewage of the Lower East river
and Harlem were discharged into the Hudson, that
stream might become overburdened and the adoption
of proper remedial measures would then be exces-
sively costly. The Hudson must receive a large in-
crease in the sewage which is now discharged into it
from the areas naturally tributary to it. By the
city engineers’ project, over 300 million gal-
ions of sewage would be discharged through two
or three outlets within a distance of about 3 miles.
Added to this sewage in the Lower Hudson would be
about 100 million gallons from the population
directly tributary.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES - 25
Ocean Island Project.
The Ocean Island and tunnel with the pumping
plant at the Wallabout have been recently disap-
proved by Messrs. Rudolph Hering and George W.
Fuller, the two experts whose reputations and pecul-
iar fitness to pass upon the question compel the
greatest respect for their opinions.61
Mr. Fuller, in reporting upon this project, states
as follows: “As to the outlet island project for the
sewage of the lower East River division as tentatively
recommended early in 1913 by the Commission, I
am of the opinion that the evidence now available
does not warrant the conclusion that this project is
a proper one.”
Mr. Hering gives his opinion in regard to this
project as follows: “The expense of construction
and operation of this project is large. In justification
thereof, you have given a number of reasons. I shall
now comment upon them and feel obliged to maintain
the view that the adoption of this project is not
warranted at the present time.”
A fair consideration of the facts relating to the
necessity for this ocean island and tunnel seems to
justify these opinions.
The Metropolitan Commission has recently re-
duced its estimate of cost of this island and tunnel
from about $23,000,000 to $17,500,000. This re-
duction in the estimated cost of construction is ap-
parently accompanied by a reduction in the size and
capacity of the works by the elimination of storm
water.” The Metropolitan Commission also pro-
poses an expenditure of about $4,000,000 for works
required to deliver the sewage from the south shore
of Brooklyn into the ocean tunnel and for additional
treatment works at the island.” The total expendi-
ture proposed for the island and appurtenances is
therefore estimated at about $21,500,000. It has
never been stated how this estimate of cost was ar-
rived at, or what precedents or actual experience
the estimators had to guide them. For some of the
most important parts there is no precedent, and it
is not known that any one with experience in the
planning or construction of works of this character
or magnitude was employed in making the estimate.
The estimate, therefore, seems to be a very rough
one at best, and it is possible, as stated by one of the
experts, that the actual cost would be far in excess
of $21,000,000.66
The President of the Metropolitan Commission
states that he does not now recommend the immediate
construction of these works, but rather that they
should be deferred until the year 1925, or ten years
from the present date; that in the meantime the
tributary intercepting sewers and enormous screening
* This project has been approved as a future pos-
sibility by both experts referred to and the first step
has been approved by both. See correspondence ap-
pended to reports of Messrs. Hering and Fuller in
the report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission
of April 30, 1914, Part III, Chapter I, pages 218
and 253.
* Mr. Fuller has described himself as in favor of
taking the first step in the Lower East river project
and leaving the necessity for further work to be
determined by experience. See correspondence ap-
pended to Mr. Fuller's report in the report of the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of April 30,
1914, Part III, Chapter I, page 218.
* See reply to criticism 62.
* The reduction by the revision was about 11/2
instead of 4 million dollars. The $22,874,000 con-
tained in Preliminary Report VI, page 47, includes,
as stated, $4,072,000 for the Jamaica Bay Division,
leaving $18,802,000 for the cost of the island project,
as compared with the revised cost of $17,394,000.
* The inclusion of this disposal for a part of the
Jamaica bay sewage results, instead of a $4,000,000
additional expense, in a saving of $5,378,000 in first
cost and $471,760 in annual charges.
* The Metropolitan Commission’s estimate is not
a rough one. This could readily be determined by
the city engineers on inquiry.
26 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
plants should be built." These screening plants
would treat 200,000,000 gallons of sewage per day,
Concentrated at two points, one on each side of the
lower East River, and would discharge it's in the
neighborhood of Corlears Hook, and South 5th Street,
one of the most highly polluted portions of the Har-
bor. Float observations made by the Metropolitan
Commission show that the tidal currents would not
be effective in removing sewage, but that it would
Oscillate back and forth for some time before it finally
passes Southward through the Narrows.69 It is ad-
mitted that the burden of pollution in this portion of
the Harbor is already too great, and it must be plainly
evident that the proposed removal of 7% per cent. of
organic matter, or a total improvement in the condi-
tion of the water of much less than this amount will
not materially improve matters because the benefits
will be nullified by the concentration at two points
of a vast volume of sewage which is now discharged
along a stretch of several miles of water-front.T0 It
is also apparent that it will be necessary to commence
the construction of the Ocean Island post haste, im-
mediately after the completion of the intercepting
Sewers and the screening plants.” These two screen-
ing plans alone would cost a very large sum and would
probably be useless as soon as the Ocean Island has
been built.T2
It will require at least five years to complete this
island and its tributary works, so that the claim of
the President of the Metropolitan Commission that
his Commission is in substantial agreement upon
the matter with its two most recent advisors, does
not appear to be warranted.” On the other hand,
it does appear that it has been placed in the back-
ground with the full expectation of making it the
main feature of the scheme at a more opportune
time, as it has been featured for the last year in the
Commission’s reports and statements by its members,
as well as by the press.”
Lower East River.
It is possible that if the Lower East river prob-
lem is studied in a manner which its importance war-
rants by those familiar with the possibilities in design
and construction of Sanitary works of this character
and magnitude, it will be found that there are three
better alternatives than those proposed.”
First—It is probable that the interceping sewers
as proposed may be entirely done away with and
greater economy secured both in construction and
operation by the substitution of sedimentation tanks
of proper design.” This is clearly feasible for a
considerable portion of the water-front which the pro-
posed intercepting sewers would serve, and where it
" If the first step affords sufficient protection to
the water, no further step need be taken to carry out
the Ocean island project. If, on the other hand,
further protection is found to be needed, it would be
afforded by building the rest of the ocean island
project. See condensed statement of the work of
the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, Section III,
paragraph C, Appendix to the city engineers’ report
here printed. The large cost of sedimentation tanks
it is proposed to defer until a later date.
*The discharge is intended to take place through
multiple outlets and into water which, except for
this discharge, would be very much cleaner than it
is at the present time.
* The sewage would not pass through the Nar-
TOWs. It is practically all digested in the harbor.
The processes of digestion seem to be misunderstood
by the city engineers. They have been described by
the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission in its re-
port of April, 1910, page 461, and Preliminary Re-
port XV, page 23. :
79 This is not the opinion of the Metropolitan
Commission nor of Messrs. Hering and Fuller.
** It is intended that there shall be sufficient op-
portunity afforded after the completion of the first
step to determine whether the second will be neces-
sary. This question may well be left to the judg-
ment of the new centralized authority. See reply 29.
* The screening plants would be permanently use-
ful in preparing the sewage for pumping and final
disposal at the island; also to care for the future
excess over 200 million gallons per day. This would
amount to a large volume on the Brooklyn side by
1940.
* The correspondence which shows that the Met-
ropolitan Commission and its two recent advisers
are in substantial agreement was offered to the city
engineers and refused. It is found in Part III,
Chapter I, pages 218 and 253 of the report of
the Metropolitan Commission of April 30, 1914.
** This is an accusation of bad faith and need not
be answered.
* This sarcastic reflection upon the members of
the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, their staff
and experts, and arrogant assumption of authority
on the part of the city engineers need not be answered.
* Sedimentation tanks would be costly, their odors
would arouse popular objection and they would not
lend themselves to a more efficient treatment of the
Sewage in case more efficient treatment were found
necessary. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s
Preliminary Report XIII, page 10. See also replies
to criticism 16, 17, 58, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 123.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 27
is not, fine screening could be substituted. It being
established" that the ocean island project will not
be necessary, the only result of expending $4,000,000
for these interceptors in accordance with the scheme
of the Metropolitan Commission will be to concen-
trate at two points a very large volume of sewage
from which only a small percentage of the coarser
solids have been removed.” The burden of pollus
tion in the river near the points of discharge will
be so increased that local nuisances, especially near
the shores, will appear within a short time.79 The
main body of the river would not be relieved materi-
ally of its burden of pollution.
In order to obtain the maximum digestion of sew-
age matters in the Harbor, it is obviously desirable
to secure as uniform distribution and diffusion as
practicable.80 This result can best be obtained by
the use of a number of submerged outlets rather than
two very large ones, thus saving the greater part of
the cost of interceptors.81
The money which the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission proposes to expend for these interceptors
would go very far toward the construction of sedi-
mentation tanks of sufficient capacity to treat the
sewage from the territory in Manhattan and Brooklyn
which the proposed interceptors would serve.8° In
Manhattan these tanks could be located under-
neath the marginal street.8° Such treatment would
remove fully four times as much of nuisance-produc-
ing matter as the Hamburg screens proposed and
would very materially relieve this part of the river
from its present burden. The difficulties which the
Metropolitan Commission expect will be encountered
in the construction and operation of sedimentation
tanks can be overcome without serious difficulty.**
Second—Should further study indicate the desira-
bility of building the intercepting sewers for the lower
East river and works for the treatment of sewage at
the point of discharge, they should be planned so as
to secure the fullest benefits of clarification and dis-
tribution which are practicable within the limits of
the Harbor itself. If the sewage collected must be
pumped, as proposed, sedimentation tanks can be
used and the sewage freed of fully 60 per cent. of its
suspended matter.” Should it develop for reasons
which are not now apparent, that the use of sedimen-
tation is impracticable, the alternative would be fine
screening, by which about 35 per cent. of suspended
matter can be removed.86 The effluent from this
treatment should be discharged into the Harbor not
in the highly polluted portion37 of the East river, but
at some point south of Governor’s Island, where, with
ebb tides, half of the whole volume discharged, both
liquid and solid, would be carried directly through
the Narrows and into the ocean.* The effluent dis-
" It has not been established that the ocean island
project will not be necessary.
* The result indicated will not be the only one.
Other results will be the prevention of nuisance at
the present sewer outlets, in the docks and slips, the
removal of much coarse suspended matter easily
recognizable as of sewage origin and the placing of
the sewage burden in those parts of the harbor where
it can best be carried.
*An unsupported and unwarranted assumption.
* This is not necessarily so. It is necessary only
to avoid overburdening the water at any point.
* The Metropolitan Commission’s plans provide
for multiple outlets. See Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, page 55.
* The circumstances of construction and cost of
Sedimentation tanks in various situations have been
estimated. The lowest estimates for tanks to treat
the sewage in the territory from Manhattan and
Brooklyn which the proposed interceptors would
serve is $9,191,580. See replies to criticism 16, 17,
58, 76, 83, 84, 85 and 123.
88 Tanks could not well be so located because of
cost, size, interference with other structures and risk
of explosion. See replies to criticism 16, 17, 58 and
76. See replies 84, 85 and 123.
84 The difficulties which the Metropolitan Com-
mission expects are based on careful studies of the
experience of other cities, a consideration of the local
situation and on the advice of the most capable ex-
perts obtainable. See Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission’s Preliminary Report XIII. See references
to reply 83.
85 Sedimentation tanks cannot be employed in the
built-up sections of cities except in unusual circum-
stances. The experience of other cities is against
such use and the conditions along most of the Man-
hattan and Brooklyn waterfront are especially un-
favorable. See Metropolitan Sewerage Commission’s
Preliminary Report VI, pages 32 and 33. See also
replies to criticism 16, 17, 58, 76, 82, 83 and 123.
86 If practicable, fine screens should be used. The
efficiency thus obtained would apparently remove the
city engineers’ objections to the Metropolitan Com-
mission’s plans for the Lower East river.
87 The discharge would take place into water
which would be relatively clean as compared with
the present polluted conditions.
88 This is a surprising statement and lacks con-
firmation.
28 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
charged during the flood tides might, if the move-
ments of the floats which the Metropolitan Sewer-
age Commission used are to be taken as a guide, be
carried into the East river, but would be carried
entirely out of the Upper bay on the succeeding ebb
tide.89 This sewage could be treated in sedimentation
tanks located on the southerly end of Governor’s
Island, or on an extension which might be built to
this island.90
The President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission has stated that the matter of using this part
of the island for such a purpose has been taken up
with the authorities at Washington, and that the
conclusion reached is that it would not be allowed.”
The opinion of an official or officer of the army, more
or less informally expressed in correspondence with
the President of the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission, is not at all conclusive in this matter, and
should it be deemed expedient the matter might be
taken up by the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
ment with quite a different result.
Third—The adoption of an outlet south of Gov-
ernor’s Island suggests another alternative for this
part of the Harbor. Such an outlet from the inter-
ceptors proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission would necessitate the construction of a sewer
along the Brooklyn water-front from Wallabout to
a point south of Atlantic Basin. This sewer would
naturally intercept all the existing sewer outlets be-
tween these points, and it might be found economical
and more effective not to build an interceptor on
the Manhattan side, but instead to make use of this
outlet sewer along the Brooklyn water-front for inter-
cepting an equal or greater quantity of sewage from
Brooklyn for discharge at Governor’s Island. Under
this plan sewage from the Manhattan side would be
treated locally by fine screening or sedimentation.
Although a careful estimate has not been made, it is
thought that $6,500,000 would cover the cost of the
second or third alternative. Either alternative sug-
gested would be a permanent improvement, and would
be sufficient for an indefinite length of time to
come.92
Attention is called to the fact that lower Man-
hattan has probably already reached its maximum de-
velopment, so far as population is concerned, and
there will be no material increase in the future of
sewage matters which will be delivered to this part
of the harbor from this borough. It is even possible
that the future may see less resident population in this
part of the city than at present. The portion of
Brooklyn which contributes sewage to the lower East
river is already fully occupied and improved and
probably no great increase in density of population
will occur in the future.98
* The Metropolitan Commission's float records do
not support this assertion. The complete float records
may be found in Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion’s Preliminary Report VIII, pages 15 to 46.
90 The United States Government would probably
object, the odors would be offensive in the vicinity,
the point of outfall would be too close to the Passaic
Valley sewer outfall, which will discharge 300 mil-
lion gallons of septic sewage per day within 2%
miles of the proposed works. See Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission’s Report of April 30, 1910, page
327. -
91 The President never made this statement.
92 Before recommending this ocean island project,
the Metropolitan Commission considered the cost of
an interceptor and disposal plant such as is here
suggested, except that the works would be located
on an island opposite Red Hook and just below Gov-
ernors Island, but did not consider it as good as the
plans proposed.
98 The Metropolitan Commission expects a large
increase in population in sub-divisions 22, 23, 24 and
25, which lie in Brooklyn. They contain 7482 acres
and a present population of 903,400, which is 121
to the acre. These subdivisions naturally drain to
the Lower East river between Newtown creek and
Brooklyn bridge.
CRITICAL REPORT
& REPLIES 29
Jamaica Bay:
The plans prepared by the Borough of Brooklyn
for the collection and treatment of sewage on the
south shore, when compared with those proposed by
the Metropolitan Commission, show an economy in
construction and capitalized cost of operation of ap-
proximately $3,000,000.94
A discussion of these two schemes in too great
detail is not attempted here because it is thought
that it would consume too much time and perhaps
would not be of sufficient interest to the Board at this
time. -
Briefly outlined, the Brooklyn and Queens plan
includes:
First—Treatment works at some point near the
head of the bay, where the sewage from all the low
lying district about the head of the bay and near the
eastern boundary of the City will be treated as the
conditions require. The exact location of these works
should be given further study. The location either
on Jo Co’s Marsh, as recommended by the Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission, or at some point on
the mainland as recommended by Black & Phelps,
may prove to be desirable.
Second—It includes a sanitary intercepting sewer
extending from the present Twenty-sixth Ward Dis-
posal Works easterly toward the easterly boundary
of the Borough of Queens and works for the treat-
ment of sewage collected in this sewer at a point
near the present Twenty-sixth Ward Works, where
the City already owns a large area of land purchased
for this purpose. For many years, if not indefinitely,
sewage can be treated at this location with economy
and without objectionable consequences.
Third—The delivery of all the domestic sewage
which concentrates at the head of the Paerdegat Basin
to Barren Island through suitable intercepting sewers.
All plans thus far suggested have been in agreement
in this respect.
Fourth—It includes the work on Barren Island
for the treatment of sewage not only from the Paer-
degat, but also from the drainage area tributary to
the Sheepshead bay works, and a large additional area
on the south shore. The effluent is to be discharged
into Rockaway Inlet after treatment sufficient to
prevent undue pollution of the waters of the bay, and
the fouling of the shores and beaches. The plans of
the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission up to the
date of the previous hearing before the Board of
Estimate” contemplated this site, and without any
question it is the most available one for a sewerage
treatment plant to be found about Jamaica bay.
Such a disposition of the sewage can be made in this
94 This may be considered a fair agreement under
the circumstances and suggests that the estimates
made by the Borough of Brooklyn are not far wrong.
See reply to criticism 24.
95 The Metropolitan Commission still favors this
scheme unless the ocean island project is carried out,
in which event it would save the city a large sum of
money to send the sewage of the Western Jamaica
Bay subdivision to the ocean island for disposal in-
stead of disposing of the sewage by treatment works
at Barren Island. See Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission’s Preliminary Report VI, pages 44 and 45.
See reply 24.
30 CRITICAL REPORT &
REPLIES
manner that for a period of time beyond which it is
not proper or customary to make provision, no ques-
tion can be raised as to its sufficiency. Drainage
plans are now before the Board of Estimate for adop-
tion, which provide for the utilization of Barren
Island for this purpose.
It should be remarked here that the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission has laid considerable stress
upon a criticism of the alleged intention of the City
authorities to build numerous basins or short canals
about the shores of Jamaica bay, which are to be-
come receptacles for domestic sewage and trade
wastes. It has been made so prominent that some of
the experts employed have made it a point to concur
in the Metropolitan Commission’s condemnation of
such a project.”
A more careful investigation would have disclosed
the fact that these basins are absolutely necessary
as outlets for storm water sewers; that the City has
not for many years built sewers designed to discharge
domestic sewage into such canals, but that on the
contrary it has spent considerable money to avoid
doing so. A State law of many years’ standing for-
bids such a thing.97
Screening Plants:
While the general project for screening the sewage
from the westerly slopes of the Borough of Man-
hattan and South Brooklyn and discharging it from
submerged outlets beyond the pierhead lines is un-
doubtedly feasible and proper, neither the type of
screen proposed nor the locations for the plants
as shown on the Metropolitan Commission’s plan are
well chosen. Various reconstructions are under con-
sideration in the Borough of Manhattan and radical
changes in the sewer system are contemplated in con-
nection with the proposed plan for improving the
railroad and dockage facilities along the Hudson
River, which probably will seriously modify the plans
proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion.98
The large number of screening plants proposed are
designed to be equipped with screens of the Hamburg
type.” The Hamburg screen consists of bars spaced
So as to afford openings of from 3% to 5% of an inch
in width, which are cleaned by a specially designed
type of comb. It will remove only the larger sus-
pended particles and the machinery required in its
operation is intricate and expensive.
It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be
classed as a fine screen and it is not effective in
reducing the total organic or polluting matter in the
sewage. The President of the Metropolitan Commis-
sion at the hearing, stated that it was expected by
* The Metropolitan Commission’s only mention
of this point was in its Preliminary Report III, issued
November, 1911, page 5.
* The present condition of Paerdegat Basin and
other Creeks discharging into Jamaica bay is not
Such as to allay misapprehension in this direction.
* Such modifications as are necessary can readily
be made in the general plans which the Metropolitan
Commission has proposed. See replies to criticism
15, 19, 24 and 29.
* Any efficient type of screen would be equally
acceptable. The Hamburg type has been mentioned
because it has been found practicable to use it where
the range of tide has been considerable. See replies
to criticism 15, 19, 22, 24, 29, 98, 100, 101, 102
and 122.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 31
its use to remove about 15 per cent. of the matter
in suspension. To understand the meaning of this
statement it should be remembered that organic mat-
ter is the source of all offensive pollution in sewage,
that on the average about 50 per cent. of this organic
matter is in solution and incapable of removal by
any form of screening.499. Only about 7% per cent.
of the total organic matter in sewage can therefore be
removed by this screen. Considering the fact that
large quantities of polluting matter reach the Harbor
from sources other than domestic sewage, such as
storm water, waste matter from vessels, etc., prob-
ably the total improvement that can be hoped for by
the use of this type of screen is not greater than 6
per cent.101
A sufficient commentary upon the esteem in which
it is held by those who are most familiar with the
subject is the fact that in the cities of Germany,
where screening is quite generally a part of the system
of treatment employed, this type has made no head-
way.19% Fine screens which can remove suspended
matter as small as % to */16 of an inch in diameter
and effect a reduction of about 35 per cent. of the
total suspended matter, are much more desirable and
are available at a smaller cost, both for sites and for
installation. Such screens are now working elsewhere
in localities very similar to our own and can with a
moderate amount of skill be adapted to the condi-
tions to be met in this city.19%
Local Nuisances:
While no actual nuisances from smell now exist
in the Harlem river, the Newtown Creek canal and
Wallabout canal,194 it is very probable that within
the next few years during the summer months both
local and general nuisances will occur and that meas-
ures should be taken for their abatement. Such nuis-
ances existed for many years in the Gowanus canal,
or until the present pumping station and tunnel was
built for the purpose of improving its sanitary condi-
tion. Notwithstanding the fact that the water in
the canal is now practically as clean as that in the
bay from which it is drawn, that it at all times con-
tains a fair amount of dissolved oxygen and that fish
are frequently seen near its upper end, it is stated by
the Metropolitan Commission that its condition is
not improved and that it is one of the danger points
in the Harbor.1% It is well to correct these misrep-
resentations because the plant has accomplished its
purpose and has demonstrated that the sanitary con-
dition of a polluted body of water of this kind can
be satisfactorily improved in this manner.
Such nuisances as exist in the Harbor at the pres-
ent time and such as, in the natural order of things,
199 The composition of the sewage has been stated
by the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission in a num-
ber of places. See report of April, 1910, Part III,
Chapter X, pages 427-462; also report of August,
1912, Chapter III, pages 28-30; Preliminary Report
VI, pages 16-19. Screenings contain a higher per-
centage of organic matter than do the total suspended
solids. See replies 101, 102 and 122.
101 The Metropolitan Commission has not advo-
cated the Hamburg type of Screen as a means of re-
ducing the oxygen-demanding properties of the sew-
age so much as for the removal of a great part of the
large solids separately recognizable as of sewage
origin. The presence of these solids in the water
violates the first provision of the standard of clean-
ness which is agreed to by the city engineers and
which says: “Garbage, oftal or solid matter rec-
ognizable as of sewage origin shall not be visible
in any of the harbor waters.” Considering the differ-
ence between screenings and sewage sludge, 6 or even
71/2 per cent. is believed to be too low. See Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission’s Preliminary Report
VI, February, 1913, page 30. See replies 100, 102
and 122.
102 That this type of screen is thought to be well
adapted to its work is proved by the fact that the
new screening station at Hamburg was equipped with
the same type of screen some years after the first in-
stallation. See replies 100, 101 and 122.
198 The correctness of this opinion is open to doubt.
194 Decided nuisances both to smell and sight exist
at these three places.
10° The Metropolitan Commission never made this
statement. In Preliminary Report VI, pages 9-
10, issued February, 1913, appears the only ref-
erence made to this canal. The water is described
as being polluted to the point of being black and foul-
Smelling.
32 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
will occur in the next few years are local and may
be abated without great expense.” These nuisances
are located, in most cases, in the immediate neigh-
borhood of sewer outlets, which in time past have
been improperly located at bulkhead lines, between
piers or at other points where tidal currents are not
effective in sweeping away and rapidly diffusing the
Sewage.
The existence of piers and other irregularities of
shore line along the water front interfere with the
tidal flow and inevitably cause some stagnation in
the water along the shores. It follows naturally
from the uses to which these piers are put, that the
slips must gradually accumulate quantities of Solid
matter which does not all come from the sewers but
a large proportion of which is subject to putrefaction
and as soon as the Oxygen in the water has become
sufficiently reduced gives off offensive odors. Foecal
matter” and other materials of sewage origin are
often visible at existing sewer outlets and constitute
nuisances offensive to sight. Practically all nuisances
which exist in New York Harbor at the present time
are due to the above easily understood causes. They
may be abated by Submerging and extending all sewer
outlets at least as far as the pierhead line198 or to
points where they will be washed by tidal currents
of sufficient strength to rapidly carry away and diffuse
the effluent throughout the main currents of the
Harbor and by dredging between the bulkhead and
pierhead lines where sludge deposits occur, especially
in the neighborhood of sewer outlets.
Dredging is one of the first remedies that should
be applied and pending the construction of works
to prevent or reduce deposits, the removal of sludge
by dredging from the slips and other places of de-
posit will serve to very materially improve the general
condition of the Harbor, as well as to eliminate local
nuisances resulting from sludge deposits. Further-
more, dredging can be made a permanently econom-
ical and suitable adjunct to the disposal works, as
has been done in harbors of other large cities, where
the removal of sludge-producing matter by disposal
works, has been only partial, as is proposed for New
York.
Dredging would also have special application to the
removal of accumulations of wash from the streets
which is carried directly into the harbor by the storm
water sewers. Dredges of special design would be
used, and the sludge taken to sea in scows.109
Status of Sewage Treatment.
In answer to one of the questions asked by the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, Mr. Fuller
stated that “In my judgment the art of sewage
*The nuisances are both local and general, as
stated in the Metropolitan Commission's reports. The
sanitary condition of the harbor is described with
considerable particularity in the report of the Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission, April 30, 1910, Part
I, Chapter I, pages 15-62. . . . • *
* A description of the objectionable conditions
produced by piers and the improper location of sewer
outlets occupies a large part of the Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission’s report of April 30, 1910. In
Chapter X, pages 427-461, is given a description of
the phenomena of diffusion and digestion of the
Sewage materials after they are discharged into the
water. It is stated that the whole problem of the
disposal of sewage in New York harbor largely re-
Solves itself into a question of how, and to what
extent, diffusion and digestion may be carried on
with the certainty of producing satisfactory results.
*The solution here proposed, although it appears
simple enough, is by no means easy of accomplish-
ment. For the most part the sewers of Manhattan
have already been carried to the outer ends of the
piers without satisfactory results. . . .
* Some dredging will always be necessary in New
York harbor, and within economical and sanitary
limits dredging affords a useful means of removing
unavoidable deposits. Dredging, however, must be
regarded as a partial and costly remedy rather than
t
a prevention.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 33
treatment has reached a point such as to warrant
at this time the adoption of a definite policy and
general plan for the main drainage works of New
York.” While we consider this answer to be reason-
able, its interpretation should not be such as to lead
to the assumption that no substantial advances in
the art are to be expected in the future.119
The time is already in sight when the sanitary con-
ditions in the harbor will become intolerable and their
improvement imperative. The cost of the work re-
quired to secure the necessary improvement is so
great that it goes without saying that there must be
a comprehensive plan in accordance with which the
various parts of the work should be built. The ne-
cessity for this improvement is such that the time
when it must be carried out cannot be indefinitely
delayed, nor chosen at random, because the art of
sewage treatment may be greatly changed and simpli-
fied by discoveries and inventions that may be made.
The only alternative is to make use of the most effec-
tive and economic processes which are now available,
even though other and better ones may hereafter be
brought into use, which will cause the abandonment
of the present ones within the next generation.
The managers of our best equipped power plants
are not blame-worthy because they are continually
sending to the scrap heap machines which are still
in good condition, to make way for others designed on
more advanced lines and more economical in opera-
tion. Many very able men are constantly employed
upon problems relating to sewage treatment, and
there is every reason to believe that advances in the
art will continue in the future as they have in the
past, although, perhaps, somewhat more slowly and
along different lines.
The possibilities of tank treatment, mechanical fil-
tration or separation, sludge treatment, etc., are by
no means exhausted, and the best results that are
possible today may be far exceeded both in economy
of treatment and in quality of effluent by the time
the works proposed for this city can be put into
complete operation.
The City should proceed in such a manner that
advantage can always be taken of any advances in
the art which may be made with the least expense,
and any works which are to be built should be de-
signed so that the City would not be irrevocably
committed to unnecessary expenditures such as has
been proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
sion.111
Administration.
And finally, there is nothing connected with the
construction of the works proposed by the Metro-
119 If the report alluded to is examined, it is
not likely that its meaning will be misunderstood.
A copy of this report was transmitted to the Chief
Tºngineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
ment, April 27, 1914.
* This pronouncement is in strict accordance
with the expressed opinions of the Metropolitan Com-
mission except as to the last clause, which is irrele-
want and incorrect. See reply 24.
34 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
politan Commission nor in the suggested modifica-
tions of them which is so new or strange that it can-
not be successfully carried out by the Borough au-
thorities who are already engaged in designing and
building works of a similar character, and in some
cases of equal magnitude and difficulty, under the
direction of the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
ment.112
The interference of an expensive Federal and State
Commission to control, and a Commission under
State authority to construct and operate sewerage
works is entirely unnecessary. The examples of other
great cities in the execution of similar works which
have been cited, such as Chicago, London, Paris and
Berlin, bear out this belief if the analogies are strictly
drawn.118
This problem is something more than merely the
collection of data, the demonstration of the condition
of the harbor and the making of reports and recom-
mendations for its improvement. It is a problem of
engineering, design and construction, of finance and
administration, and its final settlement and decision
should be in the hands of men of broad experience
and intimate knowledge of such matters as they af-
fect this City, and no body of men is so well fitted
for this task as the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
ment.114
Conclusions.
1. Divested of its supposed mystery and reduced
to reasonable proportions, this entire problem is sim-
ply one of placing the harbor in a condition free
from all nuisances and fit for any reasonable and
necessary use.”
2. Main drainage works should be designed to
utilize the digestive capacity of the harbor to the
greatest extent practicable by effective distribution
of the sewage effluent.”
3. The Ward’s Island project and the lower East
river interceptors and screens do not provide for
proper distribution.”
4. The intentions of the Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission in regard to the Ocean Island scheme
have not been made clear, but the initial steps pro-
posed in their general plan are such as will ultimately
make the island necessary.***
*** This opinion is in direct opposition to the
recommendation of the Metropolitan Commission
which favors the creation or designation of a central
board to construct and maintain the necessary works.
See replies to criticism 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 113, 114
and 124.
* The main drainage and sewage disposal works
of London and vicinity, Boston and vicinity, Chicago
and many other cities have been built and main-
tained by special commissions created for the pur-
pose. See references to reply 112.
* Excepting in its last phase, this statement is in
strict agreement with the expressed opinions of the
Metropolitan Commission. In the condensed state-
ment of the work of the Metropolitan Commission
appended to the city engineers’ report there will be
found, in Appendix II, Section IV, the scheme of ad-
ministration which the Metropolitan Commission rec-
ommends and the reasons for this recommendation.
* There is no mystery about this matter, so far
as the Metropolitan Commission is aware. With re-
gard to the rest of the proposition the Metropolitan
Commission is in accord. See references to reply
112, also 24.
* This is a fundamental principle underlying all
the Metropolitan Commission’s work. See reply to
criticism 24.
* This is denied for the following principal
reasons: In regard to the Wards Island project, mul-
tiple outlets are a part of the design. The point for
the outlets is where the water flows more rapidly
than almost anywhere else in the harbor. The water
is very deep. Over 150 feet of depth can be availed
of for the purpose of mixing the sewage with the
water, if such great depth is desired. In regard to
the Lower East river project, there will be multiple
outlets as for the Wards Island plant. The water is
deep and the currents rapid. Under these circum-
stances there would be adequate opportunity for dis-
tribution. Distribution is essential before the diges-
tion of Sewage can be accomplished. The sewage must
be mixed with water before the water can render
the sewage materials inert. This principle has been
kept in mind throughout the Commission’s work of
planning and has been fully described in the Metro-
politan Commission’s Report of April, 1910, Part III,
Chapter X, page 453.
118. This project has been announced for more than
a year and there has been ample opportunity given
to the city engineers to understand it. There
has been but one alteration of material conse-
quence in the plan and that is the introduction of .
the progressive principle whereby the works would
be built in two stages, but only the first stage com-
pleted in case experience showed that to be sufficient.
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES - 35
5. With a suitable general plan the Ocean Island
scheme is unnecessary.”
6. On the south shore of Long Island, at Barren
Island and elsewhere, there are suitable sites for dis-
posal plants discharging their effluent into Jamaica
bay. These plants can be more economically used
than the Ocean Island outlet.”
7. The standard of cleanness under which the
works proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission were designed contained too high a require-
ment for dissolved oxygen, but the late complete
abandonment of the dissolved oxygen section was
equally unwise.”
8. The Hamburg type of screen will not give as
good results as can be obtained with some other
types.”
That the first stage would not make the second stage
necessary is shown by the opposition of Consulting
Engineers Hering and Fuller to the second stage and
their endorsement of the first. See Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission’s Report of April 30, 1914,
Part III, Chapter I, pages 193 to 253.
119 After some years of study and the considera-
tion of the best expert advice obtainable, the Metro-
politan Commission has arrived at the opinion that
the ocean island plan is a necessary thing to look for-
ward to as an ultimate measure of protection. Before
reaching this opinion, the Commission considered
various other alternative projects, both in regard to
cost and efficiency and obtained the most competent
European experts to go over the ground and give
their advice. In no other way at so little cost can
the burden of pollution be so materially lessened.
* If there is any point of general agreement be-
tween the Metropolitan Commission and the city
engineers it is in regard to this point. The
Metropolitan Commission has suggested sites for
works both at Barren Island and the upper part of
Jamaica bay which appear to be approved by the
city engineers. Only, in case the ocean island
project is carried out, it would be more eco-
nomical to take a large part of the Jamaica bay sew-
age to that island than to build large works at Barren
Island to purify the sewage. See Metropolitan Sew-
erage Commission’s Preliminary Report VI, pages
45 and 46. Also see reply 24.
* The term abandonment indicates that the speci-
fication has been deserted, cast aside. It is quite the
reverse. The Commission should not be misunder-
stood or misquoted in regard to the oxygen require-
ment. Its position is that if the other specifications
of the standard of cleanness are complied with, there
will be enough oxygen in the water to satisfy all the
requirements. The two consulting experts of the
Metropolitan Commission whom the city engineers
have praised most highly are in full accord with the
Metropolitan Commission’s present position with re-
spect to oxygen. See correspondence appended to
reports of Messrs. Hering and Fuller in the report
of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, April 30,
1914, pages 218 and 253. See replies to criticism
7, 8, 23, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 51.
* The Hamburg screen is capable of removing a
large part of the suspended particles separately recog-
nizable as of sewage origin, and it has been suggested
by the Metropolitan Commission for this reason and
because it has been shown by years of experience to
be efficient in operating where there is considerable
range of tide. If a more efficient and economical
screen can be found, the Metropolitan Commission
would not be opposed to it. See replies to criticism
15, 24, 29, 98, 100, 101 and 102.
36 CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES
9. Sedementation tanks under marginal streets
are feasible, and in some cases desirable.128
10. The present organizations of the Board of
Estimate and Apportionment and of the Borough
Presidents are fully capable of designing, construct-
ing and administering a main drainage system.124
Respectfully submitted, -
NEW YORK SEWER PLAN COMMISSION,
NELSoN P. LEwis, Chairman
E. P. GooDRICH,
G. W. TILESON,
J. W. F. BENNETT,
FostER CRowHLL,
LEWIS NIXON, .
CHARLEs E. GREGORY, Secretary.
*The Metropolitan Commission gave very care-
ful consideration to the feasibility of locating sedi-
mentation basins beneath the marginal streets and
discussed this subject with some of its most experi-
enced engineering experts. See reports of Karl
Imhoff, Preliminary Report XIII, March, 1914; re-
port of George E. Datesman in the report of the Met-
ropolitan Commission of April 30, 1914, page 261.
The Commission’s opinion is that only in exceptional
situations should sedimentation basins be so located.
See report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion, April 30, 1914, Part III, Chapter I, page 168.
See replies to criticism 16, 17, 58, 76, 82, 83, 84
and 85. .
* The opinion of the Metropolitan Commission is
that in order to design, build and maintain a system
of main drainage and sewage disposal for a city, there
should be a central commission. The principal
reasons for this opinion are contained in Part IV of
the condensed statement of the work of the Metro-
politan Sewerage Commission appended to Appendix
II of the city engineers’ report. A central com-
mission has been considered necessary by practically
all those persons who have been consulted on
this subject by the Metropolitan Commission, includ-
ing two ex-Mayors of the City of New York. A
strong argument for the creation of a central com-
mission charged solely with the work of main drain-
age is afforded by the report of the city en-
gineers on the plan of main drainage for New York
City proposed by the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission which is here printed and under discussion.
After having been authorized and directed for about
a year to make plans of main drainage for New York
and having been afforded during this time every
facility to become familiar with the reports and other
work of the Metropolitan Commission, the city en-
gineers have produced a report consisting largely
of misstatements and immature and illogical sug-
gestions in criticism of the Metropolitan Commis-
sion’s work. Apparently the great variety of duties
performed by the city engineers has prevented that
careful study of the main drainage and sewage dis-
posal problem which the situation called for.
Other reasons why it is now considered by the
Metropolitan Commission better to place the con-
structive work in the hands of a commission rather
than in the hands of the boroughs or leave it to be
built under the present organization of the Board of
Estimate and Apportionment here follow:
a. The sewage problem is essentially one problem,
and not an aggregation of more or less loosely related
parts. The pollution is not only local, but general,
and the system which is to correct the conditions
should be general also. Such divisions of the work
CRITICAL REPORT
REPLIES 37
as are necessary should depend upon the opportun-
ities and necessities which the various parts of the
city present and not upon political boundaries.
b. The construction of a main drainage and sew-
age disposal system requires a high degree of scien-
tific and technical skill and may well receive the
concentrated attention of a special board or commis-
sion for construction. The experience gained in con-
structing and operating the works in one locality
should be completely available for all. This would
be automatically provided for in a central construct-
ing commission, but could never be perfectly realized
if the works were built by the boroughs.
c. For the gradual construction of the works there
would be need of continuity and consistency of pur-
pose and this could more certainly be insured
through a commission than through the five separate
boroughs.
d. Borough construction, however appropriate for
local sewerage, the object of which is to protect the
land against pollution, is not so suitable for main
drainage and disposal works whose purpose it is to
improve and protect the general waterways of the
city. Harbor work should be, and generally is,
strongly centralized, as, for example, dredging and
dock building. See replies to criticism 11, 12, 13,
19, 22, 112, 113 and 114.
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION,
GEORGE A. SOPER, President,
JAMES H. FUERTES, Secretary,
H. DE B. PARSONs,
CHARLES SooysMITH,
LINSLY R. WILLIAMS.
38
APPENDIX I
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK,
17 BATTERY PLACE, NEW YORK CITY.
NELSON. P. LEWIs, Esq., April 16, 1914.
Chief Engineer, Board of Estimate and Apportionment,
Municipal Building, New York City.
DEAR SIR: You have asked in what order this Commission would have the City proceed to carry out
the main drainage and sewage disposal works which were discussed at the Board of Estimate and Appor-
tionment hearing on April 14, and you have expressed particular interest in the projects for the protection
of the Lower East river and Harlem sections. This information is desired by you for the use of the Con-
Sulting Engineers who have been requested to discuss the Commission’s work at a meeting of the Board of
Estimate and Apportionment to be held on the 11th of May.
The first step recommended is the construction of the interceptors, grit chambers, screening plants and
submerged outfalls for the Lower East river territory. The Manhattan interceptor would collect the sewage
from Broad street to 26th street and discharge through a pumping station, grit chamber and screening plant,
to be located at Corlears Hook. On the Brooklyn side the interceptors would extend between Huron street
and Classon avenue, with the pumping station, grit chamber and screening plant at South 5th Street.
The Manhattan works would deal with an estimated dry weather flow of 99,000,000 gallons and the
Brooklyn works with 101,000,000 gallons per twenty-four hours. The estimated cost of construction is
$4,095,000 and the maintenance and fixed charges about $361,000. There would also be severally isolated
screening plants located along the Lower East river, estimated to cost $710,000, with total annual charges of
about $75,000.
At the same time, or immediately after, the foregoing works for the Lower East river are taken in hand,
attention should be given to the works discharging at Wards Island. The first installation would include
the following: An interceptor on the Manhattan shore of the Harlem, extending from 106th Street to 148th
street, and in The Bronx from Brook avenue to 149th street, with tunnels. to Wards Island from 114th
street in Manhattan and Willow avenue in The Bronx. On Wards Island there would be a pumping station
and a treatment plant sufficient for the sewage to be expected in 1920.
The Lower East river and Harlem works thus far referred to would probably be sufficient until the
year 1925.
When it became necessary to afford the Lower East river a greater degree of protection than the screen-
ing plants at Corlears Hook and South 5th street could render, the sewage collected to these two points
should be taken to the ocean island. This would involve the construction of a siphon from Corlears Hook
to South 5th street, together with a pumping station at the latter point, force mains to Wallabout street,
delivering to a main sewer which would carry the sewage to the ocean island and the construction of the
island, the final instalation including the main pumping station, outfall tunnel and treatment works. The
total cost for the entire instalation, including the first and second stages, would be about $17,500,000, with
fixed charges and maintenance of about $1,312,000. To this should be added the cost of isolated screen-
ing plants on the Manhattan and Brooklyn shores, $4,200,000, with annual charges for operation and fixed
charges of $575,000. r.
If the ocean island project is to be carried out by 1925, as the Commission thinks will be necessary, it
will be desirable to carry to the island a large part of the sewage of the western Jamaica bay subdivision.
The quantity of sewage thus provided for by 1940 will amount to 136,000,000 gallons per day. By sending
this sewage to the outlet island a large saving can be effected in the cost of disposing of the sewage at
Barren Island through works of high efficiency at that point. The size and cost of the tunnel from the
mainland to the island would be increased, as would the settling basin capacity on the island and the
total maintenance and fixed charges would be larger also. The comprehensive form of the ocean island
project for which the Commission has made estimates represents a total cost of $21,466,000, including
$4,072,000 for the Jamaica Bay division. The total maintenance and fixed charges amount to about $1,-
597,000, including $286,000 chargeable to the Jamaica Bay division.
39
Before the ocean island project is carried out it will probably be necessary to begin the construction of
other parts of the general plan for main drainage and sewage disposal for the City, including the Tallmans
Island, Clason Point and Jo Cos Marsh works and the small plants for the Richmond territory.
The Commission considers it unwise and unnecessary to state with exactness how much work shall
be built each year, preferring to leave this matter largely to the constructing body and to the judgment of
the Board of Estimate and Apportionment.
Very sincerely,
(Signed) GEORGE A. SOPER, PRESIDENT.
APPENDIX II
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK,
17 BATTERY PLACE, NEW YORK CITY.
March 18, 1914.
To the Members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment:
SIRs: In accordance with instructions from the Legislature and with appropriations aggregating ap-
proximately $250,000 from New York City during the last eight years, the Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion has made investigations and general plans for a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for the
entire city. -
The investigations and planning have been carried on by the Commissioners, of whom four are En-
gineers and one is a Physician, aided by a corps of trained assistants and with the advice of twenty con-
sulting experts.
The system proposed consists largely of interceptors running along the waterfront to collect the sew-
age to a number of centrally located disposal plants, where sufficient of the impurities can be removed to
permit the effluent to be discharged into the harbor Waters without producing danger or offense. No change
would be made in the local sewers except to connect them with the interceptors.
The system proposed is recommended both as a plan and policy for construction to be carried out in
successive steps and not as one undertaking. Some parts are needed for the immediate future and should
be taken in hand at once; the remainder can be deferred until required.
The plans are sufficiently flexible to permit of the adoption of any discoveries or improvements in the
art of sewage disposal which may be made. From the beginning the works will constitute a well co-ordinated
scheme of main drainage for the city which will utilize the absorptive capacity of the harbor waters to
the greatest extent consistent with due regard to the public health and welfare.
In the Commission’s opinion, there is no need of further investigations or comprehensive planning.
In the projects proposed the approximate location, size, capacity, cost and operating expenses are given.
Detailed surveys, borings and the preparation of contract plans will be needed, and these can best be pre-
pared by those charged with the work of construction.
The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission has recommended, in a report to the Mayor dated January 7,
1914, that a commission be at once created, or an existing Commission designated, to proceed with the de-
tailed studies and plans which should form part of the construction of the necessary works, and the members
have placed their resignations in the hands of the Mayor, to take effect as soon as their final report, now in
preparation, can be completed, which it is expected will not be later than April 30, 1914.
Respectfully,
GEORGE A. SOPER,
JAMES H. FUERTES,
H. deB. PARSONS,
CHARLES SOOYSMITH,
LINSLY R. WILLIAMS,
Commissioners.
Per GEORGE A. SoPER, President.
Appended hereto is a condensed statement of the Commission’s I, Investigations; II, Findings and
Conclusions; III, Plans for the Main Drainage and Disposal Works, and IV, Scheme of Administration,
proposed. - - -
40
CoNDENSED STATEMENT OF THE WORK OF THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE CoMMISSION
I. Investigations.
1. A thorough study of the chemical and bacteriological condition of the harbor waters and deposits
beneath the waters, including about 6000 analyses covering all seasons of year and all sections of the harbor.
2. Tidal studies to determine the volumes of water flowing at different stages of tide in all the im-
portant sections of the harbor.
3. An investigation of the present conditions of sewerage and sewage disposal in New York City and
the other cities and towns within twenty miles of the New York City Hall.
4. The relation of the polluted water to health, especially through the medium of shellfish, bathing and
the collection of driftwood.
5. The location and extent of nuisances to sight and smell, especially in large parts of the harbor,
such as the Harlem and Lower East rivers and among the docks and piers of Manhattan and Brooklyn.
6. The present and probable future population and density of population in all parts of New York
City.
7. Estimates of quantities of sewage with the weights of the various ingredients now discharged and
likely in future to be produced throughout the city and neighboring territory in New Jersey.
8. Condition of the sewers of Manhattan as shown by inspections.
9. Experiments to determine the circumstances under which sewage may be discharged into the harbor
without danger of producing nuisance or injury to the public health.
10. Studies of the main drainage and sewage disposal works of other large cities comparable with New
York in respect to their topography, population and facilities for constructing sanitary disposal plants.
II. Findings and Conclusions.
1. The excrement of over 6,000,000 people, discharged into the harbor through several hundred out-
lets, flows backward and forward in plain sight from the shores, docks and shipping.
2. Deposits occur which putrefy and give off offensive odors.
3. Contact with the water through bathing, the collection of driftwood and otherwise is no longer Safe
anywhere north of the Narrows.
4. The oxygen natural to the waters is already half gone and has been rapidly diminishing in the last
few years.
5. By 1940 the population and the sewage produced will be more than twice the figures for to-day.
6. The processes of sewage treatment which can be employed in New York are restricted by the con-
gested population and high cost of land to screening and sedimentation in deep settling tanks and, of these,
only screening is suitable for the built-up sections of Manhattan and Brooklyn.
7. Several hundred million gallons of sewage naturally tributary to the inner harbor will eventually
have to be taken to the open ocean for disposal and all works built to effect the relief now imperatively re-
quired should be so designed as to be made part of an ocean outlet project.
8. Preparation of a final report answering all the queries which the Commission was created to study
and proposing definite plans for main drainage and sewage disposal to serve The City of New York for the
next thirty or forty years.
9. Formulation of a standard of cleanness for the harbor water to serve as a guide in the construction
and operation of main drainage and disposal works.
10. The subject of protecting the harbor against excessive pollution by sewage has now passed suffi-
ciently through the period of investigation and general planning to indicate the nature of the works required
by New York.
11. A central commission should at once be created to take over the records and general plans of the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission and proceed with the necessary detailed planning and construction and
operation of such main drainage and sewage disposal works as are needed.
41
III. Plans.
1. In general, intercepting sewers to connect with the local sewerage systems which now exist, or will
in future be constructed, and carry the sewage to suitably located points for treatment and discharge.
2. The works to be built gradually, definite steps being taken as time proceeds and the necessity for
further protection is recognized. Every step to form an indispensible part of the ultimate system.
3. Specifically, so far as can be stated here:
a. Plant at the northeast corner of Wards Island. To this point would be brought dry-weather sew-
age, eventually amounting to about 400 million gallons per day, from northern Manhattan and south-
western Bronx. The first installation would be for about 170 million gallons which may be expected by
1920. The treatment would be sedimentation. The first cost would be about $5,000,000 and the annual
operating charges at that date about $175,000.
b. Plant at Tallmans Island. Here a large part of the sewage of northern Queens would be brought
for treatment by sedimentation. The capacity by the year 1920 should be approximately 10 million gallons
per day. The first installation would be about $1,285,000 and the operating charges in 1920 $30,000.
c. Plants at Corlears Hook and various points on the Lower East river of Manhattan and Brooklyn
and on the Hudson shore of Manhattan. At first all the works would include screens and submerged out-
lets extending sufficiently far from shore to insure a prompt and thorough diffusion of the sewage. Later,
as the quantity of Sewage increased and a more complete protection of the water was needed, a substantial
part of the sewage tributary to the Lower East river would be collected to a central pumping station near the
Brooklyn Navy Yard and discharged through a tunnel to the sea. This ocean island project, when com-
plete, would cost about $17,000,000 with maintenance charges of about $408,000. The first stage, which is
all that may be necessary for some years, would cost about $3,000,000 and for maintenance about
$125,000.
d. For Jamaica bay a plant at Jos Cos Marsh for the sewage of southeastern Queens and either a plant
at Barren Island or a sea outlet for the sewage from the rest of southern Queens and southeastern Brooklyn.
The quantity of sewage first to be provided for at Jo Cos Marsh would be about 10 million gallons per day
and the first installation, with its interceptors, etc., would cost about $1,100,000 with an operating cost of
about $46,000.
For the portion carried to Barren Island, the first installation would treat 83 million gallons per day
and would cost about $6,000,000. The operating charges in 1920 would be about $145,000. If the ocean
island project (see c above) was carried out, the sewage which would otherwise go to Barren Island could
be taken to the ocean island by works whose final cost would be about $4,000,000 with operating charges of
less than $60,000 in 1920.
e. For Richmond, five points where grit chambers and screening plants would be located. The first
investment would be less than $1,000,000.
IV. Scheme of Administration.
1. It is recommended that a new commission be created or an existing commission be designated to
perform the following duties:
a. Take over, continue and extend the work of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.
b. Make such detailed investigations, including surveys and borings, as may be necessary to make con-
tract plans and estimates for the construction of a system of main drainage and sewage disposal for New
York City.
c. Prepare these necessary plans and estimates.
d. Construct the main drainage and sewage disposal works required after they have been duly ap-
proved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment.
e. Operate the works after construction, or, where parts are situated wholly within a borough, perhaps
turn those parts over to the borough to operate under the regulation and control of the central commission.
2. The foregoing scheme of administration has been recommended after full consideration and consulta-
tion with various persons familiar with the machinery of the city government, including ex-Mayors Low
and McClellan.
42
3. Among the reasons why it is considered better to place the constructive work in the hands of a
commission than in the hands of the boroughs are the following:
a. The sewage problem is essentially one problem and not an aggregation of more or less loosely re-
lated parts. The pollution is not only local, but general, and the system which is to correct the conditions
should be general also. Such divisions of the work as are necessary should depend upon the opportunities
and necessities which the various parts of the city present and not upon political boundaries.
b. The construction of a main drainage and sewage disposal system requires a high degree of Scientific
and technical skill and may well receive the concentrated attention of a special board or commission for
construction. The experience gained in constructing and operating the works in one locality should be
completely available for all. This would be automatically provided for in a central constructing commis-
sion, but could never be perfectly realized if the works were built by the boroughs.
c. For the gradual construction of the works there would be need of continuity and consistency of pur-
pose and this could more certainly be insured through a commission than through the five separate boroughs.
d. Borough construction, however appropriate for local sewerage, the object of which is to protect the
land against pollution, is not so suitable for main drainage and disposal works whose purpose it is to im-
prove and protect the general waterways of the city. Harbor work should be, and generally is, strongly
centralized, as, for example, dredging and dock building.
#
#
;
i
;
;
|||
3901
|
...--- - - ... ----------------------- - - - -> ******* * * * * * * **** * * * T
UNIVERSITY OF |
}
- NOTE TO THE READER
- The paper in this volume is brittle or the
- inner raargins are extremely rarrow. t ;
We have bound or rebound the volume
- utilizing the best means possible.
. PLEASE HANDLE WITH CARE - º