FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155  
156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   >>   >|  
but any law which, as in this case, has so positive a reason for its existence, and violation of which is so certain to bring disaster on persons drinking the water of the stream below the point where the sewage is discharged, any law which appeals for its enforcement so directly to the common sense and right feeling of all intelligent people, seems hardly to need legal machinery for its enforcement. It must depend, as indeed all laws must depend, upon the intelligent support of the community, and surely no law would commend itself more urgently than this one forbidding the pollution of drinking water. In spite of the fact that the lack of air in the water will prevent bacterial action, there are, nevertheless, many cases where the discharge of sewage into a stream may be permitted as being the best solution of the disposal problem, provided always that the stream is not used and is not likely to be used for drinking water. Such cases occur where the stream is relatively large and where the level of the stream is fairly regular, so that there is no likelihood of the deposit of organic matter on the banks during the falling of the stream level. Examples of this sort might be cited in the vicinity of the Mohawk or Hudson River, or in the vicinity of any of the larger rivers of any populous state, since although the water of the Mohawk is used by the city of Albany for drinking purposes, yet the amount of organic matter which inevitably finds its way into such rivers precludes its use for drinking without filtration. Into the Hudson below Albany there can hardly be any question of the propriety of discharging sewage from a single house. Again, houses in the vicinity of large bodies of still water may without question be allowed to discharge into those lakes. For example, houses in the vicinity of Lake Ontario or Lake Michigan, or even of much smaller lakes, should not contribute any offensive pollution to the waters of the lake. In New York State, some of the smaller lakes are used as water-supplies for cities, as, for example, Owasco Lake for the city of Auburn and Skaneateles Lake for the city of Syracuse, and, acting under the statutes, special laws have been passed by the State Department of Health, forbidding any discharge of any kind of household wastes into these lakes. The same is done in other states. Here, again, it is a question of the drinking supply which is being considered, and not a question of the pos
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155  
156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
drinking
 

stream

 

vicinity

 
question
 
sewage
 
discharge
 

depend

 

smaller

 

forbidding

 

pollution


houses
 
matter
 

Hudson

 

Mohawk

 

enforcement

 

organic

 

intelligent

 

Albany

 

rivers

 

purposes


inevitably
 

amount

 

allowed

 
precludes
 

single

 
discharging
 
filtration
 

propriety

 

bodies

 

household


wastes

 

Health

 
Department
 
passed
 

supply

 
considered
 

states

 

special

 

statutes

 

contribute


offensive

 

waters

 
Ontario
 

Michigan

 
Syracuse
 
acting
 

Skaneateles

 

Auburn

 
supplies
 

cities