which are being steadily removed, the water is a permanent asset, whose value increases with the growing needs of the commonwealth. The stream, like the sunshine and the wind, which feed its sources, goes on forever. Like the sunshine, too, the stream to be utilized at all must be used from day to day; while it cannot be exhausted, neither can it be hoarded. Surely it is in line with a sound and permanent public policy to place the utilization of such an important resource upon a firm scientific basis, particularly when the public's interest in it is shown to be paramount to all others.

The regulation and control of the waters of the commonwealth for the purpose of securing and maintaining their highest usefulness is a proper function of the State. Inasmuch as in Michigan the use of these waters for public water supply and for the disposal of city sewage easily transcend all other uses, and since the Board of Health is the arm of the State constituted for the purpose of looking after the interests of public health, it is with this Board that the administrative sanitary control of waters of the State properly belongs. To the end that this administrative control may be placed upon the firmest possible basis, the State Board of Health should undertake a systematic sanitary survey of the river systems of the State most used or most useful for public water supply or sewage disposal. From such a sure foundation of fact the best use of the streams could be determined and reasonable limits be set to uses which in their nature are irreconcilable or antagonistic. It is only from such a firm base as this that so far reaching and important a matter as the regulation and control of streams may safely proceed.

Mr. Vaughan: Our next number on the program is the "Interstate and International Problem" by E. B. Phelps. Professor Phelps is unable to be here tonight and in his absence I will read his paper. Professor Phelps is the consulting engineer for the International Joint Commission, which has to do with the streams and their pollution between the United States and Canada.

Interstate and International Aspects of Stream

Pollution

BY EARLE B., PHELPS

U. S. Public Health Service

The control of stream pollution in the United States has hitherto been, and, for the most part, will doubtless remain, a purely state function in which the Federal Government has had little or no part. Only in those cases where definite injury to the interests of navigation or of United States property is involved has there been any Federal intervention, either legislative 'or at law.

There has resulted from this condition many divergent, unrelated and even conflicting laws and court decisions, and a variety of practices in the various states ranging from the most stringent laws and control to a complete disregard of the whole subject. Were single state jurisdictions coextensive with the principal river systems of the country, each state would doubtless work out its problems to its own best interests. Unfortunately quite the reverse is true and all of the more important river systems, of the eastern half of the country at least, are either interstate or flow from one state into another. In addition we have as an international boundary on the north our greatest of inland water systems, the Great Lakes and their connecting rivers. This situation has been by far the most potent factor in our disregard of the problems of stream sanitation, leading to the present unsatisfactory conditions in many of our most valuable streams.

Side by side with that natural civic inertia which delays but never prevents needed public improvements, there has grown up the feeling that, in case of interstate streams, local effort is of no avail. There being no medium of communication and agreement between states in such matters, a do-nothing policy has in most cases prevailed.

The interstate character of its two principal streams has in

the case of Massachusetts even been made the excuse for exempting those two rivers from the workings of an otherwise excellent system of stream control. Upon the plea that these rivers enter the state somewhat polluted, the state permits unlimited and harmful pollution within its borders to the detriment of its own people. In the central states the presence of the great interstate rivers has either discouraged legislation altogether or induced a tacit understanding that these rivers are exempted.

The question of our international waters might appear to be even more complicated but fortunately in this case the treaty making powers of the Governments have provided a possible remedy and one which is not without significance. Act IV of the Waterways Treaty of January 11th, 1909, between Great Britain and the United States provides that neither country shall pollute the international boundary waters to the injury of health or property in the other. This same treaty makes provision for. an International Joint Commission composed of three members from each country with administrative powers to investigate and report upon questions submitted to it and, in certain cases, with judicial powers to settle disputes arising over matters connected with the boundary waters.

Under date of August 1st, 1912, there was referred to this Commission for examination and report with such conclusions as might be appropriate, the following questions:

"1. To what extent and by what causes and in what localities have the boundary waters between the United States and Canada been polluted so as to be injurious to the public health and unfit for domestic or other uses?"

"2. In what way or manner, whether by the construction and operation of suitable drainage canals or plants at convenient points or otherwise, is it possible and advisable to remedy or prevent the pollution of these waters, and by what means or arrangement can the proper construction or operation of remedial or preventive works, or a system or method of rendering these waters sanitary and suitable for domestic or other uses, be best secured and maintained in order to ensure the adequate protection and development of all interests involved on both sides. of the boundary and to fulfil the obligations undertaken in

Article IV. of the waterways treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, in which it is agreed that the waters therein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other."

A progress report issued by the Commission January 16th, 1914, answered in no uncertain way the first of these questions. Under the direction of Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin, United States Public Health Service, over nineteen thousand bacteriological examinations were made during the course of about seven months. For this purpose seventeen laboratories were equipped and used. The examinations covered a stretch of water of almost two thousand miles, extending from the Lake of the Woods to the St. Lawrence River. For the most part the waters of the Great Lakes themselves remain in a condition of pristine purity but in certain portions of these lakes and all the connecting waterways dangerous pollution was found.

Upon the completion of this work and the publication of the results, the Commission immediately took up the second branch of the references dealing with remedies. It was deemed essential to investigate the practicability and cost of remedial measures as a preliminary to making definite recommendations. For this purpose the St. Clair-Detroit River system and the Niagara River were selected. These are not only the most seriously polluted of the boundary waters but involve the most difficult problems in the collection and treatment of sewage to be found upon any of these waters. It is assumed, therefore, that any feasible remedial policy that may be worked out upon these two streams will of necessity be applicable and practicable upon the other waters.

District offices were established at Detroit and at Buffalo early in 1915 and a comprehensive study has been made of the general drainage and treatment problems of all sewered communities upon both sides of these rivers. These studies have not been carried to the point of complete engineering design and the plans submitted will not obviate the necessity for further detailed engineering studies in each local situation. They are, however, sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to justify

estimates of upper cost limits with reasonable assurance and furnish a satisfactory basis for a proper consideration of the advisability of remedial policies. The results of this investigation are now being prepared for presentation.

Upon the basis of these results together with the information the Commission has already gathered, recommendations will be drawn up and submitted to the two Governments. It would be premature to attempt at this time to forecast the exact nature of the Commission's conclusions or the action that may be taken upon them by the Governments. No effort has been spared to get at the facts, complex and inter-related as they are, and it is certain that whatever general policy may be recommended for the protection of the boundary waters will be the result of mature deliberation and a careful balancing of all the facts and interests involved.

In addition to the direct interest that attaches to the final outcome of this question it is also of general interest in the matter of our interstate streams. Whatever action is taken to meet the particular case arising under our treaty obligations with a foreign. neighbor ought at least to serve as a guiding principle in dealing with the more general case of our internal waters. That some form of Federal supervision is going to be demanded in the near future is apparent from the present conditions. It will be fortunate, therefore, if the first step in this direction be made in connection with these boundary waters, and based upon a careful scientific study of stream conditions. It will be doubly fortunate if out of the necessities of this situation there shall be developed a suitable policy of Federal supervision over stream pollution and the necessary administrative organization for putting it into effect. Even in the case of the boundary waters such a policy must recognize and harmonize with existing state policies in all cases where the latter are efficient. The gradual extension of these principles to the navigable and interstate streams and the development of a uniform body of state laws, supported and coordinated by the minimum of Federal legislation and supervision, will be the logical and necessary development of the near future.

Mr. Vaughan: Our next paper will be