VOLNEY ROGERS TELLS WHY HE OPPOSES PLAN TO BUILD SEWERS THROUGH MILL CREEK PARK

VOLNEY ROGERS TELLS WHY HE OPPOSES PLAN

TO BUILD SEWERS THROUGH MILL CREEK PARK

Territory Six and a Quarter Miles Square Should Not Be

Drained Through a Public Health resort, and City as a Whole Should Not Be Taxed for the Benefit of a Portion—District South of the City Also Pro- poses to Drain Sewage Through Mill Creek— Would Make Mahoning River an Open Sewer Through the Heart of the City.

Proposed Sewer Would Cost a Colossal Sum and Even Then Would Not be Satisfactory — Park Springs Would Be Contaminated and Lake Glacier Drained — Mr. Rogers Proposes Alternatives at Lower Cost for the present, and a Possible Solution When the District Becomes More Populous — Cities Leading Authorities Support in Support of His Position.

Park Commissioner Volney Rogers is now involved in what promises to develop into another fight to save Mill Creek park. Plans have been made to lay large sewers in the park throughout almost its entire length. If they are carried out Mr. Rogers says that the beauty of Youngstown’s great reservation will be seriously injured, its usefulness impaired, and the city itself will suffer irreparable harm.

The plan Mr. Rogers opposes is to drain a territory of about six and a quarter square miles through the park, turn this sewage into the Mahoning river below the ice house, and let it run through the central part of the city. As the territory around Mill Creek becomes more populous, the size of the sewer district will increase. Even now, Pleasant Grove in Boardman township has plans for draining into Mill Creek above the park. This sewage would also run through what is now a singularly beautiful pleasure resort, and thence through the center of Youngstown.

Mr. Rogers’ idea during the many years he has been at the head of Mill Creek park, has been to give the people of Youngstown who cannot afford to go away during the summer, a health resort here at home, with pure air, pure water, and all opportunities for enjoyment. The proposed sewer, he finds, will destroy the springs in the park, cause sewage to back up into Lake Glacier, lower the level of and perhaps drain Lake Glacier and Bear Creek, and do other damage that cannot now be foreseen.

All this will be for the benefit of private property and the city as a whole and will be taxed for construction which will benefit only a small part of its people. Further, Mr. Rogers states that such a sewer as proposed is at present unnecessary, that its cost will be colossal, and that it will not work after it is built. To support his contention he cites the failure of the present Glenwood avenue sewer, which is built on a similar plan.

Mr. Rogers recognizes, however, the need of sewage facilities for the district. To provide them he offers several alternative plans, one to take care of immediate needs, and the others looking forward to the needs of the city and the district south of us in the future. Before making them he examined the topography of the district thoroughly himself and consulted the leading authorities on sewage disposal. His plans, he believes, will not only be cheaper and more satisfactory now, but will provide a solution of the problem in years to come. Instead of damaging the park, they will improve it, and instead of turning the Mahoning River, as it flows through the heart of the city, into an open sewer, they would carry the waste of a large district to a point in the river east of us.

Mr. Rogers states his position in a communication to The Vindicator today. His arguments may be summarized as follows:

I. Objections to a Sewer Through Mill Creek park

1. The sewage from a district six and a quarter miles square should not be drained through a public park. This district will continually grow larger as time goes on.

2. Mill Creek park should not be damaged to benefit private property, and the city as a whole should not be taxed for a sewer which will benefit only a portion.

3. The proposed sewer would contaminate and dry up the springs in Mill Creek park, would cause sewage to overflow into Lake Glacier, which is used for public bathing and cutting ice, and would lower the level of Lake Glacier and Bear creek.

4. The plans for the sewer are faulty and would create unhealthful conditions in the district they are intended to benefit, as the Glenwood avenue sewer has already done. Sewers should not be built with sudden falls, as a sewer through the park must be; nor should they be placed below the ground water level, where their capacity will be decreased by the ground water that drains in.

5. Sewage should not be dumped into the river above the filter plant but should be kept out of the water that the city uses.

II. Alternative Plans. What Kind of Sewer Can be Built?

1. Interest on the amount of money it would cost to lay a sewer through Mill Creek park would more than pay for pumping the sewage of the district south of the Glenwood avenue hump into the Glenwood avenue sewer.

2. Relieve the Glenwood avenue sewer by constructing a sewer from the Edwards street ridge to the High street outlet, or, if that is not large enough, by a sewer on Garlick street. This will remove the present high pressure from the Glenwood avenue sewer and leave its capacity free for draining the lands further south.

3. When the district becomes populous and the amount of sewage to be pumped becomes large, build a new sewer by cutting or tunnelling through the hump on Glenwood avenue. The district will then be large enough to pay for the improvement itself.

4. Mill Creek park does not need a sewer yet. The sewage from comfort stations along the edge of the park will drain into city sewers. When the amount of sewage in the park itself becomes large, it can be pumped at small expense.

5. Examine the low place in the divide between the Mahoning river and Mill creek, to determine if it would not be practicable to carry sewage by a short route to the river east of the city. Establish a sewer district to include the part of Boardman township that would drain into Mill creek.

6. For the future welfare of the city and the park, plan streets and sewers running parallel with the park on both sides. On the east side there is such a street in Glenwood avenue as far as Eaton street. A street should be cut along the park from Eaton street south.

In support of his views Mr. Rogers prints letters from authorities on public works. Dr. William P. Mason, the leading authority in the United States and probably in the world, on sewage disposal, condemns the proposal to lay sewers through the park. Mr. J. Horace McFarland, President of the American Civic Association, says the sewer would be a public nuisance, calls the plan to build it monstrous, and adds that in Pennsylvania it would be forbidden by the State Board of Health. The superintendent of a park in St. Paul, Minn., writes that his city has to pay nearly $6,000 a year to replenish the waters of a park lake which are continually drained by a sewer, for sewers cannot be made water tight. Mr. Job Evans testifies to the backing up of the present Glenwood avenue sewer into the district from Lakewood to Falls avenue.

Mr. Rogers’ communication follows:

F.M. Lillie, Esq., City Engineer, and the Honorable Members of the City Council of Youngstown, Ohio:

Gentlemen: I wish to thank you for the courteous favor of a blue print showing tentative suggestions as to where a sewer could be located that would drain that portion of the Mill Creek sewer district which lies east of Mill Creek, and a small portion of land on the west side of that stream. Of course these suggestions are from the sewage standpoint only, for the improvement of private property, as I understand; It is not proposed to drain storm waters that fall on the territory within the district except that which falls on the roofs of houses. In other words, house drainage, including rain that falls on houses is to be provided for.

I assume that your assistant engineers who made the topographical surveys and suggestions, were not aware of the location of springs in Mill Creek park that would be affected by a sewer if built where indicated, and that they were not informed as to the geological conditions surrounding the park lakes, or the future plans for the improvement of Mill Creek park in the vicinity of park springs.

Park Damaged to Benefit Private Property.

It may be conceded, with the effect on Mill Creek park of the question, that a sewer would be located as suggested that would furnish the desired drainage; but would it be right materially to damage a valuable public park, to benefit private property? It may be said that the damage would be negligible only — one gentleman said to me, “The sewer would be under the ground, what harm could it do?”

Of course people generally do not have the time or opportunity to examine into these questions, but the very fact that sewers are under the ground, and that we do not know what is going on under the ground, is just where the danger lies.

But would the location indicated be the best location for a main or trunk sewer?

These are matters that should be investigated thoroughly and considered well before deciding a question of such great public importance.

The City Engineer having stated to me and others that he had given the subject of the location of the sewer little personal attention, I am certainly warranted in assuming that his mind is open and that he will gladly listen to any helpful suggestions that others may make.

Exceptional Fall of Proposed Sewer.

In the first place I call your attention to the exceptional fall that there would be in the line of the suggested sewer location from Glenwood avenue at the Old Furnace road to the east park drive. Unless extraordinary and expensive precautions were taken, I should expect during storms that sewage in large quantities would be forced to the surface of the park.

You will certainly agree that a great trunk sewer if possible should have moderate, even grades, and that grades from high elevation to low valleys, in short distances are always to be avoided if they can be; that the sewage and storm water will rush down the steep incline quickly to the foot of the hill and will back-fill and overflow when the low grade is reached.

Would it not be better in such a case to cut through a moderate hill, put a sewer in its proper place, at a proper grade, and with shorter distance?

I am sure that it is only a question of present cost that would cause you to hesitate, and I am also sure that no large city would hesitate to cut through the hump on Glenwood avenue for the proposed sewer.

I shall refer to the final work-out that I would suggest on this subject later.

Would Damage Lake Glacier.

Would a sewer along the west shore of Lake Glacier lower the water level?

The park months are the latter part of June, and the months of July and August. This, as all know, is the time of the year when water evaporation is greatest.

The water shed of Mill Creek is such that a small amount of water reaches the streams during midsummer, except during heavy rainfall; and then unfortunately it rushes away quickly. The basin is nearly all cleared land, and after the run-off has disappeared, vegetation and evaporation soon absorb most of the surface moisture.

In dry periods, Mill Creek becomes little more than a brook. It is not unusual for the overflow at the Glacier dam to be reduced to the sixteenth part of an inch. You will see by this that for bathing, boating and beauty, it is absolutely necessary to conserve all the water for these beneficial park purposes during these months, and in addition if the water were drawn down in a substantial degree, the question of mud banks drying in the sun would not only be ugly but unhealthful.

Sewage Would Seep into Lake.

I have learned from reliable coal drillers that there is a pre-glacial river bed under Lake Glacier in Mill Creek park. This bed is said to be from 65 to 70 feet below the present bed of that stream. It enters the park at or just north of the north shore of Lake Glacier. Where McCullom store house stands there was an island: one branch of the ancient river passed along the present valley of Mill Creek to Bear Creek, thence along Bear Creek Valley to a junction with the west branch of this river, and from thence it passed southerly. The sand and gravel banks just west of Lanterman’s Falls mark where the ancient river bed is at that point.

This old river valley is filled with glacial deposit, and at the north and west of Lake Glacier it is loose material, largely sand, gravel, boulders and clay.

At what is known as McCormick’s sand bank, at the north end of Lake Glacier, I know the material to be loose sand and gravel below the surface to quite a depth. This land was acquired for park purposes, by an appropriation suit, which I prosecuted, and when the jury was taken to view the premises, Mr. McCormick who owned the sand bank had a deep pit perhaps 25 feet below the surface there, showing large quantities of excellent sand and gravel, and his men were at work still proceeding downward, in the same material.

On the west shore of Lake Glacier there is a fill of loose material to make the west park drive of 16 feet for some distance and the entire west shore of this lake rests on glacial fill.

Now what I should expect, if a sewer trench were cut along the west drive at Lake Glacier, is that the water would percolate into the sewer ditch and from this ditch into the loose material in this ancient river valley, as shown by the deep pit that was dug at the McCormick sand bank, and thus disappear from the surface. This would occur even if the sewer itself were absolutely water tight. I have no more doubt that that is just what would happen, if a sewer were constructed below the water level there as proposed than that I am writing this. It is what would naturally follow, and what actually did occur under circumstances very similar at St. Paul, Minnesota. See letter of Superintendent of St. Paul parks of February 23 and May 25, 1915, appended hereto.

Sewers Are Not Water Tight.

This is not all. It is a well known fact that sewers of ordinary construction are not water tight, and it is doubtful it is practical or even possible to construct a sewer that will permanently remain water tight; and water from the lake would unquestionably disappear directly through the sewer.

During heavy rainfalls or high water from melting snows, water from the high hills would rush quickly down in the sewer to the low ground along the lake, back-fill with such a pressure that sewage would be forced from the sewer into the lake and probably overflow at the manholes at the surface. In view of the fact that Lake Glacier is but a short distance above the city water intake, and that the ice on Lake Glacier is cut in large quantities for domestic consumption, it would be an unpardonable wrong to contaminate the waters of Lake Glacier with sewage.

Best Place to Lay Sewers.

All these things go to prove that the true economy in the construction of sewers that are to drain large areas is not always to put them in the low valleys, where a considerable portion of their capacity will be filled with ground water, and where during storms they will be subject to high water pressure from back filling and liable to do damage, but on a higher level, where there will be less ground water, and where a desirable grade can be had that will prevent back filling. A sewer thus located will have greater sewer capacity than one of even size in lower ground, and will do better work at less cost. To prove that sewers are not water tight, that they leak and by infiltration carry off large quantities of ground water, that in loose soils the leakage is large, not only into the sewers, but through the trenches that are dug to build them in: that it is also true that sewage leaks out from sewers into the soil, and if pressure from higher elevations will force its way into outside waters with which the sewer may be entirely surrounded. I refer to the following authorities:

“The presence of large amounts of ground water in the earth about the sewers results in leakage into them, which causes a serious problem where the expense of disposing of the sewage is heavy.

“It is a wise policy for the engineer to neglect no opportunity to acquire information regarding the phenomenon presented by the flow of underground water.”— Am. Sewerage Practice, Metcalf and Eddy, Edition of 1914, Vol. 1, p 181.

Leakage in New Orleans.

In New Orleans, where all the sewers are below the ground water level, the leakage into the sewers for five years varies from 33,000 to 48,000 gallons per mile per day. In discussing a paper on this subject before the American Society of Civil Engineers, it was stated “Very few sewers are sufficiently water tight to prevent the lowering of the ground water in the vicinity to the level of the pipe.” The spokesman, Mr. E.G. Bradbury, was of the opinion that most sewers permit the entrance of ground water about as fast as it gets to them. Trans. Am. Soc. C.E., Vol. 74.

“In general the authors have found that water finds its way into sewers through defective joints in pipes or weak structures, through concrete which is porous and through cracks due to contraction or other causes. These imperfections are sufficiently numerous and large to allow the infiltration of water to such an extent that the water table at the sewer rarely lies above its crown and usually is found near the invert, although the elevation varies greatly with the quantity of rain and snow water percolating into the ground.

Many times the pipes crack after being laid and connections made from time to time are so poorly constructed that they are the source of great leakage. Abandoned connections are rarely sealed at the sewers and admit much water. Manholes are heaved by frost so that water may enter between the courses. The net result of these changing conditions appears to be the presence of a gradually increasing quantity of ground water in the sewage.”—Metcalf and Eddy on sewers (1914) Vol. 1, pp. 181 to 187 inclusive.

Low Lying Sewers.

“Another thing to be considered with low-lying sewers in districts where high buildings are carried on wooden piles, was brought out as follows in a report on the sewerage of Hoboken, made in 1912 by James H. Fuertes:

“Many of the large and fine buildings in Hoboken rest on wooden piles, and these will remain safe and stable so long as the piles are kept submerged below the ground water level. If the ground water level were lowered below the present prevailing height, then trouble would be sure to be felt in a comparatively short time, by the rotting of the piles and grillages, and crunching of the timber and the settlement of the building. If all the sewers and their connections were perfectly tight and would remain so, there would be little likelihood of danger from this cause in securing good deep cellar drainage. I am quite certain, however, that sewers cannot be maintained in such a condition in Hoboken.”

“This recommendation is confirmed by observations in New York where the construction of subways and sewers has lowered the ground water level in places and comparatively new foundation piling has rotted away.”— Ib. Vol. 1, pp. 43-44.

If water tight sewers cannot be built and maintained elsewhere is it likely they will be built and maintained in Youngstown?

On this subject see also Journal of The American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1913, referred to by Dr. Mason in his report, hereto appended; also letter of Supt. of Parks of St. Paul, Minn., also submitted herewith.

Springs That Would Be Contaminated.

By reference to the blueprint it will be seen that a sewer to drain some acres of territory on the west side of Mill Creek across the bridge at Lanterman Falls is indicated.

There is a fine clear water spring about 32 feet from the center of this bridge, some 30 feet lower in elevation. It is about half way up a cliff of loosely seamed sand rock, with stone steps roughly made in the cliff leading to it. Nearby is the old Lanterman Mill, used for a bath house, refreshments and shelter. This spring furnishes large quantities of pure drinking water to thousands of thirsty people who will in the future visit this romantic place and drink the waters of this spring would be impossible to estimate. The pleasure and delight of going to this rock, for a pure cool drink of water, with a grand vista of a deep rocky gorge, a rushing stream, a deep pool, a magnificent waterfall, mosses, ferns and evergreens adorning rocks, cliffs and hillsides, is to an appreciative person beyond description, and the ideas of placing a sewer where it would pollute a spring so valuable is so abhorrent that I cannot believe that such a suggestion was made knowingly.

Other Springs Affected.

The other springs that would be affected are those lying below and near the east drive between Eaton street and the Furnace Road, in the central part of the park.

One is an excellent clear water spring near the Eaton street entrance, an essential necessity for a picnic grounds and shelter pavilion, yet to be prepared for use at that point. The next is a fine mineral spring now in almost constant use by pedestrians and those who boat on Lake Cohasset. The next is a fine spring in connection with a cool resting place to be provided with seats under a large projecting rock. The next is a spring by the side of east drive, that has for convenience been piped down to the east footpath and the Furnace road and is used not only by those who travel the public road and park foot patch but by large numbers of people who picnic in the grounds at the Pioneer pavilion. There is also another spring on a side foot path near the east drive that is strongly impregnated with iron and other minerals which some use, that would be affected by the proposed sewer, if located where indicated.

I do not need to more than refer to the report of Dr. Mason, which is submitted with this paper, to prove that all these springs would be contaminated by a sewer if built where indicated.

Crime to Pollute Springs.

The opportunity of the people of a city such as Youngstown now is, and such as it gives promise of being in the future to visit a beautiful park forever, and be forever denied the privilege of drinking the pure cool waters of Nature’s springs that were rightfully theirs, to me is unthinkable.

It is one of the eternal principles of right and wrong that every one shall so use his own land as not to injure his neighbor, and it follows that every one shall take care of his own sewage, so that he shall not harm others.

It is a crime under the statutes of Ohio willfully to pollute a spring that is or may be used for domestic purposes. See Revised Statutes of Ohio, Sec. 12654.

It follows for these reasons that under no circumstances should sewers be located in public parks near springs, lakes or streams, and if possible they should not be built within the park limits. At best it is bringing city conditions into public parks, and city conditions are the very things the tired city dweller wishes to avoid. The sewage created in a park should be kept at the minimum, and confined to its outer edges, where city conditions may be unavoidable. The idea of bringing all the sewage for about six and one-fourth square miles, now in the city and as much more later perhaps from Boardman to the center of as valuable a park as our Youngstown Mill Creek park, as a sanitary proposition, is so abhorrent and so destructive to the highest benefits that the people are entitled to enjoy, that I am sure those who suggest this plan do not do so understandingly.

What Kind of Sewer Can be Built?

The next question is, what can be done to provide sewage for this section without injury to Mill Creek park?

In the first place I wish to call the attention of land owners whose lands abut upon both sides of Mill Creek park, to the fact that the value of their premises has been largely increased by reason of the establishment of the park and the improvement made therein.

While land near to but not abutting upon a park is largely benefitted, the greatest benefit is to the land immediately abutting. I believe I am entirely safe in saying that there is not now an acre of land in the near vicinity of Mill Creek park that could be purchased for less than from five to ten times what its value was just before the park was established. That the growth of the city in the direction of the park and that the increased value of land in the vicinity of the park is very largely due to the establishment of the latter, is unquestionable. That being true, there is no hardship to landowners who have been so largely benefitted by the park if they are required to expand a small portion of their benefits in sewers so constructed that they will not damage the park. I claim many of these landowners as my personal friends, and I am assured by them that they do not in any account wish to harm the park in any way, I believe to these statements to be sincere.

The Park’s Future.

Now what can be done?

In a general way, I think we ought to contemplate reserving the valley of Mill Creek for park purposes, from the southern line of Mill Creek park as it now is, as far as the city is likely to extend.

In addition to this, low-lying grounds in ravines reaching out from the main valley should be reserved and also enough of the bluffs for a drive on each side and tree and shrub border between both drives and private property.

This done, a topographical survey should be made for the purpose of locating a street and sewer parallel with the park lines, far enough therefrom to allow good broad sweeping lawns, bordered with trees and shrubs. The buildings should be near enough to the street for service and house drainage. The lawn between the house and park should be ornamental but useful.

This plan as I believe can be carried out on both sides of Mill Creek. There may be a few acres that cannot drain into a main sewer so constructed. On the east side I am sure this is true, but automatic electric pumps can be used to take the small amount of sewage this cut off to the main sewer at no great cost.

A Possible Plan.

If a main sewer were carried on the east side to a point on Eaton street where it would be intersected by Volney street produced, thence by the best route to the low point in Glenwood, all main sewage to the south could be brought to that point by gradation.

For a number of years, I have no doubt, that the interest of the cost of a sewer through the park as proposed would more than pay for pumping this sewage to the present Glenwood avenue sewer.

The eastern part of the High street sewer was designed to care for all drainage that is now carried to the Glenwood sewer from Edwards street east and that territory was taxed for the main in High Street. Subsequently the sewer district was changed and all that territory was again taxed for the Glenwood sewer as a main, and the sewage is now carried to Glenwood. This includes high land, the ridge running parallel with Glenwood, and Hillman street, and near the latter.

The result of this change has not worked well. On the west side of Glenwood from Falls avenue, north for some distance, the Glenwood sewer, though large, overflows into cellars and out at manholes during unusual high water. This is undoubtedly caused by back filling and pressure from water coming quickly from the high ridge spoken of, originally designed to be cared for by the High street sewer.

Trouble in the Glenwood Sewer.

On the question as to the cause of the trouble on the Glenwood sewer above referred to, I quote as follows from American Sewer Practice, edition of 1914, page 37:

“Another influence on topography on sewer plans, often overlooked, was stated as follows by Dr. Hering in his report of 1881 to the National Board of Health:

“In case of sudden showers on a greatly inclined surface which changes to a level below, the sewers on the latter will become unduly charged, because a greater percentage flows off from a steeper slope in a certain time. To avoid this uneven reception, the alignment should, as much as possible, be so arranged as to prevent heavy grades on the sloping surface, at the expense of light ones on the levels. In other words, the velocity should be equalized as much as possible in the two districts. This will retain the water on the slopes and increase the discharge from the flat grounds, this corresponding more to the conditions implied by the ordinary way of calculating the capacity of sewers. It will therefore become necessary not to select the shortest line to the low ground, but like a railroad descending a hill, a longer distance to be governed by the gradient. This does not necessarily imply a longer length of sewers for the town, because more than one sewer for a street is not required by it.”

Sudden Drop Would Mean Overflow.

The above also affirms the correctness of position heretofore taken about the sudden drop in the proposed sewer from Glenwood to the east park drive, where there is a fall of over 100 feet in a short distance, and perhaps more than 125 feet to the level of Lake Glacier. Unless large sums of money should be expended to prevent overflow, it is a practical certainty that sewage would frequently overflow into the Slippery Rock picnic grounds and the park below that point.

Now what I suggest is this: That a sewer be constructed to carry the water from the Edwards street ridge to the High street outlet, which would remove the high pressure on Glenwood and leave its capacity thus vacated for the drainage of lands further south. As compensation for vacating all rights in the Glenwood sewer the land benefitted thereby should pay for the construction of the latest sewer to High street.

The defect in the Glenwood sewer at this one point will have to be remedied in some way, and I believe the above to be the best solution of the whole difficulty.

I believe that what I have suggested is the cheapest and best workout for the east side of Mill Creek for the present and until the amount of sewage to be pumped should become large. When that occurs, the further remedy will be open of cutting through the “hump” on Glenwood and taking care of all main sewage on the east side by gradation without sewering through the park. This idea is not prohibitive at all on account of cost and when the district becomes populous the expense can be easily met.

There is another idea for the benefit of the east side that I believe worth considering. There is a low place in the divide between the Mahoning river and Mill Creek, once occupied by the railroad leading to the Fosterville coal bank. I think levels should be taken to see if it would not be practical to carry sewage by a short route to the river east of the city by making a deep cut at this place or by pumping. This, if practical, would apply of course only to that portion of the east side that could be drained to a low point near the cut or pumping station. It would avoid turning all the sewage into the river to flow through the central part of the city.

The West Side of the Park.

As to the west side, I would recommend practically the same workout as on the east side, except that there will be two ravines to cross either on park or private property. There are no park springs that could not be saved, and the mere crossing of a narrow ravine could be done by an inverted siphon, or on an arch masked as a foot bridge. The outlet to the river would be on the Price road, with the grade raised so that the bottom of the sewer would not be below the water level in Lake Glacier. The raising of the grade would be an improvement to the highway.

The above in general represents my studies as to sewage plans that will care for all sewage in the Mill Creek district as it is now and as it is likely to be extended in the future, further south.

Details I am sure can be worked out and all sewage cared for without carrying it through Mill Creek Park.

Park Sewage.

If I were asked how park sewage can be cared for, my answer would be that we can get along for many years without sewers in the central part of the park, and that if we should fail to be able to keep this central part of the park sanitary at any time in the future. I should say pump the sewage a hundred times rather than contaminate springs and rob the park streams and lakes of their waters by sewers.

In conclusion, I wish to say that I have no personal feeling in this matter whatever. I am trying to the best of my ability to do what I believe to be for the best interests of all the people of Youngstown at the present and to come. To help keep men, women and children well, hearty, strong and happy ought to be the mission of our parks. To do this they must be given pure air, pure water and opportunities for rest and enjoyment with beautiful surroundings; and the best sanitary conditions possible. This is absolutely impossible if our parks are to become general receptacles for sewers that drain large areas.

Thanking you for your patience in listening to this paper, and earnestly hoping that Mill Creek park may be saved to the people of Youngstown without being invaded by sewers. I am, most sincerely yours,

VOLNEY ROGERS

Youngstown, O. July 30, 1915.