POLLUTION AND THE NEPONSET | 



To the Editor of the TraMcrlpt: 



It Is proposed that $150,000 of puW . 



.pent- (ana as 1 believe, wasted). I^de- 

 S^'S Z ^Uei:;^ r^o^d dea. :.ore thatt 



wUh?at the same ttae, to say that I thlttk 

 the condltloti ot the river is a. '^i«K>'= 

 self-respectinK community, and also that J. 

 have only praise and gratitude for fP* " 

 Which has for some years been show" 

 Representative Wolcott and others m their 

 desire and efforts to abate this 

 Ing nuisance. It Is the present plan which 

 think wrong. 



There Is no mystery ahout the Nepon- 

 =!Pt River nor is there anything connected 

 nth it (a-s (lod made it) which i.s diftcrent 

 from hundreds of other streams in the 



inwealth There is nothing in th 

 situation which now calls for or 

 expenditure of $150,000 (or any part of it) m 

 brder to deepen and straighten the channel 

 of this stream above Hyde Park. 



I.et us look at a, few simple facts. 

 Canton to Hyde Park this river ru__.. 

 dndli.B bed, through flat, marshy mcad- 

 ws which are naturally like thousands and 

 thousands of acres of other marshy mead- 

 WB in the State. 



The watershed Is extensive and ©very 

 spring an enormous flow of water is sud- 

 denly run into this bottom. 



From Hyde Park to the sea level the 

 channel of the river is narrow with high 

 lands on each side— and several dams usei 

 tor power purposes. In this part ot the 

 river the present n.atural channel is wholly 

 inadeduatc to carry off the spring flood. 

 Any Intelligent person can flgure out and 

 demonstrate this fact. 1 have annually 

 for the past twenty-five years, seen these 

 meadows above Hyde Park flooded, over 

 their entire area, from two to six feet m 

 depth. It is a regular annual occurrence. 

 It has gone on in suh.stantlally the same 

 way (and for the same reason) ever since 

 the river was formed. It Ls precisely simi- 

 lar to the ann-ual flooding of thousands of 

 other acres in the State, and It wljl con- 

 tinue until the channel of the river from 

 Hyde Park to sea level Is very much en- 

 larged, probably at least doubled. In ca- 

 pacity, and one or more dams removed. 

 This enlargement and removal of dams I 

 do not understand Is now proposed at all. 

 except for taking some flash-l>oards oft the 

 top of the upper dam and taking the top 

 oft a ledge in the river bed shortly below 

 Paul's Bridge. It would obviously be 

 very expensive matter. 



Until this la done, however, it Is absolute- 

 ly certain that the' meadows will continue 

 to be flooded each year, and, as long as the 

 water Is full of sewage and filth such 

 wastes will be annually spread, by the over- 

 flow, over the entire meadow area. 



It Is now (and under such conditions) 

 proposed to spend ?150,O0O to deepen and 

 straighten the channel of the river through 

 the meadows above Hyde Park, and it Is 

 said that If this Is not enough, at least it 

 will make "a good beginning." 



Let us aslt ourselves a feiW ftOfestionS: '~ 



1. As long as the river Is practically a 

 big open sewsr does it maOte .$lCiO,000 worth 

 of difference to anybody whether it is 

 strai^t or winding? 



2. If the water were clean would not 

 everybody agree that its meandering was 

 pretty and harmless? 



3. If the river is to annually overflow 

 its banks does it make any difference 

 whether those batiks are straight lines or 

 curves? 



■4. The meadows being: nearly all owned 

 by the State, and the scheme not being a 

 meadow reclamation scheme, is it going 

 to benaflt any land at all? (It certainly 

 .won't benefit mine.) 



8. If the scheme were oiie to drain and 

 reclaim these meadows, why should the 

 towns In the area be called upon to pay 

 for reclaiming State lands? 



6. Is the State going to esta'bllsh a prece- 

 dent, following which it will appropriate 

 hundreds of thousands of more dollars to 

 deepen and straighten all the other wind- 

 ing streams In the State which run through 

 marshy meadows? 



Now, as I have said, this river, except 

 for its pollution. Is just like hundreds of 

 other streams In the State. It has been 

 deliberately and openly and shamefully 

 polluted until it ha,s become an offensive 

 dl.«fgrace. It Is still so polluted day after 

 day. This pollution (which is perfectly 

 obvious to sight and smell) is by indi- 

 viduals. Arms, corporations and even by 

 towns, and is clearly unlawful. It is the 

 plain duty (and within the clear power) 

 of the State hoard of health and the At- 

 torney General to stop it. If the river 

 were not polluted everybody would, enjoy 

 and aijmlre it and nobody would think of 

 spending a dollar on It. 



The proposed expenditure of $150,000 

 will not lessen the pollution at all but 

 will add $75,000 to the State debt and 

 will impose an additional $75,000 tax 

 burden on the residents In the Valley. 

 All (as I say), without gain or advan- 

 tage, except to engineers and contrac- 

 tors. 



It is in line with the tendency of the 

 times. Something is the matter! What 

 shall we do about it? Oh, go to some 

 Stat© Board or Commission and get an 

 elaborate report from their engineer and 

 then do nothing until the Legislature 

 gives you a big appropriation! 



Why not stop the unlawful pollution, 

 without any expense to anybody (except 

 the lawbreakers) and then see whether 

 anybody thinks that the expenditure of 

 $1.')0,000 (or any part of it) Is called 

 for? It ran be spent then Just as well 

 as now if it then seems wise. Why not 

 take the absolutely necessary step first? 



I am aw.are that the enKineer Is ot 

 opinion that there is ,so muc* tilth in the 

 river bed that even if the water from 

 now on were clean It would not scour 

 out the fllth. la It better judgment to 

 bet $l.')0,onO ag.alnst nothing that this 

 engineer is right, or try clean water for 

 a year or two and see? 



Felix Rackhjiann 



Juno 12. 



