PAEK SITES CHOSEN 



133 



1896 the engineers of the department had advised that the 

 raising of the lake for the purpose of improving the appear- 

 ance of the surface and retarding the growth of rushes, 

 etc., from the bottom, was of doubtful utility. On May 14, 

 1900, Engineer M. E. Sherrerd, in a special report to the 

 commission, recommended the raising of the lake level five 

 feet by obstruction to be placed in the outlet. The landscape 

 architects, in their report at the same time, emphatically 

 disapproved of this plan of treatment, stating at length the 

 legal, engineering and esthetic objections. It would be 

 experimental, they contended. Percolation of the water 

 through the raised banks might make the result uncertain. 

 It would "inevitably destroy the handsomest and most val- 

 uable part of the beautiful fringe of fine forest trees now 

 existing most of the way around the lake." The resulting 

 loss of water flowing from the lake, under the binding con- 

 tract between the Park Commission and the Lehigh Yalley 

 Company of June 4, 1897, and with the Pennsylvania Com- 

 pany, that the commission would "not directly or indirectly 

 do, or cause to be done, anything which would in any man- 

 ner interfere with the natural flow of the waters of said 

 Bound Creek," should the raising the lake seriously dimin- 

 ish or stop the overflow, would make the Park Commission 

 ^^iable to prosecution." 



As the loss of water from raising the lake five feet was by 

 the engineer estimated at 550,000 gallons per day of a nor- 

 mal minimum flow of only 1,500,000 gallons daily, the 

 point thus raised may at any time become a most serious 

 one, and result in hea^^ claims for damages against the 

 county. 



COST OF PARK. 



The estimated cost of dredging and properly treating the 

 banks of the lake at its natural level was $250,000 ; and for 

 raising the lake five feet, cleaning out the bogs, etc., with 

 the destruction of the best part of the wooded banks and 

 the prospective litigation with the railroad companies in- 

 volved in this plan of treatment, was $50,000, 



