OCR Text |
Show 722 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS of 100,000 a year-an increase of population in the aggregate much greater than the total population of the Passaic Valley Sewerage District at present, and approximately equal to its estimated popula- tion in 1940-and it is undisputed that this New York sewage, un- treated, was discharged from over 450 sewers directly into the adjacent waters, for the most part at or above the line of low tide, and that only in a few instances was it carried even to the pier heads. It would seem, therefore, that, if the anticipations of the experts for the complainants, as to the results likely to be produced by the effluent from the sewer of defendants, were well founded, by the year 1919 conditions in the harbor should have become so pronounced and plain that there could not have been such conflict as the record shows in the testimony of trustworthy and competent scientists as to its then existing condition. Considering all of this evidence, and much more which we cannot detail, we must conclude that the compainants have failed to show by the convincing evidence which the law requires that the sewage which the defendants intend to discharge into Upper New York Bay, even if treated only in the manner specifically described in the stipu- lation with the United States Government, would so corrupt the water of the Bay as to create a public nuisance by causing offensive odors or unsightly deposits on the surface or that it would seriously add to the pollution of it. The evidence taken in 1919 also discloses that other means than those specifically described in the Government stipulation may be resorted to, if needed, for the purpose of improving the character of the effluent from the sewer, viz: slower and more prolonged sedimentation proc- esses ; additional screening; the aeration of the sewage before it reaches the treatment plant and again after treatment and before discharge into the tunnel conveying it to the Bay; and finally, if required, chemical treatment. Having regard to the treatment of the sewage prescribed in what we regard as a valid contract on the part of the defendants with the Government of the United States, to the specific agreement therein for protection of the waters of Upper New York Bay from pollution, and to the means which the Government will have to secure further purification, if desired, by refusing to permit the discharge of sewage into the Bay to continue, we conclude that the prayer for injunction against the operation of the sewer must be denied. We cannot withhold the suggestion, inspired by the consideration of this case, that the grave problem of sewage disposal presented by the large and growing populations living on the shores of New York Bay is one more likely to be wisely solved by cooperative study and by conference and mutual concession on the part of representatives of the States so vitally interested in it than by proceedings in any court however constituted. The court, recognizing the importance of the ruling which it is making to the great populations interested, as well in the State of New Jersey as in the State of New York, will direct that the decree denying the relief grayed for shall be without prejudice to the insti- tuting of another suit for injunction if the proposed sewer in operation |