connection with a sewerage project, voted to request the board of sewer commissioners to do certain things and to make a report thereon by January 1, 1926, these instructions including (1) the securing of a legislative act giving the town authority to construct and maintain a sewerage system and to borrow money, (2) obtaining the approval of the State Board of Health concerning a disposal method as to either the Sugar or the Connecticut River, (3) to present a financing plan, and (4) to obtain needed options on rights of way over private lands.

The enabling act was passed and the services of an engineer secured, the latter making a detailed report on this project late in 1925. At the outset, an important question arising was the feasibility of disposal, satisfactorily, in the Sugar River, on which point a representative of this department investigated and reported as follows:

November 2, 1925

At the request of the Board of Sewer Commissioners an investigation was made by this department of the proposed sewerage system of the town of Claremont.

In Chapter 336, year of 1925, “An act authorizing and enabling the town of Claremont to construct, manage, maintain, and own a sewerage system" is found the following: "provided it first submits detailed plans as to the proposed outlet or disposal of the sewerage from said drains or sewers to the state board of health and secures the approval of said board."

The plans call for sewering practically the whole town, the disposal of which is to be into the Sugar River some 6,000 ft. upstream from the point at which it enters the Connecticut River. The sewage is to be screened before being discharged into the River. There are no plans at present to indicate the type of screening to be used, whether coarse or fine; neither are there any plans for the outfall.

The only question arising in connection with the approval by the State Board of Health is the ability of the Sugar River in time of low water to afford sufficient dilution to take care of the sewage without causing a nuisance. The Sugar River is the outlet of Lake Sunapee, and is enlarged on its course down to the Connecticut by the South Branch of the Sugar River at Newport and the Croydon Branch at North Newport, and several other smaller tributaries. At

the present time the stream at the point of disposal is about 50 ft. wide, rather shallow and full of large rocks,—a typical small New Hampshire river. From the proposed point of the outfall to the Connecticut River there is no habitation nearer than a half mile. A state road parallels the stream for a short distance, perhaps a quarter of a mile.

With a stream the type of the Sugar River, a flow less than 5 cu. ft. per sec. for each 1,000 contributing population is likely to cause a nuisance. Accordingly, with a population of nearly 10,000, 50 cu. ft. per sec. would be the minimum requirement.

The only flowage records of the Sugar River that are available are those kept by the Sunapee Dam Corporation of the discharge at the outlet of Lake Sunapee published in the 1922 report of the Public Service Commission. This table gives the monthly mean discharge but does not, however, show the minimum discharge which might have occurred, and which are the figures that would be the most useful. The table frequently shows that a monthly mean discharge of 32, 34, and 35 cu. ft. per sec. occurs and again these are not the minimum figures that might have occurred during the month. An accompanying blue print shows the average of the monthly mean discharges. As a large number of mills on the river below depend on the river for power purposes a somewhat constant flow from the lake is necessary.

Another accompanying blue print compiled by a consulting engineer who has done a large amount of consulting work for the various mills is said to be quite accurate. This graph shows that the minimum flow at Claremont is 75 cu. ft. per sec. However, it is drawn up from rainfall records and does not represent actual stream gauging records.

The Sunapee Power Station at Sunapee stated that even at the lowest periods from 200-250 H. P. can be developed. The plant has been in operation for a period of over three years. The head is 59.8 ft.

From computations it appears that since 1922 there has always been at least 40 cu. ft. per second discharging from Lake Sunapee. It appears from a study of the various factors involved in the flow of the river that there are only short periods in the latter part of the summer when a critical point might be reached, that is when the flow would be less than 50 cu. ft. per sec. and these periods occuring only occasionally over a period of years.

Another factor to be considered is that occasionally the storage behind the dams of some of the mills is withdrawn and during the period of refilling there will be no water in the river. There is an added possibility that on Sundays and holidays when the mills are

not operating the gates might be closed at the outlet so that little, if any, water would be discharged from the Lake.

The question has arisen as to the advisability of carrying the outfall sewer down to the Connecticut River which will involve the building of 6,000 ft. additional 16 inch sewer. This certainly would be an added expense as considerable ledge will probably be encountered. But upon second thought this plan appears quite feasible as it would eliminate the necessity of screening, the operation of which constitutes a constant maintenance expense in addition to the first cost.

It is difficult to say with the information at hand whether or not the river will handle the sewage at all times without causing a nuisance. Certainly it will the greater share of the time. Supposing that the flow does become low for a short period, thereby overloading the stream with more sewage than it can safely carry, the nuisances which are likely to result are those which are offensive to the senses of smell and sight to people traveling on the highway where it parallels the river.

Of the two plans-the discharge of the sewage into the Sugar River with preliminary screening, and the discharge directly into the Connecticut River without any treatment; it is recommended that the State Board of Health favor the latter plan. It is also recommended that the town of Claremont cooperate with the District Engineer of the Water Resources Branch of the Geological Survey during the next low water season in obtaining actual records of flow of the Sugar River and if it then appears that the stream will provide sufficient dilution, that the proposed point of disposal be approved, but only after the town submits detailed plans of the screen chamber and the outfall.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL B. MARNER, Ass't Sanitary Engineer

Considerable opposition developed, based upon the cost of this project, and as it later appeared that a defect exists in the enabling act as passed by the legislature of 1925, the matter has been allowed to go over.

CONWAY.

The following is in reference to a lumber camp operation, also shortage of the North Conway water supply during the fall of 1925:

North Conway, N. H.

August 11, 1925

Charles D. Howard, S. B.,

Concord, N. H.

Dear Sir:-
:-

Replying to yours relative to the Gibson Lot and the permit of A. S. Wentworth & Son to cut timber on same :

The timber is now being cut. The lot is between the M. C. R. R. and the mountain to the east, below the watershed of the Artists Falls water supply.

I was told this morning, however, that a large tract of land on the side of Kearsarge mountain, on which are numerous springs that feed the brook running into the Kearsarge reservoir, is likely to be sold for the timber.

The lot is now owned by Ed. Lowd, of Kearsarge, who bought the same of M. L. Mason, of North Conway, several years ago, since which time it has developed a heavy stand of timber, and is reported to be worth several thousand dollars.

The government has bought a tract of land near this lot and should own it all, on account of the water supply. I am uncertain whether or not the water company would be able to raise the purchase price at the present time.

If you keep in touch with such matters, will you kindly advise how the growth can be conserved until the government, the state or the water company can control it?

Acknowledging your letter of the 11th with regard to timber cutting, which you think may occur at a not distant date on the watershed of the Kearsarge reservoir, I would advise that the copies of the permits which we are now receiving from the Forestry Department are sent to use by virtue of the provision contained in a law enacted at the last session of the Legislature and which was an outgrowth of failure on the part of the State Board of Health to secure enactment of legislation requiring the operators in all such cases to have an inspection made by a representative of the Board and to secure the latter's approval as to the camp layout in advance of actual operation.

As it is, there is nothing this Board can do by way of forestalling the establishment upon a watershed of any camp or operation which may involve a menace to the public water supply. All that we can do, upon appeal of the local authorities, is to look the situation over and to recommend such rules for the sanitary government of the operation as may seem expedient or which the situation may seem to call for.

There was however a rather important bit of legislation enacted at the last session bearing upon this matter. The act in question is an amendment giving cities and towns and water companies to take by right of "eminent domain" any land needed for the protection of a public water supply. The procedure as specified is the same as in securing land for highways and in other cases where the principle of eminent domain is invoked,—that is, an appeal to the Superior Court for an arrangement for an appraisal of the property by the latter. Not impossibly your water company might be interested to consider such a procedure in the case to which you refer. Otherwise I know of nothing that can be done except to let the operation proceed, under such sanitary supervision as it may be feasible to give, and hope for the best.

Very truly yours,

CHARLES D. HOWARD, Chief of Division

On account of the low condition of the North Conway water supply which threatened to make necessary the use of another source of supply, an inspection was made by this department to determine whether or not the auxiliary supply would be safe and suitable, a report being as follows:

GENERAL SITUATION

The long period of drought, said to be one of the worst in this locality, has resulted in practically drying up the streams forming the source of the North Conway, Kearsarge, and Intervale water supply. Water is drawn from three reservoirs, Shingle Brook, Hurricane, and Artist Falls. Shingle Brook Reservoir, the largest of the three is very low, having only about 41⁄2 feet of water in the lower end, possibly 60,000 gallons of water. There is a small stream of water entering at the present time.

The Hurricane Reservoir is completely dry, except for a very small stream which flows through the reservoir into the main, enough water now flowing to half fill the 8-inch main.

The Artist Falls Reservoir is nearly half full, even with the large amount of water which is escaping through the dam. Quite a stream