Page images

A standpipe, 16 feet in diameter and 120 feet in height will hold 179,000 gallons of water-using round numbers, 1,490 gallons per foot—in the top 50 feet, we get 74,500 gallons, or almost as much as the elevated tank would give us with 50 feet used, 70 feet, level would give 30 pounds, static pressure on the main, neglecting friction, so the first feet used would give a pressure well above the 21 pounds plus the rating bureau asks for, in fact above any reasonable demand for fire protection. Using 80 feet takes 119,200 gallons from the tank; at the rate of 500 gallons per minute that amount of water would fight a fire for almost 4 hours. A 75,000 gallon tank would fight a fire for just 242 hours at the same rate of usage.

Cost data : The 75,000-gallon elevated tank would cost $22,000 plus the foundation which would add about $3,400, giving a total cost of $25,400. The 179,000gallon tank will cost about $16,000 plus about $5,000 for foundation, a saving of about $4,400 and the lower the costs on the water supply for this town the better it will be financially.

I might add with 80 feet of water used, the higher ground would still have 17 pounds static pressure neglecting friction. This would not be great due to the high spots being close to standpipe and on an 8-inch main.

It is proposed to get bids on both these structures if the HHFA ever approves the financing—it's bee in their hands 2 months now. Yours very truly,


Civil Engineer.


TOMPKINSVILLE, KY., April 29, 1959. Mr. RALPH C. PICKARD, Director, Division of Sanitary Engineering, State Board of Health, Louisville, Ky.

DEAR SIR: It will be appreciated if you will write a letter (four copies) setting forth what you know about Lewisburg, Ky., and the need of the city for a good domestic water supply, as you did in the case of Ganaliel, Ky. These should be addressed to the HHFA Communities Facilities Administration, but lodged with me until I can get a set of documents prepared to go with your letters. You did a nice job on the Ganaliel project, and I judge you are aware of conditions at Lewisburg so it can be given the same sort of treatment.

The Federal Government, Department of Agriculture, is going to build a lake near the city which has a designed capacity of 452 acre-feet that the city can use. I have made a preliminary investigation, and it seems feasible.

I had a talk with someone in your office who agreed you could approve a oneunit filter for this particular town, capacity 140 gallons per minute, and when it gets to the design stage I would like to visit your office and have it looked over before completion, so we will be in agreement and not have to report to addendums.

These folks have been talking and thinking about a water project a long time. Someone in the State university told them about 50 gallons per minute would be about their requirement, which for a full day is about correct, but no one wants a plant that small. One of my handbooks says about 63 gallons per minute would do, certainly 140 gallons per minute is ample, and while I prefer a twounit filter, one unit is all the cost this project could stand. Yours truly,


Civil Engineer.



Lexington, Ky., May 1, 1959. Mr. W. A. LAMKIN, Attorney for Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission, State Board of Health, Louisville, Ky.

DEAR MR. LAMKIN : No private funds whatever from any source have been available to Kentucky small towns and districts for revenue bond financing of new water and sewer projects at any time during the past 5 years.

Only Government financing can help the desparate small communities who by reason of growth are faced with polluted water supplies and the need for adequate sewer facilities.

The communities of Sandy Hook, Mount Olivet, Salvisa, Germantown, and settled areas in Scott, Woodford, Owen, Perry, Fayette, Henry, and other counties I am less familiar with, desperately need such services, either water or sewer. Several of these locations have been able to finance projecis through Government assistance recently. Others are awaiting such aid hopefully, knowing they are faced with immediate danger to local health.

Each of these areas has made some effort to secure private financing. Each has been turned down flatly and finally with no hope given of a private investor being interested in the project.

Only a system with several years' history of operation in a choice location can by refinancing attract private capital.

There will be no growth of facilities whatever in Kentucky if private capital is the only available or possible means of financing. Letters from investment companies accompany. Yours very truly,

TOM UNDERWOOD, JR. NOTE.—Many of these projects have been subinitted to Housing and Home Finance Agency which requires proof that private financing is not available and keeps documents from private investors on each project.



Lexington, Ky., December 24, 1958. Mr. THOMAS R. UNDERWOOD, JR., Security Trust Building, Lexington, Ky.

DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD: We appreciate very much your bringing to our attention North Fork Water District (near Hazard) bonds.

Under the circumstances and based on the information which you have supplied us, we would not be interested in bidding on these bonds. Yours truly,




Lexington, Ky., December 22, 1958. Mr. TOM UNDERWOOD, JR., Security Trust Building, Lexington, Ky.

DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD : In connection with the proposed North Fork Water District of Hazard bonds, based on the preliminary information that you have given us, we wish to state that our firm would not be interested in bidding on these bonds due to the low overall coverage and the relatively high cost per connection. We feel that the competing revenue bonds which are currently being offered in rather large volume are more attractive from the standpoint of our clients. Very truly yours,




Greenville, Ky., May 1, 1959. W. A. LAMKIN, Louisville, Ky.

DEAR MR. LAMKIN: In response to your request of April 30, 1959, I wish to submit the following information.

In 1956 the city of Greenville requested an opinion from Charles A. Hinsch & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, as to the feasibility of financing a complete sewerage system from the sale of revenue bonds. They replied in a letter to the mayor of the city of Greenville stating it would be impossible to finance a sewerage project in Greenville through the public sale of revenue bonds. The city could not provide adequate security nor the minimum 1.5 percent coverage factor necessary for this purpose. The reason being the purchase in 1956 of the local water system and the issuance and sale of $610,000 in revenue bonds for this purchase and improvements.

Subsequently and as a last resort the city of Greenville appealed to the Housing and Home Finance Agency for funds to build a sewerage system and disposal plant.

I trust the above information is sufficient, but if you need anything further please call on me. Very truly yours,

W. E. SPARKS, Mayor.


OLIVE HILL, KY., September 12, 1957. To the HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D.C.:

Whereas sewage disposal is being emptied into Tygart's Creek in the city limits of Olive Hill, Ky.; and

Whereas at this time and for some time prior there has been no running water in said creek; and

Whereas this sewage disposal is a menace to the health of the residents and the odor is nauseating; and

Whereas the city, the State, and the county health department have failed and refused to remedy this situation :

Now, therefore, the undersigned residents of the city of Olive Hill living adjacent or in close proximity to this health menace, hereby petition the Health and Welfare Department to take, or cause to be taken, some immediate action to remedy this situation before it causes an epidemic in the entire community:

Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Mullins, Mr. and Mrs. Mark Mullins, Mr. and

Mrs. Carl Mullins, Mr. and Mrs. Everett Dunaway, Clarence
Greenhill, Mr. and Mrs. Jay DeHart, Mrs. Chloe Cartwright (who
lives within about 150 feet of the end of sewer), Edward Cart-
wright, Glen Greenhill, Grace Kiser, Norman Kiser, Minnie Bran-
ham, Roy Moore, W. C. Preston, Glenmore Tackett, Philip Tackett,
Dewey Wilson, Houston Lowe, Earl McDowell, Gene Pence, Frank
Owens, Ruth Owens, Russel McClune, Milford Boggs, Milton
Kiser, Moe Kiser, Nipp Jarvis, Mrs. and Mr. Ray Jarvis, Clyde A.
Mullins, R. D. Kiser, John Mullins, Phillis and Gloria James,
W. H. Dehart, Mrs. Wayne Fairchild, Elizebeth Tolliver, W. C.
Mullins, Ralph Dunaway, 0. M. Dunaway, Glendall Tackett, Cole-
man Bivins, Eugene Knipp, Ronald McClure, J. T. Johnson,
Roger E. Quick, O. F. Duval, Ernest Roe, Talmage Roe, Russell
Kiser, Katherine Dunaway, W. E. Crawford, Bill Stamper, Nor-
man Parsons, Ollie D. Adams, Herndon Day, John T. Dualk,
Bert and Ruth Greene, Tom and Marceline Bond, Mrs. and Mr.
Tom Bond, Mrs. Sigria Bond, Chester Bond, Christine Bond, Wm.
Duncan, C. Tackett, W. Dailey, Farris Oney, Gene Dunaway,
Jack H. Bailey, George E. Jessie, Clyde Collins, E. R. DeHart,
J. H. Abams, M. F. Johnson, Richard Short, Arthur W. Rose,
Tommy Withrow, Waldo Fultz, Jimmie M. Sparks, H. R. Bennett.


APRIL 29, 1959. Mr. D. H. Bennett, of Radcliffe, Ky., was in the office this morning. He stated that the sewage from the Radcliffe School and from Driscoll trailer court was discharging into a ditch that ran through his farm. He said his cows were covered with a fungus that he thinks is caused by drinking this water and that he lost a horse on March 1, that also drank from this ditch.

He said the source of water supply for Radcliffe comes from Sanders Springs on the Government reservation. He also stated that he had sent a sample of this water collected from this ditch to the State department of health for testing and it was found to be contaminated. He has talked with Mr. Pickett of the Hardin County Health Department concerning this matter, but is not satisfied with the results. He says the ditch is very small and water pools in spots and it only flushes out with hard rains.

He also said that Rogers apartment houses dumped their sewage into this ditch and he would like for someone from this office to make an investigation as soon as possible and make these people quit dumping sewage into this ditch.

He said there was a sinkhole on the Government reservation about 1 mile from the Sanders Spring, and that he had a neighbor that marked bottles for identification, placed them in this sinkhole, and they came out of the ground at Sanders Spring.

Mr. Bennett's farm is one quarter mile northeast of Radcliffe School.



Louisville, Ky., May 7, 1959. Hon. BRENT SPENCE, House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPENCE: I am enclosing herewith a letter from the mayor of the city of Cumberland, Ky., regarding the availability of money on the open market for municipal sewer projects.

The statement is self-explantory and I can further assure you that this is the situation throughout the State with small municipalities under the 5,000 population class.

I am sorry this is late in getting to your office, but I received it only today and hope that you will be able to add it to my testimony and evidence submitted in support of H.R. 5944. Kindest regards.

WILLIAM A. LAMKIN, Jr., Attorney, Water Pollution Control Commission.

CUMBERLAND, Ky., April 30, 1959. Mr. W. A. LAMKIN, Kentucky Water Pollution Control Board, Louisville, Ky.

DEAR SIR: The city of Cumberland has been trying to work out a means whereby we can construct a sewer project for the city. However, due to the high interest rate at the present time we feel that it would be impossible to sell the bonds with our population as small as it is. Yours truly,

H. H. JACOBS, Sr.,

Mayor, City of Cumberland, Ky. Mr. WIDNALL. In the statement on behalf of the State board of health, you were speaking particularly about some municipalities like those in the coal regions, which suffered severe economic distress.

How long has that need existed in that area for water and sewage disposal facilities?

Mr. LAMKIN. In some cases it has been needed for years. In other cases it has become a necessity because of the increased population, which has been a natural thing. Population doesn't always hold back because of economic depression. But I would say those are the reasons. Just natural increase in population.

Mr. WIDNALL. I was wondering if there was any relation of the economic distress of the community to the need for water and sewage treatment plants. Is the need addressed mostly toward attracting new industries, to provide employment?

Mr. LAMKIN. That is one reason. Now, I haven't mentioned it here, but there is an agency in Kentucky whose job it is to work with the municipalities of the State in attracting industry.

So that is certainly one need. And that is one reason they want it. But the paramount reason is that with this increased demand for


water, and part of it comes about by the increased facilities that the average houswife has, like the washing machine, and all that sort of thing, which they didn't have before, they are using much more water today than a few years ago.

Then, with the increased demand not only from industry but from tourists—we have motels going up in eastern Kentucky-which is something they haven't had before_Hazard, Pikeville-then, naturally, if the water supply for industrial use as well as for the use of the homes, of the new employees that most of these industries bring with them, and the expansion that goes with it, naturally requires expanded water facilities.

In addition to that, some of them have been makeshift in the first place, cheap systems, and they are now at the place where they need expanding and sometimes installing of almost completely new systems.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Lamkin, I don't think there is any quarrel amongst any of us as to need or as to the wisdom of providing adequate water and sewage disposal systems. I think the debate over this bill arises over the need of doing it in this way as against other methods of financing.

In the early part of your testimony you spoke of a finding that septic tanks were now overflowing into the streets in a subdivision of Louisville, and they were now applying for HHFA help.

Mr. LAMKIN. That is right, because their bonding representative has stated in writing that they cannot sell these bonds on the open market.

Mr. WIDNALL. Is that part of Louisville? Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir; it is a suburb of Louisville. It is not a part of Louisville, though.

Mr. WIDNALL. So it couldn't be financed under Louisville financing, which I know has Aaa rating.

Mr. LAMKIN. No, sir.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Chairman, I have some figures of the bonded debt of Kentucky on communities under 35,000 population and under 3,000 population, which, with your permission, I woudl like to insert in the record at this time.

Mr. SPENCE. It may be done.
(The data referred to above follows:)

BONDED DEBT OF KENTUCKY COMMUNITIES UNDER 35,000 POPULATION Ashland, Ky., 1954 estimated population 32,000. Bonded debt June 30, 1955: General obligations (including $370,000 self-supporting water bonds), $1,556,500; sinking fund, $616,533; school revenue bonds, $22,000; other revenue bonds, $24,000 ; sinking fund, $5,850. Rating A.

Barbourville, Ky., 1955 estimated population 3,600. Bonded debt October 31, 1958 : $716,000, payable solely from revenues to be derived from operation of city's combined electric, water, and sewer systems.

Bowling Green, Ky., 1950 population 18,424. Bonded debt June 30, 1955: General, $218,000; revenues : sewer $454,000, electric $396,000, water $2,106,000, school $954,000, industrial building $905,000.

Corbin, Ky., 1950 population 7,715. Bonded debt January 1, 1958: General, none; revenue, $1,445,000.

Danville, Ky., 1950 population 8,650. Bonded debt June 1, 1957 ; Industrial huilling revenue, $267,000 ; water and sewer revenue, $893,000; school building revenue, $1,018,000.

Elizabethtown, Ky., 1958 estimated population 9,000. Bonded debt December 31, 1957 : School revenue, $614,000; sewer revenue, $24,000; water works revenue,

« PreviousContinue »