페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

The CHAIRMAN. Does the District furnish water to Chevy Chase? Mr. HOLLISTER. Mr. Holton, of the District water department, can explain that.

Mr. Holton. That refers to Chevy Chase, Md.
The CHAIRMAN. Do we supply them with water?
Mr. HOLTON. We do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Then this is not an emergency that calls for an expenditure at this time?

Mr. Holton. I might add something to this. The Zoological Park ground is practically below the 200-foot contour. This second high service, of which he speaks, is perfectly capable of supplying all of the water for that territory.

territory

P ol Porila The CHAIRMAN. You mean the Zoological Park? Mr. Holrox. Yes. Now, the third high service comes in from the other side.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the third high-up on the Sixteenth Street heights?

Mr. Holton. No, sir; the third high is generally north of Mount Pleasant and west of Connecticut Avenue.

The CHAIRMAN. Your reservoir is on Sixteenth Street ? Mr. HOLTON. No; the reservoir for the third high service is at Tenleytown. As I understand it, they also use this water main for fire protection.

The ('HAIRMAN. As I understand it, you want them to use the second high service altogether? Mr. HOLLISTER. That is the idea ; yes, sir. The ('HAIRMAN. Would that give you the necessary fire protection? Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This has nothing to do with the District of Columbia at all, has it?

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes; it has to do with the Zoological Park.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a request by Chevy Chase, Md., for water from the District of Columbia, and to supply them you propose to invest money in a water main for the purpose of taking your water supply from another source; is that right?

Mr. HOLLISTER. Maryland has nothing to do with it; that was merely used as an illustration--that is, the refusal of the request made by Chevy Chase, M., was mentioned to show the urgency for reducing our consumption of water from the third high, and that it was near the danger limit.

The CHAIRMAN. You are getting your water from the second high service now?

Mr. HOLLISTER. We are getting 269,000 gallons daily from the second high supply and 115,000 gallons from the third high.

The ('HAIRMAX. The water that goes to the third high comes from the second high? Mr. Holton. No; they are two distinct services.

The CHAIRMAx. The water does not go through the lower level to get into the higher level?

Mr. Hutton. No; it does not. The pumps take it from the gravity service. I want to add that the size of that Connecticut Avenue line is 2 or 2 inches, and the line in the second high is 6 inches.

Mr. Byrxs. If this main was put in would you get all of your water from Harvard Street ?

ISTER. Yes, sir treet gate ? "te now getting 2

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Byrns. And you would get none from Connecticut Avenue ?
Mr. HOLLISTER. No, sir.

Mr. Byens. As I understand, you are now getting 269,000 gallons daily from the Harvard Street gate?

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir; and 115,000 gallons a day from the Connecticut Avenue side, from the third high.

Mr. Byrxs. And this would take care of the 115,000 gallons ?

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes. What Capt. Wood wishes us to do is to cease using water from the third high and get it all from the second high.

The CHAIRMAX. You have a 6-inch main, you say, on the second high line? Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If the 6-inch main were run at its full limit, how much water would it deliver ?

Mr. HOLLISTER. I suspect the 6-inch main would deliver-
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Over 300,000 gallons daily?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Oh, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then why do you need more pipe, if you have enough pipe now?

Mr. HOLTON. The small pipes run from this point up in through here [indicating on map], and to get the pressure and get the volume up here sindicating you need a 6-inch pipe.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to supplement the 6-inch pipe that comes from the reservoir?

Mr. HOLTON. Yes, sir; to extend it, and furnish fire protection as well as an adequate supply of water. There is a farm building up there that really needs protection, in my judgment.

The CHAIRMAN. What kind of a farm building? Mr. HOLTON. Stables of wooden construction. The CHAIRMAN. You do not consider this an emergency, do you? Mr. HOLLISTER. That is entirely for the engineers to say. Mr. HOLTON. I would: yes. The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what the emergency is. Mr. Holton. Well, in the water department we always consider something an emergency that will save money.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you thought about this? When did you first discover that this was an emergency?

Mr. HOLTON. Since we have known that water has been used to such a large extent on the Connecticut Avenue side.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has that main been in there?
Mr. HOLTON. I can not tell.

Mr. HOLLISTER. This pipe from the third high has been added since this main pipe was brought in from the second high sindicating on map]. The main pipe was brought in and run up to the elephant house some 25 years ago, and since then the northwestern part of the park has been developed [indicating), and a 2-inch pipe has been brought in from Connecticut Avenue to supply this region sindicating). That is where we are now using 115,000 gallons a day, and which Capt. Wood would like to have us take from the other service.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1922. PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS. STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. CLARENCE 0. SHERRILL, IN CHARGE.

FUEL FOR EXECUTIVE MANSION AND GREENHOUSES.

The CHAIRMAN. For fuel for the Executive Mansion and greenhouses you are asking $6,000. Why do you ask this deficiency, since prices have gone down?

Col. SHERRILL. The coal price for the fiscal year 1920 was $9.69 per ton for anthracite, and for each of the years, 1921 and 1922, we paid $12.39 per ton.

The CHAIRMAN. How many tons of coal did you purchase?
Col. SHERRILL. For the greenhouses

The C'HAIRMAN (interposing). You do not burn anthracite coal in greenhouses, do you?

Col. SHERRILL. Yes, sir.
The ('HAIRMAN. Why?

Col. SHERRILL. We have to burn it on account of the excessive smoke from soft coal.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not burn it anywhere else? Col. SHERRILL. Yes, sir; in that neighborhood they must use hard coal if they do not have very high stacks by which to get rid of the smoke. Where we have these low stacks we have to burn anthracite to keep the coal from covering the plants and ruining them. That is the reason, in addition to the smoke nuisance itself. I have a statement here showing the amount of coal burned during several different years. Under that first item of repairs, fuel, etc., Executive Mansion, for the fiscal year 1920, we burned 806 tons of furnace coal and 75 tons of soft coal, and in the year 1921 we burned 805 tons of furnace coal and 90 tons of soft coal.

The CHAIRMAN. In the greenhouses and Executive Mansion ?

Col. SHERRILL. Yes, sir; in the greenhouses for the Executive Mansion and in the Executive Mansion itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are the greenhouses?

Col. SHERRILL. They are located up near the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

The CHAIRMAX. What kind of coal do they burn at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing?

Col. SHERILL. I think they burn soft coal.
The CHAIRMAN. Why can you not burn soft coal?

Col. SHERRILL. We have no high stack. We have simply low boiler stacks, and it would be practically impossible to burn soft coal there. If we had a modern plant, which we ought to have, to heat those 32 greenhouses, we could burn soft coal in it.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you need 32 greenhouses?

(ol. SHERRILL. Half of them are used for the parks and half for the White House. All of our coal has been used up under these three items. In fact, we have used more coal than we have appropriations for.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that you had not used any more tons of coal this year.

Col. SHERRILL. No, sir; the amount of coal we have used right straight along has generally been the same, but there has been a difference in the price.

The CHAIRMAN. How many tons of coal did you say you used ?

Col. SHERRILL. We used 881 tons in 1920 and 895 tons in 1921, and 60 cords of wood.

The CHAIRMAX. What was the difference in the prices? Col. SHERRILL. In the fiscal year 1920 the price was $9.69 for soft coal and $12.34 for furnace coal. For 1921 the prices were, for furnace coal $13.24 and $13.09 for stove coal.

The CHAIRMAN. That does not make $6,000, or that difference does not account for $6,000. That would amount to $2,600, and you are asking for $6,000.

Col. SHERRILL. We burned, in 1921, $10,200 worth of coal, and the total now asked is $14,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you want $14,000? I do not see how you get that.

Col. SHERRILL. We had an appropriation of $8,000 for 1921, which was supplemented by a deficiency appropriation of $2,200.

The CHAIRMAN. You estimated for 1922, $9,500.

Col. SHERRILL. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, we have burned more coal up to the present time than we have the money to pay for.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you want with 32 greenhouses?

Col. SHERRILL. The greenhouses take care of the plants for the parks and supply flowers for the White House. Our beds have to be replanted and the bulbs taken care of.

The CHAIRMAN. How much coal do you burn in the greenhouses?
Col. SHERRILL. We burn at the greenhouses 600 tons.
The C'HAIRMAN. And 75 tons at the White House?

Col. SHERRILL. We burn approximately 300 tons at the White House and about 30 tons at the Executive Offices.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not that included in the coal for the Executive Mansion ?

Col. SHERRILL. It is not in the same system. It is an entirely different plant. I have a statement of the amount of coal consumed there. We have figures showing that for each ton of coal burned at the Executive Mansion we get 126 square feet of radiation, whereas the average amount of radiation in private residences per ton of coal is about 85 square feet. In other words, we get 50 per cent more efficiency than they do in ordinary private homes. There is a tremendous area to be covered and taken care of in the White House, or Executive Mansion, and offices.

The ('HAIRMAX. What will be the difference in the price of soft coal and hard coal? It would be $6 a ton, would it not?

Col. SHERRILL. Yes, sir; I think there would be that difference, or rather $5. I have not the price of soft coal here, because this is only hard coal. Some time ago the question came up as to the use of soft coal, and it appears they had tried it down there, but it did not work at all. They could not possibly handle soft coal.

The CHAIRMAN. If it were your place you would handle it with soft coal, would you not?

Col. SHERRILL. I would use soft coal if it were possible, and if I could avoid being haled before the law. I have here some remarks about the matter of heating those greenhouses.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a matter of having it done as economically for the Government as if it were yours individually.

Col. SHERRILL. Personally, if I could do it for myself with soft coal I would certainly do it for the Government with soft coal.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the statement you desire to make!

Col. SHERRILL. Approximately the same quantity of coal has been used for several years, the only difference being that the price of coal has almost doubled. It is absolutely necessary to keep a uniform temperature in greenhouses, because a fluctuation of 5° will often produce mildew, which means ruin to plants. Even under these conditions we have to keep dusting with flour of sulphur to prevent mildew. On days when we have sunshine we have to keep the heat up so that we can ventilate freely, as plants require fresh air, otherwise they would make a weak, spindly growth and become worthless. Another reason for always keeping the heat up is the sudden changes in temperature that frequently occur both during the day and night, hence the necessity of being prepared to meet these conditons. The outside temperature sometimes drops 15° to 20° in a few hours. During the recent heavy storm we lost quite a number of bay trees due to the fact that we could not keep one of the old greenhouses sufficiently heated to take care of them. Our present heating plant consists of 13 boilers, varying in size. Our plant is not constructed for burning bituminous coal. During the coal famine a few years ago we tried it with very unsatisfactory results. There is no doubt but that with a modern heating plant we would not only save in coal but labor. Many of our greenhouses are old and in bad condition, so that we frequently have to resort to coal-oil heaters to maintain the required temperatures.

On several occasions with even these precautions we have had considerable loss from plants being frozen. We usually start some of our fires in the latter part of September and increase them as the weather gets colder and continue them until about the 10th day of May. The reason we burn more coal in the White House greenhouses than in the propagating gardens greenhouses is that the plants in the White House greenhouses require a much higher temperature. We do everything we can to decrease the consumption of coal.

The CHAIRMAX. You asked for $12,000 in your estimate for 1923. Was that because coal was cheaper or because you were not going to use as much coal ?

Col. SHERRILL. The estimate for 1923 is $14,000.

The CHAIRMAX. You say you will not be able to get along witout $14,000?

Col. SHERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you account for coal going up from $9.69 to $12.39?

Col. SHERRILL. I do not know how to account for that, except the increased cost of mining and railroad transportation.

The CHAIRMAN. Freight rates are not any higher now than they were two years ago, are they, and mining wages are not any higher!

Col. SHERRILL. We buy through the Government fuel yards, and that is the price we have to pay.

The CHAIRMAN. How much money are they making?

Col. SHERRILL. They are supposed to furnish this coal at the cost at the mine, plus transportation and plus 1 a ton for delivery.

« 이전계속 »